History has shown that BioWare has lost the spark that made them what they are. The mediocre reviews of Dragon Age 2 and the huge back-step that is the ending of Mass Effect 3. They have taken out everything that makes their games appealing. The weight of our choices from previous games meant nothing. Endings were shoe-horned in and made not sense. Or the only difference between the mass variety of endings is the color of the explosions. Looking at what BioWare has done in the past should we be worried that the trend from other games will follow into Dragon Age 3? It seems the only time they listen to the fans is after it is too late and the game is already on the shelves. Mass Effect 3 being my point. To say that I want Dragon Age 3 to be awesome is probably a shared statement. It also goes that BioWare has a lot of making up to do. Do you think they can deliver, or will they crack under the pressure and deliver another half-ass resolution to the story? I am worried that it will be too much for them, but I still have high hopes. What are your thoughts on the matter. GreyWolf84 (talk) 17:11, March 28, 2012 (UTC)
The thing that made Bioware and their games special were the people who made it. They made games because they loved doing it. Bioware is a shadow of it's former self. A lot of the people like Brent Knowles left Bioware because the company wanted to expand and appeal to the masses. Joining EA only helped that cause. Brent Knowles has blogs written on his website about his time in Bioware and around the end of his time there he said that Bioware always wanted to go in the direction of appealing to the masses. Bioware's sentiments changed and now they share them with EA which is make as much money as possible with as little work as possible. Appealing to the masses means dumb your games down so the masses can easily play them. I'm sure Brent wasn't the only one who felt that that was not a good direction to go to so he left the company. I've read that a few other people have left Bioware too which I'm sure they had similar reasons of leaving. So guys like Brent Knowles of love real rpgs with amazing stories get pushed out for guys like Mike Laidlaw who is an EA yes man with such a narrow minded vision of how to make games. That's reason the quality of their games have gone down so much. Mike Laidlaw even said on an interview that he doesn't like classic rpgs. That explains such a huge reason as to why DA 2 came out the way it did. So we have people who loved making games and amazing rpgs leaving Bioware for people who love shallow action games that have you pressing a button so something awesome happens. I have little to no faith in Bioware and hope one day Obsidian Entertainment gets the credit they deserve for making games that rpgers want. They may have an unfortunate reputation but they always innovate the rpg genre and make some of the best written rpgs.--Vincent Cousland (talk) 17:25, March 28, 2012 (UTC)
Other than that ending I think Mass 3 was an absolute triumph. Dragon Age 2 is, in my in my opinion, never as bad as people say. Was it rushed? Definitely. Is it still a good game? Yes. Even though I like DA2 I agree with most on it's faults, lack of consequences, being stuck in Kirkwall, ect, ect. Fortunately BioWare have a habit of listening to their fans and addressing the issues they have with their games, as they did with the DA2 DLC and appear to be doing with this whole Mass 3 ending thing. Also, they want to make money, and I think they realize now that appealing to the masses by dumming down and having 'awesome buttons' only tens to piss off their core fans and not bring in enough new ones. So I think (read: hope) they know that if they want to bring in the bucks with DA3 they need to go back to what made Origans great because doing so is going to bring back more of the old fans that were alienated after DA2 than continuing to appeal to the masses would bring in new ones. Andy the Black (talk) 18:40, March 28, 2012 (UTC)
To answer the OP's question.. Short version: Yes, we should.-Algol- (talk) 18:58, March 28, 2012 (UTC)
I'm feeling a mixture of both apprehension and anticipation. Bioware seems to be asking for feedback in regards to what people want for DA3. What they'll do with this feedback will be the deciding factor. If they take our comments and criticisms to heart, look at what they've done right and what they've done wrong and put some tender loving care back into the franchise there is hope. Then again, this could all be a marketing front. Or they could shrug and say, "We've lost so many of the old fans lets just focus on the new fans in our broader audience" which bodes ill for DAO fans still hanging around. And they need to understand that we can wait. I am willing to be patient if it means a higher quality product is released, because DA3 will only be worth our time if they make it worth theirs.GoldenNightKnight (talk) 19:12, March 28, 2012 (UTC)
Yes you should. Bioware is essentially EA's lapdog now. They said that they'll listen to the fans, but how do we know to what extent they will do that? Just do what I'm going to do, wait a week for reviews or if you don't trust them (like I unfortunately had), wait a good few weeks to make sure it doesn't have a shitty ending. Aleksandr the Great (talk) 21:15, March 28, 2012 (UTC)
- "How do we know to what extent they will do that?" Not much, probably. They've already put their foot down and decided to have a voiced protagonists and no origins, like DA2. As well as keeping companion armor customization out. Mind you, I don't really mind the "voiced" and "companion armor" parts, but I've seen a lot of here do. Plus, it seems a little late to ask for feedback now - unless they buried their brains somewhere safe, they've probably been working on DA3 ever since DA2 ended. Feedback right after DA2's release? Yeah, I could see that having an effect, but not feedback now. At best, the feedback given now will most likely just result in one or two fan service moments (like a small sidequest or something). They had most likely made their minds on what they wanted to do next a month or so after DA2's release. Or I hope they did - if they really didn't start serious work on the game until now, then the franchise is probably screwed. Matt-256 (talk) 21:29, March 28, 2012 (UTC)
