106 réponses à ce sujet

[jackofalltrades456]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Imrahil_ wrote...

David Gaider wrote...
For all that some people seem to think we should do exactly the same things that they like, there'd be just as many (if not the exact same people) who'd be upset if we did and that it'd be too similar an experience.

I doubt that would happen. That sounds like the kind of thing that sounds like common sense but has never actually happened.

"They turned it into a FPS!" "They removed base construction!" "They dumbed it down!" "They removed [Option X]!" "They became obsessed with cinematics!" - Those are the reasons franchises die. I've never heard anyone say: "They kept all the features people liked! I'm not buying it!"

Agreed. Let's not forget the vast number of franchises that make tons of money and expand their fanbase with every release, despite keeping the exact same type of gameplay - every spots franchise essentially, most shooters, and as much as people like to complain that Skyrim doesn't have the same control or plot in the main quest as Oblivion, it's a LOT of the same mechanisms and even a lot of the same game type as Morrowind.

You know who rarely preorders a game? People who are new to an already established franchise. No one buys a game on the midnight release that hasn't played the earlier games of an established series. And, with ME3 and DA2, where did the majority of sales come from? Pre-orders. So the number of people who are buying Bioware games are people who liked the original style. Sure, it could use some tweaks, but tweaks do not equal complete overhaul.

This seems to mirror what happened with SOE & Star Wars Galaxies. The same thing transpired with that game. A massive overhaul was suddenly throw in front of the players and most of the core features were removed/changed. Guess what happened? The players hated this 180 and left the game in masses. Sony thought they would be able to recover those lost costumers with a new audience. This "new audience" never came and the game basically sat nearly devoid of people until Lucas Art pulled the plug. (Ironically enough, for SWTOR.)

Massive overhauls are never a good idea unless the game is being developed by a completely different company and has a massive time gap between it's predecessor. And even that shouldn't  be done. These overhauls rarely give the desired results and just damage the game.

Modifié par jackofalltrades456, 10 juillet 2012 - 11:44 .

[Jerrybnsn]

astreqwerty wrote...

they really need a good game this time around...and i dont mean a game the likes of mass effect 3 or da2...you know an actually exeptional rpg game..anything less will break it for most of us

How about an exceptional cinematic game?  Because that's what they're making.  Bioware doesn't really do rpgs very well, anymore.

[robertthebard]

SirGladiator wrote...

For all the negatives of DA2, none were present during the DLCs, so clearly there's no reason to expect anything less in DA3. They made some mistakes, they learned from them, its not an issue going forward. The problem with ME3 was simply that, after all 3 games of the Trilogy spanning who knows how many hundreds of hours playing as various main characters, none of them were allowed to have a happy ending, no matter what you did, it was just various degrees of bad endings. That's just mind-boggling insanity, and David Gaider is not insane, he's not going to write 16 different bad endings and no good ones, so again, that's not relevant to DA3. I think that in general, folks that are worried about DA3 are worried needlessly. Its understandable of course, but from everything we know about Bioware in general, the people involved in DA3 specificly, and also from all the comments we've heard from them so far, they're going to be going out of their way to make sure that they hear what the fans want, and give it to them. There's just no reason to expect anything less than Bioware's best game ever, when DA3 finally comes out.

IMO, the honest to goodness ending should have been in London, at the beam.  No matter how well intentioned you may be, the Reapers have been doing this for millions of years.  The truth is, we're probably not the first civilization they wiped off of Earth.  Welcome to "There is no happy ending because there should be no way to get a happy ending", otherwise known as life.  It doesn't matter how many years you spend in the gym, you're not going to be able to pick up Mt. Everest and move it somewhere else.  The US ending in Origins should have been the only ending for ME.  You know, sorry guys, we tried, but they kicked our collective asses.

[rapscallioness]

I don't think things are that dire for BW. At all. However, they are definitely going to be scrutinized more closely. And are prolly under quite a bit of pressure.

No matter how great a game they manage to pull off with DA3, ppl are going to complain--about something, That's just the way it is.

I have hope for DA3 and BW. I think they have taken a few things to heart. the idea of player agency in BW games is important. I understand the need and desire for BW to want to tell a specific story, but please be wily enough while crafting it to give me the feeling that I can make a difference in it. That my "choices matter".

That's a big appeal for me with BW games. It's what separates BW from others for me. It's what makes me more conscious of how I play and what I do. It adds that extra layer of tension and import.

It seems they get it. What did Laidlaw say? Something about...larger map; varied; scope; something hidden. Secret. Cool.

Player agency. Decisions that matter....even from imports? I also like what they're proposing for armor customization of NPC's.

I also think they understand now that it is preferable for endings to be....wound down properly. Enough with the abrupt endings.

I think they get it. I hope they follow through. They strike me as a very talented and bright group. They can pull it off. If they don't pull it off in the way some see fit, I doubt it will break them. They still put out fun games.

[Lee80]

Personally I think Bioware and most gaming industries are in a bit of a dire situation if you pay attention to the economy side of things. A bad game could really hurt any number of companies at this point, but that's probably always been true.

As for the rest of the discussion going on, I don't think the problem can be summed up by saying "they changed too many things" between games. Many of the changes were not only good, but awesome. The problems in both Dragon Age 2, and Mass Effect 3 for many people was about the story not going where we thought or wanted it to. Many of the choices made in DA 2 didn't matter at all, and you got the same basic result no matter what-that same issue (to a lesser degree) is seen in ME3 as well.

What's the point of making a game full of choices if they don't amount to anything? I've read the choices are going to matter a lot in Dragon Age 3, and I really hope that is true. It adds a lot of replay value if you can have multiple outcomes rather then a slightly different worded dialog followed by the same exact scripted event.

[Chipaway111]

It's safe to say I'm fairly clueless when it comes to the economy and it's relation to the gaming industry so I'll just stay well away from that.

I think the two most recent controversies ME3's ending and DA2 have made some fans more weary of what they'll be releasing but I'll doubt it'd mean Biowares got one more chance. It's all subjective, what they do may lose them some core fans, but gain them from elsewhere. I've only played the ME trilogy, DA:O and DA2 so I truly have no previous knowledge concerning what Bioware was like back then (Baldurs Gate, NWN etc).

Will I buy a hypothetical DA3 as soon as it comes out? No, probably not. If they screw that up than chances are I am done with Bioware but I'd always keep an eye on what they're doing because I've found their games always tend to hold the most appeal for me.

[Cultist]

David Gaider wrote...
Just because you said that, I decree we shall over-compensate by doing everything exactly the same.

Heh... just kidding.

I do find it funny when people act as if what we do in one game is clearly our intention for all games to come-- when that's rarely been the case. There's some elements that stay the same (our trademark elements, so to speak), but everything else pretty much depends on what we feel we need to work on... or how we must react to conditions at the time, such as engine changes or economic conditions, which rarely makes things static. Inevitably, some things work, some things really don't.

For all that some people seem to think we should do exactly the same things that they like, there'd be just as many (if not the exact same people) who'd be upset if we did and that it'd be too similar an experience. But that's the fun we get to contend with as developers.

People act like that because they see the proof right before their eyes. Dragon Age 2 incorporated so much from Mass Effect that Dragon Effect joke became a commonplace. Dialogue wheel, tendency toward action over RPG, voiced protagonist and so on. They see how what you do in one game could be seen in other games.
As for some and many, the thing is - sequels and games that refine traits of prequels tend to be more successful than those that choose to implement radical changes. And as Gabe Nawell said - it is more profitable to rely on already existing auditory of fans, than try to attract new fanbase. I think Gabe knows how game industry works.

[ScotGaymer]

Ria wrote...

Glad to see you've studied Bioware's balance sheet with such enthusiasm. I didn't find any detailed data on divisions of EA online. If you have a link, please provide it. I'd love to see it.

The fact is you can't predict the future of a company based on fan feedback. Or you can, but your prediction won't hold much water. Of course feedback matters and, on a long run, a consumer product company needs to be liked by a good number of people. At the very least, their products need to be liked.

As a whole though, there are two things that really mean something for a company when they launch a new product: financial success and critical success. The first one ensures the company can make more products and invest in improving the company. The second one boosts the brand.

I don't remember Bioware lately having any catastrophical occurances on either financial or review front. Setbacks sure, but catastrophes? SWTOR may be one financially but we don't know that yet. 

Your point about game industry being a precarious field is absolutely correct. Many companies, good and bad, have fallen or been devoured by bigger companies. Hell, even Bioware became part of EA. It's also a young high risk industry that's changing constantly with new technology. You can't just throw around some fallen companies and compare them to Bioware which has its own unique problems.

As long as we don't have free access to Bioware's accounting, there's no sense to spit out doomsday statements as facts. (But you are free to provide feedback and complain to your heart's content. I do that too.)

My apologise Madam Silmane, perhaps I should have been clearer.

I wasn't speaking of financially specifically, though I do think the bottom line is at risk here too. I was speaking more of the public image/political risk which has just as much impact as the financial risks.

Sorry if that wasn't clear.

Let me use Origin as an example.

Origin wasn't in financial straits or anything as far as I am aware, given that they had been bought by EA and EA isn't exactly short of money or at least wasn't.
Now they are - now they are making a loss across the board and you can't dispute that it's common knowledge - there are articles about it on Forbes. But at the time they were making bumper profits.

The problem was Origin's last few games were created by Dev Teams who had lost sight of what made those games good, and thus put out games that the core fan base's of those games franchises abhorred and destered them in droves.
The games didn't seem to garner much of a new fanbase following either.

EA's response, after several epic failures, was to wrap up the studio. Origin gone. And I reckon it was a combination of factors that made them decide to do that - the poor quality of the games damaging public imagine, causing profits to go down, and the damage to the image of the franchises made the prospects of rescuing them difficult.
EA made a judgement call, probably precipitiously, to shed the studio based on mostly political reasons and a general fear for the bottom line rather than any real damage to its fiscal prospects.

Many of the big publishers, not just EA, behave in this way with it's studios. It has happened many times in the past, and it will happen in the future.

I just don't want it to happen to Bioware; and if they bury their head in the sand where this whole thing is concerned then it probably will happen to them eventually.

jackofalltrades456 wrote...

Massive overhauls are never a
good idea unless the game is being developed by a completely different
company and has a massive time gap between it's predecessor. And even
that shouldn't  be done. These overhauls rarely give the desired
results and just damage the game.

I completely disagree.

There have been many times where a game NEEDED a total overhaul, a new engine, significant changes and it has paid off.

The two immediate examples for me that leap to my mind is Fallout 3 and Skyrim.

Don't get me wrong I positively despise F3's main storyline (and the main storyline of Broken Steel or BS as I like to call it) cos its fricking terrible and Liam Neesons performance is awful, and a total waste. But the gameplay is fricking awesome, and when the engine was handed off to Obsidian they made the game that Fallout 3 could have been. It absolutely needed the fresh outlook as a franchise.

Skyrim was given a significant (but not total) overhaul with a new engine, different leveling system. It's actually possible to play individual class types now like Pure Fighter or Pure Mage whereas in MW and OB you always had to play a weird hybrid type class to do any good. Oblivion's engine was dated when OB was released. TES desperately needed the update; and it's been wildly successful. The game has shifted in excess of 8 million copies worldwide.

Lee80alabama wrote...

The problems in both Dragon Age 2, and Mass Effect 3 for many people was about the story not going where we thought or wanted it to. 

I know I am cherry picking your post and I hate it when folk do that to me instead of responding to the actual point of the post; but I just gotta say that I disagree with this.

I don't think that people's dissatisfaction with DA2 and ME3 came from the story not going where we wanted, I don't think it is that AT ALL.

DA2 was an obviously rushed game because of the poor implementation of several new gameplay elements IE: the Quest Maps being reused so much that it was a joke; and some graphical decisions that were recieved poorly IE: the ClownSpawn and DonkeyKongSpawn, and the Elves all looking like they have downs syndrome. The only part of the "story" people complained about was the very end, and people only complained about that because it was just bad from a literary standpoint(it didn't have impact) and bad from a audience standpoint (it wasn't fun).
Nothing there was to do with audience expectation.

ME3 on the other hand criticisms came almost entirely from its literary elements, but it STILL wasn't because of player expectation. At least not entirely, not in the way you seem to imply (which is an unreasonable expectation).
ME3's writing was schizophrenic. In places it was probably the best most compelling wonderful writing the writing team at BW has ever produced (the Mordin Arc for example was beautiful) and in places was just fricking terrible, the worst Bioware has ever produced (aside from the awful bat**** insane endings that is) IE: the introduction section doesn't do it's job - a New Player is left confused and wondering what is going on because none of the things that need to be explained are, and a Returning Player is left confused and wondering what is going on because none of the things that need to be explained are.
Check this Youtube Video for a better explanation of why the ME3 intro fails: www.youtube.com/watch
With ME3 the only "expectation" that the players had was that there would be multiple different endings, and prior to the EC coming out this was not true. Which is the opposite of what we were told by Bioware would be the case; they outright said there would be no samey RGB endings and then gave use samey RGB endings.
So the expectation, and reaction to those expectations not being met was entirely reasonable (for most folks - there were idiots on all sides of the fence on that one sadly).

EDIT: Had to fix the formatting; the BSN buggered it up for some reason.

Modifié par FitScotGaymer, 11 juillet 2012 - 12:55 .

[Massakkolia]

FitScotGaymer wrote...

My apologise Madam Silmane, perhaps I should have been clearer.

I wasn't speaking of financially specifically, though I do think the bottom line is at risk here too. I was speaking more of the public image/political risk which has just as much impact as the financial risks.

Sorry if that wasn't clear.

Let me use Origin as an example.

Origin wasn't in financial straits or anything as far as I am aware, given that they had been bought by EA and EA isn't exactly short of money or at least wasn't.
Now they are - now they are making a loss across the board and you can't dispute that it's common knowledge - there are articles about it on Forbes. But at the time they were making bumper profits.

The problem was Origin's last few games were created by Dev Teams who had lost sight of what made those games good, and thus put out games that the core fan base's of those games franchises abhorred and destered them in droves.
The games didn't seem to garner much of a new fanbase following either.

EA's response, after several epic failures, was to wrap up the studio. Origin gone. And I reckon it was a combination of factors that made them decide to do that - the poor quality of the games damaging public imagine, causing profits to go down, and the damage to the image of the franchises made the prospects of rescuing them difficult.
EA made a judgement call, probably precipitiously, to shed the studio based on mostly political reasons and a general fear for the bottom line rather than any real damage to its fiscal prospects.

Many of the big publishers, not just EA, behave in this way with it's studios. It has happened many times in the past, and it will happen in the future.

I just don't want it to happen to Bioware; and if they bury their head in the sand where this whole thing is concerned then it probably will happen to them eventually.

Oh you were quite clear. It was just me being snarky and sarcastic in a roundabout way. My point was that the public image risk is greatly exaggerated in Bioware's case. A storm in a wine glass, as they say.

I don't think comparing Bioware's case to Origin is very reasonable. Too very different companies, which became part of EA at very different times. If anything, Bioware's done its best to transform itself with the development of technology and taste. It's a fairly modern company, which makes mistakes but does not stagnate.

EA hasn't shown any signs (that I know of) implying Bioware's treading on the danger zone. I do agree that Bioware needs to take care of its brand. Bioware is first and foremost a brand polishing company for EA, not so much a straightforward money factory. 

As far as EA's financial troubles go, I'm fully aware of them. Troubles of the parent company don't automatically mean that a division is doing badly individually. It does add pressure to divisions but I highly doubt EA would even consider dissolving Bioware in the near future. Mass Effect is a strong brand and Dragon Age is salvageable. If EA's troubles deepen they'd most likely try to sell Bioware and that's not necessarily a tragedy.

You do get points for the Madam Silmane reference. The origin of my name is much more mundane but it was still a nice touch.

[Dragoonlordz]

I would never consider any developer in a situation where just because had run of games I might not like aka enjoy as example, that I would stop buying from them in future. That sort of logic doesn't work with me because the next title could always be something I enjoy. There is always a chance that with any title I may or may not enjoy it. That sort of do this or else I will never buy from you again fan mentality is not something I like and find quite silly approach to take these days.

If they make something I like or think will like, I will buy it and if make something I think will not like I won't. With regards to DA3 from all the discussions had on here questions the developers have asked and ideas they have shown in direction, I have hope that I might enjoy that title. Time will tell. All can do right now is leave 'constructive' and productive feedback and hope they agree with something I mention and include it in some way to make the next title more enjoyable for myself.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 11 juillet 2012 - 10:15 .

[wetnasty]

 "We're all hoping you can do the impossible (Bioware). No pressure."

[ScotGaymer]

@ Ria

Sorry again.

I didn't mean that if DA3 doesn't meet critical, and fan expectation then it will mean THE END for Bioware or anything lol.
What I mean to say and I don't think I seem to be getting that across is that it is an undeniable turning point for them as to wether they can get their "crown" as the Kings of RPG-Land back or not. And if they do not manage it, then it might well be the beginning of the slow eventual slide into mediocrity; and ultimately oblivion.
And I mean that in the terms of years.

I thought your name was the ultimate in geekery there. Kinda saddened to see it isn't lol.

[mopotter]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Imrahil_ wrote...

David Gaider wrote...
For all that some people seem to think we should do exactly the same things that they like, there'd be just as many (if not the exact same people) who'd be upset if we did and that it'd be too similar an experience.

I doubt that would happen. That sounds like the kind of thing that sounds like common sense but has never actually happened.

"They turned it into a FPS!" "They removed base construction!" "They dumbed it down!" "They removed [Option X]!" "They became obsessed with cinematics!" - Those are the reasons franchises die.  I've never heard anyone say: "They kept all the features people liked! I'm not buying it!"

Agreed. Let's not forget the vast number of franchises that make tons of money and expand their fanbase with every release, despite keeping the exact same type of gameplay - every spots franchise essentially, most shooters, and as much as people like to complain that Skyrim doesn't have the same control or plot in the main quest as Oblivion, it's a LOT of the same mechanisms and even a lot of the same game type as Morrowind. 

You know who rarely preorders a game? People who are new to an already established franchise. No one buys a game on the midnight release that hasn't played the earlier games of an established series. And, with ME3 and DA2, where did the majority of sales come from? Pre-orders. So the number of people who are buying Bioware games are people who liked the original style. Sure, it could use some tweaks, but tweaks do not equal complete overhaul. 

The only thing I'd disagree with is "
No one buys a game on the midnight release that hasn't played the earlier games of an established series. "  I'd change series to company.   I've been pre-ordering all of their games since I played KOTOR.  I have always pre-ordered based on the company that makes the game.  

I actually am one of the people that enjoyes both DA:O and DA2.  But ME3 really messe up my enjoyment.  

Not the game play, not the story, but the destination and I have very little reason to replay.  And actually that rather condensending phase journey vs destination didn't help.  

I'm hoping I enjoy DA3.  I loved DG books and if the game has a couple of endings with one being heroic survival and one a kind of self sacrifice I'll pick it up withint the first week.  

[Allan Schumacher]

I would never consider any developer in a situation where just because had run of games I might not like aka enjoy as example, that I would stop buying from them in future. That sort of logic doesn't work with me because the next title could always be something I enjoy.

I very much agree with this. I came away with a real bitter taste in my mouth with Oblivion, and I was also a huge fan of Fallout 1 and 2. When Fallout 3 was announced, I hoped it'd be a kickass game that I loved to play.

It was pretty good. New Vegas just turned it into Amazeballs for me

[Fast Jimmy]

^
I do think New Vegas is what FO3 should have been, at least from a gameplay and ending perspective. More of the original feel of the series (which is indicative of the Obsidian development, to me).

Just talking about it makes me want to A) go and start playing New Vegas again and wish that Wasteland 2 was already out.


That being said, to discuss the original topic, what I'd really like to see from Bioware for DA3 is a working demo, with 99% of all the same gameplay features as what we'd see in the actual game, but released about 6 months before it hits the shelves. With DA2, people saw the demo about a month before the game came out and assumed it was just a rough section of gameplay for the demo, so things like the clownspawn or the lack of story build up were just due to that. When people realized in March that they had actually just played the first twenty minutes of the game, as is, people really began to raise their doubts and concerns.

I'd like to play that demo, offer feedback and know that the game hasn't already gone gold and is in the process of being shipped out. A demo is not meant to be used as a marketing gimmick, but to show how gameplay works and, possibly, get feedback on how to improve it. I think if Bioware let its fans get a feel for how the game is done and then can offer feedback before said game is out, this would help out immensely with negative backlash that seems to accompany a lot of Bioware releases these last few years.

[Jerrybnsn]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I'd like to play that demo, offer feedback and know that the game hasn't already gone gold and is in the process of being shipped out. A demo is not meant to be used as a marketing gimmick, but to show how gameplay works and, possibly, get feedback on how to improve it. I think if Bioware let its fans get a feel for how the game is done and then can offer feedback before said game is out, this would help out immensely with negative backlash that seems to accompany a lot of Bioware releases these last few years.

This is a good point to bring up.  How does Bioware do their game testing?  Do they ever do something like the movie industry by showing a screening, taking input from those who watch it, and go back to the editing room or re-film different scenes to make improvements?

Modifié par Jerrybnsn, 12 juillet 2012 - 11:24 .

[ScotGaymer]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I would never consider any developer in a situation where just because had run of games I might not like aka enjoy as example, that I would stop buying from them in future. That sort of logic doesn't work with me because the next title could always be something I enjoy.

I very much agree with this. I came away with a real bitter taste in my mouth with Oblivion, and I was also a huge fan of Fallout 1 and 2. When Fallout 3 was announced, I hoped it'd be a kickass game that I loved to play.

It was pretty good. New Vegas just turned it into Amazeballs for me

Vanilla Oblivion sucked man.

You totally need to mod it to make it amazing. Forunately there are a whole shed load of amazing mods to do just that. :-)

The Race Balancing Project, Better Levelling, LAME, Real Hunger, Real Thirst, Real Sleep, Realistic Ragdolls, any of the mods by Simyaz, An Arane Cey, and so on.

I agree that Fallout 3 was kinda "meh" - great gameplay but a really sucky MQ and terrible voice acting. FNV is what F3 shoulda been.

As to the not buying from a developer ever again cos of a bad run of games...

I don't entirely agree with that.

It wouldn't stop me from buying from them in future but it would make me exceptionally wary of doing so - I would probably wait till the game I was interested in was on sale before purchasing it. But it definately would not ever pre-order from that company again; and I would probably be not buying DLC.
Like I won't be preordering DA3; and didn't buy DA2 DLC. And will not buy ME3 DLC (Leviathan is the stupidest idea for DLC ever, it's as bad as the Horse Armour DLC - I mean honestly a good reaper? Really? do you want to just take away ALL the clthulu-style mystique away from the reapers completely Bioware?).

Modifié par FitScotGaymer, 12 juillet 2012 - 11:35 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Jerrybnsn wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I'd like to play that demo, offer feedback and know that the game hasn't already gone gold and is in the process of being shipped out. A demo is not meant to be used as a marketing gimmick, but to show how gameplay works and, possibly, get feedback on how to improve it. I think if Bioware let its fans get a feel for how the game is done and then can offer feedback before said game is out, this would help out immensely with negative backlash that seems to accompany a lot of Bioware releases these last few years.

This is a good point to bring up.  How does Bioware do their game testing?  Do they ever do something like the movie industry by showing a screening, taking input from those who watch it, and go back to the editing room or re-film different scenes to make improvements?

Given some of the huge bugs we've seen with DA2 and ME3, I'd say no.

I mean... ME3 face imports?! How was that not caught? And the glitchy cutscenes in DA2 before the patch... ugh. You couldn't have 45% of the conversations in the game without people glitching in and out of the scene over and over. Not to mention the story feedback fans would have had on both game's endings...

I understand that Bioware wants to keep their games and story under wraps. After all, that's what they pride themselves on. But realize that scripts are going to leak, regardless. Realize that spoilers will happen, depsite anythign you do. So why not, instead, get solid fan responses to what you currently have and make sure it doesn't reach an outrage that makes its way to mainstream news outlets? 

If a story and game are good enough, spoilers won't ruin it anyway. Besides, most fans go on media or spoiler blackouts prior to a game release, so just let the cat out of the bag and let some fans view what you have before you put it on the shelves, for God's sake.

[Jerrybnsn]

Fast Jimmy wrote...



Besides, most fans go on media or spoiler blackouts prior to a game release, so just let the cat out of the bag and let some fans view what you have before you put it on the shelves, for God's sake.

I went on a media blackout with ME3 and it bit me.  I preordered the year before and avoided all the discussion.  But how did I know that you needed to play the last ME2 DLC?  How did I know that they upgraded the storyline if you changed your order from the $60 standard game to the $80 special edition?  How did I know that if you just preordered the $60 game you wouldn't receive any extra DLC?  How did I know that the game's ending would rely on multiplayer?  Heck!  I didn't even know that it had multiplayer until I picked it up!

So media blackouts are not a good idea when it comes to Bioware games.  You can't trust the company not to change the way their games are played anymore.

[Fast Jimmy]

^ I agree with you there. If you can't count on the company to not make a game like TA critically acclaimed predecessor, not add stupid gimmicks and tricks to force you to playMP or buy DLC, then that's a company that won't have many pre-orders in the future.

If DA3 is received like DA2, it will hurt. Because between ME3 and DA2, not many people are going to Pre-order it right now.

[Cimeas]

Think about it, what competition does Bioware have? Really?

-The next Witcher game is at least 2 years away
-The next Deus Ex has just gone into development
-Skyrim's hype has died down, there may be another expansion but that'll be it
-Amalur is dead
-Neverwinter Nights is a free-to-play action MMO
-Obsidian is now making a South Park game
-The Game of Thrones RPG failed terribly
-Radon Labs (makers of Drakensang) went bankrupt

Bioware has no competition in the RPG genre. There literally is nothing else.
If you want to play a choice-driven RPG, there is only one company that makes those game and that is why Bioware will reel in the dough, even if their games are no longer fantastic.

[Jerrybnsn]

It would take a lot for me to want to preorder DA3. (Well, actually just hearing Morrigan's voice and seeing her character in the trailer would do it, but I won't be happy with myself for doing so)

I think the real question about ording Bioware games is now going to be, "Do I want to pay $80 for the special addition with the dlc that comes with it?"

[Jerrybnsn]

Cimeas wrote...

-Obsidian is now making a South Park game

 

My wife has already forbidden me from buying this game because we have kids.  A big shame too because I really think this is going to be a great game that pokes a lot of fun at rpgs from the last couple of decades.  And Trey Parker and Matt Stone don't go in half-way in  with producing their products.  How many awards did their Broadway play bring in last year?  They are personally overseeing the game's developement and decided to give it an extra year's worth to it.

By the way, they say that "silent protagonist" is very important to the type of rpg they want to make. 

[AkiKishi]

Cimeas wrote...

Think about it, what competition does Bioware have? Really?

-The next Witcher game is at least 2 years away
-The next Deus Ex has just gone into development
-Skyrim's hype has died down, there may be another expansion but that'll be it
-Amalur is dead
-Neverwinter Nights is a free-to-play action MMO
-Obsidian is now making a South Park game
-The Game of Thrones RPG failed terribly
-Radon Labs (makers of Drakensang) went bankrupt

Bioware has no competition in the RPG genre. There literally is nothing else.
If you want to play a choice-driven RPG, there is only one company that makes those game and that is why Bioware will reel in the dough, even if their games are no longer fantastic.

It's never been a crowded field. There are probably 20 JRPGs of varying types for every CRPG.

CDPR are working on a Cyber2020 game.
Obsidian are doing South Park (which plays like Costume Quest/Paper Mario) and an unknown something.

DA 3 is also 2-3 years away more than than likely.

[Cimeas]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Cimeas wrote...

Think about it, what competition does Bioware have? Really?

-The next Witcher game is at least 2 years away
-The next Deus Ex has just gone into development
-Skyrim's hype has died down, there may be another expansion but that'll be it
-Amalur is dead
-Neverwinter Nights is a free-to-play action MMO
-Obsidian is now making a South Park game
-The Game of Thrones RPG failed terribly
-Radon Labs (makers of Drakensang) went bankrupt

Bioware has no competition in the RPG genre. There literally is nothing else.
If you want to play a choice-driven RPG, there is only one company that makes those game and that is why Bioware will reel in the dough, even if their games are no longer fantastic.

It's never been a crowded field. There are probably 20 JRPGs of varying types for every CRPG.

CDPR are working on a Cyber2020 game.
Obsidian are doing South Park (which plays like Costume Quest/Paper Mario) and an unknown something.

DA 3 is also 2-3 years away more than than likely.

I highly, highly doubt we will see DA3 have a 4-5 year development cycle.   I say September/ October 2013, maybe.
CDPR said they are just starting development of their Cyberpunk game as of the announcement, and Obsidian, well after Dungeon Siege, I don't know what they might be doing, or if it's even an RPG. 

We will probably see DA3 announced, if not at Gamescom (late August) then at the VGA Awards in December.

Modifié par Cimeas, 12 juillet 2012 - 02:12 .