273 réponses à ce sujet

[Shadesofsiknas]

Can anyone tell me what was the jist of the leaked thread?



Its killing me not knowing.

[SalsaDMA]

GodWood wrote...

SalsaDMA wrote...
I've played baldurs gate RPG series, by Bioware, in co-op. And I loved it. Neverwinter Nights too.
And seriously, if the above is your biggest 'argument', may I suggest finding different friends to play with? You know, friends actually interested in that kind of game?

I have one friend who plays Bioware RPGs and when she's playing them I'm not even allowed in the house.
"**** off, I'm roleplaying"

You might as well argue against MultiPlayer in fighting games because the only people you can play with want to play adventure games. It's inherently a majorly weak 'argument' you are trying to put forth, if it even can be called an argument.

I see you completely missed the point of my post.
My 'argument' is basically for quite a large chunk of the game Player 2 is going to be sitting around doing absolutely nothing and only occasionally having a quick 3 min fire fight.
Thus making the whole multiplayer thing pointless.
Besides it's hardly the only reason why mp wouldn't work, read one of Bourne Endeavor's posts.

And I see you missed my point entirely.

It worked in games they themselves created over 10 years ago, but suddenly you believe it's impossible to work?

And your case of your friend behaving in a certain way is just that. Your friend behaving in a certain way.

I, and quite alot of other people, have played both Baldurs gate and Neverwinter nights together with friends, while enjoying it.

The past proves that it can work in the future too.

[GodWood]

SalsaDMA wrote...
And I see you missed my point entirely.
It worked in games they themselves created over 10 years ago, but suddenly you believe it's impossible to work?
And your case of your friend behaving in a certain way is just that. Your friend behaving in a certain way.
I, and quite alot of other people, have played both Baldurs gate and Neverwinter nights together with friends, while enjoying it.
The past proves that it can work in the future too.

Just because it worked in 2 games whose gamplay is entirely different to ME doesn't mean it'd work in ME3.
You've got to consider things like how combat  would have to be completely changed to accommodate 2 players instead of just one and all that kind of crap.
You can't just simply paste it in.

[Element_Zero]

AndarianTD wrote...

Element_Zero wrote...

I will never understand folks that state if another development team puts in MP, it will not take away from the single player. . . All of the development costs get passed to the buyer, PERIOD. They don't have a bottomless pit of cash to pull from, and if the executives at EA or BioWare do try that the game is going to be astronomical in costs.

It's both that (a "zots" issue) and a design issue. Most of the time these comments come from folks who don't know anything about software development. Developing an effective engine for MP vs. SP requires making different design decisions. This is something that came up during the endless "MP for Dragon Age!" threads, and I suspect it'll keep coming up from MP aficiandos every time Bioware is developing a new SP game.

It's actually a more general issue than just MP vs. SP. The more you keep trying to be "all things to all people," the more you will be pushed into the direction of developing a "least common denominator" product that isn't excellent at any one thing, but sort of OK at a lot of things. As I put it in a previous discussion:

What you're asking, in effect -- and to use an analogy -- is why the designers of the Ferrari didn't add a rear propellor and pontoons to it as well. After all, wouldn't it be better if you could sail it as well as drive it? In a sense, I guess, but it wouldn't be nearly as good a sports car if it were built that way.

My answer to the poll question is an emphatic "no."

Excuse me but I'm going to say BULL****. . . If you have ever HAD to set up a budget for a group of people then you will understand what I'm saying and understand the simple fact that all time spent is accounted by the bean counters if not then the company will not be in business for very long.

Simply pushing off my comments like that tells me you have never had to manage a company budget or answer for it. People expect to get paid for their efforts, this includes the people who provide power that feeds those computers, lighting, and airconditioning. Do you work for FREE? if so I know of some programming that needs to be done. Did that computer you are working on just magically appear? How about the software? Telling me that one group of people vs two groups of people that only one group is going to come out of the 'General Fund' of which only exists based on their SALES. Merry mother of god do you think the cash just magically appears for the second group? Every dam thing in that building, the parking lot everything is paid for by a companies SALES. If they are doing things properly each game is budgeted based on how well they sold and further development is 'green' or 'red' lighted based on that. Rather it be a socal, communist, or capitalist state. You still need cash to buy things and a method - sales to get cash. Gawd dam schools these days. . jeesh they just don't teach **** these days.

