We may use cookies to help customize your experience, including performing
analytics and serving ads.
Learn More
Forums → Games → Bioware or Blizzard?
| 41 | 4875 |
When you finally get some time to sit down play some quality games on your console or PC do you prefer to play something from Bioware or Blizzard?
In all honesty I'm a total Bioware fanboy but I also enjoy playing WoW or Warcraft (never played anything else by Blizzard :/ ). Also what is your favourite game made by them?
My fave by Bioware is Dragon Age but Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic will always have a place in my heart as it was one of the first proper games I had. Enough from me, what's your opinion?
- 41 Replies
And it's that game mechanic I'm trying to defend, because I happened to like it.
It's great that you are defending a concept, however badgering the other party makes the argument sink.
I'm not talking about melee attacks, I'm talking about using the staff's basic attack to fire bolts of whatever element the staff is. Obviously in that situation it would be best to focus on aiming those bolts of whatever, and then just firing them away, rather than spinning around like a figure skater.
Comparing the two games, Dragonage:Origins employed the standard ranged-mage system. I've played one and I can see where this failed. Your attacks were slower, both initially and following up, as the bolt traveled very slowly. When said bolt hit, the damage was very low. You could do higher and faster damage with your fists. I only kept the staff because it gave me more properties to my attributes.
DragonageII on the otherhand, employed a melee-magical mage. All animations aside, because there is really no point in discussing fighting effectiveness over form, Bioware made the mage more balanced in this way. When the Mage ran out of mana for spells, it could conversely become a fighter and still be effective (though not doing as much melee damage as the Warrior). Origins threw the mage out of balance, disregarding the part about his using spells. The sequel made the mage more useful if the going went tough.
DragonageII on the otherhand, employed a melee-magical mage. All animations aside, because there is really no point in discussing fighting effectiveness over form, Bioware made the mage more balanced in this way. When the Mage ran out of mana for spells, it could conversely become a fighter and still be effective (though not doing as much melee damage as the Warrior). Origins threw the mage out of balance, disregarding the part about his using spells. The sequel made the mage more useful if the going went tough.
First of all, I said that the only bad thing I had to say about Dragon Age was that their combat animations were a bit unrealistic, and you've really gone far from that in your explanation, second of all, I'm not talking about using melee as a mage, you can use your staff's basic attacks from a distance too, and third of all, I didn't have very strong feelings against it. I, too, think mages are a lot more fun to play now, even if they seem to be focusing more on showing off their awesome moves (once again, I'm NOT talking about melee, 'cus in melee it would actually make sense) than actually aiming.
It's great that you are defending a concept, however badgering the other party makes the argument sink.
I'm merely trying to tell you that people's opinions differ, and I'm "badgering you" because it just seems like you refuse to accept that.
First of all, I said that the only bad thing I had to say about Dragon Age was that their combat animations were a bit unrealistic, and you've really gone far from that in your explanation
Explain? I was explaining that the animations of the attacks had no point whatsoever to the gameplay of Dragonage.
second of all, I'm not talking about using melee as a mage, you can use your staff's basic attacks from a distance too
Ranged or Melee, there is no point.
I'm merely trying to tell you that people's opinions differ, and I'm "badgering you" because it just seems like you refuse to accept that.
You threw the first stone. My opinions were just opinions; I suggested what Bioware could do better with their successive products and nothing more. I did not suggest anything that otherwise was "wrong". You, however, must also abide by your phrase: "eoples' opinions matter". That's all fine and dandy. I objectively respected yours. Now respect mine.
Now are we going to continue barking at eachother or can we move on? Because I would reeeally like to talk about Blizzard now. They've been sitting alone in the dark for a while and would like some company.
I suggested what Bioware could do better with their successive products and nothing more.
Indeed, I think all companies can however the main thing you suggested changing (the turn based / action RPG) was the part me and iMogwai like, as well as many other people I believe. It's good that you want the game to get better but hell, I don't know how people would react and it would undermine the general concepts of the game.
Because I would reeeally like to talk about Blizzard now. They've been sitting alone in the dark for a while and would like some company.
They're a great company, not all of their ideas are brand new (if any lol) but man, they know how to take the ideas we love, make them better and ship them in one crate. That's mostly what the business is and it often isn't a bad thing since so many ideas have been done. They do however do badly when it comes to making the difficulty high on their game World of Warcraft. Starcraft II in my opinion is an ace in the hole, but WoW? It is getting easier and it's like what happened to MW2 - you're getting spoiled and spoonfed.
I have more to say, but let's stick to one thing at a time.
- H
Explain? I was explaining that the animations of the attacks had no point whatsoever to the gameplay of Dragonage.
And I had no complaints whatsoever about the gameplay of Dragon Age.
Ranged or Melee, there is no point.
Swinging your weapon around like crazy and spinning around like a muppet makes sense in melee, when you're trying to hit your opponent with force as well as make sure he doesn't parry. When you're shootign fireballs from a distance, however, there's really no point in spinning around before you throw your fireball, because the opponents are still going to know in which direction the fireball's going. Towards them. Basically, what I'm saying is that the mages' moves are a bit excessive when they're using ranged basic attacks.
