Poll: Poll: BioWare or Bethesda?

[C95J]

Did you play the second one? The gameplay is improved a lot. But the RPG parts suffers. I'm still surprised they didn't get qualified as a 3PS instead of an RPG. ME's strongpoint is the story, and more precisely, the universe. I'm soo looking forward to the movie.

I always wanted to get the second one, but I don't want to risk my money. I haven't seen too much gameplay but I have heard it is better.

(I will find out soon though because my mum is getting it on her PS3 so I will just borrow it

Your mum plays ME2? That's cool!

yep she has been waiting for it ever since her xbox broke with ME1, so lucky for me I guess

Hey, just my luck! Mass Effect 2 is down from full price to only £5 today! Just ordered, so I will get to play it after all!

 

[josephmatthew10]

This is how I understand the Bethesda/Bioware thing.

First of all, it should be stressed that both companies have taken long strides away from the Diabloesque grind + loot formula. Those RPGs morphed into MMORPGs and the single-player variety have largely died out, thank goodness. In reality, I don't think either Bethesda or Bioware really care about the leveling and looting part of their games as much as they care about what I've bolded below.

Bioware is a company that cares first and foremost about storytelling, and they are constantly working to perfect that ancient art. Bioware is not interested in making good RPGs, they are interested in making good interactive stories. They use the RPG format as a tool to achieve their goal, but loyalty to the RPG tag is always secondary. That's the only way I can interpret the Mass Effect series' development. Further evidence can be seen in the way they create their levels. Buildings and cities are abstractions with only parts relevant to the story warranting any detail. Almost all levels are linear with a start and an end, just like the chapter of a book.

Bethesda, on the other hand, is primarily concerned with exploration, discovery, and mastery of your environment. Story is always secondary, and is used as a tool to create opportunities for exploration or to flesh out the world. That's why they have had and will probably always have much better side-quests and factions than Bioware. It's also why their main quests usually don't get much love. Every house should have a door, every mountain should be scalable, every cave should have inhabitants or a story behind it. They are all about providing you with a world to fool around in, and the freedom to prioritize what you should do next. The natural downside, of course, is that they often overreach and have to cut costs in terms of NPCs.

As a side note, I don't think Obsidian really understood the Bethesda 'spirit' when they made FNV. Invisible walls are pretty much the polar opposite of what the latter's design philosophy is all about.

You, sir, have summed up my entire thread (and personal feelings) in one post. Good job!

 

[josephmatthew10]

Some other thoughts:

I've noticed both companies have interesting experiences with Obsidian; Obsidian made the 2nd KOTOR and developed F:NV. Obsidian often seems to do a great job continuing in the spirit of the previous company... ALMOST. many people believe F;NV was too closed-in compared to F3. Many people (like me) believe KOTOR 2 was pretty great until LucasArts pushed it out 6 months early and then Obsidian shit the bed, ripping out too much and ruining the ending (not to mention they made the big villain a pussy compared to his reputation.)

Just throwin' that out there.

 

[AgentBJ09]

Bethesda. For several reasons.

1. I've been playing Bethesda's games since 2002 with Morrowind and one thing that I love doing in any RPG I play is looting. Second to that is Bartering. Very few, if any, of Bioware's games let you do this, or have a system set up for haggling.

2. World Fluff - Bethesda, whether it's with The Elder Scrolls or Fallout, always makes worlds that are packed with narrative in books and history. Bioware, while good with characters, dialogue and delivery of such, doesn't do much of that, so I can't get as attached to the world they build.

3. Atmosphere - My first time playing Morrowind as a Thief/Merchant felt much more immersive than my first time in Jade Empire speaking with spirits or stopping bandits. Even when I was playing Mass Effect, I couldn't get very attached to the world since not much was going on with it. Open world games feel that way to me more so than linear or semi-open ones.

4. Value - It's a real world factor, I know, but Bethesda's RPGs have more to do in terms of gameplay than those from Bioware. As such, if I have to pick between a fantasy RPG from either of them, chances are Bethesda's games will allow me to do more and get more playtime from the amount of money I spend.

 

[AgentBJ09]

Some other thoughts:

I've noticed both companies have interesting experiences with Obsidian; Obsidian made the 2nd KOTOR and developed F:NV. Obsidian often seems to do a great job continuing in the spirit of the previous company... ALMOST. many people believe F;NV was too closed-in compared to F3. Many people (like me) believe KOTOR 2 was pretty great until LucasArts pushed it out 6 months early and then Obsidian shit the bed, ripping out too much and ruining the ending (not to mention they made the big villain a pussy compared to his reputation.)

Just throwin' that out there.

I just bought Fallout: New Vegas and I've been playing it for about 20 hours so far.

It has definitely added to the world exploration with a more diplomatic and speech oriented aspect of the game, which I like to see. I'll have to play more to form a solid opinion, but so far, I haven't seen one bug and I'm very satisfied with what Obsidian made here.

(XBOX 360 version. Vanilla/No patches.)

 

[josephmatthew10]

I just remembered something: BioWare HAS pulled off the massive, sprawling sandbox world while keeping excellent characterization and storytelling; Dragon Age: Origins.

 

[Mr Godfrey]

Eh...both are great, but Bethesda loses points for having their name attached to the abomination known as Fallout New Vegas. I know they didn't develop it, but they still published it.

Bioware's games are great, but I think I still enjoyed getting lost in the worlds of Oblivion and Fallout 3 enough to even the scales.

Fallout New Vegas wasn't bad. A few glitch issues (which were pretty overplayed in my opinion), but still a good game.

No. Sorry. You can't tell me that the countless freezes and sound problems that I experienced were "a few glitch issues which were pretty overplayed." They made the game unplayable. Maybe you were lucky. Maybe I wasn't. But for me, the game froze constantly, far far worse than any other game I've ever played. That's not "a few glitch issues", that's a thoroughly broken game.

I guess I was lucky. I thought people were just being bitchy.

 

[rockyoumonkeys]

Eh...both are great, but Bethesda loses points for having their name attached to the abomination known as Fallout New Vegas. I know they didn't develop it, but they still published it.

Bioware's games are great, but I think I still enjoyed getting lost in the worlds of Oblivion and Fallout 3 enough to even the scales.

Fallout New Vegas wasn't bad. A few glitch issues (which were pretty overplayed in my opinion), but still a good game.

No. Sorry. You can't tell me that the countless freezes and sound problems that I experienced were "a few glitch issues which were pretty overplayed." They made the game unplayable. Maybe you were lucky. Maybe I wasn't. But for me, the game froze constantly, far far worse than any other game I've ever played. That's not "a few glitch issues", that's a thoroughly broken game.

I guess I was lucky. I thought people were just being bitchy.

Yeah, I understand. A lot of times people will ***** about a game and it'll largely be nitpicky and unreasonable.

But New Vegas truly was the most profoundly broken game I've ever played in my life. Hell, even I thought people were exaggerating about the problems before I encountered them myself.