60 réponses à ce sujet

[Tavalero]

I think BW that said lost, better, they are on their way to lose, what
distinguished them. It began with DA2. The game came out too early. EA
wanted to see money and put BW under pressure. Now, it goes on with ME3.
ME3 was made only friendly newcomer, because EA wants to see money.
Probably, EA has exerted pressure again on BW. And that is the problem,
BW has more or less voluntarily, EA greed infected by ´s, can. It is to
win them important new customers, satisfy as the fans of the first hour.

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Curiosity, and what is it exactly that distinguished Bioware from the crowd?

[Tavalero]

Mr Mxyzptlk wrote...

Curiosity, and what is it exactly that distinguished Bioware from the crowd?

BioWare has succeeded, so far, always very good to tell their games and has become heart taken the wishes of the fans. But now they drift off more and more into the mainstream. BioWare has, like EA have long, more and more the dollar sign in the eyes. You make their games more mainstream friendly; substance profit. That, I think, the games from BioWare which crowd out rise did, comes more and more into the background.

Modifié par Tavalero, 12 janvier 2012 - 04:14 .

[DreamwareStudio]

Tavalero wrote...

I think BW that said lost, better, they are on their way to lose, what
distinguished them. It began with DA2. The game came out too early. EA
wanted to see money and put BW under pressure. Now, it goes on with ME3.
ME3 was made only friendly newcomer, because EA wants to see money.
Probably, EA has exerted pressure again on BW. And that is the problem,
BW has more or less voluntarily, EA greed infected by ´s, can. It is to
win them important new customers, satisfy as the fans of the first hour.

EA did not exert pressure on Bioware.  You cannot exert pressure on something that no longer exists, especially when what is and what was is now the same entity.  The Bioware of old is no more.  The name "Bioware" is simply a tag for the RPG/MMO developmental division of EA.  A better question would be:

"How can EA maintain and continue with the Bioware legacy?"

[SOLID_EVEREST]

google_calasade wrote...

Tavalero wrote...

I think BW that said lost, better, they are on their way to lose, what
distinguished them. It began with DA2. The game came out too early. EA
wanted to see money and put BW under pressure. Now, it goes on with ME3.
ME3 was made only friendly newcomer, because EA wants to see money.
Probably, EA has exerted pressure again on BW. And that is the problem,
BW has more or less voluntarily, EA greed infected by ´s, can. It is to
win them important new customers, satisfy as the fans of the first hour.

EA did not exert pressure on Bioware.  You cannot exert pressure on something that no longer exists, especially when what is and what was is now the same entity.  The Bioware of old is no more.  The name "Bioware" is simply a tag for the RPG/MMO developmental division of EA.  A better question would be:

"How can EA maintain and continue with the Bioware legacy?"

I'd say that can be answered simply by not making Dragon Age: Origins into Mass Effect or whatever they made it into. Look for other developers, though. I kind of like that developers like Capcom are starting to make RPGs, even if they are ARPGs.

If the developer for the Witcher can get away from that awful combat system, they could probably be another developer to look forward to. In the end, though, there is always Obsidian; they haven't let me down. Anyways, BioWare is totally owned by EA; I doubt anything will change that unless you have the funds to buy BioWare .

[Tavalero]

google_calasade wrote...

"How can EA maintain and continue with the Bioware legacy?"

Good question.

Modifié par Tavalero, 12 janvier 2012 - 04:45 .

[Tavalero]

SOLID_EVEREST wrote...

google_calasade wrote...

Tavalero wrote...

I think BW that said lost, better, they are on their way to lose, what
distinguished them. It began with DA2. The game came out too early. EA
wanted to see money and put BW under pressure. Now, it goes on with ME3.
ME3 was made only friendly newcomer, because EA wants to see money.
Probably, EA has exerted pressure again on BW. And that is the problem,
BW has more or less voluntarily, EA greed infected by ´s, can. It is to
win them important new customers, satisfy as the fans of the first hour.

EA did not exert pressure on Bioware.  You cannot exert pressure on something that no longer exists, especially when what is and what was is now the same entity.  The Bioware of old is no more.  The name "Bioware" is simply a tag for the RPG/MMO developmental division of EA.  A better question would be:

"How can EA maintain and continue with the Bioware legacy?"

I'd say that can be answered simply by not making Dragon Age: Origins into Mass Effect or whatever they made it into. Look for other developers, though. I kind of like that developers like Capcom are starting to make RPGs, even if they are ARPGs.

