204 réponses à ce sujet

[Aesieru]

He's very... insulting but he hasn't insulted a good game just yet...

[Teredan]

Aesieru wrote...

He's very... insulting but he hasn't insulted a good game just yet...

I wouldn't call it insulting as much as harsh criticism .
And yeah he was harsh on portal2, mortal kombat and minecraft. Games I would call anything but bad

[FiachSidhe]

Zeevico wrote...

Stanley Woo wrote...

I am curious as to just why these reviews are the "must see," while others are not. Or is this another case of assuming we only listen to or read positive reviews?

Yes. In fairness, you changed the entire game from top to bottom. It wasn't a bad game to begin with. Many people liked it a lot. And you ("Bioware") changed it. To them the changes are for drastic. They're not necessarily improvements. Ergo Bioware ruined RPG games forever. Like the Mohicans, DAO was the last of the RPGs. Viola. See? Magic.

One upset fanbase please-- and make it a big one! (Just kidding--if this fanbase were big you wouldn't have tried to make the game more welcoming.)

Anyway, I'm done with platitudes and generalities. Best of luck in all future endeavours. I hope your games are great and that many people enjoy them. Me? I guess I'll wait for the RPGCodex review. I don't like the scornful attitude sometimes expressed there--frankly I don't like that I sometimes have the same attitude about what is, after all, a game, but their gaming tastes are similar to mine.

No they didn't change the game "from top to bottom". 
Stop
pretending your disapointment, no matter how shared, is the "fanbase" opinion. Stop using logic that results in the accusation of being "less welcoming",
when so many people gripe about the game opening itself up to console
players.

I'm part of the fanbase, and I wasn't upset. You see, I figured
the Origins game was as big as it was, because it needed to lay down
the foundation for the entire series, and that only a compete fool would
expect a five year development cycle for every subsequent game.

You're going to go to RPGCodex for a less scornful review? Good luck. That place is nothing but hermits perpetualy on their period.

[Stanley Woo]

Shirosaki, FiachSidhe, please take your bickering to private, or agree to disagree and move on.

[FiachSidhe]

Teredan wrote...

FiachSidhe wrote...

Didn't you know games are smarter when they're on a PC. When a game is ported to PC, it get's smarter. When it gets ported to consoles it gets dumber. If you make combat less complicated, it's dumb. The more convoluted the game play, the smarter the person is, who chooses to play (slog through) it.

I love Zero Punctuation's review of the Witcher. It pretty much nails PC elitists for being far too full of themselves over something as stupid as a video game. Which also relates directly to much of the hate over DA2.
www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/22-The-Witcher

About 50 seconds in.
"If disliking this sort of ****, makes me stupid, then call me Retard McSmackypants, but I'd rather be stupid and having fun, than being bored out of my huge genius mind"

I agree I like zero punctuation too, but my advice to quote him to support any kind of argument that you might have is a poor move. zero punctuation rants(or rather hyperboling the bad points) about every game no matter how good it is but in a very entertaining way in my opinion.

I mean just look at his DA2 review http://www.escapistm...8-Dragon-Age-II .

I've seen it already. I was merely pointing to a person who explained my feelings on the concept of PC elitism as it pertained to "dumbing games" down.

[Teredan]

FiachSidhe wrote...

Zeevico wrote...

Stanley Woo wrote...

I am curious as to just why these reviews are the "must see," while others are not. Or is this another case of assuming we only listen to or read positive reviews?

Yes. In fairness, you changed the entire game from top to bottom. It wasn't a bad game to begin with. Many people liked it a lot. And you ("Bioware") changed it. To them the changes are for drastic. They're not necessarily improvements. Ergo Bioware ruined RPG games forever. Like the Mohicans, DAO was the last of the RPGs. Viola. See? Magic.

One upset fanbase please-- and make it a big one! (Just kidding--if this fanbase were big you wouldn't have tried to make the game more welcoming.)

Anyway, I'm done with platitudes and generalities. Best of luck in all future endeavours. I hope your games are great and that many people enjoy them. Me? I guess I'll wait for the RPGCodex review. I don't like the scornful attitude sometimes expressed there--frankly I don't like that I sometimes have the same attitude about what is, after all, a game, but their gaming tastes are similar to mine.

