259 réponses à ce sujet

[Kalfear]

LOL!



I have given Bioware great greif over ME2 (and rightfully so) even though I still count them as my #1 game producer/developer out there BUT this thread is just a prime example of whats wrong with Bioware.



If this was a negative thread attacking (rather then complimenting) Bioware, Javier would of had it shut down and locked up (with some stupid closing statment) before it was 1 page old but because its mostly a Bioware love fest, not only is it allowed to go on but Stanley Woo is commenting in it!



Its this type of inconsistancy that I have sadly grown to expect from Bioware (post EA).



Someone tell me what this thread has to do with ME (1 or 2) ?

[I99I Dragoon]

Stanley Woo wrote...

You don't have to "know how to create, market, promote, and support a video game" to express positive or negative opinions, but it helps to have an idea of how games are made so you can understand us when we say things like a certain thing was "cut for time" or why we can't simply change or add anything in the time during release candidates, certification, gold, and manufacturing. but even if you don't know any of it, simply "being excellent to each other" will help in keeping the lines of communication open (both within the community and between fan and developer). And really, isn't that what we all want anyway?

Yes of course. I guess I was merely referencing to the "Here's how DLC and Cerberus Network SHOULD work" threads. Things like those just seem to scream "ignorance", but yea, I see your point.

[bjdbwea]

Stanley Woo wrote...

Yes, that was kinda the flak that we got. "It's too different." Even though the game played faster, it was more exciting, more immediate, and had fewer stoppages in the story like the hours and hours walking around the Citadel in ME1. Believe me, I shared many of the same reactions when I frst started working on it, but once the game got to a certain point in development, I made myself some Kool-Aid and realized, hey wait a minute, this is actually WAY more fun than I originally gave it credit for!

I for one actually liked the "slower" pace in ME 1, I liked freely walking around the Citadel, and I didn't see any "stoppages" in the story besides the ones I chose when doing side quests and exploration. And I don't need my games more "immediate" either. Was BG 2 "immediate"? Not really. Still it's considered your best game, at least by me, and by many others too. I hope I'm not too blunt, but it feels as if you're abandoning your old fans, whereas ME 1 (already!) was a very good compromise between action and RPG. That's of course only my personal opinion, and this is starting to swing away from the initial discussion. As I said, I could list my complaints here, but that would go too far.

My original point - that there's very little communication - still stands. It's nice to have gotten some quite long replies from you here, but it doesn't change the fact. Even if you at BioWare think that one thing or another is the correct way to go, it would be nice to hear the reasons. That's not a demand, just a sentiment, that I think everyone who's voiced criticism shares.

Stanley Woo wrote...

Right, but the only way we can measure success in this business is in sales numbers. Making something "more of an RPG" or "telling a better story" doesn't pay the bills or give you geek cred at the game developer mixers. Getting "more sales" DEFINITELY gets you that cred. Just like at whatever job you work, you're not likely to get a raise or promotion because you're "such a nice guy" or are "diligent about recycling." No, you get that raise and/or promotion because you made the numbers look good, either by bringing in more sales or scoring higher on performance evaluations or filing more Q-45b forms or having a higher customer satisfaction rating. Our job is to make games, and no matter how much we might want to spend another 1500 years crafting the perfect RPG, skyrocketing development costs and greater competition in the market means trying to do as much as you can in as little time as you can. And for us, it means doing all that while not compromising on our commitment to quality or our dedication to our fans.

Can I interpret that as confirmation that some at BioWare do share my opinion, that ME 2 was actually not an improvement over ME 1 as a game? No, you don't have to answer that of course.

I completely understand that you only exist as a company because - and as long - you are able to make money. Yet back in the days when you were independent, you would push back the release date if you weren't quite satisfied yet. And in the end, as far as I know, it was still profitable. I remember this even happened with KotoR 1, and I can imagine that it must have been hard to persuade LucasArts of the necessity. It goes without saying that this can not be done indefinitely, but beyond my personal opinion on some things, it seems obvious enough that numerous changes in ME 2 were due to a publisher who set an unchangeable release date.

