How can Bioware repair it's rep? Can it really be repaired?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NEXT
 

TheLizardKing:

alphamalet:
What could Bioware do?
Stop trying to appeal to a "broader audience".
Problem solved.

This. This is the reason why video games have become progressively shitter over the years. Nobody has the balls to stand up, instead of just saying "if you don't like it then don't play hurr durr".

...If you don't like it, and don't play it, and enough people follow your example, that gets the message across to the company better than ranting about it on message boards. It's not exactly "standing up" when you are just typing on a message board about how much such-and-such game sucks, and how games nowadays suck. It just makes you look bitter.

cjspyres:
Contrary to what most people want (Kotor 3), I really want Jade Empire 2. Don't get me wrong, I freaking love KOTOR, but I just really want to see a JE sequel. I think this announcement would interest a lot of people and draw away from the mess that ME3 left behind. Just my opinion though.

They did announce Jade Empire 2...

Diddy_Mao:

Still...maybe step away from the dialogue wheels, morality systems and awkward romances.

What are you proposing? stop making rpg's altogether? or a different dialogue interface... etc.

Make an awesome Dragon Age 3.
That would do me just fine or better yet, create a whole new game! Maybe something in a modern setting?

I'm not too worried about it. Bioware has still made some of my favorite games and ME3 wasn't, in my opinion, a bad game. The ending was weak, yeah, but it didn't diminish what was to me a great action game with a lackluster story. I still think they came out ahead, and I don't think the "fuck Bioware forever" attitude truly exists beyond a certain lunatic fringe (No offense sincerely intended).

If I go to McDonald's and they give me a crappy hamburger, I'm not going to boycott them forever, unless perhaps it made me ill, and Mass Effect didn't make me ill, it just left a slightly bad taste in my mouth. Perhaps the "cook" was just having an off day.

I'm still playing the multiplayer which, much to my own surprise, has made my purchase worthwhile on its own.

Everyone makes mistakes, but honestly I think the mistakes were less Bioware mistakes and more EA mistakes. Papa EA's paying for the games, and you gotta give them what they want when they want it. Sad truth.

Hornet0404:

Oh for Pete's sake.

Westwood killed themselves. And to be honest I'm getting kind of tired of the free ride Westwood gets. Sure they made C&C but one of the most popular C&C games ever made (Red Alert 2) wasn't even made by Westwood, not to mention the fact that Westwood had begun three projects two of which turned into moneysinks with NO prospect of EVER turning a profit and the third (or first) which was C&C Renegade was a sales failure.

To be frank if I was Westwoods boss I'd have sacked them too.

I think you've got your history mixed up. EA (and their reputation) destroyed most of Westwood's projects after they were acquired. Half the division quit in protest after being bought by EA in 1998.

Nox (a project three years in the making) was intended to be a multiplayer fantasy battle game. It that was taken over by EA and turned into a single-player RPG. Despite the game's great critical/commercial reception, the company lost the IP rights to EA, who immediately shut down the game's servers and cancelled plans for an expansion and sequel.

C&C Renegade was put into development by EA over the objections of the development staff. The game itself was plagued with development problems, missed several shipping dates and was heavily criticized for straying from the series' roots. When Westwood tried to salvage the whole thing with Tiberium Sun, the production was derailed by senior management that kept trying to one-up everyone else's work, and nothing got done as a result (being canceled five years later).

EA also forced WW to change Tiberium Twilight into a full-blown sequel to Tiberium Wars, screwing up the game mechanics in the process.

People complain about EA's treatment of its divisions because there is a lot of precedent for their misgivings and meddling. This isn't just some one-off instance - every developer acquired by EA has either gone under or has been significantly homogenized by the publisher. Almost every franchise besides Medal of Honor and Battlefield has been mismanaged, changed into something else entirely and then taken out behind the woodshed to have a quiet death. The same thing is happening to Bioware with the whole F2P craze.

mrdude2010:

Rooster Cogburn:
I'm talking primarily about Shepard being killed and then brought back to life. But you know how it is, everything is a set up or a pay off for everything else. I agree the attack itself was awesome. But the whole time I was thinking "huh, what are you going to do for the whole game instead of flying around in the Normandy?" But then you just get another one. Um, OK? It's like none of this could be worked into the story but they just said "fuck it" and did it anyway. Shepard dies, comes back to life. Normandy dies, comes back to life. So why don't we just skip the whole intro? I mean who is going to miss it?

I think it was to bring Cerberus into the story in a meaningful way where Shephard could conceivably view them as allies. I mean, them saving his life specifically because they agree with him about the Reapers is pretty much the only thing I could see getting him to be on their side.

