179 réponses à ce sujet

[Persephone]

Monica21 wrote...

marshalleck wrote...

Monica21 wrote...
Bioware's strength is plot and branching quests. 

I'm not convinced this is anything but an old meme mindlessly repeated. The last good Bioware game was Dragon Age Origins. They've been in a severe decline since then.

The biggest problem with DA2 was the incredibly short development cycle. I mean, really. You can't create a decent sequel in a year. Even with all of its problems, DA2 is still a better game than Oblivion.

Yap. Same issue that KOTOR 2 had. Rushed devs. (DAMN you LucasArts and EA!) But DA:I has a lot more time and I hope they'll use those almost 3 years wisely.

[Mello]

Tiguaje wrote...

Tiguaje wrote...

From The DA Twitter Thread...
Environmental concept art that Bioware showed at PAX East

(via BSN users LolaLei and Sebciooo911)









On Feb 29 Alain Baxter wrote:
Exploration, puzzles and bandits that do more then die. #sprintReviewDay

See how Beautiful are the concept art         

Oh ****! 

[marshalleck]

Monica21 wrote...

marshalleck wrote...

Monica21 wrote...
Bioware's strength is plot and branching quests. 

I'm not convinced this is anything but an old meme mindlessly repeated. The last good Bioware game was Dragon Age Origins. They've been in a severe decline since then.

The biggest problem with DA2 was the incredibly short development cycle. I mean, really. You can't create a decent sequel in a year. Even with all of its problems, DA2 is still a better game than Oblivion.

Oblivion is not Bethesda's latest game, nor was it DA2's competition. That would be Skyrim, a game you slag but apparently haven't even played. 

[SafetyShattered]

iPoohCupCakes wrote...

Tiguaje wrote...

Tiguaje wrote...

From The DA Twitter Thread...
Environmental concept art that Bioware showed at PAX East

(via BSN users LolaLei and Sebciooo911)









On Feb 29 Alain Baxter wrote:
Exploration, puzzles and bandits that do more then die. #sprintReviewDay

See how Beautiful are the concept art         

Oh ****! 

I know right!? That is freaking gorgeous.

[Persephone]

marshalleck wrote...

Persephone wrote...

marshalleck wrote...

Shadowfang12 wrote...

Personally I don't want a full blown open world game like skyrim. DA wouldn't really fit in an open world game imo.

Yeah, and multiplayer wouldn't fit in Mass Effect.

Well, does it, really?

I admit that it's a fun gimmick.

Yes, it does. And it's more than a gimmick; it has kept that game afloat. Why do you think they can release so much free MP DLC? People are throwing money at them for the item packs.

Gimmicks can be mighty cash cows.

But that is not why I buy Bioware games.

[marshalleck]

The amount of post-release support ME3 MP has seen is no gimmick. Bioware, to their credit, have made a serious effort to maintain the game. And that's rewarded by people continuing to play (and pay)

If it were just tacked on and then forgetten by everyone, I could call it a gimmick.

Modifié par marshalleck, 14 octobre 2012 - 03:08 .

[Persephone]

marshalleck wrote...

The amount of post-release support ME3 MP has seen is no gimmick. Bioware, to their credit, have made a serious effort to maintain the game. And that's rewarded by people continuing to play (and pay)

If it were just tacked on and then forgetten by everyone, I could call it a gimmick.

That IS true, you are right. And it DOES keep interest in the game alive, that is a good thing too.

Hmmmmmmm......... BG had multiplayer too. I'm not opposed to MP for DA..... I just prefer SP, is all.

[InvaderXX]

The DA3 landscape looks great.....if the final product matches with the concept art from PAX East!

[marshalleck]

Supporting the ME3 MP with regular content updates also has a few side benefits. It keeps the game in people's minds, and also keeps the game installed (on PC) or in the active library (consoles) and not traded in at Gamestop. So when the SP DLC does come out, people are receptive. Good strategy.

Modifié par marshalleck, 14 octobre 2012 - 03:13 .

[Monica21]

CrustyBot wrote...

