171 réponses à ce sujet

[Anezay]

derLoko wrote...

I don't care much if there's MP or not, as long as it's good.
But I'd rather have a ME MMO later then MP in ME3...

Now, that has potential. There's enough races alone to make a good variety in gameplay, even before you factor in the various races' classes. If you see a dude quarian running around with a sniper rifle getting owned by everyone he meets, that will be me.

[cachx]

As long as it's optional, who cares? Hell, some kind of coop-mode could be fun if well implemented (I get dibs on Grunt!). Like some people pointed out, a lot of Bioware RPGs had online play before (I remember a few complaints about Dragon Age NOT having multiplayer).

Also, boycotting? Really? The best one can do is just walk away and stop buying their games.

RPG roots?

“Genres are almost a vestige of the past,” said Muzyka. “In a way, a lot
of the best shooters are RPGs as well, because they allow you to have
progression, exploration, combat or conflict, and a story.”

I actually like that Bioware is trying new things instead of copy-pasting decade old concepts just to appeal to some people's nostalgia.

[bjdbwea]

A well-written OP, and I agree with a lot. Though my decision to buy or not to buy ME 3 will certainly not depend on the question of multiplayer. After ME 2, I will not pre-order any BioWare game again. So I'll just wait and see. If ME 3 can find its way back to the kind of quality single player experiences BioWare used to produce, I would certainly but it, tacked-on multiplayer or not.

[Zinoviy]

bjdbwea wrote...

A well-written OP, and I agree with a lot. Though my decision to buy or not to buy ME 3 will certainly not depend on the question of multiplayer. After ME 2, I will not pre-order any BioWare game again. So I'll just wait and see. If ME 3 can find its way back to the kind of quality single player experiences BioWare used to produce, I would certainly but it, tacked-on multiplayer or not.

Could you possibly elaborate more on how ME2 plummeted so far in quality compared to ME1 and how the plummet is related to multiplayer? Because you seem to be faulting ME2 on some multiplayer aspect when there is none, unless I read your post wrong.

Edit: Also, even with no relation to MP, I don't understand how ME2 was so drastically terrible.

Modifié par Zinoviy, 19 juillet 2010 - 02:48 .

[Spartas Husky]

Zinoviy wrote...

Spartas Husky wrote...

ME1... earned my Loyalty.

ME2, made the loyalty shaky.

Loyalty means we will all preorder the game.... but ME2 made me have to be the devil's advocate in any news, or ideas they make public to make sure they dont water down ME any more.....

Their record on making a good game...is good.

But comparing ME1 and 2 the track also is leading somewhere where RPG has very little to do with the game. I am afraid it might end up a Gears of War 3 idea or something....where RPG is only for the "looks".

No, I'd hope loyalty means people wouldn't go crazy over pure speculation and these supposed negative correlations between the vague, but popular, catch phrases around here: "RPG elements" and "shooter elements".

Well I dont think I went crazy...if so that wasn't the intention. I was clear and simply....if there is multi....is the end....if there wont be any, OR there was never any thoughts of it and was just all rumor...then is all kool. Now...Ima I saying "no I wont buy ME3...eva"... course not....unless I see a trailer or something with unwanted multi parts in it .

[bjdbwea]

Zinoviy wrote...

bjdbwea wrote...

A well-written OP, and I agree with a lot. Though my decision to buy or not to buy ME 3 will certainly not depend on the question of multiplayer. After ME 2, I will not pre-order any BioWare game again. So I'll just wait and see. If ME 3 can find its way back to the kind of quality single player experiences BioWare used to produce, I would certainly but it, tacked-on multiplayer or not.

Could you possibly elaborate more on how ME2 plummeted so far in quality compared to ME1 and how the plummet is related to multiplayer? Because you seem to be faulting ME2 on some multiplayer aspect when there is none, unless I read your post wrong.

Edit: Also, even with no relation to MP, I don't understand how ME2 was so drastically terrible.

While I could easily elaborate on that, I don't want to derail this thread with another round of that discussion. Suffice it to say that I agree with a lot of the criticisms of the OP, and have some more. Multiplayer has nothing to do with my opinion on ME 2 though, so you have probably misunderstood my post.

[FuturePasTimeCE]

I want to play as master chief.

