2261 réponses à ce sujet

[FDrage]

drakmoor wrote...

I am not sure it has been proven yet that it will definitely be harder to gain all the ponts needed for an "optimal" ending in SP only. Without knowing how long each MP mission takes coupled with the rewards handed out at the end and the length of each SP side mission and their rewards to see which one takes longer to get the same amount of GR this comparison simply can not be made.

Personally I think it is logical otherwise it would make the MP part seem way more tacked on then it should be. I personally don't understand why people seem so adverste to that as is almost defensive, when someone mentioens the (potential) influence of MP on the SP game. Bioware is saying that at the moment more as a marking spleen then anything else, in my oppinion.

The thing is with the MP mode, it can't feel tacked on. That would probably be thw worste thing that Bioware could do. Therefore it has to make sense, feel like a part of the ME experience and has to be subtential specifically on release as for ME3 that is one of the biug selling points. 1 Map with little to no impact won't do as it probably would be more contraproductive then anything else.

This means some significant resources (I'm not talking about where they come from) being put into the MP part and it also means it needs to have a visible impact on the game itself. Otherwise it would stand appart and waaaay to seperate from the ME experience (that is what the game is about, in my oppinion). This means it has to have a noticeable impact on the game. I don't say "huge impact" but noticebale.

While they cannot make it so thay you require MP for a optimal success in the game (i'm not sperateing SP and MP n purpose here), however based on what said above it has to have a notice impact. That means MP needs to be able to make of for short commings you might have experienced in the SP part ... to some degree. If you mess up your SP part then the MP pat won't rescue you. However it will need to be able to make up a bit ... therefore it gives you more option to complete ME3 optimal. More options means it is easier, not easy but easier overall.
Also they haven't said, nor do I know if they would / want to, how past decisions (ME1 and ME2) influence your readiness points (RP) meaning you might be hard pressed without MP to achieve an optimal outcome.

So closing MP will have an impact, it won't be small however it won't help you out either if you messed your SP part up (on purpose or not) ... while that is just rumours at this stage, for me it is logical. Beside MP was rumours until EA Bioware announced it recently.

[uv23]

dreman9999 wrote...

uv23 wrote...

I'm sure its been posted but this forum software is pretty horrible for keeping up on topics: can we customize the appearance/name of our multiplayer characters?

Yes, but it  had a catch. You have to recuit the race first to do so.

Cheers. I actually like that catch. 

[drakmoor]

FDrage wrote...

Personally I think it is logical otherwise it would make the MP part seem way more tacked on then it should be. I personally don't understand why people seem so adverste to that as is almost defensive, when someone mentioens the (potential) influence of MP on the SP game. Bioware is saying that at the moment more as a marking spleen then anything else, in my oppinion.

The thing is with the MP mode, it can't feel tacked on. That would probably be thw worste thing that Bioware could do. Therefore it has to make sense, feel like a part of the ME experience and has to be subtential specifically on release as for ME3 that is one of the biug selling points. 1 Map with little to no impact won't do as it probably would be more contraproductive then anything else.

This means some significant resources (I'm not talking about where they come from) being put into the MP part and it also means it needs to have a visible impact on the game itself. Otherwise it would stand appart and waaaay to seperate from the ME experience (that is what the game is about, in my oppinion). This means it has to have a noticeable impact on the game. I don't say "huge impact" but noticebale.

While they cannot make it so thay you require MP for a optimal success in the game (i'm not sperateing SP and MP n purpose here), however based on what said above it has to have a notice impact. That means MP needs to be able to make of for short commings you might have experienced in the SP part ... to some degree. If you mess up your SP part then the MP pat won't rescue you. However it will need to be able to make up a bit ... therefore it gives you more option to complete ME3 optimal. More options means it is easier, not easy but easier overall.
Also they haven't said, nor do I know if they would / want to, how past decisions (ME1 and ME2) influence your readiness points (RP) meaning you might be hard pressed without MP to achieve an optimal outcome.

So closing MP will have an impact, it won't be small however it won't help you out either if you messed your SP part up (on purpose or not) ... while that is just rumours at this stage, for me it is logical. Beside MP was rumours until EA Bioware announced it recently.

