Modifié par LPPrince, 16 mai 2013 - 12:39 .
Is it just me or the production time of games is getting shorter and shorter...
Débuté par
VampireSoap
, mai 15 2013 03:39
#76
Posté 16 mai 2013 - 12:38
LPPrince
-
- Members
- 54 998 messages
Still curious to know exactly when dev truly began on DA3.
Retour en haut
#77
Posté 16 mai 2013 - 01:51
VampireSoap
-
- Members
- 1 200 messages
Bleachrude wrote...
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.
No, Bioware didn't "surrender" their company...No! They joined EA willingly. They've stated this a million times, and they really enjoy the resources that EA sent them. If they didn't make a game as good as DAO, EA would not have made the offer, and Bioware would still be independent today.
#78
Posté 16 mai 2013 - 02:26
Sanunes
-
- Members
- 4 392 messages
LPPrince wrote...
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.
Sigh, I dislike falling for bad internet journalism. Thanks for the correction.
#79
Guest_simfamUP_*
Posté 16 mai 2013 - 02:28
Guest_simfamUP_*
Guest_simfamUP_*
-
- Guests
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.
BG2 wasn't cinematic and used the same engine. Voice acting was also significantly less and variables weren't as numerous as in DA:O.
I suspect they were planning NWN since BG1 as it was foreshadowed quite blatantly by an NPC courier :-)
#80
Guest_simfamUP_*
Posté 16 mai 2013 - 02:30
Guest_simfamUP_*
Guest_simfamUP_*
-
- Guests
Hanz54321 wrote...
Fredvdp wrote...
I thought it was 8 years.VampireSoap wrote...
I remember it took them 4 years to develop DAO
It was 8.
Just like it took "over ten" for Duke Nukem. It didn't take 8 years to make the game we know now, it took 8 years to make the *world* we know now. Lore, Thedas, languages etc... all that took 8 years.
#81
Posté 16 mai 2013 - 07:01
Ninja Stan
-
- Members
- 5 238 messages
DAO took BioWare a long time in part because it was their first major original property. While I greatly enjoyed my time on that project, it also cost a whole lot of money to make. EA is trying to reduce that time to something more manageable so they can continue to develop quality games at a reasonable cost, consistently.
#82
Posté 16 mai 2013 - 08:08
ElitePinecone
-
- Members
- 12 936 messages
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.
Uh, while DAO was in development they developed three other games - Jade Empire, Sonic Chronicles and Mass Effect.
#83
Guest_simfamUP_*
Posté 16 mai 2013 - 08:29
Guest_simfamUP_*
Guest_simfamUP_*
-
- Guests
Ninja Stan wrote...
DAO took BioWare a long time in part because it was their first major original property. While I greatly enjoyed my time on that project, it also cost a whole lot of money to make. EA is trying to reduce that time to something more manageable so they can continue to develop quality games at a reasonable cost, consistently.
Hopefully a compromise will be found. Because so far, consistency has left DA2 and ME3 lacking. It's a shame really, I love those games because I can *see* what they *could've* been if they had more time.
BioWare still has "it" they never lost "it." But this consistency you speak of is hardly compatible with the cinematic RPGs BioWare want to make.
#84
Posté 16 mai 2013 - 09:22
NeonFlux117
-
- Members
- 3 627 messages
Maybe COD, Assassins Creed and Madden games. But as a whole devs are taking as much time as normal. Hell, GTA 5 is 5 years from 4. San Andreas was only 4 from GTA 4. Half Life 3 if it were to release say in November of this year is like 9 years from Half Life to HL2 was 6 years. And HL3 hasn't (and probably will never) come out yet.
Even DICE with BF series is following the same 2 year plan they've always done for a new BF game every 2 years.
So as a whole the game industry is releasing games on a fixed schedule, more or less, like they've always done.
Although next gen game development will be shorter because next gen consoles are very similar to PC. Therefore, when games are made they can be made simultaneously and not ported from one conosle to another.
Even DICE with BF series is following the same 2 year plan they've always done for a new BF game every 2 years.
So as a whole the game industry is releasing games on a fixed schedule, more or less, like they've always done.
Although next gen game development will be shorter because next gen consoles are very similar to PC. Therefore, when games are made they can be made simultaneously and not ported from one conosle to another.
