73 réponses à ce sujet

[King Cousland]

Frankly, I just wish people would stop passing the buck and accept that BioWare isn't the same company it was a decade ago and that much of their change has been voluntary. 

[Lord Marcus]

After all these months of half a-- games and remakes on ps4 Bioware released a FULL game worth the $60. I even bought the Deluxe. Before that Madden 15 kept me occupied. I wasted $60 on Destiny and my gf wasted 30 on DLC. How would bioware games be under Actvision, Square Enix, Fox Hound? 

[Realmzmaster]

This whole "don't blame EA" thing always baffles me.  Bioware *is* EA.  EA owns them.  It's just silly to identify problems in a game and then say that the problems don't exist because of the company that developed, funded, marketed, and sold the game.  

 

To be clear, I actually like DAI much more than it's problems get on my nerves, but it's problems do come from Bioware/EA.

 

If this question is really "do you think it hurt the overall quality of their games when Bioware decided to sell itself to EA?" than the answer to that question is "yes."

 

"Could they have survived without selling themselves to EA?" is an equally pertinent question I don't know the answer to.

 

Bioware did not sell itself to EA. What happen is that Bioware went to Elevation Partners (a private equity firm) in November 2005 for financial backing. Elevation Partners also at the time were funding Pandemic Studios. Bioware, Pandemic Studios and Elevation Partners formed a partnership (called VG Holding)  to get the games published. Elevation Partners was the majority partner since it provided $300 million in backing.

Elevation Partners decided to sell the partnership. Since Bioware and Pandemic Studios were not in a position to buy Elevation Partners out Elevation Partners shopped the two studios around. EA made the best bid at $860 million in October 2007. Mass Effect came out in November 2007 for the XBox which is why EA brand is not found on the box.

 

Why did Bioware go to Elevation Partners? Bioware needed someone to back the development of its games. Elevation Partners had all the leverage it needed to get the best position in the partnership. 

[Melca36]

Dragon Age 2 had far more shortcomings than Inquisition.

 

What I don't have is sympathy for the people who actually believed ALPHA footage would be part of the finished product.

[simpatikool]

I think the game is fine.

[katokires]

EA is just The Devil. The money is the Temptation. Bioware just accepted the pact.

[actionhero112]

Inquisition is littered with bugs, skills that don't work, items that don't drop and game breaking glitches. The last one is hardly unique to Inquisition, but really basic combat skills are bugged to the extent that they are? Was absolutely no testing done? 

 

Love the game but let's face it, a lot of things just simply don't work the way they should in Inquisition.

 

Idgaf about EA. I just want a product that I don't have to bug test myself and figure out what works and what doesn't.

[Realmzmaster]

Regardless of the technicalities they did ultimately choose to put the authority to make financial decisions concerning the company in somebody else's hands. 

 

Exactly, but a lot of posters want to blame EA when it could be blaming Ubisoft, Activision or any other big publisher who passed on it or got outbidded. EA saw a business investment and went with it. 

If Bioware had not gone with Elevation Partners Mass Effect or DAO may have never seen the light of day. 

[aries1001]

I do not blame EA for what happened to the game e.g. Dragon Age Inquisition. However, I know that I've read somewhere here on the BSN that Mike Laidlaw was given the task to develop a game where gamers could play from 10-15 hours to 100-150 hours. Let us not forgot, please, that even Mike Laidlaw has bosses. Who will tell him what direction he needs to be directing his creativity when he makes a game like DA:Inquisition. What I mean is this: Mike Laidlaw is the Creative Director of this project, but even Laidlaw had bosses who talk to him and say in what direction they need this game to be steered or directed. Here's a rather interesting piece:
http://www.gamespot....y/1100-6423362/

Skryim (from 2011) changed the landscape of rpgs, apparantly:

“Skyrim changed the landscape for role-playing games completely,” he said. “I mean Oblivion probably sold six million units, basically that range, Skyrim sold 20 million. So that, to some degree, changes everything.” “People age, they typically have less time for games, so it changes their expectations in terms of gameplay segments. It also results in some nostalgia. So they may become even more firm in their attachment to previous features. “Now suddenly you have 15 million people that have basically had the first RPG they’ve ever played as Skyrim. They have totally different expectations of what storytelling is, what exploration is, and I think exploration is really where we’ve seen the biggest change." source: http://www.vg247.com...n-age-producer/
 

Apparantly, Bioware looked at Skyrim's succes. And decided this was the way they wanted to steer or direct this game. Mike Laidlaw might not even have had a say in how this was decided. He probably just got handed a note or did get an email or attended a meeting in which he was told in which direction he needed to steer or direct this game. To me, it is and was clear, that EA - and possibly Bioware, too?, wanted to capitalize on Skyrim's succes e.g. they wanted to make a game that could sell like hotcakes e.g. sell as many copies of DA:I as Skyrim did. But Bioware doesn't seem to realize that three year has past since Skyrim was released and that a Bioware game is more about the characters, the plot, the story and the dialogue than it is about open world and exploration.

