163 réponses à ce sujet

[Scrith]

hawat333 wrote...

Co-op for ME3?
Then you sadly missed the point of the trilogy.

Sadly you missed the point of my post. While i understand that the trilogy focuses on the single-player experience with Shepard, a Co-op segment will not interfere with the single-player. It is simply an extra option for those who desire it.

[Lunatic LK47]

Felfenix wrote...

Phategod1 wrote...

Schneidend wrote...

Scrith wrote...

But what about Co-op? It's not exactly a complicated concept, not any more than replacing normally useless squadmates with real live players. Imagine pulling off ridiculously complex biotic combos or playing tennis with the final boss.

This is the kind of co-op I'd want. If it was good enough for Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale, and Neverwinter Nights, it's sure as hell good enough for Mass Effect.

I'd love to play as Grunt on a friend's playthrough, especially.

Would you want to be Grunt if your friend takes 2 - 3 hours between  combat missions? and Insist you only use your abilities when he says so, and you don't say a damn word the whole time.

Co-Op is completely optional, so those who don't want to play with a partner, or be a partner, wouldn't be affected one bit. Even just a halfassed co-op, where you can only control a weak companion, and only in combat areas, wouldn't hurt but would be enjoyed.

I know I wouldn't mind playing Grunt or whoever, and waiting 2-3 hours between combat missions. It beats just WATCHING my husband play the entire time, or having him watch me while I play. It'd be just like oldschool Sonic the Hedghog, where Tails was a bot that followed Sonic, but if you plugged in a second controller, then you could control Tails. If Sonic died, both died. It wasn't full on multiplayer, but it was a fun social feature.

It's sad that there are people on this forum who are so antisocial, that they don't want anyone else to be able to play with a friend, just because they have none. Adding the minor and simple feature for a second controller (or perhaps even online friend with the game) to control a companion in battle scenes is all that the people asking for multiplayer really seem to want. It's not turning the game into Quake/Halo/Whatever, and it wouldn't divert any story writers or any other resources. I really don't understand the venom of some people.

It isn't a matter of "us being anti-social." Thing is a lot of us have our own lives and careers to attend to, and multiplayer is a volatile ticking time bomb. Sure, it may be active one month, but is it guaranteed to stay that way for a year or longer? Case in point: I've played EndWar almost every weekend ever since the game launched, and as time went by, getting a gaming session is getting rarer up to the point I'm partnered up with unit killers (i.e. People intentionally killing off your veteran units that you already spent an exorbitant amount of time trying to level up) and outright rage-quit the game permanently just because I didn't play the game 24/7/365 just because I had a ****ing life to attend to. I just bought Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter 2 last April for $20.00, and lo and behold, multiplayer is deader than Elvis just because I didn't want to waste $60 on a 5-hour single-player game and was wary of the community. MMO's are also just as bad with the "Buy at launch, screw u n00bs who only wanted to spend $20" mentality. There's also things like "game servers shutting down" which means if I decided to buy a game two years after launch just because I wasn't sure if it was worth $60, I'm screwed over and would be stuck on Call of Duty, Halo, or Gears of War.

Single-player is permanent in terms of "I can play the game at any time whenever I'm able to." Multiplayer is a gimmick with an artificial time limit saying "Play this only, because the community may die next week or next month." I shouldn't be required to have additional stress just to relax and have fun.

[Lunatic LK47]

Scrith wrote...

hawat333 wrote...

Co-op for ME3?
Then you sadly missed the point of the trilogy.

Sadly you missed the point of my post. While i understand that the trilogy focuses on the single-player experience with Shepard, a Co-op segment will not interfere with the single-player. It is simply an extra option for those who desire it.

An option that will only last for a week to a month tops, which is not worth the additional investment of programming and playtesting on top of an already expansive game. You also gotta consider something like server cost if you plan to utilize online for your PC, XBox Live, or Playstation Network. This isn't cheap.

[Lumikki]

There is 1000's of multiplayer games. Mass Effect is single player game and Bioware is allready sayed it.

Wasting resources to multiplayer option is not smart, when only very small minority would use that option. Example if I want to play multiplayer game, I would choose game what is design for it. How ever, I'm here playing Mass Effect, because it offers something what multiplayers games does not. Really good single player game. I would like it more if Bioware conserate fully to make for us as good single player game as they can and leave multiplaying for multiplayer games. Not point of waste money and resources to something what isn't really needed and more important doesn't improve anyway majority's single player game experience, could even have opposite affect.

Modifié par Lumikki, 06 janvier 2011 - 12:54 .

[SalsaDMA]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

It isn't a matter of "us being anti-social." Thing is a lot of us have our own lives and careers to attend to, and multiplayer is a volatile ticking time bomb. Sure, it may be active one month, but is it guaranteed to stay that way for a year or longer? Case in point: I've played EndWar almost every weekend ever since the game launched, and as time went by, getting a gaming session is getting rarer up to the point I'm partnered up with unit killers (i.e. People intentionally killing off your veteran units that you already spent an exorbitant amount of time trying to level up) and outright rage-quit the game permanently just because I didn't play the game 24/7/365 just because I had a ****ing life to attend to. I just bought Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter 2 last April for $20.00, and lo and behold, multiplayer is deader than Elvis just because I didn't want to waste $60 on a 5-hour single-player game and was wary of the community. MMO's are also just as bad with the "Buy at launch, screw u n00bs who only wanted to spend $20" mentality. There's also things like "game servers shutting down" which means if I decided to buy a game two years after launch just because I wasn't sure if it was worth $60, I'm screwed over and would be stuck on Call of Duty, Halo, or Gears of War.

Single-player is permanent in terms of "I can play the game at any time whenever I'm able to." Multiplayer is a gimmick with an artificial time limit saying "Play this only, because the community may die next week or next month." I shouldn't be required to have additional stress just to relax and have fun.

No, it's a matter of you having zero clue about what peole are asking for.

You might want to reread the thread again and actually try and comprehend what people are writing rather than just asuming what people ar writing.

I especially found it atrocious to the discussion that you made this post while quoting one that actually explained very well what was being asked. Yet as obvious from your asumptions, you didn't actually comprehend what was written.

If you don't believe me, feel free to point out exactly where in the quote there wold be ANY need for an external multiplayer hosting server, or even an active multiplayer scene for the scenario in the quote to unfold to the writers satisfaction.

I also find the 'argument' of only gtting to play with peopletrying to destroy your game as being more than inane. Don't play with them if they act like a jerk, problem solved.

Modifié par SalsaDMA, 06 janvier 2011 - 05:59 .

[Lunatic LK47]

SalsaDMA wrote...
No, it's a matter of you having zero clue about what peole are asking for.

You might want to reread the thread again and actually try and comprehend what people are writing rather than just asuming what people ar writing.

I especially found it atrocious to the discussion that you made this post while quoting one that actually explained very well what was being asked. Yet as obvious from your asumptions, you didn't actually comprehend what was written.

If you don't believe me, feel free to point out exactly where in the quote there wold be ANY need for an external multiplayer hosting server, or even an active multiplayer scene for the scenario in the quote to unfold to the writers satisfaction.

I also find the 'argument' of only gtting to play with peopletrying to destroy your game as being more than inane. Don't play with them if they act like a jerk, problem solved.

I read the entire thread and posted my reasons why I'm stigmatizing multiplayer. "Don't play with them if they're jerks" is not an option if the game is NOT Call of Duty/Halo/Gears of War. I am stuck with those players regardless of what day or time I decide to play multiplayer. Servers also cost money if you decide to play online with X-Box Live/PSN (despite the "You don't need to pay to play" policy) or on the Internet unless you want to be consistently stuck with framerate problems because they have ****ty netcode. Co-op is included in that regard. Last, but not least, artificial time limit is *STILL* a factor, and last time I checked, if it's not a mainstream title, the lesser-played games (i.e. Splinter Cell *cough cough*) has sporadic activity up to the point it's a needle in a skyscraper full of haystacks.

Referring to my previous post here, since reading comprehension is difficult for you:

Single-player is permanent in terms of "I can play the game at any
time whenever I'm able to." Multiplayer is a gimmick with an artificial
time limit saying "Play this only, because the community may die next
week or next month." I shouldn't be required to have additional stress
just to relax and have fun.


Last time I checked: Adding co-op for Resident Evil 5 made single-player a bigger chore and frustrating experience to begin with, and the same went for Lost Planet 2.

Modifié par Lunatic LK47, 06 janvier 2011 - 06:36 .

