127 réponses à ce sujet

[DaringMoosejaw]

There's no way to convince folks who hate the game right now after all the stuff is released. The only way you're changing their minds is by releasing a great game, and then when everyone starts talking about how great the game was, it will no longer be 'cool' to be a detached cynical narcissist and they'll go along with the crowd.

[Face of Evil]

At this point, there really is no winning over some people. But I have seen some commment that they might make Inquisition their first DA game, which I take as a positive sign.

[MrTijger]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

If the topic didn't use words like "haters" and "detractors" then maybe I would take it seriously. Now it just looks like an attempt to invalidate opinions by attaching emotion to it. This gets really old, Jimmy.

Because there's no emotion involved, right, these folks all make perfectly logical and validated points, the Spocks of the gaming world so to speak when they ask for developers to be fired based on a line in an interview of 5 years ago to name but one example and lets not even go into the death threaths and other fun stuff. Uh huh...right.

[Cutlass Jack]

There is no 'silver bullet.'

To paraphrase DA2, the game could ship with a free bar of gold, and people would complain it was heavy.

[Beerfish]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Beerfish wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...


1) Come out and state there will be zero MP. 

While many fans great enjoy MP, including ME3's experience with it, it is still makes Bioware an easy target for accusations of both "hack-n-slash gameplay" as well as opening the door to microtransactions. 

While the merits of both of these, and MP in general, can be stated and argued, outright taking it off the table will send a message that will shut the mouths of many critics who see it as a direct route to some of the problems ME3 had.

So they should remove mp because a bunch of bone heads accused it of causing me3's ills?  

Yes. They should. 

Cut off the limb before it becomes rotted and kills the whole body.  

One of the stupidst things I've seen on  these forums.  I don't like the Qunari, the fact that they have added them is an afront to me that will wreck the game.  Get rid of them.

[crimzontearz]

Beerfish wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Beerfish wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...


1) Come out and state there will be zero MP. 

While many fans great enjoy MP, including ME3's experience with it, it is still makes Bioware an easy target for accusations of both "hack-n-slash gameplay" as well as opening the door to microtransactions. 

While the merits of both of these, and MP in general, can be stated and argued, outright taking it off the table will send a message that will shut the mouths of many critics who see it as a direct route to some of the problems ME3 had.

So they should remove mp because a bunch of bone heads accused it of causing me3's ills?  

Yes. They should. 

Cut off the limb before it becomes rotted and kills the whole body.  

One of the stupidst things I've seen on  these forums.  I don't like the Qunari, the fact that they have added them is an afront to me that will wreck the game.  Get rid of them.

I am against MP......but in particular that one was not on Bioware

[AtreiyaN7]

There is no silver bullet that will somehow magically inject rationality into anyone who reacts to any news with what amounts to irrational/pathological hatred - well, not unless they start seeing a psychiatrist anyway.

As for the third item on that list, I think it's safe to say that there won't be a modding toolkit. DICE has already stated that Frostbite 3 is quite complicated and doesn't exactly lend itself to modding.

[DragonKingReborn]

I am somewhat vitriolic in my distaste for MP, but can't see how saying "there is NO MP in DA:I will help matters with regard to 'haters' in a global sense. People who wish to complain will find something to complain about. I would LOVE to hear that there is no MP, but failing that, I would LOVE to hear that MP in DA:I has ZERO impact on the SP campaign.

To be honest, I would rather have microtransactions. Give every settlement a Wonders of Thedas store where everyone knows right from the get-go that you can only spend real money in there. Weapons, armour, accessories that are well spec'd and can't ever be found anywhere else in the game - no necessary to win the game, but, you know...cool. Maybe a quest board in the store as well, for mini-DLC. Nothing so big as Legacy or The Stone Prisoner, but just add a quest (literally one). I'd be OK with that.

Day 1 DLC - meh, it's not part of the core game. People need to get over it.

Mod support - again, meh. The tool kit in Origins was fun to play with, and I certainly wouldn't be upset about it being included, but no bothered either way.

TL:DR - Nothing and I do mean nothing, will stop all (or even a majority) of people complaining about Bioware and their various perceived infractions against gaming. As long as MP (if present) does not in any way affect SP, they're not sell outs in my book.

[Vicious]

Nothing and I do mean nothing, will stop all (or even a majority) of people complaining about Bioware

bingo.

People railing against Bioware have railed at them from day one. They are not fans and for the most part are just trolling. 90% of what i;ve seen amounts to: "Bioware makes mediocre to decent games but ME3/DA2 was horrible." Which is just a crock, if they made only average games the bar would be so low nobody would care.  

It's one thing to see impassioned fans say, "well this isn't as good as i thought it was." It's quite another to see people say that they sold their soul, are the suckiest developers to ever suck, they will never touch another game (but must post this obvious lie everywhere they can) etc.

The only magic bullet is a quality game.

And internet psychos will still foam at the mouth and hate it for any reason. See: Skyrim. lauded and much loved when it came out, now everyone who loved it either plays it still or has moved on, leaving mostly folks talking about how 'lackluster' it was... yeah... okay...

Modifié par Vicious, 02 septembre 2013 - 10:16 .

[Angrywolves]

Silver Bullet was a werewolf movie based on a Stephen King story.
No need for a silver bullet.
The objections so far are minor.
Some fans don't like the combat, say it's too much like DA2.
Some fans don't like the restrictions on potions / healing/health regeneration .
Some don't like the red templars/red lyrium storyline.
Some don't like Cole as a possible party member.
Some don't like Cassandra's DAI looks, they preferred her DA2 looks.
There's Morrigan's look in the trailer.
Some people don't like the spellbook idea.
Some people are worried about how the romances will be done.
That's about it.

[Fast Jimmy]

Angrywolves wrote...

Silver Bullet was a werewolf movie based on a Stephen King story.
No need for a silver bullet.
The objections so far are minor.
Some fans don't like the combat, say it's too much like DA2.
Some fans don't like the restrictions on potions / healing/health regeneration .
Some don't like the red templars/red lyrium storyline.
Some don't like Cole as a possible party member.
Some don't like Cassandra's DAI looks, they preferred her DA2 looks.
There's Morrigan's look in the trailer.
Some people don't like the spellbook idea.
Some people are worried about how the romances will be done.
That's about it.

I'd agree that the complaints so far have been minor... but, then again, they haven't said anything to date about the here topics I brought up (except to say there would be no toolkit).

The earlier comments saying "EA won't let them" prove my point on this - people see Bioware as slaves to some EA type of system, where they are lucky to create the game they want and not make their consumers feel alienated. Wouldn't the suggestions I laid out prove that this EA system is NOT the one calling the shots? That Bioware can make the game they want and interact with their fans the way they want? That would, in and of itself, end a lot of criticism and mistrust. 

[Angrywolves]

Forgot about the toolkit.
There's nothing we can do to change that, so people need to just drop it.

[AutumnWitch]

There are certain people in this world who will hate things just because other people like them even if they themselves liked it before themselves. Some people when they hear other people going crazy over a game, a telly show, a film whatever they will automatically hate it without even seeing it just because other people like it. It's mad and there is nothing you can do about it.

Modifié par AutumnWitch, 02 septembre 2013 - 11:24 .

[Narmondil]

There isn't a "silver bullet" that will silence the detractors of a game, and even if there were, it wouldn't be available this late into the development cycle, nor this far in the PR of EA/Bioware.
The best it can be done atm is to simply do the best game you can make, given the planning set years ago. Do a game in line with what you believe is right and then just hope that ppl like it. At least that way, when the inevitable ****storm arrives, you can still have your pride.

I can't, however, disregard the "things are like that now, so stfu" attitude of some posting in this thread. There was a time, (like...5 or 8 years ago for EA or Bioware) when there was mod support since the start of the development and when DLC/Expansions WERE meaningful and not just cash-milkers. There are OTHERS gaming companies that don't use the exact tactics, and guess what, they still make money, so guess what else: you don't need them to actually keep on going as a business. CD project (witchers), Elder Scroll (Oblivion, Skyrim, etc), 2k (Civ 4 and 5) just for naming a few that pop in my mind. No D1DLC, no forced MP, no micro transactions, mod-support, meaninful expansions and/or cosmetic DLC.
So, Frostbite makes it hard to mod? BS, if there are already other games featuring the engine(and more in the forge) a tool-kit could have been made a while ago and reused for the community. I should be happy for paying for a D1DLC that affect the story? BS, cosmetic is fine, a cool adventure is fine, but pay for an important character in a game that I already payed $60? get real. If a business plan NEEDS for ppl to end up paying 100 dollars for a full game to actually win money, guess yet-another-thing, your business model sucks and will cause either a full-blow hate or the closure of your company.

If you don't like mods, that's your thing, but there is proof that mods actually make the game more profitable, make it last longer on the mind of ppl and even serves as a marketing tool to know what ppl is missing in the game (just look at hearthfire from Skyrim to get the drill).

[Angrywolves]

Some people think EA doesn't like mods.
If so, there's nothing we can do about it.

[Azaron Nightblade]

DarkSpider88 wrote...

Even multi-player is fine as long as it no way affects the single player experience. How I want to play ME3 but don't wont to spend hours in multi-player for the galactic readiness bs.

like Tomb Raider, has multi-player an I have never bothered to try it out. I could just ignore its existence.

Where do people keep getting the idea that the galactic readiness was necessary at all?
Before the game came out the devs posted on one of their blogs that you could still get the best ending possible without ever touching the "Galaxy at War" multiplayer - they lived up to that, since the EMS rating was what mattered, not the Galactic readiness. 
Must be some kind of OCD of "Must max out every number that I see!!!!".

[Malanek]

I think they have done as much as they can to silence doubters and raise expectations with the demonstration of an ambitious project. I don't really think they can, or should even try, to go much further. I would like to see multiplayer but I would understand if they don't want to add it for whatever reason. Letting us know either way is fine but doing so to "silence doubters" seems a bit silly to me. What will ultimately silence the doubters (or not) is the game itself, until that time there is no silver bullet. Nor is there the need for one.

[cjones91]

Azaron Nightblade wrote...

DarkSpider88 wrote...

Even multi-player is fine as long as it no way affects the single player experience. How I want to play ME3 but don't wont to spend hours in multi-player for the galactic readiness bs.

like Tomb Raider, has multi-player an I have never bothered to try it out. I could just ignore its existence.

Where do people keep getting the idea that the galactic readiness was necessary at all?
Before the game came out the devs posted on one of their blogs that you could still get the best ending possible without ever touching the "Galaxy at War" multiplayer - they lived up to that, since the EMS rating was what mattered, not the Galactic readiness. 
Must be some kind of OCD of "Must max out every number that I see!!!!".

That's false since the Best Destroy ending required over 5000 war assets which are not attainable during the single player.

[Fast Jimmy]

Angrywolves wrote...

Some people think EA doesn't like mods.
If so, there's nothing we can do about it.

Not true. There's things Bioware can do outside of providing a toolkit that could show support for the modding community. 




I really wish more people would actually read my OP all the way before replying to what they think it says. 

[Malanek]

cjones91 wrote...

Azaron Nightblade wrote...

DarkSpider88 wrote...

Even multi-player is fine as long as it no way affects the single player experience. How I want to play ME3 but don't wont to spend hours in multi-player for the galactic readiness bs.

like Tomb Raider, has multi-player an I have never bothered to try it out. I could just ignore its existence.

Where do people keep getting the idea that the galactic readiness was necessary at all?
Before the game came out the devs posted on one of their blogs that you could still get the best ending possible without ever touching the "Galaxy at War" multiplayer - they lived up to that, since the EMS rating was what mattered, not the Galactic readiness. 
Must be some kind of OCD of "Must max out every number that I see!!!!".

That's false since the Best Destroy ending required over 5000 war assets which are not attainable during the single player.

It needed 4000 didn't it? And the only difference in the original was a 3 second, very ambiguois, cutscene. Yes, it was silly to limit it to multiplayer only but it was hardly the end of the world. They learned their lesson from that and changed it in the free extended cut.

[Cainhurst Crow]

I have yet to see anyone on other sites complain about day 1 dlc for dragon age. I have yet to see anyone on other sites complain about multiplayer. I have yet to see anyone complain about modding toolkits outside of the bsn.

You know what I have heard people complain about?

ME3 DA2 SWTOR, ME3 DA2 SWTOR, ME3 DA2 SWTOR, ME3 DA2 SWTOR, ME3 DA2 SWTOR, ME3 DA2 SWTOR,
ME3 DA2 SWTOR, ME3 DA2 SWTOR, ME3 DA2 SWTOR, ME3 DA2 SWTOR, ME3 DA2 SWTOR,ME3 DA2 SWTOR,
ME3 DA2 SWTOR, ME3 DA2 SWTOR, ME3 DA2 SWTOR, ME3 DA2 SWTOR, ME3 DA2 SWTOR, ME3 DA2 SWTOR, ME3 DA2 SWTOR, ME3 DA2 SWTOR, ME3 DA2 SWTOR,

Ad Nauseaum

So short of bioware remaking those titles, these people won't stop complaining, ever.

Modifié par Darth Brotarian, 03 septembre 2013 - 12:46 .

[Angrywolves]

Ok fast jimmy I apologise .
What support did you have in mind?

[Medhia Nox]

You silence complaints by using literal silver bullets.

That's what video games taught me anyway.

[cjones91]

Malanek999 wrote...

cjones91 wrote...

Azaron Nightblade wrote...

DarkSpider88 wrote...

Even multi-player is fine as long as it no way affects the single player experience. How I want to play ME3 but don't wont to spend hours in multi-player for the galactic readiness bs.

like Tomb Raider, has multi-player an I have never bothered to try it out. I could just ignore its existence.

Where do people keep getting the idea that the galactic readiness was necessary at all?
Before the game came out the devs posted on one of their blogs that you could still get the best ending possible without ever touching the "Galaxy at War" multiplayer - they lived up to that, since the EMS rating was what mattered, not the Galactic readiness. 
Must be some kind of OCD of "Must max out every number that I see!!!!".

That's false since the Best Destroy ending required over 5000 war assets which are not attainable during the single player.

It needed 4000 didn't it? And the only difference in the original was a 3 second, very ambiguois, cutscene. Yes, it was silly to limit it to multiplayer only but it was hardly the end of the world. They learned their lesson from that and changed it in the free extended cut.

The point remains. The best ending was impossible to get without multiplayer and the ME3 team spent months denying it until Chris Priestly closed the thread and saying "We did'nt lie".