337 réponses à ce sujet

[R3DKL0UD]

DarthCaine wrote...

With Dragon Age taking cues from Skyrim and Mass Effect getting multiplayer it's pretty clear EA is going where the money is

 I like how everyone acts like the entire game is now a fps. Stop trying to put games into little genre boxes and trying to be cute like your a part of some super rpg click. My guess is most people actually trying the multiplayer will enjoy it for what it is, team based combat set in the Mass Effect universe with cool combo abilities. You don't have to like it, but you should try it and in any case realize that most who try it do enjoy it. You are the minority.

Oh, and obviously I and most others picking up the third title in a series love Mass Effect. The level of intelligence to hate something before you even tried it...to close your mind toward new possibilities and experiences... It baffles and frightens me.

Modifié par R3DKL0UD, 17 février 2012 - 03:10 .

[Battlepope190]

Everyone but the people who actually like the series; we don't get them enough money so, BROADER AUDIENCES, LOL XDXDXDXD!

[egervari]

R3DKL0UD wrote...

DarthCaine wrote...

With Dragon Age taking cues from Skyrim and Mass Effect getting multiplayer it's pretty clear EA is going where the money is

Clearly you haven't played Skyrim (its an open world anyway, you need spoonfeeding or something?) or Mass Effect multiplayer. I like how everyone acts like the entire game is now a fps. Stop being shallow and stop trying to put games into little genre boxes and trying to be cute like your a part of some super rpg click. My guess is most people actually trying the multiplayer will enjoy it for what it is, team based combat set in the Mass Effect universe with cool combo abilities. Do you always whine like this? You don't have to like it, but you should try it and in any case realize that most who try it do enjoy it. You are the minority.

You need to do some google searching:

Ray Muzyka, BioWare's CEO, said in an interview with Wired.com that Dragon Age III would be influenced by more open world games, such as The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim, which BioWare is "checking out aggressively."[4]
A BioWare insider mentioned that there are rumors of multiplayer being added to Dragon Age III.
Not only would warriors face each other in combat, but apparently,
dragons would be playable as well. The multiplayer is being developed on
DICE's Frostbite 2, the same game engine used for Battlefield 3.
The multiplayer is supposedly an arena-based affair and features player
versus environment elements as well as player versus player, as well as
humans fighting dragons.[5]

[Spartan901]

I'm probably wasting my time but here goes anyway.....
Bioware and EA are both BUSINESSES, and the goal of any BUSINESS is to generate a profit. As a die hard gamer/ fan, you want them to make a HUGE profit, because that in turn allows them to provide bigger budgets for the projects you love so much like for instance, future (and there will be more) Mass Effect games.
The idea of marketing is to increase revenue. How do you do that? By bringing in NEW business. You do that by creating interest in those who otherwise may have never been exposed or tried out your product. The reason you and the rest of the posters here are fans is because Mass Effect is a great product. So why be mad at a company for being even more-so proud of the product they've been working on for over 6 years that they wanted it to get as much exposure as possible.
The truth is that everyone who posts on this forum is going to buy ME3. They're trying to catch the eye of guy who plays COD or GEARS or BF who ignores RPG's because he thinks they're all Final Fantasy. Because they're confident that as soon as they dip their toe in the water, they will see what all of us know and that is that this is one of the single greatest gaming franchises ever created.

I personally can attest to this because prior to ME1 coming out I never (and I mean never) played RPG'S. I didn't get the appeal, and frankly thought they were lame and la led the visceral experience of other genres. But I saw a few previews of ME and could sense the genuiwine excitement and amazement of the writers on various sites previewing and decided to give it a try. And I'm very happy that I did.

Bioware shouldn't have to convince you they won't screw ME3 up. They've given you two stellar games in the franchise already which means they are 2 for 2. They should have earned your confidence by now that based on the last two, three will only be better. Dragon Age has absolutely no bearing on ME. It may be the same company, but not the same team of people creating it. Relax. You're going to get a great product. You want reassurance. Go play through ME1 and ME2 again and realize how much fun they are, even though you know what will happen each play through yet can still have an enjoyable experience, and that same company is about to give you the final act to that tale. Who cares if they want to get paid while they do it.

[R3DKL0UD]

Sorry I don't spend all day google searching games and fact checking my own comments but thanks for the info nonetheless. Dragon age 1 is a good but romanticized, overrated game. If it came out now people would laugh at it. 2 was bad. Skyrim was awesome in the fact that the world was open but the story was still there when you wanted it. Also, there wasn't clearly defined classes do if you were creative, things got interesting. I think if they take the strength of story and character from 1 and merge it with Skyrim that would possibly be a good thing. Also arena matches with your friends against dragons? How is this bad?

Modifié par R3DKL0UD, 17 février 2012 - 07:06 .

[IndustrializedTaco]

WAIT, WAIT I know this one... They are marketing to people who will spend money on it.

[egervari]

R3DKL0UD wrote...

Sorry I don't spend all day google searching games and fact checking my own comments but thanks for the info nonetheless. Dragon age 1 is a good but romanticized, overrated game. If it came out now people would laugh at it. 2 was bad. Skyrim was awesome in the fact that the world was open but the story was still there when you wanted it. Also, there wasn't clearly defined classes do if you were creative, things got interesting. I think if they take the strength of story and character from 1 and merge it with Skyrim that would possibly be a good thing. Also arena matches with your friends against dragons? How is this bad?

Origins was mostly perfect for me. It was a great, modernized version of Baldur's Gate. It got rid of a lot of crap that made BG outdated and even unnecessarily frustrating without actually changing the core gameplay and what made BG such a great series. I even don't mind the concessions and compromises they made with respect to freedom and being less of an open-world compared to BG1&2 - they got the perfect balance actually.

Granted, there were some things with the inventory I thought could have been a "little" better, and the romances in the game were written rather... I dunno... cringingly bad to okay... I think the game was mostly a masterpiece. That is not to say things couldn't be improved further... like they could have been more specific about what the spells actually did rather than have generic descriptions and things like that... but they got the core of it exactly right. I do not think it was an overrated game in the slighest.

To be honest, Origins has one of the best lores/settings I've ever played in a fantasy game for the PC. When you pick up even a piece of armor, it has a lore associated with it, and the place the developers put it in is not random. There is a lot of careful attention to detail and to the history of the world and with everything in that game. Learning the lore is not necessary to enjoy the game, but it really adds to immersion of the game 10-fold. This sort of world-building is so much more powerful than any graphics engine could provide.

Skyrim, to me, is a different kind of game than what Dragon Age set out to be. For me, I want to ask one simply question: What is Dragon Age really about? When you think of Dragon Age's brand, what is that supposed to mean? Will every gamer essentially state the same answer? They should. With any good brand, you can do this and get a very finely tuned and similar answer. Branding is important.

The original developers of Dragon Age didn't invision Skyrim, or anything like it... so moving in that direction would be moving away from the essence of the Dragon Age brand. Dragon Age was invisioned to be a party-based, tactical combat RPG with a grand story, an open-world, etc. in the vein of older-styled RPGs. It was not meant to be Skyrim, a multiplayer game, or a reincarnation of Mass Effect with swords.

It seems they are changing the direction yet AGAIN. They already had it right. They sold over 2 million copies. Was this not enough for them? They could have continued to make improvements to the basic brand/premise of Origins, and continued to sell 2+ million copies if they had gone that route... and people would know what DA stands for.

With DA3, nobody will know what Dragon Age is supposed to mean. The only thing that will tie the games together is the world they are set in... but even that is not even true as they retcon various things from game to game anyway.

I am not optimistic about DA3 at all. As long as Mike Laidlaw continues to head it, I won't hold my breath. He seems like a guy who puts way too much faith in marketing research and not enough in his own rational mind and own vision.

Modifié par egervari, 17 février 2012 - 07:21 .

[gearseffect]

Dannybare wrote...

gearseffect wrote...

To start with Bioware set out to make the most character driven and player driven game ever done. And up till ME3 they were doing that.

But now Bioware is making it a higher priority to spend the time, resources, effort, to add a Multiplayer Horde Mode component, and a Standard cookie cutter shooter experience that reduces everything these game was built upon to preplanned cut scenes and a conclusion.

The Dialogue and conversations were what made the Universe what it is (or now Was), it allowed players to be in the moment and get to know the characters of the series.

