275 réponses à ce sujet

[PirateT138]

I would prefer Bioware developed games like Bioware. Reasonable time-table, appropriate quality.

Not the thrown together mess that is DA2.

I would literally have bought enough DLC to pay for the game twice had it been up to par, quality-wise.

As it stands, not a chance.

[xd.dunedain]

Shasow wrote...

No, because I don't want to pay monthly for DA2.

Honostly, just hand it over to Bethseda Softworks.

Bad idea, but one good thing about that is we would have a toolset a week after the game came out

[Killjoy Cutter]

No, no Blizzard either.

If it were made by Blizzard, we'd have to pay monthly to play, and they'd release a patch every 6 months that fundamentally changed the gameplay AGAIN, and every DLC would make all the gear from everything previous obsolete.

Oh, and in order to access some of the most interesting content, you'd need to find 4+ other people, and put up with clashing personalities and play styles.

[MagickalMia]

If Blizzard made Dragon Age 2 it would have taken 8 years, provided us with less story and no choices at all.

[G00N3R7883]

Fieryeel wrote...

What do you prefer?

DA2 being made by Bioware in control by EA with a development cycle of 18 months, getting streamlined, cut down, content re-used and being made shorter. But at least, you get your game fast.

Or DA2 being made by Blizzard with a development cycle of over 10 years, getting bigger, more epic and better but.............TEN YEARS IN THE MAKING!!! But at least, you get your game awesome.

Implies that Blizzard are awesome, therefore, thread = fail.

captain.subtle wrote...

Hands down Obsidian. I believe everyone will agree. They make far better sequels.

Hmm, lets see ... KOTOR 2 buggy mess, no proper ending, NWN2 yes this rocked, Alpha Protocol not a sequel but was a buggy mess, Fallout NV buggy mess with the worst story in any RPG ever (personal opinion).

No thanks.

Preferred option would be Bioware with extra 6 months or so development time.

Modifié par G00N3R7883, 11 avril 2011 - 03:26 .

[Mr_Steph]

 Activision + 10 years + gamplay and graphics being 15-5 years old = no thanks.

[Teredan]

MagickalMia wrote...

If Blizzard made Dragon Age 2 it would have taken 8 years, provided us with less story and no choices at all.

But at least we get addicting gameplay..... but yeah thats not what I really want from bioware...

Point is different companies, different developement philosophies, I value them for different reasons.

[Borrachofunk69]

I don't care if it took 20 years. Just sell it to me when it's ready. I can wait.

[Borrachofunk69]

Fallout New Vegas had one of the all-time best RPG stories, EVER, easily being the essence of what the Fallout brand always was about. Now go back to thinking Dragon Age 2 is a good game.

[Scimal]

Fieryeel wrote...

What do you prefer?

DA2 being made by Bioware in control by EA with a development cycle of 18 months, getting streamlined, cut down, content re-used and being made shorter. But at least, you get your game fast.

Or DA2 being made by Blizzard with a development cycle of over 10 years, getting bigger, more epic and better but.............TEN YEARS IN THE MAKING!!! But at least, you get your game awesome.

Starcraft 2 wasn't that great. It was above average, but the story was predictable, the characters were painfully stereotypical, the online multiplayer is same-y to Starcraft 1 (as if they could move away and retain the playerbase), and splitting the story up was a questionable move.

Plus, Blizzard is partnered with Activision, who isn't much better than EA.

I'd rather DA2 had been made by an independent BioWare, but that's not the case.

If it's strictly BW + EA vs. Blizz + Activision... I think I'd still choose BW + EA. Blizzard has never been able to tell a story as well as BioWare.

[Dark83]

Scimal wrote...

the characters were painfully stereotypical

What are you talking about? The black dude with the accent and dreadlocks was totally appropriate.

Modifié par Dark83, 11 avril 2011 - 04:45 .

[Hatchetman77]

I would have preferred it to be done PROPERLY by BioWare.

[mgd9932]

I've come to warn you about MAN-GIRAFFE-DOG!! It's the single greatest threat to humanity!! RUN AWAY!!



More Serial than ever guys.

[dfstone]

That would be a terrible idea.  For one, Blizzard doesn't make console games.  And for another, Blizzard doesn't have close to the story telling capability that Bioware does.  And lastly, Blizzard takes FOREVER to push out games.  It took over 10 years for them to develop Starcraft 2 and even longer for Diablo 3 which still isn't out yet.  Blizzard is all about Warcraft lately.  If its not a part of WOW, they put it on the back-burner.

Modifié par dfstone, 11 avril 2011 - 05:51 .

[Torhagen]

Hatchetman77 wrote...

I would have preferred it to be done PROPERLY by BioWare.

^ That fits

[Montana]

I would prefer if BioWare gained independence from EA, and that Blizzard then gave all their money to BioWare.

Then BioWare could make the "ultimate rpg" ™.

[Fieryeel]

But then if Blizzard made it, we would be too addicted to its gameplay to be raging on the forums!

[corebit]

What I don't understand is why Blizzard is capable of taking forever with its games and never be pressured by Activision. Yet Bioware cannot do the same under EA pressure?

I thought both companies were on the same level of respect from the gaming community. I guess they don't have the same authority.

I remember very clearly when Bioware was acquired by EA, they promised EA would let Bioware be Bioware. they said they would never let EA pressure their deadlines nor stifle their creativity. What happened?

[Fieryeel]

corebit wrote...

What I don't understand is why Blizzard is capable of taking forever with its games and never be pressured by Activision. Yet Bioware cannot do the same under EA pressure?

