329 réponses à ce sujet

[Jerrybnsn]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Part of the dev time went into MP. That caused less time for SP content. The ending was hit most by that.

What ending?  That was a complete void.

[Chromie]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Jerrybnsn wrote...

RaggieRags wrote...

Bioware has so many things going for it, yet it has released two games on a row now that suffered from a too short dev time and it's general reputation is at an all-time low.

Is that the consensus now for the problem with ME3?  Too short of a Dev time?  I thought ME3 was a great game for it's two year cycle, I found the problem with the game was clipping out the beginning and the end of the game for dlc to make more money.  Greed hurt ME3, not a short dev. time.

Part of the dev time went into MP. That caused less time for SP content. The ending was hit most by that.

Oh let's be fair. Mass Effect 3's entire single player story is a giant mess.

[StElmo]

NKKKK wrote...

Hopefully they'll get it, because their reputation is going down the ****ter right now.

[StElmo]

Skelter192 wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Jerrybnsn wrote...

RaggieRags wrote...

Bioware has so many things going for it, yet it has released two games on a row now that suffered from a too short dev time and it's general reputation is at an all-time low.

Is that the consensus now for the problem with ME3?  Too short of a Dev time?  I thought ME3 was a great game for it's two year cycle, I found the problem with the game was clipping out the beginning and the end of the game for dlc to make more money.  Greed hurt ME3, not a short dev. time.

Part of the dev time went into MP. That caused less time for SP content. The ending was hit most by that.

Oh let's be fair. Mass Effect 3's entire single player story is a giant mess.

If BioWare really wanted to have some guts they would retcon that game as a wierd dream sequence, well, the end anyway.

[Realmzmaster]

RaggieRags wrote...

We could discuss how big or small CD Projekt is until the cows come home, but all that is besides my point (and off-topic). My point is that Bioware has so many things going for it, yet it has released two games on a row now that suffered from a too short dev time and it's general reputation is at an all-time low. Meanwhile more modest companies as well as Bethesda make polished RPGs that review and sell well. Bioware's problem is not the environment.

Bethesda has also made and published some real mediocre games (TES:Battlespire, TES:Redguard,  Call of Cthulhu:Dark Corners of the Earth, Star Trek Legacy (especially on the PC),Brink, Hunted: The Demon's Forge, and WET . Let's not forget the abysmal Rogue Warrior. In fact Fallout and TES are their best selling products.

So when I judge a company I look at it in its totality. Bethesda is really not that much better if at all than EA. They both have produce or published some really great games, many mediorce games and some dogs.

[robertthebard]

harkness72 wrote...

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

harkness72 wrote...

In your opinion. Great swathes of the fan base would beg to differ. 

It's not math class.  We're all voicing opinions.   

And what is the reason for this supposed extinction of games like DA:O? Considering that it sold better than DAII and was vastly better received both among critics and fans I'd say that they're alive and kicking.  

Who cares about a reason?  Where are the big name games like DAO if it's such a popular kind of game?  DAO was a throwback.  Nothing more.

And yet games like the |Elder Scrolls and the Witcher series which rely heavily on the "old world" and "throwback" elements you think should be purged are immense commercial and critical success stories. DAII on the other hand...

Funny you should mention the Witcher.  I've had the Enhanced Edition for a little over a year now, and have yet to get out of what I guess is Chapter 1, or maybe I've just gotten to the City after the little village.  I just can't get into it.  Oddly enough, I've finished ME 1 4 times, ME 2, 3 times and ME 3 twice, although I've been almost to the end 12 times, and finished 4 runs of DA 2.  All of the ME games are in the last 3 months or so.  So yeah, from my perspective, The Witcher is a great game.

[Fast Jimmy]

Realmzmaster wrote...

RaggieRags wrote...

We could discuss how big or small CD Projekt is until the cows come home, but all that is besides my point (and off-topic). My point is that Bioware has so many things going for it, yet it has released two games on a row now that suffered from a too short dev time and it's general reputation is at an all-time low. Meanwhile more modest companies as well as Bethesda make polished RPGs that review and sell well. Bioware's problem is not the environment.

