73 réponses à ce sujet

[SNascimento]

Dragon Age Inquisition has received a very positive reception from both the critics and gamers alike. It was natural then that it won many game of the year awards, both from gaming websites, magazines and people voting.

However, as it is only natural too, not everybody enjoyed the game and especially here it seems to be a lot of folk who dislike many aspects of DAI.

And what I'm wondering is if people still blame EA for that? Sure, there are games in which EA  conduct may have well compromised the their quality. Mass Effect 3 for example. It is a game that many felt should have a bigger development cicle. Or DA2, which clearly had a tight development. And I'm sure people would bring many other examples should we go outside Bioware games.

Yet, I don't see that... bad interference from EA in Dragon Age Inquisition. And I'm not even talking about how much development time it had, the delays, etc. I'm talking about the game itself. It doesn't feel rushed. It doesn't have that roughness around the edges that ME3 had, or even more clearly evidences of cutting cornes like DA2 copied environments. One could say that the fact it changed from the previews we've seen as evidence of not enough time, but that's true for many, many games (not to say all). Mass Effect 1 for example, the final product is very different from previews. And it wasn't published by EA. So to be frankly, my impression is that EA gave Bioware what they needed to make the game they wanted, and it actually makes me hopefull that NME will have a similar development. 

Also, let's not forget that the assumption that if you dislike a game then there is something wrong with it is entirely false. 

So I ask, do you blame EA for what you perceive to be DAI flaws?

[DaemionMoadrin]

I blame BioWare, they can pass that on to EA if they want to.

 

They promised and implied to us a better game, not a clunky console port with deficits in almost every area. We know they can do better because they have done so in the past. This game isn't living up to its potential and that's mostly because they didn't get done in time.

 

If that pressure to release on time was an internal issue or if it came from EA doesn't matter to the customers.

[Vivamoore]

The shift from a story driven RPG to a Skyrim 2.0 was entirely Biowares decision.

 

I've bought every Dragon Age game up to this point, but this will be the last one since they believe it isn't worth having cutscenes and real sidequests anymore.

[Virgulec]

I don't mind the side quests at all. I fought the Haserians until I realised, "hey put the amulet on and enter the stronghold" and I fought just the boss and won them for the inquisition. Now I can move around without having to fight them all the time. Without the side quests, we'd blow over the game in a blink come on BSN and rant about how short it all is. I use these quests to gather materials and maybe do other things, like search for Mosaics and collect codex entries laying around. If the banter would work right, I'd enjoy the hour silence of gathering a lot more.

[Jeremiah12LGeek]

I'm not really concerned about blame. I just hope the issues that can be fixed and improved receive attention.

 

The QA on ME 3, or the MP part of it, at least, was ongoing, and the Dev presence in the forums updating the game and providing balance changes gave me a lot of confidence about how they would handle future games.

 

So far, it's not really playing out like that with DA:I.

[Rawgrim]

Dragon Age Inquisition has received a very positive reception from both the critics and gamers alike. It was natural then that it won many game of the year awards, both from gaming websites, magazines and people voting.

However, as it is only natural too, not everybody enjoyed the game and especially here it seems to be a lot of folk who dislike many aspects of DAI.

And what I'm wondering is if people still blame EA for that? Sure, there are games in which EA  conduct may have well compromised the their quality. Mass Effect 3 for example. It is a game that many felt should have a bigger development cicle. Or DA2, which clearly had a tight development. And I'm sure people would bring many other examples should we go outside Bioware games.

Yet, I don't see that... bad interference from EA in Dragon Age Inquisition. And I'm not even talking about how much development time it had, the delays, etc. I'm talking about the game itself. It doesn't feel rushed. It doesn't have that roughness around the edges that ME3 had, or even more clearly evidences of cutting cornes like DA2 copied environments. One could say that the fact it changed from the previews we've seen as evidence of not enough time, but that's true for many, many games (not to say all). Mass Effect 1 for example, the final product is very different from previews. And it wasn't published by EA. So to be frankly, my impression is that EA gave Bioware what they needed to make the game they wanted, and it actually makes me hopefull that NME will have a similar development. 

Also, let's not forget that the assumption that if you dislike a game then there is something wrong with it is entirely false. 

So I ask, do you blame EA for what you perceive to be DAI flaws?

 

EA buys the reviews, the awards, and they even pay for youtubers to speak highly of their products. An EA game getting a high score means nothing.

 

DA:I is a pretty good game, though. Better than DA2. Its shortcomings are due to gamedesign. Mainly the character restrictions, the simplified combat, and the terrible AI. The design team are to blame. The writers did a solid job, and so did anyone involved with the graphics and effects.

[Vilegrim]

I blame the decision (where ever it was made) to go to a lighter story (far less gray and no straight out black choices available) and fast, actiony combat (some of us didn't like Dark Souls or Kingdom of Amalur, can we please have games aimed at us?)

[ashwind]

Well... not this time. 

[Zippy72]

There's little to be blamed for imo, so no.

[SomberXIII]

Well... not this time. 

A person came, posted a blame then left. Several days later, another comes and posts the same with slightly different titles and topics.

 

This has been your BSN report, Ser.

[Melyanna]

I blame neither, but that's because there is nothing to be blamed for.

This is a great game, one of the most satisfying gaming experiences I had since Baldur's Gate.

If anything, I am thankful to both Bioware and EA.

