[QUOTE="TheShadowLord07"]Yep, that's me there :) Good, then I can barratage you.....(Not the same guy.) You really need to look at what made BW games great in the first place to even start to question if bioware game are on the decline or dramatically changed. The only thing that changed is how the combat is, and no one played BW for the combat.What made BG2 great is the depth of the world, how you build you character through rpg, how deep and developed the characters are, and and how you interact with the wold through character roleplaying. That is what make BW games great...That has not changed. And as long that has not change, BW game will always be great games. Everyone that's on the hate wagon now is look too closely at how the combat is and stat development, which is unimportant to what a great bw game is. Look into this and you'll see that none of the games are different in their core...Outside of DA2.:P(Hate on DA2 all you want ou side of story, characters, and tactical development.)this is od. theres a thread on neogaf with the same title and same post as charizards.
neogaf
charizard are you a member of neogaf?
charizard1605
How did Bioware go so wrong?
This topic is locked from further discussion.
[QUOTE="charizard1605"][QUOTE="TheShadowLord07"]Yep, that's me there :) Good, then I can barratage you.....(Not the same guy.) What does barratage mean lol?this is od. theres a thread on neogaf with the same title and same post as charizards.
neogaf
charizard are you a member of neogaf?
dreman999
EADavidCage00
Such a long thread so fast answered with such a short answer, very well made
[QUOTE="DavidCage00"]EAArchoNils2
Such a long thread so fast answered with such a short answer, very well made
Let's see now....DA:O is in my hand. It was made by BW and published by....EA.. So, I take it that EA published and financed DA:O. And the thing is ironiclly DA:O is the one type of game old EA would never make. It ha sex,rape, and massive amount of violence....No EA game form the early 2000 and later has this much violence in the game. Old EA would never publish this game.....But it is an EA published game.... I wonder why?
[QUOTE="musalala"]
[QUOTE="dreman999"] Let's see now....DA:O is in my hand. It was made by BW and published by....EA.. So, I take it that EA published and financed DA:O. And the thing is ironiclly DA:O is the one type of game old EA would never make. It ha sex,rape, and massive amount of violence....No EAgame form the early 2000 and later has this much violence in the game. Old EA would never publish this game.....But it is an EA published game.... I wonder why?
Also, on your second statment. Look at ME2, ME3,and SWTOR...does it look like they are rushing those games? How long did it take them to make SWTOR? They rushed DA3. if that's the indication that they are rush production now on games......I should of been playing ME3 last month......Why am I not playing ME3?....Because it's not being rushed.Why have I not been playing SWTOR right now? Because it's not being rushed..... I think action speak louder then words on this... They are not changing how they make games because it made a failed game...Smart of them.
dreman999
Dragon age origins like mass effect 2 and even KOTOR all began production waaay before the EA aquisition, so the old bioware is still there
ME 3 was delayed not to polish the single player but to add multiplayer, I already posted a link
You avoided my question, if EA a good for bioware because it means more money why was game as poor as DA 2 released, a game that was essentially a budget game with so many corners cut?
Who care when they stated production of the games. EA is just the publisher. They just make sure the game is up to quality and give the dev money to make the game. A publisher can go in, even after buy the company and into a late stage of the game and demand content to be put in or taken out. They are the publisher and the game does not print untill they allow it.EA let a game like DA:O print with the only changes to the game demanded is that they cloth women.....And let everything in DA: O that EA of old never allow to be published by them. And he way BW handles nudity now is even stranger because EA is allowing it now, made very clear by Dante's inferno. The point is arguing the fact that EA, a company to use to be the kind of company that would never publish a game like dragon age, allowed DA:O to publish after buying BW, only because BW already started on it, is a very groundless and ignorant argument....Because EA can stop production of the game at any time and massively censor the game.
Swtor product started because of the purchase. Swtor is the only reason why EA bought BW and production did not start utill after BW was bought by EA.
Swtor product started because of the purchase. Swtor is the only reason why EA bought BW and production did not start utill after BW was bought by EA.
If the games delay, it means that it more then just mp they delayed the game for. And it's made clear by the fact that EA is not making you buy the mp as dlc at launch.
Who care when they stated production of the games. EA is just the publisher.
WTF it does matter, dragon age origins was made with minimal influence from EA and we got a flawed but pure RPG experience, DA 2 was made from scratch with EA and we get a rubbish, Doesn"t that tell something?
They just make sure the game is up to quality and give the dev money to make the game.
Again you shot yourself in the foot, The game Dragon age 2 was not quality and was not financed adequatly thats why it was s****, I have been asking you this very question from the begining but you keep ignoring it, If EA is good for bioware because they will finance better games why was DA2 so poorly financed and of such shoddy quality by your veRY definition above it then means EA is a really s***** publisher beacuse DA2 is not quality.
EA let a game like DA:O print with the only changes to the game demanded is that they cloth women.....And let everything in DA: O that EA of old never allow to be published by them. And he way BW handles nudity now is even stranger because EA is allowing it now, made very clear by Dante's inferno. The point is arguing the fact that EA, a company to use to be the kind of company that would never publish a game like dragon age, allowed DA:O to publish after buying BW, only because BW already started on it, is a very groundless and ignorant argument....Because EA can stop production of the game at any time and massively censor the game.
WTH I don"t even know where to begin what the F*** are you saying?!!!! please rephrase
Swtor product started because of the purchase. Swtor is the only reason why EA bought BW and production did not start utill after BW was bought by EA.
Outright lie production for SWTOR started before the purchase, it maybe the reason why they purchased but production had already begun..stop lying
And about ME3, Please this is EA. You think it's a good idea to delay a game that a massive basis for revenue for the your company because they wanted to add mp...That they lose money to add mp and not try sell you ME3 and then sell you the mp separately. This is the same company that sold you 3 separate dlc's at the launch of DA:O....You really think EA would be willing to delay getting paid, and be willing not to try to make an up sell?
yes this is EA lest we forget they are not delaying the game to make it better they are delaying it for multiplayer with the intention to and I qoute "to reach a wider audience" its all about the money they could give rats a** about the artistic integrity of a game, Are you really DEFENDING EA?!!!! a company which has a known well documented history of shady behaviour a company who are only interested in the bottom line all in the name of profits??? SERIOUSLY
[QUOTE="ArchoNils2"][QUOTE="DavidCage00"]EAdreman999
Such a long thread so fast answered with such a short answer, very well made
Let's see now....DA:O is in my hand. It was made by BW and published by....EA.. So, I take it that EA published and financed DA:O. And the thing is ironiclly DA:O is the one type of game old EA would never make. It ha sex,rape, and massive amount of violence....No EA game form the early 2000 and later has this much violence in the game. Old EA would never publish this game.....But it is an EA published game.... I wonder why?Gonna go with the fact it was well into development by the time they were bought by EA. Some research would've told you that. It is impressive that Origins turned out as good as it did after being in development hell for so long, though. I'd say Dragon Age 2 is a great example of Bioware under EA, that was worked on entirely after they were bought out.Who care when they stated production of the games. EA is just the publisher. They just make sure the game is up to quality and give the dev money to make the game. A publisher can go in, even after buy the company and into a late stage of the game and demand content to be put in or taken out. They are the publisher and the game does not print untill they allow it.[QUOTE="dreman999"]
[QUOTE="musalala"]
Dragon age origins like mass effect 2 and even KOTOR all began production waaay before the EA aquisition, so the old bioware is still there
ME 3 was delayed not to polish the single player but to add multiplayer, I already posted a link
You avoided my question, if EA a good for bioware because it means more money why was game as poor as DA 2 released, a game that was essentially a budget game with so many corners cut?
musalala
EA let a game like DA:O print with the only changes to the game demanded is that they cloth women.....And let everything in DA: O that EA of old never allow to be published by them. And he way BW handles nudity now is even stranger because EA is allowing it now, made very clear by Dante's inferno. The point is arguing the fact that EA, a company to use to be the kind of company that would never publish a game like dragon age, allowed DA:O to publish after buying BW, only because BW already started on it, is a very groundless and ignorant argument....Because EA can stop production of the game at any time and massively censor the game.
