Ce sujet est fermé
Stanley Woo wrote...
Darkeus, please tone it down to a dull roar. You're beginning to get hysterical, and repetitive. Thank you.
Guest_EternalAmbiguity_*
Lt. Morke wrote...
I don't want to read though 78 pages of "instant buy" or " canceling my pre-order", so is there any important information?
Someone With Mass wrote...
Dragoonlordz wrote...
Edge 7 wrote...
And they've confirmed ME3 is the same length as ME2.
http://social.biowar...5946/75#8480089
https://twitter.com/...522910693507072
"jeffoconnor Jeff Zero O'Connor
@
@gtez Forums have gone crazy, unsurprisingly. Quick question: will ME3 be about ME2's length not counting co-op? I hope so..."
"@gtez
Jesse 'GTez' Houston
@jeffoconnor Yeah if not longer - I'm at 30+ hours in my play through"
No kidding. Every time I finish a page, another has been created!Someone With Mass wrote...
Something must be driving this place, because I can barely keep up.
RamirezWolfen wrote...
I can't wait! I'm gonna pwn all you noobs if it's pvp!
b09boy wrote...
gamer_girl wrote...
b09boy wrote...
Ok let me get this straight.
Bioware, a developer which has never been adept at gameplay and has basically lived off their writing team, is now adding a gaemplay only mode of a sort they have never done before when few are clamoring for it and many are against it. (And yeah, you read that right. Bioware has never had very good gameplay or balance. BG, KotOR, DA, ME, and NWN especially showed this off. They were crap without story. Think of your favorite Bioware game. If your fondest memory of that game was fighting something or another then I'll be very surprised)
So basically, they're spending resources which could have been used on the SP to bring in new fans which have probably not even given the previous games a second thought. Problem? They probably delayed the game past the holiday season just to include a feature which, lets face it, won't be good. Sooooo...Bioware/EA is wasting resources to implement what is likely to be a mediocre feature for what I project to be a loss of sales.
That's some great management there.
You forget the people that are obsessed with online shooters. I think it'll boost sales since those people make up the vast majority of the gaming population. As far as gameplay goes, ME2 had great gameplay. And there's no way to predict how the gameplay will be either unless you were one of the people that played the demo at E3, PAX, gamescom, etc. (consider the difference in gameplay between DA:O and DA2 or between ME and ME2). All that you present here are assumptions based on less than compelling "evidence". Nobody knows how the multiplayer will be so there's no point in complaining or saying it'll ruin their sales until the game is actually released and we have sufficient info to conclude that what you say is true.
1) There are plenty of online shooters released. Not all of them do well. A certain amount of quality and hype needs to be built up around it. If the hype surrounding ME's multiplayer is that it isn't good, then it will be quickly forgotten.
2)ME2 didn't have good gameplay. As a pure shooter it was average compared to what else is available. The mechanics were just not balanced well enough to be called good. The game was based on being a shooting gallery where you constantly turtle under a single piece of cover against enemies with universally more health than the player.
3) There's plenty of evidence if you're willing to read between the lines that the game was delayed for multiplayer. There's plenty of evidence of Bioware being poor gameplay developers. There's plenty of evidence that simply having a crappy multiplayer doesn't automaticaly tap into the pool of multiplayer shooter fans. Finally, there's plenty of evidence that games don't sell as well directly after the holiday season.
4) Doesn't really matter how good the multiplayer is. It won't be much anything like the SP (lets face it, the powers of ME would not work for even co-op. Time dilation would get annoying fast, as would pausing) barring extreme changes to the SP (in which case, all the more reason to complain - changing the SP for multiplayer?). So they're basically creating a seperate game not many fans of the actual series wants during the grand finale of their epic trilogy, using up resources which could have gone into making it the best SP game they could come up with. What a waste.
CDRSkyShepard wrote...
There's a bit of a problem with your logic.
iakus wrote...
No.
Because I think having roleplaying options is a good thing.
1) Homefront is a vs multiplayer gameDarkeus wrote...
I think that DS 2 MP and ME3 co-op will both be listed under "unnecessary".
As for examples, well
Homefront, bad...
Medal of Honor, bad
Shadowrun 360 game, the worst example yet. Nothing like making a RPG a arena based MP shooter....
Resident Evil 5. Hell, you can see in Chapter 3 when they decided to make teh switch. That was not good.
Catherine. Really? MP block puzzles?
Should I keep going, there are many more bad MP games. Only a certain number of games do well like that because of hype.
Dragoonlordz wrote...
And he could of spent 20 of those hours twiddling his thumbs or repeating things to see every possible outcome both in dialogue and visiting places. I could stand on Omega and look out window for hour if wished and my play time would be reflected as such when most people would only take one minute there. He could also reach the end within the next hour and would make it a 31 hour game as opposed to 40-60+ of previous titles. This also does not change the issue I have of them stripping out all the padding of non main plot based side missions and such like they said they are doing and replacing it with DLC co-op side missions of which to sell to you as replacement.
Edge 7 wrote...
2) Completely disagreed. Why would you compare Mass Effect as a "pure shooter"? Removing the powers removes the gameplay and isn't a basis on which to judge it. I have no idea which Mass Effect 2 you played but my experience with it was not a shooting gallery.b09boy wrote...
1) There are plenty of online shooters released. Not all of them do well. A certain amount of quality and hype needs to be built up around it. If the hype surrounding ME's multiplayer is that it isn't good, then it will be quickly forgotten.
