991 réponses à ce sujet

[AlphaJarmel]

IronSabbath88 wrote...

I've always said over and over that multiplayer doesn't mean deathmatches akin to Gears of War or Call of Duty. There is co-op and even Gears of War has co-operative modes like Horde (and Beast now) plus the Arcade campaign and campaign. Even games that are highly focused on Multiplayer acknowledge that there is a group of fans out there that dont enjoy competitive gaming and have much more fun just playing a fun game mode with their buddies, or people in general.

That said, come now, this is the finale of Shepard's story, and from all we have been told from BioWare themselves? Does it REALLY seem like they're going to gimp the story? All they have TALKED about is the improvements to the RPG elements, the countless ways to interact with squadmates, the new worlds we'll see, everything BUT multiplayer.

So, that brings me to multiplayer. Since BioWare hasn't talked an ounce about it, and talked a whole lot about the main story (they obviously wanted to keep this a secret but like it all secrets it got leaked) let's just face facts, it will obviously be standalone co-op missions. The campaign doesn't lend itself well to co-operative gaming. That'd be a little too complicated if you ask me, not because it CAN'T be done, per say, but because BioWare hasn't done that in previous games and it's a little late to do it now. That said, co-op missions where you have to rescue a hostage from Batarian pirates or something? That'd be cool, and if done right, could be extremely fun. What else would be fun is if BioWare found a way to implement many ways to finish these missions.

Give it a chance, you might be pleasantly surprised. If the game is bad, then by all means you have your right to say it. But do not judge something that you haven't had the time to experience yet.

Here's the thing.  The multiplayer could either turn out like Dead Space or Uncharted.  Dead Space is closer in regards to circumstance compared to Uncharted, in that a separate development team worked on the multiplayer. 

Also the fact that Bioware hasn't said anything about it might imply campaign co-op as they want to delay the response from fans.  I highly doubt people other than an extremely hardcore subsection of the Bioware fans would care if the missions were separate and co-op and so why delay the announcement?

[Marionetten]

We're already talking about how to best butcher skills for multiplayer?

Yeah, this is going to work out brilliantly.

[Complistic]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

lazuli wrote...

That would only make aiming harder.  It's a suggestion, but an imperfect one.  I don't see the multiplayer being fully integrated into the standard experience.  I'm envisioning something extra.  We wouldn't be playing as our Shepards, for instance.

How about this>

Adrenaline Rush:  Soldier is sped up and gains a temporary auto-aim.   Perhaps fully upgraded it could auto-aim headshots.

I mean,that's what we're all doing when we use Adrenaline Rush anyway.  That and getting the defensive bonus.

How about we just give everyone an "instant kill" button and say the first person to press this wins the game?

[Shepardette]

Hmmm, does anyone know how multiplayer is actually going to be implemented yet?

I have a feeling it will allow the VS (who will now also be a Spectre in ME3) to play alongside Shepard. It would make sense, wouldn't it? It would not only make the Ashely or Kaidan decision more meaningful, but it would mean that both human Spectres are actually working alongside each other. I mean, Bioware has to choose another character to play with Shepard.

That being said, I really, really hope that Bioware doesn't allow the second player to create their own character (similar to making their own Shepard). Really hoping that doesn't happen.

[RamirezWolfen]

Dionkey wrote...

slimgrin wrote...

ErichHartmann wrote...

IF multiplayer is really a part of the game I want competitive PvP. I don't care for cooperating with others. I would rather watch them rage as I kill them.

This. Co-op is lame. I want to destroy people.

Then go play a competitive game. God damn, it's like you people need to taint everything you touch. I don't expect Call of Duty or Counter-strike to be amazing singleplayer experiences, do I? Stop doing the opposite here.

Define "you people."

[Dionkey]

Illiandri wrote...
I disagree

The industry is moving too fast, unnecessary changes are destroying franchises to fall in line with the medium. I can name you dozens of games that have been wrecked over the last few years because of the need to make them like "LOL PWN CALL OF DUTY XDDDD QUICKSC0P3Z!!!11".

[shepskisaac]

OSUfan12121 wrote...

Actually they did its even in the confirmed features thread with a direct link to a dev quote.

No quote that says "there'll be no MP in ME3 in any form" exists from anyone at BioWare. They dodgeg the question, talked alot about SP experience and whatnot, they NEVER said simple words "There's be no MP in ME3 at all ever".

Modifié par IsaacShep, 10 octobre 2011 - 03:53 .

[firefireblow]

slimgrin wrote...

ErichHartmann wrote...

IF multiplayer is really a part of the game I want competitive PvP. I don't care for cooperating with others. I would rather watch them rage as I kill them.

This. Co-op is lame. I want to destroy people.

yes cause warp spam is so much fun for all

Modifié par firefireblow, 10 octobre 2011 - 03:53 .

[ItsPhilsTime]

Mei Mei wrote...

Tigerblood and MilkShakes wrote...

ItsPhilsTime wrote...

Mei Mei wrote...

ItsPhilsTime wrote...

Tigerblood and MilkShakes wrote...

Im putting stock into EA/BW

well all know itll sell Damn good.along with the DLC.
Everyone will end up playing it no matter what

itll bring some new sense to combat and make the war more enjoyable,you guys are bit up too tight.life is about change lets give it a chance at least.might be pretty cool never know

Ah they all ought to play it, make sure and play it.. it could be ur last game played since the "world will end on 12/21/12" why couldn't they have let christmas come at least its only 4 days lol.

LMAO!

Idonno bout yall but me, Tigerblood, and Mie Mie are going to go in together and buy a mass load of EA/BW stocks and be rich, then we'll buy every ME3 game and hold them over everyones heads here and charge $100 per game!!!! we'll be rich, then we'll all die!!!

After ME3.few years down the line.we'll get them to remake ME1-2 in a higher HD verison with complete Co-op through the games

With DOUBLE the MP achievements. And each time you get an achievement, your xbox opens up and a little woman jumps out and dances.

No by then we'll own Microsoft and BW and EA so we'll make a whole New console!!! The Best ever and remake them all, only for the one console, then make it the only game for it then bring out another console!!!!

[IronSabbath88]

Why do people keep comparing Dragon Age to Mass Effect when they're two completley different dev teams?

[upsettingshorts]

Complistic wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

lazuli wrote...

That would only make aiming harder.  It's a suggestion, but an imperfect one.  I don't see the multiplayer being fully integrated into the standard experience.  I'm envisioning something extra.  We wouldn't be playing as our Shepards, for instance.

How about this>

Adrenaline Rush:  Soldier is sped up and gains a temporary auto-aim.   Perhaps fully upgraded it could auto-aim headshots.

I mean,that's what we're all doing when we use Adrenaline Rush anyway.  That and getting the defensive bonus.

How about we just give everyone an "instant kill" button and say the first person to press this wins the game?

That's what Adrenaline Rush already is.

[lazuli]

MGIII, it's Diversion. Upsettingshorts, I like your second suggestion better. I still don't see co-op being fully integrated into the (formerly) singleplayer game, though, if for no other reason than conversations/pacing would get bogged down and dreadful with more than one person at the helm.

[Dionkey]

RamirezWolfen wrote...

Dionkey wrote...

slimgrin wrote...

ErichHartmann wrote...

IF multiplayer is really a part of the game I want competitive PvP. I don't care for cooperating with others. I would rather watch them rage as I kill them.

This. Co-op is lame. I want to destroy people.

Then go play a competitive game. God damn, it's like you people need to taint everything you touch. I don't expect Call of Duty or Counter-strike to be amazing singleplayer experiences, do I? Stop doing the opposite here.

Define "you people."

People who constantly beg for Call of Duty-like game modes in every single game. That's like asking every movie to be like Transformers 3.

[Valdrane78]

MGIII wrote...

RamirezWolfen wrote...

Foryou wrote...

Funny how months ago Bioware said that there will be no multiplayer in Mass Effect 3, funny how bioware thinks that it's okay to lie to us.

They never said no multiplayer. Ever.

Balthier is correct. Bioware never confirmed no multiplayer. Not one single time. Wishful thinking by fans took words for more than they were worth, or meant.

Actually they did, in the ME3 Game Informer article, April edition.  It was clearly stated that there woudl be no MP in ME3, that they where doing it for future titles and games. 

Personally I don't care either way.

Modifié par Valdrane78, 10 octobre 2011 - 03:54 .

[slimgrin]

Dionkey wrote...

slimgrin wrote...

ErichHartmann wrote...

IF multiplayer is really a part of the game I want competitive PvP. I don't care for cooperating with others. I would rather watch them rage as I kill them.

This. Co-op is lame. I want to destroy people.

Then go play a competitive game. God damn, it's like you people need to taint everything you touch. I don't expect Call of Duty or Counter-strike to be amazing singleplayer experiences, do I? Stop doing the opposite here.

**spam image deleted per Site Rule # 2 **

I'm actually against the whole muiti-player thing. But if we must have it, then breaking people online is better than co-op.

Modifié par Selene Moonsong, 10 octobre 2011 - 04:03 .

[Illiandri]

El_Chala_Legalizado wrote...

ThicknSwift wrote...

Just Ignore it.

You are asking too much. It seems that some people takes everything related to MP as a "obligatory mode filled with annoying kids that if you don't play it you won't see the rest of the game"

Or neckbeards who continuously complain that this or that is lore breaking and that being good at aiming means that you are poop at RPGing

[TheMakoMaster]

Dionkey wrote...

slimgrin wrote...

ErichHartmann wrote...

IF multiplayer is really a part of the game I want competitive PvP. I don't care for cooperating with others. I would rather watch them rage as I kill them.

This. Co-op is lame. I want to destroy people.

Then go play a competitive game. God damn, it's like you people need to taint everything you touch. I don't expect Call of Duty or Counter-strike to be amazing singleplayer experiences, do I? Stop doing the opposite here.

but, but, but....the plot of Modern Warfare 2 is so deep.....
this guy shoots that guy, that guy shoots this guy.

[Feanor_II]

I don't care at all about multplayer by itself because I don't intend using it, but I must admit I'm "afraid" about a few things:
- SP's length being affected because of the inclusion of MP
- SP's game mechanics being affected to be in tune with MP.
- If MP is finally a co-op for the "campaing", would it be designed for MP being a worse experience for those of us who won't use MP?

[AlphaJarmel]

Candidate 88766 wrote...

AlphaJarmel wrote...

Candidate 88766 wrote...
Yeah, thats why I imagine any MP would be co-op in nature. The magazine does say play with your friends (giggity), which suggests co-op - and there were those rumours of co-op missions that were seperate to the SP. I think that would be ideal.

I would actually prefer it to be part of the campaign(and the magazine seems to somewhat imply that) as it would give me more incentive to use it.

That would require a lot of the changes you mentioned - I don't want to lose the time-dilation with the infiltrator, I love that ability.

Also, dialogue and pacing would be issues (guests would have to sit and wait for you to choose dialogue and there are bound to be stretches where the host just wants to wander around the Normandy - not much fun for guests).

I'm not sure co-op could work in the main story, and even if it could I'm not sure I'd like that. Missions built entirely aroun co-op would be awesome though.

The time dilation with the infiltrator was more a liability with the way the scopes worked.   Also having a real person as a teammate would make up for the lack of the dilation.

The guests watching you play the game might be a good way for someone to see a completely different response compared to their own game.  As for the Normandy, I thought I heard somewhere that there is supposed to be some minigames on the Normandy now.  It also might make mining go faster.

[TheGreenAlloy]

Dionkey wrote...

slimgrin wrote...

ErichHartmann wrote...

IF multiplayer is really a part of the game I want competitive PvP. I don't care for cooperating with others. I would rather watch them rage as I kill them.

This. Co-op is lame. I want to destroy people.

Then go play a competitive game. God damn, it's like you people need to taint everything you touch. I don't expect Call of Duty or Counter-strike to be amazing singleplayer experiences, do I? Stop doing the opposite here.

** Spam deleted per Site Rule # 2 **

Modifié par Selene Moonsong, 10 octobre 2011 - 04:04 .

[Dionkey]

slimgrin wrote...
I'm actually against the whole muiti-player thing. But if we must have it, then breaking people online is better than co-op.

Since we have to choose one, why not co-op? Online multiplayer is going to take a good portion of the team to implement (thus taking development time out of the singleplayer) for it to be even remotely good. Co-op ca be implented very easily and won't detract that much.

[upsettingshorts]

lazuli wrote...

MGIII, it's Diversion. Upsettingshorts, I like your second suggestion better. I still don't see co-op being fully integrated into the (formerly) singleplayer game, though, if for no other reason than conversations/pacing would get bogged down and dreadful with more than one person at the helm.

Personally if I'm going to throw out some speculation of my own before I head out, it'll be this:

Big Ben - the tower sniper - as an optional character that Player 2 can play and take along with Shepard on his or her missions.  He has his own skillset built to work with co-op gameplay in a unique and balanced way.  Throw in some ambient dialogue and the ability to interrupt a conversation every now and then?  What's wrong with this at all?

I'd play that.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 10 octobre 2011 - 03:57 .