"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.
It is a shift in tastes, and adapting. Before the games where extremely difficult, and some games had no ending becusae it jsut became more and more difficult and until a person had to quit, and thier high score was the cake to get at the end of thier play through the game. I think a lot has changed as to what the consumers wants and enjoys.
Before the masses enjoyed a certain kind of game, and now the masses enjoy another style of game. The fact that BW has different games than before means they are still innovating or changing from what they had done. Also that means some research is done on thier part.
Just becusae their change does not meet the same level of enjoyment as with older titles for some, it does not mean BW is dropping the bar or standards of quality. Many enjoy thier game, and not just part of the game, but a lot of the game, so to some the game is perfect for them, and not for the masses which is a collection of things which some may like or not. The downside to being on the other spectrum of those who see this game for the masses, is not seeing enough substance to consider it made for their tastes specifically, and that is almost impossible to please everyone as it is.
Write bad things that are done to you in sand, but write the good things that happen to you on a piece of marble
I have to strongly disagree here, because you try to put the opposite meaning in my month.
It is a shift in the developer behavior, talks to the press, design ... everything related to their work in fact. It have nothing to do with player taste.
You can always claim they have found a nice formula that worked well : the cinema like rpg game, and wanted to take as much from it, it might be right to an extend, maybe thats a reason, but non the less it doesn't explain that shift entirely.
"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.
This post is factually false. Bioware went under the EA wing when ME1 was about to come out (2007) not NWN1 (2000 NWN1 OC -2003 NWN1 HOTU).
Gdemami - Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
I see it more as a shift from pure PC platform oriented development towards multi-platform oriented developments, where the lowest common denominator is what the consoles can handle.
Such a thing as the powerful editor that NWN had would have - sadly enough - no place on a console, not the deep and complex way it was.
I think there's a clear difference in games that are developed with mainly PC in mind and those that are developed with also or foremostly console in mind, different audience, different platform limitations.
It's also clear why so many game companies made the shift towards console game development: sales and financial figures don't lie, due to several reasons but piracy one among them, the observed difference in sales on PC or console is sometimes gaping. I blame it on another bad influence of Microsoft when they dove into the console market with their exclusive deals for games on consoles
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."
I see it more as a shift from pure PC platform oriented development towards multi-platform oriented developments, where the lowest common denominator is what the consoles can handle.
Such a thing as the powerful editor that NWN had would have - sadly enough - no place on a console, not the deep and complex way it was.
I think there's a clear difference in games that are developed with mainly PC in mind and those that are developed with also or foremostly console in mind, different audience, different platform limitations.
It's also clear why so many game companies made the shift towards console game development: sales and financial figures don't lie, due to several reasons but piracy one among them, the observed difference in sales on PC or console is sometimes gaping. I blame it on another bad influence of Microsoft when they dove into the console market with their exclusive deals for games on consoles
MS did more than that. They did the 'lovely' GFWL which is just an abonimation of a program. My god, do they want to kill PC-gaming with that piece of 'I can code better than that and I am an attrociously bad web dev!' code?
Seriously, I think Steam is the last bastion of pc-gaming to be honest.
Gdemami - Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
"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.
This post is factually false. Bioware went under the EA wing when ME1 was about to come out (2007) not NWN1 (2000 NWN1 OC -2003 NWN1 HOTU).
The NWN1 serie ended exactly when EA took over, and change aren't radical, it take few years to deeply change a company, it can take few month but only for companies that sink, its not the case of Bioware. I think KOTOR was launched just before too but i didn't play that game so i can't comment this one.
Anyway something change drasticly in the company goal, i don't know why, who or when exactly but it definitly happen.
I have to strongly disagree here, because you try to put the opposite meaning in my month.
It is a shift in the developer behavior, talks to the press, design ... everything related to their work in fact. It have nothing to do with player taste.
You can always claim they have found a nice formula that worked well : the cinema like rpg game, and wanted to take as much from it, it might be right to an extend, maybe thats a reason, but non the less it doesn't explain that shift entirely.
Well, I am not trying to say what I think you are saying in a different way, what I meant was BW makes thier game based on what works. People get tired of the same thing over and over again, and things always need more innovation and renditions to make them attractive to the customers. As Sid Meiers said about Civilization, his formula is about keeping things 1/3 innovation 1/3 orginal and 1/3 improved. For this reason yes, the developer can do something that differs from what they did previously but it still based on what they think the player would like. So the gaming company is always dependant on trying to make what they think the gamer will enjoy, and not just what the developers feels like making.
Also the reason why games in the past did not have the same effects is that resources were not available such as technology being available, and the techniques to make it work. Maybe BW always wanted to have the cinematic cut scense, but the technology of the average video gamer, resources to get VO, and also the proper techniques and experience were non-existent at the time. So as things became available, it was the natural next step.
If you added the cut scenes to previous games by BW it would not necessarily make them identical, but since that is a major thing for a game to have, it would make them a lot more similar than they were before, so therefore BW did not stray to far from thier formula of having immersive story in thier games.
Like I said, developers probably follow Sid Meiers formula, and what you like specifcally in the previous games might have been changed. I cant know what you liked specifcally, but overall the importance of story and the plot has remained as important for BW. I have playeed several of thier games, and that is how I feel about it.
So what parts of the previous BW games did you like previously that they removed from thier new formula?
Write bad things that are done to you in sand, but write the good things that happen to you on a piece of marble
DA2 was a hideous embarrassment of a game. Bioware's name is somewhat tarnished by putting out such a poor unfinished product. A slightly dodgy and very underwhelming storyline, repetitive dungeons, stripped down menus etc. are not hallmarks of a Bioware game.
This is my concern about TOR - yes DA: Origins was great and Bioware are the RPG/storyline gods, but does DA2 represent what happens when the big fish swallows the little fish? Apparently DA2 was to be called DA: Exodus (which would have made more sense and moderated some of the expectations) but EA changed the name to boost sales. Can we also blame EA for rushing it out in such a poor state to cash in on the name?
To date EA have been hugely unsuccessful in the MMO market for a publisher of their stature and TOR is their next big hope. I am concerned their hunger for a big slice of the market and some of Blizzard's profits might spoil Bioware's creativity and therefore the game itself.
Maybe my concerns are needless, but the endless nonsense about the release date is strange too. EA say they don't want to reveal it too far in advance to tip off the competition. Like that's going to make a big difference to subscriber numbers. It's Star Wars, it's Bioware, people are going to check it out even if it releases close to GW2 or ArcheAge or Titan or whatever. I don't think release dates matter as much as the state of the game on release (AoC, Vanguard anyone?). The smoke and mirrors bs about release just seems to me to support my concern about EA's financial imperatives.
This is my concern about TOR - yes DA: Origins was great and Bioware are the RPG/storyline gods, but does DA2 represent what happens when the big fish swallows the little fish? Apparently DA2 was to be called DA: Exodus (which would have made more sense and moderated some of the expectations) but EA changed the name to boost sales. Can we also blame EA for rushing it out in such a poor state to cash in on the name?
To date EA have been hugely unsuccessful in the MMO market for a publisher of their stature and TOR is their next big hope. I am concerned their hunger for a big slice of the market and some of Blizzard's profits might spoil Bioware's creativity and therefore the game itself.
Maybe my concerns are needless, but the endless nonsense about the release date is strange too. EA say they don't want to reveal it too far in advance to tip off the competition. Like that's going to make a big difference to subscriber numbers. It's Star Wars, it's Bioware, people are going to check it out even if it releases close to GW2 or ArcheAge or Titan or whatever. I don't think release dates matter as much as the state of the game on release (AoC, Vanguard anyone?). The smoke and mirrors bs about release just seems to me to support my concern about EA's financial imperatives.
I agree, if they had released DA2 as a spinoff of DA:O, it would have felt far less out of place, and I think the uproar would've been less. And yes, I think that EA has a bad influence with pushing too much to boost financial gain in the short term while lacking vision to maintain it longterm.
As for the release date, that makes more sense to me. The less time is between the announcement and the release, the less time that competitors have time to plan their releases and updates or PR campaigns to coincide with it, especially Blizzard has a habit of trying to defuse and campaign with implementing features and releasing content and offers around the releases of other MMO's.
Besides, announcements shortly before a release isn't that strange, most MMO companies have announced their release date only within a few months before release.
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."
Hmm, my experience with Bioware is totally different.
Back in the 90's during Biowares golden age I would have agreed with the OP, I really loved their RPG games.
But since then,not so much. I bought the original KOTOR,I didn't like, it, never got off the first story line. (think I was trying to escape from some sort of spaceship or station)
I also bought DA:O, again, another bomber in my eyes, last thing I recall was me and my party fighting our way up some sort of mage tower, but it just so scripted on and on rails, and the combat model was pretty zergy, not a whole lot of real strategy.
Seems that just like Blizzard did with WOW, Bioware took and interesting and engaging style of game (single player RPG) and sort of simplified it and threw in lots of action elements to appeal to the more casual shooter crowd, which certainly outnumbers us folks who miss our graph paper.
So I don't have the same faith as the OP, in fact, if TOR plays a whole lot DA:O (which is what I expect) I'm probably going to not enjoy it for long, just not the style of game I enjoy.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Besides, announcements shortly before a release isn't that strange, most MMO companies have announced their release date only within a few months before release.
Interesting how perceptions differ. Been my experience most MMO's annouce a date and miss it one more times before launching.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Besides, announcements shortly before a release isn't that strange, most MMO companies have announced their release date only within a few months before release.
Interesting how perceptions differ. Been my experience most MMO's annouce a date and miss it one more times before launching.
? Are we talking about the announcements that are done a year or more beforehand? Because they keep being pushed back, yes, close example is the Spring release announcement of SWTOR that is pushed back to later this year. But the announcement of the actual final release date is often not that far from release. I think FFXIV was announced somewhere in July or so that it would release in September, Rift was announced in January I think.
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."
Besides, announcements shortly before a release isn't that strange, most MMO companies have announced their release date only within a few months before release.
