115 réponses à ce sujet

[Nashiktal]

The irony here is that you proclaim to be worried about Bioware cutting anymore corners, and then you go and ask for bioware to add multiplayer.

You do know multiplayer takes resources away from singleplayer correct?

[nicethugbert]

Nohvarr wrote...

nicethugbert wrote...

I don't know what you mean by requirements here. 

Voice Actors: Which ME 2 has a lot of

Level design: More varied places to go in ME 2 than Deadspace 2

Plot: Which ME 2 has more of than Deadspace 2, plus character, and the players ability to affect the plot.

Character design: Take all the character you see in Dead Space 2, now compare that to the variety of aliens (hostile and non-hostie), humans (hostile and Non-hostile) and squad members. available in ME 2

The implementation of new gameplay: Dead Space 2 just tweaked the first games combat, ME 2 gave it a significant overhaul. Weapons were changed, given varying firing charateristics, the old rpg systems was replaced and  the graphics were upgraded.

MP extends replayability for me and I doubt it takes as much time to develope as it does to develope that extra 15 hours of SP content. 

That's time taken away from the single player expierence, if it's done right. Let's compare Neverwinter nights (another bioware game) to Knights of the Old Republic. NWN wasn't bad, but it focused a lot more on MP from the beginning and it shows when you compare the games plot, characters and storyline to KOTOR.

 And, considering that SPers think 30 hours of content is a rip off, the cost of MP is negligible.

So SPers would be happy with an even worse single player expierence as long as the multiplayer is fun? Please enlighten me.

You are exagerating the complexity of MP.  MP is not adding anything new.  It's just replacing the NPCs with more PCs.  Just look at all the MP play time that Diablo II got.  There are lots of examples of light weight MP that keeps games playing for months if not years.  Look at Modern Warfare 2.

SP is getting less and less content all the time anyway, again Modern Warfare 2, while BW hasn't done MP since 2002 with NWN1.

So, really, MP is not getting in the way of a good SP experience because game companies are cost cutting and SP is where most of the cost is.  MP is actually a good return on investment.  It costs a lot less to develop, plus, MPers tend to buy content/DLC to keep their fav game fresh.

To reiterate, lots of good looking games are coming out this year and the next.  I'm not going to buy even a fraction of them.  The ones with MP will stand out because MP = Replayability.  I can play an SP module only so many times and not nearly as much as MP.  And, replayability keeps me vested in a series. 

If ME3 goes back towards ME1 game mechanics, I will not be interested as I think that without a toolset and MP, ME1 is too full of cruft and cluter.  I think BW got it right with ME2 considering that it has no longevity.  It's focused and since there is nothing to do but replay the same missions over and over again the boredom will set in no matter what so there is no purpose to having a more complicated system.  But, after inventing a good simple system like ME2's then where is there to go?

This is where MP becomes more significant.  It provides the difference in a sea full of nice story cinematic modules.

[nicethugbert]

Nashiktal wrote...

The irony here is that you proclaim to be worried about Bioware cutting anymore corners, and then you go and ask for bioware to add multiplayer.

You do know multiplayer takes resources away from singleplayer correct?

You do know that SP resource overshadow MP resources, right?

[Nohvarr]

Ladies, Gentlemen, I leave this to you all, I'm done arguing about this, especially when Bioware is on record as saying that doing MP right, would take up too much of their time and resources, and hurt the single player expierence.

[nicethugbert]

Nohvarr wrote...

Ladies, Gentlemen, I leave this to you all, I'm done arguing about this, especially when Bioware is on record as saying that doing MP right, would take up too much of their time and resources, and hurt the single player expierence.

What does "doing MP right" mean?  You're ignoring lots of good MP/SP examples.  BG had MP and SP players still clammor for another BG.

[bald man in a boat]

No worries. Liked both games.

[Walker White]

nicethugbert wrote...

You are exagerating the complexity of MP.  MP is not adding anything new.  It's just replacing the NPCs with more PCs.  Just look at all the MP play time that Diablo II got.  There are lots of examples of light weight MP that keeps games playing for months if not years.  Look at Modern Warfare 2.

