771 réponses à ce sujet

[Loerwyn]

bcrankshaw wrote...
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

Firstly, AD&D is gone. Dead. Deceased. Obsolete. Gone. It's simply D&D now.

So you don't think that Obsidian have their hands full with their own projects? And what's to say Obsidian have to make the next NWN/D&D game? Is it not possible for, say, inXile to do it?

RPGs haven't died, no, but the old ways have. Fixed-Isometric, gone. Build-Your-Own-Party, mostly gone. Complex rulesets, mostly gone. Limited voice acting, mostly gone. First person "windowed" (like M&M), gone. No RPG made today, outside of independent developers like Basilisk Games, is going to stick to most of the conventions that are gone in RPGs. If you compare, say, Dragon Age to what were mainstream RPGs 10, 15, maybe even 20 years ago, and it's like a completely different world.

Witcher 2 and Fable 3 aren't in the same league, either. They're more "actiony" than RPG-like.

[Foolsfolly]

bcrankshaw wrote...

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

I'm sorry, I didn't quite get that. Can you explain to me how side quests on the exact same wasteland planets in the exact same rooms where the best strategy is to throw on Immunity and hold down the Marksman powered pistol's trigger down until nothing moves?

ME2 cannot be watered down because there's more character moments, better defined characters, better action, better combat mechanics (adding in headshot damage is a huge improvement because it rewards skillful shots over spamming unlimited bullets).

You know what, I'm sick of talking about this. I've heard the same non-arguements a hundred thousand times and when DA2 comes out I'll hear how it's nothing like DA:O and it's terrible and watered down, just like I STILL hear about how it's watered down compared to BG2. And when ME3 comes out it'll be a disappointment because ME2 was the highlight.

Nothing's ever as good as the thing before it. The audience grows, it sells better, and reviews rave more because they're all part of the idiot mass that somehow you stay out of. Thanks for showing me the light of truth.

[aksoileau]

Loved all the BG games. Loved NWN. Loved KOTOR. Loved ME, Loved DAO. Loved ME2. Didn't play JE because I'm not a fan of Kung Fu stuff. Whether old bioware or new bioware, they make fabulous games. Change is inevitable.

[Loerwyn]

David Gaider wrote...
*Snip*

Thanks for replying David, I appreciate it. I understand there's a financial aspect to it, and for better or for worse, BioWare and other developers are a huge company who need to rake in the dollars to live and breath. As you get better, it costs more, and so forth. Companies like Basilisk Games (who do the Eschalon series) are probably content doing what they are at the moment, and from what I've experienced of Book 2 it's closer to the older days of RPGs.

What I've just thought is that whilst you have publishers like dtp in Germany and 1C Company pushing the lower budget titles, there's no publisher like the "old" Interplay around now. Surely a publisher could form and produce these more "hardcore" titles that people want? I understand it's a fairly high-risk operation at the start (what publishers aren't?), but as you said, David, there's demand for them.

[Tantum Dic Verbo]

Well, for what it's worth, Bioware is moving more toward what I want in a modern CRPG in its design philosophy. I suppose that makes me a simplistic teenager who wants every game to become a shooter. But, wait: I've probably been doing tabletop RPG design longer than many forumites here have been alive, and I've only played a couple of shooters.



This whole thing makes me suspect that Bioware isn't all about regurgitating the same gaming experience over and over again, but is interested in generating broad-based interest by clearing up some of the dead weight in the genre and emphasizing better game play.

[Gandalf-the-Fabulous]

AmstradHero wrote...

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.

So the only reason people think that Baldur's Gate is better is because most people seem to think that longer = better? Just going on a hunch here but I know I prefer the Baldur's Gate series because I felt that the game was much more interesting, the story was much better writen and much more original and the characters were much more interesting. I had assumed that this is why others prefer the Baldur's Gate series as well but then who can argue with longer = better?

AmstradHero wrote...

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. 

Oh right, so thats why the companions in Dragon Age are better, they have more lines of dialogue so they must be better, interesting theory I guess it fits in with your theory of why people think Baldur's Gate is better. Sure you could initiate conversation at will with the party members in Origins and sure they may have had more dialogue than the characters in Baldur's Gate but really I thought that the characters in Baldur's Gate were much more interesting and original than the characters in Origins. However this is a matter of opinion so really it isnt worth debating

I will say this however, sure you could refuse party members or even kill them outright but then if you wanted to you could accept every party member leave them at camp and not miss out on any content (with the exception of Alistair and Loghain however you get Loghain late in the game and thus he doesnt have much to offer in the way of content) however in Baldur's Gate you only had 5 slots for party members (6 including yourself) so you had to carefully pick and choose your party members, also as far as I can remember the party members in Baldur's Gate 2 had a lot more to offer in terms of impacting the journey than Origins ever did.

