109 réponses à ce sujet

[Revan Reborn]

Ever since ME3, it seems to have become a staple with BioWare that their games will feature multiplayer. ME3 had firefight/horde where one must survive consecutive waves of enemies and then reach extraction. DAI took a slightly different approach by having players work together to complete and overcome dungeon encounters. Why stop at just a separate multiplayer? Why not further incorporate that multiplayer into the single player experience?

 

What I'm referring to is cooperative play. Who wouldn't want to play along with a buddy in a large open world with so many possibilities? BioWare could take cues from Far Cry 4 and ACU. Cooperative play is incorporated to the point where a friend could participate in side quests, missions, or just exploring the world. The main story would be locked as it would be a solo experience only. This would make the experience that much more interactive, enjoyable, and the ability to share it with others.

 

That was a major criticism I've always had of Far Cry and AC, as they had large open worlds that were conducive to cooperative play. They made the jump and have been quite successful. With BioWare now going open world and incorporating more multiplayer, cooperative play seems only logical. What are everybody's thoughts on a cooperative experience? I personally believe it would be much better than ME3's multiplayer or DAI's. They are fine, but aren't as compelling as the single player because they are separate and don't contain the elements that make a BioWare game great.

 

I would love to see a seamless integration of cooperative play into the single player to truly give players the best of both worlds. It certainly would be easier for BioWare as they wouldn't have to create two separate experiences and instead just incorporate one into the other.

[Vazgen]

No. Just no. Online elements should be separate to have the most immersive single player experience. Bioware crafts amazing stories and characters. I don't want to explore them with some random guy from across the planet or even my close friend. Have it completely separate, even EMS influence in ME3 was a mistake. Give it its own storyline if you like, just don't shove it in singleplayer

[Revan Reborn]

No. Just no. Online elements should be separate to have the most immersive single player experience. Bioware crafts amazing stories and characters. I don't want to explore them with some random guy from across the planet or even my close friend. Have it completely separate, even EMS influence in ME3 was a mistake. Give it its own storyline if you like, just don't shove it in singleplayer

I don't believe I ever claimed this would be mandatory. If you are actually familiar with Far Cry 4 and Assassin's Creed Unity, you would know it's purely optional. This wouldn't impact your "immersive single player experience" at all as you wouldn't have to use it.

[TruthSerum]

Ever since ME3, it seems to have become a staple with BioWare that their games will feature multiplayer. ME3 had firefight/horde where one must survive consecutive waves of enemies and then reach extraction. DAI took a slightly different approach by having players work together to complete and overcome dungeon encounters. Why stop at just a separate multiplayer? Why not further incorporate that multiplayer into the single player experience?

What I'm referring to is cooperative play. Who wouldn't want to play along with a buddy in a large open world with so many possibilities? BioWare could take cues from Far Cry 4 and ACU. Cooperative play is incorporated to the point where a friend could participate in side quests, missions, or just exploring the world. The main story would be locked as it would be a solo experience only. This would make the experience that much more interactive, enjoyable, and the ability to share it with others.

That was a major criticism I've always had of Far Cry and AC, as they had large open worlds that were conducive to cooperative play. They made the jump and have been quite successful. With BioWare now going open world and incorporating more multiplayer, cooperative play seems only logical. What are everybody's thoughts on a cooperative experience? I personally believe it would be much better than ME3's multiplayer or DAI's. They are fine, but aren't as compelling as the single player because they are separate and don't contain the elements that make a BioWare game great.

I would love to see a seamless integration of cooperative play into the single player to truly give players the best of both worlds. It certainly would be easier for BioWare as they wouldn't have to create two separate experiences and instead just incorporate one into the other.

Nope, not gonna fly. It was bad enough that BW tied the mp into your EMS in the last game.

If they actually turned the sp campaign into mp there would be a full scale revolt from fans.

You can expect the sp and mp portions of the game to be TOTALLY separate in ME4. Besides, ME3 mp is one of the greatest things in gaming so keeping the mp totally separate but with added features is all that is needed in ME4.

[Vazgen]

I don't believe I ever claimed this would be mandatory. If you are actually familiar with Far Cry 4 and Assassin's Creed Unity, you would know it's purely optional. This wouldn't impact your "immersive single player experience" at all as you wouldn't have to use it.

I'm not familiar with those, only know that the mode exists I do know that it also exists in Dead Space 3 and while being optional, some areas are locked away because apparently you can only go through them with Carver. 

Playing the game without internet connection requirement will be ideal for me, in my region internet going out is a common enough event so we have to take it into account

[Dar'Nara]

I do know that it also exists in Dead Space 3 and while being optional, some areas are locked away because apparently you can only go through them with Carver. 

...

Yep, that dissapointed me a bit to see that little notice in Dead Space 3 pop up that the area required a co-op partner. And after goggling what was in some of those areas i kind of felt cheated out of some rather cool items

[Revan Reborn]

Nope, not gonna fly. It was bad enough that BW tied the mp into your EMS in the last game.

If they actually turned the sp campaign into mp there would be a full scale revolt from fans.

You can expect the sp and mp portions of the game to be TOTALLY separate in ME4. Besides, ME3 mp is one of the greatest things in gaming so keeping the mp totally separate but with added features is all that is needed in ME4.

I believe EMS was a mistake. It was forced and thus mandatory if you wanted the perfect ending. What I am suggesting is optional, a word many people seem to fail to understand. This wouldn't impact the solo experience at all if you wanted to be anti-social. That's perfectly fine.

