Believe me, major triple A companies are going to drop the PC very slowly over the next few years. So far EA has said they're dropping all Battlefield support except for BF3, now I ask you...why? EA is such a gigantic company that the excuse of "focusing on it" is about at believable as a chicken wire submarine. As for Bioware, they know The Old Republic is going to be tagged a WoW-SciFi clone as much as they try. Sure there's tons of differences under the hood but when it boils down to combat it's still the same classic click meets auto-attack feature that for some ridiculous reason people have glued to WoW like it invented the idea. Bioware also knows that PC gamers can do a lot more (mods, more keys, put the torches down consolists) than a console can so naturally PC gamers expect more tools to play with. It really boils down to piracy and mods. Piracy because it's something to hide behind, and mods because it means PC gamers don't have to pay for official DLC. The only way (from a business perspective) to make a good selling title on the PC is to make it an MMO with premium markets of some sort, or to make a game that exceeds expectations, which is something companies lack the ability to do. Since EA's game Battlefield Heroes and Play For Free have both flopped (P4F died a horrible death in closed beta) they want BF3 to be the last PC thing they do. Bioware is also taking the hints and trying to edge away from the PC. Valve probably won't yet because they can't patch a marketplace into the console games hence can't nickel and dime players for premium gear.
Now while that might sound like 50 different kinda of fanboy let me just say this to avoid the flaming: I have no real bias in the console wars. I feel the Wii is a more family friendly system, the 360 and PS3 both have even pros and cons, and the PC has lasted this long on its ability to modify games and allow small companies to publish titles on their own budget. Nexon, Ijji, Gamersfisrt, Perfect World Entertainment, GamesCampus, none of them could exist without the PC being the way it is, and that's okay. The PC will just have to start relying on smaller companies instead of the triple A industry, which isn't bad. Just take a look at PWI, Combat Arms, AVA, Rappelz, these games thrive on the PC solely because the publishers don't have to pay through the nose to the console companies. While the small companies might have majority crappy games, they're slowly coming around and who knows? 10 years from now we may be looking at one of these smaller companies making the big leagues.
In short, yeah the PC is being abandoned slowly by the biggest companies out there but it's far from a bad thing. PC gamers will instead turn to smaller companies to produce games that they can enjoy more because they were designed specifically for the PC. PC Gaming isn't dying, it's just going to have its own set of games that a console will never be able to touch and vice versa.
No I dont think Bioware is abondoning PC, they are tapping into the console market because thats where things are focused and theres alot of money there, anyway I dont get my underware in a twist over specific gameplay features, if I can play it Im happy.
im not sure all pc gamers mod (I dont), and they do pay for DLC if it is good or even somwhat nessicary like lair of the shadow broker for ME2
as for tripple a studios abonding PC....I dont know I hope not if that heppens ill save up for a console, because MMo's are not my thing
but you can only predict how things go in the future, you never know for sure I mean Steam seems to be getting popular as a standard for DRM, that might mean that companys trust steams DRM so piracy wont scare them off...I dont know
Well thats one way of putting it, but yes i like my games complex and involving... such games tend to seem inaccessible and yes they do repel casual gamers like bug spray. And sure, a game that you have difficulty getting into can seem tedious but i'll tell you this: there is no gameplay experience as rewarding as getting into one of these games and exploring its expansive detail.
Its a shame and a sad fact but the more accessible you make a game, the more, necessarily, you rob it of value beyond simple action and at best a good story; games can be so much more.
Depth. Depth is rewarding. Depth also brings a level of complexity with it, but complexity doesn't necessarily give a game depth. You can have depth and accessibility with a proper learning curve and well-designed difficulty settings.
But elitists want complexity to scare off the common folk, because that way they can feel superior about being able to play a game that the lesser people can not. Elitism is all about the feeling of superiority.
That said, I do miss the zoomed-out view in Dragon Age II, and while I like the combat improvements I disagree with BioWare's decision to phase out non-combat skills in both ME2 and DA2.
DA:O was considerably more complicated than either of those games mechanics-wise. Are you simply complaining because it didn't use an existing D20 system (or variant thereof?) Neverwinter Nights would be a better example because it's built on the more complicated 3.5 rules, but even there DA:O definitely kept pace with it.
