162 réponses à ce sujet

[Siran]

BonFire5 wrote...

Siran wrote...

You don't need MP for that, you can do this with the Datapad and / or Infiltrator as well. Plus - with the EC you don't even need Galactic Readiness over 50% to see all endings. So, it's not "needed" for SP...

It is needed for the Platinum or all Achievements.

Don't have Datapad or Infiltrator. Barely get an internet connection somedays. My only option is to play the Multiplayer. Which sucks because the servers are horrible. The fact that I can only get on every four days or so means that my readiness is always dropping as well.

If you're after all the achievements and don't have datapad or Infiltrator, then yes you have to play MP for GR to reach 100%. If this "diminishes" your SP experience, then I can't help you.

[Heather Cline]

Snypy wrote...

Heather Cline wrote...

Honestly I think they should remake the entire ME3 as a single player game. Scrap the MP mode and also return player agency, dialogue wheel, ability to affect the outcome of your game and above all multiple endings they promised ranging from bleak where shepard dies to happy where shepard lives out life with LI and retires or rules the galaxy if you're a renegade.

Yeah, well, it's just wishful thinking. I suppose I'd settle for the remake of the ending. But I guess I can pretty much imagine the events you mentioned even with the current endings; I don't necessarily need fancy cutscenes.

Sorry but if BW has to make us headcannon our own ending, and have to imagine what happens to Shepard after the game ends then frankly the current ending of the game is crap. That is it.

[Darkin30]

Elder Scrolls Online is A multiplayer game, when elder scrolls 6 comes it will be single. To force a multiplayer component on every single game just to have one is just duh

[BonFire5]

Siran wrote...

If you're after all the achievements and don't have datapad or Infiltrator, then yes you have to play MP for GR to reach 100%. If this "diminishes" your SP experience, then I can't help you.

My SP experience diminished about a third of the way through the campaign. Now, I'm going through the motions of Platinuming the game. I can't actually do that until they stabilize the servers because I'm tired of wasting 20 minutes of game time just to be disconnected from them.

If the AR's were actually useful, I'd probably have more fun in MP. Takes a lot to remove barriers, shields, armour compared to Mass Effect 2.

[Siran]

BonFire5 wrote...

Siran wrote...

If you're after all the achievements and don't have datapad or Infiltrator, then yes you have to play MP for GR to reach 100%. If this "diminishes" your SP experience, then I can't help you.

My SP experience diminished about a third of the way through the campaign.

Not an MP issue. I for one enjoy the entire SP campaign.

Now, I'm going through the motions of Platinuming the game. I can't actually do that until they stabilize the servers because I'm tired of wasting 20 minutes of game time just to be disconnected from them.

Strange, I just played 2h+ and didn't have a single disconnect. I've had the occasional disconnect, but nothing major that would make it unplayable. Maybe check your Internet connection?

If the AR's were actually useful, I'd probably have more fun in MP. Takes a lot to remove barriers, shields, armour compared to Mass Effect 2.

If you can't handle Bronze in MP (you don't need to play gold to up your GR, a bunch of Bronze matches and you're done), then Platinuming is not for you to begin with: SP on Insanity is far more demanding. I just used the Mattock on Gold - totally viable, same with the Phaeston. And once unlocked, the Saber, Harrier and Particle Rifle are beasts, and anything but useless.

Modifié par Siran, 08 septembre 2012 - 10:43 .

[chadesh]

The number 1 thing any developer needs to understand is that multi player should always be completely separate from any single player and total optional.

[BonFire5]

Siran wrote...

Strange, I just played 2h+ and didn't have a single disconnect. I've had the occasional disconnect, but nothing major that would make it unplayable. Maybe check your Internet connection?

If you can't handle Bronze in MP (you don't need to play gold to up your GR, a bunch of Bronze matches and you're done), then Platinuming is not for you to begin with: SP on Insanity is far more demanding. I just used the Mattock on Gold - totally viable, same with the Phaeston. And once unlocked, the Saber, Harrier and Particle Rifle are beasts, and anything but useless.

It happens with any connection I use. Always round 9 or above. I can handle Bronze, but I just feel that guns feel much weaker than they should be. Especially when I see that my Concussive Shot (or most biotics) does more damage than the gun I'm trying to use. I've Platinumed Mass Effect 2, and for some stupid reason, it feels like I need to Platinum 3 no matter how much it feels like a chore.

I have the Phaeston II, but it is kind of odd that it is still slightly better than an Avenger VI. Don't have the patience to save for a bigger pack to try for the Harrier, as much as I want it. Usually stick with Veteran Packs and one Recruit.

[Snypy]

Heather Cline wrote...

Sorry but if BW has to make us headcannon our own ending, and have to imagine what happens to Shepard after the game ends then frankly the current ending of the game is crap. That is it.

Yep, I suppose you're right. I can't argue with you.

Modifié par Snypy, 09 septembre 2012 - 08:36 .

[WazzuMan]

I wonder if people realise they don't have to play multiplayer all the time to keep their readiness rating up. You just 100% it, then never log in again and the game usually believes your rating was whatever it was last you logged in. I just keep playing it because I want to.

That said, I agree it shouldn't have gotten mixed with the single player. People should at least have an offline way to get their rating up.

[Robhuzz]

Icinix wrote...

I'm still seething from EAs comments.

...I find it particularly amusing because Ubisoft of all people said they're removing their always on DRM....which although not the same thing, its similar enough that I think its note worthy.

Anyway, game companies feel like the only way they can be successful is if you have online features.

Skyrim is laughing at them.

Knowing EA, it's all a plot to try and squeeze more money out of the consumers. We all know that guy from EA loves microtransactions so in my eyes, BioWare's future just became even more grim.

Single players games with mandatory (if you want the full picture of singleplayer or the best endings) multiplayer, add some nasty frustrating random unlock system or something else that'll push people towards microtransactions and voila. Those who want to enjoy the single player game fully will now have to play multiplayer they don't want and in order to speed it up, spend more money on the game.

A very grim future indeed...

[Eckswhyzed]

No, they shouldn't.

The most recent Bioware games that have drawn the most ire (DA2, ME3) have been very enjoyable for me. Yes, even the endings. As for multiplayer, I have also enjoyed spending time in the Mass Effect universe interacting with my friends. Narrative wise, the context of a galactic war provides a fine justification for some multiplayer combat.

In summary: Good job with ME3 multiplayer, keep it up Bioware.

[StElmo]

Chris Priestly wrote...

Mass Effect 3 has multiplayer.

Yeah and those resources would have been better spent on making ME3 more then what it is.

Instead, we get a paid F2P model on the MP that uses gambling style pattens to create an addicted fanbase.

Not something to be entirely proud of, even if the MP team do a good job with the artstyle and characters. The system is amoral IMHO.

[Siran]

StElmo wrote...

Chris Priestly wrote...

Mass Effect 3 has multiplayer.

Yeah and those resources would have been better spent on making ME3 more then what it is.

You should read up on Brooks' Law and the law of diminishing returns. Short: Adding more people to a (late) project is counter-productive and leads to the project being even more late. You just can't add infinite resources to something as complex as game / software development. You don't even know how large the team and resources for SP were to begin with, so please stop making claims for things you have no knowledge of.

Not something to be entirely proud of, even if the MP team do a good job with the artstyle and characters. The system is amoral IMHO.

Then pretty much any luck or random based loot system is amoral, which is the base of almost any RPG

Modifié par Siran, 09 septembre 2012 - 01:46 .

[StElmo]

Siran wrote...

StElmo wrote...

Chris Priestly wrote...

Mass Effect 3 has multiplayer.

Yeah and those resources would have been better spent on making ME3 more then what it is.

You should read up on Brooks' Law and the law of diminishing returns. Short: Adding more people to a (late) project is counter-productive and leads to the project being even more late. You just can't add infinite resources to something as complex as game / software development. You don't even know how large the team and resources for SP were to begin with, so please stop making claims for things you have no knowledge of.

Not something to be entirely proud of, even if the MP team do a good job with the artstyle and characters. The system is amoral IMHO.

Then pretty much any luck or random based loot system is amoral, which is the base of almost any RPG

Once you pay for an RPG, that is it, you have spent your money. Microtransactions and this model is where I feel it becomes amoral.

Secondly, or to go back to your first point, that money they spent on the MP could have gone to MP - resources does not just mean PEOPLE you know, it also refers to the ability to pay people for longer dev time etc.

[Siran]

StElmo wrote...

Once you pay for an RPG, that is it, you have spent your money. Microtransactions and this model is where I feel it becomes amoral.

I haven't paid a dime in MP, and you don't have to in ME3 MP. I think my manifest is a good example for that. It's not a "Pay-to-win" model as so many multiplayer games out there. ME3 MP has one of the most fair microtransaction models I know - take World of Tanks as a (bad) example where certain tanks and ammunition are only available if you pay cash.

Secondly, or to go back to your first point, that money they spent on the MP could have gone to MP - resources does not just mean PEOPLE you know, it also refers to the ability to pay people for longer dev time etc.

You're forgetting that ME3 had a set release date (which already got delayed from December, so they were late to begin with), as does any game or software title. This is something you can't "buy off" as there aren't only Devs involved in this, but whole company business plans.

Modifié par Siran, 09 septembre 2012 - 02:50 .

[Selene Moonsong]

As far as I know, the folks who built multi-play are a separate developer project having a separate funding source. By comparison, little work was directly needed by the ME 3 development team beyond integration within the core game functions and would have likely added very little to ME 3 if used for other than that.

