152 réponses à ce sujet

[spikoro5698]

Phaelducan wrote...

That strikes me as both selfish and myopic. So if ten people want something in a game, which won't affect you at all (most likely), you would rather the developer leave it out even if it takes no resources away from what you already like?

No offense, but I hope Bioware realizes that supporting that paradigm will equal crappy sales and a failed company if allowed to continue.

Catering to the COD kiddies and not taking resources for a uncalled for feature that no body wants will make bioware fail as a company? Pfffft ya ok whatever keep thinking that.

[Il Divo]

Phaelducan wrote...

That strikes me as both selfish and myopic.

It is selfish, but I'm paying Bioware so that I can be entertained, not for other people's entertainment. Pay for my copy of Mass Effect 3 and I'll gladly support multiplayer.

So if ten people want something in a game, which won't affect you at all (most likely), you would rather the developer leave it out even if it takes no resources away from what you already like?

Again, it is not "most likely". You have absolutely no evidence to back up that claim. Show me as a general rule that gaming companies allocate entirely separate budgets for multiplayer. As Soda mentioned, at best I am unaffected. At worst, I lose game content. I don't care about other people's entertainment. They can argue for the features they want. It's not my responsibility.

Modifié par Il Divo, 18 août 2011 - 07:23 .

[Phaelducan]

You have no evidence either, Il Divo, you are simply assuming the worst (thinking error). Given the best cast scenario (in your example that you are unaffected), if you don't lose anything but another 10 people gain, what's the problem?

Spikoro, you suck at trolling, and you suck at logic, but here goes anyway. COD has 30 million dedicated players. Mass Effect doesn't. Do you think EA wishes that Mass Effect had 30 million players? Lets go ahead and assume yes. Do you also assume that all COD players are children with no discernible intelligence? Lets go ahead and assume no. Also, lets pretend that in my last 10 posts on the subject, I specifically mentioned NOT taking resources away from single player. If that were true (and it is) then can we pretend that mentioning Bioware taking resources away from single player is pointless, unnecessary, and insults us both? I already addressed that.

[GreenSoda]

Phaelducan wrote...

You have no evidence either, Il Divo, you are simply assuming the worst (thinking error). Given the best cast scenario (in your example that you are unaffected), if you don't lose anything but another 10 people gain, what's the problem?
...

The problem is that you can't gurantee this "best case" scenario and, really, it doesn't look all that likely.

[Il Divo]

Phaelducan wrote...

You have no evidence either, Il Divo, you are simply assuming the worst (thinking error).

Given the best cast scenario (in your example that you are unaffected), if you don't lose anything but another 10 people gain, what's the problem?

That is exactly the point. I have absolutely no idea how Bioware is going to allocate multiplayer funds.

Scenario # 1: Bioware uses a separate budget for multiplayer.

Scenario # 2: Bioware is given a total budget, part of which they use to develop multiplayer.

In scenario # 1, I break even. In scenario # 2, I lose content.

Given that I don't know which method they are employing, it is in my interests to argue against multiplayer. I'm going to argue for whatever gets me the maximum entertainment for my investment.

Modifié par Il Divo, 18 août 2011 - 07:38 .

[Phaelducan]

Why put best case in quotes? It's his scenario, not mine. Furthermore, why would I even try to guarantee anything? I merely hold for the possibility that Bioware could work on implementing a multiplayer component without gutting single player. Other AAA games have done it with great success, so to dismiss out of hand that Bioware can't do the same is bizarre to me.

Unless you already think Bioware sucks, which is fine in that it's your prerogative... but why bother coming here to argue about it if you have no hope to begin with?

[Il Divo]

Phaelducan wrote...

Why put best case in quotes? It's his scenario, not mine. Furthermore, why would I even try to guarantee anything? I merely hold for the possibility that Bioware could work on implementing a multiplayer component without gutting single player. Other AAA games have done it with great success, so to dismiss out of hand that Bioware can't do the same is bizarre to me.

Unless you already think Bioware sucks, which is fine in that it's your prerogative... but why bother coming here to argue about it if you have no hope to begin with?

Why does he have to think Bioware sucks?

[Phaelducan]

Il Divo wrote...

Phaelducan wrote...

