59 réponses à ce sujet

[Adaar the Unbound]

Bioware is still the best in what they do. Even if you are right about those being better than Bioware games in the areas you mentioned. They are the best at having you create a character and having you control every aspect of your character. Creating how they look, their personality, the way they dress, the way they fight, the way they see things ect. and putting your character through a story that you go though as your character would. They are also the best at characters and interactions with other characters. You feel close to your party and specific party members specifically. These are the reasons we play Bioware games. Call me optimistic, but Dragon Age: Inquisition looks like it will be better than any console game Bioware has every made. It will be even better at everything I just mentioned we love Bioware games for. Customization of armor making you feel even more attached to your character. Armor forming to your companions so your companions feel even more authentic. Im sure the character creation will be improved. Plus, the ways you said that those games are better than Biowares games are also improving in DA:I. It really looks like your decisions will make an impact in this game. I also have a good feeling about the story. The keeps and the armies and how you'll control them along with your decisions impacting and the story itself will probably really make you feel like the leader of the Inquisition. The game is bigger so the story will probably be longer or at least exploring will add to the gameplay. I also have a good feeling that the rlationship and involvement of the companions will be more than ever before and the story will probably have emotional moments like The Last of Us. The combat has all the good things from both DA:O and DA:2 plus new things and it will be awesome. The new things added look so so good. Maybe im wayy too optimistic, but I suppose we'll see.

[Gwydden]

The primary reason I play DA games is the roleplaying. It's the same reason I find it hard to get into The Witcher. I keep hearing it has lots of difficult personal choices, and while in theory that sounds great, I can't really care that much about them when I can't have my own character make them (why am I making choices with this guy, anyway?) and when I find the one I am given marginally more interesting than a block. It's the same reason I find it hard to get into Skyrim. They tell me that even though the main plot isn't that great, you have lots of choices and can talk to a lot of people in an open world. But you only get to express so much about your character outside of headcanon that I think you might as well play a good old tabletop RPG instead.

 

What I require for roleplaying is being able to design a character and put that design to practice, being able to choose what he/she says, and being able to have significant interactions and relationships with other characters. I think BioWare games are the only cRPGs that fulfill those prerequisites. Even if you're not the roleplaying kind, many people enjoy the character interaction part of it, and that is what makes these games relatively popular. I don't know of many other games like that, so I'd say their position is fairly safe. Sure, their plots are not outstanding, and they have never been. They're fairly simple, cliche, straightforward, "save the world"  kind of stories, and that gets old fast. But I never got the impression most people played DA or ME for their plot. It's always the characters and the possibility of interacting with them in a significant manner, or the roleplaying potential.

[sunnydxmen]

all the games you mention i have no interest in buying.

[sunnydxmen]

If DA:I isn't good I can see them abandoning the franchise. EA isn't going to fund IPs that don't deliver.

 

exactly if dai fails it be final ddragon age.

[Abraham_uk]

exactly if dai fails it be final ddragon age.

 

It will fail somebody.

Some will like it, some won't.

[In Exile]

I don't think anyone is suggesting Bioware is going to collapse, or even do poorly. However, I am begining to wonder if Bioware will ever produce an important game again if you get my meaning. You look at the infulence things that Bioshock or Dark Souls had, really pushing the boundaries of what people expect from games. Even stuff like Skyrim, heck Bioware have admitted themselves they are in many ways inspired by Skyrim (though I'm not arguing Skyrim had a good story, it was infulential in other ways)

 

Bioware's never produced an important game, unless you count BG's perceived shift away from IWD style gameplay in fantasy RPGs (which story-wise was kind of preceeded by fallout anyway). DA:O was Bioware's biggest market success, and it sold less than Fable. 

[Black Jimmy]

We've barely seen anything. Seems a bit early to start griping on the story right now. Wait until it's out.

[Dutchess]

After reading some interviews, it seems they are convinced DA2 wasn't well recieved because they tried something new with the story. Rushed and having its corners cut didn't even cross their minds. Although that's just the PR speaking, nobody is going to tell that to the press.

 

This is for me the primary reason I remain skeptical about the new DA. I find claiming the lack of DA2's success was due it being "different than DAO" pretty insulting. I am not a petty child or mentally impaired individual unable to cope with change, even if it would be for the better. DA2's story was bad. Just plain bad. It didn't suck because it was "something different", or "more personal" or even because you didn't get to "save the world again". All those things could have worked great if done well. It wasn't done well. Every bad thing that happened was because some random man or woman had gone crazy, after which you have to kill them. Not always succeeding could be an interesting part of the story, but DA2 kept forcing failure on you by making Hawke look like an idiot. That's not good storytelling. 

 

The fact that Bioware (or mr. Gaider personally, for instance) absolutely refuse to admit the story itself might actually not be all that good, has me refusing to buy DA:I at release. Whenever someone from Bioware does their marketing thing that they are aware of DA2's flaws they will always, ALWAYS mention the recycled environments and the enemy waves in combat. They might add an "etc." or "yadda yadda" for good measure to make it seem there is more, but those two things are actually the only factors that will get explicitly mentioned. Maybe party customization as well. 

 

That said, I don't expect Bioware to fade from existence with DAI. It still looks like an improvement from DA2, which might mean it's good enough to satisfy people willing to give the company another chance. Gamers who like this type of game can probably be persuaded to buy DAI if they think it looks promising, so I suspet it will be received fairly well and do better than DA2. It won't be thanks to me, though.

[slimgrin]

Bioware's never produced an important game, unless you count BG's perceived shift away from IWD style gameplay in fantasy RPGs (which story-wise was kind of preceeded by fallout anyway). DA:O was Bioware's biggest market success, and it sold less than Fable. 

Baldur's Gate was likely the most successful adaptation of DnD rule set and Mass Effect was one of the first true cinematic RPGs. I would argue both were important. I'm surprised DA sold more than ME, if that's true.

[bEVEsthda]

I think Bioware had a great and unique recipi.

Which could be greatly evolved in its entirely own direction.

Which only waited to be discovered by more people. 

 

If they can find their way back to their own mix, they'll still rule. Games like TW2 and Skyrim are great, but also so different that they're no competition.

[In Exile]

Baldur's Gate was likely the most successful adaptation of DnD rule set and Mass Effect was one of the first true cinematic RPGs. I would argue both were important. I'm surprised DA sold more than ME, if that's true.

 

DA sold substantially more than ME. I think it doubled up ME1 and ME2 individually, and may have done the same to ME3. While ME was influential in the style of game it created, and it popularized the paraphrase UI, it wasn't the only game going in that direction (see e.g. Indigo Prophecy). 

 

As for BG's adaptation, I'm not sure that's true. But I can't judge. I had D&D to such an extent I can't be objective about it. 

 

This is for me the primary reason I remain skeptical about the new DA. I find claiming the lack of DA2's success was due it being "different than DAO" pretty insulting. I am not a petty child or mentally impaired individual unable to cope with change, even if it would be for the better. DA2's story was bad. Just plain bad. It didn't suck because it was "something different", or "more personal" or even because you didn't get to "save the world again". All those things could have worked great if done well. It wasn't done well. Every bad thing that happened was because some random man or woman had gone crazy, after which you have to kill them. Not always succeeding could be an interesting part of the story, but DA2 kept forcing failure on you by making Hawke look like an idiot. That's not good storytelling. 

 

The fact that Bioware (or mr. Gaider personally, for instance) absolutely refuse to admit the story itself might actually not be all that good, has me refusing to buy DA:I at release. Whenever someone from Bioware does their marketing thing that they are aware of DA2's flaws they will always, ALWAYS mention the recycled environments and the enemy waves in combat. They might add an "etc." or "yadda yadda" for good measure to make it seem there is more, but those two things are actually the only factors that will get explicitly mentioned. Maybe party customization as well. 

