Aller au contenu

Photo

What has EA done in the last couple of years that give you hope for ME:A?


  • Veuillez vous connecter pour répondre
285 réponses à ce sujet

#251
SNascimento

SNascimento
  • Members
  • 6 001 messages

I don't think they did. Plan, I mean. Maybe not even as a trilogy- I think that came up in the lead-in to ME2, and ME2 certainly wasn't built to be the middle-arch of a trilogy. It was, if anything, a spinoff game.

They wanted to make it a trilogy from the start, Bioware always said that. But they (Casey Hudson at least) also said that making games is not easy, and that they could not be sure when they released ME1 that they would be able to make two more games. Also, planning is overrated! The Foundation trilogy, for example, wasn't planned in the slightest. And that is one of the great works of sci-fi. 

I believe ME2 worked very well as the middle game in the series. Tuchanka and Rannoch arc in ME3 worked extremely well because of the developments in ME2. ME3 just need to be a bigger, more ambitious game. Probably developed for longer too. 



#252
Neverwinter_Knight77

Neverwinter_Knight77
  • Members
  • 2 837 messages
ME1 ended perfectly, but ME2 was indeed a pointless spinoff. No progress was made in regards to "How are we going to prepare for / destroy the Reapers?", which ME1 left us asking as it ended. ME2 should've been spent making preparations for the war. ME3 should've had the council back us up from the beginning, and ME3 should've ended with a victory caused by a united galaxy, not some last minute ass pull deus ex machina.
  • vbibbi, Iakus, Maniccc et 1 autre aiment ceci

#253
Iakus

Iakus
  • Members
  • 30 278 messages

I read it. Every single thing you mentioned was something that Bio people did, not something imposed on them by EA.
 

If you want to be technical though, Bioware is EA.

 

Bioware: A Division of EA, and so on  ;)


  • AlanC9 aime ceci

#254
Dean_the_Young

Dean_the_Young
  • Members
  • 20 675 messages

They wanted to make it a trilogy from the start, Bioware always said that. But they (Casey Hudson at least) also said that making games is not easy, and that they could not be sure when they released ME1 that they would be able to make two more games. Also, planning is overrated! The Foundation trilogy, for example, wasn't planned in the slightest. And that is one of the great works of sci-fi. 

I believe ME2 worked very well as the middle game in the series. Tuchanka and Rannoch arc in ME3 worked extremely well because of the developments in ME2. ME3 just need to be a bigger, more ambitious game. Probably developed for longer too. 

 

'The solution is simple. Just do more.'

 

 

Sorry, not buying it.

 

Tuchanka was good, and Rannoch passible, but these amounted to a very minor part of ME2. Rannoch in particular was weak- ME2's devoted a grand total of 3 story/character missions to Geth or Quarians (Legion Loyalty, Tali Loyalty, and Tali recrutiment), and outright discarded the themes or relevance in two of them when they ignorred Dark Energy and retconned the Geth to pinnochio syndrome. And this was a cornerstone plot of the entire trilogy?

 

Thing is, Rannoch is good by comparison... because the Geth and Quarians actually had relevance to the plot, and so did Tali and Legion (even if Tali was a shoehorn). Nearly the entire rest of the cast had no such relevance, even on ME2's own standards. What's the galactic significance of the Justicars? Of Dress assumptions? Even of Cerberus, if you're going to go Sith Empire with it in a matter of months? It's a pretty illustrative flaw when one of the most popular characters of the franchise- Garrus- is so irrelevant that his death doesn't change any plotline.

 

ME3 wasted a lot of time trying to find some role for the ME2 cast because they had no role planned- and couldn't, really, because all their plots had to be planned with the understanding that they could be dead.

 

The Suicide Mission was the single greatest mistake of the trilogy, because ME2 build up an entire game around an ensamble cast that had only trangential relations to the Trilogy's overarching plot at best, and then couldn't rely on them in the future. Fun and suitable for a spinoff if those character never needed to be used again- terrible, terrible design if you intended to build a trilogy finale off of them.

