616 réponses à ce sujet

[Shadowbanner]

Galad22 wrote...

Darth Death wrote...

They're not going to screw up so don't worry.

Why do you believe this so blindly?

I mean whatever one thinks of DA2 there were some claring faults there, so how can you believe that they will completely avoid those in ME3?

Although I do also find it hard to believe that they could mess ME3 that badly. Unless they try to change their direction completely like they did with DA2.

Well, I'm not Darth Death BUT I'll reply nonetheless.

DA2 has Mike Laidlaw as lead designer. Its actually someone else, David Silverman, marketing guy, but it could have been him saying that.

And Mass Effect 3 has Casey Hudson as lead designer.

'Nuff said.

Modifié par Shadowbanner, 05 mai 2011 - 05:32 .

[Therefore_I_Am]

aridor1570 wrote...

Therefore_I_Am wrote...

nelly21 wrote...

aridor1570 wrote...

Therefore_I_Am wrote...

Developing the ME series under EA is like sex with Kobe Bryant. You can kick and scream and say "NO!" all you want... but it's gonna happen.

The same can be said about DA:O and ME2, those two games marked with the all evil EA logo went pretty good.

Cue the, "EA HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT IT WAS DONE BEFORE THEY TOOK OVER AND NOW ALL THE GAMES ARE GUNNA SUCK!!!" response.

Thing is I agree aridor1570, because they were decent. But you can't deny that whenever EA becomes interested in a series, through a gradual descent, it turns into crap.

And yet... when I see the DA2 trailer videos and reviews going on ABOUT DA2 right now, you want to laugh and wonder if they are getting paid to say such positive things. On top of that, the DA2 following seems to be made up of hyperactive kids (for the majority) when looking at the DA2 comments on youtube and other forums. So if you voice your opinion on the mechanics the only response you get is being called a ****. *shrug* That's the type of fanbase it has attracted. I would be really dissapointed if ME3 follows suite.

But it wasn't the decision of EA to change the game, it was the DA team,people seem to forget that fact, the ME team ar'nt going to change the game, just adding some small mechanics and adding more RPG elemants, that might aswell what they meant with "Appeal to the greater market" might as well mean the RPG market, since ME2 is "Less of an RPG".

Oh I WISH they would lean more to an RPG market; to implement a fine balance in RPG/shooter.... but this is EA we're talking about. They like money. And everywhere you look there are shooter titles that have come out or are in production that makes certain publishers froth at the mouth. The company that Bioware answers to are their publishers, and I think that EA has the authority to axe Casey Hudson if they find out that he's not listening and going down his own route.

Modifié par Therefore_I_Am, 05 mai 2011 - 05:24 .

[Spooky81]

The very term "reaching out to a larger market" scares me.

This is what happens when a studio stops developing and creating for the passion and starts prioritizing for maximum profits. I have no doubt ME3 will be fantastic and I'll enjoy every moment of it, but the BioWare we've come to know and love for so long is transforming into EAWare.

The rpg elements in DA2 and ME2 have already been dumbed down or gutted out so much over their predecessors, it scares me to see EA still wanting to "reach out to a larger market". Sad to see one of the few remaining companies that can truly deliver an epic Fantasy/Sci FI experience lose it's identity just to satiate EA's hunger for profits and high sales figures. Rather than hold out, Bioware might as well go full speed ahead by throwing out all RPG elements and start making HALO/Gears of War/Call of Duty style shooters in order to hit the 5-10 million sales mark that EA wants so bad.

[didymos1120]

Galad22 wrote...

I hope you guys are correct. I really do.

However more depth is not generally what "for larger audiences" means.

So, you think that, as they've stated numerous times, the devs have been adding more depth in the form of weapon mods, new weapons, larger gameplay spaces with multiple floors, multiple evolutions to powers, class-specific melee, etc.  and now EA has extended the deadline just for the purpose of removing content? 

[Da Mecca]

But the thing is, RPGs DO make money.

Skyrim is probably the most anticipated game of the years, they moved the release date for that reason.

The Witcher 2 has everyone all kinds of hype, it will definitely sell

RPGs DO sell.

This could be the broader audience they are trying to reach.

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

Galad22 wrote...

Darth Death wrote...

Lizardviking wrote...

Aren't Bioware expanding upon the ME2 system? Sounds like they are actually adding depth instead of making it more shallow.

That's the big picture, I'm glad you grasp it. 

I hope you guys are correct. I really do.

However more depth is not generally what "for larger audiences" means.