No they didn't change the game "from top to bottom". 
Stop
pretending your disapointment, no matter how shared, is the "fanbase" opinion. Stop using logic that results in the accusation of being "less welcoming",
when so many people gripe about the game opening itself up to console
players.

I'm part of the fanbase, and I wasn't upset. You see, I figured
the Origins game was as big as it was, because it needed to lay down
the foundation for the entire series, and that only a compete fool would
expect a five year development cycle for every subsequent game.

You're going to go to RPGCodex for a less scornful review? Good luck. That place is nothing but hermits perpetualy on their period.

why? A lot of aaa studios that make fantastic games are doing just that. 4-5 year development cycles. Rockstar, bethesda, blizzard is even stretching it even further!(though not an entirely good thing).
I don't think that I deserve to be called a fool only because I believed they would take all the time they need.
It's obvious they didn't, I mean how do you explain enviromental reuse additionally to having the game taking place only in one major location(those 2 design choices don't mesh well). How do you explain a dead city when we already had ones brimming full of life around 2000(arguably even earlier)? How can you justify the unsatisfying cliffhangar ending. etc etc

[FiachSidhe]

Stanley Woo wrote...

Shirosaki, FiachSidhe, please take your bickering to private, or agree to disagree and move on.

I stopped talking to him/her a page or two ago. I apologize.

Modifié par FiachSidhe, 31 mai 2011 - 12:06 .

[jds1bio]

If I remember correctly, BioWare hasn't changed a thing about Dragon Age: Origins. I can go and fire up that game now and it will be the same game as the one that I first played near the end of 2009. All BioWare did was make a different type of RPG, to potentially attract a different type of player. And after almost three months of the game's release and approx. 2 million in sales, people are still trying to get BioWare to "see the light". They didn't change or wreck Origins, you can go play that now and be happy. They just made a different game.

If Desslock thinks that Origins is realistic and gritty looking enough to satisfy his tastes for fantasy compared to Final Fantasy games, or Dragon Age II, I would contend that Origins is itself just as cartoonish. This is made all the clearer by looking at more realistically-animated games like L.A. Noire or grittier-looking games like TW2. I'm not knocking the DA series, I myself thought that the opening sequence of DA2 with the dragon and darkspawn was pretty gritty as it is. But analyses based on weak comparisons such as these only highlight that people have their own personal preferences, and they take their personal preferences personally. That's all.

[Zeevico]

FiachSidhe wrote...

Zeevico wrote...

Stanley Woo wrote...

I am curious as to just why these reviews are the "must see," while others are not. Or is this another case of assuming we only listen to or read positive reviews?

Yes. In fairness, you changed the entire game from top to bottom. It wasn't a bad game to begin with. Many people liked it a lot. And you ("Bioware") changed it. To them the changes are for drastic. They're not necessarily improvements. Ergo Bioware ruined RPG games forever. Like the Mohicans, DAO was the last of the RPGs. Viola. See? Magic.

One upset fanbase please-- and make it a big one! (Just kidding--if this fanbase were big you wouldn't have tried to make the game more welcoming.)

Anyway, I'm done with platitudes and generalities. Best of luck in all future endeavours. I hope your games are great and that many people enjoy them. Me? I guess I'll wait for the RPGCodex review. I don't like the scornful attitude sometimes expressed there--frankly I don't like that I sometimes have the same attitude about what is, after all, a game, but their gaming tastes are similar to mine.

No they didn't change the game "from top to bottom". 
Stop
pretending your disapointment, no matter how shared, is the "fanbase" opinion. Stop using logic that results in the accusation of being "less welcoming",
when so many people gripe about the game opening itself up to console
players.

I'm part of the fanbase, and I wasn't upset. You see, I figured
the Origins game was as big as it was, because it needed to lay down
the foundation for the entire series, and that only a compete fool would
expect a five year development cycle for every subsequent game.

You're going to go to RPGCodex for a less scornful review? Good luck. That place is nothing but hermits perpetualy on their period.

