771 réponses à ce sujet

[Kaiser Shepard]

slimgrin wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

I loved ME2's combat

I find ME2's combat too fast-paced to be enjoyable, and sometimes I find it too difficult.

You've said this before. Go play SF4, or any Japanese developed fighting game. Get good at it. Then come back to the relaxing pace of ME2.

I'd rather not go back to a fighting game that plays a fluidly as a piece of wood.

[David Gaider]

adneate wrote...
Sorry I don't mean to be rude but from a bunch of people that sold their company to Electronic Arts that has to be a bad joke of some sort. EA is known for taking studios and people with exactly that mentality and driving them into the ground and forcing them make games that utterly betray their original vision, then taking them to the slaughterhouse when they somehow don't sell as good as previous iterations. I bet the people at Bullfrog Studios, Origin Systems, Maxis, Westwood Studios and Pandemic thought exactly the same thing and where are they all now? What was said about the games they made in their final days, were they what they wanted to make? In the war of profits versus quality profits will always win even if it turns out to be a Pyrrhic victory.

Sorry, but I can only speak from my personal experience with EA-- not what they've done in the past or what they might do. Certainly there's many things that they might do, but currently EA is focused on making quality, top-tier, profitable games and that's not mutually exclusive with our own vision. If we failed to make profitable games period then we might have disappeared regardless of whether we were part of EA or not-- making games with a 5-year development cycle is not exactly the path to riches for anyone.

[AlanC9]

Gandalf-the-Fabulous wrote...

Not so much the main quest but the sidequests which played a much bigger part than they did in Origins. However this is mostly due to the fact that you can only have 5 companions at a time where in Origins you can have them all at camp and still experience their side quests so take of it what you will.

I just don't see that as being a significant difference. At any given moment in a DA run you've still got only whoever's in the active party. Whatever differences there would be for having different parties are still there. 

AlanC9 wrote...
Oh I never said that I dont care about the end state however the only thing that choices between Behlen and Harrowmont effected was the armies you had available in the final battle and the small where are they now description at the end of the game while the choices you made in the Baldur's Gate games had a bigger effect on the journey which in my opinion is much more important.

I didn't find this personally true, but that's because I didn't find most of the alternative BG2 paths worth taking. Even an evil character doesn't have a reason to side with the vampires, for instance.

AlanC9 wrote...
However I dont know about you but to me the US ending always felt a bit tacky, almost like the main character was just being stubborn and refused the dark ritual simply because he thought that throwing himself on a sword would make for a more emotional ending. But then this really comes down to how you view the dark ritual and whether or not it is an evil act.

I'd substitute "horribly reckless" for "evil."

[Kohaku]

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

slimgrin wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

I loved ME2's combat

I find ME2's combat too fast-paced to be enjoyable, and sometimes I find it too difficult.

You've said this before. Go play SF4, or any Japanese developed fighting game. Get good at it. Then come back to the relaxing pace of ME2.

I'd rather not go back to a fighting game that plays a fluidly as a piece of wood.

I must agree. Dear God. SF4 was not my choice in fighting games but I gave it a try anyhow. I wish I had saved my money and stuck with Tekken and Soul Calibur.

[Dave of Canada]

EA isn't the devil it used to be, they've been creating a lot of top quality games and supporting their companies a lot these past few years and have earned a lot of respect from me as one of the top publishers in the business.

[AlanC9]

adneate wrote...
 I bet the people at Bullfrog Studios, Origin Systems, Maxis, Westwood Studios and Pandemic thought exactly the same thing and where are they all now? What was said about the games they made in their final days, were they what they wanted to make? In the war of profits versus quality profits will always win even if it turns out to be a Pyrrhic victory.

How does Maxis fit on that list? They dug themselves into a hole before EA got them out of it. And Spore was a success, despite internet ranting about the DRM.

[Merced256]

Yea how EA keeps mythic around is beyond me... I guess that means bioware will be kept afloat even if ToR bombs out.

edit: Jesus i miss Bullfrog, dungeon keeper is still the best game ever.

Modifié par Merced256, 16 août 2010 - 07:07 .

[Addai]

Saibh wrote...

