Poll: Bioware or EA?
- Thread starter Gizmo1990
- Start date
Recommended Videos
... *sigh* DA2 is NOT an easy game and it is NOT a button masher. As I've mentioned earlier in this thread, anyone who says things like that haven't played on nightmare, because playing on nightmare difficulty and doing the optional bosses and quests isn't the walk-over you're trying to make the game out to be. Play on that difficulty, before commenting on how "easy" the game supposedly is.devotedsniper said:
Don't get me wrong, I can see plenty of flaws in the game, reused dungeons, unnecessary retcons and a somewhat disjointed(but not necessarily bad) story, but the game is nowhere near as horrible as people make it out to be and gets/have gotten way too much hate. And this is coming from someone who loved DA:O and have played through it multiple times with 160+ hours spent in game.
I'm not trying to attack you, so please don't take it the wrong way, but I'm just tired of seeing unnecessary and unfounded critism of the game. Bioware has taken some questionable decisions regarding the game, but the gameplay is still great and challenging like DA:O.
EA is to blame for most of the problems of Mass Effect 2, but I still loved it. Haven't gotten around to DA2, so I can't comment on that.
Assuming we're talking about gameplay and story then I voted Bioware, but I don't necessarily think "blame" is the right term.
With respect to ME2 (I haven't played DA2), I think the development team made the changes with the genuine intention of creating a better game based on feedback from ME1 players. Maybe they went too far on a few counts but in terms of story and gameplay I think it's drawing a pretty long bow to "blame" EA.
The explosion of DLC compared to the first game and the amount of money we were charged for it, on the other hand... yeah, that I'm more willing to pin on EA.
With respect to ME2 (I haven't played DA2), I think the development team made the changes with the genuine intention of creating a better game based on feedback from ME1 players. Maybe they went too far on a few counts but in terms of story and gameplay I think it's drawing a pretty long bow to "blame" EA.
The explosion of DLC compared to the first game and the amount of money we were charged for it, on the other hand... yeah, that I'm more willing to pin on EA.
I'm the same, I think its a small difference, but the mechanics, rpg elements and story of the first were superior, so I give ME2 9.5/10 and ME1 10/10Gizmo1990 said:
I would say its coming from EA. And I personally after ME3, will probably never pay EA any more money again, nor activision, nor ubisoft, gee I'm running out of game companies!Gizmo1990 said:
Not until EA change their ways, and the only way they will is when people stop supporting their stupidity.
It's funny. I actually enjoyed DA2, but when I talk to someone else about it, I can only think of the negative. ME2 on the other hand was the first game I actually got 100% with on the hardest difficulty. ME1 just felt clunky, but the story kept me going. As for EA or Bioware? The bulk of the blame falls on EA, but Bioware needs to step up and demand more control over their product.
I can see what your saying and in a way it's valid but when you can button bash your way through it on medium-hard (i forget which i played it through) where on origins i found myself needing to use tactics, it's a step down in my eyes. P.S i never claimed the game was easy i claimed they made it easier to control for console making it worse when you consider origins was very tactical (you could tell it was designed for mouse/keyboard), now making a game easier to control for a platform isn't a bad thing, it's just i don't know, the way they did it seemed to kill the pc gamer aspect of it for me anyway (kind of like turning command and conquer into a shooter would be a good example, because esentially you take away a part of the game which made it command and conquer).Sp3ratus said:
Either way i'll most likely always hate it considering it's the sequel to a game known for going back to the roots of RPG on pc, if it didn't have Dragon Age title i probably would think more highly of it but lets face it, the game was no where near ready for release, there was too little content (in terms of areas) and with it being the sequel to something it beared little resemblence to other than some of the story, and for those reasons it killed the game for me.
Hrm...
I'm not really sure who's to blame. I mean, Bioware is the most obvious choice, they're the developers, they write the story and build the game. So, yeah, I'm gonna say I'm much more wary about them starting to stagnate rather than EA.
We already KNOW EA is retarded. It'd be comical if they weren't blowing a hole in all of the progress we've made in the whole "Getting respect" thing.
I'm not really sure who's to blame. I mean, Bioware is the most obvious choice, they're the developers, they write the story and build the game. So, yeah, I'm gonna say I'm much more wary about them starting to stagnate rather than EA.
We already KNOW EA is retarded. It'd be comical if they weren't blowing a hole in all of the progress we've made in the whole "Getting respect" thing.
I don't think think it's quite so simple as those three options - both sequels have improvements and regressions (DA with net regression and ME with net improvement, I feel), and for the problems, Bioware and EA are likely respobsible for different parts.
