So DA:I will have stronghold and crafting too

[PrimeJunta]

:must: :resist: :arguing: :with: :volly: ... :fail:

 

Of course it's illogical. Human emotions aren't always logical, and enjoying something has to do with emotion, not logic.

 

You know what ruined the original Star Wars trilogy for me? Which I really, really, really liked?

 

Midichlorians. 

 

Now that they told me what the Force is, the mystery is ruined. Luke and Leia are just individuals with a peculiar blood chart. I can no longer enjoy those films the same way as I did before.

 

I didn't particularly care for ME, so I can't say the same is true for that trilogy. I just finished ME2 as a matter of fact and I quite liked it for the cinematics and enjoyable popamole gameplay--I just feel that it's a missed opportunity because it could have been so much better with deeper and more consistent worldbuilding and plot. Especially as BioWare clearly does have the talent: the dialog was, for the most part, very well written and there was some good story and plotting there too, especially Mordin's story arc. If they cared, they could do so much better.

[BruceVC]

Still doesn't make sense. ME1 is still a complete game. The story ends.  Your experience with playuing it hasn't changed. If you enjoyed it you enjoyed. One's perception of ME3 shouldn't change that (personally ME) is one of very few BIO games I could not finish).

 

\I'll take another approach.  On tv, people tend to bash entire series because the last season sucked. It does not compute as if you enjoyed the earlier seasons those are still there to be enjoyed.

 

I hate to seem to be agreeing with Volo on this because he may be trolling but I do see his point around TV series and the possible similarity around games

 

Take the series Lost, for years people loved and were addicted to it but then after the last episode they suddenly didn't like how the saga ended and that became the talking point and a negative. Instead of all the good things in the previous years and it does seem unreasonable

 

But I suppose its not a good analogy to compare games to TV series as in a game you can spend dozens of hours immersing yourself in a particular part of series and if its bad it can really taint your perspective of the entire experience, like DA 2 did for many people ?

[Volourn]

But, that would nullify's  Redneck's argument at the  very least since DA and DA2 are two seperate stories.

[Karkarov]

Still doesn't make sense. ME1 is still a complete game. The story ends.  Your experience with playuing it hasn't changed. If you enjoyed it you enjoyed. One's perception of ME3 shouldn't change that (personally ME) is one of very few BIO games I could not finish).

 

\I'll take another approach.  On tv, people tend to bash entire series because the last season sucked. It does not compute as if you enjoyed the earlier seasons those are still there to be enjoyed.

Right there.  Mass Effect 1 is it's own stand alone game.  Yes the story clearly was meant to continue but it didn't "have" to.  It was the last game Bioware made before the EA acquisition and I dare it is probably the best game they ever made as far as I am concerned.  It definitely has the best villain they ever came up with in the form of Saren.

[archangel979]

I still find both Irenicus and Sarevok more interesting than Saren. Best thing about ME1 was the reveal about Saren not being the big bad behind everything and where you character is not a demigod or chosen by Force but just a human that is so motivated he manages to become the first Specter. Those are two things that stood out in ME in addition to an interesting SF settings that is a mix of ST, SW and some others. 

[Karkarov]

I still find both Irenicus and Sarevok more interesting than Saren. Best thing about ME1 was the reveal about Saren not being the big bad behind everything and where you character is not a demigod or chosen by Force but just a human that is so motivated he manages to become the first Specter. Those are two things that stood out in ME in addition to an interesting SF settings that is a mix of ST, SW and some others. 

Bioware didn't make Baldur's Gate, Black Isle did.  There are tons of game companies out there who claim to be "by the makers of (or minds behind) Baldur's Gate", these days Bioware doesn't even need an introduction and if they did they would say "The people who made Mass Effect".

 

I am not trying to be a jerk here and honestly I like your post, I just want to be clear Bioware didn't make Sarevok or Irenicus.  I still feel Saren is a better enemy than either, though it is a close thing with Irenicus.

Edited August 5, 2014 by Karkarov

[Volourn]

"Bioware didn't make Baldur's Gate, Black Isle did."

