626 réponses à ce sujet

[Terror_K]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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?

Budgeting should be done appropriately of course, and by that I mean not just by evaluating what the scope of the project is and the appoximate time allocated to make it, but by what is appropriate for the game. Which is to say, an MP component shouldn't just be added "just 'cause" for example.

When you have Mass Effect 3 releasing with added multi-player that while a popular feature now was outright not wanted by a good majority of the fanbase prior to it revelation to the point where it often topped forumites lists of "things we don't want in ME3" to it coming attached to a final product where the Single Player compaign felt very lacklustre and could have used far more time and resources and sidequests were horribly implemented and even ended up repurposing MP maps for content basically tells me that the funding and time spent on MP was wasted, and that while the SP may not have suffered directly because of it, the part of the game that should have mattered and taken precedence did suffer greatly, and could have done with more time, care and resources allocated to it.

Overall, I actually question most of BioWare's decisions as of late. I question as to whether they are being made for the right reasons. I personally don't think they are. I think you guys (along with EA) are too concerned over appealing to mainstream audiences and trying to snag potential new players and not concerned enough about pleasing your long-time existing fanbase (or, in some cases like myself, former fanbase). In trying to follow modern trends and boraden appeal, you've lost your ways. And it comes across very deliberately. DA2 and ME3 bare almost no resemblance to their forebearers, and I can't see any signs that things are going to change.

Simple put: too much of BioWare saying, "what's going to make this game series more popular, broaden its appeal to the mainstream and get us more $$$'s?" and not enough of BioWare saying, "what the best, natural evolution of this game series?"

Modifié par Terror_K, 17 septembre 2012 - 12:54 .

[cJohnOne]

Rather than being more popular, I see it as being more accessible to new people. That seems like a worthwhile goal.

[Allan Schumacher]

Budgeting should be done appropriately of course, and by that I mean not just by evaluating what the scope of the project is and the appoximate time allocated to make it, but by what is appropriate for the game. Which is to say, an MP component shouldn't just be added "just 'cause" for example

That's just it though. MP wasn't added "just cause." It's directly influenced by the story of the game, as the MP missions are effectively the N7 teams going around fighting the reapers. Contextually it makes very good sense. It's not something random or arbitrary, even if it's not something that you like. To the people that like it, it adds value to their purchase. They're getting more for their dollar and I think it's pretentious to casually dismiss that group.

What you may not realize you're doing, is the exact same thing that you hate being done to you. How many people got upset about the "passionate fan" remark? There were throngs of pages of people that felt it was BioWare dismissing them as being just some small faction. All the while not acknowledging that they were, in fact, passionate fans. The non-passionate ones don't care enough to carry on and post on message boards of companies they no longer want to support. They don't have the passion to do so. So it's clear you don't like being dismissed as a vocal minority. Yet you put multiplayer haters into the majority. You've undermined those that do find value in the multiplayer in the same way that you hate to be undermined.

"what the best, natural evolution of this game series?"

I'll just say that multiplayer is far more popular than we expected it to be. IMO there's a good chance that many of the people taht enjoy it were also fans of the previous Mass Effect games.

[Terror_K]

cJohnOne wrote...

Rather than being more popular, I see it as being more accessible to new people. That seems like a worthwhile goal.

It should never come at the expense of the original fanbase and at the expense of completely changing up the IP and the original source material to the point of bending and warping it to something completely different. Dragon Age 2 was none of the things that the Dragon Age IP was created to be. At all. If BioWare and other developers keep going down this path, then every game is going to end up just being a CoD clone after a time. Games are already heading that way, with 90% of today's AAA titles being a story-driven action game of some type. Genres are merging and we're left with with very pure pure-class genres any more.

This is what's killing the RPG lately: too much focus on trying to branch out and make it more accessible, and that always means dumbing things down, because the mainstream, casual gamer finds RPGs too complex, so the developer has to simplify and remove complexity to appeal to them, but the hardcore RPG fan wants depth and complexity, so by doing so it annoys them. And that's what BioWare is doing lately. They use marketing buzzwords and execu-speak like "streamlining" and "making it more accessible" and "branching out" but it all comes down to things being dumbed down and a watered down RPG experience.

DAO was the last proper RPG BioWare did, and I suspect given their current mindset and attitude, it'll stay that way forever. I'm glad to read of Obsidian's new upcoming Project Eternity. At least somebody out there is willing to make proper RPGs instead of just pandering the the mainstream masses and following current trends.

[Nomen Mendax]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I'll just say that multiplayer is far more popular than we expected it to be. IMO there's a good chance that many of the people taht enjoy it were also fans of the previous Mass Effect games.

I'm very willing to say that I had no interest in ME3 multiplayer before the game came out and didn't intend to play it but have really enjoyed it.  I also don't think it detracted from the SP game (which isn't to say that I don't think there were issues with the SP game).

[Terror_K]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

That's just it though. MP wasn't added "just cause." It's directly influenced by the story of the game, as the MP missions are effectively the N7 teams going around fighting the reapers. Contextually it makes very good sense. It's not something random or arbitrary, even if it's not something that you like. To the people that like it, it adds value to their purchase. They're getting more for their dollar and I think it's pretentious to casually dismiss that group.

Sorry, but I don't believe this. Oh, I agree with what you're saying in principle, and agree that the MP does have appropriate context and fits in with the campaign in the manner you say. What I don't believe are the reasons it was added. I don't believe it was added because BioWare suddenly found a way to make it fit: I believe it was EA wanting it in there and that it was put in as another means of growing your potential audience and just another case of BioWare following recent trends and trying to appeal to the mainstream gamer during a time when the likes of CoD multiplayer is very popular. A great majority of the fanbase didn't want it, but it was added in anyway.

What you may not realize you're doing, is the exact same thing that you hate being done to you. How many people got upset about the "passionate fan" remark? There were throngs of pages of people that felt it was BioWare dismissing them as being just some small faction. All the while not acknowledging that they were, in fact, passionate fans. The non-passionate ones don't care enough to carry on and post on message boards of companies they no longer want to support. They don't have the passion to do so. So it's clear you don't like being dismissed as a vocal minority. Yet you put multiplayer haters into the majority. You've undermined those that do find value in the multiplayer in the same way that you hate to be undermined.

I'm not saying that MP has no value and dismissing those who like it. I'm just stating a fact: that a great majority of the BSN Mass Effect fans outright didn't want it. And the reason they didn't want it wasn't because they hate Multiplayer per se, but that they felt that Mass Effect wasn't a game that suited it given that it was a purely single player title in the previous two entries, and they didn't want to see a feature like MP added merely for the sake of branching out to the mainstream MP shooter crowd at the expense of the SP aspects.

And considering how much the SP suffered and what should have been the grand, epic crowning achievement of the trilogy was instead a weak farting noise, I think they were fully justified in their concerns. I think any Mass Effect fan would give up MP in a second if they could get a decent single-player experience where our choices actually mattered, things weren't so linear and constantly forcing us on the rails and we could roleplay our Shepards like we did in the previous games without autodialogue and a complete lack of dialogue choices hampering us. Overall I think MP is just another one of many factors with regards to ME3 of BioWare getting their priorities completley wrong.

I have no problem with MP as a concept and where it belongs. My favourite game of all time is Unreal Tournament, which is geared more around MP than single player. Baldur's Gate, NWN and Icewind Dale all had multiplayer too. But there's a difference between a game being properly built around a factor from the start and suddenly shoehorning a feature into a series in the final part of a trilogy.

I'll just say that multiplayer is far more popular than we expected it to be. IMO there's a good chance that many of the people taht enjoy it were also fans of the previous Mass Effect games.

