The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Penny Arcade - Comic - Nominator
Dog
Registered User, Administrator, Vanilla Staff admin
Registered User, Administrator, Vanilla Staff admin
Penny Arcade - Comic - Nominator
Videogaming-related online strip by Mike Krahulik and Jerry Holkins. Includes news and commentary.
Unknown User on
+6
Posts
You played it "at" the time wouldn't make as much sense for the joke. Tycho is saying that Gabe played it a lot, hence "all the time". If he just wanted to say Gabe had played it, "You've played it." would probably have been what they'd write.
I actually have high hopes for the rework, as I think it *could* be good. There's a lot to like, it's just not enough to be engaging.
Oops, turns out the wood is actually asbestos.
Doesn't help that periodically the EA execs wander by and piss on it.
That was an incisive comment.
That pun bites.
Steam Profile
3DS: 3454-0268-5595 Battle.net: SteelAngel#1772
EA's execs suck, but they actually take a hands off approach to management in most cases. What they are is demanding - games must make a certain amount of money, they need some form of post-launch monetization usually, etc. Anthem struggled because they had the idea of doing a live service game to cover the post-launch part, but didn't really have a good concept in place for how to do it, and refused to look at case studies from existing MMO's and live service games to see what does and doesn't work. So you wind up with a live service level of core game content, but without the necessary grinding-based milestone content and commitment to core gameplay to handle post launch - the worst of both worlds
You can't give someone a pirate ship in one game, and then take it back in the next game. It's rude.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again, after Mass Effect 3 (and maybe Dragon Age: Inquisition, but probably DA2), the Bioware we knew ceased to exist. They've had not just major turnover, but specifically of the upper echelon staff that define the company and its projects, and in such a short time that the new people never really got integrated into the studio's culture (contrast Blizzard, who from Warcraft 3 until around WoW Legion's launch saw a lot of turnover but spread out enough that they maintained a pretty consistent identity). The new fully-integrated EA Bioware may be a good company, but we need to set expectations based on their own successes and failures, not what a very different set of teams did over 5 years ago.
Everything I've read also had the flip side: Everything you say is true, but EA was far from blameless. While the project was funded through the roof, nobody from EA was actually clear on what the game was supposed to be until years into development. It changed back and forth between third person and first person more than once, changed from a single player focus to pure multiplayer days before an E3 demo after over four years in development as something different, and then changed to a loot shooter later. Flight was waffled on, causing it to be re-developed from scratch at one point, and Bioware was forced to use the Frostbite engine but didn't get promised new features for the engine so had to work around its limitations in-house (while they had an engine available that actually had those features).
Bioware's leadership certainly doesn't have clean hands, but EA was chasing trends as they shifted in the winds so that the development process ends up being the game equivalent of embryology recapitulates phylogeny.