250 réponses à ce sujet

[StarcloudSWG]

To make a good game you have to have the freedom to step outside the box and use your imagination.

EA is all about making something that fits inside the box du jour. Currently, that's Call of Duty/Gears of War shooters for action games, yet another variation of the Madden/FIFA type sports games, casual social games, etc.

That's why there's so much studio churn under EA. They pick up a development studio that's doing something new and innovative, and then promptly attempt to stuff them into making games based on whatever's popular at the time. They *still* haven't figured out that doesn't work in the long run.

[Lewie]

StarcloudSWG wrote...

To make a good game you have to have the freedom to step outside the box and use your imagination.

EA is all about making something that fits inside the box du jour. Currently, that's Call of Duty/Gears of War shooters for action games, yet another variation of the Madden/FIFA type sports games, casual social games, etc.

That's why there's so much studio churn under EA. They pick up a development studio that's doing something new and innovative, and then promptly attempt to stuff them into making games based on whatever's popular at the time. They *still* haven't figured out that doesn't work in the long run.

Tough **** EA. Bioware go rogue... and flee and the fans will raise money lol. 

[Gatt9]

Mr. MannlyMan wrote...

Andromidius wrote...

Protip: don't tell people what they can or can't say in an open forum. If you don't want criticism of your thoughts, don't put them online for people to see.

And no, its no proof at all. Its further proof that EA is poison for gaming. ME3 was rushed, that's very obvious.

And whoever said ME3 was innovative made me laugh really hard. Because to think that copying Dues Ex is innovative is just hilarious. Indoctrination would have been innovative, but apperently we can't have that!

Keep making me laugh guys.

It's innovative in that it utilizes complex save data, compiled over the course of 2+ games, to show changes in the story triggered by the player's decisions over the course of the trilogy.

Two points.

1.  It's not complex save data,  every choice is binary and isolated.  There's never a choice or outcome that's dependent on some preceeding choice.

2.  It imports all of those choices to disregard them.  Killed the Rachni queen?  Here's a new one!  Killed Wrex?  Here's a stand-in that gives the same story!  Killed Ashley or Kaiden?  Doesn't matter,  whichever one survives gets the same story!  Every choice has an end result in ME3 of either "You picked right!" or "You picked wrong,  here's the same thing anyways!".

It could've been innovative,  but EA was more interested in shoehorning in "Revenue building features" than they were in making a good game,  or making gaming history.

[Drogonion]

I don't think the problem is with EA honestly. It seems to me that EA is mainly the accountant in all of this, whereas the game was borked by the creative team.

The problem is that Bioware has lost the ability to tell a story. Simple as that. If the ending to this game had been merely adequate (instead of thematically revolting), most everyone would have loved it.

If the same resources dumped into the embarrassing current ending would have been used instead to create a thematically and narratively competent finale, this topic would never arise. But with the story arc in DA2, and now this, Bioware appears to have lost some of it's narrative talent.

[Dude_in_the_Room]

I think there should be 1 or 2 more games under EA before we decide.

[brickheart]

Wait... what? ME2 was made under EA. Mass Effect 2 was a great game. I don't understand the argument here.

Unless ME2 was somehow bad, there is no trend pointing toward EA as the problem.

I am going to defend ME1 here by saying that maybe you faffed around and areas were reused, but that is fine when there is good (story driven) content in the game. ME1 had one of the most compelling stories in a video game. It was all scifi fantasy movies/games spliced into one big epic. Mass Effect 2 took that and ran with it.

Mass Effect 3 has a different direction. Instead of being scifi driven, it is driven by the characters and problems that are already established. This was an excellent direction. It gave Bioware time to develop a real bond with fans. In ME1 and ME2 we only got to know characters, int ME3 it is all about counting on the relationships you have formed. It makes the player so connected to the story.

The story of ME3 is not bad and the content within the game is not bad. However, the game is not polished. It was an amazing attempt and it really shows that Bioware is amazing at writing involving characters and situations. But playing this game feels like other Beta releases I have been apart of. There are notice-able problems from the mission on Mars to the end, but the story pushes you along enough to make it to the end.

I suppose Bioware should take this to heart. They are really good at getting us from point A to B, but they are overlooking the small things. ME1 and ME2 had all the small things, from pointless conversations to simple quests that weren't buggy.

ME3's storyline is epic and involving, but it misses the charming little things that we expect from ME games.

Even though I personally don't like the ending, I believe that the game is probably the best experience I have had playing a video game. And I won't blame EA for providing the money for something I loved so much.

If there is one thing I am certain of, there will be more ME titles and they will be even better than ME3. Hell, the DLC for ME3 is bound to be good. Playing as Shepard was amazing. Can't wait to see what else Bioware has in store.

[ZackG312]

Not really it felt like I was playing a Gears of War rip off
cover shoot cover shoot

Modifié par ZackG312, 24 avril 2012 - 04:54 .

[ZackG312]

The Spamming Troll wrote...

ME1 is the only good game ive played from bioware.

its the reason i own an XBOX and a PS3, hoping maybe one day ill get another game like ME1.......maybe witcher 2 will do it for me.

I would recommend playing The Witcher 1 on your PC, the mood of the game is just so dark really great.

[Brian.V3]

I think ME3 is proof BioWare can make okay games under EA.

If people were in denial about EA rushing products out the door and milking IP's. Just look at Mass Effect 3.

BioWare had to plead to EA to push back the release date. I found more animation issues on this game compared to the first two COMBINED. Let's not forget the oversight issues (face import, dialogue locks, Liara flashback scenes to name a few) I found tying MP to the main storyline instead of a separate entity to be how in the world did they... oh wait EA recommended doing this because they are now going to push this on future EA titles. Here I was just thinking it was BioWare and Mass Effect 3.

We could talk about the plot because there was some spotty moments. But can't really blame EA for that one.

So while they can make an entertaining game cause ME3 was entertaining. But the fact there are more faults and holes here compared to the past two. Given their history under the current EA banner. Yeah I have to say future BioWare games are shaky.

[KevTheGamer]

Mass Effect 2 was better proof it was an EA game too and it was a great game imo in a lot of ways better than Mass Effect 3. Mass Effect 3 in my opinion spent so much time focused on the end goal that we didn't get to make the strong relationships we did in Mass Effect 2 or even to a point Mass Effect 1. I got to know Ashley and Kaiden pretty ok before I decided who had to die even though I didn't get to know Wrex, Garrus or Tali super well before during the game it was made up for in Mass Effect 2 as far as Garrus and Tali goes and even more so with Garrus in Mass Effect 3. I really wish I could have gotten to know James better. I loved getting to know Jack in Mass Effect 2 and was hoping for more from her and Kasumi in Mass Effect 3 but I was disappointed. I feel if Bioware had taken the best aspects of both of the first two games and added a few extras they would have made me very happy. Instead this one feels kind of rushed.

[Mole267]

When I look at ME3, I think of all the places where they compromised... Including an in-game cameo for some girl who's famous for licking a PSP, and then using a photoshopped stock photo for Tali, for example.

I just see things in the game were they clearly compromised in the name of $$$. It shows that a lot of video games these days are becoming mass-produced, and they've become more about quantity vs quality. Much like everything.

ME3 is not a bad game at all, it's a brilliant game until the end.

But there are badly executed things that stick out in the game that I just cannot overlook.

Modifié par Mole267, 24 avril 2012 - 05:58 .

[PrinceLionheart]

 

[Embrosil]

simfamSP wrote...

NOTICE:

IF YOU ARE:

STILL PISSED OF ABOUT THE ENDING (to an unreasonable level of course.)
CAN NOT FORM AN OPINION WITHOUT BIAS (example: Just finished ME3 and watches smudboy's analysis.)
GENERALLY DON'T LIKE BIOWARE ANYWAY (you've never really like a game after BG2.)
ARE INFECTED WITH BW NOSTALGIA (haven't played a recent BW game in years yet still refer to it as flawless.)

DO NOT BOTHER POSTING.

AND PLEASE, READ MY POST BEFORE RESPONDING.

You must be joking, right? You ask a question and then tell everyone with a different opinion to push off? Yeah, smart move indeed.
But to answer your question. No. DA2, ME2 and especially ME3 are a proof that Bioware can only made mediocre to very bad games under EA. But as I see it, some people are really happy to have "side quests" consisting of scanning a planet and bringing in an imaginary item. Or why to even bother with saving Elcor soldiers and civilans. All we have to do is to scan Dakuuna, why to make a whole mission of it, right? Or with copying an end from another game and calling it artistic integrity.

Modifié par Embrosil, 24 avril 2012 - 06:20 .

[Embrosil]

brickheart wrote...

Wait... what? ME2 was made under EA. Mass Effect 2 was a great game. I don't understand the argument here.

