*** Mass Effect 3 ***
- Thread starter Deific
- Start date
Soldato
Simple answer is to stop crying and just play it single player.
Associate
Yeah you're right no game that's ever had the same levels for single player and co-op has ever been popular
Yeah I realise plenty shooters and Diablo series would count as such. Thing is ME is neither (or rather WAS neither - that may have changed) just a regular shooter, nor a randomly generated world rife for looting and monster bashing.
People argued that co-op is introduced to extend the longevity of the game. Call me weird but I don't find fun in playing something time and time again. Guess that is a truly COD folks oriented feature?
Still leaves me feeling I wish they'd just invest more time into developing the single player campaign instead (getting stuff like making sure decisions made in previous games actually count for something big rather than having cosmetic effects at best).
Soldato
I really don't see all the fuss, if you don't like it don't play it and just play the SP, it's totally a complement to the game, not a requirement.
Why do people always say "I'd rather they spent more time on..."
How do you know what the developers do? Maybe they hired more people, maybe they are experienced enough now to churn out a 3rd game quicker with more, maybe they just had the time?
There are countless game which I wish had coop, games like this in which the fanboys always hate and shout, scream and cry but I think it's just the wrong behaviour, you're not forced in to it.
I've played RPGS over half my life but even back then as a little kid I always, always wish I had the option to play with a friend, they are such immense and amazing worlds to explore solo but would be more fun partnered up.
But the key word is option, I still want singleplayer to take the main stage, I still want to be able to play at my own pace and under my own choices. But the other times I wish I could just do it with a friends, because I know a few people who'd just sit there with me for 10 hours at a time dungeon crawling or something.
Sure ME doesn't really have the "expansive exploration" or "dungeons" but I'm talking RPGs generally. Even if it was an afterthought.
It's amusing to see how shocked people get when I say I wish the Elder Scrolls series had it as an option..*echo* as an option..... even if it was a third party mod. They can't think past blind rage and fury to think how it could work and start listed unintelligible drivel about "NUHH BUT HOW WOULD TALKING TO NPCS WORK OR ANYTHING" like it hasn't been done before.
I mean who the **** are they to think that? Why their way and not cater to both?
"Muuh the series has always been SP!" Yeah and times move on and technology advances, some of these studios do have more money now than back from then to do it.
But after all my explaining they always seem to forget that I do am a die hard fan of the SP content and never want that to change, I just want an optional addition.
So get over yourselves.
Why do people always say "I'd rather they spent more time on..."
How do you know what the developers do? Maybe they hired more people, maybe they are experienced enough now to churn out a 3rd game quicker with more, maybe they just had the time?
There are countless game which I wish had coop, games like this in which the fanboys always hate and shout, scream and cry but I think it's just the wrong behaviour, you're not forced in to it.
I've played RPGS over half my life but even back then as a little kid I always, always wish I had the option to play with a friend, they are such immense and amazing worlds to explore solo but would be more fun partnered up.
But the key word is option, I still want singleplayer to take the main stage, I still want to be able to play at my own pace and under my own choices. But the other times I wish I could just do it with a friends, because I know a few people who'd just sit there with me for 10 hours at a time dungeon crawling or something.
Sure ME doesn't really have the "expansive exploration" or "dungeons" but I'm talking RPGs generally. Even if it was an afterthought.
It's amusing to see how shocked people get when I say I wish the Elder Scrolls series had it as an option..*echo* as an option..... even if it was a third party mod. They can't think past blind rage and fury to think how it could work and start listed unintelligible drivel about "NUHH BUT HOW WOULD TALKING TO NPCS WORK OR ANYTHING" like it hasn't been done before.
I mean who the **** are they to think that? Why their way and not cater to both?
"Muuh the series has always been SP!" Yeah and times move on and technology advances, some of these studios do have more money now than back from then to do it.
But after all my explaining they always seem to forget that I do am a die hard fan of the SP content and never want that to change, I just want an optional addition.
So get over yourselves.
^
Resources get allocated to multiplayer - those resources could have gone into improving the single player experience. None of this, "perhaps they had enough people already / spare time" bs. Because they can always improve on the single player, with more side missions etc.
Multiplayer has no place in a game that is supposed to deliver a stellar single player story experience, because it will always be tacked on. If you don't need to do it, then it's not important enough to impact the story, so is a pointless addition in a story driven game. It also makes the game disjointed with how little impact it will likely have on the story, going from the immersion of single player, to "yeh lets fight our way through hordes of enemies with a friend" multiplayer - because the story has to be given a backseat when co-op comes into play.
It's just completely unnecessary, and absolutely 100% will have taken development away from the single player - even if they had pretty much finished the single player, they could have put that time into extra content for it, which almost everyone would have preferred.
Resources get allocated to multiplayer - those resources could have gone into improving the single player experience. None of this, "perhaps they had enough people already / spare time" bs. Because they can always improve on the single player, with more side missions etc.
Multiplayer has no place in a game that is supposed to deliver a stellar single player story experience, because it will always be tacked on. If you don't need to do it, then it's not important enough to impact the story, so is a pointless addition in a story driven game. It also makes the game disjointed with how little impact it will likely have on the story, going from the immersion of single player, to "yeh lets fight our way through hordes of enemies with a friend" multiplayer - because the story has to be given a backseat when co-op comes into play.
It's just completely unnecessary, and absolutely 100% will have taken development away from the single player - even if they had pretty much finished the single player, they could have put that time into extra content for it, which almost everyone would have preferred.
Soldato
Absolutely 100% will have?
You're full of it, you know as much as I do and just want to whine.
Maybe they don't want extra content, maybe they reached their target, it has to reach a limit, many games are able to do it.
You make it sound like it's an impossible task to do both.
But you're part of the group that forgets you don't have to play it, don't play it and save your whinging.
You're full of it, you know as much as I do and just want to whine.
Maybe they don't want extra content, maybe they reached their target, it has to reach a limit, many games are able to do it.
You make it sound like it's an impossible task to do both.
But you're part of the group that forgets you don't have to play it, don't play it and save your whinging.
Soldato
I hope they don't rip the gamepad support out of this one again.
Yes, absolutely will have. It requires artists for concept, lead designers and producers to oversee it, testing to ensure it works - this takes manpower away from singleplayer. To say, "Maybe they don't want extra content, maybe they reached their target, it has to reach a limit" is just ridiculous. The players want extra content, no doubt we'll be sold a ton of it after release, so no that has nothing to do with it - they simply want to pull in the cod generation with multiplayer, which they've said numerous times themselves. The fact that i don't have to play it plays no part in the discussion, because it's removed attention from the parts that I will play and could have been improved.
Soldato
Do you outright know if they hired more staff or not?
Edit: Of course they have two previous games worth of resources to use, they're not starting from scratch, they have models/textures/sounds/animations to reuse, no doubt there are improvements and advances but it's not a whole new game. The effort spent on ME1 the ME2 would have had to have been different, they can concentrate more on other directions and spread it out.
But you seem to be on this one track that it's impossible to do both, like if they spend time on MP, SP will suffur.
Why? Are you living in a world where both can't be done?
Last edited:
Soldato
See my edit, also my argument is that you think you're right with no hard facts, I'm simply airing possibilities and telling you to harden the **** up over a computer game, it's pointless crying over something that could be pretty awesome. But I guess it means that much to you, so I'll stop.
Plenty of games do both and do both well. However, this is a game that doesn't need both and the second adds little value to the original concept of the core game - a deeply immersive role play experience. It's intended to draw in the cod market and as such, is created for the purpose of generating profit, rather than taking an original concept and creating a better concept experience. The multiplayer is essentially a cash-in on a market that's appealing to them, this is no secret as it's from their own mouths.
Soldato
You heard it here guys, multiplayer is for the cod market.
Because there's no possible other reason for multiplayer to exist!
Because there's no possible other reason for multiplayer to exist!
You live in jersey, point moot.
Soldato
That's always a good place to take a discussion, non sequitur logic! ;d
Associate
'On May 3, 2011, IGN announced that Mass Effect 3 would be presented and demoed by Electronic Arts at the 2011 Electronic Entertainment Expo. The next day, BioWare announced that the game's release date had been pushed back to early 2012, in part so it could be tweaked to appeal to as wide a market as possible.'
The Kinect feature was already implemented at E3 (and would itself have required a fair amount of resources during development) and the only other feature announced since then was multiplayer. So, uhm, yeah multi is there specifically to draw in the cod market. You said yourself that ME isn't necessarily poised for multi approach with regards to its storyline, a sentiment shared by a lot of ME fans I reckon.
We also have heard in the past how 'Bioware have gotten better at developing games and so it takes them less time to bring in sequels'. This was said prior to DA2 release. My only hope stems from the fact they took in a lot of the flak they were given for the hasty release of DA2, so MAYBE the mistakes won't be repeated.