caucheka wrote:
just look at dragon age 2, that was a steaming pile of **** because they threw out everything that made the first one good so they could make an rpg that the mainstream gamers would enjoy.
I always laugh at comments like this because I seriously loved Dragon Age II more than Origins. I guess I'm a mainstream ****** I suppose?
Oh opinions.
yes that makes you a mainstream gamer. the plot makes no sense (everyone is insane but you and the arishok or w/e) and combat was lousy and boring, overly repetitive.
but hey, its not like bioware is going to pull their head out of their *** and listen to criticism, that will get you banned from their forums.
but hey, its not like bioware is going to pull their head out of their *** and listen to criticism, that will get you banned from their forums.
I like things that make me feel stupid. - Ken Levine
yes i know that from experience, i nearly played da2 through the end despite the warnings it was horrible. combat was just mash x and occasionally triangle, circle, or square. not including an auto attack was a stupid idea, as you are autoattacking like 100 times in a fight. especially on pc should it have an auto attack.
seriously, does this not bother anyone?
edit: ugh resizing.
seriously, does this not bother anyone?
edit: ugh resizing.
I like things that make me feel stupid. - Ken Levine
Yeah ima agree with Caucheka here, DA2 was pretty bad. Not just for the combat but also the same three maps getting reused ten times and the plot and characters being horrible and completely all over the place.
caucheka wrote:
yes i know that from experience, i nearly played da2 through the end despite the warnings it was horrible. combat was just mash x and occasionally triangle, circle, or square. not including an auto attack was a stupid idea, as you are autoattacking like 100 times in a fight. especially on pc should it have an auto attack.
This bothered me enough I needed to go back onto DA2 and screen-cap it for you:
You're losing me here.
You need to log in before commenting.
uhm. yes, yes it is. mass effect 1 can be called an rpg. but that was slashed and me2 became a tps because mainstream gamers can't be bothered with rpg elements.
just look at dragon age 2, that was a steaming pile of **** because they threw out everything that made the first one good so they could make an rpg that the mainstream gamers would enjoy. but guess who the ones buying it were? the gamers who liked the first one, who became pissed that bioware would betray them in the name of more money from casualizing.
making a game more mainstream is evil, because you are saying that your previous fan base wasnt good enough for you and you want more people to buy and play the game. you don't do that from casualization and giant mass market advertising, you get more people to play your game by making a good game.
i know i've posted this before, but everyone should know the difference. the blue line is a game that had little ad coverage, but was fun and enjoyable. word got out about it and as time went on for several weeks they made more and more sales, because indeed it was a good game. the red line is a game that had a ton of marketing coverage, netting it just barely more sales than the first. but the game was terrible, and word of mouth passed quickly and most people who bought the first one did not end up getting the second.
Well to be fair, the idea of owning/running/working in a business is to make money...That's the OVERALL goal. Do I think main stream is bad? Not really, do I think companies going out of their way to create a mainstream game is bad? Nope, but if they do add more main stream elements I expect them to be polished and add to the game rather than take away.
The reason game companies main stream things is simple, it's not entirely a creative choice, nor is it entirely up to the designer/ developer. The purpose of making something more mainstream is to increase the player base which also means they make more money. If you want a game company to only cater to a select few, play indie games, otherwise don't expect a game company to ALWAYS stick to their origins (pun unintended)
Anyway, EA isn't practicing "good business" ethics, just good business. Is that somewhat twisted...Yeah, but that's reality. I don't like it, but I can understand it, and by understanding it I refrain from making overly long posts ranting about it and accept that ME3 is a game, if I choose to buy it that is my choice. If I choose to get DLC for it, that's my choice. I want to enjoy myself, have fun with my friends. ME3 offers that, so I'll take it (most likely)