202 réponses à ce sujet

[dreamgazer]

Just do the same thing in MENext that was done in ME3, sans breath scene: separate battles against the game's factions that take place in the unseen spaces of the narrative. It's inevitable that MP will be there, of course, but let's keep the experiences entirely separate and not Ubisoft it up. 

[RatThing]

I sincerely hope you're joking.

 

I'll leave you to guess.

[Helios969]

NO!

 

MP shouldn't touch a d@mn thing in SP.  Not one quest, not one scene, not one line of dialogue!  DAI at least manages that much.  Though their obnoxious ads for it in the main menu are still bothersome.

Eh, I'm not really for or against it.  My only beef with ME3MP was needing it pre-EC to get the best (or least worst) ending.  I understand the devs desire to encourage more MP participation so it was thought as a possible way.  Make it a DLC then.  If you don't want to play MP you can pay the standard 15$ or play X number of hours of MP to unlock it.  Seems like a fair compromise.

[goishen]

I sincerely hope you're joking. That's one of the worst things I can think of for ME:Next.

 

 

That's one of the worst things for gaming in general.

 

Forget about ME:N.  

[DanishViking]

Op if you dont enjoy Mulitplayer then listen to this, 

DON'T PLAY IT !

[camphor]

Op if you dont enjoy Mulitplayer then listen to this, 

DON'T PLAY IT !

Ok so i totally get the OPs want and believe that the sentiment is true you get a budget multiplayer will inevitably take part of that budget. I actually agree with him/her that the game would personally be more enjoyable if all that budget went singleplayer (i haven't played a multiplayer game over the internet with exception of everquest/everquest 2 and unreal tournament, i have no interest in it, just personal preference) 

 

HOWEVER 

 

1. business wise it would make 0 sense in today's gaming atmosphere

2. it wont happen 0% chance of there not being MP it simply will not happen would bet my genitals on it

3. I think all threads asking bioware to do something should have to put in the post how it would be financially a good decision because that is the only possible post that could actually make a difference to bioware or any dev but i know that wont happen either

 

the best possible outcome is that MP has 0 effect on SP expecting or even hoping for more then that is an asinine fever dream

there is a small but substantial group of people who will not buy a game if there is no mp there is few if any who wont buy a game because it has mp

[DanishViking]

Of course it will have multiplayer mass effect 3 had it dragon age I had it so 

im like 100% sure this will have it to and if people dont like it then why make hate threads about it ? 

just dont freaking play it. it's that simple!

[Kurt M.]

So, in short:

 

"I don't like MP so I ask you to remove it....and **ck all those who loves it".

[ZoliCs]

Ok so i totally get the OPs want and believe that the sentiment is true you get a budget multiplayer will inevitably take part of that budget. I actually agree with him/her that the game would personally be more enjoyable if all that budget went singleplayer

 

Just stop, pls.

[They call me a SpaceCowboy]

I honestly doubt we'll see a Bioware game without MP from Now on. Hopefully they'll follow DAI in regards of making it separate from SP.
As for its value, while I don't Personally care much about it many people enjoyed it (in ME3 at least. I have no clue about DAI).

 

Actually the MP in DAI was much worse in affecting the SP experience. Instead of a party based combat system like in the previous games, we ended up with 'action mode' with it's limited number of abilities because that's how they designed multiplayer and didn't want to develop 2 separate combat systems.

[GreatBlueHeron]

*sigh*

And this is why we can't have nice things. Those who didn't play me3mp--sadly, you missed out on some excellent gameplay. As someone mentioned earlier, no doubt the data they collected from me3mp will be used to improve already awesome gameplay for the next me. I fail to see how this is a bad thing. When you go to a buffet, you aren't forced to take some of everything offered. Just skip what you don't like. Plenty of people do that with side missions in sp. Would it be fair of them to say to you "well, sp side missions are useless and if I don't have to play them, I skip them. It shouldn't be in the game at all." ?

[Cheviot]

Actually the MP in DAI was much worse in affecting the SP experience. Instead of a party based combat system like in the previous games, we ended up with 'action mode' with it's limited number of abilities because that's how they designed multiplayer and didn't want to develop 2 separate combat systems.

Are you sure you actually played DAI?  I only ask because the combat was party-based, which you're saying it wasn't.  If anything, the soft limit on abilities made the game more party-based than previous games.

[GreatBlueHeron]

Actually the MP in DAI was much worse in affecting the SP experience. Instead of a party based combat system like in the previous games, we ended up with 'action mode' with it's limited number of abilities because that's how they designed multiplayer and didn't want to develop 2 sep6arate combat systems.

MP isn't to blame for that. That was Bioware's mistake. There is no weapon or abilities wheel in me3mp, yet it exists for sp. They should have made all unlocked abilities available in dai. For unknown reasons, we have simplified gameplay. If I had to wager a guess, it would be for more mass appeal, not because of mp.

[They call me a SpaceCowboy]

Are you sure you actually played DAI?  I only ask because the combat was party-based, which you're saying it wasn't.  If anything, the soft limit on abilities made the game more party-based than previous games.

 

Can you control each individual member of your party solely in action mode? No, you can't. And yes, I played it.

 

MP isn't to blame for that. That was Bioware's mistake. There is no weapon or abilities wheel in me3mp, yet it exists for sp. They should have made all unlocked abilities available in dai. For unknown reasons, we have simplified gameplay. If I had to wager a guess, it would be for more mass appeal, not because of mp.

 

They wanted action combat, few abilities means faster reactions. Perfect for MP. It's a chicken or egg thing I suppose.

 

Here's what I meant by SP combat being affected by MP (disreagarding the chicken or egg question)

 

ME-SP Run around killing stuff with various weapons and a small set of abilities, only one character controlled

 

ME-MP Run around killing stuff with various weapons and a small set of abilities. Onlly one character controlled. Identical gameplay to SP, no change there.

 

DAO/DA2: Run around killing things with a large variety of weapons. Control a party of 4, swapping characters whenever you want, assigning actions and positioning and moving on to the next. Party members retain the instructions even when you swap to another character.

 

DAI-SP: Run around killing stuff with limited weapon choices and a small set of abilities. Can swap characters but if you do so, the previous character ignores whatever action you assigned it. You are essentially controlling one character at a time, unless you use the tac cam mode exclusively in combat. ((And I'm not a fan of the DAI tac cam)

 

DAI-MP: Run around killing stuff with limited weapon choices and a small set of abilities. Only one character controlled. No tac cam.

 

 

it sounds to me like the DAI SP action mode is MP combat.

 

Note ME multiplayer plays like SP always has, which isn't an issue.

 

EDIT I missed your comment about MESP having the weapon and skill selection , while MP doesn't. Sorry, didn't realize that.

[GreatBlueHeron]

Yeah, they shouldn't have taken options out of dai sp. I'm not happy about it. They should have done what they did for me3mp--make it simple for mp, keep it complex for sp. I miss the "gambits" system of origins and 2, but that's a whole other can of worms.

[Maniccc]

But...the ME3 MP was by far the best part....

[camphor]

 

Just stop, pls.

i am guessing you have never budgeted any large project or business ever so i forgive your ignorance, your right that they get a budget for several different aspects of the game but if you believe that you stick hard to were things were originally set your flat out wrong and reading to much PR. if multiplayer budget starts running thin you take from whatever funds possible to make it work this is an industry that plans terribly were crunch, deadlines, budget concerns and release dates. are a problem for every single game. the fact is in every business in the world there is one undeniable fact

 

Things often look one way on paper and work a totally different way in practice and the people inside the industry (any industry) rather not explain the hectic anarchy that takes place because it looks bad to investors but all business on some level is hectic anarchy reigned in only by the employees not the employers

 

a good example is you have 3000 dollars to build a small room you budget it so you have 1000 in lumber 1000 in wages and 1000 in paint drywall etc if the room must be built with 3000 dollars you don't spent 1500 on lumber then ask for more money you buy cheaper paint or hire lower waged employees. (obviously the numbers arnt accurate)

 

 

edit: once again want to reiterate just because i want something do not mean i expect it nor think its the proper decision for bio-ware to make

[Emissary of the Collectors]

Since i havnt noticed anyone mention it in my scrolling: ME3MP's content was free because people payed the micro-transactions which funded all the DLC for it. So since it was enjoyable enough to warrant players paying for RNG packs they took the small thing they started with and expanded it a long way successfully. I still play ME3MP every day, i dont play ME3SP almost ever (i do still pop into ME1 and ME2 sometimes however). To even consider cutting out the longest-lasting part of ME3 from every subsequent ME game is just ridiculous and foolish. My only take-away is that the next games likely wont contain any of the specific awesomeness of ME3's MP (like playable Geth, Cerberus weapons, those awesome maps, etc) if they really do go to a new universe or whatever the rumor was...oh well

[RoboticWater]

i am guessing you have never budgeted any large project or business ever so i forgive your ignorance, your right that they get a budget for several different aspects of the game but if you believe that you stick hard to were things were originally set your flat out wrong and reading to much PR. if multiplayer budget starts running thin you take from whatever funds possible to make it work this is an industry that plans terribly were crunch, deadlines, budget concerns and release dates. are a problem for every single game. the fact is in every business in the world there is one undeniable fact

 

Things often look one way on paper and work a totally different way in practice and the people inside the industry (any industry) rather not explain the hectic anarchy that takes place because it looks bad to investors but all business on some level is hectic anarchy reigned in only by the employees not the employers

 

a good example is you have 3000 dollars to build a small room you budget it so you have 1000 in lumber 1000 in wages and 1000 in paint drywall etc if the room must be built with 3000 dollars you don't spent 1500 on lumber then ask for more money you buy cheaper paint or hire lower waged employees. (obviously the numbers arnt accurate)

 

 

edit: once again want to reiterate just because i want something do not mean i expect it nor think its the proper decision for bio-ware to make

Your anecdote is correct, but not in the context of the games industry (or any large entertainment industry, really).

 

EA doesn't come to BioWare saying "we will give you 100 million dollars to make a game, go crazy." BioWare goes to EA with a proposal and probably an initial asking price for their funding. The EA execs then decide how much money they think is worth investing in BioWare's proposal and then write their check (there's probably some negotiation in the middle, but the end result is the same).

 

So, if BIoWare came to EA with a singleplayer only proposal, they would receive less money, because EA wouldn't be willing to give the same amount of cash for a SP only project as they would for a SP/MP project. EA only wants to make the cheapest acceptable game that will please their customers and make them a profit.  It's easy to see that there are diminishing returns to giving more funding to a singe player experience; players either don't care or are intimidated by too much depth or length (there's a reason why most gamers never actually beat their games). So EA has no incentive to invest a singleplayer game beyond a certain point no matter how fantastic the extra cash would be.

 

Multiplayer, on the other hand, is an addition EA would be completely willing to pay for, as it tends to have far less diminishing returns and is a perfect opening for microtransactions and extra profit. EA would likely fund each project individually, ensuring each lives up to their potential while being huge expenditures.

[goishen]

a good example is you have 3000 dollars to build a small room you budget it so you have 1000 in lumber 1000 in wages and 1000 in paint drywall etc if the room must be built with 3000 dollars you don't spent 1500 on lumber then ask for more money you buy cheaper paint or hire lower waged employees. (obviously the numbers arnt accurate)

 

 

 

K, let's take this example.   If we had an architect, he could draw us the room, scale it down, and make it good.  Well, multiplayer is kind'a the same way.  They test out the mobs in multiplayer before they go into single player.  It's kind'a like a scaled down version of said room.

[Ambivalent]

"I don't want more content please!!"

 

I think that MP and SP should be totally seperated. No war assets from MP or no "unlocks by playing SP" in MP etc. but that's all i can support.

 

Just don't force people to play SP to have fun in MP and vice versa.

[camphor]

Your anecdote is correct, but not in the context of the games industry (or any large entertainment industry, really).

 

EA doesn't come to BioWare saying "we will give you 100 million dollars to make a game, go crazy." BioWare goes to EA with a proposal and probably an initial asking price for their funding. The EA execs then decide how much money they think is worth investing in BioWare's proposal and then write their check (there's probably some negotiation in the middle, but the end result is the same).

 

So, if BIoWare came to EA with a singleplayer only proposal, they would receive less money, because EA wouldn't be willing to give the same amount of cash for a SP only project as they would for a SP/MP project. EA only wants to make the cheapest acceptable game that will please their customers and make them a profit.  It's easy to see that there are diminishing returns to giving more funding to a singe player experience; players either don't care or are intimidated by too much depth or length (there's a reason why most gamers never actually beat their games). So EA has no incentive to invest a singleplayer game beyond a certain point no matter how fantastic the extra cash would be.

 

Multiplayer, on the other hand, is an addition EA would be completely willing to pay for, as it tends to have far less diminishing returns and is a perfect opening for microtransactions and extra profit. EA would likely fund each project individually, ensuring each lives up to their potential while being huge expenditures.

totally agree but just saying just because multiplayer has its own budget doesent mean funds wont be allocated from a d somewere else if the money isnt enough but really i will just bow out because not having MP has exsacally the same chance of happening as bioware inventing time travel and releasing me4 in 1989

[Chobbly]

"I don't want more content please!!"

 

I think that MP and SP should be totally seperated. No war assets from MP or no "unlocks by playing SP" in MP etc. but that's all i can support.

 

Just don't force people to play SP to have fun in MP and vice versa.

 

I don't think they should be separated. I think you should have a choice.

 

When you start a game of ME4, you could be presented with a choice: 'Allow MP to affect SP experience?'.

• If you pick 'No', then the game and settings, thresholds etc are tailored to be SP only. MP is still 100% playable but no benefits transfer.
• If you pick 'Yes', then the game and settings, thresholds etc include small elements of the MP proposition in the SP experience.

If this had been ME3, then the readiness scores etc would have been lower if you had flagged it as SP only, and higher if you opted to include the MP segment. Both approaches valid and catered for.

[The Invader]

you are naive if you think it is free. Resources are allocated for the MP where these resources should have been spent on improving SP. and the recommended retail price has taken account to this 'resource'.
 
so NO, conc on the SP and if people like the MP so much, they can create another game for it. we might even get it at $10 cheaper.

If that was the case my SP only games( Dishonored, Skyrim, Deus Ex )would be cheaper, but they aren't. So no, it seems your argument holds little to no merit whatsoever and is based entirely on opinion.

[Helios969]

That was then. This is now. Besides all those games sucked.