129 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

It is not. DAI failed on both fields while Skyrin on one, but both proved story and simulator are different things.

They clearly are, and story is way less valuavle to me.

Given a simulator, I can craft my own story.

[Steelcan]

Again, you're painting in very broad strokes, so this point does seem similar in those terms. Of course, it's not at all clear that this is actually an accurate description of what happened with the Elves in DA.

 

 

I guess if your only criteria is the fact that they are dwarves, then sure, there's no difference whatsoever. Of course, usually when people say things are copied they have somewhat more specific criteria than that.

 

 

I actually wish you would elaborate, because that's nonsense. Gondor's last king died many years before and it has instead been ruled by a line of stewards, until Aragorn (basically a great-great-great-grand-nephew of the last king) shows up and only reclaims it because he needs to (for the war of the ring, but also for marriage reasons). There isn't even a power struggle over the throne, since the last Steward kills himself. Aragorn demonstrates his worth as a king and then he is accepted. The conflict in Fereldan has *no* resemblance to this whatsoever, except that there is some period of time where there is no king.

 

 

Nope. Darkspawn are mindless creatures who gain organization and direction when led by an Old God. Tolkien's orcs are monstrous, but they do have free will and, when left to their own devices, they form into organized tribal units that act independently. The independent behaviors of individual orcs are demonstrated repeatedly in Tolkien's works, as well as intertribal conflicts (even during the War of the Ring, when they should all be working together). It's true that they have a history of willfully following dark forces (first Morgoth, who originally created them, and then later Sauron), but they are fully sapient individuals regardless. The only comparable example in DA is the Architect's work.

 

 

If you want, because so far your argument is pretty flimsy.

I'll also throw in magical affinity, "chosen" people by their Gods, attractiveness, isolationism, a defeatist attitude towards the world in general, nature oriented aesthetics, and so on.  You really have to be dense to deny the clear similarities.

 

Dwarves that live underground locked in struggle for the ancestral homeland, be it the former Dwarven Empire or the Lost cities of the Dwarves such as Khazad-Dum.  master craftsmen, bound by tradition (Caste-system vs Dwarven self-absorption and strict policy of not allowing outsiders access to their own language and knowledge).  In addition to the association of dwarves and drinking.

 

The Ferelden Throne also is inhabited by a line of Kings who are specially marked with Dragons' Blood and have a history of fighting the forces of evil, be it Darkspawn (and don't tell me Alistair coming to the throne to fight the Darkspawn doesn't reek of Aragon) or Tevinter.

 

Orcs are sapient but almost always in thrall to fallen Maiar.  They almost never act independently despite being capable of doing so.  So they don't really ahve much free will, they were both created through magical corruption, and serve as foot soldiers of their respective setting's big bads.  They look aesthetically very similar.  The only real difference that I see between them is that struggle with them is not a defining aspect of Elven society in DA. 

 

Thematically both stories share a certain strain of primitivism (ie things were better in the good old days and we have fallen since then its rather literal in the case of Elves, but is also seen in the politics of Orlais, the Wardens, and Dwarves), both stories (despite DA's attempts) fall back on Good vs Evil storylines.  Both storylines rely heavily on the "hero's journey" to tell their stories, DA2 in particular is guilty of this but DA:I and DA:O are only just better.

[Amirit]

They clearly are, and story is way less valuavle to me.

Given a simulator, I can craft my own story.

 

You had to mention it first. Then may be good enough reason for you not to transform MEA into simulator would be the long history of successful story-driven games for BW and zero simulators? They (BW) are kings of storytelling in a format of team-RPG-games. To drop something they successfully did for years in order to pursue something in the field already occupied by others AND to do it with a game who's fans expecting BW-traditional great story, to me looks like a commercial suicide.

 

The good thing, we already know it's not the case. The bad - emphasized exploring hinting gameplay a la DAI. I suspect neither you nor story-lovers will be satisfied.  

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

The thing they would have to do is not to give the main story quest a stupid name like "The Race Against Time" when there is no clock ticking. Just make it a main story line for you to do and you get prompted to do it every now and then. The thing is we're military, at least for a while anyway. Maybe we're military in the beginning, but then once we're there it's more open frontier and since there's no central government anymore.... we're like

 

"Alliance? The Alliance is a million light years away! We're on our own here." And it becomes more like Firefly.

 

Put different factions in the game. Alliance military, different corporations, some criminal organizations, law enforcement, cities, etc. You can do missions for any of them. Just don't make the missions repetitive - this is a huge danger in more open world settings. Put mini-games in: like bowling, darts, pool and have your cousin call you on your cell phone to go bowling while you're in the middle of a mission. Design the game so that the main quest can take several different story lines - you can do it with any of the organizations. Say if Cerberus was there you could do it with them. They're the affably evil organization. Or you can do it with the Alliance. Or you can do it with one of the other organizations. Multiple outcomes but only for replayability. But with the understanding that your ending doesn't matter because you can replay different story lines and everyone can play different story lines - Bioware will pick the canon for the next game in the series. This frees the writers to write a good sequel.

[Sylvius the Mad]

They (BW) are kings of storytelling in a format of team-RPG-games.

To me, that's not what defines BioWare. BioWare has often said it did, and they clearly seem to think so, but I disagree.

I played BioWare games because they were good at crafting a believable setting (world-building), and because they had terrific RPG combat.

DAO was an excellent example of both.

Focusing on telling a story rather than what they're actually good at is what I think they did when they released ME, and I didn't really like ME. It wasn't bad, but it wasn't BioWare-quality.

To drop something they successfully did for years in order to pursue something in the field already occupied by others AND to do it with a game who's fans expecting BW-traditional great story, to me looks like a commercial suicide.

Swap out great story for roleplaying and you've described exactly what they did do with DA2.

Telling a story has never been BioWare's strength, and it never will be in a roleplaying game. The two just don't go together.

The good thing, we already know it's not the case. The bad - emphasized exploring hinting gameplay a la DAI. I suspect neither you nor story-lovers will be satisfied.

DAI is tremendous. They could do worse than mimic it.

[Killroy]

You mean like we had it in DAI? What, you have some kind of story there and the more sidequest you do, the longer you are in the zone and the more banter (character interaction) you get. I wonder why so many people hate it!

 

Seriously, no, thank you! Skyrim proved that you either have a story or a world simulator but never both. And DAI underlined that difference.

 

I was thinking more along the lines of something like this:

 

-Visit Planet A: trigger event with 3 options

   -Option 1 results in antagonistic confrontation with Companion Alpha(+1 rival point) and support from Companion Delta(+1 ally point)

   -Option 2 results antagonistic confrontation with Companion Delta(+1 rival point) and support from Companion Alpha(+1 ally point)

   -Option 3 results in antagonistic confrontations with Companions Alpha(+1 rival point) and Delta(+1 rival point) but gaining

    supplies/equipment for the mission

 

-Visit Planet G: trigger event with 2 options

   -Option 1 results in antagonistic confrontations with Companions Beta(+1 rival point), Delta(+1 rival point) and Zeta(+1 rival point)     and support from companions Alpha(+1 ally point), Gamma(+1 ally point) and Kappa(+1 ally point)

   -Option 2 results in antagonistic confrontations with companions Alpha(+1 rival point), Gamma(+1 rival point) and Kappa(+1 rival point) and support from companions Beta(+1 ally point), Delta(+1 ally point) and Zeta(+1 ally point)

 

Etc.

 

After you get a certain number of points in each or either category for each companion you unlock more scenes and content with them. The content would be different depending on how your relationships have progressed(rivalry content is different from ally content). Things like mutinies could be the result of having too many rival points for several companions, while in-fighting between companions could be the result of having some strong allies and some strong rivals.

[Cyonan]

If BioWare wants to make a game focused on world building rather than story telling, then I'm not opposed to it. They make some very good worlds.

 

However Mass Effect has always been about telling a story and the characters within that story, and it should remain about those things. Even then, I'd still expect there to be a decent amount of world building since this is a new galaxy they have to set up but I also expect a new story.

 

If they want to do a game that focuses purely on world building with minimal story, I'd say they should do a new IP.

 

I played BioWare games because they were good at crafting a believable setting (world-building), and because they had terrific RPG combat.

 

I feel like "terrific RPG combat" should never be words used to describe a group of games that includes Knights of the Old Republic.

 

Trying to create a system that was a hybrid of real time and turn based is not something that worked for them.

 

I'll agree that DA:O was good, though. Mostly because they took a solid foundation in the Baldur's Gate system and worked a lot of the clunkiness out of it.

[RoboticWater]

To me, that's not what defines BioWare. BioWare has often said it did, and they clearly seem to think so, but I disagree.

Telling a story has never been BioWare's strength, and it never will be in a roleplaying game. The two just don't go together.

Except that the Mass Effect series and BioWare games as a whole are universally praised for their storytelling. Stories are literally what BioWare is about.

