377 réponses à ce sujet

[EatChildren]

Googlesaurus wrote...

Yes? Never claimed you took either stance. I was just discussing the various stances people have, and the arguments presented.

Mystranna Kelteel wrote...

I would disagree.  More specifically with the "Incisor" itself.

The fact that it looks much like the Incisor we know yet is a different color altogether does
signify something. It signifies that whoever made the trailer purposely
changed the color.  If they wanted it to be a direct symbol of Mass
Effect they would have made it the same color.

It's ambiguous.
Yes, they may have altered the color to "throw people off" so they could
have their little fun with an ad-campagin, but I don't think they'd
purposely change the colors of established symbols/weapons/etc. just for
that purpose.

So, in short, yes, the colors are evidence. It's up to you as to how significant the evidence is, but it is evidence.

Exactly, and the fact that one of the clues is 'red herring' could very well mean the Incisor Rifle being the chosen asset was a red herring, and that this is not related to Mass Effect at all.

The possibilities are numerous, but the fact that it is the Incisor Rifle art asset is why people discuss it.

Modifié par EatChildren, 09 décembre 2010 - 08:15 .

[MisterDyslexo]

Dammit where's Julian Assange when you need him?

[Xivai]

Three humans in the wreckage one is a child running to the adult. The adult is looking at what looks like another injured (possibly dead) child on the ground. All three of them have fancy looking clothing or armour not reminiscent of modern clothing. Looks generic Sci-Fi is all I can say. Bottom left where the scope is a London looking fence. Presumably the same trailer, so this is indeed London.

I can say beyond any doubt it is a science fiction game and the trailer is set in London with all of the evidence shown. There is a bias towards it being Mass Effect, but no confirming indicators it is.

Also leak my ass. This was a strategically placed leak like Valves TF2 Spy trailer that was "leaked". Nice try Bioware, but your move.

Modifié par Xivai, 09 décembre 2010 - 08:13 .

[Babli]

Omega-202 wrote...

Babli wrote...

Feros. It looked very similar.

Can you show me a screenshot of Feros with an ornate wrought iron fence?  

I ´m talking just about color and atmosphere. I ´m pretty sure that this image is from London.

[Omega-202]

Lizardviking wrote...

I think the Avenger assault rifle had a diffrent colour scheme than it did in ME1. But I might be wrong.

The Avenger from ME1 was technically bright red.  The new Avenger from ME2 took the palette of the default Lancer assault rifle that you start the game with in ME1.  Honestly, they should have just named the ME2 assault rifle "Lancer" and been done with it being that the Lancer was the standard issue Alliance weapon while the Avenger was a cheap Volus knockoff and easily the worst weapon in the game (lvl X Avenger in ME1 only had a "1" accuracy rating).

Modifié par Omega-202, 09 décembre 2010 - 08:18 .

[Xivai]

Hmm human looks... female (giggity). With two children. No could it be Cerberus is after the Ascension Children kids? Kahlee Sanders? No impossible not her, she had blond hair in the novel.

[Googlesaurus]

EatChildren wrote...

Yes? Never claimed you took either stance. I was just discussing the various stances people have, and the arguments presented.

I never meant to say that you did. 

The colors are evidence of something. Whether it's Bioware doing something different or indicating a different game can't be known.

Modifié par Googlesaurus, 09 décembre 2010 - 08:43 .

[underhill1990]

MisterDyslexo wrote...

Dammit where's Julian Assange when you need him?

[Encarmine]

whatever it turns out to be, ill pre order it lol

[catabuca]

I'm utterly convinced that is London. As a Brit, even just seeing that small section of fence poking up at the bottom screams 'London Wrought Iron' to me. The numerous examples of actual pictures people have found in this thread helps confirm it. For me, at least.

What that means for the game? Well.

I think the style of the characters through the crosshairs feels very Mass Effect. The hair styles, the dress, even the body shapes and positions they're in seem to mimic those in ME. And of course the crosshairs themselves (not to mention the incisor, and the honeycomb pattern on his armour).

I'm not going out on a limb to say I think it's ME3, but I will say I strongly believe it's in the ME universe. And this scene is in London.

In terms of colour and tonality: this is one very, very short snippet. It's foolhardy to suggest that what we see here represents the colour palette for the entire game. Not to mention what others have said about a CGI trailer not necessarily reflecting a game's true colour style accurately in the first place.

No matter: I for one am very interested for the announcement on Saturday. Whatever the type of game, if it's ME related I'll be pleased they are continuing to expand the universe, even if it's not the type of game I will buy (multiplayer or fps, for example).

[Encarmine]

MisterDyslexo wrote...

Dammit where's Julian Assange when you need him?

lmao +1

[kidbd15]

Just found this... according to Joystiq, it is ME3 which includes Multiplayer

http://www.gamedaily...de-multiplayer/

Modifié par kidbd15, 09 décembre 2010 - 10:22 .

[ifander]

kidbd15 wrote...

Just found this... according to Joystiq, it is ME3 which includes Multiplayer

http://www.gamedaily...de-multiplayer/

I don't like the sound of that. It better not impact negatively on the singleplayer campaign. If it's shorter than ME2 because of it then there will be hell to pay for Bioware. I can only imagine the ****storm that would cause, with good reason.

Or, that "source" is just full of ****.

[catabuca]

ifander wrote...

kidbd15 wrote...

Just found this... according to Joystiq, it is ME3 which includes Multiplayer

http://www.gamedaily...de-multiplayer/

I don't like the sound of that. It better not impact negatively on the singleplayer campaign. If it's shorter than ME2 because of it then there will be hell to pay for Bioware. I can only imagine the ****storm that would cause, with good reason.

Or, that "source" is just full of ****.

Although I won't play it, I have no problem with ME3 containing a multiplayer element, because inclusivity is always good, right? But I do very strongly agree with the sentiment that if the single main story game is shorter as a result it will be an utterly, utterly terrible thing. You don't set up a trilogy with an awesone story such as the Mass Effect one only to do the final chapter an injustice by cutting it down to a 15 hour romp.

[Babli]

ifander wrote...

kidbd15 wrote...

Just found this... according to Joystiq, it is ME3 which includes Multiplayer

http://www.gamedaily...de-multiplayer/

I don't like the sound of that. It better not impact negatively on the singleplayer campaign. If it's shorter than ME2 because of it then there will be hell to pay for Bioware. I can only imagine the ****storm that would cause, with good reason.

Or, that "source" is just full of ****.

It sounds legit. Especially with that bull***t EA telling about "singleplayer games are dead"(means dont sell so well...). So they pushed Bioware to add multiplayer. It´s obvious. EA sucks. And if it will affect singleplayer, I´m done with EA for good. Gaming industry is heading towards wrong way. I hope that The Witcher 2 will sell well and shows these big companies that you dont need an useless multiplayer. 

So lets say it again... EA sucks. (even if that rumor isn´t true)

[kidbd15]

In a recent interview with an EA guy, he did state "single-player only games are finished"
http://www.wired.com...-single-player/

edit: Babli ninja'd me... and I agree, if it shortens the single player experience, that would suck TREMENDOUSLY... MP should be an after thought.

Modifié par kidbd15, 09 décembre 2010 - 10:52 .

[Googlesaurus]

^To note, Gibeau was not speaking exclusively of multiplayer when he made that announcement. A lot of us interpret it as "shove MP onto every game available" because we're generally cynical when presidents and others speak about these things.

[Omega-202]

kidbd15 wrote...

edit: Babli ninja'd me... and I agree, if it shortens the single player experience, that would suck TREMENDOUSLY... MP should be an after thought.

But if its done as an afterthought, it would be terrible.  

If they insist on including multiplayer, I'd prefer to make the best of it and hope that they put time and effort into both aspects of the game.  Why hurt their reputation by releasing a half finished game with a crappy tacked on multiplayer?  

And in terms of "getting less single player", thats just not the way BioWare does things.  They're obviously not opposed to selling multi-disk games for the XBox, so why not just go 3 disks for ME3?  2 for the single player campaign, and a separate disk for the multiplayer.  No problem on space, and at this point, with the boom in staff, I don't see them being undermanned for such a task.  

[kidbd15]

Omega-202 wrote...

kidbd15 wrote...

edit: Babli ninja'd me... and I agree, if it shortens the single player experience, that would suck TREMENDOUSLY... MP should be an after thought.

But if its done as an afterthought, it would be terrible.  

If they insist on including multiplayer, I'd prefer to make the best of it and hope that they put time and effort into both aspects of the game.  Why hurt their reputation by releasing a half finished game with a crappy tacked on multiplayer?  

And in terms of "getting less single player", thats just not the way BioWare does things.  They're obviously not opposed to selling multi-disk games for the XBox, so why not just go 3 disks for ME3?  2 for the single player campaign, and a separate disk for the multiplayer.  No problem on space, and at this point, with the boom in staff, I don't see them being undermanned for such a task.  

If done correctly like this, then I see no problem with it.  It'll add an extra dimension of replayability to the game. 

[Babli]

Googlesaurus wrote...

