99 réponses à ce sujet

[LPPrince]

There's more money in films and television than in games?

[Sanunes]

I do think as an industry since game developers have really started to lease game engines instead of making a new one themselves development time has gotten shorter for they aren't stumbling around trying to get their engine and tools to work properly.

As far as other games, the short turn around is showing, I saw mentions of Assassin's Creed, from what I understand Ubisoft has two teams developing in tandem similar to Square did at one time with Final Fantasy, but at the same time the games are still feeling rushed like Dragon Age 2 did to me and they are reusing a lot more of the previous games then BioWare did.

I also saw Skyrim mentioned and I really don't understand how they could have taken five to six years to develop the game, unless it was trying to get their engine to work properly, for with how buggy the game was on release (especially on consoles and namely the PS3) you would have thought it had half of that development time.

With Dragon Age Inquisition I am hopeful that its going to be at least three years of development, for they were probably doing some development and pre-production during the time they were working on Exalted March.

[Sith Grey Warden]

JimmyRustles wrote...

If you look at the time between the first one and the second one there is a much larger differencce between the second one and the third one. Assasin's Creed in itself is in a category which is known as iterative development. Assasin's Creed is not built from the ground up. They basically have something already built and all they are doing is adding more things to what already existed. Sports games are very blatant about this. I Have played a fifa game with commentary from the previous games. I think Dragon age is also supporting the same idea. They already have some things built and all they are doing is making improvements at all of these stages. AI might not be built from the ground up but it might just be tweaked and improved. This is my assumption as building something from the ground up in year is a bit...ambitious 

The thing is, though, DAI is on a brand-new engine. The DA2 engine was almost identical to the DAO engine, but there's a bigger change taking place here.

[VampireSoap]

Wow...I just got back from school, and you guys have already made so many comments! And a lot of you are actually very knowledgeable on this topic, I feel ignorant all of a sudden So I guess I'll just continue to monitor your comments...you know, quietly

[Jestina]

Games are usually rushed now, to milk the cow...and it shows. Just look at the awfulness that DA and ME have turned into. Another part of the problem is developers coding for ancient console tech rather than the latest in pc tech. They should be designing games for pc's and then porting to consoles like they used to...instead of for consoles and then sending a bad port to pc users, like they do now.

[Bleachrude]

LPPrince wrote...

There's more money in films and television than in games?

That doesnt explain why the producers can say "this will take Z amount of money and time" and more often than not, actually meet that expectation they themselves set out.

What is it about game development that their producers can't do the same?

[ArcaneJTM]

You're more likely to run into technical "hitches" with game development than film. Actor says the wrong line, you have him do the line over again. Character in a game says the wrong line and you've got to track down exactly what caused it.

[LPPrince]

Jestina wrote...

Games are usually rushed now, to milk the cow...and it shows. Just look at the awfulness that DA and ME have turned into. Another part of the problem is developers coding for ancient console tech rather than the latest in pc tech. They should be designing games for pc's and then porting to consoles like they used to...instead of for consoles and then sending a bad port to pc users, like they do now.

*shakes head*

Not here.

[chuckles471]

You just have to accept for better or worse under EA(unless they have a big change of policy), Bioware will find it hard to get more than 3 or 4 years to develop a game. Time equals money, and with sales of DA2, I'm just glad they are making a sequel.

Bioware would need to get a big selling game with numbers like a COD, Elder Scrolls or a GTA, where the sequel will be guaranteed to sell before EA would take that kind of risk.

[Il Divo]

chuckles471 wrote...

You just have to accept for better or worse under EA(unless they have a big change of policy), Bioware will find it hard to get more than 3 or 4 years to develop a game. Time equals money, and with sales of DA2, I'm just glad they are making a sequel. 

Wait, DA:O aside, when was Bioware getting more than four years to produce games?

[Korusus]

Dragon Age: Origins' development time is an anomaly. I totally believe it gave us a better, fuller game...but it wasn't intentional. They rebooted development on it pretty much halfway through and went back to the drawing board completely to use a new engine.

Look at the very first screens of Dragon Age (before it was Dragon Age: Origins)...it was dangerously close to vaporware for a long time.

[Sanunes]

JimmyRustles wrote...

Sanunes wrote...

I do think as an industry since game developers have really started to lease game engines instead of making a new one themselves development time has gotten shorter for they aren't stumbling around trying to get their engine and tools to work properly.

As far as other games, the short turn around is showing, I saw mentions of Assassin's Creed, from what I understand Ubisoft has two teams developing in tandem similar to Square did at one time with Final Fantasy, but at the same time the games are still feeling rushed like Dragon Age 2 did to me and they are reusing a lot more of the previous games then BioWare did.

