281 réponses à ce sujet

[ZLurps]

bboynexus wrote...

I thought Eve was decent enough, though I'm not sure why you'd find EDI less than satisfactory.

EDI is okay as fembot, not so much as believable AI or exploration of idea. But it's minor gripe really, my point is that there is always going to be something. It's impossible to please everyone.

[TheGeordie]

....

Modifié par TheGeordie, 27 mars 2012 - 01:40 .

[ZLurps]

Muzyka goes to ask from Riccitiello? I wonder if he also goes to ask for budget for paper clips if some of the BioWare studio happen to run out of those? Riccitello  go ask from shareholders? Each one individually. yeah, right.

TheGeordie wrote...

>> These guys founded BioWare and they are responsible for revenue of
products released under BioWare label. Hudson doesn't go to ask from
John Riccitiello if he could get more time to complete the product, he
goes to Muzyka.

And Muzkya goes to Riccitiello who then goes to board of directors who then go to the shareholders who then say no.

Bioware *ARE* EA now. They only operate under the Bioware name because the brand has an inherent value about it. If it didn't they would have been rebranded a long time ago immediately after they were bought.

Decisions about when to release a product are made by the entire board of directors of which Ray and Greg are only two. EDIT: Actually, I tell a lie - Ray and Greg are not part of the EA board of
directors, who ultimately decide when games come out:
http://investor.ea.com/directors.cfm


To thing Bioware function as an independant unit with no outside influence from the parent company is very wrong.

ZLurps wrote...

TheGeordie wrote...

You can't use the comparative time between ME1 and 2 and ME2 and 3 as a comparison to say "where's the rush?" - studio's shuffle teams around all the time to help where needed - it's more than likely that some of the ME3 team were working on DA2 and / or PC conversions (or basically something other than ME3) for a lot of the time. There's no way in hell ME3 (with all the technology and development pipelines already made with ME2) took 3.5 years.

Concerning adding a year to development - yes, it costs a lot of money, but if ever there was a safe bet that was going to sell millions, it was ME3 - they should have taken the time to get it right - it would have led to a lot more sales (instead of places like amazon offering money back) and stopped the brand / studio reputation damage they have endured instead.

As always though, it will have been EA - they have share holders to keep happy who simply do not see value in spending time creatively. Get it out in whatever shape it's in, in the allocated financial quarter and screw everything else.

And it was evil EA that forced them to do that?

Again, Ray Muzyka is the CEO at BioWare Corps as well as a Senior Vice President and General Manager of the BioWare Label of EA (comprising BioWare Edmonton, BioWare Austin, BioWare Montreal, BioWare Ireland, BioWare Victory, BioWare San Francisco, BioWare Sacramento and Mythic Entertainment, now BioWare Mythic) at BioWare's parent company Electronic Arts.

Greg Zeschuk is a Vice Predisent at EA and General Manager at BioWare Austin, a studio within the BioWare Label - BioWare corps and EA.

These guys founded BioWare and they are responsible for revenue of products released under BioWare label. Hudson doesn't go to ask from John Riccitiello if he could get more time to complete the product, he goes to Muzyka.

[Jadebaby]

Yup, EA are worse than sleeping with a dirty sock for a pillow.

[DocStone]

Proof the game was rushed?

Once you get hit by Harbinger's beam, go take a look behind the right hand side Mako type vehicle. There you will see the worst texturing I have ever seen in a game in my life: what looks like 8 bit renderings of bodies applied as a texture to rocky lumps.

I won't even mention the reused textures and models from the previous games that were used for everything once we got into the beam.......

[Mvin]

I have my own list of ME3 flaws that coincide with many of your points:

- The journal is absolutely useless now.

- There is now only one Hub - the Citadel - which sharply contrasts ME2's locations Omega, Tuchanka, Illium AND the citadel with their respective diversified quests.

- New companions are basically non-existent, fewer companions overall, less ship dialogue, no loyalty missions. Meh. Made the game far less interesting to me. So much potential wasted...

- Side quests are a joke, worse than in ME1. I really did enjoy the recruitment and loyalty missions that led me all around the galaxy, freeing prisoners, fighting my way up skyscrapers or infiltrating night clubs. All that is left in ME3 are the main missions. And while they sort of replace all of the old crew missions, they simply do not live up to their sheer number and quality.

