134 réponses à ce sujet

[djspectre]

www.pcgamer.com/2012/12/05/ex-madden-developer-speaks-out-against-ea-creativity-is-stiffed-by-corporate-culture/


This article sorta confirms what a lot of us here at  BSN had long thought: that EA rushes franchises in developement. 

I've long held that ME3 was a result of the "Madden Mentality" where the company is used to pushing out games on a regular time table instead of letting the creative juices flow and let games be "finished when they are finished" much the way Blizzard did with the initial release of StarCraft 2: Wings of Liberty. This caused the total content, quality of content and bug-testing thoroughness to be shortened, ultimately giving us a half-baked game. 

It's sad to know that EA likely had a hand in how BioWare handled ME3 and it's rushed schedule and expectations. 

After reading this, I wonder if they launched in March 2012 simply to avoid competition with Borderlands 2, Black Ops 2 and other games. Because if the game had been given another 6 months of dev time....holiday 2012 is about when it would have hit the shelves. 

*NOTE* ME3 is specifically mentioned in the article also. 

Modifié par djspectre, 06 décembre 2012 - 02:49 .

[spirosz]

If ME3 had another 6 months or even a year, it would of been a beauty.

[spirosz]

But alas, this mentality isn't exclusive to the gaming industry.

[Tyrannus00]

ME3 totally could have hung with anything put out alongside it. I won't pretend to work in that business, but I will say I got no clue what EA is doing.

[xAmilli0n]

This isn't really news.  This is just how most big game developers work now.  A shame really.

spirosz wrote...

If ME3 had another 6 months or even a year, it would of been a beauty.

I would hope anyways.

[Tymathee]

nothing new for the industry, dont demonize ea or bioware for doing something everyone else is doing.

[Steelcan]

Is anyone really shocked by this?

[JeffZero]

The article's ME3 mention is a positive one, heh.

[djspectre]

xAmilli0n wrote...

This isn't really news.  This is just how most big game developers work now.  A shame really.

spirosz wrote...

If ME3 had another 6 months or even a year, it would of been a beauty.

I would hope anyways.

It would most certainly have. The other two games took about 3-4 years each to make ME1 was released in 2007, ME2 was released in 2010, ME3 released in Q1 2012. 

The Dev cycles got shorter, the more popular the games got. 

If it had been given the time ME2 was given, it would have been glorious. 

[djspectre]

JeffZero wrote...

The article's ME3 mention is a positive one, heh.

It is but thats because its the only other successful franchise EA released this year. 

Also, it does mention that the Multiplayer unnecessarily integrates into the single player....which the point was that it was a feature that wasn't needed. The dev also complained that features were being put into games that didn't belong there. The ME3 reference was speaking of it on those terms.

[djspectre]

J. Reezy wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

Is anyone really shocked by this?

Lol, I said "out?" when I saw the title too. I assumed this was common knowledge.

It was ASSUMED by Mass Effect fans, but this gives actual traction that our assumptions were true. 

[felipejiraya]

Really, this sn't news.

I don't know any major industry on any segment of economy that doesn't operate like this.

Modifié par felipejiraya, 06 décembre 2012 - 02:56 .

[Necrotron]

It was a great game sans the ending, and since the ending probably wouldn't have changed anyways, I doubt it would have been any different.

[Maxster_]

spirosz wrote...

If ME3 had another 6 months or even a year, it would of been a beauty.

Sure. More
You saying that garbage intro, multiplayer shoehorned into singleplayer, Crucible, Cerberus Empire, and other crappy writing and bad design decisions just vanish in 6 months?
That's just wishful thinking. 

[djspectre]

Tymathee wrote...

nothing new for the industry, dont demonize ea or bioware for doing something everyone else is doing.

I'm not mad at Bioware, I'm irritated at EA. 

All of the Call of Duty games (which the exec's kept referring the devs at EA to) are all clones with none of them having anything fundamentally unique about them. Every few CoD games will have something refreshing.....just like the Madden games will. 

You shouldn't publish 2-3 "interim" games before you allow your creative team to make the series memorable and the 'must-have' the release year. 

[Binary_Helix 1]

spirosz wrote...

But alas, this mentality isn't exclusive to the gaming industry.

However it does have the strongest impact here vs anywhere else due to lack of awareness. EA is in the business of fast food. Bioware is in the business of gourmet food. Different markets for different consumers. What works for one won't work for the other. Video games aren't viewed like that. Instead they're lumped in as all the same. EA is just the worst offender.

Modifié par Binary_Helix 1, 06 décembre 2012 - 03:00 .

[JeffZero]

djspectre wrote...

xAmilli0n wrote...

This isn't really news.  This is just how most big game developers work now.  A shame really.

spirosz wrote...

If ME3 had another 6 months or even a year, it would of been a beauty.

I would hope anyways.

It would most certainly have. The other two games took about 3-4 years each to make ME1 was released in 2007, ME2 was released in 2010, ME3 released in Q1 2012. 

The Dev cycles got shorter, the more popular the games got. 

If it had been given the time ME2 was given, it would have been glorious. 

November 2007 --> January 2010 = 26 months

January 2010 --> March 2012 = 26 months

[Doctoglethorpe]

Every time I see articles like this, my resposne is just "Duh?"


I assume its obvious... but people sure do act like its news every time it pops up. 

[Mcfly616]

Umm though I agree with this guys outburst, the ME3 comment was a positive note. Not a negative one.

[xAmilli0n]

JeffZero wrote...

djspectre wrote...

xAmilli0n wrote...

This isn't really news.  This is just how most big game developers work now.  A shame really.

spirosz wrote...

If ME3 had another 6 months or even a year, it would of been a beauty.

I would hope anyways.

It would most certainly have. The other two games took about 3-4 years each to make ME1 was released in 2007, ME2 was released in 2010, ME3 released in Q1 2012. 

The Dev cycles got shorter, the more popular the games got. 

If it had been given the time ME2 was given, it would have been glorious. 

November 2007 --> January 2010 = 26 months

January 2010 --> March 2012 = 26 months

This is kind of what I was getting at.  They gave themselves the same amoun of time as ME2 (once you take into account delays).  If they had an extra year before they started pushing back the release date, then sure there might have been fundamental changes.  But a few months is not enough to revamp an entire game.

[noobcannon]

gotta boost those quarterly statements bro

[Binary_Helix 1]

JeffZero wrote...


November 2007 --> January 2010 = 26 months

January 2010 --> March 2012 = 26 months

They were originally aiming for a holiday 2011 release. Also Bioware's workload increased tenfold during that same period which your figures don't show. ME3 was basically being developed alongside ME2's DLC. ME3 also had more import checks and variables so logically it would need more time than the first two games to fully blossom. For what it was it needed more work.

Modifié par Binary_Helix 1, 06 décembre 2012 - 03:19 .

[WhiteKnyght]

Nothing in ME3 felt rushed.