You know, I've seen a lot of people around the internet discussing the possibility of Multiplayer in Mass Effect 3, and all of them seem to be against it. What I am trying to figure out is why...
It's not like Bioware would in any way neglect the Single Player experience just so you can have a robust Multiplayer... It just seems like you guys are trying to hurt the game in the end. Because, really, multiplayer would be just another excuse to play more Mass Effect.
So, I ask all of you multiplayer haters, what the f*** is the big deal?
MP in ME3, What's the Big Deal?
Débuté par
Obrusnine
, mars 19 2011 07:51
Retour en haut
#2
Posté 19 mars 2011 - 07:56
TelexFerra
-
- Members
- 1 621 messages
Obrusnine wrote...
You know, I've seen a lot of people around the internet discussing the possibility of Multiplayer in Mass Effect 3, and all of them seem to be against it. What I am trying to figure out is why...
It's not like Bioware would in any way neglect the Single Player experience just so you can have a robust Multiplayer... It just seems like you guys are trying to hurt the game in the end. Because, really, multiplayer would be just another excuse to play more Mass Effect.
So, I ask all of you multiplayer haters, what the f*** is the big deal?
How do you know? If DA2 is any proof, EA has Bioware working on an unrealistic schedule to finish ME3 so that they (EA) can cash in on it. Any time devoted to making a multiplayer is time not devoted to polishing the singleplayer experience.
#3
Posté 19 mars 2011 - 08:00
Fiery Phoenix
-
- Members
- 18 968 messages
The big deal, good sir, is that including multiplayer in ME3 would be dividing by zero, which would yield infinity (read: infinitely stupid decision). Either that or dividing zero by itself, in which case it is considered NaN; that is, undefined, which means so stupid that it can't possibly be described.
Modifié par Fiery Phoenix, 19 mars 2011 - 08:01 .
#4
Posté 19 mars 2011 - 08:00
Abrams216
-
- Members
- 92 messages
As much as I would love to play ME3 right this moment, I really hope this game gets delayed. If I have to sacrifice multiplayer for an epic conclusion to the single player, then so be it. Besides, EA is in the market for milking us out of our money, why not release Mass Effect multiplayer as DLC, like what Capcom did with Resident Evil 5? If you want multiplayer, then you can hand over $15 dollars.
#5
Posté 19 mars 2011 - 08:01
Vena_86
-
- Members
- 910 messages
Diverted resources that could go into finishing the story of the trilogy the way it deserves.
Developing games is not a cake walk.
Developing games is not a cake walk.
#6
Posté 19 mars 2011 - 08:01
TelexFerra
-
- Members
- 1 621 messages
Fiery Phoenix wrote...
The big deal, good sir, is that including multiplayer in ME3 would be dividing by zero, which would yield infinity (read: infinitely stupid decision). Either that or dividing zero by itself, in which case it is considered NaN; that is, undefined, which means so stupid that it can't possibly be described.
Apply lhopital's rule!
#7
Posté 19 mars 2011 - 08:03
Forsythia
-
- Members
- 932 messages
I guess most people get worked up about this because they expect the multiplayer for ME3 to end up like all the other 1256462 games with multiplayer tacked on, i.e. the same old 'let's kill mah buddy bang bang!' multiplayer. Example: BioShock 2.
I do understand that they could just make something worthwile, like Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood. And it's not like previous BioWare titles with multiplayer ended up sucking.
But multiplayer in ME3? I don't see the need for it actually.
I do understand that they could just make something worthwile, like Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood. And it's not like previous BioWare titles with multiplayer ended up sucking.
But multiplayer in ME3? I don't see the need for it actually.
#8
Posté 19 mars 2011 - 08:04
Captain Crash
-
- Members
- 6 933 messages
Because it would be mediocre and horrible and would end up damaging the game rather then adding to it.
Look at past examples like Bioshock 2. Added for the sake of it. It didnt add to the single player game (most likely took away from it do to splitting the game up) and the multiplayer was as said mediocre. When there are far superior multiplayer games out there people stick to those.
Look at past examples like Bioshock 2. Added for the sake of it. It didnt add to the single player game (most likely took away from it do to splitting the game up) and the multiplayer was as said mediocre. When there are far superior multiplayer games out there people stick to those.
Modifié par Captain Crash, 19 mars 2011 - 08:05 .
#9
Posté 19 mars 2011 - 08:05
Akizora
-
- Members
- 594 messages
Am I opposed to Mass Effect 3 having multiplayer? Yes, because it strips from the budget for singleplayer.
Am I opposed to there being a future multiplayer game in the Mass Effect universe? No not really, might be fun if done right.
Am I opposed to there being a future multiplayer game in the Mass Effect universe? No not really, might be fun if done right.
#10
Posté 19 mars 2011 - 08:15
Xerxes52
-
- Members
- 3 147 messages
I would rather not take the risk of adding multiplayer (since there's a good chance it could pull a "Bioshock 2"). Also, with the DA2 situation, it's clear that EA is the "Napoleon" to Bioware's "Boxer".
Dead Space 2 and Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood are among the very small number of exceptions.
Dead Space 2 and Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood are among the very small number of exceptions.
Modifié par Xerxes52, 19 mars 2011 - 08:17 .
#11
Posté 19 mars 2011 - 08:15
JamieCOTC
-
- Members
- 6 342 messages
The deal is that even if one team works on the SP and one on the MP one side will suffer from a lack of resources and (if DA2 is any indication) sufficient time to make a truly epic conclusion to the series. The SP will suffer if there is a MP tacked on to the game. And, really, do MP fans really want a tacked on MP? Is MP like crack or something, that even when it's bad it's good? An ME MP would be great, but not for ME3. I do hope that ME fans get their MP, but in a spin-off or a DLC that has to pay for itself, until then ... read the sig.
#12
Posté 19 mars 2011 - 08:28
Ty2011
-
- Members
- 488 messages
We already need to play single player on two discs because it can't fit on one DVD. Multiplayer will take up a huge amount. I don't want to be popping in 3 different discs for the same game do you?
Besides, multiplayer has turned into a negative experience in recent times. It's just people calling each other names and screaming into their headsets. I've also found that it's next to impossible to keep a balanced multiplayer that doesn't lead to people's frustration, it also brings in hackers and exploiters. I don't doubt that Bioware could pull it off, but you underestimate the difficulty and resources that go into creating and maintaining a decent MP experience these days.
Not that mention that I find most multiplayer games to be downright depressing. Multiplayer devalues games and their reputation. How many games would have been remembered better without multiplayer? The name "Call of Duty" may not have been 100 times better, but it wouldn't be the joke that it is today.
Besides, multiplayer has turned into a negative experience in recent times. It's just people calling each other names and screaming into their headsets. I've also found that it's next to impossible to keep a balanced multiplayer that doesn't lead to people's frustration, it also brings in hackers and exploiters. I don't doubt that Bioware could pull it off, but you underestimate the difficulty and resources that go into creating and maintaining a decent MP experience these days.
Not that mention that I find most multiplayer games to be downright depressing. Multiplayer devalues games and their reputation. How many games would have been remembered better without multiplayer? The name "Call of Duty" may not have been 100 times better, but it wouldn't be the joke that it is today.
Modifié par Ty2011, 19 mars 2011 - 08:33 .
#13
Posté 19 mars 2011 - 08:35
brokit808
-
- Members
- 116 messages
Co-op? and why does everyone assume that MP will take away from SP? this would be a completely different division thats skilled at creating MP not creating SP
#14
Posté 19 mars 2011 - 08:39
Akizora
-
- Members
- 594 messages
brokit808 wrote...
Co-op? and why does everyone assume that MP will take away from SP? this would be a completely different division thats skilled at creating MP not creating SP
Because of budget and resource allocation, a game is given a budget and is constrained to operate within the limits of that budget. This includes any and all gameplay and story decissions which would mean multiplayer takes money away from singleplayer.
#15
Posté 19 mars 2011 - 08:41
brokit808
-
- Members
- 116 messages
Akizora wrote...
brokit808 wrote...
Co-op? and why does everyone assume that MP will take away from SP? this would be a completely different division thats skilled at creating MP not creating SP
Because of budget and resource allocation, a game is given a budget and is constrained to operate within the limits of that budget. This includes any and all gameplay and story decissions which would mean multiplayer takes money away from singleplayer.
that makes sense. but MP was already in their budget. hasnt everyone seen the job post for MP designers for mass effect
#16
Posté 19 mars 2011 - 08:43
Gentleman Moogle
-
- Members
- 1 103 messages
I've always been a huge opponent of MP in Mass Effect, and I'll tell you why (Since you ask so nicely.) To put it bluntly, I'm an RPG snob. I play games not for the interaction with my fellow ****** Sapien, but to lose myself in an immersive, well-crafted storyline. Multiplayer dilutes that experience; it diverts resources away from crafting an epic storyline and instead uses them to craft an experience designed to drive you OUT of immersion. Let's be honest, can you think of anything less immersive than a multiplayer shooter map?
There is an argument that says 'they could just hire another team to do the MP'... Yes, yes they could. They could also use the resources that went into that second team to greatly enhance the single-player storyline. Ultimately, regardless of how you paint it, adding multiplayer will divert resources away from the single player that would have made it that much better.
From a purely technical aspect, ME's battle system is not optimized for multiplayer. It's a slower, more tactical experience designed for cover-based shooting and wise use of powers. Multiplayer is far more about run-and-gun tactics than it is about patience and strategy-ish. I remember playing Gears of War multiplayer, and it was a pile of ass and cheese; Mass Effect MP would probably work out the same way, simply because the mechanics are not optimized for multiplayer the way -- for instance -- battlefield or COD are.
And ultimately, as I said, I'm an RPG snob. I have no use for multiplayer, especially in a game that's supposed to star me and my decisions. It waters down the "You are unique, you are the only one who can save us" feeling, even if we're NOT playing commander Shepard. And that's the biggest problem I have; the game has worked hard to give you a "you are unique" feel; the idea that your actions, and yours alone, are responsible for the saving of the galaxy. If you put in multiplayer, it dilutes that entire feeling -- even moreso if you try to do the 'cooperative' MP rather than competitive.
And lastly... ME just doesn't need it. It doesn't make sense within the game structure. It makes sense for COD and Battlefield to have multiplayer because they're war games. They're based around the 'run around and kill people you've never seen before" mechanic both in the single player and the multiplayer. Mass Effect, by contrast, is story-based and squad-centric. The mechanics are designed to support a single player working through an intense story campaign, and those same mechanics just wouldn't translate well into multiplayer.
Not every game needs a multiplayer element. Some games need to just stay single-player. ME is one of those games.
There is an argument that says 'they could just hire another team to do the MP'... Yes, yes they could. They could also use the resources that went into that second team to greatly enhance the single-player storyline. Ultimately, regardless of how you paint it, adding multiplayer will divert resources away from the single player that would have made it that much better.
From a purely technical aspect, ME's battle system is not optimized for multiplayer. It's a slower, more tactical experience designed for cover-based shooting and wise use of powers. Multiplayer is far more about run-and-gun tactics than it is about patience and strategy-ish. I remember playing Gears of War multiplayer, and it was a pile of ass and cheese; Mass Effect MP would probably work out the same way, simply because the mechanics are not optimized for multiplayer the way -- for instance -- battlefield or COD are.
And ultimately, as I said, I'm an RPG snob. I have no use for multiplayer, especially in a game that's supposed to star me and my decisions. It waters down the "You are unique, you are the only one who can save us" feeling, even if we're NOT playing commander Shepard. And that's the biggest problem I have; the game has worked hard to give you a "you are unique" feel; the idea that your actions, and yours alone, are responsible for the saving of the galaxy. If you put in multiplayer, it dilutes that entire feeling -- even moreso if you try to do the 'cooperative' MP rather than competitive.
