1170 réponses à ce sujet

[Commdor]

KingDan97 wrote...

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.

So that's it? The magazine was only rumormongering. I feel sorry for BioWare, getting all this flak over nothing.

[LuPoM]

marshalleck wrote...

Ruud333 wrote...

Just bought the mag and there is one tiny paragraph that says: "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 they just quoted the usual rumours and put the word 'multiplayer' on the cover.

:-/

Gonna get on with the rest of my shopping.

Heh, called it. 

Just regurgitating the rumors that have been circulating for months in order to move copies off the newsstand.

You can't imagine what a HUGE releif you just gave me my faith in Casey words were falthering and now I'm soooo relieved

[spikoro5698]

Candidate 88766 wrote...

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.

I can respect what you said there, BUT you REALLY over looked the whole intelligence thing it was a metaphor example to make my point a bit clearer and you took it to a whole new level <_<  co-op, competitive, i dont care i am against it as a mass effect fan i stated my reasons in my recent comment. mass effect is FINE without it and has been, no one asked for this, in fact most people asked for the opposite its gona turn out BADLY. i can see it now

*flashes to april 29 2012*
*goes to metacritic*

Mass effect: 91
Mass effect 2: 96
Mass effect 3: 83

*reads review*

"it seems that bioware has decided to cater to the COD fragheads and has left behind what made its predecessors so great this has to be its worse fail since Dragon age 2, the multiplayer is unneeded and is full of bugs as well as not polished and not fun 4/10"

*shudder*

maybe if im as optimistic as you things might go well... might... 

[Ace of Dawn]

spikoro5698 wrote...

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 

Fair enough, I can certainly see your point here. Now the only facts that can be provided at this point will be when the game ships, to see the quality at the end.

Would like to point out though, that each of the Mass Effect discs use only 6, to 6.5 gigs. Honestly, I thought you had the wrong number when saying 9 gigs since I have never seen a game that large, but it's true. Weird that space is an issue if few games ever go that far (most I have seen is 6.5. Is there 2.5 gigs being used for something else consistently?)

[spikoro5698]

Ace of Dawn wrote...

spikoro5698 wrote...

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 for 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 

Fair enough, I can certainly see your point here. Now the only facts that can be provided at this point will be when the game ships, to see the quality at the end.

Would like to point out though, that each of the Mass Effect discs use only 6, to 6.5 gigs. Honestly, I thought you had the wrong number when saying 9 gigs since I have never seen a game that large, but it's true. Weird that space is an issue if few games ever go that far (most I have seen is 6.5. Is there 2.5 gigs being used for something else consistently?)

Do you have any any idea how hard it is to write enough code to fully optimize and max out nine gigs? theres a reason each one is like 6.5GB trust me. 

Modifié par spikoro5698, 06 août 2011 - 07:01 .

[Ace of Dawn]

spikoro5698 wrote...

Do you have any any idea how hard it is to write enough code to fully optimize and max out nine gigs? theres a reason each one is like 6.5GB trust me. 

Oh, no doubt. It's just surprising is all. I would expect at least someone out there to have tried.

[spikoro5698]

Neofelis Nebulosa wrote...

spikoro5698 wrote...

Ace of Dawn wrote...

spikoro5698 wrote...

The Big Bad Wolf wrote...

I'm really hoping for some co-op in ME3.

GTFO and go play call of duty or something. why would you ruin the experience of a large majority just because you are a more casual, less intelligent minority? Im starting to think that your trolling bro.

Cool story, bro. My favorite part was when you claimed that the moment multiplayer is in the picture, everyone's IQ is halved. Really, your superiority has been noted.

Stereo-typing my friend, sometimes its bad, sometimes its logical. 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? Wake up will you, sides i think the big bad wolf can take care of himself on these forums 

I love Command and Conquer, play quite a bit online at that and absolutely loved the RA3 CoOp design, do like the Splinter Cell MP, both competitive, supplementary and Co-Op, like DragonballZ games on my Wii, absolutely love Mario Kart and it's online components, am generally quite fond of Nintendo products, read manga with passion and western comics like Asterix&Obelix, Lucky Luke, Ducktales and Hagar the Horrible, yet have read in total five books that were not required by school, which were The Hobbit, Harry Potter 1+2, the first Dune and Star Wars: Bacta Pirates. I do however love Shakespeare and had quite a good time reading Romeo and Juliet.

My favourite movies are: Thank you for Smoking, Matrix 1, the Star Wars hexalogy, Twelve Monkeys, the Blues Brothers, Disney's Aladin, A Scanner Darkly, Inside Man, Kung Fu Hustle, UHF, Gattaca, Star Trek: First Contact and Insurrection, the Dune Series, Equilibrium, From Dusk till Dawn, Dawn of the Dead, Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz, Johnny English, all Pierce Brosnan James Bonds, but I can't stand Roger Moore, being indifferent about Connery and Timothy Dalton, though again love the new ones with the actor whose name I replaced in this moment.

I am german, have a lot of interest in history and tend to stop by and wikiwalk whatever about WW1 and WW2 I come accross. I am studying Asianstudies and learning japanese, chinese and korean. I spend about 99% of all my time on the internet in english-speaking communities, but am a Grammar**** and revel in the delicious irony it offers. I love cats, do like every other animal except one that I abhourne with passion, that is man.

I occasionally wish Scotty would beam me up, am agnostic with a tendency to ignosticism and use Andraste as a variation to whatever someone else would call out god. At times I think aloud, am filled to the hilled with energy, hence a bit hyperactive at times, can be very emotional or cold, mathematician-like logical.






What does that make me?

That makes you Mordin Solus LMAOROFL anyway you replied to a comment that was old and taken care of. kind of irrelevant on your part... Anywho you should watch Rise of the planet of the apes its phenomenal i promise it will make it in your favorite movies list you just gave there 

[Ace of Dawn]

iakus wrote...
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.

I can certainly agree with that. If there is MP, evidence points to very little being sacrificed. Beyond that, ME3 having MP will make little difference to me.

[Raizo]

Fiery Phoenix wrote...

Mesina2 wrote...

BS.

It was confirmed twice by Casey there's no multiplayer in ME3

It was not confirmed; it was dodged. We have yet to see a flatout NO from anyone from BioWare on this.

I have to agree with you there.

[Victia]

Ace of Dawn wrote...

iakus wrote...
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.

I can certainly agree with that. If there is MP, evidence points to very little being sacrificed. Beyond that, ME3 having MP will make little difference to me.

Agreed, I only have a problem with MP if it affects the single player game (which does seem to be a huge trend at the moment). If Bioware can do an awsome, long SP game and add in MP without it  affecting the former I dont really care one way or the other

[Ieldra]

Victia wrote...
Agreed, I only have a problem with MP if it affects the single player game (which does seem to be a huge trend at the moment). If Bioware can do an awsome, long SP game and add in MP without it  affecting the former I dont really care one way or the other

Exactly.

The thing is: I do not believe that the SP experience will not suffer from adding MP. There are limited resources for the game, and the part of them spent on MP will not be spent on the SP. That's why I am absolutely, 100% against MP in ME3.

Also MP seems to be some kind of dogma for EA. I hate that as a matter of principle.

[SNascimento]

Does somebody have actually seen the magazine?

[PillarBiter]

The PLC wrote...

Sorry, but I have to vent somewhere...

What a ****ty ****ing magazine! I know making up misleading headlines is common practice in the industry, but damn.

I wholeheartedly agree.

also, Im relieved at no MP 

[Therefore_I_Am]

"Their multiplaying her...

...and than their gonna multiplay ME!!!


OH MY GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOD"

Modifié par Therefore_I_Am, 06 août 2011 - 10:24 .

[didymos1120]

SNascimento wrote...

Does somebody have actually seen the magazine?

Yes. One even posted about it in this very topic.  You should be able to find it quite easily if you look.

[Kaiser Shepard]

Oh, how I long for the day Casey actually confirms multiplayer instead of only PR confirming it. We haven't had a decent outrage on here in a while, too.

[InkognitoY]

Honestly, I think most of the backlash about multiplayer is that people fear it will detract from the single player. These fears are not unwarranted, as we have seen a trend of more and more focus on multiplayer, with single player thrown in as a side mission.

I wouldn't mind multiplayer, because quite frankly I wouldn't play it if it were made under these conditions:

1) A separate team working on it, while the original Bioware team focuses solely on SP.
OR
2) It is a DLC released after the main game has been released.

In other words - The Bioware team that made ME1 and ME2 are left to solely focus on ME3 single player.

I personally feel that a lot less people would complain about multiplayer if Bioware stated that one of these two options was reality.

[didymos1120]

Ieldra2 wrote...

There are limited resources for the game, and the part of them spent on MP will not be spent on the SP. That's why I am absolutely, 100% against MP in ME3.

You're assuming a few things here without any real evidence for them.  First is the notion that the budget wasn't allocated based on MP being part of the plan from the start. Second is that if MP weren't part of the plan, the budget would have been exactly the same size.  Third is the idea that if they decided on MP after starting development, the budget wouldn't be expanded. Fourth is that no extra staff would be brought onto the team to work on the MP, and thus fewer devs would be working on SP than would otherwise be the case or that they wouldn't just have another Bioware studio entirely doing the MP work.

Also MP seems to be some kind of dogma for EA. I hate that as a matter of principle.

No, it's not.  Some sort of online functionality is, but that doesn't mean "Must have multiplayer."  The Cerberus Network has actually been used by them as one example of the kind of thing they mean.

[szkasypcze]

I dont know if this has been posted yet. Sorry if it has:

http://www.computera...sions/?site=cvg

[Davie McG]

Edit: contents of my second post (thought someone would have posted in the time it took me to write it.)

szkasypcze wrote...

I dont know if this has been posted yet. Sorry if it has:

http://www.computera...sions/?site=cvg

It has on both page 5 and on page 30, possibly else where but not that I'm aware of.

Also that article's source is this one from eurogamer and in it they state it is a rumour and provide no valid source to back up what they say and try to use Biowares evasiveness as proof of their conjecture.

didymos1120 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

There are limited resources for the game, and the part of them spent on MP will not be spent on the SP. That's why I am absolutely, 100% against MP in ME3.

You're assuming a few things here without any real evidence for them.  First is the notion that the budget wasn't allocated based on MP being part of the plan from the start. Second is that if MP weren't part of the plan, the budget would have been exactly the same size.  Third is the idea that if they decided on MP after starting development, the budget wouldn't be expanded. Fourth is that no extra staff would be brought onto the team to work on the MP, and thus fewer devs would be working on SP than would otherwise be the case or that they wouldn't just have another Bioware studio entirely doing the MP work.

Also MP seems to be some kind of dogma for EA. I hate that as a matter of principle.

No, it's not.  Some sort of online functionality is, but that doesn't mean "Must have multiplayer."  The Cerberus Network has actually been used by them as one example of the kind of thing they mean.

This is true, I found this page that talks about the very thing people seem to keep mis-quoting about EA.

For those who do not want to read the whole thing let me quote the pertinent information:

Electronic Arts COO John Schappert says that some form of "online component" will feature in every game the publisher releases in its 2011 fiscal year.

This was written in February last year when Mass Effect 3 was still expected to be in stores some time in 2011, so Mass Effect 3 is included in what he's saying.

Now this isn't to say that "online component" equates to online multiplayer in the next Mass Effect game, as the story concludes:

As Schappert suggested, "online component" can mean many different things: Multiplayer combat in Medal of Honor[/i], a social network for The Sims[/i] and regular DLC updates for Dragon Age[/i] are all valid examples. Across the board, it's also a way for the company to continue its efforts against pre-owned sales by including free DLC with new purchases, as it did with Dragon Age: Origins[/i] and Mass Effect 2[/i]. On the other hand, making an internet connection mandatory is bound to alienate a significant portion of gamers, a potentially serious downside.

As one can see it isn't EA's goal to make every game a multiplayer game, just that EA thinks they all should benifit from EA's online infrastucture.

This isn't a pro EA post, I'm not saying everything they do is good, and I'm not saying multiplayer is a good or a bad thing. Just that people shouldn't assume there will be multiplayer simply because EA is the publisher or because some website or magazine decides to say that there is multiplayer without any valid source they can name or confirmation from Bioware.

Modifié par Davie McG, 06 août 2011 - 11:19 .

[Davie McG]

Edit: double post

Modifié par Davie McG, 06 août 2011 - 11:13 .

[Lunatic LK47]

Bobad wrote...

Robhuzz wrote...

Bobad wrote...

Well I'm not too fussed about the inclusion of multiplayer, the only thing that would bother me about it would be if those who didn't utilize it were to miss out on content.

Don't foget lack of polish to the single player game because that time must then be spent on creating multiplayer. That's the only reason I don't want multiplayer. If it's released later in a DLC or created by a different team then I don't care, I simply won't play it, but I don't want my single player experience to be less good than it could be just because damn EA wants to put multiplayer in for the pure shooter fans...

Granted that is a concern, but that would also depend on how the budget for the games development has been allocated, no multiplayer could have seen a correspondingly reduced budget.

Uh, Medal of Honor 2010 already turned out to be mediocre crap despite having DICE working on the multiplayer.

[Lunatic LK47]

Sir Ulrich Von Lichenstien wrote...

So companies should just think... oh look what happened in the past, let's not bother trying to do something as it'll obviously suck.

If every company/person had that mentality then we'd still be in the dark ages. <_<

Probably for the better. As it is, I only like less than 1% of the current games on the market because it's the same old ****, different day. As it is, I'm already done with gaming after Mass Effect 3 because single-player games are few and far in between. I want to buy a game that I can enjoy whenever I pop the disc in and not worry about having my game become a paper-weight one month after buying it.