145 réponses à ce sujet

[EpicBoot2daFace]

Ah yes, "multiplayer". We have dismissed that claim.

[ifander]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

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.

OK, I can see you've had some bad experiences with co-op. Still, that does not automatically make co-op a bad thing. Call of Duty (at least the latest iterations) is obviously a multiplayer game with the singleplayer as an afterthought.
Resident Evil 5 and Lost Planet 2 are good points, their co-op is lacking, however in those two cases it would seem the games themselves are broken regardless of whether you're playing co-op or single player.
Halo 3, I've never had any issues with its co-op, so I can't really agree with you on that one.

Now let me present some counter-arguments.

Halo: Reach - excellent co-op, no problems that I'm aware of.

Gears of War - even better co-op integration than Halo: Reach.

Left 4 Dead - I think you can call it a co-op, and it works very well.

Borderlands - scales very well regardless of how many friends you play with.

Now, we could play this game all day long, there are as many good co-op games as there are bad so the bad ones are hardly a solid argument. If anything, BioWare has proven it can do stuff it hasn't done before, and do it well. So I think we should give them the benefit of the doubt. Besides, I hardly think Capcom has as good a track record as BioWare when it comes to quality, but that's just me.

[Sammuthegreat]

ifander wrote...

OK, I can see you've had some bad experiences with co-op. Still, that does not automatically make co-op a bad thing. Call of Duty (at least the latest iterations) is obviously a multiplayer game with the singleplayer as an afterthought.
Resident Evil 5 and Lost Planet 2 are good points, their co-op is lacking, however in those two cases it would seem the games themselves are broken regardless of whether you're playing co-op or single player.
Halo 3, I've never had any issues with its co-op, so I can't really agree with you on that one.

Now let me present some counter-arguments.

Halo: Reach - excellent co-op, no problems that I'm aware of.

Gears of War - even better co-op integration than Halo: Reach.

Left 4 Dead - I think you can call it a co-op, and it works very well.

Borderlands - scales very well regardless of how many friends you play with.

Now, we could play this game all day long, there are as many good co-op games as there are bad so the bad ones are hardly a solid argument. If anything, BioWare has proven it can do stuff it hasn't done before, and do it well. So I think we should give them the benefit of the doubt. Besides, I hardly think Capcom has as good a track record as BioWare when it comes to quality, but that's just me.

I may be wrong here but I think you're missing his point a little bit. It strikes me that he's saying the campaign modes in all of the games he mentioned could have been so much better - say, twice as long, or with no game-breaking bugs or AI problems - were it not for the inclusion of co-op. Like it or not, having to contribute a significant amount of time and money to developing a whole new set of programming for co-op modes can and will come at a significant cost to the overall time and funds available for developing the one player.

The games you've mentioned are all well and good, but all - yes, ALL of them could have been at the very least far longer, if not far better games were it not for the co-op modes they had. Reach's single player was short (Legendary only takes a long time on single player because it's very tough, not because there's loads of missions). Gears of War was also very short, even on Insane.

Left4Dead and Left4Dead 2 only had 4 Campaigns each when they released, each of which took only an hour or so to complete. Obviously were it not for the co-operative aspect - which was fantastic, and I've said many times in RL that there's no better gaming experience than a good L4D session with good teammates - then the game would have been a non-event. But it's clear to see that including multiplayer modes, with all the added system strain they incur, meant that the game itself had to be far shorter than if there were no co-op.

Borderlands was also fairly short (pre-DLC at least, I sold my copy before all the big DLC came out unfortunately).

CoD games and Halos 3 and Reach each had story modes ranging from 5 to 10 hours in length, on the most commonly played difficulty settings. If co-op and competitive multiplayer had not been included, then the extra disc space could have been used to make the campaigns three times longer, and full of three times as much awesome stuff. This isn't idle speculation, this is cold, hard logic, backed up by the trends past few years in the games industry.

The crux of my argument - and of the arguments of many people on this forum - is that including any form of multiplayer, co-op or competitive, CAN and WILL come at the cost of time, money and disc space that could otherwise have been devoted entirely to making the single-player campaign longer and even more awesome. Regardless of how brilliant BioWare are as developers - and I consider them to be among the world's finest, if not the very finest - this has been proven time and time again throughout gaming history, and it WILL affect Mass Effect 3 as well if multiplayer is included.

