186 réponses à ce sujet

[GodWood]

The plot was non-existent.
The gameplay was boring.
And the missions were pretty much the exact same thing for every single level.

Everything Mario 64 did Donkey Kong 64, Banjo Kazooie and OoT did better.

[Darkeus]

Ringo12 wrote...

Harbinger of your Destiny wrote...

Watch everyone love the multiplayer when it comes out. Seriously I can so see everyone looking back at the fear and apprehension and just laughing about it.

Bioware also had experience with multiplayer gaming. Look at Baldur's Gate 1,2 and Neverwinter Nights also The Old Republic is an MMO.

Unless the Multiplayer sucks ass and ruins the experience.  They the naysayers will look back and say, "We told you so!"

[Gladegunner]

Darkeus wrote...

Ringo12 wrote...

Harbinger of your Destiny wrote...

Watch everyone love the multiplayer when it comes out. Seriously I can so see everyone looking back at the fear and apprehension and just laughing about it.

Bioware also had experience with multiplayer gaming. Look at Baldur's Gate 1,2 and Neverwinter Nights also The Old Republic is an MMO.

Unless the Multiplayer sucks ass and ruins the experience.  They the naysayers will look back and say, "We told you so!"

Unless the Multiplayer makes you suck ass and improves the experience. Then the Naysayers will look back at the other naysayers and say "We told YOU so".

Modifié par Gladegunner, 11 octobre 2011 - 05:49 .

[b09boy]

Funny.

You mention of Metroid Prime, but not Metroid Prime 2, where multiplayer was attempted and cut noticeably into the final game. They didn't try again with corruption.

The Wind Waker was feared to be incredibly kiddy, and it was. The game was still well-polished, but it had a cartoonish design and is arguably the easiest Zelda to be released.

You mention Portal 2 yet fail to realize it is created by a company which has excelled at both first person storytelling as well as multiplayer for about as long as they've existed. Nor do you mention the instant amount of love the idea of co-op received as it looked to be a natural progression of the puzzle-solving.

[Chromie]

GodWood wrote...

The plot was non-existent.
The gameplay was boring.
And the missions were pretty much the exact same thing for every single level.

Everything Mario 64 did Donkey Kong 64, Banjo Kazooie and OoT did better.

Save the princess. That's it other than Mario Sunshine I can't really think of when the plot was different and only the original even bothered reminding you and that was by saying "THank you for saving me but the Princess is in another castle" does that really make you feel better?

Gameplay was not boring. You not liking it doesn't make it so. It had a lot of variety and is basically the blueprint for Mario Galaxy which is amazing. Yes there were some repetitive missions like get all the red coins and defeat X boxx but it's still fun and each world had so much going that I never found a problem with it. It's not like it was the same mission in 4 environments or 1 cave.

And if you really can't tell the diference betwen Ocarina of TIme, Banjo Kazooie and Super Mario 64 then well idk what to tell you.

[111987]

Teredan wrote...

But now to the examples from the Threadcreator.

Now for me it was quite logical that Metroid Prime became a FPS. I mean you have a 2d platformer about shooting transfering it into 3d. Of course adjustments had to be made to set it apart from the mud of FPS that exist and to ensure it's predecessors spirit.

The Zelda one on the other hand is a good example. Back then there was a lot of controvery going on and there still probably is. But to me the Zelda games were never really dark and serious looking. I mean look at the NPCs and its quite clear that it's not the dark middle ages. Because of that I always was in support of the Wind Waker which I think is the best Zelda game to date because of its timeless design. Twilight Princess was great but its my least liked Zelda game.

And for the last example here I can't agree. I always thought that coop would fit portal greatly. I mean it's a freaking puzzle game. Solving puzzles in groups is always better than alone. Be it crosswords or dungeon puzzle in RPGs etc.

Now for Mass Effect. I don't see how MP would enhance the experience that Mass Effect is known for. From all the reports about this it will be a tag on for the game.

The point I was making about Metroid Prime is that it was harshly criticized and judged before anyone had even played it, and it turned out to be amazing, as in one of the all-time greats. While you personally may have liked the idea and believed it logical (as did I), the vast majority disagreed. They ended up eating their words though.

For Portal 2, I also thought multiplayer would be a great addition, but if you go back and look at some old posts on IGN (that's just the main gaming site I visit), there were quite a few people furious over the decision, just like people on these forums are furious about multiplayer. It wasn't to the same degree, but it's a similar situation.

