The bad things about Project Eternity...

[Stun]

^I wouldn't give that ridiculous post even that much credit.

 

Bioware perform great job and invent new gameplay strategic elements, modifable enviroment, cool design.

^there are flat out false statements being made here.

 

First off, Bioware has not invented anything in about a decade. Especially with Dragon Age. Even if we utterly believe all the hype we've seen from the various DA:I trailers, demos, convention interviews and commercials, there's STILL nothing in them resembling "innovative". You are, in fact, getting your own stronghold in DA:I, and its "strategic" value in the game, as described by the Bioware Devs themselves, is fairly standard stuff: gathering allies/agents to your cause, and then using them to "win a war against the evil forces".

 

Second.... what modifiable environment? We most certainly got no such thing in ME1, ME2, DA1, DA2, or SW:TOR. (those are bioware's last 5 games, btw), and they've said nothing about the player being able to affect an environment change in DA:I, other than the standard fare of getting a stronghold then fixing it up.

 

In terms of point #1 and #2 here, Project Eternity's stronghold will actually be giving the player more than this.

Edited November 14, 2013 by Stun

[Lephys]

Hehe. Innovative things like COMBAT, and GRAPHICS! 8D! Obviously they just invented the stronghold.

 

What WILL Bioware come up with next? I can't wait!

 

I will say that I enjoyed the Mass Effect games for the most part. And, starting in the 2nd one, they had an interesting ability-firing mechanic. That was possibly innovative (I don't know if anyone else had abilities that fired parabolically like that... *shrug*).

 

But, yeah, it wasn't because they re-invented the RPG or anything. And Dragon Age... just... wow. The first one wasn't too terrible or anything, but it certainly wasn't spectacular.

 

Game developers nowadays really do love to throw out the word "innovative" a lot. It's as if they just pretend you've literally never seen it before, just because some handful of big games haven't used the EXACT SAME IMPLEMENTATION in the last like... 3 years. Suddenly, that means it's innovative or revolutionary.

[Karkarov]

Second.... what modifiable environment? We most certainly got no such thing in ME1, ME2, DA1, DA2, or SW:TOR. (those are bioware's last 5 games, btw), and they've said nothing about the player being able to affect an environment change in DA:I, other than the standard fare of getting a stronghold then fixing it up.

 

In terms of point #1 and #2 here, Project Eternity's stronghold will actually be giving the player more than this.

Just to clarify Bioware has shown DA:I demo's where they did in fact destroy parts of castles/forts for strategic purposes... so yeah it is in game.  Makes sense considering it is one of the big selling points of the frostbite engine.  They have also shown areas and talked about how that town might get wiped out if xyz happens, or other spots where if you cleared out certain monsters and did some things you could built a fortress etc etc.  You are right about the "Base" concept in DA:I though Stun.  They have said the player will move between them and at various points one might get destroyed or you stop using it for whatever reason.  It wont be as integral to the game/mechanics as the home base of Eternity will be.

 

You are right about the "Base" concept in DA:I though Stun.  They have said the player will move between them and at various points one might get destroyed or you stop using it for whatever reason.  It wont be as integral to the game/mechanics as such and the Eternity stronghold is definitely going to have tons more going on and be a focal point in the game.  I also have to agree about the graphics point, why is that even being compared?  Of course the game with a minimum 5+ times the budget and the engine behind BF4 is going to have the better graphics.   Graphics aren't even a focus in Eternity, the idea is making a tactical party based rpg focused on lore and character development.  There is plenty of images out there of various areas in the game and the graphics look plenty good enough.  Hell Shadowrun returns seems to be doing okay and I can already tell graphically it is better than that.

[Sarex]

So this has now become the let's hate DA:I thread, oh the cruel irony.

[Quetzalcoatl]

Where's the hate? People are simply pointing out the fallacy of comparing a 4 million budget isometric 2d RPG to a blockbluster AAA RPG with a budget so sizeable that its creators give press releases boasting about how they can afford to spend lots of money on advanced cinematics to make their sex scenes look mature and tasteful. 

