771 réponses à ce sujet

[Zanderat]

Rubbish Hero wrote...

ShadyKat wrote...So you rather Bioware not make any of their games for consoles, so they make much less money? .

If mean better game, yes.
No bloody nun on runs, customer.

RH, I love your posts.

[Zanderat]

Kolos2 wrote...

ehm there is no Bioware anymore , its only EA

QFT. 

[Kohaku]

Foolsfolly wrote...

Anyone who thinks BioWare hit rock bottom with Mass Effect 2 is someone who's opinion doesn't matter.

Mass Effect 2 is one of the best games I've played in the last 5 years, it is likely the best I've played this year and Red Dead Redemption did not make that an easy choice.

From graphics, to storytelling, to voice acting there is nothing that ME2 is rockbottom of. You may not have liked certain aspects but that's a 5 star game from a top game developer who are rocking the world right now.

I find the OP's post and title of this thread to be insulting, unfounded opinions, and generally just whining for the sake of whining. BioWare took criticism for Mass Effect very well and improved the game many times over. Stop whining. No one's forcing you to be here or to buy their games. If you think Baulder's Gate is the end-all-be-all game then keep playing that.

Bioware didn’t hit rock bottom with Mass Effect 2 but it’s not one of my favorite Bioware games. There’s something about the game as a whole that has prohibited me from playing it though a second time. I would love to play it again just to see how the Garrus romance played out but I can’t bring myself to do it. The story telling was fine, the characters were fine but it just felt disjointed to me like there was something missing I just can’t place. I haven’t played a game yet this year, I’ve played a good many, that I would give the Game of the Year title.

[In Exile]

Here is the thing I do not understand - the OP recognizes that since BG, Bioware has been "going downhill" and points to the fact that every game after BG2 was not like BG2. The old Bioware is dead now, after a decade of not making games anything like the "old" Bioware?

Seriously - what was NWN? Lost on the story department entirely and tried to push the MP and DM aspect of BG2; it tried it hard to be PnP on the computer by restriciting people to a single character, and making it neccesary to generate your own adventures via DM and other players. Then Biowaer saw just how much of a losing battle that was, and figured BG2 was succesful because of the story and characters instead of being a PnP simulator, and here we are today, with KoTOR, JE, ME all games after NWN. Hell, look at Hordes of the Underdark and Shadows of the Urentide, all games that look to dramatically add story to NWN.

These topics are very confusing, accusing Bioware of selling out now, when Bioware has not been making games like these for almost a decade.

[DarthCaine]

Zanderat wrote...

Kolos2 wrote...

ehm there is no Bioware anymore , its only EA

QFT. 

BioWare went to consoles long before EA came along

[Zanderat]

I liked ME and ME2 (surprise, surprise). I just don't want that particular template used anywhere near DA.

[Loerwyn]

BioWare aren't dead, old or new.

It's the gaming industry that died, and it's taken a lot of developers with it. New World Computing, Interplay, Black Isle, Origin Systems, Looking Glass Studios "old" BioWare and so forth. As the demand for those types of games seemed to fall, the publishers or developers went bankrupt and were either disbanded (like Black Isle did, giving us Obsidian and sort-of giving us inXile) or absorbed into bigger publishers.

What's ironic, to me at least, is that people want these games that just aren't made anymore. I suspect it's why Gog.com is doing so well. CDProjekt had a great idea with it, and I think it's only correct to wish them the best of luck with Gog.com's success.

[Gandalf-the-Fabulous]

AlexXIV wrote...

Well I played the game like 20 times if not more. Though the things you mention don't really do anything in the grand scale. 

Uh huh, and how did your actions in Mass Effect or Origins have an effect in the grand scale or even at all for that matter? As I said before, even though you cant change the ending your actions in the Baldur's Gate series have a much bigger effect on the journey than they ever did in Mass Effect or Dragon Age. The only real effect that your actions had in Dragon Age was allowing you to summon different armies in the final battle and a small description at the end of the game, the only effect your actions in Mass Effect had was you get a letter telling you about it in Mass Effect 2 (or a brief cameo that has no effect whatsoever in a nightclub on Omega).

AlexXIV wrote...

 I probably missed that Edwin thing though since I always killed him. But in DA:O there are also companion quests, so that's not a big difference.

Except in Origins you just collect companions and you can experience nearly everything in one playthrough however with Baldur's Gate you have to pick and choose your companions carefully.

AlexXIV wrote...
 
And you even can get Loghain into your party even though he is your enemy for the most part of the game. You couldn't do anything like that in BG2.

*Cough* Sarevok *cough*. Sorry bud but you just made it dreadfully obvious that you never actually played the game.

AlexXIV wrote...

Whether the Shadow Thieves help you to get to the Asylum or Bodhi does doesn't really matter since you get there anyway.

Well if you sided with Bodhi you can forget about asking the Shadow Theives for help when you need to take her down.

[Danjaru]

We'll have to wait and see how Dragon Age 2 plays out. Will have to see if it makes me play 4 complete playthroughs (all with different origins) like I did with Dragon Age or just the one playthrough that felt like I was playing an action adventure like both Mass Effects (second one just felt shallow, although had a good story and nice combat that made me finish it).



But yeah, the VO and pre defined characters they've started to push is a little dissapointing. No matter how many times I play Mass Effect I'm still Shepard, not the character I want to be, but Shepard. And I think it will be the same in Dragon Age 2.

[Huwmin race]

if they don't turn it to this or this i'm happy

[oandersson]

Gandalf-the-Fabulous wrote...

So I finally got a copy of game informer today (yes I know it is a bit late as everyone has read it already) and the first thing I see is this

Game Informer wrote...

After its (Dragon Age: Origins) release in November last year, the game enjoyed strong sales and critical acclaim. In light of these triumphs, one could easily forget that Origins was a considerable risk for Bioware's Edmonton studio. Presented as the spiratual successor to Baldur's Gate, Origins was charged with carrying on the legacy of a PC game released in 1998. In the intervening years, the role-playing genre has grown and evolved in many directions across multiple platforms. How players would react to elements like a silent hero and highly tactical combat was difficult to predict, especially with titles like Mass Effect setting new standards for conversation systems and cinematic presentation.

Any reservations about the design were put to rest with Origins release. Due to Bioware's skilful implementation, gamers accepted and embraced the old school aesthetic in Origins. But nostalgia can only carry a series so far. Where does one draw the line between homage and aging design?

Ok first of all the writer of that article gives Bioware too much credit but secondly did anyone else read from that "shallow action adventure titles like Mass Effect are the future of RPGs"?

[Begin Rant]

Also the article seemed to make out that the only reason Origins did so well is because of nostalgia and it reminded people of Baldur's Gate? I enjoyed Origins but I really diddnt feel that the game was homage to Baldur's Gate, if anything it gave off more of a NWN vibe but even that is a stretch. Origins was good, it was a hell of a lot better than Mass Effect however it wasnt great and it certainly wasnt anywhere near as good as the Baldur's Gate series.

But seriously how is Mass Effect a huge step forward for RPGs? If anything it takes a few steps back and forces you to play someone elses character instead of playing your own, also how is a voiced protagonist a huge step forward? I mean was it impossible to make a game with a voiced protagonist before Mass Effect came along? Was the only reason that games like Baldur's Gate and KOTOR diddnt have a voiced protagonist because it was impossible to do with the technology at the time? NO, it was because by not giving the protagonist a voice it allowed the player to give his own voice to the character and thus have more control over the creation of his character. Hell we had voiced protagonist back in the 90s but that only worked for predefined characters like Guybrush Threepwood.

The Dialgue wheel is a load of **** as well, sure it is good for games where you are playing a pre defined character like Alpha Protocol but it isnt good for games where you should be able to define your characters personality. The dialogue wheel should only be used for displaying different approaches and moods of the same personality instead of trying to display the different approaches of different personalies, if you are going to define your own characters personality you really need to know exactly what your character is going to say and do when you click an option instead of finding out when you click the "sure I will have some cookies" option when speaking to the girl scout your character actually delivers a swift roundhouse kick to the head of the girl scout and steals the cookies.

[End Rant]

But seriously is this the death of the Bioware who made the great Baldur's Gate series? Over the years since the release of Baldur's Gate 2 I have watched as the games Bioware released got worse and worse until they hit rock bottom with Mass Effect, Origins was a step in the right direction and gave me hope that one day Bioware would return to the great company they were but then that hope was shot down with the announcement of Dragon Age 2 and its so called "Improvements". I had foolishly hoped that Dragon Age 2 was going to be a small hiccup and that Bioware would return to trying to make a game as brilliant and immersive as the Baldur's Gate series however now that I have read the game informer article I know that it is now wishful thinking. Bioware no longer cares about making immersive RPGs and instead are focusing on shallow sub-par interactive movies with predefined characters. The old Bioware is dead, I would have added "long live Bioware" to the thread title but that would imply I actually cared about the company which I dont anymore. Bioware has just become just another game developer churning out cheap mediocre titles for maximum profit and no longer cares about the art.

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.

No i dont think that the old Bioware is dead THIS is why

[Kohaku]

@OnlyShallow89 and slimgrin - I totally agree. GOG has been my goto for older games. I would have never gotten my copy of Arcanum if not for them. There are some other games I want to snap up but just going though their catalog is a treat.

[tez19]

i think gandalf is just a pc elitist
and i wish a slow painful death to all pc elitists, preferably they get riddled with tumours.
but either way i am a bit bemused and uncertain that bioware are changin ALOT from DAO to DA2.
but lets wait for the game and then make our decisions.

[Gandalf-the-Fabulous]

triggerhappy456 wrote...

I found it sad that someone with a name as funny as the Ops is such a troll, but I have not seen him make one comment on these forums which is not aimed at putting someone down or denouncing new ideas.

Sorry but can you find one post where I denounce a new idea? The changes being made to DA2 arent new and I have already experienced them in the Mass Effect games, that is how I know I dont like them.

[AmstradHero]

Gandalf-the-Fabulous wrote...
So what you are trying to say is because there is only one ending in the Baldur's Gate games (apart from TOB) your choices dont matter? I think you need to play the game again and then come back with your answer, sure we could not change the ending but the choices we made throughout the game had a much heavier impact on the journey than Origins or Mass Effect ever did. Sure Mass Effect and Origins had different endings but the journey was always pretty much the same, however in Baldur's Gate depending on the choices you made, the side quests you took and the company you kept the journey was wildly different.

But really all of the different endings in Mass Effect and Origins were all pretty much the same anyway, the hero defeats the archdemon, the world is saved and somebody gets crowned either king or queen (or in the case of Mass Effect the hero stops Saren and his army of geth and then humanity either gets a seat on the council or rules the council).

However regardless of all that I think the Baldur's Gate series had much better writing than any of the games Bioware released afterwards.

Edit: I see a lot of people have jumped on Amstrad's coattails dispite the fact that his argument is fairly weak and pretty much comes down to "the choices in BG diddnt matter because it only had one ending" and it makes me wonder if you people actually played the game at all or at the very least only did one playthrough.

Played through the BG series multiple times, thanks, so I am quite well aware of its strengths and weaknesses.  As Alex pointed out, BG2 is longer... hence people think it is better. Plus it's hardly fair to compare what is effectively a trilogy to a single game.

For argument's sake, let's just compare DAO to BG2, seeing as it seems to be the chapter that people love the most. Even that is really hard because of all the references to BG1 and the events that follow on and continuing characters in Throne of Bhaal. Also, it's difficult for people to isolate BG2 as a one-to-one comparison simply because people's experience frequently spans the whole series and so they have a deep attachment with their characters and party members over all those hours of gameplay. But, let's try anyway.

You can adventure (or not) with multiple people in DAO just as you can in BG2. You can kill off potential companions in DAO just as you can in BG2. However, in DAO, the companions are more developed and more well rounded characters and express their personality more than in BG2. I'd be interested to see a word/line count between the two games... I think I'd be leaning towards DAO having more lines per character. Fewer characters, yes, but they're more complex characters as a result. 

In BG2 characters would potentially leave you as a result of your reputation and their alignment. So a combination of 1-20 number (dictated by actions throughout the game), and one of three alignments determined their opinion of you. Compare this to DAO, where each companion has their own morality and ability to like or dislike you based on your actions - and none of them adhere to the simple 3 category alignment like in BG2. (I say three category because the Law/Chaos axis was completely irrelevant in this situation) This is also ignoring romances because I'd consider them approximately equal... though
BG2 might win that comparison simply because of Jaheira's epic
romance/harper plot-line. In DAO characters can not only leave, but also turn on you as a result of your inability to make friends with them, or you might even appease and gain the respect of a potential enemy.

So in character interaction terms, DAO is either on par or better than BG2. Let's look at another roleplaying staple, character role playing - or making decisions.

In BG2, let's see what "big" choices we get: siding with vampires/shadow thieves, choosing a side for the Sahaugin, killing Adalon, hrm... I'm coming up short after that... Sure, there are a number of small quests here and there that can have effects, like freeing or killing Hendak, Anomen becoming a knight or not (which was only actually affected by your decision in the quest about his sister's death), your stronghold quests (though typically that only effect what cool loot you got), how you deal with the tears at the end of game... the choices are there, but they're not huge nor plentiful. Also, having played through the game multiple times, the choices you got to make were largely superficial and frequently had very little outcome on events except for your personal reaction to them.

Compare to DAO, where you pick the next ruler of Orzammar, break an ancient curse or destroy an entire tribe of dalish, save or defile the ashes of Andraste herself, potentially wipe out most of the mages in Ferelden, save the country with the death of you, the King or a fallen general, choose the next ruler of the country, potentially create a baby with soul of an old god... And those are just the major choices! Really, there is absolutely no comparison in terms of meaty choices between the two games, as DAO wins hands down. Any argument to the contrary comes across as ridiculous.

So where exactly does this "BG2 is so much better" come from? Don't get me wrong, I absolutely loved the game, and I think it possibly still has a place closer to my heart than DAO does at the moment, but every time I have to analyse the strengths, roleplaying characteristics and design elements of the two games, DAO comes out on top in the majority of the cases. If someone can present me with a compelling and reasoned argument that BG2 is the consistently superior game, I'd commend them. Unfortunately, despite months and months of opinion (but mostly ranting) I've read from many people, there hasn't been one.

[Gandalf-the-Fabulous]

Hulk Hsieh wrote...

Ken555 wrote...

I killed wynne in DAO and she appears in Awakening, Dont get it.

Clearly ME is the only one that respects the choice of my character.

I was nice to Conrad in the first Mass Effect but in the second he told me I was a big jerk that shoved a gun in his face.

[Zanderat]

tez19 wrote...

i think gandalf is just a pc elitist
and i wish a slow painful death to all pc elitists, preferably they get riddled with tumours.

You have issues.

[AlanC9]

AmstradHero wrote...

If you'd refer to the last few pages of the aforementioned "This is what bioware seems to want" thread, you'd see these posts advocating the story-telling and roleplaying aspects of early BioWare games as being superior to modern titles couldn't be further from the truth. Your ability to influence the overall story and outcome of games like Baldur's Gate is non-existant to neglible. (You do get the choice right at the end of Throne of Bhaal, however)

There are aspects of Dragon Age and Mass Effect 2 that are weaker than (for example) Baldur's Gate 2, but that does not mean that Baldur's Gate 2 is a superior game. In fact, there any many ways in which it is a far weaker game, but people have a fascination with it that seems to transcend reason at times. Perhaps because it was the first game that truly brought the CPRG genre screaming (back?) into the popular modern gaming market after the wasteland that existed after the Gold Box and Ultima Underworld games. However, that doesn't justify the nostalgia reviewing that magically gets rid of any and all negative points that existed in older titles.

This. I'm replaying the BG series right now, and I'm actually amazed at how weak parts of it are. I guess I had the nostalgia too.

[AlanC9]

AmstradHero wrote...
 If someone can present me with a compelling and reasoned argument that BG2 is the consistently superior game, I'd commend them. Unfortunately, despite months and months of opinion (but mostly ranting) I've read from many people, there hasn't been one.

Well, G-t-F didn't try, but I typically see the case founded on the supposed superior depth of BG2 tactical combat.

There may be something to the argument. I'm good enough at this sort of thing that I find BG2 and DAO equally easy, but many players don't seem to have enough... bandwidth? ...  to analyze all the available spells and countermeasures in IE games. In a buff-heavy design, players who can't or won't do this are heavily penalized.

I had to come around to this view when a couple of people posted about being affected by Chaos spells in the midgame, in runs when they weren't deliberately handicapping themselves. When someone can be a fan of the game and yet lets something like this happen to his party, he's finding the game difficult.

[Funkcase]

I'm sorry, but if Bioware made games like Baldur's Gate in todays industry it wont sell realy well, that's the problem, if Bioware dont make money, they wont make quality games, as there best developers would most likely move onto other companys that can actually afford to pay them well.

[BruceVC]

Foolsfolly wrote...

Anyone who thinks BioWare hit rock bottom with Mass Effect 2 is someone who's opinion doesn't matter.

Mass Effect 2 is one of the best games I've played in the last 5 years, it is likely the best I've played this year and Red Dead Redemption did not make that an easy choice.

From graphics, to storytelling, to voice acting there is nothing that ME2 is rockbottom of. You may not have liked certain aspects but that's a 5 star game from a top game developer who are rocking the world right now.

I find the OP's post and title of this thread to be insulting, unfounded opinions, and generally just whining for the sake of whining. BioWare took criticism for Mass Effect very well and improved the game many times over. Stop whining. No one's forcing you to be here or to buy their games. If you think Baulder's Gate is the end-all-be-all game then keep playing that.

Let me say this slowly and emphatically
ME2 is a watered down and painfully simple game that doesn't challenge you in any respect
It is entertaining but it is a  shoddy comparison to its predecessor

Another point is you have never played BG1&BG2 so maybe you stop commenting on something you have no clue about

[BruceVC]

OnlyShallow89 wrote...

BioWare aren't dead, old or new.
It's the gaming industry that died, and it's taken a lot of developers with it. New World Computing, Interplay, Black Isle, Origin Systems, Looking Glass Studios "old" BioWare and so forth. As the demand for those types of games seemed to fall, the publishers or developers went bankrupt and were either disbanded (like Black Isle did, giving us Obsidian and sort-of giving us inXile) or absorbed into bigger publishers.
What's ironic, to me at least, is that people want these games that just aren't made anymore. I suspect it's why Gog.com is doing so well. CDProjekt had a great idea with it, and I think it's only correct to wish them the best of luck with Gog.com's success.

The only reason we are not seeing another  Obsidian NWN game is because Atari is being sued by Hasbro ..the owners of the AD&D franchise. I'm sure this will get resolved
There are also many upcoming  and brilliant fantasy RPG's coming out  for PC...Witcher 2 ,Gothic 4 ,Two Worlds 2 ,Kingdoms of Amalur ,Fable 3 etc

Bioware has changed how they want to produce RPG's...the genre hasn't died at all

[Luke Bioware]

Another fella who thinks his opinion is so unique it warrants its own thread? *Moves along*

[David Gaider]

OnlyShallow89 wrote...
BioWare aren't dead, old or new.
It's the gaming industry that died, and it's taken a lot of developers with it. New World Computing, Interplay, Black Isle, Origin Systems, Looking Glass Studios "old" BioWare and so forth. As the demand for those types of games seemed to fall, the publishers or developers went bankrupt and were either disbanded (like Black Isle did, giving us Obsidian and sort-of giving us inXile) or absorbed into bigger publishers.

That's one way of looking at it. Developers have to change with the times or they go under-- at which point fans get to give them the honorable salute and mention their names in reverential tones on forums from then on. I'm sure if you spoke to the people who actually worked at those companies and became unemployed, however, their opinion might differ as to how great that was.

I say "might" because, on one level, this is still a labor of love for most of us in the industry as well as a business. They go hand in hand even though I know they don't for you guys. None of you care about how profitable a game is beyond it being profitable enough to, say, make another (and not even then). Indeed, some fans seem to actively prefer that games not be successful and remain as niche as possible, lest they lose something they saw as unique. Which is perfectly understandable. Why would you care about the business side of things? You don't.

It is not, however, a luxury for us-- and caring about the business side of things doesn't render us soulless automatons just because we're no longer making games like in "the good old days". I think, to us, BioWare has evolved as a company along with the rest of the industry, out of necessity as well as out of interest. This is (speaking generally) the kind of games we want to make.

What's ironic, to me at least, is that people want these games that just aren't made anymore. I suspect it's why Gog.com is doing so well. CDProjekt had a great idea with it, and I think it's only correct to wish them the best of luck with Gog.com's success.

Well, I don't think anyone's arguing that there isn't some demand for games like that-- there is a hardcore market. It's just not a market that's really large enough to be profitable for today's triple-A games. Or, at least, that's the commonly held belief ("convential industry wisdom", whether I agree with it or not, is always held as incontrovertible-- until it's proven wrong). For a developer that wishes to make games that aren't triple-A quality, or is small enough/quick enough in their development time that a smaller amount of sales is "good enough" then this isn't really an issue. That's what a niche market is all about. Wanting a company to stay at that level and never grow or evolve their style ever does, however, seem to be a bit counter-productive. I'm not sure where it gets you, exactly.

I linked to an Escapist article once before, and it seems relevant here: http://www.escapistm...ryone-Except-Me

As to the "old BioWare" being dead-- I'm not sure what to say about that. A lot of "old BioWare" is still here, after all. Perhaps it has more to do with what you thought "old BioWare" was actually about, or instead what you hope we would make as opposed to what we actually are. I think we still make quality games, ones that there is a large audience for, and I don't think making everyone happy is ever possible-- much as we might like to.

Modifié par David Gaider, 16 août 2010 - 04:28 .