3794 réponses à ce sujet

[someguy1231]

Lard wrote...

someguy1231 wrote...

Why are people still playing the "MP diverts resources from SP" card? As has been pointed out many, MANY times (including the OP), the MP is being handled by a different studio.

MP takes resources directly away from the SP game. Every single time.

That is indisputable.

*sigh*
Guess I'll say it again:
Those resources were never meant for the SP to begin with!!!!!

[Lard]

Il Divo wrote...

All this proves is that popularity =/ quality, which indicates to us that pointing out Justin Bieber is no different than pointing out Mass Effect. The only difference is that you seem to perceive quality in Mass Effect, which is still subjective. Popularity tells us nothing about quality, only that it is popular. Your multiplayer argument only has basis in that you dislike multiplayer.

Except that it directly affects SP games, always for the worse.

[Killjoy Cutter]

There's also the fact that every byte of MP content on the disc is one less byte of SP content on the disk.

[Zanallen]

BeefoTheBold wrote...

Your point?

Development resources went towards features I don't care about and won't use. There's a good chance that will result in a somewhat lesser game that I'll pay the exact same price for. HOW MUCH more is debateable. But you can bet your ass that a lot of people will see things that they don't like in the game and wonder, "What if there was no MP or Kinect? Would that have been fixed?"

I don't care if it is "optional" or not. I don't want it tacked on to the third game of a singleplayer trilogy when Bioware SHOULD be spending ALL of their resources on ending the trilogy on a high note, eliminating the mountain of problems that have plagued other recent releases like DA2 and basically focusing ALL of their efforts on optimizing the end of this trilogy.

Bioware wants to experiment with doing coop or multiplayer? Okay, I don't like it but I can understand. Why throw it into the last game of a trilogy?

That same argument can be used toward everything in the game. I never used the Jacob, Garrus, Thane or Jack romances. Maybe Bioware should release a version of the game without those at a lesser price so I don't have to pay for it.

[Killjoy Cutter]

someguy1231 wrote...

Lard wrote...

someguy1231 wrote...

Why are people still playing the "MP diverts resources from SP" card? As has been pointed out many, MANY times (including the OP), the MP is being handled by a different studio.

MP takes resources directly away from the SP game. Every single time.

That is indisputable.

*sigh*
Guess I'll say it again:
]Those resources were never meant for the SP to begin with!!!!!

Ah yes, another person who doesn't understand the basic concept of fungible resources. 

[DravenShep]

For all the people complaining, I honestly hate the idea of adding a MP that can have an affect on my game. MP in it's own right "MIGHT" be interesting, but it should NOT have anything to do with Shep's Story. Leave MP on it's own disk and let it be it's own thing. I and millions others have enjoyed the Single Player only aspect of the game, why try and fix something that is NOT broke? If it does have it setup where I am forced into MP either because of acheivments, or story progression, then I will never finish the trilogy.

Just had to rant, whether you agree or not.

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

[Il Divo]

Darth Vengeant wrote...

It is quite logical. Alot of people buy only because they dont know any better. They are ignorant, they only follow the trend to fit in and be "cool". They simply just dont know any better and like things because everyone else does. They don't know there are MUCH better things out there.

And you are easily lumped into that category. You are making assertions regarding popularity based on your enjoyment of Mass Effect. "It's okay for ME to be popular, because it has quality". What you're really saying is that "It's okay for ME to be popular, because I enjoy it and perceive it to have quality", which is no different than any Justin Bieber fan. Everyone thinks what they enjoy is quality. Mass Effect is not a magical exception.

[BeefoTheBold]

someguy1231 wrote...

Why are people still playing the "MP diverts resources from SP" card? As has been pointed out many, MANY times (including the OP), the MP is being handled by a different studio. If it weren't for this decision to include co-op, this studio would not be involved in the game to begin with. The money and resources they've been allocated weren't taken from the SP team, they presumably came from the higher-ups at EA or Bioware who allocated them for this specific purpose. You can't claim the SP is being "diluted" when it never had those resources to begin with. The SP is being developed by the same studio that did the first two, and what info has been released so far (ME3 having at least twice as much dialogue as ME2) suggests the SP campaign won't be compromised in the slightest.

Again, this bears repeating: it is not the case that the team working on the single-player was suddenly told "OK, you guys gotta implement a co-op feature. Make some cuts." Resources are NOT being "diverted" - because those resources were never meant for the single-player to begin with!

Quit being so selfish and entitled and recognize that your precious single-player isn't being diluted. In my opinion, the real reason for all this "outrage" is simply because you can't tolerate the idea of a team of developers working on this game for a feature that isn't single-player.

You have no idea whether it is being diluted or not. You're making the exact same assumption in the opposite direction.

You're criticizing people for assuming that the SP WILL be diluted to some extent. You're making the ASSUMPTION that it won't be.

I would argue that Bioware's quality standards have been hit or miss lately and there's more evidence that this WILL cause issues than the opposite.

Dragon Age 2
Witch Hunt
The Arrival
Awakenings

These are all games that had buggyness, poor writing, lack of player choice, were short, environment recycling, or had some other issues. Yes, there are great ones recently like Lair of the Shadow Broker, but the CONSISTENCY that used to mark Bioware's standards has been noticeably absent of late.

Therefore people being concerned that adding on an additional feature that Bioware is NOT known for at the TAIL END of a trilogy might result in a lesser game for them are not exactly reacting without any evidence at all.

[bigheadzach]

Lard wrote...

bigheadzach wrote...
 what right does the old crowd have to insist the new crowd can't have their features?

What right does the new crowd have to insist that we play through features that we don't want?

But that is based on the whine that it's unfair for the new crowd to get access to story-based content that the old crowd won't simply because they don't like the new features.

If the game required multiplayer to complete the game, then your response is valid. Doubly so if it drove the price up. But since neither of those are accurate, you'll need to bring it harder than that.

[Cainne Chapel]

JigPig wrote...

*SNIP*

Jig... a forum poster is not gonna have anymore insight than a Dev.

If a dev says it doesn't effect the SP at all... well other than to be contrary to be so... we can really prove it now can we?

None of us have access to their financials nor the innerworkings of the development cycle.

So everything any of us post here is just conjecture.

That said, knowing how budget planning works in my line of work, just adding in MP, doesn't necessarily mean funds were diverted away.  Most of the time in situations like adding costs/ etc.  More Funds in a corporate environment tend to be offered to ease the process and not negatively effect any other portions that were already in progress.

For instance, at a Car dealership per se.  Suddenly you have a new brand to sell, well you've been doing so well with your one brand, you get half again as many cars as the new brand.  A lot of times the owner of said brand, will offer money to expand your dealership so to provide you with more room to showcase the new brand without negatively effecting the spacing requirements of your current brand.

Money that wouldn't be there mind you, if you stuck with the current brand solely.

Not the perfect analogy but it works

[BeefoTheBold]

Zanallen wrote...

BeefoTheBold wrote...

Your point?

Development resources went towards features I don't care about and won't use. There's a good chance that will result in a somewhat lesser game that I'll pay the exact same price for. HOW MUCH more is debateable. But you can bet your ass that a lot of people will see things that they don't like in the game and wonder, "What if there was no MP or Kinect? Would that have been fixed?"

I don't care if it is "optional" or not. I don't want it tacked on to the third game of a singleplayer trilogy when Bioware SHOULD be spending ALL of their resources on ending the trilogy on a high note, eliminating the mountain of problems that have plagued other recent releases like DA2 and basically focusing ALL of their efforts on optimizing the end of this trilogy.

Bioware wants to experiment with doing coop or multiplayer? Okay, I don't like it but I can understand. Why throw it into the last game of a trilogy?

That same argument can be used toward everything in the game. I never used the Jacob, Garrus, Thane or Jack romances. Maybe Bioware should release a version of the game without those at a lesser price so I don't have to pay for it.

Faulty comparison. Excluding romance options would be poor writing. It isn't an EXTRA GAME MODE.

[Darth Vengeant]

DravenShep wrote...

For all the people complaining, I honestly hate the idea of adding a MP that can have an affect on my game. MP in it's own right "MIGHT" be interesting, but it should NOT have anything to do with Shep's Story. Leave MP on it's own disk and let it be it's own thing. I and millions others have enjoyed the Single Player only aspect of the game, why try and fix something that is NOT broke? If it does have it setup where I am forced into MP either because of acheivments, or story progression, then I never finish the trilogy.

Just had to rant, whether you agree or not.

I would rather they make another separate ME game after ME3 that has the Multiplayer and let us end our story and trilogy without the added garbage trend MP.

[Darkeus]

BeefoTheBold wrote...

someguy1231 wrote...

Why are people still playing the "MP diverts resources from SP" card? As has been pointed out many, MANY times (including the OP), the MP is being handled by a different studio. If it weren't for this decision to include co-op, this studio would not be involved in the game to begin with. The money and resources they've been allocated weren't taken from the SP team, they presumably came from the higher-ups at EA or Bioware who allocated them for this specific purpose. You can't claim the SP is being "diluted" when it never had those resources to begin with. The SP is being developed by the same studio that did the first two, and what info has been released so far (ME3 having at least twice as much dialogue as ME2) suggests the SP campaign won't be compromised in the slightest.

Again, this bears repeating: it is not the case that the team working on the single-player was suddenly told "OK, you guys gotta implement a co-op feature. Make some cuts." Resources are NOT being "diverted" - because those resources were never meant for the single-player to begin with!

Quit being so selfish and entitled and recognize that your precious single-player isn't being diluted. In my opinion, the real reason for all this "outrage" is simply because you can't tolerate the idea of a team of developers working on this game for a feature that isn't single-player.

You have no idea whether it is being diluted or not. You're making the exact same assumption in the opposite direction.

You're criticizing people for assuming that the SP WILL be diluted to some extent. You're making the ASSUMPTION that it won't be.

I would argue that Bioware's quality standards have been hit or miss lately and there's more evidence that this WILL cause issues than the opposite.

Dragon Age 2
Witch Hunt
The Arrival
Awakenings

These are all games that had buggyness, poor writing, lack of player choice, were short, environment recycling, or had some other issues. Yes, there are great ones recently like Lair of the Shadow Broker, but the CONSISTENCY that used to mark Bioware's standards has been noticeably absent of late.

Therefore people being concerned that adding on an additional feature that Bioware is NOT known for at the TAIL END of a trilogy might result in a lesser game for them are not exactly reacting without any evidence at all.

You said that better than I can right now... 

[Melchiah109]

Reductio ad absurdum

[Lard]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Ah yes, another person who doesn't understand the basic concept of fungible resources. 

Resources that go bad in your fridge?

[Spartanburger]

stysiaq wrote...
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.

Seriously, am I the only one who has any kind of remote clue as to how the productivity of staff works?

Once again, I will say it:
TEAM PRODUCTIVITY IS NOT A CAUSATION OF THE AMOUNT OF CASH THE TEAM HAS

If the teams productivity is already at a max, or near max level, throwing more money at it will not increase the productivity of the team. It doesn't matter if I was being paid $10 and hour or $1,000. If I am already working as hard as I can, no amount of money will change how hard I can work.
In creasing staff could work, but that's really something that has to be done before production has started AND takes a while for the new team members levels of productivity to reach their highs.

You want to increase the quality of the SP? Have more people working on it for longer amounts of time. As long as the staff is happy and productive, then they will do good job and no amount of money stupidly thrown at them will do any good. Yes, having more time would cost more, but throwing the money spent on MP at the SP team will not do any real good to improve the SP.

If they did not do multiplayer in the first place, the money spent on MP would still not have gone to the SP team as it is likely that a portion came from EA for the MP component and the SP team already has their budget layed out for them.

The ONLY way that SP could be improved is if, before major production began, BioWare expanded their crew (which they did) and their workspace (which they probably did) and their funding (being one of, if not the, best EA developer have earned them far more funding from them. Having maultiple blockbuster games also helps) and getting other teams to help (DICE is helping out with audio).

[rolson00]

@JigPig im studying in the field professor you know diddly squat about about making a game

Modifié par rolson00, 11 octobre 2011 - 10:18 .

[We Tigers]

Darkeus wrote...

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.

I think "most people" might be a bit of a stretch. We're dealing with a pretty small community here on the forums.  I'm part of that community, and I'm completely jazzed about this.  Unneeded, perhaps; I think we'd all love ME3 if it were just a single-player experience (in fact, some, yourself included, would definitely prefer that).  Unwanted, though?  I want it!  

In any case, I think this is gonna be really fun.  And if it's not?  Oh, well.  I'll give it a shot, and then leave it be.  Nothing lost.  You can talk misspent resources all day, but at certain point there's only so much you can put into a given project.  The point I was trying to make--and thank you for helping me dig back into it and try to make it a little clearer--is that every great book, movie, game, and album has to be finished at some point.  My impression is that ME3 single-player certainly hit the point the designers wanted it to hit, regardless of co-op, which was developed by a separate unit in Montreal.    Now, that could be a different point for concern--how are these guys who aren't doing the main game going to build a true Mass Effect experience--but I'm generally confident in Bioware's decision-making and don't have a lot of worries.

As a final note, the sad thing is that certain folks will now blame anything that isn't
perfect in ME3 on the mere existence of the separate co-op
multiplayer.  I don't think that'll accurately reflect Bioware's efforts
on this.  Oh well.

[Zanallen]

BeefoTheBold wrote...

Faulty comparison. Excluding romance options would be poor writing. It isn't an EXTRA GAME MODE.

They are both completely optional things that I don't have to partake in if I don't want to. They both add practically nothing to the game beyond what pleasure someone takes from the experience.

[Il Divo]

Lard wrote...

I said pen and paper RPGs were more similar to MMOs because you play with a group of people, as opposed to a "regular" RPG like Mass Effect or Final Fantasy where you just play by yourself.

If Il Diva were literate, he would have understood what I was trying to say.

I'm typing coherently, so I assume that's a sign of literacy. The similarities begin and end with "group of people". But that's like claiming that an opera and Justin Bieber concerts are similar because they both involve a group of people. That tells you practically nothing about the overall experience. It also does nothing for your claim that an RPG should be only a single-player experience, which you made several times.

[Ancient Metal]

Melchiah109 wrote...

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.

No. What Lard is saying, very coherently, is that when you purchase a game that costs $60 or whatever the Euro price is, there is an expectation that the full content of everything be accessible along with it without, in essence, being "nickled and dimed" to experience all the content. For Lard (and myself), all content associated with a game should be available for the money spent....the purchase price.

It's interesting to see more and more intolerance for such nickle and diming, as in reality it becomes $5 here, $10 here, etc. The current model exists where such steps are taken because there is a market and people pay, but as tolerance shifts against such measures, so will demand and companies in theory would have to cater to the new economic demand of consumers.

Modifié par Ancient Metal, 11 octobre 2011 - 10:20 .

[Killjoy Cutter]

Lard wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Ah yes, another person who doesn't understand the basic concept of fungible resources. 

Resources that go bad in your fridge?

http://dictionary.re...browse/fungible

[Il Divo]

Lard wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

All this proves is that popularity =/ quality, which indicates to us that pointing out Justin Bieber is no different than pointing out Mass Effect. The only difference is that you seem to perceive quality in Mass Effect, which is still subjective. Popularity tells us nothing about quality, only that it is popular. Your multiplayer argument only has basis in that you dislike multiplayer.

Except that it directly affects SP games, always for the worse.

Baldur's Gate managed to get by just fine. Except in this case, I'd say the multiplayer actually looks remotely interesting.

[The Interloper]

BeefoTheBold wrote...

Your point?

Development resources went towards features I don't care about and won't use. There's a good chance that will result in a somewhat lesser game that I'll pay the exact same price for. HOW MUCH more is debateable. But you can bet your ass that a lot of people will see things that they don't like in the game and wonder, "What if there was no MP or Kinect? Would that have been fixed?"

I don't care if it is "optional" or not. I don't want it tacked on to the third game of a singleplayer trilogy when Bioware SHOULD be spending ALL of their resources on ending the trilogy on a high note, eliminating the mountain of problems that have plagued other recent releases like DA2 and basically focusing ALL of their efforts on optimizing the end of this trilogy.

Bioware wants to experiment with doing coop or multiplayer? Okay, I don't like it but I can understand. Why throw it into the last game of a trilogy?

This is just conjecture. You're putting forward one possible scenario and saying it's very theoretical existance means real trouble. We don't know that, and there are many indications that this isn't the case. MP was given to an entirely different studio, ie the SP team wasn't splitting their attention. You might say "well, they should have had the second team work on SP too." Maybe, but if there had been no second team in the first place would you have seen a problem? There's many indications that the MP is just an extra (development began when SP was nearly finished and there were no plans to add new content) and as long as I get the full SP, I don't give a right damn where they put what looks right now to be extra stuff. I do agree that co-op carries risks, and learning that they had two teams on SP would have been comforting, but not enough for me to be upset over. It's like getting four tires and being upset you didn't get two spares. Well, the spares would have been nice, but....my car still works.

Oh, and we haven't played the actual game yet. Something to keep in mind.

[Lard]

Il Divo wrote...It also does nothing for your claim that an RPG should be only a single-player experience, which you made several times.

If I'm reading a book, I don't want someone reading over my shoulder.

If I'm playing an RPG, I don't want to put up someone else dicking around in my game.