111 réponses à ce sujet

[littlezack]

Gatt9 wrote...


ME3 was moved because EA's new direction is putting as many market fads as humanly possible on their products,  and milking DLC as much as they can.

You were doing good, till about right here. Do you have any proof that this is the case, or are you just spouting random baseless nonsense? Again?

[JenAnneMartinson]

they delayed it because they didn't want ME3 becoming a DA2, They even say in an interview that they learned alot from what fans said about DA2. they want to put out a great product for their fans not a meh game.

[Dariuszp]

There will be Skyrim, TOR, Batman and few other games at the end of the year that can take out ME 3. Also EA have their title like mentioned TOR so they probably don't want to create their own competition.

But there is another thing. As you know, Mass Effect 2 was released january 2010 right ? So if they release it now - it will have less than 2-years development cycle (same as ME 2).
As you know. There was complaining about ME 2 after release. Then again just few months ago we got mass of hate and complaining about Dragon Age 2.
I think that Bioware after all that complaining and other stuff decide to move release of ME 3 and improve the game. So it will not end up like DA II.

Hope it is for the best. ME 2 had 2 years development cycle and that game was poor. No armor for main character (just some customization), no armors for companions, lack of story, poor inventory. Limited locations and whole game just focused on gathering people to kill big bad robot (all that is my personal opinion).

I think if BW want to create something EPIC like they claim (i know that stupid PR talk from DA II and it end with failure) they need more time. And they did it. They take few additional months to create ME 3. Hope it is for the best.

[MarchWaltz]

It's because they wanted to have the stylized [3]

[Candidate 88766]

Who cares? Bioware has longer to make ME3 the game it should be, which is good for us.

Bioware may have asked for more time, or EA may have politely asked them to move the release back a bit to ensure none of their other AAA franchises affect the sales of BF3, or vice versa. Either way we'll get a better ME3 so I don't get why people keep bringing this up.

[Ghost Warrior]

I think they just needed more time to make it epic. I say,take your time BioWare. Just not in Duke Nukem style.

Modifié par Ghost Warrior, 30 juillet 2011 - 03:12 .

[Mister Mida]

Gatt9 wrote...
First,  Bethseda games don't sell as well as people seem to think they do.  Oblivion didn't have any direct competition at all on any of it's 3 platforms,  and only sold around 4 million units from what I remember.  Fallout 3 did have competition and it didn't sell nearly as well as Obliviion,  only around 2.2 million units (Being generous) before it dropped off the charts.  Mind you,  both of those games had to release on 3 platforms just to reach those numbers,  whereas ME and ME2 both outsold Fallout 3 by a large margin on just one.

Fallout is not a big name compared to The Elder Scrolls. At least not to me. And I didn't feel ME2 had much competition either. Especially on the RPG front, which I was reffering to, not the GOTY's.

Additionally,  moving the game was a huge risk.  It puts Bioware directly in the line of either Diablo 3 or Starcraft's Part 2.  Both of those games are an order of magnitude bigger than anything Bethseda could manage.  It also means ME3 is absolutely not getting any Game of the Year awards,  not facing off against Diablo 3.

Last I checked Starcraft part 2 will be an expansion so it'd be really silly if they win over ME3. Diablo 3? Well, I don't know.

Bethseda is really just not all that important.  Plus,  what does Bioware have to fear from a company whose fan's mantra is "Wait till the modders get it,  they'll fix all the flaws and bugs!".  Eventually,  that buisness model falls apart,  especially when you keep removing features.

That doesn't seem to stop the press about how awesome it is, or with previous TES titles. And Bethesda not important? Now you're stretching. It's the same as saying Bioware is not all that important.

ME3 was moved because EA's new direction is putting as many market fads as humanly possible on their products,  and milking DLC as much as they can.

I don't see how DLC relates to the postponing of release.

EDIT: I won't deny that other games besides Skyrim could have something to do with the postponement (Batman, Battlefield, maybe even AC: R), but I think Skyrim plays a big part in this. But like I said, EA will never tell us.

Modifié par Mister Mida, 30 juillet 2011 - 09:41 .

[Shockwave81]

I love it how people assume that a delayed release automatically equates to a noticeably better product.

How will anyone know what 'improvements' were implemented? There are no points of reference except for what we're told by BioWare/EA...

Aside from that, 'improvements' are subjective matters.

[Mister Mida]

Shockwave81 wrote...

I love it how people assume that a delayed release automatically equates to a noticeably better product.

