3794 réponses à ce sujet

[AssassinsReign]

I was skeptical at first, but this sounds alright.

[RocketManSR2]

Tantum Dic Verbo wrote...

As long as the multiplayer involves same sex love interests, I can't see there being any problem.

I c wut u did thar.

[Kloreep]

Sounds cool. I'm always much more a fan of co-op than competitive multiplayer, so I might check it out.

How much control will we have over the carryover effects into SP from Galaxy at War? I.e. what if I've played a lot of Galaxy of War and have high "Readiness" in it, but want to carry none or just a portion of that into my next SP campaign?

[Iakus]

voteDC wrote...

Well at the very least this will be giving us a glimpse on how the future of the Mass Effect franchise it going to look. So that is a positive in its favour.

It's been fun reading the discussion but bed calls, so good night all and happy gaming.

Yeah already I know I'm stopping at three.

[Dragoonlordz]

1136342t54 wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

It hasn't been glossed over it simply does not answer the questions being asked. The 'optimal' ending is one ending out of many possible endings, questions like will you have or limit access to another non optimal ending, will it have any affect on any dialogue in the main game, will it have alternative non ending based cinematics in game or will it impact at all on any quests, missions or other such things in game are NOT covered by the single statement of "optimal ending". Something you fail to grasp. Silly little boy, spamming that one phrase as said only shows your stupidity to think it covers what everyone is asking about.

Why is that you ask? Well considering that it is possible for you to get the best ending it will only be logical that anything less than that is quite possible without MP interference.

That is the reason why I constantly put up that quote because it is the best answer to naysayers.

That is nothing more than an assumption of which was not answered in the very phrase that you spammed the thread with. Even then does not cover the majority of what people are asking here.

[JeffZero]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

sedrikhcain wrote...

cachx wrote...

"it is still possible to achieve the optimal, complete ending of the game in Mass Effect 3 through single-player alone."

I'm going to make plaques with this
I'm going to hire blimps all over the world with this text attached to it
I'm going to convince Google to make flashing signs on every webpage known to man

They still won't get it.

It's really not that complicated. I fight battle at planet X in MP. my SP campaign gets content (cutscenes, dialogue, resources, allies, whatever) in relation to that. If I don't fight that battle in MP, I can still beat the Reapers but I won't get those cutscenes, dialogue, or whatever in my SP experience.

It's not about optimal outcomes. It's about content.

Spot on.

Also people spamming that phrase imho should get suspended from BSN for simply spamming something that is not even relevant to what people are talking about.

I get the assumption you're making, I really do.

[1136342t54_]

AlphaJarmel wrote...

didymos1120 wrote...

AlphaJarmel wrote...

Why can't we have multiple good endings and variations on the other levels? 

Why do you assume we won't?

Then why do we need a bar or even readiness level?  Note that they also say optimal/complete ending in the OP which implies there is a best ending.

Optimal can apply to anyone. It would mean someone's best ending could also be another's worst ending. In effect it could easily mean that every ending is possible.

[mjb203]

Melchiah109 wrote...

mjb203 wrote...

I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt at this point, but I'd like to see a bit more information released on the MP aspect as well.  So far, it doesn't sound as bad as I was expecting.

They're going to. They've already stated as much. People just couldn't wait to get the information before saying it would ruin their game.

I think a lot of the concern was just concern on it taking away from the SP experience (at least it was for me).  Hopefully we won't have to go through a long silent period before they release some more info about this.  I'm actually really interested to see how this will turn out.

[AlphaJarmel]

Complistic wrote...

AlphaJarmel wrote...

Complistic wrote...

With how many choices there are in the games it was really the only way to do it. Each choice you've made basically amounts to points (positive and negative) and those points determine how sucessful you are towards winning against the reapers.

This is worse than the emails in ME2.  So now we just got points from our choices.  Not only that, it implies that there are right and wrong choices.

If they really just reduce it to points, I'm out after ME3.  Screw Bioware.

Again, how else were they suppose to choose if  you were ultimately going to win or not? The suicide mission used points in deciding who lives and dies in the holding the line segment, you just didn't see them. It'll probably be the same here. Just more complicated.

