314 réponses à ce sujet

[heathxxx]

Realmzmaster wrote...

DanConnors wrote...

     This may or may not have been said before, but I'll say it again.  THE BASIC MISTAKE IS TO TRY TO MAKE A GAME THAT WILL APPEAL TO COMPUTER GAME PLAYERS AND CONSOLE GAME PLAYERS.
     By and large the two groups of users are quite different.  It seems that developers have quit making games solely for PC users even though there are over a billion personal computers in use.  Microsoft is largely responsible for that with their constant release of new OS's (each one designed to make previous versions obsolete).  This effort shows up in DA2 which will not allow Windows XP users to upgrade their video, even though my quad core, 8 thread, 6 Gbyte RAM, 1 TByte HDD was perfectly capable of doing so.  It's had no trouble upgrading video for any other newly released game.  It might be interesting to check and see if EA got any money from Microsoft for this gesture.
     If developers have come to believe that it's a waste of money to try to develope games that will appeal to a potential market of one billion users, that's a sad commentary on the whole industry.  Another check that can be made relatively easily is to see what percentage of DAO sales were to PC users and what to console game players.  Then do the same to DA2.  If the check shows DAO had more PC buyers and DA2 more console game buyers, that's a clear indication, to me, that EA is beginning to abandon its PC user base.  If that's true they will continue to ignore the complaints from their former fans.

Yes there are over one billion personal computers, but a vast majority of those are owned by casual gamers. A great many are in businesses. Many are not used to play games. The market for PC games is smaller that console gaames. The market for CRPGs is even a smaller part of the PC game market.
For example DAO only sold 4 million or 4.5 million copies out of that 1 billion computers available which equals 0.4%.
The console market is bigger than the PC market. It makes no economical sense to develop a title just for the PC market. It does make sense to just develop for the console market which is bigger.

Yet there are still companies, mainly independent ones yet to be absorbed into the mega-companies like EA Games, who are still prepared to focus their efforts on PC gaming.

CD Projekt did just that with The Witcher. The went down the path of working on a separate console "Witcher" game, but put that project on hold indefinately, in favour of working on The Witcher 2.

PC gaming is very much alive and well. Clearly console gaming far outstrips the former in terms of units sold, according to a number of statistical presentations that can be found browsing the web. PC gaming is still a sizeable and profitable market, even if some might consider it perhaps a "niche" market more so nowadays.

The two are different markets. Sure, there are areas of common ground that overlap between the two, but for the most part, they are different. It's blatently obvious that driven by the larger potential sales, EA Games will be more interested in the console market. Some of the big publishers like EA claim that piracy is the biggest black mark against PC gaming, but in reality, it is actually just as easy to download and use pirated games for consoles, as it is for the PC. Although I'm not advocating piracy in any shape or form, if you don't believe me, browse through a few of the more popular and well known torrent sites.

Ultimately, it's all about the money. That's fine... business is business. It does make me ponder and look with some considerable interest, when it comes to certain types of games or certain IP's. Some might be better with the PC gaming "niche", some are fine with both, whilst others are alltogether better off heading down the console route.

I'd argue that the Dragon Age IP was perhaps best served focusing on the PC gaming market. That's purely personal opinion though, simply because I feel that regardless of the good or bad points of DA2, the overriding feeling I got was that it was a game that didn't really know what it wanted to be, yet was trying to please lots of different people and preferences. Rarely does something like that do well.

There are plenty of precidends when it comes to changing what's arguably a winning formula, that has a proven track reckord. Perhaps the most famous being Coca-Cola in the 80's with it's new formula, which essentially came into being through the fear of "the Pepsi challenge". I think many of us old enough, will remember what happened there. "classic" Coke anyone? 

Evolution or offering additional products can certainly be a good thing, but time and again, there's overwhelming evidence to suggest that changing what's intrinsically brought a company its success, just doesn't work. DA2 changed an existing IP too much. The response has been mixed at best. Yet some of the mega-companies simply fail to take heed of lessons from the past.

I will be very interested to see, without making any direct comparisons between the merits or deficiencies of either game, the comparisons after a number of months, between the PC sales and total sales of DA2 and The Witcher 2. The latter obviously being exclusively a PC release, with no plans (as yet) to produce a console port.

If The Witcher 2 outstrips not only the PC game sales of DA2, but the combined PC/Console sales, then I think that there's some valuable lessons to be learned.

