... no they weren't. They sold really well and still had decent reviews. The only way they "failed" was in a "big shoes to fill" manner.Sarge034 said:DA2 and ME3 were both failures
This was my first thought, although it kind of sounds like they are saying "And because it's the same engine, we can reuse assets" so it'll have the same menu systems and textures and blatantly base the gameplay mechanics on exactly the same system, just tweaked for the style of game.MinionJoe said:To be fair, Bethesda did the same thing with Elder Scrolls/Fallout and they turned out pretty well IMO.
So what is the "core" of a Bioware RPG? That really can range from dialogue choices, reputation systems, squad interaction, leveling, etc. Does Bioware even know what the core is? Because they seem to get a lot of hate for getting some things wrong, even if they manage to do plenty of stuff right, so clearly no one knows the actual core of a Bioware game.valium said:Or it could be the quoted "core-systems," assuming Bioware has at least some notion of what the word "core" means.Adam Jensen said:They took Mass Effect dialogue wheel and implemented it into Dragon Age 2. It can be done. Like the first post suggests, it could be just inventory management and dialogue. Or it could be the way you interact with your squad, reputation system, leveling and things like that.alphamalet said:Why borrow anything from either game when their play styles are so diametrically opposed?
Where are the PC sales for Dragon Age II? Because according to that graph it sold at least a million copies on consoles for a game that was primarily for the PC crowd... for its short development cycle and cost of production that's pretty damn good.Desert Punk said:Dragon age 2 WAS a failure. It didnt sell very well.Abomination said:... no they weren't. They sold really well and still had decent reviews. The only way they "failed" was in a "big shoes to fill" manner.Sarge034 said:DA2 and ME3 were both failures
And DA2s "Reviews" were a joke of EA paying off writers, just look at the escapists 'review' if you want an example of that.
Mass Effect 3 though, I will admit had stunning sales, and good reviews that were well deserved, even if the last 15 minutes were tripe, the remainder of the game was well above average.
A game that was primarily for the PC crowd... What the HELL are you talking about? A dumb down version with lackluster "tactic combat" and easy mode on by default? That didn't even had the original's Isometric camera options? No... the first one was aimed at PCs. DA 2? Not in the slightest.Abomination said:Where are the PC sales for Dragon Age II? Because according to that graph it sold at least a million copies on consoles for a game that was primarily for the PC crowd... for its short development cycle and cost of production that's pretty damn good.
It most certainly was NOT a failure.
DA2 was a failure due to cutting corners, "simplification" of the combat tactics system, and a disjointed story. ME3 was a failure because the last 15 minutes destroyed ALL the fun I had in the 400+ hours I played the series. I can't even stand to reply ME1 and ME2 because I know it leads to that pile of shit ending.Abomination said:... no they weren't. They sold really well and still had decent reviews. The only way they "failed" was in a "big shoes to fill" manner.Sarge034 said:DA2 and ME3 were both failures
Haunted - The Demon's Forge? - I actually enjoyed that. It has been done in a few other examples, mostly as FPS, none the less it is not nearly as worn out as WW2 and modern warfare.Quellist said:Dragon age Inquisition is going to be a 3rd person over the shoulder shooter using arrows and magic instead of guns and Psi powers!
Kinda amazing how the removal of activation times, which improved the combat considerably, gets so misrepresented by bad PR work.Funyahns said:Button=Awesome
You know that some people are still hoping for The Indoctrination Theory to be true? I shit you not.Dragonbums said:I really want to see what they are going to do with Mass Effect 4
Like, what are you gonna do? You either have to continue based the story to varying degrees based on your stupid endings, retcon the whole thing to make it work with minimal effort, or do a prequel of a series of events everyone knows about already.
It was meant to be a trilogy. Let if fucking end as a trilogy.
Like, I don't know how they are going to continue this, and quite frankly I'm not going to sink my money into it like I did for ME3. I'll watch from the sidelines
No... No... if it was like CD projekt Red, Valve, an indie studio, Ubisoft or anyone else I would have called it Efficient. Because there I know that they will still design entire levels on their own.bug_of_war said:This isn't really corner cutting, it's making good use of an engine, Valve and Activision have been doing this for years.1337mokro said:CUTTING CORNERS! EA STYLE!!!
Fuck you Bioware!
The corner cutting has become fucking shameless in ME3 and let's not even talk about the lackluster copy pasting in Dragon Age 2. Entire fucking locations were copied and you didn't even BOTHER to attempt to hide it.
That doesn't just say Lazy, that says We don't give a shit.
OT:Cool...I guess, I'd rather hear more about the games themselves but at least I'll know that if I can run one fine the other will run just as well.
Economically a failure? I doubt it. Dragon Age Origins sold quite well, but it was a game that took 6 years to develop. Dragon Age 2 was cranked out in about a year. They may have gotten less money out of it than the original, but they certainly put less money in as well.Desert Punk said:Dragon age 2 WAS a failure. It didnt sell very well.