51 réponses à ce sujet

[o Ventus]

Baelrahn wrote...

What is often ommitted though, is that obviously not all departments finish their respective contributions together, at the exact moment the game goes gold. It's usually the QA and testing department, as one might imagine.

They (with the exception of the art people, as I said) almost always work to a point near the time the game goes gold, because there are almost always improvements to be made in some field or another. I'll say it again. It isn't like the level designers construct a model layout of each level then just drop what they're doing on the core game and go do DLC stuff. The various programmers alone put in more hours than anybody. It isn't like Bioware is Infinity Ward or Treyarch, with 500-man staffs who are mostly interchangeable.

[Sanunes]

o Ventus wrote...

Baelrahn wrote...

What is often ommitted though, is that obviously not all departments finish their respective contributions together, at the exact moment the game goes gold. It's usually the QA and testing department, as one might imagine.

They (with the exception of the art people, as I said) almost always work to a point near the time the game goes gold, because there are almost always improvements to be made in some field or another. I'll say it again. It isn't like the level designers construct a model layout of each level then just drop what they're doing on the core game and go do DLC stuff. The various programmers alone put in more hours than anybody. It isn't like Bioware is Infinity Ward or Treyarch, with 500-man staffs who are mostly interchangeable.

I would think its more then just the art staff that might be done before the game goes gold.  They would probably have writers, system protoypes, and maybe concept art would be done before the graphic design people for those areas would get finalized first; then of course the programmers, animators, and graphic design would be finished next; and then you would have the game testers and a few programmers that are designated as bug stompers that would finish when the game goes gold. Since we don't know 100% how they have their teams laid out there is a good chance that some people are done two to three months before the game goes gold and then whey they are done their part of the DLC other teams are finishing their aspects of the main game.

The reason why I seperate between main programming and bug troubleshooting, is from my limited experience it seems they are two different disciplines because troubleshooting is more about finding the problem and correcting it and main programming is creating something from scratch and with ME3MP they said they had different teams creating content and fixing bugs for it.

[rekn2]

im not a consumer, im a customer...........BIG DIFFERENCE

[Cainhurst Crow]

o Ventus wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...

iakus wrote...

Probably because those two games are linear action games while ME3 at least claimed to be a choice driven rpg. In theory you're choices should have made it possible to avoid such stupid outcomes

Did they do so in the other games?

With the exception of the scripted binary choice, yes. ME has always had a get-out-of-jail-free card when it comes to the big choices.

Never saw that choice offered in either mass effect 1 or 2. I don't believe my previous choices actually affected the final choices and outcomes of the game outside of cosmetic (Music and the color of the background).

Modifié par Darth Brotarian, 25 juillet 2013 - 05:09 .

[o Ventus]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

Never saw that choice offered in either mass effect 1 or 2. I don't believe my previous choices actually affected the final choices and outcomes of the game outside of cosmetic (Music and the color of the background).

Loaded statements don't typically work well when presenting a case.

Your previous choices do influence the endig slides, which ARE part of the ending.

[Cainhurst Crow]

o Ventus wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...

Never saw that choice offered in either mass effect 1 or 2. I don't believe my previous choices actually affected the final choices and outcomes of the game outside of cosmetic (Music and the color of the background).

Loaded statements don't typically work well when presenting a case.

Your previous choices do influence the endig slides, which ARE part of the ending.

There were ending slides in mass effect 1 and 2?

[o Ventus]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

There were ending slides in mass effect 1 and 2?

I wasn't aware that you were talking about ME1 or 2 there.

Whatever the case, the ending to ME1 isn't in a position to be defined by your prior choices. Neither is ME2's ending. ME3's ending, however, is directly tied into your war asset count, Which itself is directly tied to the choices made in 1 and 2. A large amount of choices are ignored, and those that aren't don't amount to anything meaningful in the end.

[Cainhurst Crow]

I was only talking about mass effect 1 and 2, I apologize for not making that clear.

Mainly I was trying to prove a point, the point being that since mass effect 1 and mass effect 2 never had it where our previous choices had almost no effect on the endings at all, what made him think mass effect 3 would somehow change this.

[o Ventus]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

I was only talking about mass effect 1 and 2, I apologize for not making that clear.

Mainly I was trying to prove a point, the point being that since mass effect 1 and mass effect 2 never had it where our previous choices had almost no effect on the endings at all, what made him think mass effect 3 would somehow change this.

I literally just explained why in that last post.

[Cainhurst Crow]

I don't understand though, since you need higher war assets in order to get the better tier choices from the crucible. That's already more of an affect on the ending than the other games offered, for what little that would mean in the series.

[tanisha__unknown]

I am not strictly against DLC. When a company spends resources to make additional content, naturally they charge you for it when you want to eperience it. That you pay much more for the same amount of content even though the 'ínfrastructure' already exists (pretty much all the graphics, the AI, the engine) is something I can swallow.

