786 réponses à ce sujet

[Jestina]

Multi-player generally sucks anyways. There are loads of shooters on the market for that kind of thing anyways. Keep it out of ME.

[ThePwener]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

I'm ready, are you?

[ThePwener]

Yes, it's a word.

[TheRealJayDee]

If there is multiplayer in any form it'd probably be either a good multiplayer and a huge waste of resources or a bad multiplayer and a not so huge waste of resources. Either way it would be a waste of time and resources that could have been used to improve the singleplayer. That's what I'd think at least, unless we'd get detailed information about about who made it when at what cost.

Luckily there'll be no multiplayer at all, right?! I would never have thought there'd be a fun-for-a-week-or-so gimmick like Kinekt support though either...

[Dragoonlordz]

Just prepping you (dipping their toes in the water) for ME4 the FPS title.

[ThePwener]

TheRealJayDee wrote...

If there is multiplayer in any form it'd probably be either a good multiplayer and a huge waste of resources or a bad multiplayer and a not so huge waste of resources. Either way it would be a waste of time and resources that could have been used to improve the singleplayer. That's what I'd think at least, unless we'd get detailed information about about who made it when at what cost.

Luckily there'll be no multiplayer at all, right?! I would never have thought there'd be a fun-for-a-week-or-so gimmick like Kinekt support though either...

That'[s the narrow point of it. ME3 is using a new disc format that has double the capacity ME2 had, and it's been already confirmed that ME3 lasts as much as ME2 (32h.)

[ThePwener]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Just prepping you (dipping their toes in the water) for ME4 the FPS title.

That's not a bad thing. Borderlands was great.

[Gatt9]

ThePwener wrote...

TheRealJayDee wrote...

If there is multiplayer in any form it'd probably be either a good multiplayer and a huge waste of resources or a bad multiplayer and a not so huge waste of resources. Either way it would be a waste of time and resources that could have been used to improve the singleplayer. That's what I'd think at least, unless we'd get detailed information about about who made it when at what cost.

Luckily there'll be no multiplayer at all, right?! I would never have thought there'd be a fun-for-a-week-or-so gimmick like Kinekt support though either...

That'[s the narrow point of it. ME3 is using a new disc format that has double the capacity ME2 had, and it's been already confirmed that ME3 lasts as much as ME2 (32h.)

Actually,  everything google turned up says it's only 1 extra gigabyte,  and that the new disc format has issues with older X-box models.  So it's not a really big help and it's likely to cause alot of frustration.  Which makes sense,  because to double capacity you'd need to double the layers on the disc or halve the sector size,  either of which would require new hardware.  1 Gigabyte OTOH,  sounds more like a better process for using the space available on the disc,  likely by shrinking the unwritable areas.

[TheRealJayDee]

Chris Priestly wrote...

I know nothing I will say will make you think that it is or is not going to happen.

So, just wait and see what is announced during Gamescom. I shall return to see your reactions after it is all over.

Just read this. Seriously, it's stuff like this that really ticks me off. Once again: if YOU, Chris Priestly, employee of BioWare would tell me something about the rumored multiplayer in ME3 I WOULD BELIEVE IT!! (despite things that have been said about DA2 prior to the release - I guess I'm really naive...)

The whole PR policy of BioWare/EA in this case just weirds me out. If there is NO multiplayer in ME3, why can't you say so? If it's probably being integrated somewhere between now and release, why can't you say so? If it's decided it's in and there's supposed to be a big presentation and you're being told to shut up, okay. But right now everything but a straight up denial simply comes off as either an unspoken confirmation or... I don't, it just seems damn unreasonable...

I'm confused and a bit sad now...

[Dragoonlordz]

ThePwener wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Just prepping you (dipping their toes in the water) for ME4 the FPS title.

That's not a bad thing. Borderlands was great.

Really? I heard from friends it was quite bad. Short and not enough content aswell as few other things. Then again my friends are quite fickle games wise they tend to change opinion a lot, while I tend to stick with my original views on titles because I am generally right first time around.

I have no objection to next one being FPS or Strategy or another RPG as ME3 is the only title they have under development that interests me at the moment and they won't make another title for around 2 years with DA2 recently out few months back and ME3 early next year. I don't think they silly enough to rush out another DA title after criticism of how rushed DA2 was and I imagine will take time with next one (I hope for their sake).

Following that they will be working on DLC for ME3 for at least year and half while making start on whatever ME4 is but I am certain it will be radically changed from ME1-3. End of story tends to be time they turn a franchise into a guinea pig for radical change. Wardens story finished with DAO then came radical change for DA2, now Shepards story is coming to close I really do expect radical change to infect ME one way or another. 