 

And yes, I fully except Inquisition to be a watered down product. There's simply no way to make an RPG that satisfies both the hardcore and casual crowd, something Bioware has explicitly said to be its goal. That is even without taking into account all the extraneous factors like the cost of celebrity voice acting and console limitations.    

Edited November 14, 2013 by Quetzalcoatl

[teknoman2]

Hehe. Innovative things like COMBAT, and GRAPHICS! 8D! Obviously they just invented the stronghold.

 

What WILL Bioware come up with next? I can't wait!

 

I will say that I enjoyed the Mass Effect games for the most part. And, starting in the 2nd one, they had an interesting ability-firing mechanic. That was possibly innovative (I don't know if anyone else had abilities that fired parabolically like that... *shrug*).

 

But, yeah, it wasn't because they re-invented the RPG or anything. And Dragon Age... just... wow. The first one wasn't too terrible or anything, but it certainly wasn't spectacular.

 

Game developers nowadays really do love to throw out the word "innovative" a lot. It's as if they just pretend you've literally never seen it before, just because some handful of big games haven't used the EXACT SAME IMPLEMENTATION in the last like... 3 years. Suddenly, that means it's innovative or revolutionary.

they didnt but DA3 may have it, because the engine allows for a destructible enviroment. however they need to implement it and i dont know if they have any intention of doing so

[obyknven]

Where's the hate? People are simply pointing out the fallacy of comparing a 4 million budget isometric 2d RPG to a blockbluster AAA RPG with a budget so sizeable that its creators give press releases boasting about how they can afford to spend lots of money on advanced cinematics to make their sex scenes look mature and tasteful.     

Budget or even price is not interesting for me (as for consumer). I just want waste own time only to best products, and DA: I have less technological  limitations than PE, and theoretically can be much better game (if gamedesigners do their work good). Meanwhile due  limitations of engine PE can be worse game than DA:I  even if Obsidian gamedesigners make own work very good.

 

[Karkarov]

So this has now become the let's hate DA:I thread, oh the cruel irony.

This forum has always been the hate DA forum, or more specifically the hate Bioware.  Personally I like most of their games so....

 

 

they didnt but DA3 may have it, because the engine allows for a destructible enviroment. however they need to implement it and i dont know if they have any intention of doing so

Like my other post said, they have implemented it.  There are plenty of fan recordings of demos done at industry shows where they show mages blowing up bridges etc etc.

 

Here is a link.  The video quality is shoddy but it gives you a good idea of how the game looks an plays:

 

The part where they start showing combat that we care about for the purpose of this post is at around 20 minutes.

[Messier-31]

I just want waste own time only to best products

 

Right, that is why I choose Project Eternity (or Witcher 3 for that matter) over silly Dragon Age.

 

Seriosuly, de gustibus non est disputandum.

[Quetzalcoatl]

So the big innovation is breakable 3d environment, something that has existed since the 90's? Even the IE games had doors you could bash open. And the breakable scenery in that preview struck me as very gimmicky. I thought it was pretty funny that instead of bringing down the bridge with a spell, the mage had to clear the way for the warrior to get past the enemies and do it with his sword.

 

 

Where's the hate? People are simply pointing out the fallacy of comparing a 4 million budget isometric 2d RPG to a blockbluster AAA RPG with a budget so sizeable that its creators give press releases boasting about how they can afford to spend lots of money on advanced cinematics to make their sex scenes look mature and tasteful.     

Budget or even price is not interesting for me (as for consumer). I just want waste own time only to best products, and DA: I have less technological  limitations than PE, and theoretically can be much better game (if gamedesigners do their work good). Meanwhile due  limitations of engine PE can be worse game than DA:I  even if Obsidian gamedesigners make own work very good.

What limitations? It being 2d? That doesn't impact a stat-based party-focused RPG in any meaningful way. Baldur's Gate 2 was such a game, and most people would argue it was Bioware's best title.

