6432 réponses à ce sujet

[CronoDragoon]

Warrior Craess wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...

AresKeith wrote...


because Baldur's Gate wasn't Published by Bioware, and it basically takes longer to make games now than it did in the 90's because of new graphics and etc. The real problem is that Publishers like EA and Activi$ion always tries to beat there competition by trying to get their games out as quick as possible

I thought everyone did it this way, with the exception of Bethesda with the TES games. Do you have a source somewhere that shows the long dev cycle of other games in this day and age?

Any Blizzard game. 

Not a very fair example, unless you expect every company to release a game that rakes in dough like WoW.

[Warrior Craess]

AresKeith wrote...

Warrior Craess wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...

Warrior Craess wrote...

I did address Leviathan though.  Based one what is revealed by the leviathan DLC. The endings should be effected. The presence or leviathans as active members of the war, changes the war. Even if we still can't go toe to toe, ship to ship in open conflict, the war is effected.  Can we win it with levianthans on our side (at least temporarily?) well, thats definately something that should have been addressed. 

Too bad that all the possiblities of Leviathan were ignored.

We're getting way off of what I and the other guy were discussing. I was arguing that changes in the ending are not expected for story DLC.

That premiss depends entirely on what the story DLC contains.  Again lets use leviathan as an example. It is story DL that could (probably should) have made an impact on the endings becuase of what it reveals. The is no arguing that active partiipation by Leviathans changes the dynamics of the war. To reduce that potential to some useless war assets is, well incredibly frustrating, and very poor story telling. 

Now if there is a Palaven DLC, I wouldn't expect that to alter the endings in the least bit. Nor would I expect any DLC showing what the ME2 squadmates did in London, to effet the ending either. 

why you gotta bring my DLC idea in this lol

LOL becuase a great example of story idea that wouldn't effect the endings, VS Leviathan being a great example of story DLC that should effet the ending. 

[Dragoonlordz]

CronoDragoon wrote...

Warrior Craess wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...

AresKeith wrote...


because Baldur's Gate wasn't Published by Bioware, and it basically takes longer to make games now than it did in the 90's because of new graphics and etc. The real problem is that Publishers like EA and Activi$ion always tries to beat there competition by trying to get their games out as quick as possible

I thought everyone did it this way, with the exception of Bethesda with the TES games. Do you have a source somewhere that shows the long dev cycle of other games in this day and age?

Any Blizzard game. 

Not a very fair example, unless you expect every company to release a game that rakes in dough like WoW.

Also pointing out look at the reaction to Diablo 3. Time alone does not quality make or people please.

[Warrior Craess]

CronoDragoon wrote...

Warrior Craess wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...

AresKeith wrote...


because Baldur's Gate wasn't Published by Bioware, and it basically takes longer to make games now than it did in the 90's because of new graphics and etc. The real problem is that Publishers like EA and Activi$ion always tries to beat there competition by trying to get their games out as quick as possible

I thought everyone did it this way, with the exception of Bethesda with the TES games. Do you have a source somewhere that shows the long dev cycle of other games in this day and age?

Any Blizzard game. 

Not a very fair example, unless you expect every company to release a game that rakes in dough like WoW.

And why couldn't they? Blizzard is a great example of a company making games their way, taking the time to get it very polished, and omplete. (we'll gloss over WoW a bit, though they through money and effort at it to make it appealing to a vast number of people). They are a great example of the good things and trust that comes from taking your time and getting it right. 

[CronoDragoon]

Warrior Craess wrote...

And why couldn't they? Blizzard is a great example of a company making games their way, taking the time to get it very polished, and omplete. (we'll gloss over WoW a bit, though they through money and effort at it to make it appealing to a vast number of people). They are a great example of the good things and trust that comes from taking your time and getting it right. 

In order for Mass Effect to make money like WoW, it would have to produce something extremely mainstream, like WoW, that continues to make money through subscriptions, like WoW. In other words, they would have to do 2 things that their fans would roast them for and have roasted them for already to an extent: focus on multiplayer and make their games more mainstream.

The nature of Mass Effect as a game in its genre means it will never provide enough profit like Wow and Steam do to enable the "it's done when it's done" mindset. 

