276 réponses à ce sujet

[Dextro Milk]

LineHolder wrote...

The protagonist will take care of a helpless little Asari.

Too cliche.

[Iakus]

Ninja Stan wrote...


1. BioWare developers create BioWare games.
That's what they're hired to do, and that's what they're expected to do by both BioWare and EA. There is no EA stooge in the mix, offering opinions and making decisions or tattling on BioWare when they make choices on how the game is going to work. Ultimately, BioWare is responsible for BioWare games, for better or worse. Your agreement or disagreement with BioWare's choices, and your like or dislike of BioWare games, has nothing at all to do with how much autonomy they have.

EA provides a lot of support for BioWare, and BioWare makes profitable games for EA. EA might ultimately be responsible to their shareholders, it's at a corporate level involving all of EA's properties, not based on how many copies each individual game from each individual studio sells.

Just a point of detail, but doesn't EA require all its games to have an online component?  Be it multiplayer, social media tie-in, or whatever?  Isn't that "meddling" to a degree?

[Sheepie Crusher]

Ninja Stan wrote...

Sheepie Crusher wrote...

By the look of their recent games, it seems that BioWare has less and less say in what they themselves are making, and with the departure of Muzyka and Zeschuk( Which where the only Bioware guys in EA's high ranks  ) very few decisions will be in Bioware's hands

Considering you have no idea how much "say" BioWare has in the games they make--having never worked on any projects there and seen first-hand what the creative process is like--I'm reasonably certain that you cannot accurately declare that a) BioWare will have less "say" in the development of the next ME game, and that this represents a downward trend in BioWare creative autonomy when it comes to BioWare games.
.

1. I don't know how much say BW has but what I do know is that their recent games have been less and less RPG and more and more action

I also know that DA2 was aimed at the Call Of Duty audience and I have a hard time believing it was Bioware's idea
source: http://n4g.com/news/...-dutys-audience

Ninja Stan wrote...

1. BioWare developers create BioWare games.
That's what they're hired to do, and that's what they're expected to do by both BioWare and EA. There is no EA stooge in the mix, offering opinions and making decisions or tattling on BioWare when they make choices on how the game is going to work. Ultimately, BioWare is responsible for BioWare games, for better or worse. Your agreement or disagreement with BioWare's choices, and your like or dislike of BioWare games, has nothing at all to do with how much autonomy they have.

EA provides a lot of support for BioWare, and BioWare makes profitable games for EA. EA might ultimately be responsible to their shareholders, it's at a corporate level involving all of EA's properties, not based on how many copies each individual game from each individual studio sells.

Bioware is responsible for Bioware games, problem is Bioware answers to EA aand EA answers it's shareholders. the shareholders want to make money, the easiest way to make money is by copying whats popular, problem is: what is popular and what is right for the game are rarely the same things

Ninja Stan wrote...


2. One's individual opinion does not reflect a product's quality or worth, or public/majority opinion.
Many people's opinions of BioWare and EA are based on how they liked games like DA2 and ME3. That's fine, but one shouldn't use opinions as jumping off points for conspiracy theories and freaking out. Sometimes, you will have to admit that BioWare made a bad game (that you may or may not have liked), and sometimes, you will have to admit BioWare made a great game you simply didn't like. And that may or may not jibe with other people's opinions. We all have our own, and we can disagree without freaking out about it or predicting doom and gloom based on it.

Whether a game is good or not is a matter of opinion but there is no conspiracy theory here, I looked at EA's bussines desicions in the past few years and reached a conclusion of what's going to happen next based on that

Ninja Stan wrote...

3. Companies exist for one reason: to make money.[/b]
That's it. BioWare makes games it hopes will sell, and EA encourages BioWare to make games they hope will sell. Selling more copies of a game requires more potential customers, so developers will produce and publishers will solicit/publish/encourage games that the greatest umber of people might enjoy. So they kinda have to appeal to the mainstream audience in order to get the most sales out of it.

And because games cost a whole lot of money to make, and gamers are pretty fickle in the what they want (new, but the same as the last one; lots of choices but not too much; characters that are nothing like me, but that I can identify with; wish fulfilment stories but realistic; realistic but fantastical; epic in scope but low in price; tons of content but I'm only playing 40% of it, but others are finishing it in 2 days and demanding more), publishers need to reduce their risk by offering things like optional microtransactions and DLC--products that are way lower in development cost, but offer additional content to players who love the base product and want more. These days, DLC is planned from the start and not "removed from the base game to be sold later," as some people believe.

