Darth Brotarian wrote...
LucasShark wrote...
JamesFaith wrote...
LucasShark wrote...
Frostbite for its part was designed to be a product of this generation in console gaming. That means it is designed to focus on presentation, which is fine, but it is also one of the least relevant elements in a game like Mass Effect. I'd also argue that it is one of the least relevant aspects to making a generally good game, since graphics and sound are presentation. You can make a bad game look good, it will still be bad.
So you are claiming that because game would look good it would be automatically bad in other ways? Is there some secret causal nexus between graphic and overal quality of game? And since when is good looking game and good gameplay and story elemenets mutualy exclusive?
This is just another anti-ME4 paranoia covered by "technical argument".
And you ignored the point... what I'm saying is that by shackleing themselves to an engine that doesn't play to their strengths, Bioware is starting off on a bad foot. Yes: the game could still be good, but it would be to some degree inspite of the engine, not because of it. My view on graphics emphasis being a contributor to this industry's stagnation adds to that suspicion.
And what, preytell, is that suppose to mean? Have you played with the engine? Do you know what strengths it has or doesn't have?
Considering that no games have come out using this engine yet, I find it preposterous that you would know what the engines limitations are, and what it's maximum strength is.
No, I have not had direct exposure to the engine itself.
I can however through pattern observation on games produced in its predecessor what they MIGHT, and probably will be. It took several games for anyone to point out that Unreal engine games had a "look", and Epic still hates to hear that. As for Frostbite: as I said above, it is designed to work in the current market of the AAA games industry, and knowing EA: it's been comitee designed out the arse for this precise purpose. What is most important to most game publishers right now? It certainly isn't depth or story telling: it's presentation. How do I know EA is invested heavily in this particular vision of the games industry? Just look at its recent output, and its risk factor analysis.
Its last "big" games of Battlefield 3, Deadspace 3, and so on have all put their emphasis on pleasing as many audiences as possible, genuinely good to great graphical fadelity, and monitization.
As for EA's risk factor analysis: it can best be summed up like this: "Get the hits out fast, and make sure they sell". This kind of attitude is counter-productive to producing the type of games Mass Effect was supposedly going to be, and the sort of games Bioware is or was good at producing.
How heavily invested is EA in this strategy? Here's how: they spent 100+ MILLION dollars marketing battlefield 3. MARKETING, not development, not design, not asset production, marketing. You know how much money that is? That's the entire production cost of the Witcher 2 6 times over.
Modifié par LucasShark, 17 juillet 2013 - 05:01 .
Retour en haut
