It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
I'd say both have their merits. Personally I prefer the more open world approach of Bethesda more, where there is a real, whole animated world, instead of a quest-tunnel where you can only visit the story-highlights, as in recent Bioware RPGs. Bioware was better in Baldurs Gate days. But ever since the KOTOR success, they stick a tad too much to those quest tunnel worlds. DA2 was especially bad in this.
People don't ask questions to get answers - they ask questions to show how smart they are. - Dogbert
Originally posted by uohaloran Originally posted by CalmOceans I lost all fait in Bethesda after Rage.
Bethesda only published RAGE. Are you sure you lost faith in Bethesda?
Yeah, there isn't anything wrong with that. I like id Software developers and Bethesda i'm sure was just helping them out which is better than going with EA or Activision. I like that Bethesda is getting into the business of publishing too so they could put some honesting into the industry instead of this greedy result we have been seeing lately from EA and Activision.
Bioware hasn't made a really good game since Neverwinter Nights.
I see no indication that SWKotOR is about to change that.
Bethesda but only for the game & technical not managing it.
Simple: there games (story wise) are usually fair but they don't sell them because of that Content, they sell them because they are good at making tools/systems and releasing tools to the community to alter their games. That produces a great of content on its own (of varying quality with a majority being low) and creates a sense of community. I haven't played Skyrim and will say they've been getting better at the actual Game parts steadily if slowly.
Both Content and Community are critical elements of MMO's and Bethesda's Single Player games almost accomplish that without even trying to be multiplayer. However, they are also shortsighted in design, slow to respond to problems/mistakes and pretty horrible at managing/communicating/maintaining order of/with the community. Consequently, they would need Help to overcome their shortcomings. The downside to a Bethesda MMO would mainly be Community management. Essentially figuring out how to keep the Community (any portion of it - majority/minority) from Controlling the Game and accessibility/playability of other to the game without destroying their ability to create content and enjoy it themselves. The technical issues could be dealt with a lot easier but it would probably something that would have to get outsourced as it would be a huge cost/burden to handle themselves.
Bioware strengths has always been telling a story. There tech has waxed and waned but its fairly obvious they always concentrate on the Story. That works if you can customise and adapt the story to the player, in an MMO thats really difficult and complicated. Failing to do that basically screws them because if it doesn't work then they have to fallback on the other elements of the game which quite simply aren't that impressive or appealing (whether they are bad or not is highly subjective to the tastes of each player). Plus it puts them in a bad position of having to provide absurd amounts of content to maintain the MMO, content reception will vary as a matter of taste but its typically a losing battle (the whole industry and other industries have problems figuring out what will Sell and each piece of new content is basically Selling the game subscription to keep playing).
Essentially neither would be good by themselves but I'd prefer Bethesda. However, I am also biased against Bioware more than Bethesda for reasons other than what they merit professionally.
Originally posted by Biggus99 Originally posted by MMOSareDEAD Neither. They're both good at doing single player games and that's what they should stick with imo.
Before WoW, Blizzard was only good at doing strategy or action games. Should they have just stuck to those?
Yes, absolutely. Was the question a joke?
"Id rather work on something with great potential than on fulfilling a promise of mediocrity."
- Raph Koster
Tried: AO,EQ,EQ2,DAoC,SWG,AA,SB,HZ,CoX,PS,GA,TR,IV,GnH,EVE, PP,DnL,WAR,MxO,SWG,FE,VG,AoC,DDO,LoTRO,Rift,TOR,Aion,Tera,TSW,GW2,DCUO,CO,STOFavourites: AO,SWG,EVE,TR,LoTRO,TSW,EQ2, FirefallCurrently Playing: EQ2, BDO
The anwser is both but I'll vote on whatever is the lowest to even it out.
Originally posted by arieste Originally posted by Biggus99 Originally posted by MMOSareDEAD Neither. They're both good at doing single player games and that's what they should stick with imo.
Millions of people would disagree, but whatever.
I think I have played almost every open world RPG from Bethesda. To add to this I have never bought a Bioware game (except DA1 which I never beat), as I have always been a more fan of substance over story. Storys are for movies and books so its a huge factor in why I have never liked Bioware game.
So I choose Bethesda.
Everything you need to know about Elder Scrolls Online
Playing: GW2Waiting on: TESONext Flop: Planetside 2Best MMO of all time: Asheron's Call - The first company to recreate AC will be the next greatest MMO.
Bit biased voting, I'd vote both so I'm not voting either way.
In any RPG, may it be single player or an MMO, the important factor is the depth of the game. Bioware falls short in this area in comparison with Bethesda. Bioware's game are focus on telling only one story, while Bethesda is focused on telling YOUR story in a game world setting which can be unique for each player. In return, the depth of the RPG experience is more vast in Betheda games than in Bioware games.
Bottom line, Bioware games has low replay value compare to Bethesda games.
Bethesda all the way there so much better then bioware.
MB:Asus V De Luxe z77CPU:Intell Icore7 3770kGPU: AMD Fury X(waiting for BIG VEGA 11 HBM2)MEMORY:Corsair PLAT.DDR3 1866MHZ 16GBPSU:Corsair AX1200iOS:Windows 10 64bit
Originally posted by rt33Bethesda largely improves every game and sticks to what they are gifted at, single player games. Bioware, was great, lets face it they have taken a serious downhill trend since getting in bed with EA and drifting into online, something they aren't very good at as everyone will soon find out.
