just not really thinking things through, and that can and does happen to anyone.
Well, that is exactly why I'm talking about incompetence; they wanted a trilogy of game with choices that carry on to each games. If you want that, the FIRST THING you do is "think things through"; they didn't, or they did and something went horribly wrong halfway through, either way the fact that they couldn't manage a coherent trilogy shows that it was way beyond their talent.
To be honest after ME3, I will never buy a new Bioware game. I have that little faith in them post EA. IF they produce a great game (I am 90% certain they are not going to by the way) I will buy it a couple of month down the line. Probably pre owned. They do not deserve paying after the rip off they did with ME3. I want my money back for that one lol, so I will have it that way..
To be honest after ME3, I will never buy a new Bioware game. I have that little faith in them post EA. IF they produce a great game (I am 90% certain they are not going to by the way) I will buy it a couple of month down the line. Probably pre owned. They do not deserve paying after the rip off they did with ME3. I want my money back for that one lol, so I will have it that way..
Begs the question, if you have such a distaste for Bioware, why you even still posting on here? So much negativity is unhealthy!! :s
Well, I can honestly say that my opinion towards Bioware wouldn't change if DA:I turned out to be lackluster (it looks awesome though, so the chance of that happening seem to be rather small). I buy games based on whether I find it's content appealing or not (bought ME1, ME2, ME3, DA:O, DA2, did not buy SW:TOR). When I decide whether the content is worthwhile or not other gamers opinions are not worth squat to me. Also, I never hold a bad game against a game developer, and instead prefer to look at each game without being "tainted" by previous experiences. I do however keep in mind whether a game developer has produced any worthwhile games previously, which influences me positively.
And since Bioware has produced plenty of great games (ME2 was legendary, ME1, ME3 and DA:O was awesome, DA2 was very good), I will always keep an eye on any game they develop.
So no, I won't "give up" on Bioware if Dragon Age: Inquisition isn't as good as the previus games I have bought from them. That kind of reasoning seems illogical and does not have any place in my mind.
{snip}
My thoughts exactly, there aren't enough people like you who actually think like this T___T
I keep an eye on a company that was my favourite company pre EA. In the hope one day they get their Mojo back. I admit that would be cool, BUT see no evidence yet of this happening. I can hold out hope and reserve the right to keep an eye on them, on the off chance they see sense. I however still see them as having several BAD games of late. Thus will wait and see if they pull another Dragon age 2 or ME3 on us. Will I buy DAI maybe but only well after release. They have lost the right to be believed lately solely based on their own word, IMO.
Y'know I actually quite liked ME3. (sits back and waits for the angry mob with pitchforks and torches to arrive at door).If Inquisition ends up becoming Dragon Age's "Mass Effect 3", what will you do?
You know, I blame ME2 for that, 10 new characters, that can be dead/alive or loyal/not loyal, that's crazy. In general, ME2 introduced too much branching without resolving any the branching left by ME1, and that's not even mentioning the whole Cerberus retcon, or the fact that nothing in ME2 serves against the Reapers in ME3 (ME2 was the perfect game for introducing the Crucible, dammit)
And that is a show of complete incompetence from Bioware's part; each individual game is amazing, but the trilogy as a whole is a scattered mess.
Two did leave too many characters in too many states. This is the same problem that DA is running into where given the # of games plus expansions plus DLC you have way too many hanging threads and options to have choices matter (not just be mentioned) in the game. Truthfully while I liiked the interconnectedness of ME series I think just giving up and saying these are games set in a universe and having them be in different times without direction connections would make for better games.
There isn't really a Cerberus retcon. In ME1 you went after the cells doing crazy things. In ME2 you learn about all kinds of crazy operations (Overlord, Praga) so they are still the same group. What you didn't see in ME1 was the not crazy part which makes total sense since the not crazy parts didn't demand your attention. Simple fact is that 2 actually gave some texture to Cerberus other than being mwahahahaha bad guys. You look at them and like any large organization (take American political parties) there isn't going to be full agreement among all elements, there will be crazy whackjobs, and the right hand and left hand won't always know what is going on.
I think the best argument against 2 is that stopping the human reaper doesn't seem to matter much in 3. I mean you killed one reaper and they clearly have plenty more. Yes killing 100,000's of humans is really, really bad and so stopping it is a good into and of itself but it doesn't seem all that crucial to the overall arc. I think the better ending would have been if the Omega 3 relay was the fall back plan for the Reapers if they cojldn't blip into the Citadel and stopping the collectors stopped that entry - sort of the Arrival scanerio.
Y'know I actually quite liked ME3. (sits back and waits for the angry mob with pitchforks and torches to arrive at door).
3 right up until the end was actually a pretty good game. The ending was bad but for me it was less the RGB problem so many have but the awful "reason" given in the starchild discussion.
Yeah the starchild logic is what annoyed me the most about the ending (especially when the quarians and geth were working together and EDI and joker were commiting crimes against nature). My biggest problem with ME3 was actually the lack of dialogue options (too much auto dialogue and no neutral options).3 right up until the end was actually a pretty good game. The ending was bad but for me it was less the RGB problem so many have but the awful "reason" given in the starchild discussion.
ME3 was a great game up until you got smacked in the face with a bad ending. BioWare has a pretty good track record as far as game play and story goes so I have some faith that DA:I will be at least a good game.
Anyway to get back on topic, if DAI does turn out to be terrible then I definitely wont rule out their future games completely but I will be much more cautious because at the moment DAI looks quite good.
ME2 was the pinnacle of Bioware gaming development. They have to work a lot to match that.
SWTOR = KOTOR 3, Mass Effect 3 and now DAI = DA3
I hope that Bioware will break the cursed 3 and give us a game to remember for ages to come.
Y'know I actually quite liked ME3. (sits back and waits for the angry mob with pitchforks and torches to arrive at door).
ME2 was the pinnacle of Bioware gaming development. They have to work a lot to match that.
Plenty of us have said so in this topic already. Welcome aboard.
Good to know I'm not the only one. 
Did really ME3 flop? It sold well, regardless of the ending?
The ending was bad. But the worst part was how it treated Thane. The most interesting character, just killed in a very lame way. The replayvalue was next to zero.
However, I LOVE DA2. Im on my fifth playthrough now. So I will continue to buy BWgames in the future. What I am scared of is if Inquisiton is a flop, BW might go bankrupt. That would be the most horrible possibilty...ever. I would cry and get very depressed.
ME2 had great characters, but no story to speak of. It was basically a dozen DLC packs bundled into a game.
ME3 is a cautionary tale on how not to end a choice-based narrative. It managed to go back in time, Terminator-style, and wreck the entire trilogy for me.
DA2 had a weak story and disappointing ending, but not as bad as ME2 and ME3, and had characters that, unlike ME2, actually interacted with each other, giving the overall game a level of cohesiveness.
To me BG2 was the pinnacle of Bioware games. And DAO as it's spiritual successor. I really hope they decide once again to go "back to their roots":
From the "vanilla" experience, the treatment of the Mass Effect Two characters were a joke, the fetch quest system, even the journal system and to go as far as arguing about the re-used tracks from the first two games.
ME2 had great characters, but no story to speak of. It was basically a dozen DLC packs bundled into a game.
(snip)
To me BG2 was the pinnacle of Bioware games. And DAO as it's spiritual successor. I really hope they decide once again to go "back to their roots":
This reminds me.... did DA2 get the same grief for the fetch quests that ME3 did? Actually, the DA2 implementation is even cheaper, since much of the time there isn't even any ambient Kirkwall dialogue to go with them.
I don't remember that issue getting brought up much, but that was because of that whole "rushed" aspect taking the cake for most complaints.
What's the difference between BG2 and ME2, plot-wise?
BG2 had the whole Irenicus trying to steal your soul and become a god thing. Rescue your sister, defeat the evil mage and his vampire sister-henchman. That sort of thing. You recruit followers and many of them have personal missions, but that's entirely optional. Side missions are just that: side-missions
ME2 was supposedly about building a team to stop the Collectors. But almost the entire game was about recruitment and solving their personal issues. Almost none of it was about the Collectors. And there is no teambuilding to speak of. No conversations, no training to work as a unit. Just recruit, solve personal problem. Repeat. The only effective difference between recruiting the regular squad and the DLC squad was the lack of a recruitment mission.
Retour en haut