- Dialogue and humor is inferior to ME2. There are no "Reach and flexibilty"- or "This is my favorite store on the citadel"-lines anymore. ME3 simply lacks the many notable, small Mass Effect moments that can be found in every corner of the game.

- No more neutral dialogue options. Instead, lots of autotalking.

- Paragon/renegade interventions have been reduced and are not nearly as funny anymore (Renegade in ME2: Han Solo, Renegade in ME3: An evil, cruel ****).

- Less enemy variety (reaper ground forces, geth and cerberus vs. batarians, krogans, humans, turians, asari, salarians, vorcha, varren, mechs, husks and geth)

- ME 3 rehashes too many familiar characters, jokes and concepts and does not bring anything new and interesting to the table.

- ME2 crew members have almost no screen time (and are often implemented without care - see Morinth)

- Many decisions from ME1 and ME2 only have minimal or no ramifications at all for ME3. (Councillor Udina, Rachni, Collector Base).

- Many elements are recycled from ME1+2: Music, Animations, models, clothing (most old squadmates). Not gamebreaking, but it seems they wouldn't want to bother creating new stuff.

- You can't holster your weapon. OK, this may be more of a personal issue, but for me, it ruins the immersion and symbolizes the overall lack of polish in Mass Effect 3, as the stated reason was that consoles did not posess the necessary hardware requirements. I doubt it would have been to hard to correct that with some proper programming. The thing is, ME3 just didn't get this kind of polish.

Thus, overall Mass Effect 3 was a rushed and rather disappointing game. It's shocking how almost nobody notices...

[TheGeordie]

While I was being faceatious about the shareholders (although ultimately, they do, since if the company starts losing money they sell up and / or fire the board of directors), of course Muzyka will go to the EA board to discuss release dates and budgets.

EA have to coordinate release dates for titles from EA Sports, EA play, EA interactive, Bioware, EA games and the other arms of EA. (Read : http://en.wikipedia....lectronic_Arts ) - they set the release dates / budgets.

ZLurps wrote...

Muzyka goes to ask from Riccitiello? I wonder if he also goes to ask for budget for paper clips if some of the BioWare studio happen to run out of those? Riccitello  go ask from shareholders? Each one individually. yeah, right.

TheGeordie wrote...

>> These guys founded BioWare and they are responsible for revenue of
products released under BioWare label. Hudson doesn't go to ask from
John Riccitiello if he could get more time to complete the product, he
goes to Muzyka.

And Muzkya goes to Riccitiello who then goes to board of directors who then go to the shareholders who then say no.

Bioware *ARE* EA now. They only operate under the Bioware name because the brand has an inherent value about it. If it didn't they would have been rebranded a long time ago immediately after they were bought.

Decisions about when to release a product are made by the entire board of directors of which Ray and Greg are only two. EDIT: Actually, I tell a lie - Ray and Greg are not part of the EA board of
directors, who ultimately decide when games come out:
http://investor.ea.com/directors.cfm


To thing Bioware function as an independant unit with no outside influence from the parent company is very wrong.

ZLurps wrote...

TheGeordie wrote...

You can't use the comparative time between ME1 and 2 and ME2 and 3 as a comparison to say "where's the rush?" - studio's shuffle teams around all the time to help where needed - it's more than likely that some of the ME3 team were working on DA2 and / or PC conversions (or basically something other than ME3) for a lot of the time. There's no way in hell ME3 (with all the technology and development pipelines already made with ME2) took 3.5 years.

Concerning adding a year to development - yes, it costs a lot of money, but if ever there was a safe bet that was going to sell millions, it was ME3 - they should have taken the time to get it right - it would have led to a lot more sales (instead of places like amazon offering money back) and stopped the brand / studio reputation damage they have endured instead.

As always though, it will have been EA - they have share holders to keep happy who simply do not see value in spending time creatively. Get it out in whatever shape it's in, in the allocated financial quarter and screw everything else.

And it was evil EA that forced them to do that?

Again, Ray Muzyka is the CEO at BioWare Corps as well as a Senior Vice President and General Manager of the BioWare Label of EA (comprising BioWare Edmonton, BioWare Austin, BioWare Montreal, BioWare Ireland, BioWare Victory, BioWare San Francisco, BioWare Sacramento and Mythic Entertainment, now BioWare Mythic) at BioWare's parent company Electronic Arts.

