StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Darksider wrote:There are seriously people bitching about this? Why? If you don't like co-op, or don't have anyone to play it with you, play it solo. That's what I do with Gears and CoD.

They've latched on to the notion that putting development time and resources into the co-op multiplayer 'by definition' dilutes the amount of time and resources put into the single player campaign.

So whoever was working in Montreal Bioware could have been assigned to Edmonton Bioware and thus improve the latter by whatever arithmetic they've cooked up. It doesn't occur to these fuckwits that diminishing returns would be in effect and the Edmonton guys already have plenty of people working on the singleplayer. They're just being irrational.

You have to remember the tribalism - these are people obsessed with a single-player, nasty story game. They don't want it to be 'more fun' or 'accessible or 'exciting' or 'modern'. They just want more wish-fulfillment, and their ignorance of multi means they have really stupid ideas about jow multi works, how multi players are mean jocks who give them wedgies, etc.

One of these assholes is posting on SB.com. He's getting pounced pretty hard by the people who find the co-op a good thing. He actually posted a question like "Who asked me? I don't want it."

Riiiight.

Stofsk wrote:

Darksider wrote:There are seriously people bitching about this? Why? If you don't like co-op, or don't have anyone to play it with you, play it solo. That's what I do with Gears and CoD.

So whoever was working in Montreal Bioware could have been assigned to Edmonton Bioware and thus improve the latter by whatever arithmetic they've cooked up. It doesn't occur to these fuckwits that diminishing returns would be in effect and the Edmonton guys already have plenty of people working on the singleplayer. They're just being irrational.

I really want a concrete covered copy of The Mythical Man-Month just so I can give those nigh-solar ultradense fuckwits a dent in the head to remember that that isn't how development works by. The same shit pops up in the World of Tanks community with depressing regularity because they have stuff going in parallel and don't get that they get more stuff with individual releases coming more slowly.

I for one welcome our magical interaction overlords, I mean friends. It'd be cool if a mission or two were semi-split though, with the two characters taking on different roles, for example, with one guy trying to investigate something in semi-standard RPG style while the other guy lurks in the shadows keeping people off his back. That would justify adding a few things specifically. Coop in the main game is awesome though.

Stark wrote:They see multi as a betrayal of Baldurs Gate.

Wait,what?

Baldur's Gate had a co-op campaign...

Right, but it was also a hells-dense RPG-style game with 'tactical' combat based off the worst PnP game ever. The current Bioware stuff is much more action-oriented, aimed at a different (and larger) market, and has been moving away from that slow, numbers-based, dense kind of game. I think that's what the old-timers dislike, and not just because nerds in general refuse to learn new things.

I mean, look at Fallout. It has the amazingly unbalanced VATS system as a sop to nerds who popped a vein thinking about a Fallout game without TACTICAL COMBAT (by which they mean 'really slow combat for pussies'). I think this is why Bioware is babying the nerds so much - which is notable because otherwise they've been happy to say 'shut the fuck up, ME2 sold like a dogs breakfast so we're doing great'.

Small vid with Sylar about ME 3 Multi player

Doesn't really add much other than some pictures.

There's a few more details that have come out about the multiplayer. Yeah, it's basically Gears' Horde mode, but with Mass Effect flavoring. Not necessarily a bad thing.

Hey... like... wow... that sounds kinda awesome. Now, if they just did a wholesale rip off from Gears on how the characters move and "feel", this game should be tits.

Right Stark? Or am I just buying into hype? I need your perspective.

It's the easiest thing they could have done I guess... But most hordes are really bad, and I'm not sure how you'll get any tension with the superpowers you have in ME.

And you never played horde 2 anyway.

Stark wrote:Right, but it was also a hells-dense RPG-style game with 'tactical' combat based off the worst PnP game ever. The current Bioware stuff is much more action-oriented, aimed at a different (and larger) market, and has been moving away from that slow, numbers-based, dense kind of game. I think that's what the old-timers dislike, and not just because nerds in general refuse to learn new things.

I mean, look at Fallout. It has the amazingly unbalanced VATS system as a sop to nerds who popped a vein thinking about a Fallout game without TACTICAL COMBAT (by which they mean 'really slow combat for pussies'). I think this is why Bioware is babying the nerds so much - which is notable because otherwise they've been happy to say 'shut the fuck up, ME2 sold like a dogs breakfast so we're doing great'.

Did...did you really call D&D the worst PnP game ever?

Every edition before 4th with the possible exception of Basic has been a downright bad role-playing system. Actual worse systems than 2e that could have inspired a game would be one: Rifts. Sorry, bro.

It's a long bow to draw because there are infinite terrible pnp games out there. DnD just ruined RPGs (both kinds) for decades with its stupid crap; even now they still try to make computer games based of 4e as if it makes sense. 'Computer RPGS' does not mean 'game uses DnD lookup tables'.

Even Bioware learned that.

They've already had games that are essentially 4e games for close to two decades now; every grid-based SRPG is built on the same basic framework as 4e. Disgaea and Final Fantasy Tactics are pretty much the best 4e games you could want, unless your desires are built on flavor and all that.

I mean games like .. Shit that really brown construction kit one ... where you get to choose from giant lists of 3.5e perks that are all nearly exactly the same. Not just games that use concepts DnD eventually took up when they ditched the amazingly retarded 2e stuff.

ANYWAY wanting computer games to be like pnp games is dumb. Heaps of Bioware fanboys disagree.

Stark wrote:I mean games like .. Shit that really brown construction kit one ... where you get to choose from giant lists of 3.5e perks that are all nearly exactly the same. Not just games that use concepts DnD eventually took up when they ditched the amazingly retarded 2e stuff.

ANYWAY wanting computer games to be like pnp games is dumb. Heaps of Bioware fanboys disagree.

Well, that's what I was going for. The goal isn't to carefully replicate the radius of a fireball or whatever, it's to replicate the feel of the game more than anything. But, you know, people want to be able to see 2d8+3 when they select a weapon, so that's what they get, I guess.

5-19 is too clear and doesn't have any distortions hidden from casual users due to two dice! DUMBED DOWN FOR CONSOLES.

Well, the multiplayer is tied into the Online Pass or whatever BioWare is calling their ME3 equivalent of the Cerberus Network, and the reaction by the masses is as to be expected. Never you mind that every single big title now is tying up some sort of content into a "buy it new or buy it separately" one-time code.

Do you mean tied in ie you can't play without (which seems obvious) or that it connects to the sp in some meta way??

Sorry, I haven't read the links.

If they had any sense at all, console games would code their online passes to use only the AXBY keys on the 360 controller and the equivalent symbols on the PS3. Having to type in a 30-digit alphanumeric code with a controller just to play your game is pretty asinine.

Apart from that... I don't really care?

Then how would they sell chatpads??

Consoles just need an IC reader so you can swipe the case and verify the uid online without typing.

Stark wrote:Do you mean tied in ie you can't play without (which seems obvious) or that it connects to the sp in some meta way??

Sorry, I haven't read the links.

I mean the former, but they are complaining about the latter as well - which just goes to show they didn't bother to read the part that multiplayer isn't even necessary to achieve the "optimal ending" for single-player.

Honestly, I think some of the whiners just saw the headline, and rushed to teh internets with a bunch of pre-prepared arguments and nerd rage without even reading the release.

It's not really news; it's been coming for a long time. They've been practicing their whining for months.

Now i've got a mental image of a fat smelly old guy in cardboard N7 armor screaming into a mirror.

Thank you Stark............