3794 réponses à ce sujet

[Zakatak757]

If you aren't condemning the game to damnation, you are a blind fanboy riding on faith.

Rules of the interweb.

[Lard]

Il Divo wrote...

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?

Well there was the glut of single player game books (largely in the UK, like Fighing Fantasy) in the early/mid 80s.

And the fact remains, all the games I listed were single player games.

[Taciter]

Pride Demon wrote...

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?...

Nail on the head!

My argument is yours in reverse - why make a section of the game exclusive to multiplayers when the AI coding is already in place to provide a single player version?

[NOD-INFORMER37]

Who else will be checking out Bioware TV at 10 am tommorow? :]

[Killjoy Cutter]

Between this and all that it implies, and Origin, it's not looking good.

I hope I'm wrong.

[Darkeus]

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.  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 

I like my uiniverse content too. I just wish it had nothing to do with Multiplayer co-op.  What sounds good on paper does not always pan out.  If it is not broke, do not fix.  Mass Effect was not broke, quite the contrary.

If it is good, that is good.  But I don't see how it will be.

[Ancient Metal]

Spartanburger wrote...

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).

Part of your entire premise is false at its core. In your argument you assert money isn't a factor, claiming that if you work hard, you work hard. In essence. However, you then give the assertion that having devs work longer would create a beneficial result.

The problem with this claim is that more hours = higher labor costs. That is money. Unless someone is salary. But will a dev be happy and inspired working on a game 80 hours a week instead of 40 and getting paid the same? Fatigue sets in and its human nature to lag a tad with no incentive. Not discredited devs....btw: I'm certain almost all devs everywhere are dedicated and have inspiration.

[Il Divo]

Lard wrote...


Well there was the glut of single player game books (largely in the UK, like Fighing Fantasy) in the early/mid 80s.

And the fact remains, all the games I listed were single player games.

Right, but I wasn't referring to the original CRPG genre. So where does the argument that all RPGs should primarily be single-player come from? That was primarily Neverwinter Night's appeal; that it simulated the role-playing experience of actual DnD.

[fl0wers]

This sounds very promising. I've been against multiplayer in ME3 until now. All of my worries were addressed in the original post.

Exciting!

[DravenShep]

JD196 wrote...

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.

Instead of using the money for a MP add in for ME3, they could use the money to start developing a SEPERATE MP game BASED on someone else other than Shepard, Oh! Wait! That just sounds too damn easy.

[Zanallen]

BeefoTheBold wrote...

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.

And that choice could be made through DLC. If you choose not to buy the Romance Character DLC, then you get no romance. Perhaps Shep will say there is no time. Perhaps not. Doesn't really matter. What matters is, why should I have to pay for something I would never use. That's the basis of your argument, right? The romances could be sold through DLC. It is entirely possible. Then the main game would be cheaper, right? And you would pay extra for those romances?

[BeefoTheBold]

someguy1231 wrote...

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 or 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.

SWTOR isn't even out yet. Can't use that one. Never played Baldur's Gate 2. My recollection was that Neverwinter Nights allowed USERS to create their own modules and use, but did not have specific Bioware created MP content. Could be wrong.

But what I DO remember quite clearly about Neverwinter Nights was the poor pacing (particularly prevalent in chapter 2) and the rushed, lackluster ending to the game.

The issue is that you can't make the assumption that the SP won't be impacted because LOTS of games ARE impacted.

Yes, there are games that manage to do both successfully. But there are a lot MORE games that have VERY slimmed down SP campaigns as a result. Notably, the vast majority are shooter games.

And we can obviously trust the completely impartial developers to be 100% open and honest about everything...right?

What
else is a developer going to say? Is there an alternative answer that
they can say other than, "No, don't worry. Single player won't be
impacted in any way at all. Everything's great!"

Do you honestly
expect them to say something like, "Yeah, I'm at 30 hours of
gameplay. Granted, maybe 15 hours is filler content like planet scanning
rather than dialog and characte development because part of our budget
was diverted to another studio doing the multiplayer part of the game,
but I can definitely say that I've logged 30 hours of gameplay."

OF COURSE the developers are going to say it will have no impact.

And that's where pointing to DA2 IS a valid comparison because the talk out of Bioware for that title was just as sunny and rosy.

For the record, I DO think ME3 is going to be a very good game. I also am of the firm opinion that if you took the resources devoted to the studio doing the MP aspect and instead handed them to the studio doing the SP, then ME3 would be THAT MUCH BETTER of a game.

[Darkeus]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

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.

I am not willing to risk 80 dollars to find out if it was a well spent 80 dollars.  If it is good that I will eat my words as well but I am seeing a disaster brewing.  I do not want to pay 80 dollars for the Collectors edition of "The biggest screw-up in history."

[Lard]

Il Divo wrote...

Right, but I wasn't referring to the original CRPG genre. So where does the argument that all RPGs should primarily be single-player come from? That was primarily Neverwinter Night's appeal; that it simulated the role-playing experience of actual DnD.

Il Divo wrote...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?

Yes you are. And Neverwinter Nights was released in 2002.

Are you seriously dimissing every RPG before that just to make your argument?

[Zakatak757]

NOD-INFORMER37 wrote...

Who else will be checking out Bioware TV at 10 am tommorow? :]

No, I will be at school.

Is it showing off co-op?

Rage and joy will collide and create the perfect storm.

[Zanallen]

Il Divo wrote...

Right, but I wasn't referring to the original CRPG genre. So where does the argument that all RPGs should primarily be single-player come from? That was primarily Neverwinter Night's appeal; that it simulated the role-playing experience of actual DnD.

Exactly. What is wrong with Bioware returning to its roots of making RPGs with single player campaigns and multiplayer components? Isn't that what people keep asking for? For Bioware to go back to how it was with Baldur's Gate and NWN?

[Spartanburger]

Ancient Metal wrote...
Part of your entire premise is false at its core. In your argument you assert money isn't a factor, claiming that if you work hard, you work hard. In essence. However, you then give the assertion that having devs work longer would create a beneficial result.

The problem with this claim is that more hours = higher labor costs. That is money. Unless someone is salary. But will a dev be happy and inspired working on a game 80 hours a week instead of 40 and getting paid the same? Fatigue sets in and its human nature to lag a tad with no incentive. Not discredited devs....btw: I'm certain almost all devs everywhere are dedicated and have inspiration.

I did mention the way time affects cost, but I was more thinking along the lines of the cost of it being delayed.

You do bring up a bigger point, but that does not make my point any less valid.
If a team is working at their highest productivity and are happy with the amount they are being paid, throwing more money at them wont change any thing.

You can use the money to lengthen hours, improve overtime incentives and other things, but those can lead to adverse affect on team morale and productivity if sustained for long periods of time.

Yes, a small amount of money would increase the quality of the SP. But putting the entire cost of MP to the SP team would not help because the only way to affectively use the resources is if they had more time to work on it, and a lot more time at that, like 6 months at least.

[BeefoTheBold]

Zanallen wrote...

BeefoTheBold wrote...

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.

And that choice could be made through DLC. If you choose not to buy the Romance Character DLC, then you get no romance. Perhaps Shep will say there is no time. Perhaps not. Doesn't really matter. What matters is, why should I have to pay for something I would never use. That's the basis of your argument, right? The romances could be sold through DLC. It is entirely possible. Then the main game would be cheaper, right? And you would pay extra for those romances?

No, that's not at all what I'm saying. I'm saying that not having Shepard address that choice for himself in the writing of the game would be ****y writing.

I'm talking about SHEPARD'S choice, not the PLAYER'S choice. If the issue never was addressed at all in a game that purports to be a well written, character driven, story then that's a MAJOR story/plot blind spot.

What I'm shocked people can't wrap their heads around is the difference between a storyline blind spot and an EXTRA MODE OF PLAY.

[Iakus]

Il Divo wrote...
I agree that multiplayer might alienate some players, but that is the result of any business decision. We don't have enough statistical evidence to start the "Do people feel alienated by multiplayer"?

108 pages (not including threads that have since been locked) and counting seems like a pretty good start 

[Lard]

Zanallen wrote...
Exactly. What is wrong with Bioware returning to its roots of making RPGs with single player campaigns and multiplayer components? Isn't that what people keep asking for? For Bioware to go back to how it was with Baldur's Gate and NWN?

Because not everyone wants MP components.

[LordGarm]

What a bomb!

I'm not sure what to think of this...I guess I'll wait until I play the game to answer that question.

[Taciter]

Lard wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

Right, but I wasn't referring to the original CRPG genre. So where does the argument that all RPGs should primarily be single-player come from? That was primarily Neverwinter Night's appeal; that it simulated the role-playing experience of actual DnD.

Il Divo wrote...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?

Yes you are. And Neverwinter Nights was released in 2002.

Are you seriously dimissing every RPG before that just to make your argument?

Phew.. it wasn't just me suffering from premature senility - I too was under the impression that the first multiplayer 'videogames' emerged long after PC based RPG's.

[Il Divo]

BeefoTheBold wrote...

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.

I'll do it for you. The issue is choice. My character is defined just as much by what he chooses to do as by what he chooses not to do. Because I chose to romance or not romance Liara, the action has meaning. Even if it results in content that I will never see, that's precisely why it's a choice and why there is meaning behind it. Even if I replayed a Bioware game the same way ten times, making all the same decisions, there is value in knowing that I chose x but ignored y because the option was available. The same cannot be said for multiplayer, which is separate from Shepard's identity. Choosing to engage in (or not engage in) multiplayer content, does nothing for my character as a meaningful decision.


That said, I'm not a fan of romances in Bioware games, and would prefer to see them removed (or expanded) into other character interactions.

[JD196]

DravenShep wrote...

JD196 wrote...

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.

Instead of using the money for a MP add in for ME3, they could use the money to start developing a SEPERATE MP game BASED on someone else other than Shepard, Oh! Wait! That just sounds too damn easy.

I agree they could have. But they didn't so make the bast of it. If it makes you feel better make a new SP save game for MP and that way you don't have to affect your actual SP games. You can even restart the game if it makes you feel better.

[Darkeus]

You really can't compare the romances to tacked on multiplayer. The romances are part of the Single Player whole. Multiplayer is something better suited for another game.