3794 réponses à ce sujet

[Lard]

BeefoTheBold wrote...

And I understand your point of view as well to take a "wait and see" approach. It's one I could sympathize with if there were a greater number of SP only RPG titles around these days.

Decisions like this bother me a lot more than they would if I knew I had a lot of viable alternatives if I wanted to get away from the continuing "socialization" of the gaming medium.

From my perspective, people who LIKE playing games with other people have a bazillion or so games to choose from. Is it too much to ask that us SP types have our tiny little segment of the industry where we can have what WE want?

Unfortunately, not much. The thing to do - which is what I always do - is wait until I can find the game for $20 or less used. I don't care about the online, so I have no problem with paying a lesser price for a lesser game.

[Almostfaceman]

Il Divo wrote...

Your argument here doesn't get to magically work. If you want 100% on achievements in any game, you don't get to choose which ones to perform and which ones to ignore. By admitting your desire to obtain all achievements, there is always that significant possibility of finding a million different achievements that are either difficult or not to your taste, for whatever reason. If BIoware created an achievement for romancing Kaidan and I don't want to play femshep, I'm still going to be forced down that road or lose the 100%.

+1

[Il Divo]

Lard wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/323/index/8481789/86#8489364

I wonder if any of the "you anti-MP guys are all paranoid fanboy geeks" crowd is going to bother with a reasoned and civil response to the concerns listed in the post linked above...

Of course they won't.

Dudebro shooter fans don't know how to reason.

DnD = MMO. Your argument is invalid.

[LingXiao]

Hmm, I might remember it wrong, but didn't the highly praised SP RPG Baldur's Gate 2 also have a completely optional MP part? It was still a great game, so I wouldn't be too pessimistic about the option of MP in ME3.

[bigheadzach]

BeefoTheBold wrote...

3) Is this the tip of an iceburg which is the continual movement of Bioware's development decisions further and further away from us? Is this the first in a series of progressively more MP type decisions?

For example, are we going to be seeing coop Warden and Champion in Dragon Age 3 next?

Basically, there's a TREND of decisions taking place with Bioware right now that people who (mostly) happen to fall in the anti-MP crowd disagree with. It's a trend towards what Bioware calls "streamlining" their games and making their games more "accessible" to a wider audience and what folks like me call "dumbing them down".

A fair opinion. I think a lot of the Shepard Trilogy's appeal is in the single-player story but I think it's rather abusive and entitlement bound to say BW can't try to find other markets. Quite simply, it ain't only about Shepard.

What I disapprove of is that somehow the "hardcore" ME fans, the ones who've been there from the beginning, the ones who are anti-MP, have more merit in their opinion than newcomers or "not just singleplayer" ME enthusiasts simply due to purchase-based entitlement. It may hurt their feelings to know Bioware is thinking about people other than them and may make decisions which might in the end exclude a portion of that crowd due to their very particular tastes, but...they are in the business of entertaining as many people as possible. So my hope is yours that they can do this without sacrificing the integrity/quality of their games. Obvs the DA2 release was a dropped-ball, but it would take a supreme amount of ignorance to repeat the same mistake twice.

[Lard]

Il Divo wrote...

Lard wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/323/index/8481789/86#8489364

I wonder if any of the "you anti-MP guys are all paranoid fanboy geeks" crowd is going to bother with a reasoned and civil response to the concerns listed in the post linked above...

Of course they won't.

Dudebro shooter fans don't know how to reason.

DnD = MMO. Your argument is invalid.

My argument is perfectly reasonable, you're just not intelligent enough to comprehend it.

[Il Divo]

1) The diversion of resources (and don't come back and say "these were extra resources", there's no such thing, money, time, and effort are all fungible) in order to create the MP content and modes.

2) Higher likelihood of Origin being required for installation and running of the ME3 software.

3) Risk of anti-"cheating" measures for MP play making modding for SP play far more difficult, greatly reducing the replayability of the game and thus the lifespan of the investment.

4) Infringement of MP content / progression on SP content / progression.

5) MP "balance" issues affected SP gameplay (see also, constant wailing and gnashing of teeth about "OP classes" and "IMBA" and "balance" by PvP wonks screwing the game up for PvE players in MMORPGs).

