141 réponses à ce sujet

[Quole]

I still dont see why MP was necessary.

[mauro2222]

It wasn't. They could have waited for another game, not the end of the trilogy.

[Renegade133]

Can you guys just wait till the game comes out and try it before you continually assault it

[greed89]

Quole wrote...

I still dont see why MP was necessary.

It wasnt, it supposed to be for adtional entertainment.

I mean imagine that, a video game companiny putting in more features for aditonal enjoyment, those monsters!

Modifié par greed89, 07 décembre 2011 - 05:54 .

[Someone With Mass]

It looks entertaining enough, judging by the beta footage.

[DiebytheSword]

Gatt9 wrote...

DiebytheSword wrote...

Ghost-621 wrote...

Laser Beam wrote...

Lunatic LK47 wrote...


This is pretty much my entire pet peeve since the announcement, and I STILL stand by it. How many people are going to be playing ME3's multiplayer on May 2012? Chances are only a dozen people or less. I know for damn sure I'd be burned out with MP by game #10 regardless of whether or not my buddies have the game.

I never thought about that. It would be a complete waste or resources/time if the multiplayer didn't last. And considering ME doesn't really attract big market MP players I can see it going that route.

Any idiot can see this coming (no offense intended for you in the slightest), ME is a "nerd lolz Im gon play cod nao luz" game. It's not going attract that crowd, no matter how much Bioware tries, it won't happen.

ME3 multiplayer is going to flop, and it's going to hurt the singleplayer experience. We all know that the waste of resources will hurt the story. "But itz maid bai diff teaaams!" It's the same funding that should've gone into the singleplayer my friends.

Instead of working on your translations of internet slang, you should brush up on diminishing returns, and what it would mean applied to your argument about dumping the resources used in MP on SP.  While I agree with your assesment that ME3 is never going to capture a significant portion of CoD players, you need time to leverage additional resources, or resources do nothing to better the product.  Thus, if we are to argue that adding money and people from the ME MP team to ME SP, then we must also increase the time spent making the game.  It would be delayed significantly to use those resources.  This also ignores the fact that there are no writers on the ME MP team.  Programers and artists could be used, but then they also need things to program and render, which brings us back to writing.  The game was always going to be of a rough set length and quality, adding resources doesn't change that.

I understand where you're coming from,  but there's three problems with your arguement though...

1.  ME3 was delayed significantly to implement Online Pass...err...Multiplayer.

2.  Adding resources does change that.  The current method of design for any given game is "Divide and Conquer".

3.  You could easily afford more writers if you weren't paying a duplicate lead programmer,  duplicate lead artist,  duplicate lead designer,  duplicate project lead,  etc.  This is the biggest problem with the whole thing,  not only did it take a chunk of the budget,  but a fair portion of that money would have gone to duplicated positions just to deliver a handful of multiplayer missions in a narrative driven single player game.

Which makes about as much sense as hiring a whole new director,  actors,  and film crew to put together a 15 minute comedy short,  and stuffing it in the middle of a Horror movie,  because Hangover sold alot of tickets so stuffing a comedy in anything will make a billion dollars.

None of this was ever about multiplayer,  it was always about used game sales.  As evidence,  check out the news in the last two weeks about DA3 getting multiplayer shoved in it ala ME3,  just in case anyone actually doubts that this wasn't an EA decision.

While I totally agree with you that this is nothing more than online pass ****tery, you have no proof that the delay was because of MP (if you do, by all means, share), nor do you have proof that they would have okayed additional money for something that has set goals.  At some point, money, effort, manpower and time spent on ME3 would finish it, adding more of any of that without time does nothing for the end product, its economic law, all factors need to increase together.  You might as well set the money on fire at some point, worse, it would impact development costs of the next game, because their profit would be smaller.  You need to look up and understand diminshing returns to see this, or work for a long time in a corporate enviroment, where you can watch it happen. 

http://en.wikipedia....nishing_returns

While I'm not saying that ME3 would benefit from more production budget or more staff, you would need to add more time to make those factors come together, hence another delay to cover the stuff you'd like to add.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm making lemonade out of my lemons and trying MP for all its worth, but I don't think it should have been in either at this stage in the game.

