55528 réponses à ce sujet

[Eryri]

demersel wrote...

Arian Dynas wrote...

I like that, and it remains why I still personally think that IT will be implemented via a bridging DLC to ME4, probably through a flashback.

I actually very much liked the way they did bridging DLCs for me3 - the Arrival and lair of the shodow broker. 

Only after having played ME3 i began to apreciate these stories fully. 

My only concern with this is that Bioware may run out of funding before the final reveal. They were planning some DLC for Dragon Age 2 which was shelved due to the poor sales of that game.

There are plenty of people on these boards (myself included) who feel that any pre-ending dlc that does not affect the outcome other than with a few more war assets is a bit pointless. I'm not saying that's rational, as the DLC may well be perfectly fun to play in and of itself - but I don't claim to be rational about games that I get emotionally involved in.

It would be absolutely tragic if the Leviathan DLC tanks due to lingering bad feeling about the ending, and EA uses that as an excuse to pull the plug on ME3 before the big reveal. I think they need to throw us a bone - nothing too definite, just something to keep our hopes up re IT. That would give me incentive to buy the dlc at any rate.

[Andromidius]

Eryri wrote...

It would be absolutely tragic if the Leviathan DLC tanks due to lingering bad feeling about the ending, and EA uses that as an excuse to pull the plug on ME3 before the big reveal. I think they need to throw us a bone - nothing too definite, just something to keep our hopes up re IT. That would give me incentive to buy the dlc at any rate.

I doubt they'll pull the plug.  ME3 has something DA2 never had - multiplayer cash cow microtransactions.

Honestly, its one reason why we should apprieciate ME3 having it - means Bioware keeps getting funded and support to keep making Mass Effect.

[demersel]

Eryri wrote...

demersel wrote...

Arian Dynas wrote...

I like that, and it remains why I still personally think that IT will be implemented via a bridging DLC to ME4, probably through a flashback.

I actually very much liked the way they did bridging DLCs for me3 - the Arrival and lair of the shodow broker. 

Only after having played ME3 i began to apreciate these stories fully. 

My only concern with this is that Bioware may run out of funding before the final reveal. They were planning some DLC for Dragon Age 2 which was shelved due to the poor sales of that game.

There are plenty of people on these boards (myself included) who feel that any pre-ending dlc that does not affect the outcome other than with a few more war assets is a bit pointless. I'm not saying that's rational, as the DLC may well be perfectly fun to play in and of itself - but I don't claim to be rational about games that I get emotionally involved in.

It would be absolutely tragic if the Leviathan DLC tanks due to lingering bad feeling about the ending, and EA uses that as an excuse to pull the plug on ME3 before the big reveal. I think they need to throw us a bone - nothing too definite, just something to keep our hopes up re IT. That would give me incentive to buy the dlc at any rate.

Oh come on, enough with "low on budget" nonesens! we are really talking ME3 here - one of the biggest AAA+++ title of the last five years, on par with Starcraft, Diablo, etc/ bucked up by the EA - THE BIGGEST PUBLISHER IN THE WORLD, developed by the biggest developing compani in the world. Of course there were budget restrictions of some sort, but Really come on!! We're talking 200+ mill IP here. The argument that they just run out of money, or that EA cut them off is really stupid. You could agrue all you want, but unless you show me real insider financial documents and EA reports, which you wont, don't use "they didn't finish the game couse they run out of money' argument.  

Modifié par demersel, 12 juillet 2012 - 05:18 .

[Arian Dynas]

They didn't finish Dragon Age 2 and it's expansion because they decided it would be more profitable to simply go straight to DA3, folding in the story of the DA2 expansion into DA3.

They didn't "run out of money"

Besides, even EA knows, if you have a plan like this, which Bioware WOULD have to keep EA apprised of, you stick with it to the end.

Modifié par Arian Dynas, 12 juillet 2012 - 05:23 .

[demersel]

Arian Dynas wrote...

They didn't finish Dragon Age 2 and it's expansion because they decided it would be more profitable to simply go straight to DA3, folding in the story of the DA2 expansion into DA3.

They didn't "run out of money"

Besides, even EA knows, if you have a plan like this, which Bioware WOULD have to keep EA apprised of, you stick with it to the end.

which is exactly what they're doing. )))

[Dwailing]

Arian Dynas wrote...

They didn't finish Dragon Age 2 and it's expansion because they decided it would be more profitable to simply go straight to DA3, folding in the story of the DA2 expansion into DA3.

