buy teh haloz said:
I really want to continue our debate but I've got a paper to finish and it's already 11. We'll continue this tomorrow.
EA CEO: We Failed Well
- Thread starter Logan Westbrook
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I really want to continue our debate but I've got a paper to finish and it's already 11. We'll continue this tomorrow.
They do for ME2, but not DA2. DA2 has sold (giving a generous estimate) slightly over half what Dragon Age: Origins did. That can't be the number they were aiming for.fabiosooner said:
Yes, I recognize that DA2 had a much shorter development cycle, and thus likely brought in the same or more in net profit, but that isn't the entire picture either. A huge amount of the sales (over 400,000 of them) were pre-orders, based entirely on the quality of DAO. They won't get that rush of trusting fans again for a long time, and certainly not if they develop DA3 in the same time period at the same level of quality. They cashed in their one chance to really bank on the success of Origins, and now the franchise has to stand on its own, because not many people are going to be thrilled to buy the sequel to DA2.
If you say so.
No, the game isn't about 'branching paths and whatnot', because there are no branching paths (speaking only of Dragon Age 2 now, I loved ME2). There is the illusion of choice with literally no difference in the ending, or the epilogue, at all.
No choice you make in the entire game matters, and Bioware could move forward with Dragon Age 3 and completely ignore choices in DA2 and be fine, because there weren't any. Honestly, that's likely why they used the 'framed narrative' in the first place, so they wouldn't have to worry about the headaches involved with factoring in player choice.. which is fine in most games, but not in a game where 'choices that shape the world' is a bullet on the back of the box.
It's funny how the world works. When we're children, we're allowed to fail, we're taught that failure is simply a part of life and that what's important is to learn from our failures. When we become adults however, failure is no longer an option. The expectation becomes that we will always get things right and that we'll never make mistakes. And anyone who's ever been human knows that's just not possible.Logan Westbrook said:
I commend Ricitello for embracing and learning from his mistakes. However, I hesitate to believe he would brook failures from any of his subordinates if they simply professed to have "learned from" them. I'd hope he'd bear his own history in mind at any rate, but it seems unlikely.
Stats aren't nearly as important to a RPG as you think, here's the definition of a RPG:AndyFromMonday said:
Mass Effect allows you to do the most important thing in a RPG, which is deciding how your character acts and what your character says. There's very few video game RPGs that allow you to do the most important aspect of a RPG, the role-playing, the way Mass Effect does. JRPGs aren't RPGs because 99% of them don't allow you to have any say of what your character does outside of combat, what they say and do outside of combat is 100% scripted, and you have no control whatsoever. All the stats and equipment in the world do not make a RPG, it's the role-playing, and Mass Effect has that.Wikipedia said:
Yes, but it was frustrating to its original fans. They were both fantastic for different reasons. Hopefully Bioware can understand that for ME3, and create something truly visionary (an FPSRPG that works as both).shadowmagus said:
I will say one thing about the DA2 hate, it's very justified, but Bioware always has a way of dragging me into the story, regardless of how ridiculous it is. I'm still considering playing through it again one more time.
First off, "I could care less" implies that you do in fact care. "I couldn't care less" is the saying you're looking for methinks. Sorry 'bout the grammar-nazi schtick but that one bugs the hell out of me for whatever reason.The Human Torch said:
Second, "quality" is not a subjective measure. There are purely objective metrics over the quality of everything in existence. Whether or not it's "good", meaning enjoyable/workable, is subjective, yes, but "quality" is a completely separate beast.
Brief synopsis of "quality" metrics in literature (as I'm unqualified to do so for movies and don't want to put forth the effort to make a list for games):
-Plot - coherent, logical (in-universe, if nothing else), and concise
-Characters - distinct personalities and realistic, understandable behavior
-Prose - engaging and thought-provoking
If a work of literature meets these criteria, it's a high-quality piece of work, regardless of how well it sells or what people think about it. Similarly, if it does not, then it's a low-quality work, once more regardless of what people think about it.
People can like poor quality goods all day, and oftentimes they do. It doesn't mean anything bad, it just means a low-quality work appeals to their sensibilities.
Thus, sales does not equate with quality.
I'm amazed at the lack of perspective that makes people say Mass Effect 2 is a bad game. As far as quality goes, it's EASILY one of the best games of all times. It's written with enormous care and detail, it's huge, it has beatiful visuals and sound and its mechanics are 100% functional (amazing that in this day and age this can't be taken for granted). It's one thing not to like or be interested in what it is trying to do, but its production values are absolute top notch. Bad? If I didn't know better I'd figure you guys never played a BAD game.
Mass Effect wasn't. EA bought BioWare in 2007, one month after the release of Mass Effect. The game was published by Microsoft Gaming Studios for the 360, but the PC version was published by EA.Vrach said:
On the ME1/ME2 thing - I think they're similar but different. Mass Effect, to me, is a military science fiction game that uses a perhaps too arbitrary point system, has a very well written story and a good cast of characters, but on the PC version at least, it suffers from being a bit of a technical mess. Mass Effect 2 is a much more polished release, but shifts from military sci-fi to something more akin to space opera, and has an RPG system that actually works. When you level up, you feel the benefit. A lot of ME1's levelling didn't allow for that; it was too gradual. The armour/weapon system made more sense, too. Your character isn't going to magically find better armour every five minutes, they'll generally stick to what they know. That's what Shepard does, and he/she just adjusts and replaces parts.
ME2 wasn't a dumbing down, it was a streamlined game. Yes, it had issues, but it was a more fluid experience.
As for EA... I'm in two minds. They can put out some absolutely amazing, mindblowing titles (Mirror's Edge) with one hand, but the other spends more time putting out unfinished and buggy releases. Bulletstorm is not pretty and has a few issues (Not including being technically unsound on PC. Heck, I can't uninstall the bloody thing), The Sims Medieval doesn't feel right to me in terms of controls and gameplay (Might be a personal thing, though) and Medal of Honor 2010 was just a flop because they overstretched themselves.
That said, I will defend EA to the grave over one thing. Out of the biggest publishers, only EA are putting out new and non-standard, if not innovative, titles. Activision are relying on their money printers, Nintendo are relying on money printers, Ubisoft are... Ubisoft - You get the idea.
P.S. Mirror's Edge 2 please.
Well Generals was a pretty good game, and they didn't fuck up C&C3 too much, but C&C4 was just.. .. Urgh.FenrisDeSolar said:
Fair enough, wasn't aware of the dates, my badHobo Steve said:
But you're going by the "everything that's liked by more than a niche group of people is shit by default"? Really? Couldn't be that just maybe a small group of people don't like the game because it tore away from what they wanted from it?
^This. I get the appeal in ME1, I really do, but saying ME2 was shit or even just a lot worse is just silly. It was simply different and it succeeded in appealing to a lot of people.coldalarm said:
Odd, I had no issues with Bulletstorm. Look up a guide for uninstalling it on the net, deleting the folder and messing around with regedit (looking up is for this part, you don't wanna mess something up) usually does the trick when I've got my hands on a game that has a fucked uninstall.coldalarm said:
And I agree they're a big publisher that does cool things. I get why they're hated, but I think they're doing a pretty good job as both a business and someone who furthers the industry. They have their cash cows and if people are happy to be milked on a yearly basis buying sports games, that's their choice. Those cash cows can then feed other awesome titles and EA has plenty of them under their belt, especially under the studios it owns.
When you're not independent, you're always gonna have someone standing over your head. And having someone big standing over your head can be that much worse. That's the reality of things. But that's the downside, the upside is having that someone there for you to do his part in what you need. A lot of those studios bought off by the evil EA might not have had the budgets to put out some of the games they did and a lot of them might not even exist anymore if they were on their own.
Bottom line is, when I see an EA logo on a game, I have that much more confidence in it. It's not a "OMG EA, instant buy" thing, but I know I can expect a quality game most of the time and having EA behind them will make me that much more interested to check it out and see what it's about.
I enjoyed it. Subjectively this makes it a good game for me. I can accept that this is my opinion and others don't like it.Alma Mare said:
What is quite amusing is the posters saying without any irony "its a bad game - FACT". What objective measure's are they using to decide this? Critical acclaim? Sales? I bet I know what it is - it's like a lot of facts on the internet, it's based on what they 'reckon'.
Did it learn from the whole "Dante's Inferno\hiring fake religious zealot to protest the game" fiasco?
Well, from a business standpoint... if it makes money, then yes, yes it does.AndyFromMonday said:
Actually what everyone is trying to yell at your deaf ears is that IT IS NOT A FACT that anything is subpar. ITS AN OPINION, and your opinion is the minority in this situation, that's what something selling well means, it means that a large group of people enjoyed the game, It DOES NOT mean that everyone but you or those sharing your opinion are idiots, it means that people with your opinion have different tastes than everyone else, of which is fine. However trying to shove your opinion down peoples throats by saying your opinion is a fact, and everyone disagreeing with you is an idiot, makes you look like a douche bag. Have a nice dayAndyFromMonday said:
What turning terrible to actually good? ME 1 was boring as hell with a story that only got good once you were in 3/4 into the game. Terrible combat as well to match. ME 2 actually improved a lot on the combat and make the story and characters interesting enough. You and the rest of the people that hate ME 2 amaze me.AndyFromMonday said: