567 réponses à ce sujet

[Herr Uhl]

calypsnex wrote...

What was up with the 11 month dev cylce? Were they trying to make DA the Modern Warfare of RPGs?

Because ME3 and TOR I think.

[Pseudo the Mustachioed]

I suspect EA wanted a big RPG out in 2011 and like Uhl said, to not compete with ME3.

Modifié par Pseudocognition, 10 janvier 2013 - 09:31 .

[Maria Caliban]

EA was having financial difficulties and they needed to boost their income before the next quarterly so their stockholders wouldn't get too antsy.

[upsettingshorts]

Dragon Age: Inquisition will be the first game in the series to actually have a proper, focused development cycle from the start.

Neither DA:O's laborious development hell nor DA2's rush out the door are ideal, for different reasons that are apparent in both.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 10 janvier 2013 - 09:38 .

[Maria Caliban]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Dragon Age: Inquisition will be the first game in the series to actually have a proper, focused development cycle from the start.

We hope.

[Addai]

Fallout New Vegas had about the same development cycle but they made a game that was superior in many ways to its predecessor and actually expanded features. They didn't try to re-invent the wheel, though.

[Herr Uhl]

Addai67 wrote...

Fallout New Vegas had about the same development cycle but they made a game that was superior in many ways to its predecessor and actually expanded features. They didn't try to re-invent the wheel, though.

And it was still a buggy mess for a long time.

[Maria Caliban]

I thought FO:NV had two years of development.

[dheer]

Maria Caliban wrote...
I hope for a new art style in DA:I.

Honestly, I've rarely found BioWare games visually pleasing. When it comes to aesthetics, I'd say games like Deus Ex: HR, Dishonored, the Witcher 2, or Diablo III are more interesting to me than DA:O or DA II.

I understand though that a big part of that is the type of game that BioWare creates.

Agreed, I hope for a better direction or style as well. Maybe the new engine will give them more freedom they didn't have before for performance reasons. (I hope)

The only things from DA:O that stood out to me visually were Morrigan, dragons and the ancient elven armor. The rest could be gotten rid of and I doubt many would miss it. DA2 had a lot of beige places that seemed empty. I think I read that they coudln't have enough npcs due to memory contraints, so I guess that wasn't really the fault of art design. I dug a some of the armor designs that weren't overly spiky and a few places like the coast were well done. I thought the new Qunari models were really great but the redesigned elves and most of the darkspawn turned out to be awful. Here's hoping they cherrypick the good stuf from both games and try something new and more importanly, better.

Oh and I think all races should have recognized the use of shoes by this age. Thanks.

[Pseudo the Mustachioed]

Addai67 wrote...

Fallout New Vegas had about the same development cycle but they made a game that was superior in many ways to its predecessor and actually expanded features. They didn't try to re-invent the wheel, though.

I work with several people who worked on that and not only did they already have a lot of art assets, animation and programming from FO3 to work with but the priorities in a Fallout game are vastly different from a Bioware game. There are no cinematics, for example. Oh, and they all still worked their butts off.

I understand your position is that it was not strictly necessary for them to redo all of the art and animation in DA2, but since it's been started by Bioware that doing so was something they found absolutely crucial, comparing DA2 and FNV is not particularly useful.

Maria Caliban wrote...

I thought FO:NV had two years of development.

It did.

Modifié par Pseudocognition, 10 janvier 2013 - 09:55 .

[Master Shiori]

Addai67 wrote...


Again with Morrigan- how could she be so distinctive and a positive example of character modeling if the character modeling in DAO was so terrible?  She didn't have a unique body model.  Her clothing didn't have to be glued on to her for it to be recognizable.

Character modelling in DA:O was terrible. Morrigan (and Oghren) were the only truly unique looking characters in that game. No other female npc has Morrigan's hairstyle (except Velanna) or eye color. No other dwarf has Oghren's beard. It was these traits that made them memorable and easily idenfitied. By comparison, both Alistair and Leliana (while having great personalities) had dozens of clones running around Ferelden. Add to this the fact that neither of those characters had a unique outfit and you get situations where it's hard to tell them apart from other npcs.