Edited November 14, 2013 by Quetzalcoatl

[teknoman2]

So the big innovation is breakable 3d environment, something that has existed since the 90's? Even the IE games had doors you could bash open. And the breakable scenery in that preview struck me as very gimmicky. I thought it was pretty funny that instead of bringing down the bridge with a spell, the mage had to clear the way for the warrior to get past the enemies and do it with his sword.

 

 

Where's the hate? People are simply pointing out the fallacy of comparing a 4 million budget isometric 2d RPG to a blockbluster AAA RPG with a budget so sizeable that its creators give press releases boasting about how they can afford to spend lots of money on advanced cinematics to make their sex scenes look mature and tasteful.     

Budget or even price is not interesting for me (as for consumer). I just want waste own time only to best products, and DA: I have less technological  limitations than PE, and theoretically can be much better game (if gamedesigners do their work good). Meanwhile due  limitations of engine PE can be worse game than DA:I  even if Obsidian gamedesigners make own work very good.

What limitations? It being 2d? That doesn't impact a stat-based party-focused RPG in any meaningful way. Baldur's Gate 2 was such a game, and most people would argue it was Bioware's best title.

hey it looks cool, that's all that matters in recent bioware games

[Stun]

Budget or even price is not interesting for me (as for consumer). I just want waste own time only to best products, and DA: I have less technological  limitations than PE,

Graphical/Physics limitations maybe, and that's all.

 

But DA:I will suffer all the limitations imposed by Consoles, voiced protagonists, and the 'cinematic experience', while PE won't. This means a far more constrained and limited set of RPG mechanics on the whole, Like in dialogue choices, full party control, full party customization, etc. And then we've got the design itself. Can you roll up a cypher or a monk in DA:I? No of course not. There's only 3 classes in Dragon Age. And only 3 races, btw.

 

DA:I will also have far more limited weapon choices, spell choices, party arbitration choices (there will be no Adventurer's hall in DA:I!) But hey, none of that matters, because DA:I will let you blow up bridges! Right?

 

And.... this discussion is pointless. Is there anything stopping you from getting both games?

Edited November 14, 2013 by Stun

[Karranthain]

Oby's getting sloppy.

 

Anyway, I'll just add that some people (I count myself among them) actually prefer 2D backgrounds. As in I've been waiting (and hoping) to play a title like PE.

[teknoman2]

 

Graphical/Physics limitations maybe, and that's all.

 

 

that's all? you do not understand the most important part: PE will have no cinematic camera work to give us close up shots of the posteriors of the female companions. what do you need game mechanics if you can show butts and bubs in every dialog scene?

troll mode off

Edited November 14, 2013 by teknoman2

[obyknven]

What limitations? It being 2d? That doesn't impact a stat-based party-focused RPG in any meaningful way. Baldur's Gate 2 was such a game, and most people would argue it was Bioware's best title.

Yes, Baldur's Gate 2 it's great game .... for 2000 year. For today attempt of rerelease same game without improvements looks pathetic. Today such game looks obsolete, great game evolution happened from 2000 year, interface's, interactivity, graphics and many other things are improved during this time. In 90's we can only dream about such game as DA: I - grafics even better then in cg-movies, incredible interactivity, new strategic elements of gameplay (after this faction membership in Daggerfall looks pathetic), our actions causing effect to the world - it's just game of Dream if show DA: I to us in 90s.

 

Nostalgia is good thing, but old games (as old girlfriends) should stay in the past.

[Stun]

Yeah... Eye candy. That is the most important thing in an RPG.... when you're 12 years old.

 

Edit: the really interesting thing here is that Bioware is struggling to compete with its peers even in the VISUAL arena that you place so much importance on. CDProjeckt's Witcher 2 (for example) gave us a much better cinematic and graphics experience than any of the Dragon Ages. And Bethesda's Skyrim did scenery porn better than anything we've seen from Bioware... ever. Including DA:I.

 

By the way, whatever happened to judging an RPG based on its RPG mechanics?

