15897 réponses à ce sujet

[ashwind]

It's not really about budget, it's more budget management, task management, cheap labor and ungodly hours of work. I'll be curious to see if anybody matches what CDPR did in the next decade, much less Bioware.

 

Procedurally generated content may be the way forward though.

 

Let's hope that CDPR and TW3 will have a positive impact on future game development.

 

Think about it, even if TW3 has only 1/2 its content, it would still be a pretty good game and probably sell about as many copies. 16 Free DLCs? Why? Why free when they can charge customers for it, even if they only charge USD 1.99 each. 

 

Budget Management? Task Management? Cheap Labor? All these only translates to more profit for big publishers and never more content for customers because they put profit above all else.

[Elhanan]

Don't want to match TW3; want another DA game, but with improvements to it's own weaknesses and flaws (eg; better Tactics).

[Tonio545]

Don't want to match TW3; want another DA game, but with improvements to it's own weaknesses and flaws (eg; better Tactics).

 

Attempting to match them in quality of quests especially in the world zones, would fix far and away the biggest problem i have with inquisition, some flaws are acceptable. I dont know what anyone else thinks but side quests are the best part of an RPG. Been true as far back as the first one i ever played in fallout.

[Servo to the bitter end]

Listened to the first thirsty seconds of the ghost riders song and scratched at my head. Were they trying to go for a "Firefly " esque feel ? Did not ever get that feeling from mass effect.

 

I think it's ok if they're trying to shoot for that feeling this time around, though.

 

If we're charging into a new galaxy, trying to find a place for the council races to spread and start over (or just humans, but god I hope not because I'm so sick of everything being humans), and meeting native Andromedan civilizations with either war or diplomacy - "space western" might be a good fit.

[Torgette]

Let's hope that CDPR and TW3 will have a positive impact on future game development.

 

Think about it, even if TW3 has only 1/2 its content, it would still be a pretty good game and probably sell about as many copies. 16 Free DLCs? Why? Why free when they can charge customers for it, even if they only charge USD 1.99 each. 

 

Budget Management? Task Management? Cheap Labor? All these only translates to more profit for big publishers and never more content for customers because they put profit above all else.

 

I think the reality of it is that there are many ways to make a great game, you have to ask yourself to what end is the process driving for? DAI actually could've been better with a smaller scope, so it's not always about content production and brute force mass production - sometimes it's just about creatively fitting the pieces together as efficiently as possible.

[correctamundo]

Attempting to match them in quality of quests especially in the world zones, would fix far and away the biggest problem i have with inquisition, some flaws are acceptable. I dont know what anyone else thinks but side quests are the best part of an RPG. Been true as far back as the first one i ever played in fallout.

 

For me the mainstory does take precedence.

[Drantwo]

I do not want DA to all out copy Witcher 3..maybe take lessons from the sides quests of Witcher 3. As mentioned before, tactics needs improvement. Remove the RNG loot. Add cities with reasonable size. Remove 8 limited slots. Main story should be longer..It felt really short to me. Also, I felt that the ending was a huge let down (even in Witcher 3). 

[Rawgrim]

DA should be its own thing. The problems started when they tried to emulate gameplay and whatnot from other games. That and the dumbing down is what is wrong with DA. Gamers, if interested in a game, will make put effort into getting into the game. Plain and simple. No need to handhold them at every turn, and simplify everything. Let DA stand alone as DA, and let Skyrim and The Witcher do their own thing. People don't buy DA to play Skyrim mixed with Diablo 3. They buy it to play DA.

 

 

But they can certainly take a huge lesson about how to make good side quests from The Witcher 3. Picking 57 flowers isn't a quest. It is a chore.

[correctamundo]

Yeah, I definitely think that BW could give us more "meaty" side quests in the different zones as well as a little grave decoration ;-). I wanted a little longer finishing dungeon with the dwarwen tombs for instance. Tie some zones more into the main story and a better finish for the main story. Val Royeaux is bit of a disappointment.

[Vanth]

On the topic of pre-generated (like Geralt) and player made (like the Inquisitor) characters, I don't think it is an either/or. While it is true that Geralt has a back-story, very little of that (other than the nickname "White wolf") depends on his appearance. So one could have a Geralt that looks rather different without impacting the story. Gender is a little more difficult, but could easily be incorporated if desired while still giving the player character a rich background. (While female Witcher's don't exist, one could avoid that sort of thing with an original IP.)

 

One could even imagine giving the player choice about the background. For example, they could choose a sexuality at the beginning and the world would alter to accommodate their history. Or they could have a different childhood, or a different race or whatever. It would be harder to make the content of course since all dialogue would have to have options that relflect these things, but it could certainly be done.

 

Mass Effect did this to some extent by allowing male and female Shepards with differing backstories, though admittedly it wasn't on a very deep level. 

[ashwind]

I think the reality of it is that there are many ways to make a great game, you have to ask yourself to what end is the process driving for? DAI actually could've been better with a smaller scope, so it's not always about content production and brute force mass production - sometimes it's just about creatively fitting the pieces together as efficiently as possible.

 

I agree and that is my point to. Most publishers are more/only interested in making a profitable game rather than a great game. Most publishers drives studios to make games that will be more appealing to more people with no interest of making that game great or good. They are more interested in making the sales.

 

Yes, DAI would probably be tighter and better if they made it slightly smaller in scale. However that might also mean less marketing gimmick and less possible customers which ultimately means less possible profit. The evidence is very clear in the case of Bioware. See how all the changes since DAO is aimed at making the game less hardcore and more mainstream? Trying to please everyone with a hybrid action/tactical combat that ended up not pleasing the die hard fans of both camps?

 

Reality is: A good game does not always sell well. Call of Duty for instance, that cut and paste piece of annual milking is worse than many good games but it sure is out selling them by a lot. 

 

Profit and only profit unfortunately is the only drive for most huge publishers and that is the simplest of reality.

 

So to answer your question: Big publishers are NOT interested in making good games. They want PROFIT and only PROFIT. It is every big publisher's dream to make games like Call of Duty. That is what the end process is driving for - Profit and DLC profit and online micro transaction profit. 

[Torgette]

I agree and that is my point to. Most publishers are more/only interested in making a profitable game rather than a great game. Most publishers drives studios to make games that will be more appealing to more people with no interest of making that game great or good. They are more interested in making the sales.

 

Yes, DAI would probably be tighter and better if they made it slightly smaller in scale. However that might also mean less marketing gimmick and less possible customers which ultimately means less possible profit. The evidence is very clear in the case of Bioware. See how all the changes since DAO is aimed at making the game less hardcore and more mainstream? Trying to please everyone with a hybrid action/tactical combat that ended up not pleasing the die hard fans of both camps?

 

Reality is: A good game does not always sell well. Call of Duty for instance, that cut and paste piece of annual milking is worse than many good games but it sure is out selling them by a lot. 

 

Profit and only profit unfortunately is the only drive for most huge publishers and that is the simplest of reality.

 

So to answer your question: Big publishers are NOT interested in making good games. They want PROFIT and only PROFIT. It is every big publisher's dream to make games like Call of Duty. That is what the end process is driving for - Profit and DLC profit and online micro transaction profit. 

 

That's not really a revelation, that's just capitalism - people have to eat. Bioware themselves went to EA because they were not a profitable company, it's a difficult decision to ask for shareholder money but it is what it is. You can dislike shareholders themselves, but they're willing to put money into a product and they reserve the right to withdraw their money. That said there has been some improvement in shareholder-corporate relations in recent years, a number of big games have been delayed and EA themselves have relaxed their deadlines. ME:A itself has been given 4 years minimum of development time. DAI itself feels less like they weren't given the freedom to make the game they wanted and more like a project that had its scope changed several times as well as Bioware cutting its teeth on a new engine while simultaneously building for cross platform. Even scope aside a lot of DAI's issues stem from basic design decisions probably made before assets were even created.

 

What's nice is for CDPR to make a game in its own development bubble as a bar of quality for the rest of the world to emulate, but I can't blame companies for trying to make a profit.

