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.

Silly statement.  Before WoW, Blizzard was only good at doing strategy or action games.  Should they have just stuck to those?  

Genre is irrelevant. What's important here is knowing what makes a single or multiplayer gamer tick. Bioware and Bethesda have zero multiplayer experience whereas Blizzard has always been about multiplayer games.

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.

Silly statement.  Before WoW, Blizzard was only good at doing strategy or action games.  Should they have just stuck to those?  

Well Blizzard did pick up some people pretty well versed in the MMO scene at the time prior to making WoW and it might have been what allowed them to float for such a long time so they could build their own philosophy.  Alex Afrasiabi and Jeff Kaplan both came straight from Everquest 1 prior to being developers.  Bioware should've done that and Bethesda would have to as well (especially since Bethesda has ZERO multiplayer experience).

They'd both be stepping outside of their fairly confined game design experience, in my opinion.

I lost all fait in Bethesda after Rage.

Originally posted by CalmOceans

I lost all fait in Bethesda after Rage.

Bethesda only published RAGE.  Are you sure you lost faith in Bethesda?

Originally posted by MMOSareDEAD

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.

Silly statement.  Before WoW, Blizzard was only good at doing strategy or action games.  Should they have just stuck to those?  

Genre is irrelevant. What's important here is knowing what makes a single or multiplayer gamer tick. Bioware and Bethesda have zero multiplayer experience whereas Blizzard has always been about multiplayer games.

Bioware does have Mythic to draw from as well, I think. Seeing as how they refer to themselves as Bioware/Mythic.

Originally posted by marinrider

Bioware seems too good at making tunnels.  SWTOR might change that, so its hard to say for sure.

 

I love Bethesda for Single player all the way, but I wouldn't really want them to make an MMO because their single player games are too awesome.

Yeah, but they could do both too.  Why not have both worlds?

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.

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.

Why?

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

---

Originally posted by rt33
Bethesda 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.

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?

ArenaNet