199 réponses à ce sujet

[MintyCool]

SassyJazRzmataz wrote...

It taught me that the fan community is a lot stronger than people give it credit for.

For sure, thanks to Retake we will now receive an extended version of the synthesis ending!  Forever cementing this lore into the Mass Effect canon 4EVA!

Retake has won!

Modifié par MintyCool, 23 avril 2012 - 04:52 .

[devSin]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I'm certainly hoping that TOR becomes an unmitigated runaway success for just this reason!

Would BioWare even be a part of EA if it wasn't for that money pit?

At a certain point, the damage just cannot be undone. And I think you've all passed that point.

You should have cut Austin loose and pushed them into the hole they dug for you all.

Mouseraider wrote...

Also what about Dragon Age: Origins.. wasn't it in development for something like 5 years. Whatever happenend that made BioWare decide that they could make their games so much faster than before?

Origins never had a publisher. It almost looks like they self-funded that on the slow track to never being released.

I'm all for taking as much time as you need, but I don't think that should be a license to just endlessly create and iterate. There has to be a reachable and reasonable goal for getting to a finished game, and it sometimes seems like Origins spent too much time out picking flowers and picnicking in the sun. (That said, such a process can give you games like Diablo III, which has more "oomph" than any BioWare game since Origins.)

Modifié par devSin, 23 avril 2012 - 05:02 .

[Reign Tsumiraki]

Mouseraider wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

That Video Games shouldn't have time constraints put on them.

That's an ideal, but I'm curious how you would reconcile it with the demands of reality.

Valve doesn't seem to have any official plans to reveal their plans or even start the development of Half-Life ep. 3 anytime soon it seems. Aparently they don't want to create it, or atleast give any statements until they know what they want to do with it.

I'm not saying that you should be like Valve... not one bit, but Gabe is super awesome and you should definitely find some way to clone him.

Why not? I quite like Valve's games. When they're finished, they're FINISHED. They're good. And they're worth waiting for. They even release DLC for FREE on some of their games. 

[Firesaber82]

ZenJitsu wrote...

I learned that with a bad enough ending, it can poison replayability of previous games. That was a new experience.

QFT. I didn't touch another game for a good week after finishing ME3 as well

[sporeian]

Mouseraider wrote...

Also what about Dragon Age: Origins.. wasn't it in development for something like 5 years. Whatever happenend that made BioWare decide that they could make their games so much faster than before? Surely the developer team hasn't increased that much after joining up with EA.

Because the corporate gaming world looked at the COD model

One studio takes 2 years to make a COD game.
We have 2 studios
Alternate the years
Make the games as simple as possible and repeat and recopy alot of stuff

and BOOM! you are rich!

[AwesomeDudex64]

Never buy EA.

First time EA has raped me, I'm still sore.

[Allan Schumacher]

I'm pretty sure Blizzard took their sweet time making games, even before WoW.

Actually, looking at their release schedule:

Warcraft II: 1995 (expansion 1996)
Diablo: 1996
Lost Vikings II: 1997
StarCraft: 1998 (Expansion 1998)
Diablo 2: 2000 (Expansion 2001)
Warcraft 3: 2002 (Expansion 2003)
World of Warcraft: 2004
Burning Crusade: 2007 (!!!)
WOTLK: 2008
StarCraft 2: 2010
Cataclysm: 2010
Diablo III: 2012

cant you just borrow money from your racecar driving dad?

[Firesaber82]

It taught me that maybe I'm getting to old for games. For the first time in a long time....I just don't know what I want to do anymore with my free time. It feels like the gaming industry is leaving me behind and just spewing out rushed meiocre games that nickel and dime you to the point that you just aren't playing to 'have fun' anymore. It used to be so simple, and awesome...

EDIT like all this BS in multiplayer games of 'perks' and 'unlocks'...WE USED TO PLAY TO HAVE FUN...not grind.

Modifié par Firesaber82, 23 avril 2012 - 05:04 .

[sporeian]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I'm pretty sure Blizzard took their sweet time making games, even before WoW.

Actually, looking at their release schedule:

Warcraft II: 1995 (expansion 1996)
Diablo: 1996
Lost Vikings II: 1997
StarCraft: 1998 (Expansion 1998)
Diablo 2: 2000 (Expansion 2001)
Warcraft 3: 2002 (Expansion 2003)
World of Warcraft: 2004
Burning Crusade: 2007 (!!!)
WOTLK: 2008
StarCraft 2: 2010
Cataclysm: 2010
Diablo III: 2012

Diablo 2-3 difference: 11 years
Starcraft 1-2 difference: 12 years
About a 2 year difference for EXPANSION packs for WoW

[Talogrungi]

I'd be curious to know if the ending controversy had cost Bioware/EA more money than delaying the game a couple more months would have.

