1169 réponses à ce sujet

[Spartanburger]

Why does everyone who says 'MULTIPLAYER" always assume that (if it is implemented of course)

1. It will take away from the single player.
2. It will have you playing as Shepard or a squadmate
3. It will be bad.

1. It would only take away from the single player if the same studio was working on the multi as was the single. I highly doubt that BioWare is stupid enough to do that.

2. If multiplayer is implemented, in no way will we be playing as a known squadmate or Shepard. Shepard takes the place of you as the hero to the main story. Multiplayer would require everyone to play as grunts or some members of a vast army.

3. It could be bad. I doubt it would be terrible, but I doubt it will be revolutionary either. (If, remember. If).

And I don't see what's so hard to have it tie in with the main story too.

Imagine. 4 player coop multiplayer survival mode.
Each player plays as a Alliance marine (a low level grunt). It takes place on earth when the reapers invade. You fight back never ending waves of enemies whilst buying time for civilians to escape.
There. Connected to the main story but doesn't get in the way (could have a news broadcast mention the remains of the fight once the reapers have been defeated and assuming that earth hasn't been glassed destroyed).


Honestly, I don't know what to think about multiplayer. I want it, but I don't want it.
It's confusing.
The best thing I can say to do is to forget about multiplayer. The devs have already made their decision on whether or not it will be in the release and complaining about/asking for it will not change their minds.

I think I'd prefer that if Multiplayer was implemented, it be released as some sort of post-release DLC though so that they have more time to make it good.

[Kasai666]

If it is multiplayer, it would be a "killer" reveal. Killer as in it would kill ME3.

[111987]

Kasai666 wrote...

If it is multiplayer, it would be a "killer" reveal. Killer as in it would kill ME3.

Well, aren't you clever?

[Kasai666]

111987 wrote...

Kasai666 wrote...

If it is multiplayer, it would be a "killer" reveal. Killer as in it would kill ME3.

Well, aren't you clever?

I thought so. 

[SnowHeart1]

Spartanburger wrote...
*snip*

I'm trying desperately to find a constructive way to say this... but... what!? A "different studio"? What are you talking about? It's a Bioware title. You don't have different studios putting out the same release. You may have a publisher that is different from the development studio, but you don't have two studios working on the same game.

And that is the problem. This is one game. With a fixed budget and development cycle. Money and time are finite. If you have a budget of x, spending a certain amount on x means you can't spend it on y. Time spent on x means you can't spend it on y. That is why CoD SP campaigns have gotten progressively shorter and shorter, while the MP experience has gotten richer. Why don't MP advocates understand this concept of limited resources?

A plugged in, single-mode MP will do nothing except cause MP-fans to scoff. "Bleagh, there's only one mode, it sucks, maps not optimized for MP, too easy to camp, blah blah blah." Making a good MP title requires a lot of work and experience. It is not the same as making an MMO (e.g., SWTOR). It is not the same as plugging in a co-op mode to a SP title. What plugging MP into ME3 would be is trying to be too many things to too many people. It's a marketing decision, and it's a bad one from a game development perspective (in my admittedly biased but mildly informed by age and too long of a "gaming career" experience).

I don't mind good MP. I don't care for the people it tends to attract, but I don't mind the game concept -- I actually enjoy it as long as I can mute the pubescent idiots I have to play with who are yelling fa99ot and the n-word all the time. But I have NEVER seen a game with a great SP campaign offer a good MP experience. NEVER. Developing a good MP experience has invariably resulted in a lackluster or too-short SP experience. And that is the problem a lot of us in the anti-MP crowd have.

Modifié par SnowHeart1, 04 octobre 2011 - 01:27 .

[shepskisaac]

SnowHeart1 wrote...

Spartanburger wrote...
*snip*

I'm trying desperately to find a constructive way to say this... but... what!? A "different studio"? What are you talking about? It's a Bioware title.

BioWare Montreal, not Edmonton. That's where the Multiplayer Programmer on ME Franchise position was opened for in summer 2010, that's where the ME3 multiplayer rumor saga began:



And that's why I'm not really worried if MP exists.

Modifié par IsaacShep, 04 octobre 2011 - 01:28 .

[SnowHeart1]

IsaacShep wrote...
*snip*

Thanks for the clarification but I think that's kind of a distinction without a difference. It's still the same game with the same budget (both time and money).

[shepskisaac]

SnowHeart1 wrote...

IsaacShep wrote...
*snip*

Thanks for the clarification but I think that's kind of a distinction without a difference. It's still the same game with the same budget (both time and money).

It's not the same. If MP is developed at Montreal, it means Edmonton basically works unbothered on the single-player campaign. How do you think Ubisoft is able to release new AssCreed every year while keeping the high quality and scope of each title? They assign 400 people to work on each title, among various global Ubisoft dev houses. I think EA did the same.

When it comes to money, I doubt it's a problem. If they have money to burn on getting Clint Mansell as a composer and all the celebrity voice actors, I don't think they've got reduced budget because of MP.

[SnowHeart1]

Sorry, I can't agree with that. You're working with the same game system. Same classes and same powers. Same UI. Same engine. There are limitations you cannot get away from. So, let's take best case scenario (which I do not agree with, because it presumes money to burn which I think you said in another thread is the reason they pushed out DA2, because they had to get money pumped into the studio to pay for SWTOR) and say it doesn't detract from the SP experience, you're still going to have a relatively shoddy MP experience. And that means reviewers are going to be dinging it, which will (fairly or not) affect sales, which will affect how future titles are developed.

No, I can't agree. It is the same. Money is money; time is time. Money you're throwing at one person to spend time on one project is money and time you're not spending on something else.

Is this necessarily a "DOOOOOM", the sky is falling scenario? No. Please don't take my concern for that kind of panicked non-sense. I'm not going to make impotent, nerd-rage proclamations that I'm canceling my preorder and thus expect Bioware/EA to concede to my every whim. But that does not mean it's a good decision, at least in my opinion, however (ill) informed it may be.

Modifié par SnowHeart1, 04 octobre 2011 - 01:43 .

[shepskisaac]

SnowHeart1 wrote...

*snip*

The fact they can still afford hiring expensive movie composer is a proof that either the game has increased budget (to cover for MP) that allows them to spent cash like that on single-player, or that they suck at cash management. Somehow, I very doubt the latter is the case.

Modifié par IsaacShep, 04 octobre 2011 - 01:51 .

[Valdrane78]

I will believe it, when and if it is officially announced by Bioware or directly quoted from a Bioware employee. Until then it is all rumors and hearsay undeserving of all this argument I see in this thread.

[Gatt9]

IsaacShep wrote...

SnowHeart1 wrote...

*snip*

The fact they can still afford hiring expensive movie composer is a proof that either the game has increased budget (to cover for MP) that allows them to spent cash like that on single-player, or that they suck at cash management. Somehow, I very doubt the latter is the case.

You're making alot of assumptions,  the worst of which is that you've apparently forgotten that EA is the one making the game,  Bioware ceased to exist several years ago.  EA doesn't spend more money than it has to,  they didn't increase the budget,  especially since ME2 really wasn't all that great of a seller. The NPD numbers bear this out,  and directly disprove the "6.6 million" number that gets tossed around here left and right,  it shifted ~800k units before it dropped off the charts.  NPD numbers are really simple,  if it's not on the list,  it sold less units than the last game on the list.  So we can pretty much definitively state that ME2 sold about 2 million units,  assuming that it sold 90,000 per month every month,  for a year,  starting from the 3rd month after release when it dropped off the charts.  Fudge in a rough 50% for Europe,  and ME2 sold 3 million units total at best,  because Euro sales are pretty consistently 50% of US..  Which,  gotta be honest here,  maintaining 90,000 units/month for a year is historically nearly impossible.  Games sell almost all of their units in the first 8 weeks.

EA's not dumping a ton of cash into a product line that isn't selling enourmous numbers of units.  This is very easy to see.  NFL 12 sold 1.4 million units in a week,  NFL 11 sold 1.6 million units in a week,  and they release the same game every year.  Yet here they're going to dump a ton of cash into ME3?  No.

EA's mandating Multiplayer in every game.  The MP team came directly out of the rest of the game's budget.  Mass Effect is simply not a high grossing property,  certainly not a canidate for AAA budgets when all it has is average sales.

[SnowHeart1]

*shrug* I really hope you're right, Isaac. I don't think you are - I've seen too many games trying to be too many things and failing as a consequence - but I do hope.

[Flashflame58]

I, for one, am actually secretly hoping for a multiplayer because it's the only way my siblings will get into this series. Regrettably.

[shepskisaac]

Gatt9 wrote...
You're making alot of assumptions

Seems we have something because this:

Gatt9 wrote...
they didn't increase the budget

IS also an assumption since just like I'm not an EA employee, neither you are.

Gatt9 wrote...
EA's not dumping a ton of cash into a product line that isn't selling enourmous numbers of units.  This is very easy to see.  NFL 12 sold 1.4 million units in a week,  NFL 11 sold 1.6 million units in a week,  and they release the same game every year.  Yet here they're going to dump a ton of cash into ME3?  No.

EA's mandating Multiplayer in every game.  The MP team came directly out of the rest of the game's budget.  Mass Effect is simply not a high grossing property,  certainly not a canidate for AAA budgets when all it has is average sales.

Wait wait wait, ME2 sold 2 million on Xbox alone. How many platforms NFL is getting released on hmm? 2 million sales on 1 platform IS a good result that grants AAA budget. WIth PS3 version selling well and establishing the franchise on another major platform, it is only expected the sales for simultanieous release of ME3 will be higher, even without MP. So yeah, I can see many reasons for EA to invest in this franchise.

[jtav]

Friendly tip to the marketing department: now would be a good time to pacify your core fanbase by releasing more info about RPG elements.

[Gorosaur]

^BSN everytime a new multiplayer rumor pops up.

Bioware and the Mods should take some advice from this.

Modifié par Gorosaur, 04 octobre 2011 - 02:31 .

[United_Strafes]

Do I think there's gonna be a multiplayer? Absolutely

Do I think it's being revealed in whatever the **** that magazines called? Nope

[Soul Cool]

Gatt9 wrote...
You're making alot of assumptions,  the worst of which is that you've apparently forgotten that EA is the one making the game,  Bioware ceased to exist several years ago.  EA doesn't spend more money than it has to,  they didn't increase the budget, .

Really? That's a huge assumption. EA has already proven that they're willing to shell out massive amounts of cash on BioWare studio developed titles. They're doing it right now.

It's not really as simple as either of you make it out to be.

[Walker White]

Ruud333 wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

Four months is not nearly enough to create a fully functional multiplayer mode.

If  it is MP, then they would have been working on it already for a few months at the very least.  Announcing it does not mean they are only just starting on it.

Except that powers are not done and are still being balanced as we speak.  So that means the only MP that is possible is co-op, since competitive play would require a completely redesigned set of powers.  And that is not happening in four months, especially wen the gameplay team is still heavily polishing single player.  

[matt-bassist]

someone said it earlier and ill say it again

Multiplayer - I'm also calling it.

[staindgrey]

SnowHeart1 wrote...

Spartanburger wrote...
*snip*

I'm trying desperately to find a constructive way to say this... but... what!? A "different studio"? What are you talking about? It's a Bioware title. You don't have different studios putting out the same release. You may have a publisher that is different from the development studio, but you don't have two studios working on the same game.

No, handing off parts of a game to another developing studio whilst the main studio continues work on the main part is actually common practice. The first example that comes to mind is Deus Ex: Human Revolution. The publisher handed off the boss battles to another developer, while the main studio worked on every other aspect of the game. If I remember correctly, the same thing was done for Dead Space 2's multiplayer.

In general, other companies are always brought in for specific parts of a game. There are generally trailer-making studios, mo-cap studios, whole orchestras for hire to make the score... etc. Handing off a tacked-on multiplayer mode to completely different people would be the most likely scenario, if there is multiplayer at all.

[kidbd15]

Don't care either way, will look forward to ME3 regardless. Multiplayer will actually add a little something more for after I beat ME3!

[100k]

Spartanburger wrote...

Why does everyone who says 'MULTIPLAYER" always assume that (if it is implemented of course)

1. It will take away from the single player.
2. It will have you playing as Shepard or a squadmate
3. It will be bad.

1. It would only take away from the single player if the same studio was working on the multi as was the single. I highly doubt that BioWare is stupid enough to do that.

2. If multiplayer is implemented, in no way will we be playing as a known squadmate or Shepard. Shepard takes the place of you as the hero to the main story. Multiplayer would require everyone to play as grunts or some members of a vast army.

3. It could be bad. I doubt it would be terrible, but I doubt it will be revolutionary either. (If, remember. If).

And I don't see what's so hard to have it tie in with the main story too.

Imagine. 4 player coop multiplayer survival mode.
Each player plays as a Alliance marine (a low level grunt). It takes place on earth when the reapers invade. You fight back never ending waves of enemies whilst buying time for civilians to escape.
There. Connected to the main story but doesn't get in the way (could have a news broadcast mention the remains of the fight once the reapers have been defeated and assuming that earth hasn't been glassed destroyed).


Honestly, I don't know what to think about multiplayer. I want it, but I don't want it.
It's confusing.
The best thing I can say to do is to forget about multiplayer. The devs have already made their decision on whether or not it will be in the release and complaining about/asking for it will not change their minds.

I think I'd prefer that if Multiplayer was implemented, it be released as some sort of post-release DLC though so that they have more time to make it good.

Honestly, its because multiplayer DOES take up space on a disc, thus limiting the size and scope of a campaign. Multiplayer also does take away from a single player experience in that DLC now has to be devoted to patches, maps and game modes (c'mon, we both know that is true), and developer man-power.

Not that I believe the crappy rumors about MP anyways. 

Modifié par 100k, 04 octobre 2011 - 05:36 .

[M8DMAN]

Multiplayer does not belong in a single player game franchise.  Just my two cents.

Modifié par M8DMAN, 04 octobre 2011 - 06:09 .