Well i'm afraid to say I have to completely disagree with you here and I'll try to explain why... given the limitation that my memory is getting a little dim on the specifics of DAO (I played it about 80 hours last year) so I hope you'll forgive me for being vague.
First Baldur's gate, this was of course built solidly on AD&D v2 rules, including multiple races with their own characteristics, a selection of pre-made and unique characters to start up with or the choice of tailoring your own character, a full set of stats to allocate based on dice rolls, plus dozens of classes including subclasses such as specialisation in the schools of magic.
On top of that there is even the option of Dual or multi classing your character, although admittedly that has limited use in BG due to the low level cap. An this is just your starting options, many classes can be tailored in a specific direction as you level up such as a ranger focusing on dual wielding or a fighter focusing on using two handed weapons, plus of course the mage can be outfitted with any number of configurations of memorised spells to suit any particular situation, and then the spells you have depends entirely on the scrolls that you find or buy.
And still further on top of that you have an absolute wealth of unique or characterful items, where as in DAO virtually everything is generic but just with a certain level.
To be frank I could go on describing BG all day, but I don't want to type that much and no one would read it anyway. Suffice to say there is an extraordinary amount of choice and complexity in BG and BG had just a level 7 experience cap! Taking that forward into BGII and then into the neverwinter series and games like HOTU the options are practically endless. With HOTU I spent more time cooking up characters than I did actually playing the game:- this is the very essence, the life and soul of RPG, the ability to customise and create your character in detail from vast options, and, importantly for this to have a significant impact on gameplay.
kotor was a simpler and adapted version of the AD&D v3 rules (I think) and in a way it has a lot in common with DAO, at least it shows us perhaps where the ideas for DAO came from. From having 3 basic character classes to start with right up to having class specialisations (or prestige classes) in kotorII. The problem here though is that kotor was telling a very specific story about your character, your character was a jedi, so in a sense the story locked you into a narrow selection of class from the get go; which is why this was appropriate for kotor and why its very inappropriate for DAO.
Even in kotor though the selection of unique and meaningful items was substantially larger than in DAO and the combination of class skills, feats and jedi powers, and light/dark side still give you far more choice for customisation than DAO does.
Looking ad DAO now and what do we have: 3 classes each with 3 option trees and a specialisation option. Mages are fixed into using a hand full of spells that they pick as they level up, and to be frank those spells get seriously tiresome after using them for the 1000th time, plus of course with such restricted options the scope for tactical play is greatly reduced to a few basic rinse and repeat techniques... mages in AD&D are infinitely more versatile, not just by class but with the options and potential to choose and blend from a great number of interesting and unique spells. To be frank, there is more complexity in the mages in BGII than there is in DAO in its entirety. Just look at the list of arcane (mage) spell in BGII here on this website... go on, read, then weep at the pitiful excuse for magic in DAO: http://www.sorcerers.net/Games/BG2/SpellsReference/Main.htm
edit: in fact here is the list in summary:
Arcane Spells
Arcane Spells Level 1
Armor
Blindness
Burning Hands
Charm Person
Chill Touch
Chromatic Orb
Color Spray
Find Familiar
Friends
Grease
Identify
Infravision
Larloch's Minor Drain
Magic Missile
Nahal's Reckless Dweomer
Protection from Evil
Protection from Petrification
Reflected Image
Shield
Shocking Grasp
Sleep
Spook
Arcane Spells Level 2
Agannazar's Scorcher
Blur
Chaos Shield
Deafness
Detect Invisibility
Ghoul Touch