Shame the same can't be said for the Single Player part of Mass Effect 3. The part that should have mattered. The fact that MP is so popular and is largely the only part of the game most people play any more isn't so much a testament to the quality of the MP as it is a testament to how bad the main single-player campaign was.

[Terror_K]

Avejajed wrote...

What is this, Club 33?

No. But why should RPG fans be constantly denied the type of games they want to appeal to an audience that is already more than well catered for? It's disingenuous for BioWare to give fans the type of game they're after one moment, then take it away the next with the supposed sequel for the sake of appealing to an audience that already has plenty on their plates as it is.

Hardcore RPG fans are starving for new content, and BioWare aren't just not feeding them, but they are giving them a morsel, dangling it in front of them, then immediately throwing it to the rich, overfed masses in front of their faces deliberately.

Modifié par Terror_K, 17 septembre 2012 - 02:18 .

[Allan Schumacher]

Shame the same can't be said for the Single Player part of Mass Effect 3. The part that should have mattered. The fact that MP is so popular and is largely the only part of the game most people play any more isn't so much a testament to the quality of the MP as it is a testament to how bad the main single-player campaign was.

Just to make sure we're clear here. You feel that people play the MP more because the SP is subpar, rather than because they think the MP is fun?

[Allan Schumacher]

It's disingenuous for BioWare to give fans the type of game their after one moment, then take it away the next with the supposed sequel for the sake of appealing to an audience that already has plenty on their plates as it is.

For the last time, the audiences overlap. Mass Effect fans are the ones enjoying the Mass Effect multiplayer.

[Dominus]

The fact that MP is so popular and is largely the only part of the game most people play any more isn't so much a testament to the quality of the MP as it is a testament to how bad the main single-player campaign was.

Not for me, anyways. I play each Mass Effect about 3-6 times each, and did the same for this one as well. The SP campaign is by no means perfect, and I'd rated it the lowest of the 3 to be honest. However, just calling it overall bad and worthless doesn't help much.

MP was pretty neat. I wasn't planning to play it constantly, but it felt like a justified addition. You don't need to enjoy a storyline to enjoy the combat of Mass Effect, and that was proof of it.

[Eternal Dust]

cJohnOne wrote...

Rather than being more popular, I see it as being more accessible to new people. That seems like a worthwhile goal.

Screw the new people. If you don't get it, then you don't deserve it.

[deuce985]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Budgeting should be done appropriately of course, and by that I mean not just by evaluating what the scope of the project is and the appoximate time allocated to make it, but by what is appropriate for the game. Which is to say, an MP component shouldn't just be added "just 'cause" for example

That's just it though. MP wasn't added "just cause." It's directly influenced by the story of the game, as the MP missions are effectively the N7 teams going around fighting the reapers. Contextually it makes very good sense. It's not something random or arbitrary, even if it's not something that you like. To the people that like it, it adds value to their purchase. They're getting more for their dollar and I think it's pretentious to casually dismiss that group.

What you may not realize you're doing, is the exact same thing that you hate being done to you. How many people got upset about the "passionate fan" remark? There were throngs of pages of people that felt it was BioWare dismissing them as being just some small faction. All the while not acknowledging that they were, in fact, passionate fans. The non-passionate ones don't care enough to carry on and post on message boards of companies they no longer want to support. They don't have the passion to do so. So it's clear you don't like being dismissed as a vocal minority. Yet you put multiplayer haters into the majority. You've undermined those that do find value in the multiplayer in the same way that you hate to be undermined.

"what the best, natural evolution of this game series?"

I'll just say that multiplayer is far more popular than we expected it to be. IMO there's a good chance that many of the people taht enjoy it were also fans of the previous Mass Effect games.

*raises hand*

And I'm someone who was very skeptical about it being put into my precious SP only franchise. It turns out, 6 months later, I'm still playing MP...

I just hope Bioware doesn't take the uploaded feedback and get the wrong idea. I'm positive I put more hours into MP than SP. That doesn't mean I prefer it over SP. I'm sure the uploaded feedback that goes to Bioware shows similar stats for most players. And I honestly really hate that Bioware/EA uses this...

Stats are always flawed. Period. You don't know the intentions behind the stats. Like they had one thread where it showed only about 40% of people completed DAO from the uploaded Bioware feedback. It's flaw stats. Just like surveys. How do they know why people stopped SP? Pacing? Maybe they had some things happened in rl but they were perfectly ok with SP? Broken systems? School? Game is too long? It could be any number of reasons. Doesn't necessarily have to be something on Bioware/DAO's end.

That's my only fear right now with Bioware's "feedback" option under the title screen. How many people aren't using the feedback option? I've put more hours into MP but I promise you I personally would rather see a bigger and better SP because I'm a SP guy. I look at MP as secondary to me personally. Just because I've put more hours into MP doesn't mean I prefer it. I just hope Bioware recognizes things like this when they look at the uploaded feedback...

Modifié par deuce985, 17 septembre 2012 - 02:28 .

[wsandista]

ME3 multiplayer isn't that bad. It isn't the best multiplayer by any means, but it isn't bad. Claiming that multiplayer being included is the reason why the singleplayer was the worst in the series(IMO) isn't provable or true. I thought that the single player was the worst in the series simply because of how linear and predictable it was, not to mention there wasn't half the exploration and discovery that was in ME2, which was just a fraction of what was in ME. the design of the single player campaign itself, not multiplayer, is the reason I disliked ME3, even though I thought that(for action combat) gameplay itself was improved.

[Terror_K]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Shame the same can't be said for the Single Player part of Mass Effect 3. The part that should have mattered. The fact that MP is so popular and is largely the only part of the game most people play any more isn't so much a testament to the quality of the MP as it is a testament to how bad the main single-player campaign was.

Just to make sure we're clear here. You feel that people play the MP more because the SP is subpar, rather than because they think the MP is fun?

Honestly, I think it's a bit of both. I think the MP would be just as popular had the SP been good. In fact, probably moreso because of the incentives the MP gives the SP side of the game. I think people are actually largely playing the MP purely because it's fun than they are to add to their EMS in SP.

Put it this way: I believe the reason people are playing the SP side of things a lot less is because that side of the game is subpar. I know that that's kind of the same thing from the other side, but... I hope you get what I mean by that. I think the MP is the only reason so many people are even still playing the game at all. For example, I have two friends who I play P&P Star Wars Saga Edition with every Wednesday night who are always playing the MP, but haven't touched the SP at all since March after one playthrough because they loathe the SP side of things (and they loved ME1 and ME2).

All in all though, the MP side of the game being fun or not, I don't think it should have come at the expense of the SP campaign. Even if these factors are as unrelated as you all claim at BioWare, it's still a case of the priorities being screwed up, IMO. The SP was supposed to be the heart of the game, and should have been the strongest part and lived up to the promises made and its predecessors. It didn't. Not by a long shot. The MP being good when it's something that should have been a secondary factor at best does not excuse this or make it a good game.

[Terror_K]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

It's disingenuous for BioWare to give fans the type of game their after one moment, then take it away the next with the supposed sequel for the sake of appealing to an audience that already has plenty on their plates as it is.

For the last time, the audiences overlap. Mass Effect fans are the ones enjoying the Mass Effect multiplayer.

Actually, in that case I was more referring to the differences between Dragon Age: Origins and Dragon Age 2. And even between the original Mass Effect and Mass Effect 3.

And I personally think that BioWare thinking that the audiences they are going for lately overlap is a misconception that's leading to a lot of disappointment and alienation with a good portion of their longtime fanbase. To put this as simply as possible (and please forgive the stereotyping here), you can't suddenly take a nerd game and twist it to appeal to jocks and expect the nerds to just swallow it and still enjoy the game.

BioWare seem to want to have their cake and eat it too, and they don't seem to realise that it's not possible. The very factors that hardcore RPG fans love about their hardcore RPGs are the very same things that don't appeal to the mainstream gamers you guys are trying to target lately in efforts to broaden appeal. You can't water these factors down, oversimplify and remove them to appeal to these potential fans without annoying the hardcore RPG audience too.

Modifié par Terror_K, 17 septembre 2012 - 02:36 .

[deuce985]

I can give my personal perspective as to why I still play ME3's MP. I've been through ME3 SP three different times and I think I've seen all the content possible(including cheating to see reject ending). I still want to visit SP again as long as SP content comes out.

And that's the biggest reason I've continued to play MP. Bioware supports it with operation weekends and they release big content packs free every few months. If it wasn't for those content packs, I doubt I'd still be playing ME3 MP. It keeps everything fresh. Leviathan finally added some SP content to keep that part fresh but once you've completed it, you're done. The MP content is built to where you might not ever see it. Everything is based on random unlocks. That keeps you playing...and addicted.

And that's where the big separation comes. I only continue to keep playing MP because it continues to feel fresh with content(obviously it's still fun too). I've seen everything I can see in SP until the next DLC comes out. If SP was dropping massive content updates every few months, I'd be playing that before I even touch MP...

The MP content is setup for replayability, the SP content, not so much. I'm still trying to unlock everything in the ME3 MP. Once you roll through Leviathan once or twice, you've seen everything possible. That translates to a few hours of gameplay. MP can translate to a hundred hours trying to unlock everything...

Modifié par deuce985, 17 septembre 2012 - 02:36 .

[ElitePinecone]

Terror_K wrote...
The fact that MP is so popular and is largely the only part of the game most people play any more isn't so much a testament to the quality of the MP as it is a testament to how bad the main single-player campaign was.

Sorry, but that's nonsense. Assuming the motives of millions of people to fit your desired narrative is ridiculous.

Look at the multiplayer forums, look at the continuing popularity of weekly bonus rounds, look at the new free DLC, look at critics' reviews, look at the BSN after release, and look at other fan forums on the internet. ME3's MP was successful on its own merits, because it was surprisingly deep, complex and fun. It has a distinctive community of its own discussing tactics and builds, and its forum has always been one of the most active on the BSN. 

You don't have access to player telemetry - like the number of players who actually use MP, the number who have played MP versus the singleplayer, the number who exclusively use singleplayer, whatever. If Bioware says it's popular on its own merits, I think I'd believe them. They have actual data, forum/feedback statistics, and market research, instead of nonensical posturing. 

[deuce985]

If it wasn't popular, they wouldn't be releasing big content packs every month for it...

One of the biggest perks I've seen to a MT system. Thank you to everyone who decided they'd go crazy buying Premium Packs just so they could unlock everything in ME3 faster! Free DLC for me. I don't think ME3's MP is complex enough to keep people interested if Bioware stopped supporting it. The survival formula is very repetitive and they have many games that do it much better. Where Bioware's MP separates itself is the complexity in classes+races+abilities. Most of the abilities are unique to ME3 MP. And you get to play as your favorite alien races.

Bioware seems to understand a community is what keeps a game together too. By making it one repetitive game mode, the bonus to that is a clean matchmaking system. By making DLC free, it keeps that matchmaking clean instead of segmenting your MP community up. If you notice in games not named CoD, each paid DLC that comes out slows matchmaking down. It slowly kills your game off. Moving forward, I hope Bioware recognizes this and uses the ME3 formula in all future games...

Now if they translated that over to Dragon Age...that would be awesome. Play as Qunari, elves, or a dwarf. All with unique abilities specific to the three classes...

Modifié par deuce985, 17 septembre 2012 - 03:51 .

[Boss Fog]

Terror_K wrote...

Avejajed wrote...

What is this, Club 33?

