Aller au contenu

Photo

OXM: Six Reasons to Drop [Mass Effect 3] Multiplayer


414 réponses à ce sujet

#101
CptData

CptData
  • Members
  • 8 665 messages

Someone With Mass wrote...

You'll only be able to get the best ending if you do all the side mission in ME3 too, which aren't all "find this guy's credit chit" or "fire up this emergency beacon"

Most of them will spawn based on the events in the main missions.

For example. Let's say that a VIP's ship is shot down and crash lands on a certain planet. You can now choose if you want to go and save this person or just let them die and alter the main missions that follows.


Sounds good, I hope BW keeps the promise this time. I want an universe I can actively shape. Not more, not less.

#102
CroGamer002

CroGamer002
  • Members
  • 20 673 messages

Fiery Phoenix wrote...

Mesina2 wrote...

Do you also do Firewalker on Insanity?

Don't play on Insanity. Only did it once for the achievement but that's about it. Casual/Normal is my preferred difficulty setting.


:blink:

Then how did you get to 50+ hours at all then?
I'm just confused.

#103
AdmiralCheez

AdmiralCheez
  • Members
  • 12 990 messages
Argh, oh my god, it gets worse.

Single player still sells? YES, WE KNOW. BETHESDA KNOWS. EA WILL FIGURE IT OUT EVENTUALLY. But that doesn't mean co-op is some sort of evil cancer and that multiplayer shouldn't be included. I mean, hell, the single player still exists and is still the core of the Mass Effect experience.

Don't want relentless combat? Fine, don't play multiplayer. But that doesn't mean the rest of us are okay with NOT being able to shoot stuff with friends. Just because you are a gaming journalist doesn't mean your opinion accurately represents the entirety of the fanbase.

Oh noes, the apps are coming? Please. Mass Effect has had bullsh*t supplementary media since its inception. And seriously, how many people actually played Galaxy? I don't like it, you don't like it, but no one's forcing us to buy this crap. Social networking is only bad when it's mandatory. If it gets to that point, I'll be the first to pick up my torch and pitchfork (and I almost did after SC2's new Battle.net bullsh*t).

Choices lose impact? Yeah, only if you put in the extra effort to make up for it in multiplayer and choose to carry those points over. Unless you had a compulsive need to do every single extra credit assignment in school ever, this is not a big deal. If anything, it's a clever hook to try to get the singleplayer folks to try multiplayer, and the multiplayer folks to try singleplayer.

And yes, chances are ME3 won't do horde mode as well as Gears 3, but it doesn't have to. It's got a lot more going for it than just the combat. Plus, the character customization is much deeper. As far as I know, Gears didn't even have character customization. This isn't an excuse for mediocrity, mind you--in fact, I agree that BW should focus more on on what makes ME3 different from Gears/CoD/whatever, but that doesn't mean they should drop multiplayer entirely.

You do not ditch a feature that so much effort has been put into just because some people won't use it. If that were the case, there would be no class but soldier and no gender/appearance customization for Shepard.

#104
Fiery Phoenix

Fiery Phoenix
  • Members
  • 18 968 messages

Mesina2 wrote...

Fiery Phoenix wrote...

Mesina2 wrote...

Do you also do Firewalker on Insanity?

Don't play on Insanity. Only did it once for the achievement but that's about it. Casual/Normal is my preferred difficulty setting.

:blink:

Then how did you get to 50+ hours at all then?
I'm just confused.

Geez, how is this so confusing? I'm just very thorough when I play my game. Not really sure how else to put it. ME2 is a pretty long game if you do every single mission and have all DLC installed (assuming you don't skip cutscenes and conversations).

#105
ODST 5723

ODST 5723
  • Members
  • 647 messages

Mesina2 wrote...

Fiery Phoenix wrote...

Mesina2 wrote...

Do you also do Firewalker on Insanity?

Don't play on Insanity. Only did it once for the achievement but that's about it. Casual/Normal is my preferred difficulty setting.


:blink:

Then how did you get to 50+ hours at all then?
I'm just confused.


40 hours spent in Afterlife, killing Shepards liver.

#106
CroGamer002

CroGamer002
  • Members
  • 20 673 messages

Fiery Phoenix wrote...

Geez, how is this so confusing? I'm just very thorough when I play my game. Not really sure how else to put it. ME2 is a pretty long game if you do every single mission and have all DLC installed (assuming you don't skip cutscenes and conversations).


Then I guess I'm just THAT good in ME2 so I can beat it and be very thorough in much shorter time.:D

#107
Guest_SkyeHawk89_*

Guest_SkyeHawk89_*
  • Guests
I'm actually looking coward to the mode. I think that it will be fun, interesting. It will make the game last longer after playing a few times. I'm happy too that you get to play different classes, make your own character and play different species. I don't judge anything until I try and play it. I think that what most should do, it's childish seeing people whining and complaining. The though and I hope they add OFFLINE, LOCAL play for the features, I don't want too miss out. I love Mass Effect, Mass Effect is my favorite and best. I know Mass Effect 3 will be great, interesting as well future Mass Effects.

#108
bleetman

bleetman
  • Members
  • 4 007 messages

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Argh, oh my god, it gets worse.

Single player still sells? YES, WE KNOW. BETHESDA KNOWS. EA WILL FIGURE IT OUT EVENTUALLY. But that doesn't mean co-op is some sort of evil cancer and that multiplayer shouldn't be included. I mean, hell, the single player still exists and is still the core of the Mass Effect experience.

Don't want relentless combat? Fine, don't play multiplayer. But that doesn't mean the rest of us are okay with NOT being able to shoot stuff with friends. Just because you are a gaming journalist doesn't mean your opinion accurately represents the entirety of the fanbase.

Oh noes, the apps are coming? Please. Mass Effect has had bullsh*t supplementary media since its inception. And seriously, how many people actually played Galaxy? I don't like it, you don't like it, but no one's forcing us to buy this crap. Social networking is only bad when it's mandatory. If it gets to that point, I'll be the first to pick up my torch and pitchfork (and I almost did after SC2's new Battle.net bullsh*t).

Choices lose impact? Yeah, only if you put in the extra effort to make up for it in multiplayer and choose to carry those points over. Unless you had a compulsive need to do every single extra credit assignment in school ever, this is not a big deal. If anything, it's a clever hook to try to get the singleplayer folks to try multiplayer, and the multiplayer folks to try singleplayer.

And yes, chances are ME3 won't do horde mode as well as Gears 3, but it doesn't have to. It's got a lot more going for it than just the combat. Plus, the character customization is much deeper. As far as I know, Gears didn't even have character customization. This isn't an excuse for mediocrity, mind you--in fact, I agree that BW should focus more on on what makes ME3 different from Gears/CoD/whatever, but that doesn't mean they should drop multiplayer entirely.

You do not ditch a feature that so much effort has been put into just because some people won't use it. If that were the case, there would be no class but soldier and no gender/appearance customization for Shepard.

I shall quote this, as you can see above, for no particular reason than to increase the number of times it shows up on the internet and hopefully in turn the amount of people who've read it.

Internalise this wisdom.

(I could also have just said 'this', I suppose.)

Modifié par bleetman, 02 décembre 2011 - 07:35 .


#109
Guest_SkyeHawk89_*

Guest_SkyeHawk89_*
  • Guests
^(Forward. My mistake on IPhone.)

#110
Fiery Phoenix

Fiery Phoenix
  • Members
  • 18 968 messages

Mesina2 wrote...

Fiery Phoenix wrote...

Geez, how is this so confusing? I'm just very thorough when I play my game. Not really sure how else to put it. ME2 is a pretty long game if you do every single mission and have all DLC installed (assuming you don't skip cutscenes and conversations).

Then I guess I'm just THAT good in ME2 so I can beat it and be very thorough in much shorter time.:D

I'm not sure it has anything to do with being good at the game, but whatever.

#111
Iakus

Iakus
  • Members
  • 30 335 messages

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Argh, oh my god, it gets worse.

Single player still sells? YES, WE KNOW. BETHESDA KNOWS. EA WILL FIGURE IT OUT EVENTUALLY. But that doesn't mean co-op is some sort of evil cancer and that multiplayer shouldn't be included. I mean, hell, the single player still exists and is still the core of the Mass Effect experience.


Before it wasn't the core, it was the thing and the whole of the thing.  That's no longer the case.  Couldn't they have at least waited until Shepard's story was over before giving in to multiplayer demand?

You do not ditch a feature that so much effort has been put into just because some people won't use it. If that were the case, there would be no class but soldier and no gender/appearance customization for Shepard.


It is too late for ME3.  But that doesn't mean that those of us who didn't want mp in the game have to like it.  Or are willing to tolerate it in future games ::coughDragonAge3cough::

#112
ODST 5723

ODST 5723
  • Members
  • 647 messages
ME3 is a TPS with strong RPG elements. That's what makes it an ARPG.

#113
Oblivious

Oblivious
  • Members
  • 1 185 messages
Golden rule: "Play it. Worst case scenario you'll spend the next few months in singleplayer and never touch multiplayer again. Best case scenario you'll spend the next year in MP and rarely even glance at the SP option. But until then, kindly STFU and stop littering the internet."

#114
pmac_tk421

pmac_tk421
  • Members
  • 1 465 messages

BasilKarlo wrote...

It's not even a well-informed article. There are things that are just blatantly wrong and/or misleading. They say that the multiplayer is required to play, but that's obviously not true. And then they suggest that this new mode has come at the cost of RPG elements but ME3 has more RPG elements than ME2. WTF? Did the writer of that article stick his fingers in his ears as soon as he heard "MP in ME3"?

Yah it read like a post by an uninformed MP hater. Did OXM not hear about the seperate team and budget.

#115
billy the squid

billy the squid
  • Members
  • 4 669 messages

Fiery Phoenix wrote...

Mass Effect 3 multiplayer: six reasons to drop it

Caught this on my Facebook feed a little while ago. Not a bad read.
Now don't shoot me, BioWare. I promise you I'm not the one who wrote the article :P


Oh dear, these would have some legitimate weight if multiplayer was not largely a seperate affair to SP campaign, being only tenuously linked to one another as they are. As it stands the article swings and misses spectacularly, whilst the author faceplants into the proverbial ground.

This is how the article should be responded to.


Posted Image

#116
Guest_lightsnow13_*

Guest_lightsnow13_*
  • Guests

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Argh, oh my god, it gets worse.

Single player still sells? YES, WE KNOW. BETHESDA KNOWS. EA WILL FIGURE IT OUT EVENTUALLY. But that doesn't mean co-op is some sort of evil cancer and that multiplayer shouldn't be included. I mean, hell, the single player still exists and is still the core of the Mass Effect experience.

Don't want relentless combat? Fine, don't play multiplayer. But that doesn't mean the rest of us are okay with NOT being able to shoot stuff with friends. Just because you are a gaming journalist doesn't mean your opinion accurately represents the entirety of the fanbase.

Oh noes, the apps are coming? Please. Mass Effect has had bullsh*t supplementary media since its inception. And seriously, how many people actually played Galaxy? I don't like it, you don't like it, but no one's forcing us to buy this crap. Social networking is only bad when it's mandatory. If it gets to that point, I'll be the first to pick up my torch and pitchfork (and I almost did after SC2's new Battle.net bullsh*t).

Choices lose impact? Yeah, only if you put in the extra effort to make up for it in multiplayer and choose to carry those points over. Unless you had a compulsive need to do every single extra credit assignment in school ever, this is not a big deal. If anything, it's a clever hook to try to get the singleplayer folks to try multiplayer, and the multiplayer folks to try singleplayer.

And yes, chances are ME3 won't do horde mode as well as Gears 3, but it doesn't have to. It's got a lot more going for it than just the combat. Plus, the character customization is much deeper. As far as I know, Gears didn't even have character customization. This isn't an excuse for mediocrity, mind you--in fact, I agree that BW should focus more on on what makes ME3 different from Gears/CoD/whatever, but that doesn't mean they should drop multiplayer entirely.

You do not ditch a feature that so much effort has been put into just because some people won't use it. If that were the case, there would be no class but soldier and no gender/appearance customization for Shepard.


I've been saying this for a long time too!

They really should focus on what makes them different! Biotics/tech and customization of those abilities. Have multiple abilities to choose from and customizing each similar to the way shepard would customize his/her abilities.

#117
Alex_SM

Alex_SM
  • Members
  • 662 messages
There should be no connection at all between MP and SP.

#118
AdmiralCheez

AdmiralCheez
  • Members
  • 12 990 messages

iakus wrote...

Before it wasn't the core, it was the thing and the whole of the thing.  That's no longer the case.  Couldn't they have at least waited until Shepard's story was over before giving in to multiplayer demand?

I used to think that was the way to go, but the more I consider it, the more I like the idea.  We know that ME3 is the end of Shepard's story, but by introducing co-op now, we get to see the beginning of something new, something more than just Shepard and her gang of interstellar badasses.  It seems like a smoother, more natural way to begin expanding the universe than bullsh*t supplementary media.

Think about it.  What if the next ME game is set 200 years after the Reaper Wars?  You meet a krogan who lost an eye in the battle to secure Port Hanshan on Noveria.  Now, without co-op, there's a little click in your brain that remembers Port Hanshan being that cool place with Lorik and Gianna and Peak 15, but you didn't know there was a battle there, and you wonder what it must have been like.  With co-op, however, you can be like, "Dude!  I remember that!  I got pinned by an Atlas and my douchebag friend was too busy putzing around with a communications uplink to revive me.  Damn, we were soooo close, but we went down in the second-to-last wave."

