Stop begging the question. We'll never know if it was rushed, but clearly the people working at Bioware loved their work in the franchise (I just watched PAX). It only took them 2 years to make the game. Doesn't that already covey enough information (they did a MP too, so less SP dev)? It took them twice as much time for ME1 and 3 years for ME2.
Was ME3 Rushed?.
Débuté par
Pjclarke1978
, mars 25 2013 11:44
Retour en haut
#77
Posté 25 mars 2013 - 10:22
SNascimento
-
- Members
- 6 002 messages
I don't understand why people complain about ME3 lacking development time when they are ok with ME1 having the same problem.
#78
Posté 25 mars 2013 - 10:24
rymajn3
-
- Members
- 415 messages
Did you see the original endings?Modius Prime wrote...
Stop begging the question. We'll never know if it was rushed
Oh and the Journal says hi.
It's quite obvious it was rushed. Doesn't mean it wasn't a great game.
#79
Posté 25 mars 2013 - 10:34
IMNOTCRAZYiminsane
-
- Members
- 450 messages
Maybe? I don't feel is was rushed, DA2 yes, but ME3 not really the game developers have deadlines people you can't keep putting things on hold
And can we please stop blaming everything on EA I know they are an evil company (I believe every single business is evil, funny how I want to own one) but not everything is the publishers fault
And can we please stop blaming everything on EA I know they are an evil company (I believe every single business is evil, funny how I want to own one) but not everything is the publishers fault
#80
Posté 26 mars 2013 - 12:10
Tron Mega
-
- Members
- 709 messages
i dont understand why people are so quick to parley the faults of ME3 onto EA.
EA provided the money for voice actors, fricking hans zimmer or whatever his name is, much improved gmaeplay mechanics, multiplayer.
bioware provided a pile of **** story the contradicts everything that came before and ****s on everything to follow.
again, what did EA do wrong?
EA provided the money for voice actors, fricking hans zimmer or whatever his name is, much improved gmaeplay mechanics, multiplayer.
bioware provided a pile of **** story the contradicts everything that came before and ****s on everything to follow.
again, what did EA do wrong?
#81
Posté 26 mars 2013 - 12:11
Tron Mega
-
- Members
- 709 messages
rymajn3 wrote...
Oh and the Journal says hi.
right! how does a well established RPG developer forget how to make a functional journal????
seriosuly, was drew karpyshyn that important?
#82
Posté 26 mars 2013 - 12:12
Warden130
-
- Members
- 898 messages
Considering they did delay the original release date, I don't think it was rushed.
#83
Posté 26 mars 2013 - 07:04
SpamBot2000
-
- Members
- 4 463 messages
Of course it was rushed. You think they were begging for 6 months more dev time (only got 3) because they had ample time to finish the game? Please.
People blame EA, since they set the release date. But you gotta ask, what was the "lead writer" thinking when he was still messing with (sucky) ME2 DLC some 9 months before ME3 was supposed to be finished? Doesn't look like a very high standard for time management at BW.
People blame EA, since they set the release date. But you gotta ask, what was the "lead writer" thinking when he was still messing with (sucky) ME2 DLC some 9 months before ME3 was supposed to be finished? Doesn't look like a very high standard for time management at BW.
Modifié par SpamBot2000, 26 mars 2013 - 07:05 .
#84
Posté 26 mars 2013 - 07:18
zsom
-
- Members
- 333 messages
No, I don't think it was. But the problem is that some people don't really know what rushed means. They think rushed = it could have been better. And that's not a very accurate definition of it.
#85
Posté 26 mars 2013 - 07:18
wolfhowwl
-
- Members
- 3 727 messages
xassantex wrote...
the ending was rushed apparently ( /cynical ) , and there must have been a lot of quite frustrated writers and devs at BW. But such is business.
EA paid for it with their stocks plummeting. ( ME3 being only part of the reason why but a reason nonetheless) and CEO being booted out.. hopefully without bonus.
I enjoy ME3 but the SP could have been nothing short of fantastic IF there had been no MP to siphon resources away .
If multiplayer was not included would that money have gone to single player or just not been spent on ME3 at all?
#86
Posté 26 mars 2013 - 07:23
Aggie Punbot
-
- Members
- 2 736 messages
wolfhowwl wrote...
xassantex wrote...
the ending was rushed apparently ( /cynical ) , and there must have been a lot of quite frustrated writers and devs at BW. But such is business.
EA paid for it with their stocks plummeting. ( ME3 being only part of the reason why but a reason nonetheless) and CEO being booted out.. hopefully without bonus.
I enjoy ME3 but the SP could have been nothing short of fantastic IF there had been no MP to siphon resources away .
If multiplayer was not included would that money have gone to single player or just not been spent on ME3 at all?
Most likely it wouldn't have been spent at all.
#88
Posté 26 mars 2013 - 08:03
Kudas
-
- Members
- 13 messages
After replaying Mass Effect with the DLCs again. I feel that the overall arching structure of the franchise as a trilogy should have been better. Most plot elements and characters seem rather one-off or reintroduced hastily. The Crucible truly appeared out of no where and has to tie up all the plots from the first two games. Also I feel that as the 3rd entry in a trilogy, the game should have incorporated all the strengths from the previous entries: customization from ME1 and the mission + journal structure from ME2. I wish that the following features were included in ME3 and would have gladly waited for any extended period of development time (in fact that builds hype and anticipation for the game)
With regards to the mission structures (sidequests) in ME3, the fetch quests could have been like the assignments in the previous games. Going to the planets and instead of scanning, go down to it and fight through resistance (Reaper forces) and extract the war assets with your squad mates.
Once again I feel that the war assets are THE BIGGEST missed opportunity in the whole franchise. In terms of the story and gameplay I will explain how this can be incorporated into the game:
I think every player of ME3 would have wanted the war assets to play a part in the final battle. I feel that ME3 could easily have been the entry with the most gameplay hours. Your squad mates could been present from a narrative viewpoint as Wrex should be available as Eve can take charge of the Krogans after Truchanka, Miranda/Jacob/Jack/Zaeed etc after their respective missions and should have been present on Earth. The strategy aspect that war assets have could have been used in the means of liberating the systems that are occupied by Reapers. The game-play can be branched into strategy (simulation) and actual firefight that players can choose either. The former means you don't have to spend time in multi-player like matches to liberate the system but instead use your current war assets to simulate the battle against the Reapers in the planet (with strengths and uniqueness of the war assets taken into account), of course the losses will be less if you participate directly in the fight, this can allow the Multiplayer aspect to lead into Single Player as well, where you can choose your multi-player character to participate in the battle in the mission structure of multiplayer as well.
After liberating the planets, more war assets can be gathered to your cause all for the final battle on Earth. The suicide mission structure in ME2 should be expanded for Priority Earth. That is your war assets (Geths, Quarians, Turians, Asari, Humans, Mercenaries, Warships etc) can be allocated in both the Space battle and the ground fight in London. All your squad mates from ME2 and 3 should be available to lead the fire team/ diversion teams in London and making the final push. There the cinematic of your war assets in action and even branching results can play out and you can assist any fire team to prevent them from being overwhelmed and in turn help towards the final push to eliminate the Reapers.
I feel that the Crucible plot point should have been planned as an alternate path (like in the Witcher games) ie a worse scenario where you have not done enough in the previous 2 games to convince the Council and garner support for the war in ME3, hence the situations of loss are more plausible in ME3 and hence the 3 endings can be implemented, since there is simply not enough EMS to ensure a conventional victory over the reapers and choices/sacrifices had to be made.
Hence the narrative of ME3 has sort of started off on the wrong foot. It should not be established in the beginning of the game that the war cannot be won conventionally. If that is the case, then why the process of gathering every war asset from every race to fight, if the Crucible is the only option? This is also rather contradictory, as it has been mentioned by many characters in ME3 that never before has the entire galaxy unite to stop a common threat. That strength of unity and combined resources and efforts is never in the previous Prothean cycle and hence the cause of their defeat as stated by Javik during Priority Earth.