Regardless (and I direct this generally, not at you), change happens. No one is going to be pleased with that. It's a basic truth--why not wait until you can actually play the game to see if it's worth complaining about? Until then, the devs aren't going to take anyone here seriously, since the forum is doomcasting over the most trivial bits of info that we have.

I don't need to wait for DA2 to come out to know I don't like ME-style gameplay or characterization, and thus not be pleased with what I hear or what I see in the "test runs."

[danien.grey]

David Gaider wrote...
Sorry, but I can only speak from my personal experience with EA-- not what they've done in the past or what they might do. Certainly there's many things that they might do, but currently EA is focused on making quality, top-tier, profitable games and that's not mutually exclusive with our own vision. If we failed to make profitable games period then we might have disappeared regardless of whether we were part of EA or not-- making games with a 5-year development cycle is not exactly the path to riches for anyone.

QFT.

I've noticed EA games getting better and better recently.  They have gained back some of my confidence.

danien.grey approves (+1 ).

Modifié par danien.grey, 16 août 2010 - 07:15 .

[Kaiser Shepard]

slimgrin wrote...

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

slimgrin wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

I loved ME2's combat

I find ME2's combat too fast-paced to be enjoyable, and sometimes I find it too difficult.

You've said this before. Go play SF4, or any Japanese developed fighting game. Get good at it. Then come back to the relaxing pace of ME2.

I'd rather not go back to a fighting game that plays a fluidly as a piece of wood.

SSF4 then. You know of one that's better?



*Sorry, off topic, but my hackles are officially raised.

Although I severely doubt that it's that much better, I'm honestly not looking to buy a game for a second time, especially not when it's previous iteration made me feel like I just got robbed (while I got it in a trade against another game that disappointed me gravely, Resi 5). If there's any company which in my eyes should seriously reevaluate what they're doing as of late, it's Capcom, what with their only good games this generation being the downloadable ones.

Like Kerridan, I prefer the dancing-like fluidness of the Soul Calibur series.

[StormbringerGT]

@ Gandalf-the-Fabulous



Thats a little melodramtic.



I enjoyed Baldur's Gate I and II.

I enjoyed Neverwinter Nights.

I enjoyed Knights of the Old Republic

I enjoyed both Mass Effects

I Enojyed Dragon Age Origins.



I am looking forward to Dragon Age II.



A lot of people here have different ideas on what makes an RPG an RPG. Due to its definition its a Role Playing Game. A game where you play a Role. Where you exist as a character other than yourself. So almost every game is an RPG.



Now some people maybe have decided that RPGs need to have stat tweaking and custom characters as well. That could also be true but doesn't have to.



The game industry isn't the same it wasn't 10 or 15 years ago. Not nearly. Its more mainstream for better or worse.



The point is they can't make everyone happy all the time. Different customers now exist in the market and Bioware is a larger company. They are not just "making games for money" although yes they probably have some 300 people who do look for a paycheck every month. The engineering hours alone on a game that takes 2 or 3 years to make has to br extremely high!



I look forward to Dragon Age II so by a lot of people's opinions they should stop making something I am going to enjoy and cater to your needs? Its a tough spot for them because they have so many different customer types. RPGs are no the secret pet owned by a select few.



I;m old enough to remember when RPGs in paper form used to be for overweight men with bad beards. Or the weird eccentric guy who showed up with a cape and actually used an English accent in a Fantasy World (I'm looking at you Don....) or that greasy looking college kid. I came from that group. But things change. As RPGs go more mainstream and more people are interested by them the people who make them have to address the wider customer base. Dungeons and Dragons 4th edition.....



In the end they have 2 basic things to consider.

1. What kind of game do we want to make.

2. What kind of game is going to sell enough for us to continue making the games we want to make.

[Saibh]

Addai67 wrote...

Saibh wrote...

Regardless (and I direct this generally, not at you), change happens. No one is going to be pleased with that. It's a basic truth--why not wait until you can actually play the game to see if it's worth complaining about? Until then, the devs aren't going to take anyone here seriously, since the forum is doomcasting over the most trivial bits of info that we have.

I don't need to wait for DA2 to come out to know I don't like ME-style gameplay or characterization, and thus not be pleased with what I hear or what I see in the "test runs."

ME-style gameplay? I see no guns, I see no ammo. They said it's "quicker" but who knows what that means? ME-style characterization? You mean having a human who's name is Hawke? You mean, the same way you have human who's name is Cousland? 

Again, we know so little, it's hard to take complaints seriously.

[Dave of Canada]

Saibh wrote...

ME-style gameplay? I see no guns, I see no ammo.

"Hawke, cover me! I';m reloading my bow!"
"I can't, Varric. I'm reloading my sword!"
"Damn!"

[Addai]

Saibh wrote...

ME-style gameplay? I see no guns, I see no ammo. They said it's "quicker" but who knows what that means? ME-style characterization? You mean having a human who's name is Hawke? You mean, the same way you have human who's name is Cousland? 

Again, we know so little, it's hard to take complaints seriously.

The differences between the two games are obviously not apparent to you.  But since the devs have said they are moving DA2 in a direction more like Mass Effect, they agree with me that there are differences.

You're just confirming what I said, that the "change happens" mantra is a meaningless dismissal.  We know what we know, so we can react to that much.

[SarEnyaDor]

I know I'm going to get strung up for this, but I don't have a problem with EA games ... I used to play a dinkly little game on my C64 by an upstart company called Electronic Arts called Heart of Africa, possibly the first role-playing game I ever played aside from Zork.... Sorry, I really enjoyed dying of heat exhaustion out in the wilderness because the Chief wanted more and I was too poor to provide after I was attacked by crocodiles and was too weak to carry my canoe ashore. Hard to hate EA and think it is just an evil, soul-sucking corporation when I can remember their humble beginnings.

[EpicBoot2daFace]

David Gaider wrote...

It's not directed at the embittered specifically-- I think most fans would be uninterested in the business needs of a developer. In fact, most of them probably wish we didn't have those needs period. I don't begrudge someone that viewpoint. If anything I begrudge the idea that to some people it is somehow more honorable for a company to make unsuccessful games and go under then to actually make games that are profitable.

Who is actually saying that? I don't think anyone here would rather see Bioware go down instead of releasing a mainstream cash-cow like Mass Effect. People do enjoy the series (myself included), but they enjoy it begrudgingly because they know Bioware can do better.

Dragon Age sold very well, even on consoles, where I thought it wouldn't do very well given the nature of the game. I think that pretty much proves that it's not just a niche market, but there is actually a large market out there that is in demand of the old school-style RPGs. But based on what I've read about DA2, Bioware is choosing to ignore that fact and act as if it failed in some way.

[MerinTB]

David Gaider wrote...
(...) making games with a 5-year development cycle is not exactly the path to riches for anyone

*coughcoughcough*blizzard*coughcoughcough*starcraft, diablo, warcraft...
*coughcoughcough*valve*coughcoughcough*half-life...
*coughcoughcough*maxis*coughcoughcough*sims...

How long did Dragon Age: Origins take?  How successful was that for BioWare compared to, say, ME2 and it's shorter development cycle?

Modifié par MerinTB, 16 août 2010 - 07:49 .

[MerinTB]

StormbringerGT wrote...
A lot of people here have different ideas on what makes an RPG an RPG. Due to its definition its a Role Playing Game. A game where you play a Role. Where you exist as a character other than yourself. So almost every game is an RPG.

Now some people maybe have decided that RPGs need to have stat tweaking and custom characters as well. That could also be true but doesn't have to.

Words have meanings.  And generally accepted definitions, or industry-defined definitions.  And different meanings in different contexts.

Any game where you play someone other than yourself is NOT a role-playing game as a result.  That is not what RPG means.  You are taking the non-gaming definition of role-playing and applying it to the gaming industry.

It'd be the same as if you were playing Magic the Gathering and to summon your creatures you just beat your finger against your land cards saying "What?  I tapped my mana cards."

There is more to an RPG than simply controlling a character that is not you.  If you want that broad, non-gaming definition of role-playing you can role-play yourself in situations, it doesn't have to be "not you."

While specifics are argued about in minutia, I think most agreeable people would concede that just having a character you play in a game does not mean it's a role-playing game.

