3794 réponses à ce sujet

[Shifty Assassin]

anyone know if  the multiplayer will also be split screen

Modifié par Shifty Assassin, 11 octobre 2011 - 05:21 .

[Iakus]

SSV Enterprise wrote...

iakus wrote...

Can get the best ending.  But how much harder is it to accomplish if you don't?

No harder than if multiplayer didn't exist at all, I would think.

We'll never know, now, will we?

[Total Biscuit]

Ah, so no offline splitscreen? That's completely killed my interest. The only person I like playing co op with is my fiancé, who has a PS3 wile I have a 360 and no interest in paying for Xbox live.

As such, really not thrilled by the idea of multiplayer having any effect on single player. Knowing there's any content I won't be able to access is a bit of a kick in the nuts, but ah well, nothing I can do about it.

[Lard]

Smilietime wrote...

Listen up people:

I am a huge fan of the series, they are some of my
favourite games of all time. But now, you have gone too far by
presenting this optional feature that likely has zero impact on how I
will want to play the game! I can't believe that you want to present
players with more options! F*** you!

*sits down for dinner starts tucking into steak*

Mmm, this is good...

*vegetables get placed onto the table*

F*** this dinner! I loved this steak, and now you have to ruin it by
offering me vegetables that are entirely my choice to eat or not! F***
you! F*** all of you!!

Perhaps, if you made the comparison that everyone was eating the steak and vegetables from the same plate, your comparison would be appropriate.

[GU1LD3NST3RN]

Tying multiplayer into the singleplayer campaign in a way that can affect the overall story and ending?

A story that myself and others have ventured to shape for the last 4 years in a game that is all about single-player, story-driven, dialogue-heavy gameplay?

Bad move, guys. Bad, bad move.

[Bluko]

Ha! Knew there was going to be multiplayer. Glad it's co-op as well. Team Deathmatch stuff while intriguing probably would have garnered Mass Effect a bad reputation as competitive environments tend to bring out the worst in people rather then the best in people.

Chris Priestly wrote...

4 player co-op multiplayer

Join your friends in the all-out galactic war to take Earth back. The universe of Mass Effect expands with the addition of new co-op multiplayer missions, playable over Xbox Live, PSN and PC internet. Players can choose from a variety of classes and races, form an elite Special Forces squad, and combine their weapons, powers and abilities to devastating effect as they fight together to liberate key territories from enemy control. Success in multi-player will have a direct impact on the outcome of the single player campaign, giving players an alternative method of achieving ultimate victory against the greatest threat mankind – and the entire galaxy – has ever faced.

I'd be pretty pleased with this... but what I bolded kind of concerns me.

Are you guys really tying the MP and Singleplayer together? I can't say I'm real keen on this. I like to keep my Singleplayer and Multiplayer seperate. I realize such is becoming a thing of the past, but I really don't think making the MP Mode have an effect on Singleplayer is entirely wise. It's going to make the Singleplayer Experience feel very hollow to know that my goofing on online while shooting dozens of Husks or whatever is going to aid my Shepard. Doesn't really make sense to be honest. Also this seems potentially problematic if someone has multiple Shepards or something.

Also I'm pretty this is going to make the people against MP very angry now. I'm surprised the forums aren't in complete meltdown yet.

Not sure how my brother will react to this. It'd be nice to actually play the game together though rather then talk about it. He was not keen on the idea MP so the fact that it ties into Singleplayer could be reason. Although I may now be able to convince some of my friends to give the Mass Effect games a shot. Maybe even get them to buy ME1 and ME2. Seriously you guys should make some kind of trilogy bundle.

Chris Priestly wrote...

Mass Effect 3: Galaxy at War

As a bonus to the campaign, BioWare is introducing the Mass Effect 3: Galaxy at War system, a new way for players to manage and experience the galactic war from multiple fronts, including a new 4-player co-op mode. The key to saving the galaxy is the “Galactic Readiness” level, measured by Commander Shepard’s ability to apply
every possible asset – people, weapons, resources, armies, fleets – in the final battle against the Reapers. Players can impact their game’s Galactic Readiness level in multiple ways via the Mass Effect 3: Galaxy at War system, including multiplayer. Other platforms and interfaces will be announced in the coming months. It is important to note that the system is entirely optional and just another way players can have control over your game experience – it is still possible to achieve the optimal, complete ending of the game in Mass Effect 3 through single-player alone.

Galactic Readiness?

I was kind of hoping ME2 would be the last time we have some artifcial game mechanic like Loyalty effect the conclusion of the game. Eh this does not make me real happy. I'm already sure this means there's going to be a Galactic Readiness DLC! Will not be surprised if this ends up with ME3 becoming some sort of Free-To-Play thing by 2013 (or Free-To-Pay as I call it).



Oh well I'll make sure to have some popcorn ready if I check BSN tomorrow night.

[Dark_Caduceus]

didymos1120 wrote...

iakus wrote...

Can get the best ending.  But how much harder is it to accomplish if you don't?

We currently have no idea.  Maybe it's easier.  Maybe it's about the same.  Who knows?

I'm hoping it's more difficult ME2's combat was much harder than ME1's but the conversation-game was still palyed the same way=> Pick the blue option everytime, and you basically win.

[didymos1120]

Terror_K wrote...

Lies. Of course it bloody will. Unless the main campaign is 80+ hours long with massive consequences and variations from our imports that result in wildy different outcomes, more sidequests than you can shake a stick at, vehicle open-world exploration in a whole bunch of vast, unique environments, more customisation than any BioWare game ever and huge levels and missions that are never linear in any way, then the multiplayer being added has impacted the scope and quality of the game.

And your reason for expecting that all of that would have happened without MP is what? That's just ridiculously unrealistic.

[Zanallen]

@ Terror_K

So unless ME3 is the best game ever made and contains more content than any Bioware game ever, the multiplayer somehow ruined it? Yeah, that's reasonable.

[Iakus]

Lard wrote...

Smilietime wrote...

Listen up people:

I am a huge fan of the series, they are some of my
favourite games of all time. But now, you have gone too far by
presenting this optional feature that likely has zero impact on how I
will want to play the game! I can't believe that you want to present
players with more options! F*** you!

*sits down for dinner starts tucking into steak*

Mmm, this is good...

*vegetables get placed onto the table*

F*** this dinner! I loved this steak, and now you have to ruin it by
offering me vegetables that are entirely my choice to eat or not! F***
you! F*** all of you!!

Perhaps, if you made the comparison that everyone was eating the steak and vegetables from the same plate, your comparison would be appropriate.

Or if they took away part of the steak to make room for the vegetables?

[Dark_Caduceus]

didymos1120 wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Lies. Of course it bloody will. Unless the main campaign is 80+ hours long with massive consequences and variations from our imports that result in wildy different outcomes, more sidequests than you can shake a stick at, vehicle open-world exploration in a whole bunch of vast, unique environments, more customisation than any BioWare game ever and huge levels and missions that are never linear in any way, then the multiplayer being added has impacted the scope and quality of the game.

And your reason for expecting that all of that would have happened without MP is what? That's just ridiculously unrealistic.

Yeah, ME3 as an 80+ hour experience just... isn't gonna happen, hell, it probably wouldn't happen if they never worked on ME3 and had an extra year to make more content.

[majinstrings]

Smilietime wrote...

Listen up people:

I am a huge fan of the series, they are some of my favourite games of all time. But now, you have gone too far by
presenting this optional feature that likely has zero impact on how I will want to play the game! I can't believe that you want to present players with more options! F*** you!

*sits down for dinner starts tucking into steak*

Mmm, this is good...

*vegetables get placed onto the table*

F*** this dinner! I loved this steak, and now you have to ruin it by offering me vegetables that are entirely my choice to eat or not! F*** you! F*** all of you!!

 
I was going to post something similar but you worded it much better than I would've/could've...

Kudos...very awesome...

[IliyaMoroumetz]

TheKillerAngel wrote...

What's your source for that?

I will admit that I have no actual proof that ME3 will require Origin. 

However, seeing the whole hoo-hah about Battlefield 3 and SW:TOR's requirements of needing Origin to play the game in the first place, having a multi-player aspect of a game published by EA, seeing as they're trying to position themselves as a competitor to Steam, gives me serious misgivings.

If, however, EA decides that ME3 does not require Origin, then I will admit that I was wrong and presumptuous.

Modifié par IliyaMoroumetz, 11 octobre 2011 - 05:23 .

[Wonderllama4]

hmmm... co-op romance scenes.

[Jorina Leto]

"Success in multi-player will have a direct impact on the outcome of the single player campaign"

It's worse than I thougtht.

And of course Modding and Pause function are out.

Im not going to play this.

Thank you, Bioware.

Modifié par Jorina Leto, 11 octobre 2011 - 05:25 .

[Stofsk]

iakus wrote...

IPlayForBread wrote...

Taritu wrote...

So, getting an optimal outcome will be harder if I don't play MP and I don't want to play MP. It is my choice not to play, but doing so will gimp me.

Better be a brilliant SP campaign.

NO DON'T YOU READ
if you dont do the MP you can still get the best possible endings while playing SP

Can get the best ending.  But how much harder is it to accomplish if you don't?

Who cares? I bet if it's harder if you opt out of the co-op mode then you'd get people who love it because it makes the SP experience more challenging. This is bad???

Anyway I love this idea as it adds verisimilitude to the setting. It's not just about Shepard being Mister Badass and his team of Ultimate Badasses, but other guys across the whole galaxy who help in their own way. What's more you can play it with your friends. Seriously what's not to like?

[Iakus]

didymos1120 wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Lies. Of course it bloody will. Unless the main campaign is 80+ hours long with massive consequences and variations from our imports that result in wildy different outcomes, more sidequests than you can shake a stick at, vehicle open-world exploration in a whole bunch of vast, unique environments, more customisation than any BioWare game ever and huge levels and missions that are never linear in any way, then the multiplayer being added has impacted the scope and quality of the game.

And your reason for expecting that all of that would have happened without MP is what? That's just ridiculously unrealistic.

I think what he's saying is that unless the single player game is already well-nigh perfect, they should focus their efforts on making a better single player game, rather than shoehorning in MP which the fans are clearly split about having.

Modifié par iakus, 11 octobre 2011 - 05:25 .

[Iakus]

[quote]stofsk wrote...

Can get the best ending.  But how much harder is it to accomplish if you don't?[/quote]
Who cares? I bet if it's harder if you opt out of the co-op mode then you'd get people who love it because it makes the SP experience more challenging. This is bad???

Anyway I love this idea as it adds verisimilitude to the setting. It's not just about Shepard being Mister Badass and his team of Ultimate Badasses, but other guys across the whole galaxy who help in their own way. What's more you can play it with your friends. Seriously what's not to like?
[/quote]

No arguements about the first point, though others may disagree.

Second pont...umm, isn't this trilogy supposed to be Shepard's story?  Not "guest starring COmmander Shepard as himself?

[Dark_Caduceus]

iakus wrote...

didymos1120 wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Lies. Of course it bloody will. Unless the main campaign is 80+ hours long with massive consequences and variations from our imports that result in wildy different outcomes, more sidequests than you can shake a stick at, vehicle open-world exploration in a whole bunch of vast, unique environments, more customisation than any BioWare game ever and huge levels and missions that are never linear in any way, then the multiplayer being added has impacted the scope and quality of the game.

And your reason for expecting that all of that would have happened without MP is what? That's just ridiculously unrealistic.

I think what he's saying is that unless the single player game is already well-nigh perfexct, they should focus their efforts on making a better single player game, rather than shoehorning in MP which the fans are clearly split about having.

Aren't they seperate studios though?

[Bekkael]

Shifty Assassin wrote...


anyone know if  the multiplayer will also be split screen

Nothing more is known at this time beyond what is posted in the OP. We are told to expect more information in the next few days.

[DiebytheSword]

Terror_K wrote...

Chris Priestly wrote...

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.

Lies. Of course it bloody will. Unless the main campaign is 80+ hours long with massive consequences and variations from our imports that result in wildy different outcomes, more sidequests than you can shake a stick at, vehicle open-world exploration in a whole bunch of vast, unique environments, more customisation than any BioWare game ever and huge levels and missions that are never linear in any way, then the multiplayer being added has impacted the scope and quality of the game.

Simply put: unless ME3 is the single greatest gaming experience I've ever had in all facets, the multiplayer has railroaded the game and wasted the potential of it. It's all very well to say that it was created by a seperate team dedicated to that aspect of the game, but said team, time and resources could have gone to something else, be it working on sidequests, exploration worlds, vehicle sections, customisation elements, making levels feel larger and more unique by simply building more on what's already there, etc. Resources, time and effort has still come out of the game's schedule and budget and been spent on something many of us feel is superfluous and quite simply wasted at this point. It doesn't matter what the MP entails or how different and unique it is... it's still there, has still diverted resources and time to being made and has still come to be tacked on in at the end of a single-player, story-driven trilogy where it simply isn't needed, and for the most part wasn't wanted.

I see no reason why it's been included genuinely at all to make the game better. It's just pandering to the Gears and CoD audience. Again. This is the same mentality at work that gave us Dragon Age 2. Perhaps I'd have more faith in the ability for it to not hinder the single-player aspect has ME2 been a resounding success when it came to depth, customisation and --most importantly given the context-- import decisions and choices and consequences. But it was severely lacking, particularly in the case of the latter where it was mostly emails, sweeping major events under the rug, and weak substitutions or downplaying the impact.

And now I'm supposed to believe ME3 will do a better job of these things when multiplayer is being jammed in there too? Yeah... okay... whatever you say, BioWare. <_<

Lets talk a second about diminishing returns.  en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diminishing_returns

At some point, the game is done, and throwing all the people, money and materiel in the world at it will not make it faster or better.  You assume the entire MP team could have produced more, what exactly?  The MP team would be working on combat, which already has a deadicated team at the other location.  How about story!  Because adding more writers never overcomplicates the plot and produces plot holes.  I know, we will hurl money at it!  Because in its done state, we can spend more on . . . N7 Collectors edition dogtags . . . or something.  At some point you cannot put more resources in without becoming inefficient. 

I think the problem is not multiplayer, but your entirely unrealistic expectations.

How about we get the voice actors from multiplayer to make more . . . random battlefield sounds?

No, there is no real impact on SP when implementing MP.  People who claim this have no idea about compartmentalized manufacturing, or what it means to have enough to do the job.

There is a reason 300 Spartans held the hot gates against a million Persians.  They learned the law of diminishing returns the hard way.

[RamirezWolfen]

When I left, it wasn't 20 pages.

This thread is gold.

[Maugrim]

Here's the small concern I have about MP. First of all from my sig I'm obviously ok with the idea of it in general and want to facilitate getting people together to play. I'm also ok in theory with MP having a positive effect on SP. But I really need to to be an alternative path not something that makes getting a good or certain ending much easier. This is mostly because I always like to complete my first few playthroughs as spoiler free as possible and going into a four play co-op is just asking to get things spoiled for you. So for the first few days that ME3 is out I'm probably not going to be playing MP until I get through the game at least once, maybe 2-3 times depending on what paths and outcomes I see.

[Grey34]

Reciever80 wrote...

slimgrin wrote...

I'll be honest. If single player is still great and as long as it is in ME2, and they have all this extra stuff on top of that...they're going to make Infinity Ward look like a bunch of chumps.

Infinity Ward IS a bunch of chumps. They keep churning out a game that's literally the same as the previous one, and have the nerve to name it something else. They promised the world they'd deliver a ground-breaking game as MW2, and man did that game blow. Anyone remember the first two months of that game? Let alone the entire year that the game was out for where they did nothing to patch the 90,000 glitches and hacks? What a terrible game....So glad I haven't bought a call of duty game since.

first one was great i loved it  but  the 2nd one was total let down sp and mp, no deicated servers and and they got rid of the 30 player cap and 9 a side those two things killed it for me

[Pani Mauser]

Smilietime wrote...

Listen up people:

I am a huge fan of the series, they are some of my favourite games of all time. But now, you have gone too far by
presenting this optional feature that likely has zero impact on how I will want to play the game! I can't believe that you want to present players with more options! F*** you!

*sits down for dinner starts tucking into steak*

Mmm, this is good...

*vegetables get placed onto the table*

F*** this dinner! I loved this steak, and now you have to ruin it by offering me vegetables that are entirely my choice to eat or not! F*** you! F*** all of you!!

You would be correct with your analogy if the game was free. But it is not. More correct analogy will be that you go to the restaurant, order a steak, but they add vegetables too. And they say vegetables are optional for you to eat, but you stil have to pay for them.