128 réponses à ce sujet

[Lyssistr]

Stoomkal wrote...

Vicious wrote...

Everyone on internet forums hate Bioware, Blizzard, and Bethesda.

Their games however make huge gobs of money and recieve critical and commercial appeal.

Internet forums rock.

...

Well... that is odd.

I bought a copy of "Fallout 3" because every internet game review gave it a "9" or higher. Once I played it I found I had 3-5 crashes per day... on a console.

I have actually kept this disk, because I regard F3 as the ultimate example of incomplete software. It is practically a drink coaster.

If I had gone to an internet message board, then *everyone* would have told me that you cannot buy a Bethesda game without multiple crashes per day... great.

... and...

If we are talking about Bioware and how they implement patches, then remember this: Baldur's Gate, KotoR and Mass Effect had very, very limited patches. They only make one or two patches per game, and have a corporate system that wants to get all issues sorted in one big go... it is awful.

It means you have to put up with issues longer because they really want to release a patch at the last possible minute. It fixes more problems, but leaves many issues.

As others have said, I have waited *four months* for a patch to make Bioware software even playable... and whlie I was waiting, they have tried to sell me three different DLCs...

I think this is bad.

Truth be told, never buy a Bethesda game unless about a year has passed since release date. Bioware is better at patches but still, it's good to wait for the first patch to come out.

[Saibh]

Bryy_Miller wrote...

Riona45 wrote...

Blumbum wrote...

Except Blizzard is garbage and a shell of a company compared to what it use to be. Unfortunately Bioware is going down the same road.

Aren't you just a beam of sunshine.

Didn't anyone tell you that every game company instantly becomes the bane of the earth once it is bought by a larger game company?

LOL Marvel, ur nao Dizney.

KH MARVEL FTW!

[Wyndham711]

BioWare's story focus doesn't really mash well with Blizzard's "gameplay first" attitude. In many situations you'll have to decide which side you take. I'm extremely happy with both of these visions for game design, but they are still inherently different. One thing I think BioWare could learn from Blizzard is the process of endless iteration and the culture of continuous polish. Blizzard doesn't add polish to their games just during the last year. They polish from the start. Every iteration of the game needs to be extremely polished. That's the reason why many people are so perplexed for why Diablo 3 is taking so long - it looked extremely polished even in the first anouncement demo years ago.

[freaktong]

wolfwarp wrote...
The above are the standard features from Blizzard games like WoW and SC 2.

And does bioware suck the player dry? dry of money ofcourse.

Modifié par freaktong, 04 août 2010 - 10:36 .

[TheMadCat]

freaktong wrote...

wolfwarp wrote...
The above are the standard features from Blizzard games like WoW and SC 2.

And does bioware suck the player dry? dry of money offcourse.

No more and no less the Blizzard does.

[Behindyounow]

DespiertaLosNinos wrote...

#5 of what Bioware should learn from Blizzard: Take 8-10 years to make a sequel.

No.

[Behindyounow]

Bryy_Miller wrote...

Riona45 wrote...

Blumbum wrote...

Except Blizzard is garbage and a shell of a company compared to what it use to be. Unfortunately Bioware is going down the same road.

Aren't you just a beam of sunshine.

Didn't anyone tell you that every game company instantly becomes the bane of the earth once it is bought by a larger game company?

No. Its just if Activision buys them. EA and Ubisoft may have their bad moments, but Activision is the cancer killing gaming. IIRC their CEO wanted to "Take the fun out of making games."

[Ponce de Leon]

Lyssistr wrote...
You forgot Valve!

Problem is that Valve is independent... wait a second, that's not a problem! 

[Captain Iglo]

I rather would have Bioware take an example on Valve and Steam

[ald0s]

are you serios?



I think Bioware is fine as it is. I don´t need another Steam or any kind of another Store to register my games. Steam is ok, but Blizzards store is way to useless...



Biowares social network and buying the game at amazon or steam or whatever is enough for me!

[TheMadCat]

Behindyounow wrote...

Bryy_Miller wrote...

Riona45 wrote...

Blumbum wrote...

Except Blizzard is garbage and a shell of a company compared to what it use to be. Unfortunately Bioware is going down the same road.

Aren't you just a beam of sunshine.

Didn't anyone tell you that every game company instantly becomes the bane of the earth once it is bought by a larger game company?

No. Its just if Activision buys them. EA and Ubisoft may have their bad moments, but Activision is the cancer killing gaming. IIRC their CEO wanted to "Take the fun out of making games."

Killing gaming? They've been turning the highest profits and revenues out of the big 3 publishers. Wouldn't that make them the shining success keeping gaming alive?

[The Hardest Thing In The World]

If you disregard Awakening, DA:O ain't that bad. I hope DA2 will be what BG2 was to the BG series, although BG's story was better.

Modifié par The Hardest Thing In The World, 04 août 2010 - 08:38 .

[Elanareon]

PARAGON87 wrote...

One positive thing about Blizzard that no one can deny, they take as much time as possible to make a game perfect, and care about how much outrage there is that a game isn't out yet.

Seriously, 12 years to develop a game and they only released 1/3 of it, a 94 Metacritic rated 1/3 of it I should say.

WTF? Dude since when did SC2 took 12 years to make? You are fooling yourself... They even cancelled SC GHOST because they focused on WoW... And you are saying that they took 12 years to make sc2? lol

[Marzillius]

PARAGON87 wrote...

One positive thing about Blizzard that no one can deny, they take as much time as possible to make a game perfect, and care about how much outrage there is that a game isn't out yet.

Seriously, 12 years to develop a game and they only released 1/3 of it, a 94 Metacritic rated 1/3 of it I should say.

And that is what sucks about Blizzard. They spend 12 ****ing years developing that one game, and it got a score of 94. Rockstar however spent... I'd say 3 years developing Grand Theft Auto IV, and it got a score of 98.

Blizzard taking such a ridiculous time making that game doesn't mean it's the greatest game ever. It just pisses a lot of people off. I'm pretty sure that Blizzard took such a long time to further the claim that the longer time it takes = the better the game will be. This will pay off for Blizzard, as they will sell more copies of SC2.

[DaringMoosejaw]

Marzillius wrote...

PARAGON87 wrote...

One positive thing about Blizzard that no one can deny, they take as much time as possible to make a game perfect, and care about how much outrage there is that a game isn't out yet.

Seriously, 12 years to develop a game and they only released 1/3 of it, a 94 Metacritic rated 1/3 of it I should say.

And that is what sucks about Blizzard. They spend 12 ****ing years developing that one game, and it got a score of 94. Rockstar however spent... I'd say 3 years developing Grand Theft Auto IV, and it got a score of 98.

Blizzard taking such a ridiculous time making that game doesn't mean it's the greatest game ever. It just pisses a lot of people off. I'm pretty sure that Blizzard took such a long time to further the claim that the longer time it takes = the better the game will be. This will pay off for Blizzard, as they will sell more copies of SC2.

An RTS vs. A game where you can have sex with and kill prostitutes. There's no way the RTS would win to the opinion of the majority.

[Behindyounow]

TheMadCat wrote...

Behindyounow wrote...

Bryy_Miller wrote...

Riona45 wrote...

Blumbum wrote...

Except Blizzard is garbage and a shell of a company compared to what it use to be. Unfortunately Bioware is going down the same road.

Aren't you just a beam of sunshine.

Didn't anyone tell you that every game company instantly becomes the bane of the earth once it is bought by a larger game company?

No. Its just if Activision buys them. EA and Ubisoft may have their bad moments, but Activision is the cancer killing gaming. IIRC their CEO wanted to "Take the fun out of making games."

Killing gaming? They've been turning the highest profits and revenues out of the big 3 publishers. Wouldn't that make them the shining success keeping gaming alive?

What? Pumping out a new, rehashed Call of Duty every year is a good thing? Wanting to charge to play online is a good thing? Wanting to "Take the fun out of making games" is a good thing? I don't think so.

[Vulee94]

Marzillius wrote...

PARAGON87 wrote...

One positive thing about Blizzard that no one can deny, they take as much time as possible to make a game perfect, and care about how much outrage there is that a game isn't out yet.

Seriously, 12 years to develop a game and they only released 1/3 of it, a 94 Metacritic rated 1/3 of it I should say.

And that is what sucks about Blizzard. They spend 12 ****ing years developing that one game, and it got a score of 94. Rockstar however spent... I'd say 3 years developing Grand Theft Auto IV, and it got a score of 98.

Blizzard taking such a ridiculous time making that game doesn't mean it's the greatest game ever. It just pisses a lot of people off. I'm pretty sure that Blizzard took such a long time to further the claim that the longer time it takes = the better the game will be. This will pay off for Blizzard, as they will sell more copies of SC2.

I'll just leave this here:

www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php

[Gerudan]

wolfwarp wrote...

2. Auto push the patches to the PC game client.

3. Auto send the error reports generated after each crash to BioWare team for immediate investigation. It is not efficient to ask gamers to copy and paste and supply info manually via the PC support forum.

No thanks, I would rather decide for myself, if I want to patch my game and if I want to send a report. 

Blizzard spies on you for years now and they have a slave contract as business terms (you can't even sell your game!). I never thought that possible, but Activision/Blizzard somehow became even worse than EA ever was (not to mention Ubisoft with their copy protection). 

I really hope, Bioware und EA become nothing like that, because then I really would think twice before buying a new game from them, no matter how good it would be.

[tmp7704]

Lyssistr wrote...

I haven't played another mmo, apart from a very tiny bit of everquest, however comparing patching in games separated >5 yrs is not meaningful (WoW still wins). However, I've played quite a few non-mmo games, many of them with online co-op and I haven't found any of them to be as frequently patches as WoW.

 I can't say who is best per income dollar, but overall, Blizz is best at patching.

