2368 réponses à ce sujet

[In Exile]

Captain_Obvious wrote...
I'll bite.  Name three (you wrote developers, not developer) who are the ones who consistently put fans first and profits second.  I'll allow the people who made the Witcher 1 &2, that's CD Projekt (I think).  So give me two more.  I'd like to check them out. 

CD Projeckt totally puts cash first. They're just not stupid enough to set their goodwill on fire. It's why TW2 was made with the gamepad in mind - to make it easy to port to consoles. 

[saMoorai]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

bobobo878 wrote...

saMOOrai182 wrote...

I'm actually Kinda excited for it.

It will be interesting to see the war from a different perspective.

me too! yay!

I hate you two.

What? The story doesn't have to be completely about Shepard. Its a war. Seeing that war through the eyes of another soldier is a neat idea, story wise.

[Ghost Lightning]

[quote]hhh89 wrote...



twitter.com/#!/gtez/status/123532790192021504
"So the same amount of content that was in #ME2 Singleplayer campaign is in #ME3? If so, that's good to hear =D"

"WRT
MB cost per asset ME2>ME3 due to engine improvements - So ME3s a
much bigger game. We were worried about fitting on 2 Discs!"

twitter.com/#!/gtez/status/123532947646193664
"I'm speaking specifically about Single Player cost :)"
[/quote][/quote]

same amount as ME2....wtf

I hate this

[1136342t54_]

[quote]hhh89 wrote...



twitter.com/#!/gtez/status/123532790192021504
"So the same amount of content that was in #ME2 Singleplayer campaign is in #ME3? If so, that's good to hear =D"

"WRT
MB cost per asset ME2>ME3 due to engine improvements - So ME3s a
much bigger game. We were worried about fitting on 2 Discs!"

twitter.com/#!/gtez/status/123532947646193664
"I'm speaking specifically about Single Player cost :)"
[/quote][/quote]

This is obviously a lie by Bioware to convince us that the entire game isn't a linear co-op FPS game. In fact its quite likely Commander shepard will be replaced by a former SAS soldier called Commander Soap Mctavish. 

[LadyofRivendell]

Captain_Obvious wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

The best game developers to me are the ones who put fans first and marketting plus profits second.

I'll bite.  Name three (you wrote developers, not developer) who are the ones who consistently put fans first and profits second.  I'll allow the people who made the Witcher 1 &2, that's CD Projekt (I think).  So give me two more.  I'd like to check them out. 

I'll add Naughty Dog here, although I'm just butting in to a conversation.

[gamer_girl]

Xeranx wrote...

gamer_girl wrote...

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? 

Find the proof that they lied. Then your question will be valid.

That's not what his comment is about and you know that.  Don't act like it's anything different.

In any case, they were dishonest.  Do you want to argue that?

Avoiding the question can't be termed as being dishonest. Unless you can show me where they said "there will be no multiplayer in any sense of the word in ME3", then I'll agree that they were dishonest. You can't be dishonest when you avoid a question. "Maybe", "likely", etc. is not the same thing as saying "no". I don't understand where people are having trouble with this logically. Did BW hide the truth? Yes. Did they ever contradict the truth? No.

[Dragoonlordz]

Captain_Obvious wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

The best game developers to me are the ones who put fans first and marketting plus profits second.

I'll bite.  Name three (you wrote developers, not developer) who are the ones who consistently put fans first and profits second.  I'll allow the people who made the Witcher 1 &2, that's CD Projekt (I think).  So give me two more.  I'd like to check them out. 

CDPR, Valve, Twisted Pixel. Thats three.

[1136342t54_]

[quote]Ghost Lightning wrote...

[quote]hhh89 wrote...



twitter.com/#!/gtez/status/123532790192021504
"So the same amount of content that was in #ME2 Singleplayer campaign is in #ME3? If so, that's good to hear =D"

"WRT
MB cost per asset ME2>ME3 due to engine improvements - So ME3s a
much bigger game. We were worried about fitting on 2 Discs!"

twitter.com/#!/gtez/status/123532947646193664
"I'm speaking specifically about Single Player cost :)"
[/quote][/quote]

same amount as ME2....wtf

I hate this

[/quote]

So when they say a MUCH BIGGER GAME you got same amount as ME2? Also they have been saying this **** for months now. Stop acting like this is new info (this is more to the others than to you specifically).

[didymos1120]

Ahglock wrote...

They not to long ago expressly said there wasn'r multiplayer in ME3, so yeah they lied.

Where and when?  Because I've never seen an explicit denial, just evasions.  That was one of the major factors in keeping the rumors going, in fact.

[The Elder King]

Someone With Mass wrote...

hhh89 wrote...



twitter.com/#!/gtez/status/123532790192021504
"So the same amount of content that was in #ME2 Singleplayer campaign is in #ME3? If so, that's good to hear =D"

"WRT
MB cost per asset ME2>ME3 due to engine improvements - So ME3s a
much bigger game. We were worried about fitting on 2 Discs!"

twitter.com/#!/gtez/status/123532947646193664
"I'm speaking specifically about Single Player cost :)"

Fell free to throw in another disc. I don't care.

