146 réponses à ce sujet

[staindgrey]

United_Strafes wrote...

staindgrey wrote...

Lord_Valandil wrote...

I'm going to say that RE5 had a good multiplayer.
But it killed the essence of a survival game, and I don't think any of you can deny that.

The multiplayer didn't necessarily kill it. Every other design choice did.

Linear campaign. Shooter-style level design. Nearly unlimited ammo/health/other resources. Enemies on motorcycles and holding guns and throwing missiles. Boulder punching.

RE4, which had no co-op at all, already killed the survival horror aspect of RE. It was just a shooter disguised with "horror" elements, like a dark color pallete and gruesome deaths. Much like Dead Space. From a gameplay perspective, it was just a quality third person shooter.

Ya because RE games never wandered into the realm of the ridiculous before 5...........

Lol Code Veronica started it. Before that, it was actually a pretty grounded series with a few Hollywood-esque slow motion rocket launchers.

I'm not talking from a story standpoint; I'm talking game design. The old RE's focused on puzzles, backtracking, limited supplies and harsh punishment for not using them wisely, all in addition to the typical scare tactics and horror aesthetics. RE4 and RE5 took out all the gameplay aspects of a survival horror game, but there's a difference between the two:

RE4 kept the horror aesthetics and put them on top of a third person shooter.

RE5 got rid of the aesthetics as well and embraced the TPS aspect, making it a much better TPS game and no longer some hybrid pretending to be what it's not.


Regardless, neither of these applies to ME3's multiplayer, because ME3 isn't the vast change from the older RE to RE4/5. It's comparing apples to oranges.

[United_Strafes]

Lord_Valandil wrote...

staindgrey wrote...

Lord_Valandil wrote...

I'm going to say that RE5 had a good multiplayer.
But it killed the essence of a survival game, and I don't think any of you can deny that.

The multiplayer didn't necessarily kill it. Every other design choice did.

Linear campaign. Shooter-style level design. Nearly unlimited ammo/health/other resources. Enemies on motorcycles and holding guns and throwing missiles. Boulder punching.

RE4, which had no co-op at all, already killed the survival horror aspect of RE. It was just a shooter disguised with "horror" elements, like a dark color pallete and gruesome deaths. Much like Dead Space. From a gameplay perspective, it was just a quality third person shooter.

You have good points, though I don't think MP could work on an old-fashioned RE game, perhaps RE4 delivered the mortal blow, but RE5 finished the job.
I'm not complaining, I enjoyed playing the campaign with my girlfriend, even at the expense of a single player experience (which is impossible, Sheva will always be there) but I don't really think ME3 needs multiplayer.

OK but the ME3 campaign won't be co-op. So imagine playing an awesome ME3 campaign yourself and then having some RE5 like Mercenaries to play after that?

Sounds like a winner to me.......

[Lord_Valandil]

United_Strafes wrote...

OK but the ME3 campaign won't be co-op. So imagine playing an awesome ME3 campaign yourself and then having some RE5 like Mercenaries to play after that?

Sounds like a winner to me.......

Who knows?
The campaign of Dead Space 2 didn't have multiplayer either, and while the MP mode wasn't terrible, it felt more like a shoehorned feature...not even controlling the Necromorphs was worth the experience.
Time will tell.

Modifié par Lord_Valandil, 10 octobre 2011 - 10:39 .

[FlyingWalrus]

Detractors in general...

Games that shouldn't have co-op:
MASS EFFECT 3

Get over this dogmatic and close-minded viewpoint.

Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory also had an excellent story-based co-op side campaign. Honestly, this is the best implementation of multiplayer I could have hoped for in ME3. Now that I know it's not some stupid Gears of War with space magic attempt, I can rest easy.

[DiebytheSword]

Resident Evil 5 is a perfect example on how not to add multiplayer co-op to singleplayer. ME3 already sidesteps this by having bad AI partners from the begining that were in no way as horrible as your RE5 partner, who literally gets you killed on any difficulty in 10 seconds if you aren't defending the hell out of her at every turn.

I have faith that ME3 will do it better, but I reserve judgement until I see more, and for the moment remain optimistic.

[Inutaisho7996]

Scudman_Slayer wrote...

United_Strafes wrote...

Genshie wrote...

Okay guys here is the thing. Every single one of the titles that has been mentioned in this thread so far that has had co-op/multiplayer was one game spin off or franchise that they implemented the feature in the middle of the series. ME3 is the LAST installment of SHEPARD's story. I have never heard of a game doing well for implementing multiplayer in its final installment that has had all its previous installments been singleplayer. Most games have had multiplayer put in either from the start or somewhere in the middle never at the LAST butt end of a series.

Resident Evil 5. With the Mercenaries. A small part of the game that actually turned into people wanting full on versions of it. Not to mention the campaign co-op was one of the best ever.

yeah prety much no one wanted to play with the DUMB ASS AI of your partner wehn playng solo

Mass Effect already has AI partners so the single player wouldn't change if we were allowed to take control of one of Shepard's squadmates in the campaign.

[staindgrey]

DiebytheSword wrote...

Resident Evil 5 is a perfect example on how not to add multiplayer co-op to singleplayer. ME3 already sidesteps this by having bad AI partners from the begining that were in no way as horrible as your RE5 partner, who literally gets you killed on any difficulty in 10 seconds if you aren't defending the hell out of her at every turn.

Lol, I never understood this. Sheva's awful for Professional, but I never had a problem with her on anything underneath that.

Anyway, I already went over why RE5 and ME3 aren't even close to the same situation, but I'm sure a grand total of like 3 people noticed it and/or cared about it. So whatever.

[footballzach50]

I didnt see Army of Two anywhere on this thread, unless I missed it. That game had great co-op. Personaly Think that it would add a lot to ME even though its not needed.

[United_Strafes]

Lord_Valandil wrote...

United_Strafes wrote...

OK but the ME3 campaign won't be co-op. So imagine playing an awesome ME3 campaign yourself and then having some RE5 like Mercenaries to play after that?

Sounds like a winner to me.......

Who knows?
The campaign of Dead Space 2 didn't have multiplayer either, and while the MP mode wasn't terrible, it felt more like a shoehorned feature...not even controlling the Necromorphs was worth the experience.
Time will tell.

Ya but the single player in no way suffered, the story didn't make any sense when taking the first story into account but it was still a good game, besides it was PvP multiplayer, if it would have been a hoard mode it would have been a whole nother story.

[Soahfreako]

Da_Lion_Man wrote...

Timesplitters

I love you.

[Gravity Bun]

Lost Planet 2.

[Scudman_Slayer]

staindgrey wrote...

Scudman_Slayer wrote...

staindgrey wrote...

United_Strafes wrote...

Ya you play with a good partner pulling off 150 kill combos and doing the most awesome ever melee combos you can sit and play Mercenaries for hours and hours....even now 3 years later, so all these people saying it cannot be good are wrong.

Also take into account that Resident Evil was only a single player experience until 5 as well.

Right, BUT keep in mind the effect on single player. That's what's irking ME fans right now.

Go over to the Capcom-Unity forums, and you'll see just what old RE diehards think of RE5. It completely undermined the essentials of the RE franchise in favor of something entirely different. Yes, RE5 was an incredible co-op game, but for all of the fans who never wanted that, it was trash.

I understand both appeals, because RE5 is NOT what I want in a RE title, but it was still amazing in its own right. I love the game, but I haven't had a legitimate survival horror title in the style of the old RE's since 2002.

well for me resident Evil is not survival horror anymore

1 - you find WAY too much ammo

2- you're expectingstuff to happen to you

3 - you're expecting people to be around corners

4 - the atmosfere doesn't sem scary at all


now if you want A real survivor horror go play silent hill you're never expecting anything in that game

Lol were you agreeing with me or going against me? Because you listed everything RE4/5 are missing. And I agree entirely.

SH hasn't been top quality survival horror since SH3. The Room and everything after were getting progressively more dull, and Shattered Memories, while (much like RE5) great in its own right, wasn't really a "Silent Hill" title.

The problem lies in the fact that action greatly outsells horror. RE4 and RE5 sold significantly more than their predecessors, so Capcom would be stupid to go back to the old style unless there were a greater market appeal.

RE5 sold over 5.5 million copies. That's more than any other RE game, counting the constant re-releases adding to their totals. So of course Capcom's going to forego horror for action.

That is what core ME fans are afraid of. I can't say I blame them, even if I don't agree with them.

sadly that is the truth and also have you seen he gameplay of the new resident evil thats coming out? "resident evil operation racoon city" that looks nothing like horror at all it has completely turned itself into a shooter but instead of shooting peoplev you shoot zombioes wich are easier targets all around

[Mr Arg]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Da_Lion_Man wrote...

Timesplitters

The whole damn series, that is. 

Ah, nostalgia...

Hell. Yes.

In fact, I'm gonna play it right now...

[Splinter Cell 108]

FlyingWalrus wrote...

Detractors in general...

Games that shouldn't have co-op:
MASS EFFECT 3

Get over this dogmatic and close-minded viewpoint.

Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory also had an excellent story-based co-op side campaign. Honestly, this is the best implementation of multiplayer I could have hoped for in ME3. Now that I know it's not some stupid Gears of War with space magic attempt, I can rest easy.

The thing is that coop worked for SCCT for special reasons. Those being that it was a completely different experience to many other coop games plus it also needed true cooperation, one player simply couldn't do everything unless they wanted to get killed. Another difference is that SCCT's fanbase wasn't opposed to the idea of coop and the game wasn't an RPG either. Even as great as it was, that coop will probably never be seen again unless hardcore gaming becomes important again. Splinter Cell Conviction's coop isn't even close to being what SCCT's was.

That's one of the many problems with ME3 coop, first its never going to be anything as innovative and challenging as SCCT's coop, mainly because IMO its probably going to be a tacked on feature. Another difference is that SCCT's fanbase didn't oppose to the idea of coop plus the game was a stealth game a place where such things would be easy to implement. ME3 is an RPG, I don't know much about RPG's  but from what I know I do not recall many of them having coop. 

I would give it a chance if I knew that it was something truly innovative and challenging but that's just not something that one would expect with the gaming industry these days. 

[Woodstock504]

RE5 and maybe Dead Island.. thats bout it.

[DiebytheSword]

staindgrey wrote...

DiebytheSword wrote...

Resident Evil 5 is a perfect example on how not to add multiplayer co-op to singleplayer. ME3 already sidesteps this by having bad AI partners from the begining that were in no way as horrible as your RE5 partner, who literally gets you killed on any difficulty in 10 seconds if you aren't defending the hell out of her at every turn.

Lol, I never understood this. Sheva's awful for Professional, but I never had a problem with her on anything underneath that.

Anyway, I already went over why RE5 and ME3 aren't even close to the same situation, but I'm sure a grand total of like 3 people noticed it and/or cared about it. So whatever.

That's kind of the point I'm trying to make, I agree ME3 and RE5 will not be the same situation.

That said, RE5 is one of my favorite co-op titles to play with my wife.  She likes shotguns, I like magnums.  Things get done.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Considering that ME3's gameplay is very similar to Gears, co-op just makes sense. That said, I think I'll be more critical of their SP efforts since they felt they had enough time to add that mode.

Here's hoping they allow for splitscreen coop, custom Shepard import, and use of powers.

[spirosz]

Red Dead Redemption was amazing. Uncharted 2 had a great multiplayer and was first a single player experience, so I'm hoping Bioware can deliver their feature as well as Naughty Dog did.

[DiebytheSword]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

Considering that ME3's gameplay is very similar to Gears, co-op just makes sense. That said, I think I'll be more critical of their SP efforts since they felt they had enough time to add that mode.

Here's hoping they allow for splitscreen coop, custom Shepard import, and use of powers.

This is an excellent stance, and one people who are complaining about diverting resources should be taking.  If SP isn't done, or is buggy beyond belief. or perhaps just feels rushed, then the onus is on Bioware to prove that the implementation of MP did not cause that.

As it stands so little is known about the mode, and so little is shared about how bioware allocates its development resources, no one can accurately make this point.

[Swimming Ferret]

Prince Zeel wrote...

Games that shouldn't have co-op:
MASS EFFECT 3

[BlueMagitek]

Hathur wrote...

BlueMagitek wrote...

Eh, trying to get it work on GameRanger again, it's quite an ordeal.  But more importantly, we're trying to get Arcanum to run on GameRanger. ~_^

Arcanum has Multiplayer?  ..... I played that game for countless hours and had no ide....

<runs off to dig up old Arcanum box>

Kind of hard to ignore, I mean, it's right below Single Player. >_____>

And it isn't the actual game played as co-op, it's a sort of different multiplayer only runthrough thingy.

[onelifecrisis]

United_Strafes wrote...

Games where co-op was damn good

None, ever. That said, some games featuring co-op have very good SP campaigns.

[AtreiyaN7]

Portal 2 is basically my top game on the list because of the strong single-player campaign and the co-op campaign which ties in very nicely with the main story. I also love L4D2 because of my penchant for killing zombies.

[atheelogos]

splinter cell had amazing co-op. It worked so well because it tied into the single player experience.

[Rails Road]

Graw is my favorite co-op game