3794 réponses à ce sujet

[Taciter]

TheGreenAlloy wrote...

The frack are you (I, maybe) doing with the quotes?

lol.. it's me!

[Taciter]

So here was my post from earlier...

Sigh.... so many people feigning disbelief at the possibility of a sceptical audience.

Is it so hard to believe that someone for whom the 'Mass Effect' franchise has been so rewarding might not relish the prospect of a multiplayer 'optional extra'? If so, let me try to articulate some of the misapprehensions these people have expressed.

1) There are precious few single-player 'only' RPG's being released these days, as a result, those who don't see the appeal of multiplayer gaming have designated the 'Mass Effect' franchise their welcome refuge and digital home from home - the place they go to escape from reality and mute the incessant drone of social interaction. The intrusion of multiplayer into our beloved fantasy undermines the core ideology to which we subscribe.

2) Perhaps naively, many of us believed that the 'Mass Effect' franchise would stay true its origins and retain the identity for which it has become so renowned and to which it owes much of its success. Mass Effect has served as a galvanising influence for all those discerning gamers for whom the words 'multiplayer' and 'shooter' invoke nausea and disdain. This move, no matter how subtle, feels like an imposition, not an invitation.

3) Anyone who suggests that simply 'not playing' this 'optional' chapter in the 'Mass Effect' saga will in no way detract from the overall game is clearly not thinking rationally. No matter how inconsequential the outcome, there's still content in them there files, content pertaining to 'Mass Effect' lore. It doesn't matter what kind of content, be it new characters, new maps, new dialogue, new plot revelations or just new skins and weapons - it's STILL content. By specifically targeting multiplayer supporters as the worthy beneficiaries of this content, you have inadvertently precluded and thereby alienated anyone who doesn't share your passion for multiplayer gaming.

4) Instead of foisting this 'take it or leave it' approach on to loyal subscribers as some sort of punitive ultimatum, how about simply providing the player with the choice of using 'bots'. I know I go on about AI squaddies but surely, it makes sense. The transition in gameplay, especially seeing as the MP element is apparently co-op based, would be practically seamless. For solo players it would be virtually indistinguishable from the rest of the game (except that it might require an internet connection) and for multiplayers, it would be irrelevant.

Anyway, said my piece. If Bioware did take it upon themselves to incorporate an AI squad feature, I would be happy to withdraw my hesitations.

[IronSabbath88]

Don't speak for me, but I actually said a co-op experience would be a welcome addition to the Mass Effect games.

Just because "so and so" is not happy about Mass Effect not having co-op doesn't mean that it's everyone's opinion, and I'm a big fan of the Mass Effect series, it's easily my favourite series. I'm keeping an open mind about this mode, if it sucks, then it sucks. But you know what? It doesn't mean I won't be a fan anymore. BioWare has done an excellent job providing me with games I love and have played more than once, so to turn on them for making a bad decision (which we don't even know is the case yet) is not going to happen for me, if others want to do that, whatever, but nobody is going to speak for me about what I didn't want.

[Darkeus]

TheGreenAlloy wrote...

Darkeus wrote...

didymos1120 wrote...

Darkeus wrote...

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

No really?  And here I was thinking that excluding a source of supporting evidence strengthened a case.

You might be wrong.  Come on...  Really...

With or without the faq, we know that Multiplayer affects the game one way or another.  Not to hard.

Yep. So far, we know that it helps boost readiness. If you want it to.

But not to what extent it affects the Single Player.  That is the main point.  It may be intrusive....

[gamer_girl]

Darkeus wrote...

didymos1120 wrote...

Darkeus wrote...

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

No really?  And here I was thinking that excluding a source of supporting evidence strengthened a case.

You might be wrong.  Come on...  Really...

With or without the faq, we know that Multiplayer affects the game one way or another.  Not to hard.

It does only if you want it to. Not too hard.

[TheGreenAlloy]

Darkeus wrote...

didymos1120 wrote...

