281 réponses à ce sujet

[rhautanen]

Finishing is very important, in many things, not just game development;) For whatever reason Obsidian is not good at finishing. I don't care what the reason is, and why should I?

I don't know how many people out there know what a "Friday Car" is, but that's what Obsidian makes.

[Shirosaki17]

MorrigansLove wrote...

What if Obsidian took over the Dragon Age series like they took over the Fallout series? Would you mind? Do you think it would be a better game than Dragon Age 2? What are your thoughts on this random topic of mine.

They don't need to take over the series. They could just make a Dragon age game similar to the New Vegas. I'd be interested to see what they'd do with a game they'd create in that universe, and the combat. Could be good.

Modifié par Shirosaki17, 22 avril 2011 - 03:08 .

[Emeraq]

They would butcher it, like they did with NwN2.

[Miashi]

To be fair, they did good in mask of the betrayer

[nuclearpengu1nn]

imagine DA3 being in FPS/3PS, being able to kill anyone you please, open world/free roam, very freaking long storyline, and the unforgettable V.A.T.S., oh and super mutants

[BundokJon]

Bugs aside, if it came down to overall approach and feel?

In KOTOR2, combat seemed to allow for more specialization and choices than KOTOR. It seemed less polished, but I played the game years after release. I felt like it was only Star Wars because people talked about Star Wars related subjects, but it didn't have the Star wars feel that KOTOR did.

For Fallout NV  the progression was stricter, which is the type of thing we often complain about, but I did think it made you pick one or two skills and do them well rather than max everything through perks and bonus points. I do believe they were going for a more grittier and challenging experience, more so with hardcore. In terms of overall feel, it was a return to the faction-heavy content of the earlier games, which was really compelling in its own way, as opposed to the addictively hypnotic atmosphere of FO3. On the other hand,  for Fallout 3 I almost always soloed, for New Vegas I always went with companions because they added so much feedback to your decisions.  Ask me in a few years, though, I would say that it was that atmosphere that will make Fallout 3 a classic.

So based on these experiences, I'd have to say that an Obsidian DA sequel would be very serious about gameplay but might lack or even gloss over the overall feel of the franchise. DA2, I think it's decidedly less epic that DA:O, but at least for me, has the feel of walking around and living in the world where DA:O takes place-- I'm not sure if we'd still have that.

 But that's with bugs and rushed schedules aside-- if there's a game where they've really had a good opportunity to shine, I'd like to see it.

[Walker White]

GreyWarden36 wrote...

imagine DA3 being in FPS/3PS, being able to kill anyone you please, open world/free roam, very freaking long storyline, and the unforgettable V.A.T.S., oh and super mutants

By "unforgettable V.A.T.S." you mean one of the worst gameplay mechanics ever invented.  In FO3 there was absolutely no reason to do anything other than a headshot in V.A.T.S.  The time it took you disable any other body part was roughly equivalent to the number of headshots needed to kill.

[Sen4lifE]

Merci357 wrote...

Sen4lifE wrote...

Merci357 wrote...

Snip..

Never seen a BioWare game where choices even a fraction of the impact compared to this one.

Snip..

You've never played Mass Effect, have you?

The better question is, have you played Alpha Protocol, more then once? I'm not talking about choices, I'm talking about how those choices change your playthrough. Not a simple who lives/dies, but how to do things, who you work with, and the ramifications those decisions have on other missions. If Ashley or Kaidan dies, if the Rachni Queen lives or dies, if Wrex lives or dies, does it change the rest of ME1? Does it close/open up other missions, even change a single upcoming mission? It has effect in ME2, I'll give you that, and likely even more ramifications in ME3, but in ME1 itself? Like I said, not even close.

Sorry, but I disagree.  Mass Effect is a trilogy but really could be considered a mega-story, all one thing as the games run back-to-back.  It's kind of like how Lord of the Rings was released in 3 volumes however it is 1 novel.  Even in Mass Effect 1 you can achieve many different endings to sequences out of choices and by Mass Effect 3 there will be a few hundred to thousands of endings depending on the combination of your decisions.

