172 réponses à ce sujet

[Maria Caliban]

CaptainVanguard wrote...

There was a time a company called black isle studio aka: Bioware in its younger days released a game once every year.

Black Isle and BioWare were never the same company.

[Khalara]

While I don't doubt that DA 2 is in the works, I won't let all the hype and heresay convince me of a release date. It is probably a good idea to not jump to conclusions before it has be officially confirmed by Bioware themselves.

[Celies]

I find it funny that most people think you can't make a sequel in the time Bioware have had since release to make a good game. The story and setting might have been done even before DA:O was ready, which was in April 09. Even with a minor engine upgrade they still have time to develop the game (look at Mass Effect 2). Most of the 5 years it took for DA:O to be ready was lore and world-building, concept and planning. I would love it if this was DA2. We might even get Dragon Age and Mass Effect-games on a year-by-year basis (even if the Shepard-trilogy ends with the next game).

[svenus97]

It took around 5 years to develop Dragon Age: Origins, which is a whole new IP.

I bet it took more than half of the time to develop the engine and creat the lore on which to base the game on. So I won't be worried if it comes in like 2 years after the realese of the first one.

[TheMadCat]

Originalshb wrote...

Bling75 wrote...

Maybe I'm on drugs, but the EA earnings release seems to target Q4 2011. If that's the case then it does appear that nearly 2 years would elapse between DAO 1 and DAO 2.

the OP's post has wrong information in it

It 's not jan-mar 2011

it's oct-dec of 2011

And yes thats well within the normal 2 years development cycles of most titles.
Maybe it does FEEL early but DA:O is already old enough  and Q4 2011 is still almost 2 years away, and it can still get delayed... though i doubt EA would like that to happen haha

No, the OP had it right. It's EA's fiscal Q4 2010 which is January-March 2011.

Modifié par TheMadCat, 09 février 2010 - 05:33 .

[Mikey_205]

Right lets see they have the engine and the lore so why would they not be able to have a much quicker turnaround than Dragon Age: Origins. Mass Effect 2 has a much quicker turnaround than Mass Effect and the sequel was infinitely better. Games always peak at the end of a consoles life for this reason.

[drechner]

It's really highly unlikely that DAO2 will be coming out. I think people may be mis-interpreting what the EA's announcement has said. They did not claim to have another "Dragon Age game or sequel" but rather an "unannounced Dragon Age title" which would include an expansion. This is very different than DLC, but would be in the same vein as Hordes of the Underdark or Shadows of Undrentide--a real expansion.

Of course, I could be wrong on assuming they can't turn-around the game in less than two years (it's certainly possible), but most modern, "next gen" games fall into the 2-3 years of full production cycle to be released. Making comparisons to early BioWare titles and their relatively quick production time is irrelevant and unfair. Keep in mind Bioware's team was probably around 20 or so developers when Baldur's Gate was released, much different than the probably 200 and some they employ today (split amongst different projects, but still noteworthy). Games are much more expensive and time-intensive than they used to be.

Modifié par drechner, 09 février 2010 - 07:47 .

[Originalshb]

Wyndham711 wrote...

Originalshb wrote...

Wyndham711 wrote...

You'd think the press release would have said "Dragon Age sequel" instead of "Dragon Age title" if it was indeed a sequel they were talking about. I'd think they left it ambiguous on purpose. I mean, had they been able to say "sequel" they most likely would have, since investors would probably place more faith on a sequel than on a spinoff/expansion.

A sequel implies that the story continues. There is still a good chance that in DA2 we may not play as our grey warden from Fereldan.  It's very possible the next great conflict of theadas happens in another land.  In that case it would just be an other DA TITLE

I do not think that "sequel" necesserily implies story continuation. Think of Final Fantasy for example. To me "sequel" implies continuation of the numbered core series, and "title" is a broader term which includes spinoffs and expansions. In fact, I personally hope we'll get most of the the Origins plot threads tied together with expansion packs and DLC, so that the sequel will be free to have a completely new, fresh take on new characters and new origin-stories.

