99 réponses à ce sujet

[Boycott Bioware]

I think if the game using the same thing/models/voice actors/resources/engine from its predecessor the production can be shorter...the new game just need some upgrades from the original for example KotOR 1 and 2 have little differences

Surely in the future game companies want money fast, it is like movie production

in India a movie could be released in month and not years...or so i hear...an actor in India can work for two or three movies in one day...dancing at temple for movie A in the morning, rush to site B fighting on a train in the evening for movie B then rush to site C having a romantic scene and singing in the night for movie C....

Modifié par Qistina, 15 mai 2013 - 06:30 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Fredvdp wrote...

VampireSoap wrote...

I remember it took them 4 years to develop DAO

I thought it was 8 years.

DAO was in active development for 6 years, and was not shelved at any point during that period.

[LPPrince]

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.

AC shouldn't feel fast nowadays- its been getting annual releases since ACB came out a year after AC2.

Assassin's Creed- 2007
Assassin's Creed 2- 2009
Assassin's Creed Brotherhood- 2010
Assassin's Creed Revelations- 2011
Assassin's Creed 3- 2012
Assassin's Creed 4:Black Flag- 2013

The only reason people "think" its fast all of a sudden is because of that #4 in the title of the game. Remove that and a lot of people wouldn't care.

Also, you not enjoying AC3 doesn't mean they lied about how long it took to make- it just means you disliked the game, which is perfectly understandable. Hell, if that logic made any sense Duke Nukem Forever would've been the greatest game of all time.

Longer development time for games doesn't equate to a better game- it just means more time went into its creation(discounting "development hell" like Duke Nukem Forever).

My assumption is that most feel DAO(as a whole) is seen as a better game than DA2. DAO had a lot more time put into it than DA2 did, and because of that, a lot of us feel that DA3 can return the franchise to form if it has more time put into it than DA2.

Can it be improved with more time? Sure. Does having more time guarantee the game will be better than its immediate predecessor? No.

No guarantees. We can only hope.

[Gregolian]

Volus Warlord wrote...

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.

Ubisoft and Bioware both aren't on my ****list perse but are on a short leash as far as I am concerned.

[Enigmatick]

Volus Warlord wrote...

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.

It is cop out filler, they did market research and found out that people tend to ignore the unumbered ACs so they stuck a 4 on it even though it isn't a sequel and it isn't important.

[Fiery Phoenix]

Depends on the publisher. EA games usually don't take more than 2 to 3 years tops. Ubisoft is basically the same, too.

[Gregolian]

LPPrince wrote...

Also, you not enjoying AC3 doesn't mean they lied about how long it took to make- it just means you disliked the game, which is perfectly understandable. Hell, if that logic made any sense Duke Nukem Forever would've been the greatest game of all time.

Longer development time for games doesn't equate to a better game- it just means more time went into its creation(discounting "development hell" like Duke Nukem Forever).

I understand that completely about development time but the issue I have is Ubisoft did lie to the consumers some about the CEs that were due for ACIII and when they say "oh, the games been in development since ACII released and all those devs worked on was ACIII" I start having questions pop into my head after the fact/release like "then, why is AC Brotherhood probably the best game in the franchise if the main dev team wasn't working on it?"

LPPrince wrote...

My assumption is that most feel DAO(as a whole) is seen as a better game than DA2. DAO had a lot more time put into it than DA2 did, and because of that, a lot of us feel that DA3 can return the franchise to form if it has more time put into it than DA2.

Can it be improved with more time? Sure. Does having more time guarantee the game will be better than its immediate predecessor? No.

No guarantees. We can only hope.

I agree with these sentiments.  DAII, imo at least, isn't this garbage game like some like to push out there.  It had more than it's fair share of flaws but there are parts of it that I am happy were added/changed from DA:O.

[Plaintiff]

Production cycles aren't getting shorter, time is speeding up.

