198 réponses à ce sujet

[Linkenski]

At this point Bioware and fans are like two best childhood friends who've grown up and no longer bond but they try to force their relationship just to hold on to a principle.

 

Bioware only keeps striving to be "community-friendly" because it was one of their fundamental developer pillars and part of the original Bioware culture... but the fact of the matter is simply that Bioware is no longer the same company it used to be. It's been corrupted and eaten up inside by its veteran lead developers who are just burning out over the way the industry is, and after exhausting themselves for 15+ years now and EA's corporate leadership is sucking every last bit of soul out of the company.

 

Overdramatic? yeah. I'm sure Bioware will still keep pushing out relatively good games over the next 5 years as well, but they will NEVER retake their glory days. The good days are over. Drew Karpyshyn, Chris L'Etoile, Casey Hudson, Brent Knowles and Greg and Ray -- the Co Founders -- they all agree. It's just a matter of time before Bioware is just flat out no longer Bioware, when all its oldest members will have left the company, and it's full-on EA-led company.

[TheOgre]

You can find some of my comments along with rebuttals by other posters on the topic here: http://forum.bioware...dakota strider

 

I will not rehash it all here.

 

 

 

 

 

Posted 07 January 2015 - 07:31 AM

• 
• Members
• 4,816 posts

Interesting post OP, but I have to disagree. The design of DAI is far more akin to BG1. I do not feel that Bioware has gone in the wrong direction. IBioware has gone back design wise to what made BG1 successful IMHO.

 

Many posters were complaining about the lack of Stat point allocation. Early crpgs did not allow adding to attributes especially those based on the D & D 2,0 ruleset. The only early crpg that allowed adding to stats was one based on the T & T system called Crusaders of Khazan.

The Fallout series onlu allowed limited stat allocation in the SPECIAL system. Perks made up the bulk of changes to the character. DAI uses skills in much the same manner.

The semi open world is a throwback to BG1.

Limited healing is a throwback to  BG1 and D & D. Healing was limited to potions and the few heraling spells that the cleric class had.

The rest mechanic goes back to BG1. 

 

Bioware started deviating from the "crpg formula" with NeverWinter Nights which eliminated permadeath.

DAO added in regnerating health which is a staple of MMOs. DA2 took that concept further with complete health regen after each battle. DAI is actually bringing it back to BG1 standards.

BG1 was about damage mitigation which is proactive versus damage healing which is reactive.  

 

IMHO, the banter between companions is spot on. The companions are very good.The story is cliched , but then so was DAO's story.

 

For those who state they would pay $100 for DAO2. I am glad to see that passion, but from an economic point of view which one is better. If Bioware prices the game for you at $100 and sells only a million copies that is 100 million. Let's suppose that by changing their game to appeal a little more to attract more buyers Bioware can sell 2 million copies at $60.00 each. Bioware makes 120 million.

Given that EA is a publicly traded company which one do you think the investors are going to expect?

 

 

BG had healing, sure you didn't use it often, but they had it. Limited healing, and regeneration spells. The way how combat works in this game, the current model doesn't really work too well with combat AI. Your tactical commands are easily abandoned (hold). The way how threat works in this game is closer toward MMO standards (threat%) versus being positioned behind your tank (which doesn't work too well in practice because of how limited your taunt range is), and your tank would have to attack all of the little ranged projectiles to keep them safe from the group. In theory that's how barrier works. However if the argument that damage prevention is the key, then they should have implemented threat by radius, or focused on choke point battles. You can't exactly hide behind a walled tank. Also keep this in mind, dragon fights, they, repeatedly through out the fight, will challenge your ranged. Damage prevention does not work too well with this model (if they plan on doing a MMO style raid encounter). Not when your AI is running in front of the dragon, stacking on him to eat a breath to the face. This is the consequence of dumbing down the mechanics and dumbing down AI. I do not see this as a compelling argument for how this is closer to bg1 than DAO as a result. 

[JackPoint]

Emphasis on exploration of what?.. Vast nothingness?

