@Kitteh_On_A_Cloud fair enough, soulessness might be a bit harsh though. :P
With DA:O and the ME games I definitely experienced the pull. Not so much with DA2 obviously but at the same time I didn't have to push myself to finish it.
@State_Lemming: well, as I said, it's kinda hard to explain. I definitely got into Dragon Age Origins too, though. Especially when I discovered the free mods on the Dragon Age Nexus site. Man, those were the times. Too bad that my PC crashed. Lost all of my data of DA:O, of Skyrim and of Recettear, three games I'd invested quite some time in. Each of them +200 hours, each containing 1000 savefiles...
Due to my utter hatred for EA, I really don't know if I'd even bother with this one.
Regardless for how I feel about EA, I'll buy products from them if I think they're going to be high quality. However, DA2/ME3 truly tarnished the relationship, especially because of the direction they're pushing devs to move.
I'm angriest about MP side of ME3; I don't mind them having it, but I don't want it to affect the single player campaign. Some people want MP games, which is great for them. But epic story RPG games don't fit squad tactics in my opinion; even if they do, I wouldn't by a MP game. Essentially, leave the multi- out of my RPG's!
The DLC side doesn't bug me much, even if I understand why people get frustrated. I'm a completionist, so I generally buy all of the story-based DLC (I don't buy dress-me-up-Barbie DLC's that let you have the dress from a different game, the gun from another or whatnot; I guess I don't play "Commander Sheperd Fashion Show" when I do ME). Only exception was the Morrigan story from DA:O (DLC) because it had horrid reviews.
I never re-played DA:2, but somebody (@Iecerint) said the DLC was really good, so I just might. I didn't think it was that great of a game, but it was almost like family movie night when I played, which was fun (even with my wife's eye-rolls at Isabella).
Not to self-bump, but this news about EA is both sad and promising. Sad because real people are affected, but promising because it shows that the software giant is vulnerable to consumer tastes. I think they get high/heavy-handed (like Microsoft - I'm looking at you, Windows 8) and push a vision onto consumers, rather than creating and distributing things that match consumer taste. That works in the short run, but the long term prospects are not so rosy.
They cashed in on a lot of BioWare stock and credibility, but doing so only helped the bottom line in the short term.
EA has been heavy-handed for many years now. Somewhere along the line, they stopped being a developer of good sports games, and started being a white whale that consumed whole studios to either eliminate them or control them.
While EA is a terrible publisher, I think it is worth noting that the majority of big publishers all have the same exact horrible business practices. Activision-Blizzard, Eidos and Square have all done their part to gobble up popular "small" devs.
If you are going to hate on Wal-Mart hate on Target too etc.
I never re-played DA:2, but somebody (@Iecerint) said the DLC was really good, so I just might. I didn't think it was that great of a game, but it was almost like family movie night when I played, which was fun (even with my wife's eye-rolls at Isabella).
Well, the DLC remains kinda overpriced, but it fixed the major problems I had with DA2. Instead of all enemy encounters consisting of random spawns "from the roottops," which totally negates a lot of players' strategic options and makes combat very repetitive, the combat is more varied. All the companion VAs came back to do more voice-acting, so there's no awkward silence from your party as you play-through. And the areas are all unique, of course.
There's also a lot of replayability. Legacy has a branch point in the story, and each companion that you bring with you for Mark of the Assassin has a personal quest. Mark of the Assassin also has (mild) reactivity to other stuff you've done in your playthrough.
I'd say Legacy is the better of the two, mainly because it fits into the main story better. When my dad played through the game, he liked Legacy best of the entire game. MotA feels more like a side-story, though Felicia Day's character is kinda interesting.
I personally really enjoyed ME3's multiplayer. I thought I would hate it, but it was pretty fun. The only thing I didn't like about ME3 was the ending, but the Extended Cut helped to patch that for me a little, even as I mourned IT.
@Iecerint I have no problem with MP aspects being included for those that are interested. My problem is that it affects the single player game and shouldn't.
@reedmilfam - After the patch that accompanied the Extended Cut, it's possible to get the best ending without bothering with MP at all. (Before, I think this was only possible if you were extremely particular about the save you uploaded.)
