771 réponses à ce sujet

[Dasher10]

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

No one is asking them to make the same game over and over again for the rest of their careers. What I and others are saying is that the new games Bioware makes should meet or exceed the level of quality set by previous games.

I would also like to note that when I used the word 'quality', it does not mean polish, but rather, depth, complexity, replayablity, memorable characters and events, etc. All of these things have been (in my opinion) seriously lacking in recent Bioware games.

Perhaps it is the effect of dumbing down their games for a wider audience. There is no denying that gamers today are lazy and want instant gratifaction. They are also amazed by flashy graphics and special effects more than story and character. I think this is the new type of gamer that has emerged over the past 10 years and that is who Bioware is catering to now.

In short, Bioware is targeting the Call of Duty/Halo/Gears of War crowd. Gamers who like great stories, memorable characters, and even long games, are very much a dying breed. We are being replaced by people who just want six to ten hours of big explosions and flashy graphics.

The only Bioware game that really fell into the catagory of being overly short and accessable was Jade Empire which was not a bad game at all. I felt that Mass Effect 2 did have a lot of memorable characters and that Dragon Age did have some very deep gameplay. Also, the games that you mentioned were designed for multiplayer and when I buy a Halo game, I'm expecting a campaign that I'll beat once and then months (if not years) of comptitive multiplayer. I expect a lot of replayablility and memorable moments from an RPG. Something that BIOWARE has always delivered.

[Tsuga C]

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...
...are very much a dying breed.

If this were true, then DA:O wouldn't have sold very well at all, nor would it have been named the RPG Game of the Year.  The industry wouldn't waste their endorsement on a product catering to a miniscule market segment no matter how well made it happend to be.

Besides, how are newer people coming into the gaming ranks supposed to know and appreciate just what a properly made cRPG can offer if BioWare allows the DA series to degenerate towards a more action-shooter orientation that's light on the actual roleplaying?  They're the undisputed kings of the cRPG and have been so for more than a decade while contenders have had their brief moments and successes and then, for one reason or another, fallen by the wayside.  If BioWare doesn't serve the market, I don't see anyone doing so any time soon.

[Haexpane]

TonyTheBossDanza123 wrote...

 
Here's the problem with making games for the majority. The majority of people are idiots. Hollywood knows this, and look what we get: Michael Bay, James Cameron, and Tom Cruise.

Avatar, the top grossing movie of all time, is Dances with Wolves in space.

Well a primary difference is people who actually go out to the movies are younger than ever.  Which is why crap like Twilght and Marky Marky meets Ron Burgundy make bank. 

Videogames on the other hand have a slighty older market, last I read, "avg" gamer age was like 28?  You don't see a lot of normal 28 year old men going to see Edward Bloody Fangs in Tweenlight.

But hordes of cranky 28 year old men will buy Starcraft etc...

Without a doubt, Michael Bay is one of the worst things to ever happen to the film industry.

But horrible films have been around forever.  I tried to watch Prince's Purple Rain last night, I didn't last 10 minutes.  Truly epic in terms of Napolean complex nonsense in that movie.

[Haexpane]

Schneidend wrote...

Rzepik2 wrote...

- BG1? Perhaps. BG2? Hell no. Twisted runes, liches, dragons, vampires, golems, Irenicus, bandits etc. Try using the same tactic against them, good luck with that.

Haste my melee characters, cast Breach on any enemy mages, then let the melee beat down everything in their path. Every. Single. Fight.

On my latest, run, though, I'm not using Haste and instead made my main character, a Berserker, so resistant to fire damage that it actually heals him by equpping the Red Dragon Plate Armor, Dragon Helm, Ring of Fire Control, and Ring of Fire Resistance (for a total of 165% fire resist, IIRC) and while he massacres things with a greatsword Edwin repeatedly casts fireballs into the melee.

Still, basically the same tactic every fight.

I find it amusing that, for all this talk of strategy in games like Fallout and BG1/2, Mass Effect 2 was one of the first RPG's where I actually had to switch weapons/spells to adapt to different enemies and situations.

d00d, you're min maxing on MULTIPLE PLAYTHROUGHS!  That doesn't count at all.  If you are playing BG2 for the first time or ME2 for the first time, ME2 is 1000x easier

ME2 combat never changes, so BG2 gets *easier* as you learn the game, or have played it more.  