[Dragoonlordz]

I want a response from you 3D about this. Considering you keep saying noone is giving you any valid reasons against what 'you' want. What you and few others said want in here. What others said want elsewhere and many of which methods conflict in how you want 'it', whatever it may be; to be done..

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 04 septembre 2012 - 03:47 .

[Warrior Craess]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

Warrior Craess wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...

AresKeith wrote...


because Baldur's Gate wasn't Published by Bioware, and it basically takes longer to make games now than it did in the 90's because of new graphics and etc. The real problem is that Publishers like EA and Activi$ion always tries to beat there competition by trying to get their games out as quick as possible

I thought everyone did it this way, with the exception of Bethesda with the TES games. Do you have a source somewhere that shows the long dev cycle of other games in this day and age?

Any Blizzard game. 

Not a very fair example, unless you expect every company to release a game that rakes in dough like WoW.

Also pointing out look at the reaction to Diablo 3. Time alone does not quality make or people please.

Most of which is people complaining becuase they can't play due to server congestion. Give it time, and Blizzard will solve that just like they solved all the waiting times to log into WoW.  It's a problem that Bioware should love to have.

And no where is there a universal issue akin to what Mass Effet 3 suffered. And the other side of this is that Blizzard takes the time to fix the problems. Like they are fixing many of the problems that players are complaining about. Such as the loot roles, lass balance etc..

[3DandBeyond]

CronoDragoon wrote...

BioWare did step in when rules were broken. But you can't ban someone for being combative or disowning BioWare per se. And the bared fangs stance of the community existed even before the big gaming sites showed their true colors.

Edit: In any case, I'd be very happy if BW decided to release paid DLC for the endings, and we can be disappointed if it turns out they never do. I just don't want people to hold it against BioWare if they don't, which I feel is not what you are trying to accomplish and am glad for it.

It depends on the site owners.  Sites I've modded give warnings for trolling and flaming and insults and so on-and autobans happen after warnings are ignored and can lead to permabans.  I'm not talking about saying you don't like something, but the other things that happened.

I am in no way justifying all behavior at all, but I am saying also that other sites have specific rules about back seat modding-those get warnings too and bans.  One site I modded for even would give warnings for necroing or double posting or creating links to other forum sites, so it all depends on rules.

I just really do want to find a way to stop this demented toxic stuff from continuing.  Hater is thrown around like it's some badge people wear and it's not a thing to label people with-it is a destructive and inflaming term meant to cause a reaction.  I have loved BW and ME and I've complained and pissed and yelled and jumped and tried to see if that worked.  Well, it didn't.  Now, I am trying to be the person I usually am-I can't force them to do anything, but I am asking them to try and understand all of this.  Look at the romance videos on youtube.  Look at what people are asking for.  They want Omega DLC-why?  To see Aria again.  People care about Shepard-BW made us care.

[3DandBeyond]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

I want a response from you 3D about this. Considering you keep saying noone is giving you any valid reasons against what 'you' want. What you and few others said want in here. What others said want elsewhere and many of which methods conflict in how you want 'it', whatever it may be; to be done..

I have already told you I have no interest in discussing this issue with you.  You sent me hatemail.  You are not interested in discussing anything.  I have answered every point within your post in previous posts (before that).  Please take the time to read before commenting on anything people say.

[Warrior Craess]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Warrior Craess wrote...

Any Blizzard game. 

Specifics, please, with actual source on the development time. Wikipedia doesn't really show this.

It took 3~4 years from the time Blizzard announced that they would release D3, and longer for SC. Blizzard is (in)famous for taking their time on delevoping a game. SC II isn't even what StarCraft fans consider complete, and we can't wait for the updates, or next release.

Another example is that they announced work on another MMO about 4 years ago. When they release it, I expect it'll be hugely popular, and be plagued with server congestion due to the amount of poeple that want to play it. 

Bioware should have striven to be more like Blizzard and a lot less like EA.

[Dragoonlordz]

Warrior Craess wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

Warrior Craess wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...

