186 réponses à ce sujet

[111987]

BeefoTheBold wrote...

Fair point about the achievement item. It is necessary to have romance to get those. But you missed my point on the realism aspect.

Adding MP is NOT necessary for the game to be realistic. Adding the option of romance IS if you want the game to have a truly high quality story. Romance is a part of the human condition. Even choosing NOT to have one because of the reasons you mention makes the writing realistic. Not even addressing it at all would be crappy writing.

And as for the whole "two studios" approach, I disagree. Yes, that makes it LESS LIKELY that there will be issues, but you're still not addressing the problems with this approach.

Dividing up the development budget pie. 

Let's say that the budget for the entire ME3 project is $50 million. (I have no idea what it is. I'm just making up a number.) If you then take $10 million of that and devote it towards creating a MP component, well, your singleplayer component just got $10 million worse than it could have been even if it is still very high quality overall.

So from that standpoint, adding MP directly impacts the singleplayer experience. It is logically not correct to say that singleplayer won't be impacted. Bioware might be able to say, "The Singleplayer campaign will still be fully fleshed out and up to the length and quality standards of the first two games" and that might be something I could buy, but it's impossible to take money out and not have ANY impact.

This doesn't even get into the question of, "And how much of that $50 million budget we started with got taken out to be devoted to adding in Kinect support?"

See where I'm going with this? Every item that you have to code, every feature that they choose to devote time and money to, that comes from the overall whole.

People have expressed concerns about the need to tie off all the decision trees from the first two games and see real consequences to the choices that you've made. Well, adding other features is money NOT being spent on that.

And we haven't even gotten into the lore aspect of what place the MP content will have in the official canon of the ME universe and how that also is an argument against optional.

But the bottom line is that this is an RPG. One of the VERY SMALL NUMBER of remaining single-player RPGs left. Even if it IS optional, it doesn't bode well for the future.

Will Dragon Age 3 have "optional" coop with The Warden and The Champion? Where does this slow trend of Bioware's more and more away from gamers with my tastes (and we're the ones who made Bioware successful with our gaming purchases in the first place) end?

Is this the tip of the iceberg? 

I understand your point. But I think it is also realistic and makes sense to show other people making an impact in the war besides Shepard and co. To each their own though.

The thing about the budget is that we don't know how it worked. Were they given 50 million at the start of the project, and all susbequent additions had to share that 50 million? Or when multiplayer was announced, did EA add another 10 million to the game that wouldn't have been added without multiplayer?

[YouthCultureForever]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

aj2070 wrote...

I will be blunt; my skeptcism comes from EA having one trick and needing to cram it into everything with absolutely no concern about context.  When did "Shepard's story" suddenly need to be "improved" by Multiplayer?  Where is the context?  The rabid promotion of this "hot feature" as an aid to Shepard's story feels hackneyed.  Sure, there are those horde mode fans who will feel Bioware is now the second coming and should be praised.

I am not against multiplayer; heck I even liked Homefront's limited multiplayer.  I just feel it has no real place in Mass Effect and/ or Dragon Age - its coming to 3, I'm calling that now.  Further in my opinion, it should not affect "Shepard's story" at all.

Bolded for emphasis.

There's no need for MP in any game. But it's nice to have.

[Scimal]

Il Divo wrote...

How does this logic even work? Portal 2's co-op is no more or less valuable than it's single player.

Precisely, right?

I trust BW enough not to cut corners on the SP experience. They may have me by the neck when it comes to RPGs, but mess with me enough and I don't mind waiting for Valve, Blizzard, or others to fill that particular niche. The implementation isn't something I am particularly angry about or anything.

I am apathetic. It is basically MP-lite tacked onto my SP game. It is superflous. Ambiguous. Neutral.

If that's the reaction it evokes from me, why have it at all?

I am excited for the conclusion of the SP campaign. I am excited to import my previous Shepards and find out how each will play out. I am aware that BioWare wants me excited for these things. They want me excited for their game. Because I am not excited for a feature they are adding, I question its necessity.