[Icinix]

BioWare is evolving with the times.



Sometimes evolution goes in directions you wouldn't normally like.



We all have to adapt with it, as evolution is a democracy. The majority of what people want will win out.



I don't like it either, but it's either deal with it, or get left behind.



(Personally I'm getting left behind, always wanted to be a cranky old hermit.)

[Haexpane]

Dasher10 wrote...
 

Also, Mass Effect has always been a shooter with RPG elements, not the other way around.

If anything the actual combat is a lot more complex as it allows for headshots, makes enemy armor more than just additional HP and you can no longer use two heat sinks to have you fire your weapon continuously. It's overall a much better and more polished game than the original was.

I honestly don't know what you mean by 2 heat sinks and continuous fire iN ME1?  Was that an exploit?

ME1 allowed headshots, it's just trivial in ME2 to get them.

ME2 is more polished, and prettier.  but to say it's "overall better" than ME1 is highly debatable.  ME1's story, more open world, and RPG elements are the main points one might argue that make it a better game than ME2

ME2 is more "streamlined" and "visceral" but not everyone agrees that just because something has a "slick" look to it makes it "better".  For instance drug dealers are often very slick and polished, but the more slick and more polished they are, the less likable they become:bandit:

[Mike2640]

Icinix wrote...

BioWare is evolving with the times.

Sometimes evolution goes in directions you wouldn't normally like.

We all have to adapt with it, as evolution is a democracy. The majority of what people want will win out.

I don't like it either, but it's either deal with it, or get left behind.

(Personally I'm getting left behind, always wanted to be a cranky old hermit.)

If it doesn't change in a good way can you really call it evolution?

It changed, sure, but the RPG genre far from evolved when it came to ME2. That's like making GTA a puzzle platformer with some cars in it and calling it an evolution of the Sandbox genre.

[EpicBoot2daFace]

Tsuga C wrote...

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...
...are very much a dying breed.

If this were true, then DA:O wouldn't have sold very well at all, nor would it have been named the RPG Game of the Year.  The industry wouldn't waste their endorsement on a product catering to a miniscule market segment no matter how well made it happend to be.

Besides, how are newer people coming into the gaming ranks supposed to know and appreciate just what a properly made cRPG can offer if BioWare allows the DA series to degenerate towards a more action-shooter orientation that's light on the actual roleplaying?  They're the undisputed kings of the cRPG and have been so for more than a decade while contenders have had their brief moments and successes and then, for one reason or another, fallen by the wayside.  If BioWare doesn't serve the market, I don't see anyone doing so any time soon.

It was a poor choice of words on my part. What I meant was that in relation to something like MW2, we aren't seen as much of a priority. I think Bioware really wants to tap into that market, and DAO was something that just needed to be released, great sales or no.

From what I've read, Bioware is taking Dragon Age and turning it into Mass Effect so they can once again tap into that MW2 market. I also believe that EA has a heavy hand in this decision. Infact, I believe EA will have great influence over Bioware from now on.

It's just a shame that Bioware's games will now target that dumb audience that just wants cheap thrills.

[Icinix]

Mike2640 wrote...

Icinix wrote...

BioWare is evolving with the times.

Sometimes evolution goes in directions you wouldn't normally like.

We all have to adapt with it, as evolution is a democracy. The majority of what people want will win out.

I don't like it either, but it's either deal with it, or get left behind.

(Personally I'm getting left behind, always wanted to be a cranky old hermit.)

If it doesn't change in a good way can you really call it evolution?

It changed, sure, but the RPG genre far from evolved when it came to ME2. That's like making GTA a puzzle platformer with some cars in it and calling it an evolution of the Sandbox genre.

It is evolution in a good way though, just not for the people who are here who take issue with it.  A few hundred or even a few thousand people may take issue on these forums, but it's a drop in the ocean of the millions of players who prefer COD style to BaldursGate style.

Like I said, personally don't like the way it's gone / going.  But for the majority of people, it's a better evolution.

[Haexpane]

Icinix wrote...

  as evolution is a democracy. The majority of what people want will win out.
 

Neither Evolution nor Democracy function like that.  Evolution has absolutely zero to do w/ what anyone wants, and there is certainly no voting or balance of powers or primaries etc..

Did you borrow that quote from that crazy Kelly chick from Real Housewives NYC?

