206 réponses à ce sujet

[helpthisguyplease]

There is something called a deadline, cuts in development, also that was a pre-alpha haha you can't believe they would keep everything from a year ago to still stay in the game that has been out now. Also EA makes their deadlines people, *nods disapprovingly* you're crazy to think BioWare would make a deadline and then rush the game out if they were their own independent group. You don't have the luxury of making your deadlines and doing things your way if someone bought you out and they tell you to launch a game by this date whether it's ready or not. You get fired if you say no and either way EA will get what they want, a game not quite ready to be put in the market. People seem to forget BioWare is owned, not independent anymore so they are forced to do and make games how EA wants it done. REMEMBER THAT! I'd love it if BioWare was solo again but chances are slim to none and even then, most of the original developers and managers are gone from the Bauldors Gate era and such. Now DA:I wasn't actually rushed when you compare it to DAII, they had 3 years of development and one year of getting plots and character ideas before. The game is their first open world game, it's a learning experience, so they don't have all the kinks out just yet but the next game will be much more polished after this learning experience and i'm sure dlc or expansions will launch to add onto the game. DA:I isn't rushed though lol.

They will not be fired if they say no, they are very important do you think its easy to train another team of video game programer, writers and artists. It takes time and way more money then if they accepted the no from the team. Also a team at the level of Bioware's team is not gonna stay long without a job many  game company's want them and if they have the oportunity they will bend over to take them. I bet that EA kisses the ass of Bioware's team to keep them. Talented individuals like the ones from Bioware do not need EA to survive they need EA so they can fulfill the  the need for self-realization and to get to that point you certanly do not have to worry about your basic needs.

[Razir-Samus]

why not aspire to what you advertise? why misinform? where's the passion that isn't so obviously fake in many cases?

[AppealToReason]

I'm actually really disappointed that after seeing the footage of protecting a fort or choosing the village, that it isn't in the game. Especially since they talked about how "To avoid false expectations we're only going to show things that are 100% in the game" or whatever it was Mike or Mark said.

 

They hyped the reactivity of the game and it turned out just to be NPC chatter/skins (you now have a templar standing there. in templar regalia despite the fact you abolished the Templar order) for the most part. I haven't had one quests be different because I'm a reaver or noticed, from what I've discussed with friends who played different races, any race specific quests. Again, this was stuff we were told we were getting. I remember reading the blog or forum post or whatever Gaider or Laidlaw talked about it in. "No origins but you'll have race specific side quests/race will open up specific branches in missions... Limited specializations because now NPC's and quests will be different based off your specialization! We're only telling you this because its 100% in the game!"

 

At most I got a couple things that were different at the war table, I'm assuming, or a couple throwaway lines of dialogue.

 

I kept waiting and waiting for that stuff to happen and then nope. I'm like 100+ hours in and nada. Only have the last main story mission to finish and a few random "put the thing here" quests.

[FKA_Servo]

At most I got a couple things that were different at the war table, I'm assuming, or a couple throwaway lines of dialogue.

 

 

I'm 100% certain that this is what they meant when they said "race specific side quests," unfortunately.

[Zachriel]

Especially since they talked about how "To avoid false expectations we're only going to show things that are 100% in the game" or whatever it was Mike or Mark said.

 

 

Yeah, this is what makes it especially bad.  They kept going on about how they had learned lessons from previous releases and the whole reason they weren't showing us anything about this game at first was because they didn't want to show us anything unless it was working and was for sure going to be in the game.  And then they showed us things that are not in the game.

 

I like this game, but I am very frustrated with Bioware.  We just can't trust anything they tell us anymore.

[AppealToReason]

Yeah, this is what makes it especially bad.  They kept going on about how they had learned lessons from previous releases and the whole reason they weren't showing us anything about this game at first was because they didn't want to show us anything unless it was working and was for sure going to be in the game.  And then they showed us things that are not in the game.

 

I like this game, but I am very frustrated with Bioware.  We just can't trust anything they tell us anymore.

 

Had I never seen any of that footage or read anything about all the reactivity they promised, especially about how different you can make Skyhold, I would be like "wow 10/10 great game would play again"

 

And I do really enjoy the game, but I'm just disappointed that some of the things I was looking most forward to were cut after being promised. I was so excited getting to Crestwood because I was going to let that village burn. Then nope :/

 

I got excited when I had missions dealing with noble families thinking "oh great! I'm a noble too!" and then talking to my friends about how it worked for them and "nah I got the same options as a dwarf" :/

[Darkly Tranquil]

Nothing you see in trailers or demos can ever be taken as gospel for what you will get in the final version. Everything is subject to change until it goes gold (even then, stuff can be patched after). Never assume what you see beforehand is exactly what you will actually get; think of it as more of an outline.

