122 réponses à ce sujet

[legion999]

Personally, yes.

Poll.

Modifié par legion999, 08 août 2012 - 08:35 .

[arial]

in some parts yes

[Chaotic-Fusion]

Yes. Absolutely. It is "the best place to start" after all.

[v TricKy v]

ME3 is the best point to start the trilogy

nuff said

EDIT: Ninja´d:ph34r:
now we are quit:D

Modifié par v TricKy v, 07 août 2012 - 10:48 .

[Trentest0]

I just think it needed at least another year in development.

The entire game feels rushed, from fetch quests to buggy cutscenes, to a sloppy UI.

It just feels like it lacks content, unlike ME1 and 2.

One and a bit years is not enough for a game like this.

And in regards to your question, certainly. But all game developers try to do it. The combat is still the best iteration of the series.

Modifié par Trentest0, 07 août 2012 - 10:48 .

[Ticonderoga117]

Yes.
"People might wonder what the Collector Base decision was all about, make it all the same!"
"People might wonder why this black guy is on the Council, or they might wonder why this other guy is being a big pain in the ass. Make it all the same!"

[blueumi]

yes

jessica chobot

enogh said

[wright1978]

Yes
Reams of auto-dialogue and railroaded actions where choices used to be.

Modifié par wright1978, 07 août 2012 - 10:50 .

[sharkboy421]

wright1978 wrote...

Yes
Reams of auto-dialogue and railroaded actions where choices used to be.

This is where the game suffered the most from the idea of "appealing to a broader audience."  Most other flaws can most likely be atributed to the game being rushed.

Also, while the basic mechanics of the combat are bettter than ever before (and are just as good as any other TPS I think), the removal of the protection scheme and damage multipliers also cheapened the feel of the game.  I thought it was a really cool feature in ME2 where you had to know what powers and ammos you needed to to kill the bad guys as fast as possible.  The worst offense of this removal in ME3 is overload, energy drain and disruptor ammo all now affect barriers as well as shields.  I always felt this was a very "rpg" like mechanic that ME2 did really well and its removal was part of the "appeal to a broader audience" thing.  I was very sad to see it go.

[chemiclord]

Yes.

I also believe they had no choice. EA's entire business plan is about selling millions of copies. To fit that model, Bioware HAD to develop ME3 to a broad audience.

[Greed1914]

Chaotic-Fusion wrote...

Yes. Absolutely. It is "the best place to start" after all.

Exactly. 

chemiclord wrote...

Yes.

I also believe they had no
choice. EA's entire business plan is about selling millions of copies.
To fit that model, Bioware HAD to develop ME3 to a broad
audience.

Agreed.  I do wonder what would happen if EA didn't obsess over trying to beat Activision.  Not every game needs to sell COD numbers to be successful, but EA doesn't seem to understand that.  A lot of changes are being made to Dead Space 3 because EA has decided that the game must sell something like 5 million copies.  The last two games did well enough to greenlight sequels, so those numbers couldn't be that bad.  Unfortunately, this attitude was applied here, too.  Instead of being satisfied with an established audience, there was a large effort to expand it in what was always planned to be a trilogy.  It wasn't supposed to pump out a bunch of installments like COD does, but don't tell EA that.  

Modifié par Greed1914, 07 août 2012 - 11:05 .

[AlanC9]

While that's true about EA, I'm not sure how relevant it is. Bio has never, historically, wanted to be a niche developer. Remember, they got big in the first place by licensing a couple of the lowest-common-denominator IPs out there. They consolized their games long before the EA acquisition. (And while it's a little OT, Bio invented paid DLC.)

I don't think it took any arm-twisting for Bio to adopt the high-expense/big audience paradigm.

[Ticonderoga117]

chemiclord wrote...

Yes.

I also believe they had no choice. EA's entire business plan is about selling millions of copies. To fit that model, Bioware HAD to develop ME3 to a broad audience.

Shennanigans.
BioWare would've made millions anyway without a stapled on MP and a finely-crafted SP section, like ME1 and ME2.
Not too mention a hefty sum off of DLC following a very well done game.

[themikefest]

yes -too much auto-dialogue

[Memnon]

chemiclord wrote...

Yes.

I also believe they had no choice. EA's entire business plan is about selling millions of copies. To fit that model, Bioware HAD to develop ME3 to a broad audience.

I've always wondered what these business models look like ... did games with CRPG roots like DA1, ME1 sell so poorly that they had to add aspects which appealed to different gamers? Was it a net gain or zero sum or loss? I don't know if we have access to those metrics, all we can do is speculate. 

[Chaotic-Fusion]

Stornskar wrote...

chemiclord wrote...

Yes.

I also believe they had no choice. EA's entire business plan is about selling millions of copies. To fit that model, Bioware HAD to develop ME3 to a broad audience.

I've always wondered what these business models look like ... did games with CRPG roots like DA1, ME1 sell so poorly that they had to add aspects which appealed to different gamers? Was it a net gain or zero sum or loss? I don't know if we have access to those metrics, all we can do is speculate. 

Both DA: O and ME1 sales were high. In fact, the whole reason EA pushed DAII was, in the word of the composer Inon Zur, "EA really wanted to capitalize on the success of Origins, so the game was really being pushed hard to be released now.". But it's never enough, really, and a sequel isn't considered a success unless it sells more than the original.

Modifié par Chaotic-Fusion, 07 août 2012 - 11:15 .

[chemiclord]

ME1's sales were high... for an "RPG", not so much for what Electronic Arts calls a "success."

Gotta remember, EA's "target" is 5 million. Neither ME1 OR ME2 came even CLOSE to that.

Granted, neither did ME3, but the simple fact of the matter is, the "RPG niche" can't carry a game to what EA wants out of a title.  Bioware really had no option but to try for the "CoD" audience, which meant more focus on mechanics (and multi-player), and less on time-consuming "RPG" elements.

Modifié par chemiclord, 07 août 2012 - 11:34 .

[Commander Castillo]

This has been known

[Greed1914]

chemiclord wrote...

ME1's sales were high... for an "RPG", not so much for what Electronic Arts calls a "success."

Gotta remember, EA's "target" is 5 million. Neither ME1 OR ME2 came even CLOSE to that.

Granted, neither did ME3, but the simple fact of the matter is, the "RPG niche" can't carry a game to what EA wants out of a title.  Bioware really had no option but to try for the "CoD" audience, which meant more focus on mechanics (and multi-player), and less on time-consuming "RPG" elements.

And unfortunately, when you're constantly chasing after another audience through imitation you risk losing what makes your product unique.  At that point, people might as well just buy that other title. 

[C9316]

Duh...

[SNascimento]

Yes

[Baa Baa]

YES.

[MerchantGOL]

not really, theirs allot of more "We expect you to know this already" then any one is giving them credit for

[Atakuma]

wright1978 wrote...

Yes
Reams of auto-dialogue and railroaded actions where choices used to be.

Neither of those things really have anything to do with appealing to a broader audience. There was really no need for the amount of auto dialogue when they had action mode, it was purely a stylistic choice, and the so called railroading was all about recources.

Modifié par Atakuma, 07 août 2012 - 11:55 .