786 réponses à ce sujet

[zweistein_J]

Johnsen1972 wrote...
Multiplayer in ME3 is rumored for Gamescom announcement

Ah, yes "rumors" The act of making people go crazy having a stupid picture as enough information to convince them. I have dismissed that claim.

[Dragoonlordz]

I honestly don't care much about MP or not, I do prefer they invested those resources into more single player offline content though especially focus on exploration with more worlds and more sub-stories. The only news I am hoping doesn't pop up is that they are a) nickle and diming with day one DLC (for a price) as explained earlier and/or there is 'only' ****ty planet scanning to again replace exploration like in ME2. If both those happen then I'l have a hissy fit so large it will bring about the end of all life on this planet followed by the universe itself imploding to escape.

The way it's going right now ME3 could be the last game I buy from Bioware depending on what they do next, DA is no thanks as it stands have no interest anymore in series right now, ME3 will undergo massive radical change I think for an ME4 *remember this and feel free to quote me when happens because it will I promise you now* both my fortune cookie and magic 8 ball agree on this. So ME4 isn't probably going to be something interested in.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 15 août 2011 - 08:12 .

[Clonedzero]

Dionkey wrote...

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.

RE5 was terrible, yep. multiplayer had nothing to do with that.
Dead Space 2 was well done, you just said so. its crappy multiplayer had nothing to do with that.
Assassins Creed: Brotherhood - had great multiplayer and its gameplay did evolve quite a bit from AC2, play them back to back and tell me its the same game. only changed a couple items because its the same character rofl.
GTA4 was amazing. one of the best games this generation. its mutliplayer was fully functional and is STILL one of the most played multiplayer games on XBL. (actually this month, its the 5th most played game on XBL)
Red Deads mutliplayer was fun if you did the objective stuff, the free roam did sorta suck though but it was still fun and the single player was great.

ME3 does not need multiplayer, i agree with you. but NEED isnt the issue. if they put on a competent multiplayer part of the game, whats the issue? like ive tried to explain, multiplayer doesnt hurt single player.

[Dionkey]

Clonedzero wrote...
RE5 was terrible, yep. multiplayer had nothing to do with that.
Dead Space 2 was well done, you just said so. its crappy multiplayer had nothing to do with that.
Assassins Creed: Brotherhood - had great multiplayer and its gameplay did evolve quite a bit from AC2, play them back to back and tell me its the same game. only changed a couple items because its the same character rofl.
GTA4 was amazing. one of the best games this generation. its mutliplayer was fully functional and is STILL one of the most played multiplayer games on XBL. (actually this month, its the 5th most played game on XBL)
Red Deads mutliplayer was fun if you did the objective stuff, the free roam did sorta suck though but it was still fun and the single player was great.

ME3 does not need multiplayer, i agree with you. but NEED isnt the issue. if they put on a competent multiplayer part of the game, whats the issue? like ive tried to explain, multiplayer doesnt hurt single player.

What I am saying is the the multiplayer is terrible most of the time and usually hinders the game in some way, whether that be length or content.

[GreenSoda]

Clonedzero wrote...
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.

The "fuel" of all these teams is money. The fact that there are different teams isn't really relevant. Your last points are actually not that far off-base. Animations and voice acting can add to the sp-campaign, though -while any form of mp is completely detached from it.
That's why it would make sense to *not* have mp, but not necessarily make sense to not have animations or voice work in your game.

[Clonedzero]

Dionkey wrote...

 What I am saying is the the multiplayer is terrible most of the time and usually hinders the game in some way, whether that be length or content.

how so? you still havent provided any examples of that.

[shepskisaac]

18 hours left till the announcement ;P

[xlI ReFLeX lIx]

Dionkey wrote...

Clonedzero wrote...
RE5 was terrible, yep. multiplayer had nothing to do with that.
Dead Space 2 was well done, you just said so. its crappy multiplayer had nothing to do with that.
Assassins Creed: Brotherhood - had great multiplayer and its gameplay did evolve quite a bit from AC2, play them back to back and tell me its the same game. only changed a couple items because its the same character rofl.
GTA4 was amazing. one of the best games this generation. its mutliplayer was fully functional and is STILL one of the most played multiplayer games on XBL. (actually this month, its the 5th most played game on XBL)
Red Deads mutliplayer was fun if you did the objective stuff, the free roam did sorta suck though but it was still fun and the single player was great.

ME3 does not need multiplayer, i agree with you. but NEED isnt the issue. if they put on a competent multiplayer part of the game, whats the issue? like ive tried to explain, multiplayer doesnt hurt single player.

What I am saying is the the multiplayer is terrible most of the time and usually hinders the game in some way, whether that be length or content.

No actually. Basically you said the single player and multiplayer of those games sucked. 1.That is opinion not fact. 2. Still proves nothing.

[Dionkey]

Clonedzero wrote...

Dionkey wrote...

 What I am saying is the the multiplayer is terrible most of the time and usually hinders the game in some way, whether that be length or content.

how so? you still havent provided any examples of that.

I have, but you obviously don't agree with them.

Dead Space 2 was half the length of the first due to multiplayer. GTA IV was stripped of a lot of it's orignal content to implement a multiplayer mode. Almost all of the multiplayer modes I mentioned (save ACB) were garbage.

[Genshie]

Dionkey wrote...

Clonedzero wrote...
RE5 was terrible, yep. multiplayer had nothing to do with that.
Dead Space 2 was well done, you just said so. its crappy multiplayer had nothing to do with that.
Assassins Creed: Brotherhood - had great multiplayer and its gameplay did evolve quite a bit from AC2, play them back to back and tell me its the same game. only changed a couple items because its the same character rofl.
GTA4 was amazing. one of the best games this generation. its mutliplayer was fully functional and is STILL one of the most played multiplayer games on XBL. (actually this month, its the 5th most played game on XBL)
Red Deads mutliplayer was fun if you did the objective stuff, the free roam did sorta suck though but it was still fun and the single player was great.

ME3 does not need multiplayer, i agree with you. but NEED isnt the issue. if they put on a competent multiplayer part of the game, whats the issue? like ive tried to explain, multiplayer doesnt hurt single player.

What I am saying is the the multiplayer is terrible most of the time and usually hinders the game in some way, whether that be length or content.

Uncharted 3 says, "HELLO!" < Played beta and it was a blast and I loved the co-op story mode part that they revealed towards the end weeks of the beta and it worked so well. But yes, Uncharted had the multiplayer thing during 2 and I can understand your point. I don't see why they would add multiplayer to the very butt end of the trilogy, they should have implemented it in 2 so they could flesh things out by 3. However if ME3 can have co-op story mission modes like Uncharted 3 has (so far) then I can see it working. Like I said and many others have said over and over as long as it doesn't  devalue the story and if they can implement it in a way that  fits the story like Uncharted 3 has (so far) I have qualms for it.

[Dionkey]

xlI ReFLeX lIx wrote...
No actually. Basically you said the single player and multiplayer of those games sucked. 1.That is opinion not fact. 2. Still proves nothing.

I don't understand what you want me to say to you. There is no such thing as "fact" when it comes to this. The only thing that matters in these arguments are opinions. If you like the multiplayer, how could anything sway you to not liking it? Unless the multiplayer was created with the souls of dead orphans.

Modifié par Dionkey, 15 août 2011 - 08:19 .

[Clonedzero]

GreenSoda wrote...


The "fuel" of all these teams is money. The fact that there are different teams isn't really relevant. Your last points are actually not that far off-base. Animations and voice acting can add to the sp-campaign, though -while any form of mp is completely detached from it.
That's why it would make sense to *not* have mp, but not necessarily make sense to not have animations or voice work in your game.

again. not understanding how it works is why you think that.
how do you think their budget is determined? not having multiplayer isnt going to suddenly mean more money for every other department. it could even mean theres less money for all other departments. you realize that right?

example, gears of war 3. both previous games had great single player campaigns, about roughly 10-12 hours long each. both had a big multiplayer part to the game as well. if they suddenly decided to cut multiplayer and devote all their time and money onto making a bigger singleplayer campaign. they'd probably have SIGNIFICANTLY less money to develop the game than they would if they included multiplayer.

you could safely assume that EA is like "hey bioware, if you put in multiplayer in ME3 then we'll give you alot more addtional funding. also microsoft really wants more games to support kinect, so can you include that too? again, more funding yay"

[xlI ReFLeX lIx]

Dionkey wrote...

Clonedzero wrote...

Dionkey wrote...