Hence a "best ending" should have been possible, especially when your choices and impacts from the last 2 games are brought into ME3. Since from the start of the franchise, the games encourage player participation and effort in the storyline and the outcomes. Everything that you have done should give you the opportunity of a conventional victory, Shepard gets to be alive and the war is won without compromising the peace you have achieved among the races (Geth and Quarian) where one has to die (Destroy vs Control/Synthesis). Then the Citadel DLC would have tied in nicely to serve as the focus on the characters emphasis theme of the DLC as the reaper threat is over and should have been the proper sendoff to the whole trilogy and cinematics can flesh out the lives of your squad mates and the races after the war then the Stargazer ending would not have been so jarring.
I understand that the above suggestions would require massive effort and definitely greater resources and development time. But the trilogy truly deserves more than what it is now. The ME franchise should have been the greatest of its generation, but as it is now, it will always be remembered as the greatest missed opportunity for all of us and the studio.
With regards to the mission structures (sidequests) in ME3, the fetch quests could have been like the assignments in the previous games. Going to the planets and instead of scanning, go down to it and fight through resistance (Reaper forces) and extract the war assets with your squad mates.
Once again I feel that the war assets are THE BIGGEST missed opportunity in the whole franchise. In terms of the story and gameplay I will explain how this can be incorporated into the game:
I think every player of ME3 would have wanted the war assets to play a part in the final battle. I feel that ME3 could easily have been the entry with the most gameplay hours. Your squad mates could been present from a narrative viewpoint as Wrex should be available as Eve can take charge of the Krogans after Truchanka, Miranda/Jacob/Jack/Zaeed etc after their respective missions and should have been present on Earth. The strategy aspect that war assets have could have been used in the means of liberating the systems that are occupied by Reapers. The game-play can be branched into strategy (simulation) and actual firefight that players can choose either. The former means you don't have to spend time in multi-player like matches to liberate the system but instead use your current war assets to simulate the battle against the Reapers in the planet (with strengths and uniqueness of the war assets taken into account), of course the losses will be less if you participate directly in the fight, this can allow the Multiplayer aspect to lead into Single Player as well, where you can choose your multi-player character to participate in the battle in the mission structure of multiplayer as well.
After liberating the planets, more war assets can be gathered to your cause all for the final battle on Earth. The suicide mission structure in ME2 should be expanded for Priority Earth. That is your war assets (Geths, Quarians, Turians, Asari, Humans, Mercenaries, Warships etc) can be allocated in both the Space battle and the ground fight in London. All your squad mates from ME2 and 3 should be available to lead the fire team/ diversion teams in London and making the final push. There the cinematic of your war assets in action and even branching results can play out and you can assist any fire team to prevent them from being overwhelmed and in turn help towards the final push to eliminate the Reapers.
I feel that the Crucible plot point should have been planned as an alternate path (like in the Witcher games) ie a worse scenario where you have not done enough in the previous 2 games to convince the Council and garner support for the war in ME3, hence the situations of loss are more plausible in ME3 and hence the 3 endings can be implemented, since there is simply not enough EMS to ensure a conventional victory over the reapers and choices/sacrifices had to be made.
Hence the narrative of ME3 has sort of started off on the wrong foot. It should not be established in the beginning of the game that the war cannot be won conventionally. If that is the case, then why the process of gathering every war asset from every race to fight, if the Crucible is the only option? This is also rather contradictory, as it has been mentioned by many characters in ME3 that never before has the entire galaxy unite to stop a common threat. That strength of unity and combined resources and efforts is never in the previous Prothean cycle and hence the cause of their defeat as stated by Javik during Priority Earth.
Hence a "best ending" should have been possible, especially when your choices and impacts from the last 2 games are brought into ME3. Since from the start of the franchise, the games encourage player participation and effort in the storyline and the outcomes. Everything that you have done should give you the opportunity of a conventional victory, Shepard gets to be alive and the war is won without compromising the peace you have achieved among the races (Geth and Quarian) where one has to die (Destroy vs Control/Synthesis). Then the Citadel DLC would have tied in nicely to serve as the focus on the characters emphasis theme of the DLC as the reaper threat is over and should have been the proper sendoff to the whole trilogy and cinematics can flesh out the lives of your squad mates and the races after the war then the Stargazer ending would not have been so jarring.
