2368 réponses à ce sujet

[didymos1120]

Darkeus wrote...

Trust me, any multiplayer work is time that could be used for the Single player.  No way to get around that simple fact.

You don't seem to comprehend the distinction between "could be" and "would be".  They're not the same thing.

[SilentNukee]

Just saying, if Origins doesn't change its **** and is required for ME3, all of you should come to Xbox. We'll have good times.

[Travie]

INB4 they release a compilation of all 3 games with a coop to play through the whole series with a team of friends.

...I'd play Garrus.

[Lord_Valandil]

All right, this is my guess, and then I'm gone for good from this thread.
It'll be a shoehorned feature which everyone will forget in less than a week...and then they'll go back to their Call of Duty games.

[TheRealJayDee]

SavesTheDay wrote...

If they knew they didn't have the resources to finish the single player game, I highly doubt they would start making a multiplayer game. So I'm not worried, I liked the first game and the second (a lot), I don't think the third one will drop in quality just because they added a multiplayer option.

I'd probably have agreed before I wittnessed the near complete overhaul of Dragon Age on one hell of a tight schedule...

[Bekkael]

hhh89 wrote...

Bekkael wrote...

Alistair4Ever wrote...

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!! now i have to buy xbox live!!!

There are some awesome people that use XBL.

The problem aren't the people. The problem is to pay a monthly fee to MS.

I do it yearly, it hurts less. As far as hobbies go, it's not terribly expensive, but YMMV.

[Jonathan Shepard]

NPH11 wrote...

RolandX9 wrote...
Look, I know this is not your fault, but someone completely screwed the pooch on the way this was handled. Months -- months -- of dancing delicately around multiplayer. Touting the SP campaign while carefully not denying the existence of MP. Talking up the "looking into all options" thing while trying to pretend it wasn't a done deal. This. Was. Not. Cool.

Look, I'm not happy with any MP, but co-op sure beats mindless deathmatch with a stick. Most of we SP diehards will suck it up, and the rest will simply not buy ME3. I have no doubt that this will ultimately improve sales in spite of the latter. Here's the thing: EA (and by extension Bioware) messed with us, ME's most loyal customers, for months, for no good fracking reason. This is too soon to be a "big final-stretch marketing push" and too late to be "hey, we just added this". Am I buying ME3? Definitely. There's no way I'm blowing off Shepard's grand finale, not after years of personal investment. After DA 2 and this, though, I'm not going to pre-order another Bioware game (or, most likely, any game without Zelda in the title) for a long time.

Took the words right out of my mouth.

And mine as well.

[Apollo Starflare]

Y'know, all this talk of mouthy socially inept teenagers that stalk the Xbox plains seems a bit silly considering it looks a lot like it'll be co op only at launch (hopefully remaining that way for ME3). Sure you can group up with strangers if you want, but it isn't -that- hard to find a handful of likeminded people to co op with. The annoying players are much more trouble in deathmatches and larger team based scenarios if you ask me.

I'm still holding out a vain hope for offline co op though.

[Darkeus]

didymos1120 wrote...

Darkeus wrote...

Trust me, any multiplayer work is time that could be used for the Single player.  No way to get around that simple fact.

You don't seem to comprehend the distinction between "could be" and "would be".  They're not the same thing.

I comprehend just fine.  I don't think you comprehend the fact that you can't get around the fact that resources were used.  It is one pool of money you know.  

[Mister Mida]

didymos1120 wrote...

Mister Mida wrote...

Last I checked, volunteer mods are instructed to answer a certain way in certain situations.

Yeah, and do a search for that sentence on this site.  You'll notice it doesn't make many recent appearances in the thread-lock posts.

What does that have to do with you wrongfully accusing the
volunteer mods of pulling the answers concerning this subject out of
their asses?

And before you go all 'WTF are you talking about?' Go reread what you wrote earlier. Here, I'll help:

didymos1120 wrote...

Quinnzel wrote...

Though I'm really damn interested to see how the multiplayer turns out, I honestly have to wonder why BioWare felt the need to lie, to us, their loyal fans no less, on the matter.

"Mass Effect 3 is a singleplayer game"

And you know who said that?  A forum mod.  A volunteer forum mod.

Modifié par Mister Mida, 10 octobre 2011 - 10:12 .

[Silver]

kill'd

Modifié par silverhammer08, 10 octobre 2011 - 10:15 .

[Saedius Asicus]

I'm not sure Assassin's Creed is the appropriate analogy here. Red Dead Redemption and Portal 2 both had multiplayer coop who's production quality was good (RDR) to very good (P2). The problem is that RDR, which shares a similar slow-time ability (dead eye) to ME2 soldier/infiltrator/vanguard classes, rendered a core ability practically useless. While in RDR this was a minor annoyance, in ME3 is would be a colossal pain in the ****. Portal 2 succeeds because the fundamental gameplay was preserved unchanged.

My concerns for ME3 is that if you add that to the fact that if they require four players for coop, the odds of getting all friends on same platform at same time is essentially nil, I guess I'll be relying on random team building and I've found griefers in every darn game I play online (including Portal) that inevitably leads to my discontinuing playing the whole game.

[darthnick427]

.....The end of the single player era has come. Bioware...you were our final hope. sniff.....oh well...I'll still play it, maybe I'll even like it..but right now I'm not happy about it

[GreenSoda]

challenger18 wrote...

JakeMacDon wrote...

Personally, I think this is a bad move.  ME does not need this "feature" and will not benefit from it, as experience has shown that any game with this combination always tends to sacrifice the single player experience for the multiplayer component, and that's pretty much always.

Unless ME3 is going on a Blu-ray, there's only so much you can stuff on a disc intended to run on a console.  Something has to give, and it's not looking hopeful.

Alas. 

Baldur's Gate 2 had multi-player.

My personal fav game ever.

Yeah...BW is also on record for saying that BG2 mp was "tacked on" and an "afterthought". They also had to cut stuff from the main game. Like Boo's kidnapping and a Mazzy romance, amongst other things.

[111987]

Darkeus wrote...

111987 wrote...

Darkeus wrote...

It does have an effect on Single player. It takes resources and money that could be used for Single Player and shoehorns it into a mode that nobody really wants. They majority do not want this co-op crap.

The majority of people where? On BSN? Maybe. In the entire video game market? I highly doubt that. Some of the best-selling games of all time are multiplayer games. Multiplayer is a feature that will undoubtedly bring in thousands of new fans.

You don't know if resources or money were taken from the single player; that is your assumption. If the game is very buggy/sloppy/whatever, then you might have a case, but no game is perfect. The problem is people are going to blame every bug on the existence of multiplayer, ignoring the fact that ME1 and ME2 were pretty buggy themselves.

Multiplayer is not as big as you think.  There are polls out there that say that people still play alone most of teh time.  I also doubt it will bring in "thousands on new fans"  I doubt even a hundred new.  Some tacked on MP is not going to bring all of teh CoD and Battlefield fans, sorry.

And fro the reaction I have seen on Facebook, IGN, Gamefaq boards and on here.  I think it is safe to say that a very loud majority of fans in many forums have expressed their displeasure for this addition....

Show me those polls; I honestly doubt that is true given the obsecene amount of hours played on xbox live, PSN, etc...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_video_games

If you look at the top games on those lists, you will see the vast majority of them are multiplayer experiences. Fact is, multiplayer sells.

There are millions of people that play games like Halo, CoD, and GoW. You don't think even a few thousand of those players won't see Mass Effect 3, see that it has multiplayer, and will decide not to get it?

How many fans do you think will actually not get the game because of multiplayer? 100? 200? An insigificant number compared to how many people will be buy Mass Effect 3.

[Drone223]

Ghost Lightning wrote...

SilentNukee wrote...

Let the purists whine!!!

We're not whining, we're complaining

Its BSN whats the difference

[Darkeus]

TheRealJayDee wrote...

SavesTheDay wrote...

If they knew they didn't have the resources to finish the single player game, I highly doubt they would start making a multiplayer game. So I'm not worried, I liked the first game and the second (a lot), I don't think the third one will drop in quality just because they added a multiplayer option.

I'd probably have agreed before I wittnessed the near complete overhaul of Dragon Age on one hell of a tight schedule...

Exactly, you bring up a good point JayDee.

[SavesTheDay]

TheRealJayDee wrote...

SavesTheDay wrote...

If they knew they didn't have the resources to finish the single player game, I highly doubt they would start making a multiplayer game. So I'm not worried, I liked the first game and the second (a lot), I don't think the third one will drop in quality just because they added a multiplayer option.

I'd probably have agreed before I wittnessed the near complete overhaul of Dragon Age on one hell of a tight schedule...

Those are different teams, plus if everyone hated Dragon Age 2, maybe they learned their lesson. Mass Effect 3 was delayed though, wasn't it? They'd have more time to finish both modes of the game.

[TheRealJayDee]

didymos1120 wrote...

Darkeus wrote...

Trust me, any multiplayer work is time that could be used for the Single player.  No way to get around that simple fact.

You don't seem to comprehend the distinction between "could be" and "would be".  They're not the same thing.

"Should be" ftw!

[Zakatak757]

If I'm playing Garrus, I am putting the "IMPRESSIVE!" command on my middle mouse button. "SCOPED AND DROPPED!" can go on the thumb button 2.

[ObserverStatus]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

Ghost Lightning wrote...

SilentNukee wrote...

Let the purists whine!!!

We're not whining, we're complaining

I c wat u did thar:ph34r:

you did? it's a miracle!

[GuardianAngel470]

For god's sake people I have seen more inane arguments about this topic than I care to remember.

It has co-op. It was delayed for several months. How in the hell is that taking away resources from the single player? Resources were ADDED, not diverted.

Every day of development is part of the game's budget. Every day of development is a resource spent. If you add days, you have to add resources. Programmers don't work for free people. Electricity isn't free, managers don't work for free, Casey goddam Hudson does not work for free.

If they delayed the game to add coop AFTER completing singleplayer to the best of their ability, what the freak are you complaining about? That they didn't fix what wasn't broken? That they didn't make a unique romance with Conrad Verner? That X, Y, and Z minute details didn't carry over?

Get. The freak. Over yourselves. If you don't care enough about the story to buy the game then fine, don't. If you are getting the game even though you hate Bioware, you're a hypocrite. If you are getting the game despite your reservations, fine, good for you.

Just for all that is intelligent and holy in this universe, stop these completely stupid complaining matches.

[Darkeus]

111987 wrote...

Darkeus wrote...

111987 wrote...

Darkeus wrote...

It does have an effect on Single player. It takes resources and money that could be used for Single Player and shoehorns it into a mode that nobody really wants. They majority do not want this co-op crap.

The majority of people where? On BSN? Maybe. In the entire video game market? I highly doubt that. Some of the best-selling games of all time are multiplayer games. Multiplayer is a feature that will undoubtedly bring in thousands of new fans.

You don't know if resources or money were taken from the single player; that is your assumption. If the game is very buggy/sloppy/whatever, then you might have a case, but no game is perfect. The problem is people are going to blame every bug on the existence of multiplayer, ignoring the fact that ME1 and ME2 were pretty buggy themselves.

Multiplayer is not as big as you think.  There are polls out there that say that people still play alone most of teh time.  I also doubt it will bring in "thousands on new fans"  I doubt even a hundred new.  Some tacked on MP is not going to bring all of teh CoD and Battlefield fans, sorry.

And fro the reaction I have seen on Facebook, IGN, Gamefaq boards and on here.  I think it is safe to say that a very loud majority of fans in many forums have expressed their displeasure for this addition....

Show me those polls; I honestly doubt that is true given the obsecene amount of hours played on xbox live, PSN, etc...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_video_games

If you look at the top games on those lists, you will see the vast majority of them are multiplayer experiences. Fact is, multiplayer sells.

There are millions of people that play games like Halo, CoD, and GoW. You don't think even a few thousand of those players won't see Mass Effect 3, see that it has multiplayer, and will decide not to get it?

How many fans do you think will actually not get the game because of multiplayer? 100? 200? An insigificant number compared to how many people will be buy Mass Effect 3.

I think more people will not buy it than you think..

Oh Wikipedia.  That is such a great source.  Not exactly scientific but whatever.

Nor are the polls I was looking at.  Game sites...

Anyway, point is that MP is the lowest common denominator.  They may sell but they really are not good.  They sell because people can be really dumb sometimes.

Modifié par Darkeus, 10 octobre 2011 - 10:15 .

[cachx]

Darkeus wrote...

cachx wrote...

Darkeus wrote...
It does have an effect on Single player. It takes resources and money that could be used for Single Player and shoehorns it into a mode that nobody really wants.

*snip pic*

Nah, I didn't scream at the screen.  Just shook my head and muttered "WTF"
Plus, I am black so that couldn't be me... 

Just to clarify, that was a representation of my rage over that repeated, poor and wrong assumption.