141 réponses à ce sujet

[Farangbaa]

To be honest, games now have to be playable by six year olds. Why do little kids play CoD and not Armored Core? Because the former is easy to play while the latter takes time, dedication and trial and error. Games like Destiny were supposed to be massive in scope but again, were made simple so that the younger audiences could play them.

As a 16 year old who'll be 17 in a few months, I've searched back and found what made games great... and was shocked at what I encountered. Games that required a lot of thought to play and skill, such as UT 2004. Then reflecting, games today are being made to be easier to play and so on and so forth. Their quality is simply not as high as it used to be. Remember the days of BRs Halo fans? Map lockdowns? Then in Halo 4 that was removed in favor of a noob friendly environment.

It isn't BioWare being lazy, it's more like they're trimming the fat off. However, at times they cut too far and take the meat off as well. ME3 being a prime example. It's a great game and all and somehow was the only game I've been able to do plus 42 playthroughs and still be able to play today, but you cannot explore planets and you cannot truly upgrade your weapons and stuff like you could in the last two mass effects. It was heavily simplified.

It's also about the cash, since parents will buy their children games and people such as myself can sink in more time than say, an adult. People want games that are easier to play, so that's what the devs are going to work on. It isn't a bad thing, but ultimately it depends on if I want to play the game again or not.

That's just my two cents though.

Are you implying there that exploring planets and upgrading weapons requires 'skill' or somekind of extra thinking?

Cause it's just pressing a button.

[Jehuty]

Are you implying there that exploring planets and upgrading weapons requires 'skill' or somekind of extra thinking?

Cause it's just pressing a button.

Not really. 

[Il Divo]

Are you implying there that exploring planets and upgrading weapons requires 'skill' or somekind of extra thinking?

Cause it's just pressing a button.

 

Sounds about right. Personally, I don't think Mass Effect and good exploration should ever be used together in the same sentence, but that's just my two cents.

 

It didn't help that every single base looked/felt entirely the same and stuck out pretty clearly on the map. It also didn't help that exploration was restricted to Asari writings and Salarian medallions.

[DarkKnightHolmes]

No, they just waste their time making things like war table and open world their priority over good story or side quests. Just like ME3 became more about combat or war assets than actual good missions.

[Dobby]

I busy! I work at a chartered accountancy firm so I can't troll as much anymore

 

Excuses, excuses.

[mybudgee]

I haven't played DA:I yet (no PS4) but I like DA2 more than Origins.

Say what?!!?
0_o

[Cyonan]

To be honest, games now have to be playable by six year olds. Why do little kids play CoD and not Armored Core? Because the former is easy to play while the latter takes time, dedication and trial and error. Games like Destiny were supposed to be massive in scope but again, were made simple so that the younger audiences could play them.

 

As a 16 year old who'll be 17 in a few months, I've searched back and found what made games great... and was shocked at what I encountered. Games that required a lot of thought to play and skill, such as UT 2004. Then reflecting, games today are being made to be easier to play and so on and so forth. Their quality is simply not as high as it used to be. Remember the days of BRs Halo fans? Map lockdowns? Then in Halo 4 that was removed in favor of a noob friendly environment. 

 

It isn't BioWare being lazy, it's more like they're trimming the fat off. However, at times they cut too far and take the meat off as well. ME3 being a prime example. It's a great game and all and somehow was the only game I've been able to do plus 42 playthroughs and still be able to play today, but you cannot explore planets and you cannot truly upgrade your weapons and stuff like you could in the last two mass effects. It was heavily simplified. 

 

It's also about the cash, since parents will buy their children games and people such as myself can sink in more time than say, an adult. People want games that are easier to play, so that's what the devs are going to work on. It isn't a bad thing, but ultimately it depends on if I want to play the game again or not. 

 

That's just my two cents though. 

 

These are claims that keep getting made every generation. Amusingly enough when I was 16 back in 2005 we talked about how games were so much more difficult in the 90s and how games were being made for little kids to be able to play them now.

 

Here we are 10 years later and people are talking about how games used to be so much more difficult in the mid 2000s and are now being made for little kids to play them.

 

The reality being that even in the 90s when I was a little kid I could play games just fine without having any decent level of skill. I remember beating the D&D game Dark Sun without actually knowing what anything did. I literally just hit buttons at random until I figured out this button heals and this button does damage. Anything else got disregarded.

 

Games these days do give you a lot more information in-game, though it's not like 90% of people wouldn't just look it up on the internet if they didn't. Mass Effect 3 didn't give a lot of information and people just got the info from a small group of us on the forums doing the tests ourselves. They also criticized BioWare for the lack of information and numbers in tooltips in the ME3 MP forums.

[Dermain]

To say that BioWare was radically different in their approach to making games and saying laziness is the reason for the decline, is a little lazy intellectually IMO.

 

Exactly, the only game that was radically different from BioWare's usual story formula would be DA2. Unfortunately, it was so poorly received that it's hard to define whether or not the formula used was the root cause. There are people that hated the game because you weren't the super special hero (cough Mary Sue cough) that succeeded at everything, the people that hated the game because of the game play, the people that hated the game because they couldn't fully customize Hawke (including the voice), and so on.

 

It's also unfortunate that it seems that DA2 scared BioWare from really changing their story formula from Mary Sue hero somehow gains a power no one else has, then goes to recruit other Mary Sues in order to stop something bad from happening, the big bad does something bad, Mary Sue player character gets a new reason to stop the Big Bad, Big Bad is defeated, roll credits (Have a really confusing ending so that everyone still complains about for years afterwards). 

 

I never really understood the hatred Jade Empire received from BioWare fans so I can't comment on that. I also don't understand the hatred that some Asian players had towards the game, mostly because I knew a ton of Asians that had absolutely no problem with any of the themes of the game. I can sort of see the complaints with the combat system, and I would hate to hazard guess how Sylvius managed to play the game (if he even did). 

 

BioWare's been making the exact same game for decades now, and it seems people still haven't really realized it. 

 

Say what?!!?
0_o

I'm stealing this from Crusty:

 

[Seboist]

I would say that Bioware's problem isn't laziness, it's lack of ambition and general incompetence with story and game design. Look no further than the Mass Effect trilogy(of semi-reboots), a game series that took three whole titles before they added basic features of the TPS genre that were standard with the original Gears of War back in '06(ex. cover to cover and rolling), "choices" that are as compelling as whether or not you gave Aerith a flower in FF7 in terms of both story/gameplay impact and a inconsistent mess of a story that's beyond embarrassing with Ed Wood level schlock(space terminator, lazarus, ghost child, reaper motivation,etc). Then there's their design philosophy of "remove it, don't improve it", where instead of fixing the issues of ME1 with inventory, exploration,etc, they remove and turn the sequel into being just a sub-par Gears clone, instead of a proper TPS/RPG hybrid with refined mechanics.

 

That said, contrary to the butthurt fanboys whom didn't get their wish of happy ending with space waifu/manfu in a picket fence suburban home(they would've realized choices meant jack if they paid attention back in ME1 and 2), ME3 managed to be a pretty decent game with it's core TPS/spellcasting hybrid mechanic. They still for some bizarre reason haven't added blindfiring however, but I'm confident they'll keep improving with ME4.

 

What Bioware needs to do is just cut the BS of "choices" mattering, the silly importing gimmick, grandiose plots and just focus on creating a modest story and gameplay within their abilities instead of promising things they can't deliver.

[Voxr]

I don't think the devs at BioWare have it in them to offer such degrees of choice. They come off as the type of company that needs to add the biggest amount of uninteresting fluff while doing the least amount of work. I mean, they had sprite models of Jack acting as people in the introduction level of Mass Effect 3. I don't even remember the last time I'd seen such a use for sprites in an action game. Even Gears of War 2 allowed you to shoot actual Locust enemies and there were like hundreds of them running 100 feet below you.

I agree. It seems their mentality is shifting to: Increase the quantity of mediocre content with the hopes of passing as quality over all. Rather than a limited quantity of over all quality content.

 

I.E. DAI Fetch me, catch me, kill me this quests.

[wolfhowwl]

"They should go back to their roots and actually try to make a decent action game"

 

The next Mass Effect will certainly be a TPS with light RPG elements so there you go! They even hired a lead from Gears of War.

[Cainhurst Crow]

I don't think bioware was particularly unlazy, more or less just adamant about the ideas it wanted to put inside its games. Which in the past worked cause a combination of luck and writing talent which also has to do with luck. Most people praise the writing in the mass effect and dragon age origin games but its really in spurts for me. And kotor, despite my best efforts, has just really, really, clunky animations and dialogue that sap any ability for me to say "yeah...this is some quality stuff in 2015...really cutting edge here."

 

I'm just not the type of person who, having never grown up with PC gaming or RPG's, can force myself to have a rose tinted look at what I see as bad game design and writing.

 

That said, I think bioware has gotten less lazy with Dragon Age Inquisition.

 

But until they make another game that meets or exceeds Inquisition, I'm not going to really disagree with anyone saying "biowares lazy". I mean, they keep using the same body model/animations they were using back in origins. Like, come on! You could at least make them do more then move thiers arms occasionally as they stand in place or pace.

[Riven326]

I would say that Bioware's problem isn't laziness, it's lack of ambition and general incompetence with story and game design. Look no further than the Mass Effect trilogy(of semi-reboots), a game series that took three whole titles before they added basic features of the TPS genre that were standard with the original Gears of War back in '06(ex. cover to cover and rolling), "choices" that are as compelling as whether or not you gave Aerith a flower in FF7 in terms of both story/gameplay impact and a inconsistent mess of a story that's beyond embarrassing with Ed Wood level schlock(space terminator, lazarus, ghost child, reaper motivation,etc). Then there's their design philosophy of "remove it, don't improve it", where instead of fixing the issues of ME1 with inventory, exploration,etc, they remove and turn the sequel into being just a sub-par Gears clone, instead of a proper TPS/RPG hybrid with refined mechanics.

