3794 réponses à ce sujet

[Gatt9]

Il Divo wrote...

For people who are forgetful: 


Mass Effect 3: Galaxy at War

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 every possible asset – people, weapons, resources, armies, fleets – in the final battle against the Reapers. Players can impact their game’s Galactic Readiness level in multiple ways via the Mass Effect 3: Galaxy at War system, including multiplayer. Other platforms and interfaces will be announced in the coming months. 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.

Please don't make me start copying in quotes from Bioware.  Like "There won't be a PS3 version",  or where they tried to deceptively claim that there was no Multiplayer,  or the other various statements they made about ME2 and DA2.

Quoting that won't make it any more true than the several months people kept posting quotes claiming there was no Multiplayer.

[ramdog7]

TheGreenAlloy wrote...

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.

 the definition is "a feature in video games that allows players to work together as teammates. It is distinct from other multiplayer modes, such as competitive multiplayer modes like player versus player or deathmatch. Playing simultaneously allows players to assist one another in many ways: passing weapons or items, healing, providing covering fire in a firefight, and performing cooperative maneuvers such as boosting a teammate up and over obstacles." but my question is should we really think of it as multiplayer? Mainstream multiplayer games are two teams fighting against each other inorder to complete an objective or a free for all match.

[Feops1]

If there's enough stuff to do in the single player campaign to reach the more involved endings, then these co-op missions are essentially optional.

I like co-op, but I don't like it to be required, so I guess I'm pleasently surprised.

[TheGreenAlloy]

Darkeus wrote...

You can quote the PR faq but come on. It was put out to deflect anger about the multiplayer.

They can't just lie their asses off and not care about backlash.

[Brownfinger]

Also, why would the Developers lie? Is this something they're in the habit of doing at Bioware?

No.

The only thing more prevalent on the internet than porn is cynicism.

[shep82]

Taciter wrote...

shep82 wrote...

Taciter wrote...

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 have to... it obvious!

The MP content is just that - content!

I wish I knew how to post a photo I have a perfect facepalm pic that fits this.

I wish I had a photo of a baboon with a blank expression... you'd could revel in solidarity!

So I'm a baboon because I disagree? How mature.

[TheGreenAlloy]

ramdog7 wrote...

TheGreenAlloy wrote...

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.

 the definition is "a feature in video games that allows players to work together as teammates. It is distinct from other multiplayer modes, such as competitive multiplayer modes like player versus player or deathmatch. Playing simultaneously allows players to assist one another in many ways: passing weapons or items, healing, providing covering fire in a firefight, and performing cooperative maneuvers such as boosting a teammate up and over obstacles." but my question is should we really think of it as multiplayer? Mainstream multiplayer games are two teams fighting against each other inorder to complete an objective or a free for all match.

Multi

player.

Please, don't **** up more definitions (Looking at you, RPG controversy).

[Taciter]

[quote]TheGreenAlloy wrote...

It doesn't have to... it obvious!

The MP content is just that - content![/quote]
Yep. MP content. Not SP content. MP.

[/quote]

Thank you for endorsing my original point!

[Il Divo]

Gatt9 wrote...

Please don't make me start copying in quotes from Bioware.  Like "There won't be a PS3 version",  or where they tried to deceptively claim that there was no Multiplayer,  or the other various statements they made about ME2 and DA2.

Quoting that won't make it any more true than the several months people kept posting quotes claiming there was no Multiplayer.

Oh, I'm sorry, Gatt. Can you point me to where the multiplayer is going to impact the single-player? I'd really appreciate it. While you're at it, tell me about how Fallout 1 is the greatest RPG ever, RPGs for people who hate RPGs, and how everyone hates Bethesda.

[tishyw]

Novate wrote...

I am just wondering what are they gonna do about DLC's , Will DLC's be an extension of the SP , or will it be the extension of the MP. If its the MP then I am very disappointed, because all the fears of the masses will be coming true where the funds and time are spent on MP and not the SP aspects of the Game.

Shephards story ends with ME3, so I would think (my opinion only) that most of the DLC is going to be aimed at mutli-player. 
I suspect that's why they're introducing it, because it's hard to sell DLC for continue a story that's already finished and DLC is a bit of a cash-cow for them, so they needed to find a way to get it in there.

[IronSabbath88]

This has all become one big, large, overplayed case of "THEY CHANGED IT, SO NOW IT SUCKS" mentality that is getting really old amongst gamers nowadays.

[voteDC]

Well to be fair they promised us lots more Mass Effect 1 content right up until Pinnacle Station was released and suddenly the tune changed to "that's your lot".

So I can understand why people now feel sceptical about things Bioweare say.

Modifié par voteDC, 12 octobre 2011 - 01:04 .

[Taciter]

shep82 wrote...

So I'm a baboon because I disagree? How mature.

No you're a baboon because you decided that facepalm was a clever retort! Equally mature!

Modifié par Taciter, 12 octobre 2011 - 01:04 .

[Darkeus]

gamer_girl wrote...