.Bioware used the characters and the individuality of them to build the series around and Bioware went for Broke on the gamble that Fans would fall in love with the universe to propel them to the grand finale of ME3 and make it to the third and finale Story Arch that is the third game,

Now Bioware is treating many Characters as if they may as well have died at some point in the series despite the Player keeping them alive because they cared about them and wanted to have them back to see how their relationship with all their favorite characters ends.

Bioware is sacrificing every thing This Thing Was and denying fans what they were promised at the very start which was a Grand Finale in the form of Satisfactory conclusion to the relationships we have with the characters and even going so far as to reduce Many Characters are being Reduced to mindless husks of who they were and many seem to retain nothing as far as the individual relationships each character has with the Players Version of Shepard and Thus Bioware is denying fans the Promised Prize of a satisfying end,

There is no reason for this to be happening Bioware could have made it all possible with any of the characters in the series but instead they would rather send time, resources, energy, effort to add a Cookie Cutter Story mode and an Online Horde Component,

Hence the reason Bioware is making enemies of the fans by doing a complete 180 of what they had set out to do and provide For no other reasons than to cater to Mainstream Gaming Trends and Selling out their Fans that made this all Possible by falling in love with the Universe that was going to expand across 3 Movie/Story/Video Game Installments back at E3 2006.

DO NOT READ IF YOU DON"T WANT TO KNOW WHO MAY BE GETTING SHAFTED BY BIOWARE
If you don't believe me then wait till ME3 comes out and tell me that you don't think Bioware F*cked over their original fans by F*cking up the characters of Thane, Samara, Morinth, Legion, Miranda, Jacob T., Ashley Williams, Grunt, Zaeed, Kasumi, Kelly Chambers, and on and on.

Do you have any proof that that the Characters in ME3 will be worse than in the previous two games, your basing your assumptions on a 1 hour demo in which the majoirity of the dialouge has been confirmed o have been cut out and where returning Characters I.E Liara, Wrex, Garrus and Mordin have had about 10 lines each and Ashley/Kaidan had one Line.

No what I was saying had nothing to do with the new people in ME3 becuase I can say all I want about hating them but I don't know who they are So once I have them around I will hold off on judging them to harshly.

I'm saying that from what I have read and all that It's BW thinks that a 1 or 2 scenes with some characters from ME2 is nothing more then a dumb cameo to say "Ha We have them all here you just don't get to spend any time with them and they are all husks of who they had been"  You can now be happy with your game ending with a whole 2 lame last comversations with the characters and most do not bring you any closue to the character because they may aswell have just said" Hi Shep" "Bye Shep."

I'm gonna be lived if BW didn't do some heavy reworking to these characters, and get stuck with the Buckethead yet again and get punished if she died in the SM. Ohh looks like BW has a new favorite and it's not Liara.

Before anyone says I am being a dick to Tali, I want to clairify that I have always hated her character and if I hate something to begin with and yet have it shoved down my throught all the time I only hate it more. SO yes I am sick of having Tali on my team, God why can't I please chose to take anyone else from the ME2 squad over her I mean I'd be happy with anyone other than Tali.

[R3DKL0UD]

Skyrim is about your character. What that character is like, their destiny, their world,what they do with their time, is up to you much like when you customize a characters visual presentation. Yes and thanks for the obvious list. I wouldn't read any article of yours because I don't like whiney ****es.

After DA2 I can understand your worry and it's probably best to go in disappointed. I'm also not saying DA should be too much like Skyrim, because that's been done. For me, beyond the story and lore of the first DA was very clunky combat and horrible art (like eating stale bread). Still, lots of love was put into that game and it was enjoyable. I think DA2 had many problems like combat becoming arcade like, toonish art style, but above all there just wasn't love put into it. On the bright side DA 3 can't be as bad as 2. So would it be terrible if you had squad combat with deep lore with realistic graphics in an open world? Your unwavering flexibility makes you seem ridiculous and dooms you to a shortened life filled with disappointment.

Modifié par R3DKL0UD, 17 février 2012 - 03:03 .

[SomeKindaEnigma]

Blah. Ok how about this. Don't play it.

If it turns out bad, congrats, you'll have your I told you so moment. If it turns out great, you can just go to the store and pick it up and smack yourself in the face for believing otherwise.

