145 réponses à ce sujet

[ifander]

I don't see how one could see co-op as a bad thing. Imagine playing ME3 with one of the squadmates controlled by a friend. You as Shepard would still be in control of the conversations. In theory, this could be implemented as it is in the Halo games, for example. Meaning you can play through the entire game with a friend if you want to. It makes the game 3x more enjoyable if you ask me.



I can see how some may dislike the idea of multiplayer, after all the "norm" is a CoD style competitive shooter. I wouldn't like ME3 to go that route either. But co-op specifically has the potential of really boosting the fun-factor of this game, without needing to scale down the singleplayer experience.

[Someone With Mass]

To be able to have two Shepards and be able do almost everything with a friend would be nice, like dialogues, battles and tough decisions and all that, but if the second player is just there as extra/more helpful firepower, then they can skip it.

[Pwner1323]

CO-OP or MP really ain't a bad thing, people are just afraid it would mess the SP game up. If it can be done well (something like Gears of war) then Im all for it. GW2 was very long and still had an amazing MP so there isn't really any real proof that it would ruin the game. Plus, it's the last game featuring Shepard and a good ending with some nice replay value in the form of MP to remember Shepard by would be very good in my opinion.

[kmcd5722]

Here's what I hope for from their hopes)

Hopes:

Co-Op (eh, not really)
Squadmates to return (yes)
Romances to be more in depth and be less about sex (yes, for sure, and for that matter, relationships that are strictly platonic and not limited in dialogue because I do not romance them)
Some small things(like sharing the drink with Chakwas, Conrad Verner) (of course)
Big events(Wrex on Virmire, Becoming a Spectre) (wouldn't be a BW game if there wasn't anything big. However, the reapers are here, so it's going to be big regardless)

Fears:

Any kind of multiplayer(besides Co-Op) (no MP at all this iteration, maybe as DLC, but that's it)
Things like planet scaning and the Mako (planet scanning was filler, but I would like to see a MAKO-HH hybrid, for example, take the controls of the HH, with shields, additional machine gun, mass cannon, and the ability to exit, and I'm good)
Things like ME2 final boss (yeah, that was a bit disappointing)
Having ammo instead of guns overheating (well, I hate the retcon, but it makes combat more tactical, although, I really did like having the ability to loot and get mods and whatnot, so a hybrid system would be great)

Things They Need to Happen(OXM):

Rachni coming back (be dumb if that decision on noveria had no effect)
Genophage being cured (same as above for virmire/tuchanka)
Geth and the Quarian working together for the final battle (i like the geth, but this relies heavily also on the decision on the migrant fleet)
Keepers having something to do with it (and for that matter, the citadel, and being able to explore it a bit)
To kill Udina (that, or at least break his nose)

Modifié par kmcd5722, 11 janvier 2011 - 07:44 .

[wildannie]

ifander wrote...

I don't see how one could see co-op as a bad thing. Imagine playing ME3 with one of the squadmates controlled by a friend. You as Shepard would still be in control of the conversations. In theory, this could be implemented as it is in the Halo games, for example. Meaning you can play through the entire game with a friend if you want to. It makes the game 3x more enjoyable if you ask me.

I can see how some may dislike the idea of multiplayer, after all the "norm" is a CoD style competitive shooter. I wouldn't like ME3 to go that route either. But co-op specifically has the potential of really boosting the fun-factor of this game, without needing to scale down the singleplayer experience.

My friends don't play games, but even if they did I wouldn't be playing ME3 with them, for me that would completely destroy immersion, it would certainly not boost the 'fun-factor'.

Each to their own though.

[EpicBoot2daFace]

Multiplayer isn't needed in every freakin' game. I wish people would grow up and realize this.

[Pwner1323]

Some people want it, some don't. The cons aren't really that convincing from where Im standing. Unless someone here gives me an example of a game that MP ruined, Im sticking with MP for ME3.

Modifié par Pwner1323, 11 janvier 2011 - 07:47 .

