235 réponses à ce sujet

[incinerator950]

Oh good, they can lose another annoying customer, and probably gain another ten afterwords. Fair trade off op.

Modifié par incinerator950, 06 février 2012 - 01:53 .

[Iakus]

Cainne Chapel wrote...

While I agree the more game the better, there are times when stuff is artificially padded, and personally I dont like padded games just like I dont like movies that are artificially padded to increase length. Useless scenes are useless to me.

If everything is clear and concise and can be wrapped up suitably in 30 or so hours of playing, I can be happy with that.

And if everything is clear and concise and something still has to go to make room fro MP?

That's my concern, after all. Not just the length of the game, but an artificial shortening of it.

[YNation913]

Honestly, the OP is the only waste of time I see here.

[mkk316]

HTTP 404 wrote...

General User wrote...

Multiplayer doesn't seem like a very good idea to me either. But I'm willing to see how things actually work in the game before passing final judgement.

pretty much; I'm not broken up that its in there.  the way I figure is if I don't like it, it looks like I don't need to play it.  And if its fun to play, all the better. 

WOULD YOU JUST CALM DOW.....wait, that's actually super rational, what a welcomed attitude.

[didymos1120]

Iakus, you're never, ever going to know unless someone from Bioware straight-up says "Yes, we cut that specific bit because of the multiplayer."

Modifié par didymos1120, 06 février 2012 - 01:56 .

[LinksOcarina]

So...the OP is basically jumping the gun for what reason now?

Did you play the multi-player yet to report on it, or are you just assuming things based on hot air? Honestly, the ignorance of making such a post is showing...and I propose a lock to be frank.

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 06 février 2012 - 02:00 .

[ediskrad327]

iakus wrote...

Cainne Chapel wrote...

While I agree the more game the better, there are times when stuff is artificially padded, and personally I dont like padded games just like I dont like movies that are artificially padded to increase length. Useless scenes are useless to me.

If everything is clear and concise and can be wrapped up suitably in 30 or so hours of playing, I can be happy with that.

And if everything is clear and concise and something still has to go to make room fro MP?

That's my concern, after all. Not just the length of the game, but an artificial shortening of it.

they were considering using some PS3 disks with more space becuase the normal ones didn't have enough space so it WILL be a big game

[incinerator950]

I was quite surprised and actually pleased at the Beta vids for the Multiplayer. Completely optional, and can only help your SP game if you choose to use it.

[AdmiralCheez]

iakus wrote...

Kinda funny how everyone's latching onto that 50  hour number I gave out.  I did say that a game of that length would remove any doubt that stuff got cut, right?

Dude, entire hub worlds were cut from both ME1 and 2.  Are you wangsting about the lack of Caleston in ME1?  The absence of bars and junk shops on Korlus in ME2?

Not to mention all the sidequests that didn't make it, lines of dialogue that were removed becaused quest order changed, all the extra stuff just lying around because scenes and levels were entirely rewritten...

Stuff gets cut, man, either because it didn't fit or they couldn't impliment it with the resources they had.  Longer games would have had even more stuff cut by virtue of there being more that had to be edited.  Unless it's sloppy as hell.

Granted time doesn't equal quality.  But a good 40 hour game is still better than a good 20 hour game.  And a quality 50 hour game is better than a quality 40 hour game.  And so on.

I disagree.  Sometimes a shorter game is preferable, and if all games were 50+ hours, only a small crowd of people would ever play them all the way through.  Most people have lives to live, and the ones that don't can still get bored after a while.

A game's length should be a function of what the game is trying to accomplish.  If it's a heroic epic taking place over many years across great expanses of wild country, then long is good.  If it's a puzzle game, or a story about a prison break, or a rescue mission, then shorter is better.

Mass Effect 3 is an interstellar war story, which merits length, but if it's too long it loses its sense of urgency.  You don't say "go out and rally as many forces as you can before the Reapers wipe everyone out" and then let the protagonist piddle around on some backwater planet for forty days and forty nights or whatever.

[Jog0907]

My experience was that ME1 was indeed longer then me2, but that extra length was because of poor design like wandering aimlessly in a mako in so called "exploration" and firefights that over extended because of immunity spam by enemies. I much prefer me2 length which is much more reasonable and well paced, planet scanning still takes time but its much less than that of me1 poorly made uncharted worlds which gave the game awful pacing IMO.

[Iakus]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Dude, entire hub worlds were cut from both ME1 and 2.  Are you wangsting about the lack of Caleston in ME1?  The absence of bars and junk shops on Korlus in ME2?

Not to mention all the sidequests that didn't make it, lines of dialogue that were removed becaused quest order changed, all the extra stuff just lying around because scenes and levels were entirely rewritten...

Stuff gets cut, man, either because it didn't fit or they couldn't impliment it with the resources they had.  Longer games would have had even more stuff cut by virtue of there being more that had to be edited.  Unless it's sloppy as hell.

As you said, stuff gets cut due to story changes, limited resources, pacing,  It happens.  But ME1 and ME2 didn't get stuff cut to squeeze in multiplayer, effectively an entire second game.

I disagree.  Sometimes a shorter game is preferable, and if all games were 50+ hours, only a small crowd of people would ever play them all the way through.  Most people have lives to live, and the ones that don't can still get bored after a while.

A game's length should be a function of what the game is trying to accomplish.  If it's a heroic epic taking place over many years across great expanses of wild country, then long is good.  If it's a puzzle game, or a story about a prison break, or a rescue mission, then shorter is better.

Doesn't Mass Effect pretty much define "heroic epic"  a game who's story stretches across three games

Mass Effect 3 is an interstellar war story, which merits length, but if it's too long it loses its sense of urgency.  You don't say "go out and rally as many forces as you can before the Reapers wipe everyone out" and then let the protagonist piddle around on some backwater planet for forty days and forty nights or whatever.

::insert Mass Effect 2 comment here:: 

[ArkkAngel007]

iakus wrote...

ArkkAngel007 wrote...

Many people really don't have the time to play 100+ hour RPGs like Dragon Age and The Elder Scrolls.  I'm on several campuses for classes and research, as well as a lot of out-of-town contract jobs.  I don't have the luxury of time to spend on videogames when I have responsibilities that I either am required to do to provide for myself and others or have a greater impact on the world.

Hours of play does not equal quality.  Yes, $60 for a 6 hour game is a bit ridiculous, but a 40-60 hour game with a multiplayer component and DLC support is a lot better than about 90% or more of what is being churned out in this industry.

Kinda funny how everyone's latching onto that 50  hour number I gave out.  I did say that a game of that length would remove any doubt that stuff got cut, right?

Granted time doesn't equal quality.  But a good 40 hour game is still better than a good 20 hour game.  And a quality 50 hour game is better than a quality 40 hour game.  And so on.  

Not really.  They could have had 80 hours of content they could have implemented, and you would be none the wiser.

Again though, it's rather unrealistic for many to play drawn out games.  I'd rather have a quality narrative experience with sensible tangents then a game, even if still of high quality, to be long just for length's sake.  BioWare isn't going to cut anything vital that you would be missing, as developers tend to have a bit of a blueprint for budget purposes on what they are doing.  If anything, they only cut the superflous material that didn't add anything to the game and just took up time, which is fine by me.

Do I think mp was necessary?  Of course not, same with romances on a military vessel, planet scanning, pointless bland exploration, and morality-based choices, but they are in and, for the most part, they worked.

Just play the game, and if you feel the same way after going through the campaign, come back and raise the kraken then.

[mkk316]

iakus wrote...

As you said, stuff gets cut due to story changes, limited resources,
pacing,  It happens.  But ME1 and ME2 didn't get stuff cut to squeeze in
multiplayer, effectively an entire second game.

Seriously?  You think just coop in levels that are already in the game are  "effectively an entire second game"?
I think you might be exaggerating the size of MP in your head a bit.

[AdmiralCheez]

iakus wrote...

As you said, stuff gets cut due to story changes, limited resources, pacing,  It happens.  But ME1 and ME2 didn't get stuff cut to squeeze in multiplayer, effectively an entire second game.

Big deal.  Do you worry about all the people that will never exist every time you...  Nevermind.

Doesn't Mass Effect pretty much define "heroic epic"  a game who's story stretches across three games.

Exactly.  THREE.  GODDAMN.  GAMES.  As in the whole package is NEARLY ONE HUNDRED HOURS.

::insert Mass Effect 2 comment here::

ME1 was worse.  ME2 had triggered plot events that forced you to take action and punished you for piddling around.

ME1 was more like, "Oh, Saren knows where the Conduit is and could activate it at any second?  Okay, cool, let me just go check out this room full of boxes on this godforsaken space rock way the hell over here..."

