949 réponses à ce sujet

[wolfhowwl]

The problem is if BioWare ever tried to scale back it gets such a negative reaction, including all the people that are demanding multiple voices for each gender/race combination.  I do agree that BioWare probably would be better off story wise if they cut some of the things that make the story get minimized, but the question then becomes would there be enough people to accept it for there are still people talking about how Mass Effect 2 is a worse game compared to Mass Effect 1 because they cut really important things from the game instead of fixing them.

For many people the state those ME1 features were in was bad it brought down the game. Sure there can be a discussion over wherever ME2 should have improved some of the many bad systems present in ME1 instead of cutting them but that's not a defense for how bad they were in that game. It is better to not have them at all than have them return as what they were in ME1 (****).

I agree that it would be nice if those things were fixed instead of being cut but alas we live in a world with limited resources.

While a very vocal and persistent minority was deeply upset about the cuts, Mass Effect 2 was still successful (and this success carried over to ME3 sales) because the narrower focus resulted in a game with far more polish, vastly improved combat, a more interesting party, a final mission with reactivity, and far less area reuse.

It seems that you can get "enough people to accept it" if you make a solid game.

[Sanunes]

For many people the state those ME1 features were in was bad it brought down the game. Sure there can be a discussion over wherever ME2 should have improved some of the many bad systems present in ME1 instead of cutting them but that's not a defense for how bad they were in that game. It is better to not have them at all than have them return as what they were in ME1 (****).

I agree that it would be nice if those things were fixed instead of being cut but alas we live in a world with limited resources.

While a very vocal and persistent minority was deeply upset about the cuts, Mass Effect 2 was still successful (and this success carried over to ME3 sales) because the narrower focus resulted in a game with far more polish, vastly improved combat, a more interesting party, a final mission with reactivity, and far less area reuse.

It seems that you can get "enough people to accept it" if you make a solid game.

 

Fair enough, I guess my expectations of people just has fallen considerably since the Mass Effect 2 era by how people have been reacting to any change to a game during its development.

[wolfhowwl]

Fair enough, I guess my expectations of people just has fallen considerably since the Mass Effect 2 era by how people have been reacting to any change to a game during its development.

 

You're always going to anger some people by making changes or not making them. One shouldn't let that necessarily steer your course away from decisions that you feel will make a better game since so much of it is just forum whining instead of a genuine backlash.

 

On another forum I post on, after ME2 was released the conversation about it was increasingly dominated by a vocal minority that was constantly bitching about the story, the dumbed-down RPG elements, cut features like exploration, etc. to the point that threads were often useless if you were looking for anything other than complaining. If this was all you listened to the game came across as ****, a blunder that ME1 fans were tricked into buying, BioWare was in trouble, and so on.

 

Yet on that same forum an entire year after release ME2 was voted by the silent majority as their 2010 GOTY and in the real world ME3 had the strongest launch of the series suggesting that people actually did like ME2.

 

Not that all forum feedback is useless and should be ignored. People that complained about ME1's poor combat or DA:I's endless filler are on point about actual problems with a game but I think part of the job of analyzing feedback would be distinguishing between people pointing out legitimate flaws and hyperbolic reactionary bullshit.

[Morroian]

You also shouldn't be too quick to blame project management as you have done. (Not that I care). People also give CD too much slack, given their likely lower costs and the fact that their games are the same price as everybody else. shouldn't they be doing even more for their consurmers?.

 

Given that DA2 faced similar problems with too many changes given the dev time frame I'd say there were clear project management issues in the DA dev team.

[Majestic Jazz]

I am playing Witcher 3 now and man did they get it right with the open world. When I compare walking the frontier in Witcher 3 with that of DAI, it clearly shows that TW3 is far ahead of DAI.

At one point, Bioware nearly had a monopoly on the WRPG but with CD Projekt doing good with Witcher 3 which I would say is better developed than DAI, then they have Cyberpunk 2077 next in the chute. Bioware really is going to be pushed to their limits which may be stressful to them, but we as the consumer wins.

[wolfhowwl]

I am playing Witcher 3 now and man did they get it right with the open world. When I compare walking the frontier in Witcher 3 with that of DAI, it clearly shows that TW3 is far ahead of DAI.

