145 réponses à ce sujet

[Matt251287]

GodWood wrote...

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.

I can agree with that sentiment,
 
when i first saw it i was like, "eerm, what does this thing do when it's finished? Fly through space like a 'superman-reaper?', Stomp around Tokyo like Godzilla?, just what?:blink:"
 
the only reasonable conclusion is that time-machines also shrink you, so this is the only way to find Sarah C0nor, Auuurgh!

[Evelinessa]

Matt251287 wrote...

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.

Well I think I like the Thermal Clips too; At first I didn't like them but now I don't mind them. I never really ran out of ammo so I guess that might be why I don't hate them.

[ZachForrest]

The combat a la ME2 just wouldn't work in multiplayer. For the most part, successful multiplayer games simply take the gameplay from the single player experience and transplant that into multiplayer verbatim. (GoW, MW, Halo). ME gameplay would have to be totally redesigned for multiplayer (as it stands currently).

[wolfsite]

Honestly the entire flow of ME doesn't work in for Co-Op multiplayer,

-if it is divided up like ME2 is you would need to find someone on the same mission as you or at a relative point
-then there would be an arguement over Who's Shepard to use
-then an arguement over to take a Paragon or Renegade path
-Then does all that get saved to eveyone or just the main player (IE if you did not like the playthrough then you would have to play it again)

If it is in there it would have to be restricted to a few levels that won't impact the players character.  I can see the hellstorm if a group of mostly Paragons waded through to save someone only to have the Renegade kill the person for the information the person had.

[Jebel Krong]

co-op would never work with the ME series conversation mechanics - the 2nd person would be reduced to a passive observer every 5 minutes, it would just suck. i have nothing against full multiplayer - a la assassin's creed brotherhood, just not at the expense of the main, singleplayer, game.

[Uszi]

I only want Co-op in one situation:

Player 1:  Commander Shepard.
Player 2:  Conrad Verner


And I am 100% serious.  2 player Co-Op would feel so shoehorned into what's been a one man story so far, Shepard's story, that it will be rediculous no matter what they do.  They might as well make it funawesome.

Jebel Krong wrote...

co-op would never work with the ME
series conversation mechanics - the 2nd person would be reduced to a
passive observer every 5 minutes, it would just suck. i have nothing
against full multiplayer - a la assassin's creed brotherhood, just not
at the expense of the main, singleplayer, game.

You could alternate conversations.
Or it could be like SWtOR where they build in options for the other character to say something.
Or you could give player 2 conversation interrupts.

I mean, it would suck regardless.  But it could be done, don't doubt it.

Modifié par Uszi, 13 janvier 2011 - 03:55 .

[Jebel Krong]

if it can't be done well - and all those options detract for both players, then why bother. some games don't suit co-op, people shouldn't want something shoehorned in that would reflect badly on the game.

[Evelinessa]

I'm hoping we don't get any multiplayer. No matter what it's still taking away resources from the main game even if it can be done well. I really don't think the last part of the trilogy(in my opinion the most important part) should be experimented with multiplayer. They can try that in a spinoff. It's taking too much of a risk to include a feature like this when this has been a single player only game. I also agree with everyones reasons on why there shouldn't be multiplayer.

[Pwner1323]

Evelinessa wrote...

I'm hoping we don't get any multiplayer. No matter what it's still taking away resources from the main game even if it can't be done well. I really don't think the last part of the trilogy(in my opinion the most important part) should be experimented with multiplayer. They can't try that in a spinoff. It's not taking too much of a risk to include a feature like this when this has been a single player only game. I also agree with everyones reasons on why there shouldn't be multiplayer.

FIXED

[Evelinessa]

Pwner1323 wrote...

Evelinessa wrote...

I'm hoping we don't get any multiplayer. No matter what it's still taking away resources from the main game even if it can't be done well. I really don't think the last part of the trilogy(in my opinion the most important part) should be experimented with multiplayer. They can't try that in a spinoff. It's not taking too much of a risk to include a feature like this when this has been a single player only game. I also agree with everyones reasons on why there shouldn't be multiplayer.

