Bioware in terms of pure gameplay(not including narrative)

Though ME2 is my personal 2010 Game of The Year, I can't hide my slight disappointment with its level design. Most of the time, it boils down to cover+crates+shoot+biotic and repeat.

ME2 is stunning if we were to scrutinize its artistic design; but the gameplay levels are pretty linear and monotonous. All you do is start a mission, move, fight any enemies, enter the next door, and the next and the next. The occasional hacking mini-game doesn't help if its dull. Plus,The enemies in the game could use a little more variety.

Against games like Gears of War and such, ME2 is great.

However, Starcraft 2 has more variety in terms of level/mission design; Super Mario Galaxy 2 is superior in this particular aspect as well.

Now, Dragon Age: Origin. The environment in the game is boring not only to look at, but to explore as well. Remember how "fun" is The Deep Roads level and how "creative" is the level design for the whole game? One thing Dragon Age does better than ME2 is its battle flexibility (PC version). The enemies are tactically more diverse than its Sci-fi cousin. You actually need to come up with a specific strategy against different crowd of enemies.

Alas, even Dragon Age: Origin pales in comparison with Baldur's Gate 2, Bioware's RPG classic.In BG2, there is a wide range of enemies that forces you to radically change tactics moving from one compartment to another. The levels not only vary in colour schemes, but also in objectives.

My conclusion is: If you count narrative into what makes a game great, then Bioware is one of the best developers; but if you exclude narrative as a criterion of a solid game, Bioware is not Blizzard, Valve, or Nintendo. The Studio's gameplay doesn't have that "polish" yet.

Before you overstate the importance of narrative structure in a game, please do believe that it is a well-known fact that a lot of people can play games with solid gameplay but with zero story; but not many think that games with mediocre gameplay but with above-average story are good games.

Well lets just say that my favorite parts of mass Effect are talking to other NPCs. I really like interacting with other characters. The gameplay could use some improvment. As for Dragon Age, I have it sitting on my desktop waiting to be played but haven't touched it yet.

I agree completely. The layout of the maps from ME2 and DA:O are really simple and uninspired, the art behind it is a different story. The structure of the levels are very flawed. The lack of variety and lackluster AI is also a problem in their games.

The Lich in BG2 had only about 70 HP but was hard as hell because of his routines and the very clever use of spells, it needed to be thought with an igenious use of protective and breaching spells as well as an overall inteligent tactic. One good comparison that can be made is the difference between the fight you have between Gaxkang in DA:O and Kan'Gaxx in BG2. Obviously Gaxkang was made after the BG2's Kan'Gaxx and was one of the hardest boss in the game, however all you needed to do was spend your time taking as many potions as possible, keeping healing high in a typical MMO fashion. Compare that with Kangaxx and you can see how much the gameplay has suffered in their recent games.

(Why the hell the spaces between words keep getting deleted when I post?!)

I think you missed or dont know the level of skill that can be obtained in ME2, its possible to play on hardcore, with no teammates and never pause, Its very fast paced and dynamic. If you can reach that level of skill then the "gameplay quality" blows any sunshiny mario thing out of the water.

heres a vid of it being solo's on insane http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsBwHAw_5fA

Also I think the depth and fun of dragon age gameplay was much better than BG, just my opinion though.

there was more to the flow of the game than just shooting through corridors. a mission would usually unfold like:

1) prepare aboard the normandy: mine, talk with the squad, purchase/research tech upgrades, portion out squad points and weapon setups, and read up on the briefings.

2) start the mission: combat, talk to NPC's (this plays a huge part too. lets not forget samara's loyalty mission, for example), and investigate the level (not really explore outside of a dlc mission or two, but there are environmental storytelling devices to take in).

3) mission conclusion: there is generally some sort of boss fight and large paragon/renegade decision along with a wrap up of the story thread of that particular mission.

its a bit unfair to take 15 minutes of shooting and use that as judgement for the game because it wasnt meant to be played for a few minutes. a single sitting should be atleast the amount of time to do a whole mission which includes all 3 of those stages. and talking to NPC's is atleast as important as shooting them in the face in their corridors. the narrative is part of the gameplay and its unfair to separate them.

The narrative is part of the game play.

/end thread

I agree completely. The layout of the maps from ME2 and DA:O are really simple and uninspired, the art behind it is a different story. The structure of the levels are very flawed. The lack of variety and lackluster AI is also a problem in their games.

