One other thing of concern is that, party based RPGs as Bioware made and continues(?) to make, do not sell that much.
That much, meaning 4 million copies for a good title. Now, that is not small, but compared to other titles that sell 10 and 12 million and still have the "RPG" in it, it is less.
Add to that, the fact that, Bioware uses a larger budget progressively for each game provided by EA. So, the games need to sell more since you have a larger budget, but you might not get too much with the old BG style or even DA:O style.
So how will you approach a larger audience? You need to appeal to more people, obviously, with your themes.
Some people call that dumbing down of the RPG genre.
Well still, if it's a good game, you still play it. But i seriously don't get this inflative mentality. More and more and more budgets to create products that are actually not on par with previous titles. They have cut the production cycles too short to create subpar titles and get more money.
That is what EA is being blamed for.
The reason ME3 ending was so bad, was because, according to some at least, 2 people only worked on it, and it didn't pass through many internal testing.
You can argue that they tried to fix it afterwards, but it proves that originally the game was rushed to get to the shelves, so the money can come quicker.
And why? Because the budgets are so big, the companies try to get as much as possible, as early as possible.
Yeah, and I'd love to know whether that fix actually changed something. Most people I talked to still despise the ending and find it very amateurish from Bioware. Also, what does this say about the original game you made, if your audience acts up so much you gotta fix your own game? And let's not start about the audience itself (yes, they might be whiny and entitled at times), they indeed deserved better in this case. I still don't get how Bioware's not been persecuted for plagiarism either by now. Must be the shiny EA pay-off dollars.
Okay first off, fans don't 'deserve' anything, it is perfectly within ones right to be disappointed and critical, but the idea that the fans were owed something is just silly.
I haven't talked to many folks about the subject, but I know that some people enjoyed the extended editions, I didn't, I liked the original, but for them it helped provide a sense of closure they felt they were lacking.
I find it interesting that you think Bioware *had* to fix the game, they certainly did not, obviously each person who complained about the ending bought the game, and they offered the free dlc endings anyway, they could've easily held off on that completely, still leaving on the positive note most folks had with Citadel.
You are going to have to elaborate on the plagiarism thing for me, my brain might be too sleepy to see the connection there.
Of course, they're going to try to earn as much as possible from the game. That's nothing new, at all. In the long run, they do this by creating good games that people like. In the process, however, bills must be paid, etc. In the short run, the DA ][/ME 3 approach probably worked; it will presumably hurt them in the long run, as people are genuinely skeptical about future products, so they (essentially EA) will have to regain credibility.
I think you might be overestimating the effect of hardcore fan opinion, in any given situation angry fans on forums (especially the Bioware forum) is not representative of their whole consumer base.
I remember an amusing infographic that came out for people who play Mass Effect, the overwhelming majority were playing as default broshep soldiers, which leads me to believe a lot of people just enjoy the game for shooting robots.
I don't mean to suggest the new endings wouldn't help their credibility, but I don't see that as the driving force behind it.
Yeah, and I'd love to know whether that fix actually changed something. Most people I talked to still despise the ending and find it very amateurish from Bioware.
To a certain extent, it did: the new ending provided emotional closure, in the sense that you got to see what happened to your squadmates and the more far-reaching consequences of your actions.
Unfortunately, that was only half the criticism of the ending, and nothing was done to provide intellectual closure as well - the Starchild sequence remained baffling and poorly thought-out.
We should bear in mind, though, that there were very specific circumstances behind the ME3 controversy: the main writer left, his replacements went on a power trip, etc. DA3 has a different team and different writers, there's no reason to automatically assume that they'll drop the ball just because ME3 did.
DAO 1 was an awesome game with 'nice' control. DAO 2 was too rigid. It had too many cut scenes and the story choices/consequences were twisted mean. But I liked the first, so I will play the third. Seems like we are stuck with the middlemen for game delivery . The thing I detest is not being able to play my purchased game offline.
I installed it to play DA2 and uninstalled immediately after I was done with it. It is a pointless inconvenience, and I don't blame anyone for not wanting to deal with that.
The same can be said for Steam, though. I'd rather not have Steam installed on my PC either... It's not like Steam doesn't go down either now and then, right when I want to play a game... *sigh*
Yeah I just happen to use Steam voluntarily so I don't associate the same annoyance with them. I do feel for people who wanted to play Skyrim without it though.