Greg Zeschuk is a Vice Predisent at EA and General Manager at BioWare Austin, a studio within the BioWare Label - BioWare corps and EA.

These guys founded BioWare and they are responsible for revenue of products released under BioWare label. Hudson doesn't go to ask from John Riccitiello if he could get more time to complete the product, he goes to Muzyka.

[ZLurps]

Mvin wrote...

I have my own list of ME3 flaws that coincide with many of your points:

- The journal is absolutely useless now.

- There is now only one Hub - the Citadel - which sharply contrasts ME2's locations Omega, Tuchanka, Illium AND the citadel with their respective diversified quests.

- New companions are basically non-existent, fewer companions overall, less ship dialogue, no loyalty missions. Meh. Made the game far less interesting to me. So much potential wasted...

- Side quests are a joke, worse than in ME1. I really did enjoy the recruitment and loyalty missions that led me all around the galaxy, freeing prisoners, fighting my way up skyscrapers or infiltrating night clubs. All that is left in ME3 are the main missions. And while they sort of replace all of the old crew missions, they simply do not live up to their sheer number and quality.

- Dialogue and humor is inferior to ME2. There are no "Reach and flexibilty"- or "This is my favorite store on the citadel"-lines anymore. ME3 simply lacks the many notable, small Mass Effect moments that can be found in every corner of the game.

- No more neutral dialogue options. Instead, lots of autotalking.

- Paragon/renegade interventions have been reduced and are not nearly as funny anymore (Renegade in ME2: Han Solo, Renegade in ME3: An evil, cruel ****).

- Less enemy variety (reaper ground forces, geth and cerberus vs. batarians, krogans, humans, turians, asari, salarians, vorcha, varren, mechs, husks and geth)

- ME 3 rehashes too many familiar characters, jokes and concepts and does not bring anything new and interesting to the table.

- ME2 crew members have almost no screen time (and are often implemented without care - see Morinth)

- Many decisions from ME1 and ME2 only have minimal or no ramifications at all for ME3. (Councillor Udina, Rachni, Collector Base).

- Many elements are recycled from ME1+2: Music, Animations, models, clothing (most old squadmates). Not gamebreaking, but it seems they wouldn't want to bother creating new stuff.

- You can't holster your weapon. OK, this may be more of a personal issue, but for me, it ruins the immersion and symbolizes the overall lack of polish in Mass Effect 3, as the stated reason was that consoles did not posess the necessary hardware requirements. I doubt it would have been to hard to correct that with some proper programming. The thing is, ME3 just didn't get this kind of polish.

Thus, overall Mass Effect 3 was a rushed and rather disappointing game. It's shocking how almost nobody notices...

ME3 had more development time than ME2 had. Only 1 - 2 months. How do you explain it was rushed with all these recycled elements?

[ahandsomeshark]

Mvin wrote...



Thus, overall Mass Effect 3 was a rushed and rather disappointing game. It's shocking how almost nobody notices...

im convinced it's because the ending is so bad a lot of people haven't played it more than once yet. I played through tuchanka with two different save files after beating it and was shocked by how much there wasn't left to see compared to ME1 and ME2. Once you're not as caught up in the stories and set pieces the lack of depth realy shines through.

that being said it's still a very very good game. It's just not at all what I expected the final mass effect game to be. I expected it to be better than very good I expected it to be one of the best rpgs I've ever played.

[Gyspy Jive]

I agree with 100% of your post.

[ahandsomeshark]

honestly, at this point I'd probably take a bunch of side mission DLC and just be happy. The ending is awful yeah, but the rest of the gameplay is so good that if there was more to it I'd be willing to forget how disappointing the ending is. Or if they rereleased an ending like the suicide mission where you actually used the war assets.

[InsaneAzrael]

Good post OP.
Not only rushed, but I assume budgeting was tight for production also.

[TheGeordie]

Are you trolling?

As I said:

You can't use the comparative time between ME1 and 2 and ME2 and 3 as a
comparison to say "where's the rush?" - studio's shuffle teams around
all the time to help where needed - it's more than likely that some of
the ME3 team were working on DA2 and / or PC conversions (or basically
something other than ME3) for a lot of the time. There's no way in hell
ME3 (with all the technology and development pipelines already made with
ME2) took 3.5 years.

Bioware had something called the old republic to set up remember? You can bet nearly everyone was working on that towards the end to get it out the door.

ZLurps wrote...

Mvin wrote...

I have my own list of ME3 flaws that coincide with many of your points:

- The journal is absolutely useless now.

- There is now only one Hub - the Citadel - which sharply contrasts ME2's locations Omega, Tuchanka, Illium AND the citadel with their respective diversified quests.

- New companions are basically non-existent, fewer companions overall, less ship dialogue, no loyalty missions. Meh. Made the game far less interesting to me. So much potential wasted...

- Side quests are a joke, worse than in ME1. I really did enjoy the recruitment and loyalty missions that led me all around the galaxy, freeing prisoners, fighting my way up skyscrapers or infiltrating night clubs. All that is left in ME3 are the main missions. And while they sort of replace all of the old crew missions, they simply do not live up to their sheer number and quality.

- Dialogue and humor is inferior to ME2. There are no "Reach and flexibilty"- or "This is my favorite store on the citadel"-lines anymore. ME3 simply lacks the many notable, small Mass Effect moments that can be found in every corner of the game.

- No more neutral dialogue options. Instead, lots of autotalking.

- Paragon/renegade interventions have been reduced and are not nearly as funny anymore (Renegade in ME2: Han Solo, Renegade in ME3: An evil, cruel ****).

- Less enemy variety (reaper ground forces, geth and cerberus vs. batarians, krogans, humans, turians, asari, salarians, vorcha, varren, mechs, husks and geth)

- ME 3 rehashes too many familiar characters, jokes and concepts and does not bring anything new and interesting to the table.

- ME2 crew members have almost no screen time (and are often implemented without care - see Morinth)

- Many decisions from ME1 and ME2 only have minimal or no ramifications at all for ME3. (Councillor Udina, Rachni, Collector Base).

- Many elements are recycled from ME1+2: Music, Animations, models, clothing (most old squadmates). Not gamebreaking, but it seems they wouldn't want to bother creating new stuff.

- You can't holster your weapon. OK, this may be more of a personal issue, but for me, it ruins the immersion and symbolizes the overall lack of polish in Mass Effect 3, as the stated reason was that consoles did not posess the necessary hardware requirements. I doubt it would have been to hard to correct that with some proper programming. The thing is, ME3 just didn't get this kind of polish.

Thus, overall Mass Effect 3 was a rushed and rather disappointing game. It's shocking how almost nobody notices...

ME3 had more development time than ME2 had. Only 1 - 2 months. How do you explain it was rushed with all these recycled elements?

[AntonioA9011]

I agree 100% with the OP. BioWare can spin whatever tale they want, this game was rushed. No doubt about it. I wouldn't have raged if this game was pushed back to June/July in order to iron out all of it's faults and glitches. I also noticed when someone is speaking to another NPC, the camera does a zoom in, showing nobody there. It's so odd, it looks like the NPC is talking to a god damn ghost. I will never understand the whole point of EDI in a body. I liked her on the second game, but in ME3 giving her a body was so freaking ridiculous. It was something for the 14 year old boys to gawk at. Stupid ****.

[bboynexus]

ZLurps wrote...

bboynexus wrote...

I thought Eve was decent enough, though I'm not sure why you'd find EDI less than satisfactory.

EDI is okay as fembot, not so much as believable AI or exploration of idea. But it's minor gripe really, my point is that there is always going to be something. It's impossible to please everyone.

How so?

[ZLurps]

Yet ME3's release was post-poned once to give more time for the team.

We see role of VP's and CEO's differently. They are responsible for revenue of their own franchises. It would be counterproductive to start messing with their budgets. I think this is something BioWare messed up with themself, though ME... I give you that.

Anyway, sorry if sounded like jerk, with all respect I agree to disagree. I don't see the evidence, just lot of speculation, but I respect people who look for things that happened behind the scenes.

TheGeordie wrote...

While I was being faceatious about the shareholders (although ultimately, they do, since if the company starts losing money they sell up and / or fire the board of directors), of course Muzyka will go to the EA board to discuss release dates and budgets.

EA have to coordinate release dates for titles from EA Sports, EA play, EA interactive, Bioware, EA games and the other arms of EA. (Read : http://en.wikipedia....lectronic_Arts ) - they set the release dates / budgets.

ZLurps wrote...

Muzyka goes to ask from Riccitiello? I wonder if he also goes to ask for budget for paper clips if some of the BioWare studio happen to run out of those? Riccitello  go ask from shareholders? Each one individually. yeah, right.

TheGeordie wrote...

>> These guys founded BioWare and they are responsible for revenue of
products released under BioWare label. Hudson doesn't go to ask from
John Riccitiello if he could get more time to complete the product, he
goes to Muzyka.

And Muzkya goes to Riccitiello who then goes to board of directors who then go to the shareholders who then say no.

Bioware *ARE* EA now. They only operate under the Bioware name because the brand has an inherent value about it. If it didn't they would have been rebranded a long time ago immediately after they were bought.

Decisions about when to release a product are made by the entire board of directors of which Ray and Greg are only two. EDIT: Actually, I tell a lie - Ray and Greg are not part of the EA board of
directors, who ultimately decide when games come out:
http://investor.ea.com/directors.cfm


To thing Bioware function as an independant unit with no outside influence from the parent company is very wrong.

ZLurps wrote...

TheGeordie wrote...

You can't use the comparative time between ME1 and 2 and ME2 and 3 as a comparison to say "where's the rush?" - studio's shuffle teams around all the time to help where needed - it's more than likely that some of the ME3 team were working on DA2 and / or PC conversions (or basically something other than ME3) for a lot of the time. There's no way in hell ME3 (with all the technology and development pipelines already made with ME2) took 3.5 years.

Concerning adding a year to development - yes, it costs a lot of money, but if ever there was a safe bet that was going to sell millions, it was ME3 - they should have taken the time to get it right - it would have led to a lot more sales (instead of places like amazon offering money back) and stopped the brand / studio reputation damage they have endured instead.

As always though, it will have been EA - they have share holders to keep happy who simply do not see value in spending time creatively. Get it out in whatever shape it's in, in the allocated financial quarter and screw everything else.

And it was evil EA that forced them to do that?

Again, Ray Muzyka is the CEO at BioWare Corps as well as a Senior Vice President and General Manager of the BioWare Label of EA (comprising BioWare Edmonton, BioWare Austin, BioWare Montreal, BioWare Ireland, BioWare Victory, BioWare San Francisco, BioWare Sacramento and Mythic Entertainment, now BioWare Mythic) at BioWare's parent company Electronic Arts.

Greg Zeschuk is a Vice Predisent at EA and General Manager at BioWare Austin, a studio within the BioWare Label - BioWare corps and EA.

These guys founded BioWare and they are responsible for revenue of products released under BioWare label. Hudson doesn't go to ask from John Riccitiello if he could get more time to complete the product, he goes to Muzyka.

[Mvin]

ZLurps wrote...

Mvin wrote...

I have my own list of ME3 flaws that coincide with many of your points:

- The journal is absolutely useless now.

- There is now only one Hub - the Citadel - which sharply contrasts ME2's locations Omega, Tuchanka, Illium AND the citadel with their respective diversified quests.

- New companions are basically non-existent, fewer companions overall, less ship dialogue, no loyalty missions. Meh. Made the game far less interesting to me. So much potential wasted...

- Side quests are a joke, worse than in ME1. I really did enjoy the recruitment and loyalty missions that led me all around the galaxy, freeing prisoners, fighting my way up skyscrapers or infiltrating night clubs. All that is left in ME3 are the main missions. And while they sort of replace all of the old crew missions, they simply do not live up to their sheer number and quality.

- Dialogue and humor is inferior to ME2. There are no "Reach and flexibilty"- or "This is my favorite store on the citadel"-lines anymore. ME3 simply lacks the many notable, small Mass Effect moments that can be found in every corner of the game.

- No more neutral dialogue options. Instead, lots of autotalking.

- Paragon/renegade interventions have been reduced and are not nearly as funny anymore (Renegade in ME2: Han Solo, Renegade in ME3: An evil, cruel ****).

- Less enemy variety (reaper ground forces, geth and cerberus vs. batarians, krogans, humans, turians, asari, salarians, vorcha, varren, mechs, husks and geth)

- ME 3 rehashes too many familiar characters, jokes and concepts and does not bring anything new and interesting to the table.

- ME2 crew members have almost no screen time (and are often implemented without care - see Morinth)

- Many decisions from ME1 and ME2 only have minimal or no ramifications at all for ME3. (Councillor Udina, Rachni, Collector Base).

- Many elements are recycled from ME1+2: Music, Animations, models, clothing (most old squadmates). Not gamebreaking, but it seems they wouldn't want to bother creating new stuff.

- You can't holster your weapon. OK, this may be more of a personal issue, but for me, it ruins the immersion and symbolizes the overall lack of polish in Mass Effect 3, as the stated reason was that consoles did not posess the necessary hardware requirements. I doubt it would have been to hard to correct that with some proper programming. The thing is, ME3 just didn't get this kind of polish.

Thus, overall Mass Effect 3 was a rushed and rather disappointing game. It's shocking how almost nobody notices...

ME3 had more development time than ME2 had. Only 1 - 2 months. How do you explain it was rushed with all these recycled elements?

I'm not sure it had (though I might be wrong here). Still, ME2 had much more content  (recruitment & loyalty missions) and seemed more detailed in almost every way. I don't really know what went wrong with the development of ME3, but they obviously needed more time for polish, as the writer of this thread accurately points out. I really hope Bioware didn't just stop caring about the game anymore....

[Messi Kossmann]

Less enemy variety (reaper ground forces, geth and cerberus vs. batarians, krogans, humans, turians, asari, salarians, vorcha, varren, mechs, husks and geth)
Are you ******* kid me???????????
Salarians, Humans, Turians, Geths, Vorcha and Asari enemies in ME2 are different only in appearance, because the mechanics are absolutely equal.
In ME3 each type of enemy has a different mechanic, and you have to adapt to it.

[ZLurps]

bboynexus wrote...

ZLurps wrote...

bboynexus wrote...

I thought Eve was decent enough, though I'm not sure why you'd find EDI less than satisfactory.

EDI is okay as fembot, not so much as believable AI or exploration of idea. But it's minor gripe really, my point is that there is always going to be something. It's impossible to please everyone.

How so?

There are millions of gamers out there. Frankly idea to please every single one of them at every moment of game that takes 20-40 hours to complete is absurd.

/ZLurps out

[Messi Kossmann]

Mvin wrote...

I have my own list of ME3 flaws that coincide with many of your points:

- The journal is absolutely useless now.

- There is now only one Hub - the Citadel - which sharply contrasts ME2's locations Omega, Tuchanka, Illium AND the citadel with their respective diversified quests.

- New companions are basically non-existent, fewer companions overall, less ship dialogue, no loyalty missions. Meh. Made the game far less interesting to me. So much potential wasted...

- Side quests are a joke, worse than in ME1. I really did enjoy the recruitment and loyalty missions that led me all around the galaxy, freeing prisoners, fighting my way up skyscrapers or infiltrating night clubs. All that is left in ME3 are the main missions. And while they sort of replace all of the old crew missions, they simply do not live up to their sheer number and quality.

- Dialogue and humor is inferior to ME2. There are no "Reach and flexibilty"- or "This is my favorite store on the citadel"-lines anymore. ME3 simply lacks the many notable, small Mass Effect moments that can be found in every corner of the game.

- No more neutral dialogue options. Instead, lots of autotalking.

- Paragon/renegade interventions have been reduced and are not nearly as funny anymore (Renegade in ME2: Han Solo, Renegade in ME3: An evil, cruel ****).

- Less enemy variety (reaper ground forces, geth and cerberus vs. batarians, krogans, humans, turians, asari, salarians, vorcha, varren, mechs, husks and geth)

- ME 3 rehashes too many familiar characters, jokes and concepts and does not bring anything new and interesting to the table.

- ME2 crew members have almost no screen time (and are often implemented without care - see Morinth)

- Many decisions from ME1 and ME2 only have minimal or no ramifications at all for ME3. (Councillor Udina, Rachni, Collector Base).

- Many elements are recycled from ME1+2: Music, Animations, models, clothing (most old squadmates). Not gamebreaking, but it seems they wouldn't want to bother creating new stuff.

