140 réponses à ce sujet

[Andrew Lucas]

I'm still mad about ME1 burning me with its forced-death ending choice and Virmire decision.

Just don't leave us because of it

[dreamgazer]

I come and go. IT HAPPENS.

[Revan Reborn]

The problem is, all the examples you are citing are things that will very likely happen again. Mass Effect was originally planned and announced as a trilogy. Bioware already knew what they were getting themselves into. You seem to have convinced yourself that if only Bioware had tried a little harder that the trilogy would have been some cohesive masterpiece. This is not how game design works. This is not how the game industry works. No writers are going to write 3 games worth of content up front. No writers are going guarantee that they will be working on the same project for 3 entire games of development. As I've explained to you earlier in this thread, what you want is an ideal that is not based in the realities of game design. Game development is a revolving door, yes, even at magical studios like Bioware, that is why so many of the writers who have worked on the first ME trilogy have changed. 

 

No one is ever going to write 3 full games in advance, while you might feel passionately about this issue, it is fantasy and not going to ever happen in the realistic confines of the game industry. 

Except, this is your "understanding" and "opinion" of how game development work. BioWare, while this may come as a surprise, does not function the same way most studios do. Again, their writing team matters A LOT and has a lot of weight for obvious reasons. They are the foundation for every game. What you probably don't know is that the writing team finishes their work way before any of the other teams at the studio. Then, they begin work on the next project before the current game in development is even released. Thus, your argument that what I'm suggesting is "fantasy" doesn't corroborate with the realities of working in a BioWare studio.

 

Part of the reason Mass Effect had a bumpy ride story-wise is because Drew Karpyshyn, lead writer, was doing more than just writing for Mass Effect. In case you didn't know, he also was the lead writer on KotOR and created Revan. There was also a big MMO that came out a couple of years ago (fastest selling to date) called SWTOR in which he co-wrote the Jedi Knight story as well as helped in a variety of other capacities. He also writers novels, such as the Revan book, Mass Effect novels, and various other projects on the side.

 

My point being is he was incredibly busy and the Mass Effect trilogy was just one of many things he was actively involved in. It's also worth pointing out that writers for BioWare stay there a long time. David Gaider and Drew Karpyshyn had been at BioWare since Baldur's Gate II. Most of the writers are there for years, so it's not unreasonable to believe a simple trilogy could be written and hammered out within that period of time. This is what the writing team does. They create the story. They write the dialogue. They have a short break. Then, they move on to the next project. This very formula would work beautifully for a trilogy-driven experience.

 

While Mass Effect was always planned to be a trilogy, you have to realize that would only happen based on the reception of Mass Effect 1. BioWare knows they have a franchise now. There is nothing to prove. Thus, they can plan ahead as much as they want where they couldn't due practical matters of business eight years ago before they were even a part of EA.

[Pasquale1234]

It makes sense to wait until after the next game to announce sequels. Not that anyone doubts that if ME4 does well there will be more coming, but you let the game make the case for you and also avoid the messy problem of leaving fans hanging on a trilogy that will never be finished if the game bombs.
 
As for being a standalone, I wouldn't be surprised if they were more conservative and leaned more towards more self-contained titles instead of a single overarching plot like with the Reapers. ME4 could finish its story but leave some good plot hooks to continue with the same protagonist and cast if the game is a success.

I think that's the way I would play it.

They really caught lightning with Shepard. I always sort of suspected that DA2's Hawke might have had more than one game if the game and character had been more popular.

If the PC of ME:N is well-received, they could potentially make more games with that character.

[Iakus]

I'm not dismissing anything, I know that some people left the franchise, it happens with every single license out there, and ME is no exception. They can't please everyone.

It's obvious that the trilogy is remembered with high remarks, and considered one of the best franchises in gaming history. The brand isn't damaged, three solid games, three games acclaimed by both critics and a large variety of players. Yeah.

Oh wait, are we talking about the ending again? And how it ruined the entire franchise? Yeah, sure, whatever lol.

Being remembered by a bad ending doesn't mean anything, Halo 2 and Deus Ex Human Revolution survived, and they are considered as fantastic games by a huge proportion of gamers. And guess what? Bungie didn't need to prove anything with Halo 3, even after that awful "conclusion" as a standalone game.

You kinda are dismissing.  The ME backlash was far more than the usual "can't please everyone" bleed-off of fans from a franchise.  The sh*tstorm it caused was well-nigh unprecedented, and is sadly, the core of Mass Effect's fame (or infamy).  It's talked about to this very day, and not in a good way.

