3794 réponses à ce sujet

[Darth Vengeant]

Arsenal0602 wrote...

johnxtreeme wrote...

Arsenal0602 wrote...

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.

Why do you care about achievements?  They have no effect on games, money, life?  You don't get rewards or free stuff and also, its EXTREMELY likely there will be multiplayer achievements, and they can't 'split' them because games can only have a certain number of achievements and by definition you can't get 100% completion on a game you haven't completed!

Because I do, no reason other then that.  

For a game that I like a lot, I have always done perfect runs of the game where I would do everything FInal Fantasy games, Zelda, KOTOR,  Resident Evil games I have always done perfect runs where I get every item find ever secret and do everything I can in the game, it is dedication to something I enjoy.

MP achivments take away from this for me, it is one thing to get an achievement for doing something in the SP I can take care of that with some effort,  but in MP I can't always do that, VS is worse the Co-op most likley any and all MP achievements will not be that hard to get but I still have no intrest in having to deal with them, I probably can't find a friend to be the 4th person on MP, because between schedules and the fact that not all my friends like Mass effect so there goes that one.

So why do I care about achivments? I really don't for most games, the game has to be one I actually care about for me to put the effort into it, but if I really like a game why wouldn't I want to get 100% on it? 

Gods man, it is like you are typing my words. It is so nice to read someone else saying this. The Multiplayer based Achivements in Resident Evil 5 ruined my 100% possibility. Some of them are just ridiculous frankly. The ones in Assassins Creed Brotherhood also ruined my possibility of 100%, I have 100% in AC1 and AC2. Also, I have the same problem finding 4 people, for ANY game. Developers obviously never think about this when designing achievements and must think everyone has a million friends. It really pi**ses me off. Requiring you to play a game with a set amount of people in order to earn an achievement that get's you your 100% is frankly ridiculous and unfair. Burnout Paradise had some achievements that required 8 people for crying out loud, yes 8!!! One even required you to have a frakin Webcam for you Xbox to use in Burnout Paradise. Just flat our ridiculous man.

[Taciter]

Sigh.... so many people feigning disbelief at the possibility of a sceptical audience.

Is it so hard to believe that someone for whom the 'Mass Effect' franchise has been so rewarding might not relish the prospect of a multiplayer 'optional extra'? If so, let me try to articulate some of the misapprehensions these people have expressed.

1) There are precious few single-player 'only' RPG's being released these days, as a result, those who don't see the appeal of multiplayer gaming have designated the 'Mass Effect' franchise their welcome refuge and digital home from home - the place they go to escape from reality and mute the incessant drone of social interaction. The intrusion of multiplayer into our beloved fantasy undermines the core ideology to which we subscribe.

2) Perhaps naively, many of us believed that the 'Mass Effect' franchise would stay true its origins and retain the identity for which it has become so renowned and to which it owes much of its success. Mass Effect has served as a galvanising influence for all those discerning gamers for whom the words 'multiplayer' and 'shooter' invoke nausea and disdain. This move, no matter how subtle, feels like an imposition, not an invitation.

3) Anyone who suggests that simply 'not playing' this 'optional' chapter in the 'Mass Effect' saga will in no way detract from the overall game is clearly not thinking rationally. No matter how inconsequential the outcome, there's still content in them there files, content pertaining to 'Mass Effect' lore. It doesn't matter what kind of content, be it new characters, new maps, new dialogue, new plot revelations or just new skins and weapons - it's STILL content. By specifically targeting multiplayer supporters as the worthy beneficiaries of this content, you have inadvertently precluded and thereby alienated anyone who doesn't share your passion for multiplayer gaming.

4) Instead of foisting this 'take it or leave it' approach on to loyal subscribers as some sort of punitive ultimatum, how about simply providing the player with the choice of using 'bots'. I know I go on about AI squaddies but surely, it makes sense. The transition in gameplay, especially seeing as the MP element is apparently co-op based, would be practically seamless. For solo players it would be virtually indistinguishable from the rest of the game (except that it might require an internet connection) and for multiplayers, it would be irrelevant.

Anyway, said my piece. If Bioware did take it upon themselves to incorporate an AI squad feature, I would be happy to withdraw my hesitations.

[aquamutt]

Arsenal0602 wrote...

Mesina2 wrote...

@Darth Vengeant don't give me this completionist garbage.


If you really care to get 100%, you'll get friends or deal with some random people for a Co-Op achievements.

Of course that is the solution, but it shouldn't be, there is no need to ever have to rely on others to get an achievement.   Plus not everyone has gold, or the systems on the internet, kick of a kick in the teeth for those people. 

and most aren't obsessed with getting all the achievements/trophies

[CroGamer002]

Arsenal0602 wrote...

Mesina2 wrote...

@Darth Vengeant don't give me this completionist garbage.


If you really care to get 100%, you'll get friends or deal with some random people for a Co-Op achievements.

Of course that is the solution, but it shouldn't be, there is no need to ever have to rely on others to get an achievement.   Plus not everyone has gold, or the systems on the internet, kick of a kick in the teeth for those people. 

Well then they should just deal with it then or get a decent Internet connection if they are that much bothered.

[Mike 9987]

i am canceling my preorder. This is BS. Not going to be worth $100 for the collector's edition.

[BeefoTheBold]

Taciter wrote...

Sigh.... so many people feigning disbelief at the possibility of a sceptical audience.

Is it so hard to believe that someone for whom the 'Mass Effect' franchise has been so rewarding might not relish the prospect of a multiplayer 'optional extra'? If so, let me try to articulate some of the misapprehensions these people have expressed.

1) There are precious few single-player 'only' RPG's being released these days, as a result, those who don't see the appeal of multiplayer gaming have designated the 'Mass Effect' franchise their welcome refuge and digital home from home - the place they go to escape from reality and mute the incessant drone of social interaction. The intrusion of multiplayer into our beloved fantasy undermines the core ideology to which we subscribe.

2) Perhaps naively, many of us believed that the 'Mass Effect' franchise would stay true its origins and retain the identity for which it has become so renowned and to which it owes much of its success. Mass Effect has served as a galvanising influence for all those discerning gamers for whom the words 'multiplayer' and 'shooter' invoke nausea and disdain. This move, no matter how subtle, feels like an imposition, not an invitation.

3) Anyone who suggests that simply 'not playing' this 'optional' chapter in the 'Mass Effect' saga will in no way detract from the overall game is clearly not thinking rationally. No matter how inconsequential the outcome, there's still content in them there files, content pertaining to 'Mass Effect' lore. It doesn't matter what kind of content, be it new characters, new maps, new dialogue, new plot revelations or just new skins and weapons - it's STILL content. By specifically targeting multiplayer supporters as the worthy beneficiaries of this content, you have inadvertently precluded and thereby alienated anyone who doesn't share your passion for multiplayer gaming.

4) Instead of foisting this 'take it or leave it' approach on to loyal subscribers as some sort of punitive ultimatum, how about simply providing the player with the choice of using 'bots'. I know I go on about AI squaddies but surely, it makes sense. The transition in gameplay, especially seeing as the MP element is apparently co-op based, would be practically seamless. For solo players it would be virtually indistinguishable from the rest of the game (except that it might require an internet connection) and for multiplayers, it would be irrelevant.

Anyway, said my piece. If Bioware did take it upon themselves to incorporate an AI squad feature, I would be happy to withdraw my hesitations.

Exceptionally well said.

[Darth Vengeant]

Durka531 wrote...

Ok i'll be honest and say that I only read the first 9 pages before giving up but I have to ask can this "co op" be finished with bots? because to tell you the truth I'm the anti social type and i really don't play well with others. To put that in perspective you know how steam tells you how many hours you've played a game ? well between ME1 and 2 I've "invested" almost 400 hours. now for multiplayer games you can count that in minutes.Heh i never even bothered with the co op in portal 2.

Same here man. It is why I hate most VS Multiplayer. I hate dealing with annoying immature screaming idiots online in a game. It is worse when it is some 10 yr old flipping out or annoying people on purpose ruining your game. I play better alone or with people I know are mature. I like taking my time and doing things myself without the hassle of others. Game developers need to start being a bit more fair to gamers and realize not everyone is a social butterfly and not force multiplayer aspects in games so much.

[Killjoy Cutter]

Taciter wrote...

Sigh.... so many people feigning disbelief at the possibility of a sceptical audience.

Is it so hard to believe that someone for whom the 'Mass Effect' franchise has been so rewarding might not relish the prospect of a multiplayer 'optional extra'? If so, let me try to articulate some of the misapprehensions these people have expressed.

1) There are precious few single-player 'only' RPG's being released these days, as a result, those who don't see the appeal of multiplayer gaming have designated the 'Mass Effect' franchise their welcome refuge and digital home from home - the place they go to escape from reality and mute the incessant drone of social interaction. The intrusion of multiplayer into our beloved fantasy undermines the core ideology to which we subscribe.

2) Perhaps naively, many of us believed that the 'Mass Effect' franchise would stay true its origins and retain the identity for which it has become so renowned and to which it owes much of its success. Mass Effect has served as a galvanising influence for all those discerning gamers for whom the words 'multiplayer' and 'shooter' invoke nausea and disdain. This move, no matter how subtle, feels like an imposition, not an invitation.

3) Anyone who suggests that simply 'not playing' this 'optional' chapter in the 'Mass Effect' saga will in no way detract from the overall game is clearly not thinking rationally. No matter how inconsequential the outcome, there's still content in them there files, content pertaining to 'Mass Effect' lore. It doesn't matter what kind of content, be it new characters, new maps, new dialogue, new plot revelations or just new skins and weapons - it's STILL content. By specifically targeting multiplayer supporters as the worthy beneficiaries of this content, you have inadvertently precluded and thereby alienated anyone who doesn't share your passion for multiplayer gaming.

4) Instead of foisting this 'take it or leave it' approach on to loyal subscribers as some sort of punitive ultimatum, how about simply providing the player with the choice of using 'bots'. I know I go on about AI squaddies but surely, it makes sense. The transition in gameplay, especially seeing as the MP element is apparently co-op based, would be practically seamless. For solo players it would be virtually indistinguishable from the rest of the game (except that it might require an internet connection) and for multiplayers, it would be irrelevant.

Anyway, said my piece. If Bioware did take it upon themselves to incorporate an AI squad feature, I would be happy to withdraw my hesitations.

Well said. 

Also, http://social.biowar...1789/86#8489364 
(added two more reasons I'm suspicious of MP, that I had forgotten when first posting that list)

Modifié par Killjoy Cutter, 11 octobre 2011 - 07:39 .

[Razorburn]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

1) The diversion of resources (and don't come back and say "these were extra resources", there's no such thing, money, time, and effort are all fungible) in order to create the MP content and modes.   

2) Higher likelihood of Origin being required for installation and running of the ME3 software. 

3) Risk of anti-"cheating" measures for MP play making modding for SP play far more difficult, greatly reducing the replayability of the game and thus the lifespan of the investment. 

4)  Etc. 

I understand where you're coming from completely. However, Bioware is great at rpg's and am glad they are adding other elements to their games. Not to mention getting into MMO's with SWTOR, can't wait for that to come out. But before I actually play ME3, and actually have a solid reason for an opinion, I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt and just hope it plays well.

[Valtauran]

Well, this certainly won't be of any use to me, since i play on casual because all i care about is the story, any higher makes the game more difficult for absolutely no return.

So, unless i meet players that don't mind the casual setting, i would be ok with doing some co-op, after i do my own run through on my own, but since 90% of players play on Veteran or higher setting, i won't be able to play.

They did say that the SP and MP are totally seperate, so that means mods will likely be possible, but you would need to make sure to have them removed when you take part in multiplayer, its like using a trainer in a single player portion of a game and then deciding to play a pvp game with someone, just make sure to remove the cheating part and quit the game and then restart it.

It shouldn't be an issue.

Modifié par Valtauran, 11 octobre 2011 - 07:42 .

[wright1978]

Giantdeathrobot wrote...

Except it would NOT have been used for single-player because it's A DIFFERENT STUDIO with A DIFFERENT BUDGET. The ressouces would NOT have been unlocked unless multiplayer was added. What is hard to understand in this, dammit?

Every experience i've had of project management is that it does affect the day job of those involved. Resources might have not been there for single player & a new studio to work on it but it is hardly certain key people's time won't have been diverted from single player to overseeing this new Co-op feature. I'm still hoping the single player rocks but it understandable that people have qualms.

[BeefoTheBold]

Mesina2 wrote...

Arsenal0602 wrote...

Mesina2 wrote...

@Darth Vengeant don't give me this completionist garbage.


If you really care to get 100%, you'll get friends or deal with some random people for a Co-Op achievements.

Of course that is the solution, but it shouldn't be, there is no need to ever have to rely on others to get an achievement.   Plus not everyone has gold, or the systems on the internet, kick of a kick in the teeth for those people. 

