144 réponses à ce sujet

[Il Divo]

AlanC9 wrote...

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.

Nah, I didn't get into Bioware games until about a year after KotOR came out, so I missed the NwN boat. But for anyone who really loved Baldur's Gate (and there are alot of them on here), I could see why. They even employ different variants of DnD.

My case was a bit different. By the time I got into NwN, I had already played every Bioware game except ME3 (two years before it came out) and Baldur's Gate, so I was really hit by the lack of stuff I usually expect from a Bioware game. And as someone who rarely gets into multiplayer, which was the focus from what I've heard, it made the game even more lackluster.

[MystEU]

It's a simple explanation really. A big company can get involved in a few "big" franchises and try to change them into the next better thing. Turns out, hardcore fans don't like change and that's where all the backlash comes from. Obviously, EA doesn't take over studios to make sure they fail. They try to make it more profitable and thus more successful. Fans of what traditionally made the series more successful don't go for that though. Every developer wants to have the next biggest hit, I'm sure, but maybe the approach of trying to do that with an existing cash cow makes the fans rage.

Modifié par MystEU, 01 juin 2012 - 06:06 .

[devSin]

I've never really been convinced by this argument.

The ending is so far from a money-making decision that EA cannot be responsible.

This ending comes about when the people tasked with creating it suddenly think they are going to do something intellectual and profound and that they alone have the skill to let the everyman get a glimpse of their genius.

It's a disservice to the story and to the setting to try to let them hide behind EA when they screw up. It was their job to do it right, and they failed.

[Ninja Stan]

Artemillion wrote...

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)

I've heard stories of such scripts, yes. Then again, I've also "heard stories" about ghosts, gods, Bigfoot, Q-Ray bracelets, Area 51,  the faked moon landing, and cold fusion. Some are conspiracy theories, some are bad science, and some are just people really wanting to believe in something.

There is no guarantee of success in a creative venture. You can have the greatest script in the world and still have a crappy movie: bad director, bad lighting, bad cinematography, bad marketing. Games, like movies, are made by large groups of people, and even through the best of intentions, bad products can still be made. And despite all the market research and focus testing, good games can still sell poorly and bad games can still sell well. Look at games like Psychonauts or Beyond Good and Evil, critically acclaimed games beloved by players, but they didn't sell. Now look at the games that many people here seem to hate, the Call of Duty franchise or the Madden franchise. People can't say enough bad things about them, but check out their sales through each incarnation. Huge, with sales in the millions! That means lots of people are buying them.

I'm going to repeat that: Millions of people are buying Call of Duty and Madden games! That's why they keep getting made, regardless of how badly people on this forum may speak of them. And EA, for good or ill, wants its franchises to release hit game after hit game. What publisher wouldn't want that? If you want to "blame" EA for wanting to do what companies are born to do (ie. make money), then you can and are free to do so, but it's not a great argument. 

As to your last point, the bigger a company gets, the less it can cater to individual tastes. Coca-Cola doesn't care a whit what you or I prefer in our Coke products. What it does care about is what the market prefers in theirr Coke products. Individually, we're too small of a sample size, just as the people who post in this community (including me) are too small of a sample size to determine what the gaming public wants in an RPG, in a Mass Effect game, or in a BioWare game.

[SalsaDMA]

Ninja Stan wrote...

 If you want to "blame" EA for wanting to do what companies are born to do (ie. make money), then you can and are free to do so, but it's not a great argument. 

This is not correct.

Companies can be made for any number of reasons.

Stockholder corporations, though.... THOSE are purely there to generate money for stockholders.

You try and argue that anyone creating a company is purely in it for the money, though, and you come up short because you're just plain wrong. History shows plenty of people that founded companies to do stuff that was not about earning money (aiding specific target groups, preserving the familys heritage, spreading knowledge of certain stuff, just having fun or basicly any reason anyone could think of, really)

Edit: *On another note. Even if we restrict the discussino to stockholder corporations you have to consider ethics as well. Is earning money at any means good or desirable? A look at registered criminal activities would cause a judgement of "no", so clearly ethics and opinions has a large impact on what even corporations can dabble in of schemes on their quest for never ending money. Do note, also, that the bar for what is deemed 'acceptable' isn't set in stone, but can change through time. A peek at history and various laws should show that time can make quite different judgements on what is deemed as an acceptable way of earning money regarding what kind of services/"goods" there have been earned money on.

Modifié par SalsaDMA, 01 juin 2012 - 07:27 .

[wright1978]

Ninja Stan wrote...

I'm going to repeat that: Millions of people are buying Call of Duty and Madden games! That's why they keep getting made, regardless of how badly people on this forum may speak of them. And EA, for good or ill, wants its franchises to release hit game after hit game. What publisher wouldn't want that? If you want to "blame" EA for wanting to do what companies are born to do (ie. make money), then you can and are free to do so, but it's not a great argument. 

Why doesn't the entire creative movie and TV industry give up and turn their minds to creating realityTV? Reality TV gets shed loads of viewers. Maybe because they realise while there is indeed a healthy market for simplistic reality tv there can also be  one for creative endeavour. Call of duty/Madden have a place in the market. Making every game into a simplistic shooter/sports game isn't the answer because there's also a sizeable market which craves quality RPG games who won't buy games that get reduced into generic shooters.

[stonbw1]

From my totally ignorant perch, ME3 appeared like it must've cost a fortune to make (great cutscenes, expensive VA, a 30 hour-long game, etc..) My concern is that EA will not want to invest that heavily anymore into those games. That won't mean you won't get great RPGs, just that the polish won't be up to the par of ME-series. I loved RDR and TW2, but both come across as lower budget than ME3. Doesn't make them worse, just less sexy!

[voteDC]

I loved the combat in Mass Effect 1. For me it blended near perfectly third person shooting with dice roll combat. I really enjoyed the fact that stats were just as important to a fight as my ability to place a cross-hair.

The fact that in the first game my Shepard never once decided it was a good idea to fling herself against an exposed wall in the middle of a fire-fight and could crouch to take advantage of cover without the need to be pressed against it, meant I also preferred the cover system.

I also liked being able to alter my equipment on the fly, although certainly the Inventory was a clumsy effort at best.

There is a reason I've played Mass Effect so much my runs must be nearing the triple figures by now and I've been through Mass Effect 3 once since it was released.

[devSin]

Ninja Stan wrote...

As to your last point, the bigger a company gets, the less it can cater to individual tastes. Coca-Cola doesn't care a whit what you or I prefer in our Coke products. What it does care about is what the market prefers in theirr Coke products.

And Coca-Cola sells, because at the end of the day, they still make the exact same thing that people buy: Coke and Diet Coke.

And a franchise like Call of Duty sells, because at the end of the day, they still make the exact same thing that people buy: Call of Duty.

So why can't EA/BioWare make the same thing that people buy: Dragon Age and Mass Effect? Why all the changes? Admission that people don't buy enough BioWare games for it to stay in business? Or is it simply greed?

BioWare doesn't have to care what you or I prefer. I don't have to buy BioWare products, though, because they no longer make anything I want to buy (just as a point of argument). They no longer make Coke.

I bet if Coca-Cola no longer made Coke, they probably would start to care what you and I want when they realize that most of their existing customers just wanted Coke.

Ninja Stan wrote...

Individually, we're too small of a sample size, just as the people who post in this community (including me) are too small of a sample size to determine what the gaming public wants in an RPG, in a Mass Effect game, or in a BioWare game.

Don't the relatively low sales and rumored dissatisfaction with everything that BioWare has done since being acquired by EA give you enough of a platform to argue that whatever they're chasing either doesn't exist or is not within their reach?

Maybe things are going great. Maybe DA2 outperformed, and TOR is the toast of the company, and ME3 met and beat their wildest expectations. If so, then I guess you're right we don't matter. But if not, isn't it the case that perhaps BioWare's primary function was simply to make Coke, and the longer they go without it, the more damage is being done?

Modifié par devSin, 01 juin 2012 - 08:26 .

[Ninja Stan]

wright1978 wrote...

Why doesn't the entire creative movie and TV industry give up and turn their minds to creating realityTV? Reality TV gets shed loads of viewers.

Because TV is a creative industry, and more than just one way to make money. There, too, shows that people like end up getting cancelled. We can complain all we like (coughFireflycough), but these shows also don't exist in a vacuum. They are part of of a network's entire viewing schedule, and is designed to bring in a lot of advertising revenue from the viewers of that program at the time it is aired. An increasingly outmoded system, in my opinion, but that's a different discussion.

Maybe because they realise while there is indeed a healthy market for simplistic reality tv there can also be  one for creative endeavour. Call of duty/Madden have a place in the market. Making every game into a simplistic shooter/sports game isn't the answer because there's also a sizeable market which craves quality RPG games who won't buy games that get reduced into generic shooters.

I disagree with you that gamers are necessarily that polarized. Most of them, statistically, will be somewhere in between. Your bias is pretty evident when you call popular shooters and sports games "simplistic," even more so when you use it as a counter-example to "quality" RPG games. If you really feel that strongly about a certain kind of game--and it is a game, after all--you may wish to branch out and start talking to those who really love shooters or the major sports franchises and see just why they are so appealing.

[AlanC9]

devSin wrote...
And Coca-Cola sells, because at the end of the day, they still make the exact same thing that people buy: Coke and Diet Coke.

Except that they don't. Over the years the flavor of Coke has changed quite a bit. The lesson of New Coke wasn't that people liked the taste of Coke better, it was that people liked Coke for reasons other than the taste of Coke. Where the Coke formula is now is pretty much the same thing as New Coke.

I don't know if this has any relevance to game tastes. I've often suspected that a lot of CRPG fans like the traditional genre features for no other reason than because they grew up with them, but that's not a testable hypothesis. (I would love to have access to a parallel universe where CRPGs descended from a PnP system that was actually good)

So why can't EA/BioWare make the same thing that people buy: Dragon Age and Mass Effect? Why all the changes?

Because ME1 was better with changes? Because DA:O had a terrible ROI? The first is my opinion and always has been, the second is just a guess. 

Modifié par AlanC9, 01 juin 2012 - 08:36 .

[Aurica]

visionazzery wrote...

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

omg.... paragraphs please...

[SalsaDMA]

AlanC9 wrote...

devSin wrote...
And Coca-Cola sells, because at the end of the day, they still make the exact same thing that people buy: Coke and Diet Coke.

Except that they don't. Over the years the flavor of Coke has changed quite a bit. The lesson of New Coke wasn't that people liked the taste of Coke better, it was that people liked Coke for reasons other than the taste of Coke. Where the Coke formula is now is pretty much the same thing as New Coke.

Cherry coke wasn't that big a success I've heard

[devSin]

AlanC9 wrote...

Except that they don't. Over the years the flavor of Coke has changed quite a bit. The lesson of New Coke wasn't that people liked the taste of Coke better, it was that people liked Coke for reasons other than the taste of Coke. Where the Coke formula is now is pretty much the same thing as New Coke.

But the process has been gradual enough that in any given decade you'll simply have Coke. (I would argue as to people preferring the taste of Coke, though—I'm sure if you gave people the two side-by-side, they'd more often prefer the original.)

The formula is not the same, no, but they haven't rushed headlong into change in the hopes of snaring a bunch of new customers and/or increasing profits (and when they did try that, they were rebuked).

[Ninja Stan]

devSin wrote...
And Coca-Cola sells, because at the end of the day, they still make the exact same thing that people buy: Coke and Diet Coke.

Really? They make tons of other things as well.

Coke Zero, Cherry Coke, various citrus and berry flavours, Vanilla Coke, Sprite, TaB, 

Dasani,  root beer, Mello Yello, Minute Maid juices, energy drinks, Fanta, Fresca, Fruitopia, Fuze, Mr. Pibb, Powerade, Hi-C, VitaminWater.

Complete list here.

And a franchise like Call of Duty sells, because at the end of the day, they still make the exact same thing that people buy: Call of Duty.

So why can't EA/BioWare make the same thing that people buy: Dragon Age and Mass Effect? Why all the changes? Admission that people don't buy enough BioWare games for it to stay in business? Or is it simply greed?

Because BioWare (and EA) is trying to make things that people buy. "People" might not include you, or me, or Jim in Oakland, or Sarah in Moose Jaw, or the entire Dewsnap family of Franklin, Mass. As I mentioned before, "you" (the person posting under the name devSin) don't figure into corporate plans much. Don't think that you will always enjoy what a game company produces, and don't think that a game company will keep doing the exact same thing each and every game. There's a lot of choice out there for gamers, and companies will continue to try and get more and more attention from those gamers.

And this is, of course, not even exploring the notion that maybe, just maybe, you won't like a certain game, regardless of who makes it, what its story is, or how it looks. A game might simply be not to your tastes, and that's fine, too! But let's try and keep the strawmen out of this discussion. Companies make decisions and changes for reasons other than "greed" and "failing at business."

BioWare doesn't have to care what you or I prefer. I don't have to buy BioWare products, though, because they no longer make anything I want to buy (as a point of argument, because they still make Dragon Age, and me wants it). They no longer make Coke.

I bet if Coca-Cola no longer made Coke, they probably would start to care what you and I want when they realize that most of their existing customers just want Coke.

No, they wouldn't. They would care if millions of faceless pieces of their market stopped buying Coke, or if their market research indicated (based on representations of their target market) their customers just wanted Coke. They still wouldn't care a whit if "devSin" or "Ninja Stan" or the real people associated with those handles called them up to say what they wanted.

Modifié par Ninja Stan, 01 juin 2012 - 08:49 .

[Aurica]

Ninja Stan wrote...
I'm going to repeat that: Millions of people are buying Call of Duty and Madden games! That's why they keep getting made, regardless of how badly people on this forum may speak of them. And EA, for good or ill, wants its franchises to release hit game after hit game. What publisher wouldn't want that? If you want to "blame" EA for wanting to do what companies are born to do (ie. make money), then you can and are free to do so, but it's not a great argument. 

Going to have to agree with this.  Depending on who we talk to, this can be a good or bad thing.   Me, I see it as bad. There are too many people nowadays who aren't really that discerning about what they buy, they don't really look at deep into the game nor are they overly critical.  This means most games will continue to appeal to the lowest common denominator. 

Example:  Sims 3 expansions...  I frequent another forum where majority of its posters are quite negative towards EA's approach towards the Sims franchise.  And they are quite right in this regard since the series has seen a signficant decrease in quality and each EP does not integrate well with each other, or integrate at all.  There is a seriousl lack of gameplay depth and replayability.  

Despite all this, there are tons of fans who would still buy any crap EA throws at them.  

All this does is encourage EA to be lazy about the things they do.   Haphardly put together a poorly thought out expansion and quickly throw it out to the market even without testing their products.  Why put in the effort when they spend minimal time and resources in getting a new product out of the window?

[Ninja Stan]

devSin wrote...
But the process has been gradual enough that in any given decade you'll simply have Coke. (I would argue as to people preferring the taste of Coke, though—I'm sure if you gave people the two side-by-side, they'd more often prefer the original.)

And how do you get gradual changes if you don't change? Videogames companies haven't been around nearly as long as soft drink companies.

The formula is not the same, no, but they haven't rushed headlong into change in the hopes of snaring a bunch of new customers and/or increasing profits (and when they did try that, they were rebuked).

Again, Diet Coke, Caffeine Free Coke, Coke Zero, New Coke, Coke II, Coke classic, Vanilla Coke, Cherry Coke, and all of the other companies in the list I posted previously. "Rushing headling into change"? No, but BioWare hasn't done that, either. Unlike soft drinks, which can stay in a market unchanged for a little while, games are fire-and-forget products. The number of people who will buy a game 5 years later, and one year later, is small. Changes to a game formula are going to seem big if you don't have the luxury of an ongoing franchise like a sports title or a shooter that can introduce changes bit by bit, or a television series that can improve from season to season, or episode to episode.

I'm not trying to tell people to stop complaining about EA or games being different than the ones people love (though that'd be nice). I just want people to think about the industry and this hobby they profess to love for more than the internet-mandated five seconds. Neverwinter Nights was savaged in the forum for being so different from Baldur's Gate, and now it's viewed as one of BioWare's great successes. KotOR was reviled for daring to be a BioWare console game, and now people can't get enough of the Mass Effect franchise.

We can talk about stuff we don't like in games, but let's stop with the needing to assign blame for everything we don't like. Thanks.

EDIT: And slyguy200, you can stop with the generic and unhelpful sniping anytime. Your posts are not productive here.

Modifié par Ninja Stan, 01 juin 2012 - 09:03 .

[Tazzmission]

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 agree with this 100%

[Dusen]

Ninja Stan wrote...

Because BioWare (and EA) is trying to make things that people buy.

That's the problem though, people bought the original Mass Effect in droves, making it one of the Xbox's platinum editions. This meant that it was a best seller in the first nine months after it was released. It was both critically and commercially lauded, some went as far as to claim that it was one of the greatest games ever made. I understand that many times change is great for innovation and whatnot, but why change the central formula so much when it already was selling millions?

They still wouldn't care a whit if "devSin" or "Ninja Stan" or the real people associated with those handles called them up to say what they wanted.

. . . and this is the downfall of America and the rise of corporate greed and commercialism.

[wright1978]

Ninja Stan wrote...

wright1978 wrote...

Why doesn't the entire creative movie and TV industry give up and turn their minds to creating realityTV? Reality TV gets shed loads of viewers.

Because TV is a creative industry, and more than just one way to make money. There, too, shows that people like end up getting cancelled. We can complain all we like (coughFireflycough), but these shows also don't exist in a vacuum. They are part of of a network's entire viewing schedule, and is designed to bring in a lot of advertising revenue from the viewers of that program at the time it is aired. An increasingly outmoded system, in my opinion, but that's a different discussion.

Maybe because they realise while there is indeed a healthy market for simplistic reality tv there can also be  one for creative endeavour. Call of duty/Madden have a place in the market. Making every game into a simplistic shooter/sports game isn't the answer because there's also a sizeable market which craves quality RPG games who won't buy games that get reduced into generic shooters.

I disagree with you that gamers are necessarily that polarized. Most of them, statistically, will be somewhere in between. Your bias is pretty evident when you call popular shooters and sports games "simplistic," even more so when you use it as a counter-example to "quality" RPG games. If you really feel that strongly about a certain kind of game--and it is a game, after all--you may wish to branch out and start talking to those who really love shooters or the major sports franchises and see just why they are so appealing.

Part of the creative endeavour is yes that good stuff gets cancelled. Firefly was the wrong show on the wrong network at the wrong time. But shows that hit a successful niche can survive and thrive too.

I've played plenty of sports games and shooters and they can be a fun distraction. However if they were that deep there wouldn't be a version every year. People would be replaying them like mad. Things can be simple and well made to serve a purpose. I don't watch Die Hard for wonderfully deep characterisation it is for the action.

Maybe the use of the word 'quality' was bias coming across. I've got a pile of Bioware RPG's by my desk.  Yet I fear EA are straddling a horse with Bioware constantly straining for more of that big wide sea of other players that they don't realise they will eventually step too far and lose their footing on the original horse they were riding. Autodialogue, i can see the girth slipping.

[Nomen Mendax]

AlanC9 wrote...

...

Because ME1 was better with changes? Because DA:O had a terrible ROI? The first is my opinion and always has been, the second is just a guess. 

But a pretty plausible guess.  It's also quite possible that DA2 had a higher ROI than DAO, I also wonder if DAO would ever have been released without EA purchasing Bioware.

I think people are way to quick to blame EA for anything that they don't like in Bioware's games.

[hoorayforicecream]

wright1978 wrote...

I've played plenty of sports games and shooters and they can be a fun distraction. However if they were that deep there wouldn't be a version every year. People would be replaying them like mad. Things can be simple and well made to serve a purpose. I don't watch Die Hard for wonderfully deep characterisation it is for the action.

I would like to point out that, with the exception of a single week of Minecraft pushing its way to #2, the past several years of XBox Live total playtime has been utterly dominated by Call of Duty games maintaining a stranglehold on the #1 and #2 spots in the top 10, with a third CoD game often placing within the top 10 as well. People are replaying them like mad.