128 réponses à ce sujet

[Beerfish]

KallianaTabris wrote...

Examurai1 wrote...
To YOU Mass Effect 3 SP and MP maybe mediocore to others it wasnt. So of course from your point of view it may seem "unsuccessful". This thread and many others, particulalry in the MP sub forums, proves that there are BW fans that exist that don't mind MP and don't feel it has or will jeorpedise the SP mode. 

To many; I was just stating a common opinion among fans. Tbh, I don't really think about ME nor care an iota about the series.

The fact is, there is a strong risk MP resources will take away time and quality from the SP experience. it didn't just happen with Mass Effect series, but with several other franchises as well.

I'm still waiting for a shred of evidence that Me mp took away resources from the single player game or had really any effect on it at all.

[Taleroth]

Beerfish wrote...

Just how did you come to this conclusion?  Please give concrete examples because I don't see it at all.

Which part? The boss fights being some of the most atrocious designs in recent history? With invincibility segments and losing in cutscenes?

As for singleplayer being like multiplayer, they function on most of the same systems almost identically, down to the enemy designs, so one has to have derived from the other. And knowing that MP had a dedicated team, it stands they were the lead on combat. 

Modifié par Taleroth, 03 septembre 2013 - 04:34 .

[Maria Caliban]

You're claiming MP lead to bad design in SP because SP has bad design elements that don't appear in MP. There are no invincibility segments or cutscenes in MP.

[MarchWaltz]

There will be MP. It's an EA mandate now.

Also, they make a ton of money from the micro trans. EA won't pass it up, and at the end of the day Bioware takes orders from EA and doesn't ask question.

Modifié par MarchWaltz, 03 septembre 2013 - 04:46 .

[Taleroth]

Maria Caliban wrote...

You're claiming MP lead to bad design in SP because SP has bad design elements that don't appear in MP. There are no invincibility segments or cutscenes in MP.

I'm claiming nothing. Merely stating a suspicion.

It seems possible that the boss fights in the single player are terrible because all of the combat designers were focused on the multiplayer. Leaving either junior designers or those inexperienced with combat design to create the boss fights.

[Ianamus]

I was convinced there would be multiplayer, but now I'm not so sure. They seem to be doing so much with the singleplayer I'm not sure they will have the time or resources to create a separate multiplayer mode as well.

[deuce985]

I just find it funny how gamers have skewed viewpoints and only see what they want. Did you ever think that the possibility of MP could be very healthy for SP? What if the MP is designed where it has no compromise on the SP and it allows Bioware to gain many more revenue streams without nickel and dime the gamer? People who bought the shortcut packs in ME3 is probably the reason the MP DLC was free. P2W doesn't really matter in a game where it's co-op. Also, it's possible that these potential steady and big revenue streams in MP allow Bioware to put even more money into the SP in the sequel. That would allow a much grander sequel. But yea, MP has to be 100% negative all the time.

Modifié par deuce985, 03 septembre 2013 - 05:11 .

[deuce985]

Beerfish wrote...

KallianaTabris wrote...

Examurai1 wrote...
To YOU Mass Effect 3 SP and MP maybe mediocore to others it wasnt. So of course from your point of view it may seem "unsuccessful". This thread and many others, particulalry in the MP sub forums, proves that there are BW fans that exist that don't mind MP and don't feel it has or will jeorpedise the SP mode. 

To many; I was just stating a common opinion among fans. Tbh, I don't really think about ME nor care an iota about the series.

The fact is, there is a strong risk MP resources will take away time and quality from the SP experience. it didn't just happen with Mass Effect series, but with several other franchises as well.

I'm still waiting for a shred of evidence that Me mp took away resources from the single player game or had really any effect on it at all.

One of the only major concerns I have with ME3's MP on SP is the arena design levels. They fit the MP perfectly and it's questionable if the side-quests were developed with the MP in mind. However, based on what the devs said, it doesn't sound like it. Besides, it wasn't like ME2 or ME1 had good level design when it came to side-questing. You could argue that arena design was in ME2.

[hoorayforicecream]

Beerfish wrote...

I'm still waiting for a shred of evidence that Me mp took away resources from the single player game or had really any effect on it at all.

Who needs evidence when indignation and speculation will do?

[Beerfish]

Taleroth wrote...

Beerfish wrote...

Just how did you come to this conclusion?  Please give concrete examples because I don't see it at all.

Which part? The boss fights being some of the most atrocious designs in recent history? With invincibility segments and losing in cutscenes?

As for singleplayer being like multiplayer, they function on most of the same systems almost identically, down to the enemy designs, so one has to have derived from the other. And knowing that MP had a dedicated team, it stands they were the lead on combat. 

