Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Stworca]

To all those "Bioware was good before EA got them"..

..remember Bullfrog?
Dungeon Keeper.. 3?

Aye, EA is fucking things up for many, many years.

[Catastrophic lolcats]

Don't forget Spore.

[Trapezohedron]

Don't forget Spore.

Oh yes, Spore was such a big EA f**kup, I mean, there's a ton of incomplete features here and there, and the space stage just boiled down to get cash, get colony, put colony, repeat ad nauseam.

As for the incompleteness, here's two words: Plant Editor.

As for DA2, I don't understand how roaming around Kirkwall for almost all of the game is fun. Bioware messed up pretty bad there, and as such, I am not looking forward to DA3.

[fenrif]

I thought Spore was entirely down to there being a big divide between the people at maxis as to wether it should be a really heavy sim type game, or a light casual game? I can't find the article now, but it was Will Wright saying that he encouraged his dev team to shake things up and they ended up in two halves arguing for each side. I know Mr Wright said he was going for cash rather than critical success "I'd rather have the metacric/sales of sims 2 than half life" is I think the quote. Now how much, if any, of that is him covering for EA I don't know. But I think with games like Spore and DA2 there's so much wrong with them on a fundamental level that you can't just absolve the devs of blame for it entirely. Sure EA is a terrible company, but I'm pretty sure they had no control over the terrible dialogue and plot in DA2, for example.

 

to know in advance that you're offering "false choices" which you will then ignore in the sequel in favor of a single canon story, just so you can continue using the same character.

... But that's exactly what they did? Except instead of the same character it was a new one.

[shadenight123]

Meh. One thing I hope they do is the "Mass effect 3 *style of play*" the one where you choose wherever you prefer story or action. I'm personally more of a story person than an action person, the thing I found good of DA2 was that the character evolved, albeit on a railroad, up on the social ladder. You know, in d&d games, once you start getting up to level 5 or 6, the dungeon master should start to have you called "hero" by the peasants, and by level 15, when you're steamrolling dragons, "Legend" and not just in names, but like, everywhere, and it's shown by how the other npc interact with the character, like brigands knowing who the character is and not harassing him, nobles being courteous and so on. This is a thing I found in little games, one which I always end up replaying is Neverwinter Nights 2: at a certain level you end up with a fortress that you can repair, grow and make flourish. It evolves.
Obviously I doubt Dragon age 3 will actually have an evolving character, but they did say they were going to work on it, so theoretically one can dream.
(for example, one thing in DA2 I didn't like was how helping getting the mine, and being a co-financiator held no benefits seen around in the game. Not even some miners coming to speak to you later on about problems, or so on).

[fenrif]

The problem with the whole "story mode" thing is that it's adressing a symptom of a fundamental problem in game design. Narrative and gameplay shouldn't be two completely seperate things, they should be intertwined and inseperable. Otherwise you may aswell go watch a movie for the story.

[Catastrophic lolcats]

The problem with the whole "story mode" thing is that it's adressing a symptom of a fundamental problem in game design. Narrative and gameplay shouldn't be two completely seperate things, they should be intertwined and inseperable. Otherwise you may aswell go watch a movie for the story.

Couldn't agree more with that. I remember that Bioware writer that was being attacked because she said she didn't like games and wanted a story-mode only thing. Now why I didn't agree with the personal attacks I can see why people disagree with her, I know I do. 
Personally I wouldn't want my writers disconnected from the medium. You have to know exactly what you're writing for and why.

For example: take something like a big long slog through a dungeon where you've been fighting minions and barely scrapping through alive. Now the writer thinks that this would be a good place for one of your companions to turn on you and perhaps attack you with some more minions just before the big boss room. Now from a gameplay point of view this is terrible since you're already weakened in game and chances are getting sick of combat outside of the game as well, not to mention you're a few metres away from finally meeting that fucker of a boss.
I know that wasn't a perfect example and since it's rather late I doubt I can come up with one, but you can see how gameplay has an affect on the storyline as much as brillant plot twists and characters. They should be used to compliment each other since immersion is the strongest part of the video game medium. 

[Korva]

I thought the Blight was actually the most endearing and interesting part of DA1. The rest of it struck me ME Soap Opera plus your bog-standard RPG. The Blight was the only thing that really drove me to think critically about my choices or how I used my time. And even that wasn't enough to get me to actually finish the game.

