I felt that Alpha Protocol's story and characters were far superior to either of those games. It was the borderline-unplayableness that brought it down.Fanghawk said:
BioWare Wanted to Make a Spy Thriller
- Thread starter Fanghawk
- Start date
Let's look at it from EA's perspective. Launching a new IP is a bit of a risk, because you don't have the brand name to go off of. So, they look at the market, and see how similar games have done. Most likely, the games they looked at were Alpha Protocol and The Bourne Conspiracy.
Alpha Protocol had mixed reviews, and has sold 700,000 copies on the PS3, 360, and PC since its release 2 years ago. Now, those numbers may not include Steam sales, so I'll be generous and bump it up to an even 1 million copies.
Bourne Conspiracy received mixed reviews, and has sold a grand total of 750K copies worldwide on both the PS3 and 360 combined to date, 4 years after its release.
Looking at those numbers, can you blame EA for not getting behind a game concept that has been tried twice, and failed both times?
Alpha Protocol had mixed reviews, and has sold 700,000 copies on the PS3, 360, and PC since its release 2 years ago. Now, those numbers may not include Steam sales, so I'll be generous and bump it up to an even 1 million copies.
Bourne Conspiracy received mixed reviews, and has sold a grand total of 750K copies worldwide on both the PS3 and 360 combined to date, 4 years after its release.
Looking at those numbers, can you blame EA for not getting behind a game concept that has been tried twice, and failed both times?
EA probably threw the idea out because they couldn't find a way to needlessly tack multiplayer onto the campaign.
You see my point though, right? Everyone is jumping on EA for making what, at the time, seemed like a good business decision. You can point to the sales of Deus Ex: Human Revolution, but that had the advantage of having an established fanbase from previous games, and being a somewhat marketable name. Both the original spy-type games they had to look at bombed financially, and weren't successful enough critically to overlook that.mad825 said:
It "seemed" like a good business decision.thebobmaster said:
But EA has a history with this. They buy out acclaimed creative studios and then they inject their own business logic into the equation, ruining the unique creative flair and destroying the value of their purchase.
We could have gotten an awesome spy RPG and a worthy ending to the Mass Effect series, but instead we got SW:ToR - and the production of SW:ToR, alongside shoehorned social features, ruined Mass Effect - and with it, the BioWare brand.
I did. I stopped playing for months after the tutorial because the hacking mini-game sucked so much. I came back to it later and it just played so horribly compared to Deus Ex: HR (that I was also playing at the time) that I just abandoned it.Imthatguy said:
The game was barely playable and the bugs and stupid shit I'd heard about that happens later in the game sapped my will to work through the shit.
HOW DARE YOU USE LOGIC! HOW DARE YOU! GET OUT OF HERE!thebobmaster said:
OT: This pretty much. Like every publisher/developer at the end of the day it's about money. Whether we want to admit it or not. And this type of game hasn't done well so far.
Every time I hear about EA doing something stupid, I cannot help but imagine them as a Saturday morning cartoon villain.
Shit's getting ridiculous, maybe they turned it down due to the name? "Agent" doesn't sound particularly thrilling, yet the premise is quite unique, though if there were ever two words to describe Bioware's works it would be them.
Even if the game would've seen release, I think that Bioware should work in partnership with Obsidian, as their "choice" mechanics are a bit too simple and binary, whereas Obsidian is at least leaning towards a more interesting direction regarding said mechanics in their recent games, F:NV had no good ending(arguably), which is why I loved it so, their exploration of a moral grey area would work well in a spy game.
Shit's getting ridiculous, maybe they turned it down due to the name? "Agent" doesn't sound particularly thrilling, yet the premise is quite unique, though if there were ever two words to describe Bioware's works it would be them.
Even if the game would've seen release, I think that Bioware should work in partnership with Obsidian, as their "choice" mechanics are a bit too simple and binary, whereas Obsidian is at least leaning towards a more interesting direction regarding said mechanics in their recent games, F:NV had no good ending(arguably), which is why I loved it so, their exploration of a moral grey area would work well in a spy game.
Electronic Arts can go fuck its mother...
or, more appropriately, the suits at the top can go fuck their mothers.
I can't recall anyone having a problem with BioWare until EA started shitting all over it. Though I still have Jade Empire sitting here unopened, so maybe that's a steaming pile of shit and BioWare isn't as good as I thought.
I'm not sure this would work in BioWare's favor.
Most of BioWare's games tend to (at least try, but I digress) have strong characters and relationships with these characters. Specifically BioWare makes great party-based games where you have numerous, memorable characters tagging along with your blank-slate or blank-slate like of a character you personify through the game's campaign. James Bond and Jason Bourne films seem to be the total opposite of this: It is the main character that overcomes obstacles on his own, with little or no allies supporting them. There are other characters in these films, but the thesis of these films is the main character is extremely exceptional compared to normal folks. Capable of charming or sneaking his way into rich, evil facilities where death rays are being built to thwart equally unique villains, and then celebrate with an intimate tussle along with a woman who might be named after her genitals. It's like trying to make a BioWare RPG with the "Indiana Jones" license while they try making characters that rival or are more memorable than the character which the franchise is named after.
Most of BioWare's games tend to (at least try, but I digress) have strong characters and relationships with these characters. Specifically BioWare makes great party-based games where you have numerous, memorable characters tagging along with your blank-slate or blank-slate like of a character you personify through the game's campaign. James Bond and Jason Bourne films seem to be the total opposite of this: It is the main character that overcomes obstacles on his own, with little or no allies supporting them. There are other characters in these films, but the thesis of these films is the main character is extremely exceptional compared to normal folks. Capable of charming or sneaking his way into rich, evil facilities where death rays are being built to thwart equally unique villains, and then celebrate with an intimate tussle along with a woman who might be named after her genitals. It's like trying to make a BioWare RPG with the "Indiana Jones" license while they try making characters that rival or are more memorable than the character which the franchise is named after.