2368 réponses à ce sujet

[1136342t54_]

JeffZero wrote...
Did Bioshock 2, Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood and Gears of War offer split-screen? No, really, I have no idea. Did they?

Didn't play Bioshock 2, played AC online and Gears of War did have split screen.

[Swimming Ferret]

JeffZero wrote...

What? Are you implying that you believe there are only three months to develop the multiplayer aspect? There's guaranteed to be a longer period for its creation.

But why didn't they do this in the first place? Adding it in the final game of a trilogy is fairly daft. It'll be like Fear 3 all over again.

[Cartims]

GTFO my spaceship......

[Someone With Mass]

One of the few times I agree with IGN.

[Ghost Lightning]

saMOOrai182 wrote...

That I can get, But The Bioware devs have already said that its the same length if not longer then ME2 not counting the Co-op. 

Okay, here's the thing. We're all scared that because there is MP the SP game, what ME actually is, will suffer and be not as good. It's a valid concern. But what we need to really ask is whether or not they have/are able to made/make the SP game they would have even if MP was not a part of the equation. We won't know eitehr way unless they tell us, which they likely won't do, or just lie. But if they were able to, than the game would be as good either way and the MP is just an add on after the fact, which is okay I guess, I couldn't care lees. 


Basically we're screwed no matter what cause we'll blame any short coming on the MP anyway

Modifié par Ghost Lightning, 10 octobre 2011 - 11:34 .

[Illusive]

JeffZero wrote...

1136342t54 wrote...

Ghost Lightning wrote...

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

Will this co-op support split-screen?

Likely not. To double render a game like ME2 would be damn near impossible on the 360 so with the improved visuals in ME3 it's highly unlikely. 

Nearly every co op game I've played is split screen. I doubt this wouldn't be.

Did Bioshock 2, Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood and Gears of War offer split-screen? No, really, I have no idea. Did they?

GOW does, not sure on the others.

[didymos1120]

Swimming Ferret wrote...

:| Good thing that 3 months couldn't have been used on the actual game instead of this, eh?

Yes, because during that whole time everyone, even the writers, is working on the co-op stuff.

[XyleJKH]

I seriously want to know who was behind this idea? Like why? What made you think the people who play this franchise want this IN THIS GAME!??
What the hell? Am I worried now? A little bit yes? Will I still buy it? For those who care, yes I will still buy it ( I actually already did). But the point is, we never asked for this the fans did not scream "DEEERRP!!!! WE WANTZ MOAR MULTIPLAY!!"

[DOYOURLABS]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

I'll put it this way...

1. I would have preferred they spent the extra money and work team working on more content for the single player experience in otherwords the story and content relating to ingame missions and plot.

2. I think half the DLC will be co-op DLC packs and not single player content packs, plus a nagging 'feeling' the stripping out of side missions and non plot related content is in turn going to be remade as multiplayer packs to sell back to the customer.

3. Worrying direction of Bioware in general regarding their recent trends. With regard to ME2 stripping out what I consider to be RPG elements in favour of more shooter/combat elements which they say will address with ME3 but in reailty get the impression by their intentions that they consider RPG elements to mean just [yet more] combat mechanics rather than RPG story and non combat elements. Then there's DA2 by 'most' peoples standards a sub par (especially for Bioware title) and felt rushed and just simply far from a great game which actually went in a different direction to what most people was hoping for a sequal. Then there's this new fascination with social games and multiplayer plus MMOs route they have taken with Dragon Age: Legends, SWTOR and now ME3 co-op.

I get the distinct feeling Bioware no longer wish to make single player RPG's or maybe even RPG's and instead wish to make hack and slash or shooter action titles now in order to compete mainly with GoW and such games, adding MP onto it because those other action and shooter titles have it. There is reason for lack of faith in Bioware from ME2 to DA2 to Kotor being made into MMO aswell as being decieved by manipulation of truths over past few months regarding MP in ME3.

QFT

[Darkeus]

GuardianAngel470 wrote...

Darkeus wrote...

GuardianAngel470 wrote...



So I'll ask again: If Bioware is satisfied with singleplayer and they are satisfied with gameplay, AI, and all that, why not make a coop option if EA asks them to? If fixing what isn't broken ends up breaking it, are you or I better or worse off?

I believe I made my point.  Just because thery are satisfied means nothing if the game is crap because of wasted time on MP..  Point, blank, simple.

And my saying it is unwanted is seeing the reaction from a multitude of sites, not just here.

It is an uneeded feature that odds are has taken away from the single player experience with time and resources.  That is my opinion, and opinion I believe is correct.

It will be a wasted feature and only a handful will play it.  This will not bring in new players.

Again, waste of time.  There can be resources used to improve the game and squash bugs.  Hell, like one person said, how about making sure FILE TRANSFERS work 99% of the time?

I disagree that it is taking resources away because of things I've already illustrated but you're right, is just opinion.

I think the rest of your argument doesn't hold much water because Bioware have consistently created things that the majority of the population never uses.

I don't believe a feature that gets used very little is wasted. Entire classes in ME are used significanlty less than Soldier but I don't believe that work was wasted.

I believe in options. I buy everything based on what if statements because I often change things around. I feel like that is the most logical way to live life because things change.

But I've said all I feel like I need to say. Have fun kids, pointless discussions are always fun.

And that indeed is your opinion as well.

[JeffZero]

Someone With Mass wrote...

One of the few times I agree with IGN.

200 likes / 282 dislikes

Ahaha.

Anyway, one of the top comments asked Greg to grow up and die. That's... a silly thing to say.

[Gh0st_00]

I have this odd feeling that every slight problem or error in the singleplayer is going to be blamed on multiplayer. Whether it makes sense or not.

"My favorite character isn't a squadmate? IT"S BECAUSE OF CO-OP"

[Dragoonlordz]

DOYOURLABS wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

I'll put it this way...

1. I would have preferred they spent the extra money and work team working on more content for the single player experience in otherwords the story and content relating to ingame missions and plot. MP worry of being less playtime and less replay value of the (main plot) story single player. If any game does not last minimum of 40-60 hours I never buy it no matter how puffed up people are about it. It needs to have miniunum of 40+ hours for me to even consider buying in first place and no that does not include MP at all. That 40+ hours also has to be non side quest extra things to do in game. The overall game including all the padding of additional content for me needs to be minimum of the 60+ hours I mentioned earlier.

2. I think half the DLC will be co-op DLC packs and not single player content packs, plus a nagging 'feeling' the stripping out of side missions and non plot related content is in turn going to be remade as multiplayer packs to sell back to the customer.

3. Worrying direction of Bioware in general regarding their recent trends. With regard to ME2 stripping out what I consider to be RPG elements in favour of more shooter/combat elements which they say will address with ME3 but in reailty get the impression by their intentions that they consider RPG elements to mean just [yet more] combat mechanics rather than RPG story and non combat elements. Then there's DA2 by 'most' peoples standards a sub par (especially for Bioware title) and felt rushed and just simply far from a great game which actually went in a different direction to what most people was hoping for a sequal. Then there's this new fascination with social games and multiplayer plus MMOs route they have taken with Dragon Age: Legends, SWTOR and now ME3 co-op.

I get the distinct feeling Bioware no longer wish to make single player RPG's or maybe even RPG's and instead wish to make hack and slash or shooter action titles now in order to compete mainly with GoW and such games, adding MP onto it because those other action and shooter titles have it. There is reason for lack of faith in Bioware from ME2 to DA2 to Kotor being made into MMO aswell as being decieved by manipulation of truths over past few months regarding MP in ME3.

QFT

Make me, boy.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 10 octobre 2011 - 11:50 .

[MarchWaltz]

Icing on the cake. Now I can play with my buddy, who originally got me into the series.

I have faith in bioware that the singleplayer will be awesome. Nuff said.

Also, I need a new analogy for the cake thing, since I do not eat it.

[Kaiser Shepard]

I hope everybody learned a lesson from this, though. Oh, who am I kidding? You people will make the same mistake over and over again.

*goes back to playing BioShock 2*

[RocketManSR2]

This is a sad day all around.

[XyleJKH]

didymos1120 wrote...

Swimming Ferret wrote...

:| Good thing that 3 months couldn't have been used on the actual game instead of this, eh?

Yes, because during that whole time everyone, even the writers, is working on the co-op stuff.

No what I  think here is this. The MP will take time, its likely the reason for the delay for the release. The manpower used to make MP could have been used instead to enhance/hasten the game.
We could see a really polished ME3 a definante nod to the end of an epic trilogy or it could have been out a bit sooner, depending on how they wanted to work it
but I bet if you did a poll on these forums, you would see a huge amount of people anti MP

[didymos1120]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

 That 40+ hours also has to be non side quest eatra things to do in game.

Even though neither of the other games has given you any reason to expect such a thing?

[JeffZero]

Swimming Ferret wrote...

JeffZero wrote...

What? Are you implying that you believe there are only three months to develop the multiplayer aspect? There's guaranteed to be a longer period for its creation.

But why didn't they do this in the first place? Adding it in the final game of a trilogy is fairly daft. It'll be like Fear 3 all over again.

*shrug* I don't follow most Western games; I'm assuming the FEAR 3 incident didn't go over well?

Either way, Metal Gear Solid didn't get online capabilities until its third game either and most fans were happy with it. Didn't seem to take away from the single-player either, although to be fair that online was an expansion.

MGS4 launched with multiplayer though and a lot of us folks were still happy with the whole package and treat the game as a single-player, story-focused piece that just happens to give its fans the option to shoot their friends too.

[1136342t54_]

XyleJKH wrote...

didymos1120 wrote...

Swimming Ferret wrote...

:| Good thing that 3 months couldn't have been used on the actual game instead of this, eh?

Yes, because during that whole time everyone, even the writers, is working on the co-op stuff.

No what I  think here is this. The MP will take time, its likely the reason for the delay for the release. The manpower used to make MP could have been used instead to enhance/hasten the game.
We could see a really polished ME3 a definante nod to the end of an epic trilogy or it could have been out a bit sooner, depending on how they wanted to work it
but I bet if you did a poll on these forums, you would see a huge amount of people anti MP

Your post kind of doesn't make sense. According to ME3 diddn't have mp then it would have came out sooner but at the same time you are claiming it would have been more polished if it came out soonger. That makes little sense.

[Abirn]

saMOOrai182 wrote...

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

saMOOrai182 wrote...

Another game? Last time I checked Mass Effect was a Story based game. If it adds to the story, then why not?

But I fear doing it now has detracted from the single player experience. It's a valid concern, is it not?

That I can get, But The Bioware devs have already said that its the same length if not longer then ME2 not counting the Co-op. 

They also said ME3 was a singleplayer game and there was no Multiplayer.

[AmyMac]

I don't really care. I don't think multiplayer is necessary for a game like ME3, but as long as the single-player campaign is epic and there's at least one not-happy-unicorns-and-rainbows ending, I'll enjoy it.
What will irritate me is if there's a ton of achievments for multiplayer, or for multiplayer-only DLC stuff. I like being able to get to 100% completion without relying on others.

[JeffZero]

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

I hope everybody learned a lesson from this, though. Oh, who am I kidding? You people will make the same mistake over and over again.

*goes back to playing BioShock 2*

No lesson to be learned for those who have been OK with the idea the whole time.