AmstradHero wrote...

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)

Ok sure I guess Baldur's Gate system of whether your companions like you or not based on a global reputation system is a bit dodgy but really I diddnt find that whether or not you companions like you or not in Origins had much effect beyond the dialogue in camp (and gaining their side missions), I know that some of the characters like Oghren will leave you if their approval gets low enough (like the rep system in Baldur's Gate) but when it comes to storyline Dialogues (like where Alistair tells you he is Maric's bastard child) their approval has no effect whatsoever, Alistair even looked surprised when I allowed Anora to execute him as if he thought I was his friend (even though his approval was -100). If you manage to keep a party member who hates you till the final battle he will speak to you as if he has a high aproval rating and really respects you.

AmstradHero wrote...

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.

And they diddnt do that in Baldur's Gate? In fact I am going to say that the party members were even more volatile in this regard in Baldur's Gate 2.

The only time I can remember where a party member attacks you or leaves you (because of an action not an approval rating) in Origins because of your actions would be Leliana in the defiling of the sacred ashes and Shale when you side with Branka in the anvil of the void (however these are easily avoided by keeping them at camp for the missions) and Alistair when you side with Loghain, tell me if there were any I missed. However in Baldur's Gate 2 there are many instances where party members will leave or attack you (or even turn on other party members) as a result of your actions. Attack Drizzit and all of the "good" members will turn on you and side with Drizzit, ****** Anomen off when he fails his knighthood and he will attack you (if you manage to convince him to stay in the party and he will turn on one of your party members later down the track), have both Minsc and Edwin in your party and one will inevitably kill the other ect, there are simply too many to list.

AmstradHero wrote...

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.

You are so caught up in the big things that you forget completely about the smaller things, you also forget about the impact that these things have on the journey, sure your actions in Baldur's Gate diddnt have much effect on the main plot but then in Origins your actions diddnt have much effect altogether. Sure you get to choose sides between the werewolves and the elves or Behlen and Harrowmont but really what effect did your actions actually have on the game other than the units you have available to summon in the final battle? The only choices that had any real effect on the story happened near the end of the game and even then all the endings felt roughly the same. Sure your choices diddnt have much effect on the main storyline in Baldur's Gate 2 (however there was usually multiple paths to the same destination (the shadow theives and the Vampires quest lines were both totally different, also there were multiple ways into spellhold not to mention the number of choices you had when completing tasks for the drow) , compared to one path to the destination in Origins then make a choice that doesnt really effect much) however your choices did have a much bigger effect on your companions, the side quests you could pursue and the events you encounter in the world.

Also FYI Anomen becoming a knight or not was not only effected by your decision in the quest about his sister's death, there were other factors that determined whether or not Anomen becomes a knight. I remember I refused to help some guy rescue his kid and the order refused to knight Anomen because of it.

This last point however comes down completely to opinion so take of it what you will, even if you ignore all the arguments above the reason I think that Baldur's gate series are superior games is not because of its gameplay elements but because of the world, its characters and its story, these are the things that made Baldur's Gate great. The writing in Baldur's Gate was far superior to anything found in Origins, as villians Loghain and the Archdemon simply cannot compare to Irenicus who in my opinion is one of the greatest villians of all time, I would much rather have Minsc at my side than Alistair and the cookie cutter "hero joins elite group and saves the world" story cannot compare to the trials of a child of the god of murder.

[Tantum Dic Verbo]

David Gaider wrote...

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.

For what it's worth, there seem to be plenty of people in the internet role-playing community who like jettisoning clunky, redundant, and unnecessary holdover conventions from the earliest days of D&D (rpg.net, for example, is full of us).

Making the game more about character and less about gear and looting the dead; realizing that the game is designed to accommodate certain character roles and not dangling non-viable options in front of players; using the abilities of modern computers to liberate RPG's from a pure tactical miniatures mindset--these are all huge steps forward for some of us.

Personally, I loved the gameplay changes between ME1 and ME2.  In fact, I wasn't going to buy ME1 at all until I read about the direction you guys were taking.  (I would have liked to see the missions more plot-centered instead of the recruitment/personal problem thing, but what can you do?)  As much as I loved the Baldur's Gate series, I don't want to play Baldur's Gate over and over with different titles.

So, here's one hard-core RPG fan fully in favor of your current direction.

[AlanC9]

David Gaider wrote...
 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.

Meaning that since someone is going to be in that niche, there's no point in wanting Bioware itself to stay in that niche? I wonder if the real worry is that there aren't any companies actually in that niche.

[adriano_c]

So, Bioware's dead. At least in respect to being able/willing to produce titles in the vein of the fantastic BG series. You know, that deep, immersive and memorable sort. The question is, though, since they've opted to "casualize" (I hate using this term as many use it in a derogatory sense) their games from here on out, is there any company left to take up the mantle?

[AlanC9]

Gandalf-the-Fabulous wrote...
I will say this however, sure you could refuse party members or even kill them outright but then if you wanted to you could accept every party member leave them at camp and not miss out on any content (with the exception of Alistair and Loghain however you get Loghain late in the game and thus he doesnt have much to offer in the way of content) however in Baldur's Gate you only had 5 slots for party members (6 including yourself) so you had to carefully pick and choose your party members,

True. Whether this is a good thing or not is debatable.

also as far as I can remember the party members in Baldur's Gate 2 had a lot more to offer in terms of impacting the journey than Origins ever did.

This strikes me as completely false. Could you explain what you're talking about here?

And they diddnt do that in Baldur's Gate? In fact I am going to say that the party members were even more volatile in this regard in Baldur's Gate 2.

Sure, but in an irrational fashion. It doesn't make any sense for Korgan to leave the party even if it has a high Reputation, since if you're playing the game at all he's getting what he wants; Edwin too, though in his case it's harder to tell. It works OK for Vicky since she has some standards to maintain. 

You are so caught up in the big things that you forget completely about the smaller things, you also forget about the impact that these things have on the journey, sure your actions in Baldur's Gate diddnt have much effect on the main plot but then in Origins your actions diddnt have much effect altogether. Sure you get to choose sides between the werewolves and the elves or Behlen and Harrowmont but really what effect did your actions actually have on the game other than the units you have available to summon in the final battle?

So at best this is a tie between BG2 and DAO, and it's only a tie if you don't care about the end state of the gameworld.

The only choices that had any real effect on the story happened near the end of the game and even then all the endings felt roughly the same.

Even the US ending? 

This last point however comes down completely to opinion so take of it what you will, even if you ignore all the arguments above the reason I think that Baldur's gate series are superior games is not because of its gameplay elements but because of the world, its characters and its story, these are the things that made Baldur's Gate great. The writing in Baldur's Gate was far superior to anything found in Origins, as villians Loghain and the Archdemon simply cannot compare to Irenicus who in my opinion is one of the greatest villians of all time, I would much rather have Minsc at my side than Alistair and the cookie cutter "hero joins elite group and saves the world" story cannot compare to the trials of a child of the god of murder.

Of course, this is all completely subjective and not debatable.

[JediHealerCosmin]

David Gaider wrote...


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.

For what it's worth, if you guys were to make a Solitaire game where the cards would start telling you stories about their lives, I'd still play it  

Why? Because I think you are among the few developers in the industry that bring a big measure of true amusement when it comes to games. For myself at least. In retrospect there are a lot of things I didn't like regarding some choices, but I got over them and enjoyed the next big title you guys made.

Revan disappeared in the Unknown Regions - to bad, but he left some great people behind to rebuild.

The Exile was deemed female for canon, even though I preferred the male version - it's still the way I like it nonetheless (I know Obsidian was behind KOTOR2, but BioWare started the true story)

The Kotor series was one of the best RPGs made, and I'm still playing them. 
When TOR was announced I gave up WoW and am anxiously awaiting. I did it mostly so I could save some money for when it comes out.

In ME we were forced to leave a great character behind to die - a difficult choice but it proved exactly what type of story we were dealing with (a beautiful one where things aren't perfect)

In Dragon Age (best example)  we are leaving behind our Warden and some great companions that we really fell in love with, so we may move on to another story - I didn't like this at first but I have no doubt that I am going to enjoy Hawke's story even more. And I can't wait for it.


What can we say, as time passes things change, but we still have these stories in our shelves as far as I'm concerned. The large amount of FanFiction is perfect proof at how successful they are, and people will want to continue with the experience, even if it will be different. 

Modifié par JediHealerCosmin, 16 août 2010 - 05:25 .

