Gatt9 wrote...
Very well said Canadish!
Ever since EA took over, the general theme of Bioware games has shifted a great deal away from RPG and a great deal closer to Shooter or Action-Adventure, more "Mass market" type games. The people they've put in charge don't seem to understand what an RPG is, and seem far more concerned with other genres.
They don't appear to be able to handle criticism, as Laidlaw and Gaider showed.
The fact that there's more than one team doesn't mean anything at all. It's pretty clear that EA's got a hand in the design, as I doubt Bioware decided overnight that they hate RPGs. Further, in any given company, regardless of the number of teams present, there's a "Culture" that pervades, what one team is doing is what you can expect from the other. Which is why you saw the "Wheel of Idon'twannahaftaread" in DA2, along with the more action oriented gameplay.
It's obvious that the same problems exist in the ME3 development team. Norman talks only about shooter elements, no significant information about RPG elements at E3, as if they don't want anyone to know that it's not a straight TPS. We've still got the TPS style "Have a skill point!" instead of RPG style character progression, and many other things just show they're not listening or have no care for fan's concerns.
So I'm concerned, because I'm expecting to yet again discover that Norman put a straight TPS in the box instead of the RPG they've laid claim will be there.
agn25 wrote...
Using DA2 as an excuse to worry about ME3 doesn't make much sense in my view.ME was always set to be a trilogy of games, so the devs always had their minds set to that end.DA2 was only considered once DA was the success it was.It seems to me DA2 suffers the same problems many hollywood sequels do in they were never planned to begin with and end up making very little sense.
Ummm....
EA had Bioware start on DA2 before DAO even released, while it was delayed, before they even knew how well it'd be accepted. They mandated a shift into Action-oriented gameplay before they even knew how well it would sell, and they stayed that course even after DAO outsold Mass Effect.
It was planned, it was EA's plan, which unfortunately doesn't ever include anything that isn't aimed squarely at the very largest market segment (FPS).
It's all in Gaider's, Laidlaw's, the guy who quit interviews, and one artist who's name I can't remember post DA2.
I think you need a balance of 'action' and 'story'. I hate to use it as an example, but look at 'COD: Modern
Warfare 3'. They did a bang up job on the story, but it's an action
piece and that's what it was. It's a hard game to balance action and
story take your pick of any game any genre and you'll always see the
same issue over and over again.
The idea these days is to 'make as much $$ as you can on as many platforms as you can' aka mass isn't something you can fault anyone on as that's the principle of business. However, it's also been said that if you rape your customer base, that exact same customer base will turn on you like a dime.
Example: I'm a fan of ME1 lot of intricate story telling and some balanced action, but also there was at time a limited amount of action, ME2 improved on that, but lost a good chunk of the story and then they squeezed the customer for better story by selling all of those damn DLC's. For example, anyone read that article interveiw about how it's all connected and if you didn't get the Shadow Broker DLC there's a possibility of the story changing as such in ME3 blah blah blah? I mean c'mon! Scare tactics? So now there's a bunch of people that are going to get those DLC's so they can have a more complete experience... I think that's low, but it works as a few of my buds went and got them so they have the 'full effect' of ME3.
PS) I really hate the fact that you can't have more then 50 saves on ME2. Hoping they correct that. IMOP
Retour en haut