On a personal note, as predominently a PC gamer, I'm inclined to put my money with the smaller developers, who are prepared to focus on and support that platform. There are many more who are finding their feet in their niche, who are very much worthy of our attention. 

Modifié par heathxxx, 11 mai 2011 - 01:08 .

[Stanley Woo]

Sure, it's all well and good to compare us to other, similar games, but please keep in mind that different developers will have made their games from different starting points and they will have necessarily different priorities. If Dragon Age II had had photorealistic graphics as one of its goals from the beginning, well, then you can betcha that we would have done our level best to achieve that goal. But photorealistic graphics--or, indeed, any particular style of graphics--are not an objective measure of game quality.

I find that it's just as misguided as measuring people's intelligence by the longest paper they've ever submitted to a teacher or deciding an applicant's value as a potential employee by how much he's spent on his interview suit..

Using photorealistic graphics and a subjective mark of quality (ie. a preference for such graphics) is perfectly understandable, but not every game uses (or requires) such fidelity in their visual imagery. Many people in this forum have touted Baldur's Gate to be one of, if not the best RPG they've played, and yet that game was not even in 3D, and the technology of a decade ago was somewhat primitive and expensive compared to today. Yet folks continue to use it as a benchmark of RPG quality.

Yes, there is likely a lot that BioWare could learn about other developers and how they make games, but it is just as valid to say that other developers have things they could learn from us. It just may not be the same things you are thinking of.

[Chromie]

Alistairlover94 wrote...

Ringo12 wrote...

Witcher 2 cost 8 million dollar to make by the way.

Really?! In comparison to THAT, DA2 looks like a much, much smaller figure. How much did DA2 cost to make, BTW?

Google translate

another article. Pretty great really  I know it says playstation 2...should say Witcher 2 it's only google translate!

Modifié par Ringo12, 11 mai 2011 - 01:00 .

[Zanallen]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

@Zanallen

There is no acceptable reason why they cannot try their absolute best to incorporate features such as the ones I mentioned, because noone said they had to do it all at once. If in each title they did just one or two things with the engine improving it, each time updating their game engine then in a few titles time everything will be on par and the budget would not have increased much more so than it did for the complete overhaul they did with DA2 engine.

Except that other games are going to continue to advance. I agree that Bioware can continue to improve their engine, however; I doubt their games will ever look as good as the majority on the market.

[Chromie]

Zanallen wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

@Zanallen

There is no acceptable reason why they cannot try their absolute best to incorporate features such as the ones I mentioned, because noone said they had to do it all at once. If in each title they did just one or two things with the engine improving it, each time updating their game engine then in a few titles time everything will be on par and the budget would not have increased much more so than it did for the complete overhaul they did with DA2 engine.

Except that other games are going to continue to advance. I agree that Bioware can continue to improve their engine, however; I doubt their games will ever look as good as the majority on the market.

They licensed the Unreal Engine for Mass Effect they should try and license the Red Engine if CDPRojekt is willing.

[Realmzmaster]

Alistairlover94 wrote...

Ringo12 wrote...

Witcher 2 cost 8 million dollar to make by the way.

Really?! In comparison to THAT, DA2 looks like a much, much smaller figure. How much did DA2 cost to make, BTW?

Where did those numbers come from. My sources state that Witcher 1 cost 6250K euros to make or about 9 million US dollars. I know the budget for Witcher 2 was 8 million, but I do not know if they stayed under budget or went over it.

 http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=127061 

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 11 mai 2011 - 01:09 .

[Chromie]

Realmzmaster wrote...

Alistairlover94 wrote...

Ringo12 wrote...

Witcher 2 cost 8 million dollar to make by the way.

Really?! In comparison to THAT, DA2 looks like a much, much smaller figure. How much did DA2 cost to make, BTW?

Where did those numbers come from. My sources state that Witcher 1 cost 6250K euros to make or about 9 million US dollars. I know the budget for Witcher 2 was 8 million, but I do not know if they stayed under budget or went over it.

 http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=127061 

Two links above but the articles are from 2010 so no idea if they went over budget but still if CDPR has stayed under budget that pretty amazing considering they made a new enginer and then worked on Witcher 2. Infact teh Red Engine was going to be used for the console version of Witcher.

[Dragoonlordz]

Stanley Woo wrote...

Sure, it's all well and good to compare us to other, similar games, but please keep in mind that different developers will have made their games from different starting points and they will have necessarily different priorities. If Dragon Age II had had photorealistic graphics as one of its goals from the beginning, well, then you can betcha that we would have done our level best to achieve that goal. But photorealistic graphics--or, indeed, any particular style of graphics--are not an objective measure of game quality.

I find that it's just as misguided as measuring people's intelligence by the longest paper they've ever submitted to a teacher or deciding an applicant's value as a potential employee by how much he's spent on his interview suit..

Using photorealistic graphics and a subjective mark of quality (ie. a preference for such graphics) is perfectly understandable, but not every game uses (or requires) such fidelity in their visual imagery. Many people in this forum have touted Baldur's Gate to be one of, if not the best RPG they've played, and yet that game was not even in 3D, and the technology of a decade ago was somewhat primitive and expensive compared to today. Yet folks continue to use it as a benchmark of RPG quality.

Yes, there is likely a lot that BioWare could learn about other developers and how they make games, but it is just as valid to say that other developers have things they could learn from us. It just may not be the same things you are thinking of.

As stated on these forums and in interviews, you guys have stated you wanted a more cinematic experience. Surely that goes hand in hand with visual aspects such as weather system, wind and day/night cycles. All of these things increase the cinematic feel of a game. Ditto with NPC reactions to your presence and actions. I can understand that different developers start at different point with different goals but they should look at each other for things they could do better.

Those things I mentioned would make your titles better especially in a cinematic way imho. Other companies are seeing what it is you have done yourselves and that is why I gave the example of Rockstar, Bethesda, Eidos and Cryptic all implementing and improving, trying to do such things as choices/conseqeunces cause/effect systems because you did so well developing them to create a demand for such things on a bigger scale. 

You can't sit back and not take note of what others are doing just because you scored a point with that system to be honest. Your stories aren't the greatest thing in gaming but the combination of your choices systems that is used to tell the story is what made you special and not the story on its own imho. Now they are trying to create such systems themselves you cannot afford to surely count on just that gameplay mechanic to keep you ahead of the rest. I am of the firm belief it is far more advisable to watch what the others are upto and try to implement the 'best' features and add it onto you own titles which might on top of that have its own special features. Tweaking the engine over time to always improve it add more stunning visuals and realism which immerses the player in that world of which you create. How can anyone seriously argue that such immersion is a bad thing for a game?

I cannot agree to any actual reason why you would purposefully decide against trying to build such immersion in the worlds you have created with such features that have a great affect on the aforementioned immersion. If you truly held BG as the benchmark of RPG quality then why did you move to 3D or continue to evolve the engines and visual quality of your games from back then. The same reason you evolved your games from then is the same reason you should try your best to evolve such features as the ones I have mentioned.

*Edited~ Added additional paragraph*

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 11 mai 2011 - 01:30 .

[Tommy6860]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Stanley Woo wrote...

Sure, it's all well and good to compare us to other, similar games, but please keep in mind that different developers will have made their games from different starting points and they will have necessarily different priorities. If Dragon Age II had had photorealistic graphics as one of its goals from the beginning, well, then you can betcha that we would have done our level best to achieve that goal. But photorealistic graphics--or, indeed, any particular style of graphics--are not an objective measure of game quality.

I find that it's just as misguided as measuring people's intelligence by the longest paper they've ever submitted to a teacher or deciding an applicant's value as a potential employee by how much he's spent on his interview suit..

Using photorealistic graphics and a subjective mark of quality (ie. a preference for such graphics) is perfectly understandable, but not every game uses (or requires) such fidelity in their visual imagery. Many people in this forum have touted Baldur's Gate to be one of, if not the best RPG they've played, and yet that game was not even in 3D, and the technology of a decade ago was somewhat primitive and expensive compared to today. Yet folks continue to use it as a benchmark of RPG quality.

Yes, there is likely a lot that BioWare could learn about other developers and how they make games, but it is just as valid to say that other developers have things they could learn from us. It just may not be the same things you are thinking of.

As stated on these forums and in interviews, you guys have stated you wanted a more cinematic experience. Surely that goes hand in hand with visual aspects such as weather system, wind and day/night cylces. All of these things increase the cinematic feel of a game. Ditto with NPC reactions to your presence and actions. I can understand that different developers start at different point with different goals but they should look at each other for things they could do better.

