414 réponses à ce sujet

[FoxShadowblade]

LGTX wrote...

Arcian wrote...

LGTX wrote...

Pretty horrible article overall. 

Welcome, compadre, to the realm of internet video game journalism.

Been there for quite a while already, and this is still something pulled out from somewhere a dark sun doesn't shine =)

It's an opinionated article, no denying that.

I just love how everyone thinks it's terrible because of that, when the article they wrote supporting ME3 multiplayer wouldn't look much better. xD

[Captain_Obvious_au]

"If you're so determined to steal Modern Warfare's customers, guys, at least do it your own way."

Love the last line lol.

Honestly I'm not too fussed about multi-player, might even try it out even though I barely ever do it. Still if Bioware says you can still achieve the optimal result in single-player (oh god please not multi-player vs planet scanning!) then I'm satisfied.

[vader da slayer]

1) "Its up to you alone" so I guess the squad thats with you is just a figment of my/shepards imagination?

2) Bioware never said it did. Have never understood why people say this.

3) Well some of us do so you don't have to play it if you don't want to.

4) Dont want to use the apps don't buy em. Why do you care if there's an app for people who want to use an app that might help them in ME3? If you feel like it would cheapen the experience for you then dont use it. Same could be said for teh coop.

5) MP doesnt affect the decisions you make. And again if you don't want the "points" from coop to affect your sp outcome, don't play it.

6) Who cares? If someone plays it and enjoys it for a while then it served its purpose. If you don't like it don't play it and don't buy any maps for it.

Pretty much everything he stated is either highly optional and not a "reason" to drop it or some opinionated rhetoric from forums that again aren't a valid reason as they are a personal prefference. The only valid reason that one could give to drop it is if making the coop would have pulled time from developing the single player campaign, which thanks to the time frame when coop dev started compared to where the sp was it didn't. Also not to mention a different Bioware studio developed the coop than developed the single player.

[slimgrin]

The biggest worry, and one of the biggest threats to the industry imo is point # 4: social media gaming, which is like gaming on the go, casual gaming. But it reaches such a huge audience and makes so much damn money, the temptation for publishers is understandable.

When it comes down to it though, I don't care if multiplayer in ME3 is sub-par. I just want one more good single player campaign in the ME universe and then they can make all the co-op, multi-player, i-phone, and Facebook games they want.

Modifié par slimgrin, 02 décembre 2011 - 05:40 .

[Dexi]

Lol the article was so dumb I almost puked...


It was written by one of those hardcore fans that believe what they think so much of a fact, and their voice is really important...


And what's its purpose? Does it say anything new? It doesn't shed any light on the matter, brings no new point.
And it's not like BW is gonna drop something almost already done because of an article...

[whywhywhywhy]

Andorfiend wrote...

That's a pretty weak list of arguements if you ask me. And I'm not a big MP fan, so the multiplayer aspect is not a selling point for me.

If I thought the MP was being done by the same team as the main campaign, I would be upset that it was distracting them from their proper focus. But since it's a seperate team and I can dive in, dabble, or ignore it as I please... I say go for it,.

That's an understandable perspective.  I however look at it this way, if the secondary team is good enough to develop this portion of the game which isn't trivial and would require regular contact wth the main team.  Then how much more could have been accomplished if that team was working on a portion of the single player campaign instead ?

This whole 30 hours of gameplay is a recent development in my eyes.  If a game is rated at 30 hours it's not a game I'll buy at full price it has to be bundled with something.  The standard use to be around 45 - 60 hours.  I'd rather that seperate team work on that extra 15 or at least 10 hours of content. 

I don't imagine many people will understand but the standard game price has risen 10 bucks and average game content reduced to 25-30 hours. 

[spirosz]

whywhywhywhy wrote...

That's an understandable perspective.  I however look at it this way, if the secondary team is good enough to develop this portion of the game which isn't trivial and would require regular contact wth the main team.  Then how much more could have been accomplished if that team was working on a portion of the single player campaign instead ?

This whole 30 hours of gameplay is a recent development in my eyes.  If a game is rated at 30 hours it's not a game I'll buy at full price it has to be bundled with something.  The standard use to be around 45 - 60 hours.  I'd rather that seperate team work on that extra 15 or at least 10 hours of content. 

I don't imagine many people will understand but the standard game price has risen 10 bucks and average game content reduced to 25-30 hours. 

Isn't average game content usually 10-15 hours?  I guess it depends on the player.  

[raza31]

Anyone think that with mulit-player, any DLCs for ME3 would be only $15 map packs and no story DLCs? This is the end for Shepard afterall. R.I.P.

[Il Divo]

spiros9110 wrote...

Isn't average game content usually 10-15 hours?  I guess it depends on the player.  

Depends on the game and development resources/time. The main problem is that game price isn't usually development on gameplay length, which raises the question: what do we consider getting our "money's worth" when Game A provides 60 hours of content while Game B provides 15. It's often a measure of enjoyment, more than anything else.

Modifié par Il Divo, 02 décembre 2011 - 05:54 .

[Someone With Mass]

spiros9110 wrote...

Isn't average game content usually 10-15 hours?  I guess it depends on the player.  

Now you're a little too generous. I think 8-12 hours is more close to it.

Not that I think it matters how long a game is, but what you do with that length.

50 hours of gameplay won't automatically make a good game if 25 of those hours are watching the player getting from point A to point B or if it's just a big grind-fest.

Modifié par Someone With Mass, 02 décembre 2011 - 05:57 .

[111987]

whywhywhywhy wrote...


This whole 30 hours of gameplay is a recent development in my eyes.  If a game is rated at 30 hours it's not a game I'll buy at full price it has to be bundled with something.  The standard use to be around 45 - 60 hours.  I'd rather that seperate team work on that extra 15 or at least 10 hours of content. 

You must only play RPG's if that's how long you think a standard game ever was.

[raza31]

dafangirl wrote...

@raza31 - shhh, don't say that R.I.P...bad karma.

@dafangirl-  ok  with muilt-player, story DLCs R.I.P

[DarthCaine]

The number one reason is budget cuts. I still can't believe they recast Mordin (not to mention the fact that from the spoilers file consequences of your ME1 and ME2 are basically non-existant and retconned, as well as the fact that went extra lazy and only 2 squad mates are returning as full squad mates)

Modifié par DarthCaine, 02 décembre 2011 - 06:02 .

[DiebytheSword]

DarthCaine wrote...

The number one reason is budget cuts. I still can't believe they recast Mordin

Except there were no budget cuts.  Montreal was funded with additional money that was outside the scope of the orignal game.  I don't know how you have access to Bioware's books, but you obviously ignore the only people who do.

I too would lament Mordin's change if he is not in it, but there is nothing at all to suggest that he was cut to use the money on multiplayer.

[DarthCaine]

DiebytheSword wrote...

DarthCaine wrote...

The number one reason is budget cuts. I still can't believe they recast Mordin

Except there were no budget cuts.  Montreal was funded with additional money that was outside the scope of the orignal game.  I don't know how you have access to Bioware's books, but you obviously ignore the only people who do.

I too would lament Mordin's change if he is not in it, but there is nothing at all to suggest that he was cut to use the money on multiplayer.

You're only lying to yourself if you believe there weren't major bugdet cuts 'cos of multiplayer. I've already seen the spoilers file and how consequences of your choices are non-existant and retconned (as well as the fact that only 2 squad mates are returning as permanent, one that can't die so they don't have to make extra content)

Modifié par DarthCaine, 02 décembre 2011 - 06:08 .

[Andorfiend]

111987 wrote...

You must only play RPG's if that's how long you think a standard game ever was.

Speaking personally my favorite genre is 4x, so a single game may be 5 to 15 hours, but the replayability means I can waste as much time as I want conquering Arcanus and Myrror, or Orion.

But RPGs are a close second, and for them I do like to have more than a dozen hours of gameplay for my $.

It can get too long however. There are games I never finished because I just got tired of 'slogging towards mordor."

[111987]

DarthCaine wrote...

DiebytheSword wrote...

DarthCaine wrote...

The number one reason is budget cuts. I still can't believe they recast Mordin

Except there were no budget cuts.  Montreal was funded with additional money that was outside the scope of the orignal game.  I don't know how you have access to Bioware's books, but you obviously ignore the only people who do.

I too would lament Mordin's change if he is not in it, but there is nothing at all to suggest that he was cut to use the money on multiplayer.

You're only lying to yourself if you believe there weren't major bugdet cuts 'cos of multiplayer. I've already seen the spoilers file and how consequences of your choices are non-existant and retconned (as well as the fact that only 2 squad mates are returning as permanent)

Even if true (I haven't read the spoilers) correlation doesn't imply causation. Consequences of your choices from ME1 to ME2 weren't significant either, and yet that game didn't have multiplayer.

BioWare recieved additional funds for multiplayer, funds they wouldn't have otherwise gotten.

[raza31]

This is the formula for buying a game. (hrs worked * payrate) - (taxes) = (household expenses) + (entertainment expense) =  (game cost) / (game playable hrs) = (must buy new) or (must used) or (not buy)


I still think the formula missing something

Modifié par raza31, 02 décembre 2011 - 06:33 .

[slimgrin]

DarthCaine wrote...

 as well as the fact that went extra lazy and only 2 squad mates are returning as full squad mates)

This doesn't make sense.. we'll certainly have more than two to choose from.

Modifié par slimgrin, 02 décembre 2011 - 06:24 .

[Mr. MannlyMan]

Bioware's Montreal and Edmonton team both contribute resources to the multiplayer. They're not going to create two different studios and isolate them from one another if they're both tasked with working on the same game. That'd be ludicrously inefficient.

[Iakus]

 Just read the article, and I particularly agree with 1, 4 and 5.

1)The Mass Effect trilogy is supposed to be "Shepard's story".  This whole Galaxy at War thing detracts from it.  Sure it's a war, and other people are fighting on other fronts.  But that should be material for other games.  Games that don't focus on Shepard.  

How much Shepard-centric content had to be cut/downgraded to DLC sue to space contraints of fitting both single player and multiplayer to one game?

4) This is exactly why I'm done with Mass Effect after 3, and I'm not even guaranteeing I'll get it new (why should I pay for an online pass I'm not going to use?), why the Dragon Age 3 rumor has me very nervous about that franchise as well, and why i'm taking a long, hard look at any Bioware product to be announced from now on.  It may be too late to change ME3, but that just means I'll take my money elsewhere.  Why should I pay full price for only 3/4 of a game?

5) Indeed, this means that either a) The entire War Asset system will be a trivial aspect of the game Gaining sufficient War Assets in the single player game will be extra difficul, since you're "supposed' to be doing multiplayer as well or c) Gaining War Assets in single player will be a challenge, but multiplayer will make it an almost nonissue.

I know, I know, War Assets are only a part of the whole galactic war thing.  But gaining a tech expert was only a part of the Suicide Mission too.  But you get someone killed if you don't have one.

[raza31]

dafangirl wrote...

Though it does give you pause to wonder if the MP portion is why the game is 6 months delayed.

Agreed, why miss the holiday shopping season. Why let Skyrim take RGP / game of the year crown for 2011?

[Alex_SM]

dafangirl wrote...


I also wonder at what future audience, what demographic, Bioware/EA is trying to entice. My husband certainly doesn't use his iPhone for gaming, nor does my 23 year old son, though we're all avid gamers; my 8 year old nephew and 12 year old niece, however, do. I'd personally like to see series like ME focused on mature content; the Facebook crowd, from what I see, can't even legally have a beer yet.


What's most disturbing, barring the MP aspect itself, pro or con, well done or shoddy, is something Casey Hudson said in a recent interview, "In general, that's the direction that videogames are heading; they're more social, more online...". I simply do not see this as a positive sign for Bioware's thought process regarding their future RPG's.

This. Agree 100%. 

[Iakus]

spiros9110 wrote...

whywhywhywhy wrote...

That's an understandable perspective.  I however look at it this way, if the secondary team is good enough to develop this portion of the game which isn't trivial and would require regular contact wth the main team.  Then how much more could have been accomplished if that team was working on a portion of the single player campaign instead ?

This whole 30 hours of gameplay is a recent development in my eyes.  If a game is rated at 30 hours it's not a game I'll buy at full price it has to be bundled with something.  The standard use to be around 45 - 60 hours.  I'd rather that seperate team work on that extra 15 or at least 10 hours of content. 

I don't imagine many people will understand but the standard game price has risen 10 bucks and average game content reduced to 25-30 hours. 

Isn't average game content usually 10-15 hours?  I guess it depends on the player.  

35 is the absolute minimum I'll go for an rpg.  50+ is my target number.  Sadly, DAO is the last game I played where I could hit that number consistently.

[shepskisaac]

raza31 wrote...

Agreed, why miss the holiday shopping season. Why let Skyrim take RGP / game of the year crown for 2011?

You ain't gonna benefit from Holiday season if the competition's bigger than you. All big games released this Hiloday season sold better than ME1 & ME2 did. As important & great ME franchise may be, it is not a uber-blockbuster sales-wise (yet).