163 réponses à ce sujet

[AuraofMana]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...
What, at the cost of having Conrad Verner-caliber import bugs and a 5-hour single-player game? No way in hell I'm paying $70, and this is coming from someone who buys 2-5 games a year max new-release wise.

Yeah forget being reasonable, let's just exaggerate and pretend it's truth.

Lunatic LK47 wrote...
Uh, what are you smoking? StarCraft has a high-quality single-player campaign and multiplayer. Last time I checked, StarCraft at least has 20 hours of gameplay in the campaign department. Most console games however are stuck with the five hour range, and at the least , four hours for Kane & Lynch: Dog Days and Force Unleashed 2 (not worth $70. Money is not toilet paper).

You apparently don't understand what-if situations or analogies very well. Also you pointed out some pretty ****ty games with short play times. Cherrypicking is a terrible way to present evidence. Also, your exaggeration that if ME3 contained co-op that it'll somehow become a 5 hour long game is laughable at best.
I also want to point out that Blizzard has spent 7 years developing Starcraft 2, and it pretty much has unlimited resources by this point (WoW). Most developers do not get that luxury. They do not get a huge amount of fund nor do they get that much time.
Also, AHAHAHA you bought Kane & Lynch: Dog Days and Force Unleashed 2. Anyone with a brain knew Force Unleashed 2 was going to suck. Kane & Lunch: Dog Days being a game so bad that it killed the series was pretty well known. Unless you bought it on release day, there is little empathy here.

Lunatic LK47 wrote...
Oh wow, you're a bigger holier-than-thou douchebag for thinking "It's only your damn problem if you have a problem with multiplayer."

Notice the difference:
1. ME3 has the option for co-op: People who want to play co-op plays it. People who do not don't play it and are not affected.
2. ME3 has no co-op: People who want to play co-op can't play it.

The fact that you are actively promoting to ruin others' fun for your selfish reasoning is why you are a douchebag. Understand this.

Lunatic LK47 wrote...
I'm already at a point where I'm giving up on gaming after Mass Effect 3 because half of the gaming library now-a-days consists of four-hour shovelware. Might as well charge as $50 just to watch a movie in the theaters while we're at it.

That's such a ****ty analogy. You can't go back in and rewatch the movie, but you can replay the game. Also, you can also NOT BUY those games with a short play length.

Lunatic LK47 wrote...
As for my earlier multiplayer posts. If it's a LESSER KNOWN GAME, there's an artificial clock involved. I shouldn't be told "You bought the game at the wrong time" if I find a dead community when I buy a game at a $20 price tag.

Umm... if you didn't research the game before you bought it, that's your own damn problem. A lot of games don't sell well and the developers do not wish to support it any longer. It's a harsh reality and if you learn to not buy games without looking into it first this is completely avoidable.

Lunatic LK47 wrote...
Which is still on the "RUMORED" phase.

Okay. We can still discuss the possibility by being reasonable, something you are doing poorly at.

Modifié par AuraofMana, 06 janvier 2011 - 07:52 .

[Lunatic LK47]

AuraofMana wrote...

Yeah forget being reasonable, let's just exaggerate and pretend it's truth.

Something called personal experience. How many people bothered playing BioShock 2's multiplayer?

You apparently don't understand what-if situations or analogies very well. Also you pointed out some pretty ****ty games with short play times. Cherrypicking is a terrible way to present evidence. Also, your exaggeration that if ME3 contained co-op that it'll somehow become a 5 hour long game is laughable at best.

Just because those games are few and far between doesn't mean they don't exist. It still doesn't explain why these games get a full retail price when they are clearly *NOT WORTH IT.*

1. ME3 has the option for co-op: People who want to play co-op plays it. People who do not don't play it and are not affected.
2. ME3 has no co-op: People who want to play co-op can't play it.

The fact that you are actively promoting to ruin others' fun for your selfish reasoning is why you are a douchebag. Understand this.

Something will get sacrificed in the process just to make sure the damn thing is working properly (i.e. No framerate problems, no game-stopping bugs, no "Perpetually stuck because a key item doesn't spawn" moments). My point about Conrad Verner bug still stands.

Lunatic LK47 wrote...
That's such a ****ty analogy. You can't go back in and rewatch the movie, but you can replay the game. Also, you can also NOT BUY those games with a short play length.

Hello McFly, anyone home? I'm already *NOT* buying the games. My point still stands that a majority of the library is such shovelware. Reading comprehension hard for you? Let me say it again. Out of all of the new releases given a year, my number ranges from 2 to 5 games.

Lunatic LK47 wrote...
Umm... if you didn't research the game before you bought it, that's your own damn problem. A lot of games don't sell well and the developers do not wish to support it any longer. It's a harsh reality and if you learn to not buy games without looking into it first this is completely avoidable.

Where "research" has a bias towards the game saying "Ninja Gaiden is a 10 out of 10 game" when it doesn't deserve such a rating because of a ****ty camera ruining the gameplay or the earlier Splinter Cell games getting high ratings when there's nothing more than ****ty trial and error gameplay mechanics? I didn't properly research the game? My point still stands. I shouldn't have to pay $60 for a multiplayer game I may not enjoy and in converse, I shouldn't have to find a dead community just because I only wanted to spend $20 on a title I've been on the fence about for a year or two.

