162 réponses à ce sujet

[LilyasAvalon]

I've always personally wondered that. The quicker these games come out, the quicker they seem to fail and quickly reduce in price. The better games last much longer in terms of pricing.

So, ultimately, wouldn't it be more in their favour to put more devotion into the product rather than the final execution?

[Icinix]

LilyasAvalon wrote...

I've always personally wondered that. The quicker these games come out, the quicker they seem to fail and quickly reduce in price. The better games last much longer in terms of pricing.

So, ultimately, wouldn't it be more in their favour to put more devotion into the product rather than the final execution?

Yes. Thats what gamers know and the way they see the world.

Thats not the way bean counters see it though.  They spend so long looking at the raw numbers they miss why the numbers are there at all.

Its the current problem with analytical studies at the moment and why it has stalled somewhat - initially it was great - there was all this hoorah about the information they were able to glean that was available from the tip of their fingers. Now, they're choking on the information because they're over analysing it and swallowing themselves up their own sense of knowledge.

Its another reason why there is talk of the gaming bubble in a few corners. How the games industry is going to just vanish at some stage - I don't think it will happen - but I can see it happening to major publishers and companies if they miss the party.

I think Ubisoft is waking up, CDProjekt is ahead of the curve, Activision is also waking up somewhat...although cautiously.

EA though, they're steam rolling forward in a direction that seems too focused on an area that the growth looks good when the number crunchers check it out....but perhaps not so much from the view of the gamers. The kind of focus they're going for is probably going to put them in a fast food gaming world, where people jump on board, spend some money, move on to the next one is record time. Which means they'll need to keep pumping out these new ip's or clones. I don't think its going to kill EA, but I think its going to stagnate them for a very long time.

[Snypy]

LilyasAvalon wrote...

Snypy wrote...

"We’re sure that British Petroleum, AIG, Philip Morris, and Halliburton are all relieved they weren’t nominated this year. We’re going to continue making award-winning games and services played by more than 300 million people worldwide."

PR would be to take it in good humour. But I'm not gonna lie, tis' almost like they're PROUd of it.

Yeah, I would've expected the company to show a little humility.

Many people here on BSN wonder why BioWare has never apologized for the original ending of ME3. But instead the PR department made poor excuses such as the so-called artistic integrity. Well, I have to say that I'm not really surprised, given the fact that EA is in charge.

[magneticpolarshift]

I'd give them time, no one is perfect. I have yet to play Leviathan, (waiting until all the DLC's are released so I can enjoy them en masse when I replay ME3 like I did in ME2) but based on comments it seems they really put more emphasis on squad dialogue and the actual story which is going back to BW's roots, so they're definitely listening.

I have a feeling the other DLC's will also be very good because they want to show us that they still know how to make great games. I believe ME3 could have used a few more months in development, especially the ending but over all the game was quite good for me at least. Publishers need to give their people more time, I know it's all about dollars and cents in the end but they'll make a lot more putting out a well polished, finished game that doesn't need a gazillion patches after it's released or redoing some things like they did in ME3 ending.

Give them more time and lets see how they do, seems they're listening and I think that in the future they'll go back to their roots concentrating on RPG and story, then action and graphics. It's what made them great, no reason to change things up when it made them so successful in the first place.

[Loerwyn]

voteDC wrote...
To be fair there was one resource that the mutliplayer took away from the single player and that is disc space.

With the Xbox 360 the multiplayer section is duplicated on both discs. Could that space have been used to give less eaves-dropping quests by giving us places to actually land and explore?

Could that space have been used to offer a middle dialogue option instead of steam-rolling us into good or bad.

Perhaps the space could have been used to have proper conversations with the crew each time instead of the passive 'Zaeed' style ones that are all too often used.

Since the 360 was seemingly the primary platform for the game, we could have lost great extra content that may have been on the disc if it hadn't been for the multiplayer.

That's assuming it was in the design at all. You also need to remember it'd be expensive (Well, relatively) to have fully voiced conversations all of the time, and the space it'd take up if not properly compressed would be huge. The multiplayer shares a lot of the assets with the single player, so there's room saved there (I assume), and I think as a whole ME3 is a smaller package than ME2 was. So no, I don't think the MP really took away space (I know that's not what you're saying), nor the potential.

LilyasAvalon wrote...
I'm not against MP if it fits in. That
being said, I'm surprised ME3 wasn't given a bigger budget or a longer
development time overall. (Then again, it is EA....)

I'm still having trouble imaging a game like Dragon Age being mutliplayer... then again... *Looks at SWTOR*

I think Dragon Age could easily work as a co-op game (like Hunted: The Demon's Forge or The First Templar), but it'd likely be a shorter game overall, which just wouldn't stand. An A-RPG spin-off wouldn't be a terrible idea, though, as long as it's clearly marketed as a separate game... but even then the extreme fans would kick off and moan about how BioWare are forsaking their roots, all the while forgetting MDK2 and Jade Empire were BioWare games.

Icinix wrote...
Yeah - EA is really pushing the year round IP
mentality - they've seen the AC series, they've seen the COD series,
they want that fan base market of picking up a $100 game every 12
months. So the sooner they get ME3 out - the sooner they get DA3 out -
the sooner they get that out - the next IP or what not comes out. That
churn rate that keeps the coffers open to income.

Depends how EA do it. I think alternating between DA and ME would work well. Roughly a two year cycle for each franchise, which isn't too far from the norm, and that gives a lot of time for design and testing, and don't forget the "core" BioWare (Edmonton & Montreal) is at least three teams big, so they should easily be able to do it without impacting the product quality too much.

What it'd need, IMHO, is for BioWare to go back to relying solely on in-house engines, although I'm sure we could make an exception for DICE's Frostbyte(?) engine as it'd be good for another shooter/RPG Mass Effect game. That way they'd be able to perhaps focus more on consistency and new features rather than jumping between versions of a licensed engine.

[likeorasgod]

Online only multiplayer games are starting to get old cause every one wants to do it. Me personnely I like RPG's cause I travel and not allways have internent connections, specialy when I"m offshore. The games keep me from getting bored on my off time. I allso noticed the trend when they make a game allso mulitplayer/online options they tend to shorten the role play/single player side of the game. If I can beat the game in 8 hours than its to short, I should get atleast a good 40 hours of game play, but tend towards 20-30 it seems with most single player games.

[Justin2k]

They really said that? Well great games do not need multiplayer.

I suppose it is about money and keeping people spending money. However you can do this with a single player game and episodic content. I'm pretty sure I spent the game price again on FFXIII-2 episodes, even bought the N7 armor. Have bought Hearthfire and Dawnguard for Skyrim, bought all DLC for both fallouts and have everything from all ME games aside from multiplayer packs. Have got most DA1 dlc too.

I don't see why they need multiplayer to keep people spending.

If you look at a list of top 50 games ever, pretty sure you'll see some final fantasies, some Zelda's, some elder scrolls, maybe even a Mass Effect 2, all single player.

Multiplayer works when it fits, like in super mario party or call of duty. When it's shoehorned in like ME3, yeah its a fun way to kill time, but it ruined all the N7 missions and the single player was always what ME was about.

Personally I was losing interest in Bioware/EA games regardless, so if all their future games are streamlined like DA2 and ME3, I'll personally probably pick it up cheap second hand to see if I enjoy the single player experience. Multiplayer passes are of little value to me. 

[Lookout1390]

Yes, absolutely.

Do what they did what happened with the final fantasy 14 studio, and clean house.

Completely reboot ME3. (leave Tuchanka/Rannoch though, they were alright )

[Kastrenzo]

ME3 Has Multiplayer

I didn't even read the thread but
What a pathetic response, ROFL

Modifié par Kastrenzo, 10 septembre 2012 - 10:31 .

[AlanC9]

Justin2k wrote...

I don't see why they need multiplayer to keep people spending.

Who ever said they need it? It's profitable, some folks like it... why shouldn't they do it?

Multiplayer works when it fits, like in super mario party or call of duty. When it's shoehorned in like ME3, yeah its a fun way to kill time, but it ruined all the N7 missions

How do you figure that? If anything, it looks like MP was subsidizing the single-player by giving the SP side free maps. No MP, no N7 missions. Or rather, something else gets cut in favor of the N7s, since I don't thnk Bio wanted to have fewer combat sidequests than they ended up having.