And lastly... ME just doesn't need it. It doesn't make sense within the game structure. It makes sense for COD and Battlefield to have multiplayer because they're war games. They're based around the 'run around and kill people you've never seen before" mechanic both in the single player and the multiplayer. Mass Effect, by contrast, is story-based and squad-centric. The mechanics are designed to support a single player working through an intense story campaign, and those same mechanics just wouldn't translate well into multiplayer.
Not every game needs a multiplayer element. Some games need to just stay single-player. ME is one of those games.
Modifié par Gentleman Moogle, 19 mars 2011 - 08:47 .
#17
Posté 19 mars 2011 - 08:44
brokit808
-
- Members
- 116 messages
may i also say what happened to the budget for DA2? its like their budget got cut by like 75%
#18
Posté 19 mars 2011 - 08:44
Akizora
-
- Members
- 594 messages
brokit808 wrote...
Akizora wrote...
brokit808 wrote...
Co-op? and why does everyone assume that MP will take away from SP? this would be a completely different division thats skilled at creating MP not creating SP
Because of budget and resource allocation, a game is given a budget and is constrained to operate within the limits of that budget. This includes any and all gameplay and story decissions which would mean multiplayer takes money away from singleplayer.
that makes sense. but MP was already in their budget. hasnt everyone seen the job post for MP designers for mass effect
Bioware were looking for multiplayer talent and looked towards companies like DICE, but I don't remember reading anything specific to Mass Effect other than consumer-generated rumors.
#19
Posté 19 mars 2011 - 08:48
brokit808
-
- Members
- 116 messages
#20
Posté 19 mars 2011 - 09:03
Akizora
-
- Members
- 594 messages
brokit808 wrote...
http://kotaku.com/#!...ayer-programmer
Could be a spin-off, cause they've stated Mass Effect won't end with Mass Effect 3.
#21
Posté 19 mars 2011 - 09:08
brokit808
-
- Members
- 116 messages
Akizora wrote...
brokit808 wrote...
http://kotaku.com/#!...ayer-programmer
Could be a spin-off, cause they've stated Mass Effect won't end with Mass Effect 3.
source?
#22
Posté 19 mars 2011 - 09:10
CoolioThane
-
- Members
- 2 537 messages
If they do it like in Resident Evil it'd be okay, in that they release the game and then have MP Dlc, but one could argue they would spend less time on SP DLC which is a shame.
NO MP IN ME3
NO MP IN ME3
#23
Posté 19 mars 2011 - 09:10
Anihilus
-
- Members
- 321 messages
If I want MP I play Black Ops or something. If i want emersive single player games I play Mass Effect, DA: Origins and KOTOR.
#24
Posté 19 mars 2011 - 09:42
brokit808
-
- Members
- 116 messages
Anihilus wrote...
If I want MP I play Black Ops or something. If i want emersive single player games I play Mass Effect, DA: Origins and KOTOR.
funny how DA2 isnt on ur list
#25
Posté 19 mars 2011 - 11:08
Loerwyn
-
- Members
- 5 576 messages
Let's see...TelexFerra wrote...
How do you know? If DA2 is any proof, EA has Bioware working on an unrealistic schedule to finish ME3 so that they (EA) can cash in on it. Any time devoted to making a multiplayer is time not devoted to polishing the singleplayer experience.
1. Multiplayer and Single-Player teams are not the same in most cases, and I doubt BioWare would be any different.
2. Origins to DA2 is a much bigger jump in terms of gameplay/art/engine changes than ME2 to ME3 will be, thus the development time will be more productive.
3. ~2-2.5 years is not an unrealistic schedule for a supposedly AAA studio. Assuming ME3 went into development just before ME2 released, as is often, the case, we're looking at just shy of two years for a sequel. Perfectly possible.
4. Unreal Engine 3 is the base for ME. It's an incredibly versatile engine with a multiplayer side to it - Look at some UE3 titles; Gears of War, Unreal Tournament 3, Bulletstorm, The Scourge Project and many more - so the groundwork will be in place or could be put into place rather easily.
That said, the multiplayer posting was for BioWare Montreal, I think. Mass Effect is developed by BioWare Edmonton. It's safe to say that the single-player aspect of the game will not be affected by the existence of a multiplayer component.
