3794 réponses à ce sujet

[Iakus]

gamer_girl wrote...

-Explain how it takes away from single player by existing? You don't have to use it and an entirely different team separate from the single player team worked on it. Your logic seems to have some flaws there.

WIll there be a separate disk labeled "multiplayer"?
Will Galaxy at War be a separate download?

If not, then it's taking up room that could hold single player content.  You can't put two picinics in the same basket and not leave something out.

-This is a major point I have here "that happens to be personal for every person who plays it". If it is personal for each different person, why should something many people (not necessarily you) will enjoy and that could ADD to THEIR personal experience be taken away?

And why could Mass Effect 3 and Mass Effect:  Galaxy at War not be sold as different games that people could choose to purchase and enjoy and make everyone happy?  Why must ME3 be a guinea pig for multiplayer just because they have a captive audience with SHepard's story?

-Explain how co-op takes anything at all away from single player. You sure like spamming that statement without any direct proof that it does so.

Two picinics.  One basket.

-Key word think. Yes you THINK the devs are spinning the effect it will have on single player. Do you KNOW that? Nope. Why should we assume that your judgement is accurate?

They are spinning it.  Even if I thought it was the greatest innovation ever, I'd say they were spinning it.  Because they want people to accept it.  They're going to play up the good points and downplay the notsogood points.  They're not gonna say "Yeah some of you are gonna think is sux, but you're acceptable losses.  Go play DEHR while we try and fit multiplayer into DA3"

[Darkeus]

gamer_girl wrote...

Darkeus wrote...

gamer_girl wrote...

Darkeus wrote...

gamer_girl wrote...

Darkeus wrote...

gamer_girl wrote...

I don't think BW could win with you if they gave you exactly what you wanted. I don't think the problem is BW. The problem is you.

No, they have won with me with every game I have bought from the.  From Baldur's Gate to now.  I have been here for a long time.  Please, you know nothing about me.

And what I have seen is a degrading of quality since EA got involved.  I am a fan who does not like what he sees with his favorite game company and thinks multiplayer is just a cash-in idea that looks to detriment a superior Single Player RPG. 

Smh, you though.....

So why not go to the I-don't-know side rather than the this-is-practically-guaranteed-to-ruin-this-entire-game side? To make such a huge assumption only makes you look foolish. Nobody knows how the MP will be and only a few have had the chance to play the demo at a game convention. From what I've read, the general concensus from people who have played the demo is that it has fantastic gameplay. So to me it just sounds like you're throwing a bit of a tantrum just because you weren't satisfied with DA2 and you're taking it out on the multiplayer even though an entirely separate team worked on it.

It is the pattern of decreasing quality.  EA seeps more and more into the decision making and it is causing harm to the games.  This does not look good.  I do not trust what the Devs say yet and I think this is a mistake that may detract from the game.  It already takes away from the Single Player by exsisting and providing an alternate way.  The game does not need an alternate way to achieve a SINGLE PLAYER GOAL>  Mass Effect is a single player experience that happens to be personal for every person who plays it.

Co-op takes away from that.  And it seems tacked on and it is sure to cause bugs and just is better as something separate.  I think the devs are spinning the effect it will have on Single Player, I really do.

So I am on the side of pessimistically cautious.  BioWare is questionable right now and I don't trust this to work right or not affect my Single Player game. If they pull it off, bravo!  Maybe I will even check it out once or twice since I don't really care about co-op anyway.  But I don't think so.  I have a BAD feeling about this....

-Why is it that your opinion on quality is the only opinion on quality? I know many people who think the quality of BW's games has improved, so you can't say that the quality has decreased as if it is a fact.

-If you believe the quality of BW's games has decreased, why do you assume it is because of EA? Could it not merely be a coincidence?

-Explain how it takes away from single player by existing? You don't have to use it and an entirely different team separate from the single player team worked on it. Your logic seems to have some flaws there.

-Sure the game doesn't need an alternate way, but then what are BioWare games all about? They give you choices. It's a choose your own adventure, not a take-away-the-alternatives-that-others-may-enjoy-just-because-Darkeus-had-a-minor-embolism adventure.

-This is a major point I have here "that happens to be personal for every person who plays it". If it is personal for each different person, why should something many people (not necessarily you) will enjoy and that could ADD to THEIR personal experience be taken away?

-Explain how co-op takes anything at all away from single player. You sure like spamming that statement without any direct proof that it does so.

-Key word think. Yes you THINK the devs are spinning the effect it will have on single player. Do you KNOW that? Nope. Why should we assume that your judgement is accurate?

Multiplayer does not add to the choice of the game.  I do not believe it will not affect Single player.  Either through unintentional (Bugs and programming problems) to intentional (What am I missing from not using this mode to increaase my readiness.  What story elements am I missing out on? WIll the addition of this artifically inflate the Galactic readiness score of my SP game and therefore make it to easy?  Or too hard?  Does this involve others in my personal Mass Effect experience?  Did time and resources better used for making this aspect of the game better get wasted on what may be a worthless feature?)

