168 réponses à ce sujet

[expanding panic]

TelexFerra wrote...

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.

Bioware is its own company. Ea does not run Bioware. Bioware is pushing themselves to cash in as you say.  Bioware is a company who main purpose is to make money. That has always been their main goal and will always be just like any other company. If there is a reason that Dragon age 2 was rushed it is because there were  some genisus that decided to put that card in DAA. 

[Sailears]

One reason:
I (the individual player) started the journey in ME1 and I will conclude the journey in ME3.

That in my mind is how this trilogy is intended to be - a personal experience, which is hopefully what BW initially intended also.

After that, I welcome different types of game!

[Loerwyn]

expanding panic wrote...
Bioware is its own company. Ea does not run Bioware. 

BioWare are an EA subsidary, and as a whole form EA's RPG department. They are not an independent studio, and haven't been for a while.

[illusive crayon]

im a crayon

[brokit808]

and i broke it

[Pwener2313]

ME3's first MP screenshot seems pretty decent.





Seriously though, ME3 would benefit from MP. Look at AC3, that MP is loads of fun and the SP did not get effected.

[spirosz]

I've re-played both games more times then I can count. which show's how much re-playability it has considering it's just a single player game. If I wanted to play with friends or whatever, I think a better suited game would be Call of Duty, or Red Dead Redemption. The fact that Red Dead is an open world game, makes having multiplayer a better feature then a game like Mass Effect, which is more focused on the linear aspect of their level designs. The whole trilogy is focused on Shepard, why the need to put on aspect of playing multiple characters when they're trying to conclude his or her's story. I wouldn't mind Multiplayer in a Mass Effect spin-off, but not the trilogy. It just doesn't seem to fit with that particular story and would seem out of place.

[DocGriffin]

Moogle pretty well explained my stance on multiplayer: NO

But what about a co-op where your friend plays as one of your squaddies?

As in, during the combat portions of the game, your friend takes control of say Garrus of Grunt and can use their assigned weapons and abilities? Thoughts?

Modifié par DocGriffin, 20 mars 2011 - 04:13 .

[Pwener2313]

Co-op = bad

What are we supposed to do when the guy playing Shepard goes to the bathroom or a conversation starts and then he goes to the bathroom? We stay frozen looking at each other like retards?

[DocGriffin]

Pwener2313 wrote...

Co-op = bad

What are we supposed to do when the guy playing Shepard goes to the bathroom or a conversation starts and then he goes to the bathroom? We stay frozen looking at each other like retards?

...I think any co-op game where your friend leaves is no longer co-op

[Pwener2313]

All Im saying is that ME isn't a match you join and then leave. there is a lot of cutscenes and dialog. Too much for co-op to work.

[DocGriffin]

Well no, you're right, it would be very stop-and-go for the second person. It would only make sense for the combat portions of the game.

[II J0SePh X II]

The Mass Effect galaxy is ripe for multiplayer (co-op, versus or MMO)...just not in ME3. I'm sure the guys making ME3 aren't all going to be seeking new employment after it releases, so a multiplayer game would be a viable option as a DLC or preferably as a new title.

That said, if EA forces Bioware to make an MP component, then we all have to suck it.

[Babli]

Pwener2313 wrote...
Seriously though, ME3 would benefit from MP. Look at AC3, that MP is loads of fun and the SP did not get effected.

Compare story of AC 2 and Brotherhood. Brotherhood is mess with rushed ending of Ezio´s story. SP did suffer.

But that maybe because of only one year development.

[Rurik_Niall]

I'm against it because there's no point in adding it. There are gods only know how many games on the market which already cater to the multi-player crowds, both online and in person, these are games that were designed specifically for them and if they want to play a multi-player game that badly they can go play one of them, they'll probably have more fun that way anyway. Mass Effect is targeted at the single player audience and this is the audience which they should focus on. If later they choose to make a game set in the same universe that panders to multi-player fans then by all means, go for it, but keep it out of this trilogy. You shouldn't add in features just to try to attract a different crowd, it almost universally backfires. They could add platformer elements to Mass Effect 3 to draw in fans of that genre, do you really think anyone would enjoy it though? The platformer elements would just feel tacked on and subpar and would detract from the overall experience.

