991 réponses à ce sujet

[Pink_Pyro]

Anything is better than 1. That was a mess compared to the BW titles of old.

[Melra]

unfringed wrote...

DaringMoosejaw wrote...

unfringed wrote...

MegaBadExample wrote...

Azbeszt wrote...

** Copied spam deleted **

(Last pic, I promise..)

It's funny because most people are like this.

"Noooooo!!!!!!!!! Multiplayer in ME!? *Cancel pre-order*"

Losers.

Yeah, how dare those ****s be upset that a game trilogy they enjoyed is being turned into a flashy gimmick?

You mean that BITS of the final game of the series are 'flashy gimmicks', entirely in their own opinion?

ME2 was a mess from a storytelling perspective. Everything that made ME1 great was ditched for "streamlined gameplay". "Making decisions that count" meant you get an email saying thanks.

Bioware promised "ME3 will focus on story".

HEY GUIES WE HAVE OMNI TOOL BLADES. HEY GUIES YOU CAN SNIPE THE PILOT OF SOME MECHS. HEY GUIES WE HAVE MULTIPLAYER NOW.

It's not irrational to suspect that the downgrade from ME1 in ME2 will continue in ME3 when everything, from the advertising to the gameplay, suggests that all they're really concerned with is attracting cowwadooty fans with multiplayer and combat gimmicks.

Yeah, the change from ME1 to ME2 already hinted a bit on what was possibly coming. ''Ooh look at dis.. ''epic explosion, we saw dese in CoD and thought you maight laik dem too'' Sadly they were done better in the other game.

Modifié par Selene Moonsong, 10 octobre 2011 - 03:45 .

[Personality Disorder]

You know, Bioware, it is not my place or even right to tell you what to do with your IPs and franchises. You want multiplayer in Mass Effect - fine, you want Dragon Age to develop in a new direction - whatever. None of us really have a say in this, nor should we. 

There is one thing though I would really like for you to stop doing. I'm not calling you a liar, just don't lie to me.

* Spam deleted per Siter Sule # 2 *

Modifié par Selene Moonsong, 10 octobre 2011 - 03:46 .

[upsettingshorts]

LPPrince wrote...

Lets talk resources.

No. 

Zot discussions are pointless.

[unfringed]

Pink_Pyro wrote...

'Cowwadooty' fans are more bearable than RPG-tards. I know which audience I'd be aiming for.

You're either one of the most obnovious people alive that actually enjoys the modern FPS crowd or incredibly inexperienced with online gaming.

[Azbeszt]

I love this thread. Trolls try so hard.. and fail.

[Gorosaur]

I'd just like to point out that the existence of multi-player does not make the writing for the game drop in quality. I'm pretty sure Mac Walters and crew could care less about the multiplayer mode when writing dialogue and plot points.

[Leonia]

No, let's show all the BORING stuff during the demos so the non-action types will be satiated, that's sure to bring in the new customers in droves.

If you're judging the whole game based on what we've seen so far then you're really not giving it a chance, whether you support MP or not.

[AlphaJarmel]

leonia42 wrote...

Let's talk resources.. Bioware Montreal.

Correct.  The question though is whether Montreal is up to the task of making a full fledged multiplayer even with Dice's help.

The thing that will make or break this game won't be this.  It will be the writing. 

[RamirezWolfen]

Priestly locked the other thread saying "rumor."

[upsettingshorts]

unfringed wrote...

Pink_Pyro wrote...

'Cowwadooty' fans are more bearable than RPG-tards. I know which audience I'd be aiming for.

You're either one of the most obnovious people alive that actually enjoys the modern FPS crowd or incredibly inexperienced with online gaming.

You're all equally insufferable. 

[Ohei]

The only reason I'm egh about multiplayer is that they might put a 50/50 effort developing it along with the single player. Hell, even if a 20 % goes to multiplayer, it means the single player could've been improved even MORE. And I play Mass Effect for the campaign. So if they're going to go with MP, once I'm done playing through the campaign, I plan on kicking back, sigh in awe at such an amazing game, and then be like "Oh, and now there's multiplayer. What a nice plus!". I don't wanna be like, "Ok that was a decent campaign, let's look at how they handled multiplayer, it will probably be intended to make up for x and y."

[JukeFrog]

Let's face it, the real reason ppl are angry about MP is because they know that they're going to get owned by me.

[DarkDragon777]

AlphaJarmel wrote...

DarkDragon777 wrote...

The-Person wrote...

slimgrin wrote...

The thing is, I spent 46 glorious hours on my first run with ME2. Many games that incorporate multi don't have that kind of length. RPG's are long affairs, sometimes 3-4 times longer than your typical action game.

Like I said before, Casey said that the SP will the same length as ME2. He has been accurate on the length of games in the past. Before ME2 came out, he said that the SP would be 20-30 hours long.

Not that anyone was hoping the finale would be longer than the second game in the trilogy or anything.

Well the way they put it is that the story would be the same length but it would have a ton more replayability through choice impact compared to the others.

Uh, I'd rather have a long, depthy conclusion that would have slightly
less choice than a shorter game that has a lot more replayability through choice impact.

[didymos1120]

slimgrin wrote...

However, if the single player campaign suffers because of it, even just a little, my nerd rage shall be great.

When you run across something in SP that seems less-than-ideal to you, how will you know that it was because of the MP mode?  Surely the mere existence of said mode isn't sufficient evidence?  Maybe they just screwed that part up for entirely unrelated reasons.

[Pink_Pyro]

Actually the modern FPS fans are as bad as traditional RPG elitists. ME 1 had alien strippers and big explosions too.

[MGIII]

LPPrince wrote...

Thing is, I don't want to play this game with anyone else. I don't even talk to friends in XBL parties while I play these games. Good thing I don't HAVE to.

Unlike some people, I'm not angry about multiplayer/co-op. I'm confused and worried.

(Please remember this is a fan's perspective, which means I could ALWAYS be wrong and quite possibly am)

Lets talk resources.

You get X amount of money to work on game. Okay, good.

If a portion of that X amount of money has to be spent on the MP rather than the SP, the SP just lost something it could've used.

Solution? Get Y amount of money on top of the original X amount of money, X solely for the SP, Y solely for the MP.

Problem?(no troll face necessary) Extra money spent by those in charge.

Single player doesn't lose any funding. But, what about disk space?

ME1- One disk
ME2- Two disks

Will there be a trend?

If the game is on two disks, and MP must obviously be placed on said disks, that's space that could've gone to the SP.

Solution? Make the SP on two disks, make an extra disk for MP.

Problem?(no troll face necessary) Extra disk=Extra money spent by those in charge.

So there's a lot of stuff we don't know. Whether its co-op or full on multiplayer, if its on the same disks as the main game, the way funds were handled for it(frankly, something we should NEVER discover, leave that to those who make the games), if it affected the single player, etc etc.

I understand the confusion and worry. Even the anger. But I think everyone needs to chill out and just wait. Wait for more concrete information, whether from that magazine or from Bioware directly, here, on the forums.

This was a very roundabout and inefficient way of stating the obvious fact that time and resources going into something you don't want and will not play are time and resources not going into something you do like and do want to play.

[FoxHound109]

RamirezWolfen wrote...

FoxHound109 wrote...

IsaacShep wrote...

FoxHound109 wrote...

I think developers need to get over multiplayer. Not every game needs it. *Sigh*

True, but I ain't gonna be mad with some nice ME co-op

I don't mind EXTRA features, per se, but I think this only legitimizes the horrible idea developers have in this day and age that only multiplayer games matter. This is why I am bothered. Not all games need a standard. Mass Effect 3 doesn't need a multiplayer anymore than Team Fortress 2 needs a single player. Some games need stories (Uncharted) and others don't (Mario). Some games need specific progression (Halo) and others are just challanges (Tetris). Some games need multiplayer and some games don't. The last time developers fell into a loophole this big was with Final Fantasy VII where everyone and their mother thought that cinematic story telling was the most important thing, more so than gameplay even. We're STILL feeling the effects of that one with certain developers putting out bad games that get high scores for being "cinematic." I can imagine that if this trend continues that games will end up being lambasted by the gaming media for "lacking multiplayer" even when it's not a necessity. 

