303 réponses à ce sujet

[Dutch's Ghost]

HAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAH omg hahahhahah gold standard of what??? empty maps, or bad combat, unbalance armor.

Are you talking about DAI?

[Commander Rpg]

Great. More CDPR worship. This is certainly a necessary and fresh discussion.

It may not be necessary or it may not be fresh, but it's certainly a discussion. And BSN has got hundreds of these, even a lot more annoying and stupid, that don't face the whiny kid treatment.

[Akrabra]

Descent much like the whole of DAI had no noteworthy storyline that conveyed an actual plot.

Well it had a storyline, and it was worth noting, also it had a plot. Whether you enjoyed it or not is not relevant to the discussion. Are you a drone by the way? I mean i read all of your topics, for some reason, and they are all about how Bioware can only be better by copying from other games. "MGS did basebuilding better". Can't Bioware just be Bioware? They make the games they want to make, they get feedback and they adapt it into their game like every other developer.

 

Do you know what bad feedback is? Feedback like this thread is giving. It is not helping by bashing on their game and telling them they make worse games than the competition. Wouldn't you rather talk about what is good with DA:I and what is bad and provide feedback on how to improve those elements? I mean real feedback, not "Copy this from that game and this from that game." Also there is actually a new rule now, you can like more than one game and other games doesn't suck because you like one better then them all. Well i've said what i wanted to say. Take care Dutch!

[Drakoriz]

Are you talking about DAI?

 

come on dude u can be blind and said Witcher 3 is perfect the only strong point on the Witcher 3 game is the story. Everything else it have issues.

[Mirrman70]

Witcher lacks customization. all it really is, is a story-driven action game with rpg elements.

[Sarayne]

Well it had a storyline, and it was worth noting, also it had a plot. Whether you enjoyed it or not is not relevant to the discussion. Are you a drone by the way? I mean i read all of your topics, for some reason, and they are all about how Bioware can only be better by copying from other games. "MGS did basebuilding better". Can't Bioware just be Bioware? They make the games they want to make, they get feedback and they adapt it into their game like every other developer.

 

 

 

Nope! Bioware is just the worst developer EVER and needs to learn from everyone else clearly. /s
But seriously just let Bioware be Bioware and not try to be Witcher 3 in space.Or MGS5 in space etc. I am sad we didn't get a what can Bioware learn from Rise of The Tomb Raider.
 

[Lady Artifice]

Descent much like the whole of DAI had no noteworthy storyline that conveyed an actual plot.

 

You know, this is the thing.

 

It's not the criticism that bothers me. There's plenty of things I didn't like about DAI either.

 

But plot and story are things with actual definitions, and those definitions do not adjust to suit any individual's exacting standards. You can accuse the storyline or plot of being weak, but to accuse it of not existing is to completely ignore what the words mean.

 

"The King died and then the Queen died," is a storyline.

 

"The King died and then the Queen died of a broken heart," and now it has become a plot.

 

Neither plot nor storyline are challenging things to achieve, so presuming to deny DAI the status of either proves nothing, besides the fact that you don't bother much with accuracy or consistent use of language.

[Sartoz]

                                                                                      <<<<<<<<<<(0)>>>>>>>>>>

 

Not to worry Dutch. Once ME:A is out, the DLCs prices for ME1-3 will be discounted.  I'll be able to buy Omega and Citadel DLCs real cheap.

 

DA:I's keyboard controls woke me up to the fact that pre-ordering for the PC platform is plain foolishness. Also, buying DLCs on Day 1 of release is for those that have money to spare or simply enjoy whatever DLC is fed to them or both (imo).

 

You comments about disconnected DLCs vs the main campaign hits a nerve. I always got the feeling that the final  boss fight with Cory felt too weak. To me it is because  the main campaign continued on to what we now know as Trespasser. Thus, Bio cut DA:I at the end of the Cory boss fight and made the remaining Act a DLC.

