Dragon Age Multiplayer? WTF?

  • 74 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Edited by Marz (5655 posts) -

Does bioware really want to kill off the series?   this sounds like a horrible idea, after Dragon Age 2 do you want them to waste development resources to implement a multplayer component when they can vastly improve upon their single player campaign with those resources? This is of course if this product ends up being DA3..
 
Here's the link to the article.
 
The multiplayer is supposedly an arena-based affair and features player versus environment (PvE) elements as well as player versus player (PvP), as well as humans fighting dragons. Details on what PvE battles entail are scant.

 
oh and it's going to use the BF3 Frostbite 2 engine... which is not bad i suppose... and it's still unclear whether this will be part of DA3 or it's own spinoff.
 
*edit*
These are just additional thoughts, I am welcome to a coop campaign but i still feel bringing another player into a story I've vested time in across two previous games is out of place.  If the coop is seperate, like mini scenarios then i have 0 interest in such a product, if you can't bring your character in, get loot, and take it back to single player.. then what is the point really?    As for a PVP arena style addition to the game.....   no thanks.... i've played WoW arenas....  there is always one thing never right and that is Balance...  unlike games like uncharted, assassin's creed, bioshock (haven't played the multiplayer much but correct me if i'm wrong) there are much less variables to balance than an RPG, You have to account for gear, level, stats, abilities, cooldowns, combat dice rolls etc...  If they are going to neuter the multiplayer so that it's very streamlined to a point where none of the RPG mechanics matter, then it really doesn't make sense why it's in the game (it also doesn't represent the PvE aspect properly either), i'd rather just play some TF2 instead.

#2 Edited by mylifeforAiur (3485 posts) -

Clearly, Dragon Age 3(?) will be worse than aids.

#3 Posted by MideonNViscera (2257 posts) -

Bioware, your decisions are becoming worse by the day.

#4 Posted by skyline7284 (506 posts) -

It is tagged as a "Rumor" post. If it has multiplayer i'm guessing it would be similar to that of Mass Effect's.

#5 Edited by eroticfishcake (7786 posts) -

Sounds like an iffy idea. It's too early to tell. But these days it's all a Venn diagram of gameplay modes it's a little tricky to pin these things down. Take Co-Op from ME3 for example.

While we're on topic does anyone else actually like Bioware games? The recent ones that is, being Dragon Age and Mass Effect. When I'm playing them I really enjoy them but when you step back and look at the bigger picture everything is kinda shit. Don't get me wrong, they're really well made games but the story and the game play changes really, really irk me the more I think about them. I'm really looking forward to ME3 but I'm also kinda dreading it....

#6 Posted by drag (1223 posts) -

A little while ago EA said all their games were going to have multiplayer in them. MP and DLC for everything. And yet people still get surprised / annoyed whenever a specific case is announced.

#7 Posted by SmasheControllers (2550 posts) -

Let them do what they please, looks at AC, Uncharted, etc. Those games turned out fine.

#8 Edited by Packie (255 posts) -

I'm not really familiar with Bioware's past games but didn't Baldur's gate series and Neverwinter Nights series have multiplayer?

#9 Posted by mikeeegeee (1565 posts) -

Well, if the combat plays like DA:O (never tried DA:2), then I expect the PvP will be strongly akin to that of WoW's PvP, although considerably more shallow. I mean seriously, DA:O was basically a single player WoW wherein you controlled the entire party. As a fan of WoW's PvP, I'm personally excited by this news. However, much of what DA:O had going for it was the group dynamic and the ability to pause combat to micromanage, something the multiplayer will no doubt do away with.

Also, Frostbite 2? Fuck yeah, I hope so.

#10 Posted by Agent47 (1898 posts) -

@Marz:ME3 is going to have multiplayer so what are the chances of DA3 having multiplayer?Pretty simple equation.

