2261 réponses à ce sujet

[Candidate 88766]

Gatt9 wrote...

Candidate 88766 wrote...

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.

You are making a massive error in your assessment.

First,  it's a single-player narrative driven game,  not conducive to multiplayer.  Go play Fable 2 co-op,  the game is decidedly less entertaining when you're not getting any story and just randomly killing things.

Second,  you are forgetting...this is a handfull of co-op missions,  not a co-op game.  I doubt there's many people who will be swayed by the promise of a few co-op missions.

I doubt there's even fewer who'll be swayed by the promise of a few co-op missions in a narritive driven single player game.

I often wonder these days,  did many people here play Fable 2?  I'd guess not considering that people seem to think this feature has any value.

Fable 2 co-op was great! The game is much more fun when you're randomly killing things or doing quests in co-op, because the story in Fable 2 was the same as Fable 1's but just not as good. The tongue-in-cheek nature of Fable makes it a blast to play in co-op I think. If you're evil then co-op makes the game particularly good. Besides, you can play the entire story in co-op without missing anything or losing out on anything, not that Fable 2 had much of a story anyway. Sure, the co-op could've been executed better but the idea of it was brilliant for a game like Fable 2 - a story-driven game that doesn't take itself seriously. I mean, this is a game that rewards you for farting in people's faces. Whether this'll work for ME3 remains to be seen, but in the context of a galactic war I think it makes sense to be able to view the war from different sides and that wouldn't have any place in the SP.

I'm not saying co-op will be enough to sway people entirely, but for anyone on the fence or people that are only looking forward to it a bit then this extra feature may be a deciding factor. The whole concept of Galaxy at War may be interesting enough to people that they buy ME3 when they haven't wanted the others.

Modifié par Candidate 88766, 20 octobre 2011 - 01:45 .

[Taciter]

Candidate 88766 wrote...
I'm not saying co-op will be enough to sway people entirely, but for anyone on the fence or people that are only looking forward to it a bit then this extra feature may be a deciding factor. The whole concept of Galaxy at War may be interesting enough to people that they buy ME3 when they haven't wanted the others.

That's a fair assumption but you neglected to consider the fence-sitters who 'might' have purchased an all-SP RPG trilogy and to whom the inclusion of MP is sufficient to permanently dissuade them from making the financial commitment.

And conversely, the Galaxy at War concept may be a sufficient departure from the original game design to dissuade otherwise willing consumers to foot the bill.

It's all too subjective to make an accurate prediction - I hope ME3 turns out to be a unmitigated success but ignoring feedback from ME veterans would be a commercial faux-pas. Sure, the Bioware Forum community may not provide the perfect case study on which to base a development strategy but all the concerns listed in these pages will be concerns that others share.

To address these issues 'during' development will undoubtedly prove to be far less costly than attempting to issue restrospective ammendments as a form of damage control.

Modifié par Taciter, 20 octobre 2011 - 02:30 .

[Candidate 88766]

Taciter wrote...

Candidate 88766 wrote...
I'm not saying co-op will be enough to sway people entirely, but for anyone on the fence or people that are only looking forward to it a bit then this extra feature may be a deciding factor. The whole concept of Galaxy at War may be interesting enough to people that they buy ME3 when they haven't wanted the others.

That's a fair assumption but you neglected to consider the fence-sitters who 'might' have purchased an all-SP RPG trilogy and to whom the inclusion of MP is sufficient to permanently dissuade them from making the financial commitment.

And conversely, the Galaxy at War concept may be a sufficient departure from the original game design to dissuade otherwise willing consumers to foot the bill.

It's all too subjective to make an accurate prediction - I hope ME3 turns out to be a unmitigated success but ignoring feedback from ME veterans would be a commercial faux-pas. Sure, the Bioware Forum community may not provide the perfect case study on which to base a development strategy but all the concerns listed in these pages will be concerns that others share.

To address these issues 'during' development will undoubtedly prove to be far less costly than attempting to issue restrospective ammendments as a form of damage control.

Whatever reasons they had for not buying ME1 or ME2 would still stand - apart from concluding the story and improving the combat, ME3 is pretty much the same game - a single-player action-RPG set in space. If that didn't appeal to people for ME1 and ME2, then ME3 has to add something to the mix.

Galaxy at War shouldn't be a departure at all - the entire series has been building up to a galactic war, and until we know everything that Galaxy at War entails we can't say whether it captures that idea or not.

I get what you're saying, but the feedback from ME veterans is either optimism that it'll work or hate-filled rants that seem to blow things way out of proportion. I haven't seen a single thread offering constructive criticism about the MP, and we won't see that until we know a lot of details about it. Until we've played the co-op, the only feedback the community will provide is based purely off their own preferences and prejudices about MP in general.

[Taciter]

Candidate 88766 wrote...
Whatever reasons they had for not buying ME1 or ME2 would still stand - apart from concluding the story and improving the combat, ME3 is pretty much the same game - a single-player action-RPG set in space. If that didn't appeal to people for ME1 and ME2, then ME3 has to add something to the mix.

Galaxy at War shouldn't be a departure at all - the entire series has been building up to a galactic war, and until we know everything that Galaxy at War entails we can't say whether it captures that idea or not.

I get what you're saying, but the feedback from ME veterans is either optimism that it'll work or hate-filled rants that seem to blow things way out of proportion. I haven't seen a single thread offering constructive criticism about the MP, and we won't see that until we know a lot of details about it. Until we've played the co-op, the only feedback the community will provide is based purely off their own preferences and prejudices about MP in general.

Not necessarilly, ignorance of the existence of ME1 and ME2 is a perfectly plausable explanation as to why some potential customers may not, as yet, have bought into the franchise - with sufficient exposure, ME3 could easily correct that issue. For some, cost might have been a factor during the brief window of opportunity when Mass Effect preoccupied their consciousness. Perhaps it was the 'RPG-shooter' reformatting of the game mechanics to become more 'shooter-centric'. We can't presume to know the reasoning behind the gaming community's subjective preferences but to automatically assume that multiplayer is the 'something' that needs to be added to the mix to make it more appealing is a pretty narcissistic conclusion.

Galaxy at War, I grant you, is an interesting platform from which to launch the culmination of Mass Effects saga and I don't have any problems it beyond the fact that MP 'exclusive' scenarios will impact the state of Galactic readiness. In essence, to achieve the optimal 'state of readiness' without compromising on SP gameplay, one MUST particpate in MP - that's what I object to, which conveniently leads on to your third point...

THIS thread has played host to a number of constructive criticisms and more importantly, equitable compromises. However, as I see it, almost all the SP proponents support the concept of 'AI controlled' squad members in MP where as only a handfull of MP enthusiasts have expressed their support. So it's not really a case of 'optimists' vs 'hate filled ranters', more a case of 'MP zealots' vs 'open-mided solo'ists'.

The issue is not whether MP should be incorporated, that decision has already been asserted, the issue is about how best to implement a multiplayer option that doesn't preclude solo'ists from experiencing an integral (and I really don't care to argue over the definition of 'optional' or 'optimal') part of the final chapter in ME's saga. MP puritans will always be prejudiced against thoroughbred SP titles because to them, multiplayer in any form seems inevitable and virtuous - like some sort of moral crusade.

But it doesn't have to be conflict of ideologies, the two don't have to be mutually exclusive - AI controlled squad members would provide a perfectly ammicable compromise but alas, a lot of MP'ers see such a compromise as a dilution of their god-given prerogrative.

Modifié par Taciter, 20 octobre 2011 - 03:27 .

[dreman9999]

@Taciter

No, Think about what your asking for. This is a highly replayable game with a game mode that is highly replayable because of whatyou gain in it. Why would they need to add anything to expande the replayablity to the mp if one strong reason is there.And the only reason peopleareasking for bots is because they feel they have to play the mp to get GR when in fact you can getit in the sp.
And as yourself a queastion, what would be the differernce between having bots in the co-op and sp AI allies you can use for sp side mission.
And no, having bot will not keep mp alive at all, if you can play it by yourself their is no point toplay with others. It would be a contourdiction tot eh consept of co-op.
Asking for bots in co-op is pointless, not when you can ask for better.

[tetrisblock4x1]

Gatt9 wrote...

Candidate 88766 wrote...

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.

You are making a massive error in your assessment.

First,  it's a single-player narrative driven game,  not conducive to multiplayer.  Go play Fable 2 co-op,  the game is decidedly less entertaining when you're not getting any story and just randomly killing things.

Second,  you are forgetting...this is a handfull of co-op missions,  not a co-op game.  I doubt there's many people who will be swayed by the promise of a few co-op missions.

I doubt there's even fewer who'll be swayed by the promise of a few co-op missions in a narritive driven single player game.

I often wonder these days,  did many people here play Fable 2?  I'd guess not considering that people seem to think this feature has any value.

Honestly, you're kind of an **** if story is all you get games for. How about this: play games for gameplay, and put game stories on a much lower pedestal, say around halfway between novels and porno?

From what I read in an interview these coop missions will require activation via dialog options in the single player game. Presumably there are alternative choices within the same context that you unlock the coop missions. And the fact that the coop has it's own team is fantastic. Means more people working on level design and assets (which are based on stuff from Mass Effect 1 in 2005), which can be applied to the whole game.

[Garrison2009]

tetrisblock4x1 wrote...

Gatt9 wrote...

Candidate 88766 wrote...

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.

You are making a massive error in your assessment.

First,  it's a single-player narrative driven game,  not conducive to multiplayer.  Go play Fable 2 co-op,  the game is decidedly less entertaining when you're not getting any story and just randomly killing things.

Second,  you are forgetting...this is a handfull of co-op missions,  not a co-op game.  I doubt there's many people who will be swayed by the promise of a few co-op missions.

I doubt there's even fewer who'll be swayed by the promise of a few co-op missions in a narritive driven single player game.

I often wonder these days,  did many people here play Fable 2?  I'd guess not considering that people seem to think this feature has any value.

Honestly, you're kind of an **** if story is all you get games for. How about this: play games for gameplay, and put game stories on a much lower pedestal, say around halfway between novels and porno?

From what I read in an interview these coop missions will require activation via dialog options in the single player game. Presumably there are alternative choices within the same context that you unlock the coop missions. And the fact that the coop has it's own team is fantastic. Means more people working on level design and assets (which are based on stuff from Mass Effect 1 in 2005), which can be applied to the whole game.

Wait wait wait... So you're saying that we should move story DOWN on the list of reasons to buy a game?? Ok... to start, I'm very much in favor of putting MP into the Mass Effect franchise. Honestly think it's a good idea that will definitely help to further the longevity of the series as a whole, but ultimately, the only reason I started playing Mass Effect in the first place was for one reason, and one reason ONLY. Because. Of. The. Story.

If you honestly can come here and say that gameplay is more important than story? Go back to Call of Duty... Very polished gameplay and zip story there whatsoever practically...

[dreman9999]

tetrisblock4x1 wrote...

Gatt9 wrote...

Candidate 88766 wrote...

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.

You are making a massive error in your assessment.

First,  it's a single-player narrative driven game,  not conducive to multiplayer.  Go play Fable 2 co-op,  the game is decidedly less entertaining when you're not getting any story and just randomly killing things.

Second,  you are forgetting...this is a handfull of co-op missions,  not a co-op game.  I doubt there's many people who will be swayed by the promise of a few co-op missions.

I doubt there's even fewer who'll be swayed by the promise of a few co-op missions in a narritive driven single player game.

I often wonder these days,  did many people here play Fable 2?  I'd guess not considering that people seem to think this feature has any value.

Honestly, you're kind of an **** if story is all you get games for. How about this: play games for gameplay, and put game stories on a much lower pedestal, say around halfway between novels and porno?

From what I read in an interview these coop missions will require activation via dialog options in the single player game. Presumably there are alternative choices within the same context that you unlock the coop missions. And the fact that the coop has it's own team is fantastic. Means more people working on level design and assets (which are based on stuff from Mass Effect 1 in 2005), which can be applied to the whole game.

It like you never played a bioware game at all. Look around you. The most popular topics are about the story. Clearly it's important. It's great that they havea fantastic gameplay for the game but the story is very important to bioware and their fans.

Modifié par dreman9999, 20 octobre 2011 - 04:02 .

[Garrison2009]

[/quote]

It like you never played a bioware game at all. Look around you. The most popular topics are about the story. Clearly it's important. It's great that they havea fantastic gameplay for thestory but the story is very important to bioware and their fans.

[/quote]

Bravo! Exactly my point.

Modifié par Garrison2009, 20 octobre 2011 - 04:00 .

[Taciter]

dreman9999 wrote...
@Taciter

No, Think about what your asking for. This is a highly replayable game with a game mode that is highly replayable because of whatyou gain in it. Why would they need to add anything to expande the replayablity to the mp if one strong reason is there.And the only reason peopleareasking for bots is because they feel they have to play the mp to get GR when in fact you can getit in the sp.
And as yourself a queastion, what would be the differernce between having bots in the co-op and sp AI allies you can use for sp side mission.
And no, having bot will not keep mp alive at all, if you can play it by yourself their is no point toplay with others. It would be a contourdiction tot eh consept of co-op.
Asking for bots in co-op is pointless, not when you can ask for better.

Sigh, Dre... what is it man? Seriously.. Is my text appearing in your browser as some obscure provincial form of Swahili or something? I don't understand why you keep asking the same question over and over and over again. I'm flattered that you go to the effort of rephrasing it each time but you must be getting bored of ignoring my illuminating answers by now... you could just try reading one!

So here we go again...

I agree, the franchise is synonymous with replayability and GR/co-op promises to make it EVEN more replayable but you keep focusing on the end game and ignoring the process of reaching the end game. I for one don't give two sparrow farts about whether the MP 'enhanced' GR end game is achievable via SP, I care that the MP missions/objectives follow a distinct and seperate narrative - a story, seperate from Shepard's that unfolds with every subsequent scenario.

I want to experience THAT content too but I resent being forced to share my escapist fantasy with a bunch of attention-starved social addicts in order to do so. It should be incredibly easy to implement an AI squad 'toggle' option to the 'co-op' facility by virtue of shared assets and two prior game releases and yet there STILL seems to be some resistance to the idea and THAT is what really gets my goat. It seems that all the Solo enthusiasts are willing to investigate compromises but you MP enthusiasts simply dismiss them contemptuously.

And pleeeaassseeee... stop asking what the difference between an SP side-mission and an MP co-op mission would be.. it's blatantly obvious! The very premise is fundamentally different. One has you controlling Shepard and known associates, the other has you playing the role of shadow operative experiencing the aftermath of Shepard's passing influence. To any passionate ME player, that stuff is gold dust!!!

Lol.... of course it would prolongue stagnation. So you're saying that having an option to substitute missing human players with AI controlled players would actually accellerate the onset of stagnation? Do you even have a frontal lobe?

[dreman9999]

Taciter wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
@Taciter

No, Think about what your asking for. This is a highly replayable game with a game mode that is highly replayable because of whatyou gain in it. Why would they need to add anything to expande the replayablity to the mp if one strong reason is there.And the only reason peopleareasking for bots is because they feel they have to play the mp to get GR when in fact you can getit in the sp.
And as yourself a queastion, what would be the differernce between having bots in the co-op and sp AI allies you can use for sp side mission.
And no, having bot will not keep mp alive at all, if you can play it by yourself their is no point toplay with others. It would be a contourdiction tot eh consept of co-op.
Asking for bots in co-op is pointless, not when you can ask for better.

Sigh, Dre... what is it man? Seriously.. Is my text appearing in your browser as some obscure provincial form of Swahili or something? I don't understand why you keep asking the same question over and over and over again. I'm flattered that you go to the effort of rephrasing it each time but you must be getting bored of ignoring my illuminating answers by now... you could just try reading one!

So here we go again...

I agree, the franchise is synonymous with replayability and GR/co-op promises to make it EVEN more replayable but you keep focusing on the end game and ignoring the process of reaching the end game. I for one don't give two sparrow farts about whether the MP 'enhanced' GR end game is achievable via SP, I care that the MP missions/objectives follow a distinct and seperate narrative - a story, seperate from Shepard's that unfolds with every subsequent scenario.

I want to experience THAT content too but I resent being forced to share my escapist fantasy with a bunch of attention-starved social addicts in order to do so. It should be incredibly easy to implement an AI squad 'toggle' option to the 'co-op' facility by virtue of shared assets and two prior game releases and yet there STILL seems to be some resistance to the idea and THAT is what really gets my goat. It seems that all the Solo enthusiasts are willing to investigate compromises but you MP enthusiasts simply dismiss them contemptuously.

And pleeeaassseeee... stop asking what the difference between an SP side-mission and an MP co-op mission would be.. it's blatantly obvious! The very premise is fundamentally different. One has you controlling Shepard and known associates, the other has you playing the role of shadow operative experiencing the aftermath of Shepard's passing influence. To any passionate ME player, that stuff is gold dust!!!

Lol.... of course it would prolongue stagnation. So you're saying that having an option to substitute missing human players with AI controlled players would actually accellerate the onset of stagnation? Do you even have a frontal lobe?

For one, I never said anything about end game.
And what I'm asking is purely game play, your assuming that co-op has a deep story and your missinfg something if you don't play it when it's just guy's fighting over resourses. I'm not taking about story, I'm taking about gameplay. In the end, playing as Shepard or not it would be the samething. I don't even think it would make a difference. I asked this question only to reveal an awnser to you, not that I don;t know the awnser.
And from what it sound you only want bot because you are alergic to other people, or a certin type. The awnser is clear....Just play with people from bsn.....
And yes, using AI charater is worst. Why? Because they are very stupid. Anyone who a horde mode in mp will tell you that the AI character never last long. It better to have a live thinking human. And with how bad the AI is in ME2, you reather work with that?
And yes,it would be counter productive to have bot's in co-op and allwo bot's only co-op. Why? Because it would no longer be co-op, you'll be plaing by yourself.

[Taciter]

dreman9999 wrote...
For one, I never said anything about end game.
And what I'm asking is purely game play, your assuming that co-op has a deep story and your missinfg something if you don't play it when it's just guy's fighting over resourses. I'm not taking about story, I'm taking about gameplay. In the end, playing as Shepard or not it would be the samething. I don't even think it would make a difference. I asked this question only to reveal an awnser to you, not that I don;t know the awnser.
And from what it sound you only want bot because you are alergic to other people, or a certin type. The awnser is clear....Just play with people from bsn.....
And yes, using AI charater is worst. Why? Because they are very stupid. Anyone who a horde mode in mp will tell you that the AI character never last long. It better to have a live thinking human. And with how bad the AI is in ME2, you reather work with that?
And yes,it would be counter productive to have bot's in co-op and allwo bot's only co-op. Why? Because it would no longer be co-op, you'll be plaing by yourself.

Well I'm grateful that you've finally produced an original response Dre - I think you're starting to comprehend my argument but you still refuse to give it the credence it deserves.

If we have got our wires crossed, it's probably because we've focused on different elements of ME mechanics. Yes, narrative and role-playing our my principal preoccupations, gameplay is just a form of logistical support to bolster the storyline as far as I'm concerned. Since you have been focusing on Gameplay, it's no wonder that you should have misinterpreted my posts - they were out of context from your perspective. The simple fact is that although the co-op scenario may well restrain itself from contributing a great deal to plot specifics, there is no way it can truly avoid being relevant in the face of GR so it IS seperate, distinct and critical to achieving 'optimal' satisfaction.

I would never presume to patronise you by suggesting that I was ever a 'people person', nor do I feel that I should apologise for being so but if I ever needed a timely reminder of why I am the way I am, I need look no further than this very thread. Unlike the Geth, we're hopelessly self-absorbed, judgemental and narcissistic - attempting to stimulate concessus, is by virtue of independent thought, practically impossible unless you're in a position impose conformity. In my ME universe, I can drop the altruistic facade and become totally indifferent to other people's opinions.... until now.

As I said, I don't object to multiplayer being incorporated into my erstwhile refuge but I DO object to the fact that my 'access all areas' pass will have a stipulation - that I need to participate in co-operative missions with other humans in order to experience the content so lovingly crafted by Montreal's development team. Having AI controlled squaddies would NOT be counter-productive, on the contrary, it would be entirely productive as it would in no way detract from the MP experience for human group enthusiasts but it would provide an ecceptable compromise to single players not wishing to compromise their solo fantasy.

