1170 réponses à ce sujet

[BeefoTheBold]

Cancer Puppet wrote...

BeefoTheBold wrote...

There's the fact that now, in addition to Kinect that I won't use, I'm paying for a multiplayer component that I won't use.

And, more importantly, development resources and budget that would otherwise go towards the singleplayer campaign are now going to be focused on content that is worthless to me.

Those are, of course, the logical reasons.

The more emotional reasons, which I know some people will scoff at, are that Bioware is making me feel abandoned. I know they are a company. I know that all they really care about is maximizing their profits and it is naive to feel otherwise. But damnit, they were MY company. Long before companies like Atlus or CD Projekt became among my favorites, Bioware was my gold standard for RPG goodness.

And now it just genuinely feels like they don't care about my wants and desires in a game anymore. I feel like an afterthought.

Basically it feels like all video game companies these days are going after the crowd that thought gaming was for nerds while I was growing up. And I never thought Bioware would be one of them.

Whether or not there's multiplayer, kinect, or the game is an 80 hour RPG lover's wet dream, it's still going to cost 60 bucks...

Granted. But given that I'll get ZERO playtime out of multiplayer or kinect, if the singleplayer playtime is shortened due to MP or Kinect then MY value of the game is diminished.

Using a numerical example:

Let's say that the game is 20 hours with MP and Kinect added in and it would have been 25 without those two components. Essentially, where other people will be paying $60 for 25 hours worth of entertainment, I'll now be getting less for my gaming dollar than I otherwise would have.

[burr beer]

Considering that most companies are putting online passes into their games as part of the "total cost" you're actually not doing any harm by buying it used if you have no interest in playing the multiplayer component.

[BeefoTheBold]

burr beer wrote...

Considering that most companies are putting online passes into their games as part of the "total cost" you're actually not doing any harm by buying it used if you have no interest in playing the multiplayer component.

Exactly why I will be buying it used.

Bioware wants the COD crowd so badly, feel free to go after them. I'll protest in my tiny and insignificant way by picking the game up used.

[shepskisaac]

BeefoTheBold wrote...
1. The Bioware that I grew up with can and DID say no to projects that they didn't want take on. They walked away from KOTOR2. They walked away from Neverwinter Nights 2. Saying that MMO KOTOR was all Lucas Arts' decision is a bit of a copout in my opinion.

It is not any copout. LucasArts O-W-N-S Star Wars. It's is solely up to them to decide what Star Wars games/books/comics will be released. BioWare was contracted to develop the game but they had zero say in whether it will be an MMO or not, that decision was already made by LucasArts. And even if BioWare declined, LA would go to somone else and get that MMO done. That's what they wanted.

BeefoTheBold wrote...
2. Bioware did not use to have inconsistent quality level for their releases. What they released was excellent. Period. Now? Hit or miss.

Major game releases =/= DLC. Bethesda also has a great track record reviews-wise yet their DLC is also a hit or miss. It is really new concept in the industry and both the developers and the press don't know exactly yet how to approach it.

BeefoTheBold wrote...
4/5. It's been an industry trend for some time now. Singleplayer campaigns have been getting shorter and shorter as multiplayer has become more prominent in the industry. Yes, it is conjecture on my part. But it is conjecture based on some pretty consistent trends in gaming. Adding multiplayer supposedly justifies a shorter singleplayer because the assumption by developers is that the multiplayer component adds play-time.

That happens in MP-centric games. AssCreed Brotherhood had a full-quality SP campaign with MP added. Ubisoft split developement of SP and MP between various studios so MP didn't affect the SP campaign. The MP in ME3 is almost surely being developed by BioWare Montreal, not Edmonton so the single-player won't be affected.

Modifié par IsaacShep, 06 août 2011 - 05:43 .

[Cancer Puppet]

@BeefoTheBold

As to your last point...since when is it Bioware's responsibility to apologize to forum goers for the assumptions they fervently asserted were truth? Preface your statements with things like "I believe" or "I think it probable" and you won't find yourself looking like a fool if you turn out to be wrong, nor a sore winner when your theories turn out true.

I'm paraphrasing a little something out of Benjamin Franklin's autobiography there, and it's a good read, albeit short as it's incomplete. Regardless, the lesson holds true.

Edit: I'm reffering to your last exchange with IssacShep

Modifié par Cancer Puppet, 06 août 2011 - 05:43 .

[burr beer]

BeefotheBold, you're being a little unreasonable regarding Kinect. It takes virtually nothing in terms of system resources, and they had very little (if much at all) work to put into it to get it working BECAUSE THE APIS ARE ALREADY THERE. They would have to put a lot of work into creating voice commands for the PC, PS3 and 360 if they built their own tech, and if that was the case, you would have a reasonable case for the feature taking away from dev time.

tl;dr kinect support is not affecting them. If anything, judging by the fact that they were displayed at microsoft's E3 conference, they may have gotten some extra money to put into the game by supporting it!

[Jaron Oberyn]

BeefoTheBold wrote...

burr beer wrote...

Considering that most companies are putting online passes into their games as part of the "total cost" you're actually not doing any harm by buying it used if you have no interest in playing the multiplayer component.

Exactly why I will be buying it used.

Bioware wants the COD crowd so badly, feel free to go after them. I'll protest in my tiny and insignificant way by picking the game up used.

I might do the same. I was going to pre order the game, but after seeing the ridiculous "exclusive costumes" I decided to pre order Deus Ex. Never thought of buying it used though, but seeing as they only talk with their wallets, I'd be speaking their language. 

-Polite

[BeefoTheBold]

IsaacShep wrote...

BeefoTheBold wrote...
1. The Bioware that I grew up with can and DID say no to projects that they didn't want take on. They walked away from KOTOR2. They walked away from Neverwinter Nights 2. Saying that MMO KOTOR was all Lucas Arts' decision is a bit of a copout in my opinion.

It is not any copout. LucasArts O-W-N-S Star Wars. It's is solely up to them to decide what Star Wars games/books/comics will be released. BioWare was contracted to develop the game but they had zero say in whether it will be an MMO or not, that decision was already made by LucasArts. And even if BioWare declined, LA would go to somone else and get that MMO done. That's what they wanted.

BeefoTheBold wrote...
2. Bioware did not use to have inconsistent quality level for their releases. What they released was excellent. Period. Now? Hit or miss.

Major game releases =/= DLC. Bethesda also has a great track record reviews-wise yet their DLC is also a hit or miss. It is really new concept in the industry and both the developers and the press don't know exactly yet how to approach it.

BeefoTheBold wrote...
4/5. It's been an industry trend for some time now. Singleplayer campaigns have been getting shorter and shorter as multiplayer has become more prominent in the industry. Yes, it is conjecture on my part. But it is conjecture based on some pretty consistent trends in gaming. Adding multiplayer supposedly justifies a shorter singleplayer because the assumption by developers is that the multiplayer component adds play-time.

That happens in MP-centric games. AssCreed Brotherhood had a full-quality SP campaign with MP added. Ubisoft split developement of SP and MP between various studios so MP didn't affect the SP campaign. The MP in ME3 is almost surely being developed by BioWare Montreal, not Edmonton so the single-player won't be affected.

1. You missed my point there.

I'm well aware that Lucas Arts owns Star Wars. I'm also aware that if Bioware didn't WANT to make an MMO KOTOR for Lucas Arts they would have said, "Not interested. Go find someone else." 

Just like they did when Lucas Arts tried to get Bioware to make KOTOR2 on a limited budget and truncated timeline and Lucas Arts was forced to go get Obsidian to make their half-finished sequel.

How much does it cost to make an MMO? Three times that of a traditional RPG? It's considerably more. I know that much.

2. Dragon Age 2 was a pretty bad game and WAS a major release. Dragon Age Awakenings was very buggy and had very little respect for decisions from DAO unless you played a human noble and, likewise, was a major release.

4/5. It happens in a lot of games. For every Asscreed (which you're right, had a fully developed singleplayer experience) there are quite a few others that reviewers ding for being "short" in singleplayer, largely because of MP.

Modifié par BeefoTheBold, 06 août 2011 - 05:48 .

[BeefoTheBold]

Cancer Puppet wrote...

@BeefoTheBold

As to your last point...since when is it Bioware's responsibility to apologize to forum goers for the assumptions they fervently asserted were truth? Preface your statements with things like "I believe" or "I think it probable" and you won't find yourself looking like a fool if you turn out to be wrong, nor a sore winner when your theories turn out true.

I'm paraphrasing a little something out of Benjamin Franklin's autobiography there, and it's a good read, albeit short as it's incomplete. Regardless, the lesson holds true.

Edit: I'm reffering to your last exchange with IssacShep

Apologize? No, of course not. Bioware doesn't owe any of us an apology.

Were they pretty damn careful in ALMOST outright saying "no MP" and did they go a LOOONG way towards contributing to the belief among this forum and their fanbase that ME3 wouldn't have MP? Sure did. Heck, the sticked "game features" thread has been saying for months now "confirmed no MP".

