586 réponses à ce sujet

[Elyunha]

Not a gorram thing, but don't tell that to the people who sing the praises of DAO and tote it as the standard by which all other RPGs should aspire to, and relentlessly trash DAI, that awful, worthless piece of garbage.

 

 

Insignificant, if any at all. DA:O as we know it may have started being developed before EA's acquisition of BioWare, but that'd be it, and honestly? That's very little as it is.

 

 

Origins was announced in 2004 while BioWare was bought by EA in 2007 and the game came out in 2009. With the mentality that EA ruins everything it touches, the theory is that much of DA:O was finished before BioWare became a part of EA. I don't share that mentality, but that's how a lot of people think.

 

It's the same with the original Mass Effect. It has EA's logo on it, but the game itself was made prior to BioWare being a part of them which means minimal EA influence.

Thank you kindly for answering, and for answering kindly. ^-^ Now I'm a bit wiser again! Glad to see not everyone answers "stupid" questions with eyerolling and sarcasm! Thanks~

[o Ventus]

Origins was announced in 2004 while BioWare was bought by EA in 2007 and the game came out in 2009. With the mentality that EA ruins everything it touches, the theory is that much of DA:O was finished before BioWare became a part of EA. I don't share that mentality, but that's how a lot of people think.

 

It's the same with the original Mass Effect. It has EA's logo on it, but the game itself was made prior to BioWare being a part of them which means minimal EA influence.

But what people don't realize is that if EA bought Bioware in 2007 and DAO released in 2009, the game would have been finished for an indeterminate period of time before it's release, but after EA had bought Bioware. No matter what kind of reasonable time frame you try to assign DAO's dev cycle after EA came into the picture, it would mean that Bioware had finished the game and just sort of let it sit there (with the game not going gold) for however many months until 2009.

 

If the game was "almost finished" or "much of it was done" by the time EA got to it, what was Bioware doing with the game between that point (October 11, 2007) and the release date (November 3, 2009)?

[bzombo]

Not a gorram thing, but don't tell that to the people who sing the praises of DAO and tote it as the standard by which all other RPGs should aspire to, and relentlessly trash DAI, that awful, worthless piece of trash.

To expand on that a bit, Origins was developed for years by Bioware before it was bought by EA. The game was already well into development, so keep that in mind. It was announced at E3 in 2004 and was developed for 3 years before Bioware was bought. DA2 and DAI are fully developed games under EA's ownership.

[Cyonan]

But what people don't realize is that if EA bought Bioware in 2007 and DAO released in 2009, the game would have been finished for an indeterminate period of time before it's release, but after EA had bought Bioware. No matter what kind of reasonable time frame you try to assign DAO's dev cycle after EA came into the picture, it would mean that Bioware had finished the game and just sort of let it sit there (with the game not going gold) for however many months until 2009.

 

If the game was "almost finished" or "much of it was done" by the time EA got to it, what was Bioware doing with the game between that point (October 11, 2007) and the release date (November 3, 2009)?

 

That's the other half of it, is that EA still had 2 years worth of influence on the game. It's not like Mass Effect where it came out about a month later, which my understanding is that games are finished roughly 1 month before launch to give time to manufacture and ship all the physical discs so Mass Effect would have essentially been done by the time EA showed up. Dragon Age: Origins, not so much.

 

To be honest it's probably a case of both people being a little bit right. The influence is there and noticeable with things like Warden's Keep and The Stone Prisoner(aka project $10 from EA).

 

However, I doubt if they completely rebuilt the game and produced something that good with that much content in 2 years time. They probably had the core mechanics in place when EA entered the picture at the very least.

[animedreamer]

I like how the OP is completely and totally ignoring the posts that call him/her out for his/her sh*t.

I do that sometimes too, it keeps me from going ballistic.. I'm of the opinion that when you visit a message board, you shouldn't leave it with a headache or angry. lol

[Andxel]

Let's face it, we're never going to get a real RPG out of this developer again. Once the doctors left it was all over. We all knew Bioware sold their soul to EA to make that garbage mmo that nobody even talks about anymore. Long live indy devs. One day scum publishers like EA will be irrelevant.

I'd like to know what defines an RPG for you.

For me it's the story, the choices, the possibility of creating my own characters, with their own personalites...

Btw, people are quite pleased with Inquisition.

You "Orgins purists" are looking dumber by the day.

 

 

i was expecting action game and i have it. (even if DAI is a mediocre action game)

 

as for rpg - i am waiting for persona 5 and torment.

 

1) Newsflash: it's has action elements, but you can't really call it a Action Game.

2) Persona 5 huh...I'm laughing so hard right now.

 

Putting aside the fact that j-rpgs are VERY, VERY different from western rpgs and should not be compared...No, I can't even finish the post.

And I don't even dislike Persona or the SMT franchise (which I love), but comparing them to rpgs is just sooo wrong.

[Lebanese Dude]

 

"Orgins purists" 

 

 

 

I'm going to use this.

[laudable11]

Eh. I've put 200+ hours into Dragon Age: Inquisition. I love it. But yeah it can die. I wouldn't mind.

[zeypher]

Eh. I've put 200+ hours into Dragon Age: Inquisition. I love it. But yeah it can die. I wouldn't mind.

My feeling as well, If it dies i do not really care and i gave played it for 200+ hours as well. I have accepted the series as a soul less kinda boring sanitized DnD setting with extremely less options. Atleast Dnd gives you tons of options. So if it dies no harm no foul.

[AtreiyaN7]

What a complete and utter load of non-factual crap. But hey, thanks for the laugh! Please don't let the door hit you on the way out!

[laudable11]

It's like, if the same team does something else I won't have to compare it to DA:O. It would be something else. Completely unrelated. I could live with that.