 

On the other hand there is hope that Bio  will take the ME3 backlash to heart and truly make ME:A a worthy game that will wipe out the bad taste of the original three coloured ending.

[SlottsMachine]

EA/BioWare can charge whatever they like for there DLC but its pretty mind boggling to me that they never have sales. You'd think it would be in there interest to do so. Maybe there DLC purchaser base is so limited that they don't feel a few extra sales means much, but I don't know it still seems like bad business to me. 

[Gwydden]

Witcher lacks customization. all it really is, is a story-driven action game with rpg elements.

You can say the same about ME. Being able to change your character's looks is nice, but ultimately only a cosmetic change. Genres are merely organizational; there is no hard line dividing them.

 

EA is headed by excessively greedy @#%@, no news there. That is hardly Bioware's fault, and I don't think all the complaining in the world will change it. The best way to argue against it is to refuse to buy DLC you consider to be overpriced, not telling them about it. As for CDPR, they are still a company that wants, nay, needs to make money. Their business practices may be more palatable to the consumer, but they are affected by entirely different circumstances from Bioware's.

 

DLC are a particularly poor point of comparison between the two, so it really does seem as if some are just trying to start another DAI vs TW3 argument for no good reason. I'm sure that'll go over smoothly, especially with people on both sides overeager to pick up a fight.

[Lady Artifice]

You can say the same about ME. Being able to change your character's looks is nice, but ultimately only a cosmetic change. Genres are merely organizational; there is no hard line dividing them.

 

 

Well, there are also dialogue differences between a female Shepard and a male Shepard, and there's the class and origin options.

 

I liked playing the Witcher 3 just fine, but when it comes to roleplaying, Bioware continues to offer something I can't find in many other games: The ability to play a female hero and have that distinction be recognized by the characters within the story universe.

[SlottsMachine]

Thats being generous as a description.

 

I do have to point out something to this whole discussion; Even if CD Projekt Red is making games at a loss (which I believe they were with Witcher 3 until it became a $6 million seller) their situation is an exception to the rule right now because of their revenue stream being a bit more infinite. Mainly because the big problem with the industry by and large is stagnation of pricing.

 

Simply put, games are still $59.99 and the value you get for $59.99 today doesn't match the value you get from a decade ago. Inflation and increasing game budgets have made that abundantly clear, so time, money and even risk-taking is much tighter. Games should be costing close to $70 right now for a day one purchase, because marketing, graphics, design and even sound effects and voice work is ****** expensive. 

 

How do you offset this all? Digital distribution has helped in lowering risk, as has multi-platform releases. DLC and Expansions have also helped in mitigating costs; creating extra content for the $20 or so bucks that games need in order to meet current market trends. Notice how a lot of companies offer season passes and a year-long commitment to DLC/Expansions or whatever you like to call them, one of the effects of this is the service model Valve popularized yes, but also is two-fold to continue bringing in revenue for a game long after release. Now the trick is how to price it without taking a loss...the $15 for a piece of DLC we would say is about ten hours...thats probably the sweet spot that justifies the DLC being made from a cost standpoint.

 

It likely won't be $6-$10 again, inflation has gone up further.

 

So what does this all mean? Well...moreso an observation over anything else the pricing for this stuff is more or less in line with the industry as a whole. Until developers find a way to slash budgets (which I doubt they can at this point) or until game prices rise, it's not going to change. In truth the independent market is becoming more lucrative since it is offering simpler games for a fraction of the costs of a AAA game, and is less likely to take a loss and more likely to take a risk.

 

The thing with that is you still have to charge a price that consumers will pay, saying games should cost "X" doesn't mean much if consumers refuse to pay. And while the cost to make games has gone through the roof the customer base has as well, I feel that fact gets lost a lot of the time. As a Canadian I'm already paying $90 for a new game (yeah yeah I know Australians have it worse). I'm actually spending no more than I did a couple years ago and I could very well be paying less than I did before. I buy very few games at launch anymore, though I guess that also has to do with the games themselves. And yeah, the Canadian Dollar is **** right now so I understand why prices have gone up and I guess really its a lose/lose situation for the publisher but alienating your consumers doesn't seem to be the best way to go about it.  

