163 réponses à ce sujet

[Vazgen]

Unfortunately, this isn't actually the case. ME1 released in Nov. 2007, ME2 January 2010. That's 26 months. ME3 came out March 2012. So between ME2 and ME3 there was 27 months. I'm in the belief that ME3 needed a bit more time in the oven (still an awesome game though), but when you consider the amount of changes and improvements made in ME2 compared to ME1 in terms of tech, gameplay, etc., it shows that the timeframe they were given to work with was perfectly fine. It's the design and narrative decisions that had some scratching their heads.

Keep in mind that ME3 was delayed. For about 3 months IIRC.

It is the most buggy game of the series. There are choices that look slapped together to finish the game in time, example - rachni queen. I'm pretty sure it would've played out differently if they had time to work on that, after all it's one of the "major" choices shown in the save game importing screen and Genesis comics. 

Gameplay was definitely improved. You can see different factions performing differently in combat which means that they worked on AI. In ME2 all were the same. And I think it was actually easier for them to develop ME1-ME2 transition than ME2-ME3. They were not bound by the existing system, they simply threw it away and started from a scratch. That's why ME2 has minimal RPG elements in leveling, you only have one choice in the final rank of a skill. In ME3 you not only have two more ranks but the skills are now actually working together. One example is Sabotage. Backfire effect is boosted by its own Tech Vulnerability at rank 6, primes targets for tech explosions, doesn't work on synthetics which are simply hacked. ME2 didn't even have the skill. In fact, ME2 had 38 skills (including class and bonus powers from all DLCs), ME3 had 50. Combine that with the plethora of guns, weight system, weapon mods, armor customization.

[Farangbaa]

Not to mention it's incredibly dumb to try this sort of thing on the premiere RPG franchise of your publishing label, especially for the end of a trilogy. Even EA wouldn't be that desperate for money to realize how badly it could backfire, and how it would never be worth the risk.

 

Well, at least if it ever was done intentionally that way, the lesson has been learned.

 

Well I doubt a company that craps out a new FIFA, Madden, NHL and whatever each year, which is bought every year again by the same people + some new ones, would ever be in desperate need of money.

 

And the Sims

EA has so many cash cows that are blindly bought their fans (which is not meant as a negative comment about these people!), that they could probably release a few games for free and it wouldn't hurt them one bit.

 

And they actually do this, just check your Origin from time to time. (Granted, these usually older games)

[BigglesFlysAgain]

If you listen to his full talk, which is a big ask I know as its several hours he goes into detail on how there is much red tape on accessing development funds.

 

 

And if the staff turnover issue is true that is potentialy significant, as he says you can hire somone with identical qualifications, but there are rare individuals who can achive things few others in the industry can.

[Raice]

I miss the times when Bioware didn't release a game until it was ready to be released.  This is the second game they've developed where something went wrong because they were being rushed - and this all started when EA bought them.  Dragon Age 2 was.... a decent game with shortcuts taken all over the place.  Mass Effect 2 took longer to develop, but they also completely changed engines in that time.  Mass Effect 3 was on the same engine, but received less development time because of it.

 

EA needs to let these dudes do their damn work.  These games aren't Battlefront or Madden.  The whole game revolves around the narrative and the lore.  A simply copy/paste of last season's game with a few extra features and updated graphics isn't going to work in the RPG genre.  If the narrative and the lore and the script aren't rock solid - then there is no RPG.  It might as well just be an Adventure game... like Dead Space.  It's no wonder half the conversations in ME3 were nothing but railroads, and a good portion of them were on autopilot, not even giving you choices.

[angol fear]

I miss the times when Bioware didn't release a game until it was ready to be released.

How do you know that?

 

 

 

 If the narrative and the lore and the script aren't rock solid - then there is no RPG.  It might as well just be an Adventure game... like Dead Space.  It's no wonder half the conversations in ME3 were nothing but railroads, and a good portion of them were on autopilot, not even giving you choices.

Did you play a lot of RPG?

[Farangbaa]

Whelp, misunderstood. Nevermind

Consider this post deleted

[Lyrandori]

Wow I had a hard time listening to him...

 

"Ah... hum... hum... ah... hum..." * follows five seconds of complete silence * "...hum..." * finally manages to put a dozen words one after the other only to * "...hum... ah... hum..." again. Was he suffering of sleep deprivation?

 

So anyway, he's saying that basically the backlash cost too much public relations and damage control money, and that the money in question was "planned" for an actual ending. And that BioWare actually expected the players to not only understand the original incomplete ending but that they expected us to also realize that it was incomplete "for a reason"' and that the reason in question was that a real one was on its way but we only had to wait and pay for it when it'd finally come out? Who does that in the industry? Let me get this straight... if that guy tells the truth, we would have had to actually pay for a "really guys, this is the true ending that's supposed to blow your minds out" DLC? Well OF COURSE they released the Extended Cut for free, who in their right mind would actually pay for a DLC that contains "the true ending(s)" of the game that they bought full price?

 

Sorry but here's what I think...

 

1) That guy probably is indeed a freelance concept artist, sure...

2) But he's just making things up concerning the whole ME3 controversy/backlash/PR stuff

 

I cannot for the life of me fathom how BioWare would have actually planned to give us a "fully fleshed-out ending" in future DLCs. They were actually planning for that? Really? I mean... REALLY? And it should have been fine with us the fanbase? I really disliked ME3 overall, but never in my worst thoughts would I belive that BioWare would have been that stupid. Sorry I just can't. The irony is that if that had actually happened as they supposedly originally planned there STILL would have been a mega backlash as soon as such a paid-for ending DLC would have been announced to start with. So either way BioWare was screwed, a backlash coming from the original incomplete ending (which is what happened), or a backlash coming from people realizing that they'll have to pay extra to actually witness the real thing, yeah no wonder we were supposed to "hold on to our ME3 copy forever", so that we could pay for DLCs until the "big one with the real ending in it" finally hits like one year later? NO way in hell that was the original plan, I do NOT believe it.

 

Anyway, maybe in 10 years from now someone who actually worked at BioWare, in the actual ME3 team during the actual development process from start to finish, who wouldn't fear talking about it in person, will finally reveal to the entire fanbase and the whole industry What. The. Heck. Actually. Happened. When such a BioWare employee shows up and explains everything (at least, everything that he or she knows) then I will believe that. Not some random freelance concept artist unknown to the listeners that we're supposed to believe.

[Raice]

How do you know that?

 

 

 

Did you play a lot of RPG?

 

Maybe I am wrong, but it seems like you are approaching your questions in an antagonistic way.

 

I've never known Bioware prior to the EA purchase to rush a game, or for it to not have a great script, lore, and story, or for it to be a complete mess technically speaking.  Aside from Neverwinter Nights which was made more as a toolset for allowing players to build their own adventures, they really never did release a product that, at least to me, felt rushed and unfinished.

 

Moreover, I never played a bad RPG that had a great script, lore, and story.  I have played lots of great RPG's that have, however.  More specifically, I have played ALL of Bioware's RPG's.  And their quality assurance dropped tremendously after the EA purchase.

 

ME2, DA2, ME3, and TOR are their EA products.

 

Sonic Chronicles, Shattered Steel, MDK 2, KOTOR I, Baldur's Gate I and II + Expansions, Neverwinter Nights + Expansions (which were very good), Jade Empire, and Mass Effect 1 are their games prior to EA.

 

You tell me which are the better games.

 

So... unless you have something to say about that, I don't know exactly what else I need to explain.

[Tonymac]

I find this thread and the article to be pretty interesting.  I wonder how much of the article is supposition.  

 

Had BioWare actually said something about a future DLC that would alter the ending(s) then I think reactions would have been slightly different.  I say slightly because (at least in my case) I would have waited longer and paid more for the complete game done right, with a proper ending.  It could have cost 2x as much and taken an extra 6 months (or a year) and I would have paid it and waited.

 

The whole deal of a new antagonist in the last 5 minutes of the game, being given some sparse choices that all involved reaper tech was the divide for me.  I find the whole premise to be appalling.  Ergo, unless this supposed DLC completely got rid of the new antagonist and using reaper tech, then it would still be "Embargo ON!"

 

However, had I gotten a Boss Fight and got smoked out in the beam run because of not having enough assets and DLCs - then you could have rest assured that I would have gotten those DLCs.  The only reason I never purchased any DLCs for ME3 was because they didn't affect the ending.

 

Some of the rest of the issue I have here is I paid full price for the game, pre-order and all so that I got Javik - and still got something that felt rushed, even if I didn't like the ending for my own personal reasons; namely more bad writing that was rushed.

 

I guess (hope) we all learn something from this.  BioWare can take the time to make games right, and fans can be less vitriolic - IF there is good communication and open dialogue between fans and BioWare.  If they (BioWare) would have said, "Hey man, we ran out of time due to a technical oversight that made us re-do 2/3's of the game, can you cut me a break and let me fix it?"  I certainly would have stepped back.  I might have been bug eyed mad and wanted to kick some puppies, but I would have chilled out, eventually.  I think that interfacing between BioWare and fans/gamers would have fixed things a lot had it been handled right.

[AlanC9]

It is the most buggy game of the series. There are choices that look slapped together to finish the game in time, example - rachni queen. I'm pretty sure it would've played out differently if they had time to work on that, after all it's one of the "major" choices shown in the save game importing screen and Genesis comics.

While it's conceivable that more time would have allowed them to produce alternate batches of enemies for all areas where Ravagers and swarms might have appeared later, I find it hard to believe that this would have been very high on the priority list. Nonlinearity hurts them here since Attican Traverse can be played at almost any point in the game, if it's played at all.

[AlanC9]

I've never known Bioware prior to the EA purchase to rush a game, or for it to not have a great script, lore, and story, or for it to be a complete mess technically speaking.  Aside from Neverwinter Nights which was made more as a toolset for allowing players to build their own adventures, they really never did release a product that, at least to me, felt rushed and unfinished.

NWW 1 comes to mind -- though in fairness, the original script was better than what they ended up with.

[Raice]

NWW 1 comes to mind -- though in fairness, the original script was better than what they ended up with.

 

Like I said, NWN was easily their weakest game as far as story goes.  But I cut them slack for that since the main point of that game was to give people a toolset to build their own adventures.  They made up for it though with the expansion packs.  They were really great.

[ImaginaryMatter]

Well I doubt a company that craps out a new FIFA, Madden, NHL and whatever each year, which is bought every year again by the same people + some new ones, would ever be in desperate need of money.

 

And the Sims

EA has so many cash cows that are blindly bought their fans (which is not meant as a negative comment about these people!), that they could probably release a few games for free and it wouldn't hurt them one bit.

 

And they actually do this, just check your Origin from time to time. (Granted, these usually older games)

 

They aren't really raking in money, nor are they performing particularly well. Their hit titles pay the bills, sure, but other wise as a company they're mostly treading water.

[AlanC9]

Yeah, but you can't just handwave the NWN OC's bad plot away by saying that the OC didn't count. That's a weak, apologist move. And yes, that title showed signs of being rushed too. Horrible, game-breaking bugs, poor companion implementation, etc. and so forth.

[Raice]

Yeah, but you can't just handwave the NWN OC's bad plot away by saying that the OC didn't count. That's a weak, apologist move. And yes, that title showed signs of being rushed too. Horrible, game-breaking bugs, poor companion implementation, etc. and so forth.

 

Oh, I'm not handwaving it.  I know how bad it sucked.  If I ever hear "Waterdavean" again in my life, it will be too soon.  I'm simply saying it had an alternative focus.  Its focus was on multiplayer.  I remember the original trailer like it was yesterday - the whole thing was about building your own adventures and playing with your friends.

 

 

And then it released superior Expansions.  So... I mean... I don't know what else to say.  Plus... so what?  That's one game out of several.  So far... ALL the EA titles have suffered.

 

Edit:  To be fair, Mass Effect 2 was actually a great game.  But it also wasn't keeping in line with its established predecessor.  It skimped on the character building and plot.  Instead, we got better gun play and stronger character stories.  I guess this is a fair trade off... I guess.

[wolfhowwl]

That's the part I find most credible. 

 

It's the truth in any case.. not just games. Quality people have intangible value. Not easily replaced.

 

Who all left from the team? I know John Dombrow (Surkesh, Tuchanka, Garrus, Javik, co-lead on Citadel) did but that was after a full year of DLC support for the game.

[Ranadiel Marius]

You know, thinking about this what this guy said again (or at least what people are saying he is saying as I haven't bothered to watch the interview myself), this guy sounds like he is an Indoctrination Theory believer who is rationalizing why the true end of waking up never came based on random pieces of information he heard about ME3 through his professional ties.

 

I find this thread and the article to be pretty interesting.  I wonder how much of the article is supposition.  

 

Had BioWare actually said something about a future DLC that would alter the ending(s) then I think reactions would have been slightly different.  I say slightly because (at least in my case) I would have waited longer and paid more for the complete game done right, with a proper ending.  It could have cost 2x as much and taken an extra 6 months (or a year) and I would have paid it and waited.

 

The whole deal of a new antagonist in the last 5 minutes of the game, being given some sparse choices that all involved reaper tech was the divide for me.  I find the whole premise to be appalling.  Ergo, unless this supposed DLC completely got rid of the new antagonist and using reaper tech, then it would still be "Embargo ON!"

 

However, had I gotten a Boss Fight and got smoked out in the beam run because of not having enough assets and DLCs - then you could have rest assured that I would have gotten those DLCs.  The only reason I never purchased any DLCs for ME3 was because they didn't affect the ending.

 

Some of the rest of the issue I have here is I paid full price for the game, pre-order and all so that I got Javik - and still got something that felt rushed, even if I didn't like the ending for my own personal reasons; namely more bad writing that was rushed.

 

I guess (hope) we all learn something from this.  BioWare can take the time to make games right, and fans can be less vitriolic - IF there is good communication and open dialogue between fans and BioWare.  If they (BioWare) would have said, "Hey man, we ran out of time due to a technical oversight that made us re-do 2/3's of the game, can you cut me a break and let me fix it?"  I certainly would have stepped back.  I might have been bug eyed mad and wanted to kick some puppies, but I would have chilled out, eventually.  I think that interfacing between BioWare and fans/gamers would have fixed things a lot had it been handled right.

I agree with your premise that had they said, "Relax guys, we're releasing a DLC you can buy with the real ending," reaction would have been different....although I diagree with how the reaction would have been. The forums would have exploded. And yes I know the forums/community were already exploding, but what we saw would have been a firecracker compared to the supernova of rage that would have followed. 

[Bakgrind]

I personally find it rather amusing to suggest that fan backlash stopped the real ending. I mean I get what he is trying to imply, but to me it just isn't so. The story that we got was the story that was shaped by their vision and to partially quote a catch phrase " We  don't know how to write any ones story but our own " comes to mind. I didn't then nor do I now believe that  " If we only knew " what was coming and what they had planned for the game we would change our mind. What I really get from all of this is that both the fans and the developers wished it was something more or different  than what we got.  Mass Effect 3 wasn't a bad game to me   per say  even though I didn't buy any DLC for it except From Ashes and the MP was the most enjoyable part of the title for me.  It just needed more development time so that DLC like From Ashes and Leviathan could of been incorporated so as to make more sense in the narrative of the story.

[rapscallioness]

Nah, if they had something up their sleeves, they would have said so. Instead, they said quite firmly-from the very beginning of the backlash- that that was it. That was the ending. They were not changing it. There would be future dlc, but they would not be changing anything about the ending.

 

That was it. That was the vision. Backlash had nothing to do with it.

[Iakus]

Nah, if they had something up their sleeves, they would have said so. Instead, they said quite firmly-from the very beginning of the backlash- that that was it. That was the ending. They were not changing it. There would be future dlc, but they would not be changing anything about the ending.

 

That was it. That was the vision. Backlash had nothing to do with it.

Sadly, this is true.

 

The "cruel and unfortunate truth" is that they really thought these endings were good.  And still do, I guess.  If something were up their sleeves to improve them, the backlash would have, if anything, accelerated that process. 

 

But nope, this is it.  This is what they thought your Shepard deserved.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Well, Lance Henricksen said something like "If you knew what was planned you'd hang onto your games forever."

 

That was in March 2012.

[Iakus]

Well, Lance Henricksen said something like "If you knew what was planned you'd hang onto your games forever."

 

That was in March 2012.

Mike Gamble, actually. 

 

Right after the fecal matter hit the fan.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Memories fade as to who said what. I remember Lance saying something.

 

But maybe they did have something planned? Still it would have been a bad model because most people don't hang onto games for 12 months waiting for the proper ending.

 

I do think game rags fanned the flames with the artistic integrity crap, and using that moment to start with the artistic arguments.

[Iakus]

Memories fade as to who said what. I remember Lance saying something.

 

But maybe they did have something planned? Still it would have been a bad model because most people don't hang onto games for 12 months waiting for the proper ending.

 

 

"I just did another session with them...They were saying there's a little bit of a problem with the abruptness of the ending," Henriksen said, "So we did a whole series of things to add to the end of the game, to live up to the quality they've been doing."

"Usually, when a guy loses the game, the game shuts down; it's over. It's done. The players don't like that," Henriksen adds.

 

http://www.ibtimes.c...spoilers-342991

 

I have a long memory and pretty good at research.  Two things that PR folk don't like in their customers