192 réponses à ce sujet

[Allan Schumacher]

This thread is outliving its relevance to DAI.

Shall I move it to Off topic?

[Sanunes]

Modifié par Sanunes, 25 octobre 2013 - 06:06 .

[Allan Schumacher]

Battlefield 4 was in development shortly after BF3 was released, and thus far, the general consensus is BF4 is looking rushed and incomplete.

Who's consensus? It's not the consensus I have heard (I haven't heard much of a consensus). The little bit online that I find sees a wide variety of yays and nays, while anyone personally that I know has been really enjoying it. Remember, people have an affinity to interact with people with with similar interests.

I'm glad you have that help. However, ME3's sour taste in still in my mouth. I suppose I shouldn't be so quick to make conclusions, but I can't help but worry DA:I is going to be the ME3 of the Dragon Age franchise.

That's fine. Obviously your trust in the company is shaken, and you have your reasons for that and no one can tell you otherwise.

GIven your most recent post, you seem to simply be using the term "rushed" as an equivalent for "poor." I'd hesitate to use the word rushed if you're meaning something else, because for myself it definitely draws a direct examination as the length of time on development.

I wouldn't categorize Dead Island as rushed (note: I haven't played the game). 8 years of development resulting in a poor game is likely indicative of serious development issues. Spending too much time on something can definitely mean serious problems with addressing scope, feature creep, prototyping, and so forth.

However, I do appreciate your clarification since I can more accurately understand what you're talking about. If you feel the word is the best application for you, that's fine. Just keep it in mind that you may need to elaborate on that from time to time in case people assume you're talking about the timeline specifically.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 25 octobre 2013 - 07:52 .

[bEVEsthda]

Rushing, has IMO nothing, to very little, to do with the perceived or experienced failure of various games.

Taking DA2, for example, I did not see much direct evidence of rushing. On the contrary, the game is solid and homogenous, and seems very much finished. Only the re-use of environments indicate a desire to make the game longer than they had time to.

Now, one could speculate about that the design team were presented with certain budget perimeters, and then sat down and discussed what sort of holistic approach would be the best option. Further one could then also speculate about that certain decisions where heavily influenced by desired timings.

However: The big reason for DA2's failure, was the re-direction of the franchise. And that disastrous and ill-adviced change could hardly have anything to do limited time. On the contrary.

And I'll say the same about other EA-failures. Bad decisions, bad directions, is what made the games poor. No amount of development time could have fixed them, as long as you persist in sticking to bad decisions.


Edit: And once again, I do not see much hate or youtube-imbecility by that video.
It has almost 500 likes against only 39 dislikes, for instance.

What I do see is people expressing their disappointment in DA2. And that is something that is utterly universal and normal, for every other channel or community, except the current make up of Bioware DA forum. Only here are the factions 50-50. And that is only because an enormous amount of forumites have either become perma-banned or turned their back against Bioware. And because DA2 has brought in a number of different, new fans.

What I also see is some persons expressing their resentment and distrust of EA. Again, this is a widespread and dominant opinion outside, in the big world. Nothing strange or out of order.

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 25 octobre 2013 - 11:09 .

[Das Tentakel]

bEVEsthda wrote...

Rushing, has IMO nothing, to very little, to do with the perceived or experienced failure of various games.

Taking DA2, for example, I did not see much direct evidence of rushing. On the contrary, the game is solid and homogenous, and seems very much finished. Only the re-use of environments indicate a desire to make the game longer than they had time to.

Now, one could speculate about that the design team were presented with certain budget perimeters, and then sat down and discussed what sort of holistic approach would be the best option. Further one could then also speculate about that certain decisions where heavily influenced by desired timings.

However: The big reason for DA2's failure, was the re-direction of the franchise. And that disastrous and ill-adviced change could hardly have anything to do limited time. On the contrary.

And I'll say the same about other EA-failures. Bad decisions, bad directions, is what made the games poor. No amount of development time could have fixed them, as long as you persist in sticking to bad decisions.