I think you are not looking at this deep enough really, but whatever.  You are not looking at what effects it could have.  Instead you just hope BioWare knows what they are doing.  That is craziness.  

And what proof do you have of anything?  What are you saying that is not pure speculation?  We are all speculating here off of a PR faq that may or may not be entirely truthful.  Do YOU know any of the question you ask?  Of course you do not.

And no, it is not a coincidence.  EA's influence is easy to spot.  Some on, you are not blind...  BioWare has gone down hill since gaining corporate masters.

-Multiplayer does indeed add to the choice of the game. BW said themselves that it provides an alternate way to achieve a goal and so did you: "The game does not need an alternate way to achieve a SINGLE PLAYER GOAL"

-Of course you don't believe it won't affect single player. It affects it only if you want it to. Just as all other optional things affect your Mass Effect (ie. gender, class, romances, dialogue options, plot forks, etc.) only if you choose to use them.

-I would rather hope that they know what they're doing rather than assume they don't.

-I never said I had any proof of anything. I'm not sure of anything. My personal opinion is that it sounds cool, but logically, nobody can be sure of anything, and so there is no point in making it seem as though you are.

-None of those questions would apply to me obviously.

-As I said before, quality is subjective. Some people believe that the quality has increased. To say your opinion is the correct one is just silly as you have no way to directly prove that. And you have no way of proving that this supposed loss of quality is directly because of EA. A statement is not fact if it is something you "think" and not something you know.

To say you are right is just as silly..  Really it is....

And I do not believe the BioWare PR that you will not need it to have a full Single Player experience.  I believe it will affect the Single Player more than they are letting on.  What I am saying is, "I do think it will affect the Single Player in a negative way".  

And what I mean by Mass Effect not needing an alternate path is that Multiplayer should not be available for a alternate path.  Single player is what it should be.  It is a Single Player goal.  I should not be able to play a co-op tack on to skirt the system and be able to skip Single Player content to achieve the goal of beating the game.  Thsi should no tbe in the game. It should be an EXCLUSIVELY single player experience.

But it sounds like that is not the case now.  That is the difference.  You believe the PR Faq word for word.  I do not and I think with good reason.  Not hard to grasp.

[Zakatak757]

I don't feel like making a long post right now. I think I will just make a very neutral comment right here.

Ahem.

This game may be really bad.
BUT!
This game may be not bad at all.
Don't know until you play it.

That is all.

[whywhywhywhy]

Someone With Mass wrote...

I'll just laugh at those that think the productivity of the development team depends solely on the budget.

Or that MP will somehow diminish the SP, despite it being made by a completely different team in a completely different studio.

The devs have constantly stated that ME3 will be about as long, if not longer than ME2, without the co-op.

If that or another completely different studio was working on  different portion of the core game then they'd increase productivity so I'm laughing at you...for real.

[whywhywhywhy]

Melchiah109 wrote...

Ancient Metal wrote...

No. What Lard is saying, very coherently, is that when you purchase a game that costs $60 or whatever the Euro price is, there is an expectation that the full content if everything be accessible along with it without, in essence, being "nickled and dimed" to experience all the content. For Lard (and myself), all fontent associated with a game should be available for the money spent....the purchase price.

It's interesting to see more and more intolerance for such nickle and diming, as in reality it becomes $5 here, $10 here, etc. The current model exists where such steps are taken because there is a market and people pay, but as tolerance shifts against such measures, so will demand and companies in theory would have to cater to the new economic demand of consumers.

That makes absolutely no sense in regards to why you don't want MP in the game. Maybe you should try building something that isn't a straw man. If you don't want DLC, then you should be raging about DLC.

Makes perfect sense if you can look at it from a different perspective then your own.

[JD196]

Zakatak757 wrote...

I don't feel like making a long post right now. I think I will just make a very neutral comment right here.

Ahem.

This game may be really bad.
BUT!
This game may be not bad at all.
Don't know until you play it.

That is all.

Yeah making a neutral comment got me dragged into an argument.

[whywhywhywhy]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Between this and all that it implies, and Origin, it's not looking good.

I hope I'm wrong.

your not

[The Interloper]

Darkeus wrote...

The Interloper wrote...

It's crazy to assume that a professional, AAA studio must be blundering since they make a good-instead-of-the-usual-great game once. It's possible, but speculation. I think we both agree this is to early to call.

It is just not Dragon Age 2.  There has been a series of concerning items that make me doubt.  As someone said above, I have seen too many corporate shenanigans to believe a PR Faq.  We are speculating and it will not even end tomorrow when more info comes forth.

My gut feeling just screams "bad" but maybe I am wrong.  I HOPE I am wrong to be honest....

What else, then? ME2? It had flaws, but nothing to throw the towel in over. You appearantly didn't mind it. We also had some good DLC, and one great DLC.

From my view there have been a series of items encouraging me to be okay with this, which I've already mentioned. Even under EA BW has shown it isn't unable to correct mistakes. As for PR, I took it with a grain of salt
 and so far as I can tell they still adressed my concerns, at least in part. To dismiss them requires you to assume they're outright lying through their teeth, PR or no. Again, there's also the fact that MP development began late in SP development, which is a good thing in context.

I can't argue with your gut, you know.

[gamer_girl]

Taciter wrote...

gamer_girl wrote...
-Why is it that your opinion on quality is the only opinion on quality? I know many people who think the quality of BW's games has improved, so you can't say that the quality has decreased as if it is a fact.

That's a very subjective analysis girl.

gamer_girl wrote...
-If you believe the quality of BW's games has decreased, why do you assume it is because of EA? Could it not merely be a coincidence?

It most certainly could but most of us hold Bioware very close to our hearts and like a child can do no wrong in the eyes of a prent, Bioware remains above reproach in our eyes. Instead we prefer to think that the new Landlord has been the catalyst for this little domestic spat.

gamer_girl wrote...
-Explain how it takes away from single player by existing? You don't have to use it and an entirely different team separate from the single player team worked on it. Your logic seems to have some flaws there.

Because any content included with Mass Effect is canon and contains content crucial to the experience as a whole. Publishing said content in a format so fundamentally at odds with a large proportion the franchise's existing customer base virtually precludes them from experiencing that content - at the very least, it patronises their ideology.

gamer_girl wrote...
-Sure the game doesn't need an alternate way, but then what are BioWare games all about? They give you choices. It's a choose your own adventure, not a take-away-the-alternatives-that-others-may-enjoy-just-because-Darkeus-had-a-minor-embolism adventure.

But this is not a 'choice', it's an imposition - an ultimatum! You like multiplayer...you get it all, you don't like multiplayer... make do!

gamer_girl wrote...
-This is a major point I have here "that happens to be personal for every person who plays it". If it is personal for each different person, why should something many people (not necessarily you) will enjoy and that could ADD to THEIR personal experience be taken away?

The entire franchise is personal to a great many of us so by incorporating a game mechanic that precludes 'solo' players, you are denying those players a welcome extension to content so inextricably linked to the franchise as a whole.

gamer_girl wrote...
-Explain how co-op takes anything at all away from single player. You sure like spamming that statement without any direct proof that it does so.

See above.

gamer_girl wrote...
-Key word think. Yes you THINK the devs are spinning the effect it will have on single player. Do you KNOW that? Nope. Why should we assume that your judgement is accurate?

No one should presume anything until we know more but that doesn't preclude the option for open discourse on the subject.

For my part, I would gladly accept this addition so long as bots can be implemented as an optional alternative to multiplayer.

-Of course it's subjective. That's how it is supposed to be.

-It is silly to assume that they are perfect without the influence of EA. Nothing is perfect, they may very well have made a few "mistakes" that many people see the benefits of (obviously you're not one of those people and neither is Darkeus)

-The third thing you said doesn't make a whole lot of sense... They produced a separate optional content and it somehow offends the existing fan base? So what you're saying is that you and others are offended because they added a feature that may appeal to other people AND at least a few people from the existing fan base just because it doesn't appeal to you? Should we also be offended if nestle produces a new flavour of syrup to put in milk that we might not like but others do?

-Is BW holding a gun to your head and telling you that you must play the multiplayer? No. They are not forcing you to do anything, then there is no imposition at all.

-Nobody is denying anyone anything. You can still play single player correct? If they did remove multiplayer as you so obviously want them to do, then who are we denying? The people who want multiplayer in ME3.

[TheGreenAlloy]

Ancient Metal wrote...

It's a very disappointing last two days, as Mass Effect 3 was easily my most anticipated game. I had it preordered when it first came out for preorder. But today I cancelled and will not be purchasing this game until it receives a drop in its price and I see how well it is received. I am also tomorrow cancelling my order for Star Wars: The Old Republic, as i now have zero faith in it. That is the multiplayer i enjoy...mmorpgs, but I know they are multiplayer. I have lost all interest in that game as well...I do not want to purchase a game from the company who ruined Mass Effect at the very end and disappointed me so much. I waited since 2007 and I was so excited, but it is ruined now.

Can't tell if satire, or just serious...

[whywhywhywhy]

Zanallen wrote...

fl0wers wrote...

Outright lie? Explain.

It is an outright lie because he says it is an outright lie, no matter what Bioware has said on the subject because Bioware is full of outright liars. Obviously.

ok.

[Darkeus]

The Interloper wrote...

Darkeus wrote...

The Interloper wrote...

It's crazy to assume that a professional, AAA studio must be blundering since they make a good-instead-of-the-usual-great game once. It's possible, but speculation. I think we both agree this is to early to call.

It is just not Dragon Age 2.  There has been a series of concerning items that make me doubt.  As someone said above, I have seen too many corporate shenanigans to believe a PR Faq.  We are speculating and it will not even end tomorrow when more info comes forth.

My gut feeling just screams "bad" but maybe I am wrong.  I HOPE I am wrong to be honest....

What else, then? ME2? It had flaws, but nothing to throw the towel in over. You appearantly didn't mind it. We also had some good DLC, and one great DLC.

From my view there have been a series of items encouraging me to be okay with this, which I've already mentioned. Even under EA BW has shown it isn't unable to correct mistakes. As for PR, I took it with a grain of salt
 and so far as I can tell they still adressed my concerns, at least in part. To dismiss them requires you to assume they're outright lying through their teeth, PR or no. Again, there's also the fact that MP development began late in SP development, which is a good thing in context.

I can't argue with your gut, you know.

Arrival (Though I though it was just alright)
Dragon Age: Awakenings
Witch Hunt
The DLC in Mass Effect 2 (That is a total EA thing, so is Cerberus network)
Dragon Age 2

There are more than a few.

I have experience with EA concerning their NCAA football series.  I have seen this pattern before with tacked on features and unwanted additions.  I have seen them perpetuate themselves year to year.

In short, I have seen EA's corporate attitude and this reeks of it.  It feels rushed and until I see differently, then they are lying about something or the other.

[gamer_girl]

Darkeus wrote...

gamer_girl wrote...

Darkeus wrote...

gamer_girl wrote...

Darkeus wrote...

gamer_girl wrote...

Darkeus wrote...

gamer_girl wrote...

I don't think BW could win with you if they gave you exactly what you wanted. I don't think the problem is BW. The problem is you.

No, they have won with me with every game I have bought from the.  From Baldur's Gate to now.  I have been here for a long time.  Please, you know nothing about me.

And what I have seen is a degrading of quality since EA got involved.  I am a fan who does not like what he sees with his favorite game company and thinks multiplayer is just a cash-in idea that looks to detriment a superior Single Player RPG. 

Smh, you though.....

So why not go to the I-don't-know side rather than the this-is-practically-guaranteed-to-ruin-this-entire-game side? To make such a huge assumption only makes you look foolish. Nobody knows how the MP will be and only a few have had the chance to play the demo at a game convention. From what I've read, the general concensus from people who have played the demo is that it has fantastic gameplay. So to me it just sounds like you're throwing a bit of a tantrum just because you weren't satisfied with DA2 and you're taking it out on the multiplayer even though an entirely separate team worked on it.

It is the pattern of decreasing quality.  EA seeps more and more into the decision making and it is causing harm to the games.  This does not look good.  I do not trust what the Devs say yet and I think this is a mistake that may detract from the game.  It already takes away from the Single Player by exsisting and providing an alternate way.  The game does not need an alternate way to achieve a SINGLE PLAYER GOAL>  Mass Effect is a single player experience that happens to be personal for every person who plays it.

Co-op takes away from that.  And it seems tacked on and it is sure to cause bugs and just is better as something separate.  I think the devs are spinning the effect it will have on Single Player, I really do.

So I am on the side of pessimistically cautious.  BioWare is questionable right now and I don't trust this to work right or not affect my Single Player game. If they pull it off, bravo!  Maybe I will even check it out once or twice since I don't really care about co-op anyway.  But I don't think so.  I have a BAD feeling about this....

-Why is it that your opinion on quality is the only opinion on quality? I know many people who think the quality of BW's games has improved, so you can't say that the quality has decreased as if it is a fact.

-If you believe the quality of BW's games has decreased, why do you assume it is because of EA? Could it not merely be a coincidence?

-Explain how it takes away from single player by existing? You don't have to use it and an entirely different team separate from the single player team worked on it. Your logic seems to have some flaws there.

-Sure the game doesn't need an alternate way, but then what are BioWare games all about? They give you choices. It's a choose your own adventure, not a take-away-the-alternatives-that-others-may-enjoy-just-because-Darkeus-had-a-minor-embolism adventure.

-This is a major point I have here "that happens to be personal for every person who plays it". If it is personal for each different person, why should something many people (not necessarily you) will enjoy and that could ADD to THEIR personal experience be taken away?

-Explain how co-op takes anything at all away from single player. You sure like spamming that statement without any direct proof that it does so.

-Key word think. Yes you THINK the devs are spinning the effect it will have on single player. Do you KNOW that? Nope. Why should we assume that your judgement is accurate?

Multiplayer does not add to the choice of the game.  I do not believe it will not affect Single player.  Either through unintentional (Bugs and programming problems) to intentional (What am I missing from not using this mode to increaase my readiness.  What story elements am I missing out on? WIll the addition of this artifically inflate the Galactic readiness score of my SP game and therefore make it to easy?  Or too hard?  Does this involve others in my personal Mass Effect experience?  Did time and resources better used for making this aspect of the game better get wasted on what may be a worthless feature?)

I think you are not looking at this deep enough really, but whatever.  You are not looking at what effects it could have.  Instead you just hope BioWare knows what they are doing.  That is craziness.  

And what proof do you have of anything?  What are you saying that is not pure speculation?  We are all speculating here off of a PR faq that may or may not be entirely truthful.  Do YOU know any of the question you ask?  Of course you do not.

And no, it is not a coincidence.  EA's influence is easy to spot.  Some on, you are not blind...  BioWare has gone down hill since gaining corporate masters.

-Multiplayer does indeed add to the choice of the game. BW said themselves that it provides an alternate way to achieve a goal and so did you: "The game does not need an alternate way to achieve a SINGLE PLAYER GOAL"

-Of course you don't believe it won't affect single player. It affects it only if you want it to. Just as all other optional things affect your Mass Effect (ie. gender, class, romances, dialogue options, plot forks, etc.) only if you choose to use them.

-I would rather hope that they know what they're doing rather than assume they don't.

-I never said I had any proof of anything. I'm not sure of anything. My personal opinion is that it sounds cool, but logically, nobody can be sure of anything, and so there is no point in making it seem as though you are.

-None of those questions would apply to me obviously.

-As I said before, quality is subjective. Some people believe that the quality has increased. To say your opinion is the correct one is just silly as you have no way to directly prove that. And you have no way of proving that this supposed loss of quality is directly because of EA. A statement is not fact if it is something you "think" and not something you know.

To say you are right is just as silly..  Really it is....

And I do not believe the BioWare PR that you will not need it to have a full Single Player experience.  I believe it will affect the Single Player more than they are letting on.  What I am saying is, "I do think it will affect the Single Player in a negative way".  

And what I mean by Mass Effect not needing an alternate path is that Multiplayer should not be available for a alternate path.  Single player is what it should be.  It is a Single Player goal.  I should not be able to play a co-op tack on to skirt the system and be able to skip Single Player content to achieve the goal of beating the game.  Thsi should no tbe in the game. It should be an EXCLUSIVELY single player experience.

But it sounds like that is not the case now.  That is the difference.  You believe the PR Faq word for word.  I do not and I think with good reason.  Not hard to grasp.

I never said I was right to think that it sounds like a cool addition. The only "correct" way to think right now is to be unsure. Simple as that.

It makes the most sense to believe the article. That came straight from the horse's mouth. If you think this article is false, then why believe any of the articles they've made thus far? Why believe there is a Mass Effect 3 in the first place? If you believe that this one is all lies, why aren't any of the others?

Modifié par gamer_girl, 12 octobre 2011 - 12:16 .

[masterkajo]

I think that the effect of multiplayer on singleplayer will be very small.

Like when you import a level 50 or higher character into ME2 you start with extra resources which you could earn by scanning planets for 15 minutes. After that you are on equal level of resources. (I know that you are still ahead in actual lvl but that is mostly gameplay and not story related) Sure it is a nice bonus but you do not have to do it to do and achieve everything.

I hope that tomorrow the Bioware Puls episode will clear things up and lets people not worry so much but rather look forward to an awesome ending of a trilogy with an optional mutliplayer component for those interested. I will surely try it (wheater before, during or after my singleplayer playthrough will be determined when I know more infos)

[Khran1505]

Alenkosexualtendencies wrote...

So much hate for a feature in a game that hasn't even been demo'd to the public yet. I hope MP DOES affect your SP in a dramatic game changing manner.... just so the trolls can drop this game.

Beat me to it, my friend.

This news excites me, I'm honestly really interested in seeing how Galaxy at War will play out and I'm more than thankful it is an optional choice we're given that won't detract from the massive single player experience. Kudos to you, BioWare!

Seriously, why all the hate? It's because of people ****ing about "multiplayer being unnecessary" that BioWare have felt threatened and troubled that they had to emphasize the ever loving god out of the fact the entire co-op function is an OPTION! Is it really so hard for you people to just back down, ignore the feature in the final game and enjoy what you DO love about Mass Effect? Don't like multiplayer? IGNORE IT! It's not bloody rocket science, it's kindergarten! Some of us are actually excited about this and some people with actual brain cells who don't like the idea of multiplayer have chosen not to play it but they'll look forward to the game all the same.

I do love the people here who immediately assume the game's going to suck despite humanity not having achieved the power of time travel. Your ignorance makes me laugh.

Seriously people, back down, think how stupid you're being and just accept this is Mass Effect 3's future. If co-op isn't your way, ignore it (or just dis-connect your network from your console) and carry on with Shepard's full story as it consumes you just as the previous games did. If it is, all the more power to you and look forward to it just as well.

[JD196]

Khran1505 wrote...

Alenkosexualtendencies wrote...

So much hate for a feature in a game that hasn't even been demo'd to the public yet. I hope MP DOES affect your SP in a dramatic game changing manner.... just so the trolls can drop this game.

Beat me to it, my friend.

This news excites me, I'm honestly really interested in seeing how Galaxy at War will play out and I'm more than thankful it is an optional choice we're given that won't detract from the massive single player experience. Kudos to you, BioWare!

Seriously, why all the hate? It's because of people ****ing about "multiplayer being unnecessary" that BioWare have felt threatened and troubled that they had to emphasize the ever loving god out of the fact the entire co-op function is an OPTION! Is it really so hard for you people to just back down, ignore the feature in the final game and enjoy what you DO love about Mass Effect? Don't like multiplayer? IGNORE IT! It's not bloody rocket science, it's kindergarten! Some of us are actually excited about this and some people with actual brain cells who don't like the idea of multiplayer have chosen not to play it but they'll look forward to the game all the same.

I do love the people here who immediately assume the game's going to suck despite humanity not having achieved the power of time travel. Your ignorance makes me laugh.

Seriously people, back down, think how stupid you're being and just accept this is Mass Effect 3's future. If co-op isn't your way, ignore it (or just dis-connect your network from your console) and carry on with Shepard's full story as it consumes you just as the previous games did. If it is, all the more power to you and look forward to it just as well.

Amen 

[Darkeus]

gamer_girl wrote...



I never said I was right to think that it sounds like a cool addition. The only "correct" way to think right now is to be unsure. Simple as that.

It makes the most sense to believe the article. That came straight from the horse's mouth. If you think this article is false, then why believe any of the articles they've made thus far? Why believe there is a Mass Effect 3 in the first place? If you believe that this one is all lies, why aren't any of the others?

You believe everything you read?  I sure don't.

The Faq was released during a time when anger was boiling.  Of course they said things to calm the masses, and yes they mave have lied or told mistruths or partial truths.  I tend to think the Single Player is affected by this more than is being said.  You want to believe it lock, stock.  So be it.

It is subjective, so we can't really dismiss each other at all can we.  You maybe right and I hope you are, but I really do not think you are and I do not think this unwanted and unneeded multiplayer is "cool".

You do, we will see if it works out or if it does not.

Modifié par Darkeus, 12 octobre 2011 - 12:21 .

[FugitiveMind]

Ok, so I read the first 80 page thread that got closed for the 40 page thread that got closed for this 100+ page thread. Here are the arguments I see so far, and some opinions on them. All opinions wrong, or you get your money back for the price of this post:
 
Disclaimers:
I play on these on my 360, have PS3 and computer as well
I have friends, I'm not antisocial
I play CoD & Battlefield, as well as the SP RPGs and MMOs, I'm not anti MP or social contact in games
 
1) The Zots argument or Division of Cashflow:
I've seen a lot of back and forth on economic theory on this one. You either
A) Believe that 100% of the budget is the entire budget period and it should've all gone to SP
100% of the SP budget DID go to SP, the MP budget is "Completely separate and it's being done by a completely different studio"
I fall more into camp on this one, but that begs a question I haven't seen in 200+ pages:
If it's a completely separate budget made by a completely different studio that you don't need to play the game, then why the heck is it in THIS game in the first place? I applaud the idea, I deride the implementation.
 
2) "There is no Multiplayer"
Again you either fall into:
A) They lied to us!!
They never specifically said there was no MP
This one is just political double speak and semantics. If my wife found out I was slamming the chick down the street, I wouldn't be in any LESS trouble because I never explicity stated I wasn't. Perception rules the day, if you don't believe that you're fooling yourself. I got in to ME because it was SP. Almost every other game available jams social and together down my throat, sometimes I just need to get AWAY from other people while I game. Bioware has always filled that void, and I'm not ready to give that up yet.
 
3) You got MP in my SP!!
This one is a bit murkier as we don't have a lot of info on it, but the arguments seem to be:
A) It has no effect on SP if you skip it!!
Just don't play it!!
C) I shouldn't be required to MP for my SP experience!
D) MP isn't required for your SP experience!
E) Give us bots! (Offline Coop)
F) Cross platform play and Origin
This going to come down to implementation. If you need to cut down a tree and get handed a chainsaw and a herring, no matter how much you hate the chainsaw you're going to end up using it no matter how much your morals want you to cut down the mightiest tree in the forest with your herring. Actually, I bet they're banking on this.
 
It's going to be a per playthrough MP setup, not per profile, otherwise people could do it once and forget it which isn't what they want. I hate to say this as much as I WANT bots to be a choice, Bots make it not MP, and that isn't what they want either. And there's a reason I chose "F" for the 2 listed there, as that's what we are if we think the first will happen and the second won't.
 
Finally, noone is going to change anyone elses' mind. I am not excited about MP, but I'm not against it either. What I AM against is the avoiding the issue followed by a leak, followed by the days of spin control we're in now until we get a carefully crafted response in the morning. Skip you got MP in my SP, you got politics in my gaming and that has me more irritated than any of the rest...

[shep82]

Ace of Dawn wrote...

whywhywhywhy wrote...

someguy1231 wrote...

Lard wrote...

someguy1231 wrote...

Why are people still playing the "MP diverts resources from SP" card? As has been pointed out many, MANY times (including the OP), the MP is being handled by a different studio.

MP takes resources directly away from the SP game. Every single time.

That is indisputable.

*sigh*
Guess I'll say it again:
Those resources were never meant for the SP to begin with!!!!!
[/u][u]

YOU DON'T KNOW THAT.  You assume that, we don't even know who initiated the shooter mechanics and MP gameplay to begin with.  If it was Bioware then what ever budget requested was in their control to define and per approval acquire.

When you request funding, you clearly write down what everything is intended for. Bioware would have, by necessity, requested the money specifically for this. Otherwise, the Developer wouldn't sign off on it. And considering how much it would likely cost to implement this, I very much doubt they would have signed off on a large sum of money solely for campaign.

That's what I've been trying to say.

[whywhywhywhy]

Novate wrote...

The Interloper wrote...

Darkeus wrote...

The Interloper wrote...

Darkeus wrote...

gamer_girl wrote...

Lard wrote...

fl0wers wrote...

Lard wrote...

fl0wers wrote...

It's weird to me that anyone can complain about something completely optional that is being developed by a separate team so it won't take away from the main single player experience.

If you don't like the idea of co-op in ME3, don't play it. It's optional.

Why do people continue to repeat this outright lie?

Outright lie? Explain.

Jesus.....

Bioware themselves confirmed that it directly affects the SP game.

"Success in multi-player will have a direct impact
on the outcome of the single player campaign, giving players an
alternative method of achieving ultimate victory against the greatest
threat mankind – and the entire galaxy – has ever faced."

As
a bonus to the campaign, BioWare is introducing the Mass Effect 3:
Galaxy at War system, a new way for players to manage and experience the
galactic war from multiple fronts, including a new 4-player co-op mode.
The key to saving the galaxy is the “Galactic Readiness” level,
measured by Commander Shepard’s ability to apply
"It is important to note that the system is
entirely optional and just another way players can have control over
your game experience – it is still possible to achieve the optimal,
complete ending of the game in Mass Effect 3 through single-player
alone."

Does the addition of co-op multiplayer missions impact the scope or quality of the single-player experience?
No.
A dedicated team from our recently formed BioWare Montreal studio has
been focused on creating the multiplayer game features while the main
game continued to be developed by the team in BioWare Edmonton. Both
teams are integrated under the same leadership group that produced Mass
Effect 1 and 2, led by Casey Hudson. BioWare remains dedicated to
delivering one of the most amazing single-player campaigns gamers have
ever experienced.
[/list] How did developing multiplayer impact the single player game?
BioWare
is dedicated and focused on delivering an engaging, fun, and
action-packed experience for Mass Effect 3, one that lives up the
BioWare standard. To reach that level of quality, last year BioWare
opened a studio in Montreal that is home to designers, programmers,
engineers, and other developers. Both studios work together as
partners, lead by the core Mass Effect team, unified in a single vision.
Under the direction of Casey Hudson and other team veterans, both
studios make contributions to both the single player and multiplayer
modes in Mass Effect 3. Rest assured that no compromises were made to
either of these modes in the development of Mass Effect 3.[/list]What if I don’t like multiplayer – will my experience be negatively impacted?

MassEffect 3 is a complete, standalone game that will deliver a satisfying
story experience, even if you choose not to try multiplayer. The Mass
Effect 3: Galaxy at War system and all of the individual components are
meant to complement that amazing game and can be enjoyed on their own or
as part of the Galaxy at War experience.
[/list]

PR.

Anything else?

Handwave dismissal of concrete statements. Anything else?

I for one think the fact that they added disclaimers about the nature of co-op during the usual harp-fest says alot about BW's values. They are aware of the questions this would raise.

Edit:

This is the blind faith I was talking about.  BioWare can screw up and I think they did here.  They would say anything to calm the crap strom that was building.

And if they were sincere, they'd say the same thing. PR would be in affect either way.

You do realize that is just PR right.
Because once the game goes live, and people are angry on the lacking of Single Player experiences, immediately there will be Fans defending that its because you didn't experience the MP. And the reasoning behind that argument is because MP was build into the SP, so even thought you might feel that the SP is lacking, its a complete experience with the MP. So MP is no longer an OPTION, its part of the game.

There are just too many posts of people saying they will wait and see, and that is just like Dejavu, when the first rumor of Multiplayer mode was introduced. Immediately there was tons of fans defending Bioware on that they will never ruin the final Chapter in their Epic Trilogy. And that just wait and you will see that the secret they were building on was for the Single Player Experiences and not some Co-op.

I have seen tons and tons of posts before the announcement that people was calling those that post negative comments on getting Multiplayer Mode in ME3 stupid, and should just wait and see. Now we have waited , and we have seen what they are doing. Are you still gonna wait and see?? Wait till ME3 gets a bad review , wait till its too late to make any final adjustments?? Be vocal , let Bioware know what fans are thinking, don't be silent and wait for your game to fall.

PS: i do think Co-op would be fun, I just wished they would have waited till ME3 was released and then Release a Mass Effect 4 CO-OP: aftermath of the Wa, now that would have been Epic in Scale

I agree whole heartily.

[Cootie]

My tail's a'twitchy twitchin'.

[The Interloper]

Darkeus wrote...

Arrival (Though I though it was just alright)
Dragon Age: Awakenings
Witch Hunt
The DLC in Mass Effect 2 (That is a total EA thing, so is Cerberus network)
Dragon Age 2

There are more than a few.

I have experience with EA concerning their NCAA football series.  I have seen this pattern before with tacked on features and unwanted additions.  I have seen them perpetuate themselves year to year.

In short, I have seen EA's corporate attitude and this reeks of it.  It feels rushed and until I see differently, then they are lying about something or the other.

I thought arrival and awakening were mostly fine. Never got WH, and at any rate that's a small thing. Paid DLC is all the rage across the gaming industry now anyways and ME1 had it under microsift. The only real problem is DA2.

We can argue about slippery slopes and such, but again ME3 has been shown to reverse the trend in some ways (rpg mechanics) so I hardly see how this is verified. I also don't really see how it's all that rushed-it was in development before ME2 came out and will have been baking for over two years by release, which is again an industry standard. There are indications the MP is rushed, but I don't give a darn how that turns out.

Assume all you want. But it's just assuming.

[shep82]

Khran1505 wrote...

Alenkosexualtendencies wrote...

So much hate for a feature in a game that hasn't even been demo'd to the public yet. I hope MP DOES affect your SP in a dramatic game changing manner.... just so the trolls can drop this game.

Beat me to it, my friend.

This news excites me, I'm honestly really interested in seeing how Galaxy at War will play out and I'm more than thankful it is an optional choice we're given that won't detract from the massive single player experience. Kudos to you, BioWare!

Seriously, why all the hate? It's because of people ****ing about "multiplayer being unnecessary" that BioWare have felt threatened and troubled that they had to emphasize the ever loving god out of the fact the entire co-op function is an OPTION! Is it really so hard for you people to just back down, ignore the feature in the final game and enjoy what you DO love about Mass Effect? Don't like multiplayer? IGNORE IT! It's not bloody rocket science, it's kindergarten! Some of us are actually excited about this and some people with actual brain cells who don't like the idea of multiplayer have chosen not to play it but they'll look forward to the game all the same.

I do love the people here who immediately assume the game's going to suck despite humanity not having achieved the power of time travel. Your ignorance makes me laugh.

Seriously people, back down, think how stupid you're being and just accept this is Mass Effect 3's future. If co-op isn't your way, ignore it (or just dis-connect your network from your console) and carry on with Shepard's full story as it consumes you just as the previous games did. If it is, all the more power to you and look forward to it just as well.

Preach it!:wizard:

[Darkeus]

The Interloper wrote...

Darkeus wrote...

Arrival (Though I though it was just alright)
Dragon Age: Awakenings
Witch Hunt
The DLC in Mass Effect 2 (That is a total EA thing, so is Cerberus network)
Dragon Age 2

There are more than a few.

I have experience with EA concerning their NCAA football series.  I have seen this pattern before with tacked on features and unwanted additions.  I have seen them perpetuate themselves year to year.

In short, I have seen EA's corporate attitude and this reeks of it.  It feels rushed and until I see differently, then they are lying about something or the other.

I thought arrival and awakening were mostly fine. Never got WH, and at any rate that's a small thing. Paid DLC is all the rage across the gaming industry now anyways and ME1 had it under microsift. The only real problem is DA2.

We can argue about slippery slopes and such, but again ME3 has been shown to reverse the trend in some ways (rpg mechanics) so I hardly see how this is verified. I also don't really see how it's all that rushed-it was in development before ME2 came out and will have been baking for over two years by release, which is again an industry standard. There are indications the MP is rushed, but I don't give a darn how that turns out.

Assume all you want. But it's just assuming.

Opinion is opinion.  You assume a lot of things as well, but it is all opinion..

[JD196]

Can ya quit it with the Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote stuff. Just start a new reply.