I would have to say that with the gaming ratings 8/10 is about right for the game. If you take it lower than that, you would have to lower many games scores even further. Games tend to be rated higher than for example movies or music, but thats how it is. 79 is just about right, but I would personally rate it probably around 70. And while it is probably Bioware's poorest game ever, its production quality, regardless of those issues you mentioned, is much higher than your average RPG.
(talking about metacritic, in response to one of the previous posts)
If you are saying the almost all games rate between an 80 and 100 from below average to awesome, then saying it should have been a 70 instead of 79 is actually a huuuge statement, not a slight tweak. It's like saying instead of 2/4 stars it should have been 1/4 -- a sentiment I agree with, btw.
The only thing good about the production quality of the game was the voice acting. The enviroments are lacking, behind every door is a recycled map (low production quality), they can't keep a consistent villain through the whole game, they don't have proper character development for NPCs, etc, etc, etc. Lots of low production stuff in there. The game was rushed and it shows. The average RPG is a lot better than this.
The critic scores ARE worthless. They are always horribly inflated. At least user reviews will have biases to increase scores and biases to decrease them. That makes the biases more likely to cancel out at least in part. Critic reviews are just biased towards games being great...especially if they are from big companies. The idea they have some obligation for honesty is ridiculous when you look at bad games from major companies and see how "professionals" give such games 8s, 9s, and 10s. They're a joke.
DA2 IS below average. For crying out loud, it is RECYCLED MAPS. That's a horrible, horrible mark against it. It has no cohesive plot, but instead has 3 rather unrelated acts (bad plotting). It has undeveloped "villains", an unbalanced combat system, a horrible "wave" mechanic that destroys tactical elements of the combat system, etc, etc. The game is playable, but it is below average -- many below average games are playable.
Ok, I will bite.
So rating of 79 in metacritic is not average for you from critics? To me it is. Most Bioware games get 90+. 79 is a fiasco for them.
You have little over 1700 user ratings, from which over 900 are negative, and from those 900 majority are either 0 or 1.
Also, with critic ratings you can actually look at their history in the site. Compare their scores for similar titles etc. This gives you a valuable comparison tool instead of looking at the near useless scores given by a random Internet user.
Is an 8/10 about right for DA2? No, I have to say it isn't. The game is decidedly below average and an 8/10 is in the "good game" category. A game, on the other hand, that gets random people to hate it, does actually mean something. There must be something wrong with a game like that -- far more useful information and more accurate of the game's state as well.
And I personally haven't ever seen a source of critic reviews that was remotely consistent even for similar titles. They have different reviewers for games in the same genre and they are biased in favor by different amounts depending on how big the company is. There is a tremendous amount of noise there, and it is noise that is difficult to measure the magnitude and doesn't tend to cancel itself out.
Frankly, DA2 has major flaws and an 8/10 does nothing to even hint at that. The best argument you can come up with is "well it is lower than other Bioware games", but that's not an argument that indicates critics are rating the game fairly on its own merits. 8/10 is still significantly too high.
Gauging something as complex as a film, a song, or a video game by something as simplistic as a series of numbers is an act of futility. All it does is spawn pointless arguments without actually critiquing anything relevent about the product being judged, and thereby nullifies the point of choosing a ranking system in the first place.
"Gypsies, tramps, and thieves, we were called by the Admin of the site . . . "
The term it's a Bioware game to me means a few things.
First off as you saw great stories.
Second Polish (very few bugs)
Great character development (kinda linked to great stories as i feel any great story needs great character development)
Great looking worlds
Generall very well done game.
These are the things i expect when i pick up a Bioware game...I've yet to be disappointed, and until i do i won't stop following them.
I would have agreed with you until DA2. Thats a pretty big pile of junk. The production values are pretty high but their focus for that game is completely in the wrong places. This is probably one of the worst "stories" I have ever seen on an RPG, there are some sub stories that are very good though, but the main storyline is pretty bad.
The polish is definately there but they really screwed it up with the copy & paste all over the place. For me the character develpment in terms of story has always been pretty good in Bioware games, but the level progression and the options the characters have in the DA series has usually dissapointed me(Baldur's Gate was better).
In all if they bring any of these bad habits to SWTOR I think we will be in for a long bad ride
In all if they bring any of these bad habits to SWTOR I think we will be in for a long bad ride
I wouldn't expect any of that in TOR. If you like Tank-Healer-DPS combat mechanics and story, then you'll probably be happy. (Personally I loathe the former...I'm only in this thread because I thoroughly disapprove of DA2). Remember, TOR is made by a different group of people than DA2.
I would have to say that with the gaming ratings 8/10 is about right for the game. If you take it lower than that, you would have to lower many games scores even further. Games tend to be rated higher than for example movies or music, but thats how it is. 79 is just about right, but I would personally rate it probably around 70. And while it is probably Bioware's poorest game ever, its production quality, regardless of those issues you mentioned, is much higher than your average RPG.
(talking about metacritic, in response to one of the previous posts)
If you are saying the almost all games rate between an 80 and 100 from below average to awesome, then saying it should have been a 70 instead of 79 is actually a huuuge statement, not a slight tweak. It's like saying instead of 2/4 stars it should have been 1/4 -- a sentiment I agree with, btw.
The only thing good about the production quality of the game was the voice acting. The enviroments are lacking, behind every door is a recycled map (low production quality), they can't keep a consistent villain through the whole game, they don't have proper character development for NPCs, etc, etc, etc. Lots of low production stuff in there. The game was rushed and it shows. The average RPG is a lot better than this.
I think what I mean, or how I view game scores on metacritic (before reading any actually reviews):
90-100 - this game is worth playing
80-89 - from average to just above
70-79 - average, might interest you if you like the genre
60-69 - below average, only if you love the genre etc.
50-59 - don't waste your money
"The person who experiences greatness must have a feeling for the myth he is in."
According to this theory, certain financial institutions are so large and so interconnected that their failure will be disastrous to an (Gaming) economy. lol
Funny...
anyways, let us imagine the game DOES bomb. Will EA go under, financially speaking? No. Will Bioware go under, financially speaking? No. Both those companies went under, would the industry crash? No. If the industry crashed, would the economy go into a tail spin? No.
I think the ONLY markets that this game's theoretical failure would effect negatively is the in game market :-P.
.
.
.
Now, on to the actualy topic, "It's a BioWare game".
I actually don't care for bioware games. It isn't that I don't like the stories or stories being told in games, but rather I would be much more inclined to play their games if they DIDN'T have those conversation choices in EVERY single game (minor exaggeration?)
basically, I don't like that "It's a BioWare game" means having frequent dialog option menues that determine what content you get to do. I am not opposed to branching storylines either, but i think many choices are made outside of conversations*.
*when GW2 comes out, you won't hear me complaining about how they do there branching storyline choices, regardless of whether you choose your path in a conversation or on the battlefield, though I would much rather it be on the battlefield.)
I used to TL;DR, but then I took a bullet point to the footnote.
Gauging something as complex as a film, a song, or a video game by something as simplistic as a series of numbers is an act of futility. All it does is spawn pointless arguments without actually critiquing anything relevent about the product being judged, and thereby nullifies the point of choosing a ranking system in the first place.
You are quite correct and often it would, but I use metacritic to give me an idea about the quality of the game. If the critic score is very low, it might not be even worth my time to check the reviews. If the score is in the mid-range (for games) 70-85, I might look up some reviews. If it is 90+, I know that it is a fairly high quality and might only check reviews from my preferred sites to learn more about game mechanics.
The rating should only be used as an indicator to help with your buying decision.
"The person who experiences greatness must have a feeling for the myth he is in."
no idea how anyone can even remotely claim witcher 2 was better than da 2 ^^
witcher 2 only needed a pig at the beginning of the game whiping everyone who tries to start it, then it could be "gothic 3 - part 2"
It doesn't take much to make better game than Dragon Age 2 which was awful. Just look at user scores on metacritic or read forums official and unofficial to see how negatively taken was DA2.
So yeah, thanks to DA2 BW in my eyes went from "awesome" to "meh, nothing special"company
Since they have put out far more awesome games than crappy ones (Only one in my opinion) they are still an awesome company. Especially when the only crappy game came from a different team.
Well, technically TOR is coming from a different team too. Just saying.
Kind of. I believe it has a lot of developers from Baldur's Gate, KOTOR, ME1 and DA:O including the same lead designer. Also the development time is respectable compared to 1.5 years for DA2. Simply not enough for a decent RPG.
I'd never change my opinion about a company on one game that was rushed, especially when they have put out a lot of great games. There is simply no reason to be worried about ToR because of DA2.
I'll have to start with I did not get into the dragon age franchise all that much in either installment, I still played through them most of the way. With DA1 I lost interest after you were sent on the final objective (slaying the arche demon). With 2 I played through until the final act and again lost interest (other games). Personally I'm not that into the fantasy genre, except certain elements of classic literature, such as King Arthur tales and Conan, low fantasy I suppose.
Still, on their own merits they're both decent games IMO, decent overall story and presentation of it. Typical Bioware game-play. Great production values in terms of polish. This is why I was able to play through it, even though I wasn't connecting to it. There are few games I have ever played through based on production values alone.
As has been pointed out in this thread, no company offers up perfection every time. It's basically statistically impossible. As for EA being responsible in anyway for DA's shortcomings, I highly doubt it.
With Dragon age 2 I remember an interview I read pre-release where a Dev was saying they went a more action based route with combat this time because: "the biggest complaint they recieved with DA:O was it's old school approach to combat, and not striving for something a little more like what they did with ME. SO they attempted to make it closer to ME" , and it shows in a lot of ways.
They also stated in the same interview they went with a different approach to character creation/background because: They wanted to tell an individual story from the DA world, and allow the player to set the stage for what was to come in DA3. They deviated from the origins because they had already been told.
That interview says to me Bioware was behind all these changes and the seemingly weaker overall game this time. They did what they have always done, listened to criticism and adjusted accordingly. Can't expect them to get it right everytime.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
I agree that Dragon Age 2 was the worst game Bioware has put out, but I loved all of their game's so it is hard to really say that means much. DA2 is a love it or hate it game. The reason the game's style goes far away from that of the first one is based primarily on player feedback of the team making the Dragon Age serieis. They discovered a few great things in this game and will probably have a much better 3rd installment.
As far as Bioware as a company, they make great products. Sure, some of them have had minor issues, but nothing that would break the bank. Other companies *cough* Blizzard *cough* don't have as many stability problems because they simply put out games that are sub-par technology on purpose so that they don't have to worry about it. As far as bugs go though, Blizzard's games has had plenty of them back in the day when Bioware's did.
Bioware makes heavy story driven games and have always been successful at it. All the RPG experiences I remember are based from Bioware games. Hell, even the Fallout franchise was originally from Bioware (when they were Black Isle Studios). Parent company at the time, Interplay, might have owned the rights to it, but Bioware was responsible for it. Kinda funny how it now is in the hands of what you would call their Arch-rival in RPGs, Bethesda. Anyways getting off topic here..
My favorite game of all time is Mass Effect 2. That is a pretty broad statement, and while I don't feel like listing the reasons off why I love the game so much; I will say one thing about it. I have never played an RPG I wanted to play more then twice through. I have played ME2 on nearly every difficulty setting, made nearly every choice possible, seen various endings, and have every single piece of DLC (including the waste of money shit) available on it. It is the only Xbox 360 game I have 100% of achievements for, including DLC.
There is a great game that is only 30 or so hours (if you do everything) but packs a whole lot into it. The amount of replay value in ME2 for me has been fantastic.
Why am I excited about ToR? Because the amount of replay value in a game coming from them is so huge that I have played one longer then I have played any MMORPG in the past year.
I agree that Dragon Age 2 was the worst game Bioware has put out, but I loved all of their game's so it is hard to really say that means much. DA2 is a love it or hate it game. The reason the game's style goes far away from that of the first one is based primarily on player feedback of the team making the Dragon Age serieis. They discovered a few great things in this game and will probably have a much better 3rd installment.
As far as Bioware as a company, they make great products. Sure, some of them have had minor issues, but nothing that would break the bank. Other companies *cough* Blizzard *cough* don't have as many stability problems because they simply put out games that are sub-par technology on purpose so that they don't have to worry about it. As far as bugs go though, Blizzard's games has had plenty of them back in the day when Bioware's did.
Bioware makes heavy story driven games and have always been successful at it. All the RPG experiences I remember are based from Bioware games. Hell, even the Fallout franchise was originally from Bioware (when they were Black Isle Studios). Parent company at the time, Interplay, might have owned the rights to it, but Bioware was responsible for it. Kinda funny how it now is in the hands of what you would call their Arch-rival in RPGs, Bethesda. Anyways getting off topic here..
My favorite game of all time is Mass Effect 2. That is a pretty broad statement, and while I don't feel like listing the reasons off why I love the game so much; I will say one thing about it. I have never played an RPG I wanted to play more then twice through. I have played ME2 on nearly every difficulty setting, made nearly every choice possible, seen various endings, and have every single piece of DLC (including the waste of money shit) available on it. It is the only Xbox 360 game I have 100% of achievements for, including DLC.
There is a great game that is only 30 or so hours (if you do everything) but packs a whole lot into it. The amount of replay value in ME2 for me has been fantastic.
Why am I excited about ToR? Because the amount of replay value in a game coming from them is so huge that I have played one longer then I have played any MMORPG in the past year.
The thing is you have to then take that point of view and think about playing that same content over and over and over.. while paying a monthly fee... combined with how long the company involved (Electronic Arts with a label that says "BioWare") needs you to play that same content. Also beyond the various hurdles any game faces... Slapping "Star Wars" on a box gives you a lot of inherent potential issues and MMO's are all about the long term subscription being paid.. where ME2 (your example) is simply about the box sales.
I don't know why Blizzard gets brought up in these topics. Success from the company point of view is $$$. So if you see paticular MMO's that seem very much like another MMO with various gimicks splashed in.. you know why. That paticular MMO has probably made more since 2004 than almost all other western MMO's combined going back to M59/NWN. Yet it really has nothing to do with how good TOR might be.. or how well it may do in the market.
Personally if I was BioWare I would have made my first MMO off an IP I owned or an entirely new IP. I think the weakest part of their game is going to be "Star Wars"... but that's just my opinion.... and yes I have a lot of reasons for why I feel this way but they are all my opinions too so I'll stop here.
/wave
*edit* Just wanted to say my favorite game of all time is a tie between Wasteland and Starflight. Tho I would likely say Starflight. Both were Interplay games from the 1980's and again in my opinion nothing has ever come close to what those games were.. terms of story.. puzzles.. exploration etc
The thing is you have to then take that point of view and think about playing that same content over and over and over.. while paying a monthly fee... combined with how long the company involved (Electronic Arts with a label that says "BioWare") needs you to play that same content. Also beyond the various hurdles any game faces... Slapping "Star Wars" on a box gives you a lot of inherent potential issues and MMO's are all about the long term subscription being paid.. where ME2 (your example) is simply about the box sales.
This ^ for sure.
Regardless of how fun the game will be to play at launch, and how engaging the story is, the question is how long are players willing to pay a monthly fee for a story?
I know a lot of people who love ME2, DA1 and DA2, and KOTOR. Ive asked them if they were excited about SW:TOR and they all seem to be pretty stoked... then I asked them what they thought about having to pay monthly for it, year after year... much different response.
The thing is, story based, cinematic/voice over content has never hit the genre like SW:TOR is about to do, so it's mostly all speculation from any of us on how well it will be taken, but while everyone's wondering whether "a good story, and voice work" will be enough to make a lot of people play the game, I'm wondering "if a lot of people DO play the game, how long will they actually stay?"
The failsafe from Bioware's end is that the 'complete' story can't be experienced unless you level up every single class... securing (what they hope will secure, anyways) players subscriptions for at least 6 months. Personally, I don't think it will rock subs for very long, regardless of how fun it is at first, or how engaging the story is. I just don't see a reason for anyone to play it for years and years like other MMORPGs.
This is not a troll, flame, or anything else worth banning me over. It is simply my pure opinion, and I have a right to share it.
I agree that Dragon Age 2 was the worst game Bioware has put out, but I loved all of their game's so it is hard to really say that means much. DA2 is a love it or hate it game. The reason the game's style goes far away from that of the first one is based primarily on player feedback of the team making the Dragon Age serieis. They discovered a few great things in this game and will probably have a much better 3rd installment.
As far as Bioware as a company, they make great products. Sure, some of them have had minor issues, but nothing that would break the bank. Other companies *cough* Blizzard *cough* don't have as many stability problems because they simply put out games that are sub-par technology on purpose so that they don't have to worry about it. As far as bugs go though, Blizzard's games has had plenty of them back in the day when Bioware's did.
Bioware makes heavy story driven games and have always been successful at it. All the RPG experiences I remember are based from Bioware games. Hell, even the Fallout franchise was originally from Bioware (when they were Black Isle Studios). Parent company at the time, Interplay, might have owned the rights to it, but Bioware was responsible for it. Kinda funny how it now is in the hands of what you would call their Arch-rival in RPGs, Bethesda. Anyways getting off topic here..
My favorite game of all time is Mass Effect 2. That is a pretty broad statement, and while I don't feel like listing the reasons off why I love the game so much; I will say one thing about it. I have never played an RPG I wanted to play more then twice through. I have played ME2 on nearly every difficulty setting, made nearly every choice possible, seen various endings, and have every single piece of DLC (including the waste of money shit) available on it. It is the only Xbox 360 game I have 100% of achievements for, including DLC.
There is a great game that is only 30 or so hours (if you do everything) but packs a whole lot into it. The amount of replay value in ME2 for me has been fantastic.
Why am I excited about ToR? Because the amount of replay value in a game coming from them is so huge that I have played one longer then I have played any MMORPG in the past year.
The thing is you have to then take that point of view and think about playing that same content over and over and over.. while paying a monthly fee...
I am perfectly fine with that! And I have no doubt they will have content patches...and the game is multiplayer so that adds a whole, huge new layer to the game.
The "Singleplayer" aspect of SWTOR is what is going to pull people into the game that were not originally interested in MMORPGs. Those guys will figure "Hey, I love Bioware RPGs so I will get this one and play a month for the story.." which will lure them to the game in the first place. After they realize they have 4 unique paths to take through the story content (the stories share 2 different classes I believe depending on the planet, so 2 diffent stories on both sides) and that it would take a few months to do it all, they will probably subscribe.
For me, I can already see this game being something that keeps me in it for a while. Even if the end game is a minimal duration for me(which in 90% of cases it is, including WoW..) I can still go back and level up new characters with new stories. Knowing that I will have a ton of replayability right off the bat with multiple class stories even without factoring in the end game is vastly appealing to me. Also, they have not even talked much at all about the end game yet. I would imagine we will find out more at E3.
And yes, success is measured my money. Which Bioware has proven time and time again, they get a ton of it, because they are quite successful. EA has nothing to do with the development of Bioware games. They publish the games, they don't develop them.
The thing is you have to then take that point of view and think about playing that same content over and over and over.. while paying a monthly fee... combined with how long the company involved (Electronic Arts with a label that says "BioWare") needs you to play that same content. Also beyond the various hurdles any game faces... Slapping "Star Wars" on a box gives you a lot of inherent potential issues and MMO's are all about the long term subscription being paid.. where ME2 (your example) is simply about the box sales.
This ^ for sure.
Regardless of how fun the game will be to play at launch, and how engaging the story is, the question is how long are players willing to pay a monthly fee for a story?
I know a lot of people who love ME2, DA1 and DA2, and KOTOR. Ive asked them if they were excited about SW:TOR and they all seem to be pretty stoked... then I asked them what they thought about having to pay monthly for it, year after year... much different response.
The thing is, story based, cinematic/voice over content has never hit the genre like SW:TOR is about to do, so it's mostly all speculation from any of us on how well it will be taken, but while everyone's wondering whether "a good story, and voice work" will be enough to make a lot of people play the game, I'm wondering "if a lot of people DO play the game, how long will they actually stay?"
The failsafe from Bioware's end is that the 'complete' story can't be experienced unless you level up every single class... securing (what they hope will secure, anyways) players subscriptions for at least 6 months. Personally, I don't think it will rock subs for very long, regardless of how fun it is at first, or how engaging the story is. I just don't see a reason for anyone to play it for years and years like other MMORPGs.
People play it for years because of content. You could ask why would people play GW2 for years? Why play ArchAge for years? Why play X MMO for years?
Regardless of how fun the game will be to play at launch, and how engaging the story is, the question is how long are players willing to pay a monthly fee for a story?
I know a lot of people who love ME2, DA1 and DA2, and KOTOR. Ive asked them if they were excited about SW:TOR and they all seem to be pretty stoked... then I asked them what they thought about having to pay monthly for it, year after year... much different response.
The question in itself will lead to a skewed answer: if you ask people how they think about paying monthly year after year about any MMO they're stoked about, chances are high that in 9 out of 10 cases you'll get far less enthusiastic responses and a lot more hesitation.
The thing is, story based, cinematic/voice over content has never hit the genre like SW:TOR is about to do, so it's mostly all speculation from any of us on how well it will be taken, but while everyone's wondering whether "a good story, and voice work" will be enough to make a lot of people play the game, I'm wondering "if a lot of people DO play the game, how long will they actually stay?"
The failsafe from Bioware's end is that the 'complete' story can't be experienced unless you level up every single class... securing (what they hope will secure, anyways) players subscriptions for at least 6 months. Personally, I don't think it will rock subs for very long, regardless of how fun it is at first, or how engaging the story is. I just don't see a reason for anyone to play it for years and years like other MMORPGs.
The mistake I see a lot of people make is to judge SWTOR purely on its story component, but that's just 1 part of the game, the questing part. It isn't as if SWTOR only exists of that 1 part, all the other typical MMO features are in SWTOR as well with their own BW twist or variation of them.
As for the longterm appeal, SWTOR will offer bucketloads of content, from class quest content that is different for each class, to group content enough for groups to level on, to worlds that are larger than most other MMO's.
In fact, SWTOR will have all the features that all other themepark MMO's have, and more.
So from what it looks like, it should have a longer term appeal than other themepark MMO's based on that.
The question of course is, and that's the one I think you're really asking yourself: do themepark MMO's have longterm appeal any way?
History shows that solid, good themepark MMO's can maintain a larger amount of subs than other non-themepark MMO's. However, if WoW's success is the measuring stick and longterm appeal is only measured in having 1 million subs and more for years, then that question remains still unanswered.
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums: Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
no idea how anyone can even remotely claim witcher 2 was better than da 2 ^^
witcher 2 only needed a pig at the beginning of the game whiping everyone who tries to start it, then it could be "gothic 3 - part 2"
It doesn't take much to make better game than Dragon Age 2 which was awful. Just look at user scores on metacritic or read forums official and unofficial to see how negatively taken was DA2.
So yeah, thanks to DA2 BW in my eyes went from "awesome" to "meh, nothing special"company
User scores mean absolutely nothing. DA2 got perfect scores all over the place, while Witcher 2 got some high and low scores. That alone doesn't mean anything, clearly, since a lot of people like Witcher 2 while all I see is bitching about DA2.
I happened to like DA2, but I recognise the areas it went wrong. I don't actually mind the reuse of maps, because I never notice the environment anyway. I'm fine with it so long as it doesn't get in my way or obscure my view. I'm easy to please. But I still understand from a design standpoint for such a hyped game, they should have tried harder. Despite that, it was not a bad game. Past games may have been better, but something that was 'better' doesn't automatically make everything else 'bad'.
I agree with Wojtekpl though, Bioware's been known for their stories, but every one of their games are plagued by bugs. Most eventually got patched, but DA: O, as good a game as it was, was so plagued with bugs that eventually players banned together and fixed them rather than wait on Bioware's slow patching. They did a better job of it than Bioware, too >_>
ummm... DA2....perfect....user....scores? WHERE?!!?!?! It got heavily bashed by players and rightfully so.
User scores DO mean something because they show trend about how game is received. While they do edge on borders with 0/10 and 10/10 these are on both sides so they balance eachother out to some degree. They show that game wasnt received as good as BW would like to.
I would have to say that with the gaming ratings 8/10 is about right for the game. If you take it lower than that, you would have to lower many games scores even further. Games tend to be rated higher than for example movies or music, but thats how it is. 79 is just about right, but I would personally rate it probably around 70. And while it is probably Bioware's poorest game ever, its production quality, regardless of those issues you mentioned, is much higher than your average RPG.
(talking about metacritic, in response to one of the previous posts)
If you are saying the almost all games rate between an 80 and 100 from below average to awesome, then saying it should have been a 70 instead of 79 is actually a huuuge statement, not a slight tweak. It's like saying instead of 2/4 stars it should have been 1/4 -- a sentiment I agree with, btw.
The only thing good about the production quality of the game was the voice acting. The enviroments are lacking, behind every door is a recycled map (low production quality), they can't keep a consistent villain through the whole game, they don't have proper character development for NPCs, etc, etc, etc. Lots of low production stuff in there. The game was rushed and it shows. The average RPG is a lot better than this.
I think what I mean, or how I view game scores on metacritic (before reading any actually reviews):
90-100 - this game is worth playing
80-89 - from average to just above
70-79 - average, might interest you if you like the genre
60-69 - below average, only if you love the genre etc.
50-59 - don't waste your money
You got some strange understanding of scores there. Altough it is fault of reviewers. Nowadays every piece of shit game gets at least 7/10. It should be more like 5/10 average 7/10 good 9/10 outstanding, like in the far past.
In my opinion DA2 is 65/100 while witcher 2 is 85/100. For contrast planescape torment at its time was to me 95/100
no idea how anyone can even remotely claim witcher 2 was better than da 2 ^^
witcher 2 only needed a pig at the beginning of the game whiping everyone who tries to start it, then it could be "gothic 3 - part 2"
It doesn't take much to make better game than Dragon Age 2 which was awful. Just look at user scores on metacritic or read forums official and unofficial to see how negatively taken was DA2.
So yeah, thanks to DA2 BW in my eyes went from "awesome" to "meh, nothing special"company
User scores mean absolutely nothing. DA2 got perfect scores all over the place, while Witcher 2 got some high and low scores. That alone doesn't mean anything, clearly, since a lot of people like Witcher 2 while all I see is bitching about DA2.
I happened to like DA2, but I recognise the areas it went wrong. I don't actually mind the reuse of maps, because I never notice the environment anyway. I'm fine with it so long as it doesn't get in my way or obscure my view. I'm easy to please. But I still understand from a design standpoint for such a hyped game, they should have tried harder. Despite that, it was not a bad game. Past games may have been better, but something that was 'better' doesn't automatically make everything else 'bad'.
I agree with Wojtekpl though, Bioware's been known for their stories, but every one of their games are plagued by bugs. Most eventually got patched, but DA: O, as good a game as it was, was so plagued with bugs that eventually players banned together and fixed them rather than wait on Bioware's slow patching. They did a better job of it than Bioware, too >_>
ummm... DA2....perfect....user....scores? WHERE?!!?!?! It got heavily bashed by players and rightfully so.
User scores DO mean something because they show trend about how game is received. While they do edge on borders with 0/10 and 10/10 these are on both sides so they balance eachother out to some degree. They show that game wasnt received as good as BW would like to.
Sorry, user scores are absolute garbage without linkage to a money based account. No one in any respectable position looks at them. I can create and post 100 "opinions" in less than two hours if I wanted too.
For example, there were tons of 0's posted on Metacritic for Halo Reach by Sony Fanbois. Positive posters are far, far less common. Still, the game sales almost 8 million copies in a month. The real score given by actual players is far higher and can be found on xboxlive.
The reason xboxlive scores now reflect actual paying users is due to the problems caused by group of college students who deliberately rated games lower so their home grown title would go up the charts. Microsoft only allows gold members to rate games now because of this.
If you play DA:O first it will spoil you when you go to play DA:2. As Dragon Age Origins is a far better game and story.
I didn't like DA:2 at all, the story made me feel disconnected to the world I was meant to be in, the recycled maps got boring and there is way to much loot to use as you cant customize your allies armour like you could in DA:O.
World events seemed to happen reguardless of what my character did or said and she/he seemed to be just poking their nose into other peoples problems.
If DA:2 is the way BioWare games are going I wont be buying anymore of them.
i dont currently play any title from BW so i dont care if "its a BW game". The only BW game i was planning to buy was mass effect, and i aborted that mission after seeing theres no multiplayer... a shooter with no MP?.... i left those behind already as shooting npc is not fun anymore (for me).
Im not following SWTOR thoroughly but i could play it until GW2 and TSW comes out
i dont currently play any title from BW so i dont care if "its a BW game". The only BW game i was planning to buy was mass effect, and i aborted that mission after seeing theres no multiplayer... a shooter with no MP?.... i left those behind already as shooting npc is not fun anymore (for me).
Im not following SWTOR thoroughly but i could play it until GW2 and TSW comes out
Me is not CS or Call of Duty. Your loss tbh. A huge loss in fact as that game is amazing. But I know some people who won't touch anything which doesn't have multiplayer so if that's what you're after then you should definitely skip on ME
Mission in life: Vanquish all MMORPG.com trolls - especially TESO, WOW and GW2 trolls.
i dont currently play any title from BW so i dont care if "its a BW game". The only BW game i was planning to buy was mass effect, and i aborted that mission after seeing theres no multiplayer... a shooter with no MP?.... i left those behind already as shooting npc is not fun anymore (for me).
Im not following SWTOR thoroughly but i could play it until GW2 and TSW comes out
Me is not CS or Call of Duty. Your loss tbh. A huge loss in fact as that game is amazing. But I know some people who won't touch anything which doesn't have multiplayer so if that's what you're after then you should definitely skip on ME
The multiplayer would be something not connected to the actual game, so it is really not necessary to be included, especiialy if someone already owns a fps game dedicated to multiplayer.
A person could own a story based fps game catered to that specifcally then they can play another game that has MP. That person still get what they wants, and in terms of development, it usually means that a focused game gets better fine tuning compared to a game that has a jack of all trades appeal...unless it is an mmo, then it also has a budget for that as well.
Write bad things that are done to you in sand, but write the good things that happen to you on a piece of marble
"It's a Bioware game" had a very strong shift since NWN1 for me. Before NW it was a very inovative company, that was really at the head of computer gaming, folowing that trend of research and experimentation. After NWN1 Bioware became a company of high quality RPG, but also RPG game for the mass. They have shifted so much into that easy to use with movie like game, that they also have lost a lot from their initial grown, which was about improving the computer gaming. Now Bioware is clearly mostly about making fat money, let be honest, and they succeed i must agree.
And really i don't want to turn the blade in the wound as we say here, but its exactly at this time that Bioware went under the EA wing.
Comments
If you are saying the almost all games rate between an 80 and 100 from below average to awesome, then saying it should have been a 70 instead of 79 is actually a huuuge statement, not a slight tweak. It's like saying instead of 2/4 stars it should have been 1/4 -- a sentiment I agree with, btw.
The only thing good about the production quality of the game was the voice acting. The enviroments are lacking, behind every door is a recycled map (low production quality), they can't keep a consistent villain through the whole game, they don't have proper character development for NPCs, etc, etc, etc. Lots of low production stuff in there. The game was rushed and it shows. The average RPG is a lot better than this.
Gauging something as complex as a film, a song, or a video game by something as simplistic as a series of numbers is an act of futility. All it does is spawn pointless arguments without actually critiquing anything relevent about the product being judged, and thereby nullifies the point of choosing a ranking system in the first place.
"Gypsies, tramps, and thieves, we were called by the Admin of the site . . . "
I would have agreed with you until DA2. Thats a pretty big pile of junk. The production values are pretty high but their focus for that game is completely in the wrong places. This is probably one of the worst "stories" I have ever seen on an RPG, there are some sub stories that are very good though, but the main storyline is pretty bad.
The polish is definately there but they really screwed it up with the copy & paste all over the place. For me the character develpment in terms of story has always been pretty good in Bioware games, but the level progression and the options the characters have in the DA series has usually dissapointed me(Baldur's Gate was better).
In all if they bring any of these bad habits to SWTOR I think we will be in for a long bad ride
I wouldn't expect any of that in TOR. If you like Tank-Healer-DPS combat mechanics and story, then you'll probably be happy. (Personally I loathe the former...I'm only in this thread because I thoroughly disapprove of DA2). Remember, TOR is made by a different group of people than DA2.
I think what I mean, or how I view game scores on metacritic (before reading any actually reviews):
90-100 - this game is worth playing
80-89 - from average to just above
70-79 - average, might interest you if you like the genre
60-69 - below average, only if you love the genre etc.
50-59 - don't waste your money
"The person who experiences greatness must have a feeling for the myth he is in."
Funny...
anyways, let us imagine the game DOES bomb. Will EA go under, financially speaking? No. Will Bioware go under, financially speaking? No. Both those companies went under, would the industry crash? No. If the industry crashed, would the economy go into a tail spin? No.
I think the ONLY markets that this game's theoretical failure would effect negatively is the in game market :-P.
.
.
.
Now, on to the actualy topic, "It's a BioWare game".
I actually don't care for bioware games. It isn't that I don't like the stories or stories being told in games, but rather I would be much more inclined to play their games if they DIDN'T have those conversation choices in EVERY single game (minor exaggeration?)
basically, I don't like that "It's a BioWare game" means having frequent dialog option menues that determine what content you get to do. I am not opposed to branching storylines either, but i think many choices are made outside of conversations*.
*when GW2 comes out, you won't hear me complaining about how they do there branching storyline choices, regardless of whether you choose your path in a conversation or on the battlefield, though I would much rather it be on the battlefield.)
I used to TL;DR, but then I took a bullet point to the footnote.
You are quite correct and often it would, but I use metacritic to give me an idea about the quality of the game. If the critic score is very low, it might not be even worth my time to check the reviews. If the score is in the mid-range (for games) 70-85, I might look up some reviews. If it is 90+, I know that it is a fairly high quality and might only check reviews from my preferred sites to learn more about game mechanics.
The rating should only be used as an indicator to help with your buying decision.
"The person who experiences greatness must have a feeling for the myth he is in."
starting PC rpgs with Dragon Age 2 is very bad choice tbh.
tbh dragon age 2 was the worst bioware game EVER.
if 2d doesnt scare you - baldurs gate series.
if star wars doesnt scare (and it shouldnt since the timeline is completely different) - kotor 1-2
if even after kotor1-2 you arent scared of sci-fi - mass effect 1-2
if you like martial arts - jade empire.
if you want a dumbed down version of any of those - dragon age 1
if you want a dumbed down version of dragon age 1 - dragon age 2.
Kind of. I believe it has a lot of developers from Baldur's Gate, KOTOR, ME1 and DA:O including the same lead designer. Also the development time is respectable compared to 1.5 years for DA2. Simply not enough for a decent RPG.
I'd never change my opinion about a company on one game that was rushed, especially when they have put out a lot of great games. There is simply no reason to be worried about ToR because of DA2.
True, nothing more to say. Just remember even Dragon Age is still good compared to other games of the genre, just not as good as other Bioware titles.
"I am my connectome" https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HA7GwKXfJB0
I'll have to start with I did not get into the dragon age franchise all that much in either installment, I still played through them most of the way. With DA1 I lost interest after you were sent on the final objective (slaying the arche demon). With 2 I played through until the final act and again lost interest (other games). Personally I'm not that into the fantasy genre, except certain elements of classic literature, such as King Arthur tales and Conan, low fantasy I suppose.
Still, on their own merits they're both decent games IMO, decent overall story and presentation of it. Typical Bioware game-play. Great production values in terms of polish. This is why I was able to play through it, even though I wasn't connecting to it. There are few games I have ever played through based on production values alone.
As has been pointed out in this thread, no company offers up perfection every time. It's basically statistically impossible. As for EA being responsible in anyway for DA's shortcomings, I highly doubt it.
With Dragon age 2 I remember an interview I read pre-release where a Dev was saying they went a more action based route with combat this time because: "the biggest complaint they recieved with DA:O was it's old school approach to combat, and not striving for something a little more like what they did with ME. SO they attempted to make it closer to ME" , and it shows in a lot of ways.
They also stated in the same interview they went with a different approach to character creation/background because: They wanted to tell an individual story from the DA world, and allow the player to set the stage for what was to come in DA3. They deviated from the origins because they had already been told.
That interview says to me Bioware was behind all these changes and the seemingly weaker overall game this time. They did what they have always done, listened to criticism and adjusted accordingly. Can't expect them to get it right everytime.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
I agree that Dragon Age 2 was the worst game Bioware has put out, but I loved all of their game's so it is hard to really say that means much. DA2 is a love it or hate it game. The reason the game's style goes far away from that of the first one is based primarily on player feedback of the team making the Dragon Age serieis. They discovered a few great things in this game and will probably have a much better 3rd installment.
Fact is about the game is that it still sold a ton of copies and was a huge success. http://www.gamespot.com/pc/rpg/dragon-age-2/news/6312202/dead-space-2-helps-reanimate-ea-quarterly-earnings?tag=updates%3Btitle%3B2
As far as Bioware as a company, they make great products. Sure, some of them have had minor issues, but nothing that would break the bank. Other companies *cough* Blizzard *cough* don't have as many stability problems because they simply put out games that are sub-par technology on purpose so that they don't have to worry about it. As far as bugs go though, Blizzard's games has had plenty of them back in the day when Bioware's did.
Bioware makes heavy story driven games and have always been successful at it. All the RPG experiences I remember are based from Bioware games. Hell, even the Fallout franchise was originally from Bioware (when they were Black Isle Studios). Parent company at the time, Interplay, might have owned the rights to it, but Bioware was responsible for it. Kinda funny how it now is in the hands of what you would call their Arch-rival in RPGs, Bethesda. Anyways getting off topic here..
My favorite game of all time is Mass Effect 2. That is a pretty broad statement, and while I don't feel like listing the reasons off why I love the game so much; I will say one thing about it. I have never played an RPG I wanted to play more then twice through. I have played ME2 on nearly every difficulty setting, made nearly every choice possible, seen various endings, and have every single piece of DLC (including the waste of money shit) available on it. It is the only Xbox 360 game I have 100% of achievements for, including DLC.
There is a great game that is only 30 or so hours (if you do everything) but packs a whole lot into it. The amount of replay value in ME2 for me has been fantastic.
Why am I excited about ToR? Because the amount of replay value in a game coming from them is so huge that I have played one longer then I have played any MMORPG in the past year.
@Malickie Well said.
The thing is you have to then take that point of view and think about playing that same content over and over and over.. while paying a monthly fee... combined with how long the company involved (Electronic Arts with a label that says "BioWare") needs you to play that same content. Also beyond the various hurdles any game faces... Slapping "Star Wars" on a box gives you a lot of inherent potential issues and MMO's are all about the long term subscription being paid.. where ME2 (your example) is simply about the box sales.
I don't know why Blizzard gets brought up in these topics. Success from the company point of view is $$$. So if you see paticular MMO's that seem very much like another MMO with various gimicks splashed in.. you know why. That paticular MMO has probably made more since 2004 than almost all other western MMO's combined going back to M59/NWN. Yet it really has nothing to do with how good TOR might be.. or how well it may do in the market.
Personally if I was BioWare I would have made my first MMO off an IP I owned or an entirely new IP. I think the weakest part of their game is going to be "Star Wars"... but that's just my opinion.... and yes I have a lot of reasons for why I feel this way but they are all my opinions too so I'll stop here.
/wave
*edit* Just wanted to say my favorite game of all time is a tie between Wasteland and Starflight. Tho I would likely say Starflight. Both were Interplay games from the 1980's and again in my opinion nothing has ever come close to what those games were.. terms of story.. puzzles.. exploration etc
This ^ for sure.
Regardless of how fun the game will be to play at launch, and how engaging the story is, the question is how long are players willing to pay a monthly fee for a story?
I know a lot of people who love ME2, DA1 and DA2, and KOTOR. Ive asked them if they were excited about SW:TOR and they all seem to be pretty stoked... then I asked them what they thought about having to pay monthly for it, year after year... much different response.
The thing is, story based, cinematic/voice over content has never hit the genre like SW:TOR is about to do, so it's mostly all speculation from any of us on how well it will be taken, but while everyone's wondering whether "a good story, and voice work" will be enough to make a lot of people play the game, I'm wondering "if a lot of people DO play the game, how long will they actually stay?"