I think you're right. But they didn't save his life, they brought him back from the dead. It's not like Bioware was trying to come up with a reason for Shepard to ally with Cerberus and the conversation ended with: "So it's settled. There's just no reason to establish an uneasy alliance with anyone who hasn't brought you back from the dead." It's really bizarre to write something like that into a story for no reason. Shepard becoming a pariah and working with Cerberus is another complaint I have. It's fine by itself, but it does not flow from the events of the first game and feels like an attempt to set the story back to zero. Second verse, same as the first.

Devoneaux:
I don't mind Shepard dying and then being rebuilt. (I guess they really did have the technology..Heh) The ship however I will agree with.It's like they want to have a big dramatic opening but they kinda cop out on it for the sake of continuing the story. I feel at least with a different ship or some kind of sever crippling injury on Shepard might have solved this.

I was really surprised there wasn't at least a token suggestion that blowing up the freaking Normandy would have some impact on something.

thebobmaster:

TheLizardKing:
This. This is the reason why video games have become progressively shitter over the years. Nobody has the balls to stand up, instead of just saying "if you don't like it then don't play hurr durr".

...If you don't like it, and don't play it, and enough people follow your example, that gets the message across to the company better than ranting about it on message boards. It's not exactly "standing up" when you are just typing on a message board about how much such-and-such game sucks, and how games nowadays suck. It just makes you look bitter.

By "ranting about it on message boards" I assume you mean "criticizing it". Nothing bitter about that. The problem with the mantra "don't like it, don't play it" and all it's variations is they are garbage. Criticizing a game and not playing it are not mutually exclusive states. Conversely, I can play a game, like it, and criticize it all at the same time. I am not made of magic, anyone can do this. No shit I don't play games I don't like. When someone says "Don't like Battletoads? Don't play it." the precise meaning of this statement is "Don't criticize Battletoads." And to that I say, "lol no".

Leonardo Chaves:

Diddy_Mao:

Still...maybe step away from the dialogue wheels, morality systems and awkward romances.

What are you proposing? stop making rpg's altogether? or a different dialogue interface... etc.

None of those things are RPG staples, just Bioware staples. So I assume he's looking for Bioware to keep making RPGs but mix it up a bit.

Personally, I think they need to drop the Paragon/Renegade thing and moral clarity in general like a hot potato. So you want me to choose how to act in morally or practically challenging situations. But at the same time, you want me to make choices that reinforce a character's personality. Which is it? Am I making choices that are difficult for me as a player or am I crafting my character's personality? Because I can't do both at the same time. I think they should stick to the former. It would be nice if I had to struggle to make my choice, rather than knowing which I am going to pick before I even find out what my choices are.

I thought they were learning when I heard Dragon Age: Origins would not have a Paragon/Renegade scale. But nope, the choices are still clearly identifiable on the scale from 'noble' to 'dick move'. So I'm not making choices so much as clicking on the thing that my specific character is supposed to click on. BOOORIIING.

This alone makes me think Bioware's talent is overrated because it demonstrates a lack of understanding of or at least an unwillingness to commit to their games' core appeal.

I thought they already did with the extended cut?

I still like em' anyways. But I would rather like a KOTOR 3 or Jade Empire 2.

As far as I'm concerned, they never lost any rep.

For myself personally it can't I will just have to wave goodbye to another good company EA has killed in order to sustain itself. Though I am also getting tired of talking about BioWare, their quality had been slipping from Dragon Age Origins Awakening onward, hell should have taken them as warning flags.

At any rate it just means all EA games go in the pile with Ubisoft and Activision-Blizzard titles in the never buy again section. There are plenty of other games to play, most of them free and arguably better.

Rooster Cogburn:

Leonardo Chaves:

Diddy_Mao:

Still...maybe step away from the dialogue wheels, morality systems and awkward romances.

What are you proposing? stop making rpg's altogether? or a different dialogue interface... etc.

None of those things are RPG staples, just Bioware staples. So I assume he's looking for Bioware to keep making RPGs but mix it up a bit.

Personally, I think they need to drop the Paragon/Renegade thing and moral clarity in general like a hot potato. So you want me to choose how to act in morally or practically challenging situations. But at the same time, you want me to make choices that reinforce a character's personality. Which is it? Am I making choices that are difficult for me as a player or am I crafting my character's personality? Because I can't do both at the same time. I think they should stick to the former. It would be nice if I had to struggle to make my choice, rather than knowing which I am going to pick before I even find out what my choices are.

