147 réponses à ce sujet

[crimzontearz]

skyrim proved you do not need MP to pull amazing sales and most certainly that MP is NOT expected in AAA games

goddamn EA

[Izhalezan]

crimzontearz wrote...

skyrim proved you do not need MP to pull amazing sales and most certainly that MP is NOT expected in AAA games

goddamn EA

If a video game could be a addictive drug Skyrim is it, and it's my first Elder Scrolls game too...

[Varen Spectre]

Ehmm, ... to me... it seems, that you might be at least partially right, OP. But it’s quite tricky anyway.¯\\_  _/¯
 
From what I have seen, the most common definition of hypocrisy is – to pretend to have virtues, moral / religious
beliefs, principles, etc. that one actually does not have (both wiki and oxford dictionary agree on this).

So it comes down to whether we pretend, that we have some special virtues (maybe such as telling what is good and what is bad) while stating our opinions, that we actually don’t have, or not.

In this regard, I would say, that simple “I love romances and I don’t like / I don’t care about multiplayer. Bioware, pls work really hard to make romances good.” is not a hypocrisy. It’s just stating own preferences without pretending to have any additional qualities, virtues, rights, or entitlements.

But, when it comes to posters who want to restrict Bioware – e.g. “Bioware, don’t include multiplayer!” – I think, that posts like that at least border on pretending to know better, what to do with Mass Effect than developers themselves.

Now, I am not sure if “knowing what to do with Mass Effect better than Bioware” could be described as one of the virtues the dictionaries talk about , but I believe, that such posters at least exceed their rights to advocate for their own sake. Their posts go beyond simple “Please include / make / allow us to… “ and also tell Bioware what  not to do or not to include, despite the fact, that such undesirable features usually do not directly preclude or diminish the functionality or importance of their own favorite features. Simply put, such guys seize the right to tell Bioware what not to do as if they were more qualified than others, who just plead for what they want to see in Mass Effect, while in fact, they most liekely aren’t. And that at least leaves some room for speculation, whether they are hypocrites or not. 
 
Either way, I would say that, the correct approach is to support / advocate for the features one likes and be indifferent towards those, that do not directly go against them. Well, unless, such person can demonstrate that indeed, he (she) is more qualified, more knowledgeable and more experienced with the problem than other posters – i.e. has the virtues, that entitle him (her) to tell Bioware what not to do.

Il Divo wrote...

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.

 

While I agree, one thing makes me hopeful or at least curious - the multiplayer should be able provide player with additional assets necessary for some types of endings and therefore should give Shepard greater freedom in his (her) own decision making – i.e. he (she) will not have to do something in singleplayer in certain way, because he (she) and his (her) allies have enough resources to fight the Reapers without it. I think this could potentially help role-playing in the main campaign. 

I also find comparing Mass Effect’s multiplayer to sections in Witcher 2, where player does not control Geralt quite helpful, since I am not a big fan of MP either. Good example would be a sidequest called With a flickering heart, which allowed player to control Geralt's friend, Dandelion. Just like Co-op in Mass Effect, it was optional, player did not control the main character and the way it was played affected the main story.

I know, it’s not much, but it helps me remain optimistic. 

Modifié par Varen Spectre, 20 décembre 2011 - 05:14 .

[mopotter]

As the title reads - my answer would be yes.

I don't play games to play with friends. I play games to lose myself in the story. I won't play the multi player part of the game and one of the reasons I support BioWare is the entire package of well written NPC characters, customization of my character and the story which includes conversations, the romances and friendships.

I have no interest in multiplayer games. I've got TOR and even that one I'm having a hard time caring about. Too many distractions with other people all around me. As long as the multiplayer part of ME3 does not effect my single player potion of the game in any way, I don't care. I don't want to know it's there. Never played the multiplayer in BG or NWN and actually in BG I never realized it was possible because I didn't have any kind of web connection.

[Nikitn]

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?

