171 réponses à ce sujet

[_-Greywolf-_]

I can understand people not buying DA2 because of the changes but boycotting Mass Effect just because of an added multiplayer mode? I really dont get it, how would adding a multiplayer mode (an optional multiplayer mode) hurt Mass Effect 3? I mean you already have 2 squadmates following you around, what would be the harm in letting your mates control them?



Obviously you have never played Secret of Mana.

[Gs09GTR]

I cant understand boycotting any game for any reason. They're just entertainment.



I mean ME2 had some pretty big changes in it from ME1, and it still turned out to be a great game. Personally i liked ME1 a little better storywise, but nontheless, I would, and have, recommended ME2 to all my friends regardless of the flaws it had.



However, I understand why the TRUE bioware and/or ME fans would be a little bit upset, to say the least. I too think ME3 going multiplayer is a bad idea, mainly because of personal preference (Cant stand games like Halo or CodMW2, or any other games that require no brain cells to play) but if ME3 comes out with multiplayer but still has the awsome single player that the ME series has always had I dont see any reason not to get it, I just stay away from the multiplayer aspect and leave it to the whiney 12 yr olds that are tired of playing Halo and Modern Warfare.

[Pocketgb]

Seeing as their best RPG was multiplayer, no not really.

[piemanz]

Boycott mass effect because of multiplayer?...Hell no!!!.

Modifié par piemanz, 19 juillet 2010 - 08:19 .

[SpiderFan1217]

No, I would love ME to go multiplayer. I would also like an MMO.

[KitsuneRommel]

SSV Enterprise wrote...

PoliteAssasin wrote...

My question is, If Bioware adds multiplayer/coop to Mass 2 or 3, would that be the last blow for you? Would you boycott the company in hopes of their return to the original RPG roots?

No.  The addition of a multiplayer mode or co-op does not necessitate that the RPG gameplay and story elements will be watered down or removed.

This. Neverwinter Nights had co-op. Baldur's Gate 2 had co-op. System Shock 2 had co-op, etc.

[Pepper4]

I hate these threads.
I don't mind them making a multiplayer mode as long as the singleplayer campaign will be in the same quality as in the 2 previous titles. If they manage to implant a multiplayer mode into the single player campaign, I will be a very happy man. (Not MMO, but an optional battle station.)  Mindless shooting can be quiet fun. (oh noo, this game is far too stupid for such a smart guy like me, I can't play it cuz I am too smart...). Players who don't like action should go back to their cave and play D&D with paper and pen.

About the game being dumbed down, this might be your only hit. The game WAS dumbed down, and I hope it will be fixed in the next chapter, but you just can't say that "smart" me1's inventory was any good. I rather play a dumb game then reduce my weapons to omni-gel. 

english sux.

[uzivatel]

As long as it does not hurt the single player gameplay, I am fine with multiplayer. That said, it would probably steal resources from other parts of the game.

I would rather have some separate game developed with coop in mind - two characters instead of three (no Shepard plz.), dialogues that would allow both players interact with NPCs simultaneously (good cop / bad cop, hitting on the same Asari, ...) and game specific controls (you wont have party to give orders to, but you would not be able to pause the time - the d-pad could be mapped to weapon selection and some non-targeted powers like First Aid or Barrier).
I would imagine something like RE5 with Gears-like combat, ME2-like RPG system and dialogues.

TaHol wrote...

"OMG I have to ride in elevators and listen to the same stupid news for like 50th time, take it away, who wants back elevators? Did you not listen to our feedback after ME1? PATCH THIS AWAY!"
"Citadel is HUUUUUUUGE, I want back ME2 Citadel, so I won't have to walk through all those copy&paste empty corridors. And ride elevators".

Add butthurt tone.

Did some minor fixes for you.

Modifié par uzivatel, 19 juillet 2010 - 10:26 .

[Jebel Krong]

code for co-op is already in because it's part of the damn game engine: Gears/Gears 2 already had it, i doubt it's hard to "enable" it if you can find the strings in the me2 codebase.

[BomimoDK]

I will not boycot Bioware over a multi-player game, rather just ignore the game if it doesn't appeal to me. you guys need to cool the "bioware ruined my day" attitude. it looks stupid from here. ME2 is still an RPG, very much so. and it managed to do what ME1 couldn't... it dragged me, a Fantasy DnD RPG player into SCI-FI rpg's. i found the gear system in ME1 to be too much of a hazzle. most other things were slimmed down alot, but it still works very fine.



I have an insanely hard time taking this forums panic crowd seriously... it's like some circus. you're asking Bioware to respect you while you look down at: shooter fans, fans of other Bioware franchises, EA games (the games, not company), you hate on any hint of action.



you're basically a collection of self fed idiots raging at bioware for not sucking you off, giving any other players a hard time here and you think you're right for it. don't you see what you're doing wrong?



it's basically the reverse of the Jock picking on the nerd... "OMG action in mah RPG? Please the Halo crowd moar" I can't respect you guys.



On topic, i would look into just which elements went into this multiplayer game. if it is the combat, i might look at it. i dount story would go far in either a lobby MP game or in an MMO.

[Raizo]

I don't mind along as the multiplayer does not come at the expense of the solo storymode. To many games these days are built with multiplayer gameplay in mind but when it when it comes to solo gameplay they don't work quite as well as they should.

[Kroesis-]

Raizo wrote...

I don't mind along as the multiplayer does not come at the expense of the solo storymode. To many games these days are built with multiplayer gameplay in mind but when it when it comes to solo gameplay they don't work quite as well as they should.

This.

[Cra5y Pineapple]

Bioware's games have a squad system. If that doesn't imply co-op I don't know what does.

[Mister Mida]

If ME goes multiplayer I'll shrug, read/watch reviews and go from there. If ME3 is gonna have multiplayer I'll buy if for the sake of seeing the story end. As long as singleplayer does not suffer for the sake of multiplayer I don't care.

EDIT: And I've never boycotted a publisher/developer even when I don't have a positive opinion about them.

Modifié par Mister Mida, 19 juillet 2010 - 11:33 .

[spacehamsterZH]

I won't boycot ME3 if it has multiplayer because no matter what, I want to see how the story plays out. I do think it's a horrible idea, though.



This thread also reminds me of two things that I find beyond irritating about a certain part of the population of this forum.



1) RPG elitists who think their choice of videogame genre somehow makes them superior intellects and who just assume everyone who disagrees with them must be "a shooter fan", as if that means anything or there aren't people who enjoy more than one genre of game.



2) People who don't understand that even ME2's combat system is a poor fit for multiplayer because it's not real time, and who apparently don't realize that the vast majority of games with a mp component not only had time and resources diverted away from their single player campaign, but also the entire gameplay in those campaigns constructed to accommodate the multiplayer. Seriously... please.



I think there's plenty of room in the Mass Effect universe for other types of games - an RTS about the First Contact War or a squad-based shooter set during Garrus' vigilante days would make perfect sense - but the Shepard games are what they are, and the introduction of a multiplayer component would very likely change ME3 so much from its predecessors that it would be practically ruined.

[catabuca]

People need to stop thinking that if you lament a watered-down RPG in ME2 that must mean you love inventories.

There seem to be 2 components to RPG (and I'm generalising): inventory/stat management; and story/choice. The second of those is FAR more important than the first to me. When I talk about ME2 not feeling like as much of an RPG as ME1, I'm talking about story and choice. So please, have a little awareness, and don't automatically jump down people's throats screaming "OMG I can't believe you loved the clunky inventory system".

[catabuca]

Raizo wrote...

I don't mind along as the multiplayer does not come at the expense of the solo storymode. To many games these days are built with multiplayer gameplay in mind but when it when it comes to solo gameplay they don't work quite as well as they should.

And this is how I feel about it too. It makes sense for the trilogy to end as it started, with the single-player story being key. If they choose to add multi-player to that, that's fine, more choice is always good, but not to the expense of the story.

However, I'd not going to cry and throw my toys out of my pram if they develop a purely multi-player ME game in the future. Once this trilogy is finished, the ME franchise can continue in so many different directions. I won't buy it, but it won't be a reason I'd boycott the company.

[JrayM16]

While I think that multiplayer in Mass Effect is pointless and unnecessary, it won't cause me to boycott the game, I just won't play the multiuplayer part.

[SithLordExarKun]

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.

So why don't you prove that EA forced bioware to go down the shooter route? Oh say what? You got no evidence at all.

[bjdbwea]

SithLordExarKun wrote...

So why don't you prove that EA forced bioware to go down the shooter route? Oh say what? You got no evidence at all.

If you had read some of the developer's comments, you would see the indications. Of course you want evidence in the form of a clear statement such as "yes, we dumbed down the game to appeal to the shooter crowd". You want it because you know full well that no one is ever going to say something like that openly. So you can always claim no one has prove.

However, if you are honest, you can see that ME 2 did "go down the shooter route". You can like that better than part 1, that's completely up to you. But to deny the fact? What's that supposed to accomplish? The reasons are indeed anyone's guess. However, since the independent BioWare used to produce high quality RPGs, whereas now there are significant changes in their approach to ME and DA too, the most likely explanation is certainly the big change that happened when they sold out to EA. Again, you can like it better, but please don't try to deny the fact. Feel free to provide other possible explanations though.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 19 juillet 2010 - 12:33 .

[nov_pl]

I don't m ind multi AS LONG AS the single player, the story, gameplay, and the epics of the game will be good. Will be great actually. That'd be hard to accomplish so don't do it in ME3. BioWare said that ME3 isn't the end if ME franchise so wait with multi a bit.

[Darth Drago]

Interesting video footage of the hidden multiplayer feature in ME2. It really makes you wonder now though.

Will I not get ME3 because its a multiplayer game? Honestly, it doesn’t matter to me anymore since I already have very little interest in getting the game even to see how it ends. Not unless things change drastically for the better. Even then I probably wont get it until its marked down to less than $30 at GameStop and maybe used. Yes, that’s a direct attack to EA’s BS Cerberus Network (or Project $10) scam.

The real question is, why are so many people wanting a multiplayer experience for either Mass Effect or Dragon Age? Do they want it for the player vs. player experience? To expand on the designed single player game these are somehow? To just have the games hop onto the multiplayer craze (like the 3-D craze in films these days)?

Personally adding any kind of multiplayer aspect to either franchise is a bad idea. They are single player games with a single hero character. Any time spent working on a multiplayer aspect in the game will take something out of the main single player game. That could come down to more streamlining, less locations to visit, less quests, resources and so on. We already saw what narrowly focusing in on the third person shooter combat mechanics did to ME2. We got an average shooter game out of it as a result.

Let me ask you this. If the game gets close to release date and they are behind schedule what do you think they (BioWare) would focus on getting finished first, the main game or the multiplayer part? Same question but with EA calling the shots? Would the game get rushed out the door before its finished to make a release date? If so at what cost?

Now you get the game home and play it and it stinks because neither part comes close to living up to the story/game experience that you had in ME1/ME2 and the multiplayer is laggy and is just god awful compared to every other game you played that had multiplayer. Depending what you were after you will likely blame the multiplayer game aspects for ruining the single player game “they should never have added it” or the single player game for ruining the multiplayer game “they should have cut some of the boring parts out of the main game, like all the talking”.

I cant see me boycotting BioWare because of it though since I do still like the company that they are even if I hate EA with a passion. Its not likely their fault that EA owns them now. But if they keep making games that seem to cater more to the masses rather than the fans of the games themselves then I guess I’ll just not buy/play any BioWare games for quite some time. There are other companies or games out there (old and new) that I could easily go to to spend my time and money on.

[catabuca]

I hadn't seen that vid before, Darth. Thanks for the link. Who was the 2nd player supposed to be then? (I could clearly identify that the 1st player, who couldn't move, was femShep.) I really dislike split-screen play, so should it be included in ME3 I won't be playing that part.



The current ME trilogy is first and foremost a single-player experience. As I said earlier, as long as co-op or mp doesn't take anything away from that I have no issues with it being included if it pleases those who want it. I think if the single player story was shortened in any way to make room for it though, well that would be some shoddy crap from BW.

[Darth Drago]

The link I got from this threads first posting. They both look like femsheps but its interesting that only one has the traditional weapons on the back thing.

As for split screens, I can go both ways on it since I’ve played split screen games for years.

[Jaron Oberyn]

Mx_CN3 wrote...

theelementslayer wrote...


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.

Bad Company 2, also.  I mean, I'm not too fond of EA, but simply because they are attached to something doesn't mean it is bad.  It also doesn't mean that something that is bad (or that you think is bad) is entirely EA's fault.  Did any of you EA haters ever consider the possibility that BioWare had long intended to have multiplayer in ME?  That is, of course, assuming that that is even on their plans.  As I said earlier, the whole multiplayer in ME thing is entirely speculative.

And I suppose to answer the OP's title question:  no, I will not boycott BioWare because of multiplayer.  I also think that anyone that will or is even considering it is an idiot.

First of all, lets not be childish and resort to insults. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Second, NFS and the Sims are completely horrible. The fact that they try to release a NFS game every year worries me about the future of Mass Effect. And don't say that they don't affect it, because look at DA:2. DA:O came out last september, or november was it? The sequel is slated to be released by March 2011. That's way too soon. 

onotix wrote...

I wont buy it if it has multilayer it just doesn't work well with RPG's
2 Shepard running around? wtf
someone plays as a squad mate rpg elements like dialog are blocked off.

keep mp to shooter

That's evidence that they were going for the 2 shepards. This is from ME2. See what I mean? EA written all over it. And yes, someone playing as a squad mate wouldn't work either. It just won't work with this Trilogy.

Zinoviy wrote...

KainrycKarr wrote...

Somehow I doubt it's related to ME 3, as I do believe they did intend to expand on the franchise, which could simply be another game. Bioware actually has quite a bit in the way of projects going on.

This is definitely something to note. We have no evidence that all this multiplayer business will have anything to do with ME3.

I hope your right. But looking at the timing of the job application being posted and the fact that ME2 has much DLC left, along with the development of Mass 3 - it's quite obvious. And if you look at the video I posted above, you'd see that it seems to be meant for Mass 2. 

catabuca wrote...

Raizo wrote...

I don't mind along as the multiplayer does not come at the expense of the solo storymode. To many games these days are built with multiplayer gameplay in mind but when it when it comes to solo gameplay they don't work quite as well as they should.

And this is how I feel about it too. It makes sense for the trilogy to end as it started, with the single-player story being key. If they choose to add multi-player to that, that's fine, more choice is always good, but not to the expense of the story.

However, I'd not going to cry and throw my toys out of my pram if they develop a purely multi-player ME game in the future. Once this trilogy is finished, the ME franchise can continue in so many different directions. I won't buy it, but it won't be a reason I'd boycott the company.

I don't care if a future ME title has multiplayer. Just not the trilogy. It's an RPG. Not a multiplayer game. Not a coop game. You want coop, play GoW. My argument about them possibly implementing multiplayer is that they'll dumb down even more RPG elements to appease Shooter fans. That's what they did in the second game when they intensified the combat to be more of a Shooter. They dumbed down the inventory, choices, exploration, etc... You don't get that sense of open world/exploration as you did in the first game. This game makes you feel limited. 

bjdbwea wrote...

SithLordExarKun wrote...

So why don't you prove that EA forced bioware to go down the shooter route? Oh say what? You got no evidence at all.

If you had read some of the developer's comments, you would see the indications. Of course you want evidence in the form of a clear statement such as "yes, we dumbed down the game to appeal to the shooter crowd". You want it because you know full well that no one is ever going to say something like that openly. So you can always claim no one has prove.

However, if you are honest, you can see that ME 2 did "go down the shooter route". You can like that better than part 1, that's completely up to you. But to deny the fact? What's that supposed to accomplish? The reasons are indeed anyone's guess. However, since the independent BioWare used to produce high quality RPGs, whereas now there are significant changes in their approach to ME and DA too, the most likely explanation is certainly the big change that happened when they sold out to EA. Again, you can like it better, but please don't try to deny the fact. Feel free to provide other possible explanations though.

This guy understands. Well said.


 -Polite

Modifié par PoliteAssasin, 19 juillet 2010 - 02:08 .