3794 réponses à ce sujet

[whywhywhywhy]

BeefoTheBold wrote...

shep82 wrote...

No but I trust in Bioware they have yet to do anything to loose that trust.

1. Dragon Age 2
2. Witch Hunt
3. The Arrival
4. Awakenings (Good game...just half-finished and didn't allow your choices from DAO to have much of an impact unless you were a human noble.)
5. Kinect
6. MMO Kotor instead of KOTOR3
7. Strongly implying for months that no MP in ME3 only to reverse course at close to the last minute

I could go on. People who complain about Bioware recently may not necessarily DISLIKE Bioware, but they may dislike the (rapidly accelerating) direction of their business strategy in a direction that is away from their tastes and preferences.

I love Bioware. I own all of their games and most of the DLC. I've been one of the fans that has been there with them from the beginning. They lost my preorder with this decision.

yeah, was a interesting ride. 

[TheGreenAlloy]

Darkeus wrote...

The Interloper wrote...

Darkeus wrote...

gamer_girl wrote...

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.

"Success in multi-player will have a direct impact
on the outcome of the single player campaign, giving players an
alternative method of achieving ultimate victory against the greatest
threat mankind – and the entire galaxy – has ever faced."

As
a bonus to the campaign, BioWare is introducing the Mass Effect 3:
Galaxy at War system, a new way for players to manage and experience the
galactic war from multiple fronts, including a new 4-player co-op mode.
The key to saving the galaxy is the “Galactic Readiness” level,
measured by Commander Shepard’s ability to apply
"It is important to note that the system is
entirely optional and just another way players can have control over
your game experience – it is still possible to achieve the optimal,
complete ending of the game in Mass Effect 3 through single-player
alone."

Does the addition of co-op multiplayer missions impact the scope or quality of the single-player experience?
No.
A dedicated team from our recently formed BioWare Montreal studio has
been focused on creating the multiplayer game features while the main
game continued to be developed by the team in BioWare Edmonton. Both
teams are integrated under the same leadership group that produced Mass
Effect 1 and 2, led by Casey Hudson. BioWare remains dedicated to
delivering one of the most amazing single-player campaigns gamers have
ever experienced.
[/list] How did developing multiplayer impact the single player game?
BioWare
is dedicated and focused on delivering an engaging, fun, and
action-packed experience for Mass Effect 3, one that lives up the
BioWare standard. To reach that level of quality, last year BioWare
opened a studio in Montreal that is home to designers, programmers,
engineers, and other developers. Both studios work together as
partners, lead by the core Mass Effect team, unified in a single vision.
Under the direction of Casey Hudson and other team veterans, both
studios make contributions to both the single player and multiplayer
modes in Mass Effect 3. Rest assured that no compromises were made to
either of these modes in the development of Mass Effect 3.[/list]What if I don’t like multiplayer – will my experience be negatively impacted?

MassEffect 3 is a complete, standalone game that will deliver a satisfying
story experience, even if you choose not to try multiplayer. The Mass
Effect 3: Galaxy at War system and all of the individual components are
meant to complement that amazing game and can be enjoyed on their own or
as part of the Galaxy at War experience.
[/list]

PR.

Anything else?

Handwave dismissal of concrete statements. Anything else?

I for one think the fact that they added disclaimers about the nature of co-op during the usual harp-fest says alot about BW's values. They are aware of the questions this would raise.

Edit:

This is the blind faith I was talking about.  BioWare can screw up and I think they did here.  They would say anything to calm the crap strom that was building.

You just dismiss it. They are the devs, alright? I'm as sceptical of MP as the next guy, but I won't dismiss what the devs say about the game they are working out just because I don't like their new game mode. If they are lying, I will be disappointed in them rather than applauding you for your distrust. Not that I trust any profitable company.

[Darkeus]

gamer_girl wrote...

Darkeus wrote...

gamer_girl wrote...

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.

"Success in multi-player will have a direct impact
on the outcome of the single player campaign, giving players an
alternative method of achieving ultimate victory against the greatest
threat mankind – and the entire galaxy – has ever faced."

As
a bonus to the campaign, BioWare is introducing the Mass Effect 3:
Galaxy at War system, a new way for players to manage and experience the
galactic war from multiple fronts, including a new 4-player co-op mode.
The key to saving the galaxy is the “Galactic Readiness” level,
measured by Commander Shepard’s ability to apply
"It is important to note that the system is
entirely optional and just another way players can have control over
your game experience – it is still possible to achieve the optimal,
complete ending of the game in Mass Effect 3 through single-player
alone."

Does the addition of co-op multiplayer missions impact the scope or quality of the single-player experience?
No.
A dedicated team from our recently formed BioWare Montreal studio has
been focused on creating the multiplayer game features while the main
game continued to be developed by the team in BioWare Edmonton. Both
teams are integrated under the same leadership group that produced Mass
Effect 1 and 2, led by Casey Hudson. BioWare remains dedicated to
delivering one of the most amazing single-player campaigns gamers have
ever experienced.
[/list] How did developing multiplayer impact the single player game?
BioWare
is dedicated and focused on delivering an engaging, fun, and
action-packed experience for Mass Effect 3, one that lives up the
BioWare standard. To reach that level of quality, last year BioWare
opened a studio in Montreal that is home to designers, programmers,
engineers, and other developers. Both studios work together as
partners, lead by the core Mass Effect team, unified in a single vision.
Under the direction of Casey Hudson and other team veterans, both
studios make contributions to both the single player and multiplayer
modes in Mass Effect 3. Rest assured that no compromises were made to
either of these modes in the development of Mass Effect 3.[/list]What if I don’t like multiplayer – will my experience be negatively impacted?

MassEffect 3 is a complete, standalone game that will deliver a satisfying
story experience, even if you choose not to try multiplayer. The Mass
Effect 3: Galaxy at War system and all of the individual components are
meant to complement that amazing game and can be enjoyed on their own or
as part of the Galaxy at War experience.
[/list]

PR.

Anything else?

I don't think BW could win with you if they gave you exactly what you wanted. I don't think the problem is BW. The problem is you.

No, they have won with me with every game I have bought from the.  From Baldur's Gate to now.  I have been here for a long time.  Please, you know nothing about me.

And what I have seen is a degrading of quality since EA got involved.  I am a fan who does not like what he sees with his favorite game company and thinks multiplayer is just a cash-in idea that looks to detriment a superior Single Player RPG. 

Smh, you though.....

And by the way, I a HOPING TO eat my words.  But this does not bode well for the franchise in my opinion.

Modifié par Darkeus, 11 octobre 2011 - 11:20 .

[NOD-INFORMER37]

▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓ ▓▓░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▓▓ ▓░████░░░░░░░░░░████░▓ ▓░░░░░█░░░░░░░░█░░░░░▓ ▓▒░░░░░░░▓░░▓░░░░░░░▒▓ ▓░▒████▒░▓░░▓░▒████▒░▓ ▓▒░░░░░░░▓░░▓░░░░░░░▒▓ ▓░░░░░░░░▓░░▓░░░░░░░░▓ ▓░░░░░░░▓▒░░▒▓░░░░░░░▓ ▓░░░░░░▓░▒░░▒░▓░░░░░░▓ ▓▒▒▒▒▒░▓░░░░░░▓░▒▒▒▒▒▓ ▓░░█░░░░▒████▒░░░░█░░▓ ▓░░▒██████▒▒██████▒░░▓ ▓░░░░░░▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒░░░░░░▓ ▓░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▓ ▓▓░░░░░░░████░░░░░░░▓▓ ▓▓▓░░░░░░░██░░░░░░░▓▓▓ ▓▓▓▓░░░░░░██░░░░░░▓▓▓▓ ▓▓▓▓▓░░░░░██░░░░░▓▓▓▓▓ ▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓

[BeefoTheBold]

JD196 wrote...

BeefoTheBold wrote...

Zanallen wrote...

BeefoTheBold wrote...

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

I wouldn't mind that at all as long as it made sense within the context of the game. You know, how playing as various soldiers fighting the Reapers in battles that Shep doesn't have the time to take part in because he is off saving the universe makes sense within the context of the game.

To me, though, it doesn't make sense within the narrative of the game. This is Shepard's story. It was always intended to be Shepard's story. Going out on a tangent like that lacks focus.

This isn't Call of Shepard here, mass effect is a large universe. Shepard may be the main character here but woud you cut Joker out of ME2 because you could play as him for a while? 

Shepard is the main character but he won't be for every thing in the mass effect universe. Why should we be limited to his side of the story? 

Poor analogy. Joker is a part of Shepard's crew. He's directly tied to Shepard. He's a part of Shepard's story.

Cutting to an entirely different group of soldiers in the third game would be like "Saving Private Ryan" deciding to spend a half hour in the latter third of the movie seeing how the soldiers that are Saving Private Frank are doing instead.

Everyone knew that Saving Private Ryan was a story about THAT group of soldiers as a subset of the larger conflict but it was THERE story. Choosing to suddenly drop that and go look at a different group of soldiers would have harmed the story.

Same concept at play here. Nothing wrong with doing a 4th game that focuses on some other part of the Mass Effect universe just like there would be nothing wrong with the "Saving Private Frank" movie. Choosing the last game of a trilogy to do it detracts from the narrative of Shepard and lacks focus.

Modifié par BeefoTheBold, 11 octobre 2011 - 11:16 .

[Zakatak757]

If Brandon recorded 12 hours worth of dialog for Garrus, it is safe to say other squadmates have plenty of dialog too.

The amount of dialog can be directly related to the... err... "amount of story". Sounds like alot.

[Darkeus]

Zakatak757 wrote...

Darkeus wrote...

TheGreenAlloy wrote...


Typical dismissive attitude. Too focused on MP to even look into it.

Typical blind faith.  Too enamoured with the co-op to see what harm it could do.

It goes both ways.

You realize this goes both ways. That is the first step.

The second step is accepting that.

The third? Realize that all of our points are equally stupid because we are all speculating.

Well of course we are all speculating.  Some of us have more vigor and rage!!! 

[Lucifer_Cheney]

Zakatak757 wrote...

MP does not affect the END of Mass Effect 3, it just changes how you get there. Think of it as another mini-playthrough within itself, an extra 10 hours of gameplay (adding onto the 30+) that you can play with other people.

MP does not affect the END of Mass Effect 3, it just changes how you get there. Think of it as another mini-playthrough within itself, an extra 10 hours of gameplay (adding onto the 30+) that you can play with other people.

MP does not affect the END of Mass Effect 3, it just changes how you get there. Think of it as another mini-playthrough within itself, an extra 10 hours of gameplay (adding onto the 30+) that you can play with other people.

MP does not affect the END of Mass Effect 3, it just changes how you get there. Think of it as another mini-playthrough within itself, an extra 10 hours of gameplay (adding onto the 30+) that you can play with other people.

MP does not affect the END of Mass Effect 3, it just changes how you get there. Think of it as another mini-playthrough within itself, an extra 10 hours of gameplay (adding onto the 30+) that you can play with other people.

Could you repeat that five more times?

[wright1978]

someguy1231 wrote...

The fact is, both romance and multi-player are optional. That is the reason for the comparison, and it's a valid one. Just because you think romance is (or should be) an essential part of an RPG doesn't make the comparison invalid.

Lots of things are optional in the single player game such as player type. I've never played as engineer, doesn't mean it is not an esential part of the single player mode.

[TheGreenAlloy]

culletron1 wrote...

Back in March I was more excited for ME3 than any other game ever...

Then I played DA2 and when I realised that they are more than capable of totally f*cking up ME3 for a perceived "quick buck" I decided not to pre-order ME3...

Then I hear they are putting MP into ME3 instead of, say, using the money to add a high res texture pack or support dx11 or polish levels or add detail and scale to maps and I can't help but think what the **** are they playing at?

Now I will be waiting to see what meta critic says... If this is as linear and streamlined and as cheap and as much of a sell out as I fear, I would rather not have it ruin the memory of the first two games

I'll just leae this here... http://www.metacriti...-360/halo-reach

[BeefoTheBold]

Zanallen wrote...

BeefoTheBold wrote...

To me, though, it doesn't make sense within the narrative of the game. This is Shepard's story. It was always intended to be Shepard's story. Going out on a tangent like that lacks focus.

Shepard and his small squad of soldiers on their single ship can't possibly end the Reaper threat on their own. They need soldiers to aid them. Battles will be fought and won or lost. Is it better to merely hear of these battles instead of experiencing them yourself? Shepard can't be everywhere and do everything. And as the multiplayer is completely optional, you don't have to experience that tangent if you don't want to.

See my "Saving Private Frank" analogy.

[Nozybidaj]

Hah, for all of us that called this months ago, well I won't say I told you so...

[culletron1]

whywhywhywhy wrote...

BeefoTheBold wrote...

shep82 wrote...

No but I trust in Bioware they have yet to do anything to loose that trust.

1. Dragon Age 2
2. Witch Hunt
3. The Arrival
4. Awakenings (Good game...just half-finished and didn't allow your choices from DAO to have much of an impact unless you were a human noble.)
5. Kinect
6. MMO Kotor instead of KOTOR3
7. Strongly implying for months that no MP in ME3 only to reverse course at close to the last minute

I could go on. People who complain about Bioware recently may not necessarily DISLIKE Bioware, but they may dislike the (rapidly accelerating) direction of their business strategy in a direction that is away from their tastes and preferences.

I love Bioware. I own all of their games and most of the DLC. I've been one of the fans that has been there with them from the beginning. They lost my preorder with this decision.

yeah, was a interesting ride. 

This also is exactly what I am worried about... The direction of the company as of late has been extremely worrying.

Everything lately from DA2 to this multiplayer just stinks of sell out... Once upon a time I trusted them completely to make EXACTLY the type of content I love. Content I would pay $1000 for... 

No more

[Zanallen]

BeefoTheBold wrote...

See my "Saving Private Frank" analogy.

Except, in this case, Saving Private Frank would be a DVD Extra that you could watch in your leisure and doesn't interrupt the movie in any way.

[royceclemens]

Zakatak757 wrote...

royceclemens wrote...

Aw, great.  Now that it has multiplayer, Mass Effect 3 will be linear and five hours long.  Just like Grand Theft Auto IV and Red Dead Redemption... Wait a minute...

In my experience, there's a difference between a single player game adding multiplayer and a single player story perfunctorily included in a game everyone plays just for the multiplayer.  From where I'm sitting, everything looks solid.

I approve of this metaphor.

Thank you.  And when you stop and take a deep breath (which might be hard for people on both sides right about now, not that I blame them), wouldn't the single player game provide the incentive for multiplayer anyway?  No one's gonna jump into MP without playing SP first (going double for the reviled/vaunted "new to the franchise" player), so wouldn't that give BioWare more incentive to make the SP experience the best it can be?  Gears of War and Call of Duty can get away with shoddy stories because no one cares about single player because the MP is a known quantity.  Mass Effect, however, is unknown for its multiplayer, so they're gonna have to work extra hard in SP to get people into MP.

I'm willing to bet that more people played the MP for Uncharted 2 than Kane & Lynch.  Gee, I wonder why that is... 

[The Interloper]

Darkeus wrote...
Typical blind faith.  Too enamoured with the co-op to see what harm it could do.

It goes both ways.

I can't speak for GA, but I don't give a crap about co-op. I care about SP, and there have been concrete signs that-

1. You don't lose anything from SP for not playing Co-op
2. Dev resources orginally dedicated to SP are not being diverted, with the other studio and all.

The rest is speculation, and from what we've heard so far I see no reason to be overly worried.

[Ace of Dawn]

Novate wrote...

Lets put it in another way, remember Mass Effect 2 , all those DLC's that followed that added extra missions, extra companions, their origin stories. What if those items was added to the Single Player experience the first time around. And they spend all these months, instead of trying to add this new feature of Co-op with the Single Player game and making it having direct affect with the Galactic Readiness level, but spent it creating more companion back story. Having a more tuned AI.

Lets say that you were correct, SP wasn't ready, and they are spending their time doing polishes this and that, But lets say that this other Team that was brought in, instead of creating MP Co-op, was instead creating two extra Planets to explore that explores the other alien species in the Universe of Mass Effect. Won't that be more of an epic experience , than this Co-Op that added nothing to my Single Player experience.

Everyone keep saying that MP is OPTIONAL, But is it really OPTIONAL??. For those that wanted a Full Shepard Experience will feel like something is missing, whats this whole other battle that MY SHEPARD wasn't allowed to participate in??. Why am i locked out of this Galactic battle that is being fought when My Shepard is the one that is saving it??. Why is there content that I couldn't enjoy when I don't have Online access?
Me not having Xbox live has never made me lose out on Mass Effect content before, why is it doing that now?

First thing, that second team was brought into the equeation specifically for MP. Seeing as how they are quite seperated regionally, making any sort of true single player addition would be inefficient.

And as for those two extra planets, nothing guarantees that they would be epic. If the single player is already set, and then things are added, then their impact on the story would be an after thought.

And who is to say that the Co-Op won't be epic. There are people who would love MP components, why should they be ignored. Because you're "true" fans or first? Because it's and RPG? Those arguments are flimsy.

[gamer_girl]

Darkeus wrote...

gamer_girl wrote...

I don't think BW could win with you if they gave you exactly what you wanted. I don't think the problem is BW. The problem is you.

No, they have won with me with every game I have bought from the.  From Baldur's Gate to now.  I have been here for a long time.  Please, you know nothing about me.

And what I have seen is a degrading of quality since EA got involved.  I am a fan who does not like what he sees with his favorite game company and thinks multiplayer is just a cash-in idea that looks to detriment a superior Single Player RPG. 

Smh, you though.....

So why not go to the I-don't-know side rather than the this-is-practically-guaranteed-to-ruin-this-entire-game side? To make such a huge assumption only makes you look foolish. Nobody knows how the MP will be and only a few have had the chance to play the demo at a game convention. From what I've read, the general concensus from people who have played the demo is that it has fantastic gameplay. So to me it just sounds like you're throwing a bit of a tantrum just because you weren't satisfied with DA2 and you're taking it out on the multiplayer even though an entirely separate team worked on it.

Modifié par gamer_girl, 11 octobre 2011 - 11:22 .

[culletron1]

TheGreenAlloy wrote...

culletron1 wrote...

Back in March I was more excited for ME3 than any other game ever...

Then I played DA2 and when I realised that they are more than capable of totally f*cking up ME3 for a perceived "quick buck" I decided not to pre-order ME3...

Then I hear they are putting MP into ME3 instead of, say, using the money to add a high res texture pack or support dx11 or polish levels or add detail and scale to maps and I can't help but think what the **** are they playing at?

Now I will be waiting to see what meta critic says... If this is as linear and streamlined and as cheap and as much of a sell out as I fear, I would rather not have it ruin the memory of the first two games

I'll just leae this here... http://www.metacriti...-360/halo-reach

I've not played Halo: R so not sure what you mean ???

[Biotic Sage]

Rabble rabble rabble!!!

[Darkeus]

culletron1 wrote...

whywhywhywhy wrote...

BeefoTheBold wrote...

shep82 wrote...

No but I trust in Bioware they have yet to do anything to loose that trust.

1. Dragon Age 2
2. Witch Hunt
3. The Arrival
4. Awakenings (Good game...just half-finished and didn't allow your choices from DAO to have much of an impact unless you were a human noble.)
5. Kinect
6. MMO Kotor instead of KOTOR3
7. Strongly implying for months that no MP in ME3 only to reverse course at close to the last minute

I could go on. People who complain about Bioware recently may not necessarily DISLIKE Bioware, but they may dislike the (rapidly accelerating) direction of their business strategy in a direction that is away from their tastes and preferences.

I love Bioware. I own all of their games and most of the DLC. I've been one of the fans that has been there with them from the beginning. They lost my preorder with this decision.

yeah, was a interesting ride. 

This also is exactly what I am worried about... The direction of the company as of late has been extremely worrying.

Everything lately from DA2 to this multiplayer just stinks of sell out... Once upon a time I trusted them completely to make EXACTLY the type of content I love. Content I would pay $1000 for... 

No more

This is me.  I love BioWare and have bought every damn game they have released except for the Sonic game (I don't have handhelds.  :-p)

But the direction of the company, decisions being made, Dragon Age 2, and now this?  Seriously concerned for the quality of my favorite game series.

[BeefoTheBold]

Zanallen wrote...

BeefoTheBold wrote...

See my "Saving Private Frank" analogy.

Except, in this case, Saving Private Frank would be a DVD Extra that you could watch in your leisure and doesn't interrupt the movie in any way.

A DVD extra that would make no sense whatsoever to include.  DVD extras are usually extra scenes about the characters that the actual movie is about.

[DaringMoosejaw]

wright1978 wrote...

someguy1231 wrote...

The fact is, both romance and multi-player are optional. That is the reason for the comparison, and it's a valid one. Just because you think romance is (or should be) an essential part of an RPG doesn't make the comparison invalid.

Lots of things are optional in the single player game such as player type. I've never played as engineer, doesn't mean it is not an esential part of the single player mode.

Whether or not it is 'essential' does not matter. That is pure opinion. What matters is fact, which is that it's optional. classes, guns, armor, romances, side-quests, people play through all the time without taking advantage of them. But the game is still 60 bucks. If you can achieve the exact same result from single player as you can from multiplayer's benefits, it is entirely optional and you lose nothing from avoiding the experience than if MP didn't exist to begin with.

No matter what anyone says about Priestly's soul being a cavern of lies, there's no reason for me to think this isn't the truth.

Modifié par DaringMoosejaw, 11 octobre 2011 - 11:24 .