147 réponses à ce sujet

[crimzontearz]

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.

Romance= bioware game staple and actually an RPG enhancing feature in line with the ideas behind what makes ME great

Multiplayer= useless crap in a game like ME

while we are at it we could make this same argument for any feature in any game if we do not add perspective and qualifiers

[Iakus]

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.

Okay, I sense great hate in this one, but I'll give it a shot:

Mass Effect trilogy="Shepard's story"

Whether Shepard chooses to romance someone=part of Shepard's story.

Romance (or not) = rpg elements.  RPG elements=good.

multiplayer =/= "Shepard's story".  As we were told this trilogy would be.  Instead, it's some nameless, faceless dude who happens to exist in the same universe as Shepard.

In addition, whether you romance a character or not is entirely up to you.  Do or do not, there is no try  I don't need to get 1-3 online friends to help me do so.  If Bioware romances ever come to that, they've gone in a really strange direction...

[someone else]

Cloaking_Thane wrote...

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!

is it a boy or a girl?

Modifié par someone else, 19 décembre 2011 - 11:23 .

[Homey C-Dawg]

Wait a sec... Without even going into what counts as optional, is OP saying that your a hypocrite if you support one optional feature but don't support another? So you therefore have to support every idea or none of them?

Sounds rather silly to me tbh,

[Dave Exclamation Mark Yognaut]

someguy1231 wrote...

and the cutscenes to be cheesy b-grade soft porn.

You need to find yourself some better b-grade soft porn.

OT: I would actually prefer multiplayer to romances in Mass Effect. Partly because I'm a hypocrite, partly because I think the romances are badly written, and partly because I prefer IRL bromance to in-game romance.

Modifié par Dave Exclamation Mark Yognaut, 20 décembre 2011 - 12:06 .

[DxWill10]

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.

pure shooters do not contain romances and do contain pvp multiplayer.

RPGs (sometimes) contain romances but no multiplayer.

ME3 is an action rpg.  it has romance and co-op multiplayer. 

Sooo,  what are you saying?  You want ME3 to be a pure shooter?

[Gatt9]

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 understand the problem.

The romances are interaction and character development.

The multiplayer is there for revenue reasons,  and no,  it isn't a marketing ploy,  the revenue reasons are very different.

One adds value to the game,  the other does not.

[frostajulie]

someguy1231 wrote...
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.

This post can only be said by a person completekly and willfully ignorant.  Obviously you have no idea what soft porn is or what it looks like.  You also have no idea what a dating sim is and are completely biased based on your own ignorance its like someone shouting I hate blue when they have never seen blue before but still insist on hating it.  T^he problem I have with your ignorance is it influences people when you spout it.

Quit comparing the romances in the game to soft porn its not remotely like soft porn.  Quit comparing it to a dating sim.  It has no similarities at all to a dating sim.  You are either ignorant or purposefully lying for whatever reason you have.

The rest is an opinion you are free to have but not an opinion shared by the majority.

[FoxShadowblade]

Homey C-Dawg wrote...

Wait a sec... Without even going into what counts as optional, is OP saying that your a hypocrite if you support one optional feature but don't support another? So you therefore have to support every idea or none of them?

Sounds rather silly to me tbh,

No one accused him of using logic.

[AgitatedLemon]

I support them both.

I will admit however, the addition of multiplayer is just a slight bit disappointing. This is just personal taste, but I think the resources going into multiplayer could be used to further flesh out the romances already available.

[AndyXTheXGamer360]

I don't mind multiplayer as long as it doesn't effect campaign to much
I think romances are fine, you don't even have to do them.

[MakeMineMako]

As long as the single player experience isn't sacrificed, then I could care less about multi-player being added.

Too many game companies have gone that route. Short,crappy single player, but awesome multi-player. Very few care about weaving a good story with plot-based games anymore.

[CptData]

Homey C-Dawg wrote...

Wait a sec... Without even going into what counts as optional, is OP saying that your a hypocrite if you support one optional feature but don't support another? So you therefore have to support every idea or none of them?

Sounds rather silly to me tbh,

Need to quote that post.

It seems you're right. As I said before, I support both:

Romances, because they were part of ME franchise from the beginning. I enjoyed them very much and looking forward for closure of them in ME3 - in my case, it's going to be Ashley's story arc.