Again, I don't have strong feelings either way. It's like if you're at the grocery store and rummage through the potatoes until you stumble upon one that comes with a free plastic fork. It's just sitting there, with a free plastic fork tied to it. It doesn't really add anything; you're not really getting a deal. You're not going to do anything with it but maybe use it to eat the potatoe with. Though it's not like you couldn't have just used your very own silverware at home, especially since your own silverware is better for the purpose. You didn't really ask for it, and it doesn't serve a need. The only reason you're getting it is because someone tied a fork to a potatoe.

Sure, some people will find it useful; their friend brought a salad or something. Others will find it distasteful because at some point somebody spent resources to make the thing, and it's not even biodegradable (the nerve).

For most people, though, it's just something that happened and then it was over. Meaningless.

Which begs the question... Why tie a fork (MP) to a potatoe (SP-oriented game) in the first place?

That sums up my reaction.

[111987]

@Scimal

Why change the genre of the Metroid series? No-one was asking for it.

Why make the Wind Waker cheesy and cartoony? Everyone was asking for just the opposite, in fact.

Why turn Mario into a 3-D platformer, when for over a decade he had been the king of the side-scroller platformer game?

Yeah, maybe no-one asked for multiplayer, but that doesn't mean it might not end up being great, with the majority of people loving it.

[BeefoTheBold]

111987 wrote...

BeefoTheBold wrote...

Fair point about the achievement item. It is necessary to have romance to get those. But you missed my point on the realism aspect.

Adding MP is NOT necessary for the game to be realistic. Adding the option of romance IS if you want the game to have a truly high quality story. Romance is a part of the human condition. Even choosing NOT to have one because of the reasons you mention makes the writing realistic. Not even addressing it at all would be crappy writing.

And as for the whole "two studios" approach, I disagree. Yes, that makes it LESS LIKELY that there will be issues, but you're still not addressing the problems with this approach.

Dividing up the development budget pie. 

Let's say that the budget for the entire ME3 project is $50 million. (I have no idea what it is. I'm just making up a number.) If you then take $10 million of that and devote it towards creating a MP component, well, your singleplayer component just got $10 million worse than it could have been even if it is still very high quality overall.

So from that standpoint, adding MP directly impacts the singleplayer experience. It is logically not correct to say that singleplayer won't be impacted. Bioware might be able to say, "The Singleplayer campaign will still be fully fleshed out and up to the length and quality standards of the first two games" and that might be something I could buy, but it's impossible to take money out and not have ANY impact.

This doesn't even get into the question of, "And how much of that $50 million budget we started with got taken out to be devoted to adding in Kinect support?"

See where I'm going with this? Every item that you have to code, every feature that they choose to devote time and money to, that comes from the overall whole.

People have expressed concerns about the need to tie off all the decision trees from the first two games and see real consequences to the choices that you've made. Well, adding other features is money NOT being spent on that.

And we haven't even gotten into the lore aspect of what place the MP content will have in the official canon of the ME universe and how that also is an argument against optional.

But the bottom line is that this is an RPG. One of the VERY SMALL NUMBER of remaining single-player RPGs left. Even if it IS optional, it doesn't bode well for the future.

Will Dragon Age 3 have "optional" coop with The Warden and The Champion? Where does this slow trend of Bioware's more and more away from gamers with my tastes (and we're the ones who made Bioware successful with our gaming purchases in the first place) end?

Is this the tip of the iceberg? 

I understand your point. But I think it is also realistic and makes sense to show other people making an impact in the war besides Shepard and co. To each their own though.

The thing about the budget is that we don't know how it worked. Were they given 50 million at the start of the project, and all susbequent additions had to share that 50 million? Or when multiplayer was announced, did EA add another 10 million to the game that wouldn't have been added without multiplayer?

None of us really know for certain. But I would point out the inconsistent quality level of Bioware recently. Some of their releases have been exceptional. (Lair of the Shadow Broker comes to mind) But others have been (by Bioware standards) REALLY BAD (Dragon Age 2, Witch Hunt and The Arrival all come to mind) and others have been somewhere inbetween the two (Awakenings).

But keep in mind that this is a company that used to have a rock solid track record of consistent quality. Obviously this is all speculation on my part, but when a company that never used to have problems with consistent quality suddenly does, then that is a "canary in a coal mine" indicator that they're trying to do too much too quickly or with too few resources.

I do think tht ME3 is too critical of a project for Bioware to get it as wrong as they got DA2. Their credibiltiy took a BIG hit after that fiasco. But I also wonder about EA's very well documented track record of buying companies and slowly ruining them.

[TheMakoMaster]

Scimal wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

How does this logic even work? Portal 2's co-op is no more or less valuable than it's single player.

Precisely, right?

I trust BW enough not to cut corners on the SP experience. They may have me by the neck when it comes to RPGs, but mess with me enough and I don't mind waiting for Valve, Blizzard, or others to fill that particular niche. The implementation isn't something I am particularly angry about or anything.

I am apathetic. It is basically MP-lite tacked onto my SP game. It is superflous. Ambiguous. Neutral.

If that's the reaction it evokes from me, why have it at all?

I am excited for the conclusion of the SP campaign. I am excited to import my previous Shepards and find out how each will play out. I am aware that BioWare wants me excited for these things. They want me excited for their game. Because I am not excited for a feature they are adding, I question its necessity.

Again, I don't have strong feelings either way. It's like if you're at the grocery store and rummage through the potatoes until you stumble upon one that comes with a free plastic fork. It's just sitting there, with a free plastic fork tied to it. It doesn't really add anything; you're not really getting a deal. You're not going to do anything with it but maybe use it to eat the potatoe with. Though it's not like you couldn't have just used your very own silverware at home, especially since your own silverware is better for the purpose. [/i]You didn't really ask for it, and it doesn't serve a[/b] [b]need. The only reason you're getting it is because someone tied a fork to a potatoe.

Sure, some people will find it useful; their friend brought a salad or something. Others will find it distasteful because at some point somebody spent resources to make the thing, and it's not even biodegradable (the nerve).

For most people, though, it's just something that happened and then it was [i]over. Meaningless.

Which begs the question... Why tie a fork (MP) to a potatoe (SP-oriented game) in the first place?

That sums up my reaction.

but this "fork" offers me another means to demonstrate my mega awewsome uber pwnage skills!  <_<
yum...potatoes.

[Splinter Cell 108]

Personally I would have preferred that coop had stayed out but that's not going to happen. So after reading what it might be like, it doesn't sound so bad. The only thing I'm skeptical about is if it will be innovative at all. I'd prefer if that was the case since I would hate to have the Halo, MW3, GoW type of coop, which isn't really coop because cooperation between players isn't necessary.

[jeweledleah]

DarthAsthma wrote...

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. 

pardon, but when portal 2 came out it was selling for 60 dollars.  60 dollars for 8 hours of gameplay is ridiculous.  my fault for not wanting to play multiplayer?  seriously?  I loved original portal for its solo campaign.  continuation of that solo campaign is what I was looking for.  I didn't ask for multiplayer.  that said - i didn't buy portal at launch and I'm glad of it. the only thing I wish is that I had waited longer to buy it.  even if I got it on sale I was still extremely disapointed with the length of the game vs the money charged for it.  I wouldn't have been as pissed of if Icould acess that campaign on my own, but I couldn't.  it was locked away from me. it made me very very weary of multiplayer/single play combo games.

there's a huge difference in chosing not to participate in content, vs being locked out of the content unless very specific demands are met.  think of it this way.  imagine if you cannot play ME1 and 2 offline.  you MUST be logged into cerberus/bioware network in order to acess every mission.  if you are offline - oh you can still get to the ending, but a lot of the missions and options are completely locked away from you.  but... you still have to pay a full price for the game.

multiplayer as its described in ME3 is not like Borderlands or ledft 4 dead where co-op and single player had you going through essentialy the same campaign.  its a completely separate compaign that at the same time is called as an alternate method of participating in a solo campaign.  you can do a solo mission OR you can de a MP mission to achieve the same result.  its an alternate route for winning agaisnt the reapers.  its fairly extensive, judging by description so far.  and if you godforbid bought Mass Effect games becasue you wanted single player only - you are locked out of all this content.