- Well, they kinda did supposedly serious work with the cancelled "Exalted March". I doubt they just throw it out of the window, but rather implement it in DA3. That means we get the Mage-Templar war, episode 2, whether we like it or not. In any case, what will be a good indicator, is definitely possible changes to ME3 endings with DLC. That would show pretty clear what is their real stance towards feedback.-Algol- (talk) 23:24, March 28, 2012 (UTC)
I am very, very worried. I was nearly dying in anticipation to play the last two Bioware games before their release, only to realize they were not up to par at all. The first, Dragon Age 2, was not a complete trainwreck. I personally loved Origins alot more, and didn't ever feel that same level of attachment while playing DA2. This is okay with me though. The other game i refer to is my real problem. Mass Effect 3 was absolutely perfect until the final 10 to 15 minutes when my every hope and dream was annihilated like the rest of the Galaxy, even though i had the highest number of war assets possible. I can't even play anything in the series anymore... it would just be too painful to go through. Bioware may have "apologized" for the ending and promised to fix it, but i will not be convinced until i see how the actually implement it. I know they can do it!!! Should they succeed i will probably risk pre-ordering Dragon Age 3 and the almost inevitable Day One DLC that was originally supposed to be in the full game. User:Warrior Tabris
- Thank you for the spoiler warning. You just destroyed the Mass Effect 3 plot for me. Oh well, I didn't want to play it anyways. A**hole. --Lord Evgarad (talk) 08:43, March 29, 2012 (UTC)
Really? I'm begining to lose my faith in people not Bioware. Just because a game doesn't give you cinematics you want? ME3 was FANTASTIC even the ending gave you the three instead of two choices like the other two games. What were you expecting exactly that they failed on? Cinematics? Or something completely different than the other two games? What's wrong with staying with the same formula to end a series, considering that's what made every game great. DAO and DAII was a return to something traditional while trying to bring it up to modern times. The Writting of Bioware is deap and amazing, and if people keep on giving Gears of War an 8/10 for the worst written story ever...EVER! or COD or Madden a 8/10 or 10/10 are you really saying that they are leaving DAII and ME3 far behind with their gameplay? REALLY? Even Skyrim doesn't have as intense of dialogue, but what does it have? scale? customablity? What's wrong with story? Or if the story of DAII and ME3 was so bad, against what your own expectations? I would love to play your game then, but it doesn't seem to be available yet. Hop to I say, and show us all what an awesome game is supposed to be.Sir Fritz (talk) 03:46, March 29, 2012 (UTC)
- Right. So many people are wrighting Bio off just because of the last 15 minutes of Mass 3. I get why people are pissed, believe me I'm 'holeding the line' as well, but ME3 should prove that Bio can still make astonishingly good games. And, as I said, I think Bio now know alienating their core fans by releasing a rushed 'awesome button' game is not the way to make money. Andy the Black (talk) 07:13, March 29, 2012 (UTC)
- “What's wrong with staying with the same formula to end a series, considering that's what made every game great.” - But that's exactly the point: they didn't stay true to ME with the ending at all. Let's take a look at how ME1 ends: you defeat Saren and Sovereign, there are some explosion, and while your squad mates obviously made it, they keep you in suspense in bit about Shepard, but he/she eventually limps to the others with the smuggest smile ever, knowing that while the fight only just began, the universe has a chance. In ME2 you survive the fall after killing the human proto-reaper, you and your squad mates run for your life, you reach the Normandy, but before Shepard can jump over the platform collapses, so the cinematic shows Shep doing the jump, and once again they keep us in suspense for 30 seconds, not knowing whether Shepard can grab on to the Normandy or no, but he/she grabs on, survives, after that tells TIM to f*ck off an leaves the room with a smug smile on his/her face, and once again everyone is hard at work against the reapers, because there is still hope. And let's take a look at ME3, blue ending: while you touch some weird energy stuff, you have some flashbacks then you die; green ending: you jump into some weird energy stuff, have some flashbacks then you die; red ending: you shoot stuff, have some flashbacks, things explode and then you die (unless you get the yo I'm still breathing ending). So no, ME3 ending isn't the same “formula” as the other two games. If it were, Shepard would have destroyed the reapers, emerge from the rubble in London with a smug smile on his/her face, not say a word, just nod to the soldiers and your nearby squad mates and walk off into the sunset. Also people mostly aren't upset with Shepard dying, but rather with the fact that the end revelations contradicts not only the previous games but even ME3 itself and essentially nothing gets explain. And I haven't even mentioned the crash-landing Normandy, because that's an other new level of plot hole.