[DTKT]

I would hope that someone took screenshots of the thread before it went down.

[CmdrKankrelat]

I once thought co-op would be a good idea, but a user on these forums wiser than I (I forget his/her name) brought up an excellent point that makes the idea seem untenable: if Shepard (player 1) gets into a conversation, what is player 2 (Tali, Thane, etc.) supposed to do? That would be very boring for a second player to just watch while player 1 gets through the convo's, unless BioWare can master in one game multiple dialogue wheels for different characters. I'd rather they brought back vehicular exploration. Fortunately, the Hammerhead sequences from Overlord and the car chase from LotSB seem to hint ME3 could have something like that. Personally, I hope for a sequence where we take control of the Normandy and start blasting Reapers in Earth-orbit. I don't care how many people here hate that idea, I think it'd be awesome!

[ifander]

DTKT wrote...

I would hope that someone took screenshots of the thread before it went down.

Seeing as the thread was locked, posting pics of it would probably get this one locked down too. Besides, posting internal mail is kinda uncool, although I did read the stuff so I guess I'm a hypocrite <_<.

[Pwner1323]

CmdrKankrelat wrote...

I hope for a sequence where we take control of the Normandy and start blasting Reapers in Earth-orbit. I don't care how many people here hate that idea, I think it'd be awesome!

That would be sick (people still say sick, right?) and we already played as Joker so this may be the next leap. But I hope that if this does happen, it should be Shepard flying it with the help of EDI.

[Evelinessa]

For me I really don't want multiplayer for a couple reasons 1) I don't have anyone to play it with and I have the Xbox version(my computer isn't good enough to play it and since I'm never able to play PC games I would suck at the controls)and don't have gold. I never play multiplayer anyways so I'm not going to enjoy playing multiplayer in ME3. 2) I think it's perfectly fine if they release a multiplayer ME game after the trilogy ends. I want them to put all resources in making the end to Shepard's story the best it can be.

AlbertoAquilani wrote...

There's a reason competitive multiplayer is there Bioware. Who exactly did you listen to to put that in? Because I've only heard 1 or 2 people ever wanting it in there.

I think some people must be asking for multiplayer because IIRC there was a question on BioWare's FAQ on some of their games sites(at least DA:O) that asks if there is going to be multiplayer. So some people must want it. But for me I don't understand how every game has to have multiplayer(I know not every game has multiplayer but people keep asking for all kinds of games to put a multiplayer feature in).

[Evelinessa]

ifander wrote...

DTKT wrote...

I would hope that someone took screenshots of the thread before it went down.

Seeing as the thread was locked, posting pics of it would probably get this one locked down too. Besides, posting internal mail is kinda uncool, although I did read the stuff so I guess I'm a hypocrite <_<.

Yes, please don't post anything that will get this locked.

[Lunatic LK47]

ifander wrote...

I don't see how one could see co-op as a bad thing. Imagine playing ME3 with one of the squadmates controlled by a friend. You as Shepard would still be in control of the conversations. In theory, this could be implemented as it is in the Halo games, for example. Meaning you can play through the entire game with a friend if you want to. It makes the game 3x more enjoyable if you ask me.

Newsflash. Not everyone has a friend that likes playing the same game as you (not you specifically.) I have a group of RL friends that only play Call of Duty online because that's all they have time for, and whatever friends I have around my age don't even have a 360 or don't have Mass Effect. I hold X-Box Live with a low regard just because of the frequent off-chance I'll get partnered up with someone who wants to rush through the game or wants to team-kill me for the LULZ.

[Lunatic LK47]

Pwner1323 wrote...

Some people want it, some don't. The cons aren't really that convincing from where Im standing. Unless someone here gives me an example of a game that MP ruined, Im sticking with MP for ME3.

Halo 3, Resident Evil 5, BioShock 2, and Mercenaries 2 would like to have a word with you.

[Layzr]

I wouldnt mind co-op if it was something like playing as one of the two companions you choose (no special co-op character) and they have NO speech choices. anything more would be terrible

[Pwner1323]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

Pwner1323 wrote...

