13 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.

[Allan Schumacher]

Given that he uses the word "we" he's could also be talking about internally in terms of things like investment, time, focus, etc, as well as a host of other things from an internal perspective.

Though I'm not privy to how the executive team assesses "new" vs "old" IP, so it seems as though he is making a comparison to me, though I don't know in what ways.

[Allan Schumacher]

James Ohlen was the lead designer on KoTOR from what I recall.

Casey was the Project Director of KOTOR (the same title he had for the Mass Effect games).

Lead Designer for KOTOR was Ohlen. Preston Watamaniuk was the lead designer for all 3 Mass Effect games.

[Allan Schumacher]

I'm certainly in favour of re-invention (and in DA:I's case, the results are looking pretty impressive and spectacular even from the small amount we've seen), but the wording of calling it 'a whole new approach' does make me wonder about the parts of DA:I that *are* intended to be radically different and, well, new.

Well, unlike other sequels BioWare has made, this one IS being made on an entirely new engine which certainly necessitates "a whole new approach."

Come to think of it, none of BioWare's sequels have done something like this before.

[Allan Schumacher]

But that doesn't make it a new IP. It might be a new vision, a new direction, a new engine, a new development style... but it is not a new IP.

Because the article itself is actually about "EA to release one to two new IPs per year."

In retrospect, once I read the headline, it seems obvious that for the launch of next gen, they're equating the effort going into Dragon Age: Inquisition as being akin to what they'd like to do with new IPs going forward.

So at best, it's an excuse for why the statement "one to two new IPs per year" doesn't apply to the first year.


So internally, they're considering it on par with their plans for actual new IPs.

The answer I think in all of those cases is no. Unless, as Merin stated,
we're just going to start making it a habit of blurring every
definition or word we can so that having a conversation at all is
nothing but fighting over the meaning of words?

I think people here are already making a habit of reading far too much into the statement (and most statements in general), especially given the context of the actual article.

No, it's not a new IP.  So feel free to call EA a bunch of liars for not holding up to one to two new IPs per year.  (Just do it elsewhere)

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 24 août 2013 - 06:20 .

[Allan Schumacher]

So, I guess... EA doesn't want to sound like they are just pushing out sequels (a critique they have heard often), so they are going to start calling their sequels new IPs...?

I mean... I don't even know what treating an existing game franchise like a new IP even means. Does it mean they are going to market it heavily, since there would be no pre-existing brand recognition to increase its awareness? Does it mean they are going for an entirely different demographic? I didn't realize there would be a different corporate function for EA with a new IP versus an existing one.

(Emphasis mine)

Unfortunately, it's probably just an off the cuff statement with a guy who's talking on the spot on the show floor of Gamescom. It's not a dedicated PR statement. Note that stuff like this happens all the time (someone posted a PAX "interview" with Patrick Weekes that he thought was just a conversation with a fan).

Although at least you can acknowledge that you might not actually know what that means.

Though I think this is classic over analysis which fandom tends to do. No, it's not a fresh new IP (Frank straight up states that it is a sequel). Although for Frank, for whatever reason, is equated the delivery of DAI as part of the "one to new IPs per year." He actually disassociated it from the sports games and stuff like Need for Speed.

Technically, it's "on Sylvius and I's side."

Technically it's "on Sylvius' and my side."

If that is the case, then only half a dozen games sounds like very few games to have in development for a corporation the size of EA. Bioware alone is bringing 3 of those games. Just admit it makes no sense.

Half a dozen original IPs is the word used. Just admit you are being pedantic to EA because it's EA (rhetorical: I did this to point out it's pretty damned annoying when someone concludes their post with something like this).

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 24 août 2013 - 07:55 .

[Allan Schumacher]

But a new game engine doesn't at all mean it's a new Intellectual Property.

It really isn't what the defintion of "IP" is, though. What should be mocked is how the word "new" is being used.

THAT's the eyebrow raising part of the statement.

I think it's over analysis of an ad hoc interview at GamesCom about how EA internally is categorizing the game as a part of its long term plan going forward.

At best, EA feels it's important to focus on new IP, and is considering DAI to be of equivalent importance.
At worst, EA wants to have one to two new IP per year, and is saying that it considers DAI to be equivalent because it saves face in the event of not having one to two actually new IP.


For me it's so "nothing to see here" once I read the full article.

Now, you can decide that Frank should always be excruciatingly careful about how he says things (I've learned that on this forum myself), but at the same time, Aaryn Flynn was called out on his twitter for the choice of "Do I save the village or let it burn" and responded with something akin to "It didn't come out the way I had meant. I was more meaning do you choose something else at the expense of the village?"

Welcome to people talking. If some of you have never said something and had it make perfect sense in your own head, but had an observer wonder what it meant, this seems like one of those moments.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 24 août 2013 - 07:55 .

[Allan Schumacher]

In Exile wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...
Now, you can decide that Frank should always be excruciatingly careful about how he says things (I've learned that on this forum myself), but at the same time, Aaryn Flynn was called out on his twitter for the choice of "Do I save the village or let it burn" and responded with something akin to "It didn't come out the way I had meant. I was more meaning do you choose something else at the expense of the village?"

So like in DA:A? 

I think you're over analyzing the specifics of the choice again... hahaha.

But yeah, Amarathine (from what I can remember.  I didn't really work on Awakening nor did I play it through, unfortunately) would probably be appropriate.

It's more generally:  "Choose thing A, which may have consequences elsewhere, or choose something else, which has consequences with how thing A plays out."


Although the example was more to illustrate that something may come across clear in one's head, but others read into it differently.  Aaryn's is a bit more worthy of scrutiny, however, since it was actually part of active promotion of the game.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 24 août 2013 - 08:04 .

[Allan Schumacher]

nuts...I was kinda hoping the 'lead the world to it's end' line in the orginal trailer was literal, just decide to burn the lot smilie (hopefully in the name of the old gods, or for the loot in the ruins)  The option to be truly nasty, not 'renegade' but utterly without remorse in pursuit not of a glorious goal, ot salvation, but just because you have power and other people do not, and those without power are to bend the knee or burn.  Warlord Inquisitor has a ring to it, don't you think?

I'm not at all sure why you drew this conclusion from a dissection of Aaryn's statement.

Especially since the scenario you picked still seems to support "choose one path, it has consequences.  Choose another path, it has different consequences."

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 24 août 2013 - 10:30 .

[Allan Schumacher]

There were some people that criticized Aaryn because, the way they interpreted his options, was that the choice was "actively choose to save the village" or "actively choose to instead burn the village" (i.e. the choice was between "Be a nice guy" and "Be a sociopathic arsonist.")

The person sarcastically used the phrase "DEEP ****" in response.

[Allan Schumacher]

It is used in a very negative light. IMO someone was making fun of Aaryn for saying that. I also took the the term "Deep" to mean meaningful. but hey, reading comments online and having to interpret them.

Equivalent to sarcastically saying "wow, that's some real deep choices you have there...." By Aaryn's response, I feel he took it the same way.

[Allan Schumacher]

ManchesterUnitedFan1 wrote...

I'm pretty sure the Twitter user said 'Deep ****'.

Please do not cirumvent the language filter.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 24 août 2013 - 11:57 .

[Allan Schumacher]

Foshizzlin wrote...

I really just hate EA altogether.

Points for at least being honest about it.

[Allan Schumacher]

In any case, lest people read more into the comments further I'm going to snip this article as I feel it's been discussed thoroughly enough and is more a question of EA business philosophy than really DAI.