626 réponses à ce sujet

[upsettingshorts]

Dragon Age 2 was produced in ten months.  Hardly the kind of thing to start from when trying to prognosticate the next not-going-to-be-made-in-ten-months game's quality.

Mass Effect 3 was brilliantly received except for the ending. The ending was of course, a single player event.

What is even your point? "I didn't personally like the multiplayer in Mass Effect 3, therefore it was bad, therefore all BioWare multiplayer will be bad, therefore BioWare is a bad company, therefore they should listen to me?"

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 05 septembre 2012 - 09:42 .

[carine]

BrotherWarth wrote...

You mean the DLC that came out after most people had already finished the game? Sure, they fixed it. But they didn't fix an error, they fixed their stupid design choice. They had to be told that forcing people to play MP to get a complete SP experience was a bad idea, even though they lied about it before the game launched.

Uh what? They fixed an error. Prior to the launch of the game they said that MP would have no effect on the SP campaign. With the extended cut, they amended the game to fit what they said before launch. Anyone who plays it now will not have to touch MP to get the best ending. 

[upsettingshorts]

The more likely answer is that BioWare considered unlocking Synthesis - and thus all three ending choices - and not the Shepard Lives Easter egg to be the "best ending."

Since that was achievable in vanilla without Extended Cut, that would explain the alleged discrepancy between their statements and the game. Should we label a difference of opinion over what constitutes the best ending as a "lie?" I would say not. But hey, whatever suits your agendas.

Trouble is, many people really would rather believe they've been screwed.  It makes raging... simpler.  And rage is catharsis.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 05 septembre 2012 - 09:46 .

[eyesofastorm]

David Gaider wrote...

FaWa wrote...

 Because I KNOW I'm not hearing any rumblings of DA3 having multiplayer. Nope. Its definitely not true. I mean it can't be true...

Right BioWare???

Like seriously, if this is true I've lost all hope.

I'd suggest not panicking until the game is at least announced. Until that happens, I'm afraid we're not going to elaborate on or clarify anything.

Unless you'd prefer to assume the worst, and assume the lack of information to the contrary means the worst must be true-- in which case, by all means panic.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!! 

Modifié par eyesofastorm, 05 septembre 2012 - 09:47 .

[Wulfram]

The bit about not being able to get the "Shepard lives" was only the most obvious part of how MP screwed up the EMS system. You are never going to get a properly balanced system in which a player can have their points doubled by doing something outside the game.

And I'm utterly convinced there will be multiplayer in ME3. Though I do hold out the hope that they'll have the sense to not prostitute the single player to sell it.

[Wulfram]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

The more likely answer is that BioWare considered unlocking Synthesis - and thus all three ending choices - and not the Shepard Lives Easter egg to be the "best ending."

Since that was achievable in vanilla without Extended Cut, that would explain the alleged discrepancy between their statements and the game. Should we label a difference of opinion over what constitutes the best ending as a "lie?" I would say not. But hey, whatever suits your agendas.

Trouble is, many people really would rather believe they've been screwed.  It makes raging... simpler.  And rage is catharsis.

They promised any ending, not just best ending

[Fredward]

BrotherWarth wrote...

Foopydoopydoo wrote...

I'm discombobulated. What does DA3 having multiplayer have to do with anything? I don't think there ISN'T going to be a DA3 because that would be some cruel leading on being done right thar. So we assume that DA3 is going to have muliplayer. And? I really don't understand why that word sends people shrieking like someone stole their favorite cat food. I mean really. If you don't like it, don't play it. And before someone throws the "Mass Effect 3 debacle" in my face, that's BS. You never had to touch multiplayer to get the best endings, I didn't.

First off, that's BS. Even if you play that ipad game it's not possible to get high enough readiness to get the 'Shepard lives' ending. Second, the "if you don't like it then don't play it" argument is dumb. We want the game to be good. Just saying "don't play it" doesn't take away disappointment over failed promise.

Woopsy doopernickles. To me the perfect ending was the synthises ending! Well that's relativity for yah. Like for instance how for me (insert irrelevant and ambiguous "a lot of other players" here) the multiplayer part of ME3 did not detract from an excellent game AT ALL. Huh.

[Fallstar]

A small multiplayer aspect might not be a bad thing. Before all the dlc came out for Origins, I thought it'd have been good if you could go on your calling with your warden, and team up with a friend and take part in a wave based survival type thing in the Deep Roads together, but where death was eventually inevitable. The same premise as **** Zombies in (dare I mention it) COD.

Something small like that wouldn't have taken a lot of resources; a short introductory cinematic, then reusing one of the thaigs would have left them pretty much been good to go. It would barely have detracted from the single player experience if at all.

[LinksOcarina]

BrotherWarth wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Dragon Age 2 was produced in ten months.  Hardly the kind of thing to start from when trying to prognosticate the next not-going-to-be-made-in-ten-months game's quality.

Mass Effect 3 was brilliantly received except for the ending. The ending was of course, a single player event.

What is even your point? "I didn't personally like the multiplayer in Mass Effect 3, therefore it was bad, therefore all BioWare multiplayer will be bad, therefore BioWare is a bad company, therefore they should listen to me?"

Pointing to the reviews doesn't really help your case since so many reviewers admitted after the backlash started that they never even finished the game before reviewing it. The game was not properly vetted by the gaming press. And Bioware has said over and over that they started developing DA2 before Origins even launched. That means they had at least 16 months to develop it, which is more time than a lot of AAA titles.

So...name those reviewers?

[upsettingshorts]

 

BrotherWarth wrote...

Why is the baseless assumption that you just came up with more likely?

Because I think attributing things to malice without any substantial evidence is irresponsible and (usually) baseless.  With the occasional exception, game developers are not out to make their customers mad over trivial, easily-alterable details like "there is one Easter egg available to those who play multiplayer."   

BrotherWarth wrote...

Pointing to the reviews doesn't really help your case since so many reviewers admitted after the backlash started that they never even finished the game before reviewing it.

Which reviewers?

Did they go back and say everything they said about the rest of the game was a lie?  Otherwise everything they said about stuff they liked remained good.

Jumping on the bandwagon of "the ending ruined everything for me" late is Monday morning quarterbacking.  They either liked everything else when they published their original review, or they were lying then.  If they were lying then, what use are they at all to anyone? If they weren't lying then, my point still stands.  

I'm just going to keep assuming that most peoples' experience in single player of ME3 were like mine:  Mostly really impressed with some minor hangups, annoyed by the lack of Shepard-lives Easter egg, and put off by the ending.  But this isn't a Mass Effect 3 thread.  In any case you attempt to establish some kind of pattern has failed.

BrotherWarth wrote... 

The game was not properly vetted by the gaming press.

"The reviewers did not agree with me."

I feel you, bro.  I thought The Witcher 2 wasn't properly vetted by the gaming press either, I hated it.

BrotherWarth wrote...  

And Bioware has said over and over that they started developing DA2 before Origins even launched. That means they had at least 16 months to develop it, which is more time than a lot of AAA titles.

[Citation needed]

I guarantee you my sources on this are... better, than yours.

Ten months.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 05 septembre 2012 - 10:19 .

[LinksOcarina]

BrotherWarth wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Did they go back and say everything they said about the rest of the game was a lie?  Otherwise everything they said about stuff they liked remained good.

Jumping on the bandwagon of "the ending ruined everything for me" late is Monday morning quarterbacking.  They either liked everything else when they published their original review, or they were lying then.  If they were lying then, what use are they at all to anyone? If they weren't lying then, my point still stands.

So reviews based on incomplete experiences are just as valid as those based on complete experiences? What I watch half a movie and say the movie is fantastic before people tell me the ending was garbage? Is my rave review still valid?

Again...which reviewers and proof of them saying this. And did they do a retraction from their review or not.

[upsettingshorts]

[sigh]

No, I'm telling you that a simple misunderstanding is a more likely explanation than your self-serving attribution to
malice on BioWare's part.

It's really simple logic and critical thinking.

Someone who fails reading comprehension forever said...

So reviews based on incomplete experiences are just as valid as those based on complete experiences? What I watch half a movie and say the movie is fantastic before people tell me the ending was garbage? Is my rave review still valid?

Someone who can't take a hint about sources said...

How about the DA2 Developer Diary videos? They say right in the videos that they started developing the game before DAO launched.

Not even going to bother.

I don't think we're having an argument, I have no expectation of changing anyone's mind here. This is mockery, and the joke's on you.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 05 septembre 2012 - 10:40 .

[Nomen Mendax]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

BioWare died for me as a company when they included multiplayer in Baldur's Gate. Both of them.

So you're saying Shattered Steel was as good as it got ...

[upsettingshorts]

Nomen Mendax wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

BioWare died for me as a company when they included multiplayer in Baldur's Gate. Both of them.

So you're saying Shattered Steel was as good as it got ...

Actually, turns out Shattered Steel had multiplayer too.  

[LinksOcarina]

BrotherWarth wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

BrotherWarth wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Did they go back and say everything they said about the rest of the game was a lie?  Otherwise everything they said about stuff they liked remained good.

Jumping on the bandwagon of "the ending ruined everything for me" late is Monday morning quarterbacking.  They either liked everything else when they published their original review, or they were lying then.  If they were lying then, what use are they at all to anyone? If they weren't lying then, my point still stands.

So reviews based on incomplete experiences are just as valid as those based on complete experiences? What I watch half a movie and say the movie is fantastic before people tell me the ending was garbage? Is my rave review still valid?

Again...which reviewers and proof of them saying this. And did they do a retraction from their review or not.

There was a whole thread here of reviewers who admitted they never finished the game before reviewing it. I recall at least 6 or 7. I can't search for the topic because I'm on my phone and nothing I enter into the search bar actually comes up in the results. If I put in "ME3 reviews" I get random crap.

Ok, when you can, show me a link to this thread. If this is true, those guys and gals should not be reviewers because they didn't finish the game.

Mind you, this has nothing to do with the quality of Mass Effect 3. It has to do with the reviewers integrity in question, which is something I loathe because, as a guy who is lucky enough to write reviews professionally on a website, it undermines my own work.

[Nomen Mendax]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Nomen Mendax wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

BioWare died for me as a company when they included multiplayer in Baldur's Gate. Both of them.

So you're saying Shattered Steel was as good as it got ...

Actually, turns out Shattered Steel had multiplayer too.  

I didn't know that (I never played it).

[upsettingshorts]

BrotherWarth wrote...

You say in the beginning of your post that it's wrong on my part to assume Bioware lied

Correct.

BrotherWarth wrote... 

Then you go on to say that Bioware lied to us about the development time of DA2 and that you know more than everyone else.

This is another assumption.  I didn't actually say why your conclusion was wrong again.

It is wrong because you make another assumption that all time spent in development is equal.  What do you think they started working on before DAO was released?  

BrotherWarth wrote...  

You're being completely ridiculous and juvenile.

Yup, I'm weary of the same tired, crappy arguments.  It's one thing to walk people through, step by step, why they're wrong.  It's exhausting to drag them kicking and screaming along the way.

It's simply less work intensive to mock.