#11 Edited by Buscemi (1106 posts) -

@eroticfishcake: The thing is that they've become worse and worse. Mass Effect was great and still is. But the second one? Nuh-uh, that was really exciting when I played through it but I don't get the same feeling as I did with the first one. Dragon Age: Origins was amazing, I've played through it like five times. Maybe 200 hours in all. The second one was perhaps the worst sequel I've ever bought. They are ruining my love for RPGs. I'm not even looking forward to ME3 anymore, considering what I've read of what's been leaked. I get that those things aren't 100% going to be in the game, but still... that they even outline the story like that...

#12 Posted by Superfriend (1557 posts) -

If they could somehow have the complexity of Dragon Age 1 on PC and have that in an MP environment.. that would be kind of neat.

But I bet it will be more like 2 and maybe even simpler than that.

#13 Posted by coakroach (2491 posts) -

Some well done co-op never hurt anyone.

PvP would probably be totally forgettable.

#14 Edited by Swoxx (3002 posts) -

@mylifeforAiur said:

Clearly, Dragon Age 3(?) will be worse than aids.

Dragon Age 3, truly this is the age of aids?

I wouldn't mind some arena based PvP. It could be cool, especially if you can go party vs party (4 on 4)

#15 Posted by sickVisionz (1268 posts) -

@Marz said:

The multiplayer is supposedly an arena-based affair and features player versus environment (PvE) elements as well as player versus player (PvP), as well as humans fighting dragons.

Nothing about that sounds bad imo. You control 4 characters at once. Having each character controlled by a friend rather than AI doesn't sound like a game ruiner to me.

#16 Posted by eroticfishcake (7786 posts) -

@Titus: Yeah I thought the first ME was better in a lot of respects though the second one does have better combat (scrounging around for ammo was a pain in the arse). The first DA was enjoyable too if a little too generic for my tastes. As with ME2, the sequel had better combat but everything else felt a bit stilted. That ending? Fuck that ending.

I don't know, they make a great first impression before tripping on their own two feet. It's just frustrating the more you think about the little problems here and there throughout. :(

#17 Posted by jjnen (661 posts) -
@drag

A little while ago EA said all their games were going to have multiplayer in them. MP and DLC for everything. And yet people still get surprised / annoyed whenever a specific case is announced.

#18 Posted by Buscemi (1106 posts) -

@Rappelsiini: It's surprising how slowly people get that game companies are just in it to fuck people over.

@eroticfishcake: The second one did have better combat, sure, but I don't know why it had to sacrifice so much of the good things to get that done. Boring characters, a fucked up ending straight out of a Michael Bay movie. Oh, just wait for ME3, and we're going to have ourselves an all out Michael Bay-fesival.

#19 Posted by Vexxan (4623 posts) -

Sure, if it's co-op.

#20 Posted by DonChipotle (2768 posts) -

@Titus said:

The second one did have better combat, sure, but I don't know why it had to sacrifice so much of the good things to get that done. Boring characters, a fucked up ending straight out of a Michael Bay movie. Oh, just wait for ME3, and we're going to have ourselves an all out Michael Bay-fesival.

Yeah, because the first Mass Effect's ending wasn't a Michael Bay movie ending, what with the explosions and constant action and the whole 'fuck yeah human' bullshit.

#21 Posted by Marz (5655 posts) -
@drag said:

A little while ago EA said all their games were going to have multiplayer in them. MP and DLC for everything. And yet people still get surprised / annoyed whenever a specific case is announced.

first I've heard of that.
#22 Posted by Brodehouse (9967 posts) -
@DonChipotle

@Titus said:

The second one did have better combat, sure, but I don't know why it had to sacrifice so much of the good things to get that done. Boring characters, a fucked up ending straight out of a Michael Bay movie. Oh, just wait for ME3, and we're going to have ourselves an all out Michael Bay-fesival.

Yeah, because the first Mass Effect's ending wasn't a Michael Bay movie ending, what with the explosions and constant action and the whole 'fuck yeah human' bullshit.

