991 réponses à ce sujet

[RamirezWolfen]

DarkDragon777 wrote...

Oh well, if this is true, you know what this means. Future DA games are probably going to be multiplayer too.

I think that would be an improvement for the DA series.

[Leonia]

slimgrin wrote...

leonia42 wrote...

Wait, ME1 had sandbox elements? Are we on the same planet any more?

Of course it did. the planets were sandbox.

Your definition of sandbox is intriguing. Also, it is wrong.

Pro-tip: If you can't build anything in the sandbox, then all you have is sand.

Modifié par leonia42, 10 octobre 2011 - 03:02 .

[Valikdu]

Pink_Pyro wrote...

What about the gaping flaws in ME 1? Blame it on consoles?

Yes. Consoles are inferior.

[DaringMoosejaw]

unfringed wrote...

DaringMoosejaw wrote...

unfringed wrote...

ME2 was a mess from a storytelling perspective. Everything that made ME1 great was ditched for "streamlined gameplay". "Making decisions that count" meant you get an email saying thanks.

Bioware promised "ME3 will focus on story".

HEY GUIES WE HAVE OMNI TOOL BLADES. HEY GUIES YOU CAN SNIPE THE PILOT OF SOME MECHS. HEY GUIES WE HAVE MULTIPLAYER NOW.

It's not irrational to suspect that the downgrade from ME1 in ME2 will continue in ME3 when everything, from the advertising to the gameplay, suggests that all they're really concerned with is attracting cowwadooty fans with multiplayer and combat gimmicks.

What did we lose from ME1 to ME2? A bunch of tiers of relatively worthless skills where each point raised your armor or damage by 2%? 'Exploration' that involved slowly climbing jagged cliffs at 85 degree angles where the only difference between them were the color scheme, the skybox and whether it was the stock warehouse, the stock bunker or the stock mine? An inventory system that gave you the 'choice' of having the exact same armor and guns as everyone else where 98% of the crap you picked up was IMMEDIATELY sold to a vendor or turned into omni-gel, which was also rendered useless when you easily maxed out your credits and omni-gel?

I call that polishing, not losing what made ME1 great.

Polishing doesn't mean COMPLETELY removing all semblance of exploration. Polishing doesn't mean reducing the character to 5 skills, 4 of which you can completely max.

You REALLY believe ditching EVERY sandbox element of ME1 was a good idea, simply because you didn't like the Mako?

The Mako wasn't the problem, despite popular opinion, it was the level design. I liked the story missions just fine with the Mako, and the difference between them is the story missions were linear and thus were actually unique instead of the almost randomized unexplored worlds. The exploration aspect certainly had potential, but I'm not going to miss it very much.

As for the skills, they may be less than in ME1 but their effects are far greater and each rank has way more meaning than ME1's.

[Azbeszt]

zot arguments are stupid.

What are zot arguments?

[upsettingshorts]

DarkDragon777 wrote...

LPPrince wrote...

DarkDragon777 wrote...

Hmm, so far a lot have people have been reacting negatively on the gaming blogs that posted the news.

As if that's any surprise. Like I said, confusion, apprehension, anger, it'll all be felt.

Those people who've been looking at Bioware differently than before? This is not more fuel to the fire, this is like drowning a forest in napalm.

Yes, and I'm one of those people. I am genuinely upset about this, ecause this gives huge implications about their future as a gaming company.

You are both full of yourselves.

Sweeping conclusions require overwhelming evidence. 

"There is likely some kind of multiplayer in Mass Effect 3" is not overwhelming evidence of anything, even its own existence. 

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 10 octobre 2011 - 03:03 .

[DarkDragon777]

Gorosaur wrote...

DarkDragon777 wrote...

Oh well, if this is true, you know what this means. Future DA games are probably going to be multiplayer too.

Doubt it. ME is a little more suited to being multiplayer than DA

Really, because I read a few articles on Google a while back that said, "Bioware stated that they would love to incorporate multiplayer in future Dragon Age games".

