Dragon Age Central

Quote: Posted 10/30/09 09:52 (GMT) by JackDresden

Quote: Posted 10/30/09 09:15 (GMT) by Nordrian

Quote: Posted 10/30/09 07:09 (GMT) by aberdash

The response from the community was overwhelming negative at yet they refuse to budge on the issue. Great job listening to the community bioware.

As for the "you haven't seen it ingame yet" argument, you don't have to drink cat piss to know you aren't going to like it.

"Once you will have experienced the game, feel free to give us your feedback, and we take it in consideration".

That was one of the official answers.
They don't refuse to change it, they just ask us to wait and see if it REALLY is that much of an annoyance.

Yawn, yes I see the error of our ways even now the dev has posted the text of the NPC conversation we still can't possibley comment until we've had that conversation in the game, honestly I'm tired of rejecting this totally silly reasoning.

To the Dev who posted.....so you've clarified that the last line in the conversation relveals the quest is DLC just before you take it. I take it that is supposed to refute the point that the rest of the conversation is a sales pitch disguised as part of the game we bought?

Still you haven't addressed how having that NPC and conversation that is the start of the DLC in the base product doesn't make the game incomplete.....The only point I've seen made is hay the games really big so how can anyone possibley consider it incomplete. Because you are putting in NPCs who start quests that aren't in the game I reply.....you reply nothing to that because the simple logic of the argument is hard to refute I take it.

There are currently, exactly, two of these people. One for Shale, and one for Soldier's Peak. They are inserted into the game by the DLC system. Future content may add more.

These NPCs aren't on the disk - they are added via the DA Downloader.

If you don't want them there, simply disable the downloader - we even tell you how to do this in the readme. You never see them, or any other DLC content, ever. You don't need to mod them out, hack the game, or any other drastic conspiracy measure to remove them. If you don't want them there, THEY ARENT THERE.

You'll never even notice that they are missing either - there's already more henchmen than you can utilize fully, and side quests you won't be able to do based on your class/origin, and some encounters that are simply incredibly low chances of happening.

Your logic is so full of holes that I could drain my spagetti with it.

Is your car incomplete if you don't buy the upgraded auto-dimming mirror, roof racks, or custom mudflaps? No - they're addons. The same is true with our DLC. They add features that don't come with the base package. I don't see you out boycotting the automotive industry, because you can get aftermarket upgrades.

DAPC was completed by the main team in March and was supposed to ship then, and was held for a simultaneous release with the console versions (next week).

The main team then moved onto getting the console versions ready.

The DLC team finished Shale after we finished the PC.
The DLC then finished Soldier's Peak after that point.
There is future content being worked on, and will be released in the future once it is finished.

I'm part of the main team, and have been since 2002. I haven't worked on any of the DLC... because it's not part of the game, and never has been. I've been through the game hundreds of times.

The game was designed without this content in it. We didn't take anything out to sell to you later.

However, you are going to refuse to believe that, so I'm not sure why I'm bothering.

The other argument I've seen you guys use is that "it was finished before you manufactured the discs, so you should have put it on".

Each team has a budget, and a profit line they have to meet. You don't get a copy of NBAX when you buy NFLX - they're made by the same studio, in the same building, and their content is based in the same Franchise World (reality). Each team has their own people, their own operating costs, and their own profit margin. This is a business - if a team doesn't make money, they don't exist anymore.


And I'll be brutally honest. The main reason why we have this "conspiracy of silence" as so many of you are calling it... is because there is pretty much nothing we can say that will change your mind.

I made my post to make it clear that we are not doing any "in-game advertising" - and by that, I mean there's no sponsorship, product placement, or immersion-killing neon signs or billboards. I wanted people to see exactly what it looked like, so they had the facts.

You believe what we did is wrong, evil and you hate it.

Answer me this - is there ANYTHING I could possibly say, which would make you change your mind.

I'm pretty sure the answer is "No".

And this is quite likely going to be my last post on the subject, because I'm well aware that you cannot change someone's beliefs - religious wars are fought because of this, and in the end, nobody ever wins.

Each side still believes what they believe.

I'll refute it here if it will make you feel better.

The Warden's Keep was created by members of the DAO team while the rest of the team worked on finishing the PC and console versions. It was never in the core game and has been added in once the core game is complete. This extra team is working on more DLC for the coming months. We have lots of plans in the works for coolness to come.

