txa1265: Gaaaaaaaaaah!

skavenhorde: Thanks. I appreciate it. I haven't worked on DA since 2005, but a bunch of my friends are busting their asses on it, so when someone is not just skeptical but outright dismissive with incorrect assumptions whose corrections they ignore, I take it more personally than I should.

I don't want to get torn a new one for blowing any particular batch of marketing hype, but I think that when people see more specifics about just how hardcore the tactical controls are, both in what you can do yourself and what you can get your party to do automatically by following pre-arranged orders, you're going to be extremely happy. There are things about which the lead designer has said, "I have no idea how they're gonna fit that onto the console. Not really my problem. My job is to make it kick ass on the PC."

And yes, he said that explicitly. Now, hopefully they do fit those features onto the console, so that things don't have to be streamlined or simplified… but they're not cutting anything from the PC so that the console-port guys have an easier time later.

Our little genre tends to dismiss everything even when faced with facts. Just take a look at how the Fallout community treated Van Buren when it was being developed. A lot of it was negative, but then Van Buren gets dumped and then all of a sudden it wasn't that bad, lmao.

Gotta say, I like your attitude and the fact that EA isn't doing what I thought it would do. I figured they could force you and Bioware to do it their way, but it sounds like they're giving Bioware more freedom than they have in the past with other companies.

I hope they're able to pull off a good console port. Still not sure how they could without streamlining. Just like I don't see how Black Isle could of ever made Baldurs Gate for a console, but in truth I don't really care. I'm getting the pc version with a freaking mouse and keyboard not just some gamepad.:biggrin:

I'm not calling Patrick a sellout - I'm calling Bioware sellouts. Is it polite? Probably not, but it's the truth.

Anyway, he's repeating the same things over and over - so why is it that I can't make it clear WHY we're suspicious? I think it's pretty reasonable for us to be - and no amount of promises can change that. I've heard promises from so many people and I've learned that scepticism is a healthy way to avoid being disappointed.

But I wouldn't want to tire you with tedious rabid mindless hive talk.

So I'll assume my opinion is heard and understood now - though I seriously doubt it is - and you can go back to being true believers as soon as a developer opens his mouth.

Who pays the bills again?

Do you seriously believe they can make two completely different versions of this game with the resources and time available?

It's a logical thing. Either they release two very similar versions with interface and memory adaptions for each platform, or they develop two versions.

The first scenario means a TON of lost sales on consoles - because the mass market won't accept that kind of game.

The last scenario means you better be prepared with enough resources and time, and somehow I don't see that happening because a Lead Designer says it isn't his problem.

EA will decide who will have what problem.

Patrick, we really appreciate your input here, both staff and regular posters. Yes, some people get worked up over the PC/Console debate (I hate consoles) and we don't trust EA (This will be the first EA game I have bought since U9 and it's only because I LIKE BW and most of their games). However, at least we're not only passionate about our games, but MOST of us are also reasonable rational about them. DA is my most anticipated game of 2009!!

It's your truth but it doesn't mean it's the truth.

In my world, Muzyka and Zeschuk were always ambitious businessmen, intent on growing a significant business that developed AAA games. They're not sellouts for continuing to pursue that, as opposed to your vision where they make a certain type of game and live happily ever after on Ramen Noodles because that's pure to the art. That was just never their thing.

For me, BG2 was already responding to the market and they've simply continued that all along. I'm one of those weirdos that liked BG over BG2 (for flawed reasons - I can see where BG2 is improved) and they've continued the process or refining and developing replicable formulas ever since, moving further away from my preferences. I still enjoy (newer) BioWare games but I'm not passionate about them. In my opinion, it was an accident of circumstance they ever developed a hardcore CRPG, which makes it a bit hard to "sell out".

You can do what you like within the site's parameters. I'm not telling you to stop - I'm expressing my opinion that we're pointlessly treading the same tired ground (see below). I enjoy your strident debates but there comes a point there's no longer any communication. We're there. See below again.

Yeah, not so much. I understand your point - I even agree that EA's interest doesn't intersect with ours too much. On the other hand, Patrick knows the project and it's history and current staff and has responded within his knowledge and authority that the console version is not compromising the PC version.

