113 réponses à ce sujet

[Xeranx]

@eternalambiguity

I saw what you saw, but I ignored it. Why? The more we keep dragging up that bag of bones and putting it in focus, the more we keep it alive. It's a dead thing that needs to finally get buried and we have to let that happen.

[frylock23]

ODESSA_Z wrote...

Prom001 wrote...

@ODESSA_Z

I seems to me you dont understand how a productive discussion works.

There is nothing in this thread to be productive about. You are either someone who wants game developers, if possible, to add modes on to games to include other types of gamers or you are someone who wants to exclude other types of gamers from enjoying a franchise in their way.

There is really nothing to discuss in this thread other than what you are, an inclusionist or a segregationist and why you fall on one side or the other.

I'm glad Bioware gets to see the ignorance of people who bash their decision to add CO-OP. Maybe now they can stop feeling defensive for doing so. Maybe now they see some fans standing up for them and what type of gamer supports CO-OP and what type bashes CO-OP.

See, I want the best game possible, and sometimes, just having bells and whistles isn't the best game possible. Adding multiplayer just because "everyone else is doing it" won't automatically make your game great. If the multiplayer can't be implemented well or is ultimately meaningless to the overall experience of the game, then is it really worth adding? Now, I'm not saying that ME3's mp will turn out that way, but it could because we are talking about a franchise that was not previously a mp franchise, and I think that's where a lot of the worries come from - that we'll wind up with a add-on that feels like an after-thought that was poorly implemented and poorly thought out. And, because it was developed by a different studio, while it may not have taken up the resourced of the primary development team, it opens a whole new nest of potential issues:

1. Will the secondary team deliver the same feel as the original team?
2. When/if Shep appears to deliver a mission in mp will it be generic Sheploo, femShep or a player's custom Shep? This could be immersion-breaking for story players.
3. If the mp affects how easily single players can complete the single player game, what happens if they want to sit down and play the game one year or two years or more down the road? (Ok, this one isn't as dependent on two different studios, but on how well mp takes off and how long people play the ME3 game)

[AgitatedLemon]

Am I one of the odd few that isn't making a big deal about it either way?

I mean, I'll give the MP s fair shot on release day. If I like it, I'll continue to play it. If not, then... It's like any other ME game.

[Shepard Lives]

Wow, the OP is not biased at all, guys!

ARE YOU ONE OF THE AMAZING SELFLESS INNOVATIVE INCLUSIONISTS OR ONE OF THE SELFISH LOATHSOME UGLY SEGREGATIONISTS

Seriously, what exactly is this thread supposed to accomplish? What has humanity ever accomplished by neatly dividing a demographic in two narrowly-defined groups? Aside from genocide, I mean.

Disclaimer: I'm neutral on the multiplayer issue.

[BatmanPWNS]

Dude, the hate like stopped 2 months ago.

[finc.loki]

OP, you're completely out of line.

I do not like Co-Op in a single player franchise, this franchise has so far done really well with SP focus.
It started as an Action-RPG with a story to tell.

This Co-Op is just a "side track mode" and doesn't "extend the shelf life", NO ONE will play this ME3 to only play Co-OP. 
It's not a normal MULTI PLAYER, it is not player vs player MP, but you play SP but with friends.
I like MP games when they are warranted, IE COD (used to before they got bad), Battlefield, ARMA etc.

There are tons of successful SP games, and the companies that make them.

Lots of Battlefield players complained about the inclusion of SP in the series which has originally ONLY BEEN MP.

Also, creating a very good SP game is harder than creating an arena/map with guns and pew pew each other.
The hardest thing in MP is balance, everything else is not hard to make.
But crafting a large very good and deep SP game is much harder, you can't cut corners like Dragon Age 2 did and re-use locations over and over, there has been a clear back-lash against it.

It was ONE person that created the original Counter-strike MP game that is still the most played MP game of all times. Ask the same person to create HL1 or 2 all alone and see if he/she can succeed.

Most SP games that are or used to be great SP games now include Mp modes that are completely useless just so they can say they have it.
How many play Deep Space 2 MP today? Or Crysis 1 MP etc etc.

There is no doubt that in MOST cases adding MP or Co-op does take away resources that could be spent for a better SP game.


I am not an "exlusionist" (your word "segregationist" doesn't even make sense).
I just think there is a time and a place for everything, not ALL games need to have "extra game modes" that in 99% of the cases is just waste of space.

People STILL play ME1, several years later, but I am very certain that people won't be playing ME3 years later cause they want to Co-OP, no they will re-visit the game and enjoy the SP portion of the game.
That is the BEAUTY of SP games, you are not RELIANT on others to be playing it.

