in reply to Master167

IIRC there were numerous articles after launch talking about how it was EA that actually made them add the flying mechanics, easily the best part of the gameplay, after it got stuck in development limbo for years.

Whether that was truly accurate or not, it does fit the extended development timeline, the lackluster story in the end product, and the failure to revamp the game after launch like the developers very publicly said they were trying to do. If they couldn't do it the first time, and couldn't do it the second time... it seems they were the problem, not EA (for once).

in reply to halcyoncmdr
I do not believe it for the simple reason that the levels are very vertically based, iirc. If core verticality was a mandate from shitheads after production started rolling, it would've come out in an even worse state.
Esta entrada fue editada (ayer, 20:43)
in reply to spankysalmon
Are you looking at the same game? The world was vertical in the sense that you had to fly anywhere... but none of the combat or gameplay used it in any way beyond going from one place to another. That's exactly what would happen if verticality and a new map was added later in development. They just put clearings in to place the flat missions.
in reply to halcyoncmdr

Eh, that doesn't necessarily define where the source of pressure came from. Making unique games is an entirely different level of skill/time/commitment than what they were given.

IMO, it's nigh equally likely that they started with the verticality design as part of it and didn't have the time to cook the idea into something neat, vs it being a later mandate after some core designs had development. The only thing that really leads me to believe that the ideas were in early is in the character designs: They were clearly meant to fly in some way, even if it might've been in a Halo jetpack sort of way early on. (which has less evidence)

This is one of 94747252795 reasons to NEVER give these big corporations a single ounce of control over anything.

Esta entrada fue editada (ayer, 21:14)
in reply to spankysalmon
in reply to spankysalmon
Esta entrada fue editada (ayer, 23:31)
in reply to halcyoncmdr

Ohgod... that still SCREAMS interference to me... Nobody could be confident in their stance because dissent from corporate mandate meant firing, not a hearing out and debate...

Otherwise, lead devs have many ways to force progress in a certain direction. Only fuckhead exec "direction" comes with such constant blueballing of actual progress.

Esta entrada fue editada (ayer, 23:39)
in reply to spankysalmon

It's still a developer management lack of decision making. They don't get off scot free because they don't want to make a decision that EA might not like. The result of that... was a piece of shit EA didn't like. That's still on the developer.

Unless EA is telling them to change something, decisions are still on them. Like EA saying the demo is terrible and developer management deciding to add flying back in to try and fix. That comes from an EA decision/request rather than the developer being indecisive.

Are you trying to separate the Bioware team between developers and management, and lumping Bioware mangement into the EA side? Because that's not the discussion here. Bioware management being indecisive is still a developer issue, not an EA issue.

Esta entrada fue editada (hoy, 0:29)
in reply to Mrsilkworm

This and microsoft bleeding ID Tech are the greatest insults than the Computer Video Game eccosystem have ever testified.

I fucking hate those big videogames comglomerates, i hope every single shareholders from those giant piles of shit die on the gutter drowning in their own piss