- As for the other games you mentioned: most people who have a problem with Bioware recently won't give Gears of Wars an 8/10, and are possibily not hardcore COD or Madden fans. And I find that comparing any Bioware game with Skyrim is also a waste of time, because what makes Skyrim good aren't the quests or the story (which are important things in any BW game), but the random things that can happen, like how you can try to run away with an inch of your life from a giant, only for a dragon to suddenly swoop down and start tearing the giant apart.
- “Hop to I say, and show us all what an awesome game is supposed to be.” - No I haven't made any games in my life, but I have a sort of draft of how I think ME3 ending should have played out (though I still need to work out many details in it), feel free to take a look.
- Sorry for the wall of text... I was bored.
- OT: I don't think people should worry. Mostly because at this point Bioware isn't even worth worrying about. It's much more pleasant to just not care about all this fuss anymore, that way at least there is a possibility to be pleasantly surprised in the future.--SunyiNyufi (talk) 08:31, March 29, 2012 (UTC)
The Point I was making with the different games is that those will flood the market because either they appeal to non-gamers and gamers and get high scores and don't get boycotted or running a petition to say they are crap, even though GOW, COD, and Madden are. So in the long run I just feel as a gamer that I'm going to be stuck with Facebook games, COD, or COD clones, or raging sports games. I don't have a problem with Skyrim associated games, they just aren't my cup of tea. The formula I was speaking of was gameplay formula. You always had a split decision at the end of every game, but I thought it was pretty clear that this was the last Mass Effect game and it was only a trilogy unlike DA which they haven't really said anything about. That is a pretty cool ending btw.Sir Fritz (talk) 10:35, March 29, 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think you should worry about only getting Facebook games and COD clones, because while Bioware very obviously is going into that direction, there are other studios out there, who can make good RPGs with good story and choices actually mattering, like Obsidian or CDProjekt Red, or that 2-man studio done by some ex-Bioware guy whose name I forgot. Also raging and boycotting is actually good for the industry as long you make it clear why you are doing it, because developers who use their brains will be able to deduct what fans want to see in video games. The problem with the current controversy is that pretty much every game journalist misunderstands the fans, so they don't get what the problem is. Except for the guys at Forbes (which is actually really funny).
- PS.: I left you a message with my answer on the ME stuff, because I really don't want to derail this thread more :)--SunyiNyufi (talk) 11:46, March 29, 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately, yes I think we should be worried, especially after all the shit that's happened recently. Upside is, if you lower your expectations, you can't be disappointed. --Vampire Damian (talk) 12:01, March 29, 2012 (UTC)
- I don't relish the thought of treating the next Dragon Age game like some new movie :S I see your point but I'm hoping against what seems like all odds that WE the fans get something more for our money next time EzzyD (talk) 12:12, March 29, 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I think we should be worried about DA3. I think the trend away from deep conversations and engaging storyline towards flashier--but not exactly better/longer/more fulfilling--combat and quicker releases is likely to continue, regardless of reactions to either DA2 (which was rushed and disappointing, but not bad) or ME3 (which was rushed and lazy, but sprinkled with brilliance). Which, at best, might result in a good God of War-type game: fun, but not what we want from BioWare. On the other hand, there is hope that someone over at EA will do the math and realize that it’d probably be more profitable to make a game that has both significant dialogue choices AND tons of gushing monster blood in it. HELO (talk) 16:16, March 29, 2012 (UTC)
- Excellent and thought provoking comments, HELO. I agree with the reasons for concern that you identify. One of these, the tendency towards quicker releases, IMO, both lies at the heart of many problems, and isn't likely to go away any time soon.
- A video game company is a business, and must be run as a profitable business in order for continued existence. Many, many video game companies have failed after producing one big hit, or a few big hits. Bioware was apparently on that same path before they were acquired by EA. Bioware was heads and shoulders above most in their industry, producing good stories and video games with a very high level of quality control. Nevertheless there were problems.
- I think that one thing Bioware hoped to, and did, get from EA, was know-how on improving business practices in the video game industry. A key component of this business know-how appears to be scheduling of video game production. You set a reasonable schedule for production and stick to it. Otherwise cost overruns are going to kill the business, because costs per month run in the neighborhood of a million dollars or more. (See for example Casey Hudson's comment in a recent interview; "When we finish a game, we finish it many months before it actually hits the shelves and that team goes on to work on something else that in those intervening months represent millions of dollars of development time...")
- Problem is that getting a good, complete RPG done within the deadline limits presents numerous different issues. One of the issues is generating a complete, stand-alone story in the case of a next-in-the-series RPG. ME2 is actually one of the few next-in-the-series RPGs where everything worked. Typically there are problems with game endings in such cases, as seen in KotOR2, DA2, and ME3. (With ME3, extending the production schedule deadline from year-end 2011 till March 2012, didn't fix the issue.)
- There are other issues, but I'll leave it here for now. WarPaint (talk) 15:17, March 30, 2012 (UTC)
- Just wanted to add a couple of additional thoughts, as my above comments seem pretty bleak. Actually things might not be bleak at all, as there is a good solution to the production scheduling issue. Moreover, it's possible that BioWare is actually in the process of applying the appropriate solution in connection with DA3.
- Believe it or not, the solution comes from John Riccitiello, CEO of Electronic Arts. Riccitiello is a member of The Academy of Interactive Arts & Sciences, and stated the following in his Ten Questions with the Academy interview posted at the Academy's site:
- Q: What's the one problem of game development you wish you could instantly solve?
- Believe it or not, the solution comes from John Riccitiello, CEO of Electronic Arts. Riccitiello is a member of The Academy of Interactive Arts & Sciences, and stated the following in his Ten Questions with the Academy interview posted at the Academy's site:
- A: Pre-production – I'd have teams work to get to far greater design clarity before they begin full-scale production. Lack of clarity up front is probably the #1 reason why games are late, over budget or, in some cases, not that good.
- There is good reason to believe that this same "Pre-production" issue lies at the heart of the problems with KotOR2, DA2, and ME3. Specifically, Chris Avellone (writer and director of KotOR2) gave a number of interviews about stresses involved in the short and demanding production for KotOR2. It is clear that writing of the game script was simultaneous with production of the video game. It seems pretty clear that the same happened with DA2, and with ME3.
- Once a game is in the million-or-more-dollars-per-month production mode, its really not feasible to stop and fix the script. Too much money is wasted. So we end up with games lacking a finished story. The "write as you go" approach is a disaster waiting to happen IMO.
- The unfinished/unpolished story problem doesn't show up in the production of new releases, like DA:O, because studios won't commit production money for a new game in the absence of a complete, or nearly complete script. There is no "write as you go" problem with new games.
- With the "next in the series" video games, I think there's a need to distinguish between a "quick release" and a "quick production". A 2 year production schedule is probably quite reasonable when there's a complete pre-production game script. But two years is probably pushing too hard in most cases when there is no pre-production game script. I think that was the case in KotOR2, DA2, and ME3.