[Moirnelithe]

I don't care where the blame (or praise) is placed, I'm sure EA/Bioware know who is responsible, let them figure it out. But the next game needs to be better than this one and no more misdirection about the controls and contents of the game. Preordering isn't going to happen anymore for me as far as EA/Bioware related products are concerned. I feel this game was rushed yet again and I'm not going to reward them for it any longer.

[ashlover mark 2]

Bioware isn't what they used to be (if they ever were that to begin with) and it's unlikely they will ever go back. The best thing to do is to hold them to a higher standard while the game is in development, but to also not fall for their hype. The next game up is ME4, and we all know it's going be to ridiculously overhyped -Bioware will flat out lie or make empty promises' they know they can't deliver on. They are a company, and any companies primary concern is to turn a profit on their products. The sooner people stop drinking the Bioware Kool-Aid, the sooner you'll see them for what they really are; a video studio attempting to make a buck. If they happen to give us a pleasureable gameing experience, that's just a bonus for them.

[goofyomnivore]

I dunno this was the most fun in a BioWare game I've had since Mass Effect 2 / Dragon Age: Origins.

 

it has its flaws no doubt, but it is a solid game imo. Ever since the last patch I don't even crash anymore on PC except in the prologue. That place is still buggy as all hell.

[frostajulie]

I blame Bioware completely for the good and the bad.  There is a lot of good to go around though.  Yes there is a lot of bad.  But this time the good outeighs the bad.  I do hope the next game has more of an emotional connection to the pc and story as built up with cutscenes which made DA2 and DAO and ME1 and 2 so powerful IMO.  I really shaped my Shepard/Hawke/Warden in those games and I loved them and the NPC's I felt connected to sidequests in ME1 and DAO and even DA2 much more than in DAI.  the cinematic storytelling is Biowares thing.  I also miss the connection of the main mission to all the areas.  Many of the areas in DAI were not connected to the main mission in a way that was substantial enough to make me justify the exploration, I wish it had been better.  The hair was aso and still is also the most repulsive thing I have ever seen in any game.

 

But I really like DAI.  Its fun to play even with the flaws and the world is so big and so much fun to explore and I really enjoy how the NPCs in the world respond to the side quests ou do as the inquisitor.

 

No, the days when EA could get the blame for the failings of a Bioware game were over for me after DA2.  From that point on it was all Bioware, the good and the bad and there has been plenty of both.

[Gamemako]

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

It's always the publisher.

[Elfyoth]

I like DAI but I think it could've been much better for example in the demos they have said you can capture forts and actually choose what type they'll be, I am not saying your choices dont matter I say they do but they could have mattered MUCH more, for example in the last battle in DAO at Denerim if you didint save the mages you would lose a really good DD in the final battle, however the tactical battle of your armies is useless in DAI cuz you dont use them, you see 3-4 of them fighting in the Arbor Wilds and saying they will buy you time, Bioware where is my tactical combat? Where is "You are the Leader of this organization it is YOUR Inquisition" And again I am not saying my choices dont matter, we choose who rules Orlais who wins the Mage-Templar war and more, but still they could've matter MUCH MORE. You can see that the open world destroyed some things, yes I love open world, as long it dosent intefere with my story, Mage-Templar war ends weakly, like "Oh okay I chose the mages, oh whats that? Poof templars dissapear" I know its cuz of plot reasons but still, just like that? This fight tore the WORLD, I have finished my second playthrough, I loved the story, but I think DAI could have done much much better, I love DAI DA2 and DAO, why? Cuz no more no less, why? Cuz they are uniqe in their own ways. But whether I blame EA or Bioware? I dont see whats to blame, this IS a good game, and also I have heared that somone talked to Mike Laidlaw why they have deleted the cresswood quest, you know the awsome quest you choose to save the village or the keep and if you fail one of them is ACTUALLY DESTROYED, you know why it have been removed acording to Laidlaw? So I have heared.. Cuz it didint work well with the open world, thats is making me angry, I like open world, but when it gets intefere with the story, I hate it, dont get me wrong, maybe the story changed or somthing things like that ARE happening but still I wish we could choose what type of fort we want other than that, I love this game its PERFECT, and uniqe in its own way. And the Inquisitor is my main char of all of the DA series,

 

 

 

 

Edit: And after that long text, I still thing DAI is the best DA of the series for now lol 

[Quaddis]

I blame Bioware. They did with the game what they wanted, they people showed demos and footage, and they said it is a PC game. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.
Also...EA...kind off...is not that evil any more. Nice sales, some free games, helpful and efficient customer service.
I am not saying that they stopped to be greedy bastards, just that they give to charity sometimes and give free coupons.

