168 réponses à ce sujet

[Someone With Mass]

Why even waste the budget on a multiplayer mode people are going to play for like three months?

[Rurik_Niall]

No matter how you slice it a multi-player mode in ME3 would be mediocre at best. The combat system of Mass Effect isn't meant for multi-player modes. Powers like Tactical Cloak would be over powered, as would Adrenaline Rush and an Infiltrator's ability to slow down time, Infiltrators would either be overpowered or completely useless due to removing those powers. Biotics would similarly have to be either overpowered or severely nerfed, basically meaning the only viable class would be a plain old soldier. As I've said, this is a feature that has no place in the trilogy. You want to play multi-player go fire up a game that's meant for multi-player, you'll have a much better experience than you ever would with a tacked on multi-player mode in Mass Effect.

[Anihilus]

Well multiplayer in ME3 wouldn't be good. But maybe in a different ME game?

Modifié par Anihilus, 20 mars 2011 - 06:40 .

[Drake_Hound]

I honestly don´t know if MP is smart option for this game , cause ME system is a simplified Gears of War , so MP will complain about balances and issues ...
If those complaints don´t excist , whats hardly likely in modern time internet .
Then sure why not , but the system cannot have the pause option in MP .
Then stuff like Adrelina Rush , how would they handle it , by speeding up players ?
Lagging other players , so far I only see problems with the MP part that will cost SP quality .

Its not that its not doable , infact its more then doable , just not worth the effort of the complaints if included into the original game , if its a DLC component people can complain .
But atleast its complaints away from the main game .

[MGD832]

I've come to warn you about MAN-GIRAFFE-DOG!! It's the single greatest threat to humanity!! RUN AWAY!!



More Serial than ever guys.

[Obrusnine]

Who says were going to have the same powers in ME3? What about having completely different effects to those powers so they make a viable multiplayer experience? For instance, adrenaline rush instead of slowing down time could make the players fire more accurately temporarily.

Tactical cloak can be balanced by not allowing the player to use anything but melee attacks while inside of it. It would be real cool to sneak around using it and taking out players with something similar to halos executions (I do NOT support Halo, just an example).

Certain Biotic powers can be change, like pull for instance could cause the other player's gun to be pulled from their hands instead of pulling the whole character. Shockwave could be used exactly as it is. Singularity could be like a super version of the altered pull move, dragging all of the guns towards the center and then them exploding like a grenade would be interesting. Actually, hold on, I'm going to go to the mass effect wiki and make an alternate version for every power in the game.

[Aargh12]

Why multiplayer in ME3 is a bad idea? It's simple - DVD. ME2 was already on two disks and was rather short (at least for me, don't bite). Packing multi and all single-player features would require 3 disks or more. 

And there're still budget issues, engine stuff (ME2 sometimes dropped to 20FPS, multi with that framerate would be unacceptable) and class/character balancing. 

I wouldn't mind co-op, but, given the aRPG nature of the game (like dialogues) it's rather impossible.

Modifié par Aargh12, 20 mars 2011 - 07:18 .

[Drake_Hound]

Obrusnine wrote...

Who says were going to have the same powers in ME3? What about having completely different effects to those powers so they make a viable multiplayer experience? For instance, adrenaline rush instead of slowing down time could make the players fire more accurately temporarily.

Tactical cloak can be balanced by not allowing the player to use anything but melee attacks while inside of it. It would be real cool to sneak around using it and taking out players with something similar to halos executions (I do NOT support Halo, just an example).

Certain Biotic powers can be change, like pull for instance could cause the other player's gun to be pulled from their hands instead of pulling the whole character. Shockwave could be used exactly as it is. Singularity could be like a super version of the altered pull move, dragging all of the guns towards the center and then them exploding like a grenade would be interesting. Actually, hold on, I'm going to go to the mass effect wiki and make an alternate version for every power in the game.

But then you are alrady getting complaints , that MP is a totally different game from the singleplayer game .
Excisting powers are totally New where are the old COOL powers.

Its not that I do not want MP ME3 , but it would be a pale shadow of games like gears of war , cod , halo etc.
That would hurt the franchise more then , improve it .

Thats my point of view , not to derail I do not support ME Multiplayer .
Edit infact I think would be cool and fun .

Modifié par Drake_Hound, 20 mars 2011 - 07:21 .

[TwistedComplex]

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.

