280 réponses à ce sujet

[BeefoTheBold]

IsaacShep wrote...

BeefoTheBold wrote...

If Bioware considered them identical, there wouldn't have been two separate announcements.

They didn't, this is simply more information being released on the already made announcement

BeefoTheBold wrote...

These are two distinct modes, a coop mode intended to supplement the main campaign, and a MP combat focused mode intended to have nothing at all to do with the campaign but encourage people combating waves of bad guys together.

No, there are not. No 2 modes exists. All the MP levels anyone (either BioWare or press) talked about thus far are the same thing. They are all part of the same system, they have the same rules & mechanics. All missions are tied to the SP game. The co-op missions intented to supplement the main campaign ARE the missions with people fighting waves of bad guys together. It's been like that from the beginning.

One of the things I like about you is that you do make me rethink. You present arguments and your reasoning and assume that the people you present them to will take the time and effort to consider and look into them.

I do think you're wrong on this one based on this article.

http://www.gamespot....g=topslot;img;2

"We were assigned a human infiltrator for our play session, which took
place on the industrial-looking slums map. In multiplayer, the map you
choose determines the set of enemies you will face. For this map, it was
all Cerberus commandos; others may include the insectoid Collectors or a
combination of different groups for a greater challenge. Back in the
slums, we found that shooting people in multiplayer wasn't different
from single-player. Some enemies carried massive shields that required
one of our team to act as a distraction while the other sneaked up
behind the foe. And when a massive Atlas mech suit landed, it was an
all-hands-on-deck moment where we had to quickly bring the brute down."

In other words, it sounds an awful lot like,

1. Choose a map
2. Fight a whole bunch of enemies
3. ...?
4. Profit!

What I associate with coop is STORYLINE MISSIONS that are PLAYED WITH OTHERS.

What I associate with MP is SUPERFLUOUS COMBAT that has no real story or character development and is simply a bunch of running and gunning.

The coop mode, as previously announced as I understood it, was presenting NEW CHARACTERS that were NOT SHEPARD'S crew and has specific storyline things along the lines of, "Here's what's happening in other areas of the galaxy while Shep's doing his thing."

The way that paragraph I posted describes this new mode is:

1. No missions.
2. No characters.
3. No storyline
4. Kill a bunch of **** and get goodies.

[rikimeru420]

omg how dare you put more content in the game than the last one had shame on you bioware!!!!!

[BeefoTheBold]

I'll add that another thing I like about IsaacShep is that if he doesn't agree with a viewpoint, he at least reads all the way through the viewpoint, internalizes the arguments, and debates them rather than tossing out a worthless strawman one-liner and moving on.

Not that my comment is directed at anyone in particular or that I'm a cynical and sarcastic person by nature. Naturally not.

Modifié par BeefoTheBold, 28 octobre 2011 - 01:11 .

[DrunkenMonkey]

rikimeru420 wrote...

omg how dare you put more content in the game than the last one had shame on you bioware!!!!!

Yeah, a shallow co-op mode, whats the point of it? It shouldn't even be in the game.

[shepskisaac]

BeefoTheBold wrote...

What I associate with coop is STORYLINE MISSIONS that are PLAYED WITH OTHERS.

I understand, but then you got some things wrong. The co-op missions in ME3 were suppoused to be like that (chose map, fight waves of the enemies) from the beginning. There will be some story to these missions (like that you have some main objective and the team is lead by Admiral Hackett), there will be some side-objectives, but the main structure will still be fighting enemies. The characters that were presented were examples of the custom character you can create for these horde-style co-op missions. You can chose different class, race etc. You can name your character, level him/her up etc. There will be some story like I said eariler, and the general concept of these co-op missions IS the one you're saying - "Here's what's happening in other areas of the galaxy while Shep's doing his thing." Your multiplayer character will be fighting Reapers/Reaper's allies in various other places Shepard can't be at the time, with the instructions from Admiral Hackett & the Alliance but the main structure inside the missions themselves will be fighting (waves of) enemies.

Modifié par IsaacShep, 28 octobre 2011 - 01:17 .

[BeefoTheBold]

IsaacShep wrote...

BeefoTheBold wrote...

What I associate with coop is STORYLINE MISSIONS that are PLAYED WITH OTHERS.

I understand, but then you got some things wrong. The co-op missions in ME3 were suppoused to be like that (chose map, fight waves of the enemies) from the beginning. There will be some story to these missions (like that you have some main objective and the team is lead by Admiral Hackett), there will be some side-objectives, but the main structure will still be fighting enemies. The characters that were presented were examples of the custom character you can create for these horde-style co-op missions. You can chose different class, race etc. You can name your character, level him/her up etc. There will be some story like I said eariler, and the general concept of these co-op missions IS the one you're saying - "Here's what's happening in other areas of the galaxy while Shep's doing his thing." Your multiplayer character will be fighting Reapers/Reaper's allies in various other places Shepard can't be at the time, with the instructions from Admiral Hackett & the Alliance but the main structure inside the missions themselves will be fighting (waves of) enemies.

Hmm. Fair enough. In which case rather than having:

1. A coop mode that is very story driven, even if it is a story that you're intended to play with friends ala RE5, alongside a purely combat driven mode similar to the RE5 mode where your intention is to kill/survive as long as possible.

you have

2. No storyline whatsoever but rather just a ton of combat with the most tenuous of links to anything storyline related, but playing it still nets you Galactic Readiness points and you can import your MP character into the SP campaign.

I'd actually prefer the first. At least that has SOME story to it. If it is the second, and they aren't distinct modes but instead a clarification that the coop previously announced is nothing more than a hack-and-slash shootfest...then how is that an improvement?

You may be able to combined the second and third sections of my original post, but doesn't it actually make the entire concept worse?

[RocketPropelledGrenade]

I cannot believe this. I am OUTRAGED. First they supported the kinect and I didn't speak out because it is only a small gimmicky feature. Then they added the co-op and I didn't speak out because I thought it might be able to work out. But now they have added multiplayer and I cannot remain silent any longer. To waste precious development time on a feature that no mass effect fan ever asked for is ridiculous. Honestly I take this as an insult. This is not gears of war. This is not uncharted. If I wanted to play third person shooter multiplayer I would buy those games.

Mass Effect was created as pure space opera. A deep RPG set in a universe rich with its own original lore and history. And that is all Bioware should be focusing on - making the best RPG they are capable of. I was anticipating an epic conclusion to what has been a fantastic game series. Instead I am now just expecting a cheap gears wannabe with a lame omniblade.

This was originally a day 1 must-buy for me. I've been a huge fan of all of Bioware's work (excluding DA 2). Unfortunately I cannot support this product with wallet in good conscious with the way that they have thrown avid fan's under the bus.

[DrunkenMonkey]

RocketPropelledGrenade wrote...

I cannot believe this. I am OUTRAGED. First they supported the kinect and I didn't speak out because it is only a small gimmicky feature. Then they added the co-op and I didn't speak out because I thought it might be able to work out. But now they have added multiplayer and I cannot remain silent any longer. To waste precious development time on a feature that no mass effect fan ever asked for is ridiculous. Honestly I take this as an insult. This is not gears of war. This is not uncharted. If I wanted to play third person shooter multiplayer I would buy those games.

Mass Effect was created as pure space opera. A deep RPG set in a universe rich with its own original lore and history. And that is all Bioware should be focusing on - making the best RPG they are capable of. I was anticipating an epic conclusion to what has been a fantastic game series. Instead I am now just expecting a cheap gears wannabe with a lame omniblade.

This was originally a day 1 must-buy for me. I've been a huge fan of all of Bioware's work (excluding DA 2). Unfortunately I cannot support this product with wallet in good conscious with the way that they have thrown avid fan's under the bus.

I fully agree.

[shepskisaac]

BeefoTheBold wrote...

you have

2. No storyline whatsoever but rather just a ton of combat with the most tenuous of links to anything storyline related, but playing it still nets you Galactic Readiness points and you can import your MP character into the SP campaign.

In short yes, but in long we don't know exactly how much storyline will these co-op missions be built around. They will have at least some storyline, that's what we know for sure, but there actually may be quite alot of it. Just think about it, they can have extensive cutscenes at the beginning of each missions detailing heavily what's going on, who are you fighting, what is your objective etc. And then there may be other cutscenes during the missions, with Hacktett providing more info, with story developing/changing course etc. Just because the point of the missions is fighting lots of enemies doesn't mean there can't be some interesting story to each mission. N7 side-quests in ME2 were also about shooting enemies, but each mission had some story unique. UNC side-quests in ME1 had even more story.

BeefoTheBold wrote...

You may be able to combined the second and third sections of my original post, but doesn't it actually make the entire concept worse?

Perhaps, but the point is in discussing facts and there's only 1 mode of multiplayer in ME3 to discuss, no matter how exactly it looks like or exactly how much story it will have.

Modifié par IsaacShep, 28 octobre 2011 - 01:33 .

[tishyw]

BeefoTheBold wrote...

Hmm. Fair enough. In which case rather than having:

1. A coop mode that is very story driven, even if it is a story that you're intended to play with friends ala RE5, alongside a purely combat driven mode similar to the RE5 mode where your intention is to kill/survive as long as possible.

you have

2. No storyline whatsoever but rather just a ton of combat with the most tenuous of links to anything storyline related, but playing it still nets you Galactic Readiness points and you can import your MP character into the SP campaign.

I'd actually prefer the first. At least that has SOME story to it. If it is the second, and they aren't distinct modes but instead a clarification that the coop previously announced is nothing more than a hack-and-slash shootfest...then how is that an improvement?

You may be able to combined the second and third sections of my original post, but doesn't it actually make the entire concept worse?

Wait, what?  You can import the MP character into the SP campaign?  Sorry if I'm behind but I ignore most of the MP threads because I'm only interested in the SP game, but if you can import the MP character in the SP campaign, then what happens if you don't have one?

[JeffZero]

You're already playing a third-person shooter whether you like it or not. You have been since ME1 whether you like it or not. You can completely disregard the multiplayer if you don't like it. You don't have to pretend you've been thrown under a bus. That's your prerogative.

[BeefoTheBold]

IsaacShep wrote...

BeefoTheBold wrote...

you have

2. No storyline whatsoever but rather just a ton of combat with the most tenuous of links to anything storyline related, but playing it still nets you Galactic Readiness points and you can import your MP character into the SP campaign.

In short yes, but in long we don't know exactly how much storyline will these co-op missions be built around. They will have at least some storyline, that's what we know for sure, but there actually may be quite alot of it. Just think about it, they can have extensive cutscenes at the beginning of each missions detailing heavily what's going on, who are you fighting, what is your objective etc. And then there may be other cutscenes during the missions, with Hacktett providing more info, with story developing/changing course etc. Just because the point of the missions is fighting lots of enemies doesn't mean there can't be some interesting story to each mission. N7 side-quests in ME2 were also about shooting enemies, but each mission had some story unique. UNC side-quests in ME1 had even more story.

BeefoTheBold wrote...

You may be able to combined the second and third sections of my original post, but doesn't it actually make the entire concept worse?

Perhaps, but the point is in discussing facts and there's only 1 mode of multiplayer in ME3 to discuss, no matter how exactly it looks like or exactly how much story it will have.

I'll wait and see, but honestly to me it sounds like an excuse to pad the gameplay with a tons of superfluous combat with no real story or point.

Maybe to show off the new omnitool.

[BeefoTheBold]

tishyw wrote...

BeefoTheBold wrote...

Hmm. Fair enough. In which case rather than having:

1. A coop mode that is very story driven, even if it is a story that you're intended to play with friends ala RE5, alongside a purely combat driven mode similar to the RE5 mode where your intention is to kill/survive as long as possible.

you have

2. No storyline whatsoever but rather just a ton of combat with the most tenuous of links to anything storyline related, but playing it still nets you Galactic Readiness points and you can import your MP character into the SP campaign.

I'd actually prefer the first. At least that has SOME story to it. If it is the second, and they aren't distinct modes but instead a clarification that the coop previously announced is nothing more than a hack-and-slash shootfest...then how is that an improvement?

You may be able to combined the second and third sections of my original post, but doesn't it actually make the entire concept worse?

Wait, what?  You can import the MP character into the SP campaign?  Sorry if I'm behind but I ignore most of the MP threads because I'm only interested in the SP game, but if you can import the MP character in the SP campaign, then what happens if you don't have one?

This is unclear.

Article here talks about how your MP character can gain levels and the like and later be imported into the SP campaign.

http://www.gamespot.com/xbox360/rpg/mass-effect-3/news/6342313/mass-effect-goes-multiplayer?mode=previews&tag=topslot;thumb;2

[Ahzrei]

I agree with you entirely, OP.


JeffZero (and similar "you can ignore it attitudes"): I can ignore the multiplayer if I wish, yeah. But I also feel the need to mourn how much better the parts of the game I do enjoy could have been if those resources were (in my opinion) better spent.

[BeefoTheBold]

JeffZero wrote...

You're already playing a third-person shooter whether you like it or not. You have been since ME1 whether you like it or not. You can completely disregard the multiplayer if you don't like it. You don't have to pretend you've been thrown under a bus. That's your prerogative.

Jeff, I like you but that's a load of doog dung.

Yes, the gameplay for combat has been been third person shooter, but to say that a shift away from story missions, character development, deeper dialog, to a greater emphasis on combat is  not a change at all is not the case.

Mass Effect 1 and Mass Effect 2 both had shooter parts to them, but the shooter in ME2 was DRAMATICALLY larger than ME1. Otherwise, what would be the point to Bioware promising to bring back more RPG elements into ME2?

Nobody is arguing that there isn't shooter elements to the ME series. HOW MUCH of them is the pertinent question.

What Bioware has promised is that ME3 would reverse the trend of ME2 and be less shooter/combat focused.

What all recent announcements indicate is the exact opposite.

[shepskisaac]

BeefoTheBold wrote...

I'll wait and see, but honestly to me it sounds like an excuse to pad the gameplay with a tons of superfluous combat with no real story or point.

Maybe to show off the new omnitool.

Perhaps it will be like that. Or perhaps it will feel like a great expansion of the SP campaign, showcasing the scale of the Galactic War and thus adding something worthy to the overall feel of the game. But we won't know that till we try it ourselves, so I can't say anything other then let's hope for the best

[tishyw]

BeefoTheBold wrote...

tishyw wrote...

BeefoTheBold wrote...

Hmm. Fair enough. In which case rather than having:

1. A coop mode that is very story driven, even if it is a story that you're intended to play with friends ala RE5, alongside a purely combat driven mode similar to the RE5 mode where your intention is to kill/survive as long as possible.

you have

2. No storyline whatsoever but rather just a ton of combat with the most tenuous of links to anything storyline related, but playing it still nets you Galactic Readiness points and you can import your MP character into the SP campaign.

I'd actually prefer the first. At least that has SOME story to it. If it is the second, and they aren't distinct modes but instead a clarification that the coop previously announced is nothing more than a hack-and-slash shootfest...then how is that an improvement?

You may be able to combined the second and third sections of my original post, but doesn't it actually make the entire concept worse?

Wait, what?  You can import the MP character into the SP campaign?  Sorry if I'm behind but I ignore most of the MP threads because I'm only interested in the SP game, but if you can import the MP character in the SP campaign, then what happens if you don't have one?

This is unclear.

Article here talks about how your MP character can gain levels and the like and later be imported into the SP campaign.

http://www.gamespot.com/xbox360/rpg/mass-effect-3/news/6342313/mass-effect-goes-multiplayer?mode=previews&tag=topslot;thumb;2

Thanks for the link, it doesn't really make me feel any better about the MP but I'm prepared to ignore it as long as it's not to intrusive.  I think tying it to the main game was a big mistake.

[zzLeibniz]

rikimeru420 wrote...

omg how dare you put more content in the game than the last one had shame on you bioware!!!!!

If the dev team had limitless resources, including time, then I would agree with what you are insinuating.
However, it does not. If one invests time and manpower into one aspect of a game, then that is time and manpower not spent on another. As mentioned earlier ITT, it's simple opportunity cost. 
This was the reasoning several heads at Bethesda gave for their refusal to append an MP component in their upcoming flagship title, despite how lucrative it looked on paper. Their goal was simple: to make the best SP game possible. Do one thing, and do it well. 
I'm sure many dev studios hear whispers from tptb to tap into this market or that because a bean-pusher sees a trend. The truly dedicated teams know how to say 'no'. 

[JeffZero]

Ahzrei wrote...

I agree with you entirely, OP.


JeffZero (and similar "you can ignore it attitudes"): I can ignore the multiplayer if I wish, yeah. But I also feel the need to mourn how much better the parts of the game I do enjoy could have been if those resources were (in my opinion) better spent.

And I don't feel like we'll have sufficient experience with the game until March 6th/9th to accurately gauge how much weight the "resources could have gone elsewhere" argument. If ME3's single-player feels as complete as the previous two installments I'm just not going to be feeling it, what with the whole Montreal studio business and all. If it feels lacking, then absolutely.

[RocketPropelledGrenade]

JeffZero wrote...

You're already playing a third-person shooter whether you like it or not. You have been since ME1 whether you like it or not. You can completely disregard the multiplayer if you don't like it. You don't have to pretend you've been thrown under a bus. That's your prerogative.

Come March I will not only disregard the multiplayer, I will disregard this entire game. It is a bastardization of a great series.

And there is a stark difference between a third person RPG and a third person shooter. In RPG's, unlike TPS', you assume absolute control over your character. His morales are whatever you want them to be. His choices are what you want them to be. And these echoe throughout both the game world and the story. 

In order for an RPG to actually be good, it obviously requires a lot of attention. Game development time is not an unlimited resource. Any time spent on kinect controls, or co-op mode, or now multiplayer is time not spent on the only part of the game most fans of the series actually care about.

[JeffZero]

BeefoTheBold wrote...

JeffZero wrote...

You're already playing a third-person shooter whether you like it or not. You have been since ME1 whether you like it or not. You can completely disregard the multiplayer if you don't like it. You don't have to pretend you've been thrown under a bus. That's your prerogative.

Jeff, I like you but that's a load of doog dung.

Yes, the gameplay for combat has been been third person shooter, but to say that a shift away from story missions, character development, deeper dialog, to a greater emphasis on combat is  not a change at all is not the case.

Mass Effect 1 and Mass Effect 2 both had shooter parts to them, but the shooter in ME2 was DRAMATICALLY larger than ME1. Otherwise, what would be the point to Bioware promising to bring back more RPG elements into ME2?

Nobody is arguing that there isn't shooter elements to the ME series. HOW MUCH of them is the pertinent question.

What Bioware has promised is that ME3 would reverse the trend of ME2 and be less shooter/combat focused.

What all recent announcements indicate is the exact opposite.

I don't think that BioWare has ever promised ME3 will be less shooter/combat-focused at all. That's not what I've taken from all the PR. What I've taken from the PR is that the shooter/combat focus will feature much richer customization paths than what was present in ME2. I feel bad for those that took something else away from the PR, I really do, but it's just not something I read.

"More RPG elements" has never fully translated to me as "less combat elements" because Mass Effect has, in my interpretation, always pinned combat as a centerfold piece of the series. It's not like ME1 had intricate crafting or anything; bringing back some more of the customization from the first game while continuing ME2's level of shooting was precisely what I was expecting. None of these recent batches of news have altered my opinion one way or the other on it. If you were actually anticipating less shooter combat in ME3 then again I'm sorry but it's not something I'd have ever held my breath on.

Modifié par JeffZero, 28 octobre 2011 - 01:54 .

[DrunkenMonkey]

As the RPG fellow is saying, Remove what makes ME ME and you get a very shallow thrid person shooter.
There are no choices in Co-op, no speech options, nothing that makes ME special is in that co-op mode, and as we have seen (from a review standpoint) with games like BF3, a weak mode can really damage review scores.

Modifié par DrunkenMonkey, 28 octobre 2011 - 01:57 .

[JeffZero]

RocketPropelledGrenade wrote...
Come March I will not only disregard the multiplayer, I will disregard this entire game. It is a bastardization of a great series.

Yeah, I'm sure. No, really, I actually believe you. Do that. I didn't intend to imply I thought otherwise.

And there is a stark difference between a third person RPG and a third person shooter. In RPG's, unlike TPS', you assume absolute control over your character. His morales are whatever you want them to be. His choices are what you want them to be. And these echoe throughout both the game world and the story.

Ah, so what I was doing in both ME1 and ME2 and expect to continue doing in ME3.

In order for an RPG to actually be good, it obviously requires a lot of attention. Game development time is not an unlimited resource. Any time spent on kinect controls, or co-op mode, or now multiplayer is time not spent on the only part of the game most fans of the series actually care about.

And the inclusion of an extra studio clearly doesn't translate as extra resources to you and other dissenters whereas it does to me. So again, jump under that bus if that's what you feel you must do. I'm sorry you feel like your hearts have been ripped out by something I don't perceive as altering the resource balance. Come March I'll find out whether or not I was right, naturally. You'll just hang out under that bus, $60 or so richer, admittedly.

[DiebytheSword]

BeefoTheBold wrote...

What I associate with coop is STORYLINE MISSIONS that are PLAYED WITH OTHERS.

What I associate with MP is SUPERFLUOUS COMBAT that has no real story or character development and is simply a bunch of running and gunning.

And being a great hater of multiplayer, you are an expert on MP definitions then? 

Co-operative play:



"any organized recreation among a group of children in which activities are planned for the purpose of achieving some goal. It usually occurs among older children. Compare associative play, parallel play, solitary play. "

Directly from a dictionary.  It is the root of the Cooperative Play we define in video games.

Mulitple people working towards a common goal in a game.  What you associate with Co-op is incorrect, and thus your understanding is flawed.

In fact, MP with teams can be called co-op.

But lets be realistic and look at common usage:

Coop - Team of allied players versus common threat to achieve some goal - fits ME3
MP - multiple players in one game - also fits ME3
Whatever it is you're on about - Does not fit ME3.

You see, what you're complaining about, validly so, is that you want an experience with RPG elements beyond leveling mechanics.  Lets not pretend and call your definition MP.  What you describe, is at best, Free For All, a mode with its own name and place in the gaming world.  I agree, it would make no sense in ME3 to have Free For All.

However, ME3 has properly described MP Coop, which need not have any RPG elements to actually be a coop game.

Further ME3 Coop fits within the story, you are fighting on the frontlines of the galactic war and obtaining materiel for the war effort.  You have goals to achieve within your horde stomping.  Your character also levels, which implies the most basic of developments.  Nothing stops you, or any other playing from RPing during the event other than you won't have a dialogue wheel, you'll need to use your mouth.

So, when all is said and done, please understand that I understand your greivance; you hate mulitplayer.  You hate it even more that it has infected your favorite game.  But lets not pretend its not a co-op experience, that does you, and your argument a disservice.

Thats not even touching the fact that cover mechanics and the need to prioritize targets makes this anything but run and gun.

*sips tea*

Now would you be a good fellow and continue your vent with the proper terminology.
mosbyMD()