How will anyone know what 'improvements' were implemented? There are no points of reference except for what we're told by BioWare/EA...

Aside from that, 'improvements' are subjective matters.

Yeah, it's pretty much wishful thinking. Delay could mean (among other things) that the dev needs more time to develop all the features they wanted to do anyway.

[Shockwave81]

Mister Mida wrote...

Shockwave81 wrote...

I love it how people assume that a delayed release automatically equates to a noticeably better product.

How will anyone know what 'improvements' were implemented? There are no points of reference except for what we're told by BioWare/EA...

Aside from that, 'improvements' are subjective matters.

Yeah, it's pretty much wishful thinking. Delay could mean (among other things) that the dev needs more time to develop all the features they wanted to do anyway.

This is my preferred theory.  

[Gatt9]

littlezack wrote...

Gatt9 wrote...


ME3 was moved because EA's new direction is putting as many market fads as humanly possible on their products,  and milking DLC as much as they can.

You were doing good, till about right here. Do you have any proof that this is the case, or are you just spouting random baseless nonsense? Again?

I don't spout nonsense,  I don't post anything that isn't readily available through google.  Not my problem if people don't use it.

That said,  let's see...Dragon Age facebook game,  despite the fact that DA2 bombed hard and the Facebook community isn't likely to suddenly mass-adopt a Dragon Age game.  Multiplayer in everything,  in order to force used game purchasers to pay EA anyways, through their new lockout schemes.  Kinect in ME3,  despite the fact that it doesn't improve the game in any way,  and 2 minutes of logical thought would show that it wouldn't be used by enough people to make it worthwhile.  Mandatory Pre-launch DLC's in order to force you to pay extra to get everything on the disc you already paid for,  Day 1 DLC's in order to milk you for another $10 beyond what you already paid.  A subscription based EASports model,  trying to force everyone to use their Digital Download service even though Steam is superior in every way,  they're doing it only because Steam won't play ball with their draconian DLC tactics.

Go read gaming news,  EA's got one heck'uva trend going the last couple months,  and almost all of it is aimed at the latest industry buzz-words.

Fallout is not a big name compared to The Elder Scrolls. At least not to me. And I didn't feel ME2 had much competition either. Especially on the RPG front, which I was reffering to, not the GOTY's.

TES isn't,  and has never been a "Big name".  It's been the same game,  with less features,  and bigger bugs,  for 15 years.  Sadly,  I'm being very literal about that.  All they do is put a new graphics engine on TES: Arena,  remove some feature,  and implement new and bigger bugs.  Fallout,  OTOH,  is widely regarded as one of the best RPG series ever made,  on nearly any "classic games" list you could dig up,  and is directly responsible for alot of what people regard as "Modern RPG".  Choice & Consequence?  Fallout.  Companions with personalities?  Fallout.  Reputation?  Fallout.  Etc.

TES OTOH hasn't ever impacted gaming,  no one's ever tried to be more like it,  for a very good reason.

ME2 had to contend with a library reaching back what?  3 years?  4 years?  Oblivion had nothing,  literally.  Not a single competitor,  aside from I think the X-box might've had one weak JRPG.

That doesn't seem to stop the press about how awesome it is, or with previous TES titles. And Bethesda not important? Now you're stretching. It's the same as saying Bioware is not all that important

You should probably do some research on that,  there's a reason why the Press acts the way it does about Bethseda.  Fair warning though,  it's heavy research to find the answers,  although a good place to start would be with looking into "Star Trek fansite" and "Iloveoblivion.com" through google.

Bethseda's not important.  Not at all.  They've been making the same game for 15 years,  they haven't innovated,  they haven't brought anything new to the table,  they're so inconsequential that in a Industry that thrives on copying other's successes,  no one bothers to copy TES.

TBH,  we wouldn't be having this conversation if Grand Theft Auto hadn't made Open World games trendy,  and that happened to be the game Bethseda had been repeating for 15 years. 

Go to any given RPG's boards,  you find questions about choices,  consequences,  party members,  romances,  all kinds of thing Bioware and Black Isle brought to the table.  But no one ever asks for TES features.

I don't see how DLC relates to the postponing of release.

EDIT: I won't deny that other games besides Skyrim could have something to do with the postponement (Batman, Battlefield, maybe even AC: R), but I think Skyrim plays a big part in this. But like I said, EA will never tell us.

You must not have bought Dead Space 2?  I did.

In order to access everything on the disc you paid for,  you first had to pay for pre-launch DLC's,  only then would the stuff on the disc actually be open to you.  Those DLC's weren't available for the PC,  and so EA just left those of us who bought it for the PC unable to access everything we already paid for. 

Then there's Dragon Age Origins,  Day 1 DLC's,  it very much seems Shale was ripped out of the main game in order to sell,  as the game was finished for months before release.  IIRC,  ME2 had day 1 DLC's.

But honestly,  I doubt the DLC was the primary reason,  I'm guessing it was to slap a Kinect sticker on the box,  and I strongly suspect that they intend to shoehorn multiplayer in so that they can force people who buy used to pay them.

But Skyrim?  Really not a major factor.  TBH,  I'm fully expecting a DA2 there,  because Bethseda just really doesn't make good games,  nor do they put content in their games,  and at some point people are going to get tired of it.  The open world fad isn't trendy anymore,  they've alienated alot of people with the draconian policies they cling to regarding the community,  and their games are both empty and as repetative as DA2 was.  I strongly suspect Bethseda rode that train to the end,  and I doubt they'll step up their game.

I forgot about Battlefield though,  that could be a contributing factor since EA's more interested in promoting ME3 with "Shooter shooter shooter shooter!!!" than anything else,  and those two would collide in EA's release schedule.  It's likely given how they're marketing it that the discussion was held about seperating them by a few months to try and grab people churning out of Battlefield.

Modifié par Gatt9, 31 juillet 2011 - 08:18 .

[Phategod1]

The only competition for GOTY is Bioshock infinate.

[S.A.K]

Later better than another rushed game right?

[Whatever42]

Considering that they're still working on important parts of the game, such as voice acting, I simply don't think they were ready for a holiday release. Maybe they learned the lessons of rushing it from DA2.

Also, SWTOR is coming out this holiday and you don't release two popular games at the same time.

[MaskedAffection]

Mister Mida wrote...

Shockwave81 wrote...

I love it how people assume that a delayed release automatically equates to a noticeably better product.

How will anyone know what 'improvements' were implemented? There are no points of reference except for what we're told by BioWare/EA...

Aside from that, 'improvements' are subjective matters.

Yeah, it's pretty much wishful thinking. Delay could mean (among other things) that the dev needs more time to develop all the features they wanted to do anyway.

Both these; they said the game was very much playable at Christmas 2010, where did the 9 months, (now 13) go development wise.

[Mister Mida]

Gatt9 wrote...
ME2 had to contend with a library reaching back what?  3 years?  4 years?  Oblivion had nothing,  literally.  Not a single competitor,  aside from I think the X-box might've had one weak JRPG.

I don't see what this has to do with my original argument. Assuming that with library you mean game engine, that wasn't my point. I was talking about competition from other games. What other real competition did ME2 have on the RPG front in 2010?

Bethseda's not important.  Not at all.  They've been making the same game for 15 years,  they haven't innovated,  they haven't brought anything new to the table,  they're so inconsequential that in a Industry that thrives on copying other's successes,  no one bothers to copy TES.

I'm sorry, but I think you're exaggerating. I agree that TES isn't that innovative (I wouldn't call it one of my favourites either), but I have hard time calling anything the industry came with since the last few years innovative anyway. Bethesda is important or they wouldn't get the sales they get. CoD isn't innovative either, but you can't say they're not important to the genre, especially since that's the one pushing it for the last few years despite the stagnation since a year or two.

You must not have bought Dead Space 2?

No, I haven't. So I can't judge. But what you're describing sure sounds crappy.

I'm not saying I'm right no matter what, but the pattern of both Bethesda and Bioware in their game releases just left me wondering. And since Bioware usually is the one stepping aside...

Also, IloveOblivion.com doesn't work.

[KevShep]

Gatt9 wrote...

TES isn't,  and has never been a "Big name".  It's been the same game,  with less features,  and bigger bugs,  for 15 years.  Sadly,  I'm being very literal about that.  All they do is put a new graphics engine on TES: Arena,  remove some feature,  and implement new and bigger bugs.  Fallout,  OTOH,  is widely regarded as one of the best RPG series ever made,  on nearly any "classic games" list you could dig up,  and is directly responsible for alot of what people regard as "Modern RPG".  Choice & Consequence?  Fallout.  Companions with personalities?  Fallout.  Reputation?  Fallout.  Etc.

TES OTOH hasn't ever impacted gaming,  no one's ever tried to be more like it,  for a very good reason.


