Bioware's Stanley Woo on the rushed dev cycle
 

Interesting quote from here.

Refreshingly blunt.

So why does Bioware give itself these incredibly short development cycles then? Oh, that's right. EA is calling the shots now. And next time they'll have an even shorter cycle. ;)

This quote from the composer make it clear:
Welcome to MacBioware. How may we serve you? Btw, love the note about "bugs" in the musical score.

EA is not Blizzard.

Is Blizzard even Blizzard anymore? :) I'm sure we don't need to stretch it to their standard though. Half would be just fine.

It just baffles me that corporations still don't get that lowering quality will eventually lower sales, even if not right away. Dragon Age 2 might sell a lot based on the name and Bioware's street cred but the cut corners and rushed feel will surely impact sales of Dragon Age 3 or whatever else.

Though like Activision and the Guitar Hero games I am sure EA will just bleed Bioware until it's no longer profitable, then cut them all loose.

Just like every other publisher out there. Im still pissed at EA for shutting down westwood studios.

Not to mention my favourite: Origin!!

Super mega corps, always do that. They are massive black holes in the free enterprise world.

Short Dev cycles wouldn't be so bad if they didn't want to change everything. There is absolutely no reason in my mind why they couldn't upgrade a few things while having a new story.

In my mind it has been proven already that you can use the same engine while upgrading just a few things and people will still buy the game. If this wasn't true then Jeff Vogel would have gone out of business a long time ago.

It's so funny how different these interviews/reviews are when compared to DA:O. Everyone was praising them in that and now Bioware has to go on the defensive with DA 2. I just wanted an upgraded version of Origins with a few tweaks here and there and a new story.

Call me weird, but I wonder what kind of reaction they would be getting if they had done that. Sure people would be bitching about the graphics and how they weren't upgraded enough, but would that have been such a bad thing?

I believed Awakening based on same engine of DAO has been quite a failure. For the graphics I don't remember well but I think they was already a bit dated at release. I also don't think they changed that many things, for me the fights was requiring a lot of tuning and I quote many has been done in DA2. It was also a necessity to increase vastly the number of talents for each class and its been done in DA2. Rogues and Fighters was a lot too close and it was a necessity to make them really different in term of role, this has been done in DA2. Skills was quite a failure in DAO, they fixed it… by removing them entirely, lol. But have let them identical I'm not sure this was that better, fixed them was a necessity.

The point is more that I don't remember so many complaining that DA2 release was planned one year plus few month after release of DAO. This on start and long before DA2 release, is insane and it's amazing this didn't trigger a wide movement of contest. Now I wonder why I didn't open any thread at Bioware forums to complain about that.

That very short delay planed was crazy and not fixing anything to fit the year would have been awful, for me DAO has plenty big holes.

I do remember few posts including in this forum quoting this absurdity but well too minor to be heard.

Yeah, Awakening did not sell well on consoles from what I understand. That probably solidified the new direction in DA2.

Which would have been fine with me honestly if they had just been given the time to actually make the game. I like the new art style, I like the faster combat which is still tactical as hell on hard mode. What I don't like is seeing 8 or so locations the entire game and having every sidequest feel rushed.

It's ok to have a short development cycle, but it's not ok - to me - to claim that every inevitable change is for the better when being interviewed.

It's the dishonesty I have a hard time appreciating. Giving excuses after bad press, is not exactly a good compensation.

This is a good point actually. Woo makes it clear above that certain things were sacrificed due to the schedule, but in interviews before release Laidlaw and others were acting like those were quality-based decisions.

Of course, you can't really blame them from a business point of view. I mean, obviously they're going to want to sell their game. My problem is that they're saying these things like they really believe them - which would be the scariest thing of all.

I know it's the "way of things" - but I will never learn to appreciate the marketing standard of covering up every obvious flaw, and pretending it's an advantage - proclaiming your own genius.

I just despise such things, but I don't blame employees for following the corporate line.

It simply doesn't speak well for their internal development environment.

Apparently, according to random strangers on a forum I visit, who were at some convention where Bioware showed/talked about Dragon Age 2 at an early stage, the Bio people there were open about not being happy about the direction of the game - but that they couldn't do anything about it, really - as it was out of their hands.

Obviously, it could all be a fabrication - but I heard about it some months before DA2 was in the hotspot - and it certainly makes sense given the result.

If true, it's a very telling thing - to have developers who don't agree that what they're doing is right.

It can't be good for the final game.

Solid points.

What blows my mind is: The stated reason for Bioware and EA to get into bed together was for Bioware to have the autonomy to make what they wanted to make without having to worry about finding financial backers for their projects.