They didn't "run out of money"

Besides, even EA knows, if you have a plan like this, which Bioware WOULD have to keep EA apprised of, you stick with it to the end.

Man, this reminds me of how badly I need to play Dragon Age.  I own both games, but I have had other things.  You know, I'm curious about something.  How much would I be missing out on if I played DA2 WHILE playing DA:O?  You know, doing a fresh start in DA2 while working on DA:O so I would eventually have a save to import.

[plfranke]

demersel wrote...

Eryri wrote...

demersel wrote...

Arian Dynas wrote...

I like that, and it remains why I still personally think that IT will be implemented via a bridging DLC to ME4, probably through a flashback.

I actually very much liked the way they did bridging DLCs for me3 - the Arrival and lair of the shodow broker. 

Only after having played ME3 i began to apreciate these stories fully. 

My only concern with this is that Bioware may run out of funding before the final reveal. They were planning some DLC for Dragon Age 2 which was shelved due to the poor sales of that game.

There are plenty of people on these boards (myself included) who feel that any pre-ending dlc that does not affect the outcome other than with a few more war assets is a bit pointless. I'm not saying that's rational, as the DLC may well be perfectly fun to play in and of itself - but I don't claim to be rational about games that I get emotionally involved in.

It would be absolutely tragic if the Leviathan DLC tanks due to lingering bad feeling about the ending, and EA uses that as an excuse to pull the plug on ME3 before the big reveal. I think they need to throw us a bone - nothing too definite, just something to keep our hopes up re IT. That would give me incentive to buy the dlc at any rate.

Oh come on, enough with "low on budget" nonesens! we are really talking ME3 here - one of the biggest AAA+++ title of the last five years, on par with Starcraft, Diablo, etc/ bucked up by the EA - THE BIGGEST PUBLISHER IN THE WORLD, developed by the biggest developing compani in the world. Of course there were budget restrictions of some sort, but Really come on!! We're talking 200+ mill IP here. The argument that they just run out of money, or that EA cut them off is really stupid. You could agrue all you want, but unless you show me real insider financial documents and EA reports, which you wont, don't use "they didn't finish the game couse they run out of money' argument.  

but it's obvious from other parts of the game. you forget that the ending was not the only questionable part of me3. lack of me2 squad involvement, side quests, etc.

[Priss Blackburne]

Dwailing wrote...

Arian Dynas wrote...

They didn't finish Dragon Age 2 and it's expansion because they decided it would be more profitable to simply go straight to DA3, folding in the story of the DA2 expansion into DA3.

They didn't "run out of money"

Besides, even EA knows, if you have a plan like this, which Bioware WOULD have to keep EA apprised of, you stick with it to the end.

Man, this reminds me of how badly I need to play Dragon Age.  I own both games, but I have had other things.  You know, I'm curious about something.  How much would I be missing out on if I played DA2 WHILE playing DA:O?  You know, doing a fresh start in DA2 while working on DA:O so I would eventually have a save to import.

not really that much I think. The second one doesn't have anything major change without a import save I think. Honestly I can't remember how it affected my DA2 playthrough.

[Either.Ardrey]

demersel wrote...

Eryri wrote...

demersel wrote...

Arian Dynas wrote...

I like that, and it remains why I still personally think that IT will be implemented via a bridging DLC to ME4, probably through a flashback.

I actually very much liked the way they did bridging DLCs for me3 - the Arrival and lair of the shodow broker. 

Only after having played ME3 i began to apreciate these stories fully. 

My only concern with this is that Bioware may run out of funding before the final reveal. They were planning some DLC for Dragon Age 2 which was shelved due to the poor sales of that game.

There are plenty of people on these boards (myself included) who feel that any pre-ending dlc that does not affect the outcome other than with a few more war assets is a bit pointless. I'm not saying that's rational, as the DLC may well be perfectly fun to play in and of itself - but I don't claim to be rational about games that I get emotionally involved in.

It would be absolutely tragic if the Leviathan DLC tanks due to lingering bad feeling about the ending, and EA uses that as an excuse to pull the plug on ME3 before the big reveal. I think they need to throw us a bone - nothing too definite, just something to keep our hopes up re IT. That would give me incentive to buy the dlc at any rate.

