588 réponses à ce sujet

[sandalisthemaker]

Morocco Mole wrote...

There will be double teaming in the future

You are sooooooooo cool.....

[dreamgazer]

J. Reezy wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

J. Reezy wrote...

Morocco Mole wrote...

I hope there are co-op romances

This man is ahead of his time. Dat revolutionary thinking.

Fable III's got him beat.

But can they indulge in polygamy with the same person(s)?

Knowing that game, maybe.

(No, I don't think so.)

[Secretlyapotato]

I'd be disappointed but I'd get over it.

[Plaintiff]

TheBlackBaron wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

TheBlackBaron wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

That's not how media development works. Generally speaking, the developer goes to the publisher and says "We want to include feature XYZ and here's why we think you should give us the money for it."

The publisher says "That is a convincing argument, you can has dis moneez" or, alternatively "That is not a convincing argument, we keep dis moneez".

If the developer decides to then cut that feature, they do not get to just keep the money and spend it on whatever the hell they like. That money doesn't belong to them. It belongs to the publisher.

Or, just thinking out loud here, they might consider justifying using money that would have gone into the romances to instead enhance feature XYZ.

It's feasible, sure. But if the publisher already gave them money for feature XYZ, they might very well say no. If I was a publisher I would want to know why my developers suck so much at estimating how much money they need to polish a feature to an acceptable standard.

I didn't give them the money to fix a feature that shouldn't need fixing. I gave it to them for a new feature. They've already spent some of my money on that new feature, that I will now never get back. Why should I let them keep it to spend on something else entirely?

You've misunderstood. 

I have five zots. I spend them on features XYZ. I have another five zots I might have spent on romance. In both cases, I would have developed the features to a B level. 

Or, alternatively, I might instead speand all ten zots on features XYZ and develop them to an A level. 

In a perfect world I'd get twenty zots and develop them both to the A level, but I'm sort of operating under the assumption here that publishers aren't my person checking fund and generally expect to not have to sell ten million copies to make their money back because I sent the budget up to Daikatana levels. 

But that's still not how it works. EA doesn't give Bioware a lump sum of zots and ask them to make "a game", the allocation of zots is accounted for in detail. Every department has a separate budget. Extra zots left over from the graphics department does not get automatically funnelled to another department. Any number of things could happen to it.

There is no guarantee whatsoever that removing romance from DA2 would've improved any aspect of the game.

[Ieldra]

@OP:
I'd be of two minds. I'd be disappointed that there are no romances. After all, romances you have a choice about are not too common in video games. On the other hand, I'd appreciate being able to create a character without taking romances into consideration. It'd be one less element that draws me into different directions when creating a character.

Otherwise....*shrug*. I play for the story, and romances are a nice add-on to it, but they're just that: an add-on. The story - if good - wouldn't be much less compelling without them. A romance could be more than an add-on, but that's - by design - not the way Bioware writes them. That, too, I'm very much ok with.

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

greengoron89 wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

You don't "know" anything. Your personal taste is just that. Personal.

I'll remember that next time you throw one of your little poltical fits.

Gods Plaintiff you're such a bigot.

Must be your privilege talking.

Modifié par Grand Admiral Cheesecake, 07 septembre 2013 - 05:25 .

[Plaintiff]

LindsayLohan wrote...
Developer :" Hey Client we are developing AAA software for you but we plan on cutting out the extra features to improve the core features"

Client : " I don't think that is a good idea why don't you give me my money back and make room for the mediorcre features?"

Developer : "Seems Legit"

Does not compute tbh.

Of course that doesn't compute, that's nonsense. What would most likely happen is:

Developer: "Hey Client we are developing AAA software for you but we plan on cutting out the extra features to improve the core features."

Client: "I already gave you money for the core features. If you're not making those extra features then give me my money back and print the software as is. I'll give these resources to a developer that doesn't suck at budgeting."

