The difference between them having a soul or not?
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2012
- Messages
- 4,388
Dragon Age 4 - Rumors of its Existence
- Thread starter Myrthos
- Start date
The difference between them having a soul or not?
N
NewDArt
Guest
I like some Bioware games - and others I don't.
That said, I do think most of their games are quality products overall - they're just not all for me.
Also, I don't think they've made more than a few games that I genuinely love or think are fantastic. BG, NWN and KotOR are the only ones that come to mind here.
Bioware games I would say I liked:
Baldur's Gate
Baldur's Gate 2
Neverwinter Nights
KotOR
Mass Effect
Mass Effect 2
Mass Effect Andromeda
Dragon Age: Origins
Dragon Age: Inquisition.
Bioware games I would say I didn't like:
MDK2
Shattered Steel
Mass Effect 3
Jade Empire
Dragon Age 2
---
SWtOR is very 50/50 for me - but I definitely got some enjoyment out of it.
I tend to look at games more than their developers. I will always like good games.
I stopped being loyal to brands and names as a teenager. I learned my lesson with Commodore - and I've never forgotten it.
Last edited:
N
NewDArt
Guest
When Age of Decadence was released it was marketed as a completely different type of rpg. There's even a blurb about it when you first start the game.
However, Steam forums were full of people complaining about not being able to do some of the same things they can do in mainstream RGPs (mainly power fantasies where choices in character creation are largely irrelevant due to not being able to fail) even thought that is exactly what that game is about.
There was one particular interaction with Vault_Dweller (the AoD dev) and a steam user. The user basically made the same complaints as above, and VD responded by saying it's a completely different type of rpg with different goals and different types of experiences. The user was basically completely confused with this kind of response and basically called VD arrogant for ignoring decades of modern game design. As if this is now the default design for all RPGs to come forever and ever.
My long winded point is that games that market themselves as RPGs but are nothing more than action/visual novels/fantasy games with RPG elements does a disservice for people who want more focus on systems and combat. DA:I might very well be an enjoyable action fantasy game with interesting dialogue and characters, but as a fan of more old school turn-based RPGs, its involvement in the RPG universe does nothing but harm the genre that I love in the form I love it. What AAA rpgs have turned into are basically HL1 with more story and some rpg elements.
Of course, this might just be a "get off my lawn you damn kids" moment, but let's not pretend developing ANY game doesn't have consequences. They most certainly do.
-Bioware and its IE games popularized RTwP as a mechanic for mainstream rpgs
-Action based Diablo popularized action in RPGs in general and gave birth to the ARPG genre (which is really how I'd classify all AAA rpgs made in recent years)
-Bethesda's games popularized the FPS viewpoint in an actioney way (ass opposed to blobber FP), amid horrible combat, and gave us FO3 and FO4, which are miles away from the originals.
Anyway, what I'm trying to say is that a game being released has much bigger consequences than a group of people enjoying it in their own little corner of the world. Also, it's a slow Friday
Yes, I think I understand.
You're saying that you would not only prefer it if your concept of what an RPG is was the universal definition. You would also greatly prefer that those who have a different - potentially broader - concept of what an RPG is, don't get to influence others with their opinions.
Essentially, you don't really tolerate (what you consider) the mainstream opinion and you consider yours as the superior opinion.
You think that an opinion that's not informed by the past can't be valid - and should be ignored.
That's very common.
But I can't really agree with you on that one.
Personally, having played computer games for around 35 years now - with RPGs being my favorite genre for around 30 of those years - I would much, much rather play a modern Bioware game than Age of Decadence.
That said, I do respect what AoD represents and what such a small team achieved with it. I just don't think it's a particularly good game - and I really DO think it would be greatly improved with a more modern approach. However, that's neither here nor there.
My position is that there's room for both. There's room for nostalgia and there's room for the mainstream. There's room for everyone having an opinion.
The only thing I don't think there's room for would be an opinion dictatorship.
zakhal
SasqWatch
Ive played 25 years now and RPGs were the thing that started it (pool of radiance C64) and that has never changed. I still like all RPGS from wizardry to latest Deus Ex. Only thing is that I dont have enough time to play them all so I have to be picky.
Also Im worn out on fantasy and prefer scifi related games. That doesnt leave me many options so anything I can get my hands on as longs as its half-decent open world scifi rpg.
