277 réponses à ce sujet

[shepskisaac]

Prince Zeel wrote...

3. Less resources on Single player
-If Bioware has to develop a co-op feature, the money has to split somewhere. I've yet to read 'good' evidence that suggests sp experience was finished, or any evidence that suggests that Bioware has infinite time and money.

Where your proof on this one? If MP was funded from singleplayer's budget, they would have to fire multiple SP developers to pay MP devs at Montral. That didn't happen.

[NOD-INFORMER37]

Hathur wrote...

NOD-INFORMER37 wrote...

Confused-Shepard wrote...

But seriously, why even bother? Is EA/Bioware missing a few brain cells? Who the heck are they competing with?

Its EA dude, they're like the tumor of the gaming world. Anyone/anything they get involved with something horribly bad happens, EVERY TIME. Just take a look at these links- 

  



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeGvZQdb4-I

Now some of that stuff would've been ok if they just kept it SEPERATE from the main game, but noooooo.

Don't you DARE bring up that abortion of a game called C&C 4! I threw that thing where it belongs... the trash! I did not need you to remind me of the 50 dollars I wasted on that! 

<slams door>

/bitter

I'm SORRY! Dx

I know the tragedy of C/C4 is a painful memory to bring up but THIS IS WHAT I'M AFRAID MIGHT HAPPEN TO MASS EFFECT 3! EA could screw up another game in the sake of getting a few more bucks, and we DO NOT want that to happen.

You readin' this Bioware? This is serious. ..

Modifié par NOD-INFORMER37, 15 octobre 2011 - 08:34 .

[Someone With Mass]

Ah, yes, the argument that a company will stay the same forever when it comes to gameplay, based on games that are over a decade old and that the previous games didn't have the new things.

[NOD-INFORMER37]

CptBomBom00 wrote...

NOD-INFORMER37 wrote...

Confused-Shepard wrote...

But seriously, why even bother? Is EA/Bioware missing a few brain cells? Who the heck are they competing with?

Its EA dude, they're like the tumor of the gaming world. Anyone/anything they get involved with something horribly bad happens, EVERY TIME. Just take a look at these links- 

  



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeGvZQdb4-I

Now some of that stuff would've been ok if they just kept it SEPERATE from the main game, but noooooo.

EA loves to screwed things up don't they?

I know, its sickening....

Modifié par NOD-INFORMER37, 15 octobre 2011 - 08:35 .

[Prince Zeel]

IsaacShep wrote...

Prince Zeel wrote...

3. Less resources on Single player
-If Bioware has to develop a co-op feature, the money has to split somewhere. I've yet to read 'good' evidence that suggests sp experience was finished, or any evidence that suggests that Bioware has infinite time and money.

Where your proof on this one? If MP was funded from singleplayer's budget, they would have to fire multiple SP developers to pay MP devs at Montral. That didn't happen.

cutting the money can mean anything from less features in singleplayer, to less staff, to less advertisment, to less gameplay hours. it can mean anything. Just cause you didn't "see" someone get fired, doesn't mean squat.

We both know EA games, they do not have infinite money. the money had to be split somewhere.

Modifié par Prince Zeel, 15 octobre 2011 - 08:36 .

[Computer_God91]

Prince Zeel wrote...
 ANYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH MP IS A TROLL. THIS I DO DECLARE.

No, anyone who acts like a moron while shooting down multiplayer is considered a troll. I don't agree with MP and I've yet to be called a troll, but that's because I'm not screaming my balls off and acting like a child. Like you are, or seem to.

[pfhorlorn]

I really wish people would stop throwing the term troll around so liberally. I'm not entering this "debate," by the by; I just wanted to say that.

Modifié par koopaonfire, 15 octobre 2011 - 08:33 .

[Prince Zeel]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Ah, yes, the argument that a company will stay the same forever when it comes to gameplay, based on games that are over a decade old and that the previous games didn't have the new things.

Yes, thats the argument I'm making.


Thank you very much Mass for proving me right.

Modifié par Prince Zeel, 15 octobre 2011 - 08:41 .

[GMagnum]

koopaonfire wrote...

I really wish people would stop throwing the term troll around so liberally. I'm not entering this "debate," by the by; I just wanted to say that.

[Prince Zeel]

Computer_God91 wrote...

Prince Zeel wrote...
 ANYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH MP IS A TROLL. THIS I DO DECLARE.

No, anyone who acts like a moron while shooting down multiplayer is considered a troll. I don't agree with MP and I've yet to be called a troll, but that's because I'm not screaming my balls off and acting like a child. Like you are, or seem to.

Get a grip. Arguing a certain side does not make you a troll. Also, I love this "acting like a child" bs. I am acting NO MORE childish than every pro-MP fan on this board. It just so happens that I am in the minoritiy, so I get the spot light.


As soon as you start throwing out arguments, we'll see how long you stay a Troll virgin.

[Lukertin]

By the way guys, Blizzard fans everywhere raged when it was announced that SC2 would have a single player campaign. People were upset that resources that should have been going towards balancing Multiplayer were instead devoted to creating a poorly constructed single player game that retconned the entirety of SC1 + BW, and as a result an imbalanced game was released, and is still imbalanced to this day.

[Prince Zeel]

Lukertin wrote...

By the way guys, Blizzard fans everywhere raged when it was announced that SC2 would have a single player campaign. People were upset that resources that should have been going towards balancing Multiplayer were instead devoted to creating a poorly constructed single player game that retconned the entirety of SC1 + BW, and as a result an imbalanced game was released, and is still imbalanced to this day.

Damn it man. They are just going to throw out BG1 and BG2 at you. No matter how different the situations is


Sorry guys. Just because it was the same company, doesn't mean its the same situation.

This is a great example of what's to come. time to shed those optimistic hopes and get REAL.

Modifié par Prince Zeel, 15 octobre 2011 - 08:41 .

[Prince Zeel]

Rezources wrote...

Zeel, you keep it so REAL.

Something this board has trouble dealing with.


Seriously, truth and logic must be a bannable offense.

[Someone With Mass]

Prince Zeel wrote...

Yes, thats the argument I'm making.


Thank you very much Mass for proving my right.

Oh, and here I thought the point was rather obvious.

Point is: Companies will always try something new, because that's how they'll earn more money or they'll learn what flies and what doesn't.

To say that the standard is the same as it was ten years ago is just a lie.

Is multiplayer in Mass Effect 3 a dooms-prophecy? Probably not, since they can just move on from it if it's not that effective.

Will it compromise the quality of the singleplayer? I have seen BioWare say that it won't based on the fact that separate studio is working on it and that it's just a co-op mode which is a entirely optional way to achieve the same goals you can in singleplayer.

That, and I haven't seen any evidence that suggests otherwise.

[shepskisaac]

Prince Zeel wrote...

cutting the money can mean anything from less features in singleplayer, to less staff, to less advertisment, to less gameplay hours. it can mean anything. Just cause you didn't "see" someone get fired, doesn't mean squat.

We both know EA games, they do not have infinite money. the money had to be split somewhere.

EA counts directly on increased sales thanks to MP so it is only logical they would be up for bigger investement and increased ME3 overall budget to allow MP. And by looking at how many conventions BioWare attended, the celebrity cast and expensive new movie composer, it doesn't look like they lack resources.

[Twaddlefish]

What was that game that had co-op and it made an impact on the main storyline?

Oh, Baldur's Gate 2. That's the puppy.

Anyway, the other big hitters, Bethesda and Obsidian, are exclusively developing single player campagins in a sandbox setting. By bringing a co-op multiplayer to the game, you are offering to share the experience of ME3 friends. Yes, it could be diabolical, but it could also be good.

Some people still don't seem to get the message that the multiplayer was developed completely separate from the SP, and after dropping over $300 million on The Old Republic, I'm sure EA would be fine with paying the salaries of a small time in Montreal for a few months.

[pfhorlorn]

Prince Zeel wrote...

This is a great example of what's to come. time to shed those opitmistic hopes and get REAL.

I'd like to point out that optimism is just as valid as pessimism, the latter of which you're exemplifying. I'm personally indifferent to all things unless they prove to me to think one way or the other; as such, I haven't formed a concrete opinion on multiplayer in ME3.

At first, I may think, "Well, that sounds like a bad idea," but I can't know for sure until I experience it. The same applies to other games. For example, I'm really looking forward to Skyrim. However, if I play it and it's buggy as hell with no coherent plot, my opinion will be shaped such that I dislike it.

Prelimenary discussion is fine, but this air on either side that "it's going to be fantastic/terrible, no room for doubt" is pretty grating.

[Someone With Mass]

Lukertin wrote...

By the way guys, Blizzard fans everywhere raged when it was announced that SC2 would have a single player campaign. People were upset that resources that should have been going towards balancing Multiplayer were instead devoted to creating a poorly constructed single player game that retconned the entirety of SC1 + BW, and as a result an imbalanced game was released, and is still imbalanced to this day.

Yeah, but BioWare isn't Blizzard.

[GMagnum]

Twaddlefish wrote...

What was that game that had co-op and it made an impact on the main storyline?

Oh, Baldur's Gate 2. That's the puppy.

Anyway, the other big hitters, Bethesda and Obsidian, are exclusively developing single player campagins in a sandbox setting. By bringing a co-op multiplayer to the game, you are offering to share the experience of ME3 friends. Yes, it could be diabolical, but it could also be good.

Some people still don't seem to get the message that the multiplayer was developed completely separate from the SP, and after dropping over $300 million on The Old Republic, I'm sure EA would be fine with paying the salaries of a small time in Montreal for a few months.

dam prince zeel sh\\itted on u the second u made this post

[Prince Zeel]

Someone With Mass wrote...


Oh, and here I thought the point was rather obvious.

Point is: Companies will always try something new, because that's how they'll earn more money or they'll learn what flies and what doesn't.

To say that the standard is the same as it was ten years ago is just a lie.

Is multiplayer in Mass Effect 3 a dooms-prophecy? Probably not, since they can just move on from it if it's not that effective.

Will it compromise the quality of the singleplayer? I have seen BioWare say that it won't based on the fact that separate studio is working on it and that it's just a co-op mode which is a entirely optional way to achieve the same goals you can in singleplayer.

That, and I haven't seen any evidence that suggests otherwise.

The point you were trying to make is obvious. Just not relevant. do you think I'm arguing against "Change" just because it's "Change".  or because it's a stupid idea?


well logic dictates, that new features, means the compromise has to be made somewhere. Unless they want to extend the development time again. So I'm not sure about this "no evidence". If you use your brain you'll see the evidence.

[Prince Zeel]

IsaacShep wrote...

Prince Zeel wrote...

cutting the money can mean anything from less features in singleplayer, to less staff, to less advertisment, to less gameplay hours. it can mean anything. Just cause you didn't "see" someone get fired, doesn't mean squat.

We both know EA games, they do not have infinite money. the money had to be split somewhere.

EA counts directly on increased sales thanks to MP so it is only logical they would be up for bigger investement and increased ME3 overall budget to allow MP. And by looking at how many conventions BioWare attended, the celebrity cast and expensive new movie composer, it doesn't look like they lack resources.

yay more celebrity voice actors. That's what I DEFINITELY want.

I've yet to hear about game length.  Ea game gives them resources to spend on the stupid glittery sh#t instead of what matters.
Leaving the game to rot away.

But yay, I get to listen to Seth green again.

[CptBomBom00]

Arnold Schwarzenegger as an European Judge.