291 réponses à ce sujet

[Redcoat]

Gatt9 wrote...

It's really simple.

EA is forcing "Features" in so they can sell Online Passes,  and try to capitlize on pointless toys,  rather than focusing on the quality of the game.  Significant chunks of the budget were wasted on shoehoring in Multiplayer into a singe player narrative driven game,  kinect support to have a bullet point on the box,  and "Shooter-mode" for the people who can't manage even the very minimal RPG elements present.

This pulls the team's focus away from making the best game possible,  and forces them to focus on implmenting the Suit's "Must have list" that doesn't add anything to the actual point of the game.

Further,  in an effort to sell Online Passes,  multiplayer will be essentially forced upon all,  forcing players to lose track of their goals,  emotional investment,  and their attention to fill some silly meter just so they could sell Online Passes.

Then there's the issue of the Shooter-mode,  which precludes the ability for the game to have Choice & Consequence,  since now one of their targets doesn't make choices.

It doesn't help matters that not only was one of their team leads so clueless she couldn't tell the difference between a beginners D&D book and a real D&D book when trying to earn street cred in a presentation,  nor could should actually identify RPG dice,  but she also quit 2/3 of the way through,  creating even further vision problems since her questionable direction was now lost leaving the team in the hands of someone different.

ME3's not going to end well,  it'll be like DA2.  It's being forced in a completely different direction,  with way too much Suit interference mandating pointless "Features" just because someone who sits in an office thinks it'll get him a bigger bonus check.  No game in the 30 year history with this kind of development cycle has ever done anything but bomb.

ME3 won't be any different.  It's not possible to make a good game when you're forced to spend your time implementing features that don't contribute to making a good game,  and in fact will force you to change the design to support the useless features.

The firestorm here in March will be alot bigger than the one for DA2's release.

onelifecrisis wrote...

I don't think you're in a minority. Plenty of people are still psyched for ME3.

And the other people making this claim...Go look at Gamespot's news article about yesterday's spoiler image.  people are not optimistic about Bioware,  even on a forum that wildly cheered Fallout 3's conversion to FPS.  Things do not bode well for ME3,  which considering the last 2 only sold a couple million copies,  will be really bad.

I wasn't around here immediately following ME2's launch, but from what I can tell, the backlash against the changes ME2 wrought was far less vicious than the backlash against DA2. That, and the user score on Metacritic for ME2 ranges from 8 to 9, while DA2's is between 4 and 5. Personally, I prefer ME1 over ME2 any day of the week, but I've heard many voicing their preference for ME2's gameplays over ME1's. Since it doesn't look like ME3 is going to make any major deviations from ME2's formula, it will probably receive a generally positive reception unless they *really* bugger things up.

And the "professional" reviewers will undoubtedly gush over it: "Ten out of ten! A tour de force! Game of the year!"

[Xeranx]

Gatt9 wrote...

It's really simple.

EA is forcing "Features" in so they can sell Online Passes,  and try to capitlize on pointless toys,  rather than focusing on the quality of the game.  Significant chunks of the budget were wasted on shoehoring in Multiplayer into a singe player narrative driven game,  kinect support to have a bullet point on the box,  and "Shooter-mode" for the people who can't manage even the very minimal RPG elements present.

This pulls the team's focus away from making the best game possible,  and forces them to focus on implmenting the Suit's "Must have list" that doesn't add anything to the actual point of the game.

Further,  in an effort to sell Online Passes,  multiplayer will be essentially forced upon all,  forcing players to lose track of their goals,  emotional investment,  and their attention to fill some silly meter just so they could sell Online Passes.

Then there's the issue of the Shooter-mode,  which precludes the ability for the game to have Choice & Consequence,  since now one of their targets doesn't make choices.

It doesn't help matters that not only was one of their team leads so clueless she couldn't tell the difference between a beginners D&D book and a real D&D book when trying to earn street cred in a presentation,  nor could should actually identify RPG dice,  but she also quit 2/3 of the way through,  creating even further vision problems since her questionable direction was now lost leaving the team in the hands of someone different.

