128 réponses à ce sujet

[vhatever]

JKoopman wrote...

vhatever wrote...

No one says you have to play multiplayer.

Borderlands is an excellent game for co-op or multiplayer.

Borderlands is also a first-person shooter that was designed from the ground up with co-op multiplayer in mind.

EDIT: And incidentally, I hardly ever played it co-op because you get the same "rush rush get through the dialog so we can get back to the action" feeling as I mentioned in Fable II. I'd be taking my time reading though all the quest descriptions and meanwhile my partner would be bunny-hopping around the room like a coked-up terrier pestering me with "Are you done yet? Are you done yet? Are you done yet?"...

Borderlands is as much of an RPG as ME2 is, sorry. Having a conversation wheel doesn't an RPG make. It's an action RPG, plain and simple, light on writing/dialogue.

[lazuli]

JKoopman wrote...

Borderlands is also a first-person shooter that was designed from the ground up with co-op multiplayer in mind.

And yet it still doesn't work (PC).

Regardless, I think it would be fun to have someone else play as a squad member.  You'd have to be able to put up with a lot of pausing though.  I guess some of the D-pad could be relegated to extra powers in the case of co-op for Xbox users.

Mass Effect definitely doesn't need a competitive multiplayer mode.  Imagine the balancing required for biotics in pvp.

If Mass Effect were ever to feature multiplayer, I'd want it to be on par with the cooperative multiplayer in, say, Gladius or something.  It wouldn't be a huge selling point, just a nifty feature during the action parts of the game.

[KitsuneRommel]

JKoopman wrote...
EDIT: And incidentally, I hardly ever played it co-op because you get the same "rush rush get through the dialog so we can get back to the action" feeling as I mentioned in Fable II. I'd be taking my time reading though all the quest descriptions and meanwhile my partner would be bunny-hopping around the room like a coked-up terrier pestering me with "Are you done yet? Are you done yet? Are you done yet?"...

Play with your friends and that problem is solved. It has a legion of other multiplayer related problems though.

[Elvis_Mazur]

If they make it as a DLC and after ME3 is released and like the Horde mode from Gears of War 2 i don't see why not.

[lazuli]

vhatever wrote...


Borderlands is as much of an RPG as ME2 is, sorry. Having a conversation wheel doesn't an RPG make. It's an action RPG, plain and simple, light on writing/dialogue.

I would argue the emphasis on character development and plot in ME2 tilts it a bit further towards, shall we say, "pure" RPG than Borderlands.

[TJSolo]

vhatever wrote...

TJSolo wrote...

vhatever wrote...

No one says you have to play multiplayer.

Borderlands is an excellent game for co-op or multiplayer.

MP and CO-OP is fun for games designed for it. Combat focus not story focus.
ME is not Borderlands.

You can have combat AND story. There is no video game law against it. They are not mutually exclusive.


I don't know where people come up with this stuff.

Where did I state combat and story are mutually exclusive? I did not.
My point is when a game is focused on story it results in content players enjoy at different paces; non-combat character interactions and extended pauses/breaks from combat.

There are too many intervals in a game like ME that would leave a CO-OP player twiddlling their thumbs.

[JKoopman]

KitsuneRommel wrote...

JKoopman wrote...
EDIT: And incidentally, I hardly ever played it co-op because you get the same "rush rush get through the dialog so we can get back to the action" feeling as I mentioned in Fable II. I'd be taking my time reading though all the quest descriptions and meanwhile my partner would be bunny-hopping around the room like a coked-up terrier pestering me with "Are you done yet? Are you done yet? Are you done yet?"...

Play with your friends and that problem is solved. It has a legion of other multiplayer related problems though.

Where did I say I wasn't? Perhaps I just have impatient friends...

[TheShogunOfHarlem]

It's my opinion that multiplayer is slowly killing the single-player experience and lazy developers are letting it happen. I have very little interest in most MP games because they virtually all cater to the "run 'n gun" crowd thus there is little strategy employed. The way I see too many of my favorite game series are getting less interesting to play because they spend most of their efforts in expanding the longevity of their games with a good MP mode and stifling any innovation in their SP mode. Don't even get me started on SP length. It seems that most SP games have an average gameplay time 5-7 hours.



Mass Effect 1 and 2 are the only games in my library that I have and still play continuously after beating them. There is really no need to add a MP game that will only mean that they will spend less time and effort making a great single player. Especially since so many MP modes are lousy or incredibly overrated.



The only criteria for a good MP are:

1. That it would be a tactical shooter. I HATE RUN AND GAMES!

2. They need to bring back Crouch and incorporate Prone.

3. It should be released well after the Mass Effect storyline is complete.

4. We need really big detailed maps.

5. Vehicles and destructible environments are a must.

[Jsmith0730]

I would love to see a standalone Mako game that let's you explore planets in an uncharted portion of the galaxy. Larger, more varied planet maps, multiple types of enemies (beasts, pirates, etc) and the upgradeable Mako.

Throw in a little plot about being part of some kind of survey team and you end up planet hopping chasing the main story/antagonist or whatever.

That could have awesome PvP potential as well.

Modifié par Jsmith0730, 30 avril 2010 - 09:56 .

[only1sgop]

JKoopman wrote...

KitsuneRommel wrote...

JKoopman wrote...
EDIT: And incidentally, I hardly ever played it co-op because you get the same "rush rush get through the dialog so we can get back to the action" feeling as I mentioned in Fable II. I'd be taking my time reading though all the quest descriptions and meanwhile my partner would be bunny-hopping around the room like a coked-up terrier pestering me with "Are you done yet? Are you done yet? Are you done yet?"...

Play with your friends and that problem is solved. It has a legion of other multiplayer related problems though.

Where did I say I wasn't? Perhaps I just have impatient friends...

Agreed. Then it wouldn't be a single player RPG of the year quality type game anymore. And yes, if you have a friend who does that they probably are more into COD or Halo.

[SilasWolfe]

Competitive multiplayer? That would be terrible. It's like people wanting competitive multiplayer in Metroid. It's not what the game is about. Wait for the Mass Effect MMO if you want PVP.



Co-op in a sort of pseudo-The Old Republic vein would be interesting, with players designated as being squad members and progressing with you. But they'd have to actually code more difficult AI for such play, rather than just give everything shields and armor and be done with it. It would be way too easy, even on Insanity.

[Mirthadrond]

Has 'nobody' on this forum played Neverwinter Nights??



Need I remind you all that it IS a Bioware game, that HAS multiplayer and a strong single player campaign.

This topic annoys me in the sense that so few of you believe Bioware can actually pull it off. It's almost insulting.

Neverwinter nights STILL has persistent worlds online, and that game was released how many years ago??

History shows that games that release development tools and multiplayer features, live FAR longer, and generate FAR more revenue than games that do not.



It's a choice. You don't have to play a game in multiplayer mode if you don't want too, but to presume that Bioware would skimp on RPG flavor and world changing decisions is just naive, if you look at Bioware's history.

Just because 'you' can't imagine them doing it well, doesn't mean they can't.



The fact of the matter is: People LOVE to play games with their friends. Hell RPG's came into existence so people could play with other people. Back in the day, we used to play them with dice, and you absolutely needed at least two people to play.



Of all the computer game developers in the world, Bioware has the best chance of releasing a compelling, interesting and exciting multiplayer rpg game.



None of the naysayers posting in this thread have come up with a compelling reason to 'not' add multiplayer to their awesome RPG franchises. I trust Bioware's developers, so doubting their abilities is just nonsense. If anyone does, they have the knowledge, resources and vision to do it correctly.

Mass Effect and Dragon Age are the only single player games I've purchased over the past 2 years.

Why? I prefer playing games with friends. It's more social, entertaining and interesting.

My experience with NVN wasn't deluded by co-op. It was maximized. My first run through the game was cooperative. We both read the dialog, took the missions and worked as a team, and my friend was a hell of a lot better player than the game AI.

Again - a real person as a teammate, makes for a much better play experience than any AI will ever contribute.

Still want drama and romance?? Who says you can't have it with co-op? If anything, it would make for much more interesting love triangles.



I'm 100% in support of co-op or multiplayer modes for any future RPG's that Bioware decides to release.

[Zinoviy]

It's a quick and simple answer for me. It's the magic of the story and the characters that draw me into Mass Effect. I just don't believe that can be preserved in a multi-player atmosphere or with any of its elements.



Considering the way BioWare does their games, heavily story-driven, I think they agree. I think we're safe from the multi-player invasion for now.



On a last note, though, if anyone would be innovative to do it, I would think BioWare would be one of those companies.

[Kid_SixXx]

Mirthadrond wrote...

None of the naysayers posting in this thread have come up with a compelling reason to 'not' add multiplayer to their awesome RPG franchises.

I don't think that people are saying that the combat portions of ME2 aren't germaine to multiplayer as much as they are saying that there are elements of the single-player mode of the game that are essential for success and aren't germaine to multiplayer.

Not sure about you, but I don't want my friends to sit idly by while I am scanning a planet for minerals or piddling around the Normandy fishing through dialogue trees.

Borderlands and NWN work because they are combat heavy and upgrades are only a vending machine or magic store away, as opposed to ME2 which requires mission completions to generate revenue and planet scanning to generate resources for upgrades.

[LostInSanity]

If they had a co-op option in ME3 and can see it turning out like Fable II, as in alright during combat, but awful during anything else.

Now, if they did a spin-off set in the ME universe thats something I think has some potential.

[Mirthadrond]

Kid_SixXx wrote...

Mirthadrond wrote...

None of the naysayers posting in this thread have come up with a compelling reason to 'not' add multiplayer to their awesome RPG franchises.

I don't think that people are saying that the combat portions of ME2 aren't germaine to multiplayer as much as they are saying that there are elements of the single-player mode of the game that are essential for success and aren't germaine to multiplayer.

Not sure about you, but I don't want my friends to sit idly by while I am scanning a planet for minerals or piddling around the Normandy fishing through dialogue trees.

Borderlands and NWN work because they are combat heavy and upgrades are only a vending machine or magic store away, as opposed to ME2 which requires mission completions to generate revenue and planet scanning to generate resources for upgrades.

I see your point, but with exception to dialog, they are minor portions of the game as a whole.  Some features would have to be changed to complement the additonal multiplayer component of the game.

I would like to see dialoge that involves your 'friends', and they are treated as any other character in the game.  You can have the same 'game interaction' that you have with other npc's, except the player chooses how their character responds.  Like how traditional roleplaying games used to work.

Granted:  One person is the 'Shepard / Warden' of the game and makes all the serious decisions, but other players still have the ability to interact / participate.  

Yep, no doubt it would be a complex process for the developers to iron out, but it would be worth it. 
Certainly - they could just keep churning out expansions to ME and DA.....  repeat add infinity....  but....  I think it's time they break the mold of what RPG games have become, and get back to what they used to be, group activities.
 

[The Awesome Darkrose]

They could make a Bioshock 2-kind of Multiplayer. Like, it has nothing to do with SP game's storyline but still set in the same universe (different time period maybe too, just like in Bioshock 2 MP)

But Bioware aren't good with multiplayer anyhow, they make strategic games - special strategic pauses and MP don't mix...

Spin off - good, implemented - bad

[Tazzmission]

The Awesome Darkrose wrote...

They could make a Bioshock 2-kind of Multiplayer. Like, it has nothing to do with SP game's storyline but still set in the same universe (different time period maybe too, just like in Bioshock 2 MP)
But Bioware aren't good with multiplayer anyhow, they make strategic games - special strategic pauses and MP don't mix...
Spin off - good, implemented - bad

games like mass effect and metal gear solid dont need that crappy multi player because there both great on there own. would you honestly suggest that the first 2 knights of the old republic games have to have multi player?

[Kid_SixXx]

Mirthadrond wrote...
Granted:  One person is the 'Shepard / Warden' of the game and makes all the serious decisions, but other players still have the ability to interact / participate.  

That's what makes Borderlands and NWN better suited for campaign co-op than ME2.  Any character can be assumed to be the "hero" or at least take the lead in some scenarios.

In ME2, the crew are support characters and Shepard is the main protagonist.

[spacehamsterZH]

Apparently most people want all their games to be identical carbon copies of one another and thus if a currently common feature like a multiplayer mode is missing from a game, that obviously must mean that there's something wrong with it as it's not the same as every other f*cking game on the market. So that's the answer to the OP's first question.

The answer to the second question is no, obviously there's no way this could be implemented without completely buttf*cking everything that's good about the game as it's clearly conceived as a heavily story-based single player RPG whose combat is very, very obviously to anyone with an IQ above that of a carton of expired milk (i.e. roughly 2% of the human race) not real-time and thus incompatible with a multiplayer mode.

But hark, quoth the Halo-tards, we're just saying we want this to be an option, it's not like you have to play it if you want. To which I say ha ha, expired-milk-for-brains, very funny. Obviously the combat in the single player would have to be altered to suit the mp mode, and obviously considerable resources that could otherwise be invested in the parts of the game that actually matter would be redirected towards pleasing the vast majority of people who are complete dumbsh*ts and want every game on the planet to be exactly the same, so no, it's not just an option, it would likely be the ruin of the singleplayer mode.

I will keep making this point at various levels of sarcasm depending on my mood du jour in every one of these threads I see.

Also, just to deflate whatever dumbsh*t counterargument some idiot is already cooking up in the carton of expired milk between their ears, I'm currently playing Splinter Cell Conviction and practically begging my local friends to buy it too because I need someone to do the co-op campaign with me. So no, I don't despise any and all multiplayer modes on general principle. I just think it needs to stay in games where it makes sense.

[Shadesofsiknas]

Id imagine that a later spin off in the Mass Effect universe could work with a co-op or multiplayer mode.But right now they should keep any thoughts about things like that well out of the way while ME3 is a work in progress.



The ME games are a story rich single player experience and trying to add things like Co-op to ME3 would just dilute the story and immersion that make ME such a hit.



Bioware are the the kings of single player story rich games imo and they should keep doing what they do very well.

[llinsane1ll]

Co op will NOT work.

Power Wheels pause... nuff said

[KitsuneRommel]

llinsane1ll wrote...

Co op will NOT work.
Power Wheels pause... nuff said

Neverwinter Nights had a combat pause... nuff said.

[llinsane1ll]

KitsuneRommel wrote...

llinsane1ll wrote...

Co op will NOT work.
Power Wheels pause... nuff said

Neverwinter Nights had a combat pause... nuff said.

This is Mass Effect, not Neverwinter Nights... nuff said.

[incinerator950]

Instead of slapping on multiplayer to a Single player game for co-op.



Make a stand-alone game like Borderlands, set in the ME universe, that deals with ME events and stuff.



Personally I thought Fall Out and Borderlands were partially related.