Changes from DAO to DA2 had more to do with EA taking over Bioware and DA2 being rushed out on a much quicker schedule than originally planned IMO.

Obsidian? CD Projekt?
And I don't think 2 not-so-über-fantastic games necessarily means the end of Bioware.
Hopefully, they've learned from their mistakes. They've still got the best track record in the biz, IMO.
Bethesda have made their fair share of meh games too.

yes this is the same meaning i had for the game. they could pushed it so much more than to the hack and slash game i got in return -_-

You made me laugh OP , last king of game developers is a good one. I consider Bethesda to be a good developer I never considered any company to be a "god" of developers. Every game development that has been very popular in the life of that company might of been thought for a some time to be the best by some people. I know it is your personal opinion but the last great developer is kinda silly......but that is my opinion.

I'm sorry But haven't you been anywhere online today? Two words...Rock...Star. GTA V FOR THE WIN! not that skyrim doesn't get me just as hyped.

I not quite sure what you mean by the "king" of game developers, and don't understand the fuss about Mass Effect 2 and Dragon Age 2... I thought they were both fantastic games.

Valve, Bioware, Rockstar

Also, I legitimately don't get the ME2 hate that goes on around here. Could someone enlighten me as to why a game that was in improvement over the first in almost every way (story, characters, voice-acting, graphics, sound) is so disliked?

well it turned into a Corridor shooter

Haven't played ME1 or ME2 but 1 of my friends gave me the replacement of ammo for specific weapons with energy packs that work in any weapon as an example of how it had been dumbed down. Mind you he called ME1 FPS with RP elements.

Three things:

1. Bethesda Softworks has never developed any game ever as they are a publisher. I think you meant Bethesda Game Studios.
2. Zenimax Media and its subsidiaries are relatively new to the mass-market development/publishing game and do not yet have the breadth or width to be considered a full fledged AAA house.
3. There is no such thing as "King of Game Developers".

Actually, Bethesda lost a lot of points with me with Oblivion. I don't think they are a bad developer, but they are clearly going down the seemingly inevitable path of "mainstream" developers.

I actually find that smaller developers can often times outperform larger developers in terms of gameplay, mechanics and even storylines in general. Many of the larger developers with highly successful titles often fall into the trap of simply capitalizing on a previous titles popularity. Dragon Age 2 is a good example. Taken by itself Dragon Age 2 is a good game. However, it pales in comparison to Origins. Dragon Age 2 wouldn't have sold half the copies that it did if it was titled something else. Most of the people bought the game expecting the next great Origins. It was not.

In many ways, I feel the same about Bethesda and Oblivion. They produced a game and sold it based on the Elder Scrolls title. It was a "good" game, but it also paled in comparison to the previous 3 titles in the series.

Mass Effect 2 was not an improvement over ME1. It stripped out the RPG elements and turned it into a bland 3rd person action game that was the same flavour nonstop. It boiled things down to a very monotonous action experience. I'd take ME1 over ME2 any day.

^

The names really don't matter much, they're all the same people. Zenimax was created by Bethesda as a legal buffer, so that they wouldn't risk Bethesda assets as collateral when seeking funds from investors, and also likely to protect Bethesda's assets from any lawsuits. The different names (BGS, BS, Zen) serve different legal functions, but they're all created and owned by the same people.

Obsidian. I would rather have a great game that some people cant see becuase of bugs. Than a shallow game where people are blinded by hype.

That makes no sense at all, since there was no ammo in the first game. Your weapon could overheat, but you could never run out of ammo.
Or am I remembering this all wrong? It's been a while.

Even a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_Co. can http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_Enix.

Anyway, plenty of great developers out there. Atlus, Kojima Productions, Irrational Games, Level-5, Nintendo, etc.

Yeah, weapons in ME1 overheated, and then you had to wait for them to cool down.

ME2 says that the tech has been "improved" by the use of disposeable heatsinks - instead of waiting for the gun to cool down, just pop the sink out and put in a new one..... which, from a game mechanics point of view, ends up being just the same as ammo clips. Not sure why they went that way. :shrug:

Bungie the are independent and as far as games go they have had the biggest

Valve will porbably never die

Long live Gabe.

Valve
Rockstar
Obsidian
Edios (cant hate some Deus Ex)
CD projekt
Just off the top of my head.

That's terrible logic.

From a monetary stand-point, I would guess Blizzard to be the king of developers. Maybe even from a creative stand point as well. They are the creators of the biggest MMO ever, the biggest RTS ever. And pretty soon, the biggest hack 'n slash RPG ever. That's three completely different genres from the same company. And all of those games are generally amazing (WoW was amazing when it released).

But there are plenty of other awesome developers - Rocksteady, Irrational Games, Rockstar, Valve, Bethesda, Bioware. Can't think of anymore off the top of my head, but all of these developers have produced amazing games, past and present.

I really dislike Obsidian, mostly because they have produced shoddy games. They managed to take the groundwork BGS made for Fallout 3, and make an inferior game, so I hope they stay far away from any of my favorite IPs. None of their original IPs have taken off either, not because they are underrated, because they are poorly executed games.

I know this discussion keeps cropping up, but I honestly don't understand how people think Obsidian made a better Fallout game then BGS.

I'll break it down.

Gameplay - FONV gameplay was just recycled from FO3, with a convoluted crafting system added, and a more conservative leveling system.
Story & Dialogue - FONV excelled somewhat in this aspect, with many paths to take on the main quest, and many different endings. Other then that though, it's boring as hell. Their is a lot of dialogue, but the voice acting, and wooden facial animations make it uninteresting. I liked how FO3 told a story without dialogue, through messages scrawled on the wall, and audio-tapes, and computer entries. There was little of this type of story telling in FONV.

The biggest complaint I have with people claiming Obsidian to be the superior developer to BGS is that they didn't actually do most of the work. FONV is basically a glorified FO3 mod. And that's not a bad thing depending on your perspective, but don't tell me Obsidian is the superior developer.

Huh? You like the X series but don't think Egosoft is a great company? I don't understaaaaand