inherit
♨ Retired
24
0
Member is Online
24,274
themikefest
14,816
August 2016
themikefest
21,655
15,426
|
Post by themikefest on Jul 8, 2019 16:39:58 GMT
It seems obvious that they had the budget to deal with 2 possible ME2 squad mates who may or may not be alive to fulfill their roles. Garrus and Tali won the draw... both of whom were potential LI's in ME2 and who were in ME1. They then opted to take all the other potentially alive ME2 LIs and give them off-ship roles where they could still be romances to a degree but where they wouldn't have to include so much other content (like battlefield chatter and on-ship chatter for those particular ME2 squad mates). Bioware favored the ME1 characters over the ME2, not ME1, characters as seen in ME3. I would suspect that having Vakarian and Tali as squadmates in ME3 was because ME3 was the best place to start playing a trilogy since new players would likely not know that both can be dead, and the other is because of T'soni. With them on the SR2, they have banter with each other whereas with an ME2 squadmate, there likely wouldn't be any.
Both also get a reference, if they are dead. T'soni will say Garrus on Menae even though its possible the two have never met each other, and with Tali, if the player activates the prompt, Shepard and Joker will say something about her even if she wasn't recruited in ME2.
With romances, it was lame what Bioware did. On page 106 of the collector's editin guidebook, it says that Miranda will not join Shepard on the SR2 and being in a long distance relationship, if romanced, can be lonely and may not feel rewarding as others. What was stopping Bioware from making it as rewarding as the others? It seems like they were hinting that players would be better off romancing an ME1 character.
I recall that Bioware somehow forgot Thane was a romance option when making ME3. At the last minute added whatever is currently seen in the game.
Look at the Citadel dlc. Because Wrex was in ME1, he gets a free pass to be a squadmate. Then there's the comment that all are legends, but there is no option for Shepard to include the crew and ME2 squadmates as well. They're ignored. Why couldn't Sam, Lawson, Jack and Cortez escort Shepard on the casino mission? If I was to romance Jack, I would be curious what outfit she would wear.
Look at Steve. It doesn't make sense for him not to be able to be with Shepard during the casino mission. Afterall, he's a squadmate during the part in the archives.
There's Samantha. It would have been nice to purchase her toothbrush and present it to her on the Citadel. She never gets a scene on the Citadel in the game. Then there's Sanctuary. It's a good chance her parents are dead. If anybody deserved a hug, it was her especially one who is romancing Shepard. But that is overshadowed by the induction port crap thing with Tali.
Then there's the goodbyes, or rather the holo-byes, for the ME2 characters. That was really lame. Interesting that an ME1 character gets a better goodbye then the ME2 character who is being romanced. And to add insult to injury, the ME1 Li's get another goodbye during the what-the-crap evac scene.
Since Bioware favor the ME1 characters, and say it's more rewarding to have a relationship with an ME1 character, I find it rewarding not to recruit Tali in ME2 leading to a character dying, thanks for volunteering Vakarian, since she has the shield upgrade for the SR2. I like G and K. Both have some good dialogue in ME3.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
10036
0
Deleted
0
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2019 21:29:32 GMT
It seems obvious that they had the budget to deal with 2 possible ME2 squad mates who may or may not be alive to fulfill their roles. Garrus and Tali won the draw... both of whom were potential LI's in ME2 and who were in ME1. They then opted to take all the other potentially alive ME2 LIs and give them off-ship roles where they could still be romances to a degree but where they wouldn't have to include so much other content (like battlefield chatter and on-ship chatter for those particular ME2 squad mates). Bioware favored the ME1 characters over the ME2, not ME1, characters as seen in ME3. I would suspect that having Vakarian and Tali as squadmates in ME3 was because ME3 was the best place to start playing a trilogy since new players would likely not know that both can be dead, and the other is because of T'soni. With them on the SR2, they have banter with each other whereas with an ME2 squadmate, there likely wouldn't be any.
Both also get a reference, if they are dead. T'soni will say Garrus on Menae even though its possible the two have never met each other, and with Tali, if the player activates the prompt, Shepard and Joker will say something about her even if she wasn't recruited in ME2.
With romances, it was lame what Bioware did. On page 106 of the collector's editin guidebook, it says that Miranda will not join Shepard on the SR2 and being in a long distance relationship, if romanced, can be lonely and may not feel rewarding as others. What was stopping Bioware from making it as rewarding as the others? It seems like they were hinting that players would be better off romancing an ME1 character.
I recall that Bioware somehow forgot Thane was a romance option when making ME3. At the last minute added whatever is currently seen in the game.
Look at the Citadel dlc. Because Wrex was in ME1, he gets a free pass to be a squadmate. Then there's the comment that all are legends, but there is no option for Shepard to include the crew and ME2 squadmates as well. They're ignored. Why couldn't Sam, Lawson, Jack and Cortez escort Shepard on the casino mission? If I was to romance Jack, I would be curious what outfit she would wear.
Look at Steve. It doesn't make sense for him not to be able to be with Shepard during the casino mission. Afterall, he's a squadmate during the part in the archives.