- What is needed for the "next in the series" video games, is a very small team to create a complete script before game production begins. The good news here is that in the BW Forums thread announcing the end of DA2, the BW producer seemed to be talking about exactly this type of approach for DA3; a small team to generate a game script for DA3. If they get that done first and then BW commits 2 years to game production (18 months might actually be sufficient for an experienced team), the end product could be quite nice. WarPaint (talk) 19:48, March 30, 2012 (UTC)
- I think it's a bit of an apples and oranges case here, WarPaint. See, KOTOR2's story was fine. As in, coherent, fluid, no plotholes big enough to have "Ravager" pass through and when Avellone didn't like a piece of SW lore he would subvert it instead of pretending it didn't exist. The ending was like that because it was cut off. Now, ME3. Feels like a patchwork made by a team that didn't like to discuss their work with each other much, because there's Tuchanka and there's Kai Leng and no way in hell these are written by the same people. And since the final version of the script was v. similar to the leaked version, I'd say its the case of hack writers within the team, not rushed pre-production. DA2 is yet another beast - the story feels like a rushed, not enough fleshed out but otherwise passable draft (now, those writers clearly talked to each other) which was later killed by gameplay designers - the Templars with perception of a molerat, the paratrooper mobs and suchlike gems all feel like gameplay designers disregarding the story rather than written-in part of it. And it's confirmed that Orsino was made into an optional boss because some suit wanted another "boss fight". So it seems that the story - the thing Bioware used to be famous for - is becoming less and less important for EAware. And I don't think it will change back. Dorquemada (talk) 18:07, April 1, 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, there are differences in the specific problems. Nevertheless a causative issue like lack of adequate pre-production planning can result in numerous different major problems in numerous different areas of the final product. It's a little like having an infection like the flu, where symptoms can vary from patient to patient, even though the major cause is the same. Healthy patients react differently than patients in poor health; patient age can make a huge difference. One might say that age and/or medical history are major causative factors. Still preventing flu infection in each case can prevent the related problems. WarPaint (talk) 15:32, April 2, 2012 (UTC)
I'm sure it will be fine as long as something awesome happens every time you push a button.--Liam Sionnach (talk) 16:17, April 2, 2012 (UTC)
Sign your posts. Post above mine. Addressing another post. Knights of The Old Republic 2: The Sith Lords was not created by BioWare, thoug it is a good example. But what I am more worried about is that it took a petition from us after the game was released to get a better ending for Mass Effect 3. If BioWare delivered a product that they promised: Where all our decisions from the first two games would change things in ME3 and actually resolved the major confict. The petition would not exist. BioWare is losing their game and I am afraid that DA3 may be the last becuase if ME3 was an indication, then DA3 will be the last in the Dragon Age series. GreyWolf84 (talk) 20:04, April 1, 2012 (UTC)
Better ending for ME3? Don't give me hope. I thought BioWare had already stated they weren't changing anything they were simply "clarifying" and possibly giving "closure". Or some bs along those lines. I pre-ordered DAO, ME2, DA2 and ME3. At this point I do NOT see myself pre-ordering DA3. 204.108.252.103 (talk) 13:07, April 2, 2012 (UTC)
The thing is, people griping about ME3 and DA2 are probably old-school Bioware fans who basically grew up with the company. I didn't get to Mass Effect until recently, but I did play Baldur's Gate when it was first released and Neverwinter Nights (one of my friends started with Shattered Steel, which had an amazing function called "damageable terrain". Awesome). I bought DAO because it was sold to be "the spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate". Quite a lot of successful RPGs sprouted from Bioware creations, notably Planescape: Torment, Icewind Dale series (Infinity Engine) and Witcher (Aurora Engine). The story was usually coherent and engaging.
So by standalone standards, ME3 and DA2 are probably good games, compared to a lot of rubbish games out there. But for us fans who grew up with the company, it's a bit like an old friend suddenly going ghetto, smoking pot and drinking all day.
I personally am a bit anxious about DA3. It will either make or break it for me; I loved my Warden like my child so it's a bit sad to see her not return, but I'm hoping the new protagonist will be just as dear to me as she was.
