110 réponses à ce sujet

[E-Type XR]

Agreed, weapons were much more meaningful in ME2, not a simple case of "This gun is +30, this gun is +32, I'll use that one.

[Kekkis]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Tommy6860 wrote...

It's obvious that ME3 is going to focus on combat even more, and that's disappointing, they did enough already with ME2. Anyway, I'd like to know how you extrapolate what you did for this one particular category; was there info in that presentation that gave a gist to these elements you added (I didn't see them)?

That presentation wasn't very good to be honest and I seriously get the feeling that Christina should work for Activision and or stick ith action games. The presentation even got the squad count wrong for ME1.

This is what I would like to see; RPG elements and more to be added back into ME3 that were in ME1. Real character interactions and choices that have an impact on the plots and story.  Combat is combat and they can do what they want with that, but RP has to have some meaningful reason to be part of the game outside of what seems to be turning into an even more action type game.

I'm so sick of seeing this argument.

Look at the story of ME3. The galaxy is at war. Of course it will focus more on combat. That's pretty much guaranteed in a time of war, unless it's a cold war, which I highly doubt ME3 is going to be.

Yes. Galaxy is at war and still Shep+2 spends their time running around shooting Cerberus mercs. Don´t they have anything more important to do?

[AngryFrozenWater]

Terror_K wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Exactly. From what Brenon Holmes describes it's more of an organic process than one person telling everone else what to do.

I don't think it's being ignored, but more a case of her being the lead combined with comments along the lines of "simpler is better, and what could be simpler than no inventory" and her expressing confusion as ME1's stats/abilities screen lead people to believe that she was very much a major voice behind the overall oversimplification of ME2 as a whole. Her being the Lead doesn't make her the only factor and one responsible, but she is the one overall honing the direction of the gameplay and rubber-stamping it. Overall though, one could also just as easily blame Casey Hudson for rubber stamping things using that logic I guess.

I'll give you an example: I critisized the potion making in DA2 and to my surprise the employee who created that part of the game felt responsible and responded because he did not agree with me at all. To me that is proof that how Brenon Holmes describes the decision making is in fact like how it goes there. I have the impression that these employees are passionate about games and the one they are working on. That's why they are given more freedom than we give them cedit for. I think that is what Brenon meant and that is what we should take into account. That does not mean that overal policies about things like streamlining to reduce cost and development time are not in effect. All those decisions have been made and the public faces will defend them. The public face in question may have made a specific decision or not or is merely stating a decision made higher up in the hierarchy. All we can do is critisize what we don't like. BW seems to value the feedback. But attributing decisions to specific individuals doesn't help making ME3 a better game.

[Terror_K]

Someone With Mass wrote...

ME3 will have mods (better than ME1's mods from the looks of it, since there will be scopes that you can actually use and laser sights for pistols and more), customization, progression (more so than ME1, since powers are unlocked through the level system) and there will even be a reason to sell stuff.

Which is great. But that type of thing should never have gone in the first place in ME2. I look at a lot of ME3 and think, "this should already have been in ME2 from the start."

As far as modding goes, I'm still wondering whether it will provide true options and customisation due to trade-offs, or whether it'll just be a case of upgrading it almost like in ME2, but with that extra step. I suppose that remains to be seen, and I'm not going to complain that it hasn't been elaborated on yet, but I don't want to think that each upgrade slot only has one item to go in it and that's it and it's merely a matter of getting it. Simply put, without choices and trade-offs a weapon modding system is pointless. Here's hoping that it's not and has some depth to it and there really are several barrels, scopes, etc. for each weapon.

[Someone With Mass]

I guess that's because they don't have to upgrade their entire system and engine with ME3 as they did with ME2, which gives them time to focus on other things.

[Malanek]

Brenon Holmes wrote...

You might want to be careful of ascribing everything to one specific person. :happy: (Public-ish figures are easy to single out, I know! However...)

On the gameplay team we have some folks who focus on specific areas and drive most of the decisions, iterations, and change for those areas, Preston as the Lead Designer provides direction and gives feedback and suggestions...

I think to suggest that one person is/was responsible for everything is a bit of an overstatement.

... and that's not even touching on the rest of the team (character art, concepting, animation, cine anim, cine design, level design, QA, etc)...  all of whom have a rather large impact on what we're doing and where we're heading as a project.

