152 réponses à ce sujet

[kyg_20X6]

So much stupid in this thread/forum.

[Mav485]

The argument that keeps on coming up and annoying me...."It'll take away time/energy/money from the SP campaign".....

>.< God forbid they have to multi-task, go over budget, or push back a deadline. And like this game would be on a fixed budget anyway if it meant they could bring millions more in revenue.

If nothing else, this game could easily tackle co-op MP since the combat boils down to SQUAD-based scenarios. This isn't Master Chief taking on the whole freakin' Covenant. Yes, they would have to contend with powers that slow down time. Simple solution. Substitute those abilities out for some other ability or tweak their other powers to compensate. This doesn't have to be ground-breaking. Simply allow for people to fight together. Yes, Shepard is boss. But that doesn't mean everyone micro-manages their squad in combat. Some people just go take care of business.

And if you want to jump into decision making, which doesn't even need to be done, simply hold votes. No drawn out dialog or long cut-scenes you aren't a part of. Or, if your don't have to be in charge of every single micro-decision (Which I would guess is a problem to a lot of folks here), simply let whoever is Shepard make the decision. People could host missions this way. You have group votes or Shepard. Simple. It doesn't have to effect your precious, canon-Shep, save file. It could be a self-contained mission.

I swear some people here make this seem like rocket science. If this was about adding co-op in at the last minute, my tone would change. Some people here seem to think adding co-op in at all though would desecrate the series. Really? Adding replay value is bad? Please. Get over yourselves.

I agree with the OP. I don't need co-op. I can't even say I would touch a possible co-op mode in ME3. The only game I even bother with multiplayer in most times is Madden. (Demolishing the Eagles is always fun. :-P) I want great single-player. I want a great story and tough decisions. This game could easily have good MP components though and I would see no decent reason not to if the right amount of effort, time, intelligence, and money was paid to it and every other part of the game. I'm sure some people pissed and moaned when Uncharted 2 was gonna get MP. And it turned into one of the best games of this generation. This game could easily do the same, if not more.

[Texhnolyze101]

I don't care if they add multiplayer or co-op i will never use either so im not bothered by it.

[Absafraginlootly]

Well I'm a PC player, so this isn't really aimed at me.

But if I played console more then I think i'd prefer that the person I'm playing with get their own character too, not just be a sort of silent side kick. That would of course have to happen in another Mass Effect universe game rather than ME3 though.

[xXljoshlXx]

What if it was a separate game type that was horde mode

[Kaiser Shepard]

xXljoshlXx wrote...

What if it was a separate game type that was horde mode

I most certainly wouldn't object.

[crimzontearz]

not everything needs to become a shared experience for god's sake

[LilyasAvalon]

Are you people THAT against simply waiting for a game that would be solely dedicated to Co-op or Multiplayer? Because of things like pause feature and certain powers like adrenaline rush, charge, etc., it's EXTREMELY difficult to implement that into Mass Effect 3 gameplay. You'd probably need a entirely new game engine to pull it off.

I'm all for a Multiplayer Mass Effect Game, but can't we just let ME3 concentrate on giving Shepard's final game some closure?

[Candidate 88766]

Some kind of co-op mode alongside the main campaign could work nicely. They could have a co-op campaign that takes place on Earth while ME3 is happening, giving us a different viewpoint of the war. Perhaps a horde-style mode involving something like the Skyllian Blitz. Of they could have competitive mode involving the Morning War - one side plays as Quarians, one side plays as the Geth.

I'm not going to be upset if ME3 is only single-player - quite the opposite in fact. However, I'm willing to keep my mind open and if Bioware thinks they have a multiplayer mode that genuinely adds to the experience then I'll give it a go. 

Modifié par Candidate 88766, 18 août 2011 - 11:40 .

[Jafroboy]

Modifié par Jafroboy, 18 août 2011 - 12:22 .

[Fuzzfro]

It's a nice idea , it would be great for having a friend over and playing the game together, I reckon it would be hard to implement though since mass effect is such a single player game.

[Tup3x]

GuardianAngel470 wrote...

Yeah, I know, a topic done to death. I'm just going to present my proposal and see if anyone can come up with a reason that I haven't thought of not to do it or one I haven't heard yet.

Here goes. Commander Shepard has two teammates at all times, barring any solo missions Bioware may decide to put in (which they might if Arrival is any indication).

That means that Commander Shepard has two possible teammates that could be controlled by a local, I repeat Local, friend. Building in online support would take way too much effort for a simple change and is not worth it. Hear that? No online support.

So, given that both the Xbox and PS3 both support local Co-op and they both support First and Second player, why not make Commander Shepard First player, and allow the Second player to choose a squadmate?

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.

Back to co-op. All dialog options would be controlled by First player while second player sits idle. Given enough time, the devs could even remove the splitscreen during conversations so that the whole screen was taken up by the Commander talking.

The commander's commands would be directed at only the AI squadmate, leaving the Second player to do as they wish.

Now, these are the things I see getting in the way. First, conversations and exploration aboard the Normandy.

Second, development time.

Third, Deaths.

Aside from development time, I don't consider the other two to be of true consequence. I can already think of two things that could fix those things, one of which has been done already in the Unreal Engine.

If you disagree with any form of multiplayer on principle, I don't care. Your principles are not my principles and there is no way you can force them on me.

PS: If I seem a bit rude, just know I've been up all night getting ready for college and am a little short tempered.

Wow... You have no idea. It isn't any harder for pc than for consoles. It would be much harder to get it run properly on consoles in fact and you totally underestimate the work that is needed for split screen co-op. Lan or internet co-op would be much more straight forward.

