812 réponses à ce sujet

[Revan Reborn]

I haven't replayed TW2 since replaying a bunch of times at release, and I know there was DLC on this point, but the original version of it had a forced cannon regarding a lot of what happened in TW1 (esp. with Triss). TW1 content only featured in brief cameos or dialogue allusions, if it even went that far. It's not unreasonable to think that TW3 would follow TW2 in that regard. There was a great deal of reactive content in TW2, but if TW3 adopts the same design then that content would have little impact at the start of the game (and even throughout it). 

 

All of this is to say that it's perfectly reasonable to expect little variety based on past choices. 

Except, again, you are entirely wrong and don't know the history. The reason much of the save import for TW2 was "immaterial" is because it was never originally planned. It came late in development and CDPR threw it in there as fan service to those who played TW1. TW3, on the other hand, will be entirely different. The choices in TW2 matter a lot (you would know this and not make a ridiculous argument if you actually played the game). I don't even understand why someone who doesn't even know that much about The Witcher is trying to "educate" others about how TW3 will function. Very strange.

[katerinafm]

It's a meaning without having any real meaning to it though, semantics being used to make something look better, or to sell something.

 

I think it again comes down to a strange attachment to a word and it's supposed meaning as designed by the community, but as I said before, the community is not always right about such things. 

 

Yep, pretty much.

[Heimdall]

Look. Interpret it how you'd like. I'm assuming you haven't played The Witcher 2, as it should be rather obvious how the choices in the game would impact The Witcher 3. If I remember correctly, The Witcher 2 had 16 different endings and various major plot points throughout the game that could change the experience based on who you sided with and who you killed. If you want to believe the choices made at the beginning of TW3 will have little impact, that's your own prerogative.

 Are you kidding me?
 
Choices being present in one game do not translate to them mattering ****-all in the next game.  Haven't you learned anything from following ME and DA?  Boy are you setting yourself up for disappointment... For the record, TW2 was the first of the games I finished (First time I tried the original, I got bored out of my skull halfway through the second chapter. I found out that it picks up later, but those first two chapters are far too slow a burn)

How about looking at how EA has treated its previous games, such as DAO? There's a game without MP that received an expansion as well as a wealth of DLC. DAII would have received more DLC, and a major chunk of DAI was actually from DLC that never came to fruition. It could have even became an expansion. Who knows? Ever since Mass Effect, EA has figured out more ways of monetizing that budget they give to BioWare. Thus, features like MP replace features such as expansions. Again, going back to the list of priorities. This is how game development works. EA wanted to figure out a way to increase longevity of Mass Effect without having to do an expansion. A MP cash shop was the solution.

You think that MP is to blame for the lack of your beloved expansions?  Where's the evidence?  Or the slightest indication that the two are related?
 
Oh, and we know that aspects of the canceled Exalted March content (Which was canceled because DA2 wasn't well received by critics or the fans, not because EA hates expansions) made their way into DAI, we don't know that it was a "significant chunk" of DAI.
 
EDIT: OR DA2's Exalted March was canceled do to the desire to make DAI a launch title, either way, it doesn't fit into your narrative of MP and expansions.
 

Except, again, you are entirely wrong and don't know the history. The reason much of the save import for TW2 was "immaterial" is because it was never originally planned. It came late in development and CDPR threw it in there as fan service to those who played TW1. TW3, on the other hand, will be entirely different. The choices in TW2 matter a lot (you would know this and not make a ridiculous argument if you actually played the game). I don't even understand why someone who doesn't even know that much about The Witcher is trying to "educate" others about how TW3 will function. Very strange.

And I don't understand how you can still be so blindly optimistic about choices mattering in sequels.

[Hiemoth]

 

Oh, and we know that aspects of the canceled Exalted March content (Which was canceled because DA2 wasn't well received by critics or the fans, not because EA hates expansions) made their way into DAI, we don't know that it was a "significant chunk" of DAI.

 

I don't know if the claim about the Exalted March is completely true. If I recall correctly, Gaider explained that Exalted March was pretty far in to development and had gained momentum from the really good sales of both DA2 DLCs at a time when the first response to DA2 was already known. Their decision to move to DAI was apparently a difficult decision that was not just simple sales or people hating DA2, as those DLC sales were seen as evidence of a buying market. Which, now having written that, is pretty amazing considering the OPs claims.

 

It would have been awesome to see the Exalted March, though, especially if it would have been as tragic as Gaider indicated.

