206 réponses à ce sujet

[FrozenDreamfall]

Games need time specially games as massive as this.We didn't die waiting for Diablo 3 I for one would've waited even 10 damn years if I knew the game was done right down to every last detail,and I'm serious.I was quite shocked it came out in 2 years when the hell did they even have time to make it with all the new graphics engine and such? It was beyond rushed,at least another few more months and it would've been a bit better.

Modifié par FrozenDreamfall, 21 avril 2012 - 11:27 .

[Baihu1983]

5 years? Maybe but to be honest the game only needs about 6-12 months more dev time.

[Alyka]

If it meant that the story was more fleshed out and the ending made sense, then yes.I would've waited 5 years.

Modifié par Alyka, 21 avril 2012 - 11:28 .

[Brian.V3]

People should stop bringing up Diablo since Blizzard decides on how they release games. They are both the publisher and developer after all.

It's kind of hard when the Publisher is partly pulling the strings...

[Zaalbar]

wolfstanus wrote...

You guys say "yes" now
But if you had to wait 5 years. You would be saying "release it now what's with the delay"

This I believe to be true. Bioware would simply be trading one ****storm for another.
But that said, I think ME3 is a fantastic game anyway, some minor issues but nothing game breaking imo.
Terrible ending though. 

[ImmovableMover]

Well, obviously I WOULD, i'd have no choice, but I wouldn't want to no and I wouldn't wish it either...

And ME3 did not need an additional three years of development time...especially since 5 years after ME2 would put it firmly in the next cycle of consoles and I don't particularly want this series spread over two cycles - It would make importing saves and playing from the beginning a nightmare.

Don't let your want for a better ending let them **** you over. Did Duke Nukem benefit from its ridiculously long Dev cycle? Does Diablo 3 look like something that's taken over a decade to develop? No and No, and niether would ME3.

The game needed 3 solid years of development and that's it.

Modifié par ImmovableMover, 21 avril 2012 - 11:34 .

[EsterCloat]

If they hadn't released ME3 when they did and instead took five years with it then I don't really see myself having much choice in the matter. I'd have had to wait, wouldn't I? It's not like when it finally came out I'd say, "No, nuh uh. You took too long so I'm not going to buy it."

If you're asking whether, knowing what I do now, I'd go back in time/to an alternate reality where ME3 took five years produce and was a lot better and larger than what we have now, sure.

[DazenCobalt17]

I would ***** moan and complain but yes, I would have

[wicked_being]

Yep. I really wouldn't have mind waiting for a perfect game.

[Gruzmog]

Yes I would wait. I am with the blizzard line on this. The fact that they have WoW is no excuse for other companies not to do this as they did it long before WoW aswell. (WC3 and starcraft)

Even if you don't like choises they make in development (like starcraft 2) you can't say the game was unfished or rushed when it came out.

[Peranor]

Deuterium_Dawn wrote...

For the epic conclusion of what could have been one of the greatest series of all time? Absolutely.

^This

Sadly all we got now was wasted potential.

[Trebor1969]

Yes, absolutely

[Murvel88]

Keeping in mind that ME1 and ME2 are some of the best games I've EVER played, I would be more than happy to wait 5 years for a closing chapter that was worthy of the title of ME3.

  In my opinion, the basic problem with major companies like EA are not necessarily their strict deadlines (even thought they are a problem) but the fact that they announce upcoming titles years before their release. I see no real reason why this has to be. My only guess is that they want to build up the hype for their game, but if the game is cool and high quality people will be interested regardless. This is especially true for established franchises like Diablo. Blizz announced they were working on D3 way back in 2008, and even though they never gave us a release date we still had to wait in agony for it. Their argument is that they won't give us a release date unless they know they can ship the game at that date. This gave them basically unlimited time to polish it to the standard they were going for. If BW/EA had done the same with ME3 it would have saved us the misery of seeing our beloved franchise being crushed at the very end, and it would have saved BW/EA a world of hurt.

  Companies should not announce a game if they know it won't come out within a year. And they should stop giving us release dates they can't meet. It would give us better games and it would give them a better reputation and more loyal fans. Sadly, EA is only planning for short-term quick cash, which in the world of gaming is the most retarded thing a company can do.

Modifié par Murvel88, 21 avril 2012 - 12:49 .

[Ultra Prism]

If they said they making best conclucsion ever... sure why not waited because after what we got from this game conclusion ... and waiting for extended cut ... Yes definitely

[Verit]

Deuterium_Dawn wrote...

For the epic conclusion of what could have been one of the greatest series of all time? Absolutely.

This.

[Navasha]

Having a longer time between games doesn't mean a longer development life cycle or a better game. Big companies that throw a team of 100+ people together can easily produce a high quality game in 2 years time.

Look at Duke Nukem..... as a perfect example. Did its multi-decade debacle help produce a top notch game finally?

[Sir Adamus]

I think the saying goes "a delayed game is eventually good, a bad game is bad forever". Obviously not massively delayed, but enough time so that the story can be fleshed out properly and not rushed all to hell.

Modifié par Sir Adamus, 21 avril 2012 - 01:01 .

[ShinAnubisXIII]

Well, maybe not 5. 3 to 4 years would've been a good time scale for a well polished game me thinks. And that I'd have gladly waited. Alas it wasn't meant to be

[GLR-0053]

U guys are kidding right?

[StElmo]

sistersafetypin wrote...

Yes. In a heartbeat if I would be assured an unrushed ending with a lack of game breaking plotholes

This.

[Gabriel Arcaeus]

StElmo wrote...

sistersafetypin wrote...

Yes. In a heartbeat if I would be assured an unrushed ending with a lack of game breaking plotholes

This.

It appears we have reached consensus.

Modifié par Gabriel Arcaeus, 29 avril 2012 - 11:12 .

[Silhouett3]

5 years, yes.

Around 10 years, like the case with Valve or Blizzard titles, absolutely not. I'm not waiting for another Half-Life, Warcraft or whatever I used to play ten years ago. Life is pretty short for goddess' sake.

[Obsidian Gryphon]

I waited 7 years for the sequel to TLJ, what is 5? Heh.

[Grimwick]

Deuterium_Dawn wrote...

For the epic conclusion of what could have been one of the greatest series of all time? Absolutely.

^x100000000

It's just a travesty of justice that they decided to rush what could have been one of the greatest game conclusions the world had ever seen! 

[Vigil_N7]

Lets be honest for a second here and get back to reality - the only part of the game you can be considered "rushed" is the final 5 minutes, if not possibly Priority:Earth.

The game, to be fully ready and complete, would only need another year at best, which it should've had imo.