3794 réponses à ce sujet

[Nashiktal]

didymos1120 wrote...

Biotic Sage wrote...

Check the confirmed features thread yo.  There are sources and links. 

Well, on the "No MP" thing the source in the CF thread is some guy on GameFAQs' post summarizing what he thought the Game Informer article back in April said. Hint: it didn't say what he thought it said.  Casey Hudson's quote actually said "We have nothing to announce at this time."

Confirmed features doesn't have it, but in the previous thread there were three articles posting where bioware definitively said no multiplayer, and as I said before joystiq has an entire series dedicated to the back and forth confirmation of multiplayer in ME3. (

[Mr.Sovereign]

Sorry if this has already been answered, but will there be splitscreen co-op?

[Soul Cool]

alex90c wrote...
hm?

I was just reading the Ace Combat thread on SA, and everyone was ranting about everything happening in the "real world" (Earth), and then you comment about how boring it is for this to happen on Earth while existing in such a fantastic universe. It just happened to be the perfect comment at the perfect time.

[ciaweth]

GuardianAngel470 wrote...

ciaweth wrote...

Soul Cool wrote...

ciaweth wrote...

Every time a player armchair project manages, a real project manager somewhere gets varicose veins.

It's like armchair generalship. Except the person doing the armchair project managing doesn't even have the vageuest idea of what they're talking about. At least people who armchair general-it up generally know that shooting the enemy, and not yourself, is a good thing.

This is true.  Maybe more like armchair quarterbacking from people who can't throw a spiral pass to save their lives.

Psssh, you yankees and your American football analogies. Like you own the goddam world, expectin everyone to understand you.

You got the gist of what I was saying though, I take it?  ;D

[JeffZero]

Mr.Sovereign wrote...

Sorry if this has already been answered, but will there be splitscreen co-op?

We don't know yet.

[Maugrim]

Nashiktal wrote...

didymos1120 wrote...

Biotic Sage wrote...

Check the confirmed features thread yo.  There are sources and links. 

Well, on the "No MP" thing the source in the CF thread is some guy on GameFAQs' post summarizing what he thought the Game Informer article back in April said. Hint: it didn't say what he thought it said.  Casey Hudson's quote actually said "We have nothing to announce at this time."

Confirmed features doesn't have it, but in the previous thread there were three articles posting where bioware definitively said no multiplayer, and as I said before joystiq has an entire series dedicated to the back and forth confirmation of multiplayer in ME3. (

I read all those three articles, it never said there was not multiplayer.

[Nashiktal]

MGIII wrote...

Nashiktal wrote...

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.

Then you have the wrong facts. Bioware stated multiple times that there was no multiplayer. No vagueness, no dodging, just outright no. They said Mass Effect was a single player experience.

In fact in the previous multiplayer thread before this one someone posted the very articles where they denied multiplayer. Go do a quick google search. Hell joystiq even has their own special based on the back and forth of it all.

Find me some quotes where any reputable source outright said "no multiplayer, ever."

That never happened. It was always half answers like, "ME will always be a single player first game." or "we have nothing to announce about multiplayer at this time" or "we haven't been able to incorporate multiplayer in a viable manner yet."

But, fans being fans, took those statements as gospel against multiplayer. Wasn't the first time lemmings succumbed to PR speak.

Again ignoring what I am saying. Would you kindly actually read the articles? Or better yet just go to joystiq and read their little serial? I am not talking about half truths, I am talking about direct confirmation for no multiplayer.

Quit painting us as fanboys and take us seriously. We wouldn't be upset over nothing.

[DarthSlim108]

Ok 3 things...

1) Surprisingly, I actually like this idea, or I'm at least interested and willing to give it a chance.

2) Will it be online-only co-op, or will there also be a split-screen option?

3) I'm calling it now - one of their other Galaxy at War platforms yet to be announced is going to be an iPhone game. Hopefully it's an actual mobile version of the game and not just some stat tracker thing like they have for Halo and WoW.

[Pythonicus]

lightsnow13 wrote...

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. 

The game will still be $60 outright. All games, newly released, are $60 so...you're getting extra content. The money they spent on multiplayer hasn't been diverted away from single player experience.

Seriously, is ANYone reading the FAQ that was posted?

What are you talking about. It is not extra. It is part of the main game that I will purchase. It will be included in every ME3 purchase. Extra content would be something you get in addition to what you want. It is not gonna be worth buying or they would sell it seperately. It is a different game 

[majinstrings]

jeweledleah wrote...

I figured out how bioware can redeem this idiocy. sell MP as a separate feature. that way people who don't wish to pay full price for half a game, you know people who have zero interest in MP - can pay 40 bucks and those who do want MP-can pay the full price of 60. becasue that's what it feels like right now. unless you intend to play both features, you are basically paying full price for half a game.

someone made a steak dinner analogy earlier? it fits actually. you order a steak, just a plain steak and they bring you half a steak but with vegetables instead and they make you pay a full price. I don't want vegetables. I didn't order vegetables. I ordered full steak, not half of it.

right now the game is not worth the full price for me. I do not wish to pay for a feature that i will never use, feature so extensive that its quite literally its own campaign that feasibly affects the main one.

I think that's fair and have wanted companies to do that for the past few years..."Just let me buy the SP campaign of Homefront without the MP"

I have no interest in Homefront's multiplayer and there is no way I'm paying $60 for an 8 hour campaign I'm gonna play through once!

But I don't think you saying "half a game" is fair...not yet, anyway...

We still don't know what the SP/MP ratio is going to be but I'm certain it won't be 50/50...I think the single player campaign in ME3 will be the longest of the series...well, I hope...it damn well better be!

I just see the multiplayer as a free extra...I really don't think it has affect the development of the single player campaign...

...If I go with this 'steak' analogy, I guess I'd have to think of the multiplayer as the steaksauce the resteraunt leaves for you on the table...some people think it'll make the steak taste better, some people don't...it's your choice if you want to use it or not...

...I'm hungry, now...

[Soul Cool]

Nashiktal wrote...
Sixty plus dollars is. To both bioware and the consumer.

If it's that serious to you, just do what I'm doing. Not buying the game on day one. It is seriously not going to harm anyone if they do not get this game on day one.

[ciaweth]

For the love of little green apples, would you people who are arguing over Joystiq articles and whether or not MP content was ever outright denied...would you please just give up and LINK TO THE ARTICLES so the rest of us can decide which one of you is a frootloop?

Thank you.

[GuardianAngel470]

ciaweth wrote...

GuardianAngel470 wrote...

ciaweth wrote...

Soul Cool wrote...

ciaweth wrote...

Every time a player armchair project manages, a real project manager somewhere gets varicose veins.

It's like armchair generalship. Except the person doing the armchair project managing doesn't even have the vageuest idea of what they're talking about. At least people who armchair general-it up generally know that shooting the enemy, and not yourself, is a good thing.

This is true.  Maybe more like armchair quarterbacking from people who can't throw a spiral pass to save their lives.

Psssh, you yankees and your American football analogies. Like you own the goddam world, expectin everyone to understand you.

You got the gist of what I was saying though, I take it?  ;D

Ha ha, I'm American so yeah, I did.

[Lard]

MGIII wrote...
But, fans being fans, took those statements as gospel against multiplayer. Wasn't the first time lemmings succumbed to PR speak.

PR speak like "multiplayer won't affect the single player game"?

[Biotic Sage]

didymos1120 wrote...

Biotic Sage wrote...

Check the confirmed features thread yo.  There are sources and links. 

Well, on the "No MP" thing the source in the CF thread is some guy on GameFAQs' post summarizing what he thought the Game Informer article back in April said. Hint: it didn't say what he thought it said.  Casey Hudson's quote actually said "We have nothing to announce at this time."

Alright didy, I feel you.  But let me put it this way: I see a good number of fellow forumites who I know to be sensible and reasonable individuals from past discussions and comments, and many of them are under the same impression that Bioware had stated directly that there is no multiplayer in ME3.  At the very least, they did a poor job keeping it simple with "no comment."  When I see "no comment" or "we have nothing to announce," I don't log anything into my mind at that point.  Instead I log it as: info pending.

I really don't care enough to dig up the source where Casey Hudson himself said "no multiplayer in ME3," but I remember it, and unless I'm taking crazy pills, that or something very close to that did happen.

[Comsky159]

Does anyone else feel like this is an immersion breaker?

I mean Mass Effect so far has all been about forming a dynamic, yet personal relationship between the player and the universe through the tool that is Commander Shepard. Now this relationship and the temperamental fabric of immersion has been ripped apart for a social cause.

Mass Effect isn't about being social dagnamit! It's about escapism from the trappings of reality; real relationships, real issues, real people. I can't imagine why Bioware would spend so much time crafting and expounding this kind of imaginative inspiring/facilitating world just to violate it like this. As the reader and the novel form a single entity, in this game the player and the cybertext have been given time to form their own connection, which imo should be treated with more sanctity and respect.

I feel like I'm in a damn polygamous relationship now!

Modifié par Comsky159, 11 octobre 2011 - 06:20 .

[MGIII]

Nashiktal wrote...

Quit painting us as fanboys and take us seriously. We wouldn't be upset over nothing.

This very thread is an exemplarary tome to the contrary.

I've read the articles, checked the interviews. It's all the same thing. Half answers, sidesteps, PR speak. No definitive, overwhelming, book closing "no" has even been on record by an EA or Bioware employee. Ever. Not one, single, iota.

[NOD-INFORMER37]

 My personal main concerns are 
A. The single player being dependent(even if its just a little bit) on this "readiness level" co-op thing 
and 
B. The Co-op/readiness leval being dependent on other people. (in order to play it )
If we can still get all (and I mean ALL) the content from playing just single player then that great but if not then do we HAVE to have 4 people in co-op? I'm hoping that at least they'll be bots to fill the empty spaces if there's say only 2 or 3 players. (or better yet, play alone with bots)
I just dont want this to be that kind of thing where some of us will be searching frantically through forums like these and sending various ppl friend requests just we can play the damn co op levals lol.

And check out this remix ppl its kewl :} www.youtube.com/watch

[Jorina Leto]

lightsnow13 wrote...
 I'm sure those people will end up enjoying it but until then.

No, I will not buy it.

[Pani Mauser]

DiebytheSword wrote...

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..

Or they could use people from the MP team to do a better job on the squad instead of making smaller squad, leaving half the characters behind.

I know that squad is is pretty complicated issue because there are too many variations of who is dead and who is not(except of Liara who is unkillable).  MP tream could be used to address this issue.  


They could let the main team to concentrate on the story and let this new studio do the animation, rendering, sound editing etc.
so they could have dialogs, party banter and cutscenes for 16+ characters and then add variables depending on who lives and who doesn't.


So, there is real impact on SP, and fyi I have an idea how games are made. There are always things to improve. If you cannot think of something besides combat and dogtags, it's your problem.

Of course, we will never know if they would actually do things they could have done, but the thought that sp could been better/bigger/more immersive and all we got was just a coop will be eating me forever.

[Bekkael]

RamirezWolfen wrote...

Bekkael wrote...

RamirezWolfen wrote...

Lard wrote...

You're wrong.

How so? It's just my opinion.

It isn't a right or wrong situation, but people who are upset about multiplayer deserve understanding and compassion. They had specific hopes and wishes that (at least for now) have been crushed. That hurts them or makes them angry and those feelings are certainly valid.

Those of us who are indifferent or even excited about this new element can listen to them vent and offer a shoulder to cry on when needed. Kindness costs nothing but is often doubly repaid.

 

This game isn't serious business.

Not in the grand scheme of things, of course. But lots of people have had years worth of looking forward to ME3. It's pretty important to those of us who take the time to hang out here and feast on every new tidbit of information like a gourmet meal. Posting on the BSN already puts you into a crazy-mad level of fandom that casual players never even know exists.

[Soul Cool]

Comsky159 wrote...

Does anyone else feel like this is an immersion breaker?

I mean Mass Effect so far has all been about forming a dynamic, yet personal relationship between the player and the universe through the tool that is Commander Shepard. Now this relationship and the temperamental fabric of immersion has been ripped apart for a social cause.

Mass Effect isn't about being social dagnamit! It's about escapism from the trappings of reality; real relationships, real issues, real people. I can't imagine why Bioware would spend so much time crafting and expounding this kind of imagination inspiring/facilitating world just to violate it like this.

I feel like I'm in a damn polygamous relationship now!

BioWare, building up for the greatest troll in the history of mankind since 2007.

[sedrikhcain]

Nashiktal wrote...

RamirezWolfen wrote...

Bekkael wrote...

RamirezWolfen wrote...

Lard wrote...

You're wrong.

How so? It's just my opinion.

It isn't a right or wrong situation, but people who are upset about multiplayer deserve understanding and compassion. They had specific hopes and wishes that (at least for now) have been crushed. That hurts them or makes them angry and those feelings are certainly valid.

Those of us who are indifferent or even excited about this new element can listen to them vent and offer a shoulder to cry on when needed. Kindness costs nothing but is often doubly repaid.

 

This game isn't serious business.

Sixty plus dollars is. To both bioware and the consumer.

Try $120, because I live in Australia and that's what ME deluxe editions cost here -- on PC that is. Console is even more. If you're happy with MP, good for you, but I'm sick of hearing people act like anybody who doesn't accept every development hook line and sinker, just as announced is some kind of crybaby. BioWare isn't giving us these games out of the kindness of their hearts. We pay a lot of money for them.

[AkodoRyu]

Comsky159 wrote...
I mean Mass Effect so far has all been about forming a dynamic, yet personal relationship between the player and the universe through the tool that is Commander Shepard. Now this relationship and the temperamental fabric of immersion has been ripped apart for a social cause.

I'm sorry, but I can't understand - how so?

[MGIII]

Lard wrote...

MGIII wrote...
But, fans being fans, took those statements as gospel against multiplayer. Wasn't the first time lemmings succumbed to PR speak.

PR speak like "multiplayer won't affect the single player game"?

When it's presented in a very informative and concise FAQ, I tend to believe it much easier.