http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-10-03-bioware-ea-doesnt-tell-us-what-to-do

I just have to laugh at this article which states that Bioware's choices have always been theirs and not in any way affected by EA. Yes, the lazy reusing of basically EVERY SINGLE MAP WITHOUT TRYING TO HIDE IT and releasing the game full of bugs are obviously Bioware choices and not EA in any way :whistling: :whistling:

I'm not sure they're aware if that's what that admitting to, but certainly not impossible is it? Anyone has the potential to be lazy. (Well maybe not me dad.) Of course, if EA really was controlling them, you wouldn't really know would you.

So not actually finishing the game was an in house decision? They must have been desperate to add the same 'A' for awesomeness factor to Mass Effect as soon as possible, all on their own with no arm twisting.

So, Bioware are basically admitting they svck now because they like it, not because anybody forced them to? Ok ...

Dragon Age 2 would suggest otherwise., as does the addition of multiplayer to Mass Effect 3.

The only way I see this helping anyone is if they're claiming blame as a way to improve public perception of EA... which I don't imagine them choosing to do without any outside influence.

I thought BioWare said Mass Effect 3 wasn't going to have multiplayer?

http://www.pcgamer.com/2011/10/10/mass-effect-3-multiplayer-confirmed/

Or rather, Bioware said one thing, EA told them to do another.

This is how it works. I spent good money on ME, DA:O and ME2. Then I spent more good money on DA:O Ultimate edition. Didn't buy DA II, won't buy ME3, even though I am desperate to see how it pans out, until it's in the bargain bin. Not that they care particularly, but at least their all on their own decisions are saving me a few pounds. Multiplayer? Ha, there are games actually designed for that sort of thing.

I hadn't been keeping up to much with the ME3 news but this just ruined my day. You know they are doing it for all the wrong reasons, and that if it weren't for EA they probably would of never done multiplayer. I'll still buy ME3 in hopes of it being good but its looking like it will be the last Bioware game I buy on release.

I think they actually believe that.

Right so Bioware do good, praise them, BW do bad. Blame EA.

Belive it or not EA has helped make damn good games. But nooooo we never see people talking about all the good they have done, only see them brought into the topic when its a bad thing.
Im suprised people arent saying EA was behind the fade in DAO. Bioware still made the choices, they still chose to make anders an unlikable [censored], they chose to retcon he [censored] out of things, chose the [censored] ending, chose the hideous visuals. EA isnt fully responsible.


Just look it up on youtube. Its free, and will likely be seen before the game is released.


I hate this attitude. "grrrr I hate how this compan is acting, im done with them... After I buy the game that I complained about".

Either buy it and stop saying how its the last game you buy. Or dont and comaplin all you want.

Phew, for a minute there I didn't think you'd leave an escape clause.

:celebration:




I don't buy EA products, stock, shares, merchandise or anything otherwise affiliated, by reason of strict personal ethics, morals and my own sense of good taste. :grad:

pretty ironclad, dontcha think

I'm usually not one to complain about things like this.While I do complain about some things, I also talk about how interested I am in the story and characters in the ME series. I'm not expecting the game to be perfect or even great at this point but I think I should be allowed to complain about something as much as I please. I'm saying its likely the last game I buy on release unless it turns out to be amazing and proves me wrong,which I hope it does.I think casting some doubts on a game and still being interested in it enough to buy it is okay as far as I'm concerned.

Mirrors edge, kingdoms of amalur, battlefield... You sir have a will of steel.


Not really, yor buying it, then complaining before you even buy it. If you dislike what Bioware is doing dont support them. If your going to support what they do (by buying the game) then you shouldnt complain imo. Atleast buy it pre owned if you hate them that much but still want to play it.

Honestly, I just can't understand all the DA][ hate. Yeah, the game had some flaws. It also didn't have the f'in fade or deep roads. The art style had actual style and the combat was just as (if not more) deep than DA:O, but with faster animations and character movement (a damn good thing). Yeah, the writing had flaws, but you know what? So does every Bioware game....

[/nerdrage]

But, anyway, the article is a blatant lie.

It didn't have the Fade or the Deep Roads because the game kept reusing the same three dungeons throughout the entire game.

Rule #1 of Playing Bioware games: Never play any game with a number greater than 1 appended to the title.

It seems like most of the people who have a problem with Bioware only have that problem because they violated rule #1.

DA:O:

Use the same five dungeons, just have them be the only five dungeons, and have them last FOR [censored] EVER

DA][:

Use the same five dungeon maps, in digestible bits, repeated several times throughout the game.

Now, really, I'd prefer the BG, BG:II treatment of having big varied dungeons that are truly exciting to explore, but given a choice between the DA:O and DA][ treatment, I prefer DA][.

DA:O's dungeons were long, but at least they were somewhat varied and actually had interesting stuff in them from time to time. I wouldn't call what DA2 did easily digestible either. More like making me chew it up, spit it out, wait for the resulting blob to congeal for a bit, then repeating the process about 5 times over the course of 40 hours.

Well done in dumbing down the opinions of others to a ludicrously condescending level and putting words into the mouths of others.

The game development wings of Electronic Arts and the other third party developers they own have made good games. I have never thought otherwise. However, the business practices of EA leave much to be desired, and as with other "big business" game developers, this is having a negative effect on the games that they publish.

Dragon Age 2 was rushed, anyone can see that. The game re-used maps to absurdity, took shortcuts in terms of texturing, companion interactions and inventory management and was ultimately an attempt to merge the Dragon Age universe with Mass Effect style gameplay to capitalise on the success of both series. The involvement of Electronic Arts was obvious. As with any business, they're about profit. The game was released just over a year after Origins, obviously in an attempt to milk the franchise for all its worth. As a result, we got a rushed game that didnt do the Dragon Age name justice. Worse, the milking has continued, with half-assed efforts such as anime projects and web-series.

EA's involvement is again obvious in ME3 multiplayer. EA has claimed that they want all AAA titles to have multiplayer. Bioware does not specialise in multiplayer games, Bioware has never before had multiplayer in Mass Effect, and Bioware never before expressed an interest in adding multiplayer to the Mass Effect series. Now however, suddenly multiplayer as been added to the game despite Bioware's earlier assertions. Obviously this decision was not made by Bioware, but undoubtably from their publisher who, as they have said, want to include multiplayer in every major release.

Since Electronic Arts took over Bioware, the studio has gone downhill. Rushed games, poorly thought out DLCs and aggressive attitudes towards fan criticism are the result of the great tentacles of EA spreading and infecting Bioware. (Forgive the over-the-top anology) EA themselves have made some good games, but their business practices are some of the worst in any industry. The EA Spouse blog, malware-like DRM and immature advertising are not signs of a particularly nice corporation, and this is ultimatly having a negative effect on the studio's they control.

I never said I hated Bioware or even EA, I just dislike them at times. I love the Mass Effect Series and a few development choices I don't agree with are not going to stop me from buying it. I don't see why I can't express my opinion on this. As for EA they are a necessary evil at times. The large amount of money the can give to devs certainly can help but the pressure they put on and the idea that every game needs multiplayer these days does not.

???

DA][ encounters were far more varied than DA:O. Every dungeon had some sort of dialog, weird encounter, et cetera, which wasn't true for every little slice of the mind-numbing DA:O dungeons. And there was also far more encounter variance in DA:][. In DA:O, every dungeon basically has three types of enemies you face in it (and sometimes this makes less sense than the repeated dungeons in DA][. Where the hell did that dragon in the werewolf lair come from?). In DA][, you pretty much end up fighting every type of enemy in every type of environment.

I've heard someone from EA make the same claim: in fact they were supposedly not impressed with Bioware for wasting all the time on gimmicks instead of making a better game. I think EA set the short timescale as they tend to do, so they're not off the hook completely, but Bioware chose to spend that time rather unwisely by the look of things.