249 réponses à ce sujet

[Fulgrim88]

tenojitsu wrote...
I am still waiting for the awesome dev response as well, and I'm in the US.

You have a fair chance of meeting them online though.

For me, it's often waking up to find a new thread with some 20 responses from Stanley Woo dated 6hours ago, with all questions asked and all answers given. His online hours coinciding with those when us pesky old-worlders are fast asleep:P

Anyway, good luck with your response. Here's hoping I'll find 20 dev posts in here by tomorrow morning.
(also hoping they won't be april fools)

[weltraumhamster89]

tenojitsu wrote...

Not sure how else to sell online passes if its strictly a single player game. If they would require an online pass just to connect to the servers for whatever reason, it would be too obvious that it a scam for more money. By linking single player to multiplayer they can always claim that they are charging for the pass because they are giving you something for that investment, the multiplayer mode (which is true).

Why link the multiplayer mode with single player? The only answer I can come up with is to get players to play the multiplayer mode. I highly doubt if EA never invented online passes in the first place and they didnt exist , there would be no link between the two. Can you think of any reasons why to have the two mode linked? I cant.

This also what I think of the whole MP-issue. And personally, I don't even think it's fun and I don't want a stupid app.. I wanted to play and fully (!) enjoy a SP game.

[Yakko77]

tenojitsu wrote...

It would be nice if a dev popped in here just to acknowledge that they read it.

I agree.  The near silence from the devs and even what responses they have given are so vague it borders on a middle finger to the fans. 

I get the feeling they're waiting until PAX to give details about any (if any) changes they're going to make but given the state of many if not most fans right now in regards to the ending it's really in their best interest IMO to put this fire out now and not let it burn itself out.  I'm not in full blown boycott mode or cancelling my subscription to other Bioware games like Star Wars over this debacle but I am in wait till the game comes out and read/watch a lot of fan reviews (not gaming media sites like IGN which are extremely biased IMO) before buying another game from BW.  My pre-order days may be done... extra content with any future CE version be d@mned.

Also, in regards to any new ending(s), FREE or I just watch it on YT and "headcannon".  Already bought the CE. I will NOT pay for a proper ending, period!

[tenojitsu]

weltraumhamster89 wrote...

tenojitsu wrote...

Not sure how else to sell online passes if its strictly a single player game. If they would require an online pass just to connect to the servers for whatever reason, it would be too obvious that it a scam for more money. By linking single player to multiplayer they can always claim that they are charging for the pass because they are giving you something for that investment, the multiplayer mode (which is true).

Why link the multiplayer mode with single player? The only answer I can come up with is to get players to play the multiplayer mode. I highly doubt if EA never invented online passes in the first place and they didnt exist , there would be no link between the two. Can you think of any reasons why to have the two mode linked? I cant.

This also what I think of the whole MP-issue. And personally, I don't even think it's fun and I don't want a stupid app.. I wanted to play and fully (!) enjoy a SP game.

I have seen the datapad app (the free one) and its brutally boring. Its total busy work

[tenojitsu]

Yakko77 wrote...

tenojitsu wrote...

It would be nice if a dev popped in here just to acknowledge that they read it.

I agree.  The near silence from the devs and even what responses they have given are so vague it borders on a middle finger to the fans. 

I get the feeling they're waiting until PAX to give details about any (if any) changes they're going to make but given the state of many if not most fans right now in regards to the ending it's really in their best interest IMO to put this fire out now and not let it burn itself out.  I'm not in full blown boycott mode or cancelling my subscription to other Bioware games like Star Wars over this debacle but I am in wait till the game comes out and read/watch a lot of fan reviews (not gaming media sites like IGN which are extremely biased IMO) before buying another game from BW.  My pre-order days may be done... extra content with any future CE version be d@mned.

Also, in regards to any new ending(s), FREE or I just watch it on YT and "headcannon".  Already bought the CE. I will NOT pay for a proper ending, period!

LI don't even need a reaction to the post, just an acknowledgement that they read it.

[goose2989]

GoblinSapper wrote...