Hawke? Who's that? :P -
13:46, April 2, 2012 (UTC)
It's been stated that Bioware has been looking to 'go back to their roots' and also are looking heavily at Skyrim. They acknowledged that DA2 wasn't as successful at DAO. They also knew they angered a lot of people with ME3. I remain positive that they will take all this into consideration and make a game that won't disappoint. What I am concerned with if certain 'poisons' have too much influence that may restrict the game content or rush the quality. Badgley (talk) 16:26, April 2, 2012 (UTC)
I think we should be at least slightly concerned about DA3. Look at the pattern, DAO was great, DA2 was alright but did not meet my expectations story wise. If this pattern continues(and I'm not saying that it definitely will) than I think we can expect DA3 to be like Skyrim crossed with COD (with magic and swords instead of guns) --CouslandRogue (talk) 20:46, April 2, 2012 (UTC)
Actually, look at it this way. Origins was a holdover, a game finished and held for console imports for a little over a year. It was also in development for some time, all prior to Bioware being sold to EA, so it really can't be compared to any games released either just prior, or after the sale of the company. Mass Effect 1 was in development as well, but not as far along, and probably not changed all that much. Mass Effect 2 was changed, quite a bit, from what Bioware would normally do. It was a shooter first, RPG second, but had such compelling characters and plenty of dialogue options with consequence that it did not seem to infringe upon the game all that much, and, sales were quite well also, a major point. ME2's success signaled a seismic change. DA2 followed, and tried the same thing, and, despite what some will no doubt argue, failed quite miserably when compared to its predecessor, and even to the game it tried to mimic, ME2. But DA2 was an aberration, right? Enter ME3. ME3 is, though not nearly as good as ME2 IMO, a pretty good game (ending aside of course). Except, it's not an RPG at all and thus really only playable once or twice. It's a shooter, with tons of dialogue and one, maybe two, "options" to make a dialogue "choice" per cut-scene. And the reality is, that "choice" is little more than phrasing, and makes no difference. The weapon customization is back, hence they call it an RPG, but it's really not. It's a cinematic shooter, pure and simple, and geared for a much different audience than ME1 was, and certainly a MUCH different audience than Origins was. So, should we be worried about DA3? No. Because Bioware is going to make the game they want to make, and they are going to make it for the crowd they want to sell games to now. And that crowd is probably not a whole lot of us anymore so why worry? It is what it is. And you can't blame EA. Bioware wasn't conquered. They were sold. They chose this course. I'll expect little to nothing next time, and hope to be pleasantly surprised. The Grey Unknown (talk) 22:48, April 2, 2012 (UTC)
I'm surprised there were big expectations for ME3 Ending, all the others were bad, cliffhangers are not good endings. I was happy with Dragon age 2 until the ending, if the same thinking is behind DA III then you should be worried. User:Edocrack (User talk: Edocrack)
I would hope that the Creators of Dragon Age Series, would start reading the WIKI page because I see more negative comments then positive comments, when they pull stunts like hint and release teaser of up coming DLC's like "Free Marches" and then cancel out. Really when are they going to take into consideration, "The Core Fan/Loyal Gamer", I only speak for my self but I am a male in my late forties whom when I start a game and like it, I turn around and purchase all of the Series, Downloadable Content, and buy there Walk through Guides. I am sorry where there problems with Dragon Age Origins, Awakenings, and Dragon Age II, yes but there was also a lot of good story line, inconstant as it might have been. I fear now that we will have to wait until 2013 for the release of Dragon Age III, although one would have thought that the decision of cancelling the DLC "Free Marches" was probably made after Mark of the Assassin or Legacy. I would hope they did wait and make this decision at the last moment, and now the have to go to the drawing board to start Dragon Age III, I would hope that they made there decision to cancel there DLC "Free Marches", and then immediately started work on Dragon Age III. Leaving us on a Cliff-Hanger like they did in Dragon Age II just shows a lack of RESPECT for the Core Fans/Loyal Game Buyers. At least with Dragon Age Origins DLC Witch Hunt you can make some what of a choice of how you ended the Warden/Warden Commander.
I Direct this last statement Directly to the Creators and Head CEO's at Bio Ware/EA, JUST REMEMBER THAT IT IS CUSTOMERS LIKE ME THAT YOU NEED TO CONSIDER BEFORE YOU START PULLING STUPID CRAP LIKE CANCELLING A GAME, OR THE DLC FOR IT.--72.224.185.6 (talk) 11:45, April 3, 2012 (UTC)