I'm hoping that at a minimum bioware will announce a possibility of running MP missions with bots (or solo), offline.  at least that will make them acessible to all and will actualy make ME3 worth the full price.

[YouthCultureForever]

jeweledleah wrote...

there's a huge difference in chosing not to participate in content, vs being locked out of the content unless very specific demands are met.  think of it this way.  imagine if you cannot play ME1 and 2 offline.  you MUST be logged into cerberus/bioware network in order to acess every mission.  if you are offline - oh you can still get to the ending, but a lot of the missions and options are completely locked away from you.  but... you still have to pay a full price for the game.

multiplayer as its described in ME3 is not like Borderlands or ledft 4 dead where co-op and single player had you going through essentialy the same campaign.  its a completely separate compaign that at the same time is called as an alternate method of participating in a solo campaign.  you can do a solo mission OR you can de a MP mission to achieve the same result.  its an alternate route for winning agaisnt the reapers.  its fairly extensive, judging by description so far.  and if you godforbid bought Mass Effect games becasue you wanted single player only - you are locked out of all this content.

I'm hoping that at a minimum bioware will announce a possibility of running MP missions with bots (or solo), offline.  at least that will make them acessible to all and will actualy make ME3 worth the full price.

It doesn't sound like being locked out of content. It sounds like you're choosing not to play it and missing out on extra content as a result.

[Ianamus]

There are plently of reasons to be against multiplayer in Mass Effect 3. While some games have decent single player and multiplayer modes, the games that focused on single player in the same franchises almost always had longer and higher-quality single player modes. For example, although Bioshock 2's story mode was alright Bioshock 1's was far, far better in my opinion, and I believe that the relatively poor multiplayer mode had a lot to do with that. 

• The Mass Effect trilogy is Shepard's story, and It always has been. Having missions where you do not play as  Shepard ruins the main point of the game: saving humanity as commander Shepard and finishing what  you started in Mass Effect 1.

• Bioware has limited resources. Every single penny and second spent on multiplayer is something that could have been spent making the single player campaign better. No matter how good it is, it will never be as good as it could have been had the time not been spent on multiplayer. 

• Mass Effect gameplay was never built with multiplayer in mind. between tactical pausing, squadmates and important story decisions many of Mass Effect's gameplay features are invalid in co-op. You also run the risk of combat changes designed for multiplayer having a negetive impact on single player gameplay. 

• If the multiplayer is poor or mediocre but the single player campaign is good then the game will still get a lower overall rating than if it had only had the good single player in the first place. 

• What does this mean for future Bioware games? DA2 shows just how badly a limited development time can affect single player modes. Now imagine some of that limited time had been spent making multiplayer for DA2 as well. I don't want to even think about it- and that is where we are now heading. 

• If people want to shoot people, or shoot with people online then they will play games like Call of Duty, which are designed  primarily for multiplayer gameplay. Mass Effect would always be second-best multiplayer-wise, because the game does not focus on it to the extent that these other games do, and Bioware does not have the experience in making multiplayer games that these companies do. 

And that's not even mentioning the fact that we were lied to. "Mass Effect is a single player game" constant reminders that the multiplayer rumors were only "rumors". It's manipulation, milking the rumors to bolster sales and give themselves advertising, rather than just being honest with people. If they knew many people would be unhappy with the decision then they should have manned up and just told everybody as soon as they planned to implement it- basically lying to everyone has only made people distrust the company more. 

Deus Ex: Human Revolution didn't need multiplayer to be good- and it would not have fit with the story focused gameplay. Mass Effect is the same. 

