250 réponses à ce sujet

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Gandalf-the-Fabulous wrote...

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

ME1 for its time was extremely progressive for the industry (real-time RPGs).  It did a lot right, even if it had pioneer glitches along the way.

How so? As far as I can see ME1 was a failed experiment, the only thing they really achieved was to find a new way to organize dialogue choices.

The dialogue choices, the real-time combat, and the establishment of a great/deep sci-fi narrative (and universe).  It certainly deserved a sequel.

[Lord Phoebus]

ncknck wrote...

2012, Mass Effect 3. A non trivial ending.

I'd argue the ending was a pretty blatant rip off of the Deus Ex HR ending and quite trivial (you don't get much more trivial than a Deus[Diabolous] Ex Machina).  The triviality of it being the problem, as it wasn't satisfactory for an approximately 100 hour trilogy.  Of course I'm not here to argue the ending, just pointing out that I don't consider the ending risky or innovative, just a bad decision.

Its a catch 22. People want creativity and recognizability at the same time. However both is not possible. It's an inherently destructive behavior. Put too much sunshine and people leave, bored. Put too much creativity and people leave, infuriated.

The catch is ofc, there are a zillion CoD clones and only a few ME's. And people are here because of creativity in the first place. So what this whining ultimately is, is shooting itself in the foot. The next game will be a GoW clone, but its already on the market. And people will start to talk about the "death of bioware" "bw nostalgia" "game is very safe" etc.

I agree with you to an extent, people are afraid of change but at the same time seek innovation.  But I disagree that it's a catch 22, it is possible to win, but it's a very risky venture.  What decides whether innovation is accepted or rejected is often baffling.  However when that success occurs it can make companies.  Baldur's Gate did it for BioWare, Diablo did it for Blizzard, etc.  However it really is only the outsiders (indy devs. and foreign devs.)  that can afford to take risks in order to get a foot in the door, sometimes big studios can benefit from outsider innovation (like Valve hiring the developers of Narbacular Drop to make Portal), but they really can't afford the risk themselves given the financial stakes.  With the independent studios 1 bad game can ruin them and the even the larger studios can't afford to have several bad games in a row.

[Tangster]

They've proven that rushing a game is a bad idea and results in a mediocre game.

[coolbeans]

Lets not forget the broken EMS system, forcing folk to play multiplayer or utilise a 3rd party app to access all single player content, so no, ME3 is not evidence of making a good game under EA.

[OlympusMons423]

The whole bigger than just big business model, where everything is done for shareholders, or CEO sickening raises & bonuses at the cost to actual numbers of people working and /or the amount of time they are given to do things...is killing more than just game companies like this.

BioWare did great with ME3, but that ending should have never seen the light of day. Any fool could have seen the problem with it. My only hope for it really is that there was some plan for it really to be a IT with a real ending to follow. Now that would be wrong in many ways, and I would rather not spend money for a real ending, but that ending has pushed the whole series so off balance that I just need something more. Plus it would pretty damn creative too.

If nothing changes, which sadly is most likely the case...I love many parts of ME3. I will just dismiss that horrible ending in the back of my head, and regret the greatness that was truly missed. Multiplayer is fun, but GOD how many shooter do we need really? It too will get really tired. It is nothing compared to the single player, which truly was different on many levels.

[CELL55]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! ....no.

[mx3ze]

Troll OP is a troll.

[TAK The Voyager]

I thought ME2 was proof.

[abaris]

Let me put it this way:

ME3 proves that Bioware could make good games. It shines in certain points of the story and the gameplay.

But it also proves, they either don't have the time, ressources or knack to actually come through. The ending is the most obvious blunder, but there are other aspects pointing in that direction too.

[Xellith]

simfamSP wrote...

NOTICE:

IF YOU ARE:

STILL PISSED OF ABOUT THE ENDING.
CAN NOT FORM AN OPINION WITHOUT BIAS.
GENERALLY DON'T LIKE BIOWARE ANYWAY.
ARE INFECTED WITH BW NOSTALGIA.

DO NOT BOTHER POSTING.

AND PLEASE, READ MY POST BEFORE RESPONDING.

So if we have a view thats different form yours then dont post? LOL.  Dude... thats just silly. anyways...

I just compare ME3 to ME2. ME2 is a clearly superior game in my opinion. Bioware did not do a good job with ME3. It's lazy and unfinished.

Modifié par Xellith, 23 avril 2012 - 11:09 .

[vania z]

ME3 is a pretty weak game with tons of problems beside ending. Bioware is more likely dead than alive.

[Kakita Tatsumaru]

Considering the number of important things which were rushed, I don't thinks EA helps to make good games. And the fact that EA wants MP even in SP games and more and more "microtransations" and horrible DRM doesn't help too.

[SalsaDMA]

simfamSP wrote...

[b]NOTICE:

IF YOU ARE:

CAN NOT FORM AN OPINION WITHOUT BIAS.

DO NOT BOTHER POSTING.

Why did you bother posting then? :innocent:

Edit: in case it's not clear to you, you just ruled out youself from being able to post with that sentence.

Modifié par SalsaDMA, 23 avril 2012 - 11:24 .

