95 réponses à ce sujet

[Homebound]

l4d made it work, why r we underselling the me3 devs?

[BloodyTalon]

Hellbound555 wrote...

l4d made it work, why r we underselling the me3 devs?

Think the concern is more EA then the bioware devs judging form what people here have said in the past.

[Rockworm503]

Hellbound555 wrote...

l4d made it work, why r we underselling the me3 devs?

Oh wow a Zombie killing game designed as a 4 player Co-op from the start worked as a Co-op game!

Modifié par Rockworm503, 22 juin 2011 - 01:36 .

[Tasker]

Arijharn wrote...

So... how do you think 4player co-op could be acceptable?

By not being implemented in the first place.

[Bogsnot1]

Zebron is reaL wrote...

LuPoM wrote...

Knight of Dane wrote...
"So... how do you think 4player co-op could be acceptable?"
Easy, it couldn't..

Pretty much this

yep.

+1

[Kaiser Shepard]

LPPrince wrote...

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

A seperate Firefight/Horde-like mode.

You have no idea how tired I am of modes like these.

But, its not up to me, and I can avoid it if I choose to.

But gah, I'd like to see more multiplayer games without "No-win" modes where you just shoot till you die.

It isn't about not being able to win in the end, but rather just about having a blast with a couple of mates while you try to get a routine that works for you. That and the infamous Recon Armor.

For me, the 2+ hours spent on Halo ODST's Alpha Site map (during our final effort) surpasses nearly everything I've ever experienced in a videogame, including the current BioWare series. Nothing quite like finally having a strategy and routine in which everyone has a role that works for him, which works so good that you can actually afford to drop out for a minute or two to pee.

[Hathur]

Not even remotely interested in any type of multiplayer.. co-op or otherwise.

I play Mass Effect for it's rich characters, exotic locations & enjoyable story... a multiplayer element holds zero value to me and I wouldn't ever touch it (much like bulletstorm.. I played it because I found it was a delightfully crass, funny game... but I never touched the multiplayer once.. my interest was purely in the characters of the game and the abundance of low-brow humor).

To be fair, I seldom ever play any form of multiplayer game at all... closest thing I played was a mmo for a few months about 4+ years ago. I like to play games at my own pace the way I want... sometimes I'll see some small detail off in the distance and just wander over to stare at it for a few moments rather than focusing just on the gameplay all the time....

People in multiplayer games don't tolerate that and I don't want to be pushed / pressured to play in a way that appeases them... I take my time in games and prefer to have the time to "smell the roses", as it were. 

Modifié par Hathur, 22 juin 2011 - 02:17 .

[LPPrince]

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

LPPrince wrote...

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

A seperate Firefight/Horde-like mode.

You have no idea how tired I am of modes like these.

But, its not up to me, and I can avoid it if I choose to.

But gah, I'd like to see more multiplayer games without "No-win" modes where you just shoot till you die.

It isn't about not being able to win in the end, but rather just about having a blast with a couple of mates while you try to get a routine that works for you. That and the infamous Recon Armor.

For me, the 2+ hours spent on Halo ODST's Alpha Site map (during our final effort) surpasses nearly everything I've ever experienced in a videogame, including the current BioWare series. Nothing quite like finally having a strategy and routine in which everyone has a role that works for him, which works so good that you can actually afford to drop out for a minute or two to pee.

Ha, I have Recon Armor too.

Difference is, my friends didn't do it with me(Firefight on Alpha Site in ODST, at least), so I had to sit through that long game type with randoms.

But even when I do play Horde type modes with friends, it feels pointless. Like there's no reward. I want us to do so well that there's a "You won" thing, and its over.

I feel like it just goes on till you fail, and I don't like failing. But hey, that's just how I see it.

I have to admit that sometimes its fun, but most of the time for me it really isn't.

[ArcanistLibram]

Co-op of any kind is completely incompatible with the current format of Mass Effect, much less 4 player co-op, which would be one more player than the squad allows.

[Robhuzz]

Bogsnot1 wrote...

Zebron is reaL wrote...

LuPoM wrote...

Knight of Dane wrote...
"So... how do you think 4player co-op could be acceptable?"
Easy, it couldn't..

Pretty much this

yep.

+1

+2

[raynbow]

it will not work
it can be a side project and a seperate game completely like alliance vs. cerberus...no sheps needed
but not for me3
no...just no

[Raxxman]

Slidell505 wrote...

Stand alone campaign like in splinter cell. They could tell another side of the story through co-op. Like what Cerberus is up to or what Anderson is doing on earth.

This would be the way to do it.

[craig 90]

LPPrince wrote...

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

A seperate Firefight/Horde-like mode.

You have no idea how tired I am of modes like these.

But, its not up to me, and I can avoid it if I choose to.

But gah, I'd like to see more multiplayer games without "No-win" modes where you just shoot till you die.

I dont see why people like these types of modes I for one hate to die in any game i play.

[RyuGuitarFreak]

How could it be acceptable? The best way, in my opinion, is not being the game.

[In Exile]

No. I will buy ME3 because I'm invest if any multiplayer feature is announce, but I'm boycotting the game after, depending on how much lost content co-op means.

LLP,

Your system would be very resource intensive. Having 4 main character members (e.g. as much dialogue as Shepard for 4 squadmates) is likely prohibitively costly.

[xX N7 Xx]

I would love to see a Horde type of game for ME: 3

[TheCrakFox]

I think it could work.

It would be best as several sperate missions, instead of one short campaign. There's no poinmt trying to develop characters and a plot when the players are chatting.

It would be a good way to play as several different races, seeing the war from different angles.
I guess most missions would have us completing objectives as part of the resistance on different worlds.

EDIT: I don't want to see a Horde mode rip off, proper missions with objective would be much better.

Modifié par TheCrakFox, 22 juin 2011 - 03:40 .

[LPPrince]

In Exile wrote...

LLP,

Your system would be very resource intensive. Having 4 main character members (e.g. as much dialogue as Shepard for 4 squadmates) is likely prohibitively costly.

I said less dialogue since its a multiplayer game, but more than usual for those types of games.

[DaringMoosejaw]

If they put it in another game.

[In Exile]

LPPrince wrote...
I said less dialogue since its a multiplayer game, but more than usual for those types of games.

Shepard has something like 10x the amount of dialogue other NPCs have. Even if you cut that by 2/3rd, with 4 players, that means the whole party will still has more dialogue than Shepard. And based on your design, that essentially means shorterning the talking parts about of the game to 1/3rd of ME1-ME2.

[KainrycKarr]

In a spin-off.

[KainrycKarr]

Hellbound555 wrote...

l4d made it work, why r we underselling the me3 devs?

....Are you kidding me? There WAS no SP campaign in L4D, the MP was the meat and potatoes.

L4D and Mass Effect don't belong in the same sentence, category, or genre.

[LPPrince]

In Exile wrote...

LPPrince wrote...
I said less dialogue since its a multiplayer game, but more than usual for those types of games.

Shepard has something like 10x the amount of dialogue other NPCs have. Even if you cut that by 2/3rd, with 4 players, that means the whole party will still has more dialogue than Shepard. And based on your design, that essentially means shorterning the talking parts about of the game to 1/3rd of ME1-ME2.

That implies that dialogue would have the same utility that Shepard has with it in these games. I'm not pushing for that.

Plus, the game would be shorter than the ME games by quite a bit(the multiplayer would likely be more favorable to co-op campaigns).

Dialogue being chosen in co-op shouldn't be overdone. It wouldn't be a major feature. A cool feature for sure, but not something that takes up a huge chunk of the game.

Reason being there's a delicate balance with that idea. It'll either succeed quite well or fail horribly.

[In Exile]

LPPrince wrote..

That implies that dialogue would have the same utility that Shepard has with it in these games. I'm not pushing for that.

What would be the role, then? You have to have some way of picking up quests.

Plus, the game would be shorter than the ME games by quite a bit(the multiplayer would likely be more favorable to co-op campaigns).

Dialogue being chosen in co-op shouldn't be overdone. It wouldn't be a major feature. A cool feature for sure, but not something that takes up a huge chunk of the game.

Reason being there's a delicate balance with that idea. It'll either succeed quite well or fail horribly.

So the co-op is just combat mainly? Then why invest heavily into reconstructing a new online multiplayer dialogue system? That would probably cost a lot, development wise.

[streamlock]

1. Get outside help from online coop vet devs.
2. Tie it into the story-such as what the Reaper resistance was doing on earth (just an example) while Shep was joy riding in the Normandy.
2b. Make it story driven.