[Jayce]

There is no Bioware. It's just a brand name of EA. Not even all the employees, let alone fans, have realized it yet. The days of Bioware being it's own boss are over, they'll toe the line EA draws them because they ARE EA.

Bioware's day as the hallmark RPG company is done and it's days as an RPG company are coming to an end. Just like Westwood, Bullfrog, Origin, Mythic and the shell that is Maxis before it.

I give it 2 two years before they're EA Edmonton and five before the doors close. That seems to be the norm with EA aquisitions.

Modifié par Jayce F, 10 septembre 2012 - 11:20 .

[Tonymac]

Lookout1390 wrote...

Yes, absolutely.

Do what they did what happened with the final fantasy 14 studio, and clean house.

Completely reboot ME3. (leave Tuchanka/Rannoch though, they were alright )

I know I would like to see this too.

Many parts of ME3 were touching - they should have to stay.   The overall arch of the story should (in my humble opinion) be redone.   I think it was horrible.

I can understand if a Prothean superweapon plan survived by the 12 scientists from  Ilos.  Protheans were gifted in that they could transmit thoughts and complicated concepts through touch.    Imagine if you could 'download'  all of Calculus in mere seconds!  This allowed them to be so much more advanced than us by the end of their cycle.  So, if they left knowledge and plans for us - then we could win - IF we united, controlled the onslaught of the Reapers, and bought time to gather the rescources and build it.  Then we would have to defend it, take out TIM (who would have a whole different role in the game/story) - and win. 

Outcomes can be along the lines of ME2 where you have the full range of endings.  Win big, lose big, lose entire races - etc.  I would absolutely not involve  Reaper tech, starkids, spacemagic or the mess that was Earth.  I want Bossfights.  I want Harbinger's CPU as a hood ornament on my personal shuttle. 

However, I am sure that Bioware thought of all of this.  Somehow, it was not in the cards.  I would like to think that if they were not with EA then this would not have happened.  But I am not a businessman.   I think that once these contracts are in place its a done deal.  We can enjoy what we've got - and I know I like the MP a ton.

[marshalleck]

magneticpolarshift wrote...

I'd give them time, no one is perfect.

Dragon Age 2. Star Wars: The Old Republic. Mass Effect 3. How much more time do they need? 

They're not showing any signs of improvement. They're getting worse.

[Savber100]

marshalleck wrote...

magneticpolarshift wrote...

I'd give them time, no one is perfect.

Dragon Age 2. Star Wars: The Old Republic. Mass Effect 3. How much more time do they need? 

They're not showing any signs of improvement. They're getting worse.

Dragon Age 2 was the result of retarded management on EA's part with a development time of barely two years. No developer would have been able to produce a capable RPG with that time. 

The Old Republic was pure Bioware in terms of everything. The story, the writing, and the game were good. But the failing was lack of innovation in mechanics and a terrible subscription model hence why I believe will look a little more kindly to TOR when it goes F2P. Come on... getting KOTOR with 6 unique class stories for the price of free? I can't say it's too shabby. 

Mass Effect 3 was a solid game marred by the biggest Bioware flaw which is switching up the formula and butchering the ending. Other than that, the production value was top-notch compared to previous Bioware games.

Dragon Age 3 will be interesting in seeing just how Bioware will react to past 18 months which has been quite tumultous for them. 

[Ghost]

Lookout1390 wrote...

Yes, absolutely.

Do what they did what happened with the final fantasy 14 studio, and clean house.

Completely reboot ME3. (leave Tuchanka/Rannoch though, they were alright )

<_<

NO.

[Ghost]

Savber100 wrote...

marshalleck wrote...

magneticpolarshift wrote...

I'd give them time, no one is perfect.

Dragon Age 2. Star Wars: The Old Republic. Mass Effect 3. How much more time do they need? 

They're not showing any signs of improvement. They're getting worse.

Dragon Age 2 was the result of retarded management on EA's part with a development time of barely two years. No developer would have been able to produce a capable RPG with that time. 

The Old Republic was pure Bioware in terms of everything. The story, the writing, and the game were good. But the failing was lack of innovation in mechanics and a terrible subscription model hence why I believe will look a little more kindly to TOR when it goes F2P. Come on... getting KOTOR with 6 unique class stories for the price of free? I can't say it's too shabby. 

Mass Effect 3 was a solid game marred by the biggest Bioware flaw which is switching up the formula and butchering the ending. Other than that, the production value was top-notch compared to previous Bioware games.

Dragon Age 3 will be interesting in seeing just how Bioware will react to past 18 months which has been quite tumultous for them. 

This.

[Grizzly46]

Savber100 wrote...
Dragon Age 3 will be interesting in seeing just how Bioware will react to past 18 months which has been quite tumultous for them. 

Have they really bothered? Sure, they threw out that EC after a storm of protests, but I think that could be seen as something that was indeed supposed to be there but was cut from the initial installment. Besides, I do think that it is as some here say, that Bioware doesn't exist any longer apart as a brand name, with EA pulling the strings. 

Actually, came to think of it: BEAware does react to fan reactions between games, but in the wrong way - they took away the mako because people complained - but not about the mako but because the mako missions were tedious for example. The listen, but never ask 'why'.  

[Loerwyn]

Jayce F wrote...
The days of Bioware being it's own boss are over

BioWare have rarely been their own boss. They were working alongside Black Isle and Interplay for Baldur's Gate and its related games, they were with Atari for NWN (so that's at least three games, four expansions, etc. where they've been subject to licensing), KotOR was under LucasArts so they had little wiggle room there, not sure if 2K had any impact on BioWare for Jade Empire, Mass Effect 1 was under MGS and then EA... I think only their earliest games may have actually been BioWare "as their own bosses".

[Snypy]

marshalleck wrote...

Dragon Age 2. Star Wars: The Old Republic. Mass Effect 3. How much more time do they need? 

They're not showing any signs of improvement. They're getting worse.

 
I guess what BioWare managed to pull off in a little over two years is nothing short of amazing, except for the ending. The two-year-long development cycle isn't really suitable for high quality RPGs. Hopefully EA will finally realize it. (It's wishful thinking, I know.)

[Loerwyn]

2 years is plenty of time if BioWare stop constantly overhauling things for no reason.

[Snypy]

OnlyShallow89 wrote...

2 years is plenty of time if BioWare stop constantly overhauling things for no reason.

Two years isn't really enough time to develop a complex game with interesting story, especially if the game is supposed to meaningfully reflect decisions from previous games.

[Loerwyn]

I don't know, I think if BioWare reigned themselves in more and stopped overhauling everything every two minutes, two years for teams like the size of Edmonton/Montreal is a huge amount of manhours. Reusing/improving assets would save lots of time, allowing them to focus on implementation and expansion rather than wasting chunks of the development period redesigning, testing and so on.

[l7986]

Cant wait for the cluster**** that is going to be DA3 multiplayer.

[Terror_K]

BioWare's problem is that they don't want to make proper RPGs any more and don't care about staying true to their own source material. They just want to follow the same trends and pander to the same audiences as every other developer these days. They don't want to make RPGs, they just want to make story-driven action games, and they'll gut and butcher existing IPs in order to do it.

All of BioWare's recent titles suffer from the same basic issues: being dumbed-down and mainstreamlined, with too little time given to make the titles and too little care given to the areas that really matter in favour of elements that are more there for the sake of broadening appeal than they are because it suits the game.

They've just lost their ways, and there's no indication at all they're even acknowledging their main issues, let alone making steps to fix them. Dragon Age 3 will be just another bastardised hybrid title that ends up pleasing nobody that BioWare will claim is a strong RPG, but it won't be. Future Mass Effect titles will likely just become more and more like Gears and CoD. It seems each game they bring out needlessly sacrifices player agency, customisation and roleplaying as a whole on the altar of the mainstream gamers who find them too complex or talky or what-have-you.

[Loerwyn]

And yet if you object to BioWare's methods so much, why are you still buying them? All you're doing that way is validating what they've done.