3794 réponses à ce sujet

[Zakatak757]

Kmead15 wrote...

Bryan Johnson wrote...

Not really here in an official capacity I just like interacting with fans

... You like interacting with us?

Guys, I think we have a problem. Johnson here has obviously suffered some sort of terrible head injury.

I thought he made a terrific joke, actually.

[cachx]

lazuli wrote...

cachx wrote...

So, Co-Op is interweaved with SP? I don't exactly understand how that will work.

Picture a meter that fills up towards the perfect ending.  If this were in ME2, we would have been filling that meter by gaining squadmate loyalty, upgrading the Normandy, and doing main missions.  In ME3, we'll have similar options with multiplayer on the side.

I get that, I just don't fully understand how exactly do you set up a game

Do you need to be on an unfinished playthrough?
Once you complete all scenarios, you can't play co-op anymore?
you just randomly drop on someone's campaing when you play as "guest"?

Things like that.

[DarkDragon777]

jeweledleah wrote...

I'm no longer excited about mass effect 3 and canceled both my ME (collector's edition) and my SWTOR preorders, as the only way I can vote is with my wallet and I'd rather give my money to someone else.

I don't balme you. This is such a disgrace.

[shepskisaac]

didymos1120 wrote...

Dionkey wrote...

1) This will mean fewer resources are used on the singleplayer campaign. Yes, I know that the Montreal studio is making the component, but those people could have been used to improve the singleplayer experience, never mind the fact that some of the people working there were from the original team.

Question: is "could have been" the same thing as "would have been"?

I'm still puzzled by why do people think the money would've gone to SP. The biggest cost of making games is paying the devs. The 150+ manpower working for 2/3 years is the main reason why games are so expensive these days. If there wasn't multiplayer, do people think EA would hire additional 50 (or however much they actually did) more developers for SP? Lol no. There would be no need to do that.

[didymos1120]

PDesign wrote...

Chris Priestly wrote...
Do characters level up in co-op multiplayer? What is the progression system?

• Character progression, weapon upgrading and leveling up is present in co-op. We’ll release more information on this topic in the months leading up to launch.

FFS, typical EA game.

Well, the leveling thing is actually typical of, you know, an ME game too.

[Obsidian Gryphon]

I'm not all excited as yet. I'll see what they come up with. I'll definitely play the SP though.  

[onelifecrisis]

Bryan Johnson wrote...

1136342t54 wrote...

Bryan Johnson wrote...

1136342t54 wrote...

Darkeus wrote...

We will see how happy it keeps you when it ruins the Single player.

An assumption based off of well...nothing. 

Im just going to put this here and walk away

http://xbox360.ign.c.../1174904p1.html

What are you trying to say?

Is it that Bioware can still make someone cry while adding in mp to there SP?

If not then is the addition of MP after the SP was basically finished is what is making you cry?

The former, that the story can still cause an emotional response such that the SP was not "ruined". 

Yer... like, it'll make you cry when the ending sucks because you didn't play co-op.

[1136342t54_]

DarkDragon777 wrote...

So....this is how it ends.

I think I'm going to cry. Seriously.


We've gotten to the point where our ability to win is measured by a "readiness level" and you could completely screw up in the past 2 games and make up for it by playing some STUPID multiplayer mode.


Unbelievable.

I'm not even going to claim this is true or not but in what way is it different than resource gathering in ME2?

[Walker White]

jeweledleah wrote...

I'm no longer excited about mass effect 3 and canceled both my ME (collector's edition) and my SWTOR preorders, as the only way I can vote is with my wallet and I'd rather give my money to someone else.

You cancelled SW:TOR - a multiplayer game - over the presence of multiplayer in ME3?

[darkchaosbunny]

Say I have 3-4 different Shepard campaigns/characters, do I have to chose which one gets the co-op readiness bonus or I can let them all receive it?

Modifié par darkchaosbunny, 11 octobre 2011 - 02:21 .

[Lord Jaric]

Chris Priestly wrote...

What if I am not good at / do not like multiplayer? Will my readiness rating go down?


ME3 is a story about a war against overwhelming force where the most you can hope for us survival. The more you do to fight that war, the more you can change that story into a more optimistic one. You can reach the highest levels of success in the single player experience alone, but Galaxy at War gives you alternative ways to get there. It’s about choice, and allowing players to find their own ways to stay immersed in the Mass Effect universe.
[list]

I'm just going to guess here, I've been avoiding spoilers, this readiness level will be like a bar we can see, the more successful we are in the game the high it gets, these co-op mission simple help raise it faster while letting us have fun with friends.

[1136342t54_]

onelifecrisis wrote...

Yer... like, it'll make you cry when the ending sucks because you didn't play co-op.

Why do people post without reading the FAQ?

[Dionkey]

didymos1120 wrote...

PDesign wrote...

Chris Priestly wrote...
Do characters level up in co-op multiplayer? What is the progression system?

• Character progression, weapon upgrading and leveling up is present in co-op. We’ll release more information on this topic in the months leading up to launch.

FFS, typical EA game.

Well, the leveling thing is actually typical of, you know, an ME game too.

Smells like Call of Duty to me.

[sedrikhcain]

"Success in multi-player will have a direct impact on the outcome of the single player campaign"


NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!

I have now moved from concerned, to worried, to panic mode.

[RocketManSR2]

DarkDragon777 wrote...

So....this is how it ends.

I think I'm going to cry. Seriously.


We've gotten to the point where our ability to win is measured by a "readiness level" and you could completely screw up in the past 2 games and make up for it by playing some STUPID multiplayer mode.


Unbelievable.

Then don't use the MP crutch to smooth over decisions from 1 & 2 that didn't work out. I'm not. I'm going through ME3 the first time around without touching the MP.

[DarkDragon777]

........*sigh*


They've reduced the Reapers to something that can be beat by winning in a multiplayer mode. I can't believe this. They would waste two games hyping the Reapers' return just so they would be able to be beat with no effort!

Modifié par DarkDragon777, 11 octobre 2011 - 02:22 .

[shepskisaac]

1136342t54 wrote...

Why do people post without reading the FAQ?

They don't want to have reasons not to whine.

[Dragoonlordz]

1136342t54 wrote...

DarkDragon777 wrote...

So....this is how it ends.

I think I'm going to cry. Seriously.


We've gotten to the point where our ability to win is measured by a "readiness level" and you could completely screw up in the past 2 games and make up for it by playing some STUPID multiplayer mode.


Unbelievable.

I'm not even going to claim this is true or not but in what way is it different than resource gathering in ME2?

We do not know if "readiness" is only limited to 'resources' in ME3... I also have no knowledge of where this mythical magically bar system filling up people are claiming came from either...

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 11 octobre 2011 - 02:23 .

[Euteras]

Chris Priestly wrote...


Then don't play it. One of the best things abotu teh 4 player co-op multiplay is that it is optional. If you liek it, great. Play and enjoy it. If you (like me) are a single player game who plays games liek ME3 for the story, don't play the MP and concentrate on the single player experience.

This is all I needed to hear. Co-op is just a welcome addition should I choose to try it.

[Darkeus]

1136342t54 wrote...

Darkeus wrote...
So is the equally weak assumption that this will work without ruining the game.

Again, I need to know exactlu how this affects single player in action, not just because some PR faq from the company was rushed out to quell insurrection....

Actually no. Bioware is a good game developer and has done multiplayer before. The assumption that it won't ruin the game is far more likely than the assumption that it will.

That multiplayer is completely different from that and probably one of the most unused features in those games...

Again, I keep to my opinon.  And most of those was before EA got involved.  Again, the faq was put out there because people were outraged.  They put some candy for people in the post everybody goes kool-aid drinking. 

Nah, I will wait and see with a view towards negaative.  I have no faith that this will do nothing except greatly take away from a great series.

[karthikc]

Needs to be asked: Can I play the co-op mode with three bots?

Unlike, say, Borderlands, Mass Effect is my experience alone; I don't want to involve anyone else in it.

[gamer_girl]

Ok seriously, Darkeus if you hate BioWare so much now just because they made an optional festure that you don't like, why are you still posting here? If you aren't going to buy the bloody game, then why not find something better to do with your time? I'm certainly sick of your negativity, but I can't speak for everyone else.

[Dr. Nexas]

Dionkey wrote...

didymos1120 wrote...

Dionkey wrote...

1) This will mean fewer resources are used on the singleplayer campaign. Yes, I know that the Montreal studio is making the component, but those people could have been used to improve the singleplayer experience, never mind the fact that some of the people working there were from the original team.

Question: is "could have been" the same thing as "would have been"?

How does it matter? If EA wouldn't have impregnated this series with their greed, I'm sure those people would have gone to good use creating more missions, textures, sound files, and whatever else could have made you smile while playing.

Or they simply wouldn't have had the money to do those things. You're working under the assumption EA took resources from single-player to make the multiplayer. Its far more likely the resources allocated towards multiplayer wouldn't exist without said multiplayer.

[Zakatak757]

sedrikhcain wrote...

"Success in multi-player will have a direct impact on the outcome of the single player campaign"


NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!

I have now moved from concerned, to worried, to panic mode.

If you read a little farther, you might have also noticed the part where this MP component is OPTIONAL. All it is is something to increase the length of the story.

You can have a full, complete, canon ending of the game by playing SP only. I will likely be doing that for 50% of my playthroughs.