[theelementslayer]

Nah, I dont see why everyone hates EA. They didnt ruin ME1, didnt ruin ME2, and really why would they ruin ME3. They have many games that are FPS's that cater to that crowd, MoH that is coming out this fall BFBC2 that came out a year ago. Why is everyone so scared that they are going to "ruin" ME3



As for ME2 having less RPG elements, yes and no both in a great way. If you want lots of inventory and bore yourself searching through 40 diffeerent peices just to find the right one then no it doesnt have that. IF however you want to progress a character aka Role Play then yes there is much more of it, in terms of character development and plotline and extreme epicness then yes much more meat.



And howcome, just a curiosity, but the gunplay in ME1, and ME2 seems to be about the same amount, hell it seems there are more side missions in ME2 that dont require a gunshot. How come people say its become more of a shooter when really all they did was clean up the cover system and make the combat alot better? Why is it all of a sudden deemed a shooter becasue I really cant see it. Sure it has shooting elements that are on par with some of the big name shooters out there but really it isnt even close to being a GoW or another 3rd person shooter in terms of plotline and stuff.

[staldore13]

mass effect made my brother snirr at it and call it names
i was pleased since i dont really enjoy playing games with him anyhow
mass effect 2 intreged him enough to play the first game completly through and then play the second one
i died a little inside something that made me different from him suddenly brought us closer together
and i WANT to be different from EVERYONE
so if Mass Effect 3 puts it in i will hate them for it
now a SINGLE player game that advertises the SINGLE will completly sell out
RPGs are not Coop

what depresses me the most is that this is completely pointless
EA will continue to mutilate the Mass Effect series and pull it away from RPGs in order to make money
EA already has enough money why do they need to do this
take over innocent companies and impose their own values
and inadvertently **** it up

Modifié par staldore13, 19 juillet 2010 - 03:16 .

[Jaron Oberyn]

SSV Enterprise wrote...

The player "choosing" everything Shepard said in ME1 was an illusion. Many times in ME1 you were given two or three conversation "options" that led to saying the exact same thing, no real choice at all. I think it's better that BioWare did not try to hide this in ME2, allowing scenes to have better flow and doing camera shifts that wouldn't work with a false conversation option every other sentence.

I realized this also after doing many playthroughs. But it still gives the player a sense of control. I know Bioware makes good games. If it wasn't for the fact that EA owns them, I wouldn't be worried. But just like Bioware has a track record for making good games, EA has a track record for destroying franchises/game developers. It's only a matter of time. 

Thanks for the comments.

Edit: My problem with multiplayer is that Bioware seems to be diminishing the RPG elements while increasing Shooter elements. This is highly evident in Mass 2. If that continues into Mass 3, with the little RPG elements we have in Mass 2, what would that make the game? I'm interested in an RPG, not a Shooter. The reason I said this about multiplayer is that I'd rather they focus their efforts on making the single player the best it can be, other than trying to please Shooter fans by adding a multiplayer aspect to the game. Especially since they're trying to make the game in 2 years or less according to Casey Hudson. 

 -Polite

Modifié par PoliteAssasin, 19 juillet 2010 - 03:22 .

[MassEffect762]

mattahraw wrote...

EA had nothing to do with ME2 being "more of a shooter" at all.

The game is the way it is because that's the way the devs wanted it. If you don't like it, that's your right... But don't go all conspiracy theorist, please.

Isn't that like saying your bo$$ has no say in how you do your job at work.

They are a buisness afterall. EA is the boss.

They can claim they had no influence in the games making but imo I see the opposite result.

[Jaron Oberyn]

MassEffect762 wrote...

mattahraw wrote...

EA had nothing to do with ME2 being "more of a shooter" at all.

The game is the way it is because that's the way the devs wanted it. If you don't like it, that's your right... But don't go all conspiracy theorist, please.

Isn't that like saying your bo$$ has no say in how you do your job at work.

They are a buisness afterall. EA is the boss.

They can claim they had no influence in the games making but imo I see the opposite result.

It seems you are ignorant to EA's reputation. Before you start to call me a conspiracy theorist, I suggest you look their rep up. EA's all about making money. That's it. They found a cash cow, Mass Effect, and are now aiming it to their biggest fan base - Shooter fans. People who play games like BC2 and MoH. That is one of their biggest fan bases, along with sports. EA milks a franchise dry, then disbands the developer that created it once their finished. These guys are the sharks of the Industry. The rEApers. Believe me, I know all to well about them. It was a sad day when they acquired Bioware.

 -Polite

[Mx_CN3]

worm_burner wrote...

A question for people who want multiplayer co-op:
would you really want to be a secondary part in the game, all choices/dialog would be done through the first player. How could you enjoy sitting and doing nothing for half of the game?

