280 réponses à ce sujet

[Rylor Tormtor]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Jerrybnsn wrote...

Are zots the new widgets?

Zots are from the old BioWare forums. I'm not sure where the BioPeeps picked up the term originally.

I remember zots being used way back in the pre-development forums for the ill fated Master of Orion 3. 

Yes, I am old. 

[Xewaka]

SpunkyMonkey wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

If you want proof that MP affected the SP experience just look at Mass Effect 1 and that ending compared to ME3 -
ME1 - great game, great ending - no MP
ME3 - good game, pap ending - includes MP

That's not proof.
Counterpoint would be a game like Baldur's Gate 2, which many consider BioWare's best game, which does have Multiplayer.
To conclude that the difference in the perceived quality of ME1 to ME3 is based solely on the multiplayer is a rather myopic perspective on the situation. If we're just making hypotheses, there could be any number of reasons that affected the development of both games.

I'm really banging my head against a brick wall here aren't I? If you can't see the obvious then no matter how I point it out you'll never see it.
Why are you using BG2 as a comparison when there was no backlash about the ending on it? Bioware obviously had the resources to fully flesh out a game and include MP. I've nothing against MP if it's secondary to SP, which it obviously wasn't in ME3.
I really don't know how else I can explain it - maybe ask yourself this -
"Which would have been percieved to be the better product and done more favours for Bioware/EA?" -
1) ME3 with a full variety of choice laden endings to draw a satisfying conclusion to the series, but no MP.
or
2) ME3 with MP, but with the original ending - essentially what was released.?

Repeat after me: Correlation does not equal causation.
The fact that ME3 had MP has nothing to do with the perceived quality of the endings (for the record, I think they're terrible). ME3 endings would've sucked regardless of wether it included MP or not. Again, correlation does not equal causation. If you need to find reasons to lash out at the bad endings, here, I'll give you some that actually make sense:
Lead writer of ME1 leaving the team to work in SWTOR.
"Original" endings leaked in the XBox beta fiasco thing, forcing late stage ending remake.
CHUD's and Walter's ego keeping them from having the endings proofread by the rest of the writing team.

ME3 had multiplayer and a terrible ending. This does not, in any way, shape, or form, mean that multiplayer is the cause of the bad endings. Once more for the crowd: Correlation does not equal causation.

Modifié par Xewaka, 11 septembre 2012 - 11:04 .

[SpunkyMonkey]

Xewaka wrote...

SpunkyMonkey wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

If you want proof that MP affected the SP experience just look at Mass Effect 1 and that ending compared to ME3 -
ME1 - great game, great ending - no MP
ME3 - good game, pap ending - includes MP

That's not proof.
Counterpoint would be a game like Baldur's Gate 2, which many consider BioWare's best game, which does have Multiplayer.
To conclude that the difference in the perceived quality of ME1 to ME3 is based solely on the multiplayer is a rather myopic perspective on the situation. If we're just making hypotheses, there could be any number of reasons that affected the development of both games.

I'm really banging my head against a brick wall here aren't I? If you can't see the obvious then no matter how I point it out you'll never see it.
Why are you using BG2 as a comparison when there was no backlash about the ending on it? Bioware obviously had the resources to fully flesh out a game and include MP. I've nothing against MP if it's secondary to SP, which it obviously wasn't in ME3.
I really don't know how else I can explain it - maybe ask yourself this -
"Which would have been percieved to be the better product and done more favours for Bioware/EA?" -
1) ME3 with a full variety of choice laden endings to draw a satisfying conclusion to the series, but no MP.
or
2) ME3 with MP, but with the original ending - essentially what was released.?

Repeat after me: Correlation does not equal causation.
The fact that ME3 had MP has nothing to do with the perceived quality of the endings (for the record, I think they're terrible). ME3 endings would've sucked regardless of wether it included MP or not. Again, correlation does not equal causation. If you need to find reasons to lash out at the bad endings, here, I'll give you some that actually make sense:
Lead writer of ME1 leaving the team to work in SWTOR.
"Original" endings leaked in the XBox beta fiasco thing, forcing late stage ending remake.
CHUD's and Walter's ego keeping them from having the endings proofread by the rest of the writing team.

ME3 had multiplayer and a terrible ending. This does not, in any way, shape, or form, mean that multiplayer is the cause of the bad endings. Once more for the crowd: Correlation does not equal causation.

My point is that using resources for something else instead of the core game affected it's quality.  Having the lead writer (a valuable resource) leave to work on SWTOR is a perfect example of this.

Why couldn't have the budget set aside for the MP aspect of ME3 been 1) redistributed to SWTOR in order for that team to employ a new lead writer and leave the original one with ME3? or 2) Been used to employ a new lead writer for ME3 if the old one wanted to leave for creative reasons?

If this lead writer was so important and he had a lot on pay him double time to work on ME3 too - where'd you get the money from? Skimp back on MP.

These excuses several have given such as "tight deadline" & "less staff" - the solution to those issues is to reallocate resources. MP being the one which makes most sense to take those resources from.

Modifié par SpunkyMonkey, 11 septembre 2012 - 11:31 .

[AngryFrozenWater]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Either way, it seems that whatever was spent on MP could have been spent on SP. It's not so much a direct subtraction SP, as much as it is subtraction by addition. A lot of people would rather see MP never happen so the resources get folded into the SP budget.

This basically just boils down to "Fans want to see more resources invested into what they want." Which is a reasonable thing for any consumer to want. Everyone always wants the most superior product they can get for as low of a price as they can get.

Which actually disassociates the issue from whether or not multiplayer exists. You can literally state that you'd rather resources go into SP instead of X where X is pretty much anything.  Multiplayer is just an easier target than some other things because:

1) It's something tangible (I suspect many of the opportunity costs are less obvious)
2) It's easier to state "I will not benefit from this feature"

Nah. I don't think you can generalize that it is true for any feature. BW games have evolved into a more cinematic experience to the point where MP has been abandoned. ME1, ME2, DA:O and DA2 are clear examples of that. By introducing MP again concessions have to be made. If SP has budget X and MP has budget Y then I don't believe that the total budget was raised by Y to ensure no compromises were made to SP. It is far more likely that X and Y had to fit into the total budget for the game and thus compromises had to be made.

In FPSs things are different. There MP is what sells the game. Unless it is an MMO an RPG does not require MP at all to be profitable. If we look at all the versions of ME3 world wide then it sold 3.94 million copies and ME2 sold 4.36 million on VGChartz. The latter is an older game, so maybe they've sold equally well. So, MP did not provide anything dramatic sales-wise. Skyrim sold 12.68 and Oblivion 6.58. That's a dramatic increase and MP was not implemented in both. Reliable or not, that is one of the very few sources we have and at least gives me some indication. So ME didn't need any MP and it didn't improve sales. What happened to the SP fans? Did some ran away and did it attract new MP fans? It seems it didn't attract enough customers to justify the change.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 11 septembre 2012 - 11:28 .

[Xewaka]

SpunkyMonkey wrote...
My point is that using resources for something else instead of the core game affected it's quality.  Having the lead writer (a valuable resource) leave to work on SWTOR is a perfect example of this.
Why couldn't have the budget set aside for the MP aspect of ME3 been 1) redistributed to SWTOR in order for that team to employ a new lead writer and leave the original 1 with ME3? or 2) Been used to employ a new lead writer for ME3 if the old one wanted to leave for creative reasons?

You have had several actual developers (such as HoorayforIcecream) explain to you that's not budget actually works. Here's how it likely went:
"Have X zots for development of the single player. Here's Y zots for the development of multiplayer." (Alternatively: "We need X for single player and Y for multiplayer")
If X+Y = Z, and they got rid of multiplayer (thus freeing Y), Single player would still have X for development, and the new total budget for the project would be X, not Z.
As for studio time, MP was developed in a different studio than single player, thus there was no loss over there.
Regarding the lead writer shift: They did appoint a new Lead Writer. Check the credits: Mac Walters. Lead Writer as a position was budgeted, regardless of who occupied it.
Again: You assume that the multiplayer budget could've been applied to SP. That's not how development works; in truth, no multiplayer means the cash for multiplayer never enters the equation.

AngryFrozenWater wrote...
If SP has budget X and MP has budget Y then I don't believe that the total budget was raised by Y to ensure no compromises were made to SP. It is far more likely that X and Y had to fit into the total budget for the game and thus compromises had to be made.