At one point, Bioware nearly had a monopoly on the WRPG but with CD Projekt doing good with Witcher 3 which I would say is better developed than DAI, then they have Cyberpunk 2077 next in the chute. Bioware really is going to be pushed to their limits which may be stressful to them, but we as the consumer wins.

 

Are we pretending that Bethesda never existed now?

[Majestic Jazz]

Are pretending that Bethesda never existed now?

I mention CD Projekt cause their games (Witcher 1-3) are more inline which the style of RPG that Bioware makes, you know, character driven/cinematic storytelling with major set pieces. Games like Skyrim and Fallout 3 are more like "play your own adventure" type games.

[In Exile]

Are pretending that Bethesda never existed now?

 

And also forgetting the flop that was NWN. Bioware had a highly regarded hit with BG1-2, and then a comical flop with NWN, then a hit with KoTOR (that garnered hate because it was a console game), a lackluster JE, and then we got modern Bioware with ME/DA. 

[wolfhowwl]

I mention CD Projekt cause their games (Witcher 1-3) are more inline which the style of RPG that Bioware makes, you know, character driven/cinematic storytelling with major set pieces. Games like Skyrim and Fallout 3 are more like "play your own adventure" type games.

 

Bethesda's games are still WRPGs even if they don't follow the BioWarean model of a directed cinematic-heavy experience. The genre has room for more than one approach.

 

They've also dominated BioWare in sales for the entire seventh generation, so much any "monopoly." Their latest game, Skyrim, was also the clear impetus for both BioWare and CDPR going open-world (one attempt more successful than the other). It is also the best selling WRPG ever, if there is a king of RPGs it would be the developer that enjoys unrivaled sales and sets the genre trend for others to follow.

 

I know this is the BSN so the perception is obviously BioWare-centric but they were never even close to the be all and end all of WRPGs.

 

Ignoring CDPR's previous Witcher games, we already had strong efforts in 2010 and 2011 from Obsidian and Eidos Montreal that arguably outclassed BioWare's best seventh gen output. Mask of the Betrayer also came out in 2008.

[AlanC9]

Doesn't all this just indicate that WRPG isn't a useful term?

[Hiemoth]

For many people the state those ME1 features were in was bad it brought down the game. Sure there can be a discussion over wherever ME2 should have improved some of the many bad systems present in ME1 instead of cutting them but that's not a defense for how bad they were in that game. It is better to not have them at all than have them return as what they were in ME1 (****).

I agree that it would be nice if those things were fixed instead of being cut but alas we live in a world with limited resources.

While a very vocal and persistent minority was deeply upset about the cuts, Mass Effect 2 was still successful (and this success carried over to ME3 sales) because the narrower focus resulted in a game with far more polish, vastly improved combat, a more interesting party, a final mission with reactivity, and far less area reuse.

It seems that you can get "enough people to accept it" if you make a solid game.

 

This is very true and I am always amused when people tout ME2 while forgetting how ferfent the opposition to its changes were at times. I would actually say that one of the biggest differences between DA and ME teams is that ME team, and Hudson, stuck to their guns with their vision of what the game should be once they found it while the DA team seems to be insanely reactive to any kind of criticism for DA2. Now, it is also important to point out that it is easier to stay the true to your ideals when the product is a massive success, but still.

 

ME1 is also something I have been thinking about in relation to DAI lately, as despite DA teams constant point how exploration is the true heart of Bioware games, there really hasn't been true random exploration in that many of their success games. Both DAO and DA2 were very story oriented in the levels, even if there was stuff to find in them, and the last of their big games to have a large focus on exploration was actually ME1. And like with DAI, that focus on exploration had pretty big ramifications on its story cohesion and character development. Do not get me wrong, I am certain that internally Bioware has much deeper thoughts about this than me, but similarity between the two product facinates me. Especially since ME2 did drop that element of ME1.

[Majestic Jazz]

Bethesda's games are still WRPGs even if they don't follow the BioWarean model of a directed cinematic-heavy experience. The genre has room for more than one approach.