Mass Effect 2's gameplay and structure was an improvement over 1 - the missions were more diverse and well-designed, the dialogue was bigger and better by a small margin, the long travel times with nothing happening dropped off, and the combat became more streamlined, and in a good way (they lost originality points, but ultimately it works better than some of the glitchiness of 1 - and frankly, with 1, your guns and abilities were either inferior or overpowered with no inbetween). The Over-arching storyline suffers by being lower stakes than 1 and easily forgetable, but that forgetableness means that during the vast majority of the game, the quality of the small-scale storytelling is front and centre. As far as the EA/Bioware responsibility, I suspect largely Bioware.
As long as 3 stays away from making linear missions and linear mission-to-mission progression, keeps the free-roam areas big, diverse, and interesting, and has a story that doesn't suck, I don't see many ways it can go wrong. And if that does happen, it's probably EA's fault.
Dragon Age 2 was bad for 3 reasons. 1 was the rushed development schedule, which lies on EA's head. 2 was that the story fell apart at the 3rd act, which is probably a combination of Bioware's fault and reason 1, in that order. Reason 3 is that they tried a significant change in style, changing up the dialogue, art style, combat, environment, and story structure. The combat was a slight improvement overall, the dialogue and art styles come out very slightly better, and the environment and story structure came out noticeably worse worse - and when you change things up like that, you have to better than just better overall, because it takes people familiar with the previous game, the largest market of any sequel, out of their comfort zone, and Dragon Age 2 got worse overall - and again, I think that's largely Bioware's responsibility.
They can totally turn it around for 3 though, but it's going to require ANOTHER overhaul, so it's a risk.
Mass Effect 2's gameplay and structure was an improvement over 1 - the missions were more diverse and well-designed, the dialogue was bigger and better by a small margin, the long travel times with nothing happening dropped off, and the combat became more streamlined, and in a good way (they lost originality points, but ultimately it works better than some of the glitchiness of 1 - and frankly, with 1, your guns and abilities were either inferior or overpowered with no inbetween). The Over-arching storyline suffers by being lower stakes than 1 and easily forgetable, but that forgetableness means that during the vast majority of the game, the quality of the small-scale storytelling is front and centre. As far as the EA/Bioware responsibility, I suspect largely Bioware.
As long as 3 stays away from making linear missions and linear mission-to-mission progression, keeps the free-roam areas big, diverse, and interesting, and has a story that doesn't suck, I don't see many ways it can go wrong. And if that does happen, it's probably EA's fault.
Dragon Age 2 was bad for 3 reasons. 1 was the rushed development schedule, which lies on EA's head. 2 was that the story fell apart at the 3rd act, which is probably a combination of Bioware's fault and reason 1, in that order. Reason 3 is that they tried a significant change in style, changing up the dialogue, art style, combat, environment, and story structure. The combat was a slight improvement overall, the dialogue and art styles come out very slightly better, and the environment and story structure came out noticeably worse worse - and when you change things up like that, you have to better than just better overall, because it takes people familiar with the previous game, the largest market of any sequel, out of their comfort zone, and Dragon Age 2 got worse overall - and again, I think that's largely Bioware's responsibility.
They can totally turn it around for 3 though, but it's going to require ANOTHER overhaul, so it's a risk.
I consider DA2 and ME2 to be steps forward...not backwards.
I don't mean to claim that DA2 is a better game than DA:O. Simply that they are drastically improving on the mechanics and fun factor of these games. Even though they haven't been able to recapture the characters and story.
I do consider ME2 to be superior to ME in every way though. I suspect ME 3 will surpass them all from what I've seen and read so far.
I don't mean to claim that DA2 is a better game than DA:O. Simply that they are drastically improving on the mechanics and fun factor of these games. Even though they haven't been able to recapture the characters and story.
I do consider ME2 to be superior to ME in every way though. I suspect ME 3 will surpass them all from what I've seen and read so far.
i would side with any other game company before i too EA's side. not that they don't make good games but they rediculously overcharge for DLC's and that i find that they always push you from instead of buying the older product to buy the new-er product and that this seems to have happened to a lot of people, in the form of the game not working when the disc is perfectly fine or when they limit you from completing the old game (yes i am talking about you tiger woods '11!!!!!!!!) i know that probably just good marketing but i feel as if
EA are just there to milk you and not even produce a fantastic game.
EA are just there to milk you and not even produce a fantastic game.
i liked dragon age and mass effect and its sequels. i hope for the new mass effect game that they change some of the quarks that were wrong with them. really excited to get the pre order content.
Voted Bioware. For whatever reason, that company just isn't the same anymore. You can blame that on EA or not, but those changes didn't happen JUST because of EA. And if they did, EA is still just being EA. Bioware still had to make a choice to follow what EA wants, so it was Bioware's choice to change.
It's like what Obi-Wan said. "Who is more foolish? The fool, or the fool who follows him?"
It's like what Obi-Wan said. "Who is more foolish? The fool, or the fool who follows him?"