Let me expand on this
I'll take an excerpt from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sequel

"A sequel is a work in literature, film, or other media that chronologically portrays events following those of a previous work."

Now, say that the next DA doesn't focus on grey wardens (I can't really imagine that but for the sake of argument lets use it) and it barely deals with darkspawn (remember the are only seen on the surface during blights, the last of which was over 100 years before the current story) That to me, doesn't the literal definition of sequel.  And I fell that if you think the social usage of the word has changed it's meaning then you should probably write to Webster. Because to me FF(n) is not a sequel of FF(n+1)  it's another TITLE int he series. 

Example, the 007 movies, not sequels of the others, they are all different titles in the series.

[AlmondBrown]

Given the use, with but a few tweaks, to the Engine, they already have some 25-50K assets in libraries to make use of. A House built for Redcliffe could easily be used again, for example, with some minor changes.



A large chunk of the work is done graphically and Lore. With Bioware surely being a GREEN company, I would salute them for recycling some stuff. LOL

[bioware_fan]

Its going to come out on PORTABLE CONSOLES

PORTABLE CONSOLES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

EA is milking Bioware to much.

[Originalshb]

TheMadCat wrote...

Originalshb wrote...

Bling75 wrote...

Maybe I'm on drugs, but the EA earnings release seems to target Q4 2011. If that's the case then it does appear that nearly 2 years would elapse between DAO 1 and DAO 2.

And yes thats well within the normal 2 years development cycles of most titles.
Maybe it does FEEL early but DA:O is already old enough  and it is still almost 2 years , and it can still get delayed... though i doubt EA would like that to happen haha

No, the OP had it right. It's EA's fiscal Q4 2010 which is January-March 2011.

hmmm
"confirming a slew of big shot games for it’s FY11 Q4."
Is what I read, that would mean 
4th Quarter: July 1, 2011 - September 30, 2011 Per wikipedia 
http://en.wikipedia....iki/Fiscal_year

However I read to quickly it seems. since the article does say
"EA has just confirmed that Dead Space 2, “Dragon Age Title TBA”, “Shooter from Epic TBA”, “Need For Speed Title TBA” and “Action Title TBA” will all ship between January-March 2011."

that happens when my boss is around haha, i'll edit for correctness
I still feel the development cycle timeline feels right.  They don't need a WHOLE NEW engine they can just update their current one. after that is content and most of the story they probably knew what they were doing with it before the released Origins. What i find interesting is, Jan-Mar 2011 is when The Old Republic was said t be expected to release.

Modifié par Originalshb, 09 février 2010 - 08:40 .

[Originalshb]

bioware_fan wrote...

Its going to come out on PORTABLE CONSOLES
PORTABLE CONSOLES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
EA is milking Bioware to much.

http://sonic.bioware.com/

A Dev wanting to release on portable devices isn't such a strange thing.  Milking? you can't really say that you have no idea.

[Wyndham711]

Originalshb wrote...

Wyndham711 wrote...

Originalshb wrote...

Wyndham711 wrote...

You'd think the press release would have said "Dragon Age sequel" instead of "Dragon Age title" if it was indeed a sequel they were talking about. I'd think they left it ambiguous on purpose. I mean, had they been able to say "sequel" they most likely would have, since investors would probably place more faith on a sequel than on a spinoff/expansion.

A sequel implies that the story continues. There is still a good chance that in DA2 we may not play as our grey warden from Fereldan.  It's very possible the next great conflict of theadas happens in another land.  In that case it would just be an other DA TITLE

I do not think that "sequel" necesserily implies story continuation. Think of Final Fantasy for example. To me "sequel" implies continuation of the numbered core series, and "title" is a broader term which includes spinoffs and expansions. In fact, I personally hope we'll get most of the the Origins plot threads tied together with expansion packs and DLC, so that the sequel will be free to have a completely new, fresh take on new characters and new origin-stories.

Let me expand on this
I'll take an excerpt from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sequel

"A sequel is a work in literature, film, or other media that chronologically portrays events following those of a previous work."