 

That said, I don't expect Bioware to fade from existence with DAI. It still looks like an improvement from DA2, which might mean it's good enough to satisfy people willing to give the company another chance. Gamers who like this type of game can probably be persuaded to buy DAI if they think it looks promising, so I suspet it will be received fairly well and do better than DA2. It won't be thanks to me, though.

 

All that you want is, say, DG to say "Yes, the story in DA2 was objectively crap" and all of a sudden you're back onboard with DAI? There are comments out there, however, were Bioware does acknowledge the other underlined flaws. They just don't conclude with "and our product was garbage because of it, and we feel nothing but shame for designing it that way".

[Dutchess]

 

All that you want is, say, DG to say "Yes, the story in DA2 was objectively crap" and all of a sudden you're back onboard with DAI? That's useless. There are comments out there, however, were Bioware does acknowledge the other underlined flaws. They just don't conclude with "and our product was garbage because of it, and we feel nothing but shame for designing it that way".

 

It would inspire more confidence. It wouldn't put me magically on board again. I don't except them to outright call it crap, but no longer hiding behind that it was "different" would go a long way. I try to read most posts made by Bioware employees on here and have read interviews with Gaider as well. Never have I come across the acknowledgement that the writing itself is flawed. "Maybe we tried to implement too many themes at once?" is probably what comes closest from Gaider, and that still is not close to the actual problem, IMO. The failure aspect of the story and the "personal" approach with Hawke gets shoved back as the player not being able to handle not getting to play the hero all the time. 

Gaider has come here and defended the blatant cliffhanger of DA2, claiming they did provide closure with that ending. The game ends with a mysterious disappearance of not only Hawke, but the Warden as well, thereby destroying the closure the Warden had as well as any chance for Hawke to carry on with his/her life somewhere else. How that can be called closure is beyond me. 

Criticism on how Tallis was handled in the DLC apparently stems from female players feeling "threatened" by Tallis because she might outshine their female Hawke. Oh, look, I think there went my last respect for the lead writer.

If you are unwilling to admit the flaws in your work, it's probably better to simply shut up and not try to heap responsibility on the player for failing to grasp the greatness of it.

[In Exile]

It would inspire more confidence. It wouldn't put me magically on board again. I don't except them to outright call it crap, but no longer hiding behind that it was "different" would go a long way. I try to read most posts made by Bioware employees on here and have read interviews with Gaider as well. Never have I come across the acknowledgement that the writing itself is flawed. "Maybe we tried to implement too many themes at once?" is probably what comes closest from Gaider, and that still is not close to the actual problem, IMO. The failure aspect of the story and the "personal" approach with Hawke gets shoved back as the player not being able to handle not getting to play the hero all the time. 

Gaider has come here and defended the blatant cliffhanger of DA2, claiming they did provide closure with that ending. The game ends with a mysterious disappearance of not only Hawke, but the Warden as well, thereby destroying the closure the Warden had as well as any chance for Hawke to carry on with his/her life somewhere else. How that can be called closure is beyond me. 

Criticism on how Tallis was handled in the DLC apparently stems from female players feeling "threatened" by Tallis because she might outshine their female Hawke. Oh, look, I think there went my last respect for the lead writer.

If you are unwilling to admit the flaws in your work, it's probably better to simply shut up and not try to heap responsibility on the player for failing to grasp the greatness of it.

 

The thing is, Bioware didn't depart that much from what they did in DA:O on a case-by-case basis. I appreciate that a lot of people don't like the end result in DA2, but part of the problem is that Bioware didn't change what they were doing from DA:O to DA2. We could go plot-by-plot if you'd like me to demonstrate my point.

 

It matters a great deal whether the writers see themselves as doing something different, because their impression of their own end-product is a big filter in their subjective evaluation of their own writing. For example, I think the antagonists in DA:O (Loghain and Uldred) are just as badly written, and just as much of a combination of crazy and stupid, as DA2's Meredith and Orsino. I could point out the similarities in how they were written, and how their plots were executed, and the very minor and kind of laughable justification Bioware put out there. But the fanbase, for whatever reason, doesn't give much attention to Uldred because he's a bit player and mostly falls in love with Loghain as a "grey" villain. 

