2368 réponses à ce sujet

[Lord Jaric]

didymos1120 wrote...

Symbol117 wrote...

There should have had been some rumours or some information in early development to prepare the consumer base.

 Um......

Thats what I was thinking

[didymos1120]

Abirn wrote...

You can debate the legitimacy of complaints about multiplayer.

You cannot debate the legitimacy of complaints about requiring origin.

This is the internet.  We can and will debate anything. 

[Abirn]

Ok Fine I have a legitimate complaint that bioware should address.

Will I be missing actual story content if I play only Singleplayer and not multiplayer. I missed stuff in Portal 2 from not having anyone to play with will it be the same in ME3

[Kaiser Shepard]

Symbol117 wrote...

Chris Priestly wrote...

Happy Canadian Thanksgiving everyone. I am at my inlays having dinner, so ma typing this on an iPhone. Excuse the larger than usual amounts of spelling errors.

As mentioned by Casey on Twitter, we are confirming that there will be 4 player Co-op multiplayer missions for Mass Effect 3. We will have more details on this feature on Wednesday when the announcement was supposed to be made.

I know the immediate reaction by some is to panic and think of how this will ruin the Mass Effect series or whatever. PLEASE do not over react or assume the worst until you actually hear details on this feature and how it will work. I will try to get approval to give you details so you can make up your minds with the correct details. Marketing's plan was to announce on Wednesday, but I'll see if I can speed this up.

So, until you learn the details, I urge people to have cautious optimism or wary negativity until you get the real details. Thanks everyone. Stay tuned.

First off, Happy Turkey Day to you, Chris, and the other employees at Bioware.  Now to business...

I have an issue with the way that this whole multiplayer has been handled.  There should have had been some rumours or some information in early development to prepare the consumer base.  I was expecting to have a single player experience with full resources devoted to that style of play.  By introducing the multiplayer you have violated a gamer taboo of mixing different game elements that, traditionally, have been kept seperate.  By trying to play this as a good thing for the game will not alleviate the anger, rage, and suspicions of the consumer base who value the tradition the ME franchise has established as a single player game experience.

Moreover I have to say that I am surprised that no one at Bioware considered - in Udina's words - "Do the words political ****-storm mean anything to you?"  Bioware drops a bomb shell, a really big one, and expects that everybody will be cool with it - no information and a lot of sugar fueled rage to type out.  Some action is going to be needed sooner rather than later unless you have to have a repeat of the Bioware Bazaar rage campaign that lasted days until the apology.  Casey Hudson is not just toying with a new game mechanic, he's toying with the majority of the players' feelings and emotions that they have already invested into the first two games by adding something that most of us weren't expecting, nor wanting.

You think the people on BSN represent the entirety of Bioware's target demographic, how cute.

[didymos1120]

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

All about the money.

Yes, because it's not like they're in this racket to make a profit or anything.

Epic fail, this will be as much of a bomb as DS2 multi.

Might be.  Then again, might not. 

[NOD-INFORMER37]

Abirn wrote...

NPH11 wrote...

Just look at this reaction, now imagine the reaction if it turns out ME3 requires Origin.

Nobody will be spared.

You can debate the legitimacy of complaints about multiplayer.

You cannot debate the legitimacy of complaints about requiring origin.

Wait, in which games do you need origin to actually play multiplayer?

[UBER GEEKZILLA]

everyone chil and have some faith. theres another 5 months left. and just beacause they are working on a multyplayer component dosent meen they arent going to work on the single player.

[Ji99saw]

This is my last bioware game, thanks for the memories but I can't stand behind a company that wants to be like every other company, so i'm going to Cd project red the new masters of rpg's

[NOD-INFORMER37]

And wheres Mr. T when you need him? Bioware clearly needs to get some nuts for caving into's EA's demands. xP

[hypothead]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Abirn wrote...

NPH11 wrote...

Just look at this reaction, now imagine the reaction if it turns out ME3 requires Origin.

Nobody will be spared.

You can debate the legitimacy of complaints about multiplayer.

You cannot debate the legitimacy of complaints about requiring origin.

I'm guessing probably might need EA pass to play mulitplayer on consoles and Origin for PC. (Just a guess though but seems sort of thing EA would force upon Bioware even if by some miracle Bioware didn't wish to do it anyways. Just feels like an "EA thing" to do.)

This is the only issue with mutiplayer and ea in the same sentence its that stupid on line pass crap, it wont hurt me since I pre-ordered it but its still so ******* stupid and thats why I hate ea they are a bunch of money hungry-we dont care about you-you have to get this online pass to do stuff you should already be able to do *******. I dont have a problem with muti or bioware just ea and its stupidness.

[Darkeus]

Good at keeping promises??

"Looks at Dragon Age 2"

Yeah, right....

[aridor1570]

Ji99saw wrote...

This is my last bioware game, thanks for the memories but I can't stand behind a company that wants to be like every other company, so i'm going to Cd project red the new masters of rpg's

Because Bioware had never made a game with multiplayer in it, right?

[aridor1570]

Darkeus wrote...

Good at keeping promises??

"Looks at Dragon Age 2"

Yeah, right....

That's only one game, made by an entirely different team.

[blacqout]

Now that i know what's going on, i'm actually really excited for it.

4 player co-op missions, separate from the single player campaign, sounds awesome. I wonder who we'll get to play as.

Modern Warfare 2 had some special co-op missions, and the single player didn't suffer for it. I'm not worried.

[gamer_girl]

Darkeus wrote...

Good at keeping promises??

"Looks at Dragon Age 2"

Yeah, right....

What promise didn't they keep in regards to DA2?

[TheShogunOfHarlem]

1136342t54 wrote...

TheShogunOfHarlem wrote...

1136342t54 wrote...

TheShogunOfHarlem wrote...
Geez. That has always been the most weak sauce argument for not having exploration. In a war you need: rescourses to keep fighting that war, Intelligence to try to learn as much about you enemy as possible,  Clandstine Star systems and Worlds for providing a save haven for non-combatants and staging areas for assaults. All of these material needs can only be found through EXPLORATION! Without them the War is hopeless.

The Council is a galaxy spanning government that has already gave the Normandy all the resources it needs. Seriously There is no time to mine **** for one frigate while the Galaxies military is getting so butt ****ed to the point where one of the enemies smallest ground vehicles can take ship weaponry!

Do you honestly believe that the Normandy is the only ship capable of gathering resources?

You conveniently left out my other examples for having exploration. And if you honestly think that I believe the Normandy is the only ship capable of exploration then you are lost. It is one of a likely dwindling fleet of ships. Everybody has to do their part to sustain the war. 

As far as having "all the resources given by the Council" If you honestly think that enough against the Reapers much less to sustain war (likely of attrition) that wil rage for some time then you are fooling yourself. The War is probably gonna require the Entire Anti-Reaper task force to retreat on a massive scale. Whatever the Council may have given you or whatever you have at your disposal would most likely have been either destroyed/repurposed by the Reapers or would be (or will eventually) exhausted by Shepard's task force. More will be needed, Intelligence must be gathered and secret bases must be found.

Throwing all of you forces at the the Reapers as you seem to suggest would be a needless waste of lives and rescourses and would quicken the Galactic genocide.  

Nice twisting of words It is lovely the way you do it I just can't find a way out of it.

Lets talk about your other examples then.

1. Worlds to provide safe haven.

Not a job for a ship sent out to unite the Galaxy and take out specific Reaper bases. The Council has millions of other personnel for that. Also where could they necessarily go? The Reapers knows the Relay network perfectly and can 

2.Gathering minerals 

Also a job for other groups in the military not a highly advanced Frigate. Also the Reapers haven't destroyed all Council resources. So far they only attacked 2 Council home planets out of dozens more planets. 

Now regarding your assumption that I said the resources the council had enough (which is a blatant lie on your part) to stop the Reapers well then you didn't read my post. It is enough resources for the Normandy. Shepard's job so far is to unite the other races to fight the Reapers and find a way to defeat them. The resources you are likely thinking about are required to be build military equipment, vehicles, ships , weapons etc. The only thing in a war like this that would manner is a fleet. So far any conventional means of fighting the Reapers are insufficient. Any resources Shepard fine couldn't be used in a timely enough manner to be an effect. That is why the Council has other forces to deal with that duty. 

Also the Reapers are too powerful to deal with by gathereing resources and even allies. There would need to be a different way to defeat them which is likely a superweapon or Shepard somehow negotiating with them.

While you are right in the one sense that the Reapers know the Relay network, their last last extinction cycle spared Ilos. My point is that Shepard or whoever can do the same thing and find an uncharted world that the Council nor any other power wouldn't have a record of  (for the Reapers to exploit) and use whatever worlds found as safe havens. Remember the Galaxy hasn't been fully mapped by any power. (perhaps not even the Reapers)

The reason I mention resource gathering is because The way I see it ,the Reaper war will likely be a war of attrition and Shepard will likely have to use a form of asymetric warfare to stay in the fight.  You appear to imply that there is a ticking clock that dictates what we need to do. Even if that were the case, the top priority should be prologing the war and keeping you fighting force viable until you can take bigger risks. Anything else is expendable.

And yes I did read this:

The Council is a galaxy spanning government that has already gave the Normandy all the resources it needs. Seriously There is no time to mine **** for one frigate while the Galaxies military is getting so butt ****ed to the point where one of the enemies smallest ground vehicles can take ship weaponry!

There was nothing of any real substance that conters the fact that the Reapers likely have done some sever damage to the Council's resource gathering/stockpiling abilities. Neither of us really know how that will play out in the grand story. I assume based on what an attack force would do to an enemy, they would target resource stockpiles and defeat their capability to continue to wage war long term. 

Just as you accuse me of twisting your words, you assume that I think it would be strictly Shepard's job to explore and that we should somehow regress to ME1 style exploration. The way I see it, if it were up to me I would like to see a whole new exploration dynamic that is used to support the war effort. Have Shepard send some task force to find a perfect base or try to find some enemy intelligence. To me it seems like many of you want rush through the game like a lousy FPS. I prefer to take my time. 

[didymos1120]

NOD-INFORMER37 wrote...

Wait, in which games do you need origin to actually play multiplayer?

Battlefield 3.

[Darkeus]

aridor1570 wrote...

Darkeus wrote...

Good at keeping promises??

"Looks at Dragon Age 2"

Yeah, right....

That's only one game, made by an entirely different team.

Doesn't matter, both teams are ran by EA and that relationship is why we are getting unneeded co-op in Mass Effect 3.

And Dragon Age 2 was supposed to be good too.  If it looks like a duck man....

[RamirezWolfen]

How do people know that this is all because of EA?

[didymos1120]

NOD-INFORMER37 wrote...

And wheres Mr. T when you need him? Bioware clearly needs to get some nuts for caving into's EA's demands. xP

Bioware is wholly owned by EA.  The concept of "caving in" doesn't really apply.

[aridor1570]

gamer_girl wrote...

Darkeus wrote...

Good at keeping promises??

"Looks at Dragon Age 2"

Yeah, right....

What promise didn't they keep in regards to DA2?

"You promised us a good game!!one7"

[Darkeus]

gamer_girl wrote...

Darkeus wrote...

Good at keeping promises??

"Looks at Dragon Age 2"

Yeah, right....

What promise didn't they keep in regards to DA2?

You have played it right???

[alperez]

The whole multiplayer fiasco to me shows just what little regard they actually have for their fanbase.

Don't get me wrong this isn't a bash multiplayer post, personally i don't really care for it but some people do so i have no problem with this being part of or added to their experience, moreso its a bashing of how Bioware handled the announcement itself.

Ever since the delay was announced most people speculated and posted it was not to polish the game as was suggested but was for the integration of multiplayer in some shape or form, when pressed as usual people were given non responsive answers which allowed wiggle room rather than a simple, we're incorporating a multiplayer aspect, Why? why not just come out and admit you were doing what everyone pretty much knew you were doing anyway.

Its exactly the same thing in regard to squadmates imo, we all pretty much suspect that me2 specific characters are being sidelined, not for storyline reason but because they could have died in me2 so to integrate them as full squadmates it may mean wasted resources since they're not alive in everyone's playthrough.

Yet with this too we're given non answers, told we can't be spoiled, or we'll just have to play the game to see.

I have a tremendous amount of respect for the people at bioware, they've earned it by creating some of the greatest gaming experiences i've had, however ever since the takeover by EA we've seen the focus shift, to some this is no biggie to others its the end of the world as they know it.

For me, me2 moved away from the core gaming experience i enjoyed in me1, it improved in parts and disappointed in others, but i considered it evolution not revolution and the goodwill i had towards bioware didn't suffer because even though i disliked certain things in me2, there were things i liked more than i did in me1.

Dragon age 2 however eradicated a lot of that goodwill, to see a game shipped that had so many bugs, was clearly not polished or finished to the standard we've come to expect from bioware was something i didn't expect, sure some games before had bugs but da2 pushed the envelope too far imo.

SInce then how they've handled the communication of aspects of me3 with the people on these forums, how they've seemingly decided that its far better to fob people off with non answers and only confirm things practically everyone knows when it suits them has left a bad taste in my mouth, one that me3 will have to go a long way to remove.