168 réponses à ce sujet

[Fast Jimmy]

Sorry I missed the wave of people bashing me after my last response.

My one and only point was give two teams a budget of $40 million dollars, and have one team create a game where every time anyone speaks or does anything other than walk, you have to hire a small army of animators and VAs, versus a team who can do 99% of talking with text and a static portrait. And then play those two games - I'm willing to bet the game with the low-tech design can create a game that has more things to do, people to talk to, places to visit, ways to play the game outside of just straight combat and better recognition of the slight differences about my character that make them unique.

Will it always be that way? No. Odds say more than likely I would be right, but not always. And, in the case of PE where the budget for the DA team (including marketing) dwarves that of PE, will we still get more content? That has yet to be determined.

I did not say cinematics were bloated content in the manner that 'I don't care about it, it sucks' but simpy it costs much more to do the same thing with more flash. That said flash helps players become more immersed is not a problem - but it DOES have its costs. And they require multiple departments to touch on every piece of content, which opens up the window for more work, cost and problems. Not saying that's wrong (or even that I hate cinematics!) but it all has a pretty heavy cost to how the game is designed.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 20 décembre 2012 - 08:46 .

[upsettingshorts]

Provi-dance wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I did not say cinematics were bloated content in the manner that 'I don't care about it, it sucks' but simpy it costs much more to do the same thing with more flash.

The point I am disputing is that, again, you are making a rhetorical distinction between what is content and what is not content.

Now you are using the word "flash."

Of course content costs money.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 20 décembre 2012 - 08:52 .

[Provi-dance]

Battlebloodmage wrote...

Provi-dance wrote...

I would like DA3, DA4 and DA5 to be a constant series of cutscenes, with emphasis on emoshunal and deeply touching voice acting.
I'd want to watch and adore my character, which I worked on for 12 hours straight in the character creator, from all cutscene angles... being in utter esctasy as his lips move to the voice of some well known voice actor.

I just want to sit back and enjoy the show, don't bother me with strategy and tactical combat (that's why I'm like your biggest fan ever). Sure I want to have some player-input from time to time, but don't let anything mess with the PLOT!
Some combat is fine if it's plot-related, but I want it to be actiony, like Kingdoms of Amalur for example. I think it is genius to suggest akshouny combat for a party based game with the ability to pause and input your akshouny actions to each party member.


Of course, this is my opinion, and nobody is allowed to question it.
You think your tastes are better and what I want from an rpg is unreasonable!!?? If so, you're just a filthy rpg elitist! I challenge you to define what is an rpg, too!? You can't! Anything can be an rpg! Take that!

Not questioning you, but you pretty much just describe the Final Fantasy series except for the character creator.

Not true.
Final Fantasy doesn't have Flemeth and Morrigan.

[argan1985]

Developers voted Baldur's Gate the best video game of all time just a few years ago. But it is impossible for a company to make a Bladur's Gate again - the budget for the amount of dialogue and voice acting would bankrupt it. Similarly, a 3D environment for all the different maps and locations, and for all the various spells and effects the game did, would burn a similar hole in modern gaming's development resources.

And that's really a damn shame because it doesn't need to be that way. Games don't need voice acting for every single line of dialogue, I think the IE games balanced it perfectly.

[Provi-dance]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Why do you want to pick fights with me just because I want different things (or not??) from an rpg than you do?


You're being an elitist!

[hoorayforicecream]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

My one and only point was give two teams a budget of $40 million dollars, and have one team create a game where every time anyone speaks or does anything other than walk, you have to hire a small army of animators and VAs, versus a team who can do 99% of talking with text and a static portrait. And then play those two games - I'm willing to bet the game with the low-tech design can create a game that has more things to do, people to talk to, places to visit, ways to play the game outside of just straight combat and better recognition of the slight differences about my character that make them unique.

You're making a bad assumption here. The two teams would not both receive the same budget. The team who builds the cinematic game would get a bigger budget because it needs a bigger budget. The team who builds the text+static portrait game would get a significantly smaller budget, because it doesn't need the budget to pay for things like animators, voice actors, and cinematic designers. It's like the decision to add multiplayer. Developers are budgeted what they scope for. They don't scope for what they are budgeted, unless it is a situation like kickstarter where you literally do not *know* what you will be budgeted until the fundraising part is finished.

Modifié par hoorayforicecream, 20 décembre 2012 - 09:04 .

[lyleoffmyspace]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

My one and only point was give two teams a budget of $40 million dollars, and have one team create a game where every time anyone speaks or does anything other than walk, you have to hire a small army of animators and VAs, versus a team who can do 99% of talking with text and a static portrait. And then play those two games - I'm willing to bet the game with the low-tech design can create a game that has more things to do, people to talk to, places to visit, ways to play the game outside of just straight combat and better recognition of the slight differences about my character that make them unique.

You're making a bad assumption here. The two teams would not both receive the same budget. The team who builds the cinematic game would get a bigger budget because it needs a bigger budget. The team who builds the text+static portrait game would get a significantly smaller budget, because it doesn't need the budget to pay for things like animators, voice actors, and cinematic designers. It's like the decision to add multiplayer. Developers are budgeted what they scope for. They don't scope for what they are budgeted, unless it is a situation like kickstarter where you literally do not *know* what you will be budgeted until the fundraising part is finished.

If they were given the same budget then one with less voice acting and cinematics would get a much bigger budget for other things, for example areas, or quests, or spells or combat or a bit of each.

I think NWN2 (an Obsidian game) struck the perfect balance between cinematics and content. The content was lengthy and in-depth, and minor NPCs were not voiced, but big plot points and most companions were, in the KoTOR style. This was the best approach I've seen, hopefully P:E will take it.

[Roflbox]

Upsettingshorts wrote...
This includes SWTOR.  For all its numerous faults, it is the first and only MMO I've ever played that managed to make me care about mindless MMO-style quests.  How?  Cinematics and voice acting provided context and emotional and narrative weight.  I do not expect everyone felt this way, but that's not relevant to my own experience and preferences.

Ha, I guess the other 1.7 million didn't care. The voice content apparently drove the cost to as high as $200 million if true and for what dialogue? It's one of the fastest MMO's to go from big success to F2P. There are so many areas they could have improved on by not wasting it on voice acting. Sure they could have kept the dialogue but there is hardly any difference between TOR and WoW gameplay wise except all the actual content. Hell maybe Bioware could have actually used some of the money from the voice acting to develop an engine that doesn't have problems with dozens of people on screen. 

[Atakuma]

lyleoffmyspace wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

My one and only point was give two teams a budget of $40 million dollars, and have one team create a game where every time anyone speaks or does anything other than walk, you have to hire a small army of animators and VAs, versus a team who can do 99% of talking with text and a static portrait. And then play those two games - I'm willing to bet the game with the low-tech design can create a game that has more things to do, people to talk to, places to visit, ways to play the game outside of just straight combat and better recognition of the slight differences about my character that make them unique.

You're making a bad assumption here. The two teams would not both receive the same budget. The team who builds the cinematic game would get a bigger budget because it needs a bigger budget. The team who builds the text+static portrait game would get a significantly smaller budget, because it doesn't need the budget to pay for things like animators, voice actors, and cinematic designers. It's like the decision to add multiplayer. Developers are budgeted what they scope for. They don't scope for what they are budgeted, unless it is a situation like kickstarter where you literally do not *know* what you will be budgeted until the fundraising part is finished.

If they were given the same budget then one with less voice acting and cinematics would get a much bigger budget for other things, for example areas, or quests, or spells or combat or a bit of each.

That isn't going to happen though, so what's the point of this hypothetical?

[Eternal Phoenix]

Depends on if DA3 is more like Origins at least in terms of story, choices and quests. If Obsidian actually manage to develop a game that ships with less bugs than their games usually do and is comparable to Baldur's Gate then it too could be great. We'll just have to wait and see from both as no footage of any game has been released yet.

DA3 is releasing for consoles too unlike PE so competition wise Bioware have nothing to worry about.

[Fast Jimmy]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Provi-dance wrote...

The point I am disputing is that, again, you are making a rhetorical distinction between what is content and what is not content.

Now you are using the word "flash."

Of course content costs money.

What, exactly, would you prefer I call it? 'Flash' is a term used for visual stimulating content. Watching your characters lips move and have accompanying animations showing their feelings instead of just reading said words and imagining those interactions can be called many things. We can add 'glash' to your thread of terms that needs to be defined, apparently. 

And flashier content costs more money. 

[Atakuma]

Roflbox wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...
This includes SWTOR.  For all its numerous faults, it is the first and only MMO I've ever played that managed to make me care about mindless MMO-style quests.  How?  Cinematics and voice acting provided context and emotional and narrative weight.  I do not expect everyone felt this way, but that's not relevant to my own experience and preferences.

Ha, I guess the other 1.7 million didn't care. The voice content apparently drove the cost to as high as $200 million if true and for what dialogue? It's one of the fastest MMO's to go from big success to F2P. There are so many areas they could have improved on by not wasting it on voice acting. Sure they could have kept the dialogue but there is hardly any difference between TOR and WoW gameplay wise except all the actual content. Hell maybe Bioware could have actually used some of the money from the voice acting to develop an engine that doesn't have problems with dozens of people on screen. 

The money for that voice acting doesn't exist without voice acting. The game would have been exactly the same without it.

[Roflbox]

Atakuma wrote...

lyleoffmyspace wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

My one and only point was give two teams a budget of $40 million dollars, and have one team create a game where every time anyone speaks or does anything other than walk, you have to hire a small army of animators and VAs, versus a team who can do 99% of talking with text and a static portrait. And then play those two games - I'm willing to bet the game with the low-tech design can create a game that has more things to do, people to talk to, places to visit, ways to play the game outside of just straight combat and better recognition of the slight differences about my character that make them unique.

You're making a bad assumption here. The two teams would not both receive the same budget. The team who builds the cinematic game would get a bigger budget because it needs a bigger budget. The team who builds the text+static portrait game would get a significantly smaller budget, because it doesn't need the budget to pay for things like animators, voice actors, and cinematic designers. It's like the decision to add multiplayer. Developers are budgeted what they scope for. They don't scope for what they are budgeted, unless it is a situation like kickstarter where you literally do not *know* what you will be budgeted until the fundraising part is finished.

If they were given the same budget then one with less voice acting and cinematics would get a much bigger budget for other things, for example areas, or quests, or spells or combat or a bit of each.

That isn't going to happen though, so what's the point of this hypothetical?

What's the point of your hypothetical question?

[upsettingshorts]

Roflbox wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...
This includes SWTOR.  For all its numerous faults, it is the first and only MMO I've ever played that managed to make me care about mindless MMO-style quests.  How?  Cinematics and voice acting provided context and emotional and narrative weight.  I do not expect everyone felt this way, but that's not relevant to my own experience and preferences.

Ha, I guess the other 1.7 million didn't care. The voice content apparently drove the cost to as high as $200 million if true and for what dialogue? It's one of the fastest MMO's to go from big success to F2P. There are so many areas they could have improved on by not wasting it on voice acting. Sure they could have kept the dialogue but there is hardly any difference between TOR and WoW gameplay wise except all the actual content. Hell maybe Bioware could have actually used some of the money from the voice acting to develop an engine that doesn't have problems with dozens of people on screen. 

Actually you'd be wrong.

I quit myself some time ago, around the same time everyone else did if not earlier.  My issues with the endgame were numerous and offtopic here, needless to say though my complaints were not a lack of content - something every new MMO suffers when it comes to the endgame - but balance, and the heavy, work-intensive gear focus.

Likewise, the decision to voice all the NPCs doesn't seem related to their decision to play it safe with the gameplay elements. 

In any case, deeper discussion of SWTOR's relative merits are off topic.  I only addressed the specific feature of voice acting because it supported my argument that voice acting is content.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 20 décembre 2012 - 09:32 .

[hoorayforicecream]

lyleoffmyspace wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

My one and only point was give two teams a budget of $40 million dollars, and have one team create a game where every time anyone speaks or does anything other than walk, you have to hire a small army of animators and VAs, versus a team who can do 99% of talking with text and a static portrait. And then play those two games - I'm willing to bet the game with the low-tech design can create a game that has more things to do, people to talk to, places to visit, ways to play the game outside of just straight combat and better recognition of the slight differences about my character that make them unique.

You're making a bad assumption here. The two teams would not both receive the same budget. The team who builds the cinematic game would get a bigger budget because it needs a bigger budget. The team who builds the text+static portrait game would get a significantly smaller budget, because it doesn't need the budget to pay for things like animators, voice actors, and cinematic designers. It's like the decision to add multiplayer. Developers are budgeted what they scope for. They don't scope for what they are budgeted, unless it is a situation like kickstarter where you literally do not *know* what you will be budgeted until the fundraising part is finished.

If they were given the same budget then one with less voice acting and cinematics would get a much bigger budget for other things, for example areas, or quests, or spells or combat or a bit of each.

But in reality, they wouldn't get the same budget. That was my point. It wouldn't happen. If it did, then sure. But it doesn't, because that's not how business works. People want to know what their money is being spent on. They are ordering a product, and each part of it has an associated cost. The total cost then gets evaluated and the individual pieces are negotiated.

Developer #1 pitches their idea for a game. It has these features, is roughly this long, and will have roughly this long a development cycle.They need X designers, Y producers, Z engineers, M artists, etc. They add it up and to calculate some total cost. The developer negotiates with the publisher, the publisher crunches some numbers, gets some sales estimates, figure out what the release date would be, and then a budget is agreed upon if all of the ducks align. the things they negotiate are things like... can we cut feature X? Can we add feature Y? Can we use a licensed IP? How much would it cost to add feature Y?

These sorts of issues are what determines the budget. Each budget is based on the feature set, the schedule, and numerous other factors.

You don't start from the budget and work your way backward, just like you don't go to a contractor and say "Build me the best house you can for $200,000, and I don't care how it is spent", unless your circumstances are abnormal. There's only two examples I can think of for abnormal circumstances like these: 

1. When 38 Studios got that massive loan from the state of Rhode Island, and had to spend that money before they fully established the scope of what it was they were building.
2. Successful Kickstarter campaigns.

Modifié par hoorayforicecream, 20 décembre 2012 - 09:33 .

[lyleoffmyspace]

Atakuma wrote...


That isn't going to happen though, so what's the point of this hypothetical?

What's the point in any hypothetical then?

If P:E does well (like DA:O did after launch), then it might be picked up by a reasonable publisher and given a big budget.

[ObserverStatus]

I guess it's kinda hard to say how I want DA3 to gold up to Project Eternity, I want to love them both.

[Fast Jimmy]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

You're making a bad assumption here. The two teams would not both receive the same budget. The team who builds the cinematic game would get a bigger budget because it needs a bigger budget. The team who builds the text+static portrait game would get a significantly smaller budget, because it doesn't need the budget to pay for things like animators, voice actors, and cinematic designers. It's like the decision to add multiplayer. Developers are budgeted what they scope for. They don't scope for what they are budgeted, unless it is a situation like kickstarter where you literally do not *know* what you will be budgeted until the fundraising part is finished.

I'm not making that assumption. I'm saying 'all things equal (including budget) less resource intensive design will result in a larger volume of content.'

A low-tech game wouldn't get such a budget. Mostly because developers couldn't get away with charging the required $60 price tag for a more low tech game. Which is why these types of games aren't being made, at least not until crowd sourcing. 

But even with a smaller budget, there is still an issue of scale. Having a random NPC in a marketplace you can more than one conversation line with becomes insanely disproportionate in terms of cost in a more cinematic environment to the value it brings in game. But if the costs are low to introduce that content, the barrier to do so, and create a more 'real' world, is easier to accomplish. 

[David Gaider]

hoorayforicecream wrote...
You're making a bad assumption here. The two teams would not both receive the same budget. The team who builds the cinematic game would get a bigger budget because it needs a bigger budget. The team who builds the text+static portrait game would get a significantly smaller budget, because it doesn't need the budget to pay for things like animators, voice actors, and cinematic designers. It's like the decision to add multiplayer. Developers are budgeted what they scope for. They don't scope for what they are budgeted, unless it is a situation like kickstarter where you literally do not *know* what you will be budgeted until the fundraising part is finished.

I think the more important part of budgeting for a game is determining what you expect to sell. A game can get by just fine with unit sales of 1 million or even less, if it has the budget to make that volume of sales profitable. The enjoyment of the individual fan does not relate to the budget... expensive content might be considered irrelevant flash to one and absolutely necessary by another, and thus it's pretty pointless to get into a discussion of what any game developer's budget should be.

Whether Project Eternity has the potential to sell more units than DA3 is really a matter of speculation... and, frankly, it doesn't belong here. Since the discussion is turning to insults, I'm shutting it down. Project Eternity discussion can be taken to Off Topic or-- more relevantly-- to their forums.

Modifié par David Gaider, 20 décembre 2012 - 09:46 .