I doubt most people will have a hard time grasping what sounds like a deeper version of COD's class creation system (Powers = perks, Weapon attachments = weapon attachments).

[nelly21]

didymos1120 wrote...

Galad22 wrote...

I hope you guys are correct. I really do.

However more depth is not generally what "for larger audiences" means.

So, you think that, as they've stated numerous times, the devs have been adding more depth in the form of weapon mods, new weapons, larger gameplay spaces with multiple floors, multiple evolutions to powers, class-specific melee, etc.  and now EA has extended the deadline just for the purpose of removing content? 

Of course, they are descending upon the offices of BioWare as we speak to annihilate all rpg components to the game. EA is run by evil hellspawn Hitler clones. I thought you knew this.

[Galad22]

didymos1120 wrote...

So, you think that, as they've stated numerous times, the devs have been adding more depth in the form of weapon mods, new weapons, larger gameplay spaces with multiple floors, multiple evolutions to powers, class-specific melee, etc.  and now EA has extended the deadline just for the purpose of removing content? 

If you say so. I do believe you, I haven't followed ME3 development that much. At all really.

I am just saying that "reaching out for larged market", has never ever meant that game would have more depth than it predecessor.

[Slayer299]

stonbw1 wrote...

I think you guys may be mistranslating the "broader audience" reference. To me, combat in ME2 was great, so why change it much? A better way to attract a "broader audience" is to make ME3 a stand alone game, not dependent on ME1 or ME2. From an investor's (read "old, rich folk's") perspective, the majority likely doesn't know anything about what a "shooter", "rpg", etc is.. Rather, they are concerned with the obvious: how do you get sales on a third installment? In theory, the sales would be less than the previous installments (which were not impressive compared to the big shooters), so how can we (investors) be confident this isn't a waste of money??
Broader audience = stand alone game.

The ME games are supposed to be both standalone and a continuation (In the case of 2 & 3). How would you make ME3 a standalone game only and justify that to the people who've been along with the series all this time? Because you're basically saying f*** you (you being Bioware) to everyone who's waiting to see what happens to their Shep, you're also pi**ing all potential revenue down the drain since people who play ME3 know it's a standalone game only, why bother buying ME/ME2.

Why would the sales be *less* on a franchise like ME2? It was insanely successful critically,succesful financially, what would keep it from continuing that with the last installment? ME2 was never going to compete with GoW or CoD or any of the pure MP shooters out there, it's a TPS/RPG, not a FPS so I do not understand your comparison.

edit - typo

Modifié par Slayer299, 05 mai 2011 - 05:32 .

[xSTONEYx187x]

candidate88766 wrote...

Ixalmaris wrote...

It means ME3 will become a disappointment as much as DA2 was.
Thanks Konsol Kiddies....

You do know Mass Effect was originally an Xbox 360 exclusive right?

http://news.teamxbox...fect-Announced/

People are quick to forget that. 

If they improve the TPS aspect to "appeal" to a larger audience, I see no problem. I just hope the promised richer RPG elements don't get overlooked and/or they don't decrease the dialouge/ineteraction to appeal to the hurr durr, blow stuff up, CoD heads. 

[Maro]

ME3 Deathmatch baby.

[Galad22]

nelly21 wrote...

Of course, they are descending upon the offices of BioWare as we speak to annihilate all rpg components to the game. EA is run by evil hellspawn Hitler clones. I thought you knew this.

Have you heard about Westwood perhaps? Ea bought westwood forced them to make crap, and when that crap didn't sell, ea killed them.

So EA is fairly notorious for messing up with their game developers.

[didymos1120]

Galad22 wrote...

I am just saying that "reaching out for larged market", has never ever meant that game would have more depth than it predecessor.

I don't think that and similar phrases actually mean much of anything.  Especially not in the context of a conference call about earnings with investors during which one of them asked the CEO:  "Hey, why is that game being delayed until after the holidays?"

[Placeholder1]

Well that is rather disconcerting to hear from EA's CEO hopefully it's just talk to calm investors despite my disappointment with ME2 I was willing to give Bioware one more chance with ME3 but if they plan on streamlining/dumbing down ME3 even more than it's predecessor well they just lost a sale guess we'll have to wait and see what happens.

At least I still have Skyrim to look forward to

[Galad22]

didymos1120 wrote...

I don't think that and similar phrases actually mean much of anything.  Especially not in the context of a conference call about earnings with investors during which one of them asked the CEO:  "Hey, why is that game being delayed until after the holidays?"