And I'm actually kinda scared of the idea of MP in DA3.

That being said, because we don't agree with it, and we don't like it, doesn't mean we need to point additional wild accusations at it.  It stands to be hated (or tolerated) all on its own without the rumor mill.

[Lunatic LK47]

Renegade133 wrote...

Can you guys just wait till the game comes out and try it before you continually assault it

Uh, no. There's already a generic bunch of MP or co-op games that never kept my interest. How would ME3 be different if the community died out by May 2012? F.E.A.R. 3 shoe-horned in co-op and the extra MP modes and guess what, the game died in JULY 2011, TWO MONTHS AFTER ****ING LAUNCH. I'm not going to justify spending $70 on a potentially compromised single-player experience just because the extra resources were spent on MP and Kinect integration. I found those two to be overglorified gimmicks. I already held Call of Duty in a low regard after COD 4 just because the campaign felt sacrificed just for the sake of the "deeper multiplayer features."

Resident Evil 5: Killed my interest in the series COMPLETELY. As it is, I have to rely on ****ing cheat codes (i.e. Infinite ammo) or a human partner MANDATORILY just to have a LESS FRUSTRATING EXPERIENCE.

[DifferentD17]

greed89 wrote...

most the games you listed are FPS's made by FPS studios who by and large care about the FPS first and for most [thogh i disagree about the Halo SP not being deep I've played the Reach and halo 3 campaigns hundreds of times], and hence a fallacy.

Mass effect can only be compared to Assassins creed and Uncharted as far as similarities go

Hell , actual lay out of the MP should give you a clue, Your not capturing the flag, and killing eachother, if any thing this seems no diffrent from what  BW is doing with Old Republic. Story bassed multyplayer.

Yes, but they are shooters, and they are the group of people Bioware is focusing on to try and attract new players. Did you play the SP alone or with a friend? I've played it many times with a friend as well. It then turns into a coop game.

In your opinion. AC isn't a shooter and doesn't have coop against computers in any capacity, and it's SP in Brotherhood did suffer IMO. Alot of side missions that didn't mean anything and not enough what made AC what it is, assassinations. Uncharted does a better job, but doesn't try to put things you do in MP into SP. They also don't have a story that can branch into many other places.

But you're no longer Shepard, and you are a random soldier. It will most likely have a very weak story if there is one. You're not starting a new story with a new character, you're a random that can be replace by anyone else.

[HowlHowl]

Renegade133 wrote...

Can you guys just wait till the game comes out and try it before you continually assault it

Although everything Lunatic said was totally true, they only said it was unnecessary, not that it was automatically bad. It's not assaulting it to apply the common knowledge that multiplayer, no matter what spin they put on it, probably took away from single-player in some way, if even just the man hours used on it.

Modifié par HowlHowl, 07 décembre 2011 - 06:01 .

[mybudgee]

I believe its safe to say for us hardcores this has basically no chance of approval. ME3 will either be game of the decade, or a gigantic letdown. And, I think I need a break from all this negativity. I feel like I need a bath of good vibes

[Reptillius]

Gatt9 wrote...

1.  ME3 was delayed significantly to implement Online Pass...err...Multiplayer.

Yeah... Because you know. The decision to push back ME3 couldn't have anything to do with the release of SWTOR or the fact that the announcement for pushing it back is relatively shortly after the backlash for DA2 seeming rushed and thus the city of Kirkwall seeming somewhat lifeless so they couldn't have decided to push it back not to fight their own company for sales or perhaps take a little extra time that they didn't do a couple of things that got them so much flack in the way that the DA2 story was presented to us.

no. that's just not possible.  The only conclusion in the world we can draw is that it was pushed back 3 months solely for Multi-Player.

[greed89]

DifferentD17 wrote...


Yes, but they are shooters, and they are the group of people Bioware is focusing on to try and attract new players. Did you play the SP alone or with a friend?

both, and  Bioware is not tryign as hard to appeal to the pure shooters as you thing, or theyd pit us against each other.

In your opinion. AC isn't a shooter and doesn't have coop against computers in any capacity, and it's SP in Brotherhood did suffer IMO.

Brotherhood was the best in the serise

Alot of side missions that didn't mean anything

the side missons in aC had always sucked, it was only in brother hood that they did mean some thing.

But you're no longer Shepard, and you are a random soldier. It will most likely have a very weak story if there is one. You're not starting a new story with a new character, you're a random that can be replace by anyone else.

That is not a bad thing, it means the galaxy is no longer just waitign for shepard to do every thing, some other people are picking up  the good fight, i look forward to their strugle.

Iam sure there will  be plenty of story, jut enough to give it flavor but not enough, to take away from the sp, the way i see it ur basicly playing as the equivlent of Kirihee's squad from the first game.

[DifferentD17]

[quote]greed89 wrote...

[quote]
both, and  Bioware is not tryign as hard to appeal to the pure shooters as you thing, or theyd pit us against each other.[/quote]

They couldn't because it wouldn't make any sense in the series or the story. It's a lot harder to implement full PVP than it is co-op. They'd have to perfect their gameplay, which they haven't and they can't since they've never had a MP game. Why didn't they call it Co-op missions? Portal 2 wasn't pushing "multiplayer" the were pushing Co-op. They deliberately said multiplayer so some people would think PVP. Imo

[quote]
Brotherhood was the best in the serise
the side missons in aC had always sucked, it was only in brother hood that they did mean some thing.
[/quote]
Again in your opinion. In AC2 you took out a lot of targets that all had some connection with the story. In AC Brotherhood you take out random bad guys that are bad for the city. It's clear Brotherhood was supposed to be part of AC2 but it was rushed. You even go to Rome in the final mission in AC2.

[quote]Iam sure there will  be plenty of story, jut enough to give it flavor but not enough, to take away from the sp, the way i see it ur basicly playing as the equivlent of Kirihee's squad from the first game.
[/quote]

If there is, they needed writers to write it, and that would clearly show they took writers away from the SP to make the MP story. Playing as a random soldier has never been a great story. Unless you're "the one".  And by that I mean the one that fixes everything.

Modifié par DifferentD17, 07 décembre 2011 - 06:36 .

[greed89]

DifferentD17 wrote...



They couldn't because it wouldn't make any sense in the series or the story. It's a lot harder to implement full PVP than it is co-op. They'd have to perfect their gameplay, which they haven't and they can't since they've never had a MP game. Why didn't they call it Co-op missions? Portal 2 wasn't pushing "multiplayer" the were pushing Co-op. They deliberately said multiplayer so some people would think PVP. Imo

2 diffrent studios, your looking for some thing to **** about. and it would be really easy to do PVP, make one side cerberus, but they didn't do that now did they.

Again in your opinion. In AC2 you took out a lot of targets that all had some connection with the story. In AC Brotherhood you take out random bad guys that are bad for the city. It's clear Brotherhood was supposed to be part of AC2 but it was rushed. You even go to Rome in the final mission in AC2.

those werent Side missions those were part of the main story. in AC2 all the side missions contributed to your fight aginst the borgias.

If there is they needed writers to write it, and that would clearly show they took writers away from the SP to make the MP story.

So you seem to think that Writers can only work on oen thing at a time. the MP wont have a very detaild Story in comparison to the SP, but  bioware wont half ass it, i expect it to be as good as the really good n7 missions.

Modifié par greed89, 07 décembre 2011 - 06:46 .

[RolandX9]

"But what really surprised us was how quickly concern turned into support once we started describing how it would work." Ha ha ha now you're just being silly.

[Lunatic LK47]

greed89 wrote...


2 diffrent studios, your looking for some thing to **** about. and it would be really easy to do PVP, make one side cerberus, but they didn't do that now did they.

Still doesn't explain how half-assed the final product is.

Medal of Honor 2010: Oh, look, DICE did the MP while Danger Close did the campaign. Guess what, both fronts sucked.

BioShock 2:  How many people played the MP? Last time I checked, there was a ****storm about the campaign being mediocre.

Brothers in Arms 3: Rockstar did the MP and guess what, the entire network was buggy as hell while campaign got lack-luster.

Modern Warfare 3: They had to use 3 FREAKING STUDIOS to develop the game because of the Infinity Ward debacle. We got two development teams on campaign while Raven Software did the MP.  Guess what, campaign sucked balls, and I never cared for the MP.

[greed89]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...



Still doesn't explain how half-assed the final product is.

what finished prroduct

BioShock 2:  How many people played the MP? Last time I checked, there was a ****storm about the campaign being mediocre.

It got good reviews, i liked the Campaign, the only real complaint was that, Rapture didnt feel as new any more and that was unavoidble.

Medal of Honor 2010: Oh, look, DICE did the MP while Danger Close did the campaign. Guess what, both fronts sucked.


Brothers in Arms 3: Rockstar did the MP and guess what, the entire network was buggy as hell while campaign got lack-luster.

never palyed ethere of them, but dice is **** so meh

Modern Warfare 3: They had to use 3 FREAKING STUDIOS to develop the game because of the Infinity Ward debacle. We got two development teams on campaign while Raven Software did the MP.  Guess what, campaign sucked balls, and I never cared for the MP.

of course it Sucked its Modern ****ing warfare, they have never  given a **** about Campain. Thats like being mad that Duke nukem was over the top.

none of these have any effect on BIOWARE, that is not a FPS studio, and as such has a diffrent set of goals in mind.

[DifferentD17]

[quote]greed89 wrote...

[quote]2 diffrent studios, your looking for some thing to **** about. and it would be really easy to do PVP, make one side cerberus, but they didn't do that now did they.
[/quote]

It was just an example. There's a reason why Valve didn't say multiplayer, they probably didn't want to mislead anyone. It would not be easy they would have to make everything perfect like shooting(which I think doesn't hit perfectly sometimes), take away powers like pull, and they would have to make it so no one on the Cerberus side were different species. Actually it seems like from what I've seen you are fighting some Cerberus in the Co-op.
Please take a little bit more time to reply, you misspelled "different" and that's my name.

[quote] those werent Side missions those were part of the main story. in AC2 all the side missions contributed to your fight aginst the borgias.[/quote]

no there were some assassination side missions that actually made sense.
you are also agreeing with me that they did contribute to the story.

[quote]
So you seem to think that Writers can only work on oen thing at a time. the MP wont have a very detaild Story in comparison to the SP, but  bioware wont half ass it, i expect it to be as good as the really good n7 missions.
[/quote]

It seems they will half ass it without a story. What are N7 missions? Do you have examples of that? Also you won't be N7 since they are with the Alliance.

[DifferentD17]

greed89 wrote...


none of these have any effect on BIOWARE, that is not a FPS studio, and as such has a diffrent set of goals in mind.

And that's why it would be hard to make a PVP with no experience, and such high expectations.

[greed89]

DifferentD17 wrote...


It was just an example. There's a reason why Valve didn't say multiplayer, they probably didn't want to mislead anyone. It would not be easy they would have to make everything perfect like shooting(which I think doesn't hit perfectly sometimes), take away powers like pull, and they would have to make it so no one on the Cerberus side were different species. Actually it seems like from what I've seen you are fighting some Cerberus in the Co-op.
Please take a little bit more time to reply, you misspelled "different" and that's my name.

If it was PVP they wouldnt care about the cerberus playes being difrent speices, and if they cared about making  an actual multiplayer they would sacrafice pull, or nerf the hell out of it, poitn is if they wante d pvp they would have pvp

no there were some assassination side missions that actually made sense.
you are also agreeing with me that they did contribute to the story.

no , because they Werent Side missions.

