206 réponses à ce sujet

[Exousia001]

IF 5 years that can tie up every bit of Mass Effect Lore up to the War Assets being useful and having their own mathematic value, up to the Priority Earth Mission being at least 15 hours long with fights taken at different locations and days.

THEN FCUK YES I WOULD WAIT FOR 5 MORE YEARS!!!

[Pelle6666]

Most of the flaws, including the ending could have been fixed to next winter so... 5 years is a bit much... sure if the quality was even better then now...? maybe.

[Shajar]

OFC i would have

[Navasha]

For what purpose? Do you believe that a 5 year wait will somehow make it a better game?

Yes, Diablo 3 is coming out after an 11 year gap.... do you think it was actually started 11 years ago?

How did that Duke Nukem Forever turn out for everyone?

[twinsfun]

Yes, the outcome of a rushed and not well thought out end and I would pay for new endings

[Robhuzz]

It should be released whenever it's actually finished and ready for launch, not just when their EA overlords demand it. If that means it takes an extra year or so then so be it.

[SimplePlan2k8]

That was how long I was expecting to wait tbh... When they announced the release date as just over a year after ME2, the alarm bells started ringing

[tinman888]

Yes, even if I didn't know about the ending.

[LTKerr]

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"

False. Actually when I read that ME3 was being delayed, I thought "well, that means they need more time to do it properly, I understand that and I'm going to wait what's needed". A rushed game is never a good one as ME3, KotOR 2 or many games proves. Just look at Half-Life 3 or other Valve/Blizzard games: so many people waiting years for them, decades, and still they know they are going to be excellent games.

[Soulstice88]

Yes. It should have been worked on more then it was, it is obviously rushed. When it was intended to come out in 2011, even with them using a different engine, I knew it was going to be rushed and buggy but I gave them the benefit of a doubt. That worked out well.

[Silhouett3]

wolfstanus wrote...

Just look at Half-Life 3 or other Valve/Blizzard games: so many people waiting years for them, decades, and still they know they are going to be excellent games.

Not quite. Remember how Warcraft 3 was so messy to manage units when it first released? It took them countless patches, a big expansion pack and another countless patches to finally turn the game properly to a so called Strategy/RPG. Also these two companies are downright unproductive; Blizzard  announced Starcraft 2 back in 2007 and not as 3 split parts. After a full year they rather quietly added that game itself would be a trilogy. It's not like the  first one introduced the most exciting plot to look for and 2nd title is still yet to come.  Valve broke down HL3 (kind of) into episodes and  at first promised to release episode titles around every 3 months. It never happened, they got busy filling Team Fortress with hats. Ended  up rejecting the entire Gregorian calendar and inventing their own: developer.valvesoftware.com/wiki/Valve_Time

Modifié par Silhouett3, 29 avril 2012 - 02:25 .

[Zix13]

Yes. Blizzard ring any bells?

[PoisonMushroom]

Navasha wrote...

For what purpose? Do you believe that a 5 year wait will somehow make it a better game?

Yes, Diablo 3 is coming out after an 11 year gap.... do you think it was actually started 11 years ago?

How did that Duke Nukem Forever turn out for everyone?

I think the difference with Mass Effect is that we know they were rushing a bit towards the end. The final hours app makes this quite clear. Two years isn't a very long time to make a game of this scope.

Plus the thing that saddened me the most about the ending was all the unused potential. Potential that could have easily have been utilised with more time. Even in ME1 there were choices I'd made that I was excited to see the repurcusions of. Some of them would still have been difficult to do well, regardless of the time frame, but others like the saving/killing the Rachni queen would have benefitted from more time and thought.

In answer to the OP: I would have happily have waited 5 years for ME3. I'm not sure they would have needed quite that long, but I wouldn't have minded waiting.

[Evenjelith]

D1ck1e wrote...

If Bioware had come out and said they were'nt satisfied with what they had made so far and needed more time to do this great serie justice, I'd have waited.

This!

[my Aim is True]

FatalX7.0 wrote...