Same was said about DA2 and it meant much. Disappointment for me mostly.

But okay, you have more faith left than I do.

[Marta Rio]

Da Mecca wrote...

The big mistake I think developers make is when they TRY to go for a larger audience.

That's not gonna work, what you should do is TRY to make the best game you can make at the time, to make a vision become a reality.

Yeppp!  I'm honestly not sure what EA expects will happen, even if ME3 is pushed even further towards the "action" side of the "action-RPG" spectrum.  The kiddies who love Call of Duty are not going to be won over by slightly improved action elements, because the things that they don't want to sit through - story sequences without fighting, lots of dialogue, etc. - are still going to be there.  Also, ME3 is still going to be without multiplayer. 

Basically, the things that make the ME series great are turnoffs to the CoD crowd.  So unless EA plans to retool the game entirely, slightly tweaking it to appeal to that audience isn't going to have much of a payoff, as far as I can tell.

[Phaelducan]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

They are tweaking gameplay features to appeal to as many people as possible--RPG fans, shooter fans, hardcore followers of the ME series, and casual gamers. They probably needed more time, anyway, since the expectations for ME3 are through the roof.

Also, now they don't have to compete with Skyrim.

(Read as deeply into his statement as I could without going apesh*t.)

QFT. This is accurate. Lots of conjecture and pointless sky is falling posts. 

Skyrim alone is enough reason to bump the release date.

[nelly21]

Galad22 wrote...

nelly21 wrote...

Of course, they are descending upon the offices of BioWare as we speak to annihilate all rpg components to the game. EA is run by evil hellspawn Hitler clones. I thought you knew this.

Have you heard about Westwood perhaps? Ea bought westwood forced them to make crap, and when that crap didn't sell, ea killed them.

So EA is fairly notorious for messing up with their game developers.

Oh, I realize that EA has royally f***ed things up for a few developers in the past. I don't like EA for quite a few reasons. But in the last three or four years, they have still released very good games and from publications I've read, they are giving more control to devs to do their thing.

My point is that yeah, EA sucks, but they're not stupid. They know ME 3 is going to bring in big money. They like money. If they were busy dismantling the game, they would have moved the release date up, not back. EA has a crappy track record because they're run by old non-gamers. Some people (not saying you Galad) have this impression of EA that they meet in a dungeon and while twirling their mustaches, they plot to destroy Bioware. This isn't the case.

My case in point is that instead of assuming outcomes based on now 12 year old events, we should pay attention to the actual developement of the game.

Modifié par nelly21, 05 mai 2011 - 06:04 .

[Ixalmaris]

candidate88766 wrote...

Ixalmaris wrote...

It means ME3 will become a disappointment as much as DA2 was.
Thanks Konsol Kiddies....

You do know Mass Effect was originally an Xbox 360 exclusive right?

http://news.teamxbox...fect-Announced/

Doesn't change that for the KKs even the minimal RPG system in ME1 was apparently too complicated and that they demand more mindless shooter stuff.

[Jarlan23]

I know I'm going to get bashed for this, but I hope it does have mutiplayer. If it's going to be the last Mass Effect game that follows the story of Shepard then I want it to last a long time. Replaying the main story is great and all but having a good mutiplayer would be awesome. As long as it doesn't take away from developing the single player.

[KenKenpachi]

Galad22 wrote...

ianmcdonald wrote...

As a developer/artist/writer/actor/musician, why wouldn't you want to share your project with as many people as possible?

You people need to stop being so dramatic. If it matters that much to you, make your own video games and only market them to a small, specific group of people and see how long you can afford to do that.

Indie developers get by just fine.

Amnesia dark descent, very succesfull for horror fans.
Recettear, very succesfull, dunno who it was marketed though.
Or minecraft. it has propably sold more than DA2 with only 1 developer, not exactly mass market game that one either.

Its never been a large market however and short of in the hands od Indy Gamers never makes it far, hell I tend to keep up with gaming news and I never heard of two of those three. Indy games never make it to being big hitters hardly, and ME with its plans to make a trilogy and all of those other options would have never made it past One Million sales on its own. Most Indy companies stay small for good, get bought up, or Die. There is no huge mega indie devs.. Period. Hell even the Majong Team can't be called Indie anymore. Millions of copies of there games are on PC's. Its a mega corp now.

And I'm not worried, haters are going to hate, and EA isn't out to ****** on us. EA doesn't care about us, but they don't hate us either. We are a sales figure and I trust bio will bring back more RPG elements, and improve on thee shooting mechanics, build a meld of ME-1 and ME-2. From some of these topics I think alot of people who are pissed at Bio are pissed at EA.

