112 réponses à ce sujet

[Kakita Tatsumaru]

Of course! Who wouldn't have?

[Xandax]

I never get 'annoyed' when games are delayed because the alternative is what we see.

I waited many years for Neverwinter Nights (it didn't really deliver though, so I shudder to think of what it would be if they released it early) and Old Republic for example. I would have waited years for a proper ending to ME.

[Rudy Lis]

Getorex wrote...

Sorry, but the "enhanced" edition is for Deus Ex: Human Revolution only.  Enhanced™.

I thought of Witcher. Not sure it should be "mutagenic"™ edition.

Getorex wrote...

How about just "Full and proper edition, all finished, polished, complete for your entertainment"?

"Hell yeah I join Cerberus!"

Getorex wrote...

Sure, a bit wordy but still, doesn't leave any room for "speculation!"

Wordy, but description pays for itself. As long as it is delivered.

[Overule]

I feel like I'm being asked this question by a jilted lover who just got out of prison, but yeah. Probably.

[magelet]

What would be the alternative? Storming Edmonton and stealing the development plans?

[RyuujinZERO]

I would've waitted happily:


BUT


...and this is a really big but a lot of people don't get. Delaying longer would've cost Bioware/EA significantly since it'd be moving into a new financial year (Yearly earning projections, shareholder confidence, companies rating etc all rely on them delivering as expected). They pushed back the release as far as was financially viable already, pushing it back any farther would've hurt their profit margin significantly and, as much as we all want to see the highest possible quality game, there is a line they have to draw somewhere between *cough* "artistic integrity" and "being a succesful buisness model"

Modifié par RyuujinZERO, 28 mars 2012 - 01:38 .

[Tuthsok]

If it goes too long it may end up being another Duke Nukem o_O

And where is that last HalfLife episode anyway?

but yea.. I would have been happy to wait a while longer for a fuller game and less bugs.

[DaJe]

RyuujinZERO wrote...

I would've waitted happily:


BUT


...and this is a really big but a lot of people don't get. Delaying longer would've cost Bioware/EA significantly since it'd be moving into a new financial year (Yearly earning projections, shareholder confidence, companies rating etc all rely on them delivering as expected). They pushed back the release as far as was financially viable already, pushing it back any farther would've hurt their profit margin significantly and, as much as we all want to see the highest possible quality game, there is a line they have to draw somewhere between *cough* "artistic integrity" and "being a succesful buisness model"

What costs them is ME3 taking dust in store shelves because negative news spread arround more than many want to admit. Not to mention the damage this and DA2 represent for future games.

Make a full game that is not some washed down compromise of different interests but actually a continuation of  the values of it's franchise and it will sell like bread and butter. (Skyrim, The Witcher)

[AkiKishi]

RyuujinZERO wrote...

I would've waitted happily:


BUT


...and this is a really big but a lot of people don't get. Delaying longer would've cost Bioware/EA significantly since it'd be moving into a new financial year (Yearly earning projections, shareholder confidence, companies rating etc all rely on them delivering as expected). They pushed back the release as far as was financially viable already, pushing it back any farther would've hurt their profit margin significantly and, as much as we all want to see the highest possible quality game, there is a line they have to draw somewhere between *cough* "artistic integrity" and "being a succesful buisness model"

Going for the short term grab rarely pays off in the long term.

There are quite a few big hitters coming out this year so perhaps part of it was not ending up sharing a release window with one of those.

[SeventyOne]

I m still waiting. Not sure if i can wait that long though. Moving on is always an option. But i wont take Bioware with me.

[DeinonSlayer]

I would have waited as long as necessary if they would have delivered a product with any replay value. If it was their intention all along to funnel us into an ending that retroactively devalues the previous two titles, I wouldn't have been interested in the series at all, but now that I've gone and gotten emotionally invested thanks to the first two titles (which was their goal from the start, and a testament to the quality of the rest of the story), I'll hold the damn line until they get it right.

Modifié par DeinonSlayer, 28 mars 2012 - 02:14 .

[tvih]

Sure, if they had needed the time. I have literally around 200 unfinished games waiting to be played, so it's not like I would have been out of games to play in the meanwhile

[Pallando]

Still waiting...