 

This is the problem with them talking about writing quality. The "personal" approach with Hawke was, for example, loads more detailed than what they did with the origins, but the former were praised and the latter was (mostly) trashed. But what does Bioware say? We did exactly what we were praised for in the last game, but it didn't turn out well? 

This is my source of confusion. It seems that to you it's so blatantly obvious that these things were uniquely wrong with DA2 that Bioware not admitting it is a sign of dishonesty or disrespect. But I don't think these things are quite as obvious as you make them, nor unique to DA2. 

[Eternal Phoenix]

Recent Telltale games, too, like The Wolf Among Us & the two Walking Dead games are much much superior in terms of making choices that feel like they matter, and ones that seem far more difficult and grounded.

LOL?

Choices don't matter in Telltale games. You still reach the same conclusion.

 

Bioware is fine. If anything, the other games should be worried about Inquisition if Bioware have finally got their act back together.

 

j/k all games will be fine. Witcher 3 is AAA. Inquisition is AAA and those kickstarter RPG's have huge funding to be AAA titles too. They will all have good marketing to sell fine.

[Abraham_uk]

All that you want is, say, DG to say "Yes, the story in DA2 was objectively crap" and all of a sudden you're back onboard with DAI? There are comments out there, however, were Bioware does acknowledge the other underlined flaws. They just don't conclude with "and our product was garbage because of it, and we feel nothing but shame for designing it that way".

 

No. It takes a special level of terrible for a creator to be so dismissive of their own work.

 

[Deflagratio]

If you factor in the complexity in writing an emergent narrative the player can partially shape, I'd say Bioware's writers are better than anything at Naughty Dog. It's real easy to create a cohesive narrative when you don't let your player murder everyone. That in itself puts Bioware at a completely different level than just about anyone in my opinion.

 

Then again, I favor agency in my games, so linear guided narratives like what Naughty Dog produces just isn't my cup of tea... Too cinematic too, it's all about the spectacle.  This is especially true when the game is short-lived like Naughty Dog's fare. That said, I am a huge fan of Rockstar games, GTAV and RDR among my favorite games of all time... and they keep player agency and narrative on opposite sides of a wrought-iron fence. (Less so in the case of GTAV I guess, with the overhyped but still awesomely cool Heists)

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

BioWare doesn't allow for emergent narrative either though. Or emergent gameplay in any meaningful sense. There's much more player agency than Naughty Dog games due to character building and narrative choices, but the ultimate expression of emergent narrative would be in a simulation sandbox like The Sims or Paradox Games like Crusader Kings II. Grand Strategies ala Civilisation and Total War follow closely behind.

 

Even for RPGs, BioWare is highly restrictive with regards to emergent narrative or gameplay. You have studios like Origin and Looking Glass that pioneered emergent gameplay in RPGs and hybrid RPGs. Then you have Black Isle and off-shoots with open world games that can feature emergent gameplay in Fallout and Arcanum. Not to mention Bethesda running around with the Elder Scrolls series. 

 

Comparatively speaking, BioWare has always been focused on a guided narrative experience in their RPGs.

 

Still, your position is understandable. As much as I like to criticise BioWare for linearity, it isn't Naughty Dog levels of linearity.

[In Exile]

BioWare doesn't allow for emergent narrative either though. Or emergent gameplay in any meaningful sense. There's much more player agency than Naughty Dog games due to character building and narrative choices, but the ultimate expression of emergent narrative would be in a simulation sandbox like The Sims or Paradox Games like Crusader Kings II. Grand Strategies ala Civilisation and Total War follow closely behind.

 

Even for RPGs, BioWare is highly restrictive with regards to emergent narrative or gameplay. You have studios like Origin and Looking Glass that pioneered emergent gameplay in RPGs and hybrid RPGs. Then you have Black Isle and off-shoots with open world games that can feature emergent gameplay in Fallout and Arcanum. Not to mention Bethesda running around with the Elder Scrolls series. 