ME3's not going to end well,  it'll be like DA2.  It's being forced in a completely different direction,  with way too much Suit interference mandating pointless "Features" just because someone who sits in an office thinks it'll get him a bigger bonus check.  No game in the 30 year history with this kind of development cycle has ever done anything but bomb.

ME3 won't be any different.  It's not possible to make a good game when you're forced to spend your time implementing features that don't contribute to making a good game,  and in fact will force you to change the design to support the useless features.

The firestorm here in March will be alot bigger than the one for DA2's release.

Gatt, I don't know if I can honestly buy the bold anymore.  I mean, EA would have had to have been pushing multiplayer since ME2 launched or prior to ME2 launching to get it done.  The timing of the hiring for multiplayer designers also leads me to think that there wasn't much going for the multiplayer aspect at that point.

What concerns me is that what's in the document is a "rough draft" (I don't buy that one either) of a game that was originally going to be released before this year's end.  (Yeah, went through this discussion before with others, but the timeline is there.  If you think I'm wrong about intention then look it up.  Again, it's there.)

I can't blame multiplayer for whatever story we get.  I can only blame development time.  People have expressed issues with ME's story and that had 4 years to be fleshed out.  ME2 had a two-year development cycle so writing of the story wasn't going to take as long and could not be expected to take as long as its predecessor.  And look at what we got as a result.  ME3 is where we're supposed to do much of what we should have done in ME2 in order to see any outcome possible in ME3.  Unfortunately, that's a no-go.  

No, I can't blame multiplayer for that.  "IF" the story was changed from the document that was extracted of a beta that was set to be released as it was being tested on Xbox's platform (this is November and the beta was set to be released in January...how much time they have to redo stuff for said release I don't know, but I doubt they will change all the code that went into it by then), then I'll see what they've done.  Of course, while I'm playing I'll probably be tempted to pull the document out to see if anything was changed.

[KBomb]

I absolutely love the Mass Effect series and have since the first game. I want it to be a success and I want the end of this trilogy to be epic and amazing. Some of the things I have seen, however have caused concern with me. I admit that my excitement and eagerness for this game has dropped significantly. I am hoping that closer to game release and as more information is churned out, that will change. The concerns I have voiced have been voiced because I do love this game series so much, not because I want to whine or throw temper tantrums.


To me, the posters who do post negatively are no worse than “fans” who make posts to point out how people who are not 100% exuberant about it are throwing temper tantrums, whining, how they are trolls and how if they don’t like the direction of the game they should simply “go away”. Some seem to make an effort to lump anyone who has legitimate concerns with anyone who “hates” Bioware. Just because you’re completely happy with every aspect of the game doesn’t make you a more important or better fan than those who have concerns.

[Schneidend]

Vegos wrote...

Well okay if YOU say so then who am I to argue?

You state your opinion, I state mine. I never claimed that mine overwrote your own.

Gabey5 wrote...

If you can't see why da2 sucked, then that is your right.

There's nothing to "see." The game wasn't perfect, but I still greatly enjoyed it. If you can't see how "da2 sucked" is purely subjective, then there's really no point arguing with you about it.

Many of me2's characters had nothing to do with the plot and their was no reason to recruit the. An assasin, thief etc. We had no use for people of their skill set. Many where just along for the ride. the charcters where interesting but just came off as filler

In the Mass Effect universe, a solo thief equates to a hacking expert. She's just as vital as Tali in this regard. Thane's a CQC expert and a crack sniper, both vital in any combat sortie. More bodies means a greater chance of success, regardless.

[BobTheAndroid]

Although I am new to the forum but my negativity comes from the fact that I cannot stand ME2. I am trying to be positive, but after that disappointment it' s really hard. The otiginal Mass Effect is my favourite game. And with the "Ah yes, Reapers" retcon the developers managed to destroy the games beautiful and smart ending.

