3794 réponses à ce sujet

[ramdog7]

is CO-Op really multiplayer?

[TheGreenAlloy]

Darkeus wrote...

gamer_girl wrote...



-My point was that if multiplayer is removed, then it is denying the people that wanted multiplayer. The people that want a single player game aren't being denied a single player game. Why does the single-player-can't-even-be-in-this-game-even-if-I-don't-have-to-play-it audience hold precedence over the I-want-single-player audience?

Why do you need multiplayer in a traditionally single player RPG?  Why must the "We need multiplayer because it has to have it" crowd get their crappy feature in my Single Player Rpg?

I look forward to co-op with my friends. If the co-op or SP blows, I will rage, but if they're both good, it'll be fun.

[shep82]

Darkeus wrote...

gamer_girl wrote...



-My point was that if multiplayer is removed, then it is denying the people that wanted multiplayer. The people that want a single player game aren't being denied a single player game. Why does the single-player-can't-even-be-in-this-game-even-if-I-don't-have-to-play-it audience hold precedence over the I-want-single-player audience?

Why do you need multiplayer in a traditionally single player RPG?  Why must the "We need multiplayer because it has to have it" crowd get their crappy feature in my Single Player Rpg?

That's pretty damn arrogant. It's not YOUR game everyone has their own character. It's as much their game as yours.

[mopotter]

I have this game pre-ordered and will play it. If I end up feeling that the multi playing does affect my game in any way, I will no longer order BioWare Games until I find out what is involved. Too Bad. I'm sure they will make up for my absence should that happen and won't care one way or the other.

DLC I would not have cared. I would not have purchased it and it would not have effected anything I do. As part of the actually game, I do care. .

[didymos1120]

Lard wrote...

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

Oh, that's rich. Yeah...no. See, they are in fact LEGALLY obligated to the shareholders. Yes, as in "by law." Saying "Screw them" to the interests of the shareholders is an absolutely fantastic way to get your company in a hell of a lot of trouble.

[shep82]

TheGreenAlloy wrote...

Darkeus wrote...

gamer_girl wrote...



-My point was that if multiplayer is removed, then it is denying the people that wanted multiplayer. The people that want a single player game aren't being denied a single player game. Why does the single-player-can't-even-be-in-this-game-even-if-I-don't-have-to-play-it audience hold precedence over the I-want-single-player audience?

Why do you need multiplayer in a traditionally single player RPG?  Why must the "We need multiplayer because it has to have it" crowd get their crappy feature in my Single Player Rpg?

I look forward to co-op with my friends. If the co-op or SP blows, I will rage, but if they're both good, it'll be fun.

If the CO-OP blows so be it if the SP blows I will rage.

[didymos1120]

Spartanburger wrote...
 ...and getting other teams to help (DICE is helping out with audio).

Yeah, about that...:

Rob Blake wrote...

Just to clarify, DICE aren't working on ME3 audio. We had some chats with them about how they approach their weapon audio design and we've done some asset and knowledge sharing. They've been super helpful and are great guys, but it's inaccurate to state that they're working on the audio content in any way.

We make incredible different games and our discussions really highlighted those differences. However, it's been really interesting speaking to different studios to see how they approach combat audio and we've already done considerable work to make the game sound much better I'm super excited about how the end result will sound!

Thanks!

Modifié par didymos1120, 12 octobre 2011 - 12:39 .

[Darkeus]

magnetite wrote...

Darkeus wrote...
If that is to be completely believed. 

We don't know if that is true or not yet.

I hope not. The best ending coming from multiplayer would go against the spirit of having an RPG in the first place. Just saying.

You and I both.  But I have a BAD feeling about this crap.

[Il Divo]

Darkeus wrote...

Why do you need multiplayer in a traditionally single player RPG?  Why must the "We need multiplayer because it has to have it" crowd get their crappy feature in my Single Player Rpg?

The simple answer is that you don't need multiplayer in a single-player game. But also, why do "multiplayer-focused" games also incorporate a single-player campaign, however short? It's game content.

The more complicated answer is that people derive enjoyment from multiplayer. Some would like the idea of leveling, equipping themselves, and killing geth in the context of the Mass Effect setting. As to whether it's going to be "crappy", that remains to be scene. It all depends on flavor.

Modifié par Il Divo, 12 octobre 2011 - 12:39 .

[TheGreenAlloy]

ramdog7 wrote...

is CO-Op really multiplayer?

How can it not be?

[didymos1120]

whywhywhywhy wrote...

The leaked video of MP didn't look so good.

What leaked video of MP?

[shep82]

Darkeus wrote...

magnetite wrote...

Darkeus wrote...
If that is to be completely believed. 

We don't know if that is true or not yet.

I hope not. The best ending coming from multiplayer would go against the spirit of having an RPG in the first place. Just saying.

You and I both.  But I have a BAD feeling about this crap.

Yes we know.

[Novate]

[quote]Khran1505 wrote...

[quote]Novate wrote...

[quote]Khran1505 wrote...

[quote]Alenkosexualtendencies wrote...

Once again, the entire thing is optional. It's to appeal to those who are actually interested in fighting a war with friends against overwhelming forces of an enigmatic yet powerful entity we're afraid of fighting alone. If we're interested in Commander Shepard's story alone with little regard for whoever or whatever's fighting the Reapers, we'll stick to him and him alone. If we're actually curious about fighting as a different race with our friends against the Reapers together, that's an option that some of us, including myself, will feel as an expansion and that I'm not fighting a war alone and I have my closest friends online with me, both of us having the other one's back in what is inevitably a curbstomp battle.

[/quote]

I took off most of the quotes, but keep the last paragraph so you know I am replying to you.
You are taking the Co-op as an Expansion, that much I agree is a wonderful thing to do, but what is not wonderful is that fact that its the last story of Commander Shepard and you are not even playing as Commander Shepard.
This Co-op would have been much better served as an entirely new game, where like you said fighting against an overwhelming forces of an enigmatic yet powerful entity with a friend.

But that is taking your focus away from Shepard. Its his/her last game, why would you want to not play Shepard at all.

I like this Co-op option, but I just don't find it working with the whole last chapter in Commander Shepard's Trilogy at all.

[gamer_girl]

Darkeus wrote...

gamer_girl wrote...

Darkeus wrote...

gamer_girl wrote...



I never said I was right to think that it sounds like a cool addition. The only "correct" way to think right now is to be unsure. Simple as that.

It makes the most sense to believe the article. That came straight from the horse's mouth. If you think this article is false, then why believe any of the articles they've made thus far? Why believe there is a Mass Effect 3 in the first place? If you believe that this one is all lies, why aren't any of the others?

You believe everything you read?  I sure don't.

The Faq was released during a time when anger was boiling.  Of course they said things to calm the masses, and yes they mave have lied or told mistruths or partial truths.  I tend to think the Single Player is affected by this more than is being said.  You want to believe it lock, stock.  So be it.

It is subjective, so we can't really dismiss each other at all can we.  You maybe right and I hope you are, but I really do not think you are and I do not think this unwanted and unnneeded multiplayer is "cool".

The validity of that post is yet to be determined, but none of their updates so far have been interpreted as a lie so why should this one? What do you honestly think the devs have as motivation? Would they really put all that time in if they thought it would ruin the game? Doubtful. Of all the things running through a devs mind in the making of a game, "I'm going to intentionally make this terrible just to ****** people off" isn't one of them.

It may have been unwanted by you, but others requested this. Just because you don't want it doesn't mean nobody does.

Don't speak for the whole community.  You act like I am the only one against this.  That is far from the truth.

And The whole of the Dragon Age 2 dev cycle was a circle of half-truths.....

