41 réponses à ce sujet

[Grieving Natashina]

They started the buyout of BioWare in 2007, 2 years before DA:O came out:

 

http://www.gamespot....m/1100-6180818/

 

http://www.gamespot....t/1100-6180866/

[wolfhowwl]

I'm not convinced more time would have changed anything of importance.

 

Yeah, some of the stuff people complain about is just a fundamental disagreement with the vision the team went with.

 

Perhaps with some more time the game would have been more fleshed out and polished. BioWare claims (make of that what you will) that they had to cut Javik and rewrite portions of the main plot due to time constraints and the ending may not have ended up as barebones as it did.

 

But Casey Hudson was always targeting getting the game out the door in around two years. People hoping for a sprawling epic with massive divergent content...that wasn't going to happen.

[Han Shot First]

ME3 did feel very rushed with a lot of unused dialogues, scenarios, and original script as proof. If ME3 came out this year or last year, I think it would have been a much better game.

 

It might have been a bit more polished in parts or might have had some extra content that didn't make the 2012 release, but the ending would have been identical. 

 

So even if the game was delayed I think the fan reaction to ME3 would have largely been the same. The overwhelming majority of the criticism the game took was focused on the endings. Even a lot of the criticism aimed at other parts of the game was tied to the endings, in that people who were annoyed/angry/diappointed in the endings started going over the rest of the game with a finer toothed comb than they did ME1 or ME2.

[wolfhowwl]

Here's a quote from an interview of Shane Kim, a now former executive at Xbox. Apparently at one point MS was interested in BioWare.

 

"Buying developers is not a panacea at all. It's not always the right answer; it can lead to more problems rather than fewer," said Kim. "I'm not a big proponent [of buying developers]. If you look at MGS, we probably do a quarter of our titles internally and the rest with external development partners. It's not about owning the talent; you can't ever own the talent." That said, Kim admitted that Microsoft tried to buy the studio: "Well, I tried, but not everybody wants to be bought, Elevation owns BioWare," Kim said.

[ImaginaryMatter]

It might have been a bit more polished in parts or might have had some extra content that didn't make the 2012 release, but the ending would have been identical. 

 

So even if the game was delayed I think the fan reaction to ME3 would have largely been the same. The overwhelming majority of the criticism the game took was focused on the endings. Even a lot of the criticism aimed at other parts of the game was tied to the endings, in that people who were annoyed/angry/diappointed in the endings started going over the rest of the game with a finer toothed comb than they did ME1 or ME2.

 

The ending probably would have been the same premise but more like the EC than the original. That might have limited a lot of the backlash given that the EC did manage to soothe some of the ire (or maybe they just didn't care by then?).

[Allison_Lightning]

I think we'd still look at the same issues and seeing what a lot of studios do with their games, EA is not the worst. They just have to get over this phobia they have of releasing Game of the Year/Ultimate Editions, especially after the main DLC buying window has passed. They do that and they're fine. I want to be able to play Mass Effect trilogy DLC on 360 after they get cut off from XBOX live in a few years.  

At the end of the day, someone wrote the original ending alone and then dragged the franchise and Bioware through hell. I doubt EA will allow anyone to pull that kind of stunt, because they can't inflict microtransactions and sell DLC if people hate the base game and will be watching development for a similar 'artistic integrity' nightmare. 

 

Origin allows us to install our games across multiple computers- I haven't played a Microsoft studio game for PC in a while but for 360, they force a penalty on profile and content transference. We're also talking about the company that has introduced subscription for their Office suite and tried to inflict a 'one install- your computer breaks down, tough luck' on their single use permanent Office 2013 software.  

 

Dragon Age 2 had a terrible story. There are a lot of old but great games that reused environments and as long as a story is good- you can ignore that. 

People talk about Mass Effect 2 being useless to the overall story and that we should have been preparing for the Reaper war when we did end up making connections and decisions which directly impacted the abilities and fates of entire races and the strength of our forces. It always make me smile when people complain we weren't doing that in the second game. Dragon Age 2 in comparison existed as pure plot device to produce the Mage-Templar war and instead of an intimate experience given Hawke's investment as a mage themselves or from a family of mages, real consequences and a ground swell for the coming conflict- it was one giant railroaded plot device to justify the civil war between Mages and Templars in the third game. If Inquisition somehow manages to salvage that mess, it will be truly remarkable. 

 

Blame EA for the DLC, microtransactions and DRM by all means- but the story quality? A rushed story can still be half decent, like KotOR 2 and Bioware itself did the first game, which is brilliant but light on deeper characterization. The failure or success of a story is up to the writers, time and technological limitations only go so far.

[Farangbaa]

EA likes to put resources into multiplier and graphics. Mass Effect does not need multiplayer to be good, and not every single texture needs to be shiny to look good. In fact, Mass Effect 1, and most of 2 are a masterpiece. And 3, while good, is still severely lacking. Yes Microsoft is not perfect, but it is way better than EA. Dragon Age suffered the same problem -- it was doing fine until EA came along. Origins was a masterpiece, then EA came along and look how Dragon Age II turned out, a shell of what it could have been. I know the EA bought Mass Effect right around the time of when 1 was being developed, but by that time 1 was nearly completed. I am certain that EA has a silver lining... it is probably very thin... If anyone from BioWare is reading this, please tell EA to give you guys some breathing room.

 

Err...

 

They started the buyout of BioWare in 2007, 2 years before DA:O came out:

 

http://www.gamespot....m/1100-6180818/

 

http://www.gamespot....t/1100-6180866/

 

 

You're very misinformed. 

Also, if EA wanted the focus on multiplayer, why is there no multiplayer in ME2 which was developped completely under the wing of EA?

[Catastrophy]

EA likes to put resources into multiplier and graphics. Mass Effect does not need multiplayer to be good, and not every single texture needs to be shiny to look good. In fact, Mass Effect 1, and most of 2 are a masterpiece. And 3, while good, is still severely lacking. Yes Microsoft is not perfect, but it is way better than EA. Dragon Age suffered the same problem -- it was doing fine until EA came along. Origins was a masterpiece, then EA came along and look how Dragon Age II turned out, a shell of what it could have been. I know the EA bought Mass Effect right around the time of when 1 was being developed, but by that time 1 was nearly completed. I am certain that EA has a silver lining... it is probably very thin... If anyone from BioWare is reading this, please tell EA to give you guys some breathing room.

 

Wait, what? Breathing room?

 

This is a bit underwhelming after coming here and asking about a corporate take-over.

[Dean_the_Young]

As a matter of fact, can we let BioWare and Microsoft Studios work on Mass Effect like they did on the 1st one? Please! Does Mass Effect really need EA to be a good game? No.

 

Go ahead, call me a hater. (sigh)

 

Why would we want something that set out such a poorly planned and nonsensicle backstory as ME1? ME2 and especially ME3 suffered trying to reconcile the general lack of planning in the choices and narrative direction that ME1 left off with.
 

[ZipZap2000]

"Dragon Age 2 had a terrible story"

 

And setting and characters and the enemies weren't too bright either, they all kept hiding in the same cave. However they did pull off one plot twist really well and the combat, combined with the score made for a thrilling ending or maybe it was just because I was playing as a rogue i'm not sure. Long story short don't buy DLC for Dragon Age 2 and wait for a decent review of Inquisition.

[ImaginaryMatter]

Why would we want something that set out such a poorly planned and nonsensicle backstory as ME1? ME2 and especially ME3 suffered trying to reconcile the general lack of planning in the choices and narrative direction that ME1 left off with.

 

I don't think ME2 tried at all to reconcile much of anything from ME1.

 

[Farangbaa]

Why would we want something that set out such a poorly planned and nonsensicle backstory as ME1? ME2 and especially ME3 suffered trying to reconcile the general lack of planning in the choices and narrative direction that ME1 left off with.
 

 

Hey now, ME1 is perfect, don't you know?

[KaiserShep]

I don't think ME2 tried at all to reconcile much of anything from ME1.

Unless abandoning the setup it left counts.

[Voragoras]

[pic]

 

10/10, would play.

[Coyotebay]

If Bill Gates had played the Catalyst, I would have done the refuse ending.

[ZipZap2000]

I nominate Stephen Hawking for the next catalyst.

[wolfhowwl]

Also, if EA wanted the focus on multiplayer, why is there no multiplayer in ME2 which was developped completely under the wing of EA?

With ME2 the studio was clearly still learning the ropes of developing a TPS, the gameplay really wasn't there yet. BioWare was working on a standalone multiplayer FPS, Mass Effect Team Assault, after ME2 though.