Just saying, you could "beat" ME2 in 20 hours as well. You could get to the suicide mission within 20 hours, no sweat. Now you probably would have a skeleton crew and no loyalty, but you could "beat" the game.
If someone is "beating" ME3 in 20 hours, they are basically doing the speed gaming route. And that's not really the way to play a Bioware game.
The game has its problems, but I really think the DLC issue (not the trend of DLC in general, seperate discussion) and the claim that "I saw this person beat it in 15 hours!", they are really bogus arguments.
I beat ME3 in ~32 hours. I didn't really rush through things. I don't think i got 100% completion but I'm pretty sure i got most of the side quests done. I was suprised there weren't more main story missions. The game felt shorter than it should have been and honestly between that, the ending, and maybe the dream sequences i really don't have much of a problem with the game. When i first was reading about this game, i could only imagine that it was going to be as bad as Dragon Age 2, but honestly, after playing it to completion it is no where near as bad as Dragon Age 2. Sure, it could have been better but the game was still satisfying.
The DLC wasn't nearly as expansive as i thought it was but it is still something that should have been included with the original game. Content wise it wasn't huge (A few credits, weapon, a war asset, and new character + some story elements & dialog) but it was still something that is relatively important to the story even if its skirting around the edges. The DLC alone shouldn't be someone's motivation to 0 bomb this game everywhere, Yes its bad that they sold something that had plot significance for extra money but it seems like most people are bombing this game without even playing it.
I honestly think in most ways ME3 is BETTER than ME2. I didn't really like the way ME2 was done, everything was too linear, the upgrade system was extremely dumbed down (Scan Scan Scan Scan Scan Scan, etc.) The story didn't feel like it was going in a straight line from the original mass effect, it felt more like a detour/filler. The combat improvements in ME2 wasn't enough to justify removing ME's Exploration and Gear System. And the missions (Pick up companion, get loyalty, pick up companion, get loyalty, pick up companion, get loyalty. Save colony, pick up companion, get loyalty.) The only good mission in ME2 was the Suicide Mission and it was basically just checks to see if you actually played the game. (If you did everything, and you picked role appropriate characters for each situation, you did good, if not, people died). The Missions in ME3 are vastly improved. It brings back customization that was removed from the first game. And a big thing, Virmire level choices come back.
As far as Metacritic bombing goes, i never usually look at review sites like that anyway. They are never accurate because the "big" reviewers are paid off and have to give a good review no matter what. User reviews usually boils down to a bunch of butthurt people 0 bombing the game, or people who shouldn't even be playing that particular genre because they obviously hate all the games. I'm not really suprised that ME3 turned out the way it did. It wasn't a spectacular game but it was still solid. Unfortunately this game will get alot of haters because the way the built the franchise encourages players to form emotional investments in the characters and when you're forced to make a decisions that WILL kill these characters off, it will cause people to get mad, not even to mention the ending where a few things will happen no matter what and those things people dont like.
The Baldur's Gate series were classics, easily. I would say BG2 was easily in the top 5 western RPG's of its era. Throne of Bhaal was excellent. BG1 was also a great game.
Dragon Age was a great game. Not amazing. Had a few shortcomings. But I thought it was good.
NWN1 had a terrible story imo, but it wasn't only a story-driven RPG. It was an online RPG platform unlike anything people really had available at the time. It spawned an enormous amount of user content, mods, servers, etc. Flawed, but looking at the mind-boggling number of hours put into online play and content production, you definitely can't say it was overhyped. It was a phenomenon. Also, the xpacs had much better stories.
KotOR is considered one of the best RPG's ever by many. I found some parts of it really stupid, but I still say it's a great game overall.
Mass Effect 1 and 2. Honestly, I was expecting less when I played them. But they're superb games. They're really very good.
What else is there? Jade Empire? A lot of people loved Jade Empire. It's not a RPG you commonly hear about. In fact, it's not even completely a RPG. But it's a good game, I'd say.
And that's basically all of its catalogue, with the exception of one or two weird odd-man-outs (the freaking Sonic RPG on the DS, which I played, lol) and its last 3 games: Dragon Age 2, TOR, and ME3.
So no, I don't think the studio had only one or two great games. I would say that the studio has consistently released amazing franchises.
Comments
I beat ME3 in ~32 hours. I didn't really rush through things. I don't think i got 100% completion but I'm pretty sure i got most of the side quests done. I was suprised there weren't more main story missions. The game felt shorter than it should have been and honestly between that, the ending, and maybe the dream sequences i really don't have much of a problem with the game. When i first was reading about this game, i could only imagine that it was going to be as bad as Dragon Age 2, but honestly, after playing it to completion it is no where near as bad as Dragon Age 2. Sure, it could have been better but the game was still satisfying.
The DLC wasn't nearly as expansive as i thought it was but it is still something that should have been included with the original game. Content wise it wasn't huge (A few credits, weapon, a war asset, and new character + some story elements & dialog) but it was still something that is relatively important to the story even if its skirting around the edges. The DLC alone shouldn't be someone's motivation to 0 bomb this game everywhere, Yes its bad that they sold something that had plot significance for extra money but it seems like most people are bombing this game without even playing it.
I honestly think in most ways ME3 is BETTER than ME2. I didn't really like the way ME2 was done, everything was too linear, the upgrade system was extremely dumbed down (Scan Scan Scan Scan Scan Scan, etc.) The story didn't feel like it was going in a straight line from the original mass effect, it felt more like a detour/filler. The combat improvements in ME2 wasn't enough to justify removing ME's Exploration and Gear System. And the missions (Pick up companion, get loyalty, pick up companion, get loyalty, pick up companion, get loyalty. Save colony, pick up companion, get loyalty.) The only good mission in ME2 was the Suicide Mission and it was basically just checks to see if you actually played the game. (If you did everything, and you picked role appropriate characters for each situation, you did good, if not, people died). The Missions in ME3 are vastly improved. It brings back customization that was removed from the first game. And a big thing, Virmire level choices come back.
As far as Metacritic bombing goes, i never usually look at review sites like that anyway. They are never accurate because the "big" reviewers are paid off and have to give a good review no matter what. User reviews usually boils down to a bunch of butthurt people 0 bombing the game, or people who shouldn't even be playing that particular genre because they obviously hate all the games. I'm not really suprised that ME3 turned out the way it did. It wasn't a spectacular game but it was still solid. Unfortunately this game will get alot of haters because the way the built the franchise encourages players to form emotional investments in the characters and when you're forced to make a decisions that WILL kill these characters off, it will cause people to get mad, not even to mention the ending where a few things will happen no matter what and those things people dont like.
Well.
The Baldur's Gate series were classics, easily. I would say BG2 was easily in the top 5 western RPG's of its era. Throne of Bhaal was excellent. BG1 was also a great game.
Dragon Age was a great game. Not amazing. Had a few shortcomings. But I thought it was good.
NWN1 had a terrible story imo, but it wasn't only a story-driven RPG. It was an online RPG platform unlike anything people really had available at the time. It spawned an enormous amount of user content, mods, servers, etc. Flawed, but looking at the mind-boggling number of hours put into online play and content production, you definitely can't say it was overhyped. It was a phenomenon. Also, the xpacs had much better stories.
KotOR is considered one of the best RPG's ever by many. I found some parts of it really stupid, but I still say it's a great game overall.
Mass Effect 1 and 2. Honestly, I was expecting less when I played them. But they're superb games. They're really very good.
What else is there? Jade Empire? A lot of people loved Jade Empire. It's not a RPG you commonly hear about. In fact, it's not even completely a RPG. But it's a good game, I'd say.
And that's basically all of its catalogue, with the exception of one or two weird odd-man-outs (the freaking Sonic RPG on the DS, which I played, lol) and its last 3 games: Dragon Age 2, TOR, and ME3.
So no, I don't think the studio had only one or two great games. I would say that the studio has consistently released amazing franchises.