Well then they should just deal with it then or get a decent Internet connection if they are that much bothered.

OR...they could complain on the Bioware forums about their dissatisfaction with the decision. Feel free to read threads OTHER than the "co-op multiplayer" thread if you don't want to see people who don't like the idea voice their criticisms.

Did you honestly come into this thread expecting everyone to agree with your viewpoint?

[zico291]

All I need is for them to either make sure that players who play singleplayer still get the same benfits as you would when playing co-op. Or Add AI to the co-op.

[I_pity_the_fool]

Taciter wrote...

Sigh.... so many people feigning disbelief at the possibility of a sceptical audience.

Is it so hard to believe that someone for whom the 'Mass Effect' franchise has been so rewarding might not relish the prospect of a multiplayer 'optional extra'? If so, let me try to articulate some of the misapprehensions these people have expressed.

1) There are precious few single-player 'only' RPG's being released these days, as a result, those who don't see the appeal of multiplayer gaming have designated the 'Mass Effect' franchise their welcome refuge and digital home from home - the place they go to escape from reality and mute the incessant drone of social interaction. The intrusion of multiplayer into our beloved fantasy undermines the core ideology to which we subscribe.

2) Perhaps naively, many of us believed that the 'Mass Effect' franchise would stay true its origins and retain the identity for which it has become so renowned and to which it owes much of its success. Mass Effect has served as a galvanising influence for all those discerning gamers for whom the words 'multiplayer' and 'shooter' invoke nausea and disdain. This move, no matter how subtle, feels like an imposition, not an invitation.

3) Anyone who suggests that simply 'not playing' this 'optional' chapter in the 'Mass Effect' saga will in no way detract from the overall game is clearly not thinking rationally. No matter how inconsequential the outcome, there's still content in them there files, content pertaining to 'Mass Effect' lore. It doesn't matter what kind of content, be it new characters, new maps, new dialogue, new plot revelations or just new skins and weapons - it's STILL content. By specifically targeting multiplayer supporters as the worthy beneficiaries of this content, you have inadvertently precluded and thereby alienated anyone who doesn't share your passion for multiplayer gaming.

4) Instead of foisting this 'take it or leave it' approach on to loyal subscribers as some sort of punitive ultimatum, how about simply providing the player with the choice of using 'bots'. I know I go on about AI squaddies but surely, it makes sense. The transition in gameplay, especially seeing as the MP element is apparently co-op based, would be practically seamless. For solo players it would be virtually indistinguishable from the rest of the game (except that it might require an internet connection) and for multiplayers, it would be irrelevant.

Anyway, said my piece. If Bioware did take it upon themselves to incorporate an AI squad feature, I would be happy to withdraw my hesitations.

When I heard the news about multiplayer, my butler had to use the smelling salts to revive me. Must bioware intrude their beastly multiplayer desires into the refined atmosphere we have worked so long to cultivate here? There would be quite a to-do were the Archbishop and Colonel aware of the dastardly machinations of this Mr Casey Hudson. He seems quite the rogue!

[Killjoy Cutter]

Mesina2 wrote...

Well then they should just deal with it then or get a decent Internet connection if they are that much bothered.

Why should gaming ever require an internet connection at all?  What the hell happened to buying a game, installing it on your PC or putting the medium into the console, and playing the damn thing? 

[stonbw1]

I wouldn't be shocked if the inclusion of MP in ME3 is simply a way for BW/EA to test the waters for a future MP-based game surrounding ME-related stories.

[Darth Vengeant]

Mesina2 wrote...

@Darth Vengeant don't give me this completionist garbage.


If you really care to get 100%, you'll get friends or deal with some random people for a Co-Op achievements.

To YOU it is garbage, to others it is not. That is my point. Making it fair for EVERYONE. Some people enojy it, you obviously dont care. But, why ruin others enjoyment just because YOU dont care? See my point?

So, your saying I should be forced to socialize with people I do not want to deal with inorder to earn the 100% in a game? I think not. News flash. Not everyone is Mr Social. Not everyone enjoys having to deal with others all the time. Some people, which this may suprise you, are quite anti-social. It is called being an Introvert. It does't mean there is something wrong with us either. Introverts are very creative and artistic. We enjoy the quiet of solitude and doing things on our own. We are all different people.

Modifié par Darth Vengeant, 11 octobre 2011 - 07:55 .

[DarthSliver]

edit

Modifié par DarthSliver, 11 octobre 2011 - 07:46 .