It seems they will half ass it without a story. What are N7 missions? Do you have examples of that? Also you won't be N7 since they are with the Alliance.

oh  god your one of those posters, that  don't under stand the concept of anology and takes every thing literal:pinched:.

any way, N7 missons were the missons u got in ME2 from scanning planets, or getting emails, Like the save the colony side mission, and the hunt down the prothean ruin mission.

And that's why it would be hard to make a PVP with no experience, and such high expectations.

it wouldnt be Gears, but bioware could make a pasable PVP easily, its not that hard. hell they are already doing it with SWTOR

Hell If naughty dog can do it my boys up in canada can

Modifié par greed89, 07 décembre 2011 - 07:16 .

[DifferentD17]

greed89 wrote...

 If it was PVP they wouldnt care about the cerberus playes being difrent speices, and if they cared about making  an actual multiplayer they would sacrafice pull, or nerf the hell out of it, poitn is if they wante d pvp they would have pvp

Cerberus wouldn't have a bunch of different species, they barely let Shepard get different species for his one ship squad. They would have to take away a lot of powers for players that are Vanguard, Sentinel, and Adept. Not everyone plays Soldier. Even infiltrator would suffer they wouldn't let you be invisible all the time.

any way, N7 missons were the missons u got in ME2 from scanning planets, or getting emails, Like the save the colony side mission, and the hunt down the prothean ruin mission.

They seem to be all the same mission in MP, going in and killing a bunch of people. Implying they will be Special Ops missions would mean a much bigger story and a lot more writing. They haven't said anything about missions being more than taking an enemy base. I'm not holding out for more.

Hell If naughty dog can do it my boys up in canada can

Naughty Dog is only working on Uncharted not 3 different Franchises.
They could probably make a passable PVP, but it would be easily forgotten as will this MP.

Modifié par DifferentD17, 07 décembre 2011 - 07:21 .

[Lunatic LK47]

greed89 wrote...

 what finished prroduct

Was referring to games with separate development teams, smart-ass.

BioShock 2:  How many people played the MP? Last time I checked, there was a ****storm about the campaign being mediocre.

of course it Sucked its Modern ****ing warfare, they have never  given a **** about Campain. Thats like being mad that Duke nukem was over the top.

Uh, no. Modern Warfare 3 is like having a Terminator movie without James Cameron at the helm. With the veteran developers gone, the campaign is **** and boring as hell. I bought all of Infinity Ward's Call of Duty games and played the ***** out of their campaigns dozens of times because I don't know, I wanted to play Saving Private Ryan with an A.I. squad? Modern Warfare felt like a military version of 24, so pardon ****ing me for having some standards. Want to know why people like Sylvester Stallone movies? The fact that he poured his heart into them despite how ****ty they might be. As it is, Sledgehammer games knew that they won't hold a candle to the Infinity Ward devs that left, and last time I checked, the lead director of the game had to ask the freaking fanbase just to give favorable fan reviews for Modern Warfare 3.

Modifié par Lunatic LK47, 07 décembre 2011 - 07:25 .

[greed89]

[quote]DifferentD17 wrote...



Cerberus wouldn't have a bunch of different species[/quote] Yes i know,  it wouldnt matter in a PVP mode. one side  would be  multiple species, one  would be cerberus  opratives

  [quote]They would have to take away a lot of powers for players that are Vanguard, Sentinel, and Adept.[/quote] they would have to change the pwers  but ur beign silly if you think Vangaurd and the  others would be undoable
[quote]Even infiltrator would suffer they wouldn't let you be invisible all the time. [/quote] you cant be Invisble for that long in game ether, no big

[quote]
They seem to be all the same mission in MP, going in and killing a
bunch of people. Implying they will be Special Ops missions would mean a
much bigger story and a lot more writing. They haven't said anything
about missions being more than taking an enemy base. I'm not holding out
for more.
[/quote] in essance thats been the entire game since the first game, Arive, kill a  **** ton of people, talk to people, kill some more, leave.

the N7 missions had plenty of varitey in their story if u ever botherd to play them all. Rescue missons, Retreival missons, savign a colony, investigating some ruins, ect. ect.

[quote]Naughty Dog is only working on Uncharted not 3 different Franchises.
They could probably make a passable PVP, but it would be easily forgotten as will this MP.[quote] Naughty dog  puts out uncharted and Jak and Daxter games regulary, not to mention Bioaware ahs more rescources, and a ton more teams so they CAN work on multiple  projects. as for the MP being forgetable, i doubt and heres why, once you beat the game the fan base will still want more mass effect, so they will play the multiplayer, especialy if they decide to add on to it, after the game is finished.

Modifié par greed89, 07 décembre 2011 - 07:28 .

[greed89]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...


Was referring to games with separate development teams, smart-ass.

don't get mad at mea cause you were unclear

of course it Sucked its Modern ****ing warfare, they have never  given a **** about Campain. Thats like being mad that Duke nukem was over the top.

Uh, no. Modern Warfare 3 is like having a Terminator movie without James Cameron at the helm. With the veteran developers gone, the campaign is **** and boring as hell. I bought all of Infinity Ward's Call of Duty games and played the ***** out of their campaigns dozens of times because I don't know, I wanted to play Saving Private Ryan with an A.I. squad? Modern Warfare felt like a military version of 24, so pardon ****ing me for having some standards. Want to know why people like Sylvester Stallone movies? The fact that he poured his heart into them despite how ****ty they might be. As it is, Sledgehammer games knew that they won't hold a candle to the Infinity Ward devs that left, and last time I checked, the lead director of the game had to ask the freaking fanbase just to give favorable fan reviews for Modern Warfare 3.

the Campaigns for MW and MW2 sucked, and i only played Call of duty 3 [i think]] befor that, and the campaign sucked their too. hearing that MW3's Campaign also sucked, is like hearing the sun risises in the morning. But if it's Diped so low that the fan base is only know calling them on it then its ether a bigger level of suck, or they are just getting tired from the lack of effort

Battle Feild's Campains tend to suck as well. why necause their devlopers only care about the Multiplayer and put no real effort into their campaigns.

[DifferentD17]

greed89 wrote...

Yes i know,  it wouldnt matter in a PVP mode. one side  would be  multiple species, one  would be cerberus  opratives

So they would take away your alien character half of the time? That would be really annoying and take away some customization options, assuming there will be in the MP. Would winning give funds to Cerberus instead? Making it harder on Shepard in SP?
 

 

they would have to change the pwers  but ur beign silly if you think Vangaurd and the  others would be undoable

you cant be Invisble for that long in game ether, no big

What would be the point of classes anymore? None, you just said take away a full class, because invisibility is pretty much all Infiltrator has going for it.

in essance thats been the entire game since the first game, Arive, kill a  **** ton of people, talk to people, kill some more, leave.

the N7 missions had plenty of varitey in their story if u ever botherd to play them all. Rescue missons, Retreival missons, savign a colony, investigating some ruins, ect. ect.

Both games really, and it can be quite boring. One of the worst parts of the game in my opinion.

I didn't say they didn't, I'm just saying the implications of MP missions would have to weave into the SP. Which would be alot more work.

Naughty dog  puts out uncharted and Jak and Daxter games regulary, not
to mention Bioaware ahs more rescources, and a ton more teams so they
CAN work on multiple  projects. as for the MP being forgetable, i doubt
and heres why, once you beat the game the fan base will still want more
mass effect, so they will play the multiplayer, especialy if they decide
to add on to it, after the game is finished.

Naughty Dog hasn't worked on Jack and Daxter since 2005, and Uncharted come out as regular as ME does, about every 2 years. I doubt they have that much more funding since Naughty Dog is making exclusive games which Sony puts alot of money into. Or they will replay the SP, the MP seems and will most likely be an after thought, and won't be interesting enough to keep playing in years to come. They didn't say MP last year when they announced it, and they didn't talk about it at this years E3. They just randomly announced it a couple months away from launch. Would've been even more of an after thought if ME3 kept it's original release date. Don't hope for too much from the MP, you'll probably be disappointed in some way.