1169 réponses à ce sujet

[whywhywhywhy]

1136342t54 wrote...

@whywhywhy

Can you give us some understanding of what about ME1 that makes so much more special than ME2?

Now I would like specifics about what you liked better. You know Combat, leveling, story, dialog, customizations etc.

I refuse.   I notice how all of you now chime in on this as if it's some type of victory because I refuse to share my insights.  It's all there for you and others to see I don't have to answer, find the answer for yourself.  I will maintain the position I've had before this thread in this thread in that I can't(by choice) point out one feature as the superior to all others features.  If this wasn't a must have answer before this thread about multiplayer why is it now ?  Because you and others attempt to misdirect and spin the comment out of context.  People without arguments usually do, understand I'm use to this and don't mind all of you chiming in on this point as I'll leave you with another.

Are all of you asking me this question to say that nothing in ME1 better than or missing from ME2 ?
If so then why are they adding features from ME1 to ME3 ?

Given that why does my personal insight matter in  discussion about Shooter gameplay becoming dominant in the ME3 series ?  All the evidence of such is already there.  Oh and if you avoid questions don't expect a response.

NEXT!

[whywhywhywhy]

1136342t54 wrote...
The problem is your assuming that they didn't just increase the budget when they (if) decided on adding multiplayer into this.

Wrong.  No matter how much they pour more funds in any diverted from the core game is less funds then it could have had.

[whywhywhywhy]

Genshie wrote...

cindercatz wrote...

Ok, seemed like there was another delay in there, I guess not.
Disregard then. Three months is still a nice little slice of developement time.

 Not a enough time to implement something totally new like multiplayer into a franchise that has never had it. And I don't see why certain people don't think it will not suck resources from being used on single player. Myself and many others have already explained several times over why multiplayer/co-op wouldn't work with the current combat system as of now and also explained why it would make more sense as a future project or dlc later in the franchise to be made.


Edit: I hate to compare it to this title but I am using it only as an example: Look at the amount of time they delayed GoW3 to perfect their final title and multiplayer now look at the amount of time for this title that has never had multiplayer. It makes little to no sense for this title to have multiplayer or co-op at all with the current amount of time.

Maybe they were already working on it before hand, I beleive someone posted pics of a job lisiting from a while back.  Or maybe they worked on it in place of something else and is using the delay to catch up on other features they put on the back burner.   Since ME2 took a turn toward a shooter(watch vid I linked a few pages back) they could have been working on it since ME2's development time.

[shepskisaac]

whywhywhywhy wrote...

1136342t54 wrote...
Can you give us some understanding of what about ME1 that makes so much more special than ME2?

Now I would like specifics about what you liked better. You know Combat, leveling, story, dialog, customizations etc.

I refuse.

whywhywhywhy wrote...
Oh and if you avoid questions don't expect a response.

Exactly. We're done here kiddo. You don't have arguments in s/s discussion, neither you have arguments in RPG discussion. The only thing you do is repeating your basic opinions over and over again and when people call you out to defend them with actual arguments, you start crying "Mommy! These evil men actually want me to present arguments in discussion!!! How dare they?!?! I refuse!!!". Bye bye!

Modifié par IsaacShep, 06 octobre 2011 - 04:03 .

[littlezack]

whywhywhywhy wrote...

1136342t54 wrote...
The problem is your assuming that they didn't just increase the budget when they (if) decided on adding multiplayer into this.

Wrong.  No matter how much they pour more funds in any diverted from the core game is less funds then it could have had.

If they put extra money in to create multiplayer, that's not money diverted from the core game. Really, think about it - if EA gave them extra money to create multiplayer, that's money they wouldn't have gotten if no multiplayer existed. Unless EA would seriously tell Bioware to add in a feature but not give them the money to implement said feature.

[littlezack]

whywhywhywhy wrote...

1136342t54 wrote...

@whywhywhy

Can you give us some understanding of what about ME1 that makes so much more special than ME2?

Now I would like specifics about what you liked better. You know Combat, leveling, story, dialog, customizations etc.

Are all of you asking me this question to say that nothing in ME1 better than or missing from ME2 ?
If so then why are they adding features from ME1 to ME3 ?

They're not.

[whywhywhywhy]

littlezack wrote...

whywhywhywhy wrote...

1136342t54 wrote...
The problem is your assuming that they didn't just increase the budget when they (if) decided on adding multiplayer into this.

Wrong.  No matter how much they pour more funds in any diverted from the core game is less funds then it could have had.

