103 réponses à ce sujet

[Wulfram]

MichaelStuart wrote...

My biggest problem with multiplayer in single player games is that its often used to pad a short game so to justify selling it at full price.
Aside from that, I just don't see any business logic on spending any money on implementing a feature that any MMO could do better.

Well, in the case of the ME3 multiplayer, they seem to be making a bunch of money selling those packs.  I'm baffled that people actually buy the things, but it seems they do.

I'd guess that MP has more than payed for itself, even making the assumption it didn't generate any extra sales of the actual game.

[Rawgrim]

Sanunes wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

Kail Ashton wrote...

So basicly you're complaining about free add ons and updated gameplay; of course! why would i expect anything else from the bioware fanbase, truely you make the Josh Whedon fanbase look like civilized, mature adults by comparison

"Free" as in resources being removed from the single player game production and added to multiplayer? + if you play on xbox you will have to pay for a Gold membership, so its hardly free in any case.

"updated gameplay" could also be dumbed down gameplay. Great feature to have in action games. in rpgs, not so much.

Do you have proof that they are taking away from one to give to the other? I have experienced budgets that there would an extra $10,000 for equipment and labor if I could complete a specific task, but they wouldn't release the funds otherwise.

BioWare can't control Microsoft and what they do for Xbox Live, for you might as well go complain on every other developer that makes games that feature multiplayer on the 360 then

Not really. Other games MP mods arn`t forced. ME3`s MP was forced. Couldn`t get a perfect ending without it.

[Icesong]

WhiteThunder wrote...

Kail Ashton wrote...

So basicly you're complaining about free add ons and updated gameplay; of course! why would i expect anything else from the bioware fanbase, truely you make the Josh Whedon fanbase look like civilized, mature adults by comparison

Yeah dude, Joss Whedon sucks.  NCIS and the Big Bang Theory are so much better.  At least FOX knows how to treat his shows.  Even better than how they treated Arrested Development.

Also, why does AMC keep playing stupid shows like Breaking Bad and Mad Men instead of awesome stuff like re-runs of CSI: Miami?

Good thing NBC put Community on hiatus so that we can watch The New Normal, right?  Almost as good a move as when they cancelled Freaks and Geeks.

He wasn't saying Joss Whedon sucks, he was saying Whedonites sucks. I don't know that that's true either though. Probably not.

[Rawgrim]

Icesong wrote...

WhiteThunder wrote...

Kail Ashton wrote...

So basicly you're complaining about free add ons and updated gameplay; of course! why would i expect anything else from the bioware fanbase, truely you make the Josh Whedon fanbase look like civilized, mature adults by comparison

Yeah dude, Joss Whedon sucks.  NCIS and the Big Bang Theory are so much better.  At least FOX knows how to treat his shows.  Even better than how they treated Arrested Development.

Also, why does AMC keep playing stupid shows like Breaking Bad and Mad Men instead of awesome stuff like re-runs of CSI: Miami?

Good thing NBC put Community on hiatus so that we can watch The New Normal, right?  Almost as good a move as when they cancelled Freaks and Geeks.

He wasn't saying Joss Whedon sucks, he was saying Whedonites sucks. I don't know that that's true either though. Probably not.

The Firefly fans has a very good reputation, though.

[WhiteThunder]

Icesong wrote...


He wasn't saying Joss Whedon sucks, he was saying Whedonites sucks. I don't know that that's true either though. Probably not.

Eh, people who like good TV don't usually dislike Whedonites.  He's probably one of the guys who complains about Community fans on Big Bang Theory review on the AV Club.

[sunnydxmen]

marshalleck wrote...

spinachdiaper wrote...

Honestly after the last DLC I think ME3's MP is now a 98% complete Multiplayer experience, only missing a little more of something i can't extactly determine. 

PVP.

they can add it i will just wont play it.

[sunnydxmen]

marshalleck wrote...

