OP, Every game Is simplified now becouse that is the standard these days, If you want good old school game just look for something from indie studios/kickstarter becouse they do not have developers on their necks and they can basically do whatever they want if they have money.
DA:I is a nice action game with not bad story and RPG elements but calling that game an RPG is a bit of a crime, actionRPG for console gaming is fine though.
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.
If it develops it's own fanbase and brings DA into the online era, it would indeed make more money...And further any agenda they may have to develop a fantasy-based MMO.
Edit: I've had the feeling that Bioware wants a fantasy MMO since before Origins was released. I actually think it was my reaction to BG2. Felt...mmo'y. So, again, it has nothing to do with EA.
From a design standpoint: It has no effect on SP. The "wrong decision" is subjective to opinion. You think it is, but that is not a fact. If more people buy the game, Bioware wins.
Arguing that one's personal wants for a franchise is "untrue" to the series is inaccurate. Bioware (owned by EA or not) devs. are the only people that know the true direction of the series and it's up to them where it goes from here.
Also, EA bought Bioware. It wasn't involuntary. If, somehow, EA were holding Bioware creative ideas hostage, then it's their own (Bioware's)fault for selling out. EA is a big corporate machine. It's obvious now and it was obvious back then.
If it develops it's own fanbase and brings DA into the online era, it would indeed make more money...And further any agenda they may have to develop a fantasy-based MMO.
From a design standpoint: It has no effect on SP. The "wrong decision" is subjective to opinion. You think it is, but that is not a fact. If more people buy the game, Bioware wins.
Arguing that one's personal wants for a franchise is "untrue" to the series is inaccurate. Bioware (owned by EA or not) devs. are the only people that know the true direction of the series and it's up to them where it goes from here.
Also, EA bought Bioware. It wasn't involuntary. If, somehow, EA were holding Bioware creative ideas hostage, then it's their own (Bioware's)fault for selling out. EA is a big corporate machine. It's obvious now and it was obvious back then.
No, the MP clearly uses resources from the SP campaign or the other way around. They had to be working together and that means time, money and people had to be assigned to coordinate it, at the minimum.
You think MP is treated like a completely different game but the fact is that the engine, the animations, the sound effects, the voice overs, the level design and more had to be done for SP first and then adapted to MP. Adapting takes away resources.
The MP feels even less complete than the SP, so please don't tell me it was the correct decision to include it in this form. They might be able to improve it a lot through DLCs (as they did with ME3 MP) but right now it's a mess. And the SP suffered for it.
Because it's in the dragon age universe, within a year of the end of DA2. It has characters from both DA:O and DA2. The plot is a continuation of the previous games and the main plotlines were set up in the previous games.
To not call it Dragon Age would be laughably dumb.
It's like saying Mass Effect 2 shouldn't have been called Mass Effect.
Except ME 2 was the same case.. Nothing like the origional except name, and characters. It went from Rpg, to 3rd person shooter, to 3 being complete ****..Seems Dragon age took the exact same route!
In other words.. No.. This is not Dragon Age.. Might as well be God of War, or Devil May Cry with followers.. Hell, i may have even liked it if they called it something else!
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.
Mass effect was empty quite often, and many of those threads were people looking for friends, because much of the SINGLE PLAYER campaign had aspects effected via Multiplayer.. Any numbers for ME mp popularity would be moot, due to this point alone..
Bioware have already stated they will be supporting multiplayer for DAI for awhile (obviously. With functioning cash shop (the only thing that works btw) and potential for mp packs).. Though have stated "no comment" when asked about anything later relating to campaign, or dlc for single player!
Speaks volumes of where Bioware' loyalty lies!
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.
You do realize every single company you listed has their games released on PC as well, yes?
You do realize every single company you listed has their games released on PC as well, yes?
You mean the Last of Us is available for PC and XBox? Halo series and Witcher are available for the Playstation? Publishers pick and choose which platforms they release on. If other publishers do not think a PC release is viable they do not release on it.
