Video Games: Devils Die Twice

[briantw]

Main issue with Dragon Age 2 was that they basically released it unfinished.  It was a good game but it clearly needed another six months at least.

[Impmk2]

Pretty much with @Werthead on this one. DA:O never lived up to be the revamped BG2 it was advertised as with simplifed combat and a not so great plot and pacing. DA: I was a series of overlong fetch quests with some truly cringe worthy writing and terrible combat, and was then massively overshadowed by the Witcher 3.

ME2 is probably the closest they've come to a classic in recent times and that was what... 9 years ago? (not going to buy into the shooter vs crpg debate)

Honestly never played DA2 after hearing how it was rushed out half finished, and seeing the randomly spawning mobs in the pre-release demo. May have to go back and have another look.

[Werthead]

Quote

 

I think we would all agree that Final Fantasy IV is an RPG, correct?

 

JRPG, which is a different genre.

3 hours ago, briantw said:

Main issue with Dragon Age 2 was that they basically released it unfinished.  It was a good game but it clearly needed another six months at least.

Yeah, that was fully on Electronic Arts. They bought BioWare, had some kind of heart attack at what they saw BioWare had spent on DA:O (five years in development as a PC-exclusive at a moment when the PC was just about at its lowest ebb as a games machine, with Steam almost single-handedly fighting to save it from extinction), ordered the half-arsed console ports of DA:O and then mandated DA2 be a really quickie sequel rushed out with no time and almost no money. That's why it's small, relatively short and is built on the Mass Effect 2 engine, which wasn't really designed for it. The guy who had the grand plan for the entire Dragon Age series was so enraged he quit on the spot, and DA2, Inquisition and, from the sound of it, DA4 have not been following the original plan for the series (hence why the series is so incoherent).

It's pretty damn good when you consider what limitations it was built under. It also speaks to BioWare's traditional strength: the narrative and character-focused, short-ish (20-30 hour) and linear RPG experience. Apart from the much longer and still-excellent Baldur's Gate II, it feels like every time they've moved away from that wheelhouse they've gotten into trouble with feature creep and scope problems, not to mention the tech bullshit EA has foisted on them more recently.

[Jon AS]

5 hours ago, Werthead said:

That's why it's small, relatively short and is built on the Mass Effect 2 engine, which wasn't really designed for it.

No, all ME games up to Andromeda used Unreal Engine 3. DA2 on the other hand used a modified version of the DAO engine called Lycium (okay, I had to look up the name ).

They simply changed a lot about the game mechanics, some for the better, a lot for the worse, when they made the sequel. If they hadn't done that it might have turned out better. Plus it's pretty likely that consolifying the combat was mandated from above.

DA2 still did turn out pretty good, and it still has the best cast of characters in the series and a story that with some tweaking (and thus some more development time) could have made it the standout DA game. As it is, it's one of three flawed but compelling games, and I personally would much rather revisit DA2 than DAO. At least DA2's repetitive sequences are fairly short, unlike, say, the Fade or Deep Roads in Origins.

[Gorn]

I have fond memories of all three DA games, but zero interest to replay any of them (unlike, say, Mass Effect 2 and 3). There's just soooo much filler combat in various ugly corridors and even uglier rooms and caves in all of them. A clear case of "more is not always better". Each game would be significantly improved by cutting 50% of its game time.

[Werthead]

6 hours ago, Jon AS said:

No, all ME games up to Andromeda used Unreal Engine 3. DA2 on the other hand used a modified version of the DAO engine called Lycium (okay, I had to look up the name ).

That's interesting, as DA2's engine certainly feels nothing like DA:O's. I remember at the time there was talk that they had to make the game more like ME2, and conflated that with the tech.

[Jon AS]

4 hours ago, Werthead said:

That's interesting, as DA2's engine certainly feels nothing like DA:O's. I remember at the time there was talk that they had to make the game more like ME2, and conflated that with the tech.

Yes, the feel is extremely different. But if you think about it, the change in feeling is down to art style, combat mechanics, camera placement, animation speed and a fully voiced protagonist. The game didn't suddenly turn into a shooter. The fundamental workings of the engine weren't completely different at all.

