277 réponses à ce sujet

[Prince Zeel]

Does no one want to debunk any of the brilliant arguments I listed?


That's right. 

Modifié par Prince Zeel, 15 octobre 2011 - 09:11 .

[Erszebeth]

Prince Zeel wrote...

Does no one want to debunk any of the brilliant arguments I listed?


That's right. 

I think they are not inflamatory enough to gather enough attention

[Erszebeth]

Prince Zeel wrote...

LISTING OUT ARGUMENTS FOR EVERYONE:

1. No appeal to core me series fan
 -Most fans here weren't asking for MP. That's because we played me1 and 2 single campaign and were more than satisified.

2. Slapped on. the past two games had no multiplayer.
 -if the past two games didn't include mp. there is no argument good enough to explain how "seemless" the new multiplayer feature will be.

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.

4. Bioware isn't the best at Co-op
-Very little experience. BG1 and BG2 and NWN had different types of multiplayers. Not shooters. the multiplayers in these games just made you become apart of the party. Not very "inuitive" really. The new mp for me3 is a WHOLE new feature. with "galax readiness"

5. Shorter Development cycle
-game will suffer, less time, less experience.

6. Adds nothing to the series
-Literally nothing. this galaxy readiness is such a slap.

Those.

[Abispa]

Since I'm a grown up and don't have the luxury of begging my mom to buy ME3 for me for Christmas, I appreciate that ME3 will be out AFTER the holidays allowing me more money to spend on others instead of myself.

Short answer to the headline of this thread? ME3 is competing with EVERYTHING else a player can spend his/her $60 on.

[Prince Zeel]

essarr71 wrote...

Prince Zeel wrote...
See, I can be optimistic. I just need a logical reason to be.

Logical does not = what I want in MY perfect idea of a game.

It's been said by the devs that SP won't suffer.. now you can chose not to believe them, but you can't deny that as a credible source of information.

Fact is you've spent days spaming threads about how horrible this addition will be, and regardless of how your asumptions about them are, I'm curious how much more gas you have to burn on it.  If you were as logical as you claim to be, you'd realize posting the same thing over and over without getting any results is a waste of your time.

People are crying troll because they're tired of hearing it. 

Bioware has made these BS promises before. DRAGON AGE 2. They cut the development time, yet insisted, NO QUALITY LOST!!!

When it's their word versus logic. Which one do you choose?


check metacritic.


Well, I'm not tired of saying it. So there just gonna have to deal with it.

[alex90c]

Prince Zeel wrote...

Does no one want to debunk any of the brilliant arguments I listed?


That's right. 

Well the thing is, they're that brilliant that we've all decided not to waste our breath trying to break your 100% watertight arguments. Because they're that good.

Modifié par alex90c, 15 octobre 2011 - 09:22 .

[Prince Zeel]

Abispa wrote...

Since I'm a grown up and don't have the luxury of begging my mom to buy ME3 for me for Christmas, I appreciate that ME3 will be out AFTER the holidays allowing me more money to spend on others instead of myself.

Short answer to the headline of this thread? ME3 is competing with EVERYTHING else a player can spend his/her $60 on.

I don't think his/her point was about the release date, more about the features.


Though to be fair to Bioware, moving it to christmas is a good way to get 60 bucks from those grandparents who will buy it for their children.

[Prince Zeel]

alex90c wrote...
Well the thing is, they're that brilliant that we've all decided not to waste our breath trying to break your 100% watertight arguments. Because they're that good.

Irony?



...right?

[essarr71]

Prince Zeel wrote...

LISTING OUT ARGUMENTS FOR EVERYONE:

1. No appeal to core me series fan
 -Most fans here weren't asking for MP. That's because we played me1 and 2 single campaign and were more than satisified.

2. Slapped on. the past two games had no multiplayer.
 -if the past two games didn't include mp. there is no argument good enough to explain how "seemless" the new multiplayer feature will be.

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.

4. Bioware isn't the best at Co-op
-Very little experience. BG1 and BG2 and NWN had different types of multiplayers. Not shooters. the multiplayers in these games just made you become apart of the party. Not very "inuitive" really. The new mp for me3 is a WHOLE new feature. with "galax readiness"

5. Shorter Development cycle
-game will suffer, less time, less experience.

6. Adds nothing to the series
-Literally nothing. this galaxy readiness is such a slap.

1. How many active members does this forum have?  Do we even make up 1% of ME sales?

2. Yeah, it's like a new car getting new stuff when the new model comes out, instead of, you know, the same exact car as the year before.  ME1-ME2 had changes.  Could be good or bad, but it's not like things werent going to be different.

3. Source?  We don't know what the budget was or what went on.  We do know it made in a seperate office by a seperate crew.  Maybe the same budget, but again... source.

4. So you claim they failed at MP because it wasn't intuitive, so now they made it relevant and it's still a problem?  That's just childish.  They could easily have made it entirely seperate from the series but instead wanted to give players a chance to do something meaningful together... oh god, the horror.

5. And you know it'll suck, how?  Again, just childish.  Deep breath.  paper bag.  I know this will be hard to swallow, but you might actually enjoy it.

[essarr71]

Prince Zeel wrote...

essarr71 wrote...

Prince Zeel wrote...
See, I can be optimistic. I just need a logical reason to be.

Logical does not = what I want in MY perfect idea of a game.

It's been said by the devs that SP won't suffer.. now you can chose not to believe them, but you can't deny that as a credible source of information.

Fact is you've spent days spaming threads about how horrible this addition will be, and regardless of how your asumptions about them are, I'm curious how much more gas you have to burn on it.  If you were as logical as you claim to be, you'd realize posting the same thing over and over without getting any results is a waste of your time.

People are crying troll because they're tired of hearing it. 

Bioware has made these BS promises before. DRAGON AGE 2. They cut the development time, yet insisted, NO QUALITY LOST!!!

When it's their word versus logic. Which one do you choose?


check metacritic.


Well, I'm not tired of saying it. So there just gonna have to deal with it.

Read.

I said you can chose not to believe it.  You, however, chose to just sprout info without any source.  My source might be wrong, but at least it comes FROM the company that's producing the game and not my imagination.

[Pockles]

Prince Zeel wrote...

LISTING OUT ARGUMENTS FOR EVERYONE:

1. No appeal to core me series fan
 -Most fans here weren't asking for MP. That's because we played me1 and 2 single campaign and were more than satisified.

2. Slapped on. the past two games had no multiplayer.
 -if the past two games didn't include mp. there is no argument good enough to explain how "seemless" the new multiplayer feature will be.

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.

4. Bioware isn't the best at Co-op
-Very little experience. BG1 and BG2 and NWN had different types of multiplayers. Not shooters. the multiplayers in these games just made you become apart of the party. Not very "inuitive" really. The new mp for me3 is a WHOLE new feature. with "galax readiness"

5. Shorter Development cycle
-game will suffer, less time, less experience.

6. Adds nothing to the series
-Literally nothing. this galaxy readiness is such a slap.

These arguments are not especially objectionable.

As for 3, I thought multiplayer was being developed with a budget and team seperate from that of single player. Meaning that money was not subtracted from single player and added to multiplayer. Instead, more money was commited to one with no cost to the other.

This is just my impression from the MP debacle, though.

[Mr.Pink]

Confused-Shepard wrote...

When I first heard that Mass Effect 3 was going to have multiplayer, I laughed my ass out. Then I heard that it was going to be 4-player Co-Op and you can choose species and class, a tear of joy came out of my eye as I realized that wittle casey wudson was all grown up now. 

But seriously, why even bother? Is EA/Bioware missing a few brain cells? Who the heck are they competing with? I mean it's one thing to have co-op or competetive player in games like Saints Row & Assassin's Creed respectively, both of which offer a unique gameplay experience than just run & gun. On the other hand Mass Effect with it's rather cookie cutter, by the book, cover based, third person combat, broken only by the liberal application of powers seems like a poor choice to put multiplayer in.

I'm sorry Bioware Montreal (they are developing the Co-Op) but most won't touch your hard word because people don't play Mass Effect for the experience of consuming cheetos, drinking mountain dew and fightin **** with their homies. They play it for the charecters, exploration, the lore, the galactic scale, the science fiction etc.

Who are you competing with? Modern Warfare 3, Gears of War 3 & EA's own Battlefield 3? You think developers dedicated to multiplayer who have been doing this for years will suddenly be usurped by a bunch of newcomers? People would rather play those games for their multiplayer 3rd person combat. Talk about wasting your time. 

Not to mention that while back in the day even games like Deus Ex (some of the custom maps were CRAZY!) & Neverwinter Nights had multiplayer and was considered a welcome addition but that was in the hey day of PC games. Now multiplayer is miostly the realm of drunkard fratboys and immature 12 year old reatrds screaming obseneties into a mic. These people are unforyunately more common than smart, mature people who also play games.