Bioware doesn't owe an apology, but they sure as heck did some clever wording to mislead their fanbase if the MP turns out to be true.

[Cancer Puppet]

You guys should try out for the debate team! Those are some very slender arguments.

Cookie for the first person to get that reference. (To be awarded on the morrow, as I'm off to bed)

[shepskisaac]

BeefoTheBold wrote...
1. You missed my point there.

I'm well aware that Lucas Arts owns Star Wars. I'm also aware that if Bioware didn't WANT to make an MMO KOTOR for Lucas Arts they would have said, "Not interested. Go find someone else." 

Just like they did when Lucas Arts tried to get Bioware to make KOTOR2 on a limited budget and truncated timeline and Lucas Arts was forced to go get Obsidian to make their half-finished sequel.

How much does it cost to make an MMO? Three times that of a traditional RPG? It's considerably more. I know that much.

Your original argument was "I don't like the decision to make the next KOTOR game an MMO." I told you BioWare was not reponsible for the decision to have next KOTOR be an MMO. It's fair if you wish they didn't work on the project at all and instead focused on something else, but that's an entirely different thing. Talking solely decision to turn Kotor 3 into an MMO, it was all LucasArts.

As for the TOR's budget, it's widely speculated EA (who took over financing part when the project became too expensive for LA) already poured way over $100 million on TOR.

BeefoTheBold wrote...
2. Dragon Age 2 was a pretty bad game and WAS a major release. Dragon Age Awakenings was very buggy and had very little respect for decisions from DAO unless you played a human noble and, likewise, was a major release.

Accidents happen, even to the best developers. Nothing I can say more about.

BeefoTheBold wrote...
4/5. It happens in a lot of games. For every Asscreed (which you're right, had a fully developed singleplayer experience) there are quite a few others that reviewers ding for being "short" in singleplayer, largely because of MP.

Yup, but again, EA's most likely taking the same approach as Ubisoft by splitting developement of SP & MP components so I don't think you should be worried. Having enough manpower is the key here and ME3 will have that.

Modifié par IsaacShep, 06 août 2011 - 05:55 .

[Cancer Puppet]

BeefoTheBold wrote...

Apologize? No, of course not. Bioware doesn't owe any of us an apology.

Were they pretty damn careful in ALMOST outright saying "no MP" and did they go a LOOONG way towards contributing to the belief among this forum and their fanbase that ME3 wouldn't have MP? Sure did. Heck, the sticked "game features" thread has been saying for months now "confirmed no MP".

Bioware doesn't owe an apology, but they sure as heck did some clever wording to mislead their fanbase if the MP turns out to be true.

I guess it just seemed very obvious to me that all their long winded explanations were a way of avoiding the need to deny MP. I don't really see the point in it though, they could have confirmed months ago and put this to bed, but I suppose it was left shrouded in vaugery as part of the ME3 marketing hype-train. 

I hate marketing...

[Cancer Puppet]

okay, goodnight.

[Slayer_22]

Did anyone actually get this magazine and find out if it has multiplayer?

[didymos1120]

Slayer_22 wrote...

Did anyone actually get this magazine and find out if it has multiplayer?

Apparently not.

[Slayer_22]

didymos1120 wrote...

Slayer_22 wrote...

Did anyone actually get this magazine and find out if it has multiplayer?

Apparently not.

Sometimes I wonder why they even bother. 

[BeefoTheBold]

IsaacShep wrote...

BeefoTheBold wrote...
1. You missed my point there.

I'm well aware that Lucas Arts owns Star Wars. I'm also aware that if Bioware didn't WANT to make an MMO KOTOR for Lucas Arts they would have said, "Not interested. Go find someone else." 

Just like they did when Lucas Arts tried to get Bioware to make KOTOR2 on a limited budget and truncated timeline and Lucas Arts was forced to go get Obsidian to make their half-finished sequel.

How much does it cost to make an MMO? Three times that of a traditional RPG? It's considerably more. I know that much.

Your original argument was "I don't like the decision to make the next KOTOR game an MMO." I told you BioWare was not reponsible for the decision to have next KOTOR be an MMO. It's fair if you wish they didn't work on the project at all and instead focused on something else, but that's an entirely different thing. Talking solely decision to turn Kotor 3 into an MMO, it was all LucasArts.

As for the TOR's budget, it's widely speculated EA (who took over financing part when the project became too expensive for LA) already poured way over $100 million on TOR.

BeefoTheBold wrote...
2. Dragon Age 2 was a pretty bad game and WAS a major release. Dragon Age Awakenings was very buggy and had very little respect for decisions from DAO unless you played a human noble and, likewise, was a major release.