FWIW, I don't even think BioWare should make an open world game, not even Baldur's Gate 1 quasi-open world, because it's clear it would suck. BioWare has no concept of how to make simulated/organic worlds work now.

I just think that people's notions of what an open world game constitutes is incredibly flawed, as if there's a dichotomy between "writing" and "world".

If I'm understanding you, you're right. There's no reason why an open world can't also have strong characters, writing, and quest lines. I think the problem you run into though, is development time. Bethesda spends 5-6 years developing a TES title. They have a lot of NPCs, they spend a lot of time developing environments, and I know with Oblivion they spent a lot of time on RAI and physics. Even then, I don't think they did everything they could do all that well. High graphics settings weren't knock out gorgeous unless you got a player-made high-res texture pack. Distance view was a problem. The game ended up being a jack of all trades and a master of none. Nothing really stood out as being high quality because they tried to implement too much.

If a gaming company tries to go outside their wheelhouse it's not going to be a good game. The marketing VP at Bethesda said adamantly that they weren't going to do top-down isometric for Fallout 3 because "it wasn't something we do." They didn't try to copy Fallout 1 and 2 because it just wasn't their style of game. They stuck to it, despite the outcry from the Fallout fanbase and it was a decent game. And this is where Bioware shouldn't shift focus. Don't go outside your wheelhouse, don't try to do too much, don't try to copy another successful franchise just because it's successful. Just do what you do well.

[marshalleck]

There you go mentioning Oblivion again. It was Bethesda's entry to the current console generation hardware!

Before you offer any more critique of their output, you need to bring yourself up to speed with their recent work. Go rent Skyrim.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Monica21 wrote...

CrustyBot wrote...

FWIW, I don't even think BioWare should make an open world game, not even Baldur's Gate 1 quasi-open world, because it's clear it would suck. BioWare has no concept of how to make simulated/organic worlds work now.

I just think that people's notions of what an open world game constitutes is incredibly flawed, as if there's a dichotomy between "writing" and "world".

If I'm understanding you, you're right. There's no reason why an open world can't also have strong characters, writing, and quest lines. I think the problem you run into though, is development time. Bethesda spends 5-6 years developing a TES title. They have a lot of NPCs, they spend a lot of time developing environments, and I know with Oblivion they spent a lot of time on RAI and physics. Even then, I don't think they did everything they could do all that well. High graphics settings weren't knock out gorgeous unless you got a player-made high-res texture pack. Distance view was a problem. The game ended up being a jack of all trades and a master of none. Nothing really stood out as being high quality because they tried to implement too much.

It's a matter of scope and asset creation. Skyrim (and Oblivion) created assets from the ground up. In Oblivion's case, for new console hardware.

OTOH, New Vegas was created in the same amount of dev time that DA 2 had with ~1/3rd of the staff.

Monica21 wrote...
If a gaming company tries to go outside their wheelhouse it's not going to be a good game. The marketing VP at Bethesda said adamantly that they weren't going to do top-down isometric for Fallout 3 because "it wasn't something we do." They didn't try to copy Fallout 1 and 2 because it just wasn't their style of game. They stuck to it, despite the outcry from the Fallout fanbase and it was a decent game. And this is where Bioware shouldn't shift focus. Don't go outside your wheelhouse, don't try to do too much, don't try to copy another successful franchise just because it's successful. Just do what you do well.

For the most part, I agree with this, just annoyed at people coming in talking about how open worlds inherently means crap writing because they didn't like Skyrim and how it handled "romances".

Modifié par CrustyBot, 14 octobre 2012 - 03:25 .

[Xilizhra]

Are you suggesting that characterization of the companions is weak because there's no romance?

Not inherently, but that's a lack I heavily dislike.

[Monica21]

marshalleck wrote...

There you go mentioning Oblivion again. It was Bethesda's entry to the current console generation hardware!

Before you offer any more critique of their output, you need to bring yourself up to speed with their recent work. Go rent Skyrim.

Well, first, I wasn't responding to you. Second, I played it on PC. Third I've had enough experience with TES games to never want to play one again. Fourth, my response didn't require current knowledge of TES games, only of development cycles and the resource cost of putting too much into one game, of which Oblivion was an example. Fifth, I don't own a console.

[marshalleck]

Monica21 wrote...

marshalleck wrote...

There you go mentioning Oblivion again. It was Bethesda's entry to the current console generation hardware!

Before you offer any more critique of their output, you need to bring yourself up to speed with their recent work. Go rent Skyrim.

Well, first, I wasn't responding to you. Second, I played it on PC. Third I've had enough experience with TES games to never want to play one again. Fourth, my response didn't require current knowledge of TES games, only of development cycles and the resource cost of putting too much into one game, of which Oblivion was an example. Fifth, I don't own a console.

If you don't want people to comment on what you post, take it to PM. Development cycles and resource cost aren't factors that are necessarily set in stone; they can be streamlined as developers become more experienced with a platform and their engineers create more efficient tools. I think Skyrim is a perfect example of this; just do a side by side comparison of Oblivion and Skyrim running on the same hardware and the stark contrast is plain to see. 

Modifié par marshalleck, 14 octobre 2012 - 03:28 .

[Monica21]

CrustyBot wrote...
It's a matter of scope and asset creation. Skyrim (and Oblivion) created assets from the ground up. In Oblivion's case, for new console hardware.

OTOH, New Vegas was created in the same amount of dev time that DA 2 had.

Yes. I didn't follow the development for Skyrim, but Bethesda built the RAI system for NPCs, for example. Which means less development time for plot and characterization.

For the most part, I agree with this, just annoyed at people coming in talking about how open worlds inherently means crap writing because they didn't like Skyrim and how it handled "romances".

I like Morrowind and it's an open world. Same with Fallout. I'd like to think I'd like New Vegas if I had a chance to play it. I don't like the direction Bethesda has gone with the TES series though, so when I see the Bioware CEO say they're looking at Skyrim it makes me nervous.

[marshalleck]

Monica21 wrote...

CrustyBot wrote...
It's a matter of scope and asset creation. Skyrim (and Oblivion) created assets from the ground up. In Oblivion's case, for new console hardware.

OTOH, New Vegas was created in the same amount of dev time that DA 2 had.

Yes. I didn't follow the development for Skyrim, but Bethesda built the RAI system for NPCs, for example. Which means less development time for plot and characterization.

Are you suggesting the engineers who implemented the RAI are also the writers and scripters who made up the characters and then created conversations and quests for them?

This is the same sort of junk argument that gets thrown around on BSN a lot, which I've seen Bioware folks repeatedly rebuke on the same grounds.

Modifié par marshalleck, 14 octobre 2012 - 03:37 .

[POETICDRINK]

I welcome an open world game, especially if it's done right with some depth. Dragon Age:Origins was was sort of an open world game. I want always have a reason to replay the game and finding something new nearly everytime.

[Tiguaje]

See This:

[Monica21]

marshalleck wrote...
Are you suggesting the engineers who implemented the RAI are also the writers and scripters who made up the characters and then created conversations and quests for them?

This is the same sort of junk argument that gets thrown around on BSN a lot, which I've seen Bioware folks repeatedly rebuke on the same grounds.

I'm saying that the RAI has to work as intended before quests can be properly implemented. No, they're not the same people. But certain things have to be done before other things can be done and all of this equals "development time."

[Anarya]

I think MotA is a good hint as to the direction they're going in. The maps themselves will be more open but we're probably not going to get a completely open world game.

Just as long as the narrow paths with invisible walls go away and never come back I'll be happy.

[Androme]

No.

[Tiguaje]

[deuce985]

Anarya wrote...

I think MotA is a good hint as to the direction they're going in. The maps themselves will be more open but we're probably not going to get a completely open world game.

Just as long as the narrow paths with invisible walls go away and never come back I'll be happy.

I hope not. I wouldn't say MOTA had good level design...it suffered the same problems DA2 had except it was more varied in looks...

You could barely get off the main roads in MOTA...it definitely had the "funnel down a tunnel" feel.

[deuce985]

Tiguaje wrote...

Where is this art from? I've never seen this.