ME2 was under EA and that turned out fine

Bioware Edmonton was never really THAT good... No offense to them, but it feels like Bioware Edmonton is where the new devs go to practice for Mass Effect and SWTOR

Either that or Bioware Mythic

Modifié par TwistedComplex, 20 mars 2011 - 07:30 .

[Obrusnine]

Aargh12 wrote...

Why multiplayer in ME3 is a bad idea? It's simple - DVD. ME2 was already on two disks and was rather short (at least for me, don't bite). Packing multi and all single-player features would require 3 disks or more. Not to mention balance issues, budget and other factors.

It's Xbox 360's fault for being such a fail system. Not to mention they are doing co-op sort of like ME right now, it's called SWTOR, lol.

Anyways, back to the point, here is a list of ME2 powers and how they would work in MP.

Adrenaline Rush: Temporarally reduced Recoil and increased accuracy, can be upgraded to further effects.
Concussive Shot: Unchanged
Fortification: Unchanged
Inferno Grenade: Unchanged
Flashbang Grenade: Unchanged (Usable by all players regardless of class would probably be a good idea)
Unity: Resets your health to full using medigel found around the map (Unity would be an upgradable power so that it could help out nearby team mates).
All Ammo Powers : Unchanged
Overload: In addition to being effective against shields, can be upgraded to prevent shield regeneration over a short period of time.
Incinerate: In addition to being effective against armour, can be upgraded to stop enemy health regeneration over a short time.
Cryo Blast: Unchanged.
AI Hacking: Take control of enemy combat drones and automatically destroy tech armor, can be upgraded to temporarily cause your opponent to be unable to fire their weapon.
Combat Drone: Unchanged
Tactical Cloak: Makes user invisible and unable to fire weaponry.
Tech Armor: Unchanged
Neural Shock: Unchanged
Energy Drain: Unchanged
Geth Shield Boost: Unchanged
Warp: Unchanged
Pull: Pulls weapon from enemy's hand, can be upgraded to temporarily impair enemy movement.
Throw: Sends enemies rearing backward.
Shockwave: Unchanged.
Singularity: Pulls enemy weapons towards the center and them explodes outward, can be upgraded to do substantial damage to nearby enemies.
Charge: Unchanged.
Slam: Sends enemy weapon up and them slams it against the ground, breaking the weapon. Can be upgraded so that weapon is slammed into enemy instead of ground.
Barrier: Unchanged
Reave: Unchanged
Dominate: Temporarily stun enemy, can be upgraded to reduce accuracy of enemy used on until they die and respawn.
Stasis: Unchanged

As you can see, all of the powers that don't seem plausible for a multiplayer experience can be altered to make them less overpowered or more plausible in a real time setting.

Modifié par Obrusnine, 20 mars 2011 - 07:34 .

[Loerwyn]

TwistedComplex wrote...
Bioware Edmonton was never really THAT good... No offense to them, but it feels like Bioware Edmonton is where the new devs go to practice for Mass Effect and SWTOR

Except Edmonton is where ME is done, and where all pre-ME titles were developed.

[Vyse_Fina]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Why even waste the budget on a multiplayer mode people are going to play for like three months?

Well that is more or less our own fault. When You buy a new game, the developers and publishers that made the game get some of the money you paid. In fact let's break that down because that's pretty important to know:

---------------

When you buy a game for 60$

> The retailers (Gamestop, Bestbuy, whoever it is) get around 20% which is 12$
> Another 20% (depends on the success of the game I think) go to the console
   Manufacturers (MS, Nintendo, Sony)
> The rest of the money (36$) go to the Publisher (EA, Activision or whoever it is)

Now the question is: What did the Publishers pay for the creation of the game.
Let's assume a game did cost the Publisher 20m $ to make (in the case of Mass
Effect probably more) That's the money they pay the devs.

So if they get 36$ per game and sell 1.000.000 Units they have 36.000.000 but
they already paid 20.000.000 to the devs which means around 20$ per game go
to the dev. If they sell 10.000.000 copies they have 360.000.000 and only pay 2$
per sold copy to the dev (which is still 20m. If the game sells that many copies
hough the devs probably also get a bonus for each copy sold). Only very few games
sell that many copies though.

anyway, let's say the average is 10$ per game that go to the devs

that leaves 26$ for the publisher. 
However there is also marketing to consider. Usually Publishers spend money
depening on how many copies they hope the game will sell. It is usually around
8-10$.


So in total that makes about 10$ per game for the devs and about 17$ per
game for the publisher.

Not all that much isn't it?

---------------

Ok but what does that have to do with Multiplayer in Mass Effect?

Well in todays gaming market people don't like paying the full price for a game
o what do they do? They buy the game used. When a game is bought used
however neither the publisher nor the developer get ANY money and instead
Gamestop makes more money than the developers and publishers combined
because they don't have all the extra costs the developers and publishers had.
Think about this for a moment. 
Somebody who had nothing to do with making the game earns more money than
the people who made the game and published it combined


So it is obviously not in the interest of the Developers and Publishers that people
trade in their games because then people buy them used and the devs get no
money. At the moment there are three things developers try to do to make you
hold onto your game or buy it new rather than used:


> They have day 1 DLC that is free if you buy the game new but costs 10$ if you
   buy the game used (Cerberus network)
> DLC (because you don't sell a game when you want to get more content for it later on)
> Multiplayer. 


Still doesn't make sense?

If a game only has a single player campaign you play that campaign and that's it.
There is no more value you can get out of that game after you finished it except
for playing it again. (which surprisingly few people actually do. in fact only 50% of
the people who byu a game finish it even once)



So how do you stop people who finished the game within 10-20h from trading
the game in within the first week? You add a multiplayer mode which people play
for weeks and even months after the release (if it is good) if you are lucky your
first DLC is even announced by the time they get bored of Multiplayer and they
keep the game even longer.
That is the reason why Assassin's Creed Brotherhood and Uncharted 2 got a
Multiplayer mode and that is also the reason why Mass Effect 3 will most likely get a
Multiplayer mode wheather we want it or not.

If you don't like that: Don't buy games used at Gamestop in the future because
it is hurting the industry and makes them think of stupid stuff like day 1 DLC and
Multiplayer for games that don't need Multiplayer. (allthough I bet people will end up
likeing the ME multiplayer anyway)



Wow that went on quite long...

Modifié par Vyse_Fina, 20 mars 2011 - 08:46 .

[Obrusnine]

Vyse_Fina wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

Why even waste the budget on a multiplayer mode people are going to play for like three months?

Well that is more or less our own fault. When You buy a new game, the developers and publishers that made the game get some of the money you paid. In fact let's break that down because that's pretty important to know:

---------------

When you buy a game for 60$

> The retailers (Gamestop, Bestbuy, whoever it is) get around 20% which is 12$
> Another 20% (depends on the success of the game I think) go to the console
   Manufacturers (MS, Nintendo, Sony)
> The rest of the money (36$) go to the Publisher (EA, Activision or whoever it is)

Now the question is: What did the Publishers pay for the creation of the game.
Let's assume a game did cost the Publisher 20m $ to make (in the case of Mass
Effect probably more) That's the money they pay the devs.

So if they get 36$ per game and sell 1.000.000 Units they have 36.000.000 but
they already paid 20.000.000 to the devs which means around 20$ per game go
to the dev. If they sell 10.000.000 copies they have 360.000.000 and only pay 2$
per sold copy to the dev (which is still 20m. If the game sells that many copies
hough the devs probably also get a bonus for each copy sold). Only very few games
sell that many copies though.

anyway, let's say the average is 10$ per game that go to the devs

that leaves 26$ for the publisher. 
However there is also marketing to consider. Usually Publishers spend money
depening on how many copies they hope the game will sell. It is usually around
8-10$.


So in total that makes about 10$ per game for the devs and about 17$ per
game for the publisher.

Not all that much isn't it?

---------------

Ok but what does that have to do with Multiplayer in Mass Effect?

Well in todays gaming market people don't like paying the full price for a game
o what do they do? They buy the game used. When a game is bought used
however neither the publisher nor the developer get ANY money and instead
Gamestop makes more money than the developers and publishers combined
because they don't have all the extra costs the developers and publishers had.
Think about this for a moment. 
Somebody who had nothing to do with making the game earns more money than
the people who made the game and published it combined


So it is obviously not in the interest of the Developers and Publishers that people
trade in their games because then people buy them used and the devs get no
money. At the moment there are three things developers try to do to make you
hold onto your game or buy it new rather than used:


> They have day 1 DLC that is free if you buy the game new but costs 10$ if you
   buy the game used (Cerberus network)
> DLC (because you don't sell a game when you want to get more content for it later on)
> Multiplayer. 


Still doesn't make sense?

If a game only has a single player campaign you play that campaign and that's it.
There is no more value you can get out of that game after you finished it except
for playing it again. (which surprisingly few people actually do. in fact only 50% of
the people who byu a game finish it even once)



So how do you stop people who finished the game within 10-20h from trading
the game in within the first week? You add a multiplayer mode which people play
for weeks and even months after the release (if it is good) if you are lucky your
first DLC is even announced by the time they get bored of Multiplayer and they
keep the game even longer.
That is the reason why Assassin's Creed Brotherhood and Uncharted 2 got a
Multiplayer mode and that is also the reason why Mass Effect 3 will most likely get a
Multiplayer mode wheather we want it or not.

If you don't like that: Don't buy games used at Gamestop in the future because
it is hurting the industry and makes them think of stupid stuff like day 1 DLC and
Multiplayer for games that don't need Multiplayer. (allthough I bet people will end up
likeing the ME multiplayer anyway)



Wow that went on quite long...

That was amazingly well thought out, and your absolutely correct. I knew this before I even made this post, I just wanted to know exactly why everyone was against it. Bravo for making my general thoughts a crapload more complicated, lol.

[Rurik_Niall]

Obrusnine wrote...

Who says were going to have the same powers in ME3? What about having completely different effects to those powers so they make a viable multiplayer experience? For instance, adrenaline rush instead of slowing down time could make the players fire more accurately temporarily.

Tactical cloak can be balanced by not allowing the player to use anything but melee attacks while inside of it. It would be real cool to sneak around using it and taking out players with something similar to halos executions (I do NOT support Halo, just an example).

Certain Biotic powers can be change, like pull for instance could cause the other player's gun to be pulled from their hands instead of pulling the whole character. Shockwave could be used exactly as it is. Singularity could be like a super version of the altered pull move, dragging all of the guns towards the center and then them exploding like a grenade would be interesting. Actually, hold on, I'm going to go to the mass effect wiki and make an alternate version for every power in the game.

The thing is that would completely suck. Infiltrators are not meant to be a melee class, that's the job of a vanguard. We infiltrators are snipers, that's our role and that's what we love doing. Ask any person who regularly plays infiltrators and I can gaurantee each and every one of us will tell you that we love our class because we love getting headshots. classes in Mass Effect 2, with the exception of Biotic based classes which were quite effectively nerfed, followed the natural progression of becoming more powerful, not less. Infiltrators whose bread and butter has always been sniping became more powerful via slowing time and tactical cloak, not to mention plenty of damage and headshot bonuses. Soldiers via adrenaline rush. The natural progression in ME3 would be to be given even more powerful abilities. It would be idiotic for Bioware to say "LOL! no sniping 4 u silly infiltrators! go rifle butt people insted!" just for the sake of some boring multi-player mode. Your suggestion for Biotics would make them just as over powered as they would be now. Being able to strip the other team of their weapons? Every match would just degenerate to fist fights because every team would bring at least one Biotic for that sole purpose.

Modifié par Rurik_Niall, 20 mars 2011 - 10:22 .

[We Tigers]

OnlyShallow89 wrote...
That said, the multiplayer posting was for BioWare Montreal, I think. Mass Effect is developed by BioWare Edmonton.

To the best of my knowledge, there are several Montreal ME employees.  Multiplayer is totally gonna happen.

[TAK The Voyager]

Even though I'm a big multiplayer kind of guy (coming from Halo, COD, etc). I would not like to see Mass Effect go the route of a neglected SP. MP would cut into that. Designing games isn't easy and usually there's 2 teams for it that are different. Plus, the schedule.

[Loerwyn]

We Tigers wrote...
To the best of my knowledge, there are several Montreal ME employees.  Multiplayer is totally gonna happen.

It may do. My point, however, was that the multiplayer development team would not be the same as the single player one.

[shep82]

Am I against it? Sorta because I really don't play games in multiplayer. Do I think Bioware will let that cause harm to the single player? Nope. Bioware is really good at delivering good games. I don't believe they will let the single player suffer at all.

[shep82]

TAK The Voyager wrote...

Even though I'm a big multiplayer kind of guy (coming from Halo, COD, etc). I would not like to see Mass Effect go the route of a neglected SP. MP would cut into that. Designing games isn't easy and usually there's 2 teams for it that are different. Plus, the schedule.

While I'm not a huge MP fan I disagree. I do not feel the SP would be affected.

[Malanek]

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?

