142 réponses à ce sujet

[Vanth]

You've missed the point Gothfather was trying to make. 

 

You might think that DA:I was terrible & BioWare is done for, but all the evidence of how the game actually performed is to the contrary of that. 

 

DA:I made a lot of money and got a lot of awards. It is unlikely EA will look a DA:I and say to themselves 'let's kill the studio that made this game, that made us lots of money and won a tons of awards'

 

You may not like DA:I but it did perform well.

 

For me, this is the saddest part of DA:I. It did well. That means Bioware will no doubt take the same approach for ME4 and the next DA game. not only that, other devs will look at DA:I's success and try and emulate it, leading to more of this type of RPG-lite. 

 

Maybe I just need to face facts and realise that what I want from a game differs so much from the mainstream that no future mainstream RPGs will satisfy me. Maybe I should stop playing games altogether.

[Mirrman70]

For me, this is the saddest part of DA:I. It did well. That means Bioware will no doubt take the same approach for ME4 and the next DA game. not only that, other devs will look at DA:I's success and try and emulate it, leading to more of this type of RPG-lite. 

 

Maybe I just need to face facts and realise that what I want from a game differs so much from the mainstream that no future mainstream RPGs will satisfy me. Maybe I should stop playing games altogether.

 

or you could just settle for non AAA RPGs. like the ones on Steam. its not like old school RPGs are dying out, they're just no longer viable in the "mainstream" market. they are still being made though.

[uzivatel]

How does it compare to Skyrim?

[Sartoz]

I can see where you're coming from OP, but I think this post would have a lot more weight if you'd waited to post it after the Witcher 3 was actually released (or better yet, after you'd finished playing it).

 

Even with details released beforehand, this isn't really a fair comparison. 

What aspects/facts is not a fair comparison?

[Sartoz]

For me, this is the saddest part of DA:I. It did well. That means Bioware will no doubt take the same approach for ME4 and the next DA game. not only that, other devs will look at DA:I's success and try and emulate it, leading to more of this type of RPG-lite. 

 

Maybe I just need to face facts and realise that what I want from a game differs so much from the mainstream that no future mainstream RPGs will satisfy me. Maybe I should stop playing games altogether.

ME4 may very well turn out to be quite different.

 

source: http://n4g.com/channel/mass-effect-4

 

Recent news about a leaked survey, 100s of planets, colonization, reasearch, infrastructure building, an AI Strike Team, a lot of exploration

[Winged Silver]

What aspects/facts is not a fair comparison?

 

My interpretation of this post is that the OP is essentially asserting "TW3 is better than DAI because look how many more settlements it has", based on the initial topic (which lists the settlements) and on the post they make directly following it.

 

Based on this, I think it's unfair to compare a game that's not yet released, with one that is. The OP seems to be basing their perception of TW3's settlements on a forum posting/map, rather than in game experience. There may also be a trailer involved (though it's not mentioned in the initial post), but even so, a trailer is meant to highlight the best aspects of a game, not necessary provide a holistic representation of what the game actually will have.

 

Based on this, I feel that the OP's post would have been better formed had the OP chosen to wait until TW3 was actually out, and perhaps show some examples of what they mean. Something like:

 

"Here are screenshots of some of the settlements in TW3, and I can do x, y, and z. Here are some screenshots of settlements in DAI for comparison. I can do x, but not y or z" (or what have you. I couldn't say how it would break down)

 

This might then provide anyone perusing the forums an idea of what worked and what didn't. As it is now, all the OP seems to be saying is "There weren't enough settlements" which, while a valid criticism, doesn't address many details about what makes a settlement work in game.

 

Since we don't yet have grounded experience with how the settlements in TW3 will be, I can't help but feel that the OP is allowing themselves to compare DAI to their idealized perception of TW3, rather than what the reality may actually be. There's nothing wrong with hoping for a game to perfect, but I don't think it makes for a fair comparison. 

[Megakoresh]

How is it that a smaller team with a smaller budget can do much more than Bioware? I think bioware is done for, sorry but DAI was a disappointment to any practical and objective person. Witcher 3 besides having more settlements will have a larger map and a world that isnt static.

You are not supposed to judge a game before release, no matter how good it seems and how good it's dev's reputation is.

 

When it comes out, if it's not same as DAI (i.e. not filled with trash filler grindy fetch quests), you can rightfully shame DAI as much as you please. A month before Witcher 3 release it just seems like another rant only with less objectivity.

 

No I don't enjoy 90% of Inquisitions content as don't pretty much a vast majority of players. Yes it's trash. It's filler. It's not what Dragon Age is supposed to be about. But the rest 10% are good. Those 10% are about 20-30 hours of this absolutely massive "Single player MMO", so together with BioWare's surprisingly good post-launch support, it's worth it in my opinion.