Bethesda has also made and published some real mediocre games (TES:Battlespire, TES:Redguard,  Call of Cthulhu:Dark Corners of the Earth, Star Trek Legacy (especially on the PC),Brink, Hunted: The Demon's Forge, and WET . Let's not forget the abysmal Rogue Warrior. In fact Fallout and TES are their best selling products.

So when I judge a company I look at it in its totality. Bethesda is really not that much better if at all than EA. They both have produce or published some really great games, many mediorce games and some dogs.

Agreed. However, it seems that most of Bethesda's terrible games were in its (relative) infancy. They fiddled with the formula of TES games before they went back to the original, and FO3 tried to emulate the atmosphere of the first two games and fell a little short, rather than FO:NV, which nailed it (could have something to do with former Black Isle guys making New Vegas, of course). Regardless, Bethesda's flops are in the past, while now they cater to their core group and sell millions more than expected. Bioware's flops are in the present, and they try and cater to a casual group and sells millions less than expected. 

You can't blame people for standing on street corners, saying The End is Near for Bioware. Every decision they seem to make heads them into more unpopular territory, while the exact opposite could be said of Bethesda.

[Renmiri1]

We soccer (football for the EU crowd) fans have a saying that big sucessful teams sometimes lose BECAUSE of their success. They get so overconfident they can do no wrong that they go to the game with their b-list team and play half arsed, because they are so good, how can they lose ? This attitude can throw a winning team out of the first classifying rounds.

I think Bioware suffered from that. They took their best people and pulled out of their flagship products, to try and get SWTOR off the ground. They committed to developing MP when SP was still not done. They started doing day one DLC and other DLC before the game was even finished.. All that left the "game" to be played by people who are usually benched, for good reason. Their top talent gets results.. Their b-list team.. not so much!

Modifié par Renmiri1, 20 août 2012 - 07:34 .

[Realmzmaster]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

RaggieRags wrote...

We could discuss how big or small CD Projekt is until the cows come home, but all that is besides my point (and off-topic). My point is that Bioware has so many things going for it, yet it has released two games on a row now that suffered from a too short dev time and it's general reputation is at an all-time low. Meanwhile more modest companies as well as Bethesda make polished RPGs that review and sell well. Bioware's problem is not the environment.

Bethesda has also made and published some real mediocre games (TES:Battlespire, TES:Redguard,  Call of Cthulhu:Dark Corners of the Earth, Star Trek Legacy (especially on the PC),Brink, Hunted: The Demon's Forge, and WET . Let's not forget the abysmal Rogue Warrior. In fact Fallout and TES are their best selling products.

So when I judge a company I look at it in its totality. Bethesda is really not that much better if at all than EA. They both have produce or published some really great games, many mediorce games and some dogs.

Agreed. However, it seems that most of Bethesda's terrible games were in its (relative) infancy. They fiddled with the formula of TES games before they went back to the original, and FO3 tried to emulate the atmosphere of the first two games and fell a little short, rather than FO:NV, which nailed it (could have something to do with former Black Isle guys making New Vegas, of course). Regardless, Bethesda's flops are in the past, while now they cater to their core group and sell millions more than expected. Bioware's flops are in the present, and they try and cater to a casual group and sells millions less than expected. 

You can't blame people for standing on street corners, saying The End is Near for Bioware. Every decision they seem to make heads them into more unpopular territory, while the exact opposite could be said of Bethesda.

Actually no Rogue Warrior, WET and some of the other games listed came out the same year as Skyrim. So their flops are not behind them. Skyrim simply help overshadow the flops.

[Realmzmaster]

Renmiri1 wrote...

We soccer (football for the EU crowd) fans have a saying that big sucessful teams sometimes lose BECAUSE of their success. They get so overconfident they can do no wrong that they go to the game with their b-list team and play half arsed, because they are so good, how can they lose ? This attitude can throw a winning team out of the first classifying rounds.