Oh come on, enough with "low on budget" nonesens! we are really talking ME3 here - one of the biggest AAA+++ title of the last five years, on par with Starcraft, Diablo, etc/ bucked up by the EA - THE BIGGEST PUBLISHER IN THE WORLD, developed by the biggest developing compani in the world. Of course there were budget restrictions of some sort, but Really come on!! We're talking 200+ mill IP here. The argument that they just run out of money, or that EA cut them off is really stupid. You could agrue all you want, but unless you show me real insider financial documents and EA reports, which you wont, don't use "they didn't finish the game couse they run out of money' argument.  

A) EA is nowhere near as big/succesful as commonly perceived. Their stock is bad right now. 2008 was their last good year in comparison.
Contrary to what you want to believe, Mass Effect 3 is not one of the biggest AAA games of the last five years. Mass Effect is one of the culturally well known titles, but Bioware historically made great/good games that sold passably (meaning barely turning a profit). They'd only put into it what they'd think would turn them the best profit in hopes of keeping their corporate head above the water, so to speak. Mass Effect 3 is Bioware's best selling game to date (and arguably its first true success financially), and it still can't even touch the upper tier games.

Edit: By culturally well-known, I meant nerd-culture. Anywhere else, it might as well have not existed until ME3.

Modifié par Either.Ardrey, 12 juillet 2012 - 06:01 .

[Eryri]

demersel wrote...

Eryri wrote...

demersel wrote...

Arian Dynas wrote...

I like that, and it remains why I still personally think that IT will be implemented via a bridging DLC to ME4, probably through a flashback.

I actually very much liked the way they did bridging DLCs for me3 - the Arrival and lair of the shodow broker. 

Only after having played ME3 i began to apreciate these stories fully. 

My only concern with this is that Bioware may run out of funding before the final reveal. They were planning some DLC for Dragon Age 2 which was shelved due to the poor sales of that game.

There are plenty of people on these boards (myself included) who feel that any pre-ending dlc that does not affect the outcome other than with a few more war assets is a bit pointless. I'm not saying that's rational, as the DLC may well be perfectly fun to play in and of itself - but I don't claim to be rational about games that I get emotionally involved in.

It would be absolutely tragic if the Leviathan DLC tanks due to lingering bad feeling about the ending, and EA uses that as an excuse to pull the plug on ME3 before the big reveal. I think they need to throw us a bone - nothing too definite, just something to keep our hopes up re IT. That would give me incentive to buy the dlc at any rate.

Oh come on, enough with "low on budget" nonesens! we are really talking ME3 here - one of the biggest AAA+++ title of the last five years, on par with Starcraft, Diablo, etc/ bucked up by the EA - THE BIGGEST PUBLISHER IN THE WORLD, developed by the biggest developing compani in the world. Of course there were budget restrictions of some sort, but Really come on!! We're talking 200+ mill IP here. The argument that they just run out of money, or that EA cut them off is really stupid. You could agrue all you want, but unless you show me real insider financial documents and EA reports, which you wont, don't use "they didn't finish the game couse they run out of money' argument.  

I didn't say they ran out of money while making the game. I said I was worried that EA may decide that future, single player dlc isn't profitable enough to warrant further investment.

I really and sincerely hope that's not the case. I want ME3 to get the ending it deserves. I want to love it again. I'm just worried that EA, like many other companies in many other fields, might concentrate on short term profitability, rather than the long term health of the franchise. 

Not being either psychic or an accountant - I've no idea how much money EA are making from ME3. All I'm saying is that I, personally, would like to see some more hints in the upcoming Leviathan DLC, that they really do have something big planned. Something worth waiting for. Just some vague little comment from Leviathan not to trust the Catalyst would do.

Modifié par Eryri, 12 juillet 2012 - 06:06 .

[Dwailing]

Either.Ardrey wrote...

demersel wrote...

Eryri wrote...

demersel wrote...

Arian Dynas wrote...

I like that, and it remains why I still personally think that IT will be implemented via a bridging DLC to ME4, probably through a flashback.

I actually very much liked the way they did bridging DLCs for me3 - the Arrival and lair of the shodow broker. 

Only after having played ME3 i began to apreciate these stories fully. 

My only concern with this is that Bioware may run out of funding before the final reveal. They were planning some DLC for Dragon Age 2 which was shelved due to the poor sales of that game.

There are plenty of people on these boards (myself included) who feel that any pre-ending dlc that does not affect the outcome other than with a few more war assets is a bit pointless. I'm not saying that's rational, as the DLC may well be perfectly fun to play in and of itself - but I don't claim to be rational about games that I get emotionally involved in.

