1170 réponses à ce sujet

[RainyDayLover]

jreezy wrote...

I'm still not seeing the problem people have with EA. Besides, it's been confirmed in another thread that the decisions BioWare makes to their games come from BioWare.

And another thing people forget is that the Bioware co-founders are top executives and basically leaders within EA's corporate structure so I'm pretty sure they have just as much say in the various decisoins as anyone else.

[didymos1120]

King Minos wrote...

Bioware is ea so yeah I think he is an bioware employee.

The guy "confirming" it? No, he's a dude who runs a website (of the sort that largely recycles stuff from other websites) and also writes stuff for that website, and the only source cited on that site's article about this is the magazine cover mentioned in this thread's OP. 

ETA:  Oh, and the person who wrote that article?  The same NeoGAFer who made that tweet (which was just a retweet of the RPGsite guy's unsourced tweet about Gamescom). This very well could be real, but right now?  Right now, it looks a lot like a giant circlejerk of rumor and speculation thereon.

Modifié par didymos1120, 06 août 2011 - 01:03 .

[crimzontearz]

Sir Ulrich Von Lichenstien wrote...

Gorosaur wrote...
Also, I would like to point out that the existance of multiplayer does not ruin a single player campaign. Not in the slightest. It is often different teams that develop both games, so time is not sucked away from one to the other. If you don't like multiplayer, you don't have to play it. That's what I've done with every single CoD game I've played and I still enjoy them. The same could be said for Uncharted or Assassins Creed.

People need to stop exploding over little snippets of possible information.

QFT

I really do wonder about the intelligence of people when they can't process this simple thought into their head and try using such lame illogical comments of "They could've got the people working on the MP to further improve the SP" my other favourite for facepalming at is "If they add Multiplayer I should be able to get a discount on it because I won't play it"...

Anyone who says the latter really does show how dumb they are and an obvious retort to that is... so if you buy an album but you don't like some tracks on it, do you take it back to the store and demand a discount for the tracks you state you'll never play? No... right, same thing with the games then isn't it, deal with it!

actually

the Extra Credits guy already proposed a "SP - MP split idea for games. Honestly MP is a feature I never use even for games that advertise it heavily like Crysis 2 or GoW

[ramdog7]

RainyDayLover wrote...

Uncharted 2 is one of the defining single experiences of this generation and it had multiplayer......why do people care if there is multiplayer when they'll never play it? Just goes about to show how self-centered everyone is; I trust the ME team enough that I know it won't detract from the singleplayer experience whatsoever.

^This 
and i for one welcome our MP overlord 

[Ace of Dawn]

jreezy wrote...

I'm still not seeing the problem people have with EA. Besides, it's been confirmed in another thread that the decisions BioWare makes to their games come from BioWare.

EA had a rep of buying companys and then proceeding to dictate their every action while granting zero independence on the company's parts. Basically, grabbing IPs to make a profit. They've gotten better, but the player character in Knights of the Old Republic is still evil because he was Revan in the past, despite what he may be doing now (see what I did there?)

With Bioware apart of EA, everyone immediately goes to them for the blame, saying they're evil and the sort. Even though Bioware still has creative freedom. No one believes them. Etc etc. It's all very humurous, since EA is getting better. Now, if this were Activision, then I would be concerned.

[Someone With Mass]

Welsh Inferno wrote...

*Flies over everyones head* 

Yeah.

Because the developers are apparently treacherous and deceiving douchebags, according to this forum.<_<

[Sesshomaru47]

I don't care. If they want to get on the MP bandwagon then fine whatever. As long as they like Ubisoft don't compromise the main story of the SP game. Ubisoft did an awesome job with AC Brotherhood and tacked on some crummy MP that no one plays...do this and I will be happy. Destroy the main story like you wrecked Dragon Age because you rushed it out (never mind that it didn't have MP to ruin it) then you will be a big bunch tossers.

[SilentNukee]

Gorosaur wrote...
Also, I would like to point out that the existance of multiplayer does not ruin a single player campaign. Not in the slightest. It is often different teams that develop both games, so time is not sucked away from one to the other. If you don't like multiplayer, you don't have to play it. That's what I've done with every single CoD game I've played and I still enjoy them. The same could be said for Uncharted or Assassins Creed.

