147 réponses à ce sujet

[Killjoy Cutter]

Nightwriter wrote...

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

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

If either were to actively interfere with the experience and gameplay of those who do not like or do not wish to engage in them, then opposition would be perfectly rational. 

So far, I've seen a lot more in the way of multiplayer screwing up games for those who don't do multiplayer, than I have for the other.

[Doctoglethorpe]

OP doesn't understand what being a hypocrit means.

Thread should never of gotten this long. 

[Severyx]

The fact that people are still worried about multiplayer's development interfering with the main game astounds me. Bioware tasked an entire new team to handle this while the normal team continues doing what they do.

Two different teams.
Two different workloads.
None of the intereferance.

Back on topic: People getting upset over optional content is for the sole puropse of furthering unneccessary debate. How about something more relevant and constructive, like "What if we could romance in multiplayer?"

[Heimdall]

Wulfram wrote...

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.

That might be a valid concern for Multiplayer.  Romances consume signifigantly fewer resources.  They just have to put together a handful of new scenes in already existing environments and pay the voice actors for a little more work.  There is no hypocrisy in liking romances but thinking multiplayer consumes too many resources.

[Killjoy Cutter]

Severyx wrote...

The fact that people are still worried about multiplayer's development interfering with the main game astounds me. Bioware tasked an entire new team to handle this while the normal team continues doing what they do.

Two different teams.
Two different workloads.
None of the intereferance.

If you believe that, I have a bridge in New York to sell you.  We could also discuss land in far southern Florida...

Severyx wrote...
Back on topic: People getting upset over optional content is for the sole puropse of furthering unneccessary debate. How about something more relevant and constructive, like "What if we could romance in multiplayer?"

Imagine what the Faux News brigade would make of that... 

[Feanor_II]

I'm not a "hardcore romances fan" at all, but I think they can contribute to make richer and colorful the story and characters, anyway it's not a criticial part of the game and I doe belive that there is people who gives them too much importance.

I don't care about MP as long as it doesn't affect SP both in resources budget and "gaming philosophy"

[JamieCOTC]

I see I have to add a couple to my list.

Modifié par JamieCOTC, 19 décembre 2011 - 06:38 .

[Severyx]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

If you believe that, I have a bridge in New York to sell you.  We could also discuss land in far southern Florida...
 

It sounds like you don't have any decent idea of how game development works. Sure my statement was over-simplified, but it retains a lot of the truth.

I bet you're one of those conspiracy theorists who claim EA is spying on you with their Origin software--

Wait.

Right direction, bad example. . .

[Il Divo]

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.

Romances have an additional component attached to them that makes their addition completely different from the addition of multiplayer. Bioware games emphasize decision-making and dialogue, which includes romance options. This is why I can support their inclusion without engaging in hypocrisy, because I enjoy in-character decision-making.

You see, romances promote role-play, much like any other interactive feature. If I choose to romance Ashley, that is decision-making. If I choose to insult Ashley, that is decision-making.  If I support Miranda over Jack, that is decision-making, no different than any Renegade/Paragon option.

But multiplayer? It doesn't even remotely meet this requirement for role-playing. There is no decision making, there is no interactive dialogue, no narrative for Shepard, nothing which I can reasonably say I will get out of the experience.

I'm playing Mass Effect for the interactive story and role-playing, which requires that I am playing as Shepard making decisions. Love interests meet this requirement. Multiplayer does not.

Modifié par Il Divo, 19 décembre 2011 - 06:45 .

[robarcool]

Well, so far the MP seems to be thrilling, so I am in. I also support the romances.

[HiroVoid]

I also support vs multiplayer, the ability to cook my meals, the ability to pilot the normandy through space, the option to watch television, read through hundreds of pages of literature in-game, and a more interactive world with npcs walking around doing activities rather than just standing in a static space.

[Killjoy Cutter]

Severyx wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

If you believe that, I have a bridge in New York to sell you.  We could also discuss land in far southern Florida...
 

It sounds like you don't have any decent idea of how game development works. Sure my statement was over-simplified, but it retains a lot of the truth.

I bet you're one of those conspiracy theorists who claim EA is spying on you with their Origin software--

Wait.