But then if the only mmo you've played is Blizzard's WoW, then it's simply unfair to make any such claims here. Because you're picking the best out of group of one and yet make it sound as if you actually know what you're talking about (initially at least -- there was no disclaimer you lack knowledge of other MMO games there)

MMO are patched in very different manner from non-mmo games (non-mmo are expected to ship in "pretty much complete" form for one that shouldn't require any patching if done right, while MMO are treated as product under continuous development) and honestly, Blizzard isn't doing for their MMO game anything the other MMO producers aren't doing as well.

Modifié par tmp7704, 04 août 2010 - 12:40 .

[Lord Gremlin]

About point 1: patches don't bring any money. Of course critical errors are patched, since they prevent DLC and game itself from selling well, but things like Jowan's Intentions quest in Origins are never patched. DLC on the other hand yields direct profit.
It's just a matter of fact. I'm a PS3 gamer (well I have a PC but only buy Valve games for it) and patching system is quite convenient. Too bad Bioware didn't meet even the lowest graphics standard with DAO on PS3. Worst PS3 games of 2007 have better graphics than DAO.

Modifié par Lord Gremlin, 04 août 2010 - 12:49 .

[Siven80]

On the subject of Bio learning from Blizz......well Blizzards support and QA team are IMO second to none. MMOs require constant attention and support and rarely have Blizz failed in their support.
I can safely say Blizzard and Bioware are the only companys whose games i buy without reading reviews. As i know i will get quality gameplay and support.

Bioware dont need to go the autopatch route as its not vital to fix and balance issues as quick as possible, but i would like to see more patches from them.

Modifié par Siven80, 04 août 2010 - 01:01 .

[Andat]

1. Not sure what you mean about the patches - my PC copy seems perfectly functional (I'm on 1.03).



2. Buy from Steam - you get patches automatically. Alternatively, use GameShadow. Other than that, yes!



3. Fair enough, but that would have to be opt in (privacy concerns) and this only offers a limited amount of info. They might be able to determine from statistics that 89% of people with a certain graphics card are seeing a crash with error 0x0008946404879 after 10 minutes of playing, but to be honest I didn't see that type of issue.



4. Buy from Steam, or Direct2Drive, or some similar service.where you can re-download. Blizzard lock you into using their own inferior service (well, I read that it was inferior in PCGamer).

[Joshd21]

Blizzard is bad company IMO. A power hungry money sucking company. I mean they are charging people 15 bucks a month, along with 15 bucks for "server" transfer, 10 bucks for char recusom and vindictus is able to provide better graphics and in game play with NO CHARGE free to play game.

This all started with everquest which I played when it first then Blizzard came around and made their own company. I mean they're is playing a video game and they're is work. In blizzard you have to grind killing random mobs for MONTHS or if you play alot of video games. In a single month with least 6 hours a day.

How is killing the same mob over and over just to get to level 80 to run dungeons weekly over and over like playing dice don't know what drops and what won't and no balance in the system combined with their foul mouth persona about them. I think IMO makes them a bad game. Sure they have millions of customers but HALF of them are outside the united states.

However on a different note. I will be more then willing to pay 15 bucks a month for Bioware Star Wars Knights of the Old Republic because it's based off of "star wars" logo but it's not just that. It's the graphics, it's the "moral choice" of you making a choice. I read in a bioware interview how do they plan to keep people logging into the game by adding new trinkets like Blizzard?

They said no. It will be char progression. They won't update the game with shiny new virtual tools to keep you interested. You will be interested deeply already without the use of that.

Blizzard didn't start to become king of mmos untill 2006 now in 2010 I perdict with all the MMOS that came out. Aion, City of Heros, Champions online and upcoming DC unvensise that Star Wars will be able to rival blizzard if not take half their fan base

MMO'S are being more common and free to play and once that will cost money will SWTOR MMO I believe will be will worth it enough to leave blizzard in the dust

[Lyssistr]

tmp7704 wrote...

Lyssistr wrote...

I haven't played another mmo, apart from a very tiny bit of everquest, however comparing patching in games separated >5 yrs is not meaningful (WoW still wins). However, I've played quite a few non-mmo games, many of them with online co-op and I haven't found any of them to be as frequently patches as WoW.

 I can't say who is best per income dollar, but overall, Blizz is best at patching.

But then if the only mmo you've played is Blizzard's WoW, then it's simply unfair to make any such claims here. Because you're picking the best out of group of one and yet make it sound as if you actually know what you're talking about (initially at least -- there was no disclaimer you lack knowledge of other MMO games there)

MMO are patched in very different manner from non-mmo games (non-mmo are expected to ship in "pretty much complete" form for one that shouldn't require any patching if done right, while MMO are treated as product under continuous development) and honestly, Blizzard isn't doing for their MMO game anything the other MMO producers aren't doing as well.

 
Well, fact still is Blizz patches well even non-mmo games, even games that are nearly a decade old still receive patches. Also I'd say Blizz's beta is about the same quality as release quality for most competing companies.

[tmp7704]

Lyssistr wrote...

Well, fact still is Blizz patches well even non-mmo games, even games that are nearly a decade old still receive patches.

Considering they still price these 10 year old games at 20-40 USD it's small wonder they still pay some attention to their cash cows.

Modifié par tmp7704, 04 août 2010 - 04:49 .