3855 réponses à ce sujet

[DreamwareStudio]

Lord Aesir wrote...

TMZuk wrote...
That would seem to indicate that Bethesda understand some basic desires common in roleplayers that Bioware do not.

I wouldn't say that.  I would think the much more real time combat in skyrim would appeal much more to action gamers than any Dragon Age game.  I also seriously doubt racial choice, a choice that has little if any impact in Skyrim beyond the cosmetic and a little bit of dialogue, was much of a factor.

But Bethesda does understand something on which EA really missed the boat. The proof as they say is in the pudding. We're not talking about the game's actual features but how Bethesda has been consistent.

Yes, the Elder Scrolls have changed over time...as they should. Some of those changes were good, some bad, but NONE were a 180 from what preceded.

CONSISTENCY

To me, that is the point when someone brings up Bethesda and success of the Elder Scrolls vs. the utter mess in which DA has been tossed.

Modifié par google_calasade, 26 octobre 2012 - 02:48 .

[LinksOcarina]

TheJediSaint wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...

TMZuk wrote...
That would seem to indicate that Bethesda understand some basic desires common in roleplayers that Bioware do not.

I wouldn't say that.  I would think the much more real time combat in skyrim would appeal much more to action gamers than any Dragon Age game.  I also seriously doubt racial choice, a choice that has little if any impact in Skyrim beyond the cosmetic and a little bit of dialogue, was much of a factor.

Espeically since Syrim is played mostly in the first-person, you don't spend much time actually seeing your character.

You guys do realize that Skyrim is a dungeon crawler with pretty dungeons, right? It is a throwback RPG that is still a broken one, but gets buy on its charm and imagery over anything else because of the amount of content to it.

That doesn't make it good or bad, it just makes it a different genre than what BioWare does. Skyrim is about the spectacle, Dragon Age is about the narrative, and the difference is night and day sometimes. I think the problem is people have it so ingrained in them as to what is more important, they forget that different RPGs exist in various forms that can do narrative, spectacle, action or strategy rather well.

It is why I always find the question "what is an RPG" misleading, because in the end, everything and nothing is the true answer. 

[LinksOcarina]

google_calasade wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...

TMZuk wrote...
That would seem to indicate that Bethesda understand some basic desires common in roleplayers that Bioware do not.

I wouldn't say that.  I would think the much more real time combat in skyrim would appeal much more to action gamers than any Dragon Age game.  I also seriously doubt racial choice, a choice that has little if any impact in Skyrim beyond the cosmetic and a little bit of dialogue, was much of a factor.

But Bethesda does. The proof as they say is in the pudding. Not in the actual features themselves but how they've been consistent. Yes, the Elder Scrolls have changed over time...as they should. Some of those changes were good, some bad, but NONE were a 180 from what preceded.

CONSISTENCY

To me, that is the point when someone brings up Bethesda and the Elder Scrolls.

Funny you should say that, that was my problem with Skyrim. they were consistant with their bad habits, namely how broken the level up system was, how exploitable skill tree usage is, and how bastardizing they always are to their own lore. 

Sometmes, consistancy is a bad thing like that. 

[Heimdall]

LinksOcarina wrote...

TheJediSaint wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...

TMZuk wrote...
That would seem to indicate that Bethesda understand some basic desires common in roleplayers that Bioware do not.

I wouldn't say that.  I would think the much more real time combat in skyrim would appeal much more to action gamers than any Dragon Age game.  I also seriously doubt racial choice, a choice that has little if any impact in Skyrim beyond the cosmetic and a little bit of dialogue, was much of a factor.

Espeically since Syrim is played mostly in the first-person, you don't spend much time actually seeing your character.

You guys do realize that Skyrim is a dungeon crawler with pretty dungeons, right? It is a throwback RPG that is still a broken one, but gets buy on its charm and imagery over anything else because of the amount of content to it.

That doesn't make it good or bad, it just makes it a different genre than what BioWare does. Skyrim is about the spectacle, Dragon Age is about the narrative, and the difference is night and day sometimes. I think the problem is people have it so ingrained in them as to what is more important, they forget that different RPGs exist in various forms that can do narrative, spectacle, action or strategy rather well.

It is why I always find the question "what is an RPG" misleading, because in the end, everything and nothing is the true answer. 

I actually agree, which is why I object to the notion that the poster I was responding to originally was talking about.

[DreamwareStudio]

LinksOcarina wrote...

google_calasade wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...

TMZuk wrote...
That would seem to indicate that Bethesda understand some basic desires common in roleplayers that Bioware do not.

I wouldn't say that.  I would think the much more real time combat in skyrim would appeal much more to action gamers than any Dragon Age game.  I also seriously doubt racial choice, a choice that has little if any impact in Skyrim beyond the cosmetic and a little bit of dialogue, was much of a factor.

But Bethesda does. The proof as they say is in the pudding. Not in the actual features themselves but how they've been consistent. Yes, the Elder Scrolls have changed over time...as they should. Some of those changes were good, some bad, but NONE were a 180 from what preceded.

CONSISTENCY

To me, that is the point when someone brings up Bethesda and the Elder Scrolls.

Funny you should say that, that was my problem with Skyrim. they were consistant with their bad habits, namely how broken the level up system was, how exploitable skill tree usage is, and how bastardizing they always are to their own lore. 

Sometmes, consistancy is a bad thing like that. 

I never said Skyrim was perfect. As a matter of fact, I don't even like the game that much for various reasons I won't bother to mention (the main one being I prefer narrative to dungen crawling). My point is they stayed true to their original vision, as CD Projekt is doing with the Witcher games. This is the exact opposite of what EA has done in regards to DA. One approach will reap benefits; the other?

I guess we'll see about that when DA 3 comes out.

Modifié par google_calasade, 26 octobre 2012 - 02:55 .

[Heimdall]

google_calasade wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...

TMZuk wrote...
That would seem to indicate that Bethesda understand some basic desires common in roleplayers that Bioware do not.

I wouldn't say that.  I would think the much more real time combat in skyrim would appeal much more to action gamers than any Dragon Age game.  I also seriously doubt racial choice, a choice that has little if any impact in Skyrim beyond the cosmetic and a little bit of dialogue, was much of a factor.

But Bethesda does understand something on which EA really missed the boat. The proof as they say is in the pudding. We're not talking about the game's actual features but how Bethesda has been consistent.

Yes, the Elder Scrolls have changed over time...as they should. Some of those changes were good, some bad, but NONE were a 180 from what preceded.

CONSISTENCY

To me, that is the point when someone brings up Bethesda and success of the Elder Scrolls vs. the utter mess in which DA has been tossed.

You can't really compare anything about the two games or companies, the game's they make are extremely different and attract different audiences.

[RR1107]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Numbers speak for themselves, and Skyrim has sold more copies than DA:O, DA2, ME, ME2 and ME3 put together. That would seem to indicate that Bethesda understand some basic desires common in roleplayers that Bioware do not. Therefore, no matter the many other weaknesses in the TES games, the player is able to create excactly the character they like.

I never like this argument, because Skyrim trounces the crap out of DAO too. So should we just drop everything we did in DAO too and do what Skyrim did? It seems to me that there's a lot more to the success of Skyrim than the contribution that Multiplayer may or may not have had on the sales.

I dislike this notion that "Because XXX does something and was successful, our game must too in order to be successful."  This sameyness is exactly what has made MMOs less desireable for me than they once were; developers catering to the "mainstream" and "big sales volume" crowd and droping the uniqueness and innovation that may not draw as many people, but would still be a success.

DAO/DA2 are different games than Skyrim.  That isn't bad or good.  But it does provide for a variety in my gaming library that I appreciate.  I would like to think that the reason that Bioware doesn't just go out and make a Skyrim clone in order to maximize sales at the expense of its own games uniqueness is because telling their own story their own way is important.  This isn't to say that games shouldn't borrow and adapt concepts from other games to improve their own; but to simply say "XXX worked in game A so you should put it in game B" doesn't make sense, especially from the standpoint of a developer for whom it is important to create a game world of their own design.  