ME:3 could be a pure grade A Catering platter for RPG fantics and have a more RPG elements or as many as ME:1 (some of which were redundant) and it would still get hated on given it has EA on the box.

Ixalmaris wrote...
Doesn't change that for the KKs even the minimal RPG system in ME1 was apparently too complicated and that they demand more mindless shooter stuff.

As a Member of the KK, I'ld like to say your full of ****.  I've played RPG's for years, and I enjoyed ME-1 and didn't find it hard, however it went overboard in too many aspects. Had too many stats (as a Soldier do I really need 4 stats to control my HP?) for redundant roles. Weapon custimization was nice but bullet powers should really have been class or weapon type based, and part of the power/level wheel. Overall it smacked of lets add as many pointless stats as we can to make the modern D&D crowd happy. Hell even too many weapons and loot, I had no problem on every run maxing my credits, something that should rarely happen, if at all.

On the other hand ME-2 DID take away too much. ME:3 I'm hoping will be a mix of the two, and have more traditional RPG elements. And I would like to see a return to armor customizations in some form with my team mates. And for the shooter aspects to be ironed out.
 
But what am I saying I'm just a retarded 360 player *sarc*

Modifié par KenKenpachi, 05 mai 2011 - 06:11 .

[Nekator]

Well.. seems like EA/Bio has learned nothing at all from the beat down DA2 caused... sad thing. I would have liked for Mass Effect to get a good ending of the story. Now it seems it will be as casualized as DA2.

[didymos1120]

Galad22 wrote...

Same was said about DA2 and it meant much. Disappointment for me mostly.

But okay, you have more faith left than I do.

It's nothing to do with faith.  It's that I don't have anything remotely concrete to go on in that statement.  Vague PR-speak aimed at mollifying and reassuring investors just isn't very informative as a rule.  I'll go with what I do know, which is what the devs have said.  When E3 comes around and we get to see some actual game, I'll know more. 

[nelly21]

Ixalmaris wrote...

Doesn't change that for the KKs even the minimal RPG system in ME1 was apparently too complicated and that they demand more mindless shooter stuff.

I love it when people mispell words to accuse others of stupidity.

[stonbw1]

Slayer299 wrote...

stonbw1 wrote...

I think you guys may be mistranslating the "broader audience" reference. To me, combat in ME2 was great, so why change it much? A better way to attract a "broader audience" is to make ME3 a stand alone game, not dependent on ME1 or ME2. From an investor's (read "old, rich folk's") perspective, the majority likely doesn't know anything about what a "shooter", "rpg", etc is.. Rather, they are concerned with the obvious: how do you get sales on a third installment? In theory, the sales would be less than the previous installments (which were not impressive compared to the big shooters), so how can we (investors) be confident this isn't a waste of money??
Broader audience = stand alone game.

The ME games are supposed to be both standalone and a continuation (In the case of 2 & 3). How would you make ME3 a standalone game only and justify that to the people who've been along with the series all this time? Because you're basically saying f*** you (you being Bioware) to everyone who's waiting to see what happens to their Shep, you're also pi**ing all potential revenue down the drain since people who play ME3 know it's a standalone game only, why bother buying ME/ME2.

Why would the sales be *less* on a franchise like ME2? It was insanely successful critically,succesful financially, what would keep it from continuing that with the last installment? ME2 was never going to compete with GoW or CoD or any of the pure MP shooters out there, it's a TPS/RPG, not a FPS so I do not understand your comparison.

edit - typo

I agree 100% about the slap in the face, but I also recall many ME1 gamers complaining on here that all their hard work on ME1 didn't carry over, except those dumb emails. Hell, for PS3 players, ME2 is totally standalone.  My great concern is that this stated "broader audience" goal doesn't mean less RPG, rather, less carryover effect from imports.  Just more emails or some faint nod to the loyal BW gamers.

I know your point re the bad comparison, but you have to take yourself out of your shoes and put it in the shoes of an EA investor: they don't know what the abbreviations "TPS/RPG/FPS" stand for.  They just know that Modern Warfare is a video game that it sold a lot more copies than ME2.  Their primary concern is how to drive ME2 sales numbers up, period.  The logical answer is to bring new gamers in, which in my opinion, doesn't mean make it more shooterific, rather it means dispel the fears that an unfamiliar gamer may have that they won't "get it because I didn't play the first two".  I don't like my theory one bit, but it makes the most sense under the context.