apeman

" @apeman said:

" @LinksOcarina said:

" They started making the game back in early 2009, before production wrapped on Origins anyway. So the whole "game is rushed" argument holds no water since that is close to twenty or so months...... 
 
....The bugs are inexcuseable though, that I agree with. "

let's see....inexcusable bugs and an astonishing amount of re-used environments....  not sure how you can say "the whole game is rushed argument holds no water.  those are two powerful examples of time constraints... "

I know, Dragon Age: Origins crashes all the time for me, even 2 years after release and 4 patches later.  Seriously, it crashes about 3 times every time I sit down to play it. Oh wait, you were talking about DA2 which loads about 400 times faster, and has only crashed once. "

" @apeman said:

" @Brodehouse said:

" @apeman said:

" @Brodehouse said:

"  Pretending that BioWare rushed it despite having absolutely no motive for doing so requires better explanation than 'they rushed it!' "

 ABSOLUTELY no motive?    what planet do you live on?  do you think investors prefer faster or slower development of AAA sequels? "

BioWare is one of their top developers, with their first two releases with EA being successes, one of which won many Game of the Year awards.  They are a diamond in EA's crown, and both of their franchises make money on regular development cycles.  EA did not pressure to have the game out in 16 months, it just so happened that it was done in 16 months.  You can act like corporate interest is responsible for its release, but that is clearly not the case.  Why would EA push for the game to be released in March, rather than holiday?  Why would the BioWare team have announced it over a year ago, if it wasn't ready to be released within a year?  You have no evidence to support that it was rushed out the door to satisfy the business end, when that goes completely against any and all business sense. "

I am not acting like corporate interest is responsible for the quick release, nor am I arguing that I have evidence to support this.   Your reading comprehension is terrible.  My point is that your assertion that there is absolutely no motive for a rushed release is a wild assumption.  You "have no evidence to support" your assertion.    I know almost nothing about Bioware's motives in regards to timing in the marketplace.  But in business, timing matters.  I was just pointing out that there is a motive, whether or not it is acted upon.  "

Quit arguing semantics and argue the case at hand.  Dragon Age 2.  One person claims that it was pushed out 6 months early, I saw there is no reason for them to do so if the game isn't complete, and you argue that there is?  No, there is not.  A March release doesn't help sales, and having the game out before it's finished does not help sales.  QA and coding are the least expensive parts of the development process.  There is no evidence that the game was rushed before completion by EA or BioWare, and there is no motive for either to be making less money.    This is an argument about Dragon Age 2.  Either your point is that it was rushed, or that it wasn't.  Stop moving the goalposts. "

" @apeman said:

" @Brodehouse said:

"  Pretending that BioWare rushed it despite having absolutely no motive for doing so requires better explanation than 'they rushed it!' "

 ABSOLUTELY no motive?    what planet do you live on?  do you think investors prefer faster or slower development of AAA sequels? "

BioWare is one of their top developers, with their first two releases with EA being successes, one of which won many Game of the Year awards.  They are a diamond in EA's crown, and both of their franchises make money on regular development cycles.  EA did not pressure to have the game out in 16 months, it just so happened that it was done in 16 months.  You can act like corporate interest is responsible for its release, but that is clearly not the case.  Why would EA push for the game to be released in March, rather than holiday?  Why would the BioWare team have announced it over a year ago, if it wasn't ready to be released within a year?  You have no evidence to support that it was rushed out the door to satisfy the business end, when that goes completely against any and all business sense. "

"  Pretending that BioWare rushed it despite having absolutely no motive for doing so requires better explanation than 'they rushed it!' "

" They started making the game back in early 2009, before production wrapped on Origins anyway. So the whole "game is rushed" argument holds no water since that is close to twenty or so months...... 
 
....The bugs are inexcuseable though, that I agree with. "

" It is honestly just a difference in opinion, like I agree (like everyone else) that farming the planets in ME2 sucked. But I absolutely loved the gear management and insane amount of gear you got in ME1, I thought it added a lot of fun to the first game and made you want to keep killing stuff even after you finished the story to get better gear. "

" Chores don't always bother me. Scanning planets in Mass Effect 2 was a bit 'meh' but did it to get upgrades. I play WoW and half of that game is a fucking chore but I still enjoy it. I think it depends on what it is and what the reward is. I never did alchemy in Oblivion or the schematics in Fallout 3 because I didn't feel the award was worth it but did loads of planet scanning in Mass Effect 2. "

" @apeman said:

Anyone else have a perspective on chores in video games?  Any other examples of "shit done right" and "shit done wrong?"

I'd put Mass Effect 2 into the "baby with the bathwater"-category, as it didn't actually fix any of the issues Mass Effect 1 had, instead it basically removed everything people complained about and either offered nothing as replacement or just crappy stuff (Planet scanning instead of Mako). And Mass Effect is not alone in that one, its a trend I see all over the place, instead of figuring out how to make the "chores" interesting and fun, they streamline the crap out of the games so that they basically turn into a "push analog stick into direction of blinking arrow" game, thus basically removing any user involvement, as the user is no longer doing what he thinks is right, but instead simply does what the game HUD tells him to do (and Bioshock making fun of that doesn't help).   I don't mind getting stupid loot removed from games and forced level up chores, as that is really just pointless and more often then not, harms the immersion instead of increasing it (Why exactly would a soldier collect all kinds of random shit he finds? Shouldn't he be equipped with the best weapons from the start?), but on the other side I do want those elements in my games that actually force me to stay awake and listen do the dialog, I want levels that I can navigate by landmarks, not HUD arrows and all that stuff.  And while collecting dozens of the same guns is rather stupid, how about collecting items that I can use to solve quests or puzzles, adventure game like? I really dislike games where I can reach the end without even having an idea how I got there, chores don't fix that, but sometimes they are the tools that actually force you to pay attentional and learn and understand the virtual gaming world, instead of just running by it. "