 

Anyone else remember the cloud under which the Doctors left?  Whether it was related or not, ME3's ending came up even then.  DAI was announced early to try and bring back confidence in the Bioware brand.  Anyone remember that?  No?  How about lots and lots of cupcakes?  The Retake movement?  Indoctrination Theory?  MEHEM?  Marauder Shields?

 

So yeah, I'd say the brand is, at the very least tarnished.  And arguably yes, damaged. And sure, DXHR survived it's ending.  That's kinda obvious, it didn't cause enough backlash that the mainstream press was picking up the story.  Not like ME3 did.  So you're kinda comparing apples to oranges.

 

Bioware caused a massive backlash in 2012.  Doesn't matter that Halo and Deus Ex didn't.  Mass Effect did.  So yeah, Mass Effect has something to prove.

[Pasquale1234]

My point being is he was incredibly busy and the Mass Effect trilogy was just one of many things he was actively involved in. It's also worth pointing out that writers for BioWare stay there a long time. David Gaider and Drew Karpyshyn had been at BioWare since Baldur's Gate II. Most of the writers are there for years, so it's not unreasonable to believe a simple trilogy could be written and hammered out within that period of time. This is what the writing team does. They create the story. They write the dialogue. They have a short break. Then, they move on to the next project. This very formula would work beautifully for a trilogy-driven experience.

Close, but no cigar. Did you ever read Gaider's blog?

Writers - even at Bioware - are involved in every phase, up to and including QA. They sometimes need to try to patch holes due to content cut very late in the cycle. If, for example, some piece of content that provided important exposition ended up on the cutting room floor, they would need to try to fit that exposition in elsewhere. Sometimes they need to call VAs back to the studio fairly late in the cycle.

There are some other key things that need to be taken into account.

The process of creating one game requires a lot of iteration and playtesting. Content is frequently cut, gameplay heavily modified, etc. - and some of those changes do impact the plot / narrative / storyline / characterizations.

Constantly evolving tech can throw a wrench in the works, too. Sometimes tech capabilities you were counting on don't work out so well as expected, other times new technologies give you new opportunities you had not initially considered.

Costs change, budgets change, markets change, gaming platforms change, what you can deliver on time and within budget changes.

Creating a cohesive storyline to take place over multiple games is much more complex than writing a series of novels, movies, or television shows. You need much more than compelling characters and an immersive narrative - you also need to be able to convert it to fun gameplay that gives the player choices and consequences.

So - yeah, you might be able to do a very high level general overview of a 3-game story arc up front, but a lot of the details need to be filled in as you go along.

[Revan Reborn]

Close, but no cigar. Did you ever read Gaider's blog?

Writers - even at Bioware - are involved in every phase, up to and including QA. They sometimes need to try to patch holes due to content cut very late in the cycle. If, for example, some piece of content that provided important exposition ended up on the cutting room floor, they would need to try to fit that exposition in elsewhere. Sometimes they need to call VAs back to the studio fairly late in the cycle.

There are some other key things that need to be taken into account.

The process of creating one game requires a lot of iteration and playtesting. Content is frequently cut, gameplay heavily modified, etc. - and some of those changes do impact the plot / narrative / storyline / characterizations.

Constantly evolving tech can throw a wrench in the works, too. Sometimes tech capabilities you were counting on don't work out so well as expected, other times new technologies give you new opportunities you had not initially considered.

Costs change, budgets change, markets change, gaming platforms change, what you can deliver on time and within budget changes.

Creating a cohesive storyline to take place over multiple games is much more complex than writing a series of novels, movies, or television shows. You need much more than compelling characters and an immersive narrative - you also need to be able to convert it to fun gameplay that gives the player choices and consequences.

So - yeah, you might be able to do a very high level general overview of a 3-game story arc up front, but a lot of the details need to be filled in as you go along.

I'm not disputing the work and effort. I'm disputing the fact that it can't be done and that the original trilogy is an example of that. On the contrary, it's a poor example for a variety of reasons, of which some I listed. I wouldn't use Gaider as an example purely because his expertise lies with DA, which is not a trilogy, and not ME.

 

Again, there were too many unknown variables with ME. Would it be a success? Would people buy it? If it was a success, where would it go next? There were too many moving parts and it didn't help when BioWare merged with EA, significantly changing development. The simple fact is BioWare was in over their heads and the plot holes and inconsistencies are representative of that.

 

I don't even remotely see that being anywhere as much of an issue now considering BioWare has gone through this experience before and they have a much better idea of what to do now than eight years ago.

[Andrew Lucas]

You kinda are dismissing. The ME backlash was far more than the usual "can't please everyone" bleed-off of fans from a franchise. The sh*tstorm it caused was well-nigh unprecedented, and is sadly, the core of Mass Effect's fame (or infamy). It's talked about to this very day, and not in a good way.

Anyone else remember the cloud under which the Doctors left? Whether it was related or not, ME3's ending came up even then. DAI was announced early to try and bring back confidence in the Bioware brand. Anyone remember that? No? How about lots and lots of cupcakes? The Retake movement? Indoctrination Theory? MEHEM? Marauder Shields?

So yeah, I'd say the brand is, at the very least tarnished. And arguably yes, damaged. And sure, DXHR survived it's ending. That's kinda obvious, it didn't cause enough backlash that the mainstream press was picking up the story. Not like ME3 did. So you're kinda comparing apples to oranges.

Bioware caused a massive backlash in 2012. Doesn't matter that Halo and Deus Ex didn't. Mass Effect did. So yeah, Mass Effect has something to prove.

Again, the only backlash was because of the endings, the rest of the game was great, by just looking at the negative reviews generated by users in many sites, you can see the large majority is about hardcore fans raging over the endings.

You dislike ME2 or ME3 (Some installment you enjoyed or else you wouldn't be here) and hate ME3's endings, but it's undeniable that Mass Effect is remembered with high remarks, just look at compilations out there, every single one of them contains something like "Despite the controversial ending ---", because Bioware made three solid games with the biggest low point being the endings, and even that, can't take the bright away from the franchise.

In 2004, the internet wasn't this huge, famous social medias barely existed with the exception of one or two, so you can't compare how enormous the backlash was, but use the common sense that Halo's 2 ending sucked, and that it still was considered a great game. Same case with ME3.

The brand isn't damaged, Bioware lost some fans, because those were damaged, and those are the ones who Bioware needs to prove something to, it's not the same thing as saying that the whole license is damaged.

[Pasquale1234]

So yeah, I'd say the brand is, at the very least tarnished.  And arguably yes, damaged. And sure, DXHR survived it's ending.  That's kinda obvious, it didn't cause enough backlash that the mainstream press was picking up the story.  Not like ME3 did.  So you're kinda comparing apples to oranges.
 
Bioware caused a massive backlash in 2012.  Doesn't matter that Halo and Deus Ex didn't.  Mass Effect did.  So yeah, Mass Effect has something to prove.

A lot of people seemed to think that, between the DA2 fiasco and the ME3 backlash, DAI would have a huge hill to climb - but it apparently had the most successful release of any game they've produced thus far. The reception for DAI has been - generally positive, I suppose - though a lot of people became bored with it pretty quickly, it seems.

Pretty graphics tend to attract a lot of sales, as does MP. Some hardcore MP-ers might not care much about what SP has to offer.

If that survey leak has much truth to it, ME:N sounds a lot like DAI. Maybe okay, but... meh.

[Revan Reborn]

A lot of people seemed to think that, between the DA2 fiasco and the ME3 backlash, DAI would have a huge hill to climb - but it apparently had the most successful release of any game they've produced thus far. The reception for DAI has been - generally positive, I suppose - though a lot of people became bored with it pretty quickly, it seems.

Pretty graphics tend to attract a lot of sales, as does MP. Some hardcore MP-ers might not care much about what SP has to offer.

If that survey leak has much truth to it, ME:N sounds a lot like DAI. Maybe okay, but... meh.

I keep seeing this "claim" yet DAI doesn't even have half the amount of sales ME3 does. It might be the fastest selling Dragon Age game, which wouldn't be hard to do. It's already surpassed DAO. However, I seriously doubt it has surpassed ME3 in terms of success. Mass Effect is just a more popular franchise than Dragon Age.

 

As far as that survey, I'm 85% certain it's fabricated. For a variety of reasons (based on a fan theory, remnants replacing reapers, khet replacing geth, tossing in random me3 and dai features together), it sounds more like a fantasy a fan had rather than a tangible game. BioWare has already stated that the next Mass Effect won't share a lot in common with DAI, which makes it even more questionable. Outside of exploration and a bigger open world (something ME1 had), I'm not expecting much similarity at all, if any.

[Vazgen]

Here is the source: Link

[Revan Reborn]

Here is the source: Link

Right. This is what I expected. It had the "most successful launch in BioWare history." Meaning, DAI sold faster than any previous BioWare title at launch, not that it's BioWare's most profitable title. To be quite honest, even this is rather flimsy and just as meaningful when SWTOR became the fastest selling MMORPG in history. Remember that DAI was released on five platforms. ME3 was released on three and has almost double the amount of sales DAI has. Why does this matter? The majority of sales are largely generated in the first month. DAI happened to do well it's first week, which again, isn't surprising as this BioWare title is more widespread than any before it.

 

Regardless, it merely reinforces my point that Mass Effect is still the more popular franchise. Sure, we can say sci fi and the pseudo-shooter experience is a factor. However, it would be ridiculous not to mention the story and the characters, of which might be debated on BSN, but the general populace would likely say ME is better. I hear far more about companions such as Garrus and Miranda than I ever do about anyone in Dragon Age. That's just a fact. Not to mention, ME overall just has a more compelling story to tell, and yes being a trilogy helps that.

[Pasquale1234]

I keep seeing this "claim" yet DAI doesn't even have half the amount of sales ME3 does.

Vazgen posted the link. It is exactly as I stated.

Per VGChartz:
DA:I 3.37M
ME3: 5.49M

Fair bit more than half and only 5 months after release.
 

It might be the fastest selling Dragon Age game, which wouldn't be hard to do. It's already surpassed DAO.

Not by a longshot, according to VGChartz. Prior to ME3, DA:O had been BioWare's best-selling title.

Current VGChartz figures:
DA:O 4.8M
DAII: 2.5M
DA:I 3.37M
 

However, I seriously doubt it has surpassed ME3 in terms of success. Mass Effect is just a more popular franchise than Dragon Age.

VGChartz shows 4.8M for DA:O and 5.49M for ME3.

Overall, the ME trilogy does have more sales than the 3 DA games, but perhaps not to the degree you espouse.

DA Total: 10.67M
ME Total: 14.82M (including the trilogy packs)

But I'll let you get back to your topic.

[Revan Reborn]

Vazgen posted the link. It is exactly as I stated.

Per VGChartz:
DA:I 3.37M
ME3: 5.49M

Fair bit more than half and only 5 months after release.
 

Not by a longshot, according to VGChartz. Prior to ME3, DA:O had been BioWare's best-selling title.

Current VGChartz figures:
DA:O 4.8M
DAII: 2.5M
DA:I 3.37M
 

VGChartz shows 4.8M for DA:O and 5.49M for ME3.

Overall, the ME trilogy does have more sales than the 3 DA games, but perhaps not to the degree you espouse.

DA Total: 10.67M
ME Total: 14.82M (including the trilogy packs)

But I'll let you get back to your topic.

You can throw around a bunch of estimated figures, but as I stated, a game generates most of its sales in the first month... DAI barely has more than half of what ME3 has generated. It's not going to catch up. One tiny factor you forgot to mention is that of course DAO would do better than ME1 and ME2. It had nothing to do with DAO being better, however. If you forgot, ME1 was originally only on the Xbox 360, so that's not a fair comparison. ME2 went to the PS3, but many never played the first game and its sales were poor overall. ME3 was the first title that actually received decent sales from the PS3, so it's more fitting to compare the numbers of ME3 to DAO since the entire trilogy was not on all platforms from the start.

 

Either way, you are off topic and the simple truth is Mass Effect is simply more popular and more successful, no matter how you rationalize it. I believe that this is in large part because of the trilogy setup, because of the strong protagonist, and because of the continuity of choices from game to game. Mass Effect was BioWare's ultimate experience into a new kind of storytelling, and it largely paid off. DAO was a game that was in development for far too long and clearly was a remnant of BioWare's classic RPG past. As you can tell, DAII and DAI are much more similar to Mass Effect than DAO ever was. I believe even BioWare recognizes the strengths that Mass Effect has over Dragon Age and is taking advantage of that.

[wolfhowwl]

Guys, VGchartz is terrible and you shouldn't be using them.

 

Here are some NPD numbers for first month physical sales in the US.

 

Mass Effect 3 (360, PS3, PC)** Electronic Arts - 1.3 Million total, 4:1 Xbox:PS3, over double ME2's opening

 

MASS EFFECT 2 360 ELECTRONIC ARTS Jan-10 572.1K

 

Dragon Age Inquisition <600k (leaked number)

[Revan Reborn]

Guys, VGchartz is terrible and you shouldn't be using them.

 

Here are some NPD numbers for first month physical sales in the US.

 

Mass Effect 3 (360, PS3, PC)** Electronic Arts - 1.3 Million total, 4:1 Xbox:PS3, over double ME2's opening

 

MASS EFFECT 2 360 ELECTRONIC ARTS Jan-10 572.1K

 

Dragon Age Inquisition <600k (leaked number)

Assuming your numbers are even remotely accurate, that indicates that ME3 more than doubled DAI's first month. I'm really curious how EA is phrasing "most successful BioWare launch to date." If anything, given that this was an EA investor call, they likely may have been embellishing the truth to make the game sound a lot better than it was actually performing. Not to say DAI isn't doing well, it obviously is. However, the numbers just aren't showing what EA is suggesting, and the investor call does not give any sort of statistics, other than a lot of people have played the game. I'm calling shenanigans on this "most successful BioWare launch to date" statement.