89 réponses à ce sujet

[spernus]

T0paze wrote...

Actually, DAO doesn't really excel in anything, except, perhaps, facial animation. And it's certainly not a step forward. If anything, it's a step back, because it in some aspects it's worse than even those games it is believed to be a successor to.

Baldur's Gate had an equally interesting story AND a more open world (of course, it was lacking in some other aspects, such as interaction between party members, but that's not the point here). Baldur's Gate 2 had a better story and superior level design. Music was much better, too, and sidequests, although not too complex, didn't have that specific MMO feel to them. No, actually, let me rephrase that: most sidequests in DAO are utter junk.

The graphics in DAO is, well, nothing out of the ordinary. Not much to say here. And the environment is really a nail in the coffin. I mean, DAO, released a couple of months ago, features a natural environment that is vastly inferior to to TES III, released 8 years ago! It's not even funny.

On the other hand, there are two things I like Bioware for:

1. They're survivors. There have been companies that used to make better games (speaking conceptually), but they're either gone now or don't have much in common with their former self.
2. They tend to make better commercial products. There are some bugs and inconsistencies in their games, but they are usually more polished. Basically, they've kinda found balance between mainstream and innovative gaming - they're either not able or cannot afford doing something really outstanding, but at the same time they manage not to fall below a certain level.

So, while I don't expect another Planescape: Torment, Arcanum or Fallout from Bioware, and I do think that in terms of game design they've been going downhill since BGII, I can expect them to make high-quality products that also happen to be interesting, if not exactly groundbreaking games.

I disagree with you. I don't think they have found a balance between mainstream and innovative gaming at all.That would be saying that Bioware release popular artsy games,which would be a developer similar to Pixar in the movie industry.Bioware ain't no Pixar,that's for sure(not even close).

The biggest problem of Bioware was always properly implementing the ideas related to gameplay.I think Black isles shared the same problems,but they were stronger as far as writing goes(and better at creating roleplaying games)

That's why Bioware should put more emphasis on gameplay,since they can't write or create stories like Black isles could.

[ToJKa1]

AmstradHero wrote...


Yes, Oblivion is gorgeous, because it uses the Unreal Engine, which is pretty much the best game 3D engine out there.

Actually, Oblivion (and Fallout 3 and apparently TES V will aswell) use the Gamebryo engine, with lots of extra functions developed by Bethesda itself. Unreal engine has nothing to do with it.

[TheNecroFiend]

The whole PC vs Console thing is stupid. Just like the console wars. Game on both and enjoy what games they all have to offer. Instead of looking like a tool and whineing. And people who say they can play any game on the PC still aren't playing Rockband.

[addiction21]

TheNecroFiend wrote...

The whole PC vs Console thing is stupid. Just like the console wars. Game on both and enjoy what games they all have to offer. Instead of looking like a tool and whineing. And people who say they can play any game on the PC still aren't playing Rockband.

I think these guys would be to differ  

[TheNecroFiend]

addiction21 wrote...

TheNecroFiend wrote...

The whole PC vs Console thing is stupid. Just like the console wars. Game on both and enjoy what games they all have to offer. Instead of looking like a tool and whineing. And people who say they can play any game on the PC still aren't playing Rockband.

I think these guys would be to differ  

Heh, I was waiting for someone to post that. But you know what I mean.

[addiction21]

TheNecroFiend wrote...

addiction21 wrote...

TheNecroFiend wrote...

The whole PC vs Console thing is stupid. Just like the console wars. Game on both and enjoy what games they all have to offer. Instead of looking like a tool and whineing. And people who say they can play any game on the PC still aren't playing Rockband.

I think these guys would be to differ  

Heh, I was waiting for someone to post that. But you know what I mean.

I know just being a smartass. We are as the maker made us ya know.

[Aesir Rising]

Italics are difficult to read.

The top post seems to be more about whether or not PC game development should continue than to be anything about the games themselves. For myself, I wouldn't normally care which platform a game is designed for, with two critical exceptions:

1) The UI sucks on PC for console ports. Always. It's is like a hard and fast rule that a game designed primarily for a console controller is just going to be somewhere between "really sucks" and "It's not great" when it comes to user interface for the PC version. I don't know why it has to be this way, but it always is. Always.  The biggest offenses tend to revolve around mission-critical UI stuff like character movement and camera/viewport control and also in the menuing systems employed for in-game UI panels and options screens.  We see this is otherwise awesome games like Mass Effect (not too bad) Jade Empire (not too good) and Borderlands (somewhere in between).

2) PC games typically have more content available. Or did. Things like toolset for modders and such, and user created content with or without tools typically appear to be more readily available for PCs. More is more. And sometimes more is even better, so I would miss this if the game development industry were to completely drop the PC build target from their plans.

Modifié par Aesir Rising, 07 janvier 2010 - 08:28 .

[EJ42]

Consoles ruin games for everyone.

[Viglin]

EJ42 wrote...

Consoles ruin games for everyone.

Except the console owners....or even Pc players who wouldnt mind getting to play Uncharted2, GoW, Heavy Rain, etc etc without having to buy a new machine.

[EJ42]

Viglin wrote...

EJ42 wrote...

Consoles ruin games for everyone.

Except the console owners....or even Pc players who wouldnt mind getting to play Uncharted2, GoW, Heavy Rain, etc etc without having to buy a new machine.

Console owners are irrelevant.

Most of them cannot even vote.

[Viglin]

EJ42 wrote...

Viglin wrote...

EJ42 wrote...

Consoles ruin games for everyone.

Except the console owners....or even Pc players who wouldnt mind getting to play Uncharted2, GoW, Heavy Rain, etc etc without having to buy a new machine.

Console owners are irrelevant.

Most of them cannot even vote.

Nice bait throwing..

[Gorgar05]

Deus Ex, was a fantastic game for PC. The sequel, Deus Ex:Invisible War was developed for xbox and pc. Playing it on pc was painful campared to the original. Consoles get a big thumbs down in my household.

[Wozearly]

Quite a thoughtful OP...nice to see its not all just trolling on this forum.

I'm not sure I'd personally hold up Mass Effect as a pinnacle of Bioware's success. Speaking as a PC player, I liked Mass Effect more than I thought it would. It did feel very 'consoley' with that odd, hard-to-put-a-finger-on sense of being dumbed down. I found it pacy, easy to engage with and was genuinely stunned at the quality of facial expressions matched with the tone of voice in conversation.

That said, I did one playthrough and then...never really went back to it like I thought I would. I liked it, but it didn't engage me. IMO, it was a sci-fi shoot-em-up with an element of tactics and an above-average quality storyline, IMO. Unusual, but not genre defining. I have no intentions of following the remainder of the series.

On the other hand, DA:O blew me away. As mentioned by others, consolification tends to lead to a rush to creating an easy-to-play game with some kind of gameplay "development system" so the player feels rewarded for putting in time and, now more often than not, purchasable add-ons designed from the start with a view to selling them later to make additional money. 

That often creates playable, but generally forgettable games - hence the reliance on getting a good series and 'brand' going and then flogging it to death.

So to buck the trend with a game that has really professional writing and storytelling, ventures into a non-cookie cutter fantasy setting with several notable twists on the norm and has clearly had as much time and effort put into how the game looks, feels and sounds as much as how well it plays...is great. Bioware have a great track record on this, to be honest. SWKOTOR received a similar blow-away reaction when it launched.

I wouldn't say that DA:O is revolutionary or ahead of its time - generally its nudges and improvements learned from previous games. However, that doesn't stop it standing out from the crowd by being a very different playing experience to pretty much anything else on the market.

The inevitable battle in terms of content vs desire to market to a wide audience and exactly at what point does development stop so the game can be released...these are always going to be there. The more ambitious a game, and the more content (of any kind), the more likely there'll be problems. I'm not surprised DA:O hit them.

However, in terms of the end decision on marketing/content - I feel a good balance was struck. It is a dark game with comparatively graphic romances, and it definitely feels like a dark game when it needs to. IMO there was clearly a decision and desire to express the world as the creators saw it rather than ensure it was 'safe' for all audiences...but its not so dark that politicians have been queuing up to take a crack at it as has happened with games in the past.

Out of interest, to explore your original point more specifically...what is it you think would have been genre-defining to have included that you believe was lost somewhere along the line?

[Nuclear_Pony]

I've been a PC gamer for over a decade.
Haven't played consoles since the Nintendo 16 bit thingie. I usually stick to PC gaming (with the exception of the odd PSP or DS game every now and then).
DAO is not really revolutionary, but sadly this is the closest I will ever get to BG2.
It's currently the only game I spend so much time on since BG / BG2, IWD / IWD2, NWN (didn't play NWN2 that much), Fallout / Fallout 2 and Jagged Alliance 2.
For me it's currently, simply the best (fantasy) RPG available. Nothing else comes even close.
If I wanted eye-candy I could easily resort to dozens of other titles, but DAO just looks gorgeous enough for me. It's fun and keeps me interested for long periods of time.
It's not revolutionary, but pretty much (almost) on par with BG2. No other (single-player) game can claim that.
I think the timing is chosen pretty well, Bioware really needs to draw back those BG2 / NWN fan masses while at the same time appeal to a wider audience.
I think in this they are successful. Yep, times sure have changed.

Modifié par Nuclear_Pony, 08 janvier 2010 - 02:47 .

[TheNecroFiend]

Consoles aren't the problem. It's the catering to casuals that really bugs me. So many games get dumbed down just to increase a devs profit so they can appeal to the most people. Casuals are the PG-13 of video games.