186 réponses à ce sujet

[Melra]

BeefoTheBold wrote...

111987 wrote...

BeefoTheBold wrote...

Negative. I will NOT be giving multiplayer a chance because I don't care how high the quality level is. There are certain things that are not intended to be coop. Reading a good book is one of them. A storydriven RPG is the video game equivalent of reading a good book.

People said the same thing about a lot of the games I mentioned. Mario is NOT intended to be a 3-D adventure; it's a side-scroller. Metroid is NOT meant to be a first-person shooter; it's a side-scroller. Zelda is NOT supposed to look cartoonish; just look at Ocarina of Time!

And yet all of those games ended up being amazing. Rejecting a game because of an optional feature that could be excellent seems a bit over the top.

Rejecting a game to send a message to the people who are choosing to take their development in a direction I disagree with is NOT over the top. This is not a "I'm going to get the game used because of this alone". It is a string of what I feel are questionable calls and Bioware losing it's way.

1. Witch Hunt
2. The Arrival
3. Dragon Age 2
4. MMO Kotor instead of KOTOR3
5. Buggy and half-finished Awakenings
6. Kinect
7. Multiplayer/coop after all but promising there wouldn't be

Flat out, I'm not just comparing Bioware to other developers out there. I'm comparing the Bioware of today to the Bioware of yesteryear. The one that was a gold standard for quality control, that focused on pleasing their existing customer base more than reaching out to CoD's, that didn't make weasel type comments about how it was never "confirmed" there would be no multiplayer for ME3, etc.

Bioware is in their rights to run the numbers and assume that their existing fans will just take them at their word and buy the game preordered anyway, that they can get new fans while neglecting existing ones.

I'm in my right to choose to give my money to the secondhand market as my own small act of defiance.

This, except I can't agree on SWTOR. While Kotor one was a nice game, I didn't think it was that great. Not even back then.

[111987]

BeefoTheBold wrote...

111987 wrote...

BeefoTheBold wrote...

Negative. I will NOT be giving multiplayer a chance because I don't care how high the quality level is. There are certain things that are not intended to be coop. Reading a good book is one of them. A storydriven RPG is the video game equivalent of reading a good book.

People said the same thing about a lot of the games I mentioned. Mario is NOT intended to be a 3-D adventure; it's a side-scroller. Metroid is NOT meant to be a first-person shooter; it's a side-scroller. Zelda is NOT supposed to look cartoonish; just look at Ocarina of Time!

And yet all of those games ended up being amazing. Rejecting a game because of an optional feature that could be excellent seems a bit over the top.

Rejecting a game to send a message to the people who are choosing to take their development in a direction I disagree with is NOT over the top. This is not a "I'm going to get the game used because of this alone". It is a string of what I feel are questionable calls and Bioware losing it's way.

1. Witch Hunt
2. The Arrival
3. Dragon Age 2
4. MMO Kotor instead of KOTOR3
5. Buggy and half-finished Awakenings
6. Kinect
7. Multiplayer/coop after all but promising there wouldn't be

Flat out, I'm not just comparing Bioware to other developers out there. I'm comparing the Bioware of today to the Bioware of yesteryear. The one that was a gold standard for quality control, that focused on pleasing their existing customer base more than reaching out to CoD's, that didn't make weasel type comments about how it was never "confirmed" there would be no multiplayer for ME3, etc.

Bioware is in their rights to run the numbers and assume that their existing fans will just take them at their word and buy the game preordered anyway, that they can get new fans while neglecting existing ones.

I'm in my right to choose to give my money to the secondhand market as my own small act of defiance.

Of course, no-one is saying you should pre-order or even buy the game if you are skeptical about it, or concerned with the direction it's going in. What I am saying is that, like the games in my OP, people didn't even give those games a chance before they were blasted.

What if multiplayer turns out to be an awesome, innovative experience (and it is entirely optional), and the singleplayer is still superb? Would you still not get the game? To me, that is where people are acting unreasonable; that no matter how good the game ends up being, it won't be enough.

[Notlikeyoucare]

YouthCultureForever wrote...

Don't understand why everyone hates the mulitplayer tag ME3 has been given. It doesn't mean death to the singleplayer experience. There don't seem to be many PS3 gamers on these forums, so I'll speak up for the Uncharted franchise as it's the perfect example of how multiplayer doesn't negatively impact a game.

Uncharted: Drake's Fortune had a very good story, solid gameplay, but no multiplayer. Uncharted 2: Among Theives surpassed it's predecessor in every way, better graphics, awesome story, new characters, better action sequences, excellent gameplay with intuitive controls. All that would have been enough, but it's biggest and arguably it's best editon was multiplayer.

