241 réponses à ce sujet

[Gibb_Shepard]

Valo_Soren wrote...

-rips apart everything-

"They should put all resources into single player"

That is a ****ty excuse to not have multiplayer. I'm sorry. Bioware is not going to fail to put the proper resources into ME 3 whether it contains a multiplayer campaign or not. This shouldn't even be an issue, my final word is that all the people who don't want a multiplayer component in ME3 really have no real good excuse as to why it shouldn't be there. Bioware is -rich- they will have enough money to pour as much as they can into the single player game and the multiplayer game if they choose to put the multiplayer component in. If they don't there's no reason for any of you to be whining anyway. This is all mere speculation at the moment but still, Bioware knows what its doing regardless and I would thank you all to shut up about it.

My god you are ignorant. You seriously do not know what you are talking about. Please go away.

[Element_Zero]

Captain Crash wrote...

Bethesda shows just how strong single player games are still.

You know Captain Crash it's not only that. . . But Bethesda has been rather open on there feelings in making a game multiplayer -vs- single player. In their forums they even admit that it takes a significate amount of resources and manpower to incorporate it into a game. They have even stated how difficult it is to incorporate MP into a DLC after release.

I forgot where I read that and had to look it up again . . . It was one of those things that's been in the back of my mind while I've posted my opinion on MP in these various threads that keep popping up in reguards to ME 3.

I can only hope that Bethesda will stick to their stance on it. . . (They have stated that they perfer to focus their efforts on single player story rather than split their efforts.)  But only time will tell.

Modifié par Element_Zero, 21 janvier 2011 - 01:23 .

[Captain Crash]

Still its their choice, even if its based on fiscal and resource reasons. It still shows that multiplayer isn't needed to make a game successful

[Pedro Costa]

Captain Crash wrote...

Still its their choice, even if its based on fiscal and resource reasons. It still shows that multiplayer isn't needed to make a game successful

I'd even go as far as saying that including multiplayer in games that weren't tailored (plot/setting-wise) for multiplayer, actually hinders the successfulness of such game.
BioShock 2 is such an example, should resources not had been deviated to include a MP feature for the purpose of jumping the "now with multiplayer!" bandwagon and instead used them to focus on the story and a more engaging/fun/original gameplay (it was pretty much just BioShock 1's gameplay with a big daddy), the game could probably have been quite a lot better than the first one.

Mind you, I'm not speaking against multiplayer in any an all games, only that such games need to be thought of from the ground-up for such an experience (Counter Strike, CoD, Gears - when you strip those blockbuster games to their bare bones you get one faction against the other(s) shooting everything up without a pre-established, irreplaceable main character in a warzone-like scenario where dialogue and cinematic cutscenes don't take precedence to the involvement of several PCs that may, or may not, be present), a thing that the MassEffect Trilogy never did and was never thought of to do to begin with, and, this late in the game, certainly makes no sense to even thinking on how to tack it on.

I think it'd be wisest to simply make MassEffect 3 as good as they possibly can, even if a few boundaries have to be pushed, and only after delivering a fulfilling conclusion to Shepard's story, focus on a multiplayer game grounded in the Mass Effect Universe.

[Lumikki]

In my opinion if Bioware wants to make multiplayer game it should be design as multiplayer game from start.

Meaning single player game is not multiplayer game. One of the problem of mmorpgs has nowdays is that so many players are single players and multiplaying is suffering from it. Now we all know why it happen, but was it really good thing is other question. Because trying to please so many different players in one game, does cause many compromizes.

So, in my opinion ME3 should be pure single player game. Mostly because majority (maybe 80%) wants it to be so and adding MP features in it, even as optional, does have major affect the game design. It requires many small changes, to make it work. LIke example dialogs, team system, squad members, UI, missions design and of cause hole MP system engine too. This all change little bit hole game and NONE of it makes single player side better. Why waste time and money for something what only minority (20%) wants. It's like lets do this even if most of our players have no use for it. WTF?

So, I suggest that if Bioware is interested making multiplayer game into Mass Effect universe setting, they could do it after ME3 when Shepards story ends. Then really design the game support multiplaying.

Modifié par Lumikki, 21 janvier 2011 - 06:14 .

[ReaperswillDie]

[quote]Pwner1323 wrote...

I can't believe Im falling victim to making one of these threads (wich I told myself i wouldn't do) but Im sick of people going on about ME3 being ruined if MP is implemented. It's not that everyone hates the idea or doesn't want the MP. the real reason is that you're afraid that it will ruin the SP campaign wich I won't lie by saying it won't because the possibility does exist for ME3 to be ruined by it, but there is also the chance that it will be strenghten by it.

Who wouldn't want to play as they're own Shepard in a Gears of War style deathmatch against Collectors and Husks?

I understand these fears but maybe, just maybe, everyone is overreacting on the issue. If BW is truly considering a MP component, then don't you think they know better then us? They haven't let us down so far so why would they now? I think we should give them the benefit of the doubt instead of jumping down the throat of every person who
says MP may be good.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
it wouldnt make any sense to do multiplayer. You cant play as the collectors because shepard wiped out their homeland. Basically they are extinct.

[Deathwurm]

I can't believe this Dead Horse is still being beaten!

[Cru Hunter]

Thing is, I don't know of a Bioware game that has both Multiplayer and Singleplayer in it. The same logic you applied "Can't you trust them to do what's best?" What if that is keeping it Singleplayer only? Bioware should do what Bioware does best, which is make great Singleplayer games and MMOs. Not one that combines the two.

[Deathwurm]

mangeo wrote...

Deathwurm wrote...

I can't believe this Dead Horse is still being beaten!

Then why do you still partake in the beating?

Just registering my surprise...not trying to be a Troll...it's all good

[Mr. MannlyMan]

The ONLY reason to include multiplayer in ME3 at this point in the series would be based purely on marketing rhetoric (ie. Appealing to a larger audience). Never mind that NOBODY I've talked to who wants multiplayer has ever shown any excitement for it; only that they want it purely for the sake of having the option.

Co-op is a different story, but then we all know that since we're playing somebody else's game and not our own, the lure of co-op wouldn't exactly be overwhelming (and everyone I talk to fantasizes about having their buddies play as one of their squadmates, but never fantasize about playing as THEIR buddy's squadmate; hmmmmm...). Any co-op mode that forces somebody to take a backseat (like Fable 2's version of it) and gives one player control over another is not very appealing to the majority of players.

[Someone With Mass]

Another reason I can give why I don't want MP in ME3 is simply because I don't want it, and I don't want to pay for something I'm never going to use.



Also, how long do you think the multiplayer would be popular?



I bet after half a year, no-one would give a crap about it. Especially if it's a last minute tack on.

I find multiplayer of the kind where you just kill each other over something stupid like a flag to be highly overrated. Let other games that are made for that purpose handle that sort of thing. If that's all some multiplayer mode in ME3 can offer, it can stay in hell where it belongs.

[earthbornFemShep]

Here's the thing for me. Yes, multiplayer CAN work in RPGs, but it doesn't mean it works well. I mean, look at Fable 2 and Fable 3. They have the option of you bringing a 'henchman' along to do the quests with you. However, when a second player enters your world, it changes the experience. Sure, it is fun to share the experience, fool around, and converse with friends in game, but there are huge downsides. Scenes aren't as intense when you have your henchman cracking jokes or glitching in/out of a cutscene. Immersion suffers when combat/scenes lag. Frustration enters when stats, saves, etc glitch because of the strain of Xbox Live multiplayer. Also, Fable is loosely story-driven. It is more about wandering around, getting rich, and making your reputation/mark. That sort of open-ended game works MUCH better with co-op than a story-driven, individual-focused game.



Also, what happens during convos?.. does your co-op buddy just sit in the corner twiddling her thumbs? Can I boot-out my co-op buddy out when I am trying to talk to my LI? Can I romance my co-op buddy? Will squadmates refer to my buddy or pretend they don't exist (like they do in Fable or Halo 2).



If you ignore co-op and just do a combat-based (no story) online multiplayer I would say, "no" to it as well. If they want to take the game in that direction, do it in a ME game without Shepard as your main character.