How could Bioware not see that, once EA was in control financially, they were pretty much done for? Did the execs at Bioware honestly expect EA to just give them money and otherwise leave them alone?

I'm not at all sure that EA is responsible.

More like the merging of the EA norm with Bio management.

I think the doctors want to be rockstars - and EA just wants to be EA :)

Fallout --> Fallout 2 a year later. Bugs GALORE, but it would go down in history as a fan favorite. What was changed? Pretty much nothing, save the quirky humor addition.

I bought Awakenings but simply don't have any zeal to play it. Having said that, what exactly was wrong with it that merited any "sealing of the deal" for DA2?

Nothing.. Awakenings was quite good actually.

Imo, I think a lot of people were simply burned out on Dragon Age at that time.

Mechanically, Awakenings was just Origins with a couple of tweaks and a different story. As far as expansions go, I thought it was solid, and, unless you're under the effects of some powerful hallucinogens, I don't see how you extrapolate DA2 from it…

It would be interesting to know what the trade-offs were. I could see how something like the choice to stick to set companion armour might be easier as then they don't have to invest in as many graphical assets for the same suit of armour worn by different shaped characters.

The re-use of exactly the same dungeon layouts . . . feels a bit lazy, I'd have thought they could do a few more and not add that much to the time (although given they did exactly the same on ME2 and people still enthused about the game I'm not surprised they thought they were fine to do it this time round). It's annoying that they don't communicate it more clearly though, I spent a bit of time the first couple of goes trying to work out how to get into the locked off bits in some dungeons that showed up on the map, without realising that they're never meant to be opened in that dungeon, just re-used in another. If they're going to save time they could at least have taken two minutes to properly wall each one off and truncate the map.

Overall I do appreciate the bluntness there and would prefer to get more direct information on it. Ultimately I like getting games more frequently, if they can find a sweet spot of efficiency that gets the most player enjoyment for the least development resource then I'm okay with that.

Indeed better than okay, I'd prefer that. Blizzard development cycles are all very well, but I was still only ever going to play starcraft 2 the once and I'd rather they released more often and made a few more compromises.

I can also accept that the process of finding the sweet spot is going to mean some flawed decisions. For my tastes, they've put some effort into the skill system and kept the focus on story and voice acting and got a game out damned quickly, and none of the compromises ruins it for me.

It's a reference to DocNarrative's earlier post.

And here I thought doctors were supposed to be smart…

Got it. Should have guessed it was due to sales. I must be slipping.

^This. I think maybe it's time to think about playing it now that it has been a year.

Stan's comments here, and in the other thread in which I posted about DA2, it certainly seems like the Bioware devs. know something is wrong, very wrong with DA2 e.g. the direction the game, the franchise has taken. It also seems like Bioware (yes, maybe even the senior management?) need new and old gamers to protest and post criticism of the game on the Bioware forums.

As I understand it, the romance now features people, npcs, being in bed with their full armours on? To me, this clearly reads like the management in both EA and Bioware want to avoid having another Fox News incident (like the one that happened with the first Mass Effect game…)

I have no idea of many copies Awakenings sold on consoles or how many copies Awakenings sold for pc. However, I find it interesting that EA and Bioware obviously still think that console players are 16-25 year old adoloscents who have an interest in blood spatters, boobs, and fast paced action. Assasin's Creed, Heavy Rain and other console games beg to differ, I find. Console gamers today are as diverse as people playing pc games. As for Awakenings, I liked it a lot. And I don't understand why people didn't like it?

As for the Bioware devs. not beeing happy about the direction of DA2, I can surely understand it. The decision to make the game a certain way to appeal to more people, the mythical creature? that is the casual gamer. I really fear that EA, and Bioware's management have made a wrong decision here. Maybe the casual gamer, or the gamer playing Call of Duty will try the game out for about ½ an hour, or maybe 1½ hour, and then leave it. The reason, I think this will be the case is this: Call of Duty gamers will maybe? get a little bored with the story, the dialogue, the characters. I'm not that sure that Bioware's new direction with first telling the legend, then making a character, then playing it real, won't get the targeted audience, the CoD players, to quit, after the first part of the game. Time will tell, I suppose.

The above is by no means an attack on CoD players, I also play Call of Duty games sometimes; it is a really great game - in its genre. And yes, there are some similarities between the gameplay, and some (very) minor similarities between the quest or mission structure. And yes, weapons can be upgraded to, armours, too.