Who said that was a good thing in the suicide mission?  Not only that but also even if you maxed everything out, you still could pretty much wipe your team out if you choose the wrong people for specific jobs.

[Fleetleader101]

mjb203 wrote...

Fleetleader101 wrote...

Re-Reading it again I'm still confused.

I can affect the single player campaign, but its optional at the same time?

So basically bioware is stating that this additional game play is not necessary, but if used becomes an important part of your game?

hmm idk more info is needed. This is poorly written and would probably be best served as a video demonstration of the content at a later time. I simply see no real value to it yet.

I also smell the hand of EA in this.

I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt at this point, but I'd like to see a bit more information released on the MP aspect as well.  So far, it doesn't sound as bad as I was expecting.

Yeah but here is what gets me about how they stated this. They keep talking about Galexy alert bars or w.e its called and I have no idea what that is.

But some of the people on here are all for it or deadset against it and really they too have no clue what this is yet.

[Dragoonlordz]

JeffZero wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

sedrikhcain wrote...

cachx wrote...

"it is still possible to achieve the optimal, complete ending of the game in Mass Effect 3 through single-player alone."

I'm going to make plaques with this
I'm going to hire blimps all over the world with this text attached to it
I'm going to convince Google to make flashing signs on every webpage known to man

They still won't get it.

It's really not that complicated. I fight battle at planet X in MP. my SP campaign gets content (cutscenes, dialogue, resources, allies, whatever) in relation to that. If I don't fight that battle in MP, I can still beat the Reapers but I won't get those cutscenes, dialogue, or whatever in my SP experience.

It's not about optimal outcomes. It's about content.

Spot on.

Also people spamming that phrase imho should get suspended from BSN for simply spamming something that is not even relevant to what people are talking about.

I get the assumption you're making, I really do.

It's not an assumption, it is a question being asked for clarification. As in will it have any such affects in dialogue, cinematics not relating to endgame or any content not specific to the 'optimal' ending cinematic.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 11 octobre 2011 - 02:57 .

[AtreiyaN7]

sedrikhcain wrote...

Again, I read the D*mn bullet points. The fact remains that there is content that I won't see in my SP unless I play MP. That's BS. I couldn't less about optimal outcomes. I don't want my sp content availability dependent on MP.

Sure, you read them - you just don't want to absorb the information. Where does it say in Priestly's post that the single-player content is DEPENDENT on you playing multi-player? As far as anyone knows atm, they didn't rip out single-player content and dump it into multi-player. Your single-player content availability is not dependent on multi-player. Where, where, WHERE does it actually say that it is in Priestly's post? EDIT: To clarify, IF they cut single-player content and moved that into multi-player, then you might have a case for saying that the "content" (in terms of cutscenes and/or hypothetical dialogue) is dependent on mutli-player.

All I saw was that playing co-op gives you an alternative means to shape the outcome of the game in terms of galactic readiness, which sounds like something along the lines of prepping for the ME2 suicide mission with upgrades and maybe bonuses of some sort.

Modifié par AtreiyaN7, 11 octobre 2011 - 03:02 .

[JeffZero]

Dragoonlordz wrote...
It's not an assumption, it is a question being asked for clarification.

Alright, fair enough.

[Pani Mauser]

AlphaJarmel wrote...

JeffZero wrote...

ratzerman wrote...

AlphaJarmel wrote...

The biggest problem I have with this is that horrible sounding Galactic Readiness level crap.  So essentially all our choices boil down to a bar and how far filled up it is?

Yeah, that sounds pretty damn bad.

And that so-called bar can get filled up more or less based on decisions in the first two games too, chances are.

I mean I know the story was heading in to the recruiting armies section but it sounds like they're reducing all the previous choices to points.  It also implies that there won't be that many multiple endings.  If the bar is filled you get the best ending.  2/3rds filled you get a good ending.  1/2 filled you get generic okay ending and anything less is bad ending.  Why can't we have multiple good endings and variations on the other levels?  Why would they do this?

That stuff bothers me too. So, basically if you made a 'wrong' choice in previous games, you can easily remedy it by playing the hell out of coop? So much for 'choices that matter'.

[Kmead15]

sedrikhcain wrote...

cachx wrote...

"it is still possible to achieve the optimal, complete ending of the game in Mass Effect 3 through single-player alone."

I'm going to make plaques with this
I'm going to hire blimps all over the world with this text attached to it
I'm going to convince Google to make flashing signs on every webpage known to man

They still won't get it.

It's really not that complicated. I fight battle at planet X in MP. my SP campaign gets content (cutscenes, dialogue, resources, allies, whatever) in relation to that. If I don't fight that battle in MP, I can still beat the Reapers but I won't get those cutscenes, dialogue, or whatever in my SP experience.

It's not about optimal outcomes. It's about content.

I think I can see that point of view, but that's not the feeling I'm getting from this. It seems to me that the MP content would probably be missions that Shepard would never have been on or even heard about. Even without MP, those events wouldn't have been important enough to be seen in SP. Then again, this has never been stated, so I suppose we're both making random assumptions.

[1136342t54_]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

1136342t54 wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

It hasn't been glossed over it simply does not answer the questions being asked. The 'optimal' ending is one ending out of many possible endings, questions like will you have or limit access to another non optimal ending, will it have any affect on any dialogue in the main game, will it have alternative non ending based cinematics in game or will it impact at all on any quests, missions or other such things in game are NOT covered by the single statement of "optimal ending". Something you fail to grasp. Silly little boy, spamming that one phrase as said only shows your stupidity to think it covers what everyone is asking about.

Why is that you ask? Well considering that it is possible for you to get the best ending it will only be logical that anything less than that is quite possible without MP interference.

That is the reason why I constantly put up that quote because it is the best answer to naysayers.

That is nothing more than an assumption of which was not answered in the very phrase that you spammed the thread with. Even then does not cover the majority of what people are asking here.

I defined the meaning of Optimal. The fact that word was used means that the most favorable or desirable ending is available. Which can easily mean (actually it likely does mean) that all outcomes are available since every out come can be desirable for everyone.

[Trephinate]

does anyone else find it incredibly depressing reading the thoughts and opinions born from wild assumptions or misinterpretations of others that enjoy a game you yourself enjoy rather a lot? don't know if i should laugh or sigh that it is your ilk that has direct contact with the developers.

[AlphaJarmel]

1136342t54 wrote...

AlphaJarmel wrote...

didymos1120 wrote...

AlphaJarmel wrote...

Why can't we have multiple good endings and variations on the other levels? 

Why do you assume we won't?

Then why do we need a bar or even readiness level?  Note that they also say optimal/complete ending in the OP which implies there is a best ending.

Optimal can apply to anyone. It would mean someone's best ending could also be another's worst ending. In effect it could easily mean that every ending is possible.

Optimal in this context almost certainly means you beat the Reapers and nobody dies with minimal casualties on Earth.

[Sepewrath]

1136342t54 wrote...
The thing is you would never have the option of playing as another special ops group in SP. That is the main point. MP is doing more frontline like tasks in which Shepard may or may not be involved in. Remember the Galactic war is Galaxy wide. Shepard can only be in so many areas. The MP missions are the areas Shepard will likely not be fighting.

Which would make it story content, that's my problem. There is nothing stopping that mission from being just another mission for Shepard and co to do. Its being separated for no reason and tacking on another bill just so I can play the content. If all the DLC wasn't annoying enough, here is another system to rip content out of the game.

[RyuGuitarFreak]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

sedrikhcain wrote...

cachx wrote...

"it is still possible to achieve the optimal, complete ending of the game in Mass Effect 3 through single-player alone."

I'm going to make plaques with this
I'm going to hire blimps all over the world with this text attached to it
I'm going to convince Google to make flashing signs on every webpage known to man

They still won't get it.

It's
really not that complicated. I fight battle at planet X in MP. my SP
campaign gets content (cutscenes, dialogue, resources, allies, whatever)
in relation to that. If I don't fight that battle in MP, I can still
beat the Reapers but I won't get those cutscenes, dialogue, or whatever
in my SP experience.