[Kappa Neko]

While I did enjoy the pseudo open world attempt in DAI and thought they did a decent job trying to balance story and exploration, I want Bioware to focus on the few things they do well. And it's not exploration, not combat (with the exception of ME3 perhaps) and not really story either. It's characters. And characters need a good narrative to shine. Bioware did a decent job of creating the Mass Effect universe and Thedas from copying others and putting everything in a blender. I LOVE both these worlds. But if they don't know how to fill their worlds with life and meaning, or don't have the budget for it, then making exploration a big part of ME:A is pointless.

Bioware should stick to a smaller scale to keep the narrative flow. The cinematic approach works very well for them. DAI showed what happens when engaging cutscenes are missing.

 

But I have the bad feeling that ME:A is goign to focus heavily on exploration and combat. And MP, of course.

 

Fortunately, Bethesda seems to have figured out that they can do what Bioware has been doing for years, only better. Or so the Fallout 4 and Elder Scrolls rumors seem to indicate. We'll find out soon enough.

 

It's quite funny that Bioware has a hard-on for Bethesda's success and tries to force the same kind of success without any clue how to make it work. Bioware don't get gameplay, they just don't. While Bethesda now wants to invest more in characters and romances.

This is going to be interesting... at this point I have all my money on Bethesda getting it right. They don't have EA breathing down their necks and stifling all creativity.

If Bethesda is smart they will soak up all the talent that has left Bioware, hire additional writers, and show everyone how it's done. If CDPR can do it, Bethesda can too.The ice is getting thin for Bioware/EA... one can only be lazy for so long before the competition takes over. I don't think they learned the lesson with ME:A. I hope I'm wrong.

 

(For the record, I never cared for Bethesda and open world until I played Skyrim recently and realized what a poor copy DAI exploration was. Now I'm much more excited about Fallout 4 than ME:A. As a Bioware fangirl this is making me sad.)

[Nomen Mendax]

...

Bioware should stick to a smaller scale to keep the narrative flow. The cinematic approach works very well for them. DAI showed what happens when engaging cutscenes are missing.

...

I'm happy to lose the cinematic approach if it means I gain in role playing opportunities. For me Bioware's cinematic approach has a negative impact on too many other things for me to fully support it. I agree with you about characters though.

[Cyonan]

While I did enjoy the pseudo open world attempt in DAI and thought they did a decent job trying to balance story and exploration, I want Bioware to focus on the few things they do well. And it's not exploration, not combat (with the exception of ME3 perhaps) and not really story either. It's characters. And characters need a good narrative to shine. Bioware did a decent job of creating the Mass Effect universe and Thedas from copying others and putting everything in a blender. I LOVE both these worlds. But if they don't know how to fill their worlds with life and meaning, or don't have the budget for it, then making exploration a big part of ME:A is pointless.

Bioware should stick to a smaller scale to keep the narrative flow. The cinematic approach works very well for them. DAI showed what happens when engaging cutscenes are missing.

 

But I have the bad feeling that ME:A is goign to focus heavily on exploration and combat. And MP, of course.

 

Fortunately, Bethesda seems to have figured out that they can do what Bioware has been doing for years, only better. Or so the Fallout 4 and Elder Scrolls rumors seem to indicate. We'll find out soon enough.

 

It's quite funny that Bioware has a hard-on for Bethesda's success and tries to force the same kind of success without any clue how to make it work. Bioware don't get gameplay, they just don't. While Bethesda now wants to invest more in characters and romances.

This is going to be interesting... at this point I have all my money on Bethesda getting it right. They don't have EA breathing down their necks and stifling all creativity.

If Bethesda is smart they will soak up all the talent that has left Bioware, hire additional writers, and show everyone how it's done. If CDPR can do it, Bethesda can too.The ice is getting thin for Bioware/EA... one can only be lazy for so long before the competition takes over. I don't think they learned the lesson with ME:A. I hope I'm wrong.

 

(For the record, I never cared for Bethesda and open world until I played Skyrim recently and realized what a poor copy DAI exploration was. Now I'm much more excited about Fallout 4 than ME:A. As a Bioware fangirl this is making me sad.)

 

I would argue that with ME3 they got gameplay right. The fact that ME3 MP still has a decent number of people playing it to this day is a testament to just how solid the core gameplay of Mass Effect 3 was. There's no story or game world to hold that game mode up.

 

Having played Bethesda games since Oblivion, I don't believe they have the writing prowess to pull off this increased focus on characters. Maybe they'll prove me wrong and I'm still very excited for Fallout 4, but their recent track record gives me great reason to doubt them.

