786 réponses à ce sujet

[didymos1120]

United_Strafes wrote...

Ya more replayability kinda like what Dead Space 2 was shouting, turns out the replayability was the 2 hours anyone actually spent playing the multiplayer.....

Strange. I thought it was the new game plus feature and unlockable difficulties.

[E-Type XR]

First game in the series: Multiplayer is fine.

Multiplayer in the FINAL game of a series that has been building for 5 years as single player annoys me.

[Il Divo]

didymos1120 wrote...

But there have been plenty of good arguments about MP.  Well, for certain definitions of "good".

Hehe, that post was just me attempting to be snarky. There was no substance intended behind it.

But I do agree with your point. Good arguments are always enjoyable to read/engage in.

[sam726]

why exactly is multiplayer such a bad thing?

[AtreiyaN7]

E-Type XR wrote...

First game in the series: Multiplayer is fine.

Multiplayer in the FINAL game of a series that has been building for 5 years as single player annoys me.

And is there some logical reason for that? I fail to see where the annoyance comes in. If I play a game for the single-player campaign and notice that it has a multi-player mode, I do one of two sensible things: I either try it if it seems like it might be fun, or I completely ignore the multi-player if I'm not interested.

[GreenSoda]

sam726 wrote...

why exactly is multiplayer such a bad thing?

Because implementing features costs money.

[Rogue Unit]

sam726 wrote...

why exactly is multiplayer such a bad thing?

Because people have this irrational fear that MP always mean that the SP will suffer.

[Mr. Monorail]

I'm pretty sure that I can remember reading somewhere that Bioware will have a completely seperate studio from the main one working on any multiplayer aspects to games they might do. So I can only imagine that if they did choose to create a multiplayer mode it wouldn't have much of an effect on the main game.

Modifié par Mr. Monorail, 15 août 2011 - 09:39 .

[E-Type XR]

If you brought bread for five years, and then the company decided "Milk is popular, we'll put milk in our bread" would you be pleased?

[Il Divo]

sam726 wrote...

why exactly is multiplayer such a bad thing?

If you don't plan on using it, multiplayer costs time/resources which could be put towards something else you might use (the singleplayer). Especially if the multiplayer ends up being weak, that results in an even larger waste of time/resources.

Modifié par Il Divo, 15 août 2011 - 09:38 .

[Mwames]

Rogue Unit wrote...

sam726 wrote...

why exactly is multiplayer such a bad thing?

Because people have this irrational fear that MP always mean that the SP will suffer.

It's true. Especially with RPGs.

[Mwames]

Il Divo wrote...

sam726 wrote...

why exactly is multiplayer such a bad thing?

If you don't plan on using it, multiplayer costs time/resources which could be put towards something else you might use (the singleplayer).

This. You hit my thoughts spot on!

[kidbd15]

I guess we'll find out for sure whether SP will suck if MP is indeed integrated in about 204 days

[Rogue Unit]

E-Type XR wrote...

If you brought bread for five years, and then the company decided "Milk is popular, we'll put milk in our bread" would you be pleased?

I'm reserving judgment on MP, but if the milk made the bread better, yes, I'd be pleased.

Horrible analogy BTW.

[didymos1120]

GreenSoda wrote...

sam726 wrote...

why exactly is multiplayer such a bad thing?

Because implementing features costs money.

Well, duh.  The question is whether or not those funds would ever have been budgeted in the first place if multiplayer wasn't part of the game.

[Il Divo]

didymos1120 wrote...

Well, duh.  The question is whether or not those funds would ever have been budgeted in the first place if multiplayer wasn't part of the game.

This reminds me of all the arguments about whether dlc was being "pulled" from the main game or whether the developers were using a completely separate budget for its creation. Good times.

[SandTrout]

Mwames wrote...

Rogue Unit wrote...

sam726 wrote...

why exactly is multiplayer such a bad thing?

Because people have this irrational fear that MP always mean that the SP will suffer.

It's true. Especially with RPGs.

I don't know, NWN did fine, IMO.

[TheLeetSkweet]

what about assassin's creed? the first two installments were entirely single player, but people loved the AC:B multiplayer. i think the same thing would work for ME, also.

[sam726]

didymos1120 wrote...

GreenSoda wrote...

sam726 wrote...

why exactly is multiplayer such a bad thing?

Because implementing features costs money.

Well, duh.  The question is whether or not those funds would ever have been budgeted in the first place if multiplayer wasn't part of the game.

This is exactly what I mean. Bioware was probably given EXTRA resources to implement it from whoever once they decided to do it (if they are actually adding it). So there shouldn't really be that big a problem right?

[Blooddrunk1004]

I found this on GT, looks like it will be played live there aswell.
www.gametrailers.com/news/ea-s-gamescom-press-conference/3748

[Clonedzero]

E-Type XR wrote...

If you brought bread for five years, and then the company decided "Milk is popular, we'll put milk in our bread" would you be pleased?

depends how they impliment it.
i like cream filled donuts, in a way thats just milk filled bread.

[stysiaq]

If there were plans for MP, we would know it already. Too big thing to come up with and do it right in such short time.

Plus, a multiplayer Gears of War - like gameplay is not where Bio excels.Although I would love to see that kind of game. Picking class, race, gear and going rampage.

Geth/Quarian,r Krogan/Rachni or Human/Turian Deathmatches? Yes, please.

And Dead Space 2 multi is fine, but the maps are too few.

[Il Divo]

SandTrout wrote...

Mwames wrote...

Rogue Unit wrote...

sam726 wrote...

why exactly is multiplayer such a bad thing?

Because people have this irrational fear that MP always mean that the SP will suffer.

It's true. Especially with RPGs.

I don't know, NWN did fine, IMO.

NwN2 was well-received in terms of narrative, from what I've heard and that did have multiplayer. However, one of the original's largest criticisms was the single player campaign.  

Modifié par Il Divo, 15 août 2011 - 09:51 .

[AtreiyaN7]

E-Type XR wrote...

If you brought bread for five years, and then the company decided "Milk is popular, we'll put milk in our bread" would you be pleased?

That has to be one of the weirdest analogies ever. I'd be fine with the milk if it improved the taste, seeing as some biscuits and breads incorporate milk as one of the ingredients. That still doesn't change the fact that you can ignore the multi-player mode if it's in the game and happily bop around in single-player land like it doesn't exist.

Modifié par AtreiyaN7, 15 août 2011 - 10:12 .

[breakdown71289]

TheLeetSkweet wrote...

what about assassin's creed? the first two installments were entirely single player, but people loved the AC:B multiplayer. i think the same thing would work for ME, also.

Yep.....and the reason why that is, is because they have their main studio work on the single-player game, while a sub-section of there's works on the multiplayer, meaning that nothing gets compromised as a result. Hopefully Bioware can follow suit with this if their adding multiplayer into the mix.

Modifié par breakdown71289, 15 août 2011 - 09:54 .