There's Samantha. It would have been nice to purchase her toothbrush and present it to her on the Citadel. She never gets a scene on the Citadel in the game. Then there's Sanctuary. It's a good chance her parents are dead. If anybody deserved a hug, it was her especially one who is romancing Shepard. But that is overshadowed by the induction port crap thing with Tali.
Then there's the goodbyes, or rather the holo-byes, for the ME2 characters. That was really lame. Interesting that an ME1 character gets a better goodbye then the ME2 character who is being romanced. And to add insult to injury, the ME1 Li's get another goodbye during the what-the-crap evac scene.
Since Bioware favor the ME1 characters, and say it's more rewarding to have a relationship with an ME1 character, I find it rewarding not to recruit Tali in ME2 leading to a character dying, thanks for volunteering Vakarian, since she has the shield upgrade for the SR2. I like G and K. Both have some good dialogue in ME3.
Meh... and if they favored ME2 characters, you'd probably be on them about that. It wouldn't matter, you'd probably never agree with anything they did either way. If it makes you miffed enough that you've changed how you play just to be contrary to Bioware, that's entirely your problem.
|
|
inherit
Scribbles
185
0
30,250
Hanako Ikezawa
22,357
August 2016
hanakoikezawa
|
Post by Hanako Ikezawa on Jul 8, 2019 22:15:49 GMT
At least the squad LIs got content like the Citadel DLC or the holo goodbyes, final moments for Shepard, etc. Some of us didn't even get that much.
|
|
inherit
Scribbles
185
0
30,250
Hanako Ikezawa
22,357
August 2016
hanakoikezawa
|
Post by Hanako Ikezawa on Jul 8, 2019 22:18:10 GMT
Of the crew, I would have opted to have Kelly rather than Gabby and Ken and developed that romance more completely; particularly since Kelly's replacement (Samantha) was a potential romance for only FemShep. I'd take Gabby and leave Ken. Heck Gabby would've been a nice romance to have. What do you mean develop Kelly's romance more completely?
|
|
inherit
9459
0
Nov 24, 2021 20:18:46 GMT
5,622
SirSourpuss
7,694
Oct 16, 2017 16:19:07 GMT
October 2017
sirpetrakus
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, SWTOR
|
Post by SirSourpuss on Jul 8, 2019 22:20:04 GMT
Budgets and deadlines are a reality of any business That depends. If you believe that your game has received backlash enough, you may feel more inclined that antagonizing your customers is a bad tactic in the long term, that taking a short term hit, might be a better bet. Just an FYI, EA's stock was at $144 one year ago today. Today, it's resting at $93 Your assessment that the bridge in "on fire" is quite different from that same bridge still burning 3 or so years from now I'd argue its been burning for 7 years now. You might disagree, but there's a lot of roasting going on for something that's " water under the bridge" if it's still causing such an extreme reaction out of so many people. One effect I think we'll see is that they won't announce anything or leak anything until they are reasonably sure the game is very nearly complete (less than a year before release), so as to not re-ignite any bridges. Which will be too late to course correct in the case of a wrong estimation of what the fans want. For example, I think Jedi: Fallen Order is moving toward a very wrong direction and it will continue EA's streak of games struggling to find an audience and considering the way things seem to be going for " surprise mechanics", the time they could rely on microtransactions to keep them afloat may be coming to a close. I am quite curious what Bioware, who as per the Schreier article is currently at the bottom of the EA support chain, is going to do to regain trust and favour in the gaming industry when the mere mention of their franchises getting sequels, prompts to ridicule, on occasion from Bioware themselves.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
10036
0
Deleted
0
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2019 23:04:37 GMT
Of the crew, I would have opted to have Kelly rather than Gabby and Ken and developed that romance more completely; particularly since Kelly's replacement (Samantha) was a potential romance for only FemShep. I'd take Gabby and leave Ken. Heck Gabby would've been a nice romance to have. What do you mean develop Kelly's romance more completely? More on par with the romance you can have with her replacement, Samantha (which includes a slot in the Citadel DLC). Since Kelly could be dead, Samantha would still serve as Kelly's stand-in, so my thought would be that the Kelly romance would then have equivalent scenes onboard the ship as the Samantha romance, including meetups within the Citadel DLC. It's not a completely swappable thing though in that the ME2 Kelly dance scene is available to either general of Shepard, so I would have to assume an on-ship Kelly romance would have been made available to both genders of Shepard (if Kelly were part of the ME3 crew); whereas, Samantha's romance is only available to FemShep.