(sorry, not really answering your question... but just wanted to address one of the sort of implied assumptions in the discussion :happy:)

It is of course completely unfair, but Christina was brought on board between ME1 and 2 as lead gameplay designer and the improvement was staggering. ME2 ended up as one of my all time favourite games. I'm not actually 100% certain of who else was on gameplay in ME2, so she gets a huge amount of kudos, even though its possible that a bunch of other people were responsible. Yes, completely unfair.

As for the OP, I think so by and large. The same team (presuming that means squadmates) looks to be compromised but I can understand the reasoning behind that. The only thing I don't really like so far is the increased emphasis on melee, it seems out of place and was already stronger than it should have been. The proof will of course be in the execution. But other than that I like waht I'm hearing, I'm optimistic and have incredibly high expectations

[Terror_K]

Malanek999 wrote...

It is of course completely unfair, but Christina was brought on board between ME1 and 2 as lead gameplay designer and the improvement was staggering. ME2 ended up as one of my all time favourite games. I'm not actually 100% certain of who else was on gameplay in ME2, so she gets a huge amount of kudos, even though its possible that a bunch of other people were responsible. Yes, completely unfair.

You have to realise of course that there are a lot of people who don't feel the changes were an improvement though, and rather than praising her and heaping on kudos they're blaming her and heaping on criticism. Just FYI.

As for the OP, I think so by and large. The same team (presuming that means squadmates) looks to be compromised but I can understand the reasoning behind that.

I think she meant same development team for gameplay, rather than same in-game squaddie team.

The only thing I don't really like so far is the increased emphasis on melee, it seems out of place and was already stronger than it should have been. The proof will of course be in the execution. But other than that I like waht I'm hearing, I'm optimistic and have incredibly high expectations

The huge focus on melee is definitely one of my biggest concerns too. I'm hoping that melee isn't really such a  big deal at all, and what they're really doing is going on about it so much simply because it's a new major feature and simply saying "it's now a realistic option, when it wasn't before" and that's it. The problem is that it's coming across which as "everything is melee now, and you have to use it to survive and it's an integral part to the game."

To be honest, aside from making Shepard a tad more durable and capable in melee, I think it's a mistake to put as much ephasis and work on integrating melee in ME3 as such a major feature as it seems, especially so late in the game. It just seems like they caved to all the people going on about wanting "lightsabres and swords coz KotOR had them!" rather than a well thought-out move, and I can't help but feel focus could have been better put elsewhere improving the game than wasting time on melee in a system based on TPS combat. That and the omni-blade is friggin' stupid.

[Icinix]

At the moment - I'm sick of seeing the combat. My cerebral zone is crying out for some videos of dialogue, non combat zones, exploration ANYTHING that involves using more than a trigger finger.

That said, the snippets I have seen are making me excited.

[Phaedon]

Tommy6860 wrote...
It's obvious that ME3 is going to focus on combat even more, and that's disappointing, they did enough already with ME2. Anyway, I'd like to know how you extrapolate what you did for this one particular category; was there info in that presentation that gave a gist to these elements you added (I didn't see them)?

That presentation wasn't very good to be honest and I seriously get the feeling that Christina should work for Activision and or stick ith action games. The presentation even got the squad count wrong for ME1.

This is what I would like to see; RPG elements and more to be added back into ME3 that were in ME1. Real character interactions and choices that have an impact on the plots and story.  Combat is combat and they can do what they want with that, but RP has to have some meaningful reason to be part of the game outside of what seems to be turning into an even more action type game.

Fyi, I consider this the worst post I have read on BSN for this month. Even without the "~kekee dump shootah go wurk for activision  ^_^" cr@p. I suppose that that required some effort.

These are merely the goals Christina, obviously representing a lot of people that work with her, has for Mass Effect 3. Is there any info on any of the other goals in that presentantion either? Or are you just sh*tposting just for the sake of doing so?

What we have seen now:

• Meaningful stat alterations, not just +1/2/3% sillyness,
• Level Up System with 60 Levels, 57 Powers and 170+ points,
• Visual and actual weapon customization with 5 upgradable parts per weapon type, and 25 types of mods overall,
• Constant Power Evolutions

Regardless of only being let known of these facts right after Christina moved on to LA, has been worked on by the same team and under her leadership. You should start showing some respect to people's creations. 

[Phaedon]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

I have yet to see how the RPG elements have had any more focus and improvement than ME2 for one siimple reason the only demos and dialogue people and devs spend all their time talking about is mere combat, skills, weapons and classes.

