138 réponses à ce sujet

[Cutlass Jack]

Scottus4 wrote...

Games have finite budgets.

Finite in the sense that there is a limit to the budget, yes, but not finite as in completely defined. Games have been delayed before, and the funds to continue to pay those employees doesn't just appear from no where and they certainly don't work for free. Bioware could easily say "We're going to make SP campaign with this much budget" and then say "Ok, there's high demand for a co-op campaign as well, we're going to increase the budget to this project to allow for the implementation of this".

You're missing the point where they have to explain how the Co-Op section is going to pay for itself. It it cant generate income on its own, then the money for it has to come from the overall game budget. That means the SP campaign will get cut to account for it.

That cut is going to come from the RP parts of the game. Because Co-Op is much less work if silly things like Roleplay aren't factored in. Which is why people who like RPGs are opposed to this sort of thing.

[Astralify]

OP seriously, I don't want to be rude, but take @ZeCollectorDestroya's advice and get your casual gaming ass out of our station.

[Scottus4]

Cutlass Jack wrote...

Scottus4 wrote...

Games have finite budgets.

Finite in the sense that there is a limit to the budget, yes, but not finite as in completely defined. Games have been delayed before, and the funds to continue to pay those employees doesn't just appear from no where and they certainly don't work for free. Bioware could easily say "We're going to make SP campaign with this much budget" and then say "Ok, there's high demand for a co-op campaign as well, we're going to increase the budget to this project to allow for the implementation of this".

You're missing the point where they have to explain how the Co-Op section is going to pay for itself. It it cant generate income on its own, then the money for it has to come from the overall game budget. That means the SP campaign will get cut to account for it.

That cut is going to come from the RP parts of the game. Because Co-Op is much less work if silly things like Roleplay aren't factored in. Which is why people who like RPGs are opposed to this sort of thing.

New copies come with Season 1 for free, assuring people buy it new instead of using. Subsequent seasons are paid DLC. Combined with the fact that the co-op campaign would draw from the MP pool of guns, mods, consumables, character kits, etc, which would generates revenue from microtransactions... and you've got quite a flow of cash coming in. Not as much as box sales likely, but I think enough to justify a narrative based co-op campaign.

Astralify wrote...

OP seriously, I don't want to be rude,
but take @ZeCollectorDestroya's advice and get your casual gaming ass
out of our station.

Casual gaming? I've probably put in AT LEAST 600 hours into the franchise, and I feel like I've neglected ME3 a bit.
Not sure if serious.

Modifié par Scottus4, 01 décembre 2012 - 08:37 .

[Wintermist]

The thing is, if done right, the singleplayer experience wouldn't even be affected by the co-op experience. Let's say they do a version where someoen can control a squad-mate only. And in all cutscenes and dialogue, he can only watch it. But in combat he can control a squad-mate, perhaps even swap between teh squad-mates if only one is co-oping.

If the system is built like that, single-player wouldn't even be affected. Once the system is up, it would work in all areas without them having to program it special for that area. It's like you build a clock function, then you can add that clock function to any application you make.

[SinerAthin]

Co Op could've easily been implented without harming the RPG part of this game.

How you ask?

Simply have your friend take control of a group member(like Garrus or Liara), or simply enter the game as a nameless Human/Asari/Turian grunt who accompanies you as a squadmate.

The host will of course be the one to decide the story and the main character. (but the guest will also receive progression bonuses, weapons, money, unlocks, achievements and other stuff)

[AlexMBrennan]

Why are people opposed to Co-Op campaign?
[...]
First season would come free with a new copy of the game, and each season afterward Bioware could charge 20-25$ fo

You seem a bit slow if you can't see why people might slightly opposed to this.

Think about the incentives for the developers - you want a fun game (presumably) and not necessarily one that amounts to a full day job (e.g. any MMORPG). If you start paying developers by the length of content, they'll just add more padding and grinding (e.g. any MMORPG). [These skewed financial incentives are the reason I think it is impossible to make a good subscription based game]

There are two more issues: Mass Effect does rely on the pause mechanism quite a bit (if only because it's a console port and you don't have enough bloody hotkeys), which is obviously impossible in MP/COOP.

More importantly, however, the characters have always been very important in Bioware games. Yes, it's possible to make different games, but it wouldn't be the kind of game the fanbase (or whatever's left of it now) enjoy. Yes, you can make ME4 a blatant Halo clone, but that would be stupid - the people who want to play Halo are playing Halo, and you're not gonna get that market share by copying Halo (similarly to how copying WoW didn't work out all that well for SWTOR)

Modifié par AlexMBrennan, 01 décembre 2012 - 12:08 .