Interesting how perceptions differ. Been my experience most MMO's annouce a date and miss it one more times before launching.
? Are we talking about the announcements that are done a year or more beforehand? Because they keep being pushed back, yes, close example is the Spring release announcement of SWTOR that is pushed back to later this year. But the announcement of the actual final release date is often not that far from release. I think FFXIV was announced somewhere in July or so that it would release in September, Rift was announced in January I think.
Yeah, I guess I was, you're correct, the near dates usually hold for major titles, especially if they are actively ramping up for launch with open betas, load tests etc.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
DA2 was a hideous embarrassment of a game. Bioware's name is somewhat tarnished by putting out such a poor unfinished product. A slightly dodgy and very underwhelming storyline, repetitive dungeons, stripped down menus etc. are not hallmarks of a Bioware game.
This is my concern about TOR - yes DA: Origins was great and Bioware are the RPG/storyline gods, but does DA2 represent what happens when the big fish swallows the little fish? Apparently DA2 was to be called DA: Exodus (which would have made more sense and moderated some of the expectations) but EA changed the name to boost sales. Can we also blame EA for rushing it out in such a poor state to cash in on the name?
To date EA have been hugely unsuccessful in the MMO market for a publisher of their stature and TOR is their next big hope. I am concerned their hunger for a big slice of the market and some of Blizzard's profits might spoil Bioware's creativity and therefore the game itself.
Maybe my concerns are needless, but the endless nonsense about the release date is strange too. EA say they don't want to reveal it too far in advance to tip off the competition. Like that's going to make a big difference to subscriber numbers. It's Star Wars, it's Bioware, people are going to check it out even if it releases close to GW2 or ArcheAge or Titan or whatever. I don't think release dates matter as much as the state of the game on release (AoC, Vanguard anyone?). The smoke and mirrors bs about release just seems to me to support my concern about EA's financial imperatives.
I have not really played DA2. From the looks of it, this does not sound well. "A slightly dodgy and very underwhelming storyline, repetitive dungeons, stripped down menus etc. are not hallmarks of a Bioware game." This comes from BW, EA has nothing to do with that.
So again, going back to the "little things". They really matter, they can make the game or break the game. BW have to get the handle on that. FFXIV.... same thing, poor design. VO is not everything.
DA2 was a hideous embarrassment of a game. Bioware's name is somewhat tarnished by putting out such a poor unfinished product. A slightly dodgy and very underwhelming storyline, repetitive dungeons, stripped down menus etc. are not hallmarks of a Bioware game.
This is my concern about TOR - yes DA: Origins was great and Bioware are the RPG/storyline gods, but does DA2 represent what happens when the big fish swallows the little fish? Apparently DA2 was to be called DA: Exodus (which would have made more sense and moderated some of the expectations) but EA changed the name to boost sales. Can we also blame EA for rushing it out in such a poor state to cash in on the name?
To date EA have been hugely unsuccessful in the MMO market for a publisher of their stature and TOR is their next big hope. I am concerned their hunger for a big slice of the market and some of Blizzard's profits might spoil Bioware's creativity and therefore the game itself.
Maybe my concerns are needless, but the endless nonsense about the release date is strange too. EA say they don't want to reveal it too far in advance to tip off the competition. Like that's going to make a big difference to subscriber numbers. It's Star Wars, it's Bioware, people are going to check it out even if it releases close to GW2 or ArcheAge or Titan or whatever. I don't think release dates matter as much as the state of the game on release (AoC, Vanguard anyone?). The smoke and mirrors bs about release just seems to me to support my concern about EA's financial imperatives.
I have not really played DA2. From the looks of it, this does not sound well. "A slightly dodgy and very underwhelming storyline, repetitive dungeons, stripped down menus etc. are not hallmarks of a Bioware game." This comes from BW, EA has nothing to do with that.
So again, going back to the "little things". They really matter, they can make the game or break the game. BW have to get the handle on that. FFXIV.... same thing, poor design. VO is not everything.
I thought the story was the games one redeeming quality. The overuse of dungeon patterns was my biggest complaint, my second biggest complaint was the conversation system, I prefer being able to use persuasion and other conversational means to reach an end, at least here and there. DA2 didn't offer that which was surprising to me.
I certainly don't think the game was nearly as bad as "DA2 was a hideous embarrassment of a game", as I said in a previous post. The production values were quite high in many aspects of the game. The game wasn't unpolsihed and it certainly didn't feel incomplete. This is coming from someone who didn't like either DA game or it's expansion(s) all that much.
Pre-release Bioware explained all of their changes in DA2 compared to DAO. Which was a result of the flak they recieved for releasing an RPG that felt old, to close to BG or KOTOR and not close enough to what they had offered in ME 1 or 2. DA2 is a very similar game to ME2. Which shows a lot in everything from the UI to the stories presentation. EA of course had nothing to do with that.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
I see it more as a shift from pure PC platform oriented development towards multi-platform oriented developments, where the lowest common denominator is what the consoles can handle.
