1170 réponses à ce sujet

[Ace of Dawn]

spikoro5698 wrote...

Ok then i guess not. "So it can help your argument" LOL what? that was kinda... dumb.... but no, sides its gives you a pretty good general idea if you ask me wait till it builds up it will remain the same whether you like it of not, every single mass effect player there is could vote and it would STILL come out as NO being the majority get over it. on a more serious note though wait till it gets in the thousands and you will still be wrong NO will be the majority.

Yeah, except that poll was created in January.

My point is this. You originally claimed that it was the intelligent minority that wanted no multiplayer, and the majority should not impose their thoughts on them.

Here, the majority wants no multiplayer, and the minority is either indifferent or wants it. Since intelligence in association with what you play is ridiculous, should you original logic be applied here?

You can hate multiplayer all you want, I really don't mind that. Everyone has their own opinions, that's fine. Just don't claim that by playing one you are inferior in some way, or that it will destroy the game.

EDIT: Also, would like to apologize for messing up the coding for the quotes.

Modifié par Ace of Dawn, 06 août 2011 - 06:04 .

[jason9880]

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say multiplayer in ME3 will be as successful as DA2...

[spikoro5698]

[quote]Ace of Dawn wrote...

[quote]spikoro5698 wrote...

[quote]Ace of Dawn wrote...

[quote]spikoro5698 wrote...

690 votes proves nothing.

[/quote]

Im just going to hope that was sarcasm no offense....
[/quote]

Why? So it can help your argument? You can't speak of the majority of Mass Effect players and Gamers in generals, which number in the thousands, if that poll barely represents BSN as a whole.
[/quote]

Ok then i guess not. "So it can help your argument" LOL what? that was kinda... dumb.... but no, sides its gives you a pretty good general idea if you ask me wait till it builds up it will remain the same whether you like it of not, every single mass effect player there is could vote and it would STILL come out as NO being the majority get over it. on a more serious note though wait till it gets in the thousands and you will still be wrong NO will be the majority.
[/quote]

Yeah, except that poll was created in January.

My point is this. You originally claimed that it was the intelligent minority that wanted no multiplayer, and the majority should not impose their thoughts on them.

Here, the majority wants no multiplayer, and the minority is either indifferent or wants it. Since intelligence in association with what you play is ridiculous, should you original logic be applied here?

You can hate multiplayer all you want, I really don't mind that. Everyone has their own opinions, that's fine. Just don't claim that by playing one you are inferior in some way, or that it will destroy the game.

[/quote]

LOL if anything will destroy the game its multiplayer, sides we were talking about a different poll the one i was talking about is like a day old and had like 100 maybe 200 votes.

[Ace of Dawn]

spikoro5698 wrote...

LOL if anything will destroy the game its multiplayer, sides we were talking about a different poll the one i was talking about is like a day old and had like 100 maybe 200 votes.

Except you can't really back that up. It will only destroy the game because the moment everyone sees that MP is there, they will assume it means sacrifices were made to the story. Except, they won't. If there is MP, all signs point to Montreal developing the MP, leaving all the original resources for the singleplayer intact at Edmonton.

As for that poll, well... I guess I'll find that one, too...

[Candidate 88766]

spikoro5698 wrote...

Candidate 88766 wrote...

spikoro5698 wrote...
Which do you think is smarter the football fueled 13 year old kid who LOOOOVES call of duty and gears of war, or the older, more mature chess player? 

Chess requires more than one player...

Also, you spelt 'fuelled' wrong. If you are trying to appear more intelligent than people who play different games to you, you're doing it wrong. Although why you think that someone's intelligence is based on what games they play is beyond me. Many football games require a level of strategy most RPGs struggle to achieve.

LOL umm sorry, i guess? I apologize for spelling a word wrong? anyway, Im aware that chess requires more than one player as does COD i dont really get how that was relevant for you to say at all but whatever. The rest of the things you said i kinda agree on. 

Ok, the spelling thing was a bit dick-ish of me.

You seemed to believe that adding something requiring more than one player to ME3 instantly makes it dumb, and yet the 'intelligent' game of chess requires two players. Co-operative or competetive multiplayer in ME3 could be a genuinely tactical/strategic experience. 

Also, asking who is smarter out of a 13 year old or someone older seems a bit daft. The older person will almost certainly be smarter, regardless of whether they play chess.

[Candidate 88766]

Ace of Dawn wrote...

spikoro5698 wrote...

GAMERS in general and MASS EFFECT PLAYERS are two different things just because must gamers want multiplayer does not mean most mass effect players want multiplayer. and this forum more than proves my point on that. Also there was a poll posted asking if you want multiplayer or not in ME3 (i would post a link but it was pretty far back like page 16 or 20 or something along those lines) and when i checked 72% said NO 28% said YES so i rest my case there...

