377 réponses à ce sujet

[Fiery Knight]

ZenJestr wrote...
In the Comic-Con demo, you could only play as Sheploo even though Femshep had a new default, that doesn't mean Manshep gets Soldier, Engineer, Sentinel, and Femshep gets Vanguard, Infiltrator, and Adept...

That's quite a poor analogy...

[Vanguard Of Destruction]

Remus Artega wrote...

so in short it's superfluous mediocre addon...there goes those tweets of how "awesome, amazing" the MP is going to be...

Yeah I kinda disregarded those tweets, since "Awesome" seems to be Bioware's buzzword these days... "EVERYTHING IN THIS GAME IS AWESOME!!" Doubt it, from all the responses it seems like the multiplayer is nothing but a meh at best.

[Someone With Mass]

Well, I can play it whenever I feel like and it's not forced on me, and that's all I'm asking for.

[Pattonesque]

RolandX9 wrote...

Mesina2 wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

Mesina2 wrote...

*sigh*

Bioware Montreal was founded in 2009 with hole point to assists other Bioware studios project.
In other words, a back up just in case.

Like for example, Bioware Montreal did every ME2 DLC since Overlord and now they're doing ME3 Co-Op.

Yes, those are the resources being wasted.  What's your point?

If they were doing nothing then resources would be wasted.
People in that studio have to be payed.

And doing DLC's already would be BS.

So no, resources are not wasted.

*sigh* You Fail Logic Forever.

A development team does not have limitless resources. Resources for any facet of a game mean resources not applied to another facet. Whether you think MP is a good idea or not, money devoted to hiring its developers is money not devoted to developing levels/characters/mechanics for the single-player. Can there be "force-multiplier" design, such as levels that can be shared between the single-player and multiplayer sections? Sure. But dollars are dollars, and no game budget is infinite. Look, just watch some Extra Credits episodes on game development. You'll get the idea.

As for the previews themselves...this is bad, bad news. It's one thing to be anti-multiplayer (which, full disclosure, I am), but it's another thing to watch the comments roll in and watch ME3's future Metacritic rating take a hit. Reviewers do mark down games for multiplayer that doesn't measure up, even if the SP is top of the class. I've seen reviews state this openly. I imagine most of you have too. This does not bode well. I'd rather no MP at all (especially since I'm a 360 owner who refuses to buy Gold), but if it has to be there, it has to be excellent. I'm actually a little stunned that Bioware didn't see this coming.

More likely scenario:

Mass Effect 3 sans multiplayer gets a budget of X dollars

The decision is made to add multiplayer.

Mass Effect 3 gets a budget of X plus Y dollars

Of course we could go with WOE AND DOOM AND GLOOM AND NERD TEARS AND CANCEL MY PREORDER BIOWARE

[DCarter]

From the gamespot article:

In multiplayer, the map you choose determines the set of enemies you will face. For this map, it was all Cerberus commandos; others may include the insectoid Collectors

Is that just speculation because i always assumed we'd wiped them out in ME2.

Modifié par DCarter, 27 octobre 2011 - 07:43 .

[CroGamer002]

RolandX9 wrote...

*sigh* You Fail Logic Forever.

A development team does not have limitless resources. Resources for any facet of a game mean resources not applied to another facet. Whether you think MP is a good idea or not, money devoted to hiring its developers is money not devoted to developing levels/characters/mechanics for the single-player. Can there be "force-multiplier" design, such as levels that can be shared between the single-player and multiplayer sections? Sure. But dollars are dollars, and no game budget is infinite. Look, just watch some Extra Credits episodes on game development. You'll get the idea.

If there was no Bioware Montreal, they would never had those resouces for Overlord, LotSB, Firepower, APP2, Arrival DLC's and ME3 MP from EA.

All resorces would have been taken from Bioware Edmonton.

Not just money, but people as well.
Some of this people would either be in Dragon Age team, Bioware Austion, Bioware Mythic or not to be in Bioware at all.


Bioware Montreal is a back up studio since 2009 and they're currently backing up Edmonton studio with ME3 MP with their back up resources, just like they did with ME2 DLC's since Overlord.

They are a back up.
They are not here to develop games like Bioware Edmonton, Austion, Mythic and Ireland!

As for the previews themselves...this is bad, bad news. It's one thing to be anti-multiplayer (which, full disclosure, I am), but it's another thing to watch the comments roll in and watch ME3's future Metacritic rating take a hit. Reviewers do mark down games for multiplayer that doesn't measure up, even if the SP is top of the class. I've seen reviews state this openly. I imagine most of you have too. This does not bode well. I'd rather no MP at all (especially since I'm a 360 owner who refuses to buy Gold), but if it has to be there, it has to be excellent. I'm actually a little stunned that Bioware didn't see this coming.