Glitterdust
Horror
Invisibility
Knock
Know Alignment
Luck
Melf's Acid Arrow
Mirror Image
Power Word, Sleep
Ray of Enfeeblement
Resist Fear
Stinking Cloud
Strength
Vocalize
Web
Arcane Spells Level 3
Clairvoyance
Detect Illusion
Dire Charm
Dispel Magic
Fireball
Flame Arrow
Ghost Armor
Haste
Hold Person
Hold Undead
Invisibility 10' Radius
Lightning Bolt
Melf's Minute Meteors
Minor Spell Deflection
Monster Summoning I
Non-Detection
Protection from Cold
Protection from Fire
Protection from Normal Missiles
Remove Magic
Skull Trap
Slow
Spell Thrust
Vampiric Touch
Arcane Spells Level 4
Confusion
Contagion
Emotion: Hopelessness
Enchanted Weapon
Farsight
Fireshield (Blue)
Fireshield (Red)
Greater Malison
Ice Storm
Improved Invisibility
Minor Globe of Invulnerability
Minor Sequencer
Monster Summoning II
Otiluke's Resillient Sphere
Polymorph Other
Polymorph Self
Remove Curse
Secret Word
Spider Spawn
Spirit Armor
Stoneskin
Teleport Field
Wizard Eye
Arcane Spells Level 5
Animate Dead
Breach
Chaos
Cloudkill
Cone of Cold
Conjure Lesser Air Elemental
Conjure Lesser Earth Elemental
Conjure Lesser Fire Elemental
Domination
Feeblemind
Hold Monster
Lower Resistance
Minor Spell Turning
Monster Summoning III
Oracle
Phantom Blade
Protection from Acid
Protection from Electricity
Protection from Normal Weapons
Shadow Door
Spell Immunity
Spell Shield
Sunfire
Arcane Spells Level 6
Carrion Summons
Chain Lightning
Conjure Air Elemental
Conjure Earth Elemental
Conjure Fire Elemental
Contingency
Death Fog
Death Spell
Disintegrate
Flesh to Stone
Globe of Invulnerability
Improved Haste
Invisible Stalker
Mislead
Pierce Magic
Power Word, Silence
Protection from Magic Energy
Protection from Magical Weapons
Spell Deflection
Stone to Flesh
Summon Nishruu
Tenser's Transformation
True Sight
Wyvern Call
Arcane Spells Level 7
Cacofiend
Control Undead
Delayed Blast Fireball
Finger of Death
Improved Chaos Shield
Limited Wish
Mantle
Mass Invisibility
Mordenkainen's Sword
Power Word, Stun
Prismatic Spray
Project Image
Protection from Elements
Ruby Ray of Reversal
Spell Sequencer
Spell Turning
Sphere of Chaos
Summon Djinni
Summon Efreeti
Summon Hakeashar
Khelben's Warding Whip
Arcane Spells Level 8
Abi-Dalzim's Horrid Wilting
Bigby's Clenched Fist
Improved Mantle
Incendiary Cloud
Maze
Pierce Shield
Power Word, Blind
Protection from Energy
Simulacrum
Spell Trigger
Summon Fiend
Symbol, Death
Symbol, Fear
Symbol, Stun
Arcane Spells Level 9
Absolute Immunity
Bigby's Crushing Hand
Black Blade of Disaster
Chain Contingency
Energy Drain
Freedom
Gate
Imprisonment
Meteor Swarm
Power Word, Kill
Shapechange
Spellstrike
Spell Trap
Time Stop
Wail of the Banshee
Wish
Arcane Spells Level 10
Comet
Dragon's Breath
Energy Blades
Improved Alacrity
Summon Dark Planetar
Summon Planetar
and bear in mind that this is only mage spells and there are almost as many cleric spells.
Secondly, they've cut down abilities, but seriously, how many of the abilities in DA:O were you using? It's one thing to boast a vast an expansive character creation system but if some of those options are useless compared to others you may as well not include them. In DA2 it feels like everything is much more useful and has a major effect without being an automatic game winner, which could actually make character building more interesting.
"vast and expansive character creation system", well if you read my little tirade above there you will know what I think about that. but this comes back to my central point that an RPG is the character creation system. Cut that out or simplify it and you no longer have an RPG, you have an adventure game.
Thirdly, a bigger focus on visuals. Seriously RPG fans, what the hell happened to you? You think those people playing the first text based RPGs and Roguelikes wouldn't have killed for even a visual representation of what was going on, let alone one as stylish and cinematic as Dragon Age 2?
No, thats cool by me, an RPG can look however it wants to, isometric, first person, whatever, even 3rd person OTS if it really has to, so long as it is an RPG and not just and action-adventure masquerading as an RPG.
But we won't really know until the full game is released, so having a hissy fit about that seems counter-productive.
