786 réponses à ce sujet

[breakdown71289]

green_lemur wrote...

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. 

Yeah, Dead Space 2 took me about that same length as well to complete, but damn did it feel like hell to get through at times.....case in point, the "Ishimura" level lol. I have a feeling ME3 won't be a super short game though.....remember, there's a whole GALAXY to rally up against cuttlefish (i mean the reapers) lol.

Modifié par breakdown71289, 15 août 2011 - 07:38 .

[GreenSoda]

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.

You are working under the assumption that EA/BW strictly distinguishes between money for the sp-part and the mp-"feature". Imo that's rather unlikely. They might have access to additional funds (*might*) for mp but in the end it will all end up in the same pot and if mp takes more money the sp-part will still suffer.

Modifié par GreenSoda, 15 août 2011 - 07:38 .

[Dionkey]

littlezack wrote...
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?

Fighting games and sports games are created to be multiplayer focused. If you are going to launch a series like Mass Effect which is based around a complex web of singleplayer choices then you better keep it a total singleplayer experience right to the end.

[Clonedzero]

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. 

worst logic ever.
they are absolutely different in so many ways. should a book that you spend tons of time reading be more expensive simply because of that? they are completely different mediums.

plus. a point i'd like to make about short campaign games. i will want to replay them more often than i do for really long games. i'll replay the campaign of gears of war 2, but i wont wanna play through the 30 hour assassins creed 2.

replayability is much easier to achieve on shorter games. i played through the campaign of modern warfare 2 like 4 times. its super short, i can do the whole thing in an afternoon if i wanted to, and if i put a month between each playthrough it still feels fairly fresh.

[kidbd15]

I would like there to be MP... would be fun

[littlezack]

GreenSoda wrote...

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.

You are working under the assumption that EA/BW strictly distinguishes between money for the sp-part and the mp-"feature". Imo that's rather unlikely. They might have access to additional funds (*might*) for mp but in the end it will all end up in the same pot and if mp takes more money the sp-part will still suffer.

Like it or not, EA is a large and successful company. This is how companies go about projects.

[Dionkey]

Clonedzero wrote...
]worst logic ever.
they are absolutely different in so many ways. should a book that you spend tons of time reading be more expensive simply because of that? they are completely different mediums.

plus. a point i'd like to make about short campaign games. i will want to replay them more often than i do for really long games. i'll replay the campaign of gears of war 2, but i wont wanna play through the 30 hour assassins creed 2.

replayability is much easier to achieve on shorter games. i played through the campaign of modern warfare 2 like 4 times. its super short, i can do the whole thing in an afternoon if i wanted to, and if i put a month between each playthrough it still feels fairly fresh.

How is that bad logic in the least? You might enjoy replaying the same corridor levels that last for 6 hours over and over again while someone who buys a dvd might watch it 3 times for a 1/3 of the price you paid. People enjoy things differently, but that doesn't mean movies and video games are so different. 

[Aaleel]

As long as nothing was sacrificed from the single player mode to develop it I wouldn't care. But I am sitting here trying to imagine like 10 vanguards on the field all using Biotic charge. It will probably be more fun to watch the fights than participate lol.

[Clonedzero]

cachx wrote...

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".

yeah red dead had a brilliant single player and its multi player was surprisingly super fun. i played the crap out of that game. im actually kinda mad that i loaned it to my brother cus he lost it.

red deads single player was something like 50 hours long, you could probably beat it in less but then you wouldnt be exploring and hunting bears for fun lol

[littlezack]

Dionkey wrote...

littlezack wrote...
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?

Fighting games and sports games are created to be multiplayer focused. If you are going to launch a series like Mass Effect which is based around a complex web of singleplayer choices then you better keep it a total singleplayer experience right to the end.

Just kind of jumped around the point, didn't you?

Fighting games and sports games are made to be played multiple times. Different people will get different hours of enjoyment out of them. To say that a game MUST deliver 2 hours of content for every $10 is just idiotic, and ignores the slew of games that deliver much more content and much less.

[GreenSoda]

littlezack wrote...

GreenSoda wrote...

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.

You are working under the assumption that EA/BW strictly distinguishes between money for the sp-part and the mp-"feature". Imo that's rather unlikely. They might have access to additional funds (*might*) for mp but in the end it will all end up in the same pot and if mp takes more money the sp-part will still suffer.

Like it or not, EA is a large and successful company. This is how companies go about projects.

Well...I like it not. Which was basically the whole point.

The recent trend to crowbar-in mp-modes at all costs in already existing (and successful) franchises is cancer.

[Clonedzero]

Dionkey wrote...