I havent finished DA:I and Im not in any hurry to jump to DA4. Im thinking of continuin the Witcher-series. The third one looks so good that the series deserves more attension. I think Im 80% finished with the 1st one.
Also Im worn out on fantasy and prefer scifi related games. That doesnt leave me many options so anything I can get my hands on as longs as its half-decent open world scifi rpg.
I havent finished DA:I and Im not in any hurry to jump to DA4. Im thinking of continuin the Witcher-series. The third one looks so good that the series deserves more attension. I think Im 80% finished with the 1st one.
P
purpleblob
Guest
Hmmm, guess I will pass then
Thanks both of you.Back to topic, curious when they will officially announce DA4 development. Although I don't like the series so much, I've been following story. I wonder how they will explain the whole Solas and Flemeth story.
Hmmm, guess I will pass then
Back to topic, curious when they will officially announce DA4 development. Although I don't like the series so much, I've been following story. I wonder how they will explain the whole Solas and Flemeth story.
That's explained in the latest DLC (Trespasser). Very well written DLC actually. Almost worth the rest of it. No idea where it will all lead though, but it could be good.
If I'm not mistaken, Patrick Weekes (former poster here at the Watch), writer of Mordin Solus, was the lead writer on Trespasser and is the new lead writer for the Dragon Age franchise. Promising.
P
purpleblob
Guest
I read the plot summary of Trespasser - but I'm still unclear on few things like:
Did Solas kill/absorbed Flemeth or is it other way around. And why?
Yeah, I wanted to play Trespasser but couldn't get past the main game cause I got sick of doing world quest to get that power thing to progress story. Well, hope DA4 will be better than DA2 and DA:I. Personally think they really need to improve/fix the combat system.
Solas is Fen'Harel, the Dread Wolf. An actual elven god. He's considered a betrayer, but for the wrong reason: He did not betray Mythal (Flemeth); the others did and he fought the others. His actual betrayel, and why he's known as a betrayer is because he locked away the other gods by creating the Veil, thus shattering the elven kingdoms etc.
Flemeth, on the other hand, is a small part of Mythal, the god who got killed. Solas, or rather Fen'Harel, absorbed her power, though it's not clear why yet. There's some rumor that she intended to pass her power to Fen'Harel so he could restore the elves, but live on herself in either Morrigan or her child (the reborn dragon god, if you chose that path in DAO).
Most likely he needs the power for his original plan: Restoring the world to its pre-shattered state. This has the unfortunate drawback of likely breaking the world again, but would restore the ancient elves.
Flemeth, on the other hand, is a small part of Mythal, the god who got killed. Solas, or rather Fen'Harel, absorbed her power, though it's not clear why yet. There's some rumor that she intended to pass her power to Fen'Harel so he could restore the elves, but live on herself in either Morrigan or her child (the reborn dragon god, if you chose that path in DAO).
Most likely he needs the power for his original plan: Restoring the world to its pre-shattered state. This has the unfortunate drawback of likely breaking the world again, but would restore the ancient elves.
All this talk of DA4 are making me want to replay DAI. I've been looking around the lore over the weekend. I guess I know the game I'm (re)playing after I'm done with MEA (in a few days, I'm almost done).
Doesn't help that last Friday there was a full day meeting at BioWare with the DA team leads presenting a project from the looks of twitter comments (they gained developers who were previously on MEA).
Doesn't help that last Friday there was a full day meeting at BioWare with the DA team leads presenting a project from the looks of twitter comments (they gained developers who were previously on MEA).
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2007
- Messages
- 7,313
You could have wrote than for DA2 and DAI.
I have doubts it's that easy to make a game, and despite I didn't read anything about it, DAI was a very big budget, even much higher than DAO vanilla which as an investment to create a new IP. And it seems DAI didn't sell that well for a game with such a large budget.
It means that if there's any DA4, try again do something influenced by very open and very huge games, won't be an option. This would mean there's no chance to try improve upon DAI experience. Make a DAO clone, hu I doubt. It means it's again a totally new blueprint with many chances to screw up and disappoint. Without to mention that the evolution to more action game seems like a global evolution of all EA Bioware releases, which means more chance to get negativity and disappointment.
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2007
- Messages
- 3,258