138 réponses à ce sujet

[Mercuron]

Always been a big advocate for multiplayer, especially co-op, in a ME game. I think it works best in a spin-off or completely new game, but I see no reason it couldn't work in ME3, if the inclination was there.

I always see this 'resources taken away from SP' reaction - I think it's just as likely that in a dedicated SP game, MP resources won't be redistributed to SP so much as left out completely to keep costs down. In that situation, SP doesn't benefit at all from having no MP aspect being worked on. Of course there would be things to work out with the inclusion of MP and co-op modes, but I have faith enough that there are people in the industry who can cope with that.

From my perspective, it's merely a matter of inclination on the part of the devs and to some extent, the people bankrolling the project. The real barrier is fan prejudice, and THAT is what I think makes some games stagnate just as much as risk-adverse publishers, since rejecting change instead of accepting it is one of the best ways to ensure you always get the games you've always gotten.

Which I personally believe is a lot worse than the possibilities for slapstick in 16-player Shepard deathmatches. But yeah, just my 2c.

[Noelemahc]

From my perspective, it's merely a matter of inclination on the part of the devs and to some extent, the people bankrolling the project. The real barrier is fan prejudice, and THAT is what I think makes some games stagnate just as much as risk-adverse publishers, since rejecting change instead of accepting it is one of the best ways to ensure you always get the games you've always gotten.

Yup. Demand creates supply far more than supply dictates demand, basic rules of market economies there =)
At this rate, the BioWare fandom will turn into another No Mutants Allowed, when ANY change, no matter how insignificant, is rejected because it "makes everything wrong". In fact, judging from the reception DAO, DA2 (you hypocrites!) and ME2 each received when they just came out, it has already happened.

Modifié par Noelemahc, 02 avril 2011 - 06:45 .

[Arppis]

IF Multiplayer was co-op. I wouldn't mind! It could work. Maybe make the convos like in TOR? Players basicaly decide or throw dices what to say and who says it. I can see it being fun.

Deathmatch-type of multiplayer would just take loads of development time off the main game. That would be terrible. I wish that the co-op was in the ME3. But I doubt it will.

Modifié par Arppis, 02 avril 2011 - 08:29 .

[Pwener2313]

Do not fear MP, it is your future through destruction.

[Forsythia]

I don't want multiplayer in ME3, but if BioWare absolutely must put in some multiplayer component, please let it be something original and not just a tacked on shooter element. And most importantly, keep it 100% away from the singleplayer experience.

[Lunatic LK47]

ReiSilver wrote...

for all those saying 'multiplayer won't take resources away from singleplayer because there's a different team working on it'
You're forgetting this whole new team needs money and time. These are people they're hiring into the existing team and spending time getting them familiar with the style and universe of mass effect. Not to mention the time and money spent getting a mutiplayer system with even work and be balanced in ME universe

They COULD be spending this money and time on female aliens that have been invisible, improve shepards walking/running animation, a wider range of weapons, a working inventory, paying voice actors more for more squad banter and conversations, or even paying for more side missions with writing that connects them to the main plot!

I would rather have these things a thousand times over then unnecessary multiplayer that adds nothing to the single player experience.

Free beer for you, Silver.

[Lunatic LK47]

Mercuron wrote...

Always been a big advocate for multiplayer, especially co-op, in a ME game. I think it works best in a spin-off or completely new game, but I see no reason it couldn't work in ME3, if the inclination was there.

I always see this 'resources taken away from SP' reaction - I think it's just as likely that in a dedicated SP game, MP resources won't be redistributed to SP so much as left out completely to keep costs down. In that situation, SP doesn't benefit at all from having no MP aspect being worked on. Of course there would be things to work out with the inclusion of MP and co-op modes, but I have faith enough that there are people in the industry who can cope with that.

From my perspective, it's merely a matter of inclination on the part of the devs and to some extent, the people bankrolling the project. The real barrier is fan prejudice, and THAT is what I think makes some games stagnate just as much as risk-adverse publishers, since rejecting change instead of accepting it is one of the best ways to ensure you always get the games you've always gotten.