Some people want it, some don't. The cons aren't really that convincing from where Im standing. Unless someone here gives me an example of a game that MP ruined, Im sticking with MP for ME3.

Halo 3, Resident Evil 5, BioShock 2, and Mercenaries 2 would like to have a word with you.

[img]http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:r4ZeowytF__rdM:http://static.funnyjunk.com/CommentPhoto/18972d5c_e87d_e6e7.jpg&t=1[/img]

I still support MP.

[Tarahiro]

If they want to add multiplayer, they should make a different game set in the mass effect world. ME3 is the final part of the ME1 and ME2 story. Gameplay should remain like those two games. To me it makes no sense to have Shep's first two outings as solely SP but have the final with added MP.



Mass Effect already has an online component. Cerberus Network. That is enough.

[ifander]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

ifander wrote...

I don't see how one could see co-op as a bad thing. Imagine playing ME3 with one of the squadmates controlled by a friend. You as Shepard would still be in control of the conversations. In theory, this could be implemented as it is in the Halo games, for example. Meaning you can play through the entire game with a friend if you want to. It makes the game 3x more enjoyable if you ask me.

Newsflash. Not everyone has a friend that likes playing the same game as you (not you specifically.) I have a group of RL friends that only play Call of Duty online because that's all they have time for, and whatever friends I have around my age don't even have a 360 or don't have Mass Effect. I hold X-Box Live with a low regard just because of the frequent off-chance I'll get partnered up with someone who wants to rush through the game or wants to team-kill me for the LULZ.

So... co-op would be a bad thing because some people don't have anyone to play with? That makes no sense. Co-op in the form I described would allow those who enjoy playing with their friends to do so, whilst still having an excellent single-player campaign. The two can co-exist, despite what some might think, and if BioWare were to implement co-op, I doubt they would do so at the cost of the single player campaign. 

[Lunatic LK47]

ifander wrote...

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

Newsflash. Not everyone has a friend that likes playing the same game as you (not you specifically.) I have a group of RL friends that only play Call of Duty online because that's all they have time for, and whatever friends I have around my age don't even have a 360 or don't have Mass Effect. I hold X-Box Live with a low regard just because of the frequent off-chance I'll get partnered up with someone who wants to rush through the game or wants to team-kill me for the LULZ.

So... co-op would be a bad thing because some people don't have anyone to play with? That makes no sense. Co-op in the form I described would allow those who enjoy playing with their friends to do so, whilst still having an excellent single-player campaign. The two can co-exist, despite what some might think, and if BioWare were to implement co-op, I doubt they would do so at the cost of the single player campaign.

Resident Evil 5 (co-op mandatory to beat game on harder difficulties), BioShock 2 (how many people actually play the multiplayer?), Godfather 2 (last time I checked, it was regarded as a waste of money among mixed reviews with the ****ton of glitches) , Mercenaries 2 (game is three years old and no one plays it online), Lost Planet 2 (A.I. partners unreliable, and co-op is *MANDATORY*), and Halo 3 (just to implement 4 player co-op, a simple zombie is randomly invincible even to a sledgehammer) would like a word with you.

[Lunatic LK47]

wildannie wrote...

ifander wrote...

I don't see how one could see co-op as a bad thing. Imagine playing ME3 with one of the squadmates controlled by a friend. You as Shepard would still be in control of the conversations. In theory, this could be implemented as it is in the Halo games, for example. Meaning you can play through the entire game with a friend if you want to. It makes the game 3x more enjoyable if you ask me.

I can see how some may dislike the idea of multiplayer, after all the "norm" is a CoD style competitive shooter. I wouldn't like ME3 to go that route either. But co-op specifically has the potential of really boosting the fun-factor of this game, without needing to scale down the singleplayer experience.

My friends don't play games, but even if they did I wouldn't be playing ME3 with them, for me that would completely destroy immersion, it would certainly not boost the 'fun-factor'.

Each to their own though.