[duckley]

I have to say that surprisingly, I am finding TW3 a richer deeper gaming experience for me than DA:I.  considering that I preferred both DA:O and DA2 to TW1 and 2.

 

Having said that, I wonder if  spending the resources for  4 races, multiplayer, and old and new gen consoles possibly accounts for the lesser depth and tightness and impact  of my overall DA:I experience.

 

This is my opinion and speculation only mind you, and I do find both games great to play.

[TheOgre]

That's not really a revelation, that's just capitalism - people have to eat. Bioware themselves went to EA because they were not a profitable company, it's a difficult decision to ask for shareholder money but it is what it is. You can dislike shareholders themselves, but they're willing to put money into a product and they reserve the right to withdraw their money. That said there has been some improvement in shareholder-corporate relations in recent years, a number of big games have been delayed and EA themselves have relaxed their deadlines. ME:A itself has been given 4 years minimum of development time. DAI itself feels less like they weren't given the freedom to make the game they wanted and more like a project that had its scope changed several times as well as Bioware cutting its teeth on a new engine while simultaneously building for cross platform. Even scope aside a lot of DAI's issues stem from basic design decisions probably made before assets were even created.

What's nice is for CDPR to make a game in its own development bubble as a bar of quality for the rest of the world to emulate, but I can't blame companies for trying to make a profit.

True words, but It's also human nature to criticize or voice ones disappointment over experiences that weren't up to their expectations. It's such a surprise for quite a few people whenever someone complains heh.

[KBomb]

Let's hope that CDPR and TW3 will have a positive impact on future game development.

Think about it, even if TW3 has only 1/2 its content, it would still be a pretty good game and probably sell about as many copies. 16 Free DLCs? Why? Why free when they can charge customers for it, even if they only charge USD 1.99 each.

Budget Management? Task Management? Cheap Labor? All these only translates to more profit for big publishers and never more content for customers because they put profit above all else.

I have found each one of those free dlc add-ons to be delicious. Every week I look forward to the next one. One thing for sure, they could have bundled a few together and sold them for a few dollars a set. Especially the Wolf gear. I love that armor.

And an extra troll mission? Yes, please. I adore those ugly trolls.

[TheOgre]

I think it's ok if they're trying to shoot for that feeling this time around, though.

 

If we're charging into a new galaxy, trying to find a place for the council races to spread and start over (or just humans, but god I hope not because I'm so sick of everything being humans), and meeting native Andromedan civilizations with either war or diplomacy - "space western" might be a good fit.

 

Fair point -- It would be even more weird if they were to try it with the ME1-3 trilogy considering the plot

 

If it is like as you described then hell yeah it fits.

[Servo to the bitter end]

Fair point -- It would be even more weird if they were to try it with the ME1-3 trilogy considering the plot

 

If it is like as you described then hell yeah it fits.

 

I think it's gonna be great. I hope it's gonna be great.

 

As long as it looks like Mass Effect, though, I'm easy.

 

Also...

 

Spoiler

[ashwind]

That's not really a revelation, that's just capitalism - people have to eat. Bioware themselves went to EA because they were not a profitable company, it's a difficult decision to ask for shareholder money but it is what it is. You can dislike shareholders themselves, but they're willing to put money into a product and they reserve the right to withdraw their money. That said there has been some improvement in shareholder-corporate relations in recent years, a number of big games have been delayed and EA themselves have relaxed their deadlines. ME:A itself has been given 4 years minimum of development time. DAI itself feels less like they weren't given the freedom to make the game they wanted and more like a project that had its scope changed several times as well as Bioware cutting its teeth on a new engine while simultaneously building for cross platform. Even scope aside a lot of DAI's issues stem from basic design decisions probably made before assets were even created.

 

What's nice is for CDPR to make a game in its own development bubble as a bar of quality for the rest of the world to emulate, but I can't blame companies for trying to make a profit.

