If people really want there games to be so immaculate, tell them to make more scaled down linear games. Much easier to manage than being able to interact with almost every item in a big open world
No one gave the Witcher 3 any crap for there game being buggy. Big open world with alot of different systems equals bugs. Try to be understanding
Progress is not always a good thing. Look at EA.
Inquisition was fine. It could be better, but dont try too hard to emulate CDPR. One of the main things that fans love about dragon age is the mystery of the world and lore. Bioware are masters of letting things gloss right over peoples heads. Look at how many theory videos there are on YouTube for dragon age. If you try to focus too much on what the Witcher does, you may forget the soul of your own game if not done correctly. Yes,learn from the Witcher, but understand that the Bioware approa...
Thats just me. A game can have all the rpg elements in the world,but if the combat is not At least average, I wont invest.
I couldnt play new vegas. 10 minutes in and I was done.
People seem to forget why we play Bethesda games. We do not play Bethesda games for story, likeable characters, and branching choice dialogue. We play Bethesda games for unparalleled interactivity and agency in a big open sandbox. If this does not appeal to some gamers, there are other studios who specialize in what you may like. Game devs have specialties, and if they deviate too much from that focus, they will end up making everything average or worse.
There is one thing the game didnt do better, and thats character progression and player interactivity within the world.
I think Fallout should have won as well, but people seem to really like the Witcher. One friend got bored after 10 minutes. Another friend literally looked out of the window in the opening, and shut the game off. He has not played it sense. I think its a good game, just criminally overrated. The developers even claim they did not expect people to like it that much.
Don't do that. If it is an opinion, it is what it is. I dont care for people expecting you to appease them by having to say, "In my humble opinion" after everything that is stated.
Some things are measured to a greater scale, regardless of thought.
People underestimate Bioware. EA is the real problem behind the games. Left to their own devices, I am sure Bioware could create something spectacular. But they are getting strong armed into prioritizing the satisfaction of investors over customers.
Out of all those, Dragon Age 2 was the only bad one.
And also the first to be completely pay to win.
Overwatch is ass.
Im actually surprised ot won as well. We are in the generation of the movie gamer, where people love games that incentivize watching more than playing. Games that just focus on good old fashion gameplay have taken a backseat, but luckily Nintendo still knows how to make games that are just fun.
Horizon Zero dawn may be a more technically impressive game, but raw power isnt everything. Honestly, BOTW almost objectively has deeper gameplay, which is arguably the most important aspect of a game, and thats why so many people like it.
Nope, Mass Effect Andromeda was the best,even if others dont acknowledge it. Zelda and Mario were okay.
Todd Howard did say "If the game sucks, it's because we tried to do too much." One thing I think we should do is appreciate the effort, even if we dont much like the result. The reason I say this is because there have been a plethora of half assed gamed designed to maximize profit with minimal effort.
Cant hold all the developers to the same standards when there games are different. People here are comparing Bethesda to Naughty dog.... Naughty dog, the studio that makes linear story driven games. Which studios games are better is subjective; however, which studios games are larger in scale is not. People underestimate Bethesda.