Swtor product started because of the purchase. Swtor is the only reason why EA bought BW and production did not start utill after BW was bought by EA.
Swtor product started because of the purchase. Swtor is the only reason why EA bought BW and production did not start utill after BW was bought by EA.
If the games delay, it means that it more then just mp they delayed the game for. And it's made clear by the fact that EA is not making you buy the mp as dlc at launch.
Who care when they stated production of the games. EA is just the publisher.
WTF it does matter, dragon age origins was made with minimal influence from EA and we got a flawed but pure RPG experience, DA 2 was made from scratch with EA and we get a rubbish, Doesn"t that tell something?
They just make sure the game is up to quality and give the dev money to make the game.
Again you shot yourself in the foot, The game Dragon age 2 was not quality and was not financed adequatly thats why it was s****, I have been asking you this very question from the begining but you keep ignoring it, If EA is good for bioware because they will finance better games why was DA2 so poorly financed and of such shoddy quality by your veyt definition above it then measn EA is a really s***** publisher beacuse DA2 is not quality.
EA let a game like DA:O print with the only changes to the game demanded is that they cloth women.....And let everything in DA: O that EA of old never allow to be published by them. And he way BW handles nudity now is even stranger because EA is allowing it now, made very clear by Dante's inferno. The point is arguing the fact that EA, a company to use to be the kind of company that would never publish a game like dragon age, allowed DA:O to publish after buying BW, only because BW already started on it, is a very groundless and ignorant argument....Because EA can stop production of the game at any time and massively censor the game.
WTH I don"t even know where to begin what the F*** are you saying?!!!! please rephrase
Swtor product started because of the purchase. Swtor is the only reason why EA bought BW and production did not start utill after BW was bought by EA.
Outright lie production for SWTOR started before the purchase, it maybe the reason why they purchased but production had already begun..stop lying
1. Doesn't matter. EA can stop production and change anything it want on games they arepublising. Especailly ifthe own the game company..... Itmatter not when the game is made. Once it's under EA house they can do what they want.And they allowed the game to publish as is...That say something. Old EAwould never put a game like DA:O out. Old EA would never put a game like ME2 out ether. Your missing the point, the very fact that they can make chages when ever they want on a game they are publishing. And they didn't....Twice.
2.It's clear that they give BW alot of elboe room....What happen with DA2 is up to the headof the team. Being that EA is so flexible with BW to allow BW to do what they want, they did not cut it on a bad game.
3.Old EA was acompanythat only made casual games for every one. They turned away from sex, and extreme viloence in games all they could... And you and I both seen what's in DA:O.....That's not what a casual game publisher publishes....So for EA to publish a game like DA:O with out massive censorers speak volumes....Get it.
4.No, concepts started before the buy out. But no producting...Just ideas. BW, EA and LA bounch Ideas off each other to look in a way to make it and they worked out away to finace the game by EA buying BW. Once BW was bought, full production started.
Let's see now....DA:O is in my hand. It was made by BW and published by....EA.. So, I take it that EA published and financed DA:O. And the thing is ironiclly DA:O is the one type of game old EA would never make. It ha sex,rape, and massive amount of violence....No EA game form the early 2000 and later has this much violence in the game. Old EA would never publish this game.....But it is an EA published game.... I wonder why?Gonna go with the fact it was well into development by the time they were bought by EA. Some research would've told you that. It is impressive that Origins turned out as good as it did after being in development hell for so long, though. I'd say Dragon Age 2 is a great example of Bioware under EA, that was worked on entirely after they were bought out. It doesn't matter how developed it is before EA bought BW. EA as publish can go in as a publisher and demand thing to be change, taken out, and censored .EA could of walked into the dev studio and demanded that DA:O to be made into a console only action game if they wanted to and refused publish untill they did and BW would turn DA:O into that.The most they did was ask for bioware to cover women up....And DA:O is a very violent game..It speaks volumes alone that EA published it.[QUOTE="dreman999"][QUOTE="ArchoNils2"]
Such a long thread so fast answered with such a short answer, very well made
Kiro0
[QUOTE="Kiro0"]Gonna go with the fact it was well into development by the time they were bought by EA. Some research would've told you that. It is impressive that Origins turned out as good as it did after being in development hell for so long, though. I'd say Dragon Age 2 is a great example of Bioware under EA, that was worked on entirely after they were bought out. It doesn't matter how developed it is before EA bought BW. EA as publish can go in as a publisher and demand thing to be change, taken out, and censored .EA could of walked into the dev studio and demanded that DA:O to be made into a console only action game if they wanted to and refused publish untill they did and BW would turn DA:O into that.The most they did was ask for bioware to cover women up....And DA:O is a very violent game..It speaks volumes alone that EA published it.So you honestly think EA would have put in the money, time and effort to dramatically change a game that was already well into development? Really? EA left it alone and instead decided to have them change everything to be more action-oriented in the sequel. Especially after Mass Effect 2's success.[QUOTE="dreman999"] Let's see now....DA:O is in my hand. It was made by BW and published by....EA.. So, I take it that EA published and financed DA:O. And the thing is ironiclly DA:O is the one type of game old EA would never make. It ha sex,rape, and massive amount of violence....No EA game form the early 2000 and later has this much violence in the game. Old EA would never publish this game.....But it is an EA published game.... I wonder why?dreman999
[QUOTE="musalala"]
[QUOTE="dreman999"]Who care when they stated production of the games. EA is just the publisher. They just make sure the game is up to quality and give the dev money to make the game. A publisher can go in, even after buy the company and into a late stage of the game and demand content to be put in or taken out. They are the publisher and the game does not print untill they allow it.
EA let a game like DA:O print with the only changes to the game demanded is that they cloth women.....And let everything in DA: O that EA of old never allow to be published by them. And he way BW handles nudity now is even stranger because EA is allowing it now, made very clear by Dante's inferno. The point is arguing the fact that EA, a company to use to be the kind of company that would never publish a game like dragon age, allowed DA:O to publish after buying BW, only because BW already started on it, is a very groundless and ignorant argument....Because EA can stop production of the game at any time and massively censor the game.
Swtor product started because of the purchase. Swtor is the only reason why EA bought BW and production did not start utill after BW was bought by EA.
Swtor product started because of the purchase. Swtor is the only reason why EA bought BW and production did not start utill after BW was bought by EA.
If the games delay, it means that it more then just mp they delayed the game for. And it's made clear by the fact that EA is not making you buy the mp as dlc at launch.
dreman999
Who care when they stated production of the games. EA is just the publisher.
WTF it does matter, dragon age origins was made with minimal influence from EA and we got a flawed but pure RPG experience, DA 2 was made from scratch with EA and we get a rubbish, Doesn"t that tell something?
They just make sure the game is up to quality and give the dev money to make the game.
Again you shot yourself in the foot, The game Dragon age 2 was not quality and was not financed adequatly thats why it was s****, I have been asking you this very question from the begining but you keep ignoring it, If EA is good for bioware because they will finance better games why was DA2 so poorly financed and of such shoddy quality by your veyt definition above it then measn EA is a really s***** publisher beacuse DA2 is not quality.
EA let a game like DA:O print with the only changes to the game demanded is that they cloth women.....And let everything in DA: O that EA of old never allow to be published by them. And he way BW handles nudity now is even stranger because EA is allowing it now, made very clear by Dante's inferno. The point is arguing the fact that EA, a company to use to be the kind of company that would never publish a game like dragon age, allowed DA:O to publish after buying BW, only because BW already started on it, is a very groundless and ignorant argument....Because EA can stop production of the game at any time and massively censor the game.
WTH I don"t even know where to begin what the F*** are you saying?!!!! please rephrase
Swtor product started because of the purchase. Swtor is the only reason why EA bought BW and production did not start utill after BW was bought by EA.
Outright lie production for SWTOR started before the purchase, it maybe the reason why they purchased but production had already begun..stop lying
1. Doesn't matter. EA can stop production and change anything it want on games they arepublising. Especailly ifthe own the game company..... Itmatter not when the game is made. Once it's under EA house they can do what they want.And they allowed the game to publish as is...That say something. Old EAwould never put a game like DA:O out. Old EA would never put a game like ME2 out ether. Your missing the point, the very fact that they can make chages when ever they want on a game they are publishing. And they didn't....Twice.
2.It's clear that they give BW alot of elboe room....What happen with DA2 is up to the headof the team. Being that EA is so flexible with BW to allow BW to do what they want, they did not cut it on a bad game.
3.Old EA was acompanythat only made casual games for every one. They turned away from sex, and extreme viloence in games all they could... And you and I both seen what's in DA:O.....That's not what a casual game publisher publishes....So for EA to publish a game like DA:O with out massive censorers speak volumes....Get it.
4.No, concepts started before the buy out. But no producting...Just ideas. BW, EA and LA bounch Ideas off each other to look in a way to make it and they worked out away to finace the game by EA buying BW. Once BW was bought, full production started.
continuation from above
And about ME3, Please this is EA. You think it's a good idea to delay a game that a massive basis for revenue for the your company because they wanted to add mp...That they lose money to add mp and not try sell you ME3 and then sell you the mp separately. This is the same company that sold you 3 separate dlc's at the launch of DA:O....You really think EA would be willing to delay getting paid, and be willing not to try to make an up sell?
yes this is EA lest we forget they are not delaying the game to make it better they are delaying it for multiplayer with the intention to and I qoute "to reach a wider audience" its all about the money they could give rats a** about the artistic integrity of a game, Are you really DEFENDING EA?!!!! a company which has a known well documented history of shady behaviour a company who are only interested in the bottom line all in the name of profits??? SERIOUSLY
It doesn't matter how developed it is before EA bought BW. EA as publish can go in as a publisher and demand thing to be change, taken out, and censored .EA could of walked into the dev studio and demanded that DA:O to be made into a console only action game if they wanted to and refused publish untill they did and BW would turn DA:O into that.The most they did was ask for bioware to cover women up....And DA:O is a very violent game..It speaks volumes alone that EA published it.So you honestly think EA would have put in the money, time and effort to dramatically change a game that was already well into development? Really? EA left it alone and instead decided to have them change everything to be more action-oriented in the sequel. Especially after Mass Effect 2's success. Yes, or they could just cancel it. Most likely just massively censored it and cut features. Also, DA2 is not more action based. Pressing A over and over is not more action.....it's an obsession disorder. You can put auto-attack on...And play it on pc which only has auto-attack.[QUOTE="dreman999"][QUOTE="Kiro0"]Gonna go with the fact it was well into development by the time they were bought by EA. Some research would've told you that. It is impressive that Origins turned out as good as it did after being in development hell for so long, though. I'd say Dragon Age 2 is a great example of Bioware under EA, that was worked on entirely after they were bought out.
Kiro0
[QUOTE="dreman999"]
[QUOTE="musalala"]
Who care when they stated production of the games. EA is just the publisher.
WTF it does matter, dragon age origins was made with minimal influence from EA and we got a flawed but pure RPG experience, DA 2 was made from scratch with EA and we get a rubbish, Doesn"t that tell something?
They just make sure the game is up to quality and give the dev money to make the game.
Again you shot yourself in the foot, The game Dragon age 2 was not quality and was not financed adequatly thats why it was s****, I have been asking you this very question from the begining but you keep ignoring it, If EA is good for bioware because they will finance better games why was DA2 so poorly financed and of such shoddy quality by your veyt definition above it then measn EA is a really s***** publisher beacuse DA2 is not quality.
EA let a game like DA:O print with the only changes to the game demanded is that they cloth women.....And let everything in DA: O that EA of old never allow to be published by them. And he way BW handles nudity now is even stranger because EA is allowing it now, made very clear by Dante's inferno. The point is arguing the fact that EA, a company to use to be the kind of company that would never publish a game like dragon age, allowed DA:O to publish after buying BW, only because BW already started on it, is a very groundless and ignorant argument....Because EA can stop production of the game at any time and massively censor the game.
WTH I don"t even know where to begin what the F*** are you saying?!!!! please rephrase
Swtor product started because of the purchase. Swtor is the only reason why EA bought BW and production did not start utill after BW was bought by EA.
Outright lie production for SWTOR started before the purchase, it maybe the reason why they purchased but production had already begun..stop lying
musalala
1. Doesn't matter. EA can stop production and change anything it want on games they arepublising. Especailly ifthe own the game company..... Itmatter not when the game is made. Once it's under EA house they can do what they want.And they allowed the game to publish as is...That say something. Old EAwould never put a game like DA:O out. Old EA would never put a game like ME2 out ether. Your missing the point, the very fact that they can make chages when ever they want on a game they are publishing. And they didn't....Twice.
2.It's clear that they give BW alot of elboe room....What happen with DA2 is up to the headof the team. Being that EA is so flexible with BW to allow BW to do what they want, they did not cut it on a bad game.
3.Old EA was acompanythat only made casual games for every one. They turned away from sex, and extreme viloence in games all they could... And you and I both seen what's in DA:O.....That's not what a casual game publisher publishes....So for EA to publish a game like DA:O with out massive censorers speak volumes....Get it.
4.No, concepts started before the buy out. But no producting...Just ideas. BW, EA and LA bounch Ideas off each other to look in a way to make it and they worked out away to finace the game by EA buying BW. Once BW was bought, full production started.
continuation from above
And about ME3, Please this is EA. You think it's a good idea to delay a game that a massive basis for revenue for the your company because they wanted to add mp...That they lose money to add mp and not try sell you ME3 and then sell you the mp separately. This is the same company that sold you 3 separate dlc's at the launch of DA:O....You really think EA would be willing to delay getting paid, and be willing not to try to make an up sell?
yes this is EA lest we forget they are not delaying the game to make it better they are delaying it for multiplayer with the intention to and I qoute "to reach a wider audience" its all about the money they could give rats a** about the artistic integrity of a game, Are you really DEFENDING EA?!!!! a company which has a known well documented history of shady behaviour a company who are only interested in the bottom line all in the name of profits??? SERIOUSLY
Yes, it just makes sense they are adding MP for cod fans by just having one mod of mp that's non competitive and is useless without playing the sp. Mp in ME3 point is to get resources for the sp. It's not made to stand on it's own like COD'S and Battlefields MP. It's not: Let add mp, ??? , profit. If it were just to a a mp mode to get the COD FANS, wouldn't mp have more then just co-op?
It seems like the ME3 leak proves musala kinda wrong, multiplayer was always intended as the scenarios were described in the first draft of the story. Multiplayer was always in to begin with.texasgoldrush
How does this prove me wrong, mass effect 3 was scheduled to be released as a single player game This year in Novemeber with no multipalyer, the delay the game and then magically multipalyer is now included, do you mind posting proof like I do or is this your usually I d*** ride Bioware like a rodeo posts based on you rose tinted view of bioware?
[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"]It seems like the ME3 leak proves musala kinda wrong, multiplayer was always intended as the scenarios were described in the first draft of the story. Multiplayer was always in to begin with.musalala
How does this prove me wrong, mass effect 3 was scheduled to be released as a single player game This year in Novemeber with no multipalyer, the delay the game and then magically multipalyer is now included, do you mind posting proof like I do or is this your usually I d*** ride Bioware like a rodeo posts based on you rose tinted view of bioware?
1.The mp is made by another team from the main team. 2.The SP player team is not sitting around doing nothing. 3.Microsoft cut mp from ME1.[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"]It seems like the ME3 leak proves musala kinda wrong, multiplayer was always intended as the scenarios were described in the first draft of the story. Multiplayer was always in to begin with.musalala
How does this prove me wrong, mass effect 3 was scheduled to be released as a single player game This year in Novemeber with no multipalyer, the delay the game and then magically multipalyer is now included, do you mind posting proof like I do or is this your usually I d*** ride Bioware like a rodeo posts based on you rose tinted view of bioware?
First off, I am not posting the leak, but the scenario designs for the multiplayer ARE IN THE LEAK. Notes on how the level is supposed to play, what the story situation is, and what the level is inspired by (one for instance is inspired by Resident Evil). This was in the beta files that were accidently leaked of the first ideas (and the first draft of th escript was leaked as well, a 20,000 page word doc) of the ME3 story. It was always there and it was always planned.[QUOTE="musalala"]
[QUOTE="dreman999"]
1. Doesn't matter. EA can stop production and change anything it want on games they arepublising. Especailly ifthe own the game company..... Itmatter not when the game is made. Once it's under EA house they can do what they want.And they allowed the game to publish as is...That say something. Old EAwould never put a game like DA:O out. Old EA would never put a game like ME2 out ether. Your missing the point, the very fact that they can make chages when ever they want on a game they are publishing. And they didn't....Twice.
2.It's clear that they give BW alot of elboe room....What happen with DA2 is up to the headof the team. Being that EA is so flexible with BW to allow BW to do what they want, they did not cut it on a bad game.
3.Old EA was acompanythat only made casual games for every one. They turned away from sex, and extreme viloence in games all they could... And you and I both seen what's in DA:O.....That's not what a casual game publisher publishes....So for EA to publish a game like DA:O with out massive censorers speak volumes....Get it.
4.No, concepts started before the buy out. But no producting...Just ideas. BW, EA and LA bounch Ideas off each other to look in a way to make it and they worked out away to finace the game by EA buying BW. Once BW was bought, full production started.
dreman999
continuation from above
And about ME3, Please this is EA. You think it's a good idea to delay a game that a massive basis for revenue for the your company because they wanted to add mp...That they lose money to add mp and not try sell you ME3 and then sell you the mp separately. This is the same company that sold you 3 separate dlc's at the launch of DA:O....You really think EA would be willing to delay getting paid, and be willing not to try to make an up sell?
yes this is EA lest we forget they are not delaying the game to make it better they are delaying it for multiplayer with the intention to and I qoute "to reach a wider audience" its all about the money they could give rats a** about the artistic integrity of a game, Are you really DEFENDING EA?!!!! a company which has a known well documented history of shady behaviour a company who are only interested in the bottom line all in the name of profits??? SERIOUSLY
Yes, it just makes sense they are adding MP for cod fans by just having one mod of mp that's non competitive and is useless without playing the sp. Mp in ME3 point is to get resources for the sp. It's not made to stand on it's own like COD'S and Battlefields MP. It's not: Let add mp, ??? , profit. If it were just to a a mp mode to get the COD FANS, wouldn't mp have more then just co-op?please rephrase I"m not understanding what you are saying. Are you saying that you cannot play the SP campaign on its own and that in order to experience ME 3 completely you HAVE to play the MP?
If this is true its disastorous and proves the influence of EA
So you think its a good stratergy that a game that statrd off as a purely single player RPG is now reduced to appealing to the Call of duty crowd...this is good? Because DA2 made a concerted effort to get the Call of duty crowd and we all know how that turned out.
And don"t you think that bu trying to appeal to the call of duty crowd that like DA2 you will end up alienating the fanbase that bought the previous titles
And finally doesn"t this show the NEGATIVE impact that EA is having on Bioware?
Yes, it just makes sense they are adding MP for cod fans by just having one mod of mp that's non competitive and is useless without playing the sp. Mp in ME3 point is to get resources for the sp. It's not made to stand on it's own like COD'S and Battlefields MP. It's not: Let add mp, ??? , profit. If it were just to a a mp mode to get the COD FANS, wouldn't mp have more then just co-op?[QUOTE="dreman999"]
[QUOTE="musalala"]
continuation from above
And about ME3, Please this is EA. You think it's a good idea to delay a game that a massive basis for revenue for the your company because they wanted to add mp...That they lose money to add mp and not try sell you ME3 and then sell you the mp separately. This is the same company that sold you 3 separate dlc's at the launch of DA:O....You really think EA would be willing to delay getting paid, and be willing not to try to make an up sell?
yes this is EA lest we forget they are not delaying the game to make it better they are delaying it for multiplayer with the intention to and I qoute "to reach a wider audience" its all about the money they could give rats a** about the artistic integrity of a game, Are you really DEFENDING EA?!!!! a company which has a known well documented history of shady behaviour a company who are only interested in the bottom line all in the name of profits??? SERIOUSLY
musalala
please rephrase I"m not understanding what you are saying. Are you saying that you cannot play the SP campaign on its own and that in order to experience ME 3 completely you HAVE to play the MP?
If this is true its disastorous and proves the influence of EA
So you think its a good stratergy that a game that statrd off as a purely single player RPG is now reduced to appealing to the Call of duty crowd...this is good? Because DA2 made a concerted effort to get the Call of duty crowd and we all know how that turned out.