[Linkenski]

I blame EA for setting standards needed to be met like "game has to appeal like Skyrim" or "game needs to have great action on a moment to moment basis"

They certainly can do that, and that's not to mention a forecast was just revealed that confirms ME4 and Battlefront are slated for 2016 releases and to gain 4-8mio. Copies sold. You can bet were it not for EA's tight grip, Bioware would've waited longer.

If anything a sad trend has also been the infiltration of former EA developers entering EA/Bioware and an increasingly bloated game development team featuring increasingly many employees who don't specialize enough in the narrative-gamedesign aspects of Bioware games.

ME3 and DAI both have the same annoyances like numerous NPCs being terribly placed in the hub world's doing nonsensical things, bugged non-finishable quests and many glitched conversation animations.

One thing can be blamed on the ever-increasing total amount of written dialogue, but I think a bigger factor is a bloated development team and more rush work. Even if this game had 3 years of development, it wasn't enough because of how much high e it aimed to be than past games in sheer content and size, and simply increasing the amount of workforce is not the answer, and EA forcing bad requirements for "MAXIMUM PROFIT POTENTIAL" doesn't help either.

Everything is a factor but I still think Bioware would've been better off in the present had their founders never agreed to enter a permanent partnership with EA in the first place.

[Bizantura]

I think the Bioware studio is very much "indoctrinated" by the corporate  multinational flow of things and DAI for me is the very proof of that.

 

Whether that is good or bad is in the eye of the beholder.

[The Jackal]

Pretty much. I loved and still love dragon age over DA2. The more time I spend with it though I can notice subtle flaws. Like the combat system is nice and shiny like a toy you get under the tree. You tear off the packagaing and play with it. I noticed while there are many choices in Dragon Age none lead to a huge difference. We have tons of options. Yet none of them even the templars or mages.

 

Doesn't matter which you pick. Only slight difference is approval rating from party members. It doesn't change outcome of hole in the sky. I know people moaned at the combat last game. I wasn't one of those people. I'm worried to favor more combat they took their eye off the choice factor what made this game so interesting. As for blaming EA.

 

When they came on. Dragon Age 2 was a mess. Yet maybe that could been devloper problem as he described later his heart wasn't in it.

[Mercedes-Benz]

I don't know whether it was EA's or it's subdivision's BioWare's decision to make to make Inquisition a (buggy) copy of Skyrim, but it doesn't matter, because it was BioWare's decision to sell themselves to EA, so I blame all of the games shortcomings solely on BioWare.

[brad2240]

I consider the biggest shortcoming of DA:I to be the bugs. Bugged skills, bugged quests, bugged dialogues... this thing never should have passed QA in the shape it's in and I lay that squarely at Bioware's feet.

 

Other design decisions like removing the tactics system and the pause wheel I don't know who to blame for.

 

But I also give full credit to Bioware for everything good in this game that keeps me playing it despite the flaws.

[Darkly Tranquil]

I blame the dev team because all of DAIs major issues are the result of design decisions.

[SofaJockey]

I blame EA for setting standards needed to be met like "game has to appeal like Skyrim" or "game needs to have great action on a moment to moment basis"

 

I suspect the vast majority of folk on BSN do not actually have the first clue what guidance and/or restrictions are given by the Corporate management of EA to BioWare in respect of the development of their games.

 

To come out with statements about what EA has done, or decided, or told BioWare to do is not just lazy,

it is the worst sort of flawed belief that if you make it up or read it on the internet it must be true.

 

If there are issues with the game, that is a matter for BioWare.

If the game is great, thats a success for BioWare.

 

How the parent company might have influenced that is largely irrelevant as it is largely unknown.

[NM_Che56]

Nothing is ever perfect.  No matter how great a game is, it will have some flaws.  Some people are more rational when it comes to the weight it has.

[X Equestris]

EA buys the reviews, the awards, and they even pay for youtubers to speak highly of their products. An EA game getting a high score means nothing.

That's quite the accusation, but I'm doubtful you have any sort of proof.

[Lucky Thirteen]

No, I blame Skyrim's success, MMO's, and everyone that hated DA2 and would not stop complaining on the forums. edit: and ME3.

[NM_Che56]

That's quite the accusation, but I'm doubtful you have any sort of proof.

A lot of publishers have gotten their mitts on the Youtubers.  That's a reality.  But really, it's so obvious when it happens.  I don't really follow individual Tubers, though.  

 

As for the big gaming sites... While I'm sure some publishers do try to tip the odds in their favor (e.g. review embargoes lifting 12 hours after release...Ubisoft), I am positive that the bigger sites push those envelopes back across the table.  

 

BF4 is an EA published game and it's launch issues have been covered extensively. 

[X Equestris]

A lot of publishers have gotten their mitts on the Youtubers.  That's a reality.  But really, it's so obvious when it happens.  I don't really follow individual Tubers, though.  
 
As for the big gaming sites... While I'm sure some publishers do try to tip the odds in their favor (e.g. review embargoes lifting 12 hours after release...Ubisoft), I am positive that the bigger sites push those envelopes back across the table.  
 
BF4 is an EA published game and it's launch issues have been covered extensively.

That's true, but I'm disputing that particular individual's assertion that EA bought every single award, review, and positive review on YouTube that Inquisition got.

[NM_Che56]

That's true, but I'm disputing that particular individual's assertion that EA bought every single award, review, and positive review on YouTube that Inquisition got.

Yeah.  That's just an unfounded and wild accusation.  

 

"I don't like this game.  Critics do. EA is the publisher. EA paid them off because I am the authority on what makes a great video game".