FIXED

Why do you want multiplayer? Mass Effect is a perfectly fine game without multiplayer. Adding multiplayer has the potential to do more harm then good.

[ZombifiedJake]

Stopped reading at co-op

[Timberley]

There's one major problem with putting Co-op into the main ME3 game - it's a game entirely about Shepard.  That, by it's very nature, excludes 2 Shepards messing about in the same game.  The Co-op partner will doubtless not be satisfied being a party member or forgettable Red Shirt as they've been making their own Shep, and will want to use them.

Also, it's an RPG, not a shooter (like most examples previously posted); different gameplay mechanics (moreso in ME1 than ME2, as ME2 strayed towards TPS territory in my book), different speed of play, etc.  Post-combat, what's the Co-op partner going to do?  Leave?  Go back to their own ship? Hang around and wait for you to finish visiting squadmates, exploring romances, etc?  I don't think so somehow.

The only way some sort of Co-op could work (in my eyes anyway), without a radical shift in gameplay mechanics is to create a series of standalone missions, similar to the Deniable Ops mode in Splinter Cell Conviction, or the Spec Ops mode from MW2.  That way 2 (or 4, depending how fancy you want to make it) folk can engage in a series of missions together.  The Co-op aspect of SCC might work better, as you could have a story mode. 

But, I'd want that as a seperate game in the ME universe, not part of ME3.  it could even be an add-on disc if they want, but don't push out features, story or anything from ME3, which should be a grand conclusion to the many many hours of gameplay we've had from ME1 & 2.

Tim

[Tempus Frangit]

Why the hate against ME2's final boss? I still don't understand why people were upset about it. o_O

[JRCHOharry]

Evelinessa wrote...

Pwner1323 wrote...

FIXED

Why do you want multiplayer? Mass Effect is a perfectly fine game without multiplayer. Adding multiplayer has the potential to do more harm then good.

Ignore him. He seems to be adamant in forcing his opinion on everyone. I, for one, want ME3 to be a single player experience. Bioware can do whatever the hell they like afterwards. I probably won't be buying any ME related stuff after this series anyway.

[Evelinessa]

Tempus Frangit wrote...

Why the hate against ME2's final boss? I still don't understand why people were upset about it. o_O

People don't like how it looked and was presented. People believe that BioWare could have been more creative then that. I think that they could have done more with the final boss.

JRCHOharry wrote...

Ignore him. He seems to be adamant in forcing his opinion on everyone. I, for one, want ME3 to be a single player experience. Bioware can do whatever the hell they like afterwards. I probably won't be buying any ME related stuff after this series anyway.

Yeah, I agree. I want for at least the end of the trilogy to stick with single player only. They can put multiplayer in a spinoff but I probably wouldn't be too interested in that game. Why don't you want anymore after ME3? Do you have low expectations? Do you not like how the series is going?

[Annihilator27]

Tempus Frangit wrote...

Why the hate against ME2's final boss? I still don't understand why people were upset about it. o_O

Because it look like the Terminator and the fight wasnt really special. All it was missing was Shepard saying "Get to the Normandy!!!"

[JRCHOharry]

Evelinessa wrote...

Tempus Frangit wrote...

Why the hate against ME2's final boss? I still don't understand why people were upset about it. o_O

People don't like how it looked and was presented. People believe that BioWare could have been more creative then that. I think that they could have done more with the final boss.

JRCHOharry wrote...

Ignore him. He seems to be adamant in forcing his opinion on everyone. I, for one, want ME3 to be a single player experience. Bioware can do whatever the hell they like afterwards. I probably won't be buying any ME related stuff after this series anyway.

Why don't you want anymore after ME3? Do you have low expectations? Do you not like how the series is going?

Honestly, I kinda do have low expectations for it. As much as I enjoyed ME2 I was still disappointed that I didn't see many consequences for the decisions I made in ME1. I can only guess that Bioware are saving that for ME3, or that they just said our actions will make a difference to suck everyone into the games.
I also expect a lot of FPS ME-style shootemups after ME3, it's pretty clear EA are in control of where the series is going.