That isn't for me RPG elements and the only clues we have is heresay and rumours about what RPG'esque elements are back in game or improved upon. While RPG means different things to different people, to me it has little to do with combat and guns and skills and more to do with narrative, plot, choices; depth of customisation and such like skills too is part of it but not the big part to me and as it stands right now the only footage and such has been about the latter aspects.

Understandable to a degree since the former would possibly entail spoilers but all the same I haven't seen those RPG system improvements (imho) as of yet because of that issue of potential spoilers. All people seem to talk about on here is whats skills does X or Y have, what weapons can X or Y use, can class X charge or use combo <insert name>, what about omni-weapon etc. Those to me are all combat and not the RPG elements I wish to know about. I can't ask [or more precisley] get answer about the RPG elements I want to know about because they might contain spoilers so I have to assume the RPG elements have been improved rather then know they have.

Except that skills and powers is the only things a gameplay lead designer have power over. As for the rest, how did you miss the promises about choices and consequences throughout development?

[Dragoonlordz]

Phaedon wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

I have yet to see how the RPG elements have had any more focus and improvement than ME2 for one siimple reason the only demos and dialogue people and devs spend all their time talking about is mere combat, skills, weapons and classes.

That isn't for me RPG elements and the only clues we have is heresay and rumours about what RPG'esque elements are back in game or improved upon. While RPG means different things to different people, to me it has little to do with combat and guns and skills and more to do with narrative, plot, choices; depth of customisation and such like skills too is part of it but not the big part to me and as it stands right now the only footage and such has been about the latter aspects.

Understandable to a degree since the former would possibly entail spoilers but all the same I haven't seen those RPG system improvements (imho) as of yet because of that issue of potential spoilers. All people seem to talk about on here is whats skills does X or Y have, what weapons can X or Y use, can class X charge or use combo <insert name>, what about omni-weapon etc. Those to me are all combat and not the RPG elements I wish to know about. I can't ask [or more precisley] get answer about the RPG elements I want to know about because they might contain spoilers so I have to assume the RPG elements have been improved rather then know they have.

Except that skills and powers is the only things a gameplay lead designer have power over. As for the rest, how did you miss the promises about choices and consequences throughout development?

Learn to read.

Promises fall under rumours, I stated that might contain spoilers and also stated understand why I am not getting answers to RPG elements I want to know about. But none of that changes the simple fact thats the things I care about not combat (skills, weapons, omniblade, classes).

Btw if your going to attack another persons veiw with comments like "Fyi, I consider this the worst post I have read on BSN for this month" with regards to Tommy's reply, then your inability to read what I wrote and trying to somehow point score off something I already said falls into my "worst reply of day".

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 05 septembre 2011 - 01:46 .

[Someone With Mass]

They have showed the skill/power systems in ME3 plenty of times. Maybe some of you should pay attention?

Also, just because a demo (which is not even half a mission, by the way) shows a large part of combat doesn't mean that the whole game will be just that.

It must be the stupidest thing I've ever heard. To judge a 30-35 hour long game based on a 15 minute long demo, which is also clearly based on an old build.

Modifié par Someone With Mass, 05 septembre 2011 - 12:31 .

[Dragoonlordz]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Also, just because a demo (which is not even half a mission, by the way) shows a large part of combat doesn't mean that the whole game will be just that.

It must be the stupidest thing I've ever heard. To judge a 30-35 hour long game based on a 15 minute long demo, which is also clearly based on an old build.

See reply above yours or...

Those to me are all combat and not the RPG elements I wish to know about. I can't ask [or more precisley] get answer about the RPG elements I want to know about because they might contain spoilers so I have to assume the RPG elements have been improved rather then know they have.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 05 septembre 2011 - 01:58 .

[Xeranx]

Someone With Mass wrote...

They have showed the skill/power systems in ME3 plenty of times. Maybe some of you should pay attention?

Also, just because a demo (which is not even half a mission, by the way) shows a large part of combat doesn't mean that the whole game will be just that.

It must be the stupidest thing I've ever heard. To judge a 30-35 hour long game based on a 15 minute long demo, which is also clearly based on an old build.

Isn't this what we had to do before demos became relics of the past?  I haven't seen a demo for any game I was interested in for a long time.  The ME2 demo came out after the game released.  That did nothing and does nothing for those who already bought it.  The DA2 demo soured a lot of people that were interested in buying it.  I know I didn't like how my version of Hawke was never correct until after the legend was told, but if I used the default my Hawke's tales are initially told with minor embellishments.

