291 réponses à ce sujet

[fdgvdddvdfdfbdfb]

Maybe they're just more vocal? I tried a poll that the results befuzzled me. social.bioware.com/1556698/polls/26436/

[1136342t54_]

Terror_K wrote...
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?

You never stated the context of the answer previously so you can't fault me for assuming spoilerish territory.

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

You do know they did at least talk about planet exploration for ME3 right? Not sure about sidequests but they likely did. You would have to search either twitter posts or Phaedon's thread.

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.

Then again if they say yes or no either you or others would likely want to know more about it in context. Honestly I'd be surprised if they do want to talk about it since it is a beta and it isn't how the mission will be in the final build. Even if they did it would make more sense for them to answer your question until after you play the actual demo.

[Terror_K]

1136342t54 wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

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.

Then they should come right out and say it: that the money that went towards MP didn't exist before and never would have existed for any aspect of the game whatsover without MP.

Of course, that would then cast a shadow of doubt around MP being in because EA wanted it, rather than because they really did feel it was time and properly suited the game. Especially after EA's recent "multiplayer is expected these days" comments, which are rather convenient timing wise.

So I guess BioWare can't win, huh?

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

I'm not grasping at straws. I've just gotten very used to BioWare's veiled marketing double-speak over the years, and learned that the truth you hear is not necessarily the truth they mean.

[FluffyScarf]

Not as vague as Todd from Beth when he goes into marketing mode. 300 hours. Yeah, 250 of which will be spent wandering the generic landscape.

[didymos1120]

The Spamming Troll wrote...

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

or was that removed?

That was Phaedon's interpretation of things said by Bioware, not something ever actually directly said by Bioware.

[didymos1120]

jreezy wrote...

didymos1120 wrote...

jreezy wrote...

Why?

Because of this.

You and your definitions. I think you should have a nickname. "Definition Man". Yup that's it.

Edit: I meant "Dictionary Man"

Well, speaking of definitions, what we're mostly seeing in this thread is technically "disconfirmation bias":  where people demand a higher standard of evidence for ideas they disagree with.  Here, a direct statement from Priestly is  dismissed and the "MP done stoleded stuff from SP!" meme is repeated.  At this point, I doubt even a full disclosure of EA's financial records would suffice.  We'd just get people declaiming "They're doctored!"*

*assuming of course they demonstrated extra funding was provided.  It's entirely possible they wouldn't.  Point is none of us non-EA employees have any real idea how the game was budgeted.

Modifié par didymos1120, 10 novembre 2011 - 12:26 .

[RusZap]

IanPolaris wrote...

PnXMarcin1PL wrote...

Sarunas - because people assume it's final script and it won't change. they've forgot about one thing. ME3 is still in development, there are many things to be done, added, etc...

I think that's a large exageration at least in my case.  What I am afraid of (and with good reason I think) is that it's far too late for substantive changes to be made that deal with what I feel are substantive issue in the story (the huge one for me being the apparent lack of respect for our big choices in ME1 and ME2).

-Polaris

With all due respect I wonder a couple things:

A) are you a game developer?  Or are you putting this together based on speculation

. You assume the leaked story was written the same time as the beta game play.

I have experience doing QA testing and assting in development from a user perspective on my company's CMMS and  we had junk data all along the way during testing in the QA DB.

[Terror_K]

1136342t54 wrote...

You do know they did at least talk about planet exploration for ME3 right? Not sure about sidequests but they likely did. You would have to search either twitter posts or Phaedon's thread.

The only thing I've seen on it is that some planets have multiple drop points, but the ones shown thus far appear to be for main mission locations. If you look at Phaedon's thread under "Exploration" there's only one thing listed, which is related to the mining mini-game. That's all we have so far.

Then again if they say yes or no either you or others would likely want to know more about it in context. Honestly I'd be surprised if they do want to talk about it since it is a beta and it isn't how the mission will be in the final build. Even if they did it would make more sense for them to answer your question until after you play the actual demo.