I have no doubt that the success of ME2 influenced the development of DA2, though. It came out right as DA2 development was starting and was widely praised for improving on ME1 in most areas. It provided a much more focused and streamlined experience after its plodding predecessor, quite similar to what DA2 does compared to DAO.

[Luzifer's right hand]

I tried one of the free games from the EPIC store and I can't find a way to change to games language(it installed in German despite the fact that I set the stores language to English). That approach works for most games on EAs Origin at least(part of the store is still German for some reason). 

I did not expect anything else though. Language/area auto detection has always been rather annoying.

 

[Jace, Extat]

I played a match if Apex Legends and lasted pretty long, but let my squad be murdered as I searched for a weapon. I only had a single grenade and some body armor for a legit three or four minutes.

[Fez]

I picked up SupraLand; a new puzzle/exploration game that had a release day sale. It's pretty good, though the controls are a little janky sometimes.

It's like someone took the puzzle mechanics from Portal 2*, simplified them (and added a couple other things), set them in an open world, and spread out when you unlock the ability to interact with some mechanics so the whole thing becomes a metroidvania-style game.

Also, there's combat. And it's far and away the worst part of the game. Fortunately, once you clear an area it'll be a while before enemies respawn and you'll have time to just work on the puzzles. Also, I think there's eventually a way to disable enemy respawns; there's certainly been hints of it at least.

*Primarily the putting blocks on switches and using paint to recolor objects; although at about 3 hours in I've started encountering momentum-based puzzles as well.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

Decided to play Baldur's Gate again and actually finish it this time. I never played it when it came out, but I've made some attempts over the last five years. Just heading to Cloak Wood, and it all comes back to me. I made this same pledge this time last year...and in early summer I beat it and got deep into BGII. Whooops. Oh well, it's still fun.

[Jace, Extat]

Lololz friend who wants to drink the look aide so bad just watched the Star Wars Jedi game trailer. 

It.

Looks.

Awful.

Like I'd told him recently he'd be lucky if it turned out to be Force Unleashed quality but I didn't think it would actually look like it came out a decade ago.

 

[Werthead]

The new Star Wars game is:

1. Single-player only.
2. No multiplayer at all (they seem to really want to emphasise this).
3. No microtransactions or loot crates (guess the Battlefield 2 thing really hurt them).
4. Story and character focused.
5. Apparently primarily inspired in tone and gameplay from the Jedi Knight series (Dark Forces, Jedi Knight, Mysteries of the Sith, Jedi Outcast and Jedi Academy), with a dash of Uncharted thrown in.
6. Is co-written by Chris Avellone, one of the best writers in gaming.
7. From a studio whose output has been pretty good, with the best single-player-focused FPS of recent years (Titanfall 2) and one of the best multiplayer games of recent years (Apex Legends).

So, they're certainly talking the right language. The counterpoint is that the trailer is rather generic and has about 3 seconds of actual gameplay in it, which they really need to fix rather quickly.

I'd also like to know how and why Respawn were able to tell EA to fuck off with their multiplayer bullshit, when apparently that's what killed the Visceral Star Wars game (and Visceral itself) and every attempt to get Knights of the Old Republic III off the ground at BioWare. I know Respawn got a lot of autonomy baked into their contract, but damn.

[briantw]

5 minutes ago, Werthead said:

I'd also like to know how and why Respawn were able to tell EA to fuck off with their multiplayer bullshit, when apparently that's what killed the Visceral Star Wars game (and Visceral itself) and every attempt to get Knights of the Old Republic III off the ground at BioWare. I know Respawn got a lot of autonomy baked into their contract, but damn.

Because EA gives more leash to the studios who make them a lot of money.  Respawn just gave them Apex Legends, which probably gave them the power to maneuver for a single-player Star Wars game.

[Werthead]

16 minutes ago, briantw said:

Because EA gives more leash to the studios who make them a lot of money.  Respawn just gave them Apex Legends, which probably gave them the power to maneuver for a single-player Star Wars game.