I don't play alot of mulitplayer games, in fact it's the only multiplayer I play with any regularity. It's different from CoD and Battlefield and military based FPS multiplayers. It's rather easy to pick up and play. And compared to Uncharted 3, 2's multiplayer may as well be considered a beta. I don't think anyone can argue that Uncharted's core experience isn't the singleplayer mode. It undoubtedly is, and multiplayer complements that experience very well.

How would co-op integrate the "Mass Effect" experience, the dialogue trees and decisions? It could operate in a similar way co-op objective works in Uncharted 2. There is a set story for the level, the characters interact, and then they go off to do the objective and whatever comes up along the way. It's absolutely my favorite MP mode.

I probably sound like the biggest Uncharted fangirl that ever was, but it is the Playstation's best game for a reason. Uncharted fans don't pick on Naughty Dog the way Mass Effect fans do Bioware. Let's trust that what they're doing will be done well.

Amen! One of the best games ever in my book. Amd they are now improving upon the base they built to deliver a great and amazingly fleshed out multiplayer and singleplayer game. I really think Naughty Dog could teach Bioware a lesson or two in creating a) a good story an extremely fluid third person combat system. After playing Uncharted 2, I found Mass Effect 2 almost unplayable with the stiff and unresponsive movements.

Modifié par Notlikeyoucare, 11 octobre 2011 - 07:10 .

[Melra]

Well, first there was Kinect and then they said there wouldn't be multiplayer, then it was let out by another source, that there will be multiplayer. They didn't even come out with it themselves. Personally my faith is gone when it comes to things related to their regular RPGs with MMO i'll give them one chance, simply because I've wated for years for it to come out.

For me it's matter of a principle more than anything. I don't care how good it might be.

[Lunatic LK47]

111987 wrote...

BeefoTheBold wrote...

111987 wrote...

BeefoTheBold wrote...

Negative. I will NOT be giving multiplayer a chance because I don't care how high the quality level is. There are certain things that are not intended to be coop. Reading a good book is one of them. A storydriven RPG is the video game equivalent of reading a good book.

People said the same thing about a lot of the games I mentioned. Mario is NOT intended to be a 3-D adventure; it's a side-scroller. Metroid is NOT meant to be a first-person shooter; it's a side-scroller. Zelda is NOT supposed to look cartoonish; just look at Ocarina of Time!

And yet all of those games ended up being amazing. Rejecting a game because of an optional feature that could be excellent seems a bit over the top.

Rejecting a game to send a message to the people who are choosing to take their development in a direction I disagree with is NOT over the top. This is not a "I'm going to get the game used because of this alone". It is a string of what I feel are questionable calls and Bioware losing it's way.

1. Witch Hunt
2. The Arrival
3. Dragon Age 2
4. MMO Kotor instead of KOTOR3
5. Buggy and half-finished Awakenings
6. Kinect
7. Multiplayer/coop after all but promising there wouldn't be

Flat out, I'm not just comparing Bioware to other developers out there. I'm comparing the Bioware of today to the Bioware of yesteryear. The one that was a gold standard for quality control, that focused on pleasing their existing customer base more than reaching out to CoD's, that didn't make weasel type comments about how it was never "confirmed" there would be no multiplayer for ME3, etc.

Bioware is in their rights to run the numbers and assume that their existing fans will just take them at their word and buy the game preordered anyway, that they can get new fans while neglecting existing ones.

I'm in my right to choose to give my money to the secondhand market as my own small act of defiance.

Of course, no-one is saying you should pre-order or even buy the game if you are skeptical about it, or concerned with the direction it's going in. What I am saying is that, like the games in my OP, people didn't even give those games a chance before they were blasted.

What if multiplayer turns out to be an awesome, innovative experience (and it is entirely optional), and the singleplayer is still superb? Would you still not get the game? To me, that is where people are acting unreasonable; that no matter how good the game ends up being, it won't be enough.

Like how EndWar's final product failed to live up to expectations and died *TWO MONTHS AFTER RELEASE*? I knew F.E.A.R. 3 was going to suck right after announcing the extensive focus on co-op. Resident Evil 5 left a bad taste in my mouth, after having started with the franchise since 1998.  MGS4 was only 5 hours long if you skipped cutscenes. How about Modern Warfare 2 having a 5-hour campaign just because of the extensive focus on Spec-Ops and Deathmatch. Something called history repeating itself. I'd rather have co-op be in ME4 rather than THE FINAL ENTRY OF THE STORY WE'RE FOLLOWING.

[BeefoTheBold]

111987 wrote...

BeefoTheBold wrote...

111987 wrote...

BeefoTheBold wrote...

Negative. I will NOT be giving multiplayer a chance because I don't care how high the quality level is. There are certain things that are not intended to be coop. Reading a good book is one of them. A storydriven RPG is the video game equivalent of reading a good book.

