RPGmasterBoo

In regards to the gameplay/writing thing, I'm of the opinion that games are a specific medium and that writing for them is nothing like writing for theatre/film. To "write" a good game the author needs to know and enjoy the medium. That's how you get Avellone, Jane Jensen etc. Otherwise there's a fair chance of a disconnect between what the writer has in mind, and what is possible and finally what is expected of a computer game. A typical example is a badass/tough character (in writing) that's nowhere near as strong/powerful in the actual game mechanics. A writer like the one that was interviewed in that article that has no real in depth interest in the medium he/she is working with will never create anything above average - at best. And that's exactly how it was. For all the supposed "writing" Dragon Age was nothing more than an extremely typical and generic fantasy adventure of the kind that Tolkien enthusiasts can churn out by the dozen.

So we should hire all the toilet paper fantasy writers that don't play games and you can't tell apart - because gameplay matters more? Avellone save us.

This is a person that gets to write for a game? ... Its like a musician that only spends a few hours on the weekend listening to music and 20 hours a week writing sheet music.

The Codex' main function is to provide a Hate Vortex from which MCA can feed off of, so it does provide a valuable service to the gaming public. Here is the link to the original article: http://www.killerbetties.com/killer_women_...pler?page=0%2C3 Love the bit when they ask about "What's the worst thing about your job" (at Bio) Answer: Playing the games. LOL No wonder the game turned out as it did. Everything she says betrays complete ignorance of RPG's and computer games. Jesus on a stick. This explains everything. Everything.

Because being branded a "hater" is an easy way for people to shove your opinions aside. Slamming the game for being mediocre is much harder to disprove or argue. And it probably is mediocre, because Bioware does have a sort of quality assurance and isn't likely to publish a truly "bad" product if you're judging by the generally low standards of the gaming industry.

The review is seems good, the grade most likely isn't. 2.5 out of 10 means irredeemably broken, crashes every 2 minutes, 10 years too late - that sorta thing. Even Might and Magic IX got more than that and it was borderline unplayable. A mediocre game should get 5-6, this way you wouldn't get angry fans spouting accusations of "flaming" etc. The important thing is to reach a mostly general consensus that the game sucks, which is bound to affect its sales - which already aren't spectacular from what I'm reading. The only way to communicate with Bioware and EA people is to slap them on the face - with a wallet.

It would take a massive hi risk investment for us to get a game like that. I don't see it happening, the limited appeal of the genre could never return that kind of money. A new generation of MMO's perhaps, if they put more depth to their retarded gameplay. Otherwise all we'd get is pretty cardboard scenery. Even with the money, It takes mad skillz to make a good city. When you're spending huge amounts of time in a single area you're bound to notice every single error and repetition. Especially if that area is a city, and since we're all (or mostly) city people here, its easy for the entire experience to feel wrong. Much easier to sell "the wilderness" to a fat geek whose only patch of green is the mold growing on the week old pizza that litters his gaming area.

Well, the game has potential. The first person sandbox approach has adapted much better to advances in graphics than Bioware's and Obsidian's pre-loaded areas. Obviously its the story and the feel of the world that's going to make or break TES5 for me. Oblivion was too simplistic and generic, barring a few good quests, like entering a painting or the door to another universe thing. Damn shame too, I remember going into a goblin infested dungeon with a torch in hand and saying: damn this is it, the real D&D feel of tense exploration. This lasted until the 5th such dungeon and the constant respawning of higher level mobs in dungeons I already cleaned out. Plus, there was no background flavor to it all, just random mobs in generic dungeons. Apparently XBOX360 is getting a version. Can't see it looking much better than Oblivion then, on such limited hardware.

Best RPG cities: Athkatla > Vizima > Sigil > VtM Bloodlines Santa Monica Hub > Baldur's Gate > Gothic Old Camp > some of ME2's locations But really Athkatla is leaps and bounds in front of the rest. Vizima can get a little monotonous, Sigil isn't exactly cohesive, Santa Monica is tiny etc... Urban locations are really difficult to do well and really easy to be too small/bland/sparse. Cities are simply too dynamic and resource intesive for a genre like RPG that requires a lot of unique content. Especially in the day and age of pimped graphics. I was rooting for an city set RPG for a while but I also think that sort of project has a huge chance to fail. Which is why I'm quite interested how the World of Darkness MMO will work out. I predict it will suck because of this, or at most be no better than other MMO's.

What is wrong with that quote? I also think it's a "respectable reason" to buy DA2 new instead of used. The Warhound is awesome. The wording doesn't strike you as odd? To me it sounds like a PR piece. Why would a regular user even care to comment if you buy used or not? Other peoples shopping habits are the last thing on my mind when I'm writing a small review.

I don't know about you, but I don't like running 30 min across town to get my quest. We'll set DA3 in a broom cupboard for your convenience.

