113 réponses à ce sujet

[Indoctrinated Spectre]

I don't really care about the gameplay that much, as I've played this series wayy too much. I'm just excited I get to share the experience with my close friends. We've always talked about this option, and now it is here.

I am pleased with the addition of multiplayer.

[WizenSlinky0]

ODESSA_Z wrote...

You feel guilty bro? This was written by
someone who doesn't understand that GAMES is a business. Finally, sorry
you feel I am harsh and use loaded words...How do you think the guys at
Bioware feel when they see someone post that CO-OP is going to "ruin my
experience"? 

If my post is abrasive..sorry, I don't like seeing
game devs on the defensive, defending their decisions agaist "abrasive"
people.

Why would I? Just because your tactic failed doesn't mean I don't recognize it. And someone doesn't understand that it isn't always a business. Just like art isn't always a business. Some people go out there to make money. Others just love making awesome games and if they happen to sell, GREAT!

If you ask me I think they're happy people care enough about the world they created to have strong opinions. Some days more than others, I'm sure, as fandoms can get pretty unruly.

If you want to defend something, do it respectfully, and you shall always give it a good name. Not every mind can be changed but every mind can be respected.

ODESSA_Z wrote...


Buy MP games if you like them??? Sounds like someone is trying to keep me buying certain types of games and doesn't want me to enjoy a different type of game in a different light? 

Oh, and I don't want MP in every game...if possible and done properly, more game modes to INCLUDE other types of gamers is what I want.

Well, it's certainly what it sounds like. Every word you type seems to scream "zomg I need multiplayer in every game that looks good". If every developer could package an awesome single player experience and an awesome multiplayer experience, I'd be giddy with excitement. They very rarely can.

[robarcool]

Lol at the quote trees!

Modifié par robarcool, 12 février 2012 - 10:09 .

[CenturyCrow]

ODESSA_Z wrote...
Multiplayer "Inclusionists" are gamers, like myself, who WANT game developers to experiment and innovate and create new aspects of gaming for ALL TYPES of gamers. Casual gamers, Hardcore gamers, Professional Gamers, Family Gamers....if they love a franchise and they are interested in buying a game....why not try to put as many game modes as possible in a game to INCLUDE as many types of tastes in gaming as possibel?

Inclusionist? Indeed. Let's add everything you can to make it the Swiss Knife of games. And in case you want to compile statistics, a spreadsheet would help. Writing a letter to all the family who aren't online, perhaps we need a email program or word processor. Let's bog it down even further with anti-spyware and a firewall and a virus checker; you never can be too safe. /sarcasm
I played Mass Effect as a single player game and Mass Effect 2 as a single player game. So I expected a single player Mass Effect 3. The concept behind the inclusion of co-op seems well thought out but not of interest to me. Co-op was one of the reasons that Origin is mandatory on the PC. I've tried several games in co-op and didn't find it added anything of significant to the game. I really think there's someone at EA headquarter's trying to figure out how to socialize solitaire.

[ODESSA_Z]

WizenSlinky0 said "Just like art isn't always a business. Some people go out there to make money. Others just love making awesome games and if they happen to sell, GREAT"

Trust me sir...nobody goes into games to fail....nobody goes into games to live penniless, nobody goes into games purely to create art...people gotta eat..is that simple enough for ya?

Furthermore, I feel I have defended Bioware respectfully...I've given the opposition to MP in ME3 as much respect, if not MORE, respect than they have given Bioware. Maybe instead of segregationist, I could have used the word separationists or "fence builders". you want me to buy MP games and stay on my side of the fence so that you can have your SP games on your side of the fence. I like mixing chocolate with peanut butter...if it were up to some, Reeses Peanut Butter Cups would have never been invented. I think it is pretty disrespectful to insult Bioware's decision to put CO-OP in ME3...but that is just me. It does hurt when the shoe is on the other foot doesn't it?

And I don't use tactics...not sure what that was about. Instead of attacking me, attack my assertion that there are Inclusionists and Segregationists - call them whatever you want...both sides DO exist in one form or another.

[staindgrey]

Here's my simple problem with multiplayer, judging solely by the leaked videos of the unfinished beta and the premise of this being a brand new thing to the ME universe:

Adding multiplayer does NOTHING for your shelf life unless it's actually good. How many people continue to play Dead Space 2 just because it had multiplayer added? I don't have stats in front of me, but my guess is going to be very, very few. Dead Space is a franchise that sells itself on top quality action-horror gameplay in a single player experience. Simply adding a multiplayer function to say, "oh, hey, we have that too" does virtually nothing besides sway the on-the-border consumer who typically doesn't buy a single-player game day one.

Mass Effect offers replayability in a different fashion. You can play through multiple times and get totally different Shepards, uncover new experiences based on your decisions. You get replayability by the quality of the narrative and cinematics; it's like wanting to watch a really, really good movie again. Multiplayer-centric games, on the other hand, have a singleplayer experience that's far inferior to what ME and similar franchises offer.

Judging solely by the videos I've seen, ME3's multiplayer is nothing special. It doesn't look like it can actually compete with true multiplayer-based games. They all still look better. Unless playing the demo shocks me, I seriously doubt anyone will suddenly become a big ME fan just because it included a Horde mode.

All that said, I'm not angry at them for putting it in. I'm sure I'll play it, and I may enjoy it. But that's not what I play ME for, and I seriously doubt that'll change. When I want a multiplayer shooter, I'll go to Gears. It has far more modes, a greater community, better shooting and cover mechanics, etc. etc. ME3's multiplayer is simply a "me too" mode. That's all. It's not even being made by the actual Bioware studio making the rest of the game.

[ODESSA_Z]

staindgrey wrote...

Here's my simple problem with multiplayer, judging solely by the leaked videos of the unfinished beta and the premise of this being a brand new thing to the ME universe:

Adding multiplayer does NOTHING for your shelf life unless it's actually good. How many people continue to play Dead Space 2 just because it had multiplayer added? I don't have stats in front of me, but my guess is going to be very, very few. Dead Space is a franchise that sells itself on top quality action-horror gameplay in a single player experience. Simply adding a multiplayer function to say, "oh, hey, we have that too" does virtually nothing besides sway the on-the-border consumer who typically doesn't buy a single-player game day one.

Mass Effect offers replayability in a different fashion. You can play through multiple times and get totally different Shepards, uncover new experiences based on your decisions. You get replayability by the quality of the narrative and cinematics; it's like wanting to watch a really, really good movie again. Multiplayer-centric games, on the other hand, have a singleplayer experience that's far inferior to what ME and similar franchises offer.

Judging solely by the videos I've seen, ME3's multiplayer is nothing special. It doesn't look like it can actually compete with true multiplayer-based games. They all still look better. Unless playing the demo shocks me, I seriously doubt anyone will suddenly become a big ME fan just because it included a Horde mode.

All that said, I'm not angry at them for putting it in. I'm sure I'll play it, and I may enjoy it. But that's not what I play ME for, and I seriously doubt that'll change. When I want a multiplayer shooter, I'll go to Gears. It has far more modes, a greater community, better shooting and cover mechanics, etc. etc. ME3's multiplayer is simply a "me too" mode. That's all. It's not even being made by the actual Bioware studio making the rest of the game.

You said, adding multiplayer does nothing for a games shelf life. After reading that...I can't take anything else said in this post seriously. As a matter of fact, played a Dead Space 2 multiplayer game yesterday...no problem finding players.

Actually, MP does alot for the shelf life....OF SP games...How...SP only games sit on the trade in shelf at Gamestop longer because people aren't trading in their MP games. LOL

Your comment shows you know absolutely nothing about the games industry...but I digress...

This quote was from someone who hates the idea of MP

"I adore the Mass Effect games. I've bought ME3 and will enjoy the single
player game.  As far as I'm concerned, the multiplayer portion doesn't
exist."

If you were a Bioware employee that worked on the MP...wouldn't this comment hurt? The MP, for this person..."doesn't exist"...WOW, I don't think this person realizes how hurtful that is to people who worked so hard on the CO-OP.

BTW bioware did make the MP/CO-OP...it wasn't shopped out to some other studio...this kid who made that comment is uninformed.

[111987]

DinoSteve wrote...

it not as if SP has never suffered because of MP, I can understand where thease fears are coming from

plus skyrim was the biggest selling game last year and its single player

Um, no it wasn't. Not even close. Modern Warfare 3 was the biggest ENTERTAINMENT launch in history.

Modifié par 111987, 13 février 2012 - 12:42 .

[WizenSlinky0]

ODESSA_Z wrote...

WizenSlinky0 said "Just like art isn't always a business. Some people go out there to make money. Others just love making awesome games and if they happen to sell, GREAT"

Trust me sir...nobody goes into games to fail....nobody goes into games to live penniless, nobody goes into games purely to create art...people gotta eat..is that simple enough for ya?

Furthermore, I feel I have defended Bioware respectfully...I've given the opposition to MP in ME3 as much respect, if not MORE, respect than they have given Bioware. Maybe instead of segregationist, I could have used the word separationists or "fence builders". you want me to buy MP games and stay on my side of the fence so that you can have your SP games on your side of the fence. I like mixing chocolate with peanut butter...if it were up to some, Reeses Peanut Butter Cups would have never been invented. I think it is pretty disrespectful to insult Bioware's decision to put CO-OP in ME3...but that is just me. It does hurt when the shoe is on the other foot doesn't it?

And I don't use tactics...not sure what that was about. Instead of attacking me, attack my assertion that there are Inclusionists and Segregationists - call them whatever you want...both sides DO exist in one form or another.

Yeah, just like there are no artists who just like to paint right? Not everyone is obsessed with money. Some people just like to be able to do what they love, even if you can't understand that for some reason. Single player games make profits when done well. They arent' starving. You seem to assume that unless a game is making multi-million dollar profits it shouldn't be made. I disagree.

No, all you've done is attack the personality and mental states of people who disagree with you, rather than attack their positions. Nothing is being *invented* in ME3 co-op. Great, there are some games that do mix them. Not all of them should. It's disrespectful to disagree with decisions now? You know, when you give power to the top without oversight all you get is a bottom that suffers. Decisions are meant to be questioned. It's bioware's job to prove us wrong and show us a great multi-player.

ODESSA_Z wrote...

You said, adding multiplayer does
nothing for a games shelf life. After reading that...I can't take
anything else said in this post seriously. As a matter of fact, played a
Dead Space 2 multiplayer game yesterday...no problem finding players.

Actually,
MP does alot for the shelf life....OF SP games...How...SP only games
sit on the trade in shelf at Gamestop longer because people aren't
trading in their MP games. LOL

Your comment shows you know absolutely nothing about the games industry...but I digress...

This quote was from someone who hates the idea of MP

"I adore the Mass Effect games. I've bought ME3 and will enjoy the single
player game.  As far as I'm concerned, the multiplayer portion doesn't
exist."

If
you were a Bioware employee that worked on the MP...wouldn't this
comment hurt? The MP, for this person..."doesn't exist"...WOW, I don't
think this person realizes how hurtful that is to people who worked so
hard on the CO-OP.

BTW bioware did make the MP/CO-OP...it wasn't shopped out to some other studio...this kid who made that comment is uninformed.

Again single player games have just as much, if not more, of a shelf life. What happens a year after the game has been out, or two, or three, when the multiplayer has been thoroughly tapped? Less people, all experts, new players can't even survive a second. Multiplayer quickly is replaced with the next multiplayer because that's what everyone is making. But single player games are a story. Stories last forever, unless we're about to start a video game burning.

Also unless those multiplayer games are selling tons of DLC past 6 months you're costing them more money to host your games. Don't you think it's disrespectful to leech off your developer because you want multiplayer? See, I can hardly say these lines to mock you without gagging.

And no, no one said bioware isn't making the MP. Bioware had a second team make the multiplayer. They've said it multiple times that the team that produced the single-player for the first two games is making the single player for ME3, and a second bioware team was handling the MP portion.

[RDSFirebane]

Well first off this whole thread seems pointless. Can we put down our sticks and stones and wait for the game to come out first before starting riots? we have no proof that Mp has ruined Sp or that Mp sucks because we haven't had the chance to judge it as a whole. So can we just wait for the game to launch and everyone play Sp through 2 or 3 times and 10-15 Mp match's and then decide if its a bust.

Modifié par RDSFirebane, 13 février 2012 - 01:22 .

[staindgrey]

ODESSA_Z wrote...

staindgrey wrote...

Here's my simple problem with multiplayer, judging solely by the leaked videos of the unfinished beta and the premise of this being a brand new thing to the ME universe:

Adding multiplayer does NOTHING for your shelf life unless it's actually good. How many people continue to play Dead Space 2 just because it had multiplayer added? I don't have stats in front of me, but my guess is going to be very, very few. Dead Space is a franchise that sells itself on top quality action-horror gameplay in a single player experience. Simply adding a multiplayer function to say, "oh, hey, we have that too" does virtually nothing besides sway the on-the-border consumer who typically doesn't buy a single-player game day one.

Mass Effect offers replayability in a different fashion. You can play through multiple times and get totally different Shepards, uncover new experiences based on your decisions. You get replayability by the quality of the narrative and cinematics; it's like wanting to watch a really, really good movie again. Multiplayer-centric games, on the other hand, have a singleplayer experience that's far inferior to what ME and similar franchises offer.

Judging solely by the videos I've seen, ME3's multiplayer is nothing special. It doesn't look like it can actually compete with true multiplayer-based games. They all still look better. Unless playing the demo shocks me, I seriously doubt anyone will suddenly become a big ME fan just because it included a Horde mode.

All that said, I'm not angry at them for putting it in. I'm sure I'll play it, and I may enjoy it. But that's not what I play ME for, and I seriously doubt that'll change. When I want a multiplayer shooter, I'll go to Gears. It has far more modes, a greater community, better shooting and cover mechanics, etc. etc. ME3's multiplayer is simply a "me too" mode. That's all. It's not even being made by the actual Bioware studio making the rest of the game.

You said, adding multiplayer does nothing for a games shelf life. After reading that...I can't take anything else said in this post seriously. As a matter of fact, played a Dead Space 2 multiplayer game yesterday...no problem finding players.

Actually, MP does alot for the shelf life....OF SP games...How...SP only games sit on the trade in shelf at Gamestop longer because people aren't trading in their MP games. LOL

Your comment shows you know absolutely nothing about the games industry...but I digress...

This quote was from someone who hates the idea of MP

"I adore the Mass Effect games. I've bought ME3 and will enjoy the single
player game.  As far as I'm concerned, the multiplayer portion doesn't
exist."

If you were a Bioware employee that worked on the MP...wouldn't this comment hurt? The MP, for this person..."doesn't exist"...WOW, I don't think this person realizes how hurtful that is to people who worked so hard on the CO-OP.

BTW bioware did make the MP/CO-OP...it wasn't shopped out to some other studio...this kid who made that comment is uninformed.

And I can't take anything you said seriously with all that elitism getting in the way of your points.

Multiplayer isn't a cure-all when the product in question is sub-par when compared to competition. It's like when a burger place adds burritos. Do you really think people are going there for the burritos? Nah. They're just giving another option to already existing customers who feel like trying something different. Nobody played DS2 for its multiplayer; they just figured they'd give it a go since it's there.

Regardless, you really do need to drop the elitism. "Bioware" is not an umbrella term for every team making every game. The team making Dragon Age is separate from the one making SWTOR, etc. Since being acquired by EA, Bioware's logo has been slapped onto other teams that had no afiliation with Bioware beforehand. But besides that, the ME team has even said outright that the multiplayer addition was made BY AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT STUDIO, leaving the original team with no distractions for the singleplayer portion. Both are headed by Casey Hudson, but they are in different cities working on different projects. They are not the same people.

A dedicated team from our recently formed BioWare Montreal studio has been focused on creating the multiplayer game features while the main game continued to be developed by the team in BioWare Edmonton. [source]

Furthermore, addition of multiplayer into a series not used to having it can degrade the value of the brand, much like what happened to Resident Evil. RE is Capcom's highest selling franchise ever, but only recently had multiplayer features introduced. Its leaning toward co-op, versus and over all action has alienated many of the series's original fans, while failing to engage the action/shooter market in the same way its competition has. The brand itself is changing its identity, but its initial attempt at putting in multiplayer wasn't well received in the least. Are there people who play it? Sure. I do. Are there enough to warrant it being included? Enough that wouldn't have bought it otherwise? Was it worth losing the former brand-loyal customers who've moved on to different franchises like Silent Hill?

Don't talk to me about not knowing anything about the games industry when you can only speak in absolutes and not consider alternative points of view. Multiplayer's great, really, it is. I love multiplayer in some games. But so is chocolate. I love chocolate. Do I want chocolate on my cheeseburger? **** no. I want chocolate on my things that go well with chocolate. That's the entire point I'm trying to make.

And I'm still open to ME3's multiplayer being good. I hope it is, though I'm doubtful. My entire point in posting here is to try and show you that your ultimate, superior tone and reference to multiplayer as a goes-with-everything-and-automatically-makes-the-game-better mentality is wrong. You may feel free to have a different opinion, but back it up without belittling what evidence I've given as nothing. Stop falling into the stereotype of BSN members being, well, like you're currently being. It's not good for the community.

Modifié par staindgrey, 14 février 2012 - 03:10 .

[WizenSlinky0]

Not fair. You make better arguments than I do.

*jealousy engaged*

[CrypticZer0]

This topic is beating a dead horse at this point, it obviously doesn't matter arguing against the included coop in ME 3 because what's done is done.  However, 
that doesn't discredit people from voicing their views and opinions against the decision to do so, no matter if it's right now or months after the game is released when people have actually had physical time to put it through its paces to give a concrete opinion.

If people did not voice disagreements in a way that promotes viable discussion then the gaming industry as a whole would became completely stagnant, stale and completely void of intuition.

I will say though that I'm not really surprised Odessa's dense way of going about this discussion if you even want to call it one.  It falls in line with quite a large percentage of people I've noticed who act like a white knight defending something that they don't know more than anyone else, but act like they do, when a company like BioWare doesn't even need defending.  By immediately discrediting anything said by someone else because they happen to offer a different point of view that obviously disagrees with yours, Odessa, is just ignorance.

Don't say someone else knowns nothing of how a game is developed when you yourself do not know either, if you did you wouldn't be sitting here arguing apples and oranges. You're running on these grand ideas that if one game in an entirely different genre implements multiplayer and it has an ounce of success for a brief time, aka Dead Space 2, then that must mean that every single other game out there must have it as well.

That's just not the case whatsoever.  And I highly doubt BioWare went about the decision they made that way either.

I always see "re-playability" being brought up as a reason to add in multiplayer to a game like Mass Effect to extend the longevity of the core game itself. Correct me if I am wrong, Mass Effect 1 as it was as envisioned by the developers to start this "original" trilogy, built the game on the philosophy of strong storytelling and immersive environment spanning multiple playthroughs of varying degrees of choices, decisions, outcomes, and etc just as an example.  Same applies to Mass Effect 2 with the added benefit of being able to import from ME 1.

Mass Effect 1 and obviously Mass Effect 2 did absolutely fine in the re-playability department as a single player only game and statistics gathered by BioWare themselves back up that notion.  If they didn't they would collect data in the first place to better enhance the way they develop the "next" game, in which case is Mass Effect 3.

So, where does the need to have to have any form of multiplayer fit in there?  Because you think it's "Sick dude bro!!?!" or "it's awesome sauce l337!!!" are not valid forms of arguments that every game must have multiplayer to make it a better game.

I see that sense of entitlement all the time on the Mass Effect Xbox.com forums when it comes to people like you, Odessa, defending MP no matter what, but when it really comes down to discussing the actual pros and cons about it, they almost always cop out by either personally bashing those who disagree or simply give really unintelligable and elitist posts just saying "well this other game had/has multiplayer, I think it's awesome, so Mass Effect should have it too and if you disagree with that, well too bad, what you say means absolutely nothing".

No, just no...

So with that said, maybe it was a bit of a poor choice to go about this thread the way you have OP.  Labeling single player gamers as "segregationists" who only want the best experience possible that they know and passionately care about since learning about Mass Effect 1 in '05 or '06, in which was a completely original experience that didn't harken on other games as a source of ideas unlike how half the gaming industry operates nowadays, is quite ignorant and frankly stupid.

If you just want "gamers" to unite and enjoy both forms of entertainment that Mass Effect 3 will provide, then don't sit here on your high horse proclaiming that if you don't fall in line with the notion of "social gaming" then you must just be a loner with no sense of what "real gaming" is or that anything people like myself say are just "bitter" remarks because we happen to disagree with your views.

I'm one to be completely against the inclusion of what is essentially a glorified horde mode that is the Mass Effect 3 coop, because I personally do not believe it adds anything to the core Mass Effect experience.  Does not mean that I will not try it or will sit here and say other won't enjoy it.  I just am in the percentage of people who care about what made Mass Effect unique in the first place and to me that is the engaging single player experience that made Mass Effect what it is today and will be known for no matter the success or failure of the tacked on multiplayer.

Tl;dr it doesn't matter, one of the very few times I actually post on here as I usually just sit back and are entertained for obvious reasons, but I just had to step in and say my .02 because this thread is so completely void of legitimate discussion when the OP starts off by "segregating" certain types of gamers.  Which is selfish to say the least.

[tetrisblock4x1]

I support MP because money, it makes it. Money can be used to make SP better.

[tobynator89]

Not gonna lie. I wll play MP and enjoy it. DEAL WITH IT!

[aksoileau]

Baldur's Gate 2 had multplayer and so did NWN. Those were pretty good games.

[tetrisblock4x1]

curly haired boy wrote...

sup odessa

i'm a big fan of the ME3 co-op multi, but i don't think symmetrical, guns versus guns competitive play will fit well with the ME universe

if they make some sort of ME spinoff game where it's alliance/aliens versus reaper forces, then they could do something like soldiers versus husks. if a developer is including versus play, then they have GOT to separate themselves from the traditional guns vs guns shooters that already dominate.

I like the idea of reapers vs whatever. It would be similar to Left 4 Dead where a smaller group of over powered players (the reapers) battle against a large number of weaklings (Alliance) so that the reapers can get the MacGuffin to move on to the next level. If the Reapers fail the objective, then the next level will be a different one with the alliance attacking a different objective more relevant to their interests (like an indoctrination device), and the reapers would defend

Modifié par tetrisblock4x1, 13 février 2012 - 02:57 .

[ItsFreakinJesus]

aksoileau wrote...

Baldur's Gate 2 had multplayer and so did NWN. Those were pretty good games.

Not to mention Diablo 2.  No one cried foul back then.

[tetrisblock4x1]

ODESSA_Z wrote...

KefkaGestahl wrote...

ODESSA_Z wrote...

1. The creation of new modes by a game development company DOES NOT "take away" from the SP experience. Why? Because the decision to add MP is normally done at the BEGINNING of a project. Bioware didn't wake up one morning half way through development and say, "You know, we should take half of our team and start making MP."  IT JUST DOESN'T HAPPEN THAT WAY. So, the whole "takes away" argument is bunk.

There are only so much time and so many resources that can be devoted to a project.  The decision to introduce multiplayer does limit how much of both can be applied to the single-player campaign.  Bethesda has said as much to explain why they refuse to add multiplayer to their Elder Scrolls games.  And Skyrim did quite well without multiplayer...

But Skyrim WITH multiplayer would have been SICK!!!! The decision to add multiplayer DOES NOT limit...if you think that, then you think that NO PLANNING or PREPARATION goes into a decision to add new modes. you don't understand how games are made...sorry.

Skyrim multiplayer? It's called Mount and blade: Warband. You can get it for cheap on Steam, it has active players (last I checked) and a large modding community.

[Fenton]

Quick history lesson on Bioware MP games. Yes Baldur's Gate had MP and yes you and 5 other people can join in the game's SP campaign, Same with Baldur's Gate 2. Bioware's gem NWN had MP too which I did part take a few times for giggles and yes the toolset that it came with did gave you the power to host MP games to actual worlds that is right actual words if you wanna look it up check out the NWN vault on details. I can understand people are up in arms in this matter because there hasn't been an Bioware game with MP in it since KOTOR until the recent SW: Old Republic.

I don't think there will be competitive MP UNLESS there is an DLC that puts your level 20 character verses with indoctrinated characters, Cerebus or the nasty humaniod units that the Reapers do produce but still it's highly unlikely until the next Mass Effect game with the new trilogy than yeah it could happen. Still people quickly jumped the gun on the whole Co-Op matter. It's something Bioware is trying again but in a newer and more modern format. I'm going to say give MP an shot and if it's total crap than you have every right about ****ing about it and if it's not well you found a new way to have fun.

As for MP in everything it doesn't need to be. It just needs to be approached right and if that said game doesn't need MP well than that means that said company focuses exclusively on SP porton of the game and I can name a few SP games that does that.

As for me well I want to try to do everything on Insanity with my Renegade Fem Shepard since I did beaten Insanity in ME 2 with my Renegade Fem Shepard and lately been bitten with getting higher difficulty trophies lately. Saving my good guy for the first run though so I can figure out what I can do later. After all that is said and done I'm going to level my Turian Soldier to 20 since there are no Volus or Batarians to mess with the Reapers.

[frylock23]

I think that perhaps Odessa forgets that there are perfectly legitimate reasons for people to seek a single player experience over the multiplayer one and to be suspicious when their favorite franchises start to add multiplayer aspects.

For most of my game time these days, I am the sole caregiver for a toddler. Now most of the time, he happily occupies himself so I can play games while keeping an eye on him, but he randomly demands my time and attention. Not being the sort of gamer parent to neglect my child, I naturally give him my first attention dropping the game for him. That kind of behavior leads me to all kinds of odd in-game activity. My avatars are known for becoming part of the scenery for long stretches with little to no prior warning. Obviously, it would be unfair for me to engage in multiplayer games or team up when my activity is sporadic. There's a reason why my SWTOR Sage is in the 30s and doesn't even have the measly 10 Social Pts required to close out the tutorial social points quest - she's been strictly soloed.

Obviously, the trend has been to make games more and more social. The more social games become, the harder it is for people like myself who have situations like mine to find games that we can sit down and enjoy by ourselves. Why shouuld we be excluded from gaming? Why should we not have games that we can play by ourselves? Why should all of you multiplayer folks have all the fun?

What you don't seem to realize is that your argument (such as it isn't) works both ways.

I think there is plenty of room and a need for well made games that can engage both audiences, and while I realize that it may disappoint you to not be able to play Skyrim with your friends as a collective experience, there is something to be said for the individual experience and maybe you could talk to your friends and converse about your individual experiences and derive some satisfaction of sharing that way. Understand that there are very good multiplayer games that aren't set up for the single player that we will never be able to experience that same way that you will that we will likewise miss out on and be a bit disappointed that we won't get to explore. But that's life. Not everyone gets to do everything or at least not everyone always gets to do everything exactly the way they want to all the time.

[ODESSA_Z]

A few people on here posting have made the statement that I don't know how games are made...you can follow me on twitter @ODESSA_Z and find out what top game industry professionals follow me. You can also view pictures of my recent visit to EA...my friends are top industry devs...I know more about how games are made than most devs believe it or not.

[Xeranx]

ODESSA_Z wrote...

A few people on here posting have made the statement that I don't know how games are made...you can follow me on twitter @ODESSA_Z and find out what top game industry professionals follow me. You can also view pictures of my recent visit to EA...my friends are top industry devs...I know more about how games are made than most devs believe it or not.

You can know anyone that you want.  I couldn't care less for who you knew unless I was trying to use you to get my foot in the door with those people.  In the context of this thread you created, however, you didn't do your job.  Maybe you should get in touch with some marketing people or familiarize yourself with public relations to learn how to make your topics more palatable to the audience you seem to be talking to.  Why?  Your opening post is dripping with the contempt you have for those who might not like multiplayer (not even talking about people who are dead set against it).

Multiplayer- "Segregationists"

The "segregationists" are those who believe that SP MUST be preserved by EXCLUDING MP and other modes. They believe that adding additional modes "takes away" from the story line and that the devs don't get to spend enough time working on the SP to make it good enough. Segregatioists in gaming would rather see a GREAT SP experience that only has a limited "shelf life"...than a great SP backed up by a great MP that has EXTENDED PLAY. Because of their gaming lifestyle, they don't care if the company is truly successful, (MP games are far more successful than SP only games in most cases), and are selfish in wanting very narrow to no online capabilities.

What is funny is that you will never see a Multiplayer gamer ask for SP to be removed from a game or fight to keep SP out of a game. But you see tons of Single Player complainers who wish for MP to be taken out or fight prior to release the aspect of multiplayer to be included. They are truly segregationists.

Not all segregationists are hardcore MP haters, but you would think that most of them are in the way they constantly beg game developers to "not ruin my experience" sounds pretty selfish...doesn't it.

When you say things much like you did in the part in bold, you have to know that you're going to lose the people you might be trying to reach.  The title of the topic seems to present some kind of possible discussion rather than an argument or admonishment that it actually became.  And it seemed to be trying to reach those who might be on either side, but (again) it became a method of praising yourself and those who like multiplayer like you do as though you're not selfish as you deem "segregationists".  What's ironic about that is that you are as selfish as (if not more than) the people you admonish.  

What's worse is that on top of all that, you are clearly arrogant and come so close to name dropping to prop yourself on that pedestal of which you've already laid the foundation by telling people to follow your twitter account and see who else is following it.  I don't know, but I'm sure there a great many people who follow twitter accounts for a member (or several) of the cast of the Jersey Shore.  In other words, big whoop.

The limited shelf life you spoke about depends on the game in question and how it was designed.  I guarantee you that there are people still playing KOTOR right now.  If I had KOTOR2 on my computer I'd play it as well.  Alpha Protocol is a game (panned in the US from what I've heard) that I played back to back to back to back, and still started another playthrough.  Not every game needs multiplayer.  Some games don't even have a single player campaign.  It depends on what is done with the game and who it's being marketed to.  The sooner you understand that, the sooner you can deflate and mellow out.

[Spanky Magoo]

Ill say this, I play ME for the Story and think the co-op is unnecessary but since no amount of debating will change the fact that it IS in I will play it regardless. The op is really dickish is his attempts to change my and others minds though. Leave the guilt trips to mothers man lol.

[CrypticZer0]

When in doubt, facepalm your heart out everyone...

From the condescending approach taken in the context of the thread itself and then the outright elitist statement you just made Odessa, I would sincerely question as to whether anyone in their right mind would even hope to take you seriously.

"Go to my Twitter account and see so and so following me, because you know, that means something."

Like really... Hell I have a couple Starcraft 2 professional South Korean team coaches following my Twitter, does that mean I should prance around and force feed other people like I am somehow important now in the Starcraft 2 community?  Not really, not even in the slightest, it means absolutely nothing.  So please don't do the same when it has absolutely no room to the topic at hand.

Not once in this entire thread have you been even remotely convincing in your argument, better yet a lack thereof.  None of this helps that, and I highly doubt anything you say from here on out will formulate anything respectable.

If you indeed "know more than most devs" then again, why are you here arguing apples to oranges with people you obviously disagree with on a topic that obviously eludes you when you approach it by alienating a base of gamers who for all intents and purposes made Mass Effect what it is today?  Makes literally zero sense and I can guarantee there's more than just myself thinking the same thing as is stated above.

That's not speaking as an elitist fan, that's speaking bluntly and to the point that Mass Effect would not be as big as it is now if not for the core fan support that is so passionate about what BioWare created, and that just so happens to be a superb single player experience not seen before.

Who am I kidding though. Everyone bow down to the white knight Odessa while he rides his sturdy steed and promotes his prestigious Twitter to the great heights of Mt. Elitist.