Bioware/EA did not cancel the expansion pack because they didn't feel like finishing it or they wanted to screw over the fans. I would rarely ever come to Bioware's defense but I think people need to understand the true facts. A business decision was made over a personal decision. I'm sure Bioware was looking forward to finishing Hawke's story but with all the heat the company is getting now and the very poor reception DA 2 got, there is no way an expansion would sell enough to make a profit. Bioware/EA would have wasted a lot of money in the expansion packs production if people weren't going to buy it. Would you do something if you absolutely knew you would get some bad results from it? Also. I'm almost sure Bioware had two teams in place for DA. One for pre-production of DA 3 and one for the Exalted Marches. Typically development teams begin planning their next game around release time of their current game. So I'm sure DA 3 and the Expansion were being planned as DA 2 was being released. We should all expect rubbish as long a Laidlaw is in charge. I probably sound like a broken record but the guy is a fraud and he is not a good lead designer. He may be a nice guy personally but as a game developer, he is short sighted and has a very flawed image of where DA should go. He needs to be a lead designer on an action game and not DA. He has no place for making rpg games...he doesn't even like rpgs. The guy needs to go from the DA franchise....--Vincent Cousland (talk) 16:21, April 3, 2012 (UTC)
- That guy needs to leave Bioware completely! To answer on OP's question: YES! We should be worried about DA3 future. I spent almost a year spitting on DA2 and EAware, and though many people came to my side, i didn't think things would change at all. With Mass Effect 3 fiasco, and the official announcement by Bioware that they are working on fixing the endings of ME3 i came to believe that Bioware is on a brink of extinction. They are under so much pressure now that they are grasping for straws. I think that they have finally realized what have they done by joining forces with EA. I have no hope for DA franchise. Why? Cause by the time DA3 come to fruition(if it comes to that) Bioware will either go down or will be completely assimilated with EA. Either way, Bioware will be no more. That is inevitable. Right now they are loosing more than they are gaining. People all over the world are returning their copies of ME3, totally disappointed. DA2 has been removed from Steam for half a year already, maybe more even. They abandoned game art for game business, and now that business is failing, but they have no people to help them return to game art. Bioware is a Titanic, sinking slowly but steady.--Markurion (talk) 17:01, April 3, 2012 (UTC)
- Bioware has already said that EA is not pulling their strings, there is no EAware they can/should only effect very little of it. So we can be sure that it's all Biowares fault.
User:Edocrack (User talk:Edocrack
- 1st) I agree with Vincent Cousland, Obsidian is a great innovative RPG company, however they are proof that expensive innovation does not pay off. For every game that Obsidian puts out, they are plagued with bad reviews from bugs or players that don’t understand the game mechanics. As long as there is a market there will be games, my argument is that people naysay Bioware and/or EA but they are still putting out the better games. Bioware started in the mid-’90s, but I didn’t pick them up until ‘99 with Baldur’s Gate (1998) and numerous games that they have made since then. Then EA started in the mid-’80s, but the first game series I picked up was Wing Commander and Command and Conquer (though years after their release). I’m not saying a company is good or bad, they are a business that wants to do business.
- GoldenNightKnight brings up the question of time and waiting, my argument about this is simple, would a core DA:O fan pay more to have a company put out a better product? And if they are what is the guarantee that they are listening to the correct core fans and not tick off another section? Also what defines a core fan, when the only truly active fan is the one that’s ticked off? Every game that is put out is a gamble on good or bad, I’m glad that it’s apparent to the core fans, but it’s not cut and dry when fan-service is taken into consideration.
- When Warrior Tabris talks about Bioware “apologized” for the ending is wrong. They apologized for an unexpected reaction to their ending choice for the ME Trilogy. I’m going to guess that their business model would be make a full story, but then release a few more side expansions, but had to change recently when some confusion popped up about the ending. I bow to their integrity of sticking with their planned product, it’s unfortunate, but you can not please everyone, and there are too many different ways that fans wanted the story to go to enable even half in any game, as far as I’m aware. I would say that makes a great game to be so wound up that the ending hits you that hard. I personally loved the ending, but I’m different I guess.
- Sorry for the late reply to SunyiNyufi, already talked about Obsidian. My opinion on CD Projekt Red is that we shall see, both Witcher’s had really stiff gameplay and no real strategy to speak of, but the stories were interesting. I assume that you’re talking about Stoic Studio with the ex-Bioware guys, you too can donate to their new game here: http://stoicstudio.com/ they apparently just got the composer that did the soundtrack to PSN’s Journey game.
- Dorquemada plot holes, if you’re talking time gaps, exist multi-choice storyline. The magic is writing a game/book/what have you so that the audience doesn’t notice unless they over analyze, or have their own expectations of plot. I would advise that if you don’t want plot holes only play linear games.
- Addressing GreyWolf84: I need a ME rant, but you’re decisions make an impact, unless you didn’t notice the Collector’s Base, counsel, your companions, and various NPCs that reappear. I want to know what you’re expectations were when they said that. Because it’s a different experience if you don’t have certain people there, just saying. All in all it was a bad move by any company to promise anything since that causes confusion. Which is why I would advise Bioware never to get over excited as I’m sure people would have enjoyed the game more if they didn’t have justifiably confused expectation.