They've also dominated BioWare in sales for the entire seventh generation, so much any "monopoly." Their latest game, Skyrim, was also the clear impetus for both BioWare and CDPR going open-world (one attempt more successful than the other). It is also the best selling WRPG ever, if there is a king of RPGs it would be the developer that enjoys unrivaled sales and sets the genre trend for others to follow.

I know this is the BSN so the perception is obviously BioWare-centric but they were never even close to the be all and end all of WRPGs.

Ignoring CDPR's previous Witcher games, we already had strong efforts in 2010 and 2011 from Obsidian and Eidos Montreal that arguably outclassed BioWare's best seventh gen output. Mask of the Betrayer also came out in 2008.

Either way the point I am trying to make is that CD Projekt today is what Bioware was in say....2002 before the EA days and when NWN was the "new". And that is a compliment to CD Projekt.

While all developers all prone to appealing to the masses and casual gamers, CD Projekt (and in some ways Bethesda) still has their core approach whereas Bioware with every game since ME2 has been trying to emulate some other popular game/genre instead of just being themselves. I mean Bioware is all bullish on multiplayer and yet Bethesda and CD Projekt are still developing games without multiplayer components. Bethesda and CD Projekt is still bullish on actual expansions while Bioware just wants shorter 2-3 hour DLCs.

[Hiemoth]

Exactly. Not to mention squads were smaller (only three member teams instead of DA's four), as well as less romances, less dialgoue and less overall time after recruitment, since that was the main plot for most of the game (example - Legion is recruited literally right before the final story arc begins). I didn't like ME2's "on the tracks" presentation as much as ME1's more wider affair, but it certainly kept scope creep down, I'm sure.

For any flaw that someone can find with DA:I, being overly ambitious probably can easily be traced back to the culprit - tons of customization, hugely open world design, developing for five platforms with widely varying levels of technology, utilizing a new engine not optimized for RPGs for the first time (as well as developing all the tools for it)... these things and so many more are monumental tasks and forget some of the other things Bioware did or tried to do (more in-depth crafting system, return of the overhead camera, reactive environments to things like hunting, etc.).

It really shows that Bioware really tried to tackle far too much with far too little. And I think TW3 in a way proves that, with its seemingly much more polished product but with its much more focused approach.

 

I just wanted to agree with this, even if I haven't been as impressed by CDPR games so far as everyone else. This is also one of the largest frustrations for me in discussions of the game, as there is the persistant thought that the game should offer insane amounts of customization and exploration while still having a tight, focused, character relevant story. Those two things cannot exist at the same time in a game, which is why the Elder Scroll games are what they are for better or for worse. What is worse, DA team themselves tries to juggle both in the same game, which lead to those issues, as opposed to ME team, which for all the criticism they faced, seemed to have understood that they had to choose and stuck to their approach.

[Majestic Jazz]

This is very true and I am always amused when people tout ME2 while forgetting how ferfent the opposition to its changes were at times. I would actually say that one of the biggest differences between DA and ME teams is that ME team, and Hudson, stuck to their guns with their vision of what the game should be once they found it while the DA team seems to be insanely reactive to any kind of criticism for DA2. Now, it is also important to point out that it is easier to stay the true to your ideals when the product is a massive success, but still.

ME1 is also something I have been thinking about in relation to DAI lately, as despite DA teams constant point how exploration is the true heart of Bioware games, there really hasn't been true random exploration in that many of their success games. Both DAO and DA2 were very story oriented in the levels, even if there was stuff to find in them, and the last of their big games to have a large focus on exploration was actually ME1. And like with DAI, that focus on exploration had pretty big ramifications on its story cohesion and character development. Do not get me wrong, I am certain that internally Bioware has much deeper thoughts about this than me, but similarity between the two product facinates me. Especially since ME2 did drop that element of ME1.

I hate how people try to compare ME1's exploration to DAI.

The main selling point of ME1 WASNT exploration but rather player choice and cinematic dialog and on BOTH of those ME1 delivered. With DAI, it wasnt about choice and it definately was not about cinematic dialog but rather exploring large worlds as Bioware wanted it to be clear that they heard the complaints about DA2's closed in nature and that DAI would have more breathing room.

