Dragon Age - Sequel Dated?

Originally Posted by countingdown7
…
It seems some of you guys have been living under a rock for the past 7 years or so.
EA has stopped being the "evil empire" about 3-4 years ago. Activision is the new EA.

Of course, EA was behind the vapid 'New Shit' campaign…a cynical attempt to reel in an action-based/FPS audience who, in my mind, would find very little to enjoy in a story driven RPG. I assume that's ethical?

If you're going to take issue with a company marketing to new audiences, then you're calling into question marketing as a whole. Not that I have a problem with that but laying it at EA's feet as "unethical" seems over the top to me.

I also haven't seen any signs of a backlash against DA (well, perhaps apart from here). Several mainstream sites declared it GotY (not just RPG of the year) and Metacritic scores are solid. Perhaps mainstream gamers enjoyed it?

Regarding EA: Yes, there has been a change for the better. They do produce games of overall higher quality now than before (an example is how the FIFA games bounced back, and can now rival PES even on gameplay).

If I recall correctly, there was a change in management a few years ago. Ever since, they've been more aware of their quality, and seems to be more patient when developing new games (instead of pushing them out the door as soon as possible).

That being said, I still don't trust them, as it takes more than a few good titles to make up for all the rubbish ones they've made in the past, and all the companies they more or less shut down after buying them (though that trend seems to have turned as well - BioWare is still intact, as is Phenomenic I think).

Edit: I still feel DAs marketing campaign was horrible though. Targeting a new audience is not a bad thing, but in my opinion they seemed to target an audience that will simply not enjoy DA at all - the game is represented in a way that makes it look like an action game, designed for an action crowd.

EA may be better but they did quietly (at least, as far as I can tell it was done quietly) close down BioWare's old partner, Pandemic.

Originally Posted by Korplem
EA may be better but they did quietly (at least, as far as I can tell it was done quietly) close down BioWare's old partner, Pandemic.

Yes, they did (and not so quietly, apparently). From day one Pandemic was a problematic studio for EA. They only bought it, because it came packaged with Bioware, when Elevation Partners chose to leave the gaming market for good. EA was in a dire situation on the RPG market and were totally in awe about the millions of bucks Zenimax/Bethesda (and their publishers) made with Oblivion - they just needed to have a AAA RPG studio, and so they bought the Bioware / Pandemic package.

Pandemic's products for EA were all terrible: Mercenaries 2 - World in Flames was a bug ridden rehash of the first game for LucasArts 4 years ago. LotR- Conquest was just SW: Battlefront with new objects and heavy pacing and balancing problems. Both games tanked. The Dark Knight Tie-In didn't even made the quality cut in midst of production.

Most of the former Pandemic employees don't put the blame on EA but on the Pandemic management. The cost for the below average games they delivered were just too high.

If you want the story from the horses mouth just read it here
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost…&postcount=309

Ironically Saboteur is said to be a decent game - a good swan song for pandemic. I cannot say something about the game itself because it's STEAM only, and I don't have that customer enslaving product installed.

I don't think their games were too bad. I liked Mercs 2, it was great for co-op and it wasn't "bug ridden". Also, yeah, Saboteur was a solid, fun game.

Originally Posted by Korplem
I don't think their games were too bad. I liked Mercs 2, it was great for co-op and it wasn't "bug ridden". Also, yeah, Saboteur was a solid, fun game.

GameSpot: "Broken, buggy, and boring gameplay leaves Mercenaries 2's world in flames." "Dozens upon dozens of bugs and glitches Heinous visuals Awful AI "

GamePlanet: "PC version is a major let-down" " launch-day issues faced by a multitude of gamers (referenced in many online forums) - surely it would have been preferable to delay the game by a couple of weeks"

and so on.

Maybe it was buggy for the PC, I don't know, but it was fine on the 360.

Originally Posted by Korplem
Maybe it was buggy for the PC, I don't know, but it was fine on the 360.

Was it?
http://www.gamespot.com/xbox360/acti…es/review.html

Yes, it was. I played it from start to finish. I don't need a review to tell me whether I ran into bugs or not.

The only bug that I came across was in a cutscene at the end. If you play co-op, only one person sees that cutscene, the other just watches it from their perspective. I'd say that isn't a game breaker.

Originally Posted by Maylander
Targeting a new audience is not a bad thing, but in my opinion they seemed to target an audience that will simply not enjoy DA at all - the game is represented in a way that makes it look like an action game, designed for an action crowd.

