User Avatar Image

The BioWare / EA / Origin thread

posted by Chyron8472 on - last edited - Viewed by 2.4K users

I couldn't readily find a thread specifically about Western RPGs or BioWare, so I made one, and expanded the title to inclue EA and Origin in case the topic changed to such.






.

211 Comments - Linear Discussion: Classic Style
  • I refuse to buy ME3 or BF3 on PC because of Origin. Which is a real shame because BF3 kind of looked interesting, by no means am I saying it's good even if it is or isn't, just looks interesting. Hopefully Valve and EA will sort out their differences but untill than EA can just fuck off with Origin.

  • @taumel said:
    Dragon Age 2 was the better game in quite some aspects, the graphics were better, it performed better, the characters and dialogues were less stereotypical, it was available as a crossrelease, the story was shorter but more dense and actually interesting, some of the levels had more attention to detail, less annoying micromanagement, combat was a lot more fun and looked cool, it had replay value, it overall felt fresh and tasty instead of dusty and traditional in a bad way.


    I can... sort of agree with the better graphics part, though that and performance make no difference to me. I also don't care about console versions. I'll respectfully disagree on the story. The micromanagement is what a lot of players of classic RPGs love, so I'll go so far as to say that you are not a fan of the older games in the genre. It has 0 replay value for me since you make no meaningful decisions, but I guess it can be different for others. Level design... well, the ones that were there weren't *awful*, it's just that they reused the same 3 or 4 over... and over... and over...

    The one place where I will *strongly* disagree is on the combat part. There was no possibility for tactical combat or planning due to how the enemies rushed in in waves. It was annoying and clunky to control your party members beyond maybe pausing and casting a single spell, and there was really no strategy involved.


    Dragon Age 2 felt after a good and short roleplaying session with a interesting story. Dragon Age felt after some never ending i've seen it a hundred times before. Hey Dungeon Master, can't we play a new campaign? It took many ideas from everywhere else which i found boring.

    You think DA2's ending was better than DA:O's? Really? In that case this is kind of like a debate on religion where there is no common ground between two people.

  • Well, starting with Ultima 2 on the C64 i played most roleplaying games available for computers, so i have a rough understanding of the genre.

    Regarding a crossrelease i was talking about a Windows/OS X (Cider) DVD. Story wise DA borrowed a lot of its elements and scenes from Tolkien and others. The story in Kirkwall about the Qunari was great. I replayed DA2 several times whilst i had to force myself to finish DA already once. Micromanagement can be annoying if it isn't done well and occupies a to large percentage of the game. Chris Taylor and others already improved things a lot, i don't see a reason why things must be cumbersome again.

    I rather play through well designed levels a couple of times instead of playing boring wide open spaces where nothing meaningful happens only once. Combat looked better in DA2 and it didn't take ages for members to get to certain positions. The tactical map was overrated and not well done in DA.

    I think DA2 had several endings and the last ending wasn't as good as the ending before, which might be due to a lack of time but it nevertheless was more interesting than DA.

  • @taumel said: Well, starting with Ultima 2 on the C64 i played most roleplaying games available for computers, so i have a rough understanding of the genre.


    Ok, I guess it's just a difference of opinion then.


    I rather play through well designed levels a couple of times instead of playing boring wide open spaces where nothing meaningful happens only once. Combat looked better in DA2 and it didn't take ages for members to get to certain positions. The tactical map was overrated and not well done in DA.


    It wasn't just a couple of times. The increased reactivity of combat was better in DA2. Nothing else about it was imo.


    I think DA2 had several endings and the last ending wasn't as good as the ending before, which might be due to a lack of time but it nevertheless was interesting compared to DA.

    DA2 has one possible ending and only one. Your decisions have zero effect on anything. DA:O has somewhere in the area of 100 if you count all the permutations in the epilogue. Again, this is just down to matters of opinion. I didn't despise DA2 or anything, but I thought pretty much everything about the gameplay was worse than DA:O.

  • With several endings i meant endings in a sequence like dealing with the Qunari first and then the mage vs. templar conflict. In my opinion DA2 was the first great roleplaying game since a pretty long time. I didn't like DA as well as Skyrim. I don't want to play the same things over and over again, killing rats, searching through barrels and corpses for a few coins, ... In some aspects DA2 delivered something new, the story in Kirkwall was great, the characters were fresh.

  • Btw. two things i forgot about, the interludes/loading animations and the provided DLC also were a lot better in DA2. The assassin DLC with Tallis was quite enjoyable, although i have no idea how many succeed in going through the awkward ordering process, it's almost like they don't want you to spend money there.

  • DLC is irrelevant because it's not part of the core game. If it were, we wouldn't have had such a problem with it, but instead we have to pay extra to make the game better. Not a positive step, really.

  • @taumel said:
    I rather play through well designed levels a couple of times instead of playing boring wide open spaces where nothing meaningful happens only once. Combat looked better in DA2 and it didn't take ages for members to get to certain positions. The tactical map was overrated and not well done in DA.

    Totally agree! Same reason Skyrim starts to suck.

  • @Darth Marsden
    This doesn't make sense to me. A company has a budget/idea for a certain game which for instance results into 13 quests, they produce it and sell it. Afterwards, because the game was a success and designed flexible enough to offer some additional content, they produce another quest which they offer for sale. What's wrong with that?

    The old skool way would be either offering no additional content at all or producing more and then releasing it as an Add-on. Especially in RPGs the DLC concept works pretty well. I have no problem with DLC if it's fair (pricing and DRM wise) and if the quality is convincing. I'm not talking about that i could get some better weapons/magic items i otherwise can't have to pimp the existing game. I'm talking about real value in form of additional quality content, like in having another pen&paper RPG session.

  • The point is that they had these interesting ideas as an afterthought rather than during the development of the game itself. That's why I discount DLC for Dragon Age 2. They're far more interesting and unique then the core game, and that's not how things should be. Bioware simply should have known better.

    I've no real problem with single-player DLC (not multiplayer stuff or new skins, those I've an issue with) but if the DLC is better than the core game, then why on earth should I bother with the game itself? It doesn't make sense to pay however-much for a game and then only be interested in the extra stuff they make for it.

    You may have enjoyed Dragon Age 2. Fair enough. A lot of others, however, didn't.

    Put yourself in the shoes of those who didn't like DA2 for a minute. Along comes a sequel to a great game which is, aside from they mythology behind it, almost completely different to the game it's a follow-up to. And then the developers start putting out DLC that's more similar to the stuff in the original game, but in order to play it, you have to have the sequel that's completely different.

    Can you see why people are irritated?

Add Comment