414 réponses à ce sujet

[AdmiralCheez]

King Minos wrote...

What the hell is a B-dub?

Bioware.

Bio Ware.

BW.

Bee double you.

Bee dubs.

B-Dubs.

[Alex_SM]

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.

Ok, then just drop MP.

I said it should be isolated, because I don't want MP interferring at any level in my SP campaign, because I don't want to play MP. I got tired of multiplayer years ago. I hate all the competitive **** that happens with every MP game (even in co-op games, with people getting angry because a partner messed up, training to get better and that kind of stuff). I even refuse to play with my friends when they want to play some MP game. Everyone in the world seems to think it's like a job or something important.  

And it's obvious that they did it for the money. Still someone thinks they really though it really added something to the game? 

Want to show the galaxy at war? Make little side mission (being part of the story and the SP campaign) where we don't play Sheppard. Make missions where our squad goes to fight for some reason to the other side of the galaxy, and make it be part of the story. Get rid of those sidequest where you "run 3 corridors, clean 1 room, win", and make the scale of the story bigger. 

There are lots of ways to show that in the MP campaign. But that is not EA policy. 

Modifié par Alex_SM, 02 décembre 2011 - 08:35 .

[Kakita Tatsumaru]

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

+1
Or they could at least give us a bigger hard drive for X360.

[Phaedon]

For the record, Fiery, I will consider this a "not bad read", when I start calling Gamerant employees professional journalists.

slimgrin wrote...
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. 

It...does?

[Laser Beam]

Phaedon wrote...

slimgrin wrote...
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. 

It...does?

Of course it does.

[AdmiralCheez]

slimgrin wrote...

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.

Single player will stand on its own just fine.  But this is the first time ME's done multi, so compared to old hats like Gears and CoD, it's going to be fairly weak.  It needs solo's strength and context to hold it up.

I wish the multiplayer campaign could be as awesome as the singleplayer, but what are the chances of that happening?  I mean, honestly?

Not that multiplayer that relies on singleplayer is a bad thing.  It worked for Pokémon, after all.

[Wulfram]

Multiplayer which tangles itself up with Single Player and stops it being balanced properly is a bad thing.

If the mechanism for deciding the outcome of the campaign has to be able to handle lots of MP, Facebook, Doctor Pepper and Twitter based bonuses, it probably won't do as a good a job as if it only had to handle the variables in the SP campaign.

[Iakus]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

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."

And how could that not be done with a seperate multiplayer game between ME3 and ME4 that does feature Noveria?

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.

  People who can't/won't do the MP in ME3 will be just as clueless about Port Hanshan as if they hadn't played a seperate game.  

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.

I mourn for what Bioware used to be though.  They used to be the best of the best.  The only company whose games were on my "must buy" list.  The decline was so swift and sudden it's mind boggling.  Nasty suprise after nasty suprise makes me think DAO might have been Bioware's swan song.  I don't want to to abandon them, they've been good to me in the past.  But at the same time, I don't know how much more I can take.

[Phaedon]

Alex_SM wrote...
Ok, then just drop MP.

I said it should be isolated, because I don't want MP interferring at any level in my SP campaign. I got tired of multiplayer years ago. I hate all the competitive **** that happens with every MP game (even in co-op games, with people getting angry because a partner messed up, training to get better and that kind of stuff). I even refuse to play with my friends when they want to play some MP game. Everyone in the world seems to think it's like a job or something important.

You sound like a nice person. Some of my favorite moments in gaming were during the co-op of a SWAT game, or enjoying casual COD (Yes, COD, and that would include MW2 and BO if me and my old gaming buddies didn't drift apart), and I can understand why someone may not like multiplayer, but to turn down friends just because you think that everything with more than one player is full of "competetive ****", that's darn obnoxious.

Of course, I'll have to question the quality of your friends if you start competing in a way that is unfun.

In the end, you can just (try) playing co-op solo, and unless you don't have ISP issues, this should be an option.

And it's obvious that they did it for the money. Still someone thinks they really though it really added something to the game?

I hear that they also released every single of their games for money. Hell, they even implemented the DnD ruleset in BG for money.

Want to show the galaxy at war? Make little side mission (being part of the story and the SP campaign) where we don't play Sheppard. Make missions where our squad goes to fight for some reason to the other side of the galaxy, and make it be part of the story. Get rid of those sidequest where you "run 3 corridors, clean 1 room, win", and make the scale of the story bigger.

Yes, let's ruin the integrity of the story, by forcing squaddies to come and go so that you can get rid of co-op. If squadmates are that important for you, find some better friends.

There are lots of ways to show that in the MP campaign. But that is not EA policy. 

Not Valve's either, and Valve is viewed by most as the paragons of business morality.

[Phaedon]

Laser Beam wrote...

Phaedon wrote...

slimgrin wrote...
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. 

It...does?

Of course it does.

As in, it does.

Does that.

Already.

Modifié par Phaedon, 02 décembre 2011 - 08:45 .

[Laser Beam]

Phaedon wrote...

As in, it does.

Do that.

Already.

I know. I was reaffirming doubters.

Reaffirming.

Maybe?

[AdmiralCheez]

Alex_SM wrote...

Ok, then just drop MP.

Not gonna happen.  Too much effort has already been put into it, and some of us ACTUALLY WANT TO TRY THE DAMN THING.

I said it should be isolated, because I don't want MP interferring at any level in my SP campaign, because I don't want to play MP. I got tired of multiplayer years ago. I hate all the competitive **** that happens with every MP game (even in co-op games, with people getting angry because a partner messed up, training to get better and that kind of stuff). I even refuse to play with my friends when they want to play some MP game. Everyone in the world seems to think it's like a job or something important. 

Well, sorry you got landed with too many douchebags (I know what that's like, and it sucks).  You don't have to play multiplayer if you don't want to.  But if it's the douchebags that bug you, then try to find non-douchebag to play with.  You know, the kind that do it just for fun.

And it's obvious that they did it for the money. Still someone thinks they really though it really added something to the game?

Of course they did it for the money, but it doesn't have to feel that way when you play it.  Giving it context and relevance in-game is one way to do that.

Want to show the galaxy at war? Make little side mission (being part of the story and the SP campaign) where we don't play Sheppard. Make missions where our squad goes to fight for some reason to the other side of the galaxy, and make it be part of the story. Get rid of those sidequest where you "run 3 corridors, clean 1 room, win", and make the scale of the story bigger.

I'm sure we're going to feel the effects of the war while we're playing solo, but seriously, the most frustrating thing to encounter in a game is when there is an obvious place to work in co-op and there is none.

Like, you know, playing as a random soldier/someone who is not Shepard on a big map with lots of baddies.  It SCREAMS wasted opportunity.

Also, Shepard has ONE p.  S-H-E-P-A-R-D.  God damn it, you people.

There are lots of ways to show that in the **SP** campaign. But that is not EA policy.

I'm going to assume that was a typo so I **fixed** it for you.

[Phaedon]

Laser Beam wrote...
I know. I was reaffirming doubters.

Reaffirming.

Maybe?

This is getting confusing.

Slightly.

I think.



EDIT: Whoops, I meant "does" not "do" in my previous post.

Modifié par Phaedon, 02 décembre 2011 - 08:46 .

[billy the squid]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

slimgrin wrote...

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.

Single player will stand on its own just fine.  But this is the first time ME's done multi, so compared to old hats like Gears and CoD, it's going to be fairly weak.  It needs solo's strength and context to hold it up.

I wish the multiplayer campaign could be as awesome as the singleplayer, but what are the chances of that happening?  I mean, honestly?

Not that multiplayer that relies on singleplayer is a bad thing.  It worked for Pokémon, after all.

Multiplayer being as good as the single player? A Snowball's chance in hell. Considering that SP has always been the IP's strength I would expect the MP to be fun, but nothing spectacular, play with some friends or more competatively with a paticular group, this will probably be me to an extent. 

(my dirty little secret is I played CoD on hardcore and mercilessly picked off everyone with a sniper rifle, across the other side of the map.)

Yet as to games like CoD the SP is about as deep as a shallow puddle, GOW3 was a pleasant suprise in terms of story, but would anyone expect the developers to drop the CoD SP and only put in MP? Maybe, but there would likely be a certain amount of wailing and gnashing of teeth across the net even if the SP campaigns of the CoD series are generally so weak you wouldn't spend more than a few hours on them.

Modifié par billy the squid, 02 décembre 2011 - 09:06 .

[Iakus]

Phaedon wrote...

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

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

???  

I used that word because as far as I know, being able to do a MP mission solo was at one point possible, but not really designed to be done that way.  It was described as being incredibly difficult, since it's not balanced for single player.  I figured 'feature' was the best word to describe something which was technically doable, but not really indended to be done.  

Better than "bug" anyway:D

Modifié par iakus, 02 décembre 2011 - 08:46 .

[Phaedon]

Co-op will have a worse quality of story than SP.

Worse quality of roleplaying than SP.

Same quality of aesthetics as SP.

Probably better quality of statistical progression.

Almost certainly better quality of combat.

[Laser Beam]

Phaedon wrote...

Laser Beam wrote...
I know. I was reaffirming doubters.

Reaffirming.

Maybe?

This is getting confusing.

Slightly.

I think.

Sorry. That's my odd sense of humor.

You had a question mark at the end, so I was just reaffirming you.

[Phaedon]

iakus wrote...
???  

I used that word because as far as I know, being able to do a MP mission solo was at one point possible, but not really designed to be done that way.  It was described as being incredibly difficult, since it's not balanced for single player.  I figured 'feature' was the best word to describe something which was technically doable, but not really indended to be done.  

Better than "bug" anyway:D

Think about "MP" and "features" for a bit. Use both words in a sentence, and then add new ones, such as "blog" or "known". It's a nice mental game. 

[Alex_SM]

Phaedon wrote...

And t
You sound like a nice person. Some of my favorite moments in gaming were during the co-op of a SWAT game, or enjoying casual COD (Yes, COD, and that would include MW2 and BO if me and my old gaming buddies didn't drift apart), and I can understand why someone may not like multiplayer, but to turn down friends just because you think that everything with more than one player is full of "competetive ****", that's darn obnoxious.

Good friends. I share with them everything except Multiplayer. Specially WOW, where they spent three or four years trying to convince me to join them. But then I hear they talking about it, and it was like:

Remember last night heroic quest? XXXXX was a complete noob, never reached 56464 dps, and he one of the good ones in his guild? what a bunch of losers! And XXXXX? Unless he starts training, I don'want him again with us. Also, tomorrow we should go to XXXXX to train for YYYYY, I want my DPS to never be below 5465496874.

And that happens with everyone in everygame. Friends, barely known people, board buddies, etc... I hate the mood of every game where I played MP (and there has been quite a few games, starting with the first Half Life in 1998) since I passed 18. 

Yes, let's ruin the integrity of the story, by forcing squaddies to come and go so that you can get rid of co-op.

Dragon Age Origins does it, and works perfectly fine.

And still I haven't played any Valve game where the SP campaign is influenced by the MP in any way. 

[Alex_SM]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Of course they did it for the money, but it doesn't have to feel that way when you play it.  Giving it context and relevance in-game is one way to do that.

When you hide it and claim is not going to happen, until your boss says "it's mandatory", then it totally looks "just for the money". 

[Forsythia]

Storywise I like the idea of the co-op missions. If I really get into the ME universe, yeah, it seems reasonable people are fighting the Reapers across the galaxy. It actually sounds neat fighting these skirmishes myself.

But gameplaywise, all I've seen or heard so far, seems that this is a pretty lackluster horde mode. So in that regard I kind of agree with the points in the article.