Not sure if that affects your POV one way or the other.
In my case, I can understand the developers wanting to have some kind of a carrot to encourage players to try out the MP, since they want the microtransactions and such. I don't think MP should be necessary for getting a better ending, but I think it's fine for it to be an alternate path to a better ending or to particular equipment, so long as it makes sense in whatever world was constructed.
@reedmilfam - After the patch that accompanied the Extended Cut, it's possible to get the best ending without bothering with MP at all. (Before, I think this was only possible if you were extremely particular about the save you uploaded.)
Not sure if that affects your POV one way or the other.
In my case, I can understand the developers wanting to have some kind of a carrot to encourage players to try out the MP, since they want the microtransactions and such. I don't think MP should be necessary for getting a better ending, but I think it's fine for it to be an alternate path to a better ending or to particular equipment, so long as it makes sense in whatever world was constructed.
I guess I differ in that I didn't buy a multi-player game. It would be like adding FPS aspects to Civilization and then locking things unless I play that part. EA is welcome to do that sort of thing, as it is there product. I'm merely discussing what keeps me from financing such endeavors. If few people agree with me, they'll make loads of money and be happy. However, if my opinion is a strong undercurrent, they will suffer in the marketplace.
I'm not sure about the MP affecting single-player in ME3. I only played once, and with everything installed. Maybe it didn't affect my game - there's no way for me to be sure what is/isn't different, as my sample size is one.
I agree with @reedmilfam. Multiplayer should in NO way affect the single player part of the game. I'm not really jumping for joy to have to team up with a couple of potty-mouthed spoiled brats just to get a better score for the ending of my game. Thanks, but no.
I personally really enjoyed ME3's multiplayer. I thought I would hate it, but it was pretty fun.
Pretty much the same for me. I bought the game for single player, but decided to try one of the weekend multiplayer challenges just to to see how it went. Ended up enjoying it a lot more than I thought I would, and kept coming back each weekend for more challenges (I'm just sad they are now finished).
I changed my mind after some thinking. You know what? I don't think EA deserves any more of my money. I actually have quite had it with the monetised and capitalised video game industry as it is right now. Microtransactions, DLC, Day-One DLC... It's all about the money anymore nowadays. Creativity is mostly lost. For some reason, developers have trouble making good games today. You know, a good game doesn't have to scream 'unique!' and 'never done before!' to me as a gamer to be considered 'good'. It just has to have an interesting story and be honest in its quality. Take Dragon Age: Origins, for example. Did it have the most unique of stories? Absolutely not. But was the game immersive and appealing? Absolutely, yes! The thing is, you could just FEEL a lot of time and love had gone into creating this game, no matter how dull some moments in-game appeared to you. Nowadays developers aren't even ashamed to publish a half-developed game, which crashes at launch, anymore. Since when did it come to this? And is it just a phase the industry has to go through, like puberty, before realising just following your greed will eventually cause you to end up with nothing? Since when did gamers become so passive and eager to let publishers screw them over as much as they please? I can just sigh and lament this modern industry and the age of complete lack of true innovation my sister has to grow up in. Sure, we got iPads. And? Can't even write a coherent e-mail on it, unless I type at a snail's pace. Sure, we got Smartphones. And? At least the internet connection on my laptop never drops that much. I'm not Twitter or Facebook either. I've yet to be really surprised by this age's current inventions. And with inventions, I don't mean Windows 8.
Not to suggest releasing a half-finished game is acceptable, but that is hardly a new trend. The difference is that at least now we have the internet to warn us not to buy broken POS titles.
The one thing that is new is the required Steam/Windows Live/Origin nonsense, which is definitely rage worthy.
Hopefully the next Xbox won't hold to those 'always on' rumors.
The good news is that there are lots of great games if you know where to look, we even have the luxury of updated Baldur's Gate now. :P
I believe DAO was one hell of a game. While, DA2 was...not what I was expecting. I didn't hate the sequal, I just expected something else entirely because of the first game. So, right now I'm a little weary of DA3. What was really exciting to pre-order was mass effect 2 and 3 (even with the ending). Here is to hoping the DA series pick right back up.