Eh?  did you even play multiplayer?  Waht does boss fights in single pl;ayer have to do with anything in MP?  you once again complained about a single player feture while giving ZERO concrete evidence that MP had anything to do with it.

MP is real time non paused using only a few of the abilies found in the sp game.  The abilities and weapons have been tweaked in mp to be slightly different.  MP uses parts of exisitng sp maps.  If anything MP has had to follow the lead of the sp game, not the other way around.

[someguy1231]

The whole "resources" argument against MP is stupid for two reasons:

1) It falsely assumes game development is a zero-sum game. When a game gets multiplayer, it gets additional resources allocated toward that which the game otherwise wouldn't have.

2) Every game will inevitably have at least one feature which this or that gamer doesn't like. That doesn't mean those resources were "wasted" on those features either.

I saw this countless times when it was announced that ME3 would have MP. If it's confirmed DA3 will have it, I'll look forward to history repeating itself.

The only argument against MP that's even partially valid is making the best results in SP too heavily dependent on actions in MP. And after the whole mess with ME3's EMS system, I think Bioware has learned their lesson.

Modifié par someguy1231, 05 septembre 2013 - 03:49 .

[In Exile]

Maria Caliban wrote...

You're claiming MP lead to bad design in SP because SP has bad design elements that don't appear in MP. There are no invincibility segments or cutscenes in MP.

We've already seen gameplay. Any of the ways that MP would have changed it are clearly not going to materialize. So it's a silly complaint at this point IMO. 

[Star fury]

someguy1231 wrote...

The whole "resources" argument against MP is stupid for two reasons:

1) It falsely assumes game development is a zero-sum game. When a game gets multiplayer, it gets additional resources allocated toward that which the game otherwise wouldn't have.

Source? And is it true with ME3 MP?

[someguy1231]

Star fury wrote...

someguy1231 wrote...

The whole "resources" argument against MP is stupid for two reasons:

1) It falsely assumes game development is a zero-sum game. When a game gets multiplayer, it gets additional resources allocated toward that which the game otherwise wouldn't have.

Source? And is it true with ME3 MP?

It's Game Design 101. Any game studio that tells its developers to make a feature as large as multiplayer without giving them the resources they'd need is a studio too dumb to survive.

As for ME3's MP, it was developed by Bioware's Montreal studio, while ME3's SP was done by their Edmonton studio.

[Star fury]

someguy1231 wrote...

Star fury wrote...

someguy1231 wrote...

The whole "resources" argument against MP is stupid for two reasons:

1) It falsely assumes game development is a zero-sum game. When a game gets multiplayer, it gets additional resources allocated toward that which the game otherwise wouldn't have.

Source? And is it true with ME3 MP?

It's Game Design 101. Any game studio that tells its developers to make a feature as large as multiplayer without giving them the resources they'd need is a studio too dumb to survive.

As for ME3's MP, it was developed by Bioware's Montreal studio, while ME3's SP was done by their Edmonton studio.

Ah, so no source at all. M'kay.

[Sidney]

The source is Google. Go run a search and you will see Montreal studios are the ones who did MP and they are a separate unit from the main Bioware team.

As for MP influencing SP combat - well no. The MP plays like the SP combat which plays like the SP combat in ME2. There might be some point if they combat had a sudden shift but it is nothing more than minor evolutions from ME2 - grabs wooohooo.

[Star fury]

Sidney wrote...

The source is Google. Go run a search and you will see Montreal studios are the ones who did MP and they are a separate unit from the main Bioware team.

As for MP influencing SP combat - well no. The MP plays like the SP combat which plays like the SP combat in ME2. There might be some point if they combat had a sudden shift but it is nothing more than minor evolutions from ME2 - grabs wooohooo.

Try to read my message again, then you will probably understand it. Or not.

[Rawgrim]

In Exile wrote...

ME3 MP was very successful, so it's difficult to imagine Bioware not wanting to add MP to DAI.

Of course it was successful. They forced people to play it when the game came out. After it  "became a huge hit" they patched the game so that mp wasn`t required to get the perfect ending in the single player game.

[Star fury]

Rawgrim wrote...

In Exile wrote...

ME3 MP was very successful, so it's difficult to imagine Bioware not wanting to add MP to DAI.

Of course it was successful. They forced people to play it when the game came out. After it  "became a huge hit" they patched the game so that mp wasn`t required to get the perfect ending in the single player game.

Pretty much. They hadn't even expected mp to be that popular.

[phunx]

Rawgrim wrote...
Of course it was successful. They forced people to play it when the game came out. After it  "became a huge hit" they patched the game so that mp wasn`t required to get the perfect ending in the single player game.

You think it was successful cause they forced people to play it? Forcing people to play it would cause people to dislike it, not like it more, that hardly makes any sense. It was just an overall nicely done MP, since a lot of people enjoyed it.

The way War Assets worked when the game came out was trash however, no doubt.

[Allan Schumacher]

Star fury wrote...

someguy1231 wrote...

Star fury wrote...

someguy1231 wrote...

The whole "resources" argument against MP is stupid for two reasons:

1) It falsely assumes game development is a zero-sum game. When a game gets multiplayer, it gets additional resources allocated toward that which the game otherwise wouldn't have.

Source? And is it true with ME3 MP?

It's Game Design 101. Any game studio that tells its developers to make a feature as large as multiplayer without giving them the resources they'd need is a studio too dumb to survive.

As for ME3's MP, it was developed by Bioware's Montreal studio, while ME3's SP was done by their Edmonton studio.

Ah, so no source at all. M'kay.

I have also stated it in the past on these forums.

[someguy1231]

Star fury wrote...

someguy1231 wrote...

Star fury wrote...

someguy1231 wrote...

The whole "resources" argument against MP is stupid for two reasons:

1) It falsely assumes game development is a zero-sum game. When a game gets multiplayer, it gets additional resources allocated toward that which the game otherwise wouldn't have.

Source? And is it true with ME3 MP?

It's Game Design 101. Any game studio that tells its developers to make a feature as large as multiplayer without giving them the resources they'd need is a studio too dumb to survive.

As for ME3's MP, it was developed by Bioware's Montreal studio, while ME3's SP was done by their Edmonton studio.

Ah, so no source at all. M'kay.

Common sense and easily-found facts are not "sources"?

[Valdrane78]

Star fury wrote...

someguy1231 wrote...

Star fury wrote...

someguy1231 wrote...

The whole "resources" argument against MP is stupid for two reasons:

1) It falsely assumes game development is a zero-sum game. When a game gets multiplayer, it gets additional resources allocated toward that which the game otherwise wouldn't have.

Source? And is it true with ME3 MP?

It's Game Design 101. Any game studio that tells its developers to make a feature as large as multiplayer without giving them the resources they'd need is a studio too dumb to survive.

As for ME3's MP, it was developed by Bioware's Montreal studio, while ME3's SP was done by their Edmonton studio.

Ah, so no source at all. M'kay.

It has been stated multiple times, in multiple threads by multiple Bioware employees...........and once in this thread by Shumacher himself.  Go to the ME3 website, it states it there, visit various threads, it says it there as well.  Just because you didn't take the time to go look for it, or even read it, doesn't make it untrue.
----------------------
As for the original poster's arguement about ME3 MP only being supported for a year,  there are few, VERY FEW instances where a developer will support MP beyond a year.  There comes a point where a developer needs to sit back and say enough is enough, it's time to devote resources to a  new game and a new MP.  In all actuality, a year of suport is quite a long time in the MP world.

Personally, I didn't play the MP very much, not much of a MP person, but what I did play I enjoyed.

Would I suport MP being in DA:I, sure why not, I probably wont play it much.  But if it helps others enjoy th egame that much more, then why not incorporate it into the game.

[HowlingSiren]

From what I've seen so far of the development of DAI and the positive indication they are taking an extra year to build it, it doesn't seem like BioWare is sparing any resources on SP. They are I'm sure aware of the negativity that surrounded ME3 and DA2 and seem to be working hard to get back on top. Plus Allan just refuted the argument that MP takes resources away from SP.

So if they get additional resources for DAI MP, I say great and I look forward to it. ME3 MP was my first MP. I was skeptical at first but it quickly won me over and has kept me playing ME3 for this long. The support we received was fantastic. Free DLC for over a year including kits, weapons and maps, weekly balance changes, strong dev presence on the forums, regular challenges, website development like N7 HQ, etc.

While I agree that MP should definitely not be forced on those that have no interest in it, and should not be the only way to a specific ending, I don't think that will happen. They made that mistake with ME3, miscalculating the points needed to get the Breathe ending. I doubt they'd make the same mistake twice.

[In Exile]

Rawgrim wrote...
Of course it was successful. They forced people to play it when the game came out. After it  "became a huge hit" they patched the game so that mp wasn`t required to get the perfect ending in the single player game.

For all their forcing, I never played MP in ME3. And I think we can quibble whether destroy + the video is the "perfect" ending in ME3. I think they all suck, but if I had to pick the least bad... I'd pick alt+F4 before Shepard gets beamed up by the Catalyst.