It would be absolutely tragic if the Leviathan DLC tanks due to lingering bad feeling about the ending, and EA uses that as an excuse to pull the plug on ME3 before the big reveal. I think they need to throw us a bone - nothing too definite, just something to keep our hopes up re IT. That would give me incentive to buy the dlc at any rate.

Oh come on, enough with "low on budget" nonesens! we are really talking ME3 here - one of the biggest AAA+++ title of the last five years, on par with Starcraft, Diablo, etc/ bucked up by the EA - THE BIGGEST PUBLISHER IN THE WORLD, developed by the biggest developing compani in the world. Of course there were budget restrictions of some sort, but Really come on!! We're talking 200+ mill IP here. The argument that they just run out of money, or that EA cut them off is really stupid. You could agrue all you want, but unless you show me real insider financial documents and EA reports, which you wont, don't use "they didn't finish the game couse they run out of money' argument.  

A) EA is nowhere near as big/succesful as commonly perceived. Their stock is bad right now. 2008 was their last good year in comparison.
Contrary to what you want to believe, Mass Effect 3 is not one of the biggest AAA games of the last five years. Mass Effect is one of the culturally well known titles, but Bioware historically made great/good games that sold passably (meaning barely turning a profit). They'd only put into it what they'd think would turn them the best profit in hopes of keeping their corporate head above the water, so to speak. Mass Effect 3 is Bioware's best selling game to date (and arguably its first true success financially), and it still can't even touch the upper tier games.

You know, I'm beginning to wonder just how profitable the video game industry really is.  It seems more and more like it's getting difficult to turn a serious profit given how much was spent on development.  Look at Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning.  It sold over a million copies, but it would have needed sell over three million copies for the devs to break even let alone profit.

[iiNOMADii]

I think we're forgetting a critical element to game production here:time.

Bioware originally asked for more time to complete the game, but it was at least in part denied by EA, which explains the sloppiness (writing notwithstanding) of the endings and the final Earth mission compared to the rest...generally speaking of course.

[paxxton]

iiNOMADii wrote...

I think we're forgetting a critical element to game production here:time.

Bioware originally asked for more time to complete the game, but it was at least in part denied by EA, which explains the sloppiness (writing notwithstanding) of the endings and the final Earth mission compared to the rest...generally speaking of course.

Speaking of game design. The ending can usually be done before the rest of the game and then refined if need arises. It's not like writing a book.

EDIT: Though J.K. Rowling once showed on camera the ending to the Harry Potter series. She still had a couple books to write till the 7th.

Modifié par paxxton, 12 juillet 2012 - 06:17 .

[MaximizedAction]

iiNOMADii wrote...

I think we're forgetting a critical element to game production here:time.

Bioware originally asked for more time to complete the game, but it was at least in part denied by EA, which explains the sloppiness (writing notwithstanding) of the endings and the final Earth mission compared to the rest...generally speaking of course.

It's also obvious from the changes that came with the EC. I think the EC version is the 'definite' version of ME3, the ending seems better polished that way.

[Arian Dynas]

iiNOMADii wrote...

I think we're forgetting a critical element to game production here:time.

Bioware originally asked for more time to complete the game, but it was at least in part denied by EA, which explains the sloppiness (writing notwithstanding) of the endings and the final Earth mission compared to the rest...generally speaking of course.

No.

No it doesn't.

When you are pressed for time you cut things, you don't goof up the ending.

Games are not made in chronological order.

[paxxton]

MaximizedAction wrote...

iiNOMADii wrote...

I think we're forgetting a critical element to game production here:time.

Bioware originally asked for more time to complete the game, but it was at least in part denied by EA, which explains the sloppiness (writing notwithstanding) of the endings and the final Earth mission compared to the rest...generally speaking of course.

It's also obvious from the changes that came with the EC. I think the EC version is the 'definite' version of ME3, the ending seems better polished that way.

Definately. The EC is so much better than the original ending.

Modifié par paxxton, 12 juillet 2012 - 06:15 .

[iiNOMADii]

Arian Dynas wrote...

iiNOMADii wrote...

I think we're forgetting a critical element to game production here:time.

Bioware originally asked for more time to complete the game, but it was at least in part denied by EA, which explains the sloppiness (writing notwithstanding) of the endings and the final Earth mission compared to the rest...generally speaking of course.

No.

No it doesn't.

When you are pressed for time you cut things, you don't goof up the ending.

Games are not made in chronological order.

It absolutely does.

When pressed for time, yes, you cut things, but you also slash quality as well.

Give someone one minute to wash 20 dishes and this will be plainly demonstrated (to use a rather crude example).

