Poll: Bioware or EA?

[Sp3ratus]

And as for DA2 i just loathe that with a passion, they took something that worked so well, and turned it into something thats easier for the console, esentially turning it into a button basher when the first was really for pc (anyone who disagree's with that is kidding themselves). And then there was the story which just completely lacked that something which DA1 had, i mean i got so sick and tired of it i found myself only doing the main quest.

... *sigh* DA2 is NOT an easy game and it is NOT a button masher. As I've mentioned earlier in this thread, anyone who says things like that haven't played on nightmare, because playing on nightmare difficulty and doing the optional bosses and quests isn't the walk-over you're trying to make the game out to be. Play on that difficulty, before commenting on how "easy" the game supposedly is.

Don't get me wrong, I can see plenty of flaws in the game, reused dungeons, unnecessary retcons and a somewhat disjointed(but not necessarily bad) story, but the game is nowhere near as horrible as people make it out to be and gets/have gotten way too much hate. And this is coming from someone who loved DA:O and have played through it multiple times with 160+ hours spent in game.

I'm not trying to attack you, so please don't take it the wrong way, but I'm just tired of seeing unnecessary and unfounded critism of the game. Bioware has taken some questionable decisions regarding the game, but the gameplay is still great and challenging like DA:O.

 

[Arina Love]

i liked me2 and da2

 

[Zen Toombs]

EA is to blame for most of the problems of Mass Effect 2, but I still loved it. Haven't gotten around to DA2, so I can't comment on that.

 

[Something Amyss]

They're clearly both to blame on some level, a shame there's no option for that.

 

[AD-Stu]

Assuming we're talking about gameplay and story then I voted Bioware, but I don't necessarily think "blame" is the right term.

With respect to ME2 (I haven't played DA2), I think the development team made the changes with the genuine intention of creating a better game based on feedback from ME1 players. Maybe they went too far on a few counts but in terms of story and gameplay I think it's drawing a pretty long bow to "blame" EA.

The explosion of DLC compared to the first game and the amount of money we were charged for it, on the other hand... yeah, that I'm more willing to pin on EA.

 

[Conza]

Many fans of Dragon Age and Mass Effect did not like their sequals. They say that Mass Effect was dumbed down so as to entice as many new players as possible and that the story was weak and a bit quick compared to the first. While these things may be true I liked Mass Effect 2. Not as much as the first but I liked it.

I'm the same, I think its a small difference, but the mechanics, rpg elements and story of the first were superior, so I give ME2 9.5/10 and ME1 10/10

I did not like Dragon Age 2. It looked bad, most of the characters were bad, the story was crap, and the gameplay was so easy there was no point to being able to control others or plan things out in combat. All in all it felt rushed and compared the the first it was REALLY dumbed down.

I have not played Star Wars TOR so I cannot judge.

So are these problems because of Bioware not giving as much of a shit as they used to or is it because of EA giving them short development times and insiting that gameplay be as simple as possible so as to appeal to as many people as possible and making the story take a back seat?

Edit: I have added an option for people who liked those games and thinks that there is notheing wrong.

I would say its coming from EA. And I personally after ME3, will probably never pay EA any more money again, nor activision, nor ubisoft, gee I'm running out of game companies!

Not until EA change their ways, and the only way they will is when people stop supporting their stupidity.

 

[Oro44]

It's funny. I actually enjoyed DA2, but when I talk to someone else about it, I can only think of the negative. ME2 on the other hand was the first game I actually got 100% with on the hardest difficulty. ME1 just felt clunky, but the story kept me going. As for EA or Bioware? The bulk of the blame falls on EA, but Bioware needs to step up and demand more control over their product.

 

[devotedsniper]

... *sigh* DA2 is NOT an easy game and it is NOT a button masher. As I've mentioned earlier in this thread, anyone who says things like that haven't played on nightmare, because playing on nightmare difficulty and doing the optional bosses and quests isn't the walk-over you're trying to make the game out to be. Play on that difficulty, before commenting on how "easy" the game supposedly is.

Don't get me wrong, I can see plenty of flaws in the game, reused dungeons, unnecessary retcons and a somewhat disjointed(but not necessarily bad) story, but the game is nowhere near as horrible as people make it out to be and gets/have gotten way too much hate. And this is coming from someone who loved DA:O and have played through it multiple times with 160+ hours spent in game.

I'm not trying to attack you, so please don't take it the wrong way, but I'm just tired of seeing unnecessary and unfounded critism of the game. Bioware has taken some questionable decisions regarding the game, but the gameplay is still great and challenging like DA:O.

I can see what your saying and in a way it's valid but when you can button bash your way through it on medium-hard (i forget which i played it through) where on origins i found myself needing to use tactics, it's a step down in my eyes. P.S i never claimed the game was easy i claimed they made it easier to control for console making it worse when you consider origins was very tactical (you could tell it was designed for mouse/keyboard), now making a game easier to control for a platform isn't a bad thing, it's just i don't know, the way they did it seemed to kill the pc gamer aspect of it for me anyway (kind of like turning command and conquer into a shooter would be a good example, because esentially you take away a part of the game which made it command and conquer).

