186 réponses à ce sujet

[jeweledleah]

portal 2 was the game that made me very cautious when buying games that claim to have both single and multiplayer campaigns. sure the main game was fun. but it was short and has pretty much no replayable value to it. I'm pretty sure that if they would focus on single player alone - they could have increased the length of the campaign. or reduce the price.

if you are someone who doesn't enjoy multiplayer and/or cannot partake in it? when the set up is like portal (and that's what it looks like ME3 will have) it means a huge part of the game will be completely inaccessible to you. and yet you are still required to pay a full price.

I recently bought Bordelands. what convinced me to buy it was one simple fact (other then the fact that it was dirt cheap at the time for complete game, DLC's included). you could access any and all content on your own. you could play full game solo and offline. the only real difference is that loot is better when you are playing co-op.

now, what it looks like right now - MP missions inME3 are extensive... and only available if you do in fact play online. essentially like portal 2. and just like portal 2, I have this nagging suspicion that single player game was both made shorter and adjusted to accommodate multiplayer's ability to influence its outcomes - you know to follow through with the whole "another option to gain combat readiness" spiel. an "option" that is not really available to everyone.. but everyone must pay for it.

not everyone likes toplay MP. not everyone even plays online. so this right here? not even an optional, separate DLC, oh no. part of the main game that everyone must pay for. there are 2 options that will make me feel better about it. not happy, but better.

make it truly optional. sell the game without it at reduced price.

or make the missions available offline for those who exclusively solo.

[Gladegunner]

I guess by putting it in the full game it is a large experiment effectively. Most games wont let you pay for only the parts you want, and Mass Effect 3 appears to be no different.

[111987]

I'm sure Mass Effect 3 isn't any more expensive with multiplayer than it would have been without. When Mass Effect 2 first came out it was 60$, and Mass Effect 3 is the same price, no?

But anyways, that's not really the point of this thread. The purpose of this thread is to show how similarly scrutinized games turned out to be incredible.

[jeweledleah]

but it could have been longer. it could have more single player content. or it could have come out earlier.

and your point is among other things that portal 2 was incredible. i don't know. I haven't touched it since I passed the solo campaign and all I can say is that I'm glad I waited to buy it on sale. it wasn't bad but so not worth the money. not if you don't do MP.

the point is - not everyone likes MP, period. think of it this way. I hate onions. I cannot stand the smell or the taste of them. so no matter how you cook them for me, no matter how much you try to convince me that this one particular recipe is GREAT! I STILL hate onions. so we go to this restaurant where you pay equal amount per person and its served as a sort of smorgasbord of food. except some of that food has onions in it. so I cannot eat it. and yet - I'm still expected to pay for it. and told - that I should try it, maybe I'll like it!.

no.

[111987]

jeweledleah wrote...

but it could have been longer. it could have more single player content. or it could have come out earlier.

and your point is among other things that portal 2 was incredible. i don't know. I haven't touched it since I passed the solo campaign and all I can say is that I'm glad I waited to buy it on sale. it wasn't bad but so not worth the money. not if you don't do MP.

the point is - not everyone likes MP, period. think of it this way. I hate onions. I cannot stand the smell or the taste of them. so no matter how you cook them for me, no matter how much you try to convince me that this one particular recipe is GREAT! I STILL hate onions. so we go to this restaurant where you pay equal amount per person and its served as a sort of smorgasbord of food. except some of that food has onions in it. so I cannot eat it. and yet - I'm still expected to pay for it. and told - that I should try it, maybe I'll like it!.

no.

But your example isn't revelant, because the price of the game doesn't raise with the addition of multiplayer.

Not everyone will think all of those games I talked about were great, but the vast majority of do.

Longer =/= better. If they just dragged out the singleplayer of ME3, that wouldn't make it good. Since the teams worked separately, BioWare obviously didn't reduce the length/size of the singleplayer because of multiplayer. And since they are still polishing the game, including the singleplayer, it's probably a good thing the game was delayed.

[jeweledleah]

portal one was not as expensive. not all games are sold at 59.99 on release day. you are assuming they would just drag it out. but we are already getting confirmations of ME2 squad-mates getting sidelined and cameo'ed. maybe they would have been able to give them larger roles instead? maybe they could have implemented "pick out your own squad, just chose between the options" feature - something that was hinted at and then abandoned. and I could go on.

not to mention - if they have time to create entirely new levels and character creator just to accommodate multiplayer, why is making those levels accessible for solo play - is going too far?

pretty sure at this point that game was delayed for 2 major reasons, with Skyrim being used as a convenient excuse, since holidays are big for game sales.  reason one - kinect.  reason 2 - multiplayer.