I understand that the above suggestions would require massive effort and definitely greater resources and development time. But the trilogy truly deserves more than what it is now. The ME franchise should have been the greatest of its generation, but as it is now, it will always be remembered as the greatest missed opportunity for all of us and the studio.
#89
Posté 26 mars 2013 - 09:18
Offender_Mullet
-
- Members
- 687 messages
From what I remember - ME3 was announced in December 2010 (they probably started to develop it earlier?) to be released in Fall 2011 a.k.a. the holiday shopping season.Pjclarke1978 wrote...
But the whole game seemed rushed?
Im Guessing EA., But think the game could of used another years dev time.
Then, it was announced sometime during the summer of 2011 that it was being delayed until March 2012. Am I wrong on those time frames?
In a perfect world, they should've given them even more time to finish it. The fan part of me thinks a lot of the game felt rushed, which led to a less than satisfying experience. However, let's face it: games aren't made for free and things like going over budget, etc. weighs on the overall development process. So, the adult in me says **** happens and there's nothing anyone can do about it now but to learn from past experiences.
#90
Posté 26 mars 2013 - 09:27
SpamBot2000
-
- Members
- 4 463 messages
Offender_Mullet wrote...
From what I remember - ME3 was announced in December 2010 (they probably started to develop it earlier?) to be released in Fall 2011 a.k.a. the holiday shopping season.Pjclarke1978 wrote...
But the whole game seemed rushed?
Im Guessing EA., But think the game could of used another years dev time.
Then, it was announced sometime during the summer of 2011 that it was being delayed until March 2012. Am I wrong on those time frames?
Development of ME3 started right after ME2 was finished in late 2009 I think. But the thing you have to remember is all the DLC that they worked on during the 2 years dev time, including Arrival, written by Mac Walters, that must have been worked on all the way up to the end of 2010. And Arrival was supposed to set up the opening of ME3.
It appears that the priority was milking ME2 with DLC (even if some of it was very good) over making sure ME3 got the attention it needed. Moar $$$$ for the Artists With Integrity!
Modifié par SpamBot2000, 26 mars 2013 - 09:28 .
#92
Posté 26 mars 2013 - 09:32
Dean_the_Young
-
- Members
- 20 676 messages
Was it perfect?Pjclarke1978 wrote...
After Mass Effect 2 which was perfect. What went wrong?.
ME2 lacked a lot of forms of content that ME3 had, and caried some very serious narrative flaws that made it more of a spinoff to the series than the middle of a trilogy. It abandoned old themes, made every single companion and loyalty mission effectively optional and non-critical path for the purpose of story development, and ended up leaving Shepard and the galaxy in the same place the galaxy was at the end of ME1: unprepared for the Reapers, and no real clue as to how they could win.
ME2 gave a feel-good victory by telling the player what an amazing person they were with the Suicide Mission, but even the Collectors were a threat created with no buildup in ME1's narrative and resolved within the course of ME2.
#93
Posté 26 mars 2013 - 09:42
Dean_the_Young
-
- Members
- 20 676 messages
Prove what, and how? Citadel and the Ending were attempts at very different things: a deliberatly cheesy comedy replete with in-jokes and fan memes that lacked any attempt at a moral quandry shouldn't be equated with what was a deliberate choice to leave a series of Big Decisions with a final question with no clear answer.TemplePhoenix wrote...
sammysoso wrote...
They had to be under big time constraints, BioWare writers are simply not that bad.
This. Citadel, IMO, proved that they still have it. I think you can really tell the parts the rest of the team didn't get to do a review for. *cough*mentioningno particulars*cough*
You can certainly argue that they did one better than the other, but that could simply mean that the Mass Effect team only writes Tough Decisions well on accident, and should stick to comedy and imaginary romances rather than trying to write drama.
#94
Posté 26 mars 2013 - 10:15
Nitrocuban
-
- Members
- 5 767 messages
Warden130 wrote...
Considering they did delay the original release date, I don't think it was rushed.
Bioware realised during developement that they are running out of time and have to delay, but who says the did not ask EA for more additional time?