People said the same thing about a lot of the games I mentioned. Mario is NOT intended to be a 3-D adventure; it's a side-scroller. Metroid is NOT meant to be a first-person shooter; it's a side-scroller. Zelda is NOT supposed to look cartoonish; just look at Ocarina of Time!

And yet all of those games ended up being amazing. Rejecting a game because of an optional feature that could be excellent seems a bit over the top.

Rejecting a game to send a message to the people who are choosing to take their development in a direction I disagree with is NOT over the top. This is not a "I'm going to get the game used because of this alone". It is a string of what I feel are questionable calls and Bioware losing it's way.

1. Witch Hunt
2. The Arrival
3. Dragon Age 2
4. MMO Kotor instead of KOTOR3
5. Buggy and half-finished Awakenings
6. Kinect
7. Multiplayer/coop after all but promising there wouldn't be

Flat out, I'm not just comparing Bioware to other developers out there. I'm comparing the Bioware of today to the Bioware of yesteryear. The one that was a gold standard for quality control, that focused on pleasing their existing customer base more than reaching out to CoD's, that didn't make weasel type comments about how it was never "confirmed" there would be no multiplayer for ME3, etc.

Bioware is in their rights to run the numbers and assume that their existing fans will just take them at their word and buy the game preordered anyway, that they can get new fans while neglecting existing ones.

I'm in my right to choose to give my money to the secondhand market as my own small act of defiance.

Of course, no-one is saying you should pre-order or even buy the game if you are skeptical about it, or concerned with the direction it's going in. What I am saying is that, like the games in my OP, people didn't even give those games a chance before they were blasted.

What if multiplayer turns out to be an awesome, innovative experience (and it is entirely optional), and the singleplayer is still superb? Would you still not get the game? To me, that is where people are acting unreasonable; that no matter how good the game ends up being, it won't be enough.

Oh I'm going to get the game, just not new. Bioware has apparently decided that there is more money to be made by going after a different fanbase than listening to their existing one. That's a business decision and theirs to make. I choose to cost them my gaming dollar to do my small part to show them otherwise.

And the thing you're missing is that I'm not interested in the multiplayer no matter how good it ends up being. It isn't a question of how high quality the MP is. It's a question of tastes, desires and honesty in customer interactions.

Tastes:

I'm not interested in an RPG being multiplayer. The reason being is because it breaks the immersion factor for me. I have a harder time preserving the same experience of BEING Shepard if I'm playing with other people. This is completely independent of how high quality the MP is. It's driven by the fact that I play RPGs entirely for the storyline and character development. Having nice gameplay is a huge plus, but I'd rather play a game with subpar gameplay (like The Witcher) that has a story and characters that hook me than the opposite.

Desires:

Part of this is purely an emotion driven response. I'm a loyal customer. I'm likely in the majority of Bioware's customer base that has no interest in awesome buttons, Kinect, multiplayer, etc. At an emotional level, I want to feel that Bioware values me even a little bit after the many years and hundreds of dollars I've spent on them. I'm definitely not feeling this right now.

Honesty in Customer Interactions:

Many people have been quick to point out that Bioware never COMPLETELY confirmed there would not be multiplayer, but the easy response is that they sure as hell strongly implied it. Hell, even the current "Features" thread on this very board states that there would be no multiplayer. Folks like me who thought it was coming and that the rumors were true were told we were delusional and Bioware had listened and wouldn't be doing that.

So, yes, while it is technically true that Bioware did not "lie" per se, they sure as heck were less than honest and up-front . The twitters about coop not being what people are "afraid" of point out that Bioware was aware that a significant number of people didn't want this and weren't expecting it.

Flat-out: They're making decisions I don't like, and therefore I'm going to make one that they don't like and give the secondhand market my money.

If enough people do so, then maybe the math will change and we'll get more than lip service to learning from their past mistakes.

[Il Divo]

Teredan wrote...

The problem with your example is that the feature of exploration is a core mechanic in any rpg whereas MP isn't.
Now add to that EA stupid statement that every game need MP and we have no reason to believe that this feature will do any good.

Free-roam exploration is not a necessary core mechanic of an RPG. KotOR and Jade Empire really got by without any kind of dedicated exploration system. Compare this to Baldur's Gate and ME1, which were Bioware's closest efforts to providing free-roam exploration. The point stands completely that any feature you dislike or don't intend on using is useless to you. I don't explore in ME because I thought it was done terribly, much inferior to other games. Any feature works much the same way.

[slimgrin]

Ringo12 wrote...

So no one cares for cross-platform?

You can't really be neutral in Mass Effect though.

So if I have a gamepad and you have a mouse and keyboard...wouldn't you be doing the lion's share of the work since a gamepad can't keep up with the mouse?


In regard to the inclusion of multiplayer, I'll reserve judgement till I play the game.

Modifié par slimgrin, 11 octobre 2011 - 07:10 .

[BeefoTheBold]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

Like how EndWar's final product failed to live up to expectations and died *TWO MONTHS AFTER RELEASE*? I knew F.E.A.R. 3 was going to suck right after announcing the extensive focus on co-op. Resident Evil 5 left a bad taste in my mouth, after having started with the franchise since 1998.  MGS4 was only 5 hours long if you skipped cutscenes. How about Modern Warfare 2 having a 5-hour campaign just because of the extensive focus on Spec-Ops and Deathmatch. Something called history repeating itself. I'd rather have co-op be in ME4 rather than THE FINAL ENTRY OF THE STORY WE'RE FOLLOWING.

Well said. Couldn't have put it better myself. YES, it is possible that a singleplayer game can add a bunch of extra features without watering stuff down. But there are a WHOLE LOT of examples where the addition of a multiplayer or coop came at the direct expense of the single player game.

Bioware is aware of this fear. You see that in the official thread on this board about how they are very careful to say that this won't impact the single player. I say horse ****. It's development resources going towards a feature that many (most?) people don't care about that could have otherwise gone towards more fully fleshing out the single player.

This is the final game of a trilogy and they're throwing this in? Smells WAY too much like the reinvention that took place in Dragon Age 2.

[Lunatic LK47]

BeefoTheBold wrote...


Oh I'm going to get the game, just not new. Bioware has apparently decided that there is more money to be made by going after a different fanbase than listening to their existing one. That's a business decision and theirs to make. I choose to cost them my gaming dollar to do my small part to show them otherwise.

And the thing you're missing is that I'm not interested in the multiplayer no matter how good it ends up being. It isn't a question of how high quality the MP is. It's a question of tastes, desires and honesty in customer interactions.

Tastes:

I'm not interested in an RPG being multiplayer. The reason being is because it breaks the immersion factor for me. I have a harder time preserving the same experience of BEING Shepard if I'm playing with other people. This is completely independent of how high quality the MP is. It's driven by the fact that I play RPGs entirely for the storyline and character development. Having nice gameplay is a huge plus, but I'd rather play a game with subpar gameplay (like The Witcher) that has a story and characters that hook me than the opposite.

Desires:

Part of this is purely an emotion driven response. I'm a loyal customer. I'm likely in the majority of Bioware's customer base that has no interest in awesome buttons, Kinect, multiplayer, etc. At an emotional level, I want to feel that Bioware values me even a little bit after the many years and hundreds of dollars I've spent on them. I'm definitely not feeling this right now.

Honesty in Customer Interactions:

Many people have been quick to point out that Bioware never COMPLETELY confirmed there would not be multiplayer, but the easy response is that they sure as hell strongly implied it. Hell, even the current "Features" thread on this very board states that there would be no multiplayer. Folks like me who thought it was coming and that the rumors were true were told we were delusional and Bioware had listened and wouldn't be doing that.

So, yes, while it is technically true that Bioware did not "lie" per se, they sure as heck were less than honest and up-front . The twitters about coop not being what people are "afraid" of point out that Bioware was aware that a significant number of people didn't want this and weren't expecting it.

Flat-out: They're making decisions I don't like, and therefore I'm going to make one that they don't like and give the secondhand market my money.

If enough people do so, then maybe the math will change and we'll get more than lip service to learning from their past mistakes.

Bolded for emphasis. As it is, ME3 is my last BioWare game, just because of the **** marketing strategy they had since ME2.

[Chromie]

slimgrin wrote...

Ringo12 wrote...

So no one cares for cross-platform?

You can't really be neutral in Mass Effect though.

So if I have a gamepad and you have a mouse and keyboard...wouldn't you be doing the lion's share of the work since a gamepad can't keep up with the mouse?


In regard to the inclusion of multiplayer, I'll reserve judgement till I play the game.

A person will always be better than an A.I. Believe it or not people can rush through a shooter with a gamepad.

[111987]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...
Like how EndWar's final product failed to live up to expectations and died *TWO MONTHS AFTER RELEASE*? I knew F.E.A.R. 3 was going to suck right after announcing the extensive focus on co-op. Resident Evil 5 left a bad taste in my mouth, after having started with the franchise since 1998.  MGS4 was only 5 hours long if you skipped cutscenes. How about Modern Warfare 2 having a 5-hour campaign just because of the extensive focus on Spec-Ops and Deathmatch. Something called history repeating itself. I'd rather have co-op be in ME4 rather than THE FINAL ENTRY OF THE STORY WE'RE FOLLOWING.

It seems you are only focusing on the games that added multiplayer and didn't work, and ignoring other games that made similarily controversial decisions and ended up working spectacularily. Resident Evil 5 for example, wasn't bad because it was co-op; it's problem was atmosphere and a cheesy plot. If you had taken co-op out of the game, it wouldn't have been any better.

Mass Effect 3 is said to be just as long as Mass Effect 2. You can choose to believe that or not; no-one will convince you until the game comes out either way.

P.S. I'm not sure why you bold the things you are bolding...

[Lunatic LK47]

111987 wrote...


It seems you are only focusing on the games that added multiplayer and didn't work, and ignoring other games that made similarily controversial decisions and ended up working spectacularily. Resident Evil 5 for example, wasn't bad because it was co-op; it's problem was atmosphere and a cheesy plot. If you had taken co-op out of the game, it wouldn't have been any better.

Mass Effect 3 is said to be just as long as Mass Effect 2. You can choose to believe that or not; no-one will convince you until the game comes out either way.

P.S. I'm not sure why you bold the things you are bolding...

Problem is those other games that "worked spectacularly" are the EXCEPTIONS and TOO FAR AND TOO FEW IN BETWEEN. As for why I'm bolding the way I am, it's for emphasis purposes.

[111987]

BeefoTheBold wrote...

And the thing you're missing is that I'm not interested in the multiplayer no matter how good it ends up being. It isn't a question of how high quality the MP is. It's a question of tastes, desires and honesty in customer interactions.

The nice thing about this though is that it is entirely optional, and you can get your optimal ending without ever touching it.

BeefoTheBold wrote...
Tastes:

I'm not interested in an RPG being multiplayer. The reason being is because it breaks the immersion factor for me. I have a harder time preserving the same experience of BEING Shepard if I'm playing with other people. This is completely independent of how high quality the MP is. It's driven by the fact that I play RPGs entirely for the storyline and character development. Having nice gameplay is a huge plus, but I'd rather play a game with subpar gameplay (like The Witcher) that has a story and characters that hook me than the opposite.

The thing is, when has Mass Effect ever been a true RPG? It has always, fromME1, been a hybrid RPG-TPS. And TPS's often do have multiplayer.

And remember, in multiplayer you aren't playing as Shepard, or even interacting with Shepard. You are an entirely new, customizable character.

BeefoTheBold wrote...

Honesty in Customer Interactions:

Many people have been quick to point out that Bioware never COMPLETELY confirmed there would not be multiplayer, but the easy response is that they sure as hell strongly implied it. Hell, even the current "Features" thread on this very board states that there would be no multiplayer. Folks like me who thought it was coming and that the rumors were true were told we were delusional and Bioware had listened and wouldn't be doing that.

So, yes, while it is technically true that Bioware did not "lie" per se, they sure as heck were less than honest and up-front . The twitters about coop not being what people are "afraid" of point out that Bioware was aware that a significant number of people didn't want this and weren't expecting it.

Flat-out: They're making decisions I don't like, and therefore I'm going to make one that they don't like and give the secondhand market my money.

If enough people do so, then maybe the math will change and we'll get more than lip service to learning from their past mistakes.

Fair enough; i feel that people do have a legitimate reason to be angry with BioWare for their questionable marketing strategy.

[111987]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

111987 wrote...


It seems you are only focusing on the games that added multiplayer and didn't work, and ignoring other games that made similarily controversial decisions and ended up working spectacularily. Resident Evil 5 for example, wasn't bad because it was co-op; it's problem was atmosphere and a cheesy plot. If you had taken co-op out of the game, it wouldn't have been any better.

Mass Effect 3 is said to be just as long as Mass Effect 2. You can choose to believe that or not; no-one will convince you until the game comes out either way.

P.S. I'm not sure why you bold the things you are bolding...

Problem is those other games that "worked spectacularly" are the EXCEPTIONS and TOO FAR AND TOO FEW IN BETWEEN. As for why I'm bolding the way I am, it's for emphasis purposes.

Why not wait for the game to come out then, before deciding Mass Effect 3 might not be one of those masterpieces?

[BeefoTheBold]

111987 wrote...

BeefoTheBold wrote...

And the thing you're missing is that I'm not interested in the multiplayer no matter how good it ends up being. It isn't a question of how high quality the MP is. It's a question of tastes, desires and honesty in customer interactions.

The nice thing about this though is that it is entirely optional, and you can get your optimal ending without ever touching it.

BeefoTheBold wrote...
Tastes:

I'm not interested in an RPG being multiplayer. The reason being is because it breaks the immersion factor for me. I have a harder time preserving the same experience of BEING Shepard if I'm playing with other people. This is completely independent of how high quality the MP is. It's driven by the fact that I play RPGs entirely for the storyline and character development. Having nice gameplay is a huge plus, but I'd rather play a game with subpar gameplay (like The Witcher) that has a story and characters that hook me than the opposite.

The thing is, when has Mass Effect ever been a true RPG? It has always, fromME1, been a hybrid RPG-TPS. And TPS's often do have multiplayer.

And remember, in multiplayer you aren't playing as Shepard, or even interacting with Shepard. You are an entirely new, customizable character.

BeefoTheBold wrote...

Honesty in Customer Interactions:

Many people have been quick to point out that Bioware never COMPLETELY confirmed there would not be multiplayer, but the easy response is that they sure as hell strongly implied it. Hell, even the current "Features" thread on this very board states that there would be no multiplayer. Folks like me who thought it was coming and that the rumors were true were told we were delusional and Bioware had listened and wouldn't be doing that.

So, yes, while it is technically true that Bioware did not "lie" per se, they sure as heck were less than honest and up-front . The twitters about coop not being what people are "afraid" of point out that Bioware was aware that a significant number of people didn't want this and weren't expecting it.

Flat-out: They're making decisions I don't like, and therefore I'm going to make one that they don't like and give the secondhand market my money.

If enough people do so, then maybe the math will change and we'll get more than lip service to learning from their past mistakes.

Fair enough; i feel that people do have a legitimate reason to be angry with BioWare for their questionable marketing strategy.

"Optional" is a squishy word.

Are there going to be multiplayer achievements? Well then if I like getting 100% completion in my RPGs then the MP is no longer optional.

Am I getting a discount on the game if I don't intend to use the MP? No? Then I'd be paying extra to subsidize a feature that is being added in in direct contradiction to my desires.

As for the RPG/TPS comment - you're right that it has always been a bit of a hybrid, but this was actually something that created a backlash after ME2 among Bioware's fans. People felt that ME2 became TOO MUCH a shooter and not enough of an RPG. This led to Bioware promising to beef up RPG elements in the third game to avoid going too far in that direction. They knew that their core fanbase is composed of RPG fans, NOT shooter fans.

Basically, I think that Bioware is well aware that they're losing gamers like me. Decisions like Kinect and MP scream very loudly to me that they don't care. That my gaming dollar is a necessary sacrifice if they can get the CoD crowd's gaming dollar.

[Tonymac]

Thus far I am pleased with the MP ideas of ME3. I'm not really a MP fan, but I like the idea of running around with my pals curbstomping bad guys.

[Lunatic LK47]

111987 wrote...

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

111987 wrote...


It seems you are only focusing on the games that added multiplayer and didn't work, and ignoring other games that made similarily controversial decisions and ended up working spectacularily. Resident Evil 5 for example, wasn't bad because it was co-op; it's problem was atmosphere and a cheesy plot. If you had taken co-op out of the game, it wouldn't have been any better.

Mass Effect 3 is said to be just as long as Mass Effect 2. You can choose to believe that or not; no-one will convince you until the game comes out either way.

P.S. I'm not sure why you bold the things you are bolding...

Problem is those other games that "worked spectacularly" are the EXCEPTIONS and TOO FAR AND TOO FEW IN BETWEEN. As for why I'm bolding the way I am, it's for emphasis purposes.

Why not wait for the game to come out then, before deciding Mass Effect 3 might not be one of those masterpieces?

There's something called PAST EXPERIENCE INFLUENCING MY DECISIONS. Are you cherry picking my statements? 9/10 times, I found the implementation of multiplayer to end up being outright disasters and already mentioned the games in question. I hold multiplayer with a LOW REGARD, AND NOTHING WILL CHANGE MY MIND ABOUT IT. Look at Call of Duty, Treyarch gave me a bad first impression with COD 3 and I avoided World at War and Black Ops because of it (even watching Let's Plays online made me glad I never bothered with them.). I'm still judging MW3 badly because all of the veteran devs left, leaving it with no one but rookies from the Infinity Ward team while Sledgehammer had to pick up the mess..

[111987]

BeefoTheBold wrote...

111987 wrote...

BeefoTheBold wrote...

And the thing you're missing is that I'm not interested in the multiplayer no matter how good it ends up being. It isn't a question of how high quality the MP is. It's a question of tastes, desires and honesty in customer interactions.

The nice thing about this though is that it is entirely optional, and you can get your optimal ending without ever touching it.

BeefoTheBold wrote...
Tastes:

I'm not interested in an RPG being multiplayer. The reason being is because it breaks the immersion factor for me. I have a harder time preserving the same experience of BEING Shepard if I'm playing with other people. This is completely independent of how high quality the MP is. It's driven by the fact that I play RPGs entirely for the storyline and character development. Having nice gameplay is a huge plus, but I'd rather play a game with subpar gameplay (like The Witcher) that has a story and characters that hook me than the opposite.

The thing is, when has Mass Effect ever been a true RPG? It has always, fromME1, been a hybrid RPG-TPS. And TPS's often do have multiplayer.

And remember, in multiplayer you aren't playing as Shepard, or even interacting with Shepard. You are an entirely new, customizable character.

BeefoTheBold wrote...

Honesty in Customer Interactions:

Many people have been quick to point out that Bioware never COMPLETELY confirmed there would not be multiplayer, but the easy response is that they sure as hell strongly implied it. Hell, even the current "Features" thread on this very board states that there would be no multiplayer. Folks like me who thought it was coming and that the rumors were true were told we were delusional and Bioware had listened and wouldn't be doing that.

So, yes, while it is technically true that Bioware did not "lie" per se, they sure as heck were less than honest and up-front . The twitters about coop not being what people are "afraid" of point out that Bioware was aware that a significant number of people didn't want this and weren't expecting it.

Flat-out: They're making decisions I don't like, and therefore I'm going to make one that they don't like and give the secondhand market my money.

If enough people do so, then maybe the math will change and we'll get more than lip service to learning from their past mistakes.

Fair enough; i feel that people do have a legitimate reason to be angry with BioWare for their questionable marketing strategy.

"Optional" is a squishy word.

Are there going to be multiplayer achievements? Well then if I like getting 100% completion in my RPGs then the MP is no longer optional.

Am I getting a discount on the game if I don't intend to use the MP? No? Then I'd be paying extra to subsidize a feature that is being added in in direct contradiction to my desires.

As for the RPG/TPS comment - you're right that it has always been a bit of a hybrid, but this was actually something that created a backlash after ME2 among Bioware's fans. People felt that ME2 became TOO MUCH a shooter and not enough of an RPG. This led to Bioware promising to beef up RPG elements in the third game to avoid going too far in that direction. They knew that their core fanbase is composed of RPG fans, NOT shooter fans.

Basically, I think that Bioware is well aware that they're losing gamers like me. Decisions like Kinect and MP scream very loudly to me that they don't care. That my gaming dollar is a necessary sacrifice if they can get the CoD crowd's gaming dollar.

We don't know yet if there are multiplayer achievements. This goes back to my main point; people have blasted games in the past for features they really knew very little about.

As for cost, that's not a great argument. What if i don't want romance options in my game? Should I get a discount? In my opinion romance has no place in a war story like this. Besides, was Mass Effect 2 not a 60$ game when it first came out, just like ME3? I don't believe they've jacked up the price.

Yes, and they did beef up the RPG features. Even in co-op, there are significant RPG features. This shows they DO care about their existing fans, but also want to bring in new ones.

[111987]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

There's something called PAST EXPERIENCE INFLUENCING MY DECISIONS. Are you cherry picking my statements? 9/10 times, I found the implementation of multiplayer to end up being outright disasters and already mentioned the games in question. I hold multiplayer with a LOW REGARD, AND NOTHING WILL CHANGE MY MIND ABOUT IT. Look at Call of Duty, Treyarch gave me a bad first impression with COD 3 and I avoided World at War and Black Ops because of it (even watching Let's Plays online made me glad I never bothered with them.). I'm still judging MW3 badly because all of the veteran devs left, leaving it with no one but rookies from the Infinity Ward team while Sledgehammer had to pick up the mess..

In that case, you are just like the people who said nothing will change their mind about Metroid, Mario, Zelda, etc...

It is clear you aren't willing to open your mind, so I don't have anything left to say.

[2342]

To me this whole thing comes off as a gimmick in an attempt to get more people to buy gold membership. I'm still going to get the game and I'll probably play the multiplayer with a friend but I didn't want multiplayer when it was speculated and I don't want it now.

[Lunatic LK47]

111987 wrote...
In that case, you are just like the people who said nothing will change their mind about Metroid, Mario, Zelda, etc...

It is clear you aren't willing to open your mind, so I don't have anything left to say.

Problem with this statement. Every franchise from Nintendo just became derivative of each other up to the point I never gave a rat's ass about them, and that's pretty much from every game in the Japanese Market.  Already gave up on Zelda after Twilight Princess, and this is coming from someone that only had Ocarina of Time, Majora's Mask, Link's Awakening, and the Oracle series.

Why should I have an open mind if I'm already CYNICAL AND JADED WITH THE ENTIRE INDUSTRY?

Modifié par Lunatic LK47, 11 octobre 2011 - 07:45 .

[BeefoTheBold]

111987 wrote...

We don't know yet if there are multiplayer achievements. This goes back to my main point; people have blasted games in the past for features they really knew very little about.

As for cost, that's not a great argument. What if i don't want romance options in my game? Should I get a discount? In my opinion romance has no place in a war story like this. Besides, was Mass Effect 2 not a 60$ game when it first came out, just like ME3? I don't believe they've jacked up the price.

Yes, and they did beef up the RPG features. Even in co-op, there are significant RPG features. This shows they DO care about their existing fans, but also want to bring in new ones.

My point being is that even labelling it as "optional" is not likely to be correct. Adding multiplayer to singleplayer games almost always results in SOME reduction in the singleplayer experience. How BIG of a reduction can vary and yes, there are examples of games successfully managing to make the singleplayer feel complete while still doing a quality multiplayer.

But in all honesty, those games are few and far between. The multiplayer is not optional because it is directly taking resources away from the features that I DO plan on using. 

The romance option is a bad example on your part because that IS something that is completely optional. It is a choice mechanic in an RPG. You choose if you want to play a stoic Shepard that chooses not to get sidetracked by romantic entanglements or a more human Shepard that reaches out for companionship (or even just a good ****ing) for comfort in a war. Either way, it is a part of YOU crafting the story of YOUR Shepard. To exclude it would be utterly unrealistic. Romance is a part of the human experience and taking out at least the option would make the game phony.

[Nayt Navare]

BeefoTheBold wrote...

111987 wrote...

BeefoTheBold wrote...

Negative. I will NOT be giving multiplayer a chance because I don't care how high the quality level is. There are certain things that are not intended to be coop. Reading a good book is one of them. A storydriven RPG is the video game equivalent of reading a good book.

People said the same thing about a lot of the games I mentioned. Mario is NOT intended to be a 3-D adventure; it's a side-scroller. Metroid is NOT meant to be a first-person shooter; it's a side-scroller. Zelda is NOT supposed to look cartoonish; just look at Ocarina of Time!

And yet all of those games ended up being amazing. Rejecting a game because of an optional feature that could be excellent seems a bit over the top.

Rejecting a game to send a message to the people who are choosing to take their development in a direction I disagree with is NOT over the top. This is not a "I'm going to get the game used because of this alone". It is a string of what I feel are questionable calls and Bioware losing it's way.

1. Witch Hunt
2. The Arrival
3. Dragon Age 2
4. MMO Kotor instead of KOTOR3
5. Buggy and half-finished Awakenings
6. Kinect
7. Multiplayer/coop after all but promising there wouldn't be

Flat out, I'm not just comparing Bioware to other developers out there. I'm comparing the Bioware of today to the Bioware of yesteryear. The one that was a gold standard for quality control, that focused on pleasing their existing customer base more than reaching out to CoD's, that didn't make weasel type comments about how it was never "confirmed" there would be no multiplayer for ME3, etc.

Bioware is in their rights to run the numbers and assume that their existing fans will just take them at their word and buy the game preordered anyway, that they can get new fans while neglecting existing ones.

I'm in my right to choose to give my money to the secondhand market as my own small act of defiance.

While I'm unsure if I agree with everything you said (though I would argue some of your points are valid), I VERY MUCH appreciate the civility and the logic you've used in this post.  Good work! 

[111987]

BeefoTheBold wrote...

111987 wrote...

We don't know yet if there are multiplayer achievements. This goes back to my main point; people have blasted games in the past for features they really knew very little about.

As for cost, that's not a great argument. What if i don't want romance options in my game? Should I get a discount? In my opinion romance has no place in a war story like this. Besides, was Mass Effect 2 not a 60$ game when it first came out, just like ME3? I don't believe they've jacked up the price.

Yes, and they did beef up the RPG features. Even in co-op, there are significant RPG features. This shows they DO care about their existing fans, but also want to bring in new ones.

My point being is that even labelling it as "optional" is not likely to be correct. Adding multiplayer to singleplayer games almost always results in SOME reduction in the singleplayer experience. How BIG of a reduction can vary and yes, there are examples of games successfully managing to make the singleplayer feel complete while still doing a quality multiplayer.

But in all honesty, those games are few and far between. The multiplayer is not optional because it is directly taking resources away from the features that I DO plan on using. 

The romance option is a bad example on your part because that IS something that is completely optional. It is a choice mechanic in an RPG. You choose if you want to play a stoic Shepard that chooses not to get sidetracked by romantic entanglements or a more human Shepard that reaches out for companionship (or even just a good ****ing) for comfort in a war. Either way, it is a part of YOU crafting the story of YOUR Shepard. To exclude it would be utterly unrealistic. Romance is a part of the human experience and taking out at least the option would make the game phony.

There are two studios, one working on singleplayer and one multiplayer. ME3 is said to be the same length of ME2. All indications suggest the singleplayer experience is not being harmed by multiplayer.

How is my example a bad one? in order to get all the achievements, I HAVE to have a romance. And guess what, your point that it is "completley optional'? So is multiplayer.

I would argue it's just as phony to only have Shepard and his squad be the sole reason for the salvation of an entire galaxy as it would be to exclude romance.