191 réponses à ce sujet

[Leem_0001]

Guess time will tell. I am currently playing through DA:O (never picked it up at its release) and loving it. Will go nowhere near DA2 though.

I would love to know the truth behind the ME3 endings though - whose idea it was, if EA played a part etc. Sadly I don't think we will ever know.

[Koyutsuji]

 Some videos i agree with:

 - Why the ending of ME3 does not make sense and why we "don't like it"

  - Why indoctrination theory is a way out but not a perfect way out.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNbUZXubWO0  - "Mass Effect 3 The lies they told"

[ducentar]

Doubtful. As others have pointed out though time will tell. I personally however will be more leery and not buy something just because it has a Bioware badge on it.

Now if Bioware uses this opportunity to tell EA to back up and give us ten feet to let us do what we do best, it might be the best thing overall that can happen out of this situation.

[varcety]

otis0310 wrote...

Rickin10 wrote...

I've said it before, Bioware will be gone in 2 years tops, like all the other great devs EA has harvested.

Bullfrog and Origin, both top game companies of there time, both visionaries, and both some of the founders of the industry, shared this fate.

I think the reaper harvesting cycle is a metaphor to EA.
All this time, Bioware was trying to send us a message...

Modifié par varcety, 07 avril 2012 - 11:26 .

[Hussain_2012]

I hate to see BW loss because their titles ; DA & ME; were the best and I liked them very much. But ME3 ending is not really an ending because it left many questions un answered and has planty of plot holes.

[Zolt51]

I don't know about DA2 but information on ME3 has made it abundantly clear that EA had nothing at all to do with the ending of ME3. If anything, taking such a risk with this ending goes against EA's policy.

Anyway, I don't see how speculating on the company's financial future has anything to do with story or campaign.

[wryterra]

otis0310 wrote...

Dragon Age 2, and Mass Effect 3, a double dealing of death from their EA overlords.  Could this be the end for Bioware?

There was also a complete lack of memorable characters, no one can compare a companion in DA2 to either Alistair or Morrigan successfully.

Nope, sorry, can't agree with you here AT ALL. 

I've played both games and excuse me, who? Alistair? Was he that boring, bimbling guy who was the comic relief? I can't really remember any of his dialogue because it was all so uninteresting. Mind you that's true of most of the DA:O characters. Especially Morrigan who was an archetypal crazy witch lady with no complexity.

Varric, on the other hand, is a character I engaged with. His back story with his brother, his tall-tales, his non-dwarfishness and how that impacts his relations with other people by being so unlike others. 

Aveline, who is far from my favourite character, still felt more whole and real than any character in Dragon Age: Origins. 

Shale was oustandingly deep in her characterisation once you really scratch the surface of her back story.

I didn't care about a single character in Dragon Age: Origins, I didn't care that it took them 50 hours to tell the story 'bad things came and you beat them' with no real plot happening all that time. Dragon Age 2 told a story, with a beginning, middle and end that spanned decades and managed to keep it engaging the whole time.

DA:O was a mediocre, trope-ridden fantasy game with flat trope-ridden characters. DA2 was enjoyable and compelling with characters developing and changing over a years'-long story arc.

No comparisan, DA2 was by far the superior story-telling.

[finalcabbage]

Good gravy people! Mass Effect 3 is still an awesome game despite problems with the ending. Part of the reason it is so awesome is some of the elements taken directly from Dragon Age 2. Specifically squad interaction making the characters feel less like they only exist to talk to Shepard. Bioware is still an awesome company and even their worst is still better than most other companies at their best.

[Smiley556]

Part of the ending of Bioware? yes.
The beginning of the end for Bioware? No, the beginning of the end was EA.

[MaximizedAction]

Not an end for Bioware.
An end for their current fanbase.
With EA's help (see Command and Conquer Generals 2) they'll just transition to a new target group of fans.

Modifié par MaximizedAction, 07 avril 2012 - 12:01 .

[Sparse]

wryterra wrote...
Dragon Age 2 told a story, with a beginning, middle and end that spanned decades.

Only because they told you it spanned ten years. In-game it didn't span decades because most of those decades were 'as time passed'. You had 3 acts which followed directly on from one another in a slightly forced way.

