991 réponses à ce sujet

[Dhiro]

leonia42 wrote...

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?

Because of the multiplayer Bioware had to cut all straight romances, meaning all Shepards will have to be gay. You've heard it here first!

[slimgrin]

roflchoppaz wrote...

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!

I never said it was good sandbox gameplay, but it fits the definition just fine.

Modifié par slimgrin, 10 octobre 2011 - 03:07 .

[AlphaJarmel]

leonia42 wrote...

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?

I would rather assume nothing.  I agree that Montreal has almost certainly been doing the bulk of the work, we don't know what the multiplayer consists of, how it works, whether it's separate from the campaign, or even if it comes with the retail disk(one rumor was that the multiplayer was DLC).

[unfringed]

frustratemyself wrote...

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.

Compared to the linear maps in ME2, where doors magically locked behind you and enemies spawned out of thin air to force you into prepackaged encounters, ME1 was Morrowind.

[Ghost Lightning]

*sigh* Okay then. I just hope that the main game isn't lacking cause of this. And either way, any fault I find in the single player I'll probably blame on the fact that they could have made it better had they not wasted time on the MP (even though that might not be true, I'll still do it)

[Pink_Pyro]

Worse than that, MP means a reduction in side quests, dialogue options and only two polarizing endings

[Chala]

RamirezWolfen wrote...

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.

That's true, I mean, after DAII... It's possible to get any worse than that?

[C9316]

I've gone past the stage of anger at this news and now I am at the second stage: Spiraling Depression. Thanks a lot Bioware...

[Ohei]

didymos1120 wrote...

Ohei wrote...

Hell, even if a 20 % goes to multiplayer, it means the single player could've been improved even MORE.

Jesus Christ, this line of argument needs to die.  OK, look: that hypothetical 20%?  Without MP, it could've also ended up being allocated to some other title entirely, and very possibly not even one being developed by Bioware.

I'm talking budget here. They don't have a limitless budget or even console capacity when developing a game. If you mean that the budget ''leftovers'' could've transferred to the development of another game, honestly it makes no sense to me whatsoever. You have a budget, you work with it if it means you can improve things. Now, if they decide to do it is beyond us.

It's not rocket science pal. If you focus 20% on something and 80% on another thing, results will probably vary if you focus 100% on the other thing. Sometimes more noticeably than other times. Maybe MP will be awesome, and the SP experience just as awesome. We do not know that, and until we get more information we will not know. But we will also not know if the SP would've been the exact same without the MP, and whether or not it will be a positive thing, considering how not many fans embrace the idea of MP in a ME game.

This is all.

[upsettingshorts]

LPPrince wrote...

 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.

Then why get worked up at all?  If I'm perterbed, it's got nothing actually to do with multiplayer - but the same damn annoying BSN arguments being brought up again.

My issue isn't actually with the issue, but how people are handling it.  As usual.

LPPrince wrote...

Relax dude.

That's good advice for everyone. 

[DarkDragon777]

Pink_Pyro wrote...

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

Um, I really love traditional RPG's and some of Bioware's modern RPG's. But when (if) they start incorporating multiplayer, using terrible advertising, and attempting to weasel in more hack and slash and shooter with every game they make, then I'm insulted.


It's hard enough to find a good RPG as it is in today's market.

Modifié par DarkDragon777, 10 octobre 2011 - 03:10 .

[LPPrince]

leonia42 wrote...

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?

Well, here's the thing-

Assume the better- You've either met your expectations or you're disappointed you didn't.

Assume the worse- You've either been pleasantly surprised or you've met your expectations.

Optimism and Pessimism both have their perks.

[didymos1120]

DarkDragon777 wrote...

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.

Even though they've been doing MP on-and-off since the very beginning of the company?  And even though most of the times they've done it have been in the RPG titles?

[Ticladesign]

Who plays a primarily solo story based game for JUST THE MULTI-PLAYER?

Neverwinter Nights.


By the Emperor! I have said it. *so proud*

[Xewaka]

MGIII wrote...

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.

Check your funny detector. I think it's broken.

[slimgrin]

Prince, you're too goddamned optimistic.

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

[upsettingshorts]

Ohei wrote...

I'm talking budget here. They don't have a limitless budget or even console capacity when developing a game. If you mean that the budget ''leftovers'' could've transferred to the development of another game, honestly it makes no sense to me whatsoever. You have a budget, you work with it if it means you can improve things. Now, if they decide to do it is beyond us.

It's not rocket science pal. If you focus 20% on something and 80% on another thing, results will probably vary if you focus 100% on the other thing. Sometimes more noticeably than other times. Maybe MP will be awesome, and the SP experience just as awesome. We do not know that, and until we get more information we will not know. But we will also not know if the SP would've been the exact same without the MP, and whether or not it will be a positive thing, considering how not many fans embrace the idea of MP in a ME game.

This is all.

Here is an example of a zots argument that is invented speculation presented as a reasonable conclusion.  People will take it seriously and quote it as being truth.

Ohei:  You don't have a clue how EA/BioWare's budget for Mass Effect 3 works.  You know it, I know it, everyone knows it.  So why do people make these arguments, let alone take them seriously?

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 10 octobre 2011 - 03:11 .

[MGIII]

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 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.

You can effectively sum it up by saying people want as many reseources as possible pooled into a certain project, namely ME's single player, considering that this is the ME board. Therefore, any resources not going to MESP are resources wasted, in their minds.

The problem is that people are taking offense at a personal level about how Bioware is partitioning the resources at their disposal.

[DaringMoosejaw]

El_Chala_Legalizado wrote...

RamirezWolfen wrote...

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.

That's true, I mean, after DAII... It's possible to get any worse than that?

DAII being a 'meh' Bioware game doesn't make it the worst thing since Kane & Lynch 2.

[Chala]

slimgrin wrote...

Prince, you're too goddamned optimistic.

Better laugh than cry!

[Personality Disorder]

unfringed wrote...
"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.

I understand where you are comming from. I just believe that my preferences and opinion might not be representative of the whole fanbase, in fact there is a good chance they aren't. And if the company decides to change its target audience then I'm really not one of the consumersanymore, i.e. - they no longer care what I think anyway. If Bioware desides that they gain more than they lose by implementing certain features into their games, nothing I have to say on these boards will convinve them they are wrong. 

[LPPrince]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

LPPrince wrote...

 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.

Then why get worked up at all?  If I'm perterbed, it's got nothing actually to do with multiplayer - but the same damn annoying BSN arguments being brought up again.

My issue isn't actually with the issue, but how people are handling it.  As usual.

LPPrince wrote...

Relax dude.

That's good advice for everyone. 

VERY true to the underlined and bolded section.

And that's just it, I'm not worked up. Confused, a little nervous maybe. But not angry. Just a little lost as to how its all gonna work.

If it were me making these games, I believe I've said it enough the last few years that I'd wait for the main trilogy to end and then make a multiplayer spin off. Since that's not happening, at least with the start of ME multiplayer(or whatever counts for MP in this series), I'm gonna wait for real answers before I go up in arms. If I even have to do that, which I hope I don't. 

[Leonia]

If people are taking offense on a personal level, then I suggest they sort ther personal issues out elsewhere. We're not a therapy group.

[The_11thDoctor]

Honestly I think this could go 2 ways but hopping it goes 1. Either they tacked it on and didnt make it fit to ME's universe which is easy to do or make it on par or better than Uncharted 2's multiplayer or they took time, made it so no one can say it isnt amazing and everyone loves it after playing it.

Co-Op or Mult. is a great idea for ME3. Wither everyone wants it or not is a separate issue. If executed well it can only add to the immersion of ME. If you can (MP) play as all races, all classes, mercs, civilians, council members etc, it will be amazing! If balanced right and great level designs are used with the right amount of people (32+) It can be amazing! They just need to keep themes in the mult. and not just generic D.M. and show what makes it different than other shooters. Maybe 1 side breaks in to compound, other defends, Full scale war, Horde Mode, Story Co-Op Mode, Exploration Mode, Ship Battles, Vehicles, C-Sec VS Smugglers, Mercs Mode, etc.

If you dont trust Bioware's handling of ME3 story, then why are you here? They added a extra mode and if you dont want to play it, dont. They had their resources used properly and had enough people to focus on the single player and a team to focus on mult. Nothing changed just cause you now know about MP being in the game. Honestly if you paid any attention to the ME Story for ME1-2, you'd know it didnt make sense and had tons of plot holes, but was a great game overall, fun, had some of the greatest story telling devices used and a great conversational system implemented that was in no other RPGs out there. It had a Morality system that didnt always make sense, but not all RPGs had one before ME. I love the ME series, but it isnt without flaws. It has tons of glitches that break the game, annoy you or just make you laugh, but the world sucks you in to the point after you're done playing, you forget all that and just remember the interesting characters.

The inclusion of MP/and or Co-Op will not destroy ME3. They will close whatever they feel like story wise and quite frankly I expect less story this game than in ME2. All out war and Reapers destroying planets doesnt seem to leave room for a ton of conversation, but who other than Bioware knows? I just expect a ton of chaos, tighter controls and an ending. Anything else is icing.

Please grow up if you're one of the people crying about the inclusion of a new feature that you're not forced to use. At least try it and see what Bioware came up with. If it's anything like ND and what they did for Uncharted 2, but ME's version, I will be pleasantly surprised.

Modifié par aang001, 10 octobre 2011 - 03:17 .