Either way i'll most likely always hate it considering it's the sequel to a game known for going back to the roots of RPG on pc, if it didn't have Dragon Age title i probably would think more highly of it but lets face it, the game was no where near ready for release, there was too little content (in terms of areas) and with it being the sequel to something it beared little resemblence to other than some of the story, and for those reasons it killed the game for me.

 

[Doragon Shinzui]

Hrm...
I'm not really sure who's to blame. I mean, Bioware is the most obvious choice, they're the developers, they write the story and build the game. So, yeah, I'm gonna say I'm much more wary about them starting to stagnate rather than EA.
We already KNOW EA is retarded. It'd be comical if they weren't blowing a hole in all of the progress we've made in the whole "Getting respect" thing.

 

[Smiley Face]

I don't think think it's quite so simple as those three options - both sequels have improvements and regressions (DA with net regression and ME with net improvement, I feel), and for the problems, Bioware and EA are likely respobsible for different parts.

Mass Effect 2's gameplay and structure was an improvement over 1 - the missions were more diverse and well-designed, the dialogue was bigger and better by a small margin, the long travel times with nothing happening dropped off, and the combat became more streamlined, and in a good way (they lost originality points, but ultimately it works better than some of the glitchiness of 1 - and frankly, with 1, your guns and abilities were either inferior or overpowered with no inbetween). The Over-arching storyline suffers by being lower stakes than 1 and easily forgetable, but that forgetableness means that during the vast majority of the game, the quality of the small-scale storytelling is front and centre. As far as the EA/Bioware responsibility, I suspect largely Bioware.

As long as 3 stays away from making linear missions and linear mission-to-mission progression, keeps the free-roam areas big, diverse, and interesting, and has a story that doesn't suck, I don't see many ways it can go wrong. And if that does happen, it's probably EA's fault.

Dragon Age 2 was bad for 3 reasons. 1 was the rushed development schedule, which lies on EA's head. 2 was that the story fell apart at the 3rd act, which is probably a combination of Bioware's fault and reason 1, in that order. Reason 3 is that they tried a significant change in style, changing up the dialogue, art style, combat, environment, and story structure. The combat was a slight improvement overall, the dialogue and art styles come out very slightly better, and the environment and story structure came out noticeably worse worse - and when you change things up like that, you have to better than just better overall, because it takes people familiar with the previous game, the largest market of any sequel, out of their comfort zone, and Dragon Age 2 got worse overall - and again, I think that's largely Bioware's responsibility.

They can totally turn it around for 3 though, but it's going to require ANOTHER overhaul, so it's a risk.

 

[babinro]

I consider DA2 and ME2 to be steps forward...not backwards.

I don't mean to claim that DA2 is a better game than DA:O. Simply that they are drastically improving on the mechanics and fun factor of these games. Even though they haven't been able to recapture the characters and story.

I do consider ME2 to be superior to ME in every way though. I suspect ME 3 will surpass them all from what I've seen and read so far.

 

[GenericRPGNerd]

i would side with any other game company before i too EA's side. not that they don't make good games but they rediculously overcharge for DLC's and that i find that they always push you from instead of buying the older product to buy the new-er product and that this seems to have happened to a lot of people, in the form of the game not working when the disc is perfectly fine or when they limit you from completing the old game (yes i am talking about you tiger woods '11!!!!!!!!) i know that probably just good marketing but i feel as if
EA are just there to milk you and not even produce a fantastic game.

 

[awsomesmurffs123]

i liked dragon age and mass effect and its sequels. i hope for the new mass effect game that they change some of the quarks that were wrong with them. really excited to get the pre order content.

 

[Signa]

Voted Bioware. For whatever reason, that company just isn't the same anymore. You can blame that on EA or not, but those changes didn't happen JUST because of EA. And if they did, EA is still just being EA. Bioware still had to make a choice to follow what EA wants, so it was Bioware's choice to change.

It's like what Obi-Wan said. "Who is more foolish? The fool, or the fool who follows him?"

 

[Tarakos]

The way I see it, it's EA, all the way. I don't think it's a coincidence that right after BioWare's bought out by EA, they started a movement away from their traditionalist design, and more toward ACTION gaming.

ME2 was good, but it was more a shooter with RPG elements, rather than the original's RPG with shooter elements.

DA2 was just bad.

I'm hoping that ME3 doesn't continue this downward trend. If so, I think it's time I picked a new favorite developer.

 

[Signa]

Voted Bioware. For whatever reason, that company just isn't the same anymore. You can blame that on EA or not, but those changes didn't happen JUST because of EA. And if they did, EA is still just being EA. Bioware still had to make a choice to follow what EA wants, so it was Bioware's choice to change.

It's like what Obi-Wan said. "Who is more foolish? The fool, or the fool who follows him?"