In any case, which is more stupid: Judging a game based on a "15-minute long demo" or judging a game based on reviews from people who might not be objective.  I'm talking "professional" reviews because that's the bulk of what we're doing now.  We're scouring the web for any information that will lead us to finding out if we'll like the purchase we're interested in making because (at least in the US) we can't return these games once we've opened the package.  And what's more is that reviews are never enough to judge whether we would like a game or not.

Your comment in bold seems to give strength to Gatt's impressions of PR because outside of a demo (which is usually combat heavy) your only recourse to find out about a game is reviews which fits in well with the PR machine.

[Il Divo]

Xeranx wrote...


In any case, which is more stupid: Judging a game based on a "15-minute long demo" or judging a game based on reviews from people who might not be objective.  I'm talking "professional" reviews because that's the bulk of what we're doing now.  We're scouring the web for any information that will lead us to finding out if we'll like the purchase we're interested in making because (at least in the US) we can't return these games once we've opened the package.  And what's more is that reviews are never enough to judge whether we would like a game or not.

I personally consider both equally stupid. The purpose of a demo is to build interest in the game/showcase gameplay. If I consider what I've seen unsatisfactory (for whatever reason), that is enough for me to decide not to purchase the game, and that is the fault of the developers.

On the other hand, with reviews people tend to focus only on the number (or Metacritic score), when the actual review's contents are more important in describing their impression of the game. I thought ME2's rating on most sites very fitting and think it's a great game. On the other hand, Human Revolution's 89% is too low (imo) and consider it one of my favorites.

Rather than trust all reviewers, the best approach is to find a reviewer whose writing style you enjoy and tends to have the same opinions regarding games. At its core though, the review itself is always more important than the little number attached at the end.

Oh, and I'll be posting a reply in the Smudboy plot review soon. Sorry for the delay, as usual.

Modifié par Il Divo, 05 septembre 2011 - 02:50 .

[Ostagar2011]

Someone With Mass wrote...

They have showed the skill/power systems in ME3 plenty of times. Maybe some of you should pay attention?

Also, just because a demo (which is not even half a mission, by the way) shows a large part of combat doesn't mean that the whole game will be just that.

It must be the stupidest thing I've ever heard. To judge a 30-35 hour long game based on a 15 minute long demo, which is also clearly based on an old build.

'Skills and powers' are in most forgettable little action games. It's because ME was a great mix of role playing and action that it was brilliant. So I don't want to know anything more about ammunition and firepower and mechs and grenades and bangs - that part of the game is fine. I got that. It's the other half of the equation that I'm not convinced about because BioWare don't want to give any specific details about it.

And the 'judge a game' point is funny, because we heard all that with DA2 pre-launch. Forum consensus -- you can't judge DA2 based on trailers. You can't judge it based on developer comments. You can't judge it on reviews (yes, this was actually said by a large number). You can't judge it on the demo (the DA2 demo was also supposedly an 'old build'). You can only judge it if buy it. And even then you must play it at least 2 times to be eligible to have a valid view. If that logic is true, we might as well all just leave these forums now, pre-order the game, and then come back in May 2012 to discuss if buying ME3 was in fact, the correct thing to have done with hindsight. I bet the EA accountants would be pleased!

[Xeranx]

Il Divo wrote...

Xeranx wrote...


In any case, which is more stupid: Judging a game based on a "15-minute long demo" or judging a game based on reviews from people who might not be objective.  I'm talking "professional" reviews because that's the bulk of what we're doing now.  We're scouring the web for any information that will lead us to finding out if we'll like the purchase we're interested in making because (at least in the US) we can't return these games once we've opened the package.  And what's more is that reviews are never enough to judge whether we would like a game or not.

I personally consider both equally stupid. The purpose of a demo is to build interest in the game/showcase gameplay. If I consider what I've seen unsatisfactory (for whatever reason), that is enough for me to decide not to purchase the game, and that is the fault of the developers.

On the other hand, with reviews people tend to focus only on the number (or Metacritic score), when the actual review's contents are more important in describing their impression of the game. I thought ME2's rating on most sites very fitting and think it's a great game. On the other hand, Human Revolution's 89% is too low (imo) and consider it one of my favorites.

