166 réponses à ce sujet

[ejoslin]

Persephone wrote...

ejoslin wrote...

However, my opinions are not WRONG!  They're mine so neither right nor wrong.  And evidently they're shared by a lot.  Many reviewers have said what I feel far more articulately than I could.

Ejoslin, I have the highest respect for you (And your Mods are essential). And no, your opinions aren't wrong. But neither are those of the people who love the game. One can enjoy both DAO and DAII. And prefer one or the other, of course.

And AWWWWW, that Zev breakup is so.......

I do enjoy both.  It would be easier for me to do comparisons if I disliked DA2.  But I liked it.  I felt more involved with Origins.  I'm honestly not trying to tell people they're wrong -- but perhaps I'm doing a poor job at trying to explain why many people felt let down by DA2.  Part of my problem is that it's difficult to put my finger exactly on WHY I like Origins better by quite a bit as I do like DA2 as well.

My own hope is that DA3 is somewhere between DAO and DA2.  I can list what I like about DA2, because some things I feel are better.  If I got to design the game, here is what I would have:

DA2's pacing -- maybe have some places a bit longer, but for the most part, I like the faster pace of the game overall.
A combination of DA:O's and DA2's conversation.  I prefer the silent protagonist, but I don't think we'll get that back.  I prefer the silent protagonist, actually, because that means you can have longer and more varied conversations (size and budget factors).  However, given that I don't think we'll go back to that, here's what I'd like in a conversation system:

More than an ambiant comment at the house -- option to kiss or hug a LI.
Conversations triggered by taking companions places (Sten)
Just a few more conversations that the player can initiate, even if they're just at the house.
I liked DA2's banter.  Keep that.

Better designed fights and areas.

*grin* I could add to this list easily, but heh, again, kids are HOME!

Edit: And /hugs.  I am trying to be sane in this conversation as this particular topic usually ends up wtih finger pointing and name calling, and that does no good anywhere.

Modifié par ejoslin, 04 avril 2011 - 07:41 .

[Rockpopple]

I never said your opinions were wrong. At least I don't think I did. We disagree, and that's fine. People can disagree without being disagreeable.

[ejoslin]

Oh, I didn't even mean to say you were saying my opinions were wrong. Everything I wrote is subjective; so it's all just opinion.

*sigh* It's like battle lines are drawn here, and I think constructive dialog is just much more interesting. I've been torn apart so many times here that I'm probably very defensive -- it's not directed at anything you have said however.  And both sides are guilting of the tearing apart!

Modifié par ejoslin, 04 avril 2011 - 07:45 .

[Persephone]

ejoslin wrote...

Persephone wrote...

ejoslin wrote...

However, my opinions are not WRONG!  They're mine so neither right nor wrong.  And evidently they're shared by a lot.  Many reviewers have said what I feel far more articulately than I could.

Ejoslin, I have the highest respect for you (And your Mods are essential). And no, your opinions aren't wrong. But neither are those of the people who love the game. One can enjoy both DAO and DAII. And prefer one or the other, of course.

And AWWWWW, that Zev breakup is so.......

I do enjoy both.  It would be easier for me to do comparisons if I disliked DA2.  But I liked it.  I felt more involved with Origins.  I'm honestly not trying to tell people they're wrong -- but perhaps I'm doing a poor job at trying to explain why many people felt let down by DA2.  Part of my problem is that it's difficult to put my finger exactly on WHY I like Origins better by quite a bit as I do like DA2 as well.

My own hope is that DA3 is somewhere between DAO and DA2.  I can list what I like about DA2, because some things I feel are better.  If I got to design the game, here is what I would have:

DA2's pacing -- maybe have some places a bit longer, but for the most part, I like the faster pace of the game overall.
A combination of DA:O's and DA2's conversation.  I prefer the silent protagonist, but I don't think we'll get that back.  I prefer the silent protagonist, actually, because that means you can have longer and more varied conversations (size and budget factors).  However, given that I don't think we'll go back to that, here's what I'd like in a conversation system:

More than an ambiant comment at the house -- option to kiss or hug a LI.
Conversations triggered by taking companions places (Sten)
Just a few more conversations that the player can initiate, even if they're just at the house.
I liked DA2's banter.  Keep that.

