25 réponses à ce sujet

[Dubya75]

If I was the Producer for Dragon Age: Inquisition, this would be my approach to the project (however fantastical it may be):

 

- Every single team member would be required to play through Dragon Age: Origins at least once.

 

- We would then start building the new game, replicating every single feature, mechanic and control system from Dragon Age: Origins as a foundation (on the EA-imposed Frostbite 3 engine, of course).

 

- With all the core features faithfully replicated, we would then sit down and ask: 

What was wrong with DAO? In which areas were we limited when we built the game? 

We would make a list, looking closely at fan feedback from both DAO as well as DA2.

 

- Instead of scrapping any features whatsoever, we would find ways to improve them, if they need improvement. But at no point will any existing features be cut back (nerfed) for the sake of appealing to a wider audience. 

 

- A clear focus will be maintained at all times about who we are building the game for...and what kind of experience they would expect, again based on the feedback from previous titles in the series. 

 

- With every feature in place and improved, only then would we look at other RPG games (old and new) and examine what made them successful and if we find anything that would benefit our game, we would implement it and improve upon it.

 

- When writing the plot and story line, every single quest giver and every event surrounding quests would find relevence within the main story line and the objective of the main quest.

No fetch quests or collection quests will be included unless it will have a direct impact on the main quest line, perceived or otherwise.

Every side quest will have absolute relevence and make perfect sense in the setting and motivation of the protagonist.

 

- No compromises would be made with any aspect of the game.

 

With an approach like this, just imagine what a glorious game DAI would have been...

 

Call me arrogant, but it only seems a logical approach to me.

 

I do not believe that fans familiar with the series want to become re-acquainted and re-learn, they want to feel familiar and comfortable, but also get a sense of everything being just a little better and grander than the previous game. Or a lot grander, even. 

 

Bioware somehow got to thinking they have to completely re-invent in order to gain a larger audience, but instead all they had to do was improve what was already proven to be successful. The success of DAO should have been nurtured... 

 

People are still playing Dragon Age: Origins. 5 years after the initial release.

 

How long will people keep playing Inquisition?

 

 

 

 

 

[Il Divo]

Honestly, what you're describing sounds like a really idealized version of how any game development works. Things like "no compromises will be made with any aspect of the game" stick out. Likewise with wanting every side quest to make perfect sense for the protagonist. 

[Dubya75]

Honestly, what you're describing sounds like a really idealized version of how any game development works. Things like "no compromises will be made with any aspect of the game" stick out. Likewise with wanting every side quest to make perfect sense for the protagonist. 

 

Of course it is ldealized! Can you achieve anything worthwhile without it?

 

I absolutely despise irrelevant filler content. So yes, even if it meant less content but of higher quality...

For example, the shard collecting thing: instead of having 300 million shards scattered all over the place, have 3 shards in each location, but put obstacles in the way of getting them, such as a dragon. 

Immediately, there is purpose to killing the dragon.

Another shard may be in possession of an NPC you have to track down by doing a little bit of investigation.

 

Collecting mosaic pieces could have been made necessary so that the final pictures could be interpreted in order to achieve....something more than a codex entry. Knowledge perhaps essential to progressing the main quest.

 

You get the idea...

[Abyss108]

And I suppose you have infinite money to pay everyone for the extra several years (minimum) you just added to the development cycle? 

 

And you think programming a main quest that takes every single side quest into account in easy? 

 

You know Origins didn't even make a profit right?

 

Never mind all the other problems with this...

[Dubya75]

And I suppose you have infinite money to pay everyone for the extra several years (minimum) you just added to the development cycle? 

 

And you think programming a main quest that takes every single side quest into account in easy? 

 

You know Origins didn't even make a profit right?

 

Never mind all the other problems with this...

 

Has DAI made a profit? Will it?

[Abyss108]

Has DAI made a profit? Will it?

 

Uh they haven't released any figures, but yes, I believe it will. They have said its selling very well digitally.

 

They also have a very solid foundation build on the frostbite engine now (they had to add all the RPG elements themselves) that will cut down on the cost of next games they make too. And they have restores a lot of faith in themselves with this game. Outside of the BSN, this game is getting great comments.

 

So yes, for various reasons I believe this game will make a profit!

[Il Divo]

Of course it is ldealized! Can you achieve anything worthwhile without it?

 

 

I'd say so. 

