Mass Effect 3 being 'tweaked' for a larger market - EA.
- Thread starter Still Life
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Today when I heard It's gonna take longer to be released I was like cool thats fine more polish means it's less likely to be a Dragon age 2 like rush and then this comes out
Come on Bioware you use to be cool AND YES I KNOW ITS EA'S FAULT
Come on Bioware you use to be cool AND YES I KNOW ITS EA'S FAULT
Someone else who knows of Lem? Wish there were more of us.kelevra said:@ Volkov:Volkov said:
You brought up Lem!You're right sir, we're easily impressed by game story sci fi storylines. Its no Ender's Game or Dune. But... I like it. It's kitschy... a 'so bad it's good' kinda presentation. But otherwise, I digress... Bioware let me feel like I was on an alien planet. There's more to storyline than just the plot, and at that moment, Bioware were storytelling Gods. ME1 sucked me in. And we're gonna lose more and more of that if they dumb it down.
As for your 'there are more of them argument'... its sad but true.
I pretend to myself that buying multiple copies (regular + collectors edition) might change things... but then, I cant exactly send a FUCK YOU note to EA and Bioware's dumber devs for ME2 and a I FUCKING LOVED THIS BIT HERE! DO IT AGAIN! note to Bioware for ME1.
I think you are referring to something else here though. I really don't think that from either the gamer's perspective, or the developer's/writer's perspective, "Storytelling" and "Making one feel like they are on an alien planet" are the same thing. I think the latter is more along the lines of "immersion in the world". And I think, in principle, it's possible to have ZERO storyline/storytelling, and still have the world be hugely immersive. (Not quite in the same way as Yahtzee defines the word though).
I am trying to think of good examples of this, but it's hard, because I think most of the time a world is built to be immersive, that's done for the sake of conveying the story for the player, and not for its own merits. In other words, it serves as part of the storytelling tools - but good tools can still be used for an awful story (i.e. Bioware's template-based storylines and dialogue). Hm... WoW, maybe? I mean, one could argue that the game does make you feel like you are in this sort-of-homey, but-yet-alien world? Without really requiring any storyline to do so? (This is NOT to say that there isn't a rich lore behind WoW - it's just to say that the most immersed I ever felt in the game was long before I knew any of the lore). I think that's as good an example as I can think of, on short notice.
"RPG style" stat bookkeeping DOES NOT an RPG make!
Yes, pretty much every RPG before ME2 had been loaded to the gills with loot drops and power-levelling.....but that doesnt mean those things are what make a good RPG. Bioware understand this!
Mass Effect 2 is not "less deep" or "RPG lite" because it has a streamlined loot and level-up system.
It is more immersive because the combat is action focused, there is a better sense of connection to the action on screen and to the immediacy of the situation.
While perhaps BW could continue to appease those who love Loot and Levelling (L&L, what might have previously and incorrectly been called RPG mechanics) they realise they don't need too; the trappings of L&L have actually been putting people off buying their games. Ditching them helps them reach a bigger audience; This is good for everyone.
Surely in an ideal games industry more games, regardless of genre would have the kind of choice and character development previously associated with RPG's. This is an interactive medium and it seems kind of silly not to account for that in your design, so why is it currently constrained to one genre. Probibily due to the obsession with being compared to film, and with being "cinematic".
As a table top roleplayer I think that number crunching and character optimisation has no real place is a video game. I thought the whole point of computers and RPG's was that we could hide all that stuff in the system; that what we see on the screen is just the fantasy, the action and story that we can get lost in, not the reality thats its all dice rolls and simulation. If you want optimisation, and stat crunching and all the trappings of the table top RPG, they are still there in table top RPGs, and by nessecity always will be. I play video games to give me something different.
Yes, pretty much every RPG before ME2 had been loaded to the gills with loot drops and power-levelling.....but that doesnt mean those things are what make a good RPG. Bioware understand this!
Mass Effect 2 is not "less deep" or "RPG lite" because it has a streamlined loot and level-up system.
It is more immersive because the combat is action focused, there is a better sense of connection to the action on screen and to the immediacy of the situation.
While perhaps BW could continue to appease those who love Loot and Levelling (L&L, what might have previously and incorrectly been called RPG mechanics) they realise they don't need too; the trappings of L&L have actually been putting people off buying their games. Ditching them helps them reach a bigger audience; This is good for everyone.
Surely in an ideal games industry more games, regardless of genre would have the kind of choice and character development previously associated with RPG's. This is an interactive medium and it seems kind of silly not to account for that in your design, so why is it currently constrained to one genre. Probibily due to the obsession with being compared to film, and with being "cinematic".
As a table top roleplayer I think that number crunching and character optimisation has no real place is a video game. I thought the whole point of computers and RPG's was that we could hide all that stuff in the system; that what we see on the screen is just the fantasy, the action and story that we can get lost in, not the reality thats its all dice rolls and simulation. If you want optimisation, and stat crunching and all the trappings of the table top RPG, they are still there in table top RPGs, and by nessecity always will be. I play video games to give me something different.
They don't say these things 'all' the time, and it doesn't always result in the same thing. Await the previews and trailers before you go storming EA head-office with torches and pitchforks.BemaniAK said:
Wait, wasn't ME2 already intended to appeal to a broader audience? How can the appeal go any further?
Sorry but there are more than enough mainstream games out there without watering down an RPG franchise to 'improve' its 'accesibility', RPG's have always been a smaller market and since EA has gobbled up Bioware their content has moved away from their fanbase. It's not elitist to want a beloved developer to continue to produce the games that they are best at. EA is about bottom lines and nothing more...ciortas1 said:
Oh, Im so fucking surprised.
Oh and to all the people claiming this is a good thing, and that we should stop being "elitist" and let more people enjoy the game, to you I say this: Fuck off and play CoD or some other bland shit populating the market, and stop being so fucking elitist and thinking that everything must change to suit some homogenous, idiotic majority.
People have a right to be pissed off when developers and their publishers flat out ignore their interests in favour of lusting after more profits.
As a gamer who has never been interested in Mass Effect for "visceral shooter combat" the series has got progressively worse for people like me since ME2, where the game took more of a focus of "shit for brains friendly shooter action".
The only possible way this could turn out to be good news is if its just a load of executive BS, trying to tell those greedy bastards what they want to hear, when in fact instead of turning the game into just another piece of shit shooter for brain dead masses, the game, like the first in the trilogy, is actually setting out to try and ACCOMPLISH more than just flashy bogstandard shooter combat.
However, Im expecting a repeat of ME2, where you dont get a reprieve from shitty shooter combat and dumbed down linear cover filled levels for more than 10 minutes because the rest of the game is so flimsy, thin and all round poorly designed.
Oh and to all the people claiming this is a good thing, and that we should stop being "elitist" and let more people enjoy the game, to you I say this: Fuck off and play CoD or some other bland shit populating the market, and stop being so fucking elitist and thinking that everything must change to suit some homogenous, idiotic majority.
People have a right to be pissed off when developers and their publishers flat out ignore their interests in favour of lusting after more profits.
As a gamer who has never been interested in Mass Effect for "visceral shooter combat" the series has got progressively worse for people like me since ME2, where the game took more of a focus of "shit for brains friendly shooter action".
The only possible way this could turn out to be good news is if its just a load of executive BS, trying to tell those greedy bastards what they want to hear, when in fact instead of turning the game into just another piece of shit shooter for brain dead masses, the game, like the first in the trilogy, is actually setting out to try and ACCOMPLISH more than just flashy bogstandard shooter combat.
However, Im expecting a repeat of ME2, where you dont get a reprieve from shitty shooter combat and dumbed down linear cover filled levels for more than 10 minutes because the rest of the game is so flimsy, thin and all round poorly designed.
PlasmaFrog said:
Actually, the developers and heads at Bioware has said thatstrigon33 said:
"We realized that because we have shooter combat, we inevitably will be compared with the best shooters in the world. So we have to get to that level. Now, with Mass Effect 3, we're able to complete that evolution with improvements across the board."
Link: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.277254-BioWare-Mass-Effect-3-Combat-Perfected?page=1
"We have data that shows there are a lot of people that enjoy playing RPGs although they won?t necessarily call them RPGs. They?ll play Fallout, Assassin?s Creed and even Call Of Duty, which have these progression elements ? you?re putting points into things ? but they don?t necessarily associate that as an RPG. So we think that if we expand that out we?ll attract a much bigger audience.?
Link: http://www.nowgamer.com/news/5141/bioware-we-want-call-of-dutys-audience
So basically Bioware has been trying to get on the Call of Duty/full-on shooter bandwagon for a while, and it's more apparent now than ever. We saw this with ME2, though. The skimpy, narrow levels in ME2 with colors ranging from gray to orange to generic dark brown, and the shooting mechanics lifted right from Gears, COD, Halo, and other big names in the shooter genre were all indications of this.
Making the final part of a trilogy, the part of a series where only fans of the series and those following along would not only go see/play it but even want to see/play, "appeal to a larger market" is George Lucas (prequels Lucas) level of stupid. ALMOST NO ONE WHO HAS STAYED AWAY FROM MASS EFFECT FOR THE FIRST TWO INSTALLMENTS WOULD WANT TO TOUCH THE THIRD.
_Don't pre-order. Don't listen to big game reviewers like IGN, Gamespot, Gameinformer on release of the game. Watch for yourself if the game is good or turned to generic crap before you put your money down. All I'm saying. I'll do the same (because if they put my fav characters on the sidelines like ME2 did with Ash and Kaiden, and if the game is even more cramped and has more boring shooter mechanics than ME2, then I'm not buying).
OH! And don't forget DA2's HORRIBLE cliffhanger ending, so ME3 might (might) have a similar open ending for Story DLC that'll be ten bucks a pop and/or will never be explained so people go buy the MMO EA and Bioware've been talking about making after ME3.
Ever since Microsoft Studios for some reason felt the compulsion to let Bioware go, it's all been downhill like a rock.
Oh man I feel terrible saying this in light of all the comments, but CoD player reporting in to say that I liked ME2 better than ME1, and if they clean up the combat system even more for ME3 I'm positively stoked.
Don't tone down the story or the choices, though, that was all great stuff.
Don't tone down the story or the choices, though, that was all great stuff.