275 réponses à ce sujet

[Shaigunjoe]

iakus wrote...

Shaigunjoe wrote...

iakus wrote...

Apologies, I was referring just to to old republic flashpoints.  

I just consider the possiblity of reducing the word budget for companions because "They add nothing to multiplayer games" to be an all-too-real possibility.

Yea, if you really like the companion banter then I can see that being a problem, but personally I only think about 20% of it was good, and the witty banter with my friends is way better.

And to me, companion banter is the best part of just about any Bioware game.

Listening to someone else on headphones while playing a Dragon Age game would be a massive immersion-breaker for me. 

I'd rather run with Alistair, Wynne, and Leliana than three humans.  I'll save that for my D&D campaign.

Your saying the poor writing and animation make you immersed?   Wow, low standards. It was much better in the older games, where you didn't have to watch them talking.

[GodChildInTheMachine]

At the very least, it should be pretty easy for them to create drop-in-drop-out coop similar to what existed in Baldur's Gate. That's a great MP solution in my opinion - it wouldn't take as many resources as developing a separate component such as ME3 had, and it would allow you to bring a friend along for the ride. If you gave the additional player(s) control over NPC party members, you could still have full access to dialogue and plot content.

Otherwise, MP simply doesn't belong in a single-player focused RPG. If it's going to be well executed in the game, it has to be part of the core concept and have the game built around it. Think Dark Souls. There is no other way it can be included without simply being tacked on. ME3's multiplayer really doesn't offer anything you can't get from Gears of War Horde mode, especially once the next one comes out. In my opinion, if it's going to be some kind of imitation or second-best attempt at something, it shouldn't even be tried. You don't make a good game by including features 'just because'; if you are going to do something, you have to do it right and make it the best you possibly can.

BioWare is immensely focused on providing the best 'cinematic' experience they can, even to the neglect of depth in gameplay and narrative quality. This is, ironically, a total paradigm shift from where their roots lie. One of the biggest problems I had with ME3 is that they put their focus on the cinematic elements, and in those they did what they set out to, but it seemed like they included most everything else as nominal requisites instead of making them great. The combat was pretty derivative, there was very little thought put into populating the game outside of cut scenes with meaningful and substantial experiences, and the multiplayer may as well have been a separately released GoW Horde clone.

This post is kind of rambling, but my point is this. Multiplayer, like any aspect of gameplay, requires a certain amount of heart to be done in a way that is fun, memorable, and competitive with similar experiences. BioWare is steadily going in the direction of making games that are basically sequences of interactive cut scenes with nominal gameplay elements tacked on. You can tell where they have their focus. I don't dislike MP in RPGs and when it's done well it can be brilliant. However, BioWare just doesn't have the 'heart' for it, so I really doubt that they could create MP for DA:I without it feeling ancillary and second-class. So, in my opinion, they shouldn't do it.

I highly doubt, however, that EA is in any way concerned with intangible things like 'heart' and 'artistic focus'. Unfortunately, BioWare is a part of EA, so they will basically just do anything they think will make a few bucks. If this includes some kind of hand-me-down, microtransaction fueled MP element in DA:I, then that is where they will put their resources.

[Iakus]

Shaigunjoe wrote...
Your saying the poor writing and animation make you immersed?   Wow, low standards. It was much better in the older games, where you didn't have to watch them talking.

Insult.  Dismissive attitude.  Yeah, we're done talking

[Shaigunjoe]

iakus wrote...

Shaigunjoe wrote...
Your saying the poor writing and animation make you immersed?   Wow, low standards. It was much better in the older games, where you didn't have to watch them talking.

Insult.  Dismissive attitude.  Yeah, we're done talking

It was actually neither of those, but it seems you have run out of things to say.

[LinksOcarina]

Shaigunjoe wrote...

iakus wrote...

Apologies, I was referring just to to old republic flashpoints.  

I just consider the possiblity of reducing the word budget for companions because "They add nothing to multiplayer games" to be an all-too-real possibility.

Yea, if you really like the companion banter then I can see that being a problem, but personally I only think about 20% of it was good, and the witty banter with my friends is way better.

I'm sorry, but what does companion banter have to do with multiplayer exactly? 

[Shaigunjoe]

GodChildInTheMachine wrote...

At the very least, it should be pretty easy for them to create drop-in-drop-out coop similar to what existed in Baldur's Gate. That's a great MP solution in my opinion - it wouldn't take as many resources as developing a separate component such as ME3 had, and it would allow you to bring a friend along for the ride. If you gave the additional player(s) control over NPC party members, you could still have full access to dialogue and plot content.

Otherwise, MP simply doesn't belong in a single-player focused RPG. If it's going to be well executed in the game, it has to be part of the core concept and have the game built around it. Think Dark Souls. There is no other way it can be included without simply being tacked on. ME3's multiplayer really doesn't offer anything you can't get from Gears of War Horde mode, especially once the next one comes out. In my opinion, if it's going to be some kind of imitation or second-best attempt at something, it shouldn't even be tried. You don't make a good game by including features 'just because'; if you are going to do something, you have to do it right and make it the best you possibly can.

BioWare is immensely focused on providing the best 'cinematic' experience they can, even to the neglect of depth in gameplay and narrative quality. This is, ironically, a total paradigm shift from where their roots lie. One of the biggest problems I had with ME3 is that they put their focus on the cinematic elements, and in those they did what they set out to, but it seemed like they included most everything else as nominal requisites instead of making them great. The combat was pretty derivative, there was very little thought put into populating the game outside of cut scenes with meaningful and substantial experiences, and the multiplayer may as well have been a separately released GoW Horde clone.

This post is kind of rambling, but my point is this. Multiplayer, like any aspect of gameplay, requires a certain amount of heart to be done in a way that is fun, memorable, and competitive with similar experiences. BioWare is steadily going in the direction of making games that are basically sequences of interactive cut scenes with nominal gameplay elements tacked on. You can tell where they have their focus. I don't dislike MP in RPGs and when it's done well it can be brilliant. However, BioWare just doesn't have the 'heart' for it, so I really doubt that they could create MP for DA:I without it feeling ancillary and second-class. So, in my opinion, they shouldn't do it.

I highly doubt, however, that EA is in any way concerned with intangible things like 'heart' and 'artistic focus'. Unfortunately, BioWare is a part of EA, so they will basically just do anything they think will make a few bucks. If this includes some kind of hand-me-down, microtransaction fueled MP element in DA:I, then that is where they will put their resources.

Well put, I whole heartily agree about drop in drop out gameplay of RPG's, it is something I miss dearly, some of my favorite RPGs of all time (FF VI, SoM, BG) all had it, and was loads of fun.

I also agree about the negatives of MP play.  I feel like people miss the point about how the diverted resources hurt the single player experience.  As Alan pointed out several pages ago, if they do MP, then they get more money from the publisher.  In addition, at least how MP was implemented in me3, it generated more revenue for the game and probably gave BW a good idea for an estimate for any DA3 model.  However, what it really comes down to is how it is implemented.  Though, I didn't think that for the most part the MP in ME3 was that bad, I did think it was horrible how it crossed into the single player game.

I do disagree about the combat in ME3 though, I thought it was the best in the series by far.  In ME1 you just became way to powerful, even on the hardest difficulty.  It was still fun, but way unbalanced.  In ME2, you couldn't do anything fun until shields/barriers were down, and when that happened the health dropped so quickly, it was not alot of fun to use powers.  ME3 got it right, with kill order of prime importance, and using the kinect, it was kind of fun yelling at my tv (or my wife actually would, which was a form of co op!).

[ghost_ronin]

I'm going to be a stable and balanced fan and say if its done properly, sure, go mad. If not, dont waste resources on it. By now, i don't know how much of a choice they are given when it comes to big mechanics like these, considering the publishers very public stance on it.

[Iakus]

LinksOcarina wrote...

Shaigunjoe wrote...

iakus wrote...

Apologies, I was referring just to to old republic flashpoints.  

I just consider the possiblity of reducing the word budget for companions because "They add nothing to multiplayer games" to be an all-too-real possibility.

Yea, if you really like the companion banter then I can see that being a problem, but personally I only think about 20% of it was good, and the witty banter with my friends is way better.

I'm sorry, but what does companion banter have to do with multiplayer exactly? 

There's only x amount of space on a disk.  No matter how many resources are allocated, you only have this much room.  You can only fit so many sandwitches in a picnic basket.

If you're going to add multiplayer, that leaves less room for single player content.  Less room for "single player sandwitches"  That can come in the form of fewer quests.  Shorter overall game, or even fewer lines of dialogue.  Stuff is quite likely to get triaged out, not based on story changes, inability to get a system to work, ot lack of resources, but simply because they packed too much stuff, and something has to go.