[AppealToReason]

Nothing you see in trailers or demos can ever be taken as gospel for what you will get in the final version. Everything is subject to change until it goes gold (even then, stuff can be patched after). Never assume what you see beforehand is exactly what you will actually get; think of it as more of an outline.

 

"We're only showing this because its going to be in the final game! Get excited for branching decisions because we're totally including them like saving the keep vs the town! 100% in the game which is why we're showing them"

[scrutinizer]

Cool, but what about their statements guaranteeing us features that are not present in the game? They lied?

 

You probably pre-ordered the game.

Why did you do that? One day you just went 'I'm gonna pre-order... hmm... DRAGON AGE!' out of the blue? Or were you checking for updates on the game and got excited for the features from streams and demos and whatnot?

You cannot possibly throw away 70$ bucks for an unknown quality, can you? After all, Nothing you see in trailers or demos can ever be taken as gospel for what you will get in the final version. Everything is subject to change until it goes gold (even then, stuff can be patched after). So why did you buy?

[Dreamer]

Nothing you see in trailers or demos can ever be taken as gospel for what you will get in the final version. Everything is subject to change until it goes gold (even then, stuff can be patched after). Never assume what you see beforehand is exactly what you will actually get; think of it as more of an outline.

 

This is the problem, actually. A new standard needs to be set that developers/publishers should only be showing off information and features that they are committed to shipping at launch. If a feature or system is not finished and there's a chance it won't make it in at launch, it shouldn't be demoed. Ultimately it's exactly this situation which leads to gamers' expectations almost always being let down.

[AppealToReason]

This is the problem, actually. A new standard needs to be set that developers/publishers should only be showing off information and features that they are committed to shipping at launch. If a feature or system is not finished and there's a chance it won't make it in at launch, it shouldn't be demoed. Ultimately it's exactly this situation which leads to gamers' expectations almost always being let down.

 

I'm not even terribly upset by it. I get why others are.

 

The thing that bothers me the most is "You are seeing this footage because we have finished this system that will be in the game a whole lot." and then it isn't there

[Darkly Tranquil]

This is the problem, actually. A new standard needs to be set that developers/publishers should only be showing off information and features that they are committed to shipping at launch. If a feature or system is not finished and there's a chance it won't make it in at launch, it shouldn't be demoed. Ultimately it's exactly this situation which leads to gamers' expectations almost always being let down.

I agree. I was describing the situation as it is, not as it should be. However game design seems to be much more an art than a science, so if developers can only demo what they are sure will be in the game, we would get a lot less in the way of previews and demos prior to launch. I think the whole demo/preview thing is a bit of a double edged sword really. Perhaps rather than demanding they reveal only what they can guarantee what will be in final version, they need to do a better job of separating what will be in the game and what they hope will be in the game.

[CronoDragoon]

That our decisions would have long term consequences when absolutely nothing you do in the game changes anything

 

I knew my hyperbole senses were tingling (well, I suppose is leaps over hyperbole into being flat-out wrong). Glad I clicked on this thread.

 

Anyway as to the point behind your post, marketing can make it difficult to judge a game for what it actually is instead of what was promised. The rachni in ME3 is a good example: if BioWare doesn't overpromise on their involvement people aren't as pissed as they were.

 

The answer is to avoid all marketing and previews, but we are weak, and work is boring.

[Sylvius the Mad]

This is the problem, actually. A new standard needs to be set that developers/publishers should only be showing off information and features that they are committed to shipping at launch. If a feature or system is not finished and there's a chance it won't make it in at launch, it shouldn't be demoed. Ultimately it's exactly this situation which leads to gamers' expectations almost always being let down.

If that were the case, they could never be committed to a release date. Bugs aren't planned, and sometimes unexpected bugs prove unsolvable within a manageable timeframe.

For example, they talked about how we could play the whole game in Tac Cam. But we can't. We can't becausebof the limitations of the Tac Cam, limitations they tried to resolve but couldn't. Limitations they might have been able to resolve if they'd known about them from the start, but there comes a point in development where all the other features that are connected to this feature are too expexpensive to change just to achieve this one outcome.

And marketing isn't cheap. They plan marketing. The publisher is committed to specific launch windows. They've promised revenueto their shareholders. So games simply cannot be delayed indefinitely.

