kael013 said:
And you DO NOT have to play it to get the best singleplayer ending! So [i/]please[/i] shut up and let the rest of us go back to deluding ourselves into thinking that humanity is actually smart.
Also, it was really hard to read this article with that image.
You don't HAVE to let me convince you not to delude yourself. You're perfectly capable of tuning out any negativity that you choose. So PLEASE shut up and let the rest of us go back to criticizing them for making stupid PR decisions!
See? "I don't want to understand your side of the argument, so PBBBBBT!" Doesn't really hold up as an argument, does it? It doesn't resolve anything or bring about understanding, it's just childish.
There's
always a separate team for the single-player and a separate team for the multiplayer. It doesn't matter if they have two studios working on it or not, there's only so much budget to go around, and the tech team that both sides have to report back to has to screw around with a lot of networking tech in addition to the main engine driving the game, which they've previously stated is getting a big overhaul. It's no wonder the game had to be delayed, but the real point is, resources are resources. That extra manpower costs something--very notably something that I hear was diverted from the budget of Dragon Age 2.
ThriKreen said:
And what would have happened had they reported "Hey, we're looking at adding MP to the game"? You'd get people crying about diverting resources, or being hyped up over it but then what happens if they tested it out and decided it wasn't worth the work, and then reported "Yeah, multiplayer isn't happening."?
Damned if you do, damned if you don't. At least not reporting it right away until it's set in stone might help temper unrealistic expectations. Which is a pretty common occurrence of the players.
So, you aren't trying to justify adding multiplayer, you're trying to justify Bioware lying about adding multiplayer. It seems like your goals in this argument are a might bit misplaced.
First, as someone else pointed out, they didn't have to outright lie about it when rumors about it initially popped up. They didn't have to confirm it if the development situation was fluid at the time, but they didn't have to outright deny it either--which is what they chose to do.
Second, the fan rage started when the rumor mill began churning. They had plenty of time to see this reaction coming, but chose to ignore the simmering caldera building up underneath them instead of address it directly and try to manage it while it was just starting to build up. If we go with your alternate universe where they made this reveal earlier, yes, they would have had a shotgun full of fan rage to deal with... but it'd just be about the multiplayer then, not about multiplayer
and about lying.
Also, they'd have given themselves much more time to manage it and win people over, show them that it's actually worth a shit and start a dialogue with the community they're trying to start, remembering that multiplayer is
about community. Epic Games? They have a very,
very direct dialogue with their fanbase, such that the lead multiplayer level designer interacts directly with beta members and players alike--something they've asserted has saved many levels of their games from being unplayable messes.
Instead of clam up and ignore the concerns fans were raising until the very last minute, showing them a lot of disrespect in the process, they could have said, "well, we're adding multiplayer, so what would you guys like in a multiplayer mode for Mass Effect?" Even if that tactic had churned out loads of bad ideas from fans--and it's their job to be able to mete out poor criticism from good--their situation would be a lot better. By now, mere months before ME3's release, we'd have acclimated to it at the very least and accepted it at the very most, maybe even gotten excited. Instead, they're only
just starting to deal with this problem, which is really bad PR.