249 réponses à ce sujet

[Hey]

i don't care about blame just about how i feel about the end, which was terrible and still is to a certain extent. still, nice citadel dlc, tho. **** made me feel good.

[The Twilight God]

Ninja Stan wrote...

TL;DR - "Rushed" is a very specific criticism that cannot be applied to just any game as a generic term for "I didn't like some things about it" or "it didn't meet my expectation". BioWare and EA both have to agree on the game's schedule. All giant projects go through massive last-minute freaking out. A change in schedule for a company dealing with as many things as EA does, can mean a lot of shuffling of resources, money, and personnel, so it's not an easy decision. I like pie.

"Rushed" in a Bioware forum just means, to but it kindly, "didn't meet my expectations". It has nothing to do with any kind of timeframe. It's a coping mechanism to absolve the developer of responsibility and place the blame on a "faceless" evil corporate menace (i.e. the publisher). Without a scapegoat these people would have to accept that the developer thought war assets and the way you acquired them were a good idea, that an ultra convenient super weapon falling into the heroes laps out of thin air was good writing, that the second installment having no plot progression was solely Bioware's fault, and acknowledge that the devs/writers actually dicked around for 7 years instead of figuring out how to conclude a PLANNED trilogy. The implication being that if the developer is this clueless they can expect more "rushed" products in the future. They desperately don't want to entertain that thought.

[The Twilight God]

AresKeith wrote...

The Twilight God wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

@The Twilight God or it could be that people were talking about Time constraints and/or adding Multiplayer and not the actual game itself

Multiplayer was a separate team. I see nothing stopping the single-player team from polishing the main campaign. That ending had nothing to do with EA. The ultra convenient magic fixer, aka The Crucible, was not EA's fault. Any little thing you can think of from Tali's face reveal to Femshep romance shortcomings had nothing to do with EA. Bioware did what I call a "JJ Abrams". You make a nice franchise and the characters writing is great, but the plot is either complete nonsense or nowhere to be found.  Just a total lack story writing of creativity.  they had no clue what to do with the Reapers. Instead of simply acknowledging their lack of creativity and leaving the Reapers a mystery they shat all over their work.

Ok, but there's still time constraints which does fall to EA's doing which also what people blames EA for

ALL games have time constraints. Time is money. ME1 had time restraints and so did ME2, DA:O, Battlefield 3, etc. Is it EA's fault that those game are considered great? Or is EA only a scapegoat for when things go bad?

[AlanC9]

UniqueName001 wrote...
At least for me, I expected the Journal to provide the next step in the quest path.  Saying what system a given planet was in would have been nice; I had to write down a bunch of planet names and scratch them off as I accidentally found them.  

Which planet names were you writing down? IIRC the only scanning missions where you're told the actual planet name are Irune: Book of Plenix and the two Dekunna missions (plus Benning: Evidence, but Benning shows on the map if you can go there at all); these might have been shown on the map the way the N7s are, but Bio probably didn't want to give the impression that they were anything other than scanning goals. (Unless I'm totally misremembering the ambient convos, which is certainly possible.)

There are seven or eight more where you know the cluster but not the planet. Plus 20+ scan missions where you've got no clue where the thing is, and the true sidequests (Grissom Academy, N7s, etc.) and Priority missions, which show on the map so you know exactly where to go. I can see how the missions where you know the cluster  but not the planet might be annoying if you had to leave the cluster partially scanned. Or if you're only scanning to complete sidequests rather than scanning everything to 100%?

Then when I got the object, the journal should have updated with who and where to return it (which also would have indicated that I had in fact found it - eliminating the need to scratch them off).  I had to wander around a lot of places trying to figure out if there was anyone I needed to talk to.

Anyone you've got something to give shows on the map, except for one bugged mission. Though I guess if you want to just turn stuff in without picking up any new quests this wouldn't work, since some people with new business for Shepard will show on the map. Along with squadmates and so forth, of course.

I only found Miranda on the Citidel by looking at the map and noticing that she was in the apartments.  Maybe the quest system would have caught up with that one, I don't know.  And I never did find Ashley at the memorial, although I have no idea if that was a journal issue or some other bug.

I don't think those are missions in the first place.

Anyway, thanks. I can see why the journal might not work for you if that's what you're trying to do with it.

Modifié par AlanC9, 11 avril 2013 - 07:46 .

[AlanC9]

The Twilight God wrote...

Ninja Stan wrote...

