414 réponses à ce sujet

[Iakus]

Phaedon wrote...

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. 

Yes, it citese the same quote I was thinking of:

Q) Can the MP mode be done solo, for those who either dont like MP, or want an extra challenge to finish the game without squadmates? 
A) Currently, yes... but it's pretty hard. Though a lot of that depends on difficulty.

Currently.  As in, 'possibly subject to change'?  And it's hard.  That difficulty might be alleviated by lowering the difficulty.  But that answer does not sound encouraging for Galaxy at War being balanced to accomodate, the proverbial Army of One.

[Phaedon]

Alex_SM wrote...
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.

Comparing an MMORPG to any casual form of co-op is like comparing a reality show to a board game.

Dragon Age Origins does it, and works perfectly fine.

If you are referring to what I think that you are, it doesn't seem like everyone shares your opinion.

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

And I am not expecting to  play any BioWare game where the SP campaign is influenced by the MP in any way, by the end of the first months of 2012.

[Phaedon]

iakus wrote...

Phaedon wrote...

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. 

Yes, it citese the same quote I was thinking of:

Q) Can the MP mode be done solo, for those who either dont like MP, or want an extra challenge to finish the game without squadmates? 
A) Currently, yes... but it's pretty hard. Though a lot of that depends on difficulty.

Currently.  As in, 'possibly subject to change'?  And it's hard.  That difficulty might be alleviated by lowering the difficulty.  But that answer does not sound encouraging for Galaxy at War being balanced to accomodate, the proverbial Army of One.

Actually, to cite your original post: " but not really designed to be done that way. ". Surely you are thinking of the accidental friendly fire "feature"?

ME3 Co-Op has been designed to be playable by 1-4 people. The last confirmation of this is the leaked beta.

Mmhm. It's hard, so what? You want to play without anyone but yourself? I can't think of many valid reasons, but the choice and consequences are yours. If you want to play Lone Wolf, you'll play Lone Wolf, and you won't get any special catering other than that, just like most games with such an option.

[Genshie]

raza31 wrote...

dafangirl wrote...

Though it does give you pause to wonder if the MP portion is why the game is 6 months delayed.

Agreed, why miss the holiday shopping season. Why let Skyrim take RGP / game of the year crown for 2011?

Do you live under a rock? Star Wars Old Republic says, "Hello!" Bioware is not going to release two games they made at the same time to compete against themselves.

[Alex_SM]

Phaedon wrote...

Alex_SM wrote...
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.

Comparing an MMORPG to any casual form of co-op is like comparing a reality show to a board game.

It was just an example. It's the same everywhere. It was for old Team Fortress, for the new one, for Counter Strike, for Day of Defeat, for Unreal Tournament, for Starcraft, for Age of Empires, etc... and also it was the same with Ultima Online. Starcraft was the worst, people just trained the "fastest way to win" and learned the optimal order to build stuff and the optimal order to get units, and always tried to end the game in the first two minutes. Was totally annoying (also because if the rush fails, the other player it's so weak that is extremely easy to beat him).

And the same playing with unknowns, everyone seemed to have trained everything so they can just win or be the ones with better stats. 

I'm not figuring things, I've been an avid MP player since around 1998 to around 2004, and ended up hating it. 

Nowadays when I want co-op, I get a bunch of friends and play some PnP RPG.

But anyway the complain is not about multiplayer. I'm fine with Bioware/EA implementing multiplayer the way they want, even in ways extremely invasive with the SP campaign... but not in the middle of a story. If they were doing this in ME4 of in ME: The Spin Off then I won't have any problem with it.

Modifié par Alex_SM, 02 décembre 2011 - 09:16 .

[111987]

iakus wrote...

Phaedon wrote...

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. 

Yes, it citese the same quote I was thinking of:

Q) Can the MP mode be done solo, for those who either dont like MP, or want an extra challenge to finish the game without squadmates? 
A) Currently, yes... but it's pretty hard. Though a lot of that depends on difficulty.

Currently.  As in, 'possibly subject to change'?  And it's hard.  That difficulty might be alleviated by lowering the difficulty.  But that answer does not sound encouraging for Galaxy at War being balanced to accomodate, the proverbial Army of One.

Just change the difficulty to Casual and you probably wouldn't even come close to dying, if it's anything like ME2's Casual.

[Iakus]

Phaedon wrote...

iakus wrote...

Phaedon wrote...

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. 

Yes, it citese the same quote I was thinking of:

Q) Can the MP mode be done solo, for those who either dont like MP, or want an extra challenge to finish the game without squadmates? 
A) Currently, yes... but it's pretty hard. Though a lot of that depends on difficulty.

Currently.  As in, 'possibly subject to change'?  And it's hard.  That difficulty might be alleviated by lowering the difficulty.  But that answer does not sound encouraging for Galaxy at War being balanced to accomodate, the proverbial Army of One.

Actually, to cite your original post: " but not really designed to be done that way. ". Surely you are thinking of the accidental friendly fire "feature"?

ME3 Co-Op has been designed to be playable by 1-4 people. The last confirmation of this is the leaked beta.

Mmhm. It's hard, so what? You want to play without anyone but yourself? I can't think of many valid reasons, but the choice and consequences are yours. If you want to play Lone Wolf, you'll play Lone Wolf, and you won't get any special catering other than that, just like most games with such an option.

No I was referring to one person going into a multiplayer mission alone.  Sure it can be done.  In an MMo you could enter a group dungeon by yourself.  But it's not designed with that purpose in mind.  I don't see how friendly fire would matter at all if you're the only "friendly" on the map

I was unaware that the mp maps have been tuned to allow for single player use.  Though I thought we weren't supposed to pay any attention to leaked beta information because it's old and obsolete and higher powers will smite us with lightning or something 

But if that is true that they can be balanced fro solo play, then it eases my mind considerably.  I'd feel better with a couple of bots like Shepard gets, and I still think the game's focus should be exclusively on Shepard.  But at least the content would not be totally excluded from solo players.

Just those with a poor Internet connection:devil:

[whywhywhywhy]

spiros9110 wrote...

whywhywhywhy wrote...

That's an understandable perspective.  I however look at it this way, if the secondary team is good enough to develop this portion of the game which isn't trivial and would require regular contact wth the main team.  Then how much more could have been accomplished if that team was working on a portion of the single player campaign instead ?

This whole 30 hours of gameplay is a recent development in my eyes.  If a game is rated at 30 hours it's not a game I'll buy at full price it has to be bundled with something.  The standard use to be around 45 - 60 hours.  I'd rather that seperate team work on that extra 15 or at least 10 hours of content. 

I don't imagine many people will understand but the standard game price has risen 10 bucks and average game content reduced to 25-30 hours. 

Isn't average game content usually 10-15 hours?  I guess it depends on the player.  

probably for FPS campaigns.  I'd say it depends on the Game first and if your goal is playing it leisurely or speed play throughs.  Then it depends on the player.

[AdmiralCheez]

iakus wrote...

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

Smoother integration that shows more forward thinking.  You know how weird it was to suddenly play as this Hawke guy you've never heard of with no indication whasoever of Hawke or Kirkwall or anything in DAO?

Now, imagine there'd been more of a mention of Hawke/Kirkwall in DAO, even if it was just in passing or a sidequest.  Suddenly, playing as Hawke and going to Kirkwall seems way less pulled out of some writer's ass at the last minute.

Another example of this, but in the opposite direction, is Cerberus in the Mass Effect series.  You ran into these guys in ME1 (if you did the sidequests, anyway), so you knew they were some sort of mysterious pro-human group that experimented with dangerous tech/critters and played dirty sometimes more then necessary.  So when you're suddenly working with them in ME2, it seems slightly less pulled out of someone's ass because you already knew something about them, and ME1 sort of hinted you'd be seeing more of them.

