3794 réponses à ce sujet

[Darkeus]

gamer_girl wrote...

Darkeus wrote...

gamer_girl wrote...

Darkeus wrote...

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 unnneeded multiplayer is "cool".

The validity of that post is yet to be determined, but none of their updates so far have been interpreted as a lie so why should this one? What do you honestly think the devs have as motivation? Would they really put all that time in if they thought it would ruin the game? Doubtful. Of all the things running through a devs mind in the making of a game, "I'm going to intentionally make this terrible just to ****** people off" isn't one of them.

It may have been unwanted by you, but others requested this. Just because you don't want it doesn't mean nobody does.

Don't speak for the whole community.  You act like I am the only one against this.  That is far from the truth.

And The whole of the Dragon Age 2 dev cycle was a circle of half-truths.....

And the motivation?  Deflect anger about co-op with half-truths to try to quell the masses and placate people who choose to trust BioWare completely.  The envirionment the Faq was released in give pause since anger was AGAINST THEM.  A perfect reason to relase a somewhat truthful faq to delay the outrage.  It is simple corporate PR.....  

When did I speak for the whole community? I said "just because you didn't want it, doesn't mean nobody does." That isn't a blanket statement.
How was DA2 a "circle of half-truths"? Name something that was said with a source that ended up being false. And even if you can (which I doubt), why are you so certain that ME3 is the same situation?
You missed the point. Why would they make a feature that they thought everyone would hate? They wouldn't, as that would only decrease popularity, and in essence decrease sales.

And yet is has generated PLENTY of hate..  I mean really?  Why would they add phrases like, "Don't appraise until we put info out."  They knew any kind of multiplayer would get a bad reaction, and it has.  Are you ignoring this?

[gamer_girl]

magnetite wrote...

Darkeus wrote...
If that is to be completely believed. 

We don't know if that is true or not yet.

I hope not. The best ending coming from multiplayer would go against the spirit of having an RPG in the first place. Just saying.

When did they say the best ending would come from multiplayer? They said it's an alternate way to get the optimal ending, not the only way. Why is multiplayer somehow "forbidden" in RPGs anyways? It's not like the most popular multiplayer game of all time is an RPG... *cough cough World of Warcraft cough cough*

[Il Divo]

whywhywhywhy wrote...

The best method would include not including ME3 in the core game, why should I play for features I don't want ? 

Because game development doesn't work like that. 9 times out of 10 you don't get to say "Hey, I don't want X, so keep it away". You get the whole package. If that were the case, I would have told Bioware to scrap the inventory and exploration components since Mass Effect 1 was released.

[Novate]

[quote]gamer_girl wrote...

[quote]Darkeus wrote...

[quote]gamer_girl wrote...

[quote]Darkeus wrote...

[quote]gamer_girl wrote...



I
When did I speak for the whole community? I said "just because you didn't want it, doesn't mean nobody does." That isn't a blanket statement.
How was DA2 a "circle of half-truths"? Name something that was said with a source that ended up being false. And even if you can (which I doubt), why are you so certain that ME3 is the same situation?
You missed the point. Why would they make a feature that they thought everyone would hate? They wouldn't, as that would only decrease popularity, and in essence decrease sales.

[/quote]


What you are mistaking is that Bioware actually know what features everyone will like and hate. Because if they knew, the wouldn't have made DA2 the way they did, they had such a great IP and also a Great DAO. Its the same argument that everyone was making back before DA2 was made, everyone was saying that Bioware knows what they are doing, they just made ME1 and DAO and both games went to AAA the first night of sales. They know what they are doing wait and see. They can never make a developer mistake!!, and now look what happened.

[Khran1505]

Novate wrote...

I took off most of the quotes, but keep the last paragraph so you know I am replying to you.
You are taking the Co-op as an Expansion, that much I agree is a wonderful thing to do, but what is not wonderful is that fact that its the last story of Commander Shepard and you are not even playing as Commander Shepard.
This Co-op would have been much better served as an entirely new game, where like you said fighting against an overwhelming forces of an enigmatic yet powerful entity with a friend.

But that is taking your focus away from Shepard. Its his/her last game, why would you want to not play Shepard at all.

I like this Co-op option, but I just don't find it working with the whole last chapter in Commander Shepard's Trilogy at all.

I can understand people's concern with how people are afraid that the last game in a trilogy about one soldier (namely the one we all identify as ourselves) having a multiplayer that has nothing to do with Shepard in question is something to be fearful of, but that's where people are tripping up on what the point is. This isn't multiple Shepards fighting the same war, that fear of not being the biggest hero in a war full of heroes is long gone. What this co-op is, according to detail, is taking us, the players, into different scenes within the war from the perspectives of other soldiers and taking advantage of this by allowing us and friends to engage in the war side by side. Yes, it has nothing to do with Shepard, but while our efforts in the Galaxy of War system contributes to the war effort, the one making the biggest decisions in the shaping of the galaxy rests with Shepard.