I actually enjoyed Dead Space 1 & 2 never bothered with 3 but I have both Dead Space movies, I like an Action Horror game and for some reason enjoyed these more than Alien Isolation. It's your loss for having never tried them OP!
The only Bioware game that really disappointed me was ME3 I still played it just not nearly as much as I played ME 1 & 2 and 2 is still my all time favorite game.
Dragon Age I enjoy as it's not tied to any one hero like Commander Shepard.
I like Origin studio's personally more for the Wing Commander & Privateer games and Crusader No Regret & No Remorse were some games I enjoyed from that studio.
I wonder what Elhanan earns each month for his pro BioWare PR campaign. I might get into it myself, seems lucrative.
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.
Considering EA had made a statement sometime back around the time Dead Space 3 came out not going to look for the article in question but EA stated that any and all games released under EA or its subsidiary's would have MP included so really Bioware never really had a choice in saying no, well they could have but we probably wouldn't be playing DAI right now.
Mass effect was empty quite often
If it develops it's own fanbase and brings DA into the online era, it would indeed make more money...And further any agenda they may have to develop a fantasy-based MMO.
Edit: I've had the feeling that Bioware wants a fantasy MMO since before Origins was released. I actually think it was my reaction to BG2. Felt...mmo'y. So, again, it has nothing to do with EA.
From a design standpoint: It has no effect on SP. The "wrong decision" is subjective to opinion. You think it is, but that is not a fact. If more people buy the game, Bioware wins.
Arguing that one's personal wants for a franchise is "untrue" to the series is inaccurate. Bioware (owned by EA or not) devs. are the only people that know the true direction of the series and it's up to them where it goes from here.
Also, EA bought Bioware. It wasn't involuntary. If, somehow, EA were holding Bioware creative ideas hostage, then it's their own (Bioware's)fault for selling out. EA is a big corporate machine. It's obvious now and it was obvious back then.
No, the MP clearly uses resources from the SP campaign or the other way around. They had to be working together and that means time, money and people had to be assigned to coordinate it, at the minimum.
You think MP is treated like a completely different game but the fact is that the engine, the animations, the sound effects, the voice overs, the level design and more had to be done for SP first and then adapted to MP. Adapting takes away resources.
The MP feels even less complete than the SP, so please don't tell me it was the correct decision to include it in this form. They might be able to improve it a lot through DLCs (as they did with ME3 MP) but right now it's a mess. And the SP suffered for it.
I quoted my own post. At no point did I say anything about whether or not MP was developed separate from the SP. HOWEVER. Just because the MP uses resources that can also be found in the SP means nothing about coordination between the two. (unless you were there, which I doubt) no one knows how the MP was developed. You can guess, sure, but to assume MP development somehow subtracts from the resource pool is just postulation without evidence.
Given EA's attitude toward MP, I'd say that the budget given to Bioware included funding for MP. If they didn't develop MP, the budget would have been cut down.
I played ME3MP for 2 1/2 years, up to November last year, and I never had problems finding games.
Same here. Though I seem to remember some kind of trick required or adjustment that had to be made before I started finding playable matches....IDR...
I dunno. I've played all three Dragon Age games now, and combat was never the big draw for me, so I never really cared what they did. I don't mind that they've made it streamlined. Sure it's a bit more limiting if you are trying to make the perfect battle plan, but how many fights actually need that?
My only complaint as far as combat goes is the tactical camera. I dislike have to move around the battlefield to see everyone (particularly against large enemies like a dragon). Thing is, this has a pretty easy fix for me. Just set it higher so I can see the entire battlefield instead of scrolling around and accidentally unanchoring myself from the selected character. Maybe a clever modder will fix this.
If it weren't for the fact that Origins was so different from Inquisition in a lot of play style respects, I'd agree that Bioware shouldn't think too much to catering towards newer members (since all the games are worth playing IMO 
), but I can see why they might try to draw people in with this game.
Retour en haut