I thought they were learning when I heard Dragon Age: Origins would not have a Paragon/Renegade scale. But nope, the choices are still clearly identifiable on the scale from 'noble' to 'dick move'. So I'm not making choices so much as clicking on the thing that my specific character is supposed to click on. BOOORIIING.

This alone makes me think Bioware's talent is overrated because it demonstrates a lack of understanding of or at least an unwillingness to commit to their games' core appeal.

I find that it helps to project your own personality onto Shepard or whoever, but then that kind of defeats the purpose of Roleplaying so you can't really win. I think i've said it already, but for a game that I actually had fun with solely as a game, with the strongest game mechanics we've ever seen in the series, it saddens me that it's overshadowed by Bioware's failure to deliver in terms of the main plot. It's not really even much of a plot, it's just Shepard commiting tons of time and resources into building some space microphone that he has no idea what it does or how it works or if it even works at all. That's no plan of action, that's just betting it all on black and hoping for the best.

Rooster Cogburn:

mrdude2010:

Rooster Cogburn:
I'm talking primarily about Shepard being killed and then brought back to life. But you know how it is, everything is a set up or a pay off for everything else. I agree the attack itself was awesome. But the whole time I was thinking "huh, what are you going to do for the whole game instead of flying around in the Normandy?" But then you just get another one. Um, OK? It's like none of this could be worked into the story but they just said "fuck it" and did it anyway. Shepard dies, comes back to life. Normandy dies, comes back to life. So why don't we just skip the whole intro? I mean who is going to miss it?

I think it was to bring Cerberus into the story in a meaningful way where Shephard could conceivably view them as allies. I mean, them saving his life specifically because they agree with him about the Reapers is pretty much the only thing I could see getting him to be on their side.

I think you're right. But they didn't save his life, they brought him back from the dead. It's not like Bioware was trying to come up with a reason for Shepard to ally with Cerberus and the conversation ended with: "So it's settled. There's just no reason to establish an uneasy alliance with anyone who hasn't brought you back from the dead." It's really bizarre to write something like that into a story for no reason. Shepard becoming a pariah and working with Cerberus is another complaint I have. It's fine by itself, but it does not flow from the events of the first game and feels like an attempt to set the story back to zero. Second verse, same as the first.

Devoneaux:
I don't mind Shepard dying and then being rebuilt. (I guess they really did have the technology..Heh) The ship however I will agree with.It's like they want to have a big dramatic opening but they kinda cop out on it for the sake of continuing the story. I feel at least with a different ship or some kind of sever crippling injury on Shepard might have solved this.

I was really surprised there wasn't at least a token suggestion that blowing up the freaking Normandy would have some impact on something.

thebobmaster:

TheLizardKing:
This. This is the reason why video games have become progressively shitter over the years. Nobody has the balls to stand up, instead of just saying "if you don't like it then don't play hurr durr".

...If you don't like it, and don't play it, and enough people follow your example, that gets the message across to the company better than ranting about it on message boards. It's not exactly "standing up" when you are just typing on a message board about how much such-and-such game sucks, and how games nowadays suck. It just makes you look bitter.

By "ranting about it on message boards" I assume you mean "criticizing it". Nothing bitter about that. The problem with the mantra "don't like it, don't play it" and all it's variations is they are garbage. Criticizing a game and not playing it are not mutually exclusive states. Conversely, I can play a game, like it, and criticize it all at the same time. I am not made of magic, anyone can do this. No shit I don't play games I don't like. When someone says "Don't like Battletoads? Don't play it." the precise meaning of this statement is "Don't criticize Battletoads." And to that I say, "lol no".

Don't get me wrong. I have no issues with people not liking, or criticizing, games that I enjoy. I find it quite interesting to debate the flaws that other people find in the games I play, flaws I may not realize. Where it crosses the line is when people directly insult the players of the game, basically calling them idiots, which is exactly what TheLizardKing was doing. And saying all games that are released now are shit is a bit narrow-minded as well.

To put it more simply, criticism is all right, if you back it up with something. But if you are going to run around saying that all games are getting shittier, and that people are idiots for simply saying "don't like it, don't play", expect to get called out on it.

Starts a new IP, that was you cant piss anyone off by ruining an already loved series. If you absolutely HAVE to make a Dragon Age III for God's sake make it about the characters and story, good characters and story mind you.

How can they repair my faith in Bioware?

A few ways.

1) Break away from EA and work again as an independent developer/provider.
2) Make games that reflected their old ones that I fell in love with. I don't mean a carbon copy or cheep copy-pasta but genuine new IPs or sequels to games they made.

Those two so far would easily make me take them more seriously again and end my boycott to buy from them. EA however will NEVER regain or even receive any good will from me EVER.

Devoneaux:

Rooster Cogburn:

Leonardo Chaves:

What are you proposing? stop making rpg's altogether? or a different dialogue interface... etc.

None of those things are RPG staples, just Bioware staples. So I assume he's looking for Bioware to keep making RPGs but mix it up a bit.

Personally, I think they need to drop the Paragon/Renegade thing and moral clarity in general like a hot potato. So you want me to choose how to act in morally or practically challenging situations. But at the same time, you want me to make choices that reinforce a character's personality. Which is it? Am I making choices that are difficult for me as a player or am I crafting my character's personality? Because I can't do both at the same time. I think they should stick to the former. It would be nice if I had to struggle to make my choice, rather than knowing which I am going to pick before I even find out what my choices are.

I thought they were learning when I heard Dragon Age: Origins would not have a Paragon/Renegade scale. But nope, the choices are still clearly identifiable on the scale from 'noble' to 'dick move'. So I'm not making choices so much as clicking on the thing that my specific character is supposed to click on. BOOORIIING.

This alone makes me think Bioware's talent is overrated because it demonstrates a lack of understanding of or at least an unwillingness to commit to their games' core appeal.

I find that it helps to project your own personality onto Shepard or whoever, but then that kind of defeats the purpose of Roleplaying so you can't really win. I think i've said it already, but for a game that I actually had fun with solely as a game, with the strongest game mechanics we've ever seen in the series, it saddens me that it's overshadowed by Bioware's failure to deliver in terms of the main plot. It's not really even much of a plot, it's just Shepard commiting tons of time and resources into building some space microphone that he has no idea what it does or how it works or if it even works at all. That's no plan of action, that's just betting it all on black and hoping for the best.

Bioware should invite players to project their own personality onto Commander Shepard if they take my advice. Projecting your personality onto Shepard is still roleplaying, just with a different angle. I wish they would realize what distinguishes them from games like, say, Skyrim from a roleplaying perspective. Skyrim invites you to to live out the escape of being, say, a noble knight or an evil necromancer. To internalize that character. By promising choices that matter to you as a player, Bioware is inviting you to enter another world just as you are. Trying to shove elements of internalization onto that format is a big mistake. Making choices from the perspective of someone else, like an evil necromancer, is not an exhilarating exercise. Choices are exciting when they are challenging to me personally. Fallout: New Vegas gives you lots of choices, but they are not experienced as moral or practical challenges for the player him/herself but opportunities to define your character through their actions. Like, you weren't intended to be overly worried about what may result if you picked one faction over another. You were making choices with consequences for the world of the game, which is the big draw in that case.

I agree about the nonsense story, but as I have established I had long given up by that point lol.

still enjoying ME (just about to complete a new runthrough with my first tec Shep, who waited two games to date the only man for him!)

Yeah I was in the "I don't like the ending" crowd, but I'm happy with the Extended Ending, and will wait to see what they come up with for the DLC.

Rooster Cogburn:

Devoneaux:

Rooster Cogburn:
None of those things are RPG staples, just Bioware staples. So I assume he's looking for Bioware to keep making RPGs but mix it up a bit.

Personally, I think they need to drop the Paragon/Renegade thing and moral clarity in general like a hot potato. So you want me to choose how to act in morally or practically challenging situations. But at the same time, you want me to make choices that reinforce a character's personality. Which is it? Am I making choices that are difficult for me as a player or am I crafting my character's personality? Because I can't do both at the same time. I think they should stick to the former. It would be nice if I had to struggle to make my choice, rather than knowing which I am going to pick before I even find out what my choices are.

I thought they were learning when I heard Dragon Age: Origins would not have a Paragon/Renegade scale. But nope, the choices are still clearly identifiable on the scale from 'noble' to 'dick move'. So I'm not making choices so much as clicking on the thing that my specific character is supposed to click on. BOOORIIING.

This alone makes me think Bioware's talent is overrated because it demonstrates a lack of understanding of or at least an unwillingness to commit to their games' core appeal.

I find that it helps to project your own personality onto Shepard or whoever, but then that kind of defeats the purpose of Roleplaying so you can't really win. I think i've said it already, but for a game that I actually had fun with solely as a game, with the strongest game mechanics we've ever seen in the series, it saddens me that it's overshadowed by Bioware's failure to deliver in terms of the main plot. It's not really even much of a plot, it's just Shepard commiting tons of time and resources into building some space microphone that he has no idea what it does or how it works or if it even works at all. That's no plan of action, that's just betting it all on black and hoping for the best.