Exactly what I think.

Modifié par hhh89, 10 octobre 2011 - 11:12 .

[ratzerman]

LadyofRivendell wrote...

I don't have nearly enough patience to read through 80 pages of this, can someone tell me if co-op is separated from story mode? Or is it campaign co-op? Thanks!

This is my biggest concern as well. Will there be certain missions in the campaign that won't be accessible unless I can round up three other people to play it? That would be.... not optimal.

[XyleJKH]

Ok just hearing about this now. This is pretty upsetting. What I want to know is, what made bioware think the people who play this game wanted this?
Yeah yeah, new fanbase, blah blah blah. I get it
But this will not increase the sales. People don't by games like Dead Space 2, Dragon Age, or Mass Effect for the multiplayer, we buy them for the story
Now I am still excited about the game, but now I know that the whole game will be diluted from what it should have been. THere is no doubt in my mind this is more of an EA move, than a Bioware move. People who made this franchise should stand up to these idiots and say "EA this is a bad idea"
Kind of like some people should have said to George Lucas that SO many things in the prequel trilogy where bad ideas
Another thing it says certain multiplayer missions... I pray, I doubt it will happen, BUT I pray that you will not, REPEAT will not NEED to do thse multiplayer missions with another player. That would be bull. Not to mention the achievements to get for playing multiplayer which not many will get because THE MULTIPLAYER WILL NOT BE COMPETETIVE TO GAMES LIKE BF3, Halo Series, COD, or even GOW!!
This is likely the worst idea for this franchise. I stood by thinking (and after reading the GAmeInformers first reveal: No MP. Its a SP game)
Like seriously, first the Kinect. I was a bit miffed, but was like ok, no big deal its just voice command. Took a breather there. I like the melee attacks. Those are cool. But THIS! Sorry bioware, but nothing you can say will help me with this. Why Start a MP for this? Your greatest franchise?? Why can't you just leave it alone and do it on another game that you guys are developing? Why ? I almost guarantee most fans are NOT happy about this news, so why would you add it? We all know its EA! You are slowly slowly losing ground bioware.
Please don't lose one of your longest fans. Redeem yourself somehow
For **** sakes

[b09boy]

Edge 7 wrote...

2) The playthrough you're describing sounds like soldier on casual. Everything you just discribed contributed to the game being tactical and challenging. Visit the ME2 build forum if you doubt me.

4) That still assumes co-op would use the exact class structure as the singleplayer campaign. Is it not reasonable to assume that players will have less powers to compensate for the presence of four of them?

2) The game is a repetitive cover-based shooting callery no matter your class build, and on that is quite easy.

4) So, again, it won't play anything like the actual game.  So what's the point?

[Ghost Lightning]

1136342t54 wrote...

So when they say a MUCH BIGGER GAME you got same amount as ME2? Also they have been saying this **** for months now. Stop acting like this is new info (this is more to the others than to you specifically).

No, the top guy said it was the same. And just cause they said it b4 doesn't mean I have to like it :\\

[ChurchOfZod]

Honestly I hope it's done as a planet's military/survivors blasting their way through husks and the indoctrinated in a horde mode or checkpoint mission. There's plenty of meat in the story to support some side missions with generic characters. What I am not looking for at all is ANY MULTIPLAYER ACHIEVMENTS(yes, some of us are OCD about that stuff) or MP being needed to finish the story to 100%.

[Nerevar-as]

Captain_Obvious wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

The best game developers to me are the ones who put fans first and marketting plus profits second.

I'll bite.  Name three (you wrote developers, not developer) who are the ones who consistently put fans first and profits second.  I'll allow the people who made the Witcher 1 &2, that's CD Projekt (I think).  So give me two more.  I'd like to check them out. 

I think Larian (Divinity 2) fits the requirements. Their posts commenting how developer-big distributor relationship would give some people here nightmares.

[Dragoonlordz]

In Exile wrote...

Captain_Obvious wrote...
I'll bite.  Name three (you wrote developers, not developer) who are the ones who consistently put fans first and profits second.  I'll allow the people who made the Witcher 1 &2, that's CD Projekt (I think).  So give me two more.  I'd like to check them out. 

CD Projeckt totally puts cash first. They're just not stupid enough to set their goodwill on fire. It's why TW2 was made with the gamepad in mind - to make it easy to port to consoles. 

They actually said they would have liked to make all DLC free on 360 version too but due to M$ policy over it's XBL, M$ won't allow it.

[saMoorai]

Another game? Last time I checked Mass Effect was a Story based game. If it adds to the story, then why not?

[1136342t54_]

Ghost Lightning wrote...

1136342t54 wrote...

So when they say a MUCH BIGGER GAME you got same amount as ME2? Also they have been saying this **** for months now. Stop acting like this is new info (this is more to the others than to you specifically).

No, the top guy said it was the same. And just cause they said it b4 doesn't mean I have to like it :

That was a question. Also if you heard it before then why act like its news to you?

