313 réponses à ce sujet

[TonberryFeye]

No, it's what we call a safe bet.

Logically, one judges the quality of any sequel by the game that came before it. In particular with a series of games, one can also compare the quality of the other games in the line.

Most people would agree the original Tomb Raider was, at the time, a fantastic game. No argument. #2? Almost certainly going to get praise as well... but from there on out, you get an increase of dissent, to the point where by the sixth or seventh game (I forget which) the series was in the crapper and the only choice was to reboot and start all over. We're now on our third (if not fourth) Tomb Raider reboot now, by the way, and currently the series is running on the basis that "7/10 is a good result."

Dragon Age started with an absolutely kick-ass, out of nowhere blockbuster of a title. Dragon Age 2 was, therefore, widely seen to be the Second Coming of Ocarina of Time... and then it actually came, and turned out to be a game so terrible that it drove people away from the franchise in droves.

Nothing Bioware has said thus far suggests they are making a sequel to Origins; they are making a sequel to Dragon Age 2. As crap games rarely spawn great sequels, it is as I said a fair bet that the multiplayer, existing solely so EA will greenlight the title, will not be worth our time or money.

[ianvillan]

If Bioware gets a seperate budget for multiplayer how do they know how much extra to ask for in the pitching of DA3 if they have no idea what type of multiplayer they plan on having.

Or is it more likely EA gives Bioware a certain amount of money and says this is what you have for your game and we expect a certain amount of profit at the end, and Bioware has to take the multiplayer budget out of the whole amount they were allocated.

[Atakuma]

ianvillan wrote...

If Bioware gets a seperate budget for multiplayer how do they know how much extra to ask for in the pitching of DA3 if they have no idea what type of multiplayer they plan on having.

Or is it more likely EA gives Bioware a certain amount of money and says this is what you have for your game and we expect a certain amount of profit at the end, and Bioware has to take the multiplayer budget out of the whole amount they were allocated.

That's not likely at all, Budgets are far more complex than just spiting out a blanket sum for the whole thing.

[ianvillan]

Atakuma wrote...

ianvillan wrote...

If Bioware gets a seperate budget for multiplayer how do they know how much extra to ask for in the pitching of DA3 if they have no idea what type of multiplayer they plan on having.

Or is it more likely EA gives Bioware a certain amount of money and says this is what you have for your game and we expect a certain amount of profit at the end, and Bioware has to take the multiplayer budget out of the whole amount they were allocated.

That's not likely at all, Budgets are far more complex than just spiting out a blanket sum for the whole thing.

But how can Bioware work out the budget they would need for multiplayer if they have no idea what type of multiplayer they are doing.

Modifié par ianvillan, 23 octobre 2012 - 06:33 .

[Lenimph]

I want multiplayer sexytimes... because it's deliciously awkward and hilarious.  I'm looking at you Fable 3. 

Modifié par Lenimph, 23 octobre 2012 - 06:35 .

[Atakuma]

ianvillan wrote...

Atakuma wrote...

ianvillan wrote...

If Bioware gets a seperate budget for multiplayer how do they know how much extra to ask for in the pitching of DA3 if they have no idea what type of multiplayer they plan on having.

Or is it more likely EA gives Bioware a certain amount of money and says this is what you have for your game and we expect a certain amount of profit at the end, and Bioware has to take the multiplayer budget out of the whole amount they were allocated.

That's not likely at all, Budgets are far more complex than just spiting out a blanket sum for the whole thing.

But how can Bioware work out the budget they would need for multiplayer if they have no idea what type of multiplayer they are doing.

Why are you assuming they don't?

[ianvillan]

Atakuma wrote...

ianvillan wrote...

Atakuma wrote...

ianvillan wrote...

If Bioware gets a seperate budget for multiplayer how do they know how much extra to ask for in the pitching of DA3 if they have no idea what type of multiplayer they plan on having.

Or is it more likely EA gives Bioware a certain amount of money and says this is what you have for your game and we expect a certain amount of profit at the end, and Bioware has to take the multiplayer budget out of the whole amount they were allocated.

That's not likely at all, Budgets are far more complex than just spiting out a blanket sum for the whole thing.

But how can Bioware work out the budget they would need for multiplayer if they have no idea what type of multiplayer they are doing.

Why are you assuming they don't?

Yes because in one of the panel Mike Laidlaw said they want to do multiplayer but dont know what type they are going to do yet.

[Zardoc]

How would you like the multiplayer to influence the game and why?

How about not at all.

[Vandicus]

ianvillan wrote...

Atakuma wrote...

ianvillan wrote...

Atakuma wrote...

ianvillan wrote...

If Bioware gets a seperate budget for multiplayer how do they know how much extra to ask for in the pitching of DA3 if they have no idea what type of multiplayer they plan on having.

Or is it more likely EA gives Bioware a certain amount of money and says this is what you have for your game and we expect a certain amount of profit at the end, and Bioware has to take the multiplayer budget out of the whole amount they were allocated.

That's not likely at all, Budgets are far more complex than just spiting out a blanket sum for the whole thing.

But how can Bioware work out the budget they would need for multiplayer if they have no idea what type of multiplayer they are doing.

Why are you assuming they don't?

Yes because in one of the panel Mike Laidlaw said they want to do multiplayer but dont know what type they are going to do yet.

They probably don't directly determine how much they get for their multiplayer budget. EA holds the purse strings.

[ianvillan]

Vandicus wrote...

ianvillan wrote...

Atakuma wrote...

ianvillan wrote...

Atakuma wrote...

ianvillan wrote...

If Bioware gets a seperate budget for multiplayer how do they know how much extra to ask for in the pitching of DA3 if they have no idea what type of multiplayer they plan on having.

Or is it more likely EA gives Bioware a certain amount of money and says this is what you have for your game and we expect a certain amount of profit at the end, and Bioware has to take the multiplayer budget out of the whole amount they were allocated.

That's not likely at all, Budgets are far more complex than just spiting out a blanket sum for the whole thing.

But how can Bioware work out the budget they would need for multiplayer if they have no idea what type of multiplayer they are doing.

Why are you assuming they don't?

Yes because in one of the panel Mike Laidlaw said they want to do multiplayer but dont know what type they are going to do yet.

They probably don't directly determine how much they get for their multiplayer budget. EA holds the purse strings.

then in that case I wonder what happens if the multiplayer studio goes over budget, do they scrap the multiplayer, does it come from the singleplayer game or does EA manage to find some more money from somewhere.

If its the last one how does EA deal if the other studios in the company ask for more.

[dpMeggers]

Zardoc wrote...

How would you like the multiplayer to influence the game and why?

How about not at all.

This, in a nutshell.

Why? Money. I'm a console player, I use an Xbox 360 and I don't have an Xbox Live Gold Subscription, which means I don't have access to multiplayer. I don't have Gold because I don't play online MP of any game and I don't use Netflix, thus it would be a wasted expenditure.

I have no problem with Multiplayer being in the game. I don't want it to influence my game. Because the comparisons have already been drawn, I'll use ME3 as my example. Pre-EC, MP was required to access all of the possible endings and to get the achievement for a really high EMS. Not something someone who is unable or unwilling to play MP would be happy about. I don't want that in DAIII. Post-EC, EMS values were corrected and MP was there for fun and had no influence on the SP campaign. I'm ok with this because it means that I can play my game without being worried that I'm missing out on SP content.

[marshalleck]

TonberryFeye wrote...

No, it's what we call a safe bet.

Logically, one judges the quality of any sequel by the game that came before it. In particular with a series of games, one can also compare the quality of the other games in the line.

Most people would agree the original Tomb Raider was, at the time, a fantastic game. No argument. #2? Almost certainly going to get praise as well... but from there on out, you get an increase of dissent, to the point where by the sixth or seventh game (I forget which) the series was in the crapper and the only choice was to reboot and start all over. We're now on our third (if not fourth) Tomb Raider reboot now, by the way, and currently the series is running on the basis that "7/10 is a good result."

Dragon Age started with an absolutely kick-ass, out of nowhere blockbuster of a title. Dragon Age 2 was, therefore, widely seen to be the Second Coming of Ocarina of Time... and then it actually came, and turned out to be a game so terrible that it drove people away from the franchise in droves.

Nothing Bioware has said thus far suggests they are making a sequel to Origins; they are making a sequel to Dragon Age 2. As crap games rarely spawn great sequels, it is as I said a fair bet that the multiplayer, existing solely so EA will greenlight the title, will not be worth our time or money.