AresKeith wrote...


because Baldur's Gate wasn't Published by Bioware, and it basically takes longer to make games now than it did in the 90's because of new graphics and etc. The real problem is that Publishers like EA and Activi$ion always tries to beat there competition by trying to get their games out as quick as possible

I thought everyone did it this way, with the exception of Bethesda with the TES games. Do you have a source somewhere that shows the long dev cycle of other games in this day and age?

Any Blizzard game. 

Not a very fair example, unless you expect every company to release a game that rakes in dough like WoW.

Also pointing out look at the reaction to Diablo 3. Time alone does not quality make or people please.

Most of which is people complaining becuase they can't play due to server congestion. Give it time, and Blizzard will solve that just like they solved all the waiting times to log into WoW.  It's a problem that Bioware should love to have.

And no where is there a universal issue akin to what Mass Effet 3 suffered. And the other side of this is that Blizzard takes the time to fix the problems. Like they are fixing many of the problems that players are complaining about. Such as the loot roles, lass balance etc..

Not true, initial complaint may have been about server load but most of the complaints are not about that at all now. I own the game and spend a vast amount of time on their forums for it since day 1. There is immense amount of different issues people have and just like ME3 everyone disagree's on methods to make it better just like 3D is in here saying what she wants and method willing to accept which is different to what many others are willing to accept or method to be used. They are not fixing it how the players want, they are fixing it how they want based on player feedback and while some players are willing to accept those changes others still do not.

I will also point out Blizzard are not doing any changes they are not willing to make from how to handle each complaint and how it will be change if at all in game. Just like Bioware are doing with their game, they choose how to change and what to change. Diablo 3 had just as big an issue with online single player and RMAH compared to ME3 ending, in fact it was a bigger issues by far for their fanbase. Only they did the whole cussing at dev's, threats and such but Blizzard just handled the PR differently.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 04 septembre 2012 - 03:59 .

[kyban]

Warrior Craess wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...

Warrior Craess wrote...

Any Blizzard game. 

Specifics, please, with actual source on the development time. Wikipedia doesn't really show this.

It took 3~4 years from the time Blizzard announced that they would release D3, and longer for SC. Blizzard is (in)famous for taking their time on delevoping a game. SC II isn't even what StarCraft fans consider complete, and we can't wait for the updates, or next release.

Another example is that they announced work on another MMO about 4 years ago. When they release it, I expect it'll be hugely popular, and be plagued with server congestion due to the amount of poeple that want to play it. 

Bioware should have striven to be more like Blizzard and a lot less like EA.

This is true. Blizzards policy is "it's finished when it is finished." I have heard similar quotes from the Blizz devs, they don't like to rush anything. I remember hearing about D4 almost 4 years ago, that means that they had to start development before that time.
Mass Effect 3 was rushed, plain and simple.

[Warrior Craess]

CronoDragoon wrote...

Warrior Craess wrote...

And why couldn't they? Blizzard is a great example of a company making games their way, taking the time to get it very polished, and omplete. (we'll gloss over WoW a bit, though they through money and effort at it to make it appealing to a vast number of people). They are a great example of the good things and trust that comes from taking your time and getting it right. 

In order for Mass Effect to make money like WoW, it would have to produce something extremely mainstream, like WoW, that continues to make money through subscriptions, like WoW. In other words, they would have to do 2 things that their fans would roast them for and have roasted them for already to an extent: focus on multiplayer and make their games more mainstream.

The nature of Mass Effect as a game in its genre means it will never provide enough profit like Wow and Steam do to enable the "it's done when it's done" mindset. 

yes WoW is the flagship game for Blizzard, and Bioware had a chance to equal that. SWToR could have easily done that. But it was rushed a bit, and suffered from a lack of real support from Bioware. They were slow to respon to game issue, slow to address player issues, and bugs. 

Blizzard actually had to build up their subscriber base, it never had as large a fanboy club as star wars. Yet it's out performed bioware in about every phase (except graphics - WoW graphics arn't all that good, about par for SWToR). You gotta wonder why there is such a discrepancy in performance? 

[Dragoonlordz]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

I want a response from you 3D about this. Considering you keep saying noone is giving you any valid reasons against what 'you' want. What you and few others said want in here. What others said want elsewhere and many of which methods conflict in how you want 'it', whatever it may be; to be done..

I have already told you I have no interest in discussing this issue with you.  You sent me hatemail.  You are not interested in discussing anything.  I have answered every point within your post in previous posts (before that).  Please take the time to read before commenting on anything people say.

You answered nothing and your trying to avoid doing so now making up excuses.

It sums up the reality of what done all a long. Dismiss anything you do not want to acknowledge and brush it away as a form of valid reasoning and logic as to why what you want is flawed. Like also told you and gave you instructions back in past if you think my PM was hate mail then report me and watch it backfire for making false claims. You know was not hate mail, I know was not hate mail and that is why you have never reported me even though I showed you how to do so. No btw giving everyone what they want and all their methods for achieving it in separate "optional" DLC's is not a good answer.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 04 septembre 2012 - 04:11 .

[CronoDragoon]

Warrior Craess wrote...

yes WoW is the flagship game for Blizzard, and Bioware had a chance to equal that. SWToR could have easily done that. But it was rushed a bit, and suffered from a lack of real support from Bioware. They were slow to respon to game issue, slow to address player issues, and bugs. 

Blizzard actually had to build up their subscriber base, it never had as large a fanboy club as star wars. Yet it's out performed bioware in about every phase (except graphics - WoW graphics arn't all that good, about par for SWToR). You gotta wonder why there is such a discrepancy in performance? 

While The Old Republic is indeed disappointing, even if every current complaint had never existed, I highly doubt that it would have matched WoW's sales. Wow was the first to do what it did, and that's why it made so much money. Especially considering how addictive MMO's are, you would have been expecting SWToR to draw massive amounts of subscribers away from WoW. I don't find that expectation realistic. Imitaters tend to make significantly less than the original; ask any 3D movie since Avatar.

[Dragoonlordz]

Warrior Craess wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

Warrior Craess wrote...

And why couldn't they? Blizzard is a great example of a company making games their way, taking the time to get it very polished, and omplete. (we'll gloss over WoW a bit, though they through money and effort at it to make it appealing to a vast number of people). They are a great example of the good things and trust that comes from taking your time and getting it right. 

In order for Mass Effect to make money like WoW, it would have to produce something extremely mainstream, like WoW, that continues to make money through subscriptions, like WoW. In other words, they would have to do 2 things that their fans would roast them for and have roasted them for already to an extent: focus on multiplayer and make their games more mainstream.

The nature of Mass Effect as a game in its genre means it will never provide enough profit like Wow and Steam do to enable the "it's done when it's done" mindset. 

yes WoW is the flagship game for Blizzard, and Bioware had a chance to equal that. SWToR could have easily done that. But it was rushed a bit, and suffered from a lack of real support from Bioware. They were slow to respon to game issue, slow to address player issues, and bugs. 

Blizzard actually had to build up their subscriber base, it never had as large a fanboy club as star wars. Yet it's out performed bioware in about every phase (except graphics - WoW graphics arn't all that good, about par for SWToR). You gotta wonder why there is such a discrepancy in performance? 

Most people are bored of subscription based MMO's, same reason WoW is dying off player number wise dropping fast. When it first came out it was something new and different. But people have spent many years playing and are just tired of the type of game. The market was also much smaller competition wise than now. In all I expected ToR to be profitable but doubtful would ever reach millions and as for WoW even with hope of their for pandas in it the numbers will continue to drop. There is simply too many MMO's and too many people have grown tired of the genre. Individual titles are beginning to share between them less interested players willing to pay subscriptions and those that do are spread across many different MMO's because the market is saturated with them.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 04 septembre 2012 - 04:08 .

[CronoDragoon]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Most people are bored of subscription based MMO's, same reason WoW is dying off player number wise dropping fast. When it first came out it was something new and different. But people have spent many years playing and are just tired of the type of game. The market was also much smaller competition wise than now. In all I expected ToR to be profitable but doubtful would ever reach millions and as for WoW even with hope of their for pandas in it the numbers will continue to drop. There is simply too many MMO's and too many people have grown tired of the genre. Individual titles are beginning to share between them less interested players willing to pay subscriptions and those that do are spread across many different MMO's because the market is saturated with them.

Not to mention quality F2P MMO's like Guild Wars 2, which probably signals the end of the subscriptions MMO's golden age.

[Dragoonlordz]

CronoDragoon wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Most people are bored of subscription based MMO's, same reason WoW is dying off player number wise dropping fast. When it first came out it was something new and different. But people have spent many years playing and are just tired of the type of game. The market was also much smaller competition wise than now. In all I expected ToR to be profitable but doubtful would ever reach millions and as for WoW even with hope of their for pandas in it the numbers will continue to drop. There is simply too many MMO's and too many people have grown tired of the genre. Individual titles are beginning to share between them less interested players willing to pay subscriptions and those that do are spread across many different MMO's because the market is saturated with them.

Not to mention quality F2P MMO's like Guild Wars 2, which probably signals the end of the subscriptions MMO's golden age.

FF14 Reborn is the last MMO I play I think or specifically give a try. mainly due to the amount of years I have been enjoying Square then Squeenix titles, I think they deserve that little bit of extra time from me. But after that I doubt I will touch another MMO probably within the next few decades. The novelty has worn off and I grown tired of them in general as a genre. Unless VR technology really takes off and can insert yourself into realistic (perception) fantasy and cyberpunk or scifi worlds to play with others in large number. I would pay subscription for that.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 04 septembre 2012 - 04:21 .

[CronoDragoon]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

FF14 Reborn is the last MMO I play I think or specifically give a try. mainly due to the amount of years I have been enjoying Square then Squeenix titles, I think they deserve that little bit of extra time from me. But after that I doubt I will touch another MMO probably within the next few decades. Unless VR technology really takes off and can insert yourself into realistic fantasy and cyberpunk or scifi worlds to play with others in large number. I would pay subscription for that.

Fwiw, I believe the new FF14 has a chance. The dude running it was the guy put in charge of FFXI after Tanaka left for FF14, and what proceeded was the swan song of FFXI and the most fun I'd ever had playing it. Then Tanaka got demoted back to FFXI and the other guy was promoted to FF14, and FFXI sucked again and I quit after 7 years.

But now I'm playing GW2 and honestly, I can never see myself paying a subscription again, if F2P MMO's can be this good.

But we are getting pretty far off-topic, so I'll reiterate; it is extremely rare for a dev company to have something that is essentially a fountain of cash. It just isn't very imitable, even though EA has tried to imitate both Blizzard and Valve with SWToR and Origin. We've seen how that went. It is unrealistic to expect BioWare as a company to work without budgets.

[3DandBeyond]

Yes to return to the topic, it's about asking BW to reconsider things with regard to the endings and to perhaps create additions in DLC for pay.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

MegaSovereign wrote...

iakus wrote...

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...


This entire thread, all 85 and now possibly 86 pages has been about asking Bioware to write an optional, NOT FREE, DLC that allows those of us who picked Destroy with high EMS and got the 1/4 second gasp of air in a pile of garbage, where we've been told that Shepard survived, but then in the next breath have been told "it could have been Shepard's last breath", to be rescued and to have a reunion scene. Note the key words: NOT FREE. We'll pay for it.

If this were to happen, I predict half the complaints on BSN wiould go away.  

I wouldn't be against this optional DLC but we gotta think logically for a second. Not many will buy something so lacking in content.

They could probably get away with adding it onto their next planned DLC, but I heard that DLC that modifies other DLC is against Microsoft policy.

This doesn't modify any DLC. The breath scene was in the original ending. That's the loophole.

You cannot modify the Refuse ending by having it lead to a conventional victory. -- I think the fact that the battle plan was drawn up around the crucible and protecting it rather than actually taking the fight to the reapers and defeating them conventionally (Hackett did not keep a reserve - it was all or nothing), that the conventional victory was not in the cards. It would require a rewrite of the entire Priority Earth mission. That isn't going to happen.

If BW ever releases a toolkit for the game in the future and someone wants to do all the work of scripting a conventional victory for PCs have at it. I know how much work is involved and I'm not up to the task.

At this point the only way a conventional victory can happen is via retcon in ME4 with the super top secret Quarian superweapon where they blow up the reapers.