160 réponses à ce sujet

[Arijharn]

Cop out answer: I'd rather them take as long as they need to craft an intriguing and engaging story with visuals to match. The last time they felt pressured to make something within a year or two we got DA2. Now I greatly enjoyed DA2, but it was clearly flawed in some ways. In the eyes of the public, BioWare's name was tarnished by this, deservedly or not. No one in their right minds (including EA) wants their brand image to be sabotaged, and BioWare aren't idiots either so they'll be working possibly extra hard to make sure DA:I is truly the 'dragon age game they've always wanted to make.'

 

Seeing what I have already, I'm pretty damn confident that the experience will deliver.

 

Now, after DA:I, I just hope the team migrates to a Jade Empire 2 project already.

[Maria Caliban]

Did no one read the OP lol?

No one read the original post.

[puppy maclove]

I'd like a new GOOD BW game, when it's ready! Be careful what you wish for. 

[movieguyabw]

Well, I was going to say that provided the games each had ample development time like years past, I don't see anything really wrong with them churning out the games much faster than they used to...

However after reading the post made by Wulfram *cough*andhart*cough* on the second page; I guess I just never really paid attention to how often they actually produce games. XD

[OctagonalSquare]

I'd be fine with it as long as the quality is not reduced.

[Grayvisions]

To be perfectly honest, it's really not about Bioware for me. My respect for their storytelling/gameplay decisions has waxed and waned, but it's always based on the product. It's the universes of Dragon Age and Mass Effect I love; the studio behind them isn't nearly as relevant as that, for me, these two IPs continue pushing the standards of video games as platforms for storytelling and social discourse. 

 

So, the real question for me is, would you buy a new Dragon Age/Mass Effect game every year and....yeah, probably would. 

[Osena109]

Bioware is not Ubisoft there running Assassin creed games in to the ground  i never want bioware to go down that road mass effect and dragon age games should never be rushed

[KC_Prototype]

If they can do it like Rockstar, then hell yes! 

[dekarserverbot]

Bioware is not Ubisoft there RUINING Assassin creed games in to the ground  i never want bioware to go down that road mass effect and dragon age games should never be rushed

 

Fixed

[Lieutenant Kurin]

This cycle thing you're talking about may already be happening. And before someone says "NO RUSHING", I'd like to be the ass that reminds people DA2 came out three years ago. And Inquisition looks to be the most amazing game yet *despite* revamping a WHOLE NEW ENGINE to work for an RPG. So three years seems appropriate. 

 

But let's get back to the original point. We have DAI from one Edmonton team coming in 2014, a brand new BioWare IP from another Edmonton team and ME? coming from Montreal. If those games come in 2015 and the other in 2016, this could already be happening. And the small amount of ME? stuff we've been seeing has been awesome. Customizable undersuits with non-sexed armour, an amazing Mako, the point being that this 1 new BioWare game per year (if ME? indeed comes in late 2015) wouldn't mean 1 year development cycles and doesn't mean shoddy work. The DA2 lesson has definitely been learned, (and so has at least one of SWTOR's lessons, as I received a tweet confirming same-sex romances in Shadow Realms).

 

THEY ARE LEARNING. NOT RUSHING. Give em a chance (especially because the problems in DA2/ME3/SWTOR were unrelated and vastly different to each other).

 

By the way the ME? thing is me saying the "next Mass Effect game" for simplicity. As ME4 is considered a bit disrespectful.

[NextArishok]

A new game a year would not offer the standard and quality I would want/expect in my games.  I wouldn't go for it personally.  I know that because I no longer buy Ubisoft games.

[NextArishok]

You don't think three years of development time is long enough to give a game "standards and quality?"

If I may ask, what games do you typically play? Because I'm willing to bet that the majority have less than a three-year development cycle.

If I'm honest I don't really game much anymore.  I just don't like what they are putting out.  Believe it or not DA:I will be the only game I have bought this year.  I'm not closed to buying other new games....I just don't like any of them.

 

The last game I bought new was GTAV and the game I bought before that was Last Of Us and before that Mass Effect 3.  As I said I refuse to buy Ubisoft games anymore, but I did play AC IV because a friend of mine that I gameshare with had it and wanted me to play...neither one of use lasted very long with the constant disconnects and being split up on different teams and such.

 

There is a flash sale on PSN this weekend and you can get Dynasty Warriors 7 Empires for 9.99.  I will be picking that one up. (probably)

 

Edit I was always a fan of the Dead Space series.  Dead Space 3 war free for PS+ users recently.  I did really like that game.

[Vinitchz]

Good games take time (sometimes more than three years, see bioshock infinite) to be made, it's not only about the studios and the code interface, we have the writers, concept art, voice acting, I rather have to wait for a epic experience than have a rushed project

[Gtdef]

My favorite rpg game to date is an expansion, so I think this idea can work perfectly fine. If the game plays well, keeping the same engine and gameplay while introducing new stories, either as standalone or expansions is a good thing for me. I think one year is an acceptable time period to write a story in an already established universe.

 

Also I think that improving on gameplay one step at a time is a better process for long terms changes than completely overhauling the gameplay every few years for same or similar ips.

 

I like the expansion model and I hate the dlc one, so it sounds great in my ears but tbh I think that some developers are better than others at making games in a shorter time frame. I wouldn't want DA to turn into FIFA and Madden.

[Osena109]

You don't think three years of development time is long enough to give a game "standards and quality?"

If I may ask, what games do you typically play? Because I'm willing to bet that the majority have less than a three-year development cycle.

Edit: fun fact about AC Unity starting development after AC Brotherhood, four years ago.

Ubisoft dos not care about PC players just  look at that pail of crap called watch dogs

[cronshaw]

 As ME4 is considered a bit disrespectful.

 

Why is that exactly?

[SomberXIII]

Nope. As much as I love Bioware games, one game per year plan would be a death sentence.

[Star fury]

So this thread leads me to believe that a fair amount of people respond to threads on this forum just on titles alone without actually reading the OP in most cases. 

 

I dunno why this is the case but it's amusing to read lol.

They tend to respond to provocative thread titles.

[Sidney]

Truthfully I'd prefer smaller more episodic things more frequently. I'd just as soon see them shave out the changes in skill trees, new combat methods and all the armor/inventory/crafting changes and focus on stories and character. Love Walking Dead and, to a lesser degree, Wolf Among Us in terms of how they deliver content.

[BigEvil]

Lots of others have mentioned several good points about why this could be bad. For me though, the main thing which comes to mind is how the hell I'd ever be able to play Bioware's games if they really were coming out one a year. I've still got a bunch of playthroughs I want to finish for DA:O, DA2, ME1-3, and DA:I is only a few months away. Add in playing other games for variety, and I'd struggle to finish the first playthrough of a Bioware game before another one was on the way (albeit from a different IP). Someone please think of my sanity (and wallet).

[Darth Death]

I'm sure EA was plotting this idea all along, but DA2 & ME3 put a stop to that.