You have no evidence either, Il Divo, you are simply assuming the worst (thinking error).

Given the best cast scenario (in your example that you are unaffected), if you don't lose anything but another 10 people gain, what's the problem?

That is exactly the point. I have absolutely no idea how Bioware is going to allocate multiplayer funds.

Scenario # 1: Bioware uses a separate budget for multiplayer.

Scenario # 2: Bioware is given a total budget, part of which they use to develop multiplayer.

In scenario # 1, I break even. In scenario # 2, I lose content.

Given that I don't know which method they are employing, it is in my interests to argue against multiplayer. I'm going to argue for whatever gets me the maximum entertainment for my investment.

I understand your argument, I just disagree with it's merits. In scenario 1, breaking even should allow you to accept the possibility for the company to profit and grow and expand based on a business paradigm that doesn't hinder you at all but does cater to millions of other gamers.

Scenario 2 gives you less of a game then you wanted, so of course you would be upset.

What bothers me is that you are assuming that #2 is fact, while dismissing #1 as plausible. I want Bioware to succeed, and moreso EA (I hate saying that) because I hate Activision and COD and everything vaguely connected to Bobby Kotick. As such, if Bioware can implement multiplayer and another million people buy the game ("COD kiddies or not" /dismiss), then that is only a good thing provided that resources aren't taken from the single player content (which I again point to other AAA titles in the industry which have done this with profound success).

[Phaelducan]

Il Divo wrote...

Phaelducan wrote...

Why put best case in quotes? It's his scenario, not mine. Furthermore, why would I even try to guarantee anything? I merely hold for the possibility that Bioware could work on implementing a multiplayer component without gutting single player. Other AAA games have done it with great success, so to dismiss out of hand that Bioware can't do the same is bizarre to me.

Unless you already think Bioware sucks, which is fine in that it's your prerogative... but why bother coming here to argue about it if you have no hope to begin with?

Why does he have to think Bioware sucks?

I interpreted his post as strongly indicating that Bioware was incapable of doing something other AAA devs have been able to do. (develop multiplayer content without ruining single player).
 

[Omega-202]

Il Divo wrote...
That is exactly the point. I have absolutely no idea how Bioware is going to allocate multiplayer funds.

Scenario # 1: Bioware uses a separate budget for multiplayer.

Scenario # 2: Bioware is given a total budget, part of which they use to develop multiplayer.

In scenario # 1, I break even. In scenario # 2, I lose content.

Given that I don't know which method they are employing, it is in my interests to argue against multiplayer. I'm going to argue for whatever gets me the maximum entertainment for my investment.

Scenario #2 is an absurdity.  No AAA game company operates like that.  Even going back to Halo:CE's development, there was a separate team working on the project from the get-go and it was done in relative isolation from the rest of the game's development.  

If BioWare was either told that they'd need to include MP or they decided it on their own, extra funds, time and staff would be allocated to the project.  They have the backing of EA and 4 (5 if you include the fact that they now own Mythic) studios to draw from.  Hell, they already bumped back the release date by 3 months.  Its not a zero-sum game.  Changes can be made to accomodate extra development time and resources.  

If the question in the end is not a loss of content, but a release pushback AND YOU'RE STILL carrying on with your childish nay-saying, then as said before, you're just selfish.  

[GreenSoda]

Phaelducan wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

Phaelducan wrote...

Why put best case in quotes? It's his scenario, not mine. Furthermore, why would I even try to guarantee anything? I merely hold for the possibility that Bioware could work on implementing a multiplayer component without gutting single player. Other AAA games have done it with great success, so to dismiss out of hand that Bioware can't do the same is bizarre to me.

Unless you already think Bioware sucks, which is fine in that it's your prerogative... but why bother coming here to argue about it if you have no hope to begin with?

Why does he have to think Bioware sucks?

I interpreted his post as strongly indicating that Bioware was incapable of doing something other AAA devs have been able to do. (develop multiplayer content without ruining single player).
 

I never said mp would ruin sp. I said implementing mp might lead to sacrificing parts of the sp-campaign. A risk you don't seem to mind taking.

I simlpy don't agree with that.

[spikoro5698]

Phaelducan wrote...

