2368 réponses à ce sujet

[The Elder King]

Drone223 wrote...

hhh89 wrote...

SilentNukee wrote...

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.

Yup, and spending money every month for playing MP.
Even if I don't like MP that much, a ME3 coop could have made me try it. But I'm not going to give MS money for play a game that I bought.

That is gold membership only, silver is free and allows you to get DLC

I know that. I'm talking about playing MP.

challenger18 wrote...

You don't spend money eve y month
for XBL. You pay a bulk some up front for the amount of months you want
and that's it. But if you don't want to that at all you can awalys get a
ps3.

Changing a console only for playing ME3 coop is stupid. As I said, I don't like much MP, I wanted to try it because it a ME game.

[didymos1120]

1136342t54 wrote...

It is quite possible that withou multiplayer ME3 would have been released earlier.

Many people are mad because that's exactly what they think and would rather have the game earlier.

[TheShogunOfHarlem]

To reiterate my opinions, I am very, VERY disappointed. My expectations for ME3 has been greatly lowered and I find that I am not as excited about it as I was previously. ME3 may well be the last video game I will buy for some time and I might have finally done the one thing that I thought I would never do: Outgrow Video games. Single player gaming is stagnating and the game developers are letting it happen. I just have to get that off my chest it's a good coping tool. I maybe disgusted at the gaming industry but I'll find new hobbies to supplant video games.

However some of the vitriol displayed here is way over the top and very childish. I fail to see the point in posting insults, accusations and boycott threats at Bioware.

[M8DMAN]

silverhammer08 wrote...

didymos1120 wrote...

Rip504 wrote...

How much of our dlc,will now be made for MP instead of SP?

We don't know.  We'll just have to see.

who wants to bet they'll pull a CoD or a BF and charge you 15 Dollars for some re-used Multiplayer Maps ?

Money, the root of all evil.

[Iakus]

Babe Mause wrote...

If it was some future DLC  which people had to buy separately, it indeed would be optional. But if it comes with the main game, it means people who don't want it (like me) will have to pay for it anyways, because its price is already included in the price of the game.

Also, how you can be so sure about mp not having impact on the singleplayer 
experience?

Maybe there were additional missions or side-quests that were cut because of this. Maybe some companions became cameos just because BW didn't have enough resources for bigger squad and multiplayer, and they decided to cut the team down. 

We'll never know how exactly mp influenced the main game.

Very much this.

[Nayt Navare]

IsaacShep wrote...

_purifico_ wrote...

FLASH NEWS - Casey Hudson is a lying liar who lies!

BREAKING NEWS - Casey Hudson and no one from BioWare ever said "there will be no multiplayer in ME3 of any kind ever" and fans are just trying to blame it on 'they lied to us!' because they were deluding themselves for the past year+ of the ME3 multiplayer rumors saga.

News of the hour!  Harrowmont is a liar and a crook! Trust at your own risk!  Also, Bioware "never directly stated", granted, but they HINTED TO THE POINT that it's understandable people feel lied to.  "We tried multiplayer, it didn't fit" or "Mass Effect 3 is a single player game" are near-direct quotes.  More word from the shaperate: Obiw-Wan Kenobi "certain point of view" argument outlawed in the Assembly!



Seriously, can we stop the BSN posting bashing?  Both sides of the "they lied/they didn't" have points, but it's the same thing as "from a certain point of view" Obi-Wan pulled.  Shady, but debatable from both sides.

[CDRSkyShepard]

So long as it's not an MMO, I'm cool with it...somewhat. I just don't see why they'd take the extra effort to make a multi-player experience when many fans didn't want one, it seems like the effort they put into it would have been better put into the actual single-player game. I'd rather have had the game earlier without a co-op and have some co-op DLC or something, versus having the entire game delayed (Not saying the co-op is or isn't the reason for the delay, but they're obviously using up time on it). They can always release a multi-player game based on the ME universe after Shepard's story arc is done, why jack with a good thing now?

I will be checking out BioWare TV on Wednesday for the news. I want to know if it's just going to be a co-op, what they're going to do about the weapons/power wheel/pause-and-play mechanic, what's going to happen with dialogue options, and who "Player 2" is going to play as. On the latter, my guess is that the other person might be able to play as James Vega...but we shall see. It just seems like it would cheapen the experience for Player 2 if they aren't Shepard...Shepard is awesome!

However, seems like what's done is done. I'll try to make the most of it when the game comes out. My sister and I both love ME so I'll probably end up playing some co-op missions with her. My roommates also like watching me play, but won't play it themselves. Maybe I can use the co-op mode to get them hooked. ;D

I trust you, BioWare, but all this is still making me uneasy...this game better be good. If the single-player and story are sub-par for the sake of this multi-player thing, I'm not gonna be happy.

[Dragoonlordz]

This is how I see it, firstly they said will be stripping out the non-main plot based stuff in order to concentrate on story given it's the last title in Shepard series and due to all this babbling by people about urgency regarding plot. So it will have less content to being with. They said ME3 will be same length as ME2 campaign which was tiny without all the padding of non plot related content of which I think they removed or removing from ME3. Combined with those two things I think the main single player game will be 20 hours long and co-op is the replacement for those side missions and non main plot aspects that they removed. All of those side missions and non main plot parts they removed will now be SOLD back to you in the form of multiplayer co-op DLC imho.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 10 octobre 2011 - 10:35 .

[Darkeus]

Edge 7 wrote...

Darkeus wrote...

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.

Really? You're going to slam wikipedia's credibility when it cites the information from other sources?

And it is really, really saddening to see that you can't name a good co-op game, let alone a good multiplayer game.

I could care less about multiplayer so I don't care about Multiplayer games.

Call of Duty is not good.  I don;t care how many people buy it.  That is the definition of money grab casual game.

Battlefield is actually decent.

Dead Space multiplayer was BAD!

Homefront was a money grab trying to get in the multiplayer ring.

Diablo III will be multiplayer but it is MADE FOR THAT PURPOSE.

Portal 2 does co-op right, being seperate from the main story.

Same with Rage.  In fact, I appreciate RAGE for not having gun based competative MP.

I could go on but what does that have to do with the fact that time was wasted on a feature a small minority will use and actually care about?

[ADLegend21]

I literally laughing at all the MP hate right now. They've been working on this game for years and the Devs are doing FULL PLAYTHROUGHS every day. Single player's being perfected yet eeveryone's whining "waaah it's taking away from single player" and Multiplayer is OPTIONAL, news flash, nealry EVERYTHING in ME is optional. Jesus people, grow up.

[1136342t54_]

didymos1120 wrote...

1136342t54 wrote...

It is quite possible that withou multiplayer ME3 would have been released earlier.

Many people are mad because that's exactly what they think and would rather have the game earlier.

Please I'm glad I won't be getting it now. I need more money for a crap load of other games. My whole life isn't committed to waiting for that game to come out like some people.

[didymos1120]

M8DMAN wrote...

Money, the root of all evil.

Actually it's "love of money", not money itself.  Still wrong though: money is a pretty recent invention, compared to how long the species has been around.

Modifié par didymos1120, 10 octobre 2011 - 10:31 .

[IronSabbath88]

ADLegend21 wrote...

I literally laughing at all the MP hate right now. They've been working on this game for years and the Devs are doing FULL PLAYTHROUGHS every day. Single player's being perfected yet eeveryone's whining "waaah it's taking away from single player" and Multiplayer is OPTIONAL, news flash, nealry EVERYTHING in ME is optional. Jesus people, grow up.

This.

[jake112296]

I hope they don't screw it up, hope it's co-op.

[challenger18]

hhh89 wrote...

Drone223 wrote...

hhh89 wrote...

SilentNukee wrote...

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.

Yup, and spending money every month for playing MP.
Even if I don't like MP that much, a ME3 coop could have made me try it. But I'm not going to give MS money for play a game that I bought.

That is gold membership only, silver is free and allows you to get DLC

I know that. I'm talking about playing MP.

challenger18 wrote...

You don't spend money eve y month
for XBL. You pay a bulk some up front for the amount of months you want
and that's it. But if you don't want to that at all you can awalys get a
ps3.

Changing a console only for playing ME3 coop is stupid. As I said, I don't like much MP, I wanted to try it because it a ME game.

So is saying you don't want to give MS money. If you purchased a new 360, accessories for the system, and new games to play on it; you have given MS money. 

[Darkeus]

1136342t54 wrote...

Darkeus wrote...

didymos1120 wrote...

Darkeus wrote...

You can't have MP in your game without diverting resources from other things.

And those other things may or may not be the other aspects of ME3.  Maybe they got diverted from some other project.  Do you know any actual details of the budgeting process for this game? 

That is a lot of "if" there.  Point is, odds say that this took away from resources that could have been better used beside adding a feature no one really wants.

Your assumptions are no different. You have no conclusive evidence at all nor proof. It is quite possible that withou multiplayer ME3 would have been released earlier. 

I thought that is one of the points I was trying to make???

Guy, your point makes my point.  That is time and resources wasted.  And I am sure there are things they could have done to make a more solid SP experience instead of this.

[Sylvianus]

I'm glad for the co-op. But I can understand why some people feel angry. Bioware lied, and that's not good. I would be pissed too.

You have repeatedly denied that there would be no multiplayer and there will be. Co-op is multiplayer, that's dishonest. I do not understand why you have not been transparent from the beginning.

What it would have changed? I always guessed that there would be multiplayer until you say no yourself. There I really thought I was mistaken. Why to say no in this case ?

Don't get me wrong. I'm happy, and I would be happy to see the bsn rage, but I feel uncomfortable with lies... How can we trust you ortherwise ?

[gamer_girl]

IronSabbath88 wrote...

ADLegend21 wrote...

I literally laughing at all the MP hate right now. They've been working on this game for years and the Devs are doing FULL PLAYTHROUGHS every day. Single player's being perfected yet eeveryone's whining "waaah it's taking away from single player" and Multiplayer is OPTIONAL, news flash, nealry EVERYTHING in ME is optional. Jesus people, grow up.

This.

^seconded

[Edge 7]

Darkeus wrote...


Battlefield is actually decent.

Portal 2 does co-op right, being seperate from the main story.

I could go on but what does that have to do with the fact that time was wasted on a feature a small minority will use and actually care about?

You see right there? If Portal 2 can do it right, why can't Mass Effect, a game with a defense and power system that begs for a team based mode? What we're getting is co-op missions seperate from the main story.

As for a small feature no one will care about, the co op in portal is what made it distinct from the previous game. Its what made the already-great experience fantastic.

I just bolded the Battlefield quote because its an example of a vs game done right, but that doesn't really apply to this situation.

Modifié par Edge 7, 10 octobre 2011 - 10:35 .

[KrazyKiko]

Terror_K wrote...

The details aren't the point. The point is no matter what the multiplayer entails, it's resources, time and money that could have been better spent improving the single-player aspect of the game. Simple as that. And I can see no reason to add multiplayer to the third game in a thus-far purely single player, story-driven series aside from pandering and introducing the feature for the sake of sales and bringing more of the multiplayer shooter crowd in. That's not making the game better, that's just derailing it to broaden appeal and nothing more. If you really want that then save it for a spin-off where it suits it and makes sense.

Seriously, how much time, effort and resources are being spent on coming up with this, integrating it into the gameplay properly, testing to make sure it doesn't break things compared to the standard single-player gameplay, etc. that could have been focused instead on more customisation, deeper choices and consequences with more varied results rather than a bunch of emails or substitutions that are otherwise the same, and just more story content or even new locations to explore, etc.?

Well said...  It explains my feelings towards the news exactly.

[Dragoonlordz]

ADLegend21 wrote...

I literally laughing at all the MP hate right now. They've been working on this game for years and the Devs are doing FULL PLAYTHROUGHS every day. Single player's being perfected yet eeveryone's whining "waaah it's taking away from single player" and Multiplayer is OPTIONAL, news flash, nealry EVERYTHING in ME is optional. Jesus people, grow up.

Back at you.

[Uezurii]

Darkeus wrote...

1136342t54 wrote...

Darkeus wrote...

didymos1120 wrote...

Darkeus wrote...

You can't have MP in your game without diverting resources from other things.

And those other things may or may not be the other aspects of ME3.  Maybe they got diverted from some other project.  Do you know any actual details of the budgeting process for this game? 

That is a lot of "if" there.  Point is, odds say that this took away from resources that could have been better used beside adding a feature no one really wants.

Your assumptions are no different. You have no conclusive evidence at all nor proof. It is quite possible that withou multiplayer ME3 would have been released earlier. 

I thought that is one of the points I was trying to make???

Guy, your point makes my point.  That is time and resources wasted.  And I am sure there are things they could have done to make a more solid SP experience instead of this.

Your not sure at all simply because your not there developing the game now are you? You dont know what they are doing, what resources they have and spend.

[1136342t54_]

Darkeus wrote...


I thought that is one of the points I was trying to make???

Guy, your point makes my point.  That is time and resources wasted.  And I am sure there are things they could have done to make a more solid SP experience instead of this.

Again that is possibly not correct or even a good guess of what has likely happened. Another scenario is this. Bioware was given a set amount of funds to finish the game. When the SP was finished EA probably encouraged them to make mp for ME3 by giving them more resources that should solely be used for mp. Bioware use those resources for mp. You can say resources were wasted but it would have never been used for anything in relation to ME3 without the mp.

[DaringMoosejaw]

didymos1120 wrote...

M8DMAN wrote...

Money, the root of all evil.

Actually it's "love of money", not money itself.  Still wrong though: money is a pretty recent invention, compared to how long the species has been around.

And anyway If it weren't for said love of money, Mass Effect wouldn't exist.

[gammameggon]

LPPrince wrote...

Question-

Who's canceling their preorders? And I mean REALLY.

I already did. Skyrim is now paid off because of it...the Collector's Edition.

I just gave Bethesda a lot of money, and money once directly intended for BioWare is now in a Bethesda bank account.