152 réponses à ce sujet

[PHub88]

NO Co op or multiplayer.

[Blooddrunk1004]

Soldier - slows down time, has access to all weapons
Infiltrator - slows down time, cloaks for backstabing or close up shotgun kills
Vanguard - spams charge to just to annoy enemy's AI
Enginner - deploying sentry and using drones at the same time, can take out shields with one shoot (Sentinel aswell) and enemy basicly becomes completely vulnerable especialy for Vanguards and Adepts
I don't even want to bring out Adept class

Modifié par Blooddrunk1004, 17 août 2011 - 09:27 .

[GuardianAngel470]

AtreiyaN7 wrote...

Why...I've played Portal 2 on the PC, so I don't see why we would be excluded. Side-by-side gameplay seems like an unnecessary restriction. That aside, I'm 99% sure the only thing this thread's going to get is invite more illogical arguments against multi-player...

*scrolls up*

Yep, more illogical arguments. I don't have an urge to play any ME3 multi-player or co-op, but I don't believe that it would be the end of the world either if it were implemented. Single-player and multi-player can be done well in the same game without a loss of quality (though it would take effort of course).

I'm not the only one noticing it then huh? I counted at least 8 that completely ignored the thread title and just said "No" in some form with no explanation. Most of the rest rely on illogical arguments like "its the last in the series, it makes no sense" and "because of course you would get a paper shepard, not a real character".

@Happy Diaz, you ask why I make this topic even though I know it has been done to death? It's because I have heard only one reasonable argument against it and I already pointed it out in the OP and Cutlass Jack (LI FOR ME3!) reiterated it: development time.

Everything else has been copy and pasted, wasted space responses like the Sten No poster which I have seen a thousand times before in a thousand different places.

If it is cut because the Devs don't have time then fine, I am perfectly alright with that. But most of the time I get loud, obnoxious, pointless comments just stating an opinion without any sort of explanation or embelishment. Things like "it would ruin the series" or "not every game needs multiplayer".

The latter particularly irks me. You're right, not every game does need multiplayer. Assassin's Creed certainly didn't and neither did Dead Space. However, my argument, one I have yet to see ever refuted, is that Co-op in ME makes sense. You have constant companions in battle therefore you have constant avatars for a second player, unlike any of the Halo games.

It's a shooter unlike say KOTOR so the second player would have plenty to do and would have a lot of fun doing it.

And it is a challenging game, making the existance of ONLY AI squadmates bothersome and frustrating because an AI cannot compare to a real, physical person in the room with you.

No one, and I mean no one, has refuted that view. No one has even tried. All I ever get is "NOOOOOO" and "STFU, that's a horrible idea!"

I have, not once, gotten a constructive discussion from this topic. So I keep bringing it up in the hopes that eventually I will.

[bleetman]

GuardianAngel470 wrote...

Most of the rest rely on illogical arguments like "its the last in the series, it makes no sense" and "because of course you would get a paper shepard, not a real character".

There's nothing especially illogical about either of those arguments, y'know.

[GuardianAngel470]

Blooddrunk1004 wrote...

Soldier - slows down time, has access to all weapons
Infiltrator - slows down time, cloaks for backstabing or close up shotgun kills
Vanguard - spams charge to just to annoy enemy's AI
Enginner - deploying sentry and using drones at the same time, can take out shields with one shoot (Sentinel aswell) and enemy basicly becomes completely vulnerable especialy for Vanguards and Adepts
I don't even want to bring out Adept class

It slows down time for Shepard, not his squad. In reality what it does is heighten reaction time, and just for Shepard. There is no reason the second player can't continue as if nothing is happening, at regular speed, and wait for Shepard to catch up.

Although it is a good point, and has briefly been made earlier as well. Truth told I didn't think about it and depending on how the devs were to theoretically handle it, it could be a showstopper.

[Icinix]

lol -


I think OP just came across as "Console MasterRace" style. Didn't think I'd ever see that.


