171 réponses à ce sujet

[Throw_this_away]

PoliteAssasin wrote...

My question is, If Bioware adds multiplayer/coop to Mass 2 or 3, would that be the last blow for you?

No.  Not at all.  I dislike multiplayer because I am a pretty casual gamer and for multiplayer to be fun you either have to pay with other casual gamers (takes work and time), or you get your ass handed to you by some kid who plays the game 8 hours a day.  But... as long as the single player experience is still fun, it is fine by me to add it.  

Would you boycott the company in hopes of their return to the original
RPG roots?

No.  Stop being silly.  Buy another game that meats your definition of an RPG and move on.  How about playing more of the RPG called life?

Do you agree that Mass Effect 2 has little to no RPG elements
in contrast to Mass Effect 1?

I think that both are excellent RPG's.  Sheppard really felt like MY character. Decisions were made by me.  I think both have evolved the genre of RPG's by adding "action" to them.  ME2 just took out the annoying parts of ME1 and made combat slick.  Combat was pretty medeocre in ME1.  

Are you worried about the gameplay or RPG
elements in Mass 3?

Not at all.  ME1 blew me away as a game.  ME2 topped ME1.  ME3 will be good.  It  won't be what I want exactly, because I am not the writer... but it will be good.  Multiplayer will be fine so long as it does not reduce the quality of the main single player experience (and it won't... it will just give more content).  Bioware is keen on fixing problems and listening to fan input... I see no reason that they will stop doing that.  ME3 will have multiplayer, removable helmets on all armour, more weapon customization (visually in game), more armour customization, the return of vehicle missions/combat, etc.  ME3 will be better, not worse. 

[bjdbwea]

javierabegazo wrote...

SithLordExarKun, and bjdbwea
Don't turn this thread into another "Dissappointment with Mass Effect 2?" Debate, that thread is alive and kicking.
http://social.biowar...797/296#3171601
If this thread is going to be about how "EA is the big bad wolf" then this thread will get locked.

If this thread is giong to be about how ME2's RPG mechanics are not satisfactory, then this thread will get locked, and you all will be redirected the Disappointment thread mentioned above.

If it's going to be a civil discussion about how adding Multiplayer (the mechanic itself) in ME2 or ME3 would ruin it for you, then it can stay open

Understood. I have said my opinion about the multiplayer part and will leave it at that. I would like to point out though that there are once again insults being hurled at critics in this thread. I hope that the moderators do not tolerate that just because it comes from people defending BioWare and their games.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 19 juillet 2010 - 06:54 .

[Rivercurse]

MP - I'd be extremely disappointed.



Boycott - No



ps - Please don't Bio, the trilogy is going superbly the way it is.

[ObserverStatus]

Did I boycott Metroid Prime 2 because of it's joke of a multiplayer mode? No, because it didn't detract from the story mode in any way. I presume Mass Effect 3 will have a superb story mode as well.

[Throw_this_away]

bobobo878 wrote...

Did I boycott Metroid Prime 2 because of it's joke of a multiplayer mode? No, because it didn't detract from the story mode in any way. I presume Mass Effect 3 will have a superb story mode as well.

I think we will gain the ability to control other squad mates (like the ME1 pre-release demo) in ME3.  Multiplayer will just allow others to take that control too... but I suspect their help will not be part of the main storyline since people won;t want to stick around if the main player wants to explore dialogue options between missions.   

[BomimoDK]

Dinkamus_Littlelog wrote...

Probably call it quits on the series, and Bioware altogether if they add multiplayer. The only way I could accept it is if they actually said "okay, we accept that we went too far focusing on shooter gameplay in ME2, so this is added so that the main story and the main game doesnt need to play second fiddle to the shooter elements".

Its pretty clear from even the devs own comments and the marketing that ME2 was massively centred around being a TPS before anything else. The gameplay itself tells you that.

If adding any sort of CO-OP or multiplayer is just another symptom of Bioware trying to bed the Gears of War/Modern Warfare 2 shooter fans, rather than a means of adressing it so that it frees up the single player game for less "TEH SHOTAA!" game design, Im finished with this series for sure, and this company as well.

know you did very little to provoke this, please understand that this is not directed at you in any offensive way and please understand that i tend to rant out on a thought string. no posters were flamed while typing this message.

I'd rather sit with the deepest and most accomplished storydrovem TPS/RPG of 2010 than sit with one of the most shallow and worst RPG's these past 20 years. ME was a bad RPG by the definition that most people here would set. It's obvious that the series is better off as an Action Shooter RPG than a space RPG with guns. ME1 is not much better as a shooter RPG than Alpha Protocol... which fails at both.

I know the general opinion here is that you're all raised above shooters and ME1 is deep. but the truth and general view is that ME2 took the most RPG gamers and shooter fans by storm and gave them 100 times more of a TPS than MW2  did FPS and gave them a more streamlined, yet thinner attempt at RPG features in there. Stop calling it a pure shooter, (and please stop confusing Dumbed Down with streamlining way too tight) i don't see choice or story in many of them.

