2368 réponses à ce sujet

[LadyAlekto]

As long as it does in no way **** up my sp experience, i am for it as much as i see failure incoming (bioshock2)

I actually enjoy a good multiplayer, and now, people may scream at me, giving mass effects rpg element to a mp mode (or some, i like cod, newbslaying with quake-era skill) i might even find enjoyable, i suggest taking a look at what made cod a liked franchise and somehow implent masseffect-ey stuff (the origins of their success is imho the perks and custom created classes, not the ease of game, tho the repeated affirmation boosts many wannabees)

[LPPrince]

Posting ponies immediately after a mod says to keep things on topic is a bad idea, ya know.

[ObserverStatus]

BatmanPWNS wrote...

Aww. I was hoping for PVP just so BSN can cry more.

^^^

[Iakus]

Fiery Phoenix wrote...

iakus wrote...

Fiery Phoenix wrote...

He was trying his best to dodge the question, that's all. He couldn't tell the truth just yet.

The worst part of it.

It has once been said that to get at the truth is to hear both sides and believe neither.

I prefer "Trust everybody, but cut the cards"

[TheRealJayDee]

Well, I said it before, I'll say it again: BioWare must be incredibly confident about the singleplayer to add stuff like Kinect support and a multiplayer very few people ever asked for.

MP confirmation = confirmation that SP is nothing short of perfect

[Olwydd]

The Calculator wrote...

So I hear lots of complaining, I heard it since ME1 when ever any one brought up multiplayer. But what I never heard is a valid reason for such complaints. Its always stuff like "lt will ruin the game." "Mass Effect is a singleplayer game if you want multiplayer play Gears of War" "If they add multiplayer that take away from the time they put into singleplayer" Which is not true because with most games there are multiple teams working on the project and other thing like that with out any explanation why. So here is your chance complainers tell me a valid reason you think multiplayer detracts form the game.

There is a limit to funds, manpower, and time. Nothing is free. You might have an extra team to work on MP, but those people still need to be paid, and most of the time those funds come from the same pool (if not, great, fine!). That MP component still needs to be worked into the greater game, which requires QA time. Sometimes you can't have X & Y at the same time; it's not feasible due to time and resource limits, so you're stuck with having either X OR Y. Many people, including myself, are a bit nervous that an unknown multiplayer element means fewer funds being diverted to elements of the single player campaign they know and love. Whether or not that turns out to be a valid concern remains to be seen.

[Blastback]

As long as it doesn't take away from the single player, I'm not upset. But I honestly don't care.

[E-Type XR]

The Calculator wrote...

So I hear lots of complaining, I heard it since ME1 when ever any one brought up multiplayer. But what I never heard is a valid reason for such complaints. Its always stuff like "lt will ruin the game." "Mass Effect is a singleplayer game if you want multiplayer play Gears of War" "If they add multiplayer that take away from the time they put into singleplayer" Which is not true because with most games there are multiple teams working on the project and other thing like that with out any explanation why. So here is your chance complainers tell me a valid reason you think multiplayer detracts form the game.

Let's create a situation.

You're given 1 million pounds to make the game. No more, no less. You then take off 200,000 to hire people and make the MP aspect. Even if the base game only cost 800,000 to make, thats 200,000 ppunds you could spend on Q/A people, engine optimisation, new resources, or better graphics/polishing. Anyway you turn it, the singleplayer game could have been out 4 months or earlier, or 4 months better. Instead, we get a MP segment that only EA would have actually wanted.

[ObserverStatus]

Olwydd wrote...
There is a limit to funds, manpower, and time. Nothing is free. You might have an extra team to work on MP, but those people still need to be paid, and most of the time those funds come from the same pool (if not, great, fine!). That MP component still needs to be worked into the greater game, which requires QA time. Sometimes you can't have X & Y at the same time; it's not feasible due to time and resource limits, so you're stuck with having either X OR Y. Many people, including myself, are a bit nervous that an unknown multiplayer element means fewer funds being diverted to elements of the single player campaign they know and love. Whether or not that turns out to be a valid concern remains to be seen.

I'm sure that they wouldn't make multiplayer content if it would leave them without sufficient resources to finish the single player content.

[Ghost-621]

ME3: Fight for the Lost PLOT.

Join up!

Modifié par Ghost-621, 10 octobre 2011 - 08:27 .

[Neverwinter_Knight77]

Bekkael wrote...

How very interesting. Playing with friends sounds like a good thing.

EDIT: I want to fix Shep's face.

"All you krogans look alike."  No but seriously, is that Wrex?

[Abirn]

Wow really? Its not even the multiplayer aspect that aggravates me It's that you guys DELIBERATELY LIED TO US. So how do you justify that. Go ahead justify intentionally lying to our faces.

This is pathetic. Is this how little you think of your fans, that you tell us a deliberate lie. You were asked about multiplayer a few months ago and you intentionally said no.

[darknoon5]

Ghost-621 wrote...

ME3: Fight for the Lost PLOT.

Join up!

Excuse me, how does Co-op mean ME3 has no plot, or is ruined?

Change really is terrifying, huh?

[zico291]

As long as the co-op has separate missions to the singleplayer story, and people don't spawn as squadmates or Shepard. I am totally fine with the idea.

Modifié par zico291, 10 octobre 2011 - 08:28 .

[mranderson25]

So we're gonna condemn it without trying it or even getting more info? So I'm guessing that everyone never had that "you don't know if you like it until you try it" moment as children then? Sure, it could be terrible, but it could also be THE GAME OF THE CENTURY. There's just no way to tell yet...

[Xariann]

I am hoping they don't do horde mode. There will be co-op reading what they say. I wonder how it will be! Obviously you can't have 3 Shepards. This can go very well and be the most fun thing or really lame... I am hopeful it will be really fun. Several people I'd like to play with in this forum! Providing they let console and PCs play together.

[BatmanPWNS]

Rakia Time wrote...

Welcome to the future of gaming, multiplayer everywhere....gotta say, the future really sucks

Multiplayer has existed since 1958 and were almost everywhere in the 80's and 90's so I don't know what you mean by the "future of gaming"

[Melchiah109]

This thread delivers.

[Drone223]

People should judge MP untill they actually played it for themselves.....but in the meantime *grabs popcorn*

[image removed]

Modifié par Stanley Woo, 10 octobre 2011 - 08:35 .

[didymos1120]

Ghost-621 wrote...

Casey lied. Outright, freakin' bold-faced lied to everyone.

Um, no.  He dodged and evaded like crazy, but he never straight-up said "There is absolutely without a doubt no multiplayer in ME3", which is what's required for you to say it was a bald-faced lie (and yes, it is bald-faced).

[shepskisaac]

cachx wrote...

Ghost-621 wrote...

Casey lied. Outright, freakin' bold-faced lied to everyone.

Not that it surprised anybody.
Remember when TOR news leaked out? Bioware was pretty aggresive denying it, even AFTER Riticello spilled the beans.

I still remember that. The most hilarious denial ever, denying your own boss' words xD

[ObserverStatus]

Melchiah109 wrote...

This thread delivers.

I know right? Wish I could do this all day.