147 réponses à ce sujet

[Killjoy Cutter]

someguy1231 wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

someguy1231 wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Oh look, more attempts to make it personal. 

Whatever.

www.urbandictionary.com/define.php

You can't have anything better than linking to a slang "dictionary"? 

Nice try, kid.   Nice try.

Are you just being willfully dense at this point? Or are you always dense?

More ad hom?  How quaint.

Keep digging kid, keep digging.

[someguy1231]

We've had one page of exchanging snarky one-liners, and yet you still haven't addressed my argument. All you've said is "They two have nothing to do with one another." without going into detail and using "whatever" on two occasions, which is generally used as a last resort when someone can't think of a counter-argument, as urbandictionary shows. Not exactly what I'd expect from someone so convinced they're in the right.

[Wulfram]

someguy1231 wrote...

We've had one page of exchanging snarky one-liners, and yet you still haven't addressed my argument. All you've said is "They two have nothing to do with one another." without going into detail and using "whatever" on two occasions, which is generally used as a last resort when someone can't think of a counter-argument, as urbandictionary shows. Not exactly what I'd expect from someone so convinced they're in the right.

Your argument is silly.  By that logic, you can never oppose any feature ever.

[Cloaking_Thane]

someguy1231 wrote...

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.

I suppose the Dragon age team has wanted multiplayer all along as well? I'm sure it has nothing to do with the mandate/directive that all EA titles are to now have multiplayer regardless (again refer to shareholder remarks)?

Don't be willfully ignorant, while it may attract new customers (and therefore 'served it's purpose' as it were) it could simultaneously detract long time customers and may become a wash (thats not including taking into consideration VG market and increasing populations worldwide etc. but I digress slightly)

If ME3 multiplayer lasts beyond 6 months I'll personally be shocked (let alone 10 years). If they include the ability to play with AI bots and local couch mode I'll be fine as well.

Heck, I liked Crysis 2 and it's MP and it was dead within 3-4 months and that was more or less the reason to buy it (although I do like the campaign as well). There are so many more numerous examples of MP being a tacked on afterthought that detract from a game rather than a raging success that it's generally hard to be optomistic about it.

Despite all this, I will play MP and hopefully enjoy it and hope it is fantastic. If not it's no skin off my back honestly, but the machinations and arguments that its what they planned all along and 'make perfect sense' annoy me to some degree

[AlexXIV]

Wulfram wrote...

someguy1231 wrote...

We've had one page of exchanging snarky one-liners, and yet you still haven't addressed my argument. All you've said is "They two have nothing to do with one another." without going into detail and using "whatever" on two occasions, which is generally used as a last resort when someone can't think of a counter-argument, as urbandictionary shows. Not exactly what I'd expect from someone so convinced they're in the right.

Your argument is silly.  By that logic, you can never oppose any feature ever.

Also we already know both are in regardless of people who like or dislike it. So what's the point really.

[CrimsonQueen]

I like both, but what i really want right now is a concltion to the long spanning story of the reapers

[someguy1231]

Wulfram wrote...

someguy1231 wrote...

We've had one page of exchanging snarky one-liners, and yet you still haven't addressed my argument. All you've said is "They two have nothing to do with one another." without going into detail and using "whatever" on two occasions, which is generally used as a last resort when someone can't think of a counter-argument, as urbandictionary shows. Not exactly what I'd expect from someone so convinced they're in the right.

Your argument is silly.  By that logic, you can never oppose any feature ever.

No, my logic is you can't oppose a certain feature for a certain reason, and support another feature which could logically be opposed for that same reason, without being guilty of hypocrisy. Again, there's no hypocrisy if the person admits to opposing it solely because of their personal opinion. If someone says "I like the romances but don't like multiplayer", they're not a hypocrite. If someone says "I like the romances but the multiplayer is just a waste of resources and an obvious cash-grab at 12-year-old CoD fanboys", then they're a hypocrite. See the difference?

[Cloaking_Thane]

someguy1231 wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

someguy1231 wrote...

We've had one page of exchanging snarky one-liners, and yet you still haven't addressed my argument. All you've said is "They two have nothing to do with one another." without going into detail and using "whatever" on two occasions, which is generally used as a last resort when someone can't think of a counter-argument, as urbandictionary shows. Not exactly what I'd expect from someone so convinced they're in the right.

Your argument is silly.  By that logic, you can never oppose any feature ever.

No, my logic is you can't oppose a certain feature for a certain reason, and support another feature which could logically be opposed for that same reason, without being guilty of hypocrisy. Again, there's no hypocrisy if the person admits to opposing it solely because of their personal opinion. If someone says "I like the romances but don't like multiplayer", they're not a hypocrite. If someone says "I like the romances but the multiplayer is just a waste of resources and an obvious cash-grab at 12-year-old CoD fanboys", then they're a hypocrite. See the difference?

I imagine the magnitude of creating multiplayer in terms of dollars far outstrips the addition of the few scenes and dialouge lines in romance options to be fair.

[Forsythia]

I don't support multiplayer, because I feel it's a cheap way to cater to the larger crowd and frankly, does feel incredibly tacked on from what I've read and seen so far.

There isn't any logic in the OPs argument, as the romances have been in Mass Effect from the start. Yes, I support romances, they're part of what make the games fun.

Deal with it, as I and others have to deal with the tacked on multiplayer.

[BatmanPWNS]

I like both features so I am fine.

[Killjoy Cutter]

"Catering to sim fans"?

Are you even certain that dedicated "sim" games existed when interpersonal relationships with NPCs first began to appear in western CPRGs? Can't really be said to be catering to the fans of another genre of game when your own genre had the aspect first...

[Izhalezan]

You don't seem to be taking into account that romance has been a part of ME longer than multiplayer has. Opposition to new things is natural, personally, I'd prefer a standalone ME game revolving around co-op/multiplayer, but that's neither here nor there. And how many resources does romances waste vs how much multiplayer will take, I have a hard time imagining they're even close.

[Nightwriter]

I don't understand why anyone would oppose optional romances.

I don't understand why anyone would oppose optional multiplayer.

[Ramus Quaritch]

someguy1231 wrote...

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.

You don't have to open up a new studio and pay all of those salaries to make romances for the game.  You do for multiplayer.  Bioware/EA did this for multiplayer.  They did not have a separate studio handle romances.  The scale of the two features is completely different.  Some games are completely defined by multiplayer.  Few games are completely defined by romance.  

Modifié par Ramus Quaritch, 19 décembre 2011 - 05:47 .

[Wulfram]

Nightwriter wrote...

I don't understand why anyone would oppose optional romances.

I don't understand why anyone would oppose optional multiplayer.

They're taking away resources from stuff you might be more interested.

They also create compromises which may make for a worse experience for those who don't use them.  Someone with no interest in romances still has to put up with all those ninjamances, awkward ends to dialogues because they're designed to lead into romances and FemShep's constant sexual harassment of Jacob.  The chances of the Galactic Readiness mechanic being at all interesting or balanced are reduced considerably by it having to accomodate both people who'll never play MP and those who'll play it obsessively.

[Sherbet Lemon]

I don't mind multiplayer, but I'm not happy about the prospect of it being online only.

I do want offline co-op because I can play with my husband and my brother or anyone else I have hanging out.  There were many times where I've wanted to play with someone else, but couldn't and if there's going to be multiplayer, it should really allow for both.

I like the romances.  I think they're fun.

[Exia001]

To have a War story without romance is stupid, people fall in love, and this would probably be double if they were in an extreme situation. Romances add to a game, though how the game will react to a love triangle. I do not oppose MP as long as it does not impact on the SP game, which it seems it has not.

[Fooxie]

I'm not opposed to multiplayer, I'm just more or less indifferent of it because I likely won't get to use it. I don't feel like paying for Xbox Live when I only have one (two, when I get ME3) game with *optional* multiplayer/co-op.

Romances... I like romances.

[DrSpoonbender]

I am not sure the exact intricacies of how the gaming world works in terms of budgeting but any new feature added to a product should also add *value that greater than its expense. Therefore the budget is not an immutable number that is simply reset from year to year but instead one that is carefully justified. While the core product and any ancillary features ultimately share the same bottom line, more funds should have been secured for the budget to accommodate the new feature. There is no promise that by eliminating this feature these funds would be reallocated to the same product, it might be used to develop another project or it might simply sit collecting interest until something new warrants its release.

*value (perceived value by the customer that translates to greater sales and customer loyalty [greater future sales])

Modifié par DrSpoonbender, 19 décembre 2011 - 06:11 .

[TMA LIVE]

Nightwriter wrote...

I don't understand why anyone would oppose optional romances.

I don't understand why anyone would oppose optional multiplayer.

I only oppose one if it interferes with the other. Like the multiplayer is ****ty, because more time was spent on the romances. Or the romances were ****ty, because more time was spent on multiplayer.

Modifié par TMA LIVE, 19 décembre 2011 - 06:02 .

[Severyx]

I support romance in multiplayer.

Is this a bad thing?

[AntiChri5]

People need to break out of the mindset that the entire game should be designed with only their tastes and interests in mind.

Not everything in the game is for you. That does not invalidate the parts that are.

[rudenotginger]

Ah yes, because anyone who doesn't have the same preferences as you is wrong. Now who's a hypocrite?