The Gabby and Ken thing is OK if both lived in ME2; but I don't like Ken just sort of being there in ME3 if Gabby is dead. Not sure it would have been much better if Ken were dead and Gabby lived. They were best as a couple/team where the player could listen in on the conversations they were having with each other.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
10036
0
Deleted
0
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2019 23:14:33 GMT
Budgets and deadlines are a reality of any business That depends. If you believe that your game has received backlash enough, you may feel more inclined that antagonizing your customers is a bad tactic in the long term, that taking a short term hit, might be a better bet. Just an FYI, EA's stock was at $144 one year ago today. Today, it's resting at $93 Your assessment that the bridge in "on fire" is quite different from that same bridge still burning 3 or so years from now I'd argue its been burning for 7 years now. You might disagree, but there's a lot of roasting going on for something that's " water under the bridge" if it's still causing such an extreme reaction out of so many people. One effect I think we'll see is that they won't announce anything or leak anything until they are reasonably sure the game is very nearly complete (less than a year before release), so as to not re-ignite any bridges. Which will be too late to course correct in the case of a wrong estimation of what the fans want. For example, I think Jedi: Fallen Order is moving toward a very wrong direction and it will continue EA's streak of games struggling to find an audience and considering the way things seem to be going for " surprise mechanics", the time they could rely on microtransactions to keep them afloat may be coming to a close. I am quite curious what Bioware, who as per the Schreier article is currently at the bottom of the EA support chain, is going to do to regain trust and favour in the gaming industry when the mere mention of their franchises getting sequels, prompts to ridicule, on occasion from Bioware themselves. so, you basically admit this has all been about ME3... which means the bridge burned down long before Andromeda was ever released. There's no winning those fans still butt hurt over ME3 back... so no point in pandering to what they want. They are no longer fans, period. They are out to sink the company. They might succeed in doing that. Fans of Bioware can't stop them from trying. Bioware should still cater to the actual fans they have... those who actually like their work.
|
|
inherit
Scribbles
185
0
30,250
Hanako Ikezawa
22,357
August 2016
hanakoikezawa
|
Post by Hanako Ikezawa on Jul 8, 2019 23:23:03 GMT
I'd take Gabby and leave Ken. Heck Gabby would've been a nice romance to have. What do you mean develop Kelly's romance more completely? More on par with the romance you can have with her replacement, Samantha (which includes a slot in the Citadel DLC). Since Kelly could be dead, Samantha would still serve as Kelly's stand-in, so my thought would be that the Kelly romance would then have equivalent scenes onboard the ship as the Samantha romance, including meetups within the Citadel DLC. It's not a completely swappable thing though in that the ME2 Kelly dance scene is available to either general of Shepard, so I would have to assume an on-ship Kelly romance would have been made available to both genders of Shepard (if Kelly were part of the ME3 crew); whereas, Samantha's romance is only available to FemShep. Hmm, well I wouldn’t have them be mutually exclusive characters like your post reads but other than that it sounds nice. So long as the ambiguity of the relationship with Kelly remained, or if there were two routes depending which you wanted
|
|
helios969
N4
Kamisama
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR
Origin: helios969
Prime Posts: No Clue
Prime Likes: Who Cares
Posts: 1,853 Likes: 2,478
inherit
867
0
2,478
helios969
Kamisama
1,853
August 2016
helios969
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR
helios969
No Clue
Who Cares
|
Post by helios969 on Jul 9, 2019 8:43:45 GMT
Bioware should still cater to the actual fans they have Which fans would you be talking about? The few dozen ranting on these forums or the hundreds of thousands to millions that actually represent the playerbase? Hell, you cannot even get consensus from the few on these forums. Should they produce ME the love simulator or ME combat deluxe edition?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
10036
0
Deleted
0
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2019 10:47:38 GMT
Bioware should still cater to the actual fans they have Which fans would you be talking about? The few dozen ranting on these forums or the hundreds of thousands to millions that actually represent the playerbase? Hell, you cannot even get consensus from the few on these forums. Should they produce ME the love simulator or ME combat deluxe edition? I thought that would be obvious since I'm the one who consistently says that the opinions of the vast majority of fans is unknown since they don't state them Their opinions cannot be assumed either.. The majority is silent. However, Bioware does hear from a larger demographic of people than those who participate here on these forums or on other forums on the web. Of those people they know about, the ones that are positive today represent the "birds in the hand" and the overtly negative ones (that have remained so negative for the past 7 years) represent the 'birds in the bush." Pursuant to the old adage, you shouldn't lose the bird in the hand by chasing the birds in the bush. People who have remained visibly and vocally upset over ME3 for the past 7 years are not likely to return to being fans of Bioware even if they redo ME3 because they are an extreme sort of minority.
Most people who were visibly upset over ME3 in the beginning have long since stopped caring about it and moved on to other things by now, just as a lot of the group who were visibly upset over ME:A in the beginning have also ceased to care about it. My personal speculation is that the status of those individuals as fans could be recovered or not be recovered, but that will mostly depend on the overall quality of the next game (DA4) and then the next ME game more than anything else. It won't matter whether that great game is about the OT in some way or about ME:A or about a new ME-related idea.
Then "in the hand" are another small group of people who enjoyed ME:A and want a sequel today. By the large, they are not nearly as extreme in their conviction as the small group who are still butt hurt over ME3. Producing a sequel to ME:A, particularly if it is a better quality game than ME:A itself, will almost certainly keep that small group as fans. Either way, Bioware is rolling the dice on the middle group, but, IMO, it's better for them to roll in favor of keeping the fans they have right now than in catering to the "birds in the bush." Either way though, they absolutely need to produce a GREAT game... one that is complete upon release, packed with great content, have great combat, and is as bug free as humanly possible. It's a tall order for them regardless of the subject of the game.
In order for them to produce a truly great game, the most primary ingredient they absolutely need is the enthusiasm for the project on the part of their staff. Their best shot, therefore, is in doing what they truly WANT to do and to tell the story they truly WANT to tell. ME5 has be to, more than anything, a labor of love.
|
|
inherit
9459
0
Nov 24, 2021 20:18:46 GMT
5,622
SirSourpuss
7,694
Oct 16, 2017 16:19:07 GMT
October 2017
sirpetrakus
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, SWTOR
|
Post by SirSourpuss on Jul 9, 2019 11:02:58 GMT
so, you basically admit this has all been about ME3 Maybe not entirely, but something big enough certainly happened there to cause this effect. which means the bridge burned down long before Andromeda was ever released I think people didn't really care enough for Andromeda, but they weren't expecting it to be a 72-74% game average, nor where they expecting the memes that Andromeda kept on giving. I think that EA giving up on it was worse than what they expected, but it wasn't unsurprising, considering EA. I think people are more mad, consistently, as EA meddling with Bioware's internal affairs, since acquisition, has systematically gutted the company of a lot of talent, has issued brutal deadlines (I mean a 18 month development period for ME3? Really?) and has consistently swamped Bioware without anyone from inside the company having the balls to call EA's execs out on it. And we had warned Bioware about it. There's no winning those fans still butt hurt over ME3 back... so no point in pandering to what they want I'd say there is a point and there is a way. Or Bioware can keep doing what they are doing and we'll be here come next release, wondering if EA will close Bioware down this time. There has to be a better way. They are no longer fans, period. They are out to sink the company. They might succeed in doing that. I'd say they are fans. Maybe they're harsh critics, but they're fans, nonetheless. I don't think they are out to sink the company, I think they are out to get a game they will enjoy out of Bioware, because nobody does Bioware better than Bioware themselves, but over the past decade or so, even Bioware hasn't quite performed up to par on that front. Arguable, but that's my opinion and on the last couple of titles, critics and reviewers seem to agree with me on that front. Bioware should still cater to the actual fans they have... those who actually like their work. You can like their work and ask them to do better, as well. I mean, I think we've established that certain Bioware titles lately have been worse received compared to past titles, by now. Is it wrong to ask Bioware to make a better game, that they are asking $60-100? If they can't, then slashing the price to $30 will make critics more lenient on the title. But that comes down to whether or not Bioware and EA are comfortable and confident in releasing bargain bin titles.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
10036
0
Deleted
0
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2019 12:22:44 GMT
so, you basically admit this has all been about ME3 Maybe not entirely, but something big enough certainly happened there to cause this effect. which means the bridge burned down long before Andromeda was ever released I think people didn't really care enough for Andromeda, but they weren't expecting it to be a 72-74% game average, nor where they expecting the memes that Andromeda kept on giving. I think that EA giving up on it was worse than what they expected, but it wasn't unsurprising, considering EA. I think people are more mad, consistently, as EA meddling with Bioware's internal affairs, since acquisition, has systematically gutted the company of a lot of talent, has issued brutal deadlines (I mean a 18 month development period for ME3? Really?) and has consistently swamped Bioware without anyone from inside the company having the balls to call EA's execs out on it. And we had warned Bioware about it. There's no winning those fans still butt hurt over ME3 back... so no point in pandering to what they want I'd say there is a point and there is a way. Or Bioware can keep doing what they are doing and we'll be here come next release, wondering if EA will close Bioware down this time. There has to be a better way. They are no longer fans, period. They are out to sink the company. They might succeed in doing that. I'd say they are fans. Maybe they're harsh critics, but they're fans, nonetheless. I don't think they are out to sink the company, I think they are out to get a game they will enjoy out of Bioware, because nobody does Bioware better than Bioware themselves, but over the past decade or so, even Bioware hasn't quite performed up to par on that front. Arguable, but that's my opinion and on the last couple of titles, critics and reviewers seem to agree with me on that front. Bioware should still cater to the actual fans they have... those who actually like their work. You can like their work and ask them to do better, as well. I mean, I think we've established that certain Bioware titles lately have been worse received compared to past titles, by now. Is it wrong to ask Bioware to make a better game, that they are asking $60-100? If they can't, then slashing the price to $30 will make critics more lenient on the title. But that comes down to whether or not Bioware and EA are comfortable and confident in releasing bargain bin titles. You and I have established that we have a philosophically different opinion on how Bioware should go about increasing their current fan base. I see absolutely no point in rehashing it out with you yet again. To me, it's not about winning old, disgruntled fans back... it's about acquiring new ones. Bioware can't "call" the EA execs on their BS. They don't have the power. I've worked for Canadian subsidiaries of US conglomerates... one that was stripped into bankruptcy by a greedy US parent (because all the profits that sub earned went south to the US to support a failing operation there). They have to live within the reality of EA calling the shots... as unfair as that is.
|
|
inherit
9459
0
Nov 24, 2021 20:18:46 GMT
5,622
SirSourpuss
7,694
Oct 16, 2017 16:19:07 GMT
October 2017
sirpetrakus
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, SWTOR
|
Post by SirSourpuss on Jul 9, 2019 13:28:21 GMT
To me, it's not about winning old, disgruntled fans back... it's about acquiring new ones I think we've established that failed. Repeatedly. You can try it again and expect the same result. Unless you believe that what Andrew Wilson said about Bioware needing to appeal to today's 12 year old audience is the way to go forward, to which you will allow me to express my disagreement beforehand. Bioware can't "call" the EA execs on their BS. They don't have the power I know. You don't bite the hand that feeds you. That, however, should also go for your customer base as well, which Bioware seems more than happy to snap back at, by calling players entitled and indirectly retarded. But the fanbase never forced them to develop ME3 in 18 months and has every right to be dissatisfied with a "Minimum Viable Product" served to them for at least $60. I've worked for Canadian subsidiaries of US conglomerates... one that was stripped into bankruptcy by a greedy US parent (because all the profits that sub earned went south to the US to support a failing operation there). They have to live within the reality of EA calling the shots... as unfair as that is. But that is also not the consumer's problem or duty, to dig Bioware out of their own mess. This isn't the SirPetrakus Charity Foundation for Impoverished EA Studios. If Andrew Wilson was so supportive of Bioware, as he consistently claims, how about he raises the support level he supplies Bioware with for Frostbyte? How about he allocates some of that $30 million he received as a bonus to restaff the studio? How about, instead of giving Patrick Soderlund a $20 million bonus for ... basically quitting EA, moved Bioware and its staff in an area that isn't as brutal and unforgiving as Edmonton? EA and its execs have consistently and repeatedly exhibited that they love to talk the talk, but never walk the walk.
|
|
inherit
Glorious Star Lord
822
0
Jan 24, 2024 17:47:40 GMT
16,819
KaiserShep
Party like it's 2023!
9,233
August 2016
kaisershep
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by KaiserShep on Jul 9, 2019 14:46:02 GMT
When I ask this question, it’s under the assumption that the team makeup in this hypothetical follow-up would basically mirror ME2’s, leaving no room for additions or reintroduced characters like James, the Eva platform EDI occupies, the Virmire Survivor or Liara. The game has to function to permit the player to assemble a full squad, and from an in-world standpoint, the ship can’t just have Shepard being the sole combat-ready operative aboard. How would having nothing really work from a story perspective? Hackett would just assign some new guns to the Normandy anyway. That is part of the consequence section. Maybe nobody wants to work with someone that consistently gets his entire fucking crew killed. So that Shepard, who cannot assemble a viable crew to man his ship, cannot continue on. It is a perfectly viable outcome. I don't think that consistent is really the right word here. After all, something like the suicide mission only happens once, and the Normandy is technically the only known ship other than Collector vessels to return from the Omega-4 relay. Shepard's track record is largely successful. Even if the majority of the SR2 crew die, the mission itself was accomplished. The details wouldn't really matter; they'd just be chalked up to the perils of the galactic core and an enemy that was largely unknown to most species. In any case, it's a military vessel, at least after the Alliance acquires and retrofits it. If the Alliance assumes control over it, people can't just *refuse* to serve on it. They either do it or face the music.
|
|
inherit
9459
0
Nov 24, 2021 20:18:46 GMT
5,622
SirSourpuss
7,694
Oct 16, 2017 16:19:07 GMT
October 2017
sirpetrakus
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, SWTOR
|
Post by SirSourpuss on Jul 9, 2019 14:56:29 GMT
I don't think that consistent is really the right word here If you've killed every squadmate that's come under your command, so as not to be able to assemble at least a 3 man squad for ME5, I'd say that's consistent. If the Alliance assumes control over it, people can't just *refuse* to serve on it Then, perhaps, Shepard won't be given command over it. Maybe he gets a promotion that shoves him behind a desk, where he hopefully can't kill more of his co-workers and subordinates, or he can quit the Alliance and go SPECTREing around the galaxy on his own, if he isn't down with that. With the Reaper threat behind us, the galaxy doesn't need Shepard out there, being Zaeed 2.0, he can just be an exhibition piece as a symbol of unity for the galaxy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
10036
0
Deleted
0
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2019 15:04:41 GMT
To me, it's not about winning old, disgruntled fans back... it's about acquiring new ones I think we've established that failed. Repeatedly. You can try it again and expect the same result. Unless you believe that what Andrew Wilson said about Bioware needing to appeal to today's 12 year old audience is the way to go forward, to which you will allow me to express my disagreement beforehand. Bioware can't "call" the EA execs on their BS. They don't have the power I know. You don't bite the hand that feeds you. That, however, should also go for your customer base as well, which Bioware seems more than happy to snap back at, by calling players entitled and indirectly retarded. But the fanbase never forced them to develop ME3 in 18 months and has every right to be dissatisfied with a "Minimum Viable Product" served to them for at least $60. I've worked for Canadian subsidiaries of US conglomerates... one that was stripped into bankruptcy by a greedy US parent (because all the profits that sub earned went south to the US to support a failing operation there). They have to live within the reality of EA calling the shots... as unfair as that is. But that is also not the consumer's problem or duty, to dig Bioware out of their own mess. This isn't the SirPetrakus Charity Foundation for Impoverished EA Studios. If Andrew Wilson was so supportive of Bioware, as he consistently claims, how about he raises the support level he supplies Bioware with for Frostbyte? How about he allocates some of that $30 million he received as a bonus to restaff the studio? How about, instead of giving Patrick Soderlund a $20 million bonus for ... basically quitting EA, moved Bioware and its staff in an area that isn't as brutal and unforgiving as Edmonton? EA and its execs have consistently and repeatedly exhibited that they love to talk the talk, but never walk the walk. Shrug. As I said, we have a basic philoshical difference of opinion. Object all you want... it won't change the reality that it will be, one day, those 12-year-olds who control the gaming marketplace. I clearly did not say that id was the consumer's problem. It's Bioware who has to learn how to produce a great game while still under the auspices of EA and its demands on them. You seem to think the shouting endlessly a Bioware to pander to your own specific tastes is going to change that. It won't. You yourself are not "THE consumer"; you are merely "a consumer" just like me.
|
|
inherit
Glorious Star Lord
822
0
Jan 24, 2024 17:47:40 GMT
16,819
KaiserShep
Party like it's 2023!
9,233
August 2016
kaisershep
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by KaiserShep on Jul 9, 2019 15:52:22 GMT
I don't think that consistent is really the right word here If you've killed every squadmate that's come under your command, so as not to be able to assemble at least a 3 man squad for ME5, I'd say that's consistent. If the Alliance assumes control over it, people can't just *refuse* to serve on it Then, perhaps, Shepard won't be given command over it. Maybe he gets a promotion that shoves him behind a desk, where he hopefully can't kill more of his co-workers and subordinates, or he can quit the Alliance and go SPECTREing around the galaxy on his own, if he isn't down with that. With the Reaper threat behind us, the galaxy doesn't need Shepard out there, being Zaeed 2.0, he can just be an exhibition piece as a symbol of unity for the galaxy. This becomes more a story/gameplay segregation thing. Shepard didn't really *kill* anyone. Like, there's no flow chart the Alliance or anyone else is looking at that says "Shepard chose this guy even though he sucks at doing such-and-such". All anyone will know or understand is that Shepard defeated the Collectors and managed to get at least some of the crew to safety where every other ship that went there never came back. More than that, the gaggle of weirdos in ME2 are mostly a band of armed civilians curated by an organization disavowed by the Alliance. No one in their right mind is going to say "Oh man Shepard fucked up. I mean, Shepard did save us all from the weird alien horde that was wiping out our colonies, but man....what a fuckup."
|
|
inherit
9459
0
Nov 24, 2021 20:18:46 GMT
5,622
SirSourpuss
7,694
Oct 16, 2017 16:19:07 GMT
October 2017
sirpetrakus
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, SWTOR
|
Post by SirSourpuss on Jul 9, 2019 16:22:47 GMT
Shrug. As I said, we have a basic philoshical difference of opinion. Object all you want... it won't change the reality that it will be, one day, those 12-year-olds who control the gaming marketplace. I clearly did not say that id was the consumer's problem. It's Bioware who has to learn how to produce a great game while still under the auspices of EA and its demands on them. You seem to think the shouting endlessly a Bioware to pander to your own specific tastes is going to change that. It won't. You yourself are not "THE consumer"; you are merely "a consumer" just like me. Right, so your plan is to, yet again, risk your company's survivability in order to pander to a gaming crowd that is volatile and ephemeral, whose tastes are subject to change in a very small amount of time, arguably till your next game release, that has also rejected your titles at the very least twice now and has left many people, including some alleged reports from Bioware employees, doubting the studio's future. If I was running a business and you came to me with this as your business plan, I would have fired you. Basing your entire studio's longevity on a passing fad, hoping to overthrow established IPs, especially ones like Fortnite with its literal sweatshop working condition content churn, is not only unhealthy as a business practice, but also impossible to replicate as a business model and unsustainable as a market segment. It is why Epic are being so aggressive with their store, because they know that Fortnite will print money only for so long and expecting to hit it as big ever again, with a new IP, ranges from improbable to downright impossible. In so far, Bioware has failed to capture - the CoD audience
- the Skyrim audience
- the looter shooter audience
And in that process, has also managed to alienate a good chunk of the Bioware audience. Now they are going to aim, according to Andrew Wilson, for the 12 year old audience. Can you, through the things listed above, surmise how well that endeavor will go? So, you see, I may be "a consumer", but I am "a consumer" of "THE consumer GROUP" that buys, or used to buy, their games. Maybe starting off with me and people like me, as their target audience was a bad business model. However, they've exhibited on multiple occasions that they cannot trade me off for one of those larger groups. Not in a self-sustaining fashion. And while my group may not be the largest group out there, we promoted Bioware enough for that name alone to mean something, to be trusted, respected and to thrive in a way that allowed smaller, but healthier, more organic growth for the company.
