Dragon Age: Inquisition

[marelooke]

Honestly, I think most people's views are a bit more nuanced than "Obsidian rockorz!" and "BioWare sucksorz!"

 

IMHO:

 

The difference between Obsidian and BioWare games is that the latter lack the soul of the former (while they also lack the huge amount of bugs Obsidian generally manages to generate) There's reasons why NWN2 > NWN1 and KotOR2 > KotOR1 and I'm pretty sure it's not just because it's big bad evil BioWare vs goody-two-shoes Obsidian. Of course both NWN2 and KotOR2 were buggy as hell on release (both also had rushed endings), par for the course for Obsidian (though I do hope they won't have this problem s much with PoE now that they get to set their own deadline), but even with all their defects I consider them superior to the BioWare predecessors (and I picked these two games because they provide a ground for direct comparison between the two companies)

 

Now the "problems" with BioWare's later games are generally attributed to EA because "stuff" started happening after the acquisition. ME2's success formula got copied over DA:O's formula resulting in Dragon Effect. Simply because Mass Effect sold a lot better than Dragon Age (iow seems like a valid move from a financial perspective, if you forget that the target audiences for both games were rather different which was BioWare's stated reasoning for having the two franchises, if you recall). Then some of the bad stuff from DA2 got copied back over to ME3 (eg. the combat in ME3 is worse than 1 and 2 and more akin to DA2's, including parachuting in reinforcements, though it is less obvious in most of ME3 than it is in DA2)

 

So yeah, with EA at the wheel BioWare has obviously moved to conquering a more mainstream market by streamlining their content and making everything more console friendly (imho the second reason why DA2 is Dragon Effect, is the mechanics from DA:O translated rather badly to consoles).

 

I think it's understandable that there is some bitterness about BioWare becoming yet another EA "same-game-new-year factory" chasing whatever is suspected to sell best compared to following some clear artistic vision or experimenting with new ideas. I've long since given up on "old BioWare" (pardon the nostalgia) and I'm taking the games as they come and judging them for what they are, but I'm not expecting BioWare to do anything to "revolutionize" the genre as taking risks is not something that is, or ever has been, on EA's agenda (just look at TOR, it's basically World of Warcraft with BioWare storytelling).

 

The one thing that does bother me with "modern" BioWare is their PR, they like to spin things to their advantage the same way you'd expect from any generic soulless company (iow, sometimes it's borderline lying). For that, I resent them (as I got caught by it with DA2). Now I just ignore all their PR and get my information from secondary sources (iow, I now treat them the same as any generic game developer), so it's at least already gone through a bull**** filter (thanks for that btw guys and gals)

 

EDIT: typos

Edited March 18, 2014 by marelooke

[213374U]

Oh, also "Money = Bad" is also in effect here.

 

Hmm, only it actually is a good argument. Let's discuss the replay value (and therefore bang/buck ratio) of NWN -even the OC that could be played co-op- or even DAO vs DA2.

 

Go!

 

Seriously, I wouldn't be such a foaming-at-the-mouth anti-EA fundie if they didn't have a proven track record of buying up studios I like, turning their respective IPs into pure **** with their magic touch and then shutting those studios down. I don't know how much they are to blame for DA2, as I actually enjoyed both ME3 and TOR, but the fact remains that Bio is now "a division of EA", so no reason to assume that they will be an exception in EA's tried and true business practices.

[Nepenthe]

If I were in court, I'd be smirking due to having my point immediately proven.

[Amentep]

Hmm, only it actually is a good argument. Let's discuss the replay value (and therefore bang/buck ratio) of NWN -even the OC that could be played co-op- or even DAO vs DA2.

 

Go!

Since the replay value of any game is in the eye of the beholder, wouldn't these comparisons actually be worthless other than as personal testimony of preference?

 

I certainly played DAO and DA2 more than I ever did NWN or NWN2 (although in NWN2's defence, my old computer struggled with playing it until it died). I played DAO more than DA2 simply because one is primed towards more replayability (DAO 6 origins vs DA2's 3 classes)

[Nonek]

Personally I don't give a fig about EA or Bioware, I simply judge games based on their own quality and my own criteria. The last two games I played by Bioware haven't appealed for various very obvious reasons, which I won't bore anyone with, but I more than got my money out of them and ME2 I quite enjoyed for what it was. I will of course as an informed consumer be wary of their next games, and look for informed trustworthy sources to review them, that being not "Game Journalist's," but I still have nothing personal against them as they're just entertainment producers. 

 

I neither feel an urge to defend or criticise them unduly, though discussion of various elements is never harmful to my mind, whether it be old or new games.

[Keyrock]

Strictly BioWare amount of times I've played each of their games:

 

MDK 2: 3

Baldur's Gate: 1 1/2

Baldur's Gate 2: 1

Throne of Bhaal: 1

Neverwinter Nights: 2

Shadows of Undrentide: 2

Hordes of the Underdark: At least 8 or 9 times, maybe more

Knights of the Old Republic: 1

Jade Empire: 2

Mass Effect: 2

Mass Effect 2: 4

Mass Effect 3: 1

Dragon Age Origins: 1 1/2

Dragon Age 2: 1 

 

I have not played Shattered Steel or Star Wars: The Old Republic or Tales of the Sword Coast.  I think that covers BioWare's entire catalog.  If I missed any game you can safely assume the number of times I've played it is zero.

Edited March 18, 2014 by Keyrock

[Tale]

It's never been about railroading or not-railroading in CRPGs. It's between good railroading and bad railroading. Good railroading is when the path matches well with what you wanted to do anyway, bad railroading is of the "why the hell did I just agree to do that?" variety.

I've been sitting here trying to figure out how to best jump into this argument when I see you've summed up my feeling more succinctly than I ever could.

 

For the record I like Dragon Age: Origins. I liked it enough that I overlook my one agency related complaint about the Wardens. Seriously, he just stabs Ser Jory, what a bastard. Though I do like to poke holes at the fact that the Grey Wardens as a single organization should have splintered into national institutions a long time ago. And Mass Effect 2's even more ridiculous forcing the player into Cerberus without letting me kill the crew members in their sleep while scrawling "FOR ADMIRAL KOHAKU" in their blood along the ship's walls.

 

For me, good railroading is when the tracks you're forced down give more than they take. I bought into the premise of saving the world when I bought Dragon Age: Origins. So forcing me down the tracks of being a Warden just enables going towards that. It helps me to save the world and fix everyone's stupid problems. Similarly I bought into saving the galaxy in Mass Effect 2. And when I was forced to join Cerberus, I was not forced to actually help Cerberus. You get to save the galaxy and you don't even have to murder any Alliance soldiers or admirals. You can tell your boss to just bugger off, if you'd like.

 

Dragon Age 2, however, failed to give anything when it forced you down tracks. And its plot is convoluted enough that you can't really see what you're heading towards from where you start, so there's no premise to buy into. Ultimately almost everything you aspire to achieve in the game you will fail at, and I can't help but be bitter towards the tracks because I see them leading only to that failure. It's a railroad whose tracks only lead into the side of a mountain. Disaster.

 

And that's also how I view Mass Effect 3. I never liked the Crucible to begin with. But that's a rant for another time.

[Humanoid]

I'd probably have minded the ME2 Cerberus issue a lot more, and used it as an example of bad writing, had I played the series in correct order. But I actually started with ME2 before backtracking, so the ridiculousness of the whole thing became somewhat lost on me. Sure, I still got the feeling of 'this is dumb' in hindsight, but it'd never match up to how it'd feel if I were properly invested in the plot development. As such, my memory of ME2 is probably a fair bit better than it 'deserves'. (And on the non-writing front, it also means the complaints about the radically revamped combat mechanics were lost on me)

 

I attempted ME3 last and loathed it, and it was nothing to do with its ending (which I find now serves as scapegoat of sorts masking the problems with the rest of the game, right to the beginning). Maybe in hindsight I should have started with ME3 and worked my way backwards.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

I liked ME3 and hated ME2. I also liked DA2 and hated DAO. What the hell is wrong with me?

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I liked ME3 and hated ME2. I also liked DA2 and hated DAO. What the hell is wrong with me?

You have a meth habit?

[Amentep]

Strictly BioWare amount of times I've played each of their games:

 

 

I have not played Shattered Steel or Star Wars: The Old Republic or Tales of the Sword Coast.  I think that covers BioWare's entire catalog.  If I missed any game you can safely assume the number of times I've played it is zero.

My recollections may be faulty

 

Shattered Steel: 0

MDK 2: 0

Sonic Chronicles: The Dark Brotherhood: 0

Baldur's Gate: 2 (cheated the end both times)

Tales of the Sword Coast: 2

Baldur's Gate 2: 4 (Wild Mage, Druid, Barbarian..and...halfling thief)

Throne of Bhaal: 1

Neverwinter Nights: 2 (once with vanilla, once with a character I took through all the expansions and original game)

Shadows of Undrentide: 1

Hordes of the Underdark: 1

Knights of the Old Republic: 4 (possibly more)

The Old Republic: 0

Jade Empire: 9 (one for each body type, plus two more at least)

Mass Effect: 7 (4 main characters, main-main character played through at least three times)

Mass Effect 2: 2 (beat twice with two of my main imported characters)

Mass Effect 3: 1

Mass Effect Galaxy: 0

Dragon Age Origins: 7 (1 for each origin, did the noble twice (once male, once female)

Dragon Age 2: 4 (Hawke with each class, one replay where I didn't take Bethany to the underdark (which I did for my first game).

Edited March 18, 2014 by Amentep

[Volourn]

" nothing Bioware has released since the acquisition has been as dire as, say, NWN OC."\

 

KOTOR is worse. ME3 is worse. ME3 is BIO's first PC/comsole RPG that I haven't finished. And, it's not because of the over dramatic of the endings but I just found it a slog to play through.

 

 

"The difference between Obsidian and BioWare games is that the latter lack the soul of the former"

 

HAHAHAHAHA!

 

HAHAHAHA!

 

 

HA!

 

 

"The one thing that does bother me with "modern" BioWare is their PR, they like to spin things to their advantage the same way you'd expect from any generic soulless company (iow, sometimes it's borderline lying). For that, I resent them (as I got caught by it with DA2). Now I just ignore all their PR and get my information from secondary sources (iow, I now treat them the same as any generic game developer), so it's at least already gone through a bull**** filter (thanks for that btw guys and gals)"

 

L0L everyone spins things,. Your post is one giant spin. Obsidian spins. Just ask them about DS3 or AP's failures and let's watch the spinning commence. Though, Obsidian's fanboys are much muchw orse at the spinning part.

 

 

But, one more time for true emphasis as the one of the best jokes ever...

 

 

"The difference between Obsidian and BioWare games is that the latter lack the soul of the former"

 

HAHAHAHAHA!

 

HAHAHAHA!

 

 

HA!

 

 

 

[HoonDing]

Honestly, I think most people's views are a bit more nuanced than "Obsidian rockorz!" and "BioWare sucksorz!"

Not really, no.

[Gromnir]

 

Honestly, I think most people's views are a bit more nuanced than "Obsidian rockorz!" and "BioWare sucksorz!"

Not really, no.

 

hmmm... as we speak of "most" people, am not sure what is answer. sure, for many folks, "bio sux," is enough, but there is probable at least some reason for the feeling o' animosity, even if such feelings ain't rational or reasonable. obsidian has had the benefit and burden o' working on the work o' others.  obsidian could thus improve on many aspects o' the original game builders. example: if fo:nv hadn't improved 'pon many aspects o' fo3, it woulda been quite disappointing. the fact that fo:nv did improve many aspects o' fallout3 doesn't necessarily mean that obsidian is a better developer than bethesda. similarly, that nwn2 and kotor2 improved aspects o' the genesis games is maybe not as significant as some might s'pose-- is poor evidence that bio is inferior to obsidian. nevertheless, we has seen such arguments, and one cannot deny feelings. a different possibility is that obsidian has, with perhaps the almost ironic exception o' ps:t, focused more on tactical sophistication in their games than did bioware when using same/similar engine. no crpg is particularly demanding o' intellectual acuity o' the player, but obsidian does (perhaps) ask more of players... 'least when combat starts. additionally, bio has been much more traditional in choice o' thematic fodder. is nothing wrong with hero cycle as given to us by lucas, spielberg and tolkien, but some folks sees repetition as an inherent flaw, regardless o' what the developer does with such material. etc.  

 

is reasons to prefer obsidian and vice-versa. fact o' the matter is that we ain't purchased an obsidian game for a Long time... project eternity will be first since fo:nv (and we didnt purchase alpha protocol, which we s'pose technically were previous to fo:nv.) by the same token, we only got 1 playthrough o' mass effect 3, and that were delayed almost 1 full year after the initial release.  we played da2, and while it were a very good game in many respects, it were also horribly rushed and almost amateurish by bio standards. even so, we considers our self a fan o' both developers, and we does at least consider purchasing most games released by the developers in question.

 

aside--

 

we will note that bio has a tendency to vastly oversell their games. those things promised falls very much short of goals... reminds us a bit o' troika in that sense. for example, our disappointment o' the origins from da:o were Not that they railroaded you or other such similar nonsense that happens in every other story-driven game... sheesh. folks got short memories, but Gromnir recalls how each origin were s'posed to result in highly unique gameplay once the origin tumbled into the unified critical path. playing as a dwarf noble or elf or human were all 'posed to be different experiences once one were trudging through the main story... which never happened. sure, you gots some limited differences depending on your origin choice, but the origins impacted very little once you were a grey warden. is Not how bio sold the origins. similarly, the way bio sold impact o' me1 and me2 choices on me 3 were also woeful unrealized. got long list o' stuff that bio... exaggerated.  has made us jaded 'bout bio pre-release commentary.  

 

regardless, we thinks it is a bit myopic to suggest that most folks hate developer X or love developer Y 'cause o' spite or some similar motivations. is too ez and simple.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited March 18, 2014 by Gromnir

[Volourn]

"is too ez and simple."

 

Sometimes the easiest, most simple, and obvious answer is the right one. What is 3+3? It is 6. Case closed.

 

And, when we are talking about internet geek losers who spend their time arguing x Is better than y they are very simple creatures so the simple answer is correct. These aren't a bunch of Einsteins, afterall. Nothing complicated to see here.
 

[TheChris92]

I'd say one thing about ME2 - It had some interesting characters, especially those written by Chris L'Etoile (who mostly was the mind behind the science of the Mass effect universe in the first games). It also had some genuine laughs. I found that that plot and everything felt downright pointless & unengaging. Also the overall gameplay was dumbed a bit too much down to just a generic shooter. 

[Gromnir]

"is too ez and simple."

 

Sometimes the easiest, most simple, and obvious answer is the right one. What is 3+3? It is 6. Case closed.

 

And, when we are talking about internet geek losers who spend their time arguing x Is better than y they are very simple creatures so the simple answer is correct. These aren't a bunch of Einsteins, afterall. Nothing complicated to see here.

 

to suggest that answering why somebody (where the "somebody" in question is potentially thousands of different people) prefers X to Y and suggest then answer is 6 is... volish.

 

in fact, that is our new label for any extreme obtuse response or trollish oversimplification: volish.

 

"if all the people on welfare would just get jobs, they wouldn't need a handout." volish.

 

"bioware is better than obsidian. period." volish.

 

"let them eat cake."  that is sooooo volish.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Humanoid]

Totally stealing Tepid's template.

 

 

Shattered Steel: 0

MDK 2: 0

Sonic Chronicles: The Dark Brotherhood: 0

Baldur's Gate: 0.1

Tales of the Sword Coast: 0

Baldur's Gate 2: 1

Throne of Bhaal: 1

Neverwinter Nights: 0.5

Shadows of Undrentide: 0

Hordes of the Underdark: 0

Knights of the Old Republic: 1

The Old Republic: 0.8 (of one class)

Jade Empire: 0

Mass Effect: 2

Mass Effect 2: 1.5

Mass Effect 3: 0.2

Mass Effect Galaxy: 0

Dragon Age Origins: 0.5

Dragon Age 2: 0

[Bryy]

 

Oh, also "Money = Bad" is also in effect here.

 

Hmm, only it actually is a good argument. 

... no?

[213374U]

 

 

Oh, also "Money = Bad" is also in effect here.

 

Hmm, only it actually is a good argument. 

... no?

 

 

Please, learn from Volourn how to formulate a counterpoint, then come back.

[Bryy]

I don't need to.

 

The statement that money inherently is always bad is in itself a fallacy.

[Humanoid]

 

 

 

Oh, also "Money = Bad" is also in effect here.

 

Hmm, only it actually is a good argument.

 

... no?

 

 

Please, learn from Volourn how to formulate a counterpoint, then come back.

 

You mean, pick any random two options of bold, italic and underline and apply it to the whole post?

[Bryy]

Did BioWare's skin turn green upon touching money? Did they cackle? 

[Wolfenbarg]

They're all Salarians now.

[Bryy]

I hear Dr. Ray is the new bad guy on Once Upon A Time.