Bioware should invite players to project their own personality onto Commander Shepard if they take my advice. Projecting your personality onto Shepard is still roleplaying, just with a different angle. I wish they would realize what distinguishes them from games like, say, Skyrim from a roleplaying perspective. Skyrim invites you to to live out the escape of being, say, a noble knight or an evil necromancer. To internalize that character. By promising choices that matter to you as a player, Bioware is inviting you to enter another world just as you are. Trying to shove elements of internalization onto that format is a big mistake. Making choices from the perspective of someone else, like an evil necromancer, is not an exhilarating exercise. Choices are exciting when they are challenging to me personally.

I agree about the nonsense story, but as I have established I had long given up by that point lol.

I find that certain points (Which were incidentally the high points for me lol) in the game actually kinda did this involuntarily such as the Geth/Quarian conflict where you are forced to pick between the Geth and Quarians. I actually thought the extra option for saving both was kind of a cop out, because it offered a no-lose scenario. Over all I see what you're saying and I would definitely love to see more of this.

putowtin:
still enjoying ME (just about to complete a new runthrough with my first tec Shep, who waited two games to date the only man for him!)

It's Garrus, isn't it.

It's always Garrus.

Devoneaux:
I find that certain points (Which were incidentally the high points for me lol) in the game actually kinda did this involuntarily such as the Geth/Quarian conflict where you are forced to pick between the Geth and Quarians. I actually thought the extra option for saving both was kind of a cop out, because it offered a no-lose scenario. Over all I see what you're saying and I would definitely love to see more of this.

I'm glad I was able to make my thoughts discernible and I'm glad you think it's a good idea. I totally agree about the no lose scenario. I think they gave you that option to provide a middle ground option or a Paragon option. This makes sense if you are crafting a character or a world-space but it does not create a challenging choice for the player. That's a great example of what I'm banging on about lol.

thebobmaster:

Rooster Cogburn:
By "ranting about it on message boards" I assume you mean "criticizing it". Nothing bitter about that. The problem with the mantra "don't like it, don't play it" and all it's variations is they are garbage. Criticizing a game and not playing it are not mutually exclusive states. Conversely, I can play a game, like it, and criticize it all at the same time. I am not made of magic, anyone can do this. No shit I don't play games I don't like. When someone says "Don't like Battletoads? Don't play it." the precise meaning of this statement is "Don't criticize Battletoads." And to that I say, "lol no".

Don't get me wrong. I have no issues with people not liking, or criticizing, games that I enjoy. I find it quite interesting to debate the flaws that other people find in the games I play, flaws I may not realize. Where it crosses the line is when people directly insult the players of the game, basically calling them idiots, which is exactly what TheLizardKing was doing. And saying all games that are released now are shit is a bit narrow-minded as well.

To put it more simply, criticism is all right, if you back it up with something. But if you are going to run around saying that all games are getting shittier, and that people are idiots for simply saying "don't like it, don't play", expect to get called out on it.

He didn't say all new games are shit, he identified a trend in new games. One that to me seems inescapably obvious. Idiotic is harsh, but "don't like it, don't play it" is always a bad argument.

Rooster Cogburn:

Devoneaux:
I find that certain points (Which were incidentally the high points for me lol) in the game actually kinda did this involuntarily such as the Geth/Quarian conflict where you are forced to pick between the Geth and Quarians. I actually thought the extra option for saving both was kind of a cop out, because it offered a no-lose scenario. Over all I see what you're saying and I would definitely love to see more of this.

I'm glad I was able to make my thoughts discernible and I'm glad you think it's a good idea. I totally agree about the no lose scenario. I think they gave you that option to provide a middle ground option or a Paragon option. This makes sense if you are crafting a character or a world-space but it does not create a challenging choice for the player. That's a great example of what I'm banging on about lol.

thebobmaster:

Rooster Cogburn:
By "ranting about it on message boards" I assume you mean "criticizing it". Nothing bitter about that. The problem with the mantra "don't like it, don't play it" and all it's variations is they are garbage. Criticizing a game and not playing it are not mutually exclusive states. Conversely, I can play a game, like it, and criticize it all at the same time. I am not made of magic, anyone can do this. No shit I don't play games I don't like. When someone says "Don't like Battletoads? Don't play it." the precise meaning of this statement is "Don't criticize Battletoads." And to that I say, "lol no".