By contrast, take any single DA2 companion, put them in a crowd of similar people and they'll be easily recognized.

Best example is Aveline who, despite wearing the regular guard armor, could still be easily singled out in a group of other, unhelmeted, guards.

[shubnabub]

Pseudocognition wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

Fallout New Vegas had about the same development cycle but they made a game that was superior in many ways to its predecessor and actually expanded features. They didn't try to re-invent the wheel, though.

I work with several people who worked on that and not only did they already have a lot of art assets, animation and programming from FO3 to work with but the priorities in a Fallout game are vastly different from a Bioware game. There are no cinematics, for example. Oh, and they all still worked their butts off.

I understand your position is that it was not strictly necessary for them to redo all of the art and animation in DA2, but since it's been started by Bioware that doing so was something they found absolutely crucial, comparing DA2 and FNV is not particularly useful.

It's also not useful because Obsidian and Bethesda are totally different companies with totally different philosophies and pretty much any Obsidian Fallout game is going to stomp a Bethesda FO into the ground (which makes me sad because there will never be another Obisidian FO unless they somehow magically acquire the rights).

Modifié par calypsnex, 10 janvier 2013 - 10:00 .

[Addai]

Herr Uhl wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

Fallout New Vegas had about the same development cycle but they made a game that was superior in many ways to its predecessor and actually expanded features. They didn't try to re-invent the wheel, though.

And it was still a buggy mess for a long time.

So was its predecessor.  That's kind of the nature of big open-world games.

@ Maria:  Development on FNV started in February 2009 and the game came out October 2010, so they did have 18 months though they also had to coordinate between two developers.  Bioware devs have said that DA2 (March 2011) was in the works before DAO even came out (Nov 2009) so they also had more than 11 months total.

@Pseudo:  I know that FNV relied heavily on Fallout 3 assets and on Van Buren design, but you're saying that DA2 developers didn't have a lot of assets that could carry over?  If that's so, then it was purely by their choice, and yeah, that is the point- the priorities they chose were the wrong ones.

Modifié par Addai67, 10 janvier 2013 - 10:05 .

[Pseudo the Mustachioed]

Addai67 wrote...

@ Maria:  Development on FNV started in February 2009 and the game came out October 2010, so they did have 18 months though they also had to coordinate between two developers.  Bioware devs have said that DA2 (March 2011) was in the works before DAO even came out (Nov 2009) so they also had more than 11 months total.

"In the works" can mean anything from a complete vertical slice to they having had a few meetings and made a few overall decisions.

[Brockololly]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Dragon Age: Inquisition will be the first game in the series to actually have a proper, focused development cycle from the start.

You probably just cursed the game.

Pseudocognition wrote... I work with several people who worked on that and not only did they already have a lot of art assets,  animation and programming from FO3 to work with but the priorities in a  Fallout game are vastly different from a Bioware game. There are no  cinematics, for example. Oh, and they all still worked their butts off.

I understand your position is that it was not strictly necessary for them to redo  all of the art and animation in DA2, but since it's been started by  Bioware that doing so was something they found absolutely crucial,  comparing DA2 and FNV is not particularly useful.

It would be a valid question to consider on a higher level whether it was wise to attempt to make sweeping changes to things like the art style and other core systems if the higher ups in charge of the overall design of the game knew they were working with a very limited timeframe. If the people making the big decisions on the direction of DA2 and the franchise knew that they only had a very limited time to develop the game, then perhaps they would have been better served not trying to radically change art assets, animation and programming for DA2 but maybe save some of that for DA3 when they might have more time/resources.

Even if BioWare thought it something crucial to do, was it the best idea to try and do so when they had to do it in a very limited time, possibly meaning it wasn't as good as it could be? Would they have been better served trying to make smaller changes that could have been executed more completely as opposed to what they did and the mixed reception they received?