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

[BloodRaith]

jeweledleah wrote...

portal one was not as expensive. not all games are sold at 59.99 on release day. you are assuming they would just drag it out. but we are already getting confirmations of ME2 squad-mates getting sidelined and cameo'ed. maybe they would have been able to give them larger roles instead? maybe they could have implemented "pick out your own squad, just chose between the options" feature - something that was hinted at and then abandoned. and I could go on.

not to mention - if they have time to create entirely new levels and character creator just to accommodate multiplayer, why is making those levels accessible for solo play - is going too far?

pretty sure at this point that game was delayed for 2 major reasons, with Skyrim being used as a convenient excuse, since holidays are big for game sales.  reason one - kinect.  reason 2 - multiplayer.

It's being made by a separate team though. Sure, maybe they delayed the game to add multiplayer, but that leaves the same dev team still working on the non-multiplayer parts of the game, so it isn't like the entire focus is on multiplayer now and nothing else at the expense of dev time for single player.

[Il Divo]

jeweledleah wrote...

but it could have been longer. it could have more single player content. or it could have come out earlier.

and your point is among other things that portal 2 was incredible. i don't know. I haven't touched it since I passed the solo campaign and all I can say is that I'm glad I waited to buy it on sale. it wasn't bad but so not worth the money. not if you don't do MP.

the point is - not everyone likes MP, period. think of it this way. I hate onions. I cannot stand the smell or the taste of them. so no matter how you cook them for me, no matter how much you try to convince me that this one particular recipe is GREAT! I STILL hate onions. so we go to this restaurant where you pay equal amount per person and its served as a sort of smorgasbord of food. except some of that food has onions in it. so I cannot eat it. and yet - I'm still expected to pay for it. and told - that I should try it, maybe I'll like it!.

no.

Fair point. And this becomes any issue with any feature. I don't like exploration in my Bioware games. I find that it actively detracts from the gameplay/narrative experience. ME's exploration really brought the game down in my eyes. The same applies to a feature, such as multiplayer. Anything which you dislike or don't plan on using represents resources which could have gone elsewhere. That said, alot of this comes down to whether we believe that Bioware had the single player campaign laid out before starting multiplayer development. If that's the case, the only "negative" to the experience is the delay which comes while they institute this new multiplayer.

[RGC_Ines]

BloodRaith wrote...

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.

Thank You very much. Didn't notice this sticky thread 
Thank You also 111987

Modifié par RGC_Ines, 11 octobre 2011 - 02:57 .

[DarthAsthma]

jeweledleah wrote...

portal 2 was the game that made me very cautious when buying games that claim to have both single and multiplayer campaigns. sure the main game was fun. but it was short and has pretty much no replayable value to it. I'm pretty sure that if they would focus on single player alone - they could have increased the length of the campaign. or reduce the price.

if you are someone who doesn't enjoy multiplayer and/or cannot partake in it? when the set up is like portal (and that's what it looks like ME3 will have) it means a huge part of the game will be completely inaccessible to you. and yet you are still required to pay a full price.

I recently bought Bordelands. what convinced me to buy it was one simple fact (other then the fact that it was dirt cheap at the time for complete game, DLC's included). you could access any and all content on your own. you could play full game solo and offline. the only real difference is that loot is better when you are playing co-op.

now, what it looks like right now - MP missions inME3 are extensive... and only available if you do in fact play online. essentially like portal 2. and just like portal 2, I have this nagging suspicion that single player game was both made shorter and adjusted to accommodate multiplayer's ability to influence its outcomes - you know to follow through with the whole "another option to gain combat readiness" spiel. an "option" that is not really available to everyone.. but everyone must pay for it.

not everyone likes toplay MP. not everyone even plays online. so this right here? not even an optional, separate DLC, oh no. part of the main game that everyone must pay for. there are 2 options that will make me feel better about it. not happy, but better.

make it truly optional. sell the game without it at reduced price.

or make the missions available offline for those who exclusively solo.

To be fair you are nuts. Portal 2 SP was fairly long considering it's genre (well ok since its somewhat its own genre First Person Puzzle game I'll compare it to the next thing akin to it FPS). So by that standart I don't know what you wanted more. The MP added to the experience perfectly and also blended in into the main story, so it's entirely your fault for not wanting to play it. I mean if you're hungry but don't want to eat who are you blaming then?