I thought both companies were on the same level of respect from the gaming community. I guess they don't have the same authority.

I remember very clearly when Bioware was acquired by EA, they promised EA would let Bioware be Bioware. they said they would never let EA pressure their deadlines nor stifle their creativity. What happened?

Sad is it is to say, Blizzard DO have better results than Bioware.

If Blizzard wanted to say, "F**K YOU. We are leaving." to Activision, they could, and it 'd be Activision that's in a deep mess trying to woo them back.

Diablo 2, for its tremendous botting and advertising today, is still an amazingly popular game. And Diablo 2 is over 10 years old.

[Cutlass Jack]

Blizzard makes great games. But not so good on the actual roleplay part. Which is why we play Bioware games.

[Boiny Bunny]

corebit wrote...

What I don't understand is why Blizzard is capable of taking forever with its games and never be pressured by Activision. Yet Bioware cannot do the same under EA pressure?

I thought both companies were on the same level of respect from the gaming community. I guess they don't have the same authority.

I remember very clearly when Bioware was acquired by EA, they promised EA would let Bioware be Bioware. they said they would never let EA pressure their deadlines nor stifle their creativity. What happened?

Ack.  WHY does nobody understand??

The answer to your question is VERY simple.

Activision does NOT own Blizzard, AT ALL.

Vivendi owned Blizzard.  Vivendi now owns 51% of Blizzard-Activision.  Meaning, Vivendi control Activision, not the other way around.  Here's a simple diagram:

Vivendi > Blizzard

Vivendi > Activision

When Blizzard and Activision merged, Activision gained absolutely no control over Blizzard whatsoever.

HOWEVER, Vivendi decided that it was in the interests of the merged company, to appoint Activision pre-merger CEO Bobby Kotick as CEO of the new merged company.  They can also remove him at a whim.

So, whatever issues you have with Activision, stop applying them to Blizzard!



On the other hand, EA outright OWN Bioware.  They can do to Bioware what Vivendi can do to Activision.  Fire all their staff, demand any deadlines they like, interfere with the creative process, demand they make a game that they don't want to make, etc.

[Boiny Bunny]

Whatever your personal opinions may be about Blizzard and the style of games that they make (RTS, action-esque, MMO), you cannot deny that the games they release are of the absolute highest quality. All PERSONAL preferences aside. They don't release games with repeated environments. They don't release games packed full of game breaking and game ruining bugs. They release dozens of patches for their games, some up to 8 years after the game has come out!

If a game they are developing does not meet their quality standards, they either rework it completely (e.g. Warcraft 3), or scrap it completely (e.g. Lord of the Clans and Starcraft Ghost). They would never release a game in Dragon Age 2's state.

But you should all stop taking the title of the thread literally. The question isn't so much 'should Blizzard have made DA2?' as it is 'Should Bioware have applied Blizzard's quality principles in developing DA2'.

Or rather:

"Do you prefer rushed, buggy, incomplete, short games with repeated environments and multiple aspects untested, BUT released within 2 years, OR, do you prefer complete games that have been polished to the point of being blinding, BUT released within 6 years?"

Do you prefer "Release it as soon as it meets the ABSOLUTE BARE MINIMUM standards", OR, do you prefer "Release it when it is ready"?

Do you prefer, "Instant cash in the door but rapidly declining sales leading to a total of 2m copies sold" or "Instant cash in the door and steady sales over the next decade due to incredible quality and constant patches, leading to 12m sales?" (This last one is more directed at EA than customers!)

[Euno17]

lol - you do all realize blizzard COULD make a far better DA style game then Bioware right? Easily. They simply choose not too and I don't blame them.

I'll say that simply on the basis that Blizzard would take the TIME to do it right - regardless of how long it took. Bioware doesn't have that luxury any more.

Why the hell would you make a DA: O style game when your flag-ship game Diablo 2 still has a strong base ten years out and D3 will probably make the DA 2 numbers look bad? Hell D3 will make DA:O, the expansion AND DA 2 numbers look horrible.

I don't care what you guys say - the very FACT that Blizzard would take as long as they have on D3 - well they deserve a ridiculous amount of respect.

Also don't even lie guys.

If Blizzard said tomorrow they they were in the middle of designing a DA:O style game (6-8 even 10 year cycle) and they said that they were focusing on the story as much as the game-play - you all would be loving the hell out of the idea BECAUSE you know how much Blizzard cares about their games (because they know higher quality products do better in the long-run).

And you know what? I'm going to throw this out there (lol, like its not heavily anticipated lol):

The numbers will show that in the end - Blizzard will make FAR more money on D3 then Bioware/EA will make on DA 2. I can see Blizzard making ten's of millions of dollars on D3 if SC 2 is any indication of what kind of sales numbers we are likely to see (and it probably will be even more then that).

Modifié par Euno17, 12 avril 2011 - 04:21 .

[Mecher3k]

Boiny Bunny wrote...

Whatever your personal opinions may be about Blizzard and the style of games that they make (RTS, action-esque, MMO), you cannot deny that the games they release are of the absolute highest quality. All PERSONAL preferences aside.

Idiot alert, says you can not deny their games being of highest quality then say "All PERSONAL preferences aside."

Seriously? Then how can you say it's high quality then? Their stories suck which is a fact that even their fans have said, must I go on?

[Mecher3k]

Euno17 wrote...

lol - you do all realize blizzard COULD make a far better DA style game then Bioware right? Easily. They simply choose not too and I don't blame them.

lol - you do realize you have LESS braincells then a decaying rat right?