215 réponses à ce sujet

[fchopin]

Well i am glad they are reinventing Dragon Age as after DA2 Dragon Age was almost dead for me.

I like all the new things planned for the game and hope we get better stories with better explanations.
So far we have more races like in DAO and a more expanded world for exploration similar to the witcher and probably a different combat system.

We could have two great RPG's next year.

[jstme]

I can understand trying to distance away from DA2, but stating that this is new IP.... Dumping DA:O too?
This is first bit of negative news about DA:I for me.,certainly a warning light.

[Sanunes]

ElitePinecone wrote...

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.

quoting the article for a moment

Frank Gibeau...

the exec explained that EA considers sequel Dragon Age: Inquisition as a new IP because it's being reinvented with "a new approach".

I will admit the Inquisition does look closer to Origins gameplay wise, but looking at it is really Dragon Age 2 a sequel to Dragon Age: Origins? For how much do the two games really share besides being in Thedas, for there are new protagionists, new quests, new characters, new locations.  Yes there are elements that are tied between the two games, but really besides with Lelianna's return to health if you made one choice in Origins, but I don't think anything in Dragon Age 2 if it was slightly tweaked so it wouldn't reference Dragon Age: Origins would impact the game.  Maybe its going to be the same with Inquistion, they will be implementing choices from the previous games, but they like any other BioWare game just add flavor to the game itself and not shape the game so it feels more independant then a sequel.

[Giubba]

Takeing in account the videos we saw i think it's not a completly inaccurate statement.

[ManchesterUnitedFan1]

Oh no, oh god, oh please no

[Cedryn]

I  just hope this is not the "new IP" Casey Hudson is supposed to work on .

[Karlone123]

Just don't do what they did with Dead Space 3, make me lose interest. A lot of stuff EA says always leaves me uncomfortable about games I like, especially when they try to interpret they are making improvements on a series but end up making the game more generalised to make it more appealing to other gamers. Hence I lose interest like I did with Dead Space 3. If EA supports features like multiple races and such, then I applaud them.

Modifié par Karlone123, 24 août 2013 - 01:06 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Giubba1985 wrote...

Takeing in account the videos we saw i think it's not a completly inaccurate statement.

What? Yes it is. It is totally inaccurate.


If they turned Call of Duty into a turn-based Stategy game, it wouldn't be a new IP. It would be an expansion of the IP, maybe even a reboot. But it isn't a new Intellectual Property. The Halo games having a corresponding set of books, which aren't video games at all, aren't a new IP. It is just a different form.

It still is the same setting, many of the same characters, same locations, same events, same everything with different mechanics. Mechanics are a good portion of the work, don't get me wrong... but it's like saying Metroid or Zelda wasn't the same property when they made the transition from 2D to 3D. If the old DA IP is over and they are starting a new one, then I'd like to place a bid to purchase the old IP, including all assets of the Intellectual Property - character designs, locations, history, lore, all of it. And then I'd like to see DA:I get made as a "new IP" if someone else owned the old one.


Geez. I thought Gibeau was being dense as a rock when I read this... but apparently, people who don't understand anything about basic business concepts are actually the dense ones for agreeing this is even remotely true or possible.

[ManchesterUnitedFan1]

Can we just have EA say NOTHING about the game and let the actual makers of it handle the marketing?

[Nightwing99]

a good question is why any one cares about this . marketing is part of any business just accept it and stop careing what they say

[Star fury]

Nightwing99 wrote...

a good question is why any one cares about this . marketing is part of any business just accept it and stop careing what they say

Compare how Blizzard are doing marketing with Bioware.

[Nightwing99]

Star fury wrote...

Nightwing99 wrote...

a good question is why any one cares about this . marketing is part of any business just accept it and stop careing what they say

Compare how Blizzard are doing marketing with Bioware.

I do not care about how any one  do marketing 

[ghost_ronin]

People listen to CEOs?

[Nightwing99]

ghost_ronin wrote...

People listen to CEOs?

I agree

[In Exile]

ElitePinecone wrote..
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.

They're laying the groundwork, IMO, for a complete change in gameplay and a chance to distance themselves from DA2. I'll bet we won't see real-time with pause partry control combat making a comeback. 

[In Exile]

EntropicAngel wrote...
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.

But that's very different. It's one thing to say "ME3 is the best place to start" and another to say "Playing ME1 and ME2 isn't a prerequisite to understanding ME3". 