[111987]

b09boy wrote...

Funny.

You mention of Metroid Prime, but not Metroid Prime 2, where multiplayer was attempted and cut noticeably into the final game. They didn't try again with corruption.

The Wind Waker was feared to be incredibly kiddy, and it was. The game was still well-polished, but it had a cartoonish design and is arguably the easiest Zelda to be released.

You mention Portal 2 yet fail to realize it is created by a company which has excelled at both first person storytelling as well as multiplayer for about as long as they've existed. Nor do you mention the instant amount of love the idea of co-op received as it looked to be a natural progression of the puzzle-solving.

If anything, Metroid Prime 2 supports the idea that a multiplayer mode can be added onto a primarily singleplayer experience without taking away from the campaign. The Metroid Prime 2 campaign was stellar.

The Wind Waker was kiddy? You might want to revisit the game; on the surface it may appear to be kiddy, but if you really think about some of the subtext and themes of the game, it is rather dark. Anyways, my point about the Wind Waker was that it was a radical shift in a beloved franchise that pissed off a large perecentage of the fanbase, yet the game still turned out to be one of the best in the series.

Portal 2's co-op did get a lot of instant love, but so has Mass Effect's multiplayer. The detractors I've noticed simploy most more often and more passionately.

Modifié par 111987, 11 octobre 2011 - 05:56 .

[GodWood]

Ringo12 wrote...
And if you really can't tell the diference betwen Ocarina of TIme, Banjo Kazooie and Super Mario 64 then well idk what to tell you.

I can tell the difference.
BK, DK64 and OoT are all excellent games. Mario 64 is not an excellent game.

But that wasn't my point anyway. I never said that those games were the same as M64.
I said everything M64 did, they did better.
Completely different.

Modifié par GodWood, 11 octobre 2011 - 05:58 .

[Harbinger of your Destiny]

GodWood wrote...

Ringo12 wrote...
And if you really can't tell the diference betwen Ocarina of TIme, Banjo Kazooie and Super Mario 64 then well idk what to tell you.

I can tell the difference.
BK, DK64 and OoT are all excellent games. Mario 64 is not an excellent game.

But that wasn't my point anyway. I never said that those games were the same as M64.
I said everything M64 did, they did better.
Completely different.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

mario 64 not an excellent game your killing me

[111987]

GodWood wrote...

Ringo12 wrote...
And if you really can't tell the diference betwen Ocarina of TIme, Banjo Kazooie and Super Mario 64 then well idk what to tell you.

I can tell the difference.
BK, DK64 and OoT are all excellent games. Mario 64 is not.

But that wasn't my point anyway. I never said that those games were the same as M64, I said everything M64 did, they did better.
Completely different.

Well to each their own, I suppose. I think the majority of people do consider Mario 64 to be an all-time great, or at least revolutionary, but like I said even the all-time greats have their share of haters and detractors.

Keep in mind though that Mario 64 was Nintendo's first real foray into 3-d platforming/adventure. All those other games came out 2-3 years after Mario 64. They may have been better games (I actually happen to agree, those were all fantastic games), but Mario 64 was the foundation upon which those games were built.

But anyways, perhaps this discussion should be moved to the Off-Topic forum, or to PM's.

[Lunatic LK47]

Gladegunner wrote...

I think we can agree that although there examples of both surprising success's and disdainful regresses in some games that moved away from their strengths, that this is a part of the game regardless of what we think. They have already put man-hours into this, and pushing this back is simply the worst option out of living and playing with it, living with and not playing it, or going backwards. Mass Effect has tried alot of experimentation with its DLC's, and personally I think this addition should have been an actual DLC. But before we close our minds to it, or open our minds too far, we should wait until actual gameplay footage instead of bashing the itch.

I brought MW3 up  in terms of "I knew the game is going to be bad after reading about the news." Lo and behold, the E3 Demos failed to capture my interest, and even the leaked footage of one of the S.A.S. missions already proved my point. In other words, pre-judging is not completely unreasonable when you look at the bigger picture.

Modifié par Lunatic LK47, 11 octobre 2011 - 06:24 .

[Lunatic LK47]

111987 wrote...


Perhaps Mass Effect 3 will turn out to be a disappointment. But for all the haters and naysayers, why don't you at least give it a chance? Because if history is in any indication, you might miss out on one hell of a game.

