144 réponses à ce sujet

[visionazzery]

 I Recall.......a game released barely 4-5 years ago that had expectations that surpassed - arguably that of the Mass Effect 3 launch.  Like Mass Effect on its launch it was hailed as a game changer for its generation and for the world of RTS gaming.  

I am talking about the Command and Conquer franchise. 2 franchise arms stood out the Tiberium Series and the Red Alert series- hard as it is to believe....which surpassed the standards and broke new ground coneptually and design wise and gameplay wise as the successor to the at the time new Tiberium Franchise.

Everything went smoothly....but when Westwood Studios got absorbed by EA, everything started to go wrong that was not supposed to.  Itonically i loved Tiberium Wars,,,but even then i could see worrying signs of an imminent departure from the traditionalist elements of gaming.

If we fast forward to today with the debate and anger we should ask ourselves are we directing this at the wrong people? BIOWARE are a subsidiary of EA however, EA have proven as they did when Tiberium Twilight or C&C 4 came out to abuse their authority over the original game designers by violating at near perverse levels the style and essence and gameplay and feel of the then Tiberium Franchise.  

When C&C 4 came out there was pandomonium forums were red hot like they hardly been before till recently with the whole me3 ending and sp issue.  And then it bombed it surely went down in history is the biggest gaming embarassment and disaster both at the design, gameplay and PR level for EA.  They took away core game play elements...they took away core story elements...they took away the 'tiberium' ythrough harvesting and as central and fundamental to core gameplay and it pissed the hell every fan off.

Ea were blamed rightfully instantly...everyone was absolutely livid.  They lost their key fan base disappeared in thin air within the week or 2 of its release(I am personally sceptical about the reboot to c&c of their least successful overall after c&c4 which was c&c generals. I am extremely sceptical and wondering whether this exercise in this particular reboot is worth Bioware or Ea's time)

Given this is about mass effect here, in this forum i put to you this...and i welcome thoughts on both spectrums through multiple points of view...Is the ending debacle as threatening to Mass Effect's singleplayer franchise future as the DISASTER of Ea's C&C 4 was? 

What differs a disaster from an embrassment or miscalculation? well, unlike C&C 4, me3 did not abandon core story elements it had RPG and combat and it BUILT on previous gameplay mechanics.

When one debates endings...or lack of gametime....my issues with me3 and many others here as well....these things are more to do with story rather than the feel of the game experience....when the ending comes round of a game...the player is no longer playing the game they are watching what happens.  Therefore, my view is that thankfully unlike C&C4 mass effect 3 BUILDS on impressive foundations of gameplay and experience and story up till the ending...whereas in C&C 4 story and campaign were undermined because core GAME PRINCIPLES FEEL AND STORY AND GAMEPLAY WERE ABANDONED.

As people told me 'it just not command and conquer without tiberium' so true...So what phrase can one say about mass effect 'it not mass effect even though you have your choices you have your rpg core element and buildng on the brilliant gameplay mechanics and experience up till the ending?' doesn't really make sense does it?

So taking this into accoutn is it not time to blame EA for the ending miscalculation after all they are the mother company that envelopes BIOWARE and numerous other developers and designers right? and just like they hijacked c&c4 for some here, so too are EA pulling others in the wrong direction right? or wrong? who is really to blame and si the mass effect controversies comparable to the disaster solely inflicted by Ea's atrocious lack of judgement that was C&C 4? thoughts? 

[Ninja Stan]

Keep in mind that the companies you mention are or were fully-owned subsidiaries of EA. It would be ludicrous to believe that EA would spend so much money acquiring a studio and deliberately sabotage that studio in every way imaginable. A publisher that owns so many studios would likely treat every new release from any of their subsidiaries more or less equally, so it doesn't make a lot of sense for them to "interfere" or affect one game by one studio in such a negative way but leave so many other games from all their other studios alone.

If EA is making mistakes with their franchises and/or studios, then they're their mistakes to make and you disagreeing with them, while appreciated here on the forums, doesn't amount to a hill of beans, since you'll only be out $60 on the game. EA is out to the tune of millions upon millions of dollars, so please keep that in mind when "assigning blame" for business or artistic decisions you don't like.