^To note, Gibeau was not speaking exclusively of multiplayer when he made that announcement. A lot of us interpret it as "shove MP onto every game available" because we're generally cynical when presidents and others speak about these things.

With all these 10 out of 10 reviews and advertisement, Mass Effect 2 still didn´t sell as great as we all expected. Like 2 millions right? Red Dead Redemption sold over 5 million. Why? What was wrong?

EA: There wasn´t multiplayer. Lets just add it. Singleplayer isn´t that important anymore. Players Kids want to shoot themselves online. There is true action and fun!
/facepalm

Modifié par Babli, 09 décembre 2010 - 11:03 .

[catabuca]

Omega-202 wrote...

kidbd15 wrote...

edit: Babli ninja'd me... and I agree, if it shortens the single player experience, that would suck TREMENDOUSLY... MP should be an after thought.

But if its done as an afterthought, it would be terrible.  

If they insist on including multiplayer, I'd prefer to make the best of it and hope that they put time and effort into both aspects of the game.  Why hurt their reputation by releasing a half finished game with a crappy tacked on multiplayer?  

And in terms of "getting less single player", thats just not the way BioWare does things.  They're obviously not opposed to selling multi-disk games for the XBox, so why not just go 3 disks for ME3?  2 for the single player campaign, and a separate disk for the multiplayer.  No problem on space, and at this point, with the boom in staff, I don't see them being undermanned for such a task.  

Problem with that is you end up with 2 games-worth of work and development going into one box. That means 2 games for the price of one. Great for the player, not so great for BW's profits. While it's certainly true that the ME3 main story should not be skimped and should be as long and rich as previous installments, if they want to do MP in an equally rich way as you suggest then it looks like being 2 games, 2 releases.

Now, AC:Brotherhood has produced an innovative and rich MP environment, along with a main story campaign, but that main story wasn't as featureful as AC2 (although I will say it exceeded my expectations, and those of a lot of other people too). They did a really good job of trying to do both things, and it looks like they'll be including MP in AC3 when it finally comes around, but they've developed the basics now, all they have to do is alter it, add/take away/modify here and there - they've made the first big leap from no-MP to yes-MP, so the next game including it wouldn't be as big an undertaking. Therefore they can re-focus on producing an epic ending to the AC trilogy (that is if they don't decide to expand it and not end the story there).

The same as held for AC:B would presumably hold for ME3. If MP was introduced in that game it's a completely new undertaking, and will be resource heavy. It makes it less likely that it would mean an extremely polished and long and rich example of both types of gameplay, and one would have to take somewhat of a backseat to the other. This might not necessarily be the same case had they previously developed MP in ME2, for example, as the infrastructure would already be there.

^^ all my conjecture, I have no idea.

Modifié par catabuca, 09 décembre 2010 - 11:07 .

[kidbd15]

Babli wrote...

Googlesaurus wrote...

^To note, Gibeau was not speaking exclusively of multiplayer when he made that announcement. A lot of us interpret it as "shove MP onto every game available" because we're generally cynical when presidents and others speak about these things.

With all these 10 out of 10 reviews and advertisement, Mass Effect 2 still didn´t sell as great as we all expected. Like 2 millions right? Red Dead Redemption sold over 5 million. Why? What was wrong?

EA: There wasn´t multiplayer. Lets just add it. Singleplayer isn´t that important anymore. Players Kids want to shoot themselves online. There is true action and fun!
/facepalm

It's also because it was only on the 360... I'm sure if ME1 and 2 were on PS3 from the get-go, then it would have sold much more

[gadna13]

Omega-202 wrote...

kidbd15 wrote...

edit: Babli ninja'd me... and I agree, if it shortens the single player experience, that would suck TREMENDOUSLY... MP should be an after thought.

But if its done as an afterthought, it would be terrible.  

If they insist on including multiplayer, I'd prefer to make the best of it and hope that they put time and effort into both aspects of the game.  Why hurt their reputation by releasing a half finished game with a crappy tacked on multiplayer?  

And in terms of "getting less single player", thats just not the way BioWare does things.  They're obviously not opposed to selling multi-disk games for the XBox, so why not just go 3 disks for ME3?  2 for the single player campaign, and a separate disk for the multiplayer.  No problem on space, and at this point, with the boom in staff, I don't see them being undermanned for such a task.  

I agree completely. If something is going to be put into a game then it better get the time and effort that it deserves. With Biowares current size, if this new announcement is not a completely new game than they would still have the capacity to succeed in that respect.

[Minister of Sound]

My money's on this being Mass Effect: Battlefront