[ArkkAngel007]

Here is a question: What has been indicated thus far that the campaign has been shortened to the effect that it will be detrimental to the narrative and player experience?

[Iakus]

mkk316 wrote...

Seriously?  You think just coop in levels that are already in the game are  "effectively an entire second game"?
I think you might be exaggerating the size of MP in your head a bit.

It's got its own demo

It's got its own trailer

It will, presumably have its own combat mechanics.

Sure seems to be a second game to me

[G3rman]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

iakus wrote...

As you said, stuff gets cut due to story changes, limited resources, pacing,  It happens.  But ME1 and ME2 didn't get stuff cut to squeeze in multiplayer, effectively an entire second game.

Big deal.  Do you worry about all the people that will never exist every time you...  Nevermind.

Cheez you are escalating this by talking about mast..well you know.  I don't think there isn't anything left to prove, both camps are pretty settled in their thoughts of how the games should be made.

[AdmiralCheez]

iakus wrote...

It's got its own demo

It's got its own trailer

It will, presumably have its own combat mechanics.

Sure seems to be a second game to me

It's six-ish maps that spew enemies at you in increasing strengths.

Like Pinnacle Station, only with friends and hopefully not quite so sh*tty.

[Gatt9]

ArkkAngel007 wrote...

Here is a question: What has been indicated thus far that the campaign has been shortened to the effect that it will be detrimental to the narrative and player experience?

The better question is "How much more content could have been in the game if they hadn't wasted a significant portion of the budget implementing Online Pass...err...Multiplayer?"

An entire second team,  with positions duplicating the ones on the first team,  is not a small expense.  Say what you will,  but that was money that could've been spent on making ME3 a better game,  instead of implementing Used Game DRM.

[Iakus]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Doesn't Mass Effect pretty much define "heroic epic"  a game who's story stretches across three games.

Exactly.  THREE.  GODDAMN.  GAMES.  As in the whole package is NEARLY ONE HUNDRED HOURS.

So we agree that in Mass Effect's case, a longer narrative is probably a better thing?

[NOD-INFORMER37]

 I think I'm the only one here who actually enjoys the games....

[mkk316]

iakus wrote...

mkk316 wrote...

Seriously?  You think just coop in levels that are already in the game are  "effectively an entire second game"?
I think you might be exaggerating the size of MP in your head a bit.

It's got its own demo

It's got its own trailer

It will, presumably have its own combat mechanics.

Sure seems to be a second game to me

They wanna give people a taste of it
They wanna get people excited for it
The combat mechanics are already from singleplayer
Seems par for the course to me.

Modifié par mkk316, 06 février 2012 - 02:23 .

[MrFob]

In principle, I do agree with the OP. I also think, that it is ok for RPGs to concentrate on the SP and that they don't need an MP component. I'd also say that Mass Effect 3 wouldn't have needed the MP feature and that maybe, cutting MP would have had a positive impact on the SP part.

BUT: Since ME3 seems to have the same amount or even more SP content than ME2 and assuming that the content will be of just as high quality ad assuming that we'll see a couple of high quality SP DLCs, I wont complain and I will leave the MP fans out there their fun.
Besides, as far as I can tell the MP part was one of the main reasons for the delay of ME3. If that is the case, it might even have benefitted the SP because not all the team would work on the MP and thus the SP guys would have had more time for polishing and stuff.
So in the end, I'll hold my final judgement until I have seen the final product.
And despite my general allergies against MP, since it is ME after all, maybe I'll even give it a try.

[Skoomax]

Ew, too much text- Go Away

[ArkkAngel007]

Gatt9 wrote...

ArkkAngel007 wrote...

Here is a question: What has been indicated thus far that the campaign has been shortened to the effect that it will be detrimental to the narrative and player experience?

The better question is "How much more content could have been in the game if they hadn't wasted a significant portion of the budget implementing Online Pass...err...Multiplayer?"

An entire second team,  with positions duplicating the ones on the first team,  is not a small expense.  Say what you will,  but that was money that could've been spent on making ME3 a better game,  instead of implementing Used Game DRM.

Gatt, the budgets are made before the game goes into production.  Sure, things can and do go over budget, but the main body of that budget is made before the actual programming for the proper game takes place.  EA gave a budget to each after all the pitches and demos were made and demonstrated, and people went to work.

And look at Skyrim; a game needs not to be of the online-breed to suffer DRM.