/thread

[egervari]

R3DKL0UD wrote...

Skyrim is about your character. What that character is like, their destiny, their world,what they do with their time, is up to you much like when you customize a characters visual presentation.

Using the same style of descriptions that I gave about Dragon Age... Skyrim - like all the elder scrolls games - is a first-person open-world sandbox RPG. The main differences between Skyrim and Dragon Age: Origins are:

- solo vs. party-based
- sandbox open-world vs. structured open-world
- player-driven narrative vs. focused, guided narrative
- first-person combat vs. tactical combat

R3DKL0UD wrote...

After DA2 I can understand your worry and it's probably best to go in disappointed. I'm also not saying DA should be too much like Skyrim, because that's been done. For me, beyond the story and lore of the first DA was very clunky combat, horrible art (like eating stale bread), and a non immersive camera. Still, lots of love was put into that game and it was enjoyable. I think DA2 had many problems like combat becoming arcade like, toonish art style, but above all there just wasn't love put into it. On the bright side DA 3 can't be as bad as 2.

DA should be nothing like Skyrim, period. If they want to make a game like Skyrim, they need to come out with a new IP... or at the very least, don't make it a damn sequel. End of story.

I don't think the combat in Dragon Age: Origins was clunky at all - it's just different. I expected tactical, over-head combat, and they delivered. Bravo!

The camera and graphics didn't bother me, and I don't think bothered a lot of people. I was far more immersed in my first playthrough of DA:O than I was in many other games this decade. The more you immerse yourself in the lore, the more you will feel connected to the game world. DA2 lost this - the designers didn't put nearly as much effort and didnt nearly pay as much attention to detail as they did in Origins. Everything just sort of comes off as "bleh" in DA2. But when I find tvinter equipment in an old ruins somewhere, I get shivers because I understand what that means ;P This was not an arbitrary decision - not like it is in almost every other game.

The best way to understand my thoughts on Dragon Age 2, at the time I played it, is to read my very detailed review:

http://www.gamefaqs....s/review-145859

I got into so much stuff. I won an award for that review actually.

We can only hope the dev's read this.

Modifié par egervari, 17 février 2012 - 08:05 .

[xsdob]

Oh you poor thing, Bioware didn't cater to your every little whim and now you gone and got your feelings hurt...how very tragic for you and your first world problem.

As someone who is a more general gamer, someone who plays a wide range of genres, titles, and types of games, and someone who's played first and third person shooters, along with RPG's, open world games, stealth, fighter, beat'em ups, etc. I can honestly say that mass effect is my favorite game ever, becasue it focuses on the two aspects that make a game great, the story and the game play.

These 2 things are what is really important in a game, not whether it falls more towards and action or RPG or even shooter, it's about having a good time playing it and getting emerged into the story. I liked call of duty 4 because the story was good, I hadn't even played a shooter until than but combat was fun and the story kept me interested, modern warfare 2 and 3 jumped the shark by having a world war in them, but the first one was still good.

The reason I'm posting here, and the reason I have a problem with you OP, is that I'm also a long time mass effect fan, I've been a fan ever since I played the first game after buying it used from gamestop, I've played 1 and 2 consecutively, back to back, and I loved it. The transition from 1 to 2 was great, it Incorporated new ideas and mechanics as well as kept loyal to the story and characters, it may not have played the same, I find that it played better, but it still felt like I was playing mass effect because the story felt like it was mass effect.

The story is the key, it's the thing that shouldn't be changed, I would rather have a first person shooter that still had mass effects story than a mass effect like rpg that was dragon age origins in space. You seem to make the case that because the game has incorporated new features and new ideas into itself, that it's somehow betrayed everyone who likes the game, which it hasn't. It evolved to make loyal fans and other players have a good time, other players who deserve to experience the story of mass effect, and not just some elitist fanboy club where your not allowed to like shooters without being blamed for all of biowares imagined problems.

Besides, if you are a loyal fan, you don't need incentive to buy the game, your going to buy it anyway, so why shouldn't bioware try to get other people interested as well, so that they can buy the game and experience the same good game and story that you, me, and everyone else on this forum did. Other people enjoying the game does not equal abandonment of the fan base, it means diversity and expansion, so get over yourself and make room for other gamers instead of pushing them away and scapegoating them for your own nitpicks.