[whywhywhywhy]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Mesina2 wrote...

Well then they should just deal with it then or get a decent Internet connection if they are that much bothered.

Why should gaming ever require an internet connection at all?  What the hell happened to buying a game, installing it on your PC or putting the medium into the console, and playing the damn thing? 

They want us to forget we use to be able to do that.  BUT I will never forget!! Never.

[CroGamer002]

BeefoTheBold wrote...

OR...they could complain on the Bioware forums about their dissatisfaction with the decision. Feel free to read threads OTHER than the "co-op multiplayer" thread if you don't want to see people who don't like the idea voice their criticisms.

Did you honestly come into this thread expecting everyone to agree with your viewpoint?

Eh, no?


Where did you even get the idea from my reply about that?

[Arsenal0602]

Mesina2 wrote...

Arsenal0602 wrote...

Mesina2 wrote...

@Darth Vengeant don't give me this completionist garbage.


If you really care to get 100%, you'll get friends or deal with some random people for a Co-Op achievements.

Of course that is the solution, but it shouldn't be, there is no need to ever have to rely on others to get an achievement.   Plus not everyone has gold, or the systems on the internet, kick of a kick in the teeth for those people. 

Well then they should just deal with it then or get a decent Internet connection if they are that much bothered.

Why?  If a person wants to get a game that has always been single player and that is all they play and are interested in is single player games why should they have to change their lifestyle around?  The road goes both ways on this issue.

Do I have my system online? Yes
Will I get 100% in this game- Yes
Is it going to be a bigger pain then it should be by adding MP? Maybe.

Dead Space 2 did it right by tacking on MP, it didn't effect anyone that didn't want to play it,  Resident Evil 5 did it the wrong way by adding achievments to the game for MP.  Just because you don't find them to be important doesn't mean they are not important to other people.  Add on to that, the only thing that is worse then people not getting the achievements are the people who could get their games ruined by people boosting.

[aquamutt]

Darth Vengeant wrote...

Mesina2 wrote...

@Darth Vengeant don't give me this completionist garbage.


If you really care to get 100%, you'll get friends or deal with some random people for a Co-Op achievements.

To YOU it is garbage, to others it is not. That is my point. Making it fair for EVERYONE. Some people enojy it, you obviously dont care. But, why ruin others enjoyment just because YOU dont care? See my point?

So, your saying I should be forced to socialize with people I do not want to deal with inorder to earn the 100% in a game? I think not. News flash. Not everyone is Mr Social. Not everyone enjoys having to deal with others all the time. Some people, which this may suprise you, are quite anti-social. It is called being an Introvert. It does't mean there is something wrong with us either. Introverts are very creative and artistic. We enjoy the quite of solitude and doing things on our own. We are all different people.

your the type of person EA loves

[Darth Vengeant]

BeefoTheBold wrote...

OR...they could complain on the Bioware forums about their dissatisfaction with the decision. Feel free to read threads OTHER than the "co-op multiplayer" thread if you don't want to see people who don't like the idea voice their criticisms.

Did you honestly come into this thread expecting everyone to agree with your viewpoint?

Well said. There are WAY too many people online who do not understand the simple fact that OTHER people have a differing opinion and preference than them. No, not everyone likes the same things you do. Wow, what a concept heh? Instead of attacking and trying to silence people who are not in favor of the subject, remember that everyone has an opinion and they should all be heard. Not silenced.

[Fenderbaum]

Mesina2 wrote...

BeefoTheBold wrote...

OR...they could complain on the Bioware forums about their dissatisfaction with the decision. Feel free to read threads OTHER than the "co-op multiplayer" thread if you don't want to see people who don't like the idea voice their criticisms.

Did you honestly come into this thread expecting everyone to agree with your viewpoint?

Eh, no?


Where did you even get the idea from my reply about that?

Because you're being an arrogant **** maybe?

Modifié par Fenderbaum, 11 octobre 2011 - 07:48 .

[BeefoTheBold]

stonbw1 wrote...

I wouldn't be shocked if the inclusion of MP in ME3 is simply a way for BW/EA to test the waters for a future MP-based game surrounding ME-related stories.

This too.

It isn't JUST MP in a singleplayer trilogy that alarms folks, it's the very real possibility that this is the tip of the iceberg.

I'm sure that a coop Dragon Age 3 that has one person playing the Warden and the other playing the Champion will be announced any day now.