949 réponses à ce sujet

[Ariella]

Yeah but DAO gave us Awakening and most of the DLC was much cheaper so DAO wins in my eyes.

 

I found Awakenings to be poorly paced, Amaranthine was criminally under developed (the entire Arling, not just the city), the landmark conversation point concept was not the solution to avoiding frontloading dialogue that they seemed to be hoping for, and only two companions were really appealing: Anders and Nathaniel. This is my opinion, of course, but give me a Legacy or Mark of the Assassin over Awakenings.

 

I tend to put DAA just above NWN OC in my list of Bioware games.

[AlanC9]

Considering BG2 was the only true sequel they ever did before ME2, I don't think saying they've "always" done it when there has only been ME and DA at this point is fair for people to assume they will keep doing it that way. Because it is corrosive to a brand identity.

Meaning the series brands, not the Bio brand. Maybe so. I wasn't really thinking of the series brand, just Bio itself.

[In Exile]

Considering BG2 was the only true sequel they ever did before ME2, I don't think saying they've "always" done it when there has only been ME and DA at this point is fair for people to assume they will keep doing it that way. Because it is corrosive to a brand identity.

But BG2 doesn't break the trope. Bioware did make substantial revisions to the formula they used for BG1. Those revisions were largely well received but it wouldn't be wrong to call them drastic. Sylvius is better at articulating the changes, however.

[Fast Jimmy]

But BG2 doesn't break the trope. Bioware did make substantial revisions to the formula they used for BG1. Those revisions were largely well received but it wouldn't be wrong to call them drastic. Sylvius is better at articulating the changes, however.

No, I didn't mean to imply the changes weren't drastic between BG1 and BG2.

But of the 9 Bioware IPs, only 5 had sequels. Of those five, only three had sequels actually done by Bioware. And of those three, only two had three iterations where one could say a pattern had evolved. Baldur's Gate only had two games, so one could say that the change between 1 and 2 was a shift for the series - a statement that could be backed up by Throne of Bhaal being much more similar to BG2 than BG1 (despite being an expansion, it was the only true litmus test that could be done until 2011).

One could have thought that when making their third games in a series, Bioware would either stayed with the formula set by their second games (ME2 and DA2,respectively) or reverted back to the success of their originals (ME1 and DA:O) and not been wrong by any precedent they had set in their companies fifteen year history. Instead, with ME3 and DA:I, they have first shown their colors about creating IPs with drastically different gameplay elements in each iteration. Since this a rather new phenomenon, people are right to voice their displeasure now - it's really only just now been confirmed that Bioware has a policy of doing a drastically over-pronounced knee jerk reaction to each game they make instead of having a clearer concept of what they envision the game to be.


Some people may applaud innovation with each title, but innovation must be in piecemeal, making sure to stay rooted in your strengths while exploring new territory. Bioware doesn't do that - one could easily be of the mindset that a different studio made each one of their flagship IP sequels, since they jump headfirst into new features without giving the proper respect to why their predecessors didn't have these features to begin with.

DA:O had a silent protagonist because the focus was on player agency over their character's personality, which would have been very resource intensive to voice. DA2 dived right into this with limited player agency, causing player compalints that Hawke was never their character. And in DA:I they over-corrected by then bringing back even more race options than DA:O and more voice options than DA2, but then all the rest of their side content suffered because of budget limitations, using Mark Darrah's own words.

There's similar paths for DA:O's combat system, story structure, leveling systems, encounter design, game world size/presentation... it betrays a level of arrogance, honestly. That other developers who excel at crafting games that showcase these features can simply be mimicked while still keeping same level of story pedigree Bioware has a reputation for... it's borderline narcissistic, really. That Bethesda could have open world pinned down with fleshed out character creation and customization but careful attention to non-voiced protagonists and primarily single-character action combat, but then Bioware to come along with zero open world experience and say "we can create huge open areas that are on the same scale, but with voiced PCs, cinematics, companions, tactical party combat and still not suffer any quality issues... oh, and we'll do it in three years, despite Bethesda usually taking five between each IP's next title."

I'm not saying DA:I is a clone of Skyrim... but they borrowed from its design elements and it winds up having many of the same challenges to overcome. And while Bethesda has had 20+ years refining their design, engine and creation process to handle this, Bioware decided to do it on a whim as an over-correction to a complaint from DA2... a complaint stemmed in them having knee-jerk over corrections in the first place.

[DWareFan]

I just started playing DAI, finally bought a computer that can play it on ultra.  I'm about 34 hrs in, that was playing Saturday through Monday.  I'm a huge DA fan, huge, I even completely enjoyed DA2 for what it's worth and played it five times.

 

The good about DAI is the main quests, love them.  Haven was epic.  The music, what was going on, everything about it...epic.

 

The side quests have to go.  They could have easily followed something similar to SWTOR's planetary quests.  It would have made the long boring side quests much better because you would definitely get the feeling that you are earning something for the inquisition.  The horse man for instance, you're getting horses.  They could have had quests like conscripting troops, gathering resources, and closing rifts to make the people safe.  What they shouldn't have had is fetch my ring, you're nothing.  Okay, get the hell rid of all those quests, boring as hell.

 

The Dalish quests fit.  You're trying to get the Dalish on your side.  Fetch quests suck in MMOs and they suck in single player games.  I hope Bioware doesn't do it in the next game.

 

I loved the exploration part, finding caves etc.  That was very skyrimish.

 

The banter is terrible.  I don't even mind if it's on a loop but having it on a timer just sucks.  I've gone to riding because that's less boring than having no banner at all for long durations of time.

 

The great:  The main quests, so much fun.  The horse, so damned gorgeous, I play in Ultra.   Cullen romance, loved it.  The companion stories and quests were very good.

 

Bioware needs to stay far...far away from mundane, boring fetch quests.

[Squeets]

It probably did quite well for them... The VGChartz data, which entirely excludes digital sales (including sales on PSN/Xbox Live), Amazon, and several retailers, has the game at 2.5M units across all three platforms...

 

And there are reports that suggests digital game sales surpassed retail during holiday 2014.

 

Plus EA told their stockholders it sold faster than any Bioware game in history... They can't exactly lie to their investors... One because they won't invest any longer and two because its illegal...

 

Really depends on how much it cost them to make it.  If it only sold like 5 million units then that doesn't tell you much if you don't know how much it cost to make... Assume like ~$40 profit per game sold after the retailer/seller cut and production costs... So ~$200,000,000... That might not seem like much when reports come out talking about GTA having $2B in sales... But if it only cost them like $40-$50m to make then that is a pretty respectable return...

 

And all of that is entirely arbitrary/baseless speculation... I have no idea how much it cost to make or how many sales it had.

 

All I know is they say it did better than Mass Effect 3 and considering Mass Effect is getting a sequel I assume its a safe bet Dragon Age will continue getting sequels.

[Shadeling]

You do need to realize that no game company has to cater to anyone if they don't want to. That seems to be the biggest misconception of all.

 

See, I am not debating anything here, I am telling you why the assertions you have made don't really matter in the grand scheme of things. Regardless if fans buy the games or not, is inconsequential to EA, and much like other companies, always will be inconsequential. So attitudes after the fact really don't mean a lot, the loss of 10-20% of your market is not a sting when you can find a way to bring in another market all together.

 

The problem with this is the homogenizing of the product, that is the real issue I see over what was done right or wrong. I think the games will always be successful regardless, the question is more-so "for who?"  So no, we are not seeing the product failing because of perceptions of previous products or people being "screwed',  or whatever, at least, not in the doom and gloom people predict. I am sure folks have said that and have acted on it, but it's such an insignificant portion of the gaming population it really doesn't matter. 

 

 

 

It doesn't matter to EA if fans buy their games or not?? Well that's absolutely not true but whatever.

 

We're going to just have to agree to disagree on this .  And just so you know, you are actually debating.

[LinksOcarina]

It doesn't matter to EA if fans buy their games or not?? Well that's absolutely not true but whatever.

 

We're going to just have to agree to disagree on this .  And just so you know, you are actually debating.

 

Debating implies I am trying to win an argument. It also implies I am taking your opinion into consideration. Neither is actually true, I am showing perspective and attempting to teach something. Take it as you please. 

 

It probably did quite well for them... The VGChartz data, which entirely excludes digital sales (including sales on PSN/Xbox Live), Amazon, and several retailers, has the game at 2.5M units across all three platforms...

 

And there are reports that suggests digital game sales surpassed retail during holiday 2014.

 

Plus EA told their stockholders it sold faster than any Bioware game in history... They can't exactly lie to their investors... One because they won't invest any longer and two because its illegal...

 

Really depends on how much it cost them to make it.  If it only sold like 5 million units then that doesn't tell you much if you don't know how much it cost to make... Assume like ~$40 profit per game sold after the retailer/seller cut and production costs... So ~$200,000,000... That might not seem like much when reports come out talking about GTA having $2B in sales... But if it only cost them like $40-$50m to make then that is a pretty respectable return...

 

And all of that is entirely arbitrary/baseless speculation... I have no idea how much it cost to make or how many sales it had.

 

All I know is they say it did better than Mass Effect 3 and considering Mass Effect is getting a sequel I assume its a safe bet Dragon Age will continue getting sequels.

 

VG Chartz numbers are not the best comparison, I think the thing missing from this is how the game did compared to the budget of the game itself. EA now has a powerful in-house engine and as we saw, cut their marketing down to a major online presence over other media, if you noticed. Sure they have some bumpers here and there in stores and posters and what not, but a majority of it was youtube and twitch, which I would bet makes it a lot cheaper to produce and distribute, with higher returns on investment too.

 

I think the reason it did so well was because of the expectations put on it by it's budget. Even if the game cost $10 million to create, sales expectations on units would likely have the title break even quickly if it's a smaller budget than the standard $20-$30 million we see when it comes to big titles. 

 

 

No, I didn't mean to imply the changes weren't drastic between BG1 and BG2.

But of the 9 Bioware IPs, only 5 had sequels. Of those five, only three had sequels actually done by Bioware. And of those three, only two had three iterations where one could say a pattern had evolved. Baldur's Gate only had two games, so one could say that the change between 1 and 2 was a shift for the series - a statement that could be backed up by Throne of Bhaal being much more similar to BG2 than BG1 (despite being an expansion, it was the only true litmus test that could be done until 2011).

One could have thought that when making their third games in a series, Bioware would either stayed with the formula set by their second games (ME2 and DA2,respectively) or reverted back to the success of their originals (ME1 and DA:O) and not been wrong by any precedent they had set in their companies fifteen year history. Instead, with ME3 and DA:I, they have first shown their colors about creating IPs with drastically different gameplay elements in each iteration. Since this a rather new phenomenon, people are right to voice their displeasure now - it's really only just now been confirmed that Bioware has a policy of doing a drastically over-pronounced knee jerk reaction to each game they make instead of having a clearer concept of what they envision the game to be.


Some people may applaud innovation with each title, but innovation must be in piecemeal, making sure to stay rooted in your strengths while exploring new territory. Bioware doesn't do that - one could easily be of the mindset that a different studio made each one of their flagship IP sequels, since they jump headfirst into new features without giving the proper respect to why their predecessors didn't have these features to begin with.

DA:O had a silent protagonist because the focus was on player agency over their character's personality, which would have been very resource intensive to voice. DA2 dived right into this with limited player agency, causing player compalints that Hawke was never their character. And in DA:I they over-corrected by then bringing back even more race options than DA:O and more voice options than DA2, but then all the rest of their side content suffered because of budget limitations, using Mark Darrah's own words.

There's similar paths for DA:O's combat system, story structure, leveling systems, encounter design, game world size/presentation... it betrays a level of arrogance, honestly. That other developers who excel at crafting games that showcase these features can simply be mimicked while still keeping same level of story pedigree Bioware has a reputation for... it's borderline narcissistic, really. That Bethesda could have open world pinned down with fleshed out character creation and customization but careful attention to non-voiced protagonists and primarily single-character action combat, but then Bioware to come along with zero open world experience and say "we can create huge open areas that are on the same scale, but with voiced PCs, cinematics, companions, tactical party combat and still not suffer any quality issues... oh, and we'll do it in three years, despite Bethesda usually taking five between each IP's next title."

I'm not saying DA:I is a clone of Skyrim... but they borrowed from its design elements and it winds up having many of the same challenges to overcome. And while Bethesda has had 20+ years refining their design, engine and creation process to handle this, Bioware decided to do it on a whim as an over-correction to a complaint from DA2... a complaint stemmed in them having knee-jerk over corrections in the first place.

 

Why is it arrogance for them to do something different, when fans continuously want them to be different? You said yourself that some changes were made because of fan Backlash, but then you come into the "damned if you do" territory of no one being satisfied at all because of what is added, dropped, or focused on.

 

Every single game has had changes to it because of some fan chatter on what they wanted to see in the game. And every time it's done, it's either rejected completely, or constructively criticized to the point of BioWare throwing their hands up and saying "hey, were going to try this now, or go back to this sort of" to again, appease their audience when they really don't have to. 

 

We also have the other problem of games getting too "samey" over time, the "CoD syndrome" if you will. I know a lot of old school Elder Scroll fans were not happy with Skyrim because of the changes to the formula there to "streamline" the game. I know, I was one of them at first. I've since come to realize how foolish it is though to be married to a style or mechanic though; it narrows focus and gives you tunnel vision over anything else out there that might be interesting or amazing, but drastically different in regards to what you are used to.

 

I think the problem is moreso BioWare changing too much, too quickly, when it comes to Dragon Age. I would argue it's not necessarily a bad thing, but I will admit it does become daunting to see the world change each time, even if it is, in some cases, for the better. This also includes mechanics to fit the new style of gameplay; lack of healing and healing magic to balance up the game became a major obstacle to contend with, along with the implementation of the tactical camera, so you notice how the spells and abilities are more tactical-focused and about maneuverability over standing and casting. Some of those changes were good, others not so good.

 

That being said, if anything I see that as submission to the fans, versus arrogance that they can do anything and be better at it than others. Those knee-jerk reactions kind of make sense when you got hundreds of people shitting on them daily, that stuff wears you down over time. I don't blame BioWare for trying to appease their fanbase, but I do criticize them for not having a spine against them. 

 

Even then though, everything that is made is going to be polarizing no matter what is done. 

[Cobra's_back]

 

 

 

Every single game has had changes to it because of some fan chatter on what they wanted to see in the game. And every time it's done, it's either rejected completely, or constructively criticized to the point of BioWare throwing their hands up and saying "hey, were going to try this now, or go back to this sort of" to again, appease their audience when they really don't have to. 

 

We also have the other problem of games getting too "samey" over time, the "CoD syndrome" if you will. I know a lot of old school Elder Scroll fans were not happy with Skyrim because of the changes to the formula there to "streamline" the game. I know, I was one of them at first. I've since come to realize how foolish it is though to be married to a style or mechanic though; it narrows focus and gives you tunnel vision over anything else out there that might be interesting or amazing, but drastically different in regards to what you are used to.

 

I think the problem is moreso BioWare changing too much, too quickly, when it comes to Dragon Age. I would argue it's not necessarily a bad thing, but I will admit it does become daunting to see the world change each time, even if it is, in some cases, for the better. This also includes mechanics to fit the new style of gameplay; lack of healing and healing magic to balance up the game became a major obstacle to contend with, along with the implementation of the tactical camera, so you notice how the spells and abilities are more tactical-focused and about maneuverability over standing and casting. Some of those changes were good, others not so good.

 

That being said, if anything I see that as submission to the fans, versus arrogance that they can do anything and be better at it than others. Those knee-jerk reactions kind of make sense when you got hundreds of people shitting on them daily, that stuff wears you down over time. I don't blame BioWare for trying to appease their fanbase, but I do criticize them for not having a spine against them. 

 

Even then though, everything that is made is going to be polarizing no matter what is done. 

 

 

I read your post and loved it. I have heard that some of the people left Elder Scroll only because they liked single player games. The whole on-line experience is not for everyone.

 

Some on-line players became burnt out. COD, there is only so much colorful language a person can stand.

 

As for no healing spells in DA, that could have something to do with the wheel being gone. You revive the fallen player like you would an on-line game. Could be they wanted the mechanics to be more in-line with on-line playing. Now my guess is that there will always be a market for single-player and on-line.

 

Having said that there are people that have no interest in playing on-line. They may have contributed to a small portion of Elder Scroll's roll out issues.

[Shadeling]

Debating implies I am trying to win an argument. It also implies I am taking your opinion into consideration. Neither is actually true, I am showing perspective and attempting to teach something. Take it as you please. 

 

 

This statement is kind of arrogant.  You think you're having a teaching moment but we're actually disagreeing with each other, hence why I use the word debate.  

Anyway, like I said, we'll just have to agree to disagree. 

[Morroian]

Why is it arrogance for them to do something different, when fans continuously want them to be different? You said yourself that some changes were made because of fan Backlash, but then you come into the "damned if you do" territory of no one being satisfied at all because of what is added, dropped, or focused on.

 

After DAO I don't recall there being overwhelming calls for wholesale changes, and the common call after DA2 was to take the franchise back to being more like DAO or at least a combination of the 2.

[Wayning_Star]

Other than the crashing on my computer, the game is OK, as games have been going of late.  I think they'll do/did ok on it, but I think they'd do better with that promised ME next title thing... But that is probably a ship that will never come in to space ports near us. There are too many of the electronic nights'n  shining armor stuff in games in the last few years and they're all seeming based on lots to do in the game to get to the end of it. Tasks. All well and good, but is a matter of you see one you've played them all. That is what was cool about ME, that it was new, even though a lot like this one. It might just be me, but it would seem users are needing more involvement in the story with tricky but doable action in the mean time. Not unlike me, it's very aggravating to dump cash on an entertainment item to find out you're the entertainer...as in paying for the night out for some richer folk.lol

 

In any event I think the game, or the "Ilk" of these warrior of old type genre are to be carefully assessed if they're to be unique to their fans and thus "successful" (a very general term and subjective?). To be honest I only bought it to support bioware et al and to wait  for ME next..but  that is not looking like a sound course of action. ME has succumbed to a black/greenish hole?!?

[LinksOcarina]

This statement is kind of arrogant.  You think you're having a teaching moment but we're actually disagreeing with each other, hence why I use the word debate.  

Anyway, like I said, we'll just have to agree to disagree. 

 

I don't really care if it's arrogant or not. As I said, do what you want with it, you disagreeing means very little to me.

 

After DAO I don't recall there being overwhelming calls for wholesale changes, and the common call after DA2 was to take the franchise back to being more like DAO or at least a combination of the 2.

 

I remember a lot of people upset of the linearity of the builds with Origins, the long, boring sequences through some of the questlines (the Fade comes to mind) complaints about the graphics here and there being too muddy, the works like that.

 

It wasn't that much from what I gather, especially compared to Dragon Age II, which was kind of what you said, but there was a lot of calls for larger areas, non-spawning enemies, less defined protagonist, the works like that.

[Realmzmaster]

How successful is DAI for Bioware? If Bioware keeps producing dlc and DA4 is greenlighted then DAI was financially successful. That means it returned a good enough ROI and met expectations. The number of GOTY and People choice awards already proclaim its critical acclaim whether certain people agree or not.

And no 2014 being a so-called weak year will not even be a consideration because most people will not even remember if it was a so-called weak year.

 

Edited: For spelling

[Hiemoth]

No, I didn't mean to imply the changes weren't drastic between BG1 and BG2.

But of the 9 Bioware IPs, only 5 had sequels. Of those five, only three had sequels actually done by Bioware. And of those three, only two had three iterations where one could say a pattern had evolved. Baldur's Gate only had two games, so one could say that the change between 1 and 2 was a shift for the series - a statement that could be backed up by Throne of Bhaal being much more similar to BG2 than BG1 (despite being an expansion, it was the only true litmus test that could be done until 2011).

One could have thought that when making their third games in a series, Bioware would either stayed with the formula set by their second games (ME2 and DA2,respectively) or reverted back to the success of their originals (ME1 and DA:O) and not been wrong by any precedent they had set in their companies fifteen year history. Instead, with ME3 and DA:I, they have first shown their colors about creating IPs with drastically different gameplay elements in each iteration. Since this a rather new phenomenon, people are right to voice their displeasure now - it's really only just now been confirmed that Bioware has a policy of doing a drastically over-pronounced knee jerk reaction to each game they make instead of having a clearer concept of what they envision the game to be.
 

 

So this statement is just blatantly false. The ME3 gameplay mechanics is clearly built on ME2's system. To the degree that even the actual skill trees contain the same exact skills and mechanics from ME2 with the new skills expanding on those trees. The cover mechanic, the shield/armor/health mechanics are all the same, etc. So unless the argument here is that the games need to be carbon copies, then there is no basis for this argument and thus in itself already destroyed the claim about Bioware's policy.

 

 

Some people may applaud innovation with each title, but innovation must be in piecemeal, making sure to stay rooted in your strengths while exploring new territory. Bioware doesn't do that - one could easily be of the mindset that a different studio made each one of their flagship IP sequels, since they jump headfirst into new features without giving the proper respect to why their predecessors didn't have these features to begin with.

 

What is this statement even based on? Is there really a guideline how innovation must be done? And what is the proper amount of changes and new features so that it has the mythical 'respect' to the previous versions? I mean apparently they can't change the game to go with what they feel makes it work better, which is what happened with both ME2 and DA2.

 

 

DA:O had a silent protagonist because the focus was on player agency over their character's personality, which would have been very resource intensive to voice. DA2 dived right into this with limited player agency, causing player compalints that Hawke was never their character. And in DA:I they over-corrected by then bringing back even more race options than DA:O and more voice options than DA2, but then all the rest of their side content suffered because of budget limitations, using Mark Darrah's own words.

There's similar paths for DA:O's combat system, story structure, leveling systems, encounter design, game world size/presentation... it betrays a level of arrogance, honestly. That other developers who excel at crafting games that showcase these features can simply be mimicked while still keeping same level of story pedigree Bioware has a reputation for... it's borderline narcissistic, really. That Bethesda could have open world pinned down with fleshed out character creation and customization but careful attention to non-voiced protagonists and primarily single-character action combat, but then Bioware to come along with zero open world experience and say "we can create huge open areas that are on the same scale, but with voiced PCs, cinematics, companions, tactical party combat and still not suffer any quality issues... oh, and we'll do it in three years, despite Bethesda usually taking five between each IP's next title."

I'm not saying DA:I is a clone of Skyrim... but they borrowed from its design elements and it winds up having many of the same challenges to overcome. And while Bethesda has had 20+ years refining their design, engine and creation process to handle this, Bioware decided to do it on a whim as an over-correction to a complaint from DA2... a complaint stemmed in them having knee-jerk over corrections in the first place.

 

Yes, because there is nothing arrogant about making accusations of arrogancy and narcissim, by the way for real, towards a game company for desiring to try to do new things instead of making the game you wanted to make. And by the way, again, your whole argument is based on utter falsehood of how ME2 is supposedly completely different gamemechanicwise from ME3.

[In Exile]

No, I didn't mean to imply the changes weren't drastic between BG1 and BG2.

But of the 9 Bioware IPs, only 5 had sequels. Of those five, only three had sequels actually done by Bioware. And of those three, only two had three iterations where one could say a pattern had evolved. Baldur's Gate only had two games, so one could say that the change between 1 and 2 was a shift for the series - a statement that could be backed up by Throne of Bhaal being much more similar to BG2 than BG1 (despite being an expansion, it was the only true litmus test that could be done until 2011).

One could have thought that when making their third games in a series, Bioware would either stayed with the formula set by their second games (ME2 and DA2,respectively) or reverted back to the success of their originals (ME1 and DA:O) and not been wrong by any precedent they had set in their companies fifteen year history. Instead, with ME3 and DA:I, they have first shown their colors about creating IPs with drastically different gameplay elements in each iteration. Since this a rather new phenomenon, people are right to voice their displeasure now - it's really only just now been confirmed that Bioware has a policy of doing a drastically over-pronounced knee jerk reaction to each game they make instead of having a clearer concept of what they envision the game to be.


Some people may applaud innovation with each title, but innovation must be in piecemeal, making sure to stay rooted in your strengths while exploring new territory. Bioware doesn't do that - one could easily be of the mindset that a different studio made each one of their flagship IP sequels, since they jump headfirst into new features without giving the proper respect to why their predecessors didn't have these features to begin with.

DA:O had a silent protagonist because the focus was on player agency over their character's personality, which would have been very resource intensive to voice. DA2 dived right into this with limited player agency, causing player compalints that Hawke was never their character. And in DA:I they over-corrected by then bringing back even more race options than DA:O and more voice options than DA2, but then all the rest of their side content suffered because of budget limitations, using Mark Darrah's own words.

There's similar paths for DA:O's combat system, story structure, leveling systems, encounter design, game world size/presentation... it betrays a level of arrogance, honestly. That other developers who excel at crafting games that showcase these features can simply be mimicked while still keeping same level of story pedigree Bioware has a reputation for... it's borderline narcissistic, really. That Bethesda could have open world pinned down with fleshed out character creation and customization but careful attention to non-voiced protagonists and primarily single-character action combat, but then Bioware to come along with zero open world experience and say "we can create huge open areas that are on the same scale, but with voiced PCs, cinematics, companions, tactical party combat and still not suffer any quality issues... oh, and we'll do it in three years, despite Bethesda usually taking five between each IP's next title."

I'm not saying DA:I is a clone of Skyrim... but they borrowed from its design elements and it winds up having many of the same challenges to overcome. And while Bethesda has had 20+ years refining their design, engine and creation process to handle this, Bioware decided to do it on a whim as an over-correction to a complaint from DA2... a complaint stemmed in them having knee-jerk over corrections in the first place.

You're overstating things a bit I think. Bioware doesn't do coherent vision. DAO had a silent protagonist because they were in the business of making games with a silent protagonist when they came up with DAO. It was KoTOR with MMO influenced combat. The rhetoric they used about the value of a silent PC was the same type of marketing hack job they're using now to push features fans like less.

It's notable that Bioware had a serious debate about adding in VO to DAO but stopped due to the cost (because of how ideas were pitched, e.g. 8 voices). There's no principle here.

To give you an example of how all this is marketing fluff let's go back to ME1. Way back - before even the Jack Bauer in space marketing or the X06 gameplay video that had a DAI style tactical camera and full party control. We're back to when they introduced the dialogue wheel.

The pitch was that the paraphrase would be inaccurate. It was meant to be like forming a though - catching the gap between the ideal way you want to say something in your head and the sometimes stumbling sentence that comes out.

They dropped that like a hot potatoe, as they did with other marketing fluff (like spiritual successor to KoTOR).

Bioware's weakness is a lack of a coherent vision. They don't abandon concepts. They just don't to them.

[In Exile]

After DAO I don't recall there being overwhelming calls for wholesale changes, and the common call after DA2 was to take the franchise back to being more like DAO or at least a combination of the 2.

PC VO came up constantly. Pre-release there was a lot of hate on the origins and the MMO style combat. The more hardcore of the BG fans likely dropped DAO at that point. There was a lot of feedback about how critical it was to invest more in companions (which DA2 did to an absurd extent and no one cared). Lots of criticism about the plot.

Mechanically shots were fired about the garbage tool tips, broken ability trees and unbalanced classes. The speed of the combat was criticised.

And that's just off the top of my head.

[Dean_the_Young]

A reconstruction doesn't have to simultaneously deconstruct the trope. That's why I cited Toppa Toppa Gurren Lagan as illustrative of this type of approach.  

 

As to the merits of DA:I, I don't see why a heavy focus on an antagonist is particularly necessary. Ignoring the fact that DA:I is the only game Bioware's had besides ME3 that actually coherently ties the majority of its main quest to the antagonist, the Elder One is pretty clearly written to be the antithesis of the Inquisitor. I thought that this was so on the nose in the writing that it was one of the biggest weaknesses in the game. As for what DA:I addresses that's both a deconstruction and reconstruction with Corypheus, well, there's a big one. Repeatedly losing as an antagonist actually saps Corypheus's strength. Unlike every fantasy villain since Sauron, he's not a load bearing boss. This concept is stupid and Bioware uses it again and again pre-DAI. The best examples are Sovereign/Saren and the Archdemon. 

 

To have the villain lose in a way that's actually realistic - slowly being whittled down to nothing - is ambitious. And it's led to a great deal of hate specifically because it's not the usual nonsensical encounter where the enemy has an overwhelming force and then just gives up and runs away when the load bearing boss ™ loses. 

 

I'd like to say that while I disagree withyour conclusion- about why Corypheus is derided- I totally give you props for the analysis and assessment on the context. 

 

For me, Corypheus's issue wasn't so much a gradual whittiling away of his power base, as much as a lack of credibility in that power base after Haven. Part of the cost of having the three main post-Haven quests be build along the lines of 'we must foil Corypheus's plan to take over Orlais/seize the Wardens/find the Fountain and reach his victory condition' is that, well, by foiling him we kept him from having that demonstrated and credible power base that truly threatened us. And considering that Haven wiped out a significant part of the Mages/Templars that he recruited instead of us, the rest of it was kind of... out there. Told, not shown.

 

Don't get me wrong- I love the Lion whatever it was in Orlais, the area where there was an honest-to-god Red Templar strong hold and Corypheus bastion. That was an excellent example of the Inquisition chipping apart Corypheus's support base- but it was also entirely optional, and had no impact on the plot. All the non-critical exploration zones were, and that's a shame because that's where the 'we're fighting back-and-forth with Corypheus' was best. You didn't have to fight through these things to get to Corypheus, so the power base we did see was mostly irrelevant.

 

I think Corypheus was undermined by the structure of the plot, and the linear plot of the critical path was undermined by the open-world filled with utterly irrelevant optional areas. Because of that, the vast majority of Corypheus's agents and influence are just kind of... irrelevant.

 

 

One solution would have been to make the regional quests sorta-mandatory in order to access the next part of the crit path. Not by the Forces mechanic, in which scavenging a couple rocks or herbs was enough- but tying the regional narratives into enabling the overarching plot. Make us solve the local problems to have the support to solve the bigger ones, rather than just picking up rocks.

 

So, for example: pre-Mage/Templars, we have to get to Orlais to confront the Chantry. In canon the game gives us a benchmark of Power we have to accumulate, and to get to the suggested level you need to go to the areas until you kill enough things and do enough quests to level up.

 

But why not make part of the first areas a question of 'how do we get to Orlais from Ferelden'? Going north to the sword coast is about trying to secure a port of sorts that you could get a boat to take you to the capital. Or you can go south, where the Inquisition soldiers in the marshes were looking for a better path through/around the Frostback Mountains, and that path allows you to get to Orlais as well.

 

 

Then, post-Corypheus, when we have to get to Orlais: why not make the war zone and the Freemen of the Dales mandatory things to get our foot in the door? Say that we have to do one or the other in order to get an invitation from one of the actors: rescuing/contact the Duke's men in the war zone gets you the Duke's invitation, while Floriana will invite you on Celene's behalf if you wipe out the secessionist Freemen of the Dales who are giving Celene headaches down South.

 

 

And for the Temple of Mythal, why can we go straight there rather than have to do some elven archeological treasure hunts to find clues on its location, a sort of race-against-time against Corypheus's own agents doing the same? Fighting Venatori in the wastes could have been a lead into the Grey Wardens plotline by pulling the Venatori conspiracy angle. Liberating Empress de Lions from the Red Templars could have provided vital intel on the Red Templar marching orders and freeing up the Orlesians to send their forces against the Temple of Mythal. And all of these could have been required before even being able to get to the Temple of Mythal, rather than the arbitrary power count.

 

Tying the regions into the plot, making the Corypheus presence in them a vital part of his operation rather than negligable, wouldn't have just helped the story structure- it would have helped make Corypheus a more credible actor because he forces would have been in the field against us trying to stop us. Not just... 'oh, we don't know where he's hiding, but he's got armies and ****.'

 

 

Then, at least, Corypheus's last-ditch effort might have made a bit of sense for a climax... even if the setup of that climax was itself anti-climatic in the extreme.

[Shadeling]

I don't really care if it's arrogant or not. As I said, do what you want with it, you disagreeing means very little to me.

 

 

Likewise.

[In Exile]

I'd like to say that while I disagree withyour conclusion- about why Corypheus is derided- I totally give you props for the analysis and assessment on the context. 

 

For me, Corypheus's issue wasn't so much a gradual whittiling away of his power base, as much as a lack of credibility in that power base after Haven. Part of the cost of having the three main post-Haven quests be build along the lines of 'we must foil Corypheus's plan to take over Orlais/seize the Wardens/find the Fountain and reach his victory condition' is that, well, by foiling him we kept him from having that demonstrated and credible power base that truly threatened us. And considering that Haven wiped out a significant part of the Mages/Templars that he recruited instead of us, the rest of it was kind of... out there. Told, not shown.

 

Don't get me wrong- I love the Lion whatever it was in Orlais, the area where there was an honest-to-god Red Templar strong hold and Corypheus bastion. That was an excellent example of the Inquisition chipping apart Corypheus's support base- but it was also entirely optional, and had no impact on the plot. All the non-critical exploration zones were, and that's a shame because that's where the 'we're fighting back-and-forth with Corypheus' was best. You didn't have to fight through these things to get to Corypheus, so the power base we did see was mostly irrelevant.

 

I think Corypheus was undermined by the structure of the plot, and the linear plot of the critical path was undermined by the open-world filled with utterly irrelevant optional areas. Because of that, the vast majority of Corypheus's agents and influence are just kind of... irrelevant.

 

 

One solution would have been to make the regional quests sorta-mandatory in order to access the next part of the crit path. Not by the Forces mechanic, in which scavenging a couple rocks or herbs was enough- but tying the regional narratives into enabling the overarching plot. Make us solve the local problems to have the support to solve the bigger ones, rather than just picking up rocks.

 

So, for example: pre-Mage/Templars, we have to get to Orlais to confront the Chantry. In canon the game gives us a benchmark of Power we have to accumulate, and to get to the suggested level you need to go to the areas until you kill enough things and do enough quests to level up.

 

But why not make part of the first areas a question of 'how do we get to Orlais from Ferelden'? Going north to the sword coast is about trying to secure a port of sorts that you could get a boat to take you to the capital. Or you can go south, where the Inquisition soldiers in the marshes were looking for a better path through/around the Frostback Mountains, and that path allows you to get to Orlais as well.

 

 

Then, post-Corypheus, when we have to get to Orlais: why not make the war zone and the Freemen of the Dales mandatory things to get our foot in the door? Say that we have to do one or the other in order to get an invitation from one of the actors: rescuing/contact the Duke's men in the war zone gets you the Duke's invitation, while Floriana will invite you on Celene's behalf if you wipe out the secessionist Freemen of the Dales who are giving Celene headaches down South.

 

 

And for the Temple of Mythal, why can we go straight there rather than have to do some elven archeological treasure hunts to find clues on its location, a sort of race-against-time against Corypheus's own agents doing the same? Fighting Venatori in the wastes could have been a lead into the Grey Wardens plotline by pulling the Venatori conspiracy angle. Liberating Empress de Lions from the Red Templars could have provided vital intel on the Red Templar marching orders and freeing up the Orlesians to send their forces against the Temple of Mythal. And all of these could have been required before even being able to get to the Temple of Mythal, rather than the arbitrary power count.

 

Tying the regions into the plot, making the Corypheus presence in them a vital part of his operation rather than negligable, wouldn't have just helped the story structure- it would have helped make Corypheus a more credible actor because he forces would have been in the field against us trying to stop us. Not just... 'oh, we don't know where he's hiding, but he's got armies and ****.'

 

 

Then, at least, Corypheus's last-ditch effort might have made a bit of sense for a climax... even if the setup of that climax was itself anti-climatic in the extreme.

 

I think the lack of conveyance of Corypheus having power is a very real issue. You raise the point of Emprise du Lion and its execution, and I think it's a good one. Here is what I think the issue is with Corypheus, truly: Bioware didn't actually initially script him as a villain who acted "openly". In Your Heart Shall Burn was apparently added late in development, and that's the only scene where Corypheus shows an awesome military power (which, notably, is crushed by the end of the quest via avalanche). Otherwise, Corypheus only acts behind the scenes - co-opting the mage rebellion, suckering the templars to become red templars, tricking the Grey Wardens to summon demons, and suckering an orlesian noble into assassinating Celene. 

 

This idea of Corypheus being a subtle actor behind the scenes ties in with how they portrayed him in DA2 in legacy, and it ties in with the meaning behind his name - the "Conductor". It also works thematically with the idea of an "Inquisition", because you're "rooting out" Corypheus (or the Elder One).

 

If you ask me, that's where the original genesis for all of these concepts came from. A kind of shadow war.

 

But over time these ideas were cut in favour of a more bombastic and open warfare style storyline. And - in the usual Bioware fashion, because as I've said the company is simply not one that ever has a coherent vision that they stick to, even on a single production - this got chopped up into what we see right now. 

 

In the game that we got, the problem with the zones wasn't just their being optional but also in their being about a different kind of action by Corypheus. All of it was a subtle hunt for elven artefacts (tying in to his actual plot) vs. a more bombastic type of war which is what In Your Heart Shall Burn set up. 

 

Overall, I do agree with your suggestions regarding the regional plots entirely and I think that Bioware has to look at ideas of this nature if they want to keep the DA:I design substantially unchanged. And, again, thank you for the kind words. 

[Apollexander]

I think the lack of conveyance of Corypheus having power is a very real issue. You raise the point of Emprise du Lion and its execution, and I think it's a good one. Here is what I think the issue is with Corypheus, truly: Bioware didn't actually initially script him as a villain who acted "openly". In Your Heart Shall Burn was apparently added late in development, and that's the only scene where Corypheus shows an awesome military power (which, notably, is crushed by the end of the quest via avalanche). Otherwise, Corypheus only acts behind the scenes - co-opting the mage rebellion, suckering the templars to become red templars, tricking the Grey Wardens to summon demons, and suckering an orlesian noble into assassinating Celene. 

 

This idea of Corypheus being a subtle actor behind the scenes ties in with how they portrayed him in DA2 in legacy, and it ties in with the meaning behind his name - the "Conductor". It also works thematically with the idea of an "Inquisition", because you're "rooting out" Corypheus (or the Elder One).

 

If you ask me, that's where the original genesis for all of these concepts came from. A kind of shadow war.

 

But over time these ideas were cut in favour of a more bombastic and open warfare style storyline. And - in the usual Bioware fashion, because as I've said the company is simply not one that ever has a coherent vision that they stick to, even on a single production - this got chopped up into what we see right now. 

 

In the game that we got, the problem with the zones wasn't just their being optional but also in their being about a different kind of action by Corypheus. All of it was a subtle hunt for elven artefacts (tying in to his actual plot) vs. a more bombastic type of war which is what In Your Heart Shall Burn set up. 

 

Overall, I do agree with your suggestions regarding the regional plots entirely and I think that Bioware has to look at ideas of this nature if they want to keep the DA:I design substantially unchanged. And, again, thank you for the kind words. 

