291 réponses à ce sujet

[1136342t54_]

Terror_K wrote...

Also, I have to say, it's all very well to say, "people claim to want their fears put to rest, but don't believe BioWare when they do" and all, but there's one simple question you have to ask yourself with regards to that:

Why don't people believe BioWare when they do?

Oh I know afew of those reasons but then again you have to ask yourself this. Why am I asking questions from people I don't trust?

Its like complaining about not getting the truth from someone you know is a compulsive liar.

Edit: Actually in this case you don't complain about being lied to but you ask this compulsive liar a question but then you don't believe them because you know that person is a compulsive liar. At that point you should ask yourself why ask this person questions.

Modifié par 1136342t54 , 10 novembre 2011 - 12:03 .

[Massefeckt]

IanPolaris wrote...

I am sure you are right but that's EA's policy requiring all their games to be multiplayer.  It doesn't counter my argument at all.  Just becuase EA doesn't think that SP is worth investing extra resources into the core game doesn't mean they couldn't....and thus those extra resources are increasing the price of the product without increasing it's core quality.

-Polaris

You'll get no argument from me saying they should invest that money into single player and get back to the original concept I just don't think it was ever going to happen.

[Terror_K]

1136342t54 wrote...

Massefeckt wrote...

I think if Chris said there was a fund for SP and a seperate fund for MP and that if MP didn't exist neither would the fund for MP so SP isn't effected then you have no choice but to believe him. I think it's wrong and simply not polite to say he lies. Even if you don't trust Bioware as an entity anymore on any issue that isn't 100% yet then the answer is never straight forward, it's "We are discussing it", "Those aspects are still being worked on etc." So when someone gives you a straight answer you can bet it's true.


Edit- Basically what I meant to say is I would assume games have a budget based on the size and options, so a game with MP has a bigger budget assigned to it than SP. So if ME3 didn't have MP they would be given a smaller budget.

I'm all for trying to get ME3 back to the best ME experience but I'm not sure the money would be any different either way.

To be honest Chris did make a straight up statement and it is assumed that he is wrong. When Chris stated that no resources were being diverted from SP and it is still not believed at all due to a large amount of assumptions its quite clear they won't ever be pleased.

Although I do agree with you that games with MP in it will usualy have bigger budgets in them then the same game with just SP.

I don't see him saying that anywhere. I see vague marketing speak that is put across like that, but doesn't say it outright, and what it really means is simply, "the resources aren't being divereted because the MP team working on it in the other studio only works on MP anyway."

I've seen nothing about MP funding coming out of the overall budget, nor anything that indicates that all the funding for MP was just given to them by EA and wouldn't exist otherwise. There's been no straightforward answer, just vagie marketing speak that says one thing, but means another. Sought of that "the truth you hear is not the full and actual truth, but the way it's delivered means it's also not a lie"

[The Spamming Troll]

IanPolaris wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
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

Why?

Have you gone over EA's financial statements?  Attended investors meetings?  Interviewed the senior vice president responsible for BioWare's budget?

Or are you just making **** up on the internet?

Who's making anything up.  Hasn't anyone heard of diminishing returns or the zero sum game.  Any resource spent on MP mode or other non-RPG aspects are resources that could have been spent improving the core of the came which is the RPG/Single Player experience.

This is simple common sense.

-Polaris

its really easy to doubt bioware considering ME3 is NOTHING what any of us expected when they sold us on ME1.

id rather bioware put that second team that worked on MP, and instead put those peoples efforts to making an ammo system that isnt retarded, or a difficulty setting that is balanced, or a vehicle that doesnt suck, or gameplay that isnt so freaking easy and basic.

whatever, modable weapons.

[Massefeckt]

IanPolaris wrote...

I am sure you are right but that's EA's policy requiring all their games to be multiplayer. It doesn't counter my argument at all. Just becuase EA doesn't think that SP is worth investing extra resources into the core game doesn't mean they couldn't....and thus those extra resources are increasing the price of the product without increasing it's core quality.

-Polaris

You'll get no argument from me saying they should invest that money into single player and get back to the original concept I just don't think it was ever going to happen.

[1136342t54_]

Terror_K wrote...

1136342t54 wrote...

Massefeckt wrote...

I think if Chris said there was a fund for SP and a seperate fund for MP and that if MP didn't exist neither would the fund for MP so SP isn't effected then you have no choice but to believe him. I think it's wrong and simply not polite to say he lies. Even if you don't trust Bioware as an entity anymore on any issue that isn't 100% yet then the answer is never straight forward, it's "We are discussing it", "Those aspects are still being worked on etc." So when someone gives you a straight answer you can bet it's true.


Edit- Basically what I meant to say is I would assume games have a budget based on the size and options, so a game with MP has a bigger budget assigned to it than SP. So if ME3 didn't have MP they would be given a smaller budget.

I'm all for trying to get ME3 back to the best ME experience but I'm not sure the money would be any different either way.

To be honest Chris did make a straight up statement and it is assumed that he is wrong. When Chris stated that no resources were being diverted from SP and it is still not believed at all due to a large amount of assumptions its quite clear they won't ever be pleased.

Although I do agree with you that games with MP in it will usualy have bigger budgets in them then the same game with just SP.

I don't see him saying that anywhere. I see vague marketing speak that is put across like that, but doesn't say it outright, and what it really means is simply, "the resources aren't being divereted because the MP team working on it in the other studio only works on MP anyway."

I've seen nothing about MP funding coming out of the overall budget, nor anything that indicates that all the funding for MP was just given to them by EA and wouldn't exist otherwise. There's been no straightforward answer, just vagie marketing speak that says one thing, but means another. Sought of that "the truth you hear is not the full and actual truth, but the way it's delivered means it's also not a lie"

Yep that was so vague.

It is not taking away resources from Single Play as we have said many times. Refutes your arguement a bit.

[didymos1120]

IanPolaris wrote...

Unless the people working on the MP do it for free and somehow use resources that cost nothing, it will be have a cost and that cost could have been used to make the SP/RPG core of the game better. 

If EA had been inclined to spend those resources on single-player in the first place. If. This is what no one here has established or CAN establish.  For all you or I know, EA would have spent the cash on some completely different project, possibly by a completely different studio.  It may even have been given to a game by a studio they don't even own. 

Modifié par didymos1120, 10 novembre 2011 - 12:12 .

[Terror_K]

1136342t54 wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Also, I have to say, it's all very well to say, "people claim to want their fears put to rest, but don't believe BioWare when they do" and all, but there's one simple question you have to ask yourself with regards to that:

Why don't people believe BioWare when they do?

Oh I know afew of those reasons but then again you have to ask yourself this. Why am I asking questions from people I don't trust?

Its like complaining about not getting the truth from someone you know is a compulsive liar.

I just think fans want some straight-up answers, rather than vague, marketing speak. We want something a bit more solid than "emotionally engaging" this and "rich and deep" that.

[1136342t54_]

Terror_K wrote...

1136342t54 wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Also, I have to say, it's all very well to say, "people claim to want their fears put to rest, but don't believe BioWare when they do" and all, but there's one simple question you have to ask yourself with regards to that:

Why don't people believe BioWare when they do?

Oh I know afew of those reasons but then again you have to ask yourself this. Why am I asking questions from people I don't trust?

Its like complaining about not getting the truth from someone you know is a compulsive liar.

I just think fans want some straight-up answers, rather than vague, marketing speak. We want something a bit more solid than "emotionally engaging" this and "rich and deep" that.

But you yourself said you wouldn't believe Bioware anyway.  

Also the straight up answers you want could easily be delving into spoiler territory. Plus some of these answers could have already been answered but again you are unlikely to believe them.

Modifié par 1136342t54 , 10 novembre 2011 - 12:07 .

[The Spamming Troll]

Terror_K wrote...

1136342t54 wrote...

Massefeckt wrote...

