Game News Dragon Age FAQ: bullshit vs reality

[elander_]

Maybe they are trying to obtain feedback from the fans by exposing their design decisions. But there are two things that smell here.

One they are making a game and don't have a solid design doc. You don't decided if a game will be turn-base or action base or if the player actions will change the entire world and in what ways in the middle of production.

Second if they are keeping decisions open and want feedback from the fans they would have to make their intentions much more clear. Like someone else said:

"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."

Otherwise this is just savage hype and saying that everyone else does it doesn't make it right or make you look a developer people can trust.

 

[HardCode]

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.

And that is understandable. However, if a game company is going to announce early features in a FAQs, then they should update their FAQs about the changed features promptly.

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?

It seems that there was a little more than "we haven't even tried to say much" in the FAQs, what with the developer-favored buzz-words like "epic."

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.

I don't think it is the change that is the problem, but more the lack of offical acknowledgement of the changed via the Official FAQs (which are very outdated) that annoy customers. With a multi-million dollar budget, I am sure the webmaster can be paid a little overtime for the "strenuous" duty of updating a FAQs page.

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.

Again, any publicly made claims which change should be PROMPTLY updated in the offical announcement vehicle known as Official FAQs. Even a "why" would be great PR.

-- 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.

I really don't think that it is an issue (to me anyway) that you "want to deceive." It's just the disregard to keeping people updated.

To put it simply, but respectfully, if you are going to open your mouth day 1, make sure to keep talking up to release day. A year of Official Silence can't do any good with the fanbase.

I'd prefer to hear nothing at all until things are solid if the current practices are maintained. I'd rather never even know a game is under development until it can be freely talked about. Of course, unless it is talk about a project where the company wants consumer feedback during the planning stage.

However, it is unfortunate that game company PR departments feel the need to announce "epic ... ground-breaking ... revolutionary to the genre ... blah blah blah" released before anything is even figured out. Kind of jumping the gun.

I believe that if a game company kept close contact with the consumer base the whole duration of the project, the customers would develop a loyalty and respect. And that couldn't hurt sales once it goes gold, could it?

 

[aboyd]

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?

Umm... Microsoft has indeed done this multiple times with Windows Vista. Bad hypothetical.

 

[Killzig]

Umm... Microsoft has indeed done this multiple times with Windows Vista. Bad hypothetical.

Yeah but Microsoft is already regarded as an evil empire, Bioware is still firmly entrenched in its honeymoon period.

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Umm... Microsoft has indeed done this multiple times with Windows Vista. Bad hypothetical.

My bad then, as I haven't really followed its development that closely. Just insert some other big name company which hasn't done this yet... If it's still possible. Although suffice to say that its still a pretty bad way of dealing with it.

 

[roshan]

Bioware has never lived up to its hype. Neverwinter nights was supposed to have the open ended exploration of bg1 combined with the npc itneraction of bg2.... and look what we got.

 

[Sol Invictus]

Wow, what the fuck.

Meh, not that this has 'detracted' at all from my anticipation of the game, but you guys (Bioware) really shouldn't have written those details into FAQ, or should have at least clarified your expectation of the game's design before writing stuff like that in. Just stating that you expected an 'epic game on an epic scale' without going into specifics would have been good enough for most people. As it is, it just sounds deceptive.

Though, that said I couldn't care less about what the FAQ says knowing full well that the things you (David Gaider) mentioned about class/race specific quests and vignettes are true. I'm not as cynical as some of the others here, but I don't see something as relatively 'well documented' as these features to be too far from the truth.

I just hope we don't see a repeat of NWN. Or worse, Dawn.

 

[Jaesun]

Things change when developing a game that is (1 - 2 years?) away. While I feel Bioware WAS trying to give fans a FAQ that the fans could see how atleast the vision of how the game/features will possibly be.

Crucifying Bioware for not updating the FAQ on DA is quite pathetic. But as Gaider stated, you all will make your own conclusions.

I'm not defending BIO but I think this has gotten a little out of perspective. But then again this is the Codex.

Carry on.

 

[Kamaz]

Well, Jaesun, but you must agree that we should not encourage developers to release early info that can actually change. What worth is this info? Do we really want that? OK, put it into developer's diaries, if you like, but FAQ is different thing.

That's the message Codex tries to send to BW. That's all, no one's bashing the game. I think most of the codex hopes this game will be better than previous games and that FAQ as well as other info released gave hope it could actually be better.

But if it is not true...

 

[Micmu]

Jesun obviously you weren't looking forward to that "choosing to be a ruthless ruler OR saviour" and "your actions shaping the destiny of the world" part.

 

[bryce777]

Things change when developing a game that is (1 - 2 years?) away. While I feel Bioware WAS trying to give fans a FAQ that the fans could see how atleast the vision of how the game/features will possibly be.

Crucifying Bioware for not updating the FAQ on DA is quite pathetic. But as Gaider stated, you all will make your own conclusions.

I'm not defending BIO but I think this has gotten a little out of perspective. But then again this is the Codex.

Carry on.

Things like "Sorry lads, but no axes for you" would fall under this category, but these changes are pretty ludicrous; it's impossible they genuinely planned all of this and now do not. It's gone from a turnbased nonlinear game to a realtime piece of shit save the ewoks adventure - everyone in that faq is pretty much utter bullshit with no relation to the game whatsoever.

Basically, it's just false advertising. I am sure at least a few people will read the faq, say "awesomesauce!" and preorder it...only to pick it up and wonder what the fuck happened.

 

[Killzig]

Things change when developing a game that is (1 - 2 years?) away.

So like I said, STFU. Or at least be shrewd enough to release the info as a "leak" so you can disavow the information later if it were to change.

While I feel Bioware WAS trying to give fans a FAQ that the fans could see how atleast the vision of how the game/features will possibly be.

I don't know that first question is pretty specific as far as scale and possibilities in the game world.

Crucifying Bioware for not updating the FAQ on DA is quite pathetic. But as Gaider stated, you all will make your own conclusions.

I'm not defending BIO but I think this has gotten a little out of perspective. But then again this is the Codex.

If that's your position why did you even bother chiming in?

Carry on.

Thanks for wasting everyone's time!

 

[Volourn]

Two weeks gone, and the Codex is still as patheic as ever! Definitely not surprising. It's always nice to have a place that remains the same no matter what.

 

[Killzig]

Two weeks gone, and the Codex is still as patheic as ever! Definitely not surprising. It's always nice to have a place that remains the same no matter what.

You used to be good for a laugh, is that all you've got for this thread?

Slippin.

 

[Volourn]

hey, if the Codex would be original then I would be original.

As it is, this thead is exactly like all the other anti BIO threads so I reply to it the same as I do the others.

It works both ways.

Waaaa! The FAQ isn't 100% accurate about a game a good 2 years away!

Woopity do dah.

 

[Zomg]

Volourn is cool. Sell teddy bear versions of yourself on the internet plz.

 

[bryce777]

http://volournthefatpig.ytmnd.com/

Volly, why am I not surprised you are a wrestling fan???

 

[DarkUnderlord]

You know BioWare are in trouble when Volourn's all they've got defending them.

 

[Azarkon]

Not to cast my lot with the doomed of this thread, but why is this at all surprising? Blizzard, arguably the most profitable and looked-up upon company in the entire computer gaming industry, is notorious for bad projections. Who here remembers Warcraft III and the "Daemons are tthe fifth race" spiel? Who here remembers Blizzard's promises during the World of Warcrfat beta that they'd have hero classes, multiple raid dungeons, and battlegrounds all at launch?

It's common industry practice to over-hype a game before it comes out, and it's one thing to complain about this practice in general, another to demonize Bioware in particular. The only offense Bio has committed ontop of this, as far as I can see, is that their FAQ is part of the hype machine when most companies usually hype through third party sources (ie magazines, websites, developer interviews, etc.) But other than that, what's the big diabolic deal here?

 

[bryce777]

Well, it is true in a sense, what you say about it being common practice, but that does not make it right.

Also, there is a big difference between minor features like hero classes not making it in, and if you bought world of warcraft and found out it was not a multiplayer game for example.

 

[Dgaider]

Things like "Sorry lads, but no axes for you" would fall under this category, but these changes are pretty ludicrous; it's impossible they genuinely planned all of this and now do not. It's gone from a turnbased nonlinear game to a realtime piece of shit save the ewoks adventure - everyone in that faq is pretty much utter bullshit with no relation to the game whatsoever.

Pardon?

Most of the FAQ is still quite relevant and completely correct.

Furthermore, it was never turnbased -- and I'm not sure where you get the "save the ewoks adventure" part. If that's what you really think Bioware makes, then you probably thought that beforehand and I'm not sure how anything we put in the FAQ would convince you otherwise anyway.

The story has changed -- but simply because you are not now "enslaving a nation with necromancy" does not suddenly mean you are baking cookies for the local kingdom's yard sale. Dragon Age still has a very dark tone and you are still involved in deciding the fate of the nation.

As for the "hero or villain" part, the quote mentioned was plucked out of a conversation where someone was interpreting that part of the FAQ to mean that you could be the antagonist of the story -- in other words, they wanted a whole seperate storyline where you were the literal villain of the story. That was never the case. You were always the protaganist, even if you could choose to be heroic or villainous. If anything has changed in that regard it's that we're stepping away from the hero/villain thing entirely in favor of allowing the player choices that aren't tied simply to the good/evil axis as we've done before.

But implying that somehow the entire nature of the game has changed is nothing short of gross hyperbole. And while I suppose there might have been some who were looking forward to specifically enslaving a nation -- with or without necromancy, I don't know -- moaning that nothing that replaced that could be possibly similar or satisfying in any way and that our intent must have been to deceive everyone who read the FAQ right from the start strikes me as more than a bit disingenuous.
If you want to take the attitude that the practice itself of giving out information on a project as it's still in development is a bad idea for whatever reason, that's up to you. But blowing this out of proportion seems to stem more from an eagerness to crucify Bioware in particular than out of any sense of actual moral objection. Hence the hypocrisy I mentioned earlier.

 

[Kamaz]

you are still involved in deciding the fate of the nation

"Involving" in DragonAge's case means - "in the last couple minutes of the game you will be given the choice of A, B, C" or does your actions throuout the game have permanent impact of outcome?

 

[Killzig]

"Involving" in DragonAge's case means - "in the last couple minutes of the game you will be given the choice of A, B, C" or does your actions throuout the game have permanent impact of outcome?

Thank you.

 

[bryce777]

Things like "Sorry lads, but no axes for you" would fall under this category, but these changes are pretty ludicrous; it's impossible they genuinely planned all of this and now do not. It's gone from a turnbased nonlinear game to a realtime piece of shit save the ewoks adventure - everyone in that faq is pretty much utter bullshit with no relation to the game whatsoever.

Pardon?

Most of the FAQ is still quite relevant and completely correct.

Furthermore, it was never turnbased -- and I'm not sure where you get the "save the ewoks adventure" part. If that's what you really think Bioware makes, then you probably thought that beforehand and I'm not sure how anything we put in the FAQ would convince you otherwise anyway.

The story has changed -- but simply because you are not now "enslaving a nation with necromancy" does not suddenly mean you are baking cookies for the local kingdom's yard sale. Dragon Age still has a very dark tone and you are still involved in deciding the fate of the nation.

As for the "hero or villain" part, the quote mentioned was plucked out of a conversation where someone was interpreting that part of the FAQ to mean that you could be the antagonist of the story -- in other words, they wanted a whole seperate storyline where you were the literal villain of the story. That was never the case. You were always the protaganist, even if you could choose to be heroic or villainous. If anything has changed in that regard it's that we're stepping away from the hero/villain thing entirely in favor of allowing the player choices that aren't tied simply to the good/evil axis as we've done before.

But implying that somehow the entire nature of the game has changed is nothing short of gross hyperbole. And while I suppose there might have been some who were looking forward to specifically enslaving a nation -- with or without necromancy, I don't know -- moaning that nothing that replaced that could be possibly similar or satisfying in any way and that our intent must have been to deceive everyone who read the FAQ right from the start strikes me as more than a bit disingenuous.
If you want to take the attitude that the practice itself of giving out information on a project as it's still in development is a bad idea for whatever reason, that's up to you. But blowing this out of proportion seems to stem more from an eagerness to crucify Bioware in particular than out of any sense of actual moral objection. Hence the hypocrisy I mentioned earlier.

I don't have any particular beef against bioware. BG II and its expansion was one of my very favorite games, in spite of the realtime with pause combat system which I really dislike. I suppose that it is nwn that had the hype about being turnbased but then people still call it and kotor turnbased.

If the good vs evil stuff was taken out of context, then that is not my fault because it is easy to interpret it that way and I am not the one who said it. There are too many games which do have a very light and onesided tone, and that quote makes the game sound as thought it is not exactly nonlinear.

I am a potential customer. When looking at kotor and kotor II I found them lacking and especially jade empire, but I have not completely ruled out dragon age.

 

[Vault Dweller]

But blowing this out of proportion seems to stem more from an eagerness to crucify Bioware in particular than out of any sense of actual moral objection.

What eagerness, Dave? Didn't you get the memo? Bethesda has replaced Bioware as the villain numero uno, so now we love Bio and you in particular. :wink:

That line about enslaving nations is utter bullshit and you know it, so stop pretending that the criticism is unreasonable.