No, it was not. ME2 has the most idiotic storyline I have ever seen. It is only exceeded by ME3 "end". Come on, you are willingly working for space terrorist and say NOTHING? It is especially perfect, when you just finish ME1 seeing Cerberu's experiments on humans, killing admiral Kahoku and then in ME2 you say o.k., no problem? Really? And again, when you visit Pragia and see the horrors of experiments on children and that Cerberus **** tells you Oh, but it was not Cerberus, no, it was some splinter cell. You must be kidding! And why the hell could not I tell Ashley on Horizon that I AGREE with her. Or why could not I simply took Normandy to the Arcturus station, have all those Cerberus agents arrested? And at the same time, the Alliance is shown as a bunch of morons who let hunderts of thousand people disappear without any activity. And when asked why, the answer is they are rebuilding! You have to be kidding, they lost 8, yes, EIGHT cruisers and we are told they need to rebuild??? To be honest, this itself should warn me what will come in ME3.

Modifié par Embrosil, 24 avril 2012 - 06:34 .

[Ndutz]

Because as much as Bioware tells you its your own story its not. Its still a directed narrative, player don't make their own story.

[Embrosil]

Drogonion wrote...

I don't think the problem is with EA honestly. It seems to me that EA is mainly the accountant in all of this, whereas the game was borked by the creative team.

The problem is that Bioware has lost the ability to tell a story. Simple as that. If the ending to this game had been merely adequate (instead of thematically revolting), most everyone would have loved it.

If the same resources dumped into the embarrassing current ending would have been used instead to create a thematically and narratively competent finale, this topic would never arise. But with the story arc in DA2, and now this, Bioware appears to have lost some of it's narrative talent.

I think you may have a point. ME1 has an excellent story, one of the best (if not the best) scifi game ever made. DA:O also has a decent story. But then comes DA2 and ME2 and all goes to hell. ME2 I wrote about and in DA2 I really could not believe when I got and now, one year later. WTH? And then Hawke met three characters, behaving like he has known them for a long time while I have never seen them! Yeah, great story telling indeed.

[Vormaerin]

OlympusMons423 wrote...
 where everything is done for shareholders, .

If they aren't doing it for the shareholders, they should be fired.   Its the shareholders' money they are spending, not theirs.  The shareholders are paying them to make money for the shareholders.   Its not a charity for the fans.

That said, making products that appeal to the customers is how you maximize shareholder value.   But the idea that Ray ought to be giving you money out of the shareholders' pocket (which is what free DLC is) is bull.   They should make as much high quality content as the budget allows.  And anything beyond that ought to bring in additional revenue.

Or some other benefit to the corporation, like the masses of free advertising that CDProjekt gets by tossing a bit of content into their patches.

[InvincibleHero]

Vormaerin wrote...

OlympusMons423 wrote...
 where everything is done for shareholders, .

If they aren't doing it for the shareholders, they should be fired.   Its the shareholders' money they are spending, not theirs.  The shareholders are paying them to make money for the shareholders.   Its not a charity for the fans.

That said, making products that appeal to the customers is how you maximize shareholder value.   But the idea that Ray ought to be giving you money out of the shareholders' pocket (which is what free DLC is) is bull.   They should make as much high quality content as the budget allows.  And anything beyond that ought to bring in additional revenue.

Or some other benefit to the corporation, like the masses of free advertising that CDProjekt gets by tossing a bit of content into their patches.

I usually agree with your posts but you have the shareholder thing all wrong. Shareholders buy stock and hope it will go up. The company does not get any money unless they float additional shares. The execs in major companies usually own shares and they also would like to see rising share prices.

The money EA spends is mostly from sales of their products. They could also issue new shares from time to time to supplment their liquid assets.

[Vormaerin]

InvincibleHero wrote...

I usually agree with your posts but you have the shareholder thing all wrong. Shareholders buy stock and hope it will go up. The company does not get any money unless they float additional shares. The execs in major companies usually own shares and they also would like to see rising share prices.

The money EA spends is mostly from sales of their products. They could also issue new shares from time to time to supplment their liquid assets.

Stock is about ownership, its not a revenue source after the initial investments.  But it doesn't change the fiduciary obligation.   The function of employees is to make money for the owners.  That's why the owners pay them.

All that revenue belongs to the shareholders.  They are choosing to reinvest it in the company.   Which is why it is important that the employees make products the customers want.

But they better be making money by doing so.

[Weskerr]

simfamSP wrote...

[b]NOTICE:

IF YOU ARE:

STILL PISSED OF ABOUT THE ENDING (to an unreasonable level of course.)
CAN NOT FORM AN OPINION WITHOUT BIAS (example: Just finished ME3 and watches smudboy's analysis.)
GENERALLY DON'T LIKE BIOWARE ANYWAY (you've never really like a game after BG2.)
ARE INFECTED WITH BW NOSTALGIA (haven't played a recent BW game in years yet still refer to it as flawless.)

DO NOT BOTHER POSTING.