I got really into the Blight and the Grey Warden theme too, which is part of why I love my Sacrifice ending, but unfortunately both don't get nearly enough focus. With a time limit of sorts, a meaningful progress of the Blight (losing more locations and their associated resources/allies/services), and the need to protect non-Warden party members so they don't turn into ghouls due to constant exposure to darkspawn gunk, we could've had some very tense and atmospheric situations. Instead everyone happily fights the terrible, scary badguys without any ill effects ever, and the only effect of the Blight is the loss of Lothering, which is handled completely off-camera and without giving us time or reason to become attached to the place and really care. Much lost potential there. I do enjoy, say, characterization and interaction with party members as much as anyone, but I'd prefer them to be woven more tightly into the "greater whole" of the plot instead of feeling like a separate game sometimes.

Though I often have the same complaint about alleged big story hooks which fade into the background for most of the game.

To all those "Bioware was good before EA got them"..

..remember Bullfrog?

And Origin and the decline of the Ultima series into a more "mainstreamed" action fest that had little to do anymore with its former self ...

... But that's exactly what they did? Except instead of the same character it was a new one.

I don't know what you're referring to, here. My point is: in order to have a Warden-focused sequel, you'd have to retcon elements of DA out of existence. Does DA2 have moments in which previous choices, either from it or from Origins, are treated as not existing and something that you never did is forced on you as "canon"?

[Solifuge]

Bioware is one of my Tier Two developers... the level below my favorites. I like a lot of things that they've done... DAO is one of them; though I have yet to complete it (or play anything beyond Mass Effect 1 for that matter), I enjoyed what they were doing, and the world they created. I had no interest in playing DA2 because, having seen friends playing it, it seemed to be a bland hack-and-slash "inspired by" DA, with some thin veneer of RPG painted on it. They abandoned everything I liked, and went for something far easier to develop, in a bid to bleed more money out of the fans of the old, without investing the same body of effort.

On that note, I'm quite a bit offended by Bioware's recent use of first-day DLC with ME3. When DLC was originally created, it was to allow developers to further the story and content based on fan reactions, to give them more of the things they wanted out of the game. How then do you get off selling them a full-priced game, and on the same day offering them to pay extra to "get the full experience"? And if DLC is to offer more of what you wanted, how do they presume to know what that is before anyone's played it? Considering their obviously half-assed ending, which I believe was an intentional bid to make players feel dissatisfied, and buy DLC to give them a sense of story completeness... it just comes across as a predatory business model, which I don't approve of.

To be honest, I think they're getting too caught up in game design as a revenue source, rather than game design as a storytelling and art medium. You can happily fuse business and art together... people have been doing it forever, and for most media it ends up better for the creators in the long run. Writers who write successful books get remembered, and leave legacies that include long-term revenue.

Games, however, have a much shorter shelf-life, due to changing technology which eventually leads them to be obsolete... which I think leads developers to not have to care about the long-term success of their games. After that initial buying rush, their profits from the product fade out to nothing. Hence, Bioware, along with many other developers, have opted for an "All Glitz and Glamor" approach that does well in the short-term, but has little long-term viability. You aren't going to see anything by them pop up on GOG in the years to come.

[fenrif]

I don't know what you're referring to, here. My point is: in order to have a Warden-focused sequel, you'd have to retcon elements of DA out of existence. Does DA2 have moments in which previous choices, either from it or from Origins, are treated as not existing and something that you never did is forced on you as "canon"?

Characters literally come back from the dead. Also I don't really see why you'd have to retcon elements out of existance to have a warden focused sequel? But I fear we're going to get into a pointless debate about imaginary things so I'll just agree to disagree.

Games, however, have a much shorter shelf-life, due to changing technology which eventually leads them to be obsolete... which I think leads developers to not have to care about the long-term success of their games. After that initial buying rush, their profits from the product fade out to nothing. Hence, Bioware, along with many other developers, have opted for an "All Glitz and Glamor" approach that does well in the short-term, but has little long-term viability. You aren't going to see anything by them pop up on GOG in the years to come.