 

I absolutely despise irrelevant filler content. So yes, even if it meant less content but of higher quality...

 

 

No one's telling you to not despite filler content. 

But when your OP has statements like: "

 

When writing the plot and story line, every single quest giver and every event surrounding quests would find relevence within the main story line and the objective of the main quest.

No fetch quests or collection quests will be included unless it will have a direct impact on the main quest line, perceived or otherwise.

Every side quest will have absolute relevence and make perfect sense in the setting and motivation of the protagonist.

 

 

 

 

 

It doesn't really sound like you have a full understanding of what goes into game development. I can't say any Bioware game ever created has managed to meet this criteria. 

[Al Foley]

I'd say so. 

 

 

No one's telling you to not despite filler content. 

But when your OP has statements like: "

 

 

 

 

It doesn't really sound like you have a full understanding of what goes into game development. I can't say any Bioware game ever created has managed to meet this criteria. 

I can't think of a single RPG that has met this criteria...

[Il Divo]

I can't think of a single RPG that has met this criteria...

 

Probably more accurate, good call. And of course, given the quality vs. quantity issues, it wouldn't take long for someone to say "DA:I has a million side quests, DA:4 has only 3, what gives?"

[AlanC9]

- Every single team member would be required to play through Dragon Age: Origins at least once.

- We would then start building the new game, replicating every single feature, mechanic and control system from Dragon Age: Origins as a foundation (on the EA-imposed Frostbite 3 engine, of course).

You should announce step 2 before ordering step 1. If I was ordered to play a game I'd end up critiquing it, and you don't want anyone on the team who isn't an uncritical fan of DAO's gameplay, obviously. Better to weed all dissent out before starting the process.

[katokires]

And I suppose you have infinite money to pay everyone for the extra several years (minimum) you just added to the development cycle? 

 

And you think programming a main quest that takes every single side quest into account in easy? 

 

You know Origins didn't even make a profit right?

 

Never mind all the other problems with this...

Several less year than it took to make Inquisition if you reduce the size of the world and the amount of quests by 10. But asking them to please fans of Origins instead of fans of Skyrim seems too much...

Or better just make Origins and cut all side quests that are not coneected to the main quest. Perfect. As long as the mechanics were the same  they could put me in a cube killing rats infinetly, but what he proposed would please people who like story too. The thing is that you are thinking about the only people Bioware tried to please and fucked this game, people who like exploration. If you get rid of this you could make a perfec game with all the features he described because maps could be 10x smaller and we would have 10x more interesting content. win-win. Less boring walking. Less boring huge maps. In fact, for the sake of something interesting they could even make the game smaller than DA2. Resident Evil happens inside a mansion and is infinitely better as RPG than Inquisition... and it is not even RPG.

[Mushashi7]

Ahem...

If a product doesn't make a profit you will not be able to continue. So, of course it made a profit.

It reminds me of one the multinational companies here in Denmark. They didn't pay taxes for 13 years.

 

If I told you I had not earned any money for 13 years, you would most likely suggest I found something better to spend my time on. Right?
You can't fill your stomach just with fresh air?

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Has DAI made a profit? Will it?

Yes it has. It is Bioware's best selling game to date.

[phaonica]

You know Origins didn't even make a profit right?

That can't be right, can it? Why would they invest in sequels if they didn't make a profit on the first product?
Do you have a source for that?

Edit: Okay, I knew that couldn't be right.

DAO "outsold primarily console hits Mass Effect 1 and 2 and Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic...the single most globally successful title we’ve [Bioware] put out to date [November 2010]...as of February, EA had shipped 3.2 million Dragon Age units to retailers worldwide" (http://www.rockpaper...hiest-hit-ever/)

As far as I can tell DAO wasn't a financial flop.

[AxeloftheKey]

"EA-Mandated Frostbite 3"

Or maybe the engine from DA:O and DAII was about a decade old and pushed to its farthest limits and would be of no use on next-gen consoles.

 

And yes, making new engines *is* that hard. If they weren't working in FB3, I can basically guarantee the game would've either

1. Come out over a year later

or

2. Had significantly less content with less graphical fidelity

 

So acting like FB3 was forced upon them shows a serious lack of understanding of development, and some misplaced hostility. EA giving Bioware use of their powerful new engine was a good thing.