On the other hand someone explain me how a ME MP will enhance the core experience that is known as Mass Effect? We won't get group conversation, renegade/paragon decision, etc etc. I will probably be a tag on shooter game mode with level up option. 

[Teredan]

Il Divo wrote...

Fair point. And this becomes any issue with any feature. I don't like exploration in my Bioware games. I find that it actively detracts from the gameplay/narrative experience. ME's exploration really brought the game down in my eyes. The same applies to a feature, such as multiplayer. Anything which you dislike or don't plan on using represents resources which could have gone elsewhere. That said, alot of this comes down to whether we believe that Bioware had the single player campaign laid out before starting multiplayer development. If that's the case, the only "negative" to the experience is the delay which comes while they institute this new multiplayer.

The problem with your example is that the feature of exploration is a core mechanic in any rpg whereas MP isn't.
Now add to that EA stupid statement that every game need MP and we have no reason to believe that this feature will do any good.

[YouthCultureForever]

Don't understand why everyone hates the mulitplayer tag ME3 has been given. It doesn't mean death to the singleplayer experience. There don't seem to be many PS3 gamers on these forums, so I'll speak up for the Uncharted franchise as it's the perfect example of how multiplayer doesn't negatively impact a game.

Uncharted: Drake's Fortune had a very good story, solid gameplay, but no multiplayer. Uncharted 2: Among Theives surpassed it's predecessor in every way, better graphics, awesome story, new characters, better action sequences, excellent gameplay with intuitive controls. All that would have been enough, but it's biggest and arguably it's best editon was multiplayer.

I don't play alot of mulitplayer games, in fact it's the only multiplayer I play with any regularity. It's different from CoD and Battlefield and military based FPS multiplayers. It's rather easy to pick up and play. And compared to Uncharted 3, 2's multiplayer may as well be considered a beta. I don't think anyone can argue that Uncharted's core experience isn't the singleplayer mode. It undoubtedly is, and multiplayer complements that experience very well.

How would co-op integrate the "Mass Effect" experience, the dialogue trees and decisions? It could operate in a similar way co-op objective works in Uncharted 2. There is a set story for the level, the characters interact, and then they go off to do the objective and whatever comes up along the way. It's absolutely my favorite MP mode.

I probably sound like the biggest Uncharted fangirl that ever was, but it is the Playstation's best game for a reason. Uncharted fans don't pick on Naughty Dog the way Mass Effect fans do Bioware. Let's trust that what they're doing will be done well.

Modifié par YouthCultureForever, 11 octobre 2011 - 04:25 .

[Harbinger of your Destiny]

Teredan wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

Fair point. And this becomes any issue with any feature. I don't like exploration in my Bioware games. I find that it actively detracts from the gameplay/narrative experience. ME's exploration really brought the game down in my eyes. The same applies to a feature, such as multiplayer. Anything which you dislike or don't plan on using represents resources which could have gone elsewhere. That said, alot of this comes down to whether we believe that Bioware had the single player campaign laid out before starting multiplayer development. If that's the case, the only "negative" to the experience is the delay which comes while they institute this new multiplayer.

The problem with your example is that the feature of exploration is a core mechanic in any rpg whereas MP isn't.
Now add to that EA stupid statement that every game need MP and we have no reason to believe that this feature will do any good.

Except that the scenario in this game is an all out galactic war. WHen the hell are a group of front line soldeirs goinmg to go exploring? That would be ****ing stupid. Shepard does the exploring and the main stuff while the multiplayer is another view of that war. THI S IS A GREAT IDEA and until multiplayer is seen I wish people  would stop poo pooing it . All Bioware is asking you guys for is a chance and your not even giving it that.

[ThePatriot101]

Truth be told that if Bioware only planned a run-of-the-mill multiplayer add-on a la one of the many multiplayer-capable FPS/TPS games out there I would be really really concerned with Bioware. It would've been almost what happened with "Metal Gear Solid 4" where they added their "Metal Gear Online" multiplayer component. The main game was excellent and the MGO attachment was decent, but because it basically just tagged on the mainstream multiplayer game modes it did at times feel very derivative. On the one hand, with you playing a customized PMC soldier, it did fit with the setting. But Kojima and Konami, which I don't believe had much online multiplayer experience, couldn't curtail the knuckleheads who not only dominated these standard multiplayer modes but also consistently cheated with little enforcement by Konami (exploiting glitches, patching the game with cheat codes, etc.).

