206 réponses à ce sujet

[Makrys]

Well, I don't think they needed 5 years. A typical 3 year design time table would have been plenty. An extra year for them would have made the game so much better, even though as it it stands is great. It could have been PHENOMENAL! It took 3 years to make ME2 and that game was very polished. They were originally trying to release ME3 by November of 2011... seriously, EA? That's not even a two year development cycle! So then it got pushed back to March and I have a feeling Bioware still needed more time, but EA said "no, we're going now". I blame EA for having such strict deadlines. I know they are the reason the game felt rushed. F EA.

Modifié par Makrys, 29 avril 2012 - 04:49 .

[Calibrations Expert]

They needed three more months to fix the ending. Maybe 5 or 6 to fix the rest. I would have waited.

I mean, as long as it doesn't turn into a Half Life 3.

[AlexXIV]

If it took them 5 years to finish, what choice would you have? You can only buy it when it is available for purchase. And would you not buy it just because you are pissed that you had to wait so long? Doubt it.

[jklinders]

It's pretty hard for a company to keep to a long development cycle. The reason that games are usually made so quickly relatively speaking is because the devs want to get paid. It's a lot of money going out and when none is coming in you have to wonder how you are going to pay the bills.

Blizzard had the luxury mainly because they had a money printing machine called WoW. Bioware does not have any such thing. What they have instead is a money flushing machine called TOR.

But yes about an extra year or 2 of polish would have made this game truly shine. Still it's a great game.

[Phaedros]

50, 000 if necessary/possible .. it's a cycle thing.

I like to ride my bike.

Somebody broke the chain tho' ...

[Mr Plow]

I would have waited but 5 years seems like a long time. I think the game should have been given an extra year at least. Who knows how different the game would have looked then...

[Lonsecia]

I'm usually happy waiting, though there reaches a point where you end up having a desire to play/read/watch something in a similar vein that might just satisfy enough that you lose interest in the series. Not saying it's always true, but I believe it's the other contributing factor to hard deadline (aside from wanting to make money). One way around this might've been to push earlier for a broader selection of media oulets telling stories from the ME universe. Not just a couple of books, but maybe a webcomic or animation that fleshed out certain moments we've never seen, or to aid in generally building on what's there/setting precedent for things to come.
It'd not necessarily make certain plot points better, but with such a constant stream of player/reader feedback, the series would have been able to evolve more appropriately along the lines of a genuine player/creator collaboration.
Maybe could have even set up competitions to do with creating backstories or NPC's and so on. I guess they hoped that starving us of the ME universe meant we were willing to feast on whatever they served up - which we kinda did. Sadly I'd have preferred square meals.

[Armass81]

The thing with Blizzard is that they make their games for a long time, but when they come out they will not dissapoint.

[Sublyminal]

If this answers your question, I'm still waiting for HL3, so yea, I would have waited.

[Stalker]

I don't know. Longer development doesn't necessarily result in a better game.

No doubt, ME3 would have needed more development... but 5 years might be too much.

[ragnorok87]

ummm if i  got an ending which actually fit with the series and i could actually make a choice and make a difference... actually have an ending that fiots with my choices.... HELL YES ID WAIT 30 YEARS LET ALONE 5 IF I WOULD GET SOMETHING SATISFYING.

[The Spamming Troll]

yes.

im in no hurry to feel disappointment.

[schneeland]

Makrys wrote...

Well, I don't think they needed 5 years. A typical 3 year design time table would have been plenty. An extra year for them would have made the game so much better, even though as it it stands is great. It could have been PHENOMENAL! It took 3 years to make ME2 and that game was very polished. They were originally trying to release ME3 by November of 2011... seriously, EA? That's not even a two year development cycle! So then it got pushed back to March and I have a feeling Bioware still needed more time, but EA said "no, we're going now". I blame EA for having such strict deadlines. I know they are the reason the game felt rushed. F EA.

I agree with the first part - in particular: given that they needed 3 years for ME2, why would they suddenly need less for ME3, i.e. the last part of a trilogy. I don't think Peter Jackson would have had the success he had if he cut times on the return of the king.

Which brings me to the part where I disagree: yes, EA might have pushed very hard, but Bioware should still have refused instead of shipping a (partly) crappy game.

[o Ventus]

Yes. Yes I would. More time to flesh out the ME2 characters, more time to brainstorm ending ideas that don't involve the crap we have now, more time to develop romance arcs, more time to work on MP, etc...

[Silhouett3]

Armass81 wrote...

The thing with Blizzard is that they make their games for a long time, but when they come out they will not dissapoint.

Guys...I hear Diablo 3 launch has failed so far and there are sights of some "error 37" memes over net.  People waited 12 years for that game. What's wrong with gaming industry these days?

[G Kevin]

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"

That's part of waiting though.

To want to not wait.

[NUM13ER]

Fans would have gladly waited 3 years rather than 2. And if they took 4 or 5 years to craft something truly special then they would be all the more happy when the time came. Sure the wait would have been agony but that's forgotten when the games in front of you. Ken Levine delayed a game that was nearing completion to next year just because they came up with tweaks that could make it even better. Just like he did with the very first Bioshock. 

Fact is it's not fans who can't wait for the next BioWare game. It's EA.

Modifié par NUM13ER, 18 mai 2012 - 08:46 .

[oopssorryy]

I did for GT5 and I would have for ME3.

[NUM13ER]

Mr Massakka wrote...
I don't know. Longer development doesn't necessarily result in a better game.

True but having less time always make games worse off. And Mass Effect 3, despite being the most ambitious of the trilogy, had less time than both it's predecessors. 

Modifié par NUM13ER, 18 mai 2012 - 08:51 .

[oopssorryy]

NUM13ER wrote...

Mr Massakka wrote...
I don't know. Longer development doesn't necessarily result in a better game.

True but having less time always make games worse off. And Mass Effect 3, despite being the most ambitious of the trilogy, had less time than both it's predecessors. 

This. GT5 took like 6 years, and it still was unfinished. Last time I checked it was on patch 2.11.

[Baa Baa]

I would've waited 10 for one that had an epic ending and better romances

[Sc2mashimaro]

I think Extra Credits had an episode on this topic where they talked about the OP's issue and basically said the developers are still figuring out what a "reasonable" development time table looks like for video games and that one of the problems is that they keep basing it off of other media - specifically, film. Quality games, it seems, take a bit longer than films. I would bet that you could reasonably make 2 to 2 1/2 years standard to fill in some of these holes and still make top quality games.

Blizzard and Valve fall on the opposite end of the scale from EA, they take as long as they d*mn well please to make games and they are ALWAYS quality, but it is harder to predict their revenue streams. Both companies have services that compensate for this, however, Valve has Steam and Blizzard has WoW. These create steady revenue that allows them to adhere to their philosophy of "games when we say they're darn ready". There is something to be said for it, but it also means things like Half Life 3 possibly never, ever showing up...or not showing up within the lifetimes of some of the people who played Half Life or Half Life 2.

A balance between the two extremes would be nice.

[Silhouett3]

What about Diablo III? It is the game worth waiting 12 years?

[Lyrebon]

If it produced a well-thought out, superbly executed game then yes.

@Silhouett3: Diablo 3 is fantastic and worth the wait.

Modifié par Lyrebon, 18 mai 2012 - 09:00 .

[Sc2mashimaro]

Silhouett3 wrote...

What about Diablo III? It is the game worth waiting 12 years?

On the other end of the spectrum: Duke Nukem Forever...was it worth the wait? >.<