[lex0r11]

Arian Dynas wrote...

They didn't finish Dragon Age 2 and it's expansion because they decided it would be more profitable to simply go straight to DA3, folding in the story of the DA2 expansion into DA3.

They didn't "run out of money"

Besides, even EA knows, if you have a plan like this, which Bioware WOULD have to keep EA apprised of, you stick with it to the end.

I'm really looking forward to that game because they chose Orlais as the next region.

[Eryri]

paxxton wrote...

MaximizedAction wrote...

iiNOMADii wrote...

I think we're forgetting a critical element to game production here:time.

Bioware originally asked for more time to complete the game, but it was at least in part denied by EA, which explains the sloppiness (writing notwithstanding) of the endings and the final Earth mission compared to the rest...generally speaking of course.

It's also obvious from the changes that came with the EC. I think the EC version is the 'definite' version of ME3, the ending seems better polished that way.

Definately. The EC is so much better than the original ending.

I agree that it's far better technically executed, but I still don't like the themes if taken literally. Synthesis is still utterly ridiculous.

I'm actually very glad I watched Refuse on youtube rather than playing all the way from Chronos station.

If I'd got all psyched up by Shepard's "I'll die free" speech thinking "Yes, this is it! The real ending at last!" - only for it to end in a glorified game over screen? I'd still be picking bits of my monitor out of my fist!

[paxxton]

Eryri wrote...

paxxton wrote...

MaximizedAction wrote...

iiNOMADii wrote...

I think we're forgetting a critical element to game production here:time.

Bioware originally asked for more time to complete the game, but it was at least in part denied by EA, which explains the sloppiness (writing notwithstanding) of the endings and the final Earth mission compared to the rest...generally speaking of course.

It's also obvious from the changes that came with the EC. I think the EC version is the 'definite' version of ME3, the ending seems better polished that way.

Definately. The EC is so much better than the original ending.

I agree that it's far better technically executed, but I still don't like the themes if taken literally. Synthesis is still utterly ridiculous.

I'm actually very glad I watched Refuse on youtube rather than playing all the way from Chronos station.

If I'd got all psyched up by Shepard's "I'll die free" speech thinking "Yes, this is it! The real ending at last!" - only for it to end in a glorified game over screen? I'd still be picking bits of my monitor out of my fist!

Shepard overreacted in Refusal. "I'll die free." What does that even mean? LOL

Modifié par paxxton, 12 juillet 2012 - 06:25 .

[Rosewind]

lex0r11 wrote...

Arian Dynas wrote...

They didn't finish Dragon Age 2 and it's expansion because they decided it would be more profitable to simply go straight to DA3, folding in the story of the DA2 expansion into DA3.

They didn't "run out of money"

Besides, even EA knows, if you have a plan like this, which Bioware WOULD have to keep EA apprised of, you stick with it to the end.

I'm really looking forward to that game because they chose Orlais as the next region.

I don't care where it is aslong as Varric is back he the second best dwarf ever after ohgren of cause lol

[Rosewind]

Eryri wrote...

paxxton wrote...

MaximizedAction wrote...

iiNOMADii wrote...

I think we're forgetting a critical element to game production here:time.

Bioware originally asked for more time to complete the game, but it was at least in part denied by EA, which explains the sloppiness (writing notwithstanding) of the endings and the final Earth mission compared to the rest...generally speaking of course.

It's also obvious from the changes that came with the EC. I think the EC version is the 'definite' version of ME3, the ending seems better polished that way.

Definately. The EC is so much better than the original ending.

I agree that it's far better technically executed, but I still don't like the themes if taken literally. Synthesis is still utterly ridiculous.

I'm actually very glad I watched Refuse on youtube rather than playing all the way from Chronos station.

If I'd got all psyched up by Shepard's "I'll die free" speech thinking "Yes, this is it! The real ending at last!" - only for it to end in a glorified game over screen? I'd still be picking bits of my monitor out of my fist!

That game over screen reminded me of the fallout screen you get when you die lol (talking about Fallout 1 here).

[paxxton]

Hello Wind of Roses!

[RavenEyry]

iiNOMADii wrote...

It absolutely does.

When pressed for time, yes, you cut things, but you also slash quality as well.

Pressed for time would explain bugs and oversights, not bad writing, and the writing was splendid for most of the game. And as many have said  since release, the beginning and end where most likely the first bits made.

[marcelo_sdk]

People, you can't forget that great sales doesn't means reat game. As great game doesn't neccesarily means great sales.