- Lastly: I’m just wondering why people want Mike Laidlaw’s head so badly. He brought the scale of gameplay up in Dragon Age. I know the saying is if it isn’t broke don’t fix it, but besides the difference between Baldur’s Gate and DA:O were amazing, it was also a last gen look and feel, and only made up for it in the writing which would mean every 4-6 years they would be reinventing DA, or just letting it die. My argument is: The only reason that DAIII can even exist to interest consumers is because of DAII. It’s not a huge loss really, I mean Bioware could continue to make older looking games until it makes no financial sense. But asking for ML’s job means you’re so dissatisfied about everything in DAII. It was completely wrong, and every copy is a travesty on the market, so much so that every second of gameplay made you want to take the game and break it in two from the stunning visuals, to the streamlined controls, and the complex character design. We’re not talking about repetitive maps, I’m saying that every aspect was so hated that there is a petition going around to change the full game. It’s a bit over dramatic, but it's asking for a person’s job when truthfully it is a project that failed with no previous history of such apperant failure. And I go back to my previous statement on Gears of War. Worst written series got an average of 92.84%. That no one's upset about, but because of creative design and gameplay choices to bring something into the modern market. I would say that Bioware is still finding a middle ground between past and future for their games and ME didn’t have it so tough because it’s more action than tactics. Poor gamble but I still say DAII is still head and shoulders above any other current customized RPG when it comes to aesthetic design, and storyline (even if it didn't go in a agreeable direction). This is all My opinion though, my apologies that it's not all that humble.Sir Fritz (talk) 07:17, April 9, 2012 (UTC)
As a fan of the Indoctrination Theory I'm waiting for the Extended Cut of ME3 to be released before I decide how I feel about that game. If they do go with IT (or something even cooler) Bioware will be returned to the skyscraper-sized pedestel I was forced to kick them off after DA2. I'll add a few extra storeys to it for good measure, and I'll most likely pre-order DA3. If they stick with space magic as the actual ending... I'll do the same thing with DA3 as ME3; play it at a friend's house and not spend another cent on crap products. If they ruin both ME3 and DA3 I'm just giving up on Bioware completely. Kestrella (talk) 12:26, April 9, 2012 (UTC)
- You can always console yourself in the absolute brilliance of Dragon Age: Origins :) That's what I do whenever Bioware annoys me for any reason. Its comforting to know that no matter what, the Devs can never fuck with Origins now. EzzyD (talk) 12:44, April 9, 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I'd say we should be worried. BioWare's recent track record with the DA2 and ME3 storylines hasn't been good, nor has the way they're monetized the crap out of those games. We don't know DA3 will be bad until it hits the shelves, though. At this point, I'd say to just not pre-order it, and wait a couple weeks to read the reviews and internet buzz before buying the game. At that point, we'll all know whether it's good or not, and can decide whether it's worth our time. Speaking for myself, if the general opinion is that it's good, I'll buy it; if not, I'll pretend it was never released. Diyartifact (talk) 15:29, April 9, 2012 (UTC)
Conversation between Laidlaw and Gaider:
- Laidlaw: "Did you see what the ME3 team is planning to do with that extended ending dlc to clarify the original ending? Brilliant."
- Gaider: "I saw that"
- Laidlaw: "I was thinking we could do the same thing for DA3. But we could do it as a Day Zero dlc. And it wouldn't be free."
- Gaider: "Hmmm. Well, first we'd have to screw up on the original ending."
- Laidlaw: "Come on. We could do that in our sleep. I mean, look at what we did to the DA2 ending."
- Gaider: "So true."
- Laidlaw: "OK. We got a plan then. Right?"
- Gaider: "Well, we'd need to get the ending right for the extended ending dlc. Do you thing we could do that?"
- Laidlaw: "It wouldn't have to be right, just different. I mean, do you really think the ME3 team is going to be able to straighten out all the stuff with their current ending?"
- Gaider: "I guess you're right. If the fans complain we just say artistic integrity, like the DA3 team."
- Laidlaw: "Yeah. We got artistic integrity too."
- Gaider: "Damn right. We're artists too. We can screw up an ending at least as good as the ME3 team. OK, we got a plan!"
WarPaint (talk) 18:04, April 9, 2012 (UTC)
- With skills like these, they should give you the job for writing DA3 dialogue ;) Diain (talk) 18:11, April 9, 2012 (UTC)
- They need to snag Clint Mansell to write the score if they want their plan to succeed. His music for ME3 is the only thing in that popcorn blockbuster a la Michael Bay that could be used within the same sentence as "Artistic integrity" without being absurd. Dorquemada (talk) 18:18, April 9, 2012 (UTC)