152 réponses à ce sujet

[Candidate 88766]

Spartas Husky wrote...

... not really true for op... but two words

EA. All the explanation is in those two words/letters

Bioware were the ones who wrote ME3's ending, not EA. Bioware were the ones who messed up.

[Yakko77]

There were various aspects of ME3 which disappointed me or were unsatisfying (the end obviously comes to mind) but there were many aspects I enjoyed too (mainly the Tuchanka missions, Mordin, Eve and Wrex are awesome). That said, I am speaking with my wallet in boycotting the Leviathan DLC (Destroy End still given the shaft for the craptacular Synthesis ending). As for future games, they are no longer day one buys for me but rather I will wait for multiple fan reviews and watch footage of it on YT despite spoilers to make sure I'm no longer giving a company $60 for another let down. Pity, BW used to be a sure thing IMO.  I didn't have the nerd rage over DA2 that many had but I was definitely among those who were part of the "Hold the Line" movement regarding the ME3 ending.  The game simply goes to hell the moment Star Brat shows up IMO.

Modifié par Yakko77, 02 septembre 2012 - 10:59 .

[Snypy]

Candidate 88766 wrote...

Spartas Husky wrote...

... not really true for op... but two words

EA. All the explanation is in those two words/letters

Bioware were the ones who wrote ME3's ending, not EA. Bioware were the ones who messed up.

You can only do so much when you have to meet an impossible deadline...

[Michale_Jackson]

Bioware screwed up when they became part of EA.

EA turned Mass Effect into a broadly accessible, but bland product and it didn't really show until ME3.

Same with Dragon Age, DA:O and Awakening are miles apart from DA2

[Rudy Lis]

I know I'm minority here, but I think bioware dropped the ball before EA, several times. Always impossible deadlines from others? Somehow I doubt it is purely publisher fault, despite fact that 2 years are obviously not enough for project of such magnitude as ME3, even on same rig, even without leaks (speaking of which, haven't read them so far, but heard they are better than what we had at the end). But they weren't flawless before, so I guess that's the reason of "stack overflow": you can let slide as much as you can and not more. Plus "art", "artistic integrity" (WTF is that anyway? "We see it this way and won't change it?") and "entitled whiner" actually weren't helpful in any way in community/developer relations.

[Candidate 88766]

Snypy wrote...

Candidate 88766 wrote...

Spartas Husky wrote...

... not really true for op... but two words

EA. All the explanation is in those two words/letters

Bioware were the ones who wrote ME3's ending, not EA. Bioware were the ones who messed up.

You can only do so much when you have to meet an impossible deadline...

Their deadline was significantly extended.

After BF3 failed to be the CoD-killer EA and DICE had hyped it up to be, EA needed ME3 to be as good as it could be. While I imagine multiplayer will have been pushed by EA a bit (although I imagine Bioware would've moved into MP eventually anyway), they would've given Bioware longer to develop the game if they asked for it. 

Besides, the ending of the trilogy should've be planned as far back as ME1. Messing up the ending because they ran out of time is a terrible excuse.

Modifié par Candidate 88766, 02 septembre 2012 - 12:12 .

[Josh123914]

Rudy Lis wrote...

Josh123914 wrote...

they can make their money off people buying spectre packs

Wait, they charge people for something in multiplayer?

I don't know who they are but some people do pay for Spectre Packs.
It would explain the frequent and FREE new characters we get, and considering the multiplayer DLC is basically putting more options on a lottery card then somehow EA's bound to be making a profit off of it.

[Snypy]

Candidate 88766 wrote...

Snypy wrote...

Candidate 88766 wrote...

Spartas Husky wrote...

... not really true for op... but two words

EA. All the explanation is in those two words/letters

Bioware were the ones who wrote ME3's ending, not EA. Bioware were the ones who messed up.

You can only do so much when you have to meet an impossible deadline...

Their deadline was significantly extended.

After BF3 failed to be the CoD-killer EA and DICE had hyped it up to be, EA needed ME3 to be as good as it could be. While I imagine multiplayer will have been pushed by EA a bit (although I imagine Bioware would've moved into MP eventually anyway), they would've given Bioware longer to develop the game if they asked for it. 

Besides, the ending of the trilogy should've be planned as far back as ME1. Messing up the ending because they ran out of time is a terrible excuse.

What do you mean that the deadline was significantly extended?

Mass Effect 3 was released two years and five weeks after ME2. During its development, BioWare was still working on additional content for ME2. The game was originally created for three platforms. It also has multiplayer, and Kinetic support. What BioWare managed to pulled off in such a limited time is quite amazing.

You can be certain that BioWare would've loved to spend three years developing the game. It's the publisher -- EA -- who decides deadlines, though. It's true, however, that the ending should've been planned way ahead. I, for one, think that ME3 would've been quite different if the developer had one more year.

(Edit: I should add that I was also dissatisfied with the original ending. The EC made it significantly better.)

Modifié par Snypy, 02 septembre 2012 - 01:27 .

[Rudy Lis]

Josh123914 wrote...

I don't know who they are but some people do pay for Spectre Packs.

Ain't that easy? they, who created game, who release "free" packs and who make some people pay for something.

Snypy wrote...

(Edit: I should add that I was also dissatisfied with the original ending. The EC made it significantly better.)

Seeing such words make me feel I was right about original ending which were made bad on purpose, to draw attention from other fails of ME3.

Modifié par Rudy Lis, 02 septembre 2012 - 01:57 .

[Comm1Sheppard]

Blame EA Bioware is just fine!

[Sagiboi]

Either way, One of them has to shut down, and I hope its EA. So far, i feel like EA and bioware is cheating my money.

[SNascimento]

ME3 is a superb game, it has its share of flaws, but saying it's not great is wrong.
.
Also, ME2 is the best game this generation.

[BatmanPWNS]

SNascimento wrote...

ME3 is a superb game, it has its share of flaws, but saying it's not great is wrong.
.
Also, ME2 is the best game this generation.

I disagree.

[mauro2222]

SNascimento wrote...

ME3 is a superb game, it has its share of flaws, but saying it's not great is wrong.
.
Also, ME2 is the best game this generation.

Fanatism much?

[NKKKK]

Snypy wrote...

Candidate 88766 wrote...

Snypy wrote...

Candidate 88766 wrote...

Spartas Husky wrote...

... not really true for op... but two words

EA. All the explanation is in those two words/letters

Bioware were the ones who wrote ME3's ending, not EA. Bioware were the ones who messed up.

You can only do so much when you have to meet an impossible deadline...

Their deadline was significantly extended.

After BF3 failed to be the CoD-killer EA and DICE had hyped it up to be, EA needed ME3 to be as good as it could be. While I imagine multiplayer will have been pushed by EA a bit (although I imagine Bioware would've moved into MP eventually anyway), they would've given Bioware longer to develop the game if they asked for it. 

Besides, the ending of the trilogy should've be planned as far back as ME1. Messing up the ending because they ran out of time is a terrible excuse.

What do you mean that the deadline was significantly extended?

Mass Effect 3 was released two years and five weeks after ME2. During its development, BioWare was still working on additional content for ME2. The game was originally created for three platforms. It also has multiplayer, and Kinetic support. What BioWare managed to pulled off in such a limited time is quite amazing.

You can be certain that BioWare would've loved to spend three years developing the game. It's the publisher -- EA -- who decides deadlines, though. It's true, however, that the ending should've been planned way ahead. I, for one, think that ME3 would've been quite different if the developer had one more year.

(Edit: I should add that I was also dissatisfied with the original ending. The EC made it significantly better.)

You're right, except that Patrick Weekes, in a rage filled post, said it was pretty much Mac and Casey that did the ending with no input from the other writers.

I'm not downplaying EA, but this seems to be mostly the fault of Walters and Hudson, specifically Hudson who, according to Weekes, thought the ending was smart and that people would understand it.

[Spartas Husky]

Candidate 88766 wrote...

Spartas Husky wrote...

... not really true for op... but two words

EA. All the explanation is in those two words/letters

Bioware were the ones who wrote ME3's ending, not EA. Bioware were the ones who messed up.

Fact that you say that means you dont understand EA's development cycle and corporate practices. They dont leave studios alone. You can dig alot of stuff up with minor effort and realize if the brand EA is involved it probably means a bad thing for any game that takes more than a year and a half to make.

A simple formula you can come up by simply adding up things. Look up Halo, Mass effect 1, Crysis etc. Any game that has story, any game that has character development, coherent narrative does not take less than 2 years to make. It is incredibly hard, and expensive to make, so is seldom seen, but there are obvious exceptions. Fallout for example, where talent, good marketing and resources in mass are worth the eventual sales.

EA works around a 2 year development cycle to bring in the most profit. They aren't a videogame company, they are a company in to make money. Now do not mistake my words, a companies number one rule is to make profit, but is the effort the heads of a company that they put in making quality narratives that makes the difference.

How long did Halo 1 took to make? Halo 3 to reach?, How long crysis 1 and 2? Even if the engine is the exact same, a game in two years requires a very talented team putting alot of hours and alot of resources. Something like call of duty can be reprinted and published in record time because the engine, graphics and story are not change in any major way.

So anyways, point is, if EA is associated with a company you have to research how that company was acquired. Did they so willingly? how was their past 3-4 quarterly earnings. How was their previous games sales. ANy problems in management? Are the original founders or developers still onboard? Any weird rumors you can follow up on?

Would most people do this, of course not. But all of those can tell you whether the game studio was absorbed because it was desperate to survive, because the new management just wanted more money and joined EA for even bigger payout, or did they do so under balanced circumstances?. Nobody can tell you this but your own search.

How long does it take to make Elder Scrolls games? How long it took to make Fallout? What is the companies reputation and business practices?.

Modifié par Spartas Husky, 02 septembre 2012 - 06:01 .

[NKKKK]

How long does it take to make Elder Scrolls games? How long it took to make Fallout? What is the companies reputation and business practices?.

Bethesda? Except for that dumb No Mutants Allowed site, pretty damn good.

[Savber100]

Bioware games are still damn good despite the setbacks.

Don't believe me? Try playing through Game of Thrones RPG or Risen 2 (sad about that one) or Rogue Warrior and come back and tell me that DA2 was the worst game of this generation.

Bioware with all its warts and pimples is still heads above the general game developers.

The backlash comes from the fact that since we have placed Bioware on such a high pedestal that everything they now do is a setback.

It also comes from the fact that they keep changing up their direction. They do a damn decent job in switching back and forth between what they want to do but you can't deny that they do a great job on what they aim for.

[Sagiboi]

We don't place Bioware on a high pedestal. Try sleeping dogs for example. Do you see that game crashing as much as Mass Effect 3? And its launched much later.

What ticks me off and many other players. You make me pay for it, at least just say something on your progress instead of keeping quiet like mutes and release MORE DLCs which some require us to pay to fund you making MORE paid DLCs.

[Snypy]

NKKKK wrote...

You're right, except that Patrick Weekes, in a rage filled post, said it was pretty much Mac and Casey that did the ending with no input from the other writers.

I'm not downplaying EA, but this seems to be mostly the fault of Walters and Hudson, specifically Hudson who, according to Weekes, thought the ending was smart and that people would understand it.

You're correct. Although the authenticity of the post has been disputed, it's the only logical explanation why the ending was so bad.

[KOM_95]

When I compare Assassins Creed to Mass Effect I cringe. Bioware's standard's have dropped immensely.

[Karimloo]

We can sit here whining that EA took over, or BioWare got greedy and their ego got blown up, or that Microsoft would have done it better, or we can just move on.

Who am I kidding? Make 400+ threads about this.

[Sagiboi]

Nothing better than threads like this to motivate Bioware to do a better job to clear their name.

We're actually doing bioware a favor. or favors.

Work harder Bioware. and produce results.

Modifié par Sagiboi, 02 septembre 2012 - 09:50 .

[KOM_95]

Sagiboi wrote...

Nothing better than threads like this to motivate Bioware to do a better job to clear their name.

We're actually doing bioware a favor. or favors.

Work harder Bioware. and produce results.

Yeah what this dude said