[Abyss108]

Several less year than it took to make Inquisition if you reduce the size of the world and the amount of quests by 10. But asking them to please fans of Origins instead of fans of Skyrim seems too much...

Or better just make Origins and cut all side quests that are not coneected to the main quest. Perfect. As long as the mechanics were the same  they could put me in a cube killing rats infinetly, but what he proposed would please people who like story too. The thing is that you are thinking about the only people Bioware tried to please and fucked this game, people who like exploration. If you get rid of this you could make a perfec game with all the features he described because maps could be 10x smaller and we would have 10x more interesting content. win-win. Less boring walking. Less boring huge maps. In fact, for the sake of something interesting they could even make the game smaller than DA2. Resident Evil happens inside a mansion and is infinitely better as RPG than Inquisition... and it is not even RPG.

 

People would riot if Bioware made a game where it only took 10 hours to complete all the content. I also remembering them (quite rightly) rioting about DA2 only having about 3 locations with repeated content. So no, I don't people people would be happy in a cube killing infinite rats.

 

Also, they did please a lot of Origins fans with this game, it's just the BSN that is overly hostile about the game. Which is fair enough, everyone can have their opinion, the game obviously didn't work for some people. But it's not as simple as Origin fans not liking the game. I'm an Origin fan, I like the game, and I've seen a lot of other people with the same opinion. Also - I'm not even a Skyrim fan.

 

And how is RE a better RPG then Inquisition? Honestly curious as to how you came to that opinion... 

 

That can't be right, can it? Why would they invest in sequels if they didn't make a profit on the first product?
Do you have a source for that?

Edit: Okay, I knew that couldn't be right.

DAO "outsold primarily console hits Mass Effect 1 and 2 and Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic...the single most globally successful title we’ve [Bioware] put out to date [November 2010]...as of February, EA had shipped 3.2 million Dragon Age units to retailers worldwide" (http://www.rockpaper...hiest-hit-ever/)

As far as I can tell DAO wasn't a financial flop.

 

It sold more copies. Doesn't mean it made a profit. Although, after googling this some more, I may have been mistaken on this point. I couldn't find anything that directly stated it didn't make a profit, just some posts from David Gaider who talked about it having a very long development cycle and not being nearly as profitable as people thought it was. He just talked about how it would need to sell 5 times as many copies to make as much as DA2. Either way, nothing stated it didn't make a profit. 

 

Still, it's not the run away success people make it out to be. And I doubt they expected it to be. They were building a franchise, a lot of extra work goes into creating the world for that first game. All the history and myths etc take a long time to plan out and the people writing it need to be paid. After the first game, you have everything outlined, so less time is spent on that for future games.

[katokires]

People would riot if Bioware made a game where it only took 10 hours to complete all the content. I also remembering them (quite rightly) rioting about DA2 only having about 3 locations with repeated content. So no, I don't people people would be happy in a cube killing infinite rats.

 

Also, they did please a lot of Origins fans with this game, it's just the BSN that is overly hostile about the game. Which is fair enough, everyone can have their opinion, the game obviously didn't work for some people. But it's not as simple as Origin fans not liking the game. I'm an Origin fan, I like the game, and I've seen a lot of other people with the same opinion. Also - I'm not even a Skyrim fan.

 

And how is RE a better RPG then Inquisition? Honestly curious as to how you came to that opinion... 

It would not take 10 hours to complete, DAI takes. I cheated for power to skip retarded side quests took 6 hours the first time, tried again, 4 hours. Then I made a save with companion and important side quests, 18 hours. Game is super small, what takes time is babysitting Hallas, Druffalos and picking schematics and resources, the core experience is deserving of the action game Inquisition is.

 

No you are not a Origins fans. Origins had stats, if you don't miss stats you don't miss Origins. If you don't miss choosing what weapon to use you don't miss Origins. If you don't miss tactics you don't miss Origins. So let me correct you: You played Origins and liked it a lot. But it was nothing special to you, when something is special to us somehow we miss it's characteristics. Like when you miss someone and you miss the way they laugh. People here, like you,, are completely dishonest when the think bringing things like "i love bg" or "i love origins" mean anything. They don't, unless you liked them for what they were, if you don't miss them, if you can live without them, it matters not in your opinion. There is no point in bringing liking or loving if you don't put it in comparison, what does liking origins mean to you? Is it liking the story? Specify. Is it liking combat? Explain. But if you don't miss the lot of things gone with inquisition saying that you like origins does not mean a ****** single thing.

