3794 réponses à ce sujet

[Novate]

Eudaemonium wrote...

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Darkeus wrote...

I love all this blind faith that the pro-MP people have.

Blind faith?

Because I'm more like, "Wow, this sounds pretty cool.  I wonder if Bioware can pull it off?"

That's basically my reaction. I think the concept is really interesting, but I will wait until the execution to truly make any judgement.


But as someone who never plays MP games, I'll be honest: it certainly beats planet scanning.

But why test it on the final chapter of Shepard's Story, Why even mess with it, we had such a wonderful run, why even challenge something that is already epic in itself and adding something entirely OPTIONAL...
I want to play the game, I don't want something that is OPTIONAL, give me more content.

Unfortunately I don't have Xbox live so its not even an option for me. But i just don't understand why they didn't just add more game play into the single player campaigns but decided to do this OPTIONAL ****..

[Candidate 88766]

Lard wrote...

Candidate 88766 wrote...
At least blind faith is better than instantly dismissing something you know nothing about and leaping to ridiculous conclusions.

Putting your trust in a company that has already lied to you and assuming they are going to do something to benefit the game, instead of doing something to make a quick buck is pretty foolish.

Lied? Has it not occurred to you that at the time Casey mentioned there wouldn't be MP that maybe they didn't think the MP would be ready?

On every other occasion Bioware was very vague about MP and refused to confirm or deny. If they had repeatedly and catergorically stated no MP then maybe I'd agree about them lying, but one comment made by one dev compared to dozens of other comments not denying MP strikes me as a mistake, not an outright lie. If it was like the situation with Peter Molyneux, where he seems to just make up features for his games and never delivers them, then i'd agree with you. If one wrong statement by a dev is enough to make you lose trust then I can't imagine you have trust in any game company at all.

Besides, its not 'blind' faith. Bioware has produced many of my favourite games, so in my eyes the faith is entirely justified.

[Lard]

Cainne Chapel wrote...

No company has an obligation to the audience that buys its entertainment product anymore than actually selling the product and servicing it if something goes wrong.

Otherwise adding features more consumers can use is NOT a bad thing.  And yes Shareholders DO make the game, not directly mind you, but indirectly by adding money to the companies coffers.  Just as the company has an obligation to pay its employees, it has an obligation to do well for the shareholders who are often times customers as well.  

So dont screw the shareholders, or else you wouldnt have a game with a nice budget   Granted without consumers they wouldnt either, but this is a move to draw more consumers so... to Bioware/EA its a win/win.

and how does adding more features to a game thats already the length of the past games cause an expense to it? Wouldnt we then be getting more bang for the buck?

and as a company that produces entertianment...well they have to make sure the game is at least as entertaining as the two that came before it don't they?

1) They absolutely do have an obligation to the audience if we're putting our money down for it.

2) How exactly do shareholders contribute to the creation of a game, other than sitting around on their asses and saying "make us more money" to the company? (Quick answer - they don't)

3) You're not getting more bang for your buck if you're forced to sign up for Xbox Live to use certain features.

4) Adding a feature I have zero interest in does not make the game as entertaining as the previous two which didn't have the feature I didn't want.

[Spartanburger]

GreenSoda wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

AdmiralCheez wrote...
Most of the audience is not alienated.

Shockingly enough, the BSN does not accurately represent everyone who plays Mass Effect.

Yeah. There are millions of players and fans out there, and BSN has what...just about ten thousand members?

5 million members -2 years ago...yeah link

And how many of those actually use the forums?

In order to have the cerberus network actually work (at least for the PC crowd) you must have a BSN account with your game registered to it. Same goes for DLC. And this is the case for ME2, DA:O and DA2.

So BSN has millions of members, but a tiny percent of that actually uses BSN's forum and most only really use it for game registration and DLC.

JigPig wrote...
Let's say $500,000 was spent on the MP component.

If that $500,000 was spent on the SP portion of the game. It would improve it.

Fact.

Nope and nope.

First off, the simple fact that they are making a MP component would add more funds to their pocket.

And secondly, it does not matter how much a team is being payed. You can pay BW employees $1,000,000 an hour to work on ME3, but you cannot make them work past their limits. What matters more is if the team is being productive. A productive team may be correlated to funding, but anyone who has take anything to do with statistics knows that correlation does not equal causation. You know what would make a productive team? A nice social environment. Healthy work space and food. A full nights sleep (as a student, I cannot reccommend a good 8 hours of sleep enough). ect ect.

[AdmiralCheez]

Lard wrote...

That's because you're perfectly willing to ignore the facts to argue your point.

The only one that really stuck out to me so far is "the resources spent on MP could have been put into SP."  Which I agree with, and I would actually PREFER ME3 to be single-player exclusive because that's what made it so damn good in the first place.  However, upon hearing about how multiplayer is going to be implimented, it sounds interesting enough to play, and I don't think SP is going to suffer TOO much.  If it does, oh well, I'll feel bad about wasting my money and b*tch for a while about how ME3 let me down.

But my point was that you CANNOT present things as "facts" and expect people to believe you without proving they are "facts."

[BeefoTheBold]

Ruud333 wrote...

101 pages in 21 hours!

But obviously the decision hasn't alienated any fans!

[TheGreenAlloy]

Someone With Mass wrote...

JigPig wrote...

If the money + time that was devoted into adding an MP component was used on the SP portion, SP would be longer.

Fact.

Let me give you another little fact. The multiplayer part was made by another studio.

Does the addition of co-op multiplayer missions impact the scope or quality of the single-player experience?

No. A dedicated team from our recently formed BioWare Montreal studio has been focused on creating the multiplayer game features while the main game continued to be developed by the team in BioWare Edmonton. Both teams are integrated under the same leadership group that produced Mass Effect 1 and 2, led by Casey Hudson. BioWare remains dedicated to delivering one of the most amazing single-player campaigns gamers have ever experienced.

They won't listen.

[BatmanPWNS]

Ruud333 wrote...

101 pages in 21 hours!

We're aiming for 300.

[DaringMoosejaw]

Darkeus wrote...

Like I said, I am on the opposite side.  A horrible disaster is what I am seeing and 80 bucks for a Collectors Edition for a game that may have just been ruined is a big deal for my wallet.

And my worries are not gone because of the faq.  It was a PR Faq that was rushed out to quell the outrage.  They could say anything and that is where blind faith comes in.

You really believe everything you read?  Especially coming from a company that was feeling MAJOR heat?

They don't lie, at least if they do it is VERY rare, but they WILL use lawyer-speak at times when it's obvious they can't say anything. That FAQ had no lawyer-speak, so I see no reason to assume everything in it is a lie.

[whywhywhywhy]

Zakatak757 wrote...

Ancient Metal wrote...

What I have noticed is that lost in translation in all of this....guess who?

Commander Shepard.

ME3 is about Shepard and finding a way to defeat the Reapers....or stop them....anything....to save organic life. Now Shepard has been swept under the rug and at the very least there are corresponding characters.

Sure....I'm sure the common response will be don't use it, but just knowing it exists....and that it effects single player....is despicable. And resources used on MP could have been directly used on other aspects...any other aspect...of ME3 and made the game better. But its not, and we know now why there was a delay.

People should be ashamed....instead of the focus being soley on Commander Shepard as a PC....a character many people poured dozens and dozens of hours into and two games with transferring choices....they sold out for.....oh Lookie, I can be a Turian!!!!!!!!!! In reality, ME3 isn't Shepard's story, and the focus is now off of it and into a jumbled mess.

This is horrendous news, and I am frustrated and disgusted beyond words at this decision. I know my girlfriend is, too. Multiplayer diminishes everything I was looking forward to in this game....now I know full effort wasn't given to the game and we were basically misled into believing it wouldn't be in Mass Effect 3.

I was a fan who thought there were some good things in DA2, but overall felt it was a much inferior product to what I came to expect from BioWare and overall a fairly "shoddy" game. I'm not happy at all with the direction BioWare is going, and making choices that are directly opposite of my likes and dislikes as an avid fan of rpgs.

So much so, along with my girlfriend, that we have both cancelled our preorders of Mass Effect 3.

Are you a f*cking joke?

The lack of intelligence here isn't even worth replying to. Enjoy not being able to play as Shepard for 35+ hours.

The lack of intelligence is apparent in your post, Ancient metal articulated his point in a concise, calm and rational manner.  Yet all you could do was angrily retort.  Push on! We don't need your type here, by chance do you play COD ?

[bigheadzach]

Lard wrote...

That's the problem with the situation. People who only care about making money see what's popular and say "Do that", not caring whether it adds to the game or not.

If this were the case, Mass Effect 3 would feature Shepard tending a farm and using spontaneously-combusting aviary xenomorphs to destroy a swine-infested stronghold.

[DarthSliver]

Darth Vengeant wrote...

Lard wrote...

Darth Vengeant wrote...

Yes, he also did Black Swan.

And movies like that are a rarity now days partly because it was more of an Independant type of film. That is my point. Hollywood only cares about the cash, not the art. And so, we get 85% garbage in the Cinema because of it..

That or remakes, much like we're getting more and more HD remakes this gen.

Dont even get me started on remakes. reimaginings, and prequels....lol.

Comic book movies seem to be the way too go, they seem to actually be trying when making them this time around. 

[Zanallen]

Man, 40+ pages while I was sleeping and still the same 4-5 people raging on every page.

[Ancient Metal]

Multiplayer.

Optional to play it.

Mandatory to pay for it.

[NOD-INFORMER37]

BlaCKRodjj wrote...

Lard wrote...

DaringMoosejaw wrote...

Lard wrote...

Oh you mean the game that just had paid DLC released for it? Your point?

That DLC was free.

Oh well, it's still another game where MP was added just to put a bullet point on a box and  to attract the dudebro shooter crowd.

Yeah, because Portal 2 is all about bullet holes and explotions.
Not everyone can play an RPG because it's much more time consuming than playing... say... a round of CoD. People play games because they're interactive, fun and create a distraction from stressful things. If that time is spent playing MP or FPS is their option. Now, if you want to spent your time playing the SP part of ME3, do it, no one is forcing down your throat the MP. There's just no statement as of yet on what part will the MP component help to "fill" the "bar" of "Galactic Readiness". But it is stated that you can achieve everything on the SP, so there's no excuse to b*tch but to do it just for the sake of b*tch. Of course, you'll do it anyways since you don't want that "horrible MP corrupting my pure SP DVD"

And remember Portal 2 was made by Valve.....not saying Bioware would do a bad job with multi, but the only reason they're doing it is because EA(aka the destroyer of games) pushed them to. Plus Bioware's expertise is clearly in the single player experience, thats why most prefer it to be left alone.

[Vayrand]

Why couldn't BioWare do something along the lines of say Final Fantasy. Keep the single player and multiplayer stuff separate. They should have saved the multiplayer content for another separate game, heck it could even be titled as Mass Effect: Galaxy at War, fighting in various areas with friends in the form of Borderlands or Dead Island.

Not only is the feature trying to appeal to a wider audience but I feel that BioWare knows as much as me or the others complain or rant, most of us will end up pre-ordering/buying ME3 anyway cause we want to find out what happens to Shepard and the 1000 or so variables they claim will be imported into the finale.

Just a pity they couldn't just wait. I rather have a fully fledged co-op multiplayer game in another Mass Effect game.

[PJRobinson]

I was pro-multiplayer, I want to play it.
I DON'T want it to affect the single player.

By this I mean that I don't want the multiplayer story to "dramatically affect the outcome" of my single player story. It will beat the point of multiple playthroughs - of which I have 22 - as they could all have the same ending due to me and my mates wanting to play co-op - which takes me closer to the "good" ending.

FAIL Shepard was not designed for a good ending!

And don't just say "don't play the multiplayer then" - I want to, I just don't like the idea of it affecting all of my Shepard's stories in the same way.

[Darth Vengeant]

Il Divo wrote...

Darth Vengeant wrote...

Lard wrote...

BatmanPWNS wrote...

I am pretty sure you don't even know 1% of the fans opinion about MP and reduce it? It didn't stop Assassin's Creed from selling, it didn't stop Portal, it sure as hell didn't stop Uncharted 2. Yes they may have DLC maps released but ME has useless stuff like appearence pack and DLC weapons released just to get money as well.

Lots of people bought the Spice Girls, lots of people buy Justin Bieber too.

There are plenty of examples of people buying crap.

+1000000000000000.

So I assume we can apply this argument to Mass Effect 1 as well? Popularity is always acceptable as long as you enjoy whats popular.

Except people didnt buy ME because it was popular or to fit in, I certainly didn't, they bought it because it is a good game. Bioware makes good games, for the most part. That is not a popularity trend, it is just a simple fact.

People only buy Spice Girls and Justin Bieber because they dont know any better and are trying to fit in. Kids mostly. They don't know there is actually GOOD music out there that isn't a trendy processed formula for cash. But, you wont hear the media and Teen Beat tell them that.

[Lard]

AdmiralCheez wrote...
But my point was that you CANNOT present things as "facts" and expect people to believe you without proving they are "facts."

Anyone with common sense knows what I am saying about MP is fact.

[Arsenal0602]

bigheadzach wrote...

Arsenal0602 wrote...

I could have done a better analogy.   But yes you're logic is flawed as the basic thing is that pandering to a new crowd is going to upset the original fans if they are adding features that do not intrest them, and if adding the new features to draw in a different group takes away from what the intrest is of the older fans. 

It isn't vain of the fans to explect the status quo to stay the same, it is poor customer services to add a feature that is going to change how the game is played at the end of development. 

But if the new features are completely optional and do not in anyway detract from the experience of a player who chooses not to use them, and the price point to the consumer in the end is still the same and has the potential to increase the number of total people who enjoy the game, what right does the old crowd have to insist the new crowd can't have their features?

Because the new crowd does not exist, they are thoretical at this point, so the funds logically should have been put into the SP

Unless there is a gathering of people that were saying they would neer buy Mass Effect unless it had multiplayer. I must have missed those people.

Most games add a new feature because people were wanting it, horde in gears of war came from peopel wanting 4 play co-op, what does the MP in gears come from?  The funds should have been used differently on what the people that have allready paid for the games are wanting, not an imiaginary crowd that you are talking about.

[BeefoTheBold]

Ancient Metal wrote...

Multiplayer.

Optional to play it.

Mandatory to pay for it.

Well said. Works with Kinect too.

[Melchiah109]

Lard wrote...

1) They absolutely do have an obligation to the audience if we're putting our money down for it.

2) How exactly do shareholders contribute to the creation of a game, other than sitting around on their asses and saying "make us more money" to the company? (Quick answer - they don't)

3) You're not getting more bang for your buck if you're forced to sign up for Xbox Live to use certain features.

4) Adding a feature I have zero interest in does not make the game as entertaining as the previous two which didn't have the feature I didn't want.

And now we finally see why you're so against MP. Bioware is totally at fault for Microsoft making you pay for XBL.

[Cainne Chapel]

[quote]Darkeus wrote...

[quote]DaringMoosejaw wrote...

[quote]Darkeus wrote...

I love all this blind faith that the pro-MP people have.[/quote]

I was AGAINST multiplayer before Chris's posting of this thread. I thought it would be random, tacked on and have nothing to do with the story. I thought it'd sap away from the single player. But after reading through the details and actually being informed on the matter, I've changed my tune. It's being developed by a seperate team and actually looks kind of cool. I look forward to playing through it with my buddies. The effect it was on SP is entirely optional and just as attainable through SP, so my worries are gone.

Could it be an unmitigated disaster? Rushed? Anything's possible, but that I won't know until I get the game.

[/quote]


You heard it here first people! A forum poster is officially smarter than the makers of the game!

Really Dark? I've heard of reaching for things, but dismissing a DEVELOPERS post simply as damage control is reaching a bit much man.

If you're gonna claim to not like something at least have more backing than passing your OPINION off as FACT.  Especially when a developer that actively works on the game, counters it deftly.

Honestly though... i'm more inclined to believe the guys that have made ME1 and ME2 than a random forum poster.  FAQ or otherwise.

Simple fact is they have WAY more insight than any of us do.  Granted they're paid to do so, but none the less, I'll take the professionals word over a random naysayer.

Modifié par Cainne Chapel, 11 octobre 2011 - 10:02 .

[AdmiralCheez]

Ancient Metal wrote...

Multiplayer.

Optional to play it.

Mandatory to pay for it.

ME3 would be a full-price game regardless of how many modes it had.