[RocketManSR2]

Stan, you have to admit that it seems every company that EA grabs seems to go down the toilet as far as quality games are concerned. EA likes the quick buck, they could care less about quality. I liked several franchises that EA published: the NHL series, Tiger Woods, and Battlefield for example, but EA has killed my enthusiasm to ever play those again with their money-grubbing tactics (BF3's new "premium" service being the latest WTF). The ME franchise is really looking like the next thing I'll be adding to that list.

Modifié par RocketManSR2, 01 juin 2012 - 09:34 .

[Berkilak]

Ninja Stan wrote...

Keep in mind that the companies you mention are or were fully-owned subsidiaries of EA. It would be ludicrous to believe that EA would spend so much money acquiring a studio and deliberately sabotage that studio in every way imaginable. A publisher that owns so many studios would likely treat every new release from any of their subsidiaries more or less equally, so it doesn't make a lot of sense for them to "interfere" or affect one game by one studio in such a negative way but leave so many other games from all their other studios alone.

If EA is making mistakes with their franchises and/or studios, then they're their mistakes to make and you disagreeing with them, while appreciated here on the forums, doesn't amount to a hill of beans, since you'll only be out $60 on the game. EA is out to the tune of millions upon millions of dollars, so please keep that in mind when "assigning blame" for business or artistic decisions you don't like.

I can't see how anyone could disagree with this.

That being said, although these mistakes are EA's to make as you say, these mistakes are also completely avoidable. EA acquires great developers known for a very particular style. Then, they attempted to make the franchise more "accessible" and "popular." They attempt to broaden the market. Thus usually alienates the original market for the developer before it was acquired. ME2 was extremely divisive when it was released - although I am, myself, a fan of action RPGs, I admit that I missed the more in-depth itemization of ME1 and I still do.

For SW:TOR, EA acquired the talent from BioWare for story, the talent for PvP from the Mythic team, but restrained them - they had to make a very generic, run of the mill, typical and otherwise "safe" MMO. They wanted a chunk of the MMO market, and the potential of SW:TOR at release was lowered drastically, particularly for veterans of an already-inflated market who tire of the usual formula. Again, this is an example of EA attempting to acquire great developers, but restriaining them from doing the very things that made them great in an effort for broaden the market.

I'm no EA hater. They do let the occasional great game slip out. But they do seem quite ignorant of the "essence" of what makes the developers they acquire special, and they can completely bastardize a franchise in an attempt to make them more marketable. Command and Conquer is a great example of that.

I don't believe that they are deliberately sabotaging their games. But they do seem quite out of tune with the industry in general, from an artistic perspective. They are very much about getting their cash, and constrain developers from taking risks or doing anything too complex.

[Terror_K]

Ninja Stan wrote...

Keep in mind that the companies you mention are or were fully-owned subsidiaries of EA. It would be ludicrous to believe that EA would spend so much money acquiring a studio and deliberately sabotage that studio in every way imaginable. A publisher that owns so many studios would likely treat every new release from any of their subsidiaries more or less equally, so it doesn't make a lot of sense for them to "interfere" or affect one game by one studio in such a negative way but leave so many other games from all their other studios alone.

If EA is making mistakes with their franchises and/or studios, then they're their mistakes to make and you disagreeing with them, while appreciated here on the forums, doesn't amount to a hill of beans, since you'll only be out $60 on the game. EA is out to the tune of millions upon millions of dollars, so please keep that in mind when "assigning blame" for business or artistic decisions you don't like.

There are different forms of deliberate sabotage. EA wouldn't deliberately try to have BioWare produce technically bad games, no, but it may try to drive them away from what they used to do and towards a more mainstream market that aren't as into hardcore RPGs as BioWare's existing audience. This is another form of sabotage: deliberately dumbing down your games and shifting the core audience to one you believe to be more profitable, i.e. the more casual and mainstream gaming market.

And this is what is worst of all regarding BioWare's recent change in practices since EA took the helm. BioWare aren't so much making mistakes that lead to bad games like Dragon Age 2 and Mass Effect 3, but they're deliberately taking them down this half-assed path that tries to appeal to too many audiences at once as they try to have their cake and eat it too.