They could use a system similar to the one in SW:TOR.  It might actually add to the whole lack of squadmates speaking their opinions in ME2.  Imagine if you were doing Legion's loyalty, and the person playing Legion got to make the decision.  Having Tali paragon interrupt Shepard to prevent him from shooting down a bunch of geth.  Have the Miranda player stay up wtih Archangel while Shepard goes to the basement.  They have plenty of options of letting both players shine.

I would love a coop funtion.  What is better than enjoying Mass Effect by yourself?  Enjoying it with a friend!  Or two!  But PvP?  As much as I love it, and would love to see a ME game with PvP in it, if we base the idea around the first two games, there would be serious imbalances.  I think that BioWare is smart enough to see that and either compensate for it, or leave it out.

And I don't get this whole "BioWare was great but now it sucks"  mentality.  I have enjoyed the past few BioWare games as much as or more than previous ones, so who cares that their formulas are changing?  As long as they're fun, play them.  Don't like them?  Find another developer and stop whining here.

Modifié par Mx_CN3, 19 juillet 2010 - 03:48 .

[Jaron Oberyn]

Mx_CN3 wrote...

worm_burner wrote...

A question for people who want multiplayer co-op:
would you really want to be a secondary part in the game, all choices/dialog would be done through the first player. How could you enjoy sitting and doing nothing for half of the game?

They could use a system similar to the one in SW:TOR.  It might actually add to the whole lack of squadmates speaking their opinions in ME2.  Imagine if you were doing Legion's loyalty, and the person playing Legion got to make the decision.  Having Tali paragon interrupt Shepard to prevent him from shooting down a bunch of geth.  Have the Miranda player stay up wtih Archangel while Shepard goes to the basement.  They have plenty of options of letting both players shine.

I would love a coop funtion.  What is better than enjoying Mass Effect by yourself?  Enjoying it with a friend!  Or two!  But PvP?  As much as I love it, and would love to see a ME game with PvP in it, if we base the idea around the first two games, there would be serious imbalances.  I think that BioWare is smart enough to see that and either compensate for it, or leave it out.

And I don't get this whole "BioWare was great but now it sucks"  mentality.  I have enjoyed the past few BioWare games as much as or more than previous ones, so who cares that their formulas are changing?

That works in TOR because the game was built to be a MMO. Mass Effect trilogy, not so. There is only one commander Shepard. Having other players play as squad mates and controlling their dialogue would take away from that squad mate's personality. It just wouldn't work. At least not with this trilogy. It would be pretty cool if the job posting was for a Mass Effect MMO similar to TOR. But as for the Mass Effect trilogy, I just can't see this working decently. I believe I heard someone say that Bioshock 2 did the same, they threw in a multiplayer mode that supposedly ruined the game. Although don't quote me on that because I haven't played it. I just hope they don't mess up Mass 2 or 3 with this.

 -Polite

[Jaron Oberyn]

bjdbwea wrote...

A well-written OP, and I agree with a lot. Though my decision to buy or not to buy ME 3 will certainly not depend on the question of multiplayer. After ME 2, I will not pre-order any BioWare game again. So I'll just wait and see. If ME 3 can find its way back to the kind of quality single player experiences BioWare used to produce, I would certainly but it, tacked-on multiplayer or not.

I'm getting Mass 3 just for the sake of finishing off the trilogy. But I'd like to be rewarded for sticking with Bioware for the first 2 games and not jumping in the second or third one. I don't want a 3rd game thats both watered down and also aimed to multiplayer/shooter fanboys. My problem with the multiplayer is that they probably won't focus as much on the story if they were to implement it. Bioware used to make masterpiece games. It seems like their standards are slowly decreasing unfortunately. Mass 3 is their chance to prove to the fans that it's not. Hopefully they won't mess it up. But after seeing DA:2, I'm not so optimistic.

Cris Shepard wrote...

Im with ya brother.. RPG > mindless shooter

Agreed.

DOYOURLABS wrote...

I'm still buying ME3 just to finish my trilogy, unless this "far reaching" announcement is EA saying "Screw the universe. WE ARE COD NOW LULZ. Everyone loves multiplayer, story is boring". After ME3, I probably won't buy anything if it was obvious everything is going down hill. I won't make any decisions until I see facts.

I hear you. And honestly, I hope I'm wrong. But we haven't seen anything of ME3 yet. So I can't entirely judge them so soon.

Spartas Husky wrote...

ME1... earned my Loyalty.

