The BioWare / EA / Origin thread

[taumel]

It's kind of funny because today seems to be the Dragon Age 2 day and i already read some discussion about it elsewhere and i mostly agree with what has been written there.

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 agree with others that the most interesting part about Dragon Age was to get Leliana. So the love story was worse in Dragon Age 2 and of course they had some linear levels which they reused to often but in a whole it was the much better experience, especially story wise.

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.

[Nintendo Boy1]

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.

[KuroShiro]

Originally Posted by taumel

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.

[taumel]

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.

[KuroShiro]

Originally Posted by taumel

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.

[taumel]

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.

[taumel]

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.

[Darth Marsden]

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.

[DAISHI]

Originally Posted by taumel

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.

[taumel]

@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.

[Darth Marsden]

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?

[KuroShiro]

Personally I don't have a huge problem with DLCs as a concept. Sadly, they are rarely executed well, and are usually huge ripoffs. They are usually pretty overpriced for how much content they contain, and frankly are usually of pretty low quality. Probably the only times I've ever been really happy with DLCs were with Lair of the Shadow Broker for ME2, and that Zombie Island one for Borderlands.

I *do* have a problem with day one DLC and CE exclusive DLC and all that garbage though. The explanations for why they aren't included with the main game frankly smell of BS to me (just start development on them earlier), and it just seems like a way to increase the price of the game without actually having to list it higher.

[figmentPez]

My problem with DLC? I'm interested in getting into the Mass Effect series. ME2 is $20 ($5 if I get it during a Steam sale), to get all the additional missions via DLC is $40, they only add a fraction of the playtime of the full game and the DLC never goes on sale. I won't be getting ME2 unless they issue a version bundled with all the DLC for a reasonable price (and I can play it without Origin).

Also, that $40 worth of ME2 DLC is about 11 hours of gameplay, max. Compare that to one of Bioware's previous add-ons, Baldur's Gate Tales of the Sword Coast. That expansion pack cost $30, made numerous refinements to the game, and added 20 - 30 hours of gameplay.

[Darth Marsden]

TotalBiscuit got an e-mail from one company that did Day One DLC (can't remember who, sadly) who said that it takes a while from a game going gold to it being released, and during that time the art team basically has nothing to do, so they sometimes create new skins and stuff that can come out as D1C (Day 1 Content).

It's not an excuse for missions and stuff, which is frankly inexcusable, but that sort of thing I don't have a problem with (as long as its reasonably priced).

When it comes to DLC, there's very few instances of it being done properly. The Fallout 3/New Vegas style is one example of DLC done right. I don't know about Call of Duty Elite, since a lot of that's not come out yet, but I have my doubts as to whether it'll be worth it or not.

But that's not really Bioware / EA / Origin related, so I'll leave it at that.

Originally Posted by figmentPez

My problem with DLC? I'm interested in getting into the Mass Effect series. ME2 is $20 ($5 if I get it during a Steam sale), to get all the additional missions via DLC is $40, they only add a fraction of the playtime of the full game and the DLC never goes on sale. I won't be getting ME2 unless they issue a version bundled with all the DLC for a reasonable price (and I can play it without Origin).

They released a 'complete' version of Dragon Age (Dragon Age Origins: Ultimate Collection), which did exactly what you describe. It was awesome (except for the PAL PS3 version, which didn't have Return to Ostagar, but they gave you a DLC code for it, so minor issue). Fallout 3 GOTY and New Vegas Complete did that as well, which is also cool. I wish more companies did that.

...I suspect Saints Row: The Third will practically need one with all the DLC they're doing. Ugh.

[The Gentleman]

I bought the ME3 Collector's Edition.

[taumel]

@Darth Marsden
I don't share your opinion. I think the story of DA2 was interesting and so was the DLC released so far. Ultimately they could offer more depth but compared to most other stuff they dare to sell you these days, they were very good.

I also don't see a valid point to complain about things which improved, so in your position i would be more happy that the DLC is enjoyable.

You may not have enjoyed Dragon Age 2. Fair enough. A lot of others, however, did.

I would aks myself why i dislike the game. Is it primary because i'm upset because it's different to what i expected or is it really this bad. I can understand why some people who were primary more after the more boring parts of RPG experiences initially thought this way but if you give the game a chance then i think there are many aspects speaking for it as well.

[Rather Dashing]

Even if we decide to pretend that Dragon Age 2 is a good game by some awkward, ill-defined universal metric, watered-down Mass Effect with a fantasy skin makes for a terrible Dragon Age game. In much the same way an excellent first-person shooter with a Monkey Island skin would be a horrible Monkey Island game deserving of ire. I can hear the FPS fans now, "I can understand why some people who were primarily more after the more boring parts of Adventure experiences, like slow pacing and puzzles, initially thought this way, but if you give the game a chance then I think there are many aspects that speak for it as well."

[taumel]

You can shorten this up, DA2 isn't a good, it's a very good game, for a RPG minded person that expects a little bit more than just the same dusty things happening over and over again. Alone Hawke's cynical dialogues, instead of the typical fantasy blabla they otherwise come up with, were worth the money. Great game, i strongly recommend it, also to you!

[der_ketzer]

Originally Posted by The Gentleman

I bought the ME3 Collector's Edition.

I am going to un-friend you right now. Traitor!

[Darth Marsden]

Originally Posted by taumel

You can shorten this up, DA2 isn't a good, it's a very good game, for a RPG minded person that expects a little bit more than just the same dusty things happening over and over again. Alone Hawke's cynical dialogues instead of the typical fantasy blabla they otherwise come up with, were worth the money. Great game, i strongly recommend it, also to you!

We're going to have to disagree here. You enjoy it, fine. But others don't, and you need to accept that.

You completely failed to put yourself in the shoes of others, as I asked you to. You just keep ramming home that this game is good. Well, I don't think it is. I think it's a massive letdown. A lot of other people think it's a massive letdown. And you need to accept that.

We think what we think, and we're not going to change our positions based on the arguments you're giving us. A good game for an RPG minded person? I AM an RPG-minded person, and I thought the game was repetitive and boring. You can't sell a game on story alone, because it's a GAME. Something you PLAY. Hence the word GAMEPLAY.

And the gameplay in Dragon Age 2 was a massive step down from Dragon Age 1, it took place in copy-pasted locations and the fights happened every other minute. It was tedious, mind-numbing and boring. And it may have had a fantastic story with brilliant dialogue, but if I don't want to slog through god-knows how many fights to get to it, then it's all for nought, isn't it?

I'm glad you enjoyed the game. It's good to know at least one person did. But please stop trying to tell us it's a good game, because most of us don't think the same way you do.