Plus, they created the abomination that is C&C Tiberium Alliances and ensure that one of the greatest RTS series of all time doesn't get a proper reboot.
That was pretty disappointing actually. C&C Generals (Zero Hour) has a lot of good nostalgia for me and my old roommates.
"Can I have some shoes?"
Personally prefer Origin to Steam, though I wish it all to be more like GOG.
Depends on what you're after... any multiplayer game that uses a server/client system can benefit from Steam's server browser; but that's pretty much how Steam started, making it easier to find Team Fortress Classic or Counterstrike servers (by ping, number of players, whatever) and then bolting Valve's anti-cheat software (VAC) onto those servers to help get rid of the worst of the wallhackers (etc).
Steam is quite a bit more than just a distribution/DRM platform with a friends list bolted on - of course, if you're not using those additional features they pretty much just amount to bloat.
So Origin doesn't do that? Kind of surprising since EA is so into MP these days. (I'm in the "bloat" categiry myself since I don't ever do MP.)
Origin is very simple compared to Steam, from my own experience.
But honestly, I never liked Steam so I fully admit i'm biased. GOG is a better service module in the end.
The only thing I blame EA for is forcing more action-y appeal on Mass Effect. I wouldn't believe for a second that it was mainly Bioware's decision when they began ME2 to make it a Gears clone. It's something EA forced and another thing is that a lot of the new staff at Bioware are ex-in-house EA developers or from subdivisions of EA formed by EA, and have seemingly a more "game is about cool gameplay and guns" mantra to them. I'm totally prejudiced here, but that's my honest impression.
But still, mostly every other creative element, especially the story is 100% Bioware's to fiddle with. The only reason their stories suffer more in this EA era is because story is relegated to what the budget can do, and since they need to appeal to the morons with their cool setpieces and action gameplay they need to spend way more money on cinematics and action-y, level-based gameplay. If the end product is like a great action-movie in video game form then, hey, I can't complain, but more often not since ME2 we end up with story inconsistencies because the budget is more focused on creating the setpieces and gameplay than building a game around a plot first and foremost -- which is how every Bioware game before Mass Effect 2 or DA2 or any EA-Bioware game was built.
I guess my logic is: Yes, Bioware has changed a lot, but hey, if you think either ME2, ME3, DA2 or DA:I are good games, then you don't have any reason to blame EA for whatever faults ME:A may have. Instead the skepticism I have lies with the fact that Bioware Montreal hasn't proven themselves as a B-Team to create full games on par with A-team games (A-team = Edmonton). Again, the most recent change here is not anything with EA, it's with Bioware itself.
Mass Effect needed an action overhaul for ME2.
The gameplay portions of the first Mass Effect game were awful, and dice rolls just don't work as a gameplay mechanic in shooter-based RPGs. I'd argue dice rolls are an outdated gameplay mechanic period...unless the game is pen and paper or designed intentionally as a walk-down-CRPG-memory-lane (a.k.a. Pillars of Eternity).
I don't even know where to start. They buried several companies, they ruined a lot of beloved gaming franchises like: Medal of Honor, Need for Speed, Sim City, Dead Space, KOTOR, Battlefield, Command & Conquer now Battlefront bites the dust as well, while Mass Effect and Dragon Age also suffered from it to some extent.
And even if they sometimes come up with something nice or decent it still doesn't make up for all the screw-ups they did.
EA is the definition of everything what's wrong with gaming.
Im wondering how much of the screw ups in DA and Mass Effect are directly related to EA though.
The only thing I blame EA for is forcing more action-y appeal on Mass Effect. I wouldn't believe for a second that it was mainly Bioware's decision when they began ME2 to make it a Gears clone.
Mass Effect 2 is not a Gears clone. And if you look at Bioware games, you could very well say there is a trend for them to become more "action-y". Indeed, Jade Empire has many features that would then come back in ME2. Lack of inventory and minimal stats progression for example. Not to mention its combat is focused on action, not turn based strategies. Even KoTOR is more focused on quick combat if we compare to Baldur's Gate.