 

Obsidian also beat Bethesda at their own style with New Vegas.

[Kappa Neko]

I would argue that with ME3 they got gameplay right. The fact that ME3 MP still has a decent number of people playing it to this day is a testament to just how solid the core gameplay of Mass Effect 3 was. There's no story or game world to hold that game mode up.

 

Having played Bethesda games since Oblivion, I don't believe they have the writing prowess to pull off this increased focus on characters. Maybe they'll prove me wrong and I'm still very excited for Fallout 4, but their recent track record gives me great reason to doubt them.

 

Obsidian also beat Bethesda at their own style with New Vegas.

I didn't think so either until I played the Dawnguard DLC that had a bit of a Bioware vibe. I got SO attached to Serana. Took me totally by surprise. She was the only character though with a bit of personality. I still haven't finished the main story, I couldn't care less. Spent 190h doing other things.

 

Never played an Obsidian game...

Never played a Fallout game either. Never thought I would ever care. So take my prediction with a pile of salt. But oh look, it's COLORFUL now, the CC looks amazing. The dog can't die, YES! There are companions and romances?!? And our beloved JACK is the female character's voice!!! Holy sh*t! If Fallout 4 takes the responsive immersive world of Skyrim and fills it with interesting characters, then wow, this could be the beginning of a new love affair for me.

 

Right now I wanna throw all the great voice actors Bioware has had at Bethesda, shouting "Do something amazing with it."

 

They probably won't. And Bioware will keep trying to be every successful game ever made and end up not being great at anything anymore. And EA won't care. And I will buy their **** anyway because there will always be one or two characters I fall in love with. And no other company will provide me with the Bioware trademark character drama I crave like a drug addict. But maybe, maybe one of the others will pull off what Bioware should be making: a truly amazing game. Like ME1, only with better combat... there is always a catch. I don't demand perfection. Just don't be like Ubisoft with Assassin's Creed. Don't be lazy.

[shodiswe]

I fail to see why it can't accomplish both.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I feel like "terrific RPG combat" should never be words used to describe a group of games that includes Knights of the Old Republic.

I'll concede that was their weakest pausable combat pre-ME. However...

Trying to create a system that was a hybrid of real time and turn based is not something that worked for them.

Aside from Jade Empire, it's something they've done in literally every RPG they've made.

The BioWare hallmark isn't storytelling, it's real-time-with-pause combat.

I'll agree that DA:O was good, though. Mostly because they took a solid foundation in the Baldur's Gate system and worked a lot of the clunkiness out of it.

My favourite BioWare combat.

[Cyonan]

I didn't think so either until I played the Dawnguard DLC that had a bit of a Bioware vibe. I got SO attached to Serana. Took me totally by surprise. She was the only character though with a bit of personality. I still haven't finished the main story, I couldn't care less. Spent 190h doing other things.

 

Never played an Obsidian game...

Never played a Fallout game either. Never thought I would ever care. So take my prediction with a pile of salt. But oh look, it's COLORFUL now, the CC looks amazing. The dog can't die, YES! There are companions and romances?!? And our beloved JACK is the female character's voice!!! Holy sh*t! If Fallout 4 takes the responsive immersive world of Skyrim and fills it with interesting characters, then wow, this could be the beginning of a new love affair for me.

 

Right now I wanna throw all the great voice actors Bioware has had at Bethesda, shouting "Do something amazing with it."

 

They probably won't. And Bioware will keep trying to be every successful game ever made and end up not being great at anything anymore. And EA won't care. And I will buy their **** anyway because there will always be one or two characters I fall in love with. And no other company will provide me with the Bioware trademark character drama I crave like a drug addict. But maybe, maybe one of the others will pull off what Bioware should be making: a truly amazing game. Like ME1, only with better combat... there is always a catch. I don't demand perfection. Just don't be like Ubisoft with Assassin's Creed. Don't be lazy.

 

Being honest, I feel like Skyrim wasn't responsive at all to my actions as a player. It's probably the biggest issue that I have with the game, actually. The world was well crafted, and it's fun to explore everything, but it just doesn't feel like the game acknowledges much of what I do.

 

That and most of their characters are pretty boring. They need to bring their Serana/Sheogorath game to every NPC and the PC, not just one or two of them. Having Courtenay Taylor as the voice actress is a good start, given she did a very job good as Jack. Brian Delaney has done pretty good in the games that he's credited with on IMDB as well that I've played.

