568 réponses à ce sujet

[Thompson family]

Vegos wrote...

Maybe the cash they spent on the soda they gave out for free could have been spent on R&D instead, ever thought of that?

Fair enough. Let's go with that:

BW makes another purely single player game. They know it will sell about 2 million copies, maybe up to 3 million if it draws more action fans.

If they add MP, though, it has the market potential to become a blockbuster, which is what they really want. So they not only increase the budget to add MP, they increase the development budget overall or at least take their time to polish the game.

[Phaedon]

Vegos wrote...
Maybe the cash they spent on the soda they gave out for free could have been spent on R&D instead, ever thought of that?

Cash? BioWare has no dosh, mate.

EA has the money and accepts or rejects funding projects. For example the Uber Collector's Edition for ME3 was turned down, because EA turned it down. Don't you trust me on this? Ask Brenon Holmes, he has already said this. He is the most helpful and consistent of the devs so far.

This is of course a desperate attempt to find something wrong with co-op, but anyway...

[mcsupersport]

IF people can't complain about MP because the game isn't out yet,then you also can't defend it because, you know, the game isn't out yet......

Just sayin.

[GMagnum]

mcsupersport wrote...

IF people can't complain about MP because the game isn't out yet,then you also can't defend it because, you know, the game isn't out yet......

Just sayin.

GOT EMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

[Vegos]

AtreiyaN7 wrote...

If someone had legitimate, serious issues that haven't been shot down by now in the previews, then maybe we could all discuss their concerns without resorting to "it's optional." How many people have started irrational "I'm going to cancel my preorder solely because of the mere presence of multiplayer" threads or things like that? When someone is ranting and only goes "it's just because I hate multiplayer," it's hard to take them seriously - especially when they usually don't actually give any valid reasons that you can discuss. What's left then? Your only option is, heh, to point out that it's optional and that they don't have to deal with it.

I don't order "collector's" stuff and I do not pre-order stuff simply because I'm a communist jackass.

That was a half-joke, but it's true that I'm sure as hell not going to pay extra for fluff. (comes with not having disposable income)

But see, your post has not covered my point of view. I'm not opposed to MP because I hate MP; I don't, I actually enjoy a co-op run with friends in Portal 2; but those don't affect my singleplayer game. I don't hate multiplayer, I merely think that a multiplayer component in a ME game is a bad idea, because it doens't fit in well with the entire setting.

And if it's there, I have to "deal with it". Ignoring it is just another way of "dealing with it". Just because it's optional that doesn't mean it can slip under my radar without me having to "deal with it".

Imagine if they put a MP component into Planescape: Torment. Like, it woudl be easier to get Curst out of Carceri; or it would be easier to talk TNO into submission if you did some MP things around the planes. I'd sure as Baator hate it.

[Quole]

People complaining about MP may not be completely unwarranted. Hasent it been implied (or stated) that the only way to achieve say.. the `best` playthrough without MP is to be very thorough. In other words, with out doing MP, you are forced into playing the SP a more specific way every time in order get what you want. Thus MP is indeed affecting SP in a negative way?

Modifié par Quole, 28 octobre 2011 - 09:10 .

[111987]

mcsupersport wrote...

IF people can't complain about MP because the game isn't out yet,then you also can't defend it because, you know, the game isn't out yet......

Just sayin.

I think it's more accurate to say you can't criticize or defend the multiplayer accurately until the game comes out.

[Vegos]

Thompson family wrote...

Vegos wrote...

Maybe the cash they spent on the soda they gave out for free could have been spent on R&D instead, ever thought of that?

Fair enough. Let's go with that:

BW makes another purely single player game. They know it will sell about 2 million copies, maybe up to 3 million if it draws more action fans.

If they add MP, though, it has the market potential to become a blockbuster, which is what they really want. So they not only increase the budget to add MP, they increase the development budget overall or at least take their time to polish the game.

It will not become a blockbuster because of that feature. MP public will still prefer to buy a MP game.

[Phaedon]

mcsupersport wrote...

IF people can't complain about MP because the game isn't out yet,then you also can't defend it because, you know, the game isn't out yet......

Just sayin.

You haven't really been following the thread, I assume. The debate is not about the quality of the co-op, you might want to refer to Cheez's thread for that. It's concerning the notion that an additional feature that doesn't mess with the rest should be a valid point for not buying the product.

[111987]

Quole wrote...

People complaining about MP may not be completely unwarranted. Hasent it been implied (or stated) that the only way to achieve say.. the `best` playthrough without MP is to be very thorough. In other words, with out doing MP, you are forced into playing the SP a more specific way every time in order get what you want.

It just means you have to do more of the sidequests. Honestly if a person doesn't want to play multiplayer and do any sidequests, then they have no-one to really blame but themselves for getting a poor ending. The sidequests in ME3 are said to be more related to the main plot than the other games, so not doing them and expecting to get the best ending isn't realistic.

[Quole]

111987 wrote...

Quole wrote...

People complaining about MP may not be completely unwarranted. Hasent it been implied (or stated) that the only way to achieve say.. the `best` playthrough without MP is to be very thorough. In other words, with out doing MP, you are forced into playing the SP a more specific way every time in order get what you want.

It just means you have to do more of the sidequests. Honestly if a person doesn't want to play multiplayer and do any sidequests, then they have no-one to really blame but themselves for getting a poor ending. The sidequests in ME3 are said to be more related to the main plot than the other games, so not doing them and expecting to get the best ending isn't realistic.

I completely disagree.

[111987]

Vegos wrote...

Thompson family wrote...

Vegos wrote...

Maybe the cash they spent on the soda they gave out for free could have been spent on R&D instead, ever thought of that?

Fair enough. Let's go with that:

BW makes another purely single player game. They know it will sell about 2 million copies, maybe up to 3 million if it draws more action fans.

If they add MP, though, it has the market potential to become a blockbuster, which is what they really want. So they not only increase the budget to add MP, they increase the development budget overall or at least take their time to polish the game.

It will not become a blockbuster because of that feature. MP public will still prefer to buy a MP game.

There's no way to know that until we see the sales for ME3. Unless you are saying you are entirely representative of the MP 'community'. ME3's multiplayer will be deemed a success or failure after the game is released, not before.

[111987]

Quole wrote...

111987 wrote...

Quole wrote...

People complaining about MP may not be completely unwarranted. Hasent it been implied (or stated) that the only way to achieve say.. the `best` playthrough without MP is to be very thorough. In other words, with out doing MP, you are forced into playing the SP a more specific way every time in order get what you want.

It just means you have to do more of the sidequests. Honestly if a person doesn't want to play multiplayer and do any sidequests, then they have no-one to really blame but themselves for getting a poor ending. The sidequests in ME3 are said to be more related to the main plot than the other games, so not doing them and expecting to get the best ending isn't realistic.

I completely disagree.

...care to elaborate?

[Vegos]

111987 wrote...

Quole wrote...

People complaining about MP may not be completely unwarranted. Hasent it been implied (or stated) that the only way to achieve say.. the `best` playthrough without MP is to be very thorough. In other words, with out doing MP, you are forced into playing the SP a more specific way every time in order get what you want.

It just means you have to do more of the sidequests. Honestly if a person doesn't want to play multiplayer and do any sidequests, then they have no-one to really blame but themselves for getting a poor ending. The sidequests in ME3 are said to be more related to the main plot than the other games, so not doing them and expecting to get the best ending isn't realistic.

I've raised this in a different way  - some people want to feel "forced" to do the sidequests, and running a few co-op missions with their friends takes that feeling of urgency out of their SP campaign.

Note: We still do not know just HOW EXACTLY the MP will tie in, so let's simply consider every angle, shall we?

[Thompson family]

Vegos wrote...

It will not become a blockbuster because of that feature. MP public will still prefer to buy a MP game.

See you in late March, 2012. PM me with a reminder.

[Vegos]

There's no way to know that until we see the sales for ME3. Unless you are saying you are entirely representative of the MP 'community'. ME3's multiplayer will be deemed a success or failure after the game is released, not before.

MP people will go looking for games they know will offer a quality MP experience. They won't go looking for a game that "might" offer one.