[Matt251287]

JRCHOharry wrote...
 it's pretty clear EA are in control of where the series is going.

I do very much hope not.
 
Just like Command and Conquer *Facepalm*

[thatbwoyblu]

Whats wrong with multiplayer?This is the last Mass effect so I think that Bioware should go all out and add a multiplayer feature.Multiplayer would give people even more reasons to go back and play it.ME3s excellent story wont be affected by multiplayer because Bioware has a separate team making the multiplayer.

[Uszi]

annihilator27 wrote...

Tempus Frangit wrote...

Why the hate against ME2's final boss? I still don't understand why people were upset about it. o_O

Because it look like the Terminator and the fight wasnt really special. All it was missing was Shepard saying "Get to the Normandy!!!"

Well, and the irreversible effects on ME canon.  Like, reapers are made from goop from organic species?  Why was it so small, is it going to "grow" to be reaper sized, or are reapers big cyborgs that drive giant ships?  It was just about as bad an ending as you could manage for the game.

[Merchant2006]

Hopes: Co-op?!?!?!? Blasphemmmyyyy! ^^

[sanadawarrior]

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.

And yet Baldur's Gate II, a game made by Bioware and one of the greatest single player games of all time with over 200 hours of gameplay had great online co-op.

Also I've beaten RE5 at least twice by myself, co-op is in no way forced upon you.

Modifié par sanadawarrior, 14 janvier 2011 - 04:28 .

[GreenSoda]

sanadawarrior wrote...

And yet Baldur's Gate II, a game made by Bioware and one of the greatest single player games of all time with over 200 hours of gameplay had great online co-op.

Also I've beaten RE5 at least twice by myself, co-op is in no way forced upon you.

You know that old "BG2 did it too" argument really doesn't fly. The way they implemented co-op back then simply wouldn't do today (they'd get slaughtered by critics for implementing a "half-assed" mp-mode).
*If* (and I really hope they do not) BW implements any form of MP it will be a major money sink.

And that RE5 comment is a joke, right ? It's so damn obvious that the whole game is designed to be played co-op style. They tailored the whole game around it. Sure you can let the AI stand in for the non existant 2nd player but that doesn't change the different approach in game design. It's just not the same as a sp-only game.

Modifié par GreenSoda, 14 janvier 2011 - 04:45 .

[sanadawarrior]

GreenSoda wrote...

You know that old "BG2 did it too"
argument really doesn't fly. The way they implemented co-op back then
simply wouldn't do today (they'd get slaughtered by critics for
implementing a "half-assed" mp-mode).
*If* (and I really hope they do not) BW implements any form of MP it will be a major money sink.

And
that RE5 comment is a joke, right ? It's so damn obvious that the whole
game is designed to be played co-op style. They tailored the whole game
around it. Sure you can let the AI stand in for the non existant 2nd
player but that doesn't change the different approach in game design.
It's just not the same as a sp-only game.

Meh, I had fun with it back in the day. Besides they don't have to implement it exactly the same way, it was just an example of how games have made it work before without any damage to the single player campaign.

As far as RE5 is concerned you and him are saying different things. I agree with you, but he was basicaly saying the game was unplayable without a partner, which the game most certainly is not. Like I said, i have beaten the game by myself twice, it is not difficult in any way.

Modifié par sanadawarrior, 14 janvier 2011 - 04:56 .

[Lunatic LK47]

sanadawarrior wrote...

Meh, I had fun with it back in the day. Besides they don't have to implement it exactly the same way, it was just an example of how games have made it work before without any damage to the single player campaign.

As far as RE5 is concerned you and him are saying different things. I agree with you, but he was basicaly saying the game was unplayable without a partner, which the game most certainly is not. Like I said, i have beaten the game by myself twice, it is not difficult in any way.

Uh, Hard and Professional were a pain in the ass, considering how stupid Chris or Sheva's A.I. is.

Modifié par Lunatic LK47, 14 janvier 2011 - 05:35 .