If they put extra money in to create multiplayer, that's not money diverted from the core game. Really, think about it - if EA gave them extra money to create multiplayer, that's money they wouldn't have gotten if no multiplayer existed. Unless EA would seriously tell Bioware to add in a feature but not give them the money to implement said feature.

If the budget is 100m and then 15m more was allocated for Multiplayer the core game those funds could have been used for more voice acting, additional art/graphics and etc.  While I do understand your point, understand a new feature like multiplayer this late in the series makes it potentially more expensive then if it had been added in the beginning. 

If EA allocated the money a push could have been made for the funds for the core game.  But I do understand what yours saying EA is in charge.  Still at the end of the day from a player and non-business perspective those funds could have been used on the core game.

And also your post is kind of my line of thinking in why I think Multiplayer waybe along the lines of Co-op initially is coming.

[whywhywhywhy]

littlezack wrote...

whywhywhywhy wrote...

1136342t54 wrote...

@whywhywhy

Can you give us some understanding of what about ME1 that makes so much more special than ME2?

Now I would like specifics about what you liked better. You know Combat, leveling, story, dialog, customizations etc.

Are all of you asking me this question to say that nothing in ME1 better than or missing from ME2 ?
If so then why are they adding features from ME1 to ME3 ?

They're not.

Ok then tell willy wonka no chocolate is slated for me3.  Semantics.  They are adding features based off ME1's feature set.  Care to answer the first question ? I took your reply as an answer for the second question, correct me if I misunderstood.

Modifié par whywhywhywhy, 06 octobre 2011 - 04:25 .

[littlezack]

whywhywhywhy wrote...

littlezack wrote...

whywhywhywhy wrote...

1136342t54 wrote...
The problem is your assuming that they didn't just increase the budget when they (if) decided on adding multiplayer into this.

Wrong.  No matter how much they pour more funds in any diverted from the core game is less funds then it could have had.

If they put extra money in to create multiplayer, that's not money diverted from the core game. Really, think about it - if EA gave them extra money to create multiplayer, that's money they wouldn't have gotten if no multiplayer existed. Unless EA would seriously tell Bioware to add in a feature but not give them the money to implement said feature.

If the budget is 100m and then 15m more was allocated for Multiplayer the core game those funds could have been used for more voice acting, additional art/graphics and etc.  

No, they couldn't.

It's safe to assume that ME3 is being made on a budget - there's only so much money going to certain things. There's only so much money they can spend on voice-acting, graphics, testing, whatever. It's planned out, more or less.

If Bioware implements MP, they need more money. Probably quite a bit, since ME is really not a game designed for traditional MP and you'd probably have to make a MP mode from the ground up, pretty much. If they're going to implement the feature, they need the money, but if they're not, the money for the future is no longer there. It's out of the budget.

[KainrycKarr]

1136342t54 wrote...

KainrycKarr wrote...

IsaacShep wrote...

whywhywhywhy wrote...

*wall of utter nonsense*

Do you have reading and logic problems? I'm getting tired of this.

Provide us the list of RPG elements/features/aspects from Mass Effect 1 that won't be coming back in ME3 thus making it so much more of a shooter. I've alrady done one list, ain't even gonna think about doing any other until you do your part. LACK OF WHICH RPG ASPECTS MAKES ME3 EVEN MORE OF A SHOOTER THAN ME1 & ME2? Can't write it anymore simple to you. Answer this, or don't even both with another post like the one before because nobody will discuss anything with someone who doesn't respond to arguments with arguments.

It's not that it will lack features. It's that investing money into multiplayer takes away from the base pool of resources, where it could have been used to make the campaign longer, and allow for more story deviation when players make a choice.

So yea, you'll have all the RPG features which is fantastic don't get me wrong. But I want an epic, drawn out finale to the trilogy, not a story condensed and shortened, with the minimum of plot deviations just because some people thought it would be nice to try to appeal to the multiplayer crowd.

And, for the record, I don't hate multiplayer games, in fact I'm a long-time MMO vet and play all the major FPS multis.

But when I'm playing Mass Effect, I want to hear Garrus and Liara talking about the world around me, Tali and Legion arguing over the Geth/Quarian conflict, not some teenager on Xbox Live. 

And yes, if they have multiplayer it doesn't mean the SP game will suck, but it does mean the SP campaign will almost certainly be more linear-plot and shorter than it would have been had money and resources not been devoted to what will likely(not certainly, but likely) a mediocre multiplayer mode.