 

Comparatively speaking, BioWare has always been focused on a guided narrative experience in their RPGs.

 

Still, your position is understandable. As much as I like to criticise BioWare for linearity, it isn't Naughty Dog levels of linearity.

 

I don't think that made up stuff that only exists in the players head is an emergent narrative. That phrasing just doesn't work. The reason it doesn't work is that it would mean that in combat, Bioware games do allow for emergent narrative because it can be chaotic and a lot of stuff can happen (e.g. Morrigan keeps breaking her arm in DA:O - it becomes a running joke or Oghren always charges off by himself and gets knocked out each time without doing much). Literally any dynamic situation in a game falls under this definition. 

 

There has to be something more reactive about the narrative than mere headcannon. 

[KC_Prototype]

They can and they will! Bioware is a talented developer and only few other companies that make RPGs are on their level.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

I don't think that made up stuff that only exists in the players head is an emergent narrative. That phrasing just doesn't work. The reason it doesn't work is that it would mean that in combat, Bioware games do allow for emergent narrative because it can be chaotic and a lot of stuff can happen (e.g. Morrigan keeps breaking her arm in DA:O - it becomes a running joke or Oghren always charges off by himself and gets knocked out each time without doing much). Literally any dynamic situation in a game falls under this definition. 

 

There has to be something more reactive about the narrative than mere headcannon. 

 

Agreed. But there's limits. The whole point of emergent gameplay/narrative is to allow the underlying systems to work with the player to create outcomes that weren't specifically intended by the developers. I tend to like the reputation systems in games like F1/2 and Arcanum as they can show reactivity to the player by allowing the player to play with the systems in an emergent fashion without attaching narrative context to it.

 

i.e in Arcanum, if you run around naked in Tarrant, NPCs will have negative commentary about you, you gain a reputation for being a pervert and it can affect future interactions with NPCs since it plays to the underlying disposition system. Troika probably didn't intend for the player to be refused quests or have situations where you are attacked by NPCs because you are an ugly streaker, but it can happen.

 

I think the ideal is to have reactivity to the point where the player can connect the dots, and see the cause-effect. That there's genuine change that the player can identify as a result of their actions that isn't apart of typical play. You don't need NPCs giving soliloquies about how they're going to kill you because you are an ugly half-ogre exhibitionist, but if each part of the equation has it's own reactivity, then it's easy to understand how it all comes together.

 

As for the topic at hand, BioWare will be relevant until EA chooses to shut down a franchise prematurely. If that happens, BioWare may be up **** creek without a paddle as that indicates EA's lack of confidence in the IP and it could all spiral from there. We've seen it happen to countless development studios in the past.

 

But until that happens, I don't see how BioWare won't be relevant. Even if Bethesda is making mega bucks and CDPR are making in-roads with the Witcher series, BioWare is still a big player in the AAA RPG market. They probably aren't pulling the numbers EA would like to see (Skyrim mega bucks level), but ~5 million copies a game is nothing to sneeze at.

[Wugger]

LOL?

Choices don't matter in Telltale games. You still reach the same conclusion.

 

But I didn't say they mattered in practice, I said they felt like they mattered, big difference. Bioware is probably only second to CD Projekt Red for producing games with choices that actually change the story quite radically, but the choices I had to make in The Walking Dead, felt much more powerful, difficult and important than ones I make in Bioware games. These ones felt much more realisitc.

 

[ Minor spoilers for Walking dead ahead]

 

Deciding as Lee about wether to protect Clementine from what was going on around her, or try and prepare her, was a much more nuanced choice than some hackneyed over the top one we might encounter in say, Mass Effect, where I have to choose wether the Nebulons or the Robocops are made extinct or something like that. Something so big and strange that it just felt gamey to me, that it didn't feel at all grounded. And ultimately, it didn't really feel that important to me.

[Dutchess]

The thing is, Bioware didn't depart that much from what they did in DA:O on a case-by-case basis. I appreciate that a lot of people don't like the end result in DA2, but part of the problem is that Bioware didn't change what they were doing from DA:O to DA2. We could go plot-by-plot if you'd like me to demonstrate my point.

