3794 réponses à ce sujet

[Taciter]

JD196 wrote...

It's like a soap opera isn't it.
The point is you can argue about pros vs cons till your blue in the face. Both sides here are acting like spoiled kids. It may add to the game or it may take away from it.
Live with it, I will.

That's the spirit... complacent resignation for the win!

[Ace of Dawn]

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.

Right.

But this is literally assuming that the more resources you have, the better the game will. Having more resources available does not necessarily mean that the quality of the game is improved.

If you have done everything you can for a project at school, and are essentially guaranteed 100%, or at the very least an A, will adding more time and money into the project actually dramatically improve the project?

In the end, there are two development scenarios. Unlimited resources, or finite resources. No developer can actually achieve the former, and must plan accordingly. So they go into a project understanding the upper limit, and account for all variables.

So either Bioware accounted for the Co-Op, and planned accordingly, or they had extra resources available after making considerable progress and found this viable.

So yeah, resources are diverted on a technical level. But beyond that, saying any impact is made on the single player is wrong. It all boils down to how well they can develop the game. If the single-player is deemed inferior, it's because of two reasons:

1. Expected. Upon hearing this news, people immediately jump to this conclusion, thinking it could have been so much better without any actual proof of the fact. It's like going on a vacation, and it turns out badly. You blame a particular aspect without considering your anticipation just clouding your judgement.

2. Actual inferiority. The game itself is just "bad". They made choices that are bad from a gameplay and design perspective. It's not because they didn't have the money or time to "fix" it. They legitimately thought it worked, and it didn't. Really, it would have been bad regardless of there being co-op.

Besides, you're all acting like every cent of every dollar and ever second of every minute was dedicated to executing perfection. Things get cut, ideas are worked on before being dropped. Money and time is wasted on pursuing things that are 50/50 shots on making it through.

[JD196]

pmac_tk421 wrote...

can't we all just get along?

Nah then some of us wold have other things to do than sit on our backsides arguing over a trivial point

[Zakatak757]

Cut-n-paste.

No, I will not "discuss it in the co-op forum" because posts get bumped out of the way immediately without being read. Leave this alone, because I wanna know.

Bioware Edmonton did all the work on the previous 2 Mass Effect games, and both turned out great with 20-40 hours of gameplay per playthrough. The same people are doing the singleplayer side of Mass Effect 3 again, and I believe more people work there as of recent. Bioware Montreal is doing the Galaxy at War/Co-op side of the game. For what it's worth, a whole extra company is developing the game.

You can't reliably have both ends of Canada working on the singleplayer of Mass Effect 3. Why? Updates on every single byte of information would have to be sent back and forth every damn minute to make sure that the game works properly when compiled together. If both teams seperated by 1000km of land work on singleplayer, it would be filled with bugs, inconsistencies, etc because not all the pieces will match.

Singleplayer has been confirmed to work optimally with zero co-op interference, and the campaign is guaranteed over 30 hours long.

So, now, my question. Would you rather that this "terrible" MP feature wasn't added at all, even though it ONLY adds to the game and doesn't impact the singleplayer in any negative way (here come the nitpickers)? Would you rather Bioware Montreal did something else like Dragon Age 3 which you will all hate even MORE?

Would like to know. Don't LOCKDOWN/End-of-line this. Not yet anyway. I'm not making a post this long just to have it disappear.

New honour rule.

Nobody can point out "but that is speculation" because ALL of our points are speculation.

Modifié par Zakatak757, 11 octobre 2011 - 10:29 .

[NOD-INFORMER37]

pmac_tk421 wrote...

can't we all just get along?

I know we're Bioware fans, not CoD fanboys dammit! |:|

[DravenShep]

JD196 wrote...

It's like a soap opera isn't it.
The point is you can argue about pros vs cons till your blue in the face. Both sides here are acting like spoiled kids. It may add to the game or it may take away from it.
Live with it, I will.

You can "Live with it." But, Me, I will not stand by and not let my voice be heard about a product that I may or may not be satisfied with. You can remain silent and just take it up the tailpipe without a peep, but that also means you won't have any room to complain because something is not to your liking. EXAMPLE: Order a steak medium well, and get it rare. Would you send it back, or keep quite about it? Same concept. My money goes to a product I want, and if I don't like it, it gets sent back.

[bigheadzach]

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.

 
Stop it.

[Robbiesan]

Sounds cool/. I am willing to check it out.

[Maeshone]

JigPig wrote...

Maeshone wrote...


It is also extremely likely that Bioware only got those 500.000
BECAUSE they were adding multiplayer.

Prove it

Unless you can PROVE otherwise,
this is the most likely circumstance.

Nope, you made a claim, burden of proof lies on you.

Because no matter what you may
think about EA, they are not morons and know how to run a business.
(hint: it's not by making one of your most succesful developers dig for
spare change in the office couch)

That's all fine and dandy but we are discussing whether or not the inclusion of MP or funds used in development of, could or could not affect the length/quality of singleplayer.

I can't prove it because the internal workings of Bioware are not known to me. However, neither are they known to you, and so you can't say that the hypothetical 500.000 were always a part of the budget and then spent on multiplayer to the detriment of funding for singleplayer.

It could affect tue quality of the singleplayer if the money was part of a general ME3 budget (in which case I would also rather seen it go to singleplayer because I want it to be as awesome as possible,
It could also not affect the singleplayer at all because the 500.000 in question were never intended for singleplayer, was never given to the singleplayer team, and ultimately was given to Bioware solely for multiplayer

[BeefoTheBold]

DaringMoosejaw wrote...

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. 

So any game without romance is a game with poor writing? If Bioware were to make a game with no romances, no matter what they do, that game would have poor writing?

No. Any game that doesn't address the concept of romance IN SOME WAY would be poor writing. Even if it was simply to rule out the protagonist having a romance because of (fill in the blank reason).

There are certain parts of humanity that are inseparable from being realistic. Romance is one of them. Nothing wrong with writing a character that chooses not to have romance for whatever reason, but pretending it isn't there completely is the very definition of poor writing.

[Lard]

Zakatak757 wrote...

So, now, my question. Would you rather that this "terrible" MP feature wasn't added at all, even though it ONLY adds to the game and doesn't impact the singleplayer in any negative way (here come the nitpickers)?

Would I rather it wasn't added at all? Yes.

I would rather it wasn't added because MP always impacts SP in a negative way.

[Zanallen]

BeefoTheBold wrote...

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. 

Not every story requires romance. I would argue that Shepard is in a race against the clock to save the world. Stopping to get laid would be irresponsible.

I never said they shouldn't have written the romances at all. I said, why should I have to pay for something that I will never use. That is the argument you are using with the multiplayer, right? Why didn't Bioware release a core game without romances and then sell them back as DLC. That way you were only paying for the romances you wanted.

[Pride Demon]

I might be wrong, but wasn't Pinnacle Station basically a deathmatch in its purest form?
What difference does it make if you have persons rather than bots next to you and you have several missions like this rather than just one?

I myself am not a co-op/multiplayer person, but I don't see how the presence of such a feature would "ruin forever" my gaming experience in single player...

If it's a problem that you have to pay for it even if you do not use it, I can name many games (some of which I have myself) ranging from Halo 2 going back to old colossi like the original Unreal that have a multiplayer/co-op features: I know many that never used those, but I never saw someone complaining they wanted a refund for it, it's just part of the package...
How is having a single player game with a multiplayer/co-op alongside it and having to pay for the whole package a novelty in gaming industry? It's always been like that...

Just my opinion anyway...

[We Tigers]

Darkeus wrote...

We Tigers wrote...

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.

You make a fair point but I just don't have the trust you do.

I do think it is valid to blame single Player problems on the co-op.  Any bugs or such or integration problems or FILE TRANSFER issues could have been solved if the multiplayer was not tacked on.

Extra Q&A, bug stomping.  Anything....  This takes away from the game just by existing.

Could be.  I suppose I'm somewhat biased here because a good friend of mine works on the ME3 multiplayer team, and he's an industry pro who's very, very savvy about what's good and what's bad.  He has never hesitated to tell me when he's worked on god-awful undertakings.  My understanding is that he and the rest of the crew were brought in explicitly for the multiplayer piece, and that none of them would have gotten the call to work on ME3 for as long as they did if not for this.  So, who knows.  I'll take whatever Mass Effect universe content I can get, because I know that as soon as I finish every bit of content in ME3, I'll be wishing there'd be an ME4.

And don't worry BW, he didn't leak anything!    Sent me an IM last night to say "I CAN FINALLY TELL YOU WHAT I'M WORKING ON WOO LOOK" with a link to the press release.  My developer buddies at Bethesda are no easier to scoop.  Jerks 

[Il Divo]

Darth Vengeant wrote...


You sir are putting words in my mouth, I never said anything about ME being popular. I never said I was OK with it being popular either.

I bought ME the day it came out becuase I knew it was a Bioware game and I enjoyed the other Bioware games I owne and played before it. It wasn't becuase of any trend or popularity. That is the only reason I bought it. So, no, I am not in your category.

I find things out on my own. I find my own music, not what MTV and the radio tells me is cool. I pick what games I play based on my likes and dislikes, not what Gamepro or Gamestop tells me is cool. Not for the trend. Good luck finding many people out there that do that. Most people care about trends and fitting in, I do not and never have.

That's all well and good, I'm glad that you can think for yourself. I still find your notion that people "don't know any better" very troubling.

[Janus Prospero]

Ace of Dawn wrote...

But this is literally assuming that the more resources you have, the better the game will. Having more resources available does not necessarily mean that the quality of the game is improved.

^ This. At some point you can't just throw more bodies at a problem and expect it to get done sooner/faster/better.

[Someone With Mass]

I'll just laugh at those that think the productivity of the development team depends solely on the budget.

Or that MP will somehow diminish the SP, despite it being made by a completely different team in a completely different studio.

The devs have constantly stated that ME3 will be about as long, if not longer than ME2, without the co-op.

Modifié par Someone With Mass, 11 octobre 2011 - 10:37 .

[AdmiralCheez]

Darkeus wrote...

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.

It's blind faith because I'm not instantly assuming the worst?

ME3's promising a whole helluva lot, and I'm waiting to see if it delivers.  It could be anything from the best game ever to the biggest letdown in history.  I'm curious as to what it will do well and what it will do poorly, and so far I have little evidence to judge either way.  My personal opinion is that it'll be worth my money, but I am willing to change that opinion should I have enough grounds to do so, and I'm willing to admit I'm wrong when I am proven as such.

In other words, even though I remain hopeful that ME3 will be awesome, I'm ultimately neutral on the matter.

[Funkcase]

I'm going to wait to see how it is before I judge. I admit it does actually sound pretty fun, I just hope we can also play it offline with bots.

[Lard]

We Tigers wrote...

Could be.  I suppose I'm somewhat biased here because a good friend of mine works on the ME3 multiplayer team, and he's an industry pro who's very, very savvy about what's good and what's bad.

Tell your friend he should be ashamed of himself.

[someguy1231]

BeefoTheBold wrote...
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.

Since this game isn't coming out for months and there's still very little we know about the MP, assumptions are all we have to go on right now. My assumption that it won't be diluted is because they're being developed by separate teams. Perfectly logical, I think.

I don't think DA's problems should be considered a factor in ME's success or failure. There's not much overlap between the dev teams and it's not uncommon for a developer to have two or more franchises of contrasting quality simultaneously. Ubisoft released a Prince of Persia movie tie-in game last year that was widely considered a let-down by fans, but that didn't stop AC: Brotherhood from being an excellent game when it was released a few months later (which, of course, also added MP to the series).

As for Bioware's history with MP, what do you call "Baldur's Gate 2"? Or "Neverwinter Nights"? And of course there's SWTOR.

Modifié par someguy1231, 11 octobre 2011 - 10:38 .

[Il Divo]

Lard wrote...

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.

That's completely untrue. Games like Wizardry, Phantasie, the SSI Goldbox games (like Pool of Radiance), Wasteland, Ultima, King's Quest and Battletech were all CRPGs that were single player games.

Re-read my statement. The basis for CRPGs was in pen and paper. How many single-player pen and paper games are you aware of?

[Spartanburger]

Zakatak757 wrote...

Cut-n-paste.

No, I will not "discuss it in the co-op forum" because posts get bumped out of the way immediately without being read. Leave this alone, because I wanna know.

Bioware Edmonton did all the work on the previous 2 Mass Effect games, and both turned out great with 20-40 hours of gameplay per playthrough. The same people are doing the singleplayer side of Mass Effect 3 again, and I believe more people work there as of recent. Bioware Montreal is doing the Galaxy at War/Co-op side of the game. For what it's worth, a whole extra company is developing the game.

You can't reliably have both ends of Canada working on the singleplayer of Mass Effect 3. Why? Updates on every single byte of information would have to be sent back and forth every damn minute to make sure that the game works properly when compiled together. If both teams seperated by 1000km of land work on singleplayer, it would be filled with bugs, inconsistencies, etc because not all the pieces will match.

Singleplayer has been confirmed to work optimally with zero co-op interference, and the campaign is guaranteed over 30 hours long.

So, now, my question. Would you rather that this "terrible" MP feature wasn't added at all, even though it ONLY adds to the game and doesn't impact the singleplayer in any negative way (here come the nitpickers)? Would you rather Bioware Montreal did something else like Dragon Age 3 which you will all hate even MORE?

Would like to know. Don't LOCKDOWN/End-of-line this. Not yet anyway. I'm not making a post this long just to have it disappear.

New honour rule.

Nobody can point out "but that is speculation" because ALL of our points are speculation.

I think everyone should read this.
And then go home and rethink their life.

[BeefoTheBold]

Zanallen wrote...

BeefoTheBold wrote...

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. 

Not every story requires romance. I would argue that Shepard is in a race against the clock to save the world. Stopping to get laid would be irresponsible.

I never said they shouldn't have written the romances at all. I said, why should I have to pay for something that I will never use. That is the argument you are using with the multiplayer, right? Why didn't Bioware release a core game without romances and then sell them back as DLC. That way you were only paying for the romances you wanted.

Not sure how to explain this any better. There's nothing wrong with choosing that Shepard decides NOT to get laid.

There's something wrong with not writing in that choice, even if it is a line or two of Shepard saying, "There's no time to get laid now. I'll pursue that after this is over."

I can't put it any better than that. Ignoring romance completely is unrealistic. The issue can certainly be disposed of quickly, but the CONCEPT is an essential part of the human condition and therefore having the player make the choice for their Shepard is essential.

[JD196]

DravenShep wrote...

JD196 wrote...

It's like a soap opera isn't it.
The point is you can argue about pros vs cons till your blue in the face. Both sides here are acting like spoiled kids. It may add to the game or it may take away from it.
Live with it, I will.

You can "Live with it." But, Me, I will not stand by and not let my voice be heard about a product that I may or may not be satisfied with. You can remain silent and just take it up the tailpipe without a peep, but that also means you won't have any room to complain because something is not to your liking. EXAMPLE: Order a steak medium well, and get it rare. Would you send it back, or keep quite about it? Same concept. My money goes to a product I want, and if I don't like it, it gets sent back.

Well scream it off the rooftops if it makes you feel better but there not going to change their minds and think ah well we'll let this several month project and large expense go to waste because one group of people decide that they don't want something the don't need to use in the first place.