3794 réponses à ce sujet

[whywhywhywhy]

TheGreenAlloy wrote...

whywhywhywhy wrote...

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.

yep.  At the end of the day no matter how the funds are allocated including MP took away resources that could hav been fought for to make ME3 the undisputed crowning GOTC.  But they went the money route and I have a strong feeling it's going to backfire.

We don't know if they got those funds because of co-op, though.

exactly.  We don't know if it was EA or Bioware intiated.  Depending on the answer it becomes a very different conversation.

[Taciter]

[quote]gamer_girl wrote...
-Of course it's subjective. That's how it is supposed to be.[/quote]
But a few of your friends aren't likely to offer a very accurate statistical representation of the broad spectrum of opinions so readily voiced in these forums.

[quote]gamer_girl wrote...
-It is silly to assume that they are perfect without the influence of EA. Nothing is perfect, they may very well have made a few "mistakes" that many people see the benefits of (obviously you're not one of those people and neither is Darkeus)[/quote]
I wouldn't argue with that assessment.

[quote]gamer_girl wrote...
-The third thing you said doesn't make a whole lot of sense... They produced a separate optional content and it somehow offends the existing fan base? So what you're saying is that you and others are offended because they added a feature that may appeal to other people AND at least a few people from the existing fan base just because it doesn't appeal to you? Should we also be offended if nestle produces a new flavour of syrup to put in milk that we might not like but others do? [/quote]
I think you must have misinterpreted the gyst of my paragraph. To correct your analogy, it's more a case of Nestle changing the formula for their flagship syrup and expecting their existing consumers to yum it up because precedent studies have shown that people love extra salt on their chips... random isn't it!

[quote]gamer_girl wrote...
-Is BW holding a gun to your head and telling you that you must play the multiplayer? No. They are not forcing you to do anything, then there is no imposition at all. [/quote]
Again, you've missed the point... they're hanging their proverbial carrot in the centre of a smoky room and enticing the asthmatic to give it a taste. That content MAY be available to all but it's virtually innaccessible to anyone who passionately dislikes multiplayer mechanics - one of the predominant reasons why so many of the existing fan base chose to subscribe so faithfully to this franchise.

[quote]gamer_girl wrote...
-Nobody is denying anyone anything. You can still play single player correct? If they did remove multiplayer as you so obviously want them to do, then who are we denying? The people who want multiplayer in ME3.[/quote]
Sigh... don't presume to speak on my behalf! That assertion is your own fabrication and if you'd bothered to read my final sentence you'd realise that your point was moot.


[/quote]

[gamer_girl]

Darkeus wrote...

gamer_girl wrote...



I never said I was right to think that it sounds like a cool addition. The only "correct" way to think right now is to be unsure. Simple as that.

It makes the most sense to believe the article. That came straight from the horse's mouth. If you think this article is false, then why believe any of the articles they've made thus far? Why believe there is a Mass Effect 3 in the first place? If you believe that this one is all lies, why aren't any of the others?

You believe everything you read?  I sure don't.

The Faq was released during a time when anger was boiling.  Of course they said things to calm the masses, and yes they mave have lied or told mistruths or partial truths.  I tend to think the Single Player is affected by this more than is being said.  You want to believe it lock, stock.  So be it.

It is subjective, so we can't really dismiss each other at all can we.  You maybe right and I hope you are, but I really do not think you are and I do not think this unwanted and unnneeded multiplayer is "cool".

The validity of that post is yet to be determined, but none of their updates so far have been interpreted as a lie so why should this one? What do you honestly think the devs have as motivation? Would they really put all that time in if they thought it would ruin the game? Doubtful. Of all the things running through a devs mind in the making of a game, "I'm going to intentionally make this terrible just to ****** people off" isn't one of them.

It may have been unwanted by you, but others requested this. Just because you don't want it doesn't mean nobody does.

[Darkeus]

But the boxes are so pretty! 

Modifié par Darkeus, 12 octobre 2011 - 12:27 .