I agree with what you are saying, in my post I was mainly trying to point out that all these claims of SP being the significantly harder way to gain GR are as of right now pretty much unfounded. I agree with you that the MP missions are going to have an impact, otherwise, why bother. We simply just don't know the required time/GR point in either SP or MP to make that comparison. One other thing to consider is with SP if you fail a mission you can reload from your last save (if you saved during the mission) however if you fail in MP then you have to start over and gain no reward.

In regards to the bolded part of your quote, it is my biggest concern that all the decisions from ME1 and 2 are boiled down to readiness points, that would be a huge mistake in my eyes. They already mentioned that GR is not the only factor that contributes to an "optimal ending" so I hope previous decisions are apart of the as yet undefined other factors.

[Killjoy Cutter]

uv23 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

uv23 wrote...

I'm sure its been posted but this forum software is pretty horrible for keeping up on topics: can we customize the appearance/name of our multiplayer characters?

Yes, but it  had a catch. You have to recuit the race first to do so.

Cheers. I actually like that catch. 

Which of course means that if for those playing MP, if the player is forced to choose between two races at any point in the SP campaign, they either make their choice based on their SP Shep's preference, or on which race they'd rather play in MP. 

Not good. 

[Tengu101]

I honestly can only say this, I was going to buy the game anyway so multiplayer is just more value to my game. I'm actually really excited to play it because I haven't seen Bioware make an actual multiplayer experience and I think out of all their games, Mass Effect 3 is the perfect place to incorporate it. It has the narrative that really explains why its there, it has the gameplay to match and it has the customization (even more so than any Call of Duty game) to set your play style. Also all my friends play mass effect as well, so to be able to experience it with them is very cool. So kudos Bioware, you just made a bigger fan out of me than I was before, and I was already a pretty big fan of you guys.

[Shermos]

I was at first concerned that MP would take resources away from SP, but since it seems that a different section of Bioware is developing it, hopefully we'll still get an awesome single player experience. I suspect that if Bioware had their way, there would be no MP but EA is forcing it on them.

In other words, I'm not too worried about it. It could even be a good thing. When I told my friend who isn't a big RPG fan about MP being stuck in, he got interested and is now going back to the first two games to get all the story While I walk him through the more awkward RPG elements of ME1.

[Axelstall]

Yep there's a whole new team for Co-Op. Bioware isn't stupid, they're expanding on good games with suggestions people have given them. (My first thought on Co-Op for Mass Effect was way back in the first one when i was stuck on saving Liara and the Krogan kept charging me.)

[Lunatic LK47]

Shermos wrote...

I was at first concerned that MP would take resources away from SP, but since it seems that a different section of Bioware is developing it, hopefully we'll still get an awesome single player experience.

Problem is past experience with certain games has proved otherwise, even WITH the separate teams.  Oh, look, DICE was responsible for Medal of Honor 2010's multiplayer, but that part was ******-poor. Danger Close was no-better with the Single Player Campaign.

Brothers in Arms: Hell's Highway.  Gearbox was responsible for campaign, but the length was short and the entire campaign was lackluster.  Rockstar was responsible for multiplayer, but that was plagued with networking problems, making it unplayable.

Irrational had a similar thing for BioShock 2. Core campaign people still did campaign, while another team did multiplayer. Oops, multiplayer was never liked and died within TWO MONTHS, while campaign suffered for it.

BioWare has a lot to live up to, otherwise, MP will die out in TWO MONTHS.

Modifié par Lunatic LK47, 19 octobre 2011 - 07:28 .

[Killjoy Cutter]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

Shermos wrote...

I was at first concerned that MP would take resources away from SP, but since it seems that a different section of Bioware is developing it, hopefully we'll still get an awesome single player experience.

Problem is past experience with certain games has proved otherwise, even WITH the separate teams.  Oh, look, DICE was responsible for Medal of Honor 2010's multiplayer, but that part was ******-poor. Danger Close was no-better with the Single Player Campaign.

Brothers in Arms: Hell's Highway.  Gearbox was responsible for campaign, but the length was short and the entire campaign was lackluster.  Rockstar was responsible for multiplayer, but that was plagued with networking problems, making it unplayable.

Irrational had a similar thing for BioShock 2. Core campaign people still did campaign, while another team did multiplayer. Oops, multiplayer was never liked and died within TWO MONTHS, while campaign suffered for it.

BioWare has a lot to live up to, otherwise, MP will die out in TWO MONTHS.

Prepare for a certain few posters responding about how none of that means anything, and you're just being a paranoid stick in the mud, and MP won't hurt SP, and MP is 100% good, and MP will only ever ever have good effects on SP, and MP won't take any of SP's disk space, and... 

[Rockworm503]

Prepare for a certain few posters responding with how nothing they do with mass effect will ever be good enough and this is going to rape the series.

[Candidate 88766]

What I don't understand is how people think that any time/money taken away from the SP (which we already know is minimal because an entirely different team did the MP) will mean the SP is worse off. Throwing money and time at a game doesn't necessarily make it better.

Duke Nukem Forever took 14 years, but was decidedly average. The original Modern Warfare however was developed over 2 years, and was generally - and quite rightly - seen as a fantastic game. Likewise, Too Human took 10 years but Braid took 3 years, and I think we can all take a gander at which is the better game.

Its a similar situation with cost - Homefront will have had a far bigger budget than, say, Limbo, but while Homefront received mixed reception Limbo was critically acclaimed. I would imagine that Medal of Honour's budget was greater than Arkham Asylum's (given that one was published by the largest publisher of games, EA, and the other was using a setting that had up to that point had a pretty dismal gaming track record), but Arkham Asylum was by far and away the better received game.

Now, I'm not saying that time and money aren't necessary for game development - of course they are, I'm not stupid - but past a certain point, throwing more money and time at a project won't necessarily make it better and some people here need to understand that. Given that ME3 is designed to be a AAA game, is the final part of a so far very successful franchise (critically and commercially) and is being published by EA, I would imagine that its budget is pretty obscene. If EA then gave them money on top of that to help develop MP then that will have in no way affected the SP's budget, which I quite reasonably imagine was more than enough for Bioware to cram everything they wanted into it. Past a certain point, throwing more money at them wouldn't necessarily be constructive.

Extra money and time don't necessarily make a game better than it was before, and people need to remember that before instantly blaming the MP for anything they don't like in the SP. Remember, Bioware has been working with the ME universe and their version of the Unreal Engine since 2005 now - adding new environments or locations or dialogue isn't going to be as time-consuming any more, and won't take up as much money, or memory on a disc.

Modifié par Candidate 88766, 19 octobre 2011 - 08:18 .

[Lumikki]

Candidate 88766 wrote...

Extra money and time don't necessarily make a game better than it was before, and people need to remember that before instantly blaming the MP for anything they don't like in the SP.

http://social.biowar...17/polls/13874/

Does extra feature make it better, if people did not even want it?

Anyone working with ME3 game cost money to EA. ALL those money will be need to get back from sale of ME3 game.
All the money and time could have been used increase content in SP. Better or not, it's more what people want.

Modifié par Lumikki, 19 octobre 2011 - 09:43 .

[Rorschachinstein]

I really don't see how in the hell MP could hurt SP. If you don't like MP then play SP like you have been for the last two games and downloadable content.

[Lumikki]

Rorschachinstein wrote...

I really don't see how in the hell MP could hurt SP. If you don't like MP then play SP like you have been for the last two games and downloadable content.

That's because you are thinking hole SP and MP situation from player playing perspective. To understand it, you have to think it from game development business perspective and how it affects the content inside the game.

Try this invented situation.

Money & time X = 20% MP + 80% SP content
or
Money & time X = 100% SP content

Modifié par Lumikki, 19 octobre 2011 - 10:13 .

[Beerfish]

Lumikki wrote...

Candidate 88766 wrote...

Extra money and time don't necessarily make a game better than it was before, and people need to remember that before instantly blaming the MP for anything they don't like in the SP.

http://social.biowar...17/polls/13874/

Does extra feature make it better, if people did not even want it?

Anyone working with ME3 game cost money to EA. ALL those money will be need to get back from sale of ME3 game.
All the money and time could have been used increase content in SP. Better or not, it's more what people want.

Unless you genuinely feel that no one truly wants MP your assertion is not correct and seeing by the number of positive comments of these forums and the comments of BioWare people playing mp I'd say enough people want MP to justify it.

If there was no multiplayer you'd get ME3 without mulitplayer, you'd have no more quests, no more content, no more planets, no more story.

Good thing ME2 had no multiplayer or they would have had to cut 3 companions and 20 quests. 

[Lumikki]

Beerfish wrote...

Unless you genuinely feel that no one truly wants MP your assertion is not correct and seeing by the number of positive comments of these forums and the comments of BioWare people playing mp I'd say enough people want MP to justify it.

If there was no multiplayer you'd get ME3 without mulitplayer, you'd have no more quests, no more content, no more planets, no more story.

Good thing ME2 had no multiplayer or they would have had to cut 3 companions and 20 quests. 

Okey think this like this. You sayed Bolded part, that without MP I get nothing more. That's you message?
With MP because I have no internet connection in my game computer, what did I now get ?

Money & time X = A% MP + (100 - A)% SP

Any A reduse my SP content.

http://social.biowar...17/polls/13874/

Of course point is that 75% player base did not want MP at all and 10% wanted MP content, 15% did not care one way or other. This means, because game has A% MP content, 75% of player base lose allways. Because they can choose not to play MP content what means they losed A% of game content. Or other choise would be force to play MP content what they did not want and get that way 100% content. Meaning 75% of player base lose both ways. Only those 10% of player base where the winners, they get exactly what they want.

Modifié par Lumikki, 19 octobre 2011 - 10:24 .

[Candidate 88766]

Lumikki wrote...

Candidate 88766 wrote...

Extra money and time don't necessarily make a game better than it was before, and people need to remember that before instantly blaming the MP for anything they don't like in the SP.

http://social.biowar...17/polls/13874/

Does extra feature make it better, if people did not even want it?

Anyone working with ME3 game cost money to EA. ALL those money will be need to get back from sale of ME3 game.
All the money and time could have been used increase content in SP. Better or not, it's more what people want.

Not everyone that bought ME1 and ME2 will buy ME3. Bioware needs to make up that deficit somehow, but people that didn't but the first two probably won't buy the 3rd because its still the same sort of game. Add MP into the mix - now you have a variety of modes and even greater longevity. More people may become interested in the franchise and so Bioware makes more money.

An extra feature can indeed make a game better. Whether co-op will improve the ME3 experience is something none of us will know until relase, but I for one am optimistic.

Also you missed my point - extra money/time may not necessarily make the SP better. Adding too much stuff could detract from the pacing and weaken the experience as a whole. I would rather have a well-paced quality game than a longer game that potentially sacrifices quality for quantity.

[Candidate 88766]

Lumikki wrote...

Rorschachinstein wrote...

I really don't see how in the hell MP could hurt SP. If you don't like MP then play SP like you have been for the last two games and downloadable content.

That's because you are thinking hole SP and MP situation from player playing perspective. To understand it, you have to think it from game development business perspective and how it affects the content inside the game.

Try this invented situation.

Money & time X = 20% MP + 80% SP content
or
Money & time X = 100% SP content

Re-read the post I made about this exact thing.

1. Simply adding more money and time may not necessarily make the SP better.

2. Money and time spent on MP would not necessarily have been spent on SP - it was a different team, and EA may not have granted extra money if MP wasn't being developed.

[Candidate 88766]

Lumikki wrote...
Okey think this like this. You sayed Bolded part, that without MP I get nothing more. That's you message?
With MP because I have no internet connection in my game computer, what did I now get ?

Money & time X = A% MP + (100 - A)% SP

Any A reduse my SP content.

http://social.biowar...17/polls/13874/

Of course point is that 75% player base did not want MP at all and 10% wanted MP content, 15% did not care one way or other. This means, because game has A% MP content, 75% of player base lose allways. Because they can choose not to play MP content what means they losed A% of game content. Or other choise would be force to play MP content what they did not want and get that way 100% content. Meaning 75% of player base lose both ways. Only those 10% of player base where the winners, they get exactly what they want.

Firstly, you assume that any money not spent on MP automatically goes to SP - not necessarily true. Also, you assume that more money=better - again, not necessarily true.

Secondly, a poll with fewer than 1000 votes cannot possibly represent the player base of a game that sold millions. The sort of people that frequent the forum of said game may have entirely different views on MP to the more casual ME players.

[Lumikki]

Candidate 88766 wrote...

Re-read the post I made about this exact thing.

Re-read my answer for your post. Maybe you missed the point that 75% players did not want MP, so how does this MP feature make game better for 75% players?

[Candidate 88766]

Lumikki wrote...

Candidate 88766 wrote...

Re-read the post I made about this exact thing.

Re-read my answer for your post. Maybe you missed the point that 75% players did not want MP, so how does this MP feature make game better for 75% players?

No, not 75% of players - 75% of a small group of people out of the people who come on BSN. Less than 600 votes against MP is not 75% of a playerbase that numbers in the millions.

Besides, while MP may not make the game better for people that don't want it, that doesn't mean it makes the game worse. Time and money spent on the MP would not necessarily have been spent on the SP, and said money would not necessarily have actually improved it.

I normally agree with you on stuff, and I don't want to sound rude, but you seem to be missing the points I raised.

[Lumikki]

Candidate 88766 wrote...

Firstly, you assume that any money not spent on MP automatically goes to SP - not necessarily true.

True, but you assume also that it can't be used to make more SP content.

Also, you assume that more money=better - again, not necessarily true.

True, but you assume that it can't, when it also can. Also my point was no better, but more content = longer.

Secondly, a poll with fewer than 1000 votes cannot possibly represent the player base of a game that sold millions. The sort of people that frequent the forum of said game may have entirely different views on MP to the more casual ME players.

Actually it can. If you know statistical mathematics it requires very few people to know millions opinions. I was my self ones surprice how few people actually is required for sertain accuracy.

I agree with you the forum members view point can be different, but same poll has been done also common game web-pages. They result was pretty close to same. So, only one left is those who don't come internet game sites at all. They = MP, when MP is internet related?

Modifié par Lumikki, 19 octobre 2011 - 10:40 .

[clipped_wolf]

75% didn't want multiplayer? Well, it's here so saying you didn't want it is kind of moot at this point. I'm hoping for the best.
So is there going to be four player split screen? That would be awesome.

[Candidate 88766]

Lumikki wrote...

Candidate 88766 wrote...

Firstly, you assume that any money not spent on MP automatically goes to SP - not necessarily true.

1. True, but you assume also that it can't be used to make more SP content.

Also, you assume that more money=better - again, not necessarily true.

2. True, but you assume that it can't, when it also can.

Secondly, a poll with fewer than 1000 votes cannot possibly represent the player base of a game that sold millions. The sort of people that frequent the forum of said game may have entirely different views on MP to the more casual ME players.

3. Actually it can. If you know statical matematic it requires very few people to know millions opinions. I was my self ones surprice how few people actually is required for sertain accuracy.

I agree with you the forum members view point differences, but same poll has been done also common game web-pages. They result was pretty close to same. So, only one left is those who don't come internet game sides at all. They = MP, when MP is internet related?

1. Environments and assets made for the MP can be used in the SP, and vice versa. Also, remember that Bioware has been working with this game engine and setting for years - it won't cost them as much any more to add new things.

2. You were assuming that it automatically would make it better, I was just trying to show that that isn't necessarily true. You, and many others for that matter, were saying that it would definitely make the SP better if it wasn't spent on MP, but I'm saying that maybe it would or maybe it wouldn't have - you can't prove it either way. Besides, if EA hadn't given Bioware money for MP it may have spent on another Medal of Honor or something - I'd rather it was spent on ME in some capacity.

3. The sort of people that actually have accounts for gaming sites and comment on stuff on them generally have a different mindset to the majority of gamers. If you took a sample of ALL the people who bought ME1 and ME2 then the results could be very different. 

And before you ask, yes I do statistics - at GCSE, A-level and now 2nd year degree standard - and I can tell you that fewer than 600 results from one very specific group of people (namely the biggest ME fans, which is generally what BSN is made up of) is not enough to give an accurate or reliable idea.

Modifié par Candidate 88766, 19 octobre 2011 - 10:43 .

[Candidate 88766]

clipped_wolf wrote...

75% didn't want multiplayer? Well, it's here so saying you didn't want it is kind of moot at this point. I'm hoping for the best.
So is there going to be four player split screen? That would be awesome.

Don't think split-screen is in. Maybe for 2 players, but 4 is almost certainly out of the question - screens would be too small, and there is too much to render.