I wasn't following the development actively, but I was under the impression that it would be a very gory BG's spiritual successor. So I think they did all right, at least to some degree.

Originally Posted by Sir_Brennus
Ironically Saboteur is said to be a decent game - a good swan song for pandemic. I cannot say something about the game itself because it's STEAM only, and I don't have that customer enslaving product installed.

Saboteur got very mixed reviews, was unplayable at release by a large number of people, is available at retail (they have copies in my local JB Hifi for the ridiculous price of $105), and not available on Steam.

As if that weren't already a record number of falsehods in a two sentence paragraph - Steam does the opposite of enslave the customer. It frees the customer from having to pay whatever exorbitant retail price EB games decide to charge, frees the customer from having to worry about losing or damaging the disk, or needing it in the drive, and often frees the customer from the disk-based DRM that many publishers like to force on us.

Via Blue's:

The closure of Pandemic Studios by EA is also discussed from a first-hand perspective, as Carey Chico, formerly of the studio, describes their downfall as a lack of discipline following their capital influx from merging with BioWare: "When you have your own money, what happens is that you have to maintain your own accountability internally, and if you don't have that, you just f**k everything up.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/cr…semble-studios

Originally Posted by Badesumofu
Saboteur got very mixed reviews, was unplayable at release by a large number of people, is available at retail (they have copies in my local JB Hifi for the ridiculous price of $105), and not available on Steam.

As if that weren't already a record number of falsehods in a two sentence paragraph - Steam does the opposite of enslave the customer. It frees the customer from having to pay whatever exorbitant retail price EB games decide to charge, frees the customer from having to worry about losing or damaging the disk, or needing it in the drive, and often frees the customer from the disk-based DRM that many publishers like to force on us.

Sorry, my information was outdated in this regard. It was slated for a STEAM only release early on (and confirmed by the EA/Pandemic PR manager for STEAM in November 09) and so I lost interest. I only read about it in German print mags that awarded 80% scores. The game's Metacritic average is 76% AFAIK, which is generally positive. You can actually buy the PC retail in Germany for 38€.

STEAM frees anyone? If you see it this way, then even Microsoft EULAs free you from something, e.g. the burden of owning anything. No, STEAM is a DRM system in itself, it's invasive, tries to bind the customer with draconic measures and is a plan from Valve to control the DD market.

I am only able to play The Last Remnant because some good folks spread the STEAM registration data and some hackers provided a working exe. STEAM forces the customer to install a software that is unnecessary for the game to work. It just makes the DRM system work.

So I am free when I am forced to install an unwanted software to be allowed to install a software I want and that I payed for? That does seem to be a version of freedom that Stalin would've agreed to, doesn't it?

No, you're free to choose retail products - or whatever you like for that matter, just as some of us choose Steam because we find it does provides advantages. Save the Stalinist crap for people who need such rhetoric in place of thinking for themselves.

There's not a snowflake's chance in hell that EA would develop anything for exclusive Steam release, by the way. Either a magazine or website misquoted or you misread.

Originally Posted by Dhruin
No, you're free to choose retail products - or whatever you like for that matter, just as some of us choose Steam because we find it does provides advantages.

Well that's not entirely true either. Some games require steam even if you buy the retail version (e.g. Total War).

Originally Posted by Dhruin
No, you're free to choose retail products - or whatever you like for that matter, just as some of us choose Steam because we find it does provides advantages. Save the Stalinist crap for people who need such rhetoric in place of thinking for themselves.

There's not a snowflake's chance in hell that EA would develop anything for exclusive Steam release, by the way. Either a magazine or website misquoted or you misread.

My The Last Remnant retail box sits right next to me. It won't install if you don't install (and update) STEAM beforehand. I had no choice.

And since when, Dhruin, is the use of rhetoric similars forbidden around the Watch? That probably will make the Codex regulars unable to post around here…

Silly of you to buy it then, no? I don't own an Android phone in part because I don't like the local carrier choices. Life is full of choices - you apparently made an uninformed one.

And where did I say rhetoric was forbidden? I suggested you drop the rhetoric because I can think for myself and the propaganda is unnecessary here.

Originally Posted by hiciacit
Well that's not entirely true either. Some games require steam even if you buy the retail version (e.g. Total War).

And some Steam games have the retail DRM forced onto them by the publisher. That doesn't preclude you exercising a choice, even if the choice is not to buy.

I think people have the right to be upset if they really want a certain title and are forced to deal with the aforementioned issues due to DRM. If their only "choice" is to not buy it, that's not really much of a choice at all.