277 réponses à ce sujet

[Erszebeth]

Prince Zeel wrote...

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.

MP and SP are being made by two separate teams. It's not a question of time, it's only a question of ressources. Then again, there is some exemples of nice MP being made without having an effect on the SP (Uncharted 2, AC brotherhood...). I for one will wait before saying MP is gonna have in impact on SP's quality (appart from the galactic readiness thing, which is another can of worms).

I do think though that they've delayed the game after the DA2 debacle because it felt too much like an TPS.

Modifié par Erszebeth, 15 octobre 2011 - 09:50 .

[Someone With Mass]

Erszebeth 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.

Those.

Okay, here we go.

1. There's nothing wrong with BioWare trying to appeal to more people, since that's what all companies wants to do. To distribute their products to as many people as possible. If you don't like the multiplayer, simply don't play it.

2. It's a co-op mode which just acts as a alternative way for those who wants to play through some missions with their buddies and progress the singplayer at the same time. It's completely possible to get the best ending by playing solo.

3. The singleplayer is in the final stage and has been for some time.

Nor was the extra four months added for the multiplayer, mostly because it was done by another studio with Casey as the supervisor.

4. Does that really matter? Everyone must start somewhere.

5. For a game mode that's been developed in a different studio, I find that one to be very unlikely. Especially since ME3 has been in the works since before the release of ME2.

6. Adds nothing for YOU, perhaps, but I've seen some people that would gladly play this co-op mode rather than do the singleplayer alone.

Galactic readiness is not the only thing that determines the outcome, either.

[Josh123914]

I like how the OP asks why Bioware are implementing co-op if they aren't competing with anybody? well, if I was to hazard a guess it would be to stop stagnation, I'll give you guys a historical example:
China in the middle ages was on it's own with little to no oppostion with other nations so most scientific and medical advances came to a standstill, compare that to Europe at the same time where there were dozens of Countries and city states competing for dominance, when the 2 civilisations met centuries on, the Europeans quickly grasped hold of the east asian technology and was able to put it to much better use than the Inventors ever could. Why? Because of the afformentioned tension back in Europe, your country ALWAYS needed a leg up on your neighbours to prosper.

So why did I tell you all that? Well because imagine Bioware is China, No opposition in what their doing. Now imagine Europe is the CoD/Battlefield/Halo/Gears group of shooters, they're always trying to give you a reason to play their game, so when the 2 groups collide, and they will collide, you can tell because some of the shooters are giving you little RPG tweaks already (Be it full on Armor customisation in Halo to weapon loadout and classes in Battlefield)

Bioware's gonna want to be ready for it so they aren't gonna go out of business when newcomers join up.

P.S. Oh and that's another thing I've noticed on these forums, going back to what I said about all the shooters competing against each other, well, anyone else find it a little bit hypocritical that lots of users complain about Mass Effect becoming a Gears Clone for the Cheesy B-Movie-esque marketing and the Hulk-on-Steroids addition to the team James Vega (who is REQUIRED mind you) while Gears of War 3 marketing is all about the story and the sombre feeling that ''war is hell'' (y'know, probably the thing Mass Effect fans WANT in the marketing)?

[essarr71]

Josh123914 wrote...
P.S. Oh and that's another thing I've noticed on these forums, going back to what I said about all the shooters competing against each other, well, anyone else find it a little bit hypocritical that lots of users complain about Mass Effect becoming a Gears Clone for the Cheesy B-Movie-esque marketing and the Hulk-on-Steroids addition to the team James Vega (who is REQUIRED mind you) while Gears of War 3 marketing is all about the story and the sombre feeling that ''war is hell'' (y'know, probably the thing Mass Effect fans WANT in the marketing)?

Vega is hardly hulk on steroids.. Not that you've even seen him in any of the marketing, or that Gears doesn't have guys who would fit that description in their marketing pieces... or that ME3 has even had any major marketing as it won't be out for another 5 months.  But hey, spot on with the rest.  People here have indeed compared ME3 to GOW3.

Modifié par essarr71, 15 octobre 2011 - 10:44 .

[Euteras]

"Origin's new social features allow you to create a profile, connect and chat with your friends, share your game library, and effortlessly join your friends' games." From EA's "Why you want Origin page.

