inherit
4096
0
Nov 27, 2022 20:23:07 GMT
506
mikeymoonshine
352
March 2017
mikeymoonshine
|
Post by mikeymoonshine on Mar 21, 2018 11:42:53 GMT
Anyone still involved in the Inquisition could show up as Trespassor implies that they are going to focus on chasing down Solas, hopefully they won't be too central to the plot though.
|
|
inherit
4096
0
Nov 27, 2022 20:23:07 GMT
506
mikeymoonshine
352
March 2017
mikeymoonshine
|
Post by mikeymoonshine on Oct 22, 2017 21:36:43 GMT
Ok in regards to your suspicion that it was unfun uk.ign.com/articles/2017/10/19/visceral-star-wars-game-was-fun-and-funny-co-writer-todd-stashwick-saysI mean sure a writer will defend their own project but then I feel like if it was a mess why would they not just say so? We all know how messy Andromeda was during it's dev time because people said so. Nobody has said anything of the sort about this other than Schreier. Yes Viseceral was a small time studio who made smalltime but beloved games, EA wanted to turn them into a cash generator, that didn't work out so EA closed the studio. This seems like the most likely explanation. Non of Viseceral's games are Andromeda like in any way other than when it comes to sales maybe? I also don't see a star wars game from EA doing badly even if it was actually bad. I think it truly is what we all think, it wasn't going to generate a steady flow of cash through MP, lootboxes and other nonsense. It was probably going to make a lot of money but not enough money for EA. I feel like what I am saying is more likely than the idea that Amy Hennig had some kind of massive off day and is at fault, somehow everyone but EA is always at fault according to a few people on this forum. Maybe it doesn't need to be a mess to be canned. Just not fulfilling the target audience appeal of EA. Or lack of microbuck insertion capabilities. Who knows - rebel devs might have insidiously coded it to prevent microtransactions. And now it needs rework. All speculation. Yeah but I was responding to Schreier's claim that it was.
|
|
inherit
4096
0
Nov 27, 2022 20:23:07 GMT
506
mikeymoonshine
352
March 2017
mikeymoonshine
|
Post by mikeymoonshine on Oct 21, 2017 15:21:44 GMT
Yeah I can't imagine I'd agree with Manveer on colonialism considering his views but the game did pretty much ignore the subject entirely and the plot most certainly did suffer for it. IDK if what I would want to see is what Manveer would want but shying away from exploring subjects like that too much when that is basically what the entire game is about is an incredibly decision. I agree that it seems confusing to shy away from the subject. The parts of the story I enjoyed the most where setting up settlements AND the quests afterwards. Kadaras story and elaaden were my fav. Even Eos was good with the architect mission where had to basically choose how you were going to deal with a foreign nation. Voeld had things good too smoothly as did Harval. That doesn't make much sense when those two are the planets controlled by the Angara. I quite frankly didn't give a shit about the Kett who in my eyes were borg rip offs. lol u made me notice that i missed out the word "bad" For me I expected the choice whether or not to shoot the Kett in the first contact situation would have impact but instead of going into the various moral and tactical issues about colonising worlds they just made the Kett the big bad moustache twirling colonisers who yeah were like the borg. That way the plot can mostly ignore that your people are colonisers too other than very minor references to it. Instead of having choices on whether or not to do it in a hostile way or find peaceful ways to co-exist with the Angara it's all about proving that your people are better than the Kett.