Multiplayer, because it could keep the franchise alive a bit longer, as long as there's no ME4 planned.
It -is- new and I concur if other peoples say, ME3 could exist without multiplayer. It is there, however, the money and time is spent already, so why should EA or BW remove that part of ME3 just to make a few people happy?
I'd say if we still have a year or more till release of ME3, I could understand those people, but now it's too late to change anything. ME3 is almost "gold", BW is fixing bugs and adding last minute content. They won't kill major parts of the game because of the demand of some fans.

Romances and Multiplayer are optional features, like side missions, changing appearance of your squadmates, dialogues etc. Basically, the ME series could be reduced by 80% of its content because it's optional.

Too bad it's no longer Mass Effect then.

[...And Justice For All]

multiplayer ruins games like these, bioware should stick to what it knows best, cause when they start changing or experimenting with new stuff, thats when the game goes bad

[Selene Moonsong]

BioWare has included romance in various games; BG II, NWN and NWN HoTU, Jade Empire, DA: Origins, DA II, and the ME series are a few examples, and is nothing new in their RPG style games.

Including Multiplayer capabilities be it co-op (BG II series) or the more versatile NWN series (designed specifically as a Multiplayer game system) has been around just as long; these elements have existed for over a decade in BioWare games.

In ME 3, the Multi-player segment of the game is apart from the core ME 3 game and is optional, the core ME 3 game is still single-player and has not changed since ME in that regard and will continue at least some romances from the previous two games that have become a part of the player choices made in the earlier games.

Personally, I am for such options being available for players who wish to participate in those particular options and see no conflict between offering the same types of options BioWare has implemented in other game series into the ME 3 finale, whether it be Multi-player, romance, or anything else.

[CptData]

Selene: I guess the point is more "waste of resources". At least some people believe it.

I kinda do regarding ME2 and some of the characters - think 8 should have been enough to do the Suicide Mission. We got 10+1 (vanilla) or 12+1 (+ Zaeed & Kasumi DLCs) - less characters would have resulted in a better developed storyline or characters.

The MP-part is done by a separate team, so the resource "time" is not used up. It's the other resource called "money". I don't think the MP is a waste of resources, I'm looking forward to explore the battlefields Shepard won't see. It also adds the idea to the game Shepard is not fighting alone, so it improves overall game experience. Like those romances.
ME works without them, they're optional. However, they do improve the game feeling a lot. Shepard now has a reason to fight for: a face of a loved person. The entire galaxy is just an anonymous bunch of people.

Just ask a random soldier what s/he's fighting for: most soldiers fight for their families and beloved ones. They might fight for their nation, true, but in the end it's more "I do this for my wife / son / girlfriend / husband / daughter / ...". Those romances give Shepard a reason to go through hell.

[MonkeyLungs]

As long as Shepard's story comes to a satisfying conclusion I don't care what they add.

I still ME1 is by far the best in the series and will remain so.

I also remember it wasn't that long ago when almost everyone here was adamantly postulating that there was no way ME3 would have multiplayer.

[Killjoy Cutter]

CptData wrote...

Selene: I guess the point is more "waste of resources". At least some people believe it.

I kinda do regarding ME2 and some of the characters - think 8 should have been enough to do the Suicide Mission. We got 10+1 (vanilla) or 12+1 (+ Zaeed & Kasumi DLCs) - less characters would have resulted in a better developed storyline or characters.

The MP-part is done by a separate team, so the resource "time" is not used up. It's the other resource called "money". I don't think the MP is a waste of resources, I'm looking forward to explore the battlefields Shepard won't see. It also adds the idea to the game Shepard is not fighting alone, so it improves overall game experience. Like those romances.

Of course the resource of time may have also been diverted -- that other team could have, for example, been doing independent QA / testing on the game, instead of wasting time on MP crap.

[Iakus]

Selene Moonsong wrote...
Including Multiplayer capabilities be it co-op (BG II series) or the more versatile NWN series (designed specifically as a Multiplayer game system) has been around just as long; these elements have existed for over a decade in BioWare games.

And as I've said before:  if ME3 is as moddable as either of these, I will happily withdraw all objections to MP;)

Or even if the base game (ie no DLC) can offer 50+ hours of content without resorting to MP.