- You can't holster your weapon. OK, this may be more of a personal issue, but for me, it ruins the immersion and symbolizes the overall lack of polish in Mass Effect 3, as the stated reason was that consoles did not posess the necessary hardware requirements. I doubt it would have been to hard to correct that with some proper programming. The thing is, ME3 just didn't get this kind of polish.

Thus, overall Mass Effect 3 was a rushed and rather disappointing game. It's shocking how almost nobody notices...

Less enemy variety (reaper ground forces, geth and cerberus vs. batarians, krogans, humans, turians, asari, salarians, vorcha, varren, mechs, husks and geth)
Are you ******* kid me???????????
Salarians, Humans, Turians, Geths, Vorcha and Asari enemies in ME2 are different only in appearance, because the mechanics are absolutely equal.
In ME3 each type of enemy has a different mechanic, and you have to adapt to it 

[ahandsomeshark]

ZLurps wrote...

bboynexus wrote...

I thought Eve was decent enough, though I'm not sure why you'd find EDI less than satisfactory.

EDI is okay as fembot, not so much as believable AI or exploration of idea. But it's minor gripe really, my point is that there is always going to be something. It's impossible to please everyone.

I agree it's impossible to please everyone but most of my issues with the game are things that they got right in ME1 and ME2 so its dumbfounding that they would be missing in ME3. Mostly dialogue and side missions. and exploration. I don't mean I want it to be like fallout. I just want similar hub worlds to Noveria, or Omega, or Illium, that's not exactly a whole lot with the smaller side quests where you actually talked to people, and heard their stories, rather than just clicking on one person and automatically siding with them after hearing some auto dialogue. And I want some missions that you find by scanning planets. 

[BillKephart]

 EA has a horrible history of buying up good studios then imposing absurd deadlines to get games out as fast as possible which drives temporary profits and stock prices. Over time the quality of the games suffer and eventually the "good name" of the company is spent and sales decline. Then EA buys up another studio and does it again. They are basically the reapers of video games. 

Look at this chart EA. This chart means that this is not a good strategy. In the long run giving developers time to make the good game they want to make drives more steady consistent sales that make much more in the long run.

[Zeratul20]

Terminus Echoes wrote...

The Beginning:

When I first imagined the beginning to the game, I imagined Shepard being on trial, and you getting to control what he/she says and such. However, the beginning feels terribly rushed. There's very little exposition and in minutes the Reapers are there, and minutes later you're gone. Basically, all that happens is you get a brief combat drill and see that stupid little kid. It doesn't feel at all like Mass Effect.

Remember ME1's opening? It was incredibly slow, but it made sense for a game with a narrative like Mass Effect. ME2's was good as well, giving you a nice big intro with the Normandy getting blown up, then the Lazarus Station, and then Freedom's Progress. It all flowed very nicely. ME3's, however, gives you very little and before you know it you're on Mars. It's an incredibly sad thing.

Just a quick note concerning this bit: a lot of people were complaining about how a "trial" would've been the worst decision "evah", how it would be a terrible plothole in itself, etc, etc....

So I don't believe you can actually use this to justify the game being rushed. I think they left it out mainly because people were already ranting about the POSSIBILITY of a trial right after they'd finished Arrival.

[ahandsomeshark]

I'd also prefer if important characters didn't die by email/twitter, but even that I'd be willing to forgive if the rest of the game felt more like a bioware game.

[ahandsomeshark]

BillKephart wrote...

 EA has a horrible history of buying up good studios then imposing absurd deadlines to get games out as fast as possible which drives temporary profits and stock prices. Over time the quality of the games suffer and eventually the "good name" of the company is spent and sales decline. Then EA buys up another studio and does it again. They are basically the reapers of video games. 

this. This is why it's hard for me not to automatically blame EA. Because they've done it SO many times to so many IPs. So yeah maybe this time it's just speculation and they're not really at fault but can you blame anyone if they just assume they are?
Also the only explanation I can think of for why they continue to do it is the share holders demanding quick short-term turn arounds after their value fell off a cliff back in 07-08. Which actually does kind of make sense most CEO's aren't going to get long leashes to turn things around after a drop in value of upwards of 48%. Because it's certainly not a long-term strategy that makes any sense. Build up an IP, then turn around and quickly release another game for that IP on the momentum.

Modifié par ahandsomeshark, 27 mars 2012 - 02:07 .