The failsafe from Bioware's end is that the 'complete' story can't be experienced unless you level up every single class... securing (what they hope will secure, anyways) players subscriptions for at least 6 months. Personally, I don't think it will rock subs for very long, regardless of how fun it is at first, or how engaging the story is. I just don't see a reason for anyone to play it for years and years like other MMORPGs.
This is not a troll, flame, or anything else worth banning me over. It is simply my pure opinion, and I have a right to share it.
I am perfectly fine with that! And I have no doubt they will have content patches...and the game is multiplayer so that adds a whole, huge new layer to the game.
The "Singleplayer" aspect of SWTOR is what is going to pull people into the game that were not originally interested in MMORPGs. Those guys will figure "Hey, I love Bioware RPGs so I will get this one and play a month for the story.." which will lure them to the game in the first place. After they realize they have 4 unique paths to take through the story content (the stories share 2 different classes I believe depending on the planet, so 2 diffent stories on both sides) and that it would take a few months to do it all, they will probably subscribe.
For me, I can already see this game being something that keeps me in it for a while. Even if the end game is a minimal duration for me(which in 90% of cases it is, including WoW..) I can still go back and level up new characters with new stories. Knowing that I will have a ton of replayability right off the bat with multiple class stories even without factoring in the end game is vastly appealing to me. Also, they have not even talked much at all about the end game yet. I would imagine we will find out more at E3.
And yes, success is measured my money. Which Bioware has proven time and time again, they get a ton of it, because they are quite successful. EA has nothing to do with the development of Bioware games. They publish the games, they don't develop them.
People play it for years because of content. You could ask why would people play GW2 for years? Why play ArchAge for years? Why play X MMO for years?
There is more to this game than just story.
The mistake I see a lot of people make is to judge SWTOR purely on its story component, but that's just 1 part of the game, the questing part. It isn't as if SWTOR only exists of that 1 part, all the other typical MMO features are in SWTOR as well with their own BW twist or variation of them.
As for the longterm appeal, SWTOR will offer bucketloads of content, from class quest content that is different for each class, to group content enough for groups to level on, to worlds that are larger than most other MMO's.
In fact, SWTOR will have all the features that all other themepark MMO's have, and more.
So from what it looks like, it should have a longer term appeal than other themepark MMO's based on that.
The question of course is, and that's the one I think you're really asking yourself: do themepark MMO's have longterm appeal any way?
History shows that solid, good themepark MMO's can maintain a larger amount of subs than other non-themepark MMO's. However, if WoW's success is the measuring stick and longterm appeal is only measured in having 1 million subs and more for years, then that question remains still unanswered.
The ACTUAL size of MMORPG worlds: a comparison list between MMO's
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums:
Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
ummm... DA2....perfect....user....scores? WHERE?!!?!?! It got heavily bashed by players and rightfully so.
User scores DO mean something because they show trend about how game is received. While they do edge on borders with 0/10 and 10/10 these are on both sides so they balance eachother out to some degree. They show that game wasnt received as good as BW would like to.
You got some strange understanding of scores there. Altough it is fault of reviewers. Nowadays every piece of shit game gets at least 7/10. It should be more like 5/10 average 7/10 good 9/10 outstanding, like in the far past.
In my opinion DA2 is 65/100 while witcher 2 is 85/100. For contrast planescape torment at its time was to me 95/100
Sorry, user scores are absolute garbage without linkage to a money based account. No one in any respectable position looks at them. I can create and post 100 "opinions" in less than two hours if I wanted too.
For example, there were tons of 0's posted on Metacritic for Halo Reach by Sony Fanbois. Positive posters are far, far less common. Still, the game sales almost 8 million copies in a month. The real score given by actual players is far higher and can be found on xboxlive.
The reason xboxlive scores now reflect actual paying users is due to the problems caused by group of college students who deliberately rated games lower so their home grown title would go up the charts. Microsoft only allows gold members to rate games now because of this.
If you play DA:O first it will spoil you when you go to play DA:2. As Dragon Age Origins is a far better game and story.
I didn't like DA:2 at all, the story made me feel disconnected to the world I was meant to be in, the recycled maps got boring and there is way to much loot to use as you cant customize your allies armour like you could in DA:O.
World events seemed to happen reguardless of what my character did or said and she/he seemed to be just poking their nose into other peoples problems.
If DA:2 is the way BioWare games are going I wont be buying anymore of them.
i dont currently play any title from BW so i dont care if "its a BW game". The only BW game i was planning to buy was mass effect, and i aborted that mission after seeing theres no multiplayer... a shooter with no MP?.... i left those behind already as shooting npc is not fun anymore (for me).
Im not following SWTOR thoroughly but i could play it until GW2 and TSW comes out
Me is not CS or Call of Duty. Your loss tbh. A huge loss in fact as that game is amazing. But I know some people who won't touch anything which doesn't have multiplayer so if that's what you're after then you should definitely skip on ME
Mission in life: Vanquish all MMORPG.com trolls - especially TESO, WOW and GW2 trolls.
The multiplayer would be something not connected to the actual game, so it is really not necessary to be included, especiialy if someone already owns a fps game dedicated to multiplayer.
A person could own a story based fps game catered to that specifcally then they can play another game that has MP. That person still get what they wants, and in terms of development, it usually means that a focused game gets better fine tuning compared to a game that has a jack of all trades appeal...unless it is an mmo, then it also has a budget for that as well.
Write bad things that are done to you in sand, but write the good things that happen to you on a piece of marble
"It's a Bioware game" had a very strong shift since NWN1 for me. Before NW it was a very inovative company, that was really at the head of computer gaming, folowing that trend of research and experimentation. After NWN1 Bioware became a company of high quality RPG, but also RPG game for the mass. They have shifted so much into that easy to use with movie like game, that they also have lost a lot from their initial grown, which was about improving the computer gaming. Now Bioware is clearly mostly about making fat money, let be honest, and they succeed i must agree.
And really i don't want to turn the blade in the wound as we say here, but its exactly at this time that Bioware went under the EA wing.