|
|
inherit
4096
0
Nov 27, 2022 20:23:07 GMT
506
mikeymoonshine
352
March 2017
mikeymoonshine
|
Post by mikeymoonshine on Oct 21, 2017 14:41:38 GMT
Isn't it at all suspicious that this kind of shit keeps happening with studios under EA though? Suddenly studios that have launched very successful and beloved games end up going off the rails and having their products cancelled or releasing products that are unstable at launch, disappointing to fans, commercially flop or just don't make much money. Then EA closes the studio and ships any salvageable IP's off to another studio under them who makes it into a money sink. I'm just struggling to believe that some of the best talent in the industry under one of the biggest companies in the industry was doing so bad of a job that the whole studio needed to go and the game needed to be completely changed. Stuff happens, in the end. Even the best people in the business have off days, or they simply get nowhere with their vision because it's too out there or not what the fan feedback said they wanted. The closure of the studio is the only suspicious part really, but Visceral...if you look at their game catalogue they have some good games in it but they were never top sellers ultimately. I can see this as EA saying "this is looking like Andromeda" or something and deciding to pull the plug and re-focus it anew simply for that sort of gunshyness. Ok in regards to your suspicion that it was unfun uk.ign.com/articles/2017/10/19/visceral-star-wars-game-was-fun-and-funny-co-writer-todd-stashwick-saysI mean sure a writer will defend their own project but then I feel like if it was a mess why would they not just say so? We all know how messy Andromeda was during it's dev time because people said so. Nobody has said anything of the sort about this other than Schreier. Yes Viseceral was a small time studio who made smalltime but beloved games, EA wanted to turn them into a cash generator, that didn't work out so EA closed the studio. This seems like the most likely explanation. Non of Viseceral's games are Andromeda like in any way other than when it comes to sales maybe? I also don't see a star wars game from EA doing badly even if it was actually bad. I think it truly is what we all think, it wasn't going to generate a steady flow of cash through MP, lootboxes and other nonsense. It was probably going to make a lot of money but not enough money for EA. I feel like what I am saying is more likely than the idea that Amy Hennig had some kind of massive off day and is at fault, somehow everyone but EA is always at fault according to a few people on this forum.
|
|
inherit
4096
0
Nov 27, 2022 20:23:07 GMT
506
mikeymoonshine
352
March 2017
mikeymoonshine
|
Post by mikeymoonshine on Oct 21, 2017 14:24:57 GMT
Yeah I can't imagine I'd agree with Manveer on colonialism considering his views but the game did pretty much ignore the subject entirely and the plot most certainly did suffer for it. IDK if what I would want to see is what Manveer would want but shying away from exploring subjects like that too much when that is basically what the entire game is about is an incredibly bad decision.
|
|
inherit
4096
0
Nov 27, 2022 20:23:07 GMT
506
mikeymoonshine
352
March 2017
mikeymoonshine
|
Post by mikeymoonshine on Oct 21, 2017 14:19:28 GMT
An Amy Hennig headed project with Jade Reymond helping out doesn't sound like something that would typically be a mess, both are known for being very good at their jobs. So if the project was a mess IDK if we can so easily just blame the studio this time like we did with Bioware Montreal. But who am I to argue with what Jason Schreier has "heard". It really could boil down to a lot of things. Could just have been unfun to play by the initial tests or like Andromeda have a hook that didn't work and force a change in development or mechanics. Isn't it at all suspicious that this kind of shit keeps happening with studios under EA though? Suddenly studios that have launched very successful and beloved games end up going off the rails and having their products cancelled or releasing products that are unstable at launch, disappointing to fans, commercially flop or just don't make much money. Then EA closes the studio and ships any salvageable IP's off to another studio under them who makes it into a money sink. I'm just struggling to believe that some of the best talent in the industry under one of the biggest companies in the industry was doing so bad of a job that the whole studio needed to go and the game needed to be completely changed.
|
|
inherit
4096
0
Nov 27, 2022 20:23:07 GMT
506
mikeymoonshine
352
March 2017
mikeymoonshine
|
Post by mikeymoonshine on Oct 21, 2017 11:18:55 GMT
There is also this... So it seems to me like the original issue of something else being involved is somewhat true. The rest is spin from the statement by Jorgensen...which Schreier notes: An Amy Hennig headed project with Jade Reymond helping out doesn't sound like something that would typically be a mess, both are known for being very good at their jobs. So if the project was a mess IDK if we can so easily just blame the studio this time like we did with Bioware Montreal. But who am I to argue with what Jason Schreier has "heard".
|
|
inherit
4096
0
Nov 27, 2022 20:23:07 GMT
506
mikeymoonshine
352
March 2017
mikeymoonshine
|
Post by mikeymoonshine on Oct 21, 2017 10:21:30 GMT
I'm really worried that if their destiny clone flops EA will just kill Bioware too and we'll never get another DA. Never sell your company to EA.
|
|
inherit
4096
0
Nov 27, 2022 20:23:07 GMT
506
mikeymoonshine
352
March 2017
mikeymoonshine
|
Post by mikeymoonshine on Oct 15, 2017 10:47:32 GMT
I don't understand what is so hard for some people to grasp. Social factors typically mean different demographics end up with different perspectives. White people have a different perspective than black people, which can result in something well-intentioned ending up looking rather racist. See what happened to Jacob Taylor in ME3 Men have a different perspective than women, so something well-intentioned can end up looking sexist or creepy instead. See the original plan for Champions of the Just. Straight people have a different perspective than gay people, so something well-intentioned can end up with homophobic undertones. See Gil Brodie's baby subplot. Getting diverse opinions isn't about cowardness or "political correctness". It's about empathy and covering as many bases as possible so the writer's intent can properly show itself. I actually disagree with this, I didn't like the Gil Brodie baby nonsense but I know several other gay people who did. I think whether or not it has homophobic undertones should be determined based on whether or not there is a decent argument that it does and not simply that some gay people feel it does. Consulting members of a specific group as a writer when writing about that group is of course valuable because they are going to know a lot more about what being a member of that group is like but an individual member of that group or even a select few members are not the grand arbiters of what you can and can't write in relation to that group. The idea that the scene in question implied rape is a contentious issue, some people feel it did others feel it did not and some people feel it may have but that this does not mean it needed to change just based on that. I felt that the Iron Bull was a massive walking talking sex object. I know women who agree with me on that, women who disagree with me on that, men who agree with me on that and men who disagree ect ect. Women and minority groups are not collectives like the borg.
|
|
inherit
4096
0
Nov 27, 2022 20:23:07 GMT
506
mikeymoonshine
352
March 2017
mikeymoonshine
|
Post by mikeymoonshine on Sept 16, 2017 15:56:24 GMT
Fallout 4 has it's fans and the modding community has done a lot with it but there are plenty of people (myself included) who think the game is terrible. I'm not really a "Bethesda fan" though and I prefer the elder's scrolls series so maybe I don't count.
|
|
inherit
4096
0
Nov 27, 2022 20:23:07 GMT
506
mikeymoonshine
352
March 2017
mikeymoonshine
|
Post by mikeymoonshine on Sept 16, 2017 15:34:58 GMT
26. The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim 48. Baldur's Gate II: Shadows of Amn 60. Planescape: Torment 64. Pillars of Eternity 72. Fallout 2 91: Knights of the Old Republic II: The Sith Lords
This is wrong. :smh:
Also no Dragon Age Origins? Why is Spelunky even here?
|
|
inherit
4096
0
Nov 27, 2022 20:23:07 GMT
506
mikeymoonshine
352
March 2017
mikeymoonshine
|
Post by mikeymoonshine on Sept 14, 2017 17:46:54 GMT
I'm not going to include all the companions from the Baldur's Gate games because many of them I have never used or barely used. I'm also ranking quality of character so some characters on lower tiers I still may have liked and some of the higher tier characters I may have hated but still enjoyed their character. I've not played Jade Empire or Neverwinter Nights so I can't comment on those characters and i'm just not going to bother with SWTOR. Tier 1: HK-47, Jolee, Solas, Cassandra, Dorian, Cole, Aveline, Morrigan, Leliana, Shale, Wynne, Loghain, Edwin, Garrus, Tali, Wrex, Legion, Samara, Mordin, Tier 2: Varric, Vivienne, Isabela, Bethany, Alistair, Sten, Sigrun, Viconia, Jaheira, Minsc, Aerie, Haer'Dalis, Grunt, Thane, Jack, Miranda, Vetra, Jaal, Drack Tier 3: Mission, Bastila, Iron Bull, Anders, Fenris, Dog, Oghren, Zevran, Nethaniel, Justice, Dynaheir, Anomen, Sarevok, Liara, Kaidan, Ashley, Kasumi, Zaeed, Edi, Aria, Nyreen, Tier 4: Carth, Zaalbar, T3-M4, Canderous (better in Kotor 2), Sera, Blackwall, Merrill, Carver, Velanna, Imoen, Quayle, Shar-Teel, Xan, Branwen, Faldorn, Xzar, Montaron, Keldorn, Korgan, Nalia, Valygar, Yoshimo, Javik, Cora, Liam, Peebee Tier 5: Juhani, Sebastian, Tallis, Khalid, Tiax, Safana, Garrick, Kagain, Mazzy, Morinth, Jacob, James, Not a perfect system but a general idea.
|
|
inherit
4096
0
Nov 27, 2022 20:23:07 GMT
506
mikeymoonshine
352
March 2017
mikeymoonshine
|
Post by mikeymoonshine on Sept 9, 2017 19:44:00 GMT
Scrap it and make KOTOR 3 Just kidding, they would probably just ruin that too.
|
|
inherit
4096
0
Nov 27, 2022 20:23:07 GMT
506
mikeymoonshine
352
March 2017
mikeymoonshine
|
Post by mikeymoonshine on Sept 9, 2017 9:27:45 GMT
It's a multiplayer focused game that I am pretty sure has been confirmed to not be an RPG (tho i'm unsure about that). this isn't Bioware's "Bread and Butter" you said they wanted to try something different by making this game, so which is it? Something different or their bread and butter? At one time they said, it won't be an RPG. As for playing solo, you can play COD solo. The only question is what you're getting out of it. Next to nothing, since it's geared at being played online. Chances are, SP will be a similar appendix for Anthem. Maybe ten hours of solo content, since they're making no secret over this being an "online experience". That's my thinking too, though I could be wrong. If it ends up having strong sp content like SWTOR and the combat and questing is more bearable than SWTOR I might even buy it.
|
|
inherit
4096
0
Nov 27, 2022 20:23:07 GMT
506
mikeymoonshine
352
March 2017
mikeymoonshine
|
Post by mikeymoonshine on Sept 8, 2017 1:06:18 GMT
> First, trying something new doesn't mean abandoning the strengths you have relied on. No but it most certainly can mean that. > Trying something new means attempting to apply these same strengths to new genres and settings No, like sure it can mean that but it can also mean doing something completely different. These are just claims you are making. Like this is nothing dude, why even type this? > Yet, with SWTOR they chose to apply those same strengths I listed before to the MMO genre. Swotor's reception was bad to mixed at best, tho they have managed to turn that around somewhat I guess. > Anthem may not be an RPG, though it's hard to know at this point I was under the impression somebody at EA had said that it wasn't when it was still project Dylan but as I said I am unsure of that. > but we already know they are seeking to apply their strentghs regarding story, characters, and quest design to this new IP. As I said, trying something new doesn't mean completely reinventing ever aspect of the wheel. What they say they are going to do and what they actually do are not necessarily the same thing. > Second, your personal opinions regarding Dragon Age Inquisition Ok so this is the part where you tell me what my opinion of Inquisition is and get it wrong, putting words in my mouth AGAIN. > So, while you may personally enjoy Andromeda more than Inquisition or feel Andromeda did quests better, that doesn't change what the majority of the public felt regarding both games. I did not enjoy Andromeda more than Inquisition nor did I say I did. You claimed that "there were plentiful well written and meaningful side quests" in Inquisition I asked for examples because aside from the companion quests I am really not seeing any, where as Andromeda's side quests obviously had more work put into them based on feedback about how bad Inquisition's were. My opinion of those quests is still not all that positive, most of them still weren't that interesting but I acknowledge the fact that Andromeda had more work put into it's side quests than Inquisition and no review scores and game of the year do not debunk that fact at all. If you were unsure about that part of our conversation, why not go back and read it before typing your response? My point that I do not think side quests or the plot are the reason Andromeda was so badly received. I think it was because of the messy release full of animation glitches coupled with the fact that it's just not anywhere as interesting as the trilogy so there's no good reason to overlook the glitches. "Third, please source where any person within BioWare or EA has described Mass Effect as a "flagship series." I'm serious, I'll wait; because I've never heard that phrase from anyone within those companies." Why do I need to source a claim I've never made? A company isn't going to say something like that about any of their ip's obviously, but it is often referred to that way by fans and the media which is why I referred to it that way. "but it was hardly some mega pillar with regards to EA's success as say Madden and Fifa are." Why are we going around in circles? I've already addressed this, it is as irrelevant now as it was the last time you said it. We are talking about Bioware and how much their content has changed. Fifa is completely irrelevant to that. No CRPG is ever going to match the success of Fifa, maybe that's why Bioware is trying so desperately to copy games that do better and in the process losing what made their games so good. Maybe I was right all along and you are now arguing my case for me? "Also, of course EA/BioWare are attempting to chase success, they are a company, they are interested in generating a profit for themselves and their shareholders. Why do you think BioWare moved away from isometric DnD style CRPG's towards a more console friendly RPG with games like KOTOR and Jade Empire? Because they recognized that the console market was important and could grow their company more than sticking solely to the nice PC market. And, this was all BEFORE EA bought them out. Companies do what they believe will generate them the most profit. It makes no sense to develop a super hardcore CRPG that costs hundreds of millions of dollars to develop when the market is only a few hundred thousand people. " This is what I was saying tho. I've already said that EA is not entirely at fault for these changes and that there are many factors, EA is just one of the more major factors. If you don't care about this and all you care about is EA's profit margins or you just like the direction they are going in then cool. I disagree, I am concerned about this. You just seem to be taking issue with the fact that I don't share your opinion. "Could it be that because under that layer of jankiness found in Bethesda games there is actually an enjoyable and rewarding game underneath? " If we are talking about fallout 4 then no, that game was awful. "it received mediocre to poor score because it is a mediocre to poor game. Inquisition, on the other hand, received good to great review scores and sold well because it is a fun game to play and is actually good. " reviews really aren't that important and Inquisition was over praised by reviewers, it's general reception was a lot more mixed. I can admit that as someone who preferred Inquisition. Reviewers tend to come down harder on games with technical issues too these days, just watch the preview reviews for Andromeda. The criticisms were largely about those issues, as I have said I do not think this is the only reason the game's reviews were bad but you are downplaying the impact that jank had big time.
|
|
inherit
4096
0
Nov 27, 2022 20:23:07 GMT
506
mikeymoonshine
352
March 2017
mikeymoonshine
|
Post by mikeymoonshine on Sept 3, 2017 16:46:01 GMT
> they've stated that Anthem will have a strong story and can be played solo so that sounds like BioWare's bread and butter to me. It's a multiplayer focused game that I am pretty sure has been confirmed to not be an RPG (tho i'm unsure about that). this isn't Bioware's "Bread and Butter" you said they wanted to try something different by making this game, so which is it? Something different or their bread and butter? I didn't say Inquisition was not criticised, I said it succeeded and was pretty well recieved despite having some of the same issues. So those issues may not actually explain why Andromeda was received so poorly. "despite those lackluster fetch quests there were plentiful well written and meaningful side quests to go along side everything else about the game that was great" Like which ones? The companion quests? Some of them were ok I guess. I disagree that everything else was great. Andromeda actually had more quests with actual plot, cut scenes and choices. They still weren't very good in my opinion but better than the vast majority of quests in Inquisition. "including its story, characters, world design, soundtrack, art design, and quest design." Everything but the animations, which were all anyone talked about but you seemed to argue they weren't the reason or at least a big part of it. I don't think the current patched game would be well recieved, but I don't think it would be the massive meme the game was either. "First, you make a bold claim that Mass Effect "was a flagship series"" Bold claim, lol. That is how it is commonly described. It is Bioware's "flagship series" how is it not? Non of their games do the kind of numbers the other EA games you listed do because the CRPG market is a niche market. This is sort of what I am talking about, Bioware for a while now have been trying to appeal to wider audiences. Some of this is specifically because of them being a part of EA now, like the multiplayer with micro-transactions in every game thing, that's just EA's rules. Other stuff with them trying to do open world or like a destiny type game I can't say for sure. Maybe it's EA higher-ups pressuring them to make more money, maybe the devs themselves want a big success or maybe they just think all those ideas are really cool. Either way they have been trend chasing for a while now and it's very obvious, especially when devs come out and say stuff like "we took inspiration from skyrim". Lastly, I'm you said "im "downplaying the amount of jank" found in previous BioWare titles No I mean you are downplaying the Jank in Andromeda it was ridiculous, especially in the early sections. Mass Effect 1 is quite old now and Bethesda can seemingly get away with anything.
|
|
inherit
4096
0
Nov 27, 2022 20:23:07 GMT
506
mikeymoonshine
352
March 2017
mikeymoonshine
|
Post by mikeymoonshine on Sept 3, 2017 14:57:35 GMT
I don't replay older Bioware games. It tends to make me really sad. Time is not kind to these games. Replaying Baldur's Gate was an exersize in frustration and wondering how we used to deal with such...crap. Opposite for me - Baldur's Gate shits on all Bioware games that came after. Still blows me away the amount of freedom in those games. You can go into virtually every building - steal anything from everyone, actually kill whoever you want, have party members permanently die, and it had romances. BG2 still would be my favourite RPG of all time. Modern Bioware games are just an exercise in frustration - trilogy and Origins were good though. Basically everything Bioware had in the pipeline pre-EA still has that old Bioware magic that's now long gone. Baldur's Gate 2 is awesome even today (with a few mods or the enhanced edition to make it actually work on my pc) but the first one, I like it but a lot of it was really tedious and the exploration was awful. Endless wondering through wilderness areas that looked pretty much exactly the same as the last area you were in and had very little in them. Like one area might have a couple of quests that were something like "find a cat and give it to a girl" or "protect a tree" and some hidden items but that was usually it. How is that better than Exploration in Inquisition or Andromeda? I liked the main plot and other aspects of the game and not all the side quests were terrible but Baldur's Gate Two massivly improved upon the first in almost every way.
|
|
inherit
4096
0
Nov 27, 2022 20:23:07 GMT
506
mikeymoonshine
352
March 2017
mikeymoonshine
|
Post by mikeymoonshine on Sept 3, 2017 14:40:26 GMT
So my point was that EA gave the game to an inexperienced studio rather than the studio who made the Trilogy because that studio was making Anthem. They also released it in an unfinished state and then closed the studio (a move I imagine was planned before the game was released). No DLC can be made for this game because Montreal is gone and Edmonton is busy (with Anthem). I never argued that the people who developed Andromeda are not to blame for the product we got but Anthem was prioritised over this game, it is also prioritised over fixing this game. The facts as you said, are clear. snip > You act as though the Edmonton studio was forced to make Anthem when that is far from the truth. I don't act that way at all, if I was going to say that then I would have said that and...I didn't say that. So why are you here arguing with me again about things I didn't say? > They had all just come off of the trilogy and were ready to do something new, to create something they had never done before. and this is what I am talking about. All Bioware (maybe if I don't say EAware you will understand that I am not just talking about some board room) wants to do these days is try new things and tap into new ideas that just happen to be ideas from other games that are having a lot of success, first it was open world, now it is this and those things always take priority. Bioware is moving further and further away from what made their games so great in the first place. If you are fine with that cool but that concerns me. > Thus, this refutes the idea that "Anthem was prioritized over Andromeda." No it doesn't, They decided to work on making Anthem rather than continuing their flagship series and instead gave that series to an untested support studio. Yes OBVIOUSLY EA gave the series enough support to ship. Yes, previous Bioware games have released in a messy state though let's be honest you are downplaying the amount of Jank here, so you can pretend it was irrelevant. Everything about the development of this game was a half assed mess, that is not simply the fault of the developers or the parent company. Both are responsible for all of it. You didn't like the plot or the fetch quests, that's cool. I didn't either but plenty of games with some or all of those problems have still been successful Including their last game Dragon Age Inquisition, remember that? So no, your argument simply doesn't hold up to scrutiny, i'm sorry. xx EA is Bioware, Bioware is EA. This has been said many times, maybe I implied some kind of "it's all EA's fault and the developers at Bioware did nothing wrong" type crap. If I did I apologise I did not expect my comment to upset anyone it seemed pretty innocuous to me at the time. I'm happy to talk about this more but if it's going to be more about stuff I didn't say I'd rather not.
|
|
inherit
4096
0
Nov 27, 2022 20:23:07 GMT
506
mikeymoonshine
352
March 2017
mikeymoonshine
|
Post by mikeymoonshine on Sept 2, 2017 23:08:30 GMT
You can't reason with these people.
They probably still think a Quarian DLC is going to happen. It's always EA's fault when something turns out negatively (DA2, ME3 ending). And Bioware gets all the credit when it turns out good (DA:O, ME2) even though all the games were under EA.
Oh hello random person, please tell me more about how wrong I am for saying things I never said.
|
|
inherit
4096
0
Nov 27, 2022 20:23:07 GMT
506
mikeymoonshine
352
March 2017
mikeymoonshine
|
Post by mikeymoonshine on Sept 2, 2017 23:05:26 GMT
It would have to be the kind of situation where they were now giving the series the kind of support and attention it deserves. I might forgive if they offered A lot of quality content for a reasonable price that also came with more free patches ect. Wouldn't forget though, they shafted their most popular IP to chase the destiny market. EAWare continues to chip away at everything that made their games so great and loved by so many people. I'm really tired of hearing this narrative that "Andromeda was hampered by EA to chase after Destiny money," when literally everything points to the opposite. BioWare Montreal were given FIVE WHOLE YEARS to develop Mass Effect: Andromeda and, in the end, needed the help and support of EVERY BioWare studio in order to get the game to ship. This is something that Aaryn Flynn specifically stated was NOT the original plan when it came to development of Andromeda. FFS they had to take Mac Walters off of working on Anthem to put him in charge of Andromeda just to get the game to ship. I've already detailed all of this in my video documenting the rise and fall of BioWare Montreal. Still, the facts are clear. EA gave Montreal plenty of time and resources to finish Andromeda, they simply bungled the job due to their inexperience. So my point was that EA gave the game to an inexperienced studio rather than the studio who made the Trilogy because that studio was making Anthem. They also released it in an unfinished state and then closed the studio (a move I imagine was planned before the game was released). No DLC can be made for this game because Montreal is gone and Edmonton is busy (with Anthem). I never argued that the people who developed Andromeda are not to blame for the product we got but Anthem was prioritised over this game, it is also prioritised over fixing this game. The facts as you said, are clear.
|
|
inherit
4096
0
Nov 27, 2022 20:23:07 GMT
506
mikeymoonshine
352
March 2017
mikeymoonshine
|
Post by mikeymoonshine on Sept 1, 2017 20:02:15 GMT
It would have to be the kind of situation where they were now giving the series the kind of support and attention it deserves. I might forgive if they offered A lot of quality content for a reasonable price that also came with more free patches ect. Wouldn't forget though, they shafted their most popular IP to chase the destiny market. EAWare continues to chip away at everything that made their games so great and loved by so many people.
|
|
inherit
4096
0
Nov 27, 2022 20:23:07 GMT
506
mikeymoonshine
352
March 2017
mikeymoonshine
|
Post by mikeymoonshine on Aug 6, 2017 17:49:40 GMT
While I have a lot of problems with DA:I and Andromeda did improve on some of the issues in that game (though not many) DAI is a much better game now that I've played both. I am more invested in the DA series though so I have that bias.
That said I do think many of the things people tear Andromeda apart over existed in DAI or were worse in DAI. Technical issues on release were worse, DA:I had more generic fetch quests and less well written interesting side quests. It also made you do some of them to advance the story where as with Andromeda you can just ignore everything you aren't interested in. DAI is full of plot holes and writing that just doesn't really make much sense, Andromeda has that too but not to quite the same extent I don't think.
The thing that makes DAI win for me is it just tells a more interesting story with characters I actually care about. I don't hate Andromeda's characters, I quite like some of them but non of them are as compelling as even some of the worst main characters in Inquisition.
Andromeda has much better combat but then combat is not what made the DA or the ME series great.
I agree that Inquisition is awful for completionists though. I ended up giving up on completing everything because I knew I would never manage it without quitting and wanted to finish the story. Inquisition also benefits from the Trespasser dlc which improved the entire game massively.
Both games have this illusion of choice nonsense going on but Andromeda has it to a much larger extent than Inquisition. I had issues with paragon/renegade but it was better than this at least.
|
|
inherit
4096
0
Nov 27, 2022 20:23:07 GMT
506
mikeymoonshine
352
March 2017
mikeymoonshine
|
Post by mikeymoonshine on Aug 6, 2017 15:17:28 GMT
Oh well I guess that settles it. That's why sometimes I regret giving people benefits of doubt. Anyway, it is unfortunate that there are rarely any major lgbt characters in video games because of the assumption that they would make straight/cis people uncomfortable (how accurate the assumption is is debatable). This is why I praise Bioware for having major and plot-importance bi characters like Liara and Anders. I know it is a low risk or a baby-step move, but it is more than what most other AA publishers have done. But I would love to see Bioware go above and beyond this in DA4. At least I hope both Dorian and Maevaris play an important role in DA4. I doubt that either of them would be romanceable though. For the next ME:A game, I doubt Bioware will make either Gil or Avitus have more important role. I guess my hope is with Jaal, Reyes, and possible other characters whose sexuality is not identified yet. Yes, I am looking at you, Kandros and Evfra. Well most people liked Dorian including straight people, I think that yeah often the assumption is very over cautious and most people can relate to a well written character regardless of their identity. People used to think that games with female protagonists wouldn't sell, unless it was like a specifically sexualised character or there was an option to play as a male character. That assumption seems to have been proven mostly untrue by Horizon Zero Dawn's huge popularity and other games like the new Tomb Raider games. I'm still hoping Maevaris is a party member.
|
|
inherit
4096
0
Nov 27, 2022 20:23:07 GMT
506
mikeymoonshine
352
March 2017
mikeymoonshine
|
Post by mikeymoonshine on Aug 5, 2017 21:27:42 GMT
lgbt characters are barely ever major and even less likely to be a protagonist or something outside of LGBT specific entertainment. Unless we are talking about like a bisexual woman who is very sexualised or a bisexual man who never brings up being bisexual or it's just played for laughs and all his actual love interests are female.
This is not because lgbt people are a small percentage of the population. This is because focus on LGBT people makes straight/cis people uncomfortable or it is assumed that it will.
|
|
inherit
4096
0
Nov 27, 2022 20:23:07 GMT
506
mikeymoonshine
352
March 2017
mikeymoonshine
|
Post by mikeymoonshine on Aug 5, 2017 20:38:12 GMT
Yup, but the last thing that anyone - myself included - wants is entertainment to get preachy. Moral lesson or points are fine but yeah, preachy is generally bad
But having gay characters isnt making a point or a social issue... social issues can be brought up as WELL, but the 2 arent mutually exclusive, definitely not I don't see the difference between "having a moral lesson" and "being preachy". I suspect the latter is a term people use when a work of entertainment has a moral lesson they don't like. But yes, it is possible to have gay characters with stories and problems that don't revolve around the fact of being gay, which is an approach I would prefer. I already have extensive first-hand experience with the problems that arise from being gay. Those one-note narratives are written for the education of straight people, not for the enjoyment of gay people. To be honest I don't think entertainment needs "a moral lesson" like you can explore political issues and allow the audience to form their own opinions on such things. Star trek does a lot of that kinda stuff for example. In fact as you say isn't this preachyness when it comes to teaching straight people about gay issues actually a problem for many gay people? Stuff like the "kill your gays" trope, Gay characters are used to preach to straight people about the horrors of homophobia, bullying, discrimination, the aids crisis or as an allegory for something else so the writer can teach two moral lessons with one homosexual death. I'm not saying every piece of entertainment that has an opinion is bad but I do agree that overt preachyness can be very annoying.
|
|