 

Of course I'll still get Fallout 4 and I'm sure I'll still enjoy it, I'm just hesitant to believe that Bethesda has the writing prowess to fill an entire world with quality characters. They are good at a number of other things, though, and the modding will be great as always.

 

New Vegas was a Bethesda style game that in my opinion had overall better characters, better story, and better quests.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Except that the Mass Effect series and BioWare games as a whole are universally praised for their storytelling. Stories are literally what BioWare is about.

Marketing boilerplate.

It's not traditionally what makes their games good.

[Feybrad]

Marketing boilerplate.

It's not traditionally what makes their games good.

 

And that is purely an Opinion of which everyone has a different One. It is nothing you can argue about, as it boils down to personal Taste.

[Amirit]

To me, that's not what defines BioWare. BioWare has often said it did, and they clearly seem to think so, but I disagree.

I played BioWare games because they were good at crafting a believable setting (world-building), and because they had terrific RPG combat.

DAO was an excellent example of both.

Focusing on telling a story rather than what they're actually good at is what I think they did when they released ME, and I didn't really like ME. It wasn't bad, but it wasn't BioWare-quality.
Swap out great story for roleplaying and you've described exactly what they did do with DA2.

Telling a story has never been BioWare's strength, and it never will be in a roleplaying game. The two just don't go together.
DAI is tremendous. They could do worse than mimic it.

 

Where should I begin... Ok:

 

1. To me, that's not what defines BioWare.

Ok, the key word here "to me". Other fans and BW itself is mistaken or are they?

 

2. I played BioWare games because they were good at crafting a believable setting (world-building), and because they had terrific RPG combat.

 

Again, YOU. But let's take a look at "believable setting": BG, NWN - Forgotten Realms, not BW setting or world, KOTOR - BW setting or world, JE - first personal setting, true, but being huge fan of the game as I am, I should sadly admit the game was not that popular and "setting and world" was not a great success.

Now DA and ME is a different story, but look what they did to the lore of each game. I would say, BW "setting and world" is the last thing BW cares in it's games. And both are somehow persistent and believable only in settings where BW has no right to change anything.

 

Oh, and don't make me start on game play mechanic. There are always games that do it better (better shooter, better dragons, better boss-fights and so on).

 

The rest is pure opinions and bold statements, like "storytelling and RP do not go together". Tell it to generations of DnD fans playing stories in RP tabletop sessions. 

[Amirit]

I was thinking more along the lines of something like this:

 

-Visit Planet A: trigger event with 3 options

   -Option 1 results in antagonistic confrontation with Companion Alpha(+1 rival point) and support from Companion Delta(+1 ally point)

   -Option 2 results antagonistic confrontation with Companion Delta(+1 rival point) and support from Companion Alpha(+1 ally point)

   -Option 3 results in antagonistic confrontations with Companions Alpha(+1 rival point) and Delta(+1 rival point) but gaining

    supplies/equipment for the mission

 

-Visit Planet G: trigger event with 2 options

   -Option 1 results in antagonistic confrontations with Companions Beta(+1 rival point), Delta(+1 rival point) and Zeta(+1 rival point)     and support from companions Alpha(+1 ally point), Gamma(+1 ally point) and Kappa(+1 ally point)

   -Option 2 results in antagonistic confrontations with companions Alpha(+1 rival point), Gamma(+1 rival point) and Kappa(+1 rival point) and support from companions Beta(+1 ally point), Delta(+1 ally point) and Zeta(+1 ally point)

 

Etc.

 

After you get a certain number of points in each or either category for each companion you unlock more scenes and content with them. The content would be different depending on how your relationships have progressed(rivalry content is different from ally content). Things like mutinies could be the result of having too many rival points for several companions, while in-fighting between companions could be the result of having some strong allies and some strong rivals.

 

Not sure I get it. So, you are aimlessly wandering the galaxy collecting points with different factions? To what end? And why ARE you wandering the galaxy to begin with? It sounds more like an MMO to me. Nothing wrong with it (MMO fan here, and I would be the first one to pre-order ME MMO should they create it) but as a stand alone game... I do not see it. Well, ok, Skyrim again - standalone simulator with "companions". But the way you described it, you want to see BW companions - talkative, interacting with you, bantering with others, with personal quests and so on. And something like this in a limitless storyless world would require limitless resources to wright and voice all those lines. Do you really think it's possible?

 

P.S. Check out SWTOR in October. New model (chapters on regular basis) is not exactly what you want but quite close. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

Where should I begin... Ok:

1. To me, that's not what defines BioWare.
Ok, the key word here "to me". Other fans and BW itself is mistaken or are they?

