991 réponses à ce sujet

[upsettingshorts]

night_raven26 wrote...

so soldiers WOULDN'T be able to use adrenaline rush?!

I don't see why not, they would just be sped up instead of having time universally slow down.

Hypothetically speaking, of course.

[Nexus Arcade]

If you don't want to play multiplayer then don't. You aren't forced too.

[MGIII]

RamirezWolfen wrote...

Foryou wrote...

Funny how months ago Bioware said that there will be no multiplayer in Mass Effect 3, funny how bioware thinks that it's okay to lie to us.

They never said no multiplayer. Ever.

Balthier is correct. Bioware never confirmed no multiplayer. Not one single time. Wishful thinking by fans took words for more than they were worth, or meant.

[Illiandri]

Yes! Yes! Let the butthurt flow through you!!

We don't know anything about MP, not a single detail so before people start whining first get some facts.

I like the hypocrisy of people crying that BW is not listening to the fans. BSN asked for S/S relationships and that is being added.

BSN asked, rightfully for JH's VAing is awesome, a greater focus on on FShep and we all saw how the flames of entitled anger ripped through the net as people complained about one of the fundementals of Democracy: Voting. Nobodies entitlement is greater than the vote of the majority. Instead of being thankfull BSN complained about everything on FShep.
BSN demanded for a spoiler free marketing campaign and BW is doing this to the cries of the same people complaining about the lack of spoilers in the marketing.

If BW wants to add MP then it is their right and I will wait till I get cold hard facts in my hands about the demise of ME3 because of the addition of the phantasmal MP for which they pushed back the release date by 6 months. BW is spending more time and money on their game and people are still complaining without cold, hard facts?

[Candidate 88766]

AlphaJarmel wrote...

Candidate 88766 wrote...
Yeah, thats why I imagine any MP would be co-op in nature. The magazine does say play with your friends (giggity), which suggests co-op - and there were those rumours of co-op missions that were seperate to the SP. I think that would be ideal.

I would actually prefer it to be part of the campaign(and the magazine seems to somewhat imply that) as it would give me more incentive to use it.

That would require a lot of the changes you mentioned - I don't want to lose the time-dilation with the infiltrator, I love that ability.

Also, dialogue and pacing would be issues (guests would have to sit and wait for you to choose dialogue and there are bound to be stretches where the host just wants to wander around the Normandy - not much fun for guests).

I'm not sure co-op could work in the main story, and even if it could I'm not sure I'd like that. Missions built entirely aroun co-op would be awesome though.

[unfringed]

TheGreenAlloy wrote...

unfringed wrote...

So you're saying "we listen" equates to "we'll do whatever we wnt, regardless of the fanbase's wishes"?

You aren't everyone.

I never claimed to be. Don't try to put words in my mouth.

[Geth_Prime]

Somehow I knew half the community would jump to the conclusion that the singleplayer game will be worse because there's multiplayer.

Chill, BSN, chill. You can judge when the game is out. I'll be enjoying the singleplayer primarily, but multiplayer (almost certainly co-op) will be a lot of fun too.

[Fiery Phoenix]

OSUfan12121 wrote...

IsaacShep wrote...

OSUfan12121 wrote...

Why do the devs do things like "confirm" that theres no multiplayer and then a magazine apparently announces it a few months later? Why cant they just say its in limbo?

They never confirmed there's no multiplayer in ME3.

Actually they did its even in the confirmed features thread with a direct link to a dev quote.

Because Phaedon took that as a denial rather than a deflection; that's what. I'm not defending BioWare or anything, but they never actually denied MP being there. So they aren't "liars".

[slimgrin]

ErichHartmann wrote...

IF multiplayer is really a part of the game I want competitive PvP. I don't care for cooperating with others. I would rather watch them rage as I kill them.

This. Co-op is lame. I want to destroy people.

[Tonymac]

slimgrin wrote...

Well, if they have multiplayer so be it. That doesn't interest me.

However, if the single player campaign suffers because of it, even just a little, my nerd rage shall be great. ME3 is likely the last game by Bioware that interests me.

I tend to agree with you on this.  If the main story in any way suffers because of theis MP stuff, then I am done.  In a way, I would prefer to know the truth of what they plan - because I preordered the game.    The game I preordered did not mention this multiplayer trash that I have little to no interest in.  It is not too late to cancel.

There are only so many team members for a group.  We can't really have more than one Shepard, can we?  If so, are they some kind of trans-dimensional images of Shepard?  Sounds like trash to me.  I guess I could play Garrus, or Zaeed - but I don't want to.  I wanna play Shepard, not some team member.  I lead, ye follow!

If they turn it into some kind of PvP trash then I certainly have no desire to own the game.  The harassment and stupidities that always follow will ensue.  Just go look at the halo games and watch a sniper make a game and bang you out as soon as you pop in.   These things are no fun, and class balances are never right or even close to fair.  Look at some MMOs to get an idea if that.  WoW after how many patches and upgrades is still not right as fasr as class balance.

If they made it so that we were just a team of Marines doing a co-op it could be cool.   I would likely enjoy that very much, because you could match squaddies in such a way as to benefit eachother.  It would be even more fun to play with my friends.  This is essentially the only co-op that I feel is worth my time.

I just wish that the dev team would pipe up on the matter so I know if I have to cancel my preorder or not.

[lazuli]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

night_raven26 wrote...

so soldiers WOULDN'T be able to use adrenaline rush?!

I don't see why not, they would just be sped up instead of having time universally slow down.

Hypothetically speaking, of course.

That would only make aiming harder.  It's a suggestion, but an imperfect one.  I don't see the multiplayer being fully integrated into the standard experience.  I'm envisioning something extra.  We wouldn't be playing as our Shepards, for instance.

[TheGreenAlloy]

Dionkey wrote...

ErichHartmann wrote...

IF multiplayer is really a part of the game I want competitive PvP. I don't care for cooperating with others. I would rather watch them rage as I kill them.

Nope. And this is why gaming is turning to garbage.

Indeed.

[Xewaka]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

night_raven26 wrote...
so soldiers WOULDN'T be able to use adrenaline rush?!

I don't see why not, they would just be sped up instead of having time universally slow down.
Hypothetically speaking, of course.

Or they'd have their cooldowns resetted.

[LPPrince]

Honestly, I just feel bad for the players who had it in their minds that Bioware could do no wrong(the wrong being what those players consider to be wrong).

The Bazaar, The Blonde FemShep fiasco, now this-

If there's players out there that had that mindset and felt all these things were negatives, they're probably going insane as we speak.

[Dionkey]

slimgrin wrote...

ErichHartmann wrote...

IF multiplayer is really a part of the game I want competitive PvP. I don't care for cooperating with others. I would rather watch them rage as I kill them.

This. Co-op is lame. I want to destroy people.

Then go play a competitive game. God damn, it's like you people need to taint everything you touch. I don't expect Call of Duty or Counter-strike to be amazing singleplayer experiences, do I? Stop doing the opposite here.


** Spam deleted per Site Rule #2 **

Modifié par Selene Moonsong, 10 octobre 2011 - 04:02 .

[ItsPhilsTime]

OSUfan12121 wrote...

Why do the devs do things like "confirm" that theres no multiplayer and then a magazine apparently announces it a few months later? Why cant they just say its in limbo? They never confirmed there's no multiplayer in ME3.

Actually they did its even in the confirmed features thread with a direct link to a dev quote.

Shouldn't u be in a OSU thread talking about how your QB blow the game, and is the worst QB ever?

Modifié par ItsPhilsTime, 10 octobre 2011 - 03:54 .

[upsettingshorts]

lazuli wrote...

That would only make aiming harder.  It's a suggestion, but an imperfect one.  I don't see the multiplayer being fully integrated into the standard experience.  I'm envisioning something extra.  We wouldn't be playing as our Shepards, for instance.

How about this>

Adrenaline Rush:  Soldier is sped up and gains a temporary auto-aim.   Perhaps fully upgraded it could auto-aim headshots.

I mean,that's what we're all doing when we use Adrenaline Rush anyway.  That and getting the defensive bonus.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 10 octobre 2011 - 03:51 .

[MGIII]

lazuli wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

night_raven26 wrote...

so soldiers WOULDN'T be able to use adrenaline rush?!

I don't see why not, they would just be sped up instead of having time universally slow down.

Hypothetically speaking, of course.

That would only make aiming harder.  It's a suggestion, but an imperfect one.  I don't see the multiplayer being fully integrated into the standard experience.  I'm envisioning something extra.  We wouldn't be playing as our Shepards, for instance.

What Mesmer skill is that in your avatar?

[Illiandri]

TheGreenAlloy wrote...

Dionkey wrote...

ErichHartmann wrote...

IF multiplayer is really a part of the game I want competitive PvP. I don't care for cooperating with others. I would rather watch them rage as I kill them.

Nope. And this is why gaming is turning to garbage.

Indeed.

I disagree

[Thalorin1919]

I like how Bioware basically ignores what the fan wants, and just puts MP in.

I thought at first that they just failed every once in awhile after Dragon Age 2 - But now it seems like it will be a more frequent thing.

[DarkDragon777]

MGIII wrote...

DarkDragon777 wrote...

MGIII wrote...

DarkDragon777 wrote...

Mmmm, don't you just hate the taste of burnt games that have multiplayer achievements and devalue actual achievements a good player that doesn't like multiplayer could've gotten in SP? Delicious.

You're inordinantly valuing achievements inherently, which devalues your opinion on anything relevant correspondingly.

Because we all know your opinions are absolutely fabulous. Maybe your unwarranted sense of self-importance devalues your opinions on anything correspondingly. But wait, that's my opinion, so it really doesn't matter.

Perhaps my opinions are ass. Irrelevant. What I posted wasn't my opinion. Just a stated fact. Unless there was undetected satire in the original post I replied to (which I doubt, considering your follow-up response), you erroneously evaluated the value of achievements relative to one another. Therefore, your opinion on the actual mechanics of games suffers from a validity standpoint unless there is no consistency between that embarrassing opinion you displayed earlier and your grasp of other factors in gaming.

I did you the favor of giving you the tl;dr version of all that above. I was expecting gratitude.

Unless you can give me some kind of law of the universe that states that achievements have inherently equal value, then you have no way to say I'm wrong.

The only person who should be embarrased here is you, considering you present a ridiculous ideological argument that doesn't have any solid proof to back it up. All you did was use an opinion to counter another opinion. All that does is devalue the entire discussion. You should feel proud.

Modifié par DarkDragon777, 10 octobre 2011 - 03:54 .

[Chala]

ThicknSwift wrote...

Just Ignore it.

You are asking too much. It seems that some people takes everything related to MP as a "obligatory mode filled with annoying kids that if you don't play it you won't see the rest of the game"