3794 réponses à ce sujet

[We Tigers]

Spectreshadow wrote...

 Seriously, this sounds friken awesome!  How can people be angry with an optional multiplayer that doesn't impact single player one single bit?

That was my reaction!  This seems like the perfect way to do multiplayer in this franchise.  I have a ton of friends who love Mass Effect--you're telling me that we can play the campaign on our own, but have a totally separate piece of the universe to team up in?  You gotta be kidding me with how fun that sounds. 

And we get to play as different races?  Build custom characters for multiplayer?  Can you imagine how fun it'll be to try to run through some of these missions with a team of 4 Asari commandos, then do it with a bunch of Krogan/Turian bruisers instead?   Obviously we'll have to see how it plays and how well-built everything is, but Mass Effect has never let me down before.  I'm in.

[JigPig]

Someone With Mass wrote...

JigPig wrote...

If the money + time that was devoted into adding an MP component was used on the SP portion, SP would be longer.

Fact.

Let me give you another little fact. The multiplayer part was made by another studio.

Does the addition of co-op multiplayer missions impact the scope or quality of the single-player experience?

No. A dedicated team from our recently formed BioWare Montreal studio has been focused on creating the multiplayer game features while the main game continued to be developed by the team in BioWare Edmonton. Both teams are integrated under the same leadership group that produced Mass Effect 1 and 2, led by Casey Hudson. BioWare remains dedicated to delivering one of the most amazing single-player campaigns gamers have ever experienced.

Let's say $500,000 was spent on the MP component.

If that $500,000 was spent on the SP portion of the game. It would improve it.

Fact.

[Il Divo]

Lard wrote...

Their argument is "Dude, I can shoot stuff with my friends! LOL! Awesome!"

[Darkeus]

DaringMoosejaw wrote...

Arsenal0602 wrote...

I could have done a better analogy.   But yes you're logic is flawed as the basic thing is that pandering to a new crowd is going to upset the original fans if they are adding features that do not intrest them, and if adding the new features to draw in a different group takes away from what the intrest is of the older fans. 

It isn't vain of the fans to explect the status quo to stay the same, it is poor customer services to add a feature that is going to change how the game is played at the end of development. 

But it doesn't. You can avoid Co-op and achieve everything just fine as if you did, by doing alternate stuff in SP. It's simply there for people who think it's fun, the same as romances being in the game for people that find them entertaining.

And seriously? Getting mad at a company for being unfaithful to you by expanding their customer base? What in the goddamn hell is that?

You don;t know this.  All you know is from a PR faq that was released to quell the flood of anger.  They might just say anything to stop the rage.

[zico291]

[quote]Ancient Metal wrote...

ME3 is about Shepard and finding a way to defeat the Reapers....or stop them....anything....to save organic life. Now Shepard has been swept under the rug and at the very least there are corresponding characters.[/quote]
[quote]
You mean Garrus, Wrex, Tali, Liara, Legion, Mordin, Grunt, Miranda, Jack, Joker, Jacob, Zaeed, Kasumi, Ashley, Kaidan...those guys? Because I'm pretty sure without them you wouldn't have gotten anywhere near the Collector Ship, and even if you did, that last leap would have sent you plummeting into space.

While the character the player is controlling is Shepard, and the action revolves around Shepard, it has never been solely about Shepard.
[quote]

This is a VERY good point, I mean you really think Shepard was the only people fighting this war. However this could of made another game.

Modifié par zico291, 11 octobre 2011 - 09:51 .

[Lard]

BatmanPWNS wrote...

I am pretty sure you don't even know 1% of the fans opinion about MP and reduce it? It didn't stop Assassin's Creed from selling, it didn't stop Portal, it sure as hell didn't stop Uncharted 2. Yes they may have DLC maps released but ME has useless stuff like appearence pack and DLC weapons released just to get money as well.

Lots of people bought the Spice Girls, lots of people buy Justin Bieber too.

There are plenty of examples of people buying crap.

[neenee77]

when we have talked about this before i said that it didn't matter to me either way.... but now i can say that i am very excited to see this! I will play as my shepard only for the first dozen playthroughs, then i will go ahead and play this co-op thing. it may just end up being the most awesomest game of the decade for everyone! or it could s*ck badly. dont think so though i think it will be great! anyway i dont get how people are angry. i really dont. they have a large team (same amount of people maybe even more) working on the main story, then an entirely different team working on this multiplayer OPTION. it doesn't detract from the possibilities of the main story to me anyway and i cannot fathom for the life of me how others that actually read the whole posting think it will. I could be wrong but I dont think so, i think this may be a great thing. I reserve final judgment until i play both and ask that others do as well. For those that are scared and angry and dont want to buy it now just rent it then. give it a chance, you may actually love it.

edit: has this ever been done before? (reborn gamer and haven't heard about anything like this in the gamer magizines) if not this is breaking new ground... that enhances the gaming expierence. oh if they pull this off i will bow and tremble in the presence of bioware staff. lol jk

Modifié par neenee77, 11 octobre 2011 - 09:56 .

[Darth Vengeant]

Lard wrote...

Candidate 88766 wrote...

Why are people against Bioware expanding ME3's audience?

Not everyone that bought ME1 and ME2 will buy ME3, so Bioware has an obligation to itself and its shareholders to at the very least make up this deficit.

No, they have an obligation to the audience, not the shareholders. Do the shareholders make the game? No. Screw them.

That's the problem with the situation. People who only care about making money see what's popular and say "Do that", not caring whether it adds to the game or not.

I'm not against them expanding their audience, but not at the expense of the SP game.

Well said sir. I think everyone is jumping on the Multiplayer and Social bandwagon becuase they see dollar signs. Instead, they should worry about making a quality product, not appeasing a social trend.

Actually, everyone that bought ME1 and 2 are MORE likley to buy ME3. Partly becuase your save file transfers everything you've done in the previous game and your story continues.

[Bourne Endeavor]

Candidate 88766 wrote...

Why are people against Bioware expanding ME3's audience?

Not everyone that bought ME1 and ME2 will buy ME3, so Bioware has an obligation to itself and its shareholders to at the very least make up this deficit. Now, presumably the same reasons people had for not buying ME1 or ME2 will still stand with regards to ME3 so Bioware has to try a new approach to expand ME3's audience - for example by adding new functionalities, like Kinect, or new modes, such as co-op.

I think the co-op will be fun, and I'm sure there will be many other ME fans that think so, but I don't doubt that it was added to increase the game's market appeal. It may very well have the added bonus of adding to the experience, but I don't think that's Bioware's primary aim with MP. And I'm okay with that, because I know that at the end of the day Bioware is a company and needs to make money. They've made plenty of games that I've enjoyed, and the ME universe is one of my all-time favourites in gaming and so anything that makes more people interested in this game is fine with me.

To quote myself from another site...

"Nonetheless, I will give BioWare an opportunity despite my dislike of their decision. Multiplayer could end up being good for all we know. What I do find confusing is who precisely are they appealing to? FPS gamers will continue to have no interest in ME regardless of this addition.

Why would they toss aside Black Ops, Resistance 3, Gears of War 3 or the whole slew of new games coming out that are specifically designed with their interests in mind, just to play a tacked on mode from BioWare, a company who is essentially a novice at this field? Their number one complaint with this series is the abundance of dialogue and cut-scenes that take away hours from the shooting extravaganza. Ever notice why the majority of multiplayer games have quick stories, often told through the gameplay and are relatively short?"

[Candidate 88766]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Darkeus wrote...

I love all this blind faith that the pro-MP people have.

Blind faith?

Because I'm more like, "Wow, this sounds pretty cool.  I wonder if Bioware can pull it off?"

At least blind faith is better than instantly dismissing something you know nothing about and leaping to ridiculous conclusions.

[Darth Vengeant]

Lard wrote...

BatmanPWNS wrote...

I am pretty sure you don't even know 1% of the fans opinion about MP and reduce it? It didn't stop Assassin's Creed from selling, it didn't stop Portal, it sure as hell didn't stop Uncharted 2. Yes they may have DLC maps released but ME has useless stuff like appearence pack and DLC weapons released just to get money as well.

Lots of people bought the Spice Girls, lots of people buy Justin Bieber too.

There are plenty of examples of people buying crap.

+1000000000000000.

[Darkeus]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Darkeus wrote...

I love all this blind faith that the pro-MP people have.

Blind faith?

Because I'm more like, "Wow, this sounds pretty cool.  I wonder if Bioware can pull it off?"

What you should be asking is, "What was cut from the game or what problems and bugs will arise from them trying to shoehorn Multiplayer in the game?"

Asking the wrong questions my friend.  Yes, it is blind faith.

[Lard]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Lard wrote...

The reactions from gaming sites has not been positive.

Citation needed.

The general reaction, except for a vocal minority on here, has not been positive.

Unless you count all the individual users that are excited/okay with/indifferent about MP and then count all the people mildly to ragingly negative about it, I'm going to call bullsh*t.

That's because you're perfectly willing to ignore the facts to argue your point.

[NOD-INFORMER37]

100TH PAGE!

[Melchiah109]

Lard wrote...

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Lard wrote...

The reactions from gaming sites has not been positive.

Citation needed.

The general reaction, except for a vocal minority on here, has not been positive.

Unless you count all the individual users that are excited/okay with/indifferent about MP and then count all the people mildly to ragingly negative about it, I'm going to call bullsh*t.

That's because you're perfectly willing to ignore the facts to argue your point.

Pot meet kettle.

[DaringMoosejaw]

Darkeus wrote...

I love all this blind faith that the pro-MP people have.

I was AGAINST multiplayer before Chris's posting of this thread. I thought it would be random, tacked on and have nothing to do with the story. I thought it'd sap away from the single player. But after reading through the details and actually being informed on the matter, I've changed my tune. It's being developed by a seperate team and actually looks kind of cool. I look forward to playing through it with my buddies. The effect it was on SP is entirely optional and just as attainable through SP, so my worries are gone.

Could it be an unmitigated disaster? Rushed? Anything's possible, but that I won't know until I get the game.

[Novate]

Everyone wanted to become the next big thing, they want to appeal to the other masses, its how business is run.

But in the business sense, don't you think that a full on Multiplayer CO-OP game set in the universe of Mass Effect after the Epic Trilogy would sell more money than messing with the epic Trilogy itself.

When everyone thought that Mass Effect ended after the epic Single player experience, we found out that Bioware is developing a Co-op game that is set during the War of the Reapers and the aftermath of the War. Where everyone is now fighting against each other, where you can take on different sides. Where remnant Reapers might be behind it. Now thats a Co-op game that I would buy.  ( you could even have all your favorite characters acting like generals that makes cameos )

But putting Co-op in a Single player campaign and instead of adding more missions we get an optional Co-op mode. That is just not good business sense in my opinion.

Modifié par Novate, 11 octobre 2011 - 09:53 .

[AdmiralCheez]

Lard wrote...

Lots of people bought the Spice Girls, lots of people buy Justin Bieber too.

There are plenty of examples of people buying crap.

But you see, Portal 2 wasn't crap.

[Arcadian Legend]

I like how the MP is merely only an alternate way of getting the desired ending, because I rarely get the chance to use Xbox Live.

Is it just me failing to notice it or have people actually calmed down quite impressively about this?

[Darkeus]

Candidate 88766 wrote...

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Darkeus wrote...

I love all this blind faith that the pro-MP people have.

Blind faith?

Because I'm more like, "Wow, this sounds pretty cool.  I wonder if Bioware can pull it off?"

At least blind faith is better than instantly dismissing something you know nothing about and leaping to ridiculous conclusions.

No, it is about that same actually, maybe worse.

Blind faith says, "Oh BioWare can do no wrong.  Dragon Age 2 was a fluke..."

I am pessimistically cautious.  I don't think this is going to work and I think it will be a detriment to the series as a whole and ME3 specifically.  If it works, then I will eat my words.  I do not think it is going to work though.

[Lard]

Candidate 88766 wrote...
At least blind faith is better than instantly dismissing something you know nothing about and leaping to ridiculous conclusions.

Putting your trust in a company that has already lied to you and assuming they are going to do something to benefit the game, instead of doing something to make a quick buck is pretty foolish.

[Eudaemonium]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Darkeus wrote...

I love all this blind faith that the pro-MP people have.

Blind faith?

Because I'm more like, "Wow, this sounds pretty cool.  I wonder if Bioware can pull it off?"

That's basically my reaction. I think the concept is really interesting, but I will wait until the execution to truly make any judgement.


But as someone who never plays MP games, I'll be honest: it certainly beats planet scanning.

[BatmanPWNS]

Lard wrote...

BatmanPWNS wrote...

I am pretty sure you don't even know 1% of the fans opinion about MP and reduce it? It didn't stop Assassin's Creed from selling, it didn't stop Portal, it sure as hell didn't stop Uncharted 2. Yes they may have DLC maps released but ME has useless stuff like appearence pack and DLC weapons released just to get money as well.

Lots of people bought the Spice Girls, lots of people buy Justin Bieber too.

There are plenty of examples of people buying crap.

If those games are crap then someone help the gaming world since there are hardly any game that have topped those games in the last few years. Plus if your gonna say buying those games make someone buy crap then your pretty much insulting the whole gaming community and should really look for a new hobby.

[Candidate 88766]

Bourne Endeavor wrote...

Candidate 88766 wrote...

Why are people against Bioware expanding ME3's audience?

Not everyone that bought ME1 and ME2 will buy ME3, so Bioware has an obligation to itself and its shareholders to at the very least make up this deficit. Now, presumably the same reasons people had for not buying ME1 or ME2 will still stand with regards to ME3 so Bioware has to try a new approach to expand ME3's audience - for example by adding new functionalities, like Kinect, or new modes, such as co-op.

I think the co-op will be fun, and I'm sure there will be many other ME fans that think so, but I don't doubt that it was added to increase the game's market appeal. It may very well have the added bonus of adding to the experience, but I don't think that's Bioware's primary aim with MP. And I'm okay with that, because I know that at the end of the day Bioware is a company and needs to make money. They've made plenty of games that I've enjoyed, and the ME universe is one of my all-time favourites in gaming and so anything that makes more people interested in this game is fine with me.

To quote myself from another site...

"Nonetheless, I will give BioWare an opportunity despite my dislike of their decision. Multiplayer could end up being good for all we know. What I do find confusing is who precisely are they appealing to? FPS gamers will continue to have no interest in ME regardless of this addition.

Why would they toss aside Black Ops, Resistance 3, Gears of War 3 or the whole slew of new games coming out that are specifically designed with their interests in mind, just to play a tacked on mode from BioWare, a company who is essentially a novice at this field? Their number one complaint with this series is the abundance of dialogue and cut-scenes that take away hours from the shooting extravaganza. Ever notice why the majority of multiplayer games have quick stories, often told through the gameplay and are relatively short?"

I'm not saying that MP is going to attract people who are into competitive online multiplayer. I'm saying that the addition of co-op modes may change the minds of people who were previously on the fence about ME games - its an extra mode, it adds longevity, it could be something a bit different.

The again, if its not really clear who MP is meant to be aimed at then maybe its aimed at the current fans. maybe Bioware feel they've made something that will genuinely add to the experience, and I for one am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.

[bigheadzach]

Arsenal0602 wrote...

I could have done a better analogy.   But yes you're logic is flawed as the basic thing is that pandering to a new crowd is going to upset the original fans if they are adding features that do not intrest them, and if adding the new features to draw in a different group takes away from what the intrest is of the older fans. 

It isn't vain of the fans to explect the status quo to stay the same, it is poor customer services to add a feature that is going to change how the game is played at the end of development. 

But if the new features are completely optional and do not in anyway detract from the experience of a player who chooses not to use them, and the price point to the consumer in the end is still the same and has the potential to increase the number of total people who enjoy the game, what right does the old crowd have to insist the new crowd can't have their features?