I like EA. I think they've made a lot of good games, especially over the last few years.
Printable View
I like EA. I think they've made a lot of good games, especially over the last few years.
I think this might be okay if they make it from the point of view of a species in a different cycle. You would know you can't win, and that would make it all the better. Like romeo and juliet.
That's a good point. It seems like most high profile games nowadays have multiple studios/teams working on them. Call of Duty has 2, maybe 3. I remember something about a third one forming but no games have come out by them yet. FF probably has 4 at least if you include the MMO teams.So these days, it's probable that the creative genius behind Game X 3, had nothing to do with Game X 4. Or if they did, their limits are probably being pushed to the point that neither game really showed their potential.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivi22
I'm not sure if this is true or not (though some high profile Bioware people have left recently) but even still, Bioware isn't one single developer anymore. It's now 3 (or is it 4? Maybe 5 now with Bioware Montreal?) spread across North America. Because what better way to make diehard fans of a team buy games than to slap their name on teams which had nothing to do with their early success right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Futan
Aye.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolivar
Compare now to say 10 years ago when every game they published had some silly RPG style stats system (for example you could points into passing in FIFA, or points into handling or acceleration etc in NFS) where they felt hugely out of place and unnecessary there has defiantely been a noted improvement in the titles EA have been publishing. Mind you they've also released some notably disappointing ones in that period too (notably C&C4). But overall their quality has definately improved but they still seem to getting flack for their tunnelvisioned business approach during the late 32-bit era onward up until around 5 years ago.
I would actually say EA's quality did improve... a few years ago. Back when they started releasing stuff like Mirror's Edge and Dead Space, they seemed to be committing to new IP's, fostering some creativity from their employees and running with it. It was a far cry from the EA of only a few years before which was known for milking it's franchises to death while treating their employees as complete commodities and, perhaps, borderline abusing them (though they were hardly the only company guilty of this). At the time, they had also bought or were about to buy a number of development studios making popular new IP's, so their image was on the up and up, even with me. It might have helped that Bobby Kotick at Activision was putting his foot in his mouth on a weekly basis so they came off as less evil at the time.
But I really have not seen that commitment continued in the last few years. Instead, we've had plenty more franchise milking, attempts to ape other popular franchises, closing down promising young studios because of a single title not doing well (or worse, for no perceivable reason at all), while continuing to burn out their employees. To say nothing of the mess that has been Origin (even ignoring the frightening clauses they tried to slip into the TOS, I've heard enough stories about customers being screwed over by Origin and EA's customer service that I'm more than a little hesitant to call it all coincidence). Not to mention their executives like to put their foot in their mouths these days.
Point being, I can understand why they get the flak they do lately because there are days where it feels like the late 90's/early 2000's all over again with them.
Oh man, I think a lot of us will never forgive them for C&C4 (although the problems started with the decent C&C3) but yeah, you can see their growth just through the evolution of their mechanics. I agree with Vivi that Dead Space & Mirror's Edge was probably the turning point, and it was all uphill from there with Battlefield 1943 and Bad Company 2, and the extremely excellent Need For Speed games we've had as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by AulaynaAye.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolivar
Compare now to say 10 years ago when every game they published had some silly RPG style stats system (for example you could points into passing in FIFA, or points into handling or acceleration etc in NFS) where they felt hugely out of place and unnecessary there has defiantely been a noted improvement in the titles EA have been publishing. Mind you they've also released some notably disappointing ones in that period too (notably C&C4). But overall their quality has definately improved but they still seem to getting flack for their tunnelvisioned business approach during the late 32-bit era onward up until around 5 years ago.
But I really just have to give some credit to the company that fosters DICE, because those guys make such special games, to me.
I can't say the same about Bioware. My exposure to Mass Effect has led me to believe it's the most overrated series this generation and I just couldn't bring myself to finish Dragon Age: Origins. It has probably the most boring dialogue I've ever heard in a video game. So I can't say it's all been perfect but they've done a pretty good job overall.
Hell, even in the dark times they still made Command & Conquer Generals and The Godfather.
Remember when Halo 3 was the lastest Halo game ever? Then it was just the lastest game in the Master Chief's story? Then it was the lastest game in the Master Chief's first trilogy?
Hell, remember when there was a Final Fantasy?
Mass Effect 4 will be a generic slightly sci-fi shooter set on Earth because can't smurfing get anywhere else :monster:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Futan
Guess some left after the petition for an ending.
It could go either way. I love that every big decision you make throughout Mass Effect is carried to the next one game for exampleAshley or Kaiden, to kill or not to kill Wrex. It definitely won't be the same without Shepherd but it still has potential.
Well that really depends on the ending you chose. If you went with Combine, then the Reapers and all their knowledge willingly become part of society which means the mass relays can be repaired/reconstructed. If you go with Control then the Reapers become Shepherd and the extended cut even shows him using the Reapers to rebuild and protect. If you went with Destroy then there may be an issue with that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jiro
Either way if it is set after the events of 3 it will at least be interesting to see which of the endings Bioware considers to be Cannon. it'd also be pretty cool if you're able to see different sort of things depending on your ending choices in the original trilogy. I quite like the sound of Reaper NPC's if you chose Combine or Reaper Fleets being there protecting things. Or a complete lack of synthetics in the galaxy if you went with the destruction ending. Maybe a ban on all synthetic lifeforms being created or perhaps the galaxy is as the Catalyst foretold, repeating the mistakes of the past.
I'm willing to give it a fair opportunity to present itself as something interesting however I'm not holding my breath on it being anywhere near as spectacular as it ought to be after the ending issues with Mass Effect 3. (Though apparently Leviathan adds to the ending somewhat, I am yet to find out about this)
Actually, the extended cut clearly shows the rebuilding of the relays even in the destroy ending (ie: the only ending you should ever pick). And the Catalyst says that "though some technology you depend on will be damaged, you will be able to repair it easily". Not that you should trust anything the Catalyst says, since it's a traitorous, evil AI built on universal annihilation of all life. BioWare retconned the endings because of the complaints. The galaxy is not fragmented without the relays in any of the endings.
Although how they could possibly set it afterward is going to be interesting. I mean, pathetic as the choices were, there are some far reaching implications. How would you play out Control, Synthesis, and Destruction carrying over into a new game? That's a far bigger change than some of the others, which BioWare only paid lip service to.
Then there's the romance choices. If Shepard paired up with Liara or one of the humans, there's the potential for children going forward (especially if Shepard romanced Liara or if you pick the Destroy ending). How would they play out Shepard's legacy/family? (SPOILER)Although I'd love to play as Shepard and Liara's Asari child if we're going forward, but then, my Shepard romanced Liara, and not every one did.
Do they declare one particular route to be "canon", alienating everyone who played a different one? Do they have the differences turn out to be minimal despite their galactic impact?
I'm really quite, quite interested into where this is going to go. Mostly because I think it's going to be horrible.
maybe it'll be angry birds
that'd be fun! upgrades!
Okay so clearly, from Skyblade's post, the only possibility is that we have a prequel.
The problem with a prequel, is that it's not as good a setting. The only reasonable times to set it are the Krogan Rebellions, or the Prothean Cycle. Anything since humanity came into the picture is too basic (and the important bits, such as the Skyllian Blitz, are too dependent on which choices you made with Shepard, thus rendering them unavailible).Quote:
Originally Posted by Jiro
The Protheans have the problem of fighting a losing war. It's hard to get invested in a fight that you know is lost before you pick it up. Then too, their cycle wasn't as interesting or varied, due to their dictatorial stranglehold on the galaxy (which I TOTALLY CALLED, BTW. They said I was wrong, but play From the Ashes, and I just get to say "Ha!").
The Rachni Invasion/Krogan Rebellions would be better, but you still suffer from some major problems. First, limited choices. You have no Turians (they came in near the end of the Rebellions), no Krogans ('cause you'd be fighting them half the time), and no humans (they're not spacefaring yet).
Then too, there's the problem that the war holds the major focus. Part of the joy of Mass Effect (the original) was the things that were unrelated to the main adventure. Discovering Cerberus's activities, watching the proliferation of the rachni, investigating the true geth, wiping out a rogue AI on Luna... These were great. ME2 got a bit more focused, and in ME3, everything is focused on the war.
This makes sense, you would focus on the war is such a situation. But part of the joy of exploring the galaxy, to live in it and go on adventures in it, is lost. You're not adventuring around the galaxy, you're going on a very specific quest, and everything ties into that. The Krogan Rebellions would be much the same way.
Mass Effect had huge potential of being the setup for a major IP, and everyone saw it. There was a reason why rumors were flying so early about the possibility of a shooter MMORPG (and the first good one of these will probably be a gold mine that outstrips WoW by far). If the Reaper war concluded in a satisfactory manner, then the IP is suddenly torn wide open. You have so much left to explore in it. You get to check out the changes to galactic politics, rebuild destroyed planets. Investigate new (and old) threats to galactic peace. It would, in fact, be much the same state the Warcraft universe was in when WoW launched, with the major threat of the Legion gone and the world free to explore and expand in the new age that had dawned.
Unfortunately, they ruined it all by screwing up the ending and then not being willing to admit and fix their mistake. Unless you can reconcile all the endings into a single result, with minimal differences (which kind of ruins the entire point of making the last decision that huge to begin with), you can't go forward with it. And there's no reason to go backward.