Making their games more accessible, making them more casual, making them simpler and more action-oriented, removing complexity,, focusing almost entirely on combat, reducing player control, shoehorning in multiplayer and wasting time and resources on suddenly including it in a previously purely single-player game, wasting time of Kinect support and different game modes, reducing dialogue, etc. are all cases of them deliberately making bad decisions that hurt the games because their focus is no longer in the places it should be and they care more about bringing in potential new fans from the massive Modern Warfare audience than they do about appealing to their existing fanbase.

Dragon Age 2 and ME3 weren't massive failures and poor games because BioWare and EA made mistakes, they were massive failures and poor games because BioWare and EA deliberately designed them that way. Dragon Age 2 was purposefully designed to be almost nothing like its direct predecessor as those behind it went out of their way to simplify it, shorten it, restrict it, add a voice protagonist, cut out player race choice, make it more for console gamers than PC ones, redesign the visual style of it, amp up the action and cut the complexity, and all in all move away from being the spritual successor to Baldur's Gate and deep, epic hardcore fantasy RPG for PC fantasy RPG fans. Similarly, ME3 deliberately tried to become all about the combat and strip its RPG roots further, add more autodialogue, limit dialogue choices, be more linear, waste time on superfluous extras instead of what mattered (i.e. Kinect, multiplayer, action mode, etc.) and have weaksauce consequences despite claims to the contrary.

BioWare have shown in the past that they're more than capable of making decent, fully-fledged games with depth and complexity and few major issues for the RPG gamer. Now they just seem to crap out these half-baked, half-breeds between action game and RPG that end up satisfying on neither end, and they don't even seem to really put the effort in where it should go. When it comes down to it, I find it hard to believe that prior to EA taking the reins that we'd get the likes of DA2 and ME3. BioWare used to make the games they wanted whether they were massive sellers or not, but now they just seem to want to pander to the lowest common deniminator and arrogantly think they can somehow keep their old fans at the same time. It doesn't work that way.

[thegamefreek78648]

Berkilak wrote...

I don't believe that they are deliberately sabotaging their games. But they do seem quite out of tune with the industry in general, from an artistic perspective. They are very much about getting their cash, and constrain developers from taking risks or doing anything too complex.

Agreed.

[RyuujinZERO]

visionazzery wrote...

 I Recall.......a game released barely 4-5 years ago that had expectations that surpassed - arguably that of the Mass Effect 3 launch.  Like Mass Effect on its launch it was hailed as a game changer for its generation and for the world of RTS gaming.  

I am talking about the Command and Conquer franchise. 2 franchise arms stood out the Tiberium Series and the Red Alert series- hard as it is to believe....which surpassed the standards and broke new ground coneptually and design wise and gameplay wise as the successor to the at the time new Tiberium Franchise.

I don't remember this at all.

I remember the Command and Conquer series being a carbon copy of Dune 2 on the Amiga, but with a different theme. And Red Alert was just C&C with a different theme again.

Command and Conquer is to RTS what World of Warcraft is to MMOs; it's the famous name but everything it did was derivative of past titles that genuinely were the groundbreakers.

Modifié par RyuujinZERO, 01 juin 2012 - 10:34 .

[RampaXi]

 [inappropriate post removed]

Modifié par Ninja Stan, 01 juin 2012 - 06:51 .

[Seifer006]

Terror_K wrote...

Ninja Stan wrote...

Keep in mind that the companies you mention are or were fully-owned subsidiaries of EA. It would be ludicrous to believe that EA would spend so much money acquiring a studio and deliberately sabotage that studio in every way imaginable. A publisher that owns so many studios would likely treat every new release from any of their subsidiaries more or less equally, so it doesn't make a lot of sense for them to "interfere" or affect one game by one studio in such a negative way but leave so many other games from all their other studios alone.

If EA is making mistakes with their franchises and/or studios, then they're their mistakes to make and you disagreeing with them, while appreciated here on the forums, doesn't amount to a hill of beans, since you'll only be out $60 on the game. EA is out to the tune of millions upon millions of dollars, so please keep that in mind when "assigning blame" for business or artistic decisions you don't like.