Add in that it DOSE drive down the time spent of the single player story (many examples of games have been posted, for us who are attracted to the game by the STORY know this and have had it proven time and time again by watching our favorite titles loose their story. You add in the dam glitches and bugs that are also getting passed over these days, and it's amazing people still buy. Plus shoving it in my face when there are players out there that will never use it.) Simple facts that it will likely require a server, (if you want a mulitplatfom to be able to talk to one another. . .) ADD IN anti cheat stuff (which is a joke anyway. Unless they parse the full dam program on the platform before linking up the online arena to play. Yes folks cheat in many different ways.) OR IGNORE everything all together and put one monitor on the server (like some have done) who also expects to get PAID BTW. This all has to be SUPPORTED BY SALES and cuts into AI, maps, and story development since suddenly someone along the line decides that those things aren't important anymore.

SELL IT AS A SEPERATE PACKAGE IF YOU HAVE TO HAVE IT. Valve was very sucessful with their Counter Strike.

[SalsaDMA]

GodWood wrote...

SalsaDMA wrote...
And I see you missed my point entirely.
It worked in games they themselves created over 10 years ago, but suddenly you believe it's impossible to work?
And your case of your friend behaving in a certain way is just that. Your friend behaving in a certain way.
I, and quite alot of other people, have played both Baldurs gate and Neverwinter nights together with friends, while enjoying it.
The past proves that it can work in the future too.

Just because it worked in 2 games whose gamplay is entirely different to ME doesn't mean it'd work in ME3.
You've got to consider things like how combat  would have to be completely changed to accommodate 2 players instead of just one and all that kind of crap.
You can't just simply paste it in.

Yes, because obviously Baldurs gate doesn't have combat with multiple party members against enemies, nor does it have conersations, levels, skills/spells to use or anything like that...

Or maybe it does, and you're just saying stuff to be saying stuff right now?

The difference can be summed up in one word: viewpoint.

The model works.

[shinobi602]

Wow, the results are crazy lol.

[GodWood]

SalsaDMA wrote...
Yes, because obviously Baldurs gate doesn't have combat with multiple party members against enemies, nor does it have conersations, levels, skills/spells to use or anything like that...

Or maybe it does, and you're just saying stuff to be saying stuff right now?

The difference can be summed up in one word: viewpoint.

The model works.

I lol'd.

[Schneidend]

I'd have to agree with Salsa. Co-op where the other players control squadmates in combat could work for an ME game.



Honestly, all I want is to be able to control Grunt or Jacob or something while I watch a friend make decisions as Shepard. As much as I like watching other people play games like this, getting involved in the combat would be great.



You could hold the melee button to perform Grunt's charge. =P

[JamieCOTC]

It's not about BW having two separate teams working on a game. It's not about whether I personally like MP or not. It's not about if MP can work in ME3 as I'm sure it could given enough time, resources and talent.  It's about taking the time, resources and talent and putting it all into the SP experience so the SP game does not suffer. To please both groups ME3 will basically have to be two separate games in one, a 30+ hour single player w/ as much story, dialogue, combat, interrupts, weapons, immersion, exploration, etc, etc, etc as ME2 (hopefully more as it is the last game) and a fully functioning and enjoyable MP that is totally separate and optional to the SP game.  This is what concerns most SP fans. 

Modifié par JamieCOTC, 12 janvier 2011 - 08:38 .

[AlanC9]

SalsaDMA wrote...


Yes, because obviously Baldurs gate doesn't have combat with multiple party members against enemies, nor does it have conersations, levels, skills/spells to use or anything like that...

Or maybe it does, and you're just saying stuff to be saying stuff right now?

The difference can be summed up in one word: viewpoint.

The model works.

Sure, it could work. Is it worth putting in the effort to make it work? Bio didn't think it was with HotU, and that was with a 100% MP-capable engine already in place. Even the minimal scripting that was needed wasn't worth doing, in their estimation.

[PHub88]

SalsaDMA wrote...

Bioware have been able to implement co-op in a couple of supposedly single player rpg that got universally hailed for the singleplayer experiences already over 10 years ago. What makes you think that it is suddenly brand new science fro them ?

Or that they somehow cannot draw on their own past experiences?

Or even claim that it is impossible when they have prooven that it was possible in the past?

Oh, I dont know.

Maybe because every SINGLE game out there with the exception of like TWO games that have multiplayer ALWAYS..and I mean ALWAYS come at the expense to the single player experience in one way or another?

People who dont understand this are either blind, dont play games a lot, could care less as long as they get their mindnumbing multiplayer, or in complete denial. You just absolutely CANNOT logically debate the multiplayer does not negatively impact the single player while knowing the facts, because the facts point to multiplayer negatively impacting the single player %98 of the time.

I used to like multiplayer when I was  a KID...until this 360 generation came around and I realized all it did was destruct any decent story line...kill length...mess up the quality...ALL so I can play with some other person on a GD game that would be stupid beyond all logic to play with someone else in

There is no reasonable thing to do in a co op where Shepard talks to someone that the other squad members could do...there isnt...so right there that already shows CO-OP making a massive negative impact on the game....its pretty obvious they would want to scale the dialogue down as much as they could. OR create two seperate types of playthoughs...WHICH ALSO sucks the resources away from the main game so people can play their mindless co op that they can go play the many other games which already have that BS.

[Element_Zero]

JamieCOTC wrote...

It's not about BW having two separate teams working on a game. It's not about whether I personally like MP or not. It's not about if MP can work in ME3 as I'm sure it could given enough time, resources and talent.  It's about taking the time, resources and talent and putting it all into the SP experience so the SP game does not suffer. To please both groups ME3 will basically have to be two separate games in one, a 30+ hour single player w/ as much story, dialogue, combat, interrupts, weapons, immersion, exploration, etc, etc, etc as ME2 (hopefully more as it is the last game) and a fully functioning and enjoyable MP that is totally separate and optional to the SP game. 

Jamie I agree with you on this. . . I get tired of having MP being pushed down my thoat when I don't play it. I didn't play MP on any of the Rainbow 6 Vagas games, and many many other titles, I also found the story and AI development stop with games that have MP. I tried it on COD MW2 and for awhile found it to be ok, until the dam hackers ruined it for me on the MP side. And these days I don't even bother with it. I know of quite a few titles that sold well alone as a MP arena and others that have totally flopped. Infact the flops are the reason why some development teams push to have it with Single Player. But I'm tired of it, and I'm tired of having to pay for it on another title only to find another game with a crappy AI mechanics, near null NPC social interaction, a short story, fewer places to explore. (I love what the develoment teams come up with in stories and it's why I buy games.) I rather pay for the story, AI development, the social interactions between NPC and player and on and on. . . .

My arguements as far as the mulitple teams were directed at those who for what ever reason kept trying to say it wasn't going to cost anything. And if I went overboard with it I apologize right now, strangely I find I get passionate about some of this stuff.

[AndarianTD]

Element_Zero,

Please do everyone on the forum a favor and read the posts you reply to in focus before aggressively shooting your mouth off. If you take a few minutes to calm down and then re-examine the exchange I've quoted below, you'll find that what you're doing is attacking me for completely agreeing with you.

Let me repeat that. Re-read what I wrote. I was not "pushing off your comments," but agreeing with you. You have completely mischaracterized what I wrote, and done so in the form of what is frankly a personal attack.

EDIT: Element_Zero subsequently realized that he'd misread my post and apologized, which I acknowledge and appreciate. No harm done. 

Element_Zero wrote...

AndarianTD wrote...

Element_Zero wrote...

I will never understand folks that state if another development team puts in MP, it will not take away from the single player. . . All of the development costs get passed to the buyer, PERIOD. They don't have a bottomless pit of cash to pull from, and if the executives at EA or BioWare do try that the game is going to be astronomical in costs.