TL;DR - "Rushed" is a very specific criticism that cannot be applied to just any game as a generic term for "I didn't like some things about it" or "it didn't meet my expectation". BioWare and EA both have to agree on the game's schedule. All giant projects go through massive last-minute freaking out. A change in schedule for a company dealing with as many things as EA does, can mean a lot of shuffling of resources, money, and personnel, so it's not an easy decision. I like pie.

"Rushed" in a Bioware forum just means, to but it kindly, "didn't meet my expectations". It has nothing to do with any kind of timeframe. It's a coping mechanism to absolve the developer of responsibility and place the blame on a "faceless" evil corporate menace (i.e. the publisher). Without a scapegoat these people would have to accept that the developer thought war assets and the way you acquired them were a good idea, that an ultra convenient super weapon falling into the heroes laps out of thin air was good writing, that the second installment having no plot progression was solely Bioware's fault, and acknowledge that the devs/writers actually dicked around for 7 years instead of figuring out how to conclude a PLANNED trilogy. The implication being that if the developer is this clueless they can expect more "rushed" products in the future. They desperately don't want to entertain that thought.

So, you're essentially agreeing with Stan here? 

[Zamnil Blackaxe]

arial wrote...

 I see alot of people on these forums say the game sucks because "EA forced the release date to early" or "EA was forceing Bioware to put Multiplayer in the game".

To all those who said EA ruined the game, you may find this article of interest


www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/123200-EA-Gave-BioWare-Complete-Creative-Control

EA may be evil, but I for one have never doubted Biowares own capacity for mediocrity and terrible writing capability, the hamfisted romances they put in so many of their games should be testament to this fact for anyone giving even a casual glance at the companies works.

Modifié par Zamnil Blackaxe, 11 avril 2013 - 08:20 .

[Jayce]

Ninja Stan wrote...

TL;DR - "Rushed" is a very specific criticism that cannot be applied to just any game as a generic term for "I didn't like some things about it" or "it didn't meet my expectation". BioWare and EA both have to agree on the game's schedule. All giant projects go through massive last-minute freaking out. A change in schedule for a company dealing with as many things as EA does, can mean a lot of shuffling of resources, money, and personnel, so it's not an easy decision. I like pie.

Stan makes a great point. So if I was going to hang my hat on the definition of "rushed" in the case of ME3, I'd probably suggest that, with a slightly shorter schedule and a team approximately the same size, Bioware had to not only create a single player game of approiximately the same size and scope as ME2, but also add in a significant multiplayer component to go along side it.

The likely outcome is that resouces that were spent on the single player game in ME2 were instead spent on Multiplayer in ME3, hence the (subjective) dip in the amount of polish between the two.

The question for the fan base is then, why did Bioware opt to add a multiplayer component to a previously single player title?

Modifié par Jayce F, 11 avril 2013 - 09:13 .

[Remix-General Aetius]

lol stupid thread is stupid, I don't believe a word of it. there's always at least one major brown-noser on every team, and I guess we found Bioware's.

[Spartas Husky]

TheGarden2010 wrote...

lol stupid thread is stupid, I don't believe a word of it. there's always at least one major brown-noser on every team, and I guess we found Bioware's.

He is called Hudson.

[Remix-General Aetius]

I said "at least one"

[AlanC9]

Jayce F wrote...

Stan makes a great point. So if I was going to hang my hat on the definition of "rushed" in the case of ME3, I'd probably suggest that, with a slightly shorter schedule and a team approximately the same size, Bioware had to not only create a single player game of approiximately the same size and scope as ME2, but also add in a significant multiplayer component to go along side it.

You sure about the italed bit? My understanding was that MP was done by Bio Montreal rather than the SP group in Edmonton. Unless the team in Edmonton actually shrank...

[Peranor]

drayfish wrote...



I hear a lot of people demonise EA (it is, of course, incredibly easy to do, as they behave like such insufferable, non-communicative hucksters - see: microtransactions; selling consumers utterly non-operational games like SimCity; bleeding franchises dry), but ultimately it was Bioware who decided to half-ass their way into cobbling together that ugly ending.

Yes, the game is clearly rushed - the glitches, the facial import bug, the journal system, the narrowing of decision paths, the complete rejection of major plot points and choices from the previous games - but many of these elements could have been overlooked or forgiven had there have been a cohesive narrative throughline.  Indeed, look at how many people can salvage their affection for Mass Effect simply by substituting Bioware's sacrificial altar for MEHEM,
which is more tonally unified (even if it still retains all ignored decisions like the Racchni, the Collector Base, the human Councilor, and is still plagued by zombie eyes and possessed heads and clipped dialogue and naff fetch quests).

