53 réponses à ce sujet

[Bioware-Critic]

Programming isn't always easy on new engines. Please don't be so rude. They tried first time around and it didn't work. At least it's there now for people who are starting new playthroughs. I'm thankful for them.

 

I get that you want to be reasonable, here, Teddie. But it is a freaking chest, man!

 

Ain't no bloody trick to that when it comes to delivering it ...

 

They had to patch it in ... They chose in the beginning to leave it out for design reasons - just like nearly everything else, I believe, is a deliberate design choice. We had to fight hard for that chest, here on the BSN, man! I do not want to hear from someone like you - who knows this very well - that it ain't so! It did not have anything to do with the engine ... *cringe* ...

 

It is a freaking chest!

[Saphiron123]

Programming isn't always easy on new engines. Please don't be so rude. They tried first time around and it didn't work. At least it's there now for people who are starting new playthroughs. I'm thankful for them.

I understand the new engine argument, i don't understand the new engine argument for stuff they've been able to do for 10 years... i'm sorry, but it's a storage chest. This is not a taxing addition, and if the engine was so trying that a storage chest wasn't possible, there would be no game. They had storage chests 20 years ago in games, it's literally a box that saves what you stick into it.

 

Hell, if it was an engine issue, there wouldn't even be an inventory.

That said, I'm glad they added it and I hope they continue to prove the game... but come on. People use that excuse for everything.

"My character can't walk forward"

"Limitations of the engine dude!"

DAI doesn't run on a commadore 64 computer here, guys.

[Teddie Sage]

I get that you want to be reasonable, here, Teddie. But it is a freaking chest, man!

 

Ain't no bloody trick to that when it comes to delivering it ...

 

They had to patch it in ... They chose in the beginning to leave it out for design reasons - just like nearly everything else, I believe is a deliberate design choice. We had to fight hard foer that chest here on the BSN man! I do not want to hear from someone like you - who knows this very well - that it ain't so! It did not have anything to do with the engine ... *cringe*

 

It is a freaking chest!

Always ready to play devil's advocate. It's their first time dealing with Frostbite. Next time, they'll know the shortcuts to make things faster on a sequel or an expansion, if they decide to use the same engine again, I mean. They could have used the old engines, but I don't think the graphics would look pretty on next gen. Personally, I prefer gameplay, storylines and interesting characters over graphics... however, next-gen screams "decent graphics" these days.

[Bioware-Critic]

I understand the new engine argument, i don't understand the new engine argument for stuff they've been able to do for 10 years... i'm sorry, but it's a storage chest. This is not a taxing addition, and if the engine was so trying that a storage chest wasn't possible, there would be no game. They had storage chests 20 years ago in games, it's literally a box that saves what you stick into it.

 

Hell, if it was an engine issue, there wouldn't even be an inventory.

That said, I'm glad they added it and I hope they continue to prove the game... but come on. People use that excuse for everything.

"My character can't walk forward"

"Limitations of the engine dude!"

DAI doesn't run on a commadore 64 computer here, guys.

 

All they delivered or left out were pretty much design choices!

[Captain Wiseass]

All they delivered or left out were pretty much design choices!

You don't know that for a fact.

[SnakeCode]

That's not how it works. If I were to insult EA over a game made by, say, Criterion, would that really be an insult against Bioware? I would say no, no more than insulting Disney over a Touchstone movie would be an insult against Marvel Comics.

The fact remains though that there are games published by EA that aren't buggy or unfinished. In that case the devs get the credit, but when a game DOES have a tonne of problems EA, and not the devs should get the blame? That doesn't make too much sense.

[Captain Wiseass]

I was only speaking to Scofield's abuse of the reflexive property. I don't really care where the blame lies.

[Teddie Sage]

As a matter of fact, my blood pressure is up to 160 and that might be because I come too much on these boards.

[Poisd2Strike]

BioWare and EA did not "merge" EA bought BioWare, hence Bioware is owned by EA and EA is owns Bioware, it is not like Activision/Blizzard, that's a merger, EA OWNS Bioware, BioWare are the employees of EA, insult EA you insult BioWare  EA, they are the self same thing

 

I corrected it for you.  True, EA owns Bioware and therefore Bioware Employees are (by extension) EA employees.  However, if EA decided to close Bioware and fire everyone, that does not mean that EA would no longer exist.  It only means that Bioware, which is a division of / wholly owned subsidiary of EA, would no longer exist.  In point of reference, see Origin (makers of Ultima games on PC)...

 

 

On Topic, better late than never...

[Mushashi7]

My thoughts on this are that Bioware deliberately delayed the Storage Chest and the Togle Walk button to make us eat all the other changes we don't like.

They release the game and let us reveal all the exploits. Then they close the exploits and release patches with some goodies.

And my suspicion is also that the upcoming DLC will not be playable with previous game versions. They want to force you to collect the damn herbs, metals and cloth forever.

At the same time you will not have access to Dragon Age Keep or Origin if you don't collect their damn herbs, metals and cloth.

[Fade-Touched-in-the-head]

By insulting EA you are insulting BioWare

You have no idea what you're talking about. By your logic, an insult directed squarely at my boss is, by default, an insult to me as well.

[Namea]

I'd be more sympathetic to the devs if they hadn't charged full price for an unfinished product... as a consumer, this kind of excuse doesn't sit well with me.  It didn't work in high school when my homework was late, and it doesn't work in most businesses out in the real world... if a waiter told you, "sorry, we ran out of time while preparing your meal, but here's most of it..." would you, or anyone else, be happy with that?  Video games don't deserve a pass just because they can be patched via the internet... if anything, that just encourages them to put out shoddy products, since so many people seem to be okay with the idea that a patch might eventually solve things.  In many cases patches either don't work, aren't released, or break something that previously worked, but this is still a persistent fact of the gaming industry for some reason...

 

Show me a video game in the internet era that was released complete and I'll show you a unicorn.

There would be no patches if video games were always released perfect. 

 

The game wasn't "Unfinished". The fact is that there are always going to be deadlines and the company had already pushed the game back once. The patches they are still working on are refining what was already a great product upon release. 

[Dinerenblanc]

Everyone should just stop speculating, Most of us didn't even bat an eyelid when there wasn't a tinting station, but now that they've decided to give up some extra content, we're up in arms about it? It's ridiculous. Granted, a storage chest probably should have been there in the beginning, but it being made available just goes to show that the people at Bioware are listening. Adding a storage chest doesn't take months of development, so stop it with the conspiracy theories. 

[Icy Magebane]

Show me a video game in the internet era that was released complete and I'll show you a unicorn.

There would be no patches if video games were always released perfect.

Obviously.  This doesn't mean that video game companies should not strive for excellence like just about everyone else in every other business.  Relying on patches to fix faulty games is a questionable practice for many reasons, most notably the fact that it's done solely at the discretion of the developer.  Assuming the developer in question even bothers to patch their game (not all do for one reason or another), the patches sometimes cause additional problems or don't completely fix the game and bring it up to the "perfect" state that we paid for when we bought it.  There are many examples of this throughout the industry... even after numerous patches, games like Skyrim and Oblivion still aren't "perfect" and suffer from game breaking bugs that it took unpaid modders to fix... and even though somebody out there did their work for them, Bethesda never even bothered to take that work and make it available to those who don't play on PC, so those versions of the game are still broken years later.  In light of situations like this, how can you possibly defend the practice of patching as something we as consumers should both expect and accept?

 

The game wasn't "Unfinished". The fact is that there are always going to be deadlines and the company had already pushed the game back once. The patches they are still working on are refining what was already a great product upon release. 

Please... it's obvious that you enjoy the game, but I think you are letting that interfere with logic.  In one breath you say the game wasn't unfinished, and in the next you draw attention to deadlines and delays... if the game was finished, why mention those?  Perhaps to excuse what you know to be things that were missing from the initial release but don't want to admit?

 

And yeah, it really was a great product... if you don't take into account the game breaking bugs and... let's just say "questionable" design decisions.  But apparently you think that such things are irrelevant since they might be patched at some point... is this a stance you take with regards to all companies, or does it just apply to Bioware?  All industries, or just video games?  If the answer to either of those is the latter choice, then why make exceptions?

[Reverend1313]

 

Everyone should just stop speculating, Most of us didn't even bat an eyelid when there wasn't a tinting station, but now that they've decided to give up some extra content, we're up in arms about it? It's ridiculous. Granted, a storage chest probably should have been there in the beginning, but it being made available just goes to show that the people at Bioware are listening. Adding a storage chest doesn't take months of development, so stop it with the conspiracy theories. 

if they were listening fixing the controls would be a top priority. 

[Patchwork]

Blame EA for rushing them, then. 

 

DAI had plenty of development time, a buggy game that lacks basic functions is all on Bioware.

[Dinerenblanc]

 

 

if they were listening fixing the controls would be a top priority. 

 

I play this game on my PS4, so I find the controls to be fine. I'm sure there are some issues on the PC though, which seems to be a normal case on that platform. I play on the PC as well, but have moved to consoles for certain genres.

[Bioware-Critic]

As a matter of fact, my blood pressure is up to 160 and that might be because I come too much on these boards.

 

>>> BUBBLEBAAATH!!!!

 

But ...

 

Spoiler

... beware of the sharks!

[10K]

Stop giving Bioware a free pass. It's only going to encourage them to continue to release unfinished, shoddy products. The game was pushed back twice, something as simple as a storage chest could have easily been added during that time, and the game was still released as a buggy mess.
 
You can't just lump all of the blame on EA, there are plenty of EA games that aren't half finished and barely playable. It isn't a coincidence though that multiple Bioware titles have been.
 
People need to stop placing Bioware on a pedestal and letting them off the hook when they wouldn't for other devs. Everyone else is judged on the content they actually put out, not what people think they are capable of or the game they tried to make. As long as this remains the case the consumers are going to continue to be taken advntage of in this way.