[Iakus]

Shaigunjoe wrote...

iakus wrote...

Shaigunjoe wrote...
Your saying the poor writing and animation make you immersed?   Wow, low standards. It was much better in the older games, where you didn't have to watch them talking.

Insult.  Dismissive attitude.  Yeah, we're done talking

It was actually neither of those, but it seems you have run out of things to say.

You accused me of having low standards because I liked party banter.  How is that not insulting and dismissive?

[AlanC9]

Shaigunjoe wrote...

Your saying the poor writing and animation make you immersed?   Wow, low standards. It was much better in the older games, where you didn't have to watch them talking.

Why was that better?

Modifié par AlanC9, 12 mai 2013 - 10:51 .

[GodChildInTheMachine]

Shaigunjoe wrote...


I do disagree about the combat in ME3 though, I thought it was the best in the series by far.  In ME1 you just became way to powerful, even on the hardest difficulty.  It was still fun, but way unbalanced.  In ME2, you couldn't do anything fun until shields/barriers were down, and when that happened the health dropped so quickly, it was not alot of fun to use powers.  ME3 got it right, with kill order of prime importance, and using the kinect, it was kind of fun yelling at my tv (or my wife actually would, which was a form of co op!).

Let me kind of rephrase that. When I said that it was derivative, I didn't mean that it was inherently bad on its own merit. I was more trying to get at the idea that it wasn't at all original, and didn't offer something you couldn't get somewhere else. There are so many games out there now, including story-driven RPGs that I consider to be way better than the whole ME series, that these details like combat and multiplayer mechanics become mere throaways unless they can really do something unique, special and thoughtful. Dark Souls and Dragon's Dogma really impressed me as far as third-person action RPG combat goes. ME3 wasn't bad, but it was just kind of 'there'. Again, though you can say it goes back to the focus of the game, because the former two games I mentioned really don't have much in the way of plot or chracters.  

[Il Divo]

AlanC9 wrote...

Shaigunjoe wrote...

Your saying the poor writing and animation make you immersed?   Wow, low standards. It was much better in the older games, where you didn't have to watch them talking.

Why was that better?

^ Pretty much this.

Edit: And just to add, what "older games" (plural)? Baldur's Gate had virtually no conversations of any kind between companions, excluding repeated lines, and Neverwinter Nights was probably Bioware's single worst OC to date (virtually no companions). That leaves Baldur's Gate 2, since any game past that we've now reached full VA (KotOR onwards).   

Modifié par Il Divo, 13 mai 2013 - 12:35 .

[Shaigunjoe]

iakus wrote...

Shaigunjoe wrote...

iakus wrote...

Shaigunjoe wrote...
Your saying the poor writing and animation make you immersed?   Wow, low standards. It was much better in the older games, where you didn't have to watch them talking.

Insult.  Dismissive attitude.  Yeah, we're done talking

It was actually neither of those, but it seems you have run out of things to say.

You accused me of having low standards because I liked party banter.  How is that not insulting and dismissive?

Having low standards is not an insult, it is purly subjective.  It wasn't really an accusation, because I don't think there is anything wrong with low standards, do you?

I have low standards on some things, it isn't a big deal.  Different strokes for different folks and what not.

It wasn't so much that you liked party banter that I found surprising, only that it added to immersion.  I feel like I can understand how people might like it in a 'so bad its good' kind of way.

[Shaigunjoe]

AlanC9 wrote...

Shaigunjoe wrote...

Your saying the poor writing and animation make you immersed?   Wow, low standards. It was much better in the older games, where you didn't have to watch them talking.

Why was that better?

Because the animation of it happening just makes it look incredibly goofy, better left in my imagination.

[LinksOcarina]

iakus wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

Shaigunjoe wrote...

iakus wrote...

Apologies, I was referring just to to old republic flashpoints.  

I just consider the possiblity of reducing the word budget for companions because "They add nothing to multiplayer games" to be an all-too-real possibility.

Yea, if you really like the companion banter then I can see that being a problem, but personally I only think about 20% of it was good, and the witty banter with my friends is way better.

I'm sorry, but what does companion banter have to do with multiplayer exactly? 

There's only x amount of space on a disk.  No matter how many resources are allocated, you only have this much room.  You can only fit so many sandwitches in a picnic basket.

