Ce sujet est fermé
I am of the opinion of not agreeing with them. On the assumption that it is okay to list recent decisions made by Bioware about Mass Effect 3 and debate/discuss their relative merits, I'm writing this to list them and their impact and/or lack thereof on the MASS EFFECT 3 game and beyond.
So, what are the three biggest impact decisions that have been announced in relatively quick succession in this late stage of the Mass Effect 3 development cyle?
1. Kinect support
2. Coop
3. Multiplayer
These are all features that are now IN THE GAME and will NOT be being removed. So, what impact do they have and is that impact positive, negative or neutral?
Kinect:
It can certainly be argued that the decision to add support to this is entirely optional and has no impact on the overall Mass Effect 3 experience.
I would argue that this is not necessarily the case. Certainly, nobody is putting a gun to my head and forcing me to use the Kinect functionality, but on the other hand, what INDIRECT impacts could it have had on Mass Effect 3 and what we can expect to see?
I would like to introduce the concept of <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_cost">Opportunity Cost</A> .
Basically, the concept of opportunity cost is, "What could you have done instead?" Let's say you have $20 to spend and you decide to go get a pizza. The opportunity cost is you could have gotten a steak instead with your $20.
With me, the issue with adding Kinect is what you COULD HAVE DONE instead. Now, maybe you don't even have the $20 to begin with if you don't add Kinect. Maybe Microsoft gave you that $20 on the express condition that you go and buy a ****y pizza like Little Caesors.
But then the opportunity cost becomes the extra time added where you STILL HAVE PEOPLE WORKING ON THE GAME when you could have released the game without Kinect and had those resources devoted towards the NEXT game.
In other words, Opportunity Cost applies regardless. There's ALWAYS a next best option you could have chosen.
To me, I don't give a damn about Kinect and therefore ANY next available option that involves either releasing the game sooner or beefing up the single player in some way is a benefit. So I'd view this addition to ME3 as a potential negative given that, by definition, it has replaced something that I would have preferred.
Coop Mode
This mode caught a lot of people by surprise because, frankly, Bioware had very stridently talked about not having any form of multiplayer. While they never specifically ruled it out, they definitely implied that such would not happen.
Some fans might be turned off by the revelation that while simultaneously developing such a thing they were saying it was doing everything to make people think that they weren't. Therefore, by announcing such a thing late in the development cycle, they may in effect by springing an unpleasant surprise on fans who don't want this mode in the hopes of minimizing the impact on sales.
The positive interpretation by including this mode is that it is being billed as entirely optional in that it IS possible to get the "optimal" ending without ever playing the coop missions. The negative interpretation is that it immunizes players from their choices in previous games by giving them extra ways to build galactic readiness by doing the "optional" coop and/or it raises the bar on how much of the single player sidequests an individual has to do if they don't want to do the coop.
It is entirely possible that the amount of galactic readiness is unchanged, but this once again runs into the "Opportunity Cost" concept.
What could have been done with the added resources? How much quicker could the game have been released? Did Mass Effect 3 gain more fans than they lost by adding this mode and announcing it so late in the development cycle?
My personal view would be that it will not add as many new players as the amount of players who get deeply turned off by a combination of feeling mislead and/or abandoned by Bioware including a feature that was not a part of what they associated with the Mass Effect 3 brand before.
Multiplayer
The key thing to ask yourself with the inclusion of this feature is whether or not it adds or detracts from the Mass Effect 3 experience or is a net neutral.
This answer might vary depending on the type of gamer that you are. For a gamer like me, this stongly detracts because it both makes me feel like Bioware is abandoning me as a gamer and because it makes the game feel less story focused. I would associate it to the difference between Bioshock 1 and Bioshock 2.
Adding MP to Bioshock 2 did not generate a great deal more playtime or buyers, and the MP piece was not very popular, but it did have a large impact on the storyline. Bioshock 2's storyline was noticeably weaker and less focused than #1. The main villain was not nearly as interesting and compelling and the character development not as robust.
Naturally, these are all simply my opinions, but I felt that it made for an overall weaker singleplayer game without the upside of bringing in individuals attracted to MP. Does Mass Effect 3 risk the same dilution of it's brand and core concept by spreading itself too thin?
Once again, Opportunity Cost is a relevant factor to consider. Nobody was forcing Bioware to devote resources to this item. Unless it brings in a great many players that it otherwise would not have gotten, which is a questionable value proposition based on many other shooter titles that are EXCLUSIVELY FOCUSED on MP, or unless it is setting the stage for a MUCH STONGER emphasis on MP in future games, then what was the point of including this feature?
Modifié par BeefoTheBold, 28 octobre 2011 - 12:31 .
Retour en haut
