141 réponses à ce sujet

[Das Tentakel]

In my opinion there is a level at which you can analyze the differences in strengths and weaknesses in worldbuilding, mechanics and writing between BioWare and Bethesda, but that would be a very extensive and complex discussion (and requires more eknowledge and expertise than most of us have). However, subjectively, I would say that Skyrim (and other Bethesda games) is a game where the open world, the lore, the mechanics etc. support each other much better as far as the ‘world’ aspects are concerned than Bio’s games do. They are far from perfect however; the list of improvements I’d like Bethesda to make is pretty large actually. Until DA:I, very little of this was relevant to BioWare games in my opinion, but with DA:I – and possibly ME4 as well – that is no longer the case.

Four key aspects are 1. the consistency / cohesion of the world (‘does it make sense, barring the magic aspects’), 2. whether it’s a single seamless world (‘you can go from A to B without barriers or noticeable loading screens, up to the boundaries of the world’), 3. whether NPC’s, animals, weather and the landscape etc. simulate a living world reasonably well and 4. the interactivity with those NPC’s, animals, environment etc. There’s lots of things there Bethesda games do way better (again, ‘in my opinion’) than DA:I, without them being either perfect, ideal or even really good. ‘In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king’.

For instance, take worldbuilding. DA:I has subtropical jungle areas and parrots in what is the Thedosian southern hemisphere equivalent of central Scandinavia. No reasons are given (as far as I know). I suspect the reason is probably that these were assets originally developed for subtropical areas in northern Thedas that were scrapped as such, perhaps the region named Arlathan on the Thedas map. I remember reading on the German BSN that Gaider actually admitted that the Temple of Mythal, where you run into these the first time, was originally intended to be part of the cancelled DA2 expansion.
If true, that’s a very economical use of resources as well as a very, hmmm, interesting approach to worldbuilding.
You could probably say the same of the desert areas. In theory (lore…), these are ‘cold deserts’ that came into existence because Blights passed through them. However, for some reason they are crawling with reptiles (‘but they could be warmblooded in Thedas, not cold-blooded’ yadda yadda yadda) and they look like old, eroded deserts, rather than relatively young, magically created landscapes. In short, Bio created traditional hot deserts with quasi-Jurassic fauna, rather than extrapolate from their own lore and create ‘dead’ or ‘sickened’ landscapes.
Skyrim has some pretty dumb things as well, like farms on a mammoth-infested tundra, yet it isn’t as noticeably dumb as DA:I’s. Northern landscapes, ‘Viking-ish’ farms, tundra, they are all present in Scandinavia and there used to be mammoths on the tundra, so…
Skyrim isn’t always ‘compacted’ in an intelligent way, but the different elements are, or were until relatively recently, jointly present in the real-world Scandinavian inspiration.

[Riven326]

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.

Choices did matter and choices did carry over.

[Eternal Phoenix]

I don't think they've become lazy, they've simply lost direction from their roots. I enjoyed Inquisition but still think Origins was way better.

Mass Effect 2 was great though. IMO it was the perfect blend of RPG and action gameplay that Bioware needs to return to for the next ME game. ME3 was completely dumbed down in terms of RPG elements whilst having good gameplay.
 

im just tired of people treating BG2 like its gods gift to gaming, not to mention that it took David Gaider making a mod to make the game decent

 
I played BG1&2 for the first time a few years ago without any mods and they were great RPG's and games. This is the majority opinion of the gaming community too.
 
I'm tired too, but tired of BG's detractors acting as if all fans of the series haven't played it since or only think it's good because of nostalgic reasons.

[Rawgrim]

Choices did matter and choices did carry over.

 

How did anything you did in ME 1-2 affect the ending?

[Farangbaa]

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.

Awesome.

But older games, especially older console games like those from the NES, were artificially difficult. You couldn't save (and your parents would turn the machine off... unless you had it in your room ), but there's zero other reason for this than to up the difficulty. In Final Fantasy 1 you can already save your game.

1987 ,people. 1987.

[Seboist]

How did anything you did in ME 1-2 affect the ending?

 

It goes beyond anything affecting the ending, the faux-choices had no tangible impact on either the gameplay or the story for the vast majority of the trilogy. Whatever you did or didn't do, you're still going down the same linear corridors and popping the same moles. Someone whom plays Full Paragon gets the same game that someone whom played full Renegade gets, or a pro-cerberus player gets the same thing as an anti-cerberus one,etc etc.

 

Most of the choices that actually did have a tangible impact were in ME1,where you could avoid certain fights and each Shepard background had some minor sidequest to them.

 

It's pretty sad how an old action game from the early 90s like Contra: Hard Corps wipes the floor with this faux trilogy with it's branching stages, alternate enemies and alternate endings that aren't the result of pushing a different button.

[KingTony]

Here's a bit of perspective for you guys: nearly everyone I meet playing DAMP thinks Inquisition is the best of the series and one of Bioware's best games. Not quite like here, where peopke act like the gane is universally despised.

[Farangbaa]

Here's a bit of perspective for you guys: nearly everyone I meet playing DAMP thinks Inquisition is the best of the series and one of Bioware's best games. Not quite like here, where peopke act like the gane is universally despised.

I'm going to get my popcorn and wait for the screams, and possibly even a post the size of a small article, about casuals, how modern gamers are all stupid and a whole lot of superiority feelings.

edit: deep insights are coming to me.

You're a casual if you only play singleplayer games. This makes me a casual since I've stopped playing DotA 2, btw. Yay

[Cyonan]

Awesome.

But older games, especially older console games like those from the NES, were artificially difficult. You couldn't save (and your parents would turn the machine off... unless you had it in your room ), but there's zero other reason for this than to up the difficulty. In Final Fantasy 1 you can already save your game.

1987 ,people. 1987.

 

That's kind of what I was getting at. A lot of games were "difficult" because they barely gave you any information, quite a few used fatal mechanics that you couldn't have known about until you already died from it, and a few other things like that.

 

It did used to make sense when they were being made as arcade games, which a lot of the mechanics from that got transferred over in the late 80s and early 90s. Arcade games needed to be fun but in order to maximize money, they also needed to kill you a lot to get you to spend more money.

 

Although a lot of games from the NES days were actually not difficult.

[Riven326]

How did anything you did in ME 1-2 affect the ending?

I'm not talking about the quality of the ending or anything in between. It's  been debated on the BSN for years and I'm sure you can find a list if you try hard enough.

 

The idea that Bioware is lazy, incompetent, or lacks ambition, is ridiculous and insulting. The fact of the matter is you guys feel like you can say anything because you're on the internet, and you say things that you otherwise wouldn't say in real life; things you wouldn't say in person to the people who put years of work into these games. You guys haven't the slightest clue as to how game development actually works or how many extra hours the people at Bioware and other game companies put in to try and make sure their games measure up to your expectations.

 

It's one thing to criticize someone's work, that's fine. But when you start saying someone is lazy, or that they aren't ambitious, or that they're incompetent, just because you don't like the end result of their work, that's ****** insulting, it's wrong, and you should be ashamed for even suggesting it.

[Seboist]

Handling divergent content in a worse manner than an early 90s Sega Genesis game is by definition incompetence. Although, I'll give the ME branch of Bioware the benefit of the doubt and say that they prolly never had any intention on making "choices" amount to anything more than inconsequential "flavoring" at best.

 

Besides, the Dragon Age branch of Bioware wiped the floor with the entire ME trilogy of semi-reboots when it comes to handling diverging and tangible content. In the battle of denerim, the actual allies that I choose were saddling up and fighting alongside me in the gameplay, not showing up some 2-3 second fluff cutscene.

[Seraphim24]

I don't think they've become lazy, they've simply lost direction from their roots. I enjoyed Inquisition but still think Origins was way better.

Mass Effect 2 was great though. IMO it was the perfect blend of RPG and action gameplay that Bioware needs to return to for the next ME game. ME3 was completely dumbed down in terms of RPG elements whilst having good gameplay.
 
 
I played BG1&2 for the first time a few years ago without any mods and they were great RPG's and games. This is the majority opinion of the gaming community too.
 
I'm tired too, but tired of BG's detractors acting as if all fans of the series haven't played it since or only think it's good because of nostalgic reasons.