 

Resident Evil is better because I spend less time doing retarded stuff and more time focused on an interesting quest with an interesting story. Sadly I don't play any other kind of game other than borings RPG now, but back then when I played, was a hell lot more interesting than catching 48 books or 15 coins or whatever

[AlanC9]

It doesn't really sound like you have a full understanding of what goes into game development. I can't say any Bioware game ever created has managed to meet this criteria.

Well, his argument might be that Bio never tried. They probably haven't. I doubt anyone there has ever thought that"every single quest giver and every event surrounding quests would find relevence within the main story line and the objective of the main quest" is a worthwhile way to approach development.

[AlanC9]

No you are not a Origins fans. Origins had stats, if you don't miss stats you don't miss Origins. If you don't miss choosing what weapon to use you don't miss Origins. If you don't miss tactics you don't miss Origins. So let me correct you: You played Origins and liked it a lot. But it was nothing special to you, when something is special to us somehow we miss it's characteristics. Like when you miss someone and you miss the way they laugh. People here, like you,, are completely dishonest when the think bringing things like "i love bg" or "i love origins" mean anything. They don't, unless you liked them for what they were, if you don't miss them, if you can live without them, it matters not in your opinion. There is no point in bringing liking or loving if you don't put it in comparison, what does liking origins mean to you? Is it liking the story? Specify. Is it liking combat? Explain. But if you don't miss the lot of things gone with inquisition saying that you like origins does not mean a ****** single thing.

You see, folks, it doesn't matter how much you actually liked or even loved Origins. If you don't like it for the right reasons, you're No True Scotsman.

[Abyss108]

It would not take 10 hours to complete, DAI takes. I cheated for power to skip retarded side quests took 6 hours the first time, tried again, 4 hours. Then I made a save with companion and important side quests, 18 hours. Game is super small, what takes time is babysitting Hallas, Druffalos and picking schematics and resources, the core experience is deserving of the action game Inquisition is.

 

No you are not a Origins fans. Origins had stats, if you don't miss stats you don't miss Origins. If you don't miss choosing what weapon to use you don't miss Origins. If you don't miss tactics you don't miss Origins. So let me correct you: You played Origins and liked it a lot. But it was nothing special to you, when something is special to us somehow we miss it's characteristics. Like when you miss someone and you miss the way they laugh. People here, like you,, are completely dishonest when the think bringing things like "i love bg" or "i love origins" mean anything. They don't, unless you liked them for what they were, if you don't miss them, if you can live without them, it matters not in your opinion. There is no point in bringing liking or loving if you don't put it in comparison, what does liking origins mean to you? Is it liking the story? Specify. Is it liking combat? Explain. But if you don't miss the lot of things gone with inquisition saying that you like origins does not mean a ****** single thing.

 

Resident Evil is better because I spend less time doing retarded stuff and more time focused on an interesting quest with an interesting story. Sadly I don't play any other kind of game other than borings RPG now, but back then when I played, was a hell lot more interesting than catching 48 books or 15 coins or whatever

 

Did you just type several paragraphs telling me what my own opinions are, and how I do or do not feel? I'd class Origins as one of the most important and special games I've played in my life. The game has a LOT of meaning to me personally. Don't get me started on BG, because I could gush about every single feature of that game for pages and pages. Not that there's any point in me telling you that, as you have already written your own little story about who I am and how I must feel about things to be a "fan".

 

(Also, you've explained why you think RE was a better game. You already did that. I asked why it was a better RPG specifically. Last I checked, having a story or quest doesn't make a game an RPG.)

[Helgagrim]

Well... I'm for once glad you are NOT the producer for Dragon Age Inquisition. This game isn't Origins, they didn't try to make Origins 2. Stop comparing the games.

[Sunbrow]

I think the elephant in the room is game mechanics and that is easy to solve, make it more like origins. Origins had enough quests.  Tell a good story about a character you care about and has history (other than a glowing green hand).  All this MMO step and fetch it crap is boring as hell. Tell a compelling story and give me some decisions that can change said story. The final battle had nothing to do with build up of forces, its like they rushed it.  Back to basics, not button mashing shooter games that don't even do that well compared to their own games that are years old.  This is like a bad version of Rifts.