163 réponses à ce sujet

[SalsaDMA]

As aleady pointed out, by that argument you could argue that only the 3 most played classes should be devloped for the game, to save rsources. And since fewer prob take the middle route than the paragon/renegade options, why not cut those out too from the production? It'll save you mony that you can use on less things...



Also, let's only give shepard 2 companions for the whole game, without the ability to swap team-members. That's gonna save a huge amount of money on voice acting too, so that's gonna work out swell as well in this regard. And we'll totally ignore all decisions made in ME! an ME2, cause they'e gonna take time too from developing the game.



So in the end, if we try and cut everywhere we can we'll get a linear shooter without options at all in any regard. But it had the maximum amount of resources, so it ought to be good this way, right?



Less isn't always more, you know...



Hopefully somebody catches the sarcasm.

[GreenSoda]

The point is this:



Implementing mp/co-op would suck up resources from the sp-campaign.



Some think a shorter sp-campaign would be an appropriate price to pay for a co-op mode. Most don't. That's all there is to it.



Less might not always be more, but spreading your resources over even more "features" like mp will certainly leave the remaining features with less resources.

[Rapamaha]

a simple splitscreen co-op would be fun to play with friends, as for online multiplayer: naah, with all the special abilitys you have in ME you cant really make well balanced online multiplayer shooter game, but simple co-op where your friend would jump in as one of your squad mates and play with you, that would be fun

[Matchy Pointy]

Rapamaha wrote...

a simple splitscreen co-op would be fun to play with friends, as for online multiplayer: naah, with all the special abilitys you have in ME you cant really make well balanced online multiplayer shooter game, but simple co-op where your friend would jump in as one of your squad mates and play with you, that would be fun

And your friend would be sitting with nothing to do while Shepard walks arounf the Normandy talking to his crew, and then go shopping on the citadel before coming back for some more crewmember chatting.

[Rapamaha]

Matchy Pointy wrote...

Rapamaha wrote...

a simple splitscreen co-op would be fun to play with friends, as for online multiplayer: naah, with all the special abilitys you have in ME you cant really make well balanced online multiplayer shooter game, but simple co-op where your friend would jump in as one of your squad mates and play with you, that would be fun

And your friend would be sitting with nothing to do while Shepard walks arounf the Normandy talking to his crew, and then go shopping on the citadel before coming back for some more crewmember chatting.

well ofcourse your friend would need to be interested about the story and chatting aswell, im not asking for the game focus totally on multiplayer, just the option to split the screen and play co-op, thats not a really big deal ?

[Dionkey]

Let the trilogy be and drop this multiplayer/coop already. It would ruin the cinematic experience of the game. Ever been watching a movie and had that friend who won't shut up? Or playing a story driven game and have someone talking to you during cutscenes through vent or xbl? We don't need it. It may sound cool in concept but not all of us want that, even if it takes 5% away from the game it doesnt matter. No coop for the love of everything good.

[SalsaDMA]

As I've pointed out before in this thread already: It's been done before, by Bioware even, in multiple story driven RPGs. Go look up 'Baldurs gate', 'Baldurs gate 2' or 'Neverwinter Nights' (all by Bioware) if your imagination cannot comprehend this phenomena. And yes, all of these games were very well received as single player games 'despite' (as some of you would like to try and claim) that they had multiplayer capabilities.



As also should be noted, the mentioned titles means that Bioware as a studio already have previous experience in this field, so less work for them is needed than if they were to try and come up with it from scratch.



A final note in this regard should be the rumor of the ME team thinking of including timed decisions by default when making choices (see: http://social.biowar...index/5509595/1 for more info). This would certainly tie in smoothly with co-op, as it would put a damper on waiting around too much while the 'decision maker' made up his mind.

[SalsaDMA]

Dionkey wrote...

Let the trilogy be and drop this multiplayer/coop already. It would ruin the cinematic experience of the game. Ever been watching a movie and had that friend who won't shut up? Or playing a story driven game and have someone talking to you during cutscenes through vent or xbl? We don't need it. It may sound cool in concept but not all of us want that, even if it takes 5% away from the game it doesnt matter. No coop for the love of everything good.

You don't need to play it as co-op if you don't want to, either.

If it's there, you have a choice. If it's not there, you don't have a choice.

[BAOBAB_AOTEAROA]

personally i think co-op would be great.....implementation could be problematic, but i guess that's what game designers are for.....

from the story point of view it should be no problem, i mean you work in team ( that is someone is shepard and the others must be some of the other right noe non playing characters), also big DLC could be more then possible, but it could also be an option during the ME3 story



For istance what if during ME3 shepard needs to collect more allies or defend more places contemporary, and under time pressure can dived it's team with a new leader ( a possible spectre in future) and some of his team members.......maybe there was even a hint in the shadowbroker's files:

GARRUS

"Former C-Sec officer. Exceptional tactical and team-building skills. Leadership potential overshadowed by Shepard. Unlikely to fully develop under Shepard's command."

[King Gigglez]

If they implement Multiplayer, I think it will be and should be like Halo's multiplayer; team slayer, free for all, etc., just with more customation.

[Jaron Oberyn]

SalsaDMA wrote...

Dionkey wrote...

Let the trilogy be and drop this multiplayer/coop already. It would ruin the cinematic experience of the game. Ever been watching a movie and had that friend who won't shut up? Or playing a story driven game and have someone talking to you during cutscenes through vent or xbl? We don't need it. It may sound cool in concept but not all of us want that, even if it takes 5% away from the game it doesnt matter. No coop for the love of everything good.

You don't need to play it as co-op if you don't want to, either.

If it's there, you have a choice. If it's not there, you don't have a choice.

Has nothing to do with necessity. It has to do with resources being diverted to multiplayer.

-Polite

[uzivatel]

I would prefer to keep it out of the ME3.
I would like to see standalone coop-heavy ME game or maybe even paid ME3 DLC, but not part of the main game (and there should be always an AI option).
Including coop in the main campaign is going to affect gameplay and having standalone coop campaign is going to suck resources from the singleplayer.

Modifié par uzivatel, 04 janvier 2011 - 05:02 .

[Sir Ulrich Von Lichenstien]

SalsaDMA wrote...

As I've pointed out before in this thread already: It's been done before, by Bioware even, in multiple story driven RPGs. Go look up 'Baldurs gate', 'Baldurs gate 2' or 'Neverwinter Nights' (all by Bioware) if your imagination cannot comprehend this phenomena. And yes, all of these games were very well received as single player games 'despite' (as some of you would like to try and claim) that they had multiplayer capabilities.



As also should be noted, the mentioned titles means that Bioware as a studio already have previous experience in this field, so less work for them is needed than if they were to try and come up with it from scratch.



A final note in this regard should be the rumor of the ME team thinking of including timed decisions by default when making choices (see: http://social.biowar...index/5509595/1 for more info). This would certainly tie in smoothly with co-op, as it would put a damper on waiting around too much while the 'decision maker' made up his mind.

Whilst I'll agree with you about BG, you can't bring NWN into the story because the main focus of NWN was actually the multiplayer side to it. The OC was just there to show what could be done.

Another thing to point out, we're talking about different styles of play here. I imagine if there is anyone working still in Bioware that worked on BG they'll most likely be in the DA development rather than ME (devs feel free to correct me if am wrong ).
Co-Op just won't work with how ME is played. The reason it worked in BG is because you could control your squadmates personally. You can't do that in ME which means they would need to implement more things for that to work. Then there is the dialogue side of things. IIRC in BG the co-op had the co-op person as just another 'character' rather than any of the companions.
They've got enough on their plate without adding a co-op function to appease a vocal minority to their list of things to add into ME3.
Also that timed decisions thing has been quelled already. IIRC Christina Norman said there would be no 'Indigo Prophecy' style decisions made which to me, means no 'timed decisions' seeing as 'Indigo Prophecy' had them.

[SalsaDMA]

I can specify where my companions should go and what weapons/abilities they should use in ME too...

The interface is different, but the options are the same. Only difference is that they added an AI to take over when the player wasn't actively controlling the team-members, to better incorporate real-time combat.

The host in BG was still the 'main character' and centric to the story. It was still 'his/her' story that was being told. Sure, they could refine the co-op model somewhat compared to the one they used 10-12 years ago, but there's nothing with it that is impossible.

[Unseen_77]

I highly disagree to co-op on Mass effect 3.



I think co-op would not add enough to warrant the attention and resources to be taken away from the single -player.



Also remember that becuase this is for the xbox, they most likely will be trying to cram everything to one DVD where adding content like that would only subtract from lack of storage room for some Single-player content.



In other words. Hell no! lol



A optional stand alone dlc for Co-op would not be so bad though.

[james1976]

Mass Effect needs to remain single player. Period. They have a great thing going right now and I'd hate to see them ruin it by applying another element that isn't even important to the story itself.

[Illusive]

I don't think co-op should be in ME3 at launch since it should remain a strictly single-player trilogy. I wouldn't be opposed to a DLC after ME3 launch that implements the co-op feature, though.

[Uszi]

Scrith wrote...

From what I've learn, people DO NOT WANT Multiplayer, cause we know Bioware will do it wrong

I think people want Mass Effect 3 more than they want multiplayer.
I for one have perfect faith that Bioware could release a multiplayer heavy shooter based in the Mass Effect Universe and do it well.

But I want multiplayer to be stand-a-lone.  I don't want/need it in Mass Effect 3.

[dmblackone]

Actually with co-op squad mates would be thinking persons instead of idiotic AI who keeps getting killed.

[james1976]

Kings19 wrote...

I don't think co-op should be in ME3 at launch since it should remain a strictly single-player trilogy. I wouldn't be opposed to a DLC after ME3 launch that implements the co-op feature, though.

The concept of an add-on providing an multiplayer element is fine as those of us who do not want that will not have to buy it and those that do want it will.  But I am not so sure they can do that.

[zsom]

No. Please no. On second thought... hell no.

[Destroy Raiden_]

No. We already have squad mates fouling up combat I don't need someone else doing it deliberately.