Imbecile-logic is imbecillic. I won't adress the other faults in this posts, nor your annoying yet underserved arrogance, but I'll adress your this:

No. Your argument is basically this: If one considers something useless, then one must consider something else useless. Why? Because you're claiming that there is some mysterious connection, in that if somebody thinks that one of the somethings suck, he/she must automatically think the other sucks too or he/she is a hypocrite.

Why do you claim there is such a mysterious connection? Because you claim that if one hates multiplayer, one must hate romance. Because come on, romance sucks more than multiplayer. That's a FACT, right? 

Well, no. It doesn't. First of all these are two completely different features. Second romances have been present in pretty much every single bioware game, as far as I can remember. It is a decent part of the gaming experience that deserves to remain.

You're talking trash, like so many others in this geeky forum.

[N0-Future]

I'm indifferent about multi-player, but in game romance is part of the single player campaign. So i prefer romance options over multi-player because they are part of the single player story.

Modifié par N0-Future, 20 décembre 2011 - 05:25 .

[phimseto]

ArkkAngel007 wrote...

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.

If that's the case, color me happy, but I worry that they'll just push stuff over to DLC.  I don't want story-based DLC unless it is epilogue/post-main story.  I want the complete ME3 experience on Day One, and I think that's a reasonable expectation.  I want that story to be as deep and robust as possible, particularly in terms of character interactions and branching possibilities.  Anything that gets cut or left undone because of a single ounce of space dedicated to multiplayer is an absolute shame.  

[Cloaking_Thane]

phimseto wrote...

ArkkAngel007 wrote...

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.

If that's the case, color me happy, but I worry that they'll just push stuff over to DLC.  I don't want story-based DLC unless it is epilogue/post-main story.  I want the complete ME3 experience on Day One, and I think that's a reasonable expectation.  I want that story to be as deep and robust as possible, particularly in terms of character interactions and branching possibilities.  Anything that gets cut or left undone because of a single ounce of space dedicated to multiplayer is an absolute shame.  

Well we already know the collectors edition has an extra squadmate and mission (and weapons)

[ArkkAngel007]

phimseto wrote...

ArkkAngel007 wrote...

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.

If that's the case, color me happy, but I worry that they'll just push stuff over to DLC.  I don't want story-based DLC unless it is epilogue/post-main story.  I want the complete ME3 experience on Day One, and I think that's a reasonable expectation.  I want that story to be as deep and robust as possible, particularly in terms of character interactions and branching possibilities.  Anything that gets cut or left undone because of a single ounce of space dedicated to multiplayer is an absolute shame.  

I'm fairly certain that most dlc will be mp based, and the campaign dlc later released will mostly be tasty fluff.  Things may get cut, but I'm sure that has to do more with pacing and revisions, rather than memory.

[Sailears]

The PLC wrote...

Mesina2 wrote...

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

There you go. Close the thread.

Indeed.

The thing is a big part of the game are the characters and interactions with characters. Without that there would be no story, and pretty much no point to the game. And then considering the importance of love within humanity, and the fact that Bioware has chosen to give all the aliens similar characteristics to humans, it would make no sense at all not to include romances in the story.

Ok I agree the line may have been crossed with the inter-species romance options, but the basic principle of love is impossible to avoid in the universe they have created.

The difference between singleplayer and multiplayer is a completely different playing field, and I cannot understand how you can compare it to the romance features within the game.


(For the record, I am indifferent to both)

[MsKlaussen]

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.

Supporting romances and opposing multiplayer for reasons other than personal opinion of the features in question doesn't make one a hypocrite. It makes one a wholly independent thinker exercising a universal right to like or dislike anything as one sees fit, for any reason or for no reason at all, completely bereft of any need to meet the approval of anyone else.

As does a preference with the two features switched around the other way. I don't understand the sense of entitlement that continues to imbue people with this belief that they have any authority to legitimize the preferences of anyone else, or the authority to determine whether or not they express those preferences on a public forum.

From someone who likes the idea of the romances enough to wish they'd been expanded upon and not tossed in as what feels like a Big Head button combination exploit,  and who has no real problem with the multiplayer thing until it proves to have obviously been added in lieu of a serious committment to the single player story.

Modifié par MsKlaussen, 20 décembre 2011 - 09:02 .

[Bogsnot1]

Extremely spurious reasoning by OP. Its the same as arguing that liking any squad member, but disliking the cover mechanic makes you a hypocrite.

One is a gameplay mechanic, the other is a story device. Disliking a gameplay mechanic but liking a story device does notmake you a hypocrite.

However, making threads like this with such poor reasoning does make you a moron.

[AdmiralCheez]

Bogsnot1 wrote...

Extremely spurious reasoning by OP. Its the same as arguing that liking any squad member, but disliking the cover mechanic makes you a hypocrite.

One is a gameplay mechanic, the other is a story device. Disliking a gameplay mechanic but liking a story device does notmake you a hypocrite.

However, making threads like this with such poor reasoning does make you a moron.

Yeah I'm just gonna requote this and leave.

[Nightwriter]

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.

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.

Strangely, those seem to be Mass Effect exclusive problems -- DA games are much better about the issues you describe. Or at least, I can't remember being ninja-manced in DA, I was satisfied with the nonromantic friendship paths I was given, and I cannot recall being forced to sound like a sex fiend (which was, in fairness, something mostly all players begrudged, romancers and nonromancers alike).

Your last sentence confuses me and I do not understand it. I thought it was made explicit that the multiplayer experience will not harm the singleplayer experience.

[Volus Warlord]

Do you like chicken but hate asparagus?

[FutureBoy81]

support multi-player no
support romance options yes
with all these people supporting multi-player and not romance you can tell whos the bandwagoners and whos the cores .

[Selene Moonsong]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

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...

 

Actually, it was a whole different studio set up for MP development with their own development resources. 

What the purposes are for developing a MP segment for ME 3 is rather vague so far, and we probably won't know what the reasons are for some time. However, I have heard nothing to suggest that SP resources have been scarificed for the sake of implementing a separate MP  experience, other than some folks in the forums suggesting that it was in opinions.

BioWare has always stated that the core trilogy is intended to be and has been designed as a single-player experience. The development and implementation of the MP pre-SP game section does not prove otherwise.

I suspect that (meaning conjecture on my part) the MP development to be an experiment for the possibility of developing a post-trilogy multi-player system based on the ME Trilogy.  

Let's face a few facts here, or at least my own logic:

The ME trilogy would not work as multi-player: The entire design concept is around a single character called Commander Shepard and how he/she choses to interact with the Univers around him or her. It make sense that this would remain completely separate, resources and all, from any multiplayer development that was considered and developed, even when planned very early on. It wouldn't be financial sense to rob from the SP game to provide resources for a limited MP segment leading up to the SP game.

That is why I suspect that the MP segment is more of an experimental project intended for post trilogy development. What better way to introduce and test MP out for player response than by including it as a non-required segment with the release of the ME 3 single-player finale of Commander Shepard's tale? 

Think about it, play the MP and get a few extra bonuses, much like DLC. Don't play it and the same outcomes are still possible in the SP game. When the game can end up the same outcomes whether or not you chose to play the MP segment. 

While I'm sure the multiplayer segment has been relatively expensive to development, it is a lot less expensive to build a prototype and include it as a bonus or whatever than to develope an entire MP game and have it ending up falling flat or otherwise unpopular.  And, it certainly would not make financial sense to re-direct allocated resources for one project on a possibly risky venture.

[Sebby]

I doubt the romances take away resources from others things as it's clear BW doesn't put any effort into them.

[Double_02]

Selene Moonsong wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

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...

 

Actually, it was a whole different studio set up for MP development with their own development resources. 

What the purposes are for developing a MP segment for ME 3 is rather vague so far, and we probably won't know what the reasons are for some time. However, I have heard nothing to suggest that SP resources have been scarificed for the sake of implementing a separate MP  experience, other than some folks in the forums suggesting that it was in opinions.

BioWare has always stated that the core trilogy is intended to be and has been designed as a single-player experience. The development and implementation of the MP pre-SP game section does not prove otherwise.

I suspect that (meaning conjecture on my part) the MP development to be an experiment for the possibility of developing a post-trilogy multi-player system based on the ME Trilogy.  

Let's face a few facts here, or at least my own logic:

The ME trilogy would not work as multi-player: The entire design concept is around a single character called Commander Shepard and how he/she choses to interact with the Univers around him or her. It make sense that this would remain completely separate, resources and all, from any multiplayer development that was considered and developed, even when planned very early on. It wouldn't be financial sense to rob from the SP game to provide resources for a limited MP segment leading up to the SP game.

That is why I suspect that the MP segment is more of an experimental project intended for post trilogy development. What better way to introduce and test MP out for player response than by including it as a non-required segment with the release of the ME 3 single-player finale of Commander Shepard's tale? 

Think about it, play the MP and get a few extra bonuses, much like DLC. Don't play it and the same outcomes are still possible in the SP game. When the game can end up the same outcomes whether or not you chose to play the MP segment. 

While I'm sure the multiplayer segment has been relatively expensive to development, it is a lot less expensive to build a prototype and include it as a bonus or whatever than to develope an entire MP game and have it ending up falling flat or otherwise unpopular.  And, it certainly would not make financial sense to re-direct allocated resources for one project on a possibly risky venture.

That's logical reasoning.^

I support both romances and multiplayer. The romances are great, and a fine aspect of the ME series. It allows further relationship development with the characters we know and love.

The multiplayer is not taking away from the single-player experience as many have already pointed out. So there isn't any reason the supposed 'core' fans should be worried about this anymore. I've been playing ME since the beginning and fell in love with the series from the very beginning. I like the idea that they're adding in a multiplayer aspect to the game. It is completely optional and can simply be dismissed, at no cost, because it won't affect single-player negatively if you choose not to play it.

[xentar]

Double_02 wrote...

The multiplayer is not taking away from the single-player experience as many have already pointed out.

Can you prove it with anything other than developer promises?

[Tietj]

Here's the difference, OP, and the reason why it is not hypocrisy: Romances do not take up very many resources, multiplayer does. And I'm not even saying that I'm against mp or pro-romance, but what you're saying is akin to saying "If you are pro-small, economic cars but anti-gas guzzling SUVs because they are a waste of fuel, then you are a hypocrite, because small cars use gas too." Doesn't work.

Modifié par Tietj, 25 décembre 2011 - 07:31 .

[Double_02]

xentar wrote...

Double_02 wrote...

The multiplayer is not taking away from the single-player experience as many have already pointed out.

Can you prove it with anything other than developer promises?

Unfortunately no. Perhaps I am being a bit over confident in Bioware, and the multiplayer aspect being implemented into a single-player based game. So far, they've given enough room for us to speculate on the matter. I understand the concern with developers not always being straight-forward, or living up to what they say. Try to have a little faith and hope for the best. March is when we'll truly find out whether or not these assumptions are correct. Even then, part of it will be based on personal opinion.

[xentar]

Double_02 wrote...

 Try to have a little faith and hope for the best. March is when we'll truly find out whether or not these assumptions are correct. Even then, part of it will be based on personal opinion.

Unfortunately, I am rather faithless as in, not capable of such barring a few exceptional cases. As far as I am concerned, the relationship between the developer and the customer is hostile, with everyone trying to rip everyone off. People who don't like multiplayer will be at a disadvantage anyway with what we know of the current implementation. In the best case, this disadvantage will be tribial and negligible.