1378 réponses à ce sujet

[goishen]

MGSV and Witcher 3 came out after DA:I.

 

So, if anything, it was them ripping off'a DA:I.  I honestly doubt that anyone did that though.  It was prolly because Skyrim, for god only knows why, reasons.   

[Linkenski]

MGSV and Witcher 3 came out after DA:I.

 

So, if anything, it was them ripping off'a DA:I.  I honestly doubt that anyone did that though.  It was prolly because Skyrim, for god only knows why, reasons.   

Games are made in a vacuum and they are designed after the standards in the time of their initial start-time, so all 3 games were projects initiated when Skyrim was the **** and sold like hotcakes 5 years ago. The trends that are in right now are those you'll see new games copy in 3-4 years from now.

 

ME:A's core design will be based on what Bioware knew in 2013 or 2012. They even implied when DA:I came out that they were aware of its flaws and that ME:A wouldn't be made from its template. Part of that is because DA:I was made based on industry standards in 2011.

[goishen]

Games are made in a vacuum and they are designed after the standards in the time of their initial start-time, so all 3 games were projects initiated when Skyrim was the **** and sold like hotcakes 5 years ago. The trends that are in right now are those you'll see new games copy in 3-4 years from now.

 

ME:A's core design will be based on what Bioware knew in 2013 or 2012. They even implied when DA:I came out that they were aware of its flaws and that ME:A wouldn't be made from its template. Part of that is because DA:I was made based on industry standards in 2011.

 

Ehhh, not really.  If the art or some music or simply because it would take too long to re-code it they won't.  And the art is one of the first things that go into a game, unless you want to have stick figures shooting at other stick figures.

 

So, it's not really based off'a what they knew, it's based off'a what they drew.  Game developers are just like the rest of us, constantly learning.

[Linkenski]

Your point being? DA:I's design was rooted in ideas as well as industry standards they had in 2011. Of course they reiterated along the way, but you can only change it up so much along the way unless you need to completely rework it. I wasn't trying to argue they didn't learn anything as they were making it. They are constantly learning but given the nature of game design they can't always apply their newfound knowledge to a project that's already passed pre-production. As soon as you enter the production stage it's all about incorporating the planned features and cutting out those that can't be realized, but radically changing the designs because the industry gets a new standard partway through the development is not in their cards, unless they get a delay and need to rebuild very fundamental things to retrofit them. The production stage often takes around 1.5 to 2 years or more for AAA games like those BIoware make.

 

I was simply saying: By the time DA:I was beginning development, Skyrim was hot which influenced them and by the time it released the Skyrim hype was sort of over but DA:I along with two other games had kind of a delayed Open-World wave, and I was trying to explain why that delayed wave happened, and why it isn't hard to figure out why we suddenly got so many open world games 3 years after Skyrim.

[Suron]

Games are made in a vacuum and they are designed after the standards in the time of their initial start-time, so all 3 games were projects initiated when Skyrim was the **** and sold like hotcakes 5 years ago. The trends that are in right now are those you'll see new games copy in 3-4 years from now.

 

ME:A's core design will be based on what Bioware knew in 2013 or 2012. They even implied when DA:I came out that they were aware of its flaws and that ME:A wouldn't be made from its template. Part of that is because DA:I was made based on industry standards in 2011.

uh..if that was the case we'd all still be playing pong type games as no one would have ever added anything new.

 

some of this is true...a game is started with certain things in mind but as new things become popular what is financially feasible to change is changed (if they decide they even want too if said change fits the game itself)

 

but otherwise your statement couldn't be more false...again..we'd all still be playing pong if it was true.

[Killdren88]

"Bad news, Ryder. Colony Epsilon on planet X is under attack! Get there ASAP. "

"Good work Ryder, but now we are getting distress calls from Colony Kappa on planet Z. Double time!"

[DarthLaxian]

Hm...as long as they learn that that's not how to tell a story -.- (then again: They've enough examples of that internally, I mean from Dragon Age 2 onward most of their games weren't as good as previous Bioware games (Like KOTOR, DA:O, ME1 and 2!))

 

I mean the game works ok, but the story isn't great -.- (Fallout: New Vegas does a better job and has better (side-)quests (Like, say "Come Fly with me!" or "Things that go Boom!" or "For Auld Lang Syne!" or "I could make you care!"), too!)

 

I don't hate Fallout 4, but it did in no way live up to the hype - I was most disappointed, just like I was after finishing ME3 and DA:I -.- (Hell, I felt better after finishing DA2 (!) than those two and one could really see how rushed that thing was, not to mention those ****** swarm-spawning-mechanics -.-)

 

Maybe it's just me getting older, but the games that have totally convinced me that they've been worth getting number in very very few in the last years -.- and it's sad to see so many studios basically repeating games (I mean Fallout 4 is basically the Fallout 3 story twisted around a little - other factions and now it's the father looking for the child, not the child looking for his/her irresponsible jerk/******* of a dad who abandoned him/her (and almost got him or her killed in the process!)) or not coming up with anything good. Or worse:

 

Wasting potential! - DA:I and Fallout 4 had so much damned potential and were/are very underwhelming -.- (not to say lackluster!)