|
|
inherit
9459
0
Nov 24, 2021 20:18:46 GMT
5,622
SirSourpuss
7,694
Oct 16, 2017 16:19:07 GMT
October 2017
sirpetrakus
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, SWTOR
|
Post by SirSourpuss on Jul 9, 2019 16:59:29 GMT
This becomes more a story/gameplay segregation thing. Shepard didn't really *kill* anyone. Like, there's no flow chart the Alliance or anyone else is looking at that says "Shepard chose this guy even though he sucks at doing such-and-such" - Serviceman walks into the Normandy
- Sees list of dead people on the wall
- Slowly walks back out
All anyone will know or understand is that Shepard defeated the Collectors and managed to get at least some of the crew to safety where every other ship that went there never came back. More than that, the gaggle of weirdos in ME2 are mostly a band of armed civilians curated by an organization disavowed by the Alliance. No one in their right mind is going to say "Oh man Shepard fucked up. I mean, Shepard did save us all from the weird alien horde that was wiping out our colonies, but man....what a fuckup." I sincerely doubt that nobody will notice or take account of the people that have died under Shepard's command. The shit I had to go through my service nearly killed me on numerous occasions and my commander was scrutinized for it. Perhaps Shepard gets a free pass during the whole Reaper crisis and in ME2 he is acting more as a spectre, rather than an alliance soldier, but beyond ME3, perhaps a lot of people won't be happy with a lot of his actions. Like killing the Virmire Survivor and only second human spectre. Like, I may not be an expert in these things, but I'm guessing that raised a few eyebrows within the Alliance brass, even if Hackett was sucking your dick the entire time. Just speculation on my part, but it is a plausible scenario. But since he did managed to save enough people, while sacrificing a whole bunch of them, for the greater good, you don't discharge him, you get him a cushy desk job, where he most likely won't kill anyone else and only show him around for pictures and to kiss orphaned turian babies. Shepard has made a lot, a whole lot, of questionable decisions during his command on the Normandy, which includes cooperating with a human supremacist organization. Is it really that far fetched?
|
|
inherit
3439
0
9,182
alanc9
Old Scientist Contrarian
7,830
February 2017
alanc9
|
Post by alanc9 on Jul 9, 2019 18:16:08 GMT
I thought that would be obvious since I'm the one who consistently says that the opinions of the vast majority of fans is unknown since they don't state them Their opinions cannot be assumed either.. The majority is silent. Tracking data excepted, of course. While it can't show what people want, it can show what people do.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
10036
0
Deleted
0
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2019 18:21:29 GMT
Shrug. As I said, we have a basic philoshical difference of opinion. Object all you want... it won't change the reality that it will be, one day, those 12-year-olds who control the gaming marketplace. I clearly did not say that id was the consumer's problem. It's Bioware who has to learn how to produce a great game while still under the auspices of EA and its demands on them. You seem to think the shouting endlessly a Bioware to pander to your own specific tastes is going to change that. It won't. You yourself are not "THE consumer"; you are merely "a consumer" just like me. Right, so your plan is to, yet again, risk your company's survivability in order to pander to a gaming crowd that is volatile and ephemeral, whose tastes are subject to change in a very small amount of time, arguably till your next game release, that has also rejected your titles at the very least twice now and has left many people, including some alleged reports from Bioware employees, doubting the studio's future. If I was running a business and you came to me with this as your business plan, I would have fired you. Basing your entire studio's longevity on a passing fad, hoping to overthrow established IPs, especially ones like Fortnite with its literal sweatshop working condition content churn, is not only unhealthy as a business practice, but also impossible to replicate as a business model and unsustainable as a market segment. It is why Epic are being so aggressive with their store, because they know that Fortnite will print money only for so long and expecting to hit it as big ever again, with a new IP, ranges from improbable to downright impossible. In so far, Bioware has failed to capture - the CoD audience
- the Skyrim audience
- the looter shooter audience
And in that process, has also managed to alienate a good chunk of the Bioware audience. Now they are going to aim, according to Andrew Wilson, for the 12 year old audience. Can you, through the things listed above, surmise how well that endeavor will go? So, you see, I may be "a consumer", but I am "a consumer" of "THE consumer GROUP" that buys, or used to buy, their games. Maybe starting off with me and people like me, as their target audience was a bad business model. However, they've exhibited on multiple occasions that they cannot trade me off for one of those larger groups. Not in a self-sustaining fashion. And while my group may not be the largest group out there, we promoted Bioware enough for that name alone to mean something, to be trusted, respected and to thrive in a way that allowed smaller, but healthier, more organic growth for the company. My only "plan" is to allow Bioware space to make their own decisions based on what the WANT to do and then to wait to see what sort of game they make in the end and then, and only then, decide whether it's the sort of game that suit me. Geez.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
10036
0
Deleted
0
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2019 18:37:12 GMT
I thought that would be obvious since I'm the one who consistently says that the opinions of the vast majority of fans is unknown since they don't state them Their opinions cannot be assumed either.. The majority is silent. Tracking data excepted, of course. While it can't show what people want, it can show what people do. ... and Bioware is the party with access to that sort of data. I have no idea how many times, say, people log in to send out Strike Teams, but I'm betting Bioware knows. We've never had really good data on how many copies Andromeda sold or how much money it netted the company. We have no idea how much was really spent on developing it in the first place... but Bioware knows. We don't even know all the feedback they got from all sources. So Bioware has, without any doubt, better information on any of this than all of us here. I get real tired of people here who purport to speak on behalf of the "majority" of fans. Each of us is a single consumer... nothing more.