Now, say that the next DA doesn't focus on grey wardens (I can't really imagine that but for the sake of argument lets use it) and it barely deals with darkspawn (remember the are only seen on the surface during blights, the last of which was over 100 years before the current story) That to me, doesn't the literal definition of sequel.  And I fell that if you think the social usage of the word has changed it's meaning then you should probably write to Webster. Because to me FF(n) is not a sequel of FF(n+1)  it's another TITLE int he series. 

Example, the 007 movies, not sequels of the others, they are all different titles in the series.

You do have a point. But in practice, I believe having that number "2" in the title is so tempting in terms of added sales that I doubt they'll be able to resist it, even if the game didn't really fit the official definition of "sequel". Also, Dragon Age 2 not being a _direct_ followup to Dragon Age: Origins wouldn't necesserily mean that it couldn't come chronologically after DA:O.
It could have a new main character, be set up in a new country and have a completely different scenario, but it could still take place chronologically after the events of DA:O, and even reference the events of the first game at times. Stopping the fourth blight is probably a big thing even on an international scale, and may have sent out ripples that will have unforeseeable results in the courts of Orlais, for example.

[Originalshb]

Wyndham711 wrote...

Originalshb wrote...

Wyndham711 wrote...

Originalshb wrote...

Wyndham711 wrote...

You'd think the press release would have said "Dragon Age sequel" instead of "Dragon Age title" if it was indeed a sequel they were talking about. I'd think they left it ambiguous on purpose. I mean, had they been able to say "sequel" they most likely would have, since investors would probably place more faith on a sequel than on a spinoff/expansion.

A sequel implies that the story continues. There is still a good chance that in DA2 we may not play as our grey warden from Fereldan.  It's very possible the next great conflict of theadas happens in another land.  In that case it would just be an other DA TITLE

I do not think that "sequel" necesserily implies story continuation. Think of Final Fantasy for example. To me "sequel" implies continuation of the numbered core series, and "title" is a broader term which includes spinoffs and expansions. In fact, I personally hope we'll get most of the the Origins plot threads tied together with expansion packs and DLC, so that the sequel will be free to have a completely new, fresh take on new characters and new origin-stories.

Let me expand on this
I'll take an excerpt from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sequel

"A sequel is a work in literature, film, or other media that chronologically portrays events following those of a previous work."

Now, say that the next DA doesn't focus on grey wardens (I can't really imagine that but for the sake of argument lets use it) and it barely deals with darkspawn (remember the are only seen on the surface during blights, the last of which was over 100 years before the current story) That to me, doesn't the literal definition of sequel.  And I fell that if you think the social usage of the word has changed it's meaning then you should probably write to Webster. Because to me FF(n) is not a sequel of FF(n+1)  it's another TITLE int he series. 

Example, the 007 movies, not sequels of the others, they are all different titles in the series.

You do have a point. But in practice, I believe having that number "2" in the title is so tempting in terms of added sales that I doubt they'll be able to resist it, even if the game didn't really fit the official definition of "sequel". Also, Dragon Age 2 not being a _direct_ followup to Dragon Age: Origins wouldn't necesserily mean that it couldn't come chronologically after DA:O.
It could have a new main character, be set up in a new country and have a completely different scenario, but it could still take place chronologically after the events of DA:O, and even reference the events of the first game at times. Stopping the fourth blight is probably a big thing even on an international scale, and may have sent out ripples that will have unforeseeable results in the courts of Orlais, for example.

It doesn't have to, I wouldn't be surprised if they went back to the whole andraste story arch. In the mass media they have spent A LOT of time in the past (the 2 books both took place before the game) and the xpac is moving the story forward.  And they already have A LOT of interesting lore from before the current story. I mean A LOT. It is very possible we could see a completely different world. The more i think of it the Andraste story arch would be a great one for them to show us.

[BrunoB1971]

I think it is a little bit early to talk about this..for many people the original game as many technical issues that are not even resolved yet. If you read the posts here and there, the games seems unfinished. I think expansions should be the way to go and patch to correct the problems..then when everything is stable you could go in on a full blown project.



do not put the cart before the horse, as they say....

[SeanMurphy2]

Althernai wrote...
As many people have already said, you have to consider the fact that the game was finished months before they released it -- they sat on it for the sake of a simultaneous release with the consoles, but the developers didn't get a paid vacation for all that time and only a small fraction would know how to port from PC to consoles. Once you include those extra months, there is nothing extraordinary about the schedule. Using Bioware's last fantasy RPG to get a sequel as an example:

Baldur's Gate was released in November 1998
It's expansion (Tales of the Sword Coast) came in April 1999
Baldur's Gate II was released in September 2000

I don't think on the order of two years is unreasonable.

I was surprised how quickly they finished the expansion. I had no idea they were even working on it. I suppose we don't really know what is happening behind the scenes.

If the writers and level designers finished most of their work in 2008. Then yes it would give them time in 2009 to work on the expansion or the sequel. Though I think David Gaider, Sheryl Chee and Ferret Badouin wrote the expansion. So they may have spent the first half of the year working on that. Rather than tackling two projects at once.

It seemed more realistic for a sequel to be finished in the second half of 2011. EA may have included it in the 2011 financial year to boost investor confidence. And then delay it for one or two quarters.

Also the sequel may not be as huge and ambitious as the first game. So won't be as complicated to create or take as much time. DA1 had a lot of major plotlines happening simultaneously. I think they would have liked to spend less time on the mid game content. And more time on the ******* and darkspawn plotlines.

Modifié par SeanMurphy2, 10 février 2010 - 02:29 .

[Lil Kis]

Wow I can't believe how fast were getting these Dragon Age Games.

First a expansion pack 4 months after the release of Dragon Age and now Dragon Age 2 in the beginning of 2011.

This is a great thing!

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

If anything its either an expansion pack or a DS/PSP version (doubtful). At any rate if it is indeed a full fledged sequel, that whole 2 years worth of DLC line goes right out the window.

[AngryFrozenWater]

Let's hope not Andraste. I love Leliana, but I couldn't cope with more Andraste devotion once again. At one point I gave Morigan the Creationist's belt and Wynne the Destructionist's belt. That's how desperate it made me.

[postmanmanman]

BioWare's really been zipping along, haven't they?! Mass Effect 2 mere months after Dragon Age, and then Dragon Age's expansion only one or two months later. And they're forecasting both ME3 and DA2 for 2011?!



In all seriousness, is BioWare TRYING to kill my social life?

[Ex-Paladin]

Maviarab wrote...

People tend to be forgetting AGAIN that DA was finished last April...it was only the consoles that held it back till November....

So, work on DLC, Expansions and DA2 would have been ongoing since last April, perfectly feasible imo.

They do indeed tend to forget that, don't they?

[Pinkleaf]

I would like to see Dragon Age 2 made twice the size of Dragon Age Origins, and just to ensure that Bioware receive enough money back for this venture they could sell it in two parts, but of course have them both for sale on the same day.



Now there would be the game of all games, one gigantic flowing story.



I know, it is probably impossible to do for one reason or another, but I can dream can't I?

[Sloimpreza]

As mentioned b4, it said specifically Dragon Age Title TBA. But it could easily mean a sequel but why not. They spent 5 yrs on this IP and engine and obviously 1 game (even if it did ship 3.2 mil units) are not going to recup those costs. I think releasing games b4 it falls off the radar is important to keep a product profitable.



I also see that handheld was checked off for DA title TBA as well. I think the handheld market is enormous. Look at NDS sales and iPhone d/l numbers. A developer would be stupid not to milk it. Admiration and recognition from fans don't equate to revenue. The only concern is the quality of said product and if it would dilute the franchise. Maybe a better version of Journeys for them. It was certainly an OK for a flash game, if spending more time on it gained more unique items I'm sure completionist people will certainly go for it.



And of course people this is Dragon Age - so expect a delay on that Q4 fiscal 2011

[Walina]

Why do you all think that DA2 is not possible because they will prolly need a new engine ? They ccan just tell a new story in a different kingdom by keeping the same engine and only woks on the graphisms.



Also, that's not fake about DA2 since it's has been announced even on a big fr website : http://www.jeuxvideo...tm#commentaires