[Icinix]

Haexpane wrote...

Icinix wrote...

  as evolution is a democracy. The majority of what people want will win out.
 

Neither Evolution nor Democracy function like that.  Evolution has absolutely zero to do w/ what anyone wants, and there is certainly no voting or balance of powers or primaries etc..

Did you borrow that quote from that crazy Kelly chick from Real Housewives NYC?

(sigh) Since there is no word in the English language I am aware of that means *The Majority of gamers prefer this so game development will shift to the broader appeal* I decided to amalgamate two existing words which I hoped would sum up what I was trying to say.

And what the hell is Real Housewives NYC anyway?

Modifié par Icinix, 17 août 2010 - 10:10 .

[NICKjnp]

It's dead to me now.

[Schneidend]

Haexpane wrote...

d00d, you're min maxing on MULTIPLE PLAYTHROUGHS!  That doesn't count at all.  If you are playing BG2 for the first time or ME2 for the first time, ME2 is 1000x easier

ME2 combat never changes, so BG2 gets *easier* as you learn the game, or have played it more.  

I started ME2 on Insanity, and found it far more challenging than BG2 ever was. Once I looked in the BG2 manual to find out exactly why most of the game's Wizard-class enemies seemed invincible (Immunity to Normal Weapons, Spell Mantle, etc.) and which spells would counter the spells that made them seem invincible, the game became rather elementary. Dispel protections, greatsword/axe/mace to the face, and then loot the bodies.

Don't get me wrong, I had fun, and some fights were still pretty rough, but most of the time I would lose because of failed saving throws I couldn't do anything about. When I lose in Mass Effect 2 it is because I, as a player, have made a tactical error.

[Haexpane]

Dasher10 wrote...
 

The only Bioware game that really fell into the catagory of being overly short and accessable was Jade Empire which was not a bad game at all. 

Jade Empire is a fantastic game, a game that did something very different, an "asian" themed RPG better than any JRPG that was of a similar theme.

All of the flaws in JE I feel like could be easily fixed (not ME2 style removed!) with a sequel.  Balance the combat (way too easy)  make it a full party not just 1 companion, needs to be 2x as long etc...

[Chairchucker]

Oh boy, only been skimming these last couple of pages, but now we actually have people trotting out the "The subsection of the population that doesn't have me in it is dumb as hell" line. This is actually happening. Here. In this thread. Awesome. :\\

[Haexpane]

Icinix wrote...

Haexpane wrote...

Icinix wrote...

  as evolution is a democracy. The majority of what people want will win out.
 

Neither Evolution nor Democracy function like that.  Evolution has absolutely zero to do w/ what anyone wants, and there is certainly no voting or balance of powers or primaries etc..

Did you borrow that quote from that crazy Kelly chick from Real Housewives NYC?

(sigh) Since there is no word in the English language I am aware of that means *The Majority of gamers prefer this so game development will shift to the broader appeal* I decided to amalgamate two existing words which I hoped would sum up what I was trying to say.

And what the hell is Real Housewives NYC anyway?

The worst TV ever!  My GF watches it. 

I honestly don't believe the development of ME2 was "what the majority of gamers prefer"  since most gamers don't even know what they prefer until they play it.

Games are art, and like art, it's terribly unpredictable as to what the reaction will be to the finished product.

I submit as a recent EA example - Strategy Pad.  A new interface/hotbutton set up for Madden NFL.  EA spent money and time marketing this new idea that no one asked for, and explaining how much better it was,

They built the code based on direct user playsession feedback.  In other words, they could tell if someone was "stuck" in a submenu.  They built this strat pad to prevent people from getting stuck in this menu, making it easier for new gamers, etc... (long list of on paper benefits)

They built the code ground up based on "what the majority of gamers want' in terms of directly measuring how people played Madden.

And the result?  They announced a patch to roll back to the old code before Madden 11 even went live, it was hated by 80% of people who used it.

The lesson?  Even if you craft something that gamers say they want, or you measure their play and then design around how they interact w/ the interface and directly address "bugs" or "dead" moments or "frustration points"  you still can't predict the outcome.

Using science to make art often is a failure. 

It's common to see musicians be 1 hit wonders.  They make a song, and it's huge, then they try again and fail.  Why?  Who knows, but it's impossible to calculate why 1 song is a hit, then the next 10 from the same song writer are not.

