3794 réponses à ce sujet

[JD196]

Taciter wrote...

Il Divo wrote...
Which has resulted in a million back and forths, often with the same people. I also believe a statistic was released which indicates that we represent less than 1% of Bioware fans. All decisions lead to endorsement or alienation. That can include a game's setting, voice-acting, or simply shooter-gameplay. If the argument is to have merit, we need to demonstrate that multiplayer has/will alienate fans significantly more than any other feature, to date.

And when better to try it than during the final episode of a traditionally single player saga!

Exactly. If you were dying would you pass up the oppertunity to try something new?

[TheGreenAlloy]

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.

How does that impact you in any way? It's an alternative way to boost readiness.

[The Interloper]

Lard wrote...

fl0wers wrote...

It's weird to me that anyone can complain about something completely optional that is being developed by a separate team so it won't take away from the main single player experience.

If you don't like the idea of co-op in ME3, don't play it. It's optional.

Why do people continue to repeat this outright lie?

Because it's not a lie. Just because co-op effects SP doesn't mean you can't get the exact same effects without it. BW has confirmed that this is the case.

[someguy1231]

BeefoTheBold wrote...

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.

Care to name those shooter games? Most of the successful multiplayer shooters have had MP from the beginning, and those games can get away with a short (by RPG standards) campaign because they clearly market their MP instead of their SP as their main feature.

Believe what you want about the developers. Meanwhile, I'll continue to believe that the vast majority of the complaints about resources being used for MP are the result of selfish and entitled MP haters who can't tolerate seeing developers focusing on a feature that isn't SP. And again, they aren't "diverting" SP resources". They can't be "diverting" them if they were never meant for the SP to begin with. It's only "diversion" if you believe resources should only ever be used for SP.

[Taciter]

fl0wers wrote...

It's weird to me that anyone can complain about something completely optional that is being developed by a separate team so it won't take away from the main single player experience.

If you don't like the idea of co-op in ME3, don't play it. It's optional.

Sigh... have you followed this thread at all? did you read anyone's posts past the opening announcement?

[Zanallen]

Lard wrote...

Because not everyone wants MP components.

Then don't play them. Same with Baldur's Gate and NWN.

[shep82]

Pythonicus wrote...

shep82 wrote...

Pythonicus wrote...

shep82 wrote...

Pythonicus wrote...

Kakita Tatsumaru wrote...

roflchoppaz wrote...

Playing MP gives you something of a boost to your playthrough, it does nothing but boost that "galaxy readiness' meter thing. You can max it out even without MP if you played all the cards right.

Why don't you get it, dudes? You lose nothing, they gain nothing. It's gonna be the same ending. It's equal.

We lose single player missions which could have been done with the time/money.

This x1000
I don't want MP I won't play the MP. But I want to play as much ME3 as possible. Any mission that is MP could have been a SP mission instead.

Incorrect. The CO-Op portion was done by a seperate team with seperate resorces without that team and co-op we would get the exact same game.

Doesn't matter it still could have been single player content instead. That second team could have been working on SP content instead.
More SP>any CO-OP

You people still don't get it. They (EA) gave them extra funds for a second team to develop MP for ME 3. The money would not have existed otherwise hence no missing content.

I think that you don't get it. By putting in MP they are telling us explicitly that they could have included more content in the SP experience. Unless of course the MP content is completely seperate from the SP to the extent that I don't even have to install it. If that turns out to be the case I'll gladly eat my words and accept it as "extra" or "optional" content. That doesn't change the fact that any MP content could have been SP content instead.
I believe that Galaxy at War could have and should have been packaged and sold as a stand alone game to succeed or fail on its own merit. It seems pretty obvious to me that this is really just a way to beta test something new ans make some money on it at the same time. I can't fault them for wanting to make money but I can hate the fact that they shoehorned it onto ME3 to do it.

I don't agree. The MP element is not there to cutout out of content and not having it does not mean we would have had more content.

[fl0wers]

Lard wrote...

fl0wers wrote...

It's weird to me that anyone can complain about something completely optional that is being developed by a separate team so it won't take away from the main single player experience.

If you don't like the idea of co-op in ME3, don't play it. It's optional.

Why do people continue to repeat this outright lie?

Outright lie? Explain.

[NOD-INFORMER37]

Why cant every1 be like my dog?

_ _______________,,...,,,,..,
________________/......o_.o,\\_,,
_______________./...I...,,..........:
_______________.\\_/.,_\\_____./
________________/______I_
_______________/.......,,...,,...,,.\\
______________/......,,......,,,..,,...\\
_____________/........,,..,,..,,..,,..,,.\\
____________./............/...,,..,,..,..,/
____________/.........../.....,,.,....,../
___________/............{..............I./
__________./,............I..............//
_______/I__/................\\...........(
______/..I,_/.../............,....).......,\\
_____./....I_/ (.....,...,........./ \\,,......\\
_____I.....I / . .\\.............../__\\.......\\
_____\\.....\\.., ./ \\,.........../,___\\.......\\_,,

He's pretty happy =P

[Zanallen]

fl0wers wrote...

Outright lie? Explain.

It is an outright lie because he says it is an outright lie, no matter what Bioware has said on the subject because Bioware is full of outright liars. Obviously.

[BeefoTheBold]

Zanallen wrote...

BeefoTheBold wrote...

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.

And without the DLC, Shepard's choice would be no romances. That is what he will decide in the story. If you buy the DLC, more choices would open up. No crappy writing involved. There will be a point where Shep will make a choice on romance and, if no DLC is installed, that choice defaults to no. There is no need for a blindspot. Your Shep would just choose to not partake in romances just as if you as the player chose for him to not romance anyone.

Again, you're comparing apples to oranges.

You're comparing another play mode to a complete single player experience.

[shep82]

SkyeHawk89 wrote...

I hope there's offline, I too hope that it doesnt affect Singleplayer. I know they like too fib, I'm hoping, praying.

It affects the single player but only in a very minor way.

[Lard]

fl0wers wrote...

Lard wrote...

fl0wers wrote...

It's weird to me that anyone can complain about something completely optional that is being developed by a separate team so it won't take away from the main single player experience.

If you don't like the idea of co-op in ME3, don't play it. It's optional.

Why do people continue to repeat this outright lie?

Outright lie? Explain.

Jesus.....

Bioware themselves confirmed that it directly affects the SP game.

[Taciter]

JD196 wrote...

Taciter wrote...

Il Divo wrote...
Which has resulted in a million back and forths, often with the same people. I also believe a statistic was released which indicates that we represent less than 1% of Bioware fans. All decisions lead to endorsement or alienation. That can include a game's setting, voice-acting, or simply shooter-gameplay. If the argument is to have merit, we need to demonstrate that multiplayer has/will alienate fans significantly more than any other feature, to date.

And when better to try it than during the final episode of a traditionally single player saga!

Exactly. If you were dying would you pass up the oppertunity to try something new?

If I was dying, and my beloved offspring were sitting by my side mourning my imminent departure but waiting in earnest for my final words of wisdom, I wouldn't choose that moment to turn schizophrenic.

[shep82]

Zanallen wrote...

fl0wers wrote...

Outright lie? Explain.

It is an outright lie because he says it is an outright lie, no matter what Bioware has said on the subject because Bioware is full of outright liars. Obviously.

I don't agree with that at all.

[BeefoTheBold]

Zanallen wrote...

Lard wrote...

Because not everyone wants MP components.

Then don't play them. Same with Baldur's Gate and NWN.

By that logic why not throw in a "NCAA Football" mode that is completely optional as well?

[NOD-INFORMER37]

......║\\.
......║▒\\.
......║▒▒\\
......║░▒║
......║░▒║
......║░▒║
......║░▒║
......║░▒║
......║░▒║
......║░▒║
......║░▒║
......║░▒║
.▓▓▓▓▓▓▓
.......]█▓[
.......]█▓[
.......]█▓[ ---

[Pride Demon]

Taciter wrote...

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?

Well, it may be that having a whole part of the game without playing as Shepard can break the feeling of continuity, so they'll need a different campaign (that Galaxy at War is, in fact), but a new single player campaign is a disaster without good characters and backstories, important decisions and all the rest of the tipical RPG stuff...
With such an enourmous amount of things to do they may as well not do it now at all, rename it Mass Effect 4 and release it when all it's set in a few years...

Besides we don't know if what you said is impossible, we may actually be able to play offline with bots, in Unreal it was possible to do so after all...

[shep82]

Lard wrote...

fl0wers wrote...

Lard wrote...

fl0wers wrote...

It's weird to me that anyone can complain about something completely optional that is being developed by a separate team so it won't take away from the main single player experience.

If you don't like the idea of co-op in ME3, don't play it. It's optional.

Why do people continue to repeat this outright lie?

Outright lie? Explain.

Jesus.....

Bioware themselves confirmed that it directly affects the SP game.

No they confirmed that it helps, HELPS with readdieness in an optional way. Hence the word optional there.

[Spartanburger]

Novate wrote...

I understand that you are saying that without MP the SP is already as good as it is, but how could it be, if it was ready shouldn't the game already be released. Then this MP would be an DLC that those that wanted it could buy it and those that didn't would avoid it. NO HARM DONE, But what their current strategy is to ****** off the Fan base and said that all these extra time spend on Mass Effect 3 has no effect at all on SP, its all because of the MP.
All these months of waiting for something that is entirely OPTIONAL, no extra SP campaigns was added.

Is that what you are trying to say, all the extra funds was spend on something entirely OPTIONAL, instead of puring it into something more Concrete like the Single Player Experiences.
Apparently I don't know much about business because it doesn't sound too good to me.

Pouring the extra recources into singleplayer would only help temporarily boost production. But, constant 80 hour work weeks and overtime would, in the long run, cause more harm than good.

The only way to effectively use the added recources to improve the SP would be if they had more time. And were talking about a amount of funds that is holding an entire studio up for at least a year (BW Montreal).
The time to use that amount of resources effectively would therefore be very large.

Now, BW has said that the delay was not due to MP. Now, if we assume that this is true, then the only way they could improve the SP would be if they delayed even further, which would THEN require more resources.

It is very likely that both the MP and SP are fully funded already. Businesses tend to budget things out well in advance.

[fl0wers]

Lard wrote...

fl0wers wrote...

Lard wrote...

fl0wers wrote...

It's weird to me that anyone can complain about something completely optional that is being developed by a separate team so it won't take away from the main single player experience.

If you don't like the idea of co-op in ME3, don't play it. It's optional.

Why do people continue to repeat this outright lie?

Outright lie? Explain.

Jesus.....

Bioware themselves confirmed that it directly affects the SP game.

Bioware themselves also confirmed that NOT playing it will not have any negative effect on the SP game. Hence it being completely optional.

[Zanallen]

BeefoTheBold wrote...

Again, you're comparing apples to oranges.

You're comparing another play mode to a complete single player experience.

And my complete single player experience never included those romance options. So obviously, my complete single player experience was complete without those options. Just like you can get a complete ME1 experience without romancing anyone, doing various sidequests, doing BDtS or that other pointless DLC. Without the romance DLC, your Shep would always turn down romances because the mission comes first. With the DLC, it would open up choices.

[TheGreenAlloy]

Zakatak757 wrote...

TheGreenAlloy wrote...

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.

Haven't seen you around. Good to know that you're here.

60$ with optional co-op.
60$ with no co-op.

I'll take my chances with the first.

Play 10 playthroughs with a 30 hour campaign.
Play 10 playthroughs with a 30 hour campaign followed by some fun splitscreen.

I'll take chances again. The fact we got a second department of Bioware working on it is a blessing to start with. I can bet taking out multiplayer would not "add resources", because then only Edmonton would be working on it.

As will I. The ME 1&2 team (I think) is working with SP, so it's good.

[Taciter]

Pride Demon wrote...
Besides we don't know if what you said is impossible, we may actually be able to play offline with bots, in Unreal it was possible to do so after all...

^THIS... is what still gives me hope... bots would be a perfect compromise in my opinion!