Temg99's forum posts

  • 11 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Posted by Temg99 (13 posts) -

Overall I found the combat to be better, harder and more enjoyable. It required me to be on my guard more, dodge and run away from battles more often. I enjoy the variety of weapons, even if somehow Arno never figures out how to pick up a dropped weapon from an enemy. I don'y miss the super kick from 4 that instantly killed enemies. That made it too easy.

I do notice the enemy AI is far, far dumber. I rarely see them follow me everywhere, especially climbing up buildings. Mostly they just sit down on ground level and forget about me after the timer runs out.

But really, what bothers me most is the complete inability to grab people [or I have at least I never been able to figure it out]. It was a genuine tactic in previous games to grab someone and push/throw them off a ledge for an insta-death or push them into a wall to stumble them and get them out of combat for a cycle or two. Same for picking up a body and placing it so a patrolling enemy is distracted.

If I could make one combat change it would be to bring back the grab function. I miss throwing the roof guards off a tall building. It was just fun. :-)

#2 Posted by Temg99 (13 posts) -

While he would be awesome, it is pretty clear it is not Dan Ryckert. Check his twitter profile. His photo is Polygon branding now.

#3 Posted by Temg99 (13 posts) -

I personally love Disney, but I see the draw of both.

Not sure how long it has been since you went, but Universal is now two parks: Universal Studios and Islands of Adventure. If you only pick one, go to Islands of Adventure.

Universal is kid of bare bones right now with them revamping for the transformers ride [not sure if that launched yet] and the Harry Potter section.

Islands of Adventure is the far more grown up and action packed. Roller Coasters, thrill rides, etc. I would no matter what you do get there early and make the entire circuit all the way to the Harry Potter part of the park. It fills up really fast and the lines get ginormously long after a very short amount of time. Yah it means backtracking a lot through the other sections after you finish the area, but it is worth it to have a 20 minute wait instead of three hours. It is in the back right section of the circle, so if they let you cut through Suessland on the right, do that. Shorter walk.

Hope that helps.

#4 Posted by Temg99 (13 posts) -

I see this as lining up for more GOTY nominations. Much easier to remember a game from September than May. The shine has not worn off yet for that.

#5 Posted by Temg99 (13 posts) -

Likely Spring will quickly be narrowed down to Mid May very soon. [My guess would be May 21st.] Same as most of the recent Rockstar Games have been. They like owning May.

Hopefully they do a true PC port. Maybe even surprise us with a Red Dead pack in for preorders [wishful thinking]

#6 Posted by Temg99 (13 posts) -

@Brodehouse said:

BioWare never spent over 3 years to make a game until Dragon Age: Origins (which had a troubled development). Baldur's Gate 2 wasn't 5 years in the making, it came out two years after the original. I don't know if you know a lot about independent development, but you don't have the option to spend forever making a game either. Eventually you need to have money coming in or the lights aren't going to stay on.

You never want to spend 5 years making a game anyways, because when it comes out, it's on 5 year old technology. You start getting past two and a half or three years of active development, and you're working backwards at some point.

Very valid point on the technology. I accept your view and take back my comment on the cycle time.

I totally understand that games are a business. They are between two massive rocks that are threatening to crush them at any point. On one side EA and BioWare have shareholders they are required to listen to and keep happy. Thus releasing very profitable games in every fiscal year. On the other they have to keep customers [gamers] happy by releasing a quality product in a environment where switching costs are very low. Their competition costs nearly the exact same to purchase and is just as appealing to many, many gamers.

One group demands a game a year [and more]. Another group demands they do it right and give quality. Hard to have both. I side with the idea that if you build it right, the customers will become more fervent fans and more likely to purchase other games from the same brand. Take EA sports games as an example. No matter how many some complain, they have done an absolutely excellent job as balancing the two sides. I feel with BioWare they are still too far on the shareholder appeasement side and have yet to find a common ground. Thus my wish.

#7 Posted by Temg99 (13 posts) -

@Trylks said:

You know they could have a "BioWare" game every year with a 5 year development cycle per game if they had 5 franchises, right?

My "force them into a 2 year cycle of endless rush so you can have a "BioWare" game every year." was more of a single franchise comment than "BioWare" game itself. But you fo have a very valid point. Here is my take:

Resources are very limited. Especially in today's very expensive game creation cycle.

There is a benefit to selecting a few key games and letting others to mature until you are flush with cash and have the profits to play. Focusing across multiple annual cycles with one game a year requires lots of development studios, lots of employees and lots of overhead. Things that demand a lot of money, especially from a public company that has to answer to shareholders.

In my business we produce a lot of products. But we also know our time and resources are limited. If we focused our efforts across the entire spectrum, our experts who are essential to our business would have to spread their time across multiple products at once, instead of one or two. Thus increasing the likelihood of errors, poor design and customer complaints. We improve our profits and grow our business better by focusing efforts on a few key portfolios and then having the others on an as needed basis.

Now video games are very, very different from manufacturing, much longer development cycles to name one point. But the inherent business principles are the same. BioWare could do much better by focusing their talent [coding, tech, QA, support, etc] across a few games and making sure they are top tier efforts that take the time to properly produce than artificially forcing on them a 2 year development cycle per franchise.

#8 Posted by Temg99 (13 posts) -

I'll add one thing to my previous statement. Remember one of the most important rules of doing business and sales - Don't ever piss off your customer. Yes that one sale might be huge, but if you burn your bridge, the likelihood of your next sale being even close to as big is far less likely. Especially in a environment with such amazing competition.

Think of us not as gamers, but customers of your retail product. Very fickle customers who have lots of choices and very low switching costs.

#9 Posted by Temg99 (13 posts) -

What I want next from a Mass Effect game? Only one thing. Simple too: EA, Let Them Take Their Time.

Thats the TLDR idea. In a bit more thought out - Don't rush the game in seek of annual revenue generation. Yes games are a business and yes you must make money to make these horrendously expensive games. But take a book from Valve or Blizzard who have a few, very highly developed franchises like BioWare does. Games they let simmer, take their time and when come out are pure gold.

Mass Effect Three felt rushed and over promised what they truly could never, ever live up to their promises. Don't let Mass Effect 4 fall into the same trap. Give them 3+ years to develop a full storyline, world and RPG system that everyone can enjoy. Don;'t force them into a 2 year cycle of endless rush so you can have a "BioWare" game every year. You will just destroy the BioWare brand.

You get the idea for the rest. All I want is time given to make the game great. I trust the talent at BioWare can then do something amazing with that time.

#10 Posted by Temg99 (13 posts) -

I am being cautious. I'd have to see some real gameplay before I get excited [the stuff in te trailer while in-engine may not be truly playable stuff - maybe super moves or the equivalent]. But the trailer left me with the very strong impression of "trying too hard to be funny".

Sure it is close to the comics, but sometimes a direct translation is not what is necessary. What works in short form comics over a few pages is much harder to implement over several hours. Hopefully it turns out to be good.

I'd love to see a bulletstorm/madworld style approach where the crazier you take out someone, the better. That would be [for me] a very fun approach.

  • 11 results
  • 1
  • 2