I just don't want another case of Horizon or Tuchanka from ME2 all over again. I don't want to see something like Wreav in Wrex's place doing exactly the same thing when it wouldn't make sense given their opposing policies. I want some actual different, dynamic and varied content, and not just the weak-sauce basting we mostly got in ME2.

This is the big kahuna... the final, epic conclusion to the trilogy. I don't want to go into this and find everything is all wishy-washy.

[DiebytheSword]

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

Diminishing returns would indeed affect this argument if you applied the money and people used in developing ME3 MP at a different development studio to somehow increase the awesome button factor of ME3 SP.  Since that is not the case, the Law of Diminishing Returns actually works against you here.  Adding money, staffing and time are required to reap escalating benefits from more resources, since the time was added at an entirely different studio, they can indeed use that money properly elsewhere, where it would not have made as much impact on the SP mode at best, or actually make it worse at the far end.  Since we don't have a budgetary breakdown, we will never have enough information to make informed opinions. 

That said, at a certain point, the team would have optimal money, people and time to finish the game.  Sounds like they needed more time, meaning they have ample money and people.

Sacrificing MP would be meaningless.

[FluffyScarf]

Then buy Skyrim. You'll get plenty of DLCs with dynamic, varied content.

[Someone With Mass]

didymos1120 wrote...

Well, speaking of definitions, what we're mostly seeing in this thread is technically "disconfirmation bias":  where people demand a higher standard of evidence for ideas they disagree with.  Here, a direct statement from Priestly is  dismissed and the "MP done stoleded stuff from SP!" meme is repeated.  At this point, I doubt even a full disclosure of EA's financial records would suffice.  We'd just get people declaiming "They're doctored!"*

*assuming of course they demonstrated extra funding was provided.  It's entirely possible they wouldn't.  Point is none of us non-EA employees have any real idea how the game was budgeted.

That sounds too good to be true. 

[Terror_K]

didymos1120 wrote...

The Spamming Troll wrote...

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

or was that removed?

That was Phaedon's interpretation of things said by Bioware, not something ever actually directly said by Bioware.

Which is just another classic example of the vague, marketing talk that makes you think one thing, but means another by avoiding a direct answer. More of that "the truth you hear" stuff.

[1136342t54_]

Terror_K wrote...
Then they should come right out and say it: that the money that went towards MP didn't exist before and never would have existed for any aspect of the game whatsover without MP.

The resources already existed. The debate seems to be whether or not it would be going to SP if MP didn't exist. Even if Bioware answered the question exactly like you wanted you have stated that you are unlikely to necessarily believe them due to past crimes mistakes

Of course, that would then cast a shadow of doubt around MP being in because EA wanted it, rather than because they really did feel it was time and properly suited the game. Especially after EA's recent "multiplayer is expected these days" comments, which are rather convenient timing wise.

So I guess BioWare can't win, huh?

To be honest Bioware could have just wanted to put MP in there game. You can say its unnecessary but to be honest storywise it actually makes sense so I wouldn't be too surprised if Bioware always had MP on the table for the last game but was never sure if they were putting it in.

I'm not grasping at straws. I've just gotten very used to BioWare's veiled marketing double-speak over the years, and learned that the truth you hear is not necessarily the truth they mean.

That was specific.

[SarunasAndSoOn]

what the....? i leave for an hour or so and i dont even feel like this is my thread anymore. if you guys want to discuss the distribution of the EA budget please do so in another thread.

that being said....

Chris is awesome, no matter how much people seem to ignore him. his clarification of the situation made sense to me, although i pretty much understood what was going. people need to stop ignoring the devs, it gets a little old.

[1136342t54_]

Terror_K wrote...
 
The only thing I've seen on it is that some planets have multiple drop points, but the ones shown thus far appear to be for main mission locations. If you look at Phaedon's thread under "Exploration" there's only one thing listed, which is related to the mining mini-game. That's all we have so far.

Last I heard there was no standard exploration like in the other games.

I just don't want another case of Horizon or Tuchanka from ME2 all over again. I don't want to see something like Wreav in Wrex's place doing exactly the same thing when it wouldn't make sense given their opposing policies. I want some actual different, dynamic and varied content, and not just the weak-sauce basting we mostly got in ME2.

False. Wreav didn't have a big meeting ground for the different clans. Wreav had his plan and a few ambassadors from others so he wouldn't be in a war with the others or some other reasons.

[Jessica Merizan]

Again, please quit the MP money talk and get back on topic or thread gets locked.

I should go,
Jess

[Ricinator]

SarunasAndSoOn wrote...

what the....? i leave for an hour or so and i dont even feel like this is my thread anymore. if you guys want to discuss the distribution of the EA budget please do so in another thread.

that being said....

Chris is awesome, no matter how much people seem to ignore him. his clarification of the situation made sense to me, although i pretty much understood what was going. people need to stop ignoring the devs, it gets a little old.

we ignore them as they ignore us.... They are not giving us what we want they are giving people who never played mass effect what they want. MP/crap

[fdgvdddvdfdfbdfb]

Jess! You're getting better at the Pulse thing.

[1136342t54_]

Eh I'm done with the finance argument.

[FluffyScarf]

I'd rather not give fans like Ricinator anything. Worst sort of fan imaginable.

[didymos1120]

Terror_K wrote...

Which is just another classic example of the vague, marketing talk that makes you think one thing, but means another by avoiding a direct answer. More of that "the truth you hear" stuff.

So ignore that equivocal stuff in favor of the direct statements. Such as this one:

Chris Priestly wrote...

 It is not taking away resources from Single Play as we have said many times.

Not really a lot of ways to interpret that.

[Ricinator]

FluffyScarf wrote...

I'd rather not give fans like Ricinator anything. Worst sort of fan imaginable.

trolololol more plz

[1136342t54_]

didymos1120 wrote...

Chris Priestly wrote...

 It is not taking away resources from Single Play as we have said many times.

Not really a lot of ways to interpret that.

I thought so to but Terror K seemed to know some other ways to intrepret that.

[SarunasAndSoOn]

Ricinator wrote...

SarunasAndSoOn wrote...

what the....? i leave for an hour or so and i dont even feel like this is my thread anymore. if you guys want to discuss the distribution of the EA budget please do so in another thread.

that being said....

Chris is awesome, no matter how much people seem to ignore him. his clarification of the situation made sense to me, although i pretty much understood what was going. people need to stop ignoring the devs, it gets a little old.

we ignore them as they ignore us.... They are not giving us what we want they are giving people who never played mass effect what they want. MP/crap

they should be ignoring us based on the way were behaving, assuming that theyre some ****s who only want to leech money off us isnt going to impress them much, it wont make them want to give you want you want either. 

however that is not what is happening, you people are so blinded by the rumors and leaks that you cant see that the game probably is what you want. 

and so what they want to attract more people with the MP. its been stated and defined very well that the SP wont lose andything because of this.

[Terror_K]

1136342t54 wrote...

Terror_K wrote...
 
I just don't want another case of Horizon or Tuchanka from ME2 all over again. I don't want to see something like Wreav in Wrex's place doing exactly the same thing when it wouldn't make sense given their opposing policies. I want some actual different, dynamic and varied content, and not just the weak-sauce basting we mostly got in ME2.

False. Wreav didn't have a big meeting ground for the different clans. Wreav had his plan and a few ambassadors from others so he wouldn't be in a war with the others or some other reasons.

But all that was sound and fury signifying nothing in the game. Tuchanka was the same in either case. It looked exactly the same and had the same krogan standing in the same places with the same issues, it had the same sidequests, etc. Beyond colouring the dialogue a little and having somebody different sitting on the throne, the place was the same, despite supposedly completely opposite governing.