Bethseda's not important.  Not at all.  They've been making the same game for 15 years,  they haven't innovated,  they haven't brought anything new to the table,  they're so inconsequential that in a Industry that thrives on copying other's successes,  no one bothers to copy TES.

.

Iam sorry but I have to say something here. TES has been one of the most innovative games out there(same with fallout). It has more features/quests/items/immersion/exploration/depth /RPG elements/leveling system/content then any game EVER MADE but it also DOES it better then any other games to date!

The reason that no company is copying TES is because game companys are tageting the mainstream gamers (the dumbest ones) because its quick and easy to hash out another COD then make a GREAT game that requires time and TLC all for a quick buck. 

Mainstream = casuall / light gamers/long games are a turn off to them/ backbone of the industry . Reduction in innovativeness in games and is always falling behind the ideas/wishes of the hardcore/passionat gamers.
Hardcore/passionat = The hard critics of gaming/ hard to please/loves long games/ They are the hart and soul of the industry. Encourages game devs to be MORE innovative. There games take longer to make. Hardcore games become mainstream after a few years due to mainstream catching up(mainstream falls behind).

You say that TES has never impacted gaming?..................Look how long it took for TES to become mainstream. It was not untill Oblivion that it was a mainstream game and on top of that it took about 4 years AFTER its release to really get popular and became mainstream. Hardcore gamers set the bar! Games like TES have been doing that a long time ago. Games are starting to turn out to be more like TES because the most innovative games are the ones that take the longest to get attention becuase of the mainstream's short attantion span(games like COD).

Next big gaming movment.......Skyrim/swtor!

  

Modifié par KevShep, 31 juillet 2011 - 09:51 .

[Arppis]

To be honest, they should take another year to polish it out. :3

[efrgfhnm_]

They delayed so it would be as good as they can make it. I think that that the heavy competition may have helped them make the decision, but I think it would have happened either way

[legion999]

Phategod1 wrote...

The only competition for GOTY is Bioshock infinate.

Fable: The Journey looks to be the GOTY winner to me...

Other than that Diablo 3 (maybe), Prey 2, Prototype 2 and the inevitable COD 9 could win GOTY as well.

[littlezack]

Gatt9 wrote...

littlezack wrote...

Gatt9 wrote...


ME3 was moved because EA's new direction is putting as many market fads as humanly possible on their products,  and milking DLC as much as they can.

You were doing good, till about right here. Do you have any proof that this is the case, or are you just spouting random baseless nonsense? Again?

I don't spout nonsense,  I don't post anything that isn't readily available through google.  Not my problem if people don't use it.

That said,  let's see...Dragon Age facebook game,  despite the fact that DA2 bombed hard and the Facebook community isn't likely to suddenly mass-adopt a Dragon Age game.  Multiplayer in everything,  in order to force used game purchasers to pay EA anyways, through their new lockout schemes.  Kinect in ME3,  despite the fact that it doesn't improve the game in any way,  and 2 minutes of logical thought would show that it wouldn't be used by enough people to make it worthwhile.  Mandatory Pre-launch DLC's in order to force you to pay extra to get everything on the disc you already paid for,  Day 1 DLC's in order to milk you for another $10 beyond what you already paid.  A subscription based EASports model,  trying to force everyone to use their Digital Download service even though Steam is superior in every way,  they're doing it only because Steam won't play ball with their draconian DLC tactics.

Yeah, just like I thought. Stuff you can't prove based on rumors and theories, and no solid evidence any of that lead to a delay. Thanks for proving the point. Also, congrats on using the classic line: 'I don't have to prove the things I say are right, you look it up!'

Modifié par littlezack, 31 juillet 2011 - 12:32 .

[Lumikki]

My opinion it's delayed for two reason.

1. They wanted more development time for game to polish it and was running out of time.
2. Looking what other games is comming, they wanted to find better release day for they product.

Modifié par Lumikki, 31 juillet 2011 - 12:24 .

[xxSgt_Reed_24xx]

They changed it b/c EA has other games coming out at that time. Why would you want to compete for sales against... yourself? More money for you if you spread them out.

It's a win/win for EA... more money from all their games instead of competing for it and reassure fans that they aren't rushing ME3.

[Arppis]

Phategod1 wrote...

The only competition for GOTY is Bioshock infinate.

I hope not. Bioshock 1 was borefest...

[Get Magna Carter]

I hope they use the extra time for more bug fixes