But that means that they have to be willing to cut content. And there's no way for them to know for sure what content might be cut.

Your standard would require then that they never make any definite claims about the game's content. But how then do they sell it?

Follow your own reasoning.

[Xralius]

They have the tac came for one reason- use it in promos so people thought the game would be more like origins. Bioware/EA are a bunch of liars and will never get another penny from me unless they make something worthy of Origins. I think at this point we all know that won't happen.

[berrieh]

I agree. I was describing the situation as it is, not as it should be. However game design seems to be much more an art than a science, so if developers can only demo what they are sure will be in the game, we would get a lot less in the way of previews and demos prior to launch. I think the whole demo/preview thing is a bit of a double edged sword really. Perhaps rather than demanding they reveal only what they can guarantee what will be in final version, they need to do a better job of separating what will be in the game and what they hope will be in the game.

 

The only way to really do this is not reveal anything at all until really close to launch. Unfortunately, the big publishers don't generally like that or let it slide. They want things to tease in advance. BioWare themselves probably can't decide to not put anything anywhere it could possibly leak (like the PAX stuff) and not show anything at all until like 4 months till launch; that is likely an EA call. 

 

A few companies do this. Rock* for instance usually doesn't show anything until really close to release. (Even then, you get disappointments like heists not being as big as was thought, etc.) Really, any game that is hyped at all lets people down. It's inevitable. 

[chickencurd]

Will someone officially answer why they would watch leaked private pre-alpha footage and expect it to be representative of the final product?  
Stating that the demo is pre-alpha footage IS an explanation of why it is not in the game.  They don't need to say more.

Quit watching crap on the internet and building false expectations and you'll be a happier person.
There has been so much overanalysis and assumptions of what the devs did and what happened and why this is that or what's a whatnot... I personally have just been playing this fine entertainment product and enjoying the hell out of it for 100+ hours so far, with no end to my enjoyment in sight. I'll enjoy my gaming time while you guys nitpick everything and wait for the perfect game to show up.

 

Honestly, I have been following this game since it was announced and don't really feel it differs much from their promises.  But I don't consider early pre-alpha demos and prototypes and discussions of what they're working on to be "promises".

[Darkly Tranquil]

The only way to really do this is not reveal anything at all until really close to launch. Unfortunately, the big publishers don't generally like that or let it slide. They want things to tease in advance. BioWare themselves probably can't decide to not put anything anywhere it could possibly leak (like the PAX stuff) and not show anything at all until like 4 months till launch; that is likely an EA call. 
 
A few companies do this. Rock* for instance usually doesn't show anything until really close to release. (Even then, you get disappointments like heists not being as big as was thought, etc.) Really, any game that is hyped at all lets people down. It's inevitable.

That's is because gamers are dumb, passive consumers who just lap up whatever the publishers throw in front of them (and the publishers know it). The big publishing houses keep lying to them, and rather than using their purchasing power to force them to change, they just keep taking it. Until gamers develop some consumer awareness and actually stop rewarding the shoddy tactics of publishers with sales, this sort of thing will continue unabated.

[Dreamer]

That's is because gamers are dumb, passive consumers who just lap up whatever the publishers throw in front of them (and the publishers know it). The big publishing houses keep lying to them, and rather than using their purchasing power to force them to change, they just keep taking it. Until gamers develop some consumer awareness and actually stop rewarding the shoddy tactics of publishers with sales, this sort of thing will continue unabated.

 

Nailed it.

 

They "lie" to us because they can get away with it. They know they can get away with it. They know we'll keep buying their false promises and cut content. Even worse, we'll buy cut content later as DLC.

[THE_ANGRY_GAMER]

Something I saw on John Epler's twitter yesterday seems applicable here:

"Thing I remember when looking at other games critically - dev choices rarely between 'okay' and 'amazing' but rather 'okay' or 'nothing'"

 

If those features aren't in the game, it means that getting them to work correctly would require the cutting of other, more important features.

 

Plus, y'know, leaked pre-alpha footage ain't the same thing as official marketing.

[berrieh]

That's is because gamers are dumb, passive consumers who just lap up whatever the publishers throw in front of them (and the publishers know it). The big publishing houses keep lying to them, and rather than using their purchasing power to force them to change, they just keep taking it. Until gamers develop some consumer awareness and actually stop rewarding the shoddy tactics of publishers with sales, this sort of thing will continue unabated.

 

See, here's the thing. I haven't felt "lied to" by many games because I'm rarely fooled. (If I think I'll like something, I usually do. If I have nagging doubts...well, there it is.) And content cut pre-Alpha doesn't make me feel lied to. If I did felt lied to by a company, I would absolutely stop buying their games (has happened a few times) until convinced they had something awesome to offer, and I certainly wouldn't pre-order, though I pre-order rarely anyway. 

 

Maybe you see me as dumb. I see it as understanding the industry and knowing cuts will be made. When I didn't hear about those PAX features in actual marketing, I figured that was part of what got cut (the two month delay basically made me think that cuts would be made and more children need to be killed). That would be a feature I'd be touting on Twitch. When they showed Skyhold on Twitch, the customization didn't seem extreme, and it isn't. I certainly would love more, but I'm also happy with what I got. It was well worth $60, my favorite game of the year (though it wasn't a banner year), and it makes my Top 5 of all time. 

 

They can't release a long list of things cut when they're marketing (that'd be a big bummer - you don't dwell on deaths at a party either, if you want to be popular), and it's hard to address leaked footage. As to informing one's self - before this game was released, there was a lot of Twitch footage (all accurate) and almost a week to absorb reviews; hell, if you had an XB1, you could play the first 6 hours for $5 or free, if you already had EA Access, and if not, you could watch streams and videos of people who did. There was plenty of transparency. 

 

Now, on the PC controls, maybe people have a point (I don't know) - it did seem like the PC UI and controls would be markedly different than the console version (I was worried it'd be keyboard focused and work poorly with a controller and thus went with the PS4 because of this and multiplayer, so I definitely was under that impression too), and it seems they are not. But as to the demo complaint, I simply don't think it's a lie. 

 

People want games to be massive. They want games to do incredible things. And they don't want to wait or pay more than $60. Hell, I want games to do incredible things. I want what was shown at the PAX demo, but I understand why for multiple platforms, for $60 retail (and budgeting a staff appropriately), for the time they had, for all the other things they couldn't cut, for the first time they're making an open world, and for a new engine, why it couldn't be done well and thus wasn't done at all. I hope they will try it in future. The engine being already utilized and stripping away the last gen platforms will help in DA4 with these kinds of aspirations. 

[THE_ANGRY_GAMER]

Also, can we stop wailing about 'cut content'? Other than Assassin's Creed 2, I've never seen content obviously withheld from a game to sell later (and even AC2 I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt to, given how incredibly goddamn difficult game development is). Yes, content gets cut. Why? Because, if a developer has to choose between 'awesome feature/content that is technically ancillary to the core gameplay loop' and 'working game that we can release', a developer is always going to choose option two. Always. Because from their perspective it's not 'awesome game' vs. 'okay game', it's 'game we cannot release' vs. 'game we can release', and for better or worse, in the advanced production stages of a project, making release is the most important thing. When devs choose the former option over the latter, you get Duke Nukem Forever-style development hell.

 

Sometimes all those features or bits of content need is more time that couldn't be devoted to them when the devs were trying to make the release. Sometimes they worked but need extensive bug-testing, or a drastic re-think. And yes, sometimes, they get released as DLC. Is this developers deliberately withholding content to make a buck? You could see it that way, I guess, but I'd contend that a more accurate way of seeing it is developers perfecting and releasing content that couldn't be in the original game. That's the way expansion packs used to work, and it's the way DLC works now.

[Darkly Tranquil]

@berrieh:

 

I agree that gamers need to be realistic in their expectations and take promotional material with a large grain of salt, but there are a lot of gamers who don't do that and take things at face value, and the publishers take advantage of the lack of sophistication of a large segment of their target audience. Yes, there are smart gamers who don't believe the hype, but there are lot more (especially the young ones) that get sucked in by the flashy trailers, marketing hype, and bullshots into paying money for something that ends up significantly different to what was advertised. Watch Dogs is a prime example of the hype over-promising and the game under-delivering.

[Sylvius the Mad]

They have the tac came for one reason- use it in promos so people thought the game would be more like origins. Bioware/EA are a bunch of liars and will never get another penny from me unless they make something worthy of Origins. I think at this point we all know that won't happen.

I personally think Inquisition is the superior game. DAO is a great game, but it wasn't perfect. And nor is Inquisition perfect. But Inquisition does fix some of DAO's problems (like the regenerating health, something I complained about when it was announced in 2008).

[Sylvius the Mad]

@berrieh:

I agree that gamers need to be realistic in their expectations and take promotional material with a large grain of salt, but there are a lot of gamers who don't do that and take things at face value, and the publishers take advantage of the lack of sophistication of a large segment of their target audience.

That's what unsophisticated markets are for.