300 réponses à ce sujet

[David7204]

They wouldn't be doing it because there's no way in hell they could ever get away it. Yes, they might have thought players would be happy enough with the game that they would be satisfied with the Rachni or ending or whatever and it wouldn't be a problem.

But this is nothing like that. Whether the game is a third person shooter or not is a core mechanic that will be utterly obvious to anyone who pays a lick of attention to any preview months in advance. You couldn't possibly hide the fact that your game is an FPS from players.

Modifié par David7204, 24 août 2013 - 05:52 .

[CynicalShep]

adayaday wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Telling people what they want to hear. Sales and publicity. Good press. Marketing.

So for ME3 they lie for the reasons above,however they don't have a reason to lie right now?what has changed?

They don't lie, they "tell people what they want to hear". Can't you see the difference?

[Ieldra]

@OP:
No, not really. What got me hooked back in 2008 was that ME was that rare beast, a role-playing game in an SF universe. What made me a fan in ME2 in spite of some flaws were compelling characters.

ME3 (actually, it started with the ending of ME2) substituted pseudomystical crap for believable fictional science, removed most of the roleplaying by making the protagonist more defined and giving them traits I don't like, and developed my favorite NPC into a direction I hated.

Unless they reboot the universe or go back to the roots, and most importantly make a really good attempt to not force a particular viewpoint or emotion on the protagonist, it's unlikely that a new ME game will capture my fancy. It appears that if you want role-playing and some freedom to express your protagonists from Bioware, you'll be much better off with Dragon Age games.

[David7204]

You know, given that you support Synthesis, I'm curious to hear how you think such a thing could ever have worked at all without "pseudomystical crap."

Modifié par David7204, 24 août 2013 - 06:04 .

[CynicalShep]

EntropicAngel wrote...

CynicalShep wrote...

And this.

Not really valid. Heck at one point they list "Tetris for Android." "Tetris for Kindle." "Tetris for iPhone." "Tetris Mobile." They're listing all mobile titles as completely separate games.

Heck, there's more nonsense like that. Monopoly games, listed separately for each phone operating system. Battleship, the old board game. Connect 4, for crying out loud. SCRABBLE on Facebook. Jeez.

Like Davey said - good marketing. "Look, we released 92 games". 
That's why I said half a dozen (likely a little more) of massive games that have to be out every year. With the labor practies they likely employ it's not that hard to understand why their games aren't exactly stellar. This was my point all along.

[David7204]

Your 'point' is very clumsy and unsupported at best. Even if you did prove that EA is putting out all these games - which you didn't - there's really no reason at all to assume that there's the explanation behind what you see as a decline in video game quality.

[AlanC9]

iakus wrote...


I just want to hear MEHEM can be my canon ending that won't be contradicted in future games.  If they want to make amends, just say that.

Of course, MEHEM is indistinguishable from high EMS Destroy, as long as you've managed to have the geth destroyed at Rannoch.

Modifié par AlanC9, 24 août 2013 - 06:13 .

[The Heretic of Time]

David7204 wrote...

You could just as easily say the primary purpose of any content made by BioWare is to make money. And it would be just as true.

Because that is true.

Making games is their job. A job is something you do to make money.

[AlanC9]

Ieldra2 wrote...


ME3 (actually, it started with the ending of ME2) substituted pseudomystical crap for believable fictional science, removed most of the roleplaying by making the protagonist more defined and giving them traits I don't like, and developed my favorite NPC into a direction I hated.

I seem to remember a fair amount of pseudomystical crap in ME1 as well.

[David7204]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

David7204 wrote...

You could just as easily say the primary purpose of any content made by BioWare is to make money. And it would be just as true.

Because that is true.

Making games is their job. A job is something you do to make money.

Good. So then you would agree that attacking BioWare for releasing the Extended Cut on the grounds that it was done to make money in the long run is absurd, then?

[CynicalShep]

David7204 wrote...

Your 'point' is very clumsy and unsupported at best. Even if you did prove that EA is putting out all these games - which you didn't - there's really no reason at all to assume that there's the explanation behind what you see as a decline in video game quality.

The list of games was on EAs website. It's fair to assume that they did indeed "put them out", unless put out has a different meaning where you're from. Now you can argue that that's not the cause behind "what I see" as a decline in videogame quality and that's your right, nevermind that I never made such an absolute statement. Absolutes are your speciality. 
I, for one, think that workload is part of the reason why EA's games are unpolished or a polished version of last year's game. That and a lack of competition they face for half of their yearly releases.

[David7204]

I gotta say, if I were EA, I would keep pumping out unimaginative sports games every year as long as they keep selling. Why not? It's not like you're ruining a story or franchise. Let the golden goose lay eggs and put the money towards the real projects.

Modifié par David7204, 24 août 2013 - 06:20 .

[The Heretic of Time]

David7204 wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

David7204 wrote...

You could just as easily say the primary purpose of any content made by BioWare is to make money. And it would be just as true.

Because that is true.

Making games is their job. A job is something you do to make money.

Good. So then you would agree that attacking BioWare for releasing the Extended Cut on the grounds that it was done to make money in the long run is absurd, then?

You assume that people are complaining about the EC on the grounds that it was done to make money. You're wrong.

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 24 août 2013 - 06:24 .

[CynicalShep]

EntropicAngel wrote...

CynicalShep wrote...

Like Davey said - good marketing. "Look, we released 92 games". 
That's why I said half a dozen (likely a little more) of massive games that have to be out every year. With the labor practies they likely employ it's not that hard to understand why their games aren't exactly stellar. This was my point all along.

You said their problem was that they release half a dozen titles each year. But the problem with that statement is that they have more than enough people to release twice as many titles each year. Their "problem," if they have any, has nothing to do with how many they release.

It's their business practices [not that I personally feel that way, but that's what got them the Worst Company award, not the fact that they have 400 people working on a game (when a company like CDProjectRED has half that number)].

Except CDProjectRed released a game every 3-4 years as opposed to EAs yearly releases. Half the number of employees and 4 times the amount of time they have to work on a game. That would be the equivalent of DICE having to release a game every other year. 
And juggling a multitude of projects is harder than working on one single project at a time. 
That being said, the Witcher was far from perfect and buggy as hell, especially right after the release (and I rather liked the game)

[AlanC9]

EntropicAngel wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

I seem to remember a fair amount of pseudomystical crap in ME1 as well.

Let's not forget the first one--this magical beacon that gives Shepard a vision. And of course Sovereign's conversation is always a favorite--pretty much the definition of pseudomystical.

I give Sovereign a pass there; it's either a cheap attempt at intimidation, or he's in denial about the Reapers themselves not knowing what the point of the cycles is. I prefer the latter interpretation, myself.

[The Heretic of Time]

David7204 wrote...

I gotta say, if I were EA, I would keep pumping out unimaginative sports games every year as long as they keep selling. Why not? It's not like you're ruining a story or franchise. Let the golden goose lay eggs and put the money towards the real projects.

Be careful what you wish for. Mass Effect is already on it's way to become that golden goose you're talking about.

[David7204]

Really? And here I thought a year was 12 months. Interesting that the next game is being 'pumped out' and yet we've yet to hear a thing about it 18 months after ME 3's release.

Modifié par David7204, 24 août 2013 - 06:32 .

[CynicalShep]

David7204 wrote...

I gotta say, if I were EA, I would keep pumping out unimaginative sports games every year as long as they keep selling. Why not? It's not like you're ruining a story or franchise. Let the golden goose lay eggs and put the money towards the real projects.

Well, you're not EA. Besides, they already lost a good chunk of their market for FIFA because of PES (which is far from perfect). Apparently "pumping out unimaginative sports games" can bite you in the @ss 

[David7204]

I fail to see how raking in cash for years on and end and having it eventually dry up is getting "bitten in the @ss.:D" It seems to me like a much better alternative then getting no cash at all.

Modifié par David7204, 24 août 2013 - 06:35 .

[The Heretic of Time]

David7204 wrote...

Really? And here I thought a year was 12 months. Interesting that the next game is being 'pumped out' and yet we've yet to hear a thing about it 18 months after ME 3's release.

Hence I said "on it's way to become" and not "already is".

Learn to read.