Bash ME1's exploratiom all you want, but it was never meant to be the game's main event in the same way that it was for DAI.

Oh and BTW, ME1's uncharted worlds were 100% optional meaning that one could beat the game without ever having to land on a UC world. So exploration wasnt tied into ME1's gameplay the same way it was for DAI in which you had to do exploratiom to find fetch missions to build power which was needed to progress the story.

[Eelectrica]

And also forgetting the flop that was NWN.

NWN wasn't a flop.

http://www.gamasutra...ter_.php?page=4

Though BioWare considers Neverwinter Nights a critically and commercially successful product by most generally accepted standards, it is still far from perfect in our eyes.

[Elhanan]

I hate how people try to compare ME1's exploration to DAI.

The main selling point of ME1 WASNT exploration but rather player choice and cinematic dialog and on BOTH of those ME1 delivered. With DAI, it wasnt about choice and it definately was not about cinematic dialog but rather exploring large worlds as Bioware wanted it to be clear that they heard the complaints about DA2's closed in nature and that DAI would have more breathing room.

Bash ME1's exploratiom all you want, but it was never meant to be the game's main event in the same way that it was for DAI.

To some degree, I agree. Personally was never into exploring in the Mako; simply was a cool way to get from A to B on the walkthrough maps. For exploration, there should be something to actually do other than static quest stops, IMO.

[Majestic Jazz]

To some degree, I agree. Personally was never into exploring in the Mako; simply was a cool way to get from A to B on the walkthrough maps. For exploration, there should be something to actually do other than static quest stops, IMO.

Like I said though, at least in ME1 the UC worlds were NOT tied to the main plot. So I could beat ME1 without ever having to participate in the Uncharted Worlds exploration. With DAI, you have to participate in exploration to build power.

So while ME1's exploration sucked, at least one could ignore it unlike in DAI where you cant cause you have to get influence and power which are both mainly done through exploration.

[Elhanan]

Like I said though, at least in ME1 the UC worlds were NOT tied to the main plot. So I could beat ME1 without ever having to participate in the Uncharted Worlds exploration. With DAI, you have to participate in exploration to build power.

So while ME1's exploration sucked, at least one could ignore it unlike in DAI where you cant cause you have to get influence and power which are both mainly done through exploration.

There are multiple ways to gain influence and power: Vendor, War Table perks, side quests, collectables, closing rifts, etc; exploration and finding locations is only one of them. This is up to the indv Player.

Now I prefer to explore, and find it appealing, so it is not a chore for me. But for those that simply wish to go from A to B, the map markers should be enough to aid the other options to some degree.

[Hiemoth]

I hate how people try to compare ME1's exploration to DAI.

The main selling point of ME1 WASNT exploration but rather player choice and cinematic dialog and on BOTH of those ME1 delivered. With DAI, it wasnt about choice and it definately was not about cinematic dialog but rather exploring large worlds as Bioware wanted it to be clear that they heard the complaints about DA2's closed in nature and that DAI would have more breathing room.

Bash ME1's exploratiom all you want, but it was never meant to be the game's main event in the same way that it was for DAI.

Oh and BTW, ME1's uncharted worlds were 100% optional meaning that one could beat the game without ever having to land on a UC world. So exploration wasnt tied into ME1's gameplay the same way it was for DAI in which you had to do exploratiom to find fetch missions to build power which was needed to progress the story.

 

I never said that ME1 was sold on exploration, but that it was the last Bioware game that it was their last game that had such a focus on exploration. And while the focus was different, it did result in to a similar result than DAI, with the resources spent on creating those explorable places and somewhat empty missions to fill them with taking away from the larger product, which was one of the reasons I understood the ME team shifting the focus on more detailed area designs for quests and giving more content to the actual side missions, which still weren't numerous.

 

And while the uncharted worlds were 100 % optional, so is much of the explorable content in the levels. The problem is that if you don't explore in ME1 or DAI, you lose a lot of the experience to improve your character and make the further levels easier. And my intention wasn't to bash ME1 exploration, although it was probably my least favorite of the game much do to my obsessive need to do all the content in a game.