Then you have cases when song writers "rebel" against fans, like Neil Young's rockabilly album.

Then you have bands that keep making the same music over and over again to please fans, think Green Day.  For them, it works.  Other bands like the Beatles reinvented themselves every album, and the results were historic, love them or not.

And then there was Bieber
Probably some of the most forgettable "music" ever, but insanely popular.

I think what Bioware fans want is something in between Neil Young's Harvest, and a Justin Bieber concert.  Finding that sweet spot?  Well that's why EA has more money than many sovereign nations.   To pay developers in gold bullion to figure it out, somehow.

[Haexpane]

Schneidend wrote...
 

Don't get me wrong, I had fun, and some fights were still pretty rough, but most of the time I would lose because of failed saving throws I couldn't do anything about. When I lose in Mass Effect 2 it is because I, as a player, have made a tactical error.

Well I haven't played on Insanity, my first time through ME2 so I can't comment.

But I think you make a key point here, you don't like dice rolls.  That's fine, but many of us like the "chance' component of dice roll combat.

IMO it's like Baseball, sometimes you get a hit, sometimes you get an out.  You never know when you get up to bat.

In ME2 if you don't make a mistake, the outcome is guaranteed.  Like many JRPGs, no dice roll, no chance.  I don't find that as enjoyable.

[Zhijn]

Torhagen wrote...

Zhijn wrote...

Bobad wrote...

I heard BioWare sold their soul, iis it all formats or PC exclusive?

PC exclusive's? Thouse days are way past over.
It is console exclusive's or multiplat (unless its an RTS more or less). xD

Im all for multiplat releases as long as its done properly for the designed system.

On a personel note, i myself is a huge hater on exclusive titles. I think its the worst of the worst in the gaming industry.

Either way, good for BW on going multiplat aka ME2 to the PS3 market.

not true i keep it short here nearly all MMORPGs are PC exclusives like the millions of people playin WoW for instance also Bioware is developing a MMORPG "the old republic" there are no news of it going to a console

Yes but there is alot more to it then just throwing a mmorpg to a console.

A mmorpg can last up to a good 10-15 years (and more) where a console lifespan is something like 4-5 years. Which in short would require the MMO dev's to redesign for the new console, unless i gues the owner wouldnt mind re-plugging their last gen console everytime he/she wanted to play their mmo. Unlike a PC where you can have a old as hell PC/mmorpg game or a high end PC and just up the graphic options / mods ect.

There is alot of pro and cons for mmorpg's & consoles, but that would end in a wall of text, and i aint up for it! xD

Either way things are changing for the better, i mean "DC Universe Online" is coming to the consoles. So that should be interesting to see how it'll work out in the long run.

[Schneidend]

Haexpane wrote...

Well I haven't played on Insanity, my first time through ME2 so I can't comment.

But I think you make a key point here, you don't like dice rolls.  That's fine, but many of us like the "chance' component of dice roll combat.

Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, WHOA...whoa. Who said anything about not liking dice rolls? I've been playing D&D video games since Baldur's Gate and tabletop since 3rd Edition, and recently started DM'ing 4th Edition.

I don't mind dice rolls at all. My point was that Baldur's Gate is no more tactical than DA:O or Mass Effect 2 or any other RPG within the last year. In fact, I found playing Mass Effect 2 on insanity more tactical. No RPG has ever made it necessary to switch weapons/spells in order to remain optimal for me before Mass Effect. (Except for the golems in BG2 and IWD2 that could only be hurt by bludgeoning weapons, but that wasn't a choice so much as a necessity to switch weapons.)

In BG2, my Berserker or Wizard Slayer found the deadliest greatsword I could find and stabbed people with it for the entire game. In ME2, my Soldier would switch to different play styles as the situation warranted. Up close and personal with the shotgun on Shield enemies, long-range sniper efficiency against Armor and out of reach enemies, assault rifle for more mixed bag encounters, etc.

[Vandrayke]

Haexpane wrote...

Dasher10 wrote...
 

The only Bioware game that really fell into the catagory of being overly short and accessable was Jade Empire which was not a bad game at all. 

Jade Empire is a fantastic game, a game that did something very different, an "asian" themed RPG better than any JRPG that was of a similar theme.