#95
Posté 26 mars 2013 - 11:29
Dean_the_Young
-
- Members
- 20 676 messages
As for the OP's original question... yes, I think they were operating under a heavy time crunch, but I don't think it had the effects some people think it had. It wasn't, for example, to blame for the decision choices, the Catalyst, or the Reaper motivations: those were design decisions, and there's no real compelling evidence or case that they intended to do something else at that phase in the game: they intended a morally unclear choice, they deliberatly chose to use the reoccuring imagery of the child for a mandatory exposition device, and other motivations like Dark Energy were tossed out long ago.
What the timing crunch hit was how such things were presented in the end-game. The Catalyst scene, it's not so clear: the writers were clearly going for ambiguous and brevity, but was that by intent or necessity? The Leviathan DLC, already planned for, implies that they made a choice to save some of the Reaper exposition for the DLC ahead of time: the EC pushed their hand sooner, but they clearly intended Leviathan to be as much about the Reaper backstory as not.
Where it's more clear, however, is the difference we see in Cerberus Station and on Priority: Earth compared to other priority missions. Cerberus station reverted to one of the oldest shortcuts of exposition: the audio-recordings, conveniently left to fill in the void in what is otherwise a largely story-less mission that does little to develop Cerberus in any other manner. Priority Earth is even clearer, since we have cut dialogue files indicating that they were thinking about having some form of War Asset reflection of past choices: Geth reinforcements dropping on in, that sort of thing. Between the cut files and the relatively brief and direct mission, and it seems reasonable to suspect time constraints there...
...but then, those weren't the problems most people care about. More time probably wouldn't have changed the substance of the ending. More refinement, possibly, but I doubt it would have approached Extended Cut levels of clarification. It probably would have been more touch-up of the previous story missions.
What the timing crunch hit was how such things were presented in the end-game. The Catalyst scene, it's not so clear: the writers were clearly going for ambiguous and brevity, but was that by intent or necessity? The Leviathan DLC, already planned for, implies that they made a choice to save some of the Reaper exposition for the DLC ahead of time: the EC pushed their hand sooner, but they clearly intended Leviathan to be as much about the Reaper backstory as not.
Where it's more clear, however, is the difference we see in Cerberus Station and on Priority: Earth compared to other priority missions. Cerberus station reverted to one of the oldest shortcuts of exposition: the audio-recordings, conveniently left to fill in the void in what is otherwise a largely story-less mission that does little to develop Cerberus in any other manner. Priority Earth is even clearer, since we have cut dialogue files indicating that they were thinking about having some form of War Asset reflection of past choices: Geth reinforcements dropping on in, that sort of thing. Between the cut files and the relatively brief and direct mission, and it seems reasonable to suspect time constraints there...
...but then, those weren't the problems most people care about. More time probably wouldn't have changed the substance of the ending. More refinement, possibly, but I doubt it would have approached Extended Cut levels of clarification. It probably would have been more touch-up of the previous story missions.
#96
Posté 26 mars 2013 - 11:36
Linkenski
-
- Members
- 3 452 messages
Considering that the premise for ME3 was a culmination of everything that happened, or was foreshadowed in ME1 and 2, i think it's insane that they decided to give it a shorter development cycle. They said themselves it was going to be the "biggest decisions" and "biggest moments" in the franchise. I say they would've needed more time to do that properly.
#97
Posté 26 mars 2013 - 11:40
SpamBot2000
-
- Members
- 4 463 messages
The "design choice" of the ending device practically screams deadline desperation and "Screw this thing, let's just terminate it." I'd imagine they wouldn't have gone for such an obvious lift off a recent, popular game if not under huge pressure to come up with something right then and there.
#98
Posté 26 mars 2013 - 11:43
Wulfram
-
- Members
- 18 948 messages
There are always time constraints and cut stuff. I don't think ME3 was worse effected by them than your average computer game.
I don't think the ending problems were caused by not having enough time, but perhaps poor use of that time played a role - it seems that they took a long time to settle on what the ending was, and thus were unable to get it to fit properly with the rest of the game. Though I suppose in theory they could have got an extension to go back and rewrite/rerecord everything necessary, but that's not really realistic.
