2368 réponses à ce sujet

[Edge 7]

Darkeus wrote...

There are so many examples that I can give of it being an epic fail too.

And also the main point..  Mass Effect does not need Multiplayer.  It takes away from a single player experience and in my opinion wastes resources on an unneeded and unwanted feature.

It is like when the NCAA guys at EA add Mascot Showdown.  No one wants to play football with the damn mascots.

Well, no one wants to play co-op when there is one of the greatest video game stories told going on.

It is like Dead Space 2's multiplayer, unwanted and destined to be unplayed.

1) If you've got examples, name them
2) The coop in Portal 2 sure wasn't a waste of resources, was it? And they've confirmed ME3 is the same length as ME2.
3) It is completely unlike Dead Space 2's multiplayer. Dead Space had enormous potential for co-op but squandered it going with the vs multiplayer route. Mass Effect is doing co-op.

[marshalleck]

Hah.

Told you so, Javier. And you almost banned me for discussing it.

/smug

Modifié par marshalleck, 10 octobre 2011 - 10:40 .

[DaringMoosejaw]

Sylvianus wrote...

didymos1120 wrote...

Sylvianus wrote...

You have repeatedly denied that there would be no multiplayer and there will be.

No, they repeatedly evaded.

Yes chris Prestly has always said, " we don't comment rumors " , but I remember when the bsn again ****ing about multiplayer, a tweet where they said there will be no multiplayer in M3. It was clear. I even was surprised and disappointed at the time. I haven't dream I hope.

I doubt that. I bet you that if you personally go and track down that tweet right now, it will not be worded as plainly as you remember.

[gamer_girl]

Sylvianus wrote...

didymos1120 wrote...

Sylvianus wrote...

You have repeatedly denied that there would be no multiplayer and there will be.

No, they repeatedly evaded.

Yes chris Prestly has always said, " we don't comment rumors " , but I remember when the bsn again ****ing about multiplayer, a tweet where they said there will be no multiplayer in M3. It was clear. I even was surprised and disappointed at the time. I haven't dream I hope.

Citation please.

[PhantomSpectre]

It's about time that BW truly confirmed this MP issue.

Though I can't say that I'm extremely thrilled about how this confirmation turned out. But then again this co-op might actually be fun and it sure is not the worst kind of MP option.

Though I would have preferred if ME3 would have been only SP game, but it's too late for that. Now all we can hope is that we will have great SP and also fun co-op game option.

[jake112296]

Darkeus wrote...

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?

Finally, some one who knows what they're talking about. Where do you think Me3 will fall on that scale?

[b09boy]

gamer_girl wrote...

b09boy wrote...

Ok let me get this straight.

Bioware, a developer which has never been adept at gameplay and has basically lived off their writing team, is now adding a gaemplay only mode of a sort they have never done before when few are clamoring for it and many are against it.  (And yeah, you read that right.  Bioware has never had very good gameplay or balance.  BG, KotOR, DA, ME, and NWN especially showed this off.  They were crap without story.  Think of your favorite Bioware game.  If your fondest memory of that game was fighting something or another then I'll be very surprised)

So basically, they're spending resources which could have been used on the SP to bring in new fans which have probably not even given the previous games a second thought.  Problem?  They probably delayed the game past the holiday season just to include a feature which, lets face it, won't be good.  Sooooo...Bioware/EA is wasting resources to implement what is likely to be a mediocre feature for what I project to be a loss of sales.

That's some great management there. 

You forget the people that are obsessed with online shooters. I think it'll boost sales since those people make up the vast majority of the gaming population. As far as gameplay goes, ME2 had great gameplay. And there's no way to predict how the gameplay will be either unless you were one of the people that played the demo at E3, PAX, gamescom, etc. (consider the difference in gameplay between DA:O and DA2 or between ME and ME2). All that you present here are assumptions based on less than compelling "evidence". Nobody knows how the multiplayer will be so there's no point in complaining or saying it'll ruin their sales until the game is actually released and we have sufficient info to conclude that what you say is true.

1) There are plenty of online shooters released.  Not all of them do well.  A certain amount of quality and hype needs to be built up around it.  If the hype surrounding ME's multiplayer is that it isn't good, then it will be quickly forgotten.

2)ME2 didn't have good gameplay.  As a pure shooter it was average compared to what else is available.  The mechanics were just not balanced well enough to be called good.  The game was based on being a shooting gallery where you constantly turtle under a single piece of cover against enemies with universally more health than the player.

3) There's plenty of evidence if you're willing to read between the lines that the game was delayed for multiplayer.  There's plenty of evidence of Bioware being poor gameplay developers.  There's plenty of evidence that simply having a crappy multiplayer doesn't automaticaly tap into the pool of multiplayer shooter fans.  Finally, there's plenty of evidence that games don't sell as well directly after the holiday season.