Further, you guys are insane if you define ME1 as a deep, complete RPG. i've seen many games go deeper and do better. it was lousy, what saved it was combat and story, but it was a horrible RPG and Bioware did right in changing the direction to a choice/story based shooter.

what i meant to say is. ME series is doing so much better as a TPSRPG than an RPG with TPS elements. sure it's been cut a bit too close with little sidequests and missing exploration. they could easily have that back in ME3. something i do not ever want to see in ME again is the horrid inventory and gear management... it just makes this particular universe more tedious. I'm a bit half way about the Meko(?) but i would have some fun with it i guess.

If i could have ME3 tailored to me, it would have ME1's broad scope, ME1's progression table, ME2's approach to dialogue, ME2's cinematic approach and ME2's combat. because that Shizzle just works for this weird cross of subgenres.

Just so we get this outta the way, i play BG series, DA and MW2. don't use age as an argument against me, it makes you look "better than everyone else" and i'm late in replying to this, i know... just ignore it then.

My 2 cents, sorry for derail, just ignore if it did. Do not take offence from this post... i don't have time for it, if you're that soft, look for therapy.

Still not boycotting... it's easier to just ignore it if it gets to that, much less stressful. don't you agree?

This emote indicates my current emotional state and the state i would like any responses to retain, i cannot bear flaming or elitism: :D

Throw_this_away wrote...



I think we will gain the
ability to control other squad mates (like the ME1 pre-release demo) in
ME3.  Multiplayer will just allow others to take that control too... but
I suspect their help will not be part of the main storyline since
people won;t want to stick around if the main player wants to explore
dialogue options between missions.   

why do i feel that this is one of the only approaches that could remotely work for some? why do i like this idea...oh god, Total squad control or swapping between them would give this game so much more tactical depth. i hope they think about this.

DID NOT SEE THE WARNING POST ABOUT LOCKING IF DISCUSSING RPG VS TPS. PLEASE DISREGARD THIS IF YOU HAVE ANY MERCY ON THIS THREAD, THERE ARE MANY REASONABLE POSTS HERE.

Modifié par BomimoDK, 19 juillet 2010 - 07:40 .

[Warlokki]

If there's optional multiplayer, i'm fine with it. As long as it doesn't have hard MP achivements (Halo 3: 2 for 1 is a good example of almost impossible MP achivement based purely on luck).

If there's no MP, i'm fine with it.

Coop, fine.

If there's no achievements for multiplayer, i probably wouldn't even touch it, BFBC2 and Halo Reach are enough.

[lazuli]

I support local co-op, with the ability for a friend to drop in and play as a squadmate, then drop out. If it's local, you don't need to worry about time dilation spamming or other sorts of griefing that could occur.

[rabidhanar]

lazuli wrote...

I support local co-op, with the ability for a friend to drop in and play as a squadmate, then drop out. If it's local, you don't need to worry about time dilation spamming or other sorts of griefing that could occur.

I agree with this post wholeheartily. I would love to have a friend help me out every once in a while.

To OP: Will MP ruin ME3? I say two options
1) Yes, if it is implemented fully as a tack on or arena type MP.
Reasoning for this: Creating a "deathmatch" esque MP causes the SP to either A) lose resources/segments of the game or change the combat system to fit in with the MP (no time dilation abilities, no pausing during combat, Weakening of classes for "balance" [this would most likely include both CC abilities and weapon damage]

2) No, if it is implemented as an option in the SP
Reasoning for this: Combat could be kept as it is, Teamates could potentially add more strategy into combat (infiltrator as a scout/long range specialist, vanguard for hit and run)

To go with this, the second player (if option two is chosen) MUST NOT play as a Shepard. Either A) let them play as a squadmate already in canon (grunt, Miranda, etc.) or Allow them to play as a custom Squadmate.

Custom squadmate could be implemented. Options available for this -
class (current class types)
Race (passive/ racial inheritance)
Alignment (Paragon, Renegade, Paragade, neutral)
Armor type (heavy/tank, medium, light/scout)
Obviously an adept should not be able to use heavy armor.

We could perhaps create a custom character ourselves in Main Menu, our personal character can only be used in MP, but gives us our own way to play.

[ObserverStatus]

lazuli wrote...

I support local co-op, with the ability for a friend to drop in and play as a squadmate, then drop out. If it's local, you don't need to worry about time dilation spamming or other sorts of griefing that could occur.

We might be in luck than.  As far as I know, EA still supports local co-op.  If it was Activision, on the other hand, the game propbably wouldn't run unless you've cleared out all people in a 200 ft radius of your xbox.

[godblessthefresh]

Mass Effect 3 won't be multiplayer...

[MassEffect762]

SithLordExarKun wrote...

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.

Boy you guys can't read. (BOLD IMO)

[Jaron Oberyn]

Throw_this_away wrote...
How about playing more of the RPG called life?

But then I'd miss out on all of the loading screens and the elevator rides... Uhhhh....

-Polite

[SithLordExarKun]

Mx_CN3 wrote...

SithLordExarKun wrote...

Mx_CN3 wrote...

SithLordExarKun wrote...
[lots of replies to Polite]

Take it easy man, you don't want to get suspended!  What do you think would be the best multiplayer route?  Do you think they could incorporate a second (or third) player into dialogue?

That depends honestly as i am not sure how are they going to pull this off unless its an entirely seperate game. Personally, i have never played TPS online multiplayer with other people but if bioware wants to make an ME multiplayer game, i just think they should do something large scale, kind of like Bad company 2 with vehicles, large landscapes, tactical teamwork etc etc and not the boring pew pew pew you get in those now dead COD games.

You gave me an interesting idea.  What if, instead of having a MP focused on Shepard, we got to play alliance personel, say Ashley/Kaiden or whoever, and played a big battle at the Citadel?  Geth heretics attack space station, planet, whatever, alliance or quarians fight back.  It's a little too much like a shooter to belong in ME3, if you ask me, but it does sound like mad fun.  It could just be a spinoff game similar to Battlefront (but just, how should I put this... way better), in that we get to play soldiers at the major battles in a Reaper invasion, or the First Contact War or something like that.

Plus EA did Battlefield so they certainly know what they're doing in that department.

Well the battle of the citadel would be an interesting idea, but i don't think we should specifically play any major character and more of the random soldiers like you see in bad company 2 or battlefront, still, vehicles would be a nice addition and each team having different classes.

[Mx_CN3]

rabidhanar wrote...


Custom squadmate could be implemented. Options available for this -
class (current class types)
Race (passive/ racial inheritance)
Alignment (Paragon, Renegade, Paragade, neutral)
Armor type (heavy/tank, medium, light/scout)
Obviously an adept should not be able to use heavy armor.

We could perhaps create a custom character ourselves in Main Menu, our personal character can only be used in MP, but gives us our own way to play.

"Greetings Shepard, it's Anderson.  I've managed to <strongarm the council/sneak under Udina's nose> into getting you an excellent operative; a/an <race> named <insert BioWare predetermined name>.  S/he is a <origin><class> that <psych profile>.  S/he will make an excellent addition to your crew, but is known to speak his/her mind often in situations, so don't be afraid to overrule any of his/her decisions.  S/he also has a <hard time staying still/interest in aliens/distrust of others> so you might find him/her wandering around your ship, talking to your crewmates often.  During missions, s/he can accompany you if needed and is also a proven squad leader, should a mission call for multiple ground teams.  Good hunting, Anderson out."

[Mx_CN3]

SithLordExarKun wrote...

Well the battle of the citadel would be an interesting idea, but i don't think we should specifically play any major character and more of the random soldiers like you see in bad company 2 or battlefront, still, vehicles would be a nice addition and each team having different classes.

The whole idea of a Battlefield: Mass Effect does sound fun, as I find that style of shooter to be very interesting.  However, they couldn't just change a few maps, skins, and names and call it a new product, they'd have to do something very unique for it.  I'm no game developer, but maybe having some scenarios that are like Battlefield, some like Counter Strike, and some more like a Mass Effect coop would be better.  Actually, that sounds like a terrible game.  It'd be fun, sure, but unoriginal (in before "sounds like EA's cup of tea").

[Simpfan]

I wouldnt mind a ME universe MMO, to be honest.

But a main series game with multiplayer would be...eh, no thanks.

[IrishSpectre257]

I think that if EA wanted Bioware to include multiplayer, the most likely outcome would be another dev team implementing it, with the entire ME team focused on single player.

[Haseeo]

If they worked it in well it might be interesting. But I don't think you can do it in Mass Effect at all without ruining the narritive at all even if someone plays one of your squad mates. If there is going to be a multiplayer Mass Effect like others have said make it a game after the trilogy let Shepards story start as it began, a RPG.

[KitsuneRommel]

lazuli wrote...

I support local co-op, with the ability for a friend to drop in and play as a squadmate, then drop out. If it's local, you don't need to worry about time dilation spamming or other sorts of griefing that could occur.

The console crowd seems to have entirely different experience with multiplayer/co-op than the PC crowd. I wouldn't play a co-op with people I don't know anyway.

And for the sky-is-falling crowd:
Thankfully, multiplayer play is still strong and enjoyable. It will be a big hit on the LAN party scene - playing cooperatively is a blast. Just make sure you plan multiple sessions, as it's a little big for one sitting, or 10 for that matter.

The game? Baldur's Gate 2. Better start boycotting BioWare already.

Modifié par KitsuneRommel, 21 juillet 2010 - 07:22 .

[Tilarta]

Well, this is a complicated issue for me.

Standard deathmatch multiplayer, with an arena and 10-20 Shepherds, meh, that would be boring.

A co-op mode with another player assuming the role of a squadmate, well, that could be interesting.
Not sure how that would define who was influencing the story though.
I'd think whoever was Shepherd should be "storymaster".

But I'd prefer to play Mass Effect 3 as a sologame and have it end as "open explorable" like Mass Effect 2 did, to play DLC if it's released after my "final playthrough".

I'd prefer a real mmo though.
My first serious mmo (Tabula Rasa) was killed by the company that made it and there is no replacement (Stargate Worlds was a possibility, but don't know if that's still coming out).

Mass Effect mmo would be a suitable replacement for that game.