Shale (the Stone Prisoner) WAS originally going to be in the core game. However, Shale was cut as the team could not get things such as pathfinding, etc working correctly in time to meet our projected release date. Back when DAO was going to be released back in the spring of 2009, the decision was made to cut him. Since the team had extra time once the release date was moved to November, the Dev team worked to fix the outstanding issues and included this back into the game as Day 1 DLC.

Blood Dragon Armor. This was added in a few months ago as a cool way to tie both Dragon Age and Mass Effect together.

There. Refuted yet?

Alright.

The PC version was done before the console port. It does not compromise anything.

Let me assure you that this is one of the deepest games we've ever made and that we have sacrificed nothing in the PC version because of the consoles - the console team takes code and resource drops from the PC version and that's it - no changes back into the PC from the console.

I hope that removes your fear in that regard (I know that the current direction of marketing might fan some of these - but there's litte I can do about that past assuring you that the game has not changed to an action RPG magically to suddenly fit the image you might get from the marketing campaign )

Quote: Posted 06/05/09 21:40 (GMT) by Fion
Wheres the crunch DA?

We have more than four months to go.

E3 just ended today.

The more concrete the suggestions are, the more likely they'll be adopted.

"I wants" generally don't happen because they are subjective. They might get us thinking, but it is unlikely that a want will simply get implemented. The developers of the game know how it works, what features make sense in the context of other features, et cetera. Fans, no matter how diligent they are in scouring information about the game aren't actually playing it until it has been released.

On the other hand, especially with sequels, the fans do have a pretty good idea of how the game works. And suggestions are much more likely to become reality. Especially when they are no longer "I wants" but "here's how".

Example:

On Baldur's Gate 2 we were investigating how to add containers to the player's inventory. We had some ideas. And then someone mentioned on the board about using a modified store interface as a container interface. There was much positive response to that particular way of implementing the feature and since it was the least costly manner in which containers could be added, it was done.

So, it does happen.

- Brent

Quote: Posted 06/03/09 17:43 (GMT) by Dark Specie
I think people feels that having "only" Zevran and Leliana or Morrigan and Wynne to choose between for their respective "role/place" in the party feels a bit... limited, especially when they look at how many warriors that's available <_<.

Ah. I know there is this thing where new information suddenly gets rid of all those "maybes" -- those party configurations or characters someone may have conjured in their head and maybe even pinned their hopes on, a bit -- but our goal was always to provide a viable party first and interesting characters second. Even distribution of any class, race or gender was not really the point.

Quote: 
Maybe instead of a profit of 100 you'll get profit of 15, but hey, you would have make a game people will remember forever. Isn't that what a true gamer (dev or player) would desire?

I take 100, thank you. All of us will. It means we can keep making the kind of video games we make. The costs of producing a title like DA or ME are stunning, and you want to get decent return on your investment to keep being able to do so, keep being able to grow with the industry and, you know, get paid well.

If you believe the gaming industry is in 'for the spirit' and not for the money, you're mistaken and might want to turn your attention to the indy game scene - they can do what you desire. Games like DA are not made so they can break even - they need to bring in a big profit in order to allow funding the next title the company works on for several years.

Quote: Posted 05/30/09 19:02 (GMT) by Smiling Elf
About sex, DAO is not the right kind of game for that.

It isn't? What "kind of game" is DAO, then? DAO is a game with sex and lots of hardcore violence. Complaining that the game being presented isn't the game you hope it might be or which you've built up in your mind doesn't change the fact that that's what it is.

Quote:  There are some hentai RPG out there witch can at some extent stimulate your imagination. About violence, I don't like it much in life and in the games also. Fighting with a ogre and killing it is something I can do, but cutting first his left leg, then his right leg, then his arms, his tongue, pull out his eyes, and to finish him cut his head and put in a pike, that I think is sick and the people enjoying it need medical treatment. If I want to see violence, I can watch the news, plenty of it in the real world, thank you very much.

So... there's no middle ground? If there's sex it must be hentai? If there's violence it must be slow dismemberment of your enemies followed by sticking his head on a pike? As hardcore as the sex and violence may be, I think you're exaggerating your case more than just a little.

Quote: No, but trying to please anyone (more money) will lead to a game that no one will really enjoy that much. Why not going for a game that people will talk about like they talk about BG, 10 years after? Maybe instead of a profit of 100 you'll get profit of 15, but hey, you would have make a game people will remember forever. Isn't that what a true gamer (dev or player) would desire?

You know, I get that many fans really couldn't care less about whether or not a developer does well. If they go out of business, well at least they put out some good games, right? Give them an honorable salute and move on to the next game out there? But as much as some of you might hate to be reminded that this is indeed a business as much as an art, that's what it is. Good games that don't do well don't end up benefiting the "true gamer" any more than anyone else.

Quote: Posted 05/30/09 18:57 (GMT) by Sir Buliwyf
I think David is getting a bit pissed off at some of the stuff being said.

No, I'm not pissed off. I know it's hard to get tone across in writing, but while I take issue with some of the presumption going on here it's more a cause of concern for me than it is for anger.

Quote: Posted 05/30/09 18:29 (GMT) by Smiling Elf
The issue is that you shouldn't target people under 18 in the first place, but of course you do. If you aren't doing it (not you personally), than you have a very low opinion for the people that plays your game. For example, for the amount and kind of "sex" you show, only people way under 18 would be impressed by it.

Because people who like things like sex and violence are clearly people who we think little of, being (I can only assume) immature and stupid? Because only immature and stupid people enjoy such things. This is what you're saying, yes?

Quote: Hey, I am reading Proust's "Remembrance of Things Past", Vol I at the moment. Do you think I am taking the wrong way in life? I hope DAO will bring me back to reality with some sex and violence

Well, clearly if you like something so highbrow you could not also enjoy something that is violent or sexually explicit. I think that is self-evident. We PC gamers play our RPG's with our pinkies up, thank you very much.

Quote: Your business plan is EA business plan. And they are businessman, not gamers.

And? What's your point? We should let gamers create our business plan?

Quote: Posted 05/29/09 16:32 (GMT) by Sylvius the Mad

Aside from avoiding the obviously absurd aspects of a group inventory (like being able to pass items between characters instantly regardless of distance or intervening obstacles), there's no aspect of realism I'm actually seeking from the inventory system.

You're right. There were design criteria like
* intuitive
* easy to use
* not timeconsuming
* provide good information to the player
* minimize tedious management tasks
* support a large number of different items

Realism, on the other hand, was not an objective to the system.

Quote: Posted 05/29/09 16:03 (GMT) by Fnargle
Are there or not.

The product of a human and an elf is a human -- they would be called "elf-blooded" by some and perhaps have some minor elven features, though not always. They are not half-elves in the sense that they exist in D&D, however, by any means.

Quote: Will we get a half-elven origin in the future, maybe through a DLC

I don't know that we would be doing new origins in DLC -- that would be quite an undertaking, if we did, as the impact of an origin on the game is not insubstantial. That said, were we to do it I suppose an "elf-blooded" origin is a possibility?

Quote: and does anyone suspect that the DLC's promised will be nothing more than origins that have been cut-off due to time constrain and released as a DLC?

If anything was cut-off due to time constraints, it was incomplete and perhaps not even started. I don't know if I understand the tone of this question, but is the suggestion that completing that content later and offering it as DLC would somehow be bad? What's the assumption, here?

Quote: Posted 05/28/09 23:21 (GMT) by empetus
still it would have been neat if he was on Dragon Age team and maybe he could recreate the magic of BG.

Err... he's not on DA now but he created the project and was around during its inception and the first several years. Make of that what you will, I guess. *shrug*

Quote: Posted 05/28/09 21:42 (GMT) by Sylvius the Mad
Tools can usually be two of Powerful, Flexible, and User-friendly. Guess which one I think is less important.

As the designers of the game, we have to decide which is most important to the game we're making, not some theoretical game we're not actually working on. I hope that's clear.

Quote: Posted 05/28/09 18:19 (GMT) by Sylvius the Mad
I still maintain that protecting the users from themselves is bad design.

Well, we're protecting the game from the user. We don't like people coming for tech support about very long save times or reviewers complaining about it. Not if we can help it. Therefore, we protect the game by enforcing reasonable limits that the engine is designed to operate with.

Quote: Posted 05/25/09 20:13 (GMT) by Nighteye2
Was there a reason why that particular origin had to be played through so often? I'd have expected all origins to get playtested about equally often...

It was the first one completed and brought to polish, sort of as a "test run" of the concept.