'Stripped down and reorganized with a different focus to fit a limited budget and appeal to a wider audience' is maybe how I would describe the impression I got from DA2.

[bEVEsthda]

Das Tentakel wrote...

'Stripped down and reorganized with a different focus to fit a limited budget and appeal to a wider audience' is maybe how I would describe the impression I got from DA2.

Ummm, yes. That sorta also fits, I guess.
Except I'd say perceived wider audience.

And I'd also say precisely that, is the problem with most EA failures.

[Mathias]

supremebloodwolf wrote...

Haters gonna hate. I believe the reason they are acting up is because it's different and there's always someone that's going to hate something for being different.

You can't really chalk this up to "haters gonna hate".

Lest we forget Bioware's last three games were DA2, ToR and ME3. Each one was surrounded by controversy regarding the quality of the games. A lot of fans have felt burnt by Bioware lately, so there's no surprise that there's a degree of cynicism.

I personally think DA:I is looking great. I mean I thought the desert area in that gameplay video looked a bit bland, but the area from the Pax Demo looked great and the game is still a year away.

[Mathias]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Foshizzlin wrote...

Battlefield 4 was in development shortly after BF3 was released, and thus far, the general consensus is BF4 is looking rushed and incomplete. I'm not trying to say EA is dooming Bioware, but it's a known fact, they rush games a lot. They rushed ME3, they rushed DA2, they rushed TOR, they rushed BF4. You can't blame me for suspecting they'll rush DA:I too.

And how is ME3, a game that got delayed for 6 months, a game with more development time than ME2, a rushed game?

November 2011 - March 2012 is 6 months? Math.

Plus a lot of people at least felt the last few hours of ME3 were rushed, especially with that ending.

As for DA:I, so far the game is looking pretty good and it's still a year away from release. I don't think DA:I is coming off as a rushed game, as we know they've been working on it for at least 2 years now. 

Modifié par Mdoggy1214, 25 octobre 2013 - 05:16 .

[Ianamus]

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...

Foshizzlin wrote...

Battlefield 4 was in development shortly after BF3 was released, and thus far, the general consensus is BF4 is looking rushed and incomplete. I'm not trying to say EA is dooming Bioware, but it's a known fact, they rush games a lot. They rushed ME3, they rushed DA2, they rushed TOR, they rushed BF4. You can't blame me for suspecting they'll rush DA:I too.

And how is ME3, a game that got delayed for 6 months, a game with more development time than ME2, a rushed game?

November 2011 - March 2013 is 6 months? Math.

Plus a lot of people at least felt the last few hours of ME3 were rushed, especially with that ending.

As for DA:I, so far the game is looking pretty good and it's still a year away from release. I don't think DA:I is coming off as a rushed game, as we know they've been working on it for at least 2 years now. 

ME3 wasn't rushed. It just had a really, really badly written ending. I hate it when people try to blame EA for Mass Effect 3's ending, because while I don't agree with several of their design choices the quality of the writing of the ending is entirely down to Bioware, and entirely Biowares fault if it is bad. 

Considering how brilliant the writing of other parts of ME3's story were and the overall high quality I seriously doubt that they didn't have enough time to think of other ending options, and thats not even getting into the rumours that only two of ME3's writing team actually handled the ending, and that it wasn't looked at by the enitre team like the rest of the story. 

[Mathias]

EJ107 wrote...

ME3 wasn't rushed. It just had a really, really badly written ending. I hate it when people try to blame EA for Mass Effect 3's ending, because while I don't agree with several of their design choices the quality of the writing of the ending is entirely down to Bioware, and entirely Biowares fault if it is bad. 

Considering how brilliant the writing of other parts of ME3's story were and the overall high quality I seriously doubt that they didn't have enough time to think of other ending options, and thats not even getting into the rumours that only two of ME3's writing team actually handled the ending, and that it wasn't looked at by the enitre team like the rest of the story. 

