1507 réponses à ce sujet

[DragonRageGT]

Estel78 wrote...

Tirigon wrote...

Nevertheless true. Sadly.

If you believe that Bioware doesn't take pride in their work and isn't trying to make the best games possible you are as cynical and wrong as Shaehl.

Once upon a time there was an excellent PC games developers company named Bioware which used to be run by "free thinkers who could care less about corporate priorities". They would make great games and of course they must have made money out of it even if the games were crafted masterpieces that costed a lot more to produce than it might if they were produced by a different company submissive to big publishers directives. They even make the best effort to patch their games asap and would only stop it when they were bug free. Then EA happened in their way.

If you think EA will not use the label Bioware that they bought to cover their losses at all costs, I really don't know what to say. I'm as much a fan boy as anyone who loved all Bioware games, with a few that I haven't played like SW's or JE. Like I said, NWN still is a great game and there are people still playing it. Perhaps even buying it. Do you see DA2 surviving 8 years in the market?

Sure, old Bioware guys do take pride in their work, Only they cannot do their work as freely anymore because they have to follow directives and priorities which do not exactly prize crafted masterpieces. They want sales and as much as they can get with as little costs as they must have. Even with one BW designated a top executive of EA, he's not the boss. The bosses are the shareholders and I doubt many of them play video games at all.

[Tirigon]

Yea, Rage says it all for those who an´t see the truth for themselves.









@ Yana: Cute Avatar ;-)

[Kalfear]

slimgrin wrote...

Shaehl wrote...

The main difference between Bioware and CD Project Red is the fact that CD Project is actually trying to make an excellent RPG. On the other hand, EA run Bioware is merely trying to make a cash cow. DA2 will be just good enough and just polished enough to give them something to feed their marketing hype machine, but no better. TW2 will be a masterpiece made by craftsman who take pride in their artistry.

This is a huge assumption. CD Projekt wants to make money too you know. I'm personally not thrilled that they developed an engine that is console friendly.

You could argue that both games are being rushed, given the fact CD Projekt had to create an entirely new engine as well as making a new game in a roughly 3 yr period. Plus I'm guessing Bioware has a bigger team. 

The main difference I see is CDRed has the freedom Bioware use to have before the take over!

Im not this big anti EA guy but only a fool denys how resticted and hampered Bioware has become since the take over and its effecting their products!

I dont like this new Bioware, Iv e already boycotted their DLC content because its not worth the price they asking and I suspect their actual games will be the next casualty!

EA needs to let Bioware be as creative and free wheeling as they once where and let them do what made them successful at the start!

I think DA2 (if it continues to get bad reveiws like its getting so far) falls well short of the 3 million mark DA:O broke in sales figures. Makeing ME2 and DA2 over all disappointments sales number wise.

[Solid N7]

Kalfear wrote...

slimgrin wrote...

Shaehl wrote...

The main difference between Bioware and CD Project Red is the fact that CD Project is actually trying to make an excellent RPG. On the other hand, EA run Bioware is merely trying to make a cash cow. DA2 will be just good enough and just polished enough to give them something to feed their marketing hype machine, but no better. TW2 will be a masterpiece made by craftsman who take pride in their artistry.

This is a huge assumption. CD Projekt wants to make money too you know. I'm personally not thrilled that they developed an engine that is console friendly.

You could argue that both games are being rushed, given the fact CD Projekt had to create an entirely new engine as well as making a new game in a roughly 3 yr period. Plus I'm guessing Bioware has a bigger team. 

The main difference I see is CDRed has the freedom Bioware use to have before the take over!

Im not this big anti EA guy but only a fool denys how resticted and hampered Bioware has become since the take over and its effecting their products!

I dont like this new Bioware, Iv e already boycotted their DLC content because its not worth the price they asking and I suspect their actual games will be the next casualty!

EA needs to let Bioware be as creative and free wheeling as they once where and let them do what made them successful at the start!

I think DA2 (if it continues to get bad reveiws like its getting so far) falls well short of the 3 million mark DA:O broke in sales figures. Makeing ME2 and DA2 over all disappointments sales number wise.

first,  what bad reviews?????? " AHHHH the bad reviews from the pc geeks like you oohhhhhh", now if you don´t  like "this Bioware" and their games "DA2" what hell are you doing in their forums???? Go to CD Projekt forums and talk about how much you love their games.

[SDNcN]

Solid N7 wrote...

first,  what bad reviews?????? " AHHHH the bad reviews from the pc geeks like you oohhhhhh", now if you don´t  like "this Bioware" and their games "DA2" what hell are you doing in their forums???? Go to CD Projekt forums and talk about how much you love their games.

Shh!
This thread keeps them in one concentrated area of butthurt for most of the day. This is a good thing man, don't ruin it for the rest of us.

[RampantBeaver]

As soon as I heard Biowares plans to introduce a single canon protagonist, I couldn't help but think of how this is starting to emulate The Witcher. Obviously you could also make the link to Biowares sister title/franchise Mass Effect, but for me i'll be closely comparing DA2 to CD Projekt's upcoming release The Witcher 2. Personnally if i find one seems to be altogether better than the other i will likely just buy the one and i have to say, currently, im leaning towards The Witcher 2.



I think most of all i would like to know how it is they are different rather than how they are similar. I know both will have excellent, engaging stories to tell, but for me DA:O was a huge anti-climax. Not for any of the reasons they've changed so far however. My biggest gripe was the combat system! Ok so The Witcher was in no way perfect but Dragon Age's combat was frankly just lame! Im sorry but plain D&D rules for a modern game, regardless of whether its an RPG, just doesn't cut it. I felt the dice were too present in everything my character did. Give me a combat mechanic that engages me not just a story.



Assassins Creed is an example of a game that had a combat system i fully enjoyed. Ok so im not sure it would quite fit into a hardcore RPG, but why i liked it is it looked great, it felt great and basically it was tons of fun. DA:O's fighting was nothing close.

[SDNcN]

RampantBeaver wrote...

As soon as I heard Biowares plans to introduce a single canon protagonist, I couldn't help but think of how this is starting to emulate The Witcher. Obviously you could also make the link to Biowares sister title/franchise Mass Effect, but for me i'll be closely comparing DA2 to CD Projekt's upcoming release The Witcher 2. Personnally if i find one seems to be altogether better than the other i will likely just buy the one and i have to say, currently, im leaning towards The Witcher 2.

Or any of their previous games. BG/2, NwN, Kotor, Jade Empire.

[Nerevar-as]

Estel78 wrote...

Tirigon wrote...

Nevertheless true. Sadly.

If you believe that Bioware doesn't take pride in their work and isn't trying to make the best games possible you are as cynical and wrong as Shaehl.

As for EA, Bioware got rid of RPG tropes such as inventory or dabbled in the action genre long before Mass Effect 2, long before EA took over, with Jade Empire.

JE had a hell of inventory compared to ME2, not that it is hard. Funny enough, if they had kept weapon modding I wouldn´t have cared, must be fhe first game where weapons in the same vlass actually feel different rather than a bit more powerful than the model you found 2 hours before. But they didn´t even give stats.

Hope the tier system goes from DA2, or at least gets reduced. I liked TW had relatively few weapons but they where quite a bit different stat-wise. And then the enhancements you could use. Armor was ok, and here TW2 goes DA, with several pieces to combine.

[RampantBeaver]

SDNcN wrote...

RampantBeaver wrote...

As soon as I heard Biowares plans to introduce a single canon protagonist, I couldn't help but think of how this is starting to emulate The Witcher. Obviously you could also make the link to Biowares sister title/franchise Mass Effect, but for me i'll be closely comparing DA2 to CD Projekt's upcoming release The Witcher 2. Personnally if i find one seems to be altogether better than the other i will likely just buy the one and i have to say, currently, im leaning towards The Witcher 2.

Or any of their previous games. BG/2, NwN, Kotor, Jade Empire.

What I mean is one that is less customisable; more streamlined.

Modifié par RampantBeaver, 25 août 2010 - 08:06 .

[RampantBeaver]

slimgrin wrote...
The Witcher is an action rpg. It rely's more on your reflexes than DA does. Personally, I hope DA keeps the traditional tactical combat, but that they just make it move faster. The battles in DA could take ages. 

To be more specific something i hated about DA:O combat is where my character could miss a motionless object like a fence when standing next to it or he would swipe through an enemy only to have the word miss appear. Atleast make it believable as well as visually impressive. I want to know that as i increase my characters attributes they realistically make an improvement to his combat prowess.

[Estel78]

Kalfear wrote...

Im not this big anti EA guy but only a fool denys how resticted and hampered Bioware has become since the take over and its effecting their products!

You're imagining things.

DLC is the new s**t, every game has to have it and for the most part, people complain that it's not worth the money. Still, it seems they sell enough or else they would not continue releasing it. Personally, i don't care for DLC, thus don't buy it. Bioware would have had DLC even without EA, as a matter of fact, they did DLC for the first Mass Effect which was before the takeover.