 

It matters a great deal whether the writers see themselves as doing something different, because their impression of their own end-product is a big filter in their subjective evaluation of their own writing. For example, I think the antagonists in DA:O (Loghain and Uldred) are just as badly written, and just as much of a combination of crazy and stupid, as DA2's Meredith and Orsino. I could point out the similarities in how they were written, and how their plots were executed, and the very minor and kind of laughable justification Bioware put out there. But the fanbase, for whatever reason, doesn't give much attention to Uldred because he's a bit player and mostly falls in love with Loghain as a "grey" villain. 

 

This is the problem with them talking about writing quality. The "personal" approach with Hawke was, for example, loads more detailed than what they did with the origins, but the former were praised and the latter was (mostly) trashed. But what does Bioware say? We did exactly what we were praised for in the last game, but it didn't turn out well? 

This is my source of confusion. It seems that to you it's so blatantly obvious that these things were uniquely wrong with DA2 that Bioware not admitting it is a sign of dishonesty or disrespect. But I don't think these things are quite as obvious as you make them, nor unique to DA2. 

 

Uldred is indeed an example of the crazy possessed blood mage phenomenon plaguing DA2, and I agree with you that Loghain is overrated as a supposedly "grey" villain (he has always seemed plenty evil and stupid to me). Still, I feel it was handled in a less jarring way than in DA2 and complete insanity was used more sparingly while DA2 constantly had to go down this route to throw another mini antagonist at you. DAO also had characters like Bhelen, Harrowmont and even Zathrian who did not go outright crazy on you (you could argue about Zathrian's sanity if you want, but I'd say he is still not the type of crazy so common in DA2). The number of crazy people in primary quests in DA2 was just ridiculous. Decimus, Grace, Orsino, Meredith, Bartrand, Tarohne, nameless elf in Blackpowder Courtesy, Quentin, Anders... even the Arishok needs to have a fit of crazy to break his Qun character. Now, in the case of the latter is was handled fairly well, so I don't have a problem in this particular instance, but when the writers cannot come up with another motivation apart from insanity for a character to get in Hawke's way, that is very poor quality. I don't recall this many outright insane antagonists in DAO, and you are not confronted with jarring situations in which a person/faction you've helped turns on you moments later due to said insanity. 

 

Perhaps this is more up to personal taste, but I also felt Hawke's personal story was done less well than the personal stories of the Warden. I'm not sure what you find detailed about Hawke's situation, because I have always felt that the family situation was poorly fleshed out and have never been able to care much about Leandra and her faith. The most sympathy I could muster stemmed from me liking my Hawke and therefore feeling sorry for him/her, rather than for Leandra. I felt more connected during the Dalish, Cousland or City Elf origins. The overall story of DAO might be less personal for the Warden, but the Guardian's question in the Gauntlet and the ghost of the past you encounter during that quest, plus returning to your respective origin location for a main quest felt personal and I did not feel forced in the hamfisted way of DA2 to care. 

[Elhanan]

As I have enjoyed several hundreds of hours in both DA2 and ME3 - both still installed on my newest system, and replayed recently- this bears all the relevance that I need and require in RPG's. While others may have differing opinions, this does not make them factual. 

[Augustei]

OP, your on the bioware boards.. Did you honestly expect many if any people to all start saying how Bioware doesn't stand a chance, is going down hill, So many other games are way better or w/e? Because if you did I think you need to re-evaluate that conclusion =P

[Dominus]

The game isn't particularly relevant to me, but I'm Dragon-Curious.

Regardless of whether it turns out to be lacking innovation, a 'passe storyline' or whatever, I know BioWare has a talented team and is capable of quite a bit. Based on the previews, information, and the amount being invested into this game, I'd be very surprised if the game recieves the same critical/commercial issues that Dragon Age 2 recieved.

I think it'll do very well. How well is going to depend greatly on the final product. But yes, they're still relevant.