I loved DA:O as much as BG, NWN or Fallout. I think it did everything it set out to do. DA2 was a serious step backward, but I didn't hate it. The recycled areas, muddled 3rd act, and unrealistic fighting movements annoyed me. But the character interaction and the 2nd Act made the game worth playing.
I'm in the 'incomplete options' department for the poll. I'll probably buy it. But I'm not going to be in a hurry to. I'll wait until it's on sale and gone through a bug fix or two.
Loved DA:O skipped the expansion cause read reviews that npc's/story was lame, and skipped DA2 because it was Action RPG type rather than turn based type RPG.
Loved DA:O skipped the expansion cause read reviews that npc's/story was lame, and skipped DA2 because it was Action RPG type rather than turn based type RPG.
I find that the difference in combat between DA 1 and 2 is often exaggerated. As far as I'm concerned, combat in the second game is pretty much the same as the first except sped up a bit. I played both on PS3 though, and I vaguely remember reading that there were additional differences for the PC versions between the 2 games, so maybe that has something to do with it.
Neither game is turn based, or even quasi turn based like BG.
After the debacle of DA2 and ME3, I am not purchasing any more BioWare/EA titles. They swindled me out of $60 for ME2, claiming it was an RPG when it was really just a mediocre Gears of War clone. They burned me on DA2, which I consider one of the worst games ever produced by a major studio. They misrepresent their games, don't care a bit for quality, seem to think that they're making movies instead of games, and they chop up their games piecemeal in order to sell Day 1 DLC.
Their latest games embody everything I hate about the industry at present, and I so no reason to give them even one cent of my money.
It would be like adding FPS aspects to Civilization and then locking things unless I play that part.
I'm not sure about the MP affecting single-player in ME3. I only played once, and with everything installed. Maybe it didn't affect my game - there's no way for me to be sure what is/isn't different, as my sample size is one.
The only effect of the MP experience is that it applies a multiplier to your "galactic readiness" score that ranges from 0.0 to 1.0; with no MP, the multiplier is 0.5. Hence, it's possible to skip lots of sidequests and still get the best ending if you play MP, but you can still get the best ending without MP.
In the original release of the game, it was only possible to get the best ending without MP if you loaded a save that had near-perfect choices. This departed from Bioware's original claim, which was that you would be able to get the best ending/all the stuff without touching MP at all straight out of the box.
I'll probably end up trying it after it's been out for a while. I'm in the minority where I HATED! Origins and loved DA2. But even still there were a few points in both games that I enjoyed enough that I think will shine through on to DA3.
@AvengingExile: As mind-boggling as it is to me how you could completely hate on DA:O, which, according to me, was superior in everything to its sequel, I ask you how DA 2 with its brownish-riddled graphics, re-used areas, dumbed down and over-the-top combat, cheesy and overdramatic characters and weak story was somehow better than DA:O? I admit, the story in DA:O wasn't innovative, but anyone having gone the complete length of the Deep Roads and having discovered the origins of the Darkspawn should at least have some respect for the writing behind the story, as it is massively better than DA 2's redundant 'Templars vs. Mages' conflict. Oh, and don't forget that about every mage is depicted as a psycho or a madman. At least DA:O still depicted mages as fellow humans, even folks like Owen, whose connection to the Fade was cut on purpose! Loghain was in every respect a better 'villain' than any of the 'villains' present in DA2 (Meredith comes to mind). At least DA:O's Isabela didn't need to dress up like a slut in order to be an interesting character. But hey, sex sells, right? And sex is basically the only thing she can talk about in DA 2. 'I like big boats'. Seriously? Even Aerie's whining in Baldur's Gate 2 had more characterization and better writing to it than this. Same goes for Merrill (the oh-so-overdone 'anime/moe' cute helpless girl who can't distinguish her fingers from her toes, so to speak) and for Fenris (grumble grumble mages rant rant). I also hated how Bioware completely ruined Anders' personality. At least in Awakening he was an interesting character with funny dialogues. I admit, he sometimes resembled Alistair too much, but even Alistair was quite likeable and hundred times less whiny than the Anders in DA 2. Also, complete lack of any creativity when it comes to Kirkwall itself. Brown 'n grey everywhere. I didn't pay 60 bucks to be forced to go through the same damn cave over and over again. Could just as well play Pacman, which would still be more appealing. Also, as the article @Dr_Atomic linked to states, look how Bioware forces you to play your character while giving you the illusion that a voiced protagonist actually makes your character more 'immersive'. It's just lazy programming. Compare the images shown comparing the dialogue choices back then in the past and now. Less for more, like a tin of corned beef. Even DA:O still gave you more options to choose from. And you'd not be surprised to see/hear your character say something completely different from what you'd expect. Pretty much ruins roleplaying for me. And hey, I thought this was an RPG, right? Oh well, to each their own, but I think this game shows that Bioware has lost any view on their audience. Characters like Merrill and Fenris are there to attract the Final Fantasy folks, the over-the-top combat is there probably for the Call of Duty people. This isn't Bioware anymore. This is Jack-of-all-Tradesware who can't decide which part of the audience to please and be confident with. Result: a game which has lost any perspective on the genre 'RPG'. A game that wants to be everything, but ends up being nothing. /rant
@AvengingExile: Just to be clear: my previous post wasn't a hate rant against you personally, so please don't be offended. I guess I just got carried away.
