3794 réponses à ce sujet

[DaringMoosejaw]

Ancient Metal wrote...

Multiplayer.

Optional to play it.

Mandatory to pay for it.

You can use the exact same argument for romances, types of guns, armor and side-missions. And it's still just as meaningless as the first time.

[Darth Vengeant]

Zanallen wrote...

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

Raging? Since when is a discussion and opinion "raging"? Seriously? I certain am not "raging". I am setting here calmly watching Black Swan (drooling over Natalie Portman) and trying to have a civil discussion.

Modifié par Darth Vengeant, 11 octobre 2011 - 10:03 .

[bigheadzach]

Ancient Metal wrote...

This whole "multiplayer won't effect single player" notion and argument needs to be put to rest. Multiplayer can effect single player, and its sourced.

http://www.neoseeker...-single-player/

Take the time to copy/paste the link into your URL and check it out for yourself. Ironically, it is multiplayer that now gives the optimal experience, completely contradictory to what is stated. Why? Because they didn't want to lose potential sales.

But there it is....a nice source. Myth debunked.

No one is arguing that it won't. What is being argued is that anti-MP supporters can't stand the notion that there's story-based content they won't get to have because they refuse to play the Co-Op mode.

Well, I won't get to know what happens if Miranda's a love interest because I didn't choose her. We all make choices we must live with.

[Lard]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

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.

Except it's *more* than a full price game now, isn't it?

[The Interloper]

BeefoTheBold wrote...

Ancient Metal wrote...

Multiplayer.

Optional to play it.

Mandatory to pay for it.

Well said. Works with Kinect too.

Wait...so if they didnt' have that, they'd charge only 40 bucks at launch?

I don't think so.

[Taciter]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Lard wrote...

The reactions from gaming sites has not been positive.

Citation needed.

The general reaction, except for a vocal minority on here, has not been positive.

Unless you count all the individual users that are excited/okay with/indifferent about MP and then count all the people mildly to ragingly negative about it, I'm going to call bullsh*t.

I raise you one mis-count and call...

[Zanallen]

BeefoTheBold wrote...

Ruud333 wrote...

101 pages in 21 hours!

But obviously the decision hasn't alienated any fans!

Not really. Its the same 14 or so people posting over and over again with a few new people spicing it up here and there.

[Spartanburger]

Ancient Metal wrote...

Multiplayer.

Optional to play it.

Mandatory to pay for it.

Don't want to play MP? Don't play it. You can still achieve what you want through SP and SP is as long as ME2.

Don't want to pay for MP? Don't pay for it. If you weren't planning on playing it in the first place, then why pay for it?

[Darkeus]

We Tigers wrote...

Darkeus 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?"

What you should be asking is, "What was cut from the game or what problems and bugs will arise from them trying to shoehorn Multiplayer in the game?"

Asking the wrong questions my friend.  Yes, it is blind faith.

This angle confuses me a bit.  If ME3 were coming out in December, would you be saying "Already?  What was cut from the game, or what problems and bugs will arise from them not taking extra time on it?"   There are all sorts of content and expenditure decisions that get made everywhere along the way.  Would you apply this standard to any feature in the game you don't care for, whether it's gay romances, certain characters returning, types of weapons, etc.? 

If so, okay.  If not, I wouldn't sweat it so much.  Stuff getting cut from the game or not finished or whatever could happen at any number of junctures/decision points.

The real question is how this could negatively affect the game, either intentionally or unintentionally.  If it came out in Decmeber, I would be saying, "Right on time!"  I am aware things get cut, usually ending up as DLC or some crap like that that you pay for extra.

It was due in January before this was tacked on.

The multiplayer is a unneeded and unwanted addition to a game that does not need it.  The fact that they worked on Multiplayer and it has to be on a disk with the SP degrades the Single Player in itself.  Time, resources, money wasted to put in a feature that BioWare is not really know for implementing in a complex way (and this seems very complex) and will not really be used by most people (Judging from reactions)

As I have said, if it is cool.  Well, I will eat my words.  I might even play once or twice though I despise most multiplayer and co-op.  But like Han Solo, I have a BAD feeling about this.

[stysiaq]

Ancient Metal wrote...

Multiplayer.

Optional to play it.

Mandatory to pay for it.

you can also not buy the game.
ME3 ain't taxes.

Also:
If BioWare spent $50 000 000 more on the SP, it would improve it.
However, some argue, that the SP would be about twice as improved with additional $100M.

[Lard]

Zanallen wrote...

BeefoTheBold wrote...

Ruud333 wrote...

101 pages in 21 hours!

But obviously the decision hasn't alienated any fans!

Not really. Its the same 14 or so people posting over and over again with a few new people spicing it up here and there.

And it's the same four or five people saying "Dude! MP is AWESOME!" over and over again.

[ryoldschool]

DarkRiku7 wrote...

I like how the MP is merely only an alternate way of getting the desired ending, because I rarely get the chance to use Xbox Live.

Is it just me failing to notice it or have people actually calmed down quite impressively about this?

This decision was made months ago, nothing to do about it now. I had pre-ordered in Dec last year.

[Eudaemonium]

JigPig wrote...

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.

Waiting for a retort.

The obvious one is that game budgets are not static. It is entirely feasible that hypothetical $500,000 was only gifted to the ME team to create MP, and thus how that additional cash injection could have affected SP is irrelevant, since the finances did not exist. Since they are being made by different teams, there is no issue of labour hours being diverted from the SP campaign (with the exception fo certain developmental oversight by Casey, et al), which only leaves the direct cash investment.

Whether the finances utilised for implementing MP would have been available to SP is an unknown factor. It is equally possible that the two teams were working with separate budgets.

[Sengoku no Maou]

Modifié par Sengoku no Maou, 11 octobre 2011 - 10:07 .

[Lard]

Spartanburger wrote...

Ancient Metal wrote...

Multiplayer.

Optional to play it.

Mandatory to pay for it.

Don't want to play MP? Don't play it. You can still achieve what you want through SP and SP is as long as ME2.

Don't want to pay for MP? Don't pay for it. If you weren't planning on playing it in the first place, then why pay for it?

The MP directly affects the SP game.
That's why.

[Cainne Chapel]

I do like the notion that somehow...magically... without MP the game would be cheaper... even though the price has been known for a while now.... and I dont think I paid any cheaper than $60 for ME 1 or ME 2.... but *shrugs* Guess I dont know anything.

[Il Divo]

Darth Vengeant wrote...

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.

This argument has no basis in logic. People buy what they find appealing. That you think Mass Effect is a good game is irrelevant to its popularity, much like the Spice Girls or Justin Bieber. You dislike the latter singers, so you think they are "bad" and assume ignorance on the part of listeners. It assumes a very objective stance on what is an acceptable form of entertainment. Mass Effect is popular. I could think Mass Effect is bad.

The only difference in the two positions is that you enjoy Mass Effect, and so you want to claim that it is immune from the popularity argument. Mass Effect, as your examples, could be another example of people buying crap; it's simply one you give in to.

Modifié par Il Divo, 11 octobre 2011 - 10:08 .

[DaringMoosejaw]

BeefoTheBold wrote...

Ancient Metal wrote...

Multiplayer.

Optional to play it.

Mandatory to pay for it.

Well said. Works with Kinect too.

Kinect is ENTIRELY optional. This is exactly the same as complaining about ME3 having an option for a left-handed control scheme and you're pissed that you as a rightie have to pay for their options.

[Zanallen]

Darth Vengeant wrote...

Zanallen wrote...

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

Raging? Since when is a discussion and opinion "raging"? Seriously? I certain am not "raging". I am setting here calmly watching Black Swan (drooling over Natalie Portman) and trying to have a civil discussion.

Never said you were. You weren't one of the people I was refering to when I said "same 4-5 people". However, if you go back and read the thread from the beginning, you will see the same group of people who absolutely loathe this idea posting over and over again, dismissing the opinions of others and making up "facts" to support their opinions.

[BlaCKRodjj]

NOD-INFORMER37 wrote...

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.

Yeah, but they've already done games with MP before EA, so I have high hopes for both modes.

[Killjoy Cutter]

Il Divo wrote...

Lard wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/323/index/8481789/86#8489364

I wonder if any of the "you anti-MP guys are all paranoid fanboy geeks" crowd is going to bother with a reasoned and civil response to the concerns listed in the post linked above...

Of course they won't.

Dudebro shooter fans don't know how to reason.

DnD = MMO. Your argument is invalid.

Um... huh?   What are you trying to say here? 

[Darkeus]

DaringMoosejaw wrote...

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.

It has plenty of double-speak in it.  And it will probably affect the Single Player way more than they admit.  It is PR to defend an unpopular decision that alienates fans.  

[Cainne Chapel]

Lard wrote...

Spartanburger wrote...

Ancient Metal wrote...

Multiplayer.

Optional to play it.

Mandatory to pay for it.

Don't want to play MP? Don't play it. You can still achieve what you want through SP and SP is as long as ME2.

Don't want to pay for MP? Don't pay for it. If you weren't planning on playing it in the first place, then why pay for it?

The MP directly affects the SP game.
That's why.

Read the FAQ posted by the Dev.  It DOES effect the SP game as an ALTERNATIVE means to SP.  So SP/MP you can end with the same result.  So two different paths, same ending.

Whats the problem here?

[bigheadzach]

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.

No, conjecture. In order for it to be fact, we would need to create a parallel universe where $500,000 was added to the SP developer budget, and then wait for the game to be released, and use the sales/reviewer's results to obtain the empirical data to confirm or disprove said conjecture.

Step 1) Contact the US military to get the Source Code project up and running so we can create said parallel universe.

Step 2) ...

Step 3) Confirmed / Denied.