[Edge 7]

Darkeus wrote...

All of thos egames detracted from the single player or what could have been!!

Homefront single player was like 5 hours long, because Multiplayer was a focus.

Same with Medal of Honor.

Shaodwrun SHOULD HAVE BEEN A single player game but they ruined it and made it MP.

Co-op was the reason that the only good thing about RE5 was co-op.  It ruined the single player game it could have been. 

You don't know Catherine???  Oh well, good game...

1) Yes, because VS multiplayer was the focus
2) Yes, because VS multiplayer was the focus
3) It didn't have a singleplayer because they didn't have the intention of implementing it. What you think it could have been has no effect on what it is.
4) Given that RE5's coop is the singleplayer campaign, I really doubt that.

[GuardianAngel470]

Darkeus wrote...

One, I had to laugh when you said Bioware went to EA to do multiplayer.

I doubt it went that way at all.  More like EA "telling" Bioware that it needs to be in the game.

Multiplayer is UNNEEDED.  Got that?  Okay, so why not release the game early since so one gives a damn about co-op except a few of you or make the game better.  We have seen Dragon Age 2 and this stinks of rush job and taking away from something great (The single player) to create a turd (Co-op)

They could have shored up the gameplay, added more quest, tweaked AI, worked on responses and smoothing out bugs so that we don;t have another Conrad Verner.  I could go on?

But I made my point.  Anything thing would be better to work on than wasting time with co-op that no one really wants.  The gameplay has never been perfect, perfect it.  Tweak levels, find bugs....

I mean come on, you can't think of anything else they could be working on other than this?

Bioware is making an MMO, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that they asked to do mulitplayer. But I accounted for both scenarios.

You may define multiplayer as unneeded but that may or may not be the case. Most video games sell at a loss, did you know that? Like movies, most video games never reach the black (profits) and never equal the cost of development.

Publishers rely on the heavy hitting titles to sustain them. For Activision, this game is Call of Duty. For EA, it is Madden and a few others.

EA just merged with Bioware. From an economic standpoint, they may still have debts to pay because of it.

What you and most other detractors (and the other side too) seem to love doing is oversimplifying the situation. For EA it's always a money grab, always greed. What if their top hitting franchises aren't do as well and they're losing significant money?

As to how many people will play this mode I know that I will, but only if it has local coop. I have several friends to play with and I love to do that. Other people in this very thread have also said the same thing.

You made an assumption that I'm not sure you're aware of. You said:

Okay, so why not release the game early since so one gives a damn about co-op except a few of you or make the game better.

This assumption is based on the idea that this forum is representative of the wider ME fanbase. That any one thread's underlying slant is true for the whole fanbase.

That may or may not be the case. Certainly it is obvious that multiplayer of all sorts is popular yet the prevailing opinion on this forum is that multiplayer is bad.

Yeah, they could have shored up the gameplay, but at what cost realistically? Lets say they have this system in place and then they find out that they have more time and money. You want them to go back a rewrite that system because they weren't satisfied? You want them to rewrite the AI because it's not as good as they want it to be?

What if they are satisfied with the gameplay, what if they are satisfied with enemy AI? What do they do then? This is the point I was trying to make. If they are satisfied with what they have, what do you want them to do?

My dad, an Aero engineer, always says that better is the enemy of the good enough. I know from personal experience tinkering in my room on various mechanical toys or devices as well as with my computer (which I built) that it is extremely easy to take a good idea and improve it until it's a disaster.

In fact, that's practically engineering Law.

So I'll ask again: If Bioware is satisfied with singleplayer and they are satisfied with gameplay, AI, and all that, why not make a coop option if EA asks them to? If fixing what isn't broken ends up breaking it, are you or I better or worse off?

[xSTONEYx187x]

Jesse Houston said that they struggled to get the game on 25GB Blu-ray, if that's the case how many disks will the 360 version have?

http://twitter.com/#!/search/gtez

[Woodstock504]

Ghost Lightning 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.

"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.

This is pure BS. Basically you're saying that if we don't like the producct it's on us.  That's crap.

Bioware is a company, but that doesn't mean they can just get away with saying "****** off" to their fans and customers. Now there isn't anything we can do about them putting in multiplayer except let Bioware know how much we don't like it. For them to say "tough" is not only a disrespect to all the legacy players but to anyone that isn't all in for MP. You can say they don't owe us anything, but they kinda do. We've invested money and time into this franchise and have been met with quality and fan service, so we have all right to complain when we feel that will be threatened. 

Well said my ninja  

MP on Mass effect IMO should've waited, but I guess those whining fans that wanted MP got what they wanted.  And we jus gotta except what BW brought to the table.  BW has done a Spectacular job thus far, so Im not knocking them.  we'll just have to wait and see.  right

[JeffZero]

Ghost Lightning wrote...
same amount as ME2....wtf

I hate this

Why is that an issue?

Modifié par JeffZero, 10 octobre 2011 - 11:15 .