Well personally I'm not even really talking about DAO2, its a handy focus for the discussion but its not a game i'm invested in. As I have said I didn't like DAO so I won't buy DAO2, consequently I don't really care what they may or may not have done to the game. However, what they are doing to the genre is of some importance to me.
Hilarious!. But seriously why are people making such a big deal about the demo. I enjoyed it, it was fun, I found it really surprising that people hated it so much and even more surprised when I read about people pointing the finger at console gamers again.
So yeah, everyone needs to just calm down for once and actually play these games! Stop obsessing people.
But elitists want complexity to scare off the common folk, because that way they can feel superior about being able to play a game that the lesser people can not. Elitism is all about the feeling of superiority.
This is the negative connotation (and common misconception) associated with elitism but I don't think its the defining characteristic. What you have given is essentially a caricature based on the worst elements of those who have, uh, shall we say tastes erring toward quality (in substance rather than presentation). Its easy to sound arrogant or superior when you're talking about a preference for quality (which is what this boils down to) but that doesn't necessarily mean that thats the case.
If anything I think what you describe would be better characterised as game snobbery, which I would expect to be pretty rare. most gamers are selfish creatures than don't really care what other people think, they just care about the games that they love.
Dragon age 2 seems to have gotten alot of people screaming THEY CHANGED IT RUINED FOREVER!!!
and of coarse declaring that Bioware has abondoned PC and they arnt getting it....
and of coarse alot of other games as well, that havnt come out yet
ok so mabye you played the demo but can't you at least wait untill the game is out? please? because oyu dont belive how F-ing annoying it is to hear somome specualting that its going to suck...you might have an impression but you dont know yet..please find somthing better to do
in regards dragon age, are bioware trying to get into the sucess of ME2 (OMG I cant manage my squads equipment..no more pointless side quests?? RUINED FOREVER!!) yes they are theres no denying that,
are they cater soley to those "filthy console peasants"? yes, thats fine theres money in consoles and I dont give a fuck who can and who can't play a game, as long as I can Im happy...BUT they hav not abondoned PC and quite frankly in current times we PC gamers are lucky to have such a good dev standing behined our platform,
as for the changes, yeah thats subjective, but Im exited for the story, I like that my charachter can talk
so please for the love of god..what ever the game please please wait untill it is out THEN you can ***** away like theres no tomorrow
thankyou
EDIT: Im not saying that the demo its a good way to decide if you like the game or not, Im just saying completley writing off the game as bad and them doom mongering about it, plus not being able to get over the changes....its just stupid
Well, I think the issue is that you like the changes they have made, where most of the core fans of the original games in the series did not. "Mass Effect" for example is supposed to be an RPG, yet they changed it to a highly cinematic shooter. That's great if your a shooter fan, but not so great if your an RPG or action-RPG fan. It's success is also highly debatable as it is one of those games that was a huge success before it even launched due to pre-orders and such. There is no doubt it was successful right then and there, but I think the problem is that the people who were complaining were people who bought and played the game, and it remains to be seen if a third game is going to be as successful if they decide to keep the format that way.
With "Dragon Age" the issue is similar. It's an RPG game that was popular for that reason, however with the sequel Bioware wants to speed it up and dumb it down. They also did things like greatly limit the character options compared to the first game, by assigning you a guy called "Hawke" with a totally pre-determined race and backround, which destroys part of what helped make "Dragon Age" what it was. What's more Bioware asked people about the entire "Hawke" thing, got negative feedback, and then decided to try and say they got a positive response and went right on ahead along that path, I think they brought a lot of bad blood upon themselves there. I think a lot of people are willing to give "Dragon Age 2" a chance while complaining about it, negative effects are liable to be felt with the third installment, much like what I suspect might happen with "Mass Effect 3" if they don't seriously reverse the course they took with "Mass Effect 2".
Only time will tell what will happen with Bioware though, I'm frequently wrong with predictions. To be honest though I think Bioware's big problem is that they have been spreading themselves too thin, and brought in too many people under their banner. It's no longer the focused team it once was, and is keeping a ton of balls in the air at once by trying to maintain multiple franchises, while developing the most expensive MMO project in history. I honestly suspect the way they shooter-ized "Mass Effect 2" and dumbed down "Dragon Age" and only gave it one backround/player character option is simply because it was much easier to design that way.