I've never blamed EA for the ending. But let's not act like Mass Effect 3 didn't get the development time it truly need to reach it's potential and fufill the unspoken promise of how much our choices would affect the final game. That game had it's problems, not JUST the ending.

[Rawgrim]

DA2 reminded me of the last Ultima games, to be honest. Ultima was probably the Dragon Age\\Elder Scrolls series of the 80s and 90s, for those of you who are not familiar with the games. Then EA too over Origin System, and rushed out Ultima 8 and 9. Those two games got turned from rpgs, to action games, as well. I got the exact same feeling when I played DA2 as when I played Ultima 9.

That being said, DA:I looks to be a very very good game. Nine out of ten times when something new is shown about that game, I like it alot. The game getting an extra year for development just adds more weight to my hopes for the game.

[Mathias]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

November 2011 - March 2012 is 6 months? Math.

You may not have realized, but the Mass Effect 2 came out in January of 2010.

So that's actually three years, though there was likely some down time.

And, no, the entire team does not work on DLC. You're incorrect there.

(and it's obvious, playing some of the ME2 DLC, that they were developing ME3 at the same time--the storylines).

So. Math.

Mass Effect 3 was originally suppose to be released in November 2011, but got "delayed" to March 2012. That's not a 6 month delay. That's 4 at most. I also never said anything about DLC.

Not sure if you're clear in the head today.

Relevant.

Well saying "unspoken" was me being a little fair to Bioware, but they did in fact talk a big game about how much our choices would affect ME3. Some of the specifics they mentioned didn't even happen.

Modifié par Mdoggy1214, 25 octobre 2013 - 10:06 .

[Angrywolves]

DAI revelance ROTFL.
One of my coworkers mentioned Supernatural today and that reminded me of Felicia Day.
She was at the recent NY Comicon.
So were Laidlaw and Gaider. Don't recall seeing anything about that on the BSN. Maybe I missed it. Anyway, they were there to talk about the Dragon Age comics , and not DAI. I found that a bit odd since the NY con seems a huge event. So we can discuss Day yet again, whether she is in DAI, do you want her in DAI, if so what role should she play if not why not ?
I hope that's relevant enough.
ROTFL .

[LOLandStuff]

FD should stick to bad fanfiction without beta reading and away from DA.

[Reaverwind]

Angrywolves wrote...

DAI revelance ROTFL.
One of my coworkers mentioned Supernatural today and that reminded me of Felicia Day.
She was at the recent NY Comicon.
So were Laidlaw and Gaider. Don't recall seeing anything about that on the BSN. Maybe I missed it. Anyway, they were there to talk about the Dragon Age comics , and not DAI. I found that a bit odd since the NY con seems a huge event. So we can discuss Day yet again, whether she is in DAI, do you want her in DAI, if so what role should she play if not why not ?
I hope that's relevant enough.
ROTFL .

No, I don't want to see her in DA:I. 

[BlazingSpeed]

Dabrikishaw wrote...

Yes, disappointed fans are a different story. They criticize the product and continue to buy in honest hopes of the next product being better.

Yep,

[wolfhowwl]

Dragon Age II happened. Its reception was less than ideal...

Wozearly wrote...
On the other hand, you have the DA2 detractors, who everyone knows represent the huge majority of DA series players, maintaining a sustained and vocal criticism of things they don't like, because lapsing into silence might
lead to a second DA2. They're often intolerant of the tiny minority of massive DA2 fans whose praise for disliked features gets in the way, and implies widespread resistance, and so cannot be allowed to be spoken unchallenged.

I am not sure that they are a "huge majority" but the BSN is pretty much the only place you find DA2 defenders (even after an exodus of people who didn't like DA2 from the site it still has a very mixed reception here)  and the game is radioactive everywhere else.

Modifié par wolfhowwl, 25 octobre 2013 - 11:53 .