I think that Bethesda and Irrational games really have the right idea with Bioshock infinite and Skyrim. They understand that people don't buy their games for multiplayer, they buy them because of the strong single player that multiplayer games like call of duty can't compete with, and that is why I am more excited for them at the moment than Mass Effect 3. 

It is a terrible decision. Even if the single player is fantastic, it will not be as good as it could have been, and I have had to wait an extra 4 months for the game <_<

Modifié par EJ107, 11 octobre 2011 - 11:33 .

[BeefoTheBold]

EJ107 wrote...

There are plently of reasons to be against multiplayer in Mass Effect 3. While some games have decent single player and multiplayer modes, the games that focused on single player in the same franchises almost always had longer and higher-quality single player modes. For example, although Bioshock 2's story mode was alright Bioshock 1's was far, far better in my opinion, and I believe that the relatively poor multiplayer mode had a lot to do with that. 

• The Mass Effect trilogy is Shepard's story, and It always has been. Having missions where you do not play as  Shepard ruins the main point of the game: saving humanity as commander Shepard and finishing what  you started in Mass Effect 1.

• Bioware has limited resources. Every single penny and second spent on multiplayer is something that could have been spent making the single player campaign better. No matter how good it is, it will never be as good as it could have been had the time not been spent on multiplayer. 

• Mass Effect gameplay was never built with multiplayer in mind. between tactical pausing, squadmates and important story decisions many of Mass Effect's gameplay features are invalid in co-op. You also run the risk of combat changes designed for multiplayer having a negetive impact on single player gameplay. 

• If the multiplayer is poor or mediocre but the single player campaign is good then the game will still get a lower overall rating than if it had only had the good single player in the first place. 

• What does this mean for future Bioware games? DA2 shows just how badly a limited development time can affect single player modes. Now imagine some of that limited time had been spent making multiplayer for DA2 as well. I don't want to even think about it- and that is where we are now heading. 

• If people want to shoot people, or shoot with people online then they will play games like Call of Duty, which are designed  primarily for multiplayer gameplay. Mass Effect would always be second-best multiplayer-wise, because the game does not focus on it to the extent that these other games do, and Bioware does not have the experience in making multiplayer games that these companies do. 

And that's not even mentioning the fact that we were lied to. "Mass Effect is a single player game" constant reminders that the multiplayer rumors were only "rumors". It's manipulation, milking the rumors to bolster sales and give themselves advertising, rather than just being honest with people. If they knew many people would be unhappy with the decision then they should have manned up and just told everybody as soon as they planned to implement it- basically lying to everyone has only made people distrust the company more. 

Deus Ex: Human Revolution didn't need multiplayer to be good- and it would not have fit with the story focused gameplay. Mass Effect is the same. 

I think that Bethesda and Irrational games really have the right idea with Bioshock infinite and Skyrim. They understand that people don't buy their games for multiplayer, they buy them because of the strong single player that multiplayer games like call of duty can't compete with, and that is why I am more excited for them at the moment than Mass Effect 3. 

It is a terrible decision. Even if the single player is fantastic, it will not be as good as it could have been, and I have had to wait an extra 4 months for the game <_<

Best post I've read today.

[Walker White]

Financial critters set budgets based on expected sales.  So if they believe that mutliplayer will bring in more players who would not already play the game, then they will give BioWare extra money, beyond what they already had, to implement the feature.  Indeed, if this did delay the game, then it was a boon, because it gives the Edmonton team that much longer to polish the single player game.  

As everyone knows who saw the GDC talk three years ago, just because a BioWare game is playable does not mean it is anywhere close to being finished. Game development simply does not work that way.  Indeed, they were still making major changes to character powers up to a week ago.

Now it is unclear that multiplayer games will bring in extra sales.  If you look at games that outsell BioWare titles, they are either primarily (as in first and foremost) multiplayer or they open world with a much less structured story.  Titles with heavily structured stories and less open-ended exploration tend to sell in the 3 million range.  For example, Deus Ex: HR is currently doing better than DA:2, but underselling just about every other recent BioWare title.

[111987]

@EJ107

That is a well-articulated post, but isn't really relevant to what this thread is about. You should post that elsewhere, as it doesn't really address anything in the OP.

By the way, many of your criticisms are unfounded; you should check out the FAQ at the top of the forum.

[Lunatic LK47]

111987 wrote...

@EJ107

That is a well-articulated post, but isn't really relevant to what this thread is about. You should post that elsewhere, as it doesn't really address anything in the OP.

By the way, many of your criticisms are unfounded; you should check out the FAQ at the top of the forum.

Translation: You are just bent on dismissing his claim.

[Walker White]

BeefoTheBold wrote...

"Mass Effect is a single player game" constant reminders 

Once again, that quote was never ever once uttered by a BioWare employee.  It was uttered by a moderator, Pacifien, in this thread:

http://social.biowar...3/index/5461124

Pacifien was publically rebuked after this incident.  However, as we can see from the past two days, the damage was already permanent and irreversible.

[Pockles]

I wasn't expecting much from the Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood multiplayer. I found that it was actually quite novel.

Condemning something before giving it a chance would be doing yourself a disservice.

[jeweledleah]

YouthCultureForever wrote...

jeweledleah wrote...

there's a huge difference in chosing not to participate in content, vs being locked out of the content unless very specific demands are met.  think of it this way.  imagine if you cannot play ME1 and 2 offline.  you MUST be logged into cerberus/bioware network in order to acess every mission.  if you are offline - oh you can still get to the ending, but a lot of the missions and options are completely locked away from you.  but... you still have to pay a full price for the game.

multiplayer as its described in ME3 is not like Borderlands or ledft 4 dead where co-op and single player had you going through essentialy the same campaign.  its a completely separate compaign that at the same time is called as an alternate method of participating in a solo campaign.  you can do a solo mission OR you can de a MP mission to achieve the same result.  its an alternate route for winning agaisnt the reapers.  its fairly extensive, judging by description so far.  and if you godforbid bought Mass Effect games becasue you wanted single player only - you are locked out of all this content.

I'm hoping that at a minimum bioware will announce a possibility of running MP missions with bots (or solo), offline.  at least that will make them acessible to all and will actualy make ME3 worth the full price.

It doesn't sound like being locked out of content. It sounds like you're choosing not to play it and missing out on extra content as a result.

I don't play online.  i do not play co-op, multiplayer etc. I buy games specificaly gor their single player content and I do not buy games that tend to focus largely on multiplayer, not at full price and especialy not after Portal 2 fiasco. ergo - I'm being locked out of content.  at least I play on PC.  for x-box players - that's pretty much a "buy x-box gold account in adition to being forced into co-op or miss out on content"

@ EJ107  - very well said

Modifié par jeweledleah, 11 octobre 2011 - 11:52 .

[Lunatic LK47]

Pockles wrote...

I wasn't expecting much from the Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood multiplayer. I found that it was actually quite novel.

Condemning something before giving it a chance would be doing yourself a disservice.

There's also something called PAST EXPERIENCES WITH FIRST IMPRESSIONS COLORING YOUR JUDGMENT. I hated Treyarch's handling of the Call of Duty games, and did not buy World at War or Black Ops because of 3's ****ty campaign.

Last time I checked, I've heard nothing but bad networking problems with Brotherhood's Multiplayer.

Modifié par Lunatic LK47, 11 octobre 2011 - 11:52 .

[111987]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

111987 wrote...

@EJ107

That is a well-articulated post, but isn't really relevant to what this thread is about. You should post that elsewhere, as it doesn't really address anything in the OP.

By the way, many of your criticisms are unfounded; you should check out the FAQ at the top of the forum.

Translation: You are just bent on dismissing his claim.

Most of your posts are doing the same thing as well; they aren't relevant to this thread. I kindly ask you to take them elsewhere and discuss your general criticisms of multiplayer elsewhere.

[Lunatic LK47]

111987 wrote...