HHmm, Exploration of empty areas VAST EMPTY AREA'S like Storm coast, and every other area you have passed through on the quest chain. Once that story arch is completed the world indeed becomes a desolate landscape akin the the dark side of the moon.

[DragonAddict]

I for one will not be pre ordering DA4 or even buying it unless......Bioware adds those features back from DAO that everyone loved and misses.

 

 

Same old DA2 and DAI for DA4 = no money from me and lost a loyal customer.

[Realmzmaster]

I for one will not be pre ordering DA4 or even buying it unless......Bioware adds those features back from DAO that everyone loved and misses.

 

 

Same old DA2 and DAI for DA4 = no money from me and lost a loyal customer.

 

You mean that you love and miss. I never try to speak for everyone just myself because one of those everyones might disagree.

[atlantico]

You mean that you love and miss. I never try to speak for everyone just myself because one of those everyones might disagree.

 

There's that. And also, how is Bioware to market a strategic, party-based, silent-protagonist, gritty RPG to anyone these days? 

 

Unmarketable. 

 

We need a hero, romances and plenty of visuals and spoken dialogue. That, we can market!

[Rawgrim]

I for one will not be pre ordering DA4 or even buying it unless......Bioware adds those features back from DAO that everyone loved and misses.

 

 

Same old DA2 and DAI for DA4 = no money from me and lost a loyal customer.

 

There won't be a DA4. The next one will be an MMO. DA:I was the beta version of it. Mark my words.

[hong]

Nothing wrong with a multiplayer DA4.

[sinosleep]

There won't be a DA4. The next one will be an MMO. DA:I was the beta version of it. Mark my words.

They haven't exactly made a killing from swtor, maybe they've learned their lesson from that and stick to primarily single player games.

[Rizilliant]

BG had healing, sure you didn't use it often, but they had it. Limited healing, and regeneration spells. The way how combat works in this game, the current model doesn't really work too well with combat AI. Your tactical commands are easily abandoned (hold). The way how threat works in this game is closer toward MMO standards (threat%) versus being positioned behind your tank (which doesn't work too well in practice because of how limited your taunt range is), and your tank would have to attack all of the little ranged projectiles to keep them safe from the group. In theory that's how barrier works. However if the argument that damage prevention is the key, then they should have implemented threat by radius, or focused on choke point battles. You can't exactly hide behind a walled tank. Also keep this in mind, dragon fights, they, repeatedly through out the fight, will challenge your ranged. Damage prevention does not work too well with this model (if they plan on doing a MMO style raid encounter). Not when your AI is running in front of the dragon, stacking on him to eat a breath to the face. This is the consequence of dumbing down the mechanics and dumbing down AI. I do not see this as a compelling argument for how this is closer to bg1 than DAO as a result. 

nOT TO MENTION THE ENTIRE POINT (THEY CLAIM) WAS TO MAKE IT SO NO ONE WAS "OBLIGATED" TO BRING A HEALER... wELL... wERE  "OB;LIGATED" TO NOW BRING A BARRIER MAGE, AND ATLEAST 1 TANK.. hOW IS THIS any DIFFERENT.. oNLY, WITH less OPTION FOR MAGE SPECS...

 

Crap, caps lock.. im not retyping that!

[Rizilliant]

There's that. And also, how is Bioware to market a strategic, party-based, silent-protagonist, gritty RPG to anyone these days? 

 

Unmarketable. 

 

We need a hero, romances and plenty of visuals and spoken dialogue. That, we can market!

Like Pillars of Eternity, Divinity, etc.?

[Rizilliant]

You mean that you love and miss. I never try to speak for everyone just myself because one of those everyones might disagree.

Except that most people who bought DA2, wanted Origins 2.. We were diappointed.. We then bought DA:I, because we were told they developed it specifically to brng back what was loved in Origins, with that combat flare from DA2... Im not speaking for everyone but i feel quite confident that a large portion of the PC community was hoping for, and expecting Origins 2...

[hong]

Except that most people who bought DA2, wanted Origins 2..

Prove it.

[dlux]

 

Something similar happened in Mass Effect, though people did seem to receive its change well.. It went from RPG, to 3rd person action shooter...Fine, people liked it...