Right direction, bad example. . .

If you don't think Origin is spyware, then you either don't understand what spyware is, or don't understand what Origin has been shown to do. 

As for the development issue, sorry, that whole "different teams, different resources, different etc" thing is a load of crap.  Direction for things like the inclusion of multiplayer comes from higher than the team level, and money is money is money.

[ediskrad327]

Nightwriter wrote...

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

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

because people need to find something to complain about :|

[bandfred]

 I'm begining to be annoyed by romances and would prefer multiplayer over it.

[Killjoy Cutter]

Funny how all non-glowing-praise posts are now smugly dismissed by the same handful of people going around and spam-posting "Oh you guys just want something to complain about" to every thread where anyone has any concern or criticism about anything.

[mineralica]

I'm neutral to romances (definitely wouldn't cry if only friendship path was present).

I hate multiplayer.

Yes, I'm hypocrite.

And egoist.

Next question?

[CroGamer002]

mineralica wrote...

Next question?

Can I play Co-Op with you?

[DarkPsylocke26]

I support the romance, and I would play the multiplayer if I could because I don't have X-box live.

[Ecto-Plasmic Effect]

Lets have romance in the multiplayer.

[HolyAvenger]

Lets have multiplayer in the romances (love triangles and heartbreak ftw, none of the fluffy polyamory stuff).

[Sebbe1337o]

I guess I'm a hypocrite.

[someone else]

someguy1231 wrote...

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

...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. ...

Read through this entire thread and conclude it is an elaborate troll - romance is a plot feature, mutliplayer a game design choice - totally different in thrust, implementation and resource committment - OP has set up a flimsy strawman and is rejoicing in knocking it over.

Simply to say these aspects of the game appeal to certain market segments says, in effect, nothing - everything in the game is intended to meet some customer need - just because it appears "optional" to the OP, doesn't make it any less meaningful in terms of the overall product - the nav system in your car and the leather under your bottom are both optional - if I conclude one serves my needs and is a worthwhile expense and not the other, it doesn't make me a "hypocrite."

And while we're throwing around authoritative sources like the urbandictionary,  the OP would do well to study the definition of hypocrisy which in fact means feigning or falsely espousing a moral or virtuous position - not simply holding intellectually inconsistent views.

Romance serves my preferences for a more complex plot line and adds an element beyond the combat which at times I find tedious, multiplayer does not serve my needs, if only because I have no friends who play the game - the
fact that I have no friends anyway, notwithstanding..."hypocrisy" has nothing whatsoever to do with it.

Net - if the OP has a point, he hasn't made his case - based on what I've seen, its just bait.

Modifié par someone else, 19 décembre 2011 - 08:23 .

[KBomb]

Wulfram wrote...

I like the romances, I don't like multiplayer. That's not hypocritical, that's my preference.

This is the only statement in this whole thread that makes sense.

[Cloaking_Thane]

someone else wrote...

someguy1231 wrote...

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

...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. ...

Read through this entire thread and conclude it is an elaborate troll - romance is a plot feature, mutliplayer a game design choice - totally different in thrust, implementation and resource committment - OP has set up a flimsy strawman and is rejoicing in knocking it over.

Simply to say these aspects of the game appeal to certain market segments says, in effect, nothing - everything in the game is intended to meet some customer need - just because it appears "optional" to the OP, doesn't make it any less meaningful in terms of the overall product - the nav system in your car and the leather under your bottom are both optional - if I conclude one serves my needs and is a worthwhile expense and not the other, it doesn't make me a "hypocrite."

And while we're throwing around authoritative sources like the urbandictionary,  the OP would do well to study the definition of hypocrisy which in fact means feigning or falsely espousing a moral or virtuous position - not simply holding intellectually inconsistent views.

Romance serves my preferences for a more complex plot line and adds an element beyond the combat which at times I find tedious, multiplayer does not serve my needs, if only because I have no friends who play the game - the
fact that I have no friends anyway, notwithstanding..."hypocrisy" has nothing whatsoever to do with it.

Net - if the OP has a point, he hasn't made his case - based on what I've seen, its just bait.

You win an internet!