Besides, if people actually want to play co-op on PC it would be via lan or internet. Split screen for shooters is big fail in my opinion. You can always buy game pads for pc's.

You also forgot the fact that game pads and stuff like that have been available for us PC gamers since, well, forever really. I have Xbox 360 game pad that I use for certain games (the integration is great, you can't tell the difference between PC and Xbox 360 - except the superior visual quality PC offers). I do have the skills to use it, though there is no point in using it for shooters unless I use HTPC for gaming (which I don't, I don't like couch gaming).

Also, having split screen co-op would mean that they would have to tone down the visuals a lot for consoles. They don't have enough processing power to handle the addition rendering required. Heck, consoles struggle to keep the frame rate at 30 fps already (which is pretty low already).

Modifié par Tup3xi, 18 août 2011 - 03:20 .

[spikoro5698]

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

The Big Bad Wolf wrote...

I agree. I wouldn't mind some co-op in ME3.

This. Same for competitive multiplayer.

Competitive? LOL you are joking right? If not, then just go away and play black ops or something. 

Modifié par spikoro5698, 18 août 2011 - 03:21 .

[spikoro5698]

Candidate 88766 wrote...

Some kind of co-op mode alongside the main campaign could work nicely. They could have a co-op campaign that takes place on Earth while ME3 is happening, giving us a different viewpoint of the war. Perhaps a horde-style mode involving something like the Skyllian Blitz. Of they could have competitive mode involving the Morning War - one side plays as Quarians, one side plays as the Geth.

I'm not going to be upset if ME3 is only single-player - quite the opposite in fact. However, I'm willing to keep my mind open and if Bioware thinks they have a multiplayer mode that genuinely adds to the experience then I'll give it a go. 

I dont agree

[Phaelducan]

To answer the OP?

BSN is full of paranoid myopia.

Multiplayer done right only ever adds to a game. Done wrong? Don't play the MP component. So many logic fails going on it staggers the mind.

[Phaelducan]

No it wouldn't. Pure speculative conjecture. In all probability the MP component would be designed by a separate team with their own allocated resources. More paranoid myopia.

[The Spamming Troll]

Mesina2 wrote...

No.

i adisagree.

id **** a brick playing ME with another player. it might be one of the funnest things ive ever done in a video game. it definately would have that potential, if your a social gamer. it wouldnt be great for the single player campaign and i wouldnt want that to be coop, but strictly DLC missions would be welcomed.

im not sure how PvP would work, its be difficult for bioware to balance, and they arent good at that as is.

[Abirn]

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.

PC is far superior to consoles in every way imaginable.

As far as multilayer goes, if you want some sort of combat simulator (think Pinnacle station) for co-op I'm willing to give you that, but the story should remain Single player Why should I be forced to play co-op just to complete the story I've been waiting for since the first game.

Modifié par Abirn, 18 août 2011 - 04:25 .

[DCarter]

ME is a squad based shooter so it's pretty well suited for co-op gameplay. I don't see how letting another person take control of your squadmates during a mission is a bad thing.

[Phaelducan]

Abirn 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.

PC is far superior to consoles in every way imaginable.

As far as multilayer goes, if you want some sort of combat simulator (think Pinnacle station) for co-op I'm willing to give you that, but the story should remain Single player Why should I be forced to play co-op just to complete the story I've been waiting for since the first game.

FFS you wouldn't be forced to do anything. Want to play it single-player? Do it. It would make no impact at all on your experience. The only difference would be instead of issuing commands to two squadmates, you'd only get one, with the other being your stinky friend Dave (sorry to anyone named Dave) sitting on your couch and getting cheeto dust on your controller. 

Don't want that? Don't do it.

[Anakronist]

Phaelducan wrote...

Abirn 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.

PC is far superior to consoles in every way imaginable.

As far as multilayer goes, if you want some sort of combat simulator (think Pinnacle station) for co-op I'm willing to give you that, but the story should remain Single player Why should I be forced to play co-op just to complete the story I've been waiting for since the first game.

FFS you wouldn't be forced to do anything. Want to play it single-player? Do it. It would make no impact at all on your experience. The only difference would be instead of issuing commands to two squadmates, you'd only get one, with the other being your stinky friend Dave (sorry to anyone named Dave) sitting on your couch and getting cheeto dust on your controller. 

Don't want that? Don't do it.

It will be extra work for them to put co op into it. So that means either cutting some singleplayer experience or postponing release. That has an effect on everyones experience of the singleplayer campaign I would say.

[Phaelducan]

Again.... no it wouldn't. You have no reason to believe that with the resources of the two companies, they couldn't allocate additional resources above and beyond what they are doing for the single player campaign.

You assume they are going to peel off 10% of the dev team to shoehorn in some crappy multiplayer component, but that assumption has no basis in reality. Stop being paranoid. It means neither postponement nor cutting the single player game.

[BubbleSauce]

Introducing a arbitrary co-op mode in a game that is mainly based around story telling and role playing is a very bad idea, ever played fear 3? Not to mention the fact that it's something that a large portion of the demographic won't be able to use the bloody thing properly without the use of an extra controller and console commands.

[Il Divo]

Phaelducan wrote...

You assume they are going to peel off 10% of the dev team to shoehorn in some crappy multiplayer component, but that assumption has no basis in reality. Stop being paranoid. It means neither postponement nor cutting the single player game.

Of course I'm going to assume that, because it impacts my enjoyment of the game. Your argument only works if I assume all video games are given completely separate budgets for both their single player and multiplayer experiences. I'm not going to use multiplayer, so for myself it serves no purpose. Resources used to develop multiplayer are resources which could be added to the single player.