[TheMadCat]

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 don't believe developers "have to" change with the times in order to survive. I'd say the genres like the P&C Adventures, Turn Based Grand Strategy, and Space Sim have been on the brink of death for the longest yet to this day you still have companies producing titles within these genres in the same fashion they have when these genres were at their peak in popularity and still turn a fine a profit. The only time refusing to adapt would actually kill a company is due to poor management and thinking you can sell a hell of a lot more then they really can.

Anyways, I don't believe developer/publishers have had to shift because of any shift in the consumer market. FPS games have always been hugely popular (Doom) with the birth of MP strengthening it, traditional RPG's have always been a bit of a niche, but due to the massive jump in gamer numbers these facts have just been magnified with the only genre truly taking a dive is the P&C Adventures.

Developer/publishers have had to shift mainly due to their own arrogance. In the past 10 years development budgets for AAA titles have more then quadrupled, going from about $5m to around an almost disgusting $20m-$30m with that average growing hard every year. I don't really understand what sparked this shift, I suppose it's to always make thing "bigger and better", always trying to outspend each other which in a way gives it a Cold War type feel. It's a self fulfilling prophecy, we continue to spend more so we have to continue seeking a larger and larger audience.

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.

How do you see that as being even remotely true? Do you follow any niche developers because I can list you quite a few that have thrived and grown and advanced their products technologically over the years. I mean you make it sound like being a niche developer is a death sentence and something that should be avoided. They set a reasonable budget, develop a game they want, sell it to their market, and use the profit to advance their next generation of titles. It's the same way every company operates including BioWare, just on a smaller scale. 

Modifié par TheMadCat, 16 août 2010 - 05:37 .

[TheChris92]

Daur wrote...

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

Daur wrote...

If you can role play

its an RPG

See this doesn't make much sense.

Acting has very little to do with focused explosives

Oh but it does, what if you run out of ammo? 
Only your acting skills will save you! 

Like this?

[pizoxuat]

TheMadCat wrote...

Developer/publishers have had to shift mainly due to their own arrogance. In the past 10 years development budgets for AAA titles have more then quadrupled, going from about $5m to around an almost disgusting $20m-$30m with that average growing hard every year. I don't know really understand what sparked this shift, I suppose it's to always make thing "bigger and better", always trying to outspend each other which in a way gives it a Cold War type feel. It's a self fulfilling prophecy, we continue to spend more so we have to continue seeking a larger and larger audience.

HD textures, voice acting, motion capture.... all the things that make a AAA title are really freaking expensive and they require a huge staff.  And the market in general expects these things in every title.  I'm happy playing Etrian Odyssey on my DS with 2d pictures and awesome hardcore old school gameplay, but it's not exactly breaking the million dollar threshold.

Modifié par pizoxuat, 16 août 2010 - 05:39 .

[Magonian]

""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.""
_____________________________________________

Can I have your Stuff?

Modifié par Magonian, 16 août 2010 - 05:42 .

[PPF65]

aksoileau wrote...

Loved all the BG games. Loved NWN. Loved KOTOR. Loved ME, Loved DAO. Loved ME2. Didn't play JE because I'm not a fan of Kung Fu stuff. Whether old bioware or new bioware, they make fabulous games. Change is inevitable.

This.

Instead of only enjoying mute heroes or only enjoying fixed roles, can't we all just like Mass Effect AND Dragon Age?

[pizoxuat]

I'll also say that most people burn out working on the same thing year after year. Even if the market was there to make non-stop sequels to Baldur's Gate, the turnover rate at Bioware would skyrocket and by the time you get to Baldur's Gate 7 you would be lucky if there were even 5 members of the original team around. Innovation and change aren't just good for the market, they're good for the people working on the games.

[Moirnelithe]

 

David Gaider wrote...

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.

"Quality games" and "ones that there is a large audience for" seem to me to be mutual exclusive lately. The new generation of gamers are interested in flashy graphics, cinematics, loot and a not very challenging gaming style ('easy-mode') with lots of railroading. A well-told and complex storyline with choices and consequences seems to be coming as a very distant second. Why is that?

Personally I think newer gamers are used to this type of games. Many of them will not have played the original crpg's as they often don't work on newer systems or because the graphics look outdated. But give them another Baldur's Gate style game without voice-overs but with its rich story telling and I think you might be surprised at how large an audience you'll get for it as more and more gamers get bored with the dumbed down new generation games and they discover what a crpg could really be like.