[ToaOrka]

ME3 was without a doubt a good game by all means. Aside from the endings, I dare say the only thing that kept it from being a great game was the large amount of bugs present from launch (Anybody managed to actually import their faces yet?) and other minor things. So to answer you question, yes, ME3 is proof that BioWare can make good games under EA. However, it's also possible that ME3 is proof that BioWare can't make great games under EA.

Modifié par ToaOrka, 23 avril 2012 - 11:28 .

[AkiKishi]

Even ignoring the ending. The game lacks polish, and a lot of the design is poor.

[Cadence of the Planes]

GhostV9 wrote...

No. Because Mass Effect 3 is not a good game.

Disagree.

Mass Effect 3 is a good game.

[Cadence of the Planes]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Even ignoring the ending. The game lacks polish, and a lot of the design is poor.

Disagree. The game is more polished than most, and has a cinematic feel unlike any other RPG I've played.

[Grimwick]

Overall no.
ME2 is proof that BW was doing well with EA in control, ME2 I rate as one of the best games ever.

However more recent releases such as DA2 and ME3 have been a serious step down from BW's previously high standards.

Can BW still make a 'good game'? Yes, because to be 'good' you only have to beat average.
Can BW still make a truly inspirational and fantastic rpg classic? No. Not while EA is preventing them from doing anything to improve the game for reasons other than maximum $$$.

[JamesT91]

no, i will leave the endings out of this. Its not an RPG. to any rpg fans like myself its a massive dissapointment, at every stage of development they have taken out some rpg features.

instead of improving on what has been established as a winning formula they decided to stick the middle finger to the fans who earned them enough money to even think about making sequels and instead spent the entire time developing a game to appeal to shooter fans which means its not only a bad game but also an insult to the fans

[incinerator950]

I dunno, ME1 was no where near a great game. That was with Elevation Partners, who if I remember correctly, John R. was a manager and joint owner/supporter of them. My comparison is that ME 1 was the Eragon of Sci-Fi genre's that went from a movie and turned into a Soap Opera. The series extensively recycled material from previous Bioware games (or in the case of ME 3 now) and other games and even reminiscent of some animes.

Drudging past the Soap Opera, lacking romance, and movie community, ME 3 improved on a lot of features in both games. However, the sprites are what made me feel bad, the ship cutscenes are terrible for the most part with the exception of a few opening barrages.

As for Multiplayer, it worked. Its boring now (demo player), is partially overrated, but its fun, and works well. It ties in pretty well with the SP, and integrates somewhat well. They should not have promoted it as being completely separate for the highest EMS ending though.

I don't really care about Day 1 DLC, a lot of games have cut content. EA is smart (diabolical even) to use recycled crap, have it upgraded, and charge it to players. Personally, I would have went the way of Shale or the Cerberus Network and made it free for a limited time to people who bought it new. Retailers and all that, Online passes blah blah blah slay the Jabberwocky and save Narnia.

[incinerator950]

JamesT91 wrote...

no, i will leave the endings out of this. Its not an RPG. to any rpg fans like myself its a massive dissapointment, at every stage of development they have taken out some rpg features.

instead of improving on what has been established as a winning formula they decided to stick the middle finger to the fans who earned them enough money to even think about making sequels and instead spent the entire time developing a game to appeal to shooter fans which means its not only a bad game but also an insult to the fans

Then you shouldn't delude yourself by playing a series of Recycled Kotor games that are played as TPS's. 

[AlienSpaceBats]

No.
Despite its flaws, it's still a good game.

[voteDC]

Gandalf-the-Fabulous wrote...

One thing I find funny is that before the EA takeover Bioware could do no wrong and most fans considered anything Bioware released regardless of the actual quality of the product pure gold. Take the Original Mass Effect for example, it was a game on par with the quality of Dragon Age 2 and suffered from many of the same problems yet a lot of fans (usually those who take a strong distaste to the current direction Bioware is heading in) still consider it to be a golden example of how great Bioware was before the EA takeover when the truth is the Mass Effect series has only improved greatly under the EA management. Of course I am not sure that is really due to the EA management but the argument that Bioware games have only gotten worse under EA is arguably false.

That being said Dragon Age 2 was garbage however how much that was to do with EA is unknown. On one hand the game was obviously rushed out the door which does seem to be a trend under the EA management however on the other hand I am not exactly sure the Dragon Age team really knows what they are doing, Origins was ok but it was hardly as great as people made it out to be, I am guessing that their goal was to create a game series based around the elements that made the Original Baldur's Gate series great but I am not sure they know exactly what they were.

A good point but the similarities end at the graphical side to my eyes. Where repetition of side areas was terrible.

Mass Effect had a cohesive story that branched naturally. Dragon Age 2 however liked to jump from set-piece to set-piece and then take huge time jumps to let the story continue.

Squad management was a big point in Mass Effect. The right weapons, armour and upgrades could make a huge difference even if graphically they were very similar. Dragon Age 2 threw that away though in the game of giving characters 'iconic' looks that you were unable to change and the upgrades for them you got didn't seem to make the slightest bit of difference to me.

Where both games got it right were in the characters. Both had great banter between the people you took with you.

Can Bioware still make great games under EA? To be honest my doubts increase with each new release, Dragon Age: Origins was the last one I would call great. The others have been good but somehow lacking that indefinable quality that Bioware games used to have that could make you look beyond the flaws.

[DJ CAVE SLAVE]

ME2 wasn't good? Huh, never knew...