I think Bioware suffered from that. They took their best people and pulled out of their flagship products, to try and get SWTOR off the ground. They committed to developing MP when SP was still not done. They started doing day one DLC and other DLC before the game was even finished.. All that left the "game" to be played by people who are usually benched, for good reason. Their top talent gets results.. Their b-list team.. not so much!

The crew that did DAO is essentially the same crew that did DA2 minus Bren Knowles as lead designer. Even then Mike Laidlaw was one of the Lead designers for DAO. So I can only surmise that Bioware only has a B list-team and DAO was a fluke.

I do not subscribe to that premise, because these are roughly the same team that did BG1, BG2 and NWN along with DAO.

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 20 août 2012 - 09:54 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Realmzmaster wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

RaggieRags wrote...

We could discuss how big or small CD Projekt is until the cows come home, but all that is besides my point (and off-topic). My point is that Bioware has so many things going for it, yet it has released two games on a row now that suffered from a too short dev time and it's general reputation is at an all-time low. Meanwhile more modest companies as well as Bethesda make polished RPGs that review and sell well. Bioware's problem is not the environment.

Bethesda has also made and published some real mediocre games (TES:Battlespire, TES:Redguard,  Call of Cthulhu:Dark Corners of the Earth, Star Trek Legacy (especially on the PC),Brink, Hunted: The Demon's Forge, and WET . Let's not forget the abysmal Rogue Warrior. In fact Fallout and TES are their best selling products.

So when I judge a company I look at it in its totality. Bethesda is really not that much better if at all than EA. They both have produce or published some really great games, many mediorce games and some dogs.

Agreed. However, it seems that most of Bethesda's terrible games were in its (relative) infancy. They fiddled with the formula of TES games before they went back to the original, and FO3 tried to emulate the atmosphere of the first two games and fell a little short, rather than FO:NV, which nailed it (could have something to do with former Black Isle guys making New Vegas, of course). Regardless, Bethesda's flops are in the past, while now they cater to their core group and sell millions more than expected. Bioware's flops are in the present, and they try and cater to a casual group and sells millions less than expected. 

You can't blame people for standing on street corners, saying The End is Near for Bioware. Every decision they seem to make heads them into more unpopular territory, while the exact opposite could be said of Bethesda.

Actually no Rogue Warrior, WET and some of the other games listed came out the same year as Skyrim. So their flops are not behind them. Skyrim simply help overshadow the flops.

Hmmm. I'll confess I didn't recognize some of those titles, so I assumed they were in the past. But... then again... the fact that I did not recognize them probably goes in line with them not being successful. 

That being said, perhaps I should have said that Bethesda's AAA budget games are doing really well, while Bioware's are not? 

[bEVEsthda]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

RaggieRags wrote...

We could discuss how big or small CD Projekt is until the cows come home, but all that is besides my point (and off-topic). My point is that Bioware has so many things going for it, yet it has released two games on a row now that suffered from a too short dev time and it's general reputation is at an all-time low. Meanwhile more modest companies as well as Bethesda make polished RPGs that review and sell well. Bioware's problem is not the environment.

Bethesda has also made and published some real mediocre games (TES:Battlespire, TES:Redguard,  Call of Cthulhu:Dark Corners of the Earth, Star Trek Legacy (especially on the PC),Brink, Hunted: The Demon's Forge, and WET . Let's not forget the abysmal Rogue Warrior. In fact Fallout and TES are their best selling products.

So when I judge a company I look at it in its totality. Bethesda is really not that much better if at all than EA. They both have produce or published some really great games, many mediorce games and some dogs.

Agreed. However, it seems that most of Bethesda's terrible games were in its (relative) infancy. They fiddled with the formula of TES games before they went back to the original, and FO3 tried to emulate the atmosphere of the first two games and fell a little short, rather than FO:NV, which nailed it (could have something to do with former Black Isle guys making New Vegas, of course). Regardless, Bethesda's flops are in the past, while now they cater to their core group and sell millions more than expected. Bioware's flops are in the present, and they try and cater to a casual group and sells millions less than expected. 

You can't blame people for standing on street corners, saying The End is Near for Bioware. Every decision they seem to make heads them into more unpopular territory, while the exact opposite could be said of Bethesda.

Actually no Rogue Warrior, WET and some of the other games listed came out the same year as Skyrim. So their flops are not behind them. Skyrim simply help overshadow the flops.

Hmmm. I'll confess I didn't recognize some of those titles, so I assumed they were in the past. But... then again... the fact that I did not recognize them probably goes in line with them not being successful. 

That being said, perhaps I should have said that Bethesda's AAA budget games are doing really well, while Bioware's are not? 

Wet was an Activision/Blizzard game, developed by Artificial Mind and Movement. After Activision killed it, Bethesda agreed to publish it.

Rogue Warrier was originally a game by Zombie Studios, which Bethesda agreed to finance. It was apparently botched, because Bethesda took it away from Zombie Studios and brought in Rebellion Developments to take over and try to save the bacon.

Disregarding a few sports games, games developed under Bethesda's control have only been TES and FO3 in modern times, that is - since Daggerfall (TES II). All of them tremendous games.

As for EA, I would say that no 'great' game has ever been developed under EA control. None. Please mention a title and remind me if I'm wrong. DA, ME were developed outside EA. Most of the pieces of ME2 were already in place before EA (though I consider ME2 uninteresting).

Finally, my notion is that M.Laidlaw's involvement with DA:O was only with the porting of the game to consoles.


P.S. I do NOT agree with the "too short dev time" argument though. I don't think that's the problem at all. I think the problem might be the reigning view, inside EA, on what a game should be like. But basically, how EA do it is a mystery.

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 20 août 2012 - 10:40 .

[Realmzmaster]

bEVEsthda wrote...

You mean Madden, Battlefield and Medal of Honor series do not count? Command & Conquer Red Alert 3?

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 21 août 2012 - 03:20 .

[Fisto The Sexbot]

Realmzmaster wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

RaggieRags wrote...

We could discuss how big or small CD Projekt is until the cows come home, but all that is besides my point (and off-topic). My point is that Bioware has so many things going for it, yet it has released two games on a row now that suffered from a too short dev time and it's general reputation is at an all-time low. Meanwhile more modest companies as well as Bethesda make polished RPGs that review and sell well. Bioware's problem is not the environment.

Bethesda has also made and published some real mediocre games (TES:Battlespire, TES:Redguard,  Call of Cthulhu:Dark Corners of the Earth, Star Trek Legacy (especially on the PC),Brink, Hunted: The Demon's Forge, and WET . Let's not forget the abysmal Rogue Warrior. In fact Fallout and TES are their best selling products.

So when I judge a company I look at it in its totality. Bethesda is really not that much better if at all than EA. They both have produce or published some really great games, many mediorce games and some dogs.

Agreed. However, it seems that most of Bethesda's terrible games were in its (relative) infancy. They fiddled with the formula of TES games before they went back to the original, and FO3 tried to emulate the atmosphere of the first two games and fell a little short, rather than FO:NV, which nailed it (could have something to do with former Black Isle guys making New Vegas, of course). Regardless, Bethesda's flops are in the past, while now they cater to their core group and sell millions more than expected. Bioware's flops are in the present, and they try and cater to a casual group and sells millions less than expected. 

You can't blame people for standing on street corners, saying The End is Near for Bioware. Every decision they seem to make heads them into more unpopular territory, while the exact opposite could be said of Bethesda.

Actually no Rogue Warrior, WET and some of the other games listed came out the same year as Skyrim. So their flops are not behind them. Skyrim simply help overshadow the flops.

Doesn't make Bethesda automatically guilty of them flopping.

[Fisto The Sexbot]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

RaggieRags wrote...

We could discuss how big or small CD Projekt is until the cows come home, but all that is besides my point (and off-topic). My point is that Bioware has so many things going for it, yet it has released two games on a row now that suffered from a too short dev time and it's general reputation is at an all-time low. Meanwhile more modest companies as well as Bethesda make polished RPGs that review and sell well. Bioware's problem is not the environment.

Bethesda has also made and published some real mediocre games (TES:Battlespire, TES:Redguard,  Call of Cthulhu:Dark Corners of the Earth, Star Trek Legacy (especially on the PC),Brink, Hunted: The Demon's Forge, and WET . Let's not forget the abysmal Rogue Warrior. In fact Fallout and TES are their best selling products.

So when I judge a company I look at it in its totality. Bethesda is really not that much better if at all than EA. They both have produce or published some really great games, many mediorce games and some dogs.

Agreed. However, it seems that most of Bethesda's terrible games were in its (relative) infancy. They fiddled with the formula of TES games before they went back to the original, and FO3 tried to emulate the atmosphere of the first two games and fell a little short, rather than FO:NV, which nailed it (could have something to do with former Black Isle guys making New Vegas, of course). Regardless, Bethesda's flops are in the past, while now they cater to their core group and sell millions more than expected. Bioware's flops are in the present, and they try and cater to a casual group and sells millions less than expected. 

You can't blame people for standing on street corners, saying The End is Near for Bioware. Every decision they seem to make heads them into more unpopular territory, while the exact opposite could be said of Bethesda.

Actually no Rogue Warrior, WET and some of the other games listed came out the same year as Skyrim. So their flops are not behind them. Skyrim simply help overshadow the flops.

Hmmm. I'll confess I didn't recognize some of those titles, so I assumed they were in the past. But... then again... the fact that I did not recognize them probably goes in line with them not being successful. 

That being said, perhaps I should have said that Bethesda's AAA budget games are doing really well, while Bioware's are not? 

Bethesda is only publishing them; they're not actually making those games just like they aren't making TES Online.

[Realmzmaster]

Fisto The Sexbot wrote...


Bethesda is only publishing them; they're not actually making those games just like they aren't making TES Online.

Which is the same as  EA which publishes a lot of games, but people still point to them and say EA put flops on the shelf. Same holds true for any publisher. If your name is on the box you take part of the responsibility and blame. Also Bethesda provided the money for some of those flops.

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 21 août 2012 - 05:34 .

[Foolsfolly]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Wider audiences from formerly focused franchices possibly return quick cash but not sustainable for the franchise or its developer. From what I can tell based only on observation, franchises do best when they focus on an audience. If Dragon Age is supposed to have more than three, they need to pick a focus and stick with it.

What are your thoughts on the Elder Scrolls games, as well as the Fallout franchise?

Both are franchises that, in my opinion, move significantly away from their core roots with later installments, and have seen significant growth in sales numbers.

Skyrim, in particular, seems to be a game that for the most part is quite successful with both "core" and "new" fans and make no mistake, Bethesda aims to make the games openly accessible to appeal to new fans. It explains a lot of the simplification the series has introduced which the adamant hardcore speak out against. You see this in Fallout as well, though you could argue it's different because Bethesda inherited the franchise.

Not to be an ass but I always thought the core of the Elder Scroll games was exploration in a large sandbox world. It's been like that since at least Morrowind since that's the first Elder Scroll game I played. Skyrim stays exteremly true to that.

It's mechanics have been simplified which worked well for what it was. The upgrading mechanics weren't fun. You just switched from sword to axes or maces to build up a few more levels to give you a higher attribute multiplier (the coveted x5 in three attributes).

Or in Oblivion having to take a bow a few arrows and five dozen repair hammers. Fire an arrow into a house or a tree, collect the arrow, repair the bow, rinse and repeat until you could now repair enchanted items?

In fact, in a lot of ways some of those mechanics really stood in the way of what was fun about Elder Scroll games. Bethesada deserves much praise for knowing exactly what made their games so fun and addictive and then enhansing that and shrugging off things that were holding them back (in a lot of way Skyrim's world feels more like Morrowind than it did Oblivion which is a good thing since Oblivion wasn't nearly as fun as Morrowind).