Modifié par Brockololly, 10 janvier 2013 - 10:05 .

[upsettingshorts]

Or maybe they didn't want to waste their time making a game they didn't believe in just to half-heartedly satisfy people who would, eventually, not like half the changes they wanted to make anyway?

If they truly believed the franchise needed to head in a certain direction, and there's no reason to doubt that they believed this, then getting started was the right call.

That deliberate changes would be controversial was going to be the case no matter what, and that shortcuts they had to take to release a game in 11 months would be noticed was also going to be the case no matter what.  But they had 11 months, and they knew what they wanted Dragon Age to be.

So they ripped the band-aid off.

They did take some steps, though.  I expect focusing on a personal story in a single location was part of that calculus.  

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 10 janvier 2013 - 10:13 .

[Pseudo the Mustachioed]

Brockololly wrote...

It would be a valid question to consider on a higher level whether it was wise to attempt to make sweeping changes to things like the art style and other core systems if the higher ups in charge of the overall design of the game knew they were working with a very limited timeframe. If the people making the big decisions on the direction of DA2 and the franchise knew that they only had a very limited time to develop the game, then perhaps they would have been better served not trying to radically change art assets, animation and programming for DA2.

Even if BioWare thought it something crucial to do, was it the best idea to try and do so when they had to do it in a very limited time, possibly meaning it wasn't as good as it could be? Would they have been better served trying to make smaller changes that could have been executed more completely as opposed to what they did and the mixed reception they received?

Think about it this way:

Making those highly-desired changes then in spite of the challenges the time frame would pose would save them from having to make those massive changes later. They wanted those changes made, period. They couldn't make a spectacular jaw dropping Dragon Age installment in 11 months anyway, the scope of the game would still have to be limited. And now they have the new systems and new style to improve upon and expand.

[Twisted Path]

It still puzzles me why Dragon Age had to go in a radical new direction to begin with and why the developers on the Dragon Age team seem to hate Origins and act like it was a terrible-horrible-no-good game. For what it was Origins was a pretty perfect game; a serviceable if somewhat generic character and story-driven high fantasy RPG.

Make a similar game with touched up graphics, color-palette and skill trees, find a way to make the combat flow a little faster and you'd have a perfect sequel. I'll never understand why they had to hotrod-samurai everything up.

[Herr Uhl]

Twisted Path wrote...

For what it was Origins was a pretty perfect game; a serviceable if somewhat generic character and story-driven high fantasy RPG.

Odd usage of "perfect".

And they kind of failed in the high fantasy department, as their goal was low fantasy.

[shubnabub]

Twisted Path wrote...

It still puzzles me why Dragon Age had to go in a radical new direction to begin with and why the developers on the Dragon Age team seem to hate Origins and act like it was a terrible-horrible-no-good game. For what it was Origins was a pretty perfect game; a serviceable if somewhat generic character and story-driven high fantasy RPG.

Make a similar game with touched up graphics, color-palette and skill trees, find a way to make the combat flow a little faster and you'd have a perfect sequel. I'll never understand why they had to hotrod-samurai everything up.

I'm very much with you on the gameplay. I was so disappointed with the gameplay changes. It's like, "Why change this stuff!? We bought 4 million copies of the first one! We loved the first one!" Cause reasons. DWIT. And the way I dealt with it was waiting until it was $5 on amazon. There you go. That's what I think of your changes. 

Herr Uhl wrote...

Twisted Path wrote...

For what it was Origins was a pretty perfect game; a serviceable if somewhat generic character and story-driven high fantasy RPG.

Odd usage of "perfect".

And they kind of failed in the high fantasy department, as their goal was low fantasy.

Uhm...high fantasy just means in a different world and setting than reality. Low fantasy just means fantasy set in the real world. I'm pretty sure Thedas is a different world and if it's not then everything about the game fooled me. 

Modifié par calypsnex, 10 janvier 2013 - 10:42 .