A little competition won't kill you.

it will ruin the game everyone who suffer a loss will cry nerf and sp will be ruin by the moronic mp players. :innocent:

[Dhiro]

sunnydxmen wrote...

marshalleck wrote...

A little competition won't kill you.

it will ruin the game everyone who suffer a loss will cry nerf and sp will be ruin by the moronic mp players. :innocent:

Do the ME3 MP changes touch the single player portion of the game at all?

[shepisavanguardgetoverit]

Selene Moonsong wrote...

So yeah, BioWare knows how to make a complete MP system.

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA


I Disagree.

[Archyyy]

Better yet, dont add MP at all. Put the resources on SP.

Of course in the purely theoretical scenario that SP isnt affected by MP i'd be fine with it but there are always resources put into the MP that would be better used in the SP.

So please, no multiplayer. An rpg doesnt need multiplayer.

Modifié par Archyyy, 28 octobre 2012 - 08:07 .

[Plaintiff]

Rawgrim wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...
The BG games arn`t really well know or hailed as great gasmes BECAUSE of the MP feature, you know. Its the single player bit all the way.

Which proves that mulitplayer didn't ruin them and thus is not inherently bad, despite the vocal opinions to the contrary. See?

Attacking the opposition as a person, in a discussion makes you lose the discussion. You have moved away from the topic of the discussion, and thereby abandoned your counter arguments. Have a nice evening, kid

Hahaha. Who exactly am I supposed to have attacked?

The only one using ad-hominem in this debate is you, when you just now tried to descredit my argument by making negative implications about my age, which you do not know.

Pokemon avatar makes it easy to assume you are young. If you are in your 30s or something...My bad.

I'm 22, but I don't think age is really relevant. Age does not guarantee intelligence.

My avatar isn't from Pokemon, though if I knew how to put in a custom picture, it probably would be, because Pokemon is kickass.

[Direwolf0294]

ME3's multiplayer is just a lesser version of GoW 3's Horde mode. It's fun, but it's lacking. I'm honestly really surprised it's managed to remain as popular as it has for so long, especially with the annoying rng upgrade system.

I really hope DA3's multiplayer is something that can keep my attention for longer than ME3's did. I sort of doubt it will be because of how DA games play, but you never know. I also hope it doesn't lag horribly, which was something ME3's multi really suffered from.

[Wozearly]

shepisavanguardgetoverit wrote...

Cimeas wrote...

Here's an idea, why not make it like story flashpoints from SW:TOR?
2 hour long co-op story driven adventures with your friends, where you can make choices and work together as a team.

Just one little problem with this idea.

"Waiting on party members" <----------- 95% of the swtor game experience right there.   Just my 2 cents.

Worse than that, IMO.

The flashpoints were an excellent twist on the standard "This is a small 4-man instance with limited rewards" model (although there were a shedton of them in the game nonetheless), by introducing more of a storyline and, in some cases, different paths depending on the dialogue rolls.

That said, once you got to the stage of grinding them to get gear, the excellent twist soon became old and the standard grumbles about repetitiveness came back, and you needed to bring the holy quad of 1 tank, 1 healer, 2 dps for the right party balance.

MMOs can get this to work better because the 'friends' you bring along are most likely people you're playing a lot of the game with in any case (e.g. guild members), and whose skills you can broadly rely on and whose company you (presumably) enjoy, which lessens the feeling of the grind.

Things tend to go south fast when you do it with random people unless the encounter is very easy and very short.

[marshalleck]

Archyyy wrote...

Better yet, dont add MP at all. Put the resources on SP.

Of course in the purely theoretical scenario that SP isnt affected by MP i'd be fine with it but there are always resources put into the MP that would be better used in the SP.

So please, no multiplayer. An rpg doesnt need multiplayer.

That's usually not how it works. The bean counters and executives say "we want you to add multiplayer, and we're budgeting you X million dollars to make it happen."

The project leader can't just say "okay, you're giving us X million dollars for MP. I really don't want to add MP though, so I am going to keep that money and use it on SP instead."

Somewhere in the process, whomever is in charge of the direction DA3 is taking may get to sit down with the executives and make their case about MP being the wrong addition to the series. Maybe it will be successful, maybe it won't. But they certainly will not be able to keep any funds allocated for MP development and funnel them into SP. If MP isn't going to happen, then those funds allocated for MP development will go away.

Modifié par marshalleck, 28 octobre 2012 - 10:23 .

[Seboist]

Foolsfolly wrote...

marshalleck wrote...

spinachdiaper wrote...

Honestly after the last DLC I think ME3's MP is now a 98% complete Multiplayer experience, only missing a little more of something i can't extactly determine. 

PVP.

I honestly could not understand why they didn't release it with PVP. I mean... that's entirely the reason you do multiplayer in shooter games. Simple deathmatches would have been enough.

Being able to frag my enemies from BSN would have made PVP awesome.

[Archyyy]

marshalleck wrote...

Archyyy wrote...

Better yet, dont add MP at all. Put the resources on SP.

Of course in the purely theoretical scenario that SP isnt affected by MP i'd be fine with it but there are always resources put into the MP that would be better used in the SP.

So please, no multiplayer. An rpg doesnt need multiplayer.

That's usually not how it works. The bean counters and executives say "we want you to add multiplayer, and we're budgeting you X million dollars to make it happen."

The project leader can't just say "okay, you're giving us X million dollars for MP. I really don't want to add MP though, so I am going to keep that money and use it on SP instead."

Somewhere in the process, whomever is in charge of the direction DA3 is taking may get to sit down with the executives and make their case about MP being the wrong addition to the series. Maybe it will be successful, maybe it won't. But they certainly will not be able to keep any funds allocated for MP development and funnel them into SP. If MP isn't going to happen, then those funds allocated for MP development will go away.

Even if they wouldnt get to use the funds they have to put dev time and personnel on it. Ideally instead of listening to publishers that dont know a thing about rpgs, like our dear electronic arts, the dev should just tell them that it wont work and wont happen. With ea that probably cant be done as they like to just assume direct control and muscle in on territory they dont know which is a pity but ideally bioware would tell them no and be done with it. If multiplayer is given its own team that wasnt meant to work on sp to begin with as well as its own funding them im fine with it. As long as single player is kept separate, isnt harmed by it in any way and I dont need to touch multiplayer with a ten meter stick I dont care if its there.

[xsdob]

Everyone talking out of their ass about resource shortage is truly lol worthy, why don't you try and research the way budgets work before saying that the resources are being taking away by multiplayer. Had the multiplayer not existed, it's resources would not go to the rest of DA, simply put, the resources would not exist at all, not the studio or men and women working on it and defiantly not the cash, all budgets are premade and designed to not have anymore than is needed, having more resources than is needed on a budget is actually worse than going over budget. Basically, the argument is complete BS because the resources from mp would have gone to fund and work on a different project than DA3 entirely so that more money could be made.

Now if you don't like mp that's fine, no one makes you play it. I never played gow's multiplayer till the third game and never suffered for it. But saying it's because of resoruces is as much bull**** as any false me3prerelease statement.

[Cimeas]

Mass Effect 3 was 35 hours.
Uncharted is 10 hours
The Witcher 2 is 25 hours
Deus Ex: Human Revolution is 18-25 hours
Assassin's Creed 2 was 25 hours
.....

Compared to most other (mostly) single player games, Mass Effect 3 is very long. I'm sorry it's not as long as BG2 or NWN, but those games had a lot more filler and by nature were less expensive to make. Mass Effect 2 and ME3's game times were more than enough and compared to most video games provided exceptional value without multiplayer.

