176 réponses à ce sujet

[Dave of Canada]

Kyuhyun wrote...

GOD NO!
The Witcher is one of the worst RPGs (if you can even call it that) I've ever played and if DA3 is going to be anything like that poor excuse of a game I'm going to set myself on fire. Bye.

You funny troll, you.

[Ridwan]

EntropicAngel wrote...

M25105 wrote...

People aren't fond of the scenery porn that Skyrim did, huh? Just detecting some mild hostility towards a game that sold over 11 million copies, which you know, is a pretty good thing. Cue the CoD hatred that follows.

Lol, what? Skyrim is more like Call of Duty than either The Witcher or any Bioware game, ever.

Hint: Twitch gameplay.


And you may be getting hostility because Skyrim is a mile wide and an inch deep, while Bioware games (and TW1 for the matter--don't know about TW2 yet) are built upon solid dialog and characters and plot.

Like I wrote in my longer post on the previous page, there's more to games than just dialogue and characters.

I also wrote specifically CoD cause anytime you mention a game that sells a ton, people instantly revert to using "Yeah well CoD sold millions too and that's a bad game" when in reality CoD is an excellent game at what it does and offers. It's just hating on what works for most people while lamentating that the so called "hardcore" games don't get the sales numbers of Skyrim, CoD or Mario because of the "casuals" which is honestly just an excuse. Considering the many many hours people spend on Skyrim, I'd say, if I had to use that made up definition, that Skyrim is just a "hardcore" as Dragon Age. Just cause Skyrim focuses on other things instead dialougue and narritive, doesn't make it a bad game and the sales numbers reflect that.

[Topsider]

EntropicAngel wrote...

M25105 wrote...

People aren't fond of the scenery porn that Skyrim did, huh? Just detecting some mild hostility towards a game that sold over 11 million copies, which you know, is a pretty good thing. Cue the CoD hatred that follows.

Lol, what? Skyrim is more like Call of Duty than either The Witcher or any Bioware game, ever.

Hint: Twitch gameplay.

Bioware made MDK2, believe it or not.

[xyzmkrysvr]

Blair Brown wrote...I think we are going to make the game WE want to make.

Yes, you did that with DA:II. You guys wanted to make a game where something "awesome" happens each time you press a button, where maps were recycled, and dialogue options limited.

When you compare the sales of DA:O to DA:II you can see how well that worked out for you. 

Maybe instead of making the game YOU want to make, you should focus a little more on the type of gameplay WE want. 

(Granted, I'll buy Dragon Age: Inquisition regardless because your games are still vastly more enjoyable than everything else out there. It's just sad that the sequels (both in the Dragon Age and Mass Effect universe) never quite lived up to the original)

[Kyuhyun]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Kyuhyun wrote...

GOD NO!
The Witcher is one of the worst RPGs (if you can even call it that) I've ever played and if DA3 is going to be anything like that poor excuse of a game I'm going to set myself on fire. Bye.

You funny troll, you.

I'm a troll for thinking The Witcher sucks? I know this might come as a shock to you but not everyone shares your opinion about that god awful game. 

[jstme]

xyzmkrysvr wrote...

Blair Brown wrote...I think we are going to make the game WE want to make.

Yes, you did that with DA:II. You guys wanted to make a game where something "awesome" happens each time you press a button, where maps were recycled, and dialogue options limited.

When you compare the sales of DA:O to DA:II you can see how well that worked out for you. 

Maybe instead of making the game YOU want to make, you should focus a little more on the type of gameplay WE want. 

(Granted, I'll buy Dragon Age: Inquisition regardless because your games are still vastly more enjoyable than everything else out there. It's just sad that the sequels (both in the Dragon Age and Mass Effect universe) never quite lived up to the original)

DA2 is a bad game, no defending that - but i am sure that it has more to do with crazy schedule and work force issues forced by EA suits from above then with what DA team wanted the game to be.
Actually the most important thing EA/Bioware can take from Skyrim and Witcher is that 2 years is not enough to make a  good RPG game.
Plus,there is no reason to be hositle to DA3 guys. Yet .