As for how much EA influences Bioware in their decisions, i don't know and you don't either. As long as they keep delivering good products (which they are, so far), i don't care. But EA would be wise to not exercise too much control over their developers and from all i've heard and read that's exactly what they are doing since Riccitiello became the new CEO. The future will tell how much truth is to that.

[SDNcN]

Estel78 wrote...

DLC is the new s**t, every game has to have it and for the most part, people complain that it's not worth the money. Still, it seems they sell enough or else they would not continue releasing it. Personally, i don't care for DLC, thus don't buy it. Bioware would have had DLC even without EA, as a matter of fact, they did DLC for the first Mass Effect which was before the takeover.

This.
Also am I the only one who remembers Neverwinter Night's premium modules?

[DragonRageGT]

SDNcN wrote...

Estel78 wrote...

DLC is the new s**t, every game has to have it and for the most part, people complain that it's not worth the money. Still, it seems they sell enough or else they would not continue releasing it. Personally, i don't care for DLC, thus don't buy it. Bioware would have had DLC even without EA, as a matter of fact, they did DLC for the first Mass Effect which was before the takeover.

This.
Also am I the only one who remembers Neverwinter Night's premium modules?

Plunder Pack! What a disappointment. None of those 3 modules I bought had an ending! I never could learn how their stories ended. Hmm.. IIRC the pirates one had an ending... even more disappointing...

[Raxxman]

slimgrin wrote...

The Witcher is an action rpg. It rely's more on your reflexes than DA does. Personally, I hope DA keeps the traditional tactical combat, but that they just make it move faster. The battles in DA could take ages. 

I'm not disagreeing that The Witcher had a certain timing system required inorder to do well, but I always just find it kind of funny when people describe DA as tactical.

As a fan of RTS's of many shapes and sizes, I really fail to see how DA's system can be described as anything other than basic. I whomped through the game on the hardest diff with a very suboptimal group, and never really faced a tactical challange beyond 'these guys have 60billion hp, lol'. A darkspawn acted and attacked the same way as a bandit, as a wolf, as a spider. It was the same enemy in different dress, with the occasional special attack, every single time.

In contrast, the Witcher actually has a much larger tactical aspect in the game. Different foes needed different weapons and combat stances to deal with, learning weapon timing was crucial, as was which combinations of potions were effective vs which enemies. If you faced off a Wyvern the same way you did a vampire in the Witcher you'd be dead.

I'm not saying the system was perfect, or really that complex, because it wasn't. But it did offer up variety which is something that DA was never able to offer me.

[Tirigon]

Estel78 wrote...

DLC is the new s**t, every game has to have it and for the most part, people complain that it's not worth the money. Still, it seems they sell enough or else they would not continue releasing it. Personally, i don't care for DLC, thus don't buy it. Bioware would have had DLC even without EA, as a matter of fact, they did DLC for the first Mass Effect which was before the takeover.

Does StarCraft 2 have DLC? No? Then STFU. It´s the best game of this decade, so NOT every game needs DLC.

As for how much EA influences Bioware in their decisions, i don't know and you don't either. As long as they keep delivering good products (which they are, so far), i don't care. But EA would be wise to not exercise too much control over their developers and from all i've heard and read that's exactly what they are doing since Riccitiello became the new CEO. The future will tell how much truth is to that.

So far EA has ruined everything they touched. I am not sure that´ll change.

[ErichHartmann]

Tirigon wrote...

Estel78 wrote...

DLC is the new s**t, every game has to have it and for the most part, people complain that it's not worth the money. Still, it seems they sell enough or else they would not continue releasing it. Personally, i don't care for DLC, thus don't buy it. Bioware would have had DLC even without EA, as a matter of fact, they did DLC for the first Mass Effect which was before the takeover.

Does StarCraft 2 have DLC? No? Then STFU. It´s the best game of this decade, so NOT every game needs DLC.

As for how much EA influences Bioware in their decisions, i don't know and you don't either. As long as they keep delivering good products (which they are, so far), i don't care. But EA would be wise to not exercise too much control over their developers and from all i've heard and read that's exactly what they are doing since Riccitiello became the new CEO. The future will tell how much truth is to that.

So far EA has ruined everything they touched. I am not sure that´ll change.

I'm sure you believe Activision won't have growing influence on Blizzard in the coming years.  Blizzard makes games for profit like anyone else.  They get away with charging $25 for a Celestial Steed in Warcraft.  SC II was split into 3 seperate games.  I'll be surprised if they don't charge full price, $60, for the next 2.  And opinions don't equal FACT.     

[Nerevar-as]

Estel78 wrote...