You have no evidence either, Il Divo, you are simply assuming the worst (thinking error). Given the best cast scenario (in your example that you are unaffected), if you don't lose anything but another 10 people gain, what's the problem?

Spikoro, you suck at trolling, and you suck at logic, but here goes anyway. COD has 30 million dedicated players. Mass Effect doesn't. Do you think EA wishes that Mass Effect had 30 million players? Lets go ahead and assume yes. Do you also assume that all COD players are children with no discernible intelligence? Lets go ahead and assume no. Also, lets pretend that in my last 10 posts on the subject, I specifically mentioned NOT taking resources away from single player. If that were true (and it is) then can we pretend that mentioning Bioware taking resources away from single player is pointless, unnecessary, and insults us both? I already addressed that.

So because i say something you disagree with im trolling? ya, i think YOU "suck at logic" And addressing something that MIGHT ACTUALLY BE TRUE (like it taking away from the single player) is "pointless unnecessary and insults us both?" WOW i have to agree with the big bad wolf on this one this forum has A LOT of stupid, but my god you just take the cake on that one. Just because you mentioned something doesn't mean that its fact get over yourself, "If t were true (and it is)" YA because you totally know that as a fact right? LOL your not half as smart as you think you are. You dont know that for a fact and honestly your whole comment there sounded like you were talking out of you ass (and you were)

[Phaelducan]

It might not even be a risk, though. What I'm saying is that with the way AAA development frequently works, it could be an entirely different set of resources that have nothing to do with the single player game.

As such, the entire argument of "it could cut into my single-player RPG" is entirely likely to be 100% fallacious. Again.... if it's zero risk.... what's the problem?

[Il Divo]

Omega-202 wrote...

Scenario #2 is an absurdity.  No AAA game company operates like that.  Even going back to Halo:CE's development, there was a separate team working on the project from the get-go and it was done in relative isolation from the rest of the game's development.  

If BioWare was either told that they'd need to include MP or they decided it on their own, extra funds, time and staff would be allocated to the project.  They have the backing of EA and 4 (5 if you include the fact that they now own Mythic) studios to draw from.  Hell, they already bumped back the release date by 3 months.  Its not a zero-sum game.  Changes can be made to accomodate extra development time and resources. 

 

Does a separate team mean "separate budget"? If not, then we are in scenario # 2. Links to multiplayer gaming policy are appreciated.

If the question in the end is not a loss of content, but a release pushback AND YOU'RE STILL carrying on with your childish nay-saying, then as said before, you're just selfish.  

Depends on the release pushpack. But I find it interesting that you consider me childish. I simply don't care about anyone else's enjoyment (so yes, selfish) and I don't see why that's a problem. You argue for what features you want. I argue for what features I don't want. It's a simple concept.

[Il Divo]

Phaelducan wrote...

It might not even be a risk, though. What I'm saying is that with the way AAA development frequently works, it could be an entirely different set of resources that have nothing to do with the single player game.

As such, the entire argument of "it could cut into my single-player RPG" is entirely likely to be 100% fallacious. Again.... if it's zero risk.... what's the problem?

I doubt you're ever going to get it, but I'll try one last time.

As long as you have to use the term 'if', you have indicated the possibility that your scenario is false, which is the problem. No multiplayer means single player is unaffected. Multiplayer means single player might be affected. I don't want that, so I argue against multiplayer. It's not complicated. No matter what, by arguing against multiplayer, I don't lose.

Modifié par Il Divo, 18 août 2011 - 08:06 .

[spikoro5698]

Phaelducan wrote...

It might not even be a risk, though. What I'm saying is that with the way AAA development frequently works, it could be an entirely different set of resources that have nothing to do with the single player game.

As such, the entire argument of "it could cut into my single-player RPG" is entirely likely to be 100% fallacious. Again.... if it's zero risk.... what's the problem?

If its ZERO risk theres no problem the problem is since you seem to think your SOOOOO smart you take the THEROY that everything would be just fine and that the single player would not be affected AT ALL which is a wishful fantasy at best and turn it into a absolute fact that, that WOULD happen and its "100%" guaranteed to happen which is false, you could make your self seem a little less ignorant by at least Acknowledge the fact that it very well could take away from the single player.

[Phaelducan]

Sigh, we are now at /facepalm status.

Dude, Il Divo, we don't need to link to other games to show you that you are basing your fears on a phantom. IF they decide to implement multiplayer, it will not be at the expense of single player time or money or manpower. It...just...won't. There is no "if." I used the term if as a predicate for explaining the two polar opposites (either more resources or the same resources). It's not a what-if, it's an accepted-if. IF there are additional resources (again, not a possibility, but an allowed certainty) then what is the problem? There, last time I'm explaining it.

If you want to keep clinging to that argument, fine, I'm done trying to reason with you. Just realize that your entire point is essentially the equivalent of "fine, then I'm taking my ball home."

[spikoro5698]

Il Divo wrote...

Phaelducan wrote...

It might not even be a risk, though. What I'm saying is that with the way AAA development frequently works, it could be an entirely different set of resources that have nothing to do with the single player game.

As such, the entire argument of "it could cut into my single-player RPG" is entirely likely to be 100% fallacious. Again.... if it's zero risk.... what's the problem?

I doubt you're ever going to get it, but I'll try one last time.

As long as you have to use the term 'if', you have indicated the possibility that your scenario is false, which is the problem. No multiplayer means single player is unaffected. Multiplayer means single player might be affected. I don't want that, so I argue against multiplayer. It's not complicated. No matter what, by arguing against multiplayer, I don't lose.

Stop trying to reason with her using logic its been like 2 pages and she STILL cant get it through her head... Her IQ is simply to low.

[GreenSoda]

spikoro5698 wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

I doubt you're ever going to get it, but I'll try one last time.

As long as you have to use the term 'if', you have indicated the possibility that your scenario is false, which is the problem. No multiplayer means single player is unaffected. Multiplayer means single player might be affected. I don't want that, so I argue against multiplayer. It's not complicated. No matter what, by arguing against multiplayer, I don't lose.

Stop trying to reason with her using logic its been like 2 pages and she STILL cant get it through her head... Her IQ is simply to low.

Personal insults don't necessarly make you look smarter, though.

[Il Divo]

Phaelducan wrote...

Sigh, we are now at /facepalm status.

Dude, Il Divo, we don't need to link to other games to show you that you are basing your fears on a phantom. IF they decide to implement multiplayer, it will not be at the expense of single player time or money or manpower. It...just...won't. There is no "if." I used the term if as a predicate for explaining the two polar opposites (either more resources or the same resources). It's not a what-if, it's an accepted-if. IF there are additional resources (again, not a possibility, but an allowed certainty) then what is the problem? There, last time I'm explaining it.

Yes, you do. You're basing your argument around this idea. My argument is purposely based around not knowing which possibility is true. Link me Halo. Link me Gears of War. Call of Duty, etc. Without evidence, your argument is equally a phantom. And no, Ubisoft alone will not serve.

Modifié par Il Divo, 18 août 2011 - 08:13 .

[Phaelducan]

spikoro5698 wrote...

Phaelducan wrote...

It might not even be a risk, though. What I'm saying is that with the way AAA development frequently works, it could be an entirely different set of resources that have nothing to do with the single player game.

As such, the entire argument of "it could cut into my single-player RPG" is entirely likely to be 100% fallacious. Again.... if it's zero risk.... what's the problem?

If its ZERO risk theres no problem the problem is since you seem to think your SOOOOO smart you take the THEROY that everything would be just fine and that the single player would not be affected AT ALL which is a wishful fantasy at best and turn it into a absolute fact that, that WOULD happen and its "100%" guaranteed to happen which is false, you could make your self seem a little less ignorant by at least Acknowledge the fact that it very well could take away from the single player.

Guy, the adults are speaking. Go troll a pokemon thread. The logic is here, it's sound, and I'm done explaining it to you.

[Lunatic LK47]

Omega-202 wrote...

Scenario #2 is an absurdity.  No AAA game company operates like that.  Even going back to Halo:CE's development, there was a separate team working on the project from the get-go and it was done in relative isolation from the rest of the game's development. 

Uh, for all of the focus on X-Box Live and whatnot, Halo 3's campaign was outright mediocre up to the point we had glitches where random Space Zombies became invincible FOR NO REASON.

Modifié par Lunatic LK47, 18 août 2011 - 08:24 .

[Cancer Puppet]

Il Divo wrote...

Phaelducan wrote...

That strikes me as both selfish and myopic.

It is selfish, but I'm paying Bioware so that I can be entertained, not for other people's entertainment. Pay for my copy of Mass Effect 3 and I'll gladly support multiplayer.

So if ten people want something in a game, which won't affect you at all (most likely), you would rather the developer leave it out even if it takes no resources away from what you already like?

Again, it is not "most likely". You have absolutely no evidence to back up that claim. Show me as a general rule that gaming companies allocate entirely separate budgets for multiplayer. As Soda mentioned, at best I am unaffected. At worst, I lose game content. I don't care about other people's entertainment. They can argue for the features they want. It's not my responsibility.

Forgive me, but the "other peoples' entertainment" portion of your argument is, imo, totally absurd. People do not play multiplayer games for the purpose of entertaining others. Co-operative play is, by it's very nature, meant to enhance the gaming experience by allowing people to work toward a common goal with their friends. Also, more and more games ratchet up the difficulty during co-op play to offer a consistently challenging experience, regardless of the number of players.

If you preffer playing games solo, just say so. Admitting to having a selfish viewpoint doesn't add any more validity to your argument though.

-polite

Modifié par Cancer Puppet, 18 août 2011 - 08:25 .

[spikoro5698]

Phaelducan wrote...

Sigh, we are now at /facepalm status.

Dude, Il Divo, we don't need to link to other games to show you that you are basing your fears on a phantom. IF they decide to implement multiplayer, it will not be at the expense of single player time or money or manpower. It...just...won't. There is no "if." I used the term if as a predicate for explaining the two polar opposites (either more resources or the same resources). It's not a what-if, it's an accepted-if. IF there are additional resources (again, not a possibility, but an allowed certainty) then what is the problem? There, last time I'm explaining it.

If you want to keep clinging to that argument, fine, I'm done trying to reason with you. Just realize that your entire point is essentially the equivalent of "fine, then I'm taking my ball home."

You just dont get it do you? I'll put it in caps so that maybe even you can understand it 

YOU-DONT-KNOW-FOR-A-FACT-THAT-MULTIPLAYER-WOULD-NOT-TAKE-AWAY-FROM-THE-SINGLEPLAYER

Your making false assumptions and counting them as fact which is... well... ignorant... and stupid quite honestly.

Bioshock (singleplayer only) metacritic: 96
Bioshock 2 (multiplayer added) metacritic: 88

Halo CE (singleplayer only) metacritic: 98
Halo 2 (multiplayer added) metacritic: 95
Halo 3 (heavier focus on multiplayer) metacritic: 94
Halo 3 ODST (heavier focus on multiplayer) metacritic: 84
          (entire disk dedicated to multiplayer with short singleplayer)
Halo reach (heavier focus on multiplayer metacritic: 91

And how many people are REALLY player dead space 2's multiplayer right now?
Exactly
how many people are really playing Assassins creed brotherhood's multiplayer right now?
Exactly

Plus ever since halo got multiplayer the single player has SUCKED compared to the first one halo 3, OSDT, reach boring dull campaigns but HEAVY focus on multiplayer

[spikoro5698]

Phaelducan wrote...

spikoro5698 wrote...

Phaelducan wrote...

It might not even be a risk, though. What I'm saying is that with the way AAA development frequently works, it could be an entirely different set of resources that have nothing to do with the single player game.

As such, the entire argument of "it could cut into my single-player RPG" is entirely likely to be 100% fallacious. Again.... if it's zero risk.... what's the problem?

If its ZERO risk theres no problem the problem is since you seem to think your SOOOOO smart you take the THEROY that everything would be just fine and that the single player would not be affected AT ALL which is a wishful fantasy at best and turn it into a absolute fact that, that WOULD happen and its "100%" guaranteed to happen which is false, you could make your self seem a little less ignorant by at least Acknowledge the fact that it very well could take away from the single player.

Guy, the adults are speaking. Go troll a pokemon thread. The logic is here, it's sound, and I'm done explaining it to you.

For the last time, im not trolling get over yourself and accept the facts. And its funny because im probably older than you