*Sigh*

Believe it or not multiplayer has been around for a very long time, and some of the most popular games ever have/had multiplayer. So it's not that big of a stretch that Me3 has multiplayer. And there are good examples of singleplayer games that got multiplayer and were still great.

Oh believe me, I know multiplayer has been around a long time. It's just never been as big in gaming as it is now, especially for consoles. I'm not saying it will make ME 3 bad, I just think developers are losing focus of things that really matter in game development.

[Azbeszt]

Pink_Pyro wrote...

Actually the modern FPS fans are as bad as traditional RPG elitists. ME 1 had alien strippers and big explosions too.

I like them both. Am I double bad?

[unfringed]

Personality Disorder wrote...

You know, Bioware, it is not my place or even right to tell you what to do with your IPs and franchises. You want multiplayer in Mass Effect - fine, you want Dragon Age to develop in a new direction - whatever. None of us really have a say in this, nor should we.

Of course we should have a say in it. At least, we should have a say in it if Bioware wants to maintain some shred of their already tattered reputation and wants to keep its fans.

They're not artists. They're producers. They answer to consumers, NOT the other way around.

[Xewaka]

unfringed wrote...

Pink_Pyro wrote...
'Cowwadooty' fans are more bearable than RPG-tards. I know which audience I'd be aiming for.

You're either one of the most obnovious people alive that actually enjoys the modern FPS crowd or incredibly inexperienced with online gaming.

I feel obligated to say "Online gaming went to the sh*tter when it left the PC", but only because I feel like adding PC elitism to the mix.

[Pink_Pyro]

I like both too. Just screwing with those who swear ME 3 is ruined because of co-op.

[Erode_The_Soul]

Eh....I am not a fan of multiplayer; this whole idea that "every game must have multiplayer or it sucks" is getting pretty tired at this point. But, as long as SP remains unharmed by it's inclusion, I won't rage just yet. Uncharted, Red Dead Redemption, and Assassin's Creed managed to pull off spectacular multiplayer modes without assaulting their SP sections, so I'll reserve judgement. It does make me feel a bit uneasy, though.

[upsettingshorts]

MGIII wrote...

This was a very roundabout and inefficient way of stating the obvious fact that time and resources going into something you don't want and will not play are time and resources not going into something you do like and do want to play.

Unless that time and resources would not have been allocated otherwise.

Again, zot discussions from our perspective are pointless.  They have to invent the thing they then discuss how best to distribute.  It's an imaginary discussion about imaginary things.

[DaringMoosejaw]

unfringed wrote...

ME2 was a mess from a storytelling perspective. Everything that made ME1 great was ditched for "streamlined gameplay". "Making decisions that count" meant you get an email saying thanks.

Bioware promised "ME3 will focus on story".

HEY GUIES WE HAVE OMNI TOOL BLADES. HEY GUIES YOU CAN SNIPE THE PILOT OF SOME MECHS. HEY GUIES WE HAVE MULTIPLAYER NOW.

It's not irrational to suspect that the downgrade from ME1 in ME2 will continue in ME3 when everything, from the advertising to the gameplay, suggests that all they're really concerned with is attracting cowwadooty fans with multiplayer and combat gimmicks.

What did we lose from ME1 to ME2? A bunch of tiers of relatively worthless skills where each point raised your armor or damage by 2%? 'Exploration' that involved slowly climbing jagged cliffs at 85 degree angles where the only difference between them were the color scheme, the skybox and whether it was the stock warehouse, the stock bunker or the stock mine? An inventory system that gave you the 'choice' of having the exact same armor and guns as everyone else where 98% of the crap you picked up was IMMEDIATELY sold to a vendor or turned into omni-gel, which was also rendered useless when you easily maxed out your credits and omni-gel?

I call that polishing, not losing what made ME1 great.