1169 réponses à ce sujet

[GodWood]

PoliteAssasin wrote...
Guys unfortnately we're going to have to just accept it. They haven't come out and said "no multiplayer", so it's obviously in.

-Polite

I beg to differ.
Announcing a game changing feature in some small magazine INSTEAD of E3 or at least a big gaming site is just poor marketing.

[TheKillerAngel]

PoliteAssasin wrote...

Guys unfortunately we're going to have to just accept it. They haven't come out and said "no multiplayer", so it's obviously in. 
-Polite

That's quite a leap.

[Someone With Mass]

GodWood wrote...

PoliteAssasin wrote...
Guys unfortnately we're going to have to just accept it. They haven't come out and said "no multiplayer", so it's obviously in.

-Polite

I beg to differ.
Announcing a game changing feature in some small magazine INSTEAD of E3 or at least a big gaming site is just poor marketing.

Especially a magazine that's only sold to a limited number of people in South Africa.

[Jaron Oberyn]

GodWood wrote...

PoliteAssasin wrote...
Guys unfortnately we're going to have to just accept it. They haven't come out and said "no multiplayer", so it's obviously in.

-Polite

I beg to differ.
Announcing a game changing feature in some small magazine INSTEAD of E3 or at least a big gaming site is just poor marketing.

Not necessarily. If I recall correctly, Ray Muzyka was asked about multiplayer during E3 and responded that they had nothing to announce at that time. Rumor has it that they pushed back the release date to include the multiplayer. They probably didn't have enough to show at that point. Development for a game doesn't hinge on gaming conventions. Something else to consider, I've been following numerous developers on twitter, one of which said that the game is inches away from completion. We have five more months to go. If the campaign is inches away from completion, what's going to happen for those five months? Five months of testing before the game goes out? Not likely. It's most likely that they will focus on the multiplayer component. Seeing how they added the combat rolls and made the combat much more fluid, I don't see why they wouldn't. There's no way that coop could work in my opinion, but if it's standalone missions sure. I'm betting that there will be a horde styled mode though, maybe even team deathmatch, and capture the flag variations. That's the stuff that attracts the GoW and CoD dudebros, and that's Bioware's goal. Don't believe me? Google it. 

-Polite

[1136342t54_]

The Multiplayer is more likely about another ME game in the Franchise.

Edit: Part of me also want to say Polite is just screwin with us.

Modifié par 1136342t54 , 06 octobre 2011 - 11:08 .

[Ruud333]

PoliteAssasin wrote...

Guys unfortunately we're going to have to just accept it. They haven't come out and said "no multiplayer", so it's obviously in. Otherwise why else let the discussion go on?

Absence of denial isn't proof MP is in.  I'm curious and frustrated about their lack of a clear and concise answer, and whilst I won't be surprised if MP is in ME3, I still think it is pretty unlikely.

PoliteAssasin wrote...

Bioware is no longer Bioware. They've lost their way, and are now a part of EA. EA likes multiplayer because they figure it will attract the cod dudebros.

You can't just say "people who like MP"?  No, you, like a lot of others on this forum have to use a derogatory or insulting  term for them.  You just have to assume that everybody who likes MP is as bad as the most anoying elements of that group.

PoliteAssasin wrote...

For obvious reasons it would be best to make something that your core fans will enjoy, but they're not worried about us because they figure we'll just buy it anyway since it's the 3rd game in the trilogy.

If by core fans you mean BSN, then I'd like to ask "have you ever seen everybody on BSN agree on anything?"  There is no way they could ever make a game that would please all of BSN.  EDIT: Just for a few examples of what people disagree on:

- thermal clips vs no thermal clips
- inventory vs no inventory
- ammo powers vs mods
- option to work with the reapers
- which squad members and LIs should be permanent
- the reason for why TIM and cerberus are wokring with the Reapers

PoliteAssasin wrote...

I'd just really like to see their sale numbers for their new title after ME3 when man people won't be going back to them for slapping the fans in the face. It's going to be satisfying.

-Polite

I'm a fan and my face is most definitely unslapped.  And hoping their future games fail just because you don't like the direction ME3 is (EDIT maybe) going in is, to be frank, lame.

Modifié par Ruud333, 06 octobre 2011 - 11:30 .

[whywhywhywhy]

1136342t54 wrote...
I'm not asking you about one feature. If you read my post I'm asking you about what series of features that you liked in ME1 that wouldn't be in ME3. If you can't answer that are arguing or a subjective feeling then why Complain?

How does what I feel makes ME1 a great game have anything
to do with the ME series becoming shooter first and everything else second ? 

1136342t54 wrote...
Edit: Also how the hell amd I misdirecting anything you say? I'm trying to understand why the hell you like ME1 better than ME3 automatically. So far you have no real explanation I can see other than ME1 is better than ME3 and its more of a shooter when in face ME1 was large part shooter.

I don't.  How can I compare it to something that's not even out?  This is one of the things isacsheep misconstructed as something I was saying from the post that sparked all this.  The position was that ME3 is becoming more shooter like and second everything else.  The response was moderation supported rhetoric from isacsheep about icecream which made no point at all. 

Then I made this post 

whywhywhywhy wrote...
If you know I like me1 better then me2 then you should know I've always said that I can't nail it down to a specific feature(s).  ME1 has a feel to it that was lost in me2 and doesn't appear to be present in the me3 demo's.  See a spec sheet or a checklist doesn't make a great game, if that's all you needed then every developer would make great games.  Maybe ME1 was just a freak accident  but they got it right, if feels like a scifi action RPG.

It was spun out of context, like I was saying I couldn't name ME1 features.  Great games are more then their features or bullet points was the context of the post.  So the response is targeted at any who jumped on the "share your me1 features" bandwagon.  Because the point is irrelevant.

Modifié par whywhywhywhy, 06 octobre 2011 - 11:23 .

[whywhywhywhy]

darthnick427 wrote...

Biggest plot twist ever.......SAREN'S ALIVE!

O_O

:O:O

darthnick427 wrote...
Or better yet.....Shepard has been indoctrinated all along!!!

lol

[1136342t54_]

whywhywhywhy wrote...
How does what I feel makes ME1 a great game have anything 
to do with the ME series becoming shooter first and everything else second ? 

You previously said that you can't necessarily pick which feature that makes ME1 better than ME2 or 3.  Even if we assume what you are saying is true about the whole shooter first everything else second. That is how both ME games were like. ME2 actually sacrificed powers and stats but in ME3 they are increasing the amount of powers and stats to a similar level to ME3. They are even raising the level to 60. Most of the Combat changes seem to be going back to ME1 in some ways but obviously modifying it. ME1 while a great game the combat was subpar and I was expecting more. 

I don't.  How can I compare it to something that's not even out?  This is one of the things isacsheep misconstructed as something I was saying from the post that sparked all this.  The position was that ME3 is becoming more shooter like and second everything else.  The response was moderation supported rhetoric from isacsheep about icecream which made no point at all. 

Even so ME1 is still large part combat no matter how you see it. ME3 appears to be going more with the ME1 approach and it is giving us more options with the powers evolutions and we can mod weapons far more better then we could in both games. They've only really shown combat a lot in ME3 because that is what they do for demos.

[jtav]

Multiplayer is looking obvious. I can only hope it's adequately funded and staffed and doesn't degrade SP overmuch.

[shep82]

1136342t54 wrote...

Genshie wrote...

1136342t54 wrote...

For example. Mass Effect 3 single player gets 20 million dollars. EA wants Bioware to add in MP so they give them a extra 5 million. Now lets say EA didn't want Bioware to make MP. They don't give them any extra money.

Nothing's changed with the SP and no funding would have been added for SP other than some future possible DLC.

Adding or not adding is still the same thing. It doesn't matter how you try to reason with it. The funds that would be used for multiplayer could have/should have been used on SP. That extra 5 million could make a huge difference. See we are just going in circles nothing you say can honestly fully defend multiplayer as not being a waste of funds that could be used on to improve the singleplayer experience. I don't see why you people want co-op/multiplayer so badly anyway out of a franchise that has its main product ending. As a new project/story for the ME franchise this would be fine. It makes little to no sense to add multiplayer to the final installment of a trilogy that has never had it before. I recall games that had multiplayer implemented in the middle of the series but never at the end for good and obvious reasons.

Your not understanding though. Those funds would never have been used for SP at all only for DLC in the future. You would lose NOTHING from SP by adding MP.

Edit: Don't claim that I want MP because I never even said that. That is your assumption. I'm just tired of people like you complaining about funds being wasted when its highly likely it would have never been used for SP anyway so who cares? Mass Effect 3 SP won't change in anyway with or without MP.

I know most don't but I agree with you.

[Genshie]

1136342t54 wrote...

whywhywhywhy wrote...
How does what I feel makes ME1 a great game have anything 
to do with the ME series becoming shooter first and everything else second ? 

You previously said that you can't necessarily pick which feature that makes ME1 better than ME2 or 3.  Even if we assume what you are saying is true about the whole shooter first everything else second. That is how both ME games were like. ME2 actually sacrificed powers and stats but in ME3 they are increasing the amount of powers and stats to a similar level to ME3. They are even raising the level to 60. Most of the Combat changes seem to be going back to ME1 in some ways but obviously modifying it. ME1 while a great game the combat was subpar and I was expecting more. 

I don't.  How can I compare it to something that's not even out?  This is one of the things isacsheep misconstructed as something I was saying from the post that sparked all this.  The position was that ME3 is becoming more shooter like and second everything else.  The response was moderation supported rhetoric from isacsheep about icecream which made no point at all. 

Even so ME1 is still large part combat no matter how you see it. ME3 appears to be going more with the ME1 approach and it is giving us more options with the powers evolutions and we can mod weapons far more better then we could in both games. They've only really shown combat a lot in ME3 because that is what they do for demos.

Wrong! Well at least about the reason for alot of combat shown the main reason is that people complained about how they promoted ME2 with it showing alot of spoilers in their marketing hence Bioware being extremely hush hush about what is in ME3 besides the obvious.

Modifié par Genshie, 07 octobre 2011 - 12:45 .

[ShadowSplicer]

Multiplayer? *Sigh*

Just DO NOT **** UP my main story and I'll be fine. Mass Effect 1 and 2 were brilliant, don't miff up the finale for some tacked on multiplayer feature that'll be forgotten in a month.

[1136342t54_]

Genshie wrote...

Wrong! Well at least about the reason for alot of combat shown the main reason is that people complained about how they promoted ME2 with it showing alot of spoilers in their marketing hence Bioware being extremely hush hush about what is in ME3 besides the obvious.

That is a possibility but they've been showing combat in ME games a lot. It isn't new at all.

[Genshie]

1136342t54 wrote...

Genshie wrote...

Wrong! Well at least about the reason for alot of combat shown the main reason is that people complained about how they promoted ME2 with it showing alot of spoilers in their marketing hence Bioware being extremely hush hush about what is in ME3 besides the obvious.

That is a possibility but they've been showing combat in ME games a lot. It isn't new at all.

It has been said that is one of the reasons. I have asked them personally at Comic-Con.

[1136342t54_]

Genshie wrote...

1136342t54 wrote...

Genshie wrote...

Wrong! Well at least about the reason for alot of combat shown the main reason is that people complained about how they promoted ME2 with it showing alot of spoilers in their marketing hence Bioware being extremely hush hush about what is in ME3 besides the obvious.

That is a possibility but they've been showing combat in ME games a lot. It isn't new at all.

It has been said that is one of the reasons. I have asked them personally at Comic-Con.

I didn't really rule it out but since bioware has shown combat a lot with ME Its more that Bioware won't show as many videos as they used to and they will just show a couple of vids more related to combat.

[Alraiis]

PoliteAssasin wrote...
Bioware is no longer Bioware. They've
lost their way, and are now a part of EA. EA likes multiplayer because
they figure it will attract the cod dudebros.
-Polite

Baldur's Gate and Neverwinter Nights had multiplayer.

[Reptillius]

PoliteAssasin wrote...

Guys unfortunately we're going to have to just accept it. They haven't come out and said "no multiplayer", so it's obviously in. Otherwise why else let the discussion go on? The only thing we can do now is just hope that the single player doesn't suffer for it. Bioware is no longer Bioware. They've lost their way, and are now a part of EA. EA likes multiplayer because they figure it will attract the cod dudebros. Unfortunately the campaign will suffer in some way, but I just hope not too much. There's not much we can do about it. They're the developers, they choose what they make. For obvious reasons it would be best to make something that your core fans will enjoy, but they're not worried about us because they figure we'll just buy it anyway since it's the 3rd game in the trilogy. I'd just really like to see their sale numbers for their new title after ME3 when man people won't be going back to them for slapping the fans in the face. It's going to be satisfying.


-Polite

They let it go on because they have a policy of not responding to rumours unless they have to.  And then usually on these forums when they do respond it's usually because the thread has gotten out of hand and they simply lock it.

Your jumping to conclusions based on flimsy information.  There is actually more in favor of there not being Multiplayer mostly in the fact that most so called proof of their being Multiplayer being disproven combined with certain things stated by people like Casey that while most people won't accept as proof of it not being there because it's not the EXACT sentence they want for the sanctity of their own mental states also lean away from Multiplayer and not in favor of it.

While they leave a small window open for the possibility. the Reality is that At most you can give a wait and see answer at best. You can't definitively say there is some obviousness that Multiplayer has to exist in ME3.  If you do you might as well do the equivelant of shaking a magic 8 ball and letting it control your life.

[Elvis_Shepard]

Co-op. Wouldn't. Work.

[Ravenmyste]

The-Person wrote...

Multiplayer, I am calling it.

they already said no multiplayer.... so it has to be something else  maybe a  co op mode?

[Il Divo]

Alraiis wrote...

PoliteAssasin wrote...
Bioware is no longer Bioware. They've
lost their way, and are now a part of EA. EA likes multiplayer because
they figure it will attract the cod dudebros.
-Polite

Baldur's Gate and Neverwinter Nights had multiplayer.

Hell, Neverwinter Nights was designed specifically for the multiplayer.

[Ravenmyste]

Elvis_Shepard wrote...

Co-op. Wouldn't. Work.

actually it would work, if the co-op mode played like dead island and you  could have 5 people in co-op mode playing as a team, yes that would seem  like multiplayer. but co- op would work alot better then going around fraging everyone in the game.. if they did do this i would definatlly play it on co-op mode would be fun to play even more. if you was to do the entire game as  on co-op  mode and maybe see different ending and beable to  get things that only they had in the game like weapons that they only sell on there ship.

but thats would be a dream and half if that happened.

[TheKillerAngel]

You know what I think? Bioware is being skittish on Multiplayer to build hype for the game and possibly get people to buy it who wouldn't otherwise, though they won't actually include multiplayer. It's a mind trick.

[Valdrane78]

Ok people, you are missing something important here. Co-op or MP will NEVER be required to play the official campaign of ME3 and for one simple reason. Across all 3 platforms not everyone has an internet connection and if they do, it is not necessarily hooked up to their console or their computer. Which would make the game completely unplayable for those people.

If anything and IF it is implemented, it will be a separate entity from the actual SP mode.

End of story.

[Computer_God91]

1136342t54 wrote...

whywhywhywhy wrote...
How does what I feel makes ME1 a great game have anything 
to do with the ME series becoming shooter first and everything else second ? 

You previously said that you can't necessarily pick which feature that makes ME1 better than ME2 or 3.  Even if we assume what you are saying is true about the whole shooter first everything else second. That is how both ME games were like. ME2 actually sacrificed powers and stats but in ME3 they are increasing the amount of powers and stats to a similar level to ME3. They are even raising the level to 60. Most of the Combat changes seem to be going back to ME1 in some ways but obviously modifying it. ME1 while a great game the combat was subpar and I was expecting more. 

I don't.  How can I compare it to something that's not even out?  This is one of the things isacsheep misconstructed as something I was saying from the post that sparked all this.  The position was that ME3 is becoming more shooter like and second everything else.  The response was moderation supported rhetoric from isacsheep about icecream which made no point at all. 

Even so ME1 is still large part combat no matter how you see it. ME3 appears to be going more with the ME1 approach and it is giving us more options with the powers evolutions and we can mod weapons far more better then we could in both games. They've only really shown combat a lot in ME3 because that is what they do for demos.

I'm just going to jump right into your guys arguement and say that I also feel the same way about the first Mass Effect as whywhywhywhy. I can see where he is coming from because I feel the same way. Like he is saying it's really difficult to nail down what made ME1 better then ME2 but it just was. The feel was there that ME2 lost, which was Sci-Fi action RPG. Also one thing I can nail down that was a million times better in ME1 was the story and characters.


Edit: I also do feel that ME1 will still be better then ME3 as well.

Modifié par Computer_God91, 07 octobre 2011 - 06:18 .