152 réponses à ce sujet

[TheCrimsonSpire]

Easy, you post it anyway. Yelling at the top of your lungs problems in the game, which countless others have already done themselves, adds nothing. By at least giving some sort of feedback which is actually constructive, unlike this OP, which boils down to, "HERP DERP BIOWARE FAILZ ME", then it's worth posting. Help them improve, even if you think they are ignoring you, do it anyway.

[Snypy]

TheCrimsonSpire wrote...

OP's thread title is bugging the sh*t out of me. It's "DOES NOT" not "DO NOT", otherwise it becomes a statement directed at Bioware. Learn better grammar plz OP.

He's from the UK. Therefore, he used correct grammar.

[Rudy Lis]

TheCrimsonSpire wrote...

Easy, you post it anyway. Yelling at the top of your lungs problems in the game, which countless others have already done themselves, adds nothing. By at least giving some sort of feedback which is actually constructive, unlike this OP, which boils down to, "HERP DERP BIOWARE FAILZ ME", then it's worth posting. Help them improve, even if you think they are ignoring you, do it anyway.

Send them PMs. Last reply was... in February, before ME3 release, when I addressed issues of Demo (still present, hehe).

Plus, sign of their support (and feedback) - it took them (beaware support) to fix issues I had since late June with ME3 and since mid-may with BF3 (yes, it's not bioware product, but I called for EA support as well). Funnily enough, Steam support helped me to solve some issues I had with beaware games (sold on Steam), while beaware own support did only one thing - ignoring me. Help arrived only after I stopped being polite and asked for moneyback and to call BBB. So I hope you'll excuse me if I won't believe in "we listening".  

I'd say I find it quite hilarious for games with pricetag of 80 bucks each.

[Cyberstrike nTo]

Rudy Lis wrote...

Cyberstrike nTo wrote...

Sad truth is I've met many gamers on other fourms that are sick of Bioware's old formula and didn't play Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age II, Mass Effect, Mass Effect 2, and Mass Effect 3 because of it and they played every Bioware game before those came out because they found the same damn story being told over and over in different settings boring, old and stale.  

To some extent they are correct.

DA:O by and large - NWN2 mod, I even was confused by it when saw it first time. I liked it, though combat just ****ing boring and irritating ((A)DnD overdose maybe), but I liked story and characters.

I can't say anything for story and characters in DA2, because local animation (combat one), plus graphic rehash are just repulsive for me (not in good, Alan Wake/Dead Space 1/2 way repulsive). I don't get how it is possible to make game which looks worse than previous game from this very franchise. But they are talented people. And no, I'm not "hi-def only" graphic nerd, I still like Gothic 1 or, I don't know, Star Wars Dark Forces 2: Jedi Knight (played just recently).

As for ME1, I can't say bad word for it, even if I notice some flaws, holes and "recycling of someone elses idea". I like game very much. To be honest, I though it was "pull up" they've made after long nose-down dive they've making since ToB (yes, I'm that weird).

ME2 wasn't that bad, but it has huge drops in departments I like (guns, to name a few). Story was "acceptable" but bleak in comparison of possible perspective. Main threat, collectors, appear in 3.5 missions and all possible analys, "detective work" all went to hell. Ah, yes, there is my favorite character - Illusive man, who "will take care of the details".

And ME3... It has a way too much holes, flaws and inconsistencies so all crew can line up for that:
http://t3.gstatic.co...YBbLnuguklJWSdA

Ironically enough, I liked lack of final boss.


As final note: well, believe it or not, but I played KotOR just recently (ahem, Steam summer sale, cough). To be honest, despite all that despise I have towards that combat system (I'm a bit tired of it after all my (A)DnDing), I like that game much more than DA2 or ME3.

So yeah, bioware don't make great games anymore. Since BG2, with occasional rise in form of ME1.
Don't take this too seriously, it's just art after all.

My point was that are gamers who felt that the stories of Baulder's Gate, Baulder's Gate II, Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic, and Jade Empire were basically the same just set in different universes and felt basically "If you played one and you've played them all." The stories and characters were the same over and over just set in different universes and in my OPINION there is a lot of truth in that. 

Familarity breeds compemt as Shale said in DA:O and that is what I think a lot of the problems that Bioware is having with it's a fanbase and especially on BSN. We, the gamers who come to BSN are so used to getting our way  with Bioware and yet go to any number of message boards and you will find that people who don't like Bioware games because they find them all the same. So what is Bioware supposed to do?

