Bioware: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
During the early 2000s, Bioware was bought by [[EA]] and since then their games have been slowly declining in quality, and they have also been getting massive amounts of (often) bullshit and terrible DLC. | During the early 2000s, Bioware was bought by [[EA]] and since then their games have been slowly declining in quality, and they have also been getting massive amounts of (often) bullshit and terrible DLC. | ||
An example of this slow degradation would be the Mass Effect series. The original was a masterpiece, with story, gameplay, and presentation all top-notch; ME2, though not bad, did show a drop in character and story development (Someone please explain this part. ME1had lots of characters; a good sequel fleshes out existing characters and introduces new ones. You can only fit so much data into a video game)in favor of gameplay. Now we have ME3, where if you want a "good ending" you need to pay extra (and that ending appears to have been made by retards, for retards) and is in the process of devolving into a Gears of War clone with more dialog, complete with multiplayer mode. And ''they're making a sequel, even though they haven't even resolved the main plot to the original trilogy in a way that makes sense and is not just the most literal example of a deus ex machina ever written coming out of absolutely nowhere, spouting bullshit that invalidates the entire plot of the trilogy up to that point, and forces you to choose from three equally unappealing outcomes that have nothing to do at all with the rest of the game.'' Instead, the writers just decided to call their consumers idiots who wouldn't know a good story if it hit them on the head (and still insist that the people who hated the ending were a small minority in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary). | An example of this slow degradation would be the Mass Effect series. The original was a masterpiece, with story, gameplay, and presentation all top-notch; ME2, though not bad, did show a drop in character and story development (Someone please explain this part. ME1had lots of characters; a good sequel fleshes out existing characters and introduces new ones. Which ME2 did. You can only fit so much data into a video game) in favor of gameplay. Now we have ME3, where if you want a "good ending" you need to pay extra (and that ending appears to have been made by retards, for retards) and is in the process of devolving into a Gears of War clone with more dialog, complete with multiplayer mode. And ''they're making a sequel, even though they haven't even resolved the main plot to the original trilogy in a way that makes sense and is not just the most literal example of a deus ex machina ever written coming out of absolutely nowhere, spouting bullshit that invalidates the entire plot of the trilogy up to that point, and forces you to choose from three equally unappealing outcomes that have nothing to do at all with the rest of the game.'' Instead, the writers just decided to call their consumers idiots who wouldn't know a good story if it hit them on the head (and still insist that the people who hated the ending were a small minority in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary). | ||
Dragon Age is a more blatant example of this degradation. While far from being the grimdark spiritual successor that Bioware hyped it as, the story of Dragon Age: Origins was above average and possessed an interesting character creation mechanic where your background changed numerous parts of the storyline, the character development was good- but evidence that things were starting to fall apart were obvious right when you met the questgiver who forced you to buy a DLC pack if you actually wanted to do the quest. The "expansion pack" Awakening wasn't too bad either, at least if you ignored the fact that it had been visibly rushed and was loaded with gamebreaking bugs. Dragon Age II was the final nail in the coffin- the story veered from one plot thread to the next without any rhyme or reason while being completely disconnected to the previous game, all the major characters were either idiots, one-dimensional, or just plain unlikeable, and the gameplay consisted of running through the same reskinned dungeons over and over again, all problems exacerbated by the fact that their [[EA|corporate overlords]] had them rushing the game out in '''less than a year''', in their endless quest to have ''all'' their properties work like the Madden and FIFA games they're used to making. Dragon Age III's developers have openly announced that the game would be "heavily influenced by" (read: a ripoff of) Skyrim, which says a lot about how far they've fallen. | Dragon Age is a more blatant example of this degradation. While far from being the grimdark spiritual successor that Bioware hyped it as, the story of Dragon Age: Origins was above average and possessed an interesting character creation mechanic where your background changed numerous parts of the storyline, the character development was good- but evidence that things were starting to fall apart were obvious right when you met the questgiver who forced you to buy a DLC pack if you actually wanted to do the quest. The "expansion pack" Awakening wasn't too bad either, at least if you ignored the fact that it had been visibly rushed and was loaded with gamebreaking bugs. Dragon Age II was the final nail in the coffin- the story veered from one plot thread to the next without any rhyme or reason while being completely disconnected to the previous game, all the major characters were either idiots, one-dimensional, or just plain unlikeable, and the gameplay consisted of running through the same reskinned dungeons over and over again, all problems exacerbated by the fact that their [[EA|corporate overlords]] had them rushing the game out in '''less than a year''', in their endless quest to have ''all'' their properties work like the Madden and FIFA games they're used to making. Dragon Age III's developers have openly announced that the game would be "heavily influenced by" (read: a ripoff of) Skyrim, which says a lot about how far they've fallen. | ||
So in short, if you want a good Bioware game, look to the past. | So in short, if you want a good Bioware game, look to the past. |
Revision as of 04:45, 6 July 2013
![]() |
![]() |
This is a /v/ related article, which we tolerate because it's relevant and/or popular on /tg/... or we just can't be bothered to delete it. |
A major computer game studio primarily driven by two lead designers; their names are Ctrl-C and Ctrl-V.
One of the most popular RPG game makers of modern day, making titles such as Baldur's Gate (actually the just published that, Black Isle studios made that), Neverwinter Nights, Knights of the Old Republic, Mass Effect, and Dragon Age. They are currently working on making a Warhammer Fantasy MMORPG
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/5d883/5d883e16a7e542b909dc967b36e7834d72ec7227" alt=""
During the early 2000s, Bioware was bought by EA and since then their games have been slowly declining in quality, and they have also been getting massive amounts of (often) bullshit and terrible DLC. An example of this slow degradation would be the Mass Effect series. The original was a masterpiece, with story, gameplay, and presentation all top-notch; ME2, though not bad, did show a drop in character and story development (Someone please explain this part. ME1had lots of characters; a good sequel fleshes out existing characters and introduces new ones. Which ME2 did. You can only fit so much data into a video game) in favor of gameplay. Now we have ME3, where if you want a "good ending" you need to pay extra (and that ending appears to have been made by retards, for retards) and is in the process of devolving into a Gears of War clone with more dialog, complete with multiplayer mode. And they're making a sequel, even though they haven't even resolved the main plot to the original trilogy in a way that makes sense and is not just the most literal example of a deus ex machina ever written coming out of absolutely nowhere, spouting bullshit that invalidates the entire plot of the trilogy up to that point, and forces you to choose from three equally unappealing outcomes that have nothing to do at all with the rest of the game. Instead, the writers just decided to call their consumers idiots who wouldn't know a good story if it hit them on the head (and still insist that the people who hated the ending were a small minority in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary).
Dragon Age is a more blatant example of this degradation. While far from being the grimdark spiritual successor that Bioware hyped it as, the story of Dragon Age: Origins was above average and possessed an interesting character creation mechanic where your background changed numerous parts of the storyline, the character development was good- but evidence that things were starting to fall apart were obvious right when you met the questgiver who forced you to buy a DLC pack if you actually wanted to do the quest. The "expansion pack" Awakening wasn't too bad either, at least if you ignored the fact that it had been visibly rushed and was loaded with gamebreaking bugs. Dragon Age II was the final nail in the coffin- the story veered from one plot thread to the next without any rhyme or reason while being completely disconnected to the previous game, all the major characters were either idiots, one-dimensional, or just plain unlikeable, and the gameplay consisted of running through the same reskinned dungeons over and over again, all problems exacerbated by the fact that their corporate overlords had them rushing the game out in less than a year, in their endless quest to have all their properties work like the Madden and FIFA games they're used to making. Dragon Age III's developers have openly announced that the game would be "heavily influenced by" (read: a ripoff of) Skyrim, which says a lot about how far they've fallen.
So in short, if you want a good Bioware game, look to the past.