147 réponses à ce sujet

[someguy1231]

Then you're a hypocrite. Let me explain why.

If you're familiar with the few posts I've made here, you'd know I'm no fan of the romances in the ME games. I consider the dialogue forced and the cutscenes to be cheesy b-grade soft porn. I also think they're an unnecessary waste of resources that could be used for other things like more polish/enemies/sidequests, and are also a transparent marketing ploy to fans of dating sims.

Do those arguments sound familiar to you? If you've read through the various multiplayer threads on these forums, they should be. They're the exact same arguments as the ones most commonly used by people opposed to the inclusion of multiplayer in ME3. Just replace "dating sims" with "Call of Duty" or any other popular multiplayer shooter. In the end, both romances and multiplayer are an optional, unnecessary feature added to cater to a certain group of gamers. Supporting one while opposing the other for reasons other than personal opinion of the features in question makes you a hypocrite, plain and simple. As much as I loathe the romances, I can begrudgingly accept it's brought in more buyers than it otherwise would have got, though that won't make me start liking them.

[CptData]

I do support romances.
I do support multiplayer.

So guess you're right.

Then again, I'm not a supporter of a squad with 12+1 (potential) members in ME2, since I consider at least 4 as "waste of resources" which could have been spent on the main storyline or on the remaining characters.

Am I a hypocrite now?

[LGTX]

I believe the top argument by the time this thread hits 5000+ pages of fanrage will be "romances were there from the start".

[MJvasNormandy]

A bit over the top, but I agree that the arguments against multiplayer are rediculous.

[wright1978]

As long as multiplayer doesn't effect my single player experience i'll accept it.
Romances are part of the single player experience. They are of course optional but so are side missions.

[CptData]

wright1978 wrote...

As long as multiplayer doesn't effect my single player experience i'll accept it.
Romances are part of the single player experience. They are of course optional but so are side missions.

Think they're pretty much integral part of the gaming experience. You don't need to go after one, but if you do, it's usually rewarding in one or another way.
I'm still waiting for some connections to the main storyline, but won't happen: the romances are purely optional.

Oh and I'm glad they're not integral part of the main story - or in that case, any players not romancing Liara won't see the "best ending" - given the fact Liara is still BW's fave character.

[someguy1231]

LGTX wrote...

I believe the top argument by the time this thread hits 5000+ pages of fanrage will be "romances were there from the start".

Yes, I anticipate many will make that sort of argument. To me, it's completely irrelevant. It just shows the person in question is either afraid of change or can't get over First Installment Bias. Besides, didn't Bioware recently say they've always wanted to add multiplayer?

[Chuvvy]

Guaranteeing replies.

[LGTX]

someguy1231 wrote...

LGTX wrote...

I believe the top argument by the time this thread hits 5000+ pages of fanrage will be "romances were there from the start".

Yes, I anticipate many will make that sort of argument. To me, it's completely irrelevant. It just shows the person in question is either afraid of change or can't get over First Installment Bias. Besides, didn't Bioware recently say they've always wanted to add multiplayer?

Yep, I believe they've stated that integrating any type of social element was on the team's minds from the get-go, but the in-lore context wasn't there, and the mechanics were bland. ME3 has those two covered.

[Chuvvy]

LGTX wrote...

someguy1231 wrote...

LGTX wrote...

I believe the top argument by the time this thread hits 5000+ pages of fanrage will be "romances were there from the start".

Yes, I anticipate many will make that sort of argument. To me, it's completely irrelevant. It just shows the person in question is either afraid of change or can't get over First Installment Bias. Besides, didn't Bioware recently say they've always wanted to add multiplayer?

Yep, I believe they've stated that integrating any type of social element was on the team's minds from the get-go, but the in-lore context wasn't there, and the mechanics were bland. ME3 has those two covered.

I hate MEs combat. Well, I don't hate it, it's very dull and I can think of plenty of games that do it much better. Me's is basically pop and shoot with little tactics or team work, except for some of the bosses and insanity dificulty.

[spirosz]

The whole game is optional.

[CptData]

spiros9110 wrote...

The whole game is optional.

Technically spoken, one's entire life is optional. So your argument is a tad invalid 

[spirosz]

CptData wrote...

spiros9110 wrote...

The whole game is optional.

Technically spoken, one's entire life is optional. So your argument is a tad invalid 

That was my point. 

[CroGamer002]

Romances are part of singleplayer experience so your argument is invalid.

[someguy1231]

Mesina2 wrote...

Romances are part of singleplayer experience so your argument is invalid.

Irrelevant. And include a meme pic next time

[Kaiser Shepard]

No, I oppose romances but am indifferent towards multiplayer.

[Candidate 88766]

Mesina2 wrote...

Romances are part of singleplayer experience so your argument is invalid.

If you want, the MP can be a part of the SP experience.

[Cloaking_Thane]

I would ask you to google EA's shareholder speech, there are so many other factors involved than the dichotomy you've presented I have a hard time even begining how to dissect it in a fashion that wont garner a canned response from you OP.

I'll just leave it at that. I don't oppose the Co-op per se, but if its dead in even a year or 1.5 Years after release you have to question what the the purpose was or rather what the point was. It's just a strange addition that doesn't make too much sense other than in the context of and overarching EA mandate.

[FlyinElk212]

I suppose from an ideology standpoint, yes, you'd be a hypocrite.

But seriously, why WOULD you want more resources into multiplayer, and not more in this:

[xentar]

someguy1231 wrote...

Mesina2 wrote...
Romances are part of singleplayer experience so your argument is invalid.

Irrelevant. And include a meme pic next time 

Do you support having squadmates and oppose multiplayer?
Do you support character advancement and oppose multiplayer?
Do you support having multiple classes but oppose bultiplayer?
Do you support having non-hostile environments but oppose multiplayer?
Do you support having dialog options but oppose multiplayer?
Do you support multiple plot choices but oppose multiplayer?
Do you support single player campaign but oppose multiplayer?

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

I don't support romances.
I do support multiplayer.

[someguy1231]

xentar wrote...

someguy1231 wrote...

Mesina2 wrote...
Romances are part of singleplayer experience so your argument is invalid.

Irrelevant. And include a meme pic next time 

Do you support having squadmates and oppose multiplayer?
Do you support character advancement and oppose multiplayer?
Do you support having multiple classes but oppose bultiplayer?
Do you support having non-hostile environments but oppose multiplayer?
Do you support having dialog options but oppose multiplayer?
Do you support multiple plot choices but oppose multiplayer?
Do you support single player campaign but oppose multiplayer?

Apples and oranges. All of those are either not optional for the player or so ubiquitious in video games it's hard to argue they were added to cater to a certain group of gamers. The same can't be said for romances or multiplayer.

Modifié par someguy1231, 19 décembre 2011 - 02:45 .

[Juha81FIN]

I don't understand why romance options have become so important in few recent bioware games, despite them being optional and they're certainly not new thing.
I never felt that they were forced on player, they become available after certain point.

[Killjoy Cutter]

someguy1231 wrote...

Then you're a hypocrite. Let me explain why.

LoL, whatever.  The two have nothing to do with one another.

If your intent was to get people to ease up on criticizing the inclusion of multiplayer by comparing it to romances, you fail completely in your first sentence.  You don't convince people of your position by insulting them. 

If your intent was to flame people who enjoy the romances, then congrats, you succeeded in sending forth a childish attack post.  Yay for you.

Modifié par Killjoy Cutter, 19 décembre 2011 - 02:53 .

[someguy1231]

Cloaking_Thane wrote...

I would ask you to google EA's shareholder speech, there are so many other factors involved than the dichotomy you've presented I have a hard time even begining how to dissect it in a fashion that wont garner a canned response from you OP.

I'll just leave it at that. I don't oppose the Co-op per se, but if its dead in even a year or 1.5 Years after release you have to question what the the purpose was or rather what the point was. It's just a strange addition that doesn't make too much sense other than in the context of and overarching EA mandate.

If it gets more people to buy the game, then from Bioware's perspective it served its purpose. Whether multiplayer dies out after 6 months or 6 years doesn't matter, as long as it gets more buyers.

Besides, you'd be surprised by the longevity of some multiplayer games. Counter-Strike still has a healthy community, and it's been out for over 10 years.

And I highly doubt multiplayer is the result of an EA mandate. If they really wanted MP, it would've been included in ME2. And Bioware has said they've always been interested in adding MP.