Multiplayer Thread - Competitive and/or Co-Op.

[Terralventhe]

Well, it helps to actively censor any sort of negative feedback, such as what they constantly do on their forums, as well as the fact that by the time that Multiplayer became so well-loved they'd already killed the majority of their fanbase - meaning the only ones who liked the Multiplayer were the ones left who more or less liked ME3 as a whole altogether, as I understand it. I, for one, loathed the idea in its entirity. It was needless, pointless, and the fact that it was well-received says volumes about how much their consumers are willing to put up with (seriously, I saw people who had vehemently protested Multiplayer immediately change their tune to 'oh it's gonna be great' before the game was even RELEASED), as well as how bad the single-player campaign was enough to make it the only redeeming quality in the first place.

 

[Sardukhar]

I did not know ME3 had multiplayer. At all. And I played it to endgame. Mjsthave seen the option and just not cared or thought about it.

Oh, well.

Guess that shows my prejudice there - if it's a fun SP, i may never see the MP. I remember Stalker for example had MP I tried a couple times before going back to the SP. Again.

 

[GSoda.43]

Yeah except for an thing no one wanted, multiplayer seems to be one of the more loved aspects of the game, certainly more so than the single player DLC they have brought out. Even from people that don't normally like multiplayer games.

I just hope they don't miss the same trick here, just because some vocal people are against the idea of multiplayer in any form.

"some vocal people" ...yeah sure .I'm with slimgrim on this. It's an either or situation. Either make this game coop/mp, so I can willfully ignore it or make it a full blown sp-RPG with all the bells and whistles. Don't mix those two. That's an unnecessary risk for failure.

 

[Terralventhe]

I did not know ME3 had multiplayer. At all. And I played it to endgame. Mjsthave seen the option and just not cared or thought about it.

Oh, well.

Guess that shows my prejudice there - if it's a fun SP, i may never see the MP. I remember Stalker for example had MP I tried a couple times before going back to the SP. Again.

Well, rather I think that just goes to show how utterly pointless and irrelevant MP was to the game, than anything else. As I said, it had zero bearing on the actual singleplayer campaign altogether, despite trying to dupe the player into believing otherwise, ironically in order to force them into playing the multiplayer feature - because they were already aware of the negative response the decision they had made (justified in that they'd ignored their fans at the whim of their new overlords), so they basically tried to jam in a feature that would force players to play Multiplayer (and play it constantly, by making it so that the longer you don't play it, the more your Readiness drops down again), rather than rely on the fact that they were already aware of: that anyone who wasn't inclined to try and get a 100% Readiness rating wasn't going to go anywhere near it.

So imagine the added fury that came about when the endings revealed that the Readiness was meaningless.

Also, yeah.. 'some vocal people' is a fallacy.. the same one as was applied when referring to the million-plus dissatisfied fans as a 'vocal minority' rather than acknowledge 'hey, we screwed up.' It wasn't a vocal minority that was opposed to multiplayer in ME3, it was an almost unanymous view, everywhere, across the board, with a few minor supporters here and there. The only people I ever saw* who turned out to like the Multiplayer were the ones who thought Dragon Age 2 was a great game as well.

* Terralventhe would like to establish the keyword 'I' in this statement, solidifying that it is his personal experience that lends to it being made in the manner in which it is put forth. Any fan of Dragon Age 2 needn't necessarily have been a fan of Mass Effect 3's Multiplayer, or vice versa. It's just very likely.

 

[Demut]

[A]s well as how bad the single-player campaign was enough to make it the only redeeming quality in the first place.

I disagree. The single-player campaign was fantastics with only the exception of the last ten minutes or so (and maybe Shepard’s silly dreams).

 

[Terralventhe]

A matter of taste. I found the whole thing to be a linear experience, majorly comprised of lies by the developers, with lots of illusion-based content meant to trick you into thinking you were having an impact on the game. There were really only one or two good sequences.. Tuchanka, and Rannoch. That's about it. Not really enough to carry the entire rest of the game which was mediocre at best, and not even an RPG anymore, either. It was Gears of War with railroaded dialogue options, all of which had the same end result.

 

[Sirnaq]

http://www.joystiq.com/2012/08/29/spec-ops-the-line-dev-brands-games-multiplayer-a-waste-of-mon/

I'll just leave this here.

 

[Demut]

A matter of taste. I found the whole thing to be a linear experience, majorly comprised of lies by the developers, with lots of illusion-based content meant to trick you into thinking you were having an impact on the game. There were really only one or two good sequences.. Tuchanka, and Rannoch. That's about it. Not really enough to carry the entire rest of the game which was mediocre at best, and not even an RPG anymore, either. It was Gears of War with railroaded dialogue options, all of which had the same end result.

Wow, it’s like we didn’t even play the same game ...

 

[Terralventhe]

That's what it's called a matter of taste. There were several fans of the Mass Effect series who felt the same way. Bioware's staff quickly shut them up on the forums.

 

[reconmember]

Only if it brings something new to the table.

 

[pewps]

The kneejerk reaction to the word 'multiplayer' is often some bullshit about deathmatch or how it detracts from the single-player experience, but this is a game with a release date of "When it's ready" based on a pen-and-paper game, which is itself a multiplayer-only experience. Without the limitation of a deadline, they can go whatever direction they wish with the idea of multiplayer, and I, for one, hope they go in the direction that allows the community to get in on it and still allows them to have a powerful and engaging single-player experience.

I felt that this needed to be quoted. Way too many alarmists in this thread.

 

[Terralventhe]

The road goes both ways. There's equally too many 'alarmists' fussing about the so-called 'alarmists'. I don't loathe multiplayer in its entirety. There's plenty of games that I enjoy for their multiplayer features. So I play those when i want to play multiplayer. I have my games that I enjoy single-player as well. I would like for Cyberpunk 2077 to be one such game. It's about as simple as that.

 

[Dr. LaBrat]

i kinda see the point in having a mp, but for me, having other players in my game and doing whatever (often stupid stuff like teabagging) takes me out of the game and kills my immersion
and for cyberpunk 2077 i think immersion is the most important part of the game. mike and cdpr seem to see it the same way, as in how they talk about that the game must have the right atmosphere and the right "feeling" to it. i think you can only get the right "feeling" for a cyberpunk rpg if you are on your own

 

[Garrison72]

Without the limitation of a deadline, they can go whatever direction they wish with the idea of multiplayer, and I, for one, hope they go in the direction that allows the community to get in on it and still allows them to have a powerful and engaging single-player experience.

And I don't think it's feasible for a company the size of CDPR to craft a SP campaign as engaging and rich as TW2 and still include MP. I'm sorry but that is a pipe dream. Most devs with far bigger budgets don't even touch the replay-ability of that game. They make a one-and-done SP and then it's supposed to be off to MP. No thank you. We have literally dozens of titles for MP and Co-op on the market, and we don't need CDPR jumping on the bandwagon.

 

[Septian]

I would really like to see a 4 (more?) player coop with a single player option where the PC can hire (if so desired) lackies to do their other side work.

I pretty much imagine Being able to get in a group of 4 people (who hopefully won't all be solos) and for example try and take down a large corporate bank.
Netrunners would disable the security systems while the Fixers bribe the bank guards to be "absent" for a while, while the solos go in and take the money..

That is just an idea that has been floating in my head, however, I know the technical capabilities of games cant really match the abilities of our brains/imagination (yet)

 

[Littature]

An online/co-op component would be a great addition, but as slimgrin mentioned it might take you out of the immersion. You'd have to be playing with friends, who want to enjoy the experience in the same way as you do, but I do see potential. Anyway we'll see what the developers come up with. I'm sure they will have something great in store for us.

 

[luciustarkin]

Fact is : you can't make the same kind of experience with a multiplayer game than in a singleplayer one.

I, for one, wouldn't be against a multiplayer game, but it certainly would be less "lonely" and, to some extend, less "cyberpunkish". If they should explore the multiplayer opportunity, I'd prefer to see them work on a MMO (think of Eve Online, not WoW).

Now, in regards to what has been done with Mass Effect 3, there could be some mix of "single" and "multiplayer" at some points. Imagine you could play some "missions" (if the game is mission oriented of course) with friends, and then go back to your own, personnal, version of the game. Would be the best of both world (in my opinion). Outside of "action sequences", there isn't much room for multiplayer (sadly... maybe they'll prove me wrong).

 

[walkingdarkly]

As someone who's played 2020 for as long as I have with a 5 to 6 man group for so many years, to me it would feel somewhat awkward without having a few friends by my side as we trek through Night City looking for trouble or taking on a mega-corp. To me I just don't see a single solo/netrunner/cop taking on or even taking out a Mega-Corp like Arasaka or Militech. He'd get trash so badly the game would uninstall itself automatically. I understand where people would not like any kind of MP in their game and feel the same way some time where I just wanna go around by myself but I still feel that 2077 would be nice with a type of co-op that would have some kind of special co-op only missions that would be harder than single player missions. Or just a like a random free roam styled co-op mission that starts when you start a co-op mission that would even change depending on who was what role.

 

[slamelov]

P&P RPG's were created for cooperative gameplay. RPG are for cooperative, any other thing is far from being a real RPG.

 

[daddy300]

I think CP2077 has a chance to become best co-op and third person shooter multiplayer game online. If they work hard enough. if something like that would come from CDPR, hell why not. Team Deathmatch, Horde mode, 1 on 1 etc.

Its easy to make it successful. Make tons of upgrades, ranks, unlocks by playing online even some for story mode, hidden content. camos, weapons, leaderboard. But most important is balancing and map design. I'm playing those shooters online since Quake 2. So many games ended up dying fast because there was one weapon or glitch everyone abused.

Ahh Q2DM1