Game News Dragon Age FAQ: bullshit vs reality

[Vival]

I sure hope the classic Bioware evil path is still in. I mean you can ask for more money, right?

No, but you probably get an alternative dialog choice. So instead of "I'll save your little puppy, Timmy" you can choose " I'll save your little puppy, Timmy... but remember I hate doing it because I'm teh evil"

 

[Rat Keeng]

You may be evil, but you need those experience points to save the world, so rescuing puppies is a neccesary evil, if you're evil.

 

[Dgaider]

EDIT: Actually, whatever. There's no point in my trying to elaborate on anything here. You'll see whatever you want to see, and that's that.

 

[Vault Dweller]

As you so eloquently said (before you decided to edit your post): Oh, please.

It's understandable that early FAQs are never 100% accurate as things may change, but lying and misleading people by claiming that you would be able to enslave nations with necromancy is a bit too much, don't you think? Might as well add that you can also visit and rule all the planets in the universe as a supreme overlord. Who cares? It's just a FAQ. It will be updated with more bullshit. Stay tuned, kids.

 

[aboyd]

EDIT: Actually, whatever. There's no point in my trying to elaborate on anything here. You'll see whatever you want to see, and that's that.

Well that evokes a weird feeling inside of me. For once, I'm not disappointed to see a developer quit a topic. I guess if a developer is feeling inclined to justify their BS, I'd rather the developer just leave.

-Tony

 

[Jason]

I wouldn't rather he just leave. One sided discussions get rather boring. If he's going to bother posting at all, he might as well say what's on his mind, even if it's just to call us assholes.

 

[Section8]

I'd love to see a box filled with sand, and when Bioware fans run their Fingers of Disappointment +1 through it, they stumble upon a little block of pewter (provided they pre-ordered the limited edition, everyone else has to go find spoilers on t3h intarnet) that says simply - "The Dragon is 42 years old. Thanks for playing." If nothing else, it would be Bioware trying something original for once. Many publishers have tried the "turd in a box" product, but sand is completely new!

 

[Vault Dweller]

"The Dragon is 42 years old. Thanks for playing."

That's hilarious

 

[Greatatlantic]

If Mr. Gaider wants to defend Dragon Age, there are pleny of ways to do it. The disconect between the FAQ and the current direction of the game is troubling. However, remember when it was posted that the game would change your starting location and first few areas depending on what sort of character type you made? The consensus was that this was a good feature, and made some people curious about a game they would otherwise dismiss. At the looks of it, Dragon Age is going to have a fairly linear story and force the player into a specific role. Can you tell us if the game allows us any meaningful choices? Do we get a character creation sheet with over 50 different numbers to fidlle with? Does the game allow us numerous choice in solving quests? Will the combat be challenging and require thought? I can't speak for the entire codex, but tell say something about the game we would like, and I'll compliment it. Of course, after being so sorely disapointed by the OC of NWN, and only slightly moved by Hordes of the Underdark and Knights of the Old Republic, Bioware has a lot of ground to make up before I start to look forward to this game.

 

[Drakron]

Problem with BioWare its their hype ...

Its a fucking FAQ why on Earth would someone puts things in a FAQ that are not decided yet?

We give Bethsoft a lot of crap but we dont complain about their Codex because it does not say "attack your enemies from hourseback with your trusty spear, when run out of mana wack your does with you trusty staff", it lists features that are in ... not "we like the idea but did not decided anything about it".

 

[kris]

Great, we decided another game is shit before we really knew anything about it.

 

[aboyd]

game != FAQ

 

[HardCode]

EDIT: Actually, whatever. There's no point in my trying to elaborate on anything here. You'll see whatever you want to see, and that's that.

Well, what you did say in the reference link of the original post of this thread:

DGaider: So the FAQ is out-of-date. Just like any statements we make about the game, it's subject to change and I wouldn't take any part of that as gospel (especially considering that it's more than a year old). Eventually it will be updated.

Tell me something, how can you justify FAQs that are "more than a year old," and non-chelantly conclude with, "Eventually it will be updated."

I find it so funny in a way that game companies want to play the corporate thing with the big-boy companies, yet they act as if they are making mods in their spare time. Do you think that amazon.com would still be in business if everything was a year old? What about any brick-and-mortar business? How well would CompUSA do if everything in their Sunday newspaper flyer was about year-old products? How about a brokerage firm? What if they had year-old information for their clients?

I think the game company mentality needs to mature if they want to be big players for the long hall.

Oh, and a year old FAQs page for an upcoming game is a disgrace in marketing and advertising ... especially since it costs relatively nothing to have someone update HTML or such.

 

[Dgaider]

Tell me something, how can you justify FAQs that are "more than a year old," and non-chelantly conclude with, "Eventually it will be updated."

Let's say I tell you "Dragon Age is going to have turn-based combat."

At the moment, that may very well be true. I'm not trying to deceive or mislead you in any way. The thing about game development, however, is that as development goes on decisions are made and things change. Some features are chopped, others are added.

Now, I don't support some developers who announce large changes to the features of heavily-advertised games at the last minute (and apologize afterwards) -- that really is misleading. But for a game as far out as Dragon Age, one where we haven't even tried to say much of anything about it at all beyond simply announcing it, we still have a lot of time to announce changes and updates as they occur. If six months from now we decide that the combat system has to change and I tell you "now combat is real-time and not turn-based", does that mean I was being deceptive before?

Anyone with even a casual knowledge of how game development works knows this is true, and trying to claim that anything we say at any point, even early on, is the equivalent of an iron-clad promise would lead only to the end that nothing at all could be said about a game until release -- and that's something neither the developers nor the publishers nor the fans seem to want.

The FAQ for Dragon Age is out of date. Most of it is fine and still relevant, and we would update it except that we're still working on exactly what message we do want to put out and make any update as part of a larger effort -- as right now we haven't said much at all. We'll update the FAQ, and then as we start rolling out information about the game it'll get updated more and more and that's just about how every game does it.
The fact that some of the story elements we'd planned on having have changed doesn't mean we never intended to have them in the first place. Like I said in the quotes, we originally had planned on a good-evil sliding bar just like in KotOR -- things change, and sometimes that's a good thing (I hated the good-evil thing, myself, as that automatically led to having the overly-obvious "super-good" and "super-evil" choice for every action instead of something more realistic and mature).

-- but of course it's Bioware we're talking about, so any changes to the plans for Dragon Age automatically mean that we're just out to deceive everyone, right? You know, say what you like about the marketing hype that Bioware (and, oh, every other company) puts out there regularly -- I mean, I roll my eyes at all the 'epic' and 'revolutionary' adjectives as the next guy -- but when it comes to hypocrisy we really have nothing on you all.

*shrug* Not that anyone is really listening, here, but I guess I like to waste my breath. I should have said that in the first post, I guess, but sometimes after reading the slanted stuff you guys fire off it's easier to simply feel discouraged.

 

[Jason]

You shouldn't have mentioned turn-based combat, even hypothetically. Those words are like blood around here and the sharks are always circling. I do appreciate the thoughtful response, however. I'm more inclined to listen to someone who's willing to argue and get their hands dirty rather than someone who says "why bother?" or "trust us."

I'm still going to take over the Bioware offices with my necromancy and turn Canada into a charnel pit of brain feasting, though. So wear clean underwear.

 

[Rat Keeng]

If six months from now we decide that the combat system has to change and I tell you "now combat is real-time and not turn-based", does that mean I was being deceptive before?

Well no, more like you're just blurting out features that may never get further than the drawing board. How complete does a game's feature have to be, in order to be advertised?

Now, I don't support some developers who announce large changes to the features of heavily-advertised games at the last minute (and apologize afterwards) -- that really is misleading.

Yesss, announcing epic prospects early on to create false first impressions is obviously much more noble.

There, that's about as anti-Bioware I can get, I'm not that good.

 

[aboyd]

If six months from now we decide that the combat system has to change and I tell you "now combat is real-time and not turn-based", does that mean I was being deceptive before?

Well, how did you word it before? If you initially talked about turn-based combat with the caveat that it may change, then you've set expectations. If you didn't, you've set yourself up for a fall.

Now it turns out that you HAVE set expectations in your FAQ -- it says at the top that it's your "current perspective" and that it may change. I think that ameliorates many of the issues here, including some of my own. But not all, and here's why: it's too inconspicuous. I've read the FAQ 5 or 6 times, and always missed that disclaimer. The problem is that people read a FAQ in search of specific answers -- they jump right to the one that interests them. It's not a linear reading process. So I might have reworded the answers so that each can stand on its own. For example, this is less than ideal:

As you play, your actions shape the destiny of the world. Unite a powerful kingdom under your wise and just rule, enslave nations beneath the tyranny of your powerful necromancy or forge a legend of your own making.

