186 réponses à ce sujet

[Pockles]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

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.

You don't have to immediantly resort to the internet forum equivalent of shouting in my ear. We can discuss things like mature adults.

You can't fairly judge Mass Effect 3's multiplayer mode based on past experiences, especially when you cite games that aren't even made by Bioware. ME3 multiplayer is unprecedented. It hasn't happened in any of the Mass Effect games so far. You have no relevant first impressions to color your judgement.

Networking problems may affect your perception of the game's quality, but they are not the fault of poor gameplay.

[jeweledleah]

@ Schimal - if MP component was made as a separate game - people who don't play multi player games would simply not buy it and that would be it.

also - lunatic made a great point about the fleeting nature of the multiplayer. I have bought borderlands a few months ago, was finally convinced by the low price, the fact that entire game is possible to finish solo and I figured, you know maybe i should give this multiplayer thing a chance. except by the time i got it people I actually would feel semi comfortable trying it with - were no longer playing it.

I can replay single player campaign 10 years after it came out if I wanted to. especially if the single campaign is full of choices and alternate endings. multiplayer only campaigns however? not so much.

[Lunatic LK47]

YouthCultureForever wrote...
The game isn't going to cost anymore than it normally would and it won't get any cheaper if they cut multiplayer.

Which is the problem I have with the gaming industry now-a-days. As it is, It's $70 for a 4 HOUR GAME (i.e. X-Men: Destiny, the Crap Unleashed 2 being the prime offenders). My money is NOT toilet paper, and as it is, I only buy 3 games a year.  If a single-player game is only going to remain 4 or 5 hours, I'm better off buying it either used, or waiting 5+ years for a price drop.

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.

Concern is how much of a negative trade-off does it cause for single-player? Would this mean that data import bugs are more likely to occur REGARDLESS of the separate teams?

[jeweledleah]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

YouthCultureForever wrote...
The game isn't going to cost anymore than it normally would and it won't get any cheaper if they cut multiplayer.

Which is the problem I have with the gaming industry now-a-days. As it is, It's $70 for a 4 HOUR GAME (i.e. X-Men: Destiny, the Crap Unleashed 2 being the prime offenders). My money is NOT toilet paper, and as it is, I only buy 3 games a year.  If a single-player game is only going to remain 4 or 5 hours, I'm better off buying it either used, or waiting 5+ years for a price drop.

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.

Concern is how much of a negative trade-off does it cause for single-player? Would this mean that data import bugs are more likely to occur REGARDLESS of the separate teams?

this. also - multiplayer campain is currently marketed as alternate route to finishing single player story.  as alternate missions.  separate,YET alternate. sounds pretty invasive to me

[Jjilatt12]

As long as Bioware stays true to saying SP will be 30+ hours long and everything is achievable through SP alone.

Not that I'm a loner or anything, but I don't want SP only poeple to suffer because MP's boosts are too huge.

Also, great observations and arguements. I need to go play Metroid Prime again beause of you.

[Lunatic LK47]

Pockles wrote...

You can't fairly judge Mass Effect 3's multiplayer mode based on past experiences, especially when you cite games that aren't even made by Bioware. ME3 multiplayer is unprecedented. It hasn't happened in any of the Mass Effect games so far. You have no relevant first impressions to color your judgement.

Uh, I brought those titles up because THEY DID suffer in some shape or form, and ME3 is NOT IMMUNE to it. Chances are, BioWare Montreal MIGHT screw it up when they least expect it.

Networking problems may affect your perception of the game's quality, but they are not the fault of poor gameplay.

Uh, I call bull**** on that one (i.e. Any multiplayer game known to mankind.)

[Jjilatt12]

Jjilatt12 wrote...

As long as Bioware stays true to saying SP will be 30+ hours long and everything is achievable through SP alone, I'll be fine. This actually sounds rather fun.

Not that I'm a loner or anything, but I don't want SP only poeple to suffer because MP's boosts are too huge.

Also, great observations and arguements. I need to go play Metroid Prime again beause of you.

[111987]

EJ107 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.

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. 

It is to an extent. It is because so many thread have been locked that I'm trying to avoid the discussion shifting too much, else this thread be locked as well.

Scimal wrote...

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.

I'm not understanding your point here...sorry, could you clarify?

Scimal wrote...
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.

The values of the Mass Effect series are being upheld in the singleplayer; well, at least as far as we know.

If multiplayer turns out to be a great addition, you can bet that co-op will be a direction this series goes in, for better or worse. But it won't be the massive detriment to Mass Effect 3 like many are saying.

Scimal wrote...
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.

I have to disagree with you here; co-op doesn't ruin intimacy or finality. Your Shepard is still your Shepard; co-op is optional, and your co-op characters have zero interaction with Shepard. Also, since co-op is simply another way to bolster your forces for the final battle against the Reapers, it's story will end at the same time as Shepard's.

Modifié par 111987, 12 octobre 2011 - 12:25 .

[YouthCultureForever]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

YouthCultureForever wrote...
The game isn't going to cost anymore than it normally would and it won't get any cheaper if they cut multiplayer.

Which is the problem I have with the gaming industry now-a-days. As it is, It's $70 for a 4 HOUR GAME (i.e. X-Men: Destiny, the Crap Unleashed 2 being the prime offenders). My money is NOT toilet paper, and as it is, I only buy 3 games a year.  If a single-player game is only going to remain 4 or 5 hours, I'm better off buying it either used, or waiting 5+ years for a price drop.

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.

Concern is how much of a negative trade-off does it cause for single-player? Would this mean that data import bugs are more likely to occur REGARDLESS of the separate teams?

It won't 70 dollars. $60 at most on the console, $10 less on the PC. And it's not going to be 4-5 hrs. It's going to be at least the same length as the previous two. This isn't Infinity Ward, this is Bioware. MP is a secondary aspect of the game.

Why does the MP tag automatically signify the death of the SP campaign? Who said there had to be a trade off?

Modifié par YouthCultureForever, 12 octobre 2011 - 12:27 .

[shep82]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

YouthCultureForever wrote...
The game isn't going to cost anymore than it normally would and it won't get any cheaper if they cut multiplayer.

Which is the problem I have with the gaming industry now-a-days. As it is, It's $70 for a 4 HOUR GAME (i.e. X-Men: Destiny, the Crap Unleashed 2 being the prime offenders). My money is NOT toilet paper, and as it is, I only buy 3 games a year.  If a single-player game is only going to remain 4 or 5 hours, I'm better off buying it either used, or waiting 5+ years for a price drop.

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.

Concern is how much of a negative trade-off does it cause for single-player? Would this mean that data import bugs are more likely to occur REGARDLESS of the separate teams?

A) The Force Unleashed 2 was more than 4 hours and Where in the heck
did you think this game would be that short? It's going to be at least
30 hours.

Modifié par shep82, 12 octobre 2011 - 12:28 .

[Lunatic LK47]

YouthCultureForever wrote...




It won't 70 dollars.

I'm including TAXES. 

Why does the MP tag automatically signify the death of the SP campaign? Who said there had to be a trade off?

Uh, because it usually does?

Resident Evil 5: Mandatory co-op sucked the fun factor out of it and REQUIRES two human players to have a LESS FRUSTRATING EXPERIENCE.

F.E.A.R. 3: Co-op focus and the extra focus on the multiplayer modes that died TWO MONTHS AFTER RELEASE resulted in a half-assed 4 hour campaign.

All 3 of the Gears of War games:  Single-player is less-desirable because of **** squad A.I.

Ghost Recon and Rainbow Six:  All of the extra effort on "Team Deathmatch" or whatever other game modes they had could have been better spent on fixing squadmate A.I. for single-player gamers

Lost Planet 2: Oops, you're stuck with an hour-long boss fight in one part of the game if playing single-player.

[Lunatic LK47]

shep82 wrote...
The Force Unleashed 2 was more than 4 hours

Bull****. DSPGaming's YouTube Let's Plays and Angry Joe's review confirmed the length already. 

Where in the heck
did you think this game would be that short? It's going to be at least
30 hours.

I'm more concerned about the content of ME3. ME2 already had its share of import bugs that sucked me out of the immersion with the game. What's to say there won't be 5 Conrad Verner-caliber glitches (i.e. "You did a certain thing, but the game read the data improperly)?

[Scimal]

111987 wrote...

I'm not understanding your point here...sorry, could you clarify?

Sure. Your analogies (Metroid, Zelda, and Mario) are inadequate to make your point concerning ME3 (that the addition of multiplayer is tantamount to a genre or style switch). Thus, I found difficulty using them.

In a broader sense, the OP is basically bringing up the issue: Why do you think MP shouldn't be included in ME3, because for all you know, you're missing out on something great?

My response is: I don't know if it's great or not, but I do know that it's unnecessary and would have been better on its own instead of piggybacking off of ME3. This knowledge makes me suspicious of BW's current and future decisions until their current decision is proven harmless.

I have to disagree with you here; co-op doesn't ruin intimacy or finality. Your Shepard is still your Shepard; co-op is optional, and your co-op characters have zero interaction with Shepard. Also, since co-op is simply another way to bolster your forces for the final battle against the Reapers, it's story will end at the same time as Shepard's.

I didn't write 'ruin,' I wrote 'antagonistic.' Multiplayer/co-op flows in the opposite direction of a tightly-controlled SP campaign focused on one protagonist. The antagonism contributes to uncertainty of the co-op's implementation.

That it merely exists at the same time as the SP campaign is what worries some people. I'm not worried about the existence of the co-op sections as much as I am about BW's decisions and their alignment with my desires. When BW strays too far from what I want, I will simply find another developer to buy from. I'm not sure what that threshold is yet, but I've been gettign inklings because of the quirks and oddities listed below.

DA:O's DLC quality is all over the place, DA2 is a clear case of being undercooked (despite it being significantly better than the grognards squeal about), ME2's pacing was inconsistent until the SM, and now co-op is introduced at the very end of a series that doesn't need it.

[111987]

Scimal wrote...

111987 wrote...

I'm not understanding your point here...sorry, could you clarify?

Sure. Your analogies (Metroid, Zelda, and Mario) are inadequate to make your point concerning ME3 (that the addition of multiplayer is tantamount to a genre or style switch). Thus, I found difficulty using them.

Ah okay, thank you for the clarification.

The point I made with those particular games is that all of those games experienced a dramatic shift that was heavily scrutinized, and yet turned out beautifully. It isn't the exact same situation as ME3, but what I'm trying to point out is that features of those games were heavily criticized as well, before much was known about them, and said criticisms turned out to be unfounded. If anything, the fact that a game can change genres, or an entire artistic style and still be as good if not better than its predecessors suggests to me that Mass Effect 3 can have a multiplayer mode and still be as good, if not better than the previous installments.

Scimal wrote...

In a broader sense, the OP is basically bringing up the issue: Why do you think MP shouldn't be included in ME3, because for all you know, you're missing out on something great?

My response is: I don't know if it's great or not, but I do know that it's unnecessary and would have been better on its own instead of piggybacking off of ME3. This knowledge makes me suspicious of BW's current and future decisions until their current decision is proven harmless.

The OP is trying to say that even though multiplayer isn't necesarry, it could turn out to be a good thing. It wasn't necesarry for any of the games I mentioned to go in the direction they did; people would have still bought Mario games if they were side-scrollers, etc...but they did go in another direction and were great.

As for the future, I definitely understand your concern. This thread was more addressed to the people whom will refuse to buy the game because of multiplayer, without waiting for more information, reviews, etc...

[YouthCultureForever]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

YouthCultureForever wrote...

It won't 70 dollars.

I'm including TAXES. 

Why does the MP tag automatically signify the death of the SP campaign? Who said there had to be a trade off?

Uh, because it usually does?

Resident Evil 5: Mandatory co-op sucked the fun factor out of it and REQUIRES two human players to have a LESS FRUSTRATING EXPERIENCE.

F.E.A.R. 3: Co-op focus and the extra focus on the multiplayer modes that died TWO MONTHS AFTER RELEASE resulted in a half-assed 4 hour campaign.

All 3 of the Gears of War games:  Single-player is less-desirable because of **** squad A.I.

Ghost Recon and Rainbow Six:  All of the extra effort on "Team Deathmatch" or whatever other game modes they had could have been better spent on fixing squadmate A.I. for single-player gamers

Lost Planet 2: Oops, you're stuck with an hour-long boss fight in one part of the game if playing single-player.

Not sure where you live, but sales tax never makes a game $70 for me.

RE5 didn't have mandatory co-op. You could do SP by yourself though I wouldn't do it. It sucked without co-op. Co-op helped that game. It's competitive MP mode sucked as well. The controls sucked. It just wasn't a very good game.

I haven't played FEAR, so I can't comment on it.

I don't think gamers who play GoW expect to be blown away by the story in the first place.

Only Tom Clancey game I've played is Rainbow 6: Vegas. So I can't say what the rest are like.

No, the MP tag won't ruin a SP experience if the developer is commited to it. The Uncharted franchise is the perfect example of that.
 
Bioware is commited to the SP experience. The addition of MP shouldn't be a problem.

Modifié par YouthCultureForever, 12 octobre 2011 - 12:59 .

[Gatt9]

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.

I understand what you're trying to say.

But you're missing a key facet.

Those games were designed with those changes in mind,  because they felt they could make a good game with those changes.  ME3's Multiplayer was designed because EA wants Online Pass in everything,  not because it made a better game.

Shoehorning in a Suit's "Feature" that he thinks will make more money,  and get him a bigger bonus,  never makes for a better game.

The silly "Galatic Readiness!!!" thing already illustrates how poorly designed the shoehorning is. 

[shep82]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

shep82 wrote...
The Force Unleashed 2 was more than 4 hours

Bull****. DSPGaming's YouTube Let's Plays and Angry Joe's review confirmed the length already. 

Where in the heck
did you think this game would be that short? It's going to be at least
30 hours.

I'm more concerned about the content of ME3. ME2 already had its share of import bugs that sucked me out of the immersion with the game. What's to say there won't be 5 Conrad Verner-caliber glitches (i.e. "You did a certain thing, but the game read the data improperly)?

BS. I played the game and it took me longer than that they rushed through it because they couldn't stand it.
The Conrad Verner glitch is a result of a ME 1 bug that caused the data to be read improperly and is easily fixed. They already said that they have fixed the issue in ME 3 so both options will be read properly.

[111987]

Gatt9 wrote...

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.

I understand what you're trying to say.

But you're missing a key facet.

Those games were designed with those changes in mind,  because they felt they could make a good game with those changes.  ME3's Multiplayer was designed because EA wants Online Pass in everything,  not because it made a better game.

Shoehorning in a Suit's "Feature" that he thinks will make more money,  and get him a bigger bonus,  never makes for a better game.

The silly "Galatic Readiness!!!" thing already illustrates how poorly designed the shoehorning is. 

Was multiplayer not thought of in the initial planning stages? Or at least early into development?

I'm asking because I truly don't know, not to just argue

[Lunatic LK47]

YouthCultureForever wrote...

RE5 didn't have mandatory co-op. You could do SP by yourself though I wouldn't do it. It sucked without co-op. Co-op helped that game. It's competitive MP mode sucked as well. The controls sucked. It just wasn't a very good game.

Uh, I said MANDATORY FOR A LESS FRUSTRATING EXPERIENCE. Good ****ing God, is reading comprehension THAT difficult for you?

I haven't played FEAR, so I can't comment on it.

It's "X-Files meets a John Woo movie through the eyes of a soldier with bullet-time powers." Campaign was at least 10 hours long for the first two games.

I don't think gamers who play GoW expect to be blown away by the story in the first place.

The gameplay still sucked balls. As it is, I'm FORCED TO RELY ON SOMEONE ELSE AS MY PERSONAL CRUTCH.

[Lunatic LK47]

shep82 wrote...
BS. I played the game and it took me longer than that they rushed through it because they couldn't stand it.
The Conrad Verner glitch is a result of a ME 1 bug that caused the data to be read improperly and is easily fixed. They already said that they have fixed the issue in ME 3 so both options will be read properly.

Item scavenger hunts for the sake of it DOES NOT HELP YOUR CASE.  Game is still 4 hours long regardless of how you spin it.  

I'll believe your claims about the fixed data import when I see it for myself.

[YouthCultureForever]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

YouthCultureForever wrote...

RE5 didn't have mandatory co-op. You could do SP by yourself though I wouldn't do it. It sucked without co-op. Co-op helped that game. It's competitive MP mode sucked as well. The controls sucked. It just wasn't a very good game.

Uh, I said MANDATORY FOR A LESS FRUSTRATING EXPERIENCE. Good ****ing God, is reading comprehension THAT difficult for you?

I haven't played FEAR, so I can't comment on it.

It's "X-Files meets a John Woo movie through the eyes of a soldier with bullet-time powers." Campaign was at least 10 hours long for the first two games.

I don't think gamers who play GoW expect to be blown away by the story in the first place.

The gameplay still sucked balls. As it is, I'm FORCED TO RELY ON SOMEONE ELSE AS MY PERSONAL CRUTCH.

It wasn't the MP that caused problems for RE5. It was bad all around. Is it hard for you to be civil?

Modifié par YouthCultureForever, 12 octobre 2011 - 01:23 .

[Lunatic LK47]

YouthCultureForever wrote...


It wasn't the MP that caused problems for the game. It was bad all around. Is it hard for you to be civil?

:bandit:Depends on whether or not you cherry picked my statements when replying to my posts. You still stated the obvious (i.e. "Multiplayer required for a better campaign experience in RE5")

[YouthCultureForever]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

YouthCultureForever wrote...


It wasn't the MP that caused problems for the game. It was bad all around. Is it hard for you to be civil?

:bandit:Depends on whether or not you cherry picked my statements when replying to my posts. You still stated the obvious (i.e. "Multiplayer required for a better campaign experience in RE5")

If I needed to clarify what I meant, then fine. Don't flame me. No need to be a jerk about it.

[Lunatic LK47]

YouthCultureForever wrote...


If I needed to clarify what I meant, then fine. Don't flame me. No need to be a jerk about it.

I said something in an earlier post, and you said almost the exact same thing. I tend to lose it that easy just because I got the impression you didn't fully read my post.

[YouthCultureForever]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

YouthCultureForever wrote...


If I needed to clarify what I meant, then fine. Don't flame me. No need to be a jerk about it.

I said something in an earlier post, and you said almost the exact same thing. I tend to lose it that easy just because I got the impression you didn't fully read my post.

I generalized by saying RE5 suffered from bad SP, MP, and controls. I said it was very bad all around, I didn't blame it's problems on MP like you did. Excuse me if I didn't make myself completely clear. You don't have to curse at me.

Have you considered the Uncharted example?