And the motivation?  Deflect anger about co-op with half-truths to try to quell the masses and placate people who choose to trust BioWare completely.  The envirionment the Faq was released in give pause since anger was AGAINST THEM.  A perfect reason to relase a somewhat truthful faq to delay the outrage.  It is simple corporate PR.....  

When did I speak for the whole community? I said "just because you didn't want it, doesn't mean nobody does." That isn't a blanket statement.
How was DA2 a "circle of half-truths"? Name something that was said with a source that ended up being false. And even if you can (which I doubt), why are you so certain that ME3 is the same situation?
You missed the point. Why would they make a feature that they thought everyone would hate? They wouldn't, as that would only decrease popularity, and in essence decrease sales.

[TheGreenAlloy]

shep82 wrote...

Darkeus wrote...

gamer_girl wrote...



-My point was that if multiplayer is removed, then it is denying the people that wanted multiplayer. The people that want a single player game aren't being denied a single player game. Why does the single-player-can't-even-be-in-this-game-even-if-I-don't-have-to-play-it audience hold precedence over the I-want-single-player audience?

Why do you need multiplayer in a traditionally single player RPG?  Why must the "We need multiplayer because it has to have it" crowd get their crappy feature in my Single Player Rpg?

That's pretty damn arrogant. It's not YOUR game everyone has their own character. It's as much their game as yours.

Indeed. You still have your SP RPG, Darkeus. It isn't going anywhere.

[Darkeus]

shep82 wrote...

Darkeus wrote...

gamer_girl wrote...



-My point was that if multiplayer is removed, then it is denying the people that wanted multiplayer. The people that want a single player game aren't being denied a single player game. Why does the single-player-can't-even-be-in-this-game-even-if-I-don't-have-to-play-it audience hold precedence over the I-want-single-player audience?

Why do you need multiplayer in a traditionally single player RPG?  Why must the "We need multiplayer because it has to have it" crowd get their crappy feature in my Single Player Rpg?

That's pretty damn arrogant. It's not YOUR game everyone has their own character. It's as much their game as yours.

No, it is the same question she asked back at her.  She is saying that MP players are entitiled to this mode being in the game because thay want it.  I am asking the same question back from the opposite side. 

[Darkeus]

shep82 wrote...

Darkeus wrote...

magnetite wrote...

Darkeus wrote...
If that is to be completely believed. 

We don't know if that is true or not yet.

I hope not. The best ending coming from multiplayer would go against the spirit of having an RPG in the first place. Just saying.

You and I both.  But I have a BAD feeling about this crap.

Yes we know.

Hey, I just hope I am not telling you guys "I told you so"....

Some of you are too optimistic  

[gamer_girl]

Darkeus wrote...

gamer_girl wrote...



-My point was that if multiplayer is removed, then it is denying the people that wanted multiplayer. The people that want a single player game aren't being denied a single player game. Why does the single-player-can't-even-be-in-this-game-even-if-I-don't-have-to-play-it audience hold precedence over the I-want-single-player audience?

Why do you need multiplayer in a traditionally single player RPG?  Why must the "We need multiplayer because it has to have it" crowd get their crappy feature in my Single Player Rpg?

Again you're making it all about you. This is (and I don't know how many times I'm going to have to say this) an optional feature, and many people seem to want to play with their friends, myself included. "Your" single player RPG isn't going away, correct?

[Il Divo]

Darkeus wrote...

Some of you are too optimistic  

True, but then we also have the "too pessimistic" crowd. The two balance each other out, thankfully.

[Darkeus]

TheGreenAlloy wrote...

shep82 wrote...

Darkeus wrote...

gamer_girl wrote...



-My point was that if multiplayer is removed, then it is denying the people that wanted multiplayer. The people that want a single player game aren't being denied a single player game. Why does the single-player-can't-even-be-in-this-game-even-if-I-don't-have-to-play-it audience hold precedence over the I-want-single-player audience?

Why do you need multiplayer in a traditionally single player RPG?  Why must the "We need multiplayer because it has to have it" crowd get their crappy feature in my Single Player Rpg?

That's pretty damn arrogant. It's not YOUR game everyone has their own character. It's as much their game as yours.

Indeed. You still have your SP RPG, Darkeus. It isn't going anywhere.

That remains to be seen and in what for.  It also remains to be seen how this co-op feature affects the game beyond some PR Faq.

[whywhywhywhy]

gamer_girl wrote...
-Never said they were. I never made a blanket stamement that all people think the quality has improved did I?

And you can't so let's move along.

gamer_girl wrote...
-Changing the formula to the syrum isn't the same at all. Multiplayer is an option in the purchase. BW isn't forcing it down every single ME3 buyer's throat are they?

If multiplayer comes with ME3 instead of DLC or stand alone, then yes they are.

gamer_girl wrote...
-So the people that are so deathly allergic to multiplayer don't even have to take part in it. They can use the other alternative methods that BW says exist.

The best method would include not including ME3 in the core game, why should I play for features I don't want ?  Did I miss the petition for MP somewhere ?  Sure, BW can make what they desire just don't expect everyone to like or even accept it.  Both are rights.

gamer_girl wrote...
-My point was that if multiplayer is removed, then it is denying the people that wanted multiplayer. The people that want a single player game aren't being denied a single player game. Why does the single-player-can't-even-be-in-this-game-even-if-I-don't-have-to-play-it audience hold precedence over the I-want-single-player audience?

Not if provided as a standalone or DLC then those who want ****** can buy it or how about a preorder version with the MP content already on disc wth DLC for those who change their mind ?

No matter what you say inclusion of MP in ME3 affects SP your just being incredibly dense about it.

edit: done for now checking in a bit later.

Modifié par whywhywhywhy, 12 octobre 2011 - 12:45 .

[Taciter]

gamer_girl wrote...

-Never said they were. I never made a blanket stamement that all people think the quality has improved did I?

-Changing the formula to the syrum isn't the same at all. Multiplayer is an option in the purchase. BW isn't forcing it down every single ME3 buyer's throat are they?

-So the people that are so deathly allergic to multiplayer don't even have to take part in it. They can use the other alternative methods that BW says exist.

-My point was that if multiplayer is removed, then it is denying the people that wanted multiplayer. The people that want a single player game aren't being denied a single player game. Why does the single-player-can't-even-be-in-this-game-even-if-I-don't-have-to-play-it audience hold precedence over the I-want-single-player audience?

Look gamer_girl, if you're determined to misinterpret everything I type then there is little further we can discuss. Try pausing for a second between embolisms, recognise that while I may not be in favout of the principle, I am in favour of the implementation subject to a few stipulations - the main one being the incorporation of AI squaddie options. Is that so hard to understand?

Oh and you still haven't quite grasped the syrup or the carrot analogies have you!

Modifié par Taciter, 12 octobre 2011 - 12:46 .

[Chala]

gamer_girl wrote...

Darkeus wrote...

gamer_girl wrote...



-My point was that if multiplayer is removed, then it is denying the people that wanted multiplayer. The people that want a single player game aren't being denied a single player game. Why does the single-player-can't-even-be-in-this-game-even-if-I-don't-have-to-play-it audience hold precedence over the I-want-single-player audience?

Why do you need multiplayer in a traditionally single player RPG?  Why must the "We need multiplayer because it has to have it" crowd get their crappy feature in my Single Player Rpg?

Again you're making it all about you. This is (and I don't know how many times I'm going to have to say this) an optional feature, and many people seem to want to play with their friends, myself included. "Your" single player RPG isn't going away, correct?

Why does this recalls me to the never-ending discussion of religion vs atheism?

Modifié par El_Chala_Legalizado, 12 octobre 2011 - 12:44 .

[JD196]

And some of us are pessimistic Darkeus. I'm not asking anyone to consider it gods gift to gaming. Just to approach it with an open mind.