 

"I just want to be clear Bioware didn't make Sarevok or Irenicus. "

 

 

HAHAHAHAHA!

 

 

hahahaha!

 

 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

[Stun]

Bioware didn't make Baldur's Gate, Black Isle did. There are tons of game companies out there who claim to be "by the makers of (or minds behind) Baldur's Gate", these days Bioware doesn't even need an introduction and if they did they would say "The people who made Mass Effect".

 

I am not trying to be a jerk here and honestly I like your post, I just want to be clear Bioware didn't make Sarevok or Irenicus. I still feel Saren is a better enemy than either, though it is a close thing with Irenicus.

^Assigning accurate development credit for the BG games is indeed a convoluted task with a crap ton of technicalities and semantics that can actually mean something. The truth is that Bioware and Black Isle worked together on those games.

 

But credit belongs to Bioware for Irenicus. Completely and utterly. Luke Kristjanson wrote him. And he was on Bioware's staff and payroll when he did.

Edited August 5, 2014 by Stun

[Volourn]

BIS was just the publisher. BIO was the developer. They made the game. BIS did no more responsible for 'making' BG  as LA was for KOTOR or MS was for ME. Or for the Obsidian fanboys as Sega was for AP.

 

Do people know the difference between publisher and developer? It's not convoluted. BIO  gets 100% development credit while BIS/Interplay gets 100% publishing credit.

 

 

Again, since the ignorant are out full force, BIS 'worked' on BG the same way  MS worked on JE  or  Sega worked on AP. As in NOT AT ALL except in the publishing way.

 

Not convuted. Not  'crap ton' of technicalities. Not semnatics.

 

 

LMAO 2014 And, people still can't understand the publisher-developer relationship.

 

We should give 'credit' to Activision for 'making' BL or Bethesda for 'making' FO:NV as well.

 

 

R00fles!

Edited August 5, 2014 by Volourn

[Stun]

BIS was just the publisher.

Interplay was the publisher.

[Volourn]

BIS was. They were a division of Interplay and they were the 'official' publisher of the BG games *and* they also DEVELOPED the IWD and PST games using BIO's IE.

[Hiro Protagonist II]

Bioware didn't make Baldur's Gate, Black Isle did. 

 

That's a first for me. Bioware did make Baldur's Gate.

[Stun]

BIS was. They were a division of Interplay and they were the 'official' publisher of the BG games *and* they also DEVELOPED the IWD and PST games using BIO's IE.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Interplay_games Edited August 5, 2014 by Stun

[Volourn]

You just proved my point. BIO developed  the BG games with BIS/Interplay publishing them. Why are you still arguing facts? It's best to go back to the opinion based discussion of who is the 'better' villain between Irenicus, Saren, and Sarevok 'cause that be thrown in 'it's just an opinion, man' pile.

 

But, the whole  who made BG thing is not opinion. It's fact. BIO developed  BG, and BIS/Interplay published it. Period.

 

Why continue embarassing yourself?

[Lephys]

For what it's worth, Stun:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Isle_Studios#Published

 

If you trust Wikipedia on this, then you should probably read that page, under the "Published:" heading.

[Karkarov]

Why continue embarassing yourself?

Well one could say the same to you since you are going a bit off the deep end being an ass.  I will be a adult and say I was wrong about the development credits.  It doesn't change the fact that Modern Bioware has almost none of the same people working for it as worked on BG, or that they as a company do not associate themselves specifically with BG though many other developers do.  Nor does it change my opinion about who is or is not the better villain.

[Stun]

For what it's worth, Stun:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Isle_Studios#Published

 

If you trust Wikipedia on this, then you should probably read that page, under the "Published:" heading.

Like I said, we go into the technical. And the semantics. Your link also says this:

 

Founding[edit]

 

Created in 1996 by Feargus Urquhart, the studio was named Black Isle after Urquhart's homeland. The studio, although credited for the creation of Fallout was, in fact, not responsible for the game, but rather a key portion of the original studio came from the team that made Fallout. When developing Fallout 2, the studio's first official game, several employees left Interplay to form Troika Games after they "were unable to come to an agreement with Interplay as to how [their] next team should be structured."[6] The remaining team would go on to release such critically acclaimed games as Fallout 2, Planescape: Torment, Icewind Dale and produce the critically acclaimed Baldur's Gate and Baldur's Gate II: Shadows of Amn in conjunction with BioWare.

 

In addition to publishing, they shared production of the BG games with Bioware.

Edited August 5, 2014 by Stun

[Volourn]

Producing is publishing. BIO is the developer. BIS/Interplay is the publisher. It's not semantics. Whya re you so ignorant of the differences between publishing and developing.

 

If you noticed they seperated FO2/PST/IWD  which BIS actually developed from the BG series which is the series they published aka 'produced'.

 

LMAO

 

But, hey, Sega 'produced' AP and therefore 'made' it the same way BIS made PST. Come on. You must be a troll.This isn't opinion. It's not technical. It's not semantics. BIO 'made' aka developed BG. BIS/interplay published aka produced BG. HUGE difference.

 

 Their relationship with BIO was no different than any publisher that has a relationship with any developer.

[Stun]

Producing is publishing.

Really? So Adam Brenneke is the Lead Publisher of PoE? Edited August 5, 2014 by Stun

[Volourn]

  And, I guess when they say it's being mass produced it means the developer is doing it? Come on. It's just a title. Then again, we all know you are trolling. BIO made BG. theya re the developer. BIS/interplay are the publisher. This is fact. No amount of lying  and trolling by you will change that.

 

But, hey, Obsidian didn't make FO:NV. that was Bethesda. L0LZ

[John Forseti]

[Infiltrator_SF]

Why does this thread even exist? DA:I will have feature X? It's like saying watch out Ferrari, the guys over at Pontiac will have a transmission system too!.. I mean who gives a flying f? The games are completely different and tailored towards different audiences, for all that's worth, PoE has more stuff in common with old RPG shooters like System Shock 2 and Deus Ex than it does with the "next" gen RPGs. And that's a really good thing too.

 

The Bioware we used to love is long gone, nothing but a shell remains of it.

[Stun]

And, I guess when they say it's being mass produced it means the developer is doing it? Come on.

Volourn, they said BIS produced the BG games in conjunction with Bioware. Are you going to argue that Bioware had a hand in the publishing?

[Volourn]

You are being stupid. BIO developed BG. BIS/Interplay published it. This is fact.  Why are you so ignorant and trollish? LMAO

 

BIO did the engine, the game play, the writing, the characters, and everything else a developer does.  BIS/interplay hired them to make a game, paid for the voice over work, music, mass produced the disks, and did generla publishing work as a publisher is supposed to do.

 

Special shoutout to FU, though, for suggesting BIO use their RTS engine to make a DnD game (mostly because BIS/interplayed had been epic fails with the DnD license until BIO came in and showed them how it is supposed to be done.).

 

 

R00fles!

 

How much more trolling are you gonna do? I've been doing this for decades. I'm gonna win since 1'm 100% right and anyone who deals in facts know I am.

Edited August 5, 2014 by Volourn

[Stun]

You are being stupid. BIO developed BG. BIS/Interplay published it. This is fact.  Why are you so ignorant and trollish? LMAO

I know I'm going to regret trying to turn this into a serious discussion, but here goes.

 

The fact that Bioware Developed the game and Bis/Interplay published it, does not mean those roles were strictly exclusive. They weren't. In Fact, one need only Play BG2 to flat out *see* Black Isle's actual design property/assets being directly used in it.

 

BG2 features unaltered use of:

 

1)IWD's ( ie. Black Isle studio's) Goblins and Goblin Animations, Skeleton warriors and their animations, Mareliths, Fire Giants, Salamanders, as well as human animations, which were different from BG1's

2) IWD's (ie. Black Isle Studio's) Casting sound sets (male and female), which again, were different than BG1s.

3) IWD's (ie. Black Isle studio's) Weapons and weapon lore

 

This is business. You don't just borrow assets from another company and not give them credit.

Edited August 5, 2014 by Stun