Such a thing as the powerful editor that NWN had would have - sadly enough - no place on a console, not the deep and complex way it was.
I think there's a clear difference in games that are developed with mainly PC in mind and those that are developed with also or foremostly console in mind, different audience, different platform limitations.
Noo don't speak the truth, it will only provoke and anger them.
I thought the story was the games one redeeming quality. The overuse of dungeon patterns was my biggest complaint, my second biggest complaint was the conversation system, I prefer being able to use persuasion and other conversational means to reach an end, at least here and there. DA2 didn't offer that which was surprising to me.
I certainly don't think the game was nearly as bad as "DA2 was a hideous embarrassment of a game", as I said in a previous post. The production values were quite high in many aspects of the game. The game wasn't unpolsihed and it certainly didn't feel incomplete. This is coming from someone who didn't like either DA game or it's expansion(s) all that much.
Pre-release Bioware explained all of their changes in DA2 compared to DAO. Which was a result of the flak they recieved for releasing an RPG that felt old, to close to BG or KOTOR and not close enough to what they had offered in ME 1 or 2. DA2 is a very similar game to ME2. Which shows a lot in everything from the UI to the stories presentation. EA of course had nothing to do with that.
ME 1 and 2 were fps games with rpg elements. Personally I don't like seeing fps elements in my medieval fantasy rpg's. If people were complaining that DA:O felt old then I'd have to say they were idiots. Old doesn't necessarily mean bad. I like the old saying 'If it ain't broken then don't fix it'. But I guess I'm in the minority these days, everybody wants action rpg's now rather than true rpg's. What works for the Mass Effect series does not necessarily work for a medieval fantasy rpg.
I thought the story was the games one redeeming quality. The overuse of dungeon patterns was my biggest complaint, my second biggest complaint was the conversation system, I prefer being able to use persuasion and other conversational means to reach an end, at least here and there. DA2 didn't offer that which was surprising to me.
I certainly don't think the game was nearly as bad as "DA2 was a hideous embarrassment of a game", as I said in a previous post. The production values were quite high in many aspects of the game. The game wasn't unpolsihed and it certainly didn't feel incomplete. This is coming from someone who didn't like either DA game or it's expansion(s) all that much.
Pre-release Bioware explained all of their changes in DA2 compared to DAO. Which was a result of the flak they recieved for releasing an RPG that felt old, to close to BG or KOTOR and not close enough to what they had offered in ME 1 or 2. DA2 is a very similar game to ME2. Which shows a lot in everything from the UI to the stories presentation. EA of course had nothing to do with that.
ME 1 and 2 were fps games with rpg elements. Personally I don't like seeing fps elements in my medieval fantasy rpg's. If people were complaining that DA:O felt old then I'd have to say they were idiots. Old doesn't necessarily mean bad. I like the old saying 'If it ain't broken then don't fix it'. But I guess I'm in the minority these days, everybody wants action rpg's now rather than true rpg's. What works for the Mass Effect series does not necessarily work for a medieval fantasy rpg.
Squad-based story-driven third-person shooter RPGs. And have to say that while ME2 was a good game, I would hope to see level design in missions that was not so linear. ME1 had some non-linearity and sense of exploration in missions due to the extensive use of vehicle, which was nice imo.
"The person who experiences greatness must have a feeling for the myth he is in."
I thought the story was the games one redeeming quality. The overuse of dungeon patterns was my biggest complaint, my second biggest complaint was the conversation system, I prefer being able to use persuasion and other conversational means to reach an end, at least here and there. DA2 didn't offer that which was surprising to me.
I certainly don't think the game was nearly as bad as "DA2 was a hideous embarrassment of a game", as I said in a previous post. The production values were quite high in many aspects of the game. The game wasn't unpolsihed and it certainly didn't feel incomplete. This is coming from someone who didn't like either DA game or it's expansion(s) all that much.
Pre-release Bioware explained all of their changes in DA2 compared to DAO. Which was a result of the flak they recieved for releasing an RPG that felt old, to close to BG or KOTOR and not close enough to what they had offered in ME 1 or 2. DA2 is a very similar game to ME2. Which shows a lot in everything from the UI to the stories presentation. EA of course had nothing to do with that.
ME 1 and 2 were fps games with rpg elements. Personally I don't like seeing fps elements in my medieval fantasy rpg's. If people were complaining that DA:O felt old then I'd have to say they were idiots. Old doesn't necessarily mean bad. I like the old saying 'If it ain't broken then don't fix it'. But I guess I'm in the minority these days, everybody wants action rpg's now rather than true rpg's. What works for the Mass Effect series does not necessarily work for a medieval fantasy rpg.
I agree for the most part, this seems to be a trend in gaming in general right now. Just about anything that feels familiar gets blasted for it. Every titlle has to offer something new. Just wait when TES: Skyrim releases, they're stripping away a lot of stuff from Oblivion for this one, yet they are still going for a similar experience. It's going to get blasted for being too much like Oblivion, yet they stripped away a bunch of attributes and stuff like that. SO of course it will get blasted for that as well, regardless of if it's a better or more logical experience because of it.
I can hear it now, "It's an Oblivion clone with Dragons, nothing to see here".
The same goes for Kingdoms of Amalur : The Reckoning. "It's too much like Oblivion, and it looks like WOW, it's an Oblivion clone with a WOW skin" regardless of how good the game and it's story are.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
I'm still of opinion that Dragon Age 2 was shitgame of 6/10 score max.
Having played games like BG1, BG2, Planescape:torment, Icewind Dale 1 & 2, Fallouts 1,2, Brotherhood, New Vegas, 3, NWN 1 & 2 + exps, Dragon Age 1 + exp, witcher 1 & 2 and shitloads of plenty other MMOs [seeing as i got my 1st computer 16 years ago].
After such good games as some of the above certainly are Dragon Age 2 comes as nothing more than average/mediocre game.
I'm still of opinion that Dragon Age 2 was shitgame of 6/10 score max.
Having played games like BG1, BG2, Planescape:torment, Icewind Dale 1 & 2, Fallouts 1,2, Brotherhood, New Vegas, 3, NWN 1 & 2 + exps, Dragon Age 1 + exp, witcher 1 & 2 and shitloads of plenty other MMOs [seeing as i got my 1st computer 16 years ago].
After such good games as some of the above certainly are Dragon Age 2 comes as nothing more than average/mediocre game.
The only problem I have with your post here is that instead of rating the game on it's own merits, you are instead rating it in comparisson to other games.
Strangely enough though, I still have yet to meet someone in real life that didn't at the very least like DA2 and most loved it. It seems only forum monsters seem to dislike the game all that much.
"If half of what you tell me is a lie, how can I believe any of it?"
The only problem I have with your post here is that instead of rating the game on it's own merits, you are instead rating it in comparisson to other games.
Strangely enough though, I still have yet to meet someone in real life that didn't at the very least like DA2 and most loved it. It seems only forum monsters seem to dislike the game all that much.
Judging by how its sales sunk to almost nothing very rapidly after release, it seems pretty clear it got a lot of bad press after it was out. Frankly, the story is poor with a severe lack of development in a lot of areas and a lack of cohesion between acts. Add to that the skill system that is horribly balanced, the terrible wave mechanic ruining the tactical elements, and recycled maps...well, there's a lot of bad elements to the game. The companions and voice quality are largely the only really good things in the game, but they certainly aren't close to the majority of the gameplay and so they don't save it.
The only problem I have with your post here is that instead of rating the game on it's own merits, you are instead rating it in comparisson to other games.
Strangely enough though, I still have yet to meet someone in real life that didn't at the very least like DA2 and most loved it. It seems only forum monsters seem to dislike the game all that much.
Judging by how its sales sunk to almost nothing very rapidly after release, it seems pretty clear it got a lot of bad press after it was out. Frankly, the story is poor with a severe lack of development in a lot of areas and a lack of cohesion between acts. Add to that the skill system that is horribly balanced, the terrible wave mechanic ruining the tactical elements, and recycled maps...well, there's a lot of bad elements to the game. The companions and voice quality are largely the only really good things in the game, but they certainly aren't close to the majority of the gameplay and so they don't save it.
Like I said before, everyone that I have talked to in real life liked the game and felt it was money well spent. It seems only people who expected the next "greatest game" were really disappointed. Personally, I had a lot of fun with the game and would spend the money all over again if given the chance. Does it have some minor problems? Sure, what game doesn't, but on the whole, it was a good solid game.
"If half of what you tell me is a lie, how can I believe any of it?"
The only problem I have with your post here is that instead of rating the game on it's own merits, you are instead rating it in comparisson to other games.
Strangely enough though, I still have yet to meet someone in real life that didn't at the very least like DA2 and most loved it. It seems only forum monsters seem to dislike the game all that much.
Judging by how its sales sunk to almost nothing very rapidly after release, it seems pretty clear it got a lot of bad press after it was out. Frankly, the story is poor with a severe lack of development in a lot of areas and a lack of cohesion between acts. Add to that the skill system that is horribly balanced, the terrible wave mechanic ruining the tactical elements, and recycled maps...well, there's a lot of bad elements to the game. The companions and voice quality are largely the only really good things in the game, but they certainly aren't close to the majority of the gameplay and so they don't save it.
Like I said before, everyone that I have talked to in real life liked the game and felt it was money well spent. It seems only people who expected the next "greatest game" were really disappointed. Personally, I had a lot of fun with the game and would spend the money all over again if given the chance. Does it have some minor problems? Sure, what game doesn't, but on the whole, it was a good solid game.
I merely expected the game to be good, not the next "greatest game." The problems with story flow, constant recycled maps, etc, etc are not minor. I think the fact that the game sales rapidly tanked after release and user reviews for it overall are quite low is more than enough to show it isn't a very good game. Just because the people you know liked it doesn't mean anything. It isn't like you make friends by assessing whether a new person makes your group of friends a better random sample of the RPGer population.
The only problem I have with your post here is that instead of rating the game on it's own merits, you are instead rating it in comparisson to other games.
