I've never heard of a 5 year cycle being normal. In fact, quite the opposite -- I've heard developers state that if a development cycle took 5 years, that would be a game that wouldn't get made. In addition, Dragon Age was supposed to be out in 2007 (at least originally). So a 08/09 release is not on target. Maybe it's on "revised target."

Yes, 5 years is definitely "long", rather than "normal". NWN took far longer than originally intended, and don't forget the publisher change (Interplay started to go under during the development).

If BioWare planned on a 5 year+ cycle for DA, then it's only because they haven't committed full resources to it over that time.

I think I have seen David Gaider mention on one of the DA threads about this on Bioware's forum that people will not heal once they have gotten up from being
unconscious. Instead they would have to head back to base to get proper medical attention.

I also think David G mentioned that maybe & perhaps you would lose some
experience points etc. from this ??

As others have said, I don't agree that dying makes things cool.

In BG, when I died, it was not a powerful roleplaying experience. Heck, in BG2, when a follower died, I reloaded because I didn't want to have to spend twenty minutes re-equipping everything that dropped off the dead character. Reloading isn't inherently cooler than having your followers finish the fight and then help you to your feet.

And yes, don't expect much in re DA until ME is out the door. You focus your community on one game at a time.

Great to see you again Patrick

One thing that bugs me about that statement is that DA was announced years before Mass Effect sometime before or around the time that NWN2 was announced.

We know that concepts and even development has been kicking around on DA for some time.

I would say the communities for Mass Effect and Dragon Age are completely different. People interested in ME would be console gamers who are interested because they want the next KotOR or Jade Empire experience.

Dragon Age is billed as some sort of spiritual successor to BG and NWN.

I agree, although I think it needs to be carefully balanced. KotOR was simply too easy and in Bioshock (a bit different, I know), dying can be tactic - don't waste a health potion, just take the death and regroup as you run back from the teleporter.

Yep. It was announced much earlier in the development cycle than other projects usually are, primarily because BioWare wanted to reassure people that Jade Empire and Mass Effect didn't signal an end to our PC-game development.

They could have pushed out a game quickly, something using the Aurora Engine again that looked like a Neverwinter Nights module with the serial numbers filed off, but the people in high places opted to take a longer path and develop a completely new engine for the new IP.

It's been a very long road, with some major changes on the technology side -- as I understand it (and I could be wrong), we went from one completely new engine to another completely new engine, both internally developed -- and it's clear to everyone that the development cycle has been longer than desired.

The goal, again, as I understand it, is that the big big long long wait now means that the engine framework is in place for more than one game, so if we opt to do a Dragon Age 2, it has a much shorter turnaround time and still looks good for a game put out years from now.

That's an astonishingly narrow mindset. I understand that on this messageboard, some people draw a line in the sand between real RPGs and pseudo-action stuff that console people like… but there's a large fanbase that will give almost any game with the name "BioWare" on it a chance. I was one of those people before I joined the company, and if you have a crystal ball that gives you access to marketing data more accurate than our own marketing department can come up with, then by all means, apply for a job.

So, short version: what "you would say" is based on a limited data set that agrees with your specific tastes.

I'm not saying you have no point -- Mass Effect might draw shooter fans who wouldn't touch a sword-swinging game with a ten-foot pole -- but you are dramatically underestimating the overlap.

Dhruin: I didn't find KotOR that easy, but then, I was doing it as a Scoundrel/Consular with a Con of 12, and because I liked the characters, I hit the final level of the game, the big ugly nasty fights, with Carth and Mission as my followers. There was some teeth-gnashing there. :)

I personally like "unconscious 'til end of fight" because it lets developers take the gloves off. If a single special ability can kill a player and result in having to reload a game, those special abilities can make a fight too frustrating, and it has to be dumbed down. If a single special ability can kill a player until the end of combat, then you can expect a good fight to take down two-thirds of the party instead of "might get most party members into low hit points". It gives the combat designers a bit more slack to play with, and that usually results in combats that are more fun.

(And in re BioShock: I hear you, although I'm choosing not to use the vita chambers. Either stubbornness or ego-padding or something. I'd rather reload than respawn.)

Wow. It's like you're from a different universe. I don't know what to say.

I admire your effort and tenacity but I just don't have the time or commitment to an individual game to take that approach. Even if I had the time, I'd get bored replaying the same stuff. Maybe I just suck and die too often but in "classic" RPGs, I'd probably lose a party member in many? most? larger battles first time around (or even second and third). That would have meant replaying BG2 dozens of times and perhaps I'd have never come even close to finishing. Again, I admire your roleplaying spirit but I just wouldn't enjoy that.

On the "cheap" bit, I broadly agree (that's why I was referring to balance above) but I suspect our ideas of an appropriate "cost" would be wildly disparate.

My astonishingly narrow mindset aside Patrick, your target market then is people who buy Bioware games regardless whether they are designed for console or PC? If they happen to be more shooter fans who don't like complex RPG's or vice versa then it's a spillover?

