74 réponses à ce sujet

[-Skorpious-]

First of all I would like to apoligize for the horrible pun (couldn't help myself).

Anyways, I am referring to a recent Kotaku interview with EA's very own Frank Gibeau who claims EA Won't be making stand-alone single player games anymore. Now I understand that Bioware and EA are technically separate studio's with separate development teams, but EA are still the ones who fund Bioware's current and future titles - if EA wants MP they will get MP.

Take Dead Space for example. The survival horror title was a surprise hit for me when I played it last year (nothing special, but still way above my expectations). Now EA, with a newfound hard-on for MP, decides Dead Space 2 will be all the better with some form of MP. MP isn't necessarily a bad thing, but when is starts to negatively impact the single-player aspect of the game (made evident by recent releases such as BIoshock 2, Resident Evil 5, and Singularity) then why should such a feature be included? Does EA honestly think the tacked on MP of an outer-space survival horror game will attract fans of CoD, Halo, or Battlefield (especially when the game is promoted as a single player game above a MP one)?

Now getting to the point - will EA's new decision harm the future of Bioware's games? I posted this specifically in the ME forums since Bioware has already made clear their intention to make a MP game, so I figured if any of Bioware's titles are going MP ME would be the most likely suspect. However, I do not condemn of Bioware's MP game. As far as I know, it isn't ME3, and it doesn't involve Commander Shepard. Thats fine. But what does worry me is the direction the ME series will take after the reapers have been defeated and Shepard's story comes to an end. Will we see full-blown MP oriented games? More RPG/shooter hybrids? An RTS?

I don't want to see Bioware go the route of creating strictly MP titles. In an industry where MP is starting to rank more important to developers than the single-player aspect of a game, this news does scare me a little.

Modifié par -Skorpious-, 08 décembre 2010 - 05:26 .

[Googlesaurus]

I feel like we need to sit EA down and have a long slow talk about the word "oversaturation".

[Sapphira]

I've never played Bioshock 2 or Singularity, but whats your opinion on RE5 ?

[Atmosfear3]

Sounds good to me. The prospect of multiplayer is what brings in the money. If any title has enough hype investors would be willing to dump more money into it, leading to bigger and better games for us.

[Trix-Rabbit]

EA has already had an effect on both the ME franchise and bioware, you can bet EA has its grubby little hands where it doesnt belong, just like SOE, Beth, and others....This year i went from a big beth fan in addition to a bioware fan,now i just like bioware, due to beth meddling with id software games.

[J.G]

Hey EA if it aint broke dont fix it. With that said it my not even matter, Bioware will continue to make amazing games even if they're not single player games.

[-Skorpious-]

Sapphira wrote...

I've never played Bioshock 2 or Singularity, but whats your opinion on RE5 ?

Aside from the ridiculous plot, bizarre VO/characterization for 2/3 of the cast, its utter lack of survival horror elements and the constant in your face action - it was ok, just ok. Certaintly no RE4.

The MP was essentially a repeat of RE4's survival/time-attack modes. However, the co-op was excellent, and I did forget the versus mode (which allowed for MP) came out as a DLC. I guess I can remove RE5 from my list, since I forgot that little fact. =p

Modifié par -Skorpious-, 08 décembre 2010 - 05:26 .

[Ahglock]

IF they follow that principle there are 2 outcomes. One they waste development time on good multiplayer, two they put in a token multiplayer thing basically stolen from some other game. I am sure you have seen these games before, the single player games with lame multiplayer tacked on. The single player parts still kick ass. In ME2 for example just use sections of trimmed down mission maps and let people shoot each other in them, have some basic goal like first team to X kills and you have multiplayer. It wont take much time at all for the team.

[-Skorpious-]

Ahglock wrote...

IF they follow that principle there are 2 outcomes. One they waste development time on good multiplayer, two they put in a token multiplayer thing basically stolen from some other game. I am sure you have seen these games before, the single player games with lame multiplayer tacked on. The single player parts still kick ass. In ME2 for example just use sections of trimmed down mission maps and let people shoot each other in them, have some basic goal like first team to X kills and you have multiplayer. It wont take much time at all for the team.

They have to balance the classes, weapons, the levels themselves, ect. Basically, it would take more time than you initially thought it would.

[Googlesaurus]

Ahglock wrote...

IF they follow that principle there are 2 outcomes. One they waste development time on good multiplayer, two they put in a token multiplayer thing basically stolen from some other game. I am sure you have seen these games before, the single player games with lame multiplayer tacked on. The single player parts still kick ass. In ME2 for example just use sections of trimmed down mission maps and let people shoot each other in them, have some basic goal like first team to X kills and you have multiplayer. It wont take much time at all for the team.

Multiplayer is way more complicated than you're making it out to be. 

[Ahglock]

-Skorpious- wrote...

Ahglock wrote...

IF they follow that principle there are 2 outcomes. One they waste development time on good multiplayer, two they put in a token multiplayer thing basically stolen from some other game. I am sure you have seen these games before, the single player games with lame multiplayer tacked on. The single player parts still kick ass. In ME2 for example just use sections of trimmed down mission maps and let people shoot each other in them, have some basic goal like first team to X kills and you have multiplayer. It wont take much time at all for the team.

They have to balance the classes, weapons, the levels themselves, ect. Basically, it would take more time than you initially thought it would.

You miss my point.  Some games have not even tried to do that.  They tell the investors there will be multiplayer and they tack on crap multiplayer so it is technically there.  But end of the day it is a single player game.  They don't give a crap about balance etc.  They are told put in mutliplayer so it is there. 

[Fiery Phoenix]

Googlesaurus wrote...

Ahglock wrote...

IF they follow that principle there are 2 outcomes. One they waste development time on good multiplayer, two they put in a token multiplayer thing basically stolen from some other game. I am sure you have seen these games before, the single player games with lame multiplayer tacked on. The single player parts still kick ass. In ME2 for example just use sections of trimmed down mission maps and let people shoot each other in them, have some basic goal like first team to X kills and you have multiplayer. It wont take much time at all for the team.

Multiplayer is way more complicated than you're making it out to be.

And usually a whole other development team is responsible for it. It just can't work in a game like ME3.

[Sparda Stonerule]

I don't see why everyone thinks this will be happening to every game. From a marketing standpoint I'm relatively sure it's market posturing to promote Dead Space 2's multiplayer. I'm sure they are a little worried that their multiplayer will not breach the Halo or COD crowd so they are grasping at straws. That being said I highly doubt ME 3 will have multiplayer. It's just EA marketing doing what they do best. Lying and exaggerating.

On the other hand if it by some weird twist of fate this is 100% accurate I don't mind if multiplayer is in a game as long as it is good and well thought out. Meaning NOT like Dead Rising 2 and NOT like Resident Evil 5.

Modifié par Sparda Stonerule, 08 décembre 2010 - 05:35 .

[Zweebs]

I played Bioshock 2 and loved it... I must have beaten it at least twice. Never even touched the multiplayer though.

[SmokePants]

ME3 is going to have multiplayer. Might as well accept it. The good news is that it appears to me all that work is being done in Montreal and the Edmonton team is still concentrating on the single-player experience. I don't believe the rumored standalone game exists. If it does, it means that the ME team is not only shorthanded from losing Montreal as an adjunct studio, but they'll be even more shorthanded trying to devote resources to multiplayer. But I don't believe that's the case.

[Splinter Cell 108]

I don't know if I'm correct or not but there's still the big risk of adding the multiplayer to the trilogy's last game. If it fails then a lot of money would have been wasted for nothing, usually games that don't have multiplayer get multiplayer in their second versions such as Dead Space. Maybe ME3 won't have multiplayer but I'm pretty sure whatever comes next that has Mass Effect on its name will have MP unfortunately.



Now I don't hate MP or anything what I dislike is that everyone always uses the same ideas which are deathmatch, team deathmatch and capture the flag. However there are good MP games I liked such as Splinter Cell Chaos Theory but that's been dead for a long time now and I doubt anyone will ever make anything as complicated and innovative as Spies vs Mercenaries. Thanks to casual gamers today everyone just wants everything to be like COD and Halo. Maybe in the future there might be more decent MP games.

[mereck7980]

Atmosfear3 wrote...

Sounds good to me. The prospect of multiplayer is what brings in the money. If any title has enough hype investors would be willing to dump more money into it, leading to bigger and better games for us.

Diversity in an organization is a sign of strength, if EA wants to continue to be an industry leader they need to have more variety than just "another multiplayer game".  Only a very few games that have multiplayer components are successful because of the multiplayer aspects of the game. For every COD there are a dozen other games that try to be COD and fail (Medal of Honor...).  I know EA wants to have a title that they can use to compete with Activision in the online space, but Activision doesn't have a game that compete with EA in the RPG space.  Why dilute one genre in the attempt to gain market share in another?   

[Fiery Phoenix]

Splinter Cell 108 wrote...

I don't know if I'm correct or not but there's still the big risk of adding the multiplayer to the trilogy's last game. If it fails then a lot of money would have been wasted for nothing, usually games that don't have multiplayer get multiplayer in their second versions such as Dead Space. Maybe ME3 won't have multiplayer but I'm pretty sure whatever comes next that has Mass Effect on its name will have MP unfortunately.

(...)

I'd be OK with that, so as long ME3 is safe from it.

[SSV Enterprise]

The guy from EA says "multiplayer or online services". Cerberus Network is technically an online service; I doubt they will go much farther than that.

[RinpocheSchnozberry]

It is most likely a self correcting problem.



If EA does this and continues to make content gamers want to pay for, gamers will pay for it. If the price is too much, gamers won't buy it. EA won't make money. EA will switch strategies. If the price is fair, gamers will buy it, EA will continue to make it.



On top of that, if you're going to buy 6 fill price titles in a year, and EA makes four that are multiplayer only.... you can bet your ass there is another company out there that sees your four purchases dangling in the wind and they will find a way to make a product to sell you.



So, yes, this blows.... IF (and it isn't clear) this means EA's single player games are done.



Lots of ifs right now, and lots of other companies out there willing to make games for us single player fanatics. :-) Be groovy, it will be ok.

[Splinter Cell 108]

FieryPhoenix7 wrote...

Splinter Cell 108 wrote...

I don't know if I'm correct or not but there's still the big risk of adding the multiplayer to the trilogy's last game. If it fails then a lot of money would have been wasted for nothing, usually games that don't have multiplayer get multiplayer in their second versions such as Dead Space. Maybe ME3 won't have multiplayer but I'm pretty sure whatever comes next that has Mass Effect on its name will have MP unfortunately.

(...)

I'd be OK with that, so as long ME3 is safe from it.

Same with me, I just want to finish the trilogy without MP. However it will be sad to see that the next Mass Effect games will have MP.

[Luigitornado]

EA might as well stab current ME fans in the back. I don't see much point to it.

[mereck7980]

Splinter Cell 108 wrote...

FieryPhoenix7 wrote...

Splinter Cell 108 wrote...

I don't know if I'm correct or not but there's still the big risk of adding the multiplayer to the trilogy's last game. If it fails then a lot of money would have been wasted for nothing, usually games that don't have multiplayer get multiplayer in their second versions such as Dead Space. Maybe ME3 won't have multiplayer but I'm pretty sure whatever comes next that has Mass Effect on its name will have MP unfortunately.

(...)

I'd be OK with that, so as long ME3 is safe from it.

Same with me, I just want to finish the trilogy without MP. However it will be sad to see that the next Mass Effect games will have MP.

It may be inevitable that future big budget games will have some form of MP.  As long as a game is designed specifically around MP it isn't always a terrible thing, but ME is already 2 entries into a trilogy.  Trying this "new design philosophy" now could be disastrous.  Wait until you can create an original IP to experiment with this idea Bioware! 

[Getorex]

-Skorpious- wrote...

Sapphira wrote...

I've never played Bioshock 2 or Singularity, but whats your opinion on RE5 ?

Aside from the ridiculous plot, bizarre VO/characterization for 2/3 of the cast, its utter lack of survival horror elements and the constant in your face action - it was ok, just ok. Certaintly no RE4.

The MP was essentially a repeat of RE4's survival/time-attack modes. However, the co-op was excellent, and I did forget the versus mode (which allowed for MP) came out as a DLC. I guess I can remove RE5 from my list, since I forgot that little fact. =p

Erm..."Aside from the ridiculous plot..." What part of RE hasn't been one big pile of ridiculous plot? Granted, my sole exposure to RE lay in the movies but still - based on the games I seen nothing but ridiculous plot.

[Luigitornado]

Getorex wrote...

-Skorpious- wrote...

Sapphira wrote...

I've never played Bioshock 2 or Singularity, but whats your opinion on RE5 ?

Aside from the ridiculous plot, bizarre VO/characterization for 2/3 of the cast, its utter lack of survival horror elements and the constant in your face action - it was ok, just ok. Certaintly no RE4.

The MP was essentially a repeat of RE4's survival/time-attack modes. However, the co-op was excellent, and I did forget the versus mode (which allowed for MP) came out as a DLC. I guess I can remove RE5 from my list, since I forgot that little fact. =p

Erm..."Aside from the ridiculous plot..." What part of RE hasn't been one big pile of ridiculous plot? Granted, my sole exposure to RE lay in the movies but still - based on the games I seen nothing but ridiculous plot.

A lot of video games have dumb plots.