215 réponses à ce sujet

[BigEvil]

deuce985 wrote...
Me? I'm just going to enjoy 2 AAA RPGs.

This is the attitude I'm adopting. Cutting out the drama and just enjoying the games that are coming out. Also agree with the rest of your post.

I'm trying to ignore marketing for games and so far I'm happier for it. Marketing is clearly not aimed at me. Don't know who it is aimed at most of the time, fictional people perhaps, or that illusive 'broader audience'.

[KR4U55]

El_Chala_Legalizado wrote...

One word:
Marketing.

I like this quarian! He understands!

Anyways, The game is supposed to sell well. From time to time I see fans asking for the female inquisition in the marketing or similar stuff. I'd like to remember everybody that how EA does the marketing does not change the game itself. An example: Only the human male Inquisitor is shown on gameplay demos. Some brief seconds of the character creator (BTW, please Bioware release a character creator a la Origins) but they finally go with human male Inquisitor. Does that mean the game does not have more races to choose? Again, marketing.

The "a new IP" phase means this: "we want you, the gamer who has never played any Dragon Age before, to buy this new DA, cause' this is totally a new game."

[In Exile]

BigEvil wrote...
This is the attitude I'm adopting. Cutting out the drama and just enjoying the games that are coming out. Also agree with the rest of your post.

Obviously this is wrong. Only one game must be good (the one you like most) and all others have to be trash to validate your opinion. You just don't realize how ahead you come out when 90% of the products in an industry you like are bad. 

[ElitePinecone]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

That's very true. now that you mention it.

Reinvention is kinda a given when you literally have to build the RPG elements of the engine from scratch. 

[Brockololly]

ElitePinecone wrote...
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.

Because Gibeau is puffing smoke when he's saying that.

Its a cheap way to act like EA is still being innovative and making "new" IPs when in reality they're basically taking existing IPs like Dragon Age, Mirror's Edge or Star Wars: Battlefront and basically making them nextgen. That's my impression anyway. I think when most people think of a "new IP" they're thinking of something never seen before- like Dragon Age: Origins or the original Dead Space or Mirror's Edge. Those were new IPs. These new games might be reboots or major overhauls internally in how they're made, but making another DA game isn't a new IP.

Allan Schumacher wrote...
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.

Yeah, but in the big picture and for the longest time, BioWare really never did sequels at all. You basically had BG2 as the only true BioWare sequel for a long time until ME2 and then ME3 came out. Then DA2.

Its actually kind of interesting, since for years and years early BioWare up to around the time of Origins did nothing but new IP and expansion packs with BG2 being the only true sequel. But since then its been nothing but sequels with ME2, ME3, DA2 and now DA3.

Modifié par Brockololly, 24 août 2013 - 05:43 .

[In Exile]

Brockololly wrote...
Its actually kind of interesting, since for years and years early BioWare up to around the time of Origins did nothing but new IP and expansion packs with BG2 being the only true sequel. But since then its been nothing but sequels with ME2, ME3, DA2 and now DA3.

I don't know if I'd say that Bioware did nothing but new IPs when they worked with D&D for half a decade and then had a quick stopover at a star wars license. It all depends on what you think of when you say IP. 

[Fast Jimmy]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

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.

I mean, like I said earlier... did the transition from 2D to 3D for Metroid or Zelda make them different Intellectual Properties? Did moving from the Aurora Engine to the Red Engine make The Witcher 2 a new IP from the original? Did adding an actual plot to the Grand Theft Auto series make it a new IP from the previous ones?

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?

[Fast Jimmy]

Filament wrote...

Or we could not fight over the meaning and just understand that he's using the term loosely at best.

But he didn't say it "is" a new IP, just that's how they're "considering" it. That seems like Allan said, to be more of a comparative statement. And yes that can be taken as empty marketing fluff, or if you believe as exile and devsin do, another sign of the impending gameplay reveal apocalypse.

It smacks of the marketing campaigns coming out right before ME3 that kept saying "focus on the journey, not the desitnation." And we all know what THAT was trying to prepare people for.

I'm not sure gameplay reveal apocalypse is the best phrase... but I do like it.

[Sejborg]

Not even Bioware understands what EA is saying about their game. How weird is this?

