66 réponses à ce sujet

[MassEffect23]

 

[Restrider]

MassEffect23 wrote...

 

I agree...

[dorktainian]

noticed

[MassEffect23]

Sorry for my not having anything in it i was trying to do it on my phone

[daecath]

ME1: 3 years development
produced for 1 platform

ME2: 2 years development
Produced for 2 platforms
also during this time:
produced ME1 for 2nd platform
produced 2 DLC's for ME1

ME3: 2 years development
produced for 3 platforms
also during this time:
produced ME2 for 3rd (and vastly different) platform
produced 5 DLC's for ME2
produced parts of at least 2 DLC's for ME3
added multiplayer component to ME3.

The problem is that EA is doesn't care about anything except money. They rush out half-assed games in order to make a profit, they pull stupid marketing stunts to try and get more people interested, they shove multiplayer into every game so that they can get more people to buy, and so they can include microtransactions to nickel-&-dime us to death. They're run by your typical greedy corporate SOB who wouldn't know an X-Box from the cardboard box he makes his butler sleep in. His entire gaming industry history is at EA. He ran the company during their illustrious time when people were working mandatory 100 hour work weeks with no overtime during regular development cycles. He should go back to making snack cakes and cola. http://en.wikipedia....ohn_Riccitiello

[MassEffect23]

Well that is a good point but i wanted to talk specifically bout the games themsleves

[MassEffect23]

Oh and i like meme

[daecath]

MassEffect23 wrote...

Well that is a good point but i wanted to talk specifically bout the games themsleves

You asked if it started to go down, I explained why you might have that perception.

To be fair, I think that ME2 was a great game. In many ways, better than the first. And in a few ways, 3 was better than either of the two. Which is what really pisses me off, because imagine if they had the time and resources to really go all out with 2 and 3. 2 should have been much better than 1, and 3 should have been much better than 2. Instead, 2 was significantly more scaled down than 1, but what they did they did well. And 3 was just a mess. A few really excelent pieces in a pile of s**t that only serves to show just how much potential it had, and how bad it was by comparison.

[EnvyTB075]

ME1 was released in 2007, ME2 in 2010 so they had at least 3 years. Going by what they're doing with ME4, i'd say ME3 was given less than 2 years.

The trends are definitely there. Look at BF3, first news appeared in 2011, game was released the next year. Upon release it had numerous bugs that were still there up until this year despite constant pressure from the BF community to fix their game (not to mention mod tools). Then Warfighter was given most likely less than 2 years.

Course theres no way of proving anything other than by the final product. ME3 was far less polished than ME2, and the same is true for sequels of other series; in EA's wings.

[MassEffect23]

You know what they say a polished turd is turd but yesthat is the overal feel i think many people have not just us but i think they really just **** itleys make moneybut that probably not the case

[Nightwriter]

"Branded onto the series"?

[EnvyTB075]

Nightwriter wrote...

"Branded onto the series"?

Stuck their name on everything related without actually adding of value to the series, detracting rather.

[daecath]

EnvyTB075 wrote...

ME1 was released in 2007, ME2 in 2010 so they had at least 3 years. Going by what they're doing with ME4, i'd say ME3 was given less than 2 years.

The trends are definitely there. Look at BF3, first news appeared in 2011, game was released the next year. Upon release it had numerous bugs that were still there up until this year despite constant pressure from the BF community to fix their game (not to mention mod tools). Then Warfighter was given most likely less than 2 years.

Course theres no way of proving anything other than by the final product. ME3 was far less polished than ME2, and the same is true for sequels of other series; in EA's wings.

ME1 was released late 2007, and ME2 was in early 2010, so at best, 2 1/2 years. And absolutely, I think ME3 had less than 2 years, but I was going by release dates.

[Ranger Jack Walker]

The Mass Effect franchise started going downhill when Bioware released Mass Effect back in 2007. It's never been the same. Admit it. The franchise was better back when it didn't even exist yet.

[Baihu1983]

I thought 3 had 1.5 years devs time? But yes 1 was the better game on the whole for me and the shift in direction was a bad choice.

[Catroi]

[MassEffect23]

Speaking of which I like how the showed an expanded galaxy in 2 but the great feeling in playing is no longer present in the rest of the series also I've noticed that the second item in a series is usually crap in the sence that you could skip it and not have missed a thing(like not fighting a giant terminator)

[DirtySHISN0]

Before playing ME2


"Huh EA logo, that wasn't on the previous one. I'll give it a chance."
Meet miranda for the first time.
"figures."

[Catroi]

What is soon going to happen:

[CptBomBom00]

Damn, I wonder if there will be a day when E.A. either gets bought by someone or they go bankrupt.

[Catroi]

Well they are in the red right now and said they will concentrate on social games from now on, so they're pretty much dead already

[Coreniro]

Ranger Jack Walker wrote...

The Mass Effect franchise started going downhill when Bioware released Mass Effect back in 2007. It's never been the same. Admit it. The franchise was better back when it didn't even exist yet.

Definitely

[Erixxxx]

I'm pretty sure I had the EA logo on my ME1.

[Liamv2]

Me4 is to run on frost bite i think that ea buying dice will help ME4 perhaps