EA Tweaking Mass Effect 3 to Appeal to Wider Market

[The Random One]

Whatever, I don't care if the combat sections are a CoD ripoff as I'll enjoy them the exact same amount, which is not a bit. I hope they have more sections in which you talk to weird aliens and punch reporters.

 

[Traun]

BioWare's Casey Hudson may have previously stated [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/109207-BioWare-Mass-Effect-3-Combat-Perfected] that the combat in Mass Effect 3 would be the best in the series, but that doesn't automatically mean that it will come at the expense of the RPG side.

Now you see, this is getting harder and harder to believe.

Absolutely. Bloody EA have a reputation of compromising the integrity of a game in order to turn a few extra bucks. Why did they have to get their greedy mits on Bioware?

Because Jade Empire bombed.

 

[thenoblitt]

all i can say is fuck EA, everytime they change something it turns into shit, and they say that its to "going to appeal to a broader audience" or some bull crap along those lines

 

[Eldarion]

Anytime someone working on the game says "shooter-meets-RPG", read it as: 'a shooter with dialog options'.

As if Mass Effect 2 wasn't dumbed down and turned into a first person shooter enough.

^Truth.

Mass effect seems to lose more than it gains in sequels so far.

Mass Effect 1 was a great game, but a lot of the RPG elements were just massively tedious. Mass Effect 2 is such a better game because most of the tediousness was stripped out. I can't even play ME 1 anymore because it frustrates me so much in comparison to ME 2. So I'll reserve my judgement until I see ME 3 in action.

The tedium got removed? Planet scanning said "Hello".

 

[Jabberwock King]

And now I am starting to suspect that EA's Partner programs are now going to be eviscerated in favor of it's past evil empire methodology of barbecuing babies. None of this is reassuring me, and I hope that this article was more the result of a slow news day than anything else.

 

[Zydrate]

Mass Effect 1 was a great game, but a lot of the RPG elements were just massively tedious. Mass Effect 2 is such a better game because most of the tediousness was stripped out. I can't even play ME 1 anymore because it frustrates me so much in comparison to ME 2. So I'll reserve my judgement until I see ME 3 in action.

Was the opposite for me. I enjoyed every little point I got to put into something new to get that extra 3% of whatever.
ME2 didn't have an RPG feel to it, and thus it has much less replayability for me.

 

[Yomomma20]

Wow I didn't know wild speculation was so popular.

The sheer stupidity of most of these posts is hilarious.

 

[Awexsome]

It's important to remember, however, that this was a comment intended for investors, not gamers, so is undoubtedly lacking in context and detail.

It seems like everyone is overlooking this, instead deciding to rage about an imaginary removal of more RPG elements even though The dev's have specifically stated that more are being put back in (compared to ME2).

EA has gone to a conference for investors and said nothing other than what you would expect - "We've made this so lots of people will buy it. Your investment will bring many happy returns". I mean really, this is news? What are you expecting them to go in and say?

Also, There's no indications that this "Appealing to a broader market" means they're going to change the information that they've already released, it looks far more likely that those changes that everyone looked pretty happy about yesterday were actually PART of the "Appealing to a broader market" strategy.

You're getting worked up about nothing and, once again, RPG fanboi's are showing themselves to be the most annoying, entitled and whiny members of the gaming community.

Big thumbs up here.

 

[chainguns]

It's important to remember, however, that this was a comment intended for investors, not gamers, so is undoubtedly lacking in context and detail.

It seems like everyone is overlooking this, instead deciding to rage about an imaginary removal of more RPG elements even though The dev's have specifically stated that more are being put back in (compared to ME2).

EA has gone to a conference for investors and said nothing other than what you would expect - "We've made this so lots of people will buy it. Your investment will bring many happy returns". I mean really, this is news? What are you expecting them to go in and say?

Also, There's no indications that this "Appealing to a broader market" means they're going to change the information that they've already released, it looks far more likely that those changes that everyone looked pretty happy about yesterday were actually PART of the "Appealing to a broader market" strategy.

You're getting worked up about nothing and, once again, RPG fanboi's are showing themselves to be the most annoying, entitled and whiny members of the gaming community.

Quoted for motherfucking truth.

Ah, then you must have missed what the devs were saying about Dragon Age 2 in the 5 months before its release on BioWare official forums. Cynical misinformation. Plays on semantics. Half-truths. Statements that rely on an ambiguous definition of a term (eg 'RPG'). If after all that you still put final trust in the BioWare devs, then I've got a bridge to sell you. This is irrespective of whether you actually liked DA2 or not.

I'd say the information given to investors is going to be closer to the truth than the disingenuous spin that BioWare devs are going to put on ME3 between now and March 2012. And certainly closer to the truth than what the EA Marketing Colossus is going to be drip feeding.

 

[Signa]

Can anybody give me an example of when "tweaking to appeal to a wider market" did not mean "dumbing down"?

The only game that springs to mind is Plants Vs Zombies. I don't know if I'd even count that in this context, but it's an example of an accessible game not feeling like shit for being accessible. So yeah, keep your hopes low so they aren't destroyed.

 

[ramboondiea]

the number of people bitching about a game that isn't even finished yet is staggering, no matter what they do people will still play and enjoy the game, its a company that wants to make money, if they try and cater to a handful of people they arnt going to be in business for long (especially seeing as people are going to ***** regardless)

A handful? Yeah, a "handful" of people made ME1 so successful that they made 2, and 2 so successful that they're making 3.

you may also recall that they changed ME2 so that it would appeal to a larger demographic. if thy had kept it the same as the first it probably wouldn't have sold so well.

also my you may want to read my post a little more carefully, the handful i am referring to are those bitching that they are changing the game and that its going to suck now(and at those who complain every-time a company changes one of their titles)

 

[sosolidshoe]

Shall I let all you chaps in on a wee secret? They were ALWAYS going to take this route with ME3. The moment Bioware became part of EA, they ceased being artists, and became part of the consumerist-corporatist paradigm.

No, this was always the way things were going, but, it does make a really handy excuse to distract Mass Effect fans from the REAL reason that ME3 was pushed to next year: Star Wars The Old Republic. You see, in the same investor call as these quotes are pulled from, they discussed the projected release dates for SWTOR - aiming for late Fiscal Q2, possibility to slip into Q3. In normal speak, that's late September to December. There's NO WAY that EA would launch two Bioware RPGs within a month of each other, not to mention the expense of marketing BF3, SWTOR -and- ME3 all at once.

Nah, my bet is that ME3 would have been ready to ship for Festive 2011, this delay won't be used to make the game better, it will be used to crank out DLC to help EA recoup their obscene holiday marketing spooge.

 

[Anti Nudist Cupcake]

Haha, a while ago bioware was considered the perfect angels of game-design and for being flawless, I wonder what the people who thought that are saying now...

There is no such thing as perfection, because that is subjective. What is a masterpiece to one person, may not be that great for another. And there are many things that can be taken away from that vague statement from EA. They could be talking about how BioWare is trying to find a balance between the shooter and RPG aspects. Possibly they want to make the RPG crowd happy, while appealing to a fanbase outside the RPG crowd. They could also say that to keep the investors at bay while they polish the game for an extra few months. Everything is just speculation at this point.

Mmmmm hmmmmm. Just hold on to that thought.

Also,
No "Meaningless Stat Games" in Mass Effect 3

 

[aaronmcc]

without any real basis at all I would like to say FUCK OFF with your broader market appeal. I thought ME2 was a bag of shite compared to the first one so this third game is heading for total fucking catastrophe territory.

 

[sumanoskae]

I won't pass judgement yet, but this smells a foul to me.

My main issue is that Bioware already said they were designing the gameplay of ME3 to compete with the best shooters, what more can you ask then that?.

I'm a big supporter of RPG's working to be more fun on a basic level, but what does "More wide appeal" mean?.

Mass Effect 2 sold very well as I remember, and it was by no means "casual", so most of those sales must have come from serious gamers, who else is left to market to other then people who don't play RPG's?.

Bioware already tried to action up Dragon Age II, and the "Action" aspects in that game, while not that harmful, were unnecessary and out of place. DAII fell like it was trying to be something it wasn't, and judging by that whole "sequel celebrating" thing Bioware did, where they might as well have said "If you buy this you can get a game you actually want", it didn't work for well from a marketing perspective either. I would think that the primary audience for Mass Effect 3 are people who played Mass Effect 2, which they already expanded with the PS3 ports, if people aren't on board now, then I doubt they will ever be.

I realize it's early, but I can't really think of any other plausible interpretations for "We want people who didn't like our other shit to buy our new shit"

 

[wammnebu]

Yes those stupid shooters with dialog options ever since that stupid Deus Ex game came out.

Im glad they are doing this actually, Mass Effect 2 they were still plucking their hairs for their two wives, but its good to see them actually sticking with the shooter aspect.

If the game really is the end of earth and a frantic battle, then a shooter would be a better choice than generally slow-paced RPG combat

Stupid? It was a revolutionary game in its time. Unless you mean invisible war.

that's my point, i was being sarcastic

 

[Labcoat Samurai]

Dang it. I was writing a reply to this and lost it. Here we go again.

What people refer to usually when they say "dumbed down" is the removal of RPG conventions. You either like them or you don't. If you don't like them, that doesn't make you dumb.

Fair enough. Though some RPG conventions are arbitrary and we still only have them by convention. Also, I wouldn't lump them all together, since some make more sense in some games than others (not every RPG needs to be as loot-focused as Diablo, for example). So, to avoid confusion, I'd restrict the term "dumbing down" only to the removal or streamlining of things that add the *good* sort of complexity rather than the arbitrary and tedious sort.

Dragon Age 2 DID remove a ton of RPG conventions. Only 2 useful stats per class.

I disagree. I think they increased the number of useful stats per class. In DA:O, cunning was useless to everyone but rogues. Dex was particularly useful to rogues, but only had a defensive application for warriors, so wasn't worth it unless you were trying to meet prerequisites for abilities. Constitution was somewhat useful for everyone, but you naturally gained hp at level up, so it wasn't critical for anyone except warriors. And finally, you naturally gained stamina at levelup, so willpower was only really important for mages, and even then, mainly for healers.

Now DA2, on the other hand, changes things up considerably. Cunning boosts crit damage and has a defensive use, so is worthwhile both to rogues and warriors. Dex has the defensive use from before but now also enhances crit chance. The two of them together would complement some of the warrior's crit abilities, allowing you to try a crit-oriented build. Neither stamina/mana nor health increase on their own at levelup, so all of the classes need to boost both willpower and constitution to an extent (blood mages in particular should boost con a lot). For warriors, for example, I'd argue that every single stat is useful except maybe magic.

No need for positioning on moves like backstab.

Yeah, but that was tedious in DA:O. Every single fight, I was having to babysit Zevran, because the dumbass would always stand in the wrong place. If you're going to manually control the backstab rogue, it's not bad, but even then, it's not particularly strategic. In D&D, maneuvering for flanking requires strategy because you are limited in your movement per turn, so if you hose it up, all of your attacks for the turn may miss the flanking bonus. In DA:O, there's no way to screw it up since you can always just walk a bit more, and there's nothing you have to plan for.

Companion armor lockdown.

Yeah, I agree somewhat here, though it does allow them to have special models for each of the characters. Also, I suppose it kind of makes some sense that your companions might tell you to piss off when you start ordering them to wear different armor (particularly, Aveline, who seems to take pride in her guard uniform). To me it's a wash, but I could see how someone could be upset about it. It is a bit disappointing that you can't give someone else an awesome hand-me-down when you upgrade your gear...

Inventory auto segregation.

If this means that the inventory is sorted and organized by type, then I think this is unequivocally a good thing and was present in DA:O as well.

No crafting.

Yeah. You have a point, here. Personally, I've never much cared for crafting and I used it very rarely in DA:O (I tend to prefer spending my money on better gear than on consumables). They did keep the notion of searching the environment for crafting materials, you still have to find the recipes, and one could make the argument that the change mostly just removes the hassle of having to buy reagents in the right amounts in order to craft... but I could see how that could be appealing to someone.

Fewer skills and spells.

Is that right? Seemed comparable to me. I also liked that they let you choose between breadth and depth. That is, do you get a new ability with its own separate cooldown or do you improve an existing ability that's your bread and butter?

Removal of non combat skills.

That'd be crafting, persuasion, lockpicking/trapfinding, and stealth, right? Stealth is the only one I miss. The others are all clear improvements. Do you remember in the old days on Wheel of Fortune when *everyone* picked RSTLNE as the letters for the final puzzle? After a while, they decided to just make those automatic and then let you pick a few extra letters. Makes the game more interesting. I feel that's how persuasion and lockpicking/trapfinding were. You always needed someone to pick locks and find traps, and it was always worth maxing out persuasion on the main character. If you're always going to do it, we may as well just integrate those abilities and let you spend your points on something else. Stealth, on the other hand.... I don't know why they took out out of combat stealth. That doesn't seem so much dumbing down as just dumb to me.

Fewer dialog options,

I'm not sure that's true either. Sure, there were lots of times in DA:O where there were 4 or so dialog options, but there are also lots of times in DA2 where you get 4 or more (usually investigative, but also companion and situational). Furthermore, there's more variety in them. For example, you get companion options and special situational options that are almost like rewards for past conversation choices.

Also, since they don't have to record voice dialogue, DA:O could artificially inflate the number of apparent dialogue options by having multiple ones that say more or less the same thing and get the same response.

RPG conventions do however attract players that want to test their thinking skills rather than their reflexes.

Some of them, perhaps. Others don't require thinking skills so much as an OCD-like dedication to tedious micromanagement.

These players are in a minority, and they get Dragon Age Origins.

Hey, I get it too. I loved the game. Overall... I like it more than DA2, but that's more because it feels bigger... and less buggy.

Then you have players who generally want to test their reflexes, but also enjoy a nice story and some choices and dialog. This is a larger group. These people get ME. Then there is the group that thinks all dialog is boring, and they just want to shoot. This is the largest group, and they get CoD.

What about people who like all those games? I've run my own D&D campaigns on several occasions and was a borderline rules lawyer for 3.0 and 3.5, but at the same time, I greatly enjoy games like Halo and Gears of War.

I do like my RPGs to require thought and strategy... but I also like them to not require tedious micromanagement.

So .... if you were BioWare and (shock!) you wanted to maximize sales on ME3, would you make it like DA:O, like ME2, or like CoD?

I think you'd make it like ME2. ME2 did very well, and has a loyal following. Medal of Honor is EA's version of CoD. They don't need to have multiple franchises in exactly the same niche of the market.

 

[chainguns]

Though some RPG conventions are arbitrary and we still only have them by convention. Also, I wouldn't lump them all together, since some make more sense in some games than others (not every RPG needs to be as loot-focused as Diablo, for example). So, to avoid confusion, I'd restrict the term "dumbing down" only to the removal or streamlining of things that add the *good* sort of complexity rather than the arbitrary and tedious sort.

I tend to think they must be lumped together in principle. For example I don't buy McDonald's because of the speed of service, I buy it because of the price. So therefore I say let's not lump speed and price together. I'd restrict the term "fast food" to the stuff I like, ie price. I'm not sure that works... We should keep an eye on the whole list of convention, and then different games can focus on different ones - we shouldn't just unilaterally retire them on a forum. I get the feeling most developers are trying hard to dilute most of the conventions in favor of the almighty twitch reflex. Because that's where the largest market is. And to hell with those who *gasp* want something more than shooting - jest tell the world that they're PC elitists/nerds/old timers/OCD micromanagers/accountants etc etc.

I think they increased the number of useful stats per class.

I wasn't comparing DA2 to DA:O in particular. But ... generally Dex and Cun in DA:O do not work quite the way you say - did you get the toolkit (this is a really hardcore dicussion best saved for the Bioboards, btw)? Post patch 1.04 the stats work differently. But more to the point - DA2 has *effectively* 2 stats per class because if you stray outside (give or take the inconsequential +1 here or there) you couldn't equip gear. The gear requirements betray the fact that stats are there, but are a hang-over (or just as an illusion of character building)

[No need for positioning on moves like backstab] Yeah, but that was tedious in DA:O. In DA:O, there's no way to screw it up since you can always just walk a bit more, and there's nothing you have to plan for.

That wasn't my experience - a rogue behind the enemy made the Mage AoE hard to time, and also would put him in the middle of the scrum. I had to pick the outliers for my rogue and those not in the mage's line of fire. Then watch the fruits of my work. DA2 - press a button, and it auto-awesomes it all for you.

[Companion armor lockdown]Yeah, I agree somewhat here, though it does allow them to have special models for each of the characters. Also, I suppose it kind of makes some sense that your companions might tell you to piss off when you start ordering them to wear different armor (particularly, Aveline, who seems to take pride in her guard uniform).

Hmm, esthetics over RPG conventions - not for me thanks. It does make sense for companions to prefer certain gear, but if we go down that route, we'd end up questioning why any companions are really with you, or why they are even controllable in battle by you, especially if you give an order that 'kills' them but allows the rest of your party to potion up.

[Inventory auto segregation]If this means that the inventory is sorted and organized by type, then I think this is unequivocally a good thing and was present in DA:O as well.

I meant picking up stuff the game said was just "junk". I want an RPG to put effort into lots of gear options, so that I can decide whether +5% fatigue and +1 strength is better than -1 Dex and +10% critical chance. Once you start auto-junking, why not auto-monetizing? Or just cut out like ME2.

[Fewer dialog options] I'm not sure that's true either. Sure, there were lots of times in DA:O where there were 4 or so dialog options, but there are also lots of times in DA2 where you get 4 or more (usually investigative, but also companion and situational).

Comparing to DA:O 1,000,000 words, DA2 400,000 words, DA:0 56,000 spoken lines, DA2 38,000 spoken lines (39% of which are Hawke's) http://360.mmgn.com/News/Dragon-Age-II-Shorter-but-More?

[Should Me3 be like DA:O, like ME2, or like CoD?]I think you'd make it like ME2. ME2 did very well, and has a loyal following. Medal of Honor is EA's version of CoD. They don't need to have multiple franchises in exactly the same niche of the market.

I would try to sell to CoD people. However... if before that, I'd failed at turning another of my IPs (Dragon Age) into a CoD emulator, I would be thinking twice. Sales on DA2 are lower than Origins (even though the "dumbing down" and reduction of the target audience age range to 13-19, was supposed to get it to sell way beyond the predecessor) and the fans are mutinous. Half of them sound as though they will never pre-order again. So BioWare have clearly lost the plot in some desparate attempt to sell at CoD levels come hell or high water. It would be nice if customer feedback like this forum prompted them to stick to what they are excellent at, and keep ME3 as a marriage of ME1 and ME2, rather than a space Cod.