[Schneidend]

BobTheAndroid wrote...

Although I am new to the forum but my negativity comes from the fact that I cannot stand ME2. I am trying to be positive, but after that disappointment it' s really hard. The otiginal Mass Effect is my favourite game. And with the "Ah yes, Reapers" retcon the developers managed to destroy the games beautiful and smart ending.

That's not a retcon. That's the Council staying true to form and not being helpful.

[SarunasAndSoOn]

ok im not quoting everyone so ill just make a single post. firs of all, i respond to the claim of EA pushing bioware to do things they dont want with a question i asked many times. Wheres your proof? you may think it happened to other games, but thats not legitimate enough. this isnt some underground corruption. I think of multiplayer as an Add-on, not an agenda forced upon us by the wonderful people of bioware.

second, i am not preaching that i am better than everyone else simply because i believe the game has a bright future. i only want to gain a better view of why so many people come up with such ridiculous reasons to why the game will go downhill. of course i have problems with the game, everyone has to, its natural. but when you dont see any good in the game based on rumored facts and opinions made before the game is even released, i have to question the base of that argument.

so far, most posters that i personally identify as "downers" have re-stated what ive been seeing over and over again on BSN, that the game will be bad because multiplayer is forced on us, or that EA has an over powering influence on bioware, so far, neither of these accusations have any proof, nor do i see any coming in the future.

[SarunasAndSoOn]

BobTheAndroid wrote...

Although I am new to the forum but my negativity comes from the fact that I cannot stand ME2. I am trying to be positive, but after that disappointment it' s really hard. The otiginal Mass Effect is my favourite game. And with the "Ah yes, Reapers" retcon the developers managed to destroy the games beautiful and smart ending.

ok this i understand, although i loved ME2 more than any other game, i see where your fears are coming from.

[SarunasAndSoOn]

Shammybaby wrote...


And that'd of been nice. It'd of made you feel more important than bustling through a crowd of 15, 20 Quarians, to **** talk/debate with three Quarians- each one being a "Let's war it up", "Let's find peace", and "Let's protect my own interest" Admirals. Ya fly to... One ship, which was coincidentally owned by an admiral so no need to involve the conclave. And then you come back to a ship with half of its previous areas now cut off (not that there was much to begin with)

Maybe mass effect 3 will attempt to bring about more dynamic and large interactions such as that. Even in ME1 when getting Spectre status- the cameras focused on the many human, turian, salarian, and asari politicians all babbling about and instead turning to focus on you, the player. That was a nervous moment for a character.

I'm sick of the game feeling like it's disappearing into hallways and lacklustre NPC interaction

if you didnt even like ME1 then why are you still following the trilogy? 

[Asch Lavigne]

I had to be one of the only people who disliked ME2. I was so over excited for that game and I really, really disliked it. But Bioware seems to have acknowledged that there were lots of stuff that they took out of ME2 and wanted to put back in ME3. I am avoiding as hard as I can spoilers on the game but even if it is like ME2 I will still be excited.

I am excited to play my Shepard again and to see my favorite characters, excited to finally fight the Reapers. Even if ME3 sucks I will be excited to play it and sad when the game is over. The only thing that could kill my excitement would be if it was revealed that the game severely screwed over those of us who want to continue to play in the single player campaign.

Modifié par Asch Lavigne, 09 novembre 2011 - 09:57 .

[Massefeckt]

SarunasAndSoOn wrote...

ok im not quoting everyone so ill just make a single post. firs of all, i respond to the claim of EA pushing bioware to do things they dont want with a question i asked many times. Wheres your proof? you may think it happened to other games, but thats not legitimate enough. this isnt some underground corruption. I think of multiplayer as an Add-on, not an agenda forced upon us by the wonderful people of bioware.

second, i am not preaching that i am better than everyone else simply because i believe the game has a bright future. i only want to gain a better view of why so many people come up with such ridiculous reasons to why the game will go downhill. of course i have problems with the game, everyone has to, its natural. but when you dont see any good in the game based on rumored facts and opinions made before the game is even released, i have to question the base of that argument.

so far, most posters that i personally identify as "downers" have re-stated what ive been seeing over and over again on BSN, that the game will be bad because multiplayer is forced on us, or that EA has an over powering influence on bioware, so far, neither of these accusations have any proof, nor do i see any coming in the future.

