99 réponses à ce sujet

[VampireSoap]

I remember it took them 4 years to develop DAO (as Tali would say, "totally worth it!"), and when I heard that DA3 was coming out this year, I was like, "Oh, sh*t, really, guys?" All in aIl, I'm excited, but I just hope that this isn't just another rush production like DA2 and ME3. (I mean, just two years? Really?) And just a gamer's humble opinion, not seeing another ME3-ish ending is preferable...definitely preferable

Oh, if anyone can tell me the release date, it would be great, thanks.

Modifié par VampireSoap, 15 mai 2013 - 03:41 .

[Knight of Dane]

Yeah, just you, there's still plenty of games out there with a lot of development time.

[Fast Jimmy]

^

Agreed. The development time of Skyrim was close to five or six years.

[ElitePinecone]

They're getting more efficient, and the teams are certainly larger now. Bioware's senior leadership (including Greg and Ray) talked about being much more disciplined over the last few years and getting games shipped on time. Longer development time doesn't necessarily lead to a better game, particularly if it's a symptom of repeated delays or missteps.

We don't know a release date at the moment, the target is late 2013 but that could change depending on whether the project leads feel it's ready to be released.

[VampireSoap]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Agreed. The development time of Skyrim was close to five or six years.

Bethesda games are off limit if you wish to give an example And no, don't tell me about Starcraft II...

[VampireSoap]

ElitePinecone wrote...

They're getting more efficient, and the teams are certainly larger now. Bioware's senior leadership (including Greg and Ray) talked about being much more disciplined over the last few years and getting games shipped on time. Longer development time doesn't necessarily lead to a better game, particularly if it's a symptom of repeated delays or missteps.

We don't know a release date at the moment, the target is late 2013 but that could change depending on whether the project leads feel it's ready to be released.

I didn't know that, thanks for the info I guess it makes sense that they would be more efficient and have more resources since their assimilation into the EA collective. "We're the EAorg, resistance is futile."

[Knight of Dane]

DUKE NUKEM 4EVA

[Wulfram]

DA:O just took unusually long.

For example, BG2 came out 2 years after BG1, with an expansion pack in the middle, then an expansion the next year and then NWN the year after that.

Modifié par Wulfram, 15 mai 2013 - 04:17 .

[Meatbaggins]

Final Fantasy 13 was in development for more than 5 years. Final Fantasy 9 was in development for less than 2 years. More development time doesn't automatically make the game better.

[VampireSoap]

Wulfram wrote...

DA:O just took unusually long.

For example, BG2 came out 2 years after BG1, with an expansion pack in the middle, then an expansion the next year and then NWN the year after that.

Wow...I did not know that either, I guess I'm too young to remember, NWN2 is actually the first triditional kind of RPG I played, and I always wonder what the hell happened in NWN1

Modifié par VampireSoap, 15 mai 2013 - 04:30 .

[trying_touch]

by the time DA III get's released, they'll have been developing it for 3 years, I think that is long enough...

games that take longer than a couple of years to get finished suggest one of two polar opposites, either, the game is so excellent and deep it takes such a long time, or that it's in development hell and when released will be the complete disappointment...

[Fast Jimmy]

DA:O just took unusually long.

For example, BG2 came out 2 years after BG1, with an expansion pack in the middle, then an expansion the next year and then NWN the year after that.

Agreed. And BG2 is often heralded as one of the greatest RPGs of all time.

I think it depends on what the developer is attempting to do. For instance, I don't think DA2 would have been rushed if they had not changed to a new art style, used a different graphics engine, overhauled the combat system and implemented the voiced protagonist. Unfortunately, the did all of those things AND tried to pump a game out in ~18 months. Not the wisest course of action.

Meanwhile, Diablo 3 was in development for nearly a decade, yet didnt wind up being anything more complex than what DA2 was, excluding some polished graphics and some ancillary systems/leveling mechanics.

So it is really a matter of assessing what the developer wants to accomplish rather than how long they take to make it. If you keep goals manageable and have solid resources, it can be done. If you have goals that are wholy unrealistic and don't appropriate enough time to provide polish, you can wind up with sub-par products.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 15 mai 2013 - 04:34 .

[VampireSoap]

trying_touch wrote...

by the time DA III get's released, they'll have been developing it for 3 years, I think that is long enough...

games that take longer than a couple of years to get finished suggest one of two polar opposites, either, the game is so excellent and deep it takes such a long time, or that it's in development hell and when released will be the complete disappointment...

DA2 was released in March 2011, right? If DA3 is released this year, the production time will be 2 and a half years AT MOST, unless they already started the development of DA3 even before the release of DA2...We ARE still talking about the Gregorian calendar that the humans usually use on Earth, right?

[ElitePinecone]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I think it depends on what the developer is attempting to do. For instance, I don't think DA2 would have been rushed if they had not changed to a new art style, used a different graphics engine, overhauled the combat system and implemented the voiced protagonist. Unfortunately, the did all of those things AND tried to pump a game out in ~18 months. Not the wisest course of action.