[Sacred_Fantasy]

EntropicAngel wrote...

M25105 wrote...

Like I wrote in my longer post on the previous page, there's more to games than just dialogue and characters.

I also wrote specifically CoD cause anytime you mention a game that sells a ton, people instantly revert to using "Yeah well CoD sold millions too and that's a bad game" when in reality CoD is an excellent game at what it does and offers. It's just hating on what works for most people while lamentating that the so called "hardcore" games don't get the sales numbers of Skyrim, CoD or Mario because of the "casuals" which is honestly just an excuse. Considering the many many hours people spend on Skyrim, I'd say, if I had to use that made up definition, that Skyrim is just a "hardcore" as Dragon Age. Just cause Skyrim focuses on other things instead dialougue and narritive, doesn't make it a bad game and the sales numbers reflect that.

I would say it's more objective--a game like Call of Duty isn't telling a good story.

It isn't trying to pull you in. It doesn't have a moral to it, one might say. It's about how fast your reflexes are. It's about playing a game purely to play a game. It's about entertainment, and nothing but.

Consider the game Spec Ops: The Line, and how well it was received by people here. It isn't about what you're doing, it's about why you're doing it.

That's precisely why the majority people buy a game and not novel or DVD movie. They want to play a game. In a RPG, they want to play a role. Not listening to some fairy tales by the developer. 

EntropicAngel wrote...

I'd argue that Bioware games, and RPGs in general, are usually about more than that (purely entertainment).

RPG in general is more than purely entertainment, I agree. But BioWare games? Recent Bioware games turn out to be more purely entertainment than anything else. Their character is generic good heroes ( even for renegade Shepard or Aggresive Hawke ) and their story is basic fast pace action oriented. Their narrative suffer with basic or minimum exposition and dialogues. They sacrifice  too much depth in order to move the plot quickly, just because they're paranoid that some people would end the game prematurely. They're not the greatest storyteller, you know. But who cares, anyway. 

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 09 avril 2013 - 04:30 .

[Ridwan]

xyzmkrysvr wrote...

Blair Brown wrote...I think we are going to make the game WE want to make.

Yes, you did that with DA:II. You guys wanted to make a game where something "awesome" happens each time you press a button, where maps were recycled, and dialogue options limited.

When you compare the sales of DA:O to DA:II you can see how well that worked out for you. 

Maybe instead of making the game YOU want to make, you should focus a little more on the type of gameplay WE want. 

(Granted, I'll buy Dragon Age: Inquisition regardless because your games are still vastly more enjoyable than everything else out there. It's just sad that the sequels (both in the Dragon Age and Mass Effect universe) never quite lived up to the original)

Pay attention to this line, it's what seperates good companies from the bad.

[CaptainBlackGold]

jstme wrote...

xyzmkrysvr wrote...

DA2 is a bad game, no defending that - but i am sure that it has more to do with crazy schedule and work force issues forced by EA suits from above then with what DA team wanted the game to be.
Actually the most important thing EA/Bioware can take from Skyrim and Witcher is that 2 years is not enough to make a  good RPG game.
Plus,there is no reason to be hositle to DA3 guys. Yet .

I keep reading this as an excuse for DA2 and I do not buy it. Sure, they did not have enough time and resources so why did they make so many unnecessary changes that sucked up what little time and resources they did have? They re-designed the Elves, changed the combat system (wave system), re-designed the Qunari, etc. None of which objectively made a "better" game.

They had a budget; they could have spent that budget on anything they wanted. They chose to use it to make changes that did not need to be made so some honcho could put his distinctive mark on the series.

And DA2 suffered as a result. Let's hope that there is better management of resources for DA3.

[Dave of Canada]

Kyuhyun wrote...

I'm a troll for thinking The Witcher sucks?

