tomorrowstation wrote...
didymos1120 wrote...
Fiery Phoenix wrote...
I'm actually waiting for the day when the slightest shortcoming is automatically blamed for the inclusion of multiplayer.
It's going to be ridiculously out of hand, I expect: "I HATE THAT OUTFIT'S COLOR! @#$%ING MULTIPLAYER!"
Well, you do know why we won't get to see Tali's face , right?
oh very good, very good indeed
didymos1120 wrote...
Ghost-621 wrote...
This game was supposed to be all about YOU and YOUR SHEP's decisions...not random merc #972.
Or Joker. They should go back and remove that part of ME2 so it's fully Shep-compliant.
So what? The issue is perspective not roleplaying. Heck, the mp is just ahorde mode. The point is the excuse of a Shepard only angle only to be in the ME trilogy is a very lame one. You still have it, it's still about Shepard, and you don't need to play the mp and doing so keeps it at Shepard's perspective only.Comsky159 wrote...
didymos1120 wrote...
Ghost-621 wrote...
This game was supposed to be all about YOU and YOUR SHEP's decisions...not random merc #972.
Or Joker. They should go back and remove that part of ME2 so it's fully Shep-compliant.
That's not roleplaying though is it though, more observation attached to the illusion of interactivity. Everyone's gameplay here is intrinsically exactly the same.
That's the difference between games like Mass Effect and Portal. Portal is a puzzle game at heart, and the player acts as more of a floating camera than an actual human being. The difference is that while in Portal we fall in love with the environment, we never really feel integral to the narrative, whereas in Mass Effect we do and our link with the game is more pronounced as a result.
Ultimately it's immersion (ME) vs. rapture (Portal) and immersion is what multiplayer threatens, because immersion requires an in-depth, fragile relationship between the player and cybertext which transcends the ordinary reader/author transaction. The sudden introduction of another link to the text rips the fabric of this link apart. In a way, it would be like being in a polygamous relationship.
didymos1120 wrote...
Ghost-621 wrote...
This game was supposed to be all about YOU and YOUR SHEP's decisions...not random merc #972.
Or Joker. They should go back and remove that part of ME2 so it's fully Shep-compliant.
dreman9999 wrote...
So what? The issue is perspective not roleplaying. Heck, the mp is just ahorde mode. The point is the excuse of a Shepard only angle only to be in the ME trilogy is a very lame one. You still have it, it's still about Shepard, and you don't need to play the mp and doing so keeps it at Shepard's perspective only.
That is true, but only in detail. This is an arguement about the differences of Nathan Drake and Commander Shepard. One of the 2 maybe a rolecontroled by the players but in the end you are see both their perspectives. Roleplaying is just a more advance consept of pespective. But that does not mean you only see or play Shepard Perspective only or have to. You may like to but that is not manditory. With the mp if you don't like the fact that your not seeing with Shepard perspective only ....Don't play it.Comsky159 wrote...
dreman9999 wrote...
So what? The issue is perspective not roleplaying. Heck, the mp is just ahorde mode. The point is the excuse of a Shepard only angle only to be in the ME trilogy is a very lame one. You still have it, it's still about Shepard, and you don't need to play the mp and doing so keeps it at Shepard's perspective only.
But my point is that perspective/positioning and role-playing are intertwined. Mass Effect brings you closer to the universe to a far greater extent than any novel or indeed linear game ever could. You don't watch Mass Effect, you play from it. It's this entirely unique type of interactivity and player positioning which multiplayer subverts.
And I don't buy the "optional" argument. People have to look at the entire game and every permutation when they critique it, rather than just what they might see in a single playthrough.
Modifié par dreman9999, 30 octobre 2011 - 03:26 .
dreman9999 wrote...
That is true, but only in detail. This is an arguement about the differences of Nathan Drake and Commander Shepard. One of the 2 maybe a rolecontroled by the players but in the end you are see both their perspectives. Roleplaying is just a more advance consept of pespective. But that does not mean you only see or play Shepard Perspective only or have to. You may like to but that is not manditory. With the mp if you don't like the fact that your not seeing with Shepard perspective only ....Don't play it.
Also, this topic is based on the very fact BW stated mp is very optional.(Go to the first page, click link.)
Great, See you on march 6.Comsky159 wrote...
dreman9999 wrote...
That is true, but only in detail. This is an arguement about the differences of Nathan Drake and Commander Shepard. One of the 2 maybe a rolecontroled by the players but in the end you are see both their perspectives. Roleplaying is just a more advance consept of pespective. But that does not mean you only see or play Shepard Perspective only or have to. You may like to but that is not manditory. With the mp if you don't like the fact that your not seeing with Shepard perspective only ....Don't play it.
Also, this topic is based on the very fact BW stated mp is very optional.(Go to the first page, click link.)
Keep in mind that detail makes a pretty important difference in this case. The character Nathan Drake is a defined human being with a definite personality in a defined narrative. Shepard on the other hand, is malleable in most departments and consequently so is the narrative itself through him. Different types of hypertext involve different relationships and player positioning.
Anyway I can see we're going off on a tangent here. You're right in saying that this isn't a huge deal and that it won't really affect me, but that doesn't mean I have to like it. I'm basing an argument on literary principles than on the practical situation. I'm still pre-ordereing and will love it either way.
Someone With Mass wrote...
Quole wrote...
Why didnt they just make the MP irrelevant to SP? Then less people would be complaining.
When it comes to the story, it already is.
People are just getting their panties in a twist because of the possibility that one who might enjoy that multiplayer mode can get something good out of it.
I can get all those readiness points in MP if I so choose. That apparently undermines the weight of the singleplayer for some unexplained reason.
Then don't bring over those benefits from the mp into the sp. If you fear drowning, don't swim.Killjoy Cutter wrote...
Someone With Mass wrote...
Quole wrote...
Why didnt they just make the MP irrelevant to SP? Then less people would be complaining.
When it comes to the story, it already is.
People are just getting their panties in a twist because of the possibility that one who might enjoy that multiplayer mode can get something good out of it.
I can get all those readiness points in MP if I so choose. That apparently undermines the weight of the singleplayer for some unexplained reason.
"butthurt" "panties in a twist" etc. Your side of this really doesn't seem to be able to discuss it without making irrelevent personal jabs at the people on the other side. Demonstrates the weakness of your position.
At any rate, the actual concern is that the fact that benefits from the MP can be brought over to SP, will affect the construction of SP.
Modifié par dreman9999, 30 octobre 2011 - 04:16 .
Vegos wrote...
ME1 was a 40 hour + game if you did every thing and it was $60.
ME2 wasa 50 hour + game if you did every thing and it was $60.
ME3 is a 50 hour + game if you do every thing(not icluding doing the mp)and it's going to be $60.
Why should the value be less if to take off mp if the game is the same value as it privious game?
Oh look, another one who has no idea about what the words "value" and "price" mean.
Hint: They don't mean the same thing.
Like anything. It's based on the beholder. But since we can't haggle the price, we have to put a doller value on things. In truth, something can't be worth less for having an optioal feature added on.Killjoy Cutter wrote...
Vegos wrote...
ME1 was a 40 hour + game if you did every thing and it was $60.
ME2 wasa 50 hour + game if you did every thing and it was $60.
ME3 is a 50 hour + game if you do every thing(not icluding doing the mp)and it's going to be $60.
Why should the value be less if to take off mp if the game is the same value as it privious game?
Oh look, another one who has no idea about what the words "value" and "price" mean.
Hint: They don't mean the same thing.
Most people don't understand that "value" and "price" aren't the same thing.
dreman9999 wrote...
Killjoy Cutter wrote...
At any rate, the actual concern is that the fact that benefits from the MP can be brought over to SP, will affect the construction of SP.
Then don't bring over those benefits from the mp into the sp. If you fear drowning, don't swim.
dreman9999 wrote...
Like anything. It's based on the beholder. But since we can't haggle the price, we have to put a doller value on things. In truth, something can't be worth less for having an optioal feature added on.Killjoy Cutter wrote...
Vegos wrote...
ME1 was a 40 hour + game if you did every thing and it was $60.
ME2 wasa 50 hour + game if you did every thing and it was $60.
ME3 is a 50 hour + game if you do every thing(not icluding doing the mp)and it's going to be $60.
Why should the value be less if to take off mp if the game is the same value as it privious game?
Oh look, another one who has no idea about what the words "value" and "price" mean.
Hint: They don't mean the same thing.
Most people don't understand that "value" and "price" aren't the same thing.
111987 wrote...
Vegos wrote...
Thompson family wrote...
Vegos wrote...
Maybe the cash they spent on the soda they gave out for free could have been spent on R&D instead, ever thought of that?
Fair enough. Let's go with that:
BW makes another purely single player game. They know it will sell about 2 million copies, maybe up to 3 million if it draws more action fans.
If they add MP, though, it has the market potential to become a blockbuster, which is what they really want. So they not only increase the budget to add MP, they increase the development budget overall or at least take their time to polish the game.
It will not become a blockbuster because of that feature. MP public will still prefer to buy a MP game.
There's no way to know that until we see the sales for ME3. Unless you are saying you are entirely representative of the MP 'community'. ME3's multiplayer will be deemed a success or failure after the game is released, not before.
An optioanal feature does not drive the price down. Is a car worth less if it comes with a sun roof for free and I don't want one?Killjoy Cutter wrote...
dreman9999 wrote...
Like anything. It's based on the beholder. But since we can't haggle the price, we have to put a doller value on things. In truth, something can't be worth less for having an optioal feature added on.Killjoy Cutter wrote...
Vegos wrote...
ME1 was a 40 hour + game if you did every thing and it was $60.
ME2 wasa 50 hour + game if you did every thing and it was $60.
ME3 is a 50 hour + game if you do every thing(not icluding doing the mp)and it's going to be $60.
Why should the value be less if to take off mp if the game is the same value as it privious game?
