160 réponses à ce sujet

[LinksOcarina]

Ravensword wrote...

Ah, the Sims 4. Can we expect withheld features to be released piecemeal via expansion pacts over the next several years after it's released?

Do we assume pieces are being witheld on purpose, or they are pre-planned as expansions per what Maxis wants to give people?

There is a difference, mind you. 

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 19 décembre 2013 - 05:42 .

[Iakus]

LinksOcarina wrote...

Sims 4 is confirmed single player only, it will be released next year as such. So since that statement they have a game that is completely single player. 

As far as I'm concerned, it's not confirmed until it's released. Bioware waited until nearly the very last minute to spring MP on us with ME3, after all.

I don't suppose you have an example of a game that has actually been released and played by the public yet?

Being released now or later is semantical and a pointless argument. Not to mention the fact that it still misses the point of what Gibeau is saying.

sometimes I wonder if people can see the forest from the trees...

The fact that you can only find a single game that hasn't been released yet as a counter is rather telling...

[crimzontearz]

So not only do you not have anything, implied or otherwise, to support your claim, you also admit that the delay was actually a good thing for the game. What are we discussing here? That EA doesn't give delays unless it's for multiplayer? Then explain Inquisition's extra year it was given.

I don't see much of a point to this discussion.

inquisition us their chance to let me build sone faith in them (as long as it gas NG+ LOL)

Hey, I'm aware that there's no changing your mind, but that's a shady way of handling accusations without proof, as well as some proof suggesting otherwise.

no...what I am saying is that only THEY can prove it, but in similar instances with DA2 they got caught lying through their teeth (and you KNOW it) so all I am saying us unless another Inon Zur rats them out we will never know

I am glad it impressed you then at least. Although my job is to inform and promote ideas, not impress people with my work.

As for why you play games, if that is such a problem, then why not move onto a handheld console then? If you haven't noticed, most companies are adopting the gaming as a service model, which is pretty much what Gibeau was saying a year ago EA is doing in promoting socilization and multiplayer.

If it really bothers you so much, of course. Then again I can never fathom why people don't want to play online sometimes. Socialization with a game is just as healthy as personal recreation, especailly when games are tailor made with production values and gameplay that promote socilization, like Destiny is doing.

No, because THANK GOD there are triple A level companies that still produce what I like. In the foreseeable future we have: Fallout 4, the new ES game, Deus Ex (the expanded universe one), Shadow of Mordor, The Witcher 3, Cyberpunk, MGS phantom pain/ground Zeroes...to name a few.

Do I have to socialize when I read a book? No, I CAN but I do not have to. Do I have to socialize when I watch a movie? No...again I CAN but I do not have to. The same I seek from my games for I play them for the same reasons as I would read a book/watch a movie

[LinksOcarina]

iakus wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

Sims 4 is confirmed single player only, it will be released next year as such. So since that statement they have a game that is completely single player. 

As far as I'm concerned, it's not confirmed until it's released. Bioware waited until nearly the very last minute to spring MP on us with ME3, after all.

I don't suppose you have an example of a game that has actually been released and played by the public yet?

Being released now or later is semantical and a pointless argument. Not to mention the fact that it still misses the point of what Gibeau is saying.

sometimes I wonder if people can see the forest from the trees...

The fact that you can only find a single game that hasn't been released yet as a counter is rather telling...

I don't give a damn about what you prefer. I deal with facts, not assumptions. your ignorance does not dissprove the facts given at this time. 

There is also this tidbit. I personally never saw an issue with an online pass since it was only meant to curb re-sale and the used market, which is a whole other issue, but they killed it several months back due to negative feedback.  

But again, missing the point. I don't know why I bother sometimes. 

[LinksOcarina]

crimzontearz wrote...

No, because THANK GOD there are triple A level companies that still produce what I like. In the foreseeable future we have: Fallout 4, the new ES game, Deus Ex (the expanded universe one), Shadow of Mordor, The Witcher 3, Cyberpunk, MGS phantom pain/ground Zeroes...to name a few.

Do I have to socialize when I read a book? No, I CAN but I do not have to. Do I have to socialize when I watch a movie? No...again I CAN but I do not have to. The same I seek from my games for I play them for the same reasons as I would read a book/watch a movie

Well if thats what you like play it. No one is stopping you. Bemoaning that something has a component you disagree with does nothing in the end. Makes you look foolish and impetuous. 

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 19 décembre 2013 - 05:51 .

[Iakus]

LinksOcarina wrote...

I don't give a damn about what you prefer. I deal with facts, not assumptions. your ignorance does not dissprove the facts given at this time. 

There is also this tidbit. I personally never saw an issue with an online pass since it was only meant to curb re-sale and the used market, which is a whole other issue, but they killed it several months back due to negative feedback.  

But again, missing the point. I don't know why I bother sometimes. 

Then please, illuminate us ignorant peasants with your wisdom.  What is "the point"?

[crimzontearz]

Well if thats what you like play it. No one is stopping you. Bemoaning that something has a component you disagree with does nothing in the end. Makes you look foolish and impetuous.

You are missing the point of this component being forced on me to completely enjoy my experience which is otherwise not related to it.

Do I bemoan the fact ME3 has MP? No, but it became an issue when it was required for the breath scene. Do I care that destiny tries to make people socialize? No, as long as my personal experience with the story-mode of the game us not affected (read missions designed to be too hard to be done solo to push people to coop).

Similarly, I love Crysis, do I like its multiplayer? No. Do I care that it us there? No as it us not imposed on me to completely enjoy the campaign.

[eyezonlyii]

I just wan to say that I personally have nothing against a multiplayer aspect of a game, I DO however have a problem when I am FORCED to play multiplayer in order to not enhance my single player experience, but rather to complete it. That I feel is not right especially if one is told repeatedly that that wouldn't be the case.

In any event, ME3 multiplayer has opened my eyes a bit. I used to never play online because 1) I knew I was garbage and didn't want to have to deal with that and 2) because I never saw the point. Growing up with 3 brothers, I always had to share my games, why would I want to do that as a young adult on my own now?

But everything changed when the fire nation attacked...

No really, some of the flaming MP posts I read made me want to test it out. And now I love it (damn RNG store! All I want is my N7 Slayer and Cerberus defectors! *angrily shakes fist*)

IF there is a multiplayer in the next mass effect, I would actually now like to see a co op, a la Borderlands or GTA4 (haven't played 5 yet, so no idea how that is).

[LinksOcarina]

iakus wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

I don't give a damn about what you prefer. I deal with facts, not assumptions. your ignorance does not dissprove the facts given at this time. 

There is also this tidbit. I personally never saw an issue with an online pass since it was only meant to curb re-sale and the used market, which is a whole other issue, but they killed it several months back due to negative feedback.  

But again, missing the point. I don't know why I bother sometimes. 

Then please, illuminate us ignorant peasants with your wisdom.  What is "the point"?

That the definition of what you consider multiplayer is wrong in the context of what EA said a year ago. As I stated, multiplayer does not mean online capture the flag or team deathmatches. It can mean a co-op component, the collaborative mode seen in Sim City, or simply just the marketplace in Sims 3 or the leaderboards for Mirrors Edge. 

That is the point. If EA is implementing multiplayer for all games, it is not the same type of multiplayer people assume it to be, nor is it a required part of the experience, since you can ignore it completely for games. And as we have seen, single player games are being made, and online passes are out. So really now, the quotation is completely moot.

And as to the bigger point of content in this thread, crimsomtearz has no proof of his assertions, so he should stop parroting bull****, as I said.

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 19 décembre 2013 - 06:13 .

[LinksOcarina]

crimzontearz wrote...

Well if thats what you like play it. No one is stopping you. Bemoaning that something has a component you disagree with does nothing in the end. Makes you look foolish and impetuous.

You are missing the point of this component being forced on me to completely enjoy my experience which is otherwise not related to it.

Do I bemoan the fact ME3 has MP? No, but it became an issue when it was required for the breath scene. Do I care that destiny tries to make people socialize? No, as long as my personal experience with the story-mode of the game us not affected (read missions designed to be too hard to be done solo to push people to coop).

Similarly, I love Crysis, do I like its multiplayer? No. Do I care that it us there? No as it us not imposed on me to completely enjoy the campaign.

If the breath scene is important to you, I see your point. That said, this is why I  always saw the breath scene as an extra in the end by its design. That is something else entirely though. 

Not to mention I never got it on my own playthroughs because I rarely picked destroy. In a way what I see and don't see shouldn't affect the game for me through subjective taste. Again, a whole other discussion.

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 19 décembre 2013 - 06:10 .

[dreamgazer]

You could also get the breath scene by using the free Datapad app, and extra assets through Infiltrator, I believe. It's unfortunate that an external medium was required to bump the readiness up a little bit to see something that could be happening anyway, but MP itself was not "required".

[crimzontearz]

Because you REEEEEEALLY think they will keep online components to non intrusive leader boards? Very doubtful, but as I said, the moment those conditions I named are met I will be GLAD to say you were right Links

[LinksOcarina]

crimzontearz wrote...

Because you REEEEEEALLY think they will keep online components to non intrusive leader boards? Very doubtful, but as I said, the moment those conditions I named are met I will be GLAD to say you were right Links

Fuse was a game with multiplayer attached to it, published by EA, that was about co-op and leaderboards. Admittingly the multiplayer was better than the single player (by design mostly) but you can play through the story and never touch the multiplayer aspect of the game. 

Is co-op intrusive that way?  At this point I am already right by rigid definition of how the mechanics work in the games, because for a game like Fuse, the answer should be seen as no. Not all of them are intrusive, and the ones that are, namely, Sim City, haven't panned out. Containing a multiplayer component, be it co-op, deathmatch, or leaderboards, is kind of irrelevent to what you argued before anyway. 

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 19 décembre 2013 - 06:20 .

[KaiserShep]

crimzontearz wrote...

Do I bemoan the fact ME3 has MP? No, but it became an issue when it was required for the breath scene. Do I care that destiny tries to make people socialize? No, as long as my personal experience with the story-mode of the game us not affected (read missions designed to be too hard to be done solo to push people to coop).

I'm certain that BioWare's learned from the feedback of ME's multiplayer, given that they fixed the requirements to unlock the optimal outcome of each ending. Sure, it's possible that it could happen again, but really, I see the odds as being pretty remote. As of now, it should not be any kind of issue until we know what the game actually entails. 

[crimzontearz]

If the breath scene is important to you, I see your point. That said, this is why I always saw the breath scene as an extra in the end by its design. That is something else entirely though.

Not to mention I never got it on my own playthroughs because I rarely picked destroy. In a way what I see and don't see shouldn't affect the game for me through subjective taste. Again, a whole other discussion.

not the point, but you got what I meant so now you know where I stand

You could also get the breath scene by using the free Datapad app, and extra assets through Infiltrator, I believe. It's unfortunate that an external medium was required to bump the readiness up a little bit to see something that could be happening anyway, but MP itself was not "required".

I use only windows devices so yes to me it was pretty much required, again you are arguing semantics, you know where I stand with it all

[crimzontearz]

Fuse was a game with multiplayer attached to it, published by EA, that was about co-op and leaderboards. Admittingly the multiplayer was better than the single player (by design mostly) but you can play through the story and never touch the multiplayer aspect of the game.

Is co-op intrusive that way?

I meant my Skyrim comment, I know EA publishes such games already (dead space 3 worked like that too)

I'm certain that BioWare's learned from the feedback of ME's multiplayer, given that they fixed the requirements to unlock the optimal outcome of each ending. Sure, it's possible that it could happen again, but really, I see the odds as being pretty remote. As of now, it should not be any kind of issue until we know what the game actually entails.

I doubt they learned much...but hopefully I am wrong

[KaiserShep]

dreamgazer wrote...

You could also get the breath scene by using the free Datapad app, and extra assets through Infiltrator, I believe. It's unfortunate that an external medium was required to bump the readiness up a little bit to see something that could be happening anyway, but MP itself was not "required".

I've been using the N7 HQ thing on this site when I don't feel like playing multiplayer or can't find a good game at the moment, but admittedly, it's only because I'm a points hog and like to get as high a number as I can on the war room console, since the EC and all the DLCs make it irrelevant. 

Modifié par KaiserShep, 19 décembre 2013 - 06:23 .