But this revision is better:

Our goal is to have your actions shape the destiny of the world. Possible directions for the game include the ability to unite a powerful kingdom under your wise and just rule, enslave nations beneath the tyranny of your powerful necromancy or forge a legend of your own making.

I don't know how sexy that is, but if I were a staff writer, I'd be advocating text like that, to avoid situations like this.

I should have said that in the first post, I guess, but sometimes after reading the slanted stuff you guys fire off it's easier to simply feel discouraged.

It might be fair to feel discouraged about the FAQ. But it's probably overblowing it to feel discouraged about the game development. FAQ != game. And FAQ < game.

-T

 

[Kamaz]

*shrug* Not that anyone is really listening, here, but I guess I like to waste my breath. I should have said that in the first post, I guess, but sometimes after reading the slanted stuff you guys fire off it's easier to simply feel discouraged.

Well, I guess you could have predicted this reaction to previously "announced" features that wouldnt make into the game. Saying "It's outdated" is kinda silly excuse and leads to think that you could announce anything just to generate the hype (which I have nothing against) and then cut it out saying: "Well...its outdated info.". The reason of such attitude from codex is because they don't know wheathe to believe you or not. More like not believe and you are granting another reason to think so.

Anyone with even a casual knowledge of how game development works knows this is true

Sure. But you must be careful before announcing things, besides, you must have firm understanding of what you are making before even start development. Why would you even need design docs if everything can change so quickly?

Anyways, I understand the situation, I understand that features change and they come and go, it is typical game development process. No sinister hype-gen plot behind that. I dont blame anyone, dont point at BW saying:"But you said in FAQ!..", I understand. But as a developer, you should be more careful when announcing info. Everyone wants to know something more about game, but no one wants to hear uncertain ideas and concepts that can easily not make into the game. It's like listening to wet-fantasies of fanboys on discussion boards.

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

does that mean I was being deceptive before?

Not necessarily deceptive on your part, but someone better tell the hype monkeys over at Bioware to stop with their premature ejaculations. They should stop giving out shopping lists of cool features they want to see and start providing some solid information. Its very bad to provide false information about a product that is not out yet, wheter this is done on purpose or not or wheter there are no malicious intentions behind it. If Microsoft were to say that Windows Vista will feature a revolutionary feature while the operating system is still being developed, then later on changes their minds (due to whatever factors) and says it won't feature it at all, what kind of image does it give out as a company when it comes to being honest regarding its relationship with its customers and product advertisement? What if their statement led people to make large preorders of the system based on that announcement, only to find out later that the feature wasn't going to be there at all?

It really doesn't matter, on a company to costumer communication level, if the information might 'very well be true at that point'. Because it also might very well not be true at some point in the future.

Now, I'm sure you're being honest regarding your own appraisal of the situation. I'm also sure Bioware isn't the only company out there mouthing off dreamy press releases boasting about all the great features they envision for their games even if they are not sure if said features will be possible to include in their games, and its certainly not the only one to walk away largely unscathed after promising things they couldn't deliver (Baldur's Gate 2 to Neverwinter Nights character exporting comes to mind). But it's not really accurate to pinpoint this solely on the highs and lows of game development when in some cases it's more about a lack of sober-mindedness, this case being an example. Precisely because you all know how game development works, there shouldn't be any information like that tossed around when there's no guarantee that it will be possible to stick to it.

 

[DarkUnderlord]

Let's say I tell you "Dragon Age is going to have turn-based combat." If six months from now we decide that the combat system has to change and I tell you "now combat is real-time and not turn-based", does that mean I was being deceptive before?

Yep. Either that or there's the worse scenario that you're a group of idiots who don't know how to do any long-term planning. Seriously, if you get together and decide "We'll do an FPS" and then 6 months later, that's changed to an RTS, you're doing something wrong and I'd overhaul your systems and how decisions are made. "Change the world" vs "Pawn" is a fundamental game difference. There are some things you have to decide on and stick to, otherwise you end up with the NWN problem of changing the graphics engine every 2 years because "ZOMG! We want to change something".

If I were you, I'd pick "deceptive" over "idiocy" any day.