[Pink_Pyro]

What implication? Branching out from traditional fantasy RPGs didn't hurt BW. Unless you're one of those people.

[slimgrin]

DuckSoup wrote...

Pink_Pyro wrote...

Youre still here Duck?

I am. Unbelievable really given the circumstances. I don't know why I do it.

Oh wait, yes I do... *looks accusingly at some of you*

So the duck likes multiplayer...

[AlphaJarmel]

leonia42 wrote...

I'm saying it again: BIOWARE. MONTREAL. This has been in development for quite some time without cutting into the resources of ME3.

We don't know that.  While Montreal certainly has been playing a role, we don't know how much resources they took up.  We have no clue.

[MGIII]

Xewaka wrote...

MGIII wrote...

RamirezWolfen wrote...
Priestly locked the other thread saying "rumor."

He also gave this thread his blessing citing the same "rumor." In days passed, multiplayer as a subject entirely was grounds for locking, so the fact that they're allowing a dedicated thread for it now tells you all you need to know.

The community manager is tired of chasing threads to lock and decided to instead redirect all the derpiness to a thread he can safely ignore?

Nah, because he had the mods on notice to lock all threads discussing multiplayer.

Obviously that rule doesn't apply now because it's a legitimate rumor of a feature waiting to be unveiled.

[unfringed]

Personality Disorder wrote...

unfringed wrote...

Personality Disorder wrote...

You know, Bioware, it is not my place or even right to tell you what to do with your IPs and franchises. You want multiplayer in Mass Effect - fine, you want Dragon Age to develop in a new direction - whatever. None of us really have a say in this, nor should we.

Of course we should have a say in it. At least, we should have a say in it if Bioware wants to maintain some shred of their already tattered reputation and wants to keep its fans.

They're not artists. They're producers. They answer to consumers, NOT the other way around.

I'm not sure about that. The things we can change are the little ones. The really big decisions - like a new artstyle or the inclusion of multiplayer will not be altered because of our opinions here. 
If they don't want to make the games I'm willing to play - who am I to  blame them or demand they do otherwise?
I just move on. That's how it works. 

"Who am I to blame them" is the wrong question -- the correct question is "who are they to be immune to blame?".

Again, they are not making these games out of the goodness of their heart. This isn't your dear old aunt Margret knitting you an ugly sweater. Sure, they hold executive power over their franchises, but that doesn't mean fans and consumers should sit down and take it when they take a franchise the fans are invested in into a totally different venue, completely contrary to what the fans have stated that they wanted.

[Leonia]

AlphaJarmel wrote...

leonia42 wrote...

I'm saying it again: BIOWARE. MONTREAL. This has been in development for quite some time without cutting into the resources of ME3.

We don't know that.  While Montreal certainly has been playing a role, we don't know how much resources they took up.  We have no clue.

So you guys would rather assume the worse instead of the better of the possible outcomes?

[Gorosaur]

DarkDragon777 wrote...

Gorosaur wrote...

DarkDragon777 wrote...

Oh well, if this is true, you know what this means. Future DA games are probably going to be multiplayer too.

Doubt it. ME is a little more suited to being multiplayer than DA

Really, because I read a few articles on Google a while back that said, "Bioware stated that they would love to incorporate multiplayer in future Dragon Age games".

I read a few articles in google a while back that said that aliens replaced President Bush during his second term.

[roflchoppaz]

leonia42 wrote...

slimgrin wrote...

leonia42 wrote...

Wait, ME1 had sandbox elements? Are we on the same planet any more?

Of course it did. the planets were sandbox.

Your definition of sandbox is intriguing. Also, it is wrong.

Pro-tip: If you can't build anything in the sandbox, then all you have is sand.

All you have is a box, actually.

You have to use your... imagination!

[upsettingshorts]

Azbeszt wrote...

zot arguments are stupid.