I also saw Skyrim mentioned and I really don't understand how they could have taken five to six years to develop the game, unless it was trying to get their engine to work properly, for with how buggy the game was on release (especially on consoles and namely the PS3) you would have thought it had half of that development time.

With Dragon Age Inquisition I am hopeful that its going to be at least three years of development, for they were probably doing some development and pre-production during the time they were working on Exalted March.

Just some quick commentary here. With skyrim and games like that I feel like it is theft if they don't completely fix the bugs in the whole product lifeline. If i buy the product I do not need it completely "bugless" on launch date but through out the lifeline I want the developers to patch this product up. I have a problem when developers say "hey we are not supporting this product anymore" but they are a bunch of bugs still in there. That in my opinon is roberry.

I do agree, but at the same time the issues that were present on the PS3 and to a lesser extent on the 360 should have been caught in development and not leave a consumer with at least six months of having an unplayable product.  I might also have a better opinion if I didn't consider the structure of saving data to be an issue either, for I had the same problem with Dragon Age: Origins and every Bethesda game since Morrowind in the latter parts of the game when the saves became huge odd memory problems started.

[LPPrince]

Thing is, Skyrim's problems on the PS3 wasn't Bethesda's fault- the fault lied with the make-up of the PS3.

Luckily, Sony's addressing these issues with the PS4, which should hopefully not have these same problems.

[Bleachrude]

Korusus wrote...

Dragon Age: Origins' development time is an anomaly. I totally believe it gave us a better, fuller game...but it wasn't intentional. They rebooted development on it pretty much halfway through and went back to the drawing board completely to use a new engine.

Look at the very first screens of Dragon Age (before it was Dragon Age: Origins)...it was dangerously close to vaporware for a long time.

It should ALSO be noted that DA:O was partly the reason for BW agreeing to become for EA.

People hold up DA:O as a great game but how good a game can it be when it causes you to lose control over your company and you don't make any money on it until the DLCs were produced?

Dragon Age: Origins is _NOT_ a game you want to emulate.

[LPPrince]

Bleachrude wrote...

People hold up DA:O as a great game but how good a game can it be when it causes you to lose control over your company and you don't make any money on it until the DLCs were produced?

:/

[Sanunes]

LPPrince wrote...

Thing is, Skyrim's problems on the PS3 wasn't Bethesda's fault- the fault lied with the make-up of the PS3.

Luckily, Sony's addressing these issues with the PS4, which should hopefully not have these same problems.

Again true, but shouldn't have Bethesda tested the hardware? For I don't remember any other game that had that many problems on the PS3 platform exclusively.  I would have cut Bethesda more slack if I encountered that problem with any other game I bought for it before I got rid of mine.

edit: spelling

Modifié par Sanunes, 15 mai 2013 - 11:49 .

[BounceDK]

They are and it shows.

[Fast Jimmy]

LPPrince wrote...

Bleachrude wrote...

People hold up DA:O as a great game but how good a game can it be when it causes you to lose control over your company and you don't make any money on it until the DLCs were produced?

:/

Yeah... I'm going to call malarkey on this. Even with DA:O in development for nearly six years, it went GANGBUSTERS with four million+ sales in the first year, NOT including DLC, the expansion or the GOTY edition. That's almost a quarter of a BILLION dollars in revenue. While not an envious development cycle, it beat the heck out of their sales predictions.

[Sanunes]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

LPPrince wrote...

Bleachrude wrote...

People hold up DA:O as a great game but how good a game can it be when it causes you to lose control over your company and you don't make any money on it until the DLCs were produced?

:/

Yeah... I'm going to call malarkey on this. Even with DA:O in development for nearly six years, it went GANGBUSTERS with four million+ sales in the first year, NOT including DLC, the expansion or the GOTY edition. That's almost a quarter of a BILLION dollars in revenue. While not an envious development cycle, it beat the heck out of their sales predictions.

I don't think it was the sole reason why they partnered with Pandemic, but I do think finances would have been very low because of six years of spending with zero income.  From what I read BioWare was sold by the private equity fund they used when they joined with Pandemic and they had no say in the matter when they were sold to EA.

[LPPrince]

Sanunes wrote...

I don't think it was the sole reason why they partnered with Pandemic, but I do think finances would have been very low because of six years of spending with zero income.  From what I read BioWare was sold by the private equity fund they used when they joined with Pandemic and they had no say in the matter when they were sold to EA.

Pretty sure Mr. Woo or Mr. Priestly already debunked this.