[Laforgus]

Cutlass Jack wrote...
You're missing the point where they have to explain how the Co-Op
section is going to pay for itself. It can’t generate income on its own, then
the money for it has to come from the overall game budget. That means the SP
campaign will get cut to account for it.

Multiplayer games have the advantage that SP doesn’t. Everyone who plays multiplayer MUST buy the game and get a serial to access the servers. While single player games, well you know....if is in Pc = Torrent, if is in console = Rental CD.

I am getting repetitive on this, a game that only have SP history only deserve to be thrown into a closet after you are done. Many claim that ME3 looks like GoW, so what? if that’s what it takes to keep the players in your servers, then is a success!

You are afraid that you will lose the SP history of the game. Is true Mass effect series can't mixt the main history into a co-op mode, it will lose the sense of the game. But would be fantastic if the next game expand the multiplayer gaming, as long it doesn’t touch SP campaign won’t hurt anyone

A multiplayer enhancement could be optional, and no one could be forced to play that mode, the only requirements will be more disk space for those who want it, and those who don’t want co-op just don't get
it, there is no reason to bash OP for the idea.

But in the end, and you know i am right, the next games will come with Online Gameplay function want it or no, and I hope will be greater than ME3 multiplayer.

Modifié par Laforgus, 01 décembre 2012 - 12:52 .

[Yuqi]

Astralify wrote...

OP seriously, I don't want to be rude, but take @ZeCollectorDestroya's advice and get your casual gaming ass out of our station.

[shodiswe]

I got noone who's interested in co-oping Mass effect with me So it would likely water down my single player experience

Co-op games usualy end up in the no buy category for me, unless Iknow I got soemone who will want to play it with me. And having someone that has the time to play when I want to play adds an extra layer of issues.

That said I do enjoy Multiplayer when I got someone to play the game with. Though I don't think I would be that interested in cooping the single player experience with a random internet pickup... and then pick turns.
Sure I tried that in Swtor... but /shrug, you got co op in ME3 multiplayer, should be enough.
Story based gameplay doesn't mix as well with multiplayer imo, unless it's a railroaded shooter where it ends the same way as long as you kill everything that moves.

[rabidhanar]

Problems with a Co-Op RPG:

1) Decision Making: Unless the game is extremely linear, who determines the branching storyline becomes a tricky problem. Some would say to simply let Player x always choose what happens. This leaves player y either bored during the cutscenes or frustrated if his/her decisions were not chosen. Some would say to let the RNG gods determine a la TOR but this also leads to frustration of either player if the RNG is slightly biased during a session (kidding you not, in a 4 person group, I once won every single conversation roll and loot roll in a flashpoint of SWTOR). Then you also create a chance of trolling. If player X knows that Player Y hates option A for some reason, Player X might choose option A simply to annoy Player Y.

2) Pacing: Co-Op games are almost universally fast paced due simply in fact that humans get bored easily. Cutscenes and lulls in combat are shortened as to keep the players attention. This leads to the fast paced experience that some gamers find thrilling and that other gamers dislike with a passion. But what happens when someone dislikes a certain segment of a game while in a Co-Op session? Do the developers allow that player to rush through the entire section and instantly progress the level/plot regardless of the other player? (Play any FPS/TPS campaign with randoms after the game has been out for a bit. I promise that at least during one part of the game, you WILL get teleported). Do the developers make that player wait for his/her co-op companion to go through the level, at the expense of boredom? What if someone goes AFK? It becomes a tricky subject.

3) Connectivity: This goes out to all those people with Shody Interwebs! You know what I am talking about! Either online or offline, Co-Op obviously requires more then one player to play. What does this mean to the single player? Well that depends. Should the game be drop in/drop out single player campaign? Well that creates two problems down the road, repetitive nature of the story and creation of limits on who joins a game.
Repetitive Nature - If it is the same campaign as the single player normally is, some people will just keep playing by themselves. That means a developer could be spending hundreds of thousands of credits on an optional item that is superfluous to these gamers. Repetitive nature also inevitably leads to the "Great Game Migration" that occurs in all multiplayer games. When people get bored of a game, they simply play something else. What does this mean for those who still wish to play? Harder to find games, in general a decrease in quality connections, and eventually the disconnect of the server based multiplayer.
_________________________________________________________________________________I can go on about this stuff all day. Co-Op is a nightmare to deal with. Long rant shortened: At the end of the day, Co-Op and multiplayer components of a game WILL be shut down. I cannot remember a 3+ year old game that I own that still has a crazy amount of people playing the multiplayer. People move towards the newest and shiniest. This means that games that focus too much on multiplayer at the expense of single player become mere shadows of their former selves. The single player sections remain, all that is still available. As such I much prefer a game where the single player gets the most attention.

[vware]

ugh no.

[Nicksta92]

If it's separate from the main campaign, absolutely! I'd prefer that over this POS multiplayer we have now...

[Destr1er]

This is EA we're talking about. They will cut corners to make a deadline and if there is co-op the game will suffer just like ME3 did.
Boring, bolted-on multiplayer and a rushed, incomplete single player experience. Which they then use to gouge you with over-priced DLC to get the 'full game experience'.

If you want multiplayer, go play Batlefield or any of the other games that do it much better than ME3.

Modifié par Destr1er, 01 décembre 2012 - 03:19 .

[Seishoujyo]

Coop is stupid, period. Stop with this peoples.

If you want playing coop so badly just buy Halo 4 ou Gears of War.

[Praidas]

Mass Effect shouldn't even consider for single player co-op, it'd ruin experience for many gamers both hardcore and casual. Also I'd like to add that mass effect didn't built itself as co-op shooter, it's rpg/action/3rd person shooter and it should stay that way. Look at upcoming Dead Space 3 and it's co-op mode: if players don't have partners to play with they gonna miss out huge chunks of the game. Single player games should stay single player games.

[Calibrations Expert]

 They said multiplayer would be totally separate and not affect the SP of ME3, and look how that turned out.

[Bob Garbage]

Multiplayer is already apart of Mass Effect, like it or not. And co-op sounds a hell of a lot more interesting than horde mode plus does.

[shedevil3001]

at this rate sp wont exist if every game, as people demand, were just a rip-off of other games, co-op isnt to everyones liking, and many of us have played bioware games from their first to the latest, if i wanted halo effect, i'd go buy the other thousand mp games out there, i play biowares games because of how different they are to the rubbish mp games already out there, the story driven amazing universes, and fantastic characters they create that pull me into the game, and keep me dazzled by the epic world they create, i for 1 would never play me4 if it were a sp co-op halo wannabe, erghhhhhhhhhhhhh nothing about that blows me away like baldurs gate, neverwinter nights 1 and 2, dragon age 1 and 2 and all 3 mass effects, and even jade empire, all of which were awesome sp story driven games, 1 or 2 of them with optional, not forced co-op mode over lan or online

[Bob Garbage]

So....a multiplayer horde mode, which is essentially co-op without any story, or any real details, is more okay than a co-op mode that's developed, has cut scenes, and actually intigrates into the story of the game?

...riiiight.

[jstme]

Bob Garbage wrote...

So....a multiplayer horde mode, which is essentially co-op without any story, or any real details, is more okay than a co-op mode that's developed, has cut scenes, and actually intigrates into the story of the game?

...riiiight.

So...a deep non-rushed single player game is worse then an average rushed one with forced integrated Co-op?
And do not tell me about cutscenes. I know how it is in SWTOR (which i actually like) - "space the cutscenes" is the general attitude and there are enough jerks to trash people who see it for first time for not skipping. 

[gw2005]

Nothing wrong with COOP, people who complaint about immersion breaking and lack of choice should realize just how linear a story ME3 is. Gameplay wise, there's just one way to go through the story - you'd always go through the same missions, with the same outcomes, and the ending is a literal one and the only difference is in the cutscenes.

There's nothing wrong with improving on THAT with coop play.

If you're going to make a shooter, then make a shooter. There's something wrong Bioware if they can't add a convincing story to that. I still don't understand how MP doesn't affact SP gameplay in the slightest.

It would have been so great SO awesome, if there were the shepard's squad fighting though a scene alongside a elite squad of four N7s. But no.. it's just a number. It's just ten. And you'd have to give up on all the upgrade points. And in the end, none of it matter.

[Abraham_uk]

Guanxii wrote...

Astralify wrote...

Because it means weaker RPG story experience and dumbed down character interactions and dialogue-wheel unfriendly. And it's completely UNNECESSARY, out of place and immersion breaking.

If you want CO-OP, play something else.

It doesn't have to be that way. Just imagine if ME3 had jump-in co-op where you press start on another controller and assume control of one of the other two squadmates or jump-in during the squad selection screen? That would be amazing.

I do like that.
So I can play as...

James Vega
Ashley Williams
Garrus Vakarian
EDI
Tali Zorah
Kaidan Alenko
Liara T'Soni
Javik

That's amazing. But what about inbetween missions. Shepard is doing his/her thing (talking, fetch quests, talking, more talking, evading Reapers whilst searching for war assets etc). What do players 2 and 3 do? Sit around telling player 1 to hurry up?

Perhaps there could be mini-games that the other two players could play while they wait for Shepard...