Rather than trust all reviewers, the best approach is to find a reviewer whose writing style you enjoy and tends to have the same opinions regarding games. At its core though, the review itself is always more important than the little number attached at the end.

Oh, and I'll be posting a reply in the Smudboy plot review soon. Sorry for the delay, as usual.

I can't agree on the demos being equally bad if someone decides to buy games based on their gameplay.  Of course we can all put on that questioning look as to why someone would do that if there's supposed to be story involved at the same time, but judging from most responses around here I don't think too many would have been sold if the demo featured story over gameplay.  

I may be wrong, but I think the best demos would feature gameplay and cover story/decisions at the same time.  Maybe it's the comibination of a character creator, tutorial, and a planned dlc which affects the story but shows what you're likely to encounter in terms of decisions and the like.  

Despite my dislike of the DA2 demo, I will acknowledge that it did most of what I listed.  Just not in great detail of the decision part.  Then again, most decisions didn't allow Hawke to make much of a difference anyway.  So the demo was adequate in hindsight.

Using metacritic or anything like it I don't buy especially when people reference the user numbers to represent some silent majority.  The numbers there are about as representative of a majority/minority as my single voice is.  It'll be like saying the majority of people prefer a red-head femShep which isn't true in any way, shape, or form.  Just the use of a prism to bend ideas to your liking.

[Icinix]

Prothy the Prothean wrote...

Icinix wrote...

At the moment - I'm sick of seeing the combat. My cerebral zone is crying out for some videos of dialogue, non combat zones, exploration ANYTHING that involves using more than a trigger finger.

That said, the snippets I have seen are making me excited.

You must enjoy spoilers then, since all those areas are immediately tied to the story.

Very few people share your sentiment.

So what you're saying is...anything non-combat is a spoiler?

But showing combat against Cerberus, Reapers, Earth being attacked, Anderson, etc are NOT spoilers?

...

?

[111987]

Icinix wrote...

Prothy the Prothean wrote...

Icinix wrote...

At the moment - I'm sick of seeing the combat. My cerebral zone is crying out for some videos of dialogue, non combat zones, exploration ANYTHING that involves using more than a trigger finger.

That said, the snippets I have seen are making me excited.

You must enjoy spoilers then, since all those areas are immediately tied to the story.

Very few people share your sentiment.

So what you're saying is...anything non-combat is a spoiler?

But showing combat against Cerberus, Reapers, Earth being attacked, Anderson, etc are NOT spoilers?

...

?

It's hard to market a conversation, or driving around the Mako or something, to most gamers.

[Icinix]

111987 wrote...

Icinix wrote...

Prothy the Prothean wrote...

Icinix wrote...

At the moment - I'm sick of seeing the combat. My cerebral zone is crying out for some videos of dialogue, non combat zones, exploration ANYTHING that involves using more than a trigger finger.

That said, the snippets I have seen are making me excited.

You must enjoy spoilers then, since all those areas are immediately tied to the story.

Very few people share your sentiment.

So what you're saying is...anything non-combat is a spoiler?

But showing combat against Cerberus, Reapers, Earth being attacked, Anderson, etc are NOT spoilers?

...

?

It's hard to market a conversation, or driving around the Mako or something, to most gamers.

Not asking them too.

Just saying it would ne nice to see something outside of over sheps shoulder shooting things.

[Phaedon]

Dragoonlordz wrote...
Learn to read. 

Promises fall under rumours, I stated that might contain spoilers and also stated understand why I am not getting answers to RPG elements I want to know about. But none of that changes the simple fact thats the things I care about not combat (skills, weapons, omniblade, classes).

Um, no, they don't.

And it's not just vague promises, they have specifically said for example that there are multiple ways to retake Earth and that you can lose entire species. They have even went ahead and confirmed that all major characters are coming back, and even idividually confirmed a dozen.

You are not getting answers on skills? Or weapons? Or the heavy melee attacks?
You do realize that they have 6 months of marketing to go on, and have already revealed, a) Weapon customization, Statistical Progression, right? At this point, they won't have much to show in the next few months.

Btw if your going to attack another persons veiw with comments like "Fyi, I consider this the worst post I have read on BSN for this month" with regards to Tommy's reply, then your inability to read what I wrote and trying to somehow point score off something I already said falls into my "worst reply of day".

Good for you.

