BioWare Founders Retiring!

[Hurlshort]

It's funny that you mention Guild Wars 2 when talking about TOR, it is a free to play MMO.

 

I know that GW2 is F2P. But it allways been.

I'm not sure where you guys get the F2P from. I'm pretty I payed 60 euros for the thing.

No subscription fee =/= F2P. Just to be clear, before you guys give other people the wrong idea. >.>

 

Yes, we are talking about subscriptions. I believe TOR initially sold over 2 million, so it did get off to a great start.

[Tale]

I actually think BioWare is the developer that best managed to cope with shifting to action mechanics. Mass Effect 3 has a lot of examples of more elegant and deeper design than the original and 2, but they were overshadowed by the "lol what?" story.

I still think Mass Effect 2 had the best combat design.

 

Stupid single weapon can do everything design of 3. *kicks dirt*

[WorstUsernameEver]

Mass Effect 2 always felt like a bit of a "first third-person shooter for you!" game to me. The level design and the encounter design and the weapon design.. everything is okay but very very basic, and the game is too long to be supported by that gameplay (a lot of people forgive that because most of the content is optional and because of the story, I guess).

 

Might be I should replay it though, I'm going from memory here.

[Majek]

I would have loved it a lot more if it was closer to Uncharted combat. I'm not sayin it' better, i just like it. A lot of traversing up and down, left and right. Should swap camera. Blindfire shooting from cover. Maybe even some Vanquish added. Like aimed fire while being mostly in cover. ... Proper running animation would have been nice too. :D

[GhostofAnakin]

I still maintain that as the combat got better (more fun), the story got progressively worse in the Mass Effect series.

 

I know some folks didn't like it, but I thought the story -- main story -- from Mass Effect 1 was the best of the series. But the combat was the worst of the series; it's one of the reasons I have difficulty replaying ME1.

 

In contrast, I thought ME3's combat was its saving grace. I actually enjoyed the combat sections in ME3. But the story ... ugh.

[meomao]

 

I'm remembering why I stopped posting here XD

 

I'm a lot more active on the BSN if it can offer any confort . And my opinion is vastly shared even there...

[Tale]

You take comments about your employer seriously ?

 

Not nealy as much as I once did. After all, I am back

 

Thank Project Eternity (and that guy Deraldin). Well, thank or blame. Your choice!

I'd encourage you to try to get David to come back. But this place would probably force him into an aneurysm.

 

I'm dying to read those criticisms of games Avellone seems to love hearing from him.

[meomao]

Critical reception is how it is received by published critics, and ME3 fantastic (it scored even higher on consoles.)

 

You think ME3 has been a success. I think that it has been a failure. I just think that avoiding to put in the mix all the negativity concerning the ending from both fans and published press is borderline trolling.

 

 

I know many of you don't place much importance on things like the metacritic scores, but the publishers and investors do.

 

Why should I care about what the investors/publishers think? What's good for me in it as a player? When the only think that EA want to do with Bioware is to turn each and every Sp franchise in to a MP game.

 

ME3 having the score that it has while FO:NV being so underrated clearly shows that the whole metacritic system does not work that well and that most reviewers has not the credential or the autonomy to write a critical piece.

 

Also TOR as a WoW killer was always a ridiculous idea, no one from EA or Bioware ever said it was supposed to compete at that level.

 

They invested a gazilion of dollars, forced the release plan of Bioware's SP games while receiving a lot of criticism in the process and loosing a lot of old timer like me on the road just to go F2P after a few months, right?

 

Yep, it's a ridiculous idea but that's typical EA's arrogance.

Edited September 24, 2012 by meomao

[meomao]

 

Unethical? I think everyone has a good idea as to the ultimate reason why it was rushed (Mass Effect and Dragon Age productions were overlapping too much, so one or the other had to be either rushed or delayed, no surprise which was chosen) but I'll save unethical for those who outright lie about the stuff they're making, not just the typical PR overegging that goes on for pretty much every game ever made. Ultimately it's a business not an artists' collective, and businesses gonna business; it's what they do.

 

English is not my native language but I do not use a world like "unethical" lightly. Have you followed DA2 development on the BSN? I do. They promised all kind of things and they were not able to deliver. They lied about many issues. They sold cuts as "progressive innovation" to their long time fans. Yep it's a business but that's not a justification for everything.

[Volourn]

They didn't lie. Don't lie. Stop being unethical. Things change during the game devloping process and every single game ever created has been victimized by cuts or change of plans or whatever.

[Amentep]

I still maintain that as the combat got better (more fun), the story got progressively worse in the Mass Effect series.

 

I know some folks didn't like it, but I thought the story -- main story -- from Mass Effect 1 was the best of the series. But the combat was the worst of the series; it's one of the reasons I have difficulty replaying ME1.

 

In contrast, I thought ME3's combat was its saving grace. I actually enjoyed the combat sections in ME3. But the story ... ugh.

 

Well I think ME1 is the best game but for combat...well to be honest I thought the combat was fun in all of the games*.

 

 

*Note I have a high tolerance in this regard and results may not be typical

[Zoraptor]

They sold cuts as "progressive innovation" to their long time fans.

That is a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. If they'd taken the easier option (in retrospect probably the sensible option too) and just done an expandalone style sequel they'd be accused of being stale and derivative and charging full price for Dragon Age 1.1, if they change stuff then they're dumbing down etc. I tend to think that there were two problems, some hubris- the presumption that Changes Were Good and an assumption that they knew what their customers really wanted- and quite a lot of not having enough time. Certainly I could see some of the more egregious story problems and Duplicate Dungeon syndrome being fixed with more time and having a short development cycle makes fixing stuff that goes wrong properly a lot more difficult.

 

I'm not really trying to defend DA2; though it did have some potential improvements they were all too often one step forward, two steps backward in implementation. It was a disappointing game overall for most, though it has its fans. DA3 will tell if they've learned from the experience.

[Volourn]

"That is a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. If they'd taken the easier option (in retrospect probably the sensible option too) and just done an expandalone style sequel they'd be accused of being stale and derivative and charging full price for Dragon Age 1.1"

 

Funnily enough, that's what they were excuse of with Awakening in spite of it being an expansion and costing less. 'it's good but just more of the same waaaaaaaaa!' type whining.

[alanschu]

But yes, it is disappointing that it wasn't as big of a success as many of us were hoping. The idea of financial automony similar to how Blizzard and Valve can provide for themselves was definitely something we really wanted to have. Oh well. Curious how the F2P model works out for them though.

 

BW put too much hope on the story of the game, I think. When the game was released, it's end game content was lacking big time and was unbelievably buggy. I'm not sure is there a hardmode bossfight in the game that hasn't bugged at some point. So I don't really blame people who have quit or gone back to WoW that has had. what, 8 years of polishing

 

I agree that it seems the story focus was a risk that didn't pay off.

[alanschu]

I'm a lot more active on the BSN if it can offer any confort

 

I'm a lot more active on the BSN too!

 

That is a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. If they'd taken the easier option (in retrospect probably the sensible option too) and just done an expandalone style sequel they'd be accused of being stale and derivative and charging full price for Dragon Age 1.1, if they change stuff then they're dumbing down etc. I tend to think that there were two problems, some hubris- the presumption that Changes Were Good and an assumption that they knew what their customers really wanted- and quite a lot of not having enough time. Certainly I could see some of the more egregious story problems and Duplicate Dungeon syndrome being fixed with more time and having a short development cycle makes fixing stuff that goes wrong properly a lot more difficult.

 

I'm not really trying to defend DA2; though it did have some potential improvements they were all too often one step forward, two steps backward in implementation. It was a disappointing game overall for most, though it has its fans. DA3 will tell if they've learned from the experience.

 

Definitely missed your posts

 

Note that for all of DA2's shortcomings (and there are plenty), stating things like "unethical" is pretty much as up there with "lazy" in terms of the things that make me grate my teeth (which is doubly more painful as I have braces now!). It's easy to toss out the mud from behind the the internet though, I suppose.

[Nepenthe]

I still maintain that as the combat got better (more fun), the story got progressively worse in the Mass Effect series.

 

I know some folks didn't like it, but I thought the story -- main story -- from Mass Effect 1 was the best of the series. But the combat was the worst of the series; it's one of the reasons I have difficulty replaying ME1.

 

In contrast, I thought ME3's combat was its saving grace. I actually enjoyed the combat sections in ME3. But the story ... ugh.

While I don't fully disagree with you, I think that ME2 has better pacing and rhythm in the story (or the game itself, maybe) than 1 and some pretty good characters (not all), that unfortunately got showed aside in ME3. In that sense, I find that ME1 and 2 are about even in "story", with 2 having much more enjoyable gameplay.

Edited September 25, 2012 by Nepenthe

[Gorth]

Note that for all of DA2's shortcomings (and there are plenty), stating things like "unethical" is pretty much as up there with "lazy" in terms of the things that make me grate my teeth (which is doubly more painful as I have braces now!). It's easy to toss out the mud from behind the the internet though, I suppose.

It helps if you can mentally compartamentalise (spelling?) the business side from the technical side of things. I've had my share of fist fights (before I became a moderator *cough*) with people, who came barging in with a "If I had made this game, then I would've..." without having worked on a single project to meet a deadline in their life and flinging insults against people who are bound by NDA's to not answer back as it might reveal "confidential" material. Few things rub me more the wrong way than people randomly flinging around insults like lazy or incompetent without having the slightest clue what they are talking about. Often the people they target are the ones who did what they were told without choice.

 

Doesn't mean that some of the suits sometimes cut corners with their ethics and management of expectations. I deal with CEO's, CFO's, CIO's and board of directors on regular basis. What goes on behind closed doors should be 'M' rated sometimes.

 

I can easily understand if severe disappointment in something means you feel "burnt" out and just can't bring the necessary energy and initiative to bear anymore. I'm actually quite envious of somebody who is in a position to do a career change involving studying beer.

[alanschu]

What I find about #3 is that it had probably two of the most interesting and fascinating moments in my gaming history. Tuchanka, and to a slightly lesser extent Rannoch, is right up there as one of my most emotionally powerful scenes I have ever had to experience.

 

Compares to other parts though.... Was never a fan of the Crucible (a MacGuffin from the beginning), although the Crucible's existence (and the murmurings of an angry fanbase) made it possible for me to go into the ending with about as open of a mind as humanly possible, which undoubtedly help me accept it when it happened.

[Gorth]

What I find about #3 is that it had probably two of the most interesting and fascinating moments in my gaming history. Tuchanka, and to a slightly lesser extent Rannoch, is right up there as one of my most emotionally powerful scenes I have ever had to experience.

Rannoch:

Yeah, Tali jumping off the cliff side did come as a bit of a surprise. It takes a lot to surprise me

[Nepenthe]

What I find about #3 is that it had probably two of the most interesting and fascinating moments in my gaming history. Tuchanka, and to a slightly lesser extent Rannoch, is right up there as one of my most emotionally powerful scenes I have ever had to experience.

Very true.

[HoonDing]

The endings of each Assassin's creed game are so much dumber than ME3, each one progressively worse, but you don't ever hear anything about that.

 

I think AC3 will likely end with the Founding Fathers going on a drinking binge during the Declaration of Independence ike in that Simpsons' stonecutter episode.

 

 

The funny thing is, the alien nonsense in AC would've fitted ME3 ending much better.

Edited September 25, 2012 by Drudanae

[Humanoid]

Or Day of the Tentacle given the vaguely timetravellish thing. George says every American should have a vacuum cleaner in their basement.

[GhostofAnakin]

While I don't fully disagree with you, I think that ME2 has better pacing and rhythm in the story (or the game itself, maybe) than 1 and some pretty good characters (not all), that unfortunately got showed aside in ME3. In that sense, I find that ME1 and 2 are about even in "story", with 2 having much more enjoyable gameplay.

 

I didn't like ME2's main quest. ME2's sidequests (or personal quests for each party member) were its strength. So in terms of main story, that's why I think ME1's main story is the best of the three. In terms of overall game play, ME2's sidequest makes up the difference to put the two games about on par, IMO.

 

I also thought the characters were a bit deeper in ME2, but I think that stems from the personal sidequests. We got to learn a lot about their pasts, or their families, or whatever, because of them.

 

Playing hypotheticals, my "perfect" Mass Effect game would be some kind of amalgamation of ME1's main story, ME2's sidequests, and ME3's combat.

[Orogun01]

The endings of each Assassin's creed game are so much dumber than ME3, each one progressively worse, but you don't ever hear anything about that.

 

I think AC3 will likely end with the Founding Fathers going on a drinking binge during the Declaration of Independence ike in that Simpsons' stonecutter episode.

 

 

 

The funny thing is, the alien nonsense in AC would've fitted ME3 ending much better.

I think there's a consensus that Desmond never left the facility, has been permanently attached to the animus and his story is just a fabricated lie. And if that's not canon it should be.

 

Seriously how does the guy with the coolest ancestors end up being that.

[Serrano]

Maybe because all of his ancestors frequently dove head first off of tall buildings?