 

I wouldn't be so sure. ME3's multiplayer is far from "one of the greatest things in gaming" as it's a blatant rip-off of Halo's Firefight and Gear of Wars' Horde. It's far from original and becomes incredibly redundant after a while. Cooperative play would never get old.

 

You don't lose anything here. I don't know why you are arguing against cooperative play unless you are just blatantly selfish and biased.

 

I'm not familiar with those, only know that the mode exists I do know that it also exists in Dead Space 3 and while being optional, some areas are locked away because apparently you can only go through them with Carver. 

Playing the game without internet connection requirement will be ideal for me, in my region internet going out is a common enough event so we have to take it into account

Here's the difference between FC4/ACU and DS3. FC4 and ACU's cooperative play are optional. You don't have to do them at all and it doesn't impact the game whatsoever. DS3, on the other hand, was built from the start as a cooperative experience. It wasn't optional, as it was the main feature. As a result, the solo experience was diluted and poorly-executed because it was an afterthought. I'm not suggesting that for MENext. I'm suggesting the FC4/ACU approach.

 

Again, if you don't have an internet connection, this would not impact your experience. Cooperative play is purely optional and would have zero impact on the main story, unlike DS3. There really is no reason to be against this as it doesn't negatively impact you.

[Revan Reborn]

Yep, that dissapointed me a bit to see that little notice in Dead Space 3 pop up that the area required a co-op partner. And after goggling what was in some of those areas i kind of felt cheated out of some rather cool items

Thankfully that wouldn't be a problem with MENext as we already know the story is being built around one protagonist, unlike DS3. The FC4/ACU approach would allow us to have a cooperative experience in the game with everything besides the main story. This would mean that  the cooperative experience would not impact the immersion at all, and it would purely be there for those who'd want to play it. I find this to be a better multiplayer experience than the separate and disconnected ones in ME3 and DAI. FC3 had a terrible multiplayer and a bad, separate cooperative experience. They are finally doing a seamless cooperative experience in the main game and it has been executed perfectly.

[Lee T]

I do not think Bioware style of narration would befit a multiplayer approach, in the core game. However it would be nice if their MP took a cue from that talent they have. I would be a lot more interested by MP if it was based around quests rather than boring hordes mode. A short story form if you will.

[RoboticWater]

No, they'd have to work around the power menu. It's fine if a totally separate game mode opts for a smaller array of powers and disallows time freezing, but they'd be shooting themselves in the foot if they got rid of that in the main game.

 

I'm all for co-op, but the sacrifices necessary to support it are a bit too much.

 

It certainly would be easier for BioWare as they wouldn't have to create two separate experiences and instead just incorporate one into the other.

 

Actually no, you'll find that doing two things together is often much harder than doing them separately. Spinning off an existing combat system into a MP horde mode would be trivial compared to integrating the two separate experiences. The game designers would have to scale difficulty correctly, figure out what to do with squad mates, determine who gets the conversation options, determine how co-op partners enter the game, etc.. Yes, some of these problems likely wouldn't be too hard to resolve (host takes all conversation options), but it won't all be a cake walk.

[Probe Away]

You don't lose anything here. I don't know why you are arguing against cooperative play unless you are just blatantly selfish and biased.

 

Here's the difference between FC4/ACU and DS3. FC4 and ACU's cooperative play are optional. You don't have to do them at all and it doesn't impact the game whatsoever. DS3, on the other hand, was built from the start as a cooperative experience. It wasn't optional, as it was the main feature. As a result, the solo experience was diluted and poorly-executed because it was an afterthought. I'm not suggesting that for MENext. I'm suggesting the FC4/ACU approach.

 

Again, if you don't have an internet connection, this would not impact your experience. Cooperative play is purely optional and would have zero impact on the main story, unlike DS3. There really is no reason to be against this as it doesn't negatively impact you.

 

I find it hard to believe that there would be no impact on the SP experience.  ME3's MP was developed separately to the SP so it didn't affect the SP experience, other than the Galactic Readiness link and the ability to play the orignal MP maps as SP side missions.  The team that did the SP was able to focus on developing that without having to worry too much about issues that MP threw up.

 

If ME4 was to have co-op in the main campaign, every design decision (story, character dialogue, level layouts, powers, boss encounters, etc) would have to factor in the possibility of multiple players.  That would be a nightmare for a company that has built a reputation based on its characters, stories and player immersion and I just can't see how it could be done without sacrificing any aspect of the SP experience.

 

 

No, they'd have to work around the power menu. It's fine if a totally separate game mode opts for a smaller array of powers and disallows time freezing, but they'd be shooting themselves in the foot if they got rid of that in the main game.

 

The pauseable power and weapon wheels, as well as the codex and other menus, are great examples of things that would probably have to be sacrificed or at least altered if BW introduced an integrated co-op.  Also sniper and adrenaline rush time dilation.

[Revan Reborn]

I do not think Bioware style of narration would befit a multiplayer approach, in the core game. However it would be nice if their MP took a cue from that talent they have. I would be a lot more interested by MP if it was based around quests rather than boring hordes mode. A short story form if you will.

Again, I believe many are missing the point. This cooperative experience would not impact the story at all. This would merely allow players to team up with their friends in the large open world we'll be able to explore.

 

No, they'd have to work around the power menu. It's fine if a totally separate game mode opts for a smaller array of powers and disallows time freezing, but they'd be shooting themselves in the foot if they got rid of that in the main game.

 

I'm all for co-op, but the sacrifices necessary to support it are a bit too much.

 

 

Actually no, you'll find that doing two things together is often much harder than doing them separately. Spinning off an existing combat system into a MP horde mode would be trivial compared to integrating the two separate experiences. The game designers would have to scale difficulty correctly, figure out what to do with squad mates, determine who gets the conversation options, determine how co-op partners enter the game, etc.. Yes, some of these problems likely wouldn't be too hard to resolve (host takes all conversation options), but it won't all be a cake walk.

This isn't an issue. For single player it would still be there. For cooperative play, they could take the MP route of not freezing time. That's really not a big deal as BioWare has already done this. What sacrifices? You only mentioned one that was minor.

 

You are not understanding the cooperative experience I am suggesting then. Scaling wouldn't be an issue as they are already making use of this technology in DAI. Companions would remain for whoever the host of the cooperative experience is. The other player would merely be added or one of the companions could be removed. Have you played SWTOR? In the main story, party members are treated as spectators. They wouldn't have the ability to make a choice. My idea was that other players wouldn't be able to participate in main story quests at all, just exploration. This isn't difficult. It's certainly doable and BioWare has a lot of experience dealing with cooperative experiences in SWTOR, for example.

 

I find it hard to believe that there would be no impact on the SP experience.  ME3's MP was developed separately to the SP so it didn't affect the SP experience, other than the Galactic Readiness link and the ability to play the orignal MP maps as SP side missions.  The team that did the SP was able to focus on developing that without having to worry too much about issues that MP threw up.

 

If ME4 was to have co-op in the main campaign, every design decision (story, character dialogue, level layouts, powers, boss encounters, etc) would have to factor in the possibility of multiple players.  That would be a nightmare for a company that has built a reputation based on its characters, stories and player immersion and I just can't see how it could be done without sacrificing any aspect of the SP experience.

All I can do is show you the various games that have easily integrated a cooperative experience into an open world. In fact, Ubisoft Montreal, who made Far Cry 3, actually stated doing a cooperative experience part of the single player game rather than a separate one altogether was a lot easier and saved time. Why make multiple systems and not just one where everything fits together? I'm not seeing the issue.

 

I find it increasingly troubling how so many seem to fail to read the OP. The main campaign would be locked. It's not part of the cooperative experience. See Far Cry 4 and ACU as examples. Honestly, read the entirety of a post before you dismiss it when you make ill-informed comments. This isn't difficult or hard. Again, BioWare has years of experience with SWTOR. There are multiple ways they could approach this.

[RoboticWater]

This isn't an issue. For single player it would still be there. For cooperative play, they could take the MP route of not freezing time. That's really not a big deal as BioWare has already done this. What sacrifices? You only mentioned one that was minor.

You would effectively be loosing squad control and about half your powers. ME3 MP, if I recall correctly, had only 3 abilities (4 tops), the pause menu allows for many more than that for Shepard alone.

 

I guess they could technically switch back and forth between the two, but it'd be pretty jarring and squadmates would be almost useless, at least in a tactical sense (possibly even less if their AI isn't up to snuff).

 

You are not understanding the cooperative experience I am suggesting then. Scaling wouldn't be an issue as they are already making use of this technology in DAI. Companions would remain for whoever the host of the cooperative experience is. The other player would merely be added or one of the companions could be removed. Have you played SWTOR? In the main story, party members are treated as spectators. They wouldn't have the ability to make a choice. My idea was that other players wouldn't be able to participate in main story quests at all, just exploration. This isn't difficult. It's certainly doable and BioWare has a lot of experience dealing with cooperative experiences in SWTOR, for example.

Generally speaking, turning a singleplayer encounter into an MP encounter can be pretty difficult simply because of scripted events, tighter quarters, and other small game design problems, but if that's not going to be an issue then it'll work from an enemy design perspective. My concern now is if MENext has these "co-op zones," then it'll also have stuff like respawning enemies. Don't get me wrong, it works for a game like Borderlands, but for a game like Mass Effect I prefer a bit more finality. It just seems so "gamey" having respawning enemies, and integrated co-op for that matter. It'd be fun, but the game's atmosphere might suffer.

 

I'm not averse to the idea of having co-op missions on top (or in place) of horde mode, but just keep it separate from the main game.

[Revan Reborn]

You would effectively be loosing squad control and about half your powers. ME3 MP, if I recall correctly, had only 3 abilities (4 tops), the pause menu allows for many more than that for Shepard alone.

 

I guess they could technically switch back and forth between the two, but it'd be pretty jarring and squadmates would be almost useless, at least in a tactical sense (possibly more if their AI isn't up to snuff).

 

Generally speaking, turning a singleplayer encounter into an MP encounter can be pretty difficult simply because of scripted events, tighter quarters, and other small game design problems, but if that's not going to be an issue then it'll work from an enemy design perspective. My concern now is if MENext has these "co-op zones," then it'll also have stuff like respawning enemies. Don't get me wrong, it works for a game like Borderlands, but for a game like Mass Effect I prefer a bit more finality. It just seems so "gamey" having respawning enemies, and integrated co-op for that matter. It'd be fun, but the game's atmosphere might suffer.

 

I'm not averse to the idea of having co-op missions on top (or in place) of horde mode, but just keep it separate from the main game.

Companions have always been worthless in Mass Effect. Lets not be ridiculous. I beat all three games on Insanity and my companions died more than actually contribute. It was largely a one-man show and I don't expect companions will be anymore useful in MENExt.

 

Abilities would merely be altered just as they are in MP. Even better, BioWare could build abilities to be group-oriented so that both players benefit from Adrenaline Rush. This would add a whole new list of possibilities when it comes to combining abilities and sharing benefits.

 

Again, this cooperative experience isn't for main story missions. This would be for exploration in the open world. Look at Far Cry 4 as the best example of how this would be approached. It resolves many of the potential issues you believe could be a problem. MENext is also going to be an open world and will not be linear like the previous games, making space not an issue.

 

Sorry to tell you but enemies respawning are an element of open world games. Look at Dragon Age Inquisition. It's inevitable for MENext, whether there is a cooperative experience or not. How would the atmosphere suffer? Every open world game that has done coop right has been an absolute blast and only made the game that much better. I'm not seeing a downside here. Again, it's purely optional and will not impact the story.

 

No can do on your last point. You either have coop that is integrated with the main game or none at all. Look at Far Cry 3 for an example of a coop separate from the main game. Everybody hated it. You know why? They wanted to explore the main game with their friends, not some predetermined area for coop only. It wasn't the same game. Ubisoft Montreal fixed that mistake by giving us what we wanted, true coop in the main game. You either do coop the right way (as part of the main game) or not at all. There can't be compromises here.

[RoboticWater]

Companions have always been worthless in Mass Effect. Lets not be ridiculous. I beat all three games on Insanity and my companions died more than actually contribute. It was largely a one-man show and I don't expect companions will be anymore useful in MENExt.

Their AI might not be useful but their powers are, and even if they're not good killers, they're a great distraction. Besides, better squad AI/control is an area where MENext could easily improve. Flanking maneuvers, more squad specific powers (much like Kasumi's shadow strike), and more tactical options generally (like Republic Commando) would be a welcome addition.

 

Abilities would merely be altered just as they are in MP. Even better, BioWare could build abilities to be group-oriented so that both players benefit from Adrenaline Rush. This would add a whole new list of possibilities when it comes to combining abilities and sharing benefits. 

What the abilities do doesn't matter, how many you have does. If they get rid of the pause menu, they're restricting the player to fewer abilities, fewer guns, and less tactical breathing room.

 

I'm also a large advocate for the pause menu because I got my father and sister hooked on Mass Effect, and there's no way they could play without freezing time. That's more of a personal thing, but it is an element to consider.

 

Again, this cooperative experience isn't for main story missions. This would be for exploration in the open world. Look at Far Cry 4 as the best example of how this would be approached. It resolves many of the potential issues you believe could be a problem. MENext is also going to be an open world and will not be linear like the previous games, making space not an issue.

We have no clue what level of exploration the next ME game will have. Personally, I don't want just another open world game.

 

Sorry to tell you but enemies respawning are an element of open world games. Look at Dragon Age Inquisition. It's inevitable for MENext, whether there is a cooperative experience or not. How would the atmosphere suffer? Every open world game that has done coop right has been an absolute blast and only made the game that much better. I'm not seeing a downside here. Again, it's purely optional and will not impact the story.

DA:I went more open and now it's filled with a significant amount of pointless fetch quests. Obviously, there's no guarantee that this will happen in MENext, but it is a possibility. When the areas get bigger, quality starts to loose out to quantity and devs start to shove in gamey content. I'd rather avoid that scenario as much as I can. MENext can still have exploration, but preferably it'll be ME1 style: go in, investigate for a while, shoot some stuff, and leave. 

 

No can do on your last point. You either have coop that is integrated with the main game or none at all. Look at Far Cry 3 for an example of a coop separate from the main game. Everybody hated it. You know why? They wanted to explore the main game with their friends, not some predetermined area for coop only. It wasn't the same game. Ubisoft Montreal fixed that mistake by giving us what we wanted, true coop in the main game. You either do coop the right way (as part of the main game) or not at all. There can't be compromises here.

FC3's co-op had a lot of problems. Bullet sponge enemies, long shooting galleries, and other generally poor design decisions. The problem wasn't that it was linear compared to the main game, the problem was that it was restrictively linear. The same complaint is applied to FPSs all the time. Freedom doesn't need to be an open world, but an area with enough room to get creative.

 

Please, don't assume your opinion is the only correct one. There is no "right way" to implement co-op. obviously, there are tons of wrong ways to do it but as far as I can tell, having separate missions isn't one of them, just look at Left 4 Dead. All it needs to be is fun.

[Probe Away]

All I can do is show you the various games that have easily integrated a cooperative experience into an open world. In fact, Ubisoft Montreal, who made Far Cry 3, actually stated doing a cooperative experience part of the single player game rather than a separate one altogether was a lot easier and saved time. Why make multiple systems and not just one where everything fits together? I'm not seeing the issue.

I find it increasingly troubling how so many seem to fail to read the OP. The main campaign would be locked. It's not part of the cooperative experience. See Far Cry 4 and ACU as examples. Honestly, read the entirety of a post before you dismiss it when you make ill-informed comments. This isn't difficult or hard. Again, BioWare has years of experience with SWTOR. There are multiple ways they could approach this.

Seriously? There's no need to get all annoyed and accuse me of not reading your OP. I read your OP and - like others in this thread - I just don't think it would be a good idea, based on the nature of the game and the need to change certain mechanics to make the MP work in the same world as SP.

Comparing the likes of Far Cry and ACU to ME is apples and oranges. Despite the greater focus on combat (and eventually the MP) as the series progressed, the ME games were role playing games at heart. Playing your character your way, interacting with NPCs, building relationships with squadmates, making decisions that altered aspects of the story. People got so upset about the endings of ME3 because I the personal connection they had to their Shepard. I just don't think that is a setting conducive to an integrated MP, even if you keep the main mission off limits.

Not to mention that ME games are not 'open world' in the sense of FC or ACU, although maybe they will take a more open approach to ME4.

If you think that it would be a good idea to integrate MP into the same world then that's fine. I don't. I want a personal SP experience first and foremost, with a standalone MP as the sideshow.

[LisuPL]

IMO they could go with this:

 

- sidequest can be done in COOP

- main storyline quest remains SP exclusive, so that COOP doesn't ruin your feel of immersion towards your own playable character in the storyline.

 

MENext will be also about story and games like Borderlands 2/TPS show that random drop-in and drop-outs in COOP just become annoying, plus you need to rush with the entire group onward towards the objective, because nobody wants to experience the envoirement and locations (and dialogues!) again step-by-step once they already played them one or few times and if you are a new player/like the atmosphere of the game you are always pulled forward by the most inpatient member of the team.

 

Far Cry 4 includes this solution and ir seems to work quite well.

Main storyline remains personal, while side quests/tasks can be done in COOP for fun which in fact is there!

[Revan Reborn]

Their AI might not be useful but their powers are, and even if they're not good killers, they're a great distraction. Besides, better squad AI/control is an area where MENext could easily improve. Flanking maneuvers, more squad specific powers (much like Kasumi's shadow strike), and more tactical options generally (like Republic Commando) would be a welcome addition.

 

What the abilities do doesn't matter, how many you have does. If they get rid of the pause menu, they're restricting the player to fewer abilities, fewer guns, and less tactical breathing room.

 

I'm also a large advocate for the pause menu because I got my father and sister hooked on Mass Effect, and there's no way they could play without freezing time. That's more of a personal thing, but it is an element to consider.

 

We have no clue what level of exploration the next ME game will have. Personally, I don't want just another open world game.

 

DA:I went more open and now it's filled with a significant amount of pointless fetch quests. Obviously, there's no guarantee that this will happen in MENext, but it is a possibility. When the areas get bigger, quality starts to loose out to quantity and devs start to shove in gamey content. I'd rather avoid that scenario as much as I can. MENext can still have exploration, but preferably it'll be ME1 style: go in, investigate for a while, and leave. 

 

FC3's co-op had a lot of problems. Bullet sponge enemies, long shooting galleries, and other generally poor design decisions. The problem wasn't that it was linear compared to the main game, the problem was that it was restrictively linear. The same complaint is levied against FPSs all the time. Freedom doesn't need to be an open world, but an area with enough room to get creative.

 

Please, don't assume your opinion is the only correct one. There is no "right way" to implement co-op, there are tons of wrong ways to do it. As far as I can tell having separate missions isn't one of them, just look at Left 4 Dead. All it needs to be is fun.

Republic Commando is a great game, but Mass Effect is not that. I personally am fine with companions just being supplements with their powers, which is how I use them anyways. I'm not interested in BioWare attempting to turn Mass Effect into a party, tactical RPG like Dragon Age. I very much prefer its current play style, but I'm certainly not against improvements.

 

Are you playing on console? This is certainly not the case on PC. Also, I can't honestly say I used more abilities than I ever needed to. I played a soldier, so I was primarily sticking with a incendiary round while using adrenaline rush mainly. I can't say I was hitting other abilities besides revive. Perhaps some of the other classes require more buttons, but this is hardly an MMORPG with 50 skills on your UI. I think its manageable and could even lead to more variety and customization with characters if they were to limit how many skills you could slot.

 

We do have a clue. Were you not around when MENext was showcased at Comic Con? Or when BioWare talked about MENext duing N7 Day? Their message has been rather straightforward. They've essentially said the same two words over and over. Mako and exploration. The last time we saw those together was ME1, which did have open world exploration, albeit not very well done. MENext is going to rectify the mistakes and shortcomings of ME1.

 

Other evidence for why this is more of an open world experience? Look at Dragon Age Inquisition. Look at the Frostbite 3 Engine, which is built for open world games. Look at what BioWare has indicated as being the next generation of BioWare games (the answer is open world). Whether you like it or not, BioWare games are going to be getting a lot bigger, and DAI was merely the start. MENext will be the first true next gen title, and will be vastly more ambitious and likely larger in scale to DAI.

 

With the rapid, fast traversal of the Mako, that should also give you an indication of how large planets will need to be for rides to not be less than ten minutes. The Mako isn't a slow mount like in DAI. It's a fast and agile vehicle that is built for speed. Trust me, MENext is going to be huge. BioWare doesn't need to blatantly say it for that to be obvious. We have more than enough evidence and can use context clues to connect the dots.

 

I've personally enjoyed DAI quite a bit, but it's what you make of it. Honestly, this is BioWare's first attempt at a more open world RPG, and it was unlikely to be perfect. It's a solid foundation. BioWare can take cues from BGS, Rockstar, Avalanche, Volition, Ubisoft Montreal and other well-known open world developers to understand what works and what doesn't in an open world game. The key is emergent gameplay and not necessarily content. You keep the world unpredictable and make it feel alive and fresh every time, people will enjoy the experience for a much longer time.

 

FC3 failed because its coop was half-baked and the predator finishing moves were completely absent from the experience. The coop was nothing more than a mediocre lacking any point and creativity. Had the coop been in the main game to start, it would have been flawless. Ubisoft Montreal recognized this and resolved their previous mistake by doing what the community always wanted. Having the ability to play coop in the main game with a friend. That's the Far Cry experience. Not their second rate, separate multiplayer they insist on adding.

 

What I stated is I have seen separate coop experiences and integrated coop experiences. The latter is always better, whether it's Far Cry 4, ACU, Saint's Row, the experience is better executed. Every time games try to separate the cooperative experience (Watch_Dogs, GTA V, Far Cry 3, Doom 3) the final product generally is never as good as the main game and is always a disappointment. What makes an open world game stand out is the main experience. Why would you create an entirely separate experience from that? That's illogical. Feel free to name games that have done separate coop well. In my experiences it's integrated coop or none.

 

Left 4 Dead isn't even relevant as it's a purely multiplayer game. It was built to be cooperative because it's a terrible solo game with no story whatsoever. It only does one very specific thing well. Dead Space 3 is a much better example of a game that had phenomenal coop, but the main story suffered for solo play because the developers built the game with coop as the focus. I'm suggesting MENext should have coop as being optional, but not separate. Why is this so unreasonable for you?

 

Seriously? There's no need to get all annoyed and accuse me of not reading your OP. I read your OP and - like others in this thread - I just don't think it would be a good idea, based on the nature of the game and the need to change certain mechanics to make the MP work in the same world as SP.

Comparing the likes of Far Cry and ACU to ME is apples and oranges. Despite the greater focus on combat (and eventually the MP) as the series progressed, the ME games were role playing games at heart. Playing your character your way, interacting with NPCs, building relationships with squadmates, making decisions that altered aspects of the story. People got so upset about the endings of ME3 because I the personal connection they had to their Shepard. I just don't think that is a setting conducive to an integrated MP, even if you keep the main mission off limits.

Not to mention that ME games are not 'open world' in the sense of FC or ACU, although maybe they will take a more open approach to ME4.

If you think that it would be a good idea to integrate MP into the same world then that's fine. I don't. I want a personal SP experience first and foremost, with a standalone MP as the sideshow.

I told you the main story would be locked for cooperative play. You then responded that "This is a terrible idea because how would BioWare rectify the main story with coop." This tells me you did not read the OP. If you don't like me calling you out, then don't blatantly contradict an issue I have already addressed in the first post of the thread...

 

Nothing needs to be changed, with perhaps the exception of adrenaline rush and a few abilities that alter time. These other games are no different from Mass Effect with the exception of BioWare story. Again, this isn't merely as difficult as you claim it to be as BioWare has an MMO that rectifies a lot of your potential concerns. This isn't new to BioWare. The fact we are seeing a larger emphasis on multiplayer leads me to believe coop is inevitable in Mass Effect anyways. Many other open world games are starting to incorporate coop and it's only a matter of time before BioWare follows suit to remain competitive.

 

MENext will be more open world than any of the previous games. Feel free to read the response I made to the post above. BioWare has repeated said two worlds that confirm it will be a more open world experience. Feel free to watch the Comic Con presentation and their twitch video on N7 Day about what MENext will do differently from the original trilogy.

 

I don't believe I ever said the SP would be affected. On the contrary, I have said multiple times that it would not be. What I merely want to do is make a more meaningful cooperative experience that actually makes sense in a BioWare game, rather than a cheap knockoff of Firefight from Halo or Horde from Gears of War. I want BioWare to make a cooperative experience that makes sense for them. They've already largely done this with SWTOR. I do not see why that cannot translate into MENext and future BioWare titles. It's also a common trend that open world games are offering integrated coop as a standard now.

 

They don't have to worry about making an entirely separate game that requires more time and more resources. They instead build upon their amazing SP experience and add an optional cooperative experience for those who have been asking for it since KotOR. Not only does the SP remain unaffected because BioWare doesn't have to worry about a separate multiplayer, but the cooperative experience actually compliments BioWare's game approach and makes sense. I don't see why this is so unreasonable or hard to understand.

[Revan Reborn]

IMO they could go with this:

 

- sidequest can be done in COOP

- main storyline quest remains SP exclusive, so that COOP doesn't ruin your feel of immersion towards your own playable character in the storyline.

 

MENext will be also about story and games like Borderlands 2/TPS show that random drop-in and drop-outs in COOP just become annoying, plus you need to rush with the entire group onward towards the objective, because nobody wants to experience the envoirement and locations (and dialogues!) again step-by-step once they already played them one or few times and if you are a new player/like the atmosphere of the game you are always pulled forward by the most inpatient member of the team.

 

Far Cry 4 includes this solution and ir seems to work quite well.

Main storyline remains personal, while side quests/tasks can be done in COOP for fun which in fact is there!

This is exactly how I envision it. The main storyline is locked. Only side quests and the open world to explore will be available. BioWare can create all sorts of opportunities and fill the worlds with activities to give people plenty to do with friends. You could also prevent people from just randomly popping in by having to actually invite someone into your game. I doubt many would be rushing through any story aspects as most people that generally buy a BioWare game like the dialogue, I would assume.

 

Far Cry 4 really is the best solution for MENext, I believe. You can play by yourself and enjoy the main story or call a buddy in and take down fortresses or get into other trouble around Kyrat. I only see a positive benefit to this kind of cooperative experience. It would certainly be much more enticing and have a lot more replay value than BioWare's current approach with ME3 and DAI. They also wouldn't have to worry about allocating resources to make multiplayer DLC packs and then recoup the losses via microtransactions. All of the content for an integrated coop would already be in the experience and BioWare could focus on story DLC, the only kind people really care about in BioWare games.

[RoboticWater]

Republic Commando is a great game, but Mass Effect is not that. I personally am fine with companions just being supplements with their powers, which is how I use them anyways. I'm not interested in BioWare attempting to turn Mass Effect into a party, tactical RPG like Dragon Age. I very much prefer its current play style, but I'm certainly not against improvements.

And FC4 is a great game, but Mass Effect isn't that. We clearly want different things out of the franchise. I don't expect (or even want) Mass Effect to turn into a full on tactical RPG, but I think it would be incredibly beneficial if resources went to improving party dynamics, especially for a series, nay developer, known for their supporting crews.

 

Are you playing on console? This is certainly not the case on PC. Also, I can't honestly say I used more abilities than I ever needed to. I played a soldier, so I was primarily sticking with a incendiary round while using adrenaline rush mainly. I can't say I was hitting other abilities besides revive. Perhaps some of the other classes require more buttons, but this is hardly an MMORPG with 50 skills on your UI. I think its manageable and could even lead to more variety and customization with characters if they were to limit how many skills you could slot.

Well, obviously you would use less abilities if you played as the soldier. That's the point of the class. As a guy who plays Adept and Vanguard, the pause menu is is necessary. And yes, I play on xbox. 

 

I'm not asking for 50 abilities, I'm just asking for more than 3. I think that's more than reasonable. ME3's MP was fast-paced fun but it lacked depth. In a singleplayer environment, I don't think it could hold up. 

 

Personally, the addition of co-op is not nearly enough justification for removing one of Mass Effect's staple gameplay elements. The pause menu and the kind of tactical play it enables makes Mass Effect more accessible, more distinct from your average TPS, and IMO simply more fun.

 

We do have a clue. Were you not around when MENext was showcased at Comic Con? Or when BioWare talked about MENext duing N7 Day? Their message has been rather straightforward. They've essentially said the same two words over and over. Mako and exploration. The last time we saw those together was ME1, which did have open world exploration, albeit not very well done. MENext is going to rectify the mistakes and shortcomings of ME1.

 

Other evidence for why this is more of an open world experience? Look at Dragon Age Inquisition. Look at the Frostbite 3 Engine, which is built for open world games. Look at what BioWare has indicated as being the next generation of BioWare games (the answer is open world). Whether you like it or not, BioWare games are going to be getting a lot bigger, and DAI was merely the start. MENext will be the first true next gen title, and will be vastly more ambitious and likely larger in scale to DAI.

 

With the rapid, fast traversal of the Mako, that should also give you an indication of how large planets will need to be for rides to not be less than ten minutes. The Mako isn't a slow mount like in DAI. It's a fast and agile vehicle that is built for speed. Trust me, MENext is going to be huge. BioWare doesn't need to blatantly say it for that to be obvious. We have more than enough evidence and can use context clues to connect the dots.

They've said there will be a greater emphasis on exploration. They've shown off the Mako. I totally agree that there will be more open environments in MENext, but saying it will be "open world" is jumping to conclusions. You may very well be right, but I'll wait for confirmation.

 

I've personally enjoyed DAI quite a bit, but it's what you make of it. Honestly, this is BioWare's first attempt at a more open world RPG, and it was unlikely to be perfect. It's a solid foundation. BioWare can take cues from BGS, Rockstar, Avalanche, Volition, Ubisoft Montreal and other well-known open world developers to understand what works and what doesn't in an open world game. The key is emergent gameplay and not necessarily content. You keep the world unpredictable and make it feel alive and fresh every time, people will enjoy the experience for a much longer time.

Open worlds are great but like every other genre, they have their place. To me, Mass Effect isn't an emergent gameplay kind of game, it's a heavily controlled experience, and that's what makes it good. I like player agency as much as the next guy, but I still love my polished, guided experiences.

 

While I enjoy the fun times I make for myself in FC3's wilderness or Fallout's desert, I prefer the carefully crafted traps of Ravenholm and the wonderfully told story in Bioshock. It might not be a fresh experience any time I go in, but it's so much more fun. Longer lasting doesn't always mean better.

 

Also, I'd prefer Bioware keep a safe distance from Ubisoft. The last thing we need is another Ubisoft Open World Game^TM. I'm sick of the towers and the collectibles. Bioware, if you're going open world, be original about it.

 

What I stated is I have seen separate coop experiences and integrated coop experiences. The latter is always better, whether it's Far Cry 4, ACU, Saint's Row, the experience is better executed. Every time games try to separate the cooperative experience (Watch_Dogs, GTA V, Far Cry 3, Doom 3) the final product generally is never as good as the main game and is always a disappointment. What makes an open world game stand out is the main experience. Why would you create an entirely separate experience from that? That's illogical. Feel free to name games that have done separate coop well. In my experiences it's integrated coop or none.

I don't think that's because "separate co-op can't work in games." I think it's because developers spend most of their time making the singleplayer and then tack on the co-op to tick a box labeled "multiplayer". They weren't fun because they weren't fun. That's just it . Look, a dev could tack on some random card game outside the main game and I doubt anyone would complain if it was fun. They might be a bit confused though.

 

You would separate the two quite logically because they're separate experiences. ME3's MP was fundamentally different from the main game, so the developers kept it separate. It wasn't tacked on, it was just different.

 

Left 4 Dead isn't even relevant as it's a purely multiplayer game. It was built to be cooperative because it's a terrible solo game with no story whatsoever. It only does one very specific thing well. Dead Space 3 is a much better example of a game that had phenomenal coop, but the main story suffered for solo play because the developers built the game with coop as the focus. I'm suggesting MENext should have coop as being optional, but not separate. Why is this so unreasonable for you?

It's unreasonable because Mass Effect would have to make just as many, if not more compromises in order to get co-op to work in the main game. The story might not have to suffer but as I've said, the gameplay most certainly will.

Modifié par RoboticWater, 24 novembre 2014 - 08:59 .

[Probe Away]

I told you the main story would be locked for cooperative play. You then responded that "This is a terrible idea because how would BioWare rectify the main story with coop." This tells me you did not read the OP. If you don't like me calling you out, then don't blatantly contradict an issue I have already addressed in the first post of the thread...

Nothing needs to be changed, with perhaps the exception of adrenaline rush and a few abilities that alter time. These other games are no different from Mass Effect with the exception of BioWare story. Again, this isn't merely as difficult as you claim it to be as BioWare has an MMO that rectifies a lot of your potential concerns. This isn't new to BioWare. The fact we are seeing a larger emphasis on multiplayer leads me to believe coop is inevitable in Mass Effect anyways. Many other open world games are starting to incorporate coop and it's only a matter of time before BioWare follows suit to remain competitive.

MENext will be more open world than any of the previous games. Feel free to read the response I made to the post above. BioWare has repeated said two worlds that confirm it will be a more open world experience. Feel free to watch the Comic Con presentation and their twitch video on N7 Day about what MENext will do differently from the original trilogy.

I don't believe I ever said the SP would be affected. On the contrary, I have said multiple times that it would not be. What I merely want to do is make a more meaningful cooperative experience that actually makes sense in a BioWare game, rather than a cheap knockoff of Firefight from Halo or Horde from Gears of War. I want BioWare to make a cooperative experience that makes sense for them. They've already largely done this with SWTOR. I do not see why that cannot translate into MENext and future BioWare titles. It's also a common trend that open world games are offering integrated coop as a standard now.

They don't have to worry about making an entirely separate game that requires more time and more resources. They instead build upon their amazing SP experience and add an optional cooperative experience for those who have been asking for it since KotOR. Not only does the SP remain unaffected because BioWare doesn't have to worry about a separate multiplayer, but the cooperative experience actually compliments BioWare's game approach and makes sense. I don't see why this is so unreasonable or hard to understand.

No, I said 'if ME4 was to have co-op in the main campaign...' talking about the whole SP campaign, as opposed to one quest line. Admittedly I could have used clearer wording but there's no reason to get do uptight about me disagreeing with you. This is a forum, after all.

I've listened to the N7 Day discussion and earlier (very limited) info, and I don't necessarily think 'greater exploration' equates to a true open word experience, but I guess we'll have to wait and see.

Clearly I'm not the only one who thinks trying to integrate the MP into the SP game is a bad direction to go, just as you're clearly happy for them to take a risk and run with it. But the butthurt over the ME3 endings will be nothing compared to the fallout if there is any hint that creating an MP experience has altered the SP gameplay, even in small ways that seem to be acceptable to you.

ME was designed as a personal, character driven experience, which just isn't the case for any of the games you've listed as examples. That just doesn't sit well with the idea of an integrated MP even if the mechanics are somehow still similar. In that sense, the co-op experience definitely does NOT compliment BW's approach.

[Nitrocuban]

ME4 has to have an epic storydriven SP with detailed characters and stuff, that's what 99.9% of the players wantand expect  ME(SP) to be.

A separate  MP like in ME3 is great, too, and extends the ME experience far beyond SP. So pls BW, can we has MP for ME4?

 

If BW also adds an option to let friends join an ongoing SP game as squadmates, I'd say why not? But that's really way down on the "must have" list and should only be done if it does not take away too much dev time from the rest of the game.

[wiyazzie]

i actually wouldn't mind if the next ME game had coop similar to ACU or FC4 because i always wanted to play along with friends but like many others have said, if they are going to add in CO-OP its going to be very criticle to get it right because its going to be crucified if they don't.

[TruthSerum]

Double post

[TruthSerum]

OP fails to understand that ME3 has one of the greatest co op modes in the history of mankind.

ME3 mp has an incredibly dedicated fanbase that to this very day still fills up servers 24/7, 365 days a year. This is from a game that was released in the early part of 2012.

OP's handwaving away of the fact that ME3 mp is one of the best things in gaming rings hollow because there are TON of people (on this very website even, a simple look over in the mp forum will bear this out) that will stongly disagree OP's opinion.

OP even mentioned a few other horde mode type games and compared them to ME3 mp. If one truly spends some time playing ME3 mp, enough to learn some of the ins and outs and get familiar with the different classes/ maps/weapons/powers/enemies and objectives that player would know that there is NOTHING out there like ME3mp....nothing.

My point is the way the mp is set up right now is fine and all BW needs to do is refine it further while adding a few new features to keep their current success with mp gameplay going into ME4.