A day 1 DLC however is something hard to accept. It feels like content was taken out of the game to make more money of gamers by selling the game slicewise. As long as the game is not realeased, I expect developers to work on that. Sure, they do not have to follow my expectations, and I admit that I was weak and got From Ashes on release day (come on, it is the final game and the additional content is a Prothean...), however this only worked for ME because I was very much into the sreries. I expect developers to have a harder time selling such stuff for titles where there is no such loyal fanbase who craves for more from such an immersive universe.

[Malanek]

The way you are using the word boycott makes absolutely no sense. ME4 hasn't come out yet unless you are talking about dlc?

For one, I can't wait until the next ME comes out. The multiplayer was amazing imo, most fun multiplayer game I've ever played. The only problem with it was that the gameplay was so good, it made the gameplay in SP look a bit boring. Generally speaking, I would rather solo in MP, than play SP again.

I must admit I am a bit nervous about the direction the writers want to take the story. There seem to have been several decisions in that regard that I thought were quite bad and would love for them to give us some information about when in the timeline it is going to take place.

[Sanunes]

Jinx1720 wrote...

I am not strictly against DLC. When a company spends resources to make additional content, naturally they charge you for it when you want to eperience it. That you pay much more for the same amount of content even though the 'ínfrastructure' already exists (pretty much all the graphics, the AI, the engine) is something I can swallow.

A day 1 DLC however is something hard to accept. It feels like content was taken out of the game to make more money of gamers by selling the game slicewise. As long as the game is not realeased, I expect developers to work on that. Sure, they do not have to follow my expectations, and I admit that I was weak and got From Ashes on release day (come on, it is the final game and the additional content is a Prothean...), however this only worked for ME because I was very much into the sreries. I expect developers to have a harder time selling such stuff for titles where there is no such loyal fanbase who craves for more from such an immersive universe.

So what should the devs do for the weeks/months they are unable to work on anything? The industry normally just fires... err layoffs the excess staff, BioWare works on Day 1 DLC.  If some of the articles I have been reading are accurate when a game goes for certification to Microsoft and Sony (Nintendo too if its released on their consoles) its generally four to six weeks before the game goes gold, but they can't make any changes to it, otherwise it has to be certified again.

Modifié par Sanunes, 26 juillet 2013 - 01:31 .

[Triforce Hermit]

Fraq Hound wrote...

Triforce Hermit wrote...

True. There is a lot of bias towards EA that fuels the fire so to speak. Skyrim had horrible story all around with everything. But yet, no one talks about it except on the Bethsoft forums (where the rage is worse then the ME3 ending rage here). Beth did a horrible job with Skyrim's guild and main quest (which pissed off tons of fans of the series), but the game only continues to recieve praise, and that was a major part of the game that they poorly executed! But yet ME3 gets ripped to shreds for an ending.

Bias, I see it all over.

I assume most people don't play Bethesda games for the "Story" though. I know I certainly don't.

I play Bethesda Games because I want to experience the amazing open world sandboxes they create. If the story turns out to be good, then that's just icing on the cake. Honestly I think Bethesda's bland companion characters bug me more then the weak story telling.

Bioware games on the other hand... I play their games for the story and companion characters. Good gameplay is the icing there.

That's why ME3 gets ripped to shreds.

If you like lore in TES (which a lot of people do), then Skyrim is a generic half-***ed kick in the nuts.

[wolfhowwl]

Imanol de Tafalla wrote...

I have noticed that too many people blame EA for things that said publisher was not even responsible for.

Well the ending was certainly all Bioware's baby.

[voteDC]

Darth Brotarian wrote...


Never saw that choice offered in either mass effect 1 or 2. I don't believe my previous choices actually affected the final choices and outcomes of the game outside of cosmetic (Music and the color of the background).

In Mass Effect 1 the ending dialogue would change depending on if you'd been paragon or renegade.

Not a huge difference but definitely something I appreciated.

[DarthLaxian]

Triforce Hermit wrote...

Sanunes wrote...

The question for me is how much of those issues are also a bigger issue because EA is involved instead of a company like Valve and why some bloggers still mention the ending of Mass Effect 3, but won't talk about the ending for Assassin's Creed 3 or BioShock: Infinite which also hit sour notes with fans of those series.

True. There is a lot of bias towards EA that fuels the fire so to speak. Skyrim had horrible story all around with everything. But yet, no one talks about it except on the Bethsoft forums (where the rage is worse then the ME3 ending rage here). Beth did a horrible job with Skyrim's guild and main quest (which pissed off tons of fans of the series), but the game only continues to recieve praise, and that was a major part of the game that they poorly executed! But yet ME3 gets ripped to shreds for an ending.

Bias, I see it all over.

well - i have never been on the Bethesda-Forums/Boards, but i still disliked Skyrim (and i thought it very stupid that it only received praise because while i enjoyed the game, i didn't think it that good - maybe because it is "too open world" for me, i mean the game does not even much want me to continue the main quest (it is just not that interesting IMHO) - i rather do things like become boss of the mages, boss of the thieves etc. and that is kind of sad IMHO, when doing side-quests is more interesting (at least for me) then the main quest...that's why i never finished the main quest in Skyrim...)

as for ME3, Day-One-DLC, Cut-Content-DLC etc.