I find this worrying. So while, as I said, I completely understand the need to make money, back in the days BioWare stood for more, they had a different attitude. A vision, so to speak, always aiming higher. I know this is an idealistic view, but the matter of the fact is that you (BioWare) had this view. In any case, even saying "sorry, this and that had to be cut because of time", would be more satisfying than seeing criticisms ignored. At least we would know which features or characters still matter, and might be better in ME 3, and which ones were cut/changed for other reasons.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 15 mai 2010 - 10:40 .

[Daerog]

2pac Shakur wrote...

TOR already has a forum and an active community

and MMOs corrupt all companies eventually. Blizzard was just like Bioware at one point, new kid on the block, made great games, supported fans. But WoW eventually ruined their initiative and dedication. Starcraft 2 took nearly 10 years to make while Blizzard focused on nothing but WoW expansions.

MMOs corrupt all companies eventually? Wow, so every company that has made a MMO has become messed up? I agree that SC2 taking longer because they took away resources (time) from SC2 to work on WoW (which I think they actually admitted to) was sad, but making such statements that all companies do that makes your argument very, very weak.
Does BW have flaws? Yes. Is the video game market changing due in part by greedy businessmen? Maybe, I have no proof but it seems that way to some. Is BW trying to fit in with the changing market, including a focus on DLC? Ya. Is that a good thing? I'd prefer expansions to DLC, but that's me and not the millions of consumers who will buy anything, even Activision games.

Is BioWare the best? No. I'm not sure what I would call the best, but BW is a favored company. So, I'll thank them too for my fond memories of KotOR, Jade Empire, Mass Effect 1 and 2, and Dragon Age. Hope for more fond memories to come.

[Rivercurse]

Stanley Woo wrote...

Maybe you missed all the discussions that Christina Norman, Patrick Weekes, and even Preston Watamaniuk got involved in before ME2 was released. Post-release, it's all done and not going to change. Pre-release, there's still some wiggle room so there's lots of discussion.

Hey Stan, thanks for the comments in this thread.

Re your quote above, this is what I miss most about the old site and why I don't post here as much as i used to.  Is there any reason the likes of Christina and Patrick don't come here to talk anymore?

Are they simply to busy with other things now, or has the more hostile atmosphere of these new foums scared them away?

[Daerog]

bjdbwea wrote...

I find this worrying. So while, as I said, I completely understand the need to make money, back in the days BioWare stood for more, they had a different attitude. A vision, so to speak, always aiming higher. I know this is an idealistic view, but the matter of the fact is that you (BioWare) had this view. In any case, even saying "sorry, this and that had to be cut because of time", would be more satisfying than seeing criticisms ignored. At least we would know which features or characters still matter, and might be better in ME 3, and which ones were cut/changed for other reasons.

Forgive me, but I found this paragraph funny. It's like when people look back on their golden days. Honestly, I've only been a contributing poster since ME1, so I've not been on the forums for that long (as it seems to me), but a lot of this seems like speculation and reactionary conclusions. BioWare has made statements to things that were left out or changed, I've seen it on the Dragon Age forums ( Gaider and others), and many of the complaint threads are repeats of old complaints that have already been responded to, I would ignore them, too, after the fifteenth time.
I'm not so sure if BW is any different at all and some people are just jumping to conclusions because BW is making an MMO or because EA has attached themselves to BW.

It seems like the same company to me and I think you are either making the past seem more of a golden age than it was or are having all the new changes scare you to your current view. Just my view, and I'm likely wrong because how can I honestly know about someone I've never met, like Woo or the good doctors.

[2pac Shakur]

scyphozoa wrote...

Hmm, not to go too far off topic - but I do see this issue that "Bioware is changing its philosophy to make money" - when in reality, DAO is the single most traditional current RPG I can think of. Just because the Mass Effect franchise is evolving and being developed in a way that you don't agree with doesn't mean all of Bioware, all of Bioware's titles or franchises are undergoing some radical development. I would personally be more upset if Bioware didn't develop and evolve their formulas and game designs.