The Lich in BG2 had only about 70 HP but was hard as hell because of his routines and the very clever use of spells, it needed to be thought with an igenious use of protective and breaching spells as well as an overall inteligent tactic. One good comparison that can be made is the difference between the fight you have between Gaxkang in DA:O and Kan'Gaxx in BG2. Obviously Gaxkang was made after the BG2's Kan'Gaxx and was one of the hardest boss in the game, however all you needed to do was spend your time taking as many potions as possible, keeping healing high in a typical MMO fashion. Compare that with Kangaxx and you can see how much the gameplay has suffered in their recent games.

(Why the hell the spaces between words keep getting deleted when I post?!)

I'm sure everyone knows of the bioware formula by now.. starting area, 4 areas introduced which you can choose the order you tackle them, during the 4th area a 5th is introduced, end boss.

the story/dialogue/music are the best parts. the combat is somewhere in the middle, and the level/game design is pretty bad. The story and dialogue make the first 2 mass effect games more enjoyable than most of the crap out there.

Though ME2 is my personal 2010 Game of The Year, I can't hide my slight disappointment with its level design. Most of the time, it boils down to cover+crates+shoot+biotic and repeat.

ME2 is stunning if we were to scrutinize its artistic design; but the gameplay levels are pretty linear and monotonous. All you do is start a mission, move, fight any enemies, enter the next door, and the next and the next. The occasional hacking mini-game doesn't help if its dull. Plus,The enemies in the game could use a little more variety.

Against games like Gears of War and such, ME2 is great.

However, Starcraft 2 has more variety in terms of level/mission design; Super Mario Galaxy 2 is superior in this particular aspect as well.

Now, Dragon Age: Origin. The environment in the game is boring not only to look at, but to explore as well. Remember how "fun" is The Deep Roads level and how "creative" is the level design for the whole game? One thing Dragon Age does better than ME2 is its battle flexibility (PC version). The enemies are tactically more diverse than its Sci-fi cousin. You actually need to come up with a specific strategy against different crowd of enemies.

Alas, even Dragon Age: Origin pales in comparison with Baldur's Gate 2, Bioware's RPG classic.In BG2, there is a wide range of enemies that forces you to radically change tactics moving from one compartment to another. The levels not only vary in colour schemes, but also in objectives.

My conclusion is: If you count narrative into what makes a game great, then Bioware is one of the best developers; but if you exclude narrative as a criterion of a solid game, Bioware is not Blizzard, Valve, or Nintendo. The Studio's gameplay doesn't have that "polish" yet.

Before you overstate the importance of narrative structure in a game, please do believe that it is a well-known fact that a lot of people can play games with solid gameplay but with zero story; but not many think that games with mediocre gameplay but with above-average story are good games.

Ravenchrome

i loved the combat in kotor and dragon age. mass effect 2 felt like is was missing something in combat but it dint feel bad or anything

i loved the combat in kotor and dragon age. mass effect 2 felt like is was missing something in combat but it dint feel bad or anything

sinpkr

and this is why you shouldn't play ME2 like its MW2, and you shouldnt play DA like its god of war. these are rpg's who investment into the characters, the world, the history, the npc's, etc. make up a huge bulk of the game. RPG's are for exploring new worlds and characters, not for saving America from a nuclear holocaust for the millionth time with bland characters.

The only thing that bothers me about Bioware games are the stiff animations...Especially players hands. Think of Dragon Age...everyone moved like a robot and their hands were flat, they never made fists or anything. If they fix that kind of stuff, they will be up there with Blizz IMO.

and this is why you shouldn't play ME2 like its MW2, and you shouldnt play DA like its god of war. these are rpg's who investment into the characters, the world, the history, the npc's, etc. make up a huge bulk of the game. RPG's are for exploring new worlds and characters, not for saving America from a nuclear holocaust for the millionth time with bland characters.

tutt3r

He's comparing the gameplay of ME2 and DAO to other Bioware RPGs, not to action games. And he's right - neither game features combat or level design that gets anywhere near the depth of BG2, or some of their other earlier games.

