430 réponses à ce sujet

[Arppis]

The biggest problem I can see with the multiplayer is when nobody plays it anymore and if it will affect a lot to your "Galactic Readyness(how you type it, I'm too lazy to check)" and you try to replay the game later.

[King Minos]

WizenSlinky0 wrote...

Hyrist wrote...

Minos is one of those alarmists haters who think adding a new feature to the game instantly detracts away from the single player experience.

He has not played SWTOR yet, obviously.

I have to run so I can't really fully flush out my opinions, but there is a difference between a paranoid alarmist and someone who happens to notice a trend.

I'm not saying it will happen to bioware but it could and some people are more frightened for that possibility than others. Multiplayer isn't just a feature. Ask any multiplayer developer...it takes a huge commitment to make one that is properly balanced, fun, and rewards players enough to keep them interested. It's not something you can *tack on* and have it do well. It needs to be flushed out. The same goes for single-player stories...you can't tack on a story and expect the single-player to be good. It needs to be fully realized.

So, if you have a single developer doing both, 9 times out of 10 one of those modes will be terrible (there are a few developers who have, surprisingly, been able to do both quite consistantly).

SWTOR is the opposite of this argument. It is a multiplayer that has attempted to mix in single-player experiences (ie. story-based gameplay). It's a very interesting concept that I've payed a lot of attention to. I'm not quite sure it's been worked enough to be feasible as a long-term genre though.

Seriously, thank you.

Someone who understands what i mean.

Yeah, i know my behaviour is bad and the majority of my posts can be considered trolling, i know my reputation is sour but this is a huge problem with gaming.

But c'mon people, has anyone NOT noticed this trend?

Modifié par King Minos, 13 février 2012 - 09:58 .

[TheInvicibleCandyBar]

@Minos Bioware has always focused on single-player narratives with the occasional multiplayer feature making an appearance and I don't think that's changing anytime soon. And one of my former favorite companies, Square-Enix, is suffering badly from it's attempts at multiplayer AND it's recent track record for bad stories (ever since XII for me!). I think you already have youre "example".

[Pattonesque]

King Minos wrote...

WizenSlinky0 wrote...

Hyrist wrote...

Minos is one of those alarmists haters who think adding a new feature to the game instantly detracts away from the single player experience.

He has not played SWTOR yet, obviously.

I have to run so I can't really fully flush out my opinions, but there is a difference between a paranoid alarmist and someone who happens to notice a trend.

I'm not saying it will happen to bioware but it could and some people are more frightened for that possibility than others. Multiplayer isn't just a feature. Ask any multiplayer developer...it takes a huge commitment to make one that is properly balanced, fun, and rewards players enough to keep them interested. It's not something you can *tack on* and have it do well. It needs to be flushed out. The same goes for single-player stories...you can't tack on a story and expect the single-player to be good. It needs to be fully realized.

So, if you have a single developer doing both, 9 times out of 10 one of those modes will be terrible (there are a few developers who have, surprisingly, been able to do both quite consistantly).

SWTOR is the opposite of this argument. It is a multiplayer that has attempted to mix in single-player experiences (ie. story-based gameplay). It's a very interesting concept that I've payed a lot of attention to. I'm not quite sure it's been worked enough to be feasible as a long-term genre though.

Seriously, thank you.

Someone who understands what i mean.

Yeah i now my behaviour is bad and the majority of my posts can be considered trolling, i know my reputation is sour but this is a huge problem with gaming.

Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's a huge problem with gaming. You're not the cosmos.

[JonnyOwen]

I like it. But it is a little difficult.

[King Minos]

TheInvicibleCandyBar wrote...

@Minos Bioware has always focused on single-player narratives with the occasional multiplayer feature making an appearance and I don't think that's changing anytime soon. And one of my former favorite companies, Square-Enix, is suffering badly from it's attempts at multiplayer AND it's recent track record for bad stories (ever since XII for me!). I think you already have youre "example".

Final Fantasy may be mainstream in Asia but Western games are more popular here. You need a big company, such as Bioware to fall flat on their face. Harsh but it's enough to send vibrations among the developers to show that multiplayer can destroy a game.

Let companies that actually focus and pour their hearts into multiplayer do multiplayer, such as Call of Duty. There is no doubt multiplayer is the main focus for that.

Modifié par King Minos, 13 février 2012 - 10:01 .

[Arppis]

JonnyOwen wrote...

I like it. But it is a little difficult.

Did you try it alone? 
Because it's really hard alone, even on bronze.

And check out what difficulty you are using. "Bronze" is really good to start out and when your character has more levels, maybe they you should try "Silver" and "Gold". 

[AVPen]

I just watched a streaming vid of a krogan Soldier blowing apart a Nemesis sniper with Carnage, while his Vanguard friend zoomed across the field and Charged directly into a Ceberus solider landing, sending him flying off a platform and killing him as he fell off the map.

I. WANT. THIS. GAME. 

Modifié par AVPen, 13 février 2012 - 10:02 .

[SykoWolf]

Multiplayer only ruins a game if it is the only thing focused on, Bioware has always stated that the story is top priorty as like halo is to 343 (and Bungie before). Both have great story, Halo has great multiplayer and Mass Effect is getting epic multiplayer. Bioware has found a good balance to make sure all people are happy, so no need for alarm.
( I'm also saying that I hate people who buy games just for multiplayer, you are all the scourge of gaming )

[Arppis]

King Minos wrote...

WizenSlinky0 wrote...

Hyrist wrote...

Minos is one of those alarmists haters who think adding a new feature to the game instantly detracts away from the single player experience.

He has not played SWTOR yet, obviously.

I have to run so I can't really fully flush out my opinions, but there is a difference between a paranoid alarmist and someone who happens to notice a trend.

I'm not saying it will happen to bioware but it could and some people are more frightened for that possibility than others. Multiplayer isn't just a feature. Ask any multiplayer developer...it takes a huge commitment to make one that is properly balanced, fun, and rewards players enough to keep them interested. It's not something you can *tack on* and have it do well. It needs to be flushed out. The same goes for single-player stories...you can't tack on a story and expect the single-player to be good. It needs to be fully realized.

So, if you have a single developer doing both, 9 times out of 10 one of those modes will be terrible (there are a few developers who have, surprisingly, been able to do both quite consistantly).

SWTOR is the opposite of this argument. It is a multiplayer that has attempted to mix in single-player experiences (ie. story-based gameplay). It's a very interesting concept that I've payed a lot of attention to. I'm not quite sure it's been worked enough to be feasible as a long-term genre though.

Seriously, thank you.

Someone who understands what i mean.

Yeah, i know my behaviour is bad and the majority of my posts can be considered trolling, i know my reputation is sour but this is a huge problem with gaming.

But c'mon people, has anyone NOT noticed this trend?

I have to say that I agree that it takes resources to make one. It always takes away from
the single player (campaign) experience.

Just look at Halo 2 and 3. Both
focused pretty much on MP and the campaigns sucked. Not to mention
Master Chief was nerfed in MP terms, so the game was balanced around
multiplayer, but not singleplayer. You had less ammo, less health,
health regenerates, etc... All were made for multiplayer in mind.

SykoWolf wrote...

Multiplayer only ruins a game if it is
the only thing focused on, Bioware has always stated that the story is
top priorty as like halo is to 343 (and Bungie before). Both have great
story, Halo has great multiplayer and Mass Effect is getting epic
multiplayer. Bioware has found a good balance to make sure all people
are happy, so no need for alarm.
( I'm also saying that I hate people who buy games just for multiplayer, you are all the scourge of gaming )

Halo is exactly the game that ruined it's campaign by focusing too much on MP.

Modifié par Arppis, 13 février 2012 - 10:03 .

[royard]

WizenSlinky0 wrote...

Hyrist wrote...

Minos is one of those alarmists haters who think adding a new feature to the game instantly detracts away from the single player experience.

He has not played SWTOR yet, obviously.

I have to run so I can't really fully flush out my opinions, but there is a difference between a paranoid alarmist and someone who happens to notice a trend.

I'm not saying it will happen to bioware but it could and some people are more frightened for that possibility than others. Multiplayer isn't just a feature. Ask any multiplayer developer...it takes a huge commitment to make one that is properly balanced, fun, and rewards players enough to keep them interested. It's not something you can *tack on* and have it do well. It needs to be flushed out. The same goes for single-player stories...you can't tack on a story and expect the single-player to be good. It needs to be fully realized.

So, if you have a single developer doing both, 9 times out of 10 one of those modes will be terrible (there are a few developers who have, surprisingly, been able to do both quite consistantly).

SWTOR is the opposite of this argument. It is a multiplayer that has attempted to mix in single-player experiences (ie. story-based gameplay). It's a very interesting concept that I've payed a lot of attention to. I'm not quite sure it's been worked enough to be feasible as a long-term genre though.

Just becuase something "could" turn bad doesn't justify your pal actively hoping the MP to be bad. 

From what I heard, this MP is great.  When a sucky MP comes out, people won't buy it, and the developer will learn from that disaster. 

"If you have a single developer doing both, 9 times out of 10 one of those modes will be terrible"--So what?  their failures will tell others "don't do MP if you can't handle it."

If they repeat their mistakes, well, they will be gone for good. 

[blebyu25]

Hey guys, MP IS LEGIT! Its exciting to see all the positivity here, this is a great addition and hats off to the dev team! My GT is live4ever777 if anyone wants to kill with me.

Anyways - back to the real reason I got off my comfy couch in Missouri on this dreary snow day, marched all the way to my computer, logged on to BSN....

Minos you are a douche, go play tetris if you can't hang. Anyways, peace out everyone!

[Prom001]

@King Minos

I see where you are coming from yes, but no type of game will ever die out.
If your worst case comes true. the RPG guys from Bioware will proable go somewhere else where they will make a SP RPG again.

[BlaCKRodjj]

Hey minos, when are you going to finish venting all your mad so that we can discuss how MP is? Make a blog for your preaching, hell link it in your sig, but stay on topic.

[royard]

King Minos wrote...

TheInvicibleCandyBar wrote...

@Minos Bioware has always focused on single-player narratives with the occasional multiplayer feature making an appearance and I don't think that's changing anytime soon. And one of my former favorite companies, Square-Enix, is suffering badly from it's attempts at multiplayer AND it's recent track record for bad stories (ever since XII for me!). I think you already have youre "example".

Final Fantasy may be mainstream in Asia but Western games are more popular here. You need a big company, such as Bioware to fall flat on their face. Harsh but it's enough to send vibrations among the developers to show that multiplayer can destroy a game.

Let companies that actually focus and pour their hearts into multiplayer do multiplayer, such as Call of Duty. There is no doubt multiplayer is the main focus for that.

Your point is just ridiculous.  Sure, someone will fail eventually.  They can learn from the mistakes then.  Why are you actively hoping Mass Effect to fail?   Do you have a problem with the franchise? 

[Someone With Mass]

Arppis wrote...

The biggest problem I can see with the multiplayer is when nobody plays it anymore and if it will affect a lot to your "Galactic Readyness(how you type it, I'm too lazy to check)" and you try to replay the game later.

You can get all of those in the singleplayer.

[King Minos]

Arppis wrote...

King Minos wrote...

WizenSlinky0 wrote...

Hyrist wrote...

Minos is one of those alarmists haters who think adding a new feature to the game instantly detracts away from the single player experience.

He has not played SWTOR yet, obviously.

I have to run so I can't really fully flush out my opinions, but there is a difference between a paranoid alarmist and someone who happens to notice a trend.

I'm not saying it will happen to bioware but it could and some people are more frightened for that possibility than others. Multiplayer isn't just a feature. Ask any multiplayer developer...it takes a huge commitment to make one that is properly balanced, fun, and rewards players enough to keep them interested. It's not something you can *tack on* and have it do well. It needs to be flushed out. The same goes for single-player stories...you can't tack on a story and expect the single-player to be good. It needs to be fully realized.

So, if you have a single developer doing both, 9 times out of 10 one of those modes will be terrible (there are a few developers who have, surprisingly, been able to do both quite consistantly).

SWTOR is the opposite of this argument. It is a multiplayer that has attempted to mix in single-player experiences (ie. story-based gameplay). It's a very interesting concept that I've payed a lot of attention to. I'm not quite sure it's been worked enough to be feasible as a long-term genre though.

Seriously, thank you.

Someone who understands what i mean.

Yeah, i know my behaviour is bad and the majority of my posts can be considered trolling, i know my reputation is sour but this is a huge problem with gaming.

But c'mon people, has anyone NOT noticed this trend?

I have to say that I agree that it takes resources to make one. It always takes away from
the single player (campaign) experience.

Just look at Halo 2 and 3. Both
focused pretty much on MP and the campaigns sucked. Not to mention
Master Chief was nerfed in MP terms, so the game was balanced around
multiplayer, but not singleplayer. You had less ammo, less health,
health regenerates, etc... All were made for multiplayer in mind.

It's a shame that this mindset will continue until a huge well known company fails and goes bust. That's enough to make developers think before jumping the wagon and adding multiplayer.

I thank those who have offered their own opinion and not jst ignored me accuse me as simply 'trolling'.

[Arppis]

Ah well... So Multiplayer. How you guys find it?

I like it so far personaly (even when I said what I said about Halo)

Modifié par Arppis, 13 février 2012 - 10:06 .

[Hyrist]

King Minos wrote...

Seriously, thank you.

Someone who understands what i mean.

Yeah, i know my behaviour is bad and the majority of my posts can be considered trolling, i know my reputation is sour but this is a huge problem with gaming.

But c'mon people, has anyone NOT noticed this trend?

I've noticed the trend.

However. We heavily divide in opinion.

I'm a firm beleiver that people who build good single player games SHOULD consiter multiplayer elements, because they approach the game from a different perspective than those who tend to approach multiplayer JUST for multiplayer.

For example. I applaud Bioware for sticking to Co-op only in this multiplayer. It keeps the theme of the game, and the reactions are great.

So long as the single player experience does not suffer Multiplayer additions are welcome, especially if done well.(SWTOR has proved that they can do a strong single player element in a multiplayer enviroment).

You're making a political stance based off a viewed trend, instead of standing on the merits of a company or a game's own work.  In 5 years, we'll see if you're right or wrong. However, I encourage Bioware to try to get it right, and so far, so good.

[Slothful Koala]

Arppis wrote...
Oh and I think that rolling being on same button as taking cover HAS TO GO, it's really poorly done in this game. Most of the time I'll be rolling when I don't want and I'm NEVER sure when the character goes against the wall and when he will just keep rolling against it.

That's hard to hear.    

[E-Type XR]

King Minos wrote...

TheInvicibleCandyBar wrote...

@Minos Bioware has always focused on single-player narratives with the occasional multiplayer feature making an appearance and I don't think that's changing anytime soon. And one of my former favorite companies, Square-Enix, is suffering badly from it's attempts at multiplayer AND it's recent track record for bad stories (ever since XII for me!). I think you already have youre "example".

Final Fantasy may be mainstream in Asia but Western games are more popular here. You need a big company, such as Bioware to fall flat on their face. Harsh but it's enough to send vibration among the developers to show that multiplayer can destroy a game.

Where did you get your time machine? I want to see the future too.

But seriously, I see where you are coming from. ALL of the MP aspects from EA these days are purely there so they can tack on the online pass. However, if we say "No" to multiplayer all together, it'll only lead to stagnation. I was firm set against MP in ME3, but after hearing and seeing more I'm all for it. If a company tanks due to introducing a MP element they diserve it, but making Bioware your scapegoat is unfair.

[King Minos]

royard wrote...

King Minos wrote...

TheInvicibleCandyBar wrote...

@Minos Bioware has always focused on single-player narratives with the occasional multiplayer feature making an appearance and I don't think that's changing anytime soon. And one of my former favorite companies, Square-Enix, is suffering badly from it's attempts at multiplayer AND it's recent track record for bad stories (ever since XII for me!). I think you already have youre "example".

Final Fantasy may be mainstream in Asia but Western games are more popular here. You need a big company, such as Bioware to fall flat on their face. Harsh but it's enough to send vibrations among the developers to show that multiplayer can destroy a game.

Let companies that actually focus and pour their hearts into multiplayer do multiplayer, such as Call of Duty. There is no doubt multiplayer is the main focus for that.

Your point is just ridiculous.  Sure, someone will fail eventually.  They can learn from the mistakes then.  Why are you actively hoping Mass Effect to fail?   Do you have a problem with the franchise? 

Because Mass Effect has jumped onto the bang wagon of multiplayer.

Dead Space 2 did it, campaign was short and the multiplayer ended up dead within 3 months.

[Arppis]

Slothful Koala wrote...

Arppis wrote...
Oh and I think that rolling being on same button as taking cover HAS TO GO, it's really poorly done in this game. Most of the time I'll be rolling when I don't want and I'm NEVER sure when the character goes against the wall and when he will just keep rolling against it.

That's hard to hear.    

Yeah, the rolling and cover on same button just doesn't work very well. I wish there was some bomb-sure way to make sure you get to cover or start rolling.

[TheInvicibleCandyBar]

@ Minos I disagree that Final Fantasy isn't mainstream, but this isn't the correct forum for that. Other companies have failed miserably from multiplayer, but still succeeded from single-player (Bioshock, Deadspace, etc.), and they seem to have beefed up the singleplayer as a result. So, maybe this could be a good thing?

[Slothful Koala]

Whenever I see Minos post I know not to read it. He's clearly going to buy the game and probably even enjoy the multiplayer just let him whine about crap no one cares about.