2368 réponses à ce sujet

[aridor1570]

Darkeus wrote...

aridor1570 wrote...

Darkeus wrote...

Good at keeping promises??

"Looks at Dragon Age 2"

Yeah, right....

That's only one game, made by an entirely different team.

Doesn't matter, both teams are ran by EA and that relationship is why we are getting unneeded co-op in Mass Effect 3.

And Dragon Age 2 was supposed to be good too.  If it looks like a duck man....

Your point is invalid, both DA:O and ME2 were ran by EA.

Modifié par aridor1570, 11 octobre 2011 - 12:37 .

[MACharlie1]

Abirn wrote...

Ok Fine I have a legitimate complaint that bioware should address.

Will I be missing actual story content if I play only Singleplayer and not multiplayer. I missed stuff in Portal 2 from not having anyone to play with will it be the same in ME3

This. 

I'm a pretty lonely guy. Just me and my right hand...and even that wil be busy playing the single player mode. :innocent:

I realized that nothing I type after me and my right hand can be made to sound like it isn't dirty. 

[NOD-INFORMER37]

didymos1120 wrote...

NOD-INFORMER37 wrote...

Wait, in which games do you need origin to actually play multiplayer?

Battlefield 3.

But console versions can play BF3 multi without origin.....or is it just PC games where you need origin installed? Idk

[didymos1120]

alperez wrote...

Dragon age 2 however eradicated a lot of that goodwill, to see a game shipped that had so many bugs, was clearly not polished or finished to the standard we've come to expect from bioware was something i didn't expect, sure some games before had bugs but da2 pushed the envelope too far imo.

In comparison to DA:O?  Hardly.  Sure, less copy-paste design, but it was riddled with bugs.  Awakening was even worse.

Modifié par didymos1120, 11 octobre 2011 - 12:38 .

[aridor1570]

Darkeus wrote...

gamer_girl wrote...

Darkeus wrote...

Good at keeping promises??

"Looks at Dragon Age 2"

Yeah, right....

What promise didn't they keep in regards to DA2?

You have played it right???

I've played it and I can't see your point.

[Ramus Quaritch]

gamer_girl wrote...

Darkeus wrote...

Good at keeping promises??

"Looks at Dragon Age 2"

Yeah, right....

What promise didn't they keep in regards to DA2?

The promise was that the Dragon Age series would be the spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate and a more classic rpg.  Dragon Age: Origins was just that.  Dragon Age 2 was not.    

Modifié par Ramus Quaritch, 11 octobre 2011 - 12:38 .

[Darkeus]

aridor1570 wrote...

Darkeus wrote...

aridor1570 wrote...

Darkeus wrote...

Good at keeping promises??

"Looks at Dragon Age 2"

Yeah, right....

That's only one game, made by an entirely different team.

Doesn't matter, both teams are ran by EA and that relationship is why we are getting unneeded co-op in Mass Effect 3.

And Dragon Age 2 was supposed to be good too.  If it looks like a duck man....

Your point is invalid, both DA:O and ME2 were ran by EA.

Very earlier in the relationship.  The grip has tightened, easy to see.  Look at the quality and the "added features".  The rush jobs..

Still very valid point I believe.

[gamer_girl]

Darkeus wrote...

gamer_girl wrote...

Darkeus wrote...

Good at keeping promises??

"Looks at Dragon Age 2"

Yeah, right....

What promise didn't they keep in regards to DA2?

You have played it right???

Yup I did. I repeat: What promises did they not keep?

[didymos1120]

NOD-INFORMER37 wrote...

didymos1120 wrote...

NOD-INFORMER37 wrote...

Wait, in which games do you need origin to actually play multiplayer?

Battlefield 3.

But console versions can play BF3 multi without origin.....or is it just PC games where you need origin installed? Idk

PC.  Console versions will use Xbox LIVE and PSN, as per usual.

Modifié par didymos1120, 11 octobre 2011 - 12:39 .

[broncos1123]

Who was behind making this decision? Because it is a horrible one... like EPIC terrible. Multiplayer? Are you kidding me?

In the time they spent on this terrible idea, they could have been making ME3 into an even better RPG game. They could have made ME3 Epic.

This is a fail.

[aridor1570]

Ramus Quaritch wrote...

gamer_girl wrote...

Darkeus wrote...

Good at keeping promises??

"Looks at Dragon Age 2"

Yeah, right....

What promise didn't they keep in regards to DA2?

The promise was that the Dragon Age series would be the spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate and a more classic rpg.  Dragon Age: Origins was just that.  Dragon Age 2 was not.    

No, DA:O WAS promised to be the spiritual successor, they never said that about DA2 or the DA series.

[gammameggon]

Like I said many times....ME3 already looked like a very linear third person shooter. With energy swords and railgun sequences!!! Is anyone really surprised by multiplayer, since ME3 pretty much looked like a third person shooter, anyways?

Whatever the outcome of the single player....full effort wasn't given to it. Some of the effort was given to multiplayer.

How people cannot comprehend this simplistic logical correlation baffles me.

[Darkeus]

aridor1570 wrote...

Darkeus wrote...

gamer_girl wrote...

Darkeus wrote...

Good at keeping promises??

"Looks at Dragon Age 2"

Yeah, right....

What promise didn't they keep in regards to DA2?

You have played it right???

I've played it and I can't see your point.

Not that hard.  But someone below said it better.  THe game was rushed when they said it wasn't.  The game was not even close to what they described it to be in the beginning.

It was a failure and buggy at that.

[NOD-INFORMER37]

didymos1120 wrote...

NOD-INFORMER37 wrote...

didymos1120 wrote...

NOD-INFORMER37 wrote...

Wait, in which games do you need origin to actually play multiplayer?

Battlefield 3.

But console versions can play BF3 multi without origin.....or is it just PC games where you need origin installed? Idk

PC.  Console versions will use Xbox LIVE and PSN, as per usual.

Ohhh ok.

That sucks for PC players. :[

[Dragoonlordz]

I also don't like the fact the reason it was added to ME3 instead of the next title (after) Shepards story is a simple one... It's because people have invested time and money into the two previous games and wish to finish the story of the trilogy. They took that and tacked MP on because they knew could get away with it with limited impact on sales due to the aforementioned issue of knowing last in trilogy people wish to finish their story in such. That is why they put it in now rather than building it into an ME4 title from the offset imho.

[didymos1120]

Ramus Quaritch wrote...

The promise was that the Dragon Age series would be the spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate and a more classic rpg.  Dragon Age: Origins was just that.  Dragon Age 2 was not.   

When did they ever say the entire series would be that?  I'm pretty sure they were talking about DA:O. Or are we going to go with the notion that it was an implied promise?

[addiction21]

RamirezWolfen wrote...

How do people know that this is all because of EA?

Because BioWare would never have dared to add multiplayer, sell premium modules*ahem* dlcs, or develop games for consoles before EA, oh wait...

[Dragoonlordz]

gamer_girl wrote...

Darkeus wrote...

gamer_girl wrote...

Darkeus wrote...

Good at keeping promises??

"Looks at Dragon Age 2"

Yeah, right....

What promise didn't they keep in regards to DA2?

You have played it right???

Yup I did. I repeat: What promises did they not keep?

IF wish to be a smartass, ML said in an interview that the fans of the old DAO title would not be dissapointed as they had kept enough from that element wise to please those fans. I was not pleased and I was dissapointed therefore he lied.

[shep82]

I knew it. Oh well will not cancel my preorder because the CO-Op will bit force me to do it nor will it being there affect the game in the slightest for me.

[aridor1570]

Darkeus wrote...

aridor1570 wrote...

Darkeus wrote...

gamer_girl wrote...

Darkeus wrote...

Good at keeping promises??

"Looks at Dragon Age 2"

Yeah, right....

What promise didn't they keep in regards to DA2?

You have played it right???

I've played it and I can't see your point.

Not that hard.  But someone below said it better.  THe game was rushed when they said it wasn't.  The game was not even close to what they described it to be in the beginning.

It was a failure and buggy at that.

They've never said that, they in fact admitted it was rushed.

[Anacronian Stryx]

alperez wrote...

The whole multiplayer fiasco to me shows just what little regard they actually have for their fanbase.

Well...

Who is the most annoying characters in Mass Effect?

Chris Priestly wrote...

You people who play it.

Can I say that? No? Bad Priestly.

Waits for the Bioware defence force to spit out Biowares banana and come storming..

[Symbolz]

blacqout wrote...

Now that i know what's going on, i'm actually really excited for it.

4 player co-op missions, separate from the single player campaign, sounds awesome. I wonder who we'll get to play as.

Modern Warfare 2 had some special co-op missions, and the single player didn't suffer for it. I'm not worried.

That's like comparing apples with oranges.  While similiar in many ways, they are also vastly different.  CoD:MW2 was developed first and foremost as a mutliplayer base platform.  Having a co-op missions just makes sense for it because it is already a multiplayer game to begin with.  The single player element in most multiplayer games is a filler - something to do after they have worked on the multiplayer aspects of the game.  At best you could compare CoD:MW2 with another FPS like GoW1-3, but not ME.  Cause I don't recall seeing a dialogue wheel while playing CoD:MW2

[Ramus Quaritch]

If Bioware/EA pumped more money into ME3 in order to add the multiplayer feature, then the quality of the single player will not suffer. If Bioware/EA did not put enough additional money into ME3 to pay for the multiplayer, then the single player will suffer. Seeing how none of us know Bioware's budget, one cannot assume that the single player will be worse off (well, you can, but it won't be based on any hard evidence).

[gamer_girl]

Darkeus wrote...

aridor1570 wrote...

Darkeus wrote...

gamer_girl wrote...

Darkeus wrote...

Good at keeping promises??

"Looks at Dragon Age 2"

Yeah, right....

What promise didn't they keep in regards to DA2?

You have played it right???

I've played it and I can't see your point.

Not that hard.  But someone below said it better.  THe game was rushed when they said it wasn't.  The game was not even close to what they described it to be in the beginning.

It was a failure and buggy at that.

The concept of a game being a "failure" is subjective. They probably made that statement that is was a wonderful game believing that it was a great game after having played it themselves. That kind of promise can't really be made in the first place because it's all based on opinion. Just as a teacher can't promise that a test will be easy, because the ease of a test is subjective also. I personally thought DA2 was a really fun game. Was it as amazing as DA:O? No, but it definitely wasn't a "failure" in my books.

Modifié par gamer_girl, 11 octobre 2011 - 12:45 .

[DeadpoolBub]

Hopefully the single player didn't have to suffer because of the new co-op feature. Co-op is fun & all, but I highly doubt it'll be the main reason ANYONE will want this game.

They should of did what Rockstar did with RDR & add co-op missions as free DLC later down the road.