[Pseudo the Mustachioed]

Twisted Path wrote...
 I'll never understand why they had to hotrod-samurai everything up.

Because they do not agree with you that it was anywhere near perfect or servicable. And seeing as how they are the ones making the game, if that's what they wanted to do that's what they're going to do.

Modifié par Pseudocognition, 10 janvier 2013 - 10:47 .

[upsettingshorts]

Danger: Off Topic

calypsnex wrote...

I'm very much with you on the gameplay. I was so disappointed with the gameplay changes.

Which one?

DAO
++ Encounter design
++ Free camera 
+ Mobs in general had less HP
+ Difficulty level curve is shallower including friendly fire at normal
+/- Enemies can sometimes behave more predictably?
+/- Different injury mechanic 
+/- Backloaded damage results in "shuffle" but you can interrupt actions
+/- No cross-class combos, but has spell combos
-  Highest difficulty level easier than DA2
-  Potion spam trivializes health and mana
-  Lacks fortitude
-  Lacks melee-based friendly fire

DA2
+ Highest difficulty level harder than DAO
+ Fortitude mechanic
+ Melee-based friendly fire
+ Potion spam is not an option
+/- Enemies can sometimes behave more unpredictably?
+/- Different injury mechanic
+/- Frontloaded damage cuts down on "shuffle" but can't interrupt actions
+/- No spell combos, but has cross-class combos
- Lower difficulties are very easy
- Many fights, especially boss battles, end up being about wearing down huge HP levels
-- No free camera
-- Encounter design

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 10 janvier 2013 - 10:46 .

[Pseudo the Mustachioed]

calypsnex wrote...

Uhm...high fantasy just means in a different world and setting than reality. Low fantasy just means fantasy set in the real world. I'm pretty sure Thedas is a different world and if it's not then everything about the game fooled me. 

Thedas is generally low-fantasy with high-fantasy elements.

As far as I knew, low-fantasy just means more human drama and less dragons and apocalypses and unicorns. Whether it is our world or not isn't part of the definition, just that the fantasy world has the same rules as ours.

Yeah nevermind I don't know what I"m talking about when it comes to genres lol. I just struggle to think of DA as high fantasy.

It's like the Watchmen of fantasy.

Modifié par Pseudocognition, 10 janvier 2013 - 10:52 .

[shubnabub]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Danger: Off Topic

calypsnex wrote...

I'm very much with you on the gameplay. I was so disappointed with the gameplay changes.

Which one?

DAO
++ Encounter design
++ Free camera 
+ Mobs in general had less HP
+ Difficulty level curve is shallower including friendly fire at normal
+/- Enemies can sometimes behave more predictably?
+/- Different injury mechanic 
+/- Backloaded damage results in "shuffle" but you can interrupt actions
+/- No cross-class combos, but has spell combos
-  Highest difficulty level easier than DA2
-  Potion spam trivializes health and mana
-  Lacks fortitude
-  Lacks melee-based friendly fire

DA2
+ Highest difficulty level harder than DAO
+ Fortitude mechanic
+ Melee-based friendly fire
+ Potion spam is not an option
+/- Enemies can sometimes behave more unpredictably?
+/- Different injury mechanic
+/- Frontloaded damage cuts down on "shuffle" but can't interrupt actions
+/- No spell combos, but has cross-class combos
- Lower difficulties are very easy
- Many fights, especially boss battles, end up being about wearing down huge HP levels
-- No free camera
-- Encounter design

Aw, don't pick on me US. I'm just a stupid player. But what bothered me was, I spent a huge amount of my combat time in DAO in the overhead tactical view, combat felt like chess, encounters felt very satisfying, and winning felt like a win. In DA2, my perception is that enemies are generally weaker, no FF in normal difficulties, no tactical view feels like a cheap way to make FF harder to manage, enemies come in weak waves that feel more actiony but don't feel very satisfying to deal with, and winning just feels perfunctory and not like a real win at all. 

Modifié par calypsnex, 10 janvier 2013 - 10:55 .