Dragon Age: Inquisition

[Sarex]

i'm also not totally bought into the whole

 

"DAO was SOOOO MUCH BETTER than DA2"

 

i don't think those games are that far apart in terms of quality.  origin was much larger and polished feeling, and lacked the non-existent level design and empty space feeling of DA2, but DA2 wasn't a total failure either, varic was cool, and the combat definitely had its moments of punchy fun

 

DAO was, i think, a better game overall, but the difference to me was not as large as it seems to be for some folks

 

The main thing that killed it for me was the camera angle and the feeling that I should be using a controller to play it.

[licketysplit]

i'm also not totally bought into the whole

 

"DAO was SOOOO MUCH BETTER than DA2"

 

i don't think those games are that far apart in terms of quality.  origin was much larger and polished feeling, and lacked the non-existent level design and empty space feeling of DA2, but DA2 wasn't a total failure either, varic was cool, and the combat definitely had its moments of punchy fun

 

DAO was, i think, a better game overall, but the difference to me was not as large as it seems to be for some folks

 

It was a full blooded PC game with good characters and solid high fantasy atmosphere. That went a long ways with a lot of gamers despite the gameplay and levels being lackluster.

[Volourn]

EA is BIO. To blame BIo is to blame EA since EA is 100% firmly in control. BIO is not a company. It is a division.

[alanschu]

 So let's review this history, here. EA acquires BioWare, and then all of a sudden the franchise takes a huge dump, and most of that is squarely based upon the much shorter development time the second time around.  Is the consumer supposed to think this isn't a coincidence?  Maybe it is, but can you blame a person for being skeptical?

You missed a part in the chronology though. EA acquires BioWare and then all of a sudden DAO finally ships. Sure you can look at that and get upset because they also helped push forth the console versions (which is defintely a risk mitigation maneuver).

[Orogun01]

EA is BIO. To blame BIo is to blame EA since EA is 100% firmly in control. BIO is not a company. It is a division.

Who's now in control of the Bioware division after Greg and Ray left?

[Tale]

 

EA is BIO. To blame BIo is to blame EA since EA is 100% firmly in control. BIO is not a company. It is a division.

Who's now in control of the Bioware division after Greg and Ray left?

 

Aaryn Flynn for Edmonton/Montreal.

[Maria Caliban]

 

Who's now in control of the Bioware division after Greg and Ray left?

 

Matthew Bromberg, General Group Manager (used to work at BioWare Austin)

Aaryn Flynn, General Manager Canada

Jeff Hickmann, General Manager Austin

[decado]

 

 So let's review this history, here. EA acquires BioWare, and then all of a sudden the franchise takes a huge dump, and most of that is squarely based upon the much shorter development time the second time around.  Is the consumer supposed to think this isn't a coincidence?  Maybe it is, but can you blame a person for being skeptical?

You missed a part in the chronology though. EA acquires BioWare and then all of a sudden DAO finally ships. Sure you can look at that and get upset because they also helped push forth the console versions (which is defintely a risk mitigation maneuver).

 

 

Again, I don't understand what you are getting at here.

[Oner]

 

 

 So let's review this history, here. EA acquires BioWare, and then all of a sudden the franchise takes a huge dump, and most of that is squarely based upon the much shorter development time the second time around.  Is the consumer supposed to think this isn't a coincidence?  Maybe it is, but can you blame a person for being skeptical?

You missed a part in the chronology though. EA acquires BioWare and then all of a sudden DAO finally ships. Sure you can look at that and get upset because they also helped push forth the console versions (which is defintely a risk mitigation maneuver).

 

 

Again, I don't understand what you are getting at here.

 

You blame EA for DA2, yet forget that they made DA:O possible in the first place, I assume.

 

I can kinda-sorta see where Allan is coming from. EA went for the shorter dev cycle, yes, but it was BW that wanted to squeeze in more stuff anyway - which led to less polish and more asset reuse.

[licketysplit]

That doesn't mean the relationship between Bioware and EA didn't change over time. Whatever the case, EA's track record speaks for itself. They gobbled up IP's and studios left and right.

[Zoraptor]

Yeah, and so did Square Enix, Activision, 2k, Sega, Derp Silver, Bethesda, THQ, Infotari. Publishers gonna publish.

 

I think what Allan is getting at mainly is that EA does bring positives as well as negatives. EA provided impetus to finally get DAO released, and the fault for it taking so long has to be Bioware's since they were independent for 80% of its development. DAO took so long that it nearly caught up with Mass Effect's schedule, which is bad for commercial reasons (potential overlap of sales/ publisher/ PR resources, concentration of revenue/ 'dead patches') and for production reasons (shared resources between ME/ DA teams coming under pressure at similar times, dlc scheduling). While it's possible to blame EA for not ordering more time for it there are very good reasons for it being that way- and a team producing a game every 5 years is not going to be commercially viable long term whether it's EA or independent Bioware.

 

Also, many of the things people blame EA for are trends Bioware was following for ages. DLC can be traced back to the NWN premium modules, 'consolisation' to KOTOR, asset reuse to Mass Effect (1, and even on occasion prior to that).

[Nonek]

Personally I care not a whit for either EA or Bioware's business practises, all I care for is the games they are asking me to pay for. If they meet my expectations then the company has performed its purpose, if not then I will be somewhat critical, though I certainly don't expect my criticism to be heeded as i'm somewhat in a minority in terms of taste.

 

I've made my thoughts known on DA2, but I played the game for sixty hours and so more than recouped my expenses, thus it fulfilled its main purpose.

[NOK222]

Dragon Age 2 would have been a decent game if it had a year and half of development time, not nine months. It doesn't matter who's fault it is, but it's not gonna go well for anyone if you release a ****ty bugged out incomplete game. 

 

I'm glad you guys were given an extra year to do DAI 

[Volourn]

"I can kinda-sorta see where Allan is coming from. EA went for the shorter dev cycle, yes, but it was BW that wanted to squeeze in more stuff anyway - which led to less polish and more asset reuse."

 

EA is BIO. Whatever BIo decides is EA decides. BIO, as a company, does NOT exist. This is NOt the same as BIO being able to tell Interplay to scrwew off, we're taking our ball elsewhere. EA is BIO. Good, the bad, the ugly.

 

 

"Dragon Age 2 would have been a decent game if it had a year and half of development time, not nine months. It doesn't matter who's fault it is, but it's not gonna go well for anyone if you release a ****ty bugged out incomplete game."

 

1. DA2 is almost as good as DA1.

 

2. of coruse, it be better with more time.

 

3. Hate it or like it; it's a complete game. BEGINNING. MIDDLE. END. complete

 

Period.

 

 

"I think what Allan is getting at mainly is that EA does bring positives as well as negatives. EA provided impetus to finally get DAO released, and the fault for it taking so long has to be Bioware's since they were independent for 80% of its development. DAO took so long that it nearly caught up with Mass Effect's schedule, which is bad for commercial reasons (potential overlap of sales/ publisher/ PR resources, concentration of revenue/ 'dead patches') and for production reasons (shared resources between ME/ DA teams coming under pressure at similar times, dlc scheduling). While it's possible to blame EA for not ordering more time for it there are very good reasons for it being that way- and a team producing a game every 5 years is not going to be commercially viable long term whether it's EA or independent Bioware."
 

BIO managed to do fine pre EA.

 

Maybe DA took a long time but it was obviously worth it. Also,  DA would never intervere with ME because the fanbase for both is the same. They'll buy both games more or less.

 

BIO has hundreds of employees. They can manage more than 2 games/series at once.

 

BIO also had other games being released while DA was in production. It wasn't like it was only DA being worked on during those 5 years. They ahd money coming in from other sources.

 

I mean BIO was financially sound enough to turn both NWN2 and KOTOR2 and reccommend the 'competition' for them.

 

Don't make stuff up.

[licketysplit]

DA2 was crap Volourn, are kidding me? What the hell are your standards for a good game? I don't care who screwed up, a metric ton of opinions say DA2 was garbage. It was rushed out on a conveyor belt, manufactured by a team that didn't know how to put soul or character into a game.

[Volourn]

*yawn*

 

Only toolbags go by what others think. Define 'metric ton' btw. You are full of crap. You probably think Twitcher is best game ever. I'lls tick with the PSTs, BG2s, and FOs. Thanks.

Edited September 14, 2013 by Volourn

[Zoraptor]

BIO has hundreds of employees. They can manage more than 2 games/series at once.