Multiplayer was added to create the need for Origin. They are not trying to compete with other games. They are shoving Origin down our throats.

[slimgrin]

#1 is Bethesda imo.
#2 is all the devs producing shooters, like Epic and Infinity ward. They've made it clear they want these fans.
#3 is CDPR. Their graphics, story telling, and dynamic narratives are eclipsing Bioware's.
#4, and the big one, will be Blizzard, as Bioware tries out MMO territory.

Modifié par slimgrin, 15 octobre 2011 - 11:11 .

[Shadesofsiknas]

I have to say I think the MP looks fun but will be dead after only a few months. Its a shame that the resources used on this will be wasted in the long run.

And all so EA can push Origin on us. Making all there games have MP so they can jusify making Origin mandatory. Thus they can force their spyware/DRM onto people.

Anybody who thinks BW decided they wanted MP is way off in my opinion. EA have made it so all games are required to have MP as part of the push of Origin.

Modifié par Shadesofsiknas, 16 octobre 2011 - 12:11 .

[Cousland001]

So this is what a flame war looks like.

[_NF_Von_Lipwig]

Pockles wrote...

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.

Zeel doesn't do anything so mundane as 'addressing' things, as far as I have been able to discern. He's far too busy trying to convince everyone that everything will be horrible, always and everywhere.



---

As others have said before me, in the industry EVERYONE is competition. Of course the 'war' between BF3 and MW3 is iconic and has a certain sense of glamour about it (in any case, the gaming magazines are upon it like reporters on some celebrity sex tape) but the industry in general isn't as clear cut as that. Every potential buyer is worth fighting for, and if you have to employ new tactics and apply new features to bring them in, you would be mad as a company not to do that.

[onelifecrisis]

Damn it. I go to bed and miss this!

Epic thread is epic. And I see Zeel is here! I'm going to page 1... I may be some time.

(place that line)

[Prince Zeel]

Alright back. I hope you fellow heathens didn't think you were debunking my arguments. Did you?

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

If you're making the point that Bioware forums aren't a representation of BIoware fans. I don't know where to begin with that ridiculous argument. Obviously, BSN isn't a 100% representation. It is however, the representation where it counts. the "hardcore" fans. People who really enjoyed the game and wanted to participate in more Bioware discussion. There's no way you can deny this. Check the romance section. Hardcore fans at it's bloody best. Also, if you want to strip away the forum as a representation, then fine, we can just look at how successful the game was without "multiplayer". 
Check metacritic, check anywhere. Where is this OUTCRY for multiplayer? Nonexistent. You guys made it up so you can pretend like Bioware was doing a good job by trying to milk more cash.

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.

I dont understand your analogy. It's fine to get new stuff. At the same time, if we had a car, and then decided we should replace the lights for spikes, so we could ram into cars. We can all agree that is a stupid idea? Right. I think you guys are trying to argue this "CHANGE IS GOOD". change is not always good. 

I'll say this, change is good when it's a progression. A snowbal effect. Improving things that need improving and focusing on areas the series is known for. 

Multiplayer is not that. Multiplayer is the unnecessary attachment.

Infact, if it was so "necessary" why wait till me3? why not implement it at 1? or 2? And if it was so necessary, why does it add nothing to the over all singleplayer game?

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.

well, couldn't I easily reverse this pitiful argument? We don't know that there are seperate budgets. the only thing we know is, Bioware attached a new multiplayer feature, from which funds have to come somewhere. If you need a source for that obvious deduction, you have serious medical problems.

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.

How is it "relevant"? They just attached some galaxy readiness crap, that they obviously spend less than 10 minutes brainstorming. I've yet to see anything CLOSE to relevant coming from the Co-OP. 

Let me correct you, i wasn't saying the MP failed because it wasn't inuitive. I'm saying, it's not a good enough comparison for this situation. The multiplayer in those games were really different. you play part of the party in the same world, same story. I don't know why people keep bringing it up, as if it's the same. 

You guys really need to think this through.

"something meaninful" capturing bloody points for GALAXY BROWNIE points is the exact opposite of meaningful. Why don't you sell this dish to someone who will buy it.

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.

What is you and this childish. If a olympic runner tells you he hasn't been training for the past year, and he's been eating nothing but junk. Do you expect a good performance? be real.

I'm just telling you, that if theres less resources, LESS TIME, and EA games behind the wheel. What are you expecting? The same me1 quality? Bah. dreamer

Modifié par Prince Zeel, 16 octobre 2011 - 12:24 .

[CAPSLOCK FURY]

WOO! He's back! Let the comedy continue.

[Prince Zeel]

lovgreno wrote...

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.

I think you're really bastarding the business model.

Bioware has been selling games well without this need to "appeal" to a broader market. Me1 me thinks did a good job. So did DA:O.

I think you guys want to believe the market has changed, which it has, but not that drastically. There is still a market for "hardcore" gamers. Bioware can survive comfortably on "hardcore" gamers and we can just leave these casual retards in the ditch their mothers gave birth to em.


If I don't like it, it's probably garbage. That's what I think. and i dont care how concieted you guys think I'm being. It's probably the closet an opinion can get to fact.

[Prince Zeel]

IsaacShep wrote...

]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?

oh yeah, that's great. sell more copies!!! I don't know how many people they think they can convince with this bullcrap. There's a bigfat 3 at the end of the title. Who reads that and thinks "OH THIS IS WHRE I SHOULD START".

ahahahahah Bioware. sometimes, jesus. It doesn't effect the quality, it's just a stupid lie. If they are willing to do such a STUPID LIE over something so SILLY, why do you think they wont lie to you about the quality of singleplayer?

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

fair enough. Bioware has been pretty good with the quality of games. Then EA games happened.

[Prince Zeel]

Pockles wrote...

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.

I was being pretty lazy there. I was quite tired of figuratively beating you guys down with a stick. It's like a zombie invasion and all I have is a golf club.


Anyways, let me try and remember what your argument was. "DIFFERNT COMPANY DIFFERENT BUDGET" 

Alot of you guys are making this stupid argument. Do you guys think Bioware can just recruit a company to make something for them and then theres no back and forth? discussions? money? shared between them? Working with another company IS still using Bioware's time. Who do you think is designing levels? characters? Dialogue? hiring voice actors? ???? Servers anyone? come on guys. is this so hard to think of?

[Prince Zeel]

Erszebeth wrote...


MP and SP are being made by two separate teams. It's not a question of time, it's only a question of ressources. Then again, there is some exemples of nice MP being made without having an effect on the SP (Uncharted 2, AC brotherhood...). I for one will wait before saying MP is gonna have in impact on SP's quality (appart from the galactic readiness thing, which is another can of worms).

I do think though that they've delayed the game after the DA2 debacle because it felt too much like an TPS.

Naw. It is a question of time. I address this in my previous post. you can't just "handaway" your project and hope it gets done. I expect there's daily back and forth between the companies, meetings, discussions all that good gib. Also, resources.


The galatctic readiness is a load of crap. I wish they just releast an ME3 DLC or some crap, instead of slapping this monstrosity.

I don't know if they care that much about DA2's debacle. I think they had to know. they were constantly going "NO QUALITY LOST" in the interviews, it almost seems like they were prepping theirselves for the inevitable blow.

[Lukertin]

Prince Zeel wrote...
I think you're really bastarding the business model.

Bioware has been selling games well without this need to "appeal" to a broader market. Me1 me thinks did a good job. So did DA:O.

I think you guys want to believe the market has changed, which it has, but not that drastically. There is still a market for "hardcore" gamers. Bioware can survive comfortably on "hardcore" gamers and we can just leave these casual retards in the ditch their mothers gave birth to em.


If I don't like it, it's probably garbage. That's what I think. and i dont care how concieted you guys think I'm being. It's probably the closet an opinion can get to fact.

I think you're bastardizing BioWare employees as robots who are content to do the substantially same things for every game they produce.

[CAPSLOCK FURY]

Lukertin wrote...
I think you're bastardizing BioWare employees as robots who are content to do the substantially same things for every game they produce.

How dare you have a different opinion?! Don't you know this is our Flaming Messiah?

[Ji99saw]

I feel like Zeel is the only person that still cares about the quality of the game and is just not accepting devs reassurance that everything will be ok, because we all know what happened with DA2, I'm going to buy the game but it is probably the last one from bioware, instead I'm going to go Cd project red for my RPGs they seem to be making games from the heart and not for a quick buck.

Modifié par Ji99saw, 16 octobre 2011 - 12:43 .

[Prince Zeel]

Lukertin wrote...

Prince Zeel wrote...
I think you're really bastarding the business model.

Bioware has been selling games well without this need to "appeal" to a broader market. Me1 me thinks did a good job. So did DA:O.

I think you guys want to believe the market has changed, which it has, but not that drastically. There is still a market for "hardcore" gamers. Bioware can survive comfortably on "hardcore" gamers and we can just leave these casual retards in the ditch their mothers gave birth to em.


If I don't like it, it's probably garbage. That's what I think. and i dont care how concieted you guys think I'm being. It's probably the closet an opinion can get to fact.

I think you're bastardizing BioWare employees as robots who are content to do the substantially same things for every game they produce.

Another absolutely sh#tty portrayal of my argument. Thank you dear god, I just cant get enough of this misinformation.

Modifié par Prince Zeel, 16 octobre 2011 - 12:44 .

[Prince Zeel]

Ji99saw wrote...

I feel like Zeel is the only person that still cares about the quality of the game and is just not accepting devs reassurance that everything will be ok, because we all know what happened with DA2, I'm going to buy the game but it is probably the last one from bioware, instead I'm going to go Cd project red for my RPGs they seem to be making games from the heart and not for a quick buck.

Godspeed brother.

Hopefully this Cd project red stays very far from EA games.

[Josh123914]

Prince Zeel wrote...

Lukertin wrote...

Prince Zeel wrote...
I think you're really bastarding the business model.

Bioware has been selling games well without this need to "appeal" to a broader market. Me1 me thinks did a good job. So did DA:O.

I think you guys want to believe the market has changed, which it has, but not that drastically. There is still a market for "hardcore" gamers. Bioware can survive comfortably on "hardcore" gamers and we can just leave these casual retards in the ditch their mothers gave birth to em.


If I don't like it, it's probably garbage. That's what I think. and i dont care how concieted you guys think I'm being. It's probably the closet an opinion can get to fact.

I think you're bastardizing BioWare employees as robots who are content to do the substantially same things for every game they produce.

Another absolutely sh#tty portrayal of my argument. Thank you dear god, I just cant get enough of this misinformation.

Well to be fair you are the person responsible for about 1/3 of the comments on this page (most if not all are in response to people you don't agree with) but it gets to a point where people just think you're looking for a reaction from everybody else.

You don't like the co-op? don't play it.

Afraid the single player will suffer? don't worry, they're being developed by different teams in different cities on a seperate budget.

Think the single player should have gotten that multiplayer money? It would have gone to waste because Bioware are fine with the budget they currently have(besides if co-op wasn't introduced EA wouldn't have given them it anyway)

Afraid the multiplayer sucks? Nothing of value was lost.

And Yes I fully expect you to respond to this and hopefully keep it civil.

Even I was not a big fan of co-op being implemented but there is a line that should not be crossed on forums to keep almost every thread from descending into flame wars ..... and you crossed that line at least 15 minutes ago.

Modifié par Josh123914, 16 octobre 2011 - 01:00 .

[shepskisaac]

Prince Zeel wrote...

oh yeah, that's great. sell more copies!!! I don't know how many people they think they can convince with this bullcrap. There's a bigfat 3 at the end of the title. Who reads that and thinks "OH THIS IS WHRE I SHOULD START".

Quite alot it seems:

[Bcuz]

That original post was so idiotic it almost made me support multiplayer.
Almost.

Modifié par Bcuz, 16 octobre 2011 - 01:03 .

[Savber100]

Ji99saw wrote...

I feel like Zeel is the only person that still cares about the quality of the game and is just not accepting devs reassurance that everything will be ok, because we all know what happened with DA2, I'm going to buy the game but it is probably the last one from bioware, instead I'm going to go Cd project red for my RPGs they seem to be making games from the heart and not for a quick buck.

lol... wait 10-15 yrs and CDPR would probably be the same as everyone. 

Mind you, I love CDPR but I'm amused how Witcher fans are treating CDPR as the "savior of RPGs" just because they have a nice pedigree just as Bioware did before DA2 (and yes, I loved ME2). 

Funny how people forget so fast after a single mediocre game or when the company starts to become popular beyond the hardcore RPG crowd. <_<