 

That said, yes I hope they learn something from all of that!

 

greets LAX

[MsKlaussen]

Oh basically all you need is an army of loyal fanboys ready to lynch anyone who gives the game less than a 9, that is usually enough to keep those pesky reviewers in line.

 

Seriously people don't really look at reviews for a honest assessment of the game's quality, the popularity of the reviewer is not based on whether or not they write an honest review but more whether or not they tell the person reading or watching the review what they want to hear, in the case of Fallout 4 the scores are given more in the name of self preservation than anything else.

 

And we're the worse for it if we can't. I actually do read lots of reviews about a new game. If I've already played games in a franchise and liked them 'm still buying, reviews or no (ME3 is my best example since I'd already heard about the endings before picking up my copy). I would like to believe that people are giving honest reviews but I have of course seen that agendas trump information dispersal in big franchises and people will simply pan with MetaCritic scores if they don't like what the publisher' philosophy has been or in fact just at the mere mention of a publisher being involved (like EA).

 

That's a bit immature to me but, what can you do?

[brfritos]

Good Lord, I hope Bioware gets NOTHING from FO4.

 

Can you people imagine that?

 

I HAVE to work with the Rachni Queen; I can't kill Kaidan or Ashley when defending the Council from Cerberus; I can't refuse my spectre status in ME2; I always have to be a humpty dumpty good little.

 

No thanks.

 

Now, if you people are talking about decisions and consequences like FNV...

[ebevan91]

No thanks. I'd rather them learn from TW3.

 

[katamuro]

I don't really see what they can learn from Fallout 4. There are other rpg's, true rpg's that actually do have stuff that they can learn. 

Bethesda makes good games but no other company apart from Bethesda can do stuff like it does. No one can release games with bugs all over the place and just laugh them off or give the modders free reign on fixing bugs and adding stuff to the games. Bethesda games work because they were made by a certain company with a certain fanbase already waiting. 

I would rather Bioware imitate Project Red rather than Bethesda. 

[Lady Artifice]

Why...

 

Spoiler

is Dr. Li my problem again? I had more than enough of her in FO3. 

 

Friggin' brotherhood. 

[I Am Robot]

"Bad news, Ryder. Colony Epsilon on planet X is under attack! Get there ASAP. "

"Good work Ryder, but now we are getting distress calls from Colony Kappa on planet Z. Double time!"

 

Major WutFace will brief you on the mission details on site.

[Mdizzletr0n]

One thing they can learn from Fo4 is not automatically making damn near every person that you encounter an enemy. Everyone is pretty much shooting at you for no reason at all other than the fact that you're breathing.

[Killdren88]

Major WutFace will brief you on the mission details on site.

 

If that is something you wanna do for the majority of the game, be my guest.

[FlyingSquirrel]

One thing I did on my last FO3 run for role-playing purposes was to wait until fairly far along to shoot back at raiders, Talons, non-feral ghouls, or any other enemy with a modicum of intelligence, instead trying to run away or hide whenever possible. I didn't think a 19-year-old would be too readily accustomed to having to use lethal force on a regular basis, and when I did eventually start to fight back, I only did so in self-defense.

 

 

EDIT: That should have said "hostile but non-feral ghouls."

[rocklikeafool]

One thing they can learn from Fo4 is not automatically making damn near every person that you encounter an enemy. Everyone is pretty much shooting at you for no reason at all other than the fact that you're breathing.

Stop being a dick, you dick. Seriously, I don't think this is a thing.

[BraveVesperia]

Stop being a dick, you dick. Seriously, I don't think this is a thing.

Well tbh, you have to wonder how people like the Gunners even recruit new members when they have a 'shoot on sight' policy for literally everyone. Scavengers will also always open fire on you for no reason. 

 

Then there's locations like the Combat Zone and robot racetrack, which could've had interesting quests/interactions, but instead it's just a pile of raiders shooting at you again, as soon as you appear.

 

So it's a bit exaggerated with 'damn near every person'... but they're not wrong.

[Mdizzletr0n]

Well tbh, you have to wonder how people like the Gunners even recruit new members when they have a 'shoot on sight' policy for literally everyone. Scavengers will also always open fire on you for no reason. 
 
Then there's locations like the Combat Zone and robot racetrack, which could've had interesting quests/interactions, but instead it's just a pile of raiders shooting at you again, as soon as you appear.
 
So it's a bit exaggerated with 'damn near every person'... but they're not wrong.