 

With a game plot that ends with the galaxy in an even worse position than the end of the first game because screw your endings, and screw preparing for the Reapers, we got a cool cast of characters to kill.

 

 

Much of ME3 could have, and honestly should have, been started in ME2 instead of flying around solving Daddy Issues for an end-game decision that had zero impact because they never thought out what their choice was supposed to do.

 

 


  • vbibbi, Lee T, Maniccc et 6 autres aiment ceci

#255
AlanC9

AlanC9
  • Members
  • 35 606 messages

If you want to be technical though, Bioware is EA.

Bioware: A Division of EA, and so on ;)

Heh. OK, in that sense, he's perfectly right.

@ Dean: I don't know if you've noticed, but you've been typoing ME3 as ME2 a bit lately

#256
AlanC9

AlanC9
  • Members
  • 35 606 messages

I believe ME2 worked very well as the middle game in the series. Tuchanka and Rannoch arc in ME3 worked extremely well because of the developments in ME2. ME3 just need to be a bigger, more ambitious game. Probably developed for longer too.


My problem with this argument is that ME3 was already about as big and expensive a game as it was ever going to be under any likely business plan. Saying that it needed to be bigger anyway is just restating that Bio mismanaged the entire trilogy project.

IOW, I'm not sure that you and Dean actually have a disagreement.
  • Il Divo aime ceci

#257
DarthSliver

DarthSliver
  • Members
  • 3 335 messages

 

  • Ruin Star Wars Battlefront
  • Make a boring open world game called Dragon Age: Inquisition
  • Give the mess called Mass Effect 3
  • Launch the broken game called Battlefield 4
  • Launch the worst Battlefield game ever, called Hardline

 

ummmmm, nothing?

 

 

I wouldn't say Battlefront was completely bad but that it just lacks singleplayer story really. Also they shouldve had a classic mode in there where players are mixed up with bots and that 200 count limit on both sides lol, exactly what they did with Fighter Squadron really but on all their modes :D

 

I just hope the other star wars games that EA had planned are getting delayed so they are made with Star Wars and not the thumb of awesomeness. I still hope for a Kotor remake to happen by Bioware lol.

 

We can only hope that the mistakes made in the past had been learned by both EA and Bioware. That will make Andromeda worthwhile 



#258
RZIBARA

RZIBARA
  • Members
  • 4 066 messages

I wouldn't say Battlefront was completely bad but that it just lacks singleplayer story really. Also they shouldve had a classic mode in there where players are mixed up with bots and that 200 count limit on both sides lol, exactly what they did with Fighter Squadron really but on all their modes :D

 

I just hope the other star wars games that EA had planned are getting delayed so they are made with Star Wars and not the thumb of awesomeness. I still hope for a Kotor remake to happen by Bioware lol.

 

We can only hope that the mistakes made in the past had been learned by both EA and Bioware. That will make Andromeda worthwhile 

 

Star Wars Battlefront is pure garbage, one of the worst shooters I've ever played.

 

Rebels have an advantage in multiple modes, including heroes vs villains, fighter squadron and walker assualt due to ****** poor balancing. Half the modes are lazy and could have been cut in place of better modes/maps. 

 

Did I mention the lack of maps? Or the lack of customization for imperials? Or garbage survival mode (one of the worst Ive played)? Broken A-wing?

 

Even the littles things too, such as helmetless stormtroopers, all sandtroopers being officers (orange pauldrons = officer), and other crap too. Poor voice acting too. 

 

The star card system is a bad replacement for the class system (could have been actually good, but poorly thought out).

 

I could go on about the new Battlefront, but the point is its both a bad shooter, and a bad Battlefront game.