With Mass Effect 2, the level design felt like they weren't even trying - when you entered an area with a series of low walls, you knew you were going to fight the same similar bunch of enemies that you'd been fighting in the previous few rooms of this planet.
There were a few standout levels where fights actually played out a little differently (the foggy valley one is the main one I can remember, and the sideways-elevator fight near the end), but for the most part...a lot of it was pretty blandly designed.

As for Dragon Age Origins, the fights and environments were sorely lacking in depth and creativity. Remember how trolls were always troublesome in the c|assic Infinity Engine RPGs, thanks to their fast regeneration (the only way to kill them was to use fire, acid or magic damage)? There was nothing really like that in DAO.
You barely had to stray from one or two tactics the entire game, and even when you did, there are only four party members and a few valid c|asses to choose from, so your options were far more limited than any of the DnD games.

There weren't even any interesting dungeons in DAO either. It's almost as if Bioware had taken some of their old dungeons, then replaced all of the entertaining traps and puzzles with tons and tons of mindless enemies. Compare that to something like Icewind Dale or Baldurs Gate, where the dungeon puzzles were often given equal weighting to the actual combat (or were at least a strong element of the gameplay).

Anyway, I agree with the TC. Bioware games are great for their polish, characters and storytelling, but you shouldn't play any of their recent ones expecting a deep RPG experience.

[QUOTE="tutt3r"]

and this is why you shouldn't play ME2 like its MW2, and you shouldnt play DA like its god of war. these are rpg's who investment into the characters, the world, the history, the npc's, etc. make up a huge bulk of the game. RPG's are for exploring new worlds and characters, not for saving America from a nuclear holocaust for the millionth time with bland characters.

Planeforger

He's comparing the gameplay of ME2 and DAO to other Bioware RPGs, not to action games. And he's right - neither game features combat or level design that gets anywhere near the depth of BG2, or some of their other earlier games.

With Mass Effect 2, the level design felt like they weren't even trying - when you entered an area with a series of low walls, you knew you were going to fight the same similar bunch of enemies that you'd been fighting in the previous few rooms of this planet.
There were a few standout levels where fights actually played out a little differently (the foggy valley one is the main one I can remember, and the sideways-elevator fight near the end), but for the most part...a lot of it was pretty blandly designed.

As for Dragon Age Origins, the fights and environments were sorely lacking in depth and creativity. Remember how trolls were always troublesome in the c|assic Infinity Engine RPGs, thanks to their fast regeneration (the only way to kill them was to use fire, acid or magic damage)? There was nothing really like that in DAO.
You barely had to stray from one or two tactics the entire game, and even when you did, there are only four party members and a few valid c|asses to choose from, so your options were far more limited than any of the DnD games.

There weren't even any interesting dungeons in DAO either. It's almost as if Bioware had taken some of their old dungeons, then replaced all of the entertaining traps and puzzles with tons and tons of mindless enemies. Compare that to something like Icewind Dale or Baldurs Gate, where the dungeon puzzles were often given equal weighting to the actual combat (or were at least a strong element of the gameplay).

Anyway, I agree with the TC. Bioware games are great for their polish, characters and storytelling, but you shouldn't play any of their recent ones expecting a deep RPG experience.

I understand, but a lot of my interest in the ME series was from reading about all the races and their histories amongst the large amount of backstory given to you. Investment in a character has always to me been the main point for rpg's. Having a strong cast of supoorting characters who dvelope as story unfolds is great, and having the added benefit of your choices affecting their fate has only increased my interest. While sure the level design may not be as good compared to other bioware titles, but thier key focus on story and characters is still there and is their strong point. of course it wouldn't hurt if they made things a bit better on the combat end

[QUOTE="sinpkr"]

i loved the combat in kotor and dragon age. mass effect 2 felt like is was missing something in combat but it dint feel bad or anything

[QUOTE="tutt3r"]

and this is why you shouldn't play ME2 like its MW2, and you shouldnt play DA like its god of war. these are rpg's who investment into the characters, the world, the history, the npc's, etc. make up a huge bulk of the game. RPG's are for exploring new worlds and characters, not for saving America from a nuclear holocaust for the millionth time with bland characters.

Planeforger

He's comparing the gameplay of ME2 and DAO to other Bioware RPGs, not to action games. And he's right - neither game features combat or level design that gets anywhere near the depth of BG2, or some of their other earlier games.

