BioWare - The Cracks Are Starting To Appear

[rune_74]

Not worth it, so a waste of time.

 

[Dasale]

RPGs are quite simply games whose main focus is RP.

Role play? Lol that point is rather limited in fact. Or are you one of those Oblivion fans enjoying it for roleplay in it like girls play with puppets, ie all is in your imagination?

Money drives the world, doesnt it? As gamers buy more and more games that are less and less RPGs, the natural consequence is that the genre is destroyed. If people support a transformation from RPG genre into shooter genre on basis of their tastes, why not? But denying that the RPG genre is destroyed in the doing is non sense.

How significant it is that you position yourself and your ability of influence by not buying instead of buying.

Buy The Witcher 2 ten times if it's your opinion it's how the RPG must be and that's it.

Also the problem of a negative point of view is you end support nothing, Eschalon not good enough, Avadon too much dumbed down, and so on, and so on. I wonder what about DKS.

 

[ChienAboyeur]

The point of all this is to say that if the rpg genre doesn't evolve, then it'll be dead and gone, and on livesupport like the adventure game industry has been now for over a decade. The problem is just this; How is the genre, the rpg, going to evolve? Will it go the way of the gameplay, the story, or the dialogue, or improved combat e.g. more responsive combat.

To me, Bioware seems determined to set out to answer this question…

The RPG genre can evolve and disappear. That is what is probably happening.

Through its evolution, the support offered to RP is dwindling. Less and less opportunities to RP. It has nothing to do with the means used to or the form used to deliver the RP experience. It is not about about maintaining an old model, an old form that would guarantee the RP experience. On the contrary, due to the nature of computers, that is assessing whether or not the technological improvements are used to enhance the RP opportunities. It has not been the case for the RPG genre. Hence dying.

Other genres like shooters and action adventure games have plentifully benefited from the technological advancements to expand themselves in their own genre.

 

[Alrik Fassbauer]

The problem of course is that large companies concentrate on the largest profit, so if action RPGs make the most money they completely ignore turn-based ones.

Yeah, but my fear is that this leads one day into this future definition :

Action RPG = RPG

in the minds of the mainstream players.

It's similar to the toda's definition of

action adventure game = adventure game

even in the press !

 

[aries100]

As I understand The Witcher 2 has action-oriented combat, more so than Dragon Age 2; it even has a re-gen health bar, and a re-gen stamina bar?, just like the first Witcher game. Why then does Bioware gets criticized for doing the same and not CD Project RED? Why isn't the forums filled with people 'yelling and screaming' about how Witcher 2 dumbed down the combat....

 

[JDR13]

As I understand The Witcher 2 has action-oriented combat, more so than Dragon Age 2; it even has a re-gen health bar, and a re-gen stamina bar?, just like the first Witcher game. Why then does Bioware gets criticized for doing the same and not CD Project RED? Why isn't the forums filled with people 'yelling and screaming' about how Witcher 2 dumbed down the combat….

Dumbed it down from what? Didn't you just say it's just like the first Witcher?

Anyways, it's a poor comparison. Of course The Witcher has action-oriented combat, it's an action-RPG after all. Nevermind the fact that none of us have even played TW2 yet.

 

[ChienAboyeur]

As I understand The Witcher 2 has action-oriented combat, more so than Dragon Age 2; it even has a re-gen health bar, and a re-gen stamina bar?, just like the first Witcher game. Why then does Bioware gets criticized for doing the same and not CD Project RED? Why isn't the forums filled with people 'yelling and screaming' about how Witcher 2 dumbed down the combat….

Maybe because means are means and ends are ends?

When means serve the ends they are supposed to serve, well, that is good, but when means does not serve the ends they are supposed to serve, well, that is bad.

Reading this forum, I expected much less from TW battle system. I discovered a system that fits well the character's depiction of combat style. It allows tactical decisions between each swordplay sequence as positioning, terrain control and targeting matter. A tactically sound battle sequence makes a lot of differences.

The battle system seems to lack on the razor edge department you can expect from combat as it might appear a bit too easy while you get the ropes. Never been so far in a battle that drew close in spite of proper tactical decisions. If you get it right, you get it nicely right, not just right.