Considering that, as I point below, MP has its own monetization plan independent of SP, I don't find the notion of two independent budgets all that shocking. SP gets its own budget and monetization plan. MP gets its own budget and monetization plan.

AngryFrozenWater wrote...
So ME didn't need any MP and it didn't improve sales. What happened to the SP fans? Did some ran away and did it attract new MP fans? It seems it didn't attract enough customers to justify the change.

I might've not attracted new customers, but it certainly increased the profitability of the product enough that the multiplayer expansions can be supported with the monetization plan implemented in MP, thus avoiding the "pay for map packs" so prevalent across multiplayer FPS. The monetization plan being, of course, the option to buy the gear packs with real money rather than game currency.

Modifié par Xewaka, 11 septembre 2012 - 11:45 .

[SpunkyMonkey]

Xewaka wrote...

SpunkyMonkey wrote...
My point is that using resources for something else instead of the core game affected it's quality.  Having the lead writer (a valuable resource) leave to work on SWTOR is a perfect example of this.
Why couldn't have the budget set aside for the MP aspect of ME3 been 1) redistributed to SWTOR in order for that team to employ a new lead writer and leave the original 1 with ME3? or 2) Been used to employ a new lead writer for ME3 if the old one wanted to leave for creative reasons?

You have had several actual developers (such as HoorayforIcecream) explain to you that's not budget actually works. Here's how it likely went:
"Have X zots for development of the single player. Here's Y zots for the development of multiplayer." (Alternatively: "We need X for single player and Y for multiplayer")
If X+Y = Z, and they got rid of multiplayer (thus freeing Y), Single player would still have X for development, and the new total budget for the project would be X, not Z.
As for studio time, MP was developed in a different studio than single player, thus there was no loss over there.
Regarding the lead writer shift: They did appoint a new Lead Writer. Check the credits: Mac Walters. Lead Writer as a position was budgeted, regardless of who occupied it.
Again: You assume that the multiplayer budget could've been applied to SP. That's not how development works; in truth, no multiplayer means the cash for multiplayer never enters the equation.

Why on earth can't resouces used for Y (multiplayer) be reallocated to X (SP) though?

If my boss tell me to produce X whatever from our factory and I have a budget of 100k in staff wages to allocate as I wish I'm not bound by any rules preventing me distributing that as I need to.

Sating "the industry doesn't work like that" is no excuse - why follow industry trends that upset & alienate your customers?

The project may be setup under the proviso that SP&MP total a budget of 100m, but there's nothing to stop those working on the project at a higher level with a bigger overview POV to turn around to those funding the project and say "you'll get a better product, sell more and keep more fans happy if you re-allocate the MP resources to SP"

If from the outset of the next games someone points out that an SP game would be far better for the MP resources being allocated to it, and thus may sell more and not create a massive backlash which caused lots of fans to turn their back on the series and the company.

Modifié par SpunkyMonkey, 11 septembre 2012 - 11:45 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

Kroitz wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

As someone who has some experience with the industry and someone who has talked (a a lot) with a lot of developers (project leads even), I cna tell you one thing for certain:

Hello "Someone",

my real name is Baron Pazzipuddle Poopitoo and I would like to send you my distaste for your dishonesty from my castle in the Bronx, the Bronx in the sky that is.

I'm not surprised you don't belive me, but that doesn't make it any less true.
While my work is mostly honorary or volountary, I do have soem insight.

[AngryFrozenWater]

Xewaka wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

So ME didn't need any MP and it didn't improve sales. What happened to the SP fans? Did some ran away and did it attract new MP fans? It seems it didn't attract enough customers to justify the change.

I might've not attracted new customers, but it certainly increased the profitability of the product enough that the multiplayer expansions can be supported with the monetization plan implemented in MP, thus avoiding the "pay for map packs" so prevalent across multiplayer FPS. The monetization plan being, of course, the option to buy the gear packs with real money rather than game currency.

You assume that it is profitable enough. Does it ensure a new yacht for each employee or did it just pay the bills?

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 11 septembre 2012 - 11:47 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Regardless of actual budget numbers (which the public will never see or know about, so it's fruitless to speculate), I am more concerned with two things: Scope and Milestone Timelines.

Scope - This is the objectives to complete the project. When you add requirements to a project, you are expanding its scope. When you expand a project too much, this is called Scope Creep. It means that, even if you have enough budget and resources, it still can be too much for one project to handle and can distract from making sure the completed product is as good as it should be. If DA3 is going to have MP, that is an instance of Scope Creep, where a large project, creating a deep single-player game, is now becoming an even larger project, having a SP and MP game. Mike Laidlaw, Lead Designer, essentially just had his job as overseeing the entire project, almost doubled with this being the case. And, as such, the odds of him making an oversight or a mistake in letting something out the door is almost doubled as well. It's not just resources, it's also responsibility - everyone from Lead Designers to last-stage testers now have significantly more to worry about in making sure there is a completed, final project. More things to check means more things that can go wrong and be missed. That's Scope Creep.

Milestone Timelines - Another problem with multiplayer, ESPECIALLY if it is handled by a different department, is conflicting timelines. ME3 was originally slated for a Fall 2011 release, but was delayed due to needing more time. We see this in game development all of the time. Yet, in novmeber 2011, just weeks before the game set Gold and left the development house, the script was being reworked and lines being rewritten in a way that fundamentally changed the endings. Why? If they had delayed the game once, why would they not just delay it again if they were still having problems with the most fundamentally anticipated aspect of ME3, the endings, a culmination of hundreds of hours of gaming? The answer, I think, is conflicting project timelines. After all, if MP is done, completely wrapped up, but the single player still has huge bugs (face import), shoddy writing (needed the EC to even explain what happened) and an endgame that didn't build up to the climax of the story (Priority: Earth was one of the most boring missions in any of the games). So, what do they do? Go ahead and release the game and pray no one notices. This is because projects are designed to finish all at once. If you have two different components, SP and MP, and one is done and the other is MOSTLY done, guess what? The schedule doesn't allow you to take more time. This isn't an issue where multiplayer ate into the resources of single player, but simply that it was time for them to go out and they weren't going to hold up production because one element needed a little 'polishing up.'
TL;DR: it's not just competition of resources that can make MP gum up SP. It's competing oversight and controls of the final product, and it's the pressure that it one segment gets completed before the other, that you need to get the product out the door for fear of tying up both teams unnecessarily.

[Xewaka]

SpunkyMonkey wrote...
Why on earth can't resouces used for Y (multiplayer) be reallocated to X (SP) though?

Profits. See monetization plans commentary above. MP was approved because it came with its own cashmaking plan.

SpunkyMonkey wrote...
If my boss tell me to produce X whatever from our factory and I have a budget of 100k in staff wages to allocate as I wish I'm not bound by any rules preventing me distributing that as I need to.

However, here the boss is not telling you to produce X of whatever. He's telling you "We want you to produce X units of product A, and X units of product B, and you get Y budget for A and Z budget for B; and you sell them together". Single player and Multiplayer are, quite literally, two different products packaged into a single sale.

SpunkyMonkey wrote...

The project may be setup under the proviso that SP&MP total a budget of 100m, but there's nothing to stop those working on the project at a higher level with a bigger overview POV to turn around to those funding the project and say "you'll get a better product, sell more and keep more fans happy if you re-allocate the MP resources to SP"
If from the outset of the next games someone points out that an SP game would be far better for the MP resources being allocated to it, and thus may sell more and not create a massive backlash which caused lots of fans to turn their back on the series and the company.

"Be careful what you wish for, you might get it". The endings you deride so much were done entirely by "the people on a higher level with a bigger overview PoV" (Mac Walters, aka the lead writer, and CHUD). Also, the people making the budget will say: "Does moving this cash from MP to SP make up for the revenue lost from neglecting MP?" Since the answer will be "no", the options are "Keep MP and the extra bugdet or cut both".
And no, a "better SP experience" (as if throwing money at a problem will magically make it go away) would not have made up for the loss of revenue from multiplayer.

AngryFrozenWater wrote...
You assume that it is profitable enough. Does it ensure a new yacht for each employee or did it just pay the bills?

They keep adding new events and maps to multiplayer. If MP wasn't profitable, they would've cut off new content development.

Modifié par Xewaka, 11 septembre 2012 - 11:56 .

[SpunkyMonkey]

Xewaka wrote...

SpunkyMonkey wrote...
Why on earth can't resouces used for Y (multiplayer) be reallocated to X (SP) though?

Profits. See monetization plans commentary above. MP was approved because it came with its own cashmaking plan.

SpunkyMonkey wrote...
If my boss tell me to produce X whatever from our factory and I have a budget of 100k in staff wages to allocate as I wish I'm not bound by any rules preventing me distributing that as I need to.

However, here the boss is not telling you to produce X of whatever. He's telling you "We want you to produce X units of product A, and X units of product B, and you get Y budget for A and Z budget for B; and you sell them together". Single player and Multiplayer are, quite literally, two different products packaged into a single sale.

SpunkyMonkey wrote...

The project may be setup under the proviso that SP&MP total a budget of 100m, but there's nothing to stop those working on the project at a higher level with a bigger overview POV to turn around to those funding the project and say "you'll get a better product, sell more and keep more fans happy if you re-allocate the MP resources to SP"
If from the outset of the next games someone points out that an SP game would be far better for the MP resources being allocated to it, and thus may sell more and not create a massive backlash which caused lots of fans to turn their back on the series and the company.

"Be careful what you wish for, you might get it". The endings you deride so much were done entirely by "the people on a higher level with a bigger overview PoV" (Mac Walters, aka the lead writer, and CHUD). Also, the people making the budget will say: "Does moving this cash from MP to SP make up for the revenue lost from neglecting MP?" Since the answer will be "no", the options are "Keep MP and the extra bugdet or cut both".
And no, a "better SP experience" (as if throwing money at a problem will magically make it go away) would not have made up for the loss of revenue from multiplayer.

AngryFrozenWater wrote...
You assume that it is profitable enough. Does it ensure a new yacht for each employee or did it just pay the bills?

They keep adding new events and maps to multiplayer. If MP wasn't profitable, they would've cut off new content development.

That's total speculation though - a great SP game will still sell in 10/15 years long after the MP comminuty has forgotten about it.

I've bough BG2 several times in various formats over the years so I can continue to play it, I'll not touch ME3 until they release it with a full & proper ending.

Fast Jimmy explains it excellently with the likes of "Scope Creep", Mp is just something else to focus on which detracts from the main game.

And THAT is the entire problem - trying to cater for all audiences. Action or stratergy, MP or SP etc. - do either one or the other!

Modifié par SpunkyMonkey, 11 septembre 2012 - 12:07 .

[fchopin]

I do not want MP, but i think there will be MP.

So what's new, no ice cream for me.

[AngryFrozenWater]

Xewaka wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...
You assume that it is profitable enough. Does it ensure a new yacht for each employee or did it just pay the bills?

They keep adding new events and maps to multiplayer. If MP wasn't profitable, they would've cut off new content development.

If it is just enough to keep those people's jobs then that may be reason enough. But maybe they get filthy rich. Or maybe this is a pilot to see what can be improved in future titles and/or the infrastructure and loss is calculated. We simply do not know.

[bleetman]

Not that I really care about multiplayer specifically, but I care about the 'appeal to a wider audience' mentality and the balance between 'combat gameplay' and 'story gameplay' increasingly shifting away from the latter and towards the former, both of which aren't doing Bioware's titles any favours as far as I'm concerned. I've never played their titles for the stabby pew pew, and unless we're talking co-operative campaign modes - in which case, bring it on, the world needs more of that - then I can't help but be faintly suspicious of any included online modes that are effectively all about the combat. It requires the combat be whipped into an independantly enjoyable state for it to actually work, and I'm having a tough time believing this is all done by an outside team operating on additional, unrelated resources.

Not that they can't have decent combat, or that multiplayer is particularly directly related to directing more attention towards that. I'm just skeptical of the reasons that lead to it being included, if it is.

[Xewaka]

SpunkyMonkey wrote...
I've bough BG2 several times in various formats over the years so I can continue to play it, I'll not touch ME3 until they release it with a full & proper ending.

Baldur's Gate 2 has co-op multiplayer. Your argument is, as they say, invalid.

[Brockololly]

scyphozoa wrote...
We do know what Bioware devs have told us, specifically that ME3 MP was done by a separate team in Montreal, and that they did not share resources.

As I recall, didn't the Montreal team help finish ME2 back when that was in production, helping finish the single player? For me, there is a very small chance I'll enjoy the MP in a BioWare game. Maybe I will, but that's not why I bother with a BioWare game in the first place. Unless its a fully fleshed out MP like NWN, I probably won't bother with it. And even if it is a fully fleshed out MP experience like NWN, I probably won't bother since that's not really what I expect out of a BioWare game.

Its like Battlefield 3. I play Battlefield games for the multiplayer. Personally, I don't know why BF3 even bothered with SP since it was pretty bad yet they clearly spent some number of resources on it. I'd rather they have spent those resources elsewhere, even if that was some other completely different project.

Allan Schumacher wrote...
Counterpoint would be a game like Baldur's Gate 2, which many consider BioWare's best game, which does have Multiplayer.

Right, but is the multiplayer the reason why people consider BG2 to be BioWare's best game? Is the MP a frequently cited reason that comes up when people talk favorably of BG2?

And when people bring up the likes of BG2's multiplayer, I am curious as to what level of resources went into making BG2's MP as a fraction of its budget back then? It never felt like something that was a huge feature for BG2 but rather more of an extra.

I'm skeptical that when game budgets are constantly inflating that adding MP or coop to DA would be some relatively low cost endeavor, in time and labor. I'm guessing it was likely easier to make the MP for BG2 work than it would be to make MP for DA work. And thats not even getting into it if DA's MP would be some entirely separate mode, divorced from the SP game. And even if it was coop in some way, then how would EA force microtransactions and all that into the SP experience?

I just have zero interest in adding MP or coop to a Dragon Age game. I'd be curious to see how they'd do it, but with how crummy the single player to DA2 was, I'd be far more concerned BioWare put as much time and effort into getting that right than tacking on MP.

[SpunkyMonkey]

Xewaka wrote...

SpunkyMonkey wrote...
I've bough BG2 several times in various formats over the years so I can continue to play it, I'll not touch ME3 until they release it with a full & proper ending.

Baldur's Gate 2 has co-op multiplayer. Your argument is, as they say, invalid.

Again you miss my point - absolutely naff all people advise buying BG2 because of the co-op or multiplayer, they do so because of the game itself.

Modifié par SpunkyMonkey, 11 septembre 2012 - 01:24 .

[Xewaka]

SpunkyMonkey wrote...

Xewaka wrote...

SpunkyMonkey wrote...
I've bough BG2 several times in various formats over the years so I can continue to play it, I'll not touch ME3 until they release it with a full & proper ending.

Baldur's Gate 2 has co-op multiplayer. Your argument is, as they say, invalid.

Again you miss my point - absolutely naff all people advise buying BG2 because of the co-op or multiplayer, they do so because of the game itself,

Despite having to assign a budget to multiplayer? Surely if they didn't, they would have a much better single player campaign?
You're defeating your own earlier point about multiplayer harming single player by piling prayer on BG2.

[SpunkyMonkey]

Xewaka wrote...

SpunkyMonkey wrote...

Xewaka wrote...

SpunkyMonkey wrote...
I've bough BG2 several times in various formats over the years so I can continue to play it, I'll not touch ME3 until they release it with a full & proper ending.

Baldur's Gate 2 has co-op multiplayer. Your argument is, as they say, invalid.

Again you miss my point - absolutely naff all people advise buying BG2 because of the co-op or multiplayer, they do so because of the game itself,

Despite having to assign a budget to multiplayer? Surely if they didn't, they would have a much better single player campaign?
You're defeating your own earlier point about multiplayer harming single player by piling prayer on BG2.

I guess you missed the part where I said MP was OK if it didn't affect the SP experience.

Look, you kid yourself all you like mate, if you think ME3 didn't need a better ending and that MP was included with no sacrifice then fair enough, anyone with common sense can see otherwise and that is something I cannot gift you, you can argue all day long that was not the case and if this pattern.......

DA:O - no multiplayer - great game, great ending
ME1 - no multiplayer - great game, great ending
ME3 - multiplayer included - good game, garbage ending

........doesn't make sense still then I'll leave it with you. BG2 was an exception created at a time when MP wasn't anywhere near as big a money-spinner as it is now and wouldn't have been as highly prioritized, but I aint got all day to keep pointing out blindingly obvious facts like that.

Modifié par SpunkyMonkey, 11 septembre 2012 - 02:11 .

[Rinji the Bearded]

SpunkyMonkey wrote...

Again you miss my point - absolutely naff all people advise buying BG2 because of the co-op or multiplayer, they do so because of the game itself.

Are  you insinuating that  most people bought Mass Effect 3 simply for its MP experience?

how about no

[bleetman]

I wouldn't really say ME3's eccentric ending and ME3's multiplayer mode have much to do with each other. Hell, they could've taken the resources they spent on multiplayer and devoted that specifically to the ending sequence alone, and all we'd have gotten was a more cinematically impressive version of what was there. It was a conscious writer decision to make it the way it was.

[Xewaka]

SpunkyMonkey wrote...
I guess you missed the part where I said MP was OK if it didn't affect the SP experience.
Look, you kid yourself all you like mate, if you think ME3 didn't need a better ending and that MP was included with no sacrifice then fair enough, anyone with common sense can see otherwise and that is something I cannot gift you, you can argue all day long that was not the case and if this pattern.......
DA:O - no multiplayer - great game, great ending
ME1 - no multiplayer - great game, great ending
ME3 - multiplayer included - good game, garbage ending
........doesn't make sense still then I'll leave it with you. BG2 was an exception created at a time when MP wasn't anywhere near as big a money-spinner as it is now and wouldn't have been as highly prioritized, but I aint got all day to keep pointing out blindingly obvious facts like that.

Again. Repeat after me:
Correlation does not equal causation.
Got that? Let me try that again:
Correlation does not equal causation.
Not yet? How about a third time:
Correlation does not equal causation.
Your logic has no grounding.

[upsettingshorts]

Welp, SpunkyMonkey, that isn't the worst argument I've ever read on the BSN, but it's pretty damn close.

Correlation does not equal causation.

Also, "common sense" is a limited placeholder for informed knowledge and/or experience. Since I am guessing you neither have inside information as to how BioWare operates, nor experience developing games for them, you're in fact quite full of it.

Leaning on a vague understanding of "common sense" loses out to logic every single time. You are in fact advocating the position that: Something you don't know anything about the production of is directly responsible, for reasons you have no evidence in support of, for the production of another thing you also don't know anything about.

If you cannot see this, well, I cannot gift critical thinking to you. Pay more attention in school, I guess.

[SpunkyMonkey]

RinjiRenee wrote...

SpunkyMonkey wrote...

Again you miss my point - absolutely naff all people advise buying BG2 because of the co-op or multiplayer, they do so because of the game itself.

Are  you insinuating that  most people bought Mass Effect 3 simply for its MP experience?

how about no

No, let me walk you through it........

Xewaka said BG2 was a good example of a game which included MP & a great SP experience.

I was pointing out that most people bought BG2 for the SP experience with the MP experience having little relevance to sales, re-sales, or being in any way shape or form a high priority.

Capisce?

[SpunkyMonkey]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Welp, SpunkyMonkey, that isn't the worst argument I've ever read on the BSN, but it's pretty damn close.

Correlation does not equal causation.

Also, "common sense" is a limited placeholder for informed knowledge and/or experience. Since I am guessing you neither have inside information as to how BioWare operates, nor experience developing games for them, you're in fact quite full of it.

Leaning on a vague understanding of "common sense" loses out to logic every single time. You are in fact advocating the position that: Something you don't know anything about the production of is directly responsible, for reasons you have no evidence in support of, for the production of another thing you also don't know anything about.

If you cannot see this, well, I cannot gift critical thinking to you. Pay more attention in school, I guess.

Christ you can't see what in front of your very eyes.

Keep kidding yourselves.

PS - I have run my own company in the past, I now manage a productive factory and in my mid-30's have already paid off my mortgage and own my own car debt free - believe me I know what resource managment is all about.

the fact that a few of you can't seem to function without an "official statement" about something just shows how reliant you are on other making decsions and thinking for you, hence why your so oblivious to the fact that ME3 was poorly managed.

Modifié par SpunkyMonkey, 11 septembre 2012 - 02:20 .