If you're concerned that MP'ers would choose to use the 'bots' in preference to other human players then you've defeated the entire argument supporting MP in the first place. You've got your cake and will be happily stuffing your face so why won't you support us in calling for a round a fairy cakes?

[Killjoy Cutter]

dreman9999 wrote...

@Taciter

No, Think about what your asking for. This is a highly replayable game with a game mode that is highly replayable because of whatyou gain in it. Why would they need to add anything to expande the replayablity to the mp if one strong reason is there.And the only reason peopleareasking for bots is because they feel they have to play the mp to get GR when in fact you can getit in the sp.
And as yourself a queastion, what would be the differernce between having bots in the co-op and sp AI allies you can use for sp side mission.
And no, having bot will not keep mp alive at all, if you can play it by yourself their is no point toplay with others. It would be a contourdiction tot eh consept of co-op.
Asking for bots in co-op is pointless, not when you can ask for better.

MP content would be more replayable with bots because you could keep playing it after two months when no one is online playing it anymore, just like every other tacked-on MP in the past. 

MP content would be more enjoyable with bots because you wouldn't have to wait for people, or deal with the typical MP player behavior, or play it during the time of day when people are online playing MP... 

[Taciter]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...
MP content would be more replayable with bots because you could keep playing it after two months when no one is online playing it anymore, just like every other tacked-on MP in the past. 

MP content would be more enjoyable with bots because you wouldn't have to wait for people, or deal with the typical MP player behavior, or play it during the time of day when people are online playing MP... 

Nicely summed up Killjoy!

[Candidate 88766]

Taciter wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...
MP content would be more replayable with bots because you could keep playing it after two months when no one is online playing it anymore, just like every other tacked-on MP in the past. 

MP content would be more enjoyable with bots because you wouldn't have to wait for people, or deal with the typical MP player behavior, or play it during the time of day when people are online playing MP... 

Nicely summed up Killjoy!

Bots would add to the replayability I agree.

However, I don't think it'll necessarily be dead after a few months - the only people left playing MP will probably be the hardcore ME fans, which is exactly who we want to be playing with online.

[Garrison2009]

Taciter wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...
MP content would be more replayable with bots because you could keep playing it after two months when no one is online playing it anymore, just like every other tacked-on MP in the past. 

MP content would be more enjoyable with bots because you wouldn't have to wait for people, or deal with the typical MP player behavior, or play it during the time of day when people are online playing MP... 

Nicely summed up Killjoy!

Agreed. I personally have no problem with adding bots as it would give me more freedom as to how I want to play. Not that I wouldnt go and play with other people quite often as well, but, for those times when either nobody's on or I just dont want to have to deal with other human beings right at that moment, I can always just switch the bots on and go at it.

[Axelstall]

Candidate 88766 wrote...

Taciter wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...
MP content would be more replayable with bots because you could keep playing it after two months when no one is online playing it anymore, just like every other tacked-on MP in the past. 

MP content would be more enjoyable with bots because you wouldn't have to wait for people, or deal with the typical MP player behavior, or play it during the time of day when people are online playing MP... 

Nicely summed up Killjoy!

Bots would add to the replayability I agree.

However, I don't think it'll necessarily be dead after a few months - the only people left playing MP will probably be the hardcore ME fans, which is exactly who we want to be playing with online.

You are correct, those are the people we want playing it. (Plus bots, Oh my gosh. It'll be like story except your not stuck playing as a human! YYYEEESSS!!)
That would be great.

Modifié par Axelstall, 20 octobre 2011 - 06:50 .

[kotor610]

1. will this be exclusively combat oriented, or will there be options like in the single player. you could have everyone voice their opinion and choose based on the majority vote. to make sure that people voted in a timely manner you could add a time limit a la alpha protocol.

2. will there be a hub world/location/ship where you could plan your next mission. it would be more immersive then a menu or server list

3. will i be able to customize my character( appearance, weapon loadout, etc.).

[dreman9999]

Taciter wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
For one, I never said anything about end game.
And what I'm asking is purely game play, your assuming that co-op has a deep story and your missinfg something if you don't play it when it's just guy's fighting over resourses. I'm not taking about story, I'm taking about gameplay. In the end, playing as Shepard or not it would be the samething. I don't even think it would make a difference. I asked this question only to reveal an awnser to you, not that I don;t know the awnser.
And from what it sound you only want bot because you are alergic to other people, or a certin type. The awnser is clear....Just play with people from bsn.....
And yes, using AI charater is worst. Why? Because they are very stupid. Anyone who a horde mode in mp will tell you that the AI character never last long. It better to have a live thinking human. And with how bad the AI is in ME2, you reather work with that?
And yes,it would be counter productive to have bot's in co-op and allwo bot's only co-op. Why? Because it would no longer be co-op, you'll be plaing by yourself.

Well I'm grateful that you've finally produced an original response Dre - I think you're starting to comprehend my argument but you still refuse to give it the credence it deserves.

If we have got our wires crossed, it's probably because we've focused on different elements of ME mechanics. Yes, narrative and role-playing our my principal preoccupations, gameplay is just a form of logistical support to bolster the storyline as far as I'm concerned. Since you have been focusing on Gameplay, it's no wonder that you should have misinterpreted my posts - they were out of context from your perspective. The simple fact is that although the co-op scenario may well restrain itself from contributing a great deal to plot specifics, there is no way it can truly avoid being relevant in the face of GR so it IS seperate, distinct and critical to achieving 'optimal' satisfaction.

I would never presume to patronise you by suggesting that I was ever a 'people person', nor do I feel that I should apologise for being so but if I ever needed a timely reminder of why I am the way I am, I need look no further than this very thread. Unlike the Geth, we're hopelessly self-absorbed, judgemental and narcissistic - attempting to stimulate concessus, is by virtue of independent thought, practically impossible unless you're in a position impose conformity. In my ME universe, I can drop the altruistic facade and become totally indifferent to other people's opinions.... until now.

As I said, I don't object to multiplayer being incorporated into my erstwhile refuge but I DO object to the fact that my 'access all areas' pass will have a stipulation - that I need to participate in co-operative missions with other humans in order to experience the content so lovingly crafted by Montreal's development team. Having AI controlled squaddies would NOT be counter-productive, on the contrary, it would be entirely productive as it would in no way detract from the MP experience for human group enthusiasts but it would provide an ecceptable compromise to single players not wishing to compromise their solo fantasy.

If you're concerned that MP'ers would choose to use the 'bots' in preference to other human players then you've defeated the entire argument supporting MP in the first place. You've got your cake and will be happily stuffing your face so why won't you support us in calling for a round a fairy cakes?

I'm not consern that adding bots will stop people from playing with other people are deture them from other people. Just that the point making it co-op would be lost. It not really co-op if your playing by yourself and you'll lose more playing a co-op game with bots then you'll gain  then just playing the sp side mission, I'm saying it better to ask for more instead of asking to play the co-op as a single player mode. It would be better to ask foran extra sp mode for peoplewho just want to play the sp.

[dreman9999]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

@Taciter

No, Think about what your asking for. This is a highly replayable game with a game mode that is highly replayable because of whatyou gain in it. Why would they need to add anything to expande the replayablity to the mp if one strong reason is there.And the only reason peopleareasking for bots is because they feel they have to play the mp to get GR when in fact you can getit in the sp.
And as yourself a queastion, what would be the differernce between having bots in the co-op and sp AI allies you can use for sp side mission.
And no, having bot will not keep mp alive at all, if you can play it by yourself their is no point toplay with others. It would be a contourdiction tot eh consept of co-op.
Asking for bots in co-op is pointless, not when you can ask for better.

MP content would be more replayable with bots because you could keep playing it after two months when no one is online playing it anymore, just like every other tacked-on MP in the past. 

MP content would be more enjoyable with bots because you wouldn't have to wait for people, or deal with the typical MP player behavior, or play it during the time of day when people are online playing MP... 

Again, your asking to play a co-op mode on your own....It wouldn't be a co-op modeany more. Your also forgeting this is a highly replayable game with sp side mission that will add high replayablity any way. Inshort, making a co-op modeto be played with one person with bot just make it a servival mode, wouldn't it be better to cut the middle man and as for a survival mode in the sp?

Modifié par dreman9999, 20 octobre 2011 - 08:29 .

[dreman9999]

Axelstall wrote...

Candidate 88766 wrote...

Taciter wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...
MP content would be more replayable with bots because you could keep playing it after two months when no one is online playing it anymore, just like every other tacked-on MP in the past. 

MP content would be more enjoyable with bots because you wouldn't have to wait for people, or deal with the typical MP player behavior, or play it during the time of day when people are online playing MP... 

Nicely summed up Killjoy!

Bots would add to the replayability I agree.

However, I don't think it'll necessarily be dead after a few months - the only people left playing MP will probably be the hardcore ME fans, which is exactly who we want to be playing with online.

You are correct, those are the people we want playing it. (Plus bots, Oh my gosh. It'll be like story except your not stuck playing as a human! YYYEEESSS!!)
That would be great.

But co-op does not have it's own story.

[SimJoseph7]

dreman9999 wrote...
Again, your asking to play a co-op mode on your own....It would be aco-op modeany more. Your also forgeting this is a highly replayable game with sp side mission that will add high replayablity any way. Inshort, making a co-op modeto be played with one person with bot just make it a servival mode, wouldn't it be better to cut the middle man and as for a survival mode in the sp?

What is your fear? Why do you want to take away a choice from the person playing the game?

YOUR MP would still be the same. Are you afraid that more people would choose to play a Solo Multiplayer mode thus taking away from the pool of people you want to play against? If so, just maybe many people really don't want to play a real co-op match.

I'll ask again, your REAL multiplayer won't change, so why are you worried over something that I and others may prefer?

The reasons people want an A.I. vs. Human players have already been stated on more than one occasion.

Joseph

[Iakus]

dreman9999 wrote...

Again, your asking to play a co-op mode on your own....It would be aco-op modeany more. Your also forgeting this is a highly replayable game with sp side mission that will add high replayablity any way. Inshort, making a co-op modeto be played with one person with bot just make it a servival mode, wouldn't it be better to cut the middle man and as for a survival mode in the sp?

And what's wrong with this?  You get to play coop with others who want to play coop.  We get to play sp on our own as we so choose.  Everyone gets access to the same resources.  Nobody gets penalized for favoring one style over another.  What's the down side?

And when MP inevitably dies out as the Next Big Thing comes out.  These missions will still be available

Modifié par iakus, 20 octobre 2011 - 08:06 .

[dreman9999]

SimJoseph7 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
Again, your asking to play a co-op mode on your own....It would be aco-op modeany more. Your also forgeting this is a highly replayable game with sp side mission that will add high replayablity any way. Inshort, making a co-op modeto be played with one person with bot just make it a servival mode, wouldn't it be better to cut the middle man and as for a survival mode in the sp?

What is your fear? Why do you want to take away a choice from the person playing the game?

YOUR MP would still be the same. Are you afraid that more people would choose to play a Solo Multiplayer mode thus taking away from the pool of people you want to play against? If so, just maybe many people really don't want to play a real co-op match.

I'll ask again, your REAL multiplayer won't change, so why are you worried over something that I and others may prefer?

The reasons people want an A.I. vs. Human players have already been stated on more than one occasion.

Joseph

It not about fear at all. I'm just say take a clear look at what your asking for. A horde mode co-op game is no longer co-op if your playing by yourself. It's a servival mode. What your really asking for is a servival mode. Why not just ask for a servival mode in the sp that is better equiped to haddle AI/bot allies and allowing you control over them then asking for a co-op mode with littleor no control of the bots.

[dreman9999]

iakus wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Again, your asking to play a co-op mode on your own....It would be aco-op modeany more. Your also forgeting this is a highly replayable game with sp side mission that will add high replayablity any way. Inshort, making a co-op modeto be played with one person with bot just make it a servival mode, wouldn't it be better to cut the middle man and as for a survival mode in the sp?

And what's wrong with this?  You get to play coop with others who want to play coop.  We get to play sp on our own as we so choose.  Everyone gets access to the same resources.  Nobody gets penalized for favoring one style over another.  What's the down side?

And when MP inevitably dies out as the Next Big Thing comes out.  These missions will still be available

The thing is bw is already offering this. The sp already has thing like the co-op in it already. My suggestion is just to enhance the sp with a servival mode.