145 réponses à ce sujet

[Mongerty]

Bogsnot1 wrote...

The main reason, in my opinion, is that most of the consoles are getting to the end of their "5 year life cycle". This means they need to wrap up outstanding storylines before the new version of consoles come out.
How would you feel if ME3 came out, only to be told it wont run on the Xbox360, and you have to buy the new version of Xbox in order to finish the trilogy?

Considering that the 360 has already been out for 5 years, and MS just "relaunched" it, I don't think the 5 year rhetoric works too well.

We will see these consoles until 2012 at the very least, when Nintendo may have a Wii 2 released. Don't expect the next Xbox until 2013 or 14, considering we normally know about consoles at least a year in advance.


Also, Bioware was very frank from the beginning that the Mass Effect Trilogy would be in one generation.

[mcneil_1]

-Skorpious- wrote...

Spring 2011 - Dragon Age 2, Mortal Kombat 2011, Deus Ex: Human Revolution, The Witcher 2
Fall 2011 - The Elder Scrolls 5, Uncharted: Drake's Deception, Mass Effect 3
My wallet - FUUUUUUUUUUUUUU.....

Tell me about it , plus in my case Include DOW2 Retribution

[Terror_K]

Mikko Kinnunen wrote...

Typically once a dev team gets into the third installment of any franchise, you must assume they've gotten at least a little better at making the said type of game

Yeah, but how many other sequels have got (supposedly) dozens upon dozens of import decisions carrying over?

I worry that it's going to come across as rushed and lacking in polish. I'd personally rather wait another year if it meant getting something really special with loads of satisfying consequences and really deep gameplay than get it in pretty much dead on a year and find it lacking. ME2's consequences when it came to imports were horribly unsatisfying (mostly emails, lame substitutions and/or stuff that just didn't seem to really matter), and I don't want to see the final part disappointing in this regard also. Especially when one considers how many characters can die, particularly during the suicide mission.

We'll see I guess, but I'm going to remain pretty sceptical here. ME2 felt like it could have done with another month or two in the oven when it came out as it was, and I'd hate for ME3 to have similar issues. Pretty much the whole trilogy can be made or broken with the final part. Casey Hudson said that there was opportunity to really go nuts now since there's no need to worry about things causing problems for another game, so I'd like to think that ME3 has a lot more variation than its predecessor and isn't just the same thing with a hint of different flavouring here and there.

[shinobi602]

ITT: Random people who believe they can better tell Bioware how to do their job.

[Jigero]

Well ME3 is probably coming out faster because they aren't gonna switch the engine again. ME1 to ME2 so a drastic revamp down to the core of it's technology. They are probably sticking with the engine they used from the last game, so all grunt work and the hardest work is already done, All they have to do is maybe add on new modules and functions, and making new Art assets which is probably the easiest part of making a game and they probably been developing ME2 and ME3 simultaneously.

[Gibb_Shepard]

People, ME3 is coming out just under 2 years from ME2. ME2 came out just over 2 years after ME1. There's only about 4 months difference in release time, and for ME3 they don't have to completely overhaul the game like in ME2

[shinobi602]

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

People, ME3 is coming out just under 2 years from ME2. ME2 came out just over 2 years after ME1. There's only about 4 months difference in release time, and for ME3 they don't have to completely overhaul the game like in ME2

Actually it's not under 2 years. They said they started working on it during ME2's development, before it even released.

[TheNexus]

After seeing how short the Starcraft 2 campaign was after....13 years of "development", I don't equate time with quality anymore. Bioware just needs to make the most out of the time they have, and 2 years is plenty of time to make this game amazing.

[Moondoggie]

Johnsen1972 wrote...

moneycashgeorge wrote...

 ME3, Resistance 3, Killzone 3, Uncharted 3. All of these games are coming out really fast after their predecessor. I mean ME2 came out THIS YEAR and its sequel is already being announced. What does this mean for ME3, and what does is mean for the game industry?

Are publishers shortening development cycles? Are they copying the CoD model of repetitive 2 year development?
Does this mean that we're going to see less changes in new franchise installments? Is ME2 going to be gameplay identical to ME3?

It's true, the publishers wants to make money as much and as fast as possible. In this case it's EA who pressures their studios to shorten the development cycles. They want money.
When EA bought the company that owned Bioware a few years ago, I was really worried that Bioware would be closed after a few years like many other studios EA bought and closed.
But in case of Bioware, so right now Im not worried anymore. Biowares bosses have a good stand against EA, because Bioware produces successful quality games. I dont think EA can force Bioware to bring out a game thats not "ready".

And for ME3. You can basically redo all the good things they already developed, and fix a few things people didnt like. All they have to do is to write an awesome story and hire lots of good actors
The graphics will be the same, basically an improved  unreal 3 engine. The gameplay will be basically the same too.

So producing ME3 in about 2 years is realistic.

Have trust in Bioware, everything will go well.

You have zero proof for that. Why is it EA's fault if there is anything wrong with the game but if the game is great people will praise Bioware? I know full well when the early release glitches show up people will slam EA "it was release too early they forced Bioware to release it too quick!"  Why you felt Bioware would be shut down i do not know. Do you assume EA shuts down it's profitable developers?

I guess it's the "cool" thing for gamers to hate on EA and blame them for everything but i'd rarther EA have the reigns than the previous people who were publishing for Bioware. EA has the financial clout and ability to back Bioware that is needed for a game that has grown as fast as Mass Effect and a company developing as quick as Bioware has. The bigger they get the more demands that are made for their games. And the cosumer demand needs to be met by financial support.

Profit has meant that EA has needed to support Bioware more in terms of what kind of budget they need to develop a game. I'm sure Mass Effect 3 will be even bigger than Mass Effect 2 because of this. It has to be because we demand it and EA knows to satisfy customer demand they need to put thier money where their mouth is.

[Klimy]

A sequel is not usually is a complete re-design of the game. It tend to be built on the same engine, utilize similar graphics and textures (if they not outdated too much), thus big chunk of work is done. Also very often a script already was designed for a sequel (if it's -ologi like ME).
So we see FO and ME to come out fast, but Elder Scrolls utilize new engine and thus it was in development for longer.

Last but not least, it's hard to invent a wheel, but once it's covered then you already can mass produce it with similar techniques.

For example: when we were developing new antivirus from scratch it was taking us over 3 years to make most of the work, during that time old product received several upgrades (from v2.1 up to v3.4). All because it required to make all work from scratch and then test 100% of code, while old product didn't require such testing.

Modifié par Klimy, 13 décembre 2010 - 09:02 .

[Tron Evolution]

DarthCaine wrote...

Compare DA2 to DAO. In such a short time, they've made drastic changes

well, it's like ME 1 to ME 2. dragon age 2 seems to learn a lot from ME 2. I can see the style. I played demo last gamecon. it was very nice. I can't wait.

[Estelindis]

moneycashgeorge wrote...

ME2 came out THIS YEAR and its sequel is already
being announced. What does this mean for ME3, and what does is mean for
the game industry?

Don't make them hold on to ME3 for a year after they've finished it just to satisfy your complaints!

In any case, with ME2 coming out in January of this year and ME3 coming out in December(?) of next year, it's pretty much a two year gap - and that's not taking into the account the fact that Bioware stated that they were already working on ME3 before ME2 was released.  When you consider that there were two years between the release of BG1 and BG2, it's really not so bad, is it? 

Modifié par Estelindis, 13 décembre 2010 - 10:59 .

[TheNexus]

Estelindis wrote...

moneycashgeorge wrote...

ME2 came out THIS YEAR and its sequel is already
being announced. What does this mean for ME3, and what does is mean for
the game industry?

Don't make them hold on to ME3 for a year after they've finished it just to satisfy your complaints!

In any case, with ME2 coming out in January of this year and ME3 coming out in December(?) of next year, it's pretty much a two year gap - and that's not taking into the account the fact that Bioware stated that they were already working on ME3 before ME2 was released.  When you consider that there were two years between the release of BG1 and BG2, it's really not so bad, is it? 

When they said they were working on ME3 while ME2 was in production, it makes me think that they did some of the Voice Acting for ME3 while the actors were already there for ME2. It brings up my hopes that a good portion of the squad members are returning.