BioWare has built co-op and multiplayer functionality into games in the past so it wouldn't be something entirely new for them with a steep learning curve.

Therefore, the argument that MP funding should have been used to increase resources for SP is an non-valid argument. If MP had not been added, the resources for it would have likely gone elsewhere rather than for ME 3.

Modifié par Selene Moonsong, 09 septembre 2012 - 03:27 .

[Siran]

The ME3 Multiplayer was even a separate project called Team Assault which later became the basis for ME3 MP. Instead of a stand alone title (which might have cost separately) we got it integrated into ME3. So, either way, those resources were separate to begin with. From what I gathered, some gameplay mechanics that were developed for it even made it into ME3's combat system, so the SP part benefited from MP even.

[99DP1982]

Selene Moonsong wrote...

Also note that the folks who built multi-play are a separate developer project having a separate funding source. By comparison, little work was directly needed by the ME 3 development team beyond integration within the core game functions and would have likely added very little to ME 3 if used for other than that.

BioWare has built co-op and multiplayer functionality into games in the past so it wouldn't be something entirely new for them with a steep learning curve.

Therefore, the argument that MP funding should have been used to increase resources for SP is an non-valid argument. If MP had not been added, the resources for it would have likely gone elsewhere rather than for ME 3.

I am sorry, but the fact, that you have a seperate developers creating different parts of the game, does not change a fact, that the budget for the whole game is set in a one set of figures. Same goes for the sales, as you do not sell SP and MP parts seperately...

To be honest, the EA statement got me worried about the quality of the future BioWare titles.

Already on the market we see more and more on-line only + microtransactions buisness models - I for one found the MP in ME3 dull - I've played it several times, but since MP is co-op vs mobs only, it's becoming boring very fast.

I fear that the same style of MP will be forced onto DA3. That means, that based on the estimation of sales and future profits, guys at EA will set the global budget for DA3 and then it will get divided on different parts (MP, SP, marketing and promotion, etc.).

MP components are cool, because then you can follow up with microtransactions, whereas in SP it is fairly limited to content DLCs, and quality SP DLCs cost more and return less profit for workhours spent.

I'd love to see another RPG game by BioWare in style of NWN... seriously, the SP was good enough and there was the best MP client designed ever... to back up my words, see that the NWN MP is still working, despite the lack of official support.

As someone said, BioWare devolves into yet another generic developer of yet another twitch and shooty style of games. Stories are still quite nice, but the control over them is being taken away.

The game design is now like this - lets make sure that player gets to experience everything he can on the first playthrough and then just modify the ways he can destroy opposition, so each playthrough will be a different combat experience... In the past it was - lets make parts of content and stories character and class dependand, so the player will be able to find something new even on his 20th playthrough.

The EA model is better from the company's point of view, as it generates more profit. (although they can flop - aka Syndicate). The problem is, that the trademarks set forth by BioWare as high quality games have almost ran out. There will be a DA3 and then what's next? Ultima, which does not seem to be so great at this moment?

The milk cows are about to end, and I doubt that BioWare will be able to storm the market with another cover based shooter/hack and slash game, when there are developers and trademarks which were set up long before in those areas.

People want something else. Look at the return of TBS (X-COM), old school TB RPG (Wasteland 2 project), longveity of NWN, return of BG (as BG:EE).

To make the point clear (TL:DR):

- It does not matter if SP and MP is done by one or more developers as long as it will sell in one package - budget and sales forecast is one for the whole title.

- BioWare did not build own trademark on bland SP experience with MP components. It made the trademakr on the awesome RPG games which allowed the player to build own stories and a pinnacle of that was NWN which allowed a player to create own worlds and enjoy them with friends.

[AlanC9]

StElmo wrote...
Once you pay for an RPG, that is it, you have spent your money. Microtransactions and this model is where I feel it becomes amoral.

Secondly, or to go back to your first point, that money they spent on the MP could have gone to MP - resources does not just mean PEOPLE you know, it also refers to the ability to pay people for longer dev time etc.

MP makes money. Therefore, ME3 without MP makes less money. Therefore, ME3 without MP gets.... the same budget?

If you're going to argue that the way MP makes money is immoral, you really shouldn't do it in the same post where you ask for the MP resources to be diverted to SP.

Modifié par AlanC9, 09 septembre 2012 - 03:53 .

[Siran]

99DP1982 wrote...

I am sorry, but the fact, that you have a seperate developers creating different parts of the game, does not change a fact, that the budget for the whole game is set in a one set of figures. Same goes for the sales, as you do not sell SP and MP parts seperately...

As has already been said, the Multiplayer part was already in development as a separate title, it just got integrated into ME3. Of course MP has different figures, said microtransactions, so the MP pays for it's own. Or why do you think we have had three free MP DLCs and more coming? 

Already on the market we see more and more on-line only + microtransactions buisness models - I for one found the MP in ME3 dull - I've played it several times, but since MP is co-op vs mobs only, it's becoming boring very fast.

I don't. So who decides whether an MP is "good" or "bad"?

I fear that the same style of MP will be forced onto DA3. That means, that based on the estimation of sales and future profits, guys at EA will set the global budget for DA3 and then it will get divided on different parts (MP, SP, marketing and promotion, etc.).

Speculation on your part. Judging from other RPG's who integrate MP rather well (you mentioned NWN for one thing), then why not? It's not like the budget for SP becomes bigger, just because an MP-part isn't being made. There are certain budgets that are forecast for a set amount of developers. As has already been said, increasing the number of developers does not mean something gets done faster or "better", so the budget for a SP part would stay the same regardless. As with ME3, any kind of MP would have a separate budget - and separate financial goals (through microtransactions etc.)

MP components are cool, because then you can follow up with microtransactions, whereas in SP it is fairly limited to content DLCs, and quality SP DLCs cost more and return less profit for workhours spent.

So, what's your point? If SP content doesn't sell well, then having MP or not doesn't change a thing. ME2 didn't have Multiplayer and we have seen similar DLC development cycles as in ME3, nothing in ME3 SP DLCs gets "delayed" because of MP.

The game design is now like this - lets make sure that player gets to experience everything he can on the first playthrough and then just modify the ways he can destroy opposition, so each playthrough will be a different combat experience... In the past it was - lets make parts of content and stories character and class dependand, so the player will be able to find something new even on his 20th playthrough.

In ME3 - as with the two games before - you can have vastly different experiences with each playthrough (just by changing the gender of the main character) and not only because monsters got harder...

The milk cows are about to end, and I doubt that BioWare will be able to storm the market with another cover based shooter/hack and slash game, when there are developers and trademarks which were set up long before in those areas.

I don't think we have seen the last of the ME or DA franchise with ME3 or an upcoming DA3. ME3 on it's own was too successful sales wise for that.

Modifié par Siran, 09 septembre 2012 - 04:17 .

[Snypy]

Siran wrote...

[...]

I don't think we have seen the last of the ME or DA franchise with ME3 or an upcoming DA3. ME3 on it's own was too successful sales wise for that.

You're assuming that the business success of ME3 was mainly due to the quality of the game itself. One could argue that many people bought it because the previous two games were amazing and players naturally wanted to see the conclusion of the story. False advertising might have had some impact on the sales as well.

To sum this up, ME3 sales were mostly influenced by the quality of the other games in the trilogy. Given recent controversy surrounding the ending, which seriously damaged BioWare's (EA's) reputation, it is logical to presume that a new game set in the Mass Effect universe will face many challenges when it enters the market. In other words, many people won't blindly buy the game as was the case with ME3.

Modifié par Snypy, 09 septembre 2012 - 05:58 .

[arial]

if Bioware dissolved it would mean no more ME content (games, books, etc), as the franchise is no longer owned by BW, it is now EA property

[Siran]

Snypy wrote...

You're assuming that the business success of ME3 was mainly due to the quality of the game itself. One could argue that many people bought it because the previous two games were amazing and players naturally wanted to see the conclusion of the story. False advertising might have had some impact on the sales as well.

To sum this up, ME3 sales were mostly influenced by the quality of the other games in the trilogy. Given recent
controversy surrounding the ending, which seriously damaged BioWare's
(EA's) reputation, it is logical to presume that a new game set in the
Mass Effect universe will face many challenges when it enters the
market. In other words, many people won't blindly buy the game as was
the case with ME3

You're countering my assumptions with assumptions of your own...

I certainly didn't buy ME3 because of any alleged "false advertising" and to me ME3 is just as amazing as ME1 and ME2. I just played ME1 and ME2 in order to have a different outcome for several things in ME3 and I was reminded of the shortcomings these two had - both weren't as perfect as many claim they are.

I don't think they'd develop any more SP DLC if Leviathan wouldn't have had good sales, so someone must have bought the DLC (hell, it was great, in many regards even better than LotSB!). Just look at all the fandom that's attracted to PAX, Dragoncon and the like. That's not a sign of an unsuccessful game or a dead franchise.

BioWare managed to appease many fans with the Extended Cut, myself among them, and I wouldn't hesitate buying another ME3. You're imagining some sort of "scorched earth" that just isn't there. Why always those absolutes? "I think ME3 is garbage, so everyone else thinks so and BioWare is in big trouble..."

Modifié par Siran, 09 septembre 2012 - 06:19 .

[Atakuma]

arial wrote...

if Bioware dissolved it would mean no more ME content (games, books, etc), as the franchise is no longer owned by BW, it is now EA property

EA would just put another studio in charge of ME.