[TheTsar_]

I blame EA for turning it into a typical EA game.. Not that I don't like it, I just hate it as a DA game. 

[QweenBeen]

Can someone please explain to me the EA hate? Their logo splashes in beautiful blood in DAO but what, had they not purchased Bioware by then so had less of a hand in development? And I'm assuming we're implying that DAO is the bar of awesomeness that has yet to be reachieved...

[Linkenski]

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.

You are certainly right I can't know any of this and I'll acknowledge that, but for example, with a game like D4: Dark Dreams Don't Die, by SWERY, funded and published by Microsoft, the developer revealed that Microsoft required the game to "have certain scenes that are created to go viral" and thus several side-missions were introduced that were about eating food and stuff somewhat in the vibe of Epic Mealtime or alike, just more in the vibe of the same zany vibe the rest of the game had.

I'm just saying, I think this is the kind of thing any big publisher does with the developers they have under their wings, including EA, and I don't think it's far fetched to imagine them pushing for "a game to draw in Skyrim's audience" but of course the actual game is fully developed and realized by Bioware, not their business suit publishers, but nonetheless. They were working creatively under restrictions, just like most AAA developers.

[aries1001]

I've been playing Bioware games since, like 1998 when the first Baldur's Gate was released. I have been on the (very) old boards back when Ray and Greg (co-founders of Bioware) would answer questions from the fans - it was on the now defunct Interplay boards. I have stood by Bioware ever since. Admittedly, it has been harder and harder to do so. I also have to say this: I enjoyed BG2, I didn't much enjoy NWN1 much, but I did enjoy the expansions and especially the mods for this game. I haven't sadly gotten around to playing much SW:KOTOR1, and I've only played a fraction of the ME games. I have played Dragon Age: Origins now for the third time. (and I'm currently playing  the DLC called Lelianas's Song). The point is not to pull rank or to make myself better than any of you, my point is this:

During all these 16-17 years, I've heard complaints from fans and biowarians on the old Interplay boards, on the old bioware boards, and even here on the BSN boards. I remember the conflicts we had here on thr BSN when Bioware first announced that the protagonist would talk in DA2. And that the dialogue wheel from ME would be used in DA2. I remember the fights and the conflicts we've had, as fans of Bioware, about ME3's ending (which, from I gather was rather bad...), also the conflicts and arguments, we've had when Bioware announced that Hawke could only be human. I remember to distinctive groups when DA2 was released, the first one thought the game was very bad indeed, the second one (including myself) thought hat Bioware had made a very well written and fine little game, the execution of the ideas behind the game was just plain bad. It was clear to us that Bioware didn't have enough time to flesh out the game's story as well as its content and to implement this well into the game. Like they would have done had they had more time to do so. Also, many people complained about the cinematics being too much in DA2 and maybe especially in ME3 people found that the cinematics were way too much. Many people also voiced their opinions about being able to play the game efter the story were over, as well as many people wanted an open world game from Bioware. Bioware's first rpg was BG1 - an open world game where you could go where ever you'd like. You could travel from say Beregost to Cloakwood and then to Cloakwood from Beregost - in this game, however, there were clues as to you would need to head next e.g. to the Friendly Arms Inn or to Nashkell. As I understand it, form what I've read here on the BSN, there is no such clues in DA: Inquisition?

A point I'm trying to make here is: When Bioware makes e.g. dialogues cinematics people complain, when thet don't, people complain. And when people get an open world, people complain. It just seems unfair that whatever Bioware does, it seems it is wrong....







 

[Aesir26]

Unless EA insisted on the huge amount of fetch quests to fill out the worlds or the lack of build to the semi-lackluster bossfight at the end I just don't see how I can fault them for it.

 

 I am aware that DAII and DAO all had fetch quests as well but in the case of DAI they also didn't place any more significant or "dressed up" quests on most of the maps which probably aided with the feeling that it was all filler.

 

It isn't so much that there's anything really negative about it on its own, just that Bioware took a risk with a game design decision they clearly thought would pay off but just fell short with some people as almost every design decision does.