Which I personally believe is a lot worse than the possibilities for slapstick in 16-player Shepard deathmatches. But yeah, just my 2c.

Uh, there's something called Quality Assurance involved, and programming is a ****ing nightmare. Look at Halo 3: All of the focus on making multiplayer functional half-assed campaign with sporadic invincible glitches (where, I don't know, one space zombie footsoldier without energy shields miraculously survives a sledgehammer/sword/or rocket to the face?). On top of this, EA has had a track record of having **** netcode, and this is coming from someone who played Command & Conquer in 2007, not to mention had a hand with Battlefield 2 in 2005.

[DustxParticle]

Money issues aside [which, now that I think about it, is probably the sole if not defining issue]...

If there 'is' going to be a multiplayer element [say Death Match, soldiers versus biotics and what have you], why not just make a stand alone disc with the multiplayer game on it?

That way one won't have to worry about cutting into the space of ME3 content, that and it won't be a huge issue with voice acting, what.. a few "ENEMIES EVERYWHERE!" and "I WILL DESTROY YOU!" lines here and there.

Just throwing it out there, don't hate me.

Modifié par DustxParticle, 02 avril 2011 - 08:53 .

[Weiser_Cain]

Because multiplayer is mindless garbage. At best multiplayer still takes you out of the game (got vent?) with all the meta conversation (kick the guy without vent) and rushes you through scenarios.(random racism)

[JamieCOTC]

Adding MP to ME3 wouldn't be change. If anything it would be conformity. BW might be able to pull it off in an original way, but it's still conforming to the majority of shooters out there. I like change. Hell, experiment w/ the HUD, the combat system, the way the story is told, tweak the dialogue wheel to make it more visceral. I'm all for expanding and experimenting. What I'm not for is conformity and mediocrity, which is what we are likely to get if they add MP to ME3. After ME3, do whatever you want w/ it.

[Arken]

ReiSilver wrote...

for all those saying 'multiplayer won't take resources away from singleplayer because there's a different team working on it'
You're forgetting this whole new team needs money and time. These are people they're hiring into the existing team and spending time getting them familiar with the style and universe of mass effect. Not to mention the time and money spent getting a mutiplayer system with even work and be balanced in ME universe

They COULD be spending this money and time on female aliens that have been invisible, improve shepards walking/running animation, a wider range of weapons, a working inventory, paying voice actors more for more squad banter and conversations, or even paying for more side missions with writing that connects them to the main plot!

I would rather have these things a thousand times over then unnecessary multiplayer that adds nothing to the single player experience.

I basically said the same thing above you. Minus the voice acting, and animation stuff.

Point is folks that Bioware has limited funding, limited experienced staff, and limited time. Even if multiplayer was implemented it would probably be poorly done, because hopefully single player would remain their priority. Unless they start a spin-off that plans multiplayer from the start I just don't see decent multiplayer worming its way into Mass Effect.

[sympathy4saren]

Because Mass Effect is an rpg. With shooting elements. It's teetering on the brink, getting nudges from the shooter crowd to become a full-fledged shooter.

Multiplayer is another nudge in that direction. See, this new crowd of people (the Call of Duty fanbase BioWare wanted) needs to understand that we don't want Mass Effect to devolve into a shooter.

Yes. Devolve.

[sympathy4saren]

KAGEHOSHI- wrote...

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.

How dare anybody mention a first person shooter campaign as a good story. Laughable.

[Freeride600]

sympathy4saren wrote...

KAGEHOSHI- wrote...

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.

How dare anybody mention a first person shooter campaign as a good story. Laughable.

I quote thee wrong, indoctrinated follower of saren! /half kidding. 

Crysis is an excellent example of a FPS with good SP and MP.

[AdamNW]

I'd like to see a game built on Co-Op. One that isn't ME3.

[sympathy4saren]

Freeride600 wrote...

sympathy4saren wrote...

KAGEHOSHI- wrote...

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.

How dare anybody mention a first person shooter campaign as a good story. Laughable.

I quote thee wrong, indoctrinated follower of saren! /half kidding. 