Okay. We can still discuss the possibility by being reasonable, something you are doing poorly at.

Find me a news article saying that BioWare confirms multiplayer for ME3. Go on.

[Lumikki]

Mercuron wrote...

With that said, I believe the devs are going to stick to single-player only for ME3 and that's alright with me. I like SP just fine. I just don't believe all these claims about resources being wasted when all it's really about is a simple dislike of the feature. Which is fine "because that's, like, your opinion, man."

It's not about disliking the feature. I have played many mmorpgs for years. How ever, if I choose to play single player game, I actually want it to be good single player game. If Bioware gonna make multiplayer game for Mass Effect universe after ME3, I'm fine with it. As for argument of resources and time, that's still fact. It's just question what time and resource does benefit the majority of people who will buy ME3. Multiplayer option as feature, I don't think so. Example I have absolute zero need for it. So, why to hell would I support it?

Modifié par Lumikki, 06 janvier 2011 - 08:35 .

[Spartas Husky]

All I gota say, is 3 player coop..... odd number makes it unique.



Picture army of two style.... not perfect but pretty nice

[xxLDZxx]

i will be a volus with a bfg in support role with epic tier 232234567875453456778990 armor and a golden space ak, specialisation in meele xD

Fear me!

and smell my greatnes!

Modifié par xxLDZxx, 06 janvier 2011 - 08:43 .

[DJBare]

Mercuron wrote... I just don't believe all these claims about resources being wasted when all it's really about is a simple dislike of the feature. Which is fine "because that's, like, your opinion, man."

Odd, I'll agree I dislike the idea of co-op/mp detracting from the single player experience, but I do not have a problem with co-op/mp in itself, and it seems to me that you have never programmed or written scripts, if you had you would know where the resources go, not just within the game itself but the personal needed to write the routines, to save on costs those personal would have to be pulled off another job, maybe personal from the dialogue scripts or the combat scripts, whatever, something suffers.

Modifié par DJBare, 06 janvier 2011 - 09:25 .

[Mercuron]

Lumikki wrote...

Mercuron wrote...

With that said, I believe the devs are going to stick to single-player only for ME3 and that's alright with me. I like SP just fine. I just don't believe all these claims about resources being wasted when all it's really about is a simple dislike of the feature. Which is fine "because that's, like, your opinion, man."

It's not about disliking the feature. I have played many mmorpgs for years. How ever, if I choose to play single player game, I actually want it to be good single player game. If Bioware gonna make multiplayer game for Mass Effect universe after ME3, I'm fine with it. As for argument of resources and time, that's still fact. It's just question what time and resource does benefit the majority of people who will buy ME3. Multiplayer option as feature, I don't think so. Example I have absolute zero need for it. So, why to hell would I support it?

Because you wouldn't cut off your nose to spite your face, I'd hope.

If you believe it's impossible for a game with singleplayer and co-op modes to ever have a comparable or better singleplayer mode than a dedicated singleplayer game ... well, I guess I'd hope in vain.

[Mercuron]

DJBare wrote...

Mercuron wrote... I just don't believe all these claims about resources being wasted when all it's really about is a simple dislike of the feature. Which is fine "because that's, like, your opinion, man."

Odd, I'll agree I dislike the idea of co-op/mp detracting from the single player experience, but I do not have a problem with co-op/mp in itself, and it seems to me that you have never programmed or written scripts, if you had you would know where the resources go, not just within the game itself but the personal needed to write the routines, to save on costs those personal would have to be pulled off another job, maybe personal from the dialogue scripts or the combat scripts, whatever, something suffers.

Sure, I understand that fine, but that doesn't prove or disprove that those resources are wasted on co-op, only that they're limited.

[TheNexus]

The Big Nothing wrote...

Nope.

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

[Spartas Husky]

NOOO I want sheps story to last longer!!!!!

[xxLDZxx]

Mercuron wrote...

DJBare wrote...

Mercuron wrote... I just don't believe all these claims about resources being wasted when all it's really about is a simple dislike of the feature. Which is fine "because that's, like, your opinion, man."

Odd, I'll agree I dislike the idea of co-op/mp detracting from the single player experience, but I do not have a problem with co-op/mp in itself, and it seems to me that you have never programmed or written scripts, if you had you would know where the resources go, not just within the game itself but the personal needed to write the routines, to save on costs those personal would have to be pulled off another job, maybe personal from the dialogue scripts or the combat scripts, whatever, something suffers.

Sure, I understand that fine, but that doesn't prove or disprove that those resources are wasted on co-op, only that they're limited.

Bioware has ppl working on tor who knows mybe they are making the mp part expirences they have and a practis it woude be too for them.

They can make what they want with this game but you made the piont.

Singelplayer first than the rest, evry thing beyond singelplayer is a goodi.

[golak]

this is a no-no and a no-go RE5 co-op sucks in my book i chould see this in the new batman game but not in ME3 never

[Tony_Knightcrawler]

The Big Nothing wrote...

Nope.

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

I like how the first respondant didn't even read the topic's first post.

Anyway, I agree that coop in multiplayer along with maybe some flavor comments could be fun.