 

In short I'm not going to fault someone for something they may or may not have done at least without knowing all of the facts. Since I am (unfortunately) not an employee at Bioware, my knowledge about such a thing is severely lacking.

[Balek-Vriege]

I think people just get too absorbed with being critical about this Bioware/EA non-drama drama outside their games, that they can't enjoy any games from them, because they're too focused on continuing their narrative on forums whatever that may be.  Companies/Developers make mistakes.  DA:I is not one of them.  For me it's up there with BG1, BG2 and Fallout 1 and Fallout 2 for pure enjoyment and interest in characters/plot.  The only issues I have with it are the bugs and that not more of the world changing mechanics were included, like timed sieges on your keeps and more war table missions changing maps.  For me DA:I open world is an example of how to do it much like Fallout: New Vegas was, with a world actually populated with quests and a general theme to areas that mad ethem feel alive.  It's not perfect or what it could have been, but even the fetch quests I found enjoyable and useful for exploration without being annoying.  Skyrim on the other hand in addition to Fallout 3 were bland for me and quit both after about 100 hours of play for years (like DA2).  If we were to lay out the amount of content, quests, places, maps and things to do in DA:I compared to DA:O and DA2, it probably beats them on each measure combined except for cutscenes and the origin missions in the first.

 

DA:I was developed for a long time and things were dropped (keep siege/customization plans, most dynamic war table missions plans) and entirely new things added in (multiple races).  They stalled the release a whole month for cleaning up the game after what a one 1-2 year delay?  EA gave Bioware the money, resources and time to make a really good game.  Bioware for the most part made that really good game as RPGs evolve for better or worse.  DA:I crosses off A LOT of checkmarks from a wishlist in my head I remember thinking up from playing old school RPGs.  Things I wanted to see in the future from the genre more than 17 years ago and have failed to truly see up until now.

 

I think some fans have to realise that developers and publishers aren't going to make the same game for 20 years (In most cases.. looking at you Dynasty Warriors franchise).  Things are going to change, again for better or worse, for certain groups of fans as new content is added or old content cut.  You don't have to buy their new games just as I no longer play consoles because I haven't been happy with the FF series and JRPGs for a long time (which is why I had consoles).  Did I go on rants about how they betrayed me as a fan or they somehow betrayed themselves and their "vision" (really your vision), while still buying their games and complaining about each installment?  No I packed up and found other genres  and developers to like (CRPGs, 4x games).

 

People who have similar experiences with RPGs like me that remember the "good ole days," but unlike me never seem to enjoy the newer ones past 1997-2004, need to admit they may not like newer RPGs period.  They may not like open world sandbox exploring, meaningful quests or not ,and instead like linear path maps.  They may not like heavy real time combat that flows fast with lots of special effects and may instead like turn-based and turn-based-like real time combat that's slow.  They may not like stronghold development and almost 4x-like content over explorable maps and instead may like more plot progression in the main storyline.  They may not like voice acting limiting the amount of dialogue between character and instead may like well written non-voiced "walls of texts" (I certainly do).  They may not like multiple voiced races limiting story arc.  They may not like decisions altering future installments which also limits gameplay and instead may like the days when the Devs decided for you what "canon" was and you got maybe one dialogue to clarify things with no effect on the story.  They may also be just utterly tired of doing sidequests in RPGs after 10-20 years of playing them.

 

To them I suggest indie developed RPGs like Shadowrun Returns/Dragonfall.  A game I really enjoyed as a prime example of old school RPG done right. Or enjoying the new "nextgen" RPGs for what they are not not what they used to be.

[keyip]

EA cops a lot of flak, much of it unfair. What people fail to realise is games development is a business, and making money is the primary role of all businesses. They aren't a charity organisation built to provide you your every dream, and this goes for ActiVision as well.

[Giantdeathrobot]

Regardless of the technicalities they did ultimately choose to put the authority to make financial decisions concerning the company in somebody else's hands. 

 

Unless you're indie, on Kickstarter or have a big cashflow (GoG for CD Projeckt, Steam for Valve) that's how business works. I'm not too thrilled by Bioware being owned by EA because that comes with its shares of dodgy business practices and DRM and timed exclusive and such, but let's not kid ourselves, if no publisher had bought Bioware they would likely have shut down. They didn't seek out financial backing for the hell of it. And I'd much rather have Bioware games with some EA strings attached than no Bioware games at all.

 

As for Inquisition, apart from adding the multiplayer I don't really see EA's influence in the game. They made design decisions, good and bad. EA is a convenient scapegoat and I've no lost love for them but they're not responsible for every bad thing under the sun.