Better designed fights and areas.

*grin* I could add to this list easily, but heh, again, kids are HOME!

Edit: And /hugs.  I am trying to be sane in this conversation as this particular topic usually ends up wtih finger pointing and name calling, and that does no good anywhere.

Well said indeed. Agreed on all accounts. And it's such a pleasure to see a well written, thoughtful post that isn't extremist. I'm still praying to see some DAII Mods from you. Your DAO Mods (Dialogue fixes, Bioware should HIRE you for that) are essential after all.

[heretica]

aftohsix wrote...

Ah okay

"Hardcore" = Baldurs Gate and Baldur's Gate 2

"Casual" = Everything else...

Actually, Baldur's Gate has to be one of the hardest gamesI ever played, and one of the most rewarding. Games made during the 90's were a different thing. And that's a fact, it has its good side and bad side.

Seriously, I have spent so many hours trying to beat a boss or a group of mobs. It's not a matter of  "mash buttons hard, have good gear" it's much more complex than that. 

All these games, SC2, COD, Halo, they are casual games. Even a kid could learn the game mechanics in a couple of days, the fact that you or your friends decide to play COD or Halo for 16 hours desn't make a game hardcore. It's not challeging.

I'm sorry if you feel offended by this, but the games you play are not Hardcore games. Try to be pro at Quake, Starcraft I, any fps from the 90's... even Monkey Island.

Modifié par Catt128, 04 avril 2011 - 09:15 .

[MrTijger]

FellowerOfOdin wrote...

Maconbar wrote...


TOR will likely determine BW's fate.

This. If TOR should fail, and I am fairly sure that it does, this would mean the end for Bioware. The game's been such a huge cash grave and if it fails...someone has to pay. I'd be extremely sad if this went the way as Bioware once was a AAA developer who made the best games I'd ever played...but now that EA is slowly absorbing their talent, their games appear to suffer a lot and get worse.

It's all up to TOR. If it fails, Bioware will meet an untimely end. It would be a tragic loss, but it was asked for.

Why wouldnt they just close down Bioware Austin, keep the good people and move on? The money is already gone anyway and EA is not absorbing their talent at all because since Ricietiello took over they've ended that practice.
EA's share price will take a momentary hit until the release of their autumn sports titles and Bioware releases ME 3, since EA bought back a lot of its shares they're a lot less dependend on outside approval anyway.

[AkiKishi]

MrTijger wrote...
Why wouldnt they just close down Bioware Austin, keep the good people and move on? The money is already gone anyway and EA is not absorbing their talent at all because since Ricietiello took over they've ended that practice.
EA's share price will take a momentary hit until the release of their autumn sports titles and Bioware releases ME 3, since EA bought back a lot of its shares they're a lot less dependend on outside approval anyway.

Because those people make RPGs and if TOR bombs as DA2 has, they have very little reason to believe they will ever reach CoD type numbers making RPGs regardless of how much they streamline.

Other games are easier to make than RPGs and cost less. EA only cares about the money and not how they make it.

[MrTijger]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Because those people make RPGs and if TOR bombs as DA2 has, they have very little reason to believe they will ever reach CoD type numbers making RPGs regardless of how much they streamline.

Other games are easier to make than RPGs and cost less. EA only cares about the money and not how they make it.

Úh...no? The people in Austin make MMO's, the whole studio has been built just for TOR, it has never produced anything else. So, that's nonsense.

Second, EA is apparently changing too fast for some to keep up but maybe you should look at their lineup for fiscal 2012 which is the coming 12 months, there's a hell of a lot of risky stuff on there. Also, the fact that EA bought back over 600 million dollars of their own shares means they do care and they want to be out from under the shareholder pressure to blitz the market with games.