[Tarek]

it would suck resources that all.

although I hope they can do MP at some point in the future in the ME universe.

[Obrusnine]

Captain Crash wrote... Look at past examples like Bioshock 2. 

What about Uncharted 2 huh? That game has an extremely fun multiplayer.Oh, and look, the first one was single-player, getting the connection?

@Everyone Else: Your main complaint seems to be it would suck resources from the single-player, yet... there must be a budget for all of those boring side-quests we do. Wouldn't it be more fun to be able to jump on and kick ass with a friend? It sure as hell would extend the replay value. Also, I support anything that let's Bioware make more money and it's a proven fact that Multiplayer sequels sell far more then their single player counterparts (Uncharted).

Also, seriously, you seem to be complaining about how you started the trilogy single player and how it would ruin the epic feel, but I ask you one thing, who told you YOU had to play it? Any multiplayer would have to be completely seperate from the Single Player. If you don't want to play it, then don't. But I like having the option, even if it's slightly rudimentary. It seems rather easy if they just ripped certain sections off of the single player and using them as multiplayer maps, after that, all you need is a progression system. It really doesn't take much to pull off a good multiplayer, you just have to use resources that you already have.

Also the one guy commenting on the two-disk thing, PS3 owners don't have to deal with that stupid thing! I'm not quite sure, but I'm pretty sure PC owners didn't have to either, .

Modifié par Obrusnine, 20 mars 2011 - 05:24 .

[Loerwyn]

Obrusnine wrote...
What about Uncharted 2 huh? That game has an extremely fun multiplayer.Oh, and look, the first one was single-player, getting the connection?

But was Uncharted 2 developed by four studios?

[Obrusnine]

OnlyShallow89 wrote...

Obrusnine wrote...
What about Uncharted 2 huh? That game has an extremely fun multiplayer.Oh, and look, the first one was single-player, getting the connection?

But was Uncharted 2 developed by four studios?

Your point? I'm kind of missing it here.

[Ramirez Wolfen]

OnlyShallow89 wrote...

Obrusnine wrote...
What about Uncharted 2 huh? That game has an extremely fun multiplayer.Oh, and look, the first one was single-player, getting the connection?

But was Uncharted 2 developed by four studios?

OMG UNCHARTED 2 HAS MULTIPLAYER?????

*leaves to go buy it*

[Loerwyn]

Obrusnine wrote...
Your point? I'm kind of missing it here.

BioShock 2 was a complete mess because it had so many people working on it. The fewer studios working on a title generally means a better quality. Not always, though.

[Obrusnine]

OnlyShallow89 wrote...

Obrusnine wrote...
Your point? I'm kind of missing it here.

BioShock 2 was a complete mess because it had so many people working on it. The fewer studios working on a title generally means a better quality. Not always, though.

Well, I wouldn't know, I only buy games that get a decent review from IGN. I've never been dissapointed!

@Ramirez: O.O, it's actually pretty cheap now-a-days... But I have the feeling your pulling my leg.

Modifié par Obrusnine, 20 mars 2011 - 05:44 .

[Cyberstrike nTo]

Obrusnine wrote...

Captain Crash wrote... Look at past examples like Bioshock 2. 

What about Uncharted 2 huh? That game has an extremely fun multiplayer.Oh, and look, the first one was single-player, getting the connection?

@Everyone Else: Your main complaint seems to be it would suck resources from the single-player, yet... there must be a budget for all of those boring side-quests we do. Wouldn't it be more fun to be able to jump on and kick ass with a friend? It sure as hell would extend the replay value. Also, I support anything that let's Bioware make more money and it's a proven fact that Multiplayer sequels sell far more then their single player counterparts (Uncharted).