Alpha Protocol does not achieve this.  You need to look at the bigger picture: Mass Effect itself.  I never did say 1, 2 or 3.

[marshalleck]

Sen4lifE wrote...

Merci357 wrote...

Sen4lifE wrote...

Merci357 wrote...

Snip..

Never seen a BioWare game where choices even a fraction of the impact compared to this one.

Snip..

You've never played Mass Effect, have you?

The better question is, have you played Alpha Protocol, more then once? I'm not talking about choices, I'm talking about how those choices change your playthrough. Not a simple who lives/dies, but how to do things, who you work with, and the ramifications those decisions have on other missions. If Ashley or Kaidan dies, if the Rachni Queen lives or dies, if Wrex lives or dies, does it change the rest of ME1? Does it close/open up other missions, even change a single upcoming mission? It has effect in ME2, I'll give you that, and likely even more ramifications in ME3, but in ME1 itself? Like I said, not even close.

Sorry, but I disagree.  Mass Effect is a trilogy but really could be considered a mega-story, all one thing as the games run back-to-back.  It's kind of like how Lord of the Rings was released in 3 volumes however it is 1 novel.  Even in Mass Effect 1 you can achieve many different endings to sequences out of choices and by Mass Effect 3 there will be a few hundred to thousands of endings depending on the combination of your decisions.

Alpha Protocol does not achieve this.  You need to look at the bigger picture: Mass Effect itself.  I never did say 1, 2 or 3.

What a load of crap. Mass Effect series has yet to deliver on any promises of major consequences for decisions made. What Bioware have done so far is basically bunted in ME2 with the promise of delivering in ME3. Will that happen? Remains to be seen. Alpha Protocol however changes as you play it. You can't really appreciate it if you've only gone through the game once. 

Oh and by the way. Planescape: Torment > Baldur's Gate 2. 

Modifié par marshalleck, 22 avril 2011 - 04:59 .

[Fangirl17]

The only experience I've had with Obsidian was New Vegas and its too buggy for me to play anymore :/ And I enjoyed Fallout 3 waaaaaaaaaaaay more than New Vegas. There were things Obsidian did better I'll give them that and if you look past the buggyness NV is still a great game even though I say I loved Fallout 3 more. If another company took over DA...well,then it wouldnt be DA to me anymore not that it'll ever happen but thats how I would feel.

[Emeraq]

Miashi wrote...

To be fair, they did good in mask of the betrayer

I bought that one too, but since I've never been much of playing a follow up without completing the original I haven't even touched MOTB. Maybe one day I'll force my way all the way through NwN2 OC.

[Priisus]

rhautanen wrote...

Obsidian? This is a joke right?

[Addai]

I've only played one Obsidian game, FNV, and I would cry if they took over the DA IP. Not that I'm reaching for the tissues over this odd hypothetical.

[Harcken]

I think it would be awesome. First, it takes the heat off of Bioware coming off a disappointing Dragon Age II launch and lets the flames of fan retribution die out a bit with all the attention focused on Obsidian. They can sit back and work on DA4 for a bit, while Obsidian can give the DA franchise a shot of adrenaline before giving the reigns back to Bioware. To me, it's a win win for both companies.

Modifié par Harcken, 22 avril 2011 - 06:24 .

[Harid]

Writing would be better, storyline would be better, game would be buggy unplayable ****.

I dunno what the problem is with Obsidian and finished products, maybe they need to hire more people, maybe their QA are incompetent, maybe they really are being punished by their publishers, but they are actually worse than Bethesda when it comes to releasing complete games.

[FedericoV]

MorrigansLove wrote...

What if Obsidian took over the Dragon Age series like they took over the Fallout series? Would you mind? Do you think it would be a better game than Dragon Age 2? What are your thoughts on this random topic of mine.

I would not mind a spin off by Obsidian. I like their approach even if I prefer Bioware ones generally and they are my "second favourite RPG provider". But honestly I hope for Obsidian that they will finally build their successfull franchise (so, no Alpha Protocol ), instead of struggling with third party properties. 

