3794 réponses à ce sujet

[DaBigDragon]

Can you have 2 players on one Xbox playing with a 3rd on another Xbox for co-op like in Gears 3 or only 1 person per Xbox?

[TheGreenAlloy]

The opposite of what people feared. Good.

[kevin cousland]

Sergshev7 wrote...

народ дайте ключ для Dragon age начало плиз

yeah what he says!

[Blueflame]

This is going to be awesome!

[Doug4130]

Taciter wrote...

You know, I don't know why there has to be this division between single and multi-player subscribers. There is a very simple solution that seems to be consistently overlooked by virtually every developer throughout the past decade - Bots!!!

I've played countless multi-player 'training' scenarios designed to provide the player with a crash course in how to play the associated game prior to unleashing you into the frenetic world of MP combat. Invariably, some developer's go to the effort of providing the player with AI controlled companions to provide a some degree of continuity and allow the player to become accustomed to multiplayer controls.

I can see absolutely no reason why such a practical implementation can't be included with EVERY multiplayer game. If a publisher wants to appeal to the broadest possible consumer base, then surely this would be the ultimate solution. Multiplayer fanatics can have their cake and eat it and Sociopathic Solo'ers can have theirs too. I don't care if the bots are relatively stupid... I just want to experience the content that MP'ers do without the baggage of social interaction.

It's not a case of all or nothing... there is a compromise staring us all straight in the face!

People tend to play games longer if they can play it with friends/other people instead of bots.  I'm not talking about you personally, but this is a fact.  This way, since ME3 is the end of the series (as far as we know) they will be able to keep more people playing well after they have finished the main campaign and keep players actively interested in the game who will be more likely to shell out some money here and there for DLC since they'll stay interested in the game for reasons other than story progression.  It's a win-win.  BW gets more cash and we get more stuff to fiddle around with, assuming they up the ante on the DLC this time around.  Don't see why they wouldn't.

[StefanBW]

Lame.

[Daeion]

I'm so not happy about this. It's one thing to include stand alone multiplayer, it's another thing entirely to have it impact the single player campaign.

[-Algernon-]

kevin cousland wrote...

multiplayer would be ok IF it was seperate and doesnt interfere in any way with the singleplayer gameplay or story. so DONT shorten the singleplayer to make room for it, DONT add stupid multiplayer designed bits in the singleplayer.
the addition of multiplayer could ruin this great singleplayer story based game, just look at all the new resi evil games now multiplayer changed that, its rubbish now.

so bioware for gods sake do NOT compromise what this game is, a brilliant emersive singleplayer experience were you shape your epic story over many games, leading to the most epic heartpounding conclusion ever. multiplayer could ruin this DONT LET IT.

I totally agree.  Why now? Why at the end of the series?  I hope this mp/co-opp deal doesn't take anything away from this outstanding story.  You know, Bioware could've waited until after ME3 to developed a multiplayer based Mass Effect universe, but then that would kill any future Mass Effect based game series.

[Tugga_gott]

DaBigDragon wrote...

Can you have 2 players on one Xbox playing with a 3rd on another Xbox for co-op like in Gears 3 or only 1 person per Xbox?

I don't hope it's only one per xbox...

[valex-jedi]

omg that's awesome

[kevin cousland]

Blueflame wrote...

This is going to be awesome!

no its not!

think for a bit.

with all the time and effort and disk space they use on MP they could have used that to make SP extra long extra epic extra polished and hell id rather have them get rid of extra bug. MP is wasting time money and disk space.

ME3 will probly last only 10 hours and have loads of plot holes because of time and space being wasted on MP which when released no one would care about.

scrap MP and the story will last twice as long and make sense. MP is just the devs being lazy and the writers running out of ideas.

[Doug4130]

Daeion wrote...

I'm so not happy about this. It's one thing to include stand alone multiplayer, it's another thing entirely to have it impact the single player campaign.

did you miss the part where he said it was optional, and that you can still get the same results by playing single player

[Capone666]

It's hilarious to see how hard Chris tries to ensure us all, that it WON'T affect the overall quality of the singleplayer experience. Genius!

[J0HNL3I]

thank god its co-op! plus to people hating it: dont like it dont play it he said you dont have to play it to get the ending you want

Modifié par J0HNL3I, 11 octobre 2011 - 03:01 .

[Forsythia]

Do I want multiplayer in ME3? No. But if BioWare absolutely has to, this is the best way to do it. Completely optional, no playable squadmates and most importanly, relevant to the game. No lame ass versus mode, bless the Maker!

In other words, I will be playing this.

Modifié par Forsythia, 11 octobre 2011 - 03:02 .

[Daeion]

Doug4130 wrote...

Taciter wrote...

You know, I don't know why there has to be this division between single and multi-player subscribers. There is a very simple solution that seems to be consistently overlooked by virtually every developer throughout the past decade - Bots!!!

I've played countless multi-player 'training' scenarios designed to provide the player with a crash course in how to play the associated game prior to unleashing you into the frenetic world of MP combat. Invariably, some developer's go to the effort of providing the player with AI controlled companions to provide a some degree of continuity and allow the player to become accustomed to multiplayer controls.

I can see absolutely no reason why such a practical implementation can't be included with EVERY multiplayer game. If a publisher wants to appeal to the broadest possible consumer base, then surely this would be the ultimate solution. Multiplayer fanatics can have their cake and eat it and Sociopathic Solo'ers can have theirs too. I don't care if the bots are relatively stupid... I just want to experience the content that MP'ers do without the baggage of social interaction.

It's not a case of all or nothing... there is a compromise staring us all straight in the face!

People tend to play games longer if they can play it with friends/other people instead of bots.  I'm not talking about you personally, but this is a fact.  This way, since ME3 is the end of the series (as far as we know) they will be able to keep more people playing well after they have finished the main campaign and keep players actively interested in the game who will be more likely to shell out some money here and there for DLC since they'll stay interested in the game for reasons other than story progression.  It's a win-win.  BW gets more cash and we get more stuff to fiddle around with, assuming they up the ante on the DLC this time around.  Don't see why they wouldn't.

This is the end of Shepard's story, not the end of the franchise.  

Also, it's not a win-win for those of us who had no desire to have a multiplayer experience in ME3, especially not one that impacts the single player campaign.  And don't give this crap about how it's optional, it's in there for a reason and it's going to be the optimal way to play through the game.  I can see it now, it's going to work like the suicide mission in ME2, did you play this mission in multiplayer?  Nope?  Well then so and so is going to die.  Did you play the multiplayer mission?  Nope?  Well then this quest hub doesn't exist.

[TheGreenAlloy]

Thargorichiban wrote...

Well hopefully you can get just as ready in ME3 single player as the "boost" you can get from the multi-player aspect. Otherwise a few years after this game has come out it would be almost impossible to get a "perfect" run once the community has moved onto the next game franchise.

Did you read the whole thing?

[rolson00]

kevin cousland wrote...

Blueflame wrote...

This is going to be awesome!

no its not!

think for a bit.

with all the time and effort and disk space they use on MP they could have used that to make SP extra long extra epic extra polished and hell id rather have them get rid of extra bug. MP is wasting time money and disk space.

ME3 will probly last only 10 hours and have loads of plot holes because of time and space being wasted on MP which when released no one would care about.

scrap MP and the story will last twice as long and make sense. MP is just the devs being lazy and the writers running out of ideas.

they had two teams the core team for sp and they hired MP devs for the co-op so your wrong

[Daeion]

Doug4130 wrote...

Daeion wrote...

I'm so not happy about this. It's one thing to include stand alone multiplayer, it's another thing entirely to have it impact the single player campaign.

did you miss the part where he said it was optional, and that you can still get the same results by playing single player

Did you miss the part where he said  "Success in multi-player will have a direct impact on the outcome of the single player campaign"  They can spin it anyway they want about being able to get the same result in the single player, but the optimal way is going to do it through MP.

[mmmu]

I'm skeptical.
I hope we get some solid information tomorrow. I don't like the idea of multiplayer tackling to the side of the story. Let's see what they'll have to say.

[CihanSan]

OH MY GOD THIS IS GOING TO BE F***ING AWESOME! LOVE YOU GUYS!!!

[Daeion]

Forsythia wrote...

Do I want multiplayer in ME3? No. But if BioWare absolutely has to, this is the best way to do it. Completely optional, no playable squadmates and most importanly, relevant to the game. No lame ass versus mode, bless the Maker!

In other words, I will be playing this.

Completely optional would have been not hainvg it intigrate with the single player story. 

[Daeion]

rolson00 wrote...

kevin cousland wrote...

Blueflame wrote...

This is going to be awesome!

no its not!

think for a bit.

with all the time and effort and disk space they use on MP they could have used that to make SP extra long extra epic extra polished and hell id rather have them get rid of extra bug. MP is wasting time money and disk space.

ME3 will probly last only 10 hours and have loads of plot holes because of time and space being wasted on MP which when released no one would care about.

scrap MP and the story will last twice as long and make sense. MP is just the devs being lazy and the writers running out of ideas.

they had two teams the core team for sp and they hired MP devs for the co-op so your wrong

They could have used that 2nd team to make the SP even more epic.

[StonedVolus]

My only concern is the galactic readiness affecting single-player. I can accept things like getting awarded with credits, but galactic readiness sounds a little too needed, so those that can't play with their friends will be left in the dirt. Or will those who aren't able to play Galaxy at War have a sort of compensation? Apart from that, I'm hopeful.

Also, I like the fact that we can play from a list of species, I shall play a Biotic Volus, and you will all KNEEL BEFORE YOUR BIOTIC GOD!!