[cjones91]

Sejborg wrote...

Not even Bioware understands what EA is saying about their game. How weird is this?

That's why I dislike marketing teams nowadays because they don't know what the hell they are talking about.

[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 .

[Herr Uhl]

In Exile wrote...

Brockololly wrote...
Its actually kind of interesting, since for years and years early BioWare up to around the time of Origins did nothing but new IP and expansion packs with BG2 being the only true sequel. But since then its been nothing but sequels with ME2, ME3, DA2 and now DA3.

I don't know if I'd say that Bioware did nothing but new IPs when they worked with D&D for half a decade and then had a quick stopover at a star wars license. It all depends on what you think of when you say IP. 

JE is the only really new IP they made other than DA and ME.

[Fast Jimmy]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

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.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 24 août 2013 - 06:26 .

[Fast Jimmy]

krul2k wrote...

in all honesty, why even care?

As a business professional myself, I just find it a little stunning. I would get raked over the coals for trying to make some of these comments, so I'm just a little surprised that when EA wants to cover their tracks on previous statements (such as how many new IPs they are going to have on Year One of the new consoles), the decided upon response is "let's say a sequel that is not a reboot and still a continuation of the existing series is almost like a new IP." 

I would get chewed up and spit out for trying to pull a line like that.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 24 août 2013 - 06:39 .

[BigEvil]

In Exile wrote...

BigEvil wrote...
This is the attitude I'm adopting. Cutting out the drama and just enjoying the games that are coming out. Also agree with the rest of your post.

Obviously this is wrong. Only one game must be good (the one you like most) and all others have to be trash to validate your opinion. You just don't realize how ahead you come out when 90% of the products in an industry you like are bad. 

My opinion is already validated by my giant ego, thank you very much.

[Sejborg]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

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.

[Fast Jimmy]

EntropicAngel wrote...

MerinTB wrote...

Are you now going to say "it depends on what the word IP is", President Clinton?



Is Intellectual Property suddenly "a label" tossed into the ever growing dictionary of words that "we just can't define" so people can use them to mean WHATEVER?

So NOW you're on me and Sylvius' side.

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

If I want to be a grammar member of the National Socialist German Workers' Party.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 24 août 2013 - 06:44 .

[Sejborg]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

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

If I want to be a grammar member of the National Socialist German Workers' Party.

Just because you throw another person's name in there, I don't think you are supposed to change "my" to "I". At least not in my language - but it might be different for english, but I find that unlikely. But who knows? Let's ask Gibeau, he uses language in interesting ways. 

Modifié par Sejborg, 24 août 2013 - 06:51 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Sejborg wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

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

If I want to be a grammar member of the National Socialist German Workers' Party.

Just because you throw another person's namy in there, I don't think you are supposed to change "my" to "I". At least not in my language - but it might be different for english, but I find that unlikely. But who knows? Let's ask Gibeau, he uses language in interesting ways. 

In English, if you are listing off a list of things or names, you go with proper nouns, named nouns and then pronouns, with the last pronoun to be used always being yourself (if applicable). In such a case, it would always be "I" instead of "me."

For instance, if you, your dog, Bono, the Ambassador of Chile all walked down to a lake, you'd say "Bono, the ambassador of Chile, my dog and I all walked down to the lake."

It's silly, I know. But English is a silly language.

[In Exile]

EntropicAngel wrote...

In Exile wrote...

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". 

I disagree, practically. Both are saying the same basic thing--you don't need to play the other games to play this one.

They're not. One is saying that you should start with the third game. 

[SphereofSilence]

As long as EA do things in the best interests of Bioware, the quality of the game and fans, then I don't really care what he says.

In DA2, I believe EA pushed for a fast release. Consequently the game suffered. I'm also against mandating multiplayer in a game where single player is hard enough to get right (not in DA2, but for DAI).

However, it seemed that EA is giving Bioware time to make DAI great. The best thing that EA gave the franchise IMO must be the Frostbite 3 engine. There's no way a triple A franchise is going to hold up without a kick ass engine. Bioware was never going to get an excellent engine by themselves. So let's hope EA does more of the same thing in the future, and not dictate things that detract DA from being great.