[fhs33721]

Are you talking about DAI?

Hey now, aren't you contradicting yourself. Most of the time you complain about the maps being full of meaningless fetch quests. But now you say they are empty? Empty or full of meaningless fetch quests. Choose one.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Descent much like the whole of DAI had no noteworthy storyline that conveyed an actual plot.

Perfect.

[Elhanan]

Bring Down the Sky, Lair of the Shadowbroker, Leviathan, and The Citadel all seem to suggest that Bioware has a fair grasp of what Players want for DLC.

[fhs33721]

Don't worry, in a couple of years Cyberpunk 2077 will come out. 

Probaby in 2077 considering that they hyped me up in 2012 or something with the first trailer and since then have said little to nothing at all about the game.

[Vortex13]

Probaby in 2077 considering that they hyped me up in 2012 or something with the first trailer and since then have said little to nothing at all about the game.

 

 

Same here lol. Though I take solace in the fact that the wait will be worth it.

 

As much as people praise the Witcher I've never been into fantasy settings. Cyberpunk is going to give me my science fiction fix, while at the same time retaining the world building and storytelling CDPR is known for as well as including co-op multiplayer to boot! 

[HSomCokeSniper]

Comes in... has to recheck the subforum.

Yup, Mass Effect - Mass Effect Andromeda

 

I guess DA:I/W3 flame war makes sense...

[Revan Reborn]

Actually if u google it too. U will see the reason Bethesda isnt making a new engine is bc the liberty the Creation engine allow them for not just modding for the community but also the interaction of objects. If u compare any Bethesda game to any game out there, u will see that Bethesda game have freedom for the players to do almost anything in the game. While other done. Making a new engine from 0 is a huge budget that most dev team will not do.

 

All the QQ on console about low FPS is just early QQ the same QQ Witcher 3 got, but after 10 freaking patch the issue where solve.

 

U speak about horrible AI while the Witcher 3 have a horrible AI too, with enemies getting stuck on trees or u can run in circle wiht ur horse to make enemies get stuck on objects. So plz dont call someone else when ur info isnt the best either. U complain about Fallout 4 combat while Witcher 3 is horrible too.

 

Really ppl stop prizing a game that is good but isnt the best game ever like most of the fanboys tent to make u believe. Witcher 3 have huge issues and most of it go fix with patch that game is older that Fallout so it have alot more support plus 1 DLC.

Your walls of text are disturbing.

 

A highly moddable turd is still a turd, nonetheless. BGS games are no more interactive than they were 14 years ago, so I fail to see your point. BGS is also one of the most successful developers in the industry, so claiming they don't have the budget to create an entirely new engine is laughable.

 

I am a PC gamer, for the record. I was merely making the point that Fallout 4 was getting panned on consoles because the engine is a piece of crap and BGS can barely maintain a playable frame rate. TW3 certainly wasn't perfect at launch, but I seriously doubt it was below 30 fps as often as it was on Fallout 4 at release. BGS always releases buggy games at launch. It's their reputation.

 

You must have the worst luck ever. I never had any issues with AI in TW3. Certainly, even if I did, nothing would compare to to how many times NPCs get stuck, broken, etc. in a BGS game. Radiant AI has been an absolute disaster since it was implemented in Oblivion. Considering you are just making blatant statements without any evidence to support your claim, yeah I just figure you are a Fallout 4 fanboy at this point.

 

It's ironic, because BGS is actually my favorite developer and Morrowind is my favorite game of all time. Yet, here I am criticizing BGS for using the same engine for the past 14 years and you are defending them for their sins. Very nice.

