991 réponses à ce sujet

[happy_daiz]

Yep, like others have said, I'm ok with future titles having multiplayer; it just wouldn't make sense for ME3. I'm not a huge fan of multiplayer per se, but I'm not foaming-at-the-mouth-against-it, either.

I think I'd be more of a fan of a co-op game, along the vein of the Resistance series (1 and 3, anyway), Dead Island, Resident Evil 5, Fist of the North Star, etc. That could actually work with ME3 or any other story-centric games BioWare would like to put out there. BW puts such a focus on character development that I could see becoming immersed in something like that quite easily.

[happy_daiz]

Selene Moonsong wrote...

And, by the way, those who would suggest that BioWare, or anyone else for that matter, has never created a successful multiplayer game has probably never played Neverwinter Nights. There are still live NWN servers online, and no, they are not MMOs, nor does a game need to be an MMO to be a successful multiplayer game. Even the Baldur's Gate trilogy supported co-op play, and that is a game by which many Fantasy RPGs have been measured.

Why haven't I played these games? Oh yeah, they're not on console.

[ErichHartmann]

I would love some PvP action.

[Lunatic LK47]

happy_daiz wrote...

I think I'd be more of a fan of a co-op game, along the vein of the Resistance series (1 and 3, anyway), Dead Island, Resident Evil 5, Fist of the North Star, etc. That could actually work with ME3 or any other story-centric games BioWare would like to put out there. BW puts such a focus on character development that I could see becoming immersed in something like that quite easily.

Problem is ME3 is the last entry for Shepard's story. Would you want another Conrad Verner glitch happening in ME3 just because of the sudden focus on co-op?

[Gatt9]

Selene Moonsong wrote...

@Kaiser Shepard

You do realize , don't you, that Mass Effect is more than likely NOT the only game under development, don't you? Given the fact that BioWare is more often than not working on multiple development projects.

While I would like to see a multi-player version of Mass Effect (read to mean co-op play as opposed to a MMO), I seriously doubt that the core trilogy will be including multiplayer.

And, by the way, those who would suggest that BioWare, or anyone else for that matter, has never created a successful multiplayer game has probably never played Neverwinter Nights. There are still live NWN servers online, and no, they are not MMOs, nor does a game need to be an MMO to be a successful multiplayer game. Even the Baldur's Gate trilogy supported co-op play, and that is a game by which many Fantasy RPGs have been measured.

You're being a bit deceptive...

Bioware's got 3 projects in development.  Star Wars is a MMO.  DA2 was developed and released,  without multiplayer,  while ME3 was in development.  ME3 is still under development.  Bioware hired a multiplayer dev,  and is currently hiring multiplayer QA people.

So consider that for a moment.  3 announced projects,  one is an MMO and doesn't need the multiplayer dev.  One is finished and didn't have multiplayer.  So where's the staff going?  There's only one option left.  Which also explains why Bioware won't say "No,  there isn't multiplayer".

I'll guarantee you they do not have anything else in development.  They don't have the manpower for 4 projects,  and EA doesn't do original IPs,  only endless sequels.

You've also left out the part where NWN's entire purpose was multiplayer,  not single player,  and was advertised as such from Day 1,  because of it's history as a MMO on AOL.

You neglected to note that the Co-op play in Baldur's Gate series came in exactly 1 expansion,  not the main game,  and was quickly abandoned in future development.  Probably because no one used it.

[United_Strafes]

Shouldn't there be a pool going on? We could bet on When the next multiplaer thread is created and when it's closed and then have another one the next day since that's how long it takes these 20 watt light bulbs to make them? I guess we would have to have the pool in hours cause that's what the frequency seems to be.

[happy_daiz]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

happy_daiz wrote...

I think I'd be more of a fan of a co-op game, along the vein of the Resistance series (1 and 3, anyway), Dead Island, Resident Evil 5, Fist of the North Star, etc. That could actually work with ME3 or any other story-centric games BioWare would like to put out there. BW puts such a focus on character development that I could see becoming immersed in something like that quite easily.

Problem is ME3 is the last entry for Shepard's story. Would you want another Conrad Verner glitch happening in ME3 just because of the sudden focus on co-op?

I must not have explained it well. My point was that the style of gameplay for ME3 would work with co-op (assuming it's in the same vein as ME2). I really wouldn't want ME3 to be co-op. It doesn't make sense for the third installment.

Modifié par happy_daiz, 21 septembre 2011 - 02:47 .

[happy_daiz]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

United_Strafes wrote...

Shouldn't there be a pool going on? We could bet on When the next multiplaer thread is created and when it's closed and then have another one the next day since that's how long it takes these 20 watt light bulbs to make them? I guess we would have to have the pool in hours cause that's what the frequency seems to be.

Eh, it's poll, not pool.

it might be a pool if there's cash involved.

[United_Strafes]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

United_Strafes wrote...

Shouldn't there be a pool going on? We could bet on When the next multiplaer thread is created and when it's closed and then have another one the next day since that's how long it takes these 20 watt light bulbs to make them? I guess we would have to have the pool in hours cause that's what the frequency seems to be.

Eh, it's poll, not pool.

HEERP DEEE DEERP is it a poll and not a pool, like a football pool, like where you bet on how things will happen, you know like what I'm talking about.....a POOL

[Selene Moonsong]

I don't have hard numbers, you'd likely have to pour through Game Spy records to get any hard numbers.

In it's heyday, there were a lot of campaigns being played world wide. I played on a rather small campaign that had well over 200 players and I continued playing there for 4 years, people had been playing on those campaigns years before I joined them and there still are a fair number of servers up and running.

Those servers were mostly home-brewed campaigns, all on private servers, and it is those campaigns and their developers and supporters that also promoted and even generated a fair amount interest for the custom content available for NWN made by the community, some of which was supported by BioWare by including such custom content in updates.

The thing is, NWN was designed with multiplayer (not MMO) use in mind. This design concept did not detract from the single player portion of the boxed games.

[happy_daiz]

This whole conversation reminds me of those "Welcome to our OOL" signs.
Anyway...multiplayer...

[Aoba]

*sighs* I'll never understand why MP in the ME universe would upset so many people. Nobody's forcing you to use it. It's there if you want it, same with games like Red Dead Redemption, Forza, Assassin's Creed Brotherhood, Halo, Call of Duty, and whatever else.

If I want to partake in a bit of MP in RDR, I will. If I don't, I won't. Why complain about a feature if it's so much easier to simply avoid it in the first place?  ... Wait, don't answer that.

Anyway, to answer your other questions, I don't have a clue x 2.

[RAF1940]

I really, really hope not.

Singleplayer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Multiplayer

[happy_daiz]

@ACWolfe

I think it might be more the fear of multiplayer allowing BW games to turn into a story-deficient type of game like COD: Black Ops. The main campaign was about 10 hours, and the rest was multiplayer. If you ignore the multiplayer as you've mentioned, and just play the main campaign, you feel ripped off. Well, I did, anyway...

I think people generally have a different set of expectations for BioWare than they do for other game developers.

Of course, that's just my humble opinion, that you didn't ask for.

Modifié par happy_daiz, 21 septembre 2011 - 03:14 .

[Lunatic LK47]

happy_daiz wrote...

@ACWolfe

I think it might be more the fear of multiplayer allowing BW games to turn into a story-deficient type of game like COD: Black Ops. The main campaign was about 10 hours, and the rest was multiplayer. If you ignore the multiplayer as you've mentioned, and just play the main campaign, you feel ripped off. Well, I did, anyway...

I think people generally have a different set of expectations for BioWare than they do for other game developers.

Of course, that's just my humble opinion, that you didn't ask for.

Bolded for emphasis. I always held multiplayer in a very low regard, and co-op suffers the worse mainly for the fact that unless I had friends in real life that actually like the game or own a copy of the game in question, I'm S.O.L. with playing with another person. On top of this, we're in the hey-day that is 4 hour long games. I'm not going to spend $70 on a 4 hour game. I'm not going to pay $50 for a movie ticket if it ever comes to that, if the film industry were to end up using this standard in the not-so-distant future.

[Fiery Phoenix]

Last game I can recall that had a perfect singleplayer experience while offerring a huge multiplayer mode is Red Dead Redemption. While I never particularly bothered with the multiplayer in that game, I still appreciate that it was seamlessly integrated and barely affected the story mode at all. But you know what's so special about that? That it's the exception, not the rule.

That is to say, NO multiplayer for ME3.

Modifié par Fiery Phoenix, 21 septembre 2011 - 05:25 .

[Bogsnot1]

** Images removed as spam per Site Rules #2 **

Modifié par Selene Moonsong, 21 septembre 2011 - 07:50 .

[Jpersons]

If they do put multiplayer in it i think that it willbe somekkind of "Firefight" thing outside ofthe main game
i dont think i would like that but i wouldnt hate that idea

[Gatt9]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

happy_daiz wrote...

@ACWolfe

I think it might be more the fear of multiplayer allowing BW games to turn into a story-deficient type of game like COD: Black Ops. The main campaign was about 10 hours, and the rest was multiplayer. If you ignore the multiplayer as you've mentioned, and just play the main campaign, you feel ripped off. Well, I did, anyway...

I think people generally have a different set of expectations for BioWare than they do for other game developers.

Of course, that's just my humble opinion, that you didn't ask for.

Bolded for emphasis. I always held multiplayer in a very low regard, and co-op suffers the worse mainly for the fact that unless I had friends in real life that actually like the game or own a copy of the game in question, I'm S.O.L. with playing with another person. On top of this, we're in the hey-day that is 4 hour long games. I'm not going to spend $70 on a 4 hour game. I'm not going to pay $50 for a movie ticket if it ever comes to that, if the film industry were to end up using this standard in the not-so-distant future.

Twice in a thread,  I agree with Lunatik's whole post,  wow.

It's the way the Industry works now.   What's happened is this...

Around 00,  Starcraft sold fantastic numbers of units and Half-Life outsold any other FPS ever,  publishers had previously been supporting every possible genre.  Suddenly the suits saw what Blizzard and Valve pulled off,  and they wanted in too,  they figured all they had to do was ship an FPS or an RTS,  and they'd sell just as many units.

Keep in mind,  we're not talking the A+ graduates of buisness school,  they went to work for AT&T,  Microsoft,  Sun-Micro,  and other billion dollar buisnesses.  These were the not-as-gifted buisness people,  because gaming wasn't considered "Acceptable" for adults.

So they thought they could ship just any old thing,  and they did.  Any idea brought to them was shoehorned into those genres.  Tim Cain once wrote a piece on Gamasutra "If it isn't RTS or FPS,  publishers don't want to hear about it,  they won't fund it".

Predictably,  the vast majority of the games failed.  Everquest,  UO,  and Asheron's Call hit big numbers,  more studios jumped on that bandwagon.  They also failed pretty consistently,  over the course of the next 5-7 years it wiped out an easy half or more of the studios in existance,  nearly bankrupt Atari,  Ubisoft was on the edge,  Midway drowned,  Sierra disappeared,  Interplay died.

To make a long story short,  you've got an entire industry risk-adverse,  because they suffered making endless clones of Starcraft and Doom,  afraid anything but those two games won't sell.  Pushing out endless copies with the hopes of making a small profit,  and cutting expenses by making games smaller and shoehorning in Multiplayer to compensate.

Predictably,  people are getting increasingly sick of it,  and now people aren't buying them en-masse anymore.  EA had Shadows of the Damned fail for no real reason,  other than gamer fatigue.  Bulletstorm underperformed despite having a unique take on the genre.  With Dead Space 2, EA had to resort to reporting units shipped instead of units sold in their quarterly,  the same with DA2,  which is a strong indicator of underperformance.  People are tired of the same game over and over.

Here we are today,  EA and Ubisoft declaring not even RTS is worth making anymore,  meaning the only game to make is FPS.   Which prompted a number of analysis articles discussing how things work now...

Take some game that sold well,  reuse the engine and all it's assets,  maybe adding a new feature or two at best,  repackage it with new levels,  sell what's essentially the exact same game.  Which is fine when you're talking an RPG,  where it can still seem different because narrative drives the experience.  Or a Strategy where you can change the entire theater.  But with Shooters,  all you get is the same thing in a different corridor/room. 

The Industry is killing itself because it's chasing after some game that just got everything right,  instead of trying to make games that get everything right. 

Which is exactly why EA's doing Dragon Age 3,  and why there'll be a Mass Effect 4,  because EA will reuse everything all over again. 

But if you want to see the future,  it's easy.  Read the comments in this thread, 

http://www.gamespot....=result;title;0

Then compare it to the comments here in this thread...

http://www.gamespot....=result;title;5

It's the same concept,  turn a game into an Shooter,  but the difference in reception is startling,  especially on a console-centric site that's always been a heavy proponent of shooters.  Most especially when you consider...Syndicate wasn't nearly as popular as Fallout was,  most people have no idea what it was about,  even if you were a gamer when it was released.

Modifié par Gatt9, 22 septembre 2011 - 03:44 .

[The Spamming Troll]

co-op wouldnt work. thats obviouse enough. but PvP would be great. although it wouldnt work unless were given more hotkeys. pausing just wont work in PvP. unless PvP only gives you 3 abilities to use from the start. but then again why make PvP if im not playing as MY shepard? i know id love throwing people around as an adept while my soldier buddy blows them away.

[Kasai666]

The last game I played that had a solid SP and a fantastic MP was Borderlands. That was in 2009. It is almost 2012.

[Lunatic LK47]

Kasai666 wrote...

The last game I played that had a solid SP and a fantastic MP was Borderlands. That was in 2009. It is almost 2012.

Except main problem is it's reliant on multiplayer just to make the game remotely fun. Tried soloing the game, and got bored out of my ****ing mind. I had more fun with an obscure 2001 JRPG game than playing Borderlands for the main fact I didn't need to rely on a second human player just to progress through the game problem free.