There was so much wasted potential in situations like that. How could all of the Raiders possibly know you aren't one? Same as the gunners. Especially since the wasteland seems to be primarily filled with those factions. The only ones that really makes sense are the Super Mutants and the synths. And why are they still focused on me when there's a deathclaw in the vicinity? I should be the least of their worries. Lol

[Battlebloodmage]

They're just random enemies, it's no different than in Skyrim where everyone wants to kill you at first sight out of town if you're out in the wilderness, they don't care who you are, even if you're a vampire, vampire still tries to kill you. The only exception is the big faction groups like Stormcloak, Dawnguard, etc similar to Institute, RR, and BoS who won't attack you if you're friends to them. It's basically a Skyrim system, but I don't see anyone ripping them on this.

[Giantdeathrobot]

They're just random enemies, it's no different than in Skyrim where everyone wants to kill you at first sight out of town if you're out in the wilderness, they don't care who you are, even if you're a vampire, vampire still tries to kill you. The only exception is the big faction groups like Stormcloak, Dawnguard, etc similar to Institute, RR, and BoS who won't attack you if you're friends to them. It's basically a Skyrim system, but I don't see anyone ripping them on this.

 

Because the Elder Scrolls is Bethesda's thing. They can whatever they want with it. And between the numerous towns and villages, Legion and Stormcloak camps, faction locations and such, there's a decent variety of non-hostile NPCs and locations in Skyrim, and the ratio between hostile and non-hostile NPCs seems somewhat reasonable even if there are too many bandits.

 

Fallout 4 has your generic player-made settlement, a handful of predetermined ones with 2 or 3 people, faction headquarters, and 3 actual towns (Diamond City, Vault 81, Goodneighbor). The entire rest of the map shoots at you on sight with a precious few exceptions like the mercenaries at the Asylum. Slogging through the ruins of Boston in particular is a chore, you need to stop and kill something every single step of the way.

 

More to the point, Fallout wasn't always a Borderlands wannabe. In Fallout 1, 2 and New Vegas, the majority of NPCs were in fact non-hostile at first, even if you could make them hostile via the player's actions. In New Vegas for instance, the only automatically hostile humans were some thugs in Freeside, a handful of small raider gangs and the Fiends who are limited to one region of Vegas. That's it. Everyone else, even the Legion, could be talked to until you pissed them off. 

 

That's because New Vegas was designed as a coherent, living world that tries to make sense, where people don't kill everyone else for funsies. Fallout 4 is designed as a shooting gallery, giving you something to kill every two minutes because the developpers fears the player will be bored otherwise, regardless of how little sense it makes for a big mercenary outfit to shoot everyone on sight.

 

In short, Bethesda's theme park world design simply suffers when you compare it to studios that put more thought in how much sense their world makes than in how many skeletons they can leave in compromising positions.

[wicked cool]

Im really worried that this game will have enemies closer to dai than f4
Hundreds of planets-does anyone really expect w3 detail for each 1. Open world for each one? Detailed enemy types
Dai is a nice game but realistically bioware would love the sucess of f4/skyrim
Dai was a buggy mess and still is. F4 except for a few npcs is a superior game in every way to me and dai
Has anyone actually seen the reports of f4 sales. Its their least buggy title. Its right now the #1 game i recomend to people who were to buy a rpg over w3 and dai
Does anyone not think that EA/me producers are not looking at f4 and are wondering how they compete with that this year

[Kaibe]

Not much. Though, I'm not sure if this has been mentioned, but the ability to pause during dialogue. Also how your character makes comments when you skip dialogue or jf you stay on the conversation for too long the person you're talking to comments on it.

[VillainQueen]

Tbh I think it can't and shouldn't really learn anything from FO4 nor any Bethesda games. While I like it and the elder scrolls series, I think they are kind of the opposite from Bioware RPG's. They focus on environmental storytelling, if I can call it like that. While it does have main story and some few questlines of course, a lot is told through the setting. Like how you can explore a vault even without a quest but you get to see what kind of fucked up thing they did in it and have a small story. Bioware instead focused on this more direct storytelling. We talked to people get cutsecenes and missions. The Story and Quests feel a bit more focused and meaningful like that even if the exploration isn't that big. And I'm fine with it. I like having things to explore of course but in a bioware game it's not my top priority. That's why I think they shouldn't focus on that too much. Bethesda is Bethesda and Bioware is Bioware. I play both for different reasons and I'm fine with it.

[Jaquio]

I avoided this thread because I hadn't played Fallout 4 yet.  But I finally plowed through a decent portion during the blizzard this weekend.

 

I don't know what you all think Bioware can learn from Fallout 4.  If anything, Bethesda gutted the Fallout series to make their game more like a cinematic game in the style of Mass Effect or the Witcher.  Heck, they pretty much swiped Bioware's flawed dialogue wheel and somehow made it worse.

 

If Bioware is going to learn anything, it's that a generous marketing budget, lots of guerilla marketing, and application of pressure on "critics" and "reviewers" can generate lots of sales even if the game on offer is flawed, solidly mediocre and leaves a sour taste in players' mouths.