2)ME2 didn't have good gameplay. As a pure shooter it was average compared to what else is available. The mechanics were just not balanced well enough to be called good. The game was based on being a shooting gallery where you constantly turtle under a single piece of cover against enemies with universally more health than the player.
3) There's plenty of evidence if you're willing to read between the lines that the game was delayed for multiplayer. There's plenty of evidence of Bioware being poor gameplay developers. There's plenty of evidence that simply having a crappy multiplayer doesn't automaticaly tap into the pool of multiplayer shooter fans. Finally, there's plenty of evidence that games don't sell as well directly after the holiday season.
4) Doesn't really matter how good the multiplayer is. It won't be much anything like the SP (lets face it, the powers of ME would not work for even co-op. Time dilation would get annoying fast, as would pausing) barring extreme changes to the SP (in which case, all the more reason to complain - changing the SP for multiplayer?). So they're basically creating a seperate game not many fans of the actual series wants during the grand finale of their epic trilogy, using up resources which could have gone into making it the best SP game they could come up with. What a waste.
4) You named one power that wouldn't work in co-op and could be removed. Pausing could be removed for the real time keys. Single player would not have to be changed for this. The campaign is as long as ME2.
Darkeus wrote...
Stanley Woo wrote...
Darkeus, please tone it down to a dull roar. You're beginning to get hysterical, and repetitive. Thank you.
Well, if you were not making such a horrible decision in your game, most of us would not be hysterical and repetative.
I think I have made my point quite well to get your attention however.
I will leave it at that.
cachx wrote...
CDRSkyShepard wrote...
There's a bit of a problem with your logic.
Not really, feature not used = feature he doesn't want to pay for. It's pretty simple.iakus wrote...
No.
Because I think having roleplaying options is a good thing.
And how is having gameplay style options a bad thing then? We have entered the realm of personal preference.
I paid full price for both Red dead Redemption and Uncharted 2, both of them had multiplayer modes I knew I wasn't going to play. I don't regret those purchases, at all. I expect that ME3 will be the same.
(I did eventually tried out both multiplayer modes, for trophies sake, and you know what? I actually had a good time, imagine that !)
For some reason I am still skeptical. Plus Why do I think that all vehicle segment will be strictly on rails.IronSabbath88 wrote...
Someone With Mass wrote...
Dragoonlordz wrote...
Edge 7 wrote...
And they've confirmed ME3 is the same length as ME2.
http://social.biowar...5946/75#8480089
https://twitter.com/...522910693507072
"jeffoconnor Jeff Zero O'Connor
@
@gtez Forums have gone crazy, unsurprisingly. Quick question: will ME3 be about ME2's length not counting co-op? I hope so..."
"@gtez
Jesse 'GTez' Houston
@jeffoconnor Yeah if not longer - I'm at 30+ hours in my play through"
Game. Set. Match.
Houston wins.
Fatality.
Siansonea II wrote...
"BioWare lied to us!"—So what. They're under no obligation to tell us the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. They're a business, not our BFF.
Edge 7 wrote...
1) Homefront is a vs multiplayer gameDarkeus wrote...
I think that DS 2 MP and ME3 co-op will both be listed under "unnecessary".
As for examples, well
Homefront, bad...
Medal of Honor, bad
Shadowrun 360 game, the worst example yet. Nothing like making a RPG a arena based MP shooter....
Resident Evil 5. Hell, you can see in Chapter 3 when they decided to make teh switch. That was not good.
Catherine. Really? MP block puzzles?
Should I keep going, there are many more bad MP games. Only a certain number of games do well like that because of hype.
2) Medal of Honor is a vs multiplayer game
3) Shadowrun 360 is a vs multiplayer game
4) Co Op was the only good thing about RE5
5) What the hell is Catherine?
yes, please keep going, you've yet to name a game where a coop function detracted from the single player experience.
portal 2 didn't do well because of hype. it did well because it was good.
Siansonea II wrote...
"BioWare lied to us!"—So what. They're under no obligation to tell us the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. They're a business, not our BFF.
"That's resources that could have been spent on thus-and-such!"—Too bad. You're not the project manager. You don't get to make those calls.
"It's going to ruin my single player game!"—So don't buy the game, if you feel that strongly about it. Vote with your wallet. But Internet tantrums are rarely effective at accomplishing anything. Does anyone think that posting repeatedly about what jerks BioWare is for adding optional content is going to make them suddenly reconsider, scrap multiplayer, and then put all those people onto developing new Tali and Garrus stories? We don't have that much power, folks.
GuardianAngel470 wrote...
Also, I want to elaborate on a previous point. If the single player is finished, what exactly do you expect bioware to put those resources towards? Do you want them to incorporate half written script that was tossed at the beginning of development? Do you expect them to code in another meaningless sidequest? Do you expect them to rewrite all the design decisions at the beginning of development because suddenly they have more time and money?
Everyone I've seen vehemently oppose coop has either aluded to this justification or outright stated it. "We want them to spend those resources on singleplayer!" without actually providing any examples as to what they want the devs to do with those resources. How do you want them to be spent? What aspect of singleplayer do you think needs work that these resources could be spent on?
In short, what's wrong that needs fixing?
Because if nothing is wrong and nothing needs fixing, why not make coop?
In Exile wrote...
Siansonea II wrote...
"BioWare lied to us!"—So what. They're under no obligation to tell us the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. They're a business, not our BFF.
So you seriously think business should lie to their customers?
Retour en haut