Crysis is an excellent example of a FPS with good SP and MP.

How long is Crysis's storyline? Around 8 hours? I would honestly consider purchasing Crysis 2 if the gameplay in single player was longer.

Half-Life 2 and the entire Half-Life series has a great story, the best in any fps, but even Valve knows to create a seperate multiplayer component in Team Fortress 2.

Modifié par sympathy4saren, 03 avril 2011 - 05:43 .

[Freeride600]

sympathy4saren wrote...

How long is Crysis's storyline? Around 8 hours? I would honestly consider purchasing Crysis 2 if the gameplay in single player was longer.

Half-Life 2 and the entire Half-Life series has a great story, the best in any fps, but even Valve knows to create a seperate multiplayer component in Team Fortress 2.

Yeah, the Crysis SP campaign wasn't super long. But I replayed it countless times. Can't say for the second one.

Maybe the best bet would be to have ME3 SP only, like the rest of the series. And then, once profits are running low again, offer an expansion pack - or an entirely new, MP game. I dunno. 

[Terror_K]

For me the fact is as simple as this: any time, effort and money spent on multiplayer for ME3 could have been better spent on the single player stuff.

Unless ME3 turned out to be an absolutely perfect game in every conceivable way with massive variations and deviations based on your past import decisions, etc. and was at least twice as long as ME1 and ME2, if it had multiplayer in it I would always just frown at it and think of what could have been had the focus been placed somewhere more meaningful. It's all well and good to say, "well what if they had a dedicated MP team?!" but even then I'd respond, "that team could have been dedicated to something far more important, like really good exploration and sidequests, etc."

To me MP is a waste of time, effort and resources, especially in the third chapter of a trilogy that hasn't had it up until now.

[Gentleman Moogle]

I'll be honest, I'm not against MP in a ME game. Just not THIS ME game. Bioware has never done a multiplayer mode before except in BG2 -- which really wasn't that great, if we're honest with ourselves -- which means they'd pretty much have to figure it out from the ground up. Experimenting with a completely new gameplay mode in the crowning jewel of your current epic trilogy is just stupid from every angle.

Experiment in a new game, not the one that has thousands of fans anxiously awaiting the release.

[Dave666]

Personally I don't fear Multiplayer, I just have zero interest in it. If I wanted to play with other people i would play an MMO. I play RPG's to get away from the world which is the exact opposite of what happens when you are playing with someone else.

Modifié par Dave666, 03 avril 2011 - 07:23 .

[Asch Lavigne]

If they want multiplayer RPGs, Bioware should just make a new game series that has that feature instead of trying ti implement it into ME or DA, two games that already have an established single player experience. Adding a multiplayer mode would, in my opinion, really f*** the game up. Plus how could they do that correctly anyways? if you both played Sheps, who would get to make the decisions in the game? Who's Shep's save data would the game choose to run because it can't take both. And one person being Shep and another person being a squadmate is also a bad idea. And if you're thinking about a mode where you can have your Shep fight another persons Shep, we don't need this to turn into Halo with map packs and all those stupid kids that just f*** around with everyone.

I'm not afraid of it, I just think not every single game needs multiplayer. That's like the biggest complaint of any game that comes out anymore "No multiplayer, RAGE!" And again. ME and DA are established single player games, I think adding in multiplayer would ruin it.

[Dave666]

Asch Lavigne wrote...

If they want multiplayer RPGs, Bioware should just make a new game series that has that feature instead of trying ti implement it into ME or DA, two games that already have an established single player experience. Adding a multiplayer mode would, in my opinion, really f*** the game up. Plus how could they do that correctly anyways? if you both played Sheps, who would get to make the decisions in the game? Who's Shep's save data would the game choose to run because it can't take both. And one person being Shep and another person being a squadmate is also a bad idea. And if you're thinking about a mode where you can have your Shep fight another persons Shep, we don't need this to turn into Halo with map packs and all those stupid kids that just f*** around with everyone.

I'm not afraid of it, I just think not every single game needs multiplayer. That's like the biggest complaint of any game that comes out anymore "No multiplayer, RAGE!" And again. ME and DA are established single player games, I think adding in multiplayer would ruin it.