  • Vortex13, Neverwinter_Knight77, DarthSliver et 3 autres aiment ceci

#259
in it for the lolz

in it for the lolz
  • Members
  • 872 messages

Hope, in EA?!: 

no.



#260
Dean_the_Young

Dean_the_Young
  • Members
  • 20 675 messages

Heh. OK, in that sense, he's perfectly right.

@ Dean: I don't know if you've noticed, but you've been typoing ME3 as ME2 a bit lately

 

Didn't notice. Thanks.

 

(Gah- almost typoed that as 'did.')

 

Most of my posts are pretty much off the cuff now adays as I'm standing around waiting to head out the door. Proofreading isn't a priority.



#261
PlatonicWaffles

PlatonicWaffles
  • Members
  • 695 messages

Uh...

 

Not a lot quite frankly. I'm just running on fangirl hope here.


  • rapscallioness aime ceci

#262
SNascimento

SNascimento
  • Members
  • 6 001 messages

'The solution is simple. Just do more.'

I believe the major problems I see in Mass Effect 3 would be solve by just that, yes. Thing is, we clearly have different views on what those problems were exactly.

You make valid points and the overarching story in the trilogy is probably its weakest point. I do think that this is not such a problem though. 

Garrus, for example. Sure, because he could die in the Suicide Mission in Mass Effect 2, one could say he become irrelevant in the third game. As far as the main story arc is concerned, things will go virtually the same with or without the Turian. However, if you care about Garrus, having him dead would make all the difference in the world. Same thing for Mordin and Wrex in Tuchanka. The plot is almost the same with or without them, but you personal experience changes a great deal.

Same thing with the Suicide Mission. It's widely regard as one of the strongest moments in the trilogy and one of the best finales in gaming. Calling it a mistake then is something to be frowned at. Your point is solid, the Suicide Mission crippled the importance any of those characters could have in the main plot of the final game. But not your emotional attachment to them. And here enters why I think the main problem of ME3 could be solved with just more work. You do not need all those characters to be indispensable, or even strongly connect, the the main plot to make them meaningful. Or to give them a satisfying arc. That would not solve the 'structural' problems you're point at, but I'd say they would make them close to irrelevant.

In boils down to how much importance one puts in the main plot itself. Although Bioware could have done better here, making a tighter trilogy, the relative weakness of the main arc does not stop Mass Effect from being three incredible games.


  • DarthSliver aime ceci

#263
Drakoriz

Drakoriz
  • Members
  • 383 messages

I believe the major problems I see in Mass Effect 3 would be solve by just that, yes. Thing is, we clearly have different views on what those problems were exactly.

You make valid points and the overarching story in the trilogy is probably its weakest point. I do think that this is not such a problem though. 

Garrus, for example. Sure, because he could die in the Suicide Mission in Mass Effect 2, one could say he become irrelevant in the third game. As far as the main story arc is concerned, things will go virtually the same with or without the Turian. However, if you care about Garrus, having him dead would make all the difference in the world. Same thing for Mordin and Wrex in Tuchanka. The plot is almost the same with or without them, but you personal experience changes a great deal.

Same thing with the Suicide Mission. It's widely regard as one of the strongest moments in the trilogy and one of the best finales in gaming. Calling it a mistake then is something to be frowned at. Your point is solid, the Suicide Mission crippled the importance any of those characters could have in the main plot of the final game. But not your emotional attachment to them. And here enters why I think the main problem of ME3 could be solved with just more work. You do not need all those characters to be indispensable, or even strongly connect, the the main plot to make them meaningful. Or to give them a satisfying arc. That would not solve the 'structural' problems you're point at, but I'd say they would make them close to irrelevant.

In boils down to how much importance one puts in the main plot itself. Although Bioware could have done better here, making a tighter trilogy, the relative weakness of the main arc does not stop Mass Effect from being three incredible games.

 

yeah i agree with u, I think the strong point of ME is the 3 games combine, as a big story and no just each separate.