Those things I mentioned would make your titles better especially in a cinematic way imho. Other companies are seeing what it is you have done yourselves and that is why I gave the example of Rockstar, Bethesda, Eidos and Cryptic all implementing and improving, trying to do such things as choices/conseqeunces cause/effect systems because you did so well developing them to create a demand for such things on a bigger scale. 

You can't sit back and not take note of what others are doing just because you scored a point with that system to be honest. Your stories aren't the greatest thing in gaming but the combination of your choices systems that is used to tell the story is what made you special and not the story on its own imho. Now they are trying to create such systems themselves you cannot afford to surely count on just that gameplay mechanic to keep you ahead of the rest. I am of the firm belief it is far more advisable to watch what the others are upto and try to implement the 'best' features and add it onto you own titles which might on top of that have its own special features. Tweaking the engine over time to always improve it add more stunning visuals and realism which immerses the player in that world of which you create. How can anyone seriously argue that such immersion is a bad thing for a game?

I wouild only argue that bettter visuals only go as far as the story and gameplay offer. I'll give you an example. I was a serious Halo fan, the first game was thrilling and had a great story to it. It re-invented the shooter genre for me and well as added great visuals, rare to be honest. Then Halo2 came along and they expanded the story and it was better, but the ending nearly killed it for me, combat changed a bit, and it wasn't as good, but MP was the best. Then came Halo 3 and that was a total let down, though the graphics were very nice and some of the best physics in a  console game, even by today's standards, I've ever seen. Then Halo: Reach was touted with great story by gaming sites, with very nice visuals. There was no story and the gamplay was the same as always, I felt let down and the series needs reboot, or just can it altogether, these are my opinions though.

Now take DA2, IMO, I think the graphics are better overall, especailly the character models, it is just the stale NPCs standing around and repeated enviroments that made it bad. But what makes what I see not good, is the gameplay and story, the visuals jsut didn't make it better. Now take a BG1 or a PS:T with the story and immersion with the characters, and I can still live with those graphics. Having great visuals only works as well as the rest goes.

[lobi]

What was Crysis about? there were aliens and asians, don't really remember anything else. Don't even know why they were there.

Modifié par lobi, 11 mai 2011 - 01:39 .

[Dragoonlordz]

Tommy6860 wrote...

I wouild only argue that bettter visuals only go as far as the story and gameplay offer. I'll give you an example. I was a serious Halo fan, the first game was thrilling and had a great story to it. It re-invented the shooter genre for me and well as added great visuals, rare to be honest. Then Halo2 came along and they expanded the story and it was better, but the ending nearly killed it for me, combat changed a bit, and it wasn't as good, but MP was the best. Then came Halo 3 and that was a total let down, though the graphics were very nice and some of the best physics in a  console game, even by today's standards, I've ever seen. Then Halo: Reach was touted with great story by gaming sites, with very nice visuals. There was no story and the gamplay was the same as always, I felt let down and the series needs reboot, or just can it altogether, these are my opinions though.

Now take DA2, IMO, I think the graphics are better overall, especailly the character models, it is just the stale NPCs standing around and repeated enviroments that made it bad. But what makes what I see not good, is the gameplay and story, the visuals jsut didn't make it better. Now take a BG1 or a PS:T with the story and immersion with the characters, and I can still live with those graphics. Having great visuals only works as well as the rest goes.

You don't sacrifice story for better visuals and immersion, you add them to each other; go hand in hand and create a far better experience and enjoyment. There is no reason why the two things cannot be together to create a better game, a more immersive and emotional sense of being part of that world and story. You cannot argue from the standpoint of adding the effects I mentioned and other developers are creating will somehow destroy the enjoyment or immersion of the story ~without losing credability.

Just because another developer did a bad job does not mean that the core principles and systems can not work together to create a better game. They are not in any way linked to each other from a sense of detraction, if a developer chooses to lower the quality of one of it's aspects, it is a choice they make seporate from either sound, visual elements within their titles. The argument simply holds no merit that just because another company chose to lower the quality of story it was because of the improved visuals. A bad story is a bad story that is judged on its own.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 11 mai 2011 - 01:48 .

[KilrB]

Stanley Woo wrote...

Sure, it's all well and good to compare us to other, similar games, but please keep in mind that different developers will have made their games from different starting points and they will have necessarily different priorities. If Dragon Age II had had photorealistic graphics as one of its goals from the beginning, well, then you can betcha that we would have done our level best to achieve that goal. But photorealistic graphics--or, indeed, any particular style of graphics--are not an objective measure of game quality.

