To be fair, ME4 is probably a 2016 game, too.
If this means better quality and polish - I can wait! and probably at least 90% of you folks too.
I want MENext to be as perfect as it can get in BioWare's own wishes.
They surely want to make a great game and are hoping too EA won't get in the way.
That would mean next ME game would have 4 years of development.
Which is not exactly inspiring confidence as games developed for far too long can be a bigger mess then games with too short development cycle.
That would mean next ME game would have 4 years of development.
Which is not exactly inspiring confidence as games developed for far too long can be a bigger mess then games with too short development cycle.
With Bioware the rule seem to be longer development= Better game.
With Bioware the rule seem to be longer development= Better game.
Not really, Bioware itself said that if they have too long development it would only make the game even less likely to be released.
Personally, I do hope next ME game has development cycle long around 3 years.
2 years is too short( except for sports games) and 4 years is too long( except for MMO's).
Not really, Bioware itself said that if they have too long development it would only make the game even less likely to be released.
Personally, I do hope next ME game has development cycle long around 3 years.
2 years is too short( except for sports games) and 4 years is too long( except for MMO's).
I hope for a dev cycle of 3 years exactly. Maybe we can aim for release dates of late 2015, 2018 and 2021.
That would mean next ME game would have 4 years of development.
Which is not exactly inspiring confidence as games developed for far too long can be a bigger mess then games with too short development cycle.
DAO had technically been in "development" since as early as 2002 and wasn't released until 2009. DAI had been in development since as early as 2010 (during DA2 development) and it was delayed a year to be released next week in November of 2014. Arguably DAI hasn't been released, yet, but the early reception has been overwhelmingly positive and DAO was also incredibly well-received. My point is long gaming cycles can be a sign of success.
Look at The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind, which had begun development as early as 1994 and hadn't been released until 2002 because of technological limitations. Look at most of the Grand Theft Auto games and Red Dead Redemption. Look at Bioshock Infinite for its ridiculous development cycle. Look at any Blizzard game (Diablo, Starcraft, Warcraft) or Valve (Counterstrike, Half Life, Team Fortress 2) and you will see AAA developers with long cycles (five years or more) have amazing success. Not to mention, BioWare games are only getting bigger, not smaller. More time and effort is expected and welcomed quite frankly.
Not really, Bioware itself said that if they have too long development it would only make the game even less likely to be released.
Personally, I do hope next ME game has development cycle long around 3 years.
2 years is too short( except for sports games) and 4 years is too long( except for MMO's).
I call BS on that statement. As I told the poster above, plenty of AAA games that were major successes, including BioWare games, had long development cycles. BioWare games are only getting vastly larger and more complex. With each new installment BioWare is raising the standards and constantly pushing what they can do. Are you really naive enough to believe sticking to a 3-year-cyle is long enough to make an incredible experience? BGS was forced to release Skyrim prematurely due to the 11/11/11 release date with only a three year cycle since Fallout and was incredibly buggy because of how massive and complex it was. It still was an amazing success, but a lot of features and a lot of polishing were not possible due to the limited time to build the game. Three years is not a lot for development.
I hope for a dev cycle of 3 years exactly. Maybe we can aim for release dates of late 2015, 2018 and 2021.
No way. I wouldn't be surprised if BioWare starts pushing the cycles to four years because this is a new generation of gaming and the standards have risen. What they could do to give the "illusion" of three year cycles is have multiple teams working on projects early, similar to Ubisoft. After the others finish a title and ship, they can be transferred over to the new game and take it to full production to wrap it up. Of course, Ubisoft generally has ten studios, if not more working on Assassin's Creed with over a thousand developers. BioWare is not that large or comprehensive. Edmonton and Montreal handle their AAA titles (Austin handles SWTOR) so it's unlikely to expect three years. Four years at the very least.
That would mean next ME game would have 4 years of development.
Which is not exactly inspiring confidence as games developed for far too long can be a bigger mess then games with too short development cycle.
Well, maybe they get long development circles because they were already a mess in the first place.
Anyway, I believe a late 2015 or early 2016 is going to be when we have the next Mass Effect.
I am thinking EA is going to make the next Mass Effect game a tentpole for a Christmas release just like Dragon Age: Inquisition so it would be released either Q4 2015/2016. As far as the length of time developing it, it really depends on what they have been doing for like the Inquisition team they are working from the ground up again. I do think four years is a good amount of time for a game being released on a new engine, but if it was going to be released in 2015, I would have expected an announcement on N7 day this year or at least them having more then just concept material for us.
My guess is at these awards EA is going to be doing some heavy promotion on Battlefront for isn't that being released in 2015?
They surely want to make a great game and are hoping too EA won't get in the way.
Well, EA didn't seem to get in the way of Dragon Age: Inquisition (no Day 1 DLC apart from some minor pre-order bonuses, seemingly enough time to make the game as good as it can be etc.) so I'm cautiously optimistic about ME4. On the subject of DLC, not having day 1 character DLC is a massive step in the right direction, and while I'm OK with a few reasonably priced multiplayer map-packs, I hope the singleplayer DLC is handled with 1 big (15-20 hrs) expansion pack rather than 3-4 little add-ons.
Well, EA didn't seem to get in the way of Dragon Age: Inquisition (no Day 1 DLC apart from some minor pre-order bonuses, seemingly enough time to make the game as good as it can be etc.) so I'm cautiously optimistic about ME4. On the subject of DLC, not having day 1 character DLC is a massive step in the right direction, and while I'm OK with a few reasonably priced multiplayer map-packs, I hope the singleplayer DLC is handled with 1 big (15-20 hrs) expansion pack rather than 3-4 little add-ons.
True. It seemed to me DAI had a very healthy development cicle. Hopefully it will be the same for ME'4'.
About DLC... expasion pack are pretty much gone. A few games feature something like that, but I'd expect the same kind of DLC ME2 and ME3 had. Which were very good btw.
True. It seemed to me DAI had a very healthy development cicle. Hopefully it will be the same for ME'4'.
About DLC... expasion pack are pretty much gone. A few games feature something like that, but I'd expect the same kind of DLC ME2 and ME3 had. Which were very good btw.
Don't get me wrong. The Quality of Bioware's ME and DA DLCs aren't the problem, they're 'very good' at worst, and 'amazing' at best. It's just that some of them seem quite expensive for the amount of gameplay they give. I mean, if a bioware game gives 30 hours of gameplay for £45, then those 4 hour DLCs that ME3 got, shouldn't have cost more than £6-7 each, when they actually cost about £11. Still, I'm sure Bioware's DLC policy for DAI should give us an idea of what ME4's DLC should be in size, price, amount released etc.
EDIT: Also, hopefully ME4 will continue after the credits sequence and the DLC will advance the plot, as opposed to ME3's idea, where the DLC was showed in the middle of it, so it felt either disruptive, or like content that was 'cut from the original game'.
Don't get me wrong. The Quality of Bioware's ME and DA DLCs aren't the problem, they're 'very good' at worst, and 'amazing' at best. It's just that some of them seem quite expensive for the amount of gameplay they give. I mean, if a bioware game gives 30 hours of gameplay for £45, then those 4 hour DLCs that ME3 got, shouldn't have cost more than £6-7 each, when they actually cost about £11. Still, I'm sure Bioware's DLC policy for DAI should give us an idea of what ME4's DLC should be in size, price, amount released etc.
EDIT: Also, hopefully ME4 will continue after the credits sequence and the DLC will advance the plot, as opposed to ME3's idea, where the DLC was showed in the middle of it, so it felt either disruptive, or like content that was 'cut from the original game'.
ME2 DLCs were showed in the middle as well, except Arrival which advances the plot after the ending. LotSB was more like a spin-off than some part of the existing story. Same goes for Bring Down the Sky. Can't claim about Pinnacle Station, didn't play that.
ME2 DLCs were showed in the middle as well, except Arrival which advances the plot after the ending. LotSB was more like a spin-off than some part of the existing story. Same goes for Bring Down the Sky. Can't claim about Pinnacle Station, didn't play that.
But Overlord and LotSB could be played after the main story and did make sense if they were played after the main story. I suppose BDtS didn't. DLCs feel more like proper expansions if they're set AFTER the main plot, Freedom Cry from AC4 is a good example.
But Overlord and LotSB could be played after the main story and did make sense if they were played after the main story. I suppose BDtS didn't. DLCs feel more like proper expansions if they're set AFTER the main plot, Freedom Cry from AC4 is a good example.
I agree. From my experience with DLCs most were mid-game content though. Fallout 3 and New Vegas had only one post-ending DLC - Broken Steel, Deus-Ex: HR got that Missing Link. Dead Space 3 got that post-ending DLC (which I'd rather forget) 
DAO had technically been in "development" since as early as 2002 and wasn't released until 2009. DAI had been in development since as early as 2010 (during DA2 development) and it was delayed a year to be released next week in November of 2014. Arguably DAI hasn't been released, yet, but the early reception has been overwhelmingly positive and DAO was also incredibly well-received. My point is long gaming cycles can be a sign of success.
Look at The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind, which had begun development as early as 1994 and hadn't been released until 2002 because of technological limitations. Look at most of the Grand Theft Auto games and Red Dead Redemption. Look at Bioshock Infinite for its ridiculous development cycle. Look at any Blizzard game (Diablo, Starcraft, Warcraft) or Valve (Counterstrike, Half Life, Team Fortress 2) and you will see AAA developers with long cycles (five years or more) have amazing success. Not to mention, BioWare games are only getting bigger, not smaller. More time and effort is expected and welcomed quite frankly.
I call BS on that statement. As I told the poster above, plenty of AAA games that were major successes, including BioWare games, had long development cycles. BioWare games are only getting vastly larger and more complex. With each new installment BioWare is raising the standards and constantly pushing what they can do. Are you really naive enough to believe sticking to a 3-year-cyle is long enough to make an incredible experience? BGS was forced to release Skyrim prematurely due to the 11/11/11 release date with only a three year cycle since Fallout and was incredibly buggy because of how massive and complex it was. It still was an amazing success, but a lot of features and a lot of polishing were not possible due to the limited time to build the game. Three years is not a lot for development.
No way. I wouldn't be surprised if BioWare starts pushing the cycles to four years because this is a new generation of gaming and the standards have risen. What they could do to give the "illusion" of three year cycles is have multiple teams working on projects early, similar to Ubisoft. After the others finish a title and ship, they can be transferred over to the new game and take it to full production to wrap it up. Of course, Ubisoft generally has ten studios, if not more working on Assassin's Creed with over a thousand developers. BioWare is not that large or comprehensive. Edmonton and Montreal handle their AAA titles (Austin handles SWTOR) so it's unlikely to expect three years. Four years at the very least.
I don't think you give the Bioware devs enough credit. I've been thinking for awhile now that they aim for a cycling release schedule, releasing a DA game, new IP, and Mass Effect in the three year cycle. As various projects reach different stages they share devs between projects (You mentioned, something like this, they're already doing it). Like how a large number of the new ME devs have been working on Inquisition to get it polished up in its final stages. A large number of devs on the DAI team will probably go on loan to the new ME or the new IP. They don't need all hands on board for the early stages. This isn't like Ubisoft's insane dream to churn out a new Assassin's Creed every year, no matter how monotonous or samey they get. Bioware shipped out DA2 in 18 months, as I remember. It was flawed, but for the most part a solid experience. With twice that time, I'm optimistic about their ability to turn out something very satisfying.