Anyone with even a casual knowledge of how game development works knows this is true, and trying to claim that anything we say at any point, even early on, is the equivalent of an iron-clad promise would lead only to the end that nothing at all could be said about a game until release -- and that's something neither the developers nor the publishers nor the fans seem to want.

There's an essence of this that's complete and utter bullshit but another essence that points out what appears to be a growing level of incompetency in the gaming industry (I'm not completely directing that at you). Any process around a new product is fraught with peril as "what you want" vs ""what you can do" often don't match up and you may not actually achieve your initial goal until version 2 or 3 of the product. However, these are computer games and the only thing stopping you from (continuing with our example) making an FPS vs an RTS is what decisions you make early on.

The reality is, this points to serious problems in your decision process. Early on, it was decided to make a game with X features. Now later, it seems there's no-one in the company who's championing those features, so they've been cut. From my perspective, that means there's no-one in BioWare really pushing hard for the things I'd like to see in a game. That generally doesn't make me happy.

The fact that some of the story elements we'd planned on having have changed doesn't mean we never intended to have them in the first place.

Is that a good thing though? I mean, a bunch of elements you thought were cool are now not. If someone told you that they planned on taking the garbage out that night and then the next morning as the grabage truck pulls away, you find out they didn't... You've relied on them to do that and they haven't done it. Do you think they're a good person or a bad person? What if this is the second time something they "planned to do" hadn't happened? What happens when later on they say "Oh yeah, I plan on doing that later" do you think "Yeah, they'll do that" and trust them? Or are you going to think "Yeah, like that'll happen" and then rely on the fact that they WON'T carry out what they promised to do?

If you have any experience with things like this, you'll realise that in the long run, it doesn't work out well. The person involved usually ends up being a lazy good for nothing bugger who can't get anything done. A dreamer. They plan on doing lots of things but they can't achieve or accomplish any of them. What use is someone like that? Getting back to the point, how do you treat someone like that? With respect...?

You know, say what you like about the marketing hype that Bioware (and, oh, every other company) puts out there regularly

So just because other companies do it, it makes it all right, does it?

*shrug* Not that anyone is really listening, here, but I guess I like to waste my breath. I should have said that in the first post, I guess, but sometimes after reading the slanted stuff you guys fire off it's easier to simply feel discouraged.

... and how should we feel? You've announced an upcoming game which, blow me down, had some elements that made me think "Dragon Age is going to be something special, maybe BioWare will pulll it off this time" and turned around and taken a crap on them. Am I supposed to be excited? Better yet, what am I supposed to feel when I read your next FAQ? Think: "Oh wow, GREAT!"? Not likely. I'll be thinking "Yeah, I bet that feature won't make it and that other fancy bit will get dropped and that really cool sounding aspect, well that'll get dumped too".

If you haven't got cold hard facts, you don't say shit. It's that simple. Your FAQ should be "Dragon Age is a new role-playing game (presuming it is still an RPG) from BioWare. More details will be released as development continues. Stay tuned!" and that's it. If you have nothing, you say nothing¹. Otherwise, as has been said, you set yourself up for a mighty big fall and a bunch of gaming sites talking about the game with all those missing features which they were looking forward to. That's not the kind of PR you want.

¹Just to elaborate, of COURSE fans and everyone else wants to know all the information about the game that they can. But they also want to play the game RIGHT NOW too. That doesn't mean you should give it to them. That's the problem with parents these days. They don't know how to say "no".

 

[Vault Dweller]

Anyone with even a casual knowledge of how game development works knows this is true, and trying to claim that anything we say at any point, even early on, is the equivalent of an iron-clad promise would lead only to the end that nothing at all could be said about a game until release -- and that's something neither the developers nor the publishers nor the fans seem to want.

That goes without saying. I don't think that anyone is reading FAQs as legally binding contracts. Now tell me with a straight face that enslaving nations with necromancy was a planned feature and I will apologize to you.

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Now tell me with a straight face that enslaving nations with necromancy was a planned feature and I will apologize to you.

"Fetch me a shrubbery and I shall allow you to kiss my royal toe."

 

[bryce777]

"Translation: Any statements we make are bullshit, and if you are stupid enough to believe them, that's your own fault. Fair enough, I guess. "

That reall is funny. Why in the fuck would you make such ludicrous claims and then just completely not live up to them? Oh, yes, because lying is funa nd they are lying liars.