Then explain ME3's huge success with MP, which everyone was *absolutely sure* was going to be a horrible failure before the demo came out and proved all naysayers wrong.

[Jadebaby]

marshalleck wrote...

TonberryFeye wrote...

No, it's what we call a safe bet.

Logically, one judges the quality of any sequel by the game that came before it. In particular with a series of games, one can also compare the quality of the other games in the line.

Most people would agree the original Tomb Raider was, at the time, a fantastic game. No argument. #2? Almost certainly going to get praise as well... but from there on out, you get an increase of dissent, to the point where by the sixth or seventh game (I forget which) the series was in the crapper and the only choice was to reboot and start all over. We're now on our third (if not fourth) Tomb Raider reboot now, by the way, and currently the series is running on the basis that "7/10 is a good result."

Dragon Age started with an absolutely kick-ass, out of nowhere blockbuster of a title. Dragon Age 2 was, therefore, widely seen to be the Second Coming of Ocarina of Time... and then it actually came, and turned out to be a game so terrible that it drove people away from the franchise in droves.

Nothing Bioware has said thus far suggests they are making a sequel to Origins; they are making a sequel to Dragon Age 2. As crap games rarely spawn great sequels, it is as I said a fair bet that the multiplayer, existing solely so EA will greenlight the title, will not be worth our time or money.

Then explain ME3's huge success with MP, which everyone was *absolutely sure* was going to be a horrible failure before the demo came out and proved all naysayers wrong.

The huge success is contributed by the SP campaign being an utter failure for a lot of people. The only way they can hold onto their beloved Mass Effect, *without* becoming emotionally invested.. Is too play the MP.. Or go on BSN.

[Jadebaby]

Nrieh wrote...

When does Hackett talk about N7 squads? I don't recall that in the SP campaign.

He says something "I'll send out some troops" after some N7 missions. It is assumed that MP are those "troops"....Is supposed to keep immersion...I guess....

true, that's cool..

[marshalleck]

Jade8aby88 wrote...

The huge success is contributed by the SP campaign being an utter failure for a lot of people. The only way they can hold onto their beloved Mass Effect, *without* becoming emotionally invested.. Is too play the MP.. Or go on BSN.

Not even close. It's actually a fun and well constructed addition to the game. People wouldn't still be playing it now if it were just a placeholder for their beloved Mass Effect.

A MP mode in DA3 can be just as fun and as well-received, as long as there is good communication and feedback between the respective teams within Bioware.

Modifié par marshalleck, 23 octobre 2012 - 11:34 .

[Vandicus]

ianvillan wrote...

Vandicus wrote...

ianvillan wrote...

Atakuma wrote...

ianvillan wrote...

Atakuma wrote...

ianvillan wrote...

If Bioware gets a seperate budget for multiplayer how do they know how much extra to ask for in the pitching of DA3 if they have no idea what type of multiplayer they plan on having.

Or is it more likely EA gives Bioware a certain amount of money and says this is what you have for your game and we expect a certain amount of profit at the end, and Bioware has to take the multiplayer budget out of the whole amount they were allocated.

That's not likely at all, Budgets are far more complex than just spiting out a blanket sum for the whole thing.

But how can Bioware work out the budget they would need for multiplayer if they have no idea what type of multiplayer they are doing.

Why are you assuming they don't?

Yes because in one of the panel Mike Laidlaw said they want to do multiplayer but dont know what type they are going to do yet.

They probably don't directly determine how much they get for their multiplayer budget. EA holds the purse strings.

then in that case I wonder what happens if the multiplayer studio goes over budget, do they scrap the multiplayer, does it come from the singleplayer game or does EA manage to find some more money from somewhere.

If its the last one how does EA deal if the other studios in the company ask for more.

It is not unheard of for companies to completely scrap nearly completed features for lack of budget. Bioware would most likely be unable to draw from the singleplayer budget(for the same reasons they can't simply use their multiplayer budget for singleplayer and make a half-assed multiplayer), unless there's a specific release of funds after a requirement or approval is met(which could occur after the single player is considered "done", or in the case of multiplayer, someone in management greenlights the MP feature as complete). This could likewise occur with the multiplayer(funds being released from MP after MP is done to supplement SP funds). Its not a model that I really see a company like EA employing, but its one that could be used.

The other (and more likely possibility) for when a company exceeds their alotted budget(whether it be for single player or multiplayer) is that EA takes a look at the project, has a guy(much like myself) do some financial analysis, and determines whether to add more funding or shut down that portion of the project.

[BouncyFrag]

Jade8aby88 wrote...

marshalleck wrote...

TonberryFeye wrote...

No, it's what we call a safe bet.

Logically, one judges the quality of any sequel by the game that came before it. In particular with a series of games, one can also compare the quality of the other games in the line.

Most people would agree the original Tomb Raider was, at the time, a fantastic game. No argument. #2? Almost certainly going to get praise as well... but from there on out, you get an increase of dissent, to the point where by the sixth or seventh game (I forget which) the series was in the crapper and the only choice was to reboot and start all over. We're now on our third (if not fourth) Tomb Raider reboot now, by the way, and currently the series is running on the basis that "7/10 is a good result."

Dragon Age started with an absolutely kick-ass, out of nowhere blockbuster of a title. Dragon Age 2 was, therefore, widely seen to be the Second Coming of Ocarina of Time... and then it actually came, and turned out to be a game so terrible that it drove people away from the franchise in droves.

Nothing Bioware has said thus far suggests they are making a sequel to Origins; they are making a sequel to Dragon Age 2. As crap games rarely spawn great sequels, it is as I said a fair bet that the multiplayer, existing solely so EA will greenlight the title, will not be worth our time or money.

Then explain ME3's huge success with MP, which everyone was *absolutely sure* was going to be a horrible failure before the demo came out and proved all naysayers wrong.

The huge success is contributed by the SP campaign being an utter failure for a lot of people. The only way they can hold onto their beloved Mass Effect, *without* becoming emotionally invested.. Is too play the MP.. Or go on BSN.

And I thought I had been playing it all this time because it was actually fun. I should have known better.

[Genshie]

Nrieh wrote...

Okay it seems like people are that unaware so I will repeat it: MP is no longer needed for ME3. The Extended Cut plus the additions of singleplayer dlc have since fixed this

It just has to be really-really good to overcome all that MP-hatered, that ME3 caused. And worst they can do - repeat that mistake (tie SP results to it).

They reduced it for a reason with the EC and added content. I think they got the message way before DA3 multiplayer was really considered.  I just think that people should also consider that they fixed the issue as well and not just hover around when it wasn't fixed. People are acting like the issue still exist when it doesn't. Alot of comments I have seen don't even think of EC when bringing the topic up which isn't right. Yes, give criticism but be fair about it.  

[Imp of the Perverse]

Atakuma wrote...

ianvillan wrote...

If Bioware gets a seperate budget for multiplayer how do they know how much extra to ask for in the pitching of DA3 if they have no idea what type of multiplayer they plan on having.

Or is it more likely EA gives Bioware a certain amount of money and says this is what you have for your game and we expect a certain amount of profit at the end, and Bioware has to take the multiplayer budget out of the whole amount they were allocated.

That's not likely at all, Budgets are far more complex than just spiting out a blanket sum for the whole thing.

I'm sure part of it is accountants looking at sales figures for past games and saying, single player only games tend to sell this many copies, games that have multiplayer tend to attract this many more, so we'll increase your budget by x amount if you include multiplayer.

The development costs for MP and SP aren't neatly split, either. A multiplayer team would put much higher emphasis on gameplay since they can't rely on story, but any major developments they come up with are going to make it into the single player campaign. I think MP is largely responsible for what I see as being much more sophisticated combat in ME3. You've got the weight/cooldown system making more weapons viable, a more intricate power development system, more distinct weapons. Viable melee combat, a more mobile game in general compared to ME2's largely static cover based shooting. More attention to balance (compare adepts to soldiers in ME2, my soldier managed to make it through the object rho battle on insanity, while my adept died before killing a single enemy.)

[Jadebaby]

BouncyFrag wrote...

And I thought I had been playing it all this time because it was actually fun. I should have known better.

marshalleck wrote...
Not even close. It's actually a fun and well constructed addition to the game. People wouldn't still be playing it now if it were just a placeholder for their beloved Mass Effect.

A MP mode in DA3 can be just as fun and as well-received, as long as there is good communication and feedback between the respective teams within Bioware.

Never said it wasn't fun, nor was I speaking for everyone, note *contributed by*.

[BouncyFrag]

Jade8aby88 wrote...

BouncyFrag wrote...

And I thought I had been playing it all this time because it was actually fun. I should have known better.

marshalleck wrote...
Not even close. It's actually a fun and well constructed addition to the game. People wouldn't still be playing it now if it were just a placeholder for their beloved Mass Effect.

A MP mode in DA3 can be just as fun and as well-received, as long as there is good communication and feedback between the respective teams within Bioware.

Never said it wasn't fun, nor was I speaking for everyone, note *contributed by*.

Jade8aby88 wrote...
The huge success is contributed by the SP campaign being an utter failure for a lot of people. The only way they can hold onto their beloved Mass Effect, *without* becoming emotionally invested.. Is too play the MP.. Or go on BSN.

Well, thats how I interpreted this.

Modifié par BouncyFrag, 24 octobre 2012 - 12:40 .

[TheRealJayDee]

Genshie wrote...

Nrieh wrote...

Okay it seems like people are that unaware so I will repeat it: MP is no longer needed for ME3. The Extended Cut plus the additions of singleplayer dlc have since fixed this

It just has to be really-really good to overcome all that MP-hatered, that ME3 caused. And worst they can do - repeat that mistake (tie SP results to it).

They reduced it for a reason with the EC and added content. I think they got the message way before DA3 multiplayer was really considered.  I just think that people should also consider that they fixed the issue as well and not just hover around when it wasn't fixed. People are acting like the issue still exist when it doesn't. Alot of comments I have seen don't even think of EC when bringing the topic up which isn't right. Yes, give criticism but be fair about it.  

Well, it's really not easy forgetting that when I originally played ME3 the issue very much did exist and for quite some time was seemingly ignored and/or denied by Bioware. For months we had exactly the situation many people who were opposed to MP/SP connection from the start feared and were explicitely told wouldn't happen. If it was a mistake Bioware should have said so early on and told us they were going to fix it. Instead we got ominous silence and then the EC fix...

So please forgive people who are very sceptical about the inclusion of multiplayer in DA3.

[Genshie]

TheRealJayDee wrote...

Genshie wrote...

Nrieh wrote...

Okay it seems like people are that unaware so I will repeat it: MP is no longer needed for ME3. The Extended Cut plus the additions of singleplayer dlc have since fixed this

It just has to be really-really good to overcome all that MP-hatered, that ME3 caused. And worst they can do - repeat that mistake (tie SP results to it).

They reduced it for a reason with the EC and added content. I think they got the message way before DA3 multiplayer was really considered.  I just think that people should also consider that they fixed the issue as well and not just hover around when it wasn't fixed. People are acting like the issue still exist when it doesn't. Alot of comments I have seen don't even think of EC when bringing the topic up which isn't right. Yes, give criticism but be fair about it.  

Well, it's really not easy forgetting that when I originally played ME3 the issue very much did exist and for quite some time was seemingly ignored and/or denied by Bioware. For months we had exactly the situation many people who were opposed to MP/SP connection from the start feared and were explicitely told wouldn't happen. If it was a mistake Bioware should have said so early on and told us they were going to fix it. Instead we got ominous silence and then the EC fix...

So please forgive people who are very sceptical about the inclusion of multiplayer in DA3.

Which in a large aspect is a very small chunk. ME3 multiplayer as a whole is a big success so why not repeat it. Especially now that Bioware knows what to do and what not to do. Also Bioware don't need to tell us ****e. (Yes error on purpose) We can ask and they can tell us but we can't not demand anything.

[TMZuk]

I don't want multiplayer and if it's there I won't have it affecting the singleplayer game. If it does, ME3 style, the it's a 100 % dealbreaker, that is certain.

[Allan Schumacher]

ianvillan wrote...

If Bioware gets a seperate budget for multiplayer how do they know how much extra to ask for in the pitching of DA3 if they have no idea what type of multiplayer they plan on having.

Budget allocations need not be set entirely in stone given BioWare is a part of EA.