[Vena_86]

moneycashgeorge wrote...
...
Are publishers shortening development cycles? Are they copying the CoD model of repetitive 2 year development?
...

CoD has 2 year cycles? To me it feels like 2 months, which is understandable since it is just 5 hours of linear single player with the exact same gameplay as CoD 1 had and some minimal MP adjustments. As long as people are paying for that and make the CoD franchise dominate about 25% of the market alone, they give publishers certain ideas.  
Simple gameplay - presantation and scripts are everything! - give the player as little to do and as much undeserved reward as possible, most fall for it
Shorter play time, shorter developement time - doesn't matter, casual players can't finish longer story based games anyway as shown by statistics

I trust that BioWare is going to make the most of the little time they have. But for the final chapter in an epic trilogy, it looks like EA is not giving them enough time to make it as great as it could be. I hope EA finds them self a different profit machine to compete with CoD. As long as you can do more than point and shoot, the ME franchise is not suited for that anyway.

[AlexXIV]

I liked ME2 just fine. They don't have to change anything 'cept for the story of course.

[Aurica]

Pacifien wrote...
But having said that, my worst case scenario is that the development team runs into some issues with ME3 and EA pushes it out the door to meet the deadline anyway. You'd think EA would learn from the past, but... I somehow doubt it.

Indeed, knowing EA it is likely they will attempt to push ME3 out as fast as possible ignoring the fact that the game may not be 100% ready.

I seen them do it to other games and it completely butchered the genre.

[Terror_K]

Of course CoD games actually have several different studios working on each one rather than just the one. For example, Infinity Ward did the two Modern Warfare titles while Treyarch did World at War and Black Ops. On top of that the single player campaigns are horribly short, particularly in the case of MW2. Most of the attention seems to go to the MP aspect, and even then they don't really change that much from CoD to CoD. MW2 for example had nothing that couldn't have been added to the original MW via a patch and/or additional tweaked modes.

[leeboi2]

ME3 won't be out until 2012...that's half a year less than the space between ME1 and 2, I don't see the problem...

[Chaos Gate]

AlexXIV wrote...

I liked ME2 just fine. They don't have to change anything 'cept for the story of course.

I personally consider Mass Effect 2 to be the most disappointing video game sequel that I have ever played. I hope that the third instalment sees the return of an epic sci fi adventure with a competent fusion of action and RPG elements, as in the first game, because it's so called successor was so stripped down it was nothing more than a dumb shooter with sex scenes.

[Terror_K]

Chaos Gate wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

I liked ME2 just fine. They don't have to change anything 'cept for the story of course.

I personally consider Mass Effect 2 to be the most disappointing video game sequel that I have ever played. I hope that the third instalment sees the return of an epic sci fi adventure with a competent fusion of action and RPG elements, as in the first game, because it's so called successor was so stripped down it was nothing more than a dumb shooter with sex scenes.

Agreed, though I've played worse sequels. Fade to Black for instance. Pretty much every Mortal Kombat after the first three. UT3 sucked compared to both predecessors. Modern Warfare 2 was pretty crap. Ditto on Master of Orion 3. Many of the X-Com (aka, UFO: Enemy Unknown) sequels sucked really bad. And of course, Deus Ex: Invisible War.

Ironically, despite that last example getting pretty much universally panned for dumbing things down too much, ME2 does pretty much the same thing but got praised for it instead. Signs of the changing times I suppose.

[Dionkey]

leeboi2 wrote...

ME3 won't be out until 2012...that's half a year less than the space between ME1 and 2, I don't see the problem...

2012? What? The trailer said holiday 2011 unless you have some kind of stock numbers we don't know about.

ME1-2: 2 years and 3 months
ME2-3: 2 years. They have the engine, that took around 1/4 to 1/2 of the dev time from ME2 to get that working correctly with everything, now that its done everything else is tweaks and real content, this won't be a barebones game I assure you.

[The Interloper]

They have been working on it since before ME3 came out, the story was probably already planned, as they said this is the third time they've done this....numerous factors in conjunction with a 2 year cycle, which is good enough already, and I don't see any reason to be especially worried here. They should push it back if they need too though.

[Covane]

I'm sure since they planned this as a trilogy at the beginning, that it wouldn't be that hard to release the game so soon.