Most of your posts are doing the same thing as well; they aren't relevant to this thread. I kindly ask you to take them elsewhere and discuss your general criticisms of multiplayer elsewhere.

Uh, no. My posts are relevant because I found nothing BUT negative experiences when multiplayer was integrated into the latest entries of single-player focused games. 9/10 times, it did more harm than good, and all of those "good" titles you mention are the RARE EXCEPTIONS.  Last time I checked, Skepticism is in your ****ing title, and therefore my posts are relevant.

[111987]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

111987 wrote...


Most of your posts are doing the same thing as well; they aren't relevant to this thread. I kindly ask you to take them elsewhere and discuss your general criticisms of multiplayer elsewhere.

Uh, no. My posts are relevant because I found nothing BUT negative experiences when multiplayer was integrated into the latest entries of single-player focused games. 9/10 times, it did more harm than good, and all of those "good" titles you mention are the RARE EXCEPTIONS.  Last time I checked, Skepticism is in your ****ing title, and therefore my posts are relevant.

You have clearly missed the point of the OP.

I ask you; why can't Mass Effect 3 be one of those exceptions? Because of your past experiences? Well in my past experience I have been pleasantly surprised by radical changes; it keeps games refreshing, exciting, and innovative.

But anyways, like I said earlier you clearly aren't even open to the possibility of opening your mind.

[Lunatic LK47]

111987 wrote...
You have clearly missed the point of the OP.

I ask you; why can't Mass Effect 3 be one of those exceptions? Because of your past experiences? Well in my past experience I have been pleasantly surprised by radical changes; it keeps games refreshing, exciting, and innovative.

Nothing exactly innovative if THE ENTIRE GAMING INDUSTRY IS OVERSATURATED WITH IT. As it is, I can't find any games that are worth $70, and second of all, I shouldn't have to rely on other humans just to make the best out of a $70 PAPER WEIGHT. "Oh, oops. Community got fed up with this game or just want to play Call of Duty."  I've already learned the ticking time bomb nature of multiplayer this the hard way with an MMORPG I was commited to for 2 years, not to mention all of the Tom Clancy games I bought YEARS AFTER LAUNCH.

As for ME3 being given the benefit of the doubt, I nearly cancelled pre-ordering ME2 after following up on it consantly because of "ME2 is going to be stand-alone" or "Most ME1 characters are going to have cameos." The only thing that stopped me from canceling was finding out that Garrus is actually a squad member in ME2. As it is, BioWare half-dropped the ball with the data imports that worked improperly, (i.e. The infamous Conrad Verner glitch? Last time I checked, Casey Hudson did say how I treated him mattered, but oops, programming bugs made an idiot out of his PR claim).  I already invested HUNDREDS of hours into the first two Mass Effect games, and the reason why I signed up on the series was for the DATA IMPORTS.

Modifié par Lunatic LK47, 12 octobre 2011 - 12:04 .

[Scimal]

111987 wrote...

@Scimal

Why change the genre of the Metroid series? No-one was asking for it.

Why make the Wind Waker cheesy and cartoony? Everyone was asking for just the opposite, in fact.

Why turn Mario into a 3-D platformer, when for over a decade he had been the king of the side-scroller platformer game?

I don't find your analogies to be accurate enough to articulate any response. For the series you listed, each change in genre or art style was wholely contained within a single game - and then either continued or discontinued in the next game of the series.

The issue people seem to be having with ME3's multiplayer is that it is an not only an addition to the game, but possibly antagonistic to the game's purported values. If the multiplayer had been made separately as another game in the ME universe, you'd hear bellyaching from the SPG fans, but it would seem like a logical avenue of development.  If it had been introduced earlier in the series - say, ME2 - you'd have fewer concerns because then there'd be precedent to bring the feature to the conclusion of the story and integration would be stronger, instead of having this "epic" new feature added onto what is essentially the end-of-the-line for ME at this time.

It seems out of place because it co-exists with its parent. We're catching the evolution of the ME universe at mid-birth. There isn't a strong reason for multiplayer to exist in Shepard's story, and in addition to that, what we're getting isn't developed enough to stand on its own.

It could be great, it could be okay, it could be horrible. What it is doing is drawing upon the current social connotations of multiplayer = replay value, and replay value = extended product lfiespan. With these innate assumptions in place, many are distraught because Shepard's storyline doesn't need to have an extended lifespan. Shepard's story has been a good one, but it's not suited for continuation. Shepard's story requires an intimate, meaningful conclusion, and co-op/multiplayer are antagonistic to both intimacy and finality.

Yeah, maybe no-one asked for multiplayer, but that doesn't mean it might not end up being great, with the majority of people loving it.

I actually haven't said whether or not I think the MP portions will be good or bad. I have said that I don't see why the co-op is being implemented now, instead of in another game where it will not be overshadowed by Shepard's story and allowed to live on its own instead of being bundled with something else.

Oh, and I also said that it really sucks to be 'the other guy' tagging along on someone else's adventure unless it can be reciprocated because all friends have the game.

[Ianamus]

111987 wrote...

@EJ107

That is a well-articulated post, but isn't really relevant to what this thread is about. You should post that elsewhere, as it doesn't really address anything in the OP.

By the way, many of your criticisms are unfounded; you should check out the FAQ at the top of the forum.

Every other thread about multiplayer is locked, except for a multiplayer questions thread and a "which race do you want to play in multiplayer" thread, where my post would be even less relevant. 

If I made my own thread with my post as the OP it would be locked. 

Besides, your thread is about multiplayer and how it does not nececerally mean Mass Effect 3 will be a lower quality game, so I think my post is at least partially relevant. 

Modifié par EJ107, 12 octobre 2011 - 12:04 .

[YouthCultureForever]

jeweledleah wrote...

YouthCultureForever wrote...

jeweledleah wrote...

there's a huge difference in chosing not to participate in content, vs being locked out of the content unless very specific demands are met.  think of it this way.  imagine if you cannot play ME1 and 2 offline.  you MUST be logged into cerberus/bioware network in order to acess every mission.  if you are offline - oh you can still get to the ending, but a lot of the missions and options are completely locked away from you.  but... you still have to pay a full price for the game.

multiplayer as its described in ME3 is not like Borderlands or ledft 4 dead where co-op and single player had you going through essentialy the same campaign.  its a completely separate compaign that at the same time is called as an alternate method of participating in a solo campaign.  you can do a solo mission OR you can de a MP mission to achieve the same result.  its an alternate route for winning agaisnt the reapers.  its fairly extensive, judging by description so far.  and if you godforbid bought Mass Effect games becasue you wanted single player only - you are locked out of all this content.

I'm hoping that at a minimum bioware will announce a possibility of running MP missions with bots (or solo), offline.  at least that will make them acessible to all and will actualy make ME3 worth the full price.

It doesn't sound like being locked out of content. It sounds like you're choosing not to play it and missing out on extra content as a result.

I don't play online.  i do not play co-op, multiplayer etc. I buy games specificaly gor their single player content and I do not buy games that tend to focus largely on multiplayer, not at full price and especialy not after Portal 2 fiasco. ergo - I'm being locked out of content.  at least I play on PC.  for x-box players - that's pretty much a "buy x-box gold account in adition to being forced into co-op or miss out on content"

@ EJ107  - very well said

I understand you're choice not to play MP, but you aren't being locked out of content. I don't play a ton of MP either, but I don't complain when a game I want announces it. The game isn't going to cost anymore than it normally would and it won't get any cheaper if they cut multiplayer.

And it doesn't sound like ME3 is going to focus specifically on MP, not at all. It's not even getting any competive MP modes. No team deathmatch, free for all, king of the hill, capture the flag. Nothing like that. It's just basically just adding co-op objective that will have a minimal effect on the outcome of the game as you can the same ending w/out playing it. It's a very no frills type of MP as far as MPs go. I just don't think it's anything to complain about.

Modifié par YouthCultureForever, 12 octobre 2011 - 12:09 .