[atlantico]

Yes. Not all RPGs are about inventory. Just about all CRPGs are, but this is a problem with the staleness of CRPG concepts

Cool. So ... are you going to present a solution or are you just complaining? 

[Icinix]

I would definitely lean strongly to the 'hell no' side of the argument.

 

During DA2 development, I was a strong proponent of everything that was coming out, and after release quite vocal of how the games total was less than the sum of its parts.

 

Inquisition though has steered the ship back towards being course, although they definitely still have a ways to go.

 

Everything about the Dragon Age series screams that Origins hit one out of the park and caught everyone by surprise, not entirely sure what they did right there was a quick cash in an attempt to make lighting strike twice - but the lightning hit their foot and electrocuted most of their department heads and no-one had any idea what they were going to do. So Inquisition was born in an attempt to 'clean slate' Dragon Age while taking some key highlights from games like Skyrim and Creed and allowing enough openness in the gameplay to steer it in another direction after feedback from release had settled.

 

While Inquisition is far from being a game for the ages, it seems to me that what they have now is this incredible potential to take Dragon Age into some amazing territory.

 

I for one hope they expand on what Inquisition started because I really think they're slowly starting to work out just what got peoples pulse racing with Origins.

 

Also - If I rang a support line and got an American, I'd be furious that I was speaking to someone on the other side of the world rather than a local person...also..."American being paid an honest wage" HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...HAHAHAHAHAH..no really....that was a joke right? 

[Andraste_Reborn]

I'm kind of confused about why people who are no longer enjoying the franchise can't just ... not buy the games?

 

There are plenty of series - not just games, but TV, books and movies - that I've given up on over the years. While I might grumble about them if the subject comes up in conversation, I don't spend time on their various forums demanding that they come to an end just because I don't like them any more. It's obvious that there are a lot of people who enjoyed Inquisition and are hoping for more, and last we heard the sales were strong and BioWare have ideas for further instalments. Why shouldn't they make another one?

[SardaukarElite]

I'm kind of confused about why people who are no longer enjoying the franchise can't just ... not buy the games?

 

But then they wouldn't get any attention.

[Jackums]

Literally?

 

Also, no.

[xkg]

^ Bah, weak analogy. One does not need to like the chick to bang her. Sometimes banging chicks that hates you can be even funnier 

Now, if you said ugly chick, that's the whole a lot different matter...

[pawswithclaws]

I'm kind of confused about why people who are no longer enjoying the franchise can't just ... not buy the games?

Isn't it obvious? If they see nothing of worth in it, then it clearly HAS not worth! Duh!

 

 

^ Bah, weak analogy. One does not need to like the chick to bang her. Sometimes banging chicks that hates you can be even funnier 

Sure, but bang her for over 200 hours? Sounds like you're the only one who doesn't realise you're in a relationship!

[thebigbad1013]

My big issue with all of this isn't that there are people who didn't enjoy the game because that's going to happen no matter what BioWare does. But when I start seeing posts about how the only people who could possibly enjoy this game must be "so and so", that's my issue. If you didn't like the game, fine. But two things; One; Please don't be surprised to find people who did enjoy a BioWare game on BioWare's forum. If that surprises you then...yeah. And two; don't try to put people into a box. I am definitely not someone who goes for "flashy action and pretty graphics" if that's all there is to a game, and when I see people saying that that is the only possible reason someone could like the game....like I said, it bothers me.

 

As for whether Dragon Age should be done now? Absolutely not! There is still so much story potential there and I'm looking forward to seeing where things go next.

[AllThatJazz]

My big issue with all of this isn't that there are people who didn't enjoy the game because that's going to happen no matter what BioWare does. But when I start seeing posts about how the only people who could possibly enjoy this game must be "so and so", that's my issue. If you didn't like the game, fine. But two things; One; Please don't be surprised to find people who did enjoy a BioWare game on BioWare's forum. If that surprises you then...yeah. And two; don't try to put people into a box. I am definitely not someone who goes for "flashy action and pretty graphics" if that's all there is to a game, and when I see people saying that that is the only possible reason someone could like the game....like I said, it bothers me.

 

As for whether Dragon Age should be done now? Absolutely not! There is still so much story potential there and I'm looking forward to seeing where things go next.

Yep, hearing a fair bit of this, a large amount of it contradictory. 'The only people who like DAI are people who haven't played any/many CRPGs', or 'those who haven't played MMOs, or conversely those who love MMOs, or only hardcore Dragon Age/Bioware fans, or the opposite, only those who are new to the franchise and don't care about it, or only console gamers will enjoy it.

 

DAI isn't a game for everyone, sure, but trying to put the people who enjoy it into convenient little categories is just a touch patronising.

[Realmzmaster]

The only reasons I can think why people would like this game are...

The casual gamer loves DA:I as it has shallow gameplay that doesn't require much thought, Shiny graphics, so its an easy pick up & play game, entry level (RPG)

The console gamer loves DA:I as they constantly used to being served up shovelware games, most other games on console only require quick thumbs, so this game must seem to stand above most other offerings, considering. It must be a amazing CONSOLE game.

 

Sorry, I do not fit into any of those groups. I have been playing crpgs for more than 30 years. I like everything from Wizardry, Bards Tale to BG to DAI. I play Wasteland2 and many other so called hardcore old school crpgs. I like DAI.

[Bountron]

They should continue this franchise as they have a well established lore and apart from all shortcomings a good game design. With their (new?) focus on artstyle they liquidated one of the biggest flaws of part II already. If they manage to do some finetuning considerung tactics, enemy AI, group AI and presentation of side quests and letters this series could be a glorious cornerstone of EA games.

 

On the other hand I could understand if the team (maybe only short contract based, dont know) is mentally done with the matter and simply wants to tell other stories.