It's because people are afraid, and rightfully so, that to do a compelling version of multiplayer will either be a completely seperate game or require some compromises. ME2 was great, ME3 is hugely anticipated and people don't want to see that being put at risk.

[Rurik_Niall]

Keeping Mass Effect 3 single player only and then making a separate game that's designed specifically with multi-player in mind is just an all around better idea. No matter what the multi-player mode will take extra resources and time, both of which could be better spent enhancing the single player game. Similarly by making another game with the primary purpose being the multi-player mode you can direct more time and resources to the multi-player aspect, making it better than it ever could have been as a tacked on aspect in a game that isn't designed for it.

[shep82]

Malanek999 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?

It's because people are afraid, and rightfully so, that to do a compelling version of multiplayer will either be a completely seperate game or require some compromises. ME2 was great, ME3 is hugely anticipated and people don't want to see that being put at risk.

Which is why they won't screw this up.

[Lunatic LK47]

Vyse_Fina wrote...

So how do you stop people who finished the game within 10-20h from trading
the game in within the first week? You add a multiplayer mode which people play
for weeks and even months after the release (if it is good) if you are lucky your
first DLC is even announced by the time they get bored of Multiplayer and they
keep the game even longer.

Uh, there is one little problem with that statement. Multiplayer is unpredictable in terms of longevity and considering this is EA ****ing Games we're talking about, they have very bad networking issues, and this is coming from someone who occasionally played Command & Conquer Generals online  during 2005-2007. Let's not forget the fact that SERVERS COSTS THEM MONEY. The lesser mainstream games die off faster than an STD-afflicted person due to either lack of interest in the game, or because they're only relevant for one month max. Look at any Tom Clancy games published by UbiSoft.

*EndWar: Very few people played EndWar after January 2009, and that's a three-month game after it's release.

* Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter 2 no one playing the game in 2010.

* Rainbow Six Vegas 1 Only less than a dozen players playing Terrorist Hunt.

* Rainbow Six: Vegas 2: More or less the same thing, except double the number of people playing online, which is being generous at best.

Let me re-iterate again. Multiplayer is a mode with an artificial time limit involved. If you've been on the fence about a game for a certain amount of years because you're not sure it's worth the $49.99 or $59.99 price tag (depending on the era of gaming), you're more or less screwed by the time you buy the game legitimately at $19.99. Unless that game is Gears of War, Call of Duty, or Halo, that game you've been on the fence about is ALREADY DEAD by the time you buy it. Single-player games, I can PLAY ON MY OWN TIME, ON MY OWN TERMS AND NOT WORRY ABOUT HAVING A TIME LIMIT.

If you don't like that: Don't buy games used at Gamestop in the future because
it is hurting the industry and makes them think of stupid stuff like day 1 DLC and
Multiplayer for games that don't need Multiplayer. (allthough I bet people will end up
likeing the ME multiplayer anyway)

Depends on the game in question and THEIR AVAILABILITY. I don't recall Best Buy keeping every single copy of every existing game on their shelves.

Modifié par Lunatic LK47, 20 mars 2011 - 10:55 .

[Rurik_Niall]

Unless the game is an MMO like Guild Wars or WoW, they can have much longer lifespans, if they're well made MMO's and not ones like, say, the first Star Wars MMO they released.

[Lunatic LK47]

Obrusnine wrote...


@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).

There's something called having a life involved, and no
one within my age range has the luxury of time playing Call of Duty for
5-10 hours because all of us are busy with school/jobs. Look at my latest post, multiplayer is marred by AN ARTIFICIAL TIME LIMIT. As it is, hanging out with a friend is as common as a needle in a haystack just because I'm that busy.

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.

Uh, no. For Halo
3's complete devotion to X-Box Live, campaign had a very bad "Invincible
NPC" glitch for a single foot-soldier (i.e. Any Flood infantry being
immune to a sledgehammer strike, which is a one shot weapon), and the
NPC A.I. was consistently **** (i.e. If I wanted the NPC to drive the vehicle for me, he'll run into walls 100% of the time.)

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...

Uh, Cyberstrike is referring to the fact that he can play the damn games any number of times on his own terms without having to worry about an artificial clock saying, "You can only play the game during this time only, otherwise, you're ****ed a few months later." Multiplayer has AN ARTIFICIAL TIME LIMIT.

Modifié par Lunatic LK47, 20 mars 2011 - 11:04 .