3794 réponses à ce sujet

[spirosz]

BeefoTheBold wrote...

Do I need to try coop reading a book with my wife to know that I'd rather read a book by myself? Some things you know going in that you're not going to like based on what you know you're looking for.

I don't WANT someone's voice in my ear while I'm playing a video game.

When I want to be social, I go play basketball or poker or to a bar with my friends. When I'm trying to get immersed into pretending I'm Commander Shepard fighting a Reaver invasion is when I LEAST want to be reminded that I am, in fact, PLAYING A VIDEO GAME.

Basically the inclusion of multiplayer breaks the mood and atmosphere.

I understand, but I still don't see how it really breaks the mood and atmoshpere. My Shepard is still going to be kicking ass and fighting the Reapers.  His/her story is still there and I'm still being involved in the Mass Effect Universe with all the choices I've done since ME1.

Question, are you still open to trying out the feature and what would happen if you did enjoy it?   

Modifié par spiros9110, 11 octobre 2011 - 08:58 .

[Killjoy Cutter]

Sgt Stryker wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Sgt Stryker wrote...

Darth Vengeant wrote...

Sgt Stryker wrote...

After reading the last couple of posts, I just thought I need to clarify that being anti-social and being an introvert are two completely different things.

Actually, they aren't. Introverts tend to be FAR more anti-social than Extroverts. But, it is beside the point and not part of the discussion anyway.

I'm sorry, but it seems like your definition is slightly off. The word you're looking for is "asocial." An introvert is less social (more asocial)  than an extrovert. An anti-social person is basically a troll IRL.

True. 

(I've met a few highly extroverted anti-social people... )

I go to an SEC university, so I know exactly what that's like. Redneck fratboys, fun fun.

Ah yes, the tribal male in the throes of testertosterone overdose...  speaking of multiplayer shooter games. 

(My sympathies.)

Modifié par Killjoy Cutter, 11 octobre 2011 - 08:54 .

[DragonSlayer11]

Not what I expected, but hey new things can't be all bad, I am concerned if multi-player will take away from the single player shepard storyline, but I am also kind of looking forward to see how this multi-player goes. Thanks for the update.

[bigheadzach]

iakus wrote...

bigheadzach wrote...

Because the content they have developed for a MP game isn't strong enough yet to survive on its own as a sellable product. By adding it to the existing release, they are getting a lot of useful information on the viability of a multiplayer Mass Effect experience without the risk of a solitary release.

Also, anyone who thinks the $60 game with MP would have ended up being only sold for $40 had EA not "suggested" adding multi-player, is not paying attention to how the industry works.

So is Galaxy at  War part of "Project $20" or whatever they call it?

Or could we have gotten another 20 bucks worth of single player content?

Edit:  Or they couldn't release Galaxy at War a few months later?

"So is Galaxy at  War part of "Project $20" or whatever they call it?"

No, it's part of "Let's see how interested people are in the Mass Effect universe itself and not just the game."

"Or could we have gotten another 20 bucks worth of single player content?"

Maybe, but EA/Bioware is thinking beyond just this game. They are not treating it as a game about an individual, but about a galaxy that has plenty of stories to tell. I would argue that the money not spent on MP would not necessarily have been invested in more SP content, but 1) No one but EA/Bioware knows, and so 2) I refuse to claim they did or did not do something, and so should everyone else. Too much opinion and conjecture being stated as fact (or as more "true" than someone else's opinion.)

"Or they couldn't release Galaxy at War a few months later?"

There are several reasons why I believe (not know) they choose to do it this way:

1) The story of the MP portion takes place at the same time as the conclusion of the Shepard trilogy. Not that they couldn't do a "prequel", but marketing both at the same time is financially sound from a sales standpoint.

2) The reason I already mentioned above.


The two biggest complaints the anti-MP crowd have that carry some amount of merit are:

1) "I'm technically paying for content I won't play" (even though it's likely [OPINION] that EA simply increased the budget for the MP content on the confidence that it would increase overall sales to make up for it - including that of future games. It's not so simple as to throw more money at a game to make it better.)