There are different forms of deliberate sabotage. EA wouldn't deliberately try to have BioWare produce technically bad games, no, but it may try to drive them away from what they used to do and towards a more mainstream market that aren't as into hardcore RPGs as BioWare's existing audience. This is another form of sabotage: deliberately dumbing down your games and shifting the core audience to one you believe to be more profitable, i.e. the more casual and mainstream gaming market.

And this is what is worst of all regarding BioWare's recent change in practices since EA took the helm. BioWare aren't so much making mistakes that lead to bad games like Dragon Age 2 and Mass Effect 3, but they're deliberately taking them down this half-assed path that tries to appeal to too many audiences at once as they try to have their cake and eat it too.

Making their games more accessible, making them more casual, making them simpler and more action-oriented, removing complexity,, focusing almost entirely on combat, reducing player control, shoehorning in multiplayer and wasting time and resources on suddenly including it in a previously purely single-player game, wasting time of Kinect support and different game modes, reducing dialogue, etc. are all cases of them deliberately making bad decisions that hurt the games because their focus is no longer in the places it should be and they care more about bringing in potential new fans from the massive Modern Warfare audience than they do about appealing to their existing fanbase.

Dragon Age 2 and ME3 weren't massive failures and poor games because BioWare and EA made mistakes, they were massive failures and poor games because BioWare and EA deliberately designed them that way. Dragon Age 2 was purposefully designed to be almost nothing like its direct predecessor as those behind it went out of their way to simplify it, shorten it, restrict it, add a voice protagonist, cut out player race choice, make it more for console gamers than PC ones, redesign the visual style of it, amp up the action and cut the complexity, and all in all move away from being the spritual successor to Baldur's Gate and deep, epic hardcore fantasy RPG for PC fantasy RPG fans. Similarly, ME3 deliberately tried to become all about the combat and strip its RPG roots further, add more autodialogue, limit dialogue choices, be more linear, waste time on superfluous extras instead of what mattered (i.e. Kinect, multiplayer, action mode, etc.) and have weaksauce consequences despite claims to the contrary.

BioWare have shown in the past that they're more than capable of making decent, fully-fledged games with depth and complexity and few major issues for the RPG gamer. Now they just seem to crap out these half-baked, half-breeds between action game and RPG that end up satisfying on neither end, and they don't even seem to really put the effort in where it should go. When it comes down to it, I find it hard to believe that prior to EA taking the reins that we'd get the likes of DA2 and ME3. BioWare used to make the games they wanted whether they were massive sellers or not, but now they just seem to want to pander to the lowest common deniminator and arrogantly think they can somehow keep their old fans at the same time. It doesn't work that way.

Respectfully say this:

I agree with most what Terror_K says

can't say all since I've not played the Dragon Age games. But I've played KOTOR, ME 1-3

I've seen much difference in in ME1 compared to ME3 just in the way the story ,character development and gameplay. ME3 is not geared to players who have stayed with ME1. It's geared now to players of Modern Warfare and Call of Duty gamers. New Comers to the series.

and us "fans" who have stayed with Bioware since KOTOR and ME1 days,....are the ones that have been disappointed. I wonder what the poll would be if all the new comers were compared  to Loyal Fans of Bioware since ME1...in relation of ME3 game as a "whole".... if they were disappointed?

Again I say this with respect. But, I believe many would agree with Terror_K and I on this (Loyal Fans)

Modifié par Seifer006, 01 juin 2012 - 10:50 .

[Berkilak]

Precisely. EA pulls developers away from their core audience for the sake of the sales that come with a broader, generalized and "accessible" appeal. I swear it was mentioned twice per interview with anyone associated with the game that "Mass Effect 3 is the best place to pick up the franchise!"

That couldn't have been more true.

Modifié par Berkilak, 01 juin 2012 - 10:46 .

[Artemillion]

visionazzery wrote...

If we fast forward to today with the debate and anger we should ask ourselves are we directing this at the wrong people? BIOWARE are a subsidiary of EA however, EA have proven as they did when Tiberium Twilight or C&C 4 came out to abuse their authority over the original game designers by violating at near perverse levels the style and essence and gameplay and feel of the then Tiberium Franchise.

 

Nice to see a like-minded person ) I was a HUGE fan of first two C&C games.

Ninja Stan 
wrote... 

 It would be ludicrous to believe that EA would spend so much money acquiring a studio and deliberately sabotage that studio in every way imaginable. A publisher that owns so many studios would likely treat every new release from any of their subsidiaries more or less equally, so it doesn't make a lot of sense for them to "interfere" or affect one game by one studio in such a negative way but leave so many other games from all their other studios alone. 

 

I'm sorry, but you are wrong. Have you ever heard stories of genious movie scripts, that has a potential to become a legendary movie but were completely reworked by producers? Hundreds of such examples. It's makes a lot sence to this people because they are sure they know perfectly what people need (in most cases they see us as a mindless herd)

[Berkilak]

RyuujinZERO wrote...

visionazzery wrote...

 I Recall.......a game released barely 4-5 years ago that had expectations that surpassed - arguably that of the Mass Effect 3 launch.  Like Mass Effect on its launch it was hailed as a game changer for its generation and for the world of RTS gaming.  

I am talking about the Command and Conquer franchise. 2 franchise arms stood out the Tiberium Series and the Red Alert series- hard as it is to believe....which surpassed the standards and broke new ground coneptually and design wise and gameplay wise as the successor to the at the time new Tiberium Franchise.

I don't remember this at all.

I remember the Command and Conquer series being a carbon copy of Dune 2 on the Amiga, but with a different theme. And Red Alert was just C&C with a different theme again.

Command and Conquer is to RTS what World of Warcraft is to MMOs; it's the famous name but everything it did was derivative of past titles that genuinely were the groundbreakers.

I haven't played WoW since the first expansion was released. But I was well-versed in the genre before I even touched WoW, and I can say this - While WoW did nothing new, they did everything better. And the way that everything came together was indeed revolutionary. Having played Dune and C&C, I am confident in stating the same. Even if you are playing within the tropes of the genre and don't do anything new, what you do with those concepts can be absolutely groundbreaking.

[Bravenu3]

The basic notion of EA to buy already successful developers should be addressed as well. Why the *XZY* do they have to swoop in? Can't they think of something to build themselves?

Assuming EA even has a vision for gaming that goes beyond "EA should earn more money with games!", it does not align with my hopes at all. Westwood, Maxis, BioWare and some others have met less and less of my expectations, the longer they have been associated with/controlled by EA. I see a pattern there. All those great studios have IMHO been taken hostage, with little hope of freeing them and restoring the coolness of the early days.

Thank luck we have things like KickStarter, HumbleIndieBundle etc. now. @Big publishers: good luck. @Developers: come back and sit at your customer's table.

[Seifer006]

I know this.

Bioware can produce great games: Deep-Rich Story Base and character development. I just wish Bioware had the liberty to take more time on games ie ME3 then rushingly have it out within 2 1/2 yrs

You can't produce a masterpiece within 2 1/2yrs when the first game of the series took 4yrs. It's why the game was great and why it produced a whole FAN BASE. Because the game took 4yrs in the making. It had what fans wanted....it's no wonder why there's such an outcry over ME3............2 1/2 yrs isn't enough time. And that's why I think many Loyal Fans are concern with the connections of Bioware & EA

[Icinix]

I've said it before, I'll say it again, and I'll say it a million more times before I die.

EA has not, can not, and will not grasp the concept that you do not make sequels to a game and change the heart and soul and mechanics of the game. Do not do this, then stick a 2 or a 3 or a 4 on it.

Make it a spin off.

This is something Ubisoft and Blizzard / Activision do very well. Their sequels are sequels, their changing mechanics are spin offs or new IP's.

The only time I'm aware of EA doing this is with C&C Generals - and that has a huge reputation. If EA BioWare treat Generals 2 the same as Generals 1 - then it will succeed. As for Tiberium C&C, yeah well, thats dead and buried. Heres hoping though they dredge up Lands of Lore and Blade Runner if they have the rights and make some decent games on those IP - but I am not hopeful. They'll probably both get remade as shooters trying to copy other peoples games.

[wright1978]

I get EA's desire to diversify into new areas and buying a company that has expertise in that area is the quick way to achieve that. What i don't get is why they can't realise that you need to give that subsidiary the arms length freedom to provide that product. Instead they seem to be trying to drag Bioware into the EA mainstream, thereby destroying its reputation and fanbase which defeats the purpose of buying them surely.

