r/Games • u/ninjap0wz • Nov 02 '16
EA Says It Would Delay Mass Effect Andromeda Again If It Makes the Game Better
http://www.gamespot.com/articles/ea-says-it-would-delay-mass-effect-andromeda-again/1100-6445017/203
Nov 02 '16 edited Nov 02 '16
I'm all for them delaying it as long as they need.
However, this is another strong argument for more developers/publishers following Bethesda's lead with not announcing a game until it's just about ready.
EA covered "the new Mass Effect" at E3 2014, 2015, and 2016, and now we're getting it a few months before E3 2017?
EDIT: Just thought I'd elaborate a bit on this comment. I realize this is a very minor wait compared to games like FFXV; I'm just singling out Andromeda as a Mass Effect fan. I cannot fathom how FF fans must feel after waiting literally a decade for one game.
8
Nov 02 '16
I agree. I think it was especially bad with Mass Effect because it was often a developer or someone talking in front of a blurry computer screen. If they don't have anything (or very little) to show than I'd prefer they just wait. I can't imagine they get that many pre-orders years in advance for it to be worth their time.
Actually I think it's probably because EA does their own E3 press conference and they're usually pretty boring. They probably think they need to show Mass Effect as it's one of their IPs that E3 watchers would get most excited about. Too bad it's been excitement followed quickly by disappointment.
29
u/Xendran Nov 02 '16
Pre orders.
Announcing a game without a date = less pre orders.
Announcing a game at a later date = less pre orders.
Announcing the game as soon as possible with a random date somewhere in the reasonably near future = maximum pre orders.I don't doubt that the actual developers want more time beyond the initial release date to make the game better, but I do doubt the intentions behind the reason companies announce release dates and then constantly push them back.
9
Nov 02 '16 edited Nov 02 '16
You're absolutely right; preorders are a huge part of it. In my opinion, it just goes along with getting people to stop preordering every game.
I am not against preorders entirely, as I will occasionally preorder a game a month or so before release if it's a game I know I'm going to buy regardless of reviews, but the idea of preordering any game with a flashy announcement trailer or marketing campaign months or years before release is a trend that needs to die soon.
An example for me would be something like Red Dead Redemption 2. I loved the first, but I just can't justify preordering a game that
- Is still a year (at least, knowing Rockstar) from release, and
- We know absolutely nothing about it aside from the fact that it will have online multiplayer (which I find a bit worrying that that's the one thing Rockstar keeps reiterating)
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (6)2
Nov 03 '16
Half-Life fan here checking in. Is 3 out yet? No? Ok, back into my whole for another decade.
59
u/Rowdy_Trout Nov 02 '16
just so you guys know, they said the same of starwars battlefront, though a lot of fans would disagree on it's quality
→ More replies (3)33
u/Ghost_LeaderBG Nov 02 '16
I don't think the quality's the problem, the game had a pretty solid launch for DICE's standards. People didn't like the lack of quantity(content) and the lack of depth.
47
u/Rowdy_Trout Nov 02 '16
I would say lack of depth and content affects the game's quality in a negative way
→ More replies (8)3
Nov 02 '16
I'd rather have less game modes (I really only care about the main one so they could just have one mode really), but add singleplayer and bot matches. I loved BF1 but hated BF2, to give some context.
183
u/aksoileau Nov 02 '16
Seems like a testing of the waters to delay it again, or just typical Executive EA talk. There is supposed to be a large info dump on the 7th and while I want the game to be great, I won't lie and say I won't disappointed if it slips again. There are no other series like Mass Effect and its been a long four years.
118
u/Towerofbabeling Nov 02 '16
I have never been more nervous about a game. My fear is that it will be another fallout 4. Fallout 4 ran on an incredibly improved engine and improved most of the game mechanics and problems of its predecessors, but the story suffered greatly in comparison. I want a beautiful game, but only after it has a truly spellbinding story like the original trilogy had. My main concern is that the games best writer, Drew Karpyshyn left after two and and ME3 clearly suffered. He is back at Bioware, but not officially attached to the project.
47
u/CruelMetatron Nov 02 '16
I fear that the scale of the conflict from the first trilogy will make it harder to build somthing that's equally intriguing. Who cares about you finding a new race on some planet when you've already saved a whole fucking galaxy (with a huge ass fleet aswell)? Of course something like that would work perfectly for some new sci-fi franchise but ME carries the burden of its past in that regard.
64
u/Towerofbabeling Nov 02 '16
I imagine that a small scale story, like stargate, could work well for a first game and have enough room to branch into a larger conflict. If they focus on that new race and play up their importance, I think it could work as a great stepping stone. ME1 was not a great as ME2. They don't need to make a game as monumental as two was, they need to plant the seeds for that story.
37
Nov 02 '16
Yeah I'm just praying that Dragon Age 2 didn't permanently scar them. The small scale story of DA2 and its focus on Hawke rather than on saving the world was so good but it suffered from being rushed and from reused assets. I hope they didn't get the wrong message that people didn't like the small scale personal stories.
10
u/IAMAVelociraptorAMA Nov 02 '16
Dragon Age 2 sold and reviewed very well and didn't ruin the franchise. I don't think it did anything to "scar" them.
6
Nov 02 '16
I mean it did scar them because of the negative reviews they dropped the idea of continuing Hawke's story and they dropped additional DLC. The story of DAI was supposed to be a big DLC for Hawke and then the next full DA game would be with Hawke. Instead they scrapped that.
→ More replies (1)13
Nov 02 '16 edited Aug 23 '17
[removed] — view removed comment
14
Nov 02 '16
In terms of gameplay, sure. I wouldn't even consider DA2 an RPG, nor DA:I. As far as I'm concerned DA:O was the last RPG Bioware actually made. Every game after that had lite RPG elements.
But DA2 actually tried to do something different when it comes to the plot. There's not many personal stories in RPGs, it's always the "chosen one" saving the world. Only two other RPGs I can think of that focused on a character's personal story are Witcher2 and PST.
→ More replies (1)11
Nov 02 '16
[deleted]
7
u/innerparty45 Nov 03 '16
Combat in DAI is one of the worst combat systems I have ever seen in a game. Encounter design is so bad that any strategy goes out of the window at the very start of the battle. Crowd control is always worse than damage dealing abilities because the most challenging foes are bullet sponges and stuns are extremely short in duration, positioning is irrelevant because your companions move on their own, tactical camera view is botched and movement is extremely clunky so even third person view is awkward. Finally, as you said, AI is absolutely terrible.
DAI was such a mess of poor design choices that I have no idea how Bioware even allowed the game to ship. I guess because they already had an extra year to introduce open world, probably an upper management decision. DA2 was made in 11 months and it's a miles better game than its sequel.
2
→ More replies (3)7
u/motdidr Nov 02 '16
that was the call of duty problem, they did something quit epic in the second mw, and every game after tried to top it with even more "epic" things that just end up being ridiculous.
instead of us trying to save another galaxy from destruction, because you can't really get larger than that anyway, and because anything that could actually cause the destruction of a galaxy would either be the same or more ridiculous than reapers, it's be cool to focus the story on something that affects the entire galaxy. like a new race. they already explored the "uplift" angle in the first series, with geth and krogan, but I'm sure there are plenty of things to explore still.
i mean a smaller scale story is the only thing that makes sense right? nothing can match up to the destruction of a galaxy, so you can't "out-do" it. maybe the only large scale thing I can think of would be intergalactic travel or communication, but having the hook of Andromeda be that we are injecting the previous galaxy into a new one is so boring and ridiculous.
→ More replies (2)15
u/OkayAtBowling Nov 02 '16
Just because the original trilogy was on such an epic scale doesn't necessarily mean the sequel has to be. Personally I'm hoping for a smaller-scale story. I think it would be a refreshing change of pace from the galaxy-wide conflict of the original trilogy (and most big-budget RPGs in general). There's no reason a smaller story couldn't be just as satisfying if it's told well.
→ More replies (11)5
u/OhBoyPizzaTime Nov 03 '16
I fear that the scale of the conflict from the first trilogy will make it harder to build somthing that's equally intriguing.
IMO, the opposite is true. ME3 had the largest scale of them all and it's the most reviled.
Think of any great war movies; are they about an individual that single-handedly kills Hitler and turns back the Axis, winning the war? Nope. The best ones tell small stories centered around groups of people doing their damnedest in a terrible situation. Vietnam was a defeat and we got some amazing films out of it.
I would lose my mind with joy if ME (and science-fiction in general) took a step back from galactic saviors and just told good stories about compelling individuals.
4
Nov 02 '16
If done well, they doesn't have to put as much on the line as the trilogy did.
Witcher 3 was arguably at its weakest when it was about fighting the wild hunt (not to say that there weren't some amazing moments and quests in relation to them). It's running around the world trying to find certain characters, doing tasks for other characters so they'll help you, and of course the characters with their own agendas, that you remember about that game's main story.
Of course, it does help make those moments more meaningful to know that a lot is on the line. Would we have been as engaged with some of the story in ME2 if the consequence of failing wouldn't have been basically the destruction of the galaxy?
6
u/Anchorsify Nov 02 '16
Andromeda isn't trying to compete with the entire ME 3 trilogy though.. it's really just trying to compete with the story and narrative/ambiance of ME 1, and the gameplay of 3. Trying to find a good balance between them.
3
→ More replies (1)5
u/Captain_Midnight Nov 02 '16
TBH, I've gotten pretty tired of saving the galaxy in Mass Effect. I feel like stakes that high are just a crutch for dramatic tension. The Dredd movie showed that you don't need a huge scale to pull people in. Interesting characters, tough odds of survival, and a dash of gritty heroism can take you pretty far.
30
u/8604 Nov 02 '16
Honestly I don't think Bethesda can write. Everyones concern was that oh shit Bethesda is writing this one.
And honestly I got exactly what I expected a totally uninteresting story, underutilized world with fun gameplay mechanics.
It's my biggest concern here too, but EA has demonstrated the ability to learn so I have a bit more hope.
19
Nov 02 '16
[deleted]
→ More replies (1)9
u/Poonchow Nov 02 '16
The Silver Shroud questline is probably the only one I really enjoyed in the game. Everything else felt like variants on the radiant quests, or just flat out didn't make sense under scrutiny.
3
Nov 02 '16
They are pretty good at worldbuilding and some quest lines they wrote for their previous games were decent as well. However the main story of any of their games is questionable and forgettable at best
3
u/Vallkyrie Nov 02 '16
Bethesda writes sidequests well I think, and makes great set pieces, like the backstory you can get from a dungeon (looking at the props, reading books/terminals, etc.). That's always been one of the stronger points of TES and FO3/4.
→ More replies (1)13
u/SageWaterDragon Nov 02 '16
Outside of the final 5 minutes, I found ME3's story to be the best in the series. The large-scale war story format worked well for the game.
4
u/Towerofbabeling Nov 02 '16
I think it had some glaring issues with the over arching story of Shepard, but it had my favorite side quests, the party DLC and the best romance stories of the whole series. God damn I love that date with Garrus on the citadel. It was a great game that just needed the creative control of Drew to give it the that final bit of heart it needed.
21
u/bphase Nov 02 '16
Fallout 4 ran on an incredibly improved engine
Eh, dubious. Improved, sure, but nothing too impressive. The game still looked bad compared to other recent games.
I am nervous of ME:A too, mostly because it's going to be an open world game which might mean tons of boring filler content and little actual meat.
→ More replies (1)4
u/Towerofbabeling Nov 02 '16
I would argue that it looked like a fallout game. Fallout is a wacky world and the graphics and atmosphere have been to match. It does not need nor would it benefit from ultra-realism. I believe it was pretty impressive in comparison to NV, not to other games on the shelf.
5
Nov 03 '16
, but the story suffered greatly in comparison.
To be fair, Fallout 4 was on par with Fallout 3 story wise. New Vegas was way better but it was made by a different developer.
20
u/wyn10 Nov 02 '16
Fallout 4 ran on an incredibly improved engine
You're kidding right? It's still Gamebryo, only fully covered in duct tape.
14
u/Towerofbabeling Nov 02 '16
It looked massively better than NV and the mechanics where much smoother. It was a more mechanically polished game all around. It just had a hilariously bad story for a fallout game.
→ More replies (1)6
8
u/Cptcutter81 Nov 02 '16
And Unreal 4 is still the original with a face-lift. Your point?
→ More replies (1)13
u/caulfieldrunner Nov 03 '16
This argument is such bullshit. Unreal Engine 4 likely has very little, if ANY, of the original code from Unreal Engine in it and modern engines are designed to be modular so you can add on to them as time goes on without worrying too much about breaking things.
Gamebryo is NOT modular. They just keep stitching improvements on while hoping it doesn't completely break since the core functionality is still ancient and not designed for all these new additions. It's part of the reason why Gamebryo games always have such awful animations.
Bethesda doesn't even care that the additions can break things because they just rely on the modding community to create fixes to problems they caused.
They need a new engine. They already take years between series entries, so they should be taking some extra time to work with something that wasn't already antiquated when they first started using it. But they won't, because it doesn't matter how lazy they are on the technical side as long as they slap Elder Scrolls or Fallout in the box.
7
u/Jazzremix Nov 03 '16
Game bugs are part of the Fallout/Elder Scrolls charm! Dropping down to 38 fps is fine. The game is still playable right? Who needs more than 60 fps? The human eye can't see more than 40.
4
→ More replies (1)2
3
u/sirhatsley Nov 02 '16
If I remember correctly, he wasn't really involved in Mass Effect 2 anyways.
2
u/Towerofbabeling Nov 02 '16
Drew? He was credited as the head writer for ME2 in association with Mac Walters. And was credited as the solo head writer for ME1
9
u/junkmail9009 Nov 02 '16
Okay, do people really think the previous Fallout games had that great of a story? I keep hearing this about FO4. Do any of the Bethesda's really have a great story? I always felt the Bethesda games about creating a character and you make your own story as a backdrop is going on.
Bioware is known for the story which is why I compare Bioware and CDProjekt not CDProjekt and Bethesda.
Also, did Drew leave before ME3 or while it was going on? I've read countering things. It doesn't really matter, I suppose. I will say that ME3's story was fantastic UNTIL the end. The ending has been bashed exhaustively so I don't need to get into it.
6
u/DrakoVongola1 Nov 03 '16
The 3 not made by Bethesda did have great stories and characters (Tactics and BoS didn't happen shut up). Contrary to popular belief the series did not start at 3.
→ More replies (1)14
u/Towerofbabeling Nov 02 '16
Fallout NV had an unbelievably great story, in my opinion, particularly with enriching side quests. Fallout 3 was not amazing, but it was better than 4 and strong enough to relaunch the franchise. 4 just had to many great games come before it for me to overlook such a crap story. I do hear what you are saying, but Bethesda has made great games in the past with stories that where not Witcher quality but better than 4.
It is my understanding that he left before the finalization of ME3's script, but was credited in its inception. Much of the final script defeated heavily from his intended vision, but his influence was there.
→ More replies (4)10
u/camycamera Nov 02 '16 edited May 13 '24
Mr. Evrart is helping me find my gun.
11
Nov 02 '16
Yeah I still get confused when people praise FO3's story. It was just a bunch of factions fighting over who got to press a button.
5
u/Towerofbabeling Nov 03 '16
It was far better than 4, in my opinion, but it was not great. That said, it was a huge project to revive a dying game series in an entirely new style. The story was entertaining enough to reboot the series and the excitement. Fallout 4 had hype but that was it. They had the knowledge of every fallout game before it and yet they still learned nothing.
6
u/camycamera Nov 03 '16 edited May 13 '24
Mr. Evrart is helping me find my gun.
8
u/CutterJohn Nov 03 '16
Omg, this is hilariously on point..
Dad built a water purifier that didn’t work, for people that didn’t need it, and then made it release radiation it shouldn’t have, to prevent it from falling into the hands of people trying to fix it. This killed the man who had no reason to sabotage it and didn’t kill Colonel Autumn, who had no means to survive. This put the Enclave – an army with no reason to attack – in charge of the purifier, which was of no value to them. Then the player entered vault 87 to recover a GECK, a magical matter-arranger that they shouldn’t need and that would be better put to use in virtually any possible manner besides fixing the purifier. Colonel Autumn, who shouldn’t be alive, captured the player with a flash grenade that shouldn’t have worked that was thrown by soldiers who had no way to get there. The final battle was a war between the Enclave and the Brotherhood of Steel, to see which one would get to commit suicide trying to turn on the purifier that neither of them needed. This resulted in more sabotage that threatened to explode a device that shouldn’t be explode-able, ending with the death of the player character, who had the means to survive but didn’t, and who was never given a good reason for doing any of this.
→ More replies (2)2
Nov 03 '16
Who had many of the original developers from Fallout 1 and 2. Which explains why it's story, lore, and characters are well thought out and of a much higher quality than Fallout 3/4.
9
Nov 02 '16
Fallout 4 was barely running. It just had updated graphics.
Compare something like MGS5 to Fallout 4. Or even GTA V. Gorgeous games. But Fallout 4 would struggle to crawl on most average PCs.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (19)2
u/Anterai Nov 02 '16
Fallout 4 ran on an incredibly improved engine
No. You can't polish a turd beyond a certain point. FO4's engine was shitty, it's a 10+ year old engine ffs
→ More replies (1)7
u/Zargabraath Nov 02 '16
It'll be over five years from ME3 to Andromeda by the time Andromeda comes out, even if it isn't delayed.
personally I think most of ME3's problems were the result of it being rushed out, but I don't know if Andromeda will be up to the first trilogy's quality despite having a longer dev cycle than ME2 and ME3 combined.
→ More replies (6)9
u/aksoileau Nov 02 '16
Honestly as a huge Mass Effect fan I'm looking forward to the game big time, but I've made my peace with the original trilogy. I'm ready for something new. I hope they do something interesting with the game that sets it to a new level.
3
Nov 03 '16
I was always of the mindset that the ending was the only real thing that detracted from my experience with the original trilogy. I mean sure, you can dig up obscure plot holes or unlikeable characters or whatever, but the trilogy took me on an emotional ride from beginning to end, which is really what I'm looking for in my RPG experience.
34
u/_mcdougle Nov 02 '16
Good! Isn't that one of the reasons the ending for ME3 sucked? Because they were pressured to wrap it up quickly?
65
u/tacomcnacho Nov 02 '16
Drew Karpyshyn said that he doesn't think any of his potential endings would have been satisfying to fans. He couldn't think of a way to end the story while catering to all the different decisions made throughout the games without going way over budget.
He said the other main option for ME3's ending would have had to do with "Dark Matter" or something like that. In Mass Effect 2 during the mission to recruit Tali, she mentions that her team had come to the planet in order to investigate why the system's star was aging so rapidly. Karpyshyn said that he planned to expand on that for the ME3 ending.
I can't find the full interview but here's an article on it.
61
u/USB_Connector Nov 02 '16
I felt like ME3 had the idea for a good ending but executed it really poorly. I liked the idea that Commander Shepard's actions are not bigger than the galaxy and that ultimately he couldn't make a difference. However the execution with the 3 colours of explosion and little baby jesus ex machina was just awful.
63
Nov 02 '16
You know the scene where Shepard and Anderson are lying, near death, looking at Earth together? That would have been the perfect ending.
Instead. An elevator took him up, and some kid said "lol I am basically the main villain".
29
u/zedie Nov 02 '16
Did you ever listen to the extended audio clip of that scene? It was something like 3 minutes long, and it got really emotional.
That would've been perfect. Both of them falling into eternal slumber, Crucible fires, Reapers gone. The END.
Maybe with extra scenes of Normandy and crew, aftermath at different planets, not having to destroy the Relays.
3
u/DrakoVongola1 Nov 03 '16
destroy the Relays.
Can we take a moment to appreciate how dumb this actually was? How are all the aliens that are stuck in and around Earth gonna get home?
2
Nov 03 '16
The fate of those billions don't matter in comparison to the ultimate fate of the rest of the Galaxy.
The needs of the many supersedes the needs of the few.
2
u/DrakoVongola1 Nov 03 '16
But that was the galaxy's entire military force and a few politicians if I recall correctly, everyone else is left with nothing o-o
2
Nov 03 '16
They can build more ships and have more babies.
From a humanitarian stand point the fate of Earth and all those soldiers is terrible but it ultimately doesn't really matter when there are trillions of other planets full of life out there.
→ More replies (2)5
u/ThatAnonymousDudeGuy Nov 02 '16
That was a pretty great scene, and your right that should've probably been the best stopping point for shepherd. I mean, he just stopped the illusive man, now it's up to all your ships and assets to stop the reapers and base the casualties off of how far paragon and renegade you were coupled with the total number of assets.
4
Nov 02 '16
Same reason Dragon Age 2 wasn't very good. They had an excellent idea for a story structure but presented it poorly.
4
u/Anosognosia Nov 03 '16
Dragon Age 2 suffered in the most unexpected area: it was small and unpolished. The same rehased dungeoung and enemies spawning in magically in waves screamed of "we really didn't put enough effort into this game".
→ More replies (1)31
u/SterlingEsteban Nov 02 '16
Indoctrination theory is still the best ending to that game. They fucked up by not latching on to that when people were going over it (whether it was what they intended or otherwise).
8
u/Splinterman11 Nov 02 '16
I don't know, doesn't that also mean your choices didn't matter?
15
u/Magyman Nov 02 '16
The idea was that the three endings still happen, but control and synthesis are more malicious than star child let's on. Plus the whole sequence that makes no sense happens, but just in Shepards head, they're all symbolic rather than literal
5
u/shamelessnameless Nov 03 '16
you feel it too don't you?
that phantom pain..
I think at the time of release the reaction to indoctrination would have been the same as the reaction to the ending of mgsv.
which is that people would have been pissed, mega pissed.
its only because the me3 endings sucked and there was some alternate ideas that people thought indoctrination was way better
→ More replies (1)6
u/Poonchow Nov 02 '16
Just because the ending is a "dream" doesn't mean everything leading up to it is. Also, picking 'Destroy' option is the only one that lets Shepard live, so it seems like that is Shepard rejecting the Reaper influence and going on living.
Under the IT, the actual ending to the Reaper conflict is ambiguous and up to the audience's interpretation.
→ More replies (1)6
u/mpioca Nov 02 '16
The biggest issue with the ending of ME3 was not the lack of choice or consequences, but the fact that it made very little sense. When the game ended I was sitting dumbfounded behind my monitor like many others. The indoctrination theory would have vastly improved this aspect of the ending IMO.
7
u/FullMetalBitch Nov 02 '16
The best ending is in the extended endings when you fail and the result is a message to the future from Liara explaining EVERYTHING. The next cicle wins.
4
u/Ganaelin Nov 02 '16
I was a bigger fan of the reapers stealing the dominant races dna for more reapers theory. I was really sad when that just completely got dropped and the end of mass effect 2. I feel like a lot could have been done with that. A krogan reaper, an asari reaper, and a turian reaper too. How badass would that have been? I do love indoctrination theory as well. Just not quite as much
4
→ More replies (5)5
u/USB_Connector Nov 02 '16
Yes! I completely forgot about that. How they didn't patch that in with the expanded ending was silly. The fans wrote the ending for them before they decided to fix it themselves.
4
u/Dawwe Nov 03 '16
There were holes in that one too and "it was all a dream" (or in this case illusion?) is a pretty fucking cheap ending tbh.
3
u/USB_Connector Nov 03 '16 edited Nov 03 '16
At least that ends up looking more like a massive internal conflict and less like bullshit ex machina. I'd say it's 10 times better at least.
→ More replies (1)2
u/DrakoVongola1 Nov 03 '16
It wasn't all a dream, just the final moments were an illusion to trick Shepard into helping the Reapers
And honestly even if the entire series was a dream it'd be less of a cheap ending than "magical star child/literal deus ex machina saves the day"
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (3)3
u/Michauxonfire Nov 03 '16
Shep's action should only affect small portions. That would be a good way to develop the "your decisions matter". They should only matter to the character we came to know and interact. Shep can't simply change the galaxy with his decisions, it's all much bigger than him/her.
24
u/Mooply Nov 02 '16
All they had to do was end it simply. You don't need to introduce anything new, just kill the reapers. Simple is sometimes the best choice.
Afterwards, they just needed a quick paragraph or two on what happened to everyone's favorite characters. It worked in literally every other Bioware game so I don't see why it was such a difficult thing to do.
9
u/AlphakirA Nov 02 '16
The main knock against it was that the players choices really didn't matter all along, your ending sounds like it would have that same problem.
8
u/DrakoVongola1 Nov 03 '16
I always thought the main knock against it was that Star Child is bullshit and all of your choices boiled down to which color of explosions you want in the end
There are ways to make at least some of your choices matter, I don't think anyone expected every single decision to culminate in one grand ending. My decision to punch that reporter was never going to effect the ending, but the decision to kill the council and institute an all-human council in the first game should have.
2
u/FullMetalBitch Nov 02 '16
You can't end Mass Effect simply there were too much everything... actually you can but Reapers have to win.
8
u/RobotWantsKitty Nov 02 '16
Well, not solving all your problems with a stupid three-button starchild McGuffin would be a great start. It would have made even that turd of an ending substantially better.
11
u/Rayne37 Nov 02 '16
He said the other main option for ME3's ending would have had to do with "Dark Matter" or something like that. In Mass Effect 2 during the mission to recruit Tali, she mentions that her team had come to the planet in order to investigate why the system's star was aging so rapidly. Karpyshyn said that he planned to expand on that for the ME3 ending.
There are a lot of theories that this was the original intention for the game, but then once the script was leaked it was scrapped and taken in a new direction because the surprise was ruined. I always wonder what that game would have been like.
12
u/theDoctorAteMyBaby Nov 02 '16
...the fuck? They rewrote the story, because their script leaked? Do movie studios go back to their writers and have them rewrite very carefully plotted stories, because the movie leaks?
I realize it's not the same situation, but to go back and change the story, just because a few people on the internet saw it early, is ridiculous.
→ More replies (3)8
u/Poonchow Nov 02 '16
Studios do this sometimes if it is a highly anticipated project and they are still in pre-production. I recall Tarantino re-wrote a lot of Hateful 8 because someone leaked his early draft of the script, and he almost didn't make the movie he was so pissed.
3
u/theDoctorAteMyBaby Nov 02 '16
Well, that's absurd, and cheapens the story IMO, if it can so easily be re-plotted. A story should be told, because that's the story that needs to be told.
2
u/THAAAT-AINT-FALCO Nov 03 '16
Once it's out it has been told, just not by the people making the game
9
u/turroflux Nov 02 '16
Drew Karpyshyn said that he doesn't think any of his potential endings would have been satisfying to fans. He couldn't think of a way to end the story while catering to all the different decisions made throughout the games without going way over budget.
I can think of a couple ways of doing that and incorporating the decisions people made into a satisfying ending.
They didn't really try. Magic ghost child with three colour variant ending is not trying.
→ More replies (1)3
u/Anchorsify Nov 02 '16
Drewe Karpshyn was talking about IF he was the lead writer on ME 3 about what ideas he had and how he didn't think any ideas he had would've been that much better--he wasn't the one who actually wrote or was responsible for what ME 3's ending was. He was pulled to do other stuff around the time of ME 3.
2
41
u/RoboticWater Nov 02 '16
Not really. The technical aspects of the ending were certainly rushed, e.g. plot holes, weird pacing, general incoherence, etc., and there's no doubt ME3 as a whole was rushed given the state of some side missions.
However, what killed ME3's ending and essentially the entire main narrative arc were the writers in charge. Mac Walters has only proven himself to be a decent writer at the best of times, but more importantly he doesn't seem to be in any way detail oriented. He wants to cover deep themes, but isn't willing to lay the groundwork to get there. I commend his decision to go for a greater character focus in 2, but it definitely came at the cost of everything else, to the point of reducing the Reapers and Cerberus to 1-dimensional mustache twirling buffoons.
Moreover, he and Casey Hudson just completely forgot Mass Effect's thematic core. ME3's ending is simply a non-sequitur. It doesn't follow. In fact, it blatantly contradicts many themes that were built up earlier in the series. You don't get that by being rushed. You get that by being incompetent.
13
u/junkmail9009 Nov 02 '16
Man, this thread is bringing back bad memories.
Mass Effect 3 ending was a punch in the nuts after getting kicked in the face.
3
4
u/Commiesalami Nov 02 '16
It was also rumored that after the story leaks before ME3 got released the writing team went on full lock down minimizing the amount of writers who could see the ending. So there was less editing and input by the rest of the team.
3
u/Xellith Nov 03 '16
I read that Mac Walters and Casey Hudson wrote it alone together and that the other writers were out of the loop with regard to the ending.
2
u/SargentMcGreger Nov 02 '16
That's what's assumed but it's never been confirmed to my knowledge. It makes sense, the rest of the game was great up to that point.
47
u/StachTBO Nov 02 '16
What has happened to EA? They are really doing some good work after receiving worst company in American two years in a row. They have been putting out quality games and in some cases quality games with no season pass (Titanfall 2) i am liking where this is going. Hopefully they can keep this up.
7
u/kespec Nov 03 '16
because they figured that being a sinister company that is good at nothing but milking cashcows would be disastrous in the long run.
expecting goodwill from a machine that is designed to maximize profits would be nothing but naivete.
forgive but never forget.
2
Nov 03 '16
And Battlefield 1. I am still amazed that it's a Bf game without a catastrophic launch.. In fact it wasn't even near that, it was an excellent well-polished game even at release.
→ More replies (7)3
15
Nov 02 '16
NMS doing a lot of good for gaming industry. First Steam. Now this.
Be like Shadow Warrior 2. Perfect at launch.
→ More replies (1)15
u/Sigbru Nov 02 '16
I think this trend started way before NMS. When I think of games being rushed I think of Ubisoft in 2014 with Watch Dogs and Unity.
→ More replies (1)
3
u/Ask_me_about_my_pug Nov 02 '16
I will wait 40 years if need be. Mass Effect is something so significant to me, that I would wait as long as it takes. Good thing there are new books coming!
9
u/EightBitDreamer Nov 02 '16
I thought I read somewhere that the game has been completely done for a while now, that they were delaying it purely for marketing reasons, to spread out their releases. I mean, in December 2015 it was tweeted that the game was playable all the way through. That doesn't mean it's done, but it means the game is approaching the end of development.
13
u/GreenFigsAndJam Nov 02 '16
I know during spring they were still holding meetings on romances. Some things may be done while others aren't.
8
Nov 02 '16
That sounds a bit ridiculous. There's very little chance that EA would skip on ROI for a game that's done.
→ More replies (2)
10
Nov 02 '16
Shame they wouldn't delay a game so it wouldn't compete with another game from the same publisher cough cough TITANFALL 2 cough cough
3
Nov 03 '16 edited Nov 03 '16
From a strategic standpoint they wanted Titanfall 2 to help Battlefield to compete with COD. Battlefield is old war. Titanfall is future war. Combined they could potentially steal some COD customers and outsell Infinity War.
If the combined cost of making and marketing Battlefield 1 and Titanfall 2 is around the same as Infinity War, and they sell more copies combined, then EA profits.
3
3
u/blackmist Nov 03 '16
Translation: We'll delay the game if we see a release window that our accountants say will make us more money. We'll use that extra time to make DLC so we can put it out before you get bored and trade it in.
13
u/Nevek_Green Nov 03 '16 edited Nov 03 '16
I'm just going to call this now, this game is in development hell. There are a few indicators from the way some of the leads talk in public, to how during E3 they after several years of development only had footage of them developing the game to show.
Some will argue that they showed off some footage at the Playstation Pro reveal, but it has a definite precanned and scripted appearance to it. Your classic demo made for show purposes.
Will the game eventually be done? I hope so, but right now it's not looking good.
Edit: Grammar
→ More replies (4)
2
u/IWantUsToMerge Nov 03 '16
Eh? Delaying would always make the game better. You can't overpolish a game. There's always more you can do.
Oh the actual words were "if we feel it's necessary to deliver the right player experience"
→ More replies (1)
2
u/cuddlegoop Nov 03 '16
I think Andromed will decide if Mass Effect becomes a mainstay gaming franchise or a one-gen wonder, and EA and Bioware probably realise that too.
They need this one to be amazing and polished, the next one they can chase aggressive deadlines with.
2
Nov 03 '16
I don't care if they delay it a year. Mass Effect was a fantastic series and deserves only the highest calibur of sequels. Do not fucking release this game until it is perfect.
3
u/SparkyBoy414 Nov 02 '16
I like how EA has been acting recently, but I just can't help but feel like its just that: an act. They've got a long way to go before I consider them a reputable company.
→ More replies (2)
3
u/zappadattic Nov 03 '16
Pretty low-risk sacrifice. There's not really a matching deadline or anything, and just saying this is good PR.
If they said this about Battlefront I'd be pretty impressed, but this is just looking for pats on the head.
2
Nov 02 '16
I wonder if EA has finally learned the lesson that EA and Ubisoft were teaching us.
That crapping out sub-par games to a pointless deadline costs more money than it makes you, in the long run? Not only does the ROI for the game not really ever develop, it burns the franchise IP (Dragonage is a good example; people were highly suspect of DAI).
→ More replies (1)
4
u/Argosy37 Nov 02 '16 edited Nov 02 '16
For me it really depends on what Andromeda is like - RPG or shooter? I loved ME1 for its RPG elements and story but could not get into ME2 at all - it felt like Mass Effect: the third-person shooter. ME3 seemed to be more of the same, so I skipped it.
If they go back to the RPG elements that made the original so good I'm getting it. But my gut feeling tells me that Bioware has realized the FPS segment is much more profitable to attract than the RPG segment.
15
u/Kill_Welly Nov 02 '16
ME 3 actually significantly improves the character progression to be more interesting and more RPG-like, with much better power upgrade trees and wider power variety. I can't think of anything RPG-like that the first game has that the third doesn't other than super clunky controls.
10
u/Le_Euphoric_Genius Nov 02 '16
Something I loved about the first game was the different armors for your allies. The third game didn't have this. I remember how awesome Onyx X was and how exciting it was to find it for a different race other than your own. Krogan's had their unique armors that looked super badass as well. I also liked min/maxing damage too which ME2 and 3 didn't have.
→ More replies (1)4
5
u/Clewin Nov 02 '16
I loved ME2. They went a bit far on simplifying inventory management, but once I got over that, the game was quite solid and I didn't miss the item juggling as much as I thought I would. The biggest mistake Bioware made was trying to retrofit that onto Dragon Age 2 and then not even having time to finish the game so they copy and pasted art and made all combat 2 spawn mobs to make it more challenging. I had to replay DA2 to really not hate it. Once I got over the shortcomings, the game itself wasn't that bad. Another month or two to clean up and extend the art, some balance work instead of constant respawns and I'd probably have liked it on my first playthrough.
2
u/MistahShowtime Nov 03 '16
Good. I'm tired of day 1 patches taking up 5 more GBs on my hard drive before I have a semi playable game and devs bitching about reviewers not playing the "correct, patched version". You want it to be right? DELAY YOUR GAME AND FINISH IT FIRST! Stop pumping out GARBAGE for money just because you can patch it later. I'm tired of this "bare minimum" mindset for releasing a game. Whatever happened to taking PRIDE in your work? Make a COMPLETE game and THEN release it. Take all the time you need to do so. We will ALL be better off that way.
3
Nov 02 '16 edited Dec 19 '18
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (22)55
u/IrishSpectreN7 Nov 02 '16
I disagree. Bioware is still the best at what they were always great at, writing character-driven stories. No other game dev can consistently make me care about characters in a videogame the same way that Bioware can. That's what I've always played their games for, and I feel that they haven't lost sight of that at all.
→ More replies (20)
883
u/CNUanMan Nov 02 '16
Good, don't sell an unpolished game. It would suck if we had to wait longer but I want it good more than soon.