245 réponses à ce sujet

[Fiery Phoenix]

tez19 wrote...

(...)

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.

As someone who shares the same worries, this remains an assumption no matter how we spin it. The very fact that ME3 was delayed six full months should give us reason to believe that they're not pulling a half-assed product and calling it a day. You're right that BioWare may not have as much control over their titles as they used to, but that's EA for you--that's what you get for being a division of EA. It comes with a cost, naturally.

The crux of the matter is this: The ultimate reason EA purchased BioWare is Star Was. It's pretty much gospel that BioWare's success in the future is vitally reliant on how TOR is going to do out in the market. They've put indescribable amounts of cash and manpower into this project. It's what EA is counting on in order for it to become the next big thing in the MMO market. If TOR doesn't do well, then you can bet BioWare will end up being shut down like the many other EA-owned studios that were in the past for similar reasons (e.g. Westwood Studios).

Modifié par Fiery Phoenix, 11 octobre 2011 - 03:20 .

[JoshieoPandar]

tez19 wrote...

DaringMoosejaw wrote...

tez19 wrote...

Siansonea II wrote...

Hey look, another "old school" gamer is mad about multiplayer. Same sh—er, stuff, different day.

I am 21, hardly old school.

You're right, because all the guys complaining about casuals ruining the game industry are in their mid-thirties?

I have no idea and also have no interest. But i would be surprised if a 21yr old was considered old school in anything?

Old school doesn't refer to your age. Some aspects of old school can be a matter of opinion, but it's mostly what was a gem back in the day, I got a 11yr old cousin that enjoys playing the tabletop D&D.

[DaringMoosejaw]

tez19 wrote...

I have no idea and also have no interest. But i would be surprised if a 21yr old was considered old school in anything?

Anyone who trumpets ME1 or DA:O as 'True RPGs' and derides anyone who likes the sequels or the direction the franchises are currently taking as idiots would only have to have been around since 2007, so age isn't relevent at all in the terminology.

Modifié par DaringMoosejaw, 11 octobre 2011 - 03:22 .

[Doug4130]

Did they ever explicitly say `Mass effect 3 will be released on December 5th` and I just missed it or something

[DRSH]

I hope it has CAMPAIGN COOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOP!

[DaringMoosejaw]

DRSH wrote...

I hope it has CAMPAIGN (C x O^35) + P!

It won't.

Modifié par DaringMoosejaw, 11 octobre 2011 - 03:24 .

[tez19]

Fiery Phoenix wrote...

tez19 wrote...

(...)

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.

As someone who shares the same worries, this remains an assumption no matter how we spin it. The very fact that ME3 was delayed six full months should give us reason to believe that they're not pulling a half-assed product and calling it a day. You're right that BioWare may not have as much control over their titles as they used to, but that's EA for you--that's what you get for being a division of EA. It comes with a cost, naturally.

The crux of the matter is this: The ultimate reason EA purchased BioWare is Star Was. It's pretty much gospel that BioWare's success in the future is vitally reliant on how TOR is going to do out in the market. They've put indescribable amounts of cash and manpower into this project. It's what EA is counting on in order for it to become the next big thing in the MMO market. If TOR doesn't do well, then you can bet BioWare will end up being shut down like the many other EA-owned studios that were in the past for similar reasons (e.g. Westwood Studios).

And that would be a travesty, but for someone who has no interest in MMO's or Star Wars I am only concerned with how the Mass Effect trilogy will end and money MUST have been diverted from the SP. If not diverted then the money garnered for MP still could of been used to improve SP to give the trilogy the best send off it possibly could. I do not believe it is an assumption because unless creating the multiplayer aspect is free then resources (money) has been used which could have improved singleplayer campaign.

Modifié par tez19, 11 octobre 2011 - 03:24 .

[JoshieoPandar]

I want friendly fire.

[Kakita Tatsumaru]

Mesina2 wrote...

Eh, Dragon Age 2 has identical gameplay as Origins.

Only difference is that animations are faster and enemy spawn most of the time( not counting DLC's).

Seems like you didn't played it on PC.

[tez19]

Kakita Tatsumaru wrote...

Mesina2 wrote...

Eh, Dragon Age 2 has identical gameplay as Origins.

Only difference is that animations are faster and enemy spawn most of the time( not counting DLC's).

Seems like you didn't played it on PC.

I play on xbox360 and let me assure you it was not the same at all.

[shepskisaac]

tez19 wrote...

and money MUST have been diverted from the SP. If not diverted then the money garnered for MP still could of been used to improve SP to give the trilogy the best send off it possibly could. I do not believe it is an assumption because unless creating the multiplayer aspect is free then resources (money) has been used which could have improved singleplayer campaign.

Ok, let's get some facts straight. Where does great majority of money go to in game developement? TO pay the developers who work 2/3 years on the game. Why do modern games are so expensive? HD assets, VOs & music are only small part of the reason. The biggest is that the size of AAA teams went from 20+ devs to 150+ on avarage in just 2 generations. If you think EA would've assigned extra 50 devs to work on SP if there wasn't MP, you're wrong simple. They would never do it, why would they if they know the existing team is big enough to create an amazing game?

[Teredan]

IsaacShep wrote...

tez19 wrote...

and money MUST have been diverted from the SP. If not diverted then the money garnered for MP still could of been used to improve SP to give the trilogy the best send off it possibly could. I do not believe it is an assumption because unless creating the multiplayer aspect is free then resources (money) has been used which could have improved singleplayer campaign.

Ok, let's get some facts straight. Where does great majority of money go to in game developement? TO pay the developers who work 2/3 years on the game. Why do modern games are so expensive? HD assets, VOs & music are only small part of the reason. The biggest is that the size of AAA teams went from 20+ devs to 150+ on avarage in just 2 generations. If you think EA would've assigned extra 50 devs to work on SP if there wasn't MP, you're wrong simple. They would never do it, why would they if they know the existing team is big enough to create an amazing game?

That's a ****ty scarecrow argument. Think about it this way. From the money that goes into MP they could have hired 4-5 (or more) programmers/3d artists/voice actor to do, oh gosh surprise, more singleplayer content.

Like having more minigames/characters and what not.

Also forgot to comment on the thread topic. I think it's idiotic to assume that Bioware is in decline.
I mean even if DA 2 wasn't universally well received from the Bioware community it did quite well I think from a financial standpoint. ME 3 isn't out yet so we have to see how that pans out. We can talk about Bioware declining if ME3 will become as controversial as DA2 and DA3 being announced with nonsensical features (like motion controls).

Modifié par Teredan, 11 octobre 2011 - 03:38 .

[SuperNova42]

SnowHeart1 wrote...

People need to keep an open mind but the reality is the gaming industry has been changing. The cost of producing current and next-gen games is staggering -- AAA titles can easily cost more than a feature film. Against economic realities like that, I do understand why studios feel a need to reach a broad audience and, to a certain extent, cater to the lowest common denominator. They need money. For those who are complaining about this, you need to realize it's a business for these folks -- not a hobby. For most, it's a business they happen to enjoy and love, but they still have to make money at it. There's nothing wrong with that.

But here's the flipside of that... Under those economic pressures, and the need to expand to a wider audience, sometimes failure comes by trying to be too much to too many. Some people are poo-pooing the DA2 reference, but it's a very real issue. Bioware was purchased by EA, and then DA2 came out -- and, while some people liked it, it has not sold as well and received more negative reviews than DAO. That's the only title we have to judge Bioware on post-merger.

There are differences. DA2 had a rushed production cycle and a different development team. Those differences shouldn't be forgotten. But to completely dismiss the reference as irrelevant? No, sorry, it's not. Why? Because the changes that came to DA2 were designed to let it appeal to a broader market, probably much like the addition of multiplayer, and it could be indicative of a new business model that is driving budget allocations and design decisions in Bioware's post-merger games.

All that said, is Bioware "in decline"? Is "co-op" going to be a terrible experience? That depends on your perspective but, no matter what, nobody has enough information to judge that at this point. We won't until we have our hands on it. I wasn't thrilled to learn about multiplayer, truth be told I'm a little less excited about getting ME3 than I was two weeks ago, but I don't know enough to judge either way. The jury is out, on all counts.

Well said.

[tez19]

Teredan wrote...

IsaacShep wrote...

tez19 wrote...

and money MUST have been diverted from the SP. If not diverted then the money garnered for MP still could of been used to improve SP to give the trilogy the best send off it possibly could. I do not believe it is an assumption because unless creating the multiplayer aspect is free then resources (money) has been used which could have improved singleplayer campaign.

Ok, let's get some facts straight. Where does great majority of money go to in game developement? TO pay the developers who work 2/3 years on the game. Why do modern games are so expensive? HD assets, VOs & music are only small part of the reason. The biggest is that the size of AAA teams went from 20+ devs to 150+ on avarage in just 2 generations. If you think EA would've assigned extra 50 devs to work on SP if there wasn't MP, you're wrong simple. They would never do it, why would they if they know the existing team is big enough to create an amazing game?

That's a ****ty scarecrow argument. Think about it this way. From the money that goes into MP they could have hired 4-5 (or more) programmers/3d artists/voice actor to do, oh gosh surprise, more singleplayer content.

Like having more minigames/characters and what not.

This.
I do not understand why people are trying to argue my point when it is true. I don't care if it is £5millon or £1. Any money diverted from SP to MP is a waste to me.

[shepskisaac]

Teredan wrote...

That's a ****ty scarecrow argument. Think about it this way. From the money that goes into MP they could have hired 4-5 (or more) programmers/3d artists/voice actor to do, oh gosh surprise, more singleplayer content.

Like having more minigames/characters and what not.

And why would EA do it if they know the size of the team would big enough without extra devs to produce great game anyway?

tez19 wrote...

I do not understand why people are trying to argue my point when it is true. I don't care if it is £5millon or £1. Any money diverted from SP to MP is a waste to me.

Because it's not. It's your assumption EA would throw any extra cash at SP campaign if MP didn't exist. I say they would not. They count on sales increase in direct response to MP inclusion, which is the only reason why would they invest extra resources at all.

Modifié par IsaacShep, 11 octobre 2011 - 03:42 .

[Blooddrunk1004]

tez19 wrote...

I do not understand why people are trying to argue my point when it is true. I don't care if it is £5millon or £1. Any money diverted from SP to MP is a waste to me.

Baldur's Gate, NWN, Portal 2 and Red Dead Redemption would like to have few words with you.

[Chromie]

tez19 wrote...
This.
I do not understand why people are trying to argue my point when it is true. I don't care if it is £5millon or £1. Any money diverted from SP to MP is a waste to me.

How do you know if it was diverted? What if Bioware/EA decided they wanted a co-op mode and recieved more money. How do you know if their budget wasn't increased instead of just simply diverted.


Baldur's Gate 1 and 2
Neverwinter Nights
Star Wars The Old Republic (so far from what I've beta'd I really love it)

Bioware has made online games and their best games have it.

Modifié par Ringo12, 11 octobre 2011 - 03:43 .

[Teredan]

IsaacShep wrote...

And why would EA do it if they know the size of the team would big enough without extra devs to produce great game anyway?

Srsly? It's about money of course. You remember that statement about how every game needs a multiplayer to be successfull? That's pretty much the origin of it. EA thinks that ME3 will do better with Multiplayer.
Now if it does fine, but as for me I won't support this idiotic direction. I'll get ME3 used because I give a **** about the online pass. Even if I doubt it, maybe more people think like me resulting in ME3 not doing as well as EA hopes for and maybe mending it's stupid MP philosophy.

Also the thing is looking at Dead Space 2 MP it was fine but you know there are better MP games out there and all that money spent into that feature that not a lot of people will use could have gone into more SP refinement. Because you know a game will never ship perfectly there is always something to add.

The Kinect hate I don't understand it's by all means a gimmick so it's ok to tag on. It's also probably sponsored by Microsoft to appeal with kinect to the hardcore crowd.

Modifié par Teredan, 11 octobre 2011 - 03:49 .

[aridor1570]

Ringo12 wrote...

tez19 wrote...
This.
I do not understand why people are trying to argue my point when it is true. I don't care if it is £5millon or £1. Any money diverted from SP to MP is a waste to me.

How do you know if it was diverted? What if Bioware/EA decided they wanted a co-op mode and recieved more money. How do you know if their budget wasn't increased instead of just simply diverted.


Baldur's Gate 1 and 2
Neverwinter Nights
Star Wars The Old Republic (so far from what I've beta'd I really love it)

Bioware has made online games and their best games have it.

The same he thinks kinect takes away from the campaign, he dosn't even think for a moment MS gave bioware the money to add the component.

[aridor1570]

Double post.

Modifié par aridor1570, 11 octobre 2011 - 03:47 .

[tez19]

Teredan wrote...

IsaacShep wrote...

And why would EA do it if they know the size of the team would big enough without extra devs to produce great game anyway?

Srsly? It's about money of course. You remember that statement about how every game needs a multiplayer to be successfull? That's pretty much the origin of it. EA thinks that ME3 will do better with Multiplayer.
Now if it does fine, but as for me I won't support this idiotic direction. I'll get ME3 used because I give a **** about the online pass. Even if I doubt it, maybe more people think like me resulting in ME3 not doing as well as EA hopes for and maybe mending it's stupid MP philosophy.

You articulate my point well. Bioware might do even better with multiplayer but i will not use it or support it. Therefore i will also be getting the game used. Their philosophy did not work with DA2 lets see if it does with ME3. I do not need MP in my story driven RPG's. Nor do I need kinect (more money wasted).

Modifié par tez19, 11 octobre 2011 - 03:48 .

[shepskisaac]

Teredan wrote...

Srsly? It's about money of course. You remember that statement about how every game needs a multiplayer to be successfull? That's pretty much the origin of it. EA thinks that ME3 will do better with Multiplayer.
Now if it does fine, but as for me I won't support this idiotic direction. I'll get ME3 used because I give a **** about the online pass. Even if I doubt it, maybe more people think like me resulting in ME3 not doing as well as EA hopes for and maybe mending it's stupid MP philosophy.

That's not what I asked about. Why do people think EA would hire more devs to singleplayer if multiplayer didn't exist? Why do they think they would spend the extra money on hiring devs for singleplayer if they know the number of singleplayer ME3 devs is big enough already to produce a hit game?

[Fhaileas]

DUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUHHHHHHHHHHH!!!

[tez19]

IsaacShep wrote...

Teredan wrote...

Srsly? It's about money of course. You remember that statement about how every game needs a multiplayer to be successfull? That's pretty much the origin of it. EA thinks that ME3 will do better with Multiplayer.
Now if it does fine, but as for me I won't support this idiotic direction. I'll get ME3 used because I give a **** about the online pass. Even if I doubt it, maybe more people think like me resulting in ME3 not doing as well as EA hopes for and maybe mending it's stupid MP philosophy.

That's not what I asked about. Why do people think EA would hire more devs to singleplayer if multiplayer didn't exist? Why do they think they would spend the extra money on hiring devs for singleplayer if they know the number of singleplayer ME3 devs is big enough already to produce a hit game?

Funnily enough i remeber reading that they didn't hire anybody it is another studio already in existence. If MP was free to make please let me know and i will admit i was wrong.

[tez19]

Fhaileas wrote...

DUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUHHHHHHHHHHH!!!

MUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGGGGG!!!!