decado

Troll OP Status: Engaged

From post #1: I doubt very much that a thread on the forum entitled "Things that are bad . . ." is going to change a single thing about the game at this point. The last thing that got changed was the crafting system, which was (from what I remember) still in the decision-making phase development wise anyways. I'm not trying to be a downer or anything but talking about aspects of a game that are "bad" before you even see any gameplay (let alone seen the beta, or played a demo, or played the game) is pointless, IMO. Not only do you not know it is "bad" (how could you know, unless you play it?) you don't even know if you completely understand the thing you think is bad. For example, how many posts have been made on the attribute system, and how many people are still confused about how it works? The only sure-fire way to know if you will like something is to have enough information to make an informed decision. We clearly don't have enough information.

What is the purpose of this thread? The goddamn game isn't even out yet.

And you are fully entitled to your wrong opinion. DC's current editorial for their comics and their cinematic universe may be (severely) lacking, but they have some fantastic ips and a rich history to draw from. They also own Vertigo, so there's that. They have some good IPs, sure. It's almost impossible for them not to. But you're absolutely right about their current editorial focus. It is off-the-rails stupid, IMO. Batman is played out, and the Man of Steel film was a hilarious disaster. Superman as a character is one of the most boring and dumb IPs around, and it is time for him to retire. I think the Superman/Batman movie is going to be an embarrassment. You are also right about Vertigo, which is probably their strongest imprint in my view, at least from an artistic impression. They do some really creative things with that label. So maybe if they do decide to expand the franchise (and here we might not even be talking about what Obsidian has to do with it, since this is all speculation anyways) it will be Vertigo property and it will be awesome.

I would argue that amnesia is a worse narrative device. And this is coming from someone who loves both Amnesia: The Dark Descent (haven't played the new one yet) and The Witcher series. I think I can agree with you that amnesia is a pretty awful plot device, too. Very often it is pressed into service to rescue lazy writing and plotting. But for me, time travel is just the worst. It is so boring, and it always devolves into an incoherent mess.

God almighty I hope not. DC sucks.

I was going to respond to this thread, but the response became so long it turned into a blog post. http://thegwumps.blogspot.com/ tl;dr, the "Immersion Argument" is dumb. Immersion is broken all the time, and done so more egregiously than in a failure to include killable kids. It is a social/political minefield, and if any developer wants to avoid it I think we should respect the decision. Clamoring on and on about how you want to be able to kill kids in the game makes you look sick in the head.

The new Bethesda generation of Fallout. Although my version of Fallout 1 (on GOG) replaced all the children with dogs because GOG was stupid enough to sell the German edition. What? I have the GOG version of both FO 1 and 2, and while I haven't cracked open 1 yet, the kids are there in FO 2. That's weird.

I would, provided they stay away from that boring time travel nonsense. Time travel is the worst narrative device ever.

Honestly, I am not sure what the next one will be yet. There are a few ideas running around right now. How about some info abilities/talents?

This is a touch too sensible for my tastes. I love how on the one hand, games are art and BioWare are artists and they have heart and soul and they really know how to write characters that speak to you, and they are transformative experiences!!! But on the other hand, I guess if you do some voodoo demon-nerd-wizard algebra sorcery and divide up your life into discrete parts of time and equate them into a dollar amount then all that other stuff doesn't matter because hey, you got your money's worth didn't you? Sheesh, what more do you people want?!?

You missed a part in the chronology though. EA acquires BioWare and then all of a sudden DAO finally ships. Sure you can look at that and get upset because they also helped push forth the console versions (which is defintely a risk mitigation maneuver). Again, I don't understand what you are getting at here. You blame EA for DA2, yet forget that they made DA:O possible in the first place, I assume. I figured that's what he meant, I just don't get the relevance. Let's face it, by the time EA had bought BioWare the game had already been in development for several years. So the only thing you can give EA credit for is their money. Which, as I understand certain posters here, means they should be given a free pass for everything because of glorious, glorious capitalism.

You missed a part in the chronology though. EA acquires BioWare and then all of a sudden DAO finally ships. Sure you can look at that and get upset because they also helped push forth the console versions (which is defintely a risk mitigation maneuver). Again, I don't understand what you are getting at here.

