377 réponses à ce sujet

[Someone With Mass]

Mr. MannlyMan wrote...

From incgames.com's own preview:

"The time between rounds was generally spent scrambling madly for ammo.
Even the early waves are loaded to the brim with enemies of various
types, so making sure you’ve got plenty of caps in your gun is equally as important as working together and knowing the location of your allies."

http://www.incgamers.com/Previews/355/were-not-so-sure-about-the-mass-effect-3-multiplayer-preview

Why can't they just give us an ammo dispenser that gives us a set amount of ammo each level, rather than force us to run all over the place between sets? In GoW3 you can pick up enemy drops, giving you a couple of spare rounds, but your main source of ammo is the ammo crates that you buy with the cash you earn.

Scrambling to search for every last bit of spare ammo seems like it could get a tad frustrating during later rounds.

GoW3 makes sure that you have a certain amount of ammo for the basic weapons before the start of each round just in case you don't have enough cash to buy ammo or just don't have enough of it.

I think they should do something similar in ME3.

[Locutus_of_BORG]

As some ppl have been pointing out, if the MP is really so lackluster, then it would have been a pretty major waste of time for the development crew to shoehorn in.

[CroGamer002]

Candidate 88766 wrote...

mr_luga wrote...

Mesina2 wrote...

Please be free DLC.

I hate multiplayer DLC's you have to pay.

EA is publisher, that is all

The ME2 DLC was generally really good value for money - 800 points for LotSB, or 1200 for 5 CoD maps, I know which is better value there. And Zaeed was free (along with the Normandy thing and the Firewalked, but they were pretty minimal), at least for new copies.

Oh yeah.

F*ck Activision and their overpriced maps that should have been free.

[shepskisaac]

Mesina2 wrote...

Oh yeah.

F*ck Activision and their overpriced maps that should have been free.

Be mad at gamers who buy these map packs at that price. Activision wouldn't raise the price all the way up to this point if it wasn't for 'yes I will buy everything!' fanboys.

[RAF1940]

Savber100 wrote...

Judging from most of the previews, the impression I'm getting is that ME3's coop is at best a mediocre derivation from the SP.

Meh.

Same.


Shouldn't even be in there.

[Someone With Mass]

Oh no, it can't appease to everyone. What a shock. Yeah, they really made a mistake with that.

[Zu Long]

SpelMalmer wrote...

SNascimento wrote...

SpelMalmer wrote...

I run a small swedish gaming blog but yesterday I got the chance to play the multiplayer in ME3 myself. I usually really dislike multiplayer games and modes and was very sceptical to its inclusion in my favorite game series, Mass Effect. However, after trying it out I must say that I am in love. It has so much Mass Effect feeling and the powers and shields, barriers and objectives makes for a highly strategic but high tempo game. I like these shooter mechanics way more than those in Gears 3 for instance. But that's just my opinion.

So anyways, this is the first time I've fallen in love with a multiplayer mode. So the jaded gamers at IGN etc. might feel it is mediocre. For me, it is the only multiplayer game I'm willing to play. So let them have their Call of Dutys and Battlefields.

I'm in love with this.

PS. I played as a female human adept. Singularity and warp as main powers. Would have gotten pull aswell, but the user I was playing as was at level 1 and couldn't access it yet. DS.

.
Good to hear this. Can you get a little more deep in your comparison between ME3 shooter mechanics vs Gears 3's? I really liked the latter and want to know if ME3's can live to its quality.

First and foremost, this is my opinion based on time with the game, and not fact or something everyone will agree upon. Gears is probably a very deep mp-experience with lots of nuances that makes the game worth playing for countless of hours, however, from my perspective as a mainly single-player game player I don't really see that. To me gears is a rather shallow game from a mechanics perspective, even though the pros would probably argue there is lots of depth there aswell. Anyways, what it does it does extremely well though, and I can definitly say that gears has a slightly tighter cover system than ME and some really dynamic enemies. But it kinda ends there. With Mass Effect 3 I simply have more fun because the day to day basic gameplay is more varied. In gears the core mechanic is take cover and fire your lancer and do active reloads. Sure, there are other weapons and stuff, but the core day to day is just that. In ME3 you have that too (except for the active reload), but then you also have the whole ability/power system as something very very close to the core experience and in the day to day shooting (!) I feel that it simply makes the game much more fun. With the new melee-attack it also has gotten more grounded and "meaty" and also works at a close range, something previous ME:s struggled with.

Will the ME3 MP-experience work in the long run? I don't know, maybe it has enough depth or maybe it doesn't. But from my perspective I'm looking forward to playing more, something I've never felt so strongly with a multiplayer mode. Gears horde mode has come closest, but it isn't as fun. Also the context makes a huge difference. This is a mass effect game. You got the sounds, the look and everything. Makes a huge difference.

Oh, and you got the levelling system that adds depth aswell. Didn't have time to go deep into that, but from a quick glance it looks as if it branches earlier than ME2 (which branched at the last level of each ability), so you can now customize your experience more uniquely.

So this is my opinion and how I feel. But I am a massive ME-fan, and I love everything about that world. However I'm not blind to any issues with it, but for me, who don't grind in multiplayer day after day I had more fun than I ever had in multiplayer, and that should count for something, right?

Thanks for sharing this with us. I have a sneaky suspicion I'm going to end up being the same way. I am not an MP fan by inclination, but I am intrigued at the thought of Mass Effect MP simply becaus it is Mass Effect. I'm actually looking forward to giving this a try.

[Ghost-621]

Forsythia wrote...

So, it seems almost everyone who has played it is unimpressed. Co-op missions did sound too good to be true after all, as it's just a horde mode, and from the looks of it, not even a good one.

And multiplayer DLC, well, that was expected the moment multiplayer was announced.

This multiplayer mode will be dead within a few months, just as with other games with a tacked on multiplayer. So yes, I will call it wasted resources.

This. Bioware, your catering won't work. You're going to kill both your fanbase and game series with one stone. 

People will be already distracted by: 
-MW3 (crap)
-BF3 (not crap, but it's still a MASSIVE MP game)
-Halo Reach (still kicking) 

People aren't going to give a crap about your little tacked-on cheap Horde knockoff.

Singleplayer game should be singleplayer, not half-singleplayer and tacked-on (albeit crappy) clone of another game's MP mode.

Modifié par Ghost-621, 30 octobre 2011 - 01:36 .

[spirosz]

Maybe the DLC is the prothy skin for Multiplayer.

[Lunatic LK47]

Forsythia wrote...

So, it seems almost everyone who has played it is unimpressed. Co-op missions did sound too good to be true after all, as it's just a horde mode, and from the looks of it, not even a good one.

And multiplayer DLC, well, that was expected the moment multiplayer was announced.

This multiplayer mode will be dead within a few months, just as with other games with a tacked on multiplayer. So yes, I will call it wasted resources.

Bolded for emphasis.

[TheGreenAlloy]

Neofelis Nebulosa wrote...

I hope the MP is not only "hold the hill" arcade battles. One or two missions like that are fine with me, but if all we get is wave after wave with the only change in gameplay being other stages, the MP would be less than unsatisfying.

Humbug. ODST had fantastic Firefly... I mean firefight.

[Candidate 88766]

Mesina2 wrote...

Candidate 88766 wrote...

mr_luga wrote...

Mesina2 wrote...

Please be free DLC.

I hate multiplayer DLC's you have to pay.

EA is publisher, that is all

The ME2 DLC was generally really good value for money - 800 points for LotSB, or 1200 for 5 CoD maps, I know which is better value there. And Zaeed was free (along with the Normandy thing and the Firewalked, but they were pretty minimal), at least for new copies.

Oh yeah.

F*ck Activision and their overpriced maps that should have been free.

They shouldn't have been free - CoD games ship with a good number of maps to begin with, and work has to go into these maps to ensure they're balanced an play well. Its just that 1200 points was far too pricey for the MW2 map packs seeing as each pack contained remade maps.

HOWEVER, 1200 points for 5 maps is better value than the 800 points for 3 maps that Bungie did for Halo 3 and Halo Reach (Halo 3's map packs were very good though). All map packs are, I think, vastly overpriced.

[Candidate 88766]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

Forsythia wrote...

So, it seems almost everyone who has played it is unimpressed. Co-op missions did sound too good to be true after all, as it's just a horde mode, and from the looks of it, not even a good one.

And multiplayer DLC, well, that was expected the moment multiplayer was announced.

This multiplayer mode will be dead within a few months, just as with other games with a tacked on multiplayer. So yes, I will call it wasted resources.

Bolded for emphasis.

I reckon there are more than enough hardcore ME fans that will keep playing it just to continue enjoying the ME universe, and the hardcore ME fans are the ones we want to be playing with.

[alex90c]

Candidate 88766 wrote...

Mesina2 wrote...

Candidate 88766 wrote...

mr_luga wrote...

Mesina2 wrote...

Please be free DLC.

I hate multiplayer DLC's you have to pay.

EA is publisher, that is all

The ME2 DLC was generally really good value for money - 800 points for LotSB, or 1200 for 5 CoD maps, I know which is better value there. And Zaeed was free (along with the Normandy thing and the Firewalked, but they were pretty minimal), at least for new copies.

Oh yeah.

F*ck Activision and their overpriced maps that should have been free.

They shouldn't have been free - CoD games ship with a good number of maps to begin with, and work has to go into these maps to ensure they're balanced an play well. Its just that 1200 points was far too pricey for the MW2 map packs seeing as each pack contained remade maps.

HOWEVER, 1200 points for 5 maps is better value than the 800 points for 3 maps that Bungie did for Halo 3 and Halo Reach (Halo 3's map packs were very good though). All map packs are, I think, vastly overpriced.

How the hell is 1200 points for 5 maps good value at all? Wolfenstein Enemy Territory? A metric sh*tton of free, fan-made maps. I probably had thirty of them.

Just to reiterate, the cost of this was £0.

Call of Duty 1/2? Custom maps. Price? £0.

I'd sooner gouge my eyes out than ever admit (paid) map packs are a good idea, or reasonable in the slightest when previous shooters had maps for free.

[Someone With Mass]

Candidate 88766 wrote...
I reckon there are more than enough hardcore ME fans that will keep playing it just to continue enjoying the ME universe, and the hardcore ME fans are the ones we want to be playing with.

BioWare will also release DLC for it.

People can even play it solo.

[Candidate 88766]

alex90c wrote...

Candidate 88766 wrote...

Mesina2 wrote...

Candidate 88766 wrote...

mr_luga wrote...

Mesina2 wrote...

Please be free DLC.

I hate multiplayer DLC's you have to pay.

EA is publisher, that is all

The ME2 DLC was generally really good value for money - 800 points for LotSB, or 1200 for 5 CoD maps, I know which is better value there. And Zaeed was free (along with the Normandy thing and the Firewalked, but they were pretty minimal), at least for new copies.

Oh yeah.

F*ck Activision and their overpriced maps that should have been free.

They shouldn't have been free - CoD games ship with a good number of maps to begin with, and work has to go into these maps to ensure they're balanced an play well. Its just that 1200 points was far too pricey for the MW2 map packs seeing as each pack contained remade maps.

HOWEVER, 1200 points for 5 maps is better value than the 800 points for 3 maps that Bungie did for Halo 3 and Halo Reach (Halo 3's map packs were very good though). All map packs are, I think, vastly overpriced.

How the hell is 1200 points for 5 maps good value at all? Wolfenstein Enemy Territory? A metric sh*tton of free, fan-made maps. I probably had thirty of them.

Just to reiterate, the cost of this was £0.

Call of Duty 1/2? Custom maps. Price? £0.

I'd sooner gouge my eyes out than ever admit (paid) map packs are a good idea, or reasonable in the slightest when previous shooters had maps for free.

I didn't say good value, I said better value than some other companies. 1200 for 5 is better than 800 for 3, but both are overpriced. Thats literally what I said in my comment. Map packs can be a good idea because they extend the lifespan of the game and mix up the variety a bit. However, they are often highly overpriced. The only reason I don't have a problem with Bungie's maps being even more expensive than Activision's is because Bungie's were eventually made free, the maps were really good and the support they gave Halo 3's matchmaking is second only to Valve's support of TF2.

Work has to go into making the maps and then playtesting them to ensure they're balanced and playable. I think companies are fully justified in charging money for them - it cost the company money to make - but the prices they generally go for are too expensive imo.

[Beerfish]

I'd say the are three reasons that MP has been added to ME3

- Appeal to multiplay crowd and get a few more sales.
- DLC bridge with extra mp maps and such.
- A bit of a test case to see how it does and how people like it and or react to it. If it is very favorable then ME4 and beyond might be multiplayer based.

As long as the single player ME3 is good I have no problem with any of the things I've listed above.

[CroGamer002]

^And not for people who are already fan of this series and would like to play game from that IP with friends?

[Forsythia]

Beerfish wrote...

I'd say the are three reasons that MP has been added to ME3

- Appeal to multiplay crowd and get a few more sales.
- DLC bridge with extra mp maps and such.
- A bit of a test case to see how it does and how people like it and or react to it. If it is very favorable then ME4 and beyond might be multiplayer based.

As long as the single player ME3 is good I have no problem with any of the things I've listed above.

I'd say number one is the only reason multiplayer has been added. Most of their fans, mostly on BSN, but also on other forums, haven't been asking for multiplayer at all, don't let BioWare's statements fool you. They want Call of Duty sales figures, and they think that adding this lackluster multiplayer mode will make sure of that.

Well, guess what, BioWare, you are not going to win over the CoD crowd with this. Even if it were a top notch mode, those people only care for one game a year.

I know BioWare's a company out there to make money, they all are, it's not charity. But they chose the easy way out, by adding one of the most simple multiplayer modes of this generation, and hoping that this is what will bring over the CoD crowd.

[dreman9999]

Ghost-621 wrote...

Forsythia wrote...

So, it seems almost everyone who has played it is unimpressed. Co-op missions did sound too good to be true after all, as it's just a horde mode, and from the looks of it, not even a good one.

And multiplayer DLC, well, that was expected the moment multiplayer was announced.

This multiplayer mode will be dead within a few months, just as with other games with a tacked on multiplayer. So yes, I will call it wasted resources.

This. Bioware, your catering won't work. You're going to kill both your fanbase and game series with one stone. 

People will be already distracted by: 
-MW3 (crap)
-BF3 (not crap, but it's still a MASSIVE MP game)
-Halo Reach (still kicking) 

People aren't going to give a crap about your little tacked-on cheap Horde knockoff.

Singleplayer game should be singleplayer, not half-singleplayer and tacked-on (albeit crappy) clone of another game's MP mode.

Like it waseven made to stand on it's own.
It's like you don't understand that the main package with ME3 and what bioware inteands with it is the SP game. The mp is just an alternate. It's not mean to stand on it;s own.