6) Etc.

Honestly, as an Xbox player, the only ones relevant to me are 1 and 5. In the case of 5, I really don't mind how the multiplayer/singleplayer balance works. In the case of 1, you are correct that time is a resource being taken. In the case of money and effort? Well, if the thought process it that extra resources get funneled in, you wouldn't get those resources back in the single player anyway. It's still a return you would never see. Bioware may have even pushed up the release date, which does back up your claims regarding time.

Modifié par Il Divo, 11 octobre 2011 - 09:26 .

[NOD-INFORMER37]

Zakatak757 wrote...

Ancient Metal wrote...

What I have noticed is that lost in translation in all of this....guess who?

Commander Shepard.

ME3 is about Shepard and finding a way to defeat the Reapers....or stop them....anything....to save organic life. Now Shepard has been swept under the rug and at the very least there are corresponding characters.

Sure....I'm sure the common response will be don't use it, but just knowing it exists....and that it effects single player....is despicable. And resources used on MP could have been directly used on other aspects...any other aspect...of ME3 and made the game better. But its not, and we know now why there was a delay.

People should be ashamed....instead of the focus being soley on Commander Shepard as a PC....a character many people poured dozens and dozens of hours into and two games with transferring choices....they sold out for.....oh Lookie, I can be a Turian!!!!!!!!!! In reality, ME3 isn't Shepard's story, and the focus is now off of it and into a jumbled mess.

This is horrendous news, and I am frustrated and disgusted beyond words at this decision. I know my girlfriend is, too. Multiplayer diminishes everything I was looking forward to in this game....now I know full effort wasn't given to the game and we were basically misled into believing it wouldn't be in Mass Effect 3.

I was a fan who thought there were some good things in DA2, but overall felt it was a much inferior product to what I came to expect from BioWare and overall a fairly "shoddy" game. I'm not happy at all with the direction BioWare is going, and making choices that are directly opposite of my likes and dislikes as an avid fan of rpgs.

So much so, along with my girlfriend, that we have both cancelled our preorders of Mass Effect 3.

Are you a f*cking joke?

The lack of intelligence here isn't even worth replying to. Enjoy not being able to play as Shepard for 35+ hours.

Why are you insulting him? He's simply sickened by this news and I cant say I blame him.

But the game's still a while away plus on wednesday(I think) they'll release more info on this so it may not be as bad as we think. :/ 

[Novate]

I think what everyone is forgetting is that EVERYTHING that was spend to create this CO-OP, getting a second team and getting it ready for march of 2012 is exactly what they could have used to create a more compelling Single Player Experience.  You could have gotten more planets, more missions, every mission that was in Co-op could have been in the single player experience.

You could have gotten more interaction scenes with Tali, Garus , Wrex. ...etc

You could have gotten more maps for missions

You could have more weapons

You could have more armors

You could have a longer Tali adventure, or any adventure about your companions.

You could have gotten more of everything, those that was meant for DLC could have gotten included in the initial shippment , and those extras could have become DLC.

Anyone that says otherwise is just fooling themselves. In every game that we have played , something is always taken out to add another feature.

I am not against a Co-op , it sounds cool and everything but I didn't play Mass Effect 1 and 2 and waiting for 3 to play a CO-OP , I play those games so that I can continue Shepard's Story and more of his story. Mass Effect 1 and 2 both feel alittle short to me. Thats why I didn't want Co-op, I wanted a long , epic journey for Mass Effect 3.  I know that this Co-op will work, it will be a success, but what will not be a success is all the WHAT IF'S  

[Il Divo]

Edit: Fair enough, Stanley.

Modifié par Il Divo, 11 octobre 2011 - 09:28 .

[bigheadzach]

Ruud333 wrote...

People are a lot more vocal when they dislike something than when they are happy

***DING!***

[DaringMoosejaw]

So most of the doomsaying going on here has nothing to do with whether or not the game will be more fun, since you can just ignore the MP and have it not effect you at all, but because people are upset that Bioware cares about other people, too, and not just them.

How incredibly vain.

Modifié par DaringMoosejaw, 11 octobre 2011 - 09:25 .

[Lard]

Il Divo wrote...

Lard wrote...

My argument is perfectly reasonable, you're just not intelligent enough to comprehend it.

I have no doubts that you think you're intelligent.

And I have no doubt you aren't.

bigheadzach wrote...
What I disapprove of is that somehow the
"hardcore" ME fans, the ones who've been there from the beginning, the
ones who are anti-MP, have more merit in their opinion than newcomers or
"not just singleplayer" ME enthusiasts

The anti-MP crowd has more merit in their argument than the pro-MP crowd.

[NOD-INFORMER37]

Novate wrote...

I think what everyone is forgetting is that EVERYTHING that was spend to create this CO-OP, getting a second team and getting it ready for march of 2012 is exactly what they could have used to create a more compelling Single Player Experience.  You could have gotten more planets, more missions, every mission that was in Co-op could have been in the single player experience.

You could have gotten more interaction scenes with Tali, Garus , Wrex. ...etc

You could have gotten more maps for missions

You could have more weapons

You could have more armors

You could have a longer Tali adventure, or any adventure about your companions.

You could have gotten more of everything, those that was meant for DLC could have gotten included in the initial shippment , and those extras could have become DLC.

Anyone that says otherwise is just fooling themselves. In every game that we have played , something is always taken out to add another feature.

I am not against a Co-op , it sounds cool and everything but I didn't play Mass Effect 1 and 2 and waiting for 3 to play a CO-OP , I play those games so that I can continue Shepard's Story and more of his story. Mass Effect 1 and 2 both feel alittle short to me. Thats why I didn't want Co-op, I wanted a long , epic journey for Mass Effect 3.  I know that this Co-op will work, it will be a success, but what will not be a success is all the WHAT IF'S  

Agreed.

[Stanley Woo]

I know people feel really strongly about this topic, but let's cut it out with the name-calling and insults, please. Our posted Site rules--the very rules that you agreed to abide by when you signed up to participate in our community--are still very much in effect here.

[Zakatak757]

I'm not going to make an informative post supporting why ME3 SP will be fine, because it will be ignored and pushed down 3 pages in about 20 seconds. You guys should just cancel your preorders like you say you will and permeneantly log off.

Or maybe you still have hope, which is why you are posting and not leaving.

[Darth Vengeant]

DarthSliver wrote...

Darth Vengeant wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

Darth Vengeant wrote...

Doug4130 wrote...
Because whether it affects it or not is completely your choice.  Nothing is being forced on you at all, in the slightest.  You can pretend that multiplayer is not there, never click it once, and it will not affect your experience in any way shape or form.  You don't want multiplayer?  Don't play it then.  People who do want it will play it.  Everybody gets to do it the way they want to.  

Your wrong. You are being "forced" to do it if there are multiplayer achievments. I feel it is unfair. I have always felt there should be two separate types of achievements. One area for Single Player, and one area for Multiplayer. That way you can still get 100% in the Single Player part and never even have to worry about the rednundant and trendy Mutliplayer band wagon everyone is jumping on. Games like Assassins Creed and Dead Space do NOT need Multiplayer and would be much better off without it. Some people work very hard to get 100% in their games, but being forced to play part of the game they really dont care at all to play in order tyo get them is unfair. I can't count how many games I would have 100% on if it were not for the stupid mutliplayer achievemtns ruining it. No, not everyone enjoys playing with others all the time. That is why I am looking forward to Batman Arkham City so much, not a spec of Multiplayer or Co-Op in it.

Your argument here doesn't get to magically work. If you want 100% on achievements in any game, you don't get to choose which ones to perform and which ones to ignore. By admitting your desire to obtain all achievements, there is always that significant possibility of finding a million different achievements that are either difficult or not to your taste, for whatever reason. If BIoware created an achievement for romancing Kaidan and I don't want to play femshep, I'm still going to be forced down that road or lose the 100%.

it isnt an agrument, it is an opinion. The same as yours.

Actually its a fact that you dont need all the Achievements

You dont "need:" to buy the game either using that logic.

[DaringMoosejaw]

Lard wrote...

The anti-MP crowd has more merit in their argument than the pro-MP crowd.

The 'merit' seems to be that Bioware is daring to cater to people that aren't them and they're throwing a temper tantrum.

[Arsenal0602]

DaringMoosejaw wrote...

So most of the doomsaying going on here has nothing to do with whether or not the game will be more fun, since you can just ignore the MP and have it not effect you at all, but because people are upset that Bioware cares about other people, too, and not just them.

How incredibly vain.

I know my girlfriend got so mad when I started to set up some multi player action with this girl at work, she is so full of herself thinking that since I spent all that time only with her that is how it is going to be forever and that there is no way I would spend time and money on something new.

How full of herself and vain is that? 

[Il Divo]

Darth Vengeant wrote...

DarthSliver wrote...

Darth Vengeant wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

Darth Vengeant wrote...

Doug4130 wrote...
Because whether it affects it or not is completely your choice.  Nothing is being forced on you at all, in the slightest.  You can pretend that multiplayer is not there, never click it once, and it will not affect your experience in any way shape or form.  You don't want multiplayer?  Don't play it then.  People who do want it will play it.  Everybody gets to do it the way they want to.  

Your wrong. You are being "forced" to do it if there are multiplayer achievments. I feel it is unfair. I have always felt there should be two separate types of achievements. One area for Single Player, and one area for Multiplayer. That way you can still get 100% in the Single Player part and never even have to worry about the rednundant and trendy Mutliplayer band wagon everyone is jumping on. Games like Assassins Creed and Dead Space do NOT need Multiplayer and would be much better off without it. Some people work very hard to get 100% in their games, but being forced to play part of the game they really dont care at all to play in order tyo get them is unfair. I can't count how many games I would have 100% on if it were not for the stupid mutliplayer achievemtns ruining it. No, not everyone enjoys playing with others all the time. That is why I am looking forward to Batman Arkham City so much, not a spec of Multiplayer or Co-Op in it.

Your argument here doesn't get to magically work. If you want 100% on achievements in any game, you don't get to choose which ones to perform and which ones to ignore. By admitting your desire to obtain all achievements, there is always that significant possibility of finding a million different achievements that are either difficult or not to your taste, for whatever reason. If BIoware created an achievement for romancing Kaidan and I don't want to play femshep, I'm still going to be forced down that road or lose the 100%.

it isnt an agrument, it is an opinion. The same as yours.

Actually its a fact that you dont need all the Achievements

You dont "need:" to buy the game either using that logic.

Very true as well. That would be power of the purse in full effect.

[NOD-INFORMER37]

Stanley Woo wrote...

I know people feel really strongly about this topic, but let's cut it out with the name-calling and insults, please. Our posted Site rules--the very rules that you agreed to abide by when you signed up to participate in our community--are still very much in effect here.

Double-Agreed, I dont understand why ppl, whether they are with the idea of co-op or not, must insult each other over the idea.

We arent a bunch of CoD fanboys guys, we're Bioware fans!  |:|

[Doug4130]

Lard wrote...

The anti-MP crowd has more merit in their argument than the pro-MP crowd.

does it matter who has more merit?  The game will have multiplayer regardless

[Lard]

DaringMoosejaw wrote...

Lard wrote...

The anti-MP crowd has more merit in their argument than the pro-MP crowd.

The 'merit' seems to be that Bioware is daring to cater to people that aren't them and they're throwing a temper tantrum.

MP is only added to appeal to a crowd that wouldn't normally care about the game.
MP is only added to sell more DLC like map packs.
MP is only added to put a bullet point on a box.

These are all indisuptable facts.

Doug4130 wrote...

does it matter who has more merit?  The game will have multiplayer regardless

Of course it matters. There's still time to get Bioware to admit they're wrong and pull the MP mode.

Modifié par Lard, 11 octobre 2011 - 09:31 .

[BeefoTheBold]

bigheadzach wrote...

BeefoTheBold wrote...

3) Is this the tip of an iceburg which is the continual movement of Bioware's development decisions further and further away from us? Is this the first in a series of progressively more MP type decisions?

For example, are we going to be seeing coop Warden and Champion in Dragon Age 3 next?

Basically, there's a TREND of decisions taking place with Bioware right now that people who (mostly) happen to fall in the anti-MP crowd disagree with. It's a trend towards what Bioware calls "streamlining" their games and making their games more "accessible" to a wider audience and what folks like me call "dumbing them down".

A fair opinion. I think a lot of the Shepard Trilogy's appeal is in the single-player story but I think it's rather abusive and entitlement bound to say BW can't try to find other markets. Quite simply, it ain't only about Shepard.

What I disapprove of is that somehow the "hardcore" ME fans, the ones who've been there from the beginning, the ones who are anti-MP, have more merit in their opinion than newcomers or "not just singleplayer" ME enthusiasts simply due to purchase-based entitlement. It may hurt their feelings to know Bioware is thinking about people other than them and may make decisions which might in the end exclude a portion of that crowd due to their very particular tastes, but...they are in the business of entertaining as many people as possible. So my hope is yours that they can do this without sacrificing the integrity/quality of their games. Obvs the DA2 release was a dropped-ball, but it would take a supreme amount of ignorance to repeat the same mistake twice.

I think it highly unlikely that ME3 will be of the quality level of DA2. I use that as an example of a poor decision and not a fair expectation of how good ME3 will be.

For the record, I think ME3 is going to be VERY good. 

I can see where you're coming from in terms of how Bioware's job is to entertain as many people as possible. But I also think that you can choose to try and be another small fish in a large pond, or you can choose to be THE big fish in a slightly smaller pond.

The numbers don't lie. There are a LOT of MP fans and shooter fans and the like out there. That's what makes the market appealing. Nintendo's sales numbers for motion control is what caused Sony and MS to release their own version.

But it's like going for the hottest girl in the bar. If EVERYONE goes after her, then chances are you're not going to get that girl. There's too much competition.

Instead, I look at what CD Projekt is doing. They're quietly doubling down on their strategy of going after the next hottest girl in the bar instead. When other companies are stripping down the mature content (look at the trend on nudity in Bioware games lately as an example), CD Projekt is going against the grain. They've decided to be the big fish in the smaller pond. Basically, they're being right now what Bioware was in its early stages.

Another example is the sales of DAO vs. DA2. By all accounts, with DA2 being able to leverage the popularity of the hit DAO, it should have EASILY surpassed DAO in sales. It didn't.

I guess what I'm getting at is that Bioware had a HUGE following of RPG fans. It's what made EA buy them in the first place. They were the best RPG maker around.

So why turn around and stop doing what made you the best to begin with?

[Ancient Metal]

Zakatak757 wrote...

Ancient Metal wrote...

What I have noticed is that lost in translation in all of this....guess who?

Commander Shepard.

ME3 is about Shepard and finding a way to defeat the Reapers....or stop them....anything....to save organic life. Now Shepard has been swept under the rug and at the very least there are corresponding characters.

Sure....I'm sure the common response will be don't use it, but just knowing it exists....and that it effects single player....is despicable. And resources used on MP could have been directly used on other aspects...any other aspect...of ME3 and made the game better. But its not, and we know now why there was a delay.

People should be ashamed....instead of the focus being soley on Commander Shepard as a PC....a character many people poured dozens and dozens of hours into and two games with transferring choices....they sold out for.....oh Lookie, I can be a Turian!!!!!!!!!! In reality, ME3 isn't Shepard's story, and the focus is now off of it and into a jumbled mess.

This is horrendous news, and I am frustrated and disgusted beyond words at this decision. I know my girlfriend is, too. Multiplayer diminishes everything I was looking forward to in this game....now I know full effort wasn't given to the game and we were basically misled into believing it wouldn't be in Mass Effect 3.

I was a fan who thought there were some good things in DA2, but overall felt it was a much inferior product to what I came to expect from BioWare and overall a fairly "shoddy" game. I'm not happy at all with the direction BioWare is going, and making choices that are directly opposite of my likes and dislikes as an avid fan of rpgs.

So much so, along with my girlfriend, that we have both cancelled our preorders of Mass Effect 3.

Are you a f*cking joke?

The lack of intelligence here isn't even worth replying to. Enjoy not being able to play as Shepard for 35+ hours.

You did respond to my opinion, and with an ad hominem. Nice argumentation. Trying to argue with an opinion using an ad hominem? And I lack intelligence?