 

What I do agree with, though, is that the focus on exploration does seem to come on the heels of DA2 and it again makes me sad. Not because I don't think they shouldn't do something like that, but it is again one thing that makes it seem that they never really had a discussion about what worked and didn't work in DA2, but rather just dejected everything and made it clear to everyone that they felt DA2 was a mistep.

[AlanC9]

Like I said though, at least in ME1 the UC worlds were NOT tied to the main plot. So I could beat ME1 without ever having to participate in the Uncharted Worlds exploration. With DAI, you have to participate in exploration to build power.
So while ME1's exploration sucked, at least one could ignore it unlike in DAI where you cant cause you have to get influence and power which are both mainly done through exploration.

How much exploration do you actually have to do in DAI?

[AlanC9]

And while the uncharted worlds were 100 % optional, so is much of the explorable content in the levels. The problem is that if you don't explore in ME1 or DAI, you lose a lot of the experience to improve your character and make the further levels easier.

Well, experience isn't too much of a problem in ME1, since everything scales anyway.

[Hiemoth]

Well, experience isn't too much of a problem in ME1, since everything scales anyway.

 

Everything scales, true, but not in the similar manner. Equipment is tied to levels and once you start hitting those upper equipment levels let alone upper skill benefits, there is a huge difference in the challenge level.

 

Still, that is a valid point which I remembered pretty much as soon as I pressed post. It is really irritating when that happens.

[Sanunes]

I am playing Witcher 3 now and man did they get it right with the open world. When I compare walking the frontier in Witcher 3 with that of DAI, it clearly shows that TW3 is far ahead of DAI.

At one point, Bioware nearly had a monopoly on the WRPG but with CD Projekt doing good with Witcher 3 which I would say is better developed than DAI, then they have Cyberpunk 2077 next in the chute. Bioware really is going to be pushed to their limits which may be stressful to them, but we as the consumer wins.

 

The thing about The Witcher and why I won't just say CDPR is better then BioWare is that the games seem to focus in different areas.  This can change with Cyberpunk for it seems like they are going to be adding in areas that I think have been hindering BioWare in the last few games and I want to see what the next BioWare game that isn't hampered by being released on five platforms.

[wolfhowwl]

Either way the point I am trying to make is that CD Projekt today is what Bioware was in say....2002 before the EA days and when NWN was the "new". And that is a compliment to CD Projekt.

While all developers all prone to appealing to the masses and casual gamers, CD Projekt (and in some ways Bethesda) still has their core approach whereas Bioware with every game since ME2 has been trying to emulate some other popular game/genre instead of just being themselves. I mean Bioware is all bullish on multiplayer and yet Bethesda and CD Projekt are still developing games without multiplayer components. Bethesda and CD Projekt is still bullish on actual expansions while Bioware just wants shorter 2-3 hour DLCs.

 

What is "themselves" though? ME2 and ME3 are still very much BioWare games with a focus on a guided experience, dialogue, character interaction, choices (not so much consequences lol), and combat heavy.

 

What changed with ME2 and ME3 was that was they dropped BioWare's own poorly designed and unfun ME1 combat and adopted better designed action mechanics that already existed. Incidentally CDPR did something similar between TW1 and TW2. It's hardly a bad thing when it results in something that is just more fun to actually play which it did with both series.

 

Also I think the issue here is less staying true to some "core approach," the core of DA:I with the story missions and party is BioWare standard fare, and more about just managing a project and ability. BioWare and CDPR both stepped beyond linear, focused experiences with their previous games and went to open worlds. When BW overreached and just like in 2007 fell back on amateurish filler to fill out their world, apparently CDPR managed to deliver consistently high-quality side content (or at least was able to keep up the illusion over the weaker stuff).

[KaiserShep]

Well, experience isn't too much of a problem in ME1, since everything scales anyway.

 

In terms of combat, I suppose not, but if you want to unlock every single dialogue option, it helps to gain enough points before reaching certain points in the story without having to make a sacrifice between that and the other attributes. Like, if I want to talk Jeong down rather than be forced to kill him, I need to have a particularly high score in intimdate or charm to do so, and then there's other stuff like the electronics stuff that allows you to hack terminals and so forth.