Related to 2, this also means that features and systems you disagree with were not designed to "drive customers away." EA can't drive all its customers away and be pandering to them at the same time. Gamers are generally open-minded people who play games for fun, and are open to new ideas and new settings, stories, characters, and play styles. Don't think every gamer is like you, or that you are necessarily the archetypal gamer. Businesses might deal in demographics and markets, but here in this community, we deal with individuals. And you can't address, label, or deal with them the same way.

I am not saying EA wants to drive costumers away, what I am saying is that EA thinks it can sales by forcing as many popular gameplay and story elements as they can, essentially trying to appeal to everyone

[SpamBot2000]

Hmmm... Greg Zeschuk did say " The best analogy I use, in a positive way, is EA gives you enough rope to hang yourself. " Which is a pretty weird thing to say "in a positive way". Not really something you'd say if you truly thought nothing whatsoever had gone wrong.

And as for BW "inventing DLC", there were expansion packs for games in the 1980's, just delivered on physical media. I recall playing Gauntlet: Deeper Dungeons on the ol' C64 in 1987. And yeah, there has been downloadable content for games since at least 1997. According to my calendar, that was before BW's "Premium" NWN modules in 2004.

Modifié par SpamBot2000, 29 juin 2013 - 09:01 .

[N7recruit]

With regards to how much say Bio have with their games, I assume that Aaryn Flynn, Casey & Preston present their concept for their up-coming game to the investors detailing & negotiating budget, how much features will cost, what features will appeal to mainstream/ make the most money, set appropriate deadlines that are realistic/fair, plan for post release content etc etc

Basically sell their concept to the investors, meet agreed upon deadlines through out development & then finally deliver a finished game on the agreed upon date.

I think EA's influence would boil down to "we want features in your game that will appeal to this or these audiences & that will make us a profit. You make it & we'll sell it." Perfect ably reasonable, it's their money & they want to be sure that they are getting return on their investment.

The design team would have control over how they implement said features into the game they want to make.

As for the direction of ME4, expect it to continue along the lines of ME3. Refined third person cover based shooting, more cinematic game play (hopefully without the cost of player input) & more big budget set pieces.
Hopefully for the next series of games the RPG features like the Dialogue wheel & player/ avatar control won't get neglected because they over design the game, have too many quests, write too many lines, have too many pointless characters (I'm looking at you ME2) & hire too many big-name actors.

The EA bashing is kinda understandable ( I gave them my fair share for DA2 as it was EA's fault ) but if you don't like a game do you blame the guys & gals who made it or the people who funded it?

[crimzontearz]

....right, companies like EA (companies like the one I work for) make you sign papers upon hiring you stating you will positively represent the company both in and out of the work environment, I am sorry if I take any of these statements ****** grano salis and instead I let the games and simple math do the talking. De Cartes said it once very eloquently "one plus one equals two for me and for God as well"

[Rosstoration]

AlanC9 wrote...

Rosstoration wrote...
Yeah... Like Kojima said, he prioritised creativity over profits and units-sold when developing the Phantom Pain - Kojima productions have creative freedom in their work. BioWare, unfortunatly do not, they are a "division of EA", and what are EA's policies people? Sales, unit's sold, profits, pleasing shareholders by announcing they will introduce DLC into every game.

This argument would be a lot more convincing if Bioware itself hadn't invented DLC.

I don't know how in hell you interperated what I wrote as "Bioware invented DLC". I was referring of course to this article from the EA shareholders conference, where EA assured shareholders that all future EA games will feature microtransactions and DLC as a requirement: http://www.gamesindu...crotransactions, you know, how EA insists that their developers add multiplayer, poke-around with forcing product placements into the game (christ, anyone remember the damn Phillips razor in "007: Nightfire"), EA diverting resources and providing developers with lists on what they have to include. Yeah, creative freedom alright .

Also, I'm sure Mr. Probst will be delighted to see that everyone has already forgotten what EA did to Westwood Studios and Pandemic.

I loved that Jim Sterling quote about how completely abhorrant EA's buisness and customer practices are that studios that are equally bad (Activision-Blizzard, Capcom), look good by the sheer fact that they are not EA.

[SpamBot2000]

N7recruit wrote...