Mass Effect was always a shooter, which is probably why people didn't mind that the attributes were removed in ME2.

 

I personally didn't mind at all, because the RPG mechanics weren't very good in ME1 anyway. Not to mention that character progression was still present in ME2.

 

I see that you  feel that the Bioware formula is gone while I on the other hand feel that the magic is still there. In fact IMHO Bioware has enhanced the magic by going back to design features that were present in BG1 and BG2.

 

DA:I has absolutely nothing in common with BG1 and BG2. Nothing. BG1 and BG2 are absolute gems and two of the best RPGs ever made. Stop comparing them to this DA:I drivel.

 

I know that won't stop you from posting that nonsense, but I wanted to point that out anyway.

[hong]

Mass Effect was always a shooter, which is probably why people didn't mind that the attributes were removed in ME2.

Sure they did. They were simply as ignorable as always.

[Nimlowyn]

What's this about BWEAmelia?

[atlantico]

Like Pillars of Eternity, Divinity, etc.?

 

Yeah, exactly like those. EA marketing wouldn't touch those with a ten-foot pole.

[Rawgrim]

They haven't exactly made a killing from swtor, maybe they've learned their lesson from that and stick to primarily single player games.

 

DA:I began its development as an MMO, actually. EA never learns.

[atlantico]

DA:I began its development as an MMO, actually. EA never learns.

 

At the time, it looked golden! Everyone was pouring immense money and resources into MMOs trying to chase the WoW dragon. 

 

Imagination and creativity are not the strong suits of ehhh .. suits.

[Rawgrim]

At the time, it looked golden! Everyone was pouring immense money and resources into MMOs trying to chase the WoW dragon. 

 

Imagination and creativity are not the strong suits of ehhh .. suits.

 

I imagine the suits having a meeting. Looking at the other top rpgs around. Picking this and that from each game and stuffing it into Inquisition. "That scanning ability from the witcher is kewl. Put that in."  "Open world with lots of dragons is cool in Skyrim. Put it in!". "Dragon's dogma lets you attack bodyparts. Lets have that!". "The exremely limited combat abilities from Diablo 3 makes it easy to use a controller! Our partners at Microsoft will love that!".

 

The game doesn't feel like Dragon Age at all. Just a mix of parts from other games, really.

[phantomrachie]

I see.

 

So games that take less time to program, make more money in the short term, is the route Bioware went.....got it.

 

Quality = bye bye

 

Money = yes yes

 

 

DAO + DLC + Awakenings = 9.5 out of 10 (bugs) - still remembered and played 5+ years later

 

DA2 = 7 out of 10 - forgotten

 

DAI = 7 out of 10 - will be forgotten in a year or so like DA2

 

DA2 hasn't been forgotten, people mention it atleast once an hour on the DA:I forums, it's own forum is still going strong, every article about BioWare has a comment about DA2 underneath it.

 

My most recent playthrough of DA2 was last October. I and many others, including you, haven't forgotten it.

 

A forgotten game would be somthing like 'Vectorman', I've never spoken to another person who has played it.

 

As much as I liked DA:O, I'm not sure if I could do another playthrough of it. After my 8th or 9th, playthrough, all the little things that annoyed me started to seem bigger (and that is with mods), on the other hand, I actually enjoyed DA2 more with each playthrough. 

 

If I remember correctly, I'm currently at 12 playthroughs over 3 systems for DA:O and I can't see myself doing another one any time soon, were as I'm on 9 playthroughs over 3 systems on DA2 and I could see myself picking that up again.

 

DA:I, I'm on my second playthrough of DA:I and I'm enjoying it more than my first. 

 

To me DA:O and DA2 were equally as good as each other. They both had elements that I loved and they both had elements that frustrated me, but overall all they both gave me a great experience.

 

I haven't decided how DA:I compares yet, since I don't think I can compare it properly until all the story DLC comes out for it, story DLC can change my opinion on a game.

 

 

I for one will not be pre ordering DA4 or even buying it unless......Bioware adds those features back from DAO that everyone loved and misses.