690 votes proves nothing.

Exactly. 690 is, at most, 0.035% of Mass Effect players. And thats just based on the 2 million copies sold in week 1. 690 people is an insignificant number of Mass Effect players.

[string3r]

Ah yes, more wasted dev time spent on something that wasn't needed.
Looks like EA's corruption of Bioware is complete.

[DetailedSubset]

jreezy wrote...

string3r wrote...

Ah yes, more wasted dev time spent on something that wasn't needed.
Looks like EA's corruption of Bioware is complete.

Ah yes, casting blame at the publisher witthout any proof that they've done anything wrong.<_<

when it's EA you need to proove they've done something right.

[KingDan97]

http://www.neogaf.co...6&postcount=149
Someone over at NeoGaf got their hands on the magazine.
"Well, if you believe the rumours - which we certainly do - ME3 will have MP. According to various sources, there will be a batch of 3 player co-op missions that run parallel to the main story, with each player assuming the role of a single squad mate. It seems likely that this will happen, and it'll form part of EA's Online Pass system. However devs have been known to ditch MP during development in the past, if it doesn't work..."
So, there you have it. All it consists of is the rumor that's been spreading already. No time on when it would be announced, and no real source. Not Hudson, not the doctors, just a random no body who hasn't even been confirmed as having any hand within the project.

[Vanaer]

MACharlie1 wrote...

If true...I blame Silverman. Just because.

So we sat down, here in Edminton and we all thought about how awesome it would be if you could hit  a button with pure awesome ness. So we made the awesome button! It's awesome! You shoul definetely buy this game. Button --> Awesome.

We also noticed that most people prefer co-up sex above solo sex. So we decided to add multiplayer! Awesome! Did I say awesome? Uber awesome. Guys you should definitely buy this! You can do a gang bang too! Awesome multiplayer romance! Awesome! We're also releasing a multiplayer trailer. Only loosers want to play alone. Real people drink mountain dew and play multiplayer... Because it's awesome!

/randommarketingbull****

[LGTX]

EA had no power over Bioware during their design decisions, that has been made clear. I know some of you don't believe it, that's normal, I'm not here to argue. Just saying I do believe.

Anyway, does anyone have the mag issue? I didn't sift through the last fifteen pages that appeared since I was last in here. Would appreciate to know when this thread's gonna die.

EDIT: thank you KingDan, I knew this thread was pointless. As was the reason for hiring whoever made the decision to dramatize the magazine cover text. 

Modifié par LGTX, 06 août 2011 - 06:24 .

[Ace of Dawn]

LGTX wrote...

EA had no power over Bioware during their design decisions, that has been made clear. I know some of you don't believe it, that's normal, I'm not here to argue. Just saying I do believe.

Anyway, does anyone have the mag issue? I didn't sift through the last fifteen pages that appeared since I was last in here. Would appreciate to know when this thread's gonna die.

Actually, the guy above you posted the paragraph with the info. It was posted here and there. All it says is that there are rumors of co-op missions. Nothing concrete, nothing solid, just propagating rumors.

As to why this topic hasn't died? People read the first post, maybe the first page, think they have a clear understanding of 30 pages of topics, and hit the reply button. More or less.

[King Minos]

I remember ea making a statement somewhere that multiplayer be in every game. Can someone back me up please? I think I saw this on cvg.

[LGTX]

Yeah I just read it, it wasn't there when I posted, this thread is like a supersonic jet Thanks anyway, I agree with you. I'm tuning out for good now, no need to be amidst a flamewar...

EDIT: see? I was actually replying to Ace of Dawn, but... you get the gist

Modifié par LGTX, 06 août 2011 - 06:26 .

[DetailedSubset]

jreezy wrote...

DetailedSubset wrote...

jreezy wrote...

string3r wrote...

Ah yes, more wasted dev time spent on something that wasn't needed.
Looks like EA's corruption of Bioware is complete.

Ah yes, casting blame at the publisher witthout any proof that they've done anything wrong.<_<

when it's EA you need to proove they've done something right.

Did you forget to put "don't" in your post or were you agreeing with me?

I mean that with EA you should assume the worst until it's prooved otherwise.

[Heather Cline]

I'll state this again IT HAS been confirmed by Casey Hudson the guy in charge of ME3 that there will be NO multiplayer in ME3. He stated such at the San Diego comic convention. It's in the bioware pulse episodes that were recorded and uploaded to the bioware pulse tv site. If anyone has any doubt to what I am saying go watch the pulse episodes he states it out and out that there is NO multiplayer planned for ME3. He said though that they may make a Multiplayer game for the ME universe in later games.

[Ace of Dawn]

LGTX wrote...

Yeah I just read it, it wasn't there when I posted, this thread is like a supersonic jet Thanks anyway, I agree with you. I'm tuning out for good now, no need to be amidst a flamewar...

EDIT: see? I was actually replying to Ace of Dawn, but... you get the gist

Haha, yeah. I knew you just posted as he did, so you missed it. No biggie.

As for me, I committ myself to a topic for a day or two, then leave it. And anything beyond 5 pages basically just loses all sense of cohesion and conversation.

[didymos1120]

KingDan97 wrote...

Someone over at NeoGaf got their hands on the magazine.

Someone here got it hours ago, which people would know if they'd read (or at least skimmed) the thread.

[DetailedSubset]

Heather Cline wrote...

I'll state this again IT HAS been confirmed by Casey Hudson the guy in charge of ME3 that there will be NO multiplayer in ME3. He stated such at the San Diego comic convention. It's in the bioware pulse episodes that were recorded and uploaded to the bioware pulse tv site. If anyone has any doubt to what I am saying go watch the pulse episodes he states it out and out that there is NO multiplayer planned for ME3. He said though that they may make a Multiplayer game for the ME universe in later games.

He also said there would be no same-sex romance and no new love intrests, strange how that works.
Same-sex romance and new LIs are not bad things but they are examples of things which turned out to be inclued despite what Casey Hudson said.

Modifié par DetailedSubset, 06 août 2011 - 07:19 .

[didymos1120]

King Minos wrote...

I remember ea making a statement somewhere that multiplayer be in every game. Can someone back me up please? I think I saw this on cvg.

No, they didn't say that. It's a very popular distortion though. Here's what was really said:

Taking into consideration what you’ve been saying about the importance of dev autonomy and, elsewhere, the need to add multiplayer to games, what if the Visceral team told you that multiplayer isn’t something that should be added to Dead Space? It’s not something completely unforeseeable, considering its genre.

Well, it’s not only about multiplayer, it’s about being connected. I firmly believe that the way the products we have are going they, need to be connected online. Multiplayer is one form of that.

Whether you think that's a good or bad thing, it's still not "MUST HAVE MULTIPLAYER NAO!"

[spikoro5698]

Ace of Dawn wrote...

spikoro5698 wrote...

LOL if anything will destroy the game its multiplayer, sides we were talking about a different poll the one i was talking about is like a day old and had like 100 maybe 200 votes.

Except you can't really back that up. It will only destroy the game because the moment everyone sees that MP is there, they will assume it means sacrifices were made to the story. Except, they won't. If there is MP, all signs point to Montreal developing the MP, leaving all the original resources for the singleplayer intact at Edmonton.

As for that poll, well... I guess I'll find that one, too...

the bottom line is, to me multiplayer will end badly to mass effect the series was fine without it and some of the resources will be taken away and used on something no one wants or needs, or asked for, the 360 has 9GB of disk space, mass effect 2 was crammed in on 2 disks and mass effect 3 is on a MUCH larger scale with more single player features (its a whole galactic war to crying out loud!) and multiplayer of any kind is 1-2GB so a much larger scale with less space? Come ON its simply just a bad sell-outish move to me. Good day 

[Iakus]

Ace of Dawn wrote...

iakus wrote...

I just have one question:

There's only a finite amount of space on a game disk. ME2 proves this by being on two disks and splitting recruitment between "pre-Horizon" and "post Horizon". If MP is added to the mix, even with a budget to account for that, what gets left out of the single player game? How many missions, planets, companions end up on the cutting room floor are made paid DLC as a result? THis is what I think people mean by multiplayer messing with the single-player experience.

Or are we suggesting there would be a separate "multiplayer disk" for ME3? That would be... odd... Much easier to just make a separate game. More profitable too.

This is a complicated issue.

If you look at the sizes of the games, you'll see that they don't completely fill up both discs. And really, a lot of the information is redundent between the discs (You can't explore illium on Disc 1, but you can go to Omega on either Disc).

Bioware has also stated that they have improved their compression data over ME1/ME2. So space may not be too much of an issue afterall.

Really, the MP side of things is surprisingly small. If MP forced things into DLC states, then it was likely the main game would have only been able to include a few extra things before doing the same.

And seperate discs isn;t entirely unusual. Halo 3: ODST did it.

See this is the kind of useful and polite dialogue I like to see.

Personlly I don't want to see multiplayer in ME3.  I do not hold to the rule that every game that involvs gunfights must have multiplayer.  And if it is in, I won't use it.  I haven't gone mp shooters since Goldeneye (the first time it was around)

But if I can be assured that having multiplayer in the game will not alter the single player experience one bit, that everything in the single player game was locked in before multiplayer gets addresed, and nothing at all was sacrificed, then I say fine, whatever.