786 réponses à ce sujet

[The Spamming Troll]

ive always felt like ME2 was missing alot of things, but adding multiplayer to it wasnt one of those things. but on the other hand if the games already done by last Xmas, and bioware thinks themsleves primo developers, then why not add a multiplayer aspect? i get that its taking time away from polishing up other areas instead. personally id rather them spend time on reimplemetning overheating weapons, or improved the difficulty settings.

multiplayer coop missions are a must. 3 man squads, prolly all a bunch of infiltrators and vangaurds. i think PvP would be awful. bioware cant balance a single player game, im not looking forward to its attempt at multiplayer.

[didymos1120]

PMs exist for a reason. Use them. Please.

[Dragoonlordz]

Clonedzero wrote...

no, the reason RPGs were so prevelent back then was because of technology limitations and how multiplayer wasnt really possible.

if you wanna be the type of guy that over generalizes and says "people who play RPGs are smart and cool!" "people that play multiplayer shooters are dumb and stupid! HA!" then go ahead, makes you seem painfully ignorant and naive though.

personally, i enjoy all genres of games. well not sports games, i find those extremely boring, racing games too. i like action adventure, puzzle, RPGs, shooters, RTS, hell ive been known to indulge myself in some of those pretentious artisy fartsy indie games as well. alot of people are that way, actually i dont really know anyone that only likes one genre of game.

notice how all the biggest top selling games have a big multiplayer focus? WoW, CoD, Halo, Gears, ect. ect. its because thats whats pushing the industry forward. if there wasnt anything pushing it forward then we'd have stagnation, and no one wants that.

also, whats killing RPGs, is that they take a long time to develop, cost alot, and tend not to make alot of money.

Your grasping at straws and your logic is hugely flawed.  Btw I never said RPG players are smart I also never said FPS players are stupid. I said they are angry and you proved my point. I also never mentioned if I played FPS too in the past. For every single person who buys CoD or even a FPS there is 2 or more buying another game from another genre. Just because they don't all buy the same game genre or from same developer doesn't change this. I promise you now if you look at the total sales for all games on all systems then total sales of all FPS/MMOs titles on those systems you will see it as a mere fraction of total game sales.

[spikoro5698]

Clonedzero wrote...

spikoro5698 wrote...

YA because black ops and MW2 were SUCH "very high quality games" <_< And LOL @ you calling me a "D-bag" Because you TOTALLY know me personally ROFL your almost worse than the the big bad wolf... almost...

they were high quality games.
are you saying extremely good graphics running at 60fps with a ton of stuff going on screen with a highly competitive multiplayer that runs silky smooth isnt high quality? just because you dont like it doesnt make it bad.
if they werent high quality games they wouldnt be making all the money that they do. they also sorta set the standard for finding the perfect control scheme for console shooters.

the worst you could accuse them of is being "samey" which is well, pretty damn true.

but the CoD games have extremely high production value to deny that is just stupid. im not even a fan of them and i can tell they're high quality games.

Black ops has "EXTREMELY good graphics?" ROFL get your eyes checked please mw2 i can see that it does have pretty good graphics, but black ops? "EXTREMELY GOOD?" well there goes your credibility <_< And the 12 year old kiddies are what gets COD most of its money, have you been in a lobby? 10 and 13 year olds racist as hell screaming with intense profanity its community is TERRIBLE.

[GoG ToXiC]

spikoro5698 wrote...

Clonedzero wrote...

spikoro5698 wrote...

YA because black ops and MW2 were SUCH "very high quality games" <_< And LOL @ you calling me a "D-bag" Because you TOTALLY know me personally ROFL your almost worse than the the big bad wolf... almost...

they were high quality games.
are you saying extremely good graphics running at 60fps with a ton of stuff going on screen with a highly competitive multiplayer that runs silky smooth isnt high quality? just because you dont like it doesnt make it bad.
if they werent high quality games they wouldnt be making all the money that they do. they also sorta set the standard for finding the perfect control scheme for console shooters.

the worst you could accuse them of is being "samey" which is well, pretty damn true.

but the CoD games have extremely high production value to deny that is just stupid. im not even a fan of them and i can tell they're high quality games.

Black ops has "EXTREMELY good graphics?" ROFL get your eyes checked please mw2 i can see that it does have pretty good graphics, but black ops? "EXTREMELY GOOD?" well there goes your credibility <_< And the 12 year old kiddies are what gets COD most of its money, have you been in a lobby? 10 and 13 year olds racist as hell screaming with intense profanity its community is TERRIBLE.

If you really think he's an idiot, then I see a great quote that could apply here.  I'm sure you've heard it before.  "Who's the bigger idiot?  The idiot himself?  Or the person who argues with him?"  In this case, it's definitely the latter.  Seriously, live and let live.  No need to get worked up over the opinion of one person.  Especially when you're the person who comes across as the immature 12 year old.

[TheZyzyva]

Clonedzero wrote...

well obviously they effect each other, the question is if its a negative effect or not. which rarely happens. theres no need to worry too much about it. ME3's single player will be high quality and AAA title worthy, i have no doubts about that. will it have flaws? absolutely. ive been a gamer pretty much my entire life and ive still never seen a perfect game.

its not so much "could this area in SP been better if there was no MP" its more of "could this area of SP been better if they didnt spend so much time over-polishing this area of SP".

like with ME1 , could the explorable planets had better more varied terrian if they didnt spend so much time making a clunky inventory and loot system?. in ME2 could the level design been more open and allowed for exploration if they cut some of the N7 side missions?

ME3 will have its own issues, they wont be because of MP, they'll be because every game has issues. its unavoidable.

its just more accurate to blame faults of the SP on the SP team for not working on those areas and spending too much time on others. unless they're understaffed, which they arent.  multiplayer has become the scapegoat of singleplayer campaigns.

I agree with a lot of this, but we could never assume to know what sacrifices get made where and for what. You say SP and MP rarely impact each other but I say how do we know? I know I'm not sitting in those meetings demanding the MP figure out what to do without messing with the SP. Unless some dev cares to stop by and give us their step-by-step of development, none of us can really "know."

While MP is deffinitely a scapegoat, I don't think it's without reason. (Going of your other posts here) Halo may have really got the gaming industry going, but what it has created may also be the biggest problem with the industry today. Halo made games mainstream and showed how succesfull a game could be. Now EVERY video game has to sell tens of millions or it isn't a success. The companies that be demand the biggest profit imaginable, and have destroyed the niche genres of old to obtain it. But back in the day, that's all there was. Are we, as gamers, better off with every game being the same thing with a different paint job?

Now, how does that justify MP being the scapegoat? Because every game that includes MP is tossing their hat into that ring, trying to get a piece of that pie. And in doing so, they give up what made them great in their own right. They have sold their virtual soul for a buck, to be able to slap "multiplayer" on the box and hope it sells. I'll bring up Bioshock2 again because that was the essential deffinition of a money grub. Bioshock was great game for what it was, it didn't need MP. It got it anyways, and nobody was happy. RE didn't need MP, but look. Sure, RE5 was still good, but it was the follow-up to game of the year. It should have been great.

Look, I got a little off topic. What it all comes down to is a mindset. I don't want BW to "sell out" to the masses. I've loved BW since Baldurs Gate. (I know their early stuff had MP. Honestly I couldn't tell you in what capacity they operated, but I'm pretty sure it was minimal) I don't think they need to make compromises for anyone. If they do add MP, I know I won't feel the same as if it was a SP game only. Every flaw will eat at me. If you as a player can make the distinction between MP and SP, then good for you, you will be fine. For everyone like me, it bugs us on a deeper level. It's ultimately about video game purity. So you don't have to agree with us, but at least know why we're so upset.

*Edit: I mispelt the final "know". It was really a great ending to my rant....

Modifié par TheZyzyva, 15 août 2011 - 11:54 .

[mranderson25]

Guys....Captain Picard > Captain Kirk, Apple OS > Windows, N'Sync > The Backstreet Boys etc. etc. This thread is going places.

[PHub88]

This page is nothing but arguments and no information. So is this god forsaken multiplayer confirmed for ME3 or not?

Plus WTF, I thought the GI issue with Shepard on the cover SQUASHED multiplayer rumors for ME3 but said they would do something down the road? hows that make sense?...If this is true wow way to squash a rumor with a blatant lie Bioware. Now anyone who didnt want it will be even more mad than before.

I am against it for very basic and obvious proven reasons. ME1 and ME2 did not need MP and excelled without it. ME3 is the FINAL game and should be the best to finish off Shepards story, implementing multiplayer AUTOMATICALLY makes it a lesser game due to lack of resources and overall space in general.

If ME3 has multiplayer and doesnt also feature 3 discs then this really sucks...

[Dragoonlordz]

@Phub this thread was always going to end this way. As for facts, won't know until the convention.

[AtreiyaN7]

stonbw1 wrote...

Just curious: How WOULD the co-op multiplayer work in a RPG (ME or otherwise)? I thought these games were about choices, which would be problematic with multiple real life gamers, right? Is one gamer just designated as 'full-time quaterback' to make all the decisions/dialogue choices?

Do people not realize that single-player and multi-player can be two completely different experiences that are designed differently and have either little or nothing to do with each other plotwise (assuming that there's even a "plot" in the multi-player)? This hypothetical ME3 multi-player gameplay might not involve co-op gameplay, and even if it were co-op, it would likely only be loosely related to the main single-player campaign.

Example: Portal 2.The co-op experience has different maps and different gameplay that is specifically geared towards having two players co-operating with each other. The plot is somewhat tied to the single-player game but doesn't detract from it (the only constant is GLaDOS and portal guns). In fact, the co-op campaign is satisfying in its own right, and the mechanics of the portal guns/paint are the same as the main game.

Furthermore, this hypothetical ME3 multi-player gameplay could involve simple maps and modes such as "Capture the Flag" and so forth. It could even involve characters entire unrelated to the main game, i.e., no Shepard, no Garrus, no Liara, etc. I'm really doubtful that any ME3 co-op/multi would amount to a co-op version of the single-player campaign/story.

Modifié par AtreiyaN7, 16 août 2011 - 12:00 .

[Clonedzero]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Clonedzero wrote...

no, the reason RPGs were so prevelent back then was because of technology limitations and how multiplayer wasnt really possible.

if you wanna be the type of guy that over generalizes and says "people who play RPGs are smart and cool!" "people that play multiplayer shooters are dumb and stupid! HA!" then go ahead, makes you seem painfully ignorant and naive though.

personally, i enjoy all genres of games. well not sports games, i find those extremely boring, racing games too. i like action adventure, puzzle, RPGs, shooters, RTS, hell ive been known to indulge myself in some of those pretentious artisy fartsy indie games as well. alot of people are that way, actually i dont really know anyone that only likes one genre of game.

notice how all the biggest top selling games have a big multiplayer focus? WoW, CoD, Halo, Gears, ect. ect. its because thats whats pushing the industry forward. if there wasnt anything pushing it forward then we'd have stagnation, and no one wants that.

also, whats killing RPGs, is that they take a long time to develop, cost alot, and tend not to make alot of money.

Your grasping at straws and your logic is hugely flawed.  Btw I never said RPG players are smart I also never said FPS players are stupid. I said they are angry and you proved my point. I also never mentioned if I played FPS too in the past. For every single person who buys CoD or even a FPS there is 2 or more buying another game from another genre. Just because they don't all buy the same game genre or from same developer doesn't change this. I promise you now if you look at the total sales for all games on all systems then total sales of all FPS/MMOs titles on those systems you will see it as a mere fraction of total game sales.

but FPS's are by in large the biggest genre at the moment by a fairly significant margin.
grasping at straws? what straws?

and i already said that the gaming industry as a whole is making benefit of the multiplayer pushing games into the mainstream. other genres are benefiting from more people being exposed to gaming due to multiplayers wide spread reach.

[Dragoonlordz]

mranderson25 wrote...

Guys....Captain Picard > Captain Kirk, Apple OS > Windows, N'Sync > The Backstreet Boys etc. etc. This thread is going places.

Kirk>Picard>Linux>Windows>Apple OS>Queen>Jackson>Every other group.

[Clonedzero]

mranderson25 wrote...

Guys....Captain Picard > Captain Kirk, Apple OS > Windows, N'Sync > The Backstreet Boys etc. etc. This thread is going places.

hey hey hey. while most of what you said proves your point that opinion is impossible to debate.

picard is better than kirk. thats just a fact ok?

[Dragoonlordz]

Clonedzero wrote...

but FPS's are by in large the biggest genre at the moment by a fairly significant margin.
grasping at straws? what straws?

and i already said that the gaming industry as a whole is making benefit of the multiplayer pushing games into the mainstream. other genres are benefiting from more people being exposed to gaming due to multiplayers wide spread reach.

Action is biggest genre I think not FPS. Industry isn't as large as it is because of multiplayer which you claimed, it's all the things I mentioned earlier. Multiplayer just benefited like all other genres from the real reasons I stated earlier.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 16 août 2011 - 12:02 .

[Dragoonlordz]

Clonedzero wrote...

mranderson25 wrote...

Guys....Captain Picard > Captain Kirk, Apple OS > Windows, N'Sync > The Backstreet Boys etc. etc. This thread is going places.

hey hey hey. while most of what you said proves your point that opinion is impossible to debate.

picard is better than kirk. thats just a fact ok?

lol nu hu never ever, ever.

Oh yeh and B5 > Star Trek (all)

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 16 août 2011 - 12:03 .

[TheShogunOfHarlem]

MysteryNotes wrote...

Whats the big deal about multiplayer?

There WILL still be a single player mode, right?

Nobody's forcing you to play MP.

Now if they made ME3 require multiplayer to complete, then that would be a valid reason for whining.

This is the mentality I don't understand. Most proponents for MP in ME3 fail to understand one important detail with some reasonable naysayers: It not a bout being force to play MP, it's about beng forced to by it. (sometimes at the risk their SP will be substandard) 

[mranderson25]

Clonedzero wrote...
hey hey hey. while most of what you said proves your point that opinion is impossible to debate.

picard is better than kirk. thats just a fact ok?

While this only promotes what i was trying to speak out against....i agree. :innocent:

[PHub88]

Clonedzero wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Clonedzero wrote...

no, the reason RPGs were so prevelent back then was because of technology limitations and how multiplayer wasnt really possible.

if you wanna be the type of guy that over generalizes and says "people who play RPGs are smart and cool!" "people that play multiplayer shooters are dumb and stupid! HA!" then go ahead, makes you seem painfully ignorant and naive though.

personally, i enjoy all genres of games. well not sports games, i find those extremely boring, racing games too. i like action adventure, puzzle, RPGs, shooters, RTS, hell ive been known to indulge myself in some of those pretentious artisy fartsy indie games as well. alot of people are that way, actually i dont really know anyone that only likes one genre of game.

notice how all the biggest top selling games have a big multiplayer focus? WoW, CoD, Halo, Gears, ect. ect. its because thats whats pushing the industry forward. if there wasnt anything pushing it forward then we'd have stagnation, and no one wants that.

also, whats killing RPGs, is that they take a long time to develop, cost alot, and tend not to make alot of money.

Your grasping at straws and your logic is hugely flawed.  Btw I never said RPG players are smart I also never said FPS players are stupid. I said they are angry and you proved my point. I also never mentioned if I played FPS too in the past. For every single person who buys CoD or even a FPS there is 2 or more buying another game from another genre. Just because they don't all buy the same game genre or from same developer doesn't change this. I promise you now if you look at the total sales for all games on all systems then total sales of all FPS/MMOs titles on those systems you will see it as a mere fraction of total game sales.

but FPS's are by in large the biggest genre at the moment by a fairly significant margin.
grasping at straws? what straws?

and i already said that the gaming industry as a whole is making benefit of the multiplayer pushing games into the mainstream. other genres are benefiting from more people being exposed to gaming due to multiplayers wide spread reach.

That is not true, what so ever. If that was the case you would see all genres growing and expanding. Instead of this "all games being multiplayer focused shooters" nonsense that is going on. Its destroying all the other genres for the sake of developers ONLY wanting to focus where the MAIN money makers are at for minnimum work required COD players have already shown they are willing to pay more and more for the same game once a year with no real improvements . Instead of focusing on where ALL the money makes are at. Single player RPGs still make money...problem is who is going to want to make one when the gamers have shown you can make some generic garbadge shooter and it will be eaten up?

[AtreiyaN7]

PHub88 wrote...

This page is nothing but arguments and no information. So is this god forsaken multiplayer confirmed for ME3 or not?

Plus WTF, I thought the GI issue with Shepard on the cover SQUASHED multiplayer rumors for ME3 but said they would do something down the road? hows that make sense?...If this is true wow way to squash a rumor with a blatant lie Bioware. Now anyone who didnt want it will be even more mad than before.

I am against it for very basic and obvious proven reasons. ME1 and ME2 did not need MP and excelled without it. ME3 is the FINAL game and should be the best to finish off Shepards story, implementing multiplayer AUTOMATICALLY makes it a lesser game due to lack of resources and overall space in general.

If ME3 has multiplayer and doesnt also feature 3 discs then this really sucks...

No, it doesn't "automatically" make it a lesser game. You don't knnow their budgeting or whether or not they planned for it (although if it's in, one would have to assume that they DID plan for it). Having cited Portal 2 in a separate post, I'm going to cite it again specifically because the single-player campaign AND the multi-player campaign were quite good. The co-op gameplay certainly did not take away from the time and resources that were so  obviously devoted to the single-player campaign.

Modifié par AtreiyaN7, 16 août 2011 - 12:08 .

[DCopeland]

Action is biggest genre I think

biggest genre I think

genre I think

I think

I think

I think

I think

This entire thread has every argument that has been thrown about in here is based around these two words. Must be pretty easy to come up with an stick in the mud approach to everything when you base evreything around 'i think', let me try it.

I think Robert Paulson was the first man on the moon, i think he was wearing a green gimp suit at the time.

Shut up.

[Lunatic LK47]

TheDarkRats wrote...

People are SERIOUSLY flipping out. I can't believe how bad this argument is. As, in I don't believe it. It's Bioware's game, they can do what they want. If you're going to cancel your preorder because of one little thing that doesn't even have anything to do with singleplayer, than it's your loss. Bioware isn't going bankrupt because a few people decide to whine enough that they aren't going to buy a game. Seriously, people. It's not going to take away from singleplayer if these rumors are true. It's your choice to play it or not, so please, i'm tired of hearing people complain about everything. Don't bite the hand that feeds you.

Yeah, tell that to Nintendo regarding the 3DS. The bad word of mouth alone has given it a very limited life-span.

[Cancer Puppet]

9 hours old, and this thread has 23 pages. Twenty. Three. Let's think about that, shall we?

[RinpocheSchnozberry]

Boiny Bunny wrote...

* Extra co-op missions with new characters running parallel to the main story.  Possible, though usually doesn't add much to the overall experience.

* Horde mode of some form.

Hard to see how any form of competitive multiplayer will work, since there would be no pausing available.

Nice ideas!  I'd mash them all together.  :D:D


Picture this:  BioWare strips (keep reading, you perverts!) out all the minigame mining from the ME2.  Instead, they replace it with resource gathering from inside the maps.  Looting resources and such...  That would allow for enough resources for a player to max out their gear and have a good time in the SP game.

However, BioWare complements the gathering game with a co-op multiplayer resource gathering minigame.  Totally optional!  But it will offer a ton more resources, allowing you access to every item and bit of gear in the games.  Essentially, in the co-op mode, you've got players of all the classes playing on maps against wave after wave of Reaper minions.  Each class has a role to play in order for the whole team to walk away.

For example:

The players all spawn in a drop shop at one corner of a map.  Some place out there is a resource node that you have to interact with to gather either Prothean data for a reward or minerals for the Alliance.  That node randomly appears at one of 24 points on the map.  The team hunkers down, picking off husk and geth patrols as fast as possible before the patrol can report and send the AI into alarm mode...  aka attack mode.  The whole time, any Infiltrators on the team can cloak and do recon, picking off enemies and scouting for the node.  Once you find the node, you have to get the whole team to it and start the mining process.  There would be no HUD pointer, only your allies indicated on the map.

Adepts, Soldiers, Vanguards, Infiltrators... they spend the whole time fighting off the inevitable assault from the AI while Engineers and Sentinels split their time between combat and performing the mining itself.  The mining would have to be a mini-game... but more immersive.  Something that would take the player almost to another map, leaving them helpless against the monsters all around them.  Once the mining is done, you can either call for a pickup or get the hell out of dodge and fight your way back to the landing zone for a pickup.  The reward would then be divided up evenly between the team, with bonuses for time undetected, minimals deaths, getting to the landing zone, and such.

Team killers would be penalized a huge percentage of their cut.  Every death would come with a six second respawn lag and a penalty to your final cut.  If the whole team is wiped out while everyone has a respawn timer... you get a bad ending and a minimal reward.  For extra fun, you could play as the Reaper forces and try to take down an Alliance team... 

Co-op could complement the core game without taking away from it.  This is just my random idea, but co-op could very much kick ass.

[TheZyzyva]

Well since I think my last post might have been a little convoluted, I'll clarify a little about some things.

Yes, FPS's are huge and have pushed video games to new heights. But they also set a precedent on production levels and sales. The problem this creates is that now, in order to be successful, all games need to hit those levels. But not all games are meant to hit those marks, niche games will never interest enough people to justify companies to pay for their development, and that is what has us cornered where we are with video games. They're all the same because the masses approve of them all being the same.

Thank god for the indie game scene, because that is where innovation comes from now. Cheap costs, cheap prices, great games.