134 réponses à ce sujet

[djspectre]

xAmilli0n wrote...

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.

In those cases, they were making a single player only game.....in ME3 they made multiplayer and had to build all the backend server infrastructure that keeps track of all of it. 

That isn't something you can just place next to a comprehensive single player and expect it not to take additional time. 

[Maxster_]

The Grey Nayr wrote...

Nothing in ME3 felt rushed.

Exactly.
It was just plain horrible writing and bad design decisions. I'm glad you agree

[GreyLycanTrope]

Mcfly616 wrote...

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

Don't know, integrating MP with the main campign always struck me as a fault.

[JeffZero]

djspectre wrote...

xAmilli0n wrote...

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.

In those cases, they were making a single player only game.....in ME3 they made multiplayer and had to build all the backend server infrastructure that keeps track of all of it. 

That isn't something you can just place next to a comprehensive single player and expect it not to take additional time. 

They had a completely separate studio working on MP.

[xAmilli0n]

djspectre wrote...

In those cases, they were making a single player only game.....in ME3 they made multiplayer and had to build all the backend server infrastructure that keeps track of all of it. 

That isn't something you can just place next to a comprehensive single player and expect it not to take additional time. 

Sure.  But BW claimed they had a seperate team working on that, in that it wasn't affecting the development of SP.  Whether you believe them or not is another issuse.

EDIT: :ph34r:ed by Jeff Zero

I'm not saying more time wouldn't help, I'm saying they needed at least a year to make any subtantial difference.

Modifié par xAmilli0n, 06 décembre 2012 - 03:13 .

[Binary_Helix 1]

JeffZero wrote...


They had a completely separate studio working on MP.

It's still a distraction. It's hard to believe MP didn't influence the SP either. Rolls, fast action, unlimited sprint, feel tacked on.

Modifié par Binary_Helix 1, 06 décembre 2012 - 03:15 .

[OdanUrr]

djspectre wrote...

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

I keep reading posts from people stating that ME3 was rushed by EA to meet some arbitrary deadline, but is it really so? The development of a game is a project. Before a project of such magnitude is given the green light, a schedule and budget must be proposed and agreed upon. ME3 was supposed to be released in November 2011 if memory serves, but it was delayed to March 2012, suggesting it went over-schedule and probably over-budget as well.

Perhaps you believe the schedule agreed upon was too short? While it's quite possible that EA might've pushed for an earlier release, Bioware, as the developer, should've been aware of which deadlines it could meet and which it could not. As such, they also share some of the burden if they committed to a schedule they knew they could not meet.

Of course, maybe both Bioware and EA are quite content with the finished product, in which case their schedule would've been appropriate for their intended goals and it's only us who believe they were rushed or pressured for an earlier release.

Modifié par OdanUrr, 06 décembre 2012 - 03:23 .

[MegaSovereign]

JeffZero wrote...

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

Lol...Way to mislead OP.

EDIT:

The addition of MP was obviously something EA pushed for. The thing is though, as "evil" as EA is, ME3 MP is pretty damn good.

Modifié par MegaSovereign, 06 décembre 2012 - 03:24 .

[Mcfly616]

Greylycantrope wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...

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

Don't know, integrating MP with the main campign always struck me as a fault.

indeed it is. But that was a creative decision. Not one based on development time. The point the article makes pertaining to ME3, was that it was assumed that multiplayer was getting tacked on but it actually turned out to be pretty deep and entertaining.

[LanceSolous13]

spirosz wrote...

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

I would give it another 2 years considering there isn't THAT much I think is salvagable from the current version of the game.

[shepskisaac]

Spot on. Confirmrs pretty much everything we've been hearing about EA for the past few years. Not a bad company to its employees at all, however, EA simply treats its game studios as factory lines. Pure business with little care for the artistic aspect.

Take Square-Enix for example. You can say alooooooooot about their recent outings (particulary from the Japanese studios), but you can hardly say though that SE management treats their dev studios as factory lines. They give them too much freedom actually which results in Versus XIII being in never ending developement hell. But still, SE management cares about the artistic aspect of the games the company releases. EA seems purely about profit, blindly following trends etc.

MegaSovereign wrote...

The addition of MP was obviously something EA pushed for. The thing is though, as "evil" as EA is, ME3 MP is pretty damn good.

It is, but it's hardly a reason to give a thumb up to EA's general approach of running a game factory rather than Electronic Arts.