 What I am saying is the the multiplayer is terrible most of the time and usually hinders the game in some way, whether that be length or content.

how so? you still havent provided any examples of that.

I have, but you obviously don't agree with them.

Dead Space 2 was half the length of the first due to multiplayer. GTA IV was stripped of a lot of it's orignal content to implement a multiplayer mode. Almost all of the multiplayer modes I mentioned (save ACB) were garbage.

OPINION!

Not fact becuz IMO I like Dead Space 2 mp...its not the best but its a cool and fun feature. ACBs mp rocks! and me and half my friends still play GTA IV free mode mp all the time.. Hours of fun

[Dionkey]

Clonedzero wrote...
again. not understanding how it works is why you think that.
how do you think their budget is determined? not having multiplayer isnt going to suddenly mean more money for every other department. it could even mean theres less money for all other departments. you realize that right?

example, gears of war 3. both previous games had great single player campaigns, about roughly 10-12 hours long each. both had a big multiplayer part to the game as well. if they suddenly decided to cut multiplayer and devote all their time and money onto making a bigger singleplayer campaign. they'd probably have SIGNIFICANTLY less money to develop the game than they would if they included multiplayer.

you could safely assume that EA is like "hey bioware, if you put in multiplayer in ME3 then we'll give you alot more addtional funding. also microsoft really wants more games to support kinect, so can you include that too? again, more funding yay"

Gears was developed from the beginning with multiplayer in mind, of course it would get less funding. What I am saying is that Bioware should request funding from EA to create additional singleplayer content, not multiplayer. Why not just make a spin-off for multiplayer? 

[Clonedzero]

Dionkey wrote...

Clonedzero wrote...

Dionkey wrote...

 What I am saying is the the multiplayer is terrible most of the time and usually hinders the game in some way, whether that be length or content.

how so? you still havent provided any examples of that.

I have, but you obviously don't agree with them.

Dead Space 2 was half the length of the first due to multiplayer. GTA IV was stripped of a lot of it's orignal content to implement a multiplayer mode. Almost all of the multiplayer modes I mentioned (save ACB) were garbage.

deadspace 2 was extremely high rated. its multiplayer didnt detract anything.

GTA4 didnt strip the goofy side stuff from previous GTA titles for multiplayer, they got rid of that stuff to make a more serious toned game (which worked imo).

also you're too opinionated on this. like i said. GTA4's multiplayer is in the top 5 games played this month. so obviously alot of people STILL like its multiplayer years after its release. just because you didnt like its multiplayer doesnt mean others dont.

[xlI ReFLeX lIx]

Dionkey wrote...

xlI ReFLeX lIx wrote...
No actually. Basically you said the single player and multiplayer of those games sucked. 1.That is opinion not fact. 2. Still proves nothing.

I don't understand what you want me to say to you. There is no such thing as "fact" when it comes to this. The only thing that matters in these arguments are opinions. If you like the multiplayer, how could anything sway you to not liking it? Unless the multiplayer was created
with the souls of dead orphans.

Your still not proving anything
 your just blabbing on with nothing to go for but your own opinion. Its real hard to prove a point with just your opinion.

[GreenSoda]

Clonedzero wrote...

again. not understanding how it works is why you think that.
how do you think their budget is determined? not having multiplayer isnt going to suddenly mean more money for every other department. it could even mean theres less money for all other departments. you realize that right?

example, gears of war 3. both previous games had great single player campaigns, about roughly 10-12 hours long each. both had a big multiplayer part to the game as well. if they suddenly decided to cut multiplayer and devote all their time and money onto making a bigger singleplayer campaign. they'd probably have SIGNIFICANTLY less money to develop the game than they would if they included multiplayer.

you could safely assume that EA is like "hey bioware, if you put in multiplayer in ME3 then we'll give you alot more addtional funding. also microsoft really wants more games to support kinect, so can you include that too? again, more funding yay"

Yes I realize that BW might (*might*) have more funds available for implementing mp into ME3. The point where I think you err is the assumption that BW / EA actually distinguishes between the budget for sp and the budget for mp.

If the implementation of the mp-mode is going to take more money than estimated, that funds are going out of the overall budget.

[Dionkey]

Clonedzero wrote...
deadspace 2 was extremely high rated. its multiplayer didnt detract anything.

GTA4 didnt strip the goofy side stuff from previous GTA titles for multiplayer, they got rid of that stuff to make a more serious toned game (which worked imo).

also you're too opinionated on this. like i said. GTA4's multiplayer is in the top 5 games played this month. so obviously alot of people STILL like its multiplayer years after its release. just because you didnt like its multiplayer doesnt mean others dont.

xlI ReFLeX lIx wrote...
Your still not proving anything
 your just blabbing on with nothing to go for but your own opinion. Its real hard to prove a point with just your opinion.

Again, what do you want me to say? You guys believe the multiplayer is good, I believe it sucks and the money should be spent elsewhere. What facts can you possibly bring to this argument? 

[Clonedzero]

Dionkey wrote...


Again, what do you want me to say? You guys believe the multiplayer is good, I believe it sucks and the money should be spent elsewhere. What facts can you possibly bring to this argument? 

how do you know it sucks? are you from the future or something?!

[Clonedzero]

GreenSoda wrote...

Yes I realize that BW might (*might*) have more funds available for implementing mp into ME3. The point where I think you err is the assumption that BW / EA actually distinguishes between the budget for sp and the budget for mp.

If the implementation of the mp-mode is going to take more money than estimated, that funds are going out of the overall budget.

you're basing this all on extremely hypothetical worst case scenarios lol

[Dionkey]

Clonedzero wrote...

Dionkey wrote...


Again, what do you want me to say? You guys believe the multiplayer is good, I believe it sucks and the money should be spent elsewhere. What facts can you possibly bring to this argument? 

how do you know it sucks? are you from the future or something?!

No, but it's a trend for developers to make terrible multiplayer. Today's gamers like Call of Duty's that get churned out every year with no improvement and buy 15 dollar map packs, so I don't think how much the majority likes it is a factor in how much I like it.

[Clonedzero]

Dionkey wrote...

No, but it's a trend for developers to make terrible multiplayer. Today's gamers like Call of Duty's that get churned out every year with no improvement and buy 15 dollar map packs, so I don't think how much the majority likes it is a factor in how much I like it.

newsflash: bioware does not care how much YOU like ME3. they care how much the majority likes ME3.

[GreenSoda]

Clonedzero wrote...

GreenSoda wrote...

Yes I realize that BW might (*might*) have more funds available for implementing mp into ME3. The point where I think you err is the assumption that BW / EA actually distinguishes between the budget for sp and the budget for mp.

If the implementation of the mp-mode is going to take more money than estimated, that funds are going out of the overall budget.

you're basing this all on extremely hypothetical worst case scenarios lol

Sigh, it doesn't seem that "hypothetical" to me. But let me put it this way:

I'm not interested in mp. Not in the least. If ME3 has mp I won't be playing it.

...so the best I can hope for is that the implementation of this unnecessary "feature" won't affect the sp-campaign I'm actually going to buy the game for. More likely it will have some negativ impact, though.

So why should I cheer for this possible announcement ?

Modifié par GreenSoda, 15 août 2011 - 08:36 .

[Clonedzero]

GreenSoda wrote...


Sigh, it doesn't seem that "hypothetical" to me. But let me put it this way:

I'm not interested in mp. Not in the least. If ME3 has mp I won't be playing it.

...so the best I can hope for is that the implementation of this unnecessary "feature" won't affect the sp-campaign I'm actually going to buy the game for. More likely it will have some negativ impact, though.

So why should I cheer for this possible announcement ?

it is hypthetical. unless something goes extremely wrong, then multiplayer wont have any negative impact on the game. even if it does have some sort of minor impact on the singleplayer (which i highly doubt), you and i will not notice it.

[Dionkey]

Clonedzero wrote...

Dionkey wrote...

No, but it's a trend for developers to make terrible multiplayer. Today's gamers like Call of Duty's that get churned out every year with no improvement and buy 15 dollar map packs, so I don't think how much the majority likes it is a factor in how much I like it.

newsflash: bioware does not care how much YOU like ME3. they care how much the majority likes ME3.

I hope you know that the people who go to these forums are the minority now. The people who came after ME2 came out are the majority. The majority consists of gamers who are willing to give up difficulty and complexity for straight-forward hand-holding. The majority are the same 12 year old's who buy FPS after FPS and yell obscenities over the mic. The majority are primarily idiots, and I'm done arguing here.