133 réponses à ce sujet

[Dexi]

Let's make this thread 100 pages so we make sure someone sees it.

[88mphSlayer]

no love for the prefabs? would be funny if the game is like... unbelievably polished and detailed, but one of the planets you land on is nothing but prefabs

[Possessedkitten]

I agree. ME3 should defineitely not be rushed. Release it in 2012 (than I wont have to decide between ME3 and Skyrim).

[Ahriman]

Everyone here is blaming Evil and Avaricious, but don't you think that DA team is responsible as well? EA is interested in good sales. Rushing and ruining development process isn't best decision if you want game to sell well.

Still all this situation is a sign for Bioware to stop and think where are they going. At some point further simplification only scares customers away.

BTW I just wont count DA2 as Bioware game and keep my image of Bioware clean.

[Pwener2313]

ME3 has been in development for 2 years now (december 2009). Where all these haters coming from!?

[CroGamer002]

[Undertone]

Wizz wrote...

Everyone here is blaming Evil and Avaricious, but don't you think that DA team is responsible as well? EA is interested in good sales. Rushing and ruining development process isn't best decision if you want game to sell well.

Still all this situation is a sign for Bioware to stop and think where are they going. At some point further simplification only scares customers away.

BTW I just wont count DA2 as Bioware game and keep my image of Bioware clean.

My thoughts exactly.

Also good thread.

[Vengeance of the Grave]

TOO LATE HAHAHAHAAAAAAAAA

[AdmiralCheez]

Vengeance of the Grave wrote...

TOO LATE HAHAHAHAAAAAAAAA

Has it been released yet?

No?

Well, then.

[Pwener2313]

This thread is a little pointless. What does everyone want, a release date in scope to Bethesda's? Man, I sure hope not....

[Gatt9]

@OP

I'm with you on the general theory of your post, that games should be given the time they need to be developed fully.

Sadly, I don't think you're familiar with EA. EA's not interested in making a good game, they're interested in making alot of sales. EA believes the best way to do so is to release sequels very rapidly, usually once a year. EA's not real worried about the comprimises in quality. Hence the flood of The Sims, a new Need for Speed each year, DA2, ME3. T

They knew full well DA2 wasn't a great game, they wanted an action game with low RPG elements and made as easy as possible, in order to capatilize on DAO's popularity and try to pull in "Mass market!". To put it in perspective, DAO sold better than ME and ME2, and probably almost as well as both combined, and this is how they treated the series.

That's exactly what they'll do here. Put together something that works and push it out the door as fast as possible hoping people will buy it because of the name.

If you'd like some reading on the topic, I'd suggest reading about the following: Westwood Studios, Ultima 9, Populous: The Begining, Simcity Societies. In a nutshell, they're all games EA mandated to be made a specific way that was drastically different from the originals that were incredibly popular. Westwood fell victim to EA's early 2000's rule of "Only MMO games should be made from now on", and were forced to develop and release "Earth & Beyond" too early, Rolling up Westwood immediately after it sank.

EA's last 10 years are not conduicive to developing good games if you're a subsidiary. Partners fare better.

[eldav]

I read in Kotaku that the composer for the da2 felt that he was being rushed to do his job, says alot about the game.

[eldav]

also my personal opinion is that ME2 was rushed

[Fiery Phoenix]

Gatt9 wrote...

@OP

I'm with you on the general theory of your post, that games should be given the time they need to be developed fully.

Sadly, I don't think you're familiar with EA. EA's not interested in making a good game, they're interested in making alot of sales. EA believes the best way to do so is to release sequels very rapidly, usually once a year. EA's not real worried about the comprimises in quality. Hence the flood of The Sims, a new Need for Speed each year, DA2, ME3. T

They knew full well DA2 wasn't a great game, they wanted an action game with low RPG elements and made as easy as possible, in order to capatilize on DAO's popularity and try to pull in "Mass market!". To put it in perspective, DAO sold better than ME and ME2, and probably almost as well as both combined, and this is how they treated the series.

That's exactly what they'll do here. Put together something that works and push it out the door as fast as possible hoping people will buy it because of the name.

If you'd like some reading on the topic, I'd suggest reading about the following: Westwood Studios, Ultima 9, Populous: The Begining, Simcity Societies. In a nutshell, they're all games EA mandated to be made a specific way that was drastically different from the originals that were incredibly popular. Westwood fell victim to EA's early 2000's rule of "Only MMO games should be made from now on", and were forced to develop and release "Earth & Beyond" too early, Rolling up Westwood immediately after it sank.

EA's last 10 years are not conduicive to developing good games if you're a subsidiary. Partners fare better.

It makes me sick to the stomach to imagine BioWare ending up like Westwood Studios at some point.

[Mister Mida]

If you're asking EA to postpone ME3 I have one thing to say: don't count on it. Whether it's finished or not, ME3 will have been released by the end of the year.

[Vena_86]

I totally agree. But I think it's too late already.
Since EA became BioWares master, suddenly their games appeared rushed, simplified and aimed towards an already oversaturated market. I have not played DA2 (just the demo) but really...I was shocked when DA2 was revealed. I was like "ALREADY?!"
And now some of the biggest complains are that the game feels unfinished, unpolished, lacks epicness and has extremely unspectacular, repetative environments...all signs of too little development time.
It took years before the Need For Speed franchise recovered from a very similar strategy, just as an example.