Strangely enough though, I still have yet to meet someone in real life that didn't at the very least like DA2 and most loved it. It seems only forum monsters seem to dislike the game all that much.
Judging by how its sales sunk to almost nothing very rapidly after release, it seems pretty clear it got a lot of bad press after it was out. Frankly, the story is poor with a severe lack of development in a lot of areas and a lack of cohesion between acts. Add to that the skill system that is horribly balanced, the terrible wave mechanic ruining the tactical elements, and recycled maps...well, there's a lot of bad elements to the game. The companions and voice quality are largely the only really good things in the game, but they certainly aren't close to the majority of the gameplay and so they don't save it.
Like I said before, everyone that I have talked to in real life liked the game and felt it was money well spent. It seems only people who expected the next "greatest game" were really disappointed. Personally, I had a lot of fun with the game and would spend the money all over again if given the chance. Does it have some minor problems? Sure, what game doesn't, but on the whole, it was a good solid game.
I merely expected the game to be good, not the next "greatest game." The problems with story flow, constant recycled maps, etc, etc are not minor. I think the fact that the game sales rapidly tanked after release and user reviews for it overall are quite low is more than enough to show it isn't a very good game. Just because the people you know liked it doesn't mean anything. It isn't like you make friends by assessing whether a new person makes your group of friends a better random sample of the RPGer population.
Actually, I never said friends, I said people. I have talked to over 40 people now, only 6 were friends and the rest complete strangers in several different gaming stores, and not a single one thought it was a bad game. Including myself that makes 41 people that thought it was a good game when judged on it's own merits. I think the biggest problem with DA2 personally, was they made it a sequel so people would almost be forced to compare it to the previous game. DAO was, in my opinion, almost a masterpiece and so any sequel would be hard pressed to equal or exceed it.
"If half of what you tell me is a lie, how can I believe any of it?"
Comments
It is a shift in tastes, and adapting. Before the games where extremely difficult, and some games had no ending becusae it jsut became more and more difficult and until a person had to quit, and thier high score was the cake to get at the end of thier play through the game. I think a lot has changed as to what the consumers wants and enjoys.
Before the masses enjoyed a certain kind of game, and now the masses enjoy another style of game. The fact that BW has different games than before means they are still innovating or changing from what they had done. Also that means some research is done on thier part.
Just becusae their change does not meet the same level of enjoyment as with older titles for some, it does not mean BW is dropping the bar or standards of quality. Many enjoy thier game, and not just part of the game, but a lot of the game, so to some the game is perfect for them, and not for the masses which is a collection of things which some may like or not. The downside to being on the other spectrum of those who see this game for the masses, is not seeing enough substance to consider it made for their tastes specifically, and that is almost impossible to please everyone as it is.
Write bad things that are done to you in sand, but write the good things that happen to you on a piece of marble
I have to strongly disagree here, because you try to put the opposite meaning in my month.
It is a shift in the developer behavior, talks to the press, design ... everything related to their work in fact. It have nothing to do with player taste.
You can always claim they have found a nice formula that worked well : the cinema like rpg game, and wanted to take as much from it, it might be right to an extend, maybe thats a reason, but non the less it doesn't explain that shift entirely.
This post is factually false. Bioware went under the EA wing when ME1 was about to come out (2007) not NWN1 (2000 NWN1 OC -2003 NWN1 HOTU).
Gdemami -
Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
I see it more as a shift from pure PC platform oriented development towards multi-platform oriented developments, where the lowest common denominator is what the consoles can handle.
Such a thing as the powerful editor that NWN had would have - sadly enough - no place on a console, not the deep and complex way it was.
I think there's a clear difference in games that are developed with mainly PC in mind and those that are developed with also or foremostly console in mind, different audience, different platform limitations.
It's also clear why so many game companies made the shift towards console game development: sales and financial figures don't lie, due to several reasons but piracy one among them, the observed difference in sales on PC or console is sometimes gaping. I blame it on another bad influence of Microsoft when they dove into the console market with their exclusive deals for games on consoles
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."
MS did more than that. They did the 'lovely' GFWL which is just an abonimation of a program. My god, do they want to kill PC-gaming with that piece of 'I can code better than that and I am an attrociously bad web dev!' code?
Seriously, I think Steam is the last bastion of pc-gaming to be honest.
Gdemami -
Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
The NWN1 serie ended exactly when EA took over, and change aren't radical, it take few years to deeply change a company, it can take few month but only for companies that sink, its not the case of Bioware. I think KOTOR was launched just before too but i didn't play that game so i can't comment this one.
Anyway something change drasticly in the company goal, i don't know why, who or when exactly but it definitly happen.
Well, I am not trying to say what I think you are saying in a different way, what I meant was BW makes thier game based on what works. People get tired of the same thing over and over again, and things always need more innovation and renditions to make them attractive to the customers. As Sid Meiers said about Civilization, his formula is about keeping things 1/3 innovation 1/3 orginal and 1/3 improved. For this reason yes, the developer can do something that differs from what they did previously but it still based on what they think the player would like. So the gaming company is always dependant on trying to make what they think the gamer will enjoy, and not just what the developers feels like making.
