EA is a multinational and suffers from that affliction.
What boggles my mind, so many negatives but I bet a lot of complainers work for a multinational albeit not EA.
World citizens are rather lame at tackling their own employer but good at projecting me thinks.
Imagine how much better ME2 might have been with ME3's loadout and modding system.
ME3 employed different weapons with different, albiet linear statistics. Which could be further customized via mods. You can certainly argue there were too many of them, you didn't want to collect them, some were over/underpowered, etc. But that doesn't make what ME2 did any better. Just less cluttered. And given that ME3 did in fact increase the number of available weapons and brought back weapon mods indicates that the backlash to ME2's chainsaw surgery was actually listened to
Yeah, I'm shocked too
The clutter was in fact a huge problem though. Clutter represents a resource cost, like anything else.
It's not razor thin at all
Bad RPG mechanics =ther were rpg mechanics
Ignored rpg mechanics=THere weren't any to begin with.
And what are the RPG fans who want to enjoy good RPGs going to do? In both cases, they'll go play something else, hence the razor thin margin. Yeah, we can point to ME1's inventory system and say "ME2 doesn't have this". But the net effect is the same: your RPG fan base is not enjoying your gameplay.
Let me put it this way: given all the criticism directed at Bioware for things they've done badly but did implement (the Mass Effect story works pretty well as an example), I don't think saying "at least there were RPG mechanics" is a good defense any more than saying "at least there was an ending" will make people who disliked ME3's ending happy, myself included. I think that's a very bad starting point to talk about their relative merits.
Improving TPS elements may make a game a better shooter. But removing RPG elements does not make for a better RPG. IF you like shooters, well, that's fine I guess. You'll enjoy the game more. ANd if that's what Bioware wants to do, that's okay too. THey should just come clean about it and stop claiming Mass Effect is a hybrid.
While I agree Mass Effect is a hybrid, to be absolutely clear a hybrid does not necessarily imply a 50/50 split. This is why I emphasize the ME1 = Gears of War more closely than ME1 = Baldur's Gate. I could throw up arbitrary numbers of where it ranks on the spectrum, but suffice it to say, the game is more tps than rpg with respect to game mechanics.
Again, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with wanting RPG elements and having no interest in tps elements. But I don't consider ME1 (the most traditional RPG of the 3) to have been made remotely with that fan base anywhere in mind. I'd feel much more comfortable giving Mass Effect to my tps friends than any of my rpg friends, as an example.
As for ME2's marketing claims, I admit we're quite a few years removed from that time. But I do recall them gushing about the new heavy weapons of the game as well as talking about the new smg. THus implying more options, not less.
Conceptually, that might be true, but I still think this interpretation is too narrow. My first thought at seeing the heavy weapons was "I guess we're moving more towards a tps". I'm not sure the above is enough to push the "Bioware promised to fix the inventory" argument. At least, not in the way that their marketing overhyped the ME3 ending, imports, etc.
ME1 had flaws. I'm not denying that. But what Bioware did was remove the mechanics entirely rather than try to improve them. THe fact that even as sorry a game as ME3 could actually put some of them back in and even improve upon them (though sadly gutting others at the same time) shows that they didn't need to be cut out to begin with.
I definitely think ME3 is by far the best of the 3 in terms of gameplay, but this argument cuts both ways. Saying ME3 demonstrates ME2 didn't need to use a chainsaw may be accurate, but again I've admitted to that multiple times in this thread (there were a number of options open to Bioware). But ME3 also shows we didn't need ME1's bad gameplay in the first place either. But like they say, game design is iterative and hindsight is 20/20.
The reason I pointed out the razor thin margin above is that with ME1, pretty much nobody wins in the "good gameplay" department, which is the point of purchasing a game with a specific type of gameplay in mind. Again, we can imagine the much improved version of ME2, but at the end of the day it pushed the gameplay closer towards something that some fan might look at and say "I enjoyed that".
The last great EA games that I played was ME2 so, should I be worried about ME:A?
I guess DA:I was a huge step in the right direction even though I never finished it. At the very least it shows that Bioware does listen to negative feedback on their core franchises.
I do hope that ME:A does a better job of easing new adventurers into it's 'universe' than DA:I does. I still think it was a huge mistake to drop gamer's into an environment like the Hinterlands so soon in DA:I's campaign, it's too much freedom to soon in the campaign. If you have OCD like me ( and my case is mild ) then you feel trapped because you want to see and do everything before you continue on with the story and eventually the games main narrative falls apart because you are to busy doing fetch quests instead of saving the world.
Despite it's many faults, I'd argue that ME2 was structurally perfect at how it begins off very linear ( or narrow ) and the longer you play, the more the ME universe opens for you.
When I buy something, and even often when I don't, I have no concern over being critical. There is one thing, and I wouldn't call it hope, but a necessity. People get all offended when it is brought up and to them I say, "Too bad. This isn't about liking people. This is about making something excellent."
Casey Hudson being gone.
Look, sure he was on ME1 which I think was the best of the series, and ME2, but the quality of the product steadily declined in most aspects for what could be produced at the time (i.e. being on par with other products at the time of release). And let's not forget the murder flop at the end of the series, a terrible and atrocious idea, ill conceived and with little or no consideration.
So him being gone is a plus. There's one other person I'd be waiting for to go before I would even call for hope. But even if they are gone, it's been so long I'm pretty sure it is safe to say the golden age of ME1 and DAO are things of the past, and the desire for their modern incarnation is more a matter of nostalgia than hope based in reality.
I never thought it would but others have stepped in. Nobody still has the story changing ability and romance options that BioWare has kept, but the product still has to be worthy. Options don't matter otherwise.
Good luck BioWare, you're going to need it.
I don't remember where this was posted initially on this forum, but this concept gives me nostalgia for what I felt when I first played Mass Effect.
Assuming they actually succeed of course. Those videos certainly look impressive.
Assuming they actually succeed of course. Those videos certainly look impressive.
Consortium looks good but is first person so no sale for me.
Nothing,I have no faith in EA,I do not play fps and sports games,all EA games I bought are Bioware games
I'm sorry for your wallet's loss.
I absolutely hated ME1's inventory system, and I was glad to see it go. Going out on a mission? Grab a load out. I thought it was a good idea. You're playing a military-type person. You're not carrying a bazillion weapons around with you. It made more sense than to be able to switch your equipment in the middle of a mission.... unless you found a new gun on the ground.... but then you'd probably want to get checked out on that weapon before you used it in combat, right? So no pausing to switch mods around in the middle of battle. It made sense in ME2 and ME3. I found the ME3 system the best gameplaywise.
But that ending.... Thank you Casey Hudson....
Then good ideas in ME1 and ME2 went awry with carrying too many things forward into the next games making writing a cohesive story for ME3 next to an impossible task.
I've played Dragon Age: Inquisition. I think that's it for EA. I played Bioshock Infinite. I've played Destiny, and I have TW3 and Fallout 4 but haven't played them yet. I think those are the only games I've played in the past two years.
I absolutely hated ME1's inventory system, and I was glad to see it go. Going out on a mission? Grab a load out. I thought it was a good idea. You're playing a military-type person. You're not carrying a bazillion weapons around with you. It made more sense than to be able to switch your equipment in the middle of a mission.... unless you found a new gun on the ground.... but then you'd probably want to get checked out on that weapon before you used it in combat, right? So no pausing to switch mods around in the middle of battle. It made sense in ME2 and ME3. I found the ME3 system the best gameplaywise.
But that ending.... Thank you Casey Hudson....
Then good ideas in ME1 and ME2 went awry with carrying too many things forward into the next games making writing a cohesive story for ME3 next to an impossible task.
I've played Dragon Age: Inquisition. I think that's it for EA. I played Bioshock Infinite. I've played Destiny, and I have TW3 and Fallout 4 but haven't played them yet. I think those are the only games I've played in the past two years.
Nothing was more frustrating than having to go back to the cargo hold and re-equip everyone with the new weapons/armors and mods that you've gotten.
That is literally my routine after every mission. Then all the left over weapons that got replaced I would sell them to the Requisition officer and get 99999999 credits.
ME3 had the best management system.
Hated the planet scanning in ME2, so tedious.
I wonder what EA will do if Andromeda doesn't do well.
ME1 - 3 were all huge successes.
And DAI was huge (and GOTY)
It would take a pretty significant miss-step for MEA to not do well, and that seems unlikely.
I wonder what EA will do if Andromeda doesn't do well.
I think It'll likely depend on why it didn't do well than that it didn't do well. There's little reason to dismiss an entire franchise because one installment of it did badly. If the lore is considered uninteresting, the story unsatisfying or the mechanics terrible then it'd be a matter of rectifying the lacking aspect especially if the franchise had previously had installments that were successful and well-recieved.
Consortium looks good but is first person so no sale for me.
First person games are not necessarily bad and not all of them are COD style games.
Some great games come to mind, like Bioshock 1-2 (Infinite kinda jumped the shark), Dishonored, Deus Ex, etc.
Don't know but I bet most everyone here will continue to shell out cash for their games...and continue to complain incessantly when a given game isn't tailored to their own personal preferences.
I never meant that Dragon Age should be like Assassin's Creed, what I'm saying they should learn and look at different elements of gameplay such as their open world levels, navigation, combat design from Ubisoft to put it to use to make their gameplay better than what they did before. But I still think they would be a potential replacement for EA and let's be honest BW and EA begin to suck at making high quality games, the games were never getting any better, repetition of every game they make, no balance if gameplay, story, level dedign. etc, and put a high price for a cheaply made game. They better get on the ball otherwise people will go to someone else who can make better games than BW & EA.Great, you obviously like Ubisoft. But don't go telling fairy tales about how better BW would be under Ubi than EA. I would stop playing BW games if they turned into Assassin's Creed with spells, so I'm glad any BW takeover will never happen.
I never meant that Dragon Age should be like Assassin's Creed, what I'm saying they should learn and look at different elements of gameplay such as their open world levels, navigation, combat design from Ubisoft to put it to use to make their gameplay better than what they did before. But I still think they would be a potential replacement for EA and let's be honest BW and EA begin to suck at making high quality games, the games were never getting any better, repetition of every game they make, no balance if gameplay, story, level dedign. etc, and put a high price for a cheaply made game. They better get on the ball otherwise people will go to someone else who can make better games than BW & EA.
Ok.
How would those elements work with a party-based RPG? How would you do combat with a warrior/rogue/mage style of characters with that combat design and navigation, balance it to make the combat worthwhile for all three classes, and provide enough of a challenge for the player throughout?
I get what you are trying to say, but lifting one style of gameplay into another game on the belief that it might be better or a different company is better is not a good idea; it makes terrible games in the long run. Not to mention that would cheapen the game quickly, instead of attempting something different visually or through design.
I don't remember where this was posted initially on this forum, but this concept gives me nostalgia for what I felt when I first played Mass Effect.
Assuming they actually succeed of course. Those videos certainly look impressive.
Played the first game. Was impressed.
Backing this one
Played the first game. Was impressed.
Backing this one
I didn't play the first game, but ive seen videos. It's not too bad all things considered, but it felt more like a demo of this Tower kickstarter.
I didn't play the first game, but ive seen videos. It's not too bad all things considered, but it felt more like a demo of this Tower kickstarter.
As opposed to what? A finished product?... This is a kickstarter, obviously the game is in an early stage right now.
I would say Dragon Age 2 really did show how EA and Bioware combo was bad and it didn't help with ME3 endings that followed. I believe strongly that the endings of ME3 were not reviewed to the slightest degree and what we got was raw thought process that someone thought of on a good dose of drugs. I read the fan endings to ME3 and they are by far superior to what we actually got with ME3. Now ME2 was brillantly done besides Shepard's death but after the PS3 port, its obvious that it was made with the intentions of porting it to the PS3 without ME1. But it has the issue of having a bad sequel that wasn't bad besides the endings but bad because it still continued to disregard player choice besides the choice of who you banged in the previous games. I said this before and I will say it again, only choice that moved forward in the trilogy as a whole is who you banged from ME1 to ME3.
I would like to see Bioware actually give us choices that will matter later in this new series and not just dead end choices, they really need to write it like Witcher series in a sense and give us choices that will effect the game. Otherwise I'd like Bioware to quit marketing that choices matter when they really don't, they only seem to matter for the game they are in if they effect anything at all.
As opposed to what? A finished product?... This is a kickstarter, obviously the game is in an early stage right now.
I'm talking about this. Perhaps read more carefully next time before jumping down my throat again, Tzeentchian 
.
If you want me to judge the kickstarter videos, I am more impressed with the style of the presentation and graphics than their first product overall. Of course with their asking price for funding that might change a bit, but it's definitly on the right track in terms of visuals. Gameplaywise who knows.
Nothing. EA should sell off BioWare and their Star Wars license. Let us get some real games back, not the cheap trash they've been shoving down our throats for the last few years.
I wonder what EA will do if Andromeda doesn't do well.
You know, I know, and even my grandmother knows what will happen.
Don't know but I bet most everyone here will continue to shell out cash for their games...and continue to complain incessantly when a given game isn't tailored to their own personal preferences.
Always amusing when people project their lack of willpower and lack of principles when it comes to buying games with dubious design decisions and ethically questionable business practices onto others. I bought Assassin's Creed Unity. I didn't like the ending, and I hated the terrible non-existent story. So when I heard Syndicate was coming out I naturally....did not buy it. And I still haven't to this day. And even if I were to eventually buy it, it would be in a GameStop saturated with BO and obnoxious kids because I know for a fact that suffering through that kind of shopping experience is worth it when I can buy second-hand.
I know it's kind of a long-winded way of saying it but just because you don't have any responsibility as a smart and wise-spending consumer doesn't mean every one else doesn't too.
Retour en haut
