168 réponses à ce sujet

[IPityDaFoo]

I'm against it because it will cut the time that BioWare spends on the storytelling potion of the game (the reason this series is so popular to begin with). Plus, the mechanics just don't translate well to multiplayer.

[shep82]

IPityDaFoo wrote...

I'm against it because it will cut the time that BioWare spends on the storytelling potion of the game (the reason this series is so popular to begin with). Plus, the mechanics just don't translate well to multiplayer.

 I don't get this argument. MP does not mean they will focus less on the SP.

[Rurik_Niall]

Time and resources have to come from somewhere. EA isn't going to say "Sure Bioware, you can have a bigger budget in order to add multi-player mode!" If you use the programmers already designing the game then they have the same amount of time to work on it and now have to do extra work. If you use a separate team for the multi-player then those people have to be paid which takes away from the overall budget which could have been spent on the main focus of the game instead. Either way it leeches time and resources. As said several times a separate game with it's own budget, own time frame, and own team focused on the multi-player mode is better for everyone. The people who want multi-player get a better multi-player experience, and the purists who want ME3 to remain single player get their way. Wouldn't you much rather have full proper multi-player game than a tacked on multi-player mode?

[shep82]

Rurik_Niall wrote...

Time and resources have to come from somewhere. EA isn't going to say "Sure Bioware, you can have a bigger budget in order to add multi-player mode!" If you use the programmers already designing the game then they have the same amount of time to work on it and now have to do extra work. If you use a separate team for the multi-player then those people have to be paid which takes away from the overall budget which could have been spent on the main focus of the game instead. Either way it leeches time and resources. As said several times a separate game with it's own budget, own time frame, and own team focused on the multi-player mode is better for everyone. The people who want multi-player get a better multi-player experience, and the purists who want ME3 to remain single player get their way. Wouldn't you much rather have full proper multi-player game than a tacked on multi-player mode?

I see your point but IMO the game will be fine.

[Bluko]

I wouldn't hate it, but I doubt I'd be very excited for it either.

Most people don't want MP in Mass Effect cause they feel it would ruin the immersion and experience since you'll more then likely have a bunch ****s running around playing the multiplayer all the time. People want the game to remain a secluded RPG experience solely for themselves and other RPG gamers. They don't want your typical average young adult male bragging about how many headshots he has in the online mode. Frankly I don't really find that any worse then people's fanboyism for fictional characters, since they are equally immature in my opinion.

I would welcome a multiplayer component, but honestly I doubt it would have any lasting appeal. I really doubt adding a multiplayer mode would hamper the singleplayer experience since they'd likely get a team together solely for that. And EA probably would give them a bigger budget since games always sell better with multiplayer components. It wouldn't compromise the singleplayer experience in any way, since really there's only so many people you can have working on certains parts of the game at any given time.

Really if you want ME3 to be a better, more complete, experience then you should probably be asking that the game be pushed back into 2012 so those Devs have time to finish and polish everything before release. Although there's probably no changing that now. Sadly it seems like EA is indeed forcing Bioware to rush it's games to a certain extent so we'll just have to hope Bioware is ready for a 2011 release. Though from the sounds of it parts of ME3 have been in the works since 2009 so it should be fine. And keeping ME2's game engine will save them a lot of time on development.

[Rurik_Niall]

Correction, games with good multi-player sell better. If the main game is rushed what makes you think a tacked on multi-player mode would fare any better?

[Vyse_Fina]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...


*snip*

Wow, people actually read all the stuff I wrote

Well, I never said it is a great idea or that it works perfectly fine, but I'm fairly sure publishers wouldn't randomly add multiplayer modes to singleplayer games if it wasn't worth it. Considering that only big titles seem to get them though (Uncharted 2, Assassin's Creed Brotherhood and probably ME3) I assume that the game needs to sell a certain amount of copies for this strategy to be viable. Considering that every used game sold might just as well be pirated in terms of profit for the devs this doesn't seem too unlikely. In fact I am quite certain Jade Raymond even said the reason they added Multiplayer to AC:B was that they wanted people to hold onto their games on the last episode of Bonus Round 

"essentially your ame either needs to have a monster scope so that peole are playing it for over 60 hours or it's gotta be online [...] You neeed to create something that people want to hold onto..." 
around 5:40 (but watch the whole episode it's cool)

Oh and she also mentions another reason: Renting the game.
If a game can be finished within 12 hours or a weekend or whatever people will just go out and rent it. So it's not just about the used games market but generally expanding the amount of content you have for one reason or another (but hardly ever just for the sake of the gamers it seems...)

In the end there may be several other factors to it, but the bottom line is that there are reasons beyond the things that gamers want for developers to add features like multiplayer.

About the price issue:
I clearly understand why people buy games used and I persoanlly think games have gotten way too expensive myself, but with all the pirats, used games and whatnot out there I'm at least trying to buy the games I care about new for the reasons explained earlier and also because I want to support them. (And no I do Not have a lot of money either. in fact I am a stuent and I don't even have a regular income)

In your case that'd be games with big multiplayer modes like Call of Duty, Halo, Gears or whatever. (allthough those really big ones actually have an active community evena year after their release)

The thing is, these really big games only come out every 6 months or so. A few more towards the end of the year of course. Most people who can affort a 300$ console can afford one or two 60$ games a year.


About Availability: 
I see the issue, but think about it this way: 
We only buy niche titles at Gamestop, because only Gamestop has them and only Gamestop has them because that's the only place we buy them. Ever heard of the term vicious cycle?
This actually leads to a bigger problem. It gives Gamestop a certain amount of power over which new IPs actually make it on the market.
Alternatives? Buy online. You can get virtually any game ever made online on ebay, amazon or other online shops. The selection is way bigger than anything gamestop can possibly offer. You prefer the phyisical world? How about you try Independent used game stores.
Hell even Bestbuy might have niche games you want. Get the Barcode, go there, ask for it and if they don't have it ask them if they can order it (yes a little more inconvenieant than buying it at Gamestop, I know)

Modifié par Vyse_Fina, 21 mars 2011 - 12:32 .

[Rurik_Niall]

The problem with that idea is the target audience for Mass Effect is simply not interested in multi-player, the fact that every time it's brought up the majority of fans immediately shoot the idea down means that adding multi-player is more likely to alienate fans than to please them. When designing a game you need to focus on your primary audience not on periphery demographics. The average Sims fan isn't going to be interested in EA adding a first person shooter mode, and the average Halo fan isn't going to be interested in a mode where they build, what do they call him, Mister Chef, a house and watch him go about his every day life. Some people might enjoy these features, but they're not the target audience and you can't worry about pleasing them, there are other games that will please these people far more than you could ever hope to achieve and if it means that much to them they'll go and play those games.

[slimgrin]

F*ck multiplayer. I'm sick of the wheedling, begging, fawning, knee-humping requests for multiplayer. Fold it into a neatly shaped origami-like construction and shove it up your ass, op. Let this one game be single player, and single player alone. One game.

No offense. 

Modifié par slimgrin, 21 mars 2011 - 12:56 .

[Rurik_Niall]

I have to confess, I too am somewhat tired of every single game someone saying "It would be better with multi-player." Not every game needs to have it, most of my favourite games don't. The Baldur's Gate trilogy being one of the rare examples that does include multi-player, but I never use it anyway. I have a hard enough time choosing who to have in my party without having a human hogging a spot that could otherwise be filled by Minsc and Boo or Viconia or any number of other wonderful characters whose presence I'd greatly prefer.

[Vyse_Fina]

Rurik_Niall wrote...

Correction, games with good multi-player sell better. If the main game is rushed what makes you think a tacked on multi-player mode would fare any better?

Well again, I am not in favor of ME3 multiplayer (in fact I think any second spent on MP would be better spent on polishing the singlepleplayer campaign) but what do you expect? By now people are buying games for their Multiplayermodes alone already. Many people who bought modern warfare 2 never even touched singleplayer. Of course Mass Effect isn't modern warfare (and thank god for that) but as sad as that is I can totally see them (EA) wanting a piece of the MP-pie for reasons I elaborated earlier.

That isn't even a matter of what we want. It's a matter of how the public perceives this. As long as Multiplayer games like Modern Warfare sell because of the multiplayer alone, MP will be in more and more games. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if some people out there who never were into ME will change their mind about buying ME3 because there IS multiplayer in there
<_<

Modifié par Vyse_Fina, 21 mars 2011 - 01:19 .

[SnakeSNMF]

Mass Effect 2 was released in this timescale and it was perfect.
Because it's Mass Effect and had a new engine they didn't have to make much changes to--
They already had everything set up.
It was incredible regardless.. really fun.
The difference between ME2 and DA2 was that ME2 was just gamemechanic changes.
DA2 was a change of everything.
ME3 is still the same engine, still the same everything.
Multiplayer would enhance that.

[Vyse_Fina]

SnakeSNMF wrote...

Mass Effect 2 was released in this timescale and it was perfect.
Because it's Mass Effect and had a new engine they didn't have to make much changes to--
They already had everything set up.
It was incredible regardless.. really fun.
The difference between ME2 and DA2 was that ME2 was just gamemechanic changes.
DA2 was a change of everything.
ME3 is still the same engine, still the same everything.
Multiplayer would enhance that.

Uhm... What?
Not sure what youa re trying to say but ME2 was completely different from ME1. Many mechanics got changed around and the engine got some improvements as well.
Multiplayer would enhance that? Would enhance what? That ME3 is "still the same everything"?
Sure, whatever makes you happy...

[DarthCaine]

Obrusnine wrote...

It's not like Bioware would in any way neglect the Single Player experience just so you can have a robust Multiplayer

And it's also not like BioWare has an unlimited budget and millions of devs and 10 years to make the game.

To quote the Arkham City devs on multiplayer:

“It’s the sort of thing that you think could be cool, but when you start to play out what that would mean from a development perspective, splitting the development effort to make a single-player campaign and a multiplayer mode would have ended up with us making two pretty average games.”

Not that EA cares about quality. Going by DA2 and ME3's early release date, they'll just want to cash in on ME2's success.

Modifié par DarthCaine, 21 mars 2011 - 01:27 .

[Rurik_Niall]

No, it really wouldn't. The primary focus of the game would benefit in no way, shape, or form from a tacked on multi-player mode. This isn't something the target audience wants, listening to your target audience is good for business, listening to a periphery demographic is not. If 95% of your fanbase says they don't want something and only five percent says they do, you listen to the former because that's where the majority of your profit is going to be coming from, and that remaining five percent will most likely still pay up because they're still fans of the game. If you disregard the wishes of the majority however you stand a good chance of alienating a good sized chunk of them, if you loose 25% of your fanbase but win over five percent that's a net loss.

[slimgrin]

I don't expect SF4 to be an rpg, or FarCry to be a strategy game. I don't ask CD red to turn The Witcher into an open-world experience. Why can't people let the Mass Effect series be what it started out to be: a story-driven role playing game? Why does every game need to cater to one need?

[Vyse_Fina]

slimgrin wrote...

I don't expect SF4 to be an rpg, or FarCry to be a strategy game. I don't ask CD red to turn The Witcher into an open-world experience. Why can't people let the Mass Effect series be what it started out to be: a story-driven role playing game? Why does every game need to cater to one need?

Higher development costs = less risks taken = look what sells the most = Modern Warfare = Shooter&Multiplayer

Sad but that's about it...
Another reason why more and more genres seem to die lately. Someday only shooters, racers and sportsgames remain. That'll also be the day I quite gaming.

[Rurik_Niall]

Not even EA is that stupid. They didn't purchase Bioware for their world renowned skills in making multi-player first person shooters, they purchased them for their world renowned story telling and RPG skills. There will always be room in the market for RPG's because there will always be role players, just like there will always be platformers and simulation fans. If the larger corporations choose to ignore any of us then new companies will rise up created by fans of those genres.

[Lunatic LK47]

Vyse_Fina wrote...


Well again, I am not in favor of ME3 multiplayer (in fact I think any second spent on MP would be better spent on polishing the singlepleplayer campaign) but what do you expect?By now people are buying games for their Multiplayermodes alone already. Many people who bought modern warfare 2 never even touched singleplayer. Of course Mass Effect isn't modern warfare (and thank god for that) but as sad as that is I can totally see them (EA) wanting a piece of the MP-pie for reasons I elaborated earlier.

Just to set the record straight for myself. I only bought Infinity Ward's Call of Duty games because they actually made the campaign missions as gripping as possible, not to mention all of the hype for Call of Duty 1 was about "Play as a soldier from three different armies" and I actually replay them just for kicks because I enjoyed them that much. Treyarch's Call of Duty, they're little more than fire-and-forget games, and I only played Call of Duty 3's campaign twice and avoided Treyarch's games altogether (no amount of Ed Harris, Kiefer Sutherland, Ice Cube, and Gary Oldman would ever want me to buy the other two games because the games look uninspired and boring after watching "Let's Plays" of those two games) . I never bothered with multiplayer for the first two games because A. My computer was not good enough, and B. The multiplayer just felt stale. Modern Warfare series for the 360, I already stopped Modern Warfare 2's multiplayer after Colonel just because I got burned out.

I clearly understand why people buy games used and I persoanlly
think games have gotten way too expensive myself, but with all the
pirats, used games and whatnot out there I'm at least trying to buy the
games I care about new for the reasons explained earlier and also
because I want to support them. (And no I do Not have a lot of money
either. in fact I am a stuent and I don't even have a regular income)

That's my position as well, and the problem I'm seeing with most of the library now-a-days is there's nothing remotely interesting. Hated Gears of War, Activision dug their own grave with the Infinity Ward fiasco, most EA published games are mediocre at best or are plagued with network problems (i.e. BioWare being the exception because they never focused on online gameplay other than DLC), got burned out with sandbox games (Never finished Red Dead Redemption despite buying it during Thanksgiving, only finished GTA: Vice City and GTA IV), and the only games worth buying for me are Arkham City and Mass Effect 3, while I'm on the fence with L.A. Noire and Gears 3. As it is, I'm even considering about giving up on gaming after getting Arkham and ME3.

