Ce sujet est fermé
Killjoy Cutter wrote...
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
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 will never finish the trilogy.
Just had to rant, whether you agree or not.
Novate wrote...
I think what everyone is forgetting is that EVERYTHING that was spend to create this CO-OP, getting a second team and getting it ready for march of 2012 is exactly what they could have used to create a more compelling Single Player Experience. You could have gotten more planets, more missions, every mission that was in Co-op could have been in the single player experience.
You could have gotten more interaction scenes with Tali, Garus , Wrex. ...etc
You could have gotten more maps for missions
You could have more weapons
You could have more armors
You could have a longer Tali adventure, or any adventure about your companions.
You could have gotten more of everything, those that was meant for DLC could have gotten included in the initial shippment , and those extras could have become DLC.
Anyone that says otherwise is just fooling themselves. In every game that we have played , something is always taken out to add another feature.
I am not against a Co-op , it sounds cool and everything but I didn't play Mass Effect 1 and 2 and waiting for 3 to play a CO-OP , I play those games so that I can continue Shepard's Story and more of his story. Mass Effect 1 and 2 both feel alittle short to me. Thats why I didn't want Co-op, I wanted a long , epic journey for Mass Effect 3. I know that this Co-op will work, it will be a success, but what will not be a success is all the WHAT IF'S
Ancient Metal wrote...
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 if everything be accessible along with it without, in essence, being "nickled and dimed" to experience all the content. For Lard (and myself), all fontent 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.
Ancient Metal wrote...
Multiplayer.
Optional to play it.
Mandatory to pay for it.
Lard wrote...
I was making a (terrible) joke.
We Tigers wrote...
Darkeus wrote...
We Tigers wrote...
Darkeus wrote...
AdmiralCheez wrote...
Blind faith?Darkeus wrote...
I love all this blind faith that the pro-MP people have.
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.
Lard wrote...
If I'm playing an RPG, I don't want to put up someone else dicking around in my game.
JigPig wrote...
Eudaemonium wrote...
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.
Provide a source on that.
I can throw out pseudo-intellectual what-if's all day.
Zanallen wrote...
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.
<3<3<3<3<3<3<3<3<3<3<3<3<3<3<3<3<3<3<3<3<3<3<3:D:D:D:D:D:innocent::innocent::innocent::innocent::innocent::innocent:<3<3<3<3<3<3<3<3:O:lol:
:lol::lol::lol::happy::happy::happy::happy:<3<3<3<3:wub:
:wub::wub:
Il Divo wrote...
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.
Modifié par Darth Vengeant, 11 octobre 2011 - 10:26 .
Novate wrote...
Eudaemonium wrote...
AdmiralCheez wrote...
Blind faith?Darkeus wrote...
I love all this blind faith that the pro-MP people have.
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 ****..
Il Divo wrote...
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 wrote...
Zanallen wrote...
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.
Not true. Romance is a part of the human condition. If this is supposed to be a well-written story that has true human feelings and emotions and not just an action-shooter, then excluding one of the core parts of the human experience would be just bad writing.
The option NOT to partake in romances is one possible answer to how YOU as the PLAYER tell Shepard's story. You have made the decision that Shepard chose not to pursue those romantic paths you listed. But if Shepard never had the option at all? If the game ignored that part of humanity completely?
Well then that would just be poor writing. Addressing the romance issue in-writing, even if it is to allow people to choose not to have a romantic partner, is a mandatory part of writing a realistic storyline. It's something that needs to be in the story to have a complete game.
Adding in a completely different mode of play is NOT something that is necessary for a complete game.
Il Divo wrote...
Then avoid it if you can. It still does nothing for your claim that RPGs should be only single player experiences, when the very basis for CRPGs originated in a game played exclusively in a multiplayer context. I'd argue that pen and paper remains the most true form of RPG in existence, more than any video game can hope to emulate in terms of overall scope.
Modifié par Lard, 11 octobre 2011 - 10:27 .
Cainne Chapel wrote...
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
Melchiah109 wrote...
Ancient Metal wrote...
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 if everything be accessible along with it without, in essence, being "nickled and dimed" to experience all the content. For Lard (and myself), all fontent 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.
That makes absolutely no sense in regards to why you don't want MP in the game. Maybe you should try building something that isn't a straw man. If you don't want DLC, then you should be raging about DLC.
Modifié par shenlonzero, 11 octobre 2011 - 10:31 .
Il Divo wrote...
Lard wrote...
If I'm playing an RPG, I don't want to put up someone else dicking around in my game.
Then avoid it if you can. It still does nothing for your claim that RPGs should be only single player experiences, when the very basis for CRPGs originated in a game played exclusively in a multiplayer context. I'd argue that pen and paper remains the most true form of RPG in existence, more than any video game can hope to emulate in terms of overall scope.
Retour en haut