RPG's can make serious money too, just ask DAO so thats a silly argument as well, Bioware has been given more money (Bioware Austin) and more resources (new Bioware Montreal studio) by EA so again, this does not jibe with your assesment.

[AkiKishi]

MrTijger wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

Because those people make RPGs and if TOR bombs as DA2 has, they have very little reason to believe they will ever reach CoD type numbers making RPGs regardless of how much they streamline.

Other games are easier to make than RPGs and cost less. EA only cares about the money and not how they make it.

Úh...no? The people in Austin make MMO's, the whole studio has been built just for TOR, it has never produced anything else. So, that's nonsense.

Second, EA is apparently changing too fast for some to keep up but maybe you should look at their lineup for fiscal 2012 which is the coming 12 months, there's a hell of a lot of risky stuff on there. Also, the fact that EA bought back over 600 million dollars of their own shares means they do care and they want to be out from under the shareholder pressure to blitz the market with games.

RPG's can make serious money too, just ask DAO so thats a silly argument as well, Bioware has been given more money (Bioware Austin) and more resources (new Bioware Montreal studio) by EA so again, this does not jibe with your assesment.

Why would they make another MMPORG after they just failed with one? 

Or the CEO's want more proftits..

DA sold 3.2 million or somewhere near that over months. CoD sold 7 million in one day. Not really comparable.
DA was very succesful for an RPG , but still not mass market profiitable.

This is the X-roads Bioware is at. Accept the 2-4 million sales doing what they do. Or make a grab for the mass market numbers by streamlining RPGs. DA2 was an experiment in that.

[MrTijger]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Why would they make another MMPORG after they just failed with one? 

Or the CEO's want more proftits..

DA sold 3.2 million or somewhere near that over months. CoD sold 7 million in one day. Not really comparable.
DA was very succesful for an RPG , but still not mass market profiitable.

This is the X-roads Bioware is at. Accept the 2-4 million sales doing what they do. Or make a grab for the mass market numbers by streamlining RPGs. DA2 was an experiment in that.

Ofcourse EA wants profit, its a business, not a charity. The MMO market is big, very big and ofcourse EA wants a piece of that pie, I mean, come on, TOR was probably the biggest reason for them to buy Bioware to begin with.
ME and DA are icing on the cake but TOR is the prize for EA.
3.5 million copies is revenue of roughly 160 million, thats pretty good money, not every game needs to be CoD, in fact, those only come once or twice a year, the rest of the time you keep the meter running with games that make a decent profit and some guaranteed profit makers like the EA Sports line.

Bioware is not at a crossroads, Bioware is now a division, or as they call it, a city state in the EA empire, I'm not sure what DA 2 was, whether it was just overambitious or something else, I also refuse to speculate on that, its too easy to come up with a BS theory that has no basis in fact.
I think EA has no intention of losing Bioware, first of all the first thing that would happen is that the Dr Ray and Gregg would leave and take the best talent with them and simply start Bioware 2, thats a total loss scenario, no way thats going to happen.

PS: The MMO players out there are dying for a good new fresh MMO, thats what I hear from my friends in MMO's and I play in some big guilds.

Modifié par MrTijger, 04 avril 2011 - 10:15 .

[AkiKishi]

MrTijger wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

Why would they make another MMPORG after they just failed with one? 

Or the CEO's want more proftits..

DA sold 3.2 million or somewhere near that over months. CoD sold 7 million in one day. Not really comparable.
DA was very succesful for an RPG , but still not mass market profiitable.

This is the X-roads Bioware is at. Accept the 2-4 million sales doing what they do. Or make a grab for the mass market numbers by streamlining RPGs. DA2 was an experiment in that.

Ofcourse EA wants profit, its a business, not a charity. The MMO market is big, very big and ofcourse EA wants a piece of that pie, I mean, come on, TOR was probably the biggest reason for them to buy Bioware to begin with.
ME and DA are icing on the cake but TOR is the prize for EA.
3.5 million copies is revenue of roughly 160 million, thats pretty good money, not every game needs to be CoD, in fact, those only come once or twice a year, the rest of the time you keep the meter running with games that make a decent profit and some guaranteed profit makers like the EA Sports line.