Sure, we'll all give it a go. But then stop when we realize it doesn't have the magic of singleplayer and is just us and 3 friends on a frentic shooting spree while spouting species appropriate dialogue/game quotes and maybe making the Krogan teabag the Asari while the Salarian makes sex noises and the Turian watches in abject horror. 

Don't feel bad. It's good you gave it a try. But then don't feel bad when people stop paying attention to the co-op and EPIC or DICE show up at your doorstep and pinch your cheeks while declaring, "AWWW! Look at wittle Bioware thinking they can play ball (multiplayer) with the big boys"

Again, nice try Bioware but you just wasted a ton of money & time.
Mass Effect will always be the handsome geek to the mutated monster jocks of multiplayer shooters

I'll play it, and I'm a ME junkie. 

[Prince Zeel]

essarr71 wrote...


Read.

I said you can chose not to believe it.  You, however, chose to just sprout info without any source.  My source might be wrong, but at least it comes FROM the company that's producing the game and not my imagination.

You are still not following me.
this is logic.

less time = less quality. LOGIC? LOGIC! LOGIC! this isn't imagination

Also, DA2 could be used as evidence of Bioware's tendacy to lie about quality to reassure gamers. Though I dont think we need evidence for that. That's just something Corporations do.

[Prince Zeel]

Pockles wrote...

Prince Zeel wrote...

LISTING OUT ARGUMENTS FOR EVERYONE:

1. No appeal to core me series fan
 -Most fans here weren't asking for MP. That's because we played me1 and 2 single campaign and were more than satisified.

2. Slapped on. the past two games had no multiplayer.
 -if the past two games didn't include mp. there is no argument good enough to explain how "seemless" the new multiplayer feature will be.

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.

4. Bioware isn't the best at Co-op
-Very little experience. BG1 and BG2 and NWN had different types of multiplayers. Not shooters. the multiplayers in these games just made you become apart of the party. Not very "inuitive" really. The new mp for me3 is a WHOLE new feature. with "galax readiness"

5. Shorter Development cycle
-game will suffer, less time, less experience.

6. Adds nothing to the series
-Literally nothing. this galaxy readiness is such a slap.

These arguments are not especially objectionable.

As for 3, I thought multiplayer was being developed with a budget and team seperate from that of single player. Meaning that money was not subtracted from single player and added to multiplayer. Instead, more money was commited to one with no cost to the other.

This is just my impression from the MP debacle, though.

Arguments 1, 2,4 and 6.


Consider yourself debunked.

[shepskisaac]

Prince Zeel wrote...

Also, DA2 could be used as evidence of Bioware's tendacy to lie about quality to reassure gamers. Though I dont think we need evidence for that. That's just something Corporations do.

Tendency? They've released 1 bad game so far, it's can't even be described as tendency lol. If DA2 is an evidece of their lies, than what are all the other games they created?

[Balek-Vriege]

Curunen wrote...

Funkcase wrote...

Most fans didn't want multiplayer Zeel, I for one didn't want it, although now that I've heard what it is I'm going to give it a chance as it does sound fun and hopefully the main game wont be effected by it. I will reserve my judgment on it until then.

We have reached concensus and are in agreement.

I think the vast majority think this way.  People didn't want multiplayer or didn't care as long as it didn't effect SP or the development of ME as a whole.  The way Bioware is going about multiplayer from the announcement seems to be the best case scenario for implementing it.  Like I posted on another thread, ME MP will be story/plot driven coop missions with an overarching strategic theme, with rewards for SP which can all be achieved in singleplayer anyways, is completely seperate from SP and was developed by a completely different set of Devs geared towards MP development.

Sumply put:  Regardless of coop missions, the main part of the game remains unchanged and will be the same product that would have came out if MP wasn't developed.  This seems to be the biggest misundertanding in that people just think "Bioware" and not "Bioware: Edmonton" or "Bioware: Montreal."

The only difference to those who don't plan on playing multiplayer is an added option in the game menu, disk space and whatever they plan to do with online requirements.  Other than that, what or who does it hurt to add plot-based co-op?  Not capture the flag, not free for all, not king of the hill PVP multiplayer.  Not even coop SP, but plot driven secondary coop/strategy missions which loosely tie into the main story?

Or does it hurt some people because they don't want others playing Mass Effect and enjoying multiplayer at the same time?  Maybe the question shouldn't be:
 
"Who is Bioware competing with exactly?"

So much as:

"Who are these people vehemently against Co-op competing with exactly?"

Many arguments from those who don't want coop even touching ME3 seem to be arguing more that MP lovers = don't belong "here" rather than multiplayer = drawback because of x,y,z.  Playing Mass Effect isn't an exclusive club for those who like singleplayer hardcore RPGs and like to complain about multiplayer games, shooters, action games and action RPGs (ME has always been an action RPG, not hardcore).

To answer the OP's question though, Bioware is really competing with all other titles in the gaming industry.  The more well thought out additions they can add while keeping development economically viable the better.  There's been some whispers even on BSN about wanting a Mass Effect strategy/spinoff game of sorts after ME3.  Looks like the series is getting that a little early as an MP feature in ME3.  I'm game.

[Prince Zeel]

IsaacShep wrote...

Prince Zeel wrote...

Also, DA2 could be used as evidence of Bioware's tendacy to lie about quality to reassure gamers. Though I dont think we need evidence for that. That's just something Corporations do.

Tendency? They've released 1 bad game so far, it's can't even be described as tendency lol. If DA2 is an evidece of their lies, than what are all the other games they created?

They are still lying about the "ME3 GREAT PLACE TO START FOR NEW PLAYERS"

we can go through all the lies if you want. I just picked the best one.

[essarr71]

Prince Zeel wrote...

essarr71 wrote...


Read.

I said you can chose not to believe it.  You, however, chose to just sprout info without any source.  My source might be wrong, but at least it comes FROM the company that's producing the game and not my imagination.

You are still not following me.
this is logic.

less time = less quality. LOGIC? LOGIC! LOGIC! this isn't imagination

Ok LOGICLOGICLOGIC..  This isn't a MP argument.  The ENTIRE game had the same dev time.

I agree with you that Bioware has lost a lot of cred recently.  But if you'll stop listening to yourself fo a second, I'm just saying MY SOURCE is the one that knows whats up.  You have your opinion.  You have good reason to not believe Bioware, but stop saying I'm not following you because I'm telling you what we KNOW and not what we FEEL.

Modifié par essarr71, 15 octobre 2011 - 09:34 .

[Kane Corr]

Bioware is making this the fullest/best experience possible. By adding more content they are insuring that no stone be left unturned in this particular storyline. Honestly, the coop experience was amazing in Splinter Cell Conviction- and I'm thinking Mass 3 will be closer to that example. Either way, this is in no way a bad thing at all. The more content we're given, then the better off our experience will be. (speaking for this specific game and company of course.)

[tobynator89]

bioware doesn't really have any competitors in their genre. No one has really made a game where the characters are in focus as much as them. only obsidan and atari with KOTOR 2 and NVN 2 come close and it's no coincidence that both of those are sequels to previous bioware games. The witcher games are too different IMO storytellingwise seeing as they focus on 1 person and never seem to harbour much focus beyond geralt.

[lovgreno]

BioWareis basicaly competing with everyone who offers us entertainment in exchange of our money. Therefore they have to do what everyone creating a potentialy attractive product do:

1. Create a basic concept.
2. Make said concept attractive for as many potential buyers as possible.

They have already created the basic, and sucessfull, concept with ME1. With ME2 and 3 they try to make it popular with as many as possible. Considering this a multiplayer function is perhaps not a bad gamble from BiWare.

Of course it may not be what I personaly want, even though I greatly enjoyed ME1 and 2 (if I didn't I wouldn't waste my time on these forums) but if they think they can win two buyers at the cost of my money that is a decision I understand and support. I will certanly not decide that the producer and all the games they create will inevitably suck just because I don't get what I personaly want. Just because I don't like something doesn't mean that no one else isn't allowed to enjoy it.

[shepskisaac]

Prince Zeel wrote...

They are still lying about the "ME3 GREAT PLACE TO START FOR NEW PLAYERS"

Well duhhhhh, they want people who didn't play ME3 and may be scared they wouldn't get the plot to buy the game. And BTW, what does it have to do with quality?

Prince Zeel wrote...
we can go through all the lies if you want. I just picked the best one.

Actually, it's the only one you can call out on them regarding promised quality

Modifié par IsaacShep, 15 octobre 2011 - 09:44 .

[Pockles]

Prince Zeel wrote...
Arguments 1, 2,4 and 6.


Consider yourself debunked.

I can't be debunked like that, since I did not say I was for or against multiplayer, and I did not present an argument in favor of either. I just put into question the validity of one of your arguments. You didn't really address this.

Modifié par Pockles, 15 octobre 2011 - 09:47 .