Uh, problem is, I signed on for a SINGLE-PLAYER TRILOGY ONLY. Not "Two single-player games, and a third game with tacked-on multiplayer."

[111987]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

Gladegunner wrote...

I think we can agree that although there examples of both surprising success's and disdainful regresses in some games that moved away from their strengths, that this is a part of the game regardless of what we think. They have already put man-hours into this, and pushing this back is simply the worst option out of living and playing with it, living with and not playing it, or going backwards. Mass Effect has tried alot of experimentation with its DLC's, and personally I think this addition should have been an actual DLC. But before we close our minds to it, or open our minds too far, we should wait until actual gameplay footage instead of bashing the itch.

I brought MW3 up  in terms of "I knew the game is going to be bad after reading about the news." Lo and behold, the E3 Demos failed to capture my interest, and even the leaked footage of one of the S.A.S. missions already proved my point. In other words, pre-judging is not completely unreasonable when you look at the bigger picture.

Nothing wrong with pre-judging, as long as an open mind is kept. If you're unsure about it, wait till it comes out, see the reviews, watch some vids of it on YouTube, etc...

This thread is more for the people who are saying they absolutely refuse to have anything to do with the game anymore at this current point in time.

[Lunatic LK47]

111987 wrote...


Nothing wrong with pre-judging, as long as an open mind is kept. If you're unsure about it, wait till it comes out, see the reviews, watch some vids of it on YouTube, etc...

This thread is more for the people who are saying they absolutely refuse to have anything to do with the game anymore at this current point in time.

I'm going to side with them on this. I've something called past experience. Saw this with Resident Evil 5, F.E.A.R. 3, every Halo game starting since the Halo 2, as well as every Tom Clancy shooter I managed to play. Last thing I want is ME3 joining the next set of duds that flopped just because of the existence of multiplayer.

[Harbinger of your Destiny]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

111987 wrote...


Nothing wrong with pre-judging, as long as an open mind is kept. If you're unsure about it, wait till it comes out, see the reviews, watch some vids of it on YouTube, etc...

This thread is more for the people who are saying they absolutely refuse to have anything to do with the game anymore at this current point in time.

I'm going to side with them on this. I've something called past experience. Saw this with Resident Evil 5, F.E.A.R. 3, every Halo game starting since the Halo 2, as well as every Tom Clancy shooter I managed to play. Last thing I want is ME3 joining the next set of duds that flopped just because of the existence of multiplayer.

WHAT DUDS ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT! Honest to God people what do you consider a good game let alone a great game. Either you people are crazy or you just so misinthropic you might as well be crazy.

[Notlikeyoucare]

If Naughty Dog can make Uncharted 2's multiplayer be fun, enjoyable, and unique in their first venture into multiplayer gaming, it can be done in Mass Effect 3 as well.

[Juha81FIN]

Biggest issue for me is that they have eaten their words with bringing multiplayer in ME 3, whole series was promised to be without MP and I hoped if they ever bring MP it would be part of spinoff game. There are already so many MP in consoles that come and go.

[Lunatic LK47]

Harbinger of your Destiny wrote...

I'm going to side with them on this. I've something called past experience. Saw this with Resident Evil 5, F.E.A.R. 3, every Halo game starting since the Halo 2, as well as every Tom Clancy shooter I managed to play. Last thing I want is ME3 joining the next set of duds that flopped just because of the existence of multiplayer.

WHAT DUDS ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT! Honest to God people what do you consider a good game let alone a great game. Either you people are crazy or you just so misinthropic you might as well be crazy.

Read my bolded parts about games that became duds. As for what I consider a great game: I want great gameplay and great story. Second of all, I value SINGLE PLAYER OVER ANYTHING ELSE. I found multiplayer to be nothing more than an over-hyped fad and am sick of EVERY OTHER GAME HAVING IT.

[Harbinger of your Destiny]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

Harbinger of your Destiny wrote...

I'm going to side with them on this. I've something called past experience. Saw this with Resident Evil 5, F.E.A.R. 3, every Halo game starting since the Halo 2, as well as every Tom Clancy shooter I managed to play. Last thing I want is ME3 joining the next set of duds that flopped just because of the existence of multiplayer.

WHAT DUDS ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT! Honest to God people what do you consider a good game let alone a great game. Either you people are crazy or you just so misinthropic you might as well be crazy.

Read my bolded parts about games that became duds. As for what I consider a great game: I want great gameplay and great story. Second of all, I value SINGLE PLAYER OVER ANYTHING ELSE. I found multiplayer to be nothing more than an over-hyped fad and am sick of EVERY OTHER GAME HAVING IT.

You are still nuts I found the Halo campaigns to be some of the best I have ever played. Same goes for the splinter cell games. Seriously I was able to play the Halo 2 and 3 campaign every day for a month.

Modifié par Harbinger of your Destiny, 11 octobre 2011 - 07:29 .

[Lunatic LK47]

Harbinger of your Destiny wrote...

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

Harbinger of your Destiny wrote...

I'm going to side with them on this. I've something called past experience. Saw this with Resident Evil 5, F.E.A.R. 3, every Halo game starting since the Halo 2, as well as every Tom Clancy shooter I managed to play. Last thing I want is ME3 joining the next set of duds that flopped just because of the existence of multiplayer.

WHAT DUDS ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT! Honest to God people what do you consider a good game let alone a great game. Either you people are crazy or you just so misinthropic you might as well be crazy.

Read my bolded parts about games that became duds. As for what I consider a great game: I want great gameplay and great story. Second of all, I value SINGLE PLAYER OVER ANYTHING ELSE. I found multiplayer to be nothing more than an over-hyped fad and am sick of EVERY OTHER GAME HAVING IT.

You are still nuts I found the Halo campaigns to be some of the best I have ever played. Same goes for the splinter cell games. Seriously I was able to play the Halo 2 and 3 campaign every day for a month.

Was referring to Rainbow Six and Ghost Recon, moron.

[Harbinger of your Destiny]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

Harbinger of your Destiny wrote...

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

Harbinger of your Destiny wrote...

I'm going to side with them on this. I've something called past experience. Saw this with Resident Evil 5, F.E.A.R. 3, every Halo game starting since the Halo 2, as well as every Tom Clancy shooter I managed to play. Last thing I want is ME3 joining the next set of duds that flopped just because of the existence of multiplayer.

WHAT DUDS ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT! Honest to God people what do you consider a good game let alone a great game. Either you people are crazy or you just so misinthropic you might as well be crazy.

Read my bolded parts about games that became duds. As for what I consider a great game: I want great gameplay and great story. Second of all, I value SINGLE PLAYER OVER ANYTHING ELSE. I found multiplayer to be nothing more than an over-hyped fad and am sick of EVERY OTHER GAME HAVING IT.

You are still nuts I found the Halo campaigns to be some of the best I have ever played. Same goes for the splinter cell games. Seriously I was able to play the Halo 2 and 3 campaign every day for a month.

Was referring to Rainbow Six and Ghost Recon, moron.

OH I'M SORRY I CAN"T READ YOUR MIND you do realize that TOM CLANCY SHOOTER encompaces a very broad spectrum of games. And you call me a moron. 

[RGC_Ines]

Don't care about MP but there's only thing that worried me. MP influence on my single player game. In other thread there is said that playing MP will affect ultimate victory in single ME3 campaign..so it means that I can't to have my perfect ending if I don't want to MP?

[Spanky Magoo]

Well im really on the fence about this multiplayer feature myself. I dont really know how its going to turn out but all I know is If they can put in co-op then they can put in my favorite squad as permanent. I dont really see the need for it and I think it should have been an afterthought personally. I think it should be completely seperate from the single player, by that I mean it shouldnt have any affect on how one or the other plays out.

The whole tie-in to the main game was done best in splinter cell: chaos theory imo, a few little one-off events that had sam talking with the players or completeing an objective for each other but you didnt have to do either thing for the game to assume that one side had been done.

Idk hopefully its good but I will remain skeptical until proven otherwise.

[BloodRaith]

RGC_Ines wrote...

Don't care about MP but there's only thing that worried me. MP influence on my single player game. In other thread there is said that playing MP will affect ultimate victory in single ME3 campaign..so it means that I can't to have my perfect ending if I don't want to MP?

Go read the sticky, MP can affect the single player campaign, BUT it is not necessary to get the complete "perfect" ending. Completely optional, created by another branch of Bioware than the one that made the single player campaign.

[111987]

RGC_Ines wrote...

Don't care about MP but there's only thing that worried me. MP influence on my single player game. In other thread there is said that playing MP will affect ultimate victory in single ME3 campaign..so it means that I can't to have my perfect ending if I don't want to MP?

If you read the whole FAQ, you'll see that it is possible to get the best, optimal ending solely through singleplayer