ME3 in itself is a bad game that is still fun to play (if one discounts the bad ending, the feeling of being distant from the major happenings, the Cerberus has become stupid etc.) - meaning:

the gameplay is ok (it does have some issues, like the "one button for everything" (from ducking, to activating buttons, collecting stuff, hacking etc.), no mini-games (i enjoyed those - well most of them, what i disliked was ME1 hacking)) but the story is bull-crap IMHO (ending, discounting of player choices (SPOILERS: like the rachni, sitting in jail at the start of the game (my Sheppards would have never gone back just to be confined for months!), geth and quarians fighting etc.), killing Squadmates (without a - good - way out!) etc.)

Day-One-DLC - well that is just stupid IMHO (and yes: with the game reaching "done" (gold!) status close to launch, they either pulled people from the team or had additional people working the DLC (who in theory could have made ME3 awesome, which it wasn't))

Same for Cut-Content-DLC (and using that time to create that - in my oppinion (other people may think differently) - retarded multiplayer that was as un-needed as a pimple/acne on your face is) - even more as they should have had the common courtesy to release it for free then, if they had to cut it out in the first place (which IMHO means, that they sold us an unfinished game (cutting stuff late in development is kind of like admitting we can't hack it, let's just leave it be - which is ok, if you have a deadline that is approaching fast, but doing it so you can include a feature that many gamers do not want (and don't expect - ME was never designed for multplayer, it was a story-driven action-rpg!) and don't use, that is a bad decision...and if you add insult to injury by then selling the stuff you couldn't finish for money, then it becomes spitefull IMHO))

greetings LAX
ps: did they learn from it? - well, the bioware founders did (they might never admit it, but them selling themselves to EA was the worst decision they ever made) and drew the conclusion (they left to do other things - they could afford it, after they sold themselves to EA), maybe even the bioware devs did (not that they can change a thing with EA in charge IMHO...at least they can't openly (maybe they can do something internally?) because they have to to toe the company line (otherwise they might loose their jobs - which makes for a nice working atmosphere, if your bosses threaten your livelyhood if you admit that you/your company or - god help us all - the new owner of your company makes bad choices!)

pps: as for Assassin's Creed 3 ending? - well i have not finished the game (it became boring quite early IMHO - even more so as the new controlls were not to my liking (i loved those from AC2 onward)) and Bioshock: Infinite: i didn't buy it, after they told me, that they revamped it into a COD-Shooter (2 Guns) with powers and regenerating health/shield (not that i am 100% against such a mechanic, but it didn't fit bioshock IMHO and i love the first 2 games!)....while still keeping things like weapon-upgrades (why would i want to upgrade a weapon, if i might need to drop said gun/rifle when i can't find ammo for it anymore? and then this sky-hook thing...in theory an element i would love, but constantly running in battles (not planing like in the other bioshocks when you wanted to harvest adam for example or kill a big daddy etc.), jumping and generally speeding things up? - no, i play games to relaxe, not to fry my brain and get stress issues

Modifié par DarthLaxian, 26 juillet 2013 - 12:17 .

[rekn2]

o Ventus wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...

Never saw that choice offered in either mass effect 1 or 2. I don't believe my previous choices actually affected the final choices and outcomes of the game outside of cosmetic (Music and the color of the background).

Loaded statements don't typically work well when presenting a case.

Your previous choices do influence the endig slides, which ARE part of the ending.

funny you mention slides that were put in AFTER the game shipped and only AFTER people ****ed, but its cool.

Modifié par rekn2, 26 juillet 2013 - 03:36 .

[rekn2]

Malanek999 wrote...

The way you are using the word boycott makes absolutely no sense. ME4 hasn't come out yet unless you are talking about dlc?

For one, I can't wait until the next ME comes out. The multiplayer was amazing imo, most fun multiplayer game I've ever played. The only problem with it was that the gameplay was so good, it made the gameplay in SP look a bit boring. Generally speaking, I would rather solo in MP, than play SP again.

I must admit I am a bit nervous about the direction the writers want to take the story. There seem to have been several decisions in that regard that I thought were quite bad and would love for them to give us some information about when in the timeline it is going to take place.

are you serious? horde mode thats in every other shooter out there?

[o Ventus]

rekn2 wrote...

funny you mention slides that were put in AFTER the game shipped and only AFTER people ****ed, but its cool.

Am I supposed to just magically know (without context) that the post I quoted was about the original endings?

[Remix-General Aetius]

does the OP even know what the word "boycott" means?

[rekn2]

o Ventus wrote...

rekn2 wrote...

funny you mention slides that were put in AFTER the game shipped and only AFTER people ****ed, but its cool.

Am I supposed to just magically know (without context) that the post I quoted was about the original endings?

my comment is a gripe about " after the fact"