The first game ended with the Citadel being attacked, a giant space cuttlefish exploding, and Shepard climbing on top of rubble.
#23 Posted by Santa_8aby (97 posts) -

@Titus said:

@eroticfishcake: The thing is that they've become worse and worse. Mass Effect was great and still is. But the second one? Nuh-uh, that was really exciting when I played through it but I don't get the same feeling as I did with the first one. Dragon Age: Origins was amazing, I've played through it like five times. Maybe 200 hours in all. The second one was perhaps the worst sequel I've ever bought. They are ruining my love for RPGs. I'm not even looking forward to ME3 anymore, considering what I've read of what's been leaked. I get that those things aren't 100% going to be in the game, but still... that they even outline the story like that...

This about sums it up.

#24 Posted by DonChipotle (2768 posts) -

@Brodehouse said:

@DonChipotle

@Titus said:

The second one did have better combat, sure, but I don't know why it had to sacrifice so much of the good things to get that done. Boring characters, a fucked up ending straight out of a Michael Bay movie. Oh, just wait for ME3, and we're going to have ourselves an all out Michael Bay-fesival.

Yeah, because the first Mass Effect's ending wasn't a Michael Bay movie ending, what with the explosions and constant action and the whole 'fuck yeah human' bullshit.

The first game ended with the Citadel being attacked, a giant space cuttlefish exploding, and Shepard climbing on top of rubble.

Which sounds like the ending to any given Transformers movie. It even ends with narration. Like all the Transformers movies. So the Michael Bay comparison is not a very good one, all things considered.

#25 Posted by Buscemi (1106 posts) -

@DonChipotle: Yeah, sure, the first one had an alien that turned cyborg that hated humanity. That's totally on par with a giant Human/Reaper hybrid made up of human guck and steel. Totally.

#26 Edited by PenguinDust (12533 posts) -

PvP in Dragon Age sort of sounds like PvP in WOW or any other fantasy-based MMO to me. Well, I am not inherantly against PvP, but it's not something I have any interest in myself. Oh, and I hated PvP in WOW. Damned rogues.

Some PvE co-op could be pretty cool provided players can create their own characters (as in DAO) and not be restricted to a preset character like Hawke.

#27 Posted by MEATBALL (3263 posts) -

A completely separate Arena mode where you can pit your character build against other players/team up with them against enemy mobs might actually be a good addition, though I don't know how it would go without the ability to pause combat. That said, I do immediately feel disgruntled at this sort of news, I'm not fond of this mantra that every game needs a multiplayer component of some sort.

#28 Posted by MideonNViscera (2257 posts) -

@Packie said:

I'm not really familiar with Bioware's past games but didn't Baldur's gate series and Neverwinter Nights series have multiplayer?

Maybe BG, definitely NWN. However, there's also no chance they'll ever do anything even remotely as awesome as NWN on a console.

#29 Posted by oatz (1103 posts) -

Fuck you, Bioware!

#30 Posted by Brodehouse (9967 posts) -

Here's the thing; BioShock, Uncharted, Dead Space, Assassin's Creed and Resident Evil added multiplayer, 3 worked out pretty well, and 2 can easily be ignored. With the exception of Resident Evil , none of them affected the quality of the single player campaign.

This is just more entitled bitching. How dare a company create something you don't want.

#31 Posted by DonChipotle (2768 posts) -

@Titus said:

@DonChipotle: Yeah, sure, the first one had an alien that turned cyborg that hated humanity. That's totally on par with a giant Human/Reaper hybrid made up of human guck and steel. Totally.

1: It was the culmination of the entire plot within the game, what with the whole 'WHy are they taking humans?' thing and it made sense given the context of everything the crew discovered

2: The makeup of the ending villain has nothing at all to do with you comparing the ending to a Michael Bay movie. My point is that both games ended like a Michael Bay movie. Not that one final boss was better or worse than the other, which has nothing at all to do with anything I've been saying.