[saturos2]

egervari wrote...

I am honestly taken aback at the crappy marketing job you guys have been doing. Just who is your target audience exactly? Is it the long-term fan that has been buying your games since the original Baldur's Gate, or is the fps gamers who just heard of Bioware when you made Mass Effect 1, and then wined to you because it wasn't like Halo? Who is it?

You had a promotion just recently, where you are giving away Battlefield 3 with the purchase of Mass Effect 3. Now, I am not complaining about receiving a free game if I should buy it on Origin this way... BUT, why on earth would you package Battlefield 3?! This is not the kind of game you would give long-term fans, as the people who have probably stuck with you all these years are likely not huge fans of FPS's... but rather, are fans of RPGs.

I wouldn't post this if Dragon Age 2 wasn't such a disaster. I had a lot to say about that train wreck:

http://www.gamefaqs....s/review-145859

But after playing the demo, I am not comforted that you remember us Bioware. You seem to take your studies of people quitting Dragon Age: Origins too far, and make games for the people who should have never bought them in the first place, and thus watering down/destroying your original IPs and making worse games for the players that have been with you the entire time... just so you can appease the less sophisticated, younger, and less patient audience. Well, the long-term fans hated Dragon Age 2, and you didn't really bring on any new fans with Dragon Age 2 either. So what's going on? Why not just make really good games for a large audience then mediocre games that don't serve any audience, new or old, as big as that target group might be?

If you want to make shooters and dumbed-down games - fine. Go ahead, make a new IP, and cater to those folks. Make it clear that you're NOT making a game for us, but for a new target audience.

But one thing you shouldn't do is fundamentally change what your franchises are all about just to cater to a new audience, because you're just going to ****** your core, existing audience off. First, Mass Effect was an RPG (a lite one at that) with some hybrid shooting elements... but now it plays like a brain-dead shooter. Heck, in the demo, you don't need to use powers or anything. It's not required as you can just run and gun everything, even with the biotic classes.

Even further, the dialog in the demo reminds me of the kind of crap that gets put into movies like Transformers. Why has it degenerated into such garbage?

So who is your target market? The people that grew up with your rich, deep RPGs, or the xbox fps gamers who don't give a rat's ass about story, character development and character progression? Who is it Bioware?

I am highly skeptical about Mass Effect 3. This is the last straw for me. I realize that maybe this new target market of yours is a lot larger than the market that made you what you are today... but it's a pretty awful thing to turn your back on us.

Sincerely,
A long-term, but unhappy customer

WHOA, don't sya all that, the biodrones will get angry because someone questioned bioware.

[mybudgee]

Whoa...what did I walk in on?!? *backs out slowly*

[Rapamaha1]

ehm...you are in the wrong forums...EA does the marketing

[egervari]

Rapamaha1 wrote...

ehm...you are in the wrong forums...EA does the marketing

If I produced a game and somebody else marketed it as crappily as EA has, I would be livid and do something about. Their silence speaks volumes.

[hitorihanzo]

I'm a long term fan- owned and love both ME games, Loved DA: origins, liked DA2. Please don't presume to speak for me. Matter of fact, the more I read from other "long-term fans", the more that I am convinced that a lot of them didn't actually play ME1. ME1 was a shooter. I think that the reason that some of you liked it so much, and disliked ME2, and now dislike ME3 is because ME1 was not that great of a shooter. The mechanics were mediocre. You flew through the game because it wasn't that hard. When BioWare started refining the shooting mechanics, and movement, it became too difficult, and you don't like it.

BioWare is marketing this game to me: the gamer that plays everything: FPS, Sports, racing, action-adventure, RPGS (as long as they are fun), third person shooters. And I'm very happy with how ME3 has turned out, so far.  Matter of fact, the less BioWare markets their games to people like the OP (whiny elitists), the better off they will be in the long run.

Modifié par hitorihanzo, 17 février 2012 - 08:47 .

[SomeKindaEnigma]

I'm also a long term fan. And op, you don't speak for me. That is all.

[saturos2]

hitorihanzo wrote...

