Watching Bioware games develop over the past decade+, I have noted how with improvements to technology, gameplay interfaces, graphics, etc., have slowly evolved the games being developed. This is fine and good and is the nature of all such things.
However, with the release of DA2 and ME3 (and, arguably, ME2), I have noticed a disturbing trend.
When ME2 came out, people complained it had lost its RPG elements, turning itself into a shooter rather than a story-based game. I personally liked the story of ME2, thought what they did with the suicide mission ending was pretty brilliant and enjoyed all of the characters, but I can see someone's argument - the "bang-shoot-'em-up" vibe was much higher than it was in the previous game.
Prior to DA2 coming out, people worried that the next DA game would receive the same treatment - turned into a shooter with swords. Bioware came out and said that's not the case - the DA series is separate from ME and we wouldn't have it any other way.
Then DA2 came out, and it felt EXACTLY like that. The ME dialogue wheel was implemented, which is still being argued about to this day. The blood, guts and exploding enemies was blasted as being ridiculous. Certain core RPG elements were completely removed, allowing no customizaiton of follower equipment. Companions, who used to be capable of full dialogue in the depths of the deepest catacombs, reverted to the ME format of parsed out dialogue once every ten or so hours of gameplay.
And the ending was, narratively speaking, a disaster (IMHO). It gave you totally static options at the end that weren't based in the decions you made (either in DAO or in DA2) and gave you the exact same outcome, minus a slight alteration. The team has come out and addressed these issues, saying it was not their intention and that time constraints and resources were not there to do what the team had truly envisioned as the experience.
Fast forward to the distant future (Winter 2012). Bioware is back in spotlight. DA2 was a fluke, they've learned their mistakes, EA/Bioware as a whole has poured their heart and soul into making sure the end of the trilogy is satisfactory and takes into account all of the choices made in previous games. Anyone who is reading on these forums I'm assuming has some idea of how false of a reality that was.
The team has not come out and said a mistake was made (the DA team didn't say that either until around the summer last year, when DLC started coming out) but I don't have the slightest doubt that the ME team will be having the same "Come to Jesus" talks as well. And on top of the ending of ME3 not just being nonsensical, lacking closure and being the same expereince for everyone, it is also fairly apparent to me that resources and time were a big issue as well there.
After all, the ending three choices, in and of themselves, left the universe in vastly different places (not going to spoil anything) but the way they are presented in game gave almost identical experiences, leaving the player to scratch their head or "make up" their own ending. Which is poor story telling, plain and simple. The only reason I can think of these were so inarticulated and nothing was wrapped up (either on a personal, companion level or on a galactic level) was cost and time constraints. It was Act 3 of DA2 all over again, except on a much more destructive scale.
Now we are looking at DA3 - the return of the Dragon Age series. The hope for the fans of RPGs everywhere. The reclamation of the Origins mantle!
The developers are listening, the fans are excited, the promises (while few so far) are already beginning to grow.
But... are many of us going to be sitting here on these forums, wailing and gnashing over broken promises, poorly developed plots, painful glitches, shameless Day One DLC and an ending that we wished we'd never seen? Again?
I understand budgetary concerns, timelines, the fact that corners must be cut at times... but let's look at the other side of this. How much is EA/Bioware spending on marketing? How much are they spending on the PR teams which are crafting statements to do damage control year after year? How much are they spending on multiplayer, or outside products such as novels, iPhone apps, Facebook games, etc.? How much are they spending on selling a less-than-stellar experience, and then blaming time and money for the resaon why it didn't live up to promises?
I see this as an overall very dangerous precedent to be setting, both for Bioware and for the gaming industry as a whole. Players are left unsatisfied, speculating about the game that "might have been" instead of the one they actually play. Marketing expenses are soaring through the roof, comprising a large percentage of the average game these days [url=<a href=]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_development#Marketing">, while Bioware is pushing the game out the door before it is ready.
And I could understand this if it ultimately resulted in profits... but it doesn't. If you review EA's financial's they are pretty dismal. Their stock price has plummeted over the past year, and it has been declining steadily for the past three. Revenue is on the decline, despite countless attempts to squeeze more from players, with pre-order bonuses, Collection Editions, Day-One DLC, etc. And the response on each game seems to not be "let's make a game that the fans are begging for and would enjoy" but rather "how can we do more marketing and create ways to ensure online connectivity, paid DLC and micro transactions!"
At some point, it has to become painfully clear - the model being floated by EA for their games is unsustainable. EA has made themselves a reputation in the industry of purchasing creative and succesful IPs, gutting them of any creativity, marketing them in the most mass-appeal form possible until their is nothing left of the IP and its parent company but a punch line, gutting the staff and moving on. So EA/Bioware needs to look at themselves and ask "What are our intentions? Are we looking at making the best possible video game? Or are we looking at making the most profitable video game, or the video game that will look the best on our balance sheet?"
Ironically, it seems when developers like Bethesda, Blizzard and Valve take three, four, five year development cycles (like what ME and DA:O had) they wind up making BOATLOADS of cash. But when EA/Bioware attempts to push out a sequel on a budgetary timeline due to fiscal reasons, their stock takes a nose dive.
And the obvious response is "If you don't like the way these companies do business, why bother? Quit playing or find another game!" I have, to some degree. But Bioware doesn't make bad games. They make really great, gripping, emotional games... that crap out at the end. At least the past three years they have. If Bioware made flawless endings to their otherwise good games, they would have smoked Skyrim's 10 million sales, no problem. Problem is, the way they handle the 5% of their games that are done poorly RUINS the rest of the experience. I can handle bad from the get go in a game - its easy to forget and put aside. But when a game and/or franchise that shows limitless promise and possibility then gets tossed in the gutter through hamhocked finishing and story that was developed and pulled out a hat barely a month before the game goes Gold (aka nothing more is going to be touched on the game for months while it is printed and distributed) is just a slap in the face.
So... to the forums at large, I ask you - what do you think Bioware should do for future games? What do you think we should do as video game consumers? And will you preorder DA3, despite fan reaction on DA2 and ME3?
Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 20 avril 2012 - 05:59 .
Retour en haut