This one-eyed krogan is no longer just some cool war veteran NPC, but someone you shared a personal connection with in another life.  Hell, he could even be that one crazy guy who meleed a Phantom to death while the rest of the team watched in stunned awe.  You have more to connect with than just the stuff Shepard did, and a personal connection with the universe even though all the people Shepard knew are probably dead and gone.

It is too late for ME3.  But that doesn't mean that those of us who didn't want mp in the game have to like it.  Or are willing to tolerate it in future games ::coughDragonAge3cough::

You don't have to like it, and games don't need multi to be good, but seriously, drop the doom and gloom.  Bethesda still loves you and is there for you.  It's perfectly okay to not like everything a certain company puts out.  B-Dubs doesn't have to be loyal to you, and you don't have to be loyal to B-Dubs.  Yes, it sucks when a developer goes into decline and abandons what they're good at in a pathetic attempt to cash in on whatever's all the rage these days, but that doesn't mean good, innovative games aren't still being made.

If the quality gets better and Bioware re-embraces its roots, good for them.  If not, then they can kiss a large part of their consumer base goodbye.  The only people I will mourn are the poor, hardworking grunts at the bottom who lost their jobs thanks to really stupid business decisions.

It just takes EA longer than most to make the poor quality = less money connection.  One they figure that out and embrace the power of niche markets, good ol' RPGing will be back.

#119
Guest_lightsnow13_*

Guest_lightsnow13_*
  • Guests
I just thought of something fun! If you start at the port and fight your way through to the hanger. Taking a mako (revised mako with reasonable controls) you and your squad fight your way to peak 15 where cerberus has set up another base to test the rachni once again.

Fight your way through more rogue rachni and cerberus troops! Yes! This is a good idea.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Modifié par lightsnow13, 02 décembre 2011 - 08:18 .


#120
onelifecrisis

onelifecrisis
  • Members
  • 2 829 messages

billy the squid wrote...


Posted Image


What the... ???

#121
AdmiralCheez

AdmiralCheez
  • Members
  • 12 990 messages

Alex_SM wrote...

There should be no connection at all between MP and SP.

No, that'll make it look really tacked on.  Giving it purpose makes it more a part of the actual game and not an obvious "we did it for the money lulz."

Not that they didn't do it for the money, but seriously, if you want multi to stand seperately from solo, then it needs to stand on its own.  That would require even more effort and resources, and the more multi sucks up, the more likely it is to start leeching off of the solo campaign's quality.

Or, you know, do it SC2 style and have it spend a million years in development, then release it in three parts, each at full price and at ridiculously long intervals.

#122
Iakus

Iakus
  • Members
  • 30 335 messages

Alex_SM wrote...

There should be no connection at all between MP and SP.


They shouldn't even be on the same disks if you ask me

#123
King Minos

King Minos
  • Members
  • 1 564 messages
What the hell is a B-dub?

#124
Phaedon

Phaedon
  • Members
  • 8 617 messages
I am just curious, how many of you guys here, can name, off the top of your head, more than one battles in the Eden Prime War, one the most important and biggest conflicts of the MEverse?

Huh. I thought so. The context argument is ridiculous, since ME1 handled it terribly. And that's an SP-only game. I can already name three battles that occur in the co-op campaign alone, and that's coming from the guy who is unlikely to have the time to play the multiplayer for months after the release of the game.


iakus wrote...
Is that official? Or just a "for now" feature? Plus is it balanced to allow for one player? WIll objective be completable solo?

I am sure that Chewin3 would have raged considerably less if you didn't specifically use the word "feature".

#125
slimgrin

slimgrin
  • Members
  • 12 473 messages

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Alex_SM wrote...

There should be no connection at all between MP and SP.

No, that'll make it look really tacked on.  Giving it purpose makes it more a part of the actual game and not an obvious "we did it for the money lulz."

Not that they didn't do it for the money, but seriously, if you want multi to stand seperately from solo, then it needs to stand on its own.  That would require even more effort and resources, and the more multi sucks up, the more likely it is to start leeching off of the solo campaign's quality.

Or, you know, do it SC2 style and have it spend a million years in development, then release it in three parts, each at full price and at ridiculously long intervals.


Whether it's tied to single player or not is irrelavent. It needs to stand on its own. Single player needs to stand on its own.