1. I don't pretend my opinion is "the" fanbase opinion. You're reading into my comments something that isn't there.It is plain to see that many people who liked DAO also like DA2 and equally plain that many don't. I don't know how many and I don't care to speculate. 
2. I merely observe that the changes from DAO to DA2 were quite drastic in terms of gameplay. That doesn't make them good or bad changes but it does mean that people were taken unawares by them and it does mean that the game plays differently. Once again you assume that my view is that the changes are all bad without referring to my post. Here's what the dev team kept: (1) the existence of combat but not its method; (2) companions; (3) roleplaying; (4) traps and locked chests. One could make a larger list of things in DAO or not in DA2 as the case may be. Examples:
(1) detachable/isometric camera;
(2) Non-action gameplay;
(3) A skill system;
(4) Companion customisation;

I could go on.

Compare and contrast BG to BG2: Gameplay changes were practically non-existent as almost the same combat mechanics and system were used from one to the other.

3. I'm not going to RPG Codex for a less scornful review. I'm going because the review on the main site has tastes that are similar to mine. I said this in my post. Please read it more careully.

Modifié par Zeevico, 31 mai 2011 - 12:02 .

[FiachSidhe]

Teredan wrote...

FiachSidhe wrote...

Zeevico wrote...

Stanley Woo wrote...

I am curious as to just why these reviews are the "must see," while others are not. Or is this another case of assuming we only listen to or read positive reviews?

Yes. In fairness, you changed the entire game from top to bottom. It wasn't a bad game to begin with. Many people liked it a lot. And you ("Bioware") changed it. To them the changes are for drastic. They're not necessarily improvements. Ergo Bioware ruined RPG games forever. Like the Mohicans, DAO was the last of the RPGs. Viola. See? Magic.

One upset fanbase please-- and make it a big one! (Just kidding--if this fanbase were big you wouldn't have tried to make the game more welcoming.)

Anyway, I'm done with platitudes and generalities. Best of luck in all future endeavours. I hope your games are great and that many people enjoy them. Me? I guess I'll wait for the RPGCodex review. I don't like the scornful attitude sometimes expressed there--frankly I don't like that I sometimes have the same attitude about what is, after all, a game, but their gaming tastes are similar to mine.

No they didn't change the game "from top to bottom". 
Stop
pretending your disapointment, no matter how shared, is the "fanbase" opinion. Stop using logic that results in the accusation of being "less welcoming",
when so many people gripe about the game opening itself up to console
players.

I'm part of the fanbase, and I wasn't upset. You see, I figured
the Origins game was as big as it was, because it needed to lay down
the foundation for the entire series, and that only a compete fool would
expect a five year development cycle for every subsequent game.

You're going to go to RPGCodex for a less scornful review? Good luck. That place is nothing but hermits perpetualy on their period.

why? A lot of aaa studios that make fantastic games are doing just that. 4-5 year development cycles. Rockstar, bethesda, blizzard is even stretching it even further!(though not an entirely good thing).
I don't think that I deserve to be called a fool only because I believed they would take all the time they need.
It's obvious they didn't, I mean how do you explain enviromental reuse additionally to having the game taking place only in one major location(those 2 design choices don't mesh well). How do you explain a dead city when we already had ones brimming full of life around 2000(arguably even earlier)? How can you justify the unsatisfying cliffhangar ending. etc etc

That's a good point. But how many of those companies are also developing an eighty million dollar mmorpg? It's easier to put the time and resources into individual games when it's all you're doing. If there was no Old Republic, then yeah I'd say the shortened time was uncalled for.

[jcp234]

Teredan wrote...

FiachSidhe wrote...

Zeevico wrote...

Stanley Woo wrote...

I am curious as to just why these reviews are the "must see," while others are not. Or is this another case of assuming we only listen to or read positive reviews?

Yes. In fairness, you changed the entire game from top to bottom. It wasn't a bad game to begin with. Many people liked it a lot. And you ("Bioware") changed it. To them the changes are for drastic. They're not necessarily improvements. Ergo Bioware ruined RPG games forever. Like the Mohicans, DAO was the last of the RPGs. Viola. See? Magic.

One upset fanbase please-- and make it a big one! (Just kidding--if this fanbase were big you wouldn't have tried to make the game more welcoming.)

Anyway, I'm done with platitudes and generalities. Best of luck in all future endeavours. I hope your games are great and that many people enjoy them. Me? I guess I'll wait for the RPGCodex review. I don't like the scornful attitude sometimes expressed there--frankly I don't like that I sometimes have the same attitude about what is, after all, a game, but their gaming tastes are similar to mine.

No they didn't change the game "from top to bottom". 
Stop
pretending your disapointment, no matter how shared, is the "fanbase" opinion. Stop using logic that results in the accusation of being "less welcoming",
when so many people gripe about the game opening itself up to console
players.

I'm part of the fanbase, and I wasn't upset. You see, I figured
the Origins game was as big as it was, because it needed to lay down
the foundation for the entire series, and that only a compete fool would
expect a five year development cycle for every subsequent game.

You're going to go to RPGCodex for a less scornful review? Good luck. That place is nothing but hermits perpetualy on their period.

why? A lot of aaa studios that make fantastic games are doing just that. 4-5 year development cycles. Rockstar, bethesda, blizzard is even stretching it even further!(though not an entirely good thing).
I don't think that I deserve to be called a fool only because I believed they would take all the time they need.
It's obvious they didn't, I mean how do you explain enviromental reuse additionally to having the game taking place only in one major location(those 2 design choices don't mesh well). How do you explain a dead city when we already had ones brimming full of life around 2000(arguably even earlier)? How can you justify the unsatisfying cliffhangar ending. etc etc

Can you imagine how half-assed Skyrim would be if Bethesda spent less than two years of development time on it? I think 4-5 years is a healthy development cycle.

Bioware will never admit it...but DA2 is a rushed subpar product and I'm pretty sure its reputation has been tarnished as a result. Poop is really going to hit the fan if Mass Effect 3 is a turd.

Though I will say....I really liked Flemeth's redesign for DA2. I hope there is such creative armor available in Mass Effect 3 for Shepard to adorn. Darth Vador wore a cloak and some pretty cool armor while spreading fear across the galaxy...why can't Shepard?

[FiachSidhe]

Zeevico wrote...

FiachSidhe wrote...

Zeevico wrote...

Stanley Woo wrote...

I am curious as to just why these reviews are the "must see," while others are not. Or is this another case of assuming we only listen to or read positive reviews?

Yes. In fairness, you changed the entire game from top to bottom. It wasn't a bad game to begin with. Many people liked it a lot. And you ("Bioware") changed it. To them the changes are for drastic. They're not necessarily improvements. Ergo Bioware ruined RPG games forever. Like the Mohicans, DAO was the last of the RPGs. Viola. See? Magic.

One upset fanbase please-- and make it a big one! (Just kidding--if this fanbase were big you wouldn't have tried to make the game more welcoming.)

Anyway, I'm done with platitudes and generalities. Best of luck in all future endeavours. I hope your games are great and that many people enjoy them. Me? I guess I'll wait for the RPGCodex review. I don't like the scornful attitude sometimes expressed there--frankly I don't like that I sometimes have the same attitude about what is, after all, a game, but their gaming tastes are similar to mine.

No they didn't change the game "from top to bottom". 
Stop
pretending your disapointment, no matter how shared, is the "fanbase" opinion. Stop using logic that results in the accusation of being "less welcoming",
when so many people gripe about the game opening itself up to console
players.

I'm part of the fanbase, and I wasn't upset. You see, I figured
the Origins game was as big as it was, because it needed to lay down
the foundation for the entire series, and that only a compete fool would
expect a five year development cycle for every subsequent game.

You're going to go to RPGCodex for a less scornful review? Good luck. That place is nothing but hermits perpetualy on their period.

1. I don't pretend my opinion is "the" fanbase opinion. You're reading into my comments something that isn't there.It is plain to see that many people who liked DAO also like DA2 and equally plain that many don't. I don't know how many and I don't care to speculate. 
2. I merely observe that the changes from DAO to DA2 were quite drastic in terms of gameplay. That doesn't make them good or bad changes but it does mean that people were taken unawares by them and it does mean that the game plays differently. Once again you assume that my view is that the changes are all bad without referring to my post.
3. I'm not going to RPG Codex for a less scornful review. I know they're a scornful bunch and I don't like it, but I also know that their tastes in gaming are similar to mine. I said this in my post. Please read it more careully.

1. Then I misred what you meant, that is my fault and I apologize.
2. I really don't find the games changes that drastic. The combat is no longer auto attack based, and is faster. Other than that I really didn't notice much difference in the gaming experience I had other than having less places to travel to.
3. That is also my fault. I've been having real trouble today, reading and typing. I have minor dyslexia and it's really bad right now. I read that completely wrong and I'm sorry.

[FiachSidhe]

jcp234 wrote...

Teredan wrote...

FiachSidhe wrote...

Zeevico wrote...

Stanley Woo wrote...

I am curious as to just why these reviews are the "must see," while others are not. Or is this another case of assuming we only listen to or read positive reviews?

Yes. In fairness, you changed the entire game from top to bottom. It wasn't a bad game to begin with. Many people liked it a lot. And you ("Bioware") changed it. To them the changes are for drastic. They're not necessarily improvements. Ergo Bioware ruined RPG games forever. Like the Mohicans, DAO was the last of the RPGs. Viola. See? Magic.

One upset fanbase please-- and make it a big one! (Just kidding--if this fanbase were big you wouldn't have tried to make the game more welcoming.)

Anyway, I'm done with platitudes and generalities. Best of luck in all future endeavours. I hope your games are great and that many people enjoy them. Me? I guess I'll wait for the RPGCodex review. I don't like the scornful attitude sometimes expressed there--frankly I don't like that I sometimes have the same attitude about what is, after all, a game, but their gaming tastes are similar to mine.

No they didn't change the game "from top to bottom". 
Stop
pretending your disapointment, no matter how shared, is the "fanbase" opinion. Stop using logic that results in the accusation of being "less welcoming",
when so many people gripe about the game opening itself up to console
players.

I'm part of the fanbase, and I wasn't upset. You see, I figured
the Origins game was as big as it was, because it needed to lay down
the foundation for the entire series, and that only a compete fool would
expect a five year development cycle for every subsequent game.

You're going to go to RPGCodex for a less scornful review? Good luck. That place is nothing but hermits perpetualy on their period.

why? A lot of aaa studios that make fantastic games are doing just that. 4-5 year development cycles. Rockstar, bethesda, blizzard is even stretching it even further!(though not an entirely good thing).
I don't think that I deserve to be called a fool only because I believed they would take all the time they need.
It's obvious they didn't, I mean how do you explain enviromental reuse additionally to having the game taking place only in one major location(those 2 design choices don't mesh well). How do you explain a dead city when we already had ones brimming full of life around 2000(arguably even earlier)? How can you justify the unsatisfying cliffhangar ending. etc etc

Can you imagine how half-assed Skyrim would be if Bethesda spent less than two years of development time on it? I think 4-5 years is a healthy development cycle.

Bioware will never admit it...but DA2 is a rushed subpar product and I'm pretty sure its reputation has been tarnished as a result. Poop is really going to hit the fan if Mass Effect 3 is a turd.

Though I will say....I really liked Flemeth's redesign for DA2. I hope there is such creative armor available in Mass Effect 3 for Shepard to adorn. Darth Vador wore a cloak and some pretty cool armor while spreading fear across the galaxy...why can't Shepard?

I do agree that it was totally rushed. It's pretty obvious. I remember reading something about the music composer mentioning (or at least implying) how it was rushed in an interview.

As much as I enjoyed it, it wasn't as good as it could have, and should have, been. It was still a good game in my opinion. Flawed, but good.

[jcp234]

FiachSidhe wrote...

Teredan wrote...

FiachSidhe wrote...

Zeevico wrote...

Stanley Woo wrote...

I am curious as to just why these reviews are the "must see," while others are not. Or is this another case of assuming we only listen to or read positive reviews?

Yes. In fairness, you changed the entire game from top to bottom. It wasn't a bad game to begin with. Many people liked it a lot. And you ("Bioware") changed it. To them the changes are for drastic. They're not necessarily improvements. Ergo Bioware ruined RPG games forever. Like the Mohicans, DAO was the last of the RPGs. Viola. See? Magic.

One upset fanbase please-- and make it a big one! (Just kidding--if this fanbase were big you wouldn't have tried to make the game more welcoming.)

Anyway, I'm done with platitudes and generalities. Best of luck in all future endeavours. I hope your games are great and that many people enjoy them. Me? I guess I'll wait for the RPGCodex review. I don't like the scornful attitude sometimes expressed there--frankly I don't like that I sometimes have the same attitude about what is, after all, a game, but their gaming tastes are similar to mine.

No they didn't change the game "from top to bottom". 
Stop
pretending your disapointment, no matter how shared, is the "fanbase" opinion. Stop using logic that results in the accusation of being "less welcoming",
when so many people gripe about the game opening itself up to console
players.

I'm part of the fanbase, and I wasn't upset. You see, I figured
the Origins game was as big as it was, because it needed to lay down
the foundation for the entire series, and that only a compete fool would
expect a five year development cycle for every subsequent game.

You're going to go to RPGCodex for a less scornful review? Good luck. That place is nothing but hermits perpetualy on their period.

why? A lot of aaa studios that make fantastic games are doing just that. 4-5 year development cycles. Rockstar, bethesda, blizzard is even stretching it even further!(though not an entirely good thing).
I don't think that I deserve to be called a fool only because I believed they would take all the time they need.
It's obvious they didn't, I mean how do you explain enviromental reuse additionally to having the game taking place only in one major location(those 2 design choices don't mesh well). How do you explain a dead city when we already had ones brimming full of life around 2000(arguably even earlier)? How can you justify the unsatisfying cliffhangar ending. etc etc

That's a good point. But how many of those companies are also developing an eighty million dollar mmorpg? It's easier to put the time and resources into individual games when it's all you're doing. If there was no Old Republic, then yeah I'd say the shortened time was uncalled for.

This is kind of an interesting response. Because an 80 million mmorpg is being developed that should justify a rushed, poorly developed product? It also kind of paints you as a little partial. I'm assuming there are some pretty smart minds behind EA/Bioware...this was obviously a quick-cash grab decision. If EA/Bioware wants to allocate most of its resources to its SWKOTOR mmorpg...that's perfectly fine, but that doesn't really justify delivering such a subpar product. 

It's also possible someone put a gun to EA/Bioware's head and forced it to release a product prematurely.

[FiachSidhe]

jcp234 wrote...

FiachSidhe wrote...

Teredan wrote...

FiachSidhe wrote...

Zeevico wrote...

Stanley Woo wrote...

I am curious as to just why these reviews are the "must see," while others are not. Or is this another case of assuming we only listen to or read positive reviews?

Yes. In fairness, you changed the entire game from top to bottom. It wasn't a bad game to begin with. Many people liked it a lot. And you ("Bioware") changed it. To them the changes are for drastic. They're not necessarily improvements. Ergo Bioware ruined RPG games forever. Like the Mohicans, DAO was the last of the RPGs. Viola. See? Magic.

One upset fanbase please-- and make it a big one! (Just kidding--if this fanbase were big you wouldn't have tried to make the game more welcoming.)

Anyway, I'm done with platitudes and generalities. Best of luck in all future endeavours. I hope your games are great and that many people enjoy them. Me? I guess I'll wait for the RPGCodex review. I don't like the scornful attitude sometimes expressed there--frankly I don't like that I sometimes have the same attitude about what is, after all, a game, but their gaming tastes are similar to mine.

No they didn't change the game "from top to bottom". 
Stop
pretending your disapointment, no matter how shared, is the "fanbase" opinion. Stop using logic that results in the accusation of being "less welcoming",
when so many people gripe about the game opening itself up to console
players.

I'm part of the fanbase, and I wasn't upset. You see, I figured
the Origins game was as big as it was, because it needed to lay down
the foundation for the entire series, and that only a compete fool would
expect a five year development cycle for every subsequent game.

You're going to go to RPGCodex for a less scornful review? Good luck. That place is nothing but hermits perpetualy on their period.

why? A lot of aaa studios that make fantastic games are doing just that. 4-5 year development cycles. Rockstar, bethesda, blizzard is even stretching it even further!(though not an entirely good thing).
I don't think that I deserve to be called a fool only because I believed they would take all the time they need.
It's obvious they didn't, I mean how do you explain enviromental reuse additionally to having the game taking place only in one major location(those 2 design choices don't mesh well). How do you explain a dead city when we already had ones brimming full of life around 2000(arguably even earlier)? How can you justify the unsatisfying cliffhangar ending. etc etc

That's a good point. But how many of those companies are also developing an eighty million dollar mmorpg? It's easier to put the time and resources into individual games when it's all you're doing. If there was no Old Republic, then yeah I'd say the shortened time was uncalled for.

This is kind of an interesting response. Because an 80 million mmorpg is being developed that should justify a rushed, poorly developed product? It also kind of paints you as a little partial. I'm assuming there are some pretty smart minds behind EA/Bioware...this was obviously a quick-cash grab decision. If EA/Bioware wants to allocate most of its resources to its SWKOTOR mmorpg...that's perfectly fine, but that doesn't really justify delivering such a subpar product. 

It's also possible someone put a gun to EA/Bioware's head and forced it to release a product prematurely.

Partial to what? To who?

I'm not saying it's good. Or that I support what EA is doing. I hate EA. I hate them almost as much as I hate Activision, or Atari.

I'm just saying I'm not surprised, that they would be more interested in making a quick profit to please their shareholders at this point, which would be the people with the gun btw.

I don't honestly know, I could be completely wrong, and Bioware could simply be getting lazy and complacent. It happened to Blizzard, so why not?

Modifié par FiachSidhe, 31 mai 2011 - 12:16 .

[Teredan]

FiachSidhe wrote...

That's a good point. But how many of those companies are also developing an eighty million dollar mmorpg? It's easier to put the time and resources into individual games when it's all you're doing. If there was no Old Republic, then yeah I'd say the shortened time was uncalled for.

That's a lot of assumption that you take here. For all we know the budgets for all bioware projects is seperated very clearly. Still I to have to acknowledge that it's not to unreasonable that it might have been a reason, I just don't know for sure. 
And still it's a sad excuse if that were to be true. I mean then the thought process would have probably been, so how can we get some fast cash in? mmh let's rush DA2 out and see what we can get away with. I'd find that very depressing.
But it's all speculation anyway

[FiachSidhe]

Teredan wrote...

FiachSidhe wrote...

That's a good point. But how many of those companies are also developing an eighty million dollar mmorpg? It's easier to put the time and resources into individual games when it's all you're doing. If there was no Old Republic, then yeah I'd say the shortened time was uncalled for.

That's a lot of assumption that you take here. For all we know the budgets for all bioware projects is seperated very clearly. Still I to have to acknowledge that it's not to unreasonable that it might have been a reason, I just don't know for sure. 
And still it's a sad excuse if that were to be true. I mean then the thought process would have probably been, so how can we get some fast cash in? mmh let's rush DA2 out and see what we can get away with. I'd find that very depressing.
But it's all speculation anyway

I agree it's a lousy reason, but shareholders very rarely give a crap about quality product over profits. I could be wrong though. It's just speculation. I'm just saying if Old Republic wasn't an issue, it would be much harder to understand.

[jcp234]

FiachSidhe wrote...

Teredan wrote...

FiachSidhe wrote...

That's a good point. But how many of those companies are also developing an eighty million dollar mmorpg? It's easier to put the time and resources into individual games when it's all you're doing. If there was no Old Republic, then yeah I'd say the shortened time was uncalled for.

That's a lot of assumption that you take here. For all we know the budgets for all bioware projects is seperated very clearly. Still I to have to acknowledge that it's not to unreasonable that it might have been a reason, I just don't know for sure. 
And still it's a sad excuse if that were to be true. I mean then the thought process would have probably been, so how can we get some fast cash in? mmh let's rush DA2 out and see what we can get away with. I'd find that very depressing.
But it's all speculation anyway

I agree it's a lousy reason, but shareholders very rarely give a crap about quality product over profits. I could be wrong though. It's just speculation. I'm just saying if Old Republic wasn't an issue, it would be much harder to understand.

I agree with you. Shareholders are more concerned with profit over delivering quality products. And obviously, EA/Bioware want to appease its shareholders. I just wish the resources were being allocated to a SWKOTOR 3 instead...sigh...I hate everthing about what EA/Bioware are doing with the Old Republic.

[Shirosaki17]

The idea that Bioware needed to release DA2 to get more money for TOR is just a rumor for Bioware fans to justify DA2 being rushed. It's not even a good rumor.

[jcp234]

Shirosaki17 wrote...

The idea that Bioware needed to release DA2 to get more money for TOR is just a rumor for Bioware fans to justify DA2 being rushed. It's not even a good rumor.

Well, if that was EA/Bioware's plan...it wasn't planned out very well. DA2 is pretty much a dud, if Mass Effect 3 receives the same treatment...that won't hold over well at all for the developer's reputation in the gaming comunity.

The Old Republic is already a tough sale in my opinion...releasing subpar products is definitely not going to make matters better. I plan to purchase Mass Effect 3, but I may have to reconsider depending on the feedback from early reviewers and the general gaming comunity.

[Shirosaki17]

I don't understand pushing back ME3's release, unless it's a move to appease Bioware employees. They ate a lot of crap during DA2's release,but it seems like it would be much better to release the game during Christmas time. I don't know. I guess it could be a move to try to appease consumers and make them think they aren't rushing ME3 like DA2 was. I guess they aren't worried about lost sales after Christmas season.

Haven't heard good things about TOR, but oh well. It is a tough sell I think. Single player story MMO. We'll see though.

[inkjay]

LOL When I saw the first link on the OP and read "escapist magazine" I thought you were linking to their other review and thought to myself, "why should Bioware read it? they wrote it themselves." Zero Punctuation is like the only worthwile thing on that PoS site.

Good stuff in there OP, you can see some guys like RPS even hold back just because it is a Bioware game. I guess their name is all that remains now, soon even that will be gone. Just browsing some other well known forums, there is athread which title is "Your nightmare project, what would it be?" and it is surprising the amount of people there who shudder at the idea of Bioware touching anything. Guess that is the general perception now.

Modifié par inkjay, 31 mai 2011 - 12:53 .

[jcp234]

Well, the Witcher 2 is currently available, Dark Souls releases in October, BioShock is releasing, Skyrim is releasing, and a host of other highly anticipated games are releasing later in the year. Currently, DA2 is being compared very unfavorably to the Witcher 2. By pushing back ME3's release, Bioware has the chance to prevent possibly being overshadowed by some really strong titles and also affords itself more time to improve ME3 (or at least give the illusion that it's continuing development).

Honestly, I think it's a good idea. I plan to purchase the Witcher 2, Dark Souls, Skyrim, and BioShock on release day. After DA2, I probably will not purchase Mass Effect 3 until I review feedback from the gaming community. It's no longer a release day purchase for me.

[Shirosaki17]

Did they ever fix the lag issues with Demon's Souls? The PVP was brutal as a black phantom. I think it had something to do with connecting to others' games causing you to lag. It sort of ruined the game for me even though I beat single player by myself.

[inkjay]

Shirosaki17 wrote...

I don't understand pushing back ME3's release, unless it's a move to appease Bioware employees. They ate a lot of crap during DA2's release,but it seems like it would be much better to release the game during Christmas time. I don't know. I guess it could be a move to try to appease consumers and make them think they aren't rushing ME3 like DA2 was. I guess they aren't worried about lost sales after Christmas season.

Haven't heard good things about TOR, but oh well. It is a tough sell I think. Single player story MMO. We'll see though.

It is a little bit of that, certainly after DA2 EA realised they can't just rush sh*t out the door and call it a day, it may have worked once, but it wont again. Let's face it, Mass Effect is a game that may review well, but I don't think ME3 will do great numbers, even releasing on PS3 now. It is simply not the 3 million+ first year game that Bioware wants it to be, less when it was to come out the same month as Skyrim, Assassin's Creed, CoD MW3 and Uncharted. It also makes sense to move it out of a potential launch window for TOR which god knows is another big moneysink.

ME3 will be relasing Jan or Feb 2012 at the earliest.