mass effect 3 multiplayer

Am 10/13/11 4:10 PM, schrieb Werner Punz:
> Am 10/13/11 9:05 AM, schrieb sillyputty:
>> http://www.gamesradar.com/first-mass-effect-3-multiplayer-screens-hit-web/
>>
>>
>> First Mass Effect 3 multiplayer screens hit the web
> Not interested into another sci fi shooter.
>
Just to clarify myself. I liked mass effect1 although the story too
clear hints from Frederic Pole and it followed the usual Bioware
Metaplot (go to 4 locations retrieve 4 items then go for the grand finale)
But since the second part took a turn to the worse into the direction
shooters from RPG, I skipped it. Now that they are going for multiplayer
I personally think they will even more enhance the shooter elements and
sacrifice even more what Bioware games used to be.

So there is a high risk that I will even skip part 3.


Werner

Werner Punz wrote:
>
> Just to clarify myself. I liked mass effect1 although the story too
> clear hints from Frederic Pole and it followed the usual Bioware
> Metaplot (go to 4 locations retrieve 4 items then go for the grand finale)
> But since the second part took a turn to the worse into the direction
> shooters from RPG, I skipped it. Now that they are going for multiplayer
> I personally think they will even more enhance the shooter elements and
> sacrifice even more what Bioware games used to be.
>
> So there is a high risk that I will even skip part 3.

I saw a bit of a preview last night on TV. This game is scheduled for
March 2012 I think they said so it is a bit early to judge for me. I
enjoyed ME very much with many play-throughs. I also liked ME2 but have
only played it once.

All the DLC *#%$-ups I experienced left a bit of a bad impression but I
remain optimistic for ME3. I have no interest in the multiplayer
component so hopefully this aspect doesn't affect the overall design. I
sure won't be pre-ordering it like I did with ME2.


- Sheldon

On 14/10/2011 6:08 a.m., Sheldon England wrote:
> Werner Punz wrote:
>>
>> Just to clarify myself. I liked mass effect1 although the story too
>> clear hints from Frederic Pole and it followed the usual Bioware
>> Metaplot (go to 4 locations retrieve 4 items then go for the grand
>> finale)
>> But since the second part took a turn to the worse into the direction
>> shooters from RPG, I skipped it. Now that they are going for multiplayer
>> I personally think they will even more enhance the shooter elements and
>> sacrifice even more what Bioware games used to be.
>>
>> So there is a high risk that I will even skip part 3.
>
> I saw a bit of a preview last night on TV. This game is scheduled for
> March 2012 I think they said so it is a bit early to judge for me. I
> enjoyed ME very much with many play-throughs. I also liked ME2 but have
> only played it once.
>
> All the DLC *#%$-ups I experienced left a bit of a bad impression but I
> remain optimistic for ME3. I have no interest in the multiplayer
> component so hopefully this aspect doesn't affect the overall design. I
> sure won't be pre-ordering it like I did with ME2.

I loved Mass Effect and I thought Mass Effect 2 was an improvement - I
played through it twice in succession when it came out. (Glad I
pre-ordered (from Steam); the price went up from US$50 to US$70 for us
here in NZ shortly after release.)

With the story, characters, and polish it has, it doesn't really bother
me whether it falls into 'shooter' or 'RPG', it's highly enjoyable and
that's enough.

Cheers,
Grant

On Oct 13, 12:05 am, sillyputty wrote:
> http://www.gamesradar.com/first-mass-effect-3-multiplayer-screens-hit...
>
> First Mass Effect 3 multiplayer screens hit the web



Such a bad idea. Why does everything have to have MP??????

Werner Punz writes:
> But since the second part took a turn to the worse into the direction
> shooters from RPG, I skipped it. Now that they are going for
> multiplayer I personally think they will even more enhance the shooter
> elements and sacrifice even more what Bioware games used to be.

Hmm, my impression (based on reviews!) was that ME3 followed the usual
Bioware "wanted to explore a bit? haha, too bad! now watch this movie"
RPG style... how they make that work for multi-player I have no idea...

-Miles

--
Vote, v. The instrument and symbol of a freeman's power to make a fool of
himself and a wreck of his country.

On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 11:04:27 +0900, Miles Bader wrote:

>Werner Punz writes:
>> But since the second part took a turn to the worse into the direction
>> shooters from RPG, I skipped it. Now that they are going for
>> multiplayer I personally think they will even more enhance the shooter
>> elements and sacrifice even more what Bioware games used to be.
>
>Hmm, my impression (based on reviews!) was that ME3 followed the usual
>Bioware "wanted to explore a bit? haha, too bad! now watch this movie"
>RPG style... how they make that work for multi-player I have no idea...
>
>-Miles

No, that's not my experience with bioware games.
In fact totally the opposite.

unibalm writes:
>>Hmm, my impression (based on reviews!) was that ME3 followed the
>>usual Bioware "wanted to explore a bit? haha, too bad! now watch
>>this movie" RPG style... how they make that work for multi-player I
>>have no idea...
>
> No, that's not my experience with bioware games.
> In fact totally the opposite.

I've never played ME, but Dragon's Age: Origins is very much like that
-- you're constrained to a small number of locations on the map, which
you automatically jump between. They don't even try to hide it (and
there are various ways you can do this), it's just "step outside area,
select destination on map."

Mass effect 1 & 2 have a reputation of being pretty much the same
thing, except in space.

I'm not saying that makes them "bad" games -- I thought the combat in
DA:O was quite fun, and it's a very nice looking game, with a slick
and usable interface. But the sense of being artificially constrained
was palpable, and in the end kind of soured me on Bioware...

-miles

--
`To alcohol! The cause of, and solution to,
all of life's problems' --Homer J. Simpson

In article ,
Miles Bader wrote:
>
>I've never played ME, but Dragon's Age: Origins is very much like that
>-- you're constrained to a small number of locations on the map, which
>you automatically jump between. They don't even try to hide it (and
>there are various ways you can do this), it's just "step outside area,
>select destination on map."

Hell, Baldur's Gate 2 was like that and it's generally considered one
of the best CRPGs ever. And it isn't just Bioware -- Drakensang was
the same way, with the addition that once you finished an area you
couldn't go back.

--
Kyle Haight

On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 14:15:59 +0900, Miles Bader wrote:

>unibalm writes:
>>>Hmm, my impression (based on reviews!) was that ME3 followed the
>>>usual Bioware "wanted to explore a bit? haha, too bad! now watch
>>>this movie" RPG style... how they make that work for multi-player I
>>>have no idea...
>>
>> No, that's not my experience with bioware games.
>> In fact totally the opposite.
>
>I've never played ME, but Dragon's Age: Origins is very much like that
>-- you're constrained to a small number of locations on the map, which
>you automatically jump between. They don't even try to hide it (and
>there are various ways you can do this), it's just "step outside area,
>select destination on map."
>
>Mass effect 1 & 2 have a reputation of being pretty much the same
>thing, except in space.
>
>I'm not saying that makes them "bad" games -- I thought the combat in
>DA:O was quite fun, and it's a very nice looking game, with a slick
>and usable interface. But the sense of being artificially constrained
>was palpable, and in the end kind of soured me on Bioware...
>
>-miles

OK, I bow to your expertise.

I've played ME2, but not ME1. I was impressed by ME2. Though the story
arc was typical, the graphics were impressive and the NPC modeling and
movement were some of the best. The voice-acting ain't bad either.
Apparently, the devs have listened to complaints and made changes in
ME3.

I will not be surprised if we will see a trend of multiplayer
additions to formerly single-player franchises.

To give an example of why, I was recently reading about Batman Arkham
City, because I enjoyed Arkham Asylum. However, even though I've made
up my mind I will buy it, there is no advantage to buying it in the
first twelve months after release as opposed to waiting for the first
five or ten dollar sale on Steam. In fact, there is intense
motivation to wait. By that time, all the DLC will probably be rolled
into a GOTY edition for 10 bucks and the bugs will be worked out.

So how can a game vendor entice buyers to grab it early, and at a
higher price point? Addition of multiplayer might do it. There's no
doubt that buying a game earlier after release results in more
possible online playtime for buyers and thus motivation to buy early.
If you buy six months or a year down the road, on many games the
multiplayer enthusiasm has dwindled, a lot of the servers have moved
on to other games, etc. That is, unless it is a truly great
multiplayer game with a vibrant community (which might have a lifespan
of a decade or more online, but in those games it can be very hard for
a noob to start out).

As an added bonus, multiplayer and the types of authentication that it
require act as sort of built-in DRM that nobody complains about. It
solves the piracy issue in one swift headshot. Here's an example link
of that I posted in another thread:

http://www.techspot.com/news/45889-pc-version-of-battlefield-3-leaks-o...-torren

Personally I think this is a valid solution to a whole slew of
problems that plague game vendors, while not imposing anything on the
SP-only category of gamer. The SP-only types can still pick up the
game a year later for a fiver, and it won't matter to them that the
multiplayer component may not work.

It could also mean that instead of allocating resources to find clever
ways of stripping out the game and turning it into DLC, the DLC model
could remain focused on adding new professionally-made maps and game
modes for the mutliplayer community rather than bolting on an extra 3
hours of gameplay that feels inserted midway into the original plot
and charging $15 or $20 dollars for it. This would probably actually
lengthen the single player campaigns, because then there would be no
pressure to pull chapters out and convert it to a DLC add-on.

Rin Stowleigh wrote:
>
> I will not be surprised if we will see a trend of multiplayer
> additions to formerly single-player franchises.

Agreed. Not happy about it, but agreed.


> To give an example of why, I was recently reading about Batman Arkham
> City, because I enjoyed Arkham Asylum. However, even though I've made
> up my mind I will buy it, there is no advantage to buying it in the
> first twelve months after release as opposed to waiting for the first
> five or ten dollar sale on Steam. In fact, there is intense
> motivation to wait. By that time, all the DLC will probably be rolled
> into a GOTY edition for 10 bucks and the bugs will be worked out.

Yep. In years past I would be in the store on day one of release to buy
Arkham City based on how much fun I had with Arkham Asylum. But they
don't want my $80 so instead I will give them $10 a year from now.
(Never knew that was Mark Hamel as the Joker until a review show I
watched last week.)


> So how can a game vendor entice buyers to grab it early, and at a
> higher price point? Addition of multiplayer might do it. There's no
> doubt that buying a game earlier after release results in more
> possible online playtime for buyers and thus motivation to buy early.
> If you buy six months or a year down the road, on many games the
> multiplayer enthusiasm has dwindled, a lot of the servers have moved
> on to other games, etc. That is, unless it is a truly great
> multiplayer game with a vibrant community (which might have a lifespan
> of a decade or more online, but in those games it can be very hard for
> a noob to start out).

Maybe. This makes sense ... but I still don't like it. I would rather
see more focus on developing the single player game for PC gamers.


- Sheldon

On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 12:25:37 -0700, Sheldon England
wrote:

>Rin Stowleigh wrote:
>>
>> I will not be surprised if we will see a trend of multiplayer
>> additions to formerly single-player franchises.
>
>Agreed. Not happy about it, but agreed.
>
>
>> To give an example of why, I was recently reading about Batman Arkham
>> City, because I enjoyed Arkham Asylum. However, even though I've made
>> up my mind I will buy it, there is no advantage to buying it in the
>> first twelve months after release as opposed to waiting for the first
>> five or ten dollar sale on Steam. In fact, there is intense
>> motivation to wait. By that time, all the DLC will probably be rolled
>> into a GOTY edition for 10 bucks and the bugs will be worked out.
>
>Yep. In years past I would be in the store on day one of release to buy
>Arkham City based on how much fun I had with Arkham Asylum. But they
>don't want my $80 so instead I will give them $10 a year from now.

Didn't quite understand what you meant by this. Of course they want
your $80


>> So how can a game vendor entice buyers to grab it early, and at a
>> higher price point? Addition of multiplayer might do it. There's no
>> doubt that buying a game earlier after release results in more
>> possible online playtime for buyers and thus motivation to buy early.
>> If you buy six months or a year down the road, on many games the
>> multiplayer enthusiasm has dwindled, a lot of the servers have moved
>> on to other games, etc. That is, unless it is a truly great
>> multiplayer game with a vibrant community (which might have a lifespan
>> of a decade or more online, but in those games it can be very hard for
>> a noob to start out).
>
>Maybe. This makes sense ... but I still don't like it. I would rather
>see more focus on developing the single player game for PC gamers.
>
>
> - Sheldon