This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

EA and BioWare...

#71ShuraYukihimePosted 10/5/2013 6:28:26 AM
CyricsServant posted...
simonbelmont2 posted...
ShuraYukihime posted...
Once again that is not how budgets work. If there was no MP there would have been no money budgeted for it. SP budget would not have changed.

I'm curious, which Mass Effect sold the most?


Exactly, the budget allocated for MP wouldn't of been used on the SP if the MP did not exist.


I'm not entirely convinced that's the case. Mass Effect 3 aside, I can't think of one game heavily focused on multi-player that had a great single player campaign.


It's fine that you aren't convinced. Everyone is allowed their doubts.

As for the second part I'll cite the original Neverwinter Nights. It had a great single player campaign and the multiplayer was simply tops if you found a server that fit you.
---
I'm searching the city for sci fi wasabi.
#72CyricsServantPosted 10/5/2013 6:56:42 AM
ShuraYukihime posted...
CyricsServant posted...
simonbelmont2 posted...
ShuraYukihime posted...
Once again that is not how budgets work. If there was no MP there would have been no money budgeted for it. SP budget would not have changed.

I'm curious, which Mass Effect sold the most?


Exactly, the budget allocated for MP wouldn't of been used on the SP if the MP did not exist.


I'm not entirely convinced that's the case. Mass Effect 3 aside, I can't think of one game heavily focused on multi-player that had a great single player campaign.


It's fine that you aren't convinced. Everyone is allowed their doubts.

As for the second part I'll cite the original Neverwinter Nights. It had a great single player campaign and the multiplayer was simply tops if you found a server that fit you.


I'm going to have to strongly disagree with you.

Neverwinter Nights was a huge step backwards from the (primarily single player focused) Baldur's Gate series. From what I remember, relative to BG, Neverwinter Nights had fewer character classes and abilities, you could only have one additional party member at a time (as opposed to five), recruitable party members didn't have very developed personalities or personal side-quests, environments were simplistic and unambitious, etc. I think NN is actually probably a great example of where multi-player eats into the single player's budget.
#73ShuraYukihimePosted 10/5/2013 7:05:28 AM
CyricsServant posted...
ShuraYukihime posted...
CyricsServant posted...
simonbelmont2 posted...
ShuraYukihime posted...
Once again that is not how budgets work. If there was no MP there would have been no money budgeted for it. SP budget would not have changed.

I'm curious, which Mass Effect sold the most?


Exactly, the budget allocated for MP wouldn't of been used on the SP if the MP did not exist.


I'm not entirely convinced that's the case. Mass Effect 3 aside, I can't think of one game heavily focused on multi-player that had a great single player campaign.


It's fine that you aren't convinced. Everyone is allowed their doubts.

As for the second part I'll cite the original Neverwinter Nights. It had a great single player campaign and the multiplayer was simply tops if you found a server that fit you.


I'm going to have to strongly disagree with you.

Neverwinter Nights was a huge step backwards from the (primarily single player focused) Baldur's Gate series. From what I remember, relative to BG, Neverwinter Nights had fewer character classes and abilities, you could only have one additional party member at a time (as opposed to five), recruitable party members didn't have very developed personalities or personal side-quests, environments were simplistic and unambitious, etc. I think NN is actually probably a great example of where multi-player eats into the single player's budget.


Blame the evolution of D&D in that case. BG used AD&D 2nd ed. NWN used at least third edition.

The only budget applied to NWN for multiplayer was the toolset. It's also not really fair to compare NWN and BG.
---
I'm searching the city for sci fi wasabi.
#74AgerisPosted 10/5/2013 4:49:38 PM
ShuraYukihime posted...
CyricsServant posted...
ShuraYukihime posted...

It's fine that you aren't convinced. Everyone is allowed their doubts.

As for the second part I'll cite the original Neverwinter Nights. It had a great single player campaign and the multiplayer was simply tops if you found a server that fit you.


I'm going to have to strongly disagree with you.

Neverwinter Nights was a huge step backwards from the (primarily single player focused) Baldur's Gate series. From what I remember, relative to BG, Neverwinter Nights had fewer character classes and abilities, you could only have one additional party member at a time (as opposed to five), recruitable party members didn't have very developed personalities or personal side-quests, environments were simplistic and unambitious, etc. I think NN is actually probably a great example of where multi-player eats into the single player's budget.


Blame the evolution of D&D in that case. BG used AD&D 2nd ed. NWN used at least third edition.

The only budget applied to NWN for multiplayer was the toolset. It's also not really fair to compare NWN and BG.


I'm going to have to disagree with you, as well. Vanilla NWN had a terrible storyline. Toolset was awesome, multiplayer was a blast (though MP in the story module was terrible, ironically). The original campaign was obviously intended to more be a showcase for the toolset and engine than anything else. However: Shadows of Undrentide and Hordes of the Underdark had amazing storylines that more than made up for the terribleness that was the original campaign. Quite possibly NWN had the two best expansions to a game, ever. Right up there with Beyond the Sword for Civ4 (and ToB for BG2, I suppose).

On the topic at hand, I recall an interview with one of the founders of Bioware where he blames (DA2, specifically) the issues they've had on themselves due to the fact that EA gives them more than enough funding to hang themselves, so they get too risky or innovative, instead of being a little more conservative and playing more to their strengths.
#75skiguy1981(Topic Creator)Posted 10/5/2013 7:05:45 PM
adam35711 posted...
scoobydoobydont posted...
ShuraYukihime posted...
Also no need to be sorry.

I think most of these people "complaining" about Bioware or EA didn't have much experience with Bioware games outside of maybe KotOR.


Could you maybe stop making s*** up to troll people who you don't agree with? It doesn't become less made up and baseless the more you say it, and it isn't even a good defense.


Definitely just trolling, even the most novice gamer can see the huge differences in DA:O and DA2


Ha, very true but I will say I don't hate DA2 as much as some of you but really a step in the wrong direction.
---
The problem with Internet quotations is that many are not genuine. - Abraham Lincoln
#76SoF-RamboPosted 10/6/2013 1:41:23 AM
I still lol everytime I hear someone try to explain the change from heat management to thermal clips.

Person 1 - "Why'd they change it?"
EAWare "Because Geth, now run along, child."
---
Gamertag : Z0mb13S0ldier PSN : GotYourGatorade
Current Most Played : PS All-Stars, Battlefield 3, and WWE 13.
#77SoF-RamboPosted 10/6/2013 2:05:32 AM
CyricsServant posted...
simonbelmont2 posted...
ShuraYukihime posted...
Once again that is not how budgets work. If there was no MP there would have been no money budgeted for it. SP budget would not have changed.

I'm curious, which Mass Effect sold the most?


Exactly, the budget allocated for MP wouldn't of been used on the SP if the MP did not exist.


I'm not entirely convinced that's the case. Mass Effect 3 aside, I can't think of one game heavily focused on multi-player that had a great single player campaign.


If you count FPS games...

Return to Castle Wolfenstein.
---
Gamertag : Z0mb13S0ldier PSN : GotYourGatorade
Current Most Played : PS All-Stars, Battlefield 3, and WWE 13.
#78ShuraYukihimePosted 10/6/2013 3:17:14 AM
Ageris posted...
ShuraYukihime posted...
CyricsServant posted...
ShuraYukihime posted...

It's fine that you aren't convinced. Everyone is allowed their doubts.

As for the second part I'll cite the original Neverwinter Nights. It had a great single player campaign and the multiplayer was simply tops if you found a server that fit you.


I'm going to have to strongly disagree with you.

Neverwinter Nights was a huge step backwards from the (primarily single player focused) Baldur's Gate series. From what I remember, relative to BG, Neverwinter Nights had fewer character classes and abilities, you could only have one additional party member at a time (as opposed to five), recruitable party members didn't have very developed personalities or personal side-quests, environments were simplistic and unambitious, etc. I think NN is actually probably a great example of where multi-player eats into the single player's budget.


Blame the evolution of D&D in that case. BG used AD&D 2nd ed. NWN used at least third edition.

The only budget applied to NWN for multiplayer was the toolset. It's also not really fair to compare NWN and BG.


I'm going to have to disagree with you, as well. Vanilla NWN had a terrible storyline. Toolset was awesome, multiplayer was a blast (though MP in the story module was terrible, ironically). The original campaign was obviously intended to more be a showcase for the toolset and engine than anything else. However: Shadows of Undrentide and Hordes of the Underdark had amazing storylines that more than made up for the terribleness that was the original campaign. Quite possibly NWN had the two best expansions to a game, ever. Right up there with Beyond the Sword for Civ4 (and ToB for BG2, I suppose).

On the topic at hand, I recall an interview with one of the founders of Bioware where he blames (DA2, specifically) the issues they've had on themselves due to the fact that EA gives them more than enough funding to hang themselves, so they get too risky or innovative, instead of being a little more conservative and playing more to their strengths.


You are correct about the campaign. I was lumping the vanilla game and the expansions together for some odd reason. I was wrong. (NWN)
---
I'm searching the city for sci fi wasabi.
#79DiScOrD tHe LuNaTiCPosted 10/6/2013 5:45:51 AM
SoF-Rambo posted...
I still lol everytime I hear someone try to explain the change from heat management to thermal clips.

Person 1 - "Why'd they change it?"
EAWare "Because Geth, now run along, child."


Seriously, this was the only change from 1 to 2 that I despised. If they really didn't want the players to have super-weapons because of the mods, all they had to do was remove modding from game. Simple.

Instead, they give us 'thermal clips', which only affected Shep, and invoked the horribly tired "everyone but you will always have unlimited ammo" riff.
---
"It's not about money, it's about sending a message. Everything burns."
#80DarkReign2022Posted 10/6/2013 6:54:04 AM
It's both. ME2 was amazing for sure and ME3 was decent, but EA has gotten their hands on BioWare and corrupted them externally and at the same time BioWare has lost a lot of important developers and the team is a shell of it's former self. A lot like Rare LTD. Company still exists, just not in the form that we know and love. This is why whenever I ask for a KOTOR sequel, I demand that Obsidian does it. KOTOR 2 had more bugs and glitches, but the storyline was much better, there was a lot more to the gameplay, and the weakened BioWare team I feel couldn't handle another game on the level of a KOTOR 3.