I agree that DA2 was OK storywise, but the whole 'spanned a decade' was just marketing nonsense.

[wryterra]

Sparse wrote...

wryterra wrote...
Dragon Age 2 told a story, with a beginning, middle and end that spanned decades.

Only because they told you it spanned ten years. In-game it didn't span decades because most of those decades were 'as time passed'. You had 3 acts which followed directly on from one another in a slightly forced way.

I agree that DA2 was OK storywise, but the whole 'spanned a decade' was just marketing nonsense.

You know I'd rather they did it this way than made a game that made me live out decades in real time. Most of history is boring. Yes, give me only the good bits. 

What a preposterous complaint. 

We saw how things had changed, how people had changed, how Kirkwall had changed, so yes the story spanned a decade. 

And don't 'agree' with me that DA2 was 'alright' because then you're putting words in my mouth. 

If you want to agree with me then you're agreeing that DA2's story was leagues ahead of DA:O's story. That's my position for you to agree with or disagree with.

Modifié par wryterra, 07 avril 2012 - 12:06 .

[Claym0re]

Lots of speculation!

[alienatedflea]

otis0310 wrote...

Dragon Age 2, and Mass Effect 3, a double dealing of death from their EA overlords.  Could this be the end for Bioware?

As we all know DA2 was heavily modified per EAs instructions.  First it was "dumbed down to appeal to a broader fanbas"  then it was pushed out the door for an "Easy Paycheck" (both quotes are from me, they are just quoted to add emphasis).  The combat was nothing more than button mashing, lacking any of the strategic combat of its predecssor.  The plot was nonsensical, each chapter played as a seperate story, only at the end did the underlying plot finally emerge and then it pushed to a hasty conclusion.  There was also a complete lack of memorable characters, no one can compare a companion in DA2 to either Alistair or Morrigan successfully.  Finally there is the lack of any real choice at all in the story, combined with an absurd rehashing of the same maps.  DA2 is a very poor game, the rapidly diminishing sales told us this, regardless of the review scores.

Now we have ME3.  The game that has gamers livid about two things, Talis face, and the horrible ending which is so bad it makes us forget about Tali's face.  The hate for this ending has spread like wildfire and must be effecting sales of the game tremoundously.  (Although they probably already made a fortune on pre orders already).  Once again we are forced to ask ourselves "Did EA play a part"  the most obvious answer is yes, they wanted an open ending that would allow for sequels and expansions, ruining Biowares intended ending.  The starcchild idea does not seem to come from the team that made ME1 or ME2, which were both good games plotwise. (Although ME2 was marred by the loyalty missions, the general plot made sense).  So it could have been forced on them by EA.

Although we can not know for sure that DA2 was wrecked by EA, I am certain everyone is convinced this was the case regardless of the fact we don't have a "signed confession".  Again we do not know for certain that EA is behind the ending of ME3, but the ending does not seem to fit what we expect from a Bioware game, which makes us think that maybe they were behind it.  AND LET US NOT FORGET THAT EA WON THE "GOLDEN POO" AWARD FOR WORST COMPANY IN AMERICA.
Congratulations EA.
Which of course supports the theory that it was EA meddling behind it.

Now we have the Extended DLC for ME3 coming out.  The indoctrination theory is the only "out" they had.  IF the indoctrination theory is proven false, and the press release seems to confirm it is, then we are left with the sad alternative.  Neeldes to say, this will only exasperate the problem, regardless of what explanation they give, it will still be bad. As many here have said "if you polish a terd, it is still a terd".

In this case, if our theory about EA interference is true.  Then A: They have successfully destroyed the Dragon Age franchise, and B: They have now succefully destroyed the Mass Effect franchise.  The two biggest franchises Bioware has.  (For those who are interested in history their interference ruined the long running, award winning Ultima franchise by Origin, which was in a lot of ways, Bioware's spiritual precessor when it comes to large, epic RPGs.  This ultimately led to that company's closure.)

This basically leaves SWTOR as Bioware's only succesful game.  Most of that game was undoubtedly dictated by EA.

