52 réponses à ce sujet

[AresKeith]

It had a Co-op Campaign that effected the story/campaign more and helped Shepard through out the game?

or

to affect singleplayer in any way it should've been in either codex entries or small cameos of your multiplayer characters doing something in the background of a scene in SP.


Note: That this would have its own resources and not take away from the SP resources

Modifié par AresKeith, 20 janvier 2013 - 07:34 .

[Vlk3]

More ok? Multiplayer should have nothing to do with singleplayer, it has to be optional. I love ME3 multiplayer, but I want to be able to turn off the war assets I got from it. My Shepard who lost half of the squad, didn't do any fetch quests and made some terrible decisions reached the best possible ending (same ending that my perfect Shep had). It's just stupid.

Modifié par Vlk3, 19 janvier 2013 - 06:48 .

[xAmilli0n]

I'd say no. Then those who can't get a Co-op campaign going will feel as if they are missing part of the story. And playing Co-op with random people online, even with mics, never reaches the same level of immersion as with close friends who are also into the story.

Just my opinion.

[The Geth Spectre]

I would love a coop campaign ,but I feel it should be on its own and not effect SP.

[78stonewobble]

I, initially, hoped/thought that multiplayer was the ability for friends to play as your squadmates in missions. With perhaps added difficulty for added "humans".

I'd rather not have coop forced upon my single player game, but I thought it would have been nice with the above feature.

In anycase I find the mp we got fun and I am enjoying it thoroughly. Though I have to agree it was silly to couple that with single player. For those who couldn't/wouldn't go online and so on.

[Sil]

When they originally mentioned Co-op, I thought they meant the traditional co-op which was split screen with a buddy beside you rather than purely internet based co-op. I also thought that it would have a story to it, but I think that the articles that initially announced it missold it, rather than Bioware misselling it to me.

[dreamgazer]

They'd need to be separate entities.

The Galactic Readiness deal would've been better by having three advertised options built around the same "fighting on the front line" idea: online co-op, local co-op, and independent missions with controllable squad-member NPCs. It would feature the ability and necessity to do these things, but the choice in whether to do it with online friends, couch buddies, or by yourself.

[AresKeith]

I personally feel I shouldn't affect SP also, but because of the War Assets and GR is the reason I'm asking this

But I would have liked a Co-op campaign still

[David7204]

Co-op campaigns have a whole lot of problems that don't have good solutions. Which player chooses dialogue? Makes choices? Orders the other squadmates? What do the two players do back on the Normandy? Do characters respond and speak differently to two characters instead of one? Is the new character a generic grunt, or an actual character? If he's a grunt, doesn't that really reduce immersion? If he's not, what happens to that character during single player?

What about powers that have 'time' slow down such as Adrenaline Rush or the Infiltrator's sniper power? You can't have time slow down for one player but not the other.

That doesn't even touch all the ugly technical issues that crop up. Memory and so forth.

In short; no.

Modifié par David7204, 19 janvier 2013 - 07:38 .

[78stonewobble]

David7204 wrote...

Co-op campaigns have a whole lot of problems that don't have good solutions. Which player chooses dialogue? Makes choices? Orders the other squadmates? What do the two players do back on the Normandy? Do characters respond and speak differently to two characters instead of one? Is the new character a generic grunt, or an actual character? If he's a grunt, doesn't that really reduce immersion? If he's not, what happens to that character during single player?

What about powers that have 'time' slow down such as Adrenaline Rush or the Infiltrator's sniper power? You can't have time slow down for one player but not the other.

That doesn't even touch all the ugly technical issues that crop up. Memory and so forth.

In short; no.

That's why I'd have left story to single player but maybe have the option of a very high combat difficulty that required 2 or more humans rather than bots. For the action parts of the missions.

They would then take the place of squadmates.



Though... A complete game where others play the role of squadmates (or analogues)
 together with a main character in everything from story to discussions?

Intriguing concept albeit hard to pull off I guess.

It would lead to some very varied interactions but also weirdness I think. 

[Ticonderoga117]

No. Some games lend themselves to CoOP campaigns well. Others not so much. Mass Effect is the latter.

[Faust1979]

Multiplayer and Single player should not be intertwined

[LTKerr]

Hell NO!

[AresKeith]

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

No. Some games lend themselves to CoOP campaigns well. Others not so much. Mass Effect is the latter.

I still say the MP should've been a separate disc

[The Night Mammoth]

David7204 wrote...

Co-op campaigns have a whole lot of problems that don't have good solutions. Which player chooses dialogue? Makes choices?

The one playing Shepard ie. the host. 

Orders the other squadmates?

The players controlling them. 

What do the two players do back on the Normandy?

Watch. 

Do characters respond and speak differently to two characters instead of one? Is the new character a generic grunt, or an actual character? If he's a grunt, doesn't that really reduce immersion? If he's not, what happens to that character during single player?

There wouldn't be one. 

What about powers that have 'time' slow down such as Adrenaline Rush or the Infiltrator's sniper power? You can't have time slow down for one player but not the other.

Slows down for everyone, or just for the one using it and enemies. 

That doesn't even touch all the ugly technical issues that crop up. Memory and so forth.

Might pop up. There are a lot of games with perfectly workable cooperative stories. 

All the Gears of War, all the Halo's, both Left 4 Deads, both Borderlands games, goodness knows how many cooperative game modes like Spartan Ops, even Mass Effect's own multiplater is much like that. 

In short; no.

Perfectly feasible, and I personally think the idea of my friends dropping into my story to take control of Garrus Javik sounds great. 

What I wouldn't want is what ME's multiplayer was at launch; something required to experience everything the game has to offer. 

[Giga Drill BREAKER]

No MP is part of ME3's problems.

[spirosz]

I would of personally been more happy if they scrapped the idea entirely.

[10K]

I tired of this co-op crap, what is wrong with playing games by yourself sometimes? I don't get it.

[Red Panda]

I think multiplayer is a great idea that should be expanded on. The best part is that all future Mass Effect games will have multiplayer. Co-op is a super fun mode. Even future installments of Dragon Age will have multiplayer.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

It should not affect the single player campaign at all. Period. Linking the two just is another thing to debug which leads to a bunch of other things to debug.

I would rather have them devote more resources to a longer single player campaign than to adding multi-player to these games.

This is a slippery slope to the 4-6 hr single player campaign and Call of Duty type game.

[RenegonSQ]

I honestly don't see how any of u could play that MP more than a few times. It's so repetitive and one-dimensional.

[AresKeith]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

It should not affect the single player campaign at all. Period. Linking the two just is another thing to debug which leads to a bunch of other things to debug.

I would rather have them devote more resources to a longer single player campaign than to adding multi-player to these games.

This is a slippery slope to the 4-6 hr single player campaign and Call of Duty type game.

I wouldn't want them to take away resources from the Single-Player either, this would require additional resources which unfortunately EA won't do

[Killdren88]

No. MP takes development time from SP. Mass Effect's prime focus. MP only took time and resources from the part of the game that mattered.

[Obadiah]

An actual co-op campaign (with its own story/plot) would have been a good idea. If players could use their multiplayer characters in missions similar to SWTOR, that equated to (*shrug* dunno...) an optional plot fork in the main campaign, that would have been interesting.

[movieguyabw]

I think a co-op campaign would've been a great multiplayer aspect. However, I get why some would not want it to affect singleplayer. I think if it were to affect singleplayer in any way it should've been in either codex entries or small cameos of your multiplayer characters doing something in the background of a scene in SP.