This from the lead level designer..? The rest of it is in here. He's was being extremely evasive during the interview. Bioware's failure to acknowledge the game's flaws (or any of their games) is what pisses me off personally. No humility at all. If they just said: oh we screwed up, but we'll do our best to fix it next time, - that would at least be a sign of the right attitude. But no, every design decision, no matter how obviously stupid it is will be defended to the last.

The entire issue has become morbid, with anyone over 15 laughing at the idiocy that Bioware indulges in. Its not the great masses of fans demanding romances in general and gay ones in particular - but a small and almost fascist group of rejects that endlessly spam the Bio forums with demands on one hand and veiled threats and screams of discrimination on the other. Besides making so many characters bisexual is equal parts stupid and unrealistic all on its own. If you can't dedicate enough time to optional content to make it decent then don't ****ing include it.

Its called "cutting costs" and "rushed development". Also: wankery and laziness.

The few good Obsidian games have superior writing to Bioware's. Well, actually, Planescape Torment just has flat out better writing than anything else while the other stuff is just decent (or very good, if you're judging by game standards). .... Anyway, the general consensus amongst my RPG addicted pals is that DA2 is "garbage to average". One friend even jokingly referred to it as a "homosexual date sim" because every possible male character hit on him. Since these guys are much easier to satisfy than I am, and tend to think well of Bioware - I obviously need not waste time on it. Btw apparently a Bioware employee wrote an overwhelmingly positive review for Dragon Age 2 at some game site or other, while posing as a journalist. Major scandal of some sort or other. I don't know the details. Actually: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/...Scandal-UPDATED Pathetic.

I think you're letting nostalgia color your perceptions-- even when they were a "labor of love," they weren't all that good. The current "Lovin' in the Uncanny Valley" cutscenes are certainly no improvement, but even early on, "soap opera" was a pretty good description of the writing. (In fact, I think I may have seen the "my husband was just tortured to death, renegade members of the secret society I'm in are trying to kill me, but I'm still going to jump into an interracial relationship with my boss just as soon as hubby's body is cold" character arc on The Bold and the Beautiful.) The best thing to be said about the BG2 romances is that the character themes that played under the dialogues (particularly the Aerie & Jahiera ones) were some of the best tracks in the game. The Jaheira romance was pretty decent and involved, plus the presumed passage of time (and the fact that you know each other for a long time) made it somewhat sensible. Aerie... not so much, but passable (too childlike to be in good taste). I've never had Viconia in my party. You may think its rushed, but considering how close the characters are to kicking the bucket on a daily basis they don't exactly have the luxury of time for drawn out personal relationships. Overall I thought of them as a nice afterthought, and Jaheira as sweet - but in a "another novel thing you can do in a huge game" sort of way. This on the other hand is pure titillation. There are more people talking about who they shagged than about anything else in the game.

The problem is that /v/ raided the site. If you notice, DA II has 1355 reviews while ME 2 has 710 reviews despite being a year older. What the hell is /v/? As for the romances GreasyDogMeat is right. I was purposefully vague, because for what is essentially optional content Bioware has gone to inordinate amount of trouble to include it in every possible game. Which is why they suck now, because its no longer a labor of love included "because we can and want to", but a feature that certain fans demand and threaten bloody murder for. Any they're worse each time, the video I put up sits squarely between vulgar and pathetic. And soap opera.

Seen a post NWN, BW game without one?

Um, they're not. Not what?

Good thing to see the romances are there. Nothing like mandatory optional content. I guess Bioware games will have romances even when they fall to Might and Magic IX level.

Do you realise that those quotes are absolutely stupid? There are too many to count, some borderline illiterate others a wall of text. But they're uniform enough and numerous enough for it to be obvious that the game has many serious flaws. The point was that the responses are beyond the usual small camps of fanboys and haters with satisfied drones in between. Rougly 2/3 are negative responses, which for a Bioware game is overwhelming negativity.

I've been skimming over reviews and am thoroughly satisfied that the game is at best at DA level, which means it sucks and thus isn't worth my time. Also I'm enjoying the strained attempts of reviewers to squeeze out every positive thing about the game* and Bioware in the face of sloppy work like extensive reuse of assets, which signifies a definite drop in quality (and probably extensive EA meddling). *A grade of 84 on Metacritic for an AAA game is a dismal failure considering the Witcher got the same with no advertising behemoths and million dollar ads behind it. Indeed, in this day and age if you can't buy your way to 90+ by advertising alone you must have a seriously flawed product. I'm not even going to comment on the curiously dismal user score. Actually I am. Out of 1300 people 800+ say the game sucks. Apparently most are disappointed DA fans saying the game is console type garbage. etc +800 Delightful. HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAH, who the hell wrote this:

I wonder when the BG crowd is going to be the target audience of a Bioware game.