With regards to how much say Bio have with their games, I assume that Aaryn Flynn, Casey & Preston present their concept for their up-coming game to the investors detailing & negotiating budget, how much features will cost, what features will appeal to mainstream/ make the most money, set appropriate deadlines that are realistic/fair, plan for post release content etc etc

Basically sell their concept to the investors, meet agreed upon deadlines through out development & then finally deliver a finished game on the agreed upon date.

Uh, not really very likely. See, BW is a wholly owned subsidiary of EA Inc., a publicly traded corporation, so the "investors" would be everyone who bought any EA shares. You think game developers frequently address mass meetings of stockholders? No, the developers get their marching orders from EA corporate officers. What degree of leeway they have in developing their game is exactly that given them by the corporate brass. Now, according to Greg Zeschuk, there is "enough rope" provided that the developers can mess up a game by their own discretion. But it doesn't change the fact that there is a chain of command in which EA is above anyone specifically BioWare. 

Modifié par SpamBot2000, 29 juin 2013 - 12:09 .

[Bleachrude]

Huh?

Wasn't ME about fighting aliens aka the Reapers since the beginning?

Am I missing something here?

[Dean_the_Young]

iakus wrote...

Just a point of detail, but doesn't EA require all its games to have an online component?  Be it multiplayer, social media tie-in, or whatever?  Isn't that "meddling" to a degree?

In the creation of the story?

Uh, no more than the expectation that Bioware actually creates a game.

[SpamBot2000]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

iakus wrote...

Just a point of detail, but doesn't EA require all its games to have an online component?  Be it multiplayer, social media tie-in, or whatever?  Isn't that "meddling" to a degree?

In the creation of the story?

Uh, no more than the expectation that Bioware actually creates a game.

Well, it IS meddling to that exact degree, yes. Frank Gibeau, VP for EA Labels, who said he wouldn't greenlight any game without those features, is in a position to enforce that. 

[Bleachrude]

Again...I'll point out.

Hasn't ME ALWAYS been about fighting aliens?

The OP doesn't make sense....

[Pressedcat]

Bleachrude wrote...

Again...I'll point out.

Hasn't ME ALWAYS been about fighting aliens?

The OP doesn't make sense....

Shush with your valid points; we're slagging off EA and BioWare here!

[Mushashi7]

Sheepie Crusher wrote...

 The First Contact War or the Reaper War on Earth

Most of the succesfull AAA sci fi games today are about fighting an alien invasion( Halo, Gears Of War etc)

Alien invasion/war is our days tales of fairies and demons.
Fight against the unknow and bad animals who wants to eat us.

There isn't really any more room left here on earth, so I'd say we have
to move further out in space to find an outer enemy. And we all know the
Moon, Venus and Mars. We have to travel much
further to let our worst imaginations and fear have its place. My god,
who believes that there are goblins in our gardens anymore?

What would life be without fantasies of Santa Claus and gods? Boring, right? So, we invent.

We need something that puts our selves into a perspective. We need to know what we are, and not.  We need a reason to be. To be born is not enough. I need identity and a reason.
We need a goal and a task to fullfil. An enemy and something to fight for is not a bad thing as it gives us a perspective. Placed between to points we can say: "This is what I am and where I am. I live."
Anything else is pointless to us, and we could just kill our selves. End of problem.

Why do you think politicians always speak of "us and them"?
It gives you a feeling of being a part of something. An identity. And if this identity is connected to other specimens of your race you definetely feel you are a part of something very important.

Our sorroundings change but our genes and minds do not. At least not at the same speed. Our primitive mind still lives in cages. Sorry to say but that's how it is.

But FPS is not enough for many people anymore. This is the interesting part. Interactive play where you can realise your own ideas is very important. I think RPG is the inevitable next step in games. It all ends up in games where the player can involve him self in the events, but also change things. And I especially think RPG will be dominating one day because our world is getting smaller and smaller, and so does the feeling of beeing able to have influence on it as well. We need illusions that can take away our feeling of being small individuals in a world that demands more and more consciousness.

But we shouldn't talk about this. After all this is a game forum where people play games to get their daily injection of illusions

Modifié par Mushashi7, 29 juin 2013 - 05:05 .

[TheProtheans]

Pressedcat wrote...

Bleachrude wrote...

Again...I'll point out.

Hasn't ME ALWAYS been about fighting aliens?

The OP doesn't make sense....

Shush with your valid points; we're slagging off EA and BioWare here!

I would not say it was always about fighting aliens, there are other things it was about.
An alien invasion was not really one.

[Cainhurst Crow]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

You know, I've got to make a comment. For s**** and giggles, I loaded up ME3 last night and started the campaign. I really don't know if I'm going to be able to even make it through the game. It's not because of the "oh woe is me" stuff. No none of that. I just finished a play of ME2. I've been off vodka and weed for over a year. I'm stone cold sober.

If video games want to be taken seriously as art, they have to do a better job than this. The dialogue is horrid. I'm not talking about the lack of dialogue choices. That's not what is bothering me. It's the quality of the dialogue. It is really bad. I'm groaning on every line. The timing is just terrible. The dialogue is 5th grade level reading material. This is comic book stuff. I know this is what Mac Walters writes.

There is a significant step down in the quality of dialogue from ME2 to ME3. They say it's resources. Okay, fine. You've actually got more dialogue. Cut quantity and improve quality. Quality always is better than quantity. Stop dumbing down everything.

If you're going to have to free up resources to improve quality do it even if it means you have to ****** off people by canonizing stuff like everyone critical survived the suicide mission and only the Genophage, and Heretic, and Collector Base, and LI decisions mattered. That's what CDProjekt does and does anyone complain? No. They praise TW2.

It means fewer lines of dialogue to write. It means fewer recorded lines from VAs so you can write better lines and write a better story. Now that excuse is gone.

Okay EA. Stop dumbing down your products.

Wow. Been a very long time since I've disagreed with an entire statement posted by someone. Usually it's just one or two points from them and the rest is pretty agreeable stuff.

[AlexMBrennan]

The threat of alien invasion in ME1 was purely incidental in ME1 - Saren was trying to a acquire a doomsday weapon and Shepard had to stop him, and the doomsday weapon just happened to be "opening a portal to hostile alien space" which could easily have been replaced with virtually anything else (e.g. Black hole gun, biological weapon, etc)

[Cainhurst Crow]

Bleachrude wrote...

Again...I'll point out.

Hasn't ME ALWAYS been about fighting aliens?

The OP doesn't make sense....

Apparently you didn't play the game right.

Don't know how someone can be so arrogant as to tell somehow else the right and wrong way to enjoy a game they bought for their enjoyment, but apparently that's just how it is.

[Cainhurst Crow]

AlexMBrennan wrote...

The threat of alien invasion in ME1 was purely incidental in ME1 - Saren was trying to a acquire a doomsday weapon and Shepard had to stop him, and the doomsday weapon just happened to be "opening a portal to hostile alien space" which could easily have been replaced with virtually anything else (e.g. Black hole gun, biological weapon, etc)

So basically an alien invasion being the driving thing to try and prevent during ME1 in order to stop the bad guy doesn't mean that alien invasions were a part of ME1 and was purely incidental?

Also, what about the geth invading organic space and killing thousands of people to serve their alien invasion overlords?

Modifié par Darth Brotarian, 29 juin 2013 - 03:51 .

[Bleachrude]

StreetMagic wrote...

ME's bigger theme is more about alien cooperation than invasion, I think? The story starts off with humanity's first big steps to Council status, their willingness to show goodwill by procuring the Prothean artifact on Eden Prime, etc.. They're like a young kid trying to make friends. The Invasion of the Reapers pretty much ruins any of hope of this working out conventionally.

That might be the theme of ME3, but it definitely wasn't the them of ME1. Remember, the renegade playthrough was also a "humans first" (basically pro-cerberus) angle. There's also the fact that at the end, humans could take over the council (a retcon I'm glad ME2 did).

You could not recruit Garrus, pick up Liara JUST before Ilos, not recruit Wrex (interesting side-note. I didn't remember this fact until I saw a ME3 video with Wreav and the poster mnetioned that he didn't kill Wrex, he just didn't recruit him - I wonder about that inforgraphic stat how many of those that didn't meet Wrex in ME3 are due to those that never recruited him vs those that killed him).

Neither would I say ME2 was about cooperation among alien races since practically everyone had differing reasons for joining.

re: Darth brotarian
I'm not sure why my statement could be considered arrogant. Up till you get the cipher, the assumption the player would assume was that it was craxy alien leading alien machines to kill humans since Saren never attacked any of the other races.

How is this not your typical "aliens are invading!!!" storyline. And when you do find out about the reapers, how again is this NOT "aliens are invading" storyline...sure, said aliens aren't discriminating against humans any more, but it STILL is an alien invasion.