245 réponses à ce sujet

[Dreadwing 67]

Is this the formula I will always see. DA2 Bad = ME3 bad. No matter where i go its always this.

And Secondly its always Bioware is now keen on marketing action now more than ever..

So More action + MP = GETTING ALL THE COD FANBOYS EWW ZOMG KILL CASEY HUDSON..

Those are the two formulas I always see on here.

Modifié par Dreadwing 67, 11 octobre 2011 - 02:46 .

[Chewgumma]

Developer in decline my foot.

I may not be a fan of Bioware's decision to include multiplayer in ME3 but they still manage to produce some of the most interesting games of this era. DAII, while not as good as Origins, was still a complex and interesting RPG, which just gives extra credit to how fantastic Origins was in the first place. And the first two Mass Effects were amazing space opera titles that I have got immense pleasure out of.

Multiplayer may be a blip on the radar, sure. But to suggest Bioware is in decline? Nah. Have to disagree with you there.

[GMagnum]

BIOWARE HAS BEEN HELLA BUNZ EVER SINCE EA GOT THEY ASSES.
EA DOESN'T CARE ABOUT QUALITY, THEY JUST MAKE THE DEVELOPERS RELEASE HELLA UNFINISHED AND LAME GAMES THAT THE MAJORITY OF PLAYERS CAN GET INTO SO MORE PPL WILL BUY. EA JUST HAS TO OPEN DEY WALLET AND SEE DA MONEY FALL IN.

IT'S NOT BIOWARE - IT'S EA NYUGGA

[Heather Cline]

I disagree about CD Projekt and Bethesda. Never liked any of those companies games.

I am however upset that Casey Hudson stated officially on Bioware Pulse at one of the conventions that there was to be no Multi-player/Co-op for ME3. Then Bioware turns around and tells us different. I hate being lied to. Instead of lying to people just come out and state what you are going to do and do it. Don't say one thing and turn around and become liars by doing something completely the opposite of what you stated.

I guess I'm old school and believe that when you say something like Hudson did in public at a game convention that was recorded and that almost everyone on BSN saw, that they should stick to it. I believe a promise is a promise and unless there are mitigating circumstance in which this case there are none, you should never break a promise or turn back on what you've told someone.

This is what irks me the most. I'm no fan of multiplayer and no fan of co-op games this is true. I could overlook the fact that it's in the game if not for the fact that I've had bad experiences with multi-player and co-op and that we were lied to again. Like ME2 were we were promised s/s romances for both genders then it was all cut out cause Hudson decided to do so.

I'm tired of being lied to by Bioware. This is what gets me the most, being lied to.

[Dreadwing 67]

Modifié par Dreadwing 67, 11 octobre 2011 - 02:46 .

[Arppis]

You know that Baldur's Gate had multiplayer too.

[tez19]

Mei Mei wrote...

In your post, Tez19, you seem to be taking the addition of MP in Me3 very personal. Like it's slight against you. How and why is it personal? Yes, you are a consumer. As am I and most others on this board but when a company makes a decision based on their interpretation of research and business models, it's in no way personal. It's business plain and simple. Many forum members appear to be having the same reaction that this is Bioware letting you down.

The reality is, it's your perceptions being shifted. That you as a gamer, are like the rest of us, we have no control over what the developer or company does. We simply can give feedback but know that those decisions will be based on their business plan. My recommendation is look deeper into the issues and opinions you are expressing as it seems it's about something other than the addition of MP in ME3.

Because Bioware used to be a developer that made games they believed in and loved. They did not make games based on market research and what would bring them the most money, I am against the inclusion of multiplayer in games that are suited to singleplayer experience. I play COD and enjoy its multiplayer, it is a game that suits multiplayer well, but games like Assassins creed and Mass Effect and Dead Space that are story driven games I am totally against multiplayer as it is not needed. No matter how addictive or good the Multiplayer aspect is, they are taking resources away from the single player campaign FACT. Whether it be time or money it is a fact.

Modifié par tez19, 11 octobre 2011 - 02:50 .

[Dreadwing 67]

tez19 wrote...

Mei Mei wrote...

In your post, Tez19, you seem to be taking the addition of MP in Me3 very personal. Like it's slight against you. How and why is it personal? Yes, you are a consumer. As am I and most others on this board but when a company makes a decision based on their interpretation of research and business models, it's in no way personal. It's business plain and simple. Many forum members appear to be having the same reaction that this is Bioware letting you down.

The reality is, it's your perceptions being shifted. That you as a gamer, are like the rest of us, we have no control over what the developer or company does. We simply can give feedback but know that those decisions will be based on their business plan. My recommendation is look deeper into the issues and opinions you are expressing as it seems it's about something other than the addition of MP in ME3.

Because Bioware used to be a developer that made games they believed in and loved. They did not make games based on market research and what would bring them the most money, I am against the inclusion of multiplayer in games that are suited to singleplayer experience. I play COD and enjoy its multiplayer, it is a game that suits multiplayer well, but games like Assassins creed and Mass Effect and Dead Space that are story dirven games I am totally against multiplayer as it is not needed. No matter how addictive or good the Multiplayer aspect is, they are taking resources away from the single player campaign FACT. Whether it be time or money it is a fact.

If you have any data to back up your FACT, or if you have ever worked in a gaming studio to know this, Please share.

If you have neither first hand knowledge or data to back this up, I see no reason it's FACT.

They could include MP and not detract a bit from SP.

Modifié par Dreadwing 67, 11 octobre 2011 - 02:51 .

[CaolIla]

Heather Cline wrote...

This is what gets me the most, being lied to.

So.. you support prostitutes? ^^
But I actually feel the same way, I was really pissed when I read about it, but since I already cancelled my order a few weeks ago, I don't have to do it anymore ; )

[happy_daiz]

You know, if you read Chris Priestly's post closely, you'll see that MP does NOT affect the main solo campaign, which was worked on in tandem with a separate team working on multiplayer. In a different studio.

In a way, this could be looked at as FREE bonus DLC. Those a-holes. 

Modifié par happy_daiz, 11 octobre 2011 - 03:05 .

[tez19]

Dreadwing 67 wrote...

tez19 wrote...

Mei Mei wrote...

In your post, Tez19, you seem to be taking the addition of MP in Me3 very personal. Like it's slight against you. How and why is it personal? Yes, you are a consumer. As am I and most others on this board but when a company makes a decision based on their interpretation of research and business models, it's in no way personal. It's business plain and simple. Many forum members appear to be having the same reaction that this is Bioware letting you down.

The reality is, it's your perceptions being shifted. That you as a gamer, are like the rest of us, we have no control over what the developer or company does. We simply can give feedback but know that those decisions will be based on their business plan. My recommendation is look deeper into the issues and opinions you are expressing as it seems it's about something other than the addition of MP in ME3.

Because Bioware used to be a developer that made games they believed in and loved. They did not make games based on market research and what would bring them the most money, I am against the inclusion of multiplayer in games that are suited to singleplayer experience. I play COD and enjoy its multiplayer, it is a game that suits multiplayer well, but games like Assassins creed and Mass Effect and Dead Space that are story dirven games I am totally against multiplayer as it is not needed. No matter how addictive or good the Multiplayer aspect is, they are taking resources away from the single player campaign FACT. Whether it be time or money it is a fact.

If you have any data to back up your FACT, or if you have ever worked in a gaming studio to know this, Please share.

If you have neither first hand knowledge or data to back this up, I see no reason it's FACT.

They could include MP and not detract a bit from SP.

So multiplayer is free to make? I guess the people working on it do it for fun too and do not get paid?

[SomeKindaEnigma]

This thread again? Read Polite's post on the first page... nothing else needs to be said.

[tez19]

happy_daiz wrote...

You know, if you read Chris Priestley's post closely, you'll see that MP does NOT affect the main solo campaign, which was already completed before the addition of multiplayer.

In a way, this could be looked at as FREE bonus DLC. Those a-holes. 

So they have stopped developing the single player campaign as it is done? I doubt it. They are taking money away that could be spent improving the singleplayer experience or even adding in things people want.

[Chewgumma]

tez19 wrote...

Because Bioware used to be a developer that made games they believed in and loved. They did not make games based on market research and what would bring them the most money, I am against the inclusion of multiplayer in games that are suited to singleplayer experience. I play COD and enjoy its multiplayer, it is a game that suits multiplayer well, but games like Assassins creed and Mass Effect and Dead Space that are story driven games I am totally against multiplayer as it is not needed. No matter how addictive or good the Multiplayer aspect is, they are taking resources away from the single player campaign FACT. Whether it be time or money it is a fact.

Can you provide evidence that the basis on how Bioware makes it's games have changed? Are you sure this isn't just you not liking Bioware's latest decision or not agreeing with where their heart has taken them?

I'm not enjoying Bioware's decision about multiplayer either, but thats a huge assumption to make.

[Complistic]

In CD Projekt Red we trust.

[Someone With Mass]

God forbids that BioWare tries something that they've done before.

[Blooddrunk1004]

tez19 wrote...

No matter how addictive or good the Multiplayer aspect is, they are taking resources away from the single player campaign FACT. Whether it be time or money it is a fact.

You do realize they have seperate teams working on SP and MP.  
Edmonton who made both first and second game is working on third game.
Montreal is the one who is making MP.
So your FACT doesn't make sense.

[happy_daiz]

tez19 wrote...

happy_daiz wrote...

You know, if you read Chris Priestley's post closely, you'll see that MP does NOT affect the main solo campaign, which was already completed before the addition of multiplayer.

In a way, this could be looked at as FREE bonus DLC. Those a-holes. 

So they have stopped developing the single player campaign as it is done? I doubt it. They are taking money away that could be spent improving the singleplayer experience or even adding in things people want.

You're right; I had that wrong, but I went back in and fixed my post.

Here's an excerpt from CP's thread:

Does the addition of co-op multiplayer missions impact the scope or quality of the single-player experience?

No. A dedicated team from our recently formed BioWare Montreal studio has been focused on creating the multiplayer game features while the main game continued to be developed by the team in BioWare Edmonton. Both teams are integrated under the same leadership group that produced Mass Effect 1 and 2, led by Casey Hudson. BioWare remains dedicated to delivering one of the most amazing single-player campaigns gamers have ever experienced.

[tez19]

Chewgumma wrote...

tez19 wrote...

Because Bioware used to be a developer that made games they believed in and loved. They did not make games based on market research and what would bring them the most money, I am against the inclusion of multiplayer in games that are suited to singleplayer experience. I play COD and enjoy its multiplayer, it is a game that suits multiplayer well, but games like Assassins creed and Mass Effect and Dead Space that are story driven games I am totally against multiplayer as it is not needed. No matter how addictive or good the Multiplayer aspect is, they are taking resources away from the single player campaign FACT. Whether it be time or money it is a fact.

Can you provide evidence that the basis on how Bioware makes it's games have changed? Are you sure this isn't just you not liking Bioware's latest decision or not agreeing with where their heart has taken them?

I'm not enjoying Bioware's decision about multiplayer either, but thats a huge assumption to make.

I believe with the whole Dragon Age 2 'streamlining' we saw and the kincect and multiplayer inclusion in Mass Effect3 that it is a safe assumption to make.

[tez19]

Blooddrunk1004 wrote...

tez19 wrote...

No matter how addictive or good the Multiplayer aspect is, they are taking resources away from the single player campaign FACT. Whether it be time or money it is a fact.

You do realize they have seperate teams working on SP and MP.  
Edmonton who made both first and second game is working on third game.
Montreal is the one who is making MP.
So your FACT doesn't make sense.

I am aware of this, again MP is free to make and the studio working on it do it for fun and do not get paid? Then i apologise.

[happy_daiz]

Where is this "Kinect" news? I haven't seen that anywhere. Could someone provide a link?

[tez19]

happy_daiz wrote...

tez19 wrote...

happy_daiz wrote...

You know, if you read Chris Priestley's post closely, you'll see that MP does NOT affect the main solo campaign, which was already completed before the addition of multiplayer.

In a way, this could be looked at as FREE bonus DLC. Those a-holes. 

So they have stopped developing the single player campaign as it is done? I doubt it. They are taking money away that could be spent improving the singleplayer experience or even adding in things people want.

You're right; I had that wrong, but I went back in and fixed my post.

Here's an excerpt from CP's thread:

Does the addition of co-op multiplayer missions impact the scope or quality of the single-player experience?

No. A dedicated team from our recently formed BioWare Montreal studio has been focused on creating the multiplayer game features while the main game continued to be developed by the team in BioWare Edmonton. Both teams are integrated under the same leadership group that produced Mass Effect 1 and 2, led by Casey Hudson. BioWare remains dedicated to delivering one of the most amazing single-player campaigns gamers have ever experienced.

Well ofcourse Chris is going to say that, but my point remains unanswered as they must have used money on MP that could of been used improving SP or adding other things to make the SP experience even better.

[happy_daiz]

tez19 wrote...

I am aware of this, again MP is free to make and the studio working on it do it for fun and do not get paid? Then i apologise.

BioWare (and any other game developer, for that matter), can do what they please. It's their company. It's not your business to know what they spend their money on unless you own stock in the company...which I doubt you do. Why are you freaking out about this? 

Modifié par happy_daiz, 11 octobre 2011 - 03:01 .