ME2, made the loyalty shaky. 

Loyalty means we will all preorder the game.... but ME2 made me have to be the devil's advocate in any news, or ideas they make public to make sure they dont water down ME any more.....

Their record on making a good game...is good.

But comparing ME1 and 2 the track also is leading somewhere where RPG has very little to do with the game. I am afraid it might end up a Gears of War 3 idea or something....where RPG is only for the "looks".

I strongly agree.

Anezay wrote...

The only real problem with multiplayer that I can see is that bullet time is kind of important for soldiers, infiltrators, and some vanguards. The whole pausing the game with shift to assess the battlefield and choose abilities thing would have to go out the window, as well. I don't doubt it can be done, and done well, but the combat would be impossible to transfer intact. Although, I'm sure all of the vanguards would give my own infiltrator ass nightmares.

PoliteAssasin wrote...

So if your decisions in the first and second game don't impact the third game, who cares?

You must be one of the Shooter fans.

So why not make Mass Effect Kart? Hey if it's fun....

-Polite

Hey, now, that wasn't my point at all. I was saying that if multiplayer doesn't reduce the experience, there should be no problem with it. If none of your decisions made it to ME3, the first two would be kind of pointless, no?
Also, since when are shooter fans and rpg fans mutualy exclusive groups? I prefered the level up system of ME1, and the inventory system of ME2. Contunually switching out guns because you got the new "VII" model to replace your old "VI" was not a high point of the first game. The guns didn't feel different enough for it to really matter, they were just slightly better than the last one.

If multiplayer doesn't affect the single player, I'm 100% fine with it. But if adding more Shooter elements to Mass 2 affected the RPG elements, imagine how adding a Shooter multiplayer will affect it. The inventory isn't that big of a deal for me. But the mission complete screens, the leveling up after each mission instead of kills, etc... that's what made it more of a "Shooter" than an "RPG" among other things. I agree with your point about the guns though. I prefer the Mass 2 selection over the first game where an improved gun was simply a recolored version of the same model. 

Somebody1003 wrote...

PoliteAssasin wrote...

It seems you are ignorant to EA's reputation. Before you start to call me a conspiracy theorist, I suggest you look their rep up. EA's all about making money. That's it. They found a cash cow, Mass Effect, and are now aiming it to their biggest fan base - Shooter fans. People who play games like BC2 and MoH. That is one of their biggest fan bases, along with sports. EA milks a franchise dry, then disbands the developer that created it once their finished. These guys are the sharks of the Industry. The rEApers. Believe me, I know all to well about them. It was a sad day when they acquired Bioware.

 -Polite

That is pure win. And I agree with this.

Couldn't resist 

[Mx_CN3]

PoliteAssasin wrote...

That works in TOR because the game was built to be a MMO. Mass Effect trilogy, not so. There is only one commander Shepard. Having other players play as squad mates and controlling their dialogue would take away from that squad mate's personality. It just wouldn't work. At least not with this trilogy. It would be pretty cool if the job posting was for a Mass Effect MMO similar to TOR. But as for the Mass Effect trilogy, I just can't see this working decently. I believe I heard someone say that Bioshock 2 did the same, they threw in a multiplayer mode that supposedly ruined the game. Although don't quote me on that because I haven't played it. I just hope they don't mess up Mass 2 or 3 with this.

 -Polite

They could always put in dialogue options that end up in the same outcome, it's just a matter of words (Thane and the interrogation, for example).  Even if they don't allow dialogue options for the other player, they still could have the other player have a significant role.

And in regards to the BioShock 2 example, it has an 87% on gamerankings, so obviously the game wasn't "ruined" (I, too, have never played it).  The fact is that people will say anything "ruined" a game.  See: many people on this forum, saying that ME2 and it's "lack of RPG elements" or many other arguments, many inane and some precious few well thought out.  Critics (and apparently many players) disagree.

If they put a decent amount of effort into it, coop would work.  As I said, I like PvP more than most people, and I couldn't see it working in this series if they want ME3 to be fairly close to the first two.

[SSV Enterprise]

PoliteAssasin wrote...

I realized this also after doing many playthroughs. But it still gives the player a sense of control. I know Bioware makes good games. If it wasn't for the fact that EA owns them, I wouldn't be worried. But just like Bioware has a track record for making good games, EA has a track record for destroying franchises/game developers. It's only a matter of time. 

Thanks for the comments.

Keep in mind that BioWare founders Ray Muzyka and Greg Zeschuk were put in charge of EA's RPG division in general.  As long as they're in charge, EA's negative influence should be minimal.

Edit: My problem with multiplayer is that Bioware seems to be diminishing the RPG elements while increasing Shooter elements. This is highly evident in Mass 2. If that continues into Mass 3, with the little RPG elements we have in Mass 2, what would that make the game? I'm interested in an RPG, not a Shooter. The reason I said this about multiplayer is that I'd rather they focus their efforts on making the single player the best it can be, other than trying to please Shooter fans by adding a multiplayer aspect to the game. Especially since they're trying to make the game in 2 years or less according to Casey Hudson. 

 -Polite

I don't see the changes in ME2 as being too major or detrimental.  When I see concrete evidence of multiplayer being added to ME3 and said multiplayer detracting from the RPG and story elements, then I will worry.  I'm not going to jump at shadows beforehand though.

[Mx_CN3]

SSV Enterprise wrote...


I don't see the changes in ME2 as being too major or detrimental.  When I see concrete evidence of multiplayer being added to ME3 and said multiplayer detracting from the RPG and story elements, then I will worry.  I'm not going to jump at shadows beforehand though.

Would you stop being so calm and collected?  We all need to freak out about the latest speculated reason as to how BioWare/EA/shooters will ruin ME3.

And to all of the EA complainers:  yes, they do destroy some franchises.  They also makes some great games.  Save your complaints until after they ruin Mass Effect.

[theelementslayer]

Mx_CN3 wrote...

SSV Enterprise wrote...


I don't see the changes in ME2 as being too major or detrimental.  When I see concrete evidence of multiplayer being added to ME3 and said multiplayer detracting from the RPG and story elements, then I will worry.  I'm not going to jump at shadows beforehand though.

Would you stop being so calm and collected?  We all need to freak out about the latest speculated reason as to how BioWare/EA/shooters will ruin ME3.

And to all of the EA complainers:  yes, they do destroy some franchises.  They also makes some great games.  Save your complaints until after they ruin Mass Effect.

Honestly I can think of a few games they ruined but off the top of my head I can think of alot of games they didnt ruin.

Mirrors edge
Crysis
Mass Effect
Dragon Age
Dead Space
Need for speed, though they did get progressively worse I thought underground was awesome
The Sims
Sports games

Not every company is out to screw the buyer, come on guys you can't  honestly think Bioware/EA will turn the back on the 3 million people who bought this game just to turn out another MoH or CoD.

Modifié par theelementslayer, 19 juillet 2010 - 04:55 .

[Ranger115]

Boycott Bioware? That would be pretty extreme. Bioware concetrates on singleplayer, making sure it's all it can be. If they were to add multiplayer to ME3 (I doubt they actually will), I'm sure they wouldn't allow it to have any impact on singleplayer whatsoever. Now whether or not I would play the multiplayer, I would say probably not.



oh, and Mx_CN3 I support your sig. I think Mass Effect 2 was the best game I've ever played.

[Chris_Really_Rocks]

I'd rather they not release MP for ME3 unless it's like an add on or completely separate from the Official Campaign and doesn't come out for at least six months post release.



Bioware is about making great story driven games that at least offer an illusion of choice to the player. I like the dialogue, the combat and the cinematic feel. The stats and inventory stuff was insipid in ME1 and the shooter mechanics were somewhat lame. So, to me ME2 was almost better on every front.



I have seen absolutely nothing to lead me to believe that ME3 is going to be any different from ME2 except maybe it will have an MP mode and maybe more RPG elements from ME1 integrated with ME2's better combat.



As for boycotting, you've got to be kidding. Even if I don't like the direction Bioware takes, who else is left? Bethesda? Not a sand box fan. Japanese companies? Hate JRPGs. Obsidian? Ok, let's see them release a polished game and there might be an alternative there. But seriously, for RPGs and the progeny genres of RPGs who else is left? Boycotting Bioware would be like cutting off your nose to spite your face -- and the sort of people who "boycott" games because they don't like features have no real economic power anyway -- makes a boycott rather idiotic and pointless.

[Chris_Really_Rocks]

theelementslayer wrote...

Mirrors edge
Crysis
Mass Effect
Dragon Age
Dead Space
Need for speed, though they did get progressively worse I thought underground was awesome
The Sims
Sports games

Don't like the Sims, Sports games or driving games, but all the other games on this list were AWESOME.  Good point man.

BTW, did they pull the plug on Mirror's Edge?  For reasons unknown, I LOVED that game.