|
|
quole
N2
Posts: 87 Likes: 121
inherit
3827
0
121
quole
87
Feb 24, 2017 12:38:55 GMT
February 2017
quole
|
Post by quole on Jul 10, 2019 7:58:45 GMT
Tracking data excepted, of course. While it can't show what people want, it can show what people do. ... and Bioware is the party with access to that sort of data. I have no idea how many times, say, people log in to send out Strike Teams, but I'm betting Bioware knows. We've never had really good data on how many copies Andromeda sold or how much money it netted the company. We have no idea how much was really spent on developing it in the first place... but Bioware knows. We don't even know all the feedback they got from all sources. So Bioware has, without any doubt, better information on any of this than all of us here. I get real tired of people here who purport to speak on behalf of the "majority" of fans. Each of us is a single consumer... nothing more.
Perhaps but that doesnt necessarily mean they know wtf to do with it. I mean look at Anthem and how HORRIBLY that game was mismanaged. The game had NO single vision and the staff were literally told to ignore competing games for some reason. It's pretty obvious that bioware does not use all the information at their disposal and/or they have no idea wtf to do with it. Thankfully that game's dead and bioware wasted 6 years on something that had potential but became garbage. Kinda like the mass effect, dragon age and kotor series' now that I think about it. Just one more nail in this joke of a company's coffin.
|
|
helios969
N4
Kamisama
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR
Origin: helios969
Prime Posts: No Clue
Prime Likes: Who Cares
Posts: 1,853 Likes: 2,478
inherit
867
0
2,478
helios969
Kamisama
1,853
August 2016
helios969
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR
helios969
No Clue
Who Cares
|
Post by helios969 on Jul 10, 2019 8:48:19 GMT
In so far, Bioware has failed to capture - the CoD audience
- the Skyrim audience
- the looter shooter audience
And in that process, has also managed to alienate a good chunk of the Bioware audience. Now they are going to aim, according to Andrew Wilson, for the 12 year old audience. Can you, through the things listed above, surmise how well that endeavor will go? Well said and...yes, that will go badly. Twelve year old market is the most fickle and unpredictable. You get lucky and hit on the right thing at the right time or your investment gets largely ignored. And those of us with money have little to no interest.
|
|
inherit
♨ Retired
24
0
Member is Online
24,274
themikefest
14,816
August 2016
themikefest
21,655
15,426
|
Post by themikefest on Jul 10, 2019 12:14:05 GMT
Meh... and if they favored ME2 characters, you'd probably be on them about that. One way to find out, make ME4 with only ME2 squadmates on the roster. Or remake ME3 using only ME2 characters. I was pointing out the difference in content that the non ME1 characters, particularly the LI's, got vs what the ME1 characters have. What's the explanation for not having Traynor, Jack, Cortez, and Lawson not able to be with Shepard during the casino mission? Change? No. The majority of my ME2 playthroughs I only recruit 8, and I have 8 before Horizon happens. So that means someone will die during the suicide mission. Most of the time it's Garrus, and other times it's Goto. Bioware should still cater to the actual fans they have... those who actually like their work. You mean MEA fans. Producing a sequel to ME:A, particularly if it is a better quality game than ME:A itself, will almost certainly keep that small group as fans. Why would EA make another game for a small group when they could make a game for a larger group who might want something not Andromeda related? To me, it's not about winning old, disgruntled fans back... it's about acquiring new ones. Again with the disgruntled comment. Who are the ones you say are disgruntled? Serviceman walks into the Normandy Sees list of dead people on the wall Slowly walks back out You do realize that some of those names were killed when the Collectors destroyed the SR1, right? The other thing is that serviceman would likely have no idea how/why the names from ME2 died. He would likely be impressed that Shepard and one ship with a crew and squad were able to defeat the collectors. I get real tired of people here who purport to speak on behalf of the "majority" of fans. And who are these people you say that speak for the majority? Have any of them said they represent the majority or speak for the majority?
|
|