Modifié par IsaacShep, 06 décembre 2012 - 03:30 .

[StarcloudSWG]

Yes, ME3 was pushed to meet a deadline. The fiscal year and annual profit report for EA happens at the end of march/beginning of april. EA lives off of investors investing in their stock. ME 3 *had* to come out before then in order for ME 3 income to register in the 2011-2012 financial report.

[MegaSovereign]

It's because EA is trying to compete with Activision. They saw how much money their annual COD franchise racks in every year and EA wants a piece of that action.

[Mcfly616]

IsaacShep wrote...

Spot on. Confirmrs pretty much everything we've been hearing about EA for the past few years. Not a bad company to its employees at all, however, EA simply treats its game studios as factory lines. Pure business with little care for the artistic aspect.

Take Square-Enix for example. You can say alooooooooot about their recent outings (particulary from the Japanese studios), but you can hardly say though that SE management treats their dev studios as factory lines. They give them too much freedom actually which results in Versus XIII being in never ending developement hell. But still, SE management cares about the artistic aspect of the games the company releases. EA seems purely about profit, blindly following trends etc.

EA's far from the only publisher that operates this way....

[Mcfly616]

If anything, the guy in the article blames CoD for spearheading this culture and business practices with the industry. Activision being EA's main rival, undoubtedly effected the way they do things now, in order to compete.

[GreyLycanTrope]

Mcfly616 wrote...
indeed it is. But that was a creative decision. Not one based on development time. The point the article makes pertaining to ME3, was that it was assumed that multiplayer was getting tacked on but it actually turned out to be pretty deep and entertaining.

Yes and no. The MP isn't bad in fact it turned out rather well which was fortunate since it's still very tacted on. Remember when we had to play it to get the breathe scene? Statements by Preistly and members of the production team indicate this wasn't an oversight but done deliberately, decision made by some of the higher ups. Granted this has since been addressed but shady is still shady.

[Ithurael]

Mcfly616 wrote...

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

The positive note about ME3 was about the Multiplayer component...not the single player one.

You know....the one that has a thread created every 6 hours to bash on the ending or believe it was all a dream



Asari...u so silly

[Mcfly616]

MegaSovereign wrote...

It's because EA is trying to compete with Activision. They saw how much money their annual COD franchise racks in every year and EA wants a piece of that action.

damn it.....you beat me to it. But definitely: This^^^

Activisions business practices have brought the whole industry down.

[MegaSovereign]

Capitalism is a double-sided sword. High-budget entertainment projects like Mass Effect would only be possible through the free enterprise system but every major player in the industry needs to worry more about profit in order to survive.

So really, there is no point in condemning one publisher for doing something like this when pretty much every big publisher does it.

Hell, not even Activision can be blamed. If they didn't fullfill the role they play, some other publisher would have taken their place.

Modifié par MegaSovereign, 06 décembre 2012 - 03:37 .

[Mcfly616]

Ithurael wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...

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

The positive note about ME3 was about the Multiplayer component...not the single player one.

You know....the one that has a thread created every 6 hours to bash on the ending or believe it was all a dream



Asari...u so silly

6 hours? That's a big stretch. Nearly every thread turns into a "I hate the ending" or "Ending" thread, no matter what the topic it begins as.

Also, you're right. They were talking solely about MP. So why even bring up SP?

Silly Volus

[djspectre]

Mcfly616 wrote...

If anything, the guy in the article blames CoD for spearheading this culture and business practices with the industry. Activision being EA's main rival, undoubtedly effected the way they do things now, in order to compete.

EA was doing the annual Madden game thing since at least 1991, well before FPS games were even available on consoles. 

It's safe to say that EA invented the annual game creation model. 

[4stringwizard]

djspectre wrote...

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. 

Who cares about competition?  The ME franchise had a rabidly devoted fan base - they would have bought the game anyway!!  This isn't like CoD where the fans will just buy a better shooter if another one comes out. 

They should have known better. 

Modifié par 4stringwizard, 06 décembre 2012 - 03:38 .

[shepskisaac]

Mcfly616 wrote...

EA's far from the only publisher that operates this way....

Of course. But that doesn't mean it's ok. And we DO have publishers who opperate differently - Vale, Square-Enix (to a degree), CDP, even Warner Bros' Games (which seems very smart about building their game brand), Take-Two (Rockstar Games, Bioshock, Borderlands)

[FlamingBoy]

shocking, kind of the feel me3 gave off anyway