I don't think the ending problems were caused by not having enough time, but perhaps poor use of that time played a role - it seems that they took a long time to settle on what the ending was, and thus were unable to get it to fit properly with the rest of the game. Though I suppose in theory they could have got an extension to go back and rewrite/rerecord everything necessary, but that's not really realistic.
#99
Posté 26 mars 2013 - 11:48
tevix
-
- Members
- 1 363 messages
1) The team asked for 6 additional months, got 3, and it's still clearly unfinished.
2) Javik was ordered late development to be finished as DLC, but was originally supposed to be bigger part of main stroy. This caused a hurried change to some of the later missions, such as thessia.
3) People blame BW for not setting a schedule they could meet. We don't actually know how much time they originally asked for vs. what EA said was ok. We also who don't know who denied the extra 6 month request.
4) Original script was leaked, some said they didn't like it. Hudson ordered last minute changes. This has been admitted to an extent. Original scrip ironically is now heralded as having fantastic mission setups that was everything most could have asked for.
5) Know that rannoch reaper fight? Anyone remember the original trailer for it way back when? Remember how it got back up and started chasing them after its first down? Of those who said yes, did you notice the very jarring scene swap that happens in the actual game after the reaper was downed the first time? I did. Found out from the original scrip that fight was intended to be a great deal more than just "run left, target...run right, target...run left..."
6) Gamble himself stated that they were (and he emphasized this) working on the game right up to when it was taken out of their hands. This heavily implies a very rushed and very unfinished product that they were desperately trying claw at to improve whatever they could before it was taken away.
ME3 is definitively rushed and unfinished. The amount of cut content is staggering and cuts deep.
2) Javik was ordered late development to be finished as DLC, but was originally supposed to be bigger part of main stroy. This caused a hurried change to some of the later missions, such as thessia.
3) People blame BW for not setting a schedule they could meet. We don't actually know how much time they originally asked for vs. what EA said was ok. We also who don't know who denied the extra 6 month request.
4) Original script was leaked, some said they didn't like it. Hudson ordered last minute changes. This has been admitted to an extent. Original scrip ironically is now heralded as having fantastic mission setups that was everything most could have asked for.
5) Know that rannoch reaper fight? Anyone remember the original trailer for it way back when? Remember how it got back up and started chasing them after its first down? Of those who said yes, did you notice the very jarring scene swap that happens in the actual game after the reaper was downed the first time? I did. Found out from the original scrip that fight was intended to be a great deal more than just "run left, target...run right, target...run left..."
6) Gamble himself stated that they were (and he emphasized this) working on the game right up to when it was taken out of their hands. This heavily implies a very rushed and very unfinished product that they were desperately trying claw at to improve whatever they could before it was taken away.
ME3 is definitively rushed and unfinished. The amount of cut content is staggering and cuts deep.
#100
Posté 26 mars 2013 - 11:51
Domiel Angelus
-
- Members
- 626 messages
jstme wrote...
With my (thanks God, limited) experience with working in a large corporation - unplanned shifting wrokforce between different projects and changing budgets does happen.OdanUrr wrote...
Pjclarke1978 wrote...
OdanUrr wrote...
Pjclarke1978 wrote...
EA to blame I am guessing. Don't think they knew how to end it. Just made it up as they went along.
EA is a publisher, not the developer.
Yes, but Bioware is owned by EA.
Meaning? I've said it many times before. Creating any game is a project that needs to be planned beforehand. Bioware must have agreed on a schedule and a budget for the game and presented that to EA. How would it be EA's fault if Bioware was behind schedule and over budget?
Bioware was working on several projects and ME3 was not the most important one - SWTOR i am looking at you - so if Bioware budget was cut due to EA financial woes, ME3 100% would be the one to get hit by it.
Add to it ME2 that was clearly less rushed then ME1 and ME3 - meaning then knew what they are doing in second game planning-wise - and it is clear that ME3 being rushed problem did not start in Bioware. Still does not excuse the horrible endings that were not written by EA suits.
SWTOR wasn't the only thing, the addition of bad kinect support and multiplayer were both demanded by Microsoft and they didn't add any additional time to the time line to include these. You also have to account for their script being leaked 3 seperated times, and their playtesters went on strike when Kai Leng was able to actually kill the team you brought in with you.