The problem is your assuming that they didn't just increase the budget when they (if) decided on adding multiplayer into this. 

But that doesn't change anything. Any increase in budget is still $$$ that, IMO(and I would think many agree), would be better off making the campaign even better. There is no cap on "awesome" for a SP campaign.

[littlezack]

whywhywhywhy wrote...

littlezack wrote...

whywhywhywhy wrote...

1136342t54 wrote...

@whywhywhy

Can you give us some understanding of what about ME1 that makes so much more special than ME2?

Now I would like specifics about what you liked better. You know Combat, leveling, story, dialog, customizations etc.

Are all of you asking me this question to say that nothing in ME1 better than or missing from ME2 ?
If so then why are they adding features from ME1 to ME3 ?

They're not.

Ok then tell willy wonka no chocolate is slated for me3.  Semantics.  They are adding features based off ME1's feature set.  Care to answer the first question ? I took your reply as an answer for the second question, correct me if I misunderstood.

I'd never claim that ME2 is a perfect game or that there's NOTHING in ME1 that's better. Just off the top of my head, I prefer the music in ME1.  But I feel that the changes made in ME2 were, for the most part, good.

And I've yet to see any feature from ME1 really making a return. We have more stats now, but that's really just an expansion of Evolutions, a concept ME2 started. Haven't heard jack squat about vehicles. Weapon customization seems more like the upgrade system in ME3, only with more visible changes and you can modify weaponry on the fly.

[littlezack]

KainrycKarr wrote...

1136342t54 wrote...

KainrycKarr wrote...

IsaacShep wrote...

whywhywhywhy wrote...

*wall of utter nonsense*

Do you have reading and logic problems? I'm getting tired of this.

Provide us the list of RPG elements/features/aspects from Mass Effect 1 that won't be coming back in ME3 thus making it so much more of a shooter. I've alrady done one list, ain't even gonna think about doing any other until you do your part. LACK OF WHICH RPG ASPECTS MAKES ME3 EVEN MORE OF A SHOOTER THAN ME1 & ME2? Can't write it anymore simple to you. Answer this, or don't even both with another post like the one before because nobody will discuss anything with someone who doesn't respond to arguments with arguments.

It's not that it will lack features. It's that investing money into multiplayer takes away from the base pool of resources, where it could have been used to make the campaign longer, and allow for more story deviation when players make a choice.

So yea, you'll have all the RPG features which is fantastic don't get me wrong. But I want an epic, drawn out finale to the trilogy, not a story condensed and shortened, with the minimum of plot deviations just because some people thought it would be nice to try to appeal to the multiplayer crowd.

And, for the record, I don't hate multiplayer games, in fact I'm a long-time MMO vet and play all the major FPS multis.

But when I'm playing Mass Effect, I want to hear Garrus and Liara talking about the world around me, Tali and Legion arguing over the Geth/Quarian conflict, not some teenager on Xbox Live. 

And yes, if they have multiplayer it doesn't mean the SP game will suck, but it does mean the SP campaign will almost certainly be more linear-plot and shorter than it would have been had money and resources not been devoted to what will likely(not certainly, but likely) a mediocre multiplayer mode.

The problem is your assuming that they didn't just increase the budget when they (if) decided on adding multiplayer into this. 

But that doesn't change anything. Any increase in budget is still $$$ that, IMO(and I would think many agree), would be better off making the campaign even better. There is no cap on "awesome" for a SP campaign.

Yes, but there is a cap on how much you can spend making something and hope to see a return.

[Genshie]

whywhywhywhy wrote...

littlezack wrote...

whywhywhywhy wrote...

1136342t54 wrote...
The problem is your assuming that they didn't just increase the budget when they (if) decided on adding multiplayer into this.

Wrong.  No matter how much they pour more funds in any diverted from the core game is less funds then it could have had.

If they put extra money in to create multiplayer, that's not money diverted from the core game. Really, think about it - if EA gave them extra money to create multiplayer, that's money they wouldn't have gotten if no multiplayer existed. Unless EA would seriously tell Bioware to add in a feature but not give them the money to implement said feature.

If the budget is 100m and then 15m more was allocated for Multiplayer the core game those funds could have been used for more voice acting, additional art/graphics and etc.  While I do understand your point, understand a new feature like multiplayer this late in the series makes it potentially more expensive then if it had been added in the beginning. 

If EA allocated the money a push could have been made for the funds for the core game.  But I do understand what yours saying EA is in charge.  Still at the end of the day from a player and non-business perspective those funds could have been used on the core game.

And also your post is kind of my line of thinking in why I think Multiplayer waybe along the lines of Co-op initially is coming.

That is what I keep trying to tell people but for some reason unknown to me they think that the funds wouldn't be wasted even if they implement multiplayer. The only way the funds wouldn't be wasted  as I see it is if the multiplayer/co-op turned out ot be a major success however, with a franchise that has never had multiplayer implementing it in this late into the game doesn't sound like it would turn out very well at all since once again they pretty much need to start from the ground up on the combat system and pretty much revamp everything. As a future project/dlc multiplayer doesn't sound as ridiculous though. I am not against the idea of the Mass Effect franchise having some form of multiplayer I am just against it for this particular title at the current time.

[1136342t54_]

whywhywhywhy wrote...

1136342t54 wrote...

@whywhywhy

Can you give us some understanding of what about ME1 that makes so much more special than ME2?

Now I would like specifics about what you liked better. You know Combat, leveling, story, dialog, customizations etc.

I refuse.   I notice how all of you now chime in on this as if it's some type of victory because I refuse to share my insights.  It's all there for you and others to see I don't have to answer, find the answer for yourself.  I will maintain the position I've had before this thread in this thread in that I can't(by choice) point out one feature as the superior to all others features.  If this wasn't a must have answer before this thread about multiplayer why is it now ?  Because you and others attempt to misdirect and spin the comment out of context.  People without arguments usually do, understand I'm use to this and don't mind all of you chiming in on this point as I'll leave you with another.

Are all of you asking me this question to say that nothing in ME1 better than or missing from ME2 ?
If so then why are they adding features from ME1 to ME3 ?

Given that why does my personal insight matter in  discussion about Shooter gameplay becoming dominant in the ME3 series ?  All the evidence of such is already there.  Oh and if you avoid questions don't expect a response.

NEXT!

I'm not asking you about one feature. If you read my post I'm asking you about what series of features that you liked in ME1 that wouldn't be in ME3. If you can't answer that are arguing or a subjective feeling then why Complain?

Edit: Also how the hell amd I misdirecting anything you say? I'm trying to understand why the hell you like ME1 better than ME3 automatically. So far you have no real explanation I can see other than ME1 is better than ME3 and its more of a shooter when in face ME1 was large part shooter.

Modifié par 1136342t54 , 06 octobre 2011 - 05:31 .

[1136342t54_]

whywhywhywhy wrote...

1136342t54 wrote...
The problem is your assuming that they didn't just increase the budget when they (if) decided on adding multiplayer into this.

Wrong.  No matter how much they pour more funds in any diverted from the core game is less funds then it could have had.

No what you said makes no sense. If they only added funding towards the budget when they were thinking about adding multiplayer they would never had added that same funding to single player. Your reasoning makes no sense. It can't be diverted from the core game if it was never in the core game in the first place.

[1136342t54_]

KainrycKarr wrote...
But that doesn't change anything. Any increase in budget is still $$$ that, IMO(and I would think many agree), would be better off making the campaign even better. There is no cap on "awesome" for a SP campaign.

Your not getting it. They would never give that money for single player. If they would have increased the budget for singleplayer it would have already happened. If its increased for multplayer then no actual money is taken away from singleplayer since it was never there in the first place.

[1136342t54_]

Genshie wrote...

 That is what I keep trying to tell people but for some reason unknown to me they think that the funds wouldn't be wasted even if they implement multiplayer. The only way the funds wouldn't be wasted  as I see it is if the multiplayer/co-op turned out ot be a major success however, with a franchise that has never had multiplayer implementing it in this late into the game doesn't sound like it would turn out very well at all since once again they pretty much need to start from the ground up on the combat system and pretty much revamp everything. As a future project/dlc multiplayer doesn't sound as ridiculous though. I am not against the idea of the Mass Effect franchise having some form of multiplayer I am just against it for this particular title at the current time.

You can keep saying the funds will be wasted but if it is wasted no resources would have been taken away from the SP. It would be best to assume that they added funds specifically for the multiplayer no money was going to be taken away nor money would be added. Either way it wouldn't hurt the MP. 

[darthnick427]

They'll announce Vega's voice actor, show the new Femshep Trailer or show part 2 of their Combat trailer, and drop some more info maybe other recruitable squadmates. I doubt it's multiplayer. The closest thing to multiplayer it would ever be is coop or a horde mode.