Now, if Bioware was smart, they would have at LEAST made it so the Co-Op can be played Solo with AI controlled co-op partners.
If they do that, then I think CO-OP in ME3 is at least more viable, cause then it could act like an "instead of planet scanning" side game.
Also it would remain viable to EVERYONE, even years later.

My friends and I don't play at the same times at all times, this is also why I specifically hate Co-OP modes.
In normal player vs Player I can always "pub" if my friends aren't on to play with.
Hence I like BF games and such.

So stop being silly and super bias in your post saying that everyone that doesn't like it YOUR way are "bad" people that want to see Bioware "fail" and so on.
I like Biowares ULTIMATE MP game, SWTOR. But I want Dragon Age and ME games to remain the ULTIMATE SP RPG GAMES.

Do you understand? Or did your bias clog your mind somehow?


PS. Nice attempt at trolling OP. Clearly you can't even make and unbiased post that can be up for discussion.

Modifié par finc.loki, 13 février 2012 - 06:54 .

[finc.loki]

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.

No YOU don't understand that games have BUDGETS AND RELEASE SCHEDULES AND DEAD-LINES.

Seriously just give up.

I think Bethesda that has sold 10 million copies and won GOTY in all their games EVERY SINGLE TIME since Oblivion. Knows what the F they are talking about.

It would remove resources if they start making Co-Op viable.
They might do it in the future, they are constantly looking at it, but so far have ended up not including it cause it does DETRACT in what time and money they have to spend on the SP portion of the game.
Does Skyrim NEED Co-op/MP, hell no it can stand on it's own in sales and in what you can do in it.
There is so much to do, that it is sometimes overwhelming and people will be playing Skyrim 4-5 years from now.
ANY MP game has long since died off in same amount of time, except 2, CS:S (counter strike) and BF2 (MP ONLY).

For an MP to be really good it also needs to have much more focus than a "tacked on game mode" that most of these SP games get.
INCLUDING THIS ONE.
This Co-Op is not revolutionary and is simple, hence not needed, well except to satisfy ADHD console kids that demand MP at all times.

Modifié par finc.loki, 13 février 2012 - 07:04 .

[RVallant]

Read PSM3's article in reply to an EA Exec that "Multiplayer is the future and Single player is dead" comment (very poor for PR as is typical EA) and you'll see the "focus on SP" types say to do that purely because, well, those games do well. I'd read the article tbh, it gives plenty of examples of current trends that blow the EA squeeze's argument out of the water.

I'm all for MP modes, but either market the game as an MP centric game and/or have a strong MP following like CoD or simply stick to SP. Plenty of SP+MP merges have failed simply because the SP turns out to be six hours long and the MP is cack and dies within months.

[ODESSA_Z]

finc.loki wrote...

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...

The budget gets set after the modes and scope of project has been established. So, again...nothing gets "taken away".

I also like the fact that some of the people posting here call the CO-OP just a "side track" - the people at Bioware that you guys CLAIM to be fans of will really like to hear that all of their hard work in CO-OP was just to make a "side track"

People are using negative terms on here against Bioware like its no big deal...anyone who diminishes the hard working people at Bioware by spitting on the CO-OP has no clue how hard these guys work on games.

Anyone on here bashing the CO-OP must understand that you are bashing the devs who made it. Game devs in general are some of the hardest working people in any industry I know and you call yourselves fans?
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.

No YOU don't understand that games have BUDGETS AND RELEASE SCHEDULES AND DEAD-LINES.

Seriously just give up.

I think Bethesda that has sold 10 million copies and won GOTY in all their games EVERY SINGLE TIME since Oblivion. Knows what the F they are talking about.

It would remove resources if they start making Co-Op viable.
They might do it in the future, they are constantly looking at it, but so far have ended up not including it cause it does DETRACT in what time and money they have to spend on the SP portion of the game.
Does Skyrim NEED Co-op/MP, hell no it can stand on it's own in sales and in what you can do in it.
There is so much to do, that it is sometimes overwhelming and people will be playing Skyrim 4-5 years from now.
ANY MP game has long since died off in same amount of time, except 2, CS:S (counter strike) and BF2 (MP ONLY).

For an MP to be really good it also needs to have much more focus than a "tacked on game mode" that most of these SP games get.
INCLUDING THIS ONE.
This Co-Op is not revolutionary and is simple, hence not needed, well except to satisfy ADHD console kids that demand MP at all times.

[ODESSA_Z]

I had a discussion with some people before I wrote this thread...one word kept coming up...Fireworks!!!

For those of you who keep saying that I am bias...well, yeah, I am an Inclusionist and I SAY IT IN THE ORIGINAL POST!!!!

there is no escaping the arguement...call yourself whatever you want...but there are people who want to see more than just the typical linear touchy feely SP that lasts 8 hours, and there are people who are satisfied with gaming mediocrity. Sorry, it is what it is.

[ODESSA_Z]

frylock23 wrote...

ODESSA_Z wrote...

Prom001 wrote...

@ODESSA_Z

I seems to me you dont understand how a productive discussion works.

There is nothing in this thread to be productive about. You are either someone who wants game developers, if possible, to add modes on to games to include other types of gamers or you are someone who wants to exclude other types of gamers from enjoying a franchise in their way.

There is really nothing to discuss in this thread other than what you are, an inclusionist or a segregationist and why you fall on one side or the other.

I'm glad Bioware gets to see the ignorance of people who bash their decision to add CO-OP. Maybe now they can stop feeling defensive for doing so. Maybe now they see some fans standing up for them and what type of gamer supports CO-OP and what type bashes CO-OP.

See, I want the best game possible, and sometimes, just having bells and whistles isn't the best game possible. Adding multiplayer just because "everyone else is doing it" won't automatically make your game great. If the multiplayer can't be implemented well or is ultimately meaningless to the overall experience of the game, then is it really worth adding? Now, I'm not saying that ME3's mp will turn out that way, but it could because we are talking about a franchise that was not previously a mp franchise, and I think that's where a lot of the worries come from - that we'll wind up with a add-on that feels like an after-thought that was poorly implemented and poorly thought out. And, because it was developed by a different studio, while it may not have taken up the resourced of the primary development team, it opens a whole new nest of potential issues:

1. Will the secondary team deliver the same feel as the original team?
2. When/if Shep appears to deliver a mission in mp will it be generic Sheploo, femShep or a player's custom Shep? This could be immersion-breaking for story players.
3. If the mp affects how easily single players can complete the single player game, what happens if they want to sit down and play the game one year or two years or more down the road? (Ok, this one isn't as dependent on two different studios, but on how well mp takes off and how long people play the ME3 game)

What news release can you point to that says that Bioware had a "secondary team" working on the CO-OP?

Its all the same team...

There are employees that are dedicated to the CO-OP, but there are employees over the entire project that approve or disapprove of ALL the work done on the project as a whole. They all work under the Bioware studio and no matter what aspect of the game they are working on approval has to be met all the way to the top of the food chain (ie Casey Hudson)

Go on Twitter and look up some of the developers that made ME3 and ask them.

People who write code....WRITE THE CODE FOR THE ENTIRE GAME. If you don't know how important that is to the entire project...u have no clue of how games are made.

[Dr. rotinaj]

multiplayer duties are being handled by a separate team in Montreal under the direction of Hudson.

[ODESSA_Z]

Dr. rotinaj wrote...

multiplayer duties are being handled by a separate team in Montreal under the direction of Hudson.

But the code is all being done by the coders who do code for the entire game, making the whole - separate teams issue a mute point.

[Jonas TM]

First off this is just too good to not take pot shots at the logical fallacies, elitism, ego-centrism and narcissism on display here. And with that I have to espouse my firm belief that Odessa is indeed THE Paul Christoforo on another viral marketing campaign for his Twitter feed. No one could be that clueless otherwise.

ODESSA_Z wrote...

What news release can you point to that says that Bioware had a "secondary team" working on the CO-OP?

Its all the same team...

Bioware has said numerous times that there is a separate team working on the multiplayer so try reading the information available. Regardless the fact is that games have finite budgets and money available. Claiming that the inclusion of multiplayer is in no way taking away from singleplayer resources is delusional. Also, there is strong evidence that the reason ME3 is releasing now and not 6 months ago is due to holding the game until the MP component was completed. That said, I do not have strong feelings either way, I'll be waiting for the MP demo and the complete SP game before making a decision. If both are good fine, hell as long as the SP is good I couldn't care less if the MP sucks. But rest assured if it even hints that the inclusion of MP has decreased the quality of the SP campaign I and many others will scream bloody murder. ME1 was a SP game, ME2 was a SP game, ME3 does not need tacked on multiplayer. If it works, more power to them, if it doesn't I just hope they learn their lesson. Adding co-op is not going to attract the competative multiplayer crowd regardless, it is too hard to stroke your e-peen if you can't teabag your opponents.

As far as your posts, get over yourself. The last time I saw such crap on display was 2 months ago with the whole Paul Christoforo debacle so tone down the ego. Some people play SP games for various reasons and don't want to have to deal with the MP aspects. Thinking you are better than them makes you look like a tool. I for one play both types of games, but mixing them seldom ends well. The only SP game I could name that added MP and did it well in the last 5 years is AC: Brotherhood. So people are understandably concerned. Other people don't want to put up with the community of MP games and voice chat which is generally a cesspool. Still others simply don't have enough time to dedicate to sitting down and finishing a match without other obligations. Take your pick, but the point is it's not nearly as simple as you make it.

Some people (like myself) play certain types of games for entirely different reasons. I play SP games because first and formost I enjoy story. That's why I spend a good amount of time reading as well. MP focused games RARELY make story a main focus and in doing so tend to alienate those types of gamers. I play multiplayer games to fill my desire for competition and to engage with my good friends (both co-op and competitive). Does that make either type better than the other? No just filling different tastes and desires. Also, I am by no means great at MP games, but I have played TF2 and CSS (and TFC before that) for years and consistently pull 1-3rd so that basically shoots your "only people who suck at MP don't want it included" argument out of the water.

The point is ME3 didn't "need" an MP component and people who having been playing since ME1 are rightly fearful of the impact it will have on their experience. Personally I am a bit of a pessimist, but I can't bring myself to actually disparage the MP component. I'll withhold my judgment until I finish the SP game.

Modifié par Jonas TM, 13 février 2012 - 09:45 .

[Luigitornado]

I'm going to play it, but I don't see why it needs it.

[Luigitornado]

tetrisblock4x1 wrote...

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

People aren't going to buy ME3 because of multiplayer.

[Eckswhyzed]

AgitatedLemon wrote...

Am I one of the odd few that isn't making a big deal about it either way?

I mean, I'll give the MP s fair shot on release day. If I like it, I'll continue to play it. If not, then... It's like any other ME game.

Hello, other satisfied forum user

I already know I will enjoy Mass Effect 3. The budget for this game is so large, it is impossible for it to be bad, and highly likely to be amazing. So I am already assured a great SP experience.

MP for me is icing on the cake.

[Provo_101]

lol @ OP for ignoring the utter destruction of his argument and credibility two pages ago.

[HTTP 404]

I too, like to complain about how I spend my free time.

[Khran1505]

The best part is a handful of people who originally got all butthurt about it have come around after witnessing and playing the MP themselves.

The best ones are those who admitted their minds have been changed.

[ODESSA_Z]

Provo_101 wrote...

lol @ OP for ignoring the utter destruction of his argument and credibility two pages ago.

Yeah I have missed that...haven't seen anyone actually argue the main points of this thread. That Inclusionists and Segregatioists exist....nobody is disputing my description...they are just either agreeing or hating on me for describing what they are.

There has been no one "destroy" my argument, which is...there are people that hate MP and hate adding it to games that THEY don't think need it....and people who like MP and want to see more companies make attempts at it....

Destroy that argument...its not an argument...its staiting observations of the two classes of people.

Oh, and I havn't ignored any post here...I'm too busy actually PLAYING games to visit the forums, that is what real gamers do...they play games....

[Prom001]

oh good! this guy is unbelievable.

[Kabraxal]

Okay... I like the MP so far but really, the OP needs to stop acting like their opinion is the holy grail to all gamers.

And really talking about 8 hour SP games... um... you realise both ME1 and ME2 and Bethesda games adn Dragon Age and Final Fantasy all clock in at dozens upon dozens of hours right? You do realise they aren't just 8 hours and done... and hell, many of these of great shelf lives because the STORY is so damned good many people want to play them over and over.

As for your "discussion"... you only brought this up to try and sound intellectually superior with your supposed "facts" and "insider" knowledge (yeah I saw the laughable "look at who follows me on twitter line"). Sad little observation... you are coming off the exact opposite of rational and intelligent in this discussion with how you treat those that do not agree a game like ME needed multiplayer. Simple fact, it doesn't. It's a nice option but the MAIN DRAW is to finish the story.

[ItsFreakinJesus]

ODESSA_Z wrote...

Dr. rotinaj wrote...

multiplayer duties are being handled by a separate team in Montreal under the direction of Hudson.

But the code is all being done by the coders who do code for the entire game, making the whole - separate teams issue a mute point.

If multiplayer coding was being done by the main team, then the main team would be doing coding, thus making your statement incorrect.  The code is being done by the Montreal team using the engine and assets made by the Bioware A team.  Standard procedure when teams split up to do multiplayer.  One side codes specifically the single player, the other codes specifically the multiplayer using the same pool of assets.