95 réponses à ce sujet

[KainrycKarr]

Xeranx wrote...

jamskinner wrote...

If they want this 4 player coop I would rather it be dlc. That way if you want it you pay for it.

They might lose out on that deal.  I certainly won't buy it.  Even if they offered it for free I wouldn't download it.

This.

[In Exile]

LPPrince wrote...
Because video game developers succeed in their field by taking risks and putting a lot of love and work behind their craft.

It'd be an innovative take on co-op. Much like the multiplayer of Assassin's Creed Brotherhood being very different from the usual multiplayer modes in other games.

Sure, but ROI matters. I don't know about AC's multiplayer. Never bothered with it.

[Commander Shep4rd]

Conversations basically ruin any chance of any co-op feature in ME3

[LPPrince]

In Exile wrote...

LPPrince wrote...
Because video game developers succeed in their field by taking risks and putting a lot of love and work behind their craft.

It'd be an innovative take on co-op. Much like the multiplayer of Assassin's Creed Brotherhood being very different from the usual multiplayer modes in other games.

Sure, but ROI matters. I don't know about AC's multiplayer. Never bothered with it.

Ooh man, I recommend you try it. If you still can, that is(Don't know if you traded the game in or not).

Its a slow, methodical, intricate multiplayer compared to the usual fast blood pumping rush that you get in other games.

[The Baconer]

LPPrince wrote...
Its a slow, methodical, intricate multiplayer compared to the usual fast blood pumping rush that you get in other games.

Unless roof runners feel like ruining your day. People still do that, right?

[LPPrince]

The Baconer wrote...

LPPrince wrote...
Its a slow, methodical, intricate multiplayer compared to the usual fast blood pumping rush that you get in other games.

Unless roof runners feel like ruining your day. People still do that, right?

Not from my experience.

[88mphSlayer]

i for one would love to have it, doesn't need to be in there to sell but i think people would appreciate the feature more than they think

[Homebound]

so whats being said is, 4p co-op is not whats unacceptable, its how its being used to exploit a fun game. that about right?

[ME-ParaShep]

Robhuzz wrote...

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

+the whole extranet

[Arijharn]

While I agree that ME is fun because it's an (awesome) single-player game, I can't really fathom the sentiment on people's thought process in how the prospect of it having 4 player co-op is instantly going to be horrible.

EA is a company that has many developers in it's stable, it doesn't mean that Edmonton's team is going to be the one responsible for it's implementation.

[turian councilor Knockout]

Anyone who wants 4 player co-op must have hit his/her head hard, better to have to a good game rather than 4 co-op ****ty game.

[tittoninja]

I don't like the idea of co-op would be acceptable atleast not on ME3 its fine if they make a mass effect game based on multiplaying.

[onelifecrisis]

ME-ParaShep wrote...

Robhuzz wrote...

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

+the whole extranet

+=1

[candidate88766]

A separate co-op campaign could work really well. You could get to play as different races and take advantage of their abilities. Imagine playing as a Krogan.

The way I can see it working is if they have some innovative gametypes. For example, there could be a mode where one of the players is indoctrinated and tasked with killing the other three without revealing their identity. They could almost go down the survival-horror route with this, splitting the four into pairs every now and again and cutting communication between the pairs, really straining the trust between the players (of course that'd only work with in-game chat as opposed to something like Xbox Live party chat).

A horde-style mode could also work well too. Imagine, for example, playing as a squad during the Skyllian Blitz. You'll die eventually, but you try to hold them off as long as possible.

I think there are plenty of ways that co-op could work. As long as it is separate to the main story, and as long as Bioware does something a little outside the box, I think it could be really good. I'm also quite disappointed with the number of people saying it'd be a disaster and that they'd never buy it without even giving Bioware a chance to show off what, if anything, they're doing with multiplayer. Even if you don't like multiplayer, is it not worth giving Bioware a chance before denouncing it as the worst thing ever? I think Bioware deserve that much at least.

[Lunatic LK47]

candidate88766 wrote...

I think there are plenty of ways that co-op could work. As long as it is separate to the main story, and as long as Bioware does something a little outside the box, I think it could be really good. I'm also quite disappointed with the number of people saying it'd be a disaster and that they'd never buy it without even giving Bioware a chance to show off what, if anything, they're doing with multiplayer. Even if you don't like multiplayer, is it not worth giving Bioware a chance before denouncing it as the worst thing ever? I think Bioware deserve that much at least.

Problem is the entire market is OVERSATURATED with multiplayer games. As it is, I've already lost interest in current-gen gaming mainly for the fact that they're completely disposable, and single-player games are few and far in between. As it is, multiplayer has a LIFESPAN OF A TIME BOMB. The next second the servers are shut down, or the community is gone, you can't play it anymore. I've seen this with the entire Tom Clancy franchise, and their online communities are dead unless you happen to own a PC capable of running those games. X-Box Live, I've seen very few people interested, and I don't blame them. All that's left for single-player is what, a few sand-box games, L.A. Noire, Mass Effect, Arkham City, BioShock (which I never showed interest in), and whatever Bethesda's cooking up (and I hold Bethesda with a VERY LOW regard after the ****fest that is Fallout 3.), and the Japanese industry that I gave up two years ago.

I've seen nothing but negative aspects about shoe-horning multiplayer into games that are primarily single-player, regardless of dedicated teams. Resident Evil 5's campaign sucked balls in the single-player department, and you're FORCED to do co-op because A.I. IS CRAP. Assassin's Creed Brotherhood had a MEDIOCRE CAMPAIGN. F.E.A.R. 3 is 4 hours long, and had rubber-banding issues. Dead Rising 2's multiplayer was HALF-ASSED.

[candidate88766]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

candidate88766 wrote...

I think there are plenty of ways that co-op could work. As long as it is separate to the main story, and as long as Bioware does something a little outside the box, I think it could be really good. I'm also quite disappointed with the number of people saying it'd be a disaster and that they'd never buy it without even giving Bioware a chance to show off what, if anything, they're doing with multiplayer. Even if you don't like multiplayer, is it not worth giving Bioware a chance before denouncing it as the worst thing ever? I think Bioware deserve that much at least.

Problem is the entire market is OVERSATURATED with multiplayer games. As it is, I've already lost interest in current-gen gaming mainly for the fact that they're completely disposable, and single-player games are few and far in between. As it is, multiplayer has a LIFESPAN OF A TIME BOMB. The next second the servers are shut down, or the community is gone, you can't play it anymore. I've seen this with the entire Tom Clancy franchise, and their online communities are dead unless you happen to own a PC capable of running those games. X-Box Live, I've seen very few people interested, and I don't blame them. All that's left for single-player is what, a few sand-box games, L.A. Noire, Mass Effect, Arkham City, BioShock (which I never showed interest in), and whatever Bethesda's cooking up (and I hold Bethesda with a VERY LOW regard after the ****fest that is Fallout 3.), and the Japanese industry that I gave up two years ago.

I've seen nothing but negative aspects about shoe-horning multiplayer into games that are primarily single-player, regardless of dedicated teams. Resident Evil 5's campaign sucked balls in the single-player department, and you're FORCED to do co-op because A.I. IS CRAP. Assassin's Creed Brotherhood had a MEDIOCRE CAMPAIGN. F.E.A.R. 3 is 4 hours long, and had rubber-banding issues. Dead Rising 2's multiplayer was HALF-ASSED.

It is oversaturated, but every now and again you do get something a little different. The Splinter Cell games are on example you mentioned, and while the servers are fairly empty the people still playing enjoy the game. There is a strong community which, while small, is far better than the community often seen in games like Bad Company 2 or Black OPs. Assassin's Creed Brotherhood did have a disappointing campaign, but the multiplayer was more of a focus. Bioware has made it clear that above all else the single player aspect is the focus of ME3. Any multiplayer would just be an added extra for the fans - lets face it, only the fans will play ME multiplayer and while it will likely have a small community if it ever arose, that community would be close-knit and dedicated.

I have more than enough faith that the single player will be untouched by any added multiplayer and that ME3 will be an amazing single player game. However, Bioware already took a risk by creating a new IP with ME1, and it paid off. They took a risk with ME2 by mixing up the standard genre features, and I'd argue it paid off. If they want to try their hand at co-op I'm sure they'll find a way to ensure it works for the fans - no one but the die-hard fans will play it for long, as those looking specificially for multiplayer will be looking at the other big games coming out like GoW3, BF3, MW3 and so on.

Any multiplayer in ME3 won't affect the quality of the single player campaign - Bioware are experienced enough to know that the single player side is what Mass Effect is all about. I just think that if they are going to try and branch out then they should have the support of the community, not be immediately chastised for it. I think they've earned that much, and we should be wishing Bioware every success in whatever they're trying to do.

[Lunatic LK47]

candidate88766 wrote...



I have more than enough faith that the single player will be untouched by any added multiplayer and that ME3 will be an amazing single player game. However, Bioware already took a risk by creating a new IP with ME1, and it paid off. They took a risk with ME2 by mixing up the standard genre features, and I'd argue it paid off. If they want to try their hand at co-op I'm sure they'll find a way to ensure it works for the fans - no one but the die-hard fans will play it for long, as those looking specificially for multiplayer will be looking at the other big games coming out like GoW3, BF3, MW3 and so on.

Thing is whatever time BioWare spends on doing those extras could be done to make sure another Conrad Verner import glitch doesn't happen. As it is, I face-palmed when I saw or heard news of the Kinect integration. Seriously, ME2 already had data enough import bugs as it was, and they want to not make sure the import-specific side-missions are not bugged? What am I going to get next, "Oh yeah, Conrad Verner died on Illium, despite the fact that I completed his side-mission properly?"

Any multiplayer in ME3 won't affect the quality of the single player campaign - Bioware are experienced enough to know that the single player side is what Mass Effect is all about. I just think that if they are going to try and branch out then they should have the support of the community, not be immediately chastised for it. I think they've earned that much, and we should be wishing Bioware every success in whatever they're trying to do.

Problem is regardless of who's responsible, what goes into one part of the budget will go for the other aspect of the game. It does not matter if the team is separate or not. Perfect example: Medal of Honor 2010 was done by two separate teams, but both campaign and multiplayer was outright mediocre. Not sure how the hell this happened, especially for a promising re-boot. On top of this, the devs need to get paid here.

As I mentioned, I've seen the worst-case scenarios from other games on the market, the last thing I need is history repeating itself just because A. they spread themselves too thin, or B. They did not have time to make sure it's working properly. As it is, I've seen online-capable games being plagued with nothing but glitches and campaigns getting shorter because OF IT. F.E.A.R. 3 for example has rubber-banding issues, on SPLIT-SCREEN CO-OP. I could also name a dozen matches of Modern Warfare 2 with connectivity issues or exploits. Resident Evil 5, I'm required to have another player if I want to avoid frustration with a badly-designed partner A.I.

Modifié par Lunatic LK47, 23 juin 2011 - 11:11 .

[88mphSlayer]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...
Assassin's Creed Brotherhood had a MEDIOCRE CAMPAIGN.

wow... i think i'm going to puke

*double-triple-ultimate-facepalm*

[candidate88766]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

candidate88766 wrote...
I have more than enough faith that the single player will be untouched by any added multiplayer and that ME3 will be an amazing single player game. However, Bioware already took a risk by creating a new IP with ME1, and it paid off. They took a risk with ME2 by mixing up the standard genre features, and I'd argue it paid off. If they want to try their hand at co-op I'm sure they'll find a way to ensure it works for the fans - no one but the die-hard fans will play it for long, as those looking specificially for multiplayer will be looking at the other big games coming out like GoW3, BF3, MW3 and so on.

Thing is whatever time BioWare spends on doing those extras could be done to make sure another Conrad Verner import glitch doesn't happen. As it is, I face-palmed when I saw or heard news of the Kinect integration. Seriously, ME2 already had data enough import bugs as it was, and they want to not make sure the import-specific side-missions are not bugged? What am I going to get next, "Oh yeah, Conrad Verner died on Illium, despite the fact that I completed his side-mission properly?"

Wasn't that pretty much the only glitched choice? And what makes you think that spending time on several features suddenly means they won't bother to check the import flags? They've already delayed it several months to ensure it polished and it works, and they are working with a larger team than they did in either of the previous two games, so adding features doesn't immediately mean something else will suffer.

As for that last bit, what? How did you get from Kinect compatibility to Conrad Verner dying? That makes no sense.

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

candidate88766 wrote...Any multiplayer in ME3 won't affect the quality of the single player campaign - Bioware are experienced enough to know that the single player side is what Mass Effect is all about. I just think that if they are going to try and branch out then they should have the support of the community, not be immediately chastised for it. I think they've earned that much, and we should be wishing Bioware every success in whatever they're trying to do.

Problem is regardless of who's responsible, what goes into one part of the budget will go for the other aspect of the game. It does not matter if the team is separate or not. Perfect example: Medal of Honor 2010 was done by two separate teams, but both campaign and multiplayer was outright mediocre. Not sure how the hell this happened, especially for a promising re-boot. On top of this, the devs need to get paid here.

As I mentioned, I've seen the worst-case scenarios from other games on the market, the last thing I need is history repeating itself just because A. they spread themselves too thin, or B. They did not have time to make sure it's working properly. As it is, I've seen online-capable games being plagued with nothing but glitches and campaigns getting shorter because OF IT. F.E.A.R. 3 for example has rubber-banding issues, on SPLIT-SCREEN CO-OP. I could also name a dozen matches of Modern Warfare 2 with connectivity issues or exploits. Resident Evil 5, I'm required to have another player if I want to avoid frustration with a badly-designed partner A.I.

Medal of Honour, F.E.A.R. and Modern Warfare were always designed with multiplayer in mind, so the resources for both single player and multiplayer were shared. Mass Effect 3 is being designed as a single player game (Bioware has said this all along and haven't even come close to confirming any kind of multiplayer) so any multiplayer in the game will come from whatever time/budget is left over. Besides, they've already been given more time to develop the game, I'm sure EA would be willing to help them out budget wise seeing as Mass Effect is one of their more popular franchises.

[Lunatic LK47]

candidate88766 wrote...

Wasn't that pretty much the only glitched choice?

Uh, the Citadel Consort was bugged (i.e. News report saying that she's leaving because of "information leaks", and I reconciled everyone.), and so was the "Besieged Base" side-mission (i.e. "Alliance soldiers tried to rescue hostages, but it was a massacre" newscast.). Sirta Foundation wasn't supposed to shut down but oops, the game assumed I killed the hostages, even if I completed the mission without any casualties.

And what makes you think that spending time on several features suddenly means they won't bother to check the import flags? They've already delayed it several months to ensure it polished and it works, and they are working with a larger team than they did in either of the previous two games, so adding features doesn't immediately mean something else will suffer.

Uh, if Conrad Verner's glitch slipped through the cracks for whatever reason, it means they didn't spend enough time on checking the imports. They had the burden of updating the entire gameplay system ME2 to boot, not to mention the need for "ME2 to stand alone for the n00bs."

As for that last bit, what? How did you get from Kinect compatibility to Conrad Verner dying? That makes no sense.

Uh, first off, the additional things take TIME to implement properly. Everything has to be functional first and foremost, and if someone forgot to make sure Conrad Verner's data import is working properly just because the team was too busy making sure Kinect was working properly, I'll be pissed. This is one worst-case scenario I'm expecting. I found it embarassing in ME2 that when Casey Hudson's promoting of the data import during one of his interviews using Conrad Verner as an example, it didn't work properly.

Medal of Honour, F.E.A.R. and Modern Warfare were always designed with multiplayer in mind

Uh, what do E3 demonstrations or teaser trailers prioritize first? The campaign. I went into Call of Duty solely for the campaign. I went into F.E.A.R. primarily for the campaign. Medal of Honor, Uh, why the reboot? Danger Close wanted to explore the current war with Afghanistan.

So the resources for both single player and multiplayer were shared.

Coming from someone that gamed for quite a while, I can tell a mile away on what aspect the developers focused more on. If one element of the game is lopsided, it normally means they half-assed something. F.E.A.R. 1 and 2 had a decent story, while F.E.A.R. 3 ended up being "co-op first, decent length campaign second."

Mass Effect 3 is being designed as a single player game (Bioware has said this all along and haven't even come close to confirming any kind of multiplayer) so any multiplayer in the game will come from whatever time/budget is left over. Besides, they've already been given more time to develop the game, I'm sure EA would be willing to help them out budget wise seeing as Mass Effect is one of their more popular franchises.

Like how Chris Priestly said ME2 was going to be an Xbox 360 and PC exclusive only until the PS3 version was confirmed half a year later? I'd rather have 100% dedicated to campaign rather than an "80% dedicated to campaign, 20% dedicated to multiplayer." 9 months isn't a good time frame to dump in multiplayer, no matter how it's spun.

Modifié par Lunatic LK47, 23 juin 2011 - 04:33 .

[Xeranx]

candidate88766 wrote...

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

candidate88766 wrote...
I have more than enough faith that the single player will be untouched by any added multiplayer and that ME3 will be an amazing single player game. However, Bioware already took a risk by creating a new IP with ME1, and it paid off. They took a risk with ME2 by mixing up the standard genre features, and I'd argue it paid off. If they want to try their hand at co-op I'm sure they'll find a way to ensure it works for the fans - no one but the die-hard fans will play it for long, as those looking specificially for multiplayer will be looking at the other big games coming out like GoW3, BF3, MW3 and so on.

Thing is whatever time BioWare spends on doing those extras could be done to make sure another Conrad Verner import glitch doesn't happen. As it is, I face-palmed when I saw or heard news of the Kinect integration. Seriously, ME2 already had data enough import bugs as it was, and they want to not make sure the import-specific side-missions are not bugged? What am I going to get next, "Oh yeah, Conrad Verner died on Illium, despite the fact that I completed his side-mission properly?"

Wasn't that pretty much the only glitched choice? And what makes you think that spending time on several features suddenly means they won't bother to check the import flags? They've already delayed it several months to ensure it polished and it works, and they are working with a larger team than they did in either of the previous two games, so adding features doesn't immediately mean something else will suffer.

It wasn't the only glitched choice.  We still have the Consort piece not going right.  Add to that the many issues with Shepard's movement. 

There's no in-game explanation for why Shepard moves the way they do.  Are they still recovering?  Obviously not since the cutscenes feature them moving normally.  It's a result of the armor.  Nope, since cutscenes are in-game (i.e. not a movie file) and utilizes whichever armor Shepard is wearing.  Also note that Shepard doesn't change size a la Jade Empire and is easy to see when talking that kid out of going after Archangel if you use female Shepard. 

Then there's Shepard's stance in dialogue scenes.  Her feet a planted straight, but her torso is twisted.





The first one I can maybe forgive, but the second?  These are awkward things that shouldn't exist in a "polished" game.  Especially one that's supposed to be more cinematic as it draws your eyes to awkward bits.  And all that should be technical stuff.

There's no telling what will happen with the inclusion of co-op or multiplayer.  It's better to leave that for another game rather than mess with the current series any more than has already been done.