Greedy Space Banker approves this message

Well said

[Daidarus]

Yakko77 wrote...

Well said OP. A heartfelt and constructive message IMO. As for the end, I wouldn't mind happy ending as a option but otherwise I just want a end that makes sense, fits Mass Effect and has closure, not a the end which makes no sense, introduces some character in the last 10 minutes that turns everything on its head and leaves more questions than answers.

^This

[tenojitsu]

Fulgrim88 wrote...

tenojitsu wrote...
I am still waiting for the awesome dev response as well, and I'm in the US.

You have a fair chance of meeting them online though.

For me, it's often waking up to find a new thread with some 20 responses from Stanley Woo dated 6hours ago, with all questions asked and all answers given. His online hours coinciding with those when us pesky old-worlders are fast asleep:P

Anyway, good luck with your response. Here's hoping I'll find 20 dev posts in here by tomorrow morning.
(also hoping they won't be april fools)

This is true. Stanley did pop in the other day to put someone who was being nasty in heir place.

[tenojitsu]

I'm looking forward to seeing if there are more comments in the morning. G'night all!

[maddog48]

tenojitsu wrote...


I cannot speak for everyone, but to me, it seems like the suits influence has gotten really strong in ME3.

Not that multiplayer isnt fun, because it is. But having it tied to single player seems unethical to me. ME was always a single player game. Now we have play multiplayer or an iOS app to able to get the "best" ending? Seems like the suits just wanted to make sure that people who bought used games also had to purchase the online pass, and maybe will pick up some Spectre packs as well.

 All I'll say is that I'm confident that more content regarding the ending will be released, and I'm sure we'll have to pay for it. If my conspiracy theory isnt correct, then I wouldnt mind paying for it either, but as I feel now, I dont thinks it right to charge for it. 

Its a series that you can lose yourself in. The fact that this series is even being compared to Star Wars is a testament to BioWare as well. I agreed with the Mass Effect story being this generations Star Wars, until the ending.

Unfortunetely the games ending (as it stands now), comparing it to the comments from different BioWare employees I've read and heard regarding what the end was going to be, takes Mass Effect way out of the Star Wars league for me. The ending that I previously thought was going to be released, sounds terrific though. The deaths of Mordin, Legion, and Thane are all an epitome of bittersweet. So confusing how a concept that BioWare seems to had perfected doesnt really meet the company's own level of execution during the ending sequence. 

Perhaps the appropriate way to say it is that I am ready to LOVE this game, just cant do it because the game doesnt love me back. I'm not saying that a "happy" ending would be the game loving me back. All I need is an ending that is on par with the rest of the game, regardless of whatever direction it goes.

Well said, and thank you for eloquently articualting how you feel, becuase I'm right there with you.

Plus these quotes:


Makes me wonder where did our choice making ability go for the last 5 minutes of the game where we could have gone anywhere for an ending since this was the final chapter and no need to keep it canonical for the next game?

In other words, I'm still holding the line not because I want only 'happy endings' but I want endings that are influenced by the choices my Shepards made and not have the same fate due to the fact an AI only gave them Three choices when all my Shepards have done is fight against that since Soverign's lil' speech on Virmire. 

[tenojitsu]

maddog48 wrote...


Well said, and thank you for eloquently articualting how you feel, becuase I'm right there with you.

Plus these quotes:


Makes me wonder where did our choice making ability go for the last 5 minutes of the game where we could have gone anywhere for an ending since this was the final chapter and no need to keep it canonical for the next game?

In other words, I'm still holding the line not because I want only 'happy endings' but I want endings that are influenced by the choices my Shepards made and not have the same fate due to the fact an AI only gave them Three choices when all my Shepards have done is fight against that since Soverign's lil' speech on Virmire. 

Thing is, I didn't even want any choices at the very end. By that point, I've made enough choices throughout the series where I'm done making choices and want to see he result of all these choices. 