[Killjoy Cutter]

iakus wrote...

Selene Moonsong wrote...

Including Multiplayer capabilities be it co-op (BG II series) or the more versatile NWN series (designed specifically as a Multiplayer game system) has been around just as long; these elements have existed for over a decade in BioWare games.

And as I've said before:  if ME3 is as moddable as either of these, I will happily withdraw all objections to MP;)

Or even if the base game (ie no DLC) can offer 50+ hours of content without resorting to MP.

One of my major concerns about MP being crammed into ME3 is that, like some past games, the "anti-cheat" mechanisms will make modding more difficult, or outright impossible.

[phimseto]

It's not the time or money "waste of resources", it's the space. The space that the multiplayer takes up represents extra dialogue, planets, quests, etc. that could have been used to fill out and enhance the main story. To use the OP's argument, that space could have been used to enhance the LI or friendships between Shepard and the other characters. Instead, they might come up a little short because a sizeable amount of space has been given over to an absolutely unnecessary multiplayer element.

[ArkkAngel007]

Why is there another argument thread on multiplayer.  Couldn't this have been in one of the other 15 or so floating around?

Anyways, since it's probably not going anywhere until Priestly wakes up to cyber screams on here, I suppose I will provide some clarification.

OP, Mass Effect relies heavily upon character interaction, as do many of BioWare's games.  An integral part of that is the option to romance characters you, as the player, have invested emotionally in throughout the plot.  It also allows players to forge their own story in a space epic.

Now, I can see where you are drawing parallels between romance options and multiplayer, as both are options.  I also understand your point, a very valid one, where people are complaining about multiplayer just because they don't like multiplayer in the first place.

But, as many have pointed out, the romance options in Mass Effect have been around since the first game.  They are expected by fans to remain, no matter how corny and soapy they are.  The multiplayer on the other hand is a completely new addtion, and that scares people on how that affects the game they have invested in.

However, this whole argument of how multiplayer drains resources is invalid.  EA, Bioware, and in parts Sony and Microsoft, financial buffs allocated resources designated for each part ahead of time, just like in every media medium.  That means that BioWare gave a pitch, and all the studio/publishing heads allocated so much for campaign, and so much for multiplayer, as well as all the different departments, equipment, etc.  And with a different studio in charge of multiplayer, there is no loss of developing power either in campaign.  The only way multiplayer affects resources is that some of the profit from the sales will go towards the upkeep of servers and possibly mp dlc.

[Terror_K]

Romances were a core part of the game from the beginning, while multi-player was not, which automatically invalidates the argument right there and then. You can't really waste time and resources on something that was there from the start and integral to the whole series from the get-go because the time and resources aren't being misdirected in the first place. When you shoe-horn in something that wasn't there in the previous two parts into the final one such as multiplayer in a previously single-player only game, it is. Especially when it's a such a direct trilogy where the single-player stuff should be given the most attention and care because the whole thing hinges on the final part being a satisfactory conclusion to the series.

And I'm sure people will say that BioWare intended MP from the start, but I think BioWare are pulling the wool over your eyes if you really believe that that's the only story, and that EA aren't trying to broaden appeal and boost sales above all with its inclusion. Or am I supposed to believe that the shoe-horning of MP into other previously SP-only EA titles as of late like Dead Space 2, the fact that in under a month after ME3's MP was announced that an EA spokesman outright said that "multiplayer is expected in AAA games now" and the fact that the next Dragon Age is probably going to have multi-player are all big coincidences surrounding ME3's new addition?

[ArkkAngel007]

phimseto wrote...

It's not the time or money "waste of resources", it's the space. The space that the multiplayer takes up represents extra dialogue, planets, quests, etc. that could have been used to fill out and enhance the main story. To use the OP's argument, that space could have been used to enhance the LI or friendships between Shepard and the other characters. Instead, they might come up a little short because a sizeable amount of space has been given over to an absolutely unnecessary multiplayer element.

Then multiple dics get used.

 But again, BioWare has to pitch a rough draft of their plan of what they are going to do.  Smart studios don't just throw money into development and have no goals in place.

Understandably, there is no way of knowing the space taken up in the end, but that's why compression exists, and multiple discs can be used.  Never stopped Japanese developers from making 3+ disc rpgs on the current generation of consoles.