You threw the first stone. My opinions were just opinions; I suggested what Bioware could do better with their successive products and nothing more. I did not suggest anything that otherwise was "wrong". You, however, must also abide by your phrase: "eoples' opinions matter". That's all fine and dandy. I objectively respected yours. Now respect mine.
Let's look back, shall we?
You said:
Bioware makes Pen-and-Paper RPGs which, in my opinion, make terrible adventure games. If you look closely at Dragonage and Neverwinter Nights (a game which a good chunk of you probably don't recognize), the combat system is timed. You have to wait for your turn to come up, even though it's perceived as a real-time action RPG. The computer in the game, therefore, is making the "rolls" and "checks" to make sure the game is flowing as it should. Developers, leave this game to board games and Dungeons and Dragons, because this does not make an immersing combat system.
I said:
I though the semi-turn based style of BioWares earlier games was interesting, and I actually loved Knights of the Old Republic. I think it's just a matter of taste, and seeing as how BioWare is quite successful, I think there are a lot of people out there who'd agree with me.
You said:
Oh yes, Bioware is a very successful software developing company, I'm not disputing that. I'm just saying that games like Dragonage and Neverwinter Nights aren't meant to be turn-based, or Pen-and-Paper RPGs. They are meant to be action-oriented.
I said:
And I still think it's a matter of taste. I thought the turn-based combat of Neverwinter Nights was interesting, and I really think that the game was more about strategy than action, which is most likely why you were given control of your party as well as a pause button.
You said:
Good, because Neverwinter Nights is a spin-off of D&D. Neverwinter employs nearly-all elements of a Pen-and-Paper RPG system, which is fine. Dragonage, however, has taken partial elements and stuck action-oriented elements alongside. This makes some sort of electrophobic Yin-Yang, because two partials do not mix at all for it to be meaningful.
To be honest, the way I see it, you did nothing but suggest that anything otherwise was wrong.
Sorry for the huge wall of quotes.
however, there's really no point in spinning around before you throw your fireball, because the opponents are still going to know in which direction the fireball's going. Towards them. Basically, what I'm saying is that the mages' moves are a bit excessive when they're using ranged basic attacks.
So THAT'S what you meant...
Let's look back, shall we?
And none of that implied an attack of your views on Bioware. Should I make my posts more lawfully-objective if you cannot take constructive-criticism? :P
So yeah, onto Blizzard. This is where I whip out my "MMORPGs shouldn't be implemented in console-based games" routine. MMORPGs, especially the renowned World of Warcraft, lacks a clear and decisive storyline, which is a core element in games. Instead of the game ending in a clear spot in the story, or being refurbished for a sequel/prequel, MMOs like WoW are being thrust into Pergatory, always recirculating the endless cycle of activities. Even though you can continue on after the story is completed, there is really no point in carrying on, because it is an endless loop of activities. A proper game should end right then there.
And don't get me started with the lack of quest originality or the pay to play blasphemy.
And none of that implied an attack of your views on Bioware.
As I said, I was talking about the turn-based game mechanics, and not really BioWare itself.
Anyways, onto Blizzard instead then.
They do however do badly when it comes to making the difficulty high on their game World of Warcraft.
I haven't been doing all that much end-game stuff since Cataclysm, but from what I've experienced so far I can tell that the difficulty in heroics is a lot harder now than in WotLK. Though I wouldn't be surprised if that changes in future patches.
Though I wouldn't be surprised if that changes in future patches.
I think if they kept it how it was in the beta would be sufficiently challenging, they've already nerfed it a bit.
But, in all fairness, I haven't played any of Cataclysm high-end. I haven't even been on my own account in ages. My judgement is from what I see and hear on YouTube and MMO.Champion.
especially the renowned World of Warcraft, lacks a clear and decisive storyline, which is a core element in games.
For the record - I love the expansive lore in WoW, I love the story of it more than any other game, I think.
The presentation? It could be much better - like Mass Effect 2 O:O
- H
When me and my friend would play Warcraft III we didn't use the RTS game we just played Inquisitor RPG(I think that's right) and DotA.
Although with DotA(I'm hoping that's exactly what it's called) I found it to be over too quickly. It's either too easy and you pwn them in 2 minutes and you don't even have a chance to get good abilities or buy cool gear or on the other hand they storm you in 30secs and completely wipe you out. Still it was fun. I could only ever survive by being Pit Lord aaaaaand he moves and attacks at like... 0.003 miles an hour.
I am talking about the right thing, aren't I?
Please correct me if I'm not.
Inquisitor was fun, especially when playing with friends.
Also, this may be a durr da durr question, but what exactly is Starcraft's gameplay style? I've always imagined it to be an RTS, is that right?
Also, this may be a durr da durr question, but what exactly is Starcraft's gameplay style?
Think of Starcraft as a sci-fi version of Warcraft. Just like Warcraft III, the normal game mode is RTS, but there are tons of custom maps to play, just like in Warcraft III. I think the fact that people can make their own maps, and all the possibilities that come with it, is the reason why Warcraft III is still being played today, so many years after it was released. Same old game, but yet new maps keep popping up. Endless fun. Same with Starcraft, by the way.
You must be logged in to post a reply!