3794 réponses à ce sujet

[Terror_K]

Dark_Caduceus 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.

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.

You seem to be missing the point. I'm not expecting all of that out of ME3. I'm just saying that that's what it would take for multiplayer to earn its place in the game, IMO. While I don't actually expect the game to be all of that and wouldn't call it fail for not living up to such expecations, my basic point is that work, resources and time could be better spent on improving any and/or all of those factors regarding the single -player rather than working on multiplayer. Especially the import choices and consequences factor, which was damn weak in ME2. If my choices don't really feel like they've changed the universe beyond a piece of dialogue here and there and kept getting swept aside and trivialised, then one of the ME trilogy's major selling-factors and promises to me will be a complete fail, IMO. So guess where I'll be squaring the blame if that happens.

Modifié par Terror_K, 11 octobre 2011 - 05:52 .

[Stofsk]

iakus wrote...

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

Yes but that's not what is going on. Shepard is still the star of the main story. The co-op stuff is like background stuff that supports the main story, at least that's the impression I've got. 

It's like how Lord of the Rings is Frodo's story but we still have time to look at Aragorn and all the rest. Or like Star Wars is about Luke Skywalker but hey here's Han and Princess Leia, what are they up to? Etc. 

Like I said having a wider scope adds verisimilitude to the game. It's not just Shepard single-handedly saving the day. It's other people too. 

[Heather Cline]

El_Chala_Legalizado wrote...

Heather Cline wrote...

I still don't like having a Co-op/multi-player system in ME3. Take a look at how Fable 2 and Fable 3 had game breaking bugs, game immersion broken, storyline affected. Again not a fan of this being implemented especially if you include achievements for this Co-op that affects the 1000 max points rating for the game itself. Those of us who like the single player campaign can't earn those online achievements unless we find someone willing to join us in an online campaign and not many people who enjoy the single player game only have any friends who play Co-op/multiplayer games like what you are implementing. So how do you propose that we who like to get the 1000 achievement points for the single player game get those for the multiplayer if we don't like it or can't get people to help us unlock said achievement?

Yeah... you can be sure I'm not happy.

You are in forum full of people like you.
Just ask for a parter and I'm sure that someone will give you a hand with that

I'm on a 360. Only abour 4 to 5 people on my friends list for my 360 are from here. Only maybe 3 of them play Mass Effect. And none of them play Co-op/Multiplayer on the 360. So yeah... finding someone to play the Co-Op/Multiplayer is going to be reaaally easy... Uh huh...

[DaringMoosejaw]

Columbus Day shall forthwith be known as 'RUINED FOREVAAAAAR!' day.

[marstor05]

I think it's great news to have multiplayer. means myself and my family full of mass effect fans can play missions co-op. hope it's cross platform multi-player tho.

to the people slating this I would only remind them its just a game and you dont have to play the multiplayer. I dont usually but for this i'm going to.

[majinstrings]

Wonderllama4 wrote...

hmmm... co-op romance scenes.

Just got an image in my head of a player created Krogan 'romancing' a Salarian...thanks:sick:

[Kolgen1227]

Seperate studios same budget. So yea, not only are you taking the set amount you had and slitting it in two, but you have them in two different places, more in rent and bills, great idea BW, don't blame you though, EA is at fault. Rip the soul out of a game as long as it makes us a quick buck.

[challenger18]

Babe Mause 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!!

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.

Incorrect. He has paid for the steak. They bring him veges for him to eat, but he's only paying for the steak still. So, his analogy was correct.

[Smilietime]

About taking away part of the stake... they put together a new studio to do the main work for co-op. You know, have RPG makers make the RPG, having Multiplayer designers make the multiplayer...

The only thing I was worried about, was if the co-op was going to be players assuming control of our companions. That could never work, ever. Even if Garrus does like to say "Headshot!"

I didn't have time to read 40 pages, I just assumed based on the "Ruined Forever" phenomena. I don't know why people assume that good multiplayer means bad singleplayer. Modern Warfare 2's single player sucked because of Bobby Kotick's... collection of pink rainbows... RPG players tend to be smart people anyway, not adrenaline junkies who pay $40 for a few maps.

People will finally get to play as Krogans and Quarians, isn't that exciting?

Modifié par Smilietime, 11 octobre 2011 - 05:39 .

[Bekkael]

makenzieshepard wrote...

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.

That's what I plan to do as well.

[Valcutio]

Waste of resources.

And if the solo campaign is a hair shorter than it was in previous games - ppl are gonna be freaking out. DA2 dropped the ball, ME3 better pick it up.

[Pythonicus]

I'll say it again if this Galaxy at War is so awesome let it prove itself as a stand alone game. They are obviously not that confident in it so they are going to make everyone who wants to play ME3 buy it by adding it to the SP game. I don't want it I probably won't use it but I am still going to have to buy it. This sucks.

[MGIII]

Terror_K wrote...

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. <_<

About fourteen hours ago...

MGIII wrote...

It's not a matter of timing or seperate budgeting. Resources are used to make MEM (multiplayer). Those resources (be it time, man power, or money) did not go into MESP (the "main game") exclusively. People don't like that, and never will like that, if they are biased againt multiplayer. Regardless of if the budget was raised to compensate or if multiplayer shares a lot of assetswith singleplayer, purists will assign blame of any poorly executed facet of the game--no matter how small--on the fact that time was spent on a feature unwanted to them.

I wouldn't call it a stupid argument. I would call it ignorance in general.

Man, you folks are super predictable. Get a new angle, nobody likes stale tears.

Modifié par MGIII, 11 octobre 2011 - 05:35 .

[Sold2Christ]

This will work out, great information Chris.

Cannot wait to get my hands on this wonderful game next year

[Zanallen]

makenzieshepard wrote...

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.

I posted this earlier, but I think the MP should work something like instead of having to upgrade the Normandy completely in ME2 to make it through the relay without issue, you could do a few MP missions that involve battling the collectors. These MP missions serve to weaken the collectors enough so that you can make it through the relay without issue even if you don't do all the upgrades. So, you get the same result, just in a different manner. And of course, you could still upgrade the Normandy completely if you wanted.

[Matchy Pointy]

"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."

This i the ting that makes me not like this multiplayer mode one bit, so basicly what it say is, don't play multiplayer, and miss out on things in the singleplayer story. That's bad design for those that don't want, can't play multiplayer if you ask me.

[Bekkael]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

Motherf*ck.

That is all.


*tears*

But...but, you were working through this. Another hug?

[J4N3_M3]

I'm definitely stoked. who doesn't want to have it, doesn't have to play it. I certainly will play it

[DiebytheSword]

Bluko wrote...

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.

Galactic Readiness would not be an artificial mechanic like loyalty.  It would be a very real mechanic that includes how much Materiel Shepard has available to commit to war (secured supply & logistics lines for force projection), what allies Shepard has marshalled, what other factors Shepard brings (discoveries and technology from the Prothean's perhaps). 

All of these things point to a governments ability to wage war.  The United States can project force anywhere in the world, call upon a large list of countries for aid, and usually maintains a technological edge over its competitors. These things make the US able to swoop in and lay a hurting on anything that looks like a modern government, wrecking infrastructure, supply lines, and capability that the enemy might have.  The same thing will happen with Shep.  Is the galaxy ready to wage war against someone who enjoys the technological edge and has spent 50,000 years or more plotting the current invasion?

[Heather Cline]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

Heather Cline wrote...

I still don't like having a Co-op/multi-player system in ME3. Take a look at how Fable 2 and Fable 3 had game breaking bugs, game immersion broken, storyline affected. Again not a fan of this being implemented especially if you include achievements for this Co-op that affects the 1000 max points rating for the game itself. Those of us who like the single player campaign can't earn those online achievements unless we find someone willing to join us in an online campaign and not many people who enjoy the single player game only have any friends who play Co-op/multiplayer games like what you are implementing. So how do you propose that we who like to get the 1000 achievement points for the single player game get those for the multiplayer if we don't like it or can't get people to help us unlock said achievement?

Yeah... you can be sure I'm not happy.

Buying you drinks officially.

Thanks. I probably could use some.

[majinstrings]

Kolgen1227 wrote...

Seperate studios same budget. So yea, not only are you taking the set amount you had and slitting it in two, but you have them in two different places, more in rent and bills, great idea BW, don't blame you though, EA is at fault. Rip the soul out of a game as long as it makes us a quick buck.

I don't think EA is going to ruin the Mass Effect series...

I mean, it seemed to work out for ME2...

[Lucifer_Cheney]

Babe Mause 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!!

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.

Or to take it one step further, it would be like a restaurant stating beforehand that the vegatables are optional, but have the cooks focus an inordinate amount of time preparing the veggies, it takes away from they ability to cook the steak properly. God I'm hungry!

[Bogsnot1]

You know what the worst thing about this announcement is?
Previously we only had to put up with 1 MP thread/day being created. We now have 11 on the front page, not including this one.