Any game I have bought made by a company owned by EA have been lack luster. The only good EA games I have played were EA games, and not a subsidiary. It has been years since even that.
So now I look out for companies owned by EA. It is bad to judge games like that, but I find it holds true.
Sent me an email if you want me to mail you some pizza rolls.
Originally posted by marinrider Originally posted by Pouf I do not like Bethesda. They didnt accept the quake challenge from Mincraft's creators
I wonder how many people actually expected them too. I love minecraft, but if the Bethesda devs start acting like Notch then we would see Bethesdas dev time go from 4 years to about 7. If you break down notchs time spent doing activities into 10 segments, it seems like he does 8 parts random shit, 2 parts coding.
Hold on how are those two parts different?
I like to have my cake and eat it too! I'll take both.
***Raises plunger in slaute to both Bioware and bethesda!***
All my opinions are just that..opinions. If you like my opinions..coolness.If you dont like my opinion....I really dont care.Playing: ESO, WOT, Smite, and Marvel Heroes
I love Bioware from NWN1 but that's the only game I believe I've played with them. Granted I played and love both KOTOR but as I'm typing this message not sure frankly which house made em and which distributed...etc etc.
But NWN1 rocked so I always hunt after Bioware games when I'm looking for a game to get.
(NWN2 looked ok but didn't seem to have the feal of NWN1 imho because the server interface was a bit off and couldn't connect with friends who were in Y! Messenger for example as they would even see different servers then myself!?)
Member of Talon | www.lakexeno.comRIFT: Redcameo, Warrior, Faemist ServerRIFT: Bluecameo, Mage, Faemist Server
Bethesda hands down. Bioware's good and all, but they're not innovative. But they've never tried to be. I mean it's easy to say Bethesda has shot themselves in the foot a time or two pushing things- that's still more fun for me.
I've liked BioWare's games, but I've loved Bethesda's.
I used to play MMOs like you, but then I took an arrow to the knee.
after playing SWTOR .. Bethesda, many of their game already feel like single player open worlds where Bioware makes really good stories. sorry but I would rather create my own story than one laid out by some writer and having that story that is the same as every other player who plays the same class i do.
Originally posted by Kaerigan Oh, the horror. Imagine the amount of bugs in a Bethesda MMO.
In an elder scrolls game a world that big there is bound to be bugs, its impossible to nullify all probabilities of bugs occuring, but biowares dragon age with a world that small there is no excuse for such obvious bugs.
I don't really know. Until I try an MMO from both of them, I don't know who will do a better job. I don't think you can compare single player games because the dynamics are completely different for an MMO. By this I mean that MMOs are much more complex than a single player game, so until I have a sampling of their work at an MMO, I just don't know.
Concentrate on enjoying yourself, and not on why I shouldn't enjoy myself.
Apparently Todd Howard the game director of the elder scrolls games is not a fan of MMORPG's but rumours are rife that obsidian may be developing the elder scrolls mmo.
Beh, make the poll more interesting and add Blizzard on there as well
Originally posted by uohaloran Originally posted by CalmOceans I lost all fait in Bethesda after Rage.
it's a shame when people write off a company for 'publishing' a game, and not 'developing' it.... like when people blame Bethesda for FO:NV. it's bulshit, because they only published NV. Obsidian is the company who made (ruined) NV, and should get all the blame.
i hope Bethesda never makes an MMO. it would only ruin what i consider an amazing company. Bioware has already stuck a knife in its own back by making SWTOR, because now their single players games will always fall short compared to the time (money) they put into SWTOR.
and.... the Bethesda 'bug' comments always make me laugh. i've played the hell out of TES-3-4 and FO3. they don't crash any more often than any other game from my experience, and i never saw many bugs. a few quirks, but i see those in every game. however, people talk about their games being the most buggy of all games. i've just never seen it. my Bethesda games all play very smooth and the worst i get is a crash, maybe on a load screen every so often, after hours of playing. maybe, i'm just lucky.....
oh, and to answer the question. neither! i'd rather LESS companies make MMO's. we have enough as it is, and not many are very good. why do we need more millions wasted on half-assed online games with inevitible lifespans? id rather the industry move away from SCAMMING gamers with shady MMO dealings. a true regression in the videogame industry if you ask me....
I think Bethesda is the logical choice, since we've seen what Bioware's idea of a good MMO is basically all about.
Originally posted by PukeBucket Bethesda hands down. Bioware's good and all, but they're not innovative at all. But they've never tried to be.
I would beg to differ. Not that I don't LOVE Bethesda but what was the GM Tool in NWN? That was HIGHLY innovative. What about the companions with some voice over in Baldur's Gate? That was innovative for the time?
And personally I find that bringing the ME2/ KOTOR/ Dragon Age story telling with fully voiced 10,000 NPCs and 8,000 novels of story dialoguge in an MMO is pretty innovative as well.
I do want a Fallout MMO in good old Bethesda style though.