 

That said, contrary to the butthurt fanboys whom didn't get their wish of happy ending with space waifu/manfu in a picket fence suburban home(they would've realized choices meant jack if they paid attention back in ME1 and 2), ME3 managed to be a pretty decent game with it's core TPS/spellcasting hybrid mechanic. They still for some bizarre reason haven't added blindfiring however, but I'm confident they'll keep improving with ME4.

 

What Bioware needs to do is just cut the BS of "choices" mattering, the silly importing gimmick, grandiose plots and just focus on creating a modest story and gameplay within their abilities instead of promising things they can't deliver.

Lack of ambition. Really? Please watch this panel and pay close attention to the staggering numbers the dev team had to deal with when making this truly ambitious trilogy of games.

 

https://youtu.be/m8BSg9KIe0k

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Exactly, the only game that was radically different from BioWare's usual story formula would be DA2. Unfortunately, it was so poorly received that it's hard to define whether or not the formula used was the root cause. There are people that hated the game because you weren't the super special hero (cough Mary Sue cough) that succeeded at everything, the people that hated the game because of the game play, the people that hated the game because they couldn't fully customize Hawke (including the voice), and so on.

While I agree, I still can't defend DA 2 on any level. It just proved BioWare is not talented enough to have a story without a Mary Sue protagonist and a power fantasy romp motif.

Having the story themed around a powerless Hawke and the nature of chaos, yet showing that same Hawke effortlessly mow down thousands of people, exploding them into Lego sized chunks while flipping around with ninja moves or staff twirling was disjarring beyond belief.

Not to mention that you could run around killing everyone with Blood Magic on the open streets without repercussions in the story. Hell, even BG2 avoided that pitfall and it wasn't the central conflict in the entire game like in DA 2.

Not only did they "tell, not show", but what they "showed" was in direct contrast to what they "told". If it happens with minor things, you can handwave it away somewhat, but DA 2 did it to it's central theme and conflict. It was a pathetic approach to storytelling and design from a studio with BioWare's reputation.

[SlottsMachine]

Damn! Biower got killed in this thread.

[Seboist]

Lack of ambition. Really? Please watch this panel and pay close attention to the staggering numbers the dev team had to deal with when making this truly ambitious trilogy of games.

 

https://youtu.be/m8BSg9KIe0k

 

Yes, really. The trilogy being sold on "choices mattering" and "choices will carry over" amounting to nothing more than a handful of brief references,emails and cameos(and if you played Renegade, you didn't even get THAT) is the epitome of "lack of ambition". 

 

For all the world building Bioware did in ME1, all it ultimately amounted to was a linear corridor shooter with dialogue options and spellcasting when it comes down to it.

[Dermain]

Lazy? I can't really say that. All I can say is that their design philosophy has changed after they moved to the open world

MMO format. They are more into content rather than carefully created quests. A normal bioware quest these days is "collect 5 X in an area to weaken the voodoo priest."  Now, from a technical standpoint, the graphical fidelity is increasing, but most of their releases seem very uninspired.

 

That was a normal BioWare quest back in the day too...

[wolfhowwl]

Oh god don't even let me get started on their failed attempt to emulate GOW combat but failing horribly. I haven't been impressed by combat in a bioware game in a long time. Now this would be okay if the other RPG constructs had enough depth because gameplay in RPGs is an n-tier system, but when those areas suffer and the only thing you have to offer is "Companions are interesting and you can romance them lolol" that is when I stopped to take them seriously.

 

The only Mass Effect game that really failed horribly was the first one with its disastrous combat system that tried to play like a shooter and also wanted to shoehorn in RPG elements resulting in something that wasn't good at either and was miserable to just play.

 

ME2 for its problems wasn't actively fighting the player and was much less of a slog to play although it was still clunky and the series was at its nadir in depth.

 

ME3 demolished its two predecessors in the combat department. You have more mobility, more tactical options, and more customization than ME2.

 

And really there was never a good "Mass Effect RPG" to begin with, ME1 was actually a rather shallow game and had many "RPG features" that were just poorly implemented. When they went full action with ME2 it's not like anything of real value was lost and it resulted in a better product anyways.

 

Sure it's understandable that some people are upset with how ME2 and ME3 went off with their own direction as shooters instead of continuing with ME1 but that doesn't make all the crap in ME1 any less indefensible. The looting was terrible, the combat was terrible, and empty wastelands with copy-paste dungeons was as terrible in 2007 as it is today. Perhaps the sequels can be condemned for not trying to improve but they're still better games just for not having these awful things in them.

 

Come to think of it perhaps people should be complaining less about ME2 and more about ME1!

[Liamv2]

Say what?!!?
0_o

 

I just liked the plot more. For pretty much the same reasons Dermain said. Instead of playing the legendary hero who saves everyone, everything just exploads around you and there's fuckall you can do about it.