280 réponses à ce sujet

[AdmiralCheez]

jreezy wrote...

It's okay to be a fanboy of Cheez. Most people on here seem to be. Except me, I'm a rebel that way.

I should start posting really unflattering pictures of myself.  That will put an end to it in no time.

Oh wait, I have one:

[Sedman211]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

jreezy wrote...

It's okay to be a fanboy of Cheez. Most people on here seem to be. Except me, I'm a rebel that way.

I should start posting really unflattering pictures of myself.  That will put an end to it in no time.

Oh wait, I have one:

........I should go.

[slimgrin]

Sedman211 wrote...

AdmiralCheez wrote...

jreezy wrote...

It's okay to be a fanboy of Cheez. Most people on here seem to be. Except me, I'm a rebel that way.

I should start posting really unflattering pictures of myself.  That will put an end to it in no time.

Oh wait, I have one:

........I should go.

What a babe.

[Bryy_Miller]

BeefoTheBold wrote...

There have been a number of large revelations on the development of Mass Effect 3 recently that have come to light. Some people agree with them and some do not.

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?

Unless you're on the dev team, I really don't think you can comment on what they cut from the game or could have put into it.

[DiebytheSword]

BeefoTheBold wrote...

DiebytheSword wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

The end of a war story that's more focused on the action?

Nah. That'd just be stupid.

This is pretty much how I feel, and I seen no reason for the MP aspect to subtract from the SP, or even speculation that it might, because the game is not here yet.  When I see people complaining about an optional mode that they will not use it just boggles my mind.  And there has been a lot of it.

It will be roughly the same experience as 1&2.  It will have great moments, lots of dialogue, shooting inbetween, character development and a glorious ending with your choices being at least partially represented throughout.

It will never match a tabletop RPG, ever, because it cannot deliver new content on the fly that best suits the individual players.  It will always be CRPG, and complaining about it having been watered down by multiplayer is akin to saying it will be a paler shadow of a true RPG.

Bioware is doing just fine.  I install their game (not neccesarily on my platform of choice), and I play it and I am entertained by it for 40+ hours.  It was now money well spent and a fond memory.

Am I to understand that by having an additonal menu item that you will not use that it somehow subtracts from the above scenario?

Allow me to expand my position; I don't see how a multiplayer aspect, who's assets would mainly include artists and coders, could somehow impact the main game.  The writers did not spend great time on MP, as we've pointed out (barbs and barbarism aside), and they certainly have not used up the voice talent, or grabbed people out of production of the main game.  Then that would leave workstations and money as the complaint.  How would these resources enrich the main Bioware facility?  They couldn't.  More people writing means more plotholes.  More people drawing maaaaaaay help, but then you need to get all the other people involved.  Now you are running into issues with diminishing returns.  Its not possible to have not done MP and just abosrb those resources, you would need to add time to development costs to make new single player content, and yes, that is an unreasonable request.  Time is money, and investments need to be returned.

It was a seperate team, with seperate materials that wouldn't have given you what you want out of cancelling MP dissapearing, seperate money that wouldn't have given you what you want out of cancelling MP.

Your problem then should logically extend into ME2, who some feel had less RPG elements.  MP shouldn't matter in the least, there or not.

The game may have been releasable sooner, but as its not done yet that is yet to be seen.  And with a second team doing the multiplayer, it seems unlikely that this is the case (unless the team is playing too much MP).

The resources could not help because time is an overhead you cannot avoid.  To add money and people to a project presents more problems in the long run than it fixes, and it will require that the development team work longer.  A team has the resources to meet its goal, or it does not.  Adding people does not always make it better, nor does it make it happen faster.

Thus you want it both faster and better, both of which are mutually exclusive.

Since we're bringing in economics, you should read up on

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diminishing_returns

The concept goes thusly, Adding co-workers to a factory floor seems like a good way to get production up, but production is a factor of materials, personell, and time.  You can only increase materials and personell, so at some point you are just costing yourself more money adding employees, creating a shortage of materials and causing overcrowded work enviroments.  At this point, you are actually adding in more resources than you are returning product.

If Single Player devs had what they needed, then Opportunity Costs cannot be applied, as adding in money and computers and employess would return lower and lower results.  Time is a constant, and it does defeat anything else that can be played in the Opportunity Cost argument.  Adding more people to decision, artistic, and utiltiy posts can actually make things worse.

And now I should get back to work

I find that I like your posts, even if I don't agree with them.

I have a few disconnects with what you said.

I DON'T think choices have been carried over in any way, shape or form in any game since the EA merger.

Whether it was Awakenings, DA2 or ME2...nothing of what you did previously had any material impact. Awakenings came closest, and not coincidentally it was the game released soonest after the merger. But even that game, unless you were a human noble, nothing you did in DAO really mattered.

Hell, you needed a PATCH to get a single paragraph explanation of where your love interest from DAO was. Seriously, if that doesn't explan how little thought is being given to character choices I don't know what will be. Someone needed to tell them to patch the game to have a note in your inventory that where your love interest is  and why they aren't there matters?