Also the reason why games in the past did not have the same effects is that resources were not available such as technology being available, and the techniques to make it work. Maybe BW always wanted to have the cinematic cut scense, but the technology of the average video gamer, resources to get VO, and also the proper techniques and experience were non-existent at the time. So as things became available, it was the natural next step.
If you added the cut scenes to previous games by BW it would not necessarily make them identical, but since that is a major thing for a game to have, it would make them a lot more similar than they were before, so therefore BW did not stray to far from thier formula of having immersive story in thier games.
Like I said, developers probably follow Sid Meiers formula, and what you like specifcally in the previous games might have been changed. I cant know what you liked specifcally, but overall the importance of story and the plot has remained as important for BW. I have playeed several of thier games, and that is how I feel about it.
So what parts of the previous BW games did you like previously that they removed from thier new formula?
Write bad things that are done to you in sand, but write the good things that happen to you on a piece of marble
DA2 was a hideous embarrassment of a game. Bioware's name is somewhat tarnished by putting out such a poor unfinished product. A slightly dodgy and very underwhelming storyline, repetitive dungeons, stripped down menus etc. are not hallmarks of a Bioware game.
This is my concern about TOR - yes DA: Origins was great and Bioware are the RPG/storyline gods, but does DA2 represent what happens when the big fish swallows the little fish? Apparently DA2 was to be called DA: Exodus (which would have made more sense and moderated some of the expectations) but EA changed the name to boost sales. Can we also blame EA for rushing it out in such a poor state to cash in on the name?
To date EA have been hugely unsuccessful in the MMO market for a publisher of their stature and TOR is their next big hope. I am concerned their hunger for a big slice of the market and some of Blizzard's profits might spoil Bioware's creativity and therefore the game itself.
Maybe my concerns are needless, but the endless nonsense about the release date is strange too. EA say they don't want to reveal it too far in advance to tip off the competition. Like that's going to make a big difference to subscriber numbers. It's Star Wars, it's Bioware, people are going to check it out even if it releases close to GW2 or ArcheAge or Titan or whatever. I don't think release dates matter as much as the state of the game on release (AoC, Vanguard anyone?). The smoke and mirrors bs about release just seems to me to support my concern about EA's financial imperatives.
I agree, if they had released DA2 as a spinoff of DA:O, it would have felt far less out of place, and I think the uproar would've been less. And yes, I think that EA has a bad influence with pushing too much to boost financial gain in the short term while lacking vision to maintain it longterm.
As for the release date, that makes more sense to me. The less time is between the announcement and the release, the less time that competitors have time to plan their releases and updates or PR campaigns to coincide with it, especially Blizzard has a habit of trying to defuse and campaign with implementing features and releasing content and offers around the releases of other MMO's.
Besides, announcements shortly before a release isn't that strange, most MMO companies have announced their release date only within a few months before release.
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."
Hmm, my experience with Bioware is totally different.
Back in the 90's during Biowares golden age I would have agreed with the OP, I really loved their RPG games.
But since then,not so much. I bought the original KOTOR,I didn't like, it, never got off the first story line. (think I was trying to escape from some sort of spaceship or station)
I also bought DA:O, again, another bomber in my eyes, last thing I recall was me and my party fighting our way up some sort of mage tower, but it just so scripted on and on rails, and the combat model was pretty zergy, not a whole lot of real strategy.
Seems that just like Blizzard did with WOW, Bioware took and interesting and engaging style of game (single player RPG) and sort of simplified it and threw in lots of action elements to appeal to the more casual shooter crowd, which certainly outnumbers us folks who miss our graph paper.
So I don't have the same faith as the OP, in fact, if TOR plays a whole lot DA:O (which is what I expect) I'm probably going to not enjoy it for long, just not the style of game I enjoy.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Interesting how perceptions differ. Been my experience most MMO's annouce a date and miss it one more times before launching.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
? Are we talking about the announcements that are done a year or more beforehand? Because they keep being pushed back, yes, close example is the Spring release announcement of SWTOR that is pushed back to later this year. But the announcement of the actual final release date is often not that far from release. I think FFXIV was announced somewhere in July or so that it would release in September, Rift was announced in January I think.
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."
Yeah, I guess I was, you're correct, the near dates usually hold for major titles, especially if they are actively ramping up for launch with open betas, load tests etc.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
I have not really played DA2. From the looks of it, this does not sound well. "A slightly dodgy and very underwhelming storyline, repetitive dungeons, stripped down menus etc. are not hallmarks of a Bioware game." This comes from BW, EA has nothing to do with that.
So again, going back to the "little things". They really matter, they can make the game or break the game. BW have to get the handle on that. FFXIV.... same thing, poor design. VO is not everything.
Guild Wars 2's 50 minutes game play video:
http://n4g.com/news/592585/guild-wars-2-50-minutes-of-pure-gameplay
Everything We Know about GW2:
http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/287180/page/1
I thought the story was the games one redeeming quality. The overuse of dungeon patterns was my biggest complaint, my second biggest complaint was the conversation system, I prefer being able to use persuasion and other conversational means to reach an end, at least here and there. DA2 didn't offer that which was surprising to me.