 

Your presumption is very reasonable. I remember that a dev mentioned that the player became the inquisitor very soon at the beginning but that looked too simple, so they changed the plot and added "in your heart shall burn" to make sense. ( Damn I've forgotten who and where! Can someone provide the link?)

Evidence: In the game there are chances that you are called "inquisitor" in Haven due to some bugs.

And our poor Cory has to stand on the stage too early, losing mystique.

[Morroian]

PC VO came up constantly. Pre-release there was a lot of hate on the origins and the MMO style combat. The more hardcore of the BG fans likely dropped DAO at that point. There was a lot of feedback about how critical it was to invest more in companions (which DA2 did to an absurd extent and no one cared). Lots of criticism about the plot.

Mechanically shots were fired about the garbage tool tips, broken ability trees and unbalanced classes. The speed of the combat was criticised.

And that's just off the top of my head.

 

I think all of those were just standard qqing from some after the fact, not overwhelming calls for changes like after DA2.

[Valkyrja]

No, I didn't mean to imply the changes weren't drastic between BG1 and BG2.

But of the 9 Bioware IPs, only 5 had sequels. Of those five, only three had sequels actually done by Bioware. And of those three, only two had three iterations where one could say a pattern had evolved. Baldur's Gate only had two games, so one could say that the change between 1 and 2 was a shift for the series - a statement that could be backed up by Throne of Bhaal being much more similar to BG2 than BG1 (despite being an expansion, it was the only true litmus test that could be done until 2011).

One could have thought that when making their third games in a series, Bioware would either stayed with the formula set by their second games (ME2 and DA2,respectively) or reverted back to the success of their originals (ME1 and DA:O) and not been wrong by any precedent they had set in their companies fifteen year history. Instead, with ME3 and DA:I, they have first shown their colors about creating IPs with drastically different gameplay elements in each iteration. Since this a rather new phenomenon, people are right to voice their displeasure now - it's really only just now been confirmed that Bioware has a policy of doing a drastically over-pronounced knee jerk reaction to each game they make instead of having a clearer concept of what they envision the game to be.

 

This post is really off-base about Mass Effect 2 and 3. The third game does not have "drastically different gameplay elements" from ME2 at all and posting that begs the question if you played either of these games. They are both third person shooters with powers and RPG elements.

 

For ME3 BioWare made incremental improvements on ME2's formula and measured response to criticism.

• The shooting and cover mechanics were improved.
• Shepard's mobility was improved.
• ME2's skill trees were built on.
• The combo system was further developed.
• Customization returned without ME1's asinine itemization.
• The levels were more open, an improvement from ME2's corridors.

This is an obvious evolution of ME2 and BioWare was right to do this because that game was flawed, primarily clunky to play and overly streamlined. If anything the ME2 to ME3 evolution is what people want BioWare to do and what people generally expect out of a sequel, sticking with a base and improving on it.

 

Also the idea of reverting back to ME1 is laughable. ME1 was a success in spite of its combat which was widely regarded as a failure.

 

It feels like you had a point about Dragon Age but then tried to extend it to BioWare as a whole by bringing in Mass Effect despite that franchise not fitting what you were talking about at all. Really the best case here is that you just aren't familiar with the Mass Effect series, the worst case is well no need to go there.

[Fast Jimmy]

This post is really off-base about Mass Effect 2 and 3. The third game does not have "drastically different gameplay elements" from ME2 at all and posting that begs the question if you played either of these games. They are both third person shooters with powers and RPG elements.

For ME3 BioWare made incremental improvements on ME2's formula and measured response to criticism.

• The shooting and cover mechanics were improved.
• Shepard's mobility was improved.
• ME2's skill trees were built on.
• The combo system was further developed.
• Customization returned without ME1's asinine itemization.
• The levels were more open, an improvement from ME2's corridors.

This is an obvious evolution of ME2 and BioWare was right to do this because that game was flawed, primarily clunky to play and overly streamlined. If anything the ME2 to ME3 evolution is what people want BioWare to do and what people generally expect out of a sequel, sticking with a base and improving on it.

Also the idea of reverting back to ME1 is laughable. ME1 was a success in spite of its combat which was widely regarded as a failure.

It feels like you had a point about Dragon Age but then tried to extend it to BioWare as a whole by bringing in Mass Effect despite that franchise not fitting what you were talking about at all. Really the best case here is that you just aren't familiar with the Mass Effect series, the worst case is well no need to go there.

Your entire post only validates my argument. I'm saying it was never clear from Bioware's history that they would reinvent their franchises with every sequel. The poster I was replying to originally said that's what Bioware always does and people just need to get used to it. My entire argument was that we are just now seeing evidence that this is a case.

The best case here is that you are replying to something you haven't paid any attention to. The worst case is well no need to go there.

[AlanC9]

But of the 9 Bioware IPs, only 5 had sequels. Of those five, only three had sequels actually done by Bioware. And of those three, only two had three iterations where one could say a pattern had evolved. Baldur's Gate only had two games, so one could say that the change between 1 and 2 was a shift for the series - a statement that could be backed up by Throne of Bhaal being much more similar to BG2 than BG1 (despite being an expansion, it was the only true litmus test that could be done until 2011).

One could have thought that when making their third games in a series, Bioware would either stayed with the formula set by their second games (ME2 and DA2,respectively) or reverted back to the success of their originals (ME1 and DA:O) and not been wrong by any precedent they had set in their companies fifteen year history.

In addition to what wolfhowwl said -- which I fully endorse -- this mostly reveals that attempting to think about Bio's process that way is a bad idea. "One could have thought" that, sure. But one would have been thinking that on the basis of essentially zero evidence. And if expansions count, why aren't you counting SoU and HotU? I don't think they should count, but you apparently do.

You could make a minimalist case that prior to ME3 and DAI there wasn't enough evidence to know how Bio would handle a series with more than two games, I guess.