That's quite a restrictive set of parameters to put on a discussion. Maybe you should remove this from your post if you want people to take you seriously.

[brickheart]

Embrosil wrote...

brickheart wrote...

Wait... what? ME2 was made under EA. Mass Effect 2 was a great game. I don't understand the argument here.

No, it was not. ME2 has the most idiotic storyline I have ever seen. It is only exceeded by ME3 "end". Come on, you are willingly working for space terrorist and say NOTHING? It is especially perfect, when you just finish ME1 seeing Cerberu's experiments on humans, killing admiral Kahoku and then in ME2 you say o.k., no problem? Really? And again, when you visit Pragia and see the horrors of experiments on children and that Cerberus **** tells you Oh, but it was not Cerberus, no, it was some splinter cell. You must be kidding! And why the hell could not I tell Ashley on Horizon that I AGREE with her. Or why could not I simply took Normandy to the Arcturus station, have all those Cerberus agents arrested? And at the same time, the Alliance is shown as a bunch of morons who let hunderts of thousand people disappear without any activity. And when asked why, the answer is they are rebuilding! You have to be kidding, they lost 8, yes, EIGHT cruisers and we are told they need to rebuild??? To be honest, this itself should warn me what will come in ME3.

ME 2 may have not been the greatest game ever, but you are deluded. It is much better than most games. I don't really know what is
even know what is considered good in your little world, but clearly you have a skewed perspective 

Modifié par brickheart, 24 avril 2012 - 08:06 .

[Embrosil]

brickheart wrote...

Embrosil wrote...

brickheart wrote...

Wait... what? ME2 was made under EA. Mass Effect 2 was a great game. I don't understand the argument here.

No, it was not. ME2 has the most idiotic storyline I have ever seen. It is only exceeded by ME3 "end". Come on, you are willingly working for space terrorist and say NOTHING? It is especially perfect, when you just finish ME1 seeing Cerberu's experiments on humans, killing admiral Kahoku and then in ME2 you say o.k., no problem? Really? And again, when you visit Pragia and see the horrors of experiments on children and that Cerberus **** tells you Oh, but it was not Cerberus, no, it was some splinter cell. You must be kidding! And why the hell could not I tell Ashley on Horizon that I AGREE with her. Or why could not I simply took Normandy to the Arcturus station, have all those Cerberus agents arrested? And at the same time, the Alliance is shown as a bunch of morons who let hunderts of thousand people disappear without any activity. And when asked why, the answer is they are rebuilding! You have to be kidding, they lost 8, yes, EIGHT cruisers and we are told they need to rebuild??? To be honest, this itself should warn me what will come in ME3.

ME 2 may have not been the greatest game ever, but you are deluded. It is much better than most games. I don't really know what is
even know what is considered good in your little world, but clearly you have a skewed perspective 

Well let me check.

1) Experiments on humans - NOT GOOD
2) Killing admirals - NOT GOOD
3) Experiments on children - DEFINITELY NOT GOOD
4) Making husks from own soldiers - NOT GOOD
5) Luring people to Sanctuary to change them into husks - NOT GOOD

My perspective is quite fine, opposite to yours it seems.

Modifié par Embrosil, 24 avril 2012 - 08:23 .

[NoxNoctum]

Fireblader70 wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

Fireblader70 wrote...
Overall, I think there are flaws with 'Mass Effect 3', yes, but in the same way that ME1 and ME2 had their flaws. I think Bioware can do perfectly fine under EA, and this game proves it.

It has more to do with ME3 feeling like a step back from ME2 rather than a step forward.

ME2 was more of a step sideways from ME, but still very good at what it did.

You can say the same thing about DA2 and DA as well. DA2 was a big step back from DA , without being able to establish an identity which is something ME2 managed and then some.

'Mass Effect 3' is a step backwards in what way? I'm curious to see what you think.

Just off the top of my head:

-Normandy and the Citadel felt less "big", didn't have as much freedom walking around in them, especially the Citadel.
-Game was more linear.
-Loss of RPG elements and customizability when it comes to gear
-Story was not anywhere near as wow-ing as the first game. The whole thing was basically just about picking up people.

It did improve a lot of things though for sure.

[abaris]

brickheart wrote...

ME 2 may have not been the greatest game ever, but you are deluded. It is much better than most games. I don't really know what is
even know what is considered good in your little world, but clearly you have a skewed perspective 

ME2 was a good game. But mainly because of character interaction. Let's face it, the story was kind of sloppy and not a brilliant piece of writing.

Again, I liked playing ME2 and probably will go back to doing so, but I was always a little put off by Shepard being so easily drawn to the dark side.