[Estel78]

David Gaider wrote...

CD Projekt is an excellent example, though. They're a small team, and one for whom the level of sales they received on TW was sufficient to meet their needs. If they intend to grow, their needs may also increase and they may need to think about how they'll get bigger sales for their future games-- or they'll have the same fate as other companies that didn't do that, and have their names invoked in the future alongside companies like Troika and Looking Glass Studios. Which is maybe good, I don't know. Not so good for the people who worked at such places, though they made some kick-ass games. Hopefully a company like CD Projekt can find the fine line between growth and vision. I know I certainly wish them well-- I enjoyed TW quite a bit. But if they did decide to change their vision I certainly wouldn't look on it as a betrayal even if what they made wasn't of interest to me personally.

I have to ask, how can such a supposedly small team like CD Projekt make a game that from a standpoint of production values rivals or even surpasses Bioware titles? I think saying that Witcher 2 looks absolutely gorgeous is not an overstatement. Are they just more efficient? Why would they even want to grow when they can already do titles like Witcher 2 now?

[bjdbwea]

I, too, think that the old BioWare is almost gone, unfortunately. I strongly disagree that Mass Effect was the bottom though. I think that game was an innovative and highly enjoyable mix of RPG and action game with a fantastic story. The presentation, with the introduction of a likeable voiced player character, was amazing. The game was a milestone, and is together with BG 2 my favorite BioWare game and in fact my favorite games ever.

Unfortunately, ME 2 was a major step back. I won't go into details here, but it lost almost everything that made me like ME 1 so much. The main reasons for that development being: An obviously too short time limit and the idea that BioWare must cater to the mainstream and make their games as easily accessible and as immediate as the mass market apparently demands.

I didn't even buy Awakening. No proper conversations and no romances with the companions? No, thanks. Didn't buy any DLC for DA either, as it all feels like ripping off to me. Where are the real and proper add-ons, as it used to be?

And now all the changes in DA 2. As I said, I liked the voiced player character and the dialogue wheel in ME, but I also like traditional RPGs. I wish they would maintain the differences of each series, as they are both different, but great.

Another thing is that they aren't even responding to criticism anymore. They participate in the DA forums now, but after release it will probably be just silence. The same happened in the ME forums.

This, all together, leads me to the conclusion that BioWare is indeed not the BioWare anymore that it used to be and that I liked so much. It seems that the changes that were so unfortunately predictable when EA took over, have indeed materialized.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 16 août 2010 - 07:57 .

[Kohaku]

MerinTB wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

adneate wrote...
Sorry I don't mean to be rude but from a bunch of people that sold their company to Electronic Arts that has to be a bad joke of some sort. EA is known for taking studios and people with exactly that mentality and driving them into the ground and forcing them make games that utterly betray their original vision, then taking them to the slaughterhouse when they somehow don't sell as good as previous iterations. I bet the people at Bullfrog Studios, Origin Systems, Maxis, Westwood Studios and Pandemic thought exactly the same thing and where are they all now? What was said about the games they made in their final days, were they what they wanted to make? In the war of profits versus quality profits will always win even if it turns out to be a Pyrrhic victory.

Sorry, but I can only speak from my personal experience with EA-- not what they've done in the past or what they might do. Certainly there's many things that they might do, but currently EA is focused on making quality, top-tier, profitable games and that's not mutually exclusive with our own vision. If we failed to make profitable games period then we might have disappeared regardless of whether we were part of EA or not-- making games with a 5-year development cycle is not exactly the path to riches for anyone.

*coughcoughcough*blizzard*coughcoughcough*starcraft, diablo, warcraft...
*coughcoughcough*valve*coughcoughcough*half-life...
*coughcoughcough*maxis*coughcoughcough*sims...

How long did Dragon Age: Origins take?  How successful was that for BioWare compared to, say, ME2 and it's shorter development cycle?

The funny thing about that is Blizzard can afford to take forever to make games and get away with it. They are Activision's cash cow. They throw around the "When it's done." mantra and we all eat it up and wait for the next version of whatever series we're looking for. I wish I could find the article that said World of Warcraft makes up 90% percent of Activision’s revenue. If everyone started leaving World of Warcraft in mass today or tomorrow Activision would be sunk to hell in a hand basket. However, since they are making them so much money I think Activision is lax with Blizzard's development times. They know they have digital gold when they release a game.