[LPPrince]

Aye, and I've played the WWE games going all the way back to when they were simply called Smackdown!

Annual releases, and they used to be very different from each other. The similarities would be a few moves/attacks that were kept between games, but otherwise, a lot had changed, even from year to year. Nowadays though the games generally follow the same framework and aren't very different from each other.

Reinforcing the point- it all depends on the situation. Though I'm all for more time being given to the developers to "age the wine" if you get what I mean.

I'm hoping Dragon Age 3 doesn't get released till 2014, though I'm sure we'll learn more about a release date on May 21st, if not then than at E3 in June.

[LPPrince]

Gregolian wrote...

I start having questions pop into my head after the fact/release like "then, why is AC Brotherhood probably the best game in the franchise if the main dev team wasn't working on it?"

Because whoever worked on it did a goddamned good job and we should be grateful for their contribution. Those Cristina memories man, they huuurt.

[sandalisthemaker]

Volus Warlord wrote...

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.

Assassin's Creed is getting pretty rediculous with the annual releases. The series has gone down hill since Brotherhood, with the over-arching story becoming a convoluted mess. They really need to slow it down, but I think they have jumped the shark already. 
Hmmm...Brotherhood was when multiplayer started to infiltrate the AC series, too...

[Gregolian]

LPPrince wrote...

Aye, and I've played the WWE games going all the way back to when they were simply called Smackdown!

Annual releases, and they used to be very different from each other. The similarities would be a few moves/attacks that were kept between games, but otherwise, a lot had changed, even from year to year. Nowadays though the games generally follow the same framework and aren't very different from each other.

Reinforcing the point- it all depends on the situation. Though I'm all for more time being given to the developers to "age the wine" if you get what I mean.

I'm hoping Dragon Age 3 doesn't get released till 2014, though I'm sure we'll learn more about a release date on May 21st, if not then than at E3 in June.

I predict that if it isn't end of October/early November (given the new COD will release then, and ruomrs are that the NextBox will have Halo 5 at launch and most new consoles are initially launched in the fall) that we will see it in time for Christmas.

Which makes this lack of info/trailers a little strange in retrospect.  I won't enjoy the wait until March but if it were to wait to come out until March 2014 (which it is rumored Tiger Woods and the next UFC game from EA won't release before then) I will accept it as long as it's done to polish/test and make sure it isn't falling apart.

[Il Divo]

Gregolian wrote...

I understand that completely about development time but the issue I have is Ubisoft did lie to the consumers some about the CEs that were due for ACIII and when they say "oh, the games been in development since ACII released and all those devs worked on was ACIII" I start having questions pop into my head after the fact/release like "then, why is AC Brotherhood probably the best game in the franchise if the main dev team wasn't working on it?"

Considering 3 brought more new toys to the series between environments, weapons, run animations, sailing, stealth skills, and weapons, I have a hard time buying this.

The extent of new things we got in Brotherhood was execution animations. I personally do consider it the worst in the series, especially because of Ezio's narrative. La Volpe, Claudia, and Bartolomeo just were not strong enough to carry it on its own (imo).
 
Edit: That's not to say that you can't enjoy Brotherhood the most, but it's not a good argument to game length. It would be like someone saying they prefer DA2 and using that to conclude that more dev time was spent working on it.

Modifié par Il Divo, 15 mai 2013 - 06:52 .

[Gregolian]

Il Divo wrote...

Gregolian wrote...

I understand that completely about development time but the issue I have is Ubisoft did lie to the consumers some about the CEs that were due for ACIII and when they say "oh, the games been in development since ACII released and all those devs worked on was ACIII" I start having questions pop into my head after the fact/release like "then, why is AC Brotherhood probably the best game in the franchise if the main dev team wasn't working on it?"

Considering 3 brought more new toys to the series between environments, weapons, run animations, sailing, stealth skills, and weapons, I have a hard time buying this.

