138 réponses à ce sujet

[Bamboozalist]

ADelusiveMan wrote...

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.'

You clearly forget the missions that give you like 3-7 objectives at a time and let you complete them in any order. Examples the Silo from Call of Duty 2 or the mission to capture Al-Assad in Call of Duty 4. Also several missions in 2 allow you to go multiple paths across a wide open field in order to get to a target. Non-linear gameplay doesn't mean dialouge choices, there are several different types on non-linear gameplay.

Modifié par Bamboozalist, 01 avril 2011 - 05:08 .

[JamieCOTC]

Have you played DA2 or Arrival? They need to focus on SP as much as possible.

Besides that I don't understand why every gd game has to have MP in it.  I seriously do not understand that.  MP has 80% of the market.  I feel like everyone is going to be given the same little red controller or something.  Forgive me. I'm tired of this topic coming up every other day. 

Modifié par JamieCOTC, 01 avril 2011 - 05:44 .

[The Fan]

 If they devote some resoruces to multiplayer, they will have less to put into the story. Would you want multiplayer or the most EPIC ending to the trilogy?

[esideras]

It takes away recources from a fleshed out and polished SP-expirience.
There are way too many MP games and alternatives out there.
If it were to make it in somehow though, I hope it's through co-op.

[Pedro Costa]

Khayness wrote...

Every avaliable resource for ME3 should be pumped into making a complete, well polished and great conclusion to a trillogy.

Sense, this sentence has tons.

[Biefstukfriet]

Wait what, there is going to be MP in Mass Effect 3?

[termokanden]

I can imagine it now. Multiplayer balancing interfering with the single-player game. No thanks.

[Lioncourt87]

The Fan wrote...

 If they devote some resoruces to multiplayer, they will have less to put into the story. Would you want multiplayer or the most EPIC ending to the trilogy?

The latter would suite me ten fold more than having multiplayer. I pray that one of my favourite game franchises won't be watered down due to this decision. Take a look at all of the other games out there like Halo and those damned CoD games and how their campaign is weakened by the time put into multiplayer. But then again a perfect balance is met in Red Dead Redemption, probably because of the DLC released afterward, so if it works out like that, with similar success, then hopefully ME3 won't dissapoint.

I've dreamt of the epic climax of this series so please, please Bioware, don't dissapoint us!

[Noelemahc]

All of you seem to be under the delusion that SP and MP are supposed to be identical in gameplay and therefore, in order to have decent MP, there should be SP-side sacrifices. Apparently, none of you have ever played an FPS where multiplayer weapons are rebalanced differently from single-player in order to maintain balance and - drumroll, please - not detract from either experience.

There are many examples of game franchises that started out without multiplayer, but did not suffer any from its inclusion - Dead Space, Assassin's Creed, Splinter Cell, Metal Gear Solid, System Shock, Dark Forces/Jedi Knight are all pretty pretty examples of games that had great multiplayer component ADDED to a sequel or triquel that did not copy the single-player, did not detract from the single-player experience and did not require an insane leap of logic to accept the existance of. Well, except System Shock, apparently there are still people out there who didn't know it HAD co-op multiplayer to begin with (it didn't, it was added as a patch to the second one).

In fact, Splinter Cell, Dead Space, MGS and Assassin's Creed are the best examples right now - they show how the core gameplay mechanic can be effectively retained for multiplayer use in many different modes, promoting effective teamwork towards goal-based missions. If any of you recall the Pinnacle Station DLC, THAT WAS IT. Well, except that it was single-player and reused maps from the main storyline (thus also demonstrating how little effort is ackshwally necessary to do this stuff properly and prettily).

[slimgrin]

Noelemahc wrote...

There are many examples of game franchises that started out without multiplayer, but did not suffer any from its inclusion

List them please. And I mean the ones with 30 hr singleplayer campaigns. 

[termokanden]

Noelemahc wrote...

All of you seem to be under the delusion that SP and MP are supposed to be identical in gameplay and therefore, in order to have decent MP, there should be SP-side sacrifices. Apparently, none of you have ever played an FPS where multiplayer weapons are rebalanced differently from single-player in order to maintain balance and - drumroll, please - not detract from either experience.