Making a complete multiplayer game is a foolish thing to do unless handled with EXTREME care. Thankfully Mass Effect is nothing of the sort and places its fate in the single player more than anything. The multiplayer, according to BioWare, is a new addition to the war with the Reapers but it is from different perspectives with people (depending on who we create) who are fighting a war and not making the choices that Shepard will make. The story is there but it is miniscule at best, we're only there for the intense ride of fighting a war. The real hands shaping the galaxy is none other than the (wo)man we are, Shepard.

[Darkeus]

gamer_girl wrote...

Darkeus wrote...

gamer_girl wrote...



-My point was that if multiplayer is removed, then it is denying the people that wanted multiplayer. The people that want a single player game aren't being denied a single player game. Why does the single-player-can't-even-be-in-this-game-even-if-I-don't-have-to-play-it audience hold precedence over the I-want-single-player audience?

Why do you need multiplayer in a traditionally single player RPG?  Why must the "We need multiplayer because it has to have it" crowd get their crappy feature in my Single Player Rpg?

Again you're making it all about you. This is (and I don't know how many times I'm going to have to say this) an optional feature, and many people seem to want to play with their friends, myself included. "Your" single player RPG isn't going away, correct?

I only asked the same question back to you.  You said why should MP fans lose the feature.  I ask why was it included at all.  Fair question and not about me.  Just because I use my does not mean I am talking about me....  Sigh...

[gamer_girl]

Darkeus wrote...

gamer_girl wrote...

Darkeus wrote...

gamer_girl wrote...

Darkeus wrote...

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 unnneeded multiplayer is "cool".

The validity of that post is yet to be determined, but none of their updates so far have been interpreted as a lie so why should this one? What do you honestly think the devs have as motivation? Would they really put all that time in if they thought it would ruin the game? Doubtful. Of all the things running through a devs mind in the making of a game, "I'm going to intentionally make this terrible just to ****** people off" isn't one of them.

It may have been unwanted by you, but others requested this. Just because you don't want it doesn't mean nobody does.

Don't speak for the whole community.  You act like I am the only one against this.  That is far from the truth.

And The whole of the Dragon Age 2 dev cycle was a circle of half-truths.....

And the motivation?  Deflect anger about co-op with half-truths to try to quell the masses and placate people who choose to trust BioWare completely.  The envirionment the Faq was released in give pause since anger was AGAINST THEM.  A perfect reason to relase a somewhat truthful faq to delay the outrage.  It is simple corporate PR.....  

When did I speak for the whole community? I said "just because you didn't want it, doesn't mean nobody does." That isn't a blanket statement.
How was DA2 a "circle of half-truths"? Name something that was said with a source that ended up being false. And even if you can (which I doubt), why are you so certain that ME3 is the same situation?
You missed the point. Why would they make a feature that they thought everyone would hate? They wouldn't, as that would only decrease popularity, and in essence decrease sales.

And yet is has generated PLENTY of hate..  I mean really?  Why would they add phrases like, "Don't appraise until we put info out."  They knew any kind of multiplayer would get a bad reaction, and it has.  Are you ignoring this?

Or maybe they had the sense to look at the boards and noticed that BSN had a bad reaction MOSTLY (not everyone on BSN reacted negatively). And where was this posted I wonder? Oh that's right, BSN. Just because this happened on BSN doesn't mean it's the case for all Mass Effect fans world wide whether they are in BSN or not in BSN.

[didymos1120]

*ahem*

didymos1120 wrote...

whywhywhywhy wrote...

The leaked video of MP didn't look so good.

What leaked video of MP?

Modifié par didymos1120, 12 octobre 2011 - 12:47 .

[ramdog7]

TheGreenAlloy wrote...

ramdog7 wrote...

is CO-Op really multiplayer?

How can it not be?

cuz its not, ask any hardcore mutliplayer junkie and they will tell you its not

[sedrikhcain]

They've already admitted that MP will affect SP experience. What the MP supporters don't seem to be able to get is that people like me on this board don't care that it's optional. What bothers us is that in order to experience everything there is to experience in SP, we MUST engage in MP, which we have no interest in doing. Add to that the recent string of disappointments (DA2, Witch Hunt, MMO KOTOR) and these are troubling times for some of us who love many BioWare games and previously couldn't wait to play the end of the ME saga. I don't think these are unrealistic concerns.

[TheGreenAlloy]

Darkeus wrote...

TheGreenAlloy wrote...

shep82 wrote...

Darkeus wrote...

gamer_girl wrote...



-My point was that if multiplayer is removed, then it is denying the people that wanted multiplayer. The people that want a single player game aren't being denied a single player game. Why does the single-player-can't-even-be-in-this-game-even-if-I-don't-have-to-play-it audience hold precedence over the I-want-single-player audience?

Why do you need multiplayer in a traditionally single player RPG?  Why must the "We need multiplayer because it has to have it" crowd get their crappy feature in my Single Player Rpg?

That's pretty damn arrogant. It's not YOUR game everyone has their own character. It's as much their game as yours.

Indeed. You still have your SP RPG, Darkeus. It isn't going anywhere.

That remains to be seen and in what for.  It also remains to be seen how this co-op feature affects the game beyond some PR Faq.

Practically, we know nothing. I choose to believe Chris here, whilst you choose not to. In the end, I hope ME3 exceeds all of our expectations. Of course, I hope more than anything that the SP is good.

[gamer_girl]

Darkeus wrote...

gamer_girl wrote...

Darkeus wrote...

gamer_girl wrote...



-My point was that if multiplayer is removed, then it is denying the people that wanted multiplayer. The people that want a single player game aren't being denied a single player game. Why does the single-player-can't-even-be-in-this-game-even-if-I-don't-have-to-play-it audience hold precedence over the I-want-single-player audience?

Why do you need multiplayer in a traditionally single player RPG?  Why must the "We need multiplayer because it has to have it" crowd get their crappy feature in my Single Player Rpg?

Again you're making it all about you. This is (and I don't know how many times I'm going to have to say this) an optional feature, and many people seem to want to play with their friends, myself included. "Your" single player RPG isn't going away, correct?

I only asked the same question back to you.  You said why should MP fans lose the feature.  I ask why was it included at all.  Fair question and not about me.  Just because I use my does not mean I am talking about me....  Sigh...

Your question wasn't even valid seeing as single player still exists in ME3. Nobody is taking "Your single player" away. They are adding an option that you don't even need to pursue, for people who enjoy multiplayer.

[TheGreenAlloy]

ramdog7 wrote...

TheGreenAlloy wrote...

ramdog7 wrote...

is CO-Op really multiplayer?

How can it not be?

cuz its not, ask any hardcore mutliplayer junkie and they will tell you its not

Those guys (thankfully) aren't in control of definitions.

[Il Divo]

Zanallen wrote...

And under my proposition, you would be able to make two choices: If you as the player wanted to pay more to experience romance content and then if your Shepard wanted to romance a character or not. If I don't use a romance option and never do, why should I be forced to pay for this content. It is something my Shep will never see and something I will never experience. Why do I have to pay for it then? Just like with multiplayer.

But I explained the concept of choice already. Now, if you're saying that you dislike romances period, then I would agree with you that the scenarios are equivalent. However, if you enjoy choice, then it is impossible to give you content to experience without providing content which you would not experience. Otherwise, it's not a choice and you're just watching the motions happen, no different than Gears or Halo.

[didymos1120]

sedrikhcain wrote...

What bothers us is that in order to experience everything there is to experience in SP, we MUST engage in MP, which we have no interest in doing

Why should something you have no evidence for bother you? 

[Taciter]

sedrikhcain wrote...

They've already admitted that MP will affect SP experience. What the MP supporters don't seem to be able to get is that people like me on this board don't care that it's optional. What bothers us is that in order to experience everything there is to experience in SP, we MUST engage in MP, which we have no interest in doing. Add to that the recent string of disappointments (DA2, Witch Hunt, MMO KOTOR) and these are troubling times for some of us who love many BioWare games and previously couldn't wait to play the end of the ME saga. I don't think these are unrealistic concerns.

Nicely put.. succinct!

[Darkeus]

gamer_girl wrote...


Or maybe they had the sense to look at the boards and noticed that BSN had a bad reaction MOSTLY (not everyone on BSN reacted negatively). And where was this posted I wonder? Oh that's right, BSN. Just because this happened on BSN doesn't mean it's the case for all Mass Effect fans world wide whether they are in BSN or not in BSN.

Then they would see more negative reactions.  It is not just confined to this board.  Go search the net for a moment and look around.

[JD196]

sedrikhcain wrote...

They've already admitted that MP will affect SP experience. What the MP supporters don't seem to be able to get is that people like me on this board don't care that it's optional. What bothers us is that in order to experience everything there is to experience in SP, we MUST engage in MP, which we have no interest in doing. Add to that the recent string of disappointments (DA2, Witch Hunt, MMO KOTOR) and these are troubling times for some of us who love many BioWare games and previously couldn't wait to play the end of the ME saga. I don't think these are unrealistic concerns.

Where does it say that to experience all of SP you have to play MP?

[Digifi]

ramdog7 wrote...