No. But why should RPG fans be constantly denied the type of games they want to appeal to an audience that is already more than well catered for? It's disingenuous for BioWare to give fans the type of game they're after one moment, then take it away the next with the supposed sequel for the sake of appealing to an audience that already has plenty on their plates as it is.

Hardcore RPG fans are starving for new content, and BioWare aren't just not feeding them, but they are giving them a morsel, dangling it in front of them, then immediately throwing it to the rich, overfed masses in front of their faces deliberately.

I think it's a bit dilusional to assume the developers are making these changes as a way to disrespect people like you.  I've never felt personally insulted over any kind of decision made that went against what I and others have wanted.  When you're a developer making these games and you make decisions that affect the direction of the franchise, why would you make a decision to purposely alienate a particular group of people?  You make decisions based partly off of what you and some others want knowing full well your decisions will upset some people.  Judging by your posts, you act like they're doing it to ****** you off when in fact your anger is just an unfortunate side effect that Bioware probably just underestimated.

[Terror_K]

TelvanniWarlord wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Avejajed wrote...

What is this, Club 33?

No. But why should RPG fans be constantly denied the type of games they want to appeal to an audience that is already more than well catered for? It's disingenuous for BioWare to give fans the type of game they're after one moment, then take it away the next with the supposed sequel for the sake of appealing to an audience that already has plenty on their plates as it is.

Hardcore RPG fans are starving for new content, and BioWare aren't just not feeding them, but they are giving them a morsel, dangling it in front of them, then immediately throwing it to the rich, overfed masses in front of their faces deliberately.

I think it's a bit dilusional to assume the developers are making these changes as a way to disrespect people like you.  I've never felt personally insulted over any kind of decision made that went against what I and others have wanted.  When you're a developer making these games and you make decisions that affect the direction of the franchise, why would you make a decision to purposely alienate a particular group of people?  You make decisions based partly off of what you and some others want knowing full well your decisions will upset some people.  Judging by your posts, you act like they're doing it to ****** you off when in fact your anger is just an unfortunate side effect that Bioware probably just underestimated.

Sorry, but I don't see how Dragon Age 2 could be interpreted in any other way. They were told almost as soon as it got revealed and they indicated the direction it was going that a good portion of fans weren't happy, and this continued to get more prevalent as more was revealed. It was no shock to me that DA2 got the reception it did after it came out because everything BioWare said about it strongly indicated it was purposefully turning its back on what the original game stood for in almost every sense, making the original look like a deliberate bait n'switch almost, and as such seemed like a deliberate effort to stab fans of the original in the backs by making a sequel damn near the opposite of the original game.

I'm not saying the main purpose of the game was to alienate the original fanbase directly, but that given the change in direction they intentionally went for and the fact they purposefully diverted the sequel so strongly away from the original vision and premise of the series that it was an inevitable outcome. DA2 wasn't born out of mistakes, it was born out of a direct effort to appeal to the mainstream masses rather than be a proper sequel.

And that's why I'm actually in a position now where I not only am no longer a BioWare fan, but I actually hate the company quite a lot. Because of their attitude and overall approach lately. Because they clearly care more about pandering to potential new fans and following mainstream trends than actually making proper RPGs for their existing fanbase, doing the RPG genre justice and evolving their games in a natural manner that stays true to their roots.

[Boss Fog]

Terror_K wrote...

TelvanniWarlord wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Avejajed wrote...

What is this, Club 33?

No. But why should RPG fans be constantly denied the type of games they want to appeal to an audience that is already more than well catered for? It's disingenuous for BioWare to give fans the type of game they're after one moment, then take it away the next with the supposed sequel for the sake of appealing to an audience that already has plenty on their plates as it is.

Hardcore RPG fans are starving for new content, and BioWare aren't just not feeding them, but they are giving them a morsel, dangling it in front of them, then immediately throwing it to the rich, overfed masses in front of their faces deliberately.

I think it's a bit dilusional to assume the developers are making these changes as a way to disrespect people like you.  I've never felt personally insulted over any kind of decision made that went against what I and others have wanted.  When you're a developer making these games and you make decisions that affect the direction of the franchise, why would you make a decision to purposely alienate a particular group of people?  You make decisions based partly off of what you and some others want knowing full well your decisions will upset some people.  Judging by your posts, you act like they're doing it to ****** you off when in fact your anger is just an unfortunate side effect that Bioware probably just underestimated.

Sorry, but I don't see how Dragon Age 2 could be interpreted in any other way. They were told almost as soon as it got revealed and they indicated the direction it was going that a good portion of fans weren't happy, and this continued to get more prevalent as more was revealed. It was no shock to me that DA2 got the reception it did after it came out because everything BioWare said about it strongly indicated it was purposefully turning its back on what the original game stood for in almost every sense, making the original look like a deliberate bait n'switch almost, and as such seemed like a deliberate effort to stab fans of the original in the backs by making a sequel damn near the opposite of the original game.

I'm not saying the main purpose of the game was to alienate the original fanbase directly, but that given the change in direction they intentionally went for and the fact they purposefully diverted the sequel so strongly away from the original vision and premise of the series that it was an inevitable outcome. DA2 wasn't born out of mistakes, it was born out of a direct effort to appeal to the mainstream masses rather than be a proper sequel.

And that's why I'm actually in a position now where I not only am no longer a BioWare fan, but I actually hate the company quite a lot. Because of their attitude and overall approach lately. Because they clearly care more about pandering to potential new fans and following mainstream trends than actually making proper RPGs for their existing fanbase, doing the RPG genre justice and evolving their games in a natural manner that stays true to their roots.

So if you hate Bioware so much and you don't really seem to be giving any proper feedback why are you on here daily basically writing hate speech after hate speech? Are you simply lying and going to keep purchasing their games and continue to complain long after your statements about how much you hate their games?  There are plenty of people who feel similar to the way you do yet they don't just sit on the forums and type out hate speeches; they actually give feedback.

I doubt you're going to convince anyone who doesn't already agree with you in any regard with this kind of rhetoric nor is your "feedback" in any way constructive.  Those who agree with you already do so.  No one is suddenly going to switch sides after reading your posts.  Maybe you should go start an anti BW blog, because that's basically what you are doing here on their forums.

[Terror_K]

TelvanniWarlord wrote...

So if you hate Bioware so much and you don't really seem to be giving any proper feedback why are you on here daily basically writing hate speech after hate speech? Are you simply lying and going to keep purchasing their games and continue to complain long after your statements about how much you hate their games?  There are plenty of people who feel similar to the way you do yet they don't just sit on the forums and type out hate speeches; they actually give feedback.

I doubt you're going to convince anyone who doesn't already agree with you in any regard with this kind of rhetoric nor is your "feedback" in any way constructive.  Those who agree with you already do so.  No one is suddenly going to switch sides after reading your posts.  Maybe you should go start an anti BW blog, because that's basically what you are doing here on their forums.

What's the point in giving feedback on things that are merely symptoms of a greater problem when BioWare are too damn stubborn to admit their faults and continue down the same path regardless of constructive criticism in the past? All they've done lately is demonstrate that they refuse to make the nececcary steps and changes to get back on track because they clearly don't want to. They won't admit that they're slowly killing the RPG genre with their approach and simply want to make cinematic action games now. I've been trying to offer reason and constructive criticism for years now, but they're too damn stubborn to listen, thinking that this "have our cake and eat it too" mentality is the answer and that they're on the right path. They didn't listen after ME2 and we got ME3, and they aren't listening after DA2 either.

And no... I won't be buying any more games of theirs. I already felt that they've wasted the money I gave them in the past given how their recent efforts have fared. I've given them literally thousands of dollars, and what have I got in return? Dragon Age 2 and Mass Effect 3. They may as well have just thrown horse manure in my face.

And I'm still here fighting because if everybody who was unhappy just up and left, then there'd be no voices to stand up against what's happened. Everybody who was unhappy would leave and BioWare would just keep doing what they are doing and not learn a damn thing. Granted, that's still already happening, but perhaps if enough people let them know that the way they've treated their long-time customers is appalling and why, maybe they'll actually pull their heads out of their rear ends and listen for a change. But no... instead everybody either leaves or just continues handing them money for more DLC and speculating about DA3 as if everything is alright.

Modifié par Terror_K, 17 septembre 2012 - 08:35 .

[ianvillan]

deuce985 wrote...

If it wasn't popular, they wouldn't be releasing big content packs every month for it...

One of the biggest perks I've seen to a MT system. Thank you to everyone who decided they'd go crazy buying Premium Packs just so they could unlock everything in ME3 faster! Free DLC for me. I don't think ME3's MP is complex enough to keep people interested if Bioware stopped supporting it. The survival formula is very repetitive and they have many games that do it much better. Where Bioware's MP separates itself is the complexity in classes+races+abilities. Most of the abilities are unique to ME3 MP. And you get to play as your favorite alien races.

Bioware seems to understand a community is what keeps a game together too. By making it one repetitive game mode, the bonus to that is a clean matchmaking system. By making DLC free, it keeps that matchmaking clean instead of segmenting your MP community up. If you notice in games not named CoD, each paid DLC that comes out slows matchmaking down. It slowly kills your game off. Moving forward, I hope Bioware recognizes this and uses the ME3 formula in all future games...

Now if they translated that over to Dragon Age...that would be awesome. Play as Qunari, elves, or a dwarf. All with unique abilities specific to the three classes...

That there is the problem and the direction Bioware is heading, they force you to play a human in the single player game and would make the other races availiable for multiplayer so that they can sell packs to players hoping to play these races, what else will be made for multiplayer and not single player, new classes (arcane warrior), different weapons or armour.

Multiplayer will always come first in the decision making for the game even if its just in deciding if the new feature could work in multiplayer, if the answer is no it wont get made no matter what it could of added to singleplayer.

[ianvillan]

Terror_K wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

It's disingenuous for BioWare to give fans the type of game their after one moment, then take it away the next with the supposed sequel for the sake of appealing to an audience that already has plenty on their plates as it is.

For the last time, the audiences overlap. Mass Effect fans are the ones enjoying the Mass Effect multiplayer.

Actually, in that case I was more referring to the differences between Dragon Age: Origins and Dragon Age 2. And even between the original Mass Effect and Mass Effect 3.

And I personally think that BioWare thinking that the audiences they are going for lately overlap is a misconception that's leading to a lot of disappointment and alienation with a good portion of their longtime fanbase. To put this as simply as possible (and please forgive the stereotyping here), you can't suddenly take a nerd game and twist it to appeal to jocks and expect the nerds to just swallow it and still enjoy the game.

BioWare seem to want to have their cake and eat it too, and they don't seem to realise that it's not possible. The very factors that hardcore RPG fans love about their hardcore RPGs are the very same things that don't appeal to the mainstream gamers you guys are trying to target lately in efforts to broaden appeal. You can't water these factors down, oversimplify and remove them to appeal to these potential fans without annoying the hardcore RPG audience too.

The biggest problem I have is the idea that this game is a perfect jumping in point for new players or you dont have to of played the first game to play this one.

Now I am all for attracting new players, I want dragon age to be a huge success, but these statements show that the games you made were made to appeal to a new audiance and have been changed from what the old fans enjoyed for a more mainstream game.

If you are making a sequal to a high rated game which you have suposedly taken the best bits of the previous game and built upon the lore and world of dragon age, saying you dont need to of played the first game because we have streamlined the game and lore so that there is no consistancy is not what the old fans want.