219 réponses à ce sujet

[bip78]

Either way I'll be purchasing Leviathan as the ME universe is exciting, intreging and fun to be a part of.

I like MP just as much as SP but having one or the other doesn't upset me or bother me. I CHOOSE to play either option. I CHOOSE to purchase DLC.

The answer that has been given countless times apples to everyone one. We all make our own choices and believe what we like.

ME3:L is downloading as I type. There will be two outcomes, I'll like it or I'll hate it. Either way it's my call to purchase and play.

[Ithurael]

EnvyTB075 wrote...

Because apparently its too scary...

edit: Bad words in the vid, but its sums it up pretty well.

I can't wait for a Slender Co-Op game!!!

[Memnon]

So we should buy the DLC so EA views single-player as a viable market? No thanks, I'll just play GW2

[Bioware is bad]

So instead of making DLC that will get bombed, we will have multiplayer games that will bombed.
EA will suffer, so win - win for us gamers.

[Eain]

How does EA cancelling the ME franchise constitute backfiring? The reason I'm not buying Leviathan is precisely because ME3 made the franchise suck balls.

[xlI ReFLeX lIx]

Ghost Down wrote...

Yep, just look what EA did to Dead Space 3. They added $%*&ing co-op.

You mean Visceral Games added coop.

Stop blaming everything on EA. Believe it or not, Dead Space has always had a high demand for coop. Fans were always asking for coop and you know what? I'm going to give it a shot, it actually looks cool. People like you make me laugh, every single time there is something you're not happy with in a game with the "EA" logo on the box its "EA sucks they forced this into the game". Developpers do still have a say on what's in they're games. EA isn't making Dead Space, Visceral Games is, don't forget it. I'd also like to add that Dead Space wouldn't even exist if not for EA, keep that in mind. EA made Dead Space possible, remember that next time you bash them. Just saying.

Modifié par xlI ReFLeX lIx, 28 août 2012 - 01:27 .

[Astralify]

xlI ReFLeX lIx wrote...

Ghost Down wrote...

Yep, just look what EA did to Dead Space 3. They added $%*&ing co-op.

You mean Visceral Games added coop.

Stop blaming everything on EA. Believe it or not, Dead Space has always had a high demand for coop. Fans were always asking for coop and you know what? I'm going to give it a shot, it actually looks cool. People like you make me laugh, every single time there is something you're not happy with in a game with the "EA" logo on the box its "EA sucks they forced this into the game". Developpers do still have a say on what's in they're games. EA isn't making Dead Space, Visceral Games is, don't forget it. I'd also like to add that Dead Space wouldn't even exist if not for EA, keep that in mind. EA made Dead Space possible, remember that next time you bash them. Just saying.

Where did you get that from? A few CoD fans that demand MP in every game? As far as I can see the "demand for NOT INCLUDING MP" in Dead Space is bigger then the demand for co-op was.

[MstrJedi Kyle]

Astralify wrote...

xlI ReFLeX lIx wrote...

Ghost Down wrote...

Yep, just look what EA did to Dead Space 3. They added $%*&ing co-op.

You mean Visceral Games added coop.

Stop blaming everything on EA. Believe it or not, Dead Space has always had a high demand for coop. Fans were always asking for coop and you know what? I'm going to give it a shot, it actually looks cool. People like you make me laugh, every single time there is something you're not happy with in a game with the "EA" logo on the box its "EA sucks they forced this into the game". Developpers do still have a say on what's in they're games. EA isn't making Dead Space, Visceral Games is, don't forget it. I'd also like to add that Dead Space wouldn't even exist if not for EA, keep that in mind. EA made Dead Space possible, remember that next time you bash them. Just saying.

Where did you get that from? A few CoD fans that demand MP in every game? As far as I can see the "demand for NOT INCLUDING MP" in Dead Space is bigger then the demand for co-op was.

Which would be why it is an OPTIONAL co-op. If there is a way to appease all the fans shouldn't they do it?

[PuppiesOfDeath2]

someguy1231 wrote...

 If sales of the Leviathan DLC are disappointing, I fear that EA will misinterpret the reason for it. Many people here have said they will not buy it, usually because they think it won't change the endings or to send a message of disappoint to Bioware/EA over the endings to begin with. However, EA might look at the low sales numbers and think "That proves it! Single-player is out! Make everything multi-player from now on!" There've been many cases where publishers/developers see a declining video game franchise and try to reinvigorate it in ways that completely miss the reason it was declining. I fear the same may happen to ME if DLC sales drastically decline.

Or they might just look at the sales for ME2 and ME3 before anyone knew how bad the endings were and conclude we need better writing and people that are more in touch with the company's most loyal customers.  Why change a franchise that has been successful when you can just change personnel?

[PuppiesOfDeath2]

Eain wrote...

How does EA cancelling the ME franchise constitute backfiring? The reason I'm not buying Leviathan is precisely because ME3 made the franchise suck balls.

LOL

[sistersafetypin]

anorling wrote...


Don't worry. I won't buy any of the multiplayer DLC's either

[Moirai]

Yes, not buying something that you actually want, purely to make a point, is daft.

However, my decision not to buy any ME3 SP DLC that doesn't fix the ending is purely down to personal satisfaction, not boycotting. I don't spend money on things that don't appeal to me or provide me with what I want. Simple as that.

Modifié par Moirai, 28 août 2012 - 02:23 .

[Henioo]

You mean, do exactly what it meant to do, not backfire.

[Hendrik.III]

someguy1231 wrote...

 If sales of the Leviathan DLC are disappointing, I fear that EA will misinterpret the reason for it. Many people here have said they will not buy it, usually because they think it won't change the endings or to send a message of disappoint to Bioware/EA over the endings to begin with. However, EA might look at the low sales numbers and think "That proves it! Single-player is out! Make everything multi-player from now on!" There've been many cases where publishers/developers see a declining video game franchise and try to reinvigorate it in ways that completely miss the reason it was declining. I fear the same may happen to ME if DLC sales drastically decline.

If EA draws that conclusion, they are incurably stupid and never listen to player feedback.
So what now, am I supposed to buy their DLC just because of that? They're already turning everything into a multiplayer... and then they facilitate an online shop for microtransactions = more $$$$

Modifié par Hendrik.III, 28 août 2012 - 02:34 .

[Tonymac]

Look - Bioware hosed the series. They blew the whole thing with ME3. Overall, the entire gist of ME3 - that is using all of our last rescources to make a giant battery (crucible) for the Reapers - is flawed and retarded. The story sucks. Horribly bad. I think my housecat could have done a better job. This is not a joking matter to me - or one of humor. They really were clueless on the highest levels of where to take this story.

Leviathan will not change the gist - or the ending. Its a bad game with horrible endings that I do not wish to see again. Sure the EC is an improvement. It was a great gesture. They admitted they were wrong, finally. It also shows that they are out of touch with clear thinking, as well as the fans - as well as making good games.

Since Bioware gets it wrong - I do not care if they misinterperet the low Leviathan sales. I doubt anyone is really not getting the DLC over spite alone. Its likely they do not want to see the ending(s) again. But Bioware does not care - this is about sales. All they listen to is sales. They made so much off of pre-orders alone that it did not matter if the game was a flopper. Sooner or later they will get the point. Fire the writers that made the bad call. Fire the yes men behind them with brown noses and said it was a great storyline idea. Draw the line - state what is unacceptable. Bad writing is not acceptable. Especially writing that bad. Get new people in there wiht fresh ideas - research why people play games. Do a study and see if pople play games and invest in a series simply to lose to the bad guys.

As for me - I am on the fence. I will never pre-order anything form Bioware again. Ever. As in, the rest of forever. Like, for all Eternity. I got burned hard, and its not going to happen again. All of those lies and BS about winning and taking back Earth - it was all a move to get me to invest in a thing before I had the product. What they handed across the counter should be considered illegal - because it was used biomass.

I will bide my time - see it on you-tube. If its stellar, I might get it. Maybe.

[G Kevin]

Ghost Down wrote...

Yep, just look what EA did to Dead Space 3. They added $%*&ing co-op.

What's wrong with Co-op?

Sounds better than versus multiplayer.

[staindgrey]

anorling wrote...


Don't worry. I won't buy any of the multiplayer DLC's either

Yeah. I haven't bought any either.

Convenient that they're all free.

[BlessedSoldier]

Ghost Down wrote...

Yep, just look what EA did to Dead Space 3. They added $%*&ing co-op.

This^

[3DandBeyond]

OP, this has always been a concern. Unfortunately, EA may already have looked at it and figured MP is the least common denominator.

When the original endings were first seen and people hated them, people played MP trying to get and keep the "best" ending or to keep their stats up for what the EC might be. They also played it waiting to see what BW might do.

Judging by comments here and elsewhere, people still continued to play MP even if they hated the original and EC endings, just to get some play out of the game and because MP was "fun enough". I myself have done so, but aside from very early on being a sucker and buying some of the equipment packs, I won't spend money on MP microtransactions-this is where MP may win out or lose to SP.

I would have rather they just dumped MP altogether and made a better SP game, but I do think they were testing the waters. I just think it's rather ignorant if they use pure data without trying to understand the reasons for it. MP is boring after the initial fun of it. But, they may very well determine that no matter how bad everything else is or can be, MP will sell the game. They're wrong. How many years now have CoD games been on the market and even though their SP campaigns are pretty weak, they have not dumped them completely. And CoD early on had even less of a campaign mode. But they don't charge you for ammo and power ups, you completely earn things in game. Map packs aren't free, but I like that way of paying far better than whe EA has opted for.

I think if EA misinterprets things then it will prove their idiot status and show that they are just number crunchers. Statisticians don't ever rely on numbers alone-they look into the questions and read the answers and continually refine things to see if they are understanding things correctly.

What they may fail to understand is that a lot of people that hate the endings will buy the DLC just to see if anything will be changed-no matter what BW says. And even people that liked the endings may not buy the DLC because the endings did not encourage enough replayability and they've moved on, to finish Skyrim or to play other games. ME3 bored them rather quickly.

Some of the most obvious ME hangers on are those that hated the endings-they can't believe this ending will stick and can't see why BW would think DLC that doesn't change things is a good idea. It's counter-intuitive. It doesn't mean DLC will change anything, just that it's hard to believe someone thought this was a good idea.

[Astralify]

DarthKilby wrote...

Astralify wrote...

xlI ReFLeX lIx wrote...

Ghost Down wrote...

Yep, just look what EA did to Dead Space 3. They added $%*&ing co-op.

You mean Visceral Games added coop.

Stop blaming everything on EA. Believe it or not, Dead Space has always had a high demand for coop. Fans were always asking for coop and you know what? I'm going to give it a shot, it actually looks cool. People like you make me laugh, every single time there is something you're not happy with in a game with the "EA" logo on the box its "EA sucks they forced this into the game". Developpers do still have a say on what's in they're games. EA isn't making Dead Space, Visceral Games is, don't forget it. I'd also like to add that Dead Space wouldn't even exist if not for EA, keep that in mind. EA made Dead Space possible, remember that next time you bash them. Just saying.

Where did you get that from? A few CoD fans that demand MP in every game? As far as I can see the "demand for NOT INCLUDING MP" in Dead Space is bigger then the demand for co-op was.

Which would be why it is an OPTIONAL co-op. If there is a way to appease all the fans shouldn't they do it?

 Including MP/co-op takes away from the SP somehow every time.(example - ME3) And people who play only SP don't want their SP expirience butchered because of a feature they will not use. That's why there are many people who don't want MP in their SP games. (and I'm one of them)

[brian t]

Ghost Down wrote...

Yep, just look what EA did to Dead Space 3. They added $%*&ing co-op.

True they did but at least they made it completly optional unlike Resident Evil 5 where you just had to deal with a AI partner.

[Eterna]

I thought Games were meant to be enjoyed with others? Some of you guys are really antisocial huh?

[Baa Baa]

Ghost Down wrote...

Yep, just look what EA did to Dead Space 3. They added $%*&ing co-op.

They took out the multiplayer and instead added optional co-op. That seems really reasonable for EA imo.

[Fnork]

someguy1231 wrote...

 If sales of the Leviathan DLC are disappointing, I fear that EA will misinterpret the reason for it. Many people here have said they will not buy it, usually because they think it won't change the endings or to send a message of disappoint to Bioware/EA over the endings to begin with. However, EA might look at the low sales numbers and think "That proves it! Single-player is out! Make everything multi-player from now on!" There've been many cases where publishers/developers see a declining video game franchise and try to reinvigorate it in ways that completely miss the reason it was declining. I fear the same may happen to ME if DLC sales drastically decline.

If the DLC goes the way of DA2 I can't say I care. If they cancel the entire series because of low sales (doubt it) I wouldn't care either. At best I might I think it's a pity that I'd never see if ME4 would redeem the series for me.

That said, I don't think EA would interpret sales as you're describing. I think it'd run more along the lines of: "Here's a game that's well known for it's story, it's characters and it's villains. It sold millions and millions of copies. People want this kind of game. We need to make another one but we need to take a look at why it's DLC didn't sell as well".
Maybe they'll cancel ME3 DLC, maybe not. I don't care. It's one giant funeral march for Shepard anyway.

[Onpoint17]

Doesn't matter, Commander Shepard is dead. I won't be playing any more single player. Its a shame. I really wanted to play through with each class but I can't keep putting myself through seeing my favorite characters die.