Personally i doubt we will be getting anything, DA:I will have just came out and ME4 does not seem to be at the point where they have something solid to show off.
We may get a short teaser, think the legion/MIA one we got for mass effect 2.
I don't think you give the Bioware devs enough credit. I've been thinking for awhile now that they aim for a cycling release schedule, releasing a DA game, new IP, and Mass Effect in the three year cycle. As various projects reach different stages they share devs between projects (You mentioned, something like this, they're already doing it). Like how a large number of the new ME devs have been working on Inquisition to get it polished up in its final stages. A large number of devs on the DAI team will probably go on loan to the new ME or the new IP. They don't need all hands on board for the early stages. This isn't like Ubisoft's insane dream to churn out a new Assassin's Creed every year, no matter how monotonous or samey they get. Bioware shipped out DA2 in 18 months, as I remember. It was flawed, but for the most part a solid experience. With twice that time, I'm optimistic about their ability to turn out something very satisfying.
I'm not quite sure where we are disagreeing here. I believe more time is better, and you seem to be agreeing with me that DA2 could have been a much different game had it had the long cycle DAI did. From a game developer standpoint though, two years is short. One year is extremely short. In fact, I remember during the development of The Force Unleashed 2 that LucasArts demanded the sequel be out a year after the first game. The studio went to LucasArts and told them that would lead to an incredibly short game with a lack of polish and content. LucasArts didn't care. They just wanted another block buster hit to make them money. Suffice it to say, the short cycle of development showed and TFU 2 was a failure of epic proportions.
Certainly BioWare knows how to multi-task. They have been doing it for a very long time. My point though is that with these games becoming larger and more ambitious, they shouldn't feel compelled to rush things out the door. They should have the confidence to be Rockstar of Irrational Games and tell EA "we need more time before we ship." That in most cases will always lead to a better game, and as I said before BioWare games aren't getting simpler or smaller. As it stands right now, BioWare Montreal has been going head-first into MENext for a while and part of BioWare Edmonton will help them finish the game. The rest of the team will likely be dedicated towards ramping up the development of the Casey Husdon IP while a small portion of the team will continue to create DLC and future support for DAI.
They have a well-oiled machine and a stable apparatus in place. I'm just stating history suggests longer development cycles lead to a more fulfilling experience. I'd rather have more DAO's released in the future rather than DA2s. Not only will I appreciate the game more and play it longer, but the anticipation and excitement will build up higher because there is a longer period between games. It's hard to get excited for games that have shorter cycles and really do not innovate or change a lot from the previous installment. That is my own personal take on development anyways.
I'm not quite sure where we are disagreeing here. I believe more time is better, and you seem to be agreeing with me that DA2 could have been a much different game had it had the long cycle DAI did.
I think what he's saying is that by cleverly shuffling devs between dev teams and getting the teams at Edmonton and Montreal to co-operate, you can give games the equivalent of a 4-year dev cycle while only having a 3-year gap. I mean, ME2 was the best ME game IMO, and that came out just over 2 years after ME1. I think a dev cycle that too long can be bad, because the devs try to improve everything and may take the game away form it's original idea. So Bioware need extra time for this ME game to get the concepts sorted, but any ME games set after this (the next 1, at least) will probably use a similar setting with recurring characters, so I'm expecting a gap of no more than 3 years once ME4 is released.
I think what he's saying is that by cleverly shuffling devs between dev teams and getting the teams at Edmonton and Montreal to co-operate, you can give games the equivalent of a 4-year dev cycle while only having a 3-year gap. I mean, ME2 was the best ME game IMO, and that came out just over 2 years after ME1. I think a dev cycle that too long can be bad, because the devs try to improve everything and may take the game away form it's original idea. So Bioware need extra time for this ME game to get the concepts sorted, but any ME games set after this (the next 1, at least) will probably use a similar setting with recurring characters, so I'm expecting a gap of no more than 3 years once ME4 is released.
