[citation][nom]tgoods44[/nom]I mean... they talk about the whining etc etc... but we all know what EA does to companies it buys. It happened again. EA has a perfect track record of this. It becomes about money, and not great games. Look at any of their IPs and you will see it. Not saying they don't occassionally make good games, but money is the defining factor sitting on them.[/citation]
one of the current guys at ea went into a press conference recently, and patted his own back saying that "i never green lit a game unless it has some multiplayer functionality"
now take a look at launch mass effect 3 requiring you to play online to get 5000 points.
[citation][nom]boogalooelectric[/nom]Lots of immaturity to go around here. The whiners for sure as they are typically a vocal minority that ruin things for others.But I have a problem with this attitude of 'If you don't like my game, I'll take my ball and go home.'Where is the professionalism? How about taking the criticism and other pro's and con's then using it to refine the next game?[/citation]
people who went online and complained, yea, somewhat a minority
but people who really didnt like the endings?
they were acually the majority.
[citation][nom]BigMack70[/nom]These people need to get a clue...For one thing, the complaints (at least the legit, non-trolling ones) had nothing to do with ME3's ending not being "happy". The ending was horrible in a number of ways, and none of them have to do with it being "sad".For another, one of the guys who left already said on Twitter that he didn't leave b/c of the fan feedback on ME3 and SWTOR.[/citation]
the only way for that last 10 minutes to make sense with the original endings was indoctrination
after the patch... they made it not so much...
honestly, indoc was the only thing that would have saved that ending and made it a masterpiece
with the red waking shepard up on earth only to see nothing he/she did mattered in the long run.
what we are left with now however, is just a crap ending on one of the better storys in gaming this generation.
[citation][nom]timw03878[/nom]"whiners"lolAttention stupid people.. We bought a product. We are the consumer. We are entitled to make our complaints known as to avoid more bullshit endings and bad games.This is how the consumer exercises their power...By complaining, by boycotting, by not voting with their dollars.Blizzard is the perfect example of this..Consumers rewarded blizzard with money in essence saying "we approve of how Diablo 3 was handled"If you are an uninformed consumer, an emotional product buyer, you can't blame anyone but yourself for making poor purchasing decisions.This is why I never pre order games, and wait till reviews come out from USERS, not paid reviewers.Video games is a very competitive industry. I'm glad those guys left. They could obviously not handle it, which will free up room for more talented people who listen to their customer base and provide products we want.This "Michael Pachter" is dead wrong in this regard.[/citation]
they left due to ea, not the pressure of the fan reaction...
though the fan reaction probably was the last straw, just not the same way pacter thinks.
the game got delayed for multiplayer, and probably got rushed when multiplayer was done as ea doesnt give a crap about single player, they than saw the reaction that people had... and just couldn't continue with working for ea.
[citation][nom]ddpruitt[/nom]It wasn't whining, the ending in ME 3 made no sense when compared with the rest of the game. And it was ending, not endings.It wasn't the ending in particular, there was a big difference in the quality from ME 1 to ME 3. Any studio sucked up by EA tends to go downhill.[/citation]
again, indoc theory, it makes all those ends make sense, and explains the breathing scene as the very end.
[citation][nom]spartanmk2[/nom]How about growing a pair and realizing that maybe instead of blaming the fan base who pays your bills, you could "retire" and start a new company outside EA's sphere of influence, like how Blizzard North devs left and created Runic games and still do what they like (TL2) and do it better.[/citation]
spending how many years creating a AAA gaming company. and lets not mistake anything here, ea isnt the sole thing to blame... its anyone who wants money out of games fast...
they would not get an investor and would really be putting up the bills themselves, sure they probably have the money to do it... but how many people know who they are? outside of bioware makes great games, how many people look at the people behind the company?
i doubt they would make a return to AAA game makeing within 10 years, if ever depending on financial situations.
[citation][nom]pocketdrummer[/nom]They made promises then they broke them. There's too much of that going on in the gaming industry, so if we're getting less of that, so be it.Pachter is a (edit for language) wit if he thinks this is true. The gaming experience on a PC is quite different from that of a console. Not just due to the controller, but the platform in general. Do you have a 3 monitor setup for consoles? No.Sorry, but PCs have been held back by consoles for YEARS! Low rez textures, capping out servers at 32 instead of 64 in BF3, dumbed down controls and interfaces, etc. If they released the "Xbox 720" 2 years ago, they'd still be too late.Michael Pachter is a moron. I've never heard of him before, and now I know why. Nothing this man says has any real merit. I'm sure he's doing all of this just to gain public awareness of his existence. Pay this idiot no further attention.[/citation]
consoles hold back the visuals, and thats really it. you want to blame gameplay on anyone, blame it on ea and activision for deciding "bare minimum for single player" is ok
textures... they are always higher resolution than the consoles if the games are made for the pc and ported to the console. blame the devs for not doing that
all the consoles really hold the pc back in any way is the visuals, and that is mostly only in games that are deved on the console first, not the pc.
also, pachter is one of the bigger game annalists. his job is to help people with their investments, so he is privy to details that others dont get their hands on. over all, his opinion isn't what we want to hear, but if you take it for what it is, someone who is trying to make money off gaming, than yea, its fairly accurate.
[citation][nom]shin0bi272[/nom]Maybe if the guys at EA had looked up what it means to die a hero's death there wouldnt have been so much complaining about the ending. But hey that might get in the way of profits right? I mean the tale of Mass Effect's downfall can be traced to one guy and its not this tool Pachter... its Drew Karpyshyn. He was the lead writer on ME1 and the co writer on ME2 and on ME3 he was gone... so all that talk about how it was their vision for the end is BS and they know it! EA is dragging down another dev team for the sake of profits over story, canon, and enjoyability. Hey lets take a poll who would rather wait 5-7 years for a great 2nd or 3rd generation to a game and who would rather get the next iteration of a franchise in a year no matter how much it sucks?[/citation]
look at it like this.
you want to devote all your time to game design
but you cant, you are the head
along comes someone who will deal with all the crap the head has to, and you can design games.
i really think thats how it went. not "got to have moar money naow"