Ding ding ding. Whatever gamer friends I know IRL would be playing Halo or Call of Duty constantly.

[Evelinessa]

Tarahiro wrote...

If they want to add multiplayer, they should make a different game set in the mass effect world. ME3 is the final part of the ME1 and ME2 story. Gameplay should remain like those two games. To me it makes no sense to have Shep's first two outings as solely SP but have the final with added MP.

Mass Effect already has an online component. Cerberus Network. That is enough.

This. They can have multiplayer in a spin-off game. I don't see why it needs to be in ME3. It has the potential to mess things up.

[ifander]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

ifander wrote...

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

Newsflash. Not everyone has a friend that likes playing the same game as you (not you specifically.) I have a group of RL friends that only play Call of Duty online because that's all they have time for, and whatever friends I have around my age don't even have a 360 or don't have Mass Effect. I hold X-Box Live with a low regard just because of the frequent off-chance I'll get partnered up with someone who wants to rush through the game or wants to team-kill me for the LULZ.

So... co-op would be a bad thing because some people don't have anyone to play with? That makes no sense. Co-op in the form I described would allow those who enjoy playing with their friends to do so, whilst still having an excellent single-player campaign. The two can co-exist, despite what some might think, and if BioWare were to implement co-op, I doubt they would do so at the cost of the single player campaign.

Resident Evil 5 (co-op mandatory to beat game on harder difficulties), BioShock 2 (how many people actually play the multiplayer?), Godfather 2 (last time I checked, it was regarded as a waste of money among mixed reviews with the ****ton of glitches) , Mercenaries 2 (game is three years old and no one plays it online), Lost Planet 2 (A.I. partners unreliable, and co-op is *MANDATORY*), and Halo 3 (just to implement 4 player co-op, a simple zombie is randomly invincible even to a sledgehammer) would like a word with you.

Jesus f*ing Christ, where did I mention mandatory co-op? Did you even read my post? And just because some games have crappy co-op doesn't mean ME3 would. BioWare is a highly regarded developer, I doubt they would implement such a major feature if it was broken. Besides, BioShock 2's multiplayer is of the competitive type if I'm not mistasken, not what I'm talking about. Halo 3 has excellent co-op from what I've experienced. Just rambling off a few bad eggs (and some which actually aren't) doesn't make your claims more accurate. By that standard, nothing BioWare could possibly come up with would be good enough, because someone at one time made the same thing and made a ****ty job of it. 

[Lunatic LK47]

ifander wrote...



Jesus f*ing Christ, where did I mention mandatory co-op? Did you even read my post? And just because some games have crappy co-op doesn't mean ME3 would. BioWare is a highly regarded developer, I doubt they would implement such a major feature if it was broken. Besides, BioShock 2's multiplayer is of the competitive type if I'm not mistasken, not what I'm talking about. Halo 3 has excellent co-op from what I've experienced. Just rambling off a few bad eggs (and some which actually aren't) doesn't make your claims more accurate. By that standard, nothing BioWare could possibly come up with would be good enough, because someone at one time made the same thing and made a ****ty job of it. 

You said you doubted co-op would take something away from campaign, and I posted my experiences.

Resident Evil 5: Playing single-player was a chore because you had idiotic partner A.I. You were *FORCED* to do co-op. What's to say ME3 won't be immune by such a problem, except the A.I. is a lot worse than ME1?

Halo 3: I found moments were a simple Flood Zombie was sporadically immune to a rocket launcher regardless of how campaign is played , and that shouldn't be the ****ing case gameplay-wise. How does something like this get overlooked? All that time spent to make 4-player co-op work, and this happened.

Call of Duty World at War: 5 hour campaign

Modern Warfare 2: 5 hour campaign, despite how fun Spec Ops was back then.

Black Ops: 5 hour campaign, and Zombie mode being added into the main package.

Lost Planet 2: Idiotic partner A.I. made playing single-player a chore. *FORCED* to do co-op again.

There's something called playtesting to take into account.