I find that it's just as misguided as measuring people's intelligence by the longest paper they've ever submitted to a teacher or deciding an applicant's value as a potential employee by how much he's spent on his interview suit..

Using photorealistic graphics and a subjective mark of quality (ie. a preference for such graphics) is perfectly understandable, but not every game uses (or requires) such fidelity in their visual imagery. Many people in this forum have touted Baldur's Gate to be one of, if not the best RPG they've played, and yet that game was not even in 3D, and the technology of a decade ago was somewhat primitive and expensive compared to today. Yet folks continue to use it as a benchmark of RPG quality.

Yes, there is likely a lot that BioWare could learn about other developers and how they make games, but it is just as valid to say that other developers have things they could learn from us. It just may not be the same things you are thinking of.

They have learned Mr. Woo, thay have ... and it now appears that the students shall outstrip the master.

What can they learn from DA2?

More importantly, what will EA/Bioware learn from it?

Modifié par KilrB, 11 mai 2011 - 01:44 .

[Zanallen]

KilrB wrote...

They have learned Mr. Woo, thay have ... and it now appears that the students shall outstrip the master.

What can they learn from DA2?

More importantly, what will EA/Bioware learn from it?

Have the students learned how to make strong companions with group based combat?

[Dragoonlordz]

Zanallen wrote...

KilrB wrote...

They have learned Mr. Woo, thay have ... and it now appears that the students shall outstrip the master.

What can they learn from DA2?

More importantly, what will EA/Bioware learn from it?

Have the students learned how to make strong companions with group based combat?

Final Fantasy has been doing that for years. Star Ocean too even vast amounts of jRPGs have done so. The only thing that actually pushed Bioware ahead of the game in the biggest way was their method of telling the story through choices and conseqences, cause and effects within the plot and the dialogue, not that they had companions and not that those companions had very emotionally bonding backgrounds and plots.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 11 mai 2011 - 01:53 .

[Zanallen]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Zanallen wrote...

KilrB wrote...

They have learned Mr. Woo, thay have ... and it now appears that the students shall outstrip the master.

What can they learn from DA2?

More importantly, what will EA/Bioware learn from it?

Have the students learned how to make strong companions with group based combat?

Final Fantasy has been doing that for years.

Isn't the general consensus on these forums that cRPGs are not jRPGs and should not be compared? And the FF games hardly have strong group based combat.

[Dragoonlordz]

Zanallen wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Zanallen wrote...

KilrB wrote...

They have learned Mr. Woo, thay have ... and it now appears that the students shall outstrip the master.

What can they learn from DA2?

More importantly, what will EA/Bioware learn from it?

Have the students learned how to make strong companions with group based combat?

Final Fantasy has been doing that for years.

Isn't the general consensus on these forums that cRPGs are not jRPGs and should not be compared? And the FF games hardly have strong group based combat.

Subjective. There are many such titles I only listed a few, if you so wish to nit pick for the sake of personal opinion of which is your favorite group combat mechanic thats up to you. But ultimatley pointless; see the first word I used in my reply as to why.  All RPGs should be compared, no exceptions. If any offer a new way or better way of doing things they should be examined and considered.

[lobi]

It is not the story it is how it is told. Many success have a bad story told well, and some failures have a good story poorly executed. There are good Merlins and bad Merlins and somtimes the child that draws the sword has glasses and a scar above the eye. Grand themes are best when made simple, it gives the imagination room to explore them.

Modifié par lobi, 11 mai 2011 - 02:04 .

[Zanallen]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Zanallen wrote...

Isn't the general consensus on these forums that cRPGs are not jRPGs and should not be compared? And the FF games hardly have strong group based combat.

Subjective. There are many such titles I only listed a few, if you so wish to nit pick for the sake of personal opinion of which is your favorite group combat mechanic thats up to you. But ultimatley pointless; see the first word I used in my reply as to why.  All RPGs should be compared, no exceptions. If any offer a new way or better way of doing things they should be examined and considered.

Irregardless, Bioware is one of the very few companies that make cRPGs based around companion interaction and group dynamics in combat. The OP claims that the students have surpassed the master and have learned all that Bioware has to offer. I find that assumption laughable. Of course, I find most of the OP's assertations to be laughable.

[lobi]

The best special effect I ever saw in a movie consisted of a swords hitting armour while the camera shook. It was the acting of the wizard on the hill staff in hand that made it seem like magic. Art is subjective. The most skillfully painted picture while atrractive means little without a relevent context for the viewer.

[Dragoonlordz]

Zanallen wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Zanallen wrote...

Isn't the general consensus on these forums that cRPGs are not jRPGs and should not be compared? And the FF games hardly have strong group based combat.

Subjective. There are many such titles I only listed a few, if you so wish to nit pick for the sake of personal opinion of which is your favorite group combat mechanic thats up to you. But ultimatley pointless; see the first word I used in my reply as to why.  All RPGs should be compared, no exceptions. If any offer a new way or better way of doing things they should be examined and considered.

Irregardless, Bioware is one of the very few companies that make cRPGs based around companion interaction and group dynamics in combat. The OP claims that the students have surpassed the master and have learned all that Bioware has to offer. I find that assumption laughable. Of course, I find most of the OP's assertations to be laughable.

I really have no interest in participating in that particular argument other than you highlighted the companions specifically the group based combat, I merely pointed out other titles which also have good such party combat and yes that is subjective.

But my points here still stand even with taking into account your personal tastes in combat mechanics and such. Other than the choice/consequence/cause/effect system with regard to plot and companions. Bioware really has no more of a trump card than just that. Other games do specific things such as good group party combat and deep emotionally involving background and storyline for the companions in the game with or without the system I just mentioned. The fact other titles are beginning to try to emulate and incorporate such systems is a good thing and Bioware pushed it that way to a large degree with their titles. But as time progresses and the other developers get better at adding such systems Bioware can't afford to sit on it's bum and rely just on that.

Biowares stories rely on that system to tell their stories and that imho is what makes them special, the story alone or combat alone is by far not what makes their games a cut above the rest.

Which is why I point to what I said earlier here~

http://social.biowar...40281/7#7353912

and~

http://social.biowar...40281/7#7354087

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 11 mai 2011 - 02:20 .

[lobi]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Zanallen wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Zanallen wrote...

Isn't the general consensus on these forums that cRPGs are not jRPGs and should not be compared? And the FF games hardly have strong group based combat.

Subjective. There are many such titles I only listed a few, if you so wish to nit pick for the sake of personal opinion of which is your favorite group combat mechanic thats up to you. But ultimatley pointless; see the first word I used in my reply as to why.  All RPGs should be compared, no exceptions. If any offer a new way or better way of doing things they should be examined and considered.

Indeed why fight when there is nothing to fight for.
Irregardless, Bioware is one of the very few companies that make cRPGs based around companion interaction and group dynamics in combat. The OP claims that the students have surpassed the master and have learned all that Bioware has to offer. I find that assumption laughable. Of course, I find most of the OP's assertations to be laughable.

I really have no interest in participating in that particular argument other than you highlighted the companions specifically the group based combat, I merely pointed out other titles which also have good such party combat and yes that is subjective.

But my points here still stand even with taking into account your personal tastes in combat mechanics and such. Other than the choice/consequence/cause/effect system with regard to plot and companions. Bioware really has no more of a trump card than just that. Other games do specific things such as good group party combat and deep emotionally involving background and storyline for the companions in the game with or without the system I just mentioned. The fact other titles are beginning to try to emulate and incorporate such systems is a good thing and Bioware pushed it that way to a large degree with their titles. But as time progresses and the other developers get better at adding such systems Bioware can't afford to sit on it's bum and rely just on that.

Which is why I point to what I said earlier here~

http://social.biowar...40281/7#7353912

and~

http://social.biowar...40281/7#7354087

Indeed why fight when there is nothing to fight for.

Modifié par lobi, 11 mai 2011 - 02:15 .

[KilrB]

Zanallen wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Zanallen wrote...

Isn't the general consensus on these forums that cRPGs are not jRPGs and should not be compared? And the FF games hardly have strong group based combat.

Subjective. There are many such titles I only listed a few, if you so wish to nit pick for the sake of personal opinion of which is your favorite group combat mechanic thats up to you. But ultimatley pointless; see the first word I used in my reply as to why.  All RPGs should be compared, no exceptions. If any offer a new way or better way of doing things they should be examined and considered.

Irregardless, Bioware is one of the very few companies that make cRPGs based around companion interaction and group dynamics in combat. The OP claims that the students have surpassed the master and have learned all that Bioware has to offer. I find that assumption laughable. Of course, I find most of the OP's assertations to be laughable.

Stop putting your words in my mouth.

I clearly said shall, not have.

EA/Bioware's competitors, whether they compete directly in the cRPG genre or indirectly in other genres, WILL surpass them in the very near future if DA2 is an example of what they intend to shovel at us from this point on.

(Edit for spelling and punctuation)

Modifié par KilrB, 11 mai 2011 - 02:18 .

[Tommy6860]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

You don't sacrifice story for better visuals and immersion, you add them to each other; go hand in hand and create a far better experience and enjoyment. There is no reason why the two things cannot be together to create a better game, a more immersive and emotional sense of being part of that world and story. You cannot argue from the standpoint of adding the effects I mentioned and other developers are creating will somehow destroy the enjoyment or immersion of the story ~without losing credability.

I didn't say anything about sacrificing story, quite opposite really.

One can argue over this when afterall, preference at its core is being discussed here and is subjective to the players eyes. I never said that great visuals cannot be added to then not make a better game, that only it isn't necessary by the standards of game I played like those from long ago. I still would take a PS:T with it incredible RPG elements over a DA:O even though DA:O had improved graphics, just because that aspect of RPGs are most important to me.

Just because another developer did a bad job does not mean that the core principles and systems can not work together to create a better game. They are not in any way linked to each other from a sense of detraction, if a developer chooses to lower the quality of one of it's aspects, it is a choice they make seporate from either sound, visual elements within their titles. The argument simply holds no merit that just because another company chose to lower the quality of story it was because of the improved visuals. A bad story is a bad story that is judged on its own.

I just (longwindedly) stated that visuals are not needed for that aspect of being immersive. DA2 had nice visuals, but that didn't nudge me into trying the game a third time as I thought it was not an RPG by my standards and not worth my time because the game was disjointed, I had no control over the story progression and my choices made no difference in the game; better visuals didn't change that.. But yes, if it can be done, then I'd defintiely say that it is a bonus, it just isn't necessary, for me anyway.. Origins had some pretty bad looking enviroments, IMO (especially Redcliffe). The characters looked pretty good though, but the story, character interactions and depth of my PC had on the story made any of that meaningless to me. When I first started playing it, I thought it didn't look all that great, but I was wanting to see how the remaining aspects of the game were in quality, I was blown away after that.

[Zanallen]

KilrB wrote...

Stop putting your words in my mouth.

I clearly said shall, not have.

EA/Bioware's competitors, whether they compete directly in the cRPG genre or indirectly in other genres, WILL surpass them in the very near future if DA2 is an example of what they intend to shovel at us from this point on.

(Edit for spelling and punctuation)

How can they be Bioware's competitors if they make a different genre of games? Also, we all know DA2 was a rushed game and not a shining example of what Bioware is capable of. Honestly, it is pretty easy to understand. Bioware puts a priority on specific aspects of their games. Other aspects are therefore lacking. Could they do everything that everyone wants? Sure, I suppose. However, the cost of the game would be ridiculous and it would be even harder to make a substancial profit. Just look at FFXIII, the graphics and combat were overhauled to an incredible level and so they had to sacrifice other aspects of the game.

[KilrB]

Zanallen wrote...

KilrB wrote...

Stop putting your words in my mouth.

I clearly said shall, not have.

EA/Bioware's competitors, whether they compete directly in the cRPG genre or indirectly in other genres, WILL surpass them in the very near future if DA2 is an example of what they intend to shovel at us from this point on.

(Edit for spelling and punctuation)

How can they be Bioware's competitors if they make a different genre of games? Also, we all know DA2 was a rushed game and not a shining example of what Bioware is capable of. Honestly, it is pretty easy to understand. Bioware puts a priority on specific aspects of their games. Other aspects are therefore lacking. Could they do everything that everyone wants? Sure, I suppose. However, the cost of the game would be ridiculous and it would be even harder to make a substancial profit. Just look at FFXIII, the graphics and combat were overhauled to an incredible level and so they had to sacrifice other aspects of the game.

Do you only play cRPG's?

Do you only play games made by EA/Bioware?

If not, then the company that made the other game is their competitor.

It doesn't matter what genre, if you have to decide which one gets your money they  are competitors.

EDIT:

I believe that one of the fudamental mistakes in trying to broaden the appeal of DA2 was failing to consider how greatly that would increase the competition for the customer's money.

Modifié par KilrB, 11 mai 2011 - 02:36 .