235 réponses à ce sujet

[AdmiralCheez]

iakus wrote...

 To keep this thread from getting totally derailed by people telling me "your opinion is wrong, go away"..

The point is, I have a specific concern about the addition of multiplayer impacting the single player game in a negative fashion.  And this concern has not been addressed at all.

Well, so far we don't have sufficient evidence that it WILL negatively effect singleplayer.  I mean, sure, you can guess about it all you want, but as of now it's just a waste of angst.

Save your angst for post-launch when Everything is Ruined and it's Too Late to be Fixed.

[mkk316]

iakus wrote...

 To keep this thread from getting totally derailed by people telling me "your opinion is wrong, go away"..

The point is, I have a specific concern about the addition of multiplayer impacting the single player game in a negative fashion.  And this concern has not been addressed at all.

What specifically are you worried about?  And if it's completely optional, how can it affect the SP campaign in any way unless you play it?

[Jorina Leto]

Uezurii wrote...

Jorina Leto wrote...

EA wants mulitplayer. EA gets multiplayer.

For you there are two options.
First option: Do not buy the game and EA may get the message. But EA's plan to lure in even more Call of Duty fanboys by adding multiplayer may succeed.
Second option: Buy the game. EA won't get your intended message and their plan to lure in even more Call of Duty fanboys by adding multiplayer may succeed.

But arguing with the Bioware fanbois here is a waste of time.

EA has Battlefield for that. ME3's multiplayer isn't made to get the CoD crowd. Actually none of the games with multiplayer modes are made for that reason, because...This might suprise you...Multiplayer has been there before Call of duty even existed! shocking I know.

Strange, it is their admitted goal to lure them in. Okay, it failed with DA2 for various reasons (it is not a shooter and does not have multiplayer...), but they still want them.

[Iakus]

mkk316 wrote...

iakus wrote...

 To keep this thread from getting totally derailed by people telling me "your opinion is wrong, go away"..

The point is, I have a specific concern about the addition of multiplayer impacting the single player game in a negative fashion.  And this concern has not been addressed at all.

What specifically are you worried about?  And if it's completely optional, how can it affect the SP campaign in any way unless you play it?

It can affect the SIngle Player campaign by artificially shortening it..

Consider:  they were developed by different teams, using separate budgets.  Okay, fine.

But they're on the same disks.  There's only X amount of space to fit both SP and MP into it.  It's not a monetary or personell budget I'm talking about.  It's a space budget.

If MP was a Day 1 DLC, this would not be an issue for me.

If MP was a separate disk, this would not be an issue for me

Instead, we have to wonder if a world had to be removed from the game to make room for MP.  Or  dialogue.  Or quests.  What compromises to the game had to be made to fit both into the space allotted?

[Bad King]

G3rman wrote...

They are making more money by putting MP into the game, they could care less about losing a small fraction of customers like you.

They 'could care less' implies that they do care about losing a small fraction of customers.

[Chuvvy]

mkk316 wrote...

iakus wrote...

 To keep this thread from getting totally derailed by people telling me "your opinion is wrong, go away"..

The point is, I have a specific concern about the addition of multiplayer impacting the single player game in a negative fashion.  And this concern has not been addressed at all.

What specifically are you worried about?  And if it's completely optional, how can it affect the SP campaign in any way unless you play it?

Because it does affect the SP campaign. MP adds to "galactic readiness" meaning it affects your ability to fight the reapers. I can't see how they thought that was a good idea, it's like the flashlights in BF3 making you completely blind. It takes a large amount of misjudgment to implement a feature like that. Maybe they're playing it up for marketing but that just creates new questions. Why would they think that's a good idea? I'm pretty sure you won't gain many sales because you say playing multiplayer is important to singleplayer, but there's a good chance you'll lose some. I really don't understand bioware sometimes.

Modifié par Slidell505, 06 février 2012 - 01:01 .