3: Both last bosses are equally dumb, Saren only gets a pass from people because he was a central antagonist throughout the game.

#32 Edited by Buscemi (1106 posts) -

@DonChipotle said:

@Titus said:

@DonChipotle: Yeah, sure, the first one had an alien that turned cyborg that hated humanity. That's totally on par with a giant Human/Reaper hybrid made up of human guck and steel. Totally.

1: It was the culmination of the entire plot within the game, what with the whole 'WHy are they taking humans?' thing and it made sense given the context of everything the crew discovered

2: The makeup of the ending villain has nothing at all to do with you comparing the ending to a Michael Bay movie. My point is that both games ended like a Michael Bay movie. Not that one final boss was better or worse than the other, which has nothing at all to do with anything I've been saying.

3: Both last bosses are equally dumb, Saren only gets a pass from people because he was a central antagonist throughout the game.

Yeah, but no. "Why are they taking humans?" was a pretty good idea, though they fucked it up at the end, big time. Locust taking humans in Gears of War was done much better. The makeup of the ending villain? Are you nuts? Comparing a badass villain like Saren to an idiotic robot without legs doesn't make sense.

Nowadays everything with explosions is called "in the vein of Michael Bay", but that's not it. Michael Bay just makes stupid movies with explosions. Mass Effect was a great game with a great story whereas the second one is just stupid.

#33 Posted by MideonNViscera (2257 posts) -

Saren was way better. I hate stupid monolithic non-moving boss battles. For a game I beat 3 times so far, it's telling that I'm not even sure what I'm talking about was the last boss.

#34 Posted by Kung_Fu_Viking (710 posts) -

Why does it matter unless the multiplayer some how influences the single player?

#35 Posted by DonChipotle (2768 posts) -

@Titus said:

@DonChipotle said:

@Titus said:

@DonChipotle: Yeah, sure, the first one had an alien that turned cyborg that hated humanity. That's totally on par with a giant Human/Reaper hybrid made up of human guck and steel. Totally.

1: It was the culmination of the entire plot within the game, what with the whole 'WHy are they taking humans?' thing and it made sense given the context of everything the crew discovered

2: The makeup of the ending villain has nothing at all to do with you comparing the ending to a Michael Bay movie. My point is that both games ended like a Michael Bay movie. Not that one final boss was better or worse than the other, which has nothing at all to do with anything I've been saying.

3: Both last bosses are equally dumb, Saren only gets a pass from people because he was a central antagonist throughout the game.

Yeah, but no. "Why are they taking humans?" was a pretty good idea, though they fucked it up at the end, big time. Locust taking humans in Gears of War was done much better. The makeup of the ending villain? Are you nuts? Comparing a badass villain like Saren to an idiotic robot without legs is pretty damn stupid.

Nowadays everything with explosions is called "in the vein of Michael Bay", but that's not it. Michael Bay just makes stupid movies with explosions. Mass Effect was a great game with a great story whereas the second one is just stupid.

They didn't 'fuck it up' it was in line with how they took over other species in the past. It was a direct result of Shepard taking care of Sovereign. They figured the best way to stop Shepard, a human, was by copying as much as they could about humanity and turning it against him. When the Collecters, agents of the Reapers, failed, Harbinger basically said "Fuck it" and decided to attack. Saren was hardly a 'badass' considering he wasn't even in control of his actions until the very end. Sovereign was the real villain, Saren was a puppet and didn't even have a presence in the story until the last act. He was just this vague threat that you had to stop by following his trail like a detective and then picking up after his mess.

The story in the Mass Effect games were never 'great', hell I liked them better when it was called Babylon 5, but again you seem to miss the point I made initially. You brought up how the ending, SPECIFICALLY THE ENDING, was 'straight out of a Michael Bay movie', you didn't argue about the whole game being a Bay film, just the ending. I merely said that both endings were like something out of a Michael Bay movie. I get it, you liked the first one way more. Cool. I think both games are dumb. But that doesn't change the fact that both games ended like a fucking Michael Bay movie. So if you harp on one ending like that you have to harp on the other for doing the same.

#36 Posted by Santa_8aby (97 posts) -

@Brodehouse: Every time I see someone post about "entitled bitching", it makes me cringe. In the most egregious cases like when they made Left 4 Dead 2, I can understand. While I wasn't ready for a sequel, I personally didn't complain, I just didn't buy it.

In Bioware's case, I think long time fans are seeing a decline in overall quality of their games for a few years now. They are making changes that a lot of fans don't care for, because they are changing a lot of the core of what made their games so great. It never was about the mechanics, what made Bioware's games so great was the story and character interactions. I can personally tell you after playing through DA:O, then DA:2, I was very disappointed. While not a terrible game, it was the most disappointing game of the year.

I think fans are voicing their love and disappointment with Bioware at the same time when they say negative things about multiplayer tacked on to games, like DA that don't need them. To address your statement that multiplayer won't affect singleplayer, have you thought that this might not be unilateral? DA may have to change their mechanics just to allow for an interesting multiplayer. If they do, this could adversely affect the overall game, compromising it so they can appease EA's lust for multiplayer modes.

The more time goes on, the more it seems Bioware's partnership with EA is a bad thing for the fans.

#37 Posted by Zaapp1 (660 posts) -

@SmasheControllers said:

Let them do what they please, looks at AC, Uncharted, etc. Those games turned out fine.

This. Only with the word "look" instead of "looks."

#38 Posted by dabe (299 posts) -

EA acquired Bioware in 2007...acknowledging this allows you to realise why their most recent efforts are declining in quality (obviously a personal but well held opinion).

After ME3 (which is still a good action game), I'm out of Bioware infested waters. Also, can't wait to see DA3, Jade Empire 2 and a new IP announced around E3 or something next year -- it's going to be comical.

#39 Edited by GodsMistakeXx (134 posts) -

An arena type multiplayer sounds pretty cool actually. Adding multiplayer doesn't diminish the quality of the single player, I have never quite understood what all of the anti-multiplayer fuss was all about.

Edit: And apparently it is now cool to hate on Bioware.. :/ ME2 was amazing

#40 Posted by Brodehouse (9967 posts) -
@Santa_8aby Personally, I find all BioWare stories to be Go To 4 Places And Gather X To Go To The 5th Place And Fight Y. It's not the plot, it's the storytelling that makes BioWare games good. And personally I find the characters in DA2 to be a lot more vital on the average than in DA:O. There are myriad problems with DA2, but I don't think it's the characters.

I just remembered, they're announcing that exploding car game at the VMAs. Maybe it's Dragon Age 3. Fuck, that would be awes. Truly, it's the age of exploding cars.
#41 Posted by Santa_8aby (97 posts) -

@Brodehouse: Hey, did you see that screenshot of the new Bioware game? Maybe you're onto something here...Explosion Age: Origins!

#42 Edited by SlightConfuse (3963 posts) -

you guys are missing the part where you play as a dragon, how is that not awesome also single player focued games(uncahrted, assassins creed, bioshock) have proven you can have good mp if you put some effort into it.

#43 Posted by Brodehouse (9967 posts) -

You guys remember how adding multiplayer ruined Portal?

#44 Posted by Buscemi (1106 posts) -
@DonChipotle said:

@Titus said:

@DonChipotle said:

@Titus said:

@DonChipotle: Yeah, sure, the first one had an alien that turned cyborg that hated humanity. That's totally on par with a giant Human/Reaper hybrid made up of human guck and steel. Totally.