I'm not saying this to offend you Patrick, and you are right I'm not privy to the demographics so excuse my ignorance. I'm simply saying these are different games.

I myself am curious about the next Bioware game but I don't have a console for example. I myself am waiting for the next BG or NWN2 type game from you guys for PC.

This DA discussion has me thinking… It would be neat to see DA deviate from the expected high fantasy route , and go the low-fantasy route. Apparently, there will be no alignment system, less loot, there will be semi-realistic mortality and healing restrictions, and requirements for 'camp' (resting). No undead from what I've read. It seems to be a rather minimalist low-fantasy Rpg, which just might make it extremely difficult to "win" at (hopefully), and will present new challenges for us RP gamers, who despise clicky slaughterfest cakewalks.

Can dragons exist in low fantasy?

… or do their wings keep hitting the sides … ;)

Why not? They can exist in steampunk.

Hey, you says you will see any dragons at all?? in this game?? Even if it is named Dragon Age?? David Gaider once said (or wrote) at the bioware DA forums that to average people and low level characters dragons in Dragon Age will not be a common thing to see. Even high level characters would be very lucky to see them, I think?

The point is that 'yes, dragons can exist in a low level magic world'. However, they live very very far away on top of the highest mountains where common and ordinary people don't go or come…

Yes, Gaider goes on about that. Quite a number of people dislike the name of this title but he tends to get all "conceptual" about it.

The title is really a couple of words that sound awkward together and has the appearance of "marketing department" written all over it.

I think an equally good title would be "Dungeon Lands" which would be great if they used that for the sequel.

I once had a thread on all the RPG's that had Dungeon or Dragon in the title and it was significant.

Lucky, I think TOO many people would confuse Dungeon Lands with Dungeon Lords!! That would not be a good thing!! :)

I don't think of it that way. Well, frankly, I don't think of it much, because I'm not the guy who says, "This time, action RPG! Next, classic strategy! Tomorrow, turn-based!"

But I see it working two ways. Every game for a company BioWare's size has to reach out to a wide audience. Maybe that audience consists of BioWare fans and traditional RPG fans (Dragon Age). Maybe that audience is BioWare fans and Halo fans (Mass Effect). Maybe it's something entirely different. The point is that there's a core group of fans who will buy just about any title we put out, because they trust our name. (And yeah, if we consistently put out garbage, we can lose that trust. I figure someone will bring that up at some point. I don't see "Making games for consoles" as losing that trust, but it'd be great to get back onto the PCs, if not exclusively than at least simultaneously.)

If you're one of the people who thought that KotOR was too dumbed-down to really be a good RPG, and was really more of an action RPG in disguise, then you probably aren't one of the BioWare-brand people. You're a traditional RPG fan who happened to enjoy Baldur's Gate and possibly Neverwinter Nights.

That doesn't mean your (not necessarily Lucky Day -- a hypothetical "you" here) opinions aren't valid -- I always recommend voting with your dollar to let the marketplace know what you do or don't like. But it does mean that if you see BioWare as not having put out a good game since BG2, your opinions are going to be skewed from the opinions of the people that make up the "Buy BioWare brand" crowd. That means that not every game is going to be targeted at you. Mass Effect, for example, has a solid story and increasingly sweet combat, and I really like the talent chains and equipment modding system for how they let you customize your character, but if what you want is turn-based stat-crunching, Mass Effect might not be your thing. Some people wouldn't appreciate turn-based stat-crunching, some people can appreciate both, and some people appreciate very little except stat-based turn-crunching.

(I'm in "both". I love crunching numbers, but if a game has a good story, I don't much care whether I'm in turn-based or strategy-mode or action-mode or what. If the story is good and combat is fun for me, I'm happy with whatever.)

So, short version: our target market isn't people who would buy anything with BioWare's name on it. That's part of our target market, certainly, and it's the one part that will be there for every game, but every game also has a different target market beyond that core group.

And the hope/plan is that some of the people who've never played a BioWare game play Mass Effect, like it, and decide to give Dragon Age a try, even though they usually just play shooters. (Which is kind of a duh, but probably needed to be said.)

Agreed. I hope the above clarifies my position. (Which, again, is the position of a guy who is in no way connected with marketing or product direction, so take it as a view from the trenches, nothing more.)

I imagine it'll come to PC someday, hopefully sooner than Jade Empire did. No guarantees, but it would make logical sense.

And Dragon Age looks like the game you're waiting for, in any event. :)

I like the PS:T system, where the main character himself is immortal, and can resurrect followers a few times per day. This means that the whole painful BG reload way of doing it is eliminated, but death is still something to avoid. I also like the fact that The Nameless One can, in fact, use death as a tactical element, or as means of escape. He can even solve various quests by dying!

All in all, I really like quite a lot of the elements in PS:T, a shame the gameplay was rather slow; too slow to attract the masses I think.