[Pinely]

I don't think the series would change that much.

Dragon Age 2 and Fallout New Vegas share plot similarities. They are structured around political factions within a fixed location and both are centered around a main character initially on a more personal mission. The ending in both depends on the viewpoint of the player (although one of the New Vegas endings was close to unambiguously bad). The dialog and characters are the highlight of both games.

Dragon Age 2 was a very Obsidian game. In many ways, it reminds me of KOTOR II.

[AkiKishi]

Dejavu. I'd be overjoyed if Obsidian took over. Bugs aside I've been pleased with what I have seen.
New Vegas is like DA2's faction story, only done right.

[marshalleck]

Harid wrote...

Writing would be better, storyline would be better, game would be buggy unplayable ****.

I dunno what the problem is with Obsidian and finished products, maybe they need to hire more people, maybe their QA are incompetent, maybe they really are being punished by their publishers, but they are actually worse than Bethesda when it comes to releasing complete games.

I think they just have ambition their budgets and timelines can't match. Despite the usual bugginess, the last few releases from Obsidian have been awesome. They're one of the few companies left doing quality RPGs. I think after Mass Effect 3 is out I'm likely to stop following what Bioware is doing since they seem to have no interest in making RPGs anymore, but I'll definitely be keeping an eye on Obsidian. Especially after FNV. 

Modifié par marshalleck, 22 avril 2011 - 08:52 .

[AkiKishi]

marshalleck wrote...

Harid wrote...

Writing would be better, storyline would be better, game would be buggy unplayable ****.

I dunno what the problem is with Obsidian and finished products, maybe they need to hire more people, maybe their QA are incompetent, maybe they really are being punished by their publishers, but they are actually worse than Bethesda when it comes to releasing complete games.

I think they just have ambition their budgets and timelines can't match. Despite the usual bugginess, the last few releases from Obsidian have been awesome. They're one of the few companies left doing quality RPGs. I think after Mass Effect 3 is out I'm likely to stop following what Bioware is doing, but I'll definitely be keeping an eye on Obsidian. Especially after FNV. 

You have to say that after DA2 it's not like Bioware is sitting pretty when it comes to not releasing buggy unfinished products either.

Obsidians next game is Dungeon Siege 3. Hack and slash with multiple stories and branching endings.

[Lumikki]

Interesting idea, but no, I don't think it would be better. I mean Kotor 1 was Biowares, but I don't think Kotor 2 was better.

[marshalleck]

BobSmith101 wrote...

marshalleck wrote...

Harid wrote...

Writing would be better, storyline would be better, game would be buggy unplayable ****.

I dunno what the problem is with Obsidian and finished products, maybe they need to hire more people, maybe their QA are incompetent, maybe they really are being punished by their publishers, but they are actually worse than Bethesda when it comes to releasing complete games.

I think they just have ambition their budgets and timelines can't match. Despite the usual bugginess, the last few releases from Obsidian have been awesome. They're one of the few companies left doing quality RPGs. I think after Mass Effect 3 is out I'm likely to stop following what Bioware is doing, but I'll definitely be keeping an eye on Obsidian. Especially after FNV. 

You have to say that after DA2 it's not like Bioware is sitting pretty when it comes to not releasing buggy unfinished products either.

Obsidians next game is Dungeon Siege 3. Hack and slash with multiple stories and branching endings.

Well I think Bioware's problem is hubris brought on by releasing ME2 at a very fortuitous time, when there was no real competition. They seem pretty convinced they can do no wrong, since ME2 won so many GOTY awards. 

Modifié par marshalleck, 22 avril 2011 - 08:59 .

[AkiKishi]

Lumikki wrote...

Interesting idea, but no, I don't think it would be better. I mean Kotor 1 was Biowares, but I don't think Kotor 2 was better.

KOTOR II was one of the great "what if" moments of gaming history. What is most telling is that even a half finished game compared favourably with a lot of people. Had KOTORII actually been allowed to ship with it's  intended ending who knows how things would have changed.

Modifié par BobSmith101, 22 avril 2011 - 08:59 .