 

Capitalism is cool. Of course developers need to make money and eat. I also agree that EA giving DAI and MEA more development time is a good sign, a step in the right direction. I cannot deny the effort I have seen poured into DAI; just a little disappointed that their effort is not concentrated but rather spread too thin.That is why I have always wrote "Publishers" and not naming anyone (EA) in particular. No I do not blame them for wanting to make profits. I never will.

 

Cannibalism on the other hand is not cool. One does not need to look further than the past couple of month and welcome a new member to the list of cannibalistic publishers. Made even more famous in the past 48 hours for the following: Outsourcing the responsibility of porting one of the most anticipated AAA title of 2015 to PC to a 12 man team, taking pre-order money and delivering a product that is "objectively broken". They could have delayed the PC port. They could have launched it 3 months later. They could have launch it separately. But no. Why? Because profits / share prices. This is not capitalism unless one believes that honor, pride and dignity is not to be expected from capitalist and that they are lower than scums. In that case I might want to start considering migrating to a communist state soon.

 

We all need to do what needs to be done to eat but some of us draws the line somewhere. No creativity, budget management, etc will make a game great unless publishers honestly wants to make a good game -while- profiting.

[GithCheater]

I have to say that surprisingly, I am finding TW3 a richer deeper gaming experience for me than DA:I.  considering that I preferred both DA:O and DA2 to TW1 and 2.

 

Having said that, I wonder if  spending the resources for  4 races, multiplayer, and old and new gen consoles possibly accounts for the lesser depth and tightness and impact  of my overall DA:I experience.

 

This is my opinion and speculation only mind you, and I do find both games great to play.

I also wonder how much having 4 voices for the IQ affected resources for other parts of the game.

[Eternal Dust]

Feedback: When given a quest like go collect 10 ram meat, I want an option to say, "No, go collect your own damn ram meat" in which case the NPC does and dies. Consequences are a beautiful thing even when it's simply inaction.

[correctamundo]

Feedback: When given a quest like go collect 10 ram meat, I want an option to say, "No, go collect your own damn ram meat" in which case the NPC does and dies. Consequences are a beautiful thing even when it's simply inaction.

 

And a sweet (i.e hefty) negative in power and influence as a bonus.

[Elhanan]

Consequences and options already exist for the side quests: one may do them, pass on them and fail to benefit, take them and fail to do them, also not gaining any benefit. No cut-scenes or questionable content required.

[Xetykins]

And a sweet (i.e hefty) negative in power and influence as a bonus.

Plus, a very lengthy colourful letter from the Arl Teagan if you let crossroads starve to death. And possibly from Alistair if you made him king.

Yes, I like.

Consequences and options already exist for the side quests: one may do them, pass on them and fail to benefit, take them and fail to do them, also not gaining any benefit. No cut-scenes or questionable content required.

Jezz, what's so questionable about villagers dying if you refuse to collect 10 ram meats to fed them while they sat their arses in the camp? If anything I'd be more enthusiastic collecting those meat because I know people would die if I don't. Motivation.

[correctamundo]

Plus, a very lengthy colourful letter from the Arl Teagan if you let crossroads starve to death. And possibly from Alistair if you made him king.

Yes, I like.

Jezz, what's so questionable about villagers dying if you refuse to collect 10 ram meats to fed them while they sat their arses in the camp? If anything I'd be more enthusiastic collecting those meat because I know people would die if I don't. Motivation.

 

Yes, that would work fine.=) Even though I can, and will, headcanon just fine a carrot and a whip would indeed strengthen the motivational situation. And of course that is in many ways the approach CDPR have chosen.

[Elhanan]

Plus, a very lengthy colourful letter from the Arl Teagan if you let crossroads starve to death. And possibly from Alistair if you made him king.

Yes, I like.

... what's so questionable about villagers dying if you refuse to collect 10 ram meats to fed them while they sat their arses in the camp? If anything I'd be more enthusiastic collecting those meat because I know people would die if I don't. Motivation.

I would not know if it is already penalized or not, as I have helped them every time. But I oppose a flat rejection in the dialogue as the same effect is already included by failing to perform the quest; wasted zots.