Same with Valve and Maxis.

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

Saibh wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

Saibh wrote...

Regardless (and I direct this generally, not at you), change happens. No one is going to be pleased with that. It's a basic truth--why not wait until you can actually play the game to see if it's worth complaining about? Until then, the devs aren't going to take anyone here seriously, since the forum is doomcasting over the most trivial bits of info that we have.

I don't need to wait for DA2 to come out to know I don't like ME-style gameplay or characterization, and thus not be pleased with what I hear or what I see in the "test runs."

ME-style gameplay? I see no guns, I see no ammo. They said it's "quicker" but who knows what that means? ME-style characterization? You mean having a human who's name is Hawke? You mean, the same way you have human who's name is Cousland? 

Again, we know so little, it's hard to take complaints seriously.

ME style in the sense of a predetermined player character and a "streamlined" conversation system, that if it plays out the same way ME2 did, will flat out suck, as half the conversation choices in that game come out completely different as to whats written on the wheel.

DA:O offered alot of choice,  humans, elves, dwarves etc and various backgrounds as well. Here that choice is gone, in another case of dumbing the game down for the casuals.

David Gaider wrote...

Sorry, but I can only speak from my personal experience with EA-- not what they've done in the past or what they might do. Certainly there's many things that they might do,
but currently EA is focused on making quality, top-tier,
profitable games and that's not mutually exclusive with our own vision.
If we failed to make profitable games period then we might have
disappeared regardless of whether we were part of EA or not-- making
games with a 5-year development cycle is not exactly the path to riches
for anyone.

Well who's fault is it that you guys had a 5+ year development cycle in the first place? I truly understand the desire to pump out product every 12-16 months. Really I do. But if the overall product is going to suffer because of it, like Awakenings clearly did by being rushed out half baked, all you're managing to do is damage your reputation and drive fans away.  Granted you'll always have some hold outs who praise everything you do regardless of quality but I would think Bioware always had higher standards than just churning out a game every 12 months to have something new to sell. Its how your reputation for quality was built in the first place.

You guys talked up being a  spiritial successor to BG an awful lot during DA:O's development cycle, its quite strange now to see what appears to be a complete 180 spin.  So whats next? No inventory or armor/item  upgrades at all? Hey that'd be just like ME2 as well!

[aries1001]

Gandalf-the-Fabulous wrote...

/snip

But please tell me if you enjoyed Origins have you actually played the Baldur's Gate series, and if you have please tell me if Origins actually reminded you of Baldur's Gate and whether you felt it was a fitting tribute.

I have enjoyed Baldur's Gate, both of them, and their expansions. And yes, to me, Origins felt like a throwback to the Baldur's Gate games. Both in terms of story, of depth, of character interaction, of dialogue - and in terms of the combat. I'm playing on easy difficulty and still after 120 hours of gameplay, I still have a hard time (sometimes) winning. The combat is a mix between strategically and tactically combat. It isn't really similar to combat in the (old) BG games, more like a mix of the combat in BG, Fallout, Jagged Alliance and possible the combat in the Ultima games?

And in terms of length? - yes, it is - Origins is very very long, possibly too long? In terms of length, Origins is clearly a tribute to BG2 as well as as tribute to BG2 (and BG1) in terms of story. In BG1, you had a political plot, the same is true for Origins. In BG2, you had a great story, party interaction (banter) and relationsships with your npcs (team mates).

Origins has all this - and more.

It has the lessons Bioware has learned from both BG1 and BG2, as well as the cinematic storytelling from the Mass Effect games. So yes, I do feel Origins is a fitting tribute, not only to the BG games as well as to Bioware's other (former) games.

However, there's something I don't like in Origins. And it is  that the combat feel like it been tunnelfied - e.g. all combat feels like you're fighting in tunnels. Even outdoors. And don't get me started about the inventory...

But these are minor grievances in a game, I feel has taken all lessons that Bioware has learned making all of their games. And so it is fitting tribute to the old BG games...