[tenojitsu]

Bump

[Sabrestrikealpha]

 I think that was a great post OP. I don't even know if what I have to say is even responsive, but:
Personally, I think that what is sinking the most recent Bioware games is their constant attempts to "broaden" their audience. In doing so, I think that they have started to lose sight of why a lot of people play their games in the first place - the story. Looking back at older Bioware games (KOTOR, Jade Empire, ME1, etc.), I might term the actual gameplay "inoffensive." Those games didn't have so many problems that it was frustrating to play them, but they were nowhere near best in class either. The thing was, I was always so caught up in the story that I didn't really care about the middling gameplay elements.

I think the more recent Bioware titles have lost sight of that. DA2 is a perfect example of this. Yes, I found the gameplay to be slightly more engaging than DA:O, but all the effort put into improving the combat really seemed to take away from the quality of the story elements - and I definitely notice that.

I felt the same way about ME3. Personally, I could care less about better cover mechanics or heavy melee or combat rolls. Yes, they make the combat slightly more fun, but Bioware needs to realize that those things are not why I'm playing the game in the first place. If all the effort put into improving the combat is taking away from the quality of the story, I'd rather they not try to improve it in the first place.

That's part of what I found to be so irritating about multiplayer. I definitely felt that Bioware had used resources on it that could have been spent on the main campaign. The real heck of it is that despite the effort, I found multiplayer to be the very same type "inoffensive" I find most of Bioware's gameplay. It certainly isn't awful, but it isn't Gears or COD either. If they wanted to spend time doing it, they should have made sure it was some of the best multiplayer available. Instead, we got middling multiplayer and a story that, IMHO, was the weakest of the trilogy (weakest might not be the best word. There were some great moments in there, but I certainly found it the most uneven).

For me to trust Bioware again, they are going to need to produce a game during which I don't hear the words "accessibility," "streamlining," or "simplification" used in the marketing process. Just give me a good story and put enough effort into gameplay to make it "inoffensive." That's enough for me.

[tenojitsu]

Sabrestrikealpha wrote...

 I think that was a great post OP. I don't even know if what I have to say is even responsive, but:
Personally, I think that what is sinking the most recent Bioware games is their constant attempts to "broaden" their audience. In doing so, I think that they have started to lose sight of why a lot of people play their games in the first place - the story. Looking back at older Bioware games (KOTOR, Jade Empire, ME1, etc.), I might term the actual gameplay "inoffensive." Those games didn't have so many problems that it was frustrating to play them, but they were nowhere near best in class either. The thing was, I was always so caught up in the story that I didn't really care about the middling gameplay elements.

I think the more recent Bioware titles have lost sight of that. DA2 is a perfect example of this. Yes, I found the gameplay to be slightly more engaging than DA:O, but all the effort put into improving the combat really seemed to take away from the quality of the story elements - and I definitely notice that.

I felt the same way about ME3. Personally, I could care less about better cover mechanics or heavy melee or combat rolls. Yes, they make the combat slightly more fun, but Bioware needs to realize that those things are not why I'm playing the game in the first place. If all the effort put into improving the combat is taking away from the quality of the story, I'd rather they not try to improve it in the first place.

That's part of what I found to be so irritating about multiplayer. I definitely felt that Bioware had used resources on it that could have been spent on the main campaign. The real heck of it is that despite the effort, I found multiplayer to be the very same type "inoffensive" I find most of Bioware's gameplay. It certainly isn't awful, but it isn't Gears or COD either. If they wanted to spend time doing it, they should have made sure it was some of the best multiplayer available. Instead, we got middling multiplayer and a story that, IMHO, was the weakest of the trilogy (weakest might not be the best word. There were some great moments in there, but I certainly found it the most uneven).

For me to trust Bioware again, they are going to need to produce a game during which I don't hear the words "accessibility," "streamlining," or "simplification" used in the marketing process. Just give me a good story and put enough effort into gameplay to make it "inoffensive." That's enough for me.

