Aller au contenu

Photo

ME3 'Killer New Feature' Reveal Xbox World/PC PowerPlay


  • Ce sujet est fermé Ce sujet est fermé
1169 réponses à ce sujet

#951
Sgt Stryker

Sgt Stryker
  • Members
  • 2 590 messages

shep82 wrote...

hotdogbsg wrote...

I'm not really a fan of the possibility of multiplayer in ME3.

On the flip side, the whining on here if it does get announced will be awesome to behold.

Neither am I but I'm not in the "it will break the game" or "I'm cancelling my preorder" camp. Not sure if I really want to see the **** storm if it's announced.


For some reason a part of me wants to believe that the rumors are true and that they will eventually announce it, just so I can sit back and watch the ensuing s***storm on here.

#952
hotdogbsg

hotdogbsg
  • Members
  • 832 messages

Sgt Stryker wrote...

shep82 wrote...

hotdogbsg wrote...

I'm not really a fan of the possibility of multiplayer in ME3.

On the flip side, the whining on here if it does get announced will be awesome to behold.

Neither am I but I'm not in the "it will break the game" or "I'm cancelling my preorder" camp. Not sure if I really want to see the **** storm if it's announced.


For some reason a part of me wants to believe that the rumors are true and that they will eventually announce it, just so I can sit back and watch the ensuing s***storm on here.


Lol, exactly. If it does happen it'll make for some entertaining reading on here.

I'll be expecting a few "Bioware you've ripped out my heart" and "ZOMG, SELLOUTS!!" style posts at the very least.

Modifié par hotdogbsg, 05 octobre 2011 - 11:54 .


#953
.jpg.exe

.jpg.exe
  • Members
  • 148 messages
The redhead in the pic has space crabs... :>

#954
whywhywhywhy

whywhywhywhy
  • Members
  • 697 messages

IsaacShep wrote...
So in the end you don't have an argument lol. I asked you to define the chocolate you said ME3 won't have, you can't do it, what's your point?

ok, I'm going to slow down and go point by point with you.  I'd like to first point out how you ducked and dodged what I wrote and replied with a generalization.  How about responding to the text you qouted what are you so afraid of ?

Then I need to point out what is this "chocolate" you claim me3 has ?  You've never defined it and continue to avoid doing so.  Which leads me into my next point, you choose to use the term chocolate as a blanket term to define all that was right/great about ME1 and "claim" it to be in ME3 as "chocolate".  After you define Chocolate show me where they've demonstrated it.

You've also never responded to my Orginal post point that ME3 has grown more shooter like, I can provide several examples of the combat.  Can you provide examples of the "rpg" eements you claim to be arguing for ?

Your trying to play a semantic game and "appear" to be in a discussion, but your not.  Your trying to be disruptive because you feel me to be manipulating by lying as evident of your first post at me.  So drop the circular logic and actually come at me or I'll take it as you conceding, cause we both know it's true no matter what you type. 

IsaacShep wrote...
And to each person it is different. For you it's the lack of the "it" ME1 had that you can't actually even nail down yourself.

When I say can't it's not in the sense of unable but in the perspective sense of doing so will misrepresent my views in the game so I won't. 

IsaacShep wrote...
Other people know exactly what they didn't like -> for example lack of weapon mods & armor customization. Or lack of Mako exploration. Or reworked leveling system. Other people know that it was some specific features but also a bit of the "it" you mentioned. It's different for everyone. "Players disappointed in ME2" is not one cohesive group of people sharing the same views (your views)

Irrelevant, your again trying to redirect the conversation.  If others have feedback share it.  "ME1 is said to be good because or I've seen a lot of feedback on  ______ and in ME3 _____ is going to be done like ____ indicated in theis Vidoe/post/tweet."  Why am I not seeing this ? Your the one claiming it has it.

IsaacShep wrote...
So you're back to actual features list? But you just said you're unable to compile feature list from ME1

Been addressed above.  Your looking to zone in on a particular feature ignoring how the game works as a whole.  Breaking ME1 down to I like this part or I like that part isn't spectacular.  You can have a feature list a mile long doesn't mean anything if it's not implemented right, on paper a lot of games looked good....then they got released.

IsaacShep wrote...
(that is not present in ME3) that made ME1 so special & RPG for you and makes you convinced ME3 won't be like that. You've got to decide. Either you discuss features or not. If you discuss them, provide me the list of features ME1 had that ME3 won't and how will the lack of these features make ME3 even more of a shooter.

Actually I don't.  You do.  Your the one claiming all the features are in ME3 back from ME1 better then ever and that makes it not lean more towards combat ??  Your confused. 

You haven't given any reasoning against my originally quoted post.  Features list don't matter by themselves, what matters is when you see it and then play it.  So how can you be sure everything they're adding (which you haven't gone into detail about) is going to be better ?  Answer questions don't duck me or say blah blah I twrust bioware blah blah.

IsaacShep wrote...Based on what you say this is happening? Actual
features present in the game (or being removed) or your personal feeling
on the games?

See your arguing to arguing, confused yourself ?  That's what happens when you fact spin, you get dizzy.  It was the original in post you quoted.  Proof ?  Are you now denying the overwhelming shooter mechanics that were/being added to the series ?

IsaacShep wrote...
No no, you will first provide us an extensive list of RPG features from
ME1 that aren't coming back in ME3 and you will explain to us what do
you define as RPG feature.

Duck, dodge.. jive a little and then duck, dodge a little and escaaaaaape. 

I told you take ME1 as a whole, you don't rip apart artwork and examine the little pieces.  No, you revew the elements and how well they work together.  If you felt so strongly about your position, you would have answered this question.  But your argument is weak so you avoid particulars or consistantly try to misdirect the conversation.

NEXT!

Modifié par whywhywhywhy, 06 octobre 2011 - 03:03 .


#955
whywhywhywhy

whywhywhywhy
  • Members
  • 697 messages
If multiplayer is released it means that Bioware spent time adding a feature to the game that will eat up resources that could have went towards making the ME3 "campaign" experience better. For the record I don't care when they announce it's coming, but I will laugh at all the naysayers when they get ahold of the game and it's not all they think it'll be.

#956
shepskisaac

shepskisaac
  • Members
  • 16 374 messages

whywhywhywhy wrote...

*wall of utter nonsense*

Do you have reading and logic problems? I'm getting tired of this.

Provide us the list of RPG elements/features/aspects from Mass Effect 1 that won't be coming back in ME3 thus making it so much more of a shooter. I've alrady done one list, ain't even gonna think about doing any other until you do your part. LACK OF WHICH RPG ASPECTS MAKES ME3 EVEN MORE OF A SHOOTER THAN ME1 & ME2? Can't write it anymore simple to you. Answer this, or don't even both with another post like the one before because nobody will discuss anything with someone who doesn't respond to arguments with arguments.

#957
whywhywhywhy

whywhywhywhy
  • Members
  • 697 messages

Mykel54 wrote...

I can already imagine it: "The grand new feature is X, and by the way due to the technical reasons this will make the game Origin exclusive. Deal with it."

I forgot about that I meant to mention it, I was distract by the recent apple news.

But yeah I wonder why Origins is popping up now......hmmmm.

#958
Icinix

Icinix
  • Members
  • 8 188 messages
I've heard they're going to announce that ME3 will include single player.


Just a rumour though.

#959
BlaCKRodjj

BlaCKRodjj
  • Members
  • 217 messages

whywhywhywhy wrote...

If multiplayer is released it means that Bioware spent time adding a feature to the game that will eat up resources that could have went towards making the ME3 "campaign" experience better. For the record I don't care when they announce it's coming, but I will laugh at all the naysayers when they get ahold of the game and it's not all they think it'll be.


Very well, may I laugh too if the game proves to be amazing? Besides, given your inclination towards the "hurr game will suck, me don't like i'm not buying it" attittude, what are you doing here? Besides **** of course.

#960
1136342t54_

1136342t54_
  • Members
  • 3 197 messages
@whywhywhy

Can you give us some understanding of what about ME1 that makes so much more special than ME2?

Now I would like specifics about what you liked better. You know Combat, leveling, story, dialog, customizations etc.

#961
Guest_lightsnow13_*

Guest_lightsnow13_*
  • Guests
Yeah, I seriously couldn't understand whywhywhy's post...but if he is talking about ME1 being better..why?

#962
KainrycKarr

KainrycKarr
  • Members
  • 4 819 messages

IsaacShep wrote...

whywhywhywhy wrote...

*wall of utter nonsense*

Do you have reading and logic problems? I'm getting tired of this.

Provide us the list of RPG elements/features/aspects from Mass Effect 1 that won't be coming back in ME3 thus making it so much more of a shooter. I've alrady done one list, ain't even gonna think about doing any other until you do your part. LACK OF WHICH RPG ASPECTS MAKES ME3 EVEN MORE OF A SHOOTER THAN ME1 & ME2? Can't write it anymore simple to you. Answer this, or don't even both with another post like the one before because nobody will discuss anything with someone who doesn't respond to arguments with arguments.


It's not that it will lack features. It's that investing money into multiplayer takes away from the base pool of resources, where it could have been used to make the campaign longer, and allow for more story deviation when players make a choice.

So yea, you'll have all the RPG features which is fantastic don't get me wrong. But I want an epic, drawn out finale to the trilogy, not a story condensed and shortened, with the minimum of plot deviations just because some people thought it would be nice to try to appeal to the multiplayer crowd.

And, for the record, I don't hate multiplayer games, in fact I'm a long-time MMO vet and play all the major FPS multis.

But when I'm playing Mass Effect, I want to hear Garrus and Liara talking about the world around me, Tali and Legion arguing over the Geth/Quarian conflict, not some teenager on Xbox Live. 

And yes, if they have multiplayer it doesn't mean the SP game will suck, but it does mean the SP campaign will almost certainly be more linear-plot and shorter than it would have been had money and resources not been devoted to what will likely(not certainly, but likely) a mediocre multiplayer mode.

Modifié par KainrycKarr, 06 octobre 2011 - 04:20 .


#963
1136342t54_

1136342t54_
  • Members
  • 3 197 messages

KainrycKarr wrote...

IsaacShep wrote...

whywhywhywhy wrote...

*wall of utter nonsense*

Do you have reading and logic problems? I'm getting tired of this.

Provide us the list of RPG elements/features/aspects from Mass Effect 1 that won't be coming back in ME3 thus making it so much more of a shooter. I've alrady done one list, ain't even gonna think about doing any other until you do your part. LACK OF WHICH RPG ASPECTS MAKES ME3 EVEN MORE OF A SHOOTER THAN ME1 & ME2? Can't write it anymore simple to you. Answer this, or don't even both with another post like the one before because nobody will discuss anything with someone who doesn't respond to arguments with arguments.


It's not that it will lack features. It's that investing money into multiplayer takes away from the base pool of resources, where it could have been used to make the campaign longer, and allow for more story deviation when players make a choice.

So yea, you'll have all the RPG features which is fantastic don't get me wrong. But I want an epic, drawn out finale to the trilogy, not a story condensed and shortened, with the minimum of plot deviations just because some people thought it would be nice to try to appeal to the multiplayer crowd.

And, for the record, I don't hate multiplayer games, in fact I'm a long-time MMO vet and play all the major FPS multis.

But when I'm playing Mass Effect, I want to hear Garrus and Liara talking about the world around me, Tali and Legion arguing over the Geth/Quarian conflict, not some teenager on Xbox Live. 

And yes, if they have multiplayer it doesn't mean the SP game will suck, but it does mean the SP campaign will almost certainly be more linear-plot and shorter than it would have been had money and resources not been devoted to what will likely(not certainly, but likely) a mediocre multiplayer mode.


The problem is your assuming that they didn't just increase the budget when they (if) decided on adding multiplayer into this. 

Modifié par 1136342t54 , 06 octobre 2011 - 04:27 .


#964
cindercatz

cindercatz
  • Members
  • 1 354 messages
I think they did exactly that. The thing was postponed nearly a year. The release date doesn't account for anywhere near all that time. I think the game was almost ready to ship, if they just had to meet their deadline, but EA probably liked multiplayer, and BioWare could basically get all that extra developement time and budget, if they included MP. It probably just jumped a bit ahead of their schedule, anyway, so everybody just took the oppurtunity to make the leap. And the extra time and money also went to SP, extra polish, extra gameplay refinement, etc. I won't complain about that.

#965
littlezack

littlezack
  • Members
  • 1 532 messages

cindercatz wrote...

I think they did exactly that. The thing was postponed nearly a year.


No it wasn't. It got pushed back three months.

#966
cindercatz

cindercatz
  • Members
  • 1 354 messages
Ok, seemed like there was another delay in there, I guess not.
Disregard then. Three months is still a nice little slice of developement time.

#967
Genshie

Genshie
  • Members
  • 1 405 messages

cindercatz wrote...

Ok, seemed like there was another delay in there, I guess not.
Disregard then. Three months is still a nice little slice of developement time.

 Not a enough time to implement something totally new like multiplayer into a franchise that has never had it. And I don't see why certain people don't think it will not suck resources from being used on single player. Myself and many others have already explained several times over why multiplayer/co-op wouldn't work with the current combat system as of now and also explained why it would make more sense as a future project or dlc later in the franchise to be made.


Edit: I hate to compare it to this title but I am using it only as an example: Look at the amount of time they delayed GoW3 to perfect their final title and multiplayer now look at the amount of time for this title that has never had multiplayer. It makes little to no sense for this title to have multiplayer or co-op at all with the current amount of time.

Modifié par Genshie, 06 octobre 2011 - 06:40 .


#968
mcsupersport

mcsupersport
  • Members
  • 2 912 messages
I would really hate to see what multiplayer would do to the power balance of the game. Can you imagine a team of 2 Vanguards and a Soldier/Infiltrator on any map in ME1-2 or the shown maps of ME3?? At current levels that team would be so overpowered to be ridiculous, and thus the powers would have to be rebalanced to nerf the power or greatly increase the power of the enemies. There can be a good multiplayer, but it will take careful balancing and changes in the power structure, which I hope they don't introduce in ME3, because I am so used to Shepard being well, bad boy Shepard. If they decide to just give you a random grunt to play, then who really cares about it being ME3, because the whole story for me is you are Shepard, not some random grunt with a rifle.

#969
Wittand25

Wittand25
  • Members
  • 1 602 messages
Multiplayer would be bad because the game is not suited for Co-op.
What happens to the other players if the player controlling Shepard starts a dialog?
What happens to the other players if Shepard enters the Normandy ?
What happens during those rail shooter segments that were already shown?
How would plot triggers (especially those for combat sequences) be handled if one of the squadmates can run off and stumble over them before Shepard is ready?

A multiplayer arena for PvP matches would be possible but that would need a lot of work for balancing and have a very negative effect on the power sets that would also affect the main campain.

#970
Candidate 88766

Candidate 88766
  • Members
  • 3 422 messages
**incoming wall of text**

Here's an idea of how a co-op mode could work. I don't think standard competitive multiplayer would easily work in the ME universe, and I don't think that the fans would particularly enjoy that. A co-op mode however plays to some of ME's strengths - it has RPG elements, it has gameplay that revolves around powers as well as guns and it has an actual story. I think that is the key - the co-op has to add something to the game and the ME universe, so a mode that has its own story just seems to fit. Putting co-op in the main campaign just wouldn't work - there'd be issues with dialogue, balancing and pacing.

This is something I came up with other the last 25 minutes or so - it is just meant to be a suggestion of how a co-op mode could work within the onctext of ME3's story and gameplay.

Setting

It would be entirely separate from the single-player, say a 4-player campaign parallel to the main story - something set on Earth for example, where each player plays as an Alliance solider. The soldier's appearance and gender can be customized, and essentially this soldier exists solely for the co-op mode, much like your Shepard exists solely for the single-player campaign (although a scene where you see Shepard, perhaps clips from the trial, where each player sees their own Shepard would be rather nifty). The story follows a squad of Alliance soldiers as they help rescue civilians, help mount a counter-attack and generally try to annoy the Reapers as much as they can. The story also provides another point of view for the ME3 storyline and shows the player some of the events that played out on Earth while Shepard was off around the galaxy.

The co-op campaign wouldn't be as long as ME3's single-player, but it could still be like 6 or 7 hours long - long enough to justify itself, but short enough that you and some friends could play it all in a single sitting if you're good at it.

classes

For balancing, instead of selecting from the 6 single-player classes (they'd be too powerful, and the powers that affect time just couldn't work) you would probably have a choice between a few classes similar to the style of squadmate classes - 4 powers, 1 of which is passive and 1 of which doesn't unlock until some criteria is met (in ME2 it was loyalty, but for a co-op mode it'd be something else). Lets say there'd be 6 classes, based on the standard 6 classes, but due to your soldier not being as highly trained as an N7 like Shepard you're not able to use as many powers, and you wouldn't have access to the class-specific powers found in the single-player.

The unlockable 4th power would be the a squad-oriented power, such as a power that restores one squadmate's health for the sentinel, a power that restores their shields for the engineer, a power that restores their ammo for the soldier, stuff like that. (It should be noted that each player would also have a very limited supply of medi-gel, so you don't have to field a sentinel).

At the highest level, you'll have only enough points to max out 3 of the 4 powers.

Weapons

Like ME2 squadmates your soldier can only carry two weapons. Unlike ME3's single-player there'd be set weapon restrictions for the classes.

Adepts, engineers and sentinels: SMG and a pistol.
Infiltrators: any 2 from SMG, pistol and sniper rifle.
Vanguards: any 2 from from SMG, pistol and shotgun.
Soldiers (as in the class): any 2 guns, and can also pick an assault rifle.

As your co-op character levels up and improves, you'll be able to select better weapons and attachments.

Balance

The lower weapon and power count helps to maintain gameplay balance, but it also adds an element of strategy - if you can only carry two weapons each, then you'd want to pick classes to get the best range of abilities (you're gonna need tech and biotic abilities, particularly on harder settings) but you'll also want a good range of guns, which the tech and biotic classes won't give you. And here's the catch - apart from the soldier class you can only field one of each class.

Squad

One player would take the role of the squad's leader, and they are able to issue orders to squadmates via the D-pad (I play on Xbox, I don't know the equivalent PC control) with left, down and right being assigned to a squad member. The leader can order squadmates to attack a specific enemy, or move to a specific location. Obviously the player doesn't have to obey, but in the spirit of the game hopefully many people would. 

The squad leader has to play as a soldier - the idea is that the other players are either soldiers or specialists (classes other than soldier), hence why you can only have one of each non-soldier class in your squad. I know many people probably won't agree with this, but I think it works within the context of a small Alliance squad.

Character

As I said, you can customize your character's appearance and gender (you can do this any number of times, as your soldier isn't really a set character), and depending on your level you can customize your guns. Your character isn't tied down to one class - you can choose which class you want before the game starts. However, you can only level up a class by using that class in-game.

There would have to be some kind of XP system which rewards kills, assists, and teamwork actions such as healing or restoring shields (obviously there would be some system in place to stop people spamming these, such as the healing ability giving XP based on the amount of health regained and friendly fire being off to prevent players constantly shooting then healing each other for XP). The XP then levels up the class your character is currently playing as, and can only be spent on that class.

You can change your character's appearance and powers whenever you want provided you aren't in-game.



As I say, this would need a lot of work to make it actually feasible, it is just meant as a suggestion of how a co-op mode might play out and how it could be feasible and perhaps more importantly relevant for ME3.

Modifié par Candidate 88766, 06 octobre 2011 - 09:48 .


#971
Gravity Bun

Gravity Bun
  • Members
  • 323 messages
The killer new feature is that Shepard and squadmates get to wear their underpants ON THE OUTSIDE of their armour!!!!

#972
RamirezWolfen

RamirezWolfen
  • Members
  • 538 messages

Wittand25 wrote...

Multiplayer would be bad because the game is not suited for Co-op.
What happens to the other players if the player controlling Shepard starts a dialog?
What happens to the other players if Shepard enters the Normandy ?
What happens during those rail shooter segments that were already shown?
How would plot triggers (especially those for combat sequences) be handled if one of the squadmates can run off and stumble over them before Shepard is ready?

A multiplayer arena for PvP matches would be possible but that would need a lot of work for balancing and have a very negative effect on the power sets that would also affect the main campain.


1. How so?
2. Why would there be multiplayer during a story mission, and not it's own mission?
3. Why would we need to go to the Normandy on a co-op mission?
4. Same as 2
5. Same as 2

And if the multiplayer is separate from the main campaign, there won't be any effects.

Modifié par RamirezWolfen, 06 octobre 2011 - 01:33 .


#973
Walker White

Walker White
  • Members
  • 933 messages

Wittand25 wrote...

Multiplayer would be bad because the game is not suited for Co-op.
What happens to the other players if the player controlling Shepard starts a dialog?


If there is co-op, it will likely be combat only.  However, mutltiplayer dialog is technology that they have been working on for years in SW:TOR.  It is unlikely, but not completely inconceivable that technology for squad mate interrupts would make it into ME3.

#974
Wittand25

Wittand25
  • Members
  • 1 602 messages

RamirezWolfen wrote...

Wittand25 wrote...

Multiplayer would be bad because the game is not suited for Co-op.
What happens to the other players if the player controlling Shepard starts a dialog?
What happens to the other players if Shepard enters the Normandy ?
What happens during those rail shooter segments that were already shown?
How would plot triggers (especially those for combat sequences) be handled if one of the squadmates can run off and stumble over them before Shepard is ready?

A multiplayer arena for PvP matches would be possible but that would need a lot of work for balancing and have a very negative effect on the power sets that would also affect the main campain.


1. How so?
2. Why would there be multiplayer during a story mission, and not it's own mission?
3. Why would we need to go to the Normandy on a co-op mission?
4. Same as 2
5. Same as 2

And if the multiplayer is separate from the main campaign, there won't be any effects.

Well except drawing away all the resources needing to make the separate campaign for multiplayer thereby negatively affecting the main single player campaign.
Creating a completely separate story or even just levels means a lot of work, reusing existing maps from the single player campaign would both appear cheap and still need a lot of resources (removal of plot triggers, rearrangement of enemies, ... ). And even if the multiplayer is separate the very game mechanics still have to be changed to factor in the possibility that the players can move independently from each other.l really do not see any why how multiplayer can be added without negatively affecting the game. (Unless it is similar to Bioshock2 and the multiplayer part is completely disconnected from the main game and developed by a different studio and basically a completly different game that just happens to be on the same disc.)

#975
Selene Moonsong

Selene Moonsong
  • Members
  • 3 394 messages
Thank you, Mr White, an excellent point on why it is unlikely that ME 3 would be designed or modified for MP use.

Voice acting is limited to PC and Companions (NPC's). This would render the game rather extremely dull for co-op players, they would end up watching a movie with the Protagonist (host player) doing everything else, and having little to do but follow along and watch except in combat.

To make the co-op player's experience enjoyable, a great deal of design and development would be required so that the characters are included for more than combat duties and still have the same flow as its predecessors. With so much development that would needed to really make MP work, the costs would be prohibitive.

Making MP work is not as simple as tacking on the MP capabilities for hosting and client connection functionality, the entire game must be designed for it or it simply won't work.