exelsis wrote...
Multiplayer characters have a two gun limit, but have no limit on the TYPES they can carry. Squadmates have a limit of two guns, and no choice of type. Why can't I give tali an SMG instead of a pistol? No good reason, really.
Forcing someone to play a repetitive, unoriginal game mode, after promising that such play would be absolutely unnecessary to achieve the best ending possible, is a gross insult to your customers. This is exactly what bioware did. My requests are all "in a world where bioware gets their **** together, doesn't lie, and can magically get everything done instantly without complications...." kind of thing. They lied about MP, and I don't like that. That segment of that wish simply forces reality in line with their promises.
If the reapers are moronic enough to send their full force to kill one man in a known location, with OVERWHELMING superiority of both air and space forces, leaving them deep in enemy territory and exposed to possible counter attack, and then FAIL TO GET THE GUY, they never would have cleaned out even the first cycle. I'm too stubborn to believe that the reapers are retards. And why burn the batarians, who are already indoctrinated, rather than wipe out the quarians, the largest fleet in the galaxy? That's the real inconsistancy.
Goddamn, try to have a good point? I myself said that Tali should be able to wield a sniper rifle.
Repetitive and unoriginal? That's about as opinionated as "Call of Duty is a generic shooter with no tactics or good plot threads" CoD's campaign is either a rather engrossing alternate reality (Treyarch games) or a great commentary on modern politics (Infinity Ward) and the multiplayer itself has more potential for co-operation and team strategy than most anything on the market. It also has a heavy RPG basis in it. I am honestly disappointed in myself that I can't bring myself to enjoy it. (Call of Duty, not ME multiplayer) It is my opinion that MP is original enough to sink a few hours in at a time. Many people with nearly-maxed manifests clearly like it more than I!
Why do you care about the endings? There are no good ones.
Read the bottom of my post and see what I think. Lazy formatting FTW!
And they failed to stop Shepard because
he's Shepard. They succeeded in getting him in the second game, guess what it didn't do? Stop him. Harbinger succeeded again on Earth, in the final push. Guess what happened? He kept on going, leaving Harbinger fleeing in aforementioned fear. Space opera. Just because the villains play their cards right doesn't mean they should succeed. Granted, the Reapers' victory should be possible. But possible is the key word. What would the point of playing be if you can't succeed no matter what you do? Especially since the plot was fully set up in so that success is a distinct possibility?
Shepard is the biggest threat. He wouldn't be the biggest threat if he were that easy to kill. The exact things that make him the biggest threat are the exact things that make just shooting him with your dreadnought-destroying-laserbeams of death an impractical solution.
But we get it, you don't like the multiplayer or anything else. This dislike should, again, not detract from the experience of people willing to perform every task, and jump through every hoop the game presents them. People like me, who would highly enjoy the feeling of everything coming together, and actually prefer - in games such as this, the feeling of being a part of a well-oiled team machine than a one-man army.
And remember one thing. Human beings are very bad at telling if they're thinking with their cerebellums (emotional cortex) rather than their prefrontal lobe (logic centre)
It's the source of people screaming "I AM BEING REASONABLE!" in arguments when they're clearly not being so.
It's possible your love for Tali is distorting your arguments, at least somewhat. Don't blame you, myself.
Maybe my love for the GaW system is doing kinda the same for me. But I'm trying to control it, at least.
But please try not to derail topics with MP hatred. Most players of the game like the multiplayer. Most players of the game don't like that they were lied to about how much you need it for the "best ending"
And I won't derail topics with I think that people who think the Extended Cut will suck are complete and utter morons. Deal? :innocent:
But nobody knows if they're going to add a backdoor clause in the Extended Cut to get the best ending without any of the GaW stuff, so please. Don't complain yet. The EC endings will actually be worth it, unlike the coloursplosion endings we have now.
Ticonderoga117 wrote...
N7Kopper wrote...
Recruiting Tali earlier? Disagree. Unlike ME2, the plot was written out this way from the start, and it shows in how clunky it isn't.
And showing up to Rannoch before taking care of business on Tuchanka
will not only just get you laughed at by the admiralty board, ultimately
having you do the brick-wall-head-beat dance like Tali was, but the
krogan would be pretty screwed, too.
I disagree. Heading off to Rannoch to stop the stupid war is a win-win-win.
Win because you get Tali earlier.
Win because you save the Geth and Quarians beating thier heads together to see which one caves first.
Win
because you get the ships you need to move the Krogan around, plus a
large force of ships that can keep the Reapers from landing on planets.
(Much more usefull than ground troops imo)
And meanwhile, Cerberus detonate the bomb on Tuchanka, destroy the Shroud, and completely screw over the krogan. That would have been a nice stinger for people fool enough to do Rannoch first.
N7Kopper wrote...
The thing that gets me more? There's very little non-statistical Galaxy at War integration with the campaign. I would like
to be able to do sidequests, portions of the main story, other fronts
of the final battle, as my MP characters if promoted, Randall Enzo if
Infiltrator is completed, and maybe even Jacob if I beat Galaxy and he
survived the suicide mission loyal. And have the Galactic Readiness
itself be reflected in how much of a battle the Reapers have across the
galaxy. Perhaps the Miracle of Palaven would only happen with 80%+?
No!
No, no no no no no! I do not want to play Multiplayer. It's been done
better elsewhere. I do not want to play bland horde mode to get "good"
things. No! It's already bad enough the breath scene is locked behind a
"need to play MP" wall to be seen. This needs ti be nipped in the bud.
No!
Add a versus mode. America's Army style, where the enemy team are nameless, faceless, and indoctrinated. All the time. If you win, readiness points. It would be more fun.
And "bad" is subjective. If you don't like the idea of Shepard being unable to do it all on his lonesome, you can gun it alone. And be punished for doing so. The kind of backlash you exhibit here is what I personally want to nip in the bud. The complainers shouldn't stop the rest of us getting nice things. I want this to happen. If you don't want it to happen, work harder in your single player, and come in just under the wire for a "good enough" ending where nobody goes extinct, and named characters don't die, but there is hardship.
Meh, leaving anyway. For now. I get it, people here are strange folk who don't like playing with others.
Modifié par N7Kopper, 11 juin 2012 - 03:13 .
Retour en haut