Clonedzero wrote...
]worst logic ever.
they are absolutely different in so many ways. should a book that you spend tons of time reading be more expensive simply because of that? they are completely different mediums.

plus. a point i'd like to make about short campaign games. i will want to replay them more often than i do for really long games. i'll replay the campaign of gears of war 2, but i wont wanna play through the 30 hour assassins creed 2.

replayability is much easier to achieve on shorter games. i played through the campaign of modern warfare 2 like 4 times. its super short, i can do the whole thing in an afternoon if i wanted to, and if i put a month between each playthrough it still feels fairly fresh.

How is that bad logic in the least? You might enjoy replaying the same corridor levels that last for 6 hours over and over again while someone who buys a dvd might watch it 3 times for a 1/3 of the price you paid. People enjoy things differently, but that doesn't mean movies and video games are so different. 

you watch a movie. you play a game.
pretty big difference there....

[Dionkey]

Clonedzero wrote...
]yeah red dead had a brilliant single player and its multi player was surprisingly super fun. i played the crap out of that game. im actually kinda mad that i loaned it to my brother cus he lost it.

red deads single player was something like 50 hours long, you could probably beat it in less but then you wouldnt be exploring and hunting bears for fun lol

Okay, no. Red Dead's singleplayer was not 50 hours long. I completed the main quest in 15 and there was next to nothing to do afterwards.

[Clonedzero]

GreenSoda wrote...

Well...I like it not. Which was basically the whole point.

The recent trend to crowbar-in mp-modes at all costs in already existing (and successful) franchises is cancer.

i still havent seen a convincing example that MP kills singleplayer games.
the only example ive seen where a game was bad that suddenly had multiplayer added was bioshock 2, but that game would have been crap even without the multiplayer.

[littlezack]

It's also silly because it assumes the only worthwhile thing about both movies and videogames is how long they are.

[Dionkey]

Clonedzero wrote...
]you watch a movie. you play a game.
pretty big difference there....

Not really. You pull the trigger or someone in the movie does. Going to see a movie or going to play a game are two different experiences, but they both deliver the same amount of fun.

[littlezack]

Dionkey wrote...

Clonedzero wrote...
]you watch a movie. you play a game.
pretty big difference there....

Not really. You pull the trigger or someone in the movie does. Going to see a movie or going to play a game are two different experiences, but they both deliver the same amount of fun.

I'll just be honest - if you can't see how a game, which is an interactive experience designed to be played over time, shouldn't be held to the same standard as a movie, which is a completely linear experience designed to be watched in a single sitting, you have a problem.

[Clonedzero]

Dionkey wrote...

Clonedzero wrote...
]yeah red dead had a brilliant single player and its multi player was surprisingly super fun. i played the crap out of that game. im actually kinda mad that i loaned it to my brother cus he lost it.

red deads single player was something like 50 hours long, you could probably beat it in less but then you wouldnt be exploring and hunting bears for fun lol

Okay, no. Red Dead's singleplayer was not 50 hours long. I completed the main quest in 15 and there was next to nothing to do afterwards.

do you hate fun? do you methodically power through games campaigns so you can complain about it on the internet or something? cus thats what it seems like to me.

there was TONS of side stuff in red dead btw, how could you not constantly be distracted by the dynamic random roadside events that happened constantly, or all the gambling minigames, or the side challenges like hunting or the side quests? that game had a crazy amount of content. saying you beat it in 15 hours tells met hat you did nothing in that game except go from story point A to B to C.

thats like saying ME1 is a 10 hour game, cus you totally can beat ME1 in 10 hours if you stick specifically to the main story and skip everything else. you can beat fallout 3 in about 2 and a half hours. my friend did it.

[Dionkey]

littlezack wrote...

Dionkey wrote...

Clonedzero wrote...
]you watch a movie. you play a game.
pretty big difference there....

Not really. You pull the trigger or someone in the movie does. Going to see a movie or going to play a game are two different experiences, but they both deliver the same amount of fun.

I'll just be honest - if you can't see how a game, which is an interactive experience designed to be played over time, shouldn't be held to the same standard as a movie, which is a completely linear experience designed to be watched in a single sitting, you have a problem.

What is the difference? ME2 still sends you down linear paths with no choice. Dialogue choices? Okay, but that doesn't change the fact of how you play it. Regardless, we are getting way off-topic here. Multiplayer detracts from singleplayer and it shows on every game that's done it so far.

Modifié par Dionkey, 15 août 2011 - 07:51 .

[Clonedzero]

Dionkey wrote...

 What is the difference? ME2 still sends you down linear paths with no choice. Dialogue choices? Okay, but that doesn't change the fact of how you play it. Regardless, we are getting way off-topic here. Multiplayer detracts from singleplayer and it shows on every game that's done it so far.

you've shown no credible examples of multiplayer taking away from the singleplayer. bioshock 2 doesnt count because it had a horrible story and was just rehashing the areas from bioshock 1.

deadspace 2's singleplayer was regarded extremely high by gamers and critics alike.

RE5 gained for its inclusion of co-op, without it that game was pretty bad.