Darkeus wrote...

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

No really?  And here I was thinking that excluding a source of supporting evidence strengthened a case.

You might be wrong.  Come on...  Really...

With or without the faq, we know that Multiplayer affects the game one way or another.  Not to hard.

Quite negative? Sites I frequent are hailing this.

EDIT: Why did I quote that?

Modifié par TheGreenAlloy, 12 octobre 2011 - 01:16 .

[Darkeus]

gamer_girl wrote...

Darkeus wrote...

didymos1120 wrote...

Darkeus wrote...

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

No really?  And here I was thinking that excluding a source of supporting evidence strengthened a case.

You might be wrong.  Come on...  Really...

With or without the faq, we know that Multiplayer affects the game one way or another.  Not to hard.

It does only if you want it to. Not too hard.

You have no clue if that is really true or not.  My whole point.

[Darkeus]

TheGreenAlloy wrote...

Darkeus wrote...

didymos1120 wrote...

Darkeus wrote...

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

No really?  And here I was thinking that excluding a source of supporting evidence strengthened a case.

You might be wrong.  Come on...  Really...

With or without the faq, we know that Multiplayer affects the game one way or another.  Not to hard.

Quite negative? Sites I frequent are hailing this.

EDIT: Why did I quote that?

Haven't been to Gamespot or IGN lately?

[TheRealJayDee]

Chris Priestly wrote...

Has Dragon Age 2 been rushed?

No.

Chris Priestly wrote...

bjdbwea wrote...
What's your definition of "rushed"?

Rushed - not enough time taken to make the item top quality.

[gamer_girl]

IronSabbath88 wrote...

Don't speak for me, but I actually said a co-op experience would be a welcome addition to the Mass Effect games.

Just because "so and so" is not happy about Mass Effect not having co-op doesn't mean that it's everyone's opinion, and I'm a big fan of the Mass Effect series, it's easily my favourite series. I'm keeping an open mind about this mode, if it sucks, then it sucks. But you know what? It doesn't mean I won't be a fan anymore. BioWare has done an excellent job providing me with games I love and have played more than once, so to turn on them for making a bad decision (which we don't even know is the case yet) is not going to happen for me, if others want to do that, whatever, but nobody is going to speak for me about what I didn't want.

QFT

gamer_girl approves +1000000000000

[Curl of the Burl]

TheGreenAlloy wrote...

Darkeus wrote...

didymos1120 wrote...

Darkeus wrote...

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

No really?  And here I was thinking that excluding a source of supporting evidence strengthened a case.

You might be wrong.  Come on...  Really...

With or without the faq, we know that Multiplayer affects the game one way or another.  Not to hard.

Quite negative? Sites I frequent are hailing this.

Statement retracted

Modifié par Curl of the Burl, 12 octobre 2011 - 01:18 .

[rabidhanar]

Le sigh. Why is MP such n important thing for people, I will never understand. So now I must get some random people off of the internets in order to 100% this game? Y u do this Bioware? If there is a single achievement, however trivial, for doing this then I am going to be quite upset. I play RPGs because I do not like dealing with people that I do not know. When I want my friends to play with me, I shall play a party game or an MMO with them.

If there is a single glitch on the game disk(s?) I am blaming Bioware for the problem. By adding a multiplayer mode, they claim to have plenty of time on their hands (at least with some employees). This means that there should be no physics glitches, no "floating" characters, no permanent flash bang on the screen. I would rather that these employees are paid to play the game to find glitches and problems in the coding then to add a superfluous multiplayer game (at least superfluous for me myself. I really am that selfish sometimes ) mode. Glitching problems have plagued more and more of my games lately and I am getting tired of it. (Dead Island, DA2, Fallout: NV) What has changed in the last 2 years to make customers your testers. 5 years ago an update would already be created to fix major problems or the game disk would have minor problems. Major Problems, some of which have still not been fixed, are becoming my bane.

[TheGreenAlloy]

Darkeus wrote...

TheGreenAlloy wrote...

Darkeus wrote...

didymos1120 wrote...

Darkeus wrote...

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

No really?  And here I was thinking that excluding a source of supporting evidence strengthened a case.

You might be wrong.  Come on...  Really...

With or without the faq, we know that Multiplayer affects the game one way or another.  Not to hard.

Yep. So far, we know that it helps boost readiness. If you want it to.

But not to what extent it affects the Single Player.  That is the main point.  It may be intrusive....

Current evidence tips in my favour, but it may turn out to be money-sucking lies in the end, anyway. You say nay, I say yay.

Thread summarized.

[DOYOURLABS]

I have to admit this is better than I feared. I will give this a shot BioWare, sorry for doubting you.

[gamer_girl]

Darkeus wrote...

gamer_girl wrote...

Darkeus wrote...

didymos1120 wrote...

Darkeus wrote...

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

No really?  And here I was thinking that excluding a source of supporting evidence strengthened a case.

You might be wrong.  Come on...  Really...

With or without the faq, we know that Multiplayer affects the game one way or another.  Not to hard.

It does only if you want it to. Not too hard.

You have no clue if that is really true or not.  My whole point.

Like I said before, we should be right to believe that at the very LEAST what the faq says is true. If any other info is released, it will only add to what is there, not contradict it.

[Curl of the Burl]

Darkeus wrote...

TheGreenAlloy wrote...

Darkeus wrote...

didymos1120 wrote...

Darkeus wrote...

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

No really?  And here I was thinking that excluding a source of supporting evidence strengthened a case.

You might be wrong.  Come on...  Really...

With or without the faq, we know that Multiplayer affects the game one way or another.  Not to hard.

Quite negative? Sites I frequent are hailing this.

EDIT: Why did I quote that?

Haven't been to Gamespot or IGN lately?

lol @thinking Gamespot and IGN are good, at all.

[TheGreenAlloy]

Curl of the Burl wrote...

TheGreenAlloy wrote...

Darkeus wrote...

didymos1120 wrote...

Darkeus wrote...

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

No really?  And here I was thinking that excluding a source of supporting evidence strengthened a case.

You might be wrong.  Come on...  Really...

With or without the faq, we know that Multiplayer affects the game one way or another.  Not to hard.

Quite negative? Sites I frequent are hailing this.

Statement retracted

Vg (casual fest), b.net (un-reliable), forgineers (small-time).

Ah, damn.

[shep82]

Novate wrote...

shep82 wrote...

Kakita Tatsumaru wrote...

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.

DLC will be extention of the MP, as numerous people here prooved without the slightest doubt that the ME3 single player experience cannot be expanded even with more time and money...

Um they have stated they have dlc plans and why would they focus soley on the MP? Bioware has never done that. The Dlc will likely be split.

But you see, Bioware had stated officially that all efforts are being spend to make sure we get an Epic finish to Commander Shepard's story. And Now we got Multiplayer Co-op, and althought they said they already have DLC planned , I am just very worry that its all for the MP and only a small portion of the funds are being released for the SP. Where we can get a whole mission made for co-op and just a new gun and new skins for SP.

The MP is meant to help us finish the story thats all. I seriously doubt it will end up like you fear.

[Darkeus]

TheGreenAlloy wrote...

Darkeus wrote...

TheGreenAlloy wrote...

Darkeus wrote...

didymos1120 wrote...

Darkeus wrote...

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

No really?  And here I was thinking that excluding a source of supporting evidence strengthened a case.

You might be wrong.  Come on...  Really...

With or without the faq, we know that Multiplayer affects the game one way or another.  Not to hard.

Yep. So far, we know that it helps boost readiness. If you want it to.

But not to what extent it affects the Single Player.  That is the main point.  It may be intrusive....

