119 réponses à ce sujet

[spirosz]

jreezy wrote...

"So much for my admiration of them". Really? You're going that far with your hatred of multiplayer?

People these days. 

[DragonRageGT]

I really don't understand what people have against MP. My first PC game was Diablo and thanks the maker it had MP. Then Starcraft where the GT met and we're friends to this date with real annual meeting and stuff. Then BG where I tried some MP but there were too many cheaters around. (I was legit/purist and member of a legit/purist guild in Diablo so I know there were cheaters there as well).

Then a lot of MP games like NWN and Dungeon Siege where I met many friends. Gladly I never played WoW but I did try MMO's with free Lineage 2 on java servers and it was cool. Pay-to-play is against my principles since I already bought the game. I'm dying to play Guild Wars 2 and I really enjoy ME3 MP.

If TW3 has MP, all the better, as long as it has a solid SP as well.

[Brockololly]

Skelter192 wrote...

saMOOrai182 wrote...

Didnt Baldur's gate have multiplayer? The game is considered a masterpiece by a lot of people.

.

Yup and so did Neverwinter Nights which still has an active community. Seriously stfu people. I gave Bioware the benefit of doubt before playing ME3's online it wasn't until after I tried it that I started bashing it.

Eh....yes, BG had multiplayer, but the BG games were made in a different era of game development when you didn't have super massive budgets for so many games. I highly doubt that the budget/time/resources allocated to the multiplayer in the BG games made up any significant portion of resources spent overall on the project. That doesn't seem the case nowadays where adding multiplayer isn't necessarily a simple addition but something that can suck away resources and time and people from other aspects of a game. Or else its inclusion makes it necessary for the game to sell some order of magnitude greater  to break even.

And NWN sure had MP, but then again, it was designed from the ground up as with the MP being the primary feature. On the flip side, I don't think you'll find very many people raving about how great the single player campaign for NWN was. The single player experience seemed to suffer.

[naughty99]

android654 wrote...

But there's no doubt the main game suffered from it. Yes they had different teams working on it. but you're kidding yourself if you think resources weren't taken from one in order to add the other.

I'd agree that there is always a finite amount of resources and manpower, etc., but in the end, I don't think the ME3 singleplayer necessarily suffered from having the multiplayer feature, although I can see that adding in the MP requirement for Galactic Readiness might be annoying for anyone who didn't want to try the co-op. If multiplayer were completely cut from the content, I imagine I'd still personally find ME3 more enjoyable on the whole than ME2 or ME1.

The level design in ME3 was much more interesting than the previous games and they greatly improved upon the reputation system. In ME2, the Paragon/Renegade system penalized players who attempted to role play by locking off companion characters and various dialogue options unless you always choose renegade or paragon.

This was a small change, but the end result was that ME3 felt a bit more like an RPG, or at least I was finally able to RP and choose whatever dialogue option I thought my character would choose. With ME2, I had to mindlessly click the same "rude" or "pushover" option every time in order to unlock various dialogue options later in the game, or to acquire Morinth as a squad member, for example.

The complaint most people had about ME3 had to do with the ending, and I don't think any of the team who wrote the ending cinematics was busy writing cut scenes for the multiplayer.

Modifié par naughty99, 30 juillet 2012 - 04:44 .

[xsdob]

People here seem to have something akin to multiplayer phobia, which I think much like all phobias, stems from an irrational reaction to an object or event that many other people do not.

My two cents on the matter anyway, take it or leave it.

[ShepnTali]

If they plan to sell weapon packs, gear, outfits, then I'll laugh at them.

[Addai]

I think it's a little early for nerdrage. Not that I don't share the OP's exasperation at MP encroaching everywhere. It's a wasted feature for me.

[Chromie]

ShepnTali wrote...

If they plan to sell weapon packs, gear, outfits, then I'll laugh at them.

This person has never heard of CDProjekt.

[ShepnTali]

Skelter192 wrote...

ShepnTali wrote...

If they plan to sell weapon packs, gear, outfits, then I'll laugh at them.

This person has never heard of CDProjekt.

Yes, this person has. The usual free DLC is my point.

[Cyberarmy]

D-Monay wrote...

Why must every freaking game in existence have mp?

THE END IS NIGH! REPENT! WE ARE ALL DOOMED!


Seriously what are the odds they came with a good MP? Did you ever think of it? Something like NWN modules or Vampire The Masquarade:Redemption style ? And you think they wont do this for their next games?

In both Witcher games CDPR accepted their mistakes and tried to correct  them as soon as possible. They still support their games with free DLC and enhanced edition.

And then they want to hire MP programmer. OMG How they can do this to us! Game is ruined!  It will absolutely be terrible!

And all of those "gibberish" without any solid knowladge about game... You dont even really know its about TW3...

But



Give me a break...

Modifié par Cyberarmy, 30 juillet 2012 - 07:19 .

[AshedMan]

They rocked Witcher 1 and made it even better with Witcher 2. Why would you instantly lose faith that they wouldn't make Witcher 3 even better?

[Cyberarmy]

AshedMan wrote...

They rocked Witcher 1 and made it even better with Witcher 2. Why would you instantly lose faith that they wouldn't make Witcher 3 even better?

Because multiplayer is bane of our existance, cant you see. There isnt a single game outside with both good SP&MP.
We should abandon all hope and start selling CPDR products we have!

[Costin_Razvan]

Personally I would be disappointed if there wasn't an Arena in TW3 because I did like the one in TW2 quite a bit would like it to be improved.

If you can then play arena with other people...well I see no problem with that whatsoever. ME3 was not affected by the MP development it was simply **** in the first place and MP still remains much more fun then the singleplayer in terms of gameplay.

If a company wants to make a good quality product then they will make it regardless of resources spent on MP, if they don't they won't. Bioware didn't give a **** about making ME3 a good game while CDPR did care for TW2 being a good game.

However if people are worried about CDPR not having enough resources they should forget MP and focus on the fact they are making two AAA+ titles at the same time.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 30 juillet 2012 - 06:58 .

[Kathleen321]

Multiplayer isn't a bad thing as long as it doesn't distract from or get more attention then the campaign/single player.

[frustratemyself]

Oh noes! A video game with multiplayer...

[termokanden]

Kathleen321 wrote...

Multiplayer isn't a bad thing as long as it doesn't distract from or get more attention then the campaign/single player.

The problem is that it always does to some extent. It's very naive to think they develop multiplayer and singleplayer completely independently, regardless of what they say officially. Do you really know any sane and healthy company that wouldn't divert resources to where it thinks they are most needed?

Multiplayer isn't necessarily bad and it's not yet time to panic. But to me adding multiplayer to a series known for its singleplayer seems a little fishy. Perhaps they want broader appeal?

I haven't given up on any of their new products yet (and why would I?), but I don't think CDPR is the infallible god company that it sounds like sometimes if you read these forums.

Costin_Razvan wrote...

If you can then play arena with
other people...well I see no problem with that whatsoever. ME3 was not
affected by the MP development it was simply **** in the first place and
MP still remains much more fun then the singleplayer in terms of
gameplay.

Galactic Readiness begs to differ! I had to play multiplayer to get the best ending. Don't even get me started on how disappointing that is. It's pretty obvious that this is a scheme to lure singleplayer people into their MP machinery with loot you can buy for real money.

Modifié par termokanden, 30 juillet 2012 - 08:32 .

[Rockworm503]

android654 wrote...

Skelter192 wrote...

CDProjekt is going to be at Gamescon so they might speak more about it who knows. Until people actually see it for themselves I think they need to shutup. If it's an arena style mode I can deal with it no problem if it's similar to Original Sin's online I'd cry tears of joy.

Everyone said the same exact thing about Mass Effect 3, and the end result was a poorly done campaign. Once bitten, twice shy.

Assassin's Creed Multiplayer is awesome.
NWN multiplayer is awesome.
There are ways this can work easily.
But no ME3 screwed it up so of course there's no chance in hell it can ever be good ever. 
I love how quickly people jump to conclusions on the internet.
Don't worry their making it an MMO 

[termokanden]

Yeah there's definitely no proof that multiplayer is always bad. I only say that I'm worried, particularly after ME3's MP.

The part I find disappointing is how multiplayer is added to games just to say that it has multiplayer. Do it right, or don't do it at all. CDPR have their chance to get it right though.

In any case, multiplayer adds little to no value for me, so it's really is just the risk of worse singleplayer it represents to me. Obviously that means I have no reason to be happy about such news.

Modifié par termokanden, 30 juillet 2012 - 08:49 .

[TheChris92]

Hmm...

[Dominus]

I happened to log onto the official Oprah Winfrey Forum and informed the fine ladies on there about the news. Oprah herself had this response.

Back to the realm of reality, welcome to Game Development. Multiplayer has appeared in many RPGs, and I wouldn't expect it to dissapear anytime soon. Until we actually see what it looks like and plays like, simply boohoo-ing the idea isn't providing feedback besides "We hate multiplayer". I'm sure they didn't see it coming at all. ME3 Multiplayer worked, NWN Multiplayer worked, etc. Again though, we'll have to see the previews to make an objective judgement on the multiplayer.

Modifié par DominusVita, 30 juillet 2012 - 10:50 .

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

CDPR's Cyberpunk game should be an MMO.

An F2P MMO with micro transactions that's welcoming to casual gamers.

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

No dev/pub can stay away from multiplayer abomination for many years! It's determined..

Then quality product turns into quantity product.. *cough* art!

[Costin_Razvan]

Galactic Readiness begs to differ! I had to play multiplayer to get the best ending. Don't even get me started on how disappointing that is. It's pretty obvious that this is a scheme to lure singleplayer people into their MP machinery with loot you can buy for real money.

The only thing the galactic readiness gave the original ending was the ability to see a few seconds of Shepard breathing in one single specific ending. It's very much irrelevant to the vast majority of the material in the ending and game. It does NOT matter.

Galactic Readiness also has nothing to do with the retarded crap related to Cerberus, Udina, the Geth/Quarian War, the ****** politicians and military leaders and so on.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 30 juillet 2012 - 12:17 .

[zeypher]

Costin said everything i meant to say. Problem with mass effect 3 wasnt multiplayer, the problem was that the plot was moved forward via stupidity. If any plot is moved forward by stupidity, it is a bad plot.

Modifié par zeypher, 30 juillet 2012 - 12:23 .