163 réponses à ce sujet

[SalsaDMA]

Destroy Raiden wrote...

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

Because, obviously, as the host you have no control of wether or not you even want to allow other players in your team, or who you want in it...

[SalsaDMA]

Unseen_77 wrote...

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.

2 wrong statements/asumptions does not make one right!

First assumption: Co-op would take resources away from single player, and would inherently make it worse in that area.

Unless you have inner knowledge of how their business model works specifically for the ME3 project, you're just spouting asumptions here. First of all you are asuming that people doing one thing (single player) would be removed from their project to do multiplayer instead (rather than having a dedicated group handling it), and second you seem to be of the asumption that there is an infinite amount of resources that both can be poured into single player, and that any resources they would get would automatically be pouredinto it.

The amount of resources you allocate to a project is depending on what the projuect is supposed to do/undertake. You don't just allocate 'X' amount of resources to a project, and then think this amount is suitable regardless of what the project is supposed to do. At least not if you want to make sensible projects.

And there is also a limited amount of resources that can be poured into one area before you either reach a 'saturation' level , or actually start to hurt results by pouring extra resources into it (the old 'too many chefs to cook one meal' saying).

Second assumption: Co-op would tak up so much space on the storage medium that it would impact single player level design based on lack of available space on the storage medium.

This on is an asumption that is so out of what I could even have imagined of arguments that people would try to use that all I can say is: oh..really?... Lack of storage space... in this day and age... because of a non-graphical addendum of code? I wonder what every other game that have allowed multiplayer up till this point have done to be able to cope with this appearantly in-surmountable problem... But Seriously...  If this kind of issue could be dealt with in the age of the flopydisc, I'm pretty sure developers have some form of dealing with it today as well, even if it actually became an issue (which I very much doubt).

[RekhX4]

I support the OP 100%.



You guys are really stuck in your RPG hole, arentcha?

[ExplosiveMage]

Logic fail for non coop supporters...here how i see coop working.



In action sequences, obv the main player (P1) is Shepard. P2 is one of the two squadmates, who can control them and fight normally...only thing that really needs to be worked out is power usage, but im certain it can be accomodated in the MP environment.



When on worlds or missions where you are running around with at least one squadmate, P2 gets to move their character around but other than that cant do anything. (Someone mentioned the Talis analogy from Sonic....an apt comparison). Now some naysayers are saying well what is P2 gonna do the whole time between fighting...obviously only interested people are gonna want to play as P2 so they watch as you ask NPC questions and converse with them, and possibly provide input to you personally as to how to make decisions and responses to NPCs...pretty simple, yeah?



On the Normandy, P2 has no control whatsoever and only watches what you do. Again, only an interested player would even consider it, but its not really that crazy as I watched my brother play during most of his playthrough since I was interested in the story.



The resourcs discussion has been mentioned a number of times its a logical fallacy to assume that money for MP takes away from money for single player...if they considered it they would have dedicated it own budget...that said one guy posted here saying hed rather the money went into the marketing budget....why lol? How does that benefit us as gamers?

[adam_grif]

Coop needs to be drop-in-drop-out style, with you being able to "open" your game whenever you wanted to people joining in. You could make it public, friends-only or invite-only.

[Scrith]

Some points to consider:

- Co-op may not necessarily take up SP resources, or Bioware may not necessarily be short on funds.
- Co-op may be included on DLC.
- Co-op may only encompass the combat segments, like "Select Mission"
- Co-op is COMPLETELY optional.

Modifié par Scrith, 05 janvier 2011 - 09:58 .

[GodWood]

Those are not new points.

[Oculus Dei]

hmmm co-op woud be kinda hard when you know how mass effect is build up, it coud be for the best or the worst.

if Bioware coud made a good, fully story game like in mass effect 1 and 2 with coop, it's more then welcome for me ^^.

[Scrith]

GodWood wrote...

Those are not new points.

Some people don't read through the thread. Hell, they don't even read the OP. Fixed, btw.

Modifié par Scrith, 05 janvier 2011 - 09:58 .

[Matchy Pointy]

RekhX4 wrote...

I support the OP 100%.

You guys are really stuck in your RPG hole, arentcha?

I'm not going to argue agasint co-op, because we honestly wont be able to persuade each other of our views (you want it, i sure as hell dont), but I must ask, how is it wrong to be "stuck in a RPG hole" when playing an, umm, RPG?

[Shockwave81]

Were people asking for multi-player before ME2 came out?  If not, why is there such a burning desire for it to be incorporated in the FINAL GAME of the trilogy?  I'd really like to know. 

I've said it before, and I'll say it again - I do not want MP or co-op in ME3 - the reasons against it outweigh the reasons for it (my opinion from reading the posts in this thread). 

Dedicating resources to the incorporation of a very optional co-op component does not make sense to me.  

Using the Sonic and Tails analogy is also rather weak - Sonic never spoke, and the ENTIRE GAME required nothing more than a directional pad and action button to play - we're talking about a 'pick up and play' game that required considerably less explanation/tutorial for a casual gamer than Mass Effect would.  

I've already got enough concerns about story pacing for ME3 without a hokey co-op feature being forced in because "the world of gaming is changing".  

Not all change is for the better. 

Modifié par Shockwave81, 05 janvier 2011 - 11:05 .

[Kurt Cobain]

very strong NO

[Scrith]

Please provide a reason on why you object. I don't see how Co-op is not feasible.

[88mphSlayer]

technically Mass Effect 1 already had a horde mode with the Pinnacle Station DLC which very few people seem to remember

that DLC was PRIME material for a multiplayer/co-op extra mode for the Mass Effect series, i'm even kind of stunned that ME1 didn't already have multiplayer/co-op with the Pinnacle Station DLC

as far as campaign co-op, it wouldn't be that big of a problem... the player already has 2 companions with them during missions, 1 could be a specific companion needed for a mission and the other would be a player, maybe playing as one of the companions

i think the only problem with campaign co-op is you'd have to ratchet up the difficulty since all the scenarios are designed for 1 player with minor computer support, as such i think another mode like Pinnacle Station would work for multiplayer/co-op

Modifié par 88mphSlayer, 05 janvier 2011 - 02:24 .

[Scrith]

I don't think scaling the AI fro Co-op will be much of a problem for Bioware.

[superfatman]

It would be a cool option and likely would end up working better than competitive multiplayer. However there would be two obstacles to getting it done. The first is the obvious, all the people whining about the prospect of a multiplayer mode in ME3 who are too dumb to realize that if a multiplayer mode was included they would still be free not to play it. The second is a bit less obvious though. Whenever you switch weapons without the mouse wheel or choose a non-key binded power you have to pause the game, and multiple people constantly pausing a co-op mode probably would be annoying besides not working well. If BioWare was to do something like this they would have to have to enable players to switch weapons and use all of their powers without pausing the game.

[superfatman]

The Big Nothing wrote...

Nope.

Mass Effect 1-3 is the story of Shepard, not Shepard & Friend.

You are dumb, 90% of the story missions in ME2 were about the squadmates.

[JamieCOTC]

superfatman wrote...

The Big Nothing wrote...

Nope.

Mass Effect 1-3 is the story of Shepard, not Shepard & Friend.

You are dumb, 90% of the story missions in ME2 were about the squadmates.

Exactly, and that's why ME3 should focus much more on Shepard. 

[Captain Crash]

Do NOT want any sort of co-op or multiplayer for ME3.



Bioware can do what they want with the franchise after the Shepard story but untill then Mass Effect should and will hopefully remain free from anything of that sort.

[jwalker]

superfatman wrote...

The Big Nothing wrote...

Nope.

Mass Effect 1-3 is the story of Shepard, not Shepard & Friend.

You are dumb, 90% of the story missions in ME2 were about the squadmates.

Sometimes I just feel ME2's story is about TIM making some dude/dudette recruit other dudes/dudettes...

[GreenSoda]

Sigh. Can't this thread die already ?



Everyone is arguing in circles.

[BringerOfChaos]

Put it in the campaign but make it totally optional.



I'm ok with this.

[hawat333]

Co-op for ME3?

Then you sadly missed the point of the trilogy.