Modifié par Sammuthegreat, 11 janvier 2011 - 10:09 .

[Lunatic LK47]

Sammuthegreat wrote...

ifander wrote...

OK, I can see you've had some bad experiences with co-op. Still, that does not automatically make co-op a bad thing. Call of Duty (at least the latest iterations) is obviously a multiplayer game with the singleplayer as an afterthought.
Resident Evil 5 and Lost Planet 2 are good points, their co-op is lacking, however in those two cases it would seem the games themselves are broken regardless of whether you're playing co-op or single player.
Halo 3, I've never had any issues with its co-op, so I can't really agree with you on that one.

Now let me present some counter-arguments.

Halo: Reach - excellent co-op, no problems that I'm aware of.

Gears of War - even better co-op integration than Halo: Reach.

Left 4 Dead - I think you can call it a co-op, and it works very well.

Borderlands - scales very well regardless of how many friends you play with.

Now, we could play this game all day long, there are as many good co-op games as there are bad so the bad ones are hardly a solid argument. If anything, BioWare has proven it can do stuff it hasn't done before, and do it well. So I think we should give them the benefit of the doubt. Besides, I hardly think Capcom has as good a track record as BioWare when it comes to quality, but that's just me.

I may be wrong here but I think you're missing his point a little bit. It strikes me that he's saying the campaign modes in all of the games he mentioned could have been so much better - say, twice as long, or with no game-breaking bugs or AI problems - were it not for the inclusion of co-op. Like it or not, having to contribute a significant amount of time and money to developing a whole new set of programming for co-op modes can and will come at a significant cost to the overall time and funds available for developing the one player.

The games you've mentioned are all well and good, but all - yes, ALL of them could have been at the very least far longer, if not far better games were it not for the co-op modes they had. Reach's single player was short (Legendary only takes a long time on single player because it's very tough, not because there's loads of missions). Gears of War was also very short, even on Insane.

Left4Dead and Left4Dead 2 only had 4 Campaigns each when they released, each of which took only an hour or so to complete. Obviously were it not for the co-operative aspect - which was fantastic, and I've said many times in RL that there's no better gaming experience than a good L4D session with good teammates - then the game would have been a non-event. But it's clear to see that including multiplayer modes, with all the added system strain they incur, meant that the game itself had to be far shorter than if there were no co-op.

Borderlands was also fairly short (pre-DLC at least, I sold my copy before all the big DLC came out unfortunately).

CoD games and Halos 3 and Reach each had story modes ranging from 5 to 10 hours in length, on the most commonly played difficulty settings. If co-op and competitive multiplayer had not been included, then the extra disc space could have been used to make the campaigns three times longer, and full of three times as much awesome stuff. This isn't idle speculation, this is cold, hard logic, backed up by the trends past few years in the games industry.

The crux of my argument - and of the arguments of many people on this forum - is that including any form of multiplayer, co-op or competitive, CAN and WILL come at the cost of time, money and disc space that could otherwise have been devoted entirely to making the single-player campaign longer and even more awesome. Regardless of how brilliant BioWare are as developers - and I consider them to be among the world's finest, if not the very finest - this has been proven time and time again throughout gaming history, and it WILL affect Mass Effect 3 as well if multiplayer is included.

Ding ding ding. Another person I'm buying beers for.

[PHub88]

Co-op NO! Why? Becuase it automatically shortens the game...and will most likely made the game even more dull for the sake of keeping two people shooting constantly...Like two players are going to stop and have a conversation with a character?



Anybody who disagrees with that doesnt know gaming, and or doesnt care about story



To make a long story short...CO OP Hinders the game in every single way for the sake of playing with someone else...multiplayer ruins games for the single player...and i wont buy this piece of trash if they have the balls to take the 3rd and final game and hinder it by attaching some massive handicap onto it such as BS co op.

[darknoon5]

Is there a group opposed to multiplayer I can join?

[ifander]

Sammuthegreat wrote...

ifander wrote...

OK, I can see you've had some bad experiences with co-op. Still, that does not automatically make co-op a bad thing. Call of Duty (at least the latest iterations) is obviously a multiplayer game with the singleplayer as an afterthought.
Resident Evil 5 and Lost Planet 2 are good points, their co-op is lacking, however in those two cases it would seem the games themselves are broken regardless of whether you're playing co-op or single player.
Halo 3, I've never had any issues with its co-op, so I can't really agree with you on that one.

Now let me present some counter-arguments.

Halo: Reach - excellent co-op, no problems that I'm aware of.

Gears of War - even better co-op integration than Halo: Reach.

Left 4 Dead - I think you can call it a co-op, and it works very well.

Borderlands - scales very well regardless of how many friends you play with.

Now, we could play this game all day long, there are as many good co-op games as there are bad so the bad ones are hardly a solid argument. If anything, BioWare has proven it can do stuff it hasn't done before, and do it well. So I think we should give them the benefit of the doubt. Besides, I hardly think Capcom has as good a track record as BioWare when it comes to quality, but that's just me.

I may be wrong here but I think you're missing his point a little bit. It strikes me that he's saying the campaign modes in all of the games he mentioned could have been so much better - say, twice as long, or with no game-breaking bugs or AI problems - were it not for the inclusion of co-op. Like it or not, having to contribute a significant amount of time and money to developing a whole new set of programming for co-op modes can and will come at a significant cost to the overall time and funds available for developing the one player.

The games you've mentioned are all well and good, but all - yes, ALL of them could have been at the very least far longer, if not far better games were it not for the co-op modes they had. Reach's single player was short (Legendary only takes a long time on single player because it's very tough, not because there's loads of missions). Gears of War was also very short, even on Insane.

Left4Dead and Left4Dead 2 only had 4 Campaigns each when they released, each of which took only an hour or so to complete. Obviously were it not for the co-operative aspect - which was fantastic, and I've said many times in RL that there's no better gaming experience than a good L4D session with good teammates - then the game would have been a non-event. But it's clear to see that including multiplayer modes, with all the added system strain they incur, meant that the game itself had to be far shorter than if there were no co-op.

Borderlands was also fairly short (pre-DLC at least, I sold my copy before all the big DLC came out unfortunately).

CoD games and Halos 3 and Reach each had story modes ranging from 5 to 10 hours in length, on the most commonly played difficulty settings. If co-op and competitive multiplayer had not been included, then the extra disc space could have been used to make the campaigns three times longer, and full of three times as much awesome stuff. This isn't idle speculation, this is cold, hard logic, backed up by the trends past few years in the games industry.

The crux of my argument - and of the arguments of many people on this forum - is that including any form of multiplayer, co-op or competitive, CAN and WILL come at the cost of time, money and disc space that could otherwise have been devoted entirely to making the single-player campaign longer and even more awesome. Regardless of how brilliant BioWare are as developers - and I consider them to be among the world's finest, if not the very finest - this has been proven time and time again throughout gaming history, and it WILL affect Mass Effect 3 as well if multiplayer is included.

That's an excellent point, and I agree in that if the single player suffers then co-op shouldn't be included. However, I do believe that BioWare is capable of implementing that feature without it impacting the single player. In the games I mentioned the multiplayer was the main focus, but in Mass Effect it's the other way around. 

Also, I remember a dev posting something along the lines of if a major feature requiring a significant investment is included in the game, then more people would be hired to make it happen. I can't state a source, and I may be remembering it wrong, but there it is. A major addition to the game, like multi player, should lead to a larger budget. I don't think EA would skimp on this.

[GraciousCat]

Walker White wrote...

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.

/snip/

That might have more to do with the game being developed in the time span of a year or so though, compared to the two years that Ubisoft took to develop Assassin's Creed II, I don't think it was a direct result of them inculding multiplayer.

Having said that, I would prefer Mass Effect 3 to remain a single player only game.

[DarthCaine]

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

Ah yes, "multiplayer". We have dismissed that claim.

Doubtful, I've seen strong evidence that ME3 will have mutliplayer (though that thread was deleted)

[GodWood]

Evelinessa wrote...
Things They Need to Happen(OXM):

Rachni coming back
Genophage being cured
Geth and the Quarian working together for the final battle
Keepers having something to do with it
To kill Udina 

I'll ignore the stupid co-op nonsense and instead highlight this.
I'm sick of magazines/websites asking for the genophage to be cured!
Do they not realise how stupid and how detrimental to the galaxy it would be?
God that annoys me.

[darknoon5]

GodWood wrote...

Evelinessa wrote...
Things They Need to Happen(OXM):

Rachni coming back
Genophage being cured
Geth and the Quarian working together for the final battle
Keepers having something to do with it
To kill Udina 

I'll ignore the stupid co-op nonsense and instead highlight this.
I'm sick of magazines/websites asking for the genophage to be cured!
Do they not realise how stupid and how detrimental to the galaxy it would be?
God that annoys me.

I hope there is a cure, however I think it should not return them to their original numbers of breeding, because that's obviously irresponsible. If there is no cure though, when Wrex dies, be that through battle or old age, I reckon they're in trouble.

[Majical]

The fact that they hoped for co-op makes the rest of the post void.

[Fiery Phoenix]

DarthCaine wrote...

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

Ah yes, "multiplayer". We have dismissed that claim.

Doubtful, I've seen strong evidence that ME3 will have mutliplayer (though that thread was deleted)

I wouldn't call that "strong evidence", but it's definitely something.

[DarthCaine]

ME3 takes place about 2-3 years after ME2. Even if the Genophage is cured you won't see the effects of it (and like always your choices will probably just be summed in a bunch of crappy text)

Modifié par DarthCaine, 12 janvier 2011 - 06:52 .

[GodWood]

darknoon5 wrote...
I hope there is a cure, however I think it should not return them to their original numbers of breeding, because that's obviously irresponsible. If there is no cure though, when Wrex dies, be that through battle or old age, I reckon they're in trouble.

We already know through Mordin's dialogue that krogan numbers are being monitered and kept at a consistent level to prevent them from getting too big or too small.
They are not on the threat of extinction.
All curing them would do is increase their numbers and result in a bunch of pissed of krogan trying to reclaim their former glory.
Things are best left the way they are.

@DarthCaine, we have no idea how long it is between ME2 and ME3.

Modifié par GodWood, 12 janvier 2011 - 06:59 .

[ArcanistLibram]

Evelinessa wrote...

Hopes:

Co-Op

This is where Official X-Box Magazine's opinion became invalid.

[Matt251287]

Evelinessa wrote...

Fears:

Having ammo instead of guns overheating

Hi, first time posting, been reading awhile though,
 
Just wanted to pop in and say I want thermal-clips back in ME3, does no-one else agree?



Thermal Clips >>>>> Weapon Overheating in ME1, they gave a much more tactical and fun gameplay element in firefights, particularly if you follow the soldier path as i do (the whole game is firefights)
 
So what if they don't so much make sense, niether does Mass-Effect technology, but they based the game on it, All overheating ever did was force you to tap the fire button, not terribly challenging and no-where near as satisfying as tapping 'R' to reload after wasting a room full of mercs.

[Merlin 47]

Modifiying the list of hopes, fears and need to happen, this is what I feel on the matter of each.

Hopes:

Co-Op (NOOOOOOO!!!)
Squadmates to return (YES)
Romances to be more in depth and be less about sex  (YES; even platoinic relationships should be expanded upon.  I got tired of having Garrus say that he's in the middle of callibrations to stop and chat about things)
Some small things(like sharing the drink with Chakwas, Conrad Verner) (Sure, why not?)
Big events(Wrex on Virmire, Becoming a Spectre) (Yes)

Fears:

Any kind of multiplayer(besides Co-Op) (No multiplayer at all; fearful the main story will suffer)
Things like planet scaning and the Mako (Bring back planet scanning; Mako can rest in hell)
Things like ME2 final boss (Yeah...that was a dumb fight)
Having ammo instead of guns overheating (No; I like Thermal Clips)

Things They Need to Happen(OXM):

Rachni coming back (If you saved them, yes)
Genophage being cured (Sure)
Geth and the Quarian working together for the final battle (Sure)
Keepers having something to do with it (Indifferent)
To kill Udina (Add TIM to that and I'd agree)

[darknoon5]

GodWood wrote...

darknoon5 wrote...
I hope there is a cure, however I think it should not return them to their original numbers of breeding, because that's obviously irresponsible. If there is no cure though, when Wrex dies, be that through battle or old age, I reckon they're in trouble.

We already know through Mordin's dialogue that krogan numbers are being monitered and kept at a consistent level to prevent them from getting too big or too small.
They are not on the threat of extinction.
All curing them would do is increase their numbers and result in a bunch of pissed of krogan trying to reclaim their former glory.
Things are best left the way they are.

I don't know. Considering the vast majority are in the buisness of killing, not reproducing or colonizing, I'd say their not exactly growing, at best. Besides a handful of Krogan, nearly all seem to be mercs, clan warriors, bounty hunters etc.
Also, re-neutering the Krogan wasn't necessary. If they'd started acting aggresively again, action could've been taken them.

[Shockwave81]

The thing is, EA and BioWare both know that fans of the series will buy ME3 regardless of whether or not they include co-op and MP.



They know many of us will complain, but (and I hate to say it), we are the minority - the other 'millions' of people that bought ME2 aren't in the forums begging for MP and co-op to be left out - and that will probably be an encouraging sign to EA and BioWare.



Either that, or EA/BioWare check the forums and see the odd member saying "Nothing wrong with MP/co-op", and take that as 'a ground swell of support for the option'.



I dunno - I'm going to try not to dwell on it. I'll just laugh when/if reviews for ME3 come out and things are said like: "Single player campaign was excellent, but short, hopefully this will be addressed with DLC releases" or "MP/Co-op element was better than expected, but also lacked polish." And that's being kind.



Do what you will EA/BioWare, just don't act all surprised if things don't work out like you hope

[GodWood]

Shockwave81 wrote...
The thing is, EA and BioWare both know that fans of the series will buy ME3 regardless of whether or not they include co-op and MP.

They know many of us will complain, but (and I hate to say it), we are the minority - the other 'millions' of people that bought ME2 aren't in the forums begging for MP and co-op to be left out - and that will probably be an encouraging sign to EA and BioWare.

Either that, or EA/BioWare check the forums and see the odd member saying "Nothing wrong with MP/co-op", and take that as 'a ground swell of support for the option'.

There was a poll at IGN asking whether fans want multiplayer in ME3

20.58% (6,890 votes) Wanted MP,
79.42% (26,593 votes) Did not want MP. 

Just putting that out there.

[Ozzyfan223]

ammo clips are better than guns over heating. Going back and replaying ME1 I missed the thermal clips, just because without them there is no restriction, and less challenge.



and what was wrong with ME2's final boss?

[GodWood]

Ozzyfan223 wrote...
and what was wrong with ME2's final boss?

-Spoilers obviously-
It looked like a terminator for no reason other than shock value.
It was ****** easy.
It's created via the use of human goo and essence which makes absolutely no sense what so ever.

[Epic777]

darknoon5 wrote...

GodWood wrote...

darknoon5 wrote...
I hope there is a cure, however I think it should not return them to their original numbers of breeding, because that's obviously irresponsible. If there is no cure though, when Wrex dies, be that through battle or old age, I reckon they're in trouble.

We already know through Mordin's dialogue that krogan numbers are being monitered and kept at a consistent level to prevent them from getting too big or too small.
They are not on the threat of extinction.
All curing them would do is increase their numbers and result in a bunch of pissed of krogan trying to reclaim their former glory.
Things are best left the way they are.

I don't know. Considering the vast majority are in the buisness of killing, not reproducing or colonizing, I'd say their not exactly growing, at best. Besides a handful of Krogan, nearly all seem to be mercs, clan warriors, bounty hunters etc.
Also, re-neutering the Krogan wasn't necessary. If they'd started acting aggresively again, action could've been taken them.

I agree that the 1st genophage while cruel was the best option. The 2nd genophage I don't agree with. It is twisted; its not used as a preventative, its released pre-emptively. My main problem with the modified genophage is it doesn't check krogan anger over the genophage. 

Clan Weyrloc is an example. Clan weryloc shows typical krogan destruction? Did anyone actually listen to the why the clanspeaker is ready to unleash hell fire on the galaxy? "No, human you understand nothing! You have no seen the piles children who have never lived. The krogan were wronged...." Even if the krogan become the become united and civilized (generally all mordin hopes for) that angry will never subside. When the reapers show up, will the krogan put away old grudges against the citadel races and join against the reapers?
I am not saying drop the cure on the krogan homeworld asap but I do not think this issue is as clear cut as people believe especially long term. 

[JamieCOTC]

I wouldn't mind the Mako coming back, actually.  I don't care enough about Udina to want to kill him.  Multiplayer/COOP - Hell No. 

Also, I'm not sure I want EVERYTHING to be tied in a neat little knot at the end.  Somethings, yes, but not everything. 

Romances to be more in depth and be less about sex
Some small things(like sharing the drink with Chakwas, Conrad Verner)
Big events(Wrex on Virmire, Becoming a Spectre)

I can get behind all of these.