 

 

Features everyone loves and misses?

 

I think you'd be hard pressed to come up with a list that everyone on this forum agrees with, let alone, everyone who considers themselves a fan. 

 

• Some people loved the DA:O combat, some people didn't
• Some people loved the silent protagonist, some people didn't
• Some people loved the environments, some people didn't

 

I could go on but I hope you get the idea. 

 

 

nOT TO MENTION THE ENTIRE POINT (THEY CLAIM) WAS TO MAKE IT SO NO ONE WAS "OBLIGATED" TO BRING A HEALER... wELL... wERE  "OB;LIGATED" TO NOW BRING A BARRIER MAGE, AND ATLEAST 1 TANK.. hOW IS THIS any DIFFERENT.. oNLY, WITH less OPTION FOR MAGE SPECS...

 

Crap, caps lock.. im not retyping that!

 

You don't need a barrier mage, you can get away with no barrier mage or a mage with only one barrier spell.

 

Currently I have a spec for Vivienne, with only barrier from the barrier tree for emergencies and the rest of her points are in Knight Enchanter and glorious Fire Magic.

 

Dorian doesn't have any spells in barrier, there is no need when he is electrocuting people to death or making them run in 'horror'

 

Solas is deep in the barrier tree.

 

I switch them out depending on the situation or on the area I'm exploring.

 

The only thing I see less of in DA:I, in relation to skills, are those annoying skills that I never used but had to take because I wanted the skill next to it, like Miasma or Curse of Mortality.

[Zachriel]

DA:I has absolutely nothing in common with BG1 and BG2. Nothing.

 

You shouldn't speak in absolutes unless what you're saying is absolutely true.  Here are a few things BG2 and DAI have in common:

 

- False sense of urgency.  At two points in the story in BG2, you are given the impression that you need to hurry on to the next step of the story or bad things will happen:

Spoiler

First, when Imoen is taken to Spellhold.  Your goal is to raise enough money to hire a ship and crew that will take you to where she's been imprisoned.  Since the Big Bad Guy of the game is there with her, there is some sense of urgency to get this done.

Second, when Irenicus attacks the Tree of Life.  You get visions from the elf queen saying that if you don't come and stop him right just now, he'll kill the tree of life, obtain godlike powers, slaughter all of the elves, and then generally wreak havoc on the world.

 In each case, there is no real urgency.  You can take your time, explore the entire game, do every single side quest the game has to offer, and it makes no difference to the rest of the story.  You get the same sense of false urgency in DAI:

Spoiler

When you are told that you need find out what's wrong with the Wardens, when you are told to stop the assassination plot against Empress Celine, and when you are told that Corypheus plans to do.... something... in the Arbor Wilds.  In each case, as with BG2, there is no real urgency.  You can explore the world and do all the side quests at your leisure.

 

- Static, linear plot line.  Both BG2 and DAI have a story that progresses in a linear fashion.  Neither game allows any deviation from the pre-determined story arc, and in both games the same major story events happen in more or less the same order regardless of any action or choice on the part of the player.  DAI actually does slightly better than BG2 in this regard, in that some events of the story do deviate slightly in response to choices made in the previous games.

 

- Pseudo-open world design.  Both BG2 and DAI have a fixed number of "zones" or "maps" that you can you explore.  Each area is completely separate from the others, in terms of both geography and quest/story content.  You can access each zone from the world map.  Of course BG2 was a 2D game with much smaller areas than those in DAI, but the way the world is presented to the player is similar.

 

- Inability to increase character stats on level up. BG2 is based on the D&D 2.5 ruleset, which did not have stat increases at level up at all.  DAI also does not allow the player to increase character stats on level up.

 

- Party banter.  Characters in both games will start conversations with each other and with the player.

 

- Quests.  Both games have quests for the player to complete for rewards.

 

- Monsters.  Both games have monsters to kill for loot and experience, including dragons.

 

- Dungeons.  Both games have dungeons for the player to explore that have monsters for slaying, loot to be found, and puzzles to solve.

 

 

Just to name a few.  You could say these are all superficial similarities that most games in a given genre will have in common, and I would agree.  I only posted it to illustrate the point that I made with my first sentence:  Avoid speaking in absolutes.  There will almost always be an exception that makes absolute statements false.

[Rawgrim]

You shouldn't speak in absolutes unless what you're saying is absolutely true.  Here are a few things BG2 and DAI have in common:

 

- False sense of urgency.  At two points in the story in BG2, you are given the impression that you need to hurry on to the next step of the story or bad things will happen:

Spoiler

First, when Imoen is taken to Spellhold.  Your goal is to raise enough money to hire a ship and crew that will take you to where she's been imprisoned.  Since the Big Bad Guy of the game is there with her, there is some sense of urgency to get this done.

Second, when Irenicus attacks the Tree of Life.  You get visions from the elf queen saying that if you don't come and stop him right just now, he'll kill the tree of life, obtain godlike powers, slaughter all of the elves, and then generally wreak havoc on the world.

 In each case, there is no real urgency.  You can take your time, explore the entire game, do every single side quest the game has to offer, and it makes no difference to the rest of the story.  You get the same sense of false urgency in DAI:

Spoiler

When you are told that you need find out what's wrong with the Wardens, when you are told to stop the assassination plot against Empress Celine, and when you are told that Corypheus plans to do.... something... in the Arbor Wilds.  In each case, as with BG2, there is no real urgency.  You can explore the world and do all the side quests at your leisure.

 

- Static, linear plot line.  Both BG2 and DAI have a story that progresses in a linear fashion.  Neither game allows any deviation from the pre-determined story arc, and in both games the same major story events happen in more or less the same order regardless of any action or choice on the part of the player.  DAI actually does slightly better than BG2 in this regard, in that some events of the story do deviate slightly in response to choices made in the previous games.

 

- Pseudo-open world design.  Both BG2 and DAI have a fixed number of "zones" or "maps" that you can you explore.  Each area is completely separate from the others, in terms of both geography and quest/story content.  You can access each zone from the world map.  Of course BG2 was a 2D game with much smaller areas than those in DAI, but the way the world is presented to the player is similar.

 

- Inability to increase character stats on level up. BG2 is based on the D&D 2.5 ruleset, which did not have stat increases at level up at all.  DAI also does not allow the player to increase character stats on level up.

 

- Party banter.  Characters in both games will start conversations with each other and with the player.

 

- Quests.  Both games have quests for the player to complete for rewards.

 

- Monsters.  Both games have monsters to kill for loot and experience, including dragons.

 

- Dungeons.  Both games have dungeons for the player to explore that have monsters for slaying, loot to be found, and puzzles to solve.

 

 

Just to name a few.  You could say these are all superficial similarities that most games in a given genre will have in common, and I would agree.  I only posted it to illustrate the point that I made with my first sentence:  Avoid speaking in absolutes.  There will almost always be an exception that makes absolute statements false.

 

 

Where exactly did DA:I give the player a sense of urgency?

[hong]

Where exactly did DA:I give the player a sense of urgency?

At all the points in the spoilered text, of course.

[Jackal19851111]

I imagine the suits having a meeting. Looking at the other top rpgs around. Picking this and that from each game and stuffing it into Inquisition. "That scanning ability from the witcher is kewl. Put that in."  "Open world with lots of dragons is cool in Skyrim. Put it in!". "Dragon's dogma lets you attack bodyparts. Lets have that!". "The exremely limited combat abilities from Diablo 3 makes it easy to use a controller! Our partners at Microsoft will love that!".

 

The game doesn't feel like Dragon Age at all. Just a mix of parts from other games, really.

 

They must love "Bioware" truly, considering how folks actually bought controllers to play this game, many Xbox controllers. With that in mind sometimes I wonder about the off chance that the console port for DAI was even deliberate. But who knows? I sure don't.

 

That and having already partnered with MS to make DAI DLCs Xbox exclusives. MS has been seriously throwing money around in their console war with Sony after PS4s were outselling Xbox1s for a time.