215 réponses à ce sujet

[Spooky81]

At least BioWare under EA made the effort to meet in the middle between it's PC and Console demographics, even going so far as to pushing back the release for a year+.  If Ubisoft, Activision, Microsoft, Sony or one of the other mainstream studios acquired BioWare, PC players would be completely kicked to the curb.  PC gamers are dead to those companies and they've even gone so far as to delaying PC releases of their titles by making console only at launch or just console-exclusive with no intention of a PC release.

[outlaw1109]

your comparison is silly...

 

mass effect 2 directly followed the events of mass effect, with you still playing as commander shepard of the normandy

 

DA:I is set some time after the events of DA2, with a new seemingly randomly chosen protagonist and a new seemingly randomly chosen plot... as random as DA2's plot was with the hawkes and the incidents in and around kirkwall... both are just machinations of a round table meeting to decide what would happen in the next game, as DA:O had the initial plot all tied off after dealing with the archdemon and suppressing the darkspawn threat, and then in awakening dealing with the architect and the broodmother

So, by your standards, in order for a game to wear the DA title, it must either follow the events of a previous title, have the same protagonist, or the same plot.
So, I guess none of TES games should have been called TES.  (they're up to #5)

I do agree that calling DA2 by another name would have been better, but that's why we have DA:Inquisition.  Instead of DA:3.  So, technically speaking, they could deny refunds from people claiming to be duped by a sequel that isn't a sequel.  The DA title is representative of the world in which it takes place and nothing more.

Only Bioware can legitimately claim what is a "proper" dragon age game.  They made the original.  If that was the "right" way for DA to be, they would have stuck with it.  They didn't.  You can argue that they've lost the original developers, the original artists, but they haven't.  Many of them are still at Bioware (the writers are the same, IIRC).  

Never understood why Origins "purists" seem to think that someone is out there, holding a knife to Bioware's throat and saying, "Ruin Origins".  They're the ones that moved the series in a different direction, not some evil EA mandate.

[Razir-Samus]

So, by your standards, in order for a game to wear the DA title, it must either follow the events of a previous title, have the same protagonist, or the same plot.
So, I guess none of TES games should have been called TES.  (they're up to #5)

I do agree that calling DA2 by another name would have been better, but that's why we have DA:Inquisition.  Instead of DA:3.  So, technically speaking, they could deny refunds from people claiming to be duped by a sequel that isn't a sequel.  The DA title is representative of the world in which it takes place and nothing more.

Only Bioware can legitimately claim what is a "proper" dragon age game.  They made the original.  If that was the "right" way for DA to be, they would have stuck with it.  They didn't.  You can argue that they've lost the original developers, the original artists, but they haven't.  Many of them are still at Bioware (the writers are the same, IIRC).  

Never understood why Origins "purists" seem to think that someone is out there, holding a knife to Bioware's throat and saying, "Ruin Origins".  They're the ones that moved the series in a different direction, not some evil EA mandate.

you make a point, however... DA:I doesn't share enough for me to really think it's a sequel, so in that respect it should not share the dragon age branding

 

if bioware thought that origins was the right way to be then why did they seek to destroy that which made the game popular to begin with? you can't deny what has happened here... EA got their grubby mitts all over the franchise and is running (or has ran) it into the ground... dictating this and that, the first being use the frostbite engine to save money, which in turn heavily restricted the modability of DA:I by either the devs or by us users

 

never understood why people that enjoyed the previous titles are being called purists when they destroy the very systems that made those games work... EA holds all the cards, surely if bioware had as much choice as you're implying then they'd not have pushed the game in this direction?

[Rawgrim]

you make a point, however... DA:I doesn't share enough for me to really think it's a sequel, so in that respect it should not share the dragon age branding

 

if bioware thought that origins was the right way to be then why did they seek to destroy that which made the game popular to begin with? you can't deny what has happened here... EA got their grubby mitts all over the franchise and is running (or has ran) it into the ground... dictating this and that, the first being use the frostbite engine to save money, which in turn heavily restricted the modability of DA:I by either the devs or by us users

 

never understood why people that enjoyed the previous titles are being called purists when they destroy the very systems that made those games work... EA holds all the cards, surely if bioware had as much choice as you're implying then they'd not have pushed the game in this direction?

 

The same thing EA did to the Ultima series is being done to Dragon Age. They bought a tremendous rpg franchise, known for choices and tactical combat etc, and started adding action elements to reach a "wider audience". The games got rushed out the door, buggy as hell and with gaping plot-holes. Tactical combat replaced with button mashing and jumping. The same thing is happening to Bioware. The Bioware who made DA:O are pretty much gone anyway. I think Gaider is one of the few left of that era.