1: It was the culmination of the entire plot within the game, what with the whole 'WHy are they taking humans?' thing and it made sense given the context of everything the crew discovered

2: The makeup of the ending villain has nothing at all to do with you comparing the ending to a Michael Bay movie. My point is that both games ended like a Michael Bay movie. Not that one final boss was better or worse than the other, which has nothing at all to do with anything I've been saying.

3: Both last bosses are equally dumb, Saren only gets a pass from people because he was a central antagonist throughout the game.

Yeah, but no. "Why are they taking humans?" was a pretty good idea, though they fucked it up at the end, big time. Locust taking humans in Gears of War was done much better. The makeup of the ending villain? Are you nuts? Comparing a badass villain like Saren to an idiotic robot without legs is pretty damn stupid.

Nowadays everything with explosions is called "in the vein of Michael Bay", but that's not it. Michael Bay just makes stupid movies with explosions. Mass Effect was a great game with a great story whereas the second one is just stupid.

They didn't 'fuck it up' it was in line with how they took over other species in the past. It was a direct result of Shepard taking care of Sovereign. They figured the best way to stop Shepard, a human, was by copying as much as they could about humanity and turning it against him. When the Collecters, agents of the Reapers, failed, Harbinger basically said "Fuck it" and decided to attack. Saren was hardly a 'badass' considering he wasn't even in control of his actions until the very end. Sovereign was the real villain, Saren was a puppet and didn't even have a presence in the story until the last act. He was just this vague threat that you had to stop by following his trail like a detective and then picking up after his mess.

The story in the Mass Effect games were never 'great', hell I liked them better when it was called Babylon 5, but again you seem to miss the point I made initially. You brought up how the ending, SPECIFICALLY THE ENDING, was 'straight out of a Michael Bay movie', you didn't argue about the whole game being a Bay film, just the ending. I merely said that both endings were like something out of a Michael Bay movie. I get it, you liked the first one way more. Cool. I think both games are dumb. But that doesn't change the fact that both games ended like a fucking Michael Bay movie. So if you harp on one ending like that you have to harp on the other for doing the same.

Sovereign was actually better than Saren, you're right about that. But just because it's in line with what the story created it doesn't make it any good. That's what's been my main thing in this thread. How Bioware's games have dwindled in quality over the past years. That's what I've been trying to convey, albeit I've been doing it rather poorly. Now I'd just like to explain how I feel about the series in general, this isn't some retort based solely on your comments.

In Mass Effect we got a great sci-fi game, but admittedly with flaws. We got some of the worst texture problems I've ever seen (the same thing is in SWTOR), weird delays in dialogue, and we got a weird aiming system that wasn't terrible but, really, wasn't that much fun either. However, we also got to play in an extensive universe that wasn't too free or too linear. Bioware's "choices" have always been bad, and though they might have been fun to act out, well, they had little impact in the overall story. 
 
When the second Mass Effect was released we got all the things you expect from a sequel: better graphics, tighter scripted story and they even improved that aiming system! But we also were deprived of the RPG elements that were such a fun part of the game. We basically got a load of pickup missions and in top of that, just as many loyalty missions. On top of that, most of the characters we recruited were boring and plain. The best thing they did with the characters in Mass Effect 2 was that they told us more about Tali and Garrus. Miranda was weird, and made to attract thirteen year olds. Her accent (which is Yvonne Strahovski's real accent) didn't click with me. Jacob was so void of anything interesting that I'm beginning to think he's the predecessor to the Nexus Six. Grunt was just a bad version of the coolest character Bioware has ever made - Wrex. Thane started out pretty well, but he ended up being just as depressed as the game made me. The only good addition was Jack, which I really liked. 
 
As far as the story goes, aside from those pickup/loyalty-missions, it was okay. Being inside Sovereign was fun. I just didn't find the Collectors interesting at all with their bugs that paralyze people. It'd be more fun if they started the Reaper invasion in the second game and that was the main focus of the story for both the second and third game, seeing as they are the big threat. 
#45 Posted by TaliciaDragonsong (8699 posts) -

Meh.
I'll play it a couple of times and forget about it, as will many others.
Waste of good development money, and judging from people's perception of DA2, its hard needed money.

#46 Posted by Dookysharpgun (586 posts) -

Remember when MP in ME3 was just a rumour? Man those were some crazy times...then they went and fucking went with it...wait...shit.

Look, Bioware have lost their spark, and I was a huge fan of them back before they were under EA's boot, and even a little bit after. But that's the industry for ya; taking great devs, and forcing them to make shit because they can't fucking understand long-term investments. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if this actually happens. It won't matter though, both ME3 and DA3 had lost me long before this, I'll just grab some new IPs and play some Skyrim, at least Bethesda have the ability to make their own choices.

#47 Posted by TheDudeOfGaming (6078 posts) -

That's it BioWare. I'm done.

#48 Posted by DonChipotle (2768 posts) -

@Titus said:

@DonChipotle said:

@Titus said:

@DonChipotle said:

@Titus said:

@DonChipotle: Yeah, sure, the first one had an alien that turned cyborg that hated humanity. That's totally on par with a giant Human/Reaper hybrid made up of human guck and steel. Totally.

1: It was the culmination of the entire plot within the game, what with the whole 'WHy are they taking humans?' thing and it made sense given the context of everything the crew discovered

2: The makeup of the ending villain has nothing at all to do with you comparing the ending to a Michael Bay movie. My point is that both games ended like a Michael Bay movie. Not that one final boss was better or worse than the other, which has nothing at all to do with anything I've been saying.

3: Both last bosses are equally dumb, Saren only gets a pass from people because he was a central antagonist throughout the game.

Yeah, but no. "Why are they taking humans?" was a pretty good idea, though they fucked it up at the end, big time. Locust taking humans in Gears of War was done much better. The makeup of the ending villain? Are you nuts? Comparing a badass villain like Saren to an idiotic robot without legs is pretty damn stupid.

Nowadays everything with explosions is called "in the vein of Michael Bay", but that's not it. Michael Bay just makes stupid movies with explosions. Mass Effect was a great game with a great story whereas the second one is just stupid.

They didn't 'fuck it up' it was in line with how they took over other species in the past. It was a direct result of Shepard taking care of Sovereign. They figured the best way to stop Shepard, a human, was by copying as much as they could about humanity and turning it against him. When the Collecters, agents of the Reapers, failed, Harbinger basically said "Fuck it" and decided to attack. Saren was hardly a 'badass' considering he wasn't even in control of his actions until the very end. Sovereign was the real villain, Saren was a puppet and didn't even have a presence in the story until the last act. He was just this vague threat that you had to stop by following his trail like a detective and then picking up after his mess.

The story in the Mass Effect games were never 'great', hell I liked them better when it was called Babylon 5, but again you seem to miss the point I made initially. You brought up how the ending, SPECIFICALLY THE ENDING, was 'straight out of a Michael Bay movie', you didn't argue about the whole game being a Bay film, just the ending. I merely said that both endings were like something out of a Michael Bay movie. I get it, you liked the first one way more. Cool. I think both games are dumb. But that doesn't change the fact that both games ended like a fucking Michael Bay movie. So if you harp on one ending like that you have to harp on the other for doing the same.

Sovereign was actually better than Saren, you're right about that. But just because it's in line with what the story created it doesn't make it any good. That's what's been my main thing in this thread. How Bioware's games have dwindled in quality over the past years. That's what I've been trying to convey, albeit I've been doing it rather poorly. Now I'd just like to explain how I feel about the series in general, this isn't some retort based solely on your comments.In Mass Effect we got a great sci-fi game, but admittedly with flaws. We got some of the worst texture problems I've ever seen (the same thing is in SWTOR), weird delays in dialogue, and we got a weird aiming system that wasn't terrible but, really, wasn't that much fun either. However, we also got to play in an extensive universe that wasn't too free or too linear. Bioware's "choices" have always been bad, and though they might have been fun to act out, well, they had little impact in the overall story. When the second Mass Effect was released we got all the things you expect from a sequel: better graphics, tighter scripted story and they even improved that aiming system! But we also were deprived of the RPG elements that were such a fun part of the game. We basically got a load of pickup missions and in top of that, just as many loyalty missions. On top of that, most of the characters we recruited were boring and plain. The best thing they did with the characters in Mass Effect 2 was that they told us more about Tali and Garrus. Miranda was weird, and made to attract thirteen year olds. Her accent (which is Yvonne Strahovski's real accent) didn't click with me. Jacob was so void of anything interesting that I'm beginning to think he's the predecessor to the Nexus Six. Grunt was just a bad version of the coolest character Bioware has ever made - Wrex. Thane started out pretty well, but he ended up being just as depressed as the game made me. The only good addition was Jack, which I really liked. As far as the story goes, aside from those pickup/loyalty-missions, it was okay. Being inside Sovereign was fun. I just didn't find the Collectors interesting at all with their bugs that paralyze people. It'd be more fun if they started the Reaper invasion in the second game and that was the main focus of the story for both the second and third game, seeing as they are the big threat.

Considering the quality of characters in the first game, I'm not so sure that 'plain' should be applied so easily to the second game. Sure there was Jacob and his lack of any real personality, but compared to the crew of the first game, I'll take him. For the record, in the first game we had Liara who, when she wasn't talking about her latent mother issues, was inexplicably falling head over heels for Shepard because of vague bullshit. Then there was Tali who only existed to be a verbal codex for the Quarian people. Wrex rarely had anything to say that wasn't about the genophage unless he was talking about war stories, of which he had about three. Garrus had the most 'arc' out of the entire crew and that was largely because his personality was influenced by your actions. Kaiden was boring and Ashley was the only character that had any sort of depth and growth by the end of it. Now in the second one, Tali is an actual character and Garrus just got turned up to 11 as far as I'm concerned. But the characters in the second seemed a bit more fleshed out in most cases. With the exception of Jacob, the DLC crew, and Samara. They felt like they changed as the story went on, which is something I can't say about the crew of the first. Liara was still the same at the end of ME1 as she was at the start. The same with Kaiden. And Tali. Wrex had a single moment. It was a great moment, but after that moment he was still exactly the same. In the second, for example, Jack started off as a total bitch who was clashing with everyone, Shepard included, but by the end of it she was willing to throw her life on the line to help these people. Granted the possibility exists that she wouldn't be willing to do that, but she still undergoes an arc. She's developed. She's not the same as when you first get her. She's a round character.

The character development was stronger in the second than it was in the first. A lot of things in the second were stronger than the first. What the first had was better storytelling. It wove a better narrative but it suffered from an introductory curse. Namely it wanted to set up the different races and culture. Except they chose to do it by having alien characters talk at length about alien life, instead of fleshing out those aliens. Personally I think that Mass Effect 2 is the better game, and it is largely thanks to the personalities that exist when I am onboard the Normandy. I didn't get that from the first one. I'm not gonna debate on the RPG mechanics of the game or whatnot, at the end of the day it boils down to personal preference. I can see why some would prefer the first Mass Effect to the second. I think the first ME is severely flawed which makes me enjoy it far less. ME2, even with all its flaws, was a better game as far as I'm concerned. I'd sooner take the recruitment and loyalty missions than the three planet structure we got in the first. But then, pretty much every modern BioWare game has had the same exact formula. The main problem with Mass Effect 2 is that it doesn't tell a good story. It instead details a series of tenuously connected subplots.

But I still feel it is the better game.

#49 Posted by Mr_Skeleton (5145 posts) -

Neverwinter Nights had multiplayer.

#50 Posted by phrosnite (3518 posts) -

Quick, everybody FREAK OUT!

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.