 

[Dasale]

Dumbed it down from what? Didn't you just say it's just like the first Witcher?

From a general evolution point of view. I can't believe you can even ask.

 

[JDR13]

From a general evolution point of view. I can't believe you can even ask.

Do you even have any idea what you're talking about?

 

[Dasale]

Do you even have any idea what you're talking about?

OMG, so pointless post, I'm sure you can do better.

But I'm not that sure if you can't understand "dumbing down" from a general perspective! I can't believe it. Yeah I won't bother explain you the obvious.

 

[JDR13]

I can't even understand wtf you're saying most of the time. Please do me a favor and take your jibberish somewhere else.

 

[aries100]

I was just curious as to why people here and on the rpgcodex seems so positive about the combat in The Witcher games, while criticizing NWN2, every Bioware game to date (it seems) and, especially, Dragon Age 2, for exactly the same things which are in both Witcher games.

And for the record, I thought and think that the combat in The Witcher 1, was way too action-oriented. I am, however, discovering how the combat acts now; just click once, Geralt performs his moves, and when the sword icon lights up, just click again. All the way back to 2007, I really didn't understand why people liked Witcher's combat so much. As this is clearly action combat. The story in The Witcher 1 blows any Bioware story right out of the water, not only once, but three or four times, though.

I agree, though, that the combat in The Witcher does what it supposed to be doing, it is a mean to make the ends meet re: how witchers actually does fight in the fictional setting of Temeria.

As for my dumbed down comment, yes, I meant from a general point of view. It just seems that Witcher and CD Project kan (maybe?) get away with a lot more than Bioware can.

As for the combat in Dragon Age 2, does it fullfill it ends and it means, to be more responsive. To me, it does. To be fair, positioning in DA2 does matter, as well - apart from the enemies suddenly dropping by - and out of the sky - or of thin air.

 

[Couchpotato]

You see its a very simple concept people you make a mega blockbuster everyone loves but for the sequel you completely change the entire game. It feels like it has nothing in common with the first. That is why bioware gets criticized and CD Project RED dont. There sequel is the same just with a better game engine. Don't compare filet mignon to chopped steak.

Found this off of pcgamer-

Last month Tom spoke to executive producer on the Mass Effect series, Casey Hudson, about your romance options in Mass Effect 3. While ME3 will introduce new characters, including new squadmates, Casey says all your romance options will be with familiar faces. And since all the romance options from Mass Effect 1 are back as full time squadmates, many players are going to have some awkward moments when their old flame meets the new squeeze.

PC Gamer: How are the romance options compared to previous games? In Mass Effect 1 you only had a few, and then Mass Effect 2 had loads.

Casey Hudson: It had a few more. In this one, we don’t really have new characters that are part of the romance stuff in the way that we did in Mass Effect 2, where we introduced a lot of characters. So this is more about how you, if you’re a new player, how you start these romances with the existing characters. If you’ve had relationships with previous characters, then it’s your opportunity to resolve those. And again, it’s in the context of a ‘World War II’-type setting, so you don’t really know if you’re going to survive, or what kind of a world is going to live beyond the story. So it’s kind of that situation.

But we also have some interesting things happening, where you’ve got Ashley and Kaiden from the first game, you’ve got Liara, and there’s sort of a love triangle there. And then we gave people a bunch of new characters. People said “Well, I just want my Mass Effect 1 characters, and I’m not interested in any of these characters.” But then a lot of people had romances with those characters, and now the fun is bringing back some of those characters from Mass Effect 1 and putting them back in the mix, and looking at what you did in Mass Effect 2 and bringing some… interesting scenarios around those things.

PC Gamer: It must be a nightmare, because if you think about all those combinations of who you might have started dating, stopped dating then started dating somebody else, you’ve got to figure out how they react to each other in every case…

Casey Hudson: Yep – it’s fun! (Laughs) I think sometimes when we do certain things, it makes players realise what kinds of things are possible, and then they think about a different level of meaning in terms of why they’re doing things, in terms of how the characters relate. So even something like: if you had a Mass Effect 1 romance and you didn’t have a Mass Effect 2 romance, so you stay true to the character from the first game, there’s a scene where you look at the picture of that character, and that’s essentially the romance scene in Mass Effect 2.