[darthnick427]

Biggest plot twist ever.......SAREN'S ALIVE!

O_O

Or better yet.....Shepard has been indoctrinated all along!!!

lol

[1136342t54_]

darthnick427 wrote...

They'll announce Vega's voice actor, show the new Femshep Trailer or show part 2 of their Combat trailer, and drop some more info maybe other recruitable squadmates. I doubt it's multiplayer. The closest thing to multiplayer it would ever be is coop or a horde mode.

Its a new feature so I doubt they will show the Femshep Trailer. Although a Combat trailer could show some new things.

[Genshie]

1136342t54 wrote...

darthnick427 wrote...

They'll announce Vega's voice actor, show the new Femshep Trailer or show part 2 of their Combat trailer, and drop some more info maybe other recruitable squadmates. I doubt it's multiplayer. The closest thing to multiplayer it would ever be is coop or a horde mode.

Its a new feature so I doubt they will show the Femshep Trailer. Although a Combat trailer could show some new things.

They could combine all of it into the FemShep trailer and show new features like they did with the original trailer? I wish.

[1136342t54_]

Genshie wrote...

1136342t54 wrote...

darthnick427 wrote...

They'll announce Vega's voice actor, show the new Femshep Trailer or show part 2 of their Combat trailer, and drop some more info maybe other recruitable squadmates. I doubt it's multiplayer. The closest thing to multiplayer it would ever be is coop or a horde mode.

Its a new feature so I doubt they will show the Femshep Trailer. Although a Combat trailer could show some new things.

They could combine all of it into the FemShep trailer and show new features like they did with the original trailer? I wish.

Eh its possible but I doubt it. I was expecting they would show a Fem shep trailer in December but if they show it now that would be splendid to.

[Genshie]

1136342t54 wrote...

Genshie wrote...

 That is what I keep trying to tell people but for some reason unknown to me they think that the funds wouldn't be wasted even if they implement multiplayer. The only way the funds wouldn't be wasted  as I see it is if the multiplayer/co-op turned out ot be a major success however, with a franchise that has never had multiplayer implementing it in this late into the game doesn't sound like it would turn out very well at all since once again they pretty much need to start from the ground up on the combat system and pretty much revamp everything. As a future project/dlc multiplayer doesn't sound as ridiculous though. I am not against the idea of the Mass Effect franchise having some form of multiplayer I am just against it for this particular title at the current time.

You can keep saying the funds will be wasted but if it is wasted no resources would have been taken away from the SP. It would be best to assume that they added funds specifically for the multiplayer no money was going to be taken away nor money would be added. Either way it wouldn't hurt the MP. 

Adding funds is still wasting funds that could have been spent/added to SP. You are just going circles. Whatever you come up with to defend the funds not being wasted can be reversed into saying that they would/could be wasted.

[1136342t54_]

Genshie wrote...

1136342t54 wrote...

Genshie wrote...

 That is what I keep trying to tell people but for some reason unknown to me they think that the funds wouldn't be wasted even if they implement multiplayer. The only way the funds wouldn't be wasted  as I see it is if the multiplayer/co-op turned out ot be a major success however, with a franchise that has never had multiplayer implementing it in this late into the game doesn't sound like it would turn out very well at all since once again they pretty much need to start from the ground up on the combat system and pretty much revamp everything. As a future project/dlc multiplayer doesn't sound as ridiculous though. I am not against the idea of the Mass Effect franchise having some form of multiplayer I am just against it for this particular title at the current time.

You can keep saying the funds will be wasted but if it is wasted no resources would have been taken away from the SP. It would be best to assume that they added funds specifically for the multiplayer no money was going to be taken away nor money would be added. Either way it wouldn't hurt the MP. 

Adding funds is still wasting funds that could have been spent/added to SP. You are just going circles. Whatever you come up with to defend the funds not being wasted can be reversed into saying that they would/could be wasted.

You are saying it could have been added but it was never going to be added to the SP. If they really needed to add some they would but they didn't. There budget was already spent on the SP and DLC anything that was added was likely for MP. You are assuming they would have added something for the SP but they didn't.

So like I siad nothing likely would have changed for SP funding if MP exists or not. It wouldn't matter.

[1136342t54_]

For example. Mass Effect 3 single player gets 20 million dollars. EA wants Bioware to add in MP so they give them a extra 5 million. Now lets say EA didn't want Bioware to make MP. They don't give them any extra money.

Nothing's changed with the SP and no funding would have been added for SP other than some future possible DLC.