The dumbing down of games for mass appeal is a growning trend with game studios these days. Epic did this by trying to turn the multiplayer of Gears of War 3 into a more casual friendly experience. GoW multiplayer used to require a great deal of skill, but the addition of multiple life game modes and weapons that require no skill to get kills with took away what was different, special, and the reason why multiplayer was loved so deeply by those who took the time to learn it. BioWare has done it to Mass Effect piece by piece throughout the series, although more aggressively with ME3. As soon as the demo came out and we saw there was an entire playthrough option with no dialogue choices we should have known we were in trouble. BioWare claimed that this wouldnt spill over to the classic playthrough option, but it is clearly evident that there was a lot of spill over here.

The scariest example, however, is Square-Enix's decision to bastardize one of the most iconic gaming franchises we have ever seen. When SE decided to take the bulk of decision making out of FFXIII they just ripped the soul out of the series. I mean, up until then, Final Fantasy games were the definition of RPG's of that style. RPG players dont mind micro-managing their characters in FF, in fact, its why they play it in the first place. To see that aspect removed in favor of a more "everyone" friendly approach killed the game for anyone who loved all of the FF games up until that point. It's like taking supplemental equipment, i.e., hookshot or boomerang out of The Legend of Zelda, or "jumping" out of Mario games. The fact that FF has been neutered like this is the loudest argument supporting the fact that nothing is sacred in the video game industry.

Funny thing is, the people who they are trying to attract to their games arent really biting anyways. All of these games still have too many of the elements that kept them away in the first place, and not enough of these same elements that their dedicated fanbase fell in love with to be intested anymore. Here is a fact. I've played and completed every FF game until FFXIII, which I stopped playing midway through. I havent even tried FFXIII-2, nor do I intend to. I know I am only one person, but where there is one, usually there are more. Looks like BioWare is on board with this approach and I'm fine not buying there next game. I got ever Final Fantasy, I'll get over BioWare

Modifié par tenojitsu, 02 avril 2012 - 05:33 .

[Phaedros]

Electronic Accountants will RULE THE WORLD!  ..unfortunately...  

[frypan]

tenojitsu wrote...

Sabrestrikealpha wrote...

 I

Funny thing is, the people who they are trying to attract to their games arent really biting anyways.

Good points in these posts. I also see a problem for Bioware in that they end up competing in the same arena as the other causal/shooter games, rather than carving their own unique niche in the market. For EA, that is a two edged sword as Bioware ends up producing games similar to their other casual shooters. Bad business to compete against yourself,as the pen and paper RPG companies found out a few years back.

Its worse than when Looking Glass Studies folded, Bioware could easily end up a completely rubbish studio before being shut down for failing in a market they never should have entered. A sad end for all.

And as to kinect and compulsory multiplayer, uugh. Dont care how much Riccitello thinks microtransactions are the future, they have no place in this genre and will kill what made Bioware great.

Modifié par frypan, 02 avril 2012 - 05:59 .

[CELL55]

It does seem unfair to make Multiplayer necessary to get all of the endings (even if they're functionally identical). You could argue that this is because future DLC will add more War Assets to make it possible to get all of the endings with just single player; but then that's just unfair to those who can't/ won't get DLC. Once the endings are fixed, this needs to be fixed.

[tenojitsu]

frypan wrote...

tenojitsu wrote...

Funny thing is, the people who they are trying to attract to their games arent really biting anyways.

Good points in these posts. I also see a problem for Bioware in that they end up competing in the same arena as the other causal/shooter games, rather than carving their own unique niche in the market. For EA, that is a two edged sword as Bioware ends up producing games similar to their other casual shooters. Bad business to compete against yourself,as the pen and paper RPG companies found out a few years back.

Its worse than when Looking Glass Studies folded, Bioware could easily end up a completely rubbish studio before being shut down for failing in a market they never should have entered. A sad end for all.

And as to kinect and compulsory multiplayer, uugh. Dont care how much Riccitello thinks microtransactions are the future, they have no place in this genre and will kill what made Bioware great.

All I see these companies doing is a fanbase shift, not expansion. They move to casual, and lose some hardcore fans. Problem is, the casual fans arent into because its still too RPGish. So the next game, futher to the casual side. Rinse and repeat until the game has shifted completely to the casual player. Problem is, now they are in a market that they dont truly understand, arent all that experienced in, and have much tougher competition. It will be extrememly difficult for BioWare to succeed in this market. Not to mention, BioWare seems to have a bit of a problem with criticism that isnt sugar coated, or like they like to call it, "constructive." When they move into the casual scene how are they going to handle the 15 year olds who come online for the sole purpose of being nasty? I've been on some shooter forums. The BSN is a kindergarten playground compared to some of these shooter forums.

As far as Kinect, I do not have as big a problem with that as I do the multiplayer being connected to single player. It's nice that some of the more series games are looking into how to incorporate the Kinect sensor. However, as I'm sure Microsoft was asking for BioWare to implement the Kinect in some manner because its a huge marketing boost for them, Microsoft should be throwing in developement dollars to BioWare for this Kinect implementation. Perhaps they did, I do not know.

This leads to my last point. The argument you hear against the claim that multiplayer took away from the developement of the single player is that the multiplayer developement took place at another studio so nobody was taken off of the single player project, which means multiplayer didnt impact single player. I call BS on this argument. Although a different studio worked on the multiplayer, they still had to fork up the money to make it happen. I dont know how many dollars were spent on the multiplayer, but perhaps if the single player dev team had access to these funds maybe they could have hired some more people to actually get the game done on time. Maybe Tali's face wouldnt have been a stock image. Maybe, just maybe, the journal would update.

Modifié par tenojitsu, 02 avril 2012 - 09:14 .

[frypan]

All I see these companies doing is a fanbase shift, not expansion. They move to casual, and lose some hardcore fans. Problem is, the casual fans arent into because its still too RPGish. So the next game, futher to the casual side. Rise and repeat until the game has shifted completely to the casual player. Problem is, now they are in a market that they dont truly understand, arent all that experienced in, and have much tougher competition. It will be extrememly difficult for BioWare to succeed in this market. Not to mention, BioWare seems to have a bit of a problem with criticism that isnt sugar coated, or like they like to call it, "constructive." When they move into the casual scene how are they going to handle the 15 year olds who come online for the sole purpose of being nasty? I've been on some shooter forums. The BSN is a kindergarten playground compared to some of these shooter forums.

Absolutely right. When we consider that other shooting franchises have often also adopted quasi sci Fi settings or concepts, Bioware will find that the only distinctive feature it ever had was the harder RPG elements - precisely the thing they are now discarding.

This leads to my last point. The argument you hear against the claim that multiplayer took away from the developement of the single player is that the multiplayer developement took place at another studio so nobody was taken off of the single player project, which means multiplayer didnt impact single player. I call BS on this argument. Although a different studio worked on the multiplayer, they still had to fork up the money to make it happen. I dont know how many dollars were spent on the multiplayer, but perhaps if the single player dev team had access to these funds maybe they could have hired some more people to actually get the game done on time. Maybe Tali's face wouldnt have been a stock image. Maybe, just maybe, the journal would update.

This one too. The bottom line is that financial resources were taken from the SP experience. I'd love to know how successful MP turns out to be from a commercial point of view, comparing budget, expenditure and pure MP revenue. Alas, I reckon it will make money, and we can expect the same model in future BW games no matter the outcome of this fiasco. Like the binning of mod tools, its all part of a high level initiative and those mindsets are hard to shake at an executive level, unless verything comes crashing down - and the success of ME3 financially (even if much of it was due to ME2) will convince the powers that be they are on the right track even with all the criticism from the old guard.

All fairly bleak, I hope I am utterly and completely wrong.

Modifié par frypan, 02 avril 2012 - 07:22 .

[Bizantura]

Maybe because by becoming to mainstream or casual orientated this unexpected coming together of people of all sorts and ages and sometimes for the first time, is so succesfull. Those people care for gaming and stated indirectly that gaming companys are broadening to wide and it effects gaming satisfaction negatively. To be effectfull maybe it must happen more often and after a time the compagny policy might change for the good. At least this group is on the forefront and that in it self is an achievement.

[frypan]

Bizantura wrote...

