250 réponses à ce sujet

[GMagnum]

Scorpion1O1 wrote...

Chris Priestly wrote...

Do they need multiplay? No.

Can they have multiplay as an option for those that enjoy it? Yes, as long as it does not detract from the single play experience.

That's what were going to prove.

Chris I'm glad you have balls and always defend your games, I like balls. Other people are too "politicaly correct".

uhhhhhhhhhhh

[Phaffner]

You know all those who blindly say that the MP takes nothing away from the SP game cause the DEVS say so are just blowing smoke. Do you honestly think the devs would come out and say that the inclusion of MP is going to take away from the Sp aspect of the game and hurt their sales. Wake up and smell the damn coffee.

[Lenimph]

Phaffner wrote...

You know all those who blindly say that the MP takes nothing away from the SP game cause the DEVS say so are just blowing smoke. Do you honestly think the devs would come out and say that the inclusion of MP is going to take away from the Sp aspect of the game and hurt their sales. Wake up and smell the damn coffee.

I don't drink coffee. 

[Blazenor]

Phaffner wrote...

You know all those who blindly say that the MP takes nothing away from the SP game cause the DEVS say so are just blowing smoke. Do you honestly think the devs would come out and say that the inclusion of MP is going to take away from the Sp aspect of the game and hurt their sales. Wake up and smell the damn coffee.

There is nothing to prove that multiplayer has any effect on single player one way or the other, but honesty you have to define what you mean by "take away".  Are you saying that less is being put in the single player content because of the multiplayer?  If so, then you would be very wrong in that assumption because the single player aspect of Mass Effect is their bread and butter, without it there is no Mass Effect.

Modifié par Blazenor, 21 octobre 2011 - 04:58 .

[Zjarcal]

Lenimph wrote...

Phaffner wrote...

You know all those who blindly say that the MP takes nothing away from the SP game cause the DEVS say so are just blowing smoke. Do you honestly think the devs would come out and say that the inclusion of MP is going to take away from the Sp aspect of the game and hurt their sales. Wake up and smell the damn coffee.

I don't drink coffee. 

I do, but I don't need to smell it or stop blowing smoke. 

And no, MP takes nothing away from SP if both were given a set amount of resources to work with.

[Symji]

Blazenor wrote...

Phaffner wrote...

You know all those who blindly say that the MP takes nothing away from the SP game cause the DEVS say so are just blowing smoke. Do you honestly think the devs would come out and say that the inclusion of MP is going to take away from the Sp aspect of the game and hurt their sales. Wake up and smell the damn coffee.

There is nothing to prove that multiplayer has any effect on single player one way or the other, but honesty you have to define what you mean by "take away".  Are you saying that less is being put in the single player content because of the multiplayer?  If so, then you would be very wrong in that assumption because the single player aspect of Mass Effect is their bread and butter, without it there is no Mass Effect.

I doubt you could ever get a dev to say exactly how much space on a game disc is devoted specifically to MP, such as new maps (they may reuse a couple maps, but not all) as well as all the MP coding and such. And even if it was only a couple new maps, if you removed it that's 2 new locations/missions that could have gone into SP.

[THX-1137]

YouthCultureForever wrote...

THX-1137 wrote...

You know--speaking as someone who plays both Battlefield (going off of your [EA multiplayer game] ) and Mass Effect games--something tells me that the guy playing Battlefield 3 won't be really drawn to Mass Effect 3 solely because of some co-op side missions that impact the single-player campaign...so probably not much of a factor in sales; just sayin'

Another very good point. FPS MP fans aren't chomping at the bit to play ME3's busted down, story driven MP. It's absolutely possible Bioware wanted to add this themselves.

From what the devs are saying about how addictive it is, I feel that they genuinely were trying to make something that would add to the game and that Mass Effect fans would really enjoy.

Modifié par THX-1137, 23 octobre 2011 - 09:29 .

[Get Magna Carter]

Games CAN and DO succed without multiplayer

However, some analysts believe that the highest sales figures are only achievable with multiplayer (because of the used game market) and so developers are encouraged/pressured by publishers to include Multiplayer.

One senior man at EA declared that all games must have online functionality such as DLC or multiplayer (often misquoted as just multiplayer)
...as ME3 is the end of Shepard's story post game single player DLC may be more limited...

[Killjoy Cutter]

Blazenor wrote...

 I only ask this question becuase I'm starting to see more new games include some form of multiplayer feature.  I'm not saying anything about ME3 having one (which I don't have a problem with), but did it really needed to have one in order to succeed?

No.

[Killjoy Cutter]

THX-1137 wrote...

YouthCultureForever wrote...

THX-1137 wrote...

You know--spekaing as someone who plays both Battlefield (going off of your [EA multiplayer game] ) and Mass Effect games--something tells me that the guy playing Battlefield 3 won't be really drawn to Mass Effect 3 solely because of some co-op side missions that impact the single-player campaign...so probably not much of a factor in sales; just sayin'

Another very good point. FPS MP fans aren't chomping at the bit to play ME3's busted down, story driven MP. It's absolutely possible Bioware wanted to add this themselves.

From what the devs are saying about how addictive it is, I feel that they genuinely were trying to make something that would add to the game and that Mass Effect fans would really enjoy.

Of course they are.  Do you expect them to say anything else about it? 

[shepskisaac]

THX-1137 wrote...

You know--spekaing as someone who plays both Battlefield (going off of your [EA multiplayer game] ) and Mass Effect games--something tells me that the guy playing Battlefield 3 won't be really drawn to Mass Effect 3 solely because of some co-op side missions that impact the single-player campaign...so probably not much of a factor in sales; just sayin'

It's not like EA counts on all 10+ million people who will BF3 to rush to the stores and buy ME3 based on the MP. If only 300,000 of all BF3 players do it, it will still be worth promoting to them. MP ain't the only factor in increasing ME3 sales. Kinect will also play a role. So will "ME3 is a great place to start" marketing. And FemShep exposure that will bring at least a bit more female players. All these things combined may give ME3 significant sales boost and prove worthy investing in the end for EA.

[Killjoy Cutter]

It's like EA is taking ME3 and trying to pack in all the new hip trendy features that are taking gaming in directions that make gaming "mainstream" but threaten to deminish what makes computer gaming so attractive to those of us who've been gaming for years. Online play, multiplayer, Kinect, etc.

[Lycans Bane]

Zanallen wrote...

Probably not, but multiplayer can extend the life of a game.

Something I find annoying, is that while theroetically multiplayer should theoretical extend a game'slife span, the big series cough CoD cough a released year after year and they're all practically the same game. On the other hand, you have a significant amount of Bioware and Bethesda games that are completely solo games, and have longer gaps between release dates. Not that this means I would prefer shorter development times for good solo games, I would just rather not see games released year on year, when they all feel exactly the same. And I know that CoD has two different developers that alternate, but even so, MW, MW2, Black Ops,etc feel almost identical. I apologise for ranting, this is all just personal opinion and hold nothing against people who enjoy such games.

[slimgrin]

Zjarcal wrote...

Lenimph wrote...

Phaffner wrote...

You know all those who blindly say that the MP takes nothing away from the SP game cause the DEVS say so are just blowing smoke. Do you honestly think the devs would come out and say that the inclusion of MP is going to take away from the Sp aspect of the game and hurt their sales. Wake up and smell the damn coffee.

I don't drink coffee. 

I do, but I don't need to smell it or stop blowing smoke. 

And no, MP takes nothing away from SP if both were given a set amount of resources to work with.

Problem is we don't know how resources were allotted, but I'll give Bioware plenty of kudos if the manage to make a great 30 hr singleplayer campaign along with co-op.

[Killjoy Cutter]

Lycans Bane wrote...

Zanallen wrote...

Probably not, but multiplayer can extend the life of a game.

Something I find annoying, is that while theroetically multiplayer should theoretical extend a game'slife span, the big series cough CoD cough a released year after year and they're all practically the same game. On the other hand, you have a significant amount of Bioware and Bethesda games that are completely solo games, and have longer gaps between release dates. Not that this means I would prefer shorter development times for good solo games, I would just rather not see games released year on year, when they all feel exactly the same. And I know that CoD has two different developers that alternate, but even so, MW, MW2, Black Ops,etc feel almost identical. I apologise for ranting, this is all just personal opinion and hold nothing against people who enjoy such games.

No, you're right, the "lifespan" argument in favor of MP is a crock. 

[Blazenor]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Lycans Bane wrote...

Zanallen wrote...

Probably not, but multiplayer can extend the life of a game.

Something I find annoying, is that while theroetically multiplayer should theoretical extend a game'slife span, the big series cough CoD cough a released year after year and they're all practically the same game. On the other hand, you have a significant amount of Bioware and Bethesda games that are completely solo games, and have longer gaps between release dates. Not that this means I would prefer shorter development times for good solo games, I would just rather not see games released year on year, when they all feel exactly the same. And I know that CoD has two different developers that alternate, but even so, MW, MW2, Black Ops,etc feel almost identical. I apologise for ranting, this is all just personal opinion and hold nothing against people who enjoy such games.

No, you're right, the "lifespan" argument in favor of MP is a crock. 

I have to disagree just a little because I do believe that multiplayer does extend the life span of a game but on that same note so does DLC for single player and the overall replay value of the game.

Multiplayer will add to the life span of Mass Effect 3, but this leads to two more important questions:

1. Which will recieve more DLC, multiplayer or single player?
2. Will multiplayer of Mass Efffect 3 bring in players who play games like Call of Duty or Battlefield?

[Rahmiel]

It all comes down to your view of success. Critical success does not equal sales success. The more features you add, the more gamers your game should appeal to. The more people your game appeals to, the greater the chance that your game will sale.

But what determines success? A high game review score? A big budget? The inclusion of multiplayer?

Plenty of factors will play into whether or not the game is received well by critics, gamers, and fans. However it is what you determine success to be. I have a feeling you mean a sales success.

[Gatt9]

Blazenor wrote...

Phaffner wrote...

You know all those who blindly say that the MP takes nothing away from the SP game cause the DEVS say so are just blowing smoke. Do you honestly think the devs would come out and say that the inclusion of MP is going to take away from the Sp aspect of the game and hurt their sales. Wake up and smell the damn coffee.

There is nothing to prove that multiplayer has any effect on single player one way or the other, but honesty you have to define what you mean by "take away".  Are you saying that less is being put in the single player content because of the multiplayer?  If so, then you would be very wrong in that assumption because the single player aspect of Mass Effect is their bread and butter, without it there is no Mass Effect.

With all due respect,  you're making alot of questionable assumptions in there.

-Logic tells us that MP has an effect on single player.  First,  because ME is a consistent 2 million unit seller,  EA's not going to double the budget of a game that only sells 2 million units.  Second,  because they've said it has an effect on single player..  It's not an "Optional" feature like Fable 2's,  because it is tied directly to getting the optimal ending.

-Logic also tells us that it "Took away",  the most obvious way to see this is that if you don't play MP,  you may very likely be unable to achieve the optimal ending to a 3 game series.  As above,  it's also highly likely that the budget came out of ME2's SP budget,  since we're not talking a major seller.

-EA does not care what a game's "Bread and Butter" is.  EA cares about generating the highest revenues possible,  and they see forcing Used Game Buyers to purchase an Online Pass as a way to do that.  So EA made certain MP wouldn't be easily avoidable,  Online Pass is the only reason it's in there,  because multiplayer in a narrative driven single player game is just as useless today as it was 4 years ago when Fable 2 came out.

I have to disagree just a little because I do believe that multiplayer does extend the life span of a game but on that same note so does DLC for single player and the overall replay value of the game.

Multiplayer will add to the life span of Mass Effect 3, but this leads to two more important questions:

1. Which will recieve more DLC, multiplayer or single player?
2. Will multiplayer of Mass Efffect 3 bring in players who play games like Call of Duty or Battlefield?

It's a handful of co-op missions.  People won't be replaying them,  if they even play them at all.  It won't extend the life of the game,  people aren't going to run the same few missions endlessly.

Nor are CoD and BF3 fans going to buy the game because they can play a handful of co-op missions in linear fashion.

It's not in there because it adds to the game,  it's in there to sell Online Passes to used game buyers.  It's not real multiplayer,  it's an impediment to getting the optimal ending so if you buy used you have to buy an Online Pass to get the best ending to a 3 game series.

[THX-1137]

Gatt9 wrote...

With all due respect,  you're making alot of questionable assumptions in there.

-Logic tells us that MP has an effect on single player.  First,  because ME is a consistent 2 million unit seller,  EA's not going to double the budget of a game that only sells 2 million units.  Second,  because they've said it has an effect on single player..  It's not an "Optional" feature like Fable 2's,  because it is tied directly to getting the optimal ending.

-Logic also tells us that it "Took away",  the most obvious way to see this is that if you don't play MP,  you may very likely be unable to achieve the optimal ending to a 3 game series.  As above,  it's also highly likely that the budget came out of ME2's SP budget,  since we're not talking a major seller.

-EA does not care what a game's "Bread and Butter" is.  EA cares about generating the highest revenues possible,  and they see forcing Used Game Buyers to purchase an Online Pass as a way to do that.  So EA made certain MP wouldn't be easily avoidable,  Online Pass is the only reason it's in there,  because multiplayer in a narrative driven single player game is just as useless today as it was 4 years ago when Fable 2 came out.

I have to disagree just a little because I do believe that multiplayer does extend the life span of a game but on that same note so does DLC for single player and the overall replay value of the game.

Multiplayer will add to the life span of Mass Effect 3, but this leads to two more important questions:

1. Which will recieve more DLC, multiplayer or single player?
2. Will multiplayer of Mass Efffect 3 bring in players who play games like Call of Duty or Battlefield?

It's a handful of co-op missions.  People won't be replaying them,  if they even play them at all.  It won't extend the life of the game,  people aren't going to run the same few missions endlessly.

Nor are CoD and BF3 fans going to buy the game because they can play a handful of co-op missions in linear fashion.

It's not in there because it adds to the game,  it's in there to sell Online Passes to used game buyers.  It's not real multiplayer,  it's an impediment to getting the optimal ending so if you buy used you have to buy an Online Pass to get the best ending to a 3 game series.

Hmm... you seem to be basing your argument on a few misinformations/assumptions.

First, Bioware has directly stated many times that MP will affect SP, as you have noted. They also have said that it really is entirely optional--you can achieve the highest level of completion (i.e. the most optimal ending) without ever playing multiplayer. So I'm really not sure what your talking about when you say "-Logic tells us..." Having an effect on something doesn't mean it isn't optional, and, clearly, as the devs have pointed out, it is optional.

Have I mentioned it's optional?

Second: while you criticize a poster for making assumtions, you seem to be committing the same crime. Do we know yet that multiplayer can't be played offline? I don't believe we have heard anything on the matter. So an online pass wouldn't affect whether or not used copies of the game could access that content. Sure, EA might push you to buy one, but if you're just playing with say a silver Xbox-Live account, you wouldn't actually need it.

I'm not debating the ethics of online passes, but we simply don't know right now if MP is accessable offline; and I really don't see why it wouldn't be.

Finally, why wouldn't MP extend the life of the game? I never asked for it for ME3, but it looks alright and I'll certainly try it out. If its fun, I might play all the missions. So more content = game life extension, as well as the fact that they might add more missions. While I agree with you that the multiplayer won't be a draw for BF3 players--I am a longtime BF player--but it doesn't mean that they, or Mass Effect fans, won't enjoy and utilize the content. Just wait and try it out.

Modifié par THX-1137, 23 octobre 2011 - 09:28 .

[THX-1137]

IsaacShep wrote...

THX-1137 wrote...

You know--spekaing as someone who plays both Battlefield (going off of your [EA multiplayer game] ) and Mass Effect games--something tells me that the guy playing Battlefield 3 won't be really drawn to Mass Effect 3 solely because of some co-op side missions that impact the single-player campaign...so probably not much of a factor in sales; just sayin'

It's not like EA counts on all 10+ million people who will BF3 to rush to the stores and buy ME3 based on the MP. If only 300,000 of all BF3 players do it, it will still be worth promoting to them. MP ain't the only factor in increasing ME3 sales. Kinect will also play a role. So will "ME3 is a great place to start" marketing. And FemShep exposure that will bring at least a bit more female players. All these things combined may give ME3 significant sales boost and prove worthy investing in the end for EA.

Eveything you say is entirely valid, and I would largely agree with it. But, as I was saying in the post, I really don't feel that MP would have enough of an impact on sales for EA to force Bioware to make something they weren't comfortable including in the game or that they weren't already planning on doing (I think I read somewhere that Casey Hudson had said that they had actually wanted to include MP in the first game but it didn't really work until ME3). "Promoting" is different than imposing MP onto Bioware.

[Stinky-Dinkins]

Scorpion1O1 wrote...

I like balls.

I knew it!

Modifié par Stinky-DInkins, 23 octobre 2011 - 09:54 .

[YouthCultureForever]

THX-1137 wrote...

YouthCultureForever wrote...

THX-1137 wrote...

You know--speaking as someone who plays both Battlefield (going off of your [EA multiplayer game] ) and Mass Effect games--something tells me that the guy playing Battlefield 3 won't be really drawn to Mass Effect 3 solely because of some co-op side missions that impact the single-player campaign...so probably not much of a factor in sales; just sayin'

Another very good point. FPS MP fans aren't chomping at the bit to play ME3's busted down, story driven MP. It's absolutely possible Bioware wanted to add this themselves.

From what the devs are saying about how addictive it is, I feel that they genuinely were trying to make something that would add to the game and that Mass Effect fans would really enjoy.

I really believe it will add to the game. I haven't seen anything that would indicate ME3 would be better without co-op. What we've seen from the SP demo looks a thousand times better than anything in ME2. Adding something extra for ME3 is a great idea. It's not an error in judgement. And if it's anything like Uncharted 2's co-op objective mode I'll be estatic.

[Blazenor]

Gatt9 wrote...

Blazenor wrote...

Phaffner wrote...

You know all those who blindly say that the MP takes nothing away from the SP game cause the DEVS say so are just blowing smoke. Do you honestly think the devs would come out and say that the inclusion of MP is going to take away from the Sp aspect of the game and hurt their sales. Wake up and smell the damn coffee.

There is nothing to prove that multiplayer has any effect on single player one way or the other, but honesty you have to define what you mean by "take away".  Are you saying that less is being put in the single player content because of the multiplayer?  If so, then you would be very wrong in that assumption because the single player aspect of Mass Effect is their bread and butter, without it there is no Mass Effect.

With all due respect,  you're making alot of questionable assumptions in there.

-Logic tells us that MP has an effect on single player.  First,  because ME is a consistent 2 million unit seller,  EA's not going to double the budget of a game that only sells 2 million units.  Second,  because they've said it has an effect on single player..  It's not an "Optional" feature like Fable 2's,  because it is tied directly to getting the optimal ending.

-Logic also tells us that it "Took away",  the most obvious way to see this is that if you don't play MP,  you may very likely be unable to achieve the optimal ending to a 3 game series.  As above,  it's also highly likely that the budget came out of ME2's SP budget,  since we're not talking a major seller.

-EA does not care what a game's "Bread and Butter" is.  EA cares about generating the highest revenues possible,  and they see forcing Used Game Buyers to purchase an Online Pass as a way to do that.  So EA made certain MP wouldn't be easily avoidable,  Online Pass is the only reason it's in there,  because multiplayer in a narrative driven single player game is just as useless today as it was 4 years ago when Fable 2 came out.

I have to disagree just a little because I do believe that multiplayer does extend the life span of a game but on that same note so does DLC for single player and the overall replay value of the game.

Multiplayer will add to the life span of Mass Effect 3, but this leads to two more important questions:

1. Which will recieve more DLC, multiplayer or single player?
2. Will multiplayer of Mass Efffect 3 bring in players who play games like Call of Duty or Battlefield?

It's a handful of co-op missions.  People won't be replaying them,  if they even play them at all.  It won't extend the life of the game,  people aren't going to run the same few missions endlessly.

Nor are CoD and BF3 fans going to buy the game because they can play a handful of co-op missions in linear fashion.

It's not in there because it adds to the game,  it's in there to sell Online Passes to used game buyers.  It's not real multiplayer,  it's an impediment to getting the optimal ending so if you buy used you have to buy an Online Pass to get the best ending to a 3 game series.

First, I never made any assumptions, the fact I made was that the single player content is the core of Mass Effect and Bioware is not going to take anything away from it with multiplayer.  

Second, Bioware/EA has every right to charge used game buyers something that is part of the new game, much like they would charge for DLC.  An Online Pass is included with every game, if the person who brought the game before you uses it, what makes you think they have to provide you with another pass for free?

Modifié par Blazenor, 24 octobre 2011 - 01:59 .

[Lunatic LK47]

THX-1137 wrote...


Finally, why wouldn't MP extend the life of the game? I never asked for it for ME3, but it looks alright and I'll certainly try it out. If its fun, I might play all the missions. So more content = game life extension, as well as the fact that they might add more missions. While I agree with you that the multiplayer won't be a draw for BF3 players--I am a longtime BF player--but it doesn't mean that they, or Mass Effect fans, won't enjoy and utilize the content. Just wait and try it out.

Problem is any game that is NOT Gears of War, Halo, or Call of Duty usually has a span of TWO MONTHS. Seen this with Tom Clancy's EndWar (2008. Launch on October, and died out by December 2008). F.E.A.R. 3 (May 2011 launch. Died by July 2011). BioShock 2, not everyone bothered playing the multiplayer, and last time I checked, Irrational admitted that as much.  Dead Space 2?  Same thing.

[Vnnk]

In my opinion no. But its always annother feture to the game and there for more of it. For example Bioshock 2 i enjoyed the SP portion and the MP portion becuse it had the gameplay and theme of the story. And in all honesty i have never seen a bad tacked on mutyplayer. And hope fully i will enjoy this one .