Example? I didn't like the idea of non-degrading armor in The Elder Scrolls. I thought that was a mistake.. then I played Skyrim and thought... it's not that important of a feature. Yet degrading armor and weapons were there in Fallout 3 which IS important for that franchise because it's a post-apocalyptic world where items aren't supposed to be readily availible.

Bethesada's on top of the game right now.

[Valmarn]

Filament wrote...

Your paraphrase of Laidlaw's comments does a disservice to what he actually said, but inasmuch as people complained about a 'lack of difficulty' relative to Origins, I agree with his comment. While I know there's more nuance to the combat than sheer difficulty, that's what he was responding to..

pfft...Mike Laidlaw does a disservice to Mike Laidlaw

[Valmarn]

StElmo wrote...

NKKKK wrote...

Hopefully they'll get it, because their reputation is going down the ****ter right now.

Is it wrong that I find that amusing?

Regardless, I think being torn down would be good for them. When a bone is broken it heals back a little stronger than it was before. In Basic, you're broken down to be built up better than you were when you went in.

If turning out a few disappoint games at EA's behest means doom for them...so be it.

I just hope that they take EA with them.

[Satyricon331]

Foolsfolly wrote...
Bethesada deserves much praise for knowing exactly what made their games so fun and addictive and then enhansing that and shrugging off things that were holding them back . . . Bethesada's on top of the game right now.

I don't mean to wade into any of these discussions, and I realize you're on the other side of the aisle when it comes to DA2 opinions, so my apologies for using your quote to make my point, but this passage is exactly how I've felt about Bathesda and the exact opposite of how I've felt about Bioware.  

To me, Bioware "just doesn't seem to get it" because it keeps downplaying its strengths and playing up its weaknesses.  It wants to take DA into a cinematic direction when the graphics just aren't that good and (imo) the art direction is very lackluster, ugly really.  I just can't understand that conjunction.  DA has never won much praise for its looks, but the cinematics that Bioware wants just bring looks to the forefront.  At least make the game look great before making cinematics such a focus!

Plus, they keep marginalizing their strengths.  The used to have a great reputation for storytelling, but (partly b/c of the cinematic focus) they keep making the storylines shorter (it was true going from DAO to DA2, and if the rumor on the "DA3 Information & Speculation" thread is true, DA3's story will be shorter than DA2's as well).  Although here maybe their strength is becoming their weakness.  Their reaction to the request that the story be more epic was (apparently) to offer another formulaic save-the-world plot via membership in an elite, secretive organization.  (Imo, "epic" is an issue of scope rather than content - surely there are other plotlines that could be epic?)  And of course, from "Witch Hunt" to DA2's Act III to ME3, they really need to work on their endings.

Then there's roleplaying, which is another strength they seem imo to be marginalizing.  They seem determined to narrow the scope of roleplay even though they've been very good at providing a diversity of roleplaying experience within a single game (although I realize some people like to argue the diversity of experience there was "illusory" or "cosmetic"; imo it's the player experience that's relevant, so whatever).

Anyway, just my opinion.

[Das Tentakel]

Foolsfolly wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

* snip *

What are your thoughts on the Elder Scrolls games, as well as the Fallout franchise?

Both are franchises that, in my opinion, move significantly away from their core roots with later installments, and have seen significant growth in sales numbers.

Not to be an ass but I always thought the core of the Elder Scroll games was exploration in a large sandbox world. It's been like that since at least Morrowind since that's the first Elder Scroll game I played. Skyrim stays exteremly true to that.

I had to think of Daggerfall, and how that game never appealed to me. Part of that was the bugs, but it also was awfully ‘generic’ in feel, the graphics were relatively primitive, and the procedural approach made it highly repetitive. Sandbox game alright, but kind of ‘tasteless’ and gameplaywise extremely annoying.
Morrowind in that respect was very special, the first Elder Scrolls game were (sense of) place was added as a vital ingredient in addition to sandbox and player freedom. It may have been already there (in a sense) in Daggerfall, but Morrowind was the first to successfully implement a visually appealing and highly flavourful world.
Gameplay could still be annoying, though.

Thinking about Elder Scrolls’ evolution made me consider how much disappointed I was by DA2’s evolution compared to DA:O. One of the things that deeply annoyed me about DA:O was how archaic the game felt, not just visually. But I got over it, thought it a legacy of its long development time and Neverwinter Nights-esque technical origins, and assumed things would get better in the sequel. Like, erm, much better visuals in terms of graphical fidelity and design, better and more varied animations, improved and more original quest design, larger, more open and more ‘naturally bounded’ areas etc. None of that ever happened, though. While Elder Scrolls and Dragon Age are very different beasts, there are some aspects that overlap, and one of those is the need to create a visual illusion of reality. That latter part was already somewhat badly done in DA:O (much of DA:O has a strong ‘stage background’ feel to it), but it got way worse in DA2. It was so bad it constantly ‘snapped’ me out of my suspension of disbelief, which meant I couldn’t immerse myself in the setting at all.
Really a lost opportunity, as the smaller scale of DA2 should have been perfect for creating a very strong ‘sense of place’, that, in combination with a well-executed story and a greater amount of player agency (even if illusory) could have made it a classic.

Ah, well…

[Renmiri1]

Satyricon331 wrote...

** snip **

To me, Bioware "just doesn't seem to get it" because it keeps downplaying its strengths and playing up its weaknesses.  It wants to take DA into a cinematic direction when the graphics just aren't that good and (imo) the art direction is very lackluster, ugly really.  I just can't understand that conjunction.  DA has never won much praise for its looks, but the cinematics that Bioware wants just bring looks to the forefront.  At least make the game look great before making cinematics such a focus!

Plus, they keep marginalizing their strengths.  The used to have a great reputation for storytelling, but (partly b/c of the cinematic focus) they keep making the storylines shorter (it was true going from DAO to DA2, and if the rumor on the "DA3 Information & Speculation" thread is true, DA3's story will be shorter than DA2's as well).  Although here maybe their strength is becoming their weakness.  Their reaction to the request that the story be more epic was (apparently) to offer another formulaic save-the-world plot via membership in an elite, secretive organization.  (Imo, "epic" is an issue of scope rather than content - surely there are other plotlines that could be epic?)  And of course, from "Witch Hunt" to DA2's Act III to ME3, they really need to work on their endings.

Then there's roleplaying, which is another strength they seem imo to be marginalizing.  They seem determined to narrow the scope of roleplay even though they've been very good at providing a diversity of roleplaying experience within a single game (although I realize some people like to argue the diversity of experience there was "illusory" or "cosmetic"; imo it's the player experience that's relevant, so whatever).

Anyway, just my opinion.

This!

Is hard to understand why they are chasing stuff they aren't good at and abandoning what made Bioware beloved.

[thepringle]

I think that DAIII could be great, or it could be mediocre, I'll wait and see. Until we know more about it, I'll reserve my judgement.

Modifié par thepringle, 22 août 2012 - 10:09 .

[Fisto The Sexbot]

Realmzmaster wrote...

Fisto The Sexbot wrote...


Bethesda is only publishing them; they're not actually making those games just like they aren't making TES Online.

Which is the same as  EA which publishes a lot of games, but people still point to them and say EA put flops on the shelf. Same holds true for any publisher. If your name is on the box you take part of the responsibility and blame. Also Bethesda provided the money for some of those flops.

We're not blaming EA because they happen to publish bad games; we're blaming EA because they cause games to turn out bad, or at least worse. I don't see Bethesda marketing as many day 1 DLCs and item packs as EA does, or hiring people like David Silverman. Bethesda also doesn't have a history of ruining franchises that were good and closing down studios.

If I give someone money and they lack the talent to make something good, how is that my fault? Will Brian Fargo fanboys be to blame if Wasteland 2 ends up sucking?

Bad investment, sure, but the quality of the product wasn't up to me.

Modifié par Fisto The Sexbot, 23 août 2012 - 08:15 .