No, you're a troll by how you present yourself. Don't try to make it so obvious.

[Sacred_Fantasy]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

That's precisely why the majority people buy a game and not novel or DVD movie. They want to play a game. In a RPG, they want to play a role. Not listening to some fairy tales by the developer.

For you, maybe. Others do it for other reasons.

Yes, others do it for romance option or others do it because BioWare story treated the LGBT community equally unlike the Witcher or Skyrim. There can be so many reasons why other people do it beside playing a game. But a game is still a game and meant to be played regardless of the many reasons why this small chunk of people prefer to do other things in their games other than playing. 

EntropicAngel wrote...

RPG in general is more than purely entertainment, I agree. But BioWare games? Recent Bioware games turn out to be more purely entertainment than anything else. Their character is generic good heroes ( even for renegade Shepard or Aggresive Hawke ) and their story is basic fast pace action oriented. Their narrative suffer with basic or minimum exposition and dialogues. They sacrifice  too much depth in order to move the plot quickly, just because they're paranoid that some people would end the game prematurely. They're not the greatest storyteller, you know. But who cares, anyway. 

I disagree to an extent. I found ME3 and DA ][ to have fairly developed stories. KotOR, ME1, DA:O? Your standard generic fare.

I agree that plot isn't Bioware's strong point at all, but I feel it's still ages ahead of most shooters, and is improving.

You want to compare BioWare weak plot with most shooters? Why don't you compare BioWare's plot with well known award winning and best seller novels on current market instead, and see how much improvement BioWare actually make?

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 09 avril 2013 - 04:55 .

[xyzmkrysvr]

CaptainBlackGold wrote...

jstme wrote...

xyzmkrysvr wrote...

DA2 is a bad game, no defending that - but i am sure that it has more to do with crazy schedule and work force issues forced by EA suits from above then with what DA team wanted the game to be.
Actually the most important thing EA/Bioware can take from Skyrim and Witcher is that 2 years is not enough to make a  good RPG game.
Plus,there is no reason to be hositle to DA3 guys. Yet .

I keep reading this as an excuse for DA2 and I do not buy it. Sure, they did not have enough time and resources so why did they make so many unnecessary changes that sucked up what little time and resources they did have? They re-designed the Elves, changed the combat system (wave system), re-designed the Qunari, etc. None of which objectively made a "better" game.

They had a budget; they could have spent that budget on anything they wanted. They chose to use it to make changes that did not need to be made so some honcho could put his distinctive mark on the series.

And DA2 suffered as a result. Let's hope that there is better management of resources for DA3.

I'm more than willing to cut Bioware some slack since I realize their EA overlords might be rushing the production schedule in order to bolster their bottom line, but as the developers, Bioware got to chose the direction it took DA:II in terms of gameplay and other choices, and I think it strayed a bit too far from the tried and true mechanics that were masterfully employed in Origins. 

(I actually liked the re-designed Qunari but those elves... *shudders*. I thought the elves in the Dragon Age universe were supposed to be aesthetically pleasing? They were, to be blunt, creepy looking, anorexic boner-shrinkers.)

[Sacred_Fantasy]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

Yes, others do it for romance option or others do it because BioWare story treated the LGBT community equally unlike the Witcher or Skyrim. There can be so many reasons why other people do it beside playing a game. But a game is still a game and meant to be played regardless of the many reasons why this small chunk of people prefer to do other things in their games other than playing.

You're equating "meant to be played" with "purely entertainment." The two are not the same.

They're are the same from the perspective of gamers who create a game for gamers. You could ask people like Brent Knowless or Chris Avellone. Only a storyteller who love to control the the player's experience in a straight line and people who love to be controlled would think otherwise.  

EntropicAngel wrote...

Gaming's interactivity, I would argue, actually makes it a better medium for telling some stories. Returning to Spec Ops: The Line (which I will say I've never played), the main character does something truly horrific some time into the game. But what gives it its power, what really brings that point home--you the player did it. You the player made an assumption that you've been taught to make, and it goes horribly wrong.

That would not have worked with a movie or a book. The fact that it is a game immensely increased the power of the scene.

1. There is no such thing as YOU in story driven games. There is only preset characters design by the developers which are nothing more than a puppet played by the developers themselves. Sheppard is Preset paragon or renegade characters. Hawke is preset subtle or humorous or aggresive character. BioWare doesn't acknowledge anything else in this two stories. There is no YOU.
2. You don't have much control in story driven games compare to open world and sand box games, therefore it's a moot point. You or your character don't exist in a story driven video game. You're led to believe that you have the control but  you don't. You merely ride along the coaster to the end specified by the writers, which is why it's sucked big time. 

EntropicAngel wrote...

You want to compare BioWare weak plot with most shooters? Why don't you compare BioWare's plot with well known award winning and best seller novels on current market instead, and see how much improvement BioWare actually make?

I'm comparing it with shooters because I was talking about shooters.

Of course it's not as good as some novels. No game is, yet. But, again, I would argue that Bioware is improving in this area.

Really? Then do tell me what are those improvement? 

[BouncyFrag]

I'm more concerned about quality as opposed to making one game more like another one.

[Rawgrim]

Topsider wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...

M25105 wrote...

People aren't fond of the scenery porn that Skyrim did, huh? Just detecting some mild hostility towards a game that sold over 11 million copies, which you know, is a pretty good thing. Cue the CoD hatred that follows.

Lol, what? Skyrim is more like Call of Duty than either The Witcher or any Bioware game, ever.

Hint: Twitch gameplay.

Bioware made MDK2, believe it or not.

Jade Empire too.

[EpicBoot2daFace]

Sutekh wrote...

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

Blair Brown wrote...

I think we are going to make the game WE want to make.

Sure you will always be influenced by other games(movies/art/writing/etc) previous and current, and you can use that, but you must remain true to your own design, goals, and vision.

Well, you'll have to forgive me if I don't take your word for it. You used to be able to make the games you wanted to make back when your company was independent. But I doubt EA is interested in RPG's that only satisfy a niche market.

Did Bioware recently stated (or ever) they want to make games that satisfy a niche market? How do you know what are the games they actually want to make. In turn, how can you say EA prevents them to do so? (which, forgive the assumption, I read as "you sold your soul to the Big Bad Corp").

Also, you (and others) keep using Skyrim's 10 million sales as a gauge of quality (which, as much as I love Skyrim, it isn't). How is 10 million a niche market when the niche is the size of Belgium or Greece in numbers? There's just something in the reasoning where "good games =  niche market [where I belong]" and "good games = 10 million sales" I don't quite get.

Back when they were an independent company they lived off their fanbase like a lot of other RPG devs. They went to various publishers for their games, but they remained independent and had more creative freedom. A BioWare RPG that sells one million copies is of little interest to EA. They want it to sell five or six million.

RPG's generally aren't as successful as shooters. That's why Skyrim is such a big deal to BioWare and EA. It sold over 10 million copies. They're looking at Skyrim and trying to adopt whatever they can from that game to try to boost sales for their own games.

Anyway, since the EA buyout I think there's been a decline in quality across the board. And I think that has a lot to do with BioWare having to design their games (like Dragon Age) to appeal to everyone instead of just their loyal fanbase or people who really like RPG's.

The guy who is playing Call of Duty the majority of the time --- BioWare and the EA marketing machine has to get that guy's attention. That's why we see things like "Awesome Button!" and game mechanics that once required some thought, are actually being dumbed down to a single button. Auto-attack was removed (and later patched back in lol) because the assumption was console gamers think auto-attack is boring and would rather mash the button over and over again.

If they were still an independent company,  I think they would be better off. They could get back to making RPG's without having to worry about EA meddling in their business. Their games wouldn't have to sell five or six million copies to be successful.