Darkeus wrote...

gamer_girl wrote...

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.

By why is it there in the first place when not needed which does and may more than you think? It can affect the SIngle player by the devs own admission.  It can add to the Single Player and it may go deeper than that and may influence it more than they are admitting.  Something I don't think you are thinking about.  You just believe the PR faq like gospel.

You make far too many assumptions. Might doesn't mean it will be more of an effect than the devs are saying. The best conclusion to draw right now is that at the very least what the devs say is true, because why would they say something that was a total fabrication? To assume that there MUST be more to it than what they say is ridiculous, and until more features are revealed, I'll believe that at the bare minimum, what that faq says is true.

I would actually say the same thing about you and assumptions to be honest.  There is a post above to you that explains it to you....  Project 20 dollar.  EA wants money and that money is golden when you put an INTEGRAL MP feature in a game that needs an ONLINE PASS.

Modifié par Darkeus, 12 octobre 2011 - 01:06 .

[sedrikhcain]

JD196 wrote...

shep82 wrote...

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.

Exactly

The quote, from Priestly at the beginning of this thread, is thus: 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.


This means that there will be content in SP that you won't get unless you use MP. Note, I'm not saying that means you can't achieve the same outcome. I'm saying something will be different if you used MP to get there: a cutscene, some allies, a piece of equipment or some other resources. From the way they've put this, that has to be the case.


And frankly, I don't put much stock in their denials of things they know certain fans don't want these days. They haven't exactly proven themselves trustworthy with their PR recently and their decisions seem to be leaning increasingly towards taking in the last dollar at all costs.

[Darkeus]

TheGreenAlloy wrote...

Darkeus wrote...

You can quote the PR faq but come on. It was put out to deflect anger about the multiplayer.

They can't just lie their asses off and not care about backlash.

They obviously did not care about this backlash.

[Obsidian Gryphon]

tishyw wrote...

Shephards story ends with ME3, so I would think (my opinion only) that most of the DLC is going to be aimed at mutli-player. 

I suspect that's why they're introducing it, because it's hard to sell DLC for continue a story that's already finished and DLC is a bit of a cash-cow for them, so they needed to find a way to get it in there.

That's good news actually.   Less reason for me to expend $$ on DLCs.  

[batman22]

I think it's a good addition to the game, and to those who don't like it, Bioware said it was optional and it would not affect to single player campain if you don't take part in the multiplayer.

[Novate]

Brownfinger wrote...

Also, why would the Developers lie? Is this something they're in the habit of doing at Bioware?

No.

The only thing more prevalent on the internet than porn is cynicism.

I didn't want to do this, but If you check back from before this announcement was made, Bioware actually stated officially that there is no Multiplayer Mode. This statement was used multiple times during the previous posts of Whether or not there is Multiplayer Mode by fans to discredit and to make all forum posters look like idiots.

[didymos1120]

Taciter wrote...

shep82 wrote...

Taciter wrote...
I wish I had a photo of a baboon with a blank expression... you'd could revel in solidarity!

So I'm a baboon because I disagree? How mature.

No you're a baboon because you decided that facepalm was a clever retort! Equally mature!

As entertaining as this whole "NO U!" business is, maybe we could just skip it?  Just a thought.

Modifié par didymos1120, 12 octobre 2011 - 01:05 .

[IronSabbath88]

batman22 wrote...

I think it's a good addition to the game, and to those who don't like it, Bioware said it was optional and it would not affect to single player campain if you don't take part in the multiplayer.

That's not good enough for some people though, they still want blood. BioWare got multiplayer in their singleplayer and they want explanation for it, dammit!

*sarcasm*

[TheGreenAlloy]

Taciter wrote...

TheGreenAlloy wrote...
Yep. MP content. Not SP content. MP.

Thank you for endorsing my original point!

It is not essential to the SP experience, just like playing as a Sentinel is not essential. You can win the game with and without boht of these.

[sedrikhcain]

IronSabbath88 wrote...

This has all become one big, large, overplayed case of "THEY CHANGED IT, SO NOW IT SUCKS" mentality that is getting really old amongst gamers nowadays.

The only thing I've complained about before now is the stupid omni-blade. ME1 to M2, no problem.

Refusing to nod my head "yes, thank you" to every announcement does not make me a spoiled brat.

[Darkeus]

didymos1120 wrote...

Darkeus wrote...

You can quote the PR faq but come on. It was put out to deflect anger about the multiplayer.

OK, fine.  Let's throw that out.  Problem is, excluding that from evidence doesn't exactly help the "WE MUST PLAY THE MP! IT'S NECESSARY!" side.  It leaves them in exactly the same place: entirely lacking any evidence for their claim.

Doesn't help the other side either.  They really don;t have concrete evidence by any means.

[Taciter]

didymos1120 wrote...

As entertaining as this whole "NO U!" business is, maybe we could just skip it?  Just a thought.

I thought we already had but I wouldn't want to deny you the last word so please.. feel free