[In Exile]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
What? Yes it is. It is totally inaccurate.


If they turned Call of Duty into a turn-based Stategy game, it wouldn't be a new IP. It would be an expansion of the IP, maybe even a reboot. But it isn't a new Intellectual Property. The Halo games having a corresponding set of books, which aren't video games at all, aren't a new IP. It is just a different form.

It still is the same setting, many of the same characters, same locations, same events, same everything with different mechanics. Mechanics are a good portion of the work, don't get me wrong... but it's like saying Metroid or Zelda wasn't the same property when they made the transition from 2D to 3D. If the old DA IP is over and they are starting a new one, then I'd like to place a bid to purchase the old IP, including all assets of the Intellectual Property - character designs, locations, history, lore, all of it. And then I'd like to see DA:I get made as a "new IP" if someone else owned the old one.

Geez. I thought Gibeau was being dense as a rock when I read this... but apparently, people who don't understand anything about basic business concepts are actually the dense ones for agreeing this is even remotely true or possible.

I think you're focusing too much on the strict legal meaning of intellectual property. Putting aside whether changing the gameplay could constitute new IP, the intent behind statement (re-invention) is what players are reading into. 

[Giubba]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Giubba1985 wrote...

Takeing in account the videos we saw i think it's not a completly inaccurate statement.

What? Yes it is. It is totally inaccurate.


If they turned Call of Duty into a turn-based Stategy game, it wouldn't be a new IP. It would be an expansion of the IP, maybe even a reboot. But it isn't a new Intellectual Property. The Halo games having a corresponding set of books, which aren't video games at all, aren't a new IP. It is just a different form.

It still is the same setting, many of the same characters, same locations, same events, same everything with different mechanics. Mechanics are a good portion of the work, don't get me wrong... but it's like saying Metroid or Zelda wasn't the same property when they made the transition from 2D to 3D. If the old DA IP is over and they are starting a new one, then I'd like to place a bid to purchase the old IP, including all assets of the Intellectual Property - character designs, locations, history, lore, all of it. And then I'd like to see DA:I get made as a "new IP" if someone else owned the old one.


Geez. I thought Gibeau was being dense as a rock when I read this... but apparently, people who don't understand anything about basic business concepts are actually the dense ones for agreeing this is even remotely true or possible.

As i clearly wrote "completly" i imply that the original statement contained a part of inaccurancy but of course you have to completly fail to coprehend what i wrote and launch yourself in yet another tirade about the satanic EA.

So for being clear what the EA guy imply was that DA:I had so many changes respect origins and DA2 that it almost looks like a brand new IP.

But hey EA is the evil incarnate so not let slip a chance for make em look like the anticrhist that internet so strongly believe they are.

[Nerevar-as]

EntropicAngel wrote...
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.

Funny enough, I don´t think the same can be said about playing the game without having read the books.

Anyway, BW/EA´s marketing department is usually a disaster, so nothing new here. It often looks like they are more concerned about not scaring away shareholders rather than gamers. One would say after DA2 they would have learnt, but no.

[Fast Jimmy]

In Exile wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...
What? Yes it is. It is totally inaccurate.


If they turned Call of Duty into a turn-based Stategy game, it wouldn't be a new IP. It would be an expansion of the IP, maybe even a reboot. But it isn't a new Intellectual Property. The Halo games having a corresponding set of books, which aren't video games at all, aren't a new IP. It is just a different form.

It still is the same setting, many of the same characters, same locations, same events, same everything with different mechanics. Mechanics are a good portion of the work, don't get me wrong... but it's like saying Metroid or Zelda wasn't the same property when they made the transition from 2D to 3D. If the old DA IP is over and they are starting a new one, then I'd like to place a bid to purchase the old IP, including all assets of the Intellectual Property - character designs, locations, history, lore, all of it. And then I'd like to see DA:I get made as a "new IP" if someone else owned the old one.

Geez. I thought Gibeau was being dense as a rock when I read this... but apparently, people who don't understand anything about basic business concepts are actually the dense ones for agreeing this is even remotely true or possible.

I think you're focusing too much on the strict legal meaning of intellectual property. Putting aside whether changing the gameplay could constitute new IP, the intent behind statement (re-invention) is what players are reading into. 

I don't feel like one should be allowed to change the definition of a word just to suit a marketing campaign. 