[AdmiralCheez]

To be honest, I'd rather have multiplayer than all that planet-scanning, Mako-flipping, go-here-and-get-this-thing time sink BS.

But it seems that ME3 will actually be a little longer than ME2, or at least the same length. If dev tweets and my rough estimates from the script are to be believed.

[Chuvvy]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

To be honest, I'd rather have multiplayer than all that planet-scanning, Mako-flipping, go-here-and-get-this-thing time sink BS.

But it seems that ME3 will actually be a little longer than ME2, or at least the same length. If dev tweets and my rough estimates from the script are to be believed.

I liked the Mako, I always wanted a bouncy castle simulator for a game.

[Iakus]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

To be honest, I'd rather have multiplayer than all that planet-scanning, Mako-flipping, go-here-and-get-this-thing time sink BS.

But it seems that ME3 will actually be a little longer than ME2, or at least the same length. If dev tweets and my rough estimates from the script are to be believed.

If the single player campaign is 50 hours+ (without resorting to DLC) of epic Shepard's story conclusion, I will be happy to eat my words.  Truly, I want to be wrong on this.  I want to believe that the Bioware I used to know is still out there.

But I somehow doubt it.  And it's too late to change, well, anything.  I hear the best I can hope for is that iMP doesn't screw up SP too badly.

[AdmiralCheez]

Slidell505 wrote...

Because it does affect the SP campaign. MP adds to "galactic readiness" meaning it affects your ability to fight the reapers. I can't see how they thought that was a good idea, it's like the flashlights in BF3 making you completely blind. It takes a large amount of misjudgment to implement a feature that is the like that. Maybe they're playing it up for marketing but that just creates new questions. Why would they think that's a good idea? I'm pretty sure you won't gain many sales because you say playing multiplayer is important to singleplayer, but there's a good chance you'll lose some. I really don't understand bioware sometimes.

It goes like this:

As you play singleplayer, you unlock new characters, gear, and maps for multiplayer.  When you play multiplayer, you can level up your characters and, once you've maxed them out, import them into your singleplayer game as war assets.  This import feature is optional, and it serves as a buffer/alternative for those who kind of screwed up the main quests or would rather play with friends than sidequest solo.

It is possible to obtain maximum galactic readiness and unlock all achievements in singleplayer alone.  Multiplayer is just an alternative for people who prefer that sort of thing over N7 missions and planet scanning.

[G3rman]

Bad King wrote...

G3rman wrote...

They are making more money by putting MP into the game, they could care less about losing a small fraction of customers like you.

They 'could care less' implies that they do care about losing a small fraction of customers.

I hope you aren't American or fluent at english because otherwise you should know what that expression means.  I'll forgive you for your ignorance.

[AdmiralCheez]

iakus wrote...

If the single player campaign is 50 hours+ (without resorting to DLC) of epic Shepard's story conclusion, I will be happy to eat my words.  Truly, I want to be wrong on this.  I want to believe that the Bioware I used to know is still out there.

But I somehow doubt it.  And it's too late to change, well, anything.  I hear the best I can hope for is that iMP doesn't screw up SP too badly.

Dude, the previous titles were like 30 hours tops, DLC included, unless you really took your sweet time to get every last League of One medallion and/or drain all planets of their mineral wealth.

Expecting a 50+ hour game is a little ridiculous, even without multiplayer.

[Yuoaman]

The longest I ever took on a playthrough of ME1 was about 35/36 hours, and I completed every single quest in the game.

The longest for ME2 was about 33/34.

They're decently sized games, but I'm not expecting each playthrough to last months on end or anything.

[Dewart]

DominusVita wrote...

Multiplayer is a complete waste of time in a single player RPG.

I'd suspect many who played NWN from these forums would disagree with you...

+1

[Chuvvy]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Slidell505 wrote...

Because it does affect the SP campaign. MP adds to "galactic readiness" meaning it affects your ability to fight the reapers. I can't see how they thought that was a good idea, it's like the flashlights in BF3 making you completely blind. It takes a large amount of misjudgment to implement a feature that is the like that. Maybe they're playing it up for marketing but that just creates new questions. Why would they think that's a good idea? I'm pretty sure you won't gain many sales because you say playing multiplayer is important to singleplayer, but there's a good chance you'll lose some. I really don't understand bioware sometimes.

It goes like this:

As you play singleplayer, you unlock new characters, gear, and maps for multiplayer.  When you play multiplayer, you can level up your characters and, once you've maxed them out, import them into your singleplayer game as war assets.  This import feature is optional, and it serves as a buffer/alternative for those who kind of screwed up the main quests or would rather play with friends than sidequest solo.

It is possible to obtain maximum galactic readiness and unlock all achievements in singleplayer alone.  Multiplayer is just an alternative for people who prefer that sort of thing over N7 missions and planet scanning.

But bioware's not making it particuarly clear in the marketing. At least not from what I've seen, which is puzzeling to me. I feel like, you know, it's important to explain this to people who don't have access to online gaming. If you don't have online for whatever reason, and you read that MP is affecting SP, and there's no local for it, that's going to be a little disappointing. Like I said before, I really don't understand bioware. And I'm not complaining, just trying to wrap my mind around biowares marketing technique.

[mkk316]

Slidell505 wrote...

mkk316 wrote...

iakus wrote...

 To keep this thread from getting totally derailed by people telling me "your opinion is wrong, go away"..

The point is, I have a specific concern about the addition of multiplayer impacting the single player game in a negative fashion.  And this concern has not been addressed at all.

What specifically are you worried about?  And if it's completely optional, how can it affect the SP campaign in any way unless you play it?

Because it does affect the SP campaign. MP adds to "galactic readiness" meaning it affects your ability to fight the reapers. I can't see how they thought that was a good idea, it's like the flashlights in BF3 making you completely blind. It takes a large amount of misjudgment to implement a feature like that. Maybe they're playing it up for marketing but that just creates new questions. Why would they think that's a good idea? I'm pretty sure you won't gain many sales because you say playing multiplayer is important to singleplayer, but there's a good chance you'll lose some. I really don't understand bioware sometimes.

I hate to sound like a broken record, but again, Bioware knows that MP might be unappealing to a lot of its fans, and so they made sure to make it optional.  And they repeatedly said, you can get the best outcome without playing it.  The galactic readiness is there to tie it into the game rather than be a stand alone mode, but i bet if you only do one session in MP and decide its not for you and continue entriely in SP you'll be fine.  Trust me I'm not one to defend MP like this, but I think they way BW is going about it is good.  It's there if you want it, but if not, you're still ok.

As to if they cut content to fit it on the same disk.  I doubt that's the case.  It's pretty barebones as MP goes, it's just coop and all the levels you fight in are unlocked in the game itself.  There's no pvp, or matchmaking or whatever, I think it would cost them more to put it on a seperate disk tbh.

[Iakus]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

iakus wrote...

If the single player campaign is 50 hours+ (without resorting to DLC) of epic Shepard's story conclusion, I will be happy to eat my words.  Truly, I want to be wrong on this.  I want to believe that the Bioware I used to know is still out there.

But I somehow doubt it.  And it's too late to change, well, anything.  I hear the best I can hope for is that iMP doesn't screw up SP too badly.

Dude, the previous titles were like 30 hours tops, DLC included, unless you really took your sweet time to get every last League of One medallion and/or drain all planets of their mineral wealth.

Expecting a 50+ hour game is a little ridiculous, even without multiplayer.

I said I'll eat my words if it's 50+ hours.  Because if it's that long, and a good story, it will be a truly epic experience.  I know that it will more likely top out at around 40 or so hours.  Which will be...adequate...but always leave doubts about what might have been cut.

If it's 30 hours Bioware will never hear from me (or my wallet) again.  If it's that short I'll know they've completely sold out, as I can break that in either of the first two games without breaking a sweat.

[AdmiralCheez]

Slidell505 wrote...

But bioware's not making it particuarly clear in the marketing. At least not from what I've seen, which is puzzeling to me. I feel like, you know, it's important to explain this to people who don't have access to online gaming. If you don't have online for whatever reason, and you read that MP is affecting SP, and there's no local for it, that's going to be a little disappointing. Like I said before, I really don't understand bioware. And I'm not complaining, just trying to wrap my mind around biowares marketing technique.

Their marketing sucks;  won't disagree there.  But comments the devs have made here and in interviews, along with the recently released achievement list, verify what I said above.

[Iakus]

Dewart wrote...

DominusVita wrote...

Multiplayer is a complete waste of time in a single player RPG.

I'd suspect many who played NWN from these forums would disagree with you...

+1

Oh, So ME3 will include modding tools so we can create our own content?  Why didn't you say so!

[AdmiralCheez]

iakus wrote...

I said I'll eat my words if it's 50+ hours.  Because if it's that long, and a good story, it will be a truly epic experience.  I know that it will more likely top out at around 40 or so hours.  Which will be...adequate...but always leave doubts about what might have been cut.

If it's 30 hours Bioware will never hear from me (or my wallet) again.  If it's that short I'll know they've completely sold out, as I can break that in either of the first two games without breaking a sweat.

But the previous two were less than 30...

Okay, you know what?  You're being ridiculous.  It does NOT take 50+ hours to tell an epic story, and if you're that stuck up about gameplay length, you're nuts.

30 hours is a long-ass game, man.  Most western, (semi)linear games are between 10 and 20.

[Reptilian Rob]

Oh look, it's this thread again.

Welcome back, old friend.

[mkk316]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

iakus wrote...

I said I'll eat my words if it's 50+ hours.  Because if it's that long, and a good story, it will be a truly epic experience.  I know that it will more likely top out at around 40 or so hours.  Which will be...adequate...but always leave doubts about what might have been cut.

If it's 30 hours Bioware will never hear from me (or my wallet) again.  If it's that short I'll know they've completely sold out, as I can break that in either of the first two games without breaking a sweat.

But the previous two were less than 30...

Okay, you know what?  You're being ridiculous.  It does NOT take 50+ hours to tell an epic story, and if you're that stuck up about gameplay length, you're nuts.

30 hours is a long-ass game, man.  Most western, (semi)linear games are between 10 and 20.

Even 10 - 20 is generous.  I'd say most are 8 - 12.  If a game reaches 15, that's amazing.

[The Minority]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

iakus wrote...

I said I'll eat my words if it's 50+ hours.  Because if it's that long, and a good story, it will be a truly epic experience.  I know that it will more likely top out at around 40 or so hours.  Which will be...adequate...but always leave doubts about what might have been cut.

If it's 30 hours Bioware will never hear from me (or my wallet) again.  If it's that short I'll know they've completely sold out, as I can break that in either of the first two games without breaking a sweat.

But the previous two were less than 30...

Okay, you know what?  You're being ridiculous.  It does NOT take 50+ hours to tell an epic story, and if you're that stuck up about gameplay length, you're nuts.

30 hours is a long-ass game, man.  Most western, (semi)linear games are between 10 and 20.

I agree with the Cheez lady. You craaaaaaazy.

[Dewart]

Bad King wrote...

G3rman wrote...

They are making more money by putting MP into the game, they could care less about losing a small fraction of customers like you.

They 'could care less' implies that they do care about losing a small fraction of customers.

'Could care less' is an expression that actually implies they don't care if they do lose that small fraction of customers. Just clearing that up for you since it had you a bit confused.

[wolfennights]

Baldur's Gate 2 had multiplayer, and it was as much of an RPG as they get.