300 réponses à ce sujet

[CronoDragoon]

MasterScribe wrote...
That would take alot of time and effort, which BioWare didn't put into DA2. 

Compared to what? Do you have any idea the hours game employees work? Please, just shut up.

[billy the squid]

Eurypterid wrote...

billy the squid wrote...
And yet we see "professional"
reviewers giving DA2 10/10 or Rome 2 which was frankly utterly broken on
release, of BF4 getting 85% from IGN despite still being patched nearly
2 months after release and the MP still being broken, the user reviews
are not nuanced and they're not representitive of the game by bombin it
with 0. Yet, I'm unmoved when many of the "professionals" are nothing
more than shills and bought out whores.

I see it as
karmic justice, if gamers trawl a developer's reputation through the mud
when they're trying to pull a fast one, like Hammerpoint did when they
took a pounding for their antics with War Z.

An interesting explanation for this:

Journalists are invited to the studio or a rented room at a convention. They play the most polished level and/or segment of the game
for a couple hours, maybe over the course of a few days. Drinks and
meals are on the house. Keep in mind that they're getting dropped into
the middle of the game somewhere, because complicated gameplay that
builds on lessons learned in previous levels would be extremely
frustrating, whereas you want the journalists to experience fun and
excitement. So we're talking graphics, simple combat, flashy cinematics,
and controlled linear environments that look really good -- as
long as the journalists never stray from the path, which is why there
are marketing execs looking right over their shoulders and telling them
where to go. And it's amazing how intuitive level design becomes when the guy who designed the level is there to explain it.

From
point 3 in
This
Article. So not always as underhanded or sinister as it seems
(at least on the part of game journalists).

Yes I've seen that.

While no one recieves backhanders in the shape of brown envelopes stuffed with money anymore, the whole point of hammering us with legal ethics at university was because one can be compromised by "favours" provided by corporate clients, or any client for that matter, and the requirement to be seen as impartial to any court, even if the gift was not a bribe.

The relationship between games publishers and journalists need not be sinister for it to be/ look dirty. There has always been this issue, which has become worse in the last few years, especially after the Geff Gerstmann episode. Where the ethics of giving games a review, when a large publisher also controls the flow of early release copies, advertising revenue, embargoes and black listing calls into question the impartiallity and credibility of any associated journalist. They do themselves no favours by accepting the situation that you quoted, they are effectively complicit by their behaviour, because if they chose not to, then they don't get the early review. 

That is precicely the behaviour that allows the accusations of shill or whre to be leveled at them when they knowingly accept the publisher's caveates by playing it in a controlled enviroment or not fully, but they don't mention that.

Modifié par billy the squid, 17 décembre 2013 - 07:54 .

[dreamgazer]

CronoDragoon wrote...

Immer Rastrelly wrote...

BioWare started moving downhill since ________. That was the first game to show signs of general lazyness. Whatever you say, _______ was much more primitive then ______ and/or _______. Basically, it was an attempt to sell bad storytelling and fanservice as "character-oriented@ story.

It's time for another edition of generic Biofan bellyaching! Who else wants to play?

Alright, I'm ready. 

[CronoDragoon]

MasterScribe wrote...

Missed the joke you did, padawan.

The joke that cutting with a spork takes more time and effort than BW spent on DA2? I got that one. Is there something next-level here?

[Bluto Blutarskyx]

 It is all of the above for me (responding to the first post). 
Minus day one dlc complaints. I actually don't care about tht so long as the "game in the box" is worth the price you pay for it as a whole.

however da2 along with aspects of what the me series became are examples of how bioware and thier "hub" method are failing and they are out of touch with fans.

dao was a throwback game that sold incredibly well  and I feel to decide that da2 should be more like mass effect is a huge indicator of thier lack of touch with fans.

that and the dumbing down of rpg elements in the mass effect series orreryuch is indicating that bioware has lost "it". 

Its no one thing but a combination of things.  Now I like a move to more action but that should not come at the expense of rpg elements and player choices and options.  

Bioware needs to take a lesson from Bethseda and obsidian. Fallout new Vegas had a huge amount of options and had an epilogue that summed those up satisfactorily.  
Additionally the player felt like they had a large amount of control and influence on the story.
it was similar to dao in that regard. 

[puppy maclove]

@ OP..... WOW... You are the definition of ignorant!!!! Da2 was poor... regardless of the development period, that was BW's call, BW promised big things and their name was on the product... it was their cash grab. ME3.... F'n TERRIBLE .. nuff said. BW are in trouble with their fans, I'm looking forward to their future games... but I'll definitely take a wait and see approach, which they have now well deserved.

[Paul E Dangerously]

ianvillan wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Back to the point the entire review score tirade kicked off... The Witcher is a very succesful AAA franchise that costs "only" the $60 price tag and includes ongoing toolkit support, patches and free DLC. It's a viable model.

With no DRM included. Other companies say they have DLC and DRM because of pirates and without it they would loose money, Yet the Witcher developers were willing to take the risk because they said if you support and look after your customers they will buy your game and stay loyal.

Witcher's also available on Steam, which is DRM. Yes there's GoG, but I'm a little more suspicious of "good intentions" when said company owns said distrobution outlet. It's good PR.

Keep in mind they also sued the hell out of people who pirated the game, too. It didn't work, but they did.

As far as the rest of this goes, now, yeah, Bioware's stumbled a bit for several reasons - purely going on gameplay here, though.

People love to bawl about them "dumbing down" Mass Effect, and I'll even admit that ME2 threw out the baby with the bathwater, but ME3's the best game in the series. Not talking writing, just gamplay and level design. People seem to forget that even despite the quality, ME1's a clunky shooter with an awkward camera and so-so controls. I don't see why improving on the core of that was such a bad thing.

ME1's "complexity" was in large part tedium dealing with the inventory and a bunch of Assault Rifle +1-10s with X Ammo +1-10s. ME2 took out way too much, but ME3 brought back enough to suit my tastes. ME1 had lots of open levels and a mix of cut'n'paste corridors, where ME2 had mostly cut'n'paste corridors with chest-high walls, thanks to the cover mechanic. ME3 did a fairly good job of balancing the two.

The problem is that nobody notices because of the ending and the child stuff. They don't like it, therefore the entire game is crap.

DAO to DA2's a lot more similar than people think. The level reuse was just as bad in DAO (How many times did we go through that "Tevinter/Elven ruin" tileset?) and even worse in respects because the DLC was in large part reused tilesets and maps. Especially Leliana's Song and Witch Hunt. Keep in mind those required you to pay extra, unless you waited for the Ultimate Edition. At least DA2's DLC - especially Legacy - was new content.

Where DA2 really fumbled in a gameplay sense for me - (insert usual BSN "rarr, fast combat bad" rant) - was that it went a long way into making things worthless. People like to complain about DAO's Orzammar/Deep Roads (an area I love) but you come out of that with a lot of good stuff. Legion of the Dead armor, Effort & Duty set, Topsider's Honor, Armor of the Divine Will, you name it. In DA2, though, most of the things you pick up are worthless, even more so when you consider the DLC items. You might come out with one piece for that act's one set armor or a half-decent weapon. For fights that are longer and more tedious to boot. Rewarding! Going the full MMO route on items and rewards in DA2 really was a kick in the teeth, and I hope they go back to the DAO route for Inquisitor.

Modifié par Sopa de Gato, 17 décembre 2013 - 08:30 .

[LinksOcarina]

dreamgazer wrote...

I mean, I think Dragon Age 2 gets plenty of unjust hate in the writing department, but the "best story they ever told"?

"perhaps" the best story they ever told. 

Don't forget the perhaps, and I say that because it was one of the few stories they have penned thus far that flies against conventions of the genre. It did things that were not as all-encompassing as saving the world or going on an epic quest. It was intimate as a story, a struggle to inevitability that we can shape the texture of, but not the taste. 

To me, that has more merit than the story of the Inquisition so far, at least, the story we know of right now. But that is personal taste moreso than anything else. Maybe saying the best story ever told is not the wisest thing to say, but its certainly how I feel. 

[Dave of Canada]

If you buy The Witcher from any outlet, be it physical or steam, they give out a second digital copy with GOG because they can't control what happens with other copies. While you can say it's to help propagate their own client, the fact that using it is optional is fantastic.

Can't quote due to mobile being spotty.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 17 décembre 2013 - 08:18 .

[Dutchess]

Sopa de Gato wrote...

ianvillan wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Back to the point the entire review score tirade kicked off... The Witcher is a very succesful AAA franchise that costs "only" the $60 price tag and includes ongoing toolkit support, patches and free DLC. It's a viable model.

With no DRM included. Other companies say they have DLC and DRM because of pirates and without it they would loose money, Yet the Witcher developers were willing to take the risk because they said if you support and look after your customers they will buy your game and stay loyal.

Witcher's also available on Steam, which is DRM. Yes there's GoG, but I'm a little more suspicious of "good intentions" when said company owns said distrobution outlet. It's good PR.

Keep in mind they also sued the hell out of people who pirated the game, too. It didn't work, but they did.

They did? I only heard the story that they sent letters to people who had supposedly pirated The Witcher 2, with the request to purchase the game if they had enjoyed it. That's not the same as sueing people and they stopped this practice after criticism of the fans.

[LinksOcarina]

billy the squid wrote...

Eurypterid wrote...

billy the squid wrote...
And yet we see "professional"
reviewers giving DA2 10/10 or Rome 2 which was frankly utterly broken on
release, of BF4 getting 85% from IGN despite still being patched nearly
2 months after release and the MP still being broken, the user reviews
are not nuanced and they're not representitive of the game by bombin it
with 0. Yet, I'm unmoved when many of the "professionals" are nothing
more than shills and bought out whores.

I see it as
karmic justice, if gamers trawl a developer's reputation through the mud
when they're trying to pull a fast one, like Hammerpoint did when they
took a pounding for their antics with War Z.

An interesting explanation for this:

Journalists are invited to the studio or a rented room at a convention. They play the most polished level and/or segment of the game
for a couple hours, maybe over the course of a few days. Drinks and
meals are on the house. Keep in mind that they're getting dropped into
the middle of the game somewhere, because complicated gameplay that
builds on lessons learned in previous levels would be extremely
frustrating, whereas you want the journalists to experience fun and
excitement. So we're talking graphics, simple combat, flashy cinematics,
and controlled linear environments that look really good -- as
long as the journalists never stray from the path, which is why there
are marketing execs looking right over their shoulders and telling them
where to go. And it's amazing how intuitive level design becomes when the guy who designed the level is there to explain it.

From
point 3 in
This
Article. So not always as underhanded or sinister as it seems
(at least on the part of game journalists).

Yes I've seen that.

While no one recieves backhanders in the shape of brown envelopes stuffed with money anymore, the whole point of hammering us with legal ethics at university was because one can be compromised by "favours" provided by corporate clients, or any client for that matter, and the requirement to be seen as impartial to any court, even if the gift was not a bribe.

The relationship between games publishers and journalists need not be sinister for it to be/ look dirty. There has always been this issue, which has become worse in the last few years, especially after the Geff Gerstmann episode. Where the ethics of giving games a review, when a large publisher also controls the flow of early release copies, advertising revenue, embargoes and black listing calls into question the impartiallity and credibility of any associated journalist. They do themselves no favours by accepting the situation that you quoted, they are effectively complicit by their behaviour, because if they chose not to, then they don't get the early review. 

That is precicely the behaviour that allows the accusations of shill or whre to be leveled at them when they knowingly accept the publisher's caveates by playing it in a controlled enviroment or not fully, but they don't mention that.

As a journalist, I take offense to the broad brush claims that people make on things they don't really know about. 

That said, the issue lies within journalists holding the keys to the kingdom, so to speak. Not due to early reviews, but due to what the journalists WANT to see happen. For example, I hate them but the VGX are successful every year because of the advertising they receive from publishers to promote games. The awards aspect is pomp and circumstance, and nine out of ten times the nominated games are games that are managing the expectations of the consumer base, these games are the best so were promoting them to remain that way.

Ever notice, out of the five games up for GOTY, three of them were mostly story driven with derivitave gameplay? The other two, GTA V and Super Maro 3D World, were better games as games, and GTA V won because it contained a storyline that you can tout about.

My point is, you are half right about the accusation. That said, it is not as malicous in intent as you are lead to believe. If nothing else, the problem is the nespotism within the journalist community itself, not to the publishers. 

[CronoDragoon]

MasterScribe wrote...

I was mocking the attitude of the haters, apparently with great subtlety. My apologies.

Eh, hard for me to pick up on sarcasm when I don't know the poster.

[CronoDragoon]

LinksOcarina wrote...
 That said, it is not as malicous in intent as you are lead to believe. If nothing else, the problem is the nespotism within the journalist community itself, not to the publishers. 

Not many claim it's malicious. They claim it's affecting the review process, which is (apparently) true. Thus the calls for stricter ethical guidelines regarding the publisher-journalist relationship; to keep the honest people honest.

Edit:

renjility wrote...
They did? I only heard the story that they sent letters to people who had supposedly pirated The Witcher 2, with
the request to purchase the game if they had enjoyed it. That's not the same as sueing people and they stopped this practice after criticism of the fans.

Not only did the Witcher 2 launch with DRM on physical copies (contrary to what the poster above says), but CDPR made it clear they'd go after pirates legally. Here: http://torrentfreak....orrents-110527/. Whether they eventually did or not I don't know and don't care enough to check. Kudos on CDPR for dumping the DRM when it was proven to drastically harm the game's performance, but let's not make them out to be something they're not.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 17 décembre 2013 - 08:41 .

[DarthLaxian]

Moghedia wrote...

With DA2 and ME3 ending debacle and From Ashes DLC which cut very important content from the main game so it could be nickel and dimed away. I can understand why people are being cautious about DA.I.
I think most of the scepticism is levelled towards EA's business practices, I personally hope they have learned there lesson and will give Bioware the freedom and time to finish the game how they want.

indeed

as for "unjustly bashing bioware" (paraphrasing the opening posting here):

it is not unjust, if you look at the quality drop from games like KOTOR, Dragon Age: Origins, Mass Effect and Mass Effect 2 to the last releases:

Dragon Age 2 and Mass Effect 3 (i discount SWTOR, because that is an MMO and not a single-player RPG - it suffices to say that this game is not that good either IMHO)

both games are really bad if you consider the earlier releases (DA:O is a shining jewel (and very polished IMHO) compared to DA2 which is an un-cut and un-finished jewel (diamonds in the rough are quite ugly, but cut and polished: they are priceless and beautiful!) same for ME3 (i can write pages about the misstakes this game makes and how we - the customers - were LIED TO before the release (it might have been a misscommunication between devs and the marketing department, but if so: I haven't jet heard them saying "SORRY!!!" - on the contrary: they defended their actions (and that is just unacceptable and very rude))

so we are not bashing - not really - we are speaking the truth (as we see it, that others (many of them "fanboys") don't see it our way is fine and quite acceptable - everyone is entitled to their own oppinion!)) and we like to be heard (and we hate being told we are "just a loudmouthed minority" and the like) and acknowledged (hell, the devs can dissagree with us, too - no problem, it's how they do it, that's what's causing the problems!)

greetings LAX

[Dave of Canada]

CronoDragoon wrote...

Not only did the Witcher 2 launch with DRM on physical copies

For less than a month.

Whether they eventually did or not I don't know and don't care enough to check.

They did not.

[Immer Rastrelly]

--delete please, cancelled post by accident--

Modifié par Immer Rastrelly, 17 décembre 2013 - 09:13 .

[TKavatar]

Dave of Canada wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

Not only did the Witcher 2 launch with DRM on physical copies

For less than a month.

Whether they eventually did or not I don't know and don't care enough to check.

They did not.

They did actually go after some pirates and only after the huge backlash that followed did they stop.

[Fredward]

Haters vs Fanboys.

FIGHT.

[dreamgazer]

Morocco Mole wrote...

Mass Effect 2 isn't really that great either. Its actually less of an actual RPG than ME3 and barely has a plot

I have no idea why it got put on a pedestal.

Dem interrupts. 

[dreamgazer]

Foopydoopydoo wrote...

Haters vs Fanboys.

FIGHT.

It's amusing, ain't it? 

Both sides think the other is ridiculous. Teehee.

[Skorm777]

Immer Rastrelly wrote...

BioWare started moving downhill since Mass Effect 2. That was the first game to show signs of general lazyness. Whatever you say, ME2 was much more primitive then ME1 and/or DA:O.

An example of what I was talking about with the ignorance, and the "Malicious Bioware" ideaology. 

You assume that the degrading of quality can be attributed to lazyness, suggesting all of a sudden the developers decided they weren't interested in quality production, and began putting in minimal effort; then in a catalistic manner all the supervisors, and deparment heads, also came to this same conclusion and didn't inqure to change the trend. 

I'll offer a more rational explanation. This is Biowares release history since joining forces with the now disbanded Pandemic Studios in 2005. 

2007 - Mass Effect

2008 - Sonic Chronicles: The Dark Brotherhood

2009 - Dragon Age: Origins

2010: Mass Effect 2

2010: Merged with Mythic Entertertainment

2011: Star Wars: The old Republic

2011: Dragon Age 2

2012: Mass Effect 3

I don't know any more than you do about the inside situation of Bioware, maybe they did get lazy; maybe they intentionally release poor quality games to feed their sinister desires.

However, as you can see, they have been running a strenuously tight schedule. In 5 years they released 5 major titles, their first handheld, 1 MMO, and went through a merger. 

Considering this information, I would guess too much work stretching their manpower thin is the reason for the recent loss in quality. The fact that they were working on an MMO with a 2011 release date explains why DA2 was supposedly developed on a skeleton crew as well. 


I recognize that this issue is still the fault of Bioware, and I'm not trying to negate blame. All I want to communicate is that if complainers did their research, and shared their grievances rationally and organized, then it would serve to better solve problems; and it wouldn't allow the cesspool of negative posters to be such a misinformed back and forth.