I'd argue that games have a short shelf-life because that's what they're designed to be like. People still play WoW, Counter-Strike, Starcraft, etc. But contemporary games are designed so that you wont be playing them in a years time when the inevitable sequel/prequel/etc comes out. If COD was designed to have the longevity of Counter-Strike then who would buy CODx2: Even Coddier. This is basically how Activision and EA set up their franchises (and everything is a franchise).

[Solifuge]

The authors of books don't have to worry about the technology becoming obsolete... humanity will have language in some form for as far into the future as I can imagine. However, consoles may only be on the market for a decade or two before they fade into obscurity, and games at present are still very tied to present technology.

I think many game developers adapted to that fact by creating their present business model... and by extension this shift to DLC. It's not an innate part of the game as a medium (we find old PC games getting updated for new tech and making their way to services like GOG because they were considered great). I don't suspect we'll see many of this new generation of games hitting that service though, since so much of their income relies on the initial hype-inspired rush to buy games from the successful franchises of the past, which people will do without considering the quality of the product they're actually buying... and which won't lead to the game's long-term value as an artistic or storytelling medium.

[Microcline]

The authors of books don't have to worry about the technology becoming obsolete... humanity will have language in some form for as far into the future as I can imagine. However, consoles may only be on the market for a decade or two before they fade into obscurity, and games at present are still very tied to present technology.

I think many game developers adapted to that fact by creating their present business model... and by extension this shift to DLC. It's not an innate part of the game as a medium (we find old PC games getting updated for new tech and making their way to services like GOG because they were considered great). I don't suspect we'll see many of this new generation of games hitting that service though, since so much of their income relies on the initial hype-inspired rush to buy games from the successful franchises of the past, which people will do without considering the quality of the product they're actually buying... and which won't lead to the game's long-term value as an artistic or storytelling medium.

It'd be naive to blame this on the medium, especially in the context of PC games.  It's also less relevant due to the fact that DA2 was graphically regressive (they cut corners a lot of corners on the engine and art) and that the pace of hardware innovation has slowed from the 90s and early 2000s.  Now, more than ever before, success is not tied to graphical or technical proficiency.

I'd argue that the current problems are a result of a business model adapted for the purpose of producing consistent profits.  By focusing largely on advertising and producing sub-par games, a publisher can make a large amount of money through pre-orders and week one sales before the players catch on.  This model will continue to be profitable until people catch on and stop pre-ordering games and listening to the industry shills.

As for DA3, it doesn't take any stretch of imagination to predict that it's going to set a new record for Bioware failure.

[Korva]

The attacks on Jennifer Hepler were a misogynistic shitstorm more than they were about anything she ever said or did or is even capable of deciding or affecting. *shrug* At any rate, I agree with her on principle. If you can skip or fast-forward through dialog, why not also through combat? Why is combat given such primacy in general? Why is "gameplay" often taken to mean only combat and gear-fiddling, are we not actually playing the game when engaging in conversations? Many people say they don't buy Bioware games for the combat anyway, and the fighting in their games has never been stellar. Hell, combat can be nothing but a mind-numbing, repetitive, even aggravating "filler" to make a shallow game look like more than it really is. So why is the suggestion to allow people to focus on the story often treated with such hostility (sexism aside)?

Generally, though, I do agree that ideally combat and story should be "intertwined" and "complement" each other.

[Solifuge]

I've never been one to skip either gameplay segments or storyline and dialogue. It's part of the experience I paid for, and to skip over them is only ripping myself off.

If players are inspired to skip either, then it's a good indication that you've done something wrong as a developer.

[Cthulhu]

Honestly, i think the reason DA2 wasn't as good was due to EA. Think about it, DA1, ME1 and 2, all excellent games just like BioWare's previous works, then suddenly DA2. A misstep like that is quite out of character, and considering EA's recent-ish track record for less-than-stellar games, i wouldn't be surprised if EA had a meddling hand in DA2.

DA2 was not a misstep, it was a continuation of the bad direction Bioware was going in, changing key game mechanics for no apparent reason a la Mass Effect 2. Bioware just hasn't had a good sequel since Baldur's Gate 2.
I'm sure EA has a major role in Bioware's descent into terribad levels, but Bioware itself is a major problem even without EA at this point.

Mass Effect 2 improved upon Mass Effect 1 in every single way (except thermal clips).  ME1 was cool but it was 100% Bioware Formula with horribly bland side quests and a tedious inventory system.