66 réponses à ce sujet

[Reofeir]

I know that rumors around is DA3 got pushed another year (however that seemed to be more for work on SWTOR and ME3 I believe?) so that could be one lesson. I assume that they *might* think about allowing a few more months to patch things up from now on in game cycles.  I doubt they would allow more then a year or two though.

*Am I the ONLY one who doesn't care if the game is made to be easy on new guys as long as it's still good for me? I mean it's a business you need to get more people to buy your games.

Modifié par Zenor, 23 juillet 2012 - 09:41 .

[Zardoc]

"EA"
"learn"

Mwahaha.

[shepskisaac]

Zenor wrote...

(however that seemed to be more for work on SWTOR and ME3 I believe?)

No, SWTOR & ME3 teams are separate

[Ozida]

They won’t… because it was BW's mistake, not EA’s. As somebody wrote before, EA executives didn’t "put guns next to BW developers claiming: “Make ME3 suck and do it fast!”." They might have shorten deadlines (which I still doubt about), but that pretty much as much control as EA had over the game.

[F4H bandicoot]

Of course not.

[Femlob]

EA might.

Hudson and Walters won't.

[shepskisaac]

Ozida wrote...
They might have shorten deadlines (which I still doubt about), but that pretty much as much control as EA had over the game.

Ya know, having enough developement time is "kinda" like one of the very most important aspects of creating a game lol?

[The RPGenius]

Well, going by their PR statements, their stubborn arrogance in polishing a turd instead of fixing (or even admitting the existence of) the problem, and their adding insult to injury in the Refusal option, it's obvious that BIOWARE has not learned from ME3, so if even they can't be bothered to dismount their high horse long enough to take a lesson from this fiasco, I highly doubt EA will.

[Ozida]

IsaacShep wrote...

Ozida wrote...
They might have shorten deadlines (which I still doubt about), but that pretty much as much control as EA had over the game.

Ya know, having enough developement time is "kinda" like one of the very most important aspects of creating a game lol?

I disagree. It is one aspect of developing, but not the most important one. Usually it is possible to differentiate a good unfinished product from a bad unfinished product.

Modifié par Ozida, 23 juillet 2012 - 09:52 .

[SnakeStrike8]

Probably not.
ME 3's developer battalion and DA 3's developer battalion are likely going to be very different. Different writers, programmers, and so forth.
What I'd hope is that Bioware learns from the load of ****** that was DA 2, and sorts out those issues, of which there are many and can be found in their totality on the related boards.

[Binary_Helix 1]

Ozida wrote...

They won’t… because it was BW's mistake, not EA’s. As somebody wrote before, EA executives didn’t "put guns next to BW developers claiming: “Make ME3 suck and do it fast!”." They might have shorten deadlines (which I still doubt about), but that pretty much as much control as EA had over the game.

When Bioware was it's own company they had to please the fans or they went out of business.

Now that EA pays the bills they serve them first and foremost. EA doesn't need to tell Bioware to do anything. It's expected.

However I do agree that Bioware is to blame for ME3 and no one else. If anything EA gave Bioware way too much freedom.

[blueumi]

if everything that has gone wrong for bioware and ea in the last year have not got them to re think how they treat customers and what not to do with an established franchise then nothing will

ea is lots of things but stupid no I think they learned the hard way

bioware I hope understands that dragon age is supposed to be a proper full rpg not a half baked annoying action rpg like dragon age 2 was

I hope that they see that we expect a higher standard of game from bioware we don't expect it to be rushed confusing and we sure as hell don't expect a trilogy that was sold on the idea of choice and multiple outcomes
to be confusing anger inducing and to be in no way tied to the games that came first
not to mention anti climactic poorly thought out
left us with more questions then answers proven by the fact no one still really knows what the hell that ending was
they did that on purpose and that makes me furious

[TsaiMeLemoni]

Femlob wrote...

EA might.

Hudson and Walters won't.

Do Hudson and Walters even have any affiliation with the DA franchise?

Anyway, I don't think the question should be about whether or not EA learns, but whether or not the DA team at Bioware paid attention, and will apply the lessons they saw the ME Bioware learn the hard way.

[shepskisaac]

Ozida wrote...

I disagree. It is one aspect of developing, but not the most important one. Usually it is possible to differentiate a good unfinished product from a bad unfinished product.

Didn't said the most important one, but yeah, one of the very most important ones. Even the most brilliant team won't create a masterpiece if they don't get enough dev time. ME3 was a game that needed 3 years, not 2. Yeah, the ending most likely would still have Star Child and anger some fans. But problems like few side-quests, neglected/underdeveloped characters, reduced dialogue wheels etc most likely wouldn't be present.

[silentassassin264]

Zardoc wrote...

"EA"
"learn"

Mwahaha.

[essarr71]

Ozida wrote...

IsaacShep wrote...

Ozida wrote...
They might have shorten deadlines (which I still doubt about), but that pretty much as much control as EA had over the game.

Ya know, having enough developement time is "kinda" like one of the very most important aspects of creating a game lol?

I disagree. It is one aspect of developing, but not the most important one. Usually it is possible to differentiate a good unfinished product from a bad unfinished product.

Gotta disagree.  Development time is THE most important part of any project.

A bad idea is bad regardless of how much time one has.  A good idea can be hampered by a limited schedule.

Want to use ME3 as an example?  It had the shortest development time of all 3 games.. and they got an extention.  Lots were left on the cutting room floor due to time constraints (particularly the ending - including an indoctrination - and Javik, the original Catalyst).  Consider that it took another 3 months just to repair the bad ending. 

Now consider DA2, which was practically made overnight, comapred to DA - which took years to complete.  Regardless of how one feels about the combat, the released DA2 was a horrible mess, weighed under countless bugs and a disjointed story.  Compare that to DA - which was pretty much flawless.

[Sarevok Synder]

EA and learning, surely that's an oxymoron.

[ediskrad327]

TsaiMeLemoni wrote...

Femlob wrote...

EA might.

Hudson and Walters won't.

Do Hudson and Walters even have any affiliation with the DA franchise?

Anyway, I don't think the question should be about whether or not EA learns, but whether or not the DA team at Bioware paid attention, and will apply the lessons they saw the ME Bioware learn the hard way.

i don't think so

[colonelshepard]

Ozida wrote...

They won’t… because it was BW's mistake, not EA’s. As somebody wrote before, EA executives didn’t "put guns next to BW developers claiming: “Make ME3 suck and do it fast!”." They might have shorten deadlines (which I still doubt about), but that pretty much as much control as EA had over the game.

While I try not to blame EA as often as most, you know that they had to have something to do with multiplayer (which, although fun, decreased the amount of room for SP content and was completel unnecessary) and Diana Allers. I'm also fairly certain that an EA marketing team had something to do with the oversexualization of characters like EDI and Ashley and the auto-dialogue in order to appeal to the average shooter fan. 

If ME3 had been given as much time as ME2 and all that disk space and money hadn't been given to MP, the game probably would have been much better.

But you are right that this was also biowares fault (especially from a concerning he story). They wrote the catalyst and the ending, and that's one of ME3's biggest problems.

[ediskrad327]

they better

[blueumi]

essarr71 wrote...

Ozida wrote...

IsaacShep wrote...

Ozida wrote...
They might have shorten deadlines (which I still doubt about), but that pretty much as much control as EA had over the game.

Ya know, having enough developement time is "kinda" like one of the very most important aspects of creating a game lol?

I disagree. It is one aspect of developing, but not the most important one. Usually it is possible to differentiate a good unfinished product from a bad unfinished product.

Gotta disagree.  Development time is THE most important part of any project.

A bad idea is bad regardless of how much time one has.  A good idea can be hampered by a limited schedule.

Want to use ME3 as an example?  It had the shortest development time of all 3 games.. and they got an extention.  Lots were left on the cutting room floor due to time constraints (particularly the ending - including an indoctrination - and Javik, the original Catalyst).  Consider that it took another 3 months just to repair the bad ending. 

Now consider DA2, which was practically made overnight, comapred to DA - which took years to complete.  Regardless of how one feels about the combat, the released DA2 was a horrible mess, weighed under countless bugs and a disjointed story.  Compare that to DA - which was pretty much flawless.

draogn age 1 is not flawless and i hate to say this since I love the game so but when it first came out it was buggy as hell and took lots and lots of patches to fix
in fact one patch stopped the game leveling properly so people had to remove the patch to play the game properly

[The Twilight God]

Flog61 wrote...

Simple question: do you think BIOWARE will learn from their mistakes with mass effect 3 that games shouldn't be rushed/cheepened, or made very much in favour of newcomers?

Or will they still just try and go for the highest pprofit thing (enjoyable game filled with plotholes but great gameplay, multiplayer system with free dlc but option to pay for equipment/characters)?

Fixed that for you.

And the answer is no. They've made it quite clear that "artistic integrity" are more important than happy customers.