I see producers with dollar signs in their eyes that try to milk a franchise to it's death when it appears to be popular.

Modifié par Vena_86, 11 mars 2011 - 09:37 .

[Capt_Flashheart]

eldav wrote...

also my personal opinion is that ME2 was rushed

I after playing the PS3 version I disagree, although admittedlly it had alot of free DLC and bonus on-disk content.  PS3 users might be more disapointed than the PC or Xbox users because they are used to having all the extra stuff from the start.

Modifié par Capt_Flashheart, 11 mars 2011 - 09:58 .

[CannotCompute]

ME2 felt rushed. The final part of the trilogy should be the best it can be - Shep & co deserve a grand finale.

[Fiery Phoenix]

Dragon Age II composer says EA pushed hard to release the game, thus rushing the score.

[Lumikki]

I agree.

One of the biggest problem what developers could do for they product is cut corners, because has to publish game too soon. This Mass Effect 3 is last game and story about Shepard, why not do it as well you can. Yeah, I know some stuff aren't really worth of money, but it still shows in the game when we play it as has developers love the work they made.

The small details does matter too.

Modifié par Lumikki, 11 mars 2011 - 10:33 .

[InvaderErl]

eldav wrote...

also my personal opinion is that ME2 was rushed

I always kind of figured Mass Effect 1 was clearly rushed. Areas being reused, Therum being cut and then scavenged for Liara's fairly short mission. Inconsistent framerate, texture pop-ins were pretty bad. I mean consider if you were to cut out every part of ME1 that was comprised of the cut and paste dungeons and think about what's left when you've got strictly unique content. 13-15 hours of gameplay? I remember Christina Norman talking and saying something to the effect of that they sort of figured out what kind of game they had made along with everyone else because of the tight development cycle.

ME2 delivers about 30-33 hours of original content after you cut out the mining minigame in terms of original level construction, polished cutscenes and such.

I mean look at it this way ME1 came out in Nov for the Holiday season and ME2 came out in Jan. If EA was rushing them out the door it makes more sense that ME2 would have been released during Dec.

That being said I definitely hope ME3 doesn't get rushed out the door. I don't think we really need to worry about what happened to DA2. It was clear that they tried to redesign their gameplay core and visual look within a limited amount of time and ended up biting off more than they could chew. The ME crew have already locked down their gameplay and technical stuff, that work is pretty much out of the way it seems.

Modifié par InvaderErl, 11 mars 2011 - 11:40 .

[Jebel Krong]

InvaderErl wrote...

eldav wrote...

also my personal opinion is that ME2 was rushed

I always kind of figured Mass Effect 1 was clearly rushed. Areas being reused, Therum being cut and then scavenged for Liara's fairly short mission. Inconsistent framerate, texture pop-ins were pretty bad. I mean consider if you were to cut out every part of ME1 that was comprised of the cut and paste dungeons and think about what's left when you've got strictly unique content. 13-15 hours of gameplay?

ME2 delivers about 30-33 hours of original content after you cut out the mining minigame in terms of original level construction, polished cutscenes and such.

I mean look at it this way ME1 was clearly missing some thing and it came out in Nov for the Holiday season and ME2 came out in Jan. If EA was rushing them out the door it makes more sense that ME2 would have been released during Dec.

That being said I definitely hope ME3 doesn't get rushed out the door. I don't think we really need to worry about what happened to DA2. It was clear that they tried to redesign their gameplay core and visual look within a limited amount of time and ended up biting off more than they could chew. The ME crew have already locked down their gameplay and technical stuff, that work is pretty much out of the way it seems.

the problem with me1 (and all early UE3 games) was that the engine wasn't good or properly documented back then. plus they spent a lot of time prototyping the game, so the actual development of the final design occurred in the final year/year-and-a-half of development - go back and look at all the previews and you'll see what i mean. so, yes in a way it was rushed, but only because so much time was spent putting all the technical pieces together it left little for the UNCs etc.

[InvaderErl]

Yeah its clear there was a difficult development cycle. I get the impression from the Alpha trailer that they had planned something much bigger and as they were figuring out the engine and such they had to keep making compromises. I mean that early galaxy map is still the best out of the 2 versions we've recieved and I remember some really great dynamic lighting when Shepard was at Flux.

Modifié par InvaderErl, 11 mars 2011 - 11:43 .

[Babli]

Silly you, EA cares not.

People are buying game, they got their money. Mission accomplished.

[Dem_B]

I fully support this message.

Good words.

It's very inspiring, when there are people who want to help, want to show that many people are willing to wait.

Mass effect for me is not just a game - it is one of the most unbelievable stories, this is my adventure, my journey.

Always after the end of the great story remains a sadness. It is sad because the journey is over, and the story came to an end. But with this sadness there is a sense of inspiration, because you were part of story, you have passed this way.
I hope and sincerely believe that I will be sad when I'll put a dot in my history of Mass Effect.

Those who care about this incredible story must support this message and maybe we will change.