177 réponses à ce sujet

[Chala]

What if BW needs more time to make the same thing that Obsidian made with Fallout: New Vegas? I mean, adding a "hardcore" option in the game for those who wants a more rpg experience.
So with this option they take care of both type of players...
It's just an idea

[Apollo Starflare]

I honestly can't believe so many people are taking that investor talk not only seriously, but skewing it to mean exactly what they want (to fear) it to mean.

JR always speaks that way in these talks, the only worthwhile info that comes out of them is the release date, and usually that is just a loose fiscal quarter date.

I'm going to trust the initial interviews over this every time. You know why? Not because I'm a BioWare fanboy (or whatever we are being called thesedays) but because it just makes more sense from a marketing perspective. Do you know how many members of this 'larger market' (or, people not currently into the franchise/casual gamers) follow EA -investor- talks? I'll give you a hint: Not very many.

In fact I think you will find the best way to reach these gamers is to plug your product in popular magazines and websites. As such you would be plugging the things THEY want to hear as a priority, and needless to say that would include the fact the game is aimed more at the CoD/GoW crowd or whatever.

Instead we got told they hadn't forgotten their main fabase, there was a massive focus on it being the end in a trilogy which a lot of people already love or otherwise enjoy, and lastly the quotes about there being more RPG elements.

It seems lately however that BioWare games are getting a lot of blind, reactionary flak from certain groups. The funny thing is it was happening even before DA2 came out.

[Shadowbanner]

nelly21 wrote...

Shadowbanner wrote...

Blah, Blah, Blah

Shadow

Why in the name of Zeus's butthole would EA throw ME up against CoD when they have Battlefield coming down the pipe? They are different genres. It makes no sense outside of the parallel universe rpg elitists exist in where every game company is out to get them. EA sucks. But they aren't idiots. They know what they have in ME and they know what they have in Bioware.

You can cite DA 2 until you're blue in the face and it won't make the argument any better. DA 2 was the direction Mike Laidlaw wanted to take the franchise in (I'm glad, I quite enjoyed DA 2). ME is going in the direction Casey Hudson wants to take it in.

You are reinforcing my argument.

Because EA has BF3 they push ME3, which is now a shooter, forward to the next year. EA aren't stupid. They are already gearing up all the hype for BF3, they want it so badly to succeeed agaisnt COD.

So they are not going to slip up adding yet another Shooter in the same windowframe (ME3). So they push it forward. Makes sense from a commercial point of view only if...ME3 is a Shooter, not if it's an RPG (different genre from BF3 and CoD).

But ME3 isn't meant to be a shooter, its a freaking RPG for God's sake. ME2 was already stripped bare of many RPG elements from ME1. Sure many of the streamlining actually made the gameplAy more enjoyable, granted (i.e. removal of Mako missions, re-used environments in side quests, in-game inventory clutter, lifts etc.). BUT they also removed core RPG elements that detracted from fun: inventory tinkering, removal of wide array of weaponry, removal of armor selection, payload etc.

So its most understandable, imo, that when EAs top boss, no less, comes out and spouts such a line it makes me, and a legion of other gamers, nervous. Because it basically contradicts all that Casey told us in Gameinformer's interview (adding more RPG elements in a wink to ME1 lovers). JR clearly adds he wants ME3 to be more of a shooter.

Modifié par Shadowbanner, 06 mai 2011 - 02:07 .

[Smilietime]

They are ADDING TO THE SHOOTING. They make combat faster. They are also adding to the RPG, making it a true hybrid.

One big problem, is Rickitello talking to shareholders. Investers only care about money (as far as games are concerned). All they care about, is that ME2 was VERY highly rated, and sold VERY well. Every company spins everything that they are doing to their investers.

You do NOT HAVE EVERY REASON TO BE CONCERNED. You have been corrected by several people. Look at the GameInformer article, about adding RPG. Look at Christina Norman's Twitter post...

[Dave666]

I have my own thoughts on this subject, but this is a thread about the fanbase and as such is against the Terms and Conditions.

[didymos1120]

Wizz wrote...

Shadowbanner wrote...
They are no longer independent.

They never were. Bioware belonged to another company before EA.

No they were until about 2005, when they partnered with Pandemic and were being funded by a holding corporation.  Of course, they were a mainstream studio before then, in the sense that they were doing licensed games and getting funding from publishers like Lucasarts, MGS and Interplay, so them being "independent" doesn't really equate to independent in some absolute sense.

[Maria Caliban]

Smilietime wrote...

Anyone else dissapointed RPG players need to be treated like children?!

Do RPG players have a hidden well of maturity that other gamers don't have access to? Or, when I think about it, all the other humans online?

People + Internet = Childish (at best!)

But I see no reason to be especially disappointed when it comes to RPG players.

[Shadowbanner]

leonia42 wrote...

Shadowbanner wrote...

JKoopman wrote...

"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."

What BioWare says and what BioWare does are two entirely different things...

It doesn't matter whar BioWare says any longer.

BW = EA

BioWare will do as they are told by their OWNERS, EA, just like Westwood, Pandemic and so many others before them. They are no longer independent.

EA rules, period, overiding anything BW says.

You do realise what other games are sporting the EA logo right?

*looks at her copies of ME1 and ME2*

Yep.

And? Your point being exactly ...what?

Don't know about you, but for the life of me I cannot see EAs logo on my ME1 copy. But if you tell me that yours has it I'll take your word. When EA took over BioWare, EA changed the IP as in ME2 stripping off RPG elements. Capisce?

They say they want these games released on an annual basis and they want them to play more like shooters (where the dosh is). They are saying they will consolidate this trend and make it even deeper. JR in fact says that ME2 tried it in ahalf-hearted manner, whereas in ME3 we will see it done more decisevely. That doesn't spell out well for RPG-lovers. And I'm not an elite PC RPG elitist. I'm a console-player.

AFAIK BioWare does RPGs not Shooters, and that's what they are renowned for the world over. Maybe I'm mistaken.

Kane & Lynch and DA2 also bear the EA logo. Hugely successful games....not.

Modifié par Shadowbanner, 06 mai 2011 - 02:20 .

[Smilietime]

Dave666 wrote...

I have my own thoughts on this subject, but this is a thread about the fanbase and as such is against the Terms and Conditions.

This is about the game, and what people think about the game. Might as well continue discussing, unless the authorities decide that this should be locked. I've seen lots of good debate.

Maria Caliban wrote...

People + Internet = Childish (at best!)

But I see no reason to be especially disappointed when it comes to RPG players.

LOL I can see your logic. It is the internetz after all. I am dissapointed, though.

Modifié par Smilietime, 06 mai 2011 - 02:14 .

[Leonia]

Shadowbanner wrote...

And? Your point being exactly ...what?

They say they want these games released on an annual basis and they want them to play more like shooters (where the dosh is).

Kane & Lynch and DA2 also bear the EA logo. Hugely successful games....not.

Point is, if you enjoyed ME1 and ME2, why are you worried about ME3? Casey Hudson is still the Lead Designer here. Those other games? Not designed by Casey Hudson. EA is the publisher, not the designer.

[wraith_05]

If being a child nets me some Tali romance in ME3, you bet I'll crap my pants and expect you to change it!

[Severyx]

El_Chala_Legalizado wrote...

What if BW needs more time to make the same thing that Obsidian made with Fallout: New Vegas? I mean, adding a "hardcore" option in the game for those who wants a more rpg experience.
So with this option they take care of both type of players...
It's just an idea

NOW THAT'S AN ENTICING THOUGHT!

Mass Effect 3: Hardcore mode. That toilet in the Captain's quarters? Get used to it being your best friend.

Hardcore Hunger: You have to wait between missions if you use biotics because you need to have a nap and a meal. Make sure you get those extra daily recommended biotic calories!

Thought the hacking minigame in ME2 was bad? Wait until you try HARDCORE HACKING. You've never seen so many microscopic electronics in your life!

Hardcore mode forgoes the silly automatic system of gaining resources. Now you have to visit refineries to use your collected resources!