It's both that (a "zots" issue) [emphasis added] and a design issue. Most of the time these comments come from folks who don't know anything about software development. Developing an effective engine for MP vs. SP requires making different design decisions. This is something that came up during the endless "MP for Dragon Age!" threads, and I suspect it'll keep coming up from MP aficiandos every time Bioware is developing a new SP game.

It's actually a more general issue than just MP vs. SP. The more you keep trying to be "all things to all people," the more you will be pushed into the direction of developing a "least common denominator" product that isn't excellent at any one thing, but sort of OK at a lot of things. As I put it in a previous discussion:

What you're asking, in effect -- and to use an analogy -- is why the designers of the Ferrari didn't add a rear propellor and pontoons to it as well. After all, wouldn't it be better if you could sail it as well as drive it? In a sense, I guess, but it wouldn't be nearly as good a sports car if it were built that way.

My answer to the poll question is an emphatic "no."

Excuse me but I'm going to say BULL****. . . If you have ever HAD to set up a budget for a group of people then you will understand what I'm saying and understand the simple fact that all time spent is accounted by the bean counters if not then the company will not be in business for very long.

Simply pushing off my comments like that tells me you have never had to manage a company budget or answer for it. People expect to get paid for their efforts, this includes the people who provide power that feeds those computers, lighting, and airconditioning. Do you work for FREE? if so I know of some programming that needs to be done. Did that computer you are working on just magically appear? How about the software? Telling me that one group of people vs two groups of people that only one group is going to come out of the 'General Fund' of which only exists based on their SALES. Merry mother of god do you think the cash just magically appears for the second group? Every dam thing in that building, the parking lot everything is paid for by a companies SALES. If they are doing things properly each game is budgeted based on how well they sold and further development is 'green' or 'red' lighted based on that. Rather it be a socal, communist, or capitalist state. You still need cash to buy things and a method - sales to get cash. Gawd dam schools these days. . jeesh they just don't teach **** these days.

Add in that it DOSE drive down the time spent of the single player story (many examples of games have been posted, for us who are attracted to the game by the STORY know this and have had it proven time and time again by watching our favorite titles loose their story. You add in the dam glitches and bugs that are also getting passed over these days, and it's amazing people still buy. Plus shoving it in my face when there are players out there that will never use it.) Simple facts that it will likely require a server, (if you want a mulitplatfom to be able to talk to one another. . .) ADD IN anti cheat stuff (which is a joke anyway. Unless they parse the full dam program on the platform before linking up the online arena to play. Yes folks cheat in many different ways.) OR IGNORE everything all together and put one monitor on the server (like some have done) who also expects to get PAID BTW. This all has to be SUPPORTED BY SALES and cuts into AI, maps, and story development since suddenly someone along the line decides that those things aren't important anymore.

SELL IT AS A SEPERATE PACKAGE IF YOU HAVE TO HAVE IT. Valve was very sucessful with their Counter Strike.

Modifié par AndarianTD, 12 janvier 2011 - 09:15 .

[Element_Zero]

Again I apologized for it AndarianTD just minutes before you posted. . I realized what a knee jerk reaction I had to your posting (I miss read it) and thus felt it necessary to include that in the far above posting.

[AndarianTD]

Element_Zero wrote...

Again I apologized for it AndarianTD just minutes before you posted. . I realized what a knee jerk reaction I had to your posting (I miss read it) and thus felt it necessary to include that in the far above posting.

That's OK -- apology accepted, and no harm done. I'm just as passionate about the issue as you are, so I can understand your enthusiasm.

Modifié par AndarianTD, 12 janvier 2011 - 09:14 .

[raynbow]

i think it'd be okay if it was something like the brotherhood set up where it's like a side game and you could do little missions and talk with other me fans, but other than that i say no.

[Bourne Endeavor]

rynluna wrote...

People say it works with Gears and it actually does, but that game has always had a Co-op feature, not to mention there are no dialog options.

People who make that reference miss the fundamental difference between Gears and Mass Effect. The former's campaign would equates to Freedom's Progress, Horizon, The Collector Ship, Derelict Reaper and The Suicide Mission. They might be slightly longer and would most definitely larger to accommodate a co-op but that in essence would be Gears Effect.