I understand that point, although it's worth noting there are varying degrees of development. You can technically have writers and artist at the concept phase of production, but true work doesn't begin until a majority of the team is actually in full development of the game. BioWare can circulate employees around as much as they want, but that kind of approach can also have its drawbacks, such as inconsistencies with design and lack of cohesion. One major hurdle for AAA studios that are large is maintaining the soul and focus of the experience.
As far as ME2 is concerned, it was released in 2010, while ME1 was released in 2007 on the Xbox 360 (it came to PC in 2008). It should also be noted that ME2 was a much more linear and refined experience, as there was less exploration, and the Mako was replaced by a horrendous planet scanning mini-game. So in terms of scale, ME2 was less ambitious in many ways compared to ME1.
Developer cycles and how long they are is purely subjective. If you have a defined path and quality leadership, it doesn't matter how long the cycle is. Games that fail are those who have poor leadership and lose their direction over time. You need someone in charge who sets the agenda early on saying what you will do and what you won't do.
We shall see. BioWare will likely continue to rotate between ME and DA, as well as the new Casey Hudson IP. That means it is more likely that we will be seeing sequels to the same franchise a lot less often. It also depends on how much more ambitious BioWare gets with these games. I'm under the impression we haven't seen anything yet, and that DAI was just merely the tip of the ice berg. I think many will be surprised with just how much BioWare changes their game development philosophy this generation.
I'm not quite sure where we are disagreeing here. I believe more time is better, and you seem to be agreeing with me that DA2 could have been a much different game had it had the long cycle DAI did. From a game developer standpoint though, two years is short. One year is extremely short. In fact, I remember during the development of The Force Unleashed 2 that LucasArts demanded the sequel be out a year after the first game. The studio went to LucasArts and told them that would lead to an incredibly short game with a lack of polish and content. LucasArts didn't care. They just wanted another block buster hit to make them money. Suffice it to say, the short cycle of development showed and TFU 2 was a failure of epic proportions.
Certainly BioWare knows how to multi-task. They have been doing it for a very long time. My point though is that with these games becoming larger and more ambitious, they shouldn't feel compelled to rush things out the door. They should have the confidence to be Rockstar of Irrational Games and tell EA "we need more time before we ship." That in most cases will always lead to a better game, and as I said before BioWare games aren't getting simpler or smaller. As it stands right now, BioWare Montreal has been going head-first into MENext for a while and part of BioWare Edmonton will help them finish the game. The rest of the team will likely be dedicated towards ramping up the development of the Casey Husdon IP while a small portion of the team will continue to create DLC and future support for DAI.
They have a well-oiled machine and a stable apparatus in place. I'm just stating history suggests longer development cycles lead to a more fulfilling experience. I'd rather have more DAO's released in the future rather than DA2s. Not only will I appreciate the game more and play it longer, but the anticipation and excitement will build up higher because there is a longer period between games. It's hard to get excited for games that have shorter cycles and really do not innovate or change a lot from the previous installment. That is my own personal take on development anyways.
I suppose my only point of disagreement was that you imply that Bioware won't be able to stick to a three year plan. I think they will.
I suppose my only point of disagreement was that you imply that Bioware won't be able to stick to a three year plan. I think they will.
I believe that it largely depends on how ambitious their goals are. I'm not saying BioWare can't do it, but I'd rather they take their time rather than rush a product for some arbitrary release date.
I believe that it largely depends on how ambitious their goals are. I'm not saying BioWare can't do it, but I'd rather they take their time rather than rush a product for some arbitrary release date.
We;;, I think they started development in mid-late 2012, so I'm expecting a late 2015/early 2016 release.
I'm not holding my breath, but a very short teaser for the game would be pretty awesome if it came out next month.
I'm not holding my breath, but a very short teaser for the game would be pretty awesome if it came out next month.
Agreed.
Also, I love the quotes in your sig. 
Retour en haut