If you're going to add multiplayer, that leaves less room for single player content.  Less room for "single player sandwitches"  That can come in the form of fewer quests.  Shorter overall game, or even fewer lines of dialogue.  Stuff is quite likely to get triaged out, not based on story changes, inability to get a system to work, ot lack of resources, but simply because they packed too much stuff, and something has to go.

Talk about doom and gloom. Aren't you just assuming that is what will be changed or removed by the way? Assuming that no resources will be allocated and switched around to accomodate something? 

And you can just add more disks, you know. I know its somewhat passe in this modern world where we mostly download stuff, but if we need the room lets do it, so no content is "sacrificed."

[Shaigunjoe]

GodChildInTheMachine wrote...

Shaigunjoe wrote...


I do disagree about the combat in ME3 though, I thought it was the best in the series by far.  In ME1 you just became way to powerful, even on the hardest difficulty.  It was still fun, but way unbalanced.  In ME2, you couldn't do anything fun until shields/barriers were down, and when that happened the health dropped so quickly, it was not alot of fun to use powers.  ME3 got it right, with kill order of prime importance, and using the kinect, it was kind of fun yelling at my tv (or my wife actually would, which was a form of co op!).

Let me kind of rephrase that. When I said that it was derivative, I didn't mean that it was inherently bad on its own merit. I was more trying to get at the idea that it wasn't at all original, and didn't offer something you couldn't get somewhere else. There are so many games out there now, including story-driven RPGs that I consider to be way better than the whole ME series, that these details like combat and multiplayer mechanics become mere throaways unless they can really do something unique, special and thoughtful. Dark Souls and Dragon's Dogma really impressed me as far as third-person action RPG combat goes. ME3 wasn't bad, but it was just kind of 'there'. Again, though you can say it goes back to the focus of the game, because the former two games I mentioned really don't have much in the way of plot or chracters.  

Oh I see, for some reason I thought you just meant the ME series.  It is very visceral combat, but I am trying hard to think of a scifi game that has had better or simply more enjoyable squad shooting mechanics.  Maybe Metroid Prime?  No squad there though.  Would y

I have no idea about dragon's dogma or dark souls, but I played a lot of demon's souls.  I felt the combat was incredibily sparse, I used the bow/spear combo like 90% of the game.  Don't get me wrong, I did enjoy the game quite a bit, but not really for the combat mechanics, more so for the atmosphere and fun exploration elements. It reminded me a lot of older RPGs, like the original dragon's quest or some of the 8 bit dungeon crawlers so I didn't feel inhertily original to me though I am getting pretty old now so maybe it is new to you.  I skipped on Dark Souls though because I thought it would be fairly similiar to Demon's Souls, is that not the case?

[Shaigunjoe]

LinksOcarina wrote...

iakus wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

Shaigunjoe wrote...

iakus wrote...

Apologies, I was referring just to to old republic flashpoints.  

I just consider the possiblity of reducing the word budget for companions because "They add nothing to multiplayer games" to be an all-too-real possibility.

Yea, if you really like the companion banter then I can see that being a problem, but personally I only think about 20% of it was good, and the witty banter with my friends is way better.

I'm sorry, but what does companion banter have to do with multiplayer exactly? 

There's only x amount of space on a disk.  No matter how many resources are allocated, you only have this much room.  You can only fit so many sandwitches in a picnic basket.

If you're going to add multiplayer, that leaves less room for single player content.  Less room for "single player sandwitches"  That can come in the form of fewer quests.  Shorter overall game, or even fewer lines of dialogue.  Stuff is quite likely to get triaged out, not based on story changes, inability to get a system to work, ot lack of resources, but simply because they packed too much stuff, and something has to go.

Talk about doom and gloom. Aren't you just assuming that is what will be changed or removed by the way? Assuming that no resources will be allocated and switched around to accomodate something? 

And you can just add more disks, you know. I know its somewhat passe in this modern world where we mostly download stuff, but if we need the room lets do it, so no content is "sacrificed."

Indeed, and more discs is not something BW has avoided in the past.

Iakus, just out of curiosity, do you feel that the PS3 should be the only system they should develop on?  As it smacks around the xbox discs as far as capacity is concerned.

[Il Divo]

LinksOcarina wrote...

Talk about doom and gloom. Aren't you just assuming that is what will be changed or removed by the way? Assuming that no resources will be allocated and switched around to accomodate something? 

It is an assumption, but that's not really a problem if (as a consumer), Iakus is fairly good at identifying what he does and does not want from his games. Alot of gamers simply find multiplayer unappealing, period. And there's nothing inherently wrong with that. Which means in a best case scenario, it simply does not detract from their experience. Worst case scenario, developers deal with limited resources, which can potentially impact a single-player campaign as well as they struggle with deadlines, etc. This is particularly problematic with games where the multiplayer feels tacked on and therefore a waste of resources (Ex: Spec Ops: The Line).

It's not about doom and gloom as much as recognizing that gamers typically lobby for features which they want to see in games, not features which they either actively dislike or have no intention of using.

[Iakus]

Shaigunjoe wrote...

Indeed, and more discs is not something BW has avoided in the past.

Iakus, just out of curiosity, do you feel that the PS3 should be the only system they should develop on?  As it smacks around the xbox discs as far as capacity is concerned.

Biowre can develop on any platform they want.  I'm on a PC and am quite familiar with dealing with lots of disks.

What I don't want is for Bioware to remove one scene, one line of dialogue, due to space constraints thanks to multiplayer.  if they try and squash SP and MP into the same space that a single game is meant for, one, the other, or both will suffer. 

That's why I think a MP component should be either on a separate disk, or be a separate day one download.  If one doesn't impact the other, then they shouldn't even touch each other.

[Shaigunjoe]

iakus wrote...

Shaigunjoe wrote...

Indeed, and more discs is not something BW has avoided in the past.

Iakus, just out of curiosity, do you feel that the PS3 should be the only system they should develop on?  As it smacks around the xbox discs as far as capacity is concerned.

Biowre can develop on any platform they want.  I'm on a PC and am quite familiar with dealing with lots of disks.

What I don't want is for Bioware to remove one scene, one line of dialogue, due to space constraints thanks to multiplayer.  if they try and squash SP and MP into the same space that a single game is meant for, one, the other, or both will suffer. 

That's why I think a MP component should be either on a separate disk, or be a separate day one download.  If one doesn't impact the other, then they shouldn't even touch each other.

Then why are you so worried? DAO:UE had a total xbox install of around 10.5 gb, far sort of the 18 gb two discs provide.  DA2 had around 6.1 gb of the 9 gb an xbox discs provide.  ME3 had 14/18 (In which they added some on disc dlc assets that people where oh so fond of)  What game is there where single player content was cut due to disc size to make room for more multiplayer content?  Why are you so spooked about this?

[ElitePinecone]

Twisted Path wrote...
It's sad to see franchises that I enjoyed going in that direction. I don't know about Dragon Age but I think the next Mass Effect game will definitly be a straight forward shooter where the single player campaign is a tutorial for multiplayer.

Edit: With Mass Effect 3 the single player campaign really sucked but most people love the multiplayer so I think that's where the franchise will go. Which leaves people like me who just wanted to play a Space Opera RPG out of luck.

I'm having a hard time even understanding your mindset here, it seems so unreasonably pessimistic.

Do you seriously consider that the entire ME3 campaign was a waste of time? Ending aside, that it had absolutely no standout features or storytelling moments? More to the point, does your claim that "everyone hated the singleplayer" come from actual data, or a gut feeling relating to those who yelled loudest in March 2012?

Because Bioware have actual, y'know, numbers, and the developers at Montreal working on the next ME have already stated that it will be largely similar to its predecessors, at least in the style of game and themes.

As for DA3, it's a bit nonsensical to suggest that a franchise which was successful as a deep RPG would suddenly turn around and become a multiplayer killfest at the drop of a hat. Look around a little at the concept art for the third game, confirmed features and plot outlines, and see if you can maintain that depth of pessimism.

[LinksOcarina]

Il Divo wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

Talk about doom and gloom. Aren't you just assuming that is what will be changed or removed by the way? Assuming that no resources will be allocated and switched around to accomodate something? 

It is an assumption, but that's not really a problem if (as a consumer), Iakus is fairly good at identifying what he does and does not want from his games. Alot of gamers simply find multiplayer unappealing, period. And there's nothing inherently wrong with that. Which means in a best case scenario, it simply does not detract from their experience. Worst case scenario, developers deal with limited resources, which can potentially impact a single-player campaign as well as they struggle with deadlines, etc. This is particularly problematic with games where the multiplayer feels tacked on and therefore a waste of resources (Ex: Spec Ops: The Line).

It's not about doom and gloom as much as recognizing that gamers typically lobby for features which they want to see in games, not features which they either actively dislike or have no intention of using.

Keep in mind that the original developers of Spec Ops didnt even know the game was going to ship with multiplayer, but that is 2Ks fault really.

www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-08-29-yager-spec-ops-multiplayer-was-bullsh-and-should-not-exist

I get the worst case scenario and the fears people have, but considering BioWares track record in implementing and handling multiplayer as a company, I feel it is not justified to be worried yet. 

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 13 mai 2013 - 05:03 .

[keightdee]

Volus Warlord wrote...

keightdee wrote...
... Or a dating sim. 

This would be a deal breaker.  An MP dating sim. That sound horrifying. It hurts to even contemplate it. While I enjoy trolling people's match.com accounts, this would be awful. Truly awful. 

The definition of insane and wonderful!

[GodChildInTheMachine]

Shaigunjoe wrote...



Oh I see, for some reason I thought you just meant the ME series.  It is very visceral combat, but I am trying hard to think of a scifi game that has had better or simply more enjoyable squad shooting mechanics.  Maybe Metroid Prime?  No squad there though.  Would y

I have no idea about dragon's dogma or dark souls, but I played a lot of demon's souls.  I felt the combat was incredibily sparse, I used the bow/spear combo like 90% of the game.  Don't get me wrong, I did enjoy the game quite a bit, but not really for the combat mechanics, more so for the atmosphere and fun exploration elements. It reminded me a lot of older RPGs, like the original dragon's quest or some of the 8 bit dungeon crawlers so I didn't feel inhertily original to me though I am getting pretty old now so maybe it is new to you.  I skipped on Dark Souls though because I thought it would be fairly similiar to Demon's Souls, is that not the case?

Squad based shooters are indeed few, but for certain games like Republic Commando have arguably done it better in the past. I am still stricken by how much the gameplay of ME3 resembles basically any other cover-based TPS, though, and in that realm it is certainly nothing special. If Gears of War had magical abilities it would be worth the whole of ME3 combat and then some. It's not really fair to compare the two, seeing that GoW is built entirely for the combat while ME2 has other things on its mind, but my point is that if someone else is already doing the same thing better, you don't make a good game by taking safe bets and following the beaten path. At least, if you want to provide a novel and meaningful game experience that stands out.

That's my whole point about multiplayer; if they could really build it as an integral part of the game and give it the attention it deserves to be great, they should do it. However, I truly do not believe that they could achieve this, so anything they make will be a second rate variation on a theme. You really can't play ME3 MP without drawing negative comparisons to GoW Horde mode, which is continually being refined into a truly unique and quality experience far above and beyond that of ME3 MP. In that, it doesn't make a place for itself or assert its value. It's a vehicle for micro-transactions and revinue rather than being a labor of love. Talk about something getting old.

I haven't played Demon's Souls, but that Dark Souls is a throw back to old-school games is one thing I like about it. It is totally Castlevania or Zelda. But it is also something completely new. Dark Souls is a rare game where you can clearly see how it was built from the ground up with a singular purpose and artistic vision. It harkens back to old dungeon crawlers on NES or PC where you might spend hours trying to get past that one part, but its art direction, character progression and combat are all unique and purposeful. You really can't find a deeper sandbox for action RPG combat. It isn't perfect, but it is one of the best and that brooks no argument. Talk about a great idea for multiplayer in an RPG, as well. 

As for what is 'new' or 'old', I guess that is subjective based on your experience. I've been around a while too and I've played plenty of shooters and third person action games. Really, neither the combat or multiplayer of ME3 or Dark Souls is doing something all together original, but my ultimate argument here is that it is extremely easy, for me at least, to tell which one has more integrity, heart and vision. In the end, that's what counts for me, and that is what is going to make a stand-out experience amongst all of these competing stimuli, which I think very few would argue Dark Souls' combat and multiplayer achieves and ME3's really does not, though it is not 'bad'.

[Iakus]

Shaigunjoe wrote...

Then why are you so worried? DAO:UE had a total xbox install of around 10.5 gb, far sort of the 18 gb two discs provide.  DA2 had around 6.1 gb of the 9 gb an xbox discs provide.  ME3 had 14/18 (In which they added some on disc dlc assets that people where oh so fond of)  What game is there where single player content was cut due to disc size to make room for more multiplayer content?  Why are you so spooked about this?

If  DA3 has the content and replayability equal to that of DAO I will happilly eat my words.  It's not like I want to be proven right after all.

But somethow, I suspect that if we do get MP, we'll be lucky if it has the length and replayability of DA2