It's not about optimal outcomes. It's about content.

Spot on.

Also
people spamming that phrase imho should get suspended from BSN for
simply spamming something that is not even relevant to what people are
talking about.

Do you know story content wasn't said to be an impact on the sp campaing in the FAQ like in...anywhere?
The chances are that it will be more like N7 missions; "experience the galactic war from multiple fronts". You go, have a little story from your mp character perspective, play, get xp for character and resources for your character and the Normandy/Shepard or whatever.
You should wait for more information before jumping to conclusions like that.
Edit: Maybe these kind of questions will be answered 10/12.

Modifié par RyuGuitarFreak, 11 octobre 2011 - 02:59 .

[MACharlie1]

I wonder how intergrated into the game this will be:

Will it be a menu option before the game loads or will it work with the main campaign; meaning, once you get to the Normandy, there is an option to launch the co-op mission. Shepard fades out and the multiplayer missions begin.

[AssassinsReign]

Ohei wrote...

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Sepewrath wrote...

I don't care about optimal outcomes, I care that I will have every option available in a single player game. But this system is taking options and putting it in multiplayer, where I will have to buy Gold to play for what is suppose to be a single player game. That is annoying.

Having to subscribe to XBL for this sounds like a major pain.  It's a legitimate complaint, and yeah, not fair.

Ouch, hadn't thought about that one. D:

Welp, thank the lord I have a PS3.

Oh my god I just realized that.....you have to be kidding me...now I have to buy xbl..

[sedrikhcain]

slimgrin wrote...

sedrikhcain wrote...

I don't WANT multiplayer. I don't WANT my experience in multiplayer linked to single player in any way. I never even wanted that stuff in the game to begin with. It's bad enough it's in the game at all, now we find out that multiplayer will directly affect your single player experience. Yes, I get that they're telling us you'll be able to achieve the same ends in other ways but the content won't be the same and now if I want to experience as much as possible in the single player modes, I am forced to deal with multiplayer. NO! NO! NO! NO! NO!

This is TERRIBLE! I've been starving for this game for months and now this deeply troubling news. It's slipping away. It's all slipping away. Mass Effect addict that I am, I will buy this game, and I will play it. But that's it. I'm done. And I mean it. I love the Star Wars universe, and KOTOR, too, but they took that the MMO path and as a result I'm not buying it.

This is very, VERY disappointing news.

This is how popular publishers make money. Most people want muiltplayer because they need the instant stimulation and the connection to 'real' people. 

I know how the business works. The one good thing is that as more and more publishers do this, I'll feel less and less compelled to buy and play their games, making me more productive in other areas.

Honestly, BioWare and EA are about to make a boatload on the Star Wars-branded MMO. Did they really have to go and tack this MP money grab onto what was such a great SP franchise? None of us fans were clamoring for this. C'mon!

[mjb203]

Fleetleader101 wrote...

mjb203 wrote...

Fleetleader101 wrote...

Re-Reading it again I'm still confused.

I can affect the single player campaign, but its optional at the same time?

So basically bioware is stating that this additional game play is not necessary, but if used becomes an important part of your game?

hmm idk more info is needed. This is poorly written and would probably be best served as a video demonstration of the content at a later time. I simply see no real value to it yet.

I also smell the hand of EA in this.

I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt at this point, but I'd like to see a bit more information released on the MP aspect as well.  So far, it doesn't sound as bad as I was expecting.

Yeah but here is what gets me about how they stated this. They keep talking about Galexy alert bars or w.e its called and I have no idea what that is.

But some of the people on here are all for it or deadset against it and really they too have no clue what this is yet.

Don't get me wrong, I've still got a few reservations about it as well.  There did seem to be a bit of conflicting info in Chris' original post (it affects the SP, but you can still get optimal outcome without MP)  <- I'd really like a bit more detail on that point specifically.

[AlphaJarmel]

Babe Mause wrote...
That stuff bothers me too. So, basically if you made a 'wrong' choice in previous games, you can easily remedy it by playing the hell out of coop? So much for 'choices that matter'.

I'm really hoping that's not the case.  I would love some clarification from Bioware on this.