Yes exactly. BW are as guilty as EA. If this was murder BW would be an accomplice, and be charged with the same crimes as EA.

[Jaron Oberyn]

Blame EA for rushing them, then.

1. Bioware IS EA. Literally a brand like EA Sports, not just some studio.

2. The game was delayed twice, once for a year and again for a month. It has over 4 years of development put into it. That hardly constitutes a rushed game. Like it or not, they can't get every feature in at launch. The game would be in development limbo.

[Courtnehh]

I'd be more sympathetic to the devs if they hadn't charged full price for an unfinished product... as a consumer, this kind of excuse doesn't sit well with me.  It didn't work in high school when my homework was late, and it doesn't work in most businesses out in the real world... if a waiter told you, "sorry, we ran out of time while preparing your meal, but here's most of it..." would you, or anyone else, be happy with that?  Video games don't deserve a pass just because they can be patched via the internet... if anything, that just encourages them to put out shoddy products, since so many people seem to be okay with the idea that a patch might eventually solve things.  In many cases patches either don't work, aren't released, or break something that previously worked, but this is still a persistent fact of the gaming industry for some reason...

Like when BW broke DAMP with the DLC key bug before going away on christmas holidays

[Teddie Sage]

>>> BUBBLEBAAATH!!!!

 

But ...

 

Spoiler

... beware of the sharks!

I'm not really fazed by still pictures, really. 

[DanteYoda]

I blame them Both equally...

[Namea]

Obviously.  This doesn't mean that video game companies should not strive for excellence like just about everyone else in every other business.  Relying on patches to fix faulty games is a questionable practice for many reasons, most notably the fact that it's done solely at the discretion of the developer.  Assuming the developer in question even bothers to patch their game (not all do for one reason or another), the patches sometimes cause additional problems or don't completely fix the game and bring it up to the "perfect" state that we paid for when we bought it.  There are many examples of this throughout the industry... even after numerous patches, games like Skyrim and Oblivion still aren't "perfect" and suffer from game breaking bugs that it took unpaid modders to fix... and even though somebody out there did their work for them, Bethesda never even bothered to take that work and make it available to those who don't play on PC, so those versions of the game are still broken years later.  In light of situations like this, how can you possibly defend the practice of patching as something we as consumers should both expect and accept?

 

Please... it's obvious that you enjoy the game, but I think you are letting that interfere with logic.  In one breath you say the game wasn't unfinished, and in the next you draw attention to deadlines and delays... if the game was finished, why mention those?  Perhaps to excuse what you know to be things that were missing from the initial release but don't want to admit?

 

And yeah, it really was a great product... if you don't take into account the game breaking bugs and... let's just say "questionable" design decisions.  But apparently you think that such things are irrelevant since they might be patched at some point... is this a stance you take with regards to all companies, or does it just apply to Bioware?  All industries, or just video games?  If the answer to either of those is the latter choice, then why make exceptions?

 

Game breaking bugs? Maybe you had those but I didn't and neither did most gamers. Just because there are so many vocal negative Nancys here on the BSN doesn't mean that the majority of players experienced an issue. 

 

I truly did think DA:I was a great product upon release and had they never done anything else with it I would have been satisfied. You might expect the moon from developers but I actually know what some of the work that goes into making a game is and this one is pretty dang awesome. When it comes to bugs they can't anticipate every single issue that will arise with every single system or configuration, it's just not reasonable to expect that from them. The fact is that they released a game that worked on release day and was playable. I had already beaten it by the time the first bugfix patch rolled around and I've already beaten it 3 more times since. Never once have I encountered a game breaking bug. In fact the only noteable bug I did see was the voice-switch bug and that was easily fixed by reloading the save and re-creating the cameo character. 

[Bioware-Critic]

Always ready to play devil's advocate. It's their first time dealing with Frostbite. Next time, they'll know the shortcuts to make things faster on a sequel or an expansion, if they decide to use the same engine again, I mean. They could have used the old engines, but I don't think the graphics would look pretty on next gen. Personally, I prefer gameplay, storylines and interesting characters over graphics... however, next-gen screams "decent graphics" these days.

 

Well, I believe, that it is the beauty of single items and whole environments or graphics in general that takes up the most time when it comes to developing a game. It is not the construction of the ideas behind it or the different concepts of gameplay and so on but mainly the "beauty" and the "good looks" of a video game that take developers the longest time to create it.

Making things look good ... is the "time-thief"!

 

So if you know this as a developer ... you should not make a gargantuan area, after another, after another, after another ... until you have no time left! They are professionals - they know what they do! What they can create in what time is very present on their thinking. And all the things that are missing from the other titles (like tactics and a storage chest and so on) were not the ones which would have taken up too much development time but they just were not high enough on their priority list ... because they wanted to make a very different game!

 

A freaking "singleplayer MMO"!

 

I know you are right when you point out that the game was delayed and talk about the new engine and so on ...

But there has to be a point where we admit, that they went a very different route on purpose.

 

 

I refuse to wear rose colored glasses on this one!

 

 

I like BioWare a lot. But I will not deny reality here ...