2) "By hooking the player-performance of the MP portion into the SP content, I am feeling pressured to play part of the game I believe I will not enjoy." This I can't help people with, especially since Chris repeatedly stated that while MP will enhance your campaign, it by no means will detract from your canonical SP experience (unless, of course, you play it and lose badly at it, I'd figure).

So in essence:

BW/EA: "We're interested in seeing what a multi-player cooperative ME experience would be like, so we're investing a bit more money and time (at no additional retail cost to the customer) to bring you a trial-run we think will add to your enjoyment, not to mention other ways to share your enjoyment of the Mass Effect universe with friends."

Anti-MP: "But my personal tastes, personality traits, experiences with MP and the trend of teenage douchebags on the internet/XBL/PSN make me hesitant to play it. I enjoy this game because it is single-player and story driven."

BW/EA: "We understand, we do! But we're excited to see if there are other ways we can bring this game world to you that will be fun and engaging, so we'll give you the option to not play it, and it will not detract from your single-player experience. However, we do want people to give MP a try so we will tie the story in with the campaign, for the same price."

Anti-MP: "So you're saying there are parts of the story I won't get to play because I refuse to play MP?"

BW/EA: "....yes?"

Anti-MP: "Well I don't want to play MP."

BW/EA: "Then you won't get the special content. This is no different than the hours of dialogue and mocap you won't see due to the choices you didn't make during the first two games. Perhaps you should have punched that news reporter..."

Anti-MP: "But I didn't want to punch her! My Shepard wouldn't do that!"

BW/EA: "But someone else's Shepard did. Are you saying we should not let them punch the reporter simply because you wouldn't?"

In not-so-short, if they tell you a SP-only playthrough is not affected by refusing to play a portion of the game, and you call them liars, then that is your own trust issue to resolve.

Modifié par bigheadzach, 11 octobre 2011 - 09:06 .

[DaringMoosejaw]

Darkeus wrote...

Have you seen this thread?  Have you seen other forums and sites?  This is not exactly going over well.

As for giving more replayability?  Really?  not if you don't have any desire to play it.  Then it is a wasted feature.

Yeah, the integration of a worthless feature is important and a big deal when talking about this game.

If it works, I will eat my words and be the first to admit I am wrong.  But I am sure that will not be that case.

Actually, everywhere else I look is quite optimistic. It's only here that people are declaring at the top of their lungs, over and over, 'RUINED FOREVER!'.

[Darkeus]

DaringMoosejaw wrote...

Darkeus wrote...

Have you seen this thread?  Have you seen other forums and sites?  This is not exactly going over well.

As for giving more replayability?  Really?  not if you don't have any desire to play it.  Then it is a wasted feature.

Yeah, the integration of a worthless feature is important and a big deal when talking about this game.

If it works, I will eat my words and be the first to admit I am wrong.  But I am sure that will not be that case.

Actually, everywhere else I look is quite optimistic. It's only here that people are declaring at the top of their lungs, over and over, 'RUINED FOREVER!'.

We must be looking at different sites.  IGN look pretty negative.  Gamefaqs seems not all too happy.  Game trailers is Cautious but more interested in Single Player to care much anyway.

Not a good reaction I would say.

[Killjoy Cutter]

http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/323/index/8481789/86#8489364

I wonder if any of the "you anti-MP guys are all paranoid fanboy geeks" crowd is going to bother with a reasoned and civil response to the concerns listed in the post linked above...

Modifié par Killjoy Cutter, 11 octobre 2011 - 08:57 .

[whywhywhywhy]

bigheadzach wrote...

whywhywhywhy wrote...

Tasha vas Nar Rayya wrote...

If you don't like co-op, then don't play co-op.

I don't understand what the issue is here?

No issue.  People are voting with their wallet and that scares the multiplayer supporters.

No, it's just aggravating us because people are voting with their wallets out of entitlement-inspired butthurt.

Oh, I'm sorry I was under the impression I wasn't OBLIGATED to buy ME3 :innocent:

[N7Infernox]

 Just read the news, and all i can say is HELL'S YES!!!:D:D
I'm am absolutely, definitely, positively pre-ordering ME3 now. THANK-YOU BIOWARE!

[xJdazzlex]

Darkeus wrote...

xJdazzlex wrote...

