Do you work at EA? Do you know they actually warned APB's developer to not release the game in a half developed state?RvLeshrac said:People said EA "ruined APB," even though EA had absolutely *ZERO* input into the development process, and warned RTW that releasing the game in the half-assed state it was in at launch was a bad idea.
People said SOE "ruined Vanguard," despite SOE being the *last* publisher to pick up the game, and despite the developers constantly re-writing entire sections of the game on a yearly basis, missing every single development milestone and deadline by years.
You work at EA? You know what control EA exercises? Has Bioware come out and said that EA forced them to make all the changes? No, they haven't. In fact, Bioware has lauded all the changes they were "forced" to make. They seem to be incredibly happy with the design decisions they made in DA2 and ME2.
But ME1 was trying to be a shooter too.AndyFromMonday said:Like I've said before, as action games both Mass Effect 2 and Dragon Age 2 aren't bad. Unfortunately, they're extremely mediocre. You're playing a dumbed down RPG that tries to be a shooter with shooting mechanics that do not compare to other run of the mill third person shooters.
They could have improved the shooting and left all the RPG bits in there. There was no reason to make stats useless. Stats are what make an RPG. Without stats, the very thing that lets you personalize your character, you're just playing a shooter with the ability to choose what you say during dialog sequences.MiracleOfSound said:The shooting in Mass Effect 1 was far worse.WanderingFool said:I havent played DA2, so no comment. On ME2, I felt that for all the steps forward it went, other elements went back an equal number of steps. And while it can be argued that they streamlined the experience, I still think they just gutted some of the RPG mechanics to improve the shooting mechanics... oh, and I fucking hate the ammo. The guns had infinite ammo, and no matter how you spin it, they went backwards.
I understand you miss the stats and more customisation, but what does any of that matter when for the first half of the game Shepard can't even hit anything? It's just a terrible shooter with some stats attached to make it less terrible over time.
At least in ME2 they focused on making the game more playable.
And I don't like infinite ammo. I like reloading.
Mass Effect was not trying to be a shooter. The shooting was central to the gameplay, yes, but in the end it was still an RPG. Mass Effect 2's focus was entirely on the combat whereas the story and pretty much everything else got a backseat.MiracleOfSound said:But ME1 was trying to be a shooter too.AndyFromMonday said:Like I've said before, as action games both Mass Effect 2 and Dragon Age 2 aren't bad. Unfortunately, they're extremely mediocre. You're playing a dumbed down RPG that tries to be a shooter with shooting mechanics that do not compare to other run of the mill third person shooters.
A much less functional, more broken and irritating shooter - who want a reticule the size of Illium when they're trying to shoot?
ME2 may have had less stats and numbers but at least it had much more balanced and consistent combat. It felt tough but fair, not like you were struggling against the mechanics, as I often felt in ME1.
Once bankrupt, RTW devs corroborated EA's story.AndyFromMonday said:Do you work at EA? Do you know they actually warned APB's developer to not release the game in a half developed state?RvLeshrac said:People said EA "ruined APB," even though EA had absolutely *ZERO* input into the development process, and warned RTW that releasing the game in the half-assed state it was in at launch was a bad idea.
People said SOE "ruined Vanguard," despite SOE being the *last* publisher to pick up the game, and despite the developers constantly re-writing entire sections of the game on a yearly basis, missing every single development milestone and deadline by years.
You work at EA? You know what control EA exercises? Has Bioware come out and said that EA forced them to make all the changes? No, they haven't. In fact, Bioware has lauded all the changes they were "forced" to make. They seem to be incredibly happy with the design decisions they made in DA2 and ME2.
Publishers can make their studios declare anything. In fact, up until the joining with EA has Bioware ever released dumbed down games? It seems that the moment they joined up with EA they released two games still in development and then released sequels to those two games, one rushed and half assed and another dumbed down. Is this Bioware's track record? Have you seen Bioware release games like that? It seems a little suspicious that they'd choose to go in a new direction exactly after a buyout by a publisher that could only be described as a fucking nuisance to the gaming industry.
Neverwinter Nights was D&D 3.0, not AD&D. Now, please name a PC game that's been put out in the past decade that has NEVER CRASHED ON ANY SYSTEM EVER.RvLeshrac said:Once bankrupt, RTW devs corroborated EA's story.AndyFromMonday said:Do you work at EA? Do you know they actually warned APB's developer to not release the game in a half developed state?RvLeshrac said:People said EA "ruined APB," even though EA had absolutely *ZERO* input into the development process, and warned RTW that releasing the game in the half-assed state it was in at launch was a bad idea.
People said SOE "ruined Vanguard," despite SOE being the *last* publisher to pick up the game, and despite the developers constantly re-writing entire sections of the game on a yearly basis, missing every single development milestone and deadline by years.
You work at EA? You know what control EA exercises? Has Bioware come out and said that EA forced them to make all the changes? No, they haven't. In fact, Bioware has lauded all the changes they were "forced" to make. They seem to be incredibly happy with the design decisions they made in DA2 and ME2.
Publishers can make their studios declare anything. In fact, up until the joining with EA has Bioware ever released dumbed down games? It seems that the moment they joined up with EA they released two games still in development and then released sequels to those two games, one rushed and half assed and another dumbed down. Is this Bioware's track record? Have you seen Bioware release games like that? It seems a little suspicious that they'd choose to go in a new direction exactly after a buyout by a publisher that could only be described as a fucking nuisance to the gaming industry.
Baldur's Gate had a second-party patch to correct issues with the game script, as did SoA, after Bioware stopped updating them.
Baldur's Gate II had several game-breaking issues that were only corrected by the community after Bioware stopped updating it.
NWN likewise had bugs in the storyline that took forever to be fixed, with players having to fix them via console cheats. There were also numerous issues with the implementation of SecuROM, and the patching system would frequently cause critical game files to break or become out of sync.
Do you think that Bioware's reduced-complexity development was, perhaps, an effort to reduce the number of script issues they encountered after launch? Or maybe the reduction in complexity was due to having to develop game systems from scratch, rather than relying on AD&D?
How do you know RTW did that?RvLeshrac said:Once bankrupt, RTW devs corroborated EA's story.AndyFromMonday said:Do you work at EA? Do you know they actually warned APB's developer to not release the game in a half developed state?RvLeshrac said:People said EA "ruined APB," even though EA had absolutely *ZERO* input into the development process, and warned RTW that releasing the game in the half-assed state it was in at launch was a bad idea.
People said SOE "ruined Vanguard," despite SOE being the *last* publisher to pick up the game, and despite the developers constantly re-writing entire sections of the game on a yearly basis, missing every single development milestone and deadline by years.
You work at EA? You know what control EA exercises? Has Bioware come out and said that EA forced them to make all the changes? No, they haven't. In fact, Bioware has lauded all the changes they were "forced" to make. They seem to be incredibly happy with the design decisions they made in DA2 and ME2.
Publishers can make their studios declare anything. In fact, up until the joining with EA has Bioware ever released dumbed down games? It seems that the moment they joined up with EA they released two games still in development and then released sequels to those two games, one rushed and half assed and another dumbed down. Is this Bioware's track record? Have you seen Bioware release games like that? It seems a little suspicious that they'd choose to go in a new direction exactly after a buyout by a publisher that could only be described as a fucking nuisance to the gaming industry.
Baldur's Gate had a second-party patch to correct issues with the game script, as did SoA, after Bioware stopped updating them.
Baldur's Gate II had several game-breaking issues that were only corrected by the community after Bioware stopped updating it.
NWN likewise had bugs in the storyline that took forever to be fixed, with players having to fix them via console cheats. There were also numerous issues with the implementation of SecuROM, and the patching system would frequently cause critical game files to break or become out of sync.
Do you think that Bioware's reduced-complexity development was, perhaps, an effort to reduce the number of script issues they encountered after launch? Or maybe the reduction in complexity was due to having to develop game systems from scratch, rather than relying on AD&D?
sales equal company succes.Dense_Electric said:Sales do not equal quality.fabiosooner said:Sales say otherwise.
I really don't think you can say that until you've WON! EA, you are still losing. But i can see this is your thing, I want to compare it to Sony's pre-hacked attitude. Very cocky, and i hope for the day someone brings you down a few notches too.John Riccitiello said:He felt that it had been the right thing to do, however, and EA was strengthened by embracing its past failings. "We were students of our own failure, we used our failure to shape and impel us to a better strategy, one that we believe will ultimately succeed in ways that our previous strategy, even if perfectly executed, could never have done." Riccitello said that the struggle wasn't over though, and that while the company had won a few of its battles over the last four years - and investors were starting to respond to the changes it had made - there was still lots more to do. "I'm not standing in front of shareholders in a flight suit claiming mission accomplished," he said. "The lesson isn't over, [but] we've learned a lot."
Everyone is entitled to their opinions, though I know for a fact that there is a shitstorm of people who have thoroughly enjoyed the latest Bioware games. I'm proud to count myself amoung them.AndyFromMonday said:The way EA ruined the Mass Effect and Dragon Age franchises was just marvelous. I'm guessing "embracing failure" means buying good studios and turning their games into abominations of what they used to be.
i agree. however, most people will usually see this topic as a gateway for "legitimate" hatred for EA, as though they are a group of childhood killing soulless nazis.MiracleOfSound said:... in your opinion.AndyFromMonday said:The way EA ruined the Mass Effect and Dragon Age franchises was just marvelous. I'm guessing "embracing failure" means buying good studios and turning their games into abominations of what they used to be.
I much preferred ME2 and DA2 to both of the first games.