So not to take any shots, but what happens with the Mass Effect franchise does not reflect the entirety of Bioware. Not that anyone says it does, but all the traditional elements of RPGs are clearly still important to Bioware or else they wouldn't have spent 5 years making the spiritual successor to BG.

just imo

DAO had $7 "premium" DLC from day one release. What a dick move, charging us an additional $7 after we have bought our $50-60 game. Why not include it in the main release? No, instead it is purposely ommited to sell as revenue for DLC. Oh what's this, more "premium" DLC? ok sure why not. I just hope that BIoware does something with $1 mllion from DLC profts to create a great sequel. But instead we get a $40 expansion pack that was terribly short and boring

It's not all Bioware's fault too. EA rushes devs to meet retarded deadlines, but I still don't see why they think they think they can sell $2 armour packs that a dev packed together on his lunch break as legit DLC

[billywaffles]

Wicked 702 wrote...

Ask yourself this question then: Knowing that a brand new copy comes with a code for this "stuff", would you have raised hell if your copy was missing the code? Would you have gone back to the store or called EA/BW support to get a new one? If you said yes then the code is clearly part of the package you bought and is not some extra "free" thing.

This post wins the thread.

[Captain Iglo]

2pac Shakur wrote...

scyphozoa wrote...

Hmm, not to go too far off topic - but I do see this issue that "Bioware is changing its philosophy to make money" - when in reality, DAO is the single most traditional current RPG I can think of. Just because the Mass Effect franchise is evolving and being developed in a way that you don't agree with doesn't mean all of Bioware, all of Bioware's titles or franchises are undergoing some radical development. I would personally be more upset if Bioware didn't develop and evolve their formulas and game designs.

So not to take any shots, but what happens with the Mass Effect franchise does not reflect the entirety of Bioware. Not that anyone says it does, but all the traditional elements of RPGs are clearly still important to Bioware or else they wouldn't have spent 5 years making the spiritual successor to BG.

just imo

DAO had $7 "premium" DLC from day one release. What a dick move, charging us an additional $7 after we have bought our $50-60 game. Why not include it in the main release? No, instead it is purposely ommited to sell as revenue for DLC. Oh what's this, more "premium" DLC? ok sure why not. I just hope that BIoware does something with $1 mllion from DLC profts to create a great sequel. But instead we get a $40 expansion pack that was terribly short and boring

It's not all Bioware's fault too. EA rushes devs to meet retarded deadlines, but I still don't see why they think they think they can sell $2 armour packs that a dev packed together on his lunch break as legit DLC

Ea has shareholders...those wanna see money and succes...Mass Effect 2 is one of their best selling titles...so there is a lot of potential buyers for different kinds of DLC...I actually think it would be insanely stupid of EA not to produce such DLCs, with a certain prize tag, for their top titles.

Modifié par Captain Iglo, 15 mai 2010 - 05:37 .

[DarthRomance]

we would not all be here if we did not love Bioware games so yeah they are the best or among the best. I allow for them to be human and under pressure and deadline, sometimes humans eff up without realizing it. So they messed up ME2, it is not that different from ME1 or so inferior it stinks. It is not bad and kind of like KOTOR 2.

[bjdbwea]

DarthRomance wrote...

we would not all be here if we did not love Bioware games so yeah they are the best or among the best. I allow for them to be human and under pressure and deadline, sometimes humans eff up without realizing it. So they messed up ME2, it is not that different from ME1 or so inferior it stinks. It is not bad and kind of like KOTOR 2.

That is true. KotoR 2 had great potential, but it suffered much from time constraints. The thing is, as I already mentioned above, BioWare had the leverage to make LucasArts give them the time needed for KotoR 1. Otherwise, the game would certainly not have turned out to be the masterpiece and milestone that it was (and still is). Obsidian obviously did not get the time they would have needed, and look how KotoR 2 turned out. So much wasted potential! And the result seems to be that there will never be a KotoR 3.

What's even more ironic, is that (if I remember correctly) BioWare didn't want to make KotoR 2 for that exact reason: They didn't want to have to deal with others imposing time frames and game design decisions upon them. Unfortunately, now exactly that seems to be happening again. There's a lot of cut corners in ME 2, and I think it's necessary that we - the customers - at least make it clear that we notice it, and that we don't appreciate it. As little as it may change. Cheering and acting as if nothing happened, will only encourage this kind of approach.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 15 mai 2010 - 10:35 .

[RyuGuitarFreak]

bjdbwea wrote...

DarthRomance wrote...

we would not all be here if we did not love Bioware games so yeah they are the best or among the best. I allow for them to be human and under pressure and deadline, sometimes humans eff up without realizing it. So they messed up ME2, it is not that different from ME1 or so inferior it stinks. It is not bad and kind of like KOTOR 2.