I feel that gimmicks like voice-acting limit a crpg. Yes it is flashy and sells well and some of the voice-acting in DAO truly is superb. Unfortunately it isn't free. The actors cost money therefore there is a limit to the amount of words that can be used in the game. The quantity of words becomes more important than the quality of the game as a whole as each word costs money. The story can't be fleshed out as much and you get reused lines and a not very complex plot as a result. The game becomes less of an RPG and more of an interactive movie. I'd say leave the voice-acting to other game genres and focus on what rpg's are about, your own imagination.

It seems to me that new generation crpg's are too much about budgets and too little about true entertainment. Satisfy the low attentionspan gamer and squeeze them for their last penny before they move on seems to be the motto. I do understand that games need to be profitable or gaming companies go bankrupt but lately this is going to extremes. I can only hope that this will change in the future. However, gaming and unfortunately the crpg has become a consumer market, a cashcow so it is unlikely in my opinion.

Is Bioware dead? Hardly. I'm sure the DA series will bring in a lot of money and Bioware will continue to make many more profitable games. Is this is a good thing? Well, that remains to be seen, as the situation is now I think Bioware caters too much to the bottomline and that is a damned shame.

Modifié par Evainelithe, 16 août 2010 - 05:51 .

[AlanC9]

TheMadCat wrote...
I don't believe developers "have to" change with the times in order to survive. I'd say the genres like the P&C Adventures, Turn Based Grand Strategy, and Space Sim have been on the brink of death for the longest yet to this day you still have companies producing titles within these genres in the same fashion they have when these genres were at their peak in popularity and still turn a fine a profit. The only time refusing to adapt would actually kill a company is due to poor management and thinking you can sell a hell of a lot more then they really can. 

(snip)

Developer/publishers have had to shift mainly due to their own arrogance. In the past 10 years development budgets for AAA titles have more then quadrupled, going from about $5m to around an almost disgusting $20m-$30m with that average growing hard every year. I don't really understand what sparked this shift, I suppose it's to always make thing "bigger and better", always trying to outspend each other which in a way gives it a Cold War type feel. It's a self fulfilling prophecy, we continue to spend more so we have to continue seeking a larger and larger audience.

Well, that's the thing. If you want to play with the big boys, you need to keep up with their budgets. A company could accept not doing that,  which would lead to them either staying a small company or doing a larger number of cheap games. I'm not aware of anyone pursuing the latter model in gaming, but it works in other media.

But either way you have to abandon the A-list. DG didn't say you couldn't do that; it's just that Bio doesn't want to change direction and become a niche developer.

[Fingolfin09]

Bioware is the one of the best game developers in the world and they have made and will make the best RPGs ,Dragon age was one of the best old school style rpg i have ever played and yes i have been around the block when it comes to rpgs and i know that DA2 will be even better. Bioware took a huge leap forward with ME2 and it shows that they have matured when it comes to games and i like me2 more then me1 by far and i bet that DA2 will take the same big leap forward. Despite the fact taht i felt that the expansion was not so great i did enjoy it and showed that bioware does listen to fans and i am sure that DA2 and future games will be made according to them and us their loyal fans.

Modifié par Fingolfin09, 16 août 2010 - 05:55 .

[Brockololly]

imported_beer wrote...

The Bioware we knew and loved IF you were a gamer who grew up with the older Black Isle games is no more. This is true. BUT.

That does not mean the new Bioware is going to *suck*. .

Agreed.

My first cRPGs were the BG games and I loved them. I'm not expecting BioWare to make another BG or anything, but at least with DAO, it seemed they were taking DA as a franchise down the more traditional cRPG route as opposed to the glut of action-RPG hybrids out there now. And maybe DA2 will turn out just fine- time will tell.

But what I would love to see is instead of the largely forgettable DLC for DA, have a team work on smaller Infinity engine type DA games- no VO, BG isometric view, all that. I'm sure at least amongst the "hardcore" RPG crowd that would be nice- and would introduce that style of RPG to many gamers that have never played BG any of the old Black Isle / Infinity engine games...

[The Hardest Thing In The World]

This ranting just reminds me of the "I want inventory management" brigade before DAO was released. Where is that brigade now, if that was such an important issue for you back then, shouldn't you be here "requesting" Bioware to bring back inventory management for DA2? Or was it actually NOT that important?
 
It will be the same for the dialogue wheel. When DA3 gets announced these people who are complaining about the dialogue wheel today, would have forgotten about the damn thing.

Modifié par The Hardest Thing In The World, 16 août 2010 - 05:57 .