I think when people realised that we were thinking about that kind of thing, and that we were going to reflect those kinds of decisions, then it’s like “Wow, the game actually knows that I didn’t cheat on my Mass Effect 1 love interest. So if it knows that, then it probably knows other stuff that it will reflect. Then that means I need to think about that stuff [when] talking to characters and making decisions and the like.”

PC Gamer: So it’s all existing characters… I’m just trying to think what gay or lesbian characters that gives you. That would leave Liara?

Casey Hudson: Well yeah, it’s going to be similar to Mass Effect 1 and 2. Like I say, we’re not introducing any new characters that are going to be love interests. There’s some new characters, but generally it’s going to be the interplay between the characters from 2 and the returning ones from 1, and then Liara as the one that’s… either asexual or omnisexual, depends on how you look at it.

Casey also told us Tali will return as a full time squad member, but implied Wrex won’t. We’ll have another chunk of Mass Effect 3 details tomorrow. You can subscribe to all our Mass Effect 3 news and previews if you use an RSS reader.

Good at least now I know Miranda will definitely be back . There mixing the characters from part 1+2.

 

[Motoki]

Yeah, but my fear is that this leads one day into this future definition :

Action RPG = RPG

I think that day is today. I remember a time when if a game did not have turn based combat it was considered an RPG. Now turn based in CRPGs is dead. Only small indie retro style games and generic, derivative JRPGs are doing it anymore.

It's okay to me as long as the rest of the game is good and the combat is not too complicated. I don't want to be doing Street Fighter combos in my RPG, but if it's fairly simple then I'm fine with it.

I was just curious as to why people here and on the rpgcodex seems so positive about the combat in The Witcher games, while criticizing NWN2, every Bioware game to date (it seems) and, especially, Dragon Age 2, for exactly the same things which are in both Witcher games.

I think it comes down to expectations and deliveries and also reputation. Bioware's reputation is in the toilet now and it's their own doing. They sold out and pretty much every statement coming out of their mouths now is some marketing BS. Some of the stuff they've said is absolutely cringeworthy (ie 'When you push a button something awesome has to happen!).

Looking at CDProjekt, I think they have given realistic expectations, listened to player feedback and it's hard to come to any other conclusion than that these guys truly love the genre and want to make a quality game. Of course numbers are important, but it doesn't seem to be just numbers for them.

In terms of the combat, I don't think TW1 positioned itself as anything other than it is. The changes they made in the sequel are due to feedback on the first game's combat.

Dragon Age the combat just feels totally different to me. In the first game you clicked one enemy and your selected player fighting that enemy until it was dead. In Dragon Age II it's click, click, click, click. It feels much more fast paced and button mashy and the exploding bodies are obnoxious. The animation even looks super speedy. It feels like a silly cartoon action game rather than a D&D-ish click on which enemy you want to target RPG.

I know they claimed autocombat was "accidentally" left out of DA2 and it's supposed to work but broken. It was supposed to be fixed in a patch I read, but I'm patched up to the latest on the PC and it still doesn't work for me. I've read others say the same.

 

[DeepO]

I was just curious as to why people here and on the rpgcodex seems so positive about the combat in The Witcher games, while criticizing NWN2, every Bioware game to date (it seems) and, especially, Dragon Age 2, for exactly the same things which are in both Witcher games.

You´re doing the usual mistake lumping people together like they are a single entity with one set of opinions.
Definitely not all people from here or RPGCodex dislike all Bioware games, definitely not all people are positive about combat in The Witcher, etc.
Opinions are a lot more diverse in these matters.