All of the flaws in JE I feel like could be easily fixed (not ME2 style removed!) with a sequel.  Balance the combat (way too easy)  make it a full party not just 1 companion, needs to be 2x as long etc...

I loved Jade Empire.  I actually liked one thing about it more than any other game BioWare has had... it had the perfect balance of time spent in action and time spent exploring/talking.  Every smaller activity was quick in/quick out.  I never had the feeling, "ugh, I wish this stupid long conversation would end." Or, "ugh, I wish this dungeon would finally be OVER."  

[Haexpane]

Zhijn wrote...
 
Yes but there is alot more to it then just throwing a mmorpg to a console.

A mmorpg can last up to a good 10-15 years (and more) where a console lifespan is something like 4-5 years. Which in short would require the MMO dev's to redesign for the new console, unless i gues the owner wouldnt mind re-plugging their last gen console everytime he/she wanted to play their mmo. Unlike a PC where you can have a old as hell PC/mmorpg game or a high end PC and just up the graphic options / mods ect.

There is alot of pro and cons for mmorpg's & consoles, but that would end in a wall of text, and i aint up for it! xD
 

These are standard discussion points.

However, Everquest ONline Adventures for the PS2 lasted, 9+ years, I believe is still running (servers low population) and having played it, I can tell you it was a revelation in MMO gameplay.

In fact, I have stated this before, no one cares, but EQOA laid the foundation for WoW.  Everything different about EQOA compared to EQpc is in WoW, and EQOA came first of course.

The idea of being able to solo a little bit, and faster gameplay, more "cartoony" graphics, more immediate quest reward, easier travel, the list literally goes on and on.

EQOA did this with NO HARD DISC!  they still had a bunch of patches, and expansion, and a sadly cancelled expansion.

Epic quests, planar zones etc...

EQOA was a flawed, but truly awesome experience.  It shoots down all the "excuses" about why a MMO isn't on a console, except for the only true reason.

Not enough profit$$$$$$$

[Haexpane]

Schneidend wrote...

  No RPG has ever made it necessary to switch weapons/spells in order to remain optimal for me before Mass Effect.

Glad to hear you like dice rolls, but this statement leads me to believe you haven't played enough RPGs?  Switching gear to suit the situation is a hallmark of some of the greatest RPGs ever

Deus Ex (hybrid RPG)
Diablo (action RPG)
Vagrant Story (the entire game is based on weapon crafting, type/attribute etc..)
Demon's Souls
Pretty much ever MMO
Boderlands (FPS - lite RPG)
Final Fantasy Tactics
Morrowind

I'm sure others could list many more of the top of their head

[Haexpane]

Vandrayke wrote...
 

I loved Jade Empire.  I actually liked one thing about it more than any other game BioWare has had... it had the perfect balance of time spent in action and time spent exploring/talking.  Every smaller activity was quick in/quick out.  I never had the feeling, "ugh, I wish this stupid long conversation would end." Or, "ugh, I wish this dungeon would finally be OVER."  

Indeed, it had amazing pacing.  Perhaps that's why it was "so short"  they made the game w/ a great pacing and it's almost impossible to make a 100hour quality RPG w/ nice quick pacing.

Outside of RPGs, most game studios spend 2-5 years making games that are 10 hours long or less on the single player side.

JE also demonstrates that when something is very good, you don't want it to end.  When it's not so great (Planet Scanning, Rune Crafting, Sarah Palin)  it seems like it's going on forever.

[Vandrayke]

Haexpane wrote...

Vandrayke wrote...
 

I loved Jade Empire.  I actually liked one thing about it more than any other game BioWare has had... it had the perfect balance of time spent in action and time spent exploring/talking.  Every smaller activity was quick in/quick out.  I never had the feeling, "ugh, I wish this stupid long conversation would end." Or, "ugh, I wish this dungeon would finally be OVER."  

Indeed, it had amazing pacing.  Perhaps that's why it was "so short"  they made the game w/ a great pacing and it's almost impossible to make a 100hour quality RPG w/ nice quick pacing.

Outside of RPGs, most game studios spend 2-5 years making games that are 10 hours long or less on the single player side.

JE also demonstrates that when something is very good, you don't want it to end.  When it's not so great (Planet Scanning, Rune Crafting, Sarah Palin)  it seems like it's going on forever.

lol I agree completely.  It has to be tricky to balance all the gameplay aspects...