As for how much EA influences Bioware in their decisions, i don't know and you don't either. As long as they keep delivering good products (which they are, so far), i don't care. But EA would be wise to not exercise too much control over their developers and from all i've heard and read that's exactly what they are doing since Riccitiello became the new CEO. The future will tell how much truth is to that.

You see how film studios often ruin movies? Is just the same. People making decisions who often have no idea what makes a good game. It might give some financial stability (or not, acording to Larian), but they also call decisions (remember the guys who wanted to turn Geralt into an elf chick because of popularity polls).

[Tirigon]

ErichHartmann wrote...

I'm sure you believe Activision won't have growing influence on Blizzard in the coming years.  Blizzard makes games for profit like anyone else.  They get away with charging $25 for a Celestial Steed in Warcraft.  SC II was split into 3 seperate games.  I'll be surprised if they don't charge full price, $60, for the next 2.  And opinions don't equal FACT.     

Well I don´t exactly like Blizzard (they made WoW after all) But StarCraft 2 IS the very best game ever.

And I don´t mind it´s split in 3 parts. The campaign took me longer to complete than in Mass Effect 2, offered more fun and a better story.
And that´s for a game you buy mostly for the Multiplayer. ME2 is ONLY SP.

So if you argue the price: If the next 2 campaigns are as good as the Wings Of Liberty campaign they can charge a full game, and it´ll be a more appropriate price than ME2 had.

[Estel78]

Nerevar-as wrote...

You see how film studios often ruin movies? Is just the same. People making decisions who often have no idea what makes a good game. It might give some financial stability (or not, acording to Larian), but they also call decisions (remember the guys who wanted to turn Geralt into an elf chick because of popularity polls). 

I know how the world works. It's true what you say about people that should not, interfering with productions but i also know of successful filmmakers that thrive in the studio system. The more success you have, the more clout you have and the easier it is to pull your thing through. I consider Bioware such a successful entity, they will not get the no-name studio treatment.

Modifié par Estel78, 25 août 2010 - 11:38 .

[Cyberfrog81]

Nerevar-as wrote...
People making decisions who often have no idea what makes a good game. It might give some financial stability (or not, acording to Larian), but they also call decisions (remember the guys who wanted to turn Geralt into an elf chick because of popularity polls).

LOL, are you serious? It is kind of hard to believe, now.

And to play devil's advocate for a bit, maybe it's not always so bad that producer types challenge and hold creative people by their ears a bit. I recall watching producer interviews on Lord of the Rings DVDs, and those guys hardly seemed clueless. So when they fought for what they believed would make the movies better, maybe they at times were right? Then fast forward to Peter Jackson's "King Kong". I was underwhelmed by it, for the most part. Apparently Jackson were allowed to geek out completely and recreate his childhood fantasy or some such. Good for him, but I've since pictured someone going e.g., "Dude, that dinosaur chase scene? That is just ludicrous, you can't use that!" And with some more input like that, maybe it would have been a better movie. The guys in fancy suits aren't always 100% useless.

[Estel78]

Tirigon wrote...

StarCraft 2 IS the very best game ever.

If that isn't hyperbole then i dunno what is.

Tirigon wrote...

The campaign took me longer to complete than in Mass Effect 2, offered more fun and a better story.

Dunno how you managed that but i had a much different experience. Mass Effect 2 took me quite a bit longer to finish and the best thing, it offers more replayability than Star Craft 2. As for more fun and a better story, i disagree again.

[Tirigon]

Estel78 wrote...

Tirigon wrote...

The campaign took me longer to complete than in Mass Effect 2, offered more fun and a better story.

Dunno how you managed that but i had a much different experience. Mass Effect 2 took me quite a bit longer to finish and the best thing, it offers more replayability than Star Craft 2. As for more fun and a better story, i disagree again.

Well, more fun and better story is a matter of opinion, of course. But length is not. The campaign took me about 25 or so hours on normal (ok, the dialogues and movies included, but dialogue is a huge part in ME2 too), while ME2 took me like 29 on insanity. On brutal however, the SC2 campaign will take me MUCH longer than it did on normal and therefore most probaly more than 29 hours.

Now, i know there is an achievement to finish SC2 in less than 8 hours and there are people who got it, but then, a friend of mine finished ME2 in less than 5 hours on insanity, so speedruns can´t really be counted.


As for replayability, yes, ME2 has a bit more, but not nearly as much as SC2´s multiplayer offers. I won´t even get into custom maps or we´ll have to take DotA into account, which entertained me for hundreds of hours over more than 2 years back in WC3 times and will soon be better in SC2.

Modifié par Tirigon, 25 août 2010 - 11:58 .