[Lunatic LK47]

Scrith wrote...

 Before you start bashing and flaming me about how this will completely ruin Mass Effect 3, listen to my proposal.
From what I've learn, people DO NOT WANT Multiplayer, cause we know Bioware will do it wrong.

But what about Co-op? It's not exactly a complicated concept, not any more than replacing normally useless squadmates with real live players. Imagine pulling off ridiculously complex biotic combos or playing tennis with the final boss.
Co-op also allows for you to fully customize your squad, adding to the "RPG" element.

Of course, this can be restricted to combat sequences only, should it ruin the "immersion". Enemy AI would have to be more refined or be made stronger to put up a challenge.

Perhaps Bioware can throw in some extra maps dedicated to Co-op.
I'm quite sure including a Co-op segment will not take up too much of Bioware's resources, assuming EA will probably provide extra funds as Co-op will attract a larger audience. And they will pull off a great game regardless.

I'm proposing this as a COMPLETELY NON-CANON addition. The Co-op segment only encompasses the combat segments, so single player story will not be affected. It's like a way to replay the missions they have already gone through in singleplayer, albeit with friends.

The Co-op segment can also be included in DLC. Doing so will provide additional development time and the choice to buy it if you want it.

So what do you think? Any violent objections?

Uh, still against co-op in Mass Effect 3 mainly because it's the final game in the series. I'll only be fine with it if it's exclusively DLC and nothing more than that. Dropping it on top of the main game's development cycle  will mean sacrificing something in the process just to make sure the damn thing is working properly (i.e. Do you want more Conrad Verner-caliber import bugs just because you wanted co-op in the main package?). Testing involves time and money. Another thing to consider is how many of those players are going to play co-op non-stop? I currently stigmatize multiplayer because of the fact it devolves into "Play this game only for x amount of time because you may not be able to play it next week because the community moved on."

[Lunatic LK47]

****ing forum bugs.

Modifié par Lunatic LK47, 06 janvier 2011 - 06:42 .

[SalsaDMA]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

SalsaDMA wrote...
No, it's a matter of you having zero clue about what peole are asking for.

You might want to reread the thread again and actually try and comprehend what people are writing rather than just asuming what people ar writing.

I especially found it atrocious to the discussion that you made this post while quoting one that actually explained very well what was being asked. Yet as obvious from your asumptions, you didn't actually comprehend what was written.

If you don't believe me, feel free to point out exactly where in the quote there wold be ANY need for an external multiplayer hosting server, or even an active multiplayer scene for the scenario in the quote to unfold to the writers satisfaction.

I also find the 'argument' of only gtting to play with peopletrying to destroy your game as being more than inane. Don't play with them if they act like a jerk, problem solved.

I read the entire thread and posted my reasons why I'm stigmatizing multiplayer. "Don't play with them if they're jerks" is not an option if the game is NOT Call of Duty/Halo/Gears of War. I am stuck with those players regardless of what day or time I decide to play multiplayer. Servers also cost money if you decide to play online with X-Box Live/PSN (despite the "You don't need to pay to play" policy) or on the Internet unless you want to be consistently stuck with framerate problems because they have ****ty netcode. Co-op is included in that regard. Last, but not least, artificial time limit is *STILL* a factor, and last time I checked, if it's not a mainstream title, the lesser-played games (i.e. Splinter Cell *cough cough*) has sporadic activity up to the point it's a needle in a skyscraper full of haystacks.

Referring to my previous post here, since reading comprehension is difficult for you:

Single-player is permanent in terms of "I can play the game at any
time whenever I'm able to." Multiplayer is a gimmick with an artificial
time limit saying "Play this only, because the community may die next
week or next month." I shouldn't be required to have additional stress
just to relax and have fun.


Last time I checked: Adding co-op for Resident Evil 5 made single-player a bigger chore and frustrating experience to begin with, and the same went for Lost Planet 2.

Are you for real?

We are discussing the option of letting people play in co-op during misins in Mass Effect.

Read. Comprehend.

Option.

This means that, NO, you are NOT forced to let ANYONE join your game. In fact, you could play through the entire game as single player if you wanted, and not touch the co-op button at all.

ALSO, as co-op, nobody forces you to play with people you don't want to play with. Rather, people want the option to let a friend (or 2, depending on platform) join their game and join in on the fun while playing the game.

You DO realize 2 people playing the same game on the same console have happened before right? And you DO know that this is also possible on the PC, and there is also something called LAN which skips the whole 'need external hosting server' thing too, right?

Seriously. You seem to be so stuck up in your own imagined perceptions of how things MUST be (in your opinion) that you are unable to see how things COULD be (what people are trying to explain).

As for your attempt at a t retort. It's obvious you didn't understand the 'co-op with a friend' idea at all. Since you seem to think that it's tied to playing with random strangers on the internet. <_<

[Ozzy57]

Since BW has said Mass Effect is not done after ME3 just the Shepard trilogy what about co-op in the next game?

[AuraofMana]

ITT: People don't understand what options mean. If you don't want to play co-op, don't ****ing play it. Other people can if they want.
Also, people don't seem to have friends, nor do they seem to understand how LAN or playing on the same console works. So many entitled, holier-than-thou douchebags.

Modifié par AuraofMana, 06 janvier 2011 - 06:55 .

[Lunatic LK47]

SalsaDMA wrote...
Are you for real?

We are discussing the option of letting people play in co-op during misins in Mass Effect.

Read. Comprehend.

Option.

This means that, NO, you are NOT forced to let ANYONE join your game. In fact, you could play through the entire game as single player if you wanted, and not touch the co-op button at all.

And that requires playtesting to make sure it's working properly. Halo 3 was notorious for having a sporadic "Invincible Flood Henchman" regardless of playing Single-player or co-op, regardless of being on Split Screen or X-Box Live.

ALSO, as co-op, nobody forces you to play with people you don't want to play with. Rather, people want the option to let a friend (or 2, depending on platform) join their game and join in on the fun while playing the game.

An option that is reliant on being lucky enough to have friends over at your place or not. In my experience, getting those moments is ****ing rare because we all have jobs and long distances from each other.

You DO realize 2 people playing the same game on the same console have happened before right? And you DO know that this is also possible on the PC, and there is also something called LAN which skips the whole 'need external hosting server' thing too, right?

See above post about getting these sessions to be reliant on luck. BTW, I don't have the luxury of a LAN party because buddy's half a continent away from me, my PC is **** (nor do I ever plan on upgrading because of financial issues), not to mention whoever is capable of LAN has a full time job or two (i.e. Tech support and teaching martial arts classes).

As for your attempt at a t retort. It's obvious you didn't understand the 'co-op with a friend' idea at all. Since you seem to think that it's tied to playing with random strangers on the internet. <_<

Still doesn't explain RL is not that accomodating for those of us that can't exactly hang out with friends every single day/weekend/holiday just because of RL issues.

[darth_lopez]

AuraofMana wrote...

ITT: People don't understand what options mean. If you don't want to play co-op, don't ****ing play it. Other people can if they want.

no it's that most of you people don't understand that MP does take resources it's not just a little check box. It takes extra resources that means less resources for the main story less for the main story the story is there by lowered in quality. All you people who MP and CO-OP is the best thing ever should look at a few of the games to try it and end up going MP only
COD series-failing
BF series -deathrows
MOH series-deathrows
halo- rebounding from slight heart attack

these were all top of the line games once. Leave the MP + COOP out of ME 3 save it for ME 4 let that fail not ME 3.

furthermore why do you want to do CO-OP in an RPG with Selectable Dialogue ? That's like Borderline demanding there be no selectable dialogue! BW would need to make a seperate Co-Op campaign.

[Lunatic LK47]

AuraofMana wrote...

ITT: People don't understand what options mean. If you don't want to play co-op, don't ****ing play it. Other people can if they want.
Also, people don't seem to have friends, nor do they seem to understand how LAN or playing on the same console works. So many entitled, holier-than-thou douchebags.

LAN or playing on the same console= Finding a gaming session where both friends can actually come over to each other's places. Unfortunately, I don't have that option because of scheduling conflicts save the sporadic summer vacation or Christmas vacation. Same goes for real life friends.

[Lumikki]

AuraofMana wrote...

ITT: People don't understand what options mean. If you don't want to play co-op, don't ****ing play it. Other people can if they want.
Also, people don't seem to have friends, nor do they seem to understand how LAN or playing on the same console works. So many entitled, holier-than-thou douchebags.

People understand option just fine. How ever, NOTING in this world is FREE. Meaning it takes time and money to build ANY OPTION. So, we don't want Bioware waste time and money to option what so few players use. Because they can use that time and money to make something better with the game, what would benefit the MAJORITY of the players.

Modifié par Lumikki, 06 janvier 2011 - 07:12 .

[Saibh]

I'll give my DAII no multiplayer argument:

ME is a single-player series, and that's where its strength is. To put in a new multiplayer (assuming you want it to be good), would suck resources away from that. Inevitably suck resources away. The single-player would be worsened by the presence of a multiplayer. And since ME has always been a single-player with a single-player story and characters and combat, we don't want that to happen.

If BioWare, after ME3 is done, wants to make a ME-set multiplayer, go right ahead.

Modifié par Saibh, 06 janvier 2011 - 07:03 .

[Lunatic LK47]

darth_lopez wrote...

AuraofMana wrote...

ITT: People don't understand what options mean. If you don't want to play co-op, don't ****ing play it. Other people can if they want.

no it's that most of you people don't understand that MP does take resources it's not just a little check box. It takes extra resources that means less resources for the main story less for the main story the story is there by lowered in quality. All you people who MP and CO-OP is the best thing ever should look at a few of the games to try it and end up going MP only
COD series-failing
BF series -deathrows
MOH series-deathrows
halo- rebounding from slight heart attack

these were all top of the line games once. Leave the MP + COOP out of ME 3 save it for ME 4 let that fail not ME 3.

furthermore why do you want to do CO-OP in an RPG with Selectable Dialogue ? That's like Borderline demanding there be no selectable dialogue! BW would need to make a seperate Co-Op campaign.

Thank you, Lopez.

[ObserverStatus]

The Big Nothing wrote...

Nope.

Mass Effect 1-3 is the story of Shepard, not Shepard & Friend.

Where were you in ME2? That game completely revolved around Shepard's friends.

[AuraofMana]

darth_lopez wrote...
no it's that most of you people don't understand that MP does take resources it's not just a little check box. It takes extra resources that means less resources for the main story less for the main story the story is there by lowered in quality. All you people who MP and CO-OP is the best thing ever should look at a few of the games to try it and end up going MP only
COD series-failing
BF series -deathrows
MOH series-deathrows
halo- rebounding from slight heart attack

these were all top of the line games once. Leave the MP + COOP out of ME 3 save it for ME 4 let that fail not ME 3.

Yeah, just talk about all the games with co-op that has bugs, but none that have the co-op providing a good experience. Also, HOLY **** BUGS! Both ME2 and DA:O still have bugs. I guess they're still not ready for retail.
Also, I am aware it takes resources away to develop an extra feature, except I rather have that feature.

darth_lopez wrote...
furthermore why do you want to do CO-OP in an RPG with Selectable Dialogue ? That's like Borderline demanding there be no selectable dialogue! BW would need to make a seperate Co-Op campaign.

Or they can just implement co-op and designate a team captain to pick all the dialogues. Also, this is optional, what part of that do you not understand? Don't play it if you hate it so much.

Lunatic LK47 wrote...
LAN or playing on the
same console= Finding a gaming session where both friends can actually
come over to each other's places. Unfortunately, I don't have that
option because of scheduling conflicts save the sporadic summer vacation
or Christmas vacation. Same goes for real life friends.

You know that just because you don't have that option doesn't mean other people can't right? Almost everyone who is opposing this idea in this thread fails to see beyond his or her own personal scope. This is like a SC2 fan asking Blizzard to never implement multiplayer because he or she will never play it due to lack of time. That's your own damn problem. Just because you don't see any benefits to this doesn't mean millions of others do not.

Again, entitled, holier-than-thou douchebags.

I also want to mention that ME3 is already confirmed to have MP (could change, of course). If it's not co-op but its own separate mode together it would require even more resource to do. Let's be logical here. I know it's hard for people in this thread but let's just try it for once.

Modifié par AuraofMana, 06 janvier 2011 - 07:09 .

[ObserverStatus]

Personally I like this idea. If you think playing with a friend in the combat sequences would break the immersion, don't use this feature. As long as they don't make the companion's ai so ridiculously bad that you are forced to play with a partner like in Resident Evil 5, everyone can be happy.

[silver_sparrow]

bobobo878 wrote...

Personally I like this idea. If you think playing with a friend in the combat sequences would break the immersion, don't use this feature. As long as they don't make the companion's ai so ridiculously bad that you are forced to play with a partner like in Resident Evil 5, everyone can be happy.

Exactly! having to work with the crappy AI can be downright frustrating. it would be nice to have an actual player help me out.

Modifié par silver_sparrow, 06 janvier 2011 - 07:18 .

[Lunatic LK47]

[quote]AuraofMana wrote...

Yeah, just talk about all the games with co-op that has bugs, but none that have the co-op providing a good experience. Also, HOLY **** BUGS! Both ME2 and DA:O still have bugs. I guess they're still not ready for retail.
Also, I am aware it takes resources away to develop an extra feature, except I rather have that feature.[/quote]

What, at the cost of having Conrad Verner-caliber import bugs and a 5-hour single-player game? No way in hell I'm paying $70, and this is coming from someone who buys 2-5 games a year max new-release wise.


[quote]Lunatic LK47 wrote...
LAN or playing on the
same console= Finding a gaming session where both friends can actually
come over to each other's places. Unfortunately, I don't have that
option because of scheduling conflicts save the sporadic summer vacation
or Christmas vacation. Same goes for real life friends.[/quote]
You know that just because you don't have that option doesn't mean other people can't right? Almost everyone who is opposing this idea in this thread fails to see beyond his or her own personal scope. This is like a SC2 fan asking Blizzard to never implement multiplayer because he or she will never play it due to lack of time. That's your own damn problem. Just because you don't see any benefits to this doesn't mean millions of others do not.[/quote]

Uh, what are you smoking? StarCraft has a high-quality single-player campaign and multiplayer. Last time I checked, StarCraft at least has 20 hours of gameplay in the campaign department. Most console games however are stuck with the five hour range, and at the least , four hours for Kane & Lynch: Dog Days and Force Unleashed 2 (not worth $70. Money is not toilet paper).

[quote]Again, entitled, holier-than-thou douchebags.[/quote]

Oh wow, you're a bigger holier-than-thou douchebag for thinking "It's only your damn problem if you have a problem with multiplayer." I'm already at a point where I'm giving up on gaming after Mass Effect 3 because half of the gaming library now-a-days consists of four-hour shovelware. Might as well charge as $50 just to watch a movie in the theaters while we're at it. As for my earlier multiplayer posts. If it's a LESSER KNOWN GAME, there's an artificial clock involved. I shouldn't be told "You bought the game at the wrong time" if I find a dead community when I buy a game at a $20 price tag.

[quote]I also want to mention that ME3 is already confirmed to have MP (could change, of course). If it's not co-op but its own separate mode together it would require even more resource to do. Let's be logical here. I know it's hard for people in this thread but let's just try it for once.[/quote]

Which is still on the "RUMORED" phase.

[DJBare]

I'd give it up guys, seriously, the MP fans are just ignoring the resource argument.



I'm not against co-op/mp, just make it a seperate entity AFTER ME3.

[ObserverStatus]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

Uh, what are you smoking? StarCraft has a high-quality single-player campaign and multiplayer. Last time I checked, StarCraft at least has 20 hours of gameplay in the campaign department. Most console games however are stuck with the five hour range, and at the least , four hours for Kane & Lynch: Dog Days and Force Unleashed 2 (not worth $70. Money is not toilet paper).

I'm guessing you mean SC1. I can't emphasize enough how much of a disappointment SC2's singleplayer was.

[Mercuron]

I've always believed co-op is possible in ME3 if people sit down and work everything out. Whether they have the time and resources and inclination to is a matter for the devs, but I will say that I think the resource argument is old-hat, thrown at pretty much any feature someone doesn't like (I've seen exactly the same argument made against everything from Wing-Commander combat in the Normandy to SS romance options). Saying that it will make the game worse because resources are diverted away from 'more important things' is valid enough, but it's really easy for that to become a self-fulfilling prophecy if you decide to find a problem in the finished game - either with the feature you dislike or something else you can blame on the resources used up by that feature.

With that said, I believe the devs are going to stick to single-player only for ME3 and that's alright with me. I like SP just fine. I just don't believe all these claims about resources being wasted when all it's really about is a simple dislike of the feature. Which is fine "because that's, like, your opinion, man."