 

I think so too that ME 2 ending is one of the best ending on video game in a long long time.



#264
rapscallioness

rapscallioness
  • Members
  • 8 031 messages

Uh...

 

Not a lot quite frankly. I'm just running on fangirl hope here.

 

Yep. Running on fangirl fumes really.


  • PlatonicWaffles aime ceci

#265
Ahglock

Ahglock
  • Members
  • 3 660 messages

ME1 ended perfectly, but ME2 was indeed a pointless spinoff. No progress was made in regards to "How are we going to prepare for / destroy the Reapers?", which ME1 left us asking as it ended. ME2 should've been spent making preparations for the war. ME3 should've had the council back us up from the beginning, and ME3 should've ended with a victory caused by a united galaxy, not some last minute ass pull deus ex machina.


Was me2 pointless because of me2 or because of ME3?

Really me1 and 2 were kind of pointless once they wrote in and the reapers can just fly in no problem it just takes a couple months longer.

Who knew that their big plan summed up to let's shave 2 months off our 50,000 year vacation.

If the reapers arrived massively jacked up as they canabalized their fleet with discharge problems from long distance FTL travel problems(test me1 ending) and their expected collector reinforcements and new reaper supply line decimated (yeah me2 ending)me 1 and 2 would of had a point.

So was me2 irrelevant on its own or did ME3 make it so?(ignoring the seven samurai style of story telling)

I think ME3 made it so as the actual ramifications of ME2 were left to be described later. And ME3 dropped the ball there.
  • Maniccc et Vespervin aiment ceci

#266
DarthSliver

DarthSliver
  • Members
  • 3 335 messages

I believe the major problems I see in Mass Effect 3 would be solve by just that, yes. Thing is, we clearly have different views on what those problems were exactly.

You make valid points and the overarching story in the trilogy is probably its weakest point. I do think that this is not such a problem though. 

Garrus, for example. Sure, because he could die in the Suicide Mission in Mass Effect 2, one could say he become irrelevant in the third game. As far as the main story arc is concerned, things will go virtually the same with or without the Turian. However, if you care about Garrus, having him dead would make all the difference in the world. Same thing for Mordin and Wrex in Tuchanka. The plot is almost the same with or without them, but you personal experience changes a great deal.

Same thing with the Suicide Mission. It's widely regard as one of the strongest moments in the trilogy and one of the best finales in gaming. Calling it a mistake then is something to be frowned at. Your point is solid, the Suicide Mission crippled the importance any of those characters could have in the main plot of the final game. But not your emotional attachment to them. And here enters why I think the main problem of ME3 could be solved with just more work. You do not need all those characters to be indispensable, or even strongly connect, the the main plot to make them meaningful. Or to give them a satisfying arc. That would not solve the 'structural' problems you're point at, but I'd say they would make them close to irrelevant.

In boils down to how much importance one puts in the main plot itself. Although Bioware could have done better here, making a tighter trilogy, the relative weakness of the main arc does not stop Mass Effect from being three incredible games.

 

I agree but I would say a 4th installment to finish it.



#267
AlanC9

AlanC9
  • Members
  • 35 606 messages

If the reapers arrived massively jacked up as they canabalized their fleet with discharge problems from long distance FTL travel problems(test me1 ending) and their expected collector reinforcements and new reaper supply line decimated (yeah me2 ending)me 1 and 2 would of had a point.

The problem with this is that the timing of the attack is still wholly at the Reapers' discretion. They don't have to enter the galaxy in Citadel-controlled space, or even in space with an active relay connected to Citadel-controlled space. They can find a bunch of pre-mass effect tech races, enslave them, and rebuild. Edit: also note that as Reaper strength relative to Citadel fleet strength decreases, actually trying to perform a harvest on the current cycle becomes a less sensible option for the Reapers than just writing the cycle off and burning all the industrialized worlds from space. (Master of Orion players may be familiar with this tactic.)

As for going from a trilogy to a tetralogy, that makes the problems of accomodating choices from the earlier games even worse, and ME3 was already having problems with that as it was. There's a reason ME3 has a bunch of autodialogue even though it has a lot more wordcount than the earlier games. You could write around this, I guess, by having no real choices in ME3 and killing off a bunch of the surviving ME2 squadmates whatever happens, so ME4 would have less baggage. That would mean making a better ME4 at the cost of a worse ME3.

#268
Neverwinter_Knight77

Neverwinter_Knight77
  • Members
  • 2 837 messages

Was me2 pointless because of me2 or because of ME3?

Really me1 and 2 were kind of pointless once they wrote in and the reapers can just fly in no problem it just takes a couple months longer.

Who knew that their big plan summed up to let's shave 2 months off our 50,000 year vacation.

If the reapers arrived massively jacked up as they canabalized their fleet with discharge problems from long distance FTL travel problems(test me1 ending) and their expected collector reinforcements and new reaper supply line decimated (yeah me2 ending)me 1 and 2 would of had a point.

So was me2 irrelevant on its own or did ME3 make it so?(ignoring the seven samurai style of story telling)

I think ME3 made it so as the actual ramifications of ME2 were left to be described later. And ME3 dropped the ball there.

It was irrelevant on its own, because instead of finding new ways to destroy the Reapers, Bioware invented the Collectors and took a sidequest villanous faction, Cerberus, and tried to present it as the good guys. Why is this detour suddenly necessary, and why does someone at Bioware love Cerberus so much? And then of course, this little terrorist group ends up having an army, a huge fleet, and all of these ridiculous financial resources in ME3.

#269
Drone223

Drone223
  • Members
  • 6 659 messages

It was irrelevant on its own, because instead of finding new ways to destroy the Reapers, Bioware invented the Collectors and took a sidequest villanous faction, Cerberus, and tried to present it as the good guys. Why is this detour suddenly necessary, and why does someone at Bioware love Cerberus so much? And then of course, this little terrorist group ends up having an army, a huge fleet, and all of these ridiculous financial resources in ME3.

They already had those in ME2.



#270
Maniccc

Maniccc
  • Members
  • 372 messages

I cant think of a single thing



#271
Lonely Heart Poet

Lonely Heart Poet
  • Members
  • 144 messages

To be fair, it's not like series such as Battlefront or Sim City were all that lively before the most recent iterations that messed them up.

 

EA just revived what was already dead to make money on branding.

Hey. Sim City WAS great
.



#272
LinksOcarina

LinksOcarina
  • Members
  • 6 521 messages

It was irrelevant on its own, because instead of finding new ways to destroy the Reapers, Bioware invented the Collectors and took a sidequest villanous faction, Cerberus, and tried to present it as the good guys. Why is this detour suddenly necessary, and why does someone at Bioware love Cerberus so much? And then of course, this little terrorist group ends up having an army, a huge fleet, and all of these ridiculous financial resources in ME3.

 

Because the world of Mass Effect had to move on without Shepard, it had to go into a new rhythm and force Shepard out of the picture so the Reaper threat can have a justification for being ignored, and bide some time so it looms closer. 

 

And as for Cerberus, it was the only game in town who was working to actually prepare for the Reapers in that regard, so Shepard played the game with them to do what he was doing two years prior.

 

That detour was necessary, because otherwise 2 would be about a Reaper threat that won't be coming in the game. Shepard would have all the resources needed to stop them right off the bat in 3, or at the very least their subsequent invasion would be hit harder, leaving the galaxy in a more optimistic position instead one that's very apocalyptic. The fact that he didn't, and he had to work from the ground up with a terrorist group, is frankly better from a narrative perspective because it allowed the Reapers time to get there. If we had carte blanche or the story was different, what would Shepard actually fight that would possibly make sense?  The collectors as a minion threat functioned well enough, despite being a weak villainous group overall. 

 

BioWare's biggest crime is they pulled a fast one and took total control away from the player there for story reasons. But I have a feeling it was also the only way they can actually see the story working from both a game and narrative perspective. 



#273
durasteel

durasteel
  • Members
  • 2 007 messages

... ME3 just need to be a bigger, more ambitious game.  ...

 

I couldn't disagree more with that statement. ME3 very much needed to have a much more constrained plotline, which could be concluded without ending the entire Mass Effect universe. The sub-plots in ME3 were, for the most part, very well done. The overarching narrative of the game, however, suffered from a dire case of the "make it bigger" disease.

 

When you create an unbeatable opponent and can only resolve the conflict with a giant explosion of Space Magic that breaks your entire setting, the solution would not have been to make the game "bigger." The game should have been smaller, relatable, and personal. Shepard should be around for ME4, even if it was as the mentor of the new protagonist (like Anderson's character in the trilogy.) The Milky Way Galaxy should not have been broken by nonsense to the point that the sequel has to be set in a whole new galaxy to escape the toxic ruin of the original Mass Effect setting.

 

Anyway, when it comes to EA and the original post's question, I'd like to point out that EA is the only reason BioWare got out from under Microsoft's thumb. KotOR, Jade Empire, and Mass Effect were all originally X Box exclusives, and I see no reason to think that that manure was going to stop by itself. I agree with the other posters who pointed out that the problems with some of the BioWare games (like ME3) created after the EA merger came from BioWare, not from EA's corporate brass. Maybe DA2 and ME3 were given unrealistic development schedules, but it was up to the actual makers of the game to deliver a quality product. If that meant scaling down the project to maintain quality, that would have been a far better option than, for example, killing the hero and blowing up the galaxy. Just sayin'.



#274
Dean_the_Young

Dean_the_Young
  • Members
  • 20 675 messages

Because the world of Mass Effect had to move on without Shepard, it had to go into a new rhythm and force Shepard out of the picture so the Reaper threat can have a justification for being ignored, and bide some time so it looms closer. 

 

And as for Cerberus, it was the only game in town who was working to actually prepare for the Reapers in that regard, so Shepard played the game with them to do what he was doing two years prior.

 

This is confusing the scenario that was with some sort of inevitability. Cerberus as we knew it in ME2 was invented in ME2- it wasn't even a game in town at the ending of ME1. Anyone else could have been just as (re)invented- such as the Shadow Broker as a patron- or we could have had other reasons than total ignorance for why the Council can't help Shepard.

 

ME1 had a great big Geth invasion and war with the Alliance. That would be a perfectly acceptable distraction for the Alliance and Council while small and independent colonies go missing.

 

 

 

That detour was necessary, because otherwise 2 would be about a Reaper threat that won't be coming in the game. Shepard would have all the resources needed to stop them right off the bat in 3, or at the very least their subsequent invasion would be hit harder, leaving the galaxy in a more optimistic position instead one that's very apocalyptic.

 

 

Since the Reaper's strength is arbitrary, this isn't an actual limitation. The Reaper invasion can be as strong as the writer wants to be no matter how well the galaxy is prepared. Moreover, ME2's endpoint is whatever the writers want... and could be such that the crisis is worse and more dire, rather than less. It could even end with a partial Reaper success, which would be an excellent bridging purpose of a mid-game.

 

Say the conflict of ME2 is with the war against the Heretic Geth rather than collectors. In the course of the war, the Geth (at the behest of the Reapers) make outreaches with the Terminus and anti-Council groups, risking a Terminus War that would divide the galaxy in time for the Reapers arrival, while building some gambit that could turn the war (say infecting the Dyson Sphere with the heretic virus).

 

Let the Suicide Mission be about breaching the Rannoch relay-  suitably impossible for the setting. Let the character missions be about trying to put out the brush fires that could start the Terminus War. Let the subplots be about things and themes that will actually matter in ME3- of Synthetic-Organic conflicts, or Dark Energy, or whatever.

 

And then let Shepard return from the Suicide Mission, having saved the galaxy in the short term, to realize the Reapers have lit it aflame elsewhere. That the Batarian Rebellions have started, pitting Humans against Batarians, while a Krogan Civil War threatens to launch a new Krogan Rebellion. Let the Quarians- whether desperate or indoctrinated or both- launch a war against the Geth, regardless of the True Geth of Legion.

 

Let progress be made, and yet also a galaxy divided, so that Shepard's uniting of the galaxy come ME3 comes in the context of a galaxy that was already preparing for war.

 

 

 

 

 

The fact that he didn't, and he had to work from the ground up with a terrorist group, is frankly better from a narrative perspective because it allowed the Reapers time to get there. If we had carte blanche or the story was different, what would Shepard actually fight that would possibly make sense?  The collectors as a minion threat functioned well enough, despite being a weak villainous group overall. 

 

 

 

The Collectors as a super-advanced minion were pitiful because they opened up multiple logic holes- starting with why they didn't help out Sovereign and Saren's goal in ME1 (where seeker swarm tech would have made capturing the Citadel a cakewalk), and moving on to why they were they acting at all.

 

There was never any point to the Human Reaper from the Reaper's ambitions- it was never going to be completed without Earth, and Earth was going to be blitzed from the start by the Reapers thus rendering the colonies irrelevant for havesting purposes.

 

The Collectors were also largely redundant, in that they thematically replicated what the Geth already were in ME1: a secretive, reclusive race behind relays that no one survives going past with extremely advanced technology and unknown intentions. If the Geth had done the harvesting at the Reaper's bidding, it'd make just as much sense.
 

 

 

BioWare's biggest crime is they pulled a fast one and took total control away from the player there for story reasons. But I have a feeling it was also the only way they can actually see the story working from both a game and narrative perspective. 

 

 

You never had total control, though.


  • vbibbi et Tz342 aiment ceci

#275
LinksOcarina

LinksOcarina
  • Members
  • 6 521 messages

I couldn't disagree more with that statement. ME3 very much needed to have a much more constrained plotline, which could be concluded without ending the entire Mass Effect universe. The sub-plots in ME3 were, for the most part, very well done. The overarching narrative of the game, however, suffered from a dire case of the "make it bigger" disease.

 

When you create an unbeatable opponent and can only resolve the conflict with a giant explosion of Space Magic that breaks your entire setting, the solution would not have been to make the game "bigger." The game should have been smaller, relatable, and personal. Shepard should be around for ME4, even if it was as the mentor of the new protagonist (like Anderson's character in the trilogy.) The Milky Way Galaxy should not have been broken by nonsense to the point that the sequel has to be set in a whole new galaxy to escape the toxic ruin of the original Mass Effect setting.

 

Anyway, when it comes to EA and the original post's question, I'd like to point out that EA is the only reason BioWare got out from under Microsoft's thumb. KotOR, Jade Empire, and Mass Effect were all originally X Box exclusives, and I see no reason to think that that manure was going to stop by itself. I agree with the other posters who pointed out that the problems with some of the BioWare games (like ME3) created after the EA merger came from BioWare, not from EA's corporate brass. Maybe DA2 and ME3 were given unrealistic development schedules, but it was up to the actual makers of the game to deliver a quality product. If that meant scaling down the project to maintain quality, that would have been a far better option than, for example, killing the hero and blowing up the galaxy. Just sayin'.

 

To be fair, it's clear they did that with Dragon Age 2, and I still maintain to this day that despite a 18 month development cycle the game is better than most, arguably better than it should be if you here some people speak.

 

One other thing people forget, BioWare was also in a weird situation in 2006-2007, when they were a part of Elevation Partners with Pandemic, and both studios were kind of in limbo financially along with management changes before the buyout by EA.