We could resolve this quantitatively. What have they been doing for longer? What occurs in a greater percentage of their games? Which feature differentiates BioWare's RPGs from other RPGs.

If what makes a BioWare game a BioWare game is the storytelling, someone better call Japan and let them know.

2. I played BioWare games because they were good at crafting a believable setting (world-building), and because they had terrific RPG combat.

Again, YOU. But let's take a look at "believable setting": BG, NWN - Forgotten Realms, not BW setting or world, KOTOR - BW setting or world, JE - first personal setting, true, but being huge fan of the game as I am, I should sadly admit the game was not that popular and "setting and world" was not a great success.
Now DA and ME is a different story, but look what they did to the lore of each game. I would say, BW "setting and world" is the last thing BW cares in it's games. And both are somehow persistent and believable only in settings where BW has no right to change anything.

You're grossly oversimplifying the process of making a game. BioWare needs to decide which NPCs to use, where to put them, how to design terrain on a micro level, whether to include optional content. And they did that really well.

But the more they've focused on story, the less well they've crafted the world. There are now fewer places to go that aren't plot-relevant. Abilities now tend to revolve around overcoming the obstacles on the critical path. The worlds are less believable the more BioWare focuses on story.

Oh, and don't make me start on game play mechanic. There are always games that do it better (better shooter, better dragons, better boss-fights and so on).

I defy you to point out a better example of RPG combat with a shooter interface than ME. That pause-to-aim feature is revolutionary.

Do you have an example of better dragon combat that isn't action combat? And in general, I oppose boss fights. They're gimmicky, and they often damage the believability of the setting. Bosses, in the modern sense, shouldn't exist.

The rest is pure opinions and bold statements, like "storytelling and RP do not go together". Tell it to generations of DnD fans playing stories in RP tabletop sessions.

They don't play stories. They craft stories. No even vagely adequate tabletop gamemaster is going to tell his players what their characters say, regardless of their wishes.

But that's exactly what story-focused CRPGs tend to do (and all of the ME games).

[Cyonan]

I defy you to point out a better example of RPG combat with a shooter interface than ME. That pause-to-aim feature is revolutionary.

 

Fallout 3/New Vegas.

 

VATS > pause to aim

[RoboticWater]

We could resolve this quantitatively. What have they been doing for longer? What occurs in a greater percentage of their games? Which feature differentiates BioWare's RPGs from other RPGs.

If what makes a BioWare game a BioWare game is the storytelling, someone better call Japan and let them know.

BioWare is one of the few western RPG developers to focus on story. BioWare makes some of the best story driven WRPGs, and for those who aren't a huge fan of Japanese games, some of the best RPGs.
 
You don't have to like it, but BioWare are known for their storytelling. That's the way they market themselves, that's they way most people perceive them, and that's the direction they want to pursue for the future. 

 

I should also point out that Mass Effect has shooter combat with an RPG interface.

[Andrew Lucas]

I disagree. I think Thedas is the most interesting game world going and I loved the Mass Effect "world" as well. I think BioWare puts more time and thought into world building than any other RPG maker right now. They build in layers of complexity right from jump and in the case of Thedas/Dragon Age they clearly had many, many games' worth of lore built up before Origins even hit shelves.

Exactly.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Fallout 3/New Vegas.

VATS > pause to aim

With unlimited action points, I would agree. I used a mod to provide that.

But the limited action points means that there are periods in which VATS isn't useful.

It's close, but I would favour ME1's system over unmodded VATS.

[Sylvius the Mad]

BioWare is one of the few western RPG developers to focus on story. BioWare makes some of the best story driven WRPGs, and for those who aren't a huge fan of Japanese games, some of the best RPGs.

I agree they're perhaps the best RPG developer. They're certainly my favourite.

But they've been moving in the wrong direction with some games. If not for DAO and DAI, I likely would have given up on them. But I haven't, because DAI and DAO demonstrate that BioWare can and does still make excellent CRPGs.

But their most explicitly story-focused games have been their worst games. ME2 and DA2 were both pretty bad, and so far ME3 is dreadful.

You don't have to like it, but BioWare are known for their storytelling. That's the way they market themselves, that's they way most people perceive them, and that's the direction they want to pursue for the future.

Except with DAI, where they didn't do that.

I should also point out that Mass Effect has shooter combat with an RPG interface.

What shooter lets you pause to aim?

And I was specifically referring to ME1, with its stat-driven accuracy.