If the developer for the Witcher can get away from that awful combat system, they could probably be another developer to look forward to. In the end, though, there is always Obsidian; they haven't let me down. Anyways, BioWare is totally owned by EA; I doubt anything will change that unless you have the funds to buy BioWare .

Do you believe in Santa Claus? Be please not evil, but that what EA have in their claws, they do not let go.

[Seagloom]

BioWare did not lose what distinguishes them. What distinguishes them is changing. That is all. You may not appreciate those characteristics, but they remain sufficiently distinctive to identify a given title as part of BioWare's catalogue.

Modifié par Seagloom, 12 janvier 2012 - 05:35 .

[AlanC9]

Mr Mxyzptlk wrote...

Curiosity, and what is it exactly that distinguished Bioware from the crowd?

Exactly right. Whenever these threads come up we find that  -- surprise! --different people think that Bio is dintinguished by different things.

Without knowing what the OPs problems are with ME3 it's hard to discuss the issue.

So, Tavalero, what's wrong with ME3?

[AlanC9]

Seagloom wrote...

BioWare did not lose what distinguishes them. What distinguishes them is changing. That is all. You may not appreciate those characteristics, but they remain sufficiently distinctive to identify a given title as part of BioWare's catalogue.

I'm not even convinced that's true. Bio always wanted to be an A-list developer making story-based RPGs. It's true that certain traditional CRPG mechanics are no longer important to them, but that isn't a big change because that wasn't the distinguishing feature of Bioware in the first place.

That's only my opinion, of course.

[Seagloom]

I'm not referring to CRPG mechanics; although certainly some would consider that a factor. I meant BioWare's method of delivery. Dialogue wheel, fully voiced characters, character creation, choices and consequences, romances, and so on. That is what most players expect to see in a BioWare game today. It is true much of that already existed in a less pronounced state. From that point of view, what distinguishes them has not changed a great deal.

However, with evolution of these characteristics there is a resultant change in perception which I do feel alters what distinguishes BioWare's games on a superficial level. When I think of what distinguishes a company's games, or a series of games, I zero in on the superficial--not the minutia. Superficially, I think BioWare's style has changed; and continues to change.

Modifié par Seagloom, 12 janvier 2012 - 05:54 .

[Seagloom]

What identifies a game. When you walk into a room or a store and see a game in play, you identify it by making a conclusion based on a few simple criteria. Sometimes you lack the information to know the answer or make an uneducated guess. Other times it is trivial because of the use of popular character or familiar gameplay cues.

Anyone can identify a Sonic or Mario game at a glance, for example.

With BioWare's games, there is rarely so obvious a clue. So instead you look to gameplay and presentation. It's a superficial reading of obvious criteria. Of course you decide only mechanics are valuable to determine distinguishable characteristics, and that is well and good. But for the purposes of merely telling the difference between one game and another, I do not feel that is always necessary.

I suppose it's like AlanC9 and Mr Mxyzptlk suggested: everyone's definitions differ, so this discussion will probably end up being talking past each other for lack of a common starting point.

[AlanC9]

Seagloom wrote...

I'm not referring to CRPG mechanics; although certainly some would consider that a factor. I meant BioWare's method of delivery. Dialogue wheel, fully voiced characters, character creation, choices and consequences, romances, and so on. That is what most players expect to see in a BioWare game today. It is true much of that already existed in a less pronounced state. From that point of view, what distinguishes them has not changed a great deal.

However, with evolution of these characteristics there is a resultant change in perception which I do feel alters what distinguishes BioWare's games on a superficial level. When I think of what distinguishes a company's games, or a series of games, I zero in on the superficial--not the minutia. Superficially, I think BioWare's style has changed; and continues to change.

Hmmm..... yeah, I can see that. 

But it seems kind of funny to actually worry about superficial changes, unless it's a proxy for worrying about Bio attracting the wrong kind of fans.

[UrkOfGreyhawk]

google_calasade wrote...

EA did not exert pressure on Bioware.  You cannot exert pressure on something that no longer exists, especially when what is and what was is now the same entity.  The Bioware of old is no more.  The name "Bioware" is simply a tag for the RPG/MMO developmental division of EA.  A better question would be:

"How can EA maintain and continue with the Bioware legacy?"

I agree completely. This just isn't Bioware any more.

MMO's? 

Console games with crappy PC ports? 

Copy paste maps?

Dumbed-down dialog options?

CRAPPY CUSTOMER SERVICE?

That's not Bioware. That's EA.

OT: Love the sig, Ivandra.

Modifié par UrkOfGreyhawk, 12 janvier 2012 - 06:18 .

[Moondoggie]

And what are the "wrong kind of fans"? I really hate words like "true fan" and things like that when people play games of superior fan. As long as people are enjoying Bioware games they are a fan you can't just put fans in different boxes for what type of fan they are.

[Seagloom]

AlanC9 wrote...

But it seems kind of funny to actually worry about superficial changes, unless it's a proxy for worrying about Bio attracting the wrong kind of fans.

It probably is. Given the OP's uninformative elaboration of his opinions, I decided to take his question literally.

[AlanC9]

UrkOfGreyhawk wrote...

Console games with crappy PC ports? 

Like KotOR?

Copy paste maps?

Like ME1, which was designed before the acquisition?

[Il Divo]

AlanC9 wrote...

UrkOfGreyhawk wrote...

Console games with crappy PC ports? 

Like KotOR?

Copy paste maps?

Like ME1, which was designed before the acquisition?

Pretty much. Really, there's been very little consistent about Bioware RPGs, aside from a dedication to interactive narrative, which has been a huge emphasis since KotOR. But with almost every game, Bioware has broken from expectation in some capacity. Neverwinter Nights? Good-bye party system. KotOR? Good-bye Vancian Casting and Forgotten Realms. Jade Empire? Good-bye any kind of dedicated stat system and hello completely new setting. So on and so forth. Since Baldur's Gate, Bioware has never really been worried about consistency, unless you count DA:O's role as a spiritual successor.

Modifié par Il Divo, 12 janvier 2012 - 08:06 .

[Volus Warlord]

Il Divo wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

UrkOfGreyhawk wrote...

Console games with crappy PC ports? 

Like KotOR?

Copy paste maps?

Like ME1, which was designed before the acquisition?

Pretty much. Really, there's been very little consistent about Bioware RPGs, *snip*

Yes! I get to use this again!

Modifié par Volus Warlord, 12 janvier 2012 - 08:36 .

[UrkOfGreyhawk]

AlanC9 wrote...

UrkOfGreyhawk wrote...

Console games with crappy PC ports? 

Like KotOR?

KotOR began planning in 1999 and development in early 2000. There was no such thing as an X-Box when KotOR development began. Even though the X-Box version was released first KotOR was a PC game ported to  Console, not vice versa.

AlanC9 wrote...

UrkOfGreyhawk wrote...

Copy paste maps?

Like ME1, which was designed before the acquisition?

Now you're just being disengenuous. In an industrialized spacefairring society large modular constructs make perfectly acceptable set pieces. The same cannot be said for contructs (and natural formations) in a setting like DA2.

[AlanC9]

UrkOfGreyhawk wrote...
KotOR began planning in 1999 and development in early 2000. There was no such thing as an X-Box when KotOR development began. Even though the X-Box version was released first KotOR was a PC game ported to  Console, not vice versa.

With that interface? Besides, the devs have actually said that the PC version was the port. When XBoxes came along the game wasn't anywhere near completion, of course, so XBox became the primary development platform. I'm not all that certain that early development is all that different between the platforms anyway; an XBox is just a crippled PC with a specific graphics setup.

The bottom line is that Bio never did have a good PC interface for KotOR. If they had, the would have used it.

Now you're just being disengenuous. In an industrialized spacefairring society large modular constructs make perfectly acceptable set pieces. The same cannot be said for contructs (and natural formations) in a setting like DA2.

You're defending those ME1 bases as realistic? Seriously?

If you want to say DA2 was worse, sure. But that doesn't make ME1 good.

Modifié par AlanC9, 12 janvier 2012 - 08:44 .

[Il Divo]

UrkOfGreyhawk wrote...

Now you're just being disengenuous. In an industrialized spacefairring society large modular constructs make perfectly acceptable set pieces. The same cannot be said for contructs (and natural formations) in a setting like DA2.

Speak for yourself. They were perfectly crappy set-pieces.  

[Il Divo]

Volus Warlord wrote...


Yes! I get to use this again!

Admittedly the Bioware cliche` chart's always fun to bring out, but I was speaking specifically with gameplay styles in mind. Bioware games do have remarkably similar narrative structures (which I have taken issue with), but each game has also deviated in some capacity from its predecessors gameplay mechanics and setting. Hell, you'll find this even with their sequels (DA2 and ME2) with some taking it for the better or worse.

Modifié par Il Divo, 12 janvier 2012 - 09:37 .