Also, seriously, you seem to be complaining about how you started the trilogy single player and how it would ruin the epic feel, but I ask you one thing, who told you YOU had to play it? Any multiplayer would have to be completely seperate from the Single Player. If you don't want to play it, then don't. But I like having the option, even if it's slightly rudimentary. It seems rather easy if they just ripped certain sections off of the single player and using them as multiplayer maps, after that, all you need is a progression system. It really doesn't take much to pull off a good multiplayer, you just have to use resources that you already have.

Also the one guy commenting on the two-disk thing, PS3 owners don't have to deal with that stupid thing! I'm not quite sure, but I'm pretty sure PC owners didn't have to either, .

I've played Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic, Jade Empire, Mass Effect, Mass Effect 2, Dragon Age: Origins, Oblivion, Batman: Arkham Asylem, Fallout 3, and Fable about 20 times EACH and I'm currently on my second play through on Dragon Age II for both the PS3 and Xbox 360 and for the record I'm having a lot of fun playing DA2 and all you DA2 haters out there can kiss my ass.

On the other hand I have played Ghostbusters: The Video Game once and I never even have the desire to even bother loading up it's multiplayer features and never have. Now I'm a HUGE fan of The Transformers and have been almost my whole life, and I can't stand playing any MP feature on Transformers: War for Cybertron.  

In fact the only MP games that I can play are: Hydro Thunder Hurricane, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: The Arcade Game, Ultimate Mortal Kombat 3, X-Men: The Arcade Game, and UNO and only when I'm in the mood to put up with people on XBL and PSN.  

Modifié par Cyberstrike nTo, 20 mars 2011 - 05:56 .

[Obrusnine]

Cyberstrike nTo wrote...

Obrusnine wrote...

Captain Crash wrote... Look at past examples like Bioshock 2. 

What about Uncharted 2 huh? That game has an extremely fun multiplayer.Oh, and look, the first one was single-player, getting the connection?

@Everyone Else: Your main complaint seems to be it would suck resources from the single-player, yet... there must be a budget for all of those boring side-quests we do. Wouldn't it be more fun to be able to jump on and kick ass with a friend? It sure as hell would extend the replay value. Also, I support anything that let's Bioware make more money and it's a proven fact that Multiplayer sequels sell far more then their single player counterparts (Uncharted).

Also, seriously, you seem to be complaining about how you started the trilogy single player and how it would ruin the epic feel, but I ask you one thing, who told you YOU had to play it? Any multiplayer would have to be completely seperate from the Single Player. If you don't want to play it, then don't. But I like having the option, even if it's slightly rudimentary. It seems rather easy if they just ripped certain sections off of the single player and using them as multiplayer maps, after that, all you need is a progression system. It really doesn't take much to pull off a good multiplayer, you just have to use resources that you already have.

Also the one guy commenting on the two-disk thing, PS3 owners don't have to deal with that stupid thing! I'm not quite sure, but I'm pretty sure PC owners didn't have to either, .

I've played Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic, Jade Empire, Mass Effect, Mass Effect 2, Dragon Age: Origins, Oblivion, Batman: Arkham Asylem, Fallout 3, and Fable about 20 times EACH and I'm currently on my second play through on Dragon Age II for both the PS3 and XBox 360 and for the record I'm having a lot of fun playingf DA2 and all you haters out there can kiss my ass.

On the other hand I have played Ghostbusters: The Video Game once and I have had no desire to even bother loading up it's multiplayer features and never have. Now I'm a HUGE fan of The Transformers and have been almost my whole life, and yet I can't stand playing any MP feature on Transformers: War for Cybertron.  

In fact the only MP games that I can play are: Hydro Thunder Hurricane, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: The Arcade Game, Ultimate Mortal Kombat 3, X-Men: The Arcade Game, and UNO and only when I'm in the mood to put up with people on XBL and PSN.  

I'm not getting the point of your post, you seem to be take a combative stance against my post... yet you don't directly refer to anything I'm saying...