3855 réponses à ce sujet

[challenger18]

AlanC9 wrote...

challenger18 wrote...
Please tell me all these RPGs that have no cut-scenes because I sure can't think of any.

Umm..... exactly how long have you been gaming?

A long time. Do you know what a cut-scene is? I'll give you a hint: it does not mean only when a CGI scene is played.

[Harle Cerulean]

99DP1982 wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

Corto81 wrote...

(outside of Witcher 2, no top tier RPG in the last 5-6 years has had a VP, and it didn't matter... not Skyrim, not Dark Souls, not DA:Origins, etc).

Mass Effect, Deus Ex: Human Revolution, The Last Remnant, Risen, Alpha Protocol.

I'm sure there have been Japanese RPGs I've never heard of with voice acting as well.

99DP1982 wrote...

Hell NOO... The TES games are as bland and dull as one can get... There is no memorable NPCs, no good writting, just action in a giant sandbox...  They are good for a couple of hours but after a while it just gets more an dmroe boring... I do not get it, why people like a single player version of an MMO?

Oblivion was dull. Skryrim was not. What makes an Elder Scroll game not-dull is the setting, which was generic fantasy puke in Oblivion as opposed to Skyrim or Morrowind.

Can't agree, for me Morrowind was also dull... didn't manage to force myself and even finish the main plot. Exploration of repetitive areas can be fun only for so long. What kills those games for me is a stupid combat design and lack of "personality" in the world. There was not a single memorable moment to me in that Game and I bought version with expansions. (not to mention that you can be good at everything if you are willing to abuse the skill system)

Oh, come now. If you think the Shivering Isles in Oblivion had no personality or memorable moments, you were playing with your eyes closed and your ears stoppered up. Sheogorath is the most amazing NPC in that series, and beyond a doubt the best in Oblivion which was, yes, the weakest of the three mentioned here. (I can't speak for Arena or Daggerfall, since I never finished either of those.)

And I definitely don't agree on Morrowind being dull, but everyone has their own taste!

However, as much as I enjoy Morrowind, Oblivion, and Skyim, I don't think the Dragon Age games should be more like the Elder Scrolls games. They're different games, and suit different tastes. Sometimes I want to pull up Diablo 3 because smashing through hordes of undead and demons suits my mood. Sometimes I play Skyrim because I feel like dungeon crawling for a while. And sometimes I play DA:O or DA2 because I want well-written characters and, for DA:O, an epic storyline, or for DA2, a more personal-feeling storyline.

[Maria Caliban]

As far as I recall, every BioWare RPG has had cut-scenes. Gorian's death to Serivok in BG I, for example. They've always tried to be a cinematic developer. Knights of the Old Republic tried its best to emulate the original movies in tone and delivery. Jade Empire tried to be a martial arts flick. Dragon Age had the introduction of the Orge gnawing on the soldier in the Tower of Ishal, Loghain ignoring the signal flare, the conversation between Zevran and Loghain, etc.

BioWare is a company that has always prioritized its storytelling. As time and technology have advanced, that's meant more cutscenes and more 'acted out' conversations.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 26 octobre 2012 - 08:41 .

[ianvillan]

google_calasade wrote...

I think the fact a 180 was done with DA 2 still flummoxes a lot of people (including me). Why divert from a formula that reaped...what...something like 4.5 million copies? Isn't DA:O your best-selling ever, before and after the EA acquisition? Anyway, a game that improved upon DA:O's weaknesses and kept its strengths would have had momentum and done far better than DA 2, most likely would have outsold DA:O, and would not have fractured the fanbase. You'd still have the disenchanted, so to speak, but not near to this level and we would now be talking about a third in what should have been an amazing series.

In other words, using Bethesda and the Elder Scrolls as an example, we'd be on Morrowind with an even brighter future ahead of us due to Oblivion and Skyrim lurking on the horizon. Instead, a bunch of your loyal customers are still pissed and most no longer trust your direction. Rather than looking forward to the next release, they're anxious because they expect a DA 2 Redux travesty while hoping somehow, someway that a quality role-playing game worth its $60 price tag is produced and some of the luster to Bioware's name is restored.

You know, like what happened with DA:O. I still smile (now sadly) when I think of all those reviews that stated Bioware is back.

To be honest, no one who spent years waiting on Dragon Age's eventual release expected Bioware's return to traditional RPGs to be so tragically and nonsensically cut short. DA 2 was the gaming equivalent of spitting in our faces. The act showed us how little our patronage was appreciated. That was further underlined by how EA handled the ****storm that followed DA 2 and a seeming disregard towards the wishes expressed by the majority of your customers.

From some of the dev blogs I got the impression that alot of the changes to DA2 direction were decided on before Origins was even released. Bioware also stated that DAO beat all there expectations by getting perfect scores and great reviews. So it seems that Bioware thought that Origins was an out dated game that would do poorly when it was released and that it only had a minority for a fan base to buy the game.

The way that Bioware is mentioning the DA2 systems they can definetly bring back but seem to not be able to find any Origin systems they actually think are any good, just shows that Bioware still believes that they should create a more action game to be able to attract the COD type of players.

[DreamwareStudio]

challenger18 wrote...

Corto81 wrote...

IMO it's just another clue Bioware has completely abandoned it's roots and the sales and reviews on DA3 will only confirm that the RPG audience is moving on...
Be it good old Bethesda, new CDPR or pouring money into Kickstarter for games like Project Eternity... Hell, even BG:EE is getting massive hype, deservedly so.

Right. With the news that the PC for DA3 will be voiced and can only be human, the fans will move on to the Witcher series where the games feature a non voiced PC who can be a human, an elf, or a dwarf and can hold a party of up to 6 people who you can also visually customize. So even though BioWare is moving away from it's roots, it's good to know these other games like the Witcher and Skyrim are staying true what BioWare used to be and not try anything new or different at all.

Bioware just doesn't get it anymore.
RPGs are not about cut-scenes and "recognizable" NPCs (I mean, WTF, people aren't morons, we're able to tell one NPC from another after changing their armor), they're not about the voiced-protagonist (outside of Witcher 2, no top tier RPG in the last 5-6 years has had a VP, and it didn't matter... not Skyrim, not Dark Souls, not DA:Origins, etc).

Please tell me all these RPGs that have no cut-scenes because I sure can't think of any. All the games and companies you brought up that make RPGs all have cut-scenes. Are there also multiple franchise titles that I am just unaware of that allow you to have deep conversations with the NPCs, allow you to have a party of people when you go into combat and also allow you to visually customize them? You can't have more than one follower in Skyrim, there is no depth to the story or characters, and you can't tell your companion what to wear, you just hand them stuff and hope they'll put it on. You can't do it the Witcher or Deus Ex series. In JRPGs you can have parties, but in most you can't visually customize what they wear.

Long story shot...
DA3:Inquisition is looking like it's gonna continue what DA2 started, streamlined and dumbed-down, and is (IMO) gonna be the final nail in the coffin of a franchise that started so great with DA:Origins.

K.

I think you're missing the overall point, which wasn't about cutscenes or features or voice PCs or multiple party members perse, but more about the spirit, challenge, and overall entertainment value of the games as they relate to role-playing. It cannot be argued that role-playing is something from which EA is moving. Neither can it be argued that DA 2 is dumbed down/streamlined/whatever you want to call it. It is. DA:O in comparison to say the Baldur's Gate series is as well, but less so.

As for EA moving away from the role-playing, they've stated as much and have shown as much with the more action-oriented and linear DA 2. While the Witcher series is an action-RPG, there is definite role-playing value there and the choices made within the games have a definite effect. That, especially the latter, is not as true in DA 2 and many fear it will be even more tilted in DA 3. Whether those fears have a basis in reality, no one will know until DA 3 is released. All indications, however, point to DA 3 being more of what DA 2 brought. If so, it will be a death knell for many Bioware loyalists.

Big deal, right?

Yeah, it is a big deal, because Bioware loyalists make up a large part of the customer base. Don't believe me, then check out the thread polling whether people are going to preorder DA 3.

If the aforementioned comes to pass, indicators are DA 3 will be less succesful than even DA 2 because DA 3 must overcome the precedent set by DA 2 whereas DA 2 greatly benefited from the positive reputation and perception of DA:O.

DA 3 is carrying a very heavy load.

Modifié par google_calasade, 26 octobre 2012 - 09:08 .

[Maria Caliban]

ianvillan wrote...

...it seems that Bioware thought that Origins was an out dated game that would do poorly when it was released and that it only had a minority for a fan base to buy the game.

Nah. BioWare knows how large its fan base is.

google_calasade wrote...

Yeah, it is a big deal, because Bioware loyalists make up a large part of the customer base. Don't believe me, then check out the thread polling whether people are going to preorder DA 3.

BioWare loyalists make up a large part of their regular forum goers. People who hang out at a game's forum a year before the game will likely drop are a minority.

... indicators are DA 3 will be less succesful than even DA 2 because DA 3 must overcome the precedent set by DA 2 whereas DA 2 greatly benefited from the positive reputation and perception of DA:O.

This is what David meant when he said forum goers aren't economists.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 26 octobre 2012 - 09:14 .

[DreamwareStudio]

ianvillan wrote...


From some of the dev blogs I got the impression that alot of the changes to DA2 direction were decided on before Origins was even released. Bioware also stated that DAO beat all there expectations by getting perfect scores and great reviews. So it seems that Bioware thought that Origins was an out dated game that would do poorly when it was released and that it only had a minority for a fan base to buy the game.

The way that Bioware is mentioning the DA2 systems they can definetly bring back but seem to not be able to find any Origin systems they actually think are any good, just shows that Bioware still believes that they should create a more action game to be able to attract the COD type of players.

If they did predetermine the path they would take before Origins was released, that was a silly move. How could they know where to go without first learning the reception of the first installment? Frankly, no, I don't buy the majority of that argument. It just does not make good business sense, especially in light of the fact that for years they marketed a return to RPG roots. Why would they so quickly move away from that? I don't know. I don't think anyone outside of EA will ever know, but from the outside looking in, seeing the sales of DA:O and then what DA 2 was, I get the idea the swing to DA 2 happened with the change of leads and a sudden altering of their DA vision. I could be wrong, but who knows. The why doesn't matter, though, because knowing the reasons behind the sudden turnabout changes nothing.

[Gotholhorakh]

Frankly this is just reinforcement of the (now) status quo for the series and the developer, as we have already been told that BioWare doesn't consider many of the problems the community saw with DA2 to be problems at all. They're producing the same sort of thing, perhaps with the content finished this time around.

It could actually be quite liberating for DA3 to be following (sorry but for many of us) a bad game like DA2 instead of a (sorry but for many of us) good game like DA:O - like a previously straight A student who just pulled two years of Fs, there are no high expectations for this game, and not so much pressure to produce a masterpiece.

We're a pretty open-minded bunch and if it doesn't totally suck I think many of us will buy it on merit - and with such low expectations if it is even a vaguely passable C grade, people will probably be pleasantly surprised that and buy it.

So on the whole I am not sure it will tank worse than DA2.

I may buy it for what it is if it does it well, but I have to admit that the whole fixed character thing seems laughable in a BioWare fantasy RPG.

Dragon Age design choices are beginning to make Fable (the poster child for pure dumb fantasy fun) look complex and subtle... headscratcher tbh

Modifié par Gotholhorakh, 26 octobre 2012 - 09:34 .

[ianvillan]

google_calasade wrote...

ianvillan wrote...


From some of the dev blogs I got the impression that alot of the changes to DA2 direction were decided on before Origins was even released. Bioware also stated that DAO beat all there expectations by getting perfect scores and great reviews. So it seems that Bioware thought that Origins was an out dated game that would do poorly when it was released and that it only had a minority for a fan base to buy the game.

The way that Bioware is mentioning the DA2 systems they can definetly bring back but seem to not be able to find any Origin systems they actually think are any good, just shows that Bioware still believes that they should create a more action game to be able to attract the COD type of players.

If they did predetermine the path they would take before Origins was released, that was a silly move. How could they know where to go without first learning the reception of the first installment? Frankly, no, I don't buy the majority of that argument. It just does not make good business sense, especially in light of the fact that for years they marketed a return to RPG roots. Why would they so quickly move away from that? I don't know. I don't think anyone outside of EA will ever know, but from the outside looking in, seeing the sales of DA:O and then what DA 2 was, I get the idea the swing to DA 2 happened with the change of leads and a sudden altering of their DA vision. I could be wrong, but who knows. The why doesn't matter, though, because knowing the reasons behind the sudden turnabout changes nothing.

This is one of the dev diaries that states they had the new direction planned before Origins was even released.

[DreamwareStudio]

Maria Caliban wrote...

ianvillan wrote...

...it seems that Bioware thought that Origins was an out dated game that would do poorly when it was released and that it only had a minority for a fan base to buy the game.

Nah. BioWare knows how large its fan base is.

google_calasade wrote...

Yeah, it is a big deal, because Bioware loyalists make up a large part of the customer base. Don't believe me, then check out the thread polling whether people are going to preorder DA 3.

BioWare loyalists make up a large part of their regular forum goers. People who hang out at a game's forum a year before the game will likely drop are a minority.

... indicators are DA 3 will be less succesful than even DA 2 because DA 3 must overcome the precedent set by DA 2 whereas DA 2 greatly benefited from the positive reputation and perception of DA:O.

This is what David meant when he said forum goers aren't economists.

Okay, first, you can tout the belief the microcosm that is this forum does not extrapolate to the outside and somehow people's opinions vary wildly from what goes on here. The same argument was made when DA 2 came out and received an overwhelming negative reaction. What happened? Did DA 2 sell like crazy? No, not after preorders were counted and guess where most of those preorders came from. Bioware loyalists are not a minority and even if they were, they are very vocal. Word-of-mouth is the single most thing responsible for a game's success or failure. You do the math between the two games and tell me the outside world is so very different from these forums. It is not.

Too, I don't need to be an economist to know the sales records of both games nor do I need to be that to know the reception of both games and how those receptions correlated to sales. The only reason DA 2 was perhaps considered profitable is because of the short development time. DA 3 will not have that luxury nor will it have DA:O's coattails to ride upon. Subtract the number of preorders from DA 2's performance and it gets worse. DA 3 has to overcome that game's bad publicity and a slew of negativity brought on by the company. As I mentioned earlier in another post, DA 3 carries a very heavy load. To think it is all rosy out of the gate is being naive or a matter of looking through rose-colored glasses. I'm not sounding any bells of failure because I don't know whether DA 3 will succeed or not. What I do know is that it has a very steep mountain to climb.

BTW, people who hang out in these forums for a year is no oddity. People hung out in DA forums for years waiting on Origins. I would not count on them being gone unless they totally give up on Bioware (not a good thing for DA) nor would I count them as a minority.

[DreamwareStudio]

ianvillan wrote...

This is one of the dev diaries that states they had the new direction planned before Origins was even released.

Yeah, I've seen it and read blogs, too. I just don't know how much to believe because business sense flies in the face of that. I think maybe some things were planned before the release of DA:O but I do not believe things were planned to such a degree indicative of the 180 turn we saw in DA 2.

[DreamwareStudio]

Gotholhorakh wrote...

Frankly this is just reinforcement of the (now) status quo for the series and the developer, as we have already been told that BioWare doesn't consider many of the problems the community saw with DA2 to be problems at all. They're producing the same sort of thing, perhaps with the content finished this time around.

It could actually be quite liberating for DA3 to be following (sorry but for many of us) a bad game like DA2 instead of a (sorry but for many of us) good game like DA:O - like a previously straight A student who just pulled two years of Fs, there are no high expectations for this game, and not so much pressure to produce a masterpiece.

We're a pretty open-minded bunch and if it doesn't totally suck I think many of us will buy it on merit - and with such low expectations if it is even a vaguely passable C grade, people will probably be pleasantly surprised that and buy it.

So on the whole I am not sure it will tank worse than DA2.

I may buy it for what it is if it does it well, but I have to admit that the whole fixed character thing seems laughable in a BioWare fantasy RPG.

Dragon Age design choices are beginning to make Fable (the poster child for pure dumb fantasy fun) look complex and subtle... headscratcher tbh

A lot of whether there is disappointment depends on marketing and how much hyperbole is used to set expectations. Also, there is the question of how much DA 3 will continue in the DA 2 vein while also incorporating features from DA:O, the compromise EA is trying to reach. That said, look at what you typed regarding Dragon Age design choices. That is just a small but very fomridiable part of the perception DA 3 must overcome. Who ever thought such a thing would be associated with the Bioware name? Also...

"...as we have already been told that BioWare doesn't consider many of the problems the community saw with DA2 to be problems at all."

This baffles me, how they dismiss those here. It's very insulting and rather foolish. Gamers outside these forums are not so different, if at all, than gamers who populate these forums.

Modifié par google_calasade, 26 octobre 2012 - 09:47 .

[Gotholhorakh]

google_calasade wrote...
Okay, first, you can tout the belief the microcosm that is this forum does not extrapolate to the outside and somehow people's opinions vary wildly from what goes on here. The same argument was made when DA 2 came out and received an overwhelming negative reaction. What happened? Did DA 2 sell like crazy? No, not after preorders were counted and guess where most of those preorders came from.

also: This
baffles me, how they dismiss those here. It's very insulting and rather
foolish. Gamers outside these forums are not so different, if at all,
than gamers who populate these forums.

This is the the thing. It seems perfectly sensible to discount what is said by your *existing* community when what you're trying for is growth beyond it, but here's the thing I wish BioWare would get a firm grip on:

By and large this community vibrates in a fairly similar way to public reception not just in web discussion, but in the reviews you see, the people you talk to about it in your local games store (by which I mean the public that does not come here), and therefore in what people actually buy and tell each other about the game.

This community isn't (only ) a lunatic fringe, this community is fricking telegraphing the public response to the things you do, sometimes before you do them. I appreciate the SNR makes it hard, but it might be worth using that like the borderline superpower it is, rather than "staying the course" on the stuff people scream about so you can later be shoicked by negative response to it. *shrug*

google_calasade wrote...
 look at what you typed
regarding Dragon Age design choices. That is just a small but very
fomridiable part of the perception DA 3 must overcome. Who ever thought
such a thing would be associated with the Bioware name?

Indeed, and this is one reason why there are no more BioWare pre-orders from me - you can't be sure what you're getting - well that and the way we were pretty much told after DA2 that our investment and loyalty as fans does not interest BioWare, and we should place no onerous expectations on them (consequently they cannot expect my automatic custom, my pre-orders or my collector's ed purchases any more).

<-- I now buy BioWare products on merit without that burdensome (to Bioware) customer investment and loyalty. Hence no ME3 icon over there.

Modifié par Gotholhorakh, 26 octobre 2012 - 09:58 .

[TMZuk]

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.

No, I don't think you should do that. What I do think would be common sense is to ask ~why~ does Skyrim sell so much? What does it offer that your games do not?

In my opinion it is exploration and freedom to create the character you like. Because in most other respects it is not on par with Bioware's games. The companions are two-dimensional and flat, the world is unresponsive and the story-telling severely lacking.

Then ask why did DA:O sell more than any other Bioware game of late? I'd say it did so because it has some measure of these two things I mentioned, mostly freedom in character creation.

My dream in cRPG development has always been a combination between a TES game and something like DA:O. A joint venture between Bethesda and Bioware. I know it's not going to happen, but the idea of a game with all the freedom to explore with any character you like combined with the storytelling and the brillant companions DA:O offers, would to me be the best game ever!

It seemed an impossible dream, but in some ways Obsidian proved that wrong when they produced Fallout: New Vegas. That is the closest thing, IMO, to a perfect cRPG the last decade. You do not have a racial choice, of course, as Fallout has only humans, but otherwise than that, the SPECIAL system offers brillant freedom in character creation and development, it has memorable NPCs and companions and great storytelling. And it has vastly different routes toward the final confrontation, and the player can be on any side he or she wishes in that final confrontation.

And you know what? FO:NV sold more than any Bioware game as well.

Modifié par TMZuk, 26 octobre 2012 - 12:33 .

[Salaya]

Maria Caliban wrote...

...

BioWare is a company that has always prioritized its storytelling. As time and technology have advanced, that's meant more cutscenes and more 'acted out' conversations.

I don't think that's true. Nor Baldur's Gate 1 nor Neverwinter Nights are "story inclined". Both are games clearly made to emphasize gameplay over storytelling. Note that I'm not saying that those games had no storytelling, or the plots were bad; I'm telling that in both cases the plot and the form that plot is presented is less important than gameplay. 

[DreamwareStudio]

Gotholhorakh wrote...

google_calasade wrote...
Okay, first, you can tout the belief the microcosm that is this forum does not extrapolate to the outside and somehow people's opinions vary wildly from what goes on here. The same argument was made when DA 2 came out and received an overwhelming negative reaction. What happened? Did DA 2 sell like crazy? No, not after preorders were counted and guess where most of those preorders came from.

This is the the thing. It seems perfectly sensible to discount what is said by your *existing* community when what you're trying for is growth beyond it, but here's the thing I wish BioWare would get a firm grip on:

By and large this community vibrates in a fairly similar way to public reception not just in web discussion, but in the reviews you see, the people you talk to about it in your local games store (by which I mean the public that does not come here), and therefore in what people actually buy and tell each other about the game.

This community isn't (only ) a lunatic fringe, this community is fricking telegraphing the public response to the things you do, sometimes before you do them. I appreciate the SNR makes it hard, but it might be worth using that like the borderline superpower it is, rather than "staying the course" on the stuff people scream about so you can later be shoicked by negative response to it. *shrug*

Which is all the more reason it baffles me. The people here are a reflection of those "out there" so to speak. Not all of them here are lunatics and I would hesitate calling the majority of them that (though there are a few nuts, that can't be argued). Still, the majority here are simply passionate about gaming and were very passionate and loyal to Bioware. Those are the kinds of customers that an unjaded business would die to obtain. If your core audience won't accept something, you can bet the audience outside of that will not either. Many of us here aren't hardcore gamers, either. I certainly am not.

Anyway, word-of-mouth plays a pivotal role. It usually defines failure or success and that word-of-mouth starts with those customers most loyal to the company because they are always the first ones who try the product.

Modifié par google_calasade, 26 octobre 2012 - 10:01 .

[DreamwareStudio]

Salaya wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

...

BioWare is a company that has always prioritized its storytelling. As time and technology have advanced, that's meant more cutscenes and more 'acted out' conversations.

I don't think that's true. Nor Baldur's Gate 1 nor Neverwinter Nights are "story inclined". Both are games clearly made to emphasize gameplay over storytelling. Note that I'm not saying that those games had no storytelling, or the plots were bad; I'm telling that in both cases the plot and the form that plot is presented is less important than gameplay. 

Very true, Salaya. I got that same impression from BG 1 and NWN (I very much enjoyed both games).

[In Exile]

TMZuk wrote...
No, I don't think you should do that. What I do think would be common sense is to ask ~why~ does Skyrim sell so much? What does it offer that your games do not?

It's first person and you can kill NPCs. That's my theory. You can go around and cause mayhem and chaos and generally screw around in a hilarious way with your deformed NPC with a bulbous head named Fluffball.

It seemed an impossible dream, but in some ways Obsidian proved that wrong when they produced Fallout: New Vegas.

And you know what? FO:NV sold more than any Bioware game as well.

Or it was the exact thing I said above. According to vgchartz, on the 360, Fallout 3 has sold 3.82 million copies, Fallout New Vegas Sold 3.15 ... and Fable III sold 4.85. Compare that to DA:O's 2.37 million ...

... and it's clear that the King RPG is Fable III. We might as well be arguing that we should really see what Skyrim and Fable 3 have in common.

[In Exile]

Salaya wrote...
I don't think that's true. Nor Baldur's Gate 1 nor Neverwinter Nights are "story inclined". Both are games clearly made to emphasize gameplay over storytelling. Note that I'm not saying that those games had no storytelling, or the plots were bad; I'm telling that in both cases the plot and the form that plot is presented is less important than gameplay.

That's absurd. You might be able to say that for NWN, where Bioware pioneered DLC and multiplayer content (and that was the goal from the start). But contrast BG1 (and especially the direction in BG2) with the RPGs of the day (e.g. Icewind Dale) and it's clear that Bioware was pushing the boundaries of developing a story as against their present day competition.

It's absurd, when looking at Bioware's history (e.g., BG1, BG2, NWN, KoTOR, Jade Empire, ME, DA:O, ME2, DA2, ME3) to look at BG1 (a game from 14 years ago) and NWN (a game from 10 years ago) and speak to them as really being relevant to the design philosophy at Bioware.

NWN was a game that was - outside of the modding community and the PW players - really heavily panned until HoTU came out.

[LordJeyl]

When a franchise goes from three different races to choose from to all human all the time in the next installments, it really starts feeling like the franchise wants humans to be the No.1 race in Dragon Age over all the other races. I mean, why can't we be a dwarf or an elf? We've already established in Dragon Age Origins that cultures and classes don't obsessively follow a single trait like other fantasy/scifi franchises, so why is it unrealistic to allow someone from a different race to play the same role as our 'human' character?

[AustinKain]

I am sure its been said before,but i am going to say it again. IF you are going to force us to play a human after the success of the elves and dwarves in origins, then i will not buy DA3 or any other Bioware products. If this proves true then its proof that Bioware dont care about its fans like it once did, and now only cares about money. The fact that Laidlaw had such a flop with his DA2, and that there was so much that had to be corrected, to give him another chance is just pathetic.

No wonder the founders are retiring and stepping away they realize their company is now going to hell fast.

This is really a shame as Mr. David Gaider has created such a wonderful world, and his novels remind of the glory days of the Dragonlance with Weiss and Hickman. For Bioware and Laidlaw to just rape his ideas and his world is sad and demands that someone in that company take a look in the mirror.

I was a AVID supporter of this company, but now I will wait and see what happens. If they really do rape this franchise and allow it to continue to happen then i am done.

[fdgvdddvdfdfbdfb]

challenger18 wrote...
Please tell me all these RPGs that have no cut-scenes because I sure can't think of any. All the games and companies you brought up that make RPGs all have cut-scenes. Are there also multiple franchise titles that I am just unaware of that allow you to have deep conversations with the NPCs, allow you to have a party of people when you go into combat and also allow you to visually customize them? You can't have more than one follower in Skyrim, there is no depth to the story or characters, and you can't tell your companion what to wear, you just hand them stuff and hope they'll put it on. You can't do it the Witcher or Deus Ex series. In JRPGs you can have parties, but in most you can't visually customize what they wear.

Wat. Bethesda almost never use cutscenes in any of their games.
There isn't really any reason why you're restricted to one follower, I think it's for balance or performance issues on consoles, but with the artificial restriction unchecked you can pretty much have as many followers as you'd like.
Visual customization? Haha that made me laugh because Bioware is utterly horrible at this- in TES games clothing and armour are individual bits and pieces you can mix and match with left and right, and anything you find is wearable by companions. What's more there's huge variety and unique models instead of 3 armours retinted or retextured over and over . Uh, what customization did DA2 and ME2+ have again?

Not that I think this stuff is important, but what you said made my head hurt. I mean why should companions be forced to wear what you want anyway? They're not your sex slaves you know... Idk I think they just wear the best armour they have in Skyrim.

and wow I nominate this thread for the most off-topic thread of year

[marshalleck]

AustinKain wrote...

I am sure its been said before,but i am going to say it again. IF you are going to force us to play a human after the success of the elves and dwarves in origins,

que?

the origins that only 10% of the player base even started (and didn't necessarily finish)?

[Salaya]

In Exile wrote...

Salaya wrote...
Weird things

That's absurd. You might be able to say that for NWN, where Bioware pioneered DLC and multiplayer content (and that was the goal from the start). But contrast BG1 (and especially the direction in BG2) with the RPGs of the day (e.g. Icewind Dale) and it's clear that Bioware was pushing the boundaries of developing a story as against their present day competition.

It's absurd, when looking at Bioware's history (e.g., BG1, BG2, NWN, KoTOR, Jade Empire, ME, DA:O, ME2, DA2, ME3) to look at BG1 (a game from 14 years ago) and NWN (a game from 10 years ago) and speak to them as really being relevant to the design philosophy at Bioware.

NWN was a game that was - outside of the modding community and the PW players - really heavily panned until HoTU came out.

You are assuming things. When I've said that are relevant to BW philosophy?

What I've said that is not true that all Bioware games are story oriented. BG1 and NWN are not story oriented, and both are games, despite its time, very popular in BW game list.