You are clearly not a game designer.  PvP game balance is not even remotely the same as PvE balance.  That is a lot of extra work. There is a reason that Starcraft II has different units in the single player and multiplayer modes.

[Gatt9]

Walker White wrote...

nicethugbert wrote...

You are exagerating the complexity of MP.  MP is not adding anything new.  It's just replacing the NPCs with more PCs.  Just look at all the MP play time that Diablo II got.  There are lots of examples of light weight MP that keeps games playing for months if not years.  Look at Modern Warfare 2.

You are clearly not a game designer.  PvP game balance is not even remotely the same as PvE balance.  That is a lot of extra work. There is a reason that Starcraft II has different units in the single player and multiplayer modes.

This.

Two major problems....

1.  Balance and PvP related activities.  Balancing PvP is a nightmare,  because you cannot have one class that overshadows everything,  everything has to be rebalanced.  No one cares if a high level character is God-mode in single player.  Do it in Multiplayer and you're going to get flooded with complaints.

2.  Network code,  especially retrofitting it into an engine that didn't originally support it.  This is a massive undertaking,  it requires redoing everything,  because now you have to keep updating everyone's position dynamically,  in all areas on the current map.  Plus there's timing issues,  to prevent Super-speed cheaters,  security issues,  authetication issues,  and much more.  This is an easy additional 6-12 months at a minimum in extra development time,  for something that's really out of place in a narrative driven game.

Waste of resources.

[AngelicMachinery]

Shepard Lives wrote...

By golly, I thought this was going to be one of the usual. disgustingly haughty RPG elitist rants and what do I get? A thread asking for multiplayer.

I take my hat off to you, good sir. You took me by surprise.

Also, keep your multiplayer the hell away from my ME.

I agree with this person.

[Elite Midget]

#1 Worry.

Ashley in Catsuits.

[The Spamming Troll]

ME1 never needed a multiplayer becasue it was such a well put together game. i do think ME2 needed a multiplayer aspect because it lacks in both RPG and shooter. ME3 hopefully wont need a multiplayer aspect to pick up for its lack of singleplayer.

[CmmndrShepard]

I personally cann't wrap my head around a gay John Shepard. If you play as male Shep, his sexual orientation was established in the first two games, so I think it's illogical that that would chamge in the third game

[nickkcin11]

aang001 wrote...

...but they still refuse CO-OP or Multiplayer... This is a key feature to ALL shooters. If you want to be a shooter RPG, then act like it! THere are other shooter RPGs out there doing better and have more options and have CO-OP and Multiplayer! I cant figure out whats so hard about making a good one?!

Mass Effect better not have multiplayer or co-op or I'll kill your dog (not really but... fear me!). There were two disks for ME2 as it is, imagine adding multiplayer in the mix. That would be way too much programming and the story (the part all of US care about) mode would suffer.

[blackashes411]

Since Bioware has already stated they have no intentions of including multiplayer, threads like these FINALLY do not give me the paranoia/fear of developers lurking around here to seriously consider MP as something worthwhile. 'Cuz it's not. *weight off shoulders*

[Bluko]

aang001 wrote...

My other worry is Bioware claiming that they are trying to hang with the big fish by improving there combat.. They finally have knives, customizable parts for the guns(Bout time), but they still refuse CO-OP or Multiplayer... This is a key feature to ALL shooters. If you want to be a shooter RPG, then act like it! THere are other shooter RPGs out there doing better and have more options and have CO-OP and Multiplayer! I cant figure out whats so hard about making a good one?! I'm sick of the stupid AI partners and there are a ton of missions that would be easier to deal with and kill (*% of my frustraition if I had a human partner that didnt get stuck in geometry, left behind, glitch out and stop fighting, fall thru the floor or covering wrong and instant dying at random!

Wait... someone asked for multiplayer?! That is word forbidden on the BSN! This is blasphemy! This is madness!

The reality is Mass Effect would likely sell better if it had MP simply because there's a lot of people out there who'll buy any Shooter out there that includes MP. Like it or don't that's how it is. Also a lot of people feel MP adds much more longevity to the game. Your typical gamer does not want to play through the same singleplayer portion more then once. Just a reality. It's doubtful there are actually that many people who play through Mass Effect more then say twice. (Here on these forums sure, but then only those with a strong interest for the game are going to even come here and post. And forum posters are a minority and can't be considered true representatives.)

I don't vehemently oppose MP here like most folks do. I can see that if done right, it could add a lot to the game. But Bioware has yet to release a true multiplayer game so this would be treading murky water for them. The reality is an MP portion added to ME3 just would not be very good since Bioware lacks the experience.

[Zemious]

Shepard Lives wrote...

By golly, I thought this was going to be one of the usual. disgustingly haughty RPG elitist rants and what do I get? A thread asking for multiplayer.

I take my hat off to you, good sir. You took me by surprise.

Also, keep your multiplayer the hell away from my ME.

Shepard Lives. I like this side of you, its turning me on.


Amen. How massively devoid of intelligence does the topic poster have to be?


THIS IS AN RPG, not your godamn blackops/gears of war hybrid of death.

[PPF65]

Dear OP, I don't want multiplayer in ME3. Developing multiplayer takes time that would be better spent developing the single player aspect. If I wanted to play a miltiplayer shooter, I'd play Counter Strike.

Adding multiplayer wont make me buy ME3, but taking all the positive things about all their past games, and fixing the mistakes to make ME3 their best game yet absolutely will.

[Zemious]

Why isnt this topic locked? This dude is an obvious retard.

[The_11thDoctor]

Nohvarr wrote...

They already said ME 3 will be more like ME 1 in terms of story so that means more traveling around from planet to planet. We've already confirmed a number of worlds like the Salarian homeworld, the moon of the Turian homeworld, etc.

As for Tali's face, somethings are better left to the imagination.

As for Multiplayer, many here feel that it takes time away from the creation of the single player game. Thus they'd rather that energy be focused on the story and not tacked on multiplayer.

Well that sounds almost fine on paper, but it doesnt seem they do much with the time they have if DA2 was any indication. ME2 wasnt the greatest either, but it wasnt as bad as DA2 turned out... Uncharted has managed to do well creating a MP mode that fits in UC and I dont see how ME cant have the same.

On the noteof Tali's face....NO. Just NO. There is no reason for them not letting us see it. They even had quarians without there suits in the books, talked about how quarians have sex with humans in the games etc and they cant figure out what 1 quarian looks like?! I dont care if it's not what I imagine! I just want some closure on what they came up with!

[Someone With Mass]

Zemious wrote...

Why isnt this topic locked? This dude is an obvious retard.

Oh, the irony...

[The_11thDoctor]

Bogsnot1 wrote...

aang001 wrote...

Multiplayer is an option that should exist. You dont have to use it. But most the rest of my complaints are mainly on the quality and lack of everything!

ME1 and ME2 were both succesful without any form of multiplayer included. Any argument you bring to the table as to why it should exist are null and void.
All your talk of "other shooter rpgs" are also void, as you only have to look at the quality of RP on those multiplayer servers to know that they are no longer RPG's, just shooters with immature players who swear and lack the ability to spell in the midst of their nerdrage.

Your arguement is null and void.

You didnt even make a point... Then the point of you finding players who are immature or swear makes no sense. You would be adding your friends to play with you, not random strangers if it was CO-OP. If MP, which is separate, there is mute like in all games that have MP and the times you run into people like that are far and inbetween. Unless your playing a shooter with that crowd only. I have yet to run into that problem. Maybe you had 1 bad experience and blamed all shooters for that?

[The_11thDoctor]

DeadLetterBox wrote...

To address the OP argument:

I don’t think laziness is the issue. Problems can creep in for all kinds of reasons, and often what one person sees as a problem another does not. I don’t think ME2 cut a lot of corners, though I do see an argument that their style choices for the game weren’t perfect.