Oh look, another one who has no idea about what the words "value" and "price" mean.
Hint: They don't mean the same thing.
Most people don't understand that "value" and "price" aren't the same thing.
1) What is a "doller"?
2) You need to get out more if you think that adding a "feature" can't drive the value of a product down.
Vegos wrote...
111987 wrote...
You can still do the sidequests and multiplayer
And that's EXACTLY THE PROBLEM.
I don't want to be "ABLE TO" do those quests. I want to be "FORCED TO" do them, basically, regardless of whether or not I do any MP.
Right.....LikeME1 and M2 weren't blockbusters with out MP.Killjoy Cutter wrote...
111987 wrote...
Vegos wrote...
Thompson family wrote...
Vegos wrote...
Maybe the cash they spent on the soda they gave out for free could have been spent on R&D instead, ever thought of that?
Fair enough. Let's go with that:
BW makes another purely single player game. They know it will sell about 2 million copies, maybe up to 3 million if it draws more action fans.
If they add MP, though, it has the market potential to become a blockbuster, which is what they really want. So they not only increase the budget to add MP, they increase the development budget overall or at least take their time to polish the game.
It will not become a blockbuster because of that feature. MP public will still prefer to buy a MP game.
There's no way to know that until we see the sales for ME3. Unless you are saying you are entirely representative of the MP 'community'. ME3's multiplayer will be deemed a success or failure after the game is released, not before.
IF it does become a blockbuster, the pro-MP side will always assume that it was because of MP...
And he's a anti- mp...Like you.Killjoy Cutter wrote...
Vegos wrote...
111987 wrote...
You can still do the sidequests and multiplayer
And that's EXACTLY THE PROBLEM.
I don't want to be "ABLE TO" do those quests. I want to be "FORCED TO" do them, basically, regardless of whether or not I do any MP.
You want to be forced?
Vegos wrote...
jreezy wrote...
Um...Why should it matter? If you want to do them then do them. If you want to forgo the sidequest in favor of what the multipllayer provides then go ahead.
Because doing a single player sidequest in order to save the galaxy and doing a single player sidequest just because you happen to be passing by and can spare a couple of minutes feel differently to me. Therefore, it matters to me. I want the former, not the latter.
Immersion, my friend, immersion. Your heart pounding because you know this is something you have to do, or you'll lose half the galaxy, as opposed to something you can do if you want, but since four random mooks shot up the place in the next spiral arm, you don't really have to.
jreezy wrote...
Vegos wrote...
jreezy wrote...
And if you never touch multiplayer those four random mooks won't matter. You'll KNOW you have to do a sidequest or face some kind of failure.
Even a misanthrope like me has friends. Maybe those friends would still like to do some MP stuff with me now and then.
Cut me some slack here, seriously! I mean, I went from "RAAAAAH MP in ME3 is the harbinger of the gaming apocalypse!" to "OK, so I guess I can accept the MP there, but I simply want it completely separate from SP."
If it was completely seperate in the form it is in now it'd be a waste of space. The fact that it has some bearing on Shepard's success in the single player campaign is its saving grace.
dreman9999 wrote...
Killjoy Cutter wrote...
111987 wrote...
Vegos wrote...
Thompson family wrote...
Vegos wrote...
Maybe the cash they spent on the soda they gave out for free could have been spent on R&D instead, ever thought of that?
Fair enough. Let's go with that:
BW makes another purely single player game. They know it will sell about 2 million copies, maybe up to 3 million if it draws more action fans.
If they add MP, though, it has the market potential to become a blockbuster, which is what they really want. So they not only increase the budget to add MP, they increase the development budget overall or at least take their time to polish the game.
It will not become a blockbuster because of that feature. MP public will still prefer to buy a MP game.
There's no way to know that until we see the sales for ME3. Unless you are saying you are entirely representative of the MP 'community'. ME3's multiplayer will be deemed a success or failure after the game is released, not before.
IF it does become a blockbuster, the pro-MP side will always assume that it was because of MP...
Right.....LikeME1 and M2 weren't blockbusters with out MP.
If it is a blockbuster, evenyone will assume it's because of the story and interaction, like every other BW game.
dreman9999 wrote...
Killjoy Cutter wrote...
Vegos wrote...
111987 wrote...
You can still do the sidequests and multiplayer
And that's EXACTLY THE PROBLEM.
I don't want to be "ABLE TO" do those quests. I want to be "FORCED TO" do them, basically, regardless of whether or not I do any MP.
You want to be forced?
And he's a anti- mp...Like you.
Thompson family wrote...
jreezy wrote...
sympathyforsaren wrote...
Could Edmonton, instead of doing multiplayer, have used the manpower and resources to help out Casey Hudson develope additional side quests for singleplayer and add in more things like detailed open planets to explore, more party banter, or even more full missions?
Most likely. I'm hoping they didn't slack off on the party banter or the side missions.
I don't think making more of that would attract new players to the franchise, which is the clear goal of MP.
Would I have enjoyed that more? Sure, but I don't think BW was going to pour more into it.
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut