145 réponses à ce sujet

[Chuvvy]

Evelinessa wrote...

Hopes:

Co-Op

Stopped reading right there.

[james1976]

I don't exactly agree with everything listed but I'll give the run down.



This is what they want:



Hopes:



Co-Op - (no please!)

Squadmates to return - (YES)

Romances to be more in depth and be less about sex - (YES)

Some small things(like sharing the drink with Chakwas, Conrad Verner) - (YES)

Big events(Wrex on Virmire, Becoming a Spectre) - (YES)



Fears:



Any kind of multiplayer(besides Co-Op) - (AGREE but no coop either)

Things like planet scaning and the Mako - (MORE planet exploration like in ME1 please!)

Things like ME2 final boss - (AGREE)

Having ammo instead of guns overheating - (indifferent)



Things They Need to Happen(OXM):



Rachni coming back - (if you let them live in ME1)

Genophage being cured - (Paragon option I'd think or wipe out the Krogans as Renegade)

Geth and the Quarian working together for the final battle - (should be dependant on how you played)

Keepers having something to do with it - (indifferent)

To kill Udina - (Would be a nice Renegade option)





That's how I feel about it what they said in a nutshell.

[Evelinessa]

You're welcome to anyone who thanked me and I'm not sure if everyone knows but these arn't my thoughts(they're OXM's). I don't want any multiplayer either.

[cachx]

I don't know why all the phobia for any kind of multiplayer.

While I myself rarely use multiplayer, I can understand how does it extend a game's lifespan, and how is pretty common for a game company to include that kind of stuff nowadays.

Arguments that it will somehow hurt single player are completely wrong, As games like Red Dead Redemption, Uncharted 2 and Assasin's Creed Brotherhood can prove. (all of them have multiplayer modes, yet excellent, award-winning single player modes).

It's also pretty fun how "true fans" complain about this, given that Bioware's first RPGs had multiplayer.

Modifié par cachx, 11 janvier 2011 - 05:48 .

[Walker White]

cachx wrote...
Arguments that it will somehow hurt single player are completely wrong, As games like Red Dead Redemption, Uncharted 2 and Assasin's Creed Brotherhood can prove. (all of them have multiplayer modes, yet excellent, award-winning single player modes).

The AC fan base is largely in agreement that the single player campaign of AC:B is the weakest in the series -- even weaker than AC 1.  My wife is as hardcore an AC player as I am a Bioware player and she refuses to replay AC:B.

While Red Dead is a fine single player game, combat is actually the weakest part of it.  Hunting is fine, but combat is not.  The controls and the cover system are just too poorly done. 

I have not played Uncharted, and so cannot comment.

The biggest concern with ME, however, is game balance.  None of these characters are balanced for multiplayer play.  There is a reason we did not seen a true Vanguard with charge until Shadow Broker.  And no enemy has ever had Stasis or Singularity.  Once you are up against human players using CC powers, the balance changes radically.  You would essentially have to make two separate games.  And that makes no sense from a financial standpoint, when we know the single player version would sell quite well.

Unless you are relying on the single player to sell a crappy multiplayer, that is.

[Marta Rio]

cachx wrote...
I don't know why all the phobia for any kind of multiplayer.

I think's it's because for people who are only interested in the single player campaign, there's no possible upside to multiplayer.  There are a few possible outcomes to including multiplayer for ME3: (1) both it and the single player campaign are great, or (2) the single player campaign is great, and the multiplayer campaign is somewhat lacking, or (3) the single player campaign suffers because some resources are used to create the multiplayer component.

For people who are only interested in single player, outcomes (1) and (2) are no different from a situation in which there's only a single player campaign.  They aren't going to play the multiplayer no matter what, so there's no upside for them if outcome (1) happens.  However, outcome (3) could possible affect them, and that's what they're worried about.

Call it close-minded or selfish or whatever you want, but it does kind of make logical sense.  At least that's how it works in my brain.

Modifié par Marta Rio, 11 janvier 2011 - 06:12 .

[Lunatic LK47]

cachx wrote...

I don't know why all the phobia for any kind of multiplayer.

While I myself rarely use multiplayer, I can understand how does it extend a game's lifespan, and how is pretty common for a game company to include that kind of stuff nowadays.

Uh, the opposite can be true though since multiplayer is a ticking time bomb that can be set off prematurely. I outright stigmatize MMOs because of this and when the devs decide to cancel it because of financial reasons, I'm looking at a $60 paperweight that I can't play anymore. The same should be held true for multiplayer. Unless the game is GTA, Red Dead, Gears of War, Halo, or Call of Duty, I found moments where the community is outright dead (i.e. See any Tom Clancy title) just because there is nothing worthwhile. Gamers who bought the game at a $20.00 price tag are automatically screwed out of online just because the community moved on, and last but not least, EA could just shut down their dedicated servers just because. Last time I checked, who ever bothered playing BioShock 2's multiplayer? As far as I know, a majority of the fans never cared about it.

Arguments that it will somehow hurt single player are completely wrong, As games like Red Dead Redemption, Uncharted 2 and Assasin's Creed Brotherhood can prove. (all of them have multiplayer modes, yet excellent, award-winning single player modes).

Except those games are as common as a needle in a haystack. 9 out of 10 times, single-player *DOES* suffer as a result of the focus in online. Halo 3 had a notorious "Invincible Flood henchman" glitch that popped up in campaign sessions, not to mention the campaign's life span is only 10 hours on NORMAL, while Call of Duty ended up having 5 hour campaigns since World at War. Last time I checked, Resident Evil 5 made co-op MANDATORY because the partner A.I. was constantly ****ty, and the same went for Lost Planet 2.  

It's also pretty fun how "true fans" complain about this, given that Bioware's first RPGs had multiplayer.

Uh, how many people *ACTUALLY* liked the multiplayer? Last time I checked, everyone only liked single-player.

[LadyJaneGrey]

Looks good, OP. Thanks for the info. :^)

[Lunatic LK47]

Marta Rio wrote...

cachx wrote...
I don't know why all the phobia for any kind of multiplayer.

I think's it's because for people who are only interested in the single player campaign, there's no possible upside to multiplayer.  There are a few possible outcomes to including multiplayer for ME3: (1) both it and the single player campaign are great, or (2) the single player campaign is great, and the multiplayer campaign is somewhat lacking, or (3) the single player campaign suffers because some resources are used to create the multiplayer component.

For people who are only interested in single player, outcomes (1) and (2) are no different from a situation in which there's only a single player campaign.  They aren't going to play the multiplayer no matter what, so there's no upside for them if outcome (1) happens.  However, outcome (3) could possible affect them, and that's what they're worried about.

Call it close-minded or selfish or whatever you want, but it does kind of make logical sense.  At least that's how it works in my brain.

I need to keep a running list of BioWare forum members I'm buying beers for. You made the list.

[scottelite]

lol OXM.

[Marta Rio]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...
I need to keep a running list of BioWare forum members I'm buying beers for. You made the list.

Heh, thanks <sheepish grin>.

[cachx]

Marta Rio wrote...
Call it close-minded or selfish ...

That's exactly what I was doing. Good to see we are in agreement.

[Annihilator27]

FieryPhoenix7 wrote...

annihilator27 wrote...

Bioware has said that ME3 is single player.

Pacifien is not BioWare. In fact, Pacifien is no different than any one of us.

It was Chris that said it, around ME3 launch time. I didnt say Pacifen, you are correct though. She isnt Bioware which is why im confused on why  you said her name.

[Epic Legion]

annihilator27 wrote...

FieryPhoenix7 wrote...

annihilator27 wrote...

Bioware has said that ME3 is single player.

Pacifien is not BioWare. In fact, Pacifien is no different than any one of us.

It was Chris that said it, around ME3 launch time. I didnt say Pacifen, you are correct though. She isnt Bioware which is why im confused on why  you said her name.

Chris never said it.

[Annihilator27]

Epic Legion wrote...

annihilator27 wrote...

FieryPhoenix7 wrote...

annihilator27 wrote...

Bioware has said that ME3 is single player.

Pacifien is not BioWare. In fact, Pacifien is no different than any one of us.

It was Chris that said it, around ME3 launch time. I didnt say Pacifen, you are correct though. She isnt Bioware which is why im confused on why  you said her name.

Chris never said it.

Oh yes of course, He wouldve used a different way of denial as usual. Going off todays supposed leak.

[scottelite]

Whats this leak about?

[Evelinessa]

LadyJaneGrey wrote...

Looks good, OP. Thanks for the info. :^)

You're welcome .

[Ulzeraj]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

Uh, how many people *ACTUALLY* liked the multiplayer? Last time I checked, everyone only liked single-player.

Bioware's Neverwinter Nights had multiplayer and althought many people liked the OC and the 2 expansions SoU and HotU it was the multiplayer community that kept the game alive for years. NWN's multiplaying capabilities were quite different than your average mp game... it had tools for dungeon masters to create scenarios and scripts: today its still the closest thing you can play on your computer that resembles a true pen-and-paper roleplaying game.

Not saying that Mass Effect should use NWN's model of multiplaying. Just remembering you that Bioware did an impressive work about multiplaying on the past.

Its their best game. They wouldnt add a feature that would screw their money and reputation.

[wildannie]

scottelite wrote...

Whats this leak about?

earlier today there was a thread that linked in screen images of discussion between Chris P and the Moderators that( reading between the lines) strongly implied that there would be a MP element to ME3.  

The thread was removed  I think it was true.

[ifander]

scottelite wrote...

Whats this leak about?

How the mods should be more careful with what they say in regards to BW matters, since all they say is often interpreted as official. More specifically, how BW does not deny the existence of a multiplayer component in ME3, the opposite of what they were saying regarding ME1 and ME2. It's in no way a confirmation, but not a denial of there being multiplayer in ME3 either.

Modifié par ifander, 11 janvier 2011 - 07:11 .

[akku95]

I trust BioWare will do the right thing... hopefully.

[JustValiant]

Co-Op as a hope?! For me this would one of the worst case scenarioes!!

[Pwner1323]

"To kill Udina"



With just this I'll be happy.

[Someone With Mass]

I can live without any kind of multiplayer in ME3. It's just some stupid thing EA thinks will turn everyone's attention towards the game.

[Tasker]

Shepards story doesn't need multiplayer, if they want to do it, then do it in a spin off.



Adding multiplayer will just mean less dev time on the single player, which will end up really, really crap ( not that it isn't that now thanks to the abortion that is ME2 ), and really, really short. ( Just look at all the latest FPS games like CoD and MoH ).