 

Baldur's Gate was my first and still favorite Bioware game to be honest, if I was more of the arguing type I would be quite fervent that it's objectively the best Bioware game and one of the best games of all time. I still have the original 6 CD case thingy sitting around with me somewhere.. it didn't simply try to overwhelm you with snark or sarcasm like modern Bioware does (although Edwin probably trumps most of those characters for me anyway), it built a slow burning tale of heroism in a vividly realized fantasy setting (IMO) that eventually culminated in the spectacular epic finale that was you and all these people you met dueling an ascending god in space at the end of Throne of Bhaal so as to become one yourself.

 

And screw nostalgia I would replay that every 3-4 years up until maybe like only 2 years ago, same for NWN a bit.

 

I kind of became less excited with each iteration, NWN, DA:O, DA:2.. etc... but hey that's a lot of entertainment over a long period of time, it's quite impressive and well done for all that. However, each time they seemed to lose a bit in terms of mechanics, abilities, RPG elements, and more ambitious characters became increasingly obsequious and deferential to the point where they only appeared exciting by comparison to an equally watered down gaming environment, and to be fair probably just people who weren't around when those games first came out. They've tried to compensate by upping the theatrics and snark to lunatic proportions but that's no substitute for soul IMO.

[KingTony]

I'm not talking about the quality of the ending or anything in between. It's been debated on the BSN for years and I'm sure you can find a list if you try hard enough.

The idea that Bioware is lazy, incompetent, or lacks ambition, is ridiculous and insulting. The fact of the matter is you guys feel like you can say anything because you're on the internet, and you say things that you otherwise wouldn't say in real life; things you wouldn't say in person to the people who put years of work into these games. You guys haven't the slightest clue as to how game development actually works or how many extra hours the people at Bioware and other game companies put in to try and make sure their games measure up to your expectations.

It's one thing to criticize someone's work, that's fine. But when you start saying someone is lazy, or that they aren't ambitious, or that they're incompetent, just because you don't like the end result of their work, that's ****** insulting, it's wrong, and you should be ashamed for even suggesting it.

Mad respect for this.

[Jorji Costava]

Awesome.

But older games, especially older console games like those from the NES, were artificially difficult. You couldn't save (and your parents would turn the machine off... unless you had it in your room ), but there's zero other reason for this than to up the difficulty. In Final Fantasy 1 you can already save your game.

1987 ,people. 1987.

 

In a lot of cases, the US version of NES games was artificially made more difficult than the Japanese version; for instance, in the US version of Ninja Gaiden III, you take double damage from everything, can only continue after you've lost all your lives twice, and start from the beginning of a stage rather than the beginning of a screen every time you die (the Japanese version had a password system as well).

 

I'm not 100% sure about this, but I've heard it had something to do with video game rental policies in the US versus in Japan. Developers didn't want you to be able to rent a game, beat it, and then return it without ever thinking about it again; they wanted you to actually buy the games. This was a real concern since if you had enough skill, many NES games could be beaten in under half an hour. In Japan, renting games is pretty much illegal, so developers didn't have this extra reason to increase the difficulty.

[SlottsMachine]

I'm not talking about the quality of the ending or anything in between. It's  been debated on the BSN for years and I'm sure you can find a list if you try hard enough.

 

The idea that Bioware is lazy, incompetent, or lacks ambition, is ridiculous and insulting. The fact of the matter is you guys feel like you can say anything because you're on the internet, and you say things that you otherwise wouldn't say in real life; things you wouldn't say in person to the people who put years of work into these games. You guys haven't the slightest clue as to how game development actually works or how many extra hours the people at Bioware and other game companies put in to try and make sure their games measure up to your expectations.

 

It's one thing to criticize someone's work, that's fine. But when you start saying someone is lazy, or that they aren't ambitious, or that they're incompetent, just because you don't like the end result of their work, that's ****** insulting, it's wrong, and you should be ashamed for even suggesting it.

 

Haha. Someone's triggered. Anyway, not that I've bothered to read every post but from what I've seen very few peeps in this thread have said Bioware is lazy. 

[SlottsMachine]

 I'm tired too, but tired of BG's detractors acting as if all fans of the series haven't played it since or only think it's good because of nostalgic reasons.

 

True enough. Though you could apply that to most of there games.