It always amazes me when people assume that you can ignore what your employer (yes Bioware are employees of EA) says.

Do you talk back to your employer when they tell you to do something?

"Hey Jim, go stock that shelf." "Nah boss, I don't think that I will do that, its not really ME, you know?"

Do I think they have a choice now? No. You're right, I'm not oblivious to that fact. My point is that EA has always been EA, and Bioware is the one that has changed. Whenever the merger happened, they could have bargained for retaining creative freedom or whatever, but I don't think they cared. Just seeing the screenshots of some of the Bioware forums and how they handle their customers doesn't seem to me like EA is at any particular fault here. Bioware is just as concerned about money over making good games as EA is. It's a perfect match for them.

 

[Estarc]

Obviously Bioware. They've stated many times that EA has little to do with their creative process, and honestly, is it that hard to believe that they want to appeal to a wider audience and make more money?

 

[Sp3ratus]

-snip-

I can see what your saying and in a way it's valid but when you can button bash your way through it on medium-hard (i forget which i played it through) where on origins i found myself needing to use tactics, it's a step down in my eyes. P.S i never claimed the game was easy i claimed they made it easier to control for console making it worse when you consider origins was very tactical (you could tell it was designed for mouse/keyboard), now making a game easier to control for a platform isn't a bad thing, it's just i don't know, the way they did it seemed to kill the pc gamer aspect of it for me anyway (kind of like turning command and conquer into a shooter would be a good example, because esentially you take away a part of the game which made it command and conquer).

Either way i'll most likely always hate it considering it's the sequel to a game known for going back to the roots of RPG on pc, if it didn't have Dragon Age title i probably would think more highly of it but lets face it, the game was no where near ready for release, there was too little content (in terms of areas) and with it being the sequel to something it beared little resemblence to other than some of the story, and for those reasons it killed the game for me.

While I'm inclined to agree with the whole "making it easier for consoles" thing and that it's too bad they've scaled those difficulties back that much, playing on nightmare is nowhere near as easy as it is on hard. I really think it's a shame that you seem to have made up your mind about it, without even giving it a try, because if you liked the strategy, positioning etc. of DA:O and you appreciate a challenge, nightmare is definitely something I believe you would like. The gameplay on nightmare with resistances, friendly fire and a lot tougher enemies makes for a good experience and is exactly the kind of gameplay you're referring to, being very tactical and not just charge in and kill.

In regards to the "too little content", I'd rather say there's too little variation in the environment. There's a lot of content in the game, including side-quests and very tough, optional bosses, but yes, all the reused dungeons/docks/whatever reeks of laziness and is something I can't believe was allowed to be in the game at launch. I mean, just 2 or 3 more different kinds of caves more would have greatly alleviate the criticism it's gotten there.

Anyway, as I said, I think it's a shame you've given up on the game. I highly recommend trying it out on nightmare, because it really brings out how fun the gameplay actually is. My first playthrough I thought the game was so-so, but the second time around, when I played on nightmare, I came to realize that it's still a good game, exactly because of the gameplay, even if it's not the high standards we're used to from Bioware.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

DA2 yes, I think EA put too much pressure on BioWare to churn it out as fast as possible. Less than 18 months after Origins? We should have had another expansion to join awakenings before a sequel at the very least. Origins had an awful lot of life, but like Valve with L4D, it was sequeled in very short order. I have no idea what kind of community formed around it, as they did around NWN and that's the tragedy. BioWare used to make epic games that span generations (as Bethesda still do), now they make throwaway console titles.

The game was a lite RPG with none of the good things about Origins and lots of new bad things. No equipment for companions? No ability to choose different race? I won't deny that it can work being pushed into a single role (eg. Shepard, Geralt of Rivia, Mike Thorton, etc) but Origins was great because we could make our own characters. The copy/paste of every cave map, mansion map, courtyard map was jarring, showed poor production values and broke immersion. I'm torn over how it's been "MMOd" up...on one hand, the action was satisfying, on the other hand it didn't have the tactical depth of its predecessors.

ME2 was brilliant. Hate the DLC shiz but the games industry has gone down that road now and they're never comin' back. I HATED the global cooldown crap and the fact it became a cover based shooter. But the action, particularly as a vanguard was just enough fun, with good RP opportunities and a great supporting cast that you can forgive the shortcomings. Also, Biotic Charge.

Anyway, it's not entirely BioWare or EAs fault. The consolisation of the games industry is the biggest culprit. If I could have a wish, it would be for an indie BioWare to make one last PC RPG, but that will never be. In fact, a current gen remake of BG2, with voice acting...I wouldn't get any sleep for a week.

 

[LiquidGrape]

At this point, they might as well just start doing full blown gay dating sims.

Their efforts to be as inclusive as possible for those who doesn't tick the 'cisgender straight' boxes is one of the reasons why BioWare is still head and shoulders above most of their competition.

But hey, why not just make fun of the notion that some people finally got to see an intimate aspect of themselves represented in an otherwise largely homogeneous medium.