626 réponses à ce sujet

[Nomen Mendax]

BasilKarlo wrote...

Nomen Mendax wrote...

BasilKarlo wrote...

Mass Effect 2 didn't change the art style, they improved the graphics. It still looked the same, just sharper. And the combat was just improved, not changed from tactical combat to "button=awesome" combat. You're doing some serious stretching here.

I think there was more change from DAO to DA2, but I also think you are understating the changes from ME1 to ME2. Combat was changed significantly, and whether it was improved is open to debate.  Pesrsonally I'm not fond of the cover mechanic (particularly when I take cover behind a thin glass barrier that can't be penetrated by rockets) and they also changed the control scheme to the terrible spacebar does everything scheme that also plagues ME3.

And while the art change was not as great as the change to DA2 it introduced the idea of iconic companion outfits which are probably stupider in ME2 than they are in DA2 -- at least Aveline and Fenris wear armour.

The also took liberties with the lore in ways that didn't make a whole lot of sense.  As I said there were more changes than you seem willing to admit to.  The big difference is that more people liked ME2 so weren't claiming that Bioware betrayed them when it made all these changes (which isn't to say that there wasn't any criticism).

"Iconic appearances" weren't a change to the art style, just the customization depth. Everything still looked the same.
And ME1 had a cover mechanic, it was just clunky since it was essentially crouching. The only big change to combat that wasn't an improvement to what was already there is the universal cooldowns for powers.

I'm not sure why you think having cover that makes you impossible to harm in an absurd and implausible way versus crouching is an improvement.

Anyway there were significant differences between the two games that you seem to want to ignore (athough, as  I said earlier, not as much of a difference as between DAO and DA2).

Modifié par Nomen Mendax, 13 septembre 2012 - 04:15 .

[Wulfram]

BasilKarlo wrote...

People wearing different outfits is not a change to art style. If it is then Awakening changed Origins' art style.

Going from practical looking armour to stripperific outfits and big boobs is a change in art style.

And we saw different places in the galaxy. It was still the same galaxy, still had all the bright, utopian places. We just saw another side of the galaxy in ME2.

Another side of the galaxy represented with a different art style.

[Steppenwolf]

The armor is still there. The "stripperific" outfits work within the lore established by ME1. Armor makes less sense since the bullets and weaponry rip right through it. It would be a hindrance to movement and make you more likely to get shot.
And again, the areas we see in ME2 don't have a different art style. All the places we saw in ME1 still look the same. A change in art style requires actual change to what came before, not adding stuff that's different. Making all elves look different? Art style change. Adding areas that don't look like old areas? Not an art style change.

[aries1001]

If or when there is MP in DA3, can we please not be required to play MP in order to complete game in the SP campaign? As for the plot, I'll like to see a plot like DA2's, however, it seems that it could be more like DA:O's plot...

[ianvillan]

BrotherWarth wrote...

There can only be so many stories about people who were standing next to important people when important things happened...

Or stories about a dwarf who told stories about a man/woman who saw things happen.

[bEVEsthda]

ianvillan wrote...

BrotherWarth wrote...

There can only be so many stories about people who were standing next to important people when important things happened...

Or stories about a dwarf who told stories about a man/woman who saw things happen.

Or stories about an inquisitor who interrogates a dwarf who told stories about a man/woman who saw things happen.

Or a story about what a dwarf claims he told an inquisitor, as she interrogated him, about a man/woman who saw things happen.

Personally, I pretend that Mike has promised me they won't do frame again.

[Terror_K]

BasilKarlo wrote...

The armor is still there. The "stripperific" outfits work within the lore established by ME1. Armor makes less sense since the bullets and weaponry rip right through it. It would be a hindrance to movement and make you more likely to get shot.

No... I have to strongly disagree with this. The "stripperific" outfits in ME2 were completely stupid and non-sensical, especially for dangerous environments and places like The Migrant Fleet. I don't think it was a change in art style, but it was certainly one of the changes to Mass Effect from ME2 onwards that went for a far more bombastic, over-the-top modern Hollywood approach rather than the more classic sci-fi stylings of ME1 akin to sci-fi from the late 70's, 80's and early 90's. ME1 made sure to give everybody sealed suits of armour, and the overall design of Mass Effect armour was supposed to represent armour, space suit and environmental suit all in one.

They don't work in the Mass Effect lore at all either. For one thing, outfits like those lack the power-pack and overall space to even provide the kinetic barriers that keep you alive (though biotics can get around this via personal biotic barriers). Kinetic barriers don't protect against the dangers of space such as radiation, pressure, toxins, extreme temperatures, etc. Too many of the squaddies went to places they shouldn't have and weren't prepared for the hazards of space exploration. Breathing masks are not sufficient, especially when they are just masks sucked onto their faces and aren't even attached to any source of air to breathe (compare to ME1 where even the helmets had air and power lines connected to the top of the back-mounted power pack and air tank). ME2's lore even introduced the medi-gel system... which is part of armour and not standard clothing. Unless Miranda and Samara are storing medi-gel in their boobs or butt, I don't see how she can get healed automatically... and Jack is even worse.

If their suits were at least properly sealed, even if only during the missions where breathing masks would come on, then that would have at least been something, but even then your claims about the armour not doing anything are false. Again, aside from also providing protection from the aforementioned hazards that a skin-tight piece of material won't, on top of that it wouldn't take much more than a jagged rock to cut through that material and you'd be screwed, even if it was sealed. What's more, armour does provide protection: while it doesn't stop the mass projectiles from hurting you, it does curb the damage they do to your body. Armour is basically the difference between a shot being a flesh would and being a Holy Grail Black Knight style flesh wound.

So, while the changes in clothing from ME1 to ME2 aren't an art style failure, they are a logic and consistency failure, and a sign of how BioWare began to value style over substance and not care so much about consistency, integrity and basic realism if it was "teh badasss0rz!!1"

And again, the areas we see in ME2 don't have a different art style. All the places we saw in ME1 still look the same. A change in art style requires actual change to what came before, not adding stuff that's different. Making all elves look different? Art style change. Adding areas that don't look like old areas? Not an art style change.

I think the closest we got to this is ME3 suddenly pulling a bit of a Dragon Age 2 with repeat characters, where for no real reason some characters didn't even look much like they did in the previous games. For example, Anderson's face was pretty off, Udina and Bailey suddenly aged backwards about 10-20 years, Kirrahe and Wreav's complexions changes to completely different colours, and the likes of Oriana Lawson and Matriarch Aeythyta didn't even look remotely like they used to at all, with completely different facial features entirely (which reminded me of the likes of Alistair and Zevran in DA2).

[ElitePinecone]

bEVEsthda wrote...

Personally, I pretend that Mike has promised me they won't do frame again.

For the foreseeable future they're returning to a more traditional structure, and while we can't say they'll never use a framed narrative again, I don't think the way it worked in DA2 was very successful. The time jumps made everything incohesive and definitely weren't used effectively in terms of Kirkwall changing, while the story's linearity and lack of reactivity were a bit of a letdown. 

It's an interesting storytelling device and I think there's probably a way it could be used well, but I don't think DA2 is it. 

Although I'm not a huge fan of 'Chosen One'-style protagonists, it is certainly possible to craft a story where a relatively insignificant individual becomes influential or powerful through the course of the game and the player's actions. DAO might've had the Warden ordained as such, but the character was fairly powerless to directly confront Loghain or the Archdemon until they'd built their own power and gathered allies. For the purposes of the game our Warden was (with Alistair) the *only* possible person to defeat the Blight, even if we were grossly underqualified at the start of the game. 

By contrast, I felt like Hawke almost literally fell into the shoes of Champion of Kirkwall, not because they were needed in the role but because they happened to go in search of cash and be the one to confront the Arishok (instead of, oh, any one of the hundreds of city guards or Templars or mages who might've defeated the Qunari). 

[WhiteKnyght]

David Gaider wrote...

FitScotGaymer wrote...

This has come up because a very high up EA exec has very proudly and stupidly declared that under his watch EA has not released a "Singleplayer only" game; and under his continued watch it would NEVER release a single player only game.

Bioware is a division of EA as we keep being told.

Thus the panic about "OMG! Is DA3 going to have a boring shoehorned in Multiplayer like ME3 did?"

Which is interesting primarily due to the fact that this is something EA has said repeatedly and publicly many times to date-- all their games must have a multiplayer or online component (requirements which even DA2 satisfied). And both Mike and Mark have also spoken several times about their intention to have some form of multiplayer in the DA franchise, if not details as to what form it will take.

So, curiosity about that? Sure. Concern? Maybe, if you had anxiety about how that was going to be implented within DA, though that isn't going to be explained anytime soon-- I'm sure opinions on how you'd like to see it done are far more welcome than assumptions, though. Shock and panic? I have no idea why, unless someone wasn't paying attention.

I know it is late, but I'd like to add to this comment by pointing out that even Dragon Age: Origins satisfied that requirement. And it's the game the faux-consensus of DAII haters say was "teh best evar"

Allowing online functions, such as sharing your experiences, I think has always been a great idea.

As for multiplayer, I just have to say, why the hell not? It's not like it's going to deterr players away from the story mode and, to take inspiration from Chris Kluwe's awesome statemet for my own thoughts, it wont magically transform you guys into crazy MP addicts. The inclusion of a multiplayer function doesn't affect your lives in any way unless you want it to.

[Wozearly]

The Grey Nayr wrote...

As for multiplayer, I just have to say, why the hell not? It's not like it's going to deterr players away from the story mode and, to take inspiration from Chris Kluwe's awesome statemet for my own thoughts, it wont magically transform you guys into crazy MP addicts. The inclusion of a multiplayer function doesn't affect your lives in any way unless you want it to.

...or unless the developers force it to. Like tying the successful outcome of the SP campaign to whether you've played multiplayer or not.

If the modes are kept separate, and I have the free choice to play or not play the MP part without consequence, I have no objection to MP.

[Allan Schumacher]

BrotherWarth wrote...

There's also the matter of resources being taken away from the SP campaign and diverted to MP. The more time spent on MP is less time spent on SP.

There's also the idea of diminishing returns.

There's probably about 400 people split between the Mass Effect and Dragon Age teams at BioWare.  If we were to take all 400 of those people and have them all focus all of their work on tightening up the graphics on level three, you're not going to have effective use of time.  Even if all 400 of us were experts at tightening up graphics.

There's sort of an ambiguous, poorly defined Laffer curve for the optimal amount of people working on a particular team.  But like, 20 people working on something for 2 years could very well get you better results than 40 people working on something for 1 year.  I guess an analogy would be like cooking.  You can't cook something at 500 degrees for 10 minutes and hope to get the same result if you were to cook something at 1000 degrees for 5 minutes.


So while yes, if we were to remove a feature (any feature), it does allow for some of those people to start working on other things, but it'll also just mean that some of the people that are working on that feature probably just don't have anything to do anymore.

[Dean_the_Young]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

BrotherWarth wrote...

There's also the matter of resources being taken away from the SP campaign and diverted to MP. The more time spent on MP is less time spent on SP.

There's also the idea of diminishing returns.

There's probably about 400 people split between the Mass Effect and Dragon Age teams at BioWare.  If we were to take all 400 of those people and have them all focus all of their work on tightening up the graphics on level three, you're not going to have effective use of time.  Even if all 400 of us were experts at tightening up graphics.

There's sort of an ambiguous, poorly defined Laffer curve for the optimal amount of people working on a particular team.  But like, 20 people working on something for 2 years could very well get you better results than 40 people working on something for 1 year.  I guess an analogy would be like cooking.  You can't cook something at 500 degrees for 10 minutes and hope to get the same result if you were to cook something at 1000 degrees for 5 minutes.


So while yes, if we were to remove a feature (any feature), it does allow for some of those people to start working on other things, but it'll also just mean that some of the people that are working on that feature probably just don't have anything to do anymore.

And there's always the the fallacy of zero-sum resources, Allan: that resources will freely flow to one area if denied to another, and yet retain a single total-sum overall. In the multiplayer concerns, it often amounts to 'if X resources weren't being spent on Multiplayer, X dollars would be spent on Singleplayer instead.'

The problem with that line of argument is that's only one possible consequence, and there is no law or rule saying that is the case. Other outcomes are that the resources would be sent to another existing project (to the Dragon Age project), used to start a new project (starting the next IP), or simply not used at all (saving money in bad times).

Add that to how some allocation funding schemes work, in that you only get money for what you apply to make, and a scenario in which you allocate funds for Singleplayer + Multiplayer, but then drop the multiplayer work, would also see you lose the multiplayer funding as well. Singleplayer could get the same resources regardless.


In the ME3 multiplayer, for example, many people forgot that the Multiplayer studio is in a completely different studio than the Singleplayer team, so its not like Studio B was stealing the storywriters and talent from Studio B down the hall. If Studio B wasn't working on ME multiplayer, they could have worked on anything else as well: nothing demands they dedicate themselves to Mass Effect forever and always, unless Bioware has some weird Blood Oath that their employees can only acknowledge in plausible-deniability silly rejoinders.

[Dean_the_Young]

BrotherWarth wrote...

How many AAA titles have experienced the burden of too many people working on them? That seems a ridiculous assertion.

And yet, it's true. The key limiters are communication, coordination, and iteration. There's a reason why crowd-sourcing is good for projects involving investigation and small time-reference iterations, but bad at project creation.

Over-staffing is obviously more obvious when the consequences are dire, such as the military or disaster relief, but much like medicine, money, and firepower, there is such a thing as too much of a good thing.

And it ignores the factor of money. Adding MP takes time and money from the SP campaign.

Only if there's a single budget that ignores the amount of content being planned, in which case you could just as well argue that advertising, or voice actors, or sound artists takes away from the SP campaign.

[Allan Schumacher]

BrotherWarth wrote...

How many AAA titles have experienced the burden of too many people working on them? That seems a ridiculous assertion. And it ignores the factor of money. Adding MP takes time and money from the SP campaign.

Because you didn't understand what I was asserting.

I wasn't talking the entire game, but specific features.  Drilled down to smaller levels.  Adding MP can only take time and money away from the SP campaign if that time and money was already allocated to the project without MP.


To hopefully better illustrate: you can have a full kitchen that has 20+ people in it, but if you have 1 person on each of the 10 stations, with 10 additional people all working the salad bar, it doesn't make the salad bar 10x more efficient of a line.

[stonemyst]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

BrotherWarth wrote...

How many AAA titles have experienced the burden of too many people working on them? That seems a ridiculous assertion. And it ignores the factor of money. Adding MP takes time and money from the SP campaign.

Because you didn't understand what I was asserting.

I wasn't talking the entire game, but specific features.  Drilled down to smaller levels.  Adding MP can only take time and money away from the SP campaign if that time and money was already allocated to the project without MP.


To hopefully better illustrate: you can have a full kitchen that has 20+ people in it, but if you have 1 person on each of the 10 stations, with 10 additional people all working the salad bar, it doesn't make the salad bar 10x more efficient of a line.

Can we get some feed back on survey or thoughts of bioware release some info for the mass to mole over. I was hoping for a charter clothing or build download like Origins. I want to know if our play throughs will carry over. IE money wepons or will the next protagonist start fresh but with story as the only carry over. please feed the hungry dog needing DA info fix

[Terror_K]

Multiplayer shouldn't just just shoehorned into a title for the reason of "just 'cause" and forced into things just because somebody at the top says so. Like anything, it should be taken on a case-by-case basis and should be evaluated as to whether the addition of multiplayer would suit the game, how it would be implemented and whetehr its realistic given the development schedule.

Dean_the_Young wrote...

In the ME3 multiplayer, for example, many people forgot that the Multiplayer studio is in a completely different studio than the Singleplayer team, so its not like Studio B was stealing the storywriters and talent from Studio B down the hall. If Studio B wasn't working on ME multiplayer, they could have worked on anything else as well: nothing demands they dedicate themselves to Mass Effect forever and always, unless Bioware has some weird Blood Oath that their employees can only acknowledge in plausible-deniability silly rejoinders.

Mass Effect 3 shouldn't have had multiplayer largely because it didn't fit and the prior two games were single-player affairs. Despite the fact that it was a different studio doing the MP, this studio and the time and resources allocated to MP could have gone to something to better enchance the stuff that really mattered: the single-player campaign. They could have been used to develop sidequests, uncharted worlds, vehicle missions, and other side-content not directly related to the single-player story, but still part of it. Considering half the non-Citadel sidequests in the game ended up being repurposed multiplayer maps anyway with a weak, tacked-on story to frame what was essentially killing waves of enemies, it's pretty damn clear the main team needed somebody to cover this angle anyway.

ME3 should have been the biggest, most content-filled and diverse of the trilogy, but considering how terrible and linear it was, how weak the side-content was and how it ended up railroading the player and how lacking in diversity and depth the content was, to spend those resources on the likes of MP, Kinect support, etc. was a massive waste of time and resources. I'm sure EA don't think so, especially considering MP is largely the only form of the game many people are playing these days, but it was.

It's all very well to say that the MP team is different and has different resources and a different team and budget, but with an RPG there's always something else that team could be working on that could enhance the single-player. And if a game will only be given that extra funding and manpower due to MP, then I have to ask, "why?" Why should MP development be given precedence over more meaningful content automatically? If the answer is what I think it is, then it just proves that these games are being driven and designed on the basis of greed too much rather on what they should be.

[Heimdall]

Ignore

Modifié par Lord Aesir, 16 septembre 2012 - 12:44 .

[Foolsfolly]

Mass Effect 3 shouldn't have had multiplayer largely because it didn't fit and the prior two games were single-player affairs. Despite the fact that it was a different studio doing the MP, this studio and the time and resources allocated to MP could have gone to something to better enchance the stuff that really mattered: the single-player campaign

Like the damn vehicles!

ME1- good vehicle terrible level designs for it.
ME2- No vehicles.
ME2 DLC- Terrible vehicle with good level design.
ME3- You sit in a turret for 5 seconds in which you don't even have to fire the turret.

Three games building up to a war against starship sized cybernetic aliens... and we never use a tank, ship, or fighter to take the war to the Reapers. It's... odd. I'd have gladly traded in Multiplayer for some decent vehicle based missions against Reapers.

[Nomen Mendax]

BrotherWarth wrote...

How many AAA titles have experienced the burden of too many people working on them? That seems a ridiculous assertion. And it ignores the factor of money. Adding MP takes time and money from the SP campaign.

There's a famous book about it, The Mythical Man-Month (Brooks), at some point adding more people becomes counter-productive.  More time is much better than more bodies.

[Dean_the_Young]

Terror_K wrote...

And if a game will only be given that extra funding and manpower due to MP, then I have to ask, "why?"

For the same reason you only get overtime pay when you actually work overtime. Or, if you're in a profession like mine where you make the same money regardless of hours worked and only get more by meeting qualifications, the reason I don't get hazard duty pay in my current occupation.

Because there are unlimited desires and limited resources, and sensible resource allocation follows rules of dispersion to prevent anyone from hogging more resources than they need.


A game presents it's intents and goes I need X amount of resources for A content. For A + B content, however, it needs X + Y resources. The Y is allocated on the basis of whether or not the decision for B is made:  A alone doesn't have a claim to X + Y, or else that would just be X.

Why should MP development be given precedence over more meaningful content automatically?

Who said it would? Nothing in my post, that's for sure.

MP development gets precedence for MP-allocated resources because those resources are allocated specifically for MP. Likewise, SP gets precedence for SP resources.

Nowhere in this scenario is MP being given precedence for SP resources.

If the answer is what I think it is, then it just proves that these games are being driven and designed on the basis of greed too much rather on what they should be.

Poor business sense, unsustainable economics, and short-sighted greed over long-sighted greed?

[Terror_K]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Why should MP development be given precedence over more meaningful content automatically?

Who said it would? Nothing in my post, that's for sure.

MP development gets precedence for MP-allocated resources because those resources are allocated specifically for MP. Likewise, SP gets precedence for SP resources.

Nowhere in this scenario is MP being given precedence for SP resources.

I realise this, but what I mean is, why would BioWare get extra funding specifically for adding an MP component that would use X amount of resources and Y amount of people, but if they were to try and put the same resources and people towards a team dedicated to sidequest content or some other aspect of SP, then that extra funding would be denied?

It just seems like "MP budget and resources don't eat into the SP stuff because they are completely separate" is a poor excuse, and basically seems to indicate that the only way to get those bonus resources, manpower, funding, etc. is for the factor them to be put towards multiplayer and only multiplayer. It basically tells me that if BioWare goes to EA and says, "we need an extra couple of million development budget for multi-player" that EA will say yes, but if they were to go to EA and say, "we need an extra couple of million development budget to make the single player a richer, stronger experience for the players" that EA would yell, "Denied!" and bang their gavel.

If the answer is what I think it is, then it just proves that these games are being driven and designed on the basis of greed too much rather on what they should be.

Poor business sense, unsustainable economics, and short-sighted greed over long-sighted greed?

Basically that BioWare and EA care more about adding factors to the game for the sake of popularity, broadening appeal and extra profit through micro-transations than they do manking sure the game is the best it is and what it's supposed to be and evolves in a natural manner. EA lately seems to be of this mentality that every game must have an MP or social component of some fashion whether it suits it or not. And in an era when games already feel like they are being rushed and pushed out too quickly in general, adding MP to games that should just be single-player just spells trouble. For example, DA2 was already a rushed mess as it was... I'd hate to think of bad it would have been had MP been forced into it and it was supposed to be released in the same time-frame.

Modifié par Terror_K, 17 septembre 2012 - 12:15 .

[Allan Schumacher]

I realise this, but what I mean is, why would BioWare get extra funding specifically for adding an MP component that would use X amount of resources and Y amount of people, but if they were to try and put the same resources and people towards a team dedicated to sidequest content or some other aspect of SP, then that extra funding would be denied?

Because it's a new feature with it's own contribution to the product? Especially if it's believed to have some sort of monetization, whether it be through additional sales, continued use, MTX, or what have you?

The question you pose IS the scarcity issue. You can always through more resources at a particular feature (i.e. single player). The line has to be drawn somewhere. The assumption is already going to be that "we'll pay you for as good of a single player that you can produce within the allotted time."

Could a publisher allocate more money? Sure. They always could. Where does the line get drawn though?