Please, do make MP and SP 2 totally different experiences. One incapable of interfering with the other.
Also, 2 separate installs for each module could be great. A person should be able to decide with the game should make a full installation, just the sp or just the mp.
I don´t play me3 sp anymore, but I still love the mp. I can´t help but wonder if the vast majority of the installation is just wasting space. I wish I could have only the files of mp installed.
My suggestion: Cut the multiplayer and concentrate completly on single player.
My suggestion: Cut the multiplayer and concentrate completly on single player.
Not happening. MP was huge success in ME3 (despite being just a testing ground), so EA/BW are definitely going to include it in ME:4/C/N.
Also, no PVP.
Geez, why? this good-for-nothing horde-mode... how could anyone play that more than a few hours - not to mention even more than 200 hours?
Almost sickening repetitive.
Why does Bioware have to compete with Battlefield, CoD or Team Fortress? Is there really a need for another mp-shooter?
At first, I was against mp. I used to think all resources would be better spent on SP. But after playing it, I felt in love. Playing with humans in the basic classes is boring, but once I was able to use batarians, Asari collector and specially the geth, my opinion was totally changed. I wish they could release 10 more maps.
The ME3 MP was repetitive, but there was a lot of creativity in the different powers (not to mention all the free new weapons and maps to play) that kept me coming back. I also liked that it was Co-op online, which went with the unity aspect of ME3 at best, or was at least unusual in not having PVP at least. I would definitely try a MP ME again, but I would hope for two separate games entirely to keep all respective parties focused.
The RNG kit system for gear, if left as is, will likely be a controversial topic more than the grinding gameplay.
At first, I was against mp. I used to think all resources would be better spent on SP. But after playing it, I felt in love. Playing with humans in the basic classes is boring, but once I was able to use batarians, Asari collector and specially the geth, my opinion was totally changed. I wish they could release 10 more maps.
And in which way did the asari differ from human, batarian or Quarian? Just differten models for the same nobody... and once the level-max was reached, turning him/her in and start anew was the only option left to progress.
About the maps: Is it essential in what kind of surrounding you do the same things over and over?
Man, it's not, as if i'm a MP-Hater. i like to play BF once in a while... but just one mode and even the lamest ever...is that really defensible? There was no innovation, just money-grabbing with micro-transactions. Not even a MP-Story-campaign alongside the main-story (that would have been something, where Bioware could have shown one of their greatest strength: Storytelling).
Everything was so minimal... If Dice would deliver this kind of laughable content with the next Battlefront, all the fans and gamers would rip them to shreds... but bioware is forgiven, because ME is originally a SP-Game?
No, no no! This is a no go...and i doubt Bioware (or more exactly EA) would do us the favor of seperating MP from SP.
Before they touch the MP once again, i ask tor more substance in the SP-Area. I mean, ME2 was an immense improvement to ME1 and i hoped, now that they polished the original game-mechanics, they will finally add some new features ... but the the only thing the developers added was this inferior MP. And i really don't understand, how anyone can protect that?
And in which way did the asari differ from human, batarian or Quarian? Just differten models for the same nobody... and once the level-max was reached, turning him/her in and start anew was the only option left to progress.
About the maps: Is it essential in what kind of surrounding you do the same things over and over?
Man, it's not, as if i'm a MP-Hater. i like to play BF once in a while... but just one mode and even the lamest ever...is that really defensible? There was no innovation, just money-grabbing with micro-transactions. Not even a MP-Story-campaign alongside the main-story (that would have been something, where Bioware could have shown one of their greatest strength: Storytelling).
Everything was so minimal... If Dice would deliver this kind of laughable content with the next Battlefront, all the fans and gamers would rip them to shreds... but bioware is forgiven, because ME is originally a SP-Game?
No, no no! This is a no go...and i doubt Bioware (or more exactly EA) would do us the favor of seperating MP from SP.
Before they touch the MP once again, i ask tor more substance in the SP-Area. I mean, ME2 was an immense improvement to ME1 and i hoped, now that they polished the original game-mechanics, they will finally add some new features ... but the the only thing the developers added was this inferior MP. And i really don't understand, how anyone can protect that?
I have to ask - how much time did you actually spend with the MP? Because saying that the Asari didn't differ from humans, Batarians or Quarians makes me think you haven't played these characters much at all.
Aside from the different powers they had, each of the characters moved differently. For example, Asari had a biotic dash, which allowed them to quickly 'slide' in any direction at the expense of barrier strength, while Quarians had a less effective sideways hop (often referred to as 'jiggly bum bum'). Batarians, like Krogans and some Turians, lacked a dodge, and Drell could do acrobatic flips. Only humans had a combat roll.
No one claimed that the MP was ground breaking, but it didn't have to be novel to be fun. And there was still a bit of innovation - hazard maps, new powers (such as tactical scan, phase disruptor, biotic hammer, seeker swarm, devastator mode, biotic orbs, siege pulse, repair matrix...), new characters (volus, Geth Juggernaught, awakened collector...). IMO, having the unique powers, combos, species and enemy factions actually sets this apart from most other MP experiences. I'm curious to see where they go with DAI's MP.
There are plenty of valid criticisms of the MP and you're well within your rights to dislike it. However, you need to accept that the majority who played it found it to be a lot of fun. That includes people like me, who were initially skeptical about MP but gave it a chance and ended up enjoying it. I find it to be far more accessible than major MP games like COD and BF, although that might be cause I'm not big on PvP.
I do agree that they still need to ensure a quality SP experience first and foremost, but I don't think the two are mutually exclusive.
I played several hours... not far as much as in BF4 but still i maxed out some characters. I geuss something between twenty or thirty. But after that.. and some time after release of the final story-dlc citadel i stopped playing. This horde-mode is just too simplistic to keep being fun after a while.
Oh yes, different powers and some moves... great variation. It's like argueing: "Hey, the skills could be upgradet differently, so that's Rpg". Geez... was there any reason f.e. to upgrade stasis in any other way than bubble (so that it did area-effect)? With that bottlenecks were easy closed.
And there were so many decisions like that. Take a or b? Well b sucks so i take a. Conclusive: All characters felt alike.
No variety in mission design just round 1: wave, round 2: Wave, round 3: wave...
Nothing like: There's a Mako and it has to be protected while going from point A to pount B.
Or a king of the hill variation where your team has to defend a camp and keep its defensive-mechanisms (like turrets) online and doors shut while repelling enemy-waves.
Or taking over a ship in a capture-the-flag variation. Just horde-mode (the most primitive thing anyone could come up with).
CoD-Mp ain't my type of MP as well but even apart from BF(which is great if you find a squad which works together) and CoD, there are so many MP-shooter which do things better and some of them are even for free.
ME3 was a full-prize-game with a just-one-mode-bare-bones-MP... and you tell me, that's great or even ok? Geez... talking about undemanding consumers.
I played several hours... not far as much as in BF4 but still i maxed out some characters. I geuss something between twenty or thirty. But after that.. and some time after release of the final story-dlc citadel i stopped playing. This horde-mode is just too simplistic to keep being fun after a while.
1. Oh yes, different powers and some moves... great variation. It's like argueing: "Hey, the skills could be upgradet differently, so that's Rpg". Geez... was there any reason f.e. to upgrade stasis in any other way than bubble (so that it did area-effect)? With that bottlenecks were easy closed.
And there were so many decisions like that. Take a or b? Well b sucks so i take a. Conclusive: All characters felt alike.
2. No variety in mission design just round 1: wave, round 2: Wave, round 3: wave...
Nothing like: There's a Mako and it has to be protected while going from point A to pount B.
Or a king of the hill variation where your team has to defend a camp and keep its defensive-mechanisms (like turrets) online and doors shut while repelling enemy-waves.
Or taking over a ship in a capture-the-flag variation. Just horde-mode (the most primitive thing anyone could come up with).
3. CoD-Mp ain't my type of MP as well but even apart from BF(which is great if you find a squad which works together) and CoD, there are so many MP-shooter which do things better and some of them are even for free.
4. ME3 was a full-prize-game with a just-one-mode-bare-bones-MP... and you tell me, that's great or even ok? Geez... talking about undemanding consumers.
1. I wasn't suggesting that the 6a vs 6b choices within powers offered great variation. I was saying that different powers (particularly some of the newer, non-SP powers) and moves made different characters play differently. Some characters felt alike, sure, but there were so many different ones with different powers/sizes/mobility/bonuses that you could always find something new to try.
2. I agree that there could have been more variety with different modes, but they at least made a decent attempt to create variety within the horde mode by adding new objectives, such as escorting drones or collecting objects. Adding new modes would have been the most expensive way to bring variety to the game.
3. BF4 and other MP shooters are built around the MP - that is the main drawcard and that is why most people buy/play it. MP in ME3 was just a bonus in a game that was built mainly as a SP experience. In a way, it was an experiment to see how the ME community would react to MP. ME3 would have cost exactly the same if it only had the current SP campaign, which means the MP was effectively free (and I don't believe the SP would have changed significantly if they hadn't included MP). The fact that they continually added new maps, powers, characters, weapons, enemies, mods, ammo, etc for no charge was fantastic.
4. I hardly think it's 'underdemanding' to accept that a *free* component of a game has limitations. I think it would be very overdemanding to expect a MP experience that rivaled that of big MP titles. Having said that, I expect they will add more depth to MP in ME4 because it was much more popular than anticipated.
The point is, you're perfectly entitled not to like it, just as others are entitled to love it. I had over 100 hours of fun exploring in Skyrim, but my brother played for about 5 hours and told me it was the most boring game ever. One man's trash is another man's treasure - and a lot of people thought ME3's MP was treasure.
It's overdemanding that developers put effort into their games - especially for full prize? Jeeesh...
Like i said, i like MP... but i want MP to have quality... and having played MP in ME3 and other MP-titles (good and bad) as well, i always thought i had quite some idea about what makes MP fun and what doesn't. And all this "ME3-Mp is so much fun" therefore sounds extremely dishonest and simply unobjective.
I understand that everyone has different preferences and some like what others don't do, but... how do i put it? If I had a great SP-Game and the whole community was like "give us MP, too"... and then all i would come up with is one uninspired mode... ig uess i would expect, that everyone would be p*ssed. But instead thye're greatful and seem not to put a second thought into it.
Look, maybe i would be less angered, if the SP-Campaign of ME3 would be better... but with this abomination of an ending... and with no new feature or game-mechanic added and no Mission that feels different than following a pipe and still bare minimum Rpg-elements... i feel as if there was never put any effort into SP (maybe because they had to add something?).
But like this...? No!
I love ME1 and especially ME2 for the great SP-experience... and until bioware gets that aspect right again (hopefully in ME4) i don't want them try and add again a half-*ss MP.
Am i entitled? Maybe... but maybe those customers are way to forgiving as well.
Geez, why? this good-for-nothing horde-mode... how could anyone play that more than a few hours - not to mention even more than 200 hours?
Almost sickening repetitive.
Why does Bioware have to compete with Battlefield, CoD or Team Fortress? Is there really a need for another mp-shooter?
People are addicted to it because it's a grind fest. Look at Call of Duty. People like that game for the same reason. It's fun and it's never over. Mass Effect 3 MP has random item drops, so you need to grind for in-game money to max out your character. This system is the bane of modern multiplayer games. There are also challenges (like in COD), which keep players playing even longer.
It's overdemanding that developers put effort into their games - especially for full prize? Jeeesh...
Like i said, i like MP... but i want MP to have quality... and having played MP in ME3 and other MP-titles (good and bad) as well, i always thought i had quite some idea about what makes MP fun and what doesn't. And all this "ME3-Mp is so much fun" therefore sounds extremely dishonest and simply unobjective.
