dark_reign
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2005
- Messages
- 2,314
A look back on this controversial or disaster of a game.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
EA loves to shitcan IPs if they're not making enough money. And they've said that singleplayer games are dead. I'll be surprised if they release another SP Mass Effect game.And as he mentioned, I do wonder how Bioware will dig the Mass Effect IP out of the hole they're written it into.
EA loves to shitcan IPs if they're not making enough money. And they've said that singleplayer games are dead. I'll be surprised if they release another SP Mass Effect game.
The worst thing (to me) is that the bones are good. If they had hired a decent writer and put a bit more QA there was loads of possibility. But EA / Bioware screwing up and starting over but not extending the deadline really burned the bridge before they got across. It's not a bad game after the updates, but much of the plot can't be fixed after deploying the game. Hell, if the multiplayer had been supported half as much as ME3 it would still be going strong, it's often ridiculously fun and further polish would only help.
You'd have a point if Assassin's Creed wasn't a good game. Alas I don't see what buying other games hasto do with this.EA and activision care too much about stock price and the “bottom line”. Which leads them to make short sighted decisions to make money in the short term. I think when there is a critical mass where players get too sick of their garbage, they’ll have to change. But as long as people keep buying Assassins creed and COD every year, they’re going to grind up any title that can’t sell 20+ million copies.
.
You'd have a point if Assassin's Creed wasn't a good game. Alas I don't see what buying other games hasto do with this.
It seemed like you were kind of blaming people for the failure of mass effect, because they dared to buy those games. My point was why shouldn't we buy good games?It doesn't matter if Assassins Creed and COD were 100%, 5/5 rated games or 0% 0/5 rated ones. They have one priority: profit. And if Mass Effect can't make Assassins Creed money even after direct studio involvement and manipulation (whether executed perfectly or in this case poorly) then entire studios and franchises get the axe. That's the bottom line.
So if EA and Activision are allowed to continue eating other companies, then you can expect this line to continue. Where franchises that are profitable (but not insanely so) become a shadow of their former selves and then axed in the name of creating something that can produce more product.
It seemed like you were kind of blaming people for the failure of mass effect, because they dared to buy those games. My point was why shouldn't we buy good games?
I don't know how EA thinks, but putting out a decent linear story game and making half of what COD does is still better than putting out a failure and killing the cow in the process.
The worst thing (to me) is that the bones are good. If they had hired a decent writer and put a bit more QA there was loads of possibility. But EA / Bioware screwing up and starting over but not extending the deadline really burned the bridge before they got across. It's not a bad game after the updates, but much of the plot can't be fixed after deploying the game. Hell, if the multiplayer had been supported half as much as ME3 it would still be going strong, it's often ridiculously fun and further polish would only help.
I think I already did.Feel free to quote me where I've remotely stated that. Which I haven't. People should buy good games
You said as long as people keep buying, doesn't that imply that we shouldn't buy them?But as long as people keep buying Assassins creed and COD every year, they’re going to grind up any title that can’t sell 20+ million copies.
Well obviously the problem is being publicly traded. If they were private companies it wouldn't be necessary to produce constant growth. There would be no pressure to have more revenue in the next quarter than they had in the last. They make a game as long as it comes out ahead of expenses they'd be fine. Greed ruins everything.You think that way. They don't. And that's apparent. If you care to do the Google searches, you can see how the entire Bioware team is on edge regarding Anthem. If Anthem isn't a hit as EA defines a hit, then it's very likely that Bioware will cease to be a studio. That means not just making a profit, that means making a massive profit. Because that's the only way shareholder stock price goes up. This is 100% just economics. Otherwise it's Battlefield V all over again and losing 21 billion because it wasn't enough of a hit.
I think I already did.
You said as long as people keep buying, doesn't that imply that we shouldn't buy them?
Well obviously the problem is being publicly traded. If they were private companies it wouldn't be necessary to produce constant growth. There would be no pressure to have more revenue in the next quarter than they had in the last. They make a game as long as it comes out ahead of expenses they'd be fine. Greed ruins everything.
It's barely worth $4, and it gets a bit boring not too far into the game. The ship, scanning planets and the Kett bases make the game a real chore to get through.Well its $4 on Origin right now....picked it up. It does sure look good so far at 1440p (still on the first mission on the first planet).
It's barely worth $4, and it gets a bit boring not too far into the game. The ship, scanning planets and the Kett bases make the game a real chore to get through.
It could have been a good or even great game if the devs from the original trilogy had worked on it. RIP.
Some of the game design was done pretty well, but story, characters and gameplay didn't pan out too well. The horrid facial animations and dead eye stares didn't help one get immersed into the game.I disagree completely. The game is well worth $4, and is a good game if you look at it separate from the original trilogy.
Well obviously the problem is being publicly traded. If they were private companies it wouldn't be necessary to produce constant growth. There would be no pressure to have more revenue in the next quarter than they had in the last. They make a game as long as it comes out ahead of expenses they'd be fine. Greed ruins everything.