Respawn were announced as making this game a long, long time before Apex Legends came out. In fact, I think they made Apex Legends really quickly and almost out of the blue (it was a game they presented done-and-dusted to EA rather than being asked for it), out of an attempt to make a new multiplayer Titanfall and then deciding to go in a different direction.

Respawn used to be Infinity Ward (the real one, not the zombie one Activision still keep on life support) and they got fucked nine ways to Sunday by Activision, so it wouldn't surprise me if their contract with EA was much, much more stringent in what they can do and how much creative autonomy they have than either Visceral or BioWare were able to negotiate.

[Werthead]

Okay, this is really random. WWI multiplayer shooter Tannenberg is hosting an event where Russian and German teams can join forces to fight a massive plague of wolves. Not werewolves in some random horror crossover thing (like the zombie modes plaguing other games, often for no reason), but actual regular wolves.

Allegedly it really happened!

[TrueMetis]

3 hours ago, Werthead said:

The new Star Wars game is:

1. Single-player only.
2. No multiplayer at all (they seem to really want to emphasise this).
3. No microtransactions or loot crates (guess the Battlefield 2 thing really hurt them).
4. Story and character focused. 
5. Apparently primarily inspired in tone and gameplay from the Jedi Knight series (Dark Forces, Jedi Knight, Mysteries of the Sith, Jedi Outcast and Jedi Academy), with a dash of Uncharted thrown in.
6. Is co-written by Chris Avellone, one of the best writers in gaming.
7. From a studio whose output has been pretty good, with the best single-player-focused FPS of recent years (Titanfall 2) and one of the best multiplayer games of recent years (Apex Legends).

So, they're certainly talking the right language. The counterpoint is that the trailer is rather generic and has about 3 seconds of actual gameplay in it, which they really need to fix rather quickly.

I'd also like to know how and why Respawn were able to tell EA to fuck off with their multiplayer bullshit, when apparently that's what killed the Visceral Star Wars game (and Visceral itself) and every attempt to get Knights of the Old Republic III off the ground at BioWare. I know Respawn got a lot of autonomy baked into their contract, but damn. 

See now I've got a problem, I really want a single player action adventure Star Wars game. But I also don't want to see EA receive a fucking dime more of my money than why they already get from SWTOR. I feel bad enough that they're getting that.

3 hours ago, briantw said:

Because EA gives more leash to the studios who make them a lot of money.  Respawn just gave them Apex Legends, which probably gave them the power to maneuver for a single-player Star Wars game. 

Visceral was making a Star Wars game. Which would have made tons of money. Prior to that it made Dead Space 3, which was a top selling game, even if it didn't meet EA's fucking ridiculous expectations. Army of Two: The Devil's Cartel which sold okay. And finally Battlefield Hardline which was also a top seller.

What EA does is contradictory bullshit that would confuse a multiple personality sufferer.

[KingintheNorth4]

I love the web swinging mechanics in Spider-Man. It's like playing a remastered version of Spider-Man 2.

[Inkdaub]

14 hours ago, Werthead said:

The new Star Wars game is:

1. Single-player only.
2. No multiplayer at all (they seem to really want to emphasise this).
3. No microtransactions or loot crates (guess the Battlefield 2 thing really hurt them).
4. Story and character focused.
5. Apparently primarily inspired in tone and gameplay from the Jedi Knight series (Dark Forces, Jedi Knight, Mysteries of the Sith, Jedi Outcast and Jedi Academy), with a dash of Uncharted thrown in.
6. Is co-written by Chris Avellone, one of the best writers in gaming.
7. From a studio whose output has been pretty good, with the best single-player-focused FPS of recent years (Titanfall 2) and one of the best multiplayer games of recent years (Apex Legends).

 

It's third person also so I'm in.

[Caligula_K3]

Jedi Fallen Order does sound promising - though I'd like to see some gameplay before I get too hyped, which I'm sure will come at E3 - but I am also confused about how Respawn managed to convince EA to fund this kind of game. Especially given everything we've all just read about in Schreier's Bioware pieces.

I'm in both a Star Wars and a Bioware mood, so I think I might finally try The Old Republic. Is it worth it to get the standard edition for 15 bucks, which subscribes you for a few months and gets you the DLC? Or should I just go free to play?