How do I make this any clearer... No one paid for the MP experience. It was a bonus to the SP, which would have cost the same price anyway. It was NOT 'full price'. If BF4 had such a limited MP mode then people would be entitled to be upset because MP is the main drawcard, not the SP. ME3 was the other way around: SP with a bonus MP mode, not MP with a token SP campaign.
I get that you were disappointed with the SP, but that's not the point. I'm pretty sure a separate (small) team developed the MP, which means it had no bearing on the SP.
Also, why on earth would people be dishonest about having fun with the MP? They have nothing to gain by lying about it. 'Fun' is NEVER objective, always subjective. You're entitled to dislike the MP but you need to deal with the fact that other people have other opinions.
How do I make this any clearer... No one paid for the MP experience. It was a bonus to the SP, which would have cost the same price anyway. It was NOT 'full price'. If BF4 had such a limited MP mode then people would be entitled to be upset because MP is the main drawcard, not the SP. ME3 was the other way around: SP with a bonus MP mode, not MP with a token SP campaign.
You may have a point there but there's also a point, you did not put into thought:
Not considering the terrbile launch of BF4(which -thankfully- could be patched)... the MAIN aspect of that game was right - not like ME3 where the mains aspect (SP) wasn't.
If the MP in... let's say BF5 would be completly broken, lame and uninspired (like: no player-progression or no 64-player-maps)... but the SP-Campaign would be "great"... do you not think, the majority of the gamers would be p*ssed? Of course! But then, some appear and say: "But the SP-Campaign is so much fun, i put 200 hours into it"... oh really? Thanks... thanks alot.
I get that you were disappointed with the SP, but that's not the point. I'm pretty sure a separate (small) team developed the MP, which means it had no bearing on the SP.
An Assumption that cannot be proven... yes, ok, my guess can't as well, but how can you say,it had no bearing on the SP, when the MP was clearly supposed to influence the SP (just naming the war assets). It was not meant to be cut off (so it could be completly ignored), the buyers and fans Should play it. Yes,it was no "you must play it to get the cool ending" but still, there was some force to push you into trying the MP - which should never be!
Also having a "small team" is alsways a nice excuse... then how come i've seen single modders and indie-developers doing a more creative job?
And you say, a, in it's whole, mediocre SP-Campaign and a half-*ss MP is the way, the game supposed to be, right from the start?
A bioware-game? And there was no one behind the scenes, who pressed on the developers(like... maybe... EA) to hurry up, so it can be released, smallering the effort put into the game?
Well if that's true, then bioware is really a sinking ship - like many fear.
Also, why on earth would people be dishonest about having fun with the MP? They have nothing to gain by lying about it. 'Fun' is NEVER objective, always subjective. You're entitled to dislike the MP but you need to deal with the fact that other people have other opinions.
Why on earth do fanboys buy CoD every year, eventhough the changes in MP (the MAIN part of the game) are so minimal - and yet they say it's fresh and great (yes they do - i've read countless times in forums)? People tend to lie to themself. They pretend, they didn't do a mistake... like buying something not worth the money. That or their status as fanboys make them blind for lacks and flaws - my opinion (and nobody has to agre!).
Also, i did not MEAN to say, i don't believe that some have fun with the MP (even i had.. for a few hours). But how can anyone be sooo... "simplistic"... to play the same thing/mode over and over and over again and still say it's fun and not repetitive?
I. DON'T. GET. IT.
I would not b*tch on the MP, if there was more to it. Like a deeper character-progression... more modes... and no connection to the SP-campaign war assets... or even a small Coop-campaign... but on the other hand... would that be the case, iguess i would even be more upset with the SP.
I guess, i'm just the type of "either put maximal effort into both parts or cut one and concentrate full on the other".
Also, i did not MEAN to say, i don't believe that some have fun with the MP (even i had.. for a few hours). But how can anyone be sooo... "simplistic"... to play the same thing/mode over and over and over again and still say it's fun and not repetitive?
I. DON'T. GET. IT.
I play old CoD 2 multiplayer even today. On one "capture the flag" mode. It's still fun. You know why? Because I play it with my friends and not just random people out there. Those interactions are what makes multiplayer experience fun for me, gameplay just needs to be solid and not too complex to take away from those interactions.
I'll also add that it's repetitive only in a matter of the same theme, "horde" mode. Each game is different because you can make a mistake, there are randomized objectives and your teammates can make a mistake. That's what keeps every game fresh.
If the MP in... let's say BF5 would be completly broken, lame and uninspired (like: no player-progression or no 64-player-maps)... but the SP-Campaign would be "great"... do you not think, the majority of the gamers would be p*ssed? Of course! But then, some appear and say: "But the SP-Campaign is so much fun, i put 200 hours into it"... oh really? Thanks... thanks alot.
And there was no one behind the scenes, who pressed on the developers(like... maybe... EA) to hurry up, so it can be released, smallering the effort put into the game?
Also, i did not MEAN to say, i don't believe that some have fun with the MP (even i had.. for a few hours). But how can anyone be sooo... "simplistic"... to play the same thing/mode over and over and over again and still say it's fun and not repetitive?
I. DON'T. GET. IT.
I actually agree with these points. The MP does get repetitive after a while, although the periodic release of new characters and weapons gave players at least something new. I do struggle to understand how some people put 300+ hours into it. Then again, I also struggle to work out why people enjoy playing racing sims so much.
For me, I played about 50 hours off and on over the first 18 months, got bored with it, and then went back to it this year for a bit to unlock some new characters and weapons. After a total of about 80 hours in over 2.5 years, I'm at the stage where I probably won't play it much anymore, even though I still haven't unlocked plenty of things. But that's ok to me because I never expected to have as much fun as I did.
The devs clearly didn't intend for the SP to be underwhelming, but I think the sad fact is that the SP would have been very similar if MP had never existed, just without the 'galactic readiness' scale. You're right, I can't prove this, but it stands to reason. I think Casey Hudson and Mac Walters just took ME3's SP in a direction that lots of fans didn't like, regardless of the MP.
And I am almost certain that EA pushed the game out earlier than BW would have liked, although again I don't think this had anything to do with MP.
As long as the ME4 MP is developed separately from the SP, by a team that would not otherwise be working on the SP, then I am happy for them to include it in the game. If they split resources that could otherwise be used in making a bigger, better SP game, then I'll be annoyed. Is that fair?
I play old CoD 2 multiplayer even today. On one "capture the flag" mode. It's still fun. You know why? Because I play it with my friends and not just random people out there. Those interactions are what makes multiplayer experience fun for me, gameplay just needs to be solid and not too complex to take away from those interactions.
I'll also add that it's repetitive only in a matter of the same theme, "horde" mode. Each game is different because you can make a mistake, there are randomized objectives and your teammates can make a mistake. That's what keeps every game fresh.
Fine if you think so and... well... any kind of MP is more fun if played with friends - just to mention.
But your comment sounds to me a bit like: A well, we were playing ludo/parcheesi for 50H and it was so much fun and so exciting because none of us knew,what the result of the dice would be. Who would be lucky to get a six? Who would win the round?
Sorry, but this random parts are given in any game and are not counted into my definition of "repetitive". I mean, what's the point of playing a game where the outcome is always fixed and the chances of making a mistake or getting lucky would be zero? Is there even a game without this minimal appear of randomness?
No offense and maybe i missed your point but... da fuq?
As long as the ME4 MP is developed separately from the SP, by a team that would not otherwise be working on the SP, then I am happy for them to include it in the game. If they split resources that could otherwise be used in making a bigger, better SP game, then I'll be annoyed. Is that fair?
My suggestion: Cut the multiplayer and concentrate completly on single player.
THIS IS MADNESS
THIS IS MADNESS
And in which way did the asari differ from human, batarian or Quarian? Just differten models for the same nobody... and once the level-max was reached, turning him/her in and start anew was the only option left to progress.
About the maps: Is it essential in what kind of surrounding you do the same things over and over?
Man, it's not, as if i'm a MP-Hater. i like to play BF once in a while... but just one mode and even the lamest ever...is that really defensible? There was no innovation, just money-grabbing with micro-transactions. Not even a MP-Story-campaign alongside the main-story (that would have been something, where Bioware could have shown one of their greatest strength: Storytelling).
Everything was so minimal... If Dice would deliver this kind of laughable content with the next Battlefront, all the fans and gamers would rip them to shreds... but bioware is forgiven, because ME is originally a SP-Game?
No, no no! This is a no go...and i doubt Bioware (or more exactly EA) would do us the favor of seperating MP from SP.
Before they touch the MP once again, i ask tor more substance in the SP-Area. I mean, ME2 was an immense improvement to ME1 and i hoped, now that they polished the original game-mechanics, they will finally add some new features ... but the the only thing the developers added was this inferior MP. And i v don't understand, how anyone can protect that?
I respectfully disagree with you in almost every conceivable way. ME3 mp is one of the greatest things to happen in gaming in a long tine and was a complete home run as far as myself and a lot of other gamers are concerned. I probably have about a thousand hours logged and I play almost daily.
The mp mode is unique in the aspect of being the absolute best of its genre. Calling it just another horde mode is like calling CoD, Halo and Battlefield just run of the mill pvp first person shooters.
CoD is a Twitch-shooter (yeah, fanboys, hate me for telling the truth). And even Battlefield lost (to me) a bit of it's charme over the years (don't know what it is... maybe becauseof the age of the series and the newer ones seem only to be made for milking the franchise).
About the rest of your post... fine if that's your opinion. but to me and many others, it feels like a no-effort wannabe-addition.
I played ME1 and ME2 for the story, the characters and the universe... and not to run around in a small arena and kill waves of enemies with a shallow progression-system.
And after ME3 and now Inquisition i fear very deeply, that Bioware will dumb down Me4 even more and make it more and more mainstream until it's just a shell of what it once was... and the fans and consumer take it happily because there are things like MP (and please open your eyes, it IS just horde-mode, the most unoriginal mode anybody could come up with. There've been modders doing a better work back then with Unreal).
It's a dangerous trend and Destiny showed, how far this can go.
Please do not underestimate ME3MP. For a big part of the player base this was what kept them attached to ME after all that ending HURRDURR, this was the reason to come back and/or keep playing the game.
ME3 without its MP would be long forgotten and rotting in its own digged grave one could even say.
Don't get me wrong, ME4SP should not become a 5h tutorial for the F2P-MP, not EA's CoD -in-space Halo-style shooter brand, but ME4 without a MP at least on par with ME3MP will be a big dissapointment for lots of ME3 players.
Hello! I've been playing mass3 multi for 3 years and have more than 5000 games. Because there is something in it we don't see in others and that i would like to see in me4, in a way or in another. I am talking about the fact that the difficulty is defined and we just have to deal with it, and thus the skill, the gameplay counts more than the stuff. This is very important because here is what is so interesting to play. I am definitively sure of that since I resumed the multi and I could play plats with little stuff. In other games, ennemies get stronger, stuff too. So, quickly, if you don't have the stuff you can't go on and when you have the legendary big one, it is too easy. Though there are also nice to play, I insist on the point that a game is interesting, for me, when the skill has the main part. Thank you for reading.
I really like coop mp...so I am glad to see no pvp. Had to many bad experiences with pvp and avoid those games all together. I don't need some snot nosed tween who devotes himself solely to that particular game rambling about how awesome he is and how everyone else sucks. coop is much better, have actually made some real friends playing me3 mp.
Retour en haut