You probably disagree but it isn't unreasonable to argue the long development while BioWare was independent might ensure a good PC release. It's one possible logical position (again, even if you disagree). We can keep throwing shit at Patrick - essentially calling him a liar - or we can accept that the best source we have says the focus is still on a strong PC release. You can still be skeptical - go for it! - but what further response are you going to get?

I think it's important to stop looking at BioWare (or EA for that matter) as a single entity. There are developers and investors. These two groups will always be struggling - the investors want as little risk as possible, with maximum profits. Developers want to make the best games possible. They all do, with very few exceptions.

The reason I know this is simple: If you are a developer in the gaming industry, there's only one reason to actually stick around: Passion. There are so many other jobs out there for developers, with so much better pay/less work, the money simply can't be the issue. That doesn't mean a developer at BioWare has a rubbish salary, it just means that a developer of similar talent working for Accenture or IBM has a much bigger salary (and 8-10 hour days instead of 12). I should know, I'm one of those developers making quite a bit more than game developers, and even though I am very passionate about gaming, I still wouldn't consider a job as a game developer. Some developers go through hell just to make decent games (skip pay by working tons of extra hours every week without charging the project/company, work weekends, put up with being shafted by the people at the top on pretty much every project they're on, and so on and so forth).

That's why I tend to take the developers side in most discussions - the developers have probably put their hearts and souls into the game, but the whole thing ended up being ruined by investors pulling the plug. On the other hand, the gaming industry needs those investors; they're not "eeeevil", but they are interested in making money, and if they have a choice between game A and game B, where A can guarantee more profit than B, then that's the game they invest in.

I can't even imagine how bad it must feel for developers to invest two (or more) years of their lives, working weekends and what not, to make a great game, and then the feedback from the fans they're trying to please is "you guys suck", despite the fact that the actual developers (not investors) did everything they could with the resources/time available to make the best possible game.

Anyhow, back to BioWare: BioWare has been lucky enough to have what I call "relative freedom". This means they've shown publishers, investors and what not (EA included) that their recipe works - they are capable of making quite a bit of money while making good games. That's why I personally believe EA will let BioWare continue to follow that recipe; there's simply no need to change it.

Foul! I haven't claimed that DA will be a dumbed-down console game. I do expect it to be a formulaic, predictable, and unadventurous. With a clingy elf girlfriend. But "dark."

I'll probably enjoy it, too, but that doesn't mean I don't wish BW would, on occasion, take, you know, like, a creative risk somewhere. Even in a sidequest or something.

Jade Empire?

:lol:

I've been getting similar vibes. I am looking forward to it, I don't think it'll be an all time classic I'll rave about for years but it sounds like a good solid game with a new IP that I'd be surprised if I didn't buy early on, play through to the end and get genuinely stuck into even if there were some real crap bits.

I don't think they'll do anything half as bad as driving that sodding jeep around empty planets with great big hills to find anomalies that never mattered anyway. I hope they don't at least . . . .

With this logic, we can safely conclude that anyone who works for less than optimal wage is doing it because of passion.

I'm afraid I can't agree.

I have no idea what level of passion exists, I only know that they've changed direction in a VERY big way in the last half-dozen years or so.

I'm not saying every Bioware developer is a sellout - because obviously they're not. I wouldn't claim every Microsoft employee is Bill Gates, because it's equally obvious they're not.

However, the fact - in my mind - remains that Bioware has been compromised SEVERELY in terms of creative integrity, and I really don't bother with who's responsible.

It's just what it is.

Speculation on opinions, why not just wait and see what Bioware creates and judge the final product. I for myself am disappointed in the delay but wait for what they release on which i will form my meaning.

How much of BioWare did they control before selling to EA? Was it forced because of other investors?

Squishing together a lot of B-rated martial art movie cliches, spoon in generlous ladles of "classic" Bioware cliches, add some uninspired clickfest gameplay and unchallenging combat, and… voila, a creative risk?

And I suspect the "dark and gritty" thing will be about as dark and gritty as Mass Effect. Which is about as dark and gritty as a Disney movie. Time to go replay The Witcher and savor every single moment of morally ambiguous goodness.

We don't know. To be honest, I don't think it's particularly relevant either way. When they sold to a VC investment group - Elevation Partners - they knew the score. VC groups are always going to position the company for fast growth for a quick sale - they knew that. Maybe EA wasn't their choice of destination (but, y'know, Riccitello was part of all this…) but them or Microsoft or Actiblizzion or Disney or…it was going to be someone.

Anyway, my point is that - in my opinion - the Doctors were never cutting edge artists forced into some sort compromise or visionary artistes who sold out for cash. They were always about growing a business with broad appeal from the beginning.

This isn't a harsh criticism, by the way. It's their business.

Can't say I would be a passionate DA defender and I'm continously looking if BioWare is shifting goals. But 'though I have a strong personal scepsis regarding DA, I have no significance that it really is dumbed down. Indeed there are several arguments against.

- interface: Undoubtful point & click
- camera: Full 3D, "isometric" view also possible
- AI: Seemingly Highly configurable
- Personal opinion of a mainstream console game tester
- Bio comm seems also to be on a normal level after presentation on Comic Con

So they seem to have a complete PC game, that presumably only needs some more bugfixing. They would be completely insane to change the complete PC version into a more console-like game. That would be completely nonsense and even in the old EA days I can hardly imagine that would have been the way. There is also clearly no evidence that they did so now. It's pure speculation, completely denying the facts and simply an unfair argumentation imho. In dubio pro reo.

What I really think is a thing to criticize, is the PR rearguard battle concerning the console version. I'm sure long time ago there was once the point they decided to do a console version, if they have the money and the publisher to do so. It's their choice, they have all the right to do so. But they didn't communicate that decision properly. They used a tactic (called salami technique in German), beginning "there could be a console installtion in the DA universe, but a different one; DA still appeals to the PC market", then "yeah, we will make a console port of DA:O, but it will be released some times after the PC version", ending with Brent Knowles saying in press interviews "We always knew that there will be a console version, so we already developed a control scheme and sometimes I even play the game with an xbox controller on the PC. I like it."

With the new financial crisis and EA's tactic to delay major titles until the new fiscal year (the last year was already lost, so they concentrate on the new year to statistically improve their incomes and sales growth) we've reached the point that was imho quite clear right from the beginning. PR has nothing to do with honesty, sad but true.

Some comment about Halo Wars (a console RTS game):
"I watched the review on GameSpot, the IGN review is much better - it makes more sense. This GameSpot guy is a picky guy who doesn't understand that RTS strategy games haven't been very successful on console games yet. Almost all the points this guy makes says that the game isn't complex enough for true strategists. Well if it was complex it would be insanely hard to play on a console. The great achievement Halo Wars has done is that they have made a RTS game solely for a console - and it works. Of course, it cannot compare to other PC RTS games because the fact is that if it was made like that, it would be terrible. The game is fun, the demo was good. The guy also argued that "Campaign length is too short." or my favorite, "AI is too easy." Who's going to buy Halo Wars to play Skirmish against AI? It's suppose to be a fun online simple RTS experience that was solely made for a console game, and that's exactly what it is."

I really dont think complex is what a joypad can deal with.

Thanks for posting on the 'Watch, Patrick! I appreciate your insight and commentary. Posting on a forum, youre gonna have to wear a flak jacket sometimes.

Dont let certain poster's obsessive-compulsive rants make you think they speak for us all - there's a lot of people (such as myself) that are reading these threads, but dont wish to waste our time in here going round and round in a circle. Ive got better things to do w/ my time… like gaming!

Just for the record I enjoy bioware RPG's so don't lump us all together with what you think of who a sell out is etc. BTW Patrick its cool to have you on here, its nice to have devs come in and chat it up with us.

You do have to remember you will find on the internet the ultimate rpg gods, who for some reason know how to make the perfect rpg and will downplay everything else as generic crap in hopes that we will all bow down to their ultimate intelligence…basically the internet bully. I play what is fun, not what fits into a special slot that signifies it to be the rpg. I'm excited about dragon age….hell I'm excited about any game as long as its good…:)

The best part about internet experts is they can never be proven wrong, since naturally they know everything.

Good game, but where were the creative risks?