[Elhanan]

DA2 may have been rushed. DAI was delayed by 13 months, if I recall correctly, and was under development for ca. 4 yrs.

Having a bias towards EA and an opinion against the game does not make it fact.

Edit: Corrected statement to 4 yrs based on a find of this article:

http://www.theguardi...reative-process

[luism]

I swear, Guild Wars had, and still has, the best party-based CRPG mechanics I've played in the last 10 years. And it was still clunky in areas.

Daoc had better

[DaemionMoadrin]

Daoc had better

 

Dark Age of Camelot definitely had its flaws but it was still awesome. Especially the RvR.

[TobyJake]

There is no way DAI could have under development for 5 years. It may have been in the back of someones mind for 5 years, but the proof is in the product you get after install.

DAI was released way too early, it needed at least another 6 months for the PC version. That would have been maybe enough to get proper KB/M controls in place.

The save implementation is total console! 250 save limit and all in one folder!! With name like DAISAVEU008CD02C5C0!!! Words fail me. At least in DAO or DA2, you could name your saves!! Each character had it's own save folder! DAI gives you one folder. Coded by idiots.

How hard would it be to implement that! But Consoles don't have KB, too bloody difficult.

[ThreeF]

 The games got rushed out the door, buggy as hell

I still remember playing HotU and not being able to progress due to the major boss fight being broken.

 

I understand that some people miss the whole DnD thing and the LG/LE parameters, but not all who played older games feel that way or think that things got dumbed down. I'm glad that DA moved away from those rules, I've always found them unnecessary and restrictive and the combat was always the last of my priorities when it comes to story driven games.

 

There were no complex tactics in DAO to begin with, just a very basic programing of your characters behaviour, you didn't have to be particularly smart to do that, nor there was any particular need for you to be very fussy about it. The way the combat in DAI is right now.... you need to be much more on top of the things to stay alive, since the battles are much more chaotic and that's not necessary a bad thing or makes the gamer stupid, it's just different.

 

DAI end up being "kill the pesky random things that are in your way in any way you can and move on" type of game. The combat could have been more and much more polished, sure, but I'm not sure I mind the "any way you can" part much.

[Razir-Samus]

DA2 may have been rushed. DAI was delayed by 13 months, if I recall correctly, and was under development for ca. 5 yrs.

Having a bias towards EA and an opinion against the game does not make it fact.

i don't understand your intent... you agree that DA2 was rushed, and DA:I had a lot more time in development...

 

so what's with the jab about delusions and irrational hate?

[thebigbad1013]

You know, I used to care when people complained that a game had been "rushed out the door". But then I read several user reviews for Dragon Age: Origins complaining about Origins being rushed and then I stopped caring about that. To some people every single game in history has been "rushed".

 

And, yes, DA2 probably was rushed.

[Elhanan]

There is no way DAI could have under development for 5 years. It may have been in the back of someones mind for 5 years, but the proof is in the product you get after install.
DAI was released way too early, it needed at least another 6 months for the PC version. That would have been maybe enough to get proper KB/M controls in place.
The save implementation is total console! 250 save limit and all in one folder!! With name like DAISAVEU008CD02C5C0!!! Words fail me. At least in DAO or DA2, you could name your saves!! Each character had it's own save folder! DAI gives you one folder. Coded by idiots.
How hard would it be to implement that! But Consoles don't have KB, too bloody difficult.

You are correct; twas 4 yrs. I have amended the previous post, and attached a link to an articke concerning said time.

And as written earlier, my KB&M controls are fine, so not much time is needed there.

[DaemionMoadrin]

You are correct; twas 4 yrs. I have amended the previous post, and attached a link to an articke concerning said time.

And as written earlier, my KB&M controls are fine, so not much time is needed there.

 

Fine to you doesn't mean fine to everyone.

[Reymoose]

Never understood why Origins "purists" seem to think that someone is out there, holding a knife to Bioware's throat and saying, "Ruin Origins".  They're the ones that moved the series in a different direction, not some evil EA mandate.

 

Except that is the case, because no developer with any sort of experience would budget in multiplayer in a series that did not have a precedent for it, a valid reason from a design standpoint to do it, or it was something the customers actually asked for. Very few if reviews or feedbacks in the dozens I've read about Origins and DA2 ever asked for multiplayer in a profoundly single-player experience.

 

So the very fact that you see multiplayer in an entry to this series speaks of pressure to include it so EA could do what EA does, which is multiplayer packs.

 

And as written earlier, my KB&M controls are fine, so not much time is needed there.

 

I'm not even sure what to say to this, except I hope you do realize you cannot remap the mouse controls and since there is no auto-attack you are forced to hold down the button, which in hard or nightmare mode personally puts my index finger through a lot of pain over a 3-4 hour session.

 

Also, auto-attack on tac-cam is not an argument as tac-cam is objectively terrible on PC, which switches one problem with another.

 

DA2 may have been rushed. DAI was delayed by 13 months, if I recall correctly, and was under development for ca. 4 yrs.

Having a bias towards EA and an opinion against the game does not make it fact.

 

Again, I have to wonder why anyone would defend a monolithic mega-corporation like EA. Awesome, consumers have a bias against a company, trying to shout down in defense of said giant mega-corporation makes one seem biased for the mega-corporation and not entirely what they seem to be.

 

Also, 'under development' is a catch-all phrase to make it seem like games were actually being worked on and content added over 4 years, when many times it means pre-development with actual physical development (coding, art) taking place within a very small time-frame. 

[Dakota Strider]

Regards to how long DAI was in production.  I know they started it some time ago, perhaps 4 years as has been stated.  However, I also remember that most of the production teams were reassigned to work on at least one other project for Bioware/EA that was lagging behind.  So yes, they may have started 4 years ago.  But, for a very large portion of that time, they were a bare-bones, skeleton staff, not the full production team that is needed for such a large product.  Especially needed, when you consider how many different things they have changed, and new things they have attempted. 

[CronoDragoon]

Except that is the case, because no developer with any sort of experience would budget in multiplayer in a series that did not have a precedent for it, a valid reason from a design standpoint to do it, or it was something the customers actually asked for. Very few if reviews or feedbacks in the dozens I've read about Origins and DA2 ever asked for multiplayer in a profoundly single-player experience.

 

So the very fact that you see multiplayer in an entry to this series speaks of pressure to include it so EA could do what EA does, which is multiplayer packs.

 

Or it speaks to the wild success of Mass Effect 3's multiplayer, despite the caterwauling pre-release that accompanied it's announcement. Such a precedent nullifies the points you make, since it proved a fanbase neither needs to be clamoring for something beforehand nor that the series needs a precedent to do so. Mass Effect is also hardly the only series that has done this: see Uncharted.

 

It's not quite the success of ME3's MP so far (it's far too barebones and glitchy at the moment for that) but since they avoided the only complaint ME fans had about that series' MP (its connection to SP) you've seen very little complaining about it.

[Elhanan]

I'm not even sure what to say to this, except I hope you do realize you cannot remap the mouse controls and since there is no auto-attack you are forced to hold down the button, which in hard or nightmare mode personally puts my index finger through a lot of pain over a 3-4 hour session.
 
Also, auto-attack on tac-cam is not an argument as tac-cam is objectively terrible on PC, which switches one problem with another. 
 
Again, I have to wonder why anyone would defend a monolithic mega-corporation like EA. Awesome, consumers have a bias against a company, trying to shout down in defense of said giant mega-corporation makes one seem biased for the mega-corporation and not entirely what they seem to be.
 
Also, 'under development' is a catch-all phrase to make it seem like games were actually being worked on and content added over 4 years, when many times it means pre-development with actual physical development (coding, art) taking place within a very small time-frame.

One may also hold the Mouse button to steer the character while driving the re-mapped WASD config as well as auto-fire; have no need to re-map the Mouse. And the possible pain mentioned is avoided by utilizing Pause and Tac-Cam modes, much like pausing often in Skyrim helped with click based combat. I had worse difficulty with SWTOR (no Pause), and Diablo back in the day.

Three years was spent in development post-announcement, of which 13+ months were in delayed release. One may choose to be prejudiced against successful corporations and individuals if they wish; still doesn't make them correct.

[Razir-Samus]

One may also hold the Mouse button to steer the character while driving the re-mapped WASD config as well as auto-fire; have no need to re-map the Mouse. And the possible pain mentioned is avoided by utilizing Pause and Tac-Cam modes, much like pausing often in Skyrim helped with click based combat. I had worse difficulty with SWTOR (no Pause), and Diablo back in the day.

Three years was spent in development post-announcement, of which 13+ months were in delayed release. One may choose to be prejudiced against successful corporations and individuals if they wish; still doesn't make them correct.

can you remap the mouse buttons to make it function similarly to DA:O/DA2? in that you could do just what you're saying, steer with rmb held down?

 

but surely that would take away the interact functionality?

[Chaos17]

OP : are you one of those people who disliked Diablo 3 only because it wasn't grey like Diablo 2 ? /joke

On serious note, Blizzard did a good job with that game, they didn't half faced ported it to console and didn't made pc players upset.

[Chenoah]

Only way to Diablo is hardcore mode.

[Reymoose]

One may also hold the Mouse button to steer the character while driving the re-mapped WASD config as well as auto-fire; have no need to re-map the Mouse. And the possible pain mentioned is avoided by utilizing Pause and Tac-Cam modes, much like pausing often in Skyrim helped with click based combat. I had worse difficulty with SWTOR (no Pause), and Diablo back in the day.

Three years was spent in development post-announcement, of which 13+ months were in delayed release. One may choose to be prejudiced against successful corporations and individuals if they wish; still doesn't make them correct.

 

Key words 'hold down'. Holding down any button for an extended time to perform an action is simply bad interface design, and the fact that you can pause to 'take a break' is not a valid excuse, unless one wishes to white knight any and all criticism. It's also why you don't hold down a button to keep a call on in a traditional phone or smartphone. 

 

And no, one does not choose be prejudiced to criticize the business model and decisions of a corporation, it's called simply being a consumer. The only reason to defend a corporation (not a person by the way, a company is not a person) is if one has a vested interest in it, or one is a sociopath without empathy for fellow consumers.

 

My second point comes from my own experience, no AAA game or really any except very few outliers have been worked on physically, not conceptually, for 4 straight years. That would be gross mismanagement. So to say 'it was worked on in development' ridicules the idea of 'development'. 

 

Or it speaks to the wild success of Mass Effect 3's multiplayer, despite the caterwauling pre-release that accompanied it's announcement. Such a precedent nullifies the points you make, since it proved a fanbase neither needs to be clamoring for something beforehand nor that the series needs a precedent to do so. Mass Effect is also hardly the only series that has done this: see Uncharted.

 

I wasn't saying that DA:I shouldn't have multiplayer. But it is a wrong decision from a design standpoint (not a financial one, hence the 'success'), because any resources dedicated to multiplayer, especially in a single player focused game, takes away from the resource budget with regards to polish.

[mLIQUID]

I'm a purist and I found every bit of control I needed with a few keybindings.

[Elhanan]

Key words 'hold down'. Holding down any button for an extended time to perform an action is simply bad interface design, and the fact that you can pause to 'take a break' is not a valid excuse, unless one wishes to white knight any and all criticism. It's also why you don't hold down a button to keep a call on in a traditional phone or smartphone. 
 
And no, one does not choose be prejudiced to criticize the business model and decisions of a corporation, it's called simply being a consumer. The only reason to defend a corporation (not a person by the way, a company is not a person) is if one has a vested interest in it, or one is a sociopath without empathy for fellow consumers.
 
My second point comes from my own experience, no AAA game or really any except very few outliers have been worked on physically, not conceptually, for 4 straight years. That would be gross mismanagement. So to say 'it was worked on in development' ridicules the idea of 'development'.  
 
I wasn't saying that DA:I shouldn't have multiplayer. But it is a wrong decision from a design standpoint (not a financial one, hence the 'success'), because any resources dedicated to multiplayer, especially in a single player focused game, takes away from the resource budget with regards to polish.

I utilize Pause and Tac-Cam as a tactical choice; not taking a break. If one desires to play Action mode without them, then they can hold the key, click the key, or stay with non-auto options. Many ways to play the game; Pause and Tac-Cam seems to be easier on the fingers.

There are ways to configure the game to support varied options. If one chooses to select the ones that are most difficult for them to play, that is their choice. I prefer other choices.

I am not a fan of EA; nor do I have anything against them. Choose to support Bioware before and after EA as I enjoy their games, and do not get into the anti-EA fad because it is now popular to do so. And DA-MP was designed independently, though I do understand that the PC may have been balanced with the console version in mind.

[zeypher]

Or it speaks to the wild success of Mass Effect 3's multiplayer, despite the caterwauling pre-release that accompanied it's announcement. Such a precedent nullifies the points you make, since it proved a fanbase neither needs to be clamoring for something beforehand nor that the series needs a precedent to do so. Mass Effect is also hardly the only series that has done this: see Uncharted.

 

It's not quite the success of ME3's MP so far (it's far too barebones and glitchy at the moment for that) but since they avoided the only complaint ME fans had about that series' MP (its connection to SP) you've seen very little complaining about it.

Problem is next game they will throw everything in the bin and start again. Honestly this franchise has changed way too much, bio instead of fixing something they throw it out completely. No idea why.

[DaemionMoadrin]

I wonder what Elhanan earns each month for his pro BioWare PR campaign. I might get into it myself, seems lucrative.