[In Exile]

While not in anyway defending some of Bioware's shady marketing, which at times was a bit odd, even all of those were ultimately about thier own games and wasn't trying to attract attention by saying that they were something morally better than the other companies while constantly feeding the image that people were being screwed over by the other companies at a time when the attacks on it were at their worst. I always just felt their behaviour wasn't just rude, it was unprofessional as hell and actively made things difficult for other companies.

 

So their backtracking with the season pass is for me a lot worse than the claims about ME3 endings, which were really bizarre even if I didn't have as a big of a conceptual problem with the endings. What their doing with the season pass is fiscally sensible, but after making difficult for everyone for actually asking money for their work, for them to now do it is one of the most blatant acts of hypocricy I've seen in a while.

 

I agree with you that CDPR has been quite unprofessional by our standards in their marketing. But I wouldn't say that makes their backtracking worse. At the end of the day, while they were asses about it generally they did do a lot of consumer friendly stuff. I'm not exactly saying it balances the ledger, but I don't think these comparisons between companies are really useful. 

 

CDPR was rude about their consumer friendly approach and used over the top rhetoric. They've backtracked from it now and we're seeing some fallout. 

[Wulfram]

(I think they dropped Exalted March because they wanted DA:I to be a launch title for the new consoles. But I have no evidence, except that this more or less fits DA:I's release schedule. And I read something where one of the doctors talked about how they'd always wanted to release a launch title)

[Phoe77]

I gave you multiple sources with videos and quotes from the developers explaining just that. If you would actually take the opportunity to read instead of trying to refute every post I make, you might actually learn something.

 

I imagine they're all just lying to make their game look good.  

 

I don't want to start speaking for anyone else here, but it seems like most of the people who continue to respond here are doing so because they disagree with your reasoning rather than because they're trying to say that Bioware can do no wrong.  As a matter of fact, it's beginning to look more and more like you're trying to obfuscate the shortcomings of your argument by playing the fanboy card.  

[AtreiyaN7]

To be fair, I liked the FO3 DLC and do remember it. I liked Broken Steel - mainly for Liberty Prime. The least interesting DLC was The Pitt, but the others were enjoyable enough. I'd prefer large expansions like the olden days, but I don't really expect that for that most part anymore.

[In Exile]

Except, again, you are entirely wrong and don't know the history. The reason much of the save import for TW2 was "immaterial" is because it was never originally planned. It came late in development and CDPR threw it in there as fan service to those who played TW1. TW3, on the other hand, will be entirely different. The choices in TW2 matter a lot (you would know this and not make a ridiculous argument if you actually played the game). I don't even understand why someone who doesn't even know that much about The Witcher is trying to "educate" others about how TW3 will function. Very strange.

 

Aside from your chest-thumping rudeness, what is the point that you're trying to make here? The topic of conversation here is whether or not it's unreasonable to believe TW3 will not spend a great deal of time crafting reactive content to choices in past games. So far, the only entry in the series with the opportunity to do so hasn't done it at all. Your last post was about TW2's reactivity, but none of that tied in with reactivity to past choices. I'll quote what you just said: 

 

I'm assuming you haven't played The Witcher 2, as it should be rather obvious how the choices in the game would impact The Witcher 3. If I remember correctly, The Witcher 2 had 16 different endings and various major plot points throughout the game that could change the experience based on who you sided with and who you killed. If you want to believe the choices made at the beginning of TW3 will have little impact, that's your own prerogative.

 

Playing TW2 does not make it obvious at all that any choices from it will have an impact on TW3, since TW2 specifically does not give a great deal of focus or support to TW1 choices. Now, if you want to point to some independent marketing from CDPR where they say that unlike TW2 they'll focus on reactive import content, sure, that's proof for what you're claiming about TW3.

 

But to say that TW2 - a game that gives no weight to past game choices - is somehow obvious proof that TW3 will give substantially weight to TW2s choice is nonsensical. 

[wolfhowwl]

 

You do not undestand how game development works. Studios plot out a roadmap. They have a list of priorities they want to see get into the game. Depending on time and what they are able to do, this list of priorities will fluctuate and things will either make it in or be cut for something else. MP was a high enough priority that part of ME3's funds were dedicated to the feature and another BioWare studio was tasked with getting it done. It may not have impacted the overall writing directly, but it definitely impacted the development of the game as a whole.

 

If you believe the writing in all three ME games are terrible, why are you even here? True reactivity and choice is virtually impossible. To account for every action and variable leads to an over-burdensome and unruly development design. BioWare creates reactivity and choice where it can as well as using illusion. It's not perfect by any means, but at least they try unlike most AAA developers. Again, every aspect of development affects the game, including post-release content such as DLC or expansions.

 

I didn't mean that all the writing was terrible. BioWare's games have some good, a lot of mediocre, and some bad. ME2 swings from good stuff like Mordin and Legion's content to absolute garbage like the human reaper. John Dombrow's work in ME3 was solid, among the best in the series, other parts of the game not so much. This studio just hasn't been able to get their writing up to a consistent level across a game. ME3 isn't any different, they just ended up with some very important things probably in the hands of the people responsible for the bad.

 

You've posted some vague stuff about how a feature you hate had a negative effect on the game. Since we're dealing in nebulous supposition here who is to say that the inclusion of multiplayer didn't bring in more resources that enabled combat to be improved since the MP and SP share gameplay? 

 

ME3 did have the best gameplay of the series. Thanks BW Montreal!

[AlanC9]

There is nothing arbitrary about any of this. BioWare does not do expansions anymore. They only create DLC, anywhere from a skin pack to as large as the Citadel, of which most, if not all of it, requires money. If you have forgotten the call of the thread, I suggest you read the OP again. This is a chance for BioWare to closely watch competitors who make similar games and have a different DLC policy. 16 free DLC updates with two expansions, of which will last 30 hours, for the price of $24.99 is starkly different from "free" MP updates, which actually aren't free as they fuel the cash shop, and one DLC, which may last 10 hours, that is priced at $14.99

What I've never understood about this argument is what expansions have to do with anything. If CDPR was going to do six ten-hour DLCs instead of two 30-hour expansions, wouldn't it be the same?

[Heimdall]

I don't know if the claim about the Exalted March is completely true. If I recall correctly, Gaider explained that Exalted March was pretty far in to development and had gained momentum from the really good sales of both DA2 DLCs at a time when the first response to DA2 was already known. Their decision to move to DAI was apparently a difficult decision that was not just simple sales or people hating DA2, as those DLC sales were seen as evidence of a buying market. Which, now having written that, is pretty amazing considering the OPs claims.
 
It would have been awesome to see the Exalted March, though, especially if it would have been as tragic as Gaider indicated.

Fair enough.

[Gileadan]

(I think they dropped Exalted March because they wanted DA:I to be a launch title for the new consoles. But I have no evidence, except that this more or less fits DA:I's release schedule. And I read something where one of the doctors talked about how they'd always wanted to release a launch title)

I vaguely remember a tweet saying that Exalted March was dropped because retail had no interest in stocking a DA2 expansion.

[Revan Reborn]

I imagine they're all just lying to make their game look good.  

 

I don't want to start speaking for anyone else here, but it seems like most of the people who continue to respond here are doing so because they disagree with your reasoning rather than because they're trying to say that Bioware can do no wrong.  As a matter of fact, it's beginning to look more and more like you're trying to obfuscate the shortcomings of your argument by playing the fanboy card.  

Your point doesn't even make the least bit of sense. My stance has been the same the entire time. If you fail to see it, you should either go back to the first page or you may suffer from the very "fanboy card" you are claiming I am pulling.

 

Aside from your chest-thumping rudeness, what is the point that you're trying to make here? The topic of conversation here is whether or not it's unreasonable to believe TW3 will not spend a great deal of time crafting reactive content to choices in past games. So far, the only entry in the series with the opportunity to do so hasn't done it at all. Your last post was about TW2's reactivity, but none of that tied in with reactivity to past choices. I'll quote what you just said: 

 

I'm assuming you haven't played The Witcher 2, as it should be rather obvious how the choices in the game would impact The Witcher 3. If I remember correctly, The Witcher 2 had 16 different endings and various major plot points throughout the game that could change the experience based on who you sided with and who you killed. If you want to believe the choices made at the beginning of TW3 will have little impact, that's your own prerogative.

 

Playing TW2 does not make it obvious at all that any choices from it will have an impact on TW3, since TW2 specifically does not give a great deal of focus or support to TW1 choices. Now, if you want to point to some independent marketing from CDPR where they say that unlike TW2 they'll focus on reactive import content, sure, that's proof for what you're claiming about TW3.

 

But to say that TW2 - a game that gives no weight to past game choices - is somehow obvious proof that TW3 will give substantially weight to TW2s choice is nonsensical. 

The point that I am trying to make is that you are dead wrong and you should not speak on things you have no knowledge of. It makes you look silly and overshadows those who actually speak from a place of knowledge. Again, I already explained you the history of the save import from TW1 to TW2. If you had actually completed TW2 and followed TW3's development, you would know the choices will significantly shape TW3. I won't speak on this further unless you educate yourself.

 

I didn't mean that all the writing was terrible. BioWare's games have some good, a lot of mediocre, and some bad. ME2 swings from good stuff like Mordin and Legion's content to absolute garbage like the human reaper. John Dombrow's work in ME3 was solid, among the best in the series, other parts of the game not so much. This studio just hasn't been able to get their writing up to a consistent level across a game. ME3 isn't any different, they just ended up with some very important things probably in the hands of the people responsible for the bad.

 

You've posted some vague stuff about how a feature you hate had a negative effect on the game. Since we're dealing in nebulous supposition here who is to say that the inclusion of multiplayer didn't bring in more resources that enabled combat to be improved since the MP and SP share gameplay? 

 

ME3 did have the best gameplay of the series. Thanks BW Montreal!

You shouldn't be thanking BW Montreal. You should give your thanks to the lead gameplay designer of ME1, ME2, and early on in ME3. I forgot her name, but she did a prezi about the evolution of the shooter gameplay in Mass Effect. If not for her efforts to make it more appealing and accessible, largely removing much of the RPG elements, ME gameplay wouldn't be what it is today. BW Montreal played a minor role in the greater scheme of things.

[Hiemoth]

(I think they dropped Exalted March because they wanted DA:I to be a launch title for the new consoles. But I have no evidence, except that this more or less fits DA:I's release schedule. And I read something where one of the doctors talked about how they'd always wanted to release a launch title)

 

I can see this being true, but without evidence or official statements we will never know for certain.

 

I agree with you that CDPR has been quite unprofessional by our standards in their marketing. But I wouldn't say that makes their backtracking worse. At the end of the day, while they were asses about it generally they did do a lot of consumer friendly stuff. I'm not exactly saying it balances the ledger, but I don't think these comparisons between companies are really useful. 

 

CDPR was rude about their consumer friendly approach and used over the top rhetoric. They've backtracked from it now and we're seeing some fallout. 

 

The reason I compare CDPR is because they insisted on the comparison before their latest decision. And while they did release free DLC as a consumer friendly action, those DLCs were ridiculously minor, yet they encouraged comparing it to larger content DLCs other companies were releasing and requesting payment for.

 

I must agree that the backtracking isn't necessarily worse, but for me personally the initial action being backtracked from was. To me CDPR actively fed the hostility towards other companies in order to make themselves look better, especially at a time when Bioware, for example, was experiencing insane online backlash that was not completely justified. If they had just made claims about their own game, then to me there would be no comparison or need for it.

 

By the way, I also kind of love how CDPR insisted on being DRM free and blasting other companies for it, while at the same time using ISP tracking as a basis of sending legal threat letters.

[Revan Reborn]

What I've never understood about this argument is what expansions have to do with anything. If CDPR was going to do six ten-hour DLCs instead of two 30-hour expansions, wouldn't it be the same?

Not at all. Six ten-hour DLCs could be compared to Spartan OPs, which was an episodic experience where you had short burts of story and gameplay. Whereas Two expansions with over 30 hours of content is more akin of Bloodmoon, Tribunal, Shivering Isles, or Awakening where you are receiving a brand new game separate of the base one. There is a totally different bar with respect to both approaches.

[wolfhowwl]

You shouldn't be thanking BW Montreal. You should give your thanks to the lead gameplay designer of ME1, ME2, and early on in ME3. I forgot her name, but she did a prezi about the evolution of the shooter gameplay in Mass Effect. If not for her efforts to make it more appealing and accessible, largely removing much of the RPG elements, ME gameplay wouldn't be what it is today. BW Montreal played a minor role in the greater scheme of things.

 

My bad. Thank you Christina Norman.

 

She did good work although she was only the Lead Gameplay Designer on 2 and 3 by the way.

[Phoe77]

Your point doesn't even make the least bit of sense. My stance has been the same the entire time. If you fail to see it, you should either go back to the first page or you may suffer from the very "fanboy card" you are claiming I am pulling.

 

I'm not interested in your stance.  I don't even disagree that companies learning from the strengths of other companies is a good thing.  I find fault with the fact that every point that you've raised throughout this topic has suffered from relying on supposition and the dismissal of anything that goes against your own interpretation.  People continue to call you out on it and then you try to play the victim by insinuating that people are only opposing you because they're diehard Bioware fanboys.  At least it's a wonderful way to avoid recognizing the shortcomings of your arguments. 

[Revan Reborn]

I'm not interested in your stance.  I don't even disagree that companies learning from the strengths of other companies is a good thing.  I find fault with the fact that every point that you've raised throughout this topic has suffered from relying on supposition and the dismissal of anything that goes against your own interpretation.  People continue to call you out on it and then you try to play the victim by insinuating that people are only opposing you because they're diehard Bioware fanboys.  At least it's a wonderful way to avoid recognizing the shortcomings of your arguments. 

Wonderful. Please stop posting then. The purpose of this thread is provide constructive criticism and awareness to BioWare. If you aren't even interested in the stance and purpose of the thread, your feedback is immaterial and unwarranted.

[Morroian]

The reason I compare CDPR is because they insisted on the comparison before their latest decision. And while they did release free DLC as a consumer friendly action, those DLCs were ridiculously minor, yet they encouraged comparing it to larger content DLCs other companies were releasing and requesting payment for.

 

I must agree that the backtracking isn't necessarily worse, but for me personally the initial action being backtracked from was. To me CDPR actively fed the hostility towards other companies in order to make themselves look better, especially at a time when Bioware, for example, was experiencing insane online backlash that was not completely justified. If they had just made claims about their own game, then to me there would be no comparison or need for it.

 

Yep, this is the major reason why I refused  to buy TW2. I might buy 3 but I dislike Geralt (I did start TW1) so thats a bit of a stumbling block.

[Heimdall]

Wonderful. Please stop posting then. The purpose of this thread is provide constructive criticism and awareness to BioWare. If you aren't even interested in the stance and purpose of the thread, your feedback is immaterial and unwarranted.

Providing criticism of your supposed constructive criticism is on topic, actually.

[o Ventus]

Except, again, you are entirely wrong and don't know the history. The reason much of the save import for TW2 was "immaterial" is because it was never originally planned. It came late in development and CDPR threw it in there as fan service to those who played TW1. TW3, on the other hand, will be entirely different. The choices in TW2 matter a lot (you would know this and not make a ridiculous argument if you actually played the game). I don't even understand why someone who doesn't even know that much about The Witcher is trying to "educate" others about how TW3 will function. Very strange.

 

Have you actually played TW3, then? Because you're making a lot of big assumptions. The bolded part is so mind-bogglingly stupid, it makes me wonder how you managed to type the words out without getting a spontaneous nosebleed.

[AlanC9]

Not at all. Six ten-hour DLCs could be compared to Spartan OPs, which was an episodic experience where you had short burts of story and gameplay. Whereas Two expansions with over 30 hours of content is more akin of Bloodmoon, Tribunal, Shivering Isles, or Awakening where you are receiving a brand new game separate of the base one. There is a totally different bar with respect to both approaches.

I don't see the difference. I don't know anything about Spartan OPs, but if I substitute ME and DA examples instead, I don't have a real preference for longer over shorter.

Obviously you have different tastes, but this is a completely different argument from the price/performance argument. Wobbling between the two topics isn't a sensible way to make your case. Or rather, cases.

[Revan Reborn]

My bad. Thank you Christina Norman.

 

She did good work although she was only the Lead Gameplay Designer on 2 and 3 by the way.

Are you certain about that? She definitely did work on ME1. I don't recall whether if she was the lead gameplay designer or not. However, she has been at the center of the Mass Effect gameplay since the beginning.

 

Yep, this is the major reason why I refused  to buy TW2. I might buy 3 but I dislike Geralt (I did start TW1) so thats a bit of a stumbling block.

Geralt isn't the only character you play as in TW3. He certainly is still the main protagonist, however.

 

Providing criticism of your supposed constructive criticism is on topic, actually.

He is not providing criticism. He is merely making off-topic remarks that are derailing the thread as he clearly has no interest in actually discussing the substantive material. If you read his post, he even admitted he could care less about the thread. He can move elsewhere for that.

[o Ventus]

Why don't you ask BioWare yourself since you seem to lack the most basic understanding of simple concepts? They have made a clear distinction between expansions and DLC, and even stated DAI would not have an expansion. Since you won't believe anything I say, due to my "fanboy logic," it clearly doesn't matter what I say. You are nothing more than a troll at this point with no purpose other than to defend BioWare to the death I suppose. Who's actually the fanboy here?

 

I'm not asking Bioware, I'm asking you. Surely you should know, since you can so casually make the distinction. So how about instead of insulting me, you give me a clear answer?