ME1 didn't feature a combat like ME2 not because Bioware didn't want to, but because they couldn't do it. I can see some elements in ME2 that would be considered a break by some people, but combat is not one of them. They just got it right the second time.
Mass Effect 2 is not a Gears clone. And if you look at Bioware games, you could very well say there is a trend for them to become more "action-y". Indeed, Jade Empire has many features that would then come back in ME2. Lack of inventory and minimal stats progression for example. Not to mention its combat is focused on action, not turn based strategies. Even KoTOR is more focused on quick combat if we compare to Baldur's Gate.
ME1 didn't feature a combat like ME2 because Bioware didn't want to, but because they couldn't do it. I can see some elements in ME2 that would be considered a break by some people, but combat is not one of them. They just got it right the second time.
Seriously, they're all action games, including Dragon Age: Origins.
Seriously, they're all action games, including Dragon Age: Origins.
Yep. They are all classified as Action Role-Playing Games.
Mass Effect 1 and Mass Effect 2 with all DLC's, Citadel DLC and Dragon Age Inquisition
Mass Effect needed an action overhaul for ME2.
The gameplay portions of the first Mass Effect game were awful, and dice rolls just don't work as a gameplay mechanic in shooter-based RPGs. I'd argue dice rolls are an outdated gameplay mechanic period...unless the game is pen and paper or designed intentionally as a walk-down-CPRG-memory-lane (a.k.a. Pillars of Eternity).
When I am doing a trilogy run I dread playing me1 because of the GOD AWFUL combat. Compared to me3 it just feels so dated.
Mass Effect needed an action overhaul for ME2.
The gameplay portions of the first Mass Effect game were awful, and dice rolls just don't work as a gameplay mechanic in shooter-based RPGs. I'd argue dice rolls are an outdated gameplay mechanic period...unless the game is pen and paper or designed intentionally as a walk-down-CPRG-memory-lane (a.k.a. Pillars of Eternity).
Problem was that they didn't go far enough, it lacked basic TPS features (rolling & cover to cover) that weren't implemented until ME3.
I wouldn't mind giving ME2 another run if they released a new version with ME3's enhancements,better A.I and more depth to it's class/power system, but as is, it's been outclassed by 3.
Mass Effect 1 and Mass Effect 2 with all DLC's, Citadel DLC and Dragon Age Inquisition
Mass Effect 1 was made when Bioware was still working with Microsoft Studios. Or are you referring to EA bringing it over to Playstation?
When I am doing a trilogy run I dread playing me1 because of the GOD AWFUL combat. Compared to me3 it just feels so dated.
As much as I love the original Mass Effect, its the weakest game of the series for me.
Problem was that they didn't go far enough, it lacked basic TPS features (rolling & cover to cover) that weren't implemented until ME3.
I wouldn't mind giving ME2 another run if they released a new version with ME3's enhancements,better A.I and more depth to it's class/power system, but as is, it's been outclassed by 3.
I disagree.
Although I do miss combat rolls and more dynamic cover mechanics in ME2, I don't think they are a must in TPS. In the end, I reckon ME2 achieved a much better balance in its gameplay between weapons and biotic powers. ME3 tried to improve and tweak it but I don't think it got it quite right. Powers feel overpowered, weapons underpowered, you take to much damage and melee combat is less usefull.
A good evidence of this is Husk combat. Husks in ME3 were very boring and never add to the fight. In ME2 however, they served as excellent shock troops and to defeat them you needed precision, good movement and timing with melee attacks.
That was pretty disappointing actually. C&C Generals (Zero Hour) has a lot of good nostalgia for me and my old roommates.
"Can I have some shoes?"
My husband still plays Generals. I think I have every line memorized- and I've never played it.
That was pretty disappointing actually. C&C Generals (Zero Hour) has a lot of good nostalgia for me and my old roommates.
"Can I have some shoes?"
I always loved wreaking havoc with Colonel Burton. He truly was the best.
The only thing I blame EA for is forcing more action-y appeal on Mass Effect. I wouldn't believe for a second that it was mainly Bioware's decision when they began ME2 to make it a Gears clone. It's something EA forced and another thing is that a lot of the new staff at Bioware are ex-in-house EA developers or from subdivisions of EA formed by EA, and have seemingly a more "game is about cool gameplay and guns" mantra to them. I'm totally prejudiced here, but that's my honest impression.
But still, mostly every other creative element, especially the story is 100% Bioware's to fiddle with. The only reason their stories suffer more in this EA era is because story is relegated to what the budget can do, and since they need to appeal to the morons with their cool setpieces and action gameplay they need to spend way more money on cinematics and action-y, level-based gameplay. If the end product is like a great action-movie in video game form then, hey, I can't complain, but more often not since ME2 we end up with story inconsistencies because the budget is more focused on creating the setpieces and gameplay than building a game around a plot first and foremost -- which is how every Bioware game before Mass Effect 2 or DA2 or any EA-Bioware game was built.
I guess my logic is: Yes, Bioware has changed a lot, but hey, if you think either ME2, ME3, DA2 or DA:I are good games, then you don't have any reason to blame EA for whatever faults ME:A may have. Instead the skepticism I have lies with the fact that Bioware Montreal hasn't proven themselves as a B-Team to create full games on par with A-team games (A-team = Edmonton). Again, the most recent change here is not anything with EA, it's with Bioware itself.
Well Mass Effect was always partially an action based game. I can't blame them for wanting to polish up that part of the game considering it was pretty weak in ME1.
As much as we'd love to blame EA for the shift to cinematic stuff we really started seeing it in BioWare starting with Knights of the Old Republic, long before EA got their hands on them. EA may have accelerated that shift, but it's pretty clear that's where BioWare wanted to go.
Also, Mass Effect 2 is not a Gears clone. Using that logic, every cover based shooter is just an Operation Winback clone.
I always loved wreaking havoc with Colonel Burton. He truly was the best.
Well Mass Effect was always partially an action based game. I can't blame them for wanting to polish up that part of the game considering it was pretty weak in ME1.
As much as we'd love to blame EA for the shift to cinematic stuff we really started seeing it in BioWare starting with Knights of the Old Republic, long before EA got their hands on them. EA may have accelerated that shift, but it's pretty clear that's where BioWare wanted to go.
Also, Mass Effect 2 is not a Gears clone. Using that logic, every cover based shooter is just an Operation Winback clone.
Now that I think about Mike Laidlaw did say during DA2's production in a interview that when looking back at DAO and getting ideas for DA2 that he hated the idea how having to queue actions and having to wait for them to be executed in game, he felt the game should respond as soon as you pushed the button.
Now that I think about Mike Laidlaw did say during DA2's production in a interview that when looking back at DAO and getting ideas for DA2 that he hated the idea how having to queue actions and having to wait for them to be executed in game, he felt the game should respond as soon as you pushed the button.
Even in Origins it feels like they wanted to have real time combat similar to what you find in hotkey MMOs, only while controlling an entire group and with a pause button.
Though World of Warcraft does that style better than any Dragon Age game, or even The Old Republic.
Even in Origins it feels like they wanted to have real time combat similar to what you find in hotkey MMOs, only while controlling an entire group and with a pause button.
Though World of Warcraft does that style better than any Dragon Age game, or even The Old Republic.
If you read the description of Easy Difficulty in Origins it actually states something to the effect of, "For those that don't want to pause the game and play at a faster pace".
after the DA:I...
BioWare the masters of contrivance
They are not Konami .Konami is currently worst then any other video game company
They are not Konami .Konami is currently worst then any other video game company
We haven't seen EA resort to childish temper tantrums with one of their employees in a public manner, so I would agree with you there.
I am still in shock how EA have ruined their Golf games. EA Rory Mcriroy PGA Tour is the worst game i have bought on my ps4. It is also running on frostbite3
Retour en haut