Long answer : it might depend entirely on the offer. Day one? Absolutely not, especially with the ever-so-fantastic BioWare Day 1 DLCs. If it comes on a special offer, with all DLCs and what not available, similarly to what Origins had a couple of weeks ago on Steam, sure, I can sacrifice some hot chocolate money. But let me formulate better :
BioWare is DEAD. It was dead since Dragon Age 2. There's no need to hide it - they passed from the hardcore gamer that liked a challenge, clever strategies and forethought to the casual market. Mass Effect 2 was an example, Dragon Age 2 was an even harder and more blatant example. Not to mention that BioWare stories nowadays are 'meh' at best - let's be honest, either pure black, or pure white... with very vague and BAD attempts at gray, which Obsidian does splendidly.
Secondly - the most worth of a game comes out of re-playability. With weak moral choices that DON'T matter (Mass Effect 3, hint hint), with gameplay and roleplay mechanics which are almost non-existent (that seems to be a trend in nowadays "RPGs" - first Mass Effect 2, then Dragon Age 2, then Diablo 3, etc... we could call it the "Pseudo-RPG" genre by now!) and on the top of all, with Artificial difficulty? What's the reason to replay a game?
Baldur's Gate was replayable for the insane amount of aspects available to the player and the clever but FAIR AI that you had in the games. Instead, Dragon Age 2 proposes what? Ah yeah, ninja-bandits who seemingly fall down from the sky without any sort of predictability - that's a nice difficulty setting, it almost makes me trash the game really >.<
If things change in Dragon Age 3 - fantastic. But if we are stuck to a Human race character with weak gameplay and roleplay mechanics where choices don't matter - then I am done with BioWare forever.
Also, I would also like to reply @Kitteh_on_a_Cloud : I wouldn't say Mass Effect 3 did plagiarism, or rather, BioWare. But I agree to some extent with your post, as, let's be honest, the three Mass Effect 3 endings are basically Deus Ex copycats.
Dark Age, Fusion, Domination - that's the Deus Ex endings. They kinda do remind me of the ME3 endings truth be told
As for your post, I definitely agree on the 'Pseudo-RPG' thing. It's actually very true what you say there. Bioware no longer makes RPGs, but Action-Roleplaying games, which was most noticeable in Dragon Age 2 (with the over-the-top combat). Your choices literally don't matter. I'd like to see a game which truly makes them matter, actually. A game with a variety of dialogue options, each leading to different consequences, increasing game replayability.
Nowadays Bioware seems to have taken on the Mc Donald's mindset, though. Games are pure consumables. You play them once and then practically throw them away, because you've seen it all. I'm especially afraid for the Human-only character in Dragon Age 3 (even more dumbing down and cutting out!?) and the stigma it will bear on the game as a whole (the Crusades, anyone? Yeah, the West should really be proud of those...). Actually, I don't really like the sound of 'Inquisition' at all, to be honest. It makes me think of even more black-and-white mindsets and even more narrow-mindedness and hate between the Templars and the Mages. Didn't we have enough of that already in Dragon Age 2?
I guess I use a different metric for deciding if choices "matter." To take Mass Effect 3, there seems to be a big difference between:
Paragon path through Tuchanka having to turn down support from the Salarians by curing the genophage, but helping Mordin find peace in the process and creating a sense of hopefulness for the Krogans.
vs.
Renegade path, backstabbing Wrex, shooting Mordin in the back to stop him from implementing the cure, having to lie to all of your comrades about it, and then having to shoot Wrex when he finds out how badly you screwed him and his entire species over.
@Kitteh_On_A_Cloud truth be told I had enough of the mage-templar bullgoo in Dragon Age Origins, let alone Dragon age 2 >.<
But in general, what the Inquisition used to be is some kind of judges of faith. They judged the heretics and condemned them to a fate worse than death - or rather, painful death. Naming Dragon Age 3 Inquisition can't really invoke good images in my head - it basically makes me think that our character will have the balls to judge by their own free will who is a heretic and should be slain or not... in other words, our character will be a complete fanatic? Fantastic, that's a great premise really.
Well let's not read too much into the title. We only know that the game will (probably) be Inquisition related. Going from there to "This means the player character will be supporting this inquisition and be a fanatic" is quite a stretch.
Most likely, they'll escalate things from DA2 on the Templar/Mage front, turning it into an all-out war. Because to be fair, where Apostates are concerned, there always has been an inquisition. It's not a new concept to the series.
@Drugar: Yeah, I know. The title just doesn't sit right with me, as I mentioned earlier. I disliked how black-and-white Dragon Age 2 was when it pictured the Templar/Mage issues. As if all Mages fall so easily to the seduction of a demon and turn into abominations. As if all Templars defend the people by slaying Mages for 'the greater good'. Dare bet some of them just are in it for the coin or the killing in itself.
SPOILERS EH?! (is there such a thing as spoiler tags? )
I remember joining the mages in that last battle. Basically you just split roads with the templars as they say "You'll die trying to protect the mages" - you literally replying "we'll see about that!" - So the PC, all of his formidable allies, the first friggin enchanter of Kirkwall, find yourself in a room. And then that elf goes all Emo, turns himself into a giant meat monster and everything goes bollocks again... Wait what, were things really that desperate? I didn't remember drugbro Cassandra being that much of a big deal - aside from the fact that she flew around like Superman on steroids? I don't think so, definitely she was one of the easier bosses in the game.
@Kitteh_On_A_Cloud truth be told I had enough of the mage-templar bullgoo in Dragon Age Origins, let alone Dragon age 2 >.<
But in general, what the Inquisition used to be is some kind of judges of faith. They judged the heretics and condemned them to a fate worse than death - or rather, painful death. Naming Dragon Age 3 Inquisition can't really invoke good images in my head - it basically makes me think that our character will have the balls to judge by their own free will who is a heretic and should be slain or not... in other words, our character will be a complete fanatic? Fantastic, that's a great premise really.
Not necessarily. It's very possible for the character to have the option to be fanatic, or to put a stop to the inquisition. There's a reason I'm waiting for information about the game before I buy it, but I refuse to take what I see as an unnecessarily simple approach (dare I say intellectually bankrupt approach?) that essentially says that it necessarily follows that DA3 will be bad. It's as bad as assuming it will automatically be good because BioWare made good titles in the past.
I don't care if they have Origin run the program, even though my preference is Steam. Others hate both - valid opinions, I'm sure, but I'm ambivalent toward that perspective. My personal experiences with Steam have been positive and I've found that most of my problems playing older software is the disc compression, which download installs essentially bypass.
I'm probably all over the map, but the bottom line is this: the game should be judged on its merits, not the history/recent track record of the publisher or the developer. While I fully understand reasons for skepticism, what I think I see is 'in-depth logical' arguments like:
1) BioWare/EA have put out bad products in the past, therefore DA3 will be bad 2) DA2 was disappointing, so DA3 will necessarily be so (even worse) 3) Because ME3/DA2 were signals of a downward quality trend, DA3 will be worse
If anything the primary theme of DA2 was about extremes, whether it was Templar/Mage or Qunari/Thedas. You can find plenty of real life examples of loud people taking extreme positions and drowning out the moderates who are willing to compromise and keep things working peaceably, and I think they were trying to evoke that sort of situation in DA2. Unfortunately, they went about it with the subtlety of a sledgehammer, especially in the third act. Which leads me to believe this is another casualty of the rushed release of the game, as I felt they did a pretty good job of handling the Qunari plot.
@reedmilfam: Err, I think the recent track record of EAware IS something to take into account. DA 2 was bad. ME 3 split up the ME fanbase like never before. SimCity was a failure at release. And these are only the most recent examples of Bioware and EA games. They aren't, exactly, indicating anything good. Also, someone with a bit of a past with EA, either as employee or consumer, just KNOWS that they're mainly out for the money. Or should I mention how some enlightened EA chap wanted to make bullets be paid for in games? Le alone the whole Day 1 DLC or microtransactions bull? Or singleplayer games NEEDING a multiplayer component? Please.
@Kitteh_On_A_Cloud I don't disagree - which is why I'm cautious when it comes to the game. I still maintain that it be judged on its own merits.
As for what they want to charge - let them. People either will, or will not, buy what they're selling. We are not entitled to the game they produce; in a similar vein, EA is not entitled to our money. If it's crap, don't buy it. Even a juggernaut like EA will feel the pain if their products fail in the marketplace.
@reedmilfam: I'd like to believe EA feels any loss. But I don't. If they truly did, they would've gone bankrupt already. No, it's because of people STILL caving in and buying their rotten copy-paste sports games that keeps them alive and not caring at all. Gotta please the stock holders, the customer can go to hell.
@Kitteh_On_A_Cloud Well, considering Riccitiello's resignation a couple months ago, my guess is they're feeling something. Whether they're taking the right lessons from that and what they might do to adjust is another thing entirely.
I know I'm in the total minority, but I think Anders's action/writing was fine. I mean, he's possessed by a demon...it's natural that he's going to be pretty unhinged....
@Iecerint: That still was no reason to turn him into a genderbender dramaqueen. Also, I never got the impression it was really Justice being the reason of him being upset all the time. It seemed more of a reason to feminize him and bisexualize him. Give him the whims and emotions of a distraught woman in the body of a man et voilà, Bisexual Anders at your service.
He repeatedly says that Justice/Vengeance has more and more influence over him as the game goes on. He's relatively with-it in Act I, starts showing signs of craziness and fear in Act II, and is totally crazy and without hope in Act III. I think Anders is actually one of the few characters who shows clear character development as the timeline proceeds. It's even more obvious if you read his journal entries.
As for referring to DA2 Anders as a "genderbender"...umm....
Comments
That much, meaning 4 million copies for a good title. Now, that is not small, but compared to other titles that sell 10 and 12 million and still have the "RPG" in it, it is less.
Add to that, the fact that, Bioware uses a larger budget progressively for each game provided by EA. So, the games need to sell more since you have a larger budget, but you might not get too much with the old BG style or even DA:O style.
So how will you approach a larger audience? You need to appeal to more people, obviously, with your themes.
Some people call that dumbing down of the RPG genre.
Well still, if it's a good game, you still play it. But i seriously don't get this inflative mentality. More and more and more budgets to create products that are actually not on par with previous titles. They have cut the production cycles too short to create subpar titles and get more money.
That is what EA is being blamed for.
The reason ME3 ending was so bad, was because, according to some at least, 2 people only worked on it, and it didn't pass through many internal testing.
You can argue that they tried to fix it afterwards, but it proves that originally the game was rushed to get to the shelves, so the money can come quicker.
And why? Because the budgets are so big, the companies try to get as much as possible, as early as possible.
I haven't talked to many folks about the subject, but I know that some people enjoyed the extended editions, I didn't, I liked the original, but for them it helped provide a sense of closure they felt they were lacking.
I find it interesting that you think Bioware *had* to fix the game, they certainly did not, obviously each person who complained about the ending bought the game, and they offered the free dlc endings anyway, they could've easily held off on that completely, still leaving on the positive note most folks had with Citadel.
You are going to have to elaborate on the plagiarism thing for me, my brain might be too sleepy to see the connection there.
I remember an amusing infographic that came out for people who play Mass Effect, the overwhelming majority were playing as default broshep soldiers, which leads me to believe a lot of people just enjoy the game for shooting robots.
I don't mean to suggest the new endings wouldn't help their credibility, but I don't see that as the driving force behind it.
Unfortunately, that was only half the criticism of the ending, and nothing was done to provide intellectual closure as well - the Starchild sequence remained baffling and poorly thought-out.
We should bear in mind, though, that there were very specific circumstances behind the ME3 controversy: the main writer left, his replacements went on a power trip, etc. DA3 has a different team and different writers, there's no reason to automatically assume that they'll drop the ball just because ME3 did.
But I liked the first, so I will play the third.
Seems like we are stuck with the middlemen for game delivery . The thing I detest is not being able to play my purchased game offline.
Long answer : it might depend entirely on the offer. Day one? Absolutely not, especially with the ever-so-fantastic BioWare Day 1 DLCs. If it comes on a special offer, with all DLCs and what not available, similarly to what Origins had a couple of weeks ago on Steam, sure, I can sacrifice some hot chocolate money. But let me formulate better :
BioWare is DEAD. It was dead since Dragon Age 2. There's no need to hide it - they passed from the hardcore gamer that liked a challenge, clever strategies and forethought to the casual market. Mass Effect 2 was an example, Dragon Age 2 was an even harder and more blatant example.
Not to mention that BioWare stories nowadays are 'meh' at best - let's be honest, either pure black, or pure white... with very vague and BAD attempts at gray, which Obsidian does splendidly.
Secondly - the most worth of a game comes out of re-playability. With weak moral choices that DON'T matter (Mass Effect 3, hint hint), with gameplay and roleplay mechanics which are almost non-existent (that seems to be a trend in nowadays "RPGs" - first Mass Effect 2, then Dragon Age 2, then Diablo 3, etc... we could call it the "Pseudo-RPG" genre by now!) and on the top of all, with Artificial difficulty? What's the reason to replay a game?
Baldur's Gate was replayable for the insane amount of aspects available to the player and the clever but FAIR AI that you had in the games. Instead, Dragon Age 2 proposes what? Ah yeah, ninja-bandits who seemingly fall down from the sky without any sort of predictability - that's a nice difficulty setting, it almost makes me trash the game really >.<
If things change in Dragon Age 3 - fantastic. But if we are stuck to a Human race character with weak gameplay and roleplay mechanics where choices don't matter - then I am done with BioWare forever.
Also, I would also like to reply @Kitteh_on_a_Cloud : I wouldn't say Mass Effect 3 did plagiarism, or rather, BioWare. But I agree to some extent with your post, as, let's be honest, the three Mass Effect 3 endings are basically Deus Ex copycats.
Dark Age, Fusion, Domination - that's the Deus Ex endings. They kinda do remind me of the ME3 endings truth be told
As for your post, I definitely agree on the 'Pseudo-RPG' thing. It's actually very true what you say there. Bioware no longer makes RPGs, but Action-Roleplaying games, which was most noticeable in Dragon Age 2 (with the over-the-top combat). Your choices literally don't matter. I'd like to see a game which truly makes them matter, actually. A game with a variety of dialogue options, each leading to different consequences, increasing game replayability.
Nowadays Bioware seems to have taken on the Mc Donald's mindset, though. Games are pure consumables. You play them once and then practically throw them away, because you've seen it all. I'm especially afraid for the Human-only character in Dragon Age 3 (even more dumbing down and cutting out!?) and the stigma it will bear on the game as a whole (the Crusades, anyone? Yeah, the West should really be proud of those...). Actually, I don't really like the sound of 'Inquisition' at all, to be honest. It makes me think of even more black-and-white mindsets and even more narrow-mindedness and hate between the Templars and the Mages. Didn't we have enough of that already in Dragon Age 2?
Oh well, let's just wait and see...
vs.
Renegade path, backstabbing Wrex, shooting Mordin in the back to stop him from implementing the cure, having to lie to all of your comrades about it, and then having to shoot Wrex when he finds out how badly you screwed him and his entire species over.
But in general, what the Inquisition used to be is some kind of judges of faith. They judged the heretics and condemned them to a fate worse than death - or rather, painful death.
Naming Dragon Age 3 Inquisition can't really invoke good images in my head - it basically makes me think that our character will have the balls to judge by their own free will who is a heretic and should be slain or not... in other words, our character will be a complete fanatic? Fantastic, that's a great premise really.
Most likely, they'll escalate things from DA2 on the Templar/Mage front, turning it into an all-out war. Because to be fair, where Apostates are concerned, there always has been an inquisition. It's not a new concept to the series.
SPOILERS EH?! (is there such a thing as spoiler tags? )
I remember joining the mages in that last battle. Basically you just split roads with the templars as they say "You'll die trying to protect the mages" - you literally replying "we'll see about that!" - So the PC, all of his formidable allies, the first friggin enchanter of Kirkwall, find yourself in a room. And then that elf goes all Emo, turns himself into a giant meat monster and everything goes bollocks again... Wait what, were things really that desperate? I didn't remember drugbro Cassandra being that much of a big deal - aside from the fact that she flew around like Superman on steroids? I don't think so, definitely she was one of the easier bosses in the game.
Or Anders... let's goddamn blow a church!
SPOILERS END HERE EH?!
I don't care if they have Origin run the program, even though my preference is Steam. Others hate both - valid opinions, I'm sure, but I'm ambivalent toward that perspective. My personal experiences with Steam have been positive and I've found that most of my problems playing older software is the disc compression, which download installs essentially bypass.
I'm probably all over the map, but the bottom line is this: the game should be judged on its merits, not the history/recent track record of the publisher or the developer. While I fully understand reasons for skepticism, what I think I see is 'in-depth logical' arguments like:
1) BioWare/EA have put out bad products in the past, therefore DA3 will be bad
2) DA2 was disappointing, so DA3 will necessarily be so (even worse)
3) Because ME3/DA2 were signals of a downward quality trend, DA3 will be worse
I'm sure there are more.
As for what they want to charge - let them. People either will, or will not, buy what they're selling. We are not entitled to the game they produce; in a similar vein, EA is not entitled to our money. If it's crap, don't buy it. Even a juggernaut like EA will feel the pain if their products fail in the marketplace.
As for referring to DA2 Anders as a "genderbender"...umm....