152 réponses à ce sujet

[Phaelducan]

That makes no sense Il Divo. You say "of course I'm going to assume that" in regards to me referencing resource allotment, whereas you use "impacts your enjoyment of the game" as evidence.

They have nothing to do with each other. Resources are resources, and if a component doesn't affect you in the slightest, then it doesn't matter whether they use 10 dollars or 10 million dollars for it's development..... as long as it doesn't in any way inhibit your own experience.

Nowhere is there a shred of evidence to say that Bioware is going to axe single player content for (at this point non-existent) multiplayer.

[The Spamming Troll]

Il Divo wrote...

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.

but imagin if you and your buddies can go online, you could play an infiltrator, ill play a vangaurd, and we get to go on missions and destroy reapers. you want to play dual adepts? fine with me! im not even mentioning the 3rd squadmate.

you dont want that?

[The_Illusive]

The Big Bad Wolf wrote...

There sure is a lot of stupid in this thread.

It's BSN.

[Phaelducan]

What, you mean like Ubisoft did with Brotherhood? (Meant in that they didn't take resources away from single player).

Take your assumptions and go turn them into something productive. Nothing sucks until it actually sucks. The potential to suck is not a valid argument. (meant in that the fear that Bioware might screw up a multiplayer component, no one is willing to concede that they also might not, and it could be great).

Edit: To clarify ambiguity.

Modifié par Phaelducan, 18 août 2011 - 06:12 .

[alex90c]

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.

How about NO.

[Phaelducan]

alex90c wrote...

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.

How about NO.

How about YES?

See what I did there?

[Phaelducan]

General address. I realize you were agreeing with me, I was being sarcastic to no one in particular and for no other reason than frustration with the abundance of thinking errors on this topic.

[Mecha Tengu]

No

Reason: Not call of duty, and definitely not going to be dumbed down (that much) to meet standard FPS standards for children, idiots, and "girl gamers" for console.

IF YOU WANT THAT CRAP GO PLAY CoD or some other mainstream shooter

[Phaelducan]

Poor comparison. If anything ME3 co-op campaign would be compared to Gears of Wars 2 co-op campaign. Now I won't argue the merits of the Gears games, but people who like them tend to like their co-op campaign option.

[NinaDA]

Not a fan of co-op or multiplayer, but regardless of my personal preferences, ME3 is the culmination of Shepard's story. This series has been all about Shepard and recurring companions, and it should stay that way until the end. The devs said ME3 will be more about interpersonal relationships with your squad mates, which I do look forward to. Why throw co-op in there now? Save it for a future game where it makes sense right from the start. Or give it the part of the robotic dog on the Normandy - no more.

[Il Divo]

Phaelducan wrote...

They have nothing to do with each other. Resources are resources, and if a component doesn't affect you in the slightest, then it doesn't matter whether they use 10 dollars or 10 million dollars for it's development..... as long as it doesn't in any way inhibit your own experience.

They both cost money, so they have plenty to do with each other. If EA allocates a certain amount of money to develop Mass Effect 3, any amount used to develop multiplayer is not being used to develop the single player campaign which I am experiencing.

Your argument only works if I assume that EA gives Bioware two entirely separate budgets and say "This amount is for single player" and "this amount is for multiplayer".

[Il Divo]

The Spamming Troll wrote...

but imagin if you and your buddies can go online, you could play an infiltrator, ill play a vangaurd, and we get to go on missions and destroy reapers. you want to play dual adepts? fine with me! im not even mentioning the 3rd squadmate.

you dont want that?

No, I really don't. The only multiplayer games I have ever enjoyed has been World of Warcraft and Halo Reach's co-op firefight. I don't play Bioware games for their multiplayer content (one reason why I hate Neverwinter Nights).

As it stands, I've completed each Halo's campaign more times than I've ever gone online. Multiplayer games do not interest me as a player.

Modifié par Il Divo, 18 août 2011 - 06:44 .

[Phaelducan]

Which is not only plausible, but likely given the success Ubisoft had with Brotherhood. It's a strong economic model for success. 100 million for the game, give some multiplayer experts another 20 million solely for a fun multiplayer component.

I'm not so full of hubris to refuse to consider various possibilities for a game's development. Why are you?

Edit: "No, I really don't. The only multiplayer games I have ever enjoyed has been World of Warcraft and Halo Reach's firefight. I don't play Bioware games for their multiplayer content (one reason why I hate Neverwinter Nights)."

Ok, so your realm of expertise is limited to an MMO and one mode of one game in a series of multiple FPS? Gears of War and Assassin's Creed are both very strong market examples for fun, exciting multiplayer components that helped their respective developers make a TON more sales. Multiplayer is not just team fragfest, it can be good (see aforementioned examples) or bad (Fable 2/3). In and of itself it is no more positive or negative than any number of single player gameplay elements.

Modifié par Phaelducan, 18 août 2011 - 06:50 .

[Il Divo]

Phaelducan wrote...

Which is not only plausible, but likely given the success Ubisoft had with Brotherhood. It's a strong economic model for success. 100 million for the game, give some multiplayer experts another 20 million solely for a fun multiplayer component. 

I'm not so full of hubris to refuse to consider various possibilities for a game's development. Why are you?

Of course I've considered it. But either scenario results in me not using the multiplayer. I'm glad Ubisoft handled Brotherhood like that.  But I'm not looking for how Ubisoft has handled multiplayer. I'm looking for how gaming companies in general handle multiplayer. Maybe you have extensive knowledge of game development and can share some insight. But unless you can demonstrate that all multiplayer content is handled using Ubisoft's approach, I have no interest in anything that might detract from my single player experience.

Modifié par Il Divo, 18 août 2011 - 06:49 .

[Phaelducan]

Il Divo, I'm not making any claims whatsoever. What I'm saying is that it's absolutely absurd to not even consider that Bioware could both allocate additional resources (precedent is there from other companies with phenomenal success) as well as make a fun multiplayer addition to a game without compromising the single-player experience.

I make no claims at all that it's impossible that it could suck, it very well could, but no one is even willing to admit that it could be a terrific addition to the game, sell more copies, and establish Bioware as a strong multiplayer Developer (all of which are good things).

Just too much damned negativity.

[Il Divo]

Phaelducan wrote...

Il Divo, I'm not making any claims whatsoever. What I'm saying is that it's absolutely absurd to not even consider that Bioware could both allocate additional resources (precedent is there from other companies with phenomenal success) as well as make a fun multiplayer addition to a game without compromising the single-player experience.

I've considered it. And rather than risk that possibility, I will just say no to wanting multiplayer. If you want multiplayer, then ask for it. Bioware will ultimately decide whether it's worth implementing. But saying "it's optional" or "it won't impact the single-player" doesn't move me. I don't know that it won't impact the single-player, so why should I support it?

I make no claims at all that it's impossible that it could suck, it very well could, but no one is even willing to admit that it could be a terrific addition to the game, sell more copies, and establish Bioware as a strong multiplayer Developer (all of which are good things).

Just too much damned negativity.

Good things for anyone interested in multiplayer. Bioware's reputation, excluding Neverwinter Nights, has been as a single player RPG developer, which is what I enjoy. It has nothing to do with negativity. If someone doesn't like racing games, they don't buy racing games. If I don't enjoy multiplayer, I'm not going to engage in multiplayer. Therefore, I'm not interested in Bioware expanding into the multiplayer market. I'm not being negative, I'm simply being selfish.

Modifié par Il Divo, 18 août 2011 - 07:02 .

[GreenSoda]

Phaelducan wrote...

Il Divo, I'm not making any claims whatsoever. What I'm saying is that it's absolutely absurd to not even consider that Bioware could both allocate additional resources (precedent is there from other companies with phenomenal success) as well as make a fun multiplayer addition to a game without compromising the single-player experience.

I make no claims at all that it's impossible that it could suck, it very well could, but no one is even willing to admit that it could be a terrific addition to the game, sell more copies, and establish Bioware as a strong multiplayer Developer (all of which are good things).

Just too much damned negativity.

Look at it from this side: If you're not interested in mp at all, the best outcome you can hope for is that it somehow doesn't screw up the sp campaign. At best. If you're unlucky parts of the sp-campaign will get sacrificed for a "feature" you're not interested in.

Modifié par GreenSoda, 18 août 2011 - 07:08 .

[Il Divo]

GreenSoda wrote...

Look at it from this side: If you're not interested in mp at all, the best outcome you can hope for is that it somehow doesn't screw up the sp campaign. At best. If you're unlucky parts of the sp-campaign will get sacrificed for a "feature" you're not interested in.

Hmm, in three sentences you managed to explain perfectly what in two paragraphs I could not. Most impressive.

[coolair74]

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.

Its fine, PC gamers can just do Co-op online.

[Phaelducan]

That strikes me as both selfish and myopic. So if ten people want something in a game, which won't affect you at all (most likely), you would rather the developer leave it out even if it takes no resources away from what you already like?

No offense, but I hope Bioware realizes that supporting that paradigm will equal crappy sales and a failed company if allowed to continue.

[spikoro5698]

The Big Bad Wolf wrote...

There sure is a lot of stupid in this thread.

You included

[GreenSoda]

Phaelducan wrote...

...which won't affect you at all (most likely)....
...leave it out even if it takes no resources away from what you already like?...

That's some pretty big assumptions you're making there.