I certainly don't think the game was nearly as bad as "DA2 was a hideous embarrassment of a game", as I said in a previous post. The production values were quite high in many aspects of the game. The game wasn't unpolsihed and it certainly didn't feel incomplete. This is coming from someone who didn't like either DA game or it's expansion(s) all that much.
Pre-release Bioware explained all of their changes in DA2 compared to DAO. Which was a result of the flak they recieved for releasing an RPG that felt old, to close to BG or KOTOR and not close enough to what they had offered in ME 1 or 2. DA2 is a very similar game to ME2. Which shows a lot in everything from the UI to the stories presentation. EA of course had nothing to do with that.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Noo don't speak the truth, it will only provoke and anger them.
"I am my connectome" https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HA7GwKXfJB0
ME 1 and 2 were fps games with rpg elements. Personally I don't like seeing fps elements in my medieval fantasy rpg's. If people were complaining that DA:O felt old then I'd have to say they were idiots. Old doesn't necessarily mean bad. I like the old saying 'If it ain't broken then don't fix it'. But I guess I'm in the minority these days, everybody wants action rpg's now rather than true rpg's. What works for the Mass Effect series does not necessarily work for a medieval fantasy rpg.
Squad-based story-driven third-person shooter RPGs. And have to say that while ME2 was a good game, I would hope to see level design in missions that was not so linear. ME1 had some non-linearity and sense of exploration in missions due to the extensive use of vehicle, which was nice imo.
"The person who experiences greatness must have a feeling for the myth he is in."
I agree for the most part, this seems to be a trend in gaming in general right now. Just about anything that feels familiar gets blasted for it. Every titlle has to offer something new. Just wait when TES: Skyrim releases, they're stripping away a lot of stuff from Oblivion for this one, yet they are still going for a similar experience. It's going to get blasted for being too much like Oblivion, yet they stripped away a bunch of attributes and stuff like that. SO of course it will get blasted for that as well, regardless of if it's a better or more logical experience because of it.
I can hear it now, "It's an Oblivion clone with Dragons, nothing to see here".
The same goes for Kingdoms of Amalur : The Reckoning. "It's too much like Oblivion, and it looks like WOW, it's an Oblivion clone with a WOW skin" regardless of how good the game and it's story are.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
I'm still of opinion that Dragon Age 2 was shitgame of 6/10 score max.
Having played games like BG1, BG2, Planescape:torment, Icewind Dale 1 & 2, Fallouts 1,2, Brotherhood, New Vegas, 3, NWN 1 & 2 + exps, Dragon Age 1 + exp, witcher 1 & 2 and shitloads of plenty other MMOs [seeing as i got my 1st computer 16 years ago].
After such good games as some of the above certainly are Dragon Age 2 comes as nothing more than average/mediocre game.
The only problem I have with your post here is that instead of rating the game on it's own merits, you are instead rating it in comparisson to other games.
Strangely enough though, I still have yet to meet someone in real life that didn't at the very least like DA2 and most loved it. It seems only forum monsters seem to dislike the game all that much.
"If half of what you tell me is a lie, how can I believe any of it?"
Judging by how its sales sunk to almost nothing very rapidly after release, it seems pretty clear it got a lot of bad press after it was out. Frankly, the story is poor with a severe lack of development in a lot of areas and a lack of cohesion between acts. Add to that the skill system that is horribly balanced, the terrible wave mechanic ruining the tactical elements, and recycled maps...well, there's a lot of bad elements to the game. The companions and voice quality are largely the only really good things in the game, but they certainly aren't close to the majority of the gameplay and so they don't save it.
Like I said before, everyone that I have talked to in real life liked the game and felt it was money well spent. It seems only people who expected the next "greatest game" were really disappointed. Personally, I had a lot of fun with the game and would spend the money all over again if given the chance. Does it have some minor problems? Sure, what game doesn't, but on the whole, it was a good solid game.
"If half of what you tell me is a lie, how can I believe any of it?"
I merely expected the game to be good, not the next "greatest game." The problems with story flow, constant recycled maps, etc, etc are not minor. I think the fact that the game sales rapidly tanked after release and user reviews for it overall are quite low is more than enough to show it isn't a very good game. Just because the people you know liked it doesn't mean anything. It isn't like you make friends by assessing whether a new person makes your group of friends a better random sample of the RPGer population.
Actually, I never said friends, I said people. I have talked to over 40 people now, only 6 were friends and the rest complete strangers in several different gaming stores, and not a single one thought it was a bad game. Including myself that makes 41 people that thought it was a good game when judged on it's own merits. I think the biggest problem with DA2 personally, was they made it a sequel so people would almost be forced to compare it to the previous game. DAO was, in my opinion, almost a masterpiece and so any sequel would be hard pressed to equal or exceed it.
"If half of what you tell me is a lie, how can I believe any of it?"