I consider the aforementioned post stupid for two reasons:
a) Unconstructive criticism of work/art, which leads me to believe that Tommy is a major jerk or has never created a single art project in his life.

The supposed "reasoning" behind this is so self-contradicted that it is not even funny.

Modifié par Phaedon, 06 septembre 2011 - 07:22 .

[Dragoonlordz]

Phaedon wrote...

And it's not just vague promises.

How vague is irrelevant. It is something that I haven't seen, it's something that might, could or should be in game but no actual evidence it is.

You are not getting answers on skills? Or weapons? Or the heavy melee attacks?

Go back read what I said, I said those things are not the things I care about most and not as interested in.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 06 septembre 2011 - 08:39 .

[Gatt9]

Phaedon wrote...

Tommy6860 wrote...
It's obvious that ME3 is going to focus on combat even more, and that's disappointing, they did enough already with ME2. Anyway, I'd like to know how you extrapolate what you did for this one particular category; was there info in that presentation that gave a gist to these elements you added (I didn't see them)?

That presentation wasn't very good to be honest and I seriously get the feeling that Christina should work for Activision and or stick ith action games. The presentation even got the squad count wrong for ME1.

This is what I would like to see; RPG elements and more to be added back into ME3 that were in ME1. Real character interactions and choices that have an impact on the plots and story.  Combat is combat and they can do what they want with that, but RP has to have some meaningful reason to be part of the game outside of what seems to be turning into an even more action type game.

Fyi, I consider this the worst post I have read on BSN for this month. Even without the "~kekee dump shootah go wurk for activision  ^_^" cr@p. I suppose that that required some effort.

These are merely the goals Christina, obviously representing a lot of people that work with her, has for Mass Effect 3. Is there any info on any of the other goals in that presentantion either? Or are you just sh*tposting just for the sake of doing so?

What we have seen now:

• Meaningful stat alterations, not just +1/2/3% sillyness,
• Level Up System with 60 Levels, 57 Powers and 170+ points,
• Visual and actual weapon customization with 5 upgradable parts per weapon type, and 25 types of mods overall,
• Constant Power Evolutions

Regardless of only being let known of these facts right after Christina moved on to LA, has been worked on by the same team and under her leadership. You should start showing some respect to people's creations. 

You seem to be really confused about how things work at EA...

http://www.gamespot....ed-spouse-outed

The relevant quote...

A few months later, a second lawsuit against EA came to light representing EA's engineers and programmers, also seeking unpaid overtime wages. The lawsuit was brought on by Leander Hasty, an engineer from EALA who claimed that he and fellow workers "do not perform work that is original or creative and have no management responsibilities and are seldom allowed to use their own judgment." In short, Hasty claimed he and others were simply part of an assembly line.

Personally,  I'll take an EA employee's word over yours.

Good for you.

I consider the aforementioned post stupid for two reasons:
a) Unconstructive criticism of work/art, which leads me to believe that Tommy is a major jerk or has never created a single art project in his life.

The supposed "reasoning" behind this is so self-contradicted that it is not even funny.

You know,  we could level similiar criticism at you.  Because Tommy didn't post how great Mass Effect is,  he must be a stupid-head who doesn't know anything.

Except,  I can,  and just did,  link to press pieces that contradict your assertions on "Work of art". 

Further,  your reasoning for why he's a stupid-head is faulty.  They made the same promises about choices and consequences for ME2,  which turned out to be E-mails and 30 second meaningless dialogues once or twice.  You're assertion that they can't talk about things yet is directly disproven by Blizzard with Diablo 3,  which released vast amounts of information years before release,  and they'll absolutely sell an order of magnitude more units than Bioware will.

[clerkenwell]

Gatt9 wrote...

You seem to be really confused about how things work at EA...

http://www.gamespot....ed-spouse-outed

The relevant quote...

A few months later, a second lawsuit against EA came to light representing EA's engineers and programmers, also seeking unpaid overtime wages. The lawsuit was brought on by Leander Hasty, an engineer from EALA who claimed that he and fellow workers "do not perform work that is original or creative and have no management responsibilities and are seldom allowed to use their own judgment." In short, Hasty claimed he and others were simply part of an assembly line.

Personally,  I'll take an EA employee's word over yours.

Those articles are over five years old, and by many accounts EA has attempted to change their development culture to prevent situations like that from happening again.

Personally, I'll take the words of the many Bioware employees who have twitter accounts and talk frequently about how much they love what they do.