Although I don't like bashing on other games at all, that seems like a pretty stupid thing to thrive for. I also don't like it how they seem to suggest that associating a game with the term RPG is a bad thing.But suggesting that this is Bioware's definitive downfall is a bit harsh too. I think SWTOR will be a great success.eskiMoe said:I love the direction where Bioware is heading right now.http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-05-04-mass-effect-3-tweaked-for-larger-marketR.I.P. Bioware. You had a good run. It's shame it has come to an end.
Hello everyone! im new in here so pleace be kind ;-) First of all i want to say this looks like a truly amazing game but i couln't help to notice that in an article at Pc gamer Tomas gopstated " We look better" then Dragon age 2 and that made me think about a factor that makes that statement not relevant Witcher 2 is to date a Pc only game..but dragon age is also on consol so it dosent really matter if this game is better then dragon age 2 i dont see the reason to compete with another product that has a bigger markedfor the most of the ppl this game isnt reachable more and more ppl go over to consol and we dont only got just the consol players what about the ppl that dosent have a pc that can handle this game? if we add consols and ppl that own pc that cant handle the game..dragon age will be able to sell more in its wider markedi dont doubt for a second that this is a better gamebut tomas's statement dosent really reach the marked it could havei hope that this game will find its way to consol also hope ppl understand what im talking about
The console version is on development right now, so, take it easy, you will be able to play if you want.And about the "We look better" statement, well, he was comparing both PC version, that in the case of TW2 is the only one we have right now. It seems logical to me.
Thanks for the reply! its good to hear that its is in development for console! but i am to afraid that this game is going to be "old" when it hit the stores like Fable 3 that is about 7months old when it get out for pc and the Mass effect for ps3 that came 1yr afther the pc and xbox release and well..assassins creed.. i think that to have big release differences will hurt sale some what
You are correct; it will be released later than PC. CDPR isn't a big company and they only work on one project at a time. First PC version, then console version. I don't see how this will hurt sales. If it's a good game on PC it's just going to generate much hype for the console release and guarantee more sales.
how is 7 months old? technology doesn't advance that fast. this game will still be the best looking rpg well into the next few years.
I get what you are trying to say there... you wanted the game in console and yes the game is in development for consoles.You may be right that Dragon Age probably sold more copies.. I really do not know why such a dull game can sell THAT many copies. These people who are buying it and continue buying the item DLC pack must be mad...Anyhow we don't need another TW2 vs DA2 thread and welcome to the board.
It does look better though. They're not even comparable really. So why can't they say that?
Even if i DO love the game i do not agree to a game developer or publisher that just release item pack DLC which supposed to be in the game in the first place. You are supposed to loot it from corpse or buying in game but not buying with REAL money. Of course those who wanted to buy it clearly can do so but i'm entitled to my opinion that they are mad. You can disagree of course.Darkchipper07 said:
My suspicion is that Bioware is trying to capitalize on what the "free to play" mmorpg's do. Free to play but anything you want or need in-game costs real cash. And, there's a smattering of bling too. One of the popular ones is called Fiesta.http://fiesta.outspark.com/communityarchaven said:
sure the withcher look better but what i play the game for is the story (of course pretty graphic will attract the peoples TO the game but to be able to hang on to the people and make the play several times for example is not the graphic that does that, it is the story. and i am sorry to say the DA 2 did not make me play it more then 1.5 times to this date as the story is god. But the dungeons is reused all the time and for me the bad endingthat result in me not buying any more of the expansions and DLC and so on from them (right now anyway).