But you see similarities everywhere else. In DA2, they abandon the Warden completely. He isn't even mentioned. There's probably 10 minutes worth of impact of your choices from DAO in the entire game. In ME2? 

Well, let's just say the biggest decision in ME1 was saving the council or not and it has ZERO impact on ME2.

Now, to be fair, it's the middle game of the series and, by definition, filler. But there was almost no impact on what you did in the first game to be found. The first game may as well not even have existed other than you get some bonus credits/resources for importing a character from the first game.

The issue that I have is that:

Fine. Seperate studios. Great.

Your previous TWO main release games (ME2 and DA2) and your previous major expansion (Awakenings) were ALL hugely lacking for storyline impact of choice. YES there's opportunity cost because those resources you shoved MP's way COULD be going towards fixing these items.

Putting them anywhere else makes me wonder if they CARE about those items. Trying something new is what you do when you've done the previous things you've tried RIGHT. You don't do that when you ****ed up the more recent stuff you've done.

Thanks for the compliment, especially after the way I've mistreated you in prior posts.  Again, I am truly sorry.

That said, I generally enjoy reading your posts as well, but I was at my limit on many things, another MP complaint made me pop.  You shouldn't have been the target of my steam release.

I'm not sure I'm as annoyed about DA2 as you are.  Was it rough?  Absolutely.  But again, DA2 had a change in leadership, abandoment of the original hero in favor of one they could control more, and unfair time constraints.  DA2 certainly could have benefitted from more time, resources, human or otherwise, and of course not barely aknowledging our prior hero in the world.  If DA2 had a MP component your complaint would be validated, however, it did not.  I certainly agree that the choice imports were weak, but I disagree on the reasons why.  Like ME3, I will wait for DA3 to see just how ignored my import is.  DA2 is not only the middle of a story, but the begining of a new character's story.  They were impossible design decisions thrust on them for whatever reason, and could never be resolved in a way we would have liked.  ME2, similarly, and as you yourself point out, is the middle of a story that takes place largely on the other side of the galactic map.  Should ME3 prove to be the same in regards to save imports, you will have been validated.  Until then, neither I, nor you, can be right.

If you are talking about going back to DA2 and ME2 and fixing them with DLC out of the resources used on Multiplayer, I don't think you're speaking from a financially sound business decision stand point.  You are talking from the standpoint of a wounded fan who wants his games to be made to meet your expectations.  Hindsight is wonderful, but revisiting old things isn't always cost effective either, indeed, some of these things may not be as fixable as you believe.  I have a background in computer science, and while my experience in game development is very small, it is enough to tell me that resources spent on patching is better spent on the next version.  Bug squashes are time intensive and very difficult to implement across multiple platforms.

[DiebytheSword]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

jreezy wrote...

It's okay to be a fanboy of Cheez. Most people on here seem to be. Except me, I'm a rebel that way.

I should start posting really unflattering pictures of myself.  That will put an end to it in no time.

Oh wait, I have one:

Also this, this is the hotness that makes me salivate at the thought of MP coop.  Cheezy, please promise me you'll wear those glasses  and that hat/hood/scarf thing when we play MP together.  We'll laugh, we'll cry, we'll talk about Garrus Bacarian, and we'll even remind you what class you are.

[sympathyforsaren]

Cracks fingers.

What makes the same people who post over and over again in here think they are the majority? Like posting and high fiving all over threads, disrespecting dissenting opinions with rudeness and immaturity makes you the majority? I am hardly on the ME forums anymore, and I assume I'm not alone.

There have been many wrong development decisions, most notably the continued evolution into being more and more a straight up third person shooter. I also suspect BioWare recognizes this, as rpg catch phrases being used like a politician have been used more and more in interviews.

I suspect and infer that multiplayer has finally solidified for many how much of a tps this is and tipped the balance of disgust and non-interest in the endless narrow corridors and shooting.

[111987]

didymos1120 wrote...

OhHiDoggy wrote...

I agree with you so much it hurts.
I like the idea of floating through space more or less on my lonesome. Even though I am a 42 year old man I like to put green glow in the dark stars on my ceiling and then turn the light off and stare at them while quietly humming Space Oddity.

Now, instead, I'm gonna be in a party full of 12 year olds who question my sexuality 40 times a game. I didn't go to 'Nam for this crap.

If you're 42, you didn't go to 'Nam at all.  You would have been 5 or 6 years old when the war ended.

:lol:

[fdgvdddvdfdfbdfb]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

BeefoTheBold wrote...

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

BeefoTheBold wrote...

Kind of my point. EternalAmbiguity was laughing at someone listing AC as an EA item.

I meant to clarify that what she was laughing at was that Ubisoft did that series, not EA. Didn't mean to imply that was no longer the case going forward.

Dangit, Cheez you're not the only one.

Male?

Aye.

Edit: Ninja'd by Cheez! (and I'm totally not a fanboy, by the way)

Living up to your name then?

[didymos1120]

jreezy wrote...

Nice sunglasses!...Or goggles!...Or both.

The question is...do the goggles do anything?

Modifié par didymos1120, 28 octobre 2011 - 05:52 .

[CroGamer002]

Sedman211 wrote...

Maybe there's an EA trend starting here for completely random MP modes in SP games:

Assassin's Creed
Mass Effect
Dead Space
Crysis

If this keeps up, we WILL see it in Dragon Age next.

Let's ignore that Assassin's Creed is Ubisoft game and they wanted to put multiplayer from start but couldn't with current engine, let's see your flaws.

Crysis had multiplayer since the first one and it's very common for FPS to have multiplayer.

And in case you didn't know, Bioware wanted to do multiplayer since ME1, but it didn't work out until now.

As for Dead Space 2? It seemed like a reason for making game development longer for a bonus.
I mean, when I played and beat Dead Space 2, there was nothing to add to it. It is a perfect survival "horror" SP shooter.

[DiebytheSword]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

fdgvdddvdfdfbdfb wrote...

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

Aye.

Edit: Ninja'd by Cheez! (and I'm totally not a fanboy, by the way)

Living up to your name then?

Sorry, I just saw this, and I'm not sure of the connection.

Female Avatar . . . turns out you're a boy.  I think thats what he was working at.

[Soul Cool]

...positive cost?

How can you have a positive negative?




Feels bad, man.

[Gabey5]

C9316 wrote...

Ricinator wrote...

C9316 wrote...

Wow Ricinator I didn't know an RPG was defined as having an inventory system that more or less contained weapons and armor that looked exactly the same but with different colors. I also didn't know that RPGs by definition had to have crappy combat mechanics either.

talking story..... if you want to talk inventory and me1 combat, i agree it wasn't very good. But me2 inventory wasn't better. sure combat was awesome but thats all they focused on..................................................... it had better improve from me1 with that kind of support from devs

Now we seem to be getting somewhere, and just what was wrong with ME2's story? *prepares flame shield*

Well 80% if not more was just a recruitment mission.

[didymos1120]

Gabey5 wrote...

Well 80% if not more was just a recruitment mission.

And why is that, in and of itself, a problem?  What, is there some magical percentage below which being "just a recruitment mission" ceases to be a problem?  Is 50% too high?  30%? 

[hawat333]

Now that more and more things are clarified about the co-op, I admit it's a worthy trade-off.
I always thought it to be bad to add a full co-op to a single player trilogy, simply because it would interfere with the setting. But a stand-alone co-op which is actually an addition, that sounds good.

[Xeranx]

I don't think Gabey is saying that recruitment is a problem in itself, but that recruitment taking up almost the entirety of the game - for a mission with no known parameters to start with- is a bad thing.

The first time we learned of anything relating to the Collectors as to where they are based was after the Collector ship mission. The next time we are given an actual clue of what the recruiting would or should entail is after the crew is abducted. Instead of fact-finding to ascertain those points or attending to the goal Shepard specified at the end of the first game, we spend most of our time on a scavenger hunt of sorts.

Prior to learning everything we have about the Collectors and where they're based, we have no reason why we need a thief or an assassin. The latter's skills aren't even utilized at all. The reasons for a powerful biotic aren't realized until well within the suicide mission and even then, the powerful biotic isn't really essential to completing the objective. Never mind that the sequence concerning losing a squad mate at that point doesn't gel considering the intent of the seeker swarms was to hinder movement by targets and not directly cart people off.

[Morducai]

Siansonea II wrote...

So, correct me if I'm wrong, but the Cliff's Notes version of this thread is:

"Waah! I don't like Kinect!"
"Waah! I don't like co-op!"
"Waah! I don't like multiplayer!" (didn't we cover this?)

Does that about sum it up?

My advice: Play some other game, because BioWare's not going to discard those features because YOU don't like them. If they lose one irate customer (who would be impossible to please anyway, let's be real) and gain ten more, the math still works out in BioWare's favor.

The math didn't really worked in Bioware's favor when it came to DA2. 

[fdgvdddvdfdfbdfb]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

fdgvdddvdfdfbdfb wrote...

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

Aye.

Edit: Ninja'd by Cheez! (and I'm totally not a fanboy, by the way)

Living up to your name then?[smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/tongue.png[/smilie]

Sorry, I just saw this, and I'm not sure of the connection.

DiebytheSword wrote...

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

fdgvdddvdfdfbdfb wrote...

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

Aye.

Edit: Ninja'd by Cheez! (and I'm totally not a fanboy, by the way)

Living up to your name then?

Sorry, I just saw this, and I'm not sure of the connection.

Female Avatar . . . turns out you're a boy.  I think thats what he was working at.

Eternal Ambiguity? If you don't get it, eh, nevermind.

[Arkitekt]

Yeah, let's all downgrade Bioware to do only what pleases a grumpy gamer and nothing else. God forbid Bioware from actually trying to do stuff they never did before

/ sarcastic rant due to ridiculous and obnoxious OP