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

I've alpha tested before. They've got a long way to go. If the models on the screen are anything to go by the thing looks very crude. The final product is going to be beautiful.

Hoping to be able to "squeee" in a year.

[KaiserShep]

crimzontearz wrote...

I'm certain that BioWare's learned from the feedback of ME's multiplayer, given that they fixed the requirements to unlock the optimal outcome of each ending. Sure, it's possible that it could happen again, but really, I see the odds as being pretty remote. As of now, it should not be any kind of issue until we know what the game actually entails.

I doubt they learned much...but hopefully I am wrong

I would have assumed that they did based on the fact that they even revised the ending requirements in the first place. BioWare could have simply extended the ending and kept the threshold exactly the same if they felt like it, but they didn't, because they actually paid attention to the reactions it got.  

[LinksOcarina]

J. Reezy wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

Ravensword wrote...

Ah, the Sims 4. Can we expect withheld features to be released piecemeal via expansion pacts over the next several years after it's released?

Do we assume pieces are being witheld on purpose, or they are pre-planned as expansions per what Maxis wants to give people?

There is a difference, mind you. 

Is there? That seems eerily similar.

for modern times, its actually legal. If they are taking bits out of the game and witholding it, depending on what is taken out can depend on the game functioning properly for people. That is actually grounds for misleading investors on content.  If DLC plans are spelled out, then its all legal so long as the plan is carried out.

For our level, the consumer level, per-planned means extra components to the game that are not necessary, but would not have been made otherwise, or were part of the game and repackaged because they didn't work. Witheld would be the opposite, parts totally necessary to the game that are purposefully withheld. 

Of course, now this depends on subjective taste on what is important or not. Kind of like how people objected to From Ashes but it was planned about a year in advance after the script changes that Javik would have a reduced, almost appendix-like role in the game. That is an example of pre-planned, or at best, retooled to a planned DLC. If Javik was completely essential to the Crucible working, for example, it would then be purposefully withheld.  That is where the difference comes from, or at least should come from. 

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 19 décembre 2013 - 06:32 .

[CronoDragoon]

J. Reezy wrote...

Is there? That seems eerily similar.

Big difference: one is capable of being released with the vanilla game, while the other is just pre-planned material that could not have been fit into the original deadline. It'd be like asking why Awakening isn't in vanilla Origins.

But this is a tricky subject: what does "withheld" mean when talking about content that's produced alongside the vanilla game, but was always planned as DLC (sold separately) and therefore most likely received additional funds to make it happen?

Sometimes fans (not you, but some fans) have this false dichotomy in their head where in the good ol' days "DLC" would have been included with the main game. More likely that content would not have been made at all.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 19 décembre 2013 - 06:33 .

[CoolioThane]

Here's hoping it addresses what 'happened' at the end of ME3.

[PanzerGr3nadier]

durasteel wrote...

It's as if they're afraid if us.

Guess they don't have the luxury to **** up (again).

Still, good to hear something new from ME frontier.

I'm pretty excited to be honest.

Modifié par PanzerGr3nadier, 19 décembre 2013 - 06:46 .

[Iakus]

LinksOcarina wrote...


That the definition of what you consider multiplayer is wrong in the context of what EA said a year ago. As I stated, multiplayer does not mean online capture the flag or team deathmatches. It can mean a co-op component, the collaborative mode seen in Sim City, or simply just the marketplace in Sims 3 or the leaderboards for Mirrors Edge. 

Here is my stance on multiplayer:

I do not want my enjoyment of a game to be dependant on you.  I do not want your enjoyment of a game to be dependant on me.

That is the point. If EA is implementing multiplayer for all games, it is not the same type of multiplayer people assume it to be, nor is it a required part of the experience, since you can ignore it completely for games. And as we have seen, single player games are being made, and online passes are out. So really now, the quotation is completely moot.

One single player game is said to be in the works.  Not exactly the same thing.

As for the rest:  Co-op, deathmatches, colloborative modes, capture the flag, all make me dependant on others to enjoy the game, as well as the reverse. So as far as I'm concerned, they're all the same.

Not that you care what I think

And as to the bigger point of content in this thread, crimsomtearz has no proof of his assertions, so he should stop parroting bull****, as I said.

He has no proof, true.  But he has valid cause for concern.