Hey, I blame EA because I'm trying not to blame BioWare. If I can go ahead and blame BioWare, let me know lol. I'll oblige! I'd prefer you to hold us accountable for it, yes. People wholly overstate the difference, as though the "independent BioWare" suddenly had full on freedom to deliver games whenever they like. Let's look at something like Origin. If you read up on the Escapist's recap, Origin sold to EA because... they were bankrupt. Due to the economic climate, Garriot was unable to obtain financing from banks, and given that he already ran the business model of "Well if we need more money I guess I'll just invest some more of my own money" and the extreme risk that that came with doing that, he found himself in a situation where he needed to seek other avenues to keep the staff employed and the studio open. I'm not really sure what you are trying to get at here. I was merely remarking on big publishers' known behavior of buying up studios and essentially squeezing them into a business model they were never designed to operate with. This happens every day in other businesses that don't include video games: big company buys small company, changes the rules, squeezes every last bit of profit out of it that they can, and if it tanks, oh well. Sell it. Brian Fargo talked extensively about this attitude after he left EA. And this has happened to studios in the past. So let's review this history, here. EA acquires BioWare, and then all of a sudden the franchise takes a huge dump, and most of that is squarely based upon the much shorter development time the second time around. Is the consumer supposed to think this isn't a coincidence? Maybe it is, but can you blame a person for being skeptical? Regarding my research, my thesis is largely focused on consumer reaction to professional criticism. But you can verify what I'm saying by looking at a site like VG Chartz (though I only suggest them as a last resort!). But it is simple to compare the numbers. Most sequels will earn at least the same amount of money (or at least sell the same amount of units) as the game that came before them. When you start getting into games numbered 3 or 4 and so on, that number can shift as people lose or gain confidence in the franchise. But it usually takes a few games before that dip starts happening. For it to happen with a direct sequel means there is a problem. By the way, don't take any of this personally.

Anyways, back to DA:I I am willing to give the game a go, depending on what I see in a demo or whatnot. That's all I can really trust, anymore. I can't get excited about what is essentially a PR and branding campaign.

It was handled horribly. The Qunari retconn was so hamfisted I almost choked. "Well actually, all Quanri have horns except for special Qunari. Who, coincidentally, were the only kind of Qunari you saw in Dragon Age: Origins. And also, every single description of the Qunari in the first game somehow magically omits this most basic of descriptions, but that's not a big deal and is totally believable." It was probably one of the worst retcons in the history of nerdrage.

I studied this data extensively for my research. You are 100% wrong. Most sequels -- even mediocre ones -- make the same or more money (and/or sell the same number of units) than the games that preceded them.

Then it was your guys choice as to make the nine months development time? What kind of game developers would purposely sabotage themselves like that? And then you want to be called artists. I give Bioware **** all the time, but even the most critical of people liked the new design of the Qunari. Man, it's not about whether or not people liked it. It's about how they did it, and the reason behind it. That people actually liked it could be no more than a happy accident.

Hey, I blame EA because I'm trying not to blame BioWare. If I can go ahead and blame BioWare, let me know lol. I'll oblige!

Who cares what someone says they "intended"? That's not the issue. They changed them after they were already part of the lore and visualized, and did so with a hilariously terrible retcon, and it seems quite obvious why they did it.

The Qunari aren't COOL ENOUGH. The need to be COOLER. Let's COOL THEM UP. Let's give them some HORNS so they will be WAY COOLER. And we'll explain it away with the worst retconning since Klingons got headridges. Don't worry, it will be SUPER X-TREME COOL!

Lol the writing was terrible. What on Earth are you talking about. I would agree that it wasn't laziness, though. It was greed. It was "Let's churn this out as fast as possible because EA is the boss now and the shareholders want to get paid!" Edited: DA2 is a great example, by the way, of how a big publisher with no concern for the medium they are working in can just swoop in and hose things up, all to make a few more bucks per share. In this case the joke was one them, though, considering DAII sales were lower than DA:O sales. Which, in the world of video games, is almost impossible. Sequels almost always make the same amount of money as the original, or more. The game has to suck really bad for it to make less.

And we have gone full circle. Okay then a sword IN the torso is as much deadly as an arrow in the torso right ? Lol, no. That was rather the point. There are a bunch of different ways a sword can impact a human chest and not kill the person instantly. Go visit a local hospital ER on a Friday night, and see how many people have stab/slash wounds and are still ambulatory.

Yes, an arrow IN the torso. As in, an arrow in the torso, not an arrow that merely hits your armor. If I had meant what you are suggesting, I would have written it.

At first, I wanted to write a long reply with more proof. But it seems you are immune to scientific proof and prefer your vids on youtube. I guess I'll wear this for protection : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8QqAd6vgD8 Proof of what? That arrows could be turned aside by armor? I already agree with that. Why would you need to prove it?