121 réponses à ce sujet

[Morroian]

sympathyforsaren wrote...

Bethesda Game Studios, on the other hand, is going in a different direction, imo. Look at Skyrim, and look at DAII. What game has more passion behind it? What game has more love and attention? What game is more innovative?

I think you're being really unfair on the DA developers here. The game was undoubtedly rushed, that doesn't mean the developers weren't passionate about what they were doing.

[Ryllen Laerth Kriel]

Well, also you wonder how far the legal issues go in the development of DA 2 and what the contract stated when Bioware joined EA. Bioware did sign the contract, they did know what EA expected and they did turn out DA 2 as a finished project and sequel to DA:O. So where does the blame lie? Uh...I think it's a pile and it's very hard to place blame on why it turned out that way. Luckily Bioware has enough diehard fans that enjoyed DA 2.

Bioware has alot of talent in the company, but it felt very badly applied in DA 2. When I rush a painting I can sympathize because you need time to make something you are proud of and feel truely represents your vision/ability, whether as a person or a company. DA 2 was very rushed on top of several bad design decisions, in my opinion.

[Il Divo]

sympathyforsaren wrote...

And, as I asserted, you cannot be solely focused on singleplayer with multiplayer. How much bigger could Rome have been?

However, I have more of a problem with the other factors I expressed that weren't multiplayer.

How much bigger did Rome need to be? Size certainly wasn't the problem. Brotherhood's only immediate issue I can discern was the rather bland/boring storyline. And even there, how much was that an issue of money? 

Modifié par Il Divo, 28 octobre 2011 - 04:59 .

[Elhanan]

I cannot go into details, but I have been in a couple of beta weekends with SWTOR, and enjoyed myself enough to make this my first MMO. Story was enticing enough that I switched alliances!

[Rockworm503]

Il Divo wrote...

sympathyforsaren wrote...

And, as I asserted, you cannot be solely focused on singleplayer with multiplayer. How much bigger could Rome have been?

However, I have more of a problem with the other factors I expressed that weren't multiplayer.

How much bigger did Rome need to be? Size certainly wasn't the problem. Brotherhood's only immediate issue I can discern was the rather bland/boring storyline. And even there, how much was that an issue of money? 

My money is that without Multiplayer Rome would be no different.  Everyone knows Ubisoft have more than one studio and one work on the Singleplayer while another did the multiplayer.  Honestly Sympathy get your fingers out of your ears and being ignorant.  It has been proven time and time again that you can in fact focus on singleplayer with multiplayer.
You might as well stop gaming in general because 99% of games will have some multiplayer aspect.
Look at Demons / Dark Souls You interact with other people's game without actually playing with them (I don't know about Dark but in Demon's you could actually summon another player to help you)
I don't hear anyone complain about that.. In fact it was considered great.

[lobi]

ReallyRue wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

Heather Cline wrote...

Never found that. Returned my copy of Oblivion like 3 days after I got it. Couldn't get into it, got completely lost so returned it for a game I enjoyed.

Getting lost is the best way to play a Bethesda game.

Definitely. So many times I'd just wander into the wilderness to see what was there.

I like overhearing an random NPC conversation or stumbling across an abandoned building that leads to 'teh best quest evah'.

[sympathyforsaren]

Rockworm503 wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

sympathyforsaren wrote...

And, as I asserted, you cannot be solely focused on singleplayer with multiplayer. How much bigger could Rome have been?

However, I have more of a problem with the other factors I expressed that weren't multiplayer.

How much bigger did Rome need to be? Size certainly wasn't the problem. Brotherhood's only immediate issue I can discern was the rather bland/boring storyline. And even there, how much was that an issue of money? 

My money is that without Multiplayer Rome would be no different.  Everyone knows Ubisoft have more than one studio and one work on the Singleplayer while another did the multiplayer.  Honestly Sympathy get your fingers out of your ears and being ignorant.  It has been proven time and time again that you can in fact focus on singleplayer with multiplayer.
You might as well stop gaming in general because 99% of games will have some multiplayer aspect.
Look at Demons / Dark Souls You interact with other people's game without actually playing with them (I don't know about Dark but in Demon's you could actually summon another player to help you)
I don't hear anyone complain about that.. In fact it was considered great.

C'mon Rockworm, why get mean? I like you, you're intelligent and have good and interesting perspectives. Multiplayer wasn't even my main issue with my original post I had, and I'm a huge Assassin's Creed fan and got Brotherhood at midnight launch, receiving 60 super fun hours of gameplay from it. It was stellar, and I think Revelations will be even better.

As far as MP goes for AC and Dark Souls, I think your points are valid overall. But I think its the exception and not the rule. I also don't have as big of a problem with IP's like Demon Souls / Dark Souls that originate with integrated MP. Ubisoft simply had a big enough budget to get it in without a hitch.

BTW, Rockworm..................I played Dark Souls for the first time on a friend's PC. It's really, really good. I'm going to purchase it down the road and enjoy the hell out of it because its not a cakewalk for me and is very high in quality and is fun.

[Chromie]

sympathyforsaren wrote...
BTW, Rockworm..................I played Dark Souls for the first time on a friend's PC. It's really, really good. I'm going to purchase it down the road and enjoy the hell out of it because its not a cakewalk for me and is very high in quality and is fun.

Oh man Dark Souls isn't on consoles only now?  /sarcasm

Elhanan wrote...

I cannot go into details, but I have been in a couple of beta weekends with SWTOR, and enjoyed myself enough to make this my first MMO. Story was enticing enough that I switched alliances!

From which alliance? Republic is nice and all but who doesn't wanna be a Bounty Hunter?

Modifié par Ringo12, 28 octobre 2011 - 05:54 .

[TAJ4Life]

Stanley Woo wrote...

Many BioWarians around here are eagerly awaiting Skyrim as well, partly because the Elder Scrolls are so different from the games we make here. Seeing how other developers do things helps us to make games better, gives us new ideas on what may or may not work within the context of a BioWare game, and allows us to stay abreast of new technologies and development philosophies. Other companies making successful games is not a "fail" for BioWare; it is a "win" for the industry and for all gamers.

What I am saying is other developers should take heed in what developments in advancement others are doing, looking at ME2 and 3 they dont look any different also empty environemnts boring atmosphere nothing dynamic just plain.

Gameplay is key however Bioware HAS lost their touch looking at your games in the past to what they are now wheres the diversety?

Also with all these people crying that we need new consoles when we dont again looking at what Bethesda are able to pull off why should we have to pay full price for a game that is made poorly and with less effort?

[JeffZero]

BioWare still touches me excellently.

[Mercuron]

Diversity is hardly a virtue Bethesda possesses in spades either. Oblivion wasn't much more than Daggerfall 3.0 with a new coat of paint.

That was kind of why I liked DA2. In spite of getting a great game out of DAO, Bio dared to retool a lot of things for the sequel, instead of resting on their laurels and rehashing the same concept - something that Bethesada and especially Rockstar are wont to do. Regardless of whether that results in a great game or not, I like it when developers take risks, rather than stick to established gameplay, especially in a risk-adverse environment. That's what moves the industry forward creatively - whereas making largely the same game over and over just ensures that you'll make money. And honestly, if your only goal is to make money, there are better jobs to work at, I'm sure.

/idealism

[Elhanan]

Ringo12 wrote...

From which alliance? Republic is nice and all but who doesn't wanna be a Bounty Hunter?

Let me correct that a little; currently planning on having my main as Imperial, and my alt as Republic.

And BH is still on my list, but will have to take third place or lower.

[Pinstripe666]

I still do enjoy BioWare products a lot, but I'd also like them to see spreading out a bit in the future.

Maybe start making an open world RPG, a'la Fallout NV. Or a FPS-RPG hybrid a'la System Shock 2.

[Morroian]

TAJ4Life wrote...

Gameplay is key however Bioware HAS lost their touch looking at your games in the past to what they are now wheres the diversety?

Honestly I don't see a lot of diversity across Bioware's portfolio except for the work for hire stuff. As for gameplay Bioware still offers extremely fluid games that grip me from the start. If I say compare DA2 to some other recent fantasy rpgs I've played like Two Worlds 2 or Divinity 2 there's no comparison in those terms. The DA2 gameplay is far more fluid and easy to control and the story of it was more compelling from the start. And yes I still like those other 2 games. 

The recent rpg that does beat DA2 and DAO for me is Fallout New Vegas.

[Aaleel]

I think Bioware has pretty much kept the same touch personally. 

They've always lived on saying we're going to deliver a strong story and memorable characters.  They just picked a bad time to rush out an unpolished game, that is the long and short of it.  You have some big name RPGs that came/are coming out this year that developers DID take their time on. 

But still I hope that Bioware doesn't try to make games just like the others because Elder Scrolls should be Elder Scrolls, the Witcher should be the Witcher and Dragon Age should be Dragon Age.  I like diversity.

I liked ME1 better than ME2, but ME2 was not a bad game, it just felt like a filler/bridge game to me.

But I will say this.  Bioware needs to step up the level design big time.  I do think they went backwards in this department from ME1 to ME2 and DA:O to DA2.  

[Addai]

Mercuron wrote...

Diversity is hardly a virtue Bethesda possesses in spades either. Oblivion wasn't much more than Daggerfall 3.0 with a new coat of paint.

That was kind of why I liked DA2. In spite of getting a great game out of DAO, Bio dared to retool a lot of things for the sequel, instead of resting on their laurels and rehashing the same concept - something that Bethesada and especially Rockstar are wont to do. Regardless of whether that results in a great game or not, I like it when developers take risks, rather than stick to established gameplay, especially in a risk-adverse environment. That's what moves the industry forward creatively - whereas making largely the same game over and over just ensures that you'll make money. And honestly, if your only goal is to make money, there are better jobs to work at, I'm sure.

/idealism

This is a dead horse, but I don't see that DA2 innovated anything.

[HoonDing]

DA2 pushed the genre forward by pushing it backward.

[DRUNK_CANADIAN]

Stanley Woo wrote...

I'm sorry you're not enjoying what you've seen of our current products, TAJ4Life, but I disagree that just because one developer makes games a certain way that all developers should make games that way. It's the differences in design philosophies, processes, and attitudes that give us the wide variety of games we enjoy today.

Yes but when you butcher the philosophies that made your games formerly represented by trying to appeal to the mainstream basis (a market already saturated, and dominated by big title games like Call of Duty, Final Fantasy, Battlefield etc.) you lose what makes your games unique and you alienate your consumer base. Then you adhere to EA's outlandish schemes to force Origin on consumers as they attempt to take a chunk out of the digital distributor pie. I still don't understand how Bioware would benefit from such a move or change in game design philosophy, it is what made Bioware a recognized developer among gamers.

[RamirezWolfen]

JeffZero wrote...

BioWare still touches me excellently.

There is something about this statement that makes me uncomfortable....

[Mercuron]

Addai67 wrote...

This is a dead horse, but I don't see that DA2 innovated anything.

I see them mostly with the conversational style tones, and the friendship/rivalry dynamic, but you're right.

It's a dead horse - so I will just say I respect your point of view to the contrary.