[Forsythia]

All these rumours about multiplayer the last few... months?... well they have made me get used to the idea that ME3 might actually have a multiplayer mode. So even if there is a mode, I won't be that bothered with it anymore. Unless, of course, it's some lazy ass deathmatch or horde mode. Those modes have been done to death, and it's the easiest way out for a dev to add multiplayer.

I just don't get why BioWare cannot just outright say if there's multiplayer or not. Guess we'll see at Gamescom.

[GreenSoda]

Clonedzero wrote...

Dionkey wrote...

 What is the difference? ME2 still sends you down linear paths with no choice. Dialogue choices? Okay, but that doesn't change the fact of how you play it. Regardless, we are getting way off-topic here. Multiplayer detracts from singleplayer and it shows on every game that's done it so far.

you've shown no credible examples of multiplayer taking away from the singleplayer. bioshock 2 doesnt count because it had a horrible story and was just rehashing the areas from bioshock 1.

deadspace 2's singleplayer was regarded extremely high by gamers and critics alike.

RE5 gained for its inclusion of co-op, without it that game was pretty bad.

The mp-supporter argues that the game would have been less fun without the mp-mode.
The sp-supporter argues that the game was less fun *because* of the mp-mode.

Pretty much.

[Dionkey]

Clonedzero wrote...
do you hate fun? do you methodically power through games campaigns so you can complain about it on the internet or something? cus thats what it seems like to me.

there was TONS of side stuff in red dead btw, how could you not constantly be distracted by the dynamic random roadside events that happened constantly, or all the gambling minigames, or the side challenges like hunting or the side quests? that game had a crazy amount of content. saying you beat it in 15 hours tells met hat you did nothing in that game except go from story point A to B to C.

thats like saying ME1 is a 10 hour game, cus you totally can beat ME1 in 10 hours if you stick specifically to the main story and skip everything else. you can beat fallout 3 in about 2 and a half hours. my friend did it.

Random occurrences? You mean the 5-6 recycled events? There is either a roadside robbery, a bandit, a kidnapping, someone wanting to duel you, or someone getting attacked by dogs. All the side quests were so forgetable that I won't even mention them. Red Dead (and GTA IV) are games that try to simulate realism by fooling you with a bunch of props. All of that sense of wonder is lost by the end of the game.

 ME1 is nothing like that in the slightest. There are plenty of worlds to explore, stuff to collect, and a HUGE amount of side missions that you can take multiple paths on. ME2's side missions were "Talk to this guy and the problem is resolved". 

[Dionkey]

Clonedzero wrote...
you've shown no credible examples of multiplayer taking away from the singleplayer. bioshock 2 doesnt count because it had a horrible story and was just rehashing the areas from bioshock 1. 

deadspace 2's singleplayer was regarded extremely high by gamers and critics alike.

RE5 gained for its inclusion of co-op, without it that game was pretty bad.

RE5 was terrible all around. The co-op was a joke and was very clunky. 
Dead Space 2 was well done but too short. The multiplayer was also garbage.
Bioshock 2 I agree with you, but the multiplayer is the perfect example of being unnecssary.
Assassins Creed: Brotherhood had a decent multiplayer and only passed because it was AC2 with a few new toys.
GTA IV had a terrible multiplayer because Rockstar left all of the fun elements out of the singleplayer and multiplayer.
Red Deads multiplayer had no base and was essentially just people shooting each other. In my opinion, it got boring within the first hour.

ME3 does not need multiplayer. The game was made to be an epic trilogy that would take you on a journey with an amazing number of choices that affected the story. We don't need one penny being diverted away from that.

[Clonedzero]

GreenSoda wrote...

Clonedzero wrote...

Dionkey wrote...

 What is the difference? ME2 still sends you down linear paths with no choice. Dialogue choices? Okay, but that doesn't change the fact of how you play it. Regardless, we are getting way off-topic here. Multiplayer detracts from singleplayer and it shows on every game that's done it so far.

you've shown no credible examples of multiplayer taking away from the singleplayer. bioshock 2 doesnt count because it had a horrible story and was just rehashing the areas from bioshock 1.

deadspace 2's singleplayer was regarded extremely high by gamers and critics alike.

RE5 gained for its inclusion of co-op, without it that game was pretty bad.

The mp-supporter argues that the game would have been less fun without the mp-mode.
The sp-supporter argues that the game was less fun *because* of the mp-mode.

Pretty much.

what are you talking about?
single player and multiplayer are two different things. some games focus on one or the other entirely, some focus on them in different ratios. including multiplayer almost never effects the singleplayer. the only people who believe that are people that dont understand how game development works.

they have different teams working on each part of the game. the writing team and the animation team are two completely different teams.

thats like saying "the story sucked but the animations were good, they shouldnt have had so much money on the animations!" or "the gameplay was great but the voice acting sucked, they should have fired some gameplay developers to get better voice acting"

it doesnt work that way.