EA own Bioware, this isn't a partnership. EA  says jump Bioware says how high, they don't get to say no. When Bioware start introducing certain features after a takeover people will always question why. The game was always on Steam now its on Origin thats not a Bioware decision it's an EA one. EA has an overpowering influence on all the developers it owns because well, they own them.

People saw rumours come true with DA2 and ME2(though I liked ME2) so when they see rumours and now leaks they are obviously going to take them seriously.

[KBomb]

SarunasAndSoOn wrote...

ok im not quoting everyone so ill just make a single post. firs of all, i respond to the claim of EA pushing bioware to do things they dont want with a question i asked many times. Wheres your proof? you may think it happened to other games, but thats not legitimate enough. this isnt some underground corruption. I think of multiplayer as an Add-on, not an agenda forced upon us by the wonderful people of bioware.

second, i am not preaching that i am better than everyone else simply because i believe the game has a bright future. i only want to gain a better view of why so many people come up with such ridiculous reasons to why the game will go downhill. of course i have problems with the game, everyone has to, its natural. but when you dont see any good in the game based on rumored facts and opinions made before the game is even released, i have to question the base of that argument.

so far, most posters that i personally identify as "downers" have re-stated what ive been seeing over and over again on BSN, that the game will be bad because multiplayer is forced on us, or that EA has an over powering influence on bioware, so far, neither of these accusations have any proof, nor do i see any coming in the future.

Meh, you shouldn’t put too much thought into why people feel the way they feel. I never understood why people invest so much time into wondering why person A loves something that person B doesn’t. I don’t care about person A or person B. I care only about my impressions, concerns, thoughts, etc. I think it’s nice that people can enjoy a game and I am happy for them, I feel bad when someone hates a game and doesn’t get any enjoyment. But no matter what I feel about their experience, it doesn’t influence my own.

So, if I view someone as negative or “downer”, I don’t care about them, just like I don't care about the ones who refuse to see why anyone may not share their enlightened opinion about how fabulous a game is. Maybe you shouldn’t care either. This is the internet after all.

[Harmless Citizen]

KBomb wrote...

I absolutely love the Mass Effect series and have since the first game. I want it to be a success and I want the end of this trilogy to be epic and amazing. Some of the things I have seen, however have caused concern with me. I admit that my excitement and eagerness for this game has dropped significantly. I am hoping that closer to game release and as more information is churned out, that will change. The concerns I have voiced have been voiced because I do love this game series so much, not because I want to whine or throw temper tantrums.


To me, the posters who do post negatively are no worse than “fans” who make posts to point out how people who are not 100% exuberant about it are throwing temper tantrums, whining, how they are trolls and how if they don’t like the direction of the game they should simply “go away”. Some seem to make an effort to lump anyone who has legitimate concerns with anyone who “hates” Bioware. Just because you’re completely happy with every aspect of the game doesn’t make you a more important or better fan than those who have concerns.

]I don't think the "hater" epithet was meant for those like you (and many others) who have issues with what they've seen. That's natural for any fan who has any vested interest (emotional, monetary, time) in a series. The people they're referring to are the ones running about crying about how much the game will "suck" and how BioWare has "betrayed" them, usually the same ones whingeing about how BioWare is catering to those horrible, fat, stupid CoD fans. 

Some of them have valid points, but QQing about a game when all you've seen are skeleton notes is just ridiculous. Granted, some of the plot may be cliche, but BioWare games are full of them anyway. It's the execution that matters.

As I said.

[Azzlee]

SarunasAndSoOn wrote...

ok im not quoting everyone so ill just make a single post. firs of all, i respond to the claim of EA pushing bioware to do things they dont want with a question i asked many times. Wheres your proof? you may think it happened to other games, but thats not legitimate enough. this isnt some underground corruption. I think of multiplayer as an Add-on, not an agenda forced upon us by the wonderful people of bioware.

second, i am not preaching that i am better than everyone else simply because i believe the game has a bright future. i only want to gain a better view of why so many people come up with such ridiculous reasons to why the game will go downhill. of course i have problems with the game, everyone has to, its natural. but when you dont see any good in the game based on rumored facts and opinions made before the game is even released, i have to question the base of that argument.

so far, most posters that i personally identify as "downers" have re-stated what ive been seeing over and over again on BSN, that the game will be bad because multiplayer is forced on us, or that EA has an over powering influence on bioware, so far, neither of these accusations have any proof, nor do i see any coming in the future.

Jeff Gamon at EA

www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-11-04-ea-multiplayer-now-an-expectation

Frank Gibeau at EA

www.eurogamer.net/articles/2010-12-08-ea-single-player-only-games-finished

John Schappart at EA

www.eurogamer.net/articles/all-ea-games-to-feature-online-dlc

Frank Gibeau at EA on ME3 kinect support

www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-06-10-why-mass-effect-3-supports-kinect

A pattern begins to emerge....

Bottom line is Bioware are EA mate, as has been said by others.

I agree MP is an add on, but one that detracts resources from what made this game in the first place, the SP. Nor is it going to be forced on me to use. But when it starts to interfere with the SP, that is not on. Including it in the last game of the series makes zero logical sense to me. You can also expect, a la Assassins Creed, that a majority of post launch DLC will be, as I said in my earlier post, to be MP related.

By Jesse Houston at Bioware (potential spoilers in the link)

www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-11-09-new-mass-effect-3-co-op-details

And there we have it. MP DLC already confirmed. Again, not forced, but resources diverted.

[Chris Priestly]

Azzlee wrote...
 Again, not forced, but resources diverted.

You know the muliplay is worked on primarily at our Montreal studio by a different team, right? It is not taking away resources from Single Play as we have said many times. Refutes your arguement a bit.

[SnowHeart1]

Chris Priestly wrote...

Azzlee wrote...
 Again, not forced, but resources diverted.

You know the muliplay is worked on primarily at our Montreal studio by a different team, right? It is not taking away resources from Single Play as we have said many times. Refutes your arguement a bit.

Sorry Chris, not buying. Money is fungible but not infinite, even for EA.

It is what it is, decision is made, MP is in, no point crying about it, but I really don't buy that argument. Not that you need to convince me; just sayin'. Is it possible EA just decided to throw extra money it had lying around at MP? Sure, I suppose. Possible. I just don't think it's likely, and I doubt EA is going to give me access to their development and marketing strategies, so...

[1136342t54_]

SnowHeart1 wrote...

Chris Priestly wrote...

Azzlee wrote...
 Again, not forced, but resources diverted.

You know the muliplay is worked on primarily at our Montreal studio by a different team, right? It is not taking away resources from Single Play as we have said many times. Refutes your arguement a bit.

Sorry Chris, not buying. Money is fungible but not infinite, even for EA.

It is what it is, decision is made, MP is in, no point crying about it, but I really don't buy that argument. Not that you need to convince me; just sayin'. Is it possible EA just decided to throw extra money it had lying around at MP? Sure, I suppose. Possible. I just don't think it's likely, and I doubt EA is going to give me access to their development and marketing strategies, so...

Eh don't believe it. It isn't like Bioware is forcing you to. It really doesn't matter since they did their job and made a statement in regards to the resource argument. If you won't believe it then oh well. 