Accidents happen, even to the best developers. Nothing I can say more about.

BeefoTheBold wrote...
4/5. It happens in a lot of games. For every Asscreed (which you're right, had a fully developed singleplayer experience) there are quite a few others that reviewers ding for being "short" in singleplayer, largely because of MP.

Yup, but again, EA's most likely taking the same approach as Ubisoft by splitting developement of SP & MP components so I don't think you should be worried. Having enough manpower is the key here and ME3 will have that.

1. I wonder how much of that $100M budget could have been used to make a traditional (or in my opinion REAL) RPG?

You're right though. My wording initially was poor. I should have expanded on what I meant there.

2. They didn't used to happen to Bioware. Name a pre-EA acquisition major release by Bioware that wasn't gold standard quality level. I personally can't think of any.

4/5. EAs track record is a touch more mixed than Ubisoft's.

I don't doubt that ME3 will end up still being a very good game. Hard to mess it up at this point given everything you can leverage from ME1 and ME2. But it's impossible to say whether or not it wouldn't have been even better if those additional manpower/resources given to develop the MP component were instead added into the SP component.

Ultimately I guess it comes down to your priorities. Bioware's very openly stated in the past their intention to go after a different fanbase, and their recent history suggests that their intention is to do so even if it means ticking off large portions of their existing one.

Perhaps there will be a bit of "cutting off your nose to spite your face" on my part by picking up the game used instead of new, but I DON'T like Bioware's direction and all I can do to express that is to buy the game used.

Anyway, nice talking/debating with everyone. I really appreciate the discussion. I'm off to bed now.

[Chala]

BeefoTheBold wrote...

IsaacShep wrote...

BeefoTheBold wrote...
1. You missed my point there.

I'm well aware that Lucas Arts owns Star Wars. I'm also aware that if Bioware didn't WANT to make an MMO KOTOR for Lucas Arts they would have said, "Not interested. Go find someone else." 

Just like they did when Lucas Arts tried to get Bioware to make KOTOR2 on a limited budget and truncated timeline and Lucas Arts was forced to go get Obsidian to make their half-finished sequel.

How much does it cost to make an MMO? Three times that of a traditional RPG? It's considerably more. I know that much.

Your original argument was "I don't like the decision to make the next KOTOR game an MMO." I told you BioWare was not reponsible for the decision to have next KOTOR be an MMO. It's fair if you wish they didn't work on the project at all and instead focused on something else, but that's an entirely different thing. Talking solely decision to turn Kotor 3 into an MMO, it was all LucasArts.

As for the TOR's budget, it's widely speculated EA (who took over financing part when the project became too expensive for LA) already poured way over $100 million on TOR.

BeefoTheBold wrote...
2. Dragon Age 2 was a pretty bad game and WAS a major release. Dragon Age Awakenings was very buggy and had very little respect for decisions from DAO unless you played a human noble and, likewise, was a major release.

Accidents happen, even to the best developers. Nothing I can say more about.

BeefoTheBold wrote...
4/5. It happens in a lot of games. For every Asscreed (which you're right, had a fully developed singleplayer experience) there are quite a few others that reviewers ding for being "short" in singleplayer, largely because of MP.

Yup, but again, EA's most likely taking the same approach as Ubisoft by splitting developement of SP & MP components so I don't think you should be worried. Having enough manpower is the key here and ME3 will have that.

1. I wonder how much of that $100M budget could have been used to make a traditional (or in my opinion REAL) RPG?

You're right though. My wording initially was poor. I should have expanded on what I meant there.

2. They didn't used to happen to Bioware. Name a pre-EA acquisition major release by Bioware that wasn't gold standard quality level. I personally can't think of any.

4/5. EAs track record is a touch more mixed than Ubisoft's.

I don't doubt that ME3 will end up still being a very good game. Hard to mess it up at this point given everything you can leverage from ME1 and ME2. But it's impossible to say whether or not it wouldn't have been even better if those additional manpower/resources given to develop the MP component were instead added into the SP component.

Ultimately I guess it comes down to your priorities. Bioware's very openly stated in the past their intention to go after a different fanbase, and their recent history suggests that their intention is to do so even if it means ticking off large portions of their existing one.

Perhaps there will be a bit of "cutting off your nose to spite your face" on my part by picking up the game used instead of new, but I DON'T like Bioware's direction and all I can do to express that is to buy the game used.

Anyway, nice talking/debating with everyone. I really appreciate the discussion. I'm off to bed now.

2. MDK II: It was a good (and funny) game, but it wasn't made of gold

[marshalleck]

Slayer_22 wrote...

didymos1120 wrote...