If he had said they are going to be treating it as a new "franchise" or even "product," this would have made sense. But saying they view it as a new Intellectual Property is not accurate. It just isn't. No one uses IP in this context. They didn't talk about the Mario games that came out on the Wii as new IPs, simply because they incorporated the Wii's new gameplay and mechanics style. When Guitar Hero moved from just guitars to the full band in Guitar Hero 3, no one said it was a new IP, despite adding a number of different input sources and gameplay elements. 

These changes are much more drastic than making a game more open world. No one would say The Witcher 3 is a new IP, even though they are adding some of the many new elements that DA:I is. I get what they are trying to say, with distancing themsves from past games, both failures and successes, but it is a grossly inaccurate way of saying it, just to make it sound like they have a new game no one has heard of on the new consoles. 

As to the other perosn's response - I never said anything about EA being evil. I am simply saying what I've said many times in the past: I wouldn't count on EA to be able to market bottled water to a man dying of thirst in the desert. They have a terrible track record when talking about video games that makes both their fans and themselves look rather juvenile and incompetent. 

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 24 août 2013 - 03:05 .

[Sejborg]

Giubba1985 wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Giubba1985 wrote...

Takeing in account the videos we saw i think it's not a completly inaccurate statement.

What? Yes it is. It is totally inaccurate.


If they turned Call of Duty into a turn-based Stategy game, it wouldn't be a new IP. It would be an expansion of the IP, maybe even a reboot. But it isn't a new Intellectual Property. The Halo games having a corresponding set of books, which aren't video games at all, aren't a new IP. It is just a different form.

It still is the same setting, many of the same characters, same locations, same events, same everything with different mechanics. Mechanics are a good portion of the work, don't get me wrong... but it's like saying Metroid or Zelda wasn't the same property when they made the transition from 2D to 3D. If the old DA IP is over and they are starting a new one, then I'd like to place a bid to purchase the old IP, including all assets of the Intellectual Property - character designs, locations, history, lore, all of it. And then I'd like to see DA:I get made as a "new IP" if someone else owned the old one.


Geez. I thought Gibeau was being dense as a rock when I read this... but apparently, people who don't understand anything about basic business concepts are actually the dense ones for agreeing this is even remotely true or possible.

As i clearly wrote "completly" i imply that the original statement contained a part of inaccurancy but of course you have to completly fail to coprehend what i wrote and launch yourself in yet another tirade about the satanic EA.

So for being clear what the EA guy imply was that DA:I had so many changes respect origins and DA2 that it almost looks like a brand new IP.

But hey EA is the evil incarnate so not let slip a chance for make em look like the anticrhist that internet so strongly believe they are.

It looks nothing like a brand new IP to me. We have the same title, the same characters, the same setting, the same conflict, pretty much the same art style, the same menu, we will most likely have the same party system, and have the same options for companion interactions as the prior games, the same dialogue wheel. They even say they have a mix between the two former games gameplay system. What is making this look like a brand new IP? 

[Volus Warlord]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
As to the other perosn's response - I never said anything about EA being evil. I am simply saying what I've said many times in the past: I wouldn't count on EA to be able to market bottled water to a man dying of thirst in the desert. They have a terrible track record when talking about video games that makes both their fans and themselves look rather juvenile and incompetent. 

How dare you! H8ter!

EA marketing tactics may make you want to kill puppies w/ its gross innaccuracies, distortions, and fabrications, but you are not to criticize it. UNDERSTAND?!

[In Exile]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
I don't feel like one should be allowed to change the definition of a word just to suit a marketing campaign.  

Video game companies have already done that when they're using IP. To be more precise, they've created a colloquial, industry specific meaning for that word that doesn't really track the underlying legal reality that the word typically apprehends. 

If he had said they are going to be treating it as a new "franchise" or even "product," this would have made sense. But saying they view it as a new Intellectual Property is not accurate. It just isn't. No one uses IP in this context ... 

These changes are much more drastic than making a game more open world. No one would say The Witcher 3 is a new IP, even though they are adding some of the many new elements that DA:I is. I get what they are trying to say, with distancing themsves from past games, both failures and successes, but it is a grossly inaccurate way of saying it, just to make it sound like they have a new game no one has heard of on the new consoles.  

I won't disagree that it's a new use of the words IP in the video-game industry, but IP was never used correctly in the video-game industry. So from my POV, someone is just using an equally wrong but new meaning for the phrase.