People, especially in a creative industry, need to be able to feel happy and great and good about their work. If they don't, they end up not working at their best, and the result will be - mediocre - at best.

However, I do understand why Bioware, (and EA) made the game the way they do. And, like I've said before, I'm thankfull for the story in this game: No secret order. No saving the world. No ancient evil. This is a story-line that has been done - to death - so many times that is now has become a story that is a mockery of itself, a kliché. That's why I like the story in DA2….

Having only played the demo, unfortunately, I really can't say anything about how the execution or design has been implemented (made) in the game. But from the demo, I played, DA2 looked like itself, and by that I mean, it looked similar to DA: Origins. And I do like the new clean interface, the new art direction, the fact that there are no skills, and the way the user interface is presented.

I'm sure, though, that DA2 would have benefitted, from another 3-6 months of development. It would have been a better game, and have received better review scores, and this in turn might mean more sales. Time will tell, though, how many copies DA2, will sell…

I wonder those who really played the game and those who make deep comment on it but just played the demo. Lol well ok I haven't finish it yet, so I won't comment more. :p

It's really not a bad game, it's just a disappointing game and the reason for that is obvious cut corners and short development time.

I finished it twice already.Its disappointing. Wont go on a rant when everything has already been said three or more times. The bottom line is it was rushed to finish it.

Played twice and disappointed, interesting concept. :) Yes some obvious point showing it's been rushed on corners. But it has also many points quite polished and I doubt a lot that fill the holes would have changed much the gameplay.

A good example is making significantly well the skills, and avoid area and dungeon reuse so making quite more area, plus adding significantly more items. I doubt a lot this could fit with 6 more month, and I doubt that just adding that (but the skills is a huge point so it's ambiguous) would really change the gameplay.

EDIT: I don't want mean they should not have put the 6 more month, they probably should have done it to avoid some of the bad review and players comments. But for me as a player, that would not change much and I don't care that those rushed corners are filled or not.

Well glad you enjoyed it. Its still disappointing in every way. Over-hyped and doesn't deliver on that epic story told over 10 years.

You still played it two times, for me that said all behind the words. :)

And anyway you think that add skills back from DAO, avoid duplicated area, add more items, provide full equipments to companions, or fill any of the other clear rushed points would change your feeling? I doubt a lot.

You don't like but played two time, and the links between the liking you pretend have :biggrin: and the rushed elements need a quite clear explanation.

As others said, fast-turn production cycles aren't inherently bad - in fact, sometimes the quest to 'do next gen' can cause more issues and lose focus, etc.

That said, this move to homogenize all games to action-based, story-driven 'cover shooters' (sometimes with swords & fireballs) with a few dialogue options and so on has seemed to succeed for EA, but they are really not doing the math very well.

Sales are dropping on games while the main console (X360) for this generation is increasing sales … and PC gaming saw a 20% worldwide increase in sales last year (19% outside of China). They are already seeing the impact of their mainstreaming efforts, and it will only get worse.

Exactly - Dragon Age is a huge game, and they were releasing DLC quests at a pretty fast pace and then a huge - and EXPENSIVE - expansion within 6 months? If I wasn't a mindless RPG whore I would have thought twice before pre-ordering! ;)

I suppose "huge expansion" is ironical, if not my comment is I don't think I ever played a so short expansion, even those of NWN1 seem to me bigger.

Other than that you are quoting general PC sells but what's behind those numbers? Organization making those numbers seem have discovered only recently there was PC digital sells. Are all games that contributed to this increase really more streamlined and console like?

I wonder why players would buy the pc version of a console like game when he could buy the version of one of the multiple consoles he owns.

Think of it this way:
- Bioware has stated that Call of Duty and Farmville are actually RPGs of the type that prepare players for the sorts of games they are trying to make.
- Awakenings is longer than every game in the Halo franchise combined.
- so …

Wait, stop, hold on…

Did you actually write this, or did my crazy pills kick in? You could not possibly have just put those words, in that order, into a sentence, on purpose.

Not sure what you mean but Bioware have said this. They have also said the RPG has to evolve or it will die.

I wrote about it here, and here is one quote from Melo:
And another from Laidlaw:

So…everything is an RPG…

Great.

Bellow the quote, where Farmville is quoted as a RPG? It is quoted only to symbolize a lambda player.

And even in case of COD it isn't quote as a RPG, but as having some RPG element through the medal system earned through experience.

There's a huge difference between that and pretend Mark said they are RPG. :roll:

Sure you can nuance the quote, but I think the shifts to Dragon Age 2 back up my opinion. This is the core Bioware attitude: