3794 réponses à ce sujet

[darthnick427]

 

had to. hahaha.

I initially hated the idea but after this info I'm on board.

[Razorburn]

I think this will be a fun addition to ME3. Co-op instead of PvP is also a great move considering all the nerfing whiny PvPers would eventually be demanding.

This is the only real question I have...

Chris Priestly wrote...


Can I play as Commander Shepard?

• Commander Shepard’s part in the war will take place in the single-player campaign, as will that of other beloved characters in the franchise such as Garrus, Ashley, and Liara…these characters do not appear in the multiplayer missions. In multiplayer, players will create custom characters to fight on different and unique fronts in the war. This will include the ability to play as favorites like Turians, Krogans, Asari and more… each with their own unique set of abilities.

ME is about Cmdr Shepard, yet the main characters don't appear in the multiplayer missions?! The war is centered around the main characters, why would I want to play a character who is so insignificant as to not be a part of the storyline? I hope there is some story to the multiplayer character at least, I wouldn't want to play Alliance11543, aka just another guy Shepard would one-shot-kill on any map.

Also, I'd like to know if you have access to multiplayer from the start or if you have to play the game and unlock it?

[Drone223]

[Iohanna]

Finally some news! 

And I'm still on the fence.  I'll just wait until more details about this are given. The only concern I have right now is exactly how well is it going to tie in into the Single Player.

Sure you get to create your character, and that sounds very cool (You better let me do My Quarian Sniper Gal OC BioWare! ). It's a good way to both include growth in the universe of the game and expand it, and provide the player with a new blank slate character that can take part in any number of missions and give players a new view on the galactic happenings, all while letting them make OCs they care about or have fantasized.

But after two games playing as Shepard, I fear this will cause some sort of character whiplash. You're playing as Shepard and "Meanwhile, in another corner of the Universe..." and then in pops your character (and a bunch of other ones), and you play with her, and then the mission ends and you're back to Shepard again. At least that's the impression I have, and it sounds a little jarring to me. I guess it depends a lot on how they're handling these new characters.

All in all, I want to remain positive about it, but I'll wait for further info before I embrace it as a righteous divine blessing or a devilish pit of doom. That said, I'll still probably play full single player first, as I intended initially, and then try the multiplayer on subsequent playthroughs. If this new multiplayer modes hooks me in, all the better! I can never go wrong with more Mass Effect! 

[Guywhoiam]

At first I was pessimistic about the multiplayer. But it has grown on me.

[Doug4130]

Fenderbaum wrote...

Doug4130 wrote...

Marionetten wrote...

If you want more of this stuff then by all means buy the game and support it. I won't as I don't. What is so exceedingly difficult to comprehend in that?

I get that, but it just seems like such a trivial thing to warrant not finishing the mass effect story since it's a completely optional feature that only affects you if you let it.

This quote from Chris would suggest otherwise....

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.

I know what you mean, that was worded poorly on his part I think.  He also said that you never had to participate in multiplayer to get the complete ending.  It exists as another means to the same end.  You can still get the same results by not participating in multiplayer as you can playing by yourself

[KBomb]

Maslab wrote...

I dunno what that's like.  I never believed in Santa.

It was a metaphor. Quite a simple one at that. Surely, you don’t have to literally wonder what it would feel like. It’s pretty elementary. My point being, since you seemed to have missed it, is: I want to believe in this, I want to believe it’s going to be something wonderful. However, I am getting the feeling it’s only wishful thinking and blind hopefulness and instead of joy, I am feeling disappointed. I would love to be proved wrong.
　

And if I get to play as a Hanar or Elcor, I will never criticize it.

Yeah, good luck with that.

[Arsenal0602]

Tim French wrote...

As this is optional and has a different studio working on it, so the main story will not be effected by it (other then in a minor way if I am reading it correctly), as I am taking it as you get somany items from playing the MP, but I can see the same items being found gained in side missions etc in the main story. With that being my theory I don't care that much about the issue.

However as I am a crazy person, I hope there is no achievements for doing all missions in 4 player co-op, as I can get a team up to 3 with my friends, but the fourth is tricky and I want to keep my 100% streak alive. That is my only issue.

Agreed on the achievements issue, as for the rest, this doesn't impact me unless the only way to get the perfect ending is to beat the game on inanity with 4 other people under and hour, it is not going to bother me and will just be something fun to do with some friends, maybe even get a friend who didn't like Mass Effect into the game.

As long as it only impacts the game in a minor way I can't understand why people wouldn't get the game.

[Darth Vengeant]

Adding as a separate entity is not bad, HOWEVER, if you are required to play the Multi-Player in order to get all the achievements, than I am very unhappy. Not every single freakin' game needs multiplayer. Multiplayer achievements ANNOY me and ruin the possibility of getting 100% on a game. Also, I don't know enough people to play 4 player in any game, I am not a social butterfly. So, achievements that require 4 player and such are not possible for me. It is very unfair. Please, make all achievements in ME3 single player based. The previous 2 games have been, so this one should be as well. This is the last game in the trilogy, which has been Single Player, so I feel Multi-Player should have been used in another ME universe game later. Not this one. This announcement does not set well in my stomach.

Modifié par Darth Vengeant, 11 octobre 2011 - 07:03 .

[RAndoM121]

 This looks rather interesting to me.  Now the only question I have is if I can play as a Geth platform.  I think it'd be fun.

[whywhywhywhy]

whywhywhywhy wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
So your saying that rpgs never had MP and it's a bad thing is has mp because it's EA?

No, I'm saying exactly what I said!

dreman9999 wrote...  Then you are say it's bad for rpg to have MP,

Pay attention this time.  No.  I was talking about the feature in general and why it's bad in this day and age.  I didn't touch the topic of it being bad by being added to a specific genre or bad because produced/published the game.

dreman9999 wrote...
even though they had it before

The ME series never had MP.  So what the heck are you talking about ?

dreman9999 wrote...
and that because it's from EA, it's a bad thing.

I never said MP was not as good as it use to be because of EA but because of common day practices of game development.

You seem to be be going out of your way to draw me into this conversation, why ?

Modifié par whywhywhywhy, 11 octobre 2011 - 07:06 .

[exskeeny]

Kakita Tatsumaru wrote...

Doug4130 wrote...
Because whether it affects it or not is completely your choice.  Nothing is being forced on you at all, in the slightest.  You can pretend that multiplayer is not there, never click it once, and it will not affect your experience in any way shape or form.  You don't want multiplayer?  Don't play it then.  People who do want it will play it.  Everybody gets to do it the way they want to.  

I want to have more single player experience with the money spend on multplayer, can I have it?

no

[Marionetten]

KiddDaBeauty wrote...

The snowball effect is a logical fallacy though. But I do agree with you that the day multiplayer starts taking resources away from single player the way you're probably imagining the future atm, I'll be right there with you. As will most people, I believe.

Right now though, it's just like if you were walking down to the local ICA to buy a can of soda. As you hand the can to the cashier, the person there says "you can have a milk too if you want it btw, free of charge". Saying "I don't drink milk though, so I won't buy your soda", you leave the supermarket without soda and milk completely. What was the point? You could've had the soda you wanted, you could've left the milk at the counter never to feel that bovine taint on your tongue.

It would be more like them pouring out half of my soda and replacing it with milk. I wouldn't buy that, no. You know that those zots haven't materialized out of thin air. In fact, BioWare keeps reminding us of just how limited and precious they are. Every single cent spent on the multiplayer component could have been spent on improving the singleplayer. Free? No such thing.

And logical fallacy or not the snowball effect is quite real in the industry. Why do you think Mass Effect is getting multiplayer now? Everything has to have it. Assassin's Creed, Fable, Mass Effect. Everything. I wouldn't be surprised if Dragon Age III gets an arena mode. Not a development I wish to be a part of, sorry.

KiddDaBeauty wrote...

BG2 multiplayer was strongly connected to the campaign though. It -was- the campaign and other people could join and leave your campaign as they wished to (and you as a host allowed to). Just like with ME3 though, you could hit the Single player button and never look at the Multiplayer button and enjoy yourself completely offline without any online features finding its way into your world.

There was no connection between singleplayer and multiplayer other than the multiplayer reusing the singleplayer content. I'm perfectly fine with that. It had zero impact on my experience and it probably didn't take much time to develop. The problem arrives when you start making exclusive multiplayer content effectively taking away resources from what matters and letting it influence the singleplayer. This is what is happening with Mass Effect 3.

Modifié par Marionetten, 11 octobre 2011 - 07:09 .

[darthnick427]

Drone223 wrote...

I'll bring the beer

[Doug4130]

Marionetten wrote...

There was no connection between singleplayer and multiplayer other than the multiplayer using the singleplayer content. I'm perfectly fine with that. The problem arrives when you start making exclusive multiplayer content effectively taking away resources from what matters and letting it influence the singleplayer. This is what is happening with Mass Effect 3.

Except it's not, as the resources being spent to develop multiplayer have nothing to do with the resources being used to develop single player.  I'm not sure if you read it or not, but the team doing multiplayer is a seperate Bioware studio

[CroGamer002]

Razorburn wrote...

I think this will be a fun addition to ME3. Co-op instead of PvP is also a great move considering all the nerfing whiny PvPers would eventually be demanding.

This is the only real question I have...

Chris Priestly wrote...


Can I play as Commander Shepard?

• Commander Shepard’s part in the war will take place in the single-player campaign, as will that of other beloved characters in the franchise such as Garrus, Ashley, and Liara…these characters do not appear in the multiplayer missions. In multiplayer, players will create custom characters to fight on different and unique fronts in the war. This will include the ability to play as favorites like Turians, Krogans, Asari and more… each with their own unique set of abilities.

ME is about Cmdr Shepard, yet the main characters don't appear in the multiplayer missions?! The war is centered around the main characters, why would I want to play a character who is so insignificant as to not be a part of the storyline? I hope there is some story to the multiplayer character at least, I wouldn't want to play Alliance11543, aka just another guy Shepard would one-shot-kill on any map.

Also, I'd like to know if you have access to multiplayer from the start or if you have to play the game and unlock it?

Mass Effect is NOT about Commander Shepard, but this trilogy is.

But this Co-Op missions are an alternative views from other soldiers in this trilogy. It's actually very neat feature, don't you think?

Besides, it would be stupid to have 4 Commander Shepard's doing a mission that happens in main Singleplayer campaign that Commander Shepard didn't had influence over it.

[Darth Vengeant]

Doug4130 wrote...
Because whether it affects it or not is completely your choice.  Nothing is being forced on you at all, in the slightest.  You can pretend that multiplayer is not there, never click it once, and it will not affect your experience in any way shape or form.  You don't want multiplayer?  Don't play it then.  People who do want it will play it.  Everybody gets to do it the way they want to.  

Your wrong. You are being "forced" to do it if there are multiplayer achievments. I feel it is unfair. I have always felt there should be two separate types of achievements. One area for Single Player, and one area for Multiplayer. That way you can still get 100% in the Single Player part and never even have to worry about the rednundant and trendy Mutliplayer band wagon everyone is jumping on. Games like Assassins Creed and Dead Space do NOT need Multiplayer and would be much better off without it. Some people work very hard to get 100% in their games, but being forced to play part of the game they really dont care at all to play in order tyo get them is unfair. I can't count how many games I would have 100% on if it were not for the stupid mutliplayer achievemtns ruining it. No, not everyone enjoys playing with others all the time. That is why I am looking forward to Batman Arkham City so much, not a spec of Multiplayer or Co-Op in it.

Modifié par Darth Vengeant, 11 octobre 2011 - 07:13 .

[Marionetten]

Doug4130 wrote...

Except it's not, as the resources being spent to develop multiplayer have nothing to do with the resources being used to develop single player.  I'm not sure if you read it or not, but the team doing multiplayer is a seperate Bioware studio

And are they paid in imaginary money? I also assume that these people are clones of people already working on Mass Effect 3. Different team or not the multiplayer component isn't free. Please, let's stop with that absolutely ridiculous argument. It costs money and it requires labor, yes? That money and that labor could have been spent on Mass Effect 3 unless you wish to suggest that Mass Effect 3 is going to be a perfect game with no issues or shortcomings.

Modifié par Marionetten, 11 octobre 2011 - 07:12 .

[KBomb]

Doug4130 wrote...


Except it's not, as the resources being spent to develop multiplayer have nothing to do with the resources being used to develop single player.  I'm not sure if you read it or not, but the team doing multiplayer is a seperate Bioware studio

The budget still had to come from somewhere. That is still money budgeted out for Mass Effect 3 and it still could have been used toward the SP experience. Regardless, it’s money that is in the ME3 budget, no matter what division worked on it. I can’t speak for him, but I think that is what he is saying.

[BeefoTheBold]

Darth Vengeant wrote...

Doug4130 wrote...
Because whether it affects it or not is completely your choice.  Nothing is being forced on you at all, in the slightest.  You can pretend that multiplayer is not there, never click it once, and it will not affect your experience in any way shape or form.  You don't want multiplayer?  Don't play it then.  People who do want it will play it.  Everybody gets to do it the way they want to.  

Your wrong. You are being "forced" to do it if there are multiplayer achievments. I feel it is unfair. I have always felt there should be two separate types of achievemetns. One area for Single Player, and one area for Multiplayer. That way you can still get 100% in the Single Player part and never even have to worry about the rednundant and trendy Mutliplayer band wagon everyone is jumping on. Games like Assassins Creed and Dead Space do NOT need Multiplayer and would be much better off without it. Some people work very hard to get 100% in their games, but being forced to play part of the game they really dont care at all to play in order tyo get them is unfair. I can't count how many games I would have 100% on if it were not for the stupid mutliplayer achievemtns ruining it. No, not everyone enjoys playing with others all the time. That is why I am looking forward to Batman Arkham City so much, not a spec of Multiplayer or Co-Op in it.

Cosigned. My feelings exactly.

[Drone223]

Mesina2 wrote...

Razorburn wrote...

I think this will be a fun addition to ME3. Co-op instead of PvP is also a great move considering all the nerfing whiny PvPers would eventually be demanding.

This is the only real question I have...

Chris Priestly wrote...


Can I play as Commander Shepard?

• Commander Shepard’s part in the war will take place in the single-player campaign, as will that of other beloved characters in the franchise such as Garrus, Ashley, and Liara…these characters do not appear in the multiplayer missions. In multiplayer, players will create custom characters to fight on different and unique fronts in the war. This will include the ability to play as favorites like Turians, Krogans, Asari and more… each with their own unique set of abilities.

ME is about Cmdr Shepard, yet the main characters don't appear in the multiplayer missions?! The war is centered around the main characters, why would I want to play a character who is so insignificant as to not be a part of the storyline? I hope there is some story to the multiplayer character at least, I wouldn't want to play Alliance11543, aka just another guy Shepard would one-shot-kill on any map.

Also, I'd like to know if you have access to multiplayer from the start or if you have to play the game and unlock it?

Mass Effect is NOT about Commander Shepard, but this trilogy is.

But this Co-Op missions are an alternative views from other soldiers in this trilogy. It's actually very neat feature, don't you think?

Besides, it would be stupid to have 4 Commander Shepard's doing a mission that happens in main Singleplayer campaign that Commander Shepard didn't had influence over it.

+1

[Fenderbaum]

Mesina2 wrote...

But this Co-Op missions are an alternative views from other soldiers in this trilogy. It's actually very neat feature, don't you think?.

Great idea yes...but why does it have to be co-op...what would have been wrong with "Complete the game and unlock bonus missions to play from a diferent POV" ????

[Cimeas]

I think this is great, I can't wait to play as a Krogan!
However, I am worried about this 'galactic readiness' 'O' meter. Seems unnecessary and stupid to tie singleplayer to multiplayer. I'm not sure I want to have to listen to whiny racist kids over the mic to get extra stuff in SP.

[Arsenal0602]

BeefoTheBold wrote...

Darth Vengeant wrote...

Doug4130 wrote...
Because whether it affects it or not is completely your choice.  Nothing is being forced on you at all, in the slightest.  You can pretend that multiplayer is not there, never click it once, and it will not affect your experience in any way shape or form.  You don't want multiplayer?  Don't play it then.  People who do want it will play it.  Everybody gets to do it the way they want to.  

Your wrong. You are being "forced" to do it if there are multiplayer achievments. I feel it is unfair. I have always felt there should be two separate types of achievemetns. One area for Single Player, and one area for Multiplayer. That way you can still get 100% in the Single Player part and never even have to worry about the rednundant and trendy Mutliplayer band wagon everyone is jumping on. Games like Assassins Creed and Dead Space do NOT need Multiplayer and would be much better off without it. Some people work very hard to get 100% in their games, but being forced to play part of the game they really dont care at all to play in order tyo get them is unfair. I can't count how many games I would have 100% on if it were not for the stupid mutliplayer achievemtns ruining it. No, not everyone enjoys playing with others all the time. That is why I am looking forward to Batman Arkham City so much, not a spec of Multiplayer or Co-Op in it.

Cosigned. My feelings exactly.

Agreed add me on this list.

[onelifecrisis]

My god this thread is like a broken record.

Well nobody seems to have pointed this out yet, so, to the endless procession of people saying that the MP is a seperate team in a seperate place with seperate funding:

How exactly do you imagine this MP stuff is going to get into the final game? Do you think that the two companies exist in their own little worlds and that just before release Montreal are going to email the code and say, "there you go, just plug it in and you're all set"?