I'm a long term fan- owned and love both ME games, Loved DA: origins, liked DA2. Please don't presume to speak for me. Matter of fact, the more I read from other "long-term fans", the more that I am convinced that a lot of them didn't actually play ME1. ME1 was a shooter. I think that the reason that some of you liked it so much, and disliked ME2, and now dislike ME3 is because ME1 was not that great of a shooter. The mechanics were mediocre. You flew through the game because it wasn't that hard. When BioWare started refining the shooting mechanics, and movement, it became too difficult, and you don't like it.

BioWare is marketing this game to me: the gamer that plays everything: FPS, Sports, racing, action-adventure, RPGS (as long as they are fun), third person shooters. And I'm very happy with how ME3 has turned out, so far.  Matter of fact, the less BioWare markets their games to people like the OP (whiny elitists), the better off they will be in the long run.

No, Biowware doesn't really know who they want to market to, and the leaks hold true, if you try to please everyone you end up pleasing no one.

[egervari]

hitorihanzo wrote...

I'm a long term fan- owned and love both ME games, Loved DA: origins, liked DA2. Please don't presume to speak for me. Matter of fact, the more I read from other "long-term fans", the more that I am convinced that a lot of them didn't actually play ME1. ME1 was a shooter. I think that the reason that some of you liked it so much, and disliked ME2, and now dislike ME3 is because ME1 was not that great of a shooter. The mechanics were mediocre. You flew through the game because it wasn't that hard. When BioWare started refining the shooting mechanics, and movement, it became too difficult, and you don't like it.

BioWare is marketing this game to me: the gamer that plays everything: FPS, Sports, racing, action-adventure, RPGS (as long as they are fun), third person shooters. And I'm very happy with how ME3 has turned out, so far.  Matter of fact, the less BioWare markets their games to people like the OP (whiny elitists), the better off they will be in the long run.

Not to sound elitist, but if ME1 was the first bioware game you played, then you are not a "long-term fan". You missed out on BG series all the way to KOTOR and NWN games.

ME1 was not a shooter. Is it an RPG with with shooting elements. Some people have pointed out that the intention was that it was a shooter with interactive-rpg elements, but it went horribly wrong and came out as it did for the first game. I don't really believe that - I think the vision for the game changed, but that's irrelevant. What is relevant is that they set the standard for this IP as an RPG with shooting elements.

Mass Effect 1 is as much a shooter as Oblivion was an action game like Zelda - i.e. not much at all.

Question to you though: Is Fallout 3 and Fallout: New Vegas shooters, or are they RPGs? There is an answer to this question, and no, "hybrid" is not the correct one.

I'll answer it for you: They are RPGs. Why? Because they focus on things like character advancement and progression... they have a strong story and setting... they have exploration and discovery... and they have combat that isn't just about twitch gameplay, but it depends on your characters' choices, advancement, and other factors. These elements are what ultimately make up every RPG ever made, even though many of them go about these things in different ways.

So is Mass Effect 1 an RPG? Yes. It has all of these elements, and shooters do not. Shooters, like Call of Duty 4, may "dabble" in RPG mechanics for their multiplayer, but they are essentially missing the remaining elements.

If you read my other posts in previous pages, I go into more detail about this, and I think I made some strong points as to why I'm right when I say that the series has basically changed genres. For example, they had non-linear gameplay, more openness to the worlds and locations, less hand-holding, and didn't have mission-based design. They let you reexplore old areas. There was more customization with respect to gear and mods, as well as character abilities. Combat, while definitely not perfect, most certainly depended on your characters' advancement and a lot less on twitch gameplay. Some of the best characters rarely fired weapons.

Whether they intended to change genres or not with Mass Effect is totally irrelevant - it happened, and it's not unreasonable for fans of the first game - as well as their previous games like Knights of the Old Republic or Baldur's Gate - to question something as simple as "Who is your target audience for ME3, Bioware?"

Modifié par egervari, 17 février 2012 - 09:23 .

[GuardianAngel470]

I really do pitty Bioware. I mean if even a few of the devs come on here and look at all these threads I feel very bad for them.

How could anyone feel good about having spent 2 years making a product only to see "fans" hate it before it even hits store shelves? How could any person that creates anything not get horribly depressed upon seeing these things pop up one after another after another.

@the OP, it's called marketing. The purpose of marketing, contrary to popular belief, is NOT to inform you about the product. It is to sell that product to as many people as possible as quickly as possible.

It is also not handled at the developer level. Remember when Portal 2 was about to come out? How there was a big stink about how Valve were releasing a trailer written, developed, recorded, and published entirely by them?

That is because almost NO company creates its own marketing. Even EA doesn't create their own marketing. Companies hire that job out to professional marketing firms. From what I understand a company/publisher hires the firm, provides the firm with information, and then the firm creates the marketing campaign.

That is handled at the publisher level. You are blaming a developer for the marketing of their game when they have almost no control over that.

[GuardianAngel470]

hitorihanzo wrote...

I'm a long term fan- owned and love both ME games, Loved DA: origins, liked DA2. Please don't presume to speak for me. Matter of fact, the more I read from other "long-term fans", the more that I am convinced that a lot of them didn't actually play ME1. ME1 was a shooter. I think that the reason that some of you liked it so much, and disliked ME2, and now dislike ME3 is because ME1 was not that great of a shooter. The mechanics were mediocre. You flew through the game because it wasn't that hard. When BioWare started refining the shooting mechanics, and movement, it became too difficult, and you don't like it.

BioWare is marketing this game to me: the gamer that plays everything: FPS, Sports, racing, action-adventure, RPGS (as long as they are fun), third person shooters. And I'm very happy with how ME3 has turned out, so far.  Matter of fact, the less BioWare markets their games to people like the OP (whiny elitists), the better off they will be in the long run.

I refer you to my polls on the subject:

http://social.biowar...94/polls/18411/

http://social.biowar...94/polls/18412/

http://social.biowar...94/polls/18413/

[egervari]

GuardianAngel470 wrote...

I really do pitty Bioware. I mean if even a few of the devs come on here and look at all these threads I feel very bad for them.

How could anyone feel good about having spent 2 years making a product only to see "fans" hate it before it even hits store shelves? How could any person that creates anything not get horribly depressed upon seeing these things pop up one after another after another.

As I've said, I will reserve my judgement when I play the game. I will buy it and play it, but it's the last straw for me.

Having said that, DA2 gives an enormous expectation for me. It's like a broken record.

GuardianAngel470 wrote...

@the OP, it's called marketing. The purpose of marketing, contrary to popular belief, is NOT to inform you about the product. It is to sell that product to as many people as possible as quickly as possible.

I know this, but again, it's the kind of marketing that DA2 had - same direction, same purpose. 

And sometimes quick sales is not desirable either. Sometimes you have to look at the "big picture" - i.e. long-term profits. While Dragon Age 2 definitely sold more copies than Origins during the first week, it sold less and less as the weeks went on. For the first 10 weeks, Origins had sold twice as many copies as Dragon Age 2. Now you tell me, was it worth it? No, it wasn't.

GuardianAngel470 wrote...

That is because almost NO company creates its own marketing. Even EA doesn't create their own marketing. Companies hire that job out to professional marketing firms. From what I understand a company/publisher hires the firm, provides the firm with information, and then the firm creates the marketing campaign.

That is handled at the publisher level. You are blaming a developer for the marketing of their game when they have almost no control over that.

Again, Biowares silence with respect to this speaks volumes. EA has proven to not be the best pubisher in the world. Their marketing has been hit and miss. It was miss for Dragon Age 2, as was their "suggestions" on how to make Dragon Age "better".

If I had made Mass Effect or Dragon Age, I would want my game to be marketed properly - at least not in a way to alienate and do harm to the existing core group of fans that have generously funded the development of these games and gave the company profits that continue to see them employed.

[Metalunatic]

What is up with the people on this thread? You're flaming the OP and kissing Bioware's ass and for what? You don't get paid to do it.

Back on topic. I think the marketing is terrible. Cheesy lines, damn omni-blade (which is ridicilous and not wanted IMO) flashing in every shot of Shepard. Even the pose he is in the cover is the same as in Battlefield 3 or at least very much alike.

The demo however left me wanting more even if the animations and graphics at some points weren't up to my expectations.

Conclusion; I think the marketing is trying to get shooter fans interested when the series has focused more on story, characters and RPG elements since ME1. It's kind of weird to me, but I guess you can blame EA for that.

Modifié par Metalunatic, 17 février 2012 - 09:31 .