[Novate]

Khran1505 wrote...

Alenkosexualtendencies wrote...

So much hate for a feature in a game that hasn't even been demo'd to the public yet. I hope MP DOES affect your SP in a dramatic game changing manner.... just so the trolls can drop this game.

Beat me to it, my friend.

This news excites me, I'm honestly really interested in seeing how Galaxy at War will play out and I'm more than thankful it is an optional choice we're given that won't detract from the massive single player experience. Kudos to you, BioWare!

Seriously, why all the hate? It's because of people ****ing about "multiplayer being unnecessary" that BioWare have felt threatened and troubled that they had to emphasize the ever loving god out of the fact the entire co-op function is an OPTION! Is it really so hard for you people to just back down, ignore the feature in the final game and enjoy what you DO love about Mass Effect? Don't like multiplayer? IGNORE IT! It's not bloody rocket science, it's kindergarten! Some of us are actually excited about this and some people with actual brain cells who don't like the idea of multiplayer have chosen not to play it but they'll look forward to the game all the same.

I do love the people here who immediately assume the game's going to suck despite humanity not having achieved the power of time travel. Your ignorance makes me laugh.

Seriously people, back down, think how stupid you're being and just accept this is Mass Effect 3's future. If co-op isn't your way, ignore it (or just dis-connect your network from your console) and carry on with Shepard's full story as it consumes you just as the previous games did. If it is, all the more power to you and look forward to it just as well.

You can't ignore it. Because its suppose to be Commander Shepard's Final journey, his/her story's epic end. Co-op shoudln't even be included because it has no meaning, its OPTIONAL = NO ACTUAL MEANING to Commander Shepard's story.

The Mass Effect Universe will continue to expand, more games will be based on this IP, but this is suppose to be Commander Shepard's Final story, you are not getting any more Command Shepard in any future games. So Why mess with it with Co-op that is OPTIONAL. Why ??? Why do something that doesn't add any additional Commander Shepard's story. If its an entirely new Game then its fine, or if they were creating another Commander Shepard 's continuation story then fine, but come on.

[whywhywhywhy]

Walker White wrote...

whywhywhywhy wrote...

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.

yep.  At the end of the day no matter how the funds are allocated including MP took away resources that could hav been fought for to make ME3 the undisputed crowning GOTC.  But they went the money route and I have a strong feeling it's going to backfire.

This is 100% false.  The financial office sets budgets based on expected sales.  If they believe multiplayer will bring in X number of players who would not get the game otherwise, then they will spend more money on the title.  Now, we can argue as to whether multiplayer will actually bring in new players, but if the bean counters believe it will, then that is all that matters for BioWare to get free money.

[spirosz]

Not really related to any posts, as I already said what I wanted to say, but can some of you snip a post if you're quoting it, especially if you're just going to write one sentence. Some of these replies are taking up a full page.

Modifié par spiros9110, 12 octobre 2011 - 12:29 .

[JD196]

spiros9110 wrote...

Not really related to any posts, as I already said what I wanted to say, but can some of you snip a post if you're quoting it, especially if you're just going to write one sentence. Some of these replies are taking up a full page.

It's related to my post

[soske aizen]

it prob wont be that bad guys thing is after da2 they got to know that if this flops well.....by by fanbase lol

[Darkeus]

gamer_girl wrote...

Darkeus wrote...

gamer_girl wrote...



I never said I was right to think that it sounds like a cool addition. The only "correct" way to think right now is to be unsure. Simple as that.

It makes the most sense to believe the article. That came straight from the horse's mouth. If you think this article is false, then why believe any of the articles they've made thus far? Why believe there is a Mass Effect 3 in the first place? If you believe that this one is all lies, why aren't any of the others?

You believe everything you read?  I sure don't.

The Faq was released during a time when anger was boiling.  Of course they said things to calm the masses, and yes they mave have lied or told mistruths or partial truths.  I tend to think the Single Player is affected by this more than is being said.  You want to believe it lock, stock.  So be it.

It is subjective, so we can't really dismiss each other at all can we.  You maybe right and I hope you are, but I really do not think you are and I do not think this unwanted and unnneeded multiplayer is "cool".

The validity of that post is yet to be determined, but none of their updates so far have been interpreted as a lie so why should this one? What do you honestly think the devs have as motivation? Would they really put all that time in if they thought it would ruin the game? Doubtful. Of all the things running through a devs mind in the making of a game, "I'm going to intentionally make this terrible just to ****** people off" isn't one of them.

It may have been unwanted by you, but others requested this. Just because you don't want it doesn't mean nobody does.

Don't speak for the whole community.  You act like I am the only one against this.  That is far from the truth.

And The whole of the Dragon Age 2 dev cycle was a circle of half-truths.....

And the motivation?  Deflect anger about co-op with half-truths to try to quell the masses and placate people who choose to trust BioWare completely.  The envirionment the Faq was released in give pause since anger was AGAINST THEM.  A perfect reason to relase a somewhat truthful faq to delay the outrage.  It is simple corporate PR.....  

[The Interloper]

Darkeus wrote...

The Interloper wrote...

Darkeus wrote...

Arrival (Though I though it was just alright)
Dragon Age: Awakenings
Witch Hunt
The DLC in Mass Effect 2 (That is a total EA thing, so is Cerberus network)
Dragon Age 2

There are more than a few.

I have experience with EA concerning their NCAA football series.  I have seen this pattern before with tacked on features and unwanted additions.  I have seen them perpetuate themselves year to year.

In short, I have seen EA's corporate attitude and this reeks of it.  It feels rushed and until I see differently, then they are lying about something or the other.

I thought arrival and awakening were mostly fine. Never got WH, and at any rate that's a small thing. Paid DLC is all the rage across the gaming industry now anyways and ME1 had it under microsift. The only real problem is DA2.

We can argue about slippery slopes and such, but again ME3 has been shown to reverse the trend in some ways (rpg mechanics) so I hardly see how this is verified. I also don't really see how it's all that rushed-it was in development before ME2 came out and will have been baking for over two years by release, which is again an industry standard. There are indications the MP is rushed, but I don't give a darn how that turns out.

Assume all you want. But it's just assuming.

Opinion is opinion.  You assume a lot of things as well, but it is all opinion..

Of course. That's what I'm saying. Nothing is defined yet and it can swing both ways, so let's not pretend otherwise. Your opinion that BW seems to be bumbling about is no more of a theoretical interpretation of events my conclusion that they seem to be doing a decent job.

Let's just wait to see how things turn out, shall we?

[whywhywhywhy]

Ace of Dawn wrote...

whywhywhywhy wrote...

someguy1231 wrote...

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.

*sigh*
Guess I'll say it again:
Those resources were never meant for the SP to begin with!!!!!
[/u][u]

YOU DON'T KNOW THAT.  You assume that, we don't even know who initiated the shooter mechanics and MP gameplay to begin with.  If it was Bioware then what ever budget requested was in their control to define and per approval acquire.

When you request funding, you clearly write down what everything is intended for. Bioware would have, by necessity, requested the money specifically for this. Otherwise, the Developer wouldn't sign off on it. And considering how much it would likely cost to implement this, I very much doubt they would have signed off on a large sum of money solely for campaign.

A large amount of money wouldn't have been needed given the funds that would already be allocated for the title itself, just a small addition.  Given it's performance I'm sure the case could be made and approved if the funds were requested.  It's ground up MP that's expensive.  Adding it into the game this point is no doubt a headache but we'll see how well it goes.  The leaked video of MP didn't look so good.

[JD196]

Yeah what the interloper said.

Modifié par JD196, 12 octobre 2011 - 12:32 .

[Khran1505]

Novate wrote...

Khran1505 wrote...

Alenkosexualtendencies wrote...

So much hate for a feature in a game that hasn't even been demo'd to the public yet. I hope MP DOES affect your SP in a dramatic game changing manner.... just so the trolls can drop this game.

Beat me to it, my friend.

This news excites me, I'm honestly really interested in seeing how Galaxy at War will play out and I'm more than thankful it is an optional choice we're given that won't detract from the massive single player experience. Kudos to you, BioWare!

Seriously, why all the hate? It's because of people ****ing about "multiplayer being unnecessary" that BioWare have felt threatened and troubled that they had to emphasize the ever loving god out of the fact the entire co-op function is an OPTION! Is it really so hard for you people to just back down, ignore the feature in the final game and enjoy what you DO love about Mass Effect? Don't like multiplayer? IGNORE IT! It's not bloody rocket science, it's kindergarten! Some of us are actually excited about this and some people with actual brain cells who don't like the idea of multiplayer have chosen not to play it but they'll look forward to the game all the same.

I do love the people here who immediately assume the game's going to suck despite humanity not having achieved the power of time travel. Your ignorance makes me laugh.

Seriously people, back down, think how stupid you're being and just accept this is Mass Effect 3's future. If co-op isn't your way, ignore it (or just dis-connect your network from your console) and carry on with Shepard's full story as it consumes you just as the previous games did. If it is, all the more power to you and look forward to it just as well.

You can't ignore it. Because its suppose to be Commander Shepard's Final journey, his/her story's epic end. Co-op shoudln't even be included because it has no meaning, its OPTIONAL = NO ACTUAL MEANING to Commander Shepard's story.

The Mass Effect Universe will continue to expand, more games will be based on this IP, but this is suppose to be Commander Shepard's Final story, you are not getting any more Command Shepard in any future games. So Why mess with it with Co-op that is OPTIONAL. Why ??? Why do something that doesn't add any additional Commander Shepard's story. If its an entirely new Game then its fine, or if they were creating another Commander Shepard 's continuation story then fine, but come on.

Yes. You can ignore it. It's as simple as looking at the selection and not selecting it, going straight for the single player. The game's not jumping out of the console and giving you a royal spanking with a spiked paddle until you agree to play it, it's there with a plate of cookies just there for your convenience should the offer appeal to you. They won't hold it against you if you don't like chocolate chip with them.

Once again, the entire thing is optional. It's to appeal to those who are actually interested in fighting a war with friends against overwhelming forces of an enigmatic yet powerful entity we're afraid of fighting alone. If we're interested in Commander Shepard's story alone with little regard for whoever or whatever's fighting the Reapers, we'll stick to him and him alone. If we're actually curious about fighting as a different race with our friends against the Reapers together, that's an option that some of us, including myself, will feel as an expansion and that I'm not fighting a war alone and I have my closest friends online with me, both of us having the other one's back in what is inevitably a curbstomp battle.

[shep82]

whywhywhywhy wrote...

Ace of Dawn wrote...

whywhywhywhy wrote...

someguy1231 wrote...

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.

*sigh*
Guess I'll say it again:
Those resources were never meant for the SP to begin with!!!!!
[/u][u]

YOU DON'T KNOW THAT.  You assume that, we don't even know who initiated the shooter mechanics and MP gameplay to begin with.  If it was Bioware then what ever budget requested was in their control to define and per approval acquire.

When you request funding, you clearly write down what everything is intended for. Bioware would have, by necessity, requested the money specifically for this. Otherwise, the Developer wouldn't sign off on it. And considering how much it would likely cost to implement this, I very much doubt they would have signed off on a large sum of money solely for campaign.

A large amount of money wouldn't have been needed given the funds that would already be allocated for the title itself, just a small addition.  Given it's performance I'm sure the case could be made and approved if the funds were requested.  It's ground up MP that's expensive.  Adding it into the game this point is no doubt a headache but we'll see how well it goes.  The leaked video of MP didn't look so good.

That was a very old video.

[Darkeus]

magnetite wrote...

Since Mass Effect 3 is an RPG and not an MMORPG, with focus being on single player, the best ending should come from the single player campaign.

What if I don’t like multiplayer – will my experience be negatively impacted?

Mass Effect 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.

So if I'm reading this right, multiplayer is an alternative to the story line and will not affect the single player game.

If that is to be completely believed. 

We don't know if that is true or not yet.

[Novate]

soske aizen wrote...

it prob wont be that bad guys thing is after da2 they got to know that if this flops well.....by by fanbase lol

You would hope that they have learned their lesson, because not only is this gonna affect their fan base, its also gonna affect my Preorder in SWTOR, if they can make the fan base so mad and up on arms about a feature, then I am very quickly losing faith in Bioware's ability to continue making AAA games. I was a great avid fan for DAO, but when DA2 came out and with all the bad reviews, I didn't even play it. I just hope that it doesn't come to that.

[TheGreenAlloy]

whywhywhywhy wrote...

TheGreenAlloy wrote...

whywhywhywhy wrote...

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.

yep.  At the end of the day no matter how the funds are allocated including MP took away resources that could hav been fought for to make ME3 the undisputed crowning GOTC.  But they went the money route and I have a strong feeling it's going to backfire.

We don't know if they got those funds because of co-op, though.

exactly.  We don't know if it was EA or Bioware intiated.  Depending on the answer it becomes a very different conversation.

My point all along. I won't argue this, nor have I.

[gamer_girl]

[quote]Taciter wrote...

[quote]gamer_girl wrote...
-Of course it's subjective. That's how it is supposed to be.[/quote]
But a few of your friends aren't likely to offer a very accurate statistical representation of the broad spectrum of opinions so readily voiced in these forums.

[quote]gamer_girl wrote...
-It is silly to assume that they are perfect without the influence of EA. Nothing is perfect, they may very well have made a few "mistakes" that many people see the benefits of (obviously you're not one of those people and neither is Darkeus)[/quote]
I wouldn't argue with that assessment.

[quote]gamer_girl wrote...
-The third thing you said doesn't make a whole lot of sense... They produced a separate optional content and it somehow offends the existing fan base? So what you're saying is that you and others are offended because they added a feature that may appeal to other people AND at least a few people from the existing fan base just because it doesn't appeal to you? Should we also be offended if nestle produces a new flavour of syrup to put in milk that we might not like but others do? [/quote]
I think you must have misinterpreted the gyst of my paragraph. To correct your analogy, it's more a case of Nestle changing the formula for their flagship syrup and expecting their existing consumers to yum it up because precedent studies have shown that people love extra salt on their chips... random isn't it!

[quote]gamer_girl wrote...
-Is BW holding a gun to your head and telling you that you must play the multiplayer? No. They are not forcing you to do anything, then there is no imposition at all. [/quote]
Again, you've missed the point... they're hanging their proverbial carrot in the centre of a smoky room and enticing the asthmatic to give it a taste. That content MAY be available to all but it's virtually innaccessible to anyone who passionately dislikes multiplayer mechanics - one of the predominant reasons why so many of the existing fan base chose to subscribe so faithfully to this franchise.

[quote]gamer_girl wrote...
-Nobody is denying anyone anything. You can still play single player correct? If they did remove multiplayer as you so obviously want them to do, then who are we denying? The people who want multiplayer in ME3.[/quote]
Sigh... don't presume to speak on my behalf! That assertion is your own fabrication and if you'd bothered to read my final sentence you'd realise that your point was moot.


[/quote]
[/quote]

-Never said they were. I never made a blanket stamement that all people think the quality has improved did I?

-Changing the formula to the syrum isn't the same at all. Multiplayer is an option in the purchase. BW isn't forcing it down every single ME3 buyer's throat are they?

-So the people that are so deathly allergic to multiplayer don't even have to take part in it. They can use the other alternative methods that BW says exist.

-My point was that if multiplayer is removed, then it is denying the people that wanted multiplayer. The people that want a single player game aren't being denied a single player game. Why does the single-player-can't-even-be-in-this-game-even-if-I-don't-have-to-play-it audience hold precedence over the I-want-single-player audience?

[TheGreenAlloy]

Novate wrote...

Khran1505 wrote...

Alenkosexualtendencies wrote...

So much hate for a feature in a game that hasn't even been demo'd to the public yet. I hope MP DOES affect your SP in a dramatic game changing manner.... just so the trolls can drop this game.

Beat me to it, my friend.

This news excites me, I'm honestly really interested in seeing how Galaxy at War will play out and I'm more than thankful it is an optional choice we're given that won't detract from the massive single player experience. Kudos to you, BioWare!

Seriously, why all the hate? It's because of people ****ing about "multiplayer being unnecessary" that BioWare have felt threatened and troubled that they had to emphasize the ever loving god out of the fact the entire co-op function is an OPTION! Is it really so hard for you people to just back down, ignore the feature in the final game and enjoy what you DO love about Mass Effect? Don't like multiplayer? IGNORE IT! It's not bloody rocket science, it's kindergarten! Some of us are actually excited about this and some people with actual brain cells who don't like the idea of multiplayer have chosen not to play it but they'll look forward to the game all the same.

I do love the people here who immediately assume the game's going to suck despite humanity not having achieved the power of time travel. Your ignorance makes me laugh.

Seriously people, back down, think how stupid you're being and just accept this is Mass Effect 3's future. If co-op isn't your way, ignore it (or just dis-connect your network from your console) and carry on with Shepard's full story as it consumes you just as the previous games did. If it is, all the more power to you and look forward to it just as well.

You can't ignore it. Because its suppose to be Commander Shepard's Final journey, his/her story's epic end. Co-op shoudln't even be included because it has no meaning, its OPTIONAL = NO ACTUAL MEANING to Commander Shepard's story.

The Mass Effect Universe will continue to expand, more games will be based on this IP, but this is suppose to be Commander Shepard's Final story, you are not getting any more Command Shepard in any future games. So Why mess with it with Co-op that is OPTIONAL. Why ??? Why do something that doesn't add any additional Commander Shepard's story. If its an entirely new Game then its fine, or if they were creating another Commander Shepard 's continuation story then fine, but come on.

Being a Sentinel is optional.

[Darkeus]

gamer_girl wrote...



-My point was that if multiplayer is removed, then it is denying the people that wanted multiplayer. The people that want a single player game aren't being denied a single player game. Why does the single-player-can't-even-be-in-this-game-even-if-I-don't-have-to-play-it audience hold precedence over the I-want-single-player audience?

Why do you need multiplayer in a traditionally single player RPG?  Why must the "We need multiplayer because it has to have it" crowd get their crappy feature in my Single Player Rpg?

Modifié par Darkeus, 12 octobre 2011 - 12:37 .

[whywhywhywhy]

shep82 wrote...

whywhywhywhy wrote...

Ace of Dawn wrote...

whywhywhywhy wrote...

someguy1231 wrote...

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.

*sigh*
Guess I'll say it again:
Those resources were never meant for the SP to begin with!!!!!
[/u][u]

YOU DON'T KNOW THAT.  You assume that, we don't even know who initiated the shooter mechanics and MP gameplay to begin with.  If it was Bioware then what ever budget requested was in their control to define and per approval acquire.

When you request funding, you clearly write down what everything is intended for. Bioware would have, by necessity, requested the money specifically for this. Otherwise, the Developer wouldn't sign off on it. And considering how much it would likely cost to implement this, I very much doubt they would have signed off on a large sum of money solely for campaign.

A large amount of money wouldn't have been needed given the funds that would already be allocated for the title itself, just a small addition.  Given it's performance I'm sure the case could be made and approved if the funds were requested.  It's ground up MP that's expensive.  Adding it into the game this point is no doubt a headache but we'll see how well it goes.  The leaked video of MP didn't look so good.

That was a very old video.

source?  Show me a source.

[Alenkosexualtendencies]

The Quote Quote Quote stuff makes arguments more legit on Das Interwebs.