249 réponses à ce sujet

[Kel Riever]

The lead writer and lead developer get the blame from me. BioWare as a whole also gets blame and yes, EA does, to a lesser degree. I still won't buy an EA game (and that's a lot of games) anytime soon, but I might in the future. What I will never do is buy another BioWare product until they fix the ME3 ending....and if that's never, I am really fine with that.

Modifié par Kel Riever, 11 avril 2013 - 06:23 .

[AlanC9]

AresKeith wrote...

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

I'm still not clear what you need it to update for, though. Could you give me an example of when you would want to know that during play?

When you're on the Normandy the galaxy map tells you what you've done and what you haven't done. On the Citadel everyone who you've got something for shows on the Citadel map, and if you don't have the thing they don't show on the map.

[MegaSovereign]

AlanC9 wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

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

I'm still not clear what you need it to update for, though. Could you give me an example of when you would want to know that during play?

When you're on the Normandy the galaxy map tells you what you've done and what you haven't done. On the Citadel everyone who you've got something for shows on the Citadel map, and if you don't have the thing they don't show on the map.

For fetch quests, not knowing which plot items you may or may not already have can get annoying.

[CronoDragoon]

You can perhaps blame EA for the rushed feel of Priority Earth, but not for the content or general structure of the endings.

What rings true to me is Greg talking about how experimental the endings were, that they were taking crazy risks and trying new stuff. I can just imagine people getting excited about making a "groundbreaking" ending without taking the time to step back and look at the decision from all angles.

Personally I feel that focusing explicitly on organic/synthetic conflict would have made for a fine ME4. If they wanted to take risks, that would have been the logical place to start.

[AlanC9]

MegaSovereign wrote...

When you're on the Normandy the galaxy map tells you what you've done and what you haven't done. On the Citadel everyone who you've got something for shows on the Citadel map, and if you don't have the thing they don't show on the map.

For fetch quests, not knowing which plot items you may or may not already have can get annoying.

When? If you're on the Citadel, you know who you need to talk to to turn stuff in. Doesn't particularly matter which quest you're completing, does it? And if you're plotting your next move at the galaxy map, you can see whether you've scanned, say, the Izmar Frontier.

[AlanC9]

CronoDragoon wrote...

Personally I feel that focusing explicitly on organic/synthetic conflict would have made for a fine ME4. If they wanted to take risks, that would have been the logical place to start.

I don't think  they could have avoided taking some risk. ME1 had already saddled the series with an irrational Reaper plan. Any answer would have been a risk, and no answer would have been a risk too.

[AresKeith]

AlanC9 wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

When you're on the Normandy the galaxy map tells you what you've done and what you haven't done. On the Citadel everyone who you've got something for shows on the Citadel map, and if you don't have the thing they don't show on the map.

For fetch quests, not knowing which plot items you may or may not already have can get annoying.

When? If you're on the Citadel, you know who you need to talk to to turn stuff in. Doesn't particularly matter which quest you're completing, does it? And if you're plotting your next move at the galaxy map, you can see whether you've scanned, say, the Izmar Frontier.

Still doesn't change the fact that the format for ME1 and ME2 journal were fine the way they were and Bioware just screwed it up in ME3

[Surf28]

Remember when Bioware made AWESOME games like Dragon age origins ?......Mass Effect? ......i do .....then rEApers buys them .......then what happens? slowy staffs starts to leave ......we get rushed and crap Dragon age 2 ........then? Mass Effect 3 with EA servers that are BAD with a bad ending and im not looking forward to DA 3.....There is a reason EA won the worst company in America......i bet he got bribed 

Modifié par Surf28, 11 avril 2013 - 04:35 .

[CronoDragoon]

AlanC9 wrote...

I don't think  they could have avoided taking some risk. ME1 had already saddled the series with an irrational Reaper plan. Any answer would have been a risk, and no answer would have been a risk too.

In this case I think the non-risky plan would have either been to leave them unexplained or flesh out the idea that they do this because they believe they are superior forms of life and use the cycle as a type of garden. I think that was the obvious interpretation of the Reaper motivations after ME2, but I could be mistaken there.

Certainly risk is a scale in terms of analyzing fan criticism, but that they associated the risk with "experimentation" I think shows that they believed they were doing something pretty out there.

[AngryFrozenWater]

darkway1 wrote...

Bioware is owned by EA........Bioware is EA...........there will never be any debate between the two because they are the same company...........can people not understand this?

Exactly. BW is just a division of EA. So for all intents and purposes it is the same company. But some people like to attribute the good traits to BW and the bad ones to EA. Silly, really.

[Benchpress610]

"We had complete creative control over a lot of it”.
 
I think the good doctor, though sincere, is leaving himself an escape route. Notice he didn’t say “all of it”. In general he is just speaking PR platitudes vague enough that he wouldn’t be caught in a lie later on.
 
I don’t think he was being disingenuous. Parent companies in general don’t want to mess with the creative or business processes of the companies they acquire. Their success is the main reasons that drive the acquisition in the first place. However want it or not they are bound to mess with them, there is no way around that. I have worked for companies that were bought by bigger companies and believe me, the merging process is very difficult.
 
This video has been posted in this forum before, but it’s very relevant to this discussion.
 
A Tale of Two Companies
 
Besides it explains things much better than I could.
 

Modifié par Benchpress610, 11 avril 2013 - 05:00 .

[crimzontearz]

It is funny, to me, that there still is a debate over this and that bioware, in general, still uses omissions and misdirection as a PR tactic (and even more surprising SUCCESSFULLY so)

[Tron Mega]

Bioware sucks.

Ive been convinced of that for a while now.

[Adoramei]

I think the amusing part is that there are so many responses to this thread, accepting the article as absolute truth. And people suddenly change their passionate views just because someone said in an interview, "Nuh uh!"

At least we know that PR is effective. Kind of makes me worried though when people need to vote.

[Dude_in_the_Room]

Guy leaves job > Guy says good things about former employer > Guy wants another job?

It's not good practice to talk bad about your former employer.

Modifié par Dude_in_the_Room, 11 avril 2013 - 07:31 .

[Singu]

Dude_in_the_Room wrote...

Guy leaves job > Guy says good things about former employer > Guy wants another job?

It's not good practice to talk bad about your former employer.

Indeed, that same guy might get bored brewing beer.

Also, there's a little thing called Non Disclosure Agreement. And they don't go away even if you leave the company.

[The Twilight God]

AresKeith wrote...

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

ME3 had a little more time than ME2, minus the major overhauls that we saw between ME1 and 2. So if anything, they should have needed less time.

 Time is not an excuse.

[rekn2]

just a bunch of lies to me, to hell with ea

[adayaday]

On related news EA won the "golden poo award"for the 2nd year in a row...consumerist.com/2013/04/09/ea-makes-worst-company-in-america-history-wins-title-for-second-year-in-a-row/

[Mastone]

A non disclosure agreement has nothing to do with someone expressing his or her opinion about the company he or she left, it is merely an agreement that what you saw ( internal processes, confidential stuff) you will keep to yourself.
I personally don't think Greg has an itch going back to Bioware he left for a reason ( which are his own of course).

People saying EA is to blame because they rush developers are only partially right, since I also believe that Bioware was a big enough party and that they had enough swaying power within EA to negotiate a fair deal.
Before a game is made the Dev and Publisher discuss a timeline of development and since EA is on the stock exchange once they announce a game they have to release it within a certain time period..or get a hefty fine...this is a law to prevent fraude or tampering with marketfigures to boost or bump stocks( if you are big enough you could do that).

Bioware just messed up and not only with ME3, also with KOTOR and from what I heard DA:2, it only makes sense that EA ( if they own Bioware) will put them on a leash from now on, to make sure this "artistic vision" does not interfere with salesfigures ( and common sense).
I for one won't be buying a Bioware game anytime soon unless there are some strong indicators they have undergone a big "SHIFT + F5"aka refresh of their company.
And actually hire some real top notch writers, top of the line gamedesigners and producers bringing back passion for making games..yes I understand that bottomline is profit earning money and all that, but you can only be succesful in making games if making games is your goal not when profits or ego's are replacing it.

[AresKeith]

The Twilight God wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

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

ME3 had a little more time than ME2, minus the major overhauls that we saw between ME1 and 2. So if anything, they should have needed less time.

 Time is not an excuse.

ME3 had 2.5 years of development, minus the fact of whole leaked script mess plus an extra three months even though Bioware requested 6

It had the same development time as ME2 maybe even less because of the leak

[Spartas Husky]

So lets take this in a practical approach. Unbias

Lets say is true... EA did gave BIoware unfiltered freedom to do what they wanted.

So as one of the founders stated, when so much is available to you, you run the risk of doing too much.

So in that case it would be BIoware's fault, for not being conservative in their approach as they did with ME1. The best work comes with limited resources. They are dirty, haphazardly put together but with all their grime they shine like no other.

This means, for once EA should be spared the flak.. which ruins BIoware's Reputation and future trust.

=======
On the other hand if it was in fact EA, then nothing out of the ordinary for EA... and shame on Bioware for getting involved with EA in the first place.

In this case, EA gets flak... nothing new. And bioware's reputation is damaged.

In the end, the result is the same... lack of trust on both.

Potatoes... potatos.

[Linkenski]

I think the thing he wanted to make clear in these statements is that EA did not have a say in how the story should turn out. They probably have their fingers on how the direction of the gameplay and all the business stuff should be though. You can bet your butts that EA made them rush the game. That doesn't necessarily contradict Greg saying that they don't intrude in creative control.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

"Complete control" over "a lot of it"....


So EA did interfere... thanks for playing.

[Tron Mega]

Linkenski wrote...

You can bet your butts that EA made them rush the game.

how long does one need to write an ending? 7+ years isnt enough time???

imagin if EA didnt give bioware that extension in their release date for ME3. can you imagine how awful the game was THEN if a company like EA said "ok, maybe we should push this thing back a bit."

and then they come out with an extended cut after release because it still wasnt up to par.

Modifié par Tron Mega, 11 avril 2013 - 11:23 .