Who give's a sh*t about Metacritic?

Also at some point Portal 2 had very low score on that site.


And only thing press proved with complaints that ME3 Co-Op needs polishing.

[LGTX]

Metacritic is probably the only thing I give s**t about. Less bias, more statistics. The later after the release the better, of course.

That said, I see no reason as to why that would warrant the exclusion of an optional feature which has been discussed since the inception of the series and was finally realized with due quality. I don't care if actual resources were wasted or not, I'm sure the management did its homework and the end result compromised nothing on the SP side. 

Modifié par LGTX, 27 octobre 2011 - 08:05 .

[Mr. MannlyMan]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Well, I can play it whenever I feel like and it's not forced on me, and that's all I'm asking for.

You're in denial.

What I'm hoping for is a solid co-op experience that's noteworthy enough to keep the matchmaking alive for longer than 3 months; if that doesn't happen, then I'll hope at least that Bioware doesn't devote a ton of resources to upgrading/lengthening the MP portion of the game. I don't see much reason to bother with the co-op unless there's a substantial pool of players to jump in with; why play co-op by yourself when you could simply play the infinitely-more-interesting SP?

Really, colour me disappointed. I was hoping that any attempt at MP Bioware made would at least involve something novel and interesting, not just a hackneyed, less-engaging version of Horde Mode.

<_<

[maxpowers2525]

while many are being critical i think the main thing they are missing is the fact they only played a small snipid i am confident that when the game is seen as a whole with mp it will come off as a nice addition to a great game because the simple fact is if u dont want to fool with it you dont have to if you like coop then you will fool with it

[shepskisaac]

LGTX wrote...

Metacritic is probably the only thing I give s**t about. Less bias, more statistics. The later after the release the better, of course.

But MetaCritic is a collection of bias.

[Mr. MannlyMan]

Pattonesque wrote...

More likely scenario:

Mass Effect 3 sans multiplayer gets a budget of X dollars

The decision is made to add multiplayer.

Mass Effect 3 gets a budget of X plus Y dollars

Of course we could go with WOE AND DOOM AND GLOOM AND NERD TEARS AND CANCEL MY PREORDER BIOWARE

Even more likely scenario with ME3:

Mass Effect 3 sans MP gets a budget of X dollars.

The decision to add MP is made.

Mass Effect 3 gets a new budget of X plus Y dollars.

Y turns out to be less-than-adequate for developing a worthwhile multiplayer component (evident from what we've seen and heard so far), so resources from X are taken to compensate (manpower, not necessarily money), which in turn affects the resources being plugged into SP. (Also note, that this is most often the case when it comes to game development).

I mean, it's not like the producers will just go, "Oh, we need moar money, EA." If they want to perform well, they'll go to any length necessary to balance the allocated budget, even if that means taking manpower and resources away from the singleplayer and temporarily rerouting those towards the MP development. Which will happen if there's enough criticism of it.


So, you know, it's not black and white; there's more to it than just saying, "X + Y = MOAR BUDGET!!!" I wouldn't expect anything more from the fanboys on BSN, though. There's so much denial that goes on here, it's like f***ing trollnip.

Modifié par Mr. MannlyMan, 27 octobre 2011 - 08:21 .

[LGTX]

IsaacShep wrote...

LGTX wrote...

Metacritic is probably the only thing I give s**t about. Less bias, more statistics. The later after the release the better, of course.

But MetaCritic is a collection of bias.

Metacritic is an allocated average of ALL bias towards one product.

Which pretty much defines objectivity on the Internet.

[Mr. MannlyMan]

IsaacShep wrote...

LGTX wrote...

Metacritic is probably the only thing I give s**t about. Less bias, more statistics. The later after the release the better, of course.

But MetaCritic is a collection of bias.

So are public polls. It's still a good indicator of where a game stands and whether someone will be more apt to buy it.

[shepskisaac]

LGTX wrote...

IsaacShep wrote...

LGTX wrote...

Metacritic is probably the only thing I give s**t about. Less bias, more statistics. The later after the release the better, of course.

But MetaCritic is a collection of bias.

Metacritic is an allocated average of ALL bias towards one product.

Which pretty much defines objectivity on the Internet.

No, it's a selected bias. Not every publication under the sun is included, not every opinion of everyone who played the game is included. Metacritic is useful, but people's obsession and blind trust in it and other similar sites like RottenTomatoes is ridiculous.

Modifié par IsaacShep, 27 octobre 2011 - 08:21 .

[RyuGuitarFreak]

Lol the drell is Thane. I would love them to show customization options already for god's sake. January is far from now.

[Rivercurse]

There does seem to be a lot of misinformation floating about in these early reviews.  On the last page I mentioned that the first review I read said that the only classes the asari character could be were vanguards or adepts but aparently this is incorrect.

The second review said we'd face collectors on certain maps??  Can't see that being true either.  And the third one I read (think it was IGN) the guy said his soldier had adrenaline rush, but i'm pretty positive I saw a dev say that there were no time dilation effects in the MP..

[Someone With Mass]

Rivercurse wrote...

There does seem to be a lot of misinformation floating about in these early reviews.  On the last page I mentioned that the first review I read said that the only classes the asari character could be were vanguards or adepts but aparently this is incorrect.

The second review said we'd face collectors on certain maps??  Can't see that being true either.  And the third one I read (think it was IGN) the guy said his soldier had adrenaline rush, but i'm pretty positive I saw a dev say that there were no time dilation effects in the MP..

Well, as they say. You can't spell "ignorant" without IGN.

[Merchant2006]

So... in a nutshell everyone who's played it is asking "why?" and "it's a souless addon to ME which is not needed".

But... if I'm a completionist and I want to do everything possible (which I always do) then... I don't need to try this out as I can get all these galaxy points... right? Fine by me.

*Ignores MP*

[Rezear]

Gamersnet preview http://www.gamersnet..._3_multiplayer/  (Dutch)

Modifié par Rezear, 27 octobre 2011 - 08:40 .

[Jade Elf]

In case it's not been posted yet, the Gamestar MP preview(German): www.gamestar.de/spiele/mass-effect-3/artikel/mass_effect_3,45851,2561546.html

[Mr. MannlyMan]

Jade Elf wrote...

In case it's not been posted yet, the Gamestar MP preview(German): www.gamestar.de/spiele/mass-effect-3/artikel/mass_effect_3,45851,2561546.html

Is that a new pic I see?

http://www.gamestar.....cfm?pk=2257978

Modifié par Mr. MannlyMan, 27 octobre 2011 - 08:44 .

[Joey245]

Wow. This is quite a flame war we've got going on, isn't it?

I only read a few of the articles, so I may not have the full picture. But in any case, Mass Effect 3 multiplayer is still in the works. I'm not super excited, nor am I super bummed. I fall in the middle, and I will judge the Multiplayer by its own merits when it comes out.

If it's bad, I'll never touch it. If it's good, I'll play it. Simple as that.

I loved Mass Effect. I loved Mass Effect 2. I've loved Revelations, Ascension, and Retribution. I will probably love Mass Effect 3 as well.

To me, the Mass Effect Series is like a Peanut Butter and Jelly Sandwich. When it's good, it's really good, and when it's bad, it's still pretty good.

[LGTX]

IsaacShep wrote...

LGTX wrote...

IsaacShep wrote...

LGTX wrote...

Metacritic is probably the only thing I give s**t about. Less bias, more statistics. The later after the release the better, of course.

But MetaCritic is a collection of bias.

Metacritic is an allocated average of ALL bias towards one product.

Which pretty much defines objectivity on the Internet.

No, it's a selected bias. Not every publication under the sun is included, not every opinion of everyone who played the game is included. Metacritic is useful, but people's obsession and blind trust in it and other similar sites like RottenTomatoes is ridiculous.

Is this where I go defensive?

I'm not obsessed, as indicated by my root post. I just give it that little bit of credibility I don't to select reviews. Aaand statistics =/= point-perfect allocation, not in this case anyway. Whatever the pool from which the reviews are gathered, the bigger it is, the clearer the big picture. Two websites. Four websites. Fifteen. INFINITELY better than ONE. NOT perfect, yes, but BETTER. 

And if our discussion is heading towards the definition of a review and a bias, well, they're one and the same, ultimately. I guess that's enough off-topic.

[Prince Keldar]

I was thinking that maybe they will put it on a second disc and make it completely optional in regards to installing the multiplayer at all. Kind of like Oblivion GOY edition and the DLC's for that game.
Basically I am glad that it is 1. co-op and not multiplayer CoD style and 2. It doesn't include the same missions that is in the single player game and 3. you won't have to play it to get the best ending.
I guess this way is the lesser of two evils.

[Jade Elf]

Mr. MannlyMan wrote...

Is that a new pic I see?

http://www.gamestar.....cfm?pk=2257978

New or not, I haven't seen that 'shot before. And I do like that armour...