Friend Volo, you are leaving out the crucial factor there- they can handle two games at once (three now, I believe) if they are organised properly. It's the same for everyone, differing creative parts of the company come under pressure at different times in the dev cycle. If you have two games in development in similar stages you end up with the high demand times being nearly in sync as well and have to hire extra staff to cope with the spike, then lay them plus others off (or keep them at dollar costs) once the spike is passed. Not a good situation. Space them properly and you don't have to lay off, or hire, those artists as the demands fluctuate but are balanced as the two projects progress and you can keep the workflow at a reasonably steady rate.

 

5+ years to make a game is stupidly long. Being able to cope with that on a one off basis is not the issue, that that length of development time is wasteful and unnecessary- and that it then requires very high sales to make back the cash- is. Because if you take that long and don't sell well then you're in trouble, and a lot more trouble than if a 2-3 year dev time game sells equivalently poorly. And if the game sells well you get more money from the shorter time.

 

FACT!

 

Don't make stuff up.

 

r00fles!

[Maria Caliban]

I've made my thoughts known on DA2, but I played the game for sixty hours and so more than recouped my expenses, thus it fulfilled its main purpose.

This is a touch too sensible for my tastes.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

DA2 was crap Volourn, are kidding me? What the hell are your standards for a good game?

NWN, IIRC.

 

This is a touch too sensible for my tastes.

DA2 is the reason my father died and I will lead a glorious Jihad against EA for it.

 

Better?

Edited September 14, 2013 by KaineParker

[Orogun01]

DA2 was crap Volourn, are kidding me? What the hell are your standards for a good game? I don't care who screwed up, a metric ton of opinions say DA2 was garbage. It was rushed out on a conveyor belt, manufactured by a team that didn't know how to put soul or character into a game.

I would put DA2 at the same level of quality of AP, whereas I enjoyed AP immensely I didn't like DA2. I can however, conceive of someone else having enjoyed it for the experience that it was. 

[Volourn]

"NWN, IIRC."
 

Nah. BG2, FO, and PST.

 

 

"I would put DA2 at the same level of quality of AP"

 

L0L AP is crap. It is, BY FAR, Obsidian's worst game and is one of the worst games ever. DA2 is WAY better than it in every way manage. Hell, even its repetitive areas  are lessy copy paste than AP's crap.

 

AP is POR2 and ES series level of poop.

[alanschu]

 

 

Also, many of the things people blame EA for are trends Bioware was following for ages. DLC can be traced back to the NWN premium modules, 'consolisation' to KOTOR, asset reuse to Mass Effect (1, and even on occasion prior to that).

 

Yup (I think BioWare actually missed out on a great opportunity if they had pushed for digital more aggressively back with NWN).

 

 

 

 

Personally I care not a whit for either EA or Bioware's business practises, all I care for is the games they are asking me to pay for. If they meet my expectations then the company has performed its purpose, if not then I will be somewhat critical, though I certainly don't expect my criticism to be heeded as i'm somewhat in a minority in terms of taste.

 

Note, this is precisely what I expect you as a consumer to do, so thunderous applause from me.

 

I just comment that people like to create their own narrative of how things must be going, to match whatever their preexisting assumptions happen to be.

 

 

 

 

5+ years to make a game is stupidly long. Being able to cope with that on a one off basis is not the issue, that that length of development time is wasteful and unnecessary- and that it then requires very high sales to make back the cash- is.

 

It is a very long time, and unfortunately for BioWare there isn't a World of Warcraft, a Steam, or an 8 digit seller like GTA to make quite that safety net.

 

Obviously EA is interested in using Origin to help mitigate some of its risk (I'd like Origin to definitely start growing its game library), and TOR was an attempt that while able to sustain itself, is definitely not anywhere on the comfortable revenue cushion that WoW is.  Even then, while a game like Battlefield is very, very successful, there's also that idea that it's not as easy as simply taking revenues that Battlefield made and just applying it willy nilly to whatever other non-DICE project the EA wants to.

[alanschu]

 

 

L0L AP is crap.

 

I actually think the analogy is pretty apt.  A game that clearly has some issues, that is going to frustrate a non-trivial amount of gamers, but is still able to garner its dedicated following of fans.

[Volourn]

Except DA2 sold millions of copies and despite loud whining has a ton of people who like it while AP bombed in every meaningful way and is liked by  an extremly tiny minority. 

 

DA3 is coming. Where is AP2? 'Nough said.

[alanschu]

Fair enough.  DA2 was definitely more successful.