[Farbautisonn]

Sure. I would have waited a couple of years if it had been epic.

However it wasnt released to please us. It was released to generate sales for EA shareholders. So wether or not we would have waited is moot point. Its the shareholders you should be posing the question.

Modifié par Farbautisonn, 28 mars 2012 - 02:41 .

[xxcoy]

I still do wait.
ME3-retail version is lying next to me right now.
Got it on release day, didn't have time to play it at first. Then, people - and a whole LOT of them - startet to complain about the ending. I'll play it after those problems have been resolved.
Otherwise, they'll get it back.
I loved the first one, didn't enjoy the second one quite as much, but accepted that - if they messed up 3 that bad I'm not interested anymore. Period.

[i IIVIIorpheus]

OdanUrr wrote...

Sure, why not? Longer dev cycle should mean a better product.

If you are stirctly speaking of dev cycles then yes it would.  But if we are talking about a project as a whole then that is not necessarily correct.

I worked as a Software Test analyst for 9 years for a large insurance company.  All project side stuff.  The idea of longer projects leading to better products is not true.  In fact, I learned(in my line of work specifically) that the longer a project takes, the less likely you will implement what you wanted in the first place.  Budget, new interations, expanding scope to account for new technology, all can affect how a product is implemented...

If you have a certain timeline and it has to be extended out for more than a year past the deadlines, then the chances the project failing increases.

Definitely could be totally different in the video game space though....

Modifié par i IIVIIorpheus, 28 mars 2012 - 02:38 .

[Walrusninja]

Yup happily, I would've bought the CE I think. Badly timed as it was, I'm skint. I'm still waiting for Half Life 3 and still respect Valve for taking the time to do it right.

ME3 seems rather underfleshed for the finale in many ways.

Modifié par Walrusninja, 28 mars 2012 - 02:40 .

[mybudgee]

No, I enjoy all the drama...

[WarpedAcorn]

Very few fans want a rushed product just so they can play it now. They would prefer the development teams takes their time and gets it right, even if it takes longer.

The problem is that its not up to the fans, its up to the suits and executives who want to see $$$ on the table. While in development, the game is not earning. When its released it is, and they have stockholders and accountants that are telling them when to release the games to make their numbers look the best.

[Sebbe1337o]

I would happily wait another 1 or 2 years, easily.

[Ragepower]

Absolutely, but I want to point out a few items.

Mass Effect 2 had roughly the same development time and came out in many consumers as the best in the series. However... Something was added to Mass Effect 3 that was not in 2.

The Mass Effect 3 engine can be confirmed as being completed as early as January 18th 2011 as that is when the Mass Effect 2 PS3 version released, and utilized the engine.

That gave Bioware at least 14 solid months of development time AFTER the engine had been built. Now factor this in...

Cut Scenes are done independently of the meat and potatoes of the game. These had over 2 years of development time to implement. The primary complaint of Mass Effect 3 has been that the ending is horrific... so really...there is no excuse.

There are DEFINATE shortcuts that were made in releasing this game.. Gee, what was added to the franchise and completely unnecessary? Thats right, MULTIPLAYER!!!!!

So I guess its only fair to point at multiplayer and say, why bother with that, when you could have been worrying about more important items like you know... the ending, and the future of the franchise....yuck.

Many also point to the character models looking worse in 3 than in 2... again... resources and development time were wasted on Multiplayer so that EA can release map packs, and weapon packs for more profit...

Ultimately EA and Multiplayer should be cited as the reasons other area's were cut from.

This is my favorite franchise... I would have waited a decade.

Modifié par Ragepower, 28 mars 2012 - 03:06 .

[Tirigon]

muse108 wrote...

If bioware had come out and said that they needed anouther year, 2 would you have waited.

Of course.

I mean, SC2 took 10 years. WarCraft 3 has no successor up to now. Noone minds because they rock.

[They call me a SpaceCowboy]

I haven't got the game yet, so I AM, in fact, waiting.

I don't know about it having the shortest dev cycle though. DA2 was shorter I think.