Darkeus wrote...

zico291 wrote...

Darkeus wrote...

xJdazzlex wrote...

 Got to admit, at first I was a little worried if multiplayer would ruin the ME experience but I think it might give a new, interesting experience to it. Another thing is that it will make the game playing time a bit longer! 

But Mass Effect should not need co-op to make the game longer, not if you have a solid Single Player experience like all the other games have.

I have 850+ hours of playthroughs, I am pretty sure I hope that the game playing time will be fine.

Pretyy sure I hope???  Lol, that doesn't sound that confident.

It adds a new perspective to the game, I'm just interested to see if they can pull it off..

My doubts are in the "pull it off" category.  If it is not broke, it does not need fixed.  That is how I see it.  This is a high selling game without this tacked on crap..  This will not generate more sales (And may hurt them, the reaction has not been good) and has a real good chance of negatively affecting the Single Player experience.

It is a perspective better suited for a seperate game.

They were my exact thoughts, I was actually hoping that they would make a seperate game or DLC for multiplayer, just so people can focus on the ME3 singleplayer first. It will always be a singleplayer game in my mind.. 

[aquamutt]

Darkeus wrote...
Have you seen this thread?  Have you seen other forums and sites?  This is not exactly going over well.

meh i seein bit of a 40/60 divide

Darkeus wrote...
As for giving more replayability?  Really?  not if you don't have any desire to play it.  Then it is a wasted feature.

true it would be a wasted feature for you but others not so much

Darkeus wrote...
Yeah, the integration of a worthless feature is important and a big deal when talking about this game.

but your opinion regarding said feature is insignificant?

Darkeus wrote...
If it works, I will eat my words and be the first to admit I am wrong. But I am sure that will not be that case.

of course it won't be the case you've set yourself up to hate the game your standards are so high superman couldn't get over'em much less bioware

[BeefoTheBold]

spiros9110 wrote...

BeefoTheBold wrote...

Do I need to try coop reading a book with my wife to know that I'd rather read a book by myself? Some things you know going in that you're not going to like based on what you know you're looking for.

I don't WANT someone's voice in my ear while I'm playing a video game.

When I want to be social, I go play basketball or poker or to a bar with my friends. When I'm trying to get immersed into pretending I'm Commander Shepard fighting a Reaver invasion is when I LEAST want to be reminded that I am, in fact, PLAYING A VIDEO GAME.

Basically the inclusion of multiplayer breaks the mood and atmosphere.

I understand, but I still don't see how it really breaks the mood and atmoshpere. My Shepard is still going to be kicking ass and fighting the Reapers.  His/her story is still there and I'm still being involved in the Mass Effect Universe with all the choices I've done since ME1.

Question, are you still open to trying out the feature and what would happen if you did enjoy it?  

Not really. The feature has no appeal to me. It isn't specific to Mass Effect. Multiplayer in general doesn't interest me. I've played plenty of multiplayer and coop games in the past. I've tried out games like RE5 coop. It just ruins the experience for me because the biggest factor of my enjoyment of a game is the story.

Having other people talking to me ruins the mood. To me, this is an utterly wasted feature and money that could be better spent in ensuring that Bioware fully wraps up all the dangling loose threads of character choices that are hanging out there from the first two games in a fun (read: actual story consequences instead of an email on Shep'sc omputer) way.

It could be the funnest multiplayer around and of the highest quality polish and development and I wouldn't play it because it just isn't a part of my tastes. It's like how some people don't like Racing games. It doesn't matter how good the Racing game is, if you don't like Racing games then it doesn't make much difference if it is a good Racing game or a bad Racing game.

[someguy1231]

Of all the arguments I've heard against MP, "it'll mess up my achievements" has to be the most pathetic.

[Dark_Caduceus]

whywhywhywhy wrote...

bigheadzach wrote...

whywhywhywhy wrote...

Tasha vas Nar Rayya wrote...

If you don't like co-op, then don't play co-op.

I don't understand what the issue is here?

No issue.  People are voting with their wallet and that scares the multiplayer supporters.

No, it's just aggravating us because people are voting with their wallets out of entitlement-inspired butthurt.

Oh, I'm sorry.

At least someone is being civil in thread...

[DarthSliver]

I was thinking, why dont they make Co-Op locked until you beat the game once?

I think it would show how much more important Shepards story is vs the Co-Op story.

[BeefoTheBold]

bigheadzach wrote...

iakus wrote...

bigheadzach wrote...

Because the content they have developed for a MP game isn't strong enough yet to survive on its own as a sellable product. By adding it to the existing release, they are getting a lot of useful information on the viability of a multiplayer Mass Effect experience without the risk of a solitary release.

Also, anyone who thinks the $60 game with MP would have ended up being only sold for $40 had EA not "suggested" adding multi-player, is not paying attention to how the industry works.

So is Galaxy at  War part of "Project $20" or whatever they call it?

Or could we have gotten another 20 bucks worth of single player content?

Edit:  Or they couldn't release Galaxy at War a few months later?

"So is Galaxy at  War part of "Project $20" or whatever they call it?"

No, it's part of "Let's see how interested people are in the Mass Effect universe itself and not just the game."

"Or could we have gotten another 20 bucks worth of single player content?"

Maybe, but EA/Bioware is thinking beyond just this game. They are not treating it as a game about an individual, but about a galaxy that has plenty of stories to tell. I would argue that the money not spent on MP would not necessarily have been invested in more SP content, but 1) No one but EA/Bioware knows, and so 2) I refuse to claim they did or did not do something, and so should everyone else. Too much opinion and conjecture being stated as fact (or as more "true" than someone else's opinion.)

"Or they couldn't release Galaxy at War a few months later?"

There are several reasons why I believe (not know) they choose to do it this way:

1) The story of the MP portion takes place at the same time as the conclusion of the Shepard trilogy. Not that they couldn't do a "prequel", but marketing both at the same time is financially sound from a sales standpoint.

2) The reason I already mentioned above.


The two biggest complaints the anti-MP crowd have that carry some amount of merit are:

1) "I'm technically paying for content I won't play" (even though it's likely [OPINION] that EA simply increased the budget for the MP content on the confidence that it would increase overall sales to make up for it - including that of future games. It's not so simple as to throw more money at a game to make it better.)

2) "By hooking the player-performance of the MP portion into the SP content, I am feeling pressured to play part of the game I believe I will not enjoy." This I can't help people with, especially since Chris repeatedly stated that while MP will enhance your campaign, it by no means will detract from your canonical SP experience (unless, of course, you play it and lose badly at it, I'd figure).

I'll add one more.

3) Is this the tip of an iceburg which is the continual movement of Bioware's development decisions further and further away from us? Is this the first in a series of progressively more MP type decisions?

For example, are we going to be seeing coop Warden and Champion in Dragon Age 3 next?

Basically, there's a TREND of decisions taking place with Bioware right now that people who (mostly) happen to fall in the anti-MP crowd disagree with. It's a trend towards what Bioware calls "streamlining" their games and making their games more "accessible" to a wider audience and what folks like me call "dumbing them down".

[zico291]

DarthSliver wrote...

I was thinking, why dont they make Co-Op locked until you beat the game once?

I think it would show how much more important Shepards story is vs the Co-Op story.

I am not sure whether this is a good idea or a bad idea, because lets face it some people might just buy the game for the co-op.

Modifié par zico291, 11 octobre 2011 - 09:05 .

[Reaper Kitten of Doom]

Really excited about the "Galaxy at war" feature! Want to know more!

Hoping to see local co-op. I don't want to have to buy gold membership to play co-op.
Playing as another character than Shepard will be fun.

Keep up the good work Bioware team!

[Dark_Caduceus]

zico291 wrote...

DarthSliver wrote...

I was thinking, why dont they make Co-Op locked until you beat the game once?

I think it would show how much more important Shepards story is vs the Co-Op story.

I am sure  this is a good idea.

Good thinking.

[spirosz]

BeefoTheBold wrote...

Not really. The feature has no appeal to me. It isn't specific to Mass Effect. Multiplayer in general doesn't interest me. I've played plenty of multiplayer and coop games in the past. I've tried out games like RE5 coop. It just ruins the experience for me because the biggest factor of my enjoyment of a game is the story.

Having other people talking to me ruins the mood. To me, this is an utterly wasted feature and money that could be better spent in ensuring that Bioware fully wraps up all the dangling loose threads of character choices that are hanging out there from the first two games in a fun (read: actual story consequences instead of an email on Shep'sc omputer) way.

It could be the funnest multiplayer around and of the highest quality polish and development and I wouldn't play it because it just isn't a part of my tastes. It's like how some people don't like Racing games. It doesn't matter how good the Racing game is, if you don't like Racing games then it doesn't make much difference if it is a good Racing game or a bad Racing game.

Okay that's fine, was just curious as to your outlook towards the idea. To each it's own, though on the bolded part, I really hope they do nail that aspect of our choices and not go the email route again, but that's another discussion for another time!

Modifié par spiros9110, 11 octobre 2011 - 09:07 .

[whitey2525]

DarthSliver wrote...

I was thinking, why dont they make Co-Op locked until you beat the game once?

I think it would show how much more important Shepards story is vs the Co-Op story.

One of the best ideas here. it could also be unlocked after you complete insanity if people are still butt hurt even after beating the game once

[Dark_Caduceus]

whitey2525 wrote...

DarthSliver wrote...

I was thinking, why dont they make Co-Op locked until you beat the game once?

I think it would show how much more important Shepards story is vs the Co-Op story.

One of the worst ideas here.

I thought it was pretty good.

[Cainne Chapel]

BeefoTheBold wrote...

shep82 wrote...

No but I trust in Bioware they have yet to do anything to loose that trust.

1. Dragon Age 2
2. Witch Hunt
3. The Arrival
4. Awakenings (Good game...just half-finished and didn't allow your choices from DAO to have much of an impact unless you were a human noble.)
5. Kinect
6. MMO Kotor instead of KOTOR3
7. Strongly implying for months that no MP in ME3 only to reverse course at close to the last minute

I could go on. People who complain about Bioware recently may not necessarily DISLIKE Bioware, but they may dislike the (rapidly accelerating) direction of their business strategy in a direction that is away from their tastes and preferences.

I love Bioware. I own all of their games and most of the DLC. I've been one of the fans that has been there with them from the beginning. They lost my preorder with this decision.

Lets see.
1. I like Dragon Age 2 actually, not the greatest game i ever played, but not horrible.
2. Witch hunt, eh it was ok i guess.
3. Kinda liked Arrival
4. Awakenings was decent.
5. Kinect, MS pushed for it, so BW is incorporating it, the kinect sensor does the work horse load of the work so bioware just has to implement commands, nothing really hard to do, sow hats the problem.
6. Hmm... unfortunately Bioware does not OWN the license, but were contracted to do so, much the same way Lucasarts contracted SOE to do the first SW MMO.  COuld they have turned it down? Yeah but they dont control that IP so.... blame lucasarts for that.
7.  They implied no such thing, this isn't MP its Co Op, big difference technically and they said nothing one oway or another, they merely stated their main goal is to make SP as best as it can be....which is why i think they mentioned another studio is handling it.

Whether their business decisions stray away from the long time hardcore, is of no difference, Bioware is a COMPANY  an AT PROFIT COMPANY.  THey dont make games out of the kindness of their hearts, they do it because they're a business.  Now they cant produce crap and keep making money, so they have to fall somewhre near good, popular and proftiable to retain any viability.

They may have lost your preorder, which is sad that one announcment as an added benefit is enough to push you over the edge, but then you wouldn't really be a fan now would you? No you would just be someone that likes to blow things out of proportion and hop on any of the latest news with vitriol.

Me? Still gonna buy it.  AS it doesn't matter to me whether CooP is there or not.  *shrug* Guess I'm more of a fan then huh?  But then again, I've also liked the Lions for the last 29 years too, being my home team and all, and dont just hop on the bandwagon now that their "Good"

[Ruud333]

Darkeus wrote...

We must be looking at different sites.  IGN look pretty negative.  Gamefaqs seems not all too happy.  Game trailers is Cautious but more interested in Single Player to care much anyway.

Not a good reaction I would say.

People are a lot more vocal when they dislike something than when they are happy