Kotaku: The Story Behind ME:A's Troubled Five-Year Development

ME:A is a great game in the context of only 18 months development. However, given they worked on it for 5 years it is disappointing.

I can definitely see the elements hinted at in the article - a lot of generic filler for planets where you'd expect story, seriously below par polish for Bioware (even simple things like some cutscenes just abruptly stopping without even a fade to black) and hints of some really good stuff under the murk.
The fact that combat and driving was set so early is really obvious, as they are by far the best gameplay elements.

Well, from what the article says though, Mac came in late and was probably one of the people who turned that mess around to something half way productive. I can imagine that if you come into it so late and are confronted by a pile of shambles left over by you predecessor, it's not easy to get at least something out of it.

As an author, I don't like Mac either but as a manager, I'd say it's tough to judge him based on the info we have. Under the circumstances, he might have done a pretty good job.

Wether you call it greed or Hubris, it was released because of the end of the fiscal year. That's the simple truth of it.

Well, the ending(s) of ME3 kind of painted them into a corner. Anything but an entirely new approach would have left them with a lot of explaining to do. Probably with an impossible amount. I honestly don't see what people could have expected, other than a fresh start. Which really isn't the weakness of this game. The premisse is OK. What they made of it is up for debate.

It is ironic, however, that when ME3 came out and was getting high review scores the BSN and interwebs seemed to generally come to some consensus that the gaming review industry was full of shit.

But now that some people agree with them, they're the final word. 

Sorta the same thing happened when Inquisition came out. The generally positive scores were constantly derided on the BSN by anyone who didn't like the game. 

That's pretty much why I have a hard time taking any of this seriously and mainly rely on my own experience. Things are just too fickle and political out there in the internetsphere. 

The old argument of games being art. It doesn't get any more validity by repetition. Well, maybe in some fashion, games are art. But at face value, games are an investment. An ordinary product that needs to be sold at a certain point in time. Just like a new brand of toilet paper.

This isn't some labor of love some people are doing. This is stone cold shareholder business, with a detailed business plan at the foundations. Certain expectations for a return on investment at a certain point in time.

I don't know anymore. They're patching romances instead making fixes to quests and all the bugs that aren't resolved by the community (EA: Resolved) and their lack of communication is a big problem. I'm angry because all the naysayers are all saying, "I told you so."

Aw man...

Well there is always Battltech and Cyberpunk 2077. Neither gets me in the pantalones like Mass Effect or Dragon Age but it's clear to me that passion and soul is gone and replaced with a cover-your-ass mentality. And they're doing a poor job on that end as well...

I understand that but any product that requires creativity on the level that video games are made now... it's art. I fully agree with you that deadlines should be honored, but when the product and the reputation of a company is at stake, then you adjust. If you don't, then you should expect backlash for releasing a product that broken. If it was a car, it would be a lemon, but since it's art we don't have that option. So Abaris, you're saying that the game was justified to be released in the state it was in?

It doesn't matter what I believe. I just know the inner workings of large companies. So I tell it as it is. To say, something like that is supposed to be art, isn't a realistic but a romantic approach. They invested time and money, bonusses and shareholder expectations were tied to this being released in a certain fiscal year. So the art argument never was something to be considered.

Personally I support Indie companies by kickstarting games that interest me. Such as Larian or Obsidian. AAA titles have lost any credit as far as art is concerned. I had low expectations for this game. I'm not disappointed. At least not in a major way. It turned out to be an OK game. Had it been released a few months later, there would have been less glitches and bugs. But the inherent weaknesses would still be there. I never look at bugs and glitches, since any company will patch them over time. Content is a different matter entirely. And that's something a later release date would not have fixed.

I like Mac's writing. Yeah. Call me simpleton. However, I am impressed what he got done if the article is correct. I'm just freaking amazed how bad the situation. EA's HR and PR didn't help him and marketing is POS.

Fuck Kotaku.

Interesting read. I'm sure there was still other things at play that sources didn't want or couldn't discuss that affected the development. I was surprised to see no one at the top from EA came in at the end and looked at the final product and delayed it. I can't imagine a justification for releasing the game in the state it was in...just a few months and a patch or two later and it already had significant improvements.

All that being said, it sounds like it was in developmental hell and I'm honestly surprised it turned out as decent as it did. I just hope it's a valuable lesson learned and that they don't give up on the franchise or more specifically Andromeda/Ryder.