If you want a 500 hour Bioware game I would highly recommend SW:TOR. It offers ample opportunities for roleplaying and has a extremely large amount of content, though obviously both graphically and in terms of set pieces it will be worse than ME2/ME3.

[Sgt Reed 24]

spinachdiaper wrote...

Honestly after the last DLC I think ME3's MP is now a 98% complete Multiplayer experience, only missing a little more of something i can't extactly determine. Now I hope DA3I has a full and dynamic MP from the get go so all the knick knacks and bells and whistles.

I think ME3 needs a little change up... 

since we are supposed to be clearing the site, why not have us actually take the ground from the enemy and move through the map taking it over piece by piece. The final push would be to get to the room the objective is in and then extract or w/e. 

and another mode would be like the MP currently is where you dig in and hold off waves of enemies. But you can make fortifications, turrets, etc to hold your position. 

IDK, I think that's what it's missing... variety of game modes. And probably some PvP modes as well.


I have no idea how you would even do MP for a Dragon Age type game... 

[DarkKnightHolmes]

Cimeas wrote...

Mass Effect 3 was 35 hours.
Uncharted is 10 hours
The Witcher 2 is 25 hours
Deus Ex: Human Revolution is 18-25 hours
Assassin's Creed 2 was 25 hours
.....

Compared to most other (mostly) single player games, Mass Effect 3 is very long. I'm sorry it's not as long as BG2 or NWN, but those games had a lot more filler and by nature were less expensive to make. Mass Effect 2 and ME3's game times were more than enough and compared to most video games provided exceptional value without multiplayer.

If you want a 500 hour Bioware game I would highly recommend SW:TOR. It offers ample opportunities for roleplaying and has a extremely large amount of content, though obviously both graphically and in terms of set pieces it will be worse than ME2/ME3.

Pff, for you. I finished ME3 in 20 hours and Assasin's Creed 2 in 30 hours.

[Cimeas]

20 hours? I can't imagine you did every side quest and watched every cinematic in 20 hours, but even so, if you did, that's still pretty good value compared to any number of other sources of entertainment.

Isn't everyone raving about Dishonored? And that's a single-player only game that can apparently be beaten in 5 hours.

[DarkKnightHolmes]

Cimeas wrote...

20 hours? I can't imagine you did every side quest and watched every cinematic in 20 hours, but even so, if you did, that's still pretty good value compared to any number of other sources of entertainment.

Isn't everyone raving about Dishonored? And that's a single-player only game that can apparently be beaten in 5 hours.

Actually, I did. All side missions, all main missions, all annoying fetch quests and all those "war assets". Done.

[Cimeas]

Well congratulations, I guess. But see the other part of my comment.

[astreqwerty]

I just cant believe there are people who actually believe that the addition of MP does not hinder the development of SP. Of course it does be it budget or workforce allocation and at least thats a big deal breaker for me. Da2 was developed in one year and a half and it turned out well lets just say mediocre. This game,by its release,will have been in development for 2.5 years (if we believe that right after the release of DA2 production begun,which I am highly doubtful of but still..). I want you all to ponder how much time will be poured into MP in order for it to be respectable? And in answering this question keep in mind that Da is an rpg. A mp mode will be much harder to implement because there is no easy way (me is a shooter franchise that speaks for itself I guess)

[Reofeir]

Actually, astreqwerty, it depends. If EA says "We would want you to make a MP part for Dragon Age III" or bioware asked to make a MP part for DA3, EA will hand over additional money along with the already promised budget for the game.
Now, if EA doesn't add more to the budget and greenlights the MP part, yes this will hinder the game.
If Bioware, with it's new budget, uses the same employes and forces them to work on the MP component instead of the SP part and still have the same deadline without the MP part, then yes that would take away from SP.

If bioware had a new budget (SP + the new budget for the MP component), hired new people or used a different bioware team to help them with making the MP while keeping the people who are working on SP to stay working on SP...well this would not cause a problem at all. It would mean more workforce, and more content.