Edited November 14, 2013 by Stun

[teknoman2]

you are either a troll or you have not played a game with actual interactivity before. i hope it is the later so you can fix the problem.

the older games had tecnical limitations, that much is true, but saying that just because today the technology is better we get better games is plain wrong. they look better, sound better, but do they offer a better experience? just because the combat animations of DA:I looks like dragonball or naruto and not like the animations of BG2, and just because the boxes and barrels and other stuff can break, it does not make the game more interactive. interactivity in a game is how you can change the situation you are facing your way and not the way the game forces you to. in an old fps you can kill the enemy, go around, lure him in a trap etc, in a modern fps you have to use the gadget that magically appeared in your pocket to call an airstrike that kills an enemy (you could easily kill by yourself) and look at the explosions, if not: "you shall not pass"

having a more cinematic experience means cutting on interaction so that you can always reach the point where the cool cutscene plays, even if you want to play in a way that takes you in a different direction

with the trend of constant health regeneration in all games, strategy is not needed anymore. in an rpg you do not have to decide if you will use the potion now or later, you dont have to decide if you need this skill or spell for later or you can just use it here. in an fps you dont have to remember where in the area you left a health pack or some armor shards that you did not need at the time, nor do you need to worry about ammo since all weapons use the same and you will max it with the next enemy you kill

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

It never ceases to suprise me how oby always gets a rise, despite being blatantly obvious.

[Lephys]

they didnt but DA3 may have it, because the engine allows for a destructible enviroment. however they need to implement it and i dont know if they have any intention of doing so

I would agree... IF the previous games' problems could be chalked up to engine limitations. 8P

 

Not that I mean that there's no chance it'll be a good game. But... I wouldn't draw any kind of "probably" from a shiny new engine.

 

For the record, I don't hate the Dragon Age games. I just hate how disappointing they've been (mainly the second one). After you've made a game, you should be able to make the 2nd one better, not worse. But, they're so focused on selling people a product that they're not coherently crafting a very nice game.

 

With a game like DA2, I could've playtested that thing and told them what all the reviews would say before they even released it. And speaking of DA2... what could they POSSIBLY have put into the game that was worth re-using 15 environments 5 times a piece? Honestly, that just seems like bad planning. It's one thing to decide "Okay, we're going to re-use some interiors," like... a cave here, or a house there (houses could feasibly look VERY similar, anyway)... but to just suddenly say "Agh! We're gonna re-use EVERYTHING about seventy times!"? If they'd never made a game before, I'd maybe attribute that to the complexity and difficulty of video game production. But... come on...

[teknoman2]

i know what you mean... i didnt even have to play the game, just the demo and i knew DA2 was garbage. DAO was enjoyable... maybe not the best they could have made but it was worth playing. DA2 was simply abysmal

on other news, i only said that the engine can do destructible enviroment if they want to have it in the game, the rest is up to them. the engine does not make the game after all, it's just a tool

[Karkarov]

With a game like DA2, I could've playtested that thing and told them what all the reviews would say before they even released it. And speaking of DA2... what could they POSSIBLY have put into the game that was worth re-using 15 environments 5 times a piece? Honestly, that just seems like bad planning. It's one thing to decide "Okay, we're going to re-use some interiors," like... a cave here, or a house there (houses could feasibly look VERY similar, anyway)... but to just suddenly say "Agh! We're gonna re-use EVERYTHING about seventy times!"? If they'd never made a game before, I'd maybe attribute that to the complexity and difficulty of video game production. But... come on...

It wasn't bad planning, it was an insanely short development cycle with an unreasonable sense of demand to push the game out the door.  I have no clue why they did it, but they made DA2 in like... a year and a half?  That isn't much time for a AAA budget RPG.  Hell it takes Square Enix like 5 years to make 1 numbered Final Fantasy it seems these days.  In fact I am willing to bet that PE has already had as much or even a slight bit more dev time than that.