That is true. KotoR 2 had great potential, but it suffered much from time constraints. The thing is, as I already mentioned above, BioWare had the leverage to make LucasArts give them the time needed for KotoR 1. Otherwise, the game would certainly not have turned out to be the masterpiece and milestone that it was (and still is). Obsidian obviously did not get the time they would have needed, and look how KotoR 2 turned out. So much wasted potential! And the result seems to be that there will never be a KotoR 3.

What's even more ironic, is that (if I remember correctly) BioWare didn't want to make KotoR 2 for that exact reason: They didn't want to have to deal with others imposing time frames and game design decisions upon them. Unfortunately, now exactly that seems to be happening again. There's a lot of cut corners in ME 2, and I think it's necessary that we - the customers - at least make it clear that we notice it, and that we don't appreciate it. As little as it may change. Cheering and acting as if nothing happened, will only encourage this kind of approach.

I think it's the other way around. ME1 seemed to be a waaaaaay more rushed than ME2. It has much more bugs, the squad AND enemy AI is so bad it's funny, ME1 has a lot of framerate problems on the 360 and the inventory/omni gel/item system was so poorly implemented it seemed that there were no tests on it.
One of the things that I was more surprised on ME2 is that the squad actually covers this time! And the only bug outside the Ish quest I found was related to charge.

[Tony_Knightcrawler]

I totally support the OP. I think Bioware did a great job in ME2. I love both ME2 and ME1. And even though ME2 might not have some things I really liked about ME1, I'd still say it's a better all-around experience. And THANK GOD the inventory from ME1 didn't return. So many improvements to ME2. I'll just say an obvious one that can't be too controversial: there's a lot more humor in ME2, and it works really well.

But if I may, while Stan is looking at this topic, I'd like to bring up that there are a number of save file import errors in ME2. Some of them were recorded incorrectly in ME1, like the Sirta thing. I suspect the Conrad thing was an *intentional* error because Bioware didn't make a good event for the paragon path in ME1. So they forced everyone into the more fun renegade path. I just think it's funny that Bioware reps talked about that as an example of imported events so much leading up to ME2. So... could you guys like, please fix that? If getting people to download this patch is hard, just package it with a few pieces of armor on the Cerberur Network and kill two birds with one stone.

List of import errors:
http://social.biowar...06/index/831456

I apologize for using this topic to bring it up to Stan Woo, but it feels like this has been forgotten. Love you, Bioware. Even if there are a few bugs here or there. Love you guys to bits.

Modifié par Tony_Knightcrawler, 16 mai 2010 - 06:31 .

[VonStrangle]

I'll just say that Mass Effect 2 was great. I like the shooting and I like the reworked RPG mechanics. I'll just leave there here while I slide out the same way I came in. >.>

Oh, also, slide me some classic N7 armor under the door: I won't tell anybody that you did it. My shoulder pads just don't look as cool as those big ceramic death stabbies from the first's heavy armor.

Modifié par VonStrangle, 16 mai 2010 - 07:24 .

[bjdbwea]

RyuGuitarFreak wrote...

ME1 seemed to be a waaaaaay more rushed than ME2.

Yeah, suuuuure. Whatever you say.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 16 mai 2010 - 11:45 .

[darknoon5]

bjdbwea wrote...

RyuGuitarFreak wrote...

ME1 seemed to be a waaaaaay more rushed than ME2.

Yeah, suuuuure. Whatever you say.

He's right. ME1 was originally going to have a cutsomizable Mako (still some dialouge relating to this from that turian mechanic on Noveria, believe it or not) as well as the ability to control your squadmates and a interrupt system, but all of these were taken out.
The only tihng I can see that was taken out of ME2 was Grunt was originally meant to be a biotic (check the Omega video on the ME site)

[KitsuneRommel]

RyuGuitarFreak wrote...

I think it's the other way around. ME1 seemed to be a waaaaaay more rushed than ME2. It has much more bugs, the squad AND enemy AI is so bad it's funny, ME1 has a lot of framerate problems on the 360 and the inventory/omni gel/item system was so poorly implemented it seemed that there were no tests on it.
One of the things that I was more surprised on ME2 is that the squad actually covers this time! And the only bug outside the Ish quest I found was related to charge.