[visionazzery]

Ninja Stan wrote...

Keep in mind that the companies you mention are or were fully-owned subsidiaries of EA. It would be ludicrous to believe that EA would spend so much money acquiring a studio and deliberately sabotage that studio in every way imaginable. A publisher that owns so many studios would likely treat every new release from any of their subsidiaries more or less equally, so it doesn't make a lot of sense for them to "interfere" or affect one game by one studio in such a negative way but leave so many other games from all their other studios alone.

If EA is making mdistakes with their franchises and/or studios, then they're their mistakes to make and you disagreeing with them, while appreciated here on the forums, doesn't amount to a hill of beans, since you'll only be out $60 on the game. EA is out to the tune of millions upon millions of

dollars, so please keep that in mind when "assigning blame" for business or artistic decisions you don't like.

i impresed by the very fact my posts getthe attention of bioware themselves it tells me and many fans u are aware of faEnsE c:wizard:oncerns the test to pleasr and bring bak those disenchanted mass effect purists is simply to act act ! on it the ending issue for a huge majority of purist fans like myself want much mre meat on the bones of single playet. perceptions are as powerful as eventual actions mplayer provrd to bre a real coup for us all and whete alk very grateful hoevet splayer is what this franxhise has alalways been about. with respect u misunderstood rhe distintion i intended to make clear that ea and bioware are as i wantesed to convey seperate matters. i think what a lot of game loyalists want generally for any gaming company around not just biowRe , s genuine transparency not just hete  but on other gaming forums a lot of us here really needto sre a proper scjedule of upcoming sp content i think some of us and a growing no. feat that certain announcements may ne a bit scrpted for instance pple really want to.knw what really defines 'artistic integrity" iyself am concerned such a word has not been defined for rhiss specifi ending scenario. to be cl

[visionazzery]

To be clear I am grateful despite my concerns and at a certain point I am sympathetic ninja to biowares predicament now all.I getting at is to genuinely allay poles fears to ensure the core fan base does not lose out with what happening now what pole want I think is that we want to knw a bit Mrs bout biowares forward plan. For instance would it compromise biowares integrity to tell us bout how many sp dlc there will be? Or what timeframe will be llocated after the ending dlc . A lot of pole still have doubts as to them when looking at this matter two things and that despite biowarenouncements that a) loyal fans see single player as the core of mass effect xdperience and b ) we a few months in already and save for one sp dlc we had a xtraordinary amount of mplayer news and updates compared to.single player. If u were to do Mrs in the news and announcemennts section.for splayer u certainly can turn around the current perceperhaps u could xplaon to us why there been so much Mrsfoccus on mplayer than splayer. Bioware got me into RPG a nd hence nobody here is suggesting sabotage and I benj the last one to do so nonja but suspicion is arisen as reflected by certain outcomes whether it announcements ending and a bit too much atm but I surely hope it will change sooner rather than LTEr on sp matters. However I stand by the proof as a loyal fan to c and c franchise it certainly as a quality groundbreaking franchise for its time its artistic and game play integrity was jeopardized as many have mentioned take away a key gameplay mechanic and I was merely reflecting on past history. I on biowares side and I on fans side if I did not love the pure mass effect experience in it initial and original form I would not voice my concerns would I? I even mentioned in intro to this topic that I and clearly many heat believe that the me franchise is destined for greatness . Bioware have an opportunity btw now and next yr end say to restore faith of those some of in it seems large nos formerly loyal fans. If bioware can do this and we all hope u can then u buck the growing and alarming trend of sp games converting to a mplayer base. What u must surely understand is that the broader perception in the gaming at large is that the big corporate companies do not allow cthe CPR designers to keep tailoring games for the single player and too many become online mplayer Games I think I quiyte right in saying we all want mass effect sp to be at least as rich a sp experience had come out ending resolved properly as I hope it will be so that we as u loyal fans can proudly say we played one of the greatest game trilogies ever. Bioware can transform the unfortunate trend awayfrm core so titles if they really start having much mre updates on splayer. Mplayer is great if u get the balance right after all dlc for sp is out u do what too few companies have been able to do turn around public opinion much much Mre in favor of the fact bioware have the unique opportunity to bring those disenchanted fans back andprove to us that a game with huge mplayet can satisfy its core so base at least just as much. We dare to belive biowate and I u can do tjis

[Il Divo]

Sure, EA probably is responsible for some crappy features we've had to put up with (kinect being the most prominent).

But then, alot of the changes made to ME2 and 3 were for the better (gameplay). And some (autodialogue) were for the worse. Bioware games were also heavily flawed before the EA takeover, so DA2 aside, I haven't given up complete hope.

[Terror_K]

Il Divo wrote...

Sure, EA probably is responsible for some crappy features we've had to put up with (kinect being the most prominent).

But then, alot of the changes made to ME2 and 3 were for the better (gameplay). And some (autodialogue) were for the worse. Bioware games were also heavily flawed before the EA takeover, so DA2 aside, I haven't given up complete hope.

The bolded is debatable. For one thing, the term "gameplay" is very broad. I assume you mean the basic combat gameplay, in which case that too is debatable. While I'd agree that ME3 nailed the TPS gameplay aspects, I'd say it did it at the expense of far too much of the rest of the gameplay, and I'd personally prioritise this far below that which suffered. I also think this is purely subjective, as while the TPS gameplay may technically be superior (or, perhaps more accurately, less flawed) than ME1, one could also argue that given what ME1 was originally going for, it wasn't necessarily where the series should have gone and drifted too far away from it's RPG roots, even if ME1 admittedly may have clung too strongly to them.

Regarding the middle chapter, I'd personally flat out say that ME2's combat gameplay was... well... flat. Very staid and by the book as far as TPS combat goes, with nothing innovative or stand-out, and pretty weak compared to the likes of pure TPS titles like Gears of War, Army of Two, Space Marine, etc. An the linear, small levels lacking in atmosphere and obvious chest-high cover didn't help this either. ME3 might have perfected the formula and actually brought Mass Effect's combat to the level of the pure TPS game, but it has forsaken its RPG roots in the process, making the game almost entirely about combat and sacrificing almost everything that isn't directly related to it in the process.

This is why I can't consider the gameplay of ME2 and ME3 superior at all. ME2 was too half-assed at both the RPG and TPS aspects and overall felt too schizophrenic in the process, simplifying and removing too much. ME3 pretty much finished the job, putting all the focus on areas that should have been secondary and sacrificing what should have mattered and what made Mass Effect different and special. ME3 felt more like some weird hybrid between Final Fantasy XIII and MGS4 than its predecessors, without being as good as either of them, let alone its two direct predecessors.

Yes, BioWare games have always had some flaws, and none of them are absolutely perfect. But they've never been as flawed as the post EA BioWare titles are, and most of the issues they have aren't mistakes or small balancing issues like BioWare Corp titles had, but are due to the entire design philosophy behind them and the fact they can't stay consistent or true to their original source material.

Most of the problems related to DA2 and ME3 can be boiled down to two basic issues: 1) They feel rushed, half-assed and developed more for profit than quality by trying to be too much at once, and 2) Most of their issues stem not so much from them being bad games so much as they are bad sequels and follow-ups to their predecessors. DA2 perfectly exhibits the former with it's reduced scope, greater focus on mindless fast-paced action and things like recycled areas and overall simplification, and exhibits the latter in the meer fact that it's none of the key things the Dragon Age IP was created for and doesn't really even try to follow in the footsteps of DAO.

[BaladasDemnevanni]

Edit: My bad.

Modifié par BaladasDemnevanni, 01 juin 2012 - 04:06 .

[Il Divo]

Terror_K wrote...

The bolded is debatable.

For starters, this is all debatable. We're not likely to come to an objective notion of quality anytime soon.

For one thing, the term "gameplay" is very broad. I assume you mean the basic combat gameplay, in which case that too is debatable. While I'd agree that ME3 nailed the TPS gameplay aspects, I'd say it did it at the expense of far too much of the rest of the gameplay, and I'd personally prioritise this far below that which suffered. I also think this is purely subjective, as while the TPS gameplay may technically be superior (or, perhaps more accurately, less flawed) than ME1, one could also argue that given what ME1 was originally going for, it wasn't necessarily where the series should have gone and drifted too far away from it's RPG roots, even if ME1 admittedly may have clung too strongly to them.

I consider Mass Effect to have already failed at what it was originally going for: a blend of RPG and tps. My ultimate goal is entertainment, which Mass Effect was unable to provide, in terms of combat mechanics. You said that the TPS gameplay is superior, which I agree with. Yet, I also consider the RPG parts (inventory system, leveling system, etc) to have also failed spectacularly. Given that ME1 failed at both halves of the coin, there's really nothing left for me to say they did better for gameplay.

This is why I can't consider the gameplay of ME2 and ME3 superior at all. ME2 was too half-assed at both the RPG and TPS aspects and overall felt too schizophrenic in the process, simplifying and removing too much. ME3 pretty much finished the job, putting all the focus on areas that should have been secondary and sacrificing what should have mattered and what made Mass Effect different and special. ME3 felt more like some weird hybrid between Final Fantasy XIII and MGS4 than its predecessors, without being as good as either of them, let alone its two direct predecessors.

This goes back to differences in perception. How you view ME2 is exactly how I view ME1, hence why the alterations were preferred.

Yes, BioWare games have always had some flaws, and none of them are absolutely perfect. But they've never been as flawed as the post EA BioWare titles are, and most of the issues they have aren't mistakes or small balancing issues like BioWare Corp titles had, but are due to the entire design philosophy behind them and the fact they can't stay consistent or true to their original source material.

Okay, but why should I care if i consider the original source material to be a terrible model to follow? As a consumer, I'm concerned with what product is most likely to entertain me, which Mass Effect was unable to do. . Exploration, in my opinion, was a terrible idea to add to Mass Effect, hence I'm pleased by its removal. Hell, even right after Mass Effect 1 came out, I would have told you all the ways that it was inferior to KotOR and Jade Empire, no mention of EA needed.

Here's what it comes down to: people are saying that EA is responsible for Bioware's lacking titles. I personally consider Neverwinter Nights to be Bioware's worst game, a title developed way before we ever saw EA's influence. Hell, I'd peg ME1 and BG1 was among Bioware's worst titles as well, all also before the legendary "fall".

Most of the problems related to DA2 and ME3 can be boiled down to two basic issues: 1) They feel rushed, half-assed and developed more for profit than quality by trying to be too much at once, and 2) Most of their issues stem not so much from them being bad games so much as they are bad sequels and follow-ups to their predecessors. DA2 perfectly exhibits the former with it's reduced scope, greater focus on mindless fast-paced action and things like recycled areas and overall simplification, and exhibits the latter in the meer fact that it's none of the key things the Dragon Age IP was created for and doesn't really even try to follow in the footsteps of DAO.

DA2 was worse than DA:O, but I don't really care that DA2 was different from its predecssor. I care that the changes made in this case were either unnecessary (so a waste of money/resources) or actively detracted from my enjoyment of the experience, especially since I liked alot of the design choices in DA:O. ME1 presents a very different scenario. ME2's gameplay is different from its predecessor, but considering none of the design choices in ME1 were appealing, I consider ME2's (and 3's) to be far superior.

[Knottedredloc]

I agree with most of what has been said but I disagree with the kinect addon being a "crappy feature". I can only speak for myself and I love the kinect voice controls. Obviously others desire that feature or wouldn't be an effort by PC players to added it.

[AlanC9]

Il Divo wrote...
Here's what it comes down to: people are saying that EA is responsible for Bioware's lacking titles. I personally consider Neverwinter Nights to be Bioware's worst game, a title developed way before we ever saw EA's influence. Hell, I'd peg ME1 and BG1 was among Bioware's worst titles as well, all also before the legendary "fall".

Were you on the old boards when NWN came out? That game inspired furious hatred; not quite up to what we saw on the DA2 boards, but not too far from it. From what I can recall the rage was about equally divided between hatred of the writing in the OC, hatred of the 3D tileset graphics, and hatred of Bio's decision to abandon party-based gameplay.

Note that the last point was directly related to Bio's obsessive focus on multiplayer during development.

Modifié par AlanC9, 01 juin 2012 - 05:47 .