However, I see no problem in having this on consoles. In fact I think it would be quite beneficial in both sales, marketing, and feedback for potential future Multiplayer games in the ME universe.

As for the above argument about the AI not being able to compare to a real physical person, I would beg to differ, You don't have the risk of an AI cracking the ****s with you, killing you from behind and throwing the controller at you. But thats a whole different kettle of fish.

Modifié par Icinix, 17 août 2011 - 09:35 .

[Jorina Leto]

Pause, time slowing powers. It would not work.

Modifié par Jorina Leto, 17 août 2011 - 09:37 .

[GuardianAngel470]

bleetman wrote...

GuardianAngel470 wrote...

Most of the rest rely on illogical arguments like "its the last in the series, it makes no sense" and "because of course you would get a paper shepard, not a real character".

There's nothing especially illogical about either of those arguments, y'know.

Yes there is. They both rely on a falacious argument, specifically Raising Nothing but objections, as described by the Foundation for Critical Thinking. They simply objected without elaborating, and the second is critically flawed in that I already said that the character players would play as would be squadmates not Shepard AND there's nothing written that says banter between Shepard and his team must cease when a real person takes control.

Shepard does just fine talking without prompting, there's no reason to assume that his teammates wouldn't as well.

[GreenSoda]

Waste of resources.

No_thank_you.jpg

Modifié par GreenSoda, 17 août 2011 - 09:41 .

[Sesshomaru47]

The whole idea of the game is you're Commander Shepard against impossible odds with a team that likes to get stuck on boxes and die so you have to do everything yourself. Not you're Commander Shepard and your 2 dumb mates are Liara and Garrus. It's a stupid idea. Go play Gears if you want co-op.

[DarkDragon777]

No.

[Sepewrath]

Co-op doesn't work for a series, that revolves around one character, who makes all the calls. There damn sure isn't going to be any democracy on decisions, their Shepard's calls to make, that's why it doesn't work.

[Quole]

No multiplayer.

[GuardianAngel470]

Icinix wrote...

lol -


I think OP just came across as "Console MasterRace" style. Didn't think I'd ever see that.


However, I see no problem in having this on consoles. In fact I think it would be quite beneficial in both sales, marketing, and feedback for potential future Multiplayer games in the ME universe.

As for the above argument about the AI not being able to compare to a real physical person, I would beg to differ, You don't have the risk of an AI cracking the ****s with you, killing you from behind and throwing the controller at you. But thats a whole different kettle of fish.

To clarify, that was not the point. I have Left 4 Dead 2 on PC and have played the whole thing local co-op with my friend on my PC with controllers. I just meant to make the point that between the requirement that the players have A) either two controllers or a controller and a keyboard and mouse, that the player would have the adequate space to play comfortably with two people, C) that the development resources necessary to get the game to play properly on PC in Co-op vs on consoles is significantly higher and D) that creating either the in-game assets to allow for lobby-based co-op (something L4D2 doesn't have) or the necessary developer console access to play Co-op would be prohibitively difficult.

I simply looked at it from a cost/benefit outlook. The cost of implementing this for both PC and Console at Launch would not equate to the benefit it would have on sales.

[GuardianAngel470]

Sesshomaru47 wrote...

The whole idea of the game is you're Commander Shepard against impossible odds with a team that likes to get stuck on boxes and die so you have to do everything yourself. Not you're Commander Shepard and your 2 dumb mates are Liara and Garrus. It's a stupid idea. Go play Gears if you want co-op.

I have a hard time discerning if you're arguing with me or against me.

[BatmanPWNS]

If Co-op comes true everyone will fight over who wants to be Shepard.

[Sesshomaru47]

GuardianAngel470 wrote...

Sesshomaru47 wrote...

The whole idea of the game is you're Commander Shepard against impossible odds with a team that likes to get stuck on boxes and die so you have to do everything yourself. Not you're Commander Shepard and your 2 dumb mates are Liara and Garrus. It's a stupid idea. Go play Gears if you want co-op.

I have a hard time discerning if you're arguing with me or against me.

It must be because it's only 8am. Given that I said it's a game for one to play on ones own without the help of friends and I also said for a co-op experience Gears of War would be fit then I guess I am against the whole stupid idea of co-op in Mass Effect. Or for that matter any form of MP that takes away from development time of the main story.

[Myaku1313]

GuardianAngel470 wrote...

Notice I left out PC gamers. That's because as a demographic, they are less likely to possess the necessary space to allow for two players. They also often lack the controllers necessary to utilize this system. They often lack the expertise with the controller to utilize this system. And, above all, developing Co-op for a PC game is much harder than doing it for consoles. Drivers, peripherals, console commands, and all sorts of other things stand in the way and make it much harder.

Lulz.  Baldurs Gate 2, Rainbow 6 :Vegas, SWAT 4, F.EA.R. 3 (or F.3.A.R 3), Diablo 2, Neverwinter Nights 2, Portal 2

>.> And to further show that pc has more than the space and that you don't need a damn controller to Co-op or play en mass....Just a brain or the ability to follow orders

Counter Strike series, Call of Duty series,  Metal of Honor series, /cough WoW /cough, etc

<_< me think you no like the pc.

[Icinix]

GuardianAngel470 wrote...

Icinix wrote...

lol -


I think OP just came across as "Console MasterRace" style. Didn't think I'd ever see that.


However, I see no problem in having this on consoles. In fact I think it would be quite beneficial in both sales, marketing, and feedback for potential future Multiplayer games in the ME universe.

As for the above argument about the AI not being able to compare to a real physical person, I would beg to differ, You don't have the risk of an AI cracking the ****s with you, killing you from behind and throwing the controller at you. But thats a whole different kettle of fish.

To clarify, that was not the point. I have Left 4 Dead 2 on PC and have played the whole thing local co-op with my friend on my PC with controllers. I just meant to make the point that between the requirement that the players have A) either two controllers or a controller and a keyboard and mouse, that the player would have the adequate space to play comfortably with two people, C) that the development resources necessary to get the game to play properly on PC in Co-op vs on consoles is significantly higher and D) that creating either the in-game assets to allow for lobby-based co-op (something L4D2 doesn't have) or the necessary developer console access to play Co-op would be prohibitively difficult.

I simply looked at it from a cost/benefit outlook. The cost of implementing this for both PC and Console at Launch would not equate to the benefit it would have on sales.

Yeah, I know.
Still thought it was funny. Regardless, as mentioned, I think its a good idea.

[GuardianAngel470]

Myaku1313 wrote...

GuardianAngel470 wrote...

Notice I left out PC gamers. That's because as a demographic, they are less likely to possess the necessary space to allow for two players. They also often lack the controllers necessary to utilize this system. They often lack the expertise with the controller to utilize this system. And, above all, developing Co-op for a PC game is much harder than doing it for consoles. Drivers, peripherals, console commands, and all sorts of other things stand in the way and make it much harder.

Lulz.  Baldurs Gate 2, Rainbow 6 :Vegas, SWAT 4, F.EA.R. 3 (or F.3.A.R 3), Diablo 2, Neverwinter Nights 2, Portal 2

>.> And to further show that pc has more than the space and that you don't need a damn controller to Co-op or play en mass....Just a brain or the ability to follow orders

Counter Strike series, Call of Duty series,  Metal of Honor series, /cough WoW /cough, etc

<_< me think you no like the pc.

You're missing something crucial. I said local co-op which, unless you happen to have the necessary software and programming expertise to make it work with two keyboards and two mice, can't be done without controllers.

I've stated that online co-op was not a good place to sink development resources. It opens a whole other can of worms for Bioware's ME division. Therefore, local co-op was the only option. That means two players on 1 (or 2+) screen. Two chairs, one computer.

It's doable, but harder than on consoles.

And just so you know, only one of the games you mentioned has local co-op: Portal 2. In fact, all of Valve's big budget recent titles had local co-op; they are one of the few developers with the resources and the time to implement it and, once it had been, it was baked into the source engine so it made all later titles easier.

Remember, Bioware doesn't have a huge revenue generator like Steam or even Source. All they make are games. They aren't their own publisher; they don't make their own deadlines. Valve does both.

[GuardianAngel470]

Sesshomaru47 wrote...

GuardianAngel470 wrote...

Sesshomaru47 wrote...

The whole idea of the game is you're Commander Shepard against impossible odds with a team that likes to get stuck on boxes and die so you have to do everything yourself. Not you're Commander Shepard and your 2 dumb mates are Liara and Garrus. It's a stupid idea. Go play Gears if you want co-op.

I have a hard time discerning if you're arguing with me or against me.

It must be because it's only 8am. Given that I said it's a game for one to play on ones own without the help of friends and I also said for a co-op experience Gears of War would be fit then I guess I am against the whole stupid idea of co-op in Mass Effect. Or for that matter any form of MP that takes away from development time of the main story.

Wierd. I found your illustration of what the series was without co-op to be more compelling than your illustration of what it was with it.

[LiquidLogic2020]

Game play would be fun but the convos would really stop this from working very well.

[Sanunes]

Not for Mass Effect 3, it might work on future Mass Effect titles, but I really don't think it would fit for party members have less skill points and skills then Shepard (at least in ME2). That and I really wouldn't want to encounter Lift/Singularity and another person using Charge, for I think my TV would have a controller sticking out of it.

[Kolgen1227]

You dont change a game like GTA into a turn by turn game, nor do your change FF into a driving game, or change Need for Speed into a FPS, it just doesnt work. One, all your present gamers will say WTF and go pick up a diffrent title, two you dont change the genre of a game at the very end. You may be saying that adding multiplayer to ME3 is not changing its genre, but isn't it? the game so far is about Commander Shepard, and his/her struggles against insurmountable odds. you go and add multiplayer and its now about Comander Shepard and his sidekick, Comander Shepard doesnt need a sidekick, well unless its a combat move. those titles are great for what they are, unchanging through their series, little tweeks are made yes, but not like this. you may think it is small addition, then why add it at all if its so small? maybe you just think you have found an argument that cant be lost. simply put adding multiplayer would ruin it, you dont buy Halo Reach for the single player game play, 3 hours max of game play, thats if you stink at it. you buy it for the multiplayer, endless hours of play. if there is going to be multiplayer it needs to be a seperate DLC, that way those who want to keep the experience true to the game, they can, and not be forced into a less optimal gameplay. furthermore the sale of the multiplayer DLC would pay the Devs for the work and not take it out of the precious time they have to finish and perfect it. if you still dont think i have an argument, then i pose you a simmilar question, Why have miltiplayer? what good reasons based of facts and logic do you have for multiplayer to be in the game, take away all bias, opinion, and prejeduce. You may think that it would make more sales? not really, look at the percentage of players who say no, that is your opposistion, the masses, the number which needs to be convinced, no one is trying to change your mind, it is set, and it is as illogical as those whom you are posing this question to. instead of asking them, defend yourself and see how much ground you actualy stand on.

                                             (PS, sorry about the grammer, im a bio major, not an english major.)

Modifié par Kolgen1227, 17 août 2011 - 10:35 .

[-Tentei-]

1-This would render some powers to be useless and render the power whell useless. Example: Biotic Charge, Adrenalin Rush, Infiltrator Passive.

2- If anything, it would work best on the pc, ever heard of borderlands, they did a great job with the multiplayer and I was actually better on the pc.

3- Left out, it would suck to play as a squad mate because of their limited weapons, limited powers, and long cooldowns. And that wouldn't change because your squad would be over powered if those those restrictions were lifted.