Bioware is not at a crossroads, Bioware is now a division, or as they call it, a city state in the EA empire, I'm not sure what DA 2 was, whether it was just overambitious or something else, I also refuse to speculate on that, its too easy to come up with a BS theory that has no basis in fact.
I think EA has no intention of losing Bioware, first of all the first thing that would happen is that the Dr Ray and Gregg would leave and take the best talent with them and simply start Bioware 2, thats a total loss scenario, no way thats going to happen.

I agree, which makes the whole mass market thing with DA2 make even less sense.

I think they took the deal with an eye towards the retirment fund.

While that sounds like common sense it's happened before with EA subsidiaries like Westwood.

[MrTijger]

BobSmith101 wrote...


I agree, which makes the whole mass market thing with DA2 make even less sense.

I think they took the deal with an eye towards the retirment fund.

While that sounds like common sense it's happened before with EA subsidiaries like Westwood.

Maybe they did, I wouldnt fault them for it, either. Those guys built a pretty impressive company and its not like they sold the place and wandered off, they're both VP's at EA now and working as hard as ever from what I hear.

What is different now from Westwood is the person thats running EA, he's also the one who was running Pandemic when they first acquired Bioware and that didnt hurt Bioware one bit, now did it?
Things might change, business on this scale is tough and ruthless but as it stands now I dont see a Westwood happening.

[AkiKishi]

MrTijger wrote...
Maybe they did, I wouldnt fault them for it, either. Those guys built a pretty impressive company and its not like they sold the place and wandered off, they're both VP's at EA now and working as hard as ever from what I hear.

What is different now from Westwood is the person thats running EA, he's also the one who was running Pandemic when they first acquired Bioware and that didnt hurt Bioware one bit, now did it?
Things might change, business on this scale is tough and ruthless but as it stands now I dont see a Westwood happening.

What sunk Westwood was:

1.Trying to expand the market through hybrid games at EA's behest.
2.Short dev shedules leading to substandard products.

The  difference, is that a lot of Westwood employees jumped ship rather than work under EA. Bioware seems mostly intact.

[MrTijger]

BobSmith101 wrote...

What sunk Westwood was:

1.Trying to expand the market through hybrid games at EA's behest.
2.Short dev shedules leading to substandard products.

The  difference, is that a lot of Westwood employees jumped ship rather than work under EA. Bioware seems mostly intact.

That last point should be all the indicators you need, in fact Bioware is hiring and expanding rapidly because they also have Bioware Mythic and opened Montreal late last year.
Not a single key player has left afaik, and I dont count Brent Knowles because he left to pursue life outside the gaming world.

[AkiKishi]

MrTijger wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

What sunk Westwood was:

1.Trying to expand the market through hybrid games at EA's behest.
2.Short dev shedules leading to substandard products.

The  difference, is that a lot of Westwood employees jumped ship rather than work under EA. Bioware seems mostly intact.

That last point should be all the indicators you need, in fact Bioware is hiring and expanding rapidly because they also have Bioware Mythic and opened Montreal late last year.
Not a single key player has left afaik, and I dont count Brent Knowles because he left to pursue life outside the gaming world.

Like others have said I expect TOR will either keep them going or break them. A bad reaction to ME3 would not help either.

[Blood-Lord Thanatos]

BobSmith101 wrote...

MrTijger wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

What sunk Westwood was:

1.Trying to expand the market through hybrid games at EA's behest.
2.Short dev shedules leading to substandard products.

The  difference, is that a lot of Westwood employees jumped ship rather than work under EA. Bioware seems mostly intact.

That last point should be all the indicators you need, in fact Bioware is hiring and expanding rapidly because they also have Bioware Mythic and opened Montreal late last year.
Not a single key player has left afaik, and I dont count Brent Knowles because he left to pursue life outside the gaming world.

Like others have said I expect TOR will either keep them going or break them. A bad reaction to ME3 would not help either.

and naturally you will be doing your utmost to be nasty right, bob?

[AkiKishi]

Blood-Lord Thanatos wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

MrTijger wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

What sunk Westwood was:

1.Trying to expand the market through hybrid games at EA's behest.
2.Short dev shedules leading to substandard products.

The  difference, is that a lot of Westwood employees jumped ship rather than work under EA. Bioware seems mostly intact.

That last point should be all the indicators you need, in fact Bioware is hiring and expanding rapidly because they also have Bioware Mythic and opened Montreal late last year.
Not a single key player has left afaik, and I dont count Brent Knowles because he left to pursue life outside the gaming world.

Like others have said I expect TOR will either keep them going or break them. A bad reaction to ME3 would not help either.

and naturally you will be doing your utmost to be nasty right, bob?

About TOR ? No interest in it beyond academic.

ME3 ? Could go either way. I really enjoyed the combat in ME2, even with the other changes. Helped that I never really liked the endless repeated planets the Mako drove over as well. You ended ME2 maxed, so how they get around that will be a big factor. Another "resurection" and the game goes right back to the store.

[MrTijger]

BobSmith101 wrote...

About TOR ? No interest in it beyond academic.

ME3 ? Could go either way. I really enjoyed the combat in ME2, even with the other changes. Helped that I never really liked the endless repeated planets the Mako drove over as well. You ended ME2 maxed, so how they get around that will be a big factor. Another "resurection" and the game goes right back to the store.

I've been looking at TOR the last couple of days and it looks quite impressive, some friends of mine are in the beta, I unfortunately missed out thus far on that, and are wildly enthusiastic and these are long term MMO and RPG gamers. Most of them say its like playing KOTOR 1 through 10 without the butchers job that was KOTOR 2.
They seem to be firing on all cylinders with it, I'll happily report on it if I get into the beta, hehe.

I have no doubt ME 3 will be good and I dont think there will be another resurrection, they've been smart thus far and I see no reason why the same team would suddenly go stupid.
ME 1 was good aside from the Mako, that was dire and the PC version was supposed to be the better one, lol.

[Chiramu]

Bioware are "slaves" to make money. DA2 is a good game to make money, same with ME2.
Everyone wants to make money, and Bioware wants more money to make better games.

I should expect all Bioware fans to support them so that they can make top quality games with no EA deadline.

[Cybermortis]

ME was a little rougher than ME2, but to me it had more immersion and felt as if it had a faster pace through the game. The MAKO I sort of liked, apart from it having a suspension system that flung it around like a rubber ball if you ran over a pebble. Certainly I liked the MAKO better than the flaming Firewalker in ME2.

I expect TOR to be of very high quality for an MMO since Lucasarts are involved, and they wanted something to follow on from the dire SW Galaxies. I don't expect any other MMO's from Bioware for a while after it is out though. First because they would want to sit back and make sure it remains successful, second because EA's Warhammer MMO doesn't seem to be doing well which will probably make EA wary of trying another MMO that would be competing with WoW.

I also expect ME3 to be...well saying it will be brilliant without having played it is impossible. But everything I know or suspect about it doesn't make me worry in the slightest at this point, apart from Bioware's current love affair with DLC. Then again the DLC for ME2 seems to have found the sort of DLC people are willing to buy in droves - and it doesn't seem to be appearance or weapon packs. So maybe there is little to fear for ME3 DLC-wise.

Dragon Age is a different matter. DA2 has clearly done very badly compared to DAO, but it is hard to see Bioware giving up a potential gold-mine over one game or going under because of it. Giving a DA3 more time and BW giving less impression that all they are interested in is money would probably make a DA3 a better game - indeed it would probably have done wonders for DA2. Even if they don't continue with DA3 they are working on other projects, and as I've noted before I'm wondering if part of the problem with DA2 was that none of these could have possibly been ready for an early 2011 release. So they opted for a rushed Dragon Age game, banking on the name to sell enough copies to make it worthwhile. While hoping that ME3 would be good enough to off-set any long term problems DA2 might have caused.

What will count is the games and sales in 2012. If these titles don't sell well Bioware is going to be in trouble in 2013 regardless of how TOR has done.

[Melca36]

ejoslin wrote...


Well, the thing is, DA2 WAS supposed to appeal to a wider audience, which alienated many of the core audience.  It actually didn't make too much sense to me.  DA:O was a huge success -- HUGE.  Obviously just being a good quality RPG was enough to make millions of sales, both RPG devotees and new comers to the genre bought and loved it.  It really doesn't matter what focus groups and such said -- DA:O's success was an indicator of just how right they got it.

Edit: I think not listening to what their core base fans were saying was a gamble.  I also think just waving off the upsettedness (yay me new word I think) of people who actually cared for the franchise is a mistake.

They also have painted themselves into a corner given the direction of DA3.  No matter what they do, they're going to tick off the old time fans OR their new audience depending on which way they decide to tweak.  I personally am hoping for a game between DA:O and DA2.  I missed the dialog and the better-thought-out fights (waves is just a bit lazy and not really a substitue for well-thought-out encounters -- having the same fight repeatedly got boring).

I know more people who bought Origins just from word of mouth reviews. They should have continued to appeal to that market and grow from there instead of pandering to the market who only want instant gratification in their games.

[Statulos]

Catt128 wrote...

aftohsix wrote...

Ah okay

"Hardcore" = Baldurs Gate and Baldur's Gate 2

"Casual" = Everything else...

Actually, Baldur's Gate has to be one of the hardest gamesI ever played, and one of the most rewarding. Games made during the 90's were a different thing. And that's a fact, it has its good side and bad side.

Seriously, I have spent so many hours trying to beat a boss or a group of mobs. It's not a matter of  "mash buttons hard, have good gear" it's much more complex than that. 

All these games, SC2, COD, Halo, they are casual games. Even a kid could learn the game mechanics in a couple of days, the fact that you or your friends decide to play COD or Halo for 16 hours desn't make a game hardcore. It's not challeging.

I'm sorry if you feel offended by this, but the games you play are not Hardcore games. Try to be pro at Quake, Starcraft I, any fps from the 90's... even Monkey Island.

You make me feel old; very old. I started with Eye of the Beholder and games as Pool of Radiance broke my nerves often times.

Baldur´s Gate series were a niche change, they looked nice, played nice and had good plots plus a difficulty that was not nerve-breaking.

[skyrend]

No.  Just "slaves" to good taste.

[casedawgz]

Catt128 wrote...

aftohsix wrote...

Ah okay

"Hardcore" = Baldurs Gate and Baldur's Gate 2

"Casual" = Everything else...

Actually, Baldur's Gate has to be one of the hardest gamesI ever played, and one of the most rewarding. Games made during the 90's were a different thing. And that's a fact, it has its good side and bad side.

Seriously, I have spent so many hours trying to beat a boss or a group of mobs. It's not a matter of  "mash buttons hard, have good gear" it's much more complex than that. 

All these games, SC2, COD, Halo, they are casual games. Even a kid could learn the game mechanics in a couple of days, the fact that you or your friends decide to play COD or Halo for 16 hours desn't make a game hardcore. It's not challeging.

I'm sorry if you feel offended by this, but the games you play are not Hardcore games. Try to be pro at Quake, Starcraft I, any fps from the 90's... even Monkey Island.

While part of what you said is true, comparing the stragic play necessary in a modern FPS to Quake is just a baldfaced lie, regardless of what you think of Halo. Quake is Quake. You run around. You shoot guys. Occasionally you rocket jump.

[Statulos]

I know it´s offtopic, but everytime I see this topic I cannot help but listening to this record:



Because Brits grind better than anyone else.

Modifié par Statulos, 05 avril 2011 - 05:14 .