I totally agree with you there. I can't wait to make such difficult story based moral decisions again. That's what got me into the game in the first place. It is rare for a game as far as I know to have such difficult and complex decision making in game.When I asked a developer about the console version a couple of days ago he said this.Merak43 said:
I think they were messing with me though :SWe have not announced a console version yet so I don't know what are you talking about
Actually, if you read this article, you may think otherwise. ;-) Note that the article is dated 11-25-2010 when you read page 2.Thsccks said:When I asked a developer about the console version a couple of days ago he said this.I think they were messing with me though :SWe have not announced a console version yet so I don't know what are you talking about
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2010-11-25-the-witcher-2-were-not-afraid-of-dragon-age-interviewOkay, here I go.Dragon Age has many great ideas and I have indeed enjoyed them. The problem however, in my opinion, is implementation.First things first, Bioware has for a long time been one of the few studios that realized one important thing: The player character is the most important. It's that simple. Baldur's Gate, Kotor, even Jade Empire, Mass Effect 1 and 2, Dragon Age and Dragon Age 2. Everything single one of these focuses on your character. The storyline is build around the character, making each story nicely crafted and interesting. Why? Because you're playing the important character. Not a Oblivion, where Martin the the hero. (In Bethesdas defense, and I do like them very much, Morrowind did the character and storyline as perfect as Bioware or any other company). Story wise, with DA2 there were a few things I could excuse and live with. The fact that the really important stuff only shows up in the last third of the game is okay, because it isn't the focus. The way your character deals with things is the focus of the game. It is a approach that works for some and doesn't work for others. I'm fine with that.However, that there are these times skips in which nothing really seems to happen (hell, if only the first one from Lothering to Kirkwall was changed into a hour bid of trying to find a ship, it would be fine) is just weird. What was the idea? "Okay, so we have no idea of how to tie this together, any suggestions?""Let's just have a time skip!""Okay."It is a valid approach and a idea that could have worked. It didn't for me. I didn't really care about the companions. The only ones that mattered to me were Varric and Merril. Because they seemed much more like actual characters than any others. Anders only mattered because I knew him from Awakening.The whole reusing areas seems simply lazy to me. On the other hand, I have no problem that a peninsula was used as a Qunari camp and three years later it is a Renegade Mage and Templar camp. It's three years later afterall. Reusing caves and all that jazz was simply ... well, I don't want to say that I have any experience making games, but it seems lazy.One thing that I was very disappointed about were Varrics embellishments. The only two place I ever saw ones were right at the beginning and then during one of his companion quests. He's telling the bloody story for hells sake! Plant some more things like that in there, it'll make it more interesting.This actually is a important thing, for me. Many issues with the game, such as companions, or some story issues, are acceptable to me, because I keep in mind that I'm not playing the story, I am the retelling of the story. I am what Varric is telling the Seeker, I am from his point of view.This idea has a lot of merit, and I find it very interesting. Does it work? Not very well... Can i work? I'm sure it can be made really well.In that regard I'm disappointed in Bioware. The game isn't what they promised. It is good, but not near the quality that has become expected from them. And that might be a problem as well. Only because it is Bioware doesn't mean that it is the best game. In the short form, the things I enjoyed about DA2 were things I enjoyed about the Mass Effect games: The player character. Sadly it wasn't as well done as Mass Effect. For me, Mass Effect does the whole thing better, you know, character wise with character that somehow becomes more famous and is well known. Dragon Age: Origins trumps them both though in my opinion. And in this genre is probably on a level with a modded Oblivion on a good second place. DA2 is somewhere in the vicinity of the double digits.To however actually reads this rambling and incoherent post, thank you.
Yea, I think we meant the same thing. I tried to say, I think he just said no because he doesn't want to tell the real answer, and reveal delicate details about their plan.I'm still counting on it because of all the press articles saying they were. If they release it I will also buy it for my ps3.Morgora said:Actually, if you read this article, you may think otherwise. ;-) Note that the article is dated 11-25-2010 when you read page 2.Morgora said:When I asked a developer about the console version a couple of days ago he said this.I think they were messing with me though :SWe have not announced a console version yet so I don't know what are you talking about
Thanks for the article though, it was a nice and interesting read.@The SilverNice post, it is one of the few more nuanced post I have seen on the internet about DA2. I haven't played it myself though. I liked DA:O, but didn't finish it because my computer crashed and I had a hard time feeling immersed in the game while controling multiple characters. Although it is a really cool feature, I prefer to follow a story through the eyes of one individual.