Even if they're adding stuff in the engine, Frosbite has its own team and the engine is mainly the same since Frostbite 2 (2011), with all the latest iterations and was ready for production.
Yes.
And doesn't GTA, arguably the best franchise overall also take around 4-6 years?
Yup. Like I said, not uncommon. The more complex a game is, the more time it'll need until completion. 
And those 2 are exactly the points where Fallout and ES are not focused on.
And doesn't GTA, arguably the best franchise overall also take around 4-6 years?
GTA 3, GTA Vice City and GTA San Andreas were released in a span of 4 years.
Anyway, development time in itself doesn't mean much. Some of the great games of last gen had development times of some two years, two and a half years, like The Last of Us and Mass Effect 2. Others had much bigger time spent in development and didn't turn out as well as people were expecting, like Bioshock Infinite (although it's a great game).
Doesn't really matter. Mass Effect 2 had a very short development cycle, but it was still a freaking amazing game, both among most fans and critically acclaimed. Mass Effect 3 had about the same development time, and we know the rest of the story.
Doesn't really matter. Mass Effect 2 had a very short development cycle, but it was still a freaking amazing game, both among most fans and critically acclaimed. Mass Effect 3 had about the same development time, and we know the rest of the story.
The good thing I believe is that EA learned its lesson. Dragon Age Inquisition, in my eyes at least, had a health development circle. In other words, it wasn't rushed. Obviously that's not to say it was perfect, far from it, but its problem were the result of bad creative decisions, not lack of time.
The more years, the better! The last thing we want is for Mass Effect to become one of those "One a Year" franchises.
/CoughAssasinsCreedCough
Yeah. Look at Bethesda games, for example. They spend 5+ years on each game, they create amazing worlds fully of experiences unmatched by most other developers!
Except for Bioware, of course!
wait so it took them five years to make horse armor? da fraqk?
Means they have no excuse to go all Arkham Knight on us PC users.
Years of development is a tricky subject, sometimes it can mean internal delays because of a sudden change in tools or scope, other times it's not really 4 years of full-time development like what happens with games like GTA or The Witcher but a steadier pace followed by a year of crunch time. Then you have multiple studios working on a single project where they hand things off to eachother and that can add development time as well. The hardest part of any long development cycle seems to be when parts get thrown out, it can lead to the sunk-cost fallacy. All of that said, I think the key to ME:A being good will be the team approaching Andromeda with a lot of creativity and a fresh POV, as long as they keep that going then I think the game will be great.
I believe the Lead Writer for MEA is different than previous installments so fresh POV is sure to follow.
I believe the Lead Writer for MEA is different than previous installments so fresh POV is sure to follow.
It is a guy that used to work on Halo is it not? Chris Schlerf i think his name is.
It is a guy that used to work on Halo is it not? Chris Schlerf i think his name is.
Just looked it up, you are correct.
So Halo 4 to ME:A, take that as you will.
Obsidian does a far better Fallout
Beth always fails utterly at character immersion and story immersion.
and Obsidian did a TERRIBLE job with Alpha Protocol. Top 3 worst games i have ever played! inb4 "but the story was good".......because EVERYTHING ELSE SUCKED!!
Just looked it up, you are correct.
So Halo 4 to ME:A, take that as you will.
I have optimism for Schlerf, I think the direction they went with for Halo 4 was both a little too ambitious for a Halo game and too different for the IP, but fits more with Mass Effect's style.
Means they have no excuse to go all Arkham Knight on us PC users.
Funny because Arkham Knight had almost 4 years of development.
Funny because Arkham Knight had almost 4 years of development.
They outsourced the PC portion. Aint nuthin' wrong with the console version....
Its good they have that much time to work on the game.
I wonder how different ME3 would be had it be given 4 years. Of course it could be the exact same for all I know.
4 years seems pretty good to me. Not too long, but also no excuse of not enough development time.
Just looked it up, you are correct.
So Halo 4 to ME:A, take that as you will.
I'll take it. I personally really enjoyed Halo 4's main campaign.
Other way around actually
Except its not.
See i think Bethesda create these amazing worlds, but too often in thier recent games they're as wide as an ocean but as deep as a puddle. They lack atmosphere, they're empty, they fail to put anything interesting into the world to make exploration worthwhile. Thier games often have poor writing/dialogue & are lacking serious, more nuanced decision making with consequences and have poor side quests which amount too often to nothing more than "go here, go there n kill that" fetch quests etc etc. For all the years thier games spen in development: i often wonder just what have they been doing all this time.
Except its not.
See i think Bethesda create these amazing worlds, but too often in thier recent games they're as wide as an ocean but as deep as a puddle. They lack atmosphere, they're empty, they fail to put anything interesting into the world to make exploration worthwhile. Thier games often have poor writing/dialogue & are lacking serious, more nuanced decision making with consequences and have poor side quests which amount too often to nothing more than "go here, go there n kill that" fetch quests etc etc. For all the years thier games spen in development: i often wonder just what have they been doing all this time.
You're being a bit too harsh on them, and I'm not a fan of post-Oblivion Bethesda. Skyrim lacked in many areas, but the atmosphere certainly wasn't one of them.
The same teams don't make Mass Effect and Dragon Age and four years isn't really a lot of development time.
4 years isnt alot of development time? lolkk
4 years isnt alot of development time? lolkk
Unless you have inside information from the company you can't be sure if it's enough tbh.
Funny because Arkham Knight had almost 4 years of development.
Large difference between a game being outsourced and a game developed for 4 years.
Arkham knight on PC was ported by a team of 12 people. The console versions actually play very well
Unless you have inside information from the company you can't be sure if it's enough tbh.
Pretty much all games have 3 year development cycles, usually rushed games like COD and ME3 have 2 year cycles. How is 4 years not enough?
Retour en haut