Modifié par NeonFlux117, 16 mai 2013 - 09:24 .
#85
Guest_simfamUP_*
Posté 16 mai 2013 - 11:21
Guest_simfamUP_*
Guest_simfamUP_*
-
- Guests
Assassins Creed
Those games get more than a few months. When two are usually in development, just like how ME and DA get made. When ACIII was being made, ACIV was in development too. Thus the quick sequels.
#86
Posté 16 mai 2013 - 12:40
LPPrince
-
- Members
- 54 998 messages
And good too cause I love me some Assassin's Creed
#87
Posté 16 mai 2013 - 01:51
Il Divo
-
- Members
- 9 776 messages
LPPrince wrote...
And good too cause I love me some Assassin's Creed
Agreed.
#88
Posté 16 mai 2013 - 02:05
Kaiser Arian XVII
-
- Members
- 17 289 messages
Less than two years of game developing:
Buggy, low-texture game that may have cut-contents and damaged plots.
Buggy, low-texture game that may have cut-contents and damaged plots.
#89
Posté 16 mai 2013 - 02:31
addiction21
-
- Members
- 6 066 messages
Legatus Arianus wrote...
Less than two years of game developing:
Buggy, low-texture game that may have cut-contents and damaged plots.
Has little if anything to do with development time.
#90
Posté 16 mai 2013 - 04:11
stonbw1
-
- Members
- 891 messages
Look at Bioshock Infinite: a great testament to taking time to craft story and weeding out bugs.
#91
Guest_simfamUP_*
Posté 16 mai 2013 - 06:55
Guest_simfamUP_*
Guest_simfamUP_*
-
- Guests
stonbw1 wrote...
Look at Bioshock Infinite: a great testament to taking time to craft story and weeding out bugs.
That game must have changed about 50 times before release xD
Still, I'd imagine developing an RPG is different to developing an FPS. They all have their challanges, but (story driven) RPGs, I think, in general are the harder games to make. Variables, dialogue, text, characters, cinematics, exploration... there's a lot to do.
#92
Posté 16 mai 2013 - 09:05
Kaiser Arian XVII
-
- Members
- 17 289 messages
addiction21 wrote...
Legatus Arianus wrote...
Less than two years of game developing:
Buggy, low-texture game that may have cut-contents and damaged plots.
Has little if anything to do with development time.
I should have said this is about RPGs. BTW DA2 and ME3 prove my claim.
Less time to examine the game for the bugs, less textures added to the game (Anderson's hand - DA2 clean NPC's faces), the need to cut contents to prepare the game for the release date (that may harm the story and plot of the game).
#93
Guest_JimmyRustles_*
Posté 16 mai 2013 - 09:13
Guest_JimmyRustles_*
Guest_JimmyRustles_*
-
- Guests
It actually has a lot to do with development time. All Legatus mentioned is done in the development time thus shorter development time would require a much more efficient development. I think DA2 and ME3 should have taken much more development time. Example "We made orsinio go bat **** insane because we wanted to have another boss."<-- they probably did this because they were on a tight schedule and needed soemthing quick, It reminds me of one big event but I cannot put my mind on......Oh yes when Casey and Mac created the mass effect ending. That reeks of "shorter development time and we need to get it out of the door quickly." Also there is something that has to be said a less efficient work flow will not see a better product from longer development. They may be improvment s but only slightly.addiction21 wrote...
Legatus Arianus wrote...
Less than two years of game developing:
Buggy, low-texture game that may have cut-contents and damaged plots.
Has little if anything to do with development time.
#94
Guest_Catch This Fade_*
Posté 16 mai 2013 - 09:16
Guest_Catch This Fade_*
Guest_Catch This Fade_*
-
- Guests
Which ended up in the game. Pre-production is a part of game development anyway.simfamSP wrote...
Hanz54321 wrote...
Fredvdp wrote...
I thought it was 8 years.VampireSoap wrote...
I remember it took them 4 years to develop DAO
It was 8.
Just like it took "over ten" for Duke Nukem. It didn't take 8 years to make the game we know now, it took 8 years to make the *world* we know now. Lore, Thedas, languages etc... all that took 8 years.