[werewoof]

on a more serious note though

what i've seen a lot of is "bioware should remove the romances so we could see the TRUE COLORS of people who only play the game for romance" and thats kind of a weird argument because most people who only play the game for the romance openly admit to doing so and the romance is a major selling point to what (in origins at least) was another stock fantasy franchise with moderately good graphics and clunky outdated gameplay

so you want bioware to make what is ultimately a pretty drastic and terrible economic decision (and i mean removing romance entirely, not just cutting back on it) and lose one of their key selling points

to prove a point that has already unapologetically been proven and has no real bearing on your actual game experience

kay

anyways i prolly wouldnt play it because im a gross icky girl who likes the gross dumb romance with the backdrop of a mildly well executed plot and a pc that can handle the mods that make the gameplay bearable

take away the romance and i might grab it on sale one day, but i wont pay $60 for it when it just isnt all that interesting to me

(ps what one might think is the most important thing developmentally for the game isnt necessarily its greatest selling point to the general public. yes it makes sense from a programming and game development standpoint to focus on core features and say screw it to the extra things, but from an economic view, its a really dumb move to get rid of the "fanservicey" things that actually sell the game. not a lotta people are going to buy it because the back of the box says "this game has good core programming") 

Modifié par tiktac, 07 septembre 2013 - 05:28 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Morocco Mole wrote...

There will be double teaming in the future

I want threesomes. And more.

[Plaintiff]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

greengoron89 wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

greengoron89 wrote...
What I want is for Bioware to get back on track and put out a worthy follow-up to DA:O.

Which will be acheived by them doing what you want them to, and not what others want them to, which is exactly sandalisthemaker's point.

Your idea of a "worthy follow-up" to DA:O is not objective or uncontestable.

I know it doesn't involve placating <insert Bioware character here>mancers at every turn.

And that's more than you seem to know.

You don't "know" anything. Your personal taste is just that. Personal.

Same for you buddy.

Herp derp. I don't parade my opinion around as fact and I never did.

[TheBlackBaron]

Plaintiff wrote...

But that's still not how it works. EA doesn't give Bioware a lump sum of zots and ask them to make "a game", the allocation of zots is accounted for in detail. Every department has a separate budget. Extra zots left over from the graphics department does not get automatically funnelled to another department. Any number of things could happen to it.

There is no guarantee whatsoever that removing romance from DA2 would've improved any aspect of the game.

Before I even send the proposal to the publisher, I have to create a design document and ask for the budget necessary to fulfill it. I could, instead of asking for money to develop romances, instead ask for more money to develop feature XYZ in greater detail, without changing the total budget I'm asking for the game - because, again, I assume the publisher is financing this to make a profit and not as my personal art house project. 

If it's the latter, **** it, it's threesome time with Tali and Traynor. 

Modifié par TheBlackBaron, 07 septembre 2013 - 05:30 .

[Plaintiff]

TheBlackBaron wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

But that's still not how it works. EA doesn't give Bioware a lump sum of zots and ask them to make "a game", the allocation of zots is accounted for in detail. Every department has a separate budget. Extra zots left over from the graphics department does not get automatically funnelled to another department. Any number of things could happen to it.

There is no guarantee whatsoever that removing romance from DA2 would've improved any aspect of the game.

Before I even send the proposal to the publisher, I have to create a design document and ask for the budget necessary to fulfill it. I could, instead of asking for money to develop romances, instead ask for more money to develop feature XYZ in greater detail, without changing the total budget I'm asking for the game - because, again, I assume the publisher is financing this to make a profit and not as my personal art house project. 

If it's the latter, **** it, it's threesome time with Tali and Traynor. 

Publishers aren't idiots. You have to demonstrate why a specific feature warrants additional resources.

[dreamgazer]

I had not heard of Agile, Ms. Lohan. Thank you for the quick and dirty lesson.

[Plaintiff]

LindsayLohan wrote...
Agile is a development methodology that bioware uses. They are developing through iterations and according to their progress they can be able to make decisions. If through development they find out that the romances are not worth it but they want to keep the money they most likely will. The publisher wants them to sell copies so that they can make a profit off it. There is no reason for the publisher to be stingy to a trusted company with a AAA title. Does not make sense

If, through development, they find that romances "aren't worth it", that money has already been spent.

[TheBlackBaron]

Plaintiff wrote...

Publishers aren't idiots. You have to demonstrate why a specific feature warrants additional resources.

I'm glad they aren't idiots. It makes it a lot easier to justify spending money to improve core feature G instead of spending it on creating optional feature R. 

Modifié par TheBlackBaron, 07 septembre 2013 - 05:35 .