With Mass Effect 2, the level design felt like they weren't even trying - when you entered an area with a series of low walls, you knew you were going to fight the same similar bunch of enemies that you'd been fighting in the previous few rooms of this planet.
There were a few standout levels where fights actually played out a little differently (the foggy valley one is the main one I can remember, and the sideways-elevator fight near the end), but for the most part...a lot of it was pretty blandly designed.

As for Dragon Age Origins, the fights and environments were sorely lacking in depth and creativity. Remember how trolls were always troublesome in the c|assic Infinity Engine RPGs, thanks to their fast regeneration (the only way to kill them was to use fire, acid or magic damage)? There was nothing really like that in DAO.
You barely had to stray from one or two tactics the entire game, and even when you did, there are only four party members and a few valid c|asses to choose from, so your options were far more limited than any of the DnD games.

There weren't even any interesting dungeons in DAO either. It's almost as if Bioware had taken some of their old dungeons, then replaced all of the entertaining traps and puzzles with tons and tons of mindless enemies. Compare that to something like Icewind Dale or Baldurs Gate, where the dungeon puzzles were often given equal weighting to the actual combat (or were at least a strong element of the gameplay).

Anyway, I agree with the TC. Bioware games are great for their polish, characters and storytelling, but you shouldn't play any of their recent ones expecting a deep RPG experience.

With DA:O it's all about crowd control. Your fighters draw enemies, your mage holds the enemies back, heals everyone or attacks everyone. Your rogue picks people off.

With ME2 its about flexibility and combination of attacks. If you have heavy shielded enemies, use energy drain, then lift or singularly with a warp bomb and the straight fighters pick people off and tank. Each one of bioware game has it on depth.(Except Jade Empire.) And learning to word of that depth builds the game play. In ME2, you can hit everyone with an area weave,then do an area pull then warp, or freeze everyone and shatter them, Even shock wave help with stunning enemies and knocking people out of cover. Don't alway use the BG card with out knowing how the system works with the game.

The gameplay in dragon age origins is really tactical and when coupled with all the abilities, different properties, class roles, equipment builds, and stats, it makes a mind bogglingly deep system. Perhaps it can be too hardcore as well, because I took a while to learn everything within it. I think its a great system and all, but if there wasn't a narrative compelling enough to make me go through it, I wouldn't play the game just for gameplay's sakes.

I didn't like the gameplay in the ME2 demo, it just felt stiff and lousy. That's the only thing by Bioware I've played though.

You will probably find the gameplay in ME2 shallow if you're playing it as a shooter exclusively. A sentinel or vanguard playthrough on Hardcore/Insanity will quickly change your opnion though. Vanguard...Heavy Charge>Claymore blast to the face of a collector with tungsten ammo-OHKO>moving on to the next target is just one of the many many things you can do with the various permutations you can do with the game.

Trust me, it's anything but shallow...there's quite a bit of skill involved in high level ME2 gameplay. Playing as a soldier on normal will obviously feel shallow. Disappointment will ensue as the gunplay does not pack as much punch as something likeGears. Heck, anything on normal "may" feel shallow since you can still shoot your way to victory except maybe a squishy adept.

The gameplay in an RPG is a sum of the narrative plus mechanics anyway..so yeah BioWare have always done a tremendous job for me.

This is very true and its why the Uncharted series has undisputed praise. When the elements are all boiled down to their main elements they are still great. The level design is great, the characters, the art style, the narrative, the overall gameplay. Most games are fantastic like this in their final product but have major flaws in the specific elements. But Uncharted is great at the specifics. So this is why everyone thinks its fantastic.

@sts106mat--Oh, it was not aimed at anyone. Just my general thoughts on the game.

Meh I enjoyed more the ME gameplay than these other tps. Biotics and teamplay were pretty fun unlike gow where you use only cover and shoot, boring.

I just missed the weapon mods from the first game...I miss my overpowered shotgun that killed enemies in one hit, and overheated after one round :cry:. DethSkematik

Yeah, ME1 was more fun for me than ME2. The only problem it had was the cover system.

I agree with the level design in ME2. It is simple, but it's very well done. So is the cover system. In the end, they work well enough so the gameplay can feel excellent. I don't think it stay to much behind other TPS like GeOW, mainly because it's unique in some ways.
.
As for DA:O, can't really tell, but the combat in KoTOR was fun, interesting and rewarding.