1169 réponses à ce sujet

[whywhywhywhy]

IsaacShep wrote...
So you don't have an argument lol.

Maybe you haven't been paying attention.  I told you how I've always described ME1, if you knew anything about game development you'd know just copying features doesn't make a game a hit or fun.  Many clones come out of successful games and fail, if you want to ignore that then it is you who have no argument.  I personally cannot nail it down to 1 or 2 features as it's the way the game comes together as a whole that gets it right.  Spin it out of context if you like, it still doesn't change the truth.

IsaacShep wrote...
Personal 'specific feeling' is not an argument, someone could have a personal specific feeling ME1 wasn't an RPG at all,

It's not personally specific.  It's specific to the people who like me1 better and or were disappointed with ME2 and having doubts about ME3.

IsaacShep wrote...
or that Fallout 3 wasn't an RPG at all. I'm done discussing this since you since you admitted yourself it ain't about features, what's in and not in the game but only what your very personal 'feeling' is.

That's not what I said or what happen, you took a comment you could spin out of context.  As if I care about that

IsaacShep wrote...
Not to mention, how can you exactly have one if ME3 wasn't even released yet?

See how your trying to change the topic and claim some type of victory   Combat mechanics have been featured.  Hardly anything you've listed as a counter has.  So tell me who doesn't have the argument ? 

IsaacShep wrote...
Games ain't like movies, you need to play them, experience all their mechanics, level up yourself, complete the quests yourself, explore yourself (if there is exploration) and do everything else to know whether it has this "it" you've been looking for or not. You won't know that by watching. We were discussing whether it is an RPG or not feature-wise, not 'personal feelings'-wise because the latter is too subjective to even bother arguing, everyone will feel it differently. That's why genres are discussed and categorized mostly feature-wise.

No you are, that was never my argument.  My argument was the game is gravitating from what it once was to more of a shooter and because of that I think it's getting Multiplayer.  If your taking that argument and slanting it to include what you've stated, then explain to me what's RPG about the "features" you listed ?  Oh and keep in mind you already agreed that me2 is more of a shooter so listing any features in it or that are combat related proves that it's all about implementation.  Have at it 

[Sgt Stryker]

whywhywhywhy wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...
I'd say that a smaller squad is one of the greater things, since ME2 suffered from having way too many squadmates in terms of dialogues and such.

So If I understand your reasoning correctly according to you me2 had too many squadmates.  So instead of increasing the amount of squatmates that can go out and fight the reapers, we reduce them ? 

You want to reduce the number of squadmates or squadmates you can take out on missions ?

If we're limited to a squad of 3 per mission, then we might as well cut down on the total permanent squadmate pool. If anything, we'll have better, more fleshed-out dialogues and subplots with them. Quality over quantity, my friend.

[whywhywhywhy]

BlaCKRodjj wrote...
Who's to say that every single squadmember throughout the series won't be alongside you during the final battle?

Isaacshep, he said smaller teams were a feature.  And if it was as you say, it would be horrible game design to ramp up control of all those teammates at the end, the difficulty and control issues would be incredible.  And if they aren't PC then that just defeats the purpose.

Modifié par whywhywhywhy, 05 octobre 2011 - 09:42 .

[whywhywhywhy]

Sgt Stryker wrote...

whywhywhywhy wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...
I'd say that a smaller squad is one of the greater things, since ME2 suffered from having way too many squadmates in terms of dialogues and such.

So If I understand your reasoning correctly according to you me2 had too many squadmates.  So instead of increasing the amount of squatmates that can go out and fight the reapers, we reduce them ? 

You want to reduce the number of squadmates or squadmates you can take out on missions ?

If we're limited to a squad of 3 per mission, then we might as well cut down on the total permanent squadmate pool. If anything, we'll have better, more fleshed-out dialogues and subplots with them. Quality over quantity, my friend.

Given the fact that so many teammates have been introduced reducing it to a handful seems, lazy.  I agree to disagree.

[BlaCKRodjj]

whywhywhywhy wrote...

BlaCKRodjj wrote...
Who's to say that every single squadmember throughout the series won't be alongside you during the final battle?

Isaacshep, he said smaller teams were a feature.  And if it was as you say, it would be horrible game design to ramp up control of all those teammates at the end, the difficulty and control issues would be incredible.  And if they aren't PC then that just defeats the purpose.

I'm thinking more about it in a suicide mission kind of way but only controlling shepard, squadmates on different levels but crossing paths with them during the mission ( while on gameplay ). Being PC or not is irrelevant, imo they're too important to the central story to not play a part in defeating the reapers at the end

[whywhywhywhy]

If that's the only involvement we get, I'd really hate that.

[Genshie]

whywhywhywhy wrote...

BlaCKRodjj wrote...
Who's to say that every single squadmember throughout the series won't be alongside you during the final battle?

Isaacshep, he said smaller teams were a feature.  And if it was as you say, it would be horrible game design to ramp up control of all those teammates at the end, the difficulty and control issues would be incredible.  And if they aren't PC then that just defeats the purpose.

SPOILER FOR DA2 don't read if you didn't beat it yet!














They kind of sort of did the whole every party member joining in on the final boss and even other random NPCs joined in that you befriended/helped to help fight except besides the ones in your party you had no control over them. (Besides what you already had set in their tactics menu) Of course the final battle had a ton of crap going on at once which I am surprised how smooth the game ran with so much going on on the screen. I wouldn't be surprised if they did this for ME3 but I don't think they need too and if they did wouldn't be surprised either way.

Modifié par Genshie, 05 octobre 2011 - 09:54 .

[shepskisaac]

whywhywhywhy wrote...

Maybe you haven't been paying attention.  I told you how I've always described ME1, if you knew anything about game development you'd know just copying features doesn't make a game a hit or fun.  Many clones come out of successful games and fail, if you want to ignore that then it is you who have no argument.  I personally cannot nail it down to 1 or 2 features as it's the way the game comes together as a whole that gets it right.  Spin it out of context if you like, it still doesn't change the truth.

So in the end you don't have an argument lol. I asked you to define the chocolate you said ME3 won't have, you can't do it, what's your point?

whywhywhywhy wrote...
It's not personally specific.  It's specific to the people who like me1 better and or were disappointed with ME2 and having doubts about ME3.

And to each person it is different. For you it's the lack of the "it" ME1 had that you can't actually even nail down yourself. Other people know exactly what they didn't like -> for example lack of weapon mods & armor customization. Or lack of Mako exploration. Or reworked leveling system. Other people know that it was some specific features but also a bit of the "it" you mentioned. It's different for everyone. "Players disappointed in ME2" is not one cohesive group of people sharing the same views (your views).

whywhywhywhy wrote...
Combat mechanics have been featured.  Hardly anything you've listed as a counter has.  So tell me who doesn't have the argument ? 

So you're back to actual features list? But you just said you're unable to compile feature list from ME1 (that is not present in ME3) that made ME1 so special & RPG for you and makes you convinced ME3 won't be like that. You've got to decide. Either you discuss features or not. If you discuss them, provide me the list of features ME1 had that ME3 won't and how will the lack of these features make ME3 even more of a shooter.

whywhywhywhy wrote...
My argument was the game is gravitating from what it once was to more of a shooter

Based on what you say this is happening? Actual features present in the game (or being removed) or your personal feeling on the games?

whywhywhywhy wrote...
If your taking that argument and slanting it to include what you've stated, then explain to me what's RPG about the "features" you listed ?  Oh and keep in mind you already agreed that me2 is more of a shooter so listing any features in it or that are combat related proves that it's all about implementation.  Have at it 

No no, you will first provide us an extensive list of RPG features from ME1 that aren't coming back in ME3 and you will explain to us what do you define as RPG feature.

Modifié par IsaacShep, 05 octobre 2011 - 09:54 .

[Red Son Rising]

[checks thread]
wild guesses about multiplayer? check. new facts? nope. didnt miss a thing, good day
[checks out]

[1136342t54_]

Either I am not reading whywhwhwy whatever posts right but it seems like that anything combat related to him or her means ME3 will be a shooter.

I thought many RPGs had combat in it. I guess I was wrong.

[BlaCKRodjj]

whywhywhywhy wrote...

If that's the only involvement we get, I'd really hate that.

Again, i was talking about the end game. We'll get to interact with them during the game (see: legion)

[BlaCKRodjj]

Genshie wrote...

whywhywhywhy wrote...

BlaCKRodjj wrote...
Who's to say that every single squadmember throughout the series won't be alongside you during the final battle?

Isaacshep, he said smaller teams were a feature.  And if it was as you say, it would be horrible game design to ramp up control of all those teammates at the end, the difficulty and control issues would be incredible.  And if they aren't PC then that just defeats the purpose.

*snip*

I was thinking about that, but no surrounding a reaper while fighting husks. More like going solo during the mission while you see all your squadmates tear through waves of enemies alongside you

[Walker White]

robarcool wrote...

I may be trolling, but this is what I found. Seems legit:
http://www.examiner....-mode-confirmed

The echo chamber that is the Internet.  The source of that article is the source for this thread.  It is not a new supporting source.

[Jorina Leto]

Yeah, Killer Feature multiplayer.

Yeah, a Franchise Killer Feature.

Modifié par Jorina Leto, 05 octobre 2011 - 10:19 .

[Ruud333]

didymos1120 wrote...

Genshie wrote...

These are reasources being used that could be used to improve upon the single player experience.

Well, assuming there is MP, this assumes that the budget would have been the same size without MP.  I don't see why I should assume that, mostly because I have no personal knowledge of, or reliable sources about, the budgeting practices of EA.  Do you?

Yeah I never got the 'MP takes away from the SP budget' argument because only BW and EA know the details, and to my knowledge it's not something they release to the public.

[shepskisaac]

Jorina Leto wrote...

Yeah, Killer Feature multiplayer.

Yeah, a Franchise Killer Feature.

Not enough options in this poll for me to vote since I'm not against co-op.

[Khran1505]

I'm still trying to fathom what people's problem is with Mass Effect 3 having multiplayer. Yeah, we're all for the fact each one of us has a Shepard that IS us and we're all the big damn heroes in our universes and playing multiplayer with different Shepards inhabiting one universe kills the mood.

But really, what IS it about Multiplayer that makes people troll and whine about how it'll destroy the game? Multiplayer is an option, yes? So just don't choose it when you play the game, you're not being forced to play it. Furthermore, who's to say multiplayer won't be a GoW style "organics vs husks" of gameplay? There's nothing wrong with that and it really does expand on the whole "war" idea. If anything, it could just be something out-of-canon for the sake of playing online with friends.

If this is multiplayer, I really couldn't care less. If you people are going to get all pissed off and whiney about such a thing, then don't freaking play the multiplayer and stick to your own Shepard. It's not rocket science.

[robarcool]

Walker White wrote...

robarcool wrote...

I may be trolling, but this is what I found. Seems legit:
http://www.examiner....-mode-confirmed

The echo chamber that is the Internet.  The source of that article is the source for this thread.  It is not a new supporting source.

I wanted to point out that it seems to be in the details of the Collector's Edition and that's why seems legit. I haven't seen that before and so, I shared it.

[Gatt9]

Selene Moonsong wrote...

Gatt9 wrote...

Selene Moonsong wrote...

There has been no mention by the Developers that ME 3 will be a MP game. The so-called evidence people are presenting as 'proof' is just a vague as the no comments you will get from a Developer.

From the evidence I have seen presented, the only conclusion I can come to is a possibility that somewhere in the future there could be multi-player capabilities, such as in DLC, but I see no direct proof that ME 3 will be anything more than a SP game, just like ME and ME 2.

1. They had 3 projects in development, Star Wars, DA2, and ME3, when they were hiring a multiplayer dev. Star Wars has no need of such a person since it's built in. DA2 didn't have multiplayer. So that leaves only one option.

Erm... Let's see, new DLC for the Dragon Age series and possible rumors of DLC for the ME series. These are projects as well. All you really know with any certainty at this point are the projects they are currently discussing a little at a time. You have no information concerning anything else they are working on otherwise. And BioWare worked on things none of us had knowledge of until much later. No developer is going to discuss project plans publicly until they are ready to announce a given project.

At any rate, time will reveal what is or isn't going to happen, I simply disagree with your assertion that ME 3 will be a MP game as the 'facts' presented as 'proof' so far are not necessarily supportive of your assumptions.

Actually,  they're pretty definitive proof Selene.

You cannot do an engine overhaul in a DLC,  which is what this requires.  To pull this off,  you need to implement selective off/on switches for AI,  full networking code,  rework how the engine handles it's world processing since it's now packet-based for some of the characters,  matchmaking,  chat,  and then there's a huge number of implementation issues depending on the implementation.

This is what you do when you're releasing a product on shelf,  not when you're releasing a DLC.  The scale of this change is far beyond the capacity of a DLC.

2. They were hiring QA specifically for multiplayer a couple weeks ago. They have only one game in a development stage that would require QA just for multiplayer.

I'm really not sure why anyone is still doubting this. It's just process of elimination.

Again, they have only have projects going that we 'know' of, that does not mean BioWare does not have other things in the works that we don't know about. From my understanding, and I have been following pre-release forums for over 6 years now, Developers can be quite closed about what they are working. For all we know, if a DA III project is in the works, the MP QA team could be for that project.

BioWare is experienced in creating games designed for MP and that it is essential that the MP functionality needs to be built-in early on to be tested along with with the rest as a prototype to determine feasability for a project and what would be needed to make it work as intended during the various design phases.

There is plenty of reason to be hiring MP QA testing management staff that are not necessarily associated with the ME 3 core game project. Odds favor that it be another project, whether as ME 3 DLC or for another project.

At this point, we will just have to agree to disagree and move on.

You don't hire a full QA team for a product nowhere near release,  it's a waste of resources,  they'll be sitting around twiddling thumbs for 2 years.

I've been following pre-release forums since Microprose's forum on AOL,  Devs aren't all that closed-mouthed.  We knew about Diablo 3 several years before the official announcement.  We knew about another Gods of War a year ago,  we knew about Syndicate having a new entry quite some time ago. 

Case-in-point,  we already know they're working on Dragon Age 3.  we knew about that around 8 weeks after DA2 was released.

Any engine can be retrofitted to Multiplayer,  MP is no longer a black art.  You implement a thread that handles the networking,  and pass it off to the control loop as input.  It takes time,  but you don't need a brand new engine by any means. 

Nor are there plenty of reasons to hire MP QA staff.  They're only needed at a very specific point in time,  to test a very specific feature,  that can only be fully tested in late Beta.  They're completely useless if you can't actually launch a networked game,  especially since the job listing very clearly indicated it was to test the "Fun" factor and not the actual functionality.  What they listed the posting for could only be a project in at least Beta-stage,  if not late Beta-stage. 

Combine all that with the fact that Bioware steadfastly refuses to say "No,  there is no multiplayer in ME3",  it's a solid lock that ME3 has multiplayer.  You don't let websites and magazines post that you're going to have a feature when you're not without comment,  because if you do,  you face a firestorm when the game releases and people find it's not there.

You let sites and magazines post that without comment when you do have it,  and aren't ready to publicly announce it yet. 

[shep82]

Jorina Leto wrote...

Yeah, Killer Feature multiplayer.

Yeah, a Franchise Killer Feature.

It's not. Even if it's there the main game will be fine IMO.

[shep82]

lightsnow13 wrote...

Do people actually think it's going to have multiplayer?......

Yup. Unfortunately.

[BlaCKRodjj]

shep82 wrote...

lightsnow13 wrote...

Do people actually think it's going to have multiplayer?......

Yup. Unfortunately.

We'll just have to wait and see. The new bioware pulse episode is near and supposedly they're talking about the secret feature X if i'm correct.

[hotdogbsg]

I'm not really a fan of the possibility of multiplayer in ME3.

On the flip side, the whining on here if it does get announced will be awesome to behold.

Modifié par hotdogbsg, 05 octobre 2011 - 11:42 .

[shep82]

hotdogbsg wrote...

I'm not really a fan of the possibility of multiplayer in ME3.

On the flip side, the whining on here if it does get announced will be awesome to behold.

Neither am I but I'm not in the "it will break the game" or "I'm cancelling my preorder" camp. Not sure if I really want to see the **** storm if it's announced.