Slayer_22 wrote...

Did anyone actually get this magazine and find out if it has multiplayer?

Apparently not.

Sometimes I wonder why they even bother. 

It's a UK mag and currently it's early in UK, shops probably aren't open yet or people have yet to realize there's a new article out. 

Expect to hear more as UK wakes up

Modifié par marshalleck, 06 août 2011 - 06:14 .

[Savber100]

BeefoTheBold wrote...

1. I wonder how much of that $100M budget could have been used to make a traditional (or in my opinion REAL) RPG?

You're right though. My wording initially was poor. I should have expanded on what I meant there.

2. They didn't used to happen to Bioware. Name a pre-EA acquisition major release by Bioware that wasn't gold standard quality level. I personally can't think of any.

4/5. EAs track record is a touch more mixed than Ubisoft's.

I don't doubt that ME3 will end up still being a very good game. Hard to mess it up at this point given everything you can leverage from ME1 and ME2. But it's impossible to say whether or not it wouldn't have been even better if those additional manpower/resources given to develop the MP component were instead added into the SP component.

Ultimately I guess it comes down to your priorities. Bioware's very openly stated in the past their intention to go after a different fanbase, and their recent history suggests that their intention is to do so even if it means ticking off large portions of their existing one.

Perhaps there will be a bit of "cutting off your nose to spite your face" on my part by picking up the game used instead of new, but I DON'T like Bioware's direction and all I can do to express that is to buy the game used.

Anyway, nice talking/debating with everyone. I really appreciate the discussion. I'm off to bed now.

Wait would you feel better if the MP was being made by an entirely new team? You seem to think that EA if it didn't develop MP for ME3, it will give the extra money to the team making the SP experience. I think it's more like EA added several more million dollars to add MP AFTER they decided to make MP rather than taking a cut from the SP team's budget to scrape a mp mode. 

Also the answer to your second question is Jade Empire.  That game made Dragon Age 2 look great in my opinion. 

[Chala]

marshalleck wrote...

Slayer_22 wrote...

didymos1120 wrote...

Slayer_22 wrote...

Did anyone actually get this magazine and find out if it has multiplayer?

Apparently not.

Sometimes I wonder why they even bother. 

It's a UK mag and currently it's early in UK, shops probably aren't open yet or people have yet to realize there's a new article out. 

Expect to hear more as UK wakes up

I'll be honest guys...
I'm pretty excited to know what's inside that article...
And I sure that I'm not the only one here .

[shepskisaac]

BeefoTheBold wrote...
1. I wonder how much of that $100M budget could have been used to make a traditional (or in my opinion REAL) RPG?

You're right though. My wording initially was poor. I should have expanded on what I meant there.

Maybe about 2-3, if we're talking AAA-quality. The point is, EA would've gotten some kind of an MMO in developement one way or another. Activision is making too much money on WOW for other publishers to no be tempted, and the fact is EA bought BioWare primarly because of TOR.

BeefoTheBold wrote...
2. They didn't used to happen to Bioware. Name a pre-EA acquisition major release by Bioware that wasn't gold standard quality level. I personally can't think of any.

The point it, sooner or later everyone makes mistakes. The greatest movie directors eventually make at least one subpar movie. Pixar had a 100% stellar track record and then Cars 2 came. It would've happened to BioWare sooner or later. Granted, EA made sure it would happen sonner by forcing DA2 to be developed in a little over a year, but still. You can't expect 100% perfection forever.

BeefoTheBold wrote...
4/5. EAs track record is a touch more mixed than Ubisoft's.

I don't doubt that ME3 will end up still being a very good game. Hard to mess it up at this point given everything you can leverage from ME1 and ME2. But it's impossible to say whether or not it wouldn't have been even better if those additional manpower/resources given to develop the MP component were instead added into the SP component.

BioWare Montreal most likely wouldn't even touch ME3 if there wasn't an MP, so as much as I despise MP taking away resources from SP, in this case (as ti was with AssCreed Bro) I really don't think it's happening.

[NotSoIllusiveMan]

Downloading XBOX World Issue...

[sheridanmovieguy]

NotSoIllusiveMan wrote...

Downloading XBOX World Issue...

Expecting a full report very soon.

[didymos1120]

El_Chala_Legalizado wrote...

I'll be honest guys...
I'm pretty excited to know what's inside that article...
And I sure that I'm not the only one here .

While I'm not exactly....sanguine...about teh MP in mah ME3, the massive, forum-wide, epic conniption fit of epic epicness is going to go a loooooooooooong way towards making up for any potential disappointment.  It will be glorious!