Oh I don't doubt it. The problem is, creative control doesn't mean much when you have a deadline that says you need to release the game a year after it's predecessor.
You are probably sort of right on the commercial greed part. Delaying a game that close to its deadline is very costly and not something anybody really wants to do.hazydawn said:I also heard that, but believe it was a theory of why they might have decided against the other ending. Forgot where I heard about it.Little Gray said:The reason Mass Effect 3 had such a shitty ending is because the script got leaked three or four months before it was released and they rushed to change the ending. While the move to change the ending was kind of stupid since the release date was so near its sort of understandable.
Did Bioware themselves gave such a statement? Because I doubt that.
Please give me a source.
But even if that was the reason, Bioware might have completed the new ending without rushing the game if not for EA and it's commercial greed.
Or maybe not, we'll never know for certain. It's just that some sort of pattern seems to appear everywhere EA is involved.
Fair point. But Mass Effect 2 was almost entirely developed while Bioware was still independent. It was released shortly after the merger, so all the work had already been done, and it was developed under Bioware's internal schedules. DA2 was the first game they developed under the blanket of EA. And I think we can all see what happened there.Anachronism said:EA aren't evil. They're just idiots.
Mass Effect 2? I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that came out after they were bought. Fair enough on the corporate oversight point, I suppose; it's undeniable that it was made to be much more of a shooter to appeal to a broader demographic, but to be perfectly honest, it was a better game for it. And the other points just don't apply, in my opinion: Mass Effect 2 was a phenomenal game.faefrost said:But ALL of the games that they have put out since have the unmistakable feel of rushed development, early release, poor QC, and a certain patern of corporate oversight that we have seen far to often in EA acquired companies.
Nope. History says otherwise:faefrost said:Fair point. But Mass Effect 2 was almost entirely developed while Bioware was still independent. It was released shortly after the merger, so all the work had already been done, and it was developed under Bioware's internal schedules. DA2 was the first game they developed under the blanket of EA. And I think we can all see what happened there.
As disingenuous as it is in my head I keep thinking "abused spouse"Akalabeth said:No doubt someone in this thread has or will say that this guy is only saying this "under duress".
Countless games have been delayed even more than once, it's not as if this practice would be unimaginable.Little Gray said:You are probably sort of right on the commercial greed part. Delaying a game that close to its deadline is very costly and not something anybody really wants to do.
Oddly enough, I felt like that Multiplayer was the best aspect of the game.Genocidicles said:I don't buy it.
Why else would Bioware shove a completely unnecessary multiplayer mode into a singleplayer franchise, if not to appease their corporate paymasters?
If this were an isolated incident, sure, but BioWare is hardly the first company to experience a downturn in product quality after being absorbed into EA. It happened to Maxis, it happened to Westwood, it happened to Bullfrog and Pandemic. Clearly there's something more at work here.Xdeser2 said:We only get to see things from the perspective of the games released and the odd industry shakeup that makes the news. We have our ingrained ideals of how it "Should" operate and how it "Does", and then there's what the Publishers and Devs think based on flow charts and demographics. Ergo, none of us can handle that Bioware made a couple of subpar games so we blame EA (not that there isn't any truth to that idea)
....EVERYONE has deadlines, everyone. Because if deadlines aren't set, artists tend to piss away WAY too much money to be healthy. When you're dealing with enormous amounts of funding it's best to set a damn deadline.Pinstar said:Bioware had complete CREATIVE control. Development deadlines are not part of the "Creativity" so when EA gave them a release date, Bioware was forced to rush their game and get 'creative' with the ending rather than flesh it out better if they had more time.
Lie of omission. EA is good at this.
I don't know so much about "destroying his legacy". It's entirely possible (I'd even say likely, considering he made them) that he's proud of the work he and his co-workers did, and wouldn't describe them as bad decisions. Not only that... you'll want to sit down for this part because I may be about to blow your mind... there may well be large numbers of consumers who agree with him! I know right! The very thought that somewhere out there there are people that honest to God like Dragon Age 2, and Mass Effect 3, and even in some cases Star Wars: The Old Republic (No really, I'm not even kidding)! :Ogrey_space said:All good points and sure you are more than entitled to think that way if you like. I decide not to however.NinjaDeathSlap said:You know that there are plenty of other reasons for someone to move on from their job other than 'their bosses are arseholes' right? If I remember rightly, this was the guy who left to start brewing beer, so just maybe, after so many years of working in the videogame industry, he was just burned out and wanted to try something new. Even if that not the case, the possibilities are still wide open. Perhaps he moved house somewhere further away and didn't want to commute, or perhaps there was a change in family priorities, and so on and so forth.
Remember, this guy isn't beholden to EA anymore. They're not paying him, he's not under contract. In short, he owes them nothing. So, if he had anything majorly negative to say about the company, what exactly would be stopping him from coming out and saying it?
Both he and his partner decide to finish at the same time for random reasons. Sure. Maybe EA didn't exercise complete control creatively like this guy said but they did create the deadlines. And So after leaving the industry the guy decides to destroy his legacy by admitting that basically every bad decision his company made recently came from...him?his partner? Fairies? Or possibly the corporate monolith whose policies Bioware seemingly started following shortly after being taken over by said corporate monolith.
Like I said, it just seems a bit bullshitty to me. But fair enough it could be just an innocent few positive comments an amateur brewer might say about his ex bosses just after they had been voted most evil company or...whatever.
Call me a cynic![]()
No not really, the press is probably gathering a lot of statements from EA staff members on why they think their company was voted worst in America. What is surprising is that somebody had something positive to say about the company.Amaror said:I wonder how much money EA paid him to say that.
Kind of a surprise how he says that RIGHT after Ea is named Worst company of America, isn't it?