4) Doesn't really matter how good the multiplayer is.  It won't be much anything like the SP (lets face it, the powers of ME would not work for even co-op.  Time dilation would get annoying fast, as would pausing) barring extreme changes to the SP (in which case, all the more reason to complain - changing the SP for multiplayer?).  So they're basically creating a seperate game not many fans of the actual series wants during the grand finale of their epic trilogy, using up resources which could have gone into making it the best SP game they could come up with.  What a waste.

[Kasai666]

hhh89 wrote...

Do you really preorder Skyrim's CE? Spending a lot of money for a dragon statue and a map, and no actual additional game content?
You have money to waste.

I preordered it. My birthday is 5 days before it releases so I'll have the money. 

[The Elder King]

[quote]challenger18 wrote...

[quote]hhh89 wrote...

No, I don't want to gave them money to play a game feature (MP) for a game that I bought. I don't hate MS, otherwise I would've bought the PS3.
[/quote]
[/quote]

Ah, but you're not giving MS money to play a game you bought, you're paying them so you can use a survice they provide. Whether you wish to use all the features that survice provides or think it should be free is another discussion entirely.

[/quote]

I said a game feature/mode in my second post.
I have to say that at least the Live was always save. The PS3 wouldn't have survived after the PSN hack.

[didymos1120]

Sylvianus wrote...

Yes chris Prestly has always said, " we don't comment rumors " , but I remember when the bsn again ****ing about multiplayer, a tweet where they said there will be no multiplayer in M3. It was clear. I even was surprised and disappointed at the time. I haven't dream I hope.

Where is this tweet?  First I've ever heard of it.

[NOD-INFORMER37]

iakus wrote...

gammameggon wrote...

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.

Waiting for the explanation before I decide.

But still furious

I'm waiting for the explanation as well, but I am still biblically pissed off from this. Co-op only though is good, no pvp crap. I sincerly hope its like Portal 2 where the resources/time was clearly focused on Single Player.....but this is EA we're dealing with. And I'm sure everyone remembers how well Dead space 2 and C/C4 turned out with EA's brilliant ideas(sarcasm), and thats what has me worried for Mass Effect 3. >:'{  

[SnowHeart1]

Chris Priestly wrote...

Happy Canadian Thanksgiving everyone. I am at my inlays having dinner, so ma typing this on an iPhone. Excuse the larger than usual amounts of spelling errors.

As mentioned by Casey on Twitter, we are confirming that there will be 4 player Co-op multiplayer missions for Mass Effect 3. We will have more details on this feature on Wednesday when the announcement was supposed to be made.

I know the immediate reaction by some is to panic and think of how this will ruin the Mass Effect series or whatever. PLEASE do not over react or assume the worst until you actually hear details on this feature and how it will work. I will try to get approval to give you details so you can make up your minds with the correct details. Marketing's plan was to announce on Wednesday, but I'll see if I can speed this up.

So, until you learn the details, I urge people to have cautious optimism or wary negativity until you get the real details. Thanks everyone. Stay tuned.

Chris, this was the nicest post I think I've ever seen from you. I'm convinced. The end times are nigh!!!

[Dragoonlordz]

didymos1120 wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Laughing at others who are upset is childish.

There goes most comedy.

Yep, most forms of comedy is childish in nature but using the term "grow up" to others while giggling at childish humour should apply the same to themselves.

[Someone With Mass]

Something must be driving this place, because I can barely keep up.

[CDRSkyShepard]

cachx wrote...

iakus wrote...

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.

You have admitted lots of times not playing as a femshep. Do you complain about all that money you wasted because Bioware spend money on her, I wonder? :innocent:

There's a bit of a problem with your logic, there. He plays m!shep instead of femshep. If there is a multiplayer option that some people don't use, it's not like we have some other feature we can use instead. Everyone's gonna play the single player, that's a given. The multiplayer is just an extra, an extra I and others feel needed to be addressed in DLC, not the big, epic conclusion of Shepard's story.

In other news...

What irks me the most is that we have never seen co-op or multiplayer of any kind in the ME universe up until now, and they decided to throw that little experiment into the third installment of a trilogy... It would have made a lot more sense to release it separately, either as DLC or another game that features multiplayer. Just my opinion, for what it's worth.

[Dragoonlordz]

Edge 7 wrote...

And they've confirmed ME3 is the same length as ME2.

http://social.biowar...5946/75#8480089

[Darkeus]

GuardianAngel470 wrote...

Darkeus wrote...

Problem is, I doubt that happened. 

You can't have MP in your game without diverting resources from other things.  You can't have MP without devoting memory and disc space. You can't have MP in a game with out focusing on getting it right.

This all sounds like taking resources and time away from the Single Player to me.

Why not Darkeus? Bioware just signed with one of the biggest publishers in gaming. This is coop, not competitive multiplayer. You cannot compare this to CoD, Dead Space 2, or any of those games because it is not the same system and it is not the same challenges.

At best you can only compare it to CoD Spec Ops modes, Halo and Gear's system, and a few others.

You say that resources spent are limited exactly to the initial budget. That if you want to do something, you have to take from somewhere else.

That is completely and utterly wrong. Has the term "overbudget" never passed through your ears? Bioware could easily say "Hey EA, we want to do multiplayer, care to give us more money?" or EA could say "Hey Bioware, we want a multiplayer component in your game, here's more money. Oh, you need more time? Sure, delay the game."

Your system of diverting resources is not real life. These people don't work with a perfectly balanced budget. They go over, they come under, they delay games to do things right.

ME3 has been delayed. We find out that coop has been added. It really is not that hard to decide that maybe, just maybe, it was done to do mulitplayer.

The only two components necessary to do something in video games are time and money. They got extra time, they got extra money. Why is it so freaking hard to admit that this might work?

Also, I want to elaborate on a previous point. If the single player is finished, what exactly do you expect bioware to put those resources towards? Do you want them to incorporate half written script that was tossed at the beginning of development? Do you expect them to code in another meaningless sidequest? Do you expect them to rewrite all the design decisions at the beginning of development because suddenly they have more time and money?

Everyone I've seen vehemently oppose coop has either aluded to this justification or outright stated it. "We want them to spend those resources on singleplayer!" without actually providing any examples as to what they want the devs to do with those resources. How do you want them to be spent? What aspect of singleplayer do you think needs work that these resources could be spent on?

In short, what's wrong that needs fixing?

Because if nothing is wrong and nothing needs fixing, why not make coop? 

One, I had to laugh when you said Bioware went to EA to do multiplayer.

I doubt it went that way at all.  More like EA "telling" Bioware that it needs to be in the game.

Multiplayer is UNNEEDED.  Got that?  Okay, so why not release the game early since so one gives a damn about co-op except a few of you or make the game better.  We have seen Dragon Age 2 and this stinks of rush job and taking away from something great (The single player) to create a turd (Co-op)

They could have shored up the gameplay, added more quest, tweaked AI, worked on responses and smoothing out bugs so that we don;t have another Conrad Verner.  I could go on?

But I made my point.  Anything thing would be better to work on than wasting time with co-op that no one really wants.  The gameplay has never been perfect, perfect it.  Tweak levels, find bugs....

I mean come on, you can't think of anything else they could be working on other than this?

[Iakus]

cachx wrote...

iakus wrote...

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.

You have admitted lots of times not playing as a femshep. Do you complain about all that money you wasted because Bioware spend money on her, I wonder? :innocent:

No.

Because I think having roleplaying options is a good thing.  If I chose to, I could play through ME's storyline as a man or a woman.  I prefer playing male, and an Infiltrator at that.  I don't begrudge Femshep any more than I begrudge adepts.  Or Femshep adepts at that.

How much storyline and roleplaying is going into MP?  How does running around with your buddies shooting... whatever ...going to conclude Shepard's story?   It might be a fun game for some people, but that's not the game I wnat to pay for.

[Operation_141]

Looking forward to calling a Reaper in as my 25th killstreak:D

[Taritu]

So, did you love DA2?

Bioware got the benefit of the doubt before DA2.  It burned up that credibility.  I pre-ordered that game, it was not worth a pre-order (don't get me wrong, I don't hate DA2, but it was only a decent game, not Bioware quality.)

Also, Bioware Devs, when asked why they don't include feature X have repeatedly said "we can't have everything, we have to make decisions, resources are not infinite."

They chose to put resources into MP.  By definition those resources could have been used on something else in the game.

DA2 was not a great game.  SWTOR and ME3 are coming out soon.  If they do not meet expectations, there will be a problem.  And SWTOR is really up in the air (the graphics are awful.  If the gameplay and story are great, that will be ok, but... they have to be, because it looks lousy.)

Bioware gets my pre-orders and full price purchases because I trust they'll make a Great game.  If they stop doing that consistently, it will cost them a lot of money, and not just from me.  I can get their games when they cost $10, after all.

[Fenderbaum]

Time and resources wasted? Yes very definitely...

For those saying different, let's look at it this way shall we? ME3 confirmed to be same length as ME2...seriously? the end of the trilogy, so many questions to be answered..and they give us a 40 hour game at best (if you take your time and do everything)?

Surely ME3 deserved a 60/70/80+ hour game to truly and dynamically finish off the series? So there we go, no, they would rather have MP and a crappy 40 hour game (at best again) then use that 'extra' time, money and resources to make the Sp game better, longer, more involving and dynamic.

Nuff said I'm afraid. As for Origins and PC....meh....easy to get around that...I'll still buy my CE..but I won't be connecting to the net to play it.

[Jonzz]

This is madness

[The Elder King]

twitter.com/#!/gtez/status/123522910693507072
"Forums have gone crazy, unsurprisingly. Quick question: will ME3 be about ME2's length not counting co-op? I hope so..."

"Yeah if not longer - I'm at 30+ hours in my play through"

Thanks to Vertigo_1

[didymos1120]

Taritu wrote...

They chose to put resources into MP.  By definition those resources could have been used on something else in the game.

Yes, and they could also have been used on some other game entirely.