114 réponses à ce sujet

[Il Divo]

DukeOfNukes wrote...

I don't get why everyone is saying ME2 got a lot of hate. I stopped coming to this forum because every time I posted something saying anything remotely negative about it, I had 20 people jumping down my throat saying "you just hate it because it's popular!"

It also depends on when you were posting. Immediately after the release of ME2, Smudboy was a huge rallying point for the assault on ME2's plot and setting, which worked for them because he was very hesitant to give up any point. Once his ban happened, things calmed down, if just a wee bit.

Modifié par Il Divo, 13 mai 2013 - 11:55 .

[spirosz]

Sure, certain flaws can be see as subjective to the individual's value and what matters to them in games, but as IMO, you're a better fan, when you can recognize certain things that could of been executed better or in a different way and are open to the other side's opinion and suggestions, same goes for the one calling out the flaw and seeing why others don't believe that 'flaw' isn't a 'flaw' in their mind.

That sort of mindset works for me at least, since I dislike when certain people state "The ending is great, you just didn't understand it" or "get over it".  Though, for me, the ending isn't a big deal, so.  

Modifié par spirosz, 14 mai 2013 - 12:04 .

[AventuroLegendary]

The "Bioware hate" applies to lots of companies. For them, there will always be that vocal crowd of fans who won't hesitate to criticize any new direction and ostracize any "blind fanboy" who dares defend the developer.

Of course, there are some valid complaints so it's best not to lump everyone together.

[AresKeith]

LegendaryAvenger wrote...

The "Bioware hate" applies to lots of companies. For them, there will always be that vocal crowd of fans who won't hesitate to criticize any new direction and ostracize any "blind fanboy" who dares defend the developer.

Of course, there are some valid complaints so it's best not to lump everyone together.

Basically this

[Ninja Stan]

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

Look ME3 was absolutely rushed. Not to the same degree as DA2, but just looking at the last 3 hours of ME3, and you can tell it was rushed. Especially regarding how underwhelming Priority Mission Earth was. Then i'm pretty sure Bioware stated Leviathan DLC would've been in the game if they had more time.

Sure, lots of things could have been in the game if BioWare had had more time. As it is, deadlines are generally a collaborative decision between the publisher and studio based on what the studio wants to do and what the available budget is. Both parties agree on the timeline that is ultimately given.

Such schedules are planned years in advance. In the meantime, the studio plans the game based on that timeline. If the schedule is two years, the studio plans a game that will take two years. It works the same way in school: the instructor gives you two weeks to complete an assignment, so you plan an assignment that will take you approximately two weeks to complete. If, in the meantime, you know the assignment will take a little longer, you ask for an extension. It is unlikely that you finish early, as that usually means the project isn't as good as you can possibly make it--you can always spend more time editing, tweaking, and improving.

It's just a shame. Had ME3 had another year of development, like it should've, we could've gotten a beast of a game.

Or not. More time does not necessarily mean a better game. Look at Daikatana and Duke Nukem Forever as examples. Or look at Skyrim, which does not seem to have suffered very much for the number of bugs and potential flaws it was released with. Game developers always want more time because, as I mentioned above, they can always spend more time editing, tweaking, and improving. If they'd had more time from the very beginning, they would have designed the game differently. If they'd had less time from the very beginning, they would have designed the game differently. Because you're asking for more time from the company funding your development, you have to make a really good case for spending that extra time (and money) and you have to do it relatively early. You can't go asking for extra time right at the end, since a lot of different company divisions (especially marketing) are depending on you finishing the game by a certain time and they've set aside time to work on your game.

Most companies, studios and publishers, don't base their schedules on "gut feelings" on when the game is done. They have to adhere to pretty strict schedules because tons of money is being spent every week, and if a certain date isn't met, there could be millions of dollars wasted! No company likes wasting millions of dollars.

Most people don't really care about this part of the game development process because it's not their money at stake and they have nothing at all to lose if the game comes in late, early, or at all! But believe me, game studios and publishers care very much about such things.

[spirosz]

I disagree Stan, I truly believe that ME3 needed another 6 months to a year. I don't believe it's fair to compare it to Duke Nukem Forever, which I know is an example, but that game went through so many obstacles, it's laughable that it even came out, tbh.

I know there are moments from an artists perspective, when they get to the point where it feels like they're adding too much, so it's hard to find that balance that a lot of us strike for, either through creating games, music, art, etc.

[Ninja Stan]

spirosz wrote...

I disagree Stan, I truly believe that ME3 needed another 6 months to a year. I don't believe it's fair to compare it to Duke Nukem Forever, which I know is an example, but that game went through so many obstacles, it's laughable that it even came out, tbh.

Sure, but all games go through obstacles, even if the only obstacle is finishing the darn game! The point is, a schedule is a schedule, and when millions of dollars are at stake, it is difficult to justify spending even more money to finish the game because that may necessitate those millions of dollars being wasted and coming out of the bottom line. If ME3 truly needed another 6 months to a year in order to be any good at all, then that's a failing on BioWare's part, not necessarily EA's, since BioWare's part in the discussion would have included what kind of game they wanted to make and an estimate of how long that would take.

But there's no way anyone can say for certain that an extra 6 months to a year would have made the game that much better, or better at all. It only works if you assume the game is completed at the same time as usual, and that extra time is spent solely on polish and bug-fixing. But I'm saying that if Bio had gotten that much extra time to begin with, they would have filled that extra time with features and systems. EA would not spend millions upon millions of extra money solely on polish and bug-fixing, in my opinion. It just wouldn't get them a good enough return on that investment.

I know there are moments from an artists perspective, when they get to the point where it feels like they're adding too much, so it's hard to find that balance that a lot of us strike for, either through creating games, music, art, etc.

Feature creep is indeed a problem, but again, that's a developer issue. Most times, feature creep just ends up delaying the game and making it more difficult to finish. Sometimes, however, you hit upon a feature that ends up being a "must-have" for the game and you bust your hump integrating it with the schedule you have. But again, there's no way to guarantee you'll hit on that "must-have" feature accidentally, and in the meantime, you're still spending money every day.

I've often said that, if there were some kind of guaranteed success formula for videogames that would ensure great sales and high quality, it'd be a billion-dollar idea. So far, however, no one's managed to come up with one. All they've managed to do is risk mitigation, not elimination.

[MegaSovereign]

Patches cost money too. Some minor glitches are understandable but ME3 had some pretty hard to miss bugs.....The character face importer bug and certain quests being unfinishable..

Modifié par MegaSovereign, 14 mai 2013 - 01:00 .

[NeonFlux117]

stan's suppose to say that the game didn't need more time in Dev. Derp.

It so did. But too little too late.

[dreamgazer]

NeonFlux117 wrote...

stan's suppose to say that the game didn't need more time in Dev. Derp. 

In case you haven't noticed, he's pretty neutral and candid with his comments.

[NeonFlux117]

dreamgazer wrote...

NeonFlux117 wrote...

stan's suppose to say that the game didn't need more time in Dev. Derp. 

In case you haven't noticed, he's pretty neutral and candid with his comments.

haha, He's a BioWarecorp Employee, lol. He's not neutral. Trust me. Or don't, I don't really care. 

[mickey111]

CronoDragoon wrote...

David Gaider said it best that every time they came out with a new game there's a certain loud population that always crapped on it, comparing it to previous games. He said that when they released Baldur's Gate II, you would have thought it was the worst game ever based on what was being thrown their way. Baldur's-freaking-Gate-II.

Because real time with pause is just awkward as hell to manage for a whole bunch of reasons, especially when combined with a game that uses the rules BGII used and with all of that special effects obscuring the battlefield. I'm glad that Dragon Age resolved some of the inherent flaws of real time with pause by improving the interface, and removing the 6 seconds of cool down between actions. But the fact of the matter is that real time with pause is basically inferior in every practical sense when it comes to controlling the actions of you and your companions in the BG and DAO type of game. The ONLY advantage is that it looks stylish. Imagine trying to control 6 characters at once, battling it out against 10 enemies, and then add a bunch of magic users on each side, all casting spells that have different effects and different casting times. Wouldn't that be so much more manageable with each character fighting one at a time in turn based mode? Of course it would. Hence why people got mad at BGII, because it's a totally chaotic cluster**** where you spend more time scratching your head pondering wtf just happened then you do strategizing. It's not good.

[KingJason13]

I only discovered reasons to dislike Bioware games and pr attitudes post EA.

[MegaSovereign]

NeonFlux117 wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

NeonFlux117 wrote...

stan's suppose to say that the game didn't need more time in Dev. Derp. 

In case you haven't noticed, he's pretty neutral and candid with his comments.

haha, He's a BioWarecorp Employee, lol. He's not neutral. Trust me. Or don't, I don't really care. 

He use to be. Not anymore.

Everyone is biased. It would be ridiculous to dismiss everyone's arguments on the account of them not being neutral.

[NeonFlux117]

MegaSovereign wrote...

NeonFlux117 wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

NeonFlux117 wrote...

stan's suppose to say that the game didn't need more time in Dev. Derp. 

In case you haven't noticed, he's pretty neutral and candid with his comments.

haha, He's a BioWarecorp Employee, lol. He's not neutral. Trust me. Or don't, I don't really care. 

He use to be. Not anymore.

Everyone is biased. It would be ridiculous to dismiss everyone's arguments on the account of them not being neutral.

yeah, I agree. Opinions are opinions and all are subjective. So.... Yeah. 

[dreamgazer]

NeonFlux117 wrote...

haha, He's a BioWarecorp Employee, lol. He's not neutral. Trust me. Or don't, I don't really care. 

Done. (shrug)

He's as neutral and unbiased as a former employee who volunteers on the board can be.

Modifié par dreamgazer, 14 mai 2013 - 01:37 .

[NeonFlux117]

dreamgazer wrote...

NeonFlux117 wrote...

haha, He's a BioWarecorp Employee, lol. He's not neutral. Trust me. Or don't, I don't really care. 

Done. (shrug)

He's as neutral an unbiased as a former employee who volunteers on the board can be.

Alright. 

[addiction21]

KingJason13 wrote...

I only discovered reasons to dislike Bioware games and pr attitudes post EA.

Then you should get of the "I hate everything EA bandwagon" and actually start thinking for yourself.

[Volus Warlord]

IMHO the first major [bad game] in the punch bowl was DA2. 

Then again, I had no knowledge of Bioware prior to ME2.

[Inappropriate coment edited.]

Modifié par Ninja Stan, 14 mai 2013 - 06:58 .

[Fiddles dee dee]

No one hates BGII...NO ONE!!!!