-
As far as people complaining in general goes, I think the problem is a matter of game companies simply not "getting" how to do sequels properly. If they are going to keep a series going, they need to keep it consistant in how it works. If you change everything around and slap a new number on the box, no matter how many names and made up words you toss around from the writing of the previous games, your typically going to be looking at a negative response since that's not what people who are fans of the franchise want, they pretty much want more of the same. The gaming industry tends to confuse "improvement" and "innovation" with "scrap everything and do something entirely differant". People complain about how an inventory system or specific set of menus is a bit clunky, and then game developers decide "well, we'll scrap inventory and items all together or", "instead of menus we'll have the player teleport into a series of rooms and run around in there to select items", rather than say keeping the game fundementally the same but improving/innovating on what was already there.
Also, we have a situation where the game industry is increasingly becoming a group of Prima Donnas. We constantly have a situation where when the game industry "listens to the consumers" they seperate the signal from noise (so to speak) only in what they want to hear. Then start screaming about how everyone is a "contrarian". The gaming industry seems to frequently forget that they are producing a product for the customers, and are supposed to be producing the games they want to play, not the games that the developer wants to make so to speak.
To be honest, I think a good example of this kind of attitude can be found with "Team Sonic". I don't think the issue is so much that "Team Sonic" has been totally incompetant. I think the issue is largely that the customers tell them what they want to see from a Sonic game, but "Team Sonic" has it's own ideas which are akin to Furry fanfiction (Sonic meets the Black Knight, Sonic The Werehog, etc...) and develops THOSE ideas, and tries to act like they are working to give the customers what they are demanding. Anyone who is a fan of the old 2D sonic games has ideas for how things could be improved in that perspective, or heck thinks it would be cool to see a new game designed entirely in 2D with current technology instead of just reformatted (looking at what some RPG companies have done with 2D graphics for example, despite it being the age of 3D), you see this all over the innet, however instead "Team Sonic" decides things like "hey, let's make a 3d game where sonic will change into funny costumes that give him differant powers, and we'll keep the sword fighting thing but make him a dual wielder because that would make it more awesome... I am writing a fanfiction like this, and it seems pretty popular already".
You see this attitude appearing more and more, and I think it's usually the beginning of the end for franchises. I think we're seeing that with Bioware games to be honest, but like the Sonic games they got so used to people screaming the praises of anything they released that they tend to ignore the truth even after years upon years of at best mediocre response.
You're complaining about complainers on the internet.
I hope you can see the problem with that.
A demo is the only thing between you and an expensive purchase that could be great or total shit. It's perfectly acceptable to make a judgment based off of a demo. I'd recommend using user reviews as well, but chances are if you didn't like the demo that showcases the gameplay and a bit of the story, you aren't going to like the full game. Period.
Perhaps it's the perception that PC Gamers are treated as second-rate in the AAA market (unless the game explicitly requires a keyboard and mouse). This isn't explicitly true, but the few instances in which it is true seem to overshadow all the instances that it isn't (at least in perception by your average PC gamer).
It's a fitting irony that in this era of mass-multi-platform launches that people still have grievances with the same games on different systems.
Of course, in some instances the design philosophy of a game is obviously bias for one system or another but it's almost always the console simply due to graphics and control limitations.
Hatred on the internet tends to build upon itself, often irrationally so.
I kinda agree about the bitching. It's really annoying and makes me think that "do these guys have a life beside whining about everything?". No game is perfect and there are always things that should be better. Still the level of the arguments towards for example DA2(since it seems to be a common example) is pretty low in general. If one doesn't like the style or the game then he/she should say that what is wrong and why. And DA2 is a good example because of the amount of hate it has received, ranging from "it ruins RPG" to "it is a sellout" even though no-one has played it. Now that the demo is out we have a chance to try the game. I loved the demo and despite the graphics, animation and the whole combat system being a bit more polished, I didn't see much difference to Origins. Imo you usually can judge a game by the demo but when it is a RPG demo...I'm not sure since the demo shows only a small fraction of the game. Really small fraction.
....
no you dont have to play the full game, you could go look up and read many different reveiws, check out meta critic if you want a general score or just simply ask on the forums
and yeah the demo does give you a good idea if you like it or not
...
Reviews for AAA titles of huge publishers are shit. One german magazine even mentioned "free saving" as a plus point for the game, even though "free saving" is the standard, but otherwise they could not justify their too high rating.
The demo of DA 2, which is supposed to be a RPG, is only combat. Not a single quest is included. So does the demo really give me a good idea of what the game is like?? Is it all just fight after fight, cutscene after cutscene and then some small dialogues which don't matter at all?? That is the impression of the demo, if you don't have further informations from forums or PR magazine visits.
....
no you dont have to play the full game, you could go look up and read many different reveiws, check out meta critic if you want a general score or just simply ask on the forums
and yeah the demo does give you a good idea if you like it or not
...
Reviews for AAA titles of huge publishers are shit. One german magazine even mentioned "free saving" as a plus point for the game, even though "free saving" is the standard, but otherwise they could not justify their too high rating.
The demo of DA 2, which is supposed to be a RPG, is only combat. Not a single quest is included. So does the demo really give me a good idea of what the game is like?? Is it all just fight after fight, cutscene after cutscene and then some small dialogues which don't matter at all?? That is the impression of the demo, if you don't have further informations from forums or PR magazine visits.
I disagree, a reveiw is only somone elses opinion,thats why you read more than one plus they tend to go in depth, I mean as long as they arnt being bourght off and are being honest what more owuld you want from a reveiw?
reveiws are good to get a general idea of a game, if alot of reveiws are very low then its an indication to stay away, if alot of reveiws are very high then somthing might be worth a look but you still need your own opinion and what you know you like to judge a game, the demo helps as well but I dont think demo alone is enough to write it off
Wait what? People are saying it is worse?!
I hated Dragon Age as it was a dated piece of rubbish yet Dragon Age 2 is pretty damn good and caters for PC players hence the DX11 option.
You're complaining about complainers on the internet.
I hope you can see the problem with that.
A demo is the only thing between you and an expensive purchase that could be great or total shit. It's perfectly acceptable to make a judgment based off of a demo. I'd recommend using user reviews as well, but chances are if you didn't like the demo that showcases the gameplay and a bit of the story, you aren't going to like the full game. Period.
Yeah I cant blame somone for not wanting the game based off the demo
But Its also the other complaing that annoyes me BEFORE the demo, and even with the demo its all doom mongering and bitching, Im not saying everonyone should like DA2 but bitching about it before its out seems so pointless
They didn't put isometric view on the 360 because it uses the mouse like an RTS .. box selecting, targeting, etc. ... now, as for why you can't use a mouse on a 360, that makes no sense to me ... but that's another subject entirely.
Oh, that's an easy one. The mouse users would absolutely fucking wreck all of the controller users in every single FPS, and they don't want console gamers to be forced to use a mouse and keyboard to be competitive in Halo, CoD, etc. This is also why console and PC users can't join the same multiplayer matches.
On topic: I literally couldn't stomach DA:O on 360, so I sold the game and repurchased it for PC after I built this machine. Inarguably, it's a vastly superior experience on computer. They've obviously tuned DA2 to function very similarly on both platforms, and that has involved removing some of the "goodies" from the PC version - like the isometric view so many prefer. I completely understand why those people are annoyed, and I'm not going to do anything so infantile as dismiss their concerns simply because I don't agree. There's this handy thing called empathy. Folks should try it out.
On the demo itself: I thought DA:O combat, given its frequency and repetitiveness, took way too long to resolve itself. Needless to say, I'm thrilled with DA2's more immediate and rapidly concluded combat. If the game is going to have you fighting thousands of pointless little skirmishes against basically the exact same enemies, it's probably best if those fights end as quickly as possible. The loss of variety and strategy is noticeable and lament... able, but I'm willing to make that tradeoff.
I strongly agree, however, that Bioware plots are becoming incredibly predictable and stale. Believe it or not, it is possible to tell stories that don't follow nearly the exact same arc from start to finish. I know they've got the chops to pull it off, and I think they'd actually get a lot of praise and attention (and sales) for trying to spin at least 1-2 of these "rpgs" into new directions.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