[SnowHeart1]

Pretty much. I don't disagree with you. They don't have to convince me nor anyone else. But I do find it to be an incredible statement. And you know what? You have every right to believe it. ;-)

[1136342t54_]

SnowHeart1 wrote...

Pretty much. I don't disagree with you. They don't have to convince me nor anyone else. But I do find it to be an incredible statement. And you know what? You have every right to believe it. ;-)

Well at least your not  a hypocrite about it. I get annoyed by people who claim they want Bioware to make statements about certain leaks or gameplay mechanics but then say they won't believe anything from bioware because of past crimes mistakes.

Modifié par 1136342t54 , 09 novembre 2011 - 11:34 .

[Chris Priestly]

So you assume we have moved into the building on the other side of one of the planet's largest countries, equipped it, staffed it and developed the MP game with money that would have put those people here in Edmonton? You don't think it would have been easier to just hire more people here in Edmonton and make them work on MP instead of going through all the trouble of opening a new studio? You are right in that money is absolutely a finite resource and even EA cannot fund something indefinitely. However, the old adage goes "you have to spend money to make money". It behooves EA to invest in making BOTH the SP and MP games as good as they can be. If you are one of those people who believe EA is a terrible money-grubbing megacorp, why would they want to hurt their cash flow instead of making BOTH elements as successful as possible?

I understand that there is zero way I can convince you of this, but your argument seems pretty weak.

[eoinnx02]

Check and mate. Chris do stand up and take a bow sir.

[Terror_K]

Chris Priestly wrote...

Azzlee wrote...
 Again, not forced, but resources diverted.

You know the muliplay is worked on primarily at our Montreal studio by a different team, right? It is not taking away resources from Single Play as we have said many times. Refutes your arguement a bit.

I do have to wonder where these magical resources came from though. ME3 still has an overall budget and funding pool, and correct me if I'm incorrect, but the basic funding and resources did stem from this. Yes, it's a different team and all, but did they not still get funding from the same overall budget? Was not some of the overall Mass Effect pie sliced of specifically to be given to Montreal? 

So unless EA threw you guys some free multiplayer funding that otherwise would not have existed, isn't it fair to say that same slice of pie could have gone to another studio and dedicated to something like sidequests, exploration and some vehicle sections, or something?

[DiebytheSword]

Ah, diminishing returns is still not understood I see.

[IanPolaris]

Chris Priestly wrote...

So you assume we have moved into the building on the other side of one of the planet's largest countries, equipped it, staffed it and developed the MP game with money that would have put those people here in Edmonton? You don't think it would have been easier to just hire more people here in Edmonton and make them work on MP instead of going through all the trouble of opening a new studio? You are right in that money is absolutely a finite resource and even EA cannot fund something indefinitely. However, the old adage goes "you have to spend money to make money". It behooves EA to invest in making BOTH the SP and MP games as good as they can be. If you are one of those people who believe EA is a terrible money-grubbing megacorp, why would they want to hurt their cash flow instead of making BOTH elements as successful as possible?

I understand that there is zero way I can convince you of this, but your argument seems pretty weak.

Actually it isn't.  The fact that a different studio halfway across the world (an exaggeration at best...more like halfway across North America) only increases the costs.  In order for the SP ME3 not to be negatively effected by the extra costs and resources, you would have us believe that EA is adding more resources to the ME3 budget to permit MP mode.

I find that.....unlikely.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

1136342t54 wrote...

SnowHeart1 wrote...

Pretty much. I don't disagree with you. They don't have to convince me nor anyone else. But I do find it to be an incredible statement. And you know what? You have every right to believe it. ;-)

Well at least your not  a hypocrite about it. I get annoyed by people who claim they want Bioware to make statements about certain leaks or gameplay mechanics but then say they won't believe anything from bioware because of past crimes mistakes.

I said that, I stand by it, and it's not hypocritical or even contradictory.  *I* am at the point where I no longer believe anything Bioware says, but that's not true of everyone.  My advice was for those that still are credulous enough to listen.

-Polaris