 

What you are saying isn't even intelligible anymore. It's just rambling and nonsense. TW3 was GotY and won far more awards than FO4. It was much deserved too, as FO4 was barely an upgrade from F03 (better gun play, settlements, better crafting, voiced protagonist).

 

Anyways, this discussion is pointless since you are just a raving fanboy and can't be reasoned. I want BGS to learn from CDPR and not fall into mediocrity because diehard fans can't tell when a crap engine is crap.

 

Back on topic... I agree! BioWare should try to do better DLC than $15 for crap content like in DAI.

[SNascimento]

Both Mass Effect 2 and Mass Effect 3 had top-notch DLC. So I'm not worried about that. 

[Commander Rpg]

Comes in... has to recheck the subforum.

Yup, Mass Effect - Mass Effect Andromeda

 

I guess DA:I/W3 flame war makes sense...

You know, with the obliteration of Off Topic, it makes perfectly sense.

[Il Divo]

Bioware's made some garbage dlc in the past (Darkspawn Chronicles, I'm looking at you here), but on the whole, their dlc record is pretty good (imo). I can't speak to anything released after DA:I so things may have changed, but of all the issues I've had with Bioware games, dlc quality has ranked pretty low. 

[LinksOcarina]

The thing with that is you still have to charge a price that consumers will pay, saying games should cost "X" doesn't mean much if consumers refuse to pay. And while the cost to make games has gone through the roof the customer base has as well, I feel that fact gets lost a lot of the time. As a Canadian I'm already paying $90 for a new game (yeah yeah I know Australians have it worse). I'm actually spending no more than I did a couple years ago and I could very well be paying less than I did before. I buy very few games at launch anymore, though I guess that also has to do with the games themselves. And yeah, the Canadian Dollar is **** right now so I understand why prices have gone up and I guess really its a lose/lose situation for the publisher but alienating your consumers doesn't seem to be the best way to go about it.  

 

But that leads to another problem, what are consumers willing to pay does not guarantee what they expect in the end. 

 

Take the Capcom stuff right now. People are upset that Street Fighter V is online only and having online issues, but take that out of the equation its a solid fighting game and is already getting good press by veterans who have been able to play it.

 

Online problems aside, the biggest complaints are the year-long content support for new characters and game modes, which are not considered a "feature" this time around. Where do features end, and DLC begin in this case? The claims that Street Fighter V is half-complete because it's missing an arcade mode and they announced six new characters by the end of the year as free/paid DLC kind of loses it's luster in that regard because its doubtful Capcom wanted to focus on arcade mode this time, in favor of online competition. 

 

People are complaining that it's not worth that price, but what is? If a developer or publisher wants to focus their efforts on a more solid experience, they should, versus having tons of bells and whistles. It's an argument we see here all the time too regarding multiplayer modes, for example; what you expect for your purchase is not necessary what you will get because of financial reasons, development costs or simply because it wasn't the focus this time around, companies are basically making choices in prioritizing what their games are ultimately about as their focus is, with DLC like Descent or Heart of Stone being the bonus content that they wanted to do, didn't finished, or part of a fulfilled, focused plan from the get-go.

 

I guess the problem is the community expects the value to be "same as last time but add more" as their barometer for their purchase, but that is financially impossible to maintain without losing money, so things will be cut, DLC plans will be made to off-shoot those costs and add what people want in the future. Our bang for our buck, what we value as worth that price, becomes meaningless in one sense because those parameters have changed. In reality, we basically are paying close to $100 U.S for a "complete" game after DLC and other features are added. 

[rocklikeafool]

I point to CDPR on how to properly do DLC/expansions. 

Let's compare two completely different games, with two completely different goals...

Just like everyone else has already done...

Ugh. Bad OP, bad.

[HSomCokeSniper]

You know, with the obliteration of Off Topic, it makes perfectly sense.

 

Oh yeah, I forgot about that.