The extent of new things we got in Brotherhood was execution animations. I personally do consider it the worst in the series, especially because of Ezio's narrative. La Volpe, Claudia, and Bartolomeo just were not strong enough to carry it on its own (imo).
 
Edit: That's not to say that you can't enjoy Brotherhood the most, but it's not a good argument to game length. It would be like someone saying they prefer DA2 and using that to conclude that more dev time was spent working on it.

This is way off topic now and I apologize but my issue with III I think stems from Connor.

He has the young strong bullheaded will that Ezio had without the charm and the somewhat stoic a-hole-ness of Altair without the badass scariness.

[Il Divo]

Gregolian wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

Gregolian wrote...

I understand that completely about development time but the issue I have is Ubisoft did lie to the consumers some about the CEs that were due for ACIII and when they say "oh, the games been in development since ACII released and all those devs worked on was ACIII" I start having questions pop into my head after the fact/release like "then, why is AC Brotherhood probably the best game in the franchise if the main dev team wasn't working on it?"

Considering 3 brought more new toys to the series between environments, weapons, run animations, sailing, stealth skills, and weapons, I have a hard time buying this.

The extent of new things we got in Brotherhood was execution animations. I personally do consider it the worst in the series, especially because of Ezio's narrative. La Volpe, Claudia, and Bartolomeo just were not strong enough to carry it on its own (imo).
 
Edit: That's not to say that you can't enjoy Brotherhood the most, but it's not a good argument to game length. It would be like someone saying they prefer DA2 and using that to conclude that more dev time was spent working on it.

This is way off topic now and I apologize but my issue with III I think stems from Connor.

He has the young strong bullheaded will that Ezio had without the charm and the somewhat stoic a-hole-ness of Altair without the badass scariness.

Fair point. You certainly aren't the only person to dislike Connor, having lurked on the AC3 forums after launch.

[Volus Warlord]

sandalisthemaker wrote...

Hmmm...Brotherhood was when multiplayer started to infiltrate the AC series, too...

Correlation does not imply causation. 

[sandalisthemaker]

Volus Warlord wrote...

sandalisthemaker wrote...

Hmmm...Brotherhood was when multiplayer started to infiltrate the AC series, too...

Correlation does not imply causation. 

*shrug*

[Giltspur]

I imagine it's hard to say how long something was in development or what that even amounts to since there's probably different number of people on project at day x than on day y, meaning not all days are equal in terms of contriubtion to completion of a project.  

There are probably folks that finished their portion of DA2 before DA2 was done and then started DA3.  There are others that then shifted from DA2 to maybe ME3 and then to DA3.  How the heck are we supposed to know.  The point is though they're clearly taking longer to make DA3 than they did with DA2.

As for AC4, Ubisoft has different teams working on different AC games at the same time.  So it's not one group of people making AC3, finishing that and then making AC4 in a year.  AC4 began development in Summer 2011.

(So AC5 might have been in development since last summer, and AC6 might start up sometime later this year.   I guess being huge allows you to do that.)

Modifié par Giltspur, 15 mai 2013 - 08:52 .

[LPPrince]

EntropicAngel wrote...

It is amazing. I didn't realize how big Ubisoft was until the last time I played AC Brotherhood and saw like eight different studios.

Yeah, AC credits take a looong ass time, and with good reason.

[LPPrince]

Carpe Diem, folks. Jeeesus

[Bleachrude]

JimmyRustles wrote...


Exactly! They are ways around this though. This is also one of the reasons programmers hate working for game companies. It is basically like a sweat shop with no additional benefits. They would rather go indie.

Here is something about EA http://ea-spouse.livejournal.com/

YOLO

This actually, I think EA gets a bad rap for.

This is the fault of the producer. The producer is supposed to be able to say "This feature will take X amount of man-hours to complete" based on past experience...but for some reason, game development ALWAYS seems to be a problem of "we need more time".

Why is it that Hollywood films and tv shows can work to a schedule but game companies can;t?