66 réponses à ce sujet

[Catroi]

Erixxxx wrote...

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

[Nykara]

Yes. I seriously think Bioware games have gone downhill since EA took hold of the leash. SWTOR and the stories in that game don't even come close to the stories in KOTOR and Mass Effect 1/2. Lets not even talk about the Mass Effect 3 endings.

I also think Multi-player had a lot to do with it as well. Every game has a budget, factor in multiplay to ME3's budget and there goes a big chunk of what could and should have gone in to making the actual story and allowing more lines of dialogue in to the game. Not only that it took up disc space as well. ME3 was slotted on to 2 discs when it could easily have done with another disc worth of game play and story or at the very least had the space taken up for multiplay dedicated to more story and missions.

So not only was it rushed as per EA style, it was also gimped on budget because of Multiplay ever going in to it. They should have left well enough alone as a single player it was doing awesome.

[Armass81]

I think its pretty obvious, that after EA bought Bioware they have done almost unrepairable damage to its reputation and game quality. Like it or not, signs were seen even before DA2, in ME2.

Modifié par Armass81, 13 novembre 2012 - 12:26 .

[GoldenPersona]

Mass Effect 2 was a great game, and I thoroughly enjoyed Dragon Age 2 for what it was. I can't say they went downhill just because of EA, but they certainly lost a lot of the fanbase's respect. It's a shame that a publisher is capable of giving a studio a much larger budget to produce a game, but they feel the need to balance it out by rushing the developer. I think it's clear why the founders of Bioware left.

[jkflipflopDAO]

All the employees of Bioware should walk out and start a new company. We'll give you all the money you need on kickstarter. You'll be free of EA's claws and can make good games that we love again.

Please?

[clarkusdarkus]

they'll get me back as a must buy customer if they implement EA's gameface into ME4..

[skate4tacos96]

Yeah, I noticed. It's actuall funny how EA chose to do this with the game about giant monsters that harvest other things to "improve" them.

[MassEffect23]

Since Mysuka or however say his name left is slave to the rEAper masters hudsontaking over his position i feel small cover up taking place as to why he left

[CptBomBom00]

One has to wonder how would this series look like if BioWare was still with Microsoft.

[FlamingBoy]

I have to agree while I personally thought me2 was fantastic it did have some really worrying trends that came to fruition in me3

[AllergevKev]

daecath wrote...

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

You can debate EA's business practices all you want, but your points about the game's development aren't really valid.
Sure, Mass Effect 1 was "in development" for 3 years, but only if you include the fact that the construction of the entire game's universe and mythology occurred during this time as well. Not to mention the various technical issues and lack of polish that plagued ME 1 (still a great game). Also, more DLC's may have been made when ME2 came out along with other additions to the workload, but you fail to mention how Bioware was expanding during the development of each of the games. They did more because they had more resources. This applies to your ME3 points as well. Also, the BW team wasn't switching between ME2 DLCs and ME3 development, they had separate teams doing each part. All this along with that fact that with each subsequent release, the amount of polish inreased exponentially.
Not trying to debate each game's quality, just making a point.

[Mathias]

daecath wrote...

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

That and it's worth noting that around 25% of the writers/devs that worked on ME1 were not involved in ME3.

[MegaSovereign]

Actually ME2 and ME3 look and feel like they had a higher budget put into them so if anything I don't think EA is the direct source of all the problems you may have.

EA probably forced all the day one DLC crap, though. At least they'll have the awesome Frostbite 2 to work with for future ME games.

Modifié par MegaSovereign, 14 novembre 2012 - 01:11 .

[Mathias]

MegaSovereign wrote...

Actually ME2 and ME3 look and feel like they had a higher budget put into them so if anything I don't think EA is the direct source of all the problems you may have.

They may have had a higher budget, but they also had ridiculous deadlines.

[MegaSovereign]

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

Actually ME2 and ME3 look and feel like they had a higher budget put into them so if anything I don't think EA is the direct source of all the problems you may have.

They may have had a higher budget, but they also had ridiculous deadlines.

A standard 2 year deadline isn't that ridiculous.

Do not get me wrong though; ME3 could and should have used a couple more months of development

Modifié par MegaSovereign, 14 novembre 2012 - 01:13 .

[The Spamming Troll]

im embarassed for mass effect.

how does offering more time mean the games gonig to be better? i dont think EAs deadline was the problem. bioware even got an extension, but how much of the game was even changed? the ending was still awfull, hell the ending is still awfull with their third extension, the EC.

at what point in development does one say "maybe we should cut out that catalyst part." how long of an extension would they need to have someone say that at a meeting? bunch of fools at bioware if you ask me.

Modifié par The Spamming Troll, 14 novembre 2012 - 01:18 .

[DirtySHISN0]

MegaSovereign wrote...

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

Actually ME2 and ME3 look and feel like they had a higher budget put into them so if anything I don't think EA is the direct source of all the problems you may have.

They may have had a higher budget, but they also had ridiculous deadlines.

A standard 2 year deadline isn't that ridiculous.

Do not get me wrong though; ME3 could and should have used a couple more months of development

EA did bring positives as well as negatives. Just not as many.

[Mathias]

MegaSovereign wrote...

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

Actually ME2 and ME3 look and feel like they had a higher budget put into them so if anything I don't think EA is the direct source of all the problems you may have.

They may have had a higher budget, but they also had ridiculous deadlines.

A standard 2 year deadline isn't that ridiculous.

Do not get me wrong though; ME3 could and should have used a couple more months of development

It's ridiculous considering what ME3 was. The game needed at least 3 years of development to reach it's full potential.

[GreyLycanTrope]

I would disagree, all EA was in charge of was a budget and a deadline. Whether deadlines are to blame is debatable. Though I think it should also be noted that ME3 did get a 6 month extension. ME3 was still enjoyable overall despite the many drawbacks, the changes that didn't work, and the ending that fell short was a result of decisions made by the production team at Bioware which had to decide how to best spend it's time and resources.

[Killdren88]

Just look at their History, deves that fall into EA's lap crumble. They are a parasite they suck out everything that was good and decent about the company and toss the husk away after they no longer get nourishment from it.It been their practice for sometime now. And unless something happens that causes them to change their evil ways, they will continue as such. Valve is the only one to my knowledge that sees this, and turned EA away after they shown interest in Valve. I applaud Gabe for turning them away. Part of me likes to think that When Valve releases HL 3 it will so successful they will be able to buy EA. Of course that is unlikely, But one can dream. If Valve had control over the studios under EA think of the good that comes from it. Valve allows plenty of time for games to develop. If you want something done right you do not rush it. Valve has shown that.

[Da_old_Boss]

It's not just you, we all know it.

[EnvyTB075]

Greylycantrope wrote...

I would disagree, all EA was in charge of was a budget and a deadline. Whether deadlines are to blame is debatable. Though I think it should also be noted that ME3 did get a 6 month extension. ME3 was still enjoyable overall despite the many drawbacks, the changes that didn't work, and the ending that fell short was a result of decisions made by the production team at Bioware which had to decide how to best spend it's time and resources.

ME3 wasn't supposed to be "enjoyable overall", this was supposed to be the end of a widely lauded trilogy. You don't simply make a game like that merely "enjoyable with a number of drawbacks", you make it the best damned game ever.

Yet as it stands, ME3's potential is a skyscraper compared to the townhouse that is the actual game. It needed another year.

[thehomeworld]

No the downhill momentum started not because of the reapers but because of ME2 the gang of 12 the no progression in doing anything constructive in preparing, researching, and planning for the reaper invasion but instead we have to get 12 people half of which make no military sense at all and are clearly there for the edgy/sexy/we're cool appeal and we fight off the reaper lackeys which in the end give us nothing concrete about the reapers weaknesses or plans we just get to go FU TIM or I'm running the show now TIM!

Then ME3 had to makeup for all that faffing about. Then some guy leaked half the script on ME3 w/o giving much in the way of context as to why what was there was there and then BW panicked and we got starkid.

[GreyLycanTrope]

EnvyTB075 wrote...
ME3 wasn't supposed to be "enjoyable overall", this was supposed to be the end of a widely lauded trilogy. You don't simply make a game like that merely "enjoyable with a number of drawbacks", you make it the best damned game ever.

Yet as it stands, ME3's potential is a skyscraper compared to the townhouse that is the actual game. It needed another year.

Enjoyable with drawbacks was how i would describe both of the first two games. The word enjoyable understates what I mean a bit. This is still my favorite game series after all but each game had something that was a bit annoying about it. Whether it was the mako's controls and clunky combat in ME1, or the imense about of wall hugging, planet probing and RPG element reduction of ME2. ME3 had fetch quests and auto dialogue. Some of our earlier decision like the rachni ended up not meaning much. Those are my major gripes, but for me they are also forgivable because I understand that resources aren't infinite and there are some constraints in development interms of what you want to do and what you can actually do.

I will draw the line at delibrate so in conclusion I wasn't fond of the fetch quests and auto dialogue but was willing to over look because I can curb my expectations somewhat. Yes there was more potential but it was nothing that couldn't have been added later through DLC. I do draw the line at certain story elements and conclusion of the series, this wasn't due to budget limitations but by the seeming direction and writing was taking. Thane and Jacob got shafted. Legion became almost unregonizable in terms of his own perspective. Cerberus was a joke, Kia Leng was the butt of that joke, and the Catalyst killed replay value and enthusiasm in the span of about 5 minutes. These are unforgivable as far as I'm concern...they're also a result of choices made by Hudson and Walters not EA. My figer pointing begins and ends with them.

Modifié par Greylycantrope, 14 novembre 2012 - 01:58 .

[Andrew Waples]

daecath wrote...

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

dude that is EVERY publisher/devleper's goal is to make a profit. they try to come up with the best storyline, best gameplay, best this and that and they all try to equal to make a profit. Don't make EA the scapgoat here because every major publisher/developer does this. This goes for most other forms of media as well.

Modifié par eaglefan129, 14 novembre 2012 - 02:08 .