I know. It's funny just how bad the AI is in ME1. Outdoors they just stand still trying to hit you with their assault rifles and shotguns when you snipe at them from 200m even though there's plenty of boxes for cover around.

[Barquiel]

darknoon5 wrote...

The only tihng I can see that was taken out of ME2 was Grunt was originally meant to be a biotic (check the Omega video on the ME site)

Morinth?

She has exactly the same lines as Samara in most places, in some locations it's even "Talk to Samara", and not  "Talk to Morinth"...but there is a Grunt/Morinth banter on Tuchanka. Morinth speaks in her own voice...and Grunt doesn't care. I think she was originally meant to be a full-fledged squadmate, but only the Tuchanka banter remained.

Modifié par Barquiel, 16 mai 2010 - 12:40 .

[bjdbwea]

darknoon5 wrote...

The only tihng I can see that was taken out of ME2 was Grunt was originally meant to be a biotic (check the Omega video on the ME site)

There are a lot of other things that were in ME 1, but aren't in ME 2. And there are things that were obviously supposed to be in ME 2 (like the Hammerhead), but were cut too, probably due to time constraints.

[Doctor_Jackstraw]

A video a friend linked me that reminded me of this thread:
It just embodies the phrase "Haters Gotta Hate" :E
(A metaphor for the internet)


But yeah, Bioware's great, just gotta keep on struttin' along and don't let the haters get ya down!

Modifié par Doctor_Jackstraw, 16 mai 2010 - 02:16 .

[ToveriJuri]

I'm sure this varies a little when we are talking about different
countries, but here the dlc is not free and it's said so in the
law(here). The mass effect 2 game and everything mentioned in the back
cover is a content of an offer. The price tag is the price of the
offer. If the offer says that it comes with Cerberus network and all
it's contents then you pay for it. Cerberus network is part of the
offer that has the price tag. You cannot choose what part of the offer
you want to pay for. Sure you can bargain, but not in this case.

If
the offer says that new retail games get something "extra", then that's
the offer: "If you buy it new, then you get the game and "extra". What
you pay for is that offer and if that offer includes the DLC then the
DLC is part of the price no matter what you say or believe.

The
DLC is free only when it is mentioned outside of the offer(When it can
be assumed that the knowledge of the dlc can come to you only after the
deal has been made).This is not the case with ME2, because you know or
it is assumed that you should know about the DLC at the time of the
deal.

That is something that is stated in our contract law. I only translated(poorly) the principles not the literal thing.
I hope that is at least somewhat readable and not too confusing.

[RyuGuitarFreak]

bjdbwea wrote...

RyuGuitarFreak wrote...

ME1 seemed to be a waaaaaay more rushed than ME2.

Yeah, suuuuure. Whatever you say.

You ignored ALL the reasons why on my post. That's something new to me. The internets always finds a way to impress me.

Well, you know what they say: haters gotta hate.

Modifié par RyuGuitarFreak, 16 mai 2010 - 05:07 .

[darknoon5]

Barquiel wrote...

darknoon5 wrote...

The only tihng I can see that was taken out of ME2 was Grunt was originally meant to be a biotic (check the Omega video on the ME site)

Morinth?

She has exactly the same lines as Samara in most places, in some locations it's even "Talk to Samara", and not  "Talk to Morinth"...but there is a Grunt/Morinth banter on Tuchanka. Morinth speaks in her own voice...and Grunt doesn't care. I think she was originally meant to be a full-fledged squadmate, but only the Tuchanka banter remained.

No no, honestly.
That's just an example of her getting out of character. 'Sides, Grunt doesn't really know the sqyad-the only one I think he ever refers to by name is Garrus, actually.
And kelly and Kasumi both notice how Samara is acting differently, so Morinth's impression isn't infallable.

Modifié par darknoon5, 16 mai 2010 - 05:34 .

[Jackal904]

Stanley Woo wrote...

But I'm curious: with everything we've done and said in these forums, in interviews, at conventions and trade shows, what precisely do you think is being "ignored?" If anything, I think we're too open and honest sometimes.

And we appreciate your openness. Do not let the spoiled whiners make you think otherwise.