The main question is, with a double whammy like this, will Bioware be able to regain its artistic integrity, and by extension, its loyal fanbase. Or has EAs interference ruined Bioware's artistic integrity to the point that we, the fans, are no longer willing to buy their products.  In short, is this the end of Bioware?

Now what does this have to do with the story or campaign of Mass Effect 3? STOP CLITTERING THESE FORUMS WITH THIS CRAP!!! Thanks, have a good day!

[Smiley556]

MaximizedAction wrote...

Not an end for Bioware.
An end for their current fanbase.
With EA's help (see Command and Conquer Generals 2) they'll just transition to a new target group of fans.

ie. EA will cut out Bioware and just give the IP to Dice to continue on? Comparing Bioware/ME to Westwood/C&C just makes me more depressed...

[revo76]

I dont think the endings are EA's fault. No matter how bad they are, with destroyed relays ME4 is pretty dead game. We wont have post-ME3 game, wake up.

This is not something that you can blame EA, there are other things, yes, but lame endings is not one of them.

[Gerudan]

EA ruins on e good developer team after another, but they just don't learn, even so they are losing money year after year.

 Look at the Witcher 2. It corrected a lot of the mistakes of The Witcher 1, which was already a decent effort, it was a great game and left DA2 easily in its dust and now CD Projekt just gives 3-4 hours of gameplay as a free DLC to its fans. In Biowares case thousands of fans have to beg for about a month only to get an extansion on an ending that is bascally ruining the game and instead of acknowledging it, they still want us to believe, that they "are proud" on that piece of garbage.

Modifié par Gerudan, 07 avril 2012 - 12:19 .

[Sparse]

wryterra wrote...

You know I'd rather they did it this way than made a game that made me live out decades in real time. Most of history is boring. Yes, give me only the good bits.

If it is well written (as you are saying it is) then it won't be boring, will it. It will too big of course, but there was no reason why it couldn't be '3 years', the decade was just a headline term.

What a preposterous complaint. 

We saw how things had changed, how people had changed, how Kirkwall had changed, so yes the story spanned a decade.

Apart from the fact that nobody important aged, nobody changed position and the city didn't change,.....  They just added a plot device in the second act (third if you count the intro as a full act) - the Qunari - and then stuck a few Templars in the palace at the end.

If you want to agree with me then you're agreeing that DA2's story was leagues ahead of DA:O's story. That's my position for you to agree with or disagree with.

Oh well I don't agree with that, I doubt even the writers would, DA:O was a traditional epic hero's tale. DA2 was intentionally trimmed down storywise because they didn't want too many things to have to bring forward to DA3 - there's a lot of fluff certainly, DA:O was predominantly fluff free - but the story in DA2 was as slim as possible so as to get the player to the end with as little baggage as possible.

[withneelandi]

I've seen it before with westwood and bullfrog, and I'm watching it happen with bioware.

Respected studio make good games, sell lots of games. EA notice this, buy studio. Studio's games become less well recieved by core fanbase, rumours of rushed products and commerical pressure. Sales begin to suffer, studio closes, EA retain IP.

New studio pop up to fill the gap, make good games, sell lots, get noitced by EA...

Its cycle that the reapers would have been proud of.

[cutegigi]

MaximizedAction wrote...

Not an end for Bioware.
An end for their current fanbase.
With EA's help (see Command and Conquer Generals 2) they'll just transition to a new target group of fans.

agree 

[MaximizedAction]

Smiley556 wrote...

MaximizedAction wrote...

Not an end for Bioware.
An end for their current fanbase.
With EA's help (see Command and Conquer Generals 2) they'll just transition to a new target group of fans.

ie. EA will cut out Bioware and just give the IP to Dice to continue on? Comparing Bioware/ME to Westwood/C&C just makes me more depressed...

I'm not comparing. At the end of last year Bioware announced that they are making the next Generals. So here you go.

[Laurencio]

Absurdity. They are still one of the few companies out there that make top quality games, and games that aren't FPS based, making a few mistakes will only improve their resolve to become better. It seems to me people are hacking after them primarily because they are owned by EA, not really for what they do. ME3 and DA2 were both solid games, fun to play and well made with very few bugs and hours and hours of entertaining gameplay.

Bioware will not "end" over a few mistakes. If they do, and it's because impatient fans can't handle that they've been financially sensible and joined a company able to provide them with far more resources than earlier, then that is a tragedy.

[vertigo72]

Nah, I will buy everything they do. I think I will buy some bioware points for MP right now.

[Erixxxx]

Laurencio wrote...

Absurdity. They are still one of the few companies out there that make top quality games, and games that aren't FPS based, making a few mistakes will only improve their resolve to become better. It seems to me people are hacking after them primarily because they are owned by EA, not really for what they do. ME3 and DA2 were both solid games, fun to play and well made with very few bugs and hours and hours of entertaining gameplay.

Bioware will not "end" over a few mistakes. If they do, and it's because impatient fans can't handle that they've been financially sensible and joined a company able to provide them with far more resources than earlier, then that is a tragedy.

I like you.

[OhoniX]

As we all know DA2 was heavily modified per EAs instructions.  First
it was "dumbed down to appeal to a broader fanbas"  then it was pushed
out the door for an "Easy Paycheck" (both quotes are from me, they are
just quoted to add emphasis).  The combat was nothing more than button
mashing, lacking any of the strategic combat of its predecssor.  The
plot was nonsensical, each chapter played as a seperate story, only at
the end did the underlying plot finally emerge and then it pushed to a
hasty conclusion.  There was also a complete lack of memorable
characters, no one can compare a companion in DA2 to either Alistair or
Morrigan successfully.  Finally there is the lack of any real choice at
all in the story, combined with an absurd rehashing of the same maps. 
DA2 is a very poor game, the rapidly diminishing sales told us this,
regardless of the review scores.

None of this paragraph made any sense. The combat in DA2 was a ton of fun, way more fun than in DAO (if less tactical), and Merrill blew the water out of Alistair in DAO, as did Varric (wasn't he nominated for an award?) While it's true that the progression of DA2 was very linear, in that you couldn't choose to do Act 2 before Act 1 or whatever like you could in DAO, you did make choices that mattered (on a personal level, at the very least), and DAO's plot was very shoehorned as well, while you could juggle the order you did things in, you still had to do the same things, and the way you resolved them had no more real consequence than the choices in DA2.

Now we have ME3.  The game that has gamers livid about two
things, Talis face, and the horrible ending which is so bad it makes us
forget about Tali's face.  The hate for this ending has spread like
wildfire and must be effecting sales of the game tremoundously. 
(Although they probably already made a fortune on pre orders already). 
Once again we are forced to ask ourselves "Did EA play a part"  the most
obvious answer is yes, they wanted an open ending that would allow for
sequels and expansions, ruining Biowares intended ending.  The
starcchild idea does not seem to come from the team that made ME1 or
ME2, which were both good games plotwise. (Although ME2 was marred by
the loyalty missions, the general plot made sense).  So it could have
been forced on them by EA.

Game companies typically don't sell a lot of games after launch anything, Gamestop's used games are what people buy a month after launch, because they are cheap and hate the videogame industry. Also, I wouldn't call the ending to ME3 especially "open ended", certainly the "ultimate happy Reaper ice-cream" ending would allow for a more fluid progression to ME4, and ANY game could have led to a prequel, just by definition. I don't see why EA would choose to result in the plot that ME3 had, I don't see their profit motive in it (unless your premis is that they're evil for evil's sake and just wanted to deliberately ****** off players for no gain to themselves).

In this case, if our theory about EA interference is true.  Then A:
They have successfully destroyed the Dragon Age franchise, and B: They
have now succefully destroyed the Mass Effect franchise.  The two
biggest franchises Bioware has.  (For those who are interested in
history their interference ruined the long running, award winning Ultima
franchise by Origin, which was in a lot of ways, Bioware's spiritual
precessor when it comes to large, epic RPGs.  This ultimately led to
that company's closure.)

OR, all the crybabies will cry themselves to sleep, and when the next big Bioware game comes out, some of them wo't buy it, and won't be missed, most of them will quietly buy it anyways, because it will be AWESOME, and instead of selling 890,000 copies on launch day, they'll sell 850,000, and then they'll be sorry they messed with the allmighty Internet Whiner.