I remember reading an article in 2011 quoting someone inside Bioware (usual caveats that their source could've been inaccurate, or totally made up) that suggested DA2 actually had an effective development time of about eight months to a year, once they'd sorted out all of the issues with the engine and ramped up actual production on the game. The quoted source seemed to be amazed that the game was as polished as it was, given the time pressures they indicated were on the team. 

Just found the article, actually, although it looks a lot shadier than I remembered. Not sure if it's even worth quoting! http://www.giantbomb...-produc-487429/

[Fast Jimmy]

^

I don't find that all that unbelievable, honestly. Given that the teams were also engaged in making DLC and the Awakening expansion, I'd say it was easily less than the eighteen months quoted. But I figure it was safe to assume that time frame when having discussions, as 18 months is even a pretty tight time frame for a full AAA game.

[Fast Jimmy]

VampireSoap wrote...

trying_touch wrote...

by the time DA III get's released, they'll have been developing it for 3 years, I think that is long enough...

games that take longer than a couple of years to get finished suggest one of two polar opposites, either, the game is so excellent and deep it takes such a long time, or that it's in development hell and when released will be the complete disappointment...

DA2 was released in March 2011, right? If DA3 is released this year, the production time will be 2 and a half years AT MOST, unless they already started the development of DA3 even before the release of DA2...We ARE still talking about the Gregorian calendar that the humans usually use on Earth, right?

You are assuming the Fall 2013 date will still apply. Many people do not. I believe it will be Summer 2014, more than likely. For what that's worth. 

[LolaLei]

I think the first game in a series (like ME1 and DA:O) take longer because the whole world and its lore needs to be created and set up, any subsequent games already have the foundations set up so that probably cuts down production time significantly.

[Fredvdp]

VampireSoap wrote...

I remember it took them 4 years to develop DAO

I thought it was 8 years.

[Gregolian]

2 seems pretty standard. I really think DAII was rushed though if I were to be honest.

The AC series is another one that feels really fast nowadays. 2 years or close to it I think between the first and second games but now we have had one almost every single year since. And I don't trust Ubisoft when they say they have separate teams working on IV for a couple years because they said the same of III and I did not enjoy III that much.

[Volus Warlord]

Gregolian wrote...

2 seems pretty standard. I really think DAII was rushed though if I were to be honest.

The AC series is another one that feels really fast nowadays. 2 years or close to it I think between the first and second games but now we have had one almost every single year since. And I don't trust Ubisoft when they say they have separate teams working on IV for a couple years because they said the same of III and I did not enjoy III that much.

They are just milking it to death. Annual releases is what sends IPs to their graves.

[RaidenXS]

Fredvdp wrote...

VampireSoap wrote...

I remember it took them 4 years to develop DAO

I thought it was 8 years.

DAO took longer tho because a whole new lore/world needed to be created from ground up

[Gregolian]

Volus Warlord wrote...

Gregolian wrote...

2 seems pretty standard. I really think DAII was rushed though if I were to be honest.

The AC series is another one that feels really fast nowadays. 2 years or close to it I think between the first and second games but now we have had one almost every single year since. And I don't trust Ubisoft when they say they have separate teams working on IV for a couple years because they said the same of III and I did not enjoy III that much.

They are just milking it to death. Annual releases is what sends IPs to their graves.

And sadly, at least with 4 I will allow help them milk it.  Playing as a pirate?  With 4 pistols and 2 swords and lots of ship battles (which were the best parts of III)?  Yeah, I'm signing up.

*lesigh......


I haven't pre-ordered DA ]I[ Inquisition yet though.  I want some concrete info/trailers to go off of rather than just speculation from Tweets.

[Volus Warlord]

Gregolian wrote...

Volus Warlord wrote...

Gregolian wrote...

2 seems pretty standard. I really think DAII was rushed though if I were to be honest.

The AC series is another one that feels really fast nowadays. 2 years or close to it I think between the first and second games but now we have had one almost every single year since. And I don't trust Ubisoft when they say they have separate teams working on IV for a couple years because they said the same of III and I did not enjoy III that much.

They are just milking it to death. Annual releases is what sends IPs to their graves.

And sadly, at least with 4 I will allow help them milk it.  Playing as a pirate?  With 4 pistols and 2 swords and lots of ship battles (which were the best parts of III)?  Yeah, I'm signing up.

*lesigh......


I haven't pre-ordered DA ]I[ Inquisition yet though.  I want some concrete info/trailers to go off of rather than just speculation from Tweets.

I think it looks awful tbh. AC's story was never good but at least it was interesting for a while. It's just gotten more and more stupid, disjointed, and presumptuous as the series has progressed. Black Flag looks like cop-out filler.

Last one I played was Brotherhood, and I've no intention to return to it.

As per DA3, I have no intention to preorder and will not buy unless I am thoroughly impressed by the demo and/or I get feedback from people that aren't [you know] saying it's solid.

Modifié par Volus Warlord, 15 mai 2013 - 06:26 .