89 réponses à ce sujet

[xsdob]

So what are some of the more difficult or expensive dialogue and animation scenes to make? I'm really curious now to know what kind of scenes are the real budget eaters and which ones aren't that bad.

Also, thank you guys for answering this thread so clearly. XD

[nightscrawl]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Are you asking what the likelihood would be of EA/BioWare doing a kickstarter if we felt we needed additional funding to match our vision for DA3?

While I am never keen on talking in absolutes, I would bet large sums of money on it not happening.

Yeah, and I bet I know one of the reasons too: "I gave money to the Kickstarter for this POS game?! GIMME MY MONEY BACK."

People are still on the honeymoon with Kickstarter now because they think the ideas are so great and they have this grand vision of the future. They might not be singing the same tune when, in two or more years from now, some of these games are still lagging in development, despite the millions of dollars given.

Or perhaps I'm just cynical. *shrug*

[Jadebaby]

David Gaider wrote...

It used to be that art was the major bottleneck in our design. Now it's writing.

Why? Because words are expensive. We have separate types of word budgets, based on the costs they generate. So a "cinematic word budget" are voiced lines that require extensive touching by the cinematic design team. They have X number of people who can work Y number of hours at an average lines/hour speed. So we do the math based on the time we have allotted for the Production phase. We have a "voice budget" based on how many voiced lines we can afford to record, whether cinematic or not. Both of these numbers are smaller than the number of lines writers can actually produce.

Despite the fact that we have more cinematics and voiced lines nowadays, the word budget isn't actually new. After BG2 an effort was made to constrain the amount of writing we do, as even non-recorded lines (including text such as codex entries and journals, which also has its own budget) need to be translated into numerous languages and also have a knock-on effect of how long a plot is (and thus how much time it takes for the level designers to implement).

Ultimately, with more money and more time the budget can be higher... but that's always the case. This isn't something we'd normally discuss since, to a fan, why wouldn't we put more money and time into a project? Hell, we'd like it too. Essentially we need to start from somewhere, and that all starts with people much further up the chain than someone at my level.

In other words, EA?

[nightscrawl]

xsdob wrote...

So what are some of the more difficult or expensive dialogue and animation scenes to make? I'm really curious now to know what kind of scenes are the real budget eaters and which ones aren't that bad.

Also, thank you guys for answering this thread so clearly. XD

I'm actually curious to know which is more expensive: the pre-rendered scenes without PC input like Loghain addressing the nobles after Ostagar**, or the PC-inclusive cinematic dialogs with one or more additional people such as The Last Straw scene. My initial response would be to say the pre-rendered scenes, but with the player input factor, as well as involved camera movement during cinematic dialog scenes, I'm not really sure. To me it would seem to be more work to make a cinematic dialog not be buggy, rather than just designing a mini movie with a pre-render.


** I discovered that some of these are pre-rendered because the NPCs were not affected by the face morph mods I had installed. Additional scenes include the Ostagar battle (gigantic, and obviously extremely expensive), and Loghain being approached by Howe about using the Crows.

[upsettingshorts]

Jade8aby88 wrote...

In other words, EA?

You ought to replace "EA" with "publisher," seeing as BioWare has never self-published a game and has always worked with one.

But from what I understand there's a bit of give-and-take negotiation between BioWare and EA itself, hence it being something decided "above his level on the chain."

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 03 décembre 2012 - 09:31 .

[xsdob]

Jade8aby88 wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

Despite the fact that we have more cinematics and voiced lines nowadays, the word budget isn't actually new. After BG2 an effort was made to constrain the amount of writing we do, as even non-recorded lines (including text such as codex entries and journals, which also has its own budget) need to be translated into numerous languages and also have a knock-on effect of how long a plot is (and thus how much time it takes for the level designers to implement).

In other words, EA?

I didn't know EA made the neverwinter nights series, KOTOR, jade empire, and ME1.

Modifié par xsdob, 03 décembre 2012 - 09:39 .

[Maria Caliban]

Jade8aby88 wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

After BG2...

In other words, EA?

"In other words," BG2.

Apparently, it suffered from some serious content bloat. *

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 03 décembre 2012 - 10:20 .

[Kidd]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

While I am never keen on talking in absolutes

Oh, Allan...

Jade8aby88 wrote...

In other words, EA?

The entire game is also "thanks to EA."

[Fast Jimmy]

I have a tangential question to this topic - I know the DA team uses computer generated voices to get down pacing and conversation length before the action voice actor comes in and records the line. I'm curious to the level of sophistication of Bioware's computer generated voice tools.

Does it sound ultra robo-tronic, like calling up and checking your balance through a bank's IVR ("Your CHECKING account balance is FIVE... HUNDREDAND... twenty... FIVE DOLL-ars... please press....... ONE for more transaction information." Or is the technology a little more fluid for what you guys use?

Just curious if we are insanely far away from having a game (even a low budget, indie-dev Kickstarter game, not even a AAA title) that is entirely computer generated voice actors.