People need to stop exploding over little snippets of possible information.

QFT. Uncharted 2 and Brotherhood had extremely good SP, while adding a multiplayer mode for ****s and giggle. (Well, probably for longetivy of the games.) And they were fun to play once you've done the SP. It gives you a little something else to keep you busy. But of course, you DON'T have to play it if you don't want to. The power of choice!

[rapscallioness]

crimzontearz wrote...

King Minos wrote...

Dragon age 2 was a disaster, I really don't want mass effect to turn out the same, why must developers cater towards the idiots who find pulling a trigger and camping fun? Ah well if bioware crash an burns then it's their fault for joining ea.

but don't you know?

When people imply that being with EA = selling your soul they are usually met by a reply along the lines of "well, it was not a hostile takeover...... EA is not that bad........ we have all the freedom we had before.......they do not tell us what to do" and blah blah blah


right......I'm totally buying thay

LOL..yeah, like Shepard working with Cerberus:lol:

[xxSgt_Reed_24xx]

crimzontearz wrote...

seriously? are you THAT thick?

PsychoWARD23 wrote...

Oh god, oh god, my body is ready

I'd like to take a moment and get away from all the arguing, name calling, freaking out, fanboyism and what not and say.... (in response to the two quotes above)

THAT'S WHAT SHE SAID!!!

[King Minos]

I don't understand why bungie went with activision, why don't devs go to valve or Bethesda for publishing?

[SilentNukee]

Sesshomaru47 wrote...

I don't care. If they want to get on the MP bandwagon then fine whatever. As long as they like Ubisoft don't compromise the main story of the SP game. Ubisoft did an awesome job with AC Brotherhood and tacked on some crummy MP that no one plays...do this and I will be happy. Destroy the main story like you wrecked Dragon Age because you rushed it out (never mind that it didn't have MP to ruin it) then you will be a big bunch tossers.

I played and it was pretty good. Very different from other MPs, took a while to get used to though...Kinda crap if you're defending as stunning doesn't work half the time though. <.<

[SomeKindaEnigma]

rapscallioness wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

King Minos wrote...

Dragon age 2 was a disaster, I really don't want mass effect to turn out the same, why must developers cater towards the idiots who find pulling a trigger and camping fun? Ah well if bioware crash an burns then it's their fault for joining ea.

but don't you know?

When people imply that being with EA = selling your soul they are usually met by a reply along the lines of "well, it was not a hostile takeover...... EA is not that bad........ we have all the freedom we had before.......they do not tell us what to do" and blah blah blah


right......I'm totally buying thay

LOL..yeah, like Shepard working with Cerberus:lol:

I like multiplayer games... I fail to see how it makes me an idiot though 

[Ace of Dawn]

King Minos wrote...

I don't understand why bungie went with activision, why don't devs go to valve or Bethesda for publishing?

Wasn't Bungie approached by Activision?

[oracle343gspark]

****es need to stop whining about multiplayer. Seriously all that would do is add to the the experience and make the game better.

Modifié par oracle343gspark, 06 août 2011 - 01:10 .

[Dionkey]

King Minos wrote...

I don't understand why bungie went with activision, why don't devs go to valve or Bethesda for publishing?

I don't know but Bethesa is as bad as EA/Activision.

[xxSgt_Reed_24xx]

Ghost-621 wrote...

Aww, you're cute! You get backed into a wall over the interwebs and you throw out the "girlfriend & sunshine" insults out like you want to get personal or something  

Hear that people? If you love Mass Effect for the game it used to be (singleplayer-driven story) you aren't allowed to have an outside life or a relationship with the opposite sex! And...you call my case sad?

Those examples:

Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood (thought I'd put that at the top for you)
Gears of War 2
Crysis 2
Medal of Honor
Splinter Cell (Look at the original games, then at Conviction)
Rainbow Six (Look at the original games, then at Vegas 1&2)
Ghost Recon (Honestly, this one is up in the air for me, I'll have to see more of Future Soldier)
Dragon Age (Look at the first one, then at 2)
Dungeon Siege (Look at the first 2, then at 3)

Do you need any more?

Ghost-621 wrote...

Gears of War 2 was imbalanced. Heavily. Campaign was shorter than the first.

Not to take sides in this little... should MP be added debate and casual gamer thing you two have going here...

but as a HUGE fan of Gears of War... I feel like I know the series pretty well and I'd argue that... 

1. Gears is not bought nor played for the "campaign" of the game. It's basically the TPS equivalent of the FPS CoD games. It's made and put out for it's MP and most gamers buy it for that reason. (myself included)

2. GoW 2... even when it came out was not unbalanced. It was just that the shotgun was weaker than in Gears 1 and all the people who couldn't adapt to using other weapons whined and moaned that the game was unbalanced. Eventually the patched it and made the shotgun stronger. 

[Dionkey]

oracle343gspark wrote...

****es need to stop whining about multiplayer. Seriously all that would do is add the the experience and make the game better.

Do people NOT read the threads or something? People have brought up a million points why this could be bad and I am sick of reiterating it. If you aren't going to read then don't post.

[Ace of Dawn]

SomeKindaEnigma wrote...

rapscallioness wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

King Minos wrote...

Dragon age 2 was a disaster, I really don't want mass effect to turn out the same, why must developers cater towards the idiots who find pulling a trigger and camping fun? Ah well if bioware crash an burns then it's their fault for joining ea.

but don't you know?

When people imply that being with EA = selling your soul they are usually met by a reply along the lines of "well, it was not a hostile takeover...... EA is not that bad........ we have all the freedom we had before.......they do not tell us what to do" and blah blah blah


right......I'm totally buying thay

LOL..yeah, like Shepard working with Cerberus:lol:

I like multiplayer games... I fail to see how it makes me an idiot though 

I don't know either. But apparently it's true. The inclusion of MP and us playing means are IQs are demonstrably lower than those of the superior single-players. It's a fact. If I stuck to playing SP games, and forgot about MP, I would have been able to cure cancer and go to Harvard, top honors. For shame. We are the inferior people.

Because that is exactly how I interpret every single post that says that MP = Stupid.

[King Minos]

Bethesda is bad? I admit I have never seen bad press on Bethesda, why not ubisoft? Sure they add drm and have a habit of releasing games every year but better than every 4 years, I'm lookig forward to revelations.

[Dionkey]

King Minos wrote...

Bethesda is bad? I admit I have never seen bad press on Bethesda, why not ubisoft? Sure they add drm and have a habit of releasing games every year but better than every 4 years, I'm lookig forward to revelations.

I don't mind Ubisoft, I just think they are too far for Bungie to travel and probably don't have the kind of resources they are looking for. Bethesda is bad in the fact that they are similar to EA in how they deal with their games and are just a messy company in general. 

[Dionkey]

jreezy wrote...

Ace of Dawn wrote...

jreezy wrote...

I'm still not seeing the problem people have with EA. Besides, it's been confirmed in another thread that the decisions BioWare makes to their games come from BioWare.

EA had a rep of buying companys and then proceeding to dictate their every action while granting zero independence on the company's parts. Basically, grabbing IPs to make a profit. They've gotten better, but the player character in Knights of the Old Republic is still evil because he was Revan in the past, despite what he may be doing now (see what I did there?)

With Bioware apart of EA, everyone immediately goes to them for the blame, saying they're evil and the sort. Even though Bioware still has creative freedom. No one believes them. Etc etc. It's all very humurous, since EA is getting better. Now, if this were Activision, then I would be concerned.

Using Revan to make point about EA still being evil despite shifting to the Jedi side of the video game industry? Awesome! Yeah I've known about their sketchy past as well but it's in the past. On a Star Wars related note: I'm still hoping for a direct sequel to KotOR I and II.

EA is like a hill, they used to be low, then they were high, now they're descending once again. Origin, DRM, 60 digital downloads, Day 1 DLC, casualization of the market, etc. They learned their lesson and then became greedy once again.

[Gokuthegrate]

The magazine could just have a discussion on how a multiplayer component would affect the game.

[Ace of Dawn]

King Minos wrote...

Bethesda is bad? I admit I have never seen bad press on Bethesda, why not ubisoft? Sure they add drm and have a habit of releasing games every year but better than every 4 years, I'm lookig forward to revelations.

Really, a lot of publishers and developers have their evil deeds and such. At the end of the day, they are business. They need money, either to make even more money or to make even more games. We forget that, sometimes.