786 réponses à ce sujet

[littlezack]

GreenSoda wrote...

Clonedzero wrote...

Dionkey wrote...

 Oh yes, and if this turns out to be true, I hope you guys remember this:



The multiplayer did nothing but take away from the game and is generally regarded as a flop.

i thought bioshock 2 was a flop because the story was bad compared to the first one? and that the atmosphere was pretty much the same thing all over again.
when i heard about complaints from the game no one mentions multiplayer lol

It's arguable that the mediocre execution of the story is owed to the crowbared in mp-mode of Bioshock 2.

Again, since the MP was made by a different company, that's very unlikely.

[GreenSoda]

littlezack wrote...

GreenSoda wrote...

Clonedzero wrote...

Dionkey wrote...

 Oh yes, and if this turns out to be true, I hope you guys remember this:



The multiplayer did nothing but take away from the game and is generally regarded as a flop.

i thought bioshock 2 was a flop because the story was bad compared to the first one? and that the atmosphere was pretty much the same thing all over again.
when i heard about complaints from the game no one mentions multiplayer lol

It's arguable that the mediocre execution of the story is owed to the crowbared in mp-mode of Bioshock 2.

Again, since the MP was made by a different company, that's very unlikely.

And I am asuming that "different company" was working for a clammy handshake and a nice "thank you" card from 2K Games so that the sp-team could use the full budget for Bioshock 2 to make the best campaign possible ?

[littlezack]

Dionkey wrote...

littlezack wrote...
The multiplayer was developed by an entirely different company, and if memory serves, the SP was developed by different people that the first one. Not a good example.

How about a few more?





I don't want to spam the forums with pictures so I will just leave this here. The only good one so far has been AC:B and that's because it was literally AC 2 with new content. If they would have had to actually create a new game then it would have been a trainwreck.

Yes, you have to put the pictures there. There's no way you could just write "Bioshock 2, Dead Space 2, and Resident Evil 5'.

And that makes your argument worse, because that's what Mass Effect 3 is - Mass Effect 2 with improvements. They're  not making a game from scratch, either. And I seem to remember the Resident Evil 5 doing quite well. So.

[littlezack]

GreenSoda wrote...

littlezack wrote...

GreenSoda wrote...

Clonedzero wrote...

Dionkey wrote...

 Oh yes, and if this turns out to be true, I hope you guys remember this:



The multiplayer did nothing but take away from the game and is generally regarded as a flop.

i thought bioshock 2 was a flop because the story was bad compared to the first one? and that the atmosphere was pretty much the same thing all over again.
when i heard about complaints from the game no one mentions multiplayer lol

It's arguable that the mediocre execution of the story is owed to the crowbared in mp-mode of Bioshock 2.

Again, since the MP was made by a different company, that's very unlikely.

And I am asuming that "different company" was working for a clammy handshake and a nice "thank you" card from 2K Games so that the sp-team could use the full budget for Bioshock 2 to make the best campaign possible ?

Again, this works under the silly assumption that, if they didn't give money to the MP team, they would have given it to the SP team, and that would have somehow made the story better. Because single player games never suck.

[Clonedzero]

Dionkey wrote...

littlezack wrote...
The multiplayer was developed by an entirely different company, and if memory serves, the SP was developed by different people that the first one. Not a good example.

How about a few more?





I don't want to spam the forums with pictures so I will just leave this here. The only good one so far has been AC:B and that's because it was literally AC 2 with new content. If they would have had to actually create a new game then it would have been a trainwreck.

RE5's best feature was actually the co-op lol. the story was absolutely stupidly painful to play through. i felt dumber for actually listtening tot he cutscenes and such. the only time i had fun playing that was with a friend.

deadspace 2, i havent played it, but ive heard NOTHING but absolutely great things about its single player. if its multiplayer sucked then who cares? its singleplayer from what ive heard from people who's taste i trust is absolutely amazing.

im not sure what you're getting at though?

[GreenSoda]

littlezack wrote...

Yes, you have to put the pictures there. There's no way you could just write "Bioshock 2, Dead Space 2, and Resident Evil 5'.

And that makes your argument worse, because that's what Mass Effect 3 is - Mass Effect 2 with improvements. They're  not making a game from scratch, either. And I seem to remember the Resident Evil 5 doing quite well. So.