What are zot arguments?

Any that can be summarized with, "I don't like this because it is potentially robbing resources from single player."

It's dumb because no one here knows how many zots (resources) exist, how BioWare distributes them, if BioWare would have had them in the first place, etc.  

It's essentially an argument that implicitly acknowledges a level of ignorance of the facts at hand that is so comprehensive as to make anything the poster says wildly hypothetical speculation, yet people take the conclusions drawn so seriously as to prejudice themselves against whatever feature raises their ire.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 10 octobre 2011 - 03:06 .

[RocketManSR2]

Azbeszt wrote...

Pink_Pyro wrote...

Actually the modern FPS fans are as bad as traditional RPG elitists. ME 1 had alien strippers and big explosions too.

I like them both. Am I double bad?

Yes. j/k So do I.

[frustratemyself]

unfringed wrote...

Polishing doesn't mean COMPLETELY removing all semblance of exploration. Polishing doesn't mean reducing the character to 5 skills, 4 of which you can completely max.

You REALLY believe ditching EVERY sandbox element of ME1 was a good idea, simply because you didn't like the Mako?

Did you get your games mixed up? How is trying to drive a vehicle up an unscalable mountain exploring? How does doing the same driving circuit and visiting the same warehouse on every planet make it sandbox?

The mako was sh*te, so was hauling around 792 sniper rifles in your backpack.

Modifié par frustratemyself, 10 octobre 2011 - 03:05 .

[ItsPhilsTime]

Also Announced you'll be traveling down to hell to defeat Diablo!!!!!

[Azbeszt]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Azbeszt wrote...

zot arguments are stupid.

What are zot arguments?

Any that can be summarized with, "I don't like this because it is potentailly robbing resources from single player."

It's dumb because no one here knows how many zots (resources) exist, how BioWare distributes them, if BioWare would have had them in the first place, etc.  

It's essentially an argument that implicitly acknowledges a level of ignorance of the facts at hand that is so comprehensive as to make anything the poster says wildly hypothetical speculation, yet people take the conclusions drawn so seriously as to prejudice themselves against whatever feature raises their ire.

Thanks!

[Pink_Pyro]

Hard to imagine when driving the Mako made me fall asleep. Even Oblivion wasn't this bad.

[LPPrince]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

DarkDragon777 wrote...

LPPrince wrote...

DarkDragon777 wrote...

Hmm, so far a lot have people have been reacting negatively on the gaming blogs that posted the news.

As if that's any surprise. Like I said, confusion, apprehension, anger, it'll all be felt.

Those people who've been looking at Bioware differently than before? This is not more fuel to the fire, this is like drowning a forest in napalm.

Yes, and I'm one of those people. I am genuinely upset about this, ecause this gives huge implications about their future as a gaming company.

You are both full of yourselves.

Sweeping conclusions require overwhelming evidence. 

"There is likely some kind of multiplayer in Mass Effect 3" is not overwhelming evidence of anything, even its own existence. 

Relax dude. Hell I even said that I could quite possibly be wrong about everything. There's actually a high chance of that, if its not already obvious. Without details, its all supposition.

[mopotter]

JukeFrog wrote...

Let's face it, the real reason ppl are angry about MP is because they know that they're going to get owned by me.

Won't play it.  If they include it the way they did in NWN,  I'll just ignore it.  If it affects the game I play,  then I'll get pissed and they can sell future games that include this to  you instead of me.  

[DOCTOR CHA0TICA]

No Multiplayer in Mass Effect... GTA did it...and imo it ruined what is, essentially, a SINGLE PLAYER game.... I love both Mass Effect games, each has its own strengths and weaknesses, but all the same, they are brilliant games. I was hoping 3 would be a good mix of both, but like I said, MP will ruin it...unless of course, Bioware do it in a liberal way, and not add loads of pointless modes which impact on the single player experience in any shape or form.... suppose we'll have to wait until march.... 147days to go!!!