There's also the fact that players will complain.  In any game with PvP they have to get the balance absolutely perfect first time around or guess what happens?

Fans:The Soldiers not balanced against the Adept! --- So they nerf the Soldier

Fans:The Adept is not balanced against the Sentinel! --- So they nerf the Adept

Fans:Rage!! You nerfed the Adept and now the Soldier isn't balanced anymore! --- So they nerf the Soldier again.

Seventeen patches later and the game is unplayable with any class on single player because they've been 'balanced' to death.

Modifié par Dave666, 03 avril 2011 - 09:40 .

[Hyper_gateway]

Multiplayer is for you to play with someone else, but not a good idea on a RPG-shooter game.

Lets say you guys are exploring some space station then all the sudden one of your teammate have to log off and he beg you all to finish this mission until he's back. Will this kind of things ruin all the mood at that moment? Mass effect is always a very personal game that player can take time to enjoy it as long as you wanted to.

Please keep that to other ME universe related shooter game but not Mass Effect.

[Vyse_Fina]

Why no multiplayer?

Nobody wants it, nobody needs it. There is an abundance of MP games out there already. if I feel like playing MP I go and play those.
Apart from that there is the resources issue.

Since it is obviously comming though I'd suggest that at least something creative is done with it. Simple deathmatches won't cut it. Have objective based missions where each class has a certain job to do like sending an engineer through the pipes in the suicide mission.

[Evil_Weasel]

KAGEHOSHI- wrote...

Why is everyone so afraid of multiplayer? Are you guys afraid the MP
would take too much of the dev's attention away from the campaign? Or
perhaps you don't want the annoying immature fans of a certain
super-popular and overrated shooter to invade the ME community?

I myself use to play almost exclusively multiplayer shooters (team/objective-based shooters only, like Battlefield, MAG, Killzone) before playing ME2. Campaigns in multiplayer shooters  generally suck; bad story, and way too short, so if the fears of multiplayer leading to a dillutes singleplayer is justified... after playing ME2 though I really doubt Bioware would neglect singleplayer. Basically, I have faith in Bioware to not **** up the singleplayer.

If multiplayer does happen, there is something I am very afraid of. I fear Bioware might try to copy CoD, a game whose success is solely based off how easy and simple it is to the casual gamers. Mass Effect already has an awesome class system, I would rather they build upon that (and make the soldier class a medic... being the only class with assault rifles would get people to play as medics). I don't want it to be just a simple "guys with guns doing TDM, CTF and other boring unimaginative modes that every other shooter has done" kind of thing, I want diverse abilities, biotics, tech powers, interesting game modes that reward teamwork, and beautiful maps (When I did the Normandy Crash Site mission, I was so amazed by the snowy environment that I wished it was a map in one of the shooters I play). If an MP does happen, it probably won't be like this, it will probably be like CoD because thats the kind of crap that sells.

If you do want multiplayer for ME3 (and lets say it doesn't hurt the singpleplayer), how do you want it to be?

If you like ME then you need to stop worrieing about multi player as an option. Why? becouse if we have multi player in the game then the single player that you like will be degraded. Dont think so?

BOTTEM LINE, GAMES HAVE A BUGGET!!

The money guys that pay for the development of the game are not going to set aside ..... lets say $20 million for the game development and then just for the heck of it add another $10 million for seperate multi player development. What they are going to do is set up the bugget and perhaps pay one team to make the single player and the other make the multi player, but both groups will be paied from the same bugget.

If ME3 had multi player then the single player would suffer as the money for programers, artist, music, and voice acting would at best only last so long. Thats right, while they may use the same team for single and multi player so that the art styles match and what not, they are soaking up money every day they work wheather it is on the single player aspect or the multi player aspect thuss cutting into the development time of both.

If you want a well crafted single player expeirence then dont ask for multi player in ME3, go play a game with a great multi player commponet that obviously focused its resorces on that (sure its single player may be crappy, but the multi player is great) and let ME3 be a game that focuses on single player.