Actually, while AC:B is considered a good game with sp and mp campaign, its sp-campaign is also significantly *shorter* than that of its predecessors.

There is no such thing as a mp-mode that doesn't in some way affect the sp-part of a game.

[mranderson25]

I hate when people compare the Dragon Age and Mass Effect development teams. Sure, they all work for Bioware, but in completely separate divisions. No one mentions the fact the Star Wars: The Old Republic is also being made by Bioware too, by a completely separate team than ME or DA. So just because the DA team may have missed the mark with DA2, doesn't mean that the ME team will as well, i have faith in them.

As far as the money/resources debate goes, i'm pretty sure they're not too strapped for cash, what with EA and everything. ME2 had to have made them stupid amounts of money, so i'm sure they're literally just throwing money at the team, even IF they do decide to include MP. I have faith that they at least SOMEWHAT know what they're doing and won't pull people from the current story developers to work on the multiplayer portion.

Look at games like Uncharted 2 that have a fantastic story AND a decent multiplayer. Or Dead Space 2 that still had a great story and awesome gameplay, even though it had multiplayer (which admittedly wasn't that great, but had absolutely zero effect on the single player story).

So yeah, even IF they announce multiplayer tomorrow/whenever, i have faith that Bioware won't muck it all up.

[Dionkey]

littlezack wrote...

Yes, you have to put the pictures there. There's no way you could just write "Bioshock 2, Dead Space 2, and Resident Evil 5'.

And that makes your argument worse, because that's what Mass Effect 3 is - Mass Effect 2 with improvements. They're  not making a game from scratch, either. And I seem to remember the Resident Evil 5 doing quite well. So.

First off, Mass Effect 3 is building much more than Brotherhood did. They're is so much that they have to implement it is ridiculous. Brotherhood implemented a few new weapons/mechanics and that's it. Secondly, I used to be THE biggest Resident Evil fan, not any more. RE5 was such a disaster that I can't even begin to explain it. The multiplayer in RE5 is probably the most poorly designed component I have played this entire generation. Every game with multiplayer is always affected negatively. Whether this be the game being shorter, or the developers believing that multiplayer with componsate for a lack of features.

[GreenSoda]

littlezack wrote...

Again, this works under the silly assumption that, if they didn't give money to the MP team, they would have given it to the SP team, and that would have somehow made the story better. Because single player games never suck.

More money doesn't guarantee a better sp-campaign / story, but it certainly increases the odds in favor of the devs creating the necessary content for it.

Modifié par GreenSoda, 15 août 2011 - 07:22 .

[Dionkey]

Clonedzero wrote...

RE5's best feature was actually the co-op lol. the story was absolutely stupidly painful to play through. i felt dumber for actually listtening tot he cutscenes and such. the only time i had fun playing that was with a friend.

deadspace 2, i havent played it, but ive heard NOTHING but absolutely great things about its single player. if its multiplayer sucked then who cares? its singleplayer from what ive heard from people who's taste i trust is absolutely amazing.

im not sure what you're getting at though?

Dead Space's singleplayer was also 5-6 hours long. If I can pay for 3 movie tickets and get more value out of it than a game then something is seriously wrong.

[Clonedzero]

Dionkey wrote...

Clonedzero wrote...

RE5's best feature was actually the co-op lol. the story was absolutely stupidly painful to play through. i felt dumber for actually listtening tot he cutscenes and such. the only time i had fun playing that was with a friend.

deadspace 2, i havent played it, but ive heard NOTHING but absolutely great things about its single player. if its multiplayer sucked then who cares? its singleplayer from what ive heard from people who's taste i trust is absolutely amazing.

im not sure what you're getting at though?

Dead Space's singleplayer was also 5-6 hours long. If I can pay for 3 movie tickets and get more value out of it than a game then something is seriously wrong.

wasnt the first dead space around the same? aside from RPGs, a majority of games these days are under a dozen hours long.

[Jaron Oberyn]

Chris Priestly wrote...

Chewin3 wrote...

Hudson already confirmed - twice - that there wouldn't be any multiplayer, and I find it funny that they would have suddenly changed their minds.

One might also think for an annoucnement of this magnitude, we might send Casey to Cologne to make it instead of him staying here in Edmonton to work on the game.

Still, I love watching the responses these rumors generate. I shall have my "I told you so" ready for later.

Who had that popcorn?

Not necessarily. Casey never explicitly said "no" to the multiplayer rumors. For whatever reason, people here think that dodging the question as expertly as he does constitutes a "no". My assumption is that he didn't want to go because he feared for his life from the anti-multiplayer extremists, if it is what you're announcing. Some fanboys do get violent.

-Polite

[Dionkey]

Clonedzero wrote...

Dionkey wrote...

Clonedzero wrote...

RE5's best feature was actually the co-op lol. the story was absolutely stupidly painful to play through. i felt dumber for actually listtening tot he cutscenes and such. the only time i had fun playing that was with a friend.

deadspace 2, i havent played it, but ive heard NOTHING but absolutely great things about its single player. if its multiplayer sucked then who cares? its singleplayer from what ive heard from people who's taste i trust is absolutely amazing.

im not sure what you're getting at though?

Dead Space's singleplayer was also 5-6 hours long. If I can pay for 3 movie tickets and get more value out of it than a game then something is seriously wrong.

wasnt the first dead space around the same? aside from RPGs, a majority of games these days are under a dozen hours long.

The first Dead Space was more around the length of 10-15 hours. Games shouldn't be under a dozen hours long. Every game should at least be 2 hours/$10 we spend on it, just like a movie. If we aren't getting that value then we are getting ripped off.

[littlezack]

GreenSoda wrote...

littlezack wrote...

Again, this works under the silly assumption that, if they didn't give money to the MP team, they would have given it to the SP team, and that would have somehow made the story better. Because single player games never suck.

More money doesn't guarantee a better sp-campaign / story, but it certainly increases the odds in favor of the devs creating the necessary content for it.

Not. At. All.

When companies set out to make a game - or anything, really - they come up with cost-benefit plan. They weigh the cost of making the game against how much they plan to make on it, and how much of a profit they'll get in the difference. More features take more money - if they put in multiplayer, it would cost money. If they take out multiplayer, the money goes with it. Whatever money they're spending on the SP campaign doesn't change in that. They don't just throw dollar after dollar into things without some balance.

[littlezack]

Dionkey wrote...

Clonedzero wrote...

Dionkey wrote...

Clonedzero wrote...

RE5's best feature was actually the co-op lol. the story was absolutely stupidly painful to play through. i felt dumber for actually listtening tot he cutscenes and such. the only time i had fun playing that was with a friend.

deadspace 2, i havent played it, but ive heard NOTHING but absolutely great things about its single player. if its multiplayer sucked then who cares? its singleplayer from what ive heard from people who's taste i trust is absolutely amazing.

im not sure what you're getting at though?

Dead Space's singleplayer was also 5-6 hours long. If I can pay for 3 movie tickets and get more value out of it than a game then something is seriously wrong.

wasnt the first dead space around the same? aside from RPGs, a majority of games these days are under a dozen hours long.

The first Dead Space was more around the length of 10-15 hours. Games shouldn't be under a dozen hours long. Every game should at least be 2 hours/$10 we spend on it, just like a movie. If we aren't getting that value then we are getting ripped off.

You can't compare movies to videogames. That's just plain silly. By that logic, Mass Effect 1 should cost $250.

Modifié par littlezack, 15 août 2011 - 07:27 .

[Dionkey]

littlezack wrote...

GreenSoda wrote...

littlezack wrote...

Again, this works under the silly assumption that, if they didn't give money to the MP team, they would have given it to the SP team, and that would have somehow made the story better. Because single player games never suck.

More money doesn't guarantee a better sp-campaign / story, but it certainly increases the odds in favor of the devs creating the necessary content for it.

Not. At. All.

When companies set out to make a game - or anything, really - they come up with cost-benefit plan. They weigh the cost of making the game against how much they plan to make on it, and how much of a profit they'll get in the difference. More features take more money - if they put in multiplayer, it would cost money. If they take out multiplayer, the money goes with it. Whatever money they're spending on the SP campaign doesn't change in that. They don't just throw dollar after dollar into things without some balance.

Or from the beginning they stripped features that fans wanted from the SP for multiplayer instead. They did hire MP designs right around the beginning of ME3's development.

[Clonedzero]

dead rising 2 had tacked on multiplayer and i felt the singeplayer was MUCH better than the first one.
took me a good while to get me the S ranked ending.

and thats what they do alot of times, such as with dead space 2. the campaign was fine, stretching the game out for too long isnt a benefit to the story, i dont wnat pointless filler in my games just to stretch out the length. i want it to be relevant to the story. they put on the multiplayer to try and increase its value.

[Dionkey]

littlezack wrote...
You can't compare movies to videogames. That's just plain silly.

Why not? They're both forms of entertainment that are cinematic experiences. If the average movie is 2 hours long then I should be getting the same value out of my video games, if not way more. 

[green_lemur]

Dionkey wrote...

Clonedzero wrote...

Dionkey wrote...

Clonedzero wrote...

RE5's best feature was actually the co-op lol. the story was absolutely stupidly painful to play through. i felt dumber for actually listtening tot he cutscenes and such. the only time i had fun playing that was with a friend.

deadspace 2, i havent played it, but ive heard NOTHING but absolutely great things about its single player. if its multiplayer sucked then who cares? its singleplayer from what ive heard from people who's taste i trust is absolutely amazing.

im not sure what you're getting at though?

Dead Space's singleplayer was also 5-6 hours long. If I can pay for 3 movie tickets and get more value out of it than a game then something is seriously wrong.

wasnt the first dead space around the same? aside from RPGs, a majority of games these days are under a dozen hours long.

The first Dead Space was more around the length of 10-15 hours. Games shouldn't be under a dozen hours long. Every game should at least be 2 hours/$10 we spend on it, just like a movie. If we aren't getting that value then we are getting ripped off.

I don't know if  you were playing on easy because dead space 2 touck me 11 hours. the multiplayer was great too.I think is mass effect can do like dead space 2 it would be great. of corse ME3 would need to be longer because it's not a horror/action game. 

[littlezack]

Dionkey wrote...

littlezack wrote...
You can't compare movies to videogames. That's just plain silly.

Why not? They're both forms of entertainment that are cinematic experiences. If the average movie is 2 hours long then I should be getting the same value out of my video games, if not way more. 

Check my edited post. You can't compare a videogame with a movie. Videogames provide different amounts of gameplay for different people. How would you measure a sports game, or a fighting game?

[Vyse_Fina]

GreenSoda wrote...

Interesting. German is my native language and the original article actually quotes the official gamescon convention shedule for journalists were, apparently, "ME3 with multiplayer" is noted.

BW still denies it.

I really hope it's not true as well. That would really be a low blow. Damn it. The sp campaign for the last entry in the series needs *every* scrap of resources it can get.

That's not quite correct. The site states that they got a list of some sort from the people organizeing the event to which Chris replied that these people don't neccessarily know anything solid. After writing about that list with the MP entry they say "now it is official" 

So it is not thelist they got that is official (that one is actually more like an unofficial list) and they just called it "official" themselves because of the list which is not labled "official" anywhere.

I know we're playing with words here though. Fact is, they got the list from the organizers of the event, and they don't put notes like that onto any list because they feel like messing with us. Let's face it, they work with what they get from the exhibitors which is EA in this case, so I assume that someone at EA put the ME3 Multiplayer note on a list somewhere and they (the organizers)  just forwarded it like that. (and I doubt it was intended for public eyes before the press event)

[Kusy]

I'd be happy to see that. Could convince me back into buying ME3 at launch afterall.

Modifié par Mr.Kusy, 15 août 2011 - 07:36 .

[Acky]

Just as long as, if the rumors ARE true, it 1) doesn't take away from the single player experience. I did not devote 100 hours to each ME1 and ME2 to turn around and have ME3 become a soft-core MMO, and 2) it has no effect whatsoever on achievements/trophies. This is a SP game at heart. Dead Space 2 did it right - had a suspenseful single player mode, and their MP had no bearing on anything.

[cachx]

Good to see that no matter how much time I spend time away from the BSN, it always stays the same

littlezack wrote...
You can't compare movies to videogames. That's just plain silly.

This, so much this.

Also, Uncharted 2 and Red Dead Redemption say "hi".

[Dionkey]

green_lemur wrote...
I don't know if  you were playing on easy because dead space 2 touck me 11 hours. the multiplayer was great too.I think is mass effect can do like dead space 2 it would be great. of corse ME3 would need to be longer because it's not a horror/action game. 

I played it on Zealot/Hard the day (My gamertag is Dionkey if you would like to look it up) it came out and I completed it in 7 and a half hours. The game was so short that it was unbearable.