168 réponses à ce sujet

[hawat333]

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?

Hm, for the first the two parts of your comment, I though it will be a somewhat more civilized question, but I'll give you the answer regardless.
Simply and easy to comprehend, really.
Three main points, in decreacing order of importance

Point One: Development eats up money and time. Mass Effect is not a multiplayer setting, it's a single player game, there's no reason to wase money and time on creating multiplayer when the same amount could be used on polishing, improving, expanding the single player element further. If they begin cutting out content because the release date is fixed, and the "capture the hanar" mode is not ready yet, I would be disappointed as a krogan woman upon meeting a naked human man.
There is a limited time to develop the game, very limited if you look at it, so it absolutely makes sense to concentrate on things that are actually important.

Point Two: Mass Effect is about Shepard, fighting to save the galaxy. It's his/her story. That's an instant no-go for co-op. And because of this very concept, there's no need for multiplayer.

Point Three: The first two games worked perfectly without multyplayer. It was a single-player action/RPG from the very beginning. That's the concept, and it makes sense to remain faithful for the basic idea. Apart from TOR, which is experimental project anyways, BioWare made single player RPGs, and all of them worked.

Generally, I'm not against multiplayer, but I don't see the point of adding it as part of the core game. If it comes out a year later as a DLC, it's okay. But they should focus on the important things first.
This is the story of Shepard, that's what the game is about, and absolutely not about shooting collsheploo1337 with a singularity while screaming in the microphone.

So I could ask the same, what's the Big Deal with a single player game?

[Cyberstrike nTo]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

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.

BINGO!

I don't need any bloody MP features to enjoy a game even the games that I mentioned in my earlier post in this thread that stated I enjoyed the MP features, UNO on XBL is only one that actually I perfer playing in MP over SP. And you bring up another good point the time limit on MP games are generally about 3-6 months, and I know that there are exceptions but the sad truth is there are a lot of games who if you tried start a MP game in you won't find anyone because the game is no longer "hot" and people have moved on. 

I'v played KOTOR so much that I actually burnt out my first copy of it. I almost knew every line Silk Fox said in Jade Empire and I've played Mass Effect, Mass Effect 2 and, Dragon Age: Origins to the point where I can beat the games in a week if I want to. 

While games like Halo Wars, Ghostbusters: The Game, and Transformers: War For Cybertron I'm not even interested in playing the single player game again much less the multiplayer. 

Now if Bioware wants to make Mass Effect 4 a MP game, or do an ME3 MP DLC/Expansion Pack more power to them, but I won't buy it because it's not something I want to play. If some people here do that's cool.
For me I don't want it in ME3.   

Modifié par Cyberstrike nTo, 21 mars 2011 - 02:04 .

[marshalleck]

slimgrin wrote...

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. 

Mass Effect and Mass Effect 2 were both strictly single-player games. So you've had two games catering specifically to you, let's stop being greedy and selfish okay? I say bring on the multiplayer for the big finale! It will keep the series from stagnating. :happy:

Modifié par marshalleck, 21 mars 2011 - 03:32 .

[Sigyn2011]

OnlyShallow89 wrote...

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.

Let's see...
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.

I would love to see a MP engine.  It could be very tastefully done--but make it DLC so that you don't have to take up so much space on the DVDs.  I'd like to be able to team up as a squadmate--the AI is intelligent enough.  But two player MP is enough for me.  As long as you can pick being either a squadmate or the leader, I think it could happen--isn't teamwork fun?  Especially when you can gang up on people!  I would've loved to be able to play LOTSB with my boyfriend.  I could've used his brass a few times, especially when playing on insanity!

[shep82]

marshalleck wrote...

slimgrin wrote...

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. 

Mass Effect and Mass Effect 2 were both strictly single-player games. So you've had two games catering specifically to you, let's stop being greedy and selfish okay? I say bring on the multiplayer for the big finale! It will keep the series from stagnating. :happy:

Not sure I would put it like that but I agree. It will help keep it fresh and I do not see it harming the main game.

[Lukertin]

MP would be imbalanced.

[Rurik_Niall]

marshalleck wrote...

Mass Effect and Mass Effect 2 were both strictly single-player games. So you've had two games catering specifically to you, let's stop being greedy and selfish okay? I say bring on the multiplayer for the big finale! It will keep the series from stagnating. :happy:

Let's not and say we did. Tacking on a multi-player mode that will see a few months of real use at best before the people interested in it move on to the next big multi-player experience won't keep the series from stagnating. This won't be the last game set in the Mass Effect universe by a long shot, and there's plenty of room in the franchise for a game later on down the line catering specifically to the multi-player crowd which will be far better than any multi-player in ME3 ever would be. Is it asking that much for the multi-player fans to wait their turn and just let us have our trilogy?

[shep82]

Rurik_Niall wrote...

marshalleck wrote...

Mass Effect and Mass Effect 2 were both strictly single-player games. So you've had two games catering specifically to you, let's stop being greedy and selfish okay? I say bring on the multiplayer for the big finale! It will keep the series from stagnating. :happy:

Let's not and say we did. Tacking on a multi-player mode that will see a few months of real use at best before the people interested in it move on to the next big multi-player experience won't keep the series from stagnating. This won't be the last game set in the Mass Effect universe by a long shot, and there's plenty of room in the franchise for a game later on down the line catering specifically to the multi-player crowd which will be far better than any multi-player in ME3 ever would be. Is it asking that much for the multi-player fans to wait their turn and just let us have our trilogy?

No it isn't. However I am not a MP fan and still believe we will have a trillogy the way it should be even with MP tacked on.

[Rurik_Niall]

Perhaps, but I'd rather the game be judged properly. If a multi-player is added and the single player mode doesn't live up to expectations then the multi-player mode will be blamed by many, even if it's not at fault, and if the multi-player is as good as, better, or worse than the single player this will also skew the reviews the game receives. A game which otherwise would have gotten a 9/10 can easily get knocked down to a 7/10 because when a multi-player mode is included the quality of it has to be taken into account, and a subpar multi-player experience will just hurt the game more than having no multi-player experience ever could have.

[casedawgz]

Rurik_Niall wrote...

Perhaps, but I'd rather the game be judged properly. If a multi-player is added and the single player mode doesn't live up to expectations then the multi-player mode will be blamed by many, even if it's not at fault, and if the multi-player is as good as, better, or worse than the single player this will also skew the reviews the game receives. A game which otherwise would have gotten a 9/10 can easily get knocked down to a 7/10 because when a multi-player mode is included the quality of it has to be taken into account, and a subpar multi-player experience will just hurt the game more than having no multi-player experience ever could have.

Doesn't really work that way in practice. Dead Space 2's multiplayer is garbage,  and most of the reviews have addressed this and then gone on to give the game 9/10 for having such a remarkable single player campaign.

[Lunatic LK47]

shep82 wrote...

I still believe we will have a trillogy the way it should be even with MP tacked on.

Uh, except single-player gets generally half-assed in the process. For all of the focus on making multiplayer remotely functional (and lag-free gameplay, which is a needle in a haystack), we'd get five Conrad Verner-caliber problems in the process. Single-player suffered in quality with Resident Evil 5 due to its heavy emphasis on co-op up to the point it's MANDATORY if you wanted to play the harder difficulties just because your partner A.I. sucked, and the same crap happened with Gears of War, four years earlier.

[Rurik_Niall]

casedawgz wrote...

Doesn't really work that way in practice. Dead Space 2's multiplayer is garbage,  and most of the reviews have addressed this and then gone on to give the game 9/10 for having such a remarkable single player campaign.

Most but not all. And at any rate, can you honestly say the rubbish multi-player benefitted the game in any way? Nobody's going to want to play the multi-player if it sucks, so there's no point in even having it, it just costs the company valuable time and resources on a wasted endeavor.

[shep82]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

shep82 wrote...

I still believe we will have a trillogy the way it should be even with MP tacked on.

Uh, except single-player gets generally half-assed in the process. For all of the focus on making multiplayer remotely functional (and lag-free gameplay, which is a needle in a haystack), we'd get five Conrad Verner-caliber problems in the process. Single-player suffered in quality with Resident Evil 5 due to its heavy emphasis on co-op up to the point it's MANDATORY if you wanted to play the harder difficulties just because your partner A.I. sucked, and the same crap happened with Gears of War, four years earlier.

 I disagree. The Single Player was fine in RE 5  and the Conrad thing is very minor. I do not believe the single player will be rushed or half assed at all.

Modifié par shep82, 21 mars 2011 - 08:44 .

[shep82]

Rurik_Niall wrote...

casedawgz wrote...

Doesn't really work that way in practice. Dead Space 2's multiplayer is garbage,  and most of the reviews have addressed this and then gone on to give the game 9/10 for having such a remarkable single player campaign.

Most but not all. And at any rate, can you honestly say the rubbish multi-player benefitted the game in any way? Nobody's going to want to play the multi-player if it sucks, so there's no point in even having it, it just costs the company valuable time and resources on a wasted endeavor.

That is true. I will admit that is is very possible the MP will suck and yes that would be a shame but I am tired of people saying the single player will be harmed by that because IMO it won't be.

[Lunatic LK47]

shep82 wrote...

 I disagree. The Single Player was fine in RE 5  and the Conrad thing is very minor. I do not believe the single player will be rushed or half assed at all.

Tell that to Halo 2 and Halo 3, 3 being the worse end of the stick because of this:

Uh, no. For Halo 3's complete devotion to X-Box Live and 4-player co-op, 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.) .

[brokit808]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

shep82 wrote...

 I disagree. The Single Player was fine in RE 5  and the Conrad thing is very minor. I do not believe the single player will be rushed or half assed at all.

Tell that to Halo 2 and Halo 3, 3 being the worse end of the stick because of this:

Uh, no. For Halo 3's complete devotion to X-Box Live and 4-player co-op, 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.) .

to be far that true with every game

[Mr. MannlyMan]

shep82 wrote...

Rurik_Niall wrote...

casedawgz wrote...

Doesn't really work that way in practice. Dead Space 2's multiplayer is garbage,  and most of the reviews have addressed this and then gone on to give the game 9/10 for having such a remarkable single player campaign.

Most but not all. And at any rate, can you honestly say the rubbish multi-player benefitted the game in any way? Nobody's going to want to play the multi-player if it sucks, so there's no point in even having it, it just costs the company valuable time and resources on a wasted endeavor.

That is true. I will admit that is is very possible the MP will suck and yes that would be a shame but I am tired of people saying the single player will be harmed by that because IMO it won't be.

So the idea is to throw in a worthless game mode at the risk of influencing/impacting the singleplayer experience? Because there's always that risk.
Disc space is limited when you're dealing with a game as large as Mass Effect 2; multiplayer codes, maps, skins, etc. take up space. I know it's not a problem on the PS3 or the PC, but unfortunately the ME series is based on the Xbox platform, so everything that can't be squeezed into the Xbox version won't be making it into other versions.

[Razorburn]

Haha!
There's no RPG element, in any way, to mindless MP grind-fests. If you want MP in an RPG, then hey, I like strategy games, why not add some random maps and buildable units in ME? "Just because you don't like it doesn't mean you should ruin it for those of us who want it." That sounds pretty asinine, doesn't it; because that's exaclty what MP in an RPG sounds like.

Just because ME is designed with "shooter" elements doesn't mean it's a shooter or that it should have MP. Though it is true some people would play MP over, and over, and over again, repetitive senseless grinding would in no way would be "keeping ME alive."

Also, as a side-note, I'm happy that those who want MP are pushing for it because they are looking out for BioWare's sake, and not masking what they *really* want with the rhetoric "it's good for the company."

However, if they made an ME game that was a shooter, then yea they better have MP. It would probably be good considering the game's mechanics. But to consider it in this type of ME game is totally outlandish and would make no sense considering the genre.

[shep82]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

shep82 wrote...

 I disagree. The Single Player was fine in RE 5  and the Conrad thing is very minor. I do not believe the single player will be rushed or half assed at all.

Tell that to Halo 2 and Halo 3, 3 being the worse end of the stick because of this:

Uh, no. For Halo 3's complete devotion to X-Box Live and 4-player co-op, 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.) .

Uh never happened to me.

[shep82]

Mr. MannlyMan wrote...

shep82 wrote...

Rurik_Niall wrote...

casedawgz wrote...

Doesn't really work that way in practice. Dead Space 2's multiplayer is garbage,  and most of the reviews have addressed this and then gone on to give the game 9/10 for having such a remarkable single player campaign.

Most but not all. And at any rate, can you honestly say the rubbish multi-player benefitted the game in any way? Nobody's going to want to play the multi-player if it sucks, so there's no point in even having it, it just costs the company valuable time and resources on a wasted endeavor.

That is true. I will admit that is is very possible the MP will suck and yes that would be a shame but I am tired of people saying the single player will be harmed by that because IMO it won't be.

So the idea is to throw in a worthless game mode at the risk of influencing/impacting the singleplayer experience? Because there's always that risk.
Disc space is limited when you're dealing with a game as large as Mass Effect 2; multiplayer codes, maps, skins, etc. take up space. I know it's not a problem on the PS3 or the PC, but unfortunately the ME series is based on the Xbox platform, so everything that can't be squeezed into the Xbox version won't be making it into other versions.

There is a risk yes but again I don't think it will hurt the game at all. I do not see the multiplayer addition hurting the single player expirence. If disc space ends uo being an issue then most likely they will add that content later. Again IMO ME 3 will be a great finale to this series.

[Obrusnine]

God, I'm not even gonna read any further then this... You all keep repeating the same things over and over again even though other people have given valid points that disprove what your saying, repeatedly. Sorry guys, but you should really stop whining so much, "omg! It's gonna suck resources out of the single player even though I'm not going to play it!". That line has been repeated (albeit in different forms) throughout this entire topic! Yes, YOU aren't going to play it. But there are many many many more people then just YOU. Multiplayer games sell more then non-multiplayer games, which is why there probably going to do it anyway! Which, in essence, a multiplayer would totally be supporting biowares future games. The more money their games make, the larger budget they will have on future games.
Sorry, got a little off the rails there... just tired of the the damn whining!

[DinoCrisisFan]

I actually don't want multiplayer ME

[Rurik_Niall]

Obrusnine wrote...

God, I'm not even gonna read any further then this... You all keep repeating the same things over and over again even though other people have given valid points that disprove what your saying, repeatedly. Sorry guys, but you should really stop whining so much, "omg! It's gonna suck resources out of the single player even though I'm not going to play it!". That line has been repeated (albeit in different forms) throughout this entire topic! Yes, YOU aren't going to play it. But there are many many many more people then just YOU. Multiplayer games sell more then non-multiplayer games, which is why there probably going to do it anyway! Which, in essence, a multiplayer would totally be supporting biowares future games. The more money their games make, the larger budget they will have on future games.
Sorry, got a little off the rails there... just tired of the the damn whining!

And we're tired of all the whining from people who want it, the difference being we make up the majority of the existing fanbase which are the ones you have to worry about pleasing.

[AgamenonAtreides]

In my opinion Mass Effect needs multiplayer section, if they dont like make it in Mass effect 3 maybe in a spin-off game..

I dont know if this was said before but, why Bioware don´t make a MMORPG based on Mass effect, like "Mass Effect Online", like TOR, and we can choose our faction as Blue Suns, Eclipse, Bloodhood, Cerberus, Alliance, N7, Turian Fleet, etc...etc..., and play as other races like Turians, Quarians.. etc...

[JPanzerj]

A space combat game based within the Mass Effect universe could be quite nice. Wouldn't hold my breath though.