FPS seems more likley as they try to grab FPS crowd, at best maybe a Fallout or Skyrim style in otherwords openworld /sandbox RPG type. Only within ME universe. Either that or some space based strategy title.

Have to bare in mind last FPS I bought and my total FPS collection consists of Halflife, Kingpin, System Shock 2, CoD4, FO3 and FO:NV plus DX1 and AvP original. So my view about Borderlands is just what heard not my own view.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 16 août 2011 - 03:25 .

[Gatt9]

jreezy wrote...

ThePwener wrote...

jreezy wrote...

From what I understand, Nope.

Because everyone here is a video game dev. to make assumptions like those.

Uh no. But since I've studied the process of game development in and outside of my Game Design degree I've heard it's not as easy implementing multiplayer as some people think it is.

Pretty much,  you're right.

First you have to implement a whole network system,  using networking methods that are traditionally flaky,  and likely rework your code to reduce latency that didn't matter in a SP game,  but becomes a *huge* problem when you're networking.  You have to rewrite sections of code to implement non-AI characters and their movement,  you've gotta optimize the whole thing because you're now significantly increasing your memory and processing overhead,  and you've gotta implement some form of communication system.

Then,  you have to design levels,  rebalance weapons,  rebalance enemies,  implement new modes of play.

It's not something you add in 6 months on an existing engine and have it not suck badly.  I wouldn't want to be one of the guys responsible for writing the code on that,  with only 6 months to do it,  into an engine that was never designed for it.  Getting it working wouldn't be too bad,  getting it working right and smoothly?  That's a beast of a job.

Especially since out of those 6 months,  easily 4 weeks are lost to planning and meetings,  and 4-8 weeks are lost in QA.

Modifié par Gatt9, 16 août 2011 - 03:25 .

[burr beer]

Gatt9 wrote...

jreezy wrote...

ThePwener wrote...

jreezy wrote...

From what I understand, Nope.

Because everyone here is a video game dev. to make assumptions like those.

Uh no. But since I've studied the process of game development in and outside of my Game Design degree I've heard it's not as easy implementing multiplayer as some people think it is.

Pretty much,  you're right.

First you have to implement a whole network system,  using networking methods that are traditionally flaky,  and likely rework your code to reduce latency that didn't matter in a SP game,  but becomes a *huge* problem when you're networking.  You have to rewrite sections of code to implement non-AI characters and their movement,  you've gotta optimize the whole thing because you're now significantly increasing your memory and processing overhead,  and you've gotta implement some form of communication system.

Then,  you have to design levels,  rebalance weapons,  rebalance enemies,  implement new modes of play.

It's not something you add in 6 months on an existing engine and have it not suck badly.  I wouldn't want to be one of the guys responsible for writing the code on that,  with only 6 months to do it,  into an engine that was never designed for it.  Getting it working wouldn't be too bad,  getting it working right and smoothly?  That's a beast of a job.

Especially since out of those 6 months,  easily 4 weeks are lost to planning and meetings,  and 4-8 weeks are lost in QA.

You really think that with rumors (and jobs being posted and filled!) for over a year, a multiplayer component will have only 6 months to be made?  You've proved why it isn't humanly possible in your post after all

I honestly expect a multiplayer compnent to be vastly different to the campaign, probably even running on a different version of UE3 if that's what that team has been working on. 

Modifié par burr beer, 16 août 2011 - 04:03 .

[PHub88]

Gatt9 wrote...

spikoro5698 wrote...

Clonedzero wrote...

IsaacShep wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

Mass Effect has done just fine without multiplayer thus far, so...meh.

IF we're being completly honest, the sales ain't as hot as some of the competition. So I ain't really surprised EA's trying to increase them some way.

yeah. RPGs are doing really bad lately because they dont sell as well, and they tend to cost more and take longer to make.

also RPG fans tend to be the most ungrateful out of them all. "OMG YOU DIDNT INCLUDE THE DIALOGUE CHOICE I WANTED!!!!!!!!" "omg you made the UI less cluttered and clunky? stop dumbing the game down!" ect.

This has to be one of the only times me and you agree with each other, RPG fans are pretty... well... pretty ****y and almost NEVER satisfied, all the hate that ME2 got because it wasn't as much of an RPG as ME1 (barley) was ridiculous and undeserved.

That's only because Shooter fans keep demanding RPG's become Shooters,  and claim that any game with a story that takes more than the back of the box must be an RPG.    So yeah,  you're going to end up with a pretty confrontational crowd when you keep releasing shooters and calling them "The future of RPGs!!!".

RPG fans are actually a pretty easy going lot when you're not trying to kill their genre,  case in point,  When Bioware used to make RPG's they also used to spend alot of time talking with the fans on the boards.

Eh? Expanding aka more is spent on gaming [all genres] than 3 year ago, 7 years ago or 10 years ago. I already stated earlier that population growth is part of reason as well as many other reason, your agreeing with me there... Never said they were better games I said expanding as in more sales across the board is spend on games now for all the reasons I list few pages back.

Um...what?  Pretty much every genre other than Shooter is dead,  almost no money goes into it.  Go look over E3's game lists,  it's 90%+ Shooters.  It was just two weeks ago Ubisoft was defending X-com by claiming Strategy is now a dead genre too.

It's already been denied. Not that I care if multiplayer is in ME3 or not.

No it hasn't.  They've never straight out said it won't be there,  they dodged the question every time.  In fact,  they're implied it's existance by "refusing to comment on rumors",  when they commented on rumors the day before,  and went to great lengths to defuse false rumors 2 months ago.

Speaks truth this one

[AtreiyaN7]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

AtreiyaN7 wrote...

Twelve hours or so, eh? Good, then people will have this sorted out and can finally put the bloody rumor to rest. If it's true, then hey, they can start making effigies to burn in protest. *snort*

I'm ready, are you?

Actually, I suspect that it will be a Catch-22 situation - if they say nothing definitive, the rumors and conspiracy theories continue, in which case everyone's subjected to more threads like this for the forseeable future. If they actually do put it to rest and say that multi is not in the game...I have this feeling that conspiracy theorists will persist anyway. I'm starting to wonder if I should request a medically-induced coma until March of next year.

[Illusive]

Here's a conspiracy theory:
What if the original multiplayer "rumor" was started by Bioware, who are now just sitting back and enjoying the free publicity?

[Valcutio]

Bioware's new motto: "If it worked for CoD..."

[LeVaughnX]

First let me say that I've been lurking for a while and I've noticed quite a bit of ""OMG MULTIPLAYER"" crap getting into the lime-light. I have no solid proof of what I'm about to say; other than that I've read it and others have claimed to have had proof...Not to mention Bioware has (to my knowledge) stated the following (in some form).

Mass Effect 3 will not have multiplayer - but future installments may.

Meaning....

Mass Effect 3 is NOT GOING TO HAVE MULTIPLAYER!!! Its possible that a SPIN-OFF might be multiplayer however.

They know flat out that ME3 having Multiplayer would completely ruin the series unless it was cooperative (not deathmatch or any other bullsh*t).

[Massadonious1]

Valcutio wrote...

Bioware's new motto: "If it worked for CoD..."

Except the type of multiplayer that has been rumored is a horde style mode, not a traditional deathmatch style.

The proper comparison/slight you are looking for is "Gears".

[LeVaughnX]

jreezy wrote...

Valcutio wrote...

Bioware's new motto: "If it worked for CoD..."

Not a bad motto.

You're right; it's a terrible motto... Call of Duty sucks.

Battlfield >>> Call of Duty.

Multiplayers need to be Cooperative / Objective Based *****ONLY***** -- not random bullsh*t shooters.

[littlezack]

At this point, there's really no point in crying about it. If it's in, it's in - which I doubt, but whatever. In twenty-four hours, we'll know for sure, and then the haters will calm down...until the next shred of multiplayer shows up, and they have another hissy fit.

You wonder why Bioware hasn't flat out denied it? My guess: entertainment value. The way some people have conniption fits over multiplayer...such entertainment can't be bought.

[spikoro5698]

Kings19 wrote...

Here's a conspiracy theory:
What if the original multiplayer "rumor" was started by Bioware, who are now just sitting back and enjoying the free publicity?

[Genshie]

Kings19 wrote...

Here's a conspiracy theory:
What if the original multiplayer "rumor" was started by Bioware, who are now just sitting back and enjoying the free publicity?

^ This! So this! It is the evil NHK orginazation's doing!  


Anyway, as mentioned already why would Bioware want to defame themselves and admit that these rumors are false when it is getting them all kinds of attention? Think how many more people are going to panel tomorrow just to hear if this/these rumor(s) are indeed true or false. Its all about numbers people. Watch they will have another poll but this time asking if there should be multiplayer or not.  jk..... For all we know they are revealing the Femshep trailer tomorrow. (One could dream right?)