If multiplayer is implemented, it will be at the behest of EA. If a budget in mind, should cuts become a necessity. What is more likely to suffer, the storyline or multiplayer? That is the concern and why MP is so widely detested. Furthermore, while I thoroughly enjoy a good multiplayer. I would like an alternative. Every bloody game nowadays is shoehorning in an accursed MP component.

At the end of the day. If ME3 has multiplayer, it will be because BioWare, EA or both perceive they can attract a fanbase who loathes lengthily dialogue. Even if it were decent, this feature has to be enough to convince that fanbase to play less of Call of Duty or Halo; the two kingpin MP games. I doubt that will happen.

[TRISTAN WERBE]

Helll yes

[Merchant2006]

shinobi602 wrote...

Curious to see overall opinion, once and for all for comparison.

social.bioware.com/872117/polls/13874/

Computer says noooo...

[JamieCOTC]

Solution: Make two separate games.

Mass Effect 3 - The thrilling conclusion to Commander Shepard's story arc and the final battle with the Reapers.

Mass Effect3 Expansion: Earth Liberation - A CoD type MP that takes place during the Reaper invasion of Earth. Play as Human Alliance, Human Cerberus, Turian, Salarian, Krogan, Asari, etc, etc. Kill enemies, destroy bases, go on missions to cripple enemies or help allies. May have a main character of its own, but no Shepard.  (Possibly import a ME3 save to have different outcomes of the game).

Reason: Each game will have to stand up on its own, therefore each game will have to have the maximum resources to ensure quality and success. 

Modifié par JamieCOTC, 13 janvier 2011 - 12:28 .

[Kabanya101]

No, they shouldn't make it a multiplayer game, but they should let you be able to switch between squad mates like in Dragon Age, which would allow you to experience the game as a Krogan or quarian.

Mass Effect is not a multiplayer game, and it shouldn't have to accommodate to the people that want it to be because they are obsessed with CoD

[C9316]

Co-Op would not make sense for ME3, if you play as Shepard and you engage in conversation with a squadmate controlled by the other player what the heck would happen then? Some derpish Fable 3 style conversation?

As some have already stated I doubt that ME Deathmatch would be as popular as Halo and COD are already, so why invest in it?

Modifié par C9316, 13 janvier 2011 - 12:26 .

[Schneidend]

GodWood wrote...
Friend: dude wtf you doin
Me: I'm talking to Thane.
Friend: That's ****ng boring hurry up and go shoot ****!
Me: Not right now, this guy Thane has an eidetic memory meaning he has the ability to perfectly recall every single assassination and act of murder he has ever committed and he is now confessing the immense guilt he feels and how each memory is a burden on his conscience - It's quite engaging.
Friend: Dude! thats ****ing gay, stop talking to this emo frog and ****ing shoot ****.

The solution? Don't let goddamn retards watch you play RPGs?

Follow my simple advice, and the following is equally likely to happen.

Friend: You just verbally obliterated that reporter. That was awesome.
Me: Yeah. She probably should have tried knowing what the hell she was talking about before stepping up to Shepard.
Friend: Does kinda suck that all those people died to save three ungrateful aliens, though.
Me: Yeah, but how many more aliens and humans might have died if race riots broke out over humanity taking over a Council they didn't even try saving?
Friend: True. But, you're working for Cerberus now. That's weak. You even colored your armor white, black, and orange. Not cool.
Me: Can't be helped. They're the only ones taking the reaper stuff seriously.
**SERIOUS DISCUSSION ENSUES**

C9316 wrote...

Co-Op would not make sense for ME3, if you
play as Shepard and you engage in conversation with a squadmate
controlled by the other player what the heck would happen then? Some
derpish Fable 3 style conversation?

The exact same thing that would happen when this occurs in Baldur's Gate II: ABSOLUTELY NOTHING DIFFERENT FROM THE SINGLEPLAYER GAME.

Modifié par Schneidend, 13 janvier 2011 - 12:36 .