It took them FIVE years to turn a $40 million game into a disaster. I'd say the hate was justified. Reviews were mixed from various game sites and the game is mostly hated from gamers who actually played it to the very end.The hate for this game imo was overblown, I think too many gamers had too high expectations for it. From my post game thoughts: "I went into this game with the mentality of 'I'm going to be playing a sci-fi game, hope it's cool', rather than 'I'm going to be playing a mass effect game, this better be good', and I enjoyed it throughout from start to finish. (full post)
I disagree completely. The game is well worth $4, and is a good game if you look at it separate from the original trilogy.
It makes it possible to not be beholden to outside sources. If they don't stretch beyond their worth. I mean obviously you can get into debt and involve outside funding even if you're not publicly traded, but why would you do that if you can fund development without outside investors? The only sustainable way of doing business is by investing the money that the business makes. Not borrowing money and hoping they can pay it back later with interest. Yes it means slower growth rate, and not going from respectable wages to being millionaires in a year. Again, greed and market pressure being the centerpieces. Outside investors should be only a last ditch effort for a struggling business, not business as usual.That's not remotely how it works. If they weren't publicly traded then they would be relying on outside investors and holding companies for their money. This means they would still need to have ever increasing profits in order to pay back the ever increasing amount of companies and money they have coming in from investors. Being private does not mean a company will cease being profit focused or beholden to outside sources.
I don't know where you're getting that, most people who actually cared to complete the game were positive about it. When it was released the discussion on it was about 10 to 1 positive on forums among players. And the ones hating the game probably weren't even playing it just being " STOP LIKING WHAT YOUTUBE SAYS WE SHOULD HATE"It took them FIVE years to turn a $40 million game into a disaster. I'd say the hate was justified. Reviews were mixed from various game sites and the game is mostly hated from gamers who actually played it to the very end.
As I've mentioned many times now, I've pre-ordered the game, and it wasn't that bad even on day one. Most of the hate were from people who signed up for origin access and got to play the game one week early, many of whom weren't even potential customers of the game. And the rest of the hate was from people parroting those early access players without having played the games themselves.A lot of the hate was due to the day 1 glitches/bugs/animation issues - something that gamers like myself who waited a few months before picking it up would not have experienced. I can fully understand how someone who picked it up day 1 would have been disappointed (and rightly so) but for those who had the patience to wait for a few patches they would have had a much more solid experience.
This series was a victim of it's own success - a couple spectacular titles raised the bar and too many gamers let themselves get over-hyped to the point that no dev would be able to meet their inflated expectations.
More than a year ago I posted in the me:a thread, "There are some players who let themselves get overhyped and overexcited over some franchises and they end up with an unrealistic standard in their head that will only inevitably lead to disappointment." The sad thing is I see some of those same players doing the same thing right now about some upcoming 2019 titles - overhyping them without realising the circle of disappointment they are weaving themselves into.
It helps their bottom line assuming any multiplayer games they release sell in big numbers. Anthem might save their ass.EA's move towards online multiplayer game play and micro transactions and shifting away from SP also doesn't help...
Its a shame that this game got so much hate... it was buggy at times but overall I still enjoyed the game. I think this game was a victim of all the reviewers who wield way too much influence and haters that followed suit. ME1 was kind of boring for me but set the table for the second and third games which in retrospect made ME1 a great game.
I was hoping Andromeda was doing the same and setting the table for future games but who knows if we'll even get any sequels...
EA's move towards online multiplayer game play and micro transactions and shifting away from SP also doesn't help...
Not on my watch.It helps their bottom line assuming any multiplayer games they release sell in big numbers. Anthem might save their ass.
ME3 didn't fail did it? The ending disappointed but that didn't hurt sales one bit. ME:A failed much harder than it was supposed to. Sure it wasn't the 8-9/10 that previous ME games were, but it failed like a 2/10, when it was really a 6/10 at worst. And however you try to spin this that did happen because of the detractors, who presented the bugs as the norm, instead as the very rare occurrences they were. The game was doomed from the get go, long before anyone would've had the time to properly explore the story and characters in the game.That's like saying the only reason the original ME3 ending was hated was due to the press and "haters". The part of ME: A where you playing the game, going around planets and fighting mobs or just exploring, that is really well done. However, everything around that is just sub-standard. Nothing about the characters, the plot, the writing, the world building, and so on stands up to the standards Bioware set previously. Even with the notoriously rushed Dragon Age 2 there were better characters and the over-all quality of the writing was better. I rather doubt most people play the ME games (or any Bioware games, for that matter) solely for the gameplay. People were there for the lore, for the characters, to be told a new and interesting story within the Mass Effect universe. The game failed at all of that. Every single potentially interesting plot thread they set up failed. The voice acting is some of the worst in Bioware's history, it doesn't seem like anyone really cared or they had a really bad vocal director. Its a game you can still have fun playing, its some of the best gameplay Bioware has ever had and some of the planets look beautiful, but it just fails as a Mass Effect game and fails to live up to what Bioware has been in the past.
ME3 didn't fail did it? The ending disappointed but that didn't hurt sales one bit. ME:A failed much harder than it was supposed to. Sure it wasn't the 8-9/10 that previous ME games were, but it failed like a 2/10, when it was really a 6/10 at worst. And however you try to spin this that did happen because of the detractors, who presented the bugs as the norm, instead as the very rare occurrences they were. The game was doomed from the get go, long before anyone would've had the time to properly explore the story and characters in the game.