Current evidence tips in my favour, but it may turn out to be money-sucking lies in the end, anyway. You say nay, I say yay.

Thread summarized.

No a PR faq released to quell anger is all you have for evidence.  Not very reliable and full of PR. I would say the scales tip in no one's favor.

[Darkeus]

Curl of the Burl wrote...

Darkeus wrote...

TheGreenAlloy wrote...

Darkeus wrote...

didymos1120 wrote...

Darkeus wrote...

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

No really?  And here I was thinking that excluding a source of supporting evidence strengthened a case.

You might be wrong.  Come on...  Really...

With or without the faq, we know that Multiplayer affects the game one way or another.  Not to hard.

Quite negative? Sites I frequent are hailing this.

EDIT: Why did I quote that?

Haven't been to Gamespot or IGN lately?

lol @thinking Gamespot and IGN are good, at all.

With that attitude, no site is worth anything.

[Plasma Prestige]

 I was extremely skeptical of a multiplayer component for the franchise, but I'm content to see a reasonable and actually exciting addition, as well as the reassurance that single player was not adversely effected. I'm looking forward to this game even more now. 

[BlaCKRodjj]

Darkeus wrote...

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.

NO ONE DOES. This discussion is completely pointless. Until we can clarify some points, or the ones spewing "MP AFFECTS SP HURR DURR I READ DAT & IGNORED EVERYTHING ELSE" learn to read, throwing opinions around like they're facts won't change the fact that:
1)We're stuck with MP. Deal with it.
2)We don't have information about how the MP would affect the SP. This doesn't matter much since Chris said that you can FULLY complete the SP without playing the MP.
3)We don't know when you can start playing the MP, if it's available after SP given the new definition of NG+ that ME3 has, or during, etc...
Seriously, people here need to get a grip and take a cold shower 'till Wednesday, when the new BioWare TV episode airs up to explain this to all...

[Il Divo]

Darkeus wrote...

No a PR faq released to quell anger is all you have for evidence.  Not very reliable and full of PR. I would say the scales tip in no one's favor.

The PR release detailed what multi-player would contain. The scale tips in the favor of Bioware saying "X will not affect Y", until further elaboration.

Modifié par Il Divo, 12 octobre 2011 - 01:21 .

[Giantdeathrobot]

This is more entertaining than the hockey game I was watching 10 minutes ago.

Just for kicks, I would like to point out that PR is not composed of lies by definition. 'Course, they might be talking out of their asses, but this is as official a statement as it gets, in a thread they knew would overflow with response, so I strongly doubt they do. Also, I still want the exact quotes declaring there would be no multiplayer in ME3 by an actual developper, or the leaked video pointed out earlier, or evidence that budget was diverted from the SP into the MP, despite, you know, being developped by 2 different studios who will nevertheless be under the leadership of Casey Hudson. While we a swimming in speculations right now, I find that the anti-multiplayer side has even less evidence than the pro-multi.

Myself? Wait and see. Being made by a different studio and being separated from the main campaign (as-of-yet uninformed nitpicks aside) does rub me the right way, however. If multiplayer has to come to ME, this is clearly the best possible implementation if you ask me.

In the end, it's just another way to play a game. Do it or don't, like it or don't. All the cold, hard info we have been given so far points out to a superior game, so I remain optimistic.

[Darkeus]

gamer_girl wrote...

Darkeus wrote...

gamer_girl wrote...

Darkeus wrote...

didymos1120 wrote...

Darkeus wrote...

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

No really?  And here I was thinking that excluding a source of supporting evidence strengthened a case.

You might be wrong.  Come on...  Really...

With or without the faq, we know that Multiplayer affects the game one way or another.  Not to hard.

It does only if you want it to. Not too hard.

You have no clue if that is really true or not.  My whole point.

Like I said before, we should be right to believe that at the very LEAST what the faq says is true. If any other info is released, it will only add to what is there, not contradict it.

And as I said before, believe what you want.  We will see.....