 

Personally the Bioware hate on these forums is getting pretty old either way.  I am sorry their games sell well, I am sorry Mass Effect is going to be on pretty much every "top 10 games of the last decade" list for anyone whose opinion matters, and I am sorry Dragon Age 2 kinda sucked.  That said if Dragon Age 2 is the worst game they ever make.... they still have a better roster of games than 90% of other developers out there.

[teknoman2]

 

With a game like DA2, I could've playtested that thing and told them what all the reviews would say before they even released it. And speaking of DA2... what could they POSSIBLY have put into the game that was worth re-using 15 environments 5 times a piece? Honestly, that just seems like bad planning. It's one thing to decide "Okay, we're going to re-use some interiors," like... a cave here, or a house there (houses could feasibly look VERY similar, anyway)... but to just suddenly say "Agh! We're gonna re-use EVERYTHING about seventy times!"? If they'd never made a game before, I'd maybe attribute that to the complexity and difficulty of video game production. But... come on...

It wasn't bad planning, it was an insanely short development cycle with an unreasonable sense of demand to push the game out the door.  I have no clue why they did it, but they made DA2 in like... a year and a half?  That isn't much time for a AAA budget RPG.  Hell it takes Square Enix like 5 years to make 1 numbered Final Fantasy it seems these days.  In fact I am willing to bet that PE has already had as much or even a slight bit more dev time than that.

 

Personally the Bioware hate on these forums is getting pretty old either way.  I am sorry their games sell well, I am sorry Mass Effect is going to be on pretty much every "top 10 games of the last decade" list for anyone whose opinion matters, and I am sorry Dragon Age 2 kinda sucked.  That said if Dragon Age 2 is the worst game they ever make.... they still have a better roster of games than 90% of other developers out there.

 

no one complains about mass effect, or the first dragon age. they both had their shortcomings but all in all were great games. what killed the franchises was the idiotic marketing policy of ME3, where you had to pay an extra 10 for the most important story character in the series + dat ending, and the idiotic rush to make DA2 that led to the poorest AAA game ever. the DA can still be saved with inquisition, but i doubt it by looking at the videos

so of course we hate bioware... they make something good and then they piss on it on part 2 and **** on it on part 3. and if they get on part 4, they flush it down and fish it from the sewer

[Stun]

The Bioware Love-Hate relationship here on the Obsidian forums is an interesting thing to observe. On the one hand, it's true. This place is, more often than not, flat out hostile to the Bioware name itself. But, at the same time, there's a cult following for the BG series. PE's very backer numbers wouldn't exist without it. That's paradoxical, as Baldurs Gate 1 & 2 are Bioware games! The infinity engine itself is Bioware's creation.

 

So yeah... It's Love-Hate. And why not. Are we supposed to just ignore the crash and burn we've been witnessing these last few years? I certainly can't. Dragon Age 2 was more than just an insultingly bad game. It was an attempted murder. An assault with the intent to kill the Bioware name, the Dragon age franchise, and its fans. It was a con job thought up by a board room full of people who have never played a video game before. It was a conscious, deliberate attempt on the part of the studio to see just how many shortcuts and how much cheap mediocrity they could get away with in the industry and still pull off a profit. And apparently, EA was satisfied with the results of the experiment. Mike Laidlaw was promoted. Instead of fired.

 

And no, "short development time" had nothing at all to do with the crappy nature of DA2. They had 18 months to create a sequel to DA:O. That's exactly as long as it took for them to create Baldurs Gate 2.... the greatest game ever created. Plus, if 18 months was too short, then why did they make it a point to friggin change/overhaul everything from the ground up? Logic dictates that if the publisher is demanding a short development time, then the solution is to leave everything as is, then just spend the time you're given on a new story, new characters, and new areas.

Edited November 15, 2013 by Stun

[neo6874]

Wasn't DA2 released after Bioware became "An EA Company"?

 

EA is the devil, and they ruin many many good franchises/development companies ...

[teknoman2]

Wasn't DA2 released after Bioware became "An EA Company"?

 

EA is the devil, and they ruin many many good franchises/development companies ...

bioware was already an EA company when they made DAO and the first ME