Maybe because by becoming to mainstream or casual orientated this unexpected coming together of people of all sorts and ages and sometimes for the first time, is so succesfull. Those people care for gaming and stated indirectly that gaming companys are broadening to wide and it effects gaming satisfaction negatively. To be effectfull maybe it must happen more often and after a time the compagny policy might change for the good. At least this group is on the forefront and that in it self is an achievement.

Good point, we can only hope it has an effect and doesnt prompt the wrong response. My fear is that PR gaming wide will just become more crafty in future, as they are sure to be examining the impact of all the negative feedback and looking at ways to mitigate it . For some of us, this has been an eye opener into the failure of games journalism in general, in particular the reviewing system which let us down badly on this one - and at the same time revealed its intractability in the face of gamer opinions. 

Its possible the objective will be  to further marginalise fan feedback  or ensure it disappears into a mass of online clutter , especially if the PR types have more sway than the creative types on this issue.

That said, PR can only go so far. You are right that fans have shown they are able to organise, and we can always look at abandoning the publisher dominated market and send our dollars elsewhere - Kickstarter being a possible way of ensuring games address a particular gap in the mainstream market.

[Bizantura]

frypan wrote...

Bizantura wrote...

Maybe because by becoming to mainstream or casual orientated this unexpected coming together of people of all sorts and ages and sometimes for the first time, is so succesfull. Those people care for gaming and stated indirectly that gaming companys are broadening to wide and it effects gaming satisfaction negatively. To be effectfull maybe it must happen more often and after a time the compagny policy might change for the good. At least this group is on the forefront and that in it self is an achievement.

Good point, we can only hope it has an effect and doesnt prompt the wrong response. My fear is that PR gaming wide will just become more crafty in future, as they are sure to be examining the impact of all the negative feedback and looking at ways to mitigate it . For some of us, this has been an eye opener into the failure of games journalism in general, in particular the reviewing system which let us down badly on this one - and at the same time revealed its intractability in the face of gamer opinions. 

Its possible the objective will be  to further marginalise fan feedback  or ensure it disappears into a mass of online clutter , especially if the PR types have more sway than the creative types on this issue.

That said, PR can only go so far. You are right that fans have shown they are able to organise, and we can always look at abandoning the publisher dominated market and send our dollars elsewhere - Kickstarter being a possible way of ensuring games address a particular gap in the mainstream market.

I believe it will take time indeed for corporations to change, they need way more incentive then an individual needs.
That is why something like the Retake movement that spontanius occured is so important because people responded who normally do not.  But time it will take sadly enough.

[tenojitsu]

Snake91 wrote...

Everyone deserve it

AMEN!

[tenojitsu]

Bizantura wrote...

frypan wrote...

Bizantura wrote...

Maybe because by becoming to mainstream or casual orientated this unexpected coming together of people of all sorts and ages and sometimes for the first time, is so succesfull. Those people care for gaming and stated indirectly that gaming companys are broadening to wide and it effects gaming satisfaction negatively. To be effectfull maybe it must happen more often and after a time the compagny policy might change for the good. At least this group is on the forefront and that in it self is an achievement.

Good point, we can only hope it has an effect and doesnt prompt the wrong response. My fear is that PR gaming wide will just become more crafty in future, as they are sure to be examining the impact of all the negative feedback and looking at ways to mitigate it . For some of us, this has been an eye opener into the failure of games journalism in general, in particular the reviewing system which let us down badly on this one - and at the same time revealed its intractability in the face of gamer opinions. 

Its possible the objective will be  to further marginalise fan feedback  or ensure it disappears into a mass of online clutter , especially if the PR types have more sway than the creative types on this issue.

That said, PR can only go so far. You are right that fans have shown they are able to organise, and we can always look at abandoning the publisher dominated market and send our dollars elsewhere - Kickstarter being a possible way of ensuring games address a particular gap in the mainstream market.

I believe it will take time indeed for corporations to change, they need way more incentive then an individual needs.
That is why something like the Retake movement that spontanius occured is so important because people responded who normally do not.  But time it will take sadly enough.

Yeah these companies can be a bit reactionary at times, so it might take a while