 

[Killzig]

Let's say I tell you "Dragon Age is going to have turn-based combat."

At the moment, that may very well be true. I'm not trying to deceive or mislead you in any way. The thing about game development, however, is that as development goes on decisions are made and things change. Some features are chopped, others are added.

So why don't you just STFU about what kind of game you're going to make until you decide what kind of game you're going to make. Seems simple enough to me? Not to be harsh but, maybe you guys need to reign in the hype machine til you actually have a product to sell. This game is probably still 1 or 2 years out.

Now, I don't support some developers who announce large changes to the features of heavily-advertised games at the last minute (and apologize afterwards) -- that really is misleading. But for a game as far out as Dragon Age, one where we haven't even tried to say much of anything about it at all beyond simply announcing it,

If you have an FAQ up then you've done more than announce it now haven't you?

we still have a lot of time to announce changes and updates as they occur. If six months from now we decide that the combat system has to change and I tell you "now combat is real-time and not turn-based", does that mean I was being deceptive before?

The first question that was highlighted in the news post connotes some kind of strategic aspect to the game. Its very specific and definitely goes beyond the scope of just a change in combat engine.

Anyone with even a casual knowledge of how game development works knows this is true, and trying to claim that anything we say at any point, even early on, is the equivalent of an iron-clad promise would lead only to the end that nothing at all could be said about a game until release -- and that's something neither the developers nor the publishers nor the fans seem to want.

You're jumping from one extreme to the other.

The FAQ for Dragon Age is out of date. Most of it is fine and still relevant, and we would update it except that we're still working on exactly what message we do want to put out and make any update as part of a larger effort -- as right now we haven't said much at all. We'll update the FAQ, and then as we start rolling out information about the game it'll get updated more and more and that's just about how every game does it.

Lazy. "BUT EVERYONE ELSE DOES IT!"

The fact that some of the story elements we'd planned on having have changed doesn't mean we never intended to have them in the first place. Like I said in the quotes, we originally had planned on a good-evil sliding bar just like in KotOR -- things change, and sometimes that's a good thing (I hated the good-evil thing, myself, as that automatically led to having the overly-obvious "super-good" and "super-evil" choice for every action instead of something more realistic and mature).

Yeah, like whether to get an NPC cheap medicine or expensive medicine. Hoo fuckin rah.

-- but of course it's Bioware we're talking about, so any changes to the plans for Dragon Age automatically mean that we're just out to deceive everyone, right?

No, it just means that the left hand doesn't seem to know what the right is doing. Or that you guys are just making sure people don't forget you're a PC developer too. Either way, those things could be done without making specific claims about what you can and can't do in a game. You guys have enough name recognition now to simply announce a PC RPG called Dragon Age, release a few pieces of concept art and have your fanboys frothing for months on end. Making a FAQ with vague concepts put up as answers isn't conducive to attracting those who might have been sitting on the fence.

You know, say what you like about the marketing hype that Bioware (and, oh, every other company) puts out there regularly -- I mean, I roll my eyes at all the 'epic' and 'revolutionary' adjectives as the next guy -- but when it comes to hypocrisy we really have nothing on you all.

Yeah, sweeping generalizations are the way to win people over, you're absolutely right.

*shrug* Not that anyone is really listening, here, but I guess I like to waste my breath. I should have said that in the first post, I guess, but sometimes after reading the slanted stuff you guys fire off it's easier to simply feel discouraged.

Now you're the victim. Nice turn arond. So you guys use your name recognition and marketing to get us interested in a product, then you tell us no its not like that at all and we're the ones who are being irrational and hypocritical? Maybe the point gets lost in the vitriol around here sometimes but the bottomline is, mean what you say and say what you mean. We know you guys have the resources to come big, you don't have to oversell it like some guy in a bad suit at a used car lot

 

[bryce777]

Anyone with even a casual knowledge of how game development works knows this is true, and trying to claim that anything we say at any point, even early on, is the equivalent of an iron-clad promise would lead only to the end that nothing at all could be said about a game until release -- and that's something neither the developers nor the publishers nor the fans seem to want.

That goes without saying. I don't think that anyone is reading FAQs as legally binding contracts. Now tell me with a straight face that enslaving nations with necromancy was a planned feature and I will apologize to you.

I am sure he meant it metaphorically.

It could also be the problem that the bioware mission statement and dragon age faq got horribly mixed up somehow.