Modifié par J. Reezy, 16 mai 2013 - 09:16 .
#95
Posté 16 mai 2013 - 09:35
stonbw1
-
- Members
- 891 messages
^ But a long development time has its drawbacks too. Look at DA:O. By the time it was released, the visuals/combat seemed so antiquated compared to what was on the market it seemed.
#96
Posté 16 mai 2013 - 09:48
Noctis Augustus
-
- Members
- 735 messages
stonbw1 wrote...
^ But a long development time has its drawbacks too. Look at DA:O. By the time it was released, the visuals/combat seemed so antiquated compared to what was on the market it seemed.
I didn't complain about that. It was a great game nevertheless. This isn't an action game like AC, this is a RPG in which graphics shouldn't mean much.
Modifié par ibbikiookami, 16 mai 2013 - 09:49 .
#97
Guest_simfamUP_*
Posté 16 mai 2013 - 10:40
Guest_simfamUP_*
Guest_simfamUP_*
-
- Guests
J. Reezy wrote...
Which ended up in the game. Pre-production is a part of game development anyway.simfamSP wrote...
Hanz54321 wrote...
Fredvdp wrote...
I thought it was 8 years.VampireSoap wrote...
I remember it took them 4 years to develop DAO
It was 8.
Just like it took "over ten" for Duke Nukem. It didn't take 8 years to make the game we know now, it took 8 years to make the *world* we know now. Lore, Thedas, languages etc... all that took 8 years.
Of course, but it didn't take 8 years to make the game itself. It depends on what you count towards as the core of the game.
I'll just think of it like this: It took 8 years to give birth to what we know as Dragon Age. Not necessarily the Origins game, but everything that came with it.
#98
Posté 17 mai 2013 - 01:59
Fast Jimmy
-
- Members
- 17 939 messages
Ninja Stan wrote...
DAO took BioWare a long time in part because it was their first major original property. While I greatly enjoyed my time on that project, it also cost a whole lot of money to make. EA is trying to reduce that time to something more manageable so they can continue to develop quality games at a reasonable cost, consistently.
Was Jade Empire based off another IP? I didn't know that. What source was it from?
#99
Posté 19 mai 2013 - 02:54
UnderlAlDyingSun
-
- Members
- 348 messages
I hate where gaming is heading.
If only I had a license to kill. I'm sick of seeing games being pumped out to maintain revenue streams. Top brass publishers need some solid beatdowns, and I mean violently ( you know, the dudes who don't know anything about gaming, the ones who bonus their freakin salaries ) and company's should be forced into minimum dev cycles to keep them from making crap.
It's sad really. Assassin's Creed is a prime example, also DeadSpace. But atleast we still have Bethesda, Valva, Rockstar etc... It's not all bad. I'm just waiting for Battlefield 4, I'll literally lose it , and I'm pretty chill, if they ruin it. But I have a feeling DA3 is going to be awesome.
If only I had a license to kill. I'm sick of seeing games being pumped out to maintain revenue streams. Top brass publishers need some solid beatdowns, and I mean violently ( you know, the dudes who don't know anything about gaming, the ones who bonus their freakin salaries ) and company's should be forced into minimum dev cycles to keep them from making crap.
It's sad really. Assassin's Creed is a prime example, also DeadSpace. But atleast we still have Bethesda, Valva, Rockstar etc... It's not all bad. I'm just waiting for Battlefield 4, I'll literally lose it , and I'm pretty chill, if they ruin it. But I have a feeling DA3 is going to be awesome.
#100
Posté 19 mai 2013 - 02:58
LPPrince
-
- Members
- 54 998 messages
Thing is with Assassin's Creed is the games are developed by separate teams over the course of a few years(for example, AC4:Black Flag began production before AC Revelations was released, which means early to mid 2011).
When you have a colossal amount of people working under the same umbrella, you can do what Ubisoft does with AC.
I have absolutely zero problems with AC's schedule. Especially since I've enjoyed every AC game I've played, some more than others of course.
When you have a colossal amount of people working under the same umbrella, you can do what Ubisoft does with AC.
I have absolutely zero problems with AC's schedule. Especially since I've enjoyed every AC game I've played, some more than others of course.