At least here, without the competitive components and it's complementing the main story, it's like we're getting a side-story to the ME3 action without it being dragged down by Commander Shepard's involvement. Yet what you do in multiplayer, just as the ME games have done in single player, will affect the main game. And furthermore you're all doing it together, not trying to best human opponents which (despite how visceral and exciting it can be) can be very detrimental to the overall experience - particularly if they no-scope sniper kills a LOT.

Given that they're aiming for ME3 to be the "start" of this galactic war (post-Shepard trilogy hint?), making it a co-op-only multiplayer makes sense. The whole galaxy's trying to fight this massively powerful foe which wants to destroy everything and everybody. And now individuals from every race have to work together to stop them regardless if they're Shepard or not. Hence the co-op, hence the customized avatar, and hence you being able to pick from more than just human.

I'm liking what I hear so far.

[Teredan]

Harbinger of your Destiny wrote...

Except that the scenario in this game is an all out galactic war. WHen the hell are a group of front line soldeirs goinmg to go exploring? That would be ****ing stupid. Shepard does the exploring and the main stuff while the multiplayer is another view of that war. THI S IS A GREAT IDEA and until multiplayer is seen I wish people  would stop poo pooing it . All Bioware is asking you guys for is a chance and your not even giving it that.

Except that Shepard isn't a front line soldier he is a spectre. His damn main occupation should be exploring the galaxy in order to find something that could help him against the reapers. Starting with for example protean ruins.

[Teredan]

YouthCultureForever wrote...
I probably sound like the biggest Uncharted fangirl that ever was, but it is the Playstation's best game for a reason. Uncharted fans don't pick on Naughty Dog the way Mass Effect fans do Bioware. Let's trust that what they're doing will be done well.

Actually I'm keen on believing you. My PS3 was gathering dust for a long time but I recently got into games like Red Dead, Assassins Creed 2, Ico collection, dark souls etc.
Uncharted I missed out I'm just holding off until that trilogy collection comes out.

So my negatism stems from these games with MP that didn't do a whole lot for them (GTA IV, Red Dead, Dead Space 2) AC2 one was decent but the servers aren't that stable even with my 32mb connection.
So maybe Uncharted will purge my negatism. It looked pretty awesome and unlike Portal where I thought it made sense to add MP, Uncharted looks like a SP game through and through so if MP is so great there I have maybe some hope for ME3 MP.

[YouthCultureForever]

Teredan wrote...

Actually I'm keen on believing you. My PS3 was gathering dust for a long time but I recently got into games like Red Dead, Assassins Creed 2, Ico collection, dark souls etc.
Uncharted I missed out I'm just holding off until that trilogy collection comes out.

So my negatism stems from these games with MP that didn't do a whole lot for them (GTA IV, Red Dead, Dead Space 2) AC2 one was decent but the servers aren't that stable even with my 32mb connection.
So maybe Uncharted will purge my negatism. It looked pretty awesome and unlike Portal where I thought it made sense to add MP, Uncharted looks like a SP game through and through so if MP is so great there I have maybe some hope for ME3 MP.

You own a PS3 and you haven't played Uncharted?! That's insane . But, yeah I have tried MP on a few of the games you listed and stated plainly, they sucked. RE5 MP especially sucks IMHO. I like Uncharted MP because it has alot of diverse modes and it's just plain fun. It basically plays like singleplayer with level up perks. You should try it at least once. Some don't like Uncharted's MP but my point is that it in no way detracts from singleplayer. You won't play the campaign and find yourself saying, "Oh I bet this would have been better if they had left out multiplayer." Nope, it won't happen I can guarantee you that. Both franchises focus on storymode so it shouldn't be any different with ME3.

Modifié par YouthCultureForever, 11 octobre 2011 - 06:40 .

[Kane Corr]

Honestly, I view this as a really good thing. Kind of like the Splinter Cell coop. Ended up being really fun. It can only BE a good thing.

[Severyx]

Oh God. All that bickering, nonsense and trolling is about to be revived. Multiplayer is the hot topic once again.

I heard Bioware is using a different studio to handle the multiplayer. Good. This means development time and resources spent on the actual singleplayer experience won't be wasted. The only problem now is that now that BioWare has announced it, it'll have to be really freaking good. It -will- be considered when people are reviewing the game as a whole.

Personally, I'd rather they waited until after the trilogy to experiment with multiplayer experiences in this universe, but I have faith that BioWare knows what they are doing.

[BeefoTheBold]

Negative. I will NOT be giving multiplayer a chance because I don't care how high the quality level is. There are certain things that are not intended to be coop. Reading a good book is one of them. A storydriven RPG is the video game equivalent of reading a good book.

[Teredan]

BeefoTheBold wrote...

Negative. I will NOT be giving multiplayer a chance because I don't care how high the quality level is. There are certain things that are not intended to be coop. Reading a good book is one of them. A storydriven RPG is the video game equivalent of reading a good book.

Haha I applaud you

[111987]

BeefoTheBold wrote...

Negative. I will NOT be giving multiplayer a chance because I don't care how high the quality level is. There are certain things that are not intended to be coop. Reading a good book is one of them. A storydriven RPG is the video game equivalent of reading a good book.

People said the same thing about a lot of the games I mentioned. Mario is NOT intended to be a 3-D adventure; it's a side-scroller. Metroid is NOT meant to be a first-person shooter; it's a side-scroller. Zelda is NOT supposed to look cartoonish; just look at Ocarina of Time!

And yet all of those games ended up being amazing. Rejecting a game because of an optional feature that could be excellent seems a bit over the top.

[Teredan]

111987 wrote...

People said the same thing about a lot of the games I mentioned. Mario is NOT intended to be a 3-D adventure; it's a side-scroller. Metroid is NOT meant to be a first-person shooter; it's a side-scroller. Zelda is NOT supposed to look cartoonish; just look at Ocarina of Time!

And yet all of those games ended up being amazing. Rejecting a game because of an optional feature that could be excellent seems a bit over the top.

All the people that said this haven't really looked at ocarina of time and for that matter any other zelda game.
Their argument was pretty much based on their own preferences.

again wind waker was awesome

Modifié par Teredan, 11 octobre 2011 - 06:43 .

[BeefoTheBold]

111987 wrote...

BeefoTheBold wrote...

Negative. I will NOT be giving multiplayer a chance because I don't care how high the quality level is. There are certain things that are not intended to be coop. Reading a good book is one of them. A storydriven RPG is the video game equivalent of reading a good book.

People said the same thing about a lot of the games I mentioned. Mario is NOT intended to be a 3-D adventure; it's a side-scroller. Metroid is NOT meant to be a first-person shooter; it's a side-scroller. Zelda is NOT supposed to look cartoonish; just look at Ocarina of Time!

And yet all of those games ended up being amazing. Rejecting a game because of an optional feature that could be excellent seems a bit over the top.

Rejecting a game to send a message to the people who are choosing to take their development in a direction I disagree with is NOT over the top. This is not a "I'm going to get the game used because of this alone". It is a string of what I feel are questionable calls and Bioware losing it's way.

1. Witch Hunt
2. The Arrival
3. Dragon Age 2
4. MMO Kotor instead of KOTOR3
5. Buggy and half-finished Awakenings
6. Kinect
7. Multiplayer/coop after all but promising there wouldn't be

Flat out, I'm not just comparing Bioware to other developers out there. I'm comparing the Bioware of today to the Bioware of yesteryear. The one that was a gold standard for quality control, that focused on pleasing their existing customer base more than reaching out to CoD's, that didn't make weasel type comments about how it was never "confirmed" there would be no multiplayer for ME3, etc.

Bioware is in their rights to run the numbers and assume that their existing fans will just take them at their word and buy the game preordered anyway, that they can get new fans while neglecting existing ones.

I'm in my right to choose to give my money to the secondhand market as my own small act of defiance.

[111987]

Teredan wrote...

111987 wrote...

People said the same thing about a lot of the games I mentioned. Mario is NOT intended to be a 3-D adventure; it's a side-scroller. Metroid is NOT meant to be a first-person shooter; it's a side-scroller. Zelda is NOT supposed to look cartoonish; just look at Ocarina of Time!

And yet all of those games ended up being amazing. Rejecting a game because of an optional feature that could be excellent seems a bit over the top.

All the people that said this haven't really looked at ocarina of time and for that matter any other zelda game.
Their argument was pretty much based on their own preferences.

Yes, it really wasn't all that much of a stretch in my opinion. But it's true that the majority of people did not like the design idea and said they would not get the game. And yet, many people passionatley argue that The Wind Waker was the best Zelda game to date!

And really, is it so much of a stretch to be able to play as other soldiers in a galactic war? I mean, it's not just Shepard that is fighting right? And it's actually kind of cool how we actually see how other people are aiding the war effort, so it doesn't feel like Shepard and his squad save the entire galaxy entirely on their own. That's just my opinion though.

Teredan wrote...
again wind waker was awesome

Indeed it was!