I've just seen it happen often. It's not some weird idea I've taken out of nowhere.

In fact, Splinter Cell, Dead Space, MGS and Assassin's Creed are the best examples right now

And none of those are RPGs. I've seen the problem mainly with RPGs, not so much with action games.

Modifié par termokanden, 01 avril 2011 - 01:36 .

[Noelemahc]

Mass Effect's was 20h, so was ME2's. And that's on a non-speed-run first-time playthrough looking into every nook and cranny. About the same as Assassin's Creed Brotherhood, in fact, though that was managed more by ACB having more nooks and crannies to look into than anything else (although I suppose that if I were to do a devil-may-care run-through of ME2, it will be shorter than any conceivable speedrun of ACB by at least an hour). Same will go for Metal Gear Solid 3 and 4 and Peace Walker (longer than that, in fact, for PW), especially if you're going for a specific endgame rating tag (or simply the second and third tier endings of PW).

The problem with ME2 is that once you strip the Paragon/Renegade system out (and there's no comfortable way of having it in competitive multiplayer), it's the same TRPS/FRPS that MGS4's and ACB's and DS2's and any other modern multiplayer-oriented game's (CoD, BFBC2, etc.) multiplayer is - skill or weapon upgrades that increase your survivability or DPS or passive boosts to your team. Especially if you take the time to notice that from an MOFPS point of view, ME2's arsenal is ALREADY multiplayer-balanced very well, better, in fact, than BFBC2's is, for example. That's the price we paid for ME2 having twitch-based combat instead of skill-based like in Dragon Age 2, which, despite being blamed of becoming actionized, is still a lot closer to 'hardcore RPG' than Mass Effect 2.

Modifié par Noelemahc, 01 avril 2011 - 01:43 .

[termokanden]

Time dilation? Biotics that take control away from the player? Abilities that require almost no aiming skills? Nah it's not even close to being ready for multiplayer. And the arsenal isn't even balanced for single-player.

[Noelemahc]

To repeat myself:

Apparently, none of you have ever played an FPS where multiplayer weapons are rebalanced differently from single-player in order to maintain balance and - drumroll, please - not detract from either experience.

Time dilation was handled differently in Jedi Knight in SP and MP, if you will kindly recall. This was rectified in later games in the series by using the MP version for both modes. If by taking control away you mean Morinth's Ardat-Yakshi powers (I cannot recall the exact name, sorry), that is a perfectly acceptable multiplayer trope that is easily balanced by having the taker-over take full control of the take-overee. And yes, getting a round to the back of their original head.
No aiming skills - you refer to the self-aiming biotics and tech powers? None of them account for the target TRYING TO DODGE. Getting away from them in MP would be no different than when they're used against you in SP. You did play the games on Insanity, didn't you? That's a nice approximation of how it would feel.

What in the arsenal is not balanced? You have the standard MOFPS tropes -- a fast-firing weak handgun, a slow-firing heavy-damage handgun, a slow-firing uber-accurate medium damage handgun. Three types of SMGs, varied in firing rate and damage-per-shot. A powerful assault rifle that takes oodles of upgrades to even aim SOMEWHAT accurately; a weak but accurate assault rifle, a special-damage assault rifle that does the same overall damage as the above, but handles different armour types differently; a semi-auto assault rifle that is powerful, yet semi-auto, etc. A sniper rifle that is a one-shot-killer but is bolt action, unconcealable in any conceivable way and EXCEPTIONALLY LOUD. A sniper rifle that is weak, but can fire in bursts. A sniper rifle that is a jack-of-all-trades. A shotgun that kills anything it hits, but has no real range, is one-shot and reloads longer than it takes you to say "cowabunga". A shotgun that shoots improper-shaped shots and takes a while to get used to. A basic shotgun that acts like a shotgun you've shot in any other game that has a shotgun in it.
I am somehow not seeing a difference from the herd here, sorry.

[termokanden]

Noelemahc wrote...

No aiming skills - you refer to the self-aiming biotics and tech powers? None of them account for the target TRYING TO DODGE. Getting away from them in MP would be no different than when they're used against you in SP. You did play the games on Insanity, didn't you? That's a nice approximation of how it would feel.

I did, and they don't actually dodge your powers there. If they are easy to dodge, that's also unbalanced. Basically it could work, but it would have to be a completely different game in multiplayer.

What in the arsenal is not balanced?

Some weapons are clearly overpowered (Mattock) and some are underpowered (Avenger). It needs work even in singleplayer. And then you even have weapons that are just direct upgrades over other ones. For example, the Widow is simply a better weapon than the Mantis in every way.

[cedgedc]

The problem with implementing multiplayer into a single player rpg has little to do with the resources, or effort that would be sunk into it.

As was explained already quite thoroughly, once the engine is in place, all the design is there, it doesn't take much to have a separate team string together some generic arenas to have people wrestle over some flags or play team deathmatch.

The problem is that Mass Effect is loved by it's current fanbase for the immersion aspect. You can find third and first persion shooters that have considerably more compelling gameplay. If we were all in it for the action, we'd be playing halo or COD or BF2BC, etc. But on the large part we are not.

Mass Effect is compelling because it pulls you in, and like a good book, when you're playing it, you almost believe what you're seeing. It makes you a part of the world. This effect dwindles rapidly when you see a dialogue loop or some such thing that reminds you that these characters aren't real, they're limited and nothing I do here will have any grand effect.

It's like breaking the third wall during a play. You forget you're watching something fake until someone reminds you.

So having something like  a capture the flag a-la golden eye where you unlock characters you can play as and then choose who you want to run around killing people as, suddenly spoils this immersive story. It pulls you out of the role and makes it just another action game. It takes the R out of rpg.

Multiplayer coop is a fun ideal, but unless you're planning on going arcade style, where player 2 can hit a button and take over the role of Tali or some such thing, it's impractical. No one is going to sit with you through 50 hours of gameplay. It's just wouldn't work for 99 out of 100 customers.

Multiplayer of one sort or another would best be saved for another title in the Mass Effect universe that is outside the original trilogy. That said, you can see my sentiments on what Bioware should do regarding multiplayer in this thread: social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/103/index/6850557

[Noelemahc]

The Mattock is balanced against the fully-upgraded Revenant. It cannot be spray-and-prayed but has to be aimed, and there are, contrary to popular opinion, a lot of people having trouble using it, at least going by the posts on the forums in my part of the world. Plus, if BFBC2 and its relatives are of any indication, 90% of people, in a choice between a full-auto battle rifle and a semi-auto one, forego the semi-auto. Idjits.

My point was that YOU, Shepard-Commander, can dodge them when they're used against you. The AI not dodging them is the AI's fault, and not a multiplayer issue. Plus, wouldn't killing someone with a Warp Field be more rewarding if it wasn't simply a "press X to win" situation?

To the poster above me: my suggestions are of the generic variety. If we get a separate game, akin to Metal Gear Online, this would be wondrous. There are many ways of retaining RPG aspects even in competitive multiplayer, but your idea of MMO-izing the experience is not something I can agree with. A simple overarching metaplot of Omega merc bands fighting for territory is already a good enough plot point to build an epic multiplayer on. After all, Dead Space 2 has a single phrase for its multiplayer's plot, and doesn't make said multiplayer any less enjoyable.

Modifié par Noelemahc, 01 avril 2011 - 02:29 .

[slimgrin]

Noelemahc wrote...

Mass Effect's was 20h, so was ME2's. And that's on a non-speed-run first-time playthrough looking into every nook and cranny. 

Sorry, I don't buy it. Most people took much longer than that, and besides I think you get my point. But maybe I should rephrase it:

How long is the single player in COD? In Splinter cell? In Black OPs? In Modern Warfare? Are they shorter or as long as ME2?

[ZombifiedJake]

I'm from the future. There's no multiplayer in ME3.

[cedgedc]

slimgrin wrote...

Noelemahc wrote...

Mass Effect's was 20h, so was ME2's. And that's on a non-speed-run first-time playthrough looking into every nook and cranny. 

Sorry, I don't buy it. Most people took much longer than that, and besides I think you get my point. But maybe I should rephrase it:

How long is the single player in COD? In Splinter cell? In Black OPs? In Modern Warfare? Are they shorter or as long as ME2?

You -can- rush through ME & ME2 in 20 hours, sure. I wasn't happy with playing a female shepard for ME2 cause my favorite hairstyle got tweaked to something I didn't like anymore. (Yup, I'm that shallow!) So I quickly replayed through ME1 with a male shepard so I could still have control over my history in me2

I think I got through it in one saturday. I also skipped 60% of the content. Anyone playing through the dlc, the side quests, the companion quests, and doing so at an average speed, not some speedgamer trying to set a record- isn't going to do it in 20 hours.

[termokanden]

slimgrin wrote...

How long is the single player in COD? In Splinter cell? In Black OPs? In Modern Warfare? Are they shorter or as long as ME2?

The way I see it, the CoD series isn't really much about the singleplayer anymore. It's really obvious in Black Ops, considering how awful its singleplayer component is.

As for ME1. It easily takes more than 20 hours if you are playing it for the first time and don't skip a lot of content/conversations. But if you already know everything, a playthrough takes much less than 10 hours.

Modifié par termokanden, 01 avril 2011 - 02:38 .

[cedgedc]

ZombifiedJake wrote...

I'm from the future. There's no multiplayer in ME3.

But there's a ME MMO right?! Are you living on mars??

[Noelemahc]

Sorry, I don't buy it. Most people took much longer than that, and besides I think you get my point. But maybe I should rephrase it:

How long is the single player in COD? In Splinter cell? In Black OPs? In Modern Warfare? Are they shorter or as long as ME2?

I got your point, that's exactly why I replied with only relevant games, citing my own playtime. I understand that the experience will be different for everyone and I did somehow sink 40+ hours into my first playthrough of Peace Walker, though it was artificially elongated by way of the copy-and-paste missions... sort of like Dragon Age 2, but with three copy-pasted maps instead of seven.

CoD's single-player has been a joke since day one of game one, I tend to dislike games whose SP you can complete in one evening. Splinter Cell varied from game to game, IIRC, Double Agent had the longest campaign and that was around 10 hours at best. I could bring up Elder Scrolls: Battlespire, the bug-ridden monstrosity that it was, with its (advertisements claim) 60-hour-long campaign that allowed competitive and cooperative MP, but I quit after two and decided never to come back to it.

But MP is no stranger to RPGs, though generally the immersionless ones. Hired Guns (both the Amiga original and the Unreal-driven remake), any Diablo-clone you can think of, I believe there were even NetHack forks which supported multiplayer. I could also bring up Neverwinter Nights, both the original and the BioWare-made in-name-only remake, but neither did really well in the RPGing aspect, at least out-of-the-box.

 It's really obvious in Black Ops, considering how awful its singleplayer component is.

Hey, it's the only non-WWII CoD whose story I actually LIKED!

As for ME1. It easily takes more than 20 hours if you are playing it for the first time and don't skip a lot of content/conversations. But if you already know everything, a playthrough takes much less than 10 hours.

Yes, that was part of my point =)

Modifié par Noelemahc, 01 avril 2011 - 02:47 .

[cedgedc]

Noelemahc wrote...



But MP is no stranger to RPGs, though generally the immersionless ones. Hired Guns (both the Amiga original and the Unreal-driven remake), any Diablo-clone you can think of, I believe there were even NetHack forks which supported multiplayer. I could also bring up Neverwinter Nights, both the original and the BioWare-made in-name-only remake, but neither did really well in the RPGing aspect, at least out-of-the-box.

Out of the box i'd agree with you, but this game held onto probably the strongest, largest multiplayer/roleplay community of any title I know. Hell there are still fully packed rp servers of 70 people to date.

[Noelemahc]

Using user-created content specifically to roleplay. We're discussing the possibility of a shoot-em-up multiplayer mode. That's why I was reluctant to mention NWN at all =) Jedi Knight still takes the cake as the weirdest roleplay-through-multiplayer-attracting community I've ever come across.

Modifié par Noelemahc, 01 avril 2011 - 02:57 .