ME3 is an ending, but if the IP is going to be revisited, it also needs to be a beginning.  It needs to hint at more to come, and by sprinkling in the stories of a group of player-generated soldiers fighting on the front lines, seperate from but still related to Shepard's cause, it gives players a taste of what it's like to be a less pre-defined, less galactically crucial character in the same universe.  The next hero of the series could very well be someone as seemingly common as Hawke, but as customizable as the Warden.  Seriously, come on--wouldn't it be fun to adventure across the galaxy as a sniping salarian member of a ragtag pirate gang?

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.

Yeah, and all the yucks that never playerd ME1 were probably like, "Dude, what is this Cerberus bullsh*t?  What the hell is a Reaper?"  Didn't bother them, and it didn't bother me that Jacob mentioned his adventures in Galaxy (which I never played), because to me it was background info that helped me better understand the characters and the universe.

Guy who didn't play ME1: Whoa dude this Archangel guy is pretty badass--oh, he knows Shepard?  That's cool, I guess.

Guy who played ME1: GARRUS MY BRO ASDADFSDG GIVE ME A HUG YOU FABULOUS BASTARD

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.

Imagine how I feel about Nintendo.

[whywhywhywhy]

111987 wrote...

whywhywhywhy wrote...


This whole 30 hours of gameplay is a recent development in my eyes.  If a game is rated at 30 hours it's not a game I'll buy at full price it has to be bundled with something.  The standard use to be around 45 - 60 hours.  I'd rather that seperate team work on that extra 15 or at least 10 hours of content. 

You must only play RPG's if that's how long you think a standard game ever was.

Is ME3 not considered a rpg at all ?  Noted.

[Laser Beam]

iOnlySignIn wrote...

LEAVE MULTIPLAYER ALONE!

Best use of that photo I have ever seen!

[Wulfram]

People who didn't play ME1 probably had a better understanding of Cerberus in ME2 than those who did.

[Phaedon]

Alex_SM wrote...
It was just an example. It's the same everywhere. It was for old Team Fortress, for the new one, for Counter Strike, for Day of Defeat, for Unreal Tournament, for Starcraft, for Age of Empires, etc... and also it was the same with Ultima Online. Starcraft was the worst, people just trained the "fastest way to win" and learned the optimal order to build stuff and the optimal order to get units, and always tried to end the game in the first two minutes. Was totally annoying (also because if the rush fails, the other player it's so weak that is extremely easy to beat him).

TF,CS,DoD,UT,and especially SC and AoE are competitive. ME3 is co-operative. You don't have much chance for showing off your e-peen.

And the same playing with unknowns, everyone seemed to have trained everything so they can just win or be the ones with better stats.

Yeah, people want better stats in an RPG. That doesn't affect you at all. They can not "pwn" you or "roflstomp" anything but your common enemies.

I'm not figuring things, I've been an avid MP player since around 1998 to around 2004, and ended up hating it. 

Nowadays when I want co-op, I get a bunch of friends and play some PnP RPG.

And I'd say that the problem lies at confusing "MP" to "Co-Op"

iakus wrote...
No I was referring to one person going into a multiplayer mission alone.  Sure it can be done.  In an MMo you could enter a group dungeon by yourself.  But it's not designed with that purpose in mind.  I don't see how friendly fire would matter at all if you're the only "friendly" on the map

I was unaware that the mp maps have been tuned to allow for single player use.  Though I thought we weren't supposed to pay any attention to leaked beta information because it's old and obsolete and higher powers will smite us with lightning or something [smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/whistling.png[/smilie]

But if that is true that they can be balanced fro solo play, then it eases my mind considerably.  I'd feel better with a couple of bots like Shepard gets, and I still think the game's focus should be exclusively on Shepard.  But at least the content would not be totally excluded from solo players.

Just those with a poor Internet connection[smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/devil.png[/smilie]

Oh excuse me. Excuse me. "Solo-friendly"? I didn't know that it had to be. I thought that all you needed was access to the content, which as mentioned earlier offer some nice context to the game (mainly the extent of the conflict)

It won't be balanced to be solo-friendly. Just like most games with a Lone Wolf option aren't balanced around that. If for whatever reasons you want to be playing solo, and not with friends, or well, random strangers that can't even talk to you, then you'll have to fight in the co-op levels just like you did in the highest levels on Pinnacle Station. You just need an internet connection.

That's up to where you are being excluded. The rest is a matter of skill, certainly not availability, and once again. Pinnacle Station. What, it's a bad example because everyone hated it? I am sure that the people who hated it just stopped playing it and moved along, staying unaffected by it.


Well, that's all I am going to post tonight.

[111987]

whywhywhywhy wrote...

111987 wrote...

whywhywhywhy wrote...


This whole 30 hours of gameplay is a recent development in my eyes.  If a game is rated at 30 hours it's not a game I'll buy at full price it has to be bundled with something.  The standard use to be around 45 - 60 hours.  I'd rather that seperate team work on that extra 15 or at least 10 hours of content. 

You must only play RPG's if that's how long you think a standard game ever was.

Is ME3 not considered a rpg at all ?  Noted.

We weren't talking about Mass Effect 3...were we? You said standard games. And a standard game is not 45-60 hours.

A standard RPG, perhaps, but not any other type of game.

ME3 is said to take about as long as ME2...for most people, that statistics showed about 35 hours. To do everything, and all the DLC it's probably in your range.

Also, quantity=/=quality. I'd rather have a 30 hour game that is almost always exceptional than a 50 hour game that has exceptional parts, but has several hours of slog. One need not extend the length of a story simply for the sake of making it longer.

[AdmiralCheez]

billy the squid wrote...

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.

Yeah, I think I'm in the same boat: a fun and interesting diversion that gets better with better friends, but ultimately not as cool as the solo campaign.

(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.)

It's not camping, it's efficiency.  High five me, bro.

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.

Yeah, because people like to play the game by themselves sometimes without their douchebag friends, and sometimes the story, despite being shallow and short, is pretty good.

I mean, come on, the nuke scene.  THE NUKE SCENE.  That opening was crazy, man.

So even if the story isn't CoD's main event, people still enjoy it, and it's unfair to take away that option.  Same goes for ME3's singleplayer--it's not going to be the reason anyone buys the game (unless they have no idea what the hell they're purchasing), but it shouldn't be yanked out just because it's ultimately a side dish.

[whywhywhywhy]

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.

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

I can only get 50+ hours if I leave the game running while I watch tv or do something else.  A casual play through on insanity nets me up 30's and 40's if I do some side quests.  I only get twenty something(27 avg) when I ignore most or all side quests.

Modifié par whywhywhywhy, 02 décembre 2011 - 09:25 .

[AdmiralCheez]

While we're talking about things we want gone from the game because we don't like them, someone please kill Sheploo.

[Someone With Mass]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

While we're talking about things we want gone from the game because we don't like them, someone please kill Sheploo.

And Cerberus.

And the Reapers.

And that cow that steals your money.

[Alex_SM]

Phaedon wrote...

And I'd say that the problem lies at confusing "MP" to "Co-Op"

I'm not confusing anything. Most of those games, for example, had co-op modes, and people was the same. And it's the same as with MMO. All that I wrote before was about people playing PVE, wich is a co-op mode. People fought for being "the best of the team". Because every Co-Op games still have ranks, and people train to be the highest in the rank. 

You know, it's the same as going to play a soccer match, and play to be "the one who scores more goals in my team" (wich I found extremely annoying). 

[Ryzaki]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

While we're talking about things we want gone from the game because we don't like them, someone please kill Sheploo.

Can we kill Jane while we're at it? Default Shep sucks no matter the sex.

[Iakus]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Smoother integration that shows more forward thinking.  You know how weird it was to suddenly play as this Hawke guy you've never heard of with no indication whasoever of Hawke or Kirkwall or anything in DAO?

Now, imagine there'd been more of a mention of Hawke/Kirkwall in DAO, even if it was just in passing or a sidequest.  Suddenly, playing as Hawke and going to Kirkwall seems way less pulled out of some writer's ass at the last minute.

Another example of this, but in the opposite direction, is Cerberus in the Mass Effect series.  You ran into these guys in ME1 (if you did the sidequests, anyway), so you knew they were some sort of mysterious pro-human group that experimented with dangerous tech/critters and played dirty sometimes more then necessary.  So when you're suddenly working with them in ME2, it seems slightly less pulled out of someone's ass because you already knew something about them, and ME1 sort of hinted you'd be seeing more of them.

Ah, but Aveline, Carver, and Warrior/Rogue Hawke were survivors of Ostagar, which we did see in Origins.  Similarly, the Hawke family were fleeing darkspawn in Lothering, a place visited in DAO and which was destroyed in that game, albiet offscreen.  The connections were there, just looking backwards instead of forwards.

Ande even then, it didn't always play to the game's benefit.  Anders, Leliana, Cullen, anyone?

ME3 is an ending, but if the IP is going to be revisited, it also needs to be a beginning.  It needs to hint at more to come, and by sprinkling in the stories of a group of player-generated soldiers fighting on the front lines, seperate from but still related to Shepard's cause, it gives players a taste of what it's like to be a less pre-defined, less galactically crucial character in the same universe.  The next hero of the series could very well be someone as seemingly common as Hawke, but as customizable as the Warden.  Seriously, come on--wouldn't it be fun to adventure across the galaxy as a sniping salarian member of a ragtag pirate gang?

Isn't that kind of restrictive?  Once the galactic war ends, Bioware can do just about anything with the series. Assuming the Reapers don't win, there'll be plenty of veterans to draw from.  Why pack on teh baggage when you don't even know where you're going yet?  Just play out Shepard's story and let the future take care of itself.  There'll be any number of NPCs to draw upon.

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.

Imagine how I feel about Nintendo.

I left that behind with the '64

[AdmiralCheez]

Someone With Mass wrote...

And that cow that steals your money.

God damn it man I love that cow.

[AdmiralCheez]

iakus wrote...

Ah, but Aveline, Carver, and Warrior/Rogue Hawke were survivors of Ostagar, which we did see in Origins.  Similarly, the Hawke family were fleeing darkspawn in Lothering, a place visited in DAO and which was destroyed in that game, albiet offscreen.  The connections were there, just looking backwards instead of forwards.

Yes, backwards, but not forwards.  It's easy to write backwards--just consult the wiki before beginning your next project.  Forwards, not so much.  Forwards requires planning and knowing what the hell you're doing.  Forwards requires actively dropping hints in current installments with the intention of drawing upon them later.

Ande even then, it didn't always play to the game's benefit.  Anders, Leliana, Cullen, anyone?

That failed because they kind of f*cked up the whole choice/consequence thing.  Lasy writing around a feature too big for them to handle.

Isn't that kind of restrictive?  Once the galactic war ends, Bioware can do just about anything with the series. Assuming the Reapers don't win, there'll be plenty of veterans to draw from.  Why pack on teh baggage when you don't even know where you're going yet?  Just play out Shepard's story and let the future take care of itself.  There'll be any number of NPCs to draw upon.

Problem is like 90% of the NPCs in ME3 can get dead by the end.  Introducing these nameless combatants gives them a whole lot more freedom--they can do backwards salutes without stepping on the players' personal canons.  Yes, they really can go anywhere--the universe is certainly big enough that nearly any location and time frame is fair game--but having that sense of continuity, the feeling that they planned it out and knew what the hell they were doing, makes for a much more well-crafted and satisfying game.

Seriously, you can tell when they're making sh*t up as they go.

I left that behind with the '64

And it may be time to do that with Bioware if they are no longer producing products you are interested in.