 

Don't equate yourself to "any practical and objective person". No matter the legitimacy of your criticisms, this makes you look like an angry teenager. These kind of threads don't help developers improve. Unless BioWare is completely daft, or completely under EA's heel (same thing really), they already are well-aware of how pissed off people are with the quality of the game's content. Comparisons with games that aren't out will do absolutely nothing to help them understand what to fix better. It might though, make them more inclined to copy Witcher 3 and it's marketing strategy. They already did so by trying to copy Skyrim into DAI. Look how that turned out. Is that what you want?

[C0uncil0rTev0s]

You are not supposed to judge a game before release, no matter how good it seems and how good it's dev's reputation is.

 

When it comes out, if it's not same as DAI (i.e. not filled with trash filler grindy fetch quests), you can rightfully shame DAI as much as you please. A month before Witcher 3 release it just seems like another rant only with less objectivity.

 

No I don't enjoy 90% of Inquisitions content as don't pretty much a vast majority of players. Yes it's trash. It's filler. It's not what Dragon Age is supposed to be about. But the rest 10% are good. Those 10% are about 20-30 hours of this absolutely massive "Single player MMO", so together with BioWare's surprisingly good post-launch support, it's worth it in my opinion.

 

Don't equate yourself to "any practical and objective person". No matter the legitimacy of your criticisms, this makes you look like an angry teenager. These kind of threads don't help developers improve. Unless BioWare is completely daft, or completely under EA's heel (same thing really), they already are well-aware of how pissed off people are with the quality of the game's content. Comparisons with games that aren't out will do absolutely nothing to help them understand what to fix better. It might though, make them more inclined to copy Witcher 3 and it's marketing strategy. They already did so by trying to copy Skyrim into DAI. Look how that turned out. Is that what you want?

*couph*

Care to explain?

[phantomrachie]

You, people like you and OP are the exact reason I've stopped most of my activities here. What's the point in writing when only a few people can read it?

You fail to read a single sentence where I state that there are objective HOLES in the game. I've never said that the review about them is any objective.

 

Actually, it's subjective as hell and exaggerating here and there in sakes of the storytelling - but the main problem (secondary content and lazy writing) - is still there.

 

And it doesn't matter if you agree with it or not. 

Something what was copy-pasted from other source without any significant change is lazy writing. Gaider level.

 

I read your full post. Please don't assume I didn't because you don't like what I had to say. You linked your post as proof of your objective holes.

 

At least that is how you constructed your sentence.

 

And I find it highly amusing that you ignore existing technical and content problems of the DA:I. Ignoring the flaws - obvious, objective, glaring holes - while pointing out the accolades... I'm going to redirect you here.

 

 

If that is not what you meant, then fine, but that is how I read your sentence.

 

As for your copy and paste statement; 

 

The story of DA:I was not copy & pasted from their other games, it bares similarities yes, but it was not copy & pasted. 

 

BioWare has a certain story telling style and most of their games play out in a similar way.

 

• You're special
• Something tragic happens to you to propel you into a situation where you must save the world/universe. 
• You gather allies
• Big Bad introduced
• Gather more allies
• Complete missions to find out more about Big Bad
• Fight Big Bad

Basically the Hero's Journey.

 

Copying & pasting and have similarities are not the same thing.

 

Otherwise DA:O is just Lord of the Rings and Lord of the Rings is just the Norse Eddas.

 

It is possible to create a list, just like yours that would highlight all the parts of DA games that could be considered to be lifted from Lord of Rings or with Lord of the Rings & the Norse Eddas.

 

Personally, never during my plan through of DA:I did I say 'oh this is exactly the same as x in another BioWare game' because there were a enough differences in their storytelling of DA:I to make it different for me.

 

Now I actually preferred how DA2 was constructed story wise because it was quite different from the normal way BioWare tell a story, but that is just me.

 

This is what I mean when I say you are calling your own opinion or analysis objective when it's not really. You feel that DA:I was copy & pasted and 'is not the BioWare you used to know' but there are fans/people who don't agree.

 

Do BioWare use familiar tropes to tell their story? Yes, but that is not news, they've been doing that since they created their first game.

[C0uncil0rTev0s]

Bla-bla-bla

Thanks for the best post example I could've hoped for. You can't read. I mean you do see those funny letters, but you don't understand the words those sum into. And you skip some. Actually, you do skip a lot of those funny letters - ones that have certain weight.

 

"Something what was copy-pasted from other source without any significant change is lazy writing. Gaider level." - original quote.

 

Hope you google words 'significant' and 'change' before replying. Thanks in advance.

[Megakoresh]

*couph*

Care to explain?

Explain? *cough*

Have you been living under a rock or something?

[phantomrachie]

Thanks for the best post example I could've hoped for. You can't read. I mean you do see those funny letters, but you don't understand the words those sum into. And you skip some. Actually, you do skip a lot of those funny letters - ones that have certain weight.

 

"Something what was copy-pasted from other source without any significant change is lazy writing. Gaider level." - original quote.

 

Hope you google words 'significant' and 'change' before replying. Thanks in advance.

 

And if you'd read my post you would've seen

 

 

 Personally, never during my plan through of DA:I did I say 'oh this is exactly the same as x in another BioWare game' because there were a enough differences in their storytelling of DA:I to make it different for me.

 

Which would indicate that in my opinion there were significant changes . 

 

You can claim there weren't of course but we'll just go back and forth on that. 

 

In literature and storytelling in general there can be quite a bit of debate on what counts as significant changes.

 

Is 'Clueless' significantly different to 'Emma', the book it is based on or is it a modern day retelling of the same story? Is 'Bridget Jones Diary' significantly different to 'Pride & Prejudice'? (I've been re-reading Jane Austen recently, which is why these are my two examples, there are many others.)  

 

There is a lot of fun to be had debating these and similar topics.

 

Now rather than continue to derail the thread, I suggest you PM me any more critiques  of my ability to read. 

[Elfyoth]

You forgot the Corssroads, and Redcliffe Farms, and Redcliffe. 

[RINNZ]

5 total settlements with static characters compared to 19 settlements in witcher 3 with npcs that actually move around. Mass Effect 4 will be the exact same piece of trash as this game. Just you wait.

Now hold on there, buddy. I do agree that DA:I could've used more work, and that Witcher 3 will, IMHO, trash the **** outta this game, but you can't just come in here and diss ME4.

Also Witcher 3 and DA:I are two different games that are in no way related to each other so let's not do this.

[DarkKnightHolmes]

If Witcher 3 sells extremely well, will Bioware say DA4 is influenced by The Witcher?

[Vanth]

ME4 may very well turn out to be quite different.

 

source: http://n4g.com/channel/mass-effect-4

 

Recent news about a leaked survey, 100s of planets, colonization, reasearch, infrastructure building, an AI Strike Team, a lot of exploration

 

Actually that sounds a lot like DA:I. Lots and lots of empty boring planets with filler and fetch quests.
 

[SofaJockey]

Actually that sounds a lot like DA:I. Lots and lots of empty boring planets with filler and fetch quests.
 

 

Maybe there will be shifty Ram-like animals... 

 

[Gothfather]

First of all, you wouldn't pass a scientific logics exam if I was the examinator. No chances at all. Speaking plainly:

1. Subjective involves personal view/tastes on something, your social, political, sexual etc. preferences attached.

2. Objective does not involve personal view/tastes on something, and should be judged from a standalone perspective.

 

Everything you've noted there, including accolades, is only subjective (aside from sells, which is contradictory. Call of Duty sells, too - but it's obviously a bullshit). 

 

And I find it highly amusing that you ignore existing technical and content problems of the DA:I. Ignoring the flaws - obvious, objective, glaring holes - while pointing out the accolades... I'm going to redirect you here.

"But, but!... It won GOTY!.."

Who is ignoring flaws?

 

I was speaking to a direct quote a poster made...

 

How is it that a smaller team with a smaller budget can do much more than Bioware? I think bioware is done for, sorry but DAI was a disappointment to any practical and objective person. Witcher 3 besides having more settlements will have a larger map and a world that isnt static.

 

This poster claimed that Bioware is done for and DA:I was a disappointment objectively. Yet you can't speak to something being a disappointment to you objectively because disappointment is an emotion ones feels where our subjective desires are unmet.

 

I then pointed out that if you actually objectively measure DA:I and bioware one has to come to the conclusion that the games was successful and that Bioware is not indeed done for. Do you notice that I made no claim that the game is flawless? I make no claim that because the game was an objective success that you can't subjectively dislike it. Objective success is INDEPENDENT of subjective like. That fact you can't divoice the two shows yet again that far too many gamers don't understand what objective or subjective mean.

 

You claim I am not objective by citing call of duty showing how it has sales but it is bullshit. yet calling call of duty bullshit is a subjective opinion on the game. And no subjective opinion proves something isn't objective. only objective facts can disprove or illuminate that something isn't objective. My subjective assertion that George Lucas is a three eyed alien from Bloobarp, doesn't prove the objective fact that he is from earth as false nor does that the fact he is from earth become  subjective opinion because of my subjective assertions. Subjective opinion can't disprove an objective fact.

 

And while I pointed out that no subjective opinion can trump an objective fact, it is important to point out that an objective fact does not actually negate a subjective opinion of media, in so far as said opinion is relevant to the person who holds it. I can objectively show that DA:I was a success by an objective yard stick but that doesn't magically make people who subjectively dislike the game like it or somehow invalid their opinion. yet i had no issue with Dutch's subjective opinion I had issue with Dutch claiming his subjective opinion was objective. I made no attempt to counter any of his subjective issues on the thread. only his claim to objectivity in something so clearly subjective.