43 réponses à ce sujet

[KBGeller]

packardbell wrote...

These posts are really starting to become a nuisance.

Simply put, don't make judgements on a game you haven't played yet and until that day your point is completely null and void.

This.

As far as DAO goes. It was a stylized game. They did not want it to be super graphics heavy, that wasn't the point. Youngin's these days cant get value out of a game if it isnt top of the line graphics. Only ME and TF2 are the 2 games that exceed in quality the epic games of old, nothing else so far.

Why no "active" combat is because that was the RPG style they chose. They wanted it to be more tactful and not FPS (first person slash).

Now, was ME1 good? Yes. Will ME2 be good? Most likely. Is ME2 different? Yes. Will those changes adversely affect gameplay? We will have to see.

[Iamoncewas]

Crawling_Chaos wrote...

Iamoncewas wrote...

Edit:  I know characters down the road need to be in DLC I am saying same day DLC you know the stuff you get on the same day the game comes out, meaning it is ready the same day the game is?

Which is why they offer it as free content for all those who purchase the game legit and actually support the company with sales.

again why not just put it in the game and save people especially people who have small harddrives aka the 20gb some space hmm?

[KBGeller]

Oh, and also. EA has NOTHING to do with game development. NOTHING. They are the publisher and that is all. They affect game dev as much as music publishers affect music CD content or book publishers affect book content.

Edit:

Crawling_Chaos wrote...

Iamoncewas wrote...

again
why not just put it in the game and save people especially people who
have small harddrives aka the 20gb some space hmm?

They
do it just to spite whiny twits.

And to try to get you to upgrade to a massive harddrive ( 1 tb) that is only like 100 bucks nowadays.

Modifié par KBGeller, 20 janvier 2010 - 03:26 .

[kcp12]

Iamoncewas wrote...

kcp12 wrote...

Stop pretending like you know how EA and Bioware operates. Why does everyone assume EA is behind every change Bioware has made to ME2 that they don't like.

The ammo issue has been discussed before by the Devs. One of the programmers got it to work and the dev team ended up liking it. Christina Norman, I believe, talked about this.

and you do I never said I did, I only made mention on how EA tends to get in the way of the sub-companies.

You have no proof that EA tends to get in the way their studio's game design. They may change the structure/dissolve their game studios but I doubt they care about ME2 ammo systems and whatnot. 

Modifié par kcp12, 20 janvier 2010 - 03:27 .

[Iamoncewas]

Austrolite wrote...

Games go into content lock long before they're released and the development process essentially ends with a lengthy period of QA and testing. Day 1 DLC is the result of the content team continuing to develop content to support the game while the core game is in lockdown, nothing more.

Now that's logical, but that still sucks for small harddrives and slow internet connections.

[Iamoncewas]

kcp12 wrote...

Iamoncewas wrote...

kcp12 wrote...

Stop pretending like you know how EA and Bioware operates. Why does everyone assume EA is behind every change Bioware has made to ME2 that they don't like.

The ammo issue has been discussed before by the Devs. One of the programmers got it to work and the dev team ended up liking it. Christina Norman, I believe, talked about this.

and you do I never said I did, I only made mention on how EA tends to get in the way of the sub-companies.

You have no proof that EA tends to get in the way their studio's game design. They may change the structure/dissolve their game studios but I doubt they care about ME2 ammo systems and whatnot. 

Your right I don't have proof, just the experience that when EA has gotten involved in other companies games things change, usually for not for the better.  Oh, when a company buys something it usually has something to say about what happens to it, especially if they buy another company the parent company usually has something to say about how things are done. 

[John Winski]

Reading posts like this really reminds me just how long I have been working in the industry. At first I read it and think "That's not how it works, how could he think that?" And then I remember, that person is not in the meetings getting all the information I get. And of course not everything said is always wrong. But then I don't get all the info either.



But then it doesn't matter if your information is wrong, it matters what you think and how much you enjoy the games and content we try to create. I wish people would not be so quick to blame EA for things they think Bioware has done wrong. EA and Bioware are in this together and make choices together. I think EA does a great job of letting us do our thing.



But never be afraid to voice your opinion because if you don't we can't get better at what we do. Please just don't attack others for having another opinion. (I really love the posts where people can have a heated yet civilized discussion)

[Iamoncewas]

John Winski wrote...

Reading posts like this really reminds me just how long I have been working in the industry. At first I read it and think "That's not how it works, how could he think that?" And then I remember, that person is not in the meetings getting all the information I get. And of course not everything said is always wrong. But then I don't get all the info either.

But then it doesn't matter if your information is wrong, it matters what you think and how much you enjoy the games and content we try to create. I wish people would not be so quick to blame EA for things they think Bioware has done wrong. EA and Bioware are in this together and make choices together. I think EA does a great job of letting us do our thing.

But never be afraid to voice your opinion because if you don't we can't get better at what we do. Please just don't attack others for having another opinion. (I really love the posts where people can have a heated yet civilized discussion)

You are right thank you, I know I don't know what is going on behind the sense I just hope that Bioware stands strong against any negative impact; I also hope Bioware gets the idea that going back on things that they have already set up is well not advisable.  However, I believe Bioware, as always, will come up with an ingenious method for making it work.  I can't wait until the game comes out. 

[MrGOH]

Crawling_Chaos wrote...

KBGeller wrote...

Oh, and also. EA has NOTHING to do with game development. NOTHING. They are the publisher and that is all. They affect game dev as much as music publishers affect music CD content or book publishers affect book content.

Wrong

Bioware has become fully incorporated into EA.  The Good Doctors have become executives (VP's) within EA.  What Bioware says and what EA says are basically one and the same.

Wrong. Bioware is a subsidiary company with certain rights as negotatied during the buyout. That is, Bioware is nominally independent, though EA has all the ownership interest. IIRC, Bioware has the right to cut itself loose  under certain circumstances, much like Bungie did with Microsoft. This is not full incorporation.

The Good Doctors negotiated to have a good degree of independence in how they manage Bioware as well, so in some sense what Bioware says about itself is not true of all of EA, but EA can dictate what Bioware does and says to a great degree. Most importantly, EA controls teh purse strings and can require a certain level of profitability from Bioware products.

This is important in the discussion of day 1 DLC because games like ME are very expensive to produce and do not recoup their full development costs for some time after release. If Day 1, new game only DLC allows Bioware to recoup some development costs because either used purchasers buy it or folks buy the new game rather than a used copy to get access, then Bioware will do so. Although EA didn't directly command Bioware to do this, the pressure from EA on Bioware to be as profitable as possible definitely affected Bioware's decision.

[Iamoncewas]

MrGOH wrote...

Crawling_Chaos wrote...

KBGeller wrote...

Oh, and also. EA has NOTHING to do with game development. NOTHING. They are the publisher and that is all. They affect game dev as much as music publishers affect music CD content or book publishers affect book content.

Wrong

Bioware has become fully incorporated into EA.  The Good Doctors have become executives (VP's) within EA.  What Bioware says and what EA says are basically one and the same.

Wrong. Bioware is a subsidiary company with certain rights as negotatied during the buyout. That is, Bioware is nominally independent, though EA has all the ownership interest. IIRC, Bioware has the right to cut itself loose  under certain circumstances, much like Bungie did with Microsoft. This is not full incorporation.

The Good Doctors negotiated to have a good degree of independence in how they manage Bioware as well, so in some sense what Bioware says about itself is not true of all of EA, but EA can dictate what Bioware does and says to a great degree. Most importantly, EA controls teh purse strings and can require a certain level of profitability from Bioware products.

This is important in the discussion of day 1 DLC because games like ME are very expensive to produce and do not recoup their full development costs for some time after release. If Day 1, new game only DLC allows Bioware to recoup some development costs because either used purchasers buy it or folks buy the new game rather than a used copy to get access, then Bioware will do so. Although EA didn't directly command Bioware to do this, the pressure from EA on Bioware to be as profitable as possible definitely affected Bioware's decision.

That happens to be a serious concern, again I think Bioware will work it out, I just hope that they don't forget where the game comes from while they are going to the best game ever. 

[MrGOH]

Iamoncewas wrote...

MrGOH wrote...

Crawling_Chaos wrote...

KBGeller wrote...

Oh, and also. EA has NOTHING to do with game development. NOTHING. They are the publisher and that is all. They affect game dev as much as music publishers affect music CD content or book publishers affect book content.

Wrong

Bioware has become fully incorporated into EA.  The Good Doctors have become executives (VP's) within EA.  What Bioware says and what EA says are basically one and the same.

Wrong. Bioware is a subsidiary company with certain rights as negotatied during the buyout. That is, Bioware is nominally independent, though EA has all the ownership interest. IIRC, Bioware has the right to cut itself loose  under certain circumstances, much like Bungie did with Microsoft. This is not full incorporation.

The Good Doctors negotiated to have a good degree of independence in how they manage Bioware as well, so in some sense what Bioware says about itself is not true of all of EA, but EA can dictate what Bioware does and says to a great degree. Most importantly, EA controls teh purse strings and can require a certain level of profitability from Bioware products.

This is important in the discussion of day 1 DLC because games like ME are very expensive to produce and do not recoup their full development costs for some time after release. If Day 1, new game only DLC allows Bioware to recoup some development costs because either used purchasers buy it or folks buy the new game rather than a used copy to get access, then Bioware will do so. Although EA didn't directly command Bioware to do this, the pressure from EA on Bioware to be as profitable as possible definitely affected Bioware's decision.

That happens to be a serious concern, again I think Bioware will work it out, I just hope that they don't forget where the game comes from while they are going to the best game ever. 

Oh, I have no problem whatsoever with Day 1 new copy only DLC, or even DLC in general so long as the core game is strong. Ithink the whole new game only DLC is a great way to add value to new copies of a game in an effort to compete with used game sales from which the developer and publisher see no money at all.

[Iamoncewas]

I can't blame them for that but ME1 is only 19.99 for the game of the year. just sayin, I know it is still a profit

[AsheraII]

As for EA messing up games, I feel it's starting to look like they're backpeddling a little from the "make money - screw the players" methods they incorporated in the past. Games on release have a much less "unfinished" feel than they had a few years back, where you basically HAD to buy expansions or really notice how some things were amiss.

Just to take their oldtime hit C&C as an example:

C&C1: Ballanced, felt complete in its release version

RA1: While well playable, some units felt like they had no real counter. These counters turned out to be expansion features

C&C2: Similar to RA1: some units were obviously missing from the game on release

RA2: Even worse, half the game went missing, to be released in an expac..

Dune Emperor: This is an odd one. It was *complete* overall. Turned out that all support was cut shortly after release, so the assumption is that shortly before its release, EA decided not to expand in this branch, and because of that had no need to cut out content for an expansion.

C&C Generals: Extremely unballanced game, many units and features obviously missing (most notably, the generals themselves..), expansion more or less required to play normally.

C&C3: Again, missing units, though not as badly as in Generals

RA3: almost complete, felt like RA1 ballancewise, some things missing, but very playable. The expansion both filled the gaps and actually expanded the game.



Now for DA:O, which actually isn't an EA game: gamecore and expansions/DLC's are developed seperately, by different teams. Despite claims otherwise, there is no content cut out to create expansions/DLC's. They are developed *seperately*. Which I think is the proper way of doing this. It makes developing the coregame more complicated, but I think the result is worth it, and I do hope the rest of EA takes over this system of having seperate teams work alongside eachother, instead of cutting out content to "have something for an expansion".

[Inverness Moon]

Iamoncewas wrote...

Ok so same day DLC on shale was because he couldn't fit through the door hmmmmmmmmmm so they released something the same day that the game was released because there was something wrong with him.  hmmm. You want to rethink that for a moment.

No , I don't want to rethink that, you just don't understand. There comes a time in the development process when you can no longer add things like characters unless you want to push the game back weeks or months. They cut out Shale so they could focus on the rest of the game and them came back to it after most of the work had been done. Obviously they got it done in time to make Shale available for free on day 1. It is not hard to understand.

Iamoncewas wrote...

I didn't say Bioware was scared, I said they were afraid because of pirates, maybe I am wrong, and Maybe I am not.  Point in fact is that EA has a bad habitat of interfering with subsidiaries games.  Point, Ammo requirement originally the lore of ME1 made a reason why the weapons didn't need to reload and heat management and recoil was the primary problem, just one example of some interference EA has with Bioware games. However I am sure the Bioware does want to appeal to a large game base I am just not sure they would change lore in such a magnitude in order to reach that group. 

Lore is not as important as gameplay. I buy games so I can have fun. The inclusion of ammo makes combat more interesting because you have to think more carefully about what you do as you do not have unlimited resources and can not fire your weapon constantly at higher levels. This was explained by BioWare months ago, but your opinion of EA seems to be clouding your perception.

Iamoncewas wrote...
Edit:  I know characters down the road need to be in DLC I am saying same day DLC you know the stuff you get on the same day the game comes out, meaning it is ready the same day the game is?

Explained earlier.

Modifié par Inverness Moon, 20 janvier 2010 - 11:32 .

[Gorn Kregore]

Iamoncewas wrote...

I know that this will probably get locked but here goes nothing.

I am having serious concerns that EA is having a negative impact on BIOWare, there are multiple examples, especially, with DA:O, while a true RPG, and an actual tactical game, I believe the graphics and different combat functions such as no active involvement in the combat, blood that magically sprayed your entire body, the ability for enemies to shoot you through walls while you could replicate the action, etc.  While I enjoyed the game, I had my doubts when I heard that there would be first day DLC, this concerned me because now you may pay extra for a game you expect to be complete in order to get the game designers original intent for the game.  .  Now I understand the DLC will come out and can be added to the game, however I do not like having to fill my hard-drive up because they want to make an extra dollar and refuse to put the game on an extra disk.

Now for ME2, while I have no doubt it will be the GAME of 2010, I don't like the fact that BIOWare has decided that it can't add a character into the game that is meant to be recruitable, sorry I believe that if you have a character that you want in the game then make sure they are in the game before you put it out.  People who do not preorder the game should not have to pay extra to get the games original intent.  I personally believe that this is part of EA Games pushing Bioware to make a greater profit (as if they needed the help) and when they get the opportunity, after Mass Effect 3, and some other hopeful cash cows, they will do the same thing to Bioware that they did to Pandemic.  Meaning that we will loose a great source of games in the future and the games that Bioware will produce in that time will be hampered by EA Games, making a sad future for gamers everywhere.

[Deflagratio]

It's likely that the Day 1 DLC will be free. While I'm not doubting that this could very well have been a "Selective cut" from the main game, it is a much better alternative to DRM's like SecuROM which Bioshock 2 was just confirmed to be using (And with it, a third of all PC sales went bye bye).

On another side, I'm sure there was at least "Limited" poking by EA to make Mass2 appeal to more players. But that's not really a bad thing. Mass Effect was broken in several spots, if they could fix those, and at the same time make it more accessible to more people, there's nothing wrong with that. Honestly, it'd be gaming nirvana to get the slick console shooter experience of Gears of War, with the RPG layers and superb narrative that Bioware throws in, in one package. With games like Darkvoid turning out to be a flop, Darksiders being just a ripoff of God of War with Zelda gadgets, It's nice to see, even though Mass Effect 2 isn't a new IP, a new idea. Tactical Shooter RPG? I certainly haven't played one before. Dismissing Mass Effect as more of an RPG with guns, since the Taclayer was all but missing.

Also, who are you to say what is or isn't Bioware's vision of what Mass Effect should be? Until there is a Charity game development fund, we'll all have to live with the fact that Games need to turn a profit, and need to appeal to as many people as possible. Some game developers can do it, some **** it up and drop the ball on the wrong side of the field and lose their own identity. Is Mass Effect 2 the former or later? We've got only 6 days to go.

Modifié par Deflagratio, 20 janvier 2010 - 11:45 .

[Iwillforget]

I knew EA was bad for bioware when they annouced the purchase as a very nasty surprise right before the release of Mass Effect. Once this trilogy is done I will do my best to avoid EA and Bioware, they can keep the EA points.  I just hope Half Life Ep. 3 does not have EA hoarding greed written on it.