3794 réponses à ce sujet

[MGIII]

Lard wrote...

MGIII wrote...

Lard wrote...

It's incredibly disappointing to a lot of people. And rightfully so.

Don't like it, don't play it. It doesn't affect you. You'll just be missing out on some enjoyable experiences, is all.

Except MP is not enjoyable and it's confirmed it directly affects the single player. It affects me.

I feel as though lack of reading comprehension and needless social gaming hate are correlative factors.

[ciaweth]

didymos1120 wrote...

jeweledleah wrote...

 that way people who don't wish to pay full price for half a game....

Whoa there. I think you skipped a few steps.

Seriously.  Do you think if multiplayer weren't included or even conceived of, they'd sell ME3 for $30?  Mass Effect 3 will be a full game, and you'll forget you ever wrote this, which is a shame, because you should be made to go back and read it once you've finished your first playthrough.

I say this lovingly, of course.

[Cainne Chapel]

Lard wrote...

RamirezWolfen wrote...

How do you know that it's bad,
though? It's not March yet. Let's not be pessimistic about something we
have no knowledge of.

MP is bad. It's that simple.

MGIII wrote...

Lard wrote...

It's incredibly disappointing to a lot of people. And rightfully so.

Don't like it, don't play it. It doesn't affect you. You'll just be missing out on some enjoyable experiences, is all.

Except MP is not enjoyable and it's confirmed it directly affects the single player. It affects me.

RamirezWolfen wrote...

How so? It's just my opinion.

It's still wrong.

MP in and of itself is not bad, besides this isn't COD/HALO/BF multiplayer... its Co Op.

Second, if you clearly read the posted faq instead of jumping to b*tch you'd know it provides an ALTERNATIVE (Keywaord for understanding ALTERNATIVE) means of effecting your singleplayer galactic readiness which means....Its a second way to do what you can in singleplayer.  So no... it doesnt have to effect you

[Dark_Caduceus]

[quote]didymos1120 wrote...

[quote]jeweledleah wrote...

 that way people who don't wish to pay full price for half a game....

[/quote]


It will be jsut as long as ME1 or ME2 withour the MP, you're getting a full game even if you never touch MP.

Modifié par Dark_Caduceus, 11 octobre 2011 - 05:59 .

[Lucifer_Cheney]

You can call me Larry David, because the confirmation of MP has curbed my enthusiasm. I'll still play the game and despite my earlier post, I'll probably buy it because I'm invested in the story. But, after ME3 I will wash my hands of Bioware (DA2 was my fool me once moment).

*hits play button on Itunes to listen to "You're Gonna Miss Me" by13th Floor Elevators*

If only:D

[MGIII]

Pythonicus wrote...

MGIII wrote...

Lard wrote...

It's incredibly disappointing to a lot of people. And rightfully so.

Don't like it, don't play it. It doesn't affect you. You'll just be missing out on some enjoyable experiences, is all.

Not true. It does affect me even if I choose to not use it I still paid for it. It is gonna suck or they would sell it as a stand alone game. 

Nah, you paid for Mass Effect 3. It's your choice to ignore a significant chunk of it on principle, without even trying it. I know you're smarter than that post indicates. Don't sell yourself so short.

[Zanallen]

Pythonicus wrote...

Not true. It does affect me even if I choose to not use it I still paid for it. It is gonna suck or they would sell it as a stand alone game. 

I never did the Jacob, Garrus or Jack romances from ME2. Bioware should have sold those as DLC so I didn't have to pay for something I never used.

[Biotic Sage]

MGIII wrote...

Biotic Sage wrote...

MGIII wrote...

Biotic Sage wrote...

I really like their vision for integrating multiplayer. It doesn't detract from the single player, but it's still relevant to it should you choose to participate. I'm on board with the content, just not the way Bioware went about announcing it (i.e. they always denied its existent instead of saying "no comment").

They never outright denied multiplayer.

Sigh* I won't argue with you.  If you want to believe that go ahead.

I believe facts, yes.

Check the confirmed features thread yo.  There are sources and links.  They will say more than my words to you will.  Then again, if you don't care, don't check.  It won't really affect my life whether or not you stick to your "facts" or actually get informed.

And really it won't affect yours either.  This is what we call a first world problem haha

[NOD-INFORMER37]

RamirezWolfen wrote...

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

RamirezWolfen wrote...

How do you know that it's bad, though? It's not March yet. Let's not be pessimistic about something we have no knowledge of.

It isn't that it's bad or good multiplayer; it's that it's multiplayer.

D*mmit, Mass Effect introduced me to RPGs, to world of a (mostly) single player genre!

F*ck, I really do feel like crying.

Bioware has made other games that have multiplayer. Like NWN, BG2, and Shattered Steel. And those worked.

And those except Shattered Steel were RPGs.

Yes but now EA's involved.......we all know how great EA made the gaming world. (Dead Space 2, C/C4, yeah EA really improved those games xP)

[Soul Cool]

Darkeus wrote...
You say that now... If it works out then fine but this sounds tacked on and I don't have a lot of faith that it is going to work.  I feel like it will affect the Single Player negatively and will detract from what is supposed to be the important part of the game, the Single Player story. 

Well, I've been playing games with terrible grinding (10 years of Runescape and counting, woot.) in them for the past ten years, but I have never, until the Mass Effect series, had to deal with a resource grinding system that was capable of driving me away from the game that I would otherwise generally enjoy. I am greatful they are attempting to alleviate that.

I feel like this is a cash in attempt by EA and it is sad.  This will not bring in new fans....  And it alienates existing fans that have been here from the beginning.

I've played the Mass Effect series since the original. (Originally on the 360, then moved to PC. I even bought Mass Effect 2 twice because of the system move. Of course they ruined that because they gave me a free copy because of how terrible DA 2 was.)

And I liked the Mako, just not the crappy terrain they made you drive on.  The Mako could have been easily fixed and made better.

Well, when a studio considers planet scanning a "fix" to a bad vehicle system, I'm not sure if I should stop buying their games or keep buying them to fulfill my yearly masochist quota.

Modifié par Soul Cool, 11 octobre 2011 - 06:00 .

[MGIII]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

Well I never played those, so I guess I wouldn't know.

I guess it's just that I never, never play MP games...and this this happens.

Play the single player. Problem solved.

[Bourne Endeavor]

SNESchalmers wrote...

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. <_<

[*]This mindset with so many posters on this forum (or any forum) that their opinions and assumptions are fact absolutely baffles me. So you honestly think that if Bioware never implemented this miltiplayer aspect that they were going to make an 80 hour game of epic proportions fitting every little detail of you're ideal game? Please give me a break. Mass Effect 3 without multiplayer was always going to be along the timeline of the first two games give or take a few hours depending on the player.

No, I believe what Terror meant was by including multiplay revenue was "wasted" on an unnecessary feature, which would impact the single player campaign. BioWare only has so large a budget and outsourcing will inevitable dig into it. Granted, to what extent is unknown, given this could have been played from the onset. Keep in mind, I specifically quoted the negative reference toward multiplayer since they are purely speculative. We have nothing to base an opinion on the actual quality of this feature and while I deem it unnecessary, I shall await to see the end result. Despite my vocal disdain for multiplayer, the initial post does slightly tickle my interest, enough I can reserve judgment until I have a chance to give it a whirl. Tis only fair after all.

If it plays like Gears, Halo or Uncharted, then perhaps we have something. Hell maybe they go for a hack and slash variation or some strategy fueled MMO styled brawl. On the flip side, if its Resident Evil 5, BioShock 2 or simply an unpolished mess, then BioWare best be ready for the lynching on this forum and in reviews as a whole.

I'll remain positive for the time being, to an extent anyway.

[Lord Jaric]

Lard wrote...

Lord Jaric wrote...

Lard wrote...

RamirezWolfen wrote...

How do you know that it's bad,
though? It's not March yet. Let's not be pessimistic about something we
have no knowledge of.

MP is bad. It's that simple Thats my opinion 

fixed, just because you think something is bad doesn't many everyone agrees with you.

Yes, but they're wrong.

you are either a troll or you don't understand the meaning of opinion

[DiebytheSword]

iakus wrote...

Cainne Chapel wrote...


Really? Game isn't worth it now because they ADDED a co op component? So getting more than a single player game is now not worth it because they ADDED something?

*Sigh*

Somtimes the B*tching logic on these forums makes my head spin.  Did you even read the FAQ priestly posted with the announcement? By your logic, since I never used Jack, or Tali or Thane in my first ME2 playthrough it was a waste of money since I paid for characters I had no use for right?

......BSN for ya I guess....

So they're giving us two games for the price of one?

I find that highly unlikely.

Pure genius!  They use none of the same sound effects, music, weapon models, story, direction or assets in general in the MP mode.  They are utterly different in every way.  In fact, I heard MP takes place on Cybertron as the Transformers try to stop the Reapers.  Wait, I might actually pay for that.  Never mind.

Different modes do not add an entire half game.  They often use a seperate executable and a few configuration files.  Time and people utilizing the material produced by the first team for single player would not impact things nearly as much as you say.

[Doug4130]

it's a game

[Terror_K]

Zanallen wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

They're still making the same game and drawing from the same overall budget. Any money and resources allocated to multiplayer could have gone somewhere else. Simple as that.

Are they? Do you know that for sure? Are you certain that EA didn't add to the budget when they set up this new development team specifically to create multiplayer for ME3? No? Didn't think so.

Yeah... because it's sooooo much better for the game when the big boss hands money to simply go towards pandering and wedging a superfluous element in there just to broaden appeal than for something that actually adds to the game in any meaningful way. Beyond that, it's far more presumptuous to believe that they were given special multiplayer funding than to believe it simply came from the existing budget. Until BioWare outright states that EA gave them a bonus for MP implementation that overwise wouldn't have existed, I'm going to believe that they didn't and that the costs, time and resources are being, IMO, wasted.

[jeweledleah]

ciaweth wrote...

didymos1120 wrote...

jeweledleah wrote...

 that way people who don't wish to pay full price for half a game....

Whoa there. I think you skipped a few steps.

Seriously.  Do you think if multiplayer weren't included or even conceived of, they'd sell ME3 for $30?  Mass Effect 3 will be a full game, and you'll forget you ever wrote this, which is a shame, because you should be made to go back and read it once you've finished your first playthrough.

I say this lovingly, of course.

right, becasue bioware obviously has unlimited resources and  they are not going to end up cutting corners here and there, just to accomodate that this feature >_>  I haven't payed a full price for portal 2 for this exact reason and I was absolutely right to wait for a sale before buying it.

my preorder IS canceled and I'm still on a fence as to whether I'll buy a game at all.  but its not longer worth a full price to me.

edited.  because being able to create custumizable characters from different races doesn't take resources.  or designing multiple levels that specificaly work with co-op.  or integrating the "readiness" lever so that it adds to the single player apropriately.

from what the OP states, thissounds like at least 2 LoTSB worth of content... except Shadow Broker was truly optional and purchased separately.

and the fact that it comes out on releace?  yeah, pretty sure resoucres had to be diverted.  they woudln't have designers working on freaking holidays if they had penty of time to finish everything and I will bet you a dollar that they will end upcutting a lot of content from the game.. that will probably get finished at a later date,and sold as a separate DLC >_>

Modifié par jeweledleah, 11 octobre 2011 - 06:03 .

[Zanallen]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

Well I never played those, so I guess I wouldn't know.

I guess it's just that I never, never play MP games...and this this happens.

Well good news! You still don't have to play MP with ME3.

[Lard]

Alberta - ruining the environment with oil sands and single player games with MP.

Thanks Bioware!

[RamirezWolfen]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

RamirezWolfen wrote...

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

RamirezWolfen wrote...

How do you know that it's bad, though? It's not March yet. Let's not be pessimistic about something we have no knowledge of.

It isn't that it's bad or good multiplayer; it's that it's multiplayer.

D*mmit, Mass Effect introduced me to RPGs, to world of a (mostly) single player genre!

F*ck, I really do feel like crying.

Bioware has made other games that have multiplayer. Like NWN, BG2, and Shattered Steel. And those worked.

And those except Shattered Steel were RPGs.

Well I never played those, so I guess I wouldn't know.

I guess it's just that I never, never play MP games...and this this happens.

You still don't have to. You can easily ignore it and play the singleplayer only. Also, if you don't play multiplayer, why do you even care?

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

I only hope that BioWare will extend this to Multiplayer Co-Op romances and LIs.

I mean, think about it: LIs and scenes of any race, or recreating any NPC, ShepxShep, even up to foursomes.

It's about time BioWare recognise the merit behind Multiplayer Co-Op LIs and romances.

Imagine the possibilities!!



IT WILL BE HEAVAN!!