I agree that I would like to see turian women, but there are good reasons not to see krogan women. In a race that is dying through lack of reproduction it makes sense that you wouldn’t see any. Of course, Inamorda could have been a woman. We don’t know how different krogan women are from krogan men.

As far as co-op or multiplayer… I would love to see a Mass Effect co-op, but not in one of the Shepard games. It doesn’t make any sense at this point. We’ve spent all this time developing Shepard, and suddenly Joe Smith comes in and is our best bud? No, that needs to be in from the start. I never play multiplayer, so this isn’t all that important to me.

While you can’t just travel to a planet and look around, you can go to other planets and find stuff to do. It frequently does involve planet scanning, but I am sure you can find a list somewhere of the planets that have missions on them. Some of those missions are very entertaining.

I have major issues with DA2 myself, but that’s a different dev team so I’m not stressing it.

There are a lot fewer glitches and bugs in ME2 than I saw in ME1.

No multiplayer in a shooter makes perfect sense when you want that game to focus on one character. I don’t think all the RPG has been taken out of the game. I’m glad to hear some stuff is going back in, but my biggest thing with RPG is story, and this story needs a lot of dialog. Comparing Mass Effect to JRPGs is apples and oranges. They’re different sorts of games. I’ve never played a JRPG where the story changed based on my decisions.

You can take exception to what BioWare does, and to the decisions they’ve made, but saying they are lazy and don’t want to do anything that takes effort is ignorant. Mass Effect 2 was a game that had obvious care and energy put into it.

THey mentioned Krogan women in ME2 and had a body offscreen suppposedly... They should have them just to let us see what they look like . They have battles all the time over women on Tuchunka so they said and I dont see why we cant see one.
Garrus mentioned fighting and having sex with a female turrian in ME2 and I dont see why they cant show one in ME3.
I do agree JRPGs and WRPGs are different and I really shouldnt even brought that up. BUt it's just sad seeing the difference in amount of detail put into a game from different sides of the world.
As far as the effort goes in ME2, that's still debatable. Call it ignorant in your eyes, but I say it was minium at best. They put effort in the story, sure, but in everything else? Debatable... I'd break it down if I had the time...

[TheBlackBaron]

aang001 wrote...
I do agree JRPGs and WRPGs are different and I really shouldnt even brought that up. BUt it's just sad seeing the difference in amount of detail put into a game from different sides of the world.

Final Fantasy fans would beg to differ with you. 

[The_11thDoctor]

Blarty wrote...

Half of the issues with DA2 stem from it being called '2' which in terms of defining a 'sequel', carried a lot of expectations that weren't delivered on. Though I have some issues with DA2 I've played far, far worse games, and overall I don't dislike the game

It's fun, dont get me wronge. I love the new fighting system. It was actually playable VS DAO. But the lack of you shaping your Hawke, having anything you say matter, being able to have choices and affect anything, lack of party armor, spells taken away, no finishers wich they promised, females of the dwarfs or qunaries, Story had inconsistantcies, and the F#&* ton of game breaking glitches... All the freezing and having to restart your system, pieces of the world missing and you being able to see the sky thru the floor or walls, textures missing and objects being just black, enemies glitching out, party memebers glitching and thinking the fight is over mid fight and you having to restart the fight so they would help you again, being stuck in endless loops etc... I could write pages on what I ran into in DA2... Thank the Maker...that they are a different team, cause if ME3 was being handled by the DA2 team, I would never buy a product again from Bioware. It would take a miracle for me to believe in that team again. ME2 at least wasnt that bad, but I feel ME1 was still better in a ton of ways. They did make the fighting better in 2 though. Turns out 90% of what you did in ME1 had no effect though... I doubt ME2 will have any real effect either. Just like DAO had no effect on DA2, so it seems.

It seems DA and ME give the illusion of choice, but there is no choice in both series... 

[Someone With Mass]

Why do we need multiplayer in the final installment, when the rest of them have managed just fine without it?

Why do we need to force BioWare to completely redesign everything and postpone the release date with another year?

Why can't we just have one good singleplayer game that isn't plagued by a ****ty multiplayer part that no-one in existence will play a few months after the release?