I think most people would agree that 1-2 years is not long enough for this game.

I agree, 2 years is enough time for a linear, 6 hour, glorified expansion pack (I'm looking at you Call of Duty!) but not enough for a game like Mass Effect.

[iSpider-Man]

Diablo 2; June 2000
Diablo 3; May/June 2012
I waited 12 years for a sequel so im sure waiting 5 years for an epic conclusion would be okay.

[schneeland]

Well, the problem I see is: yes, of course I would have liked them to ship a game with more quality, but then long durations of projects can also be a problem - technical state of the art advances, new platforms appear (in 2013 we will probably see Xbox 720/Ps4), employees might have different plans for their careers (5 years is a long time in the IT industry - often people will not stay with one employer so long).

Still, I'd say that ME3 had better come out shortly before Christmas, giving it about 3 years to mature. That would probably already have had a dramatic effect on quality. That would also match reports that most AAA games take about that time I read a while ago (don't remember where it was).

In the end it all boils down to: deliver quality - if in doubt, cut features, not quality (a motto very prominent in agile development philosophies).

[Computron2000]

The answer is Yes and i suspect it would be yes for most people. The reason being that after 1 year, you get less attached to having the conclusion immediately and the priority slips to "KIV". After 2 years, it becomes a low priority issue in the "good to have, not critical" category and will stay that way as long as no one from Bioware says anything.

However, mass effect is very different from all the games i've seen because it is not truly self contained, with the first 2 hanging on the Reapers. This means that if you played the first 2, if Bioware announces ME3 will be coming out 2017 during the year 2016, the the priority rises to "important" and a lot of the previous players will keep the game in view

[Prosarian]

Deadlines keep people on their toes and maintains productivity, you won't have to wait 12 years like you did for Diablo III. At the same time, setting a deadline that's too near would compromise on the quality of the end product, especially for creative endeavors. It's a fine line to walk, and since most of us aren't very familiar with the development of a VG, any number we throw out would be pure speculation. But more time would have been nicer, just not Diablo III or Half life III time.

[ed87]

I think EA were relying too much on DLC. That approach might work with other types of games like The Sims, but with a story and character driven experience like ME3 it needs to be done properly the first time. You will never see a book being rushed out with the author thinking they could fix it later.

In recent memory i can only think of one game where its long development time killed it, and that was obviously Duke Nukem Forever. But there are too many good examples of games benefitting from a longer development time.

I think they should have released it when it was ready and up to standard. Another year or two would have done wonders.

[Drogonion]

Yes. I would have waited. This was the finale to my favorite set of vid games of all time lol.

However, waiting probably would not have changed Bioware's very dark "artistic vision" for the game, which is what I don't like about the ending. So 5 years would have probably just made my anger more acute. For me, it's not more time that is needed but new leadership, new visionaries for the franchise (or the original ones I think).

With more time and resources, the current ME creative team maybe would have just shown in more explicit detail star systems dying by supernova'ing Mass Relays, and the stranded fleet turning to cannibalism in the Sol System, and more nonsensical discussion with reaperchild...who knows?

[formshifter]

I wouldn't have minded waiting. I waited four years for the second book in The Kingkiller Chronicles. I was NOT disappointed. I read the book (and this was a 1100 page honker) in about 5 days, and consider it one of the best fantasy books written out there.

Even had I known nothing, I would have preferred Bioware take their time (say, 4 years) and given us 2 or 3 games in one. We could have had our choices matter (instead of EVIL CLONES, E-mails resolving plot lines, and such), a story that truly captures Mass Effect. . . .

So yes, I would have waited. I might have complained, scrounged every last bit of information, and wished that they'd release it. The truth is, however, if they;d SAID they were releasing it in 4 or 5 years from the start, I would have waited.

[oldharryold]

5 no, 3 or 3.5 yes

Modifié par oldharryold, 29 avril 2012 - 03:44 .

[Hyperion II]

Deuterium_Dawn wrote...

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

+1