215 réponses à ce sujet

[ElitePinecone]

EA executive Frank Gibeau made those comments recently to CVG.

He also said that despite DA:I being a sequel, they're "reinventing" the series.

What does this mean, even in the context of corporate-exec-speak?

A reinvention is a chance to reconsider some of the fundamental elements of the series and bring in new ones (mounts, more open environments) but does it signal some bigger changes about what sort of game Inquisition will eventually be? Why are they calling it a new IP, when the franchise has been around for four years or more?

I guess I'm just... not really sure why EA or Gibeau would use that sort of language, "a new approach", when so far the game looks reasonably similar to Origins and DA2, with a major graphical overhaul and some interesting new features.

[David7204]

Has what BioWare been saying really been so different?

What it sounds to me like the developers have been saying is that they kinda-sorta did a lot of concepts in previous games, and now they want to do them and are doing them for real. Player freedom, choices that matter, a world worth exploring. Stuff like that.

Modifié par David7204, 24 août 2013 - 03:03 .

[Chala]

One word:
Marketing.

[cjones91]

How can DA:I be a new IP when it's part of a existing one?That makes no sense so can someone explain it to me?

[Mello]

El_Chala_Legalizado wrote...

One word:
Marketing.

[ElitePinecone]

El_Chala_Legalizado wrote...

One word:
Marketing.

Yeah, I thought that it was probably marketing.

Positioning the game as new and shiny is fine - but the language just struck me as odd. 

[cjones91]

El_Chala_Legalizado wrote...

One word:
Marketing.

And trying to get new fans by distancing DA:I from the other games.

[Angrywolves]

I thought some BSN posters didn't like seeing Frank Gibeau quoted, particularly when he talk about multiplayer.
shrugs.
DAI isn't a new IP.
That's obvious.

[Mr Cloud]

And here I am reminded of the ME3 and "it's obviously the best place to start" thing.

And guy seems to be talking nonsense.

[TK514]

Sounds like the usual executive garbage. Like saying the third installment is a great place for new players to jump into the series.

[Zack_Nero]

DA:I isn't a new IP because it is requiring the use of old information from two different games.  Sure it is using a new engine that allows for newer things.  But it's not a new IP.  It is just an upgrade which will make it better.

El_Chala_Legalizado wrote...

One word:
Marketing.

And yea, simply put.

[Aaleel]

Trying to draw in new players I guess.

[cjones91]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Mr Cloud wrote...

And here I am reminded of the ME3 and "it's obviously the best place to start" thing.

And guy seems to be talking nonsense.

Everyone says that.

I just watched a Witcher 3 promo video today and in between all the marketing BS one of the guys said, "You'll be able to understand the story without playing The Witcher 1 or 2."

That's nothing new. This is.

Sometimes I wish the marketing guys would stop BSing with slogans like"The third game is the best place to jump into the series".It's stupid that anyone would actually think that though.

[Rawgrim]

Maybe the Dragon Age ends after the third game. Making room for a new Age and a new IP.

[Zack_Nero]

cjones91 wrote...

Sometimes I wish the marketing guys would stop BSing with slogans like"The third game is the best place to jump into the series".It's stupid that anyone would actually think that though.

Yea, but I can understand the bussiness side of this, only way to bring in new people.  Sure there may be better ways to go about it, like exciting gameplay, deep rich story, highlighting some of the games feature.  But this is the easiest way for them.

[Zack_Nero]

Rawgrim wrote...

Maybe the Dragon Age ends after the third game. Making room for a new Age and a new IP.

No, each age is about 100 years, and in Dragon Age time, I think it is at year 40 - 45, but certainly not higher then 50.

[ScarMK]

Zack_Nero wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

Maybe the Dragon Age ends after the third game. Making room for a new Age and a new IP.

No, each age is about 100 years, and in Dragon Age time, I think it is at year 40 - 45, but certainly not higher then 50.

Nothing stops them from pulling a Bethesda and skipping those 50 years or so.

[Rawgrim]

Zack_Nero wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

Maybe the Dragon Age ends after the third game. Making room for a new Age and a new IP.

No, each age is about 100 years, and in Dragon Age time, I think it is at year 40 - 45, but certainly not higher then 50.

Doesn`t mean they can`t jump 50 years forwards with the next game.

[ElitePinecone]

Growing your audience is good business, I suppose.

But my question was more about what these comments mean for the direction of the game, if it *is* more than just a marketing slogan.

If they're treating it as a reinvention, might we see some of the gameplay pillars change? How far do they have to push a Dragon Age game before it's enough to call it a new IP and a new direction for the series?

[drake heath]

As long as they reinvent the game as far away from DA2 as possible I'm fine with whatever they consider it.

[Chala]

ElitePinecone wrote...

El_Chala_Legalizado wrote...

One word:
Marketing.

Yeah, I thought that it was probably marketing.

Positioning the game as new and shiny is fine - but the language just struck me as odd. 

After all the polemic with DAII and ME3's ending, it's no surprise they are trying to make the game look as independent as possible. In fact, this is the same thing they are doing with the next ME game (Not a sequel, you don't need to touch the other games, completely new, etc.).

Modifié par El_Chala_Legalizado, 24 août 2013 - 03:49 .