[GMagnum]

jreezy wrote...

GMagnum wrote...

mcsupersport wrote...

IF people can't complain about MP because the game isn't out yet,then you also can't defend it because, you know, the game isn't out yet......

Just sayin.

GOT EMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

Come on GMagnum, who says "GOT EMMMMMMMM" on here?

i do :(
its ok ill be da only one to say it - keep it exclusive TO YA BOI GMAG 

[Quole]

111987 wrote...

Quole wrote...

111987 wrote...

Quole wrote...

People complaining about MP may not be completely unwarranted. Hasent it been implied (or stated) that the only way to achieve say.. the `best` playthrough without MP is to be very thorough. In other words, with out doing MP, you are forced into playing the SP a more specific way every time in order get what you want.

It just means you have to do more of the sidequests. Honestly if a person doesn't want to play multiplayer and do any sidequests, then they have no-one to really blame but themselves for getting a poor ending. The sidequests in ME3 are said to be more related to the main plot than the other games, so not doing them and expecting to get the best ending isn't realistic.

I completely disagree.

...care to elaborate?

This wasnt the case with ME 1,2 or DA ect.... So now tht theres MP, it is? You could maybe argue that this was the case in ME2, but that is an exception because the `sidequests` (loyalty missions) were basically the whole game.

Modifié par Quole, 28 octobre 2011 - 09:16 .

[111987]

Vegos wrote...

111987 wrote...

Quole wrote...

People complaining about MP may not be completely unwarranted. Hasent it been implied (or stated) that the only way to achieve say.. the `best` playthrough without MP is to be very thorough. In other words, with out doing MP, you are forced into playing the SP a more specific way every time in order get what you want.

It just means you have to do more of the sidequests. Honestly if a person doesn't want to play multiplayer and do any sidequests, then they have no-one to really blame but themselves for getting a poor ending. The sidequests in ME3 are said to be more related to the main plot than the other games, so not doing them and expecting to get the best ending isn't realistic.

I've raised this in a different way  - some people want to feel "forced" to do the sidequests, and running a few co-op missions with their friends takes that feeling of urgency out of their SP campaign.

Note: We still do not know just HOW EXACTLY the MP will tie in, so let's simply consider every angle, shall we?

You can still do the sidequests and multiplayer. And exactly; we don't know how it ties in exactly. We can only go off what the devs have said, which is what I'm doing.

[Vegos]

Thompson family wrote...

Vegos wrote...

It will not become a blockbuster because of that feature. MP public will still prefer to buy a MP game.

See you in late March, 2012. PM me with a reminder.

Reminder, or a thorough analysis of just what exactly convinced people to buy the game?

[Quole]

111987 wrote...

Vegos wrote...

111987 wrote...

Quole wrote...

People complaining about MP may not be completely unwarranted. Hasent it been implied (or stated) that the only way to achieve say.. the `best` playthrough without MP is to be very thorough. In other words, with out doing MP, you are forced into playing the SP a more specific way every time in order get what you want.

It just means you have to do more of the sidequests. Honestly if a person doesn't want to play multiplayer and do any sidequests, then they have no-one to really blame but themselves for getting a poor ending. The sidequests in ME3 are said to be more related to the main plot than the other games, so not doing them and expecting to get the best ending isn't realistic.

Which is what Im doing as well.

I've raised this in a different way  - some people want to feel "forced" to do the sidequests, and running a few co-op missions with their friends takes that feeling of urgency out of their SP campaign.

Note: We still do not know just HOW EXACTLY the MP will tie in, so let's simply consider every angle, shall we?

You can still do the sidequests and multiplayer. And exactly; we don't know how it ties in exactly. We can only go off what the devs have said, which is what I'm doing.

which is what Im doing as well.

Modifié par Quole, 28 octobre 2011 - 09:17 .

[Vegos]

111987 wrote...

You can still do the sidequests and multiplayer

And that's EXACTLY THE PROBLEM.

I don't want to be "ABLE TO" do those quests. I want to be "FORCED TO" do them, basically, regardless of whether or not I do any MP.

Modifié par Vegos, 28 octobre 2011 - 09:18 .