If, as I suspect, the answer is yes .. then we as consumers have already taken the first steps towards reforming the industry.

[Isichar]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

That Video Games shouldn't have time constraints put on them.

That's an ideal, but I'm curious how you would reconcile it with the demands of reality.

True, though I cant imagine a game that deserved the time to be done properly more then mass effect 3 though. Not to say most of it is not amazing as it is, but there does feel like alot of corners cut in order to prioritize what Bioware felt was more important.

[Reign762]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

That Video Games shouldn't have time constraints put on them.

That's an ideal, but I'm curious how you would reconcile it with the demands of reality.

This is my take on that.

Obviously the Blizzard Entertainment and Valve arguments have been
made.  However, Blizzard took time to release games even before WoW. 
Obviously the economics of the medium have changed since 1993, but the
successful game companies find new methods of revenue streams outside of
their primary focus.  Blizzard's secondary revenue streams are starting
to shift outside of game production even before the cash cow of WoW
came about.  They sell a lot of services and mounts with that game.  Now take a look at Diablo 3 that they are now experimenting with a Real World Auction House that they take x% out of any real currency generated which is a secondary revenue stream.

The demands of reality are simply finding multiple secondary revenue sources to help fund projects and not ****** off consumers in a bad way.  I have never had a bad experience with anything they have created.  With Bioware I can clearly say I have had two bad experiences with DA 2 and ME3 from strictly a gaming standpoint.

[SolidisusSnake1]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

That Video Games shouldn't have time constraints put on them.

That's an ideal, but I'm curious how you would reconcile it with the demands of reality.

I'm gonna agree here all video games suffer from time constraints, no one has an infinite budget (except Valve and Blizzard=) and developers are always thinking of "just one more cool thing" to put in their game. There is always going to be something in every game a developer wanted to put in but couldnt due to various reasons including time constraints, budget, etc.

What we dont want to see is unreasonable time constraints imposed by unrealistic publishers, "I want this game done in exactly two years, no matter what!" That is where we get problems as such concrete time constraints never work out and a game should only be shipped when it is "ready".

Modifié par SolidisusSnake1, 23 avril 2012 - 05:09 .

[Allan Schumacher]

sporeian wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I'm pretty sure Blizzard took their sweet time making games, even before WoW.

Actually, looking at their release schedule:

Warcraft II: 1995 (expansion 1996)
Diablo: 1996
Lost Vikings II: 1997
StarCraft: 1998 (Expansion 1998)
Diablo 2: 2000 (Expansion 2001)
Warcraft 3: 2002 (Expansion 2003)
World of Warcraft: 2004
Burning Crusade: 2007 (!!!)
WOTLK: 2008
StarCraft 2: 2010
Cataclysm: 2010
Diablo III: 2012

Diablo 2-3 difference: 11 years
Starcraft 1-2 difference: 12 years
About a 2 year difference for EXPANSION packs for WoW

You're making the assumption that work started on those sequels right after the originals were done, and that they weren't working on other projects in the mean time. 

Though my post was directly in response to someone that said that Blizzard always took their time delaying games, even before WoW.

[Malanek]

sporeian wrote...

• That Video Games shouldn't have time constraints put on them.
  
• That Video Games are art, but its both created by the consumer and the producers.
  
• Like most things, the video game business is corrupt and needs reformation, but I don't know how we can do it.
  
• Everything is equal: characters, plot, and locations. And all efforts should be put into those things to make them the best that they can be.

Don't agree with any of this.

Any project is always going to have time constraints, or at least it should. If it takes too long technology it is built on starts to age and will be put into a cycle of redoing everything. As a player I don't want to wait 3 years, let alone 7, for the next installment of a game. I would have forgotten what happened to the story in the meantime.

The amount of input from the consumer is limited imo. Sure feedback is very important, but that is more what went right and what went wrong for the next game. Your main issue here is the ending, this was 100% up to the writers to get right.

The ending of ME3 had nothing to do with corruptness. It had nothing to do with EA if that is what you are getting at. If EA had chosen the ending it would have been a safe, cliched, every body wins situation. This was Bioware, they just didn't get it right.

Not sure what your last point has to do with the ending. Yes those things, amongst others, are all important. Ultimately not everything is of exactly equal importance. The ending of ME3 was extremely important because it was wrapping up an entire trilogy. The worst thing about it was it didn't have the emotional payoff that the rest of that trilogy deserved.

[sporeian]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

You're making the assumption that work started on those sequels right after the originals were done, and that they weren't working on other projects in the mean time. 

Though my post was directly in response to someone that said that Blizzard always took their time delaying games, even before WoW.