In
your case that'd be games with big multiplayer modes like Call of Duty,
Halo, Gears or whatever. (allthough those really big ones actually have
an active community evena year after their release)

I was just referring to the other multiplayer-focused games that are *NOT* any of these three big titles. Pop in a copy of any Tom Clancy game before Splinter Cell: Conviction, and you'll see there's a very small amount of activity.

About Availability: 
I see the issue, but think about it this way: 
We
only buy niche titles at Gamestop, because only Gamestop has them and
only Gamestop has them because that's the only place we buy them.

No disagreement there. I bought Rainbow Six Vegas 1, Crackdown, and Splinter Cell: Double Agent because I wasn't sure if they were worth the $19.99 price tag. I'm happy with my decision because I saved myself at least $10.00 and it confirmed why some people didn't like these games.

Alternatives? Buy online. You can
get virtually any game ever made online on ebay, amazon or other online
shops. The selection is way bigger than anything gamestop can possibly
offer. You prefer the phyisical world? How about you try Independent
used game stores.

Potential Problem with online buying: We might have mishandling by couriers depending on how patient they are on delivering the items in question to us. Sure, films and games don't get affected by this, but it does happen even though it's rare. On top of this, I'm not even sure if the game is exactly worth the wait if I find out that the game I ordered online was outright disappointing. Hell, the only games I ordered from Amazon were Splinter Cell: Conviction and I only did it because of a special discount that was available for the month of release, and Modern Warfare 2's Prestige Edition just because I wanted the night-vision goggles

Hell even Bestbuy might have niche games you
want. Get the Barcode, go there, ask for it and if they don't have it
ask them if they can order it (yes a little more inconvenieant than
buying it at Gamestop, I know)

Depends on the game in question. I held off on getting the last edition of Marvel Ultimate Alliance at Best Buy for a friend only to find out too late that they were off the shelves by the time I had enough spare cash to get it for him. 

[slimgrin]

Vyse_Fina wrote...

slimgrin wrote...

I don't expect SF4 to be an rpg, or FarCry to be a strategy game. I don't ask CD red to turn The Witcher into an open-world experience. Why can't people let the Mass Effect series be what it started out to be: a story-driven role playing game? Why does every game need to cater to one need?

Higher development costs = less risks taken = look what sells the most = Modern Warfare = Shooter&Multiplayer

Sad but that's about it...
Another reason why more and more genres seem to die lately. Someday only shooters, racers and sportsgames remain. That'll also be the day I quite gaming.

Funny how the Bioware devs are hell bent on blending genres. They really hate the idea of individual genres from what I've read. But do they need to sacrifice depth as well for a mainstream game? Because some would argue that is what's happening to their games. They may be known one day as the dev that makes only entry-level RPG's.

[Rurik_Niall]

Personally, I don't see it. Granted I haven't played either Dragon Age, I'll get to them eventually, but as far as ME2 goes in many ways I prefer it over the first game. No Mako, more interesting characters, no Mako, better story-based DLC, no Mako, combat that doesn't boil down to simply slapping on the best upgrades I've got and jamming down the fire button, no Mako, dialogue options that for the most part match what Shepard actually says and does better than ME1, and most importantly no bloody Mako.

[shep82]

Rurik_Niall wrote...

Correction, games with good multi-player sell better. If the main game is rushed what makes you think a tacked on multi-player mode would fare any better?

I'm tired of this argument. ME 3 has been in development even before ME 3's release. It won't be rushed. Am I in favor of multiplayer? No. But I don't think it will make ME 3 bad.

[Lunatic LK47]

shep82 wrote...

I'm tired of this argument. ME 3 has been in development even before ME 3's release. It won't be rushed. Am I in favor of multiplayer? No. But I don't think it will make ME 3 bad.

Halo 3 would like a word with you.

[Rurik_Niall]

Well it would certainly be a neat trick for ME3 to have been in development after ME3's release.

[AlanC9]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...
....and I only played Call of Duty 3's campaign twice and avoided Treyarch's games altogether (no amount of Ed Harris, Kiefer Sutherland, Ice Cube, and Gary Oldman would ever want me to buy the other two games because the games look uninspired and boring after watching "Let's Plays" of those two games)

I never quite understood this. Doesn't watching a "Let's Play" spoil the game even if it's good?