Create games for a small fanbase, and see never see any real chance at high profits and be critized "for always playing it safe and never doing anything bold" or go the other way and maybe succeed wildly or fail miserably. You don't survive in this industery and economy by playing it safe so they decided to take some chances to increase their fanbase, now we can argue to hell freezes over if they have succeeded or failed, (and no offence if you want to find someone else I'm not interested in debate that IMHO is really based on a person's POV and/or opinion) but at least they have the guts to step out of their comfort zone and try out new  kinds of stories and ways to tell those stories in video games that they never have tried before. Most companies never do that especially with long running franchises until they absolutly had to and in some cases it was too late to save the franchise and/or the company. 

 

[ClockworkSpectre]

Despite the numerous annoying grammar mistakes in the OP's post, I agree with the general message of the post. Whether it is the influence of EA or BioWare just becoming full of themselves, they have taken a huge nose dive when it comes to story telling and even overall game quality. The dumbing down of the franchise so that people can "jump into the story" and adding Multiplayer for microtransactions (even though MP is fun, or at least used to be) are further signs of their decline.

[Rudy Lis]

Cyberstrike nTo wrote...

My point was that are gamers who felt that the stories of Baulder's Gate, Baulder's Gate II, Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic, and Jade Empire were basically the same just set in different universes and felt basically "If you played one and you've played them all." The stories and characters were the same over and over just set in different universes and in my OPINION there is a lot of truth in that. 

May I ask a question? Why you stressed "opinion"?
Other than that all I wanted to say that actually I agree with you.
I guess I need to improve my English regardless of all those "it's fine" comments. My apologies for creating misunderstanding in this question.

Cyberstrike nTo wrote...

Familarity breeds compemt as Shale said in DA:O and that is what I think a lot of the problems that Bioware is having with it's a fanbase and especially on BSN. We, the gamers who come to BSN are so used to getting our way  with Bioware and yet go to any number of message boards and you will find that people who don't like Bioware games because they find them all the same. So what is Bioware supposed to do?

Don't know about Shale, can't make that thing (DLC) work. Regardless, as answer on your question I can suggest few things. First - determine which seat they want to occupy. I.e. whether they going to please "old gang", or recruit new blood. I think (I may be mistaken), computer games are unlike table-top ones (especially miniature-based) in next thing: in table-top, sooner or later you'll stop to purchase new elements. You spouse can "arsk" you to do that, or it could be your own attempts to squeeze "one more Baneblade" into overcrowded shelf or you just have good taste and understand when enough is enough. So those companies need new blood, this rearranging rulebooks to newcomers. Yes, old pepperboxes are unhappy, but nobody preclude us from using "homerules", unless it's official game. On computer games market situation is a bit different. I guess we all want "more the same". Problem, by my opinion is we, old pepperboxes and them, newblood want different more the same.  Not sure I can list those things due "no spoiler forum" and new "site rules".

Cyberstrike nTo wrote...

Create games for a small fanbase, and see never see any real chance at high profits and be critized "for always playing it safe and never doing anything bold" or go the other way and maybe succeed wildly or fail miserably. You don't survive in this industery and economy by playing it safe so they decided to take some chances to increase their fanbase, now we can argue to hell freezes over if they have succeeded or failed, (and no offence if you want to find someone else I'm not interested in debate that IMHO is really based on a person's POV and/or opinion) but at least they have the guts to step out of their comfort zone and try out new  kinds of stories and ways to tell those stories in video games that they never have tried before. Most companies never do that especially with long running franchises until they absolutly had to and in some cases it was too late to save the franchise and/or the company. 
 

I'm not going to argue, so no offence taken.
However, I have to state my position at least in respect to you, since you spent you time writing that to me.
First. It didn't stopped them from exploiting "safe approach" for what, about decade or so? They seems to be quite happy with it. Of course, how it could be otherwise - somebody told them they are gods of RPG and they believe it.
Second. I'm not "adventurer", I was taught that risks should be carefully calculated, evaluated, estimated and assessed before attempted. I can't say existing result actually looks like it followed those steps. It look more like a result of gambling. Of course, it's their choice.
Third. What I cannot agree upon is "comfort zone" part. I'm not that much of orient gamer, but I'd say new Devil may cry is step out of comfort zone. To some extent, Resident Evil 4 was one (RE5 mostly RE4 with minor corrections) as well as Lara Croft and Guardian of light. ME3 isn't. From my point of view it is attempt to seat on two seats in same time - to please old fanbase and acquire new one. And from my POV it's failure. I see no really new elements worthy of losing old ones. To be completely honest, I don't see new elements at all - only loss of old. Those "new" "additions" look insignificant to me. Unless their story, full of lack of background and filled with holes, flaws, inconsistencies is their "new age" and not isolated case, I'd say they still use safe approach they used before. Only painted it a bit to make it looking prettier.
Fourth. I know about dangers of "too much of more the same" - I remember fate of 3DO and "old" Heroes of might and magic. I don't approve new ones, either, so go figure.

If I want something new, I'll go for indie. For 80 bucks I can purchase a whole bloody lot of games, with interesting, long gameplay, sometimes with storylines containing more depths than this "experiment". Despite my deep love to firearms, my surname isn't Winchester, so I won't repeat myself about "support" part.

If bioware now suffer some transition period, okay, we'll live, we'll see what comes out of it. If they slap together some parts into this shoddy "improvised game" just to meet deadline and going to continue that approach because we let it slide...

[MassStorm]

It's not that they don't do any good game but certainly not at the same level of their previous ones. I enjoyed ME3 and DA2 but quite frankly their re-play value is practically zero for me. Once it was done then i lost my interest in re-playing it. I think in my case because of the auto-dialogue and the very linear storyline. Add to this the poor quality of sub-quests and it's pretty much an average game (7 out of 10).

But what made me actually slightly annoyed is the perception that BW is now seeing me as a cash-cow to milk with micro-transactions, random MP packs and SP DLC at day one release. Plus now if you want any kind of real sub-quest is now only through DLCs and not release in the game yet.

In conclusion i cannot take away the feeling that BW is becoming a little bit greedy, i understand that they need to make a living from that but somehow i feel they are becoming more corporate than a gaming friendly developer (like the guys of the Witcher).

In the end to get the complete game with all the DLCs i will have to pay 20 or 30 bucks more..... i somehow feel a little bit exploited. Just my personal opinion though....

Modifié par MassStorm, 01 septembre 2012 - 11:23 .

[TonyIommi]

Cyberstrike nTo wrote...

Rudy Lis wrote...

Cyberstrike nTo wrote...

Sad truth is I've met many gamers on other fourms that are sick of Bioware's old formula and didn't play Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age II, Mass Effect, Mass Effect 2, and Mass Effect 3 because of it and they played every Bioware game before those came out because they found the same damn story being told over and over in different settings boring, old and stale.  

To some extent they are correct.

DA:O by and large - NWN2 mod, I even was confused by it when saw it first time. I liked it, though combat just ****ing boring and irritating ((A)DnD overdose maybe), but I liked story and characters.

I can't say anything for story and characters in DA2, because local animation (combat one), plus graphic rehash are just repulsive for me (not in good, Alan Wake/Dead Space 1/2 way repulsive). I don't get how it is possible to make game which looks worse than previous game from this very franchise. But they are talented people. And no, I'm not "hi-def only" graphic nerd, I still like Gothic 1 or, I don't know, Star Wars Dark Forces 2: Jedi Knight (played just recently).

As for ME1, I can't say bad word for it, even if I notice some flaws, holes and "recycling of someone elses idea". I like game very much. To be honest, I though it was "pull up" they've made after long nose-down dive they've making since ToB (yes, I'm that weird).

ME2 wasn't that bad, but it has huge drops in departments I like (guns, to name a few). Story was "acceptable" but bleak in comparison of possible perspective. Main threat, collectors, appear in 3.5 missions and all possible analys, "detective work" all went to hell. Ah, yes, there is my favorite character - Illusive man, who "will take care of the details".

And ME3... It has a way too much holes, flaws and inconsistencies so all crew can line up for that:
http://t3.gstatic.co...YBbLnuguklJWSdA

Ironically enough, I liked lack of final boss.


As final note: well, believe it or not, but I played KotOR just recently (ahem, Steam summer sale, cough). To be honest, despite all that despise I have towards that combat system (I'm a bit tired of it after all my (A)DnDing), I like that game much more than DA2 or ME3.

So yeah, bioware don't make great games anymore. Since BG2, with occasional rise in form of ME1.
Don't take this too seriously, it's just art after all.

My point was that are gamers who felt that the stories of Baulder's Gate, Baulder's Gate II, Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic, and Jade Empire were basically the same just set in different universes and felt basically "If you played one and you've played them all." The stories and characters were the same over and over just set in different universes and in my OPINION there is a lot of truth in that. 