Don't get me wrong. I have no issues with people not liking, or criticizing, games that I enjoy. I find it quite interesting to debate the flaws that other people find in the games I play, flaws I may not realize. Where it crosses the line is when people directly insult the players of the game, basically calling them idiots, which is exactly what TheLizardKing was doing. And saying all games that are released now are shit is a bit narrow-minded as well.

To put it more simply, criticism is all right, if you back it up with something. But if you are going to run around saying that all games are getting shittier, and that people are idiots for simply saying "don't like it, don't play", expect to get called out on it.

He didn't say all new games are shit, he identified a trend in new games. One that to me seems inescapably obvious. Idiotic is harsh, but "don't like it, don't play it" is always a bad argument.

Actually, he did say that new games were worse. Here's an exact quote. "This is the reason why video games have become progressively shitter over the years." I can see where you are coming from, but his entire argument was not backed up by anything other than saying that the "don't like, don't play" people are idiots.

I am one of the people who claim to have lost complete interest in the Mass effect franchise after the ending. Although the Extended Cut seemed to appease fans and provide more clarity, I still don't see this as a good sign. DA 3 will have to either be the final nail in the coffin, or else the beginning of a turning point before everyone abandons them altogether.

thebobmaster:
Actually, he did say that new games were worse. Here's an exact quote. "This is the reason why video games have become progressively shitter over the years." I can see where you are coming from, but his entire argument was not backed up by anything other than saying that the "don't like, don't play" people are idiots.

Right, new games are worse. Like, in general. Not all new video games. Those aren't the same thing. He said video games are getting shittier and he identified a couple of causes. If you want him to explain what makes more recent titles shittier, you could just ask. There's no rule you have to justify every opinion you type.

Rooster Cogburn:

Devoneaux:

Rooster Cogburn:
None of those things are RPG staples, just Bioware staples. So I assume he's looking for Bioware to keep making RPGs but mix it up a bit.

Personally, I think they need to drop the Paragon/Renegade thing and moral clarity in general like a hot potato. So you want me to choose how to act in morally or practically challenging situations. But at the same time, you want me to make choices that reinforce a character's personality. Which is it? Am I making choices that are difficult for me as a player or am I crafting my character's personality? Because I can't do both at the same time. I think they should stick to the former. It would be nice if I had to struggle to make my choice, rather than knowing which I am going to pick before I even find out what my choices are.

I thought they were learning when I heard Dragon Age: Origins would not have a Paragon/Renegade scale. But nope, the choices are still clearly identifiable on the scale from 'noble' to 'dick move'. So I'm not making choices so much as clicking on the thing that my specific character is supposed to click on. BOOORIIING.

This alone makes me think Bioware's talent is overrated because it demonstrates a lack of understanding of or at least an unwillingness to commit to their games' core appeal.

I find that it helps to project your own personality onto Shepard or whoever, but then that kind of defeats the purpose of Roleplaying so you can't really win. I think i've said it already, but for a game that I actually had fun with solely as a game, with the strongest game mechanics we've ever seen in the series, it saddens me that it's overshadowed by Bioware's failure to deliver in terms of the main plot. It's not really even much of a plot, it's just Shepard commiting tons of time and resources into building some space microphone that he has no idea what it does or how it works or if it even works at all. That's no plan of action, that's just betting it all on black and hoping for the best.

Bioware should invite players to project their own personality onto Commander Shepard if they take my advice. Projecting your personality onto Shepard is still roleplaying, just with a different angle. I wish they would realize what distinguishes them from games like, say, Skyrim from a roleplaying perspective. Skyrim invites you to to live out the escape of being, say, a noble knight or an evil necromancer. To internalize that character. By promising choices that matter to you as a player, Bioware is inviting you to enter another world just as you are. Trying to shove elements of internalization onto that format is a big mistake. Making choices from the perspective of someone else, like an evil necromancer, is not an exhilarating exercise. Choices are exciting when they are challenging to me personally. Fallout: New Vegas gives you lots of choices, but they are not experienced as moral or practical challenges for the player him/herself but opportunities to define your character through their actions. Like, you weren't intended to be overly worried about what my result if you picked one faction over another. You were making choices with consequences for the world of the game, which is the big draw in that case.

I agree about the nonsense story, but as I have established I had long given up by that point lol.

Have you played the witcher?

They managed to make their char heavily predefined, but still managed to have meaningful choices. They did this by allowing the players to make the choices when part of his psyche was split itself and he would be forced to choice. Does geralt hunt monsters because they are evil or because he is a witcher? Is he human or Non-human?

Now Bioware hasn't really been good at this. I feel that it is an attempt to deal with a more childish part of the fanbase who want their cake and eat it to, and therefore has a negative reaction to a choice with negative consequences. That again bites them in the ass when they make it game mechanic dependent so you can only save someone if you been super nice/evil at all times. I am mature enough to handle bad consequences, but I dont speak for the entire fanbase. If we spend some time looking into it you would probably find that large part still has some growing up to do (final fantasy 7. Its not like people attempted to hack the game just to prevent a death right?).

Since we are talking ME story I want to point to what I find to be the situation.

In retrospect I have look at the games individually and as a series. Combined they could have been a master piece, but by themselves they are pretty mediocre.

Let me explain what I mean.

ME 1 hasn't got a lot going for it expect its plot. The plot is great and the chars are decent but not fully fleshed out yet. I tried playing it a second time I found that there isn't much drive to keep playing when I already know the plot. they do some setting of the world as well, but the presentation and gameplay is... acceptable at best. Most of the universe is presented through pages of text. Not the best sort of entertainment.

ME 2 didn't really have a plot. Instead it was one long setup for the universe and chars. Where we had walls of text before we now have drama helping to flesh out the chars as well as societies and races. ME 2 Showed a very intriguing setting with no right/wrong answer. You spend most of the time gathering people of questionable ethics to a super team (assasins, brutal mercs, a genetically perfected berzerker, a Psycho convict, a vigilante, a religious zealot, a professional thief and ofc a bad guy from the last game). It is a very grey tone showing how that good and bad are points of view more than absolutes. That is makes the paragon/renegade stick out even further thou. They spend most of the game setting a tone of grey, but forces the player to pick between red/blue.
The addition of the renegade/paragon events was a good concept for drawing the player in, but because of the static binary choice it became a lot less intriguing. I would like to see it applied again, but without any indicators or para/rene points. Just see if you press shoot at the right time during a cut scene the char will do something aggressive. It would provide a challenge to Bioware to make the cutscenes so personally involved for the player that they want to be doing actions by themselves.

ME 3 had even less of a plot than prior installment. It is much more of a threatrics show. We got more explosions and buildings falling over and great tearjerkers and moments of rage, yet we dont develop on the world nor do have an overarching interesting plot. If anything ME 3 draws on the establishing of previous chars and setting more than it builds on them. Chars at time seem more like fan service rather than necessary. The new chars seem stale and could have been made a lot more interesting.
Ofc with the theatrics in the highseat it is very impressive to experience. My prime example would be The scene where Shepard is talking to a downed reaper on Rannoc. It is essentially the same scene as talking to Sovereign in ME 1. he is asking more or less the same questions, he is getting more or less the same answers. The main difference being that in ME 3 the reaper is a lot more intimidating and exactly how insignificant a human is compare is presented better.

So the conclusion i come to is if Bioware were to write a solid plot and use the methods they should have learned making Me 1-3 they would have a masterpiece. Each individual installment highlights the importance of individual elements. Plot in ME 1. Setting in ME 2. Theatrics In ME 3.

Thats my opinion anyway.

VoidWanderer:

cjspyres:
Contrary to what most people want (Kotor 3), I really want Jade Empire 2. Don't get me wrong, I freaking love KOTOR, but I just really want to see a JE sequel. I think this announcement would interest a lot of people and draw away from the mess that ME3 left behind. Just my opinion though.

They did announce Jade Empire 2...

As far as I know I dont think they announced it. They just said we are not done with this Franchise.

Draech:

VoidWanderer:

cjspyres:
Contrary to what most people want (Kotor 3), I really want Jade Empire 2. Don't get me wrong, I freaking love KOTOR, but I just really want to see a JE sequel. I think this announcement would interest a lot of people and draw away from the mess that ME3 left behind. Just my opinion though.

They did announce Jade Empire 2...

As far as I know I dont think they announced it. They just said we are not done with this Franchise.

They stated 'we are waiting for the right time'. To me, that is as good as announcing it.

VoidWanderer:

Draech:

VoidWanderer:

They did announce Jade Empire 2...

As far as I know I dont think they announced it. They just said we are not done with this Franchise.

They stated 'we are waiting for the right time'. To me, that is as good as announcing it.

I really hoped you wouldn't say that because that is the real problem with internet.
It becomes a game of Chinese whispers just with hype, and developers are afraid of saying anything because it will be used against them later.

There is nothing in that statement to even suggest that even a piece of artwork exists.

Draech:

VoidWanderer:

Draech:

As far as I know I dont think they announced it. They just said we are not done with this Franchise.

They stated 'we are waiting for the right time'. To me, that is as good as announcing it.

I really hoped you wouldn't say that because that is the real problem with internet.
It becomes a game of Chinese whispers just with hype, and developers are afraid of saying anything because it will be used against them later.

There is nothing in that statement to even suggest that even a piece of artwork exists.

I am not sure if you read it, but it was in those side-line bits, which has become a surprisingly resource for tidbits and byte-sized news.

I apologize for the pun.

VoidWanderer:

Draech:

VoidWanderer:

They stated 'we are waiting for the right time'. To me, that is as good as announcing it.

I really hoped you wouldn't say that because that is the real problem with internet.
It becomes a game of Chinese whispers just with hype, and developers are afraid of saying anything because it will be used against them later.

There is nothing in that statement to even suggest that even a piece of artwork exists.

I am not sure if you read it, but it was in those side-line bits, which has become a surprisingly resource for tidbits and byte-sized news.

I apologize for the pun.

I did read it.

And it still nothing more than 'we are waiting for the right time'.

This isn't the same as announcing it. The right time may never come. If you have any info that says it is planned or something similar then yea. It is announced.

1. Make a game that isn't bad, they've haven't made a good game since ME2, imo. (I haven't played ME3 but given the bad press it sounds like it was a disappointment). DA:O was their last truly great game in my opinion, it was innovative, exceptionally well-written, so much fun. Then they shit all over it with the worst sequel ever made.

2. Tell EA to go fuck themselves with all their bullshit.(probably not going to happen) I'm of the opinion that a lot of the problems with Bioware's latest games(DA2 and SWTOR especially) can be attributed to EA.

3. Stop rehashing and be more innovative. This is my main pet-peeve. BioWare has not done anything unique or innovate since DA:O. DA2 was a mess(the opposite of innovative in fact), SWTOR was a WoW-clone that is already dying.

4. Make better moral systems, write better characters and plotlines. How has BioWares once great writing become so stagnant and boring? As early as 3 years ago I saw some of the most interesting storylines in DA:O, and even ME2.

...yes I did love Dragon Age: Origins...if you couldn't tell..

Zing:
1. Make a game that isn't bad, they've haven't made a good game since ME2, imo. (I haven't played ME3 but given the bad press it sounds like it was a disappointment). DA:O was their last truly great game in my opinion, it was innovative, exceptionally well-written, so much fun. Then they shit all over it with the worst sequel ever made.

In fact if you completelly forget the ending Mass Effect 3 is an amazing game... The only problem is the ending

Bioware was one of those companies that had a direct line into my wallet. I really did have a buy without question mentality for their games, if I owned the platform it was on I would buy the game for it.

Yet that has been damaged by Mass Effect 2, Dragon Age 2 and Mass Effect 3. Now don't get me wrong, each is a good game in its own right but each is indicative of the direction that Bioware are taking their games, whether that be from their own choices or those of their EA owners.

Now I have a question it mentality about their games. Can they get back how I previously thought about them? Yes they can but it's going to end up taking more games than it took to lose it.

If Bioware want to make action games then I'd like them to go completely that way because at the moment they don't really seem to be keeping either the action or RPG fans happy.

Talvrae:
In fact if you completelly forget the ending Mass Effect 3 is an amazing game... The only problem is the ending

And forget the amount of dialogue you have no input on, the comedy animations, dodgy lip-synch, the amount of passive "Zaeed" style conversations with your crew and other NPCs, people not looking at each other in cut-scenes, eaves-dropping side-quests, that Rannoch and Tuchanka are the only well told missions...

Yeah I'll stop I think. There is a lot more wrong with Mass Effect 3 than its endings.

Talvrae:

Zing:
1. Make a game that isn't bad, they've haven't made a good game since ME2, imo. (I haven't played ME3 but given the bad press it sounds like it was a disappointment). DA:O was their last truly great game in my opinion, it was innovative, exceptionally well-written, so much fun. Then they shit all over it with the worst sequel ever made.

In fact if you completelly forget the ending Mass Effect 3 is an amazing game... The only problem is the ending

Well I can't really comment on that, I do plan on playing it one day down the track when I have money. But tanking two huge franchises has left me quite disillusioned with the company.

Well, KOTOR 3 for a start.

I just want them to get back to what made them great and make a fresh RPG. Not an MMO, not a multiplayer shooter.
Just a solid single-player experience that isn't rushed to meet one of EA's deadlines.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked