70 réponses à ce sujet

[tishyw]

Co-op should be saved for Mass Effect: Reaper Wars or something, and NOT be shoe-horned into ME3. The Mass Effect trillogy started as a single-player game about Sheppard, and should remain so.

[Gandalf-the-Fabulous]

JKoopman wrote...

Omega-202 wrote...

JamieCOTC wrote...

edit: What Element Zero said as he said it much better than I. 

I do hope you get a MP spinoff to ME or ME3 MP DLC, but at the end of the day not every game needs to have multiplayer in it.

Edit2: ME3 w/ Multiplayer.

Because that childish example is what real people actually act like when playing games.  If you find that asinine story relevant, I pity you, but its ridiculous to say that a coop campaign would devolve into that after all of the successful and easy to manage coop shooters out there.  

..........name one.

I also would've thrown in one of the four players randomly AFKing without telling anyone and spending the whole mission staring into a corner. That's been roughly my coop experience on Xbox LIVE.

You need to find better friends.

[Felfenix]

Gandalf-the-Fabulous wrote...

JKoopman wrote...

Omega-202 wrote...

JamieCOTC wrote...

edit: What Element Zero said as he said it much better than I. 

I do hope you get a MP spinoff to ME or ME3 MP DLC, but at the end of the day not every game needs to have multiplayer in it.

Edit2: ME3 w/ Multiplayer.

Because that childish example is what real people actually act like when playing games.  If you find that asinine story relevant, I pity you, but its ridiculous to say that a coop campaign would devolve into that after all of the successful and easy to manage coop shooters out there.  

..........name one.

I also would've thrown in one of the four players randomly AFKing without telling anyone and spending the whole mission staring into a corner. That's been roughly my coop experience on Xbox LIVE.

You need to find better friends.

Pretty obvious that poster doesn't have friends.

[KainrycKarr]

Most games end up having things cut from the game(we know this to be the case with ME2) because of resource and time issues.

Imagine how much worse it would be, if they had to allow for adding in multiplayer to a system that wasn't made for it in the first place.

If multiplayer is added, it WILL take away from time and resources that would have otherwise gone to improving the single player. EA will not give Bioware infinite resources because no company puts too many eggs in one basket. It's too easy to lose a considerable amount of money on a potential flop.

This has happened with soooo many games. Take the singe player campaign of any game with multiplayer....not very long are they? And don't usually have too much to begin with.

Why? Because if a game has multiplayer, then the goal is generally to improve replayability by having a fun multiplayer. People don't buy Call of Duty for the single player campaigns(which are short, sweet, and pretty much just a play-a-long ride).

In most multiplayer games, the meat and bones is intended to be the multiplayer component itself. Hence why the resources are devoted more towards the multiplayer side and less towards singleplayer.

If that isn't done, then you have a mediocre multiplayer and(still) a lesser singleplayer experience because you still had to devote resources to that mediocre multiplaye, in which case you may as well have simply left out the multiplayer to begin with.

Bioware is a proven and successful creator of amazing single-playing experiences, and as such, the safest financial bet would be to stick with what they know for this particular project.

Modifié par KainrycKarr, 20 janvier 2011 - 02:24 .

[Omega-202]

Gandalf-the-Fabulous wrote...

JKoopman wrote...

Omega-202 wrote...

JamieCOTC wrote...

edit: What Element Zero said as he said it much better than I. 

I do hope you get a MP spinoff to ME or ME3 MP DLC, but at the end of the day not every game needs to have multiplayer in it.

Edit2: ME3 w/ Multiplayer.

Because that childish example is what real people actually act like when playing games.  If you find that asinine story relevant, I pity you, but its ridiculous to say that a coop campaign would devolve into that after all of the successful and easy to manage coop shooters out there.  

..........name one.

I also would've thrown in one of the four players randomly AFKing without telling anyone and spending the whole mission staring into a corner. That's been roughly my coop experience on Xbox LIVE.

You need to find better friends.

I couldn't say this any better.  I've had amazing fun playing L4D, Halo 3, Halo Reach and Army of Two online with friends without any of those issues.  

If you're experiencing such issues, that has to do with your friends not the game.  

[JKoopman]

Felfenix wrote...

Gandalf-the-Fabulous wrote...

JKoopman wrote...

Omega-202 wrote...

JamieCOTC wrote...

edit: What Element Zero said as he said it much better than I. 

I do hope you get a MP spinoff to ME or ME3 MP DLC, but at the end of the day not every game needs to have multiplayer in it.

Edit2: ME3 w/ Multiplayer.

Because that childish example is what real people actually act like when playing games.  If you find that asinine story relevant, I pity you, but its ridiculous to say that a coop campaign would devolve into that after all of the successful and easy to manage coop shooters out there.  

..........name one.

I also would've thrown in one of the four players randomly AFKing without telling anyone and spending the whole mission staring into a corner. That's been roughly my coop experience on Xbox LIVE.

You need to find better friends.

Pretty obvious that poster doesn't have friends.

Wow. I'm sure you feel pretty good about yourself after that one. Why don't you give yourself a nice pat on the back?

[Lunatic LK47]

KainrycKarr wrote...
Why? Because if a game has multiplayer, then the goal is generally to improve replayability by having a fun multiplayer. People don't buy Call of Duty for the single player campaigns(which are short, sweet, and pretty much just a play-a-long ride).

While your argument has it's merit, I'm posting my reason for buying the series. I bought Call of Duty *PRIMARILY* for the campaign ever since the original game's inception. As far as I remember, no other game has ever done a "play as a soldier from the perspective of different armies" nor did they ever have squad-based combat in the scale Call of Duty did. Last time I checked, every E3 convention showcased the campaign and not the multiplayer.

[Lunatic LK47]

Omega-202 wrote...
If you're experiencing such issues, that has to do with your friends not the game.  

Pardon me for not buying $60 paperweights that will die out just because the community stopped playing the game three years later.

[Omega-202]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

Omega-202 wrote...
If you're experiencing such issues, that has to do with your friends not the game.  

Pardon me for not buying $60 paperweights that will die out just because the community stopped playing the game three years later.

Well that makes NO sense.  The community doesn't matter when you have friends to play with.  

One of my old college roommates emailed me last week and asked if I wanted to play some coop Halo with him for old time's sake.  Us and two of our other friends went ahead and played halfway through Halo 3 together even though its a 2 and a half year old game already.  

So again, your problem with co-op isn't a game problem, its a friends problem.  

Also, please name an online co-op shooter that's even 3 years old.  

[Lunatic LK47]

Omega-202 wrote...

Well that makes NO sense.  The community doesn't matter when you have friends to play with. 

Not everyone has that type of luxury, jack-ass since there's something called "Real life" to attend to. Does a "good friend" mean that they have to have the same taste in games as you?

Also, please name an online co-op shooter that's even 3 years old. 

3 year old games that has a dead community:

Any Tom Clancy game that was made for the XBox 360 (pretty much all of them except for maybe H.A.W.X. 2 and to a very lesser extent Splinter Cell Conviction)

Army of Two

[Felfenix]

Regardless of the whole "multiplayer in or out" issue, it's ridiculous to say "Just play Call of Duty or Halo if you want ME multiplayer." That's exactly like saying "Go play Call of Duty or Halo if you want ME singleplayer."

Many people asking for multiplayer are generally asking for something like Sonic 2, where you could plug in the second controller and take control of Tails who was usually a bot companion. "It would be boring to be a spectator while the person controlling Shepard walks around the Citadel and talks to people." but the thing is, the multiplayer wouldn't make that any more of an issue than it already is. A lot of people watch their friends play, or have friends watch them play, and enjoy it. It would be nice to, on top of that, be able to participate in the combat, since it's a party based game: Why not have a second player control one of the squadmates instead of a dumb bot? As for the pausing, it would be turned off if you chose the _option_ of multiplayer, as the game can be played and powers can be used quite easily without pausing.

The people asking for ME multiplayer aren't asking for Death Matches, "Horde Mode", or whatever. That's a completely different kind of gameplay/multiplayer that already exists in countless other games.

Modifié par Felfenix, 20 janvier 2011 - 04:56 .

[Lunatic LK47]

Felfenix wrote...


Many people asking for multiplayer are generally asking for something like Sonic 2, where you could plug in the second controller and take control of Tails who was usually a bot companion. "It would be boring to be a spectator while the person controlling Shepard walks around the Citadel and talks to people." but the thing is, the multiplayer wouldn't make that any more of an issue than it already is. A lot of people watch their friends play, or have friends watch them play, and enjoy it. It would be nice to, on top of that, be able to participate in the combat, since it's a party based game: Why not have a second player control one of the squadmates instead of a dumb bot? As for the pausing, it would be turned off if you chose the _option_ of multiplayer, as the game can be played and powers can be used quite easily without pausing.

Not that simple. Sonic 2 was a 16-bit side-scrolling game. Last time I checked, it didn't have cinematic cutscenes nor advanced physics.

[Gandalf-the-Fabulous]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

Omega-202 wrote...

Well that makes NO sense.  The community doesn't matter when you have friends to play with. 

Not everyone has that type of luxury, jack-ass since there's something called "Real life" to attend to. Does a "good friend" mean that they have to have the same taste in games as you?

Ouch, did Omega strike a nerve there Lunatic? Not sure what it was about Omega's statement that waranted that response but I am not sure how "Real life" prevents you from having friends with the same interests?

[Matchy Pointy]

Felfenix wrote...

Regardless of the whole "multiplayer in or out" issue, it's ridiculous to say "Just play Call of Duty or Halo if you want ME multiplayer." That's exactly like saying "Go play Call of Duty or Halo if you want ME singleplayer."

Many people asking for multiplayer are generally asking for something like Sonic 2, where you could plug in the second controller and take control of Tails who was usually a bot companion. "It would be boring to be a spectator while the person controlling Shepard walks around the Citadel and talks to people." but the thing is, the multiplayer wouldn't make that any more of an issue than it already is. A lot of people watch their friends play, or have friends watch them play, and enjoy it. It would be nice to, on top of that, be able to participate in the combat, since it's a party based game: Why not have a second player control one of the squadmates instead of a dumb bot? As for the pausing, it would be turned off if you chose the _option_ of multiplayer, as the game can be played and powers can be used quite easily without pausing.

The people asking for ME multiplayer aren't asking for Death Matches, "Horde Mode", or whatever. That's a completely different kind of gameplay/multiplayer that already exists in countless other games.

Beside that I personally can't see a good way to make the conversations work in multiplayer (where you talk to people for a few hours instead of shooting them), and I don't want it for several reasons (both for personal opinions and a few techical concerns how to get it to work well with the existing gameplay, like tactical pause when chosing abilities, since you can't map them all when playning on console).

And there are people wanting deathmatch and horde modes as well as co-op, just saying.

[Felfenix]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

Felfenix wrote...


Many people asking for multiplayer are generally asking for something like Sonic 2, where you could plug in the second controller and take control of Tails who was usually a bot companion. "It would be boring to be a spectator while the person controlling Shepard walks around the Citadel and talks to people." but the thing is, the multiplayer wouldn't make that any more of an issue than it already is. A lot of people watch their friends play, or have friends watch them play, and enjoy it. It would be nice to, on top of that, be able to participate in the combat, since it's a party based game: Why not have a second player control one of the squadmates instead of a dumb bot? As for the pausing, it would be turned off if you chose the _option_ of multiplayer, as the game can be played and powers can be used quite easily without pausing.

Not that simple. Sonic 2 was a 16-bit side-scrolling game. Last time I checked, it didn't have cinematic cutscenes nor advanced physics.

Oh, I know it's not that simple. I'm just saying, I don't think people are asking for ME to be just like Call of Duty or Halo, so it's silly to argue that point. They are VERY different games, for more reasons than just multiplayer.

Modifié par Felfenix, 20 janvier 2011 - 06:40 .

[Element_Zero]

Gandalf-the-Fabulous wrote...

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

Omega-202 wrote...

Well that makes NO sense.  The community doesn't matter when you have friends to play with. 

Not everyone has that type of luxury, jack-ass since there's something called "Real life" to attend to. Does a "good friend" mean that they have to have the same taste in games as you?

Ouch, did Omega strike a nerve there Lunatic? Not sure what it was about Omega's statement that waranted that response but I am not sure how "Real life" prevents you from having friends with the same interests?

Ya know Gandalf. . . considering your the one that started that path. . I think your the one who had his nerve struck.

You made no arguement in that post that started this 'friends' path, in fact it was a snipe. So are you still trying to control the conversation?

I understand the desire to share with your friends. . . But the question from the last few posts boils down to Co-Op play, not who's friends are interested in it, if they need new friends, or rather they have them at all.

If you want to go down that path. . . 3 or four guys using co-op out of 2 million copies ( assuming ME3 sells like ME2 did or more.) is a low ratio for a labor heavy, potentially game changing mechanic. (I know it's a bad example. . . ) Still though it is somewhat valid since it didn't catch on in some of the Rainbow 6 titles and the ratio for use per copies sold remained extremely low.

Rereading though the posting I tend to think most are not asking for a split screen style co op mechanic that involves one controller / two controllers and one console but a online co op. Which again in a prior posting I've made my point on. Both will suck up some resources for ME 3 reguardless.

A old shooter that had co op play. . . . Doom 1993 release!

lol I had forgotten that one. . . but I'm sure some older programmers remember it.

[Lunatic LK47]

Gandalf-the-Fabulous wrote...
Ouch, did Omega strike a nerve there Lunatic? Not sure what it was about Omega's statement that waranted that response but I am not sure how "Real life" prevents you from having friends with the same interests?

Real life= conflicting schedules/work/family/school? Does that ring a bell?

[Gandalf-the-Fabulous]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

Gandalf-the-Fabulous wrote...
Ouch, did Omega strike a nerve there Lunatic? Not sure what it was about Omega's statement that waranted that response but I am not sure how "Real life" prevents you from having friends with the same interests?

Real life= conflicting schedules/work/family/school? Does that ring a bell?

And between all that you have no time to relax and play a game or 2 with a friend? If you are too busy to play videogames then why are you on these forums?

[JKoopman]

Gandalf-the-Fabulous wrote...

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

Gandalf-the-Fabulous wrote...
Ouch, did Omega strike a nerve there Lunatic? Not sure what it was about Omega's statement that waranted that response but I am not sure how "Real life" prevents you from having friends with the same interests?

Real life= conflicting schedules/work/family/school? Does that ring a bell?

And between all that you have no time to relax and play a game or 2 with a friend? If you are too busy to play videogames then why are you on these forums?

I believe what he means is that real life responsibilities may mean that his schedule may not jive with his other friend's schedule which may not jive with a third and fourth friend's schedules.

I know trying to get even 2 of my RL friends online and in the same game at the same time is a serious pain in the ass more often than not.

Modifié par JKoopman, 20 janvier 2011 - 07:22 .

[Lunatic LK47]

JKoopman wrote...

Gandalf-the-Fabulous wrote...

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

Gandalf-the-Fabulous wrote...
Ouch, did Omega strike a nerve there Lunatic? Not sure what it was about Omega's statement that waranted that response but I am not sure how "Real life" prevents you from having friends with the same interests?

Real life= conflicting schedules/work/family/school? Does that ring a bell?

And between all that you have no time to relax and play a game or 2 with a friend? If you are too busy to play videogames then why are you on these forums?

I believe what he means is that real life responsibilities may mean that his schedule may not jive with his other friend's schedule which may not jive with a third and fourth friend's schedules.

I know trying to get even 2 of my RL friends online and in the same game at the same time is a serious pain in the ass more often than not.

Ding ding ding, Koopman gets it. Most of my RL friends prefer to play Call of Duty or Halo online even during the off-chance I do catch them on X-Box Live, and the **** gets ****ing old. I prefer single-player games for the fact I can just pop in the disk and play my damn game without worrrying about an artificial expiration date.

[Pacifien]

If you guys simply want to talk about the trials and tribulations of co-op/multiplayer gaming, there's an Off Topic Forum for that.