Gamers Thread
- Thread starter Jimmy... Dead.
- Start date
Blind Guardian
Member
Yes, really excited about Borderlands 2. Hopefully they have made the story a bit more involving this time, because that could really put this game above and beyond. Imagine Borderlands-level gameplay mechanics in a world as intricate as in Fallout, fuck.
So the word is that ME3 forces you to play multiplayer to get the best ending in single-player. This is absolute horseshit, and I'm deeply disappointed in Bioware. Also, I'm in the process of replaying ME2 and I'm starting to become a little disillusioned with the series. Think about this: only humans have genders. We never see Turian, Batarian, Salarian, Volus, Elcor, Drell, or Krogan females, and obviously the Asari don't come in male. It seems pretty clear at this point that this is because they didn't have the time, resources, or imagination to create assets for females of those species. That's pretty lazy.
I don't give a shit. I've tolerated the existence of multiplayer all this time because the devs kept it segregated from the single-player, often even on a separate disc and with a separate application. But now it just invaded my fucking game. FUCK. THIS. SHIT. Not everyone has a fast, stable internet connection, not everyone wants to pay for a subscription to XBL, and not everyone wants to play the same map over and over again with the same faceless chucklefucks whining over their headset mics just to get the best ending. Keep your filthy multiplayer out of my singleplayer. And don't act like co-op is any better. If I can play with someone in the same room, I'm happy, but if it's a stranger on the internet, I'd honestly rather deal with AI team-mates.
Blind Guardian
Member
I agree with WAIF. Look at WoW for example, isn't a medieval fantasy role playing game supposed to be an atmospheric adventure that sucks you into another world? Instead the screen is full of characters controlled by players who frantically press buttons and look at stats and bars and whatnot, and I don't even know where the enjoyment is supposed to lie. I'll stick to a single player game like Baldur's Gate instead thanks.
rms
Active Member
Dak
mentat
If you can get past the ancient gfx (which I am sure you can), I highly recommend the old Thief PC series.
skeptik
Member
- Feb 7, 2003
- 24,413
- 71
- 48
Today they are. They didn't start out that way, from Wolfenstein 3D to Goldeneye. But that's exactly my point. They're geared for multiplayer, pick-up-and-play fun, which is fine for what it is, but it's hard to deny that this mentality has had an impact in the way games are made today, and that's not generally what I look for in games, when I do play. I don't even have the latest consoles though and only recently got a laptop that is even capable of playing games made in the past decade, so that should say how much of a gamer I am.
Dak: I have no hangups on graphics, so I'll look into that eventually. I bought a bunch of games on Steam around christmas that I've still never even opened though, so it'll probably be a while.
Dak: I have no hangups on graphics, so I'll look into that eventually. I bought a bunch of games on Steam around christmas that I've still never even opened though, so it'll probably be a while.
Mass Effect started as a single-player RPG series, and Mass Effect 3 is marketed as a single-player RPG.
Multiplayer gaming is decidedly different from single-player gaming. Part of that is the social element, but that's not necessarily core to the experience. The other part is that multiplayer is inherently repetitive. In a single-player game you go through a linear series of areas once, maybe twice. In each area you accomplish a certain goal. In a single-player game that fails to differentiate the areas, or repeats them too much, or repeats the objectives too much - essentially, one where the experience fails to change - people will complain. On the other hand, repetition is key to multiplayer. You cycle through the same handful of maps, striving for the same handful of objectives, for a theoretically unlimited amount of time. The addition of human players is supposed to liven things up by adding unpredictability to the mix, but honestly, I don't think it does. Sometimes you get some real creativity, but when you're decent and play with other people who are decent, every encounter just becomes a crapshoot as to who walks away. Obviously skill comes into it, and it's challenging, but it's extremely repetitive. Also, anyone who thinks the addition of mouthbreathers with headset mics makes things better is welcome to their fucking multiplayer horseshit, just get your stupid grind out of my immersive, player-driven space opera.
Multiplayer gaming is decidedly different from single-player gaming. Part of that is the social element, but that's not necessarily core to the experience. The other part is that multiplayer is inherently repetitive. In a single-player game you go through a linear series of areas once, maybe twice. In each area you accomplish a certain goal. In a single-player game that fails to differentiate the areas, or repeats them too much, or repeats the objectives too much - essentially, one where the experience fails to change - people will complain. On the other hand, repetition is key to multiplayer. You cycle through the same handful of maps, striving for the same handful of objectives, for a theoretically unlimited amount of time. The addition of human players is supposed to liven things up by adding unpredictability to the mix, but honestly, I don't think it does. Sometimes you get some real creativity, but when you're decent and play with other people who are decent, every encounter just becomes a crapshoot as to who walks away. Obviously skill comes into it, and it's challenging, but it's extremely repetitive. Also, anyone who thinks the addition of mouthbreathers with headset mics makes things better is welcome to their fucking multiplayer horseshit, just get your stupid grind out of my immersive, player-driven space opera.
arg
Active Member
- Jun 4, 2008
- 5,746
- 1,442
- 113
multiplayer increases the longevity of games. i only finished Skyrim once, and though it was a great experience, and i could make a totally different character and make totally different choices, playing through it again just isn't all that appealing to me. if Skyrim had a multiplayer mode maybe i would still be playing it now.
similarly, Mass Effect 2 had been sitting on my shelf for 1 1/3 years before i dusted it off to finish the DLC in anticipation of ME3. if it had multiplayer maybe i would have played it from time to time in between. i expect to be playing ME3 a lot more if its multiplayer is good. i only wish it had competitive pvp too.
i read that vanquishing players you know to be controlled by another human releases endorphins in the brain that give a feeling of exhilaration and accomplishment, and that is what keeps multiplayer gamers hooked, despite the "repetition" which they don't even notice.
similarly, Mass Effect 2 had been sitting on my shelf for 1 1/3 years before i dusted it off to finish the DLC in anticipation of ME3. if it had multiplayer maybe i would have played it from time to time in between. i expect to be playing ME3 a lot more if its multiplayer is good. i only wish it had competitive pvp too.
i read that vanquishing players you know to be controlled by another human releases endorphins in the brain that give a feeling of exhilaration and accomplishment, and that is what keeps multiplayer gamers hooked, despite the "repetition" which they don't even notice.
I've played multiplayer before...counterstrike, day of defeat, unreal tournament, battlefield...my favorite has definitely been Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory, and I think that's largely because the design of the missions, the layout of the maps, and the balancing of the weapons leads to enough entirely valid strategies and counter-strategies that the game rarely feels terribly repetitive, at least on the better maps like gold_rush. I can appreciate the appeal of something like Modern Warfare, where can easily see the sheer kinaesthetic perfection of the controls, the simplistic gameplay, and the rush of combat putting the player in "the zone." And that's fine, if that's what appeals to you I have no problem with that. My problem is that this has started to replace single-player gaming. Obviously a game like Battlefield is going to be designed for multiplayer from the ground up, but Mass Effect started as a single-player series, and compromising that part of the experience to that degree just to make a few more bucks off of selling these booster packs...that's low, even for EA, and EA's pretty much the Hitler of video-games nowadays.
arg
Active Member
- Jun 4, 2008
- 5,746
- 1,442
- 113
i see what you mean, but if it's any consolation you probably won't have to grind that much and gain the highest multiplayer level to get the best ending, maybe just win a couple co-op missions. even then, all that the "best ending" will give you is a few different cutscenes, lol.
i for one will not be playing for that, and will simply continue on my path of destruction and power-seeking (a bunch of my squad died in ME2, i did some evil stuff, preserved the alien technology for my own use, etc.) and will just watch the different endings on youtube.
i for one will not be playing for that, and will simply continue on my path of destruction and power-seeking (a bunch of my squad died in ME2, i did some evil stuff, preserved the alien technology for my own use, etc.) and will just watch the different endings on youtube.