Familarity breeds compemt as Shale said in DA:O and that is what I think a lot of the problems that Bioware is having with it's a fanbase and especially on BSN. We, the gamers who come to BSN are so used to getting our way  with Bioware and yet go to any number of message boards and you will find that people who don't like Bioware games because they find them all the same. So what is Bioware supposed to do?

Create games for a small fanbase, and see never see any real chance at high profits and be critized "for always playing it safe and never doing anything bold" or go the other way and maybe succeed wildly or fail miserably. You don't survive in this industery and economy by playing it safe so they decided to take some chances to increase their fanbase, now we can argue to hell freezes over if they have succeeded or failed, (and no offence if you want to find someone else I'm not interested in debate that IMHO is really based on a person's POV and/or opinion) but at least they have the guts to step out of their comfort zone and try out new  kinds of stories and ways to tell those stories in video games that they never have tried before. Most companies never do that especially with long running franchises until they absolutly had to and in some cases it was too late to save the franchise and/or the company. 

 

Their success while being a huge blessing has also had it's draw backs and they are not the only ones suffering from this. Take Blizzards recent release of Diablo 3. It's been subject to god knows how many people upset about more or less the same things that people are upset with about Mass effect and Dragon Age.  I mean you guys think the controversy over the ME3 ending is bad, you should head onto the D3 forums some time. But this is something all developers will face in the future, at least any developer whos had any widespread success. You can't make every one happy.

Modifié par TonyIommi, 02 septembre 2012 - 12:54 .

[crypticcat 2o2p]

MassStorm wrote...

It's not that they don't do any good game but certainly not at the same level of their previous ones. I enjoyed ME3 and DA2 but quite frankly their re-play value is practically zero for me. Once it was done then i lost my interest in re-playing it. I think in my case because of the auto-dialogue and the very linear storyline. Add to this the poor quality of sub-quests and it's pretty much an average game (7 out of 10).

But what made me actually slightly annoyed is the perception that BW is now seeing me as a cash-cow to milk with micro-transactions, random MP packs and SP DLC at day one release. Plus now if you want any kind of real sub-quest is now only through DLCs and not release in the game yet.

In conclusion i cannot take away the feeling that BW is becoming a little bit greedy, i understand that they need to make a living from that but somehow i feel they are becoming more corporate than a gaming friendly developer (like the guys of the Witcher).

In the end to get the complete game with all the DLCs i will have to pay 20 or 30 bucks more..... i somehow feel a little bit exploited. Just my personal opinion though....

You have the choice to walk away... nobody is forcing you to buy the DLC.

[Icinix]

crypticcat 2o2p wrote...

MassStorm wrote...

It's not that they don't do any good game but certainly not at the same level of their previous ones. I enjoyed ME3 and DA2 but quite frankly their re-play value is practically zero for me. Once it was done then i lost my interest in re-playing it. I think in my case because of the auto-dialogue and the very linear storyline. Add to this the poor quality of sub-quests and it's pretty much an average game (7 out of 10).

But what made me actually slightly annoyed is the perception that BW is now seeing me as a cash-cow to milk with micro-transactions, random MP packs and SP DLC at day one release. Plus now if you want any kind of real sub-quest is now only through DLCs and not release in the game yet.

In conclusion i cannot take away the feeling that BW is becoming a little bit greedy, i understand that they need to make a living from that but somehow i feel they are becoming more corporate than a gaming friendly developer (like the guys of the Witcher).

In the end to get the complete game with all the DLCs i will have to pay 20 or 30 bucks more..... i somehow feel a little bit exploited. Just my personal opinion though....

You have the choice to walk away... nobody is forcing you to buy the DLC.

..and that is the problem with DLC.

It either is ineffectual and has no value in the rest of the game - making it a totally unneccessary and / or irrelevant purcahse only for people who really want to experience everything they can in the game world.

Or they affect the game in meaningful ways and alter the games story / plot lines/ endings etc - but people need to pay for it to experience the complete game.

Thus handing X amount on top of the price of entry.

Its something the gaming industry is still struggling to find the best way forward.

[Dean_the_Young]

Or you could avoid a false dilemma by believing something can add value to a game without altering the story/plot lines/endings, recognizing that 110% content is not the same as 'complete', or simply going for a less restricted understanding of 'value.'

[Icinix]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Or you could avoid a false dilemma by believing something can add value to a game without altering the story/plot lines/endings, recognizing that 110% content is not the same as 'complete', or simply going for a less restricted understanding of 'value.'

Nah. 110% would be the game + expansion pack post game.

ME3 is 95% - Javik would make it 100%

Edit: I would also like to point out I am a fan of DLC that does alter the story / plot lines etc. Shale I think is one of the best integrated DLC pieces around.

But I can understand why a lot of people are opposed to DLC that does this.

Modifié par Icinix, 02 septembre 2012 - 01:21 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Icinix wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Or you could avoid a false dilemma by believing something can add value to a game without altering the story/plot lines/endings, recognizing that 110% content is not the same as 'complete', or simply going for a less restricted understanding of 'value.'

Nah. 110% would be the game + expansion pack post game.

ME3 is 95% - Javik would make it 100%

Javik adds to the game, but it is complete without him. He might be an appreciated 5%, but he's still just bringing it to 105%.

[TonyIommi]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Icinix wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Or you could avoid a false dilemma by believing something can add value to a game without altering the story/plot lines/endings, recognizing that 110% content is not the same as 'complete', or simply going for a less restricted understanding of 'value.'

Nah. 110% would be the game + expansion pack post game.

ME3 is 95% - Javik would make it 100%

Javik adds to the game, but it is complete without him. He might be an appreciated 5%, but he's still just bringing it to 105%.

Don't bother. This argument is so old that if their was the slightest chance he would reconsider his opinion it would have happened already. The lines are drawn and people like the guy your arguing with don't accept reason or logic or rationality. They just see red and get mad.

[TonyIommi]

simfamSP wrote...

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

suntzuxi wrote...

Justin2k wrote...

xxBabyMonkeyxx wrote...

"Why Skyrim is inspiration for DA3 and not DA:O." Ohhhh no....Please tell me you're joking about this. I want my Dragon Age back!! :'(

Laidlaw says the inspiration is Skyrim.  He really liked that game so he's going to try to turn DA3 into a Skyrim clone.  It was some press release, theres more info on the DA2 forum.

he mentioned several games including Skyrim, Dark Souls etc.  They liked Skyrim's openess but they also liked Dark Souls' atmsphere. And Dragon Age 3 will be a Dragon Age game not Skyrim clone.

Why didn't he mention The Witcher 2?

Pride.

Oh yea that's gotta be it.  I mean theirs lots of games he didn't mention.  But the witcher 2 was specifically not mentioned because of pride. You people are deluded. Did it ever occur to you that he may not have played TW2 or that it might not have popped up in his head at that exact moment he was being interviewed?

[Heather Cline]

Justin they actually were already moving him off of ME2 when Walters was taking over. It was why ME2 had no coherent plot or overarching storyline. It was a mishmash of short stories and daddy issues. Frankly ME2 is only slightly better than ME3 and that's not by much.

As for why he left other than to focus on his books my guess is he saw them destroying his story and didn't like it.

I wouldn't if they did that to my series.

[Icinix]

TonyIommi wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Icinix wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Or you could avoid a false dilemma by believing something can add value to a game without altering the story/plot lines/endings, recognizing that 110% content is not the same as 'complete', or simply going for a less restricted understanding of 'value.'

Nah. 110% would be the game + expansion pack post game.

ME3 is 95% - Javik would make it 100%

Javik adds to the game, but it is complete without him. He might be an appreciated 5%, but he's still just bringing it to 105%.

Don't bother. This argument is so old that if their was the slightest chance he would reconsider his opinion it would have happened already. The lines are drawn and people like the guy your arguing with don't accept reason or logic or rationality. They just see red and get mad.

lol - I think you should read my edit I made before you quoted that.

[Icinix]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Icinix wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Or you could avoid a false dilemma by believing something can add value to a game without altering the story/plot lines/endings, recognizing that 110% content is not the same as 'complete', or simply going for a less restricted understanding of 'value.'

Nah. 110% would be the game + expansion pack post game.

ME3 is 95% - Javik would make it 100%

Javik adds to the game, but it is complete without him. He might be an appreciated 5%, but he's still just bringing it to 105%.

Depends on how you determine complete I suppose.

The part of the ship he resides on is blocked off, despite it having his room assets and stuff in it - there is also a bit of extra dialogue that fills some holes during the Thessia mission etc.

See like the previous mentioned Shale, that to me is making the dwarf quest line complete. The way I see it is its like having a movie that is scripted and voiced and done and dusted, but the DLC adds the music. Thus completing the whole experience.

An expasion like Awakenings on the other hand actually adds to the game. The same way the Firewalker missions added to Mass Effect 2 but Zaeed and Kasumi completed it.

[Ravenmyste]

Snypy wrote...

TheCrimsonSpire wrote...

OP's thread title is bugging the sh*t out of me. It's "DOES NOT" not "DO NOT", otherwise it becomes a statement directed at Bioware. Learn better grammar plz OP.

He's from the UK. Therefore, he used correct grammar.

nope he didnt use proper grammar, it doesnt make any sense to say "bioware don't make great games"

its not used in a contextual sentence structure..

it should have  been does not and or doesn't make great games,  regardless of UK and  and EU spelling issue on making spelling and sentence structure..

he messed up and tried  say he from the UK, no teacher would from a secondary schooling  would have passed him  if they saw that mistake  for a title... sorry, but no.... he messed up on his little hateful speech  title.

Modifié par Ravenmyste, 02 septembre 2012 - 02:47 .

[Spartas Husky]

... not really true for op... but two words

EA. All the explanation is in those two words/letters

[Rudy Lis]

crypticcat 2o2p wrote...

You have the choice to walk away... nobody is forcing you to buy the DLC.

No, but it puts things in perspective.

[Josh123914]

DOYOURLABS wrote...

Justin2k wrote...

DOYOURLABS wrote...

Mr. Laidlaw is one of the nicest people I've met. 

The same man that went to the media to tell the fans that we were wrong for liking Dragon Age1 more than his Dragon Age 2, and that his game was epic but we just weren't able to comprehend it's epicness?  Really?  Mac Walters and his "artistic integrity" was a similar message.

The truth is, Bioware had great writers.  Brent on Dragon Age.  Drew on Mass Effect.  They replaced them with Mac Walters and Mike Laidlaw.

The result.  Terrible sequels (albeit average-above average games).  I don't have any problem with that.

I DO have a problem with them telling me I'm wrong for liking the originals better and that I just don't "get" their art.  Sorry, your game sucks in comparison to the ones you made unfaithful sequels to.

I'm fairly certain you made the first part up, I'd like a link to proof otherwise. Every interview I've seen is them saying they tried new things and their core fans didn't like the new direction. The artistic integrity nonsense, they said "they stood by the endings" but then gave us free DLC. 

Drew retired, he wasn't fired. DA1 had a generic story to me. "Ancient demon evil that will take over the word" is the plot of nearly every fantasy story. 

they probably gave out the Extended Cut because if they stood by ''Artistic Integrity'' they would have lost a large portion of their fanbase, and making it would have been a good way to stop the PR ****storm that was happening before it. Also, keep in mind that if they had charged for it, people would say how it should have been in the game in the first place and they are making us pay for the real ending.

Oh, and I'm not suprised the multiplayer packs are free, they can make their money off people buying spectre packs and if the DLC costs money they probably wouldn't sell very well because for most people Mass Effect 3's co-op mode is only there to get your EMS up in single player or to play when you are done the campaign.

[Rudy Lis]

Josh123914 wrote...

they can make their money off people buying spectre packs

Wait, they charge people for something in multiplayer?

[Candidate 88766]

I disagree.

I thought the vast majority of the entire Mass Effect trilogy was truly great.

I honestly don't care if the gameplay was less RPG-esque in the sequels. I can appreciate a good game regardless of genre. The ME games are some of the few I've seen that really focus on character and story. Character-driven games in particular aren't exactly common, and Bioware do them better than anyone. The main story was lacking in places (the Conduit, the Collectors, the ending, the original dark energy plotline, etc), but the sub-plots (Genophage, geth-quarian war) and character plots (particularly Mordin and Saren imo) are generally outstanding. The dialogue is normally excellent as well.

In my opinion, Bioware do some of the best characters, dialogue, stories, and worldbuilding in the entire industry. The main Reaper plotline went downhill after ME1, but the ME universe itself got more and more interesting and in-depth as it went along. Afterthoughts in ME1 like the geth-quarian war and the Genophage grew into massive, morally grey issues throughout the trilogy. Some of the characters had genuine development through the story.

This character focus is something you rarely see from other developers, and all of Bioware's games are character-driven. ME1 owes much of its greatness to Saren. ME2 overcomes its lacklustre main plot by having such a large cast of genuinely interesting characters. And because of that, I really do think Bioware does make great games. No, their games are not flawless. Far from it. But imo they're so far above most other games despite their flaws that great is generally the only way I can describe them. I can't personally talk for DA2 or TOR, but my opinion stands for their other games that I've played.