I know, what I meant to imply was:

That despite those games popularity and potentioal. They didn't rush to make money and just put things out their in the market. Their still is a pretty good gap between the Time before WoW and when it came out that they could've rushed some stuff out.

[xsdob]

What about gameplay? Without that you get a completely broken game which no one can enjoy playing.

[Reign762]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

sporeian wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I'm pretty sure Blizzard took their sweet time making games, even before WoW.

Actually, looking at their release schedule:

Warcraft II: 1995 (expansion 1996)
Diablo: 1996
Lost Vikings II: 1997
StarCraft: 1998 (Expansion 1998)
Diablo 2: 2000 (Expansion 2001)
Warcraft 3: 2002 (Expansion 2003)
World of Warcraft: 2004
Burning Crusade: 2007 (!!!)
WOTLK: 2008
StarCraft 2: 2010
Cataclysm: 2010
Diablo III: 2012

Diablo 2-3 difference: 11 years
Starcraft 1-2 difference: 12 years
About a 2 year difference for EXPANSION packs for WoW

You're making the assumption that work started on those sequels right after the originals were done, and that they weren't working on other projects in the mean time. 

Though my post was directly in response to someone that said that Blizzard always took their time delaying games, even before WoW.

Well to be fair the list should be seperated by Blizzard and Blizzard North Studios.  Similar to Bioware and seperate studios programming for different IP's.

[Captain_Obvious_au]

The problem here Allan is that us, the fans, were expecting ME3 to be epic and wonderful. It is, but it also feels rushed and incomplete. Sure games have to have a deadline, but I think many here would have preferred ME3 to be delayed even one or two years if it meant a better quality product was released.

It's like you're in a restaurant and you've had a great entree, a wonderful main and you can't wait for the dessert to top the whole meal off, but when you get it it's clear it could have been the pinnacle of all desserts, but the chef didn't take enough time and care.

[devSin]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

You're making the assumption that work started on those sequels right after the originals were done, and that they weren't working on other projects in the mean time.

It's not really an assumption.

The RTS team has only ever done RTS games. Additionally, the early expansions were done with external assistance. Diablo was done in Redwood. World of Warcraft is its own team, and Diablo III is a new Irvine team (new people, and whatever was salvaged from Blizzard North).

StarCraft was mercilessly delayed IIRC, and Diablo II was delayed even longer. Warcraft Adventures and StarCraft Ghost were canceled (after lengthy development) for not having the requisite excellence. Warcraft III also saw significant change mid-development when RPS turned out to be crap (it sounded so awesome at the time).

Modifié par devSin, 23 avril 2012 - 05:17 .

[Cadeym]

You know Allan I just read your signature. Is it true that DA3 will be set in Orlais? I read in an article a long time ago that someone on the DA team mentionend that the next location might be a bit french.

[AwesomeDudex64]

Captain_Obvious_au wrote...

but it also feels rushed and incomplete.

That's because it is.

Modifié par AwesomeDudex64, 23 avril 2012 - 05:19 .

[Firesaber82]

Captain_Obvious_au wrote...

The problem here Allan is that us, the fans, were expecting ME3 to be epic and wonderful. It is, but it also feels rushed and incomplete. Sure games have to have a deadline, but I think many here would have preferred ME3 to be delayed even one or two years if it meant a better quality product was released.

It's like you're in a restaurant and you've had a great entree, a wonderful main and you can't wait for the dessert to top the whole meal off, but when you get it it's clear it could have been the pinnacle of all desserts, but the chef didn't take enough time and care.

very well said.  That's totally how it feels.  For all the greatness thats in ME3, there's this feeling of incompleteness, and there's certainly more bugs in this last offering than the first two to warrant the feeling of it being rushed (like all the hull breaches on the Normandy..)

[TrollDemon]

In the words of Cortana: "Don't make promises you can't keep"

[Malanek]

Firesaber82 wrote...
very well said.  That's totally how it feels.  For all the greatness thats in ME3, there's this feeling of incompleteness, and there's certainly more bugs in this last offering than the first two to warrant the feeling of it being rushed (like all the hull breaches on the Normandy..)

You really think there were more bugs than ME2? I'm not sure what game you were playing or if you are serious. ME2 was the buggiest by far. Charge has a few bugs now, it had dozens in ME2. Same with Kasumis shadow strike. Stasis was bugged, the Mattock was bugged. Biotic powers failed to take affect maybe 1 in 10 times as did cyro blast. The geography was iffy in quite a few spots. There were a few problems with flags not being set properly. I'm not sure whether ME1 or ME3 was more stable, both seem pretty stable in comparison. ME1 was a much, much less demanding game in terms of coding, but at the same time it was their first go with the engine.