bjdbwea wrote...
If you had read some of the developer's comments, you would see the indications. Of course you want evidence in the form of a clear statement such as "yes, we dumbed down the game to appeal to the shooter crowd". You want it because you know full well that no one is ever going to say something like that openly. So you can always claim no one has prove.
However, if you are honest, you can see that ME 2 did "go down the shooter route". You can like that better than part 1, that's completely up to you. But to deny the fact? What's that supposed to accomplish? The reasons are indeed anyone's guess. However, since the independent BioWare used to produce high quality RPGs, whereas now there are significant changes in their approach to ME and DA too, the most likely explanation is certainly the big change that happened when they sold out to EA. Again, you can like it better, but please don't try to deny the fact. Feel free to provide other possible explanations though.
See, I actually think that BioWare has been going down this road for a long time, and multiplayer is the next logical step in their plan. A brief history to describe my reasoning (I will leave out MDK and Sonic because I have not played those games):
Baldur's Gate 1/2: Top down game, lots of inventory, huge world, etc. Basically D&D except on a computer with graphics.
Neverwinter Nights: Very similar to BG, but you can directly control your character from 3rd person. WASD to move, no longer a click to move thing. Still lots of stats/inventory management.
KotOR: 3rd person only. Choreographed fights, a lot less inventory management (at least, that's what I felt). Smaller skill system. Had enough action in it to really be called an action RPG (imo).
Jade Empire: You only control your character, and do direct attacks. Rolls taken out. Basically a simple fighting game with in-depth conversation options, story, and character interactions. A hybrid.
ME1: A straight up shooter system. No character stats.
DA: Seemed a lot like NWN, but with more blood. I really don't know where to fit this, it certainly seems to be an outlier.
ME2: More of a shooter, less skills, etc, we all know this story.
My point is that it seems that BioWare has been evolving their games to be more "actiony" for a long time, it is just most apparent with ME since it went from sword fighting (mostly) to shooting. Multiplayer is the next step in the ladder, I believe. And I should also point out that every game had a great story and dialogue, so who says that multiplayer will destroy it? They were able to keep the RPG in the games all the time, despite getting more "actiony."
PoliteAssasin wrote...
Mx_CN3 wrote...
theelementslayer wrote...
Honestly I can think of a few games they ruined but off the top of my head I can think of alot of games they didnt ruin.
Mirrors edge
Crysis
Mass Effect
Dragon Age
Dead Space
Need for speed, though they did get progressively worse I thought underground was awesome
The Sims
Sports games
Not every company is out to screw the buyer, come on guys you can't honestly think Bioware/EA will turn the back on the 3 million people who bought this game just to turn out another MoH or CoD.
Bad Company 2, also. I mean, I'm not too fond of EA, but simply because they are attached to something doesn't mean it is bad. It also doesn't mean that something that is bad (or that you think is bad) is entirely EA's fault. Did any of you EA haters ever consider the possibility that BioWare had long intended to have multiplayer in ME? That is, of course, assuming that that is even on their plans. As I said earlier, the whole multiplayer in ME thing is entirely speculative.
And I suppose to answer the OP's title question: no, I will not boycott BioWare because of multiplayer. I also think that anyone that will or is even considering it is an idiot.
First of all, lets not be childish and resort to insults. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Second, NFS and the Sims are completely horrible. The fact that they try to release a NFS game every year worries me about the future of Mass Effect. And don't say that they don't affect it, because look at DA:2. DA:O came out last september, or november was it? The sequel is slated to be released by March 2011. That's way too soon.
The bolded statements seem... odd to me. I do agree with both of them, however. The only ones I have played for any reasonable amount out of that list are the BioWare ones, so I can't say I agree with them all. In any case, in regards to the "insult," it is a hard fact that boycotting a company over a game feature is completely irrational. I could definitely see it over something the company does, like Infinity Ward's mass firings, EA's constant rerelease of the same game, or something like that. But a gameplay feature? That's just silly. However, as javier pointed out, this is all offtopic, I just wanted to clarify myself
In the end, I think that should they add multiplayer, that doesn't mean they'll half-ass anything in the game. There is a reason BioWare is considered one of, if not the, best and it isn't because they do things sloppily.
Modifié par Mx_CN3, 19 juillet 2010 - 05:10 .
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut
