1814 réponses à ce sujet

[crimzontearz]

Uh? No....I am not even entirely sure what you are saying....

[Redbelle]

crimzontearz wrote...

Uh? No....I am not even entirely sure what you are saying....

Okay, more succint.

When Bw relies on an existing game engine to produce a sequel, what comes out of the development cycle of the sequel production, lacks the narrative/gameplay value standards of the first release.

There are exceptions like the BG franchise.... And ME2, but ME2 was, for all intents and purposes, a comlete rebuild and re-envisioning of how to get gamer's to connect to the game on a gameplay level. As such, ME1 is not a direct sequel to ME2 on the development level because ME1 and ME2 were developed along completely different lines. ME1 has alot in common with the KOTOR style of gameplay. ME2's streamlining and upgrade to a new level of graphic's seperates it from ME1.

Essentially, my view is, when BW produce a sequel, they have lofty ambitions and a game engine to build the sequel on. But the sequels don't quite match the original's because...... and this is my theory. If BW have an engine that works, they don't have to invest as much in it's development.

The problem with this is a matter of game budgeting. Those designing a game off an existing engine start the work with a reduced budget in the bank from the word go and stricter budgetary and time constraints. Because the engine already exists.

It's only the games where the engine is tailor made for the game where we see innovation in gameplay design and interaction because if the two are developed side by side, then one can inform the other. Or the people who build the game engine are on hand to tweak it for narrative purposes. Game designers envitably move on to other titles and the years of hands on experience get's lost once they transition.

[crimzontearz]

No Belle not YOU the poster BEFORE you

[Redbelle]

phew!

[crimzontearz]

Also KOTOR 2 was not a Bioware game


And your theory has other holes

[Redbelle]

Many holes..... but this is good. It's peer review where we look over the premise and refine the parts that work while tossing out the rest.

[crimzontearz]

DA2 does not truly count as EA forced it out in 18 months, KOTOR2 was not a Bioware game and the BG series, you said, is an exception....what does that leave you with?

[dreamgazer]

DA2 counts just fine.

[crimzontearz]

Not for the purpose of her argument as the game's development was meddled with

[Redbelle]

crimzontearz wrote...

DA2 does not truly count as EA forced it out in 18 months, KOTOR2 was not a Bioware game and the BG series, you said, is an exception....what does that leave you with?

Making special exception for DA2? Can't do it. even if EA forced it as you say it was still a BW game and BW have the responsibility to represent their developments.

Games that emerge from developers need to be released when the devs are ready to release them. (Give or take the negotiation's with distributer's and such). As such, DA2 remains in the pen. As waving the responsibility of the dev's to resist releasing rush jobs lays with the devs. Not with EA.

As for KOTOR2.......... interesting when you start to read more into it.

KOTOR2 was given to Obsidian Entertainment at BW's suggestion, going by wiki. And used an updated version of the game engine.

Bioware meanwhile went off to begin developing their own IP.

As for the development, KOTOR2 also seems to have been rushed as the producer of the title stated that there was not enough time to do everything they wanted to do. So despite being handed the game engine platform that needed a few alterations, OE ran out of time in the development cycle of KOTOR2.

Suddenly we are back to what I was saying before. If an existing game engine exists, it is not unreasonable to assume that perhaps the develpoment tmie to produce the game is cut to factor out the game engine development time. And for some reason, this reduction in the develpoment cycle of game development has knockon effects that impacts the game in other ways.

It should also be noted that despite being a good game in it's own right. It was critised for being rushed and incomplete.

And while ME3's issues with cut gameplay mechanics, dialogue wheel and that ending have been cited as development choices, you have to wonder if perhaps, having an existing game engine framework to build a sequel on is problem, more than it is a benefit......... IF, it takes time out of the development cycle where other department's have that extra time needed to develop and think of how to implement their contribution's to the game.

Modifié par Redbelle, 25 décembre 2013 - 09:23 .

[crimzontearz]

Why should DA2 not be an exception? It was basically in alpha when released. EA is not just BW's publisher now they OWN Bioware. Bioware had no chance to do anything about it.

[crimzontearz]

Also, it does not matter how it got there, Bioware did not develop Kotor2 so no, that does not count either. You are left with BG, which you said was an exception, and Mass Effect....not much to base a theory on

[Linkenski]

Also the theory is completely wrong because the reason why some/many consider ME2 or ME3 to be inferior to ME1 (as well as DA2 to DA1) is exactly because they got a major overhaul that alienated fans of the first games.

I'd actually like to see Bioware stick a little bit closer to the cards they already laid out while making other conceptual tweaks that doesn't ruin something that was already good before.

ME2 was more linear in its world and exploration, and ME3 was WAAAY too linear in its exploration, and sadly also its dialogue.

And then there are the retcons which Bioware somehow seem to like... I have no idea why they keep doing it.

[crimzontearz]

Don't forget going from a harder Sci-Fi setting to a more "rule of cool" one

That is kind of inexplicable to me

[crimzontearz]

Elaborate on the first sentence please Streetmagic...

[crimzontearz]

Not at all.....

ME1 allowed you to go through the main story missions as you saw fit order wise, there were no time constraints for amy mission and less focus on the reapers alone and much more classic RPG features and customizations. Exploration was also more central.

Mind you I am not stating a preference just an observation

[crimzontearz]

Also....the "race against time" did not become fully pressing until the third story mission so....yeah you were not constantly spurred to hurry either

[crimzontearz]

Well no, I am talking more about mechanics and pacing and linearity



Also the ending is even more dissonant if we look back at ME1 and its ending

[Iakus]

StreetMagic wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

Elaborate on the first sentence please Streetmagic...

The crew is more ME1 friendly and the general urgency of the story kind of reminds me of ME1's "race against time" (you could explore, but the story didn't exactly support it. I think ME2's story supports the idea of wandering about more). Plus, it's more Alliance friendly.

I'm a bigger fan of ME1 than ME2

And you know what I think of ME3

[AlanC9]

I'll complete the circle by being unimpressed with ME2's ending. The final shot was fine, but the Collector Base choice didn't work for me at all.

[crimzontearz]

Blowing it up or not you mean?