[Navasha]

I know this idea will be unpopular with many people here, but do you think developer/publishers would ever consider an "enhanced cut" version of the game?

What I mean by that is that a game with double or triple the word budgets where the writers could add much more detail to the scripts and have much longer conversations. This "enhanced" game would be sold separately and at double the base price.

I think it would be great if a brave publisher tried that once just to see if it worked. Yes, many people would obviously complain that those conversation should be in the cheap version of the game. However, I think most fans would still purchase the enhanced version making it a win-win situation for both the developers and the fans.

[upsettingshorts]

I don't imagine word counts scale up that way.

Basically you're asking if they'd sell a bigger version of the game with more content at a higher price.

[Diurdi]

xsdob wrote...

So what are some of the more difficult or expensive dialogue and animation scenes to make? I'm really curious now to know what kind of scenes are the real budget eaters and which ones aren't that bad.

Also, thank you guys for answering this thread so clearly. XD

I think it also depends on the voice actor and and how important that line is for the game. Having people like Martin Sheen give their voices for important events in the game is a tad more expensive than the commentary of a bystander in some side quest.

Modifié par Diurdi, 03 décembre 2012 - 02:02 .

[Navasha]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

I don't imagine word counts scale up that way.

Basically you're asking if they'd sell a bigger version of the game with more content at a higher price.

That might be one way of looking at it, but unlike DLC which is sort of expected to add all new content, new areas, new characters, etc., this would be more like just adding in the "cut" content to the already existing game.    Say a writer has to keep a particular conversation to 300 words, including all available player choices and responses.   What could the writer do if that was 600 words?    More player responses, more NPC reactions?  Maybe longer descriptions in quest journals.

This would also be sold separately so that the people who can't or don't want to pay $120 bucks for a game can still buy the normal version for $60. 

Personally, I would like it if developers just started making bigger budgets for their games in general and of course charge a higher amount for them.   I believe you generally get what you pay for and developers are now hitting a wall where they have to cut content to keep the game in the marketable retail range.    I think a developer/publisher should take a risk and see if a $120 game is a viable design choice.    They might be surprised how much gamers would be willing to spend if a company actually devoted all the resources needed to make a truly stellar awe-inspiring game.  

[Diurdi]

Navasha wrote...
Personally, I would like it if developers just started making bigger budgets for their games in general and of course charge a higher amount for them.   I believe you generally get what you pay for and developers are now hitting a wall where they have to cut content to keep the game in the marketable retail range.    I think a developer/publisher should take a risk and see if a $120 game is a viable design choice.    They might be surprised how much gamers would be willing to spend if a company actually devoted all the resources needed to make a truly stellar awe-inspiring game.  

These companies (or parent companies) have marketing teams that do extensive research on the subject. They have a pretty good idea of how doubling the price tag affects demand even if the product is of higher quality.

[nightscrawl]

Navasha wrote...

What could the writer do if that was 600 words?    More player responses, more NPC reactions?  Maybe longer descriptions in quest journals.

It might not be a case of more options though.

Let's take a known dialog: Fenris explaining why he is leaving after that first love scene. Maybe when David originally wrote it those lines had 10 or 20 more words. With a word budget he would have to alter the language so Fenris still says the same thing but in a slightly different way, because he has to use fewer words. I don't think the writers craft a scene around the amount of words. I think they probably write a scene and then whittle it down as the budget demands, probably going through several drafts.

Of course I could be wrong about all of that, but it seems most logical to me. Sitting down and saying "OK I'm going to make my character say this in 25 words" seems like it would put a tremendous strain on the creative process.

If it IS as I described, they can't just add these things as they would change the entire game. Existing conversations would be dramatically altered. And too, when you write a conversation, you know all of the options that exist for the PC to say, so you write your character's lines to respond to those.

[QueenPurpleScrap]

Thank you, Mr. Gaider, for the detailed response. I found it very interesting. It certainly makes sense to me since you have different writers working on different things. I hadn't even considered that decisions about which paragraphs (I'm using this to lump together all the words for a particular quest or scene that will be handled the same way) should be cinematic, cutscene, etc. are made fairly early. I suppose if the writing goes a certain way you might make changes for maximum impact but, as already mentioned, you have to start somewhere.

I like the idea of walk-and-talks. The scene with Duncan at the beginning of Ostagar was nice with the walk-and-talk paragraph followed by they stop-and-face each paragraph (gotta use my own terminology, LOL) was very effective. I liked that in DAO I could talk to my companions whenever I wanted (except in battle when I clicked on them by accident) and certainly in places like the Denerim market walking and talking would have made sense. Of course then you have the added factors of what to do about banter trigger points, npc banter trigger points and which conversations should be a combination of paragraphs . . . I'm going to stop now. My mind is starting to spin. Need more coffee.

[Maria Caliban]

Navasha wrote...

What I mean by that is that a game with double or triple the word budgets where the writers could add much more detail to the scripts and have much longer conversations. This "enhanced" game would be sold separately and at double the base price.

The thing is that they have to pay to create the content. It still has to be voice acted, cinematics still need to animate the conversations, and QA still needs to test them. They couldn't just increase the price tag for the 'enhanced' game to cover those expenses.

[Fast Jimmy]

^

Well, sure they could. If a product costs more to deliver superior quality, free market economics says the producer can charge more to reflect that added value.

Now... whether or not anyone would buy it? That's a different story.

I'm personally of the belief that a higher price tag could be done. Market research probably does only the most cursory of research, point blank asking 'would you pay more for a better game' to which, now people, would say no.

Except that's not how people make purchasing decisions. The vast majority of buying decisions for your average consumer are emotional. You don't say "here's a $80 game. And here are the reasons to buy it!" You have to sell the experience, sell the value, sell the originality and uniqueness that sets your game apart from all other $60 games and THEN reveal the price. And then, right afterwards, also reveal a way to discount your price (pre-orders, subscriptions, product bundling, etc.). Market research dosesn't usually take into account the effectiveness of a good selling campaign, it only asks a question that most people will respond to with a canned 'no' response, which is incorrect logic.

If I said 'do you want to pay more taxes?' your answer would be no. If I laid out a plan that showed exactly what benefits I could give you and your community, showing improved infrastructure for businesses, bigger investments for schools, more support for the middle class, people would say all of that is great... and THEN I'd say how much taxes I would have to raise to do so.

You don't sell people on price. You sell them on an idea, a concept. Then, once they have 'bought' the idea, you tell them how much the product is. You always over-inflate the price. Then, when the consumer balks at the price, you reduce it down to what you really want to see it for.

This is Marketing psychology 101. Has no one watched an infomercial before? Lol

[Navasha]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

^

Well, sure they could. If a product costs more to deliver superior quality, free market economics says the producer can charge more to reflect that added value.

-snipped-

Exactly.    Look at Project Eternity as an example.   They had a game in mind and set a goal of $1.1 million dollars to make that game on a kickstarter project.    They are now nearing $4 million dollars.   Obviously people are craving a gaming experience that delivers more than just the standard set of guidelines that have become commonplace.  

Publishers and developers have plenty of evidence that shows that an X dollar budgeted game that delivers Y number of hours of content can be sold for the typical market rate of $60 bucks.    I would just like a publisher to TRY once to see what actually happens if double all of those variables.    My personal guess is that a $120 game that was developed to give everything anyone could ask for would sell just as much and be just as profitable if not more so than a $60 game.  

I would have EASILY paid $120 for Dragon Age:Origins just as it was delivered.   If they had added even MORE content by having twice the initial startup budget.... I think most people would also have paid more.   Take a chance.   Be the developer or publisher that builds a name as developing "Premium" level games.  There is a market for that, if they truly make the games have that level of value.

[upsettingshorts]

Kickstarter and publishing models are not comparable. This is the very reason certain developers take their proposals to crowdsourcing in the first place.

[Herr Uhl]

Navasha wrote...

Exactly.    Look at Project Eternity as an example.   They had a game in mind and set a goal of $1.1 million dollars to make that game on a kickstarter project.    They are now nearing $4 million dollars.   Obviously people are craving a gaming experience that delivers more than just the standard set of guidelines that have become commonplace.

$4 million is still only pocket money compared to what a current gen game would cost. There is a reason Project Eternity isn't 3D.

[Allan Schumacher]

Jade8aby88 wrote...
In other words, EA?

If you wish to consider the 8 years and several games prior to EA's acquisition as "in other words, EA" then yeah I guess you're right.

(You're not right)

[Fast Jimmy]

$4 million is still only pocket money compared to what a current gen game would cost. There is a reason Project Eternity isn't 3D.

It's also why AAA games are becoming ridiculous with their sales goals, like Dead Space 3 supposedly requiring millions of units sold before it can be seen as a success.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 03 décembre 2012 - 04:49 .

[Navasha]

Herr Uhl wrote...

Navasha wrote...

.

$4 million is still only pocket money compared to what a current gen game would cost. There is a reason Project Eternity isn't 3D.

Yes, but the point I was trying to make is there is more demand than publishers might realize.   That there MIGHT exist a better market model by producing a premium level game that isn't designed to fit into the $60 price point.  

Take cars for instance.   The range of cost on a new car is anywhere from a few thousand dollars to hundreds of thousands of dollars.   Why are games designed to lie within such a narrow range of retail prices?

I would think that just adding additional content, player choices, and options would add sufficient value on a dollar per dollar basis since you wouldn't necessarily need to expand the games infrastructure and engine.

Take Skyrim...  Skyrim was $60 bucks.   How much more would have been willing to pay if all of Tamriel would have been included?   No additional engine mechanics, tools, etc would have had to been developed, but just doubled or tripled the budget for level design, content creators?   

I probably would have paid $200-$300 retail for such a game.... if not more.    Now I realize I don't represent the vast majority of people who buy games.   Maybe most games are just purchased by some kids parents for birthday gifts with no idea what the game entails outside of its pricetag.    I accept the possibility of being completely wrong, but I would love to see a game break away from the "standardized" price point market and make something truly amazing.