TheGreenAlloy wrote...

ramdog7 wrote...

is CO-Op really multiplayer?

How can it not be?

cuz its not, ask any hardcore mutliplayer junkie and they will tell you its not

Ok, that made me laugh, thanks!

[TheGreenAlloy]

sedrikhcain wrote...

They've already admitted that MP will affect SP experience. What the MP supporters don't seem to be able to get is that people like me on this board don't care that it's optional. What bothers us is that in order to experience everything there is to experience in SP, we MUST engage in MP, which we have no interest in doing. Add to that the recent string of disappointments (DA2, Witch Hunt, MMO KOTOR) and these are troubling times for some of us who love many BioWare games and previously couldn't wait to play the end of the ME saga. I don't think these are unrealistic concerns.

-and then there is the other side of the coin. A lot of people are looking forward to this, myself included. I have yet to see something that prooves your fears of SP being compromised.

[shep82]

didymos1120 wrote...

sedrikhcain wrote...

What bothers us is that in order to experience everything there is to experience in SP, we MUST engage in MP, which we have no interest in doing

Why should something you have no evidence for bother you? 

I'd like to know this too as I have yet to see the proof of that.

[Novate]

Khran1505 wrote...

Novate wrote...

I took off most of the quotes, but keep the last paragraph so you know I am replying to you.
You are taking the Co-op as an Expansion, that much I agree is a wonderful thing to do, but what is not wonderful is that fact that its the last story of Commander Shepard and you are not even playing as Commander Shepard.
This Co-op would have been much better served as an entirely new game, where like you said fighting against an overwhelming forces of an enigmatic yet powerful entity with a friend.

But that is taking your focus away from Shepard. Its his/her last game, why would you want to not play Shepard at all.

I like this Co-op option, but I just don't find it working with the whole last chapter in Commander Shepard's Trilogy at all.

I can understand people's concern with how people are afraid that the last game in a trilogy about one soldier (namely the one we all identify as ourselves) having a multiplayer that has nothing to do with Shepard in question is something to be fearful of, but that's where people are tripping up on what the point is. This isn't multiple Shepards fighting the same war, that fear of not being the biggest hero in a war full of heroes is long gone. What this co-op is, according to detail, is taking us, the players, into different scenes within the war from the perspectives of other soldiers and taking advantage of this by allowing us and friends to engage in the war side by side. Yes, it has nothing to do with Shepard, but while our efforts in the Galaxy of War system contributes to the war effort, the one making the biggest decisions in the shaping of the galaxy rests with Shepard.

Making a complete multiplayer game is a foolish thing to do unless handled with EXTREME care. Thankfully Mass Effect is nothing of the sort and places its fate in the single player more than anything. The multiplayer, according to BioWare, is a new addition to the war with the Reapers but it is from different perspectives with people (depending on who we create) who are fighting a war and not making the choices that Shepard will make. The story is there but it is miniscule at best, we're only there for the intense ride of fighting a war. The real hands shaping the galaxy is none other than the (wo)man we are, Shepard.

And with your wonderfully stated argument, I will now only able to wait for the game to come out and hope that SP as they stated wasn't affected by the addition of Co-op .
If the fate of the galaxy is still in the hands of Shepard, then I am happy to have Co-op in the game, but if Co-op has any place in shaping the outcome of the galaxy, then I will be extremely disappointed and will have to think twice when I see the name of Bioware.

[Il Divo]

sedrikhcain wrote...

They've already admitted that MP will affect SP experience. What the MP supporters don't seem to be able to get is that people like me on this board don't care that it's optional. What bothers us is that in order to experience everything there is to experience in SP, we MUST engage in MP, which we have no interest in doing. Add to that the recent string of disappointments (DA2, Witch Hunt, MMO KOTOR) and these are troubling times for some of us who love many BioWare games and previously couldn't wait to play the end of the ME saga. I don't think these are unrealistic concerns.

No, you don't. Chris responded to this in the OP. Multiplayer provides an alternative method to the optimal ending, which Chris explained can be obtained without ever engaging in multiplayer. By definition, you can have a complete single experience by only partaking in the single player experience, as a result.

[shep82]

JD196 wrote...

sedrikhcain wrote...

They've already admitted that MP will affect SP experience. What the MP supporters don't seem to be able to get is that people like me on this board don't care that it's optional. What bothers us is that in order to experience everything there is to experience in SP, we MUST engage in MP, which we have no interest in doing. Add to that the recent string of disappointments (DA2, Witch Hunt, MMO KOTOR) and these are troubling times for some of us who love many BioWare games and previously couldn't wait to play the end of the ME saga. I don't think these are unrealistic concerns.

Where does it say that to experience all of SP you have to play MP?

It doesn't.