EA may very well have told Bioware: 'You are releasing in this quarter window in order to hit our financial projections', but it was Bioware who had upwards of half-a-decade to come up with a satisfactory conclusion, and to make good on their repeated, insistent promises that there was a reason this was a trilogy, and that they knew all along where this story was headed.

I highly doubt, for all of their wallet-squeezing, EA ever asked Bioware to turn the beauty of the universe they had created into a muddled endorsement of intolerance and hopelessness because it would 'sell well'.

I completely agree.

[Spartas Husky]

anorling wrote...

drayfish wrote...



 but it was Bioware who had upwards of half-a-decade to
come up with a satisfactory conclusion,

I completely agree.

Unfortunately that is not how the good story telling works. You dont draw out and overall plan and stick to it regardless. As Drew stated things change, and depending on what people gravitate to the story had to change accordingly.

You have to however have the plan set before it begins to have an overall idea, themes obstacles etc. But if the audience moves towards a certain topic and far away from another you have to adjust and begin building on that increase in popularity. THAT takes time.

Modifié par Spartas Husky, 11 avril 2013 - 10:09 .

[res27772]

arial wrote...

 I see alot of people on these forums say the game sucks because "EA forced the release date to early" or "EA was forceing Bioware to put Multiplayer in the game".

To all those who said EA ruined the game, you may find this article of interest


www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/123200-EA-Gave-BioWare-Complete-Creative-Control

Saw a similar article elsewhere - if it's true, then he's saying BW, and BW alone, are responsible for crapping over the ME series and how bad ME3 was.  I wanted to believe it was on EA, but if it was all BW... DA3 really will be decision day for me, and it'll need to be spectacular.

[Archonsg]

First off, it would be very unprofessional of either confounders to say anything negative about EA, unless of course, are legally required to do so.

Secondly, reading the article, you can spot "PR" talk, hedging themselves by saying "they were treated well", "have creative control" but EA is still a business and profits is of course their concern.

Of course.

As someone else above have already mentioned, Bioware could have all the creative control in the world and can still be on a leash, constrained by a release schedule that would require some compromise on that creative control with "profits" (and I would assume, needing to meet a certain percentage of) taking priority. 

Modifié par Archonsg, 11 avril 2013 - 12:01 .

[Mordanticus]

The Twilight God wrote...

People will continue to blame EA because they can't accept the fact that Bioware is losing their touch.  The idea that EA would sabotage the game is absurd. I guess all the other franchises like Battlefield, Madden, The Sims, Crysis, Dead Space, etc. were sabotaged as well? Nope. ME3 actually came out LATER than it was supposed to. They had EXTRA time to polish it.

Note the same people aren't praising EA for Dragon Age: Origins or ME2. Only when the **** hits the fan is it EA's fault, while all the triumphs are solely the work of Bioware. If anything I wish EA did get involved. We probably would have got a satisfying conclusion.

Not exactly.. I blame EA because they should of known better... They saw the fan reaction and should have immediately pulled the "Assuming direct control" card and ordered a fix to the endings.. I blame Bioware because they definitely did well with the games as a whole and then went bat$%#@ crazy and allowed those endings to even occur.. And I blame Hudson specifically for thinking his nihilistic ending was artisitic and thought-provoking, when in reality it was just downright depressing..

Do I praise Dragon Age: Origins? Hell yes I do.. ME1 and ME2? Yep.. Masterpieces of sci-fi drama.. Even Dragon Age 2 gets a pass from me (although I see the downward spiral for Bioware starting with all the screen tearing issues and no fixes).. Your argument falls flat.. Not all of us are EA/Bioware haters.. Some can appreciate what has come before and can give Bioware its due credit for those projects.. Bioware is also wholly responsible for ME3 and its issues..

EA didn't have to "interfere" with the story, but you can bet they had release date deadlines.. No company wants to throw cash at a project without seeing a return in a timely manner.. EA's only true crime? Inaction at the fan's and unbiased media's outcry..

Hold the Line.. For life..

Modifié par Mordanticus, 11 avril 2013 - 12:07 .

[knightnblu]

Then I was wrong and it appears that the problems at BioWare ran deeper than I thought. Something has changed that has totally fouled up their perception at BioWare and it wasn't being rushed. In fact, the game was delayed from it's original release date in order to get things right, but I never would have thought that EA would have had a hands off policy regarded the creative team and the OE.

Looks like the fault lies squarely with BioWare. Judging by the fan reactions at events, it doesn't seem to have hurt their image though (never been to one myself, but I do see the videos).

[Getorex]

AlanC9 wrote...

Jayce F wrote...

Stan makes a great point. So if I was going to hang my hat on the definition of "rushed" in the case of ME3, I'd probably suggest that, with a slightly shorter schedule and a team approximately the same size, Bioware had to not only create a single player game of approiximately the same size and scope as ME2, but also add in a significant multiplayer component to go along side it.

You sure about the italed bit? My understanding was that MP was done by Bio Montreal rather than the SP group in Edmonton. Unless the team in Edmonton actually shrank...

Multiplayer is easy.  Almost no work at all.  You create few arenas, provide some skins for players.  Let people in.  It takes care of itself.  You don't have to have a plot, don't need a coherent story.  Running around and shooting stuff is the easiest game to design.  When you have to deal with plot, plot development, character development, etc, THEN it gets hard. 

Modifié par Getorex, 11 avril 2013 - 12:19 .

[tamperous]

Just like Maxis saying that making SimCity a hybrid of a MMORPG and Farmville was their idea. So was the idea to remove subways as a transit method from SimCity and add them back in future paid DLC also a creative/artistic decision made by Maxis or a business decision necessitated by EA's desire to have a multi-year revenue vehicle?

Point being, business and financial constraints affect the creative process. So when they came out with their artistic integrity defense of sloppy half done work it rings hollow.

This interview coming out as it does, right after Riccitiello was given the can, Maxis crapped the bed and the creative/financial failures of MOH and Deadspace really smells like a concerted campaign to try to salvage EA's image.

Modifié par tamperous, 11 avril 2013 - 12:25 .

[Galifreya]

If EA has no say, why has that CEO recently been let go? I was under the impression that it was because of the Sim City debacle. Now, if a CEO has no control, why is he being fired over something that he -supposedly- had no control over?

The whole article is BS. BioWare are trying to save face again because they allowed themselves to be bought by the devil (worst company in America). BioWare, I'm sorry. But your publisher sucks, and it's why in recent years you've begun to follow that same line of quality. But you will never admit that, because that would not make your EA bosses happy.

Modifié par Gallifreya, 11 avril 2013 - 12:37 .

[MattFini]

dreamgazer wrote...

arial wrote...

EA did not "Set" a release date (Look at good ole Ninja Stans post on Page 3). EA and BW had to "Agree" on a release date pre-production.

EA did not say: "You are going to have this done by the date we mandate or else".
EA Actually said: "we had a mutual agreement for this date, we expect you to honor your agreement".

And what would happen if BioWare said: "No, we have to have more time?"

I believe they asked for six more months and got three. But I can't seem to find that in writing now. 

[AresKeith]

AlanC9 wrote...

I keep asking something and never get a clear answer-- what is it you folks are trying to do with the journal that it won't do? There are, what, four fetch quests where you know the name of the planet to go to but it doesn't show on the map? The rest of the time the journal wouldn't tell you anything useful anyway, as far as I can tell.

Look at the ME1 and ME2 journal and compare it to ME3, the journal doesn't update the mission your doing and its a mess

[AresKeith]

The Twilight God wrote...


ALL games have time constraints. Time is money. ME1 had time restraints and so did ME2, DA:O, Battlefield 3, etc. Is it EA's fault that those game are considered great? Or is EA only a scapegoat for when things go bad?

ME1 had 3 years of development which is what most RPG type games need or 4 years

I also said ME2 needed more time, I don't really know about DA:O

And do you really think an FPS (which is what EA wants to sell) needs alot of development time

[spirosz]

Getorex wrote...

Multiplayer is easy.  Almost no work at all.  You create few arenas, provide some skins for players.  Let people in.  It takes care of itself.  You don't have to have a plot, don't need a coherent story.  Running around and shooting stuff is the easiest game to design.  When you have to deal with plot, plot development, character development, etc, THEN it gets hard.  

Server issues, balance issues, FPS issues are easy? 

[crimzontearz]

And for those making assumptions

Bioware did not "sell their souls" to EA, the whole affair was just this side of an hostile takeover, there was, sadly, no choice on the matter save perhaps an en masse resignation to open another studio or be hired by someone else like Vigil did.

And secondly, I would still love an answer to my question but I know I will not get one