138 réponses à ce sujet

[Bamboozalist]

Uszi wrote...

How do we know that it would be shoehorned in and not planned from the beginning?  What if the plans for cooperative campaigns where both people interact has been planned on since ME2 development ended and ME3 development began?

I also do not want a cooperative campaign, since I feel this is even less of a fit for the game than anything else.

It's not so much them planning it as it not belonging in the ME trilogy since it's about Shepard not Shepard and Friend or Shepard and his/her long lost Brother/Sister.

Hence why I say the idea is good just not for ME3.

[KAGEHOSHI-]

Killzone 2 had a very long well done campaign (though the story was shallow like most shooters). The MP was very good, though very very inaccessible to casuals (weighty controls, hard progression system, low aim assist).

IMO KZ2 had a great MP and SP, but its not the best example since many people didn't like that game. Though it had very high metacritic scores.

[Uszi]

ADelusiveMan wrote...

Name one game that has succeeded with making a high quality multiplayer and single player at the same time.

If you come up with at least three, I'll be surprised.

Multiplayer is bad because a developer usually focuses on one or the other - and the one that gets the least attention is downright terrible. The truth is, Mass Effect doesn't need one. It's has always been about a player being immersed in the story.

And keep co-op the hell away from Mass Effect as well. The last thing I need is people who like to goof around when I need support.

Do you want me to name one or three? 

1).  Alien vs Predator -- preferrably the older series, though I was a huge fan of the multiplayer and singleplayer in the more recent release.

I don't think it's true that the developer usually focuses on one or the other.

Ask yourself, was Halo a multiplayer or single player game?
Because the first game had bare-bones minimum multiplayer.  It used recycled assets.  The game only got popular because of 16 people halo LAN parties, which were always awesome.  The subsequent Halos put a greater focus on multiplayer, but they've also used like 3 or 4 games to develop the multiplayer experience as it exists now.

As far as two more games with high quality multiplayer and single player:

2).  StarCraft -- the campaigns are difficult and involved, used cinematics and voice acting to increase immersion.  The multiplayer is also awesome.

3).  The original Quake/Doom games.


And those are just the ones that I think other people will agree with me on.  I like the SP and MP in GOW for instance.  And I could name a bunch of RTS games that have great campaigns (Age of Empires II, WC3) and also awesome multiplayer.

[Uszi]

Bamboozalist wrote...

Uszi wrote...

How do we know that it would be shoehorned in and not planned from the beginning?  What if the plans for cooperative campaigns where both people interact has been planned on since ME2 development ended and ME3 development began?

I also do not want a cooperative campaign, since I feel this is even less of a fit for the game than anything else.

It's not so much them planning it as it not belonging in the ME trilogy since it's about Shepard not Shepard and Friend or Shepard and his/her long lost Brother/Sister.

Hence why I say the idea is good just not for ME3.

Ah, then I mistook your meaning and instead agree with you. 

[Bamboozalist]

Uszi wrote...

3).  The original Quake/Doom games.

DOOM is the reason why FPS multiplayer exists today, it showed devs how to seperate SP and MP and how MP didn't need extra resources and could just borrow 90% of the stuff from SP.

[ADelusiveMan]

Bamboozalist wrote...

DOOM
Call of Duty 2 and 4 before the franchise became rehash-mode
Starcraft 1 and 2

I'm officially surprised. But I find it funny that you mentioned Call of Duty as having a high quality single player. But to each his own. But I've never played Starcraft, and I never want to. I hate RTS games.

QwertyQwerty wrote...
Halo does it pretty well... I enjoy the SP portion a lot. 

Halo's SP is okay. Multiplayer is terrible. Downright terrible. It's buggy, it's way to easy to get BS kills, people have absolutely NO IDEA what teamwork is, and there are all of those little annoying children who like to scream and yell. If that happens with ME, I will be really sad. 

And the reason all of the Call of Duty/Halo/Doom multiplayers work is because it's an FPS. TPS does not work well for multiplayer. Aside from that, the majority of developers aren't even going the Halo/COD server route anymore and allowing people to join someone else's server, letting the server guy kick other people other people out of the game. 

I'm really starting to just dislike multiplayer in general.

Modifié par ADelusiveMan, 31 mars 2011 - 10:19 .

[ADelusiveMan]

Uszi wrote...



Do you want me to name one or three? 

1).  Alien vs Predator -- preferrably the older series, though I was a huge fan of the multiplayer and singleplayer in the more recent release.

Didn't like the new AvP. I like AvP 2 for PC, but I never played multiplayer on it.

Uszi wrote...
I don't think it's true that the developer usually focuses on one or the other.

Ask yourself, was Halo a multiplayer or single player game?
Because the first game had bare-bones minimum multiplayer.  It used recycled assets.  The game only got popular because of 16 people halo LAN parties, which were always awesome.  The subsequent Halos put a greater focus on multiplayer, but they've also used like 3 or 4 games to develop the multiplayer experience as it exists now.

Halo in general was alright until Reach. Then it died.

Uszi wrote...
As far as two more games with high quality multiplayer and single player:

2).  StarCraft -- the campaigns are difficult and involved, used cinematics and voice acting to increase immersion.  The multiplayer is also awesome.

Starcraft is a RTS right? Then I officially deem it unworthy of an example of this. RTS games are terrible imho.

Uszi wrote...
3).  The original Quake/Doom games.

I've heard good things about Doom, and I've played Quake 3's multiplayer. It's not bad.

Uszi wrote...
And those are just the ones that I think other people will agree with me on.  I like the SP and MP in GOW for instance.  And I could name a bunch of RTS games that have great campaigns (Age of Empires II, WC3) and also awesome multiplayer.

GoW is alright in general. It failed terribly on story in my opinion. I just kind of found myself not caring. Same thing goes for Halo 2. When the Covenant found Earth, I really didn't care. It really was no big deal to me. Didn't have enough 'umph.'

Modifié par ADelusiveMan, 31 mars 2011 - 10:27 .

[Bamboozalist]

ADelusiveMan wrote...

Bamboozalist wrote...

DOOM
Call of Duty 2 and 4 before the franchise became rehash-mode
Starcraft 1 and 2

I'm officially surprised. But I find it funny that you mentioned Call of Duty as having a high quality single player. But to each his own. 

2 and 4 were heavily cinematic had wide open levels that didn't feel like restrictive coridors unless they were supposed to (like being in a ship or bunker complex) often had non-linear objectives and were just enjoyably to play as specitical shooters.

Also TPS and FPS work on the same principle, aim at guy you want to die and shoot. Skill based (as in abilities not player skill) shooters are harder to good MP with.

[Bamboozalist]

ADelusiveMan wrote...
Starcraft is a RTS right? Then I officially deem it unworthy of an example of this. RTS games are terrible imho.

"I don't like it there for it's not a good example despite it being universally praised for having amazing single-player and multi-player"

[ADelusiveMan]

Bamboozalist wrote...

ADelusiveMan wrote...
Starcraft is a RTS right? Then I officially deem it unworthy of an example of this. RTS games are terrible imho.

"I don't like it there for it's not a good example despite it being universally praised for having amazing single-player and multi-player"

The majority of games that are praised for having amazing multi-player are downright terrible.


But I'm going to be honest. If they put MP in it, I'd still buy the game. I'd likely never play MP, but I'd still buy it.

As for Co-op...no thanks. I will admit, it can work in games like Halo, but it was an epic failure in Fable and I really just don't want people in my game that ruin the immersion.

Modifié par ADelusiveMan, 31 mars 2011 - 10:53 .

[Harmless Crunch]

Honestly I'm not interested in competitive MP and I would prefer 6 or so 10-15 minute long missions you could play with friends completely separate to the main game (Think a combination of Splinter cell:Conviction's MP and MW2's Spec-Ops mode)
But the big issue is ME1 and 2's combat has never been as good as other shooters (Gears of war Etc)
But still it could be cool getting friends together and doing short missions about the first contact war Etc

[IntoTheDarkness]

Uszi wrote...

IntoTheDarkness wrote...

Because the counterpart of your very first statement is true.

MP weakens SP, for sure.

There
are only FEW companies who bother to make master SP while there are
numerous nameless developers making MP game. So leave ME as it is. We
don't need another stupid leveling games.

How do you know MP weakens SP for sure?  Why would MP weaken SP?

it is not the matter of resources.

Because of balance and gameplay issue, MP games are developed to be played optimal  in MP. This inevitably weakens the SP, no matter how capable the company is.


amphibian = never better than car or ainplane designed to work under specific environment.

Simularly, speicalist is better than genious-at-all-sorts.

Modifié par IntoTheDarkness, 31 mars 2011 - 10:46 .

[ADelusiveMan]

Another problem with multiplayer that I have is this - look at the large majority of games with multiplayer. Games like Halo, Call of Duty, Gears of War - their SP plots are ridiculously simplistic. While the multiplayer may be great fun, the single player is just downright predictable, and the end will be the same every time. Games like Mass Effect and Dragon Age are different because the outcome of the game can be different each time, and the fact those decisions effect the sequel as well.

And in no way are any of the Call of Duty games non-linear Bamboozalist. I've beaten both COD 2 and 4 multiple times and the objective is always the same. There are no choices. And the the environments are not really that open when you have a specific path to walk each time. I will admit, some of the environments are amazing, but they are most certainly not 'open.'

[ADelusiveMan]

IntoTheDarkness wrote...

Uszi wrote...

IntoTheDarkness wrote...

Because the counterpart of your very first statement is true.

MP weakens SP, for sure.

There
are only FEW companies who bother to make master SP while there are
numerous nameless developers making MP game. So leave ME as it is. We
don't need another stupid leveling games.

How do you know MP weakens SP for sure?  Why would MP weaken SP?

it is not the matter of resources.

Because of balance and gameplay issue, MP games are developed to be played optimal  in MP. This inevitably weakens the SP, no matter how capable the company is.


amphibian = never better than car or ainplane designed to work under specific environment.

Simularly, speicalist is better than genious-at-all-sorts.

^^^This.

[Mx_CN3]

ADelusiveMan wrote...

The majority of games that are praised for having amazing multi-player that are downright terrible.

Both Starcrafts* had a very good single player and a VERY good multiplayer.  Denying that is simply being delusional.  It's fine if you didn't like them, but that doesn't make it any less true (there are plenty of good games/movies/books that I don't like).

*Admittedly, the plot of SC2 could have been done better, but it still did a great job of making me care, which is all I consider necessary for a good story.

With that said, I love multiplayer, and I'd love a multiplayer Mass Effect, but multiplayer in ME3 just wouldn't seem right.  I'd love if BioWare made a ME game about, say, a team of Spectres, or Cerberus operatives, or mercs, or all of them, and it had a campaign that you could do single or Co-op, and then have some story-fitting multiplayer levels.

[Clonedzero]

is it possible for ME3 to have a great SP and MP? sure, i suppose so.
i wouldnt buy it for multiplayer though.
would i try the MP? sure. odds that i'd be pretty bad? pretty high.

i realize they'd have two different development teams working on the two aspects of the game so they wouldnt lose manpower in development, but they'd lose resources. if they spend 6 million making the game (random number i picked out of my ass) they'd have to spend 1-2 million easily on the multiplayer and the rest on single player. at least thats around what i'd guess. rather than devoting the full budget to single player.

so while they'd have seperate taems working on it, it still effects the budget and resources they'd be able to put into each aspect therefore it'd have some negative effect on the single player, would it be a mass effect? (haha pun) i can't say for sure, but i dont really care for it.

basically when it comes down to it, if i want to play multiplayer i play a game that was specifically designed for it.

[thatbwoyblu]

I been saying mass effect need multiplayer since 010 because if it dont have multiplyer it will fail and when I say fail I mean FAIL. Straight up single player games dont stand no chance against the big bwoys.

Gears 3 is prone to sell 5 million copies its first week just off its epic multiplayer and in this recession people only got money to buy 1 or 2 games every 6 months. Mass Effect 3s success will rely on whether X Box users wanna put 60 pesos behind it and with gears 3 coming i doubt any xbox user is gonna care about ME 3 if multiplayer is absent.Trust that most PS3 users can care less about a Mass Effect 3 so hopefully Bioware aint too worried about what the JohnnyComeLatelys think.

[ADelusiveMan]

Why would it fail simply for the lack of multiplayer? The first two games did just fine without it. And you are obviously a Gears fan. You are making sales estimates about a game that hasn't even come out yet. You are assuming every Xbox 360 user is the same and that the majority of them are fans of Gears, and would play Gears over Mass Effect. You are also assuming everyone can only buy 1-2 games every six months. I work a minimum wage job, and I can get one every two weeks. Your logic is flawed.

[jakenou]

I would love to see a stand alone ME MP game, but ME3 needs top follow the train of 1 and 2. After all, there has been talk of continuing the development of games within the Mass Effect universe, but outside of Shepard's story.

Trying to blend in MP to the existing ME story and gameplay style would probably make it more linear than it's already become since ME2. So yes - I do think that adding MP would take away from the Shepard trilogy, but a stand-alone ME-MP game would be retardedly awesome!

[ADelusiveMan]

jkthunder wrote...
Trying to blend in MP to the existing ME story and gameplay style would probably make it more linear than it's already become since ME2. So yes - I do think that adding MP would take away from the Shepard trilogy, but a stand-alone ME-MP game would be retardedly awesome!

Now this I would accept.

[Captain Crash]

KAGEHOSHI- wrote...

Why is everyone so afraid of multiplayer? 

Only the great multiplayer experiences stand out and get the attention. So Bioware needs to create an epic multiplayer experience alongside the main game.

A company with no multiplayer experience needs to do this.


A game solely needing to focus on its single player first and foremost as a priority.  So multiplayer therefore is a side project.  An epic side project to get the quality of Halo and CoD who have spent years already on it?!!


This isnt CoD or Halo!  Those multiplayers are brilliant because the Devs have had those years and years of practice. Multiplayer is almost more core then the single player in those games.  As said any multiplayer in ME3 will be a side project and will ultimately end up as a mediocre experience such as Bioshock 2.


So thats why I dont want it in ME3.  It will be nothing more then a gimmick to attract a larger fan base and the quality will in no way compete with whats already out there.  Therefore dampening our overall experience.

Modifié par Captain Crash, 01 avril 2011 - 12:27 .

[Whoo71]

Why does this topic keep coming up?

Modifié par Whoo71, 01 avril 2011 - 12:29 .

[Shockwave81]

Mass Effect 2 has won awards and received high ratings from many reviewers and it did all of that perfectly fine without multiplayer.

I don't recall anyone lamenting the absence of multiplayer while those reviews and awards were raining down.

[slimgrin]

I want more zombies. Games these days just don't have enough zombies.

[Crimson_D-bag]

me2 was a tps end of story, if me3 is going to be the same then why not add co-op mp. its not lazy its just that some of us actually have friends. Now if they want to go back to more of an rpg style game then lose the mp idea as rpg's offer enough content to keep sp interesting enough to play alone.