Also, combat in cRPGs consists of variety of aspects, it´s not an indivisible element.
There´s a lot of factors influencing how combat in an cRPG works.
Encounter design, UI/camera, what portfolio of options player has at his disposal (ties into character development and itemization) or even aesthetics.
Then there´s the question of type of a game - turn based/RTwP/real time, party based/single char and in action RPGs player skill/character skill ratio.
Furthemore, how the combat is contexted with the rest of the game is of importance. How big portion of game consists of combat or whether it´s always mandatory are questions which play significant roles here.

Some features work better in turn based games, some features work better in single char games and some features when not done to one´s liking can as well "break" the game for one.
I´m sure some people shelved Mask of the Betrayer for the sole reason of camera.
Opinion on combat in Icewind Dale is very likely to influence one´s overall opinion on the game a lot more than in the case Planescape: Torment.
Someone who likes combat mechanics in NWN2: OC may still shelve the game because of combat, due to encounter design in its first chapter.

There´s simply a lot of variables which influence one´s opinion on combat or a game as a whole.

So, in this post

As I understand The Witcher 2 has action-oriented combat, more so than Dragon Age 2; it even has a re-gen health bar, and a re-gen stamina bar?, just like the first Witcher game. Why then does Bioware gets criticized for doing the same and not CD Project RED?

you´re
a) comparing apples and oranges
b) not considering any of the above mentioned nuances and just sitting on the surface instead
c) for some reason omitting the fact The Witcher´s combat got criticized quite often

 

[ChienAboyeur]

I am, however, discovering how the combat acts now; just click once, Geralt performs his moves, and when the sword icon lights up, just click again.

I dont perceive the situation this way. I see the combat system as part of RP and try to extract from the system Witcher's like sequences of combat.

So it is not about waiting for the next time to extend the sequence but to use the respite given between two decisions to re assess the situation accordingly and take the right decision on the spot. There is nothing mechanical, nothing automatic. A LM click is not forcefully followed by another LM click, there could be a double direction key to jump over a ring of enemies to give yourself space, use of a sign to single out an opponent and finish it off quickly while not allowing other enemies to close in fast enough etc...

Yes, if the combat is reduced to waiting for the next opportunity to extend the sequence of swordsplay, that's boring.

It is more though as the combat system allows to produce representations of what might be Witcher's style of fighting. They wear light armour, wield two handed swords, are enhanced on reflex and all.

So mobile, all offense and lightening fast combat style.

Plus their sign abilities.

Witcher's style is most likely extremely brutal, oriented on shortening the encounter as much as possible, be there when expected to here etc...

 

[Dasale]

I can't even understand wtf you're saying most of the time. Please do me a favor and take your jibberish somewhere else.

Woo I didn't realized now you are the master of this place? Anyway you deserve no favor and you perfectly know it.

 

[Dasale]

...
I know they claimed autocombat was "accidentally" left out of DA2 and it's supposed to work but broken. It was supposed to be fixed in a patch I read, but I'm patched up to the latest on the PC and it still doesn't work for me. I've read others say the same.

I doubt other say the same because unlike you they played the game, you clearly don't and just lie, because on PC this has never been a problem, just for console versions.

 

[Risine]

Dragon age2 => release the game the fastest possible, no matter the quality ( I'm not talking about developers & artists, they do not decide this kind of things unfortunately ) , we don't give a fuck about it, it will sell.
Witcher2 => Do the game we want to make the best possible, and listen to the players to know what they like, what they dislike, evaluate, and improve things ( listening to players does not mean not evolving, ask Blizzard ).

The question is : what next for Bioware?
As they are now getting away from RPG's, one way and another, leaving the field to Betesdha and CDProjekt mainly.
1/ will they stop their disastrous policy, apologise, and release a real DA2 ( whatever they call it ), listening to the players and respecting the BG legacy?
2/ or will they keep getting away from RPGs to shooters and action games?

 

[Dasale]

I hope TW2 will be globally hugely better than DA2 but the point wasn't to compare them but to quote some argument was over used by some players against DA2 and the same is totally forgotten for TW2.

I can't believe the number of people that comment in deep the game but never played the game, just read few comment, well ok also saw multiple dev video quite well one but it's just comments, video and words. Almost nobody here have played the game. It's like people never learn and forgot the previous hype when it's time of the next hype.