250 réponses à ce sujet

[Blazenor]

FDrage wrote...

Zanallen wrote...

preacher0057 wrote...

Well all I can say is I will not play multiplayer and BioWare can go to hell I will not be buying mass three now.

So you aren't buying ME3 because of the completely optional multiplayer mode that, from what the devs have said, took no resources away from the single player game? Gotcha. Completely rational.

so you are say that if something dislikes a sort of quite fundamental change in the approach to a game optional or not ... that person has no right to vote with te wallet and is therefore not rational ? ONe could say believing everything teh Devs say and taking it at face value is completely rational as well ...
Side missions are completely optional ... buy a game is completely optional ... as well. So if someone doesn't like MP or teh inclusion of MP into a previous SP franchise that is there right and it should just be respected the same way as someone who likes MP and was desperate for its inclusion into ME3. The same "issues" applied when MP was stuill a rumour and Bioware pasted every mentioning of MP as just a rumour and MP fans were rediculed for wanting MP and mentioning sid rumours.

If it has taken away from SP or not ... Devs wouldn't come out saying that anyway as that would create quite a storm. If some of the resources (regardless of it being a different team as resources can be anything) have been transfer from SP to MP or not doesn't make much of a difference as the MP needs to pay itself one way or the other by increased sales due to MP not just due to the success that was ME2.

I think Zan is right, it's not rational.  If you enjoy the Mass Effect series or any game series for that matter and not want to buy that game because of one optional feature (and the important factor here is optional) it's irrational.  Now if it was a feature that is not optional I would understand and it would be very rational to not buy the game. 

[DTKT]

It's all about killing the used game market + selling more DLC.

[Lukertin]

Blazenor wrote...
I think Zan is right, it's not rational.  If you enjoy the Mass Effect series or any game series for that matter and not want to buy that game because of one optional feature (and the important factor here is optional) it's irrational.  Now if it was a feature that is not optional I would understand and it would be very rational to not buy the game. 

Exactly. Basically every single person who has declared that they will not buy ME3 due to inclusion of optional multiplayer is that the addition of the multiplayer feature is worth negative $60 to them. How is the addition of a multiplayer feature, which does not detract from the singleplayer campaign in any way (since when are these intertwined--what game exists where either a MP or SP feature detracts from the other? they only complement, e.g., in Goldeneye64 where your SP feats gave you added MP options).

Even if the MP did detract from the SP campaign it is hardly a detraction equal to $60 (maybe $2?). Completely irrational.

[preacher0057]

I've seen what multi does to a game to many times yes it will detract, always does and always will. You can not change that,after all look what it did to COD, and a few others destroyed the story line all together, I just hate to see whats going to happen to this one, and it will.

[CannonO]

preacher0057 wrote...

I've seen what multi does to a game to many times yes it will detract, always does and always will. You can not change that,after all look what it did to COD, and a few others destroyed the story line all together, I just hate to see whats going to happen to this one, and it will.

Ahem. Uncharted 2, one of the greatest games of all time has multiplayer. I never touch the multiplayer, but the singleplayer is a technical and creative marvel.

[Blazenor]

preacher0057 wrote...

I've seen what multi does to a game to many times yes it will detract, always does and always will. You can not change that,after all look what it did to COD, and a few others destroyed the story line all together, I just hate to see whats going to happen to this one, and it will.

Something that is optional does not detract from the single player game because it's optional.  If there is a requirement to play even a little bit of multiplayer in order to get through the single player then that would be a detraction of the single player content.  From what I've read (I'm sure we read the same thing) there is nothing that states you need to do multiplayer in order to process through the single player content.

[YouthCultureForever]

CannonLars wrote...

preacher0057 wrote...

I've seen what multi does to a game to many times yes it will detract, always does and always will. You can not change that,after all look what it did to COD, and a few others destroyed the story line all together, I just hate to see whats going to happen to this one, and it will.

Ahem. Uncharted 2, one of the greatest games of all time has multiplayer. I never touch the multiplayer, but the singleplayer is a technical and creative marvel.

Thank you. The Uncharted example should quite all detractors. It's been done, and done well people. Bioware won't be the first to attempt it.

[preacher0057]

You seem to forget who owns Bioware.

[YouthCultureForever]

preacher0057 wrote...

You seem to forget who owns Bioware.

EA, who produces games that have great multiplayer. The highly anticipated Battlefield 3 comes out Tuesday. They know how to do multiplayer. If Bioware wants help with MP, they can get it from DICE.

Modifié par YouthCultureForever, 21 octobre 2011 - 01:08 .

[Scorpion1O1]

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".

[steelfire_dragon]

don't need no multi player

[preacher0057]

Chris I hope you are right if you prove me wrong I will buy the gold plated edition.

[Virginian]

Chris Priestly wrote...

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.

The history of the gaming industy says differently, are you saying you are superior to the entirity of the gaming industry?

[Copyright Theft]

preacher0057 wrote...

Chris I hope you are right if you prove me wrong I will buy the gold plated edition.

No you won't, because by the time you get off your high horse there won't be any left.

[moneycashgeorge]

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.

I know its your job to rep the company Chris, but don't treat us like fools. BioWare set out saying "You know what the ME community really needs? You know what feature in ME3 will really complete this trilogy? You know what we can do to push gaming forward? Multiplayer!". I don't think so.

I'm 100% sure it was more like:

EA exec: Hey Bioware
BW: Hey EA
EA: We really need ME3 to be a big tentpole blockbuster
BW: We're working really hard on it
EA: You know, games tend to sell a lot more when they have multiplayer features, since people get their friends to buy copies so they can play together, and it interests competetive people, and that's more DLC we can sell.
BW: oh, yea, well im not so sure thats what we want for Mass Effect.
EA: You want funding don't you? And marketing?
BW: Yea we need that stuff.
EA: Get to work on that multiplayer then!



It doesn't bother me, I like multiplayer and I will enjoy playing with my friends, but It was definitely a sales move to include it.

[preacher0057]

At least I own a horse

[THX-1137]

I know its your job to rep the company Chris, but don't treat us like fools. BioWare set out saying "You know what the ME community really needs? You know what feature in ME3 will really complete this trilogy? You know what we can do to push gaming forward? Multiplayer!". I don't think so.

I'm 100% sure it was more like:

EA exec: Hey Bioware
BW: Hey EA
EA: We really need ME3 to be a big tentpole blockbuster
BW: We're working really hard on it
EA: You know, games tend to sell a lot more when they have multiplayer features, since people get their friends to buy copies so they can play together, and it interests competetive people, and that's more DLC we can sell.
BW: oh, yea, well im not so sure thats what we want for Mass Effect.
EA: You want funding don't you? And marketing?
BW: Yea we need that stuff.
EA: Get to work on that multiplayer then!


It doesn't bother me, I like multiplayer and I will enjoy playing with my friends, but It was definitely a sales move to include it.

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'

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

[YouthCultureForever]

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.

[BeastMTL]

For every game that does MP right, 100 do it wrong. The ones that do it right without sacrificing SP are few and far between..

counter example: Dead space 2.
DeadSpace 1, SP only, ~30-40 hours
DeadSpace 2, SP + MP.. SP ~ 10 hours, MP Totally broken on release.

[CroGamer002]

^You must have been terrible at Dead Space 1 since I beat that game in 9 hours.

While Dead Space 2 took me longer.

[Warlocomotf]

People seem to be confused about why every game gets some form of multiplayer. Singleplayer games have historically been very popular, the reason to add multiplayer is not a lack of popularity of single player games.

It's because multiplayer is the new DRM. The fact is, all DRM gets cracked- and most of it gets cracked within the first 2 days after a game's release. Pirates have been getting games without the hassle of ****ty DRM and always-online **** that kicks you out the moment your router has a hack up.

The reason games are getting multiplayer, or "added value" through online benefits (think Cerberus network for ME2, or stores requiring online mode in Assassins creed) isn't because people want to play these games online- it's because this is what pirates can't have.

TLDR; Games are getting more and more multiplayer because it's superior to and more effective than crap like SecuRom and other DRM software.

[james1976]

I wish developers would stop including multiplayer in single player franchises.  Don't get me wrong, I like offline coop with a friend.  But I like the isolation while playing single player.  I enjoy being sucked up into a story and totally immersed into the game world.  And frankly, playing with someone else breaks that immersion and I don't like it at all.   I should also say that I do not enjoy online multiplayer for the same reason.

Modifié par james1976, 21 octobre 2011 - 02:27 .

[Blazenor]

james1976 wrote...

I wish developers would stop including multiplayer in single player franchises.  Don't get me wrong, I like offline coop with a friend.  But I like the isolation while playing single player.  I enjoy being sucked up into a story and totally immersed into the game world.  And frankly, playing with someone else breaks that immersion and I don't like it at all.   I should also say that I do not enjoy online multiplayer for the same reason.

Basic on how the multiplayer is setup you should never notice the multiplayer, so how does it break the immersion if you never play the multiplayer? 

Edit: Now thinking about it some more you might notice it if there is a way to launch the multiplayer feature from within the single player game, in fact that just might be the case.

Modifié par Blazenor, 21 octobre 2011 - 03:00 .

[james1976]

I wasn't just speaking of ME3.

[Heather Cline]

No they don't need it to succeed or to be a block buster. That mentality is wrong on so many levels. ME1 and DA:O were instant hits and not only succeeded but were blockbusters in their own right. DA2 though had crappy sales due to lots of things still did okay. ME2 was a hit among many people as well.

The fact is multiplayer is not needed and frankly including it into a single player game series where none was before is just plain wrong in my opinion.