Comments
~Aosaw
Carry on.
With DA:O and the ME games I definitely experienced the pull. Not so much with DA2 obviously but at the same time I didn't have to push myself to finish it.
I'm angriest about MP side of ME3; I don't mind them having it, but I don't want it to affect the single player campaign. Some people want MP games, which is great for them. But epic story RPG games don't fit squad tactics in my opinion; even if they do, I wouldn't by a MP game. Essentially, leave the multi- out of my RPG's!
The DLC side doesn't bug me much, even if I understand why people get frustrated. I'm a completionist, so I generally buy all of the story-based DLC (I don't buy dress-me-up-Barbie DLC's that let you have the dress from a different game, the gun from another or whatnot; I guess I don't play "Commander Sheperd Fashion Show" when I do ME). Only exception was the Morrigan story from DA:O (DLC) because it had horrid reviews.
I never re-played DA:2, but somebody (@Iecerint) said the DLC was really good, so I just might. I didn't think it was that great of a game, but it was almost like family movie night when I played, which was fun (even with my wife's eye-rolls at Isabella).
They cashed in on a lot of BioWare stock and credibility, but doing so only helped the bottom line in the short term.
If you are going to hate on Wal-Mart hate on Target too etc.
There's also a lot of replayability. Legacy has a branch point in the story, and each companion that you bring with you for Mark of the Assassin has a personal quest. Mark of the Assassin also has (mild) reactivity to other stuff you've done in your playthrough.
I'd say Legacy is the better of the two, mainly because it fits into the main story better. When my dad played through the game, he liked Legacy best of the entire game. MotA feels more like a side-story, though Felicia Day's character is kinda interesting.
Not sure if that affects your POV one way or the other.
In my case, I can understand the developers wanting to have some kind of a carrot to encourage players to try out the MP, since they want the microtransactions and such. I don't think MP should be necessary for getting a better ending, but I think it's fine for it to be an alternate path to a better ending or to particular equipment, so long as it makes sense in whatever world was constructed.
I'm not sure about the MP affecting single-player in ME3. I only played once, and with everything installed. Maybe it didn't affect my game - there's no way for me to be sure what is/isn't different, as my sample size is one.
The one thing that is new is the required Steam/Windows Live/Origin nonsense, which is definitely rage worthy.
Hopefully the next Xbox won't hold to those 'always on' rumors.
The good news is that there are lots of great games if you know where to look, we even have the luxury of updated Baldur's Gate now. :P
I'm in the 'incomplete options' department for the poll. I'll probably buy it. But I'm not going to be in a hurry to. I'll wait until it's on sale and gone through a bug fix or two.
Neither game is turn based, or even quasi turn based like BG.
Their latest games embody everything I hate about the industry at present, and I so no reason to give them even one cent of my money.
After that point it has gone steadily downhill, in my opinion.
In the original release of the game, it was only possible to get the best ending without MP if you loaded a save that had near-perfect choices. This departed from Bioware's original claim, which was that you would be able to get the best ending/all the stuff without touching MP at all straight out of the box.