3794 réponses à ce sujet

[Bekkael]

JeffZero 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.

 

You're such a good forumite, Bekkael. I'm glad we have you onboard.

Thanks. I can't always repress my maternal side.

[Comsky159]

AkodoRyu wrote...

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?

Co-op and multiplayer modes tend to require more than one player/operator to progress, hence they are social.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

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!

That'd be pretty kewl.

A chatroom for setting up Co-Op games in the SP campaign.

So you'd be like:

"Gonna go to the next planet and see if I can secure their alliance against the Reapers, they've been hostile to humans before, likely because of the actions of Cerberus recently, but they know what's at stake. I think that maybe, just maybe, they'll side with m- You have received a new message on OriginBook:

SsSsSsSup Brah!! Wanna go blast some husks!! Woot I'm only liek 2000 credits from reaching GalacPrep lulz!! Cmon mang maybe we can do some of the other missions, hey d'you hear about that crap in the news?!?"

Modifié par mrcrusty, 11 octobre 2011 - 06:21 .

[Lard]

MGIII wrote...

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.

That makes you just as much of a lemming as the people you were criticising.

[Pani Mauser]

challenger18 wrote...

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.

You really honestly believe that free additional food in restaurants is really free??? XDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

[GuardianAngel470]

majinstrings wrote...

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!

Woah woah woah. 8 hour? Try 4 and a half/ 5 hour. It was shorter than MW2's campaign and actually worse than it.

If you though MW2's plot twist sucked it pales in comparison to the problems with Homefront's story.

Picture it this way; MW2's story was a short story/novella. It had all the basic elements with proper pacing (FAST) and a few plot twists. It wasn't the best story ever, but it worked for the most part.

Homefront's story is a full sized novel with chunks cut out of it with dull hatchet. The premise is pretty great but the characters were actually worse than MW2's, the pacing was terrible, plot points had hardly any lead up and were over in a flash, and it was just a terribly constructed mess.

It felt like the developers had to pay the big name writer by the word.

I bought it day one because people said it was great. I returned it day 3 after beating it twice. Only Borderlands has gotten that treatment from me.

If you are going to buy it, get it during one of Steam's sales for $3. That's how much the story is truly worth.

[SilentNukee]

I will make love to my copy of ME3 as soon as I get it.

[Soul Cool]

sedrikhcain wrote...
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.

And you know the best way to announce that you won't stand for the changes they are making (Posting about it on the forums is optional, but always acceptable.)? Don't buy their games. Go find other to play. There are literally thousands out there. It may not be Mass Effect, but Mass Effect is seriously not the be-all-end-all of video games, of any sort. In fact, the series itself has only had one good showing (Mass Effect), and one "okay" showing (Mass Effect 2). So far that adds up to a "decent" series for me, but not enough to justify day one purchases for a studio that has demonstrated that they cannot be trusted to produce a quality product. (DA 2 is the primary one here.) Of course, since that was the exception to me, and not the rule, I will still consider buying the game new, just not day one.

[didymos1120]

Biotic Sage wrote...

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.

Look: were they kinda sneaky about it?  Hell, yes. Did they allow people to think they heard what they wanted to hear?  Also yes.  But they were also very, very careful about their wording and avoided giving outright denials like the plague.  They got pretty close on occasion, but they never quite got all the way there.

[Robuthad]

Wtf does BSN even stand for? Last time I was here, nobody said it.

[Lard]

Comsky made a good point. The ME games aren't social because the stories are played on how *we* react. That's how the connection between 1 & 2 is anyway - it's based on our choices.

Sure it's fun to go back and be a jerk on a second playthrough, but my main playthrough is how I really played and wanted things to work out.

Relying on other people for the third game kind of defeats the purpose of the other two games.

[ciaweth]

Babe Mause wrote...

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.

This.  This is armchair project managering.  It is clear from this post that you have no everloving clue about budgets, skillsets, personnel allocation, or anything else mentioned here.  You are literally flailing about to make up reasons to justify your extreme emotional reaction, and it's evident to anyone with even the littlest bit of an idea about how a software house, let alone a game company, runs.

Seriously, knock it off.  You're embarrassing yourself.  If you want to come up with reasons why MP is bad, do it with facts.

[Soul Cool]

Robuthad wrote...

Wtf does BSN even stand for? Last time I was here, nobody said it.

BioWare Social Network.

[jeweledleah]

btw - ability to play multiplayer missions as solo with henchmen is an acceptable compromise. becasue as it stands right now? this is basically content that is unacessible to me. not optional. unacessible. and yet if I wanted to play a main game, I have to pay for it.

saying that no money and/or effort has been diverted from single player and into implementation of multiplayer is a very optimistic assumption.

Modifié par jeweledleah, 11 octobre 2011 - 06:25 .

[Lard]

didymos1120 wrote...

Biotic Sage wrote...

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.

Look: were they kinda sneaky about it?  Hell, yes. Did they allow people to think they heard what they wanted to hear?  Also yes.  But they were also very, very careful about their wording and avoided giving outright denials like the plague.  They got pretty close on occasion, but they never quite got all the way there.

So you're saying they deliberately misled people. I agree.

Despicable behaviour.

[Darkeus]

Believe that if you want...

[GuardianAngel470]

Robuthad wrote...

Wtf does BSN even stand for? Last time I was here, nobody said it.

Bioware Social Network.

[Inquisitor Recon]

Robuthad wrote...
Wtf does BSN even stand for? Last time I was here, nobody said it.

Bioware Sociopath Network.

Modifié par ReconTeam, 11 octobre 2011 - 06:25 .

[RamirezWolfen]

Lard wrote...

Comsky made a good point. The ME games aren't social because the stories are played on how *we* react. That's how the connection between 1 & 2 is anyway - it's based on our choices.

Sure it's fun to go back and be a jerk on a second playthrough, but my main playthrough is how I really played and wanted things to work out.

Relying on other people for the third game kind of defeats the purpose of the other two games.

You don't have to rely on other people.


The keyword is optional.

[CaptainSpandex]

IGN's Editorial Staff Reacts to Mass Effect 3 Multiplayer

Wow. One of the only times I've seen the editors at IGN - which traditionally are some of the more tolerant and pro-EA writers in the gaming journalistic milieu - unite in their hatred for an announcement. And I have to agree with them. Mass Effect with co-op sounds absolutely horrendous.

Modifié par CaptainSpandex, 11 octobre 2011 - 06:26 .

[GuardianAngel470]

Lard wrote...

didymos1120 wrote...

Biotic Sage wrote...

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.

Look: were they kinda sneaky about it?  Hell, yes. Did they allow people to think they heard what they wanted to hear?  Also yes.  But they were also very, very careful about their wording and avoided giving outright denials like the plague.  They got pretty close on occasion, but they never quite got all the way there.

So you're saying they deliberately misled people. I agree.

Despicable behaviour.

I hope to god you don't own any Apple products.

[majinstrings]

GuardianAngel470 wrote...

majinstrings wrote...

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!

Woah woah woah. 8 hour? Try 4 and a half/ 5 hour. It was shorter than MW2's campaign and actually worse than it.

If you though MW2's plot twist sucked it pales in comparison to the problems with Homefront's story.

Picture it this way; MW2's story was a short story/novella. It had all the basic elements with proper pacing (FAST) and a few plot twists. It wasn't the best story ever, but it worked for the most part.

Homefront's story is a full sized novel with chunks cut out of it with dull hatchet. The premise is pretty great but the characters were actually worse than MW2's, the pacing was terrible, plot points had hardly any lead up and were over in a flash, and it was just a terribly constructed mess.

It felt like the developers had to pay the big name writer by the word.

I bought it day one because people said it was great. I returned it day 3 after beating it twice. Only Borderlands has gotten that treatment from me.

If you are going to buy it, get it during one of Steam's sales for $3. That's how much the story is truly worth.

 4 and a half/5 hours!?
Wow...thanks for the info and advice!

[AntiChri5]

btw - ability to play multiplayer missions as solo with henchmen is an acceptable compromise. becasue as it stands right now? this is basically content that is unacessible to me. not optional. unacessible. and yet if I wanted to play a main game, I have to pay for it.

If that is fine, then why is the option to have some of your human friends join in not?

[bboynexus]

There's absolutely nothing wrong with BioWare going ahead and optimizing for a smaller squad. They're quite literally looking to to do in the same way as 'Lair of the Shadow Broker'. It allows, as they've said, for more interesting interplay and much more intimate character development.

I expect nothing less from BSN though.