Ever wonder what using an omni-tool is like? In Hardcore mode, you get to find out! The codex comes built in with a 45-hour tutorial on programming, too!

Alien sex? PSHAW! Hardcore mode understands the silliness of inter-species relations! You can kiss Tali and Garrus goodbye, but in a hardcore, non-romantic way!

Whip your crew into shape, the hardcore way! A minigame unique to hardcore mode, you get to make sure all of the ship's hands are doing their jobs? Catch a slacker? Give him what for! A verbal coaching for you paragons, and what about renegades? A beat-down always teaches a serviceman how to handle that propulsion!

And how can we forget: Calibrations. If you think the crew can handle them all, you're wrong. Hardcore wrong. In hardcore mode, you can show Garrus how calibrations are really done.

Also, we made guns less accurate, shields useless and made sure tripping was a possibility. What kind of human runs along kilometers of uneven ground without losing their footing ONCE? Frustrated? Blame it on a bad agility roll!

[didymos1120]

JKoopman wrote...

I would be shocked and amazed if the EA logo was on your ME1 box seeing as it was published by Microsoft and released before BioWare was purchased by EA.

Unless of course it's a box for the PC version.  And actually, the EA buyout was a done deal before ME1 released.  It was just the final regulatory approval that happened after the game released.  But yes, ME1 was developed pre-EA.

Modifié par didymos1120, 06 mai 2011 - 02:16 .

[Smilietime]

leonia42 wrote...

Point is, if you enjoyed ME1 and ME2, why are you worried about ME3? Casey Hudson is still the Lead Designer here. Those other games? Not designed by Casey Hudson. EA is the publisher, not the designer.

This is good.

I don't want anyone thinking that I'm defending EA, in fact, it looks like Bioware is influencing EA more than Ea is influencing Bioware *caugh*vice presidents*caugh*. I don't like their "no such thing as bad publicity" ad campaigns, they should stick with that magazine article that was talked about on the one Extra Credit video...I'm defending that if you liked Mass Effect, and Mass Effect 2, that Mass effect 3 will be the best to come, in one way or another.

Modifié par Smilietime, 06 mai 2011 - 02:22 .

[Mr.House]

leonia42 wrote...
You do realise what other games are sporting the EA logo right?

*looks at her copies of ME1 and ME2*

Yep.

You do relise ME and DAO where completed before Bioware was bought from EA yes? The PC version of ME was a port and DAO was delayed a year for the ocnsole ports, those two games where done before EA was bought, now
let's look at ME2, which was in dev with EA in charge, I see a big diffrence in quality and attitude.

Modifié par Mr.House, 06 mai 2011 - 02:21 .

[Leonia]

Yes I am aware of that. I'm also aware that EA has very little to do with the DEVELOPMENT process.

[Mr.House]

leonia42 wrote...

Yes I am aware of that. I'm also aware that EA has very little to do with the DEVELOPMENT process.

They are in charge of Bioware, if they want something done, Bioware devs have to do it or they will be fired, likle it or not. Look at tghe DA team, Gaider didn't like the short dev he had to write the game but to keep his job, he did what he could. That's what you have to do. If EA wants ME3 to be for the CoD crowd, then Bioware will do that so these people have there jobs.

[JKoopman]

Someone With Mass wrote...

JKoopman wrote...
FYI I don't believe that telling people to "shut up and chill" is going to net you the desired response.

No one is preventing you from posting optimistic threads about ME3 until you're blue in the face, so don't try to tell people they can't be skeptical or pessimistic when frankly we have every reason to be so.

The fact that BioWare themselves said things that contradicts everything that people are worrying about, but still are whining about it, as if the aforementioned comments were never made makes it all so laughably stupid.

What has BioWare said? They've said that the RPG aspects of ME3 will be improved. OK. That can mean a lot of different things depending on what "aspects" they're referring to and what their definition of "RPG" is.

On the other hand, we then have their boss stating that ME3 will be more action-focused and "adjusted to address a larger market opportunity" (aka "dumbed down" CoD drivel) which completely contradicts BioWare's prior assurances AND virtually every piece of info that's come down the pipe so far and since then has suggested that RPG elements are continuing to be removed or re-focused more on action and combat.

"We're going to strip out every non-combat skill and stat because anything not pertaining to combat is 'meaningless' but don't worry because the RPG aspects will TOTALLY be improved!"

"We're going to re-focus more on action and shooting in order to target a larger common market base, but don't worry because the RPG aspects will TOTALLY be richer and more complex!"

"Every class now has their own unique melee attacks and you'll now be picking up and using fallen weapons in the field ala Gears of War, but don't worry because we're still TOTALLY focused on enriching the RPG experience!"

So I have to ask, what EXACTLY is being "improved" about the RPG half of the game? All we've heard so far is how the combat and action is being amped up and how more and more RPG mechanics are seemingly being removed or reconfigured to better suit the combat and we haven't heard word one about any actual, definitive improvements to the RPG system.

Again, talk is cheap.

Modifié par JKoopman, 06 mai 2011 - 02:34 .

[Leonia]

Yes but you are acting like they are pulling every string and they are not. The same arguments were made before DA2 came out. "Oh EA is evil and controlling Bioware, we're doomed" But ya'll are putting too much stock into just how involved EA is in the process.

[Shadowbanner]

Smilietime wrote...

They are ADDING TO THE SHOOTING. They make combat faster. They are also adding to the RPG, making it a true hybrid.

One big problem, is Rickitello talking to shareholders. Investers only care about money (as far as games are concerned). All they care about, is that ME2 was VERY highly rated, and sold VERY well. Every company spins everything that they are doing to their investers.

You do NOT HAVE EVERY REASON TO BE CONCERNED. You have been corrected by several people. Look at the GameInformer article, about adding RPG. Look at Christina Norman's Twitter post...

I haven't been corrected.

In the first line of my first post I already acknowledge having watched Casey Hudson's Gameinformer's interviews saying more RPG elements would be added. Please re-read my post. I found the news very, very welcome.

[Smilietime]

leonia42 wrote...

Yes I am aware of that. I'm also aware that EA has very little to do with the DEVELOPMENT process.

Yep. They let Bioware keep the IP. Bioware staff become VPs, still being CEO etc for their branch.

Modifié par Smilietime, 06 mai 2011 - 02:28 .

[Mr.House]

Uh seeing as they are the ones that wanted to rush DA2, yes they can be blamed most for DA2, the rest Mike. We have proof in the past, including the many companies that EA drove to the ground that EA tries to make companies make games that influence the CoD crowd and fail hard at it.

[Mr.House]

Smilietime wrote...

leonia42 wrote...

Yes I am aware of that. I'm also aware that EA has very little to do with the DEVELOPMENT process.

Yep. People who disagree, should really read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publisher

Say that to DA2 and ME2.

[Shadowbanner]

leonia42 wrote...

Shadowbanner wrote...

And? Your point being exactly ...what?

They say they want these games released on an annual basis and they want them to play more like shooters (where the dosh is).

Kane & Lynch and DA2 also bear the EA logo. Hugely successful games....not.

Point is, if you enjoyed ME1 and ME2, why are you worried about ME3? Casey Hudson is still the Lead Designer here. Those other games? Not designed by Casey Hudson. EA is the publisher, not the designer.

ME1 was NOT an EA game.

EA took over on ME2, when the BIG changes removing RPG elements started to happen.

If you misquote me and delete where I explain this...then we are unable to reason.

[Leonia]

Don't you think they already learned from that mistake? Why would they create another pure shooter to compete with one they have already made?

Look, I hate looking like an EA supporter here (because I'm not), but they are not the source of every problem here either. It's always fun to blame the big-bad-evil corporation that only sees a profit margin but that doesn't mean they are fully responsible for everything.

I'm also tired of the "DA2 sucked so ME3 will follow the same routine" arguments. Different teams, different franchises. FWIW, I quit enjoye DA2 and the changes that were made to Origins so there you go.