To bring the conversation full circle regarding the notion of a Human Protagonist in DA3:  While I would prefer overall that DA3 would have the possibility of different player races/histories, I also prefer to have a fully voiced player character.  While the ideal solution would be to have the choice of player race and history along with fully voiced player characters (a large developmental/resource commitment to be sure and one which likely would not contribute to my enjoyment of the game in a greater way than additional gameplay content would), I would chose to have the fully voiced character and a restricted race choice instead of various race choices with my player character having no voice.  Dragon Age Origins was a great game, but my single greatest dissapointment with DA:O was that my character had no voice.  And while I missed the choice of race in Dragon Age II, the restriction to the Human race made sense within the narrative of the story that was told, and the addition of a fully voiced player character removed any sting from losing the origin stories.

As to why I feel this way: Perhaps it is because I only played each game through one time.  I do intend to play through both games again with different player character combinations and I can see where the origin stoires add greatly to the re-playability of DAO; I will say for the record I played a Male Human Mage in DA:O and as a Male Hawke Warrior for DA2, an interesting combionation that resulted in the really neat story element that my Warden is Leandra Amell's nephew and therefore Hawke's cousin.  But I also believe that DA2 has enough variety in the story and enough variety in the tactics/combat that a playthrough as a different class while making different in-game choices will provide an enjoyable 2nd playthrough experience.  I suppose that is a feeling that I will have to revisit after I have played through both games again.

Anyhow, that is my 2 cents

[DreamwareStudio]

Lord Aesir wrote...

google_calasade wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...

TMZuk wrote...
That would seem to indicate that Bethesda understand some basic desires common in roleplayers that Bioware do not.

I wouldn't say that.  I would think the much more real time combat in skyrim would appeal much more to action gamers than any Dragon Age game.  I also seriously doubt racial choice, a choice that has little if any impact in Skyrim beyond the cosmetic and a little bit of dialogue, was much of a factor.

But Bethesda does understand something on which EA really missed the boat. The proof as they say is in the pudding. We're not talking about the game's actual features but how Bethesda has been consistent.

Yes, the Elder Scrolls have changed over time...as they should. Some of those changes were good, some bad, but NONE were a 180 from what preceded.

CONSISTENCY

To me, that is the point when someone brings up Bethesda and success of the Elder Scrolls vs. the utter mess in which DA has been tossed.

You can't really compare anything about the two games or companies, the game's they make are extremely different and attract different audiences.

Regardless the business, regardless the audience, if a company maintains a successful product by consistently expanding without truly differentiating from that product while also garnering and keeping the trust of their customers, those customers will not only return but refer others. This is what happened with the Elder Scrolls. That is what has happened with a myriad of products and what should have happened with the DA series. It's not limited to games. The same is true of books, movies, a restaurant, any type of business and product actually.

Offering consistent quality and building trust is the cornerstone of any business.

Modifié par google_calasade, 26 octobre 2012 - 03:00 .

[LinksOcarina]

google_calasade wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

google_calasade wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...

TMZuk wrote...
That would seem to indicate that Bethesda understand some basic desires common in roleplayers that Bioware do not.

I wouldn't say that.  I would think the much more real time combat in skyrim would appeal much more to action gamers than any Dragon Age game.  I also seriously doubt racial choice, a choice that has little if any impact in Skyrim beyond the cosmetic and a little bit of dialogue, was much of a factor.

But Bethesda does. The proof as they say is in the pudding. Not in the actual features themselves but how they've been consistent. Yes, the Elder Scrolls have changed over time...as they should. Some of those changes were good, some bad, but NONE were a 180 from what preceded.

CONSISTENCY

To me, that is the point when someone brings up Bethesda and the Elder Scrolls.

Funny you should say that, that was my problem with Skyrim. they were consistant with their bad habits, namely how broken the level up system was, how exploitable skill tree usage is, and how bastardizing they always are to their own lore. 

Sometmes, consistancy is a bad thing like that. 

I never said Skyrim was perfect. As a matter of fact, I don't even like the game that much for various reasons I won't bother to mention (the main one being I prefer narrative to dungen crawling). My point is they stayed true to their original vision, as CD Projekt is doing with the Witcher games. This is the exact opposite of what EA has done in regards to DA. One approach will reap benefits; the other?

I guess we'll see about that when DA 3 comes out.

first off, EA has done nothing to Dragon Age, other than a time stamp, and that is circumstantal evidence at best.

Second, the full 180 degree that we saw in Dragon Age II was a big change, I agree. That said, I don't see it as an issue, mainly because the narrative was still strong enough to carry the game through its limitations. The personal stories and subplots were mostly better than the main plot, yeah, but that kept me interested, and was a core theme missing from Origins that I am glad we explored. 

I get your point, but I just don't see it as a big issue as you make it out to be. 

[Flurdt Vash]

Kinda of off topic a smidgen , ...  but still in regards to DA3, a buddy of mine and I were just talking about the said "broader" game world that will be Dragon Age 3 and we thought it would be really cool to see a different kind of Kossith. Tal Vashoth, born out side the Qunn? You know a Kossith Male and Female who fled to Elven, Dwarven or Human dominated areas, and raised there own children there . I just think it would be cool to see a Kossith, big as the Arishok, horns or not, dont care, but acting like Varric and dropping lines "Andrastes flaming sword!" or "By the Maker!" I just think that would be really cool

Just throwing this out there in case any one else thinks the idea is interesting. Honestly I probably need to move this to a different thread. Still, here you go

P.S. I like none voiced main characters anyways. I hear my self alking in my head ... which could be bad now that I think about it

Modifié par Flurdt07, 26 octobre 2012 - 03:05 .

[DreamwareStudio]

LinksOcarina wrote...


first off, EA has done nothing to Dragon Age, other than a time stamp, and that is circumstantal evidence at best.

Second, the full 180 degree that we saw in Dragon Age II was a big change, I agree. That said, I don't see it as an issue, mainly because the narrative was still strong enough to carry the game through its limitations. The personal stories and subplots were mostly better than the main plot, yeah, but that kept me interested, and was a core theme missing from Origins that I am glad we explored. 

I get your point, but I just don't see it as a big issue as you make it out to be. 

Bioware is nothing more than a label. Check the job boards for Bioware and see it legally stated. EA is the company. When I say EA I include Bioware as an entity.

"The BioWare Label is a division of EA..."

Whatever direction is taken from here on out, whatever direction was taken with DA 2 (since the acquisition happened in 2007), the later decisions in regards to DA:O, whether good or bad, it was/is EA determining that direction because Bioware as a company does not exist.

As for how big an issue that 180 degree turn was, look at the sales figures for the two games. That will give you some idea, though we won't know the true impact until DA 3 comes out. A lot of the sales for DA 2 were owed to DA:O thanks to the preorders and the reputation of DA:O. DA 3 has no such benefit.

Modifié par google_calasade, 26 octobre 2012 - 03:12 .

[Flurdt Vash]

google_calasade wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...


first off, EA has done nothing to Dragon Age, other than a time stamp, and that is circumstantal evidence at best.

Second, the full 180 degree that we saw in Dragon Age II was a big change, I agree. That said, I don't see it as an issue, mainly because the narrative was still strong enough to carry the game through its limitations. The personal stories and subplots were mostly better than the main plot, yeah, but that kept me interested, and was a core theme missing from Origins that I am glad we explored. 

I get your point, but I just don't see it as a big issue as you make it out to be. 

Bioware is nothing more than a label. Check the job boards for Bioware and see it legally stated. EA is the company.

"The BioWare Label is a division of EA..."

Whatever direction is taken from here on out, whether good or bad, it is EA determining that direction because Bioware as a company no longer exists.

As for how big an issue that 180 degree turn was, look at the sales figures for the two games. That will give you some idea, though we won't know the true impact until DA 3 comes out. A lot of the sales for DA 2 were owed to DA:O thanks to the preorders and the reputation of DA:O. DA 3 has no such benefit.

You know I have thought of this myself. We all know that a large part of sales for DA2 was based on DAO, but it kind of makes you wonder if DA3 will be hindered due to DA2:?? Just a thought.

[LinksOcarina]

google_calasade wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...


first off, EA has done nothing to Dragon Age, other than a time stamp, and that is circumstantal evidence at best.

Second, the full 180 degree that we saw in Dragon Age II was a big change, I agree. That said, I don't see it as an issue, mainly because the narrative was still strong enough to carry the game through its limitations. The personal stories and subplots were mostly better than the main plot, yeah, but that kept me interested, and was a core theme missing from Origins that I am glad we explored. 

I get your point, but I just don't see it as a big issue as you make it out to be. 

Bioware is nothing more than a label. Check the job boards for Bioware and see it legally stated. EA is the company.

"The BioWare Label is a division of EA..."

As for how big an issue that 180 degree was, look at the sales figures for the two games. We won't know its true impact, however, until DA 3 comes out because a lot of the sales for DA 2 were owed to DA:O. DA 3 has no such benefit.

BioWare is also a whole division of EA, not just a label for EA. They are literally a whole branch that is going to solely focus on RPGs and RTS titles, and MMO's if you count them separately.

They also have a bit more creative control since the branches of EA act independently from each other, so Frank Gibeau's control over EA Games, which is where the action, shooter, racing titles comes from, is non-existant over the control of say EA Sports, which is helmed by Andrew Wilson. 

So each branch of EA, which I would estimate there are five now, is wholly independent from a majority of the company. The heads all answer to Ricitellio, while the project leads likely answer to the heads. And we do know that BioWare has been left alone by a majority EA, Gibeau has said as much, while there is also some sources out there that have discussed BioWares autonomy to the company. Hell even Gibeau talked about that as well, stating I believe if they had control over how Mass Effect 3 was going to end, they would have changed the ending before it shipped. 

So yeah, I still don't buy EA having any influence whatsoever on most of the decisions BioWare has made as of late. 

[LinksOcarina]

Flurdt07 wrote...

google_calasade wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...


first off, EA has done nothing to Dragon Age, other than a time stamp, and that is circumstantal evidence at best.

Second, the full 180 degree that we saw in Dragon Age II was a big change, I agree. That said, I don't see it as an issue, mainly because the narrative was still strong enough to carry the game through its limitations. The personal stories and subplots were mostly better than the main plot, yeah, but that kept me interested, and was a core theme missing from Origins that I am glad we explored. 

I get your point, but I just don't see it as a big issue as you make it out to be. 

Bioware is nothing more than a label. Check the job boards for Bioware and see it legally stated. EA is the company.

"The BioWare Label is a division of EA..."

Whatever direction is taken from here on out, whether good or bad, it is EA determining that direction because Bioware as a company no longer exists.

As for how big an issue that 180 degree turn was, look at the sales figures for the two games. That will give you some idea, though we won't know the true impact until DA 3 comes out. A lot of the sales for DA 2 were owed to DA:O thanks to the preorders and the reputation of DA:O. DA 3 has no such benefit.

You know I have thought of this myself. We all know that a large part of sales for DA2 was based on DAO, but it kind of makes you wonder if DA3 will be hindered due to DA2:?? Just a thought.

the sad thing is, it probably will be. Not only due to that, but due to perception of EA, of BioWare itself, of RPGs in general, of Origin system, and so forth.

BioWare basically can't win, even if they make a holy grail. 

[DreamwareStudio]

Flurdt07 wrote...

You know I have thought of this myself. We all know that a large part of sales for DA2 was based on DAO, but it kind of makes you wonder if DA3 will be hindered due to DA2:?? Just a thought.

Yes, it will. DA 3 has a lot of hindrances because of DA 2. Not just in terms of the game itself but DA 2's aftermath, the reviews from employees, Laidlaw's reactions to customers' reactions, how customers perceived themselves to be treated here on the forums, the fact a lot of people who would have been customers feel ignored, Bioware's lagging reputation, a host of other stuff.

Can DA 3 overcome all that?

If it is a truly epic game, yes. If it is not...no.

[LinksOcarina]

google_calasade wrote...

Flurdt07 wrote...

You know I have thought of this myself. We all know that a large part of sales for DA2 was based on DAO, but it kind of makes you wonder if DA3 will be hindered due to DA2:?? Just a thought.

Yes, it will. DA 3 has a lot of hindrances because of DA 2. Not just in terms of the game itself but DA 2's aftermath, the reviews from employees, Laidlaw's reactions to customers' reactions, how customers perceived themselves to be treated here on the forums, the fact a lot of people who would have been customers feel ignored, Bioware's lagging reputation, a host of other stuff.

Can DA 3 overcome all that?

If it is a truly epic game, yes. If it is not...no.

I'm going to go a step further and say it won't overcome it at all.

It shouldn't have to though, because in the end if the game makes the same numbers as Dragon Age II, it isa success. Shooting for the brass ring in this case will lead to pure dissapointment, especailly with the kind of negativity we see amongst a rather...quirky fanbase. 

[DreamwareStudio]

LinksOcarina wrote...

BioWare is also a whole division of EA, not just a label for EA. They are literally a whole branch that is going to solely focus on RPGs and RTS titles, and MMO's if you count them separately.

They also have a bit more creative control since the branches of EA act independently from each other, so Frank Gibeau's control over EA Games, which is where the action, shooter, racing titles comes from, is non-existant over the control of say EA Sports, which is helmed by Andrew Wilson. 

So each branch of EA, which I would estimate there are five now, is wholly independent from a majority of the company. The heads all answer to Ricitellio, while the project leads likely answer to the heads. And we do know that BioWare has been left alone by a majority EA, Gibeau has said as much, while there is also some sources out there that have discussed BioWares autonomy to the company. Hell even Gibeau talked about that as well, stating I believe if they had control over how Mass Effect 3 was going to end, they would have changed the ending before it shipped. 

So yeah, I still don't buy EA having any influence whatsoever on most of the decisions BioWare has made as of late. 

I think a lot of that at least where "Bioware" is concerned is public posturing. The reason I think this is because I know what Bioware was like before 2007 and what they are like now. It wasn't an overnight change but more like a constant erosion. To say EA's purchase and company culture does not effect Bioware is naive. I've been in places where buyouts were made, where autonomy was promised, where the overall corporate culture was not supposed to effect the local office.

Guess what.

It did.

[Heimdall]

google_calasade wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...

google_calasade wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...

TMZuk wrote...
That would seem to indicate that Bethesda understand some basic desires common in roleplayers that Bioware do not.

I wouldn't say that.  I would think the much more real time combat in skyrim would appeal much more to action gamers than any Dragon Age game.  I also seriously doubt racial choice, a choice that has little if any impact in Skyrim beyond the cosmetic and a little bit of dialogue, was much of a factor.

But Bethesda does understand something on which EA really missed the boat. The proof as they say is in the pudding. We're not talking about the game's actual features but how Bethesda has been consistent.

Yes, the Elder Scrolls have changed over time...as they should. Some of those changes were good, some bad, but NONE were a 180 from what preceded.

CONSISTENCY

To me, that is the point when someone brings up Bethesda and success of the Elder Scrolls vs. the utter mess in which DA has been tossed.

You can't really compare anything about the two games or companies, the game's they make are extremely different and attract different audiences.

Regardless the business, regardless the audience, if a company maintains a successful product by consistently expanding without truly differentiating from that product while also garnering and keeping the trust of their customers, those customers will not only return but refer others. This is what happened with the Elder Scrolls. That is what has happened with a myriad of products and what should have happened with the DA series. It's not limited to games. The same is true of books, movies, a restaurant, any type of business and product actually.

Offering consistent quality and building trust is the cornerstone of any business.

Then you may as well use a car company as a paralell, why use Bethesda?  The comparison is misleading if you only mean to make a comparison with busines strategy.  I have only been objecting to the comparison with skyrim on the merits of an RPG, you can't compare a product with one audience to a product with another because the demand for products of that type may simply not be the same.

Bioware made a few mistakes in DA2, but they were born of a genuine desire to improve and update the experience.  Yes, it was very different, but everything needs to evolve.  Consistancy is only part of the equation.  Did Bioware go too far?  Personally I considered it more a matter of bad implementation than how different it was from the previous game.  I don't think Bioware saw themselves as being inconsistant, they just didn't realize the backlash of their changes.  That's my personal opinion.

[KiwiQuiche]

Yeah I dunno the whole "OMGZ SKYRIM" mentality. I mean, it's pretty and big. That's pretty much it's saving grace. :| Otherwise it's a fairly mediocore game at best.

[DreamwareStudio]

LinksOcarina wrote...

google_calasade wrote...

Flurdt07 wrote...

You know I have thought of this myself. We all know that a large part of sales for DA2 was based on DAO, but it kind of makes you wonder if DA3 will be hindered due to DA2:?? Just a thought.

Yes, it will. DA 3 has a lot of hindrances because of DA 2. Not just in terms of the game itself but DA 2's aftermath, the reviews from employees, Laidlaw's reactions to customers' reactions, how customers perceived themselves to be treated here on the forums, the fact a lot of people who would have been customers feel ignored, Bioware's lagging reputation, a host of other stuff.

Can DA 3 overcome all that?

If it is a truly epic game, yes. If it is not...no.

I'm going to go a step further and say it won't overcome it at all.

It shouldn't have to though, because in the end if the game makes the same numbers as Dragon Age II, it isa success. Shooting for the brass ring in this case will lead to pure dissapointment, especailly with the kind of negativity we see amongst a rather...quirky fanbase. 

We disagree on whether it should have to. I think it should. Any product should either be helped or hindered by its predecessor, the company's reputation, and how that company has treated its customers. Such are the laws of business. To me, DA 3 is only a success if it surpasses or meets what DA:O did. I can't imagine EA being able to look at it any other way, especially when addressing shareholders. Passing the sales figures for DA:O will enable them to say, "See, we were right. There is validity in this vision."

Anything less and they were wrong.

[marshalleck]

KiwiQuiche wrote...

Yeah I dunno the whole "OMGZ SKYRIM" mentality. I mean, it's pretty and big. That's pretty much it's saving grace. :| Otherwise it's a fairly mediocore game at best.

That's like saying aside from story, Bioware games are just crappy [genre] games. Kind of embarassing for Bioware to be slipping up so badly on the writing with their last few efforts. 

My time spent in Skyrim: 400 hours
My time spent in DA2: 25 hours

[KiwiQuiche]

marshalleck wrote...

KiwiQuiche wrote...

Yeah I dunno the whole "OMGZ SKYRIM" mentality. I mean, it's pretty and big. That's pretty much it's saving grace. :| Otherwise it's a fairly mediocore game at best.

That's like saying aside from story, Bioware games are just crappy [genre] games. Kind of embarassing for Bioware to be slipping up so badly on the writing with their last few efforts. 

My time spent in Skyrim: 400 hours
My time spent in DA2: 25 hours

Lol true. At least with Skyrim I can go back and play it over and over. DA2, I only did five playthroughs. WIth ME3, I played it once and no more.

[silentassassin264]

LinksOcarina wrote...

You guys do realize that Skyrim is a dungeon crawler with pretty dungeons, right? It is a throwback RPG that is still a broken one, but gets buy on its charm and imagery over anything else because of the amount of content to it.

That doesn't make it good or bad, it just makes it a different genre than what BioWare does. Skyrim is about the spectacle, Dragon Age is about the narrative, and the difference is night and day sometimes. I think the problem is people have it so ingrained in them as to what is more important, they forget that different RPGs exist in various forms that can do narrative, spectacle, action or strategy rather well.

It is why I always find the question "what is an RPG" misleading, because in the end, everything and nothing is the true answer. 

I wouldn't go that far.  In an interview with Todd Howard, he was talking about the need to have characters more integral and an engaging narrative.  He said that Skyrim did not have it but he at least acknowledged that they are trying to get that and make it a "complete" experience so to speak.  Bethesda did not look at Skyrim and say it "IT JUST PRINTS MONEY!" and decide to be complacent.  Even in the Dawnguard DLC, the conversation and interaction with Serana was very well done.

Oh we are doing numbers.
Skyrim: 793 Hours
DA:O and DA2 (PC only because 360 doesn't keep up with that): 637 Hours
Yeah, I have no life.

Modifié par silentassassin264, 26 octobre 2012 - 03:33 .

[LinksOcarina]

google_calasade wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

BioWare is also a whole division of EA, not just a label for EA. They are literally a whole branch that is going to solely focus on RPGs and RTS titles, and MMO's if you count them separately.

They also have a bit more creative control since the branches of EA act independently from each other, so Frank Gibeau's control over EA Games, which is where the action, shooter, racing titles comes from, is non-existant over the control of say EA Sports, which is helmed by Andrew Wilson. 

So each branch of EA, which I would estimate there are five now, is wholly independent from a majority of the company. The heads all answer to Ricitellio, while the project leads likely answer to the heads. And we do know that BioWare has been left alone by a majority EA, Gibeau has said as much, while there is also some sources out there that have discussed BioWares autonomy to the company. Hell even Gibeau talked about that as well, stating I believe if they had control over how Mass Effect 3 was going to end, they would have changed the ending before it shipped. 

So yeah, I still don't buy EA having any influence whatsoever on most of the decisions BioWare has made as of late. 

I think a lot of that at least where "Bioware" is concerned is public posturing. The reason I think this is because I know what Bioware was like before 2007 and what they are like now. It wasn't an overnight change but more like a constant erosion. To say EA's purchase and company culture does not effect Bioware is naive. I've been in places where buyouts were made, where autonomy was promised, where the overall corporate culture was not supposed to effect the local office.

Guess what.

It did.

Did you work at BioWare to know this information? Hell ive been playing BioWare games since MDK, and honestly all of their RPGs follow the same structure, so EA has nothing to do with that in the end. 

Oh, are you are basing it on your own experience?  Fair enough I guess. Of course, that may happen. I didn't say it did or it would, I am just saying so far, there is little to say that would prove it true or otherwise.

And honestly, if this is the case, than EA would be mirroring activision right now in their corporate culture, which they are not. Activision is a more successful company but they have the more vile strategy, essentially doing what EA is doing with Madden, only with EVERY GAME they make.  

At least EA has a more diversified portfolio, and has a partners program so we see new IPs each year. So yeah, even if the corporate culture of EA is seeping into BioWare, we need to make it clear what is positive or negative.

Like, for example, the overblown reaction to what Gibeau said about multiplayer, which was in turn blown out of proportion to the terrible game journalists out there. In fact, what Gibeau said was not really profound in any way since he basically parroted the ideals behind what Gabe Newell said years ago about Valve's transition to gaming as a service. 

It boils down to perception of EA being a bad company, which I still don't understand why people hold grudges ten years old over something they barely know anything about. 

google_calasade wrote...

We disagree on whether it should have to. I think it should. Any product should either be helped or hindered by its predecessor, the company's reputation, and how that company has treated its customers. Such are the laws of business. To me, DA 3 is only a success if it surpasses or meets what DA:O did. I can't imagine EA being able to look at it any other way, especially when addressing shareholders. Passing the sales figures for DA:O will enable them to say, "See, we were right. There is validity in this vision."

Anything less and they were wrong.

Then they already lost, because that perception I talked about above is what will kill it. 

In the end, its a self-fulfiling prophecy by the gaming community as a whole, not just BioWare, EA, or the fanbase as singular entities. If the fans thing EA sucks, they won't buy the games, despite it being good. If BioWare did things to the game that upset people, they won't buy the game. If Origin is blocking them from playing, they won't buy the game. 

I hate to be doom and gloom, but aiming for Origin sales numbers should not be the goal, the goal should be surpassing 2 million, which makes the game a minor hit in the end and recoups a lot of the losses from the average budget a game has now a days. Its rare games even surpass 1 million sales, let alone 2. If BioWare aims for that, anything else is bonus points and proves its own success. 

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 26 octobre 2012 - 03:41 .

[Leones Maneres]

Speaking as a longtime BW fan (back to NWN and before that to Icewind Dale) I always start the first run through of an RPG playing the default character, which is usually human and male. But I really enjoyed the complexity of the different backstories for the different races in DAO. I missed it in DA2 - among a lot of other things.

As it is, I will very much be taking a wait and see approach to this game. No pre-purchase of it for me. I read the reviews of DA2, and was influenced by them enough to hold off on purchasing until there was a substantial ($20) price drop off the initial asking price. Turns out that was a good decision. I would have felt incredibly ripped off, had I spent top $$ on DA2. As it was, the game was enjoyable, but was a pale shadow of its predecessor in terms of replayability.

If DA3 is more like DA2 than DAO - and the reviews state as much - I expect I will wait until the price drops considerably before purchasing.