I think if Chris said there was a fund for SP and a seperate fund for MP and that if MP didn't exist neither would the fund for MP so SP isn't effected then you have no choice but to believe him. I think it's wrong and simply not polite to say he lies. Even if you don't trust Bioware as an entity anymore on any issue that isn't 100% yet then the answer is never straight forward, it's "We are discussing it", "Those aspects are still being worked on etc." So when someone gives you a straight answer you can bet it's true.


Edit- Basically what I meant to say is I would assume games have a budget based on the size and options, so a game with MP has a bigger budget assigned to it than SP. So if ME3 didn't have MP they would be given a smaller budget.

I'm all for trying to get ME3 back to the best ME experience but I'm not sure the money would be any different either way.

To be honest Chris did make a straight up statement and it is assumed that he is wrong. When Chris stated that no resources were being diverted from SP and it is still not believed at all due to a large amount of assumptions its quite clear they won't ever be pleased.

Although I do agree with you that games with MP in it will usualy have bigger budgets in them then the same game with just SP.

I don't see him saying that anywhere. I see vague marketing speak that is put across like that, but doesn't say it outright, and what it really means is simply, "the resources aren't being divereted because the MP team working on it in the other studio only works on MP anyway."

I've seen nothing about MP funding coming out of the overall budget, nor anything that indicates that all the funding for MP was just given to them by EA and wouldn't exist otherwise. There's been no straightforward answer, just vagie marketing speak that says one thing, but means another. Sought of that "the truth you hear is not the full and actual truth, but the way it's delivered means it's also not a lie"

i agree terror.

its like people forget that bioware directly and adamately said MP would never be in any ME game, well, up untill MP was actually revealed.

[1136342t54_]

The Spamming Troll wrote...


i agree terror.

its like people forget that bioware directly and adamately said MP would never be in any ME game, well, up untill MP was actually revealed.

Not sure they said that but then again if they did they likely changed there mind and thought it would be pretty cool.

[Jessica Merizan]

Guys, this isn't a thread about EA's budget for ME3 and where MP fits in (although Chris has already explained that resources spent on MP would *not* have been spent on "improving" the SP experience despite claims otherwise. Theoretically, those funds could also have been spent building my very own Normandy SR2, however the ROI just wasn't there!). Back on topic please.

To go to the main point, I'd like to say thank you to those of you who have faith in BioWare and the awesome people who are working hard making games for us to enjoy. I'm also very glad for those of you who see game issues and can constructively express them. Feedback is an important process in game development, your opinions matter, and people do read them.

That being said, because I know that people read what is said here, I want to stress the difference between having constructive complaints and being rude or belligerent. And the original topic of this thread is important because sometimes it's good to tell the devs at BioWare that, even despite problems, they are doing a good job.

I should go,
Jess

[Terror_K]

1136342t54 wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

I don't see him saying that anywhere. I see vague marketing speak that is put across like that, but doesn't say it outright, and what it really means is simply, "the resources aren't being divereted because the MP team working on it in the other studio only works on MP anyway."

I've seen nothing about MP funding coming out of the overall budget, nor anything that indicates that all the funding for MP was just given to them by EA and wouldn't exist otherwise. There's been no straightforward answer, just vagie marketing speak that says one thing, but means another. Sought of that "the truth you hear is not the full and actual truth, but the way it's delivered means it's also not a lie"

Yep that was so vague.

It is not taking away resources from Single Play as we have said many times. Refutes your arguement a bit.

No, that's just another attempt to pull the wool over our eyes.

Again, all that says to me is, "We haven't taken resources away from Single Player, because those resources were only given to our Montreal Studio who only work on Multiplayer anyway, so technically their resources have not been divereted because they've been allocated to the only thing they do from the get-go."

Also, the term "taking away" indicates that one removed resources that were already allocated. If the resources were not already allocated to Single Player, then they're technically not "taken away" from it either. So in that regard, even if the resources are not technically "taken away" from Single Player, that doesn't rule out the fact that they could have been allocated to it instead of Multiplayer.

Modifié par Terror_K, 10 novembre 2011 - 12:09 .

[AdmiralCheez]

Terror_K wrote...

I just think fans want some straight-up answers, rather than vague, marketing speak. We want something a bit more solid than "emotionally engaging" this and "rich and deep" that.

You're not the only one tired of the bullsh*t machine, but I can understand why they'd avoid direct answers to certain questions.  I don't like it, and I'd prefer they cut it out, but I get it.

[SNESchalmers]

Terror_K wrote...

I don't see him saying that anywhere. I see vague marketing speak that is put across like that, but doesn't say it outright, and what it really means is simply, "the resources aren't being divereted because the MP team working on it in the other studio only works on MP anyway."

I've seen nothing about MP funding coming out of the overall budget, nor anything that indicates that all the funding for MP was just given to them by EA and wouldn't exist otherwise. There's been no straightforward answer, just vagie marketing speak that says one thing, but means another. Sought of that "the truth you hear is not the full and actual truth, but the way it's delivered means it's also not a lie"

Out of curiosity. Why do you think BioWare or EA owes you any explanation on how they fund their games or how they allocate ME3 budget? I may be wrong but I can't think of any game developer that makes that information public knowledge.

[The-Person]

The Spamming Troll wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

1136342t54 wrote...

Massefeckt wrote...

I think if Chris said there was a fund for SP and a seperate fund for MP and that if MP didn't exist neither would the fund for MP so SP isn't effected then you have no choice but to believe him. I think it's wrong and simply not polite to say he lies. Even if you don't trust Bioware as an entity anymore on any issue that isn't 100% yet then the answer is never straight forward, it's "We are discussing it", "Those aspects are still being worked on etc." So when someone gives you a straight answer you can bet it's true.


Edit- Basically what I meant to say is I would assume games have a budget based on the size and options, so a game with MP has a bigger budget assigned to it than SP. So if ME3 didn't have MP they would be given a smaller budget.

I'm all for trying to get ME3 back to the best ME experience but I'm not sure the money would be any different either way.

To be honest Chris did make a straight up statement and it is assumed that he is wrong. When Chris stated that no resources were being diverted from SP and it is still not believed at all due to a large amount of assumptions its quite clear they won't ever be pleased.

Although I do agree with you that games with MP in it will usualy have bigger budgets in them then the same game with just SP.

I don't see him saying that anywhere. I see vague marketing speak that is put across like that, but doesn't say it outright, and what it really means is simply, "the resources aren't being divereted because the MP team working on it in the other studio only works on MP anyway."

I've seen nothing about MP funding coming out of the overall budget, nor anything that indicates that all the funding for MP was just given to them by EA and wouldn't exist otherwise. There's been no straightforward answer, just vagie marketing speak that says one thing, but means another. Sought of that "the truth you hear is not the full and actual truth, but the way it's delivered means it's also not a lie"

i agree terror.

its like people forget that bioware directly and adamately said MP would never be in any ME game, well, up untill MP was actually revealed.

They never said there will never be MP in a ME game.

[didymos1120]

The Spamming Troll wrote...

its like people forget that bioware directly and adamately said MP would never be in any ME game, well, up untill MP was actually revealed.

Wait, is this serious?

[The Spamming Troll]

Chris Priestly wrote...

Well, I tried. I didn't expect people to suddenly say "Oh wow! I didn't see it that way before. I was wrong to have doubted!", but I took a shot.

remember, like for a really, really, really long time, you guys aid MP would NEVER be in a ME game, especially shepards ME? i remember that, and so does IanPolaris.

sorry not everyone tries to brown their noses with you guys.

[1136342t54_]

Terror_K wrote...

No, that's just another attempt to pull the wool over our eyes.

At this point this statement has shown me you already made up your mind on this.

Again, all that says to me is, "We haven't taken resources away from Single Player, because those resources were only given to our Montreal Studio who only work on Multiplayer anyway, so technically their resources have not been divereted because they've been allocated to the only thing they do from the get-go."

Either that or they just simply been given funds by EA specifically for Multiplayer that would have never went to SP.

Also, the term "taking away" indicates that one removed resources that were already allocated.

Assumptions made by many who assume resources were taken from SP to MP.

If the resources were not already allocated to Single Player, then they're technically not "taken away" from it either. So in that regard, even if the resources are not technically "taken away" from Single Player, that doesn't rule out the fact that they could have been allocated to it instead of Multiplayer.

So your argument basically rests on the 'it could of' statement? Seriously you are literally grasping at straws at this point.

[Terror_K]

1136342t54 wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

I just think fans want some straight-up answers, rather than vague, marketing speak. We want something a bit more solid than "emotionally engaging" this and "rich and deep" that.

But you yourself said you wouldn't believe Bioware anyway.  

Also the straight up answers you want could easily be delving into spoiler territory. Plus some of these answers could have already been answered but again you are unlikely to believe them.

How is an answer of simply "Yes" to the question, "are there missions with more than two multiple paths, ala Noveria in ME1?" a spoiler in any way, shape or form? What parts of the story get spoiled with that?

Same with, "is there planet exploration?" or "are sidequests more involved and better polished than in ME2?"

The most spoilery one I'd want to ask is, "is the Sur'kesh mission actually really different if Wrex and Mordin aren't alive, or is it just the same thing with other players, even if it makes no sense?" Again, a simple "yes, it's very different in those circumstances beyond just some dialogue and characters" doesn't spoil that much at all.

[The Spamming Troll]

The-Person wrote...

The Spamming Troll wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

1136342t54 wrote...

Massefeckt wrote...

I think if Chris said there was a fund for SP and a seperate fund for MP and that if MP didn't exist neither would the fund for MP so SP isn't effected then you have no choice but to believe him. I think it's wrong and simply not polite to say he lies. Even if you don't trust Bioware as an entity anymore on any issue that isn't 100% yet then the answer is never straight forward, it's "We are discussing it", "Those aspects are still being worked on etc." So when someone gives you a straight answer you can bet it's true.


Edit- Basically what I meant to say is I would assume games have a budget based on the size and options, so a game with MP has a bigger budget assigned to it than SP. So if ME3 didn't have MP they would be given a smaller budget.

I'm all for trying to get ME3 back to the best ME experience but I'm not sure the money would be any different either way.

To be honest Chris did make a straight up statement and it is assumed that he is wrong. When Chris stated that no resources were being diverted from SP and it is still not believed at all due to a large amount of assumptions its quite clear they won't ever be pleased.

Although I do agree with you that games with MP in it will usualy have bigger budgets in them then the same game with just SP.

I don't see him saying that anywhere. I see vague marketing speak that is put across like that, but doesn't say it outright, and what it really means is simply, "the resources aren't being divereted because the MP team working on it in the other studio only works on MP anyway."

I've seen nothing about MP funding coming out of the overall budget, nor anything that indicates that all the funding for MP was just given to them by EA and wouldn't exist otherwise. There's been no straightforward answer, just vagie marketing speak that says one thing, but means another. Sought of that "the truth you hear is not the full and actual truth, but the way it's delivered means it's also not a lie"

i agree terror.

its like people forget that bioware directly and adamately said MP would never be in any ME game, well, up untill MP was actually revealed.

They never said there will never be MP in a ME game.

wasnt "no MP in ME3" a dev promise listed on the "all things ME3" topic?

or was that removed?

[Xewaka]

Everyone's a downer because of Dragon Age 2 estabilishing an uncomfortable precedent.
Plus well, better to be pessimistic and pleasantly surprised that optimistic and suffer a disappointment.

[1136342t54_]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

I just think fans want some straight-up answers, rather than vague, marketing speak. We want something a bit more solid than "emotionally engaging" this and "rich and deep" that.

You're not the only one tired of the bullsh*t machine, but I can understand why they'd avoid direct answers to certain questions.  I don't like it, and I'd prefer they cut it out, but I get it.

Oh Bioware has given out some BS answers that are vague as hell but when they explicitly say something with no real room from vagueness (unless you really really search for it) then you would at that point have to take it or leave it.

[robarcool]

Jessica Merizan wrote...

I should go,
Jess

Was that phrase intentional?