236 réponses à ce sujet

[-Skorpious-]

In case EA happens to be looking here for imput, both fans and professional reviewers view MP as a bad idea. Just sayin'.

Modifié par -Skorpious-, 11 décembre 2010 - 06:48 .

[TeaCokeProphet]

Matchy Pointy wrote...

For me, co-op is the one thing I absolutely do not want, as that will mess with the singleplayer way more then just adding a competative component to the game. It means the conversations, one of the hightpoints, will ahve to go or atleast be made a whole lot shorter (who have patience to just watch another player chat with a bartender for half an hour?). And the classes will have to be changed a lot, adrenaline rush is no go if you have another player shooting as well.

You've obviously thought through it more than me. But still, adreneline rush isn't exactly a necessary ability, and I meant more along the lines that people can simply take control of the crappy AI companions. It would have to be more of a tertiary or quaternary focus, along the lines of "I guess we could throw this in there" with no regards given to the times that I or my host want to chat up EVERYONE. I would rather see other things added, but at the very least I wouldn't mind the ability to help a friend during a dull grind through the same level again or be assisted during a difficult encounter.

[Matchy Pointy]

TeaCokeProphet wrote...

Matchy Pointy wrote...

For me, co-op is the one thing I absolutely do not want, as that will mess with the singleplayer way more then just adding a competative component to the game. It means the conversations, one of the hightpoints, will ahve to go or atleast be made a whole lot shorter (who have patience to just watch another player chat with a bartender for half an hour?). And the classes will have to be changed a lot, adrenaline rush is no go if you have another player shooting as well.

You've obviously thought through it more than me. But still, adreneline rush isn't exactly a necessary ability, and I meant more along the lines that people can simply take control of the crappy AI companions. It would have to be more of a tertiary or quaternary focus, along the lines of "I guess we could throw this in there" with no regards given to the times that I or my host want to chat up EVERYONE. I would rather see other things added, but at the very least I wouldn't mind the ability to help a friend during a dull grind through the same level again or be assisted during a difficult encounter.

While sure, it might work for combat (even though I dont want it), combat is (I hope) still just a part of the game, I know I've spent well over an hour just talkign to all squadmembers and people on the Normandy, and if they are to make it co-op riendly, all tose things would have to go or be cut down, I know I wouldnt want to be the second player in situations like this (and I've played through both BG and BG2+TOB in multiplayer). And as for just adding it on a bonus to be beside, that's not going to happen with a title of this budget.

[guru7892]

Bourne Endeavor wrote...

Johnsen1972 wrote...

Why not guys, if the SP portion of the games stays the same, I dont mind to play a few fast MP games with friends

Because it will not remain the same. This is the qualm the majority of us have. No matter what Bioware claims, the single player will suffer unless EA is willing to commit millions of additional funds and another year or two of development time, neither of which they will ever consider. It is an inevitability due to numerous mechanical overhauls required to accommodate a multiplayer. Every class, enemy, weapon, armor, the entire game itself will have to be redesigned to content with multiple people playing the game. As it is presently, things like Active Cloak, Adrenaline Rush and esspecially Charge are immensely overpowered in a multiplayer setting. Even if this was merely co-op, the game has to be capable of rendering at least double the gameplay processing power of Mass Effect 2. Two Vanguards charging means a larger loading sequence.

This does not even scratch the surface. Mass Effect 3 adhere to choice dialogue when two or more players are involved. One person cannot influence a story where there are many. Therefore, if there even exists choice in dialogue it will require content where multiple people can influence the story. If this undertaking were the direction ME3 sped toward such would mean a magnitude of dialogue for a second player. In any event I doubt EA would allow the funds to manage such an endeavor. In the end, single player would receive less and less attention to handle MP features. Consider if you will, Halo Reach. It spent approximately two years in development with an already designed mechanic for multiplayer; with a team that specializes in that field. Bioware would be experimenting for the first time and would have to begin with an entirely new system.

Suffice it to say, Mass Effect 3 does not have the necessary time to even sniff what Call of Duty and Halo have accomplished. If Bioware/EA desires an online multiplayer of some variety. Give it the proper dedication at  a later juncture. If it is included now... ME3 is trending along thin ice wherein it will attempt to please everyone and instead please no one. These features would nearly kill the RPG fanbase interest and devoid of proper mechanics, not deter the FPS fanbase to leave a superior shooter like Call of Duty to play Mass Effect 3.

I think you are very uniformed about how multiplayer could be done. Honestly they could run two similar but different code bases  (one for singleplayer and one for multiplayer).

There is nothing written anywhere that single player game-play and multi-player game play need to be the same. It would actually be pretty standard to have a separate team (or even studio) to develop the multi-player portion of the game.

the FPS fanbase you talk about is a misinformed representation. MMO's require a monthly payment (traditionaly) But an FPS anyone can buy, play and then put down (traditionaly). FPS players can play many FPS games and there is no drawback (except for a single payment; unlike a mmo subscription fee). I play left 4 dead, I play MAG, I play TF2, I play Deus Ex, I play counter-strike. Those games are pick up and play for me; very little time investment and my skill in the games generally transfer. And people will play a crappy shooter, the hours I clocked in 007:Nightfire on the game cube with my freinds (not nearly as good as halo or halo 2)

and if ME3 multiplayer is like Tribes 2... well the world will be awesome and everything will be puppies and butterflies and unicorns and bunnies and Jesus will come back and be all "spinfusers, yo!" and we'll be all "Shazbot!"...

My point being two fold; Multiplayer development may have little to No impact on the single player expereince as they probably wont be developed by the same team AND Jesus will decent to earth with a spinfuser to dish out judgement on the bioderm horde.

I need to drink less mountain dew...

[TeaCokeProphet]

Matchy Pointy wrote...

While sure, it might work for combat (even though I dont want it), combat is (I hope) still just a part of the game, I know I've spent well over an hour just talkign to all squadmembers and people on the Normandy, and if they are to make it co-op riendly, all tose things would have to go or be cut down, I know I wouldnt want to be the second player in situations like this (and I've played through both BG and BG2+TOB in multiplayer). And as for just adding it on a bonus to be beside, that's not going to happen with a title of this budget.

You certainly have a point that some people will look at this co-op feature and think how Bioware's signature "dialogue" wouldn't fit into the co-op friendly model. My thoughts on this would only come to fruition in some kind of mod for PC versions of the game, but even that is wishful thinking. I'll concede to your pessimism in that it WON'T happen in a realistic world, but I still think it would be fun in combat purely.

EDIT: I apologize for whatever just happened to my post.

Modifié par TeaCokeProphet, 11 décembre 2010 - 07:17 .

[CrypticZer0]

Brandon lee Shepard wrote...

TeaCokeProphet wrote...

I actually WANT co-op in the single player. A kind of drop-in, drop-out kind of thing like in Fable II.

THANK YOU YOU ARE ONE OF THE ONLY FEW PEOPLE ON THIS SITE THAT HAS ANY DAMN BRAINS<_< SO THANK YOU:Omultiplayer in me3 would kick it to a whole new level of awesomeness

So because most of us that would prefer Mass Effect to be what got it to this point in the first place, which is a strong and compelling single player game, we don't have any brains?  Alrighty then... <_<

Cooperative play and/or pvp would be experimental at best in ME 3 if it's implemented, that's all I will say.  If it turns out halfway decent and doesn't ruin the single player then fine. /end of story.

[Matchy Pointy]

TeaCokeProphet wrote...

Matchy Pointy wrote...

While sure, it might work for combat (even though I dont want it), combat is (I hope) still just a part of the game, I know I've spent well over an hour just talkign to all squadmembers and people on the Normandy, and if they are to make it co-op riendly, all tose things would have to go or be cut down, I know I wouldnt want to be the second player in situations like this (and I've played through both BG and BG2+TOB in multiplayer). And as for just adding it on a bonus to be beside, that's not going to happen with a title of this budget.

You certainly have a point that some people will look at this co-op feature and think how Bioware's signature "dialogue" wouldn't fit into the co-op friendly model. My thoughts on this would only come to fruition in some kind of mod for PC versions of the game, but even that is wishful thinking. I'll concede to your pessimism in that it WON'T happen in a realistic world, but I still think it would be fun in combat purely.

EDIT: I apologize for whatever just happened to my post.

And if this was simply a combat game, I would be the first to agree with you (I still think the first Halo in coop is one of the best FPS experiences ever, and am looking forward to Gears of War 3 to play it in coop). I can't however see how it will fit into the dialogue system in ME (and that is not counting my personal opinion that I don't want anyone else to mess with my Shepard's story).

[CommanderSheperd117]

If anything, co-op on missions, like for example let's say I'm the host, you join my game, and play as grunt and my other buddy plays as thane. I do all the dialogue choices and you all just help out. Though on the Normandy, how would that work?

[TeaCokeProphet]

CommanderSheperd117 wrote...

If anything, co-op on missions, like for example let's say I'm the host, you join my game, and play as grunt and my other buddy plays as thane. I do all the dialogue choices and you all just help out. Though on the Normandy, how would that work?

That's his point. It'd either be party intensive, where your buddy and random guy have a part in it (I suppose they're doing something like that with The Old Republic), or they'd cut down on that part, which I'll agree is not anywhere near what I want.

[JamieCOTC]

guru7892 wrote...

Bourne Endeavor wrote...

Johnsen1972 wrote...

Why not guys, if the SP portion of the games stays the same, I dont mind to play a few fast MP games with friends

Because it will not remain the same. This is the qualm the majority of us have. No matter what Bioware claims, the single player will suffer unless EA is willing to commit millions of additional funds and another year or two of development time, neither of which they will ever consider. It is an inevitability due to numerous mechanical overhauls required to accommodate a multiplayer. Every class, enemy, weapon, armor, the entire game itself will have to be redesigned to content with multiple people playing the game. As it is presently, things like Active Cloak, Adrenaline Rush and esspecially Charge are immensely overpowered in a multiplayer setting. Even if this was merely co-op, the game has to be capable of rendering at least double the gameplay processing power of Mass Effect 2. Two Vanguards charging means a larger loading sequence.

This does not even scratch the surface. Mass Effect 3 adhere to choice dialogue when two or more players are involved. One person cannot influence a story where there are many. Therefore, if there even exists choice in dialogue it will require content where multiple people can influence the story. If this undertaking were the direction ME3 sped toward such would mean a magnitude of dialogue for a second player. In any event I doubt EA would allow the funds to manage such an endeavor. In the end, single player would receive less and less attention to handle MP features. Consider if you will, Halo Reach. It spent approximately two years in development with an already designed mechanic for multiplayer; with a team that specializes in that field. Bioware would be experimenting for the first time and would have to begin with an entirely new system.

Suffice it to say, Mass Effect 3 does not have the necessary time to even sniff what Call of Duty and Halo have accomplished. If Bioware/EA desires an online multiplayer of some variety. Give it the proper dedication at  a later juncture. If it is included now... ME3 is trending along thin ice wherein it will attempt to please everyone and instead please no one. These features would nearly kill the RPG fanbase interest and devoid of proper mechanics, not deter the FPS fanbase to leave a superior shooter like Call of Duty to play Mass Effect 3.

I think you are very uniformed about how multiplayer could be done. Honestly they could run two similar but different code bases  (one for singleplayer and one for multiplayer).

There is nothing written anywhere that single player game-play and multi-player game play need to be the same. It would actually be pretty standard to have a separate team (or even studio) to develop the multi-player portion of the game.

the FPS fanbase you talk about is a misinformed representation. MMO's require a monthly payment (traditionaly) But an FPS anyone can buy, play and then put down (traditionaly). FPS players can play many FPS games and there is no drawback (except for a single payment; unlike a mmo subscription fee). I play left 4 dead, I play MAG, I play TF2, I play Deus Ex, I play counter-strike. Those games are pick up and play for me; very little time investment and my skill in the games generally transfer. And people will play a crappy shooter, the hours I clocked in 007:Nightfire on the game cube with my freinds (not nearly as good as halo or halo 2)

and if ME3 multiplayer is like Tribes 2... well the world will be awesome and everything will be puppies and butterflies and unicorns and bunnies and Jesus will come back and be all "spinfusers, yo!" and we'll be all "Shazbot!"...

My point being two fold; Multiplayer development may have little to No impact on the single player expereince as they probably wont be developed by the same team AND Jesus will decent to earth with a spinfuser to dish out judgement on the bioderm horde.

I need to drink less mountain dew...

IF MP is a separate part and the SP is as long, as detailed, as complex as ME2 (hopefully even more so) then I got no problems.  BW is always talking about how they have only so many allotted resources, but if EA puts out enough to have two complete games for the price of one, fine.  Again, I got not problems. But if the story is shorter, if there is less dialogue, less interupts, less or worse anything having to do w/ the SP because of the MP, that won't be the final nail in hte coffin.  No.  The body will be dead, buried and Jesus will salt the earth above the grave. 

[Gaddmeister]

As long as I get a magnificent ending to the story I don't care if there's mp in the game. I might play it depending on the quality. However, if the story is any less than epic, I WILL blame it on the mp. I will not stand by and silently accept a watered down franchise.

[darth_lopez]

i'd just like to point out that Co-Op still means story but RPGs in general, unless MMO, Should not be Multiplayer. They are soley single player experiences. if designed for multiplay, co-op or no, at least 1 player is not getting their moneys' worth out of what's possbly a good story.


I highly doubt they midshifted to Multiplayer with ME 3 if they did BW has gone down the hole and i need to cry myself to sleep tonight v.v

[Gibb_Shepard]

Brandon lee Shepard wrote...

TeaCokeProphet wrote...

I actually WANT co-op in the single player. A kind of drop-in, drop-out kind of thing like in Fable II.

THANK YOU YOU ARE ONE OF THE ONLY FEW PEOPLE ON THIS SITE THAT HAS ANY DAMN BRAINS<_< SO THANK YOU:Omultiplayer in me3 would kick it to a whole new level of awesomeness

Dude you are the biggest troll ever. I've seen your other brainless posts. Multiplayer in ME3, the final installment of a Single player epic trilogy, is not a good idea.

[Livid Carrion]

You do realise bioware, well EA wont listen to anyone on this site. I agree ME should stay a single player experence, multiplayer will impact single player too much, but i believe EA are controling it too much, they did it with ME2 and now theyr doing it even more with ME3. They wont listen and all us loyal fans will be stuck with a half arsed single player model, theyl say that it hasnt impacted it but it will have done. I just hope biowate (if multiplayer is included) realise that thryr doing it wrong

Sorry for any mistakes i wrote this on my phone, thanks for reading

[Bourne Endeavor]

guru7892 wrote...

I think you are very uniformed about how multiplayer could be done. Honestly they could run two similar but different code bases (one for singleplayer and one for multiplayer).

There is nothing written anywhere that single player game-play and multi-player game play need to be the same. It would actually be pretty standard to have a separate team (or even studio) to develop the multi-player portion of the game.

the FPS fanbase you talk about is a misinformed representation. MMO's require a monthly payment (traditionaly) But an FPS anyone can buy, play and then put down (traditionaly). FPS players can play many FPS games and there is no drawback (except for a single payment; unlike a mmo subscription fee). I play left 4 dead, I play MAG, I play TF2, I play Deus Ex, I play counter-strike. Those games are pick up and play for me; very little time investment and my skill in the games generally transfer. And people will play a crappy shooter, the hours I clocked in 007:Nightfire on the game cube with my freinds (not nearly as good as halo or halo 2)

and if ME3 multiplayer is like Tribes 2... well the world will be awesome and everything will be puppies and butterflies and unicorns and bunnies and Jesus will come back and be all "spinfusers, yo!" and we'll be all "Shazbot!"...

My point being two fold; Multiplayer development may have little to No impact on the single player expereince as they probably wont be developed by the same team AND Jesus will decent to earth with a spinfuser to dish out judgement on the bioderm horde.

I need to drink less mountain dew...

Aye, they could well have a separate team however you neglect the exorbitant costs in having to fund the additional personal. Such an endeavor would require enormous space on a disc as the game would have to accommodate for two completely different mechanics were your theory entertained. Consider Final Fantasy X cost an estimated thirty four and a half million to produce nigh a decade ago. Can you imagine the cost of the Mass Effect series? Now factor that into a separate group and EA could well have to fund a triple the aforementioned. It is simply not a worthwhile venture for them.

People may play multiple FPS titles, that does not mean they will purchase a new one. If Mass Effect offers little in terms of diversity from Call of Duty or worse, is partially developed due to having a single player to consider. It will not garner interest. One of the largest complaints about ME from the FPS fanbase is there is too much dialogue and cut-scenes. These are nigh essential features for the RPG fans.

Case in point, it is naive to believe multiplayer will not impact single player, both due to cost and time. If Bioware announced Mass Effect 3 will be delayed another year or two, then there is an argument to be made. Unfortunately, such is not the presented scenario.

Brandon lee Shepard wrote...

TeaCokeProphet wrote...

I actually WANT co-op in the single player. A kind of drop-in, drop-out kind of thing like in Fable II.

THANK YOU YOU ARE ONE OF THE ONLY FEW PEOPLE ON THIS SITE THAT HAS ANY DAMN BRAINS{smilie} SO THANK YOU{smilie}multiplayer in me3 would kick it to a whole new level of awesomeness

Bourne Endeavor wrote...

Majority of posts wrote...

I actually DO NOT WANT co-op in the single player. It will make the single player game tacked on, kind of like in Bioshock 2.

THANK YOU YOU ARE ONE OF THE ONLY FEW PEOPLE ON THIS SITE THAT HAS ANY DAMN BRAINS{smilie} SO THANK YOU{smilie} no multiplayer in me3 would kick it to a whole new level of awesomeness

Cheers, now I can post pointlessly irreverent posts that serve nothing more than to insult people because they do not agree with me too!

Modifié par Bourne Endeavor, 11 décembre 2010 - 03:18 .

[Sunriseray]

Multiplayer in Mass Effect 3? NO! Multiplayer in Mass Effect Universe? Oh Yeeah! In Spin-off perhaps, like First Contact War - Humans vs Turians in deadly Deathmatch on Earth...

[Tetragnatha_Sp]

Bourne Endeavor wrote...

Brandon lee Shepard wrote...

THANK YOU YOU ARE ONE OF THE ONLY FEW PEOPLE ON THIS SITE THAT HAS ANY DAMN BRAINS{smilie} SO THANK YOU{smilie}multiplayer in me3 would kick it to a whole new level of awesomeness

Cheers, now I can post pointlessly irreverent posts that serve nothing more than to insult people because they do not agree with me too!

Don't pay attention ,he is just a troll.Here is his quote from PS3 thread

Brandon lee Shepard wrote...
PS3 SUCKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! XBOX360 IS THE BEST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

See?
Brandon lee Shepard ,you'd better change your account name.Seriously

[scarface71795]

"Sir someone at Bioware has suggested a Multiplayer approach to ME3"
"STOP F***ING EVERYTHING"
"Where we going sir"
WE'RE GONNA SEND A TOMAHAWK THROUGH EA'S HEAD OFFICE
"AYE SKIPPER"

:happy:<_<=My reaction

Modifié par scarface71795, 11 décembre 2010 - 03:57 .

[WidowMaker9394]

Why not?



I'd be okay with it, seeing as it probably would be an entirely different team that would do the MP component.

[slimgrin]

I'd rather multiplayer was a separate project altogether if they were to do it.

Keep ME3 single player.

Modifié par slimgrin, 11 décembre 2010 - 03:56 .

[Tetragnatha_Sp]

I'll just wait for official announcement of MP mode.No official confirmation=no multiplayer.End of story.

[Tazzmission]

as much as i hate it but i still say co op is the best way to go multiplayer dosent fit in me and it feels like ea is trying to follow whats popular

[Harcken]

I'd rather they focus their resources on import decisions and an epic finale, rather than try a half-assed, time constrained first attempt at multiplayer. Test out multiplayer later, do what you do best now.

[scarface71795]

I'd rather teabag a beartrap