And don"t you think that bu trying to appeal to the call of duty crowd that like DA2 you will end up alienating the fanbase that bought the previous titles
And finally doesn"t this show the NEGATIVE impact that EA is having on Bioware?
You do not have to play the MP to play 100% of the SP...designers confirmed this.[QUOTE="musalala"][QUOTE="texasgoldrush"]It seems like the ME3 leak proves musala kinda wrong, multiplayer was always intended as the scenarios were described in the first draft of the story. Multiplayer was always in to begin with.texasgoldrush
How does this prove me wrong, mass effect 3 was scheduled to be released as a single player game This year in Novemeber with no multipalyer, the delay the game and then magically multipalyer is now included, do you mind posting proof like I do or is this your usually I d*** ride Bioware like a rodeo posts based on you rose tinted view of bioware?
First off, I am not posting the leak, but the scenario designs for the multiplayer ARE IN THE LEAK. Notes on how the level is supposed to play, what the story situation is, and what the level is inspired by (one for instance is inspired by Resident Evil). This was in the beta files that were accidently leaked of the first ideas (and the first draft of th escript was leaked as well, a 20,000 page word doc) of the ME3 story. It was always there and it was always planned.So i should just take your word for it then? Because everyone here knows you are the most Unbiased and objectuve poster when it comes to bioware games. At least Send me a message with a link.
If i am wrong I will admit I was wrong but pardon my scepticism given you history with bioware
[QUOTE="musalala"][QUOTE="dreman999"] Yes, it just makes sense they are adding MP for cod fans by just having one mod of mp that's non competitive and is useless without playing the sp. Mp in ME3 point is to get resources for the sp. It's not made to stand on it's own like COD'S and Battlefields MP. It's not: Let add mp, ??? , profit. If it were just to a a mp mode to get the COD FANS, wouldn't mp have more then just co-op?
texasgoldrush
please rephrase I"m not understanding what you are saying. Are you saying that you cannot play the SP campaign on its own and that in order to experience ME 3 completely you HAVE to play the MP?
If this is true its disastorous and proves the influence of EA
So you think its a good stratergy that a game that statrd off as a purely single player RPG is now reduced to appealing to the Call of duty crowd...this is good? Because DA2 made a concerted effort to get the Call of duty crowd and we all know how that turned out.
And don"t you think that bu trying to appeal to the call of duty crowd that like DA2 you will end up alienating the fanbase that bought the previous titles
And finally doesn"t this show the NEGATIVE impact that EA is having on Bioware?
You do not have to play the MP to play 100% of the SP...designers confirmed this.So what is he talking about then he states in his post that the MP is intergral to the SP?
Yes, it just makes sense they are adding MP for cod fans by just having one mod of mp that's non competitive and is useless without playing the sp. Mp in ME3 point is to get resources for the sp
Yes, it just makes sense they are adding MP for cod fans by just having one mod of mp that's non competitive and is useless without playing the sp. Mp in ME3 point is to get resources for the sp. It's not made to stand on it's own like COD'S and Battlefields MP. It's not: Let add mp, ??? , profit. If it were just to a a mp mode to get the COD FANS, wouldn't mp have more then just co-op?[QUOTE="dreman999"]
[QUOTE="musalala"]
continuation from above
And about ME3, Please this is EA. You think it's a good idea to delay a game that a massive basis for revenue for the your company because they wanted to add mp...That they lose money to add mp and not try sell you ME3 and then sell you the mp separately. This is the same company that sold you 3 separate dlc's at the launch of DA:O....You really think EA would be willing to delay getting paid, and be willing not to try to make an up sell?
yes this is EA lest we forget they are not delaying the game to make it better they are delaying it for multiplayer with the intention to and I qoute "to reach a wider audience" its all about the money they could give rats a** about the artistic integrity of a game, Are you really DEFENDING EA?!!!! a company which has a known well documented history of shady behaviour a company who are only interested in the bottom line all in the name of profits??? SERIOUSLY
musalala
please rephrase I"m not understanding what you are saying. Are you saying that you cannot play the SP campaign on its own and that in order to experience ME 3 completely you HAVE to play the MP?
If this is true its disastorous and proves the influence of EA
So you think its a good stratergy that a game that statrd off as a purely single player RPG is now reduced to appealing to the Call of duty crowd...this is good? Because DA2 made a concerted effort to get the Call of duty crowd and we all know how that turned out.
And don"t you think that bu trying to appeal to the call of duty crowd that like DA2 you will end up alienating the fanbase that bought the previous titles
And finally doesn"t this show the NEGATIVE impact that EA is having on Bioware?
No, it's the other way around. You have no way to play the Mp with out the sp. You gain points call galaxy readiness(grp) in the mp. You use it to build you armada. You can get GRP through the sp story as well and you don't have to play the mp to get it... This is just an alternative to planet scanning and doing side missions. It's purely optional and they made it story based. Also, adding optional mp is not a bad idea as long as the making of the mp does not sidetrack the sp. And no , DA2 was not focus on cod fans....It had no extended mp or shooting.First off, I am not posting the leak, but the scenario designs for the multiplayer ARE IN THE LEAK. Notes on how the level is supposed to play, what the story situation is, and what the level is inspired by (one for instance is inspired by Resident Evil). This was in the beta files that were accidently leaked of the first ideas (and the first draft of th escript was leaked as well, a 20,000 page word doc) of the ME3 story. It was always there and it was always planned.[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"][QUOTE="musalala"]
How does this prove me wrong, mass effect 3 was scheduled to be released as a single player game This year in Novemeber with no multipalyer, the delay the game and then magically multipalyer is now included, do you mind posting proof like I do or is this your usually I d*** ride Bioware like a rodeo posts based on you rose tinted view of bioware?
musalala
So i should just take your word for it then? Because everyone here knows you are the most Unbiased and objectuve poster when it comes to bioware games. At least Send me a message with a link.
If i am wrong I will admit I was wrong but pardon my scepticism given you history with bioware
look up the leak, its in the file.[QUOTE="musalala"][QUOTE="dreman999"] Yes, it just makes sense they are adding MP for cod fans by just having one mod of mp that's non competitive and is useless without playing the sp. Mp in ME3 point is to get resources for the sp. It's not made to stand on it's own like COD'S and Battlefields MP. It's not: Let add mp, ??? , profit. If it were just to a a mp mode to get the COD FANS, wouldn't mp have more then just co-op?
dreman999
please rephrase I"m not understanding what you are saying. Are you saying that you cannot play the SP campaign on its own and that in order to experience ME 3 completely you HAVE to play the MP?
If this is true its disastorous and proves the influence of EA
So you think its a good stratergy that a game that statrd off as a purely single player RPG is now reduced to appealing to the Call of duty crowd...this is good? Because DA2 made a concerted effort to get the Call of duty crowd and we all know how that turned out.
And don"t you think that bu trying to appeal to the call of duty crowd that like DA2 you will end up alienating the fanbase that bought the previous titles
And finally doesn"t this show the NEGATIVE impact that EA is having on Bioware?
No, it's the other way around. You have no way to play the Mp with out the sp. You gain points call galaxy readiness(grp) in the mp/ You use it to build you armada. You can get GRP through the sp story as well and you don't have to play the mp to get it... This is just an alternative to planet scanning and doing side missions.It's purely optional. Also, adding optional mp is not a bad idea as long as the making of the mp does not sidetrack the sp. And no , DA2 was not focus on cod fans....It had no extended mp or shooting.DA2 was not focus on cod fans.
http://www.rpgwatch.com/show/newsbit?newsbit=16722
http://news.softpedia.com/news/GTA-and-Call-of-Duty-Players-Are-Ready-for-Dragon-Age-2-186647.shtml
are you sure about that statement, they specifically said and I quote
"We have data that shows there are a lot of people that enjoy playing RPGs although they won't necessarily call them RPGs. They'll play Fallout, Assassin's Creed and even Call Of Duty, which have these progression elements – you're putting points into things – but they don't necessarily associate that as an RPG. So we think that if we expand that out we'll attract a much bigger audience."
Isnt this appealing to the call of duty crowd? which essentially means dumbing down?
Also what if that time they are spending on The MP , what if the spent it on making an absolutly amazing SP experience? I find it interesting that the Highest rated metacritic gameare metacritic Batman AC and Skyrim
And Finally proof that Microsoft cut out Multipalyer in ME 1 please
I have not played DA2 nor do I think I will.
But I dont really understand the hate. From what I hear, it actually tried to fix some of the fundamental flaws with RTWP combat, break through typical Bioware cliches, and actually tried to add depth to the story (which is evidenced by the fact that some characters actually have depth unlike the 1 or 2 dimentional in DAO). Sure, some things I do not like, like voiced protagonist, dialogue wheels, copy paste level design, ect.
RTWP combat is horrendously flawed atm and is a far inferior alternative to Turn Based Combat or Action Based Combat.
No, it's the other way around. You have no way to play the Mp with out the sp. You gain points call galaxy readiness(grp) in the mp/ You use it to build you armada. You can get GRP through the sp story as well and you don't have to play the mp to get it... This is just an alternative to planet scanning and doing side missions.It's purely optional. Also, adding optional mp is not a bad idea as long as the making of the mp does not sidetrack the sp. And no , DA2 was not focus on cod fans....It had no extended mp or shooting.[QUOTE="dreman999"][QUOTE="musalala"]
please rephrase I"m not understanding what you are saying. Are you saying that you cannot play the SP campaign on its own and that in order to experience ME 3 completely you HAVE to play the MP?
If this is true its disastorous and proves the influence of EA
So you think its a good stratergy that a game that statrd off as a purely single player RPG is now reduced to appealing to the Call of duty crowd...this is good? Because DA2 made a concerted effort to get the Call of duty crowd and we all know how that turned out.
And don"t you think that bu trying to appeal to the call of duty crowd that like DA2 you will end up alienating the fanbase that bought the previous titles
And finally doesn"t this show the NEGATIVE impact that EA is having on Bioware?
musalala
DA2 was not focus on cod fans.
http://www.rpgwatch.com/show/newsbit?newsbit=16722
http://news.softpedia.com/news/GTA-and-Call-of-Duty-Players-Are-Ready-for-Dragon-Age-2-186647.shtml
are you sure about that statement, they specifically said and I quote
"We have data that shows there are a lot of people that enjoy playing RPGs although they won't necessarily call them RPGs. They'll play Fallout, Assassin's Creed and even Call Of Duty, which have these progression elements – you're putting points into things – but they don't necessarily associate that as an RPG. So we think that if we expand that out we'll attract a much bigger audience."
Isnt this appealing to the call of duty crowd? which essentially means dumbing down?
Also what if that time they are spending on The MP , what if the spent it on making an absolutly amazing SP experience? I find it interesting that the Highest rated metacritic gameare metacritic Batman AC and Skyrim
And Finally proof that Microsoft cut out Multipalyer in ME 1 please
[QUOTE="musalala"][QUOTE="dreman999"] No, it's the other way around. You have no way to play the Mp with out the sp. You gain points call galaxy readiness(grp) in the mp/ You use it to build you armada. You can get GRP through the sp story as well and you don't have to play the mp to get it... This is just an alternative to planet scanning and doing side missions.It's purely optional. Also, adding optional mp is not a bad idea as long as the making of the mp does not sidetrack the sp. And no , DA2 was not focus on cod fans....It had no extended mp or shooting.dreman999
DA2 was not focus on cod fans.
http://www.rpgwatch.com/show/newsbit?newsbit=16722
http://news.softpedia.com/news/GTA-and-Call-of-Duty-Players-Are-Ready-for-Dragon-Age-2-186647.shtml
are you sure about that statement, they specifically said and I quote
"We have data that shows there are a lot of people that enjoy playing RPGs although they won't necessarily call them RPGs. They'll play Fallout, Assassin's Creed and even Call Of Duty, which have these progression elements – you're putting points into things – but they don't necessarily associate that as an RPG. So we think that if we expand that out we'll attract a much bigger audience."
Isnt this appealing to the call of duty crowd? which essentially means dumbing down?
Also what if that time they are spending on The MP , what if the spent it on making an absolutly amazing SP experience? I find it interesting that the Highest rated metacritic gameare metacritic Batman AC and Skyrim
And Finally proof that Microsoft cut out Multipalyer in ME 1 please
The article says they specifically tailored there game to attract that audience or you even reading the things I post he is a better link
http://www.nowgamer.com/news/919569/bioware_we_want_call_of_dutys_audience.html
They'll play Fallout, Assassin's Creed and even Call Of Duty, which have these progression elements – you're putting points into things – but they don't necessarily associate that as an RPG. So we think that if we expand that out we'll attract a much bigger audience.
Who cares if BioWare shot themselves in the foot by rushing DA2? It's still a better RPG than Fable 3.topsemag55
That's not exactly a compliment.
Fable 3 is one of the worst games I've played this gen.
[QUOTE="topsemag55"]Who cares if BioWare shot themselves in the foot by rushing DA2? It's still a better RPG than Fable 3.GiantAssPanda
That's not exactly a compliment.
Fable 3 is one of the worst games I've played this gen.
A lot of people are overlooking KevinV's comments in his review of DA2. He himself said it rates well.[QUOTE="ristactionjakso"]I think DA: Origins is a very good game. One of my favorites.[QUOTE="charizard1605"]
After playing Skyrim for all weekend, I decided to slightly mix things up a little earlier today by pulling out my copy of Dragon Age: Origins.
Now, I don't know if you've actually played Dragon Age: Origins. The problem with the game is that it gets a stigma attached to it simply because of Dragon Age II, that bastardized excuse for a game that is supposed to be its sequel, and because Bioware made it, who seem to have no f***ing clue these days.
But the thing with Origins is, it is great. Fantastic. It is arguably Bioware's last great game, and definitely the last great RPG they developed. It stands as a masterpiece in its genre, and is one of the deepest, most complex RPGs developed in the last decade and a half, and it is indisputably Bioware's best work since Baldur's Gate 2. It also stands as one of the greatest RPGs ever developed.
The story may have been nothing special, and the overall setting may have been highly derivative, but the overall atmosphere was brilliant, the quest structure is probably second to none, the music was wonderful, the characterization was great, the dialog was tightly written, the combat and gameplay mechanics were great, and overall, it was probably the last bastion of the true old complex RPG that made no bones about what it was, and did not even attempt to streamline any of its components for the mass audience (Skyrim, great game though it is, does streamline its elements heavily to keep them accessible. I have no issues with this, as unlike other games, streamlining here does not mean that said elements are compromised)
My question is, how did Bioware go from making a game as good as this, a game that borders on being an all time masterpiece, to the worthless piece of s**t that was Dragon Age II? How did they go so wrong? Where did they go so wrong?
And considering their increased (misguided) push towards moving away from the traditional RPG market, is there really no chance that I can see a true sequel to Dragon Age Origins, a game that proudly upholds the tradition of the old WRPG that Origins so proudly tried to usher into the 21st century?
texasgoldrush
DA 2 was a step back. The only thing I can say about it is that the gameplay is better. I like actually doing the actions. But thats not to say DA: Origins had a bad combat system because i liked that combat system too, just DA 2's better.
DA 2 had the same dungeons (copy and paste dungeons everywhere..... straight up pure laziness on their behalf), the facial hair looks stupid in character creation (looks like fake glue on facial hair), the story was pathetic, it was more linear, side quests were bland. It was just a cash in for them. They sold out.
Here is what DAO fans don't understand, the game is extremely flawed. Really, the entire series has yet to be great. Neither DAO, DAOA or DAII are great. Problems with DAO: One dimesnional or two dimesnional characters, with very little to no character development. Highly generic and unfocused plot (mid game especially) Poor dungeon and world design, especially the Deep Roads and The Fade.Highly unbalanced and exploitable combat system. Ridiculous difficulty spikes. Has an unnecessary skill system and a convoluted and useless crafting system The art direction is flat out horrendous, even more so on the 360 and PS3. Follows Bioware "formula" too closely Horrendous DLC and an expanion rushed out the door (excluding Leliana's Song) Really, the entire series is just Bioware's "B" effort...no wonder EA values Mass Effect far more.as if DA2 story was focused....
WHAT??? Deep roads and especially the FADE were interesting to look at! unlike DA2 where the cave in mt sundermount is THE SAME as deep roads. also ALL the enviroments in DA2 are boring uninteresting and p00p. do i have to remind you some areas MEMORABLE from DAo that noone has forgotten (unilke DA2 where i remember absoluterly nothing iand i played DA2 2 times)
the windmill in lothring with the cracking sound
the Entire brecilian forest with the BIG TREE behind the talking oak
CALLENHAD DOCKS - nuff said
Denerim and it's lake
Deeproads - carridin cross thaig
All these vistas were memorable but in DA2 nothing was memorable, one of my biggest concersns with the damn failure, everythng was boring , dull looking, and uninteresitng, god i hated THAT orange color pallete at darktown and lowtown.
hightown... yeah right... hightown my @$$, it was a mess. the only memorable worth looking map was the GALLOWS in which you played only a FEW quests.
WTH? did you even played DA2 at nightmare? A MESS. SOME fights were manageable but MOST of them were infuriating. you could not even play a strategy with pause due to the wavy combat. this is one of the few games where you leveled up and you became worse?
difficulty spikes???
remember the qunari at wounded beach where they 1 hit koed your mages or rogues with mighty blow talent???
remember the various gangs in their hideouts???
remember Danarious mansion ?
remember XEBENKEK??
the wprost part was that in HARD you RARELY PAUSED but in NIGHTMARE you rarely lived more than 6 secs.
In DAO combat was BALANCED. mages were OP yes, BUT i still managed to finish the game in nightmre with ONLY warriors and NOT a healer with tactical pausing.
In DAO YPU WERE PLAYING CHARACTERS , in DA2 you were playing ****s.
dragon age 2 should be reviewed by avgn at some time. it begs to be avgned.
The MP will suck, because it isn't canon for a single-player game.Just don't suck ass ME3.
That's all I need.
timmy00
EA
[QUOTE="timmy00"]The MP will suck, because it isn't canon for a single-player game.Just don't suck ass ME3.
That's all I need.
topsemag55
i don't even know why they added mp to mass effect, why would the developers waste time in mp instead of focusing full in the final part of the series.
The MP will suck, because it isn't canon for a single-player game.[QUOTE="topsemag55"][QUOTE="timmy00"]
Just don't suck ass ME3.
That's all I need.
Krelian-co
i don't even know why they added mp to mass effect, why would the developers waste time in mp instead of focusing full in the final part of the series.
1. They are fully focus on the sp. The sp team is not working on the mp. A new team with no one from the sp team is working on it 2.Because it's a cool Idea to builds the ME community together and have a mp rpg experience like BG2 and NWN had. This shoe ME in a new way. And it's not forced.
Like many RPG devs this gen, they've sold out for a larger audience. The depth of gameplay is lost in trade for cash.
Oh, right....All those deep character stats was the reason BG2 is one of the greatest rpgs ever. Forget Character depth and development, deep worlds, and interaction via character role playing, the best part of BG2 was looking at the stats screen, organizing the inventory, and switch everyone's armor. /sarcasmLike many RPG devs this gen, they've sold out for a larger audience. The depth of gameplay is lost in trade for cash.
Brendissimo35
[QUOTE="Brendissimo35"]Oh, right....All those deep character stats was the reason BG2 is one of the greatest rpgs ever. Forget Character depth and development, deep worlds, and interaction via character role playing, the best part of BG2 was looking at the stats screen, organizing the inventory, and switch everyone's armor. /sarcasmLike many RPG devs this gen, they've sold out for a larger audience. The depth of gameplay is lost in trade for cash.
dreman999
Alright, then let's talk about deep character interaction. While the ability to transfer save files in between games in Mass Effect is impressive, the game is much shallower than it lets on. Most dialogue has only three player options and in many cases, two of the written options result in the same line being delivered by Shephard. You have occasional pre scripted moments in which a stat check for paragon or renegade results in a the choice to interrupt conversation. On an overall level, the freedom to roleplay your character's choices is quite limited compared to games from even 2004, and earlier. DA: Orgins had significantly more character interaction depth when compared to Mass Effect, DA2, etc.
Oh, right....All those deep character stats was the reason BG2 is one of the greatest rpgs ever. Forget Character depth and development, deep worlds, and interaction via character role playing, the best part of BG2 was looking at the stats screen, organizing the inventory, and switch everyone's armor. /sarcasm[QUOTE="dreman999"][QUOTE="Brendissimo35"]
Like many RPG devs this gen, they've sold out for a larger audience. The depth of gameplay is lost in trade for cash.
Brendissimo35
Alright, then let's talk about deep character interaction. While the ability to transfer save files in between games in Mass Effect is impressive, the game is much shallower than it lets on. Most dialogue has only three player options and in many cases, two of the written options result in the same line being delivered by Shephard. You have occasional pre scripted moments in which a stat check for paragon or renegade results in a the choice to interrupt conversation. On an overall level, the freedom to roleplay your character's choices is quite limited compared to games from even 2004, and earlier. DA: Orgins had significantly more character interaction depth when compared to Mass Effect, DA2, etc.
DAII clobbers DAO when it comes to character inetraction depth due to the friendship and rivalry system. There are far more ways to develop your companions charactizations due to the fact that they do not leave the party because of sheer disapproval. In fact, the character development of DAO sucks outside the big three in Alistair, Leliana, and Morrigan and Morrigan only develops from romance. ME3 is going to clobber many games when it comes to choice and consquence, it doesn't have to worry about continuity.
Except that the changes to Mass Effect 2 actually make sense. Mass Effect barely had any rpg mechanics. With ME2 all they did was make the gameplay better by removing what little rpg elements ME had. Also it didn't have DRM which is a huge plus for me. The only thing like i don't like about ME2 is that the entire story felt like a giant recruiting mission.It was EA.
Mass Effect was made under Microsoft. Dragon Age: Origins was in development since 2005 I believe. Sure, EA bought up BioWare and Dragon Age: Origins was later released under their label, but that game was basically set in stone. But under EA we received Massively Defective 2 and Dragon Age 2. BioWare are a joke. CD Projekt Red are the current kings of BioWare's CRPG type games. The Witcher is just that damn good.
NeonNinja
[QUOTE="Brendissimo35"][QUOTE="dreman999"] Oh, right....All those deep character stats was the reason BG2 is one of the greatest rpgs ever. Forget Character depth and development, deep worlds, and interaction via character role playing, the best part of BG2 was looking at the stats screen, organizing the inventory, and switch everyone's armor. /sarcasmtexasgoldrush
Alright, then let's talk about deep character interaction. While the ability to transfer save files in between games in Mass Effect is impressive, the game is much shallower than it lets on. Most dialogue has only three player options and in many cases, two of the written options result in the same line being delivered by Shephard. You have occasional pre scripted moments in which a stat check for paragon or renegade results in a the choice to interrupt conversation. On an overall level, the freedom to roleplay your character's choices is quite limited compared to games from even 2004, and earlier. DA: Orgins had significantly more character interaction depth when compared to Mass Effect, DA2, etc.
DAII clobbers DAO when it comes to character inetraction depth due to the friendship and rivalry system. There are far more ways to develop your companions charactizations due to the fact that they do not leave the party because of sheer disapproval. In fact, the character development of DAO sucks outside the big three in Alistair, Leliana, and Morrigan and Morrigan only develops from romance. ME3 is going to clobber many games when it comes to choice and consquence, it doesn't have to worry about continuity.LOL Mass effects gives you the illusion of choice just like dragon age 2 regardless of what decisions you make the galaxy is still going to be saved and the reapers will be defeat. In dragon age 2 wheter you side with the templars or mages makes no differnce the outcome is the same. And to make matters worse dragon age 2 completely disregards some important player decisions eg the Leliana fiasco where players who killed her in the first game would have her reappear in DA 2 and David Gaider basically said he doesn"t give a f*** its his story and he can change the canon as he sees fit.,
now lets say if in mass effectthere had been an option at some point in the game to side with the reapers and go on a galaxy wide genocidal rampage then we would be talking about choice and consequence. For all their grand standing on giving player choice bioware games a just as linear as Final Fantasy :twisted:
Except that the changes to Mass Effect 2 actually make sense. Mass Effect barely had any rpg mechanics. With ME2 all they did was make the gameplay better by removing what little rpg elements ME had. Also it didn't have DRM which is a huge plus for me. The only thing like i don't like about ME2 is that the entire story felt like a giant recruiting mission.Mass Effect 2 also had terrible characters and boring game design. Was a pretty mediocre game outside of presentation.[QUOTE="NeonNinja"]
It was EA.
Mass Effect was made under Microsoft. Dragon Age: Origins was in development since 2005 I believe. Sure, EA bought up BioWare and Dragon Age: Origins was later released under their label, but that game was basically set in stone. But under EA we received Massively Defective 2 and Dragon Age 2. BioWare are a joke. CD Projekt Red are the current kings of BioWare's CRPG type games. The Witcher is just that damn good.
kage_53
Oh, right....All those deep character stats was the reason BG2 is one of the greatest rpgs ever. Forget Character depth and development, deep worlds, and interaction via character role playing, the best part of BG2 was looking at the stats screen, organizing the inventory, and switch everyone's armor. /sarcasm[QUOTE="dreman999"][QUOTE="Brendissimo35"]
Like many RPG devs this gen, they've sold out for a larger audience. The depth of gameplay is lost in trade for cash.
Brendissimo35
Alright, then let's talk about deep character interaction. While the ability to transfer save files in between games in Mass Effect is impressive, the game is much shallower than it lets on. Most dialogue has only three player options and in many cases, two of the written options result in the same line being delivered by Shephard. You have occasional pre scripted moments in which a stat check for paragon or renegade results in a the choice to interrupt conversation. On an overall level, the freedom to roleplay your character's choices is quite limited compared to games from even 2004, and earlier. DA: Orgins had significantly more character interaction depth when compared to Mass Effect, DA2, etc.
I do agree that the level of effect on the games universe is reduced, but most of what your saying is in other BW games, even the older ones.. DA:O and BG2 may not have auto response, for obvious reasons but they do have dialoged that only allow one response. Also, you may go on how you have more responses in BG2 and DA:O but those are just inquiries, too. And yes, the level of freedom of action has been limited in the game, especially with the companions, but later BW games have them more involved with the main story, so they have to more linear to tell a story. Also, the charm/intimidate options are just charm checks....The same you have in all rpgs but more automatic. In order to tell a story, you have to have some parts linear. BG2 may had alot of character freedom but it did have it's linear parts. Also, most of your choices had no real effect on the full story. As much as people hate on not seeing choices fallowed through, ME1 and ME2 do a better job at it then BG2.[QUOTE="Brendissimo35"][QUOTE="dreman999"] Oh, right....All those deep character stats was the reason BG2 is one of the greatest rpgs ever. Forget Character depth and development, deep worlds, and interaction via character role playing, the best part of BG2 was looking at the stats screen, organizing the inventory, and switch everyone's armor. /sarcasmtexasgoldrush
Alright, then let's talk about deep character interaction. While the ability to transfer save files in between games in Mass Effect is impressive, the game is much shallower than it lets on. Most dialogue has only three player options and in many cases, two of the written options result in the same line being delivered by Shephard. You have occasional pre scripted moments in which a stat check for paragon or renegade results in a the choice to interrupt conversation. On an overall level, the freedom to roleplay your character's choices is quite limited compared to games from even 2004, and earlier. DA: Orgins had significantly more character interaction depth when compared to Mass Effect, DA2, etc.
DAII clobbers DAO when it comes to character inetraction depth due to the friendship and rivalry system. There are far more ways to develop your companions charactizations due to the fact that they do not leave the party because of sheer disapproval. In fact, the character development of DAO sucks outside the big three in Alistair, Leliana, and Morrigan and Morrigan only develops from romance. ME3 is going to clobber many games when it comes to choice and consequence, it doesn't have to worry about continuity. For DA2, I have to disagree. Character interaction is one of DA2 major problems. You can talk and interact with characters any time anywhere in DA:O. While DA2 forced you to do it at a certain time with no way to even touch the character one on one out side of that. What your bring up is character development not character interaction.Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment