3794 réponses à ce sujet

[onelifecrisis]

1136342t54 wrote...

onelifecrisis wrote...

1136342t54 wrote...

onelifecrisis wrote...

The point, which I apparently didn't labor enough, is that the alternative to co-op will likely be laborious. Co-op gives a benefit in SP. We know that you don't need that benefit to win, but it will help. This implies that the same benefits (the same "optimal readiness level") can be achieved through SP alone, but we don't know how. Options are:
1) Extra SP missions for those who don't do co-op? Not likely IMO.
2) Some sort of laborious crap like planet scanning. Very likely IMO.

As I said in the edit that you missed, either co-op will make the game too easy or SP will be too laborious. You can't have it both ways.

Actually you missed the other option.

MORE DIFFICULT. The game will likely be more difficult (but not by much).

Okay, let's indulge this notion if you care to. How do you envisage the difficulty change working (affecting the readiness meter)?

Well you first claimed that there would be some other repetative option to get galactic readiness. I would like you to explain to me some specific options since if that was the case always then MP not being in it wouldn't change things for you.

You want me to guess what the new planet scanning replacement will be?

1136342t54 wrote...

Now assuming it is a meter (which it may not be that is your assumption) The MP will possibly not affect it majorly. So it would mean Shepard would have to make better decisions.

Make better decisions? So like in ME2 at the end you have decisions that can kill characters. So if you want, say, the second fire team leader to survive, you have to make the right decision... or just play co-op. Yeah, that could work. It goes under option 1 above (co-op is too easy) but it doesn't ruin SP. But do you really think they'd make co-op that powerful? You said you thought it would give a small advantage.

1136342t54 wrote...

Do more side quests

That's one of the things that I file under "laborious". Sidequests in RPGs are invariably done poorly and break the immersion, I dun like em. If I ever do buy ME3, I'll be importing saves in which I skipped all the side missions, in the hope of avoiding the inevitable immersion-breaking encounters with (and emails from) the same side-mission characters in ME3.

[Melchiah109]

sedrikhcain wrote...

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!

Way to speak for every fan of the franchise there, chief.

[sedrikhcain]

RyuGuitarFreak 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.

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.

You stick with that attitude if it works for you. I'm not checking my brain at the door. I can see the writing on the wall here. And I don't like it.

[XyleJKH]

Well to be honest my nerd rage (only nerd rage I have ever had) is a bit calmer now. Not sure how I feel about the mp still. Its like my new puppy that replaced my old life long friend dog... Might warm up to it, but will never be my old buddy dog

[LPPrince]

Okay, that sounds pretty goddamn cool.

[1136342t54_]

Sepewrath wrote...

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.

It wouldn't matter simply because that content would never be in the SP. MP missions likely have no real story other than complete Objective X by shooting up a lot freaking people.

No dialog or real relevance to the story. If that was actual DLC then I would be annoyed. It isn't story content in the way it actully advances the plot. It could be seen as a side mission that wouldn't be something Shepard and crew wouldn't do.

[NOD-INFORMER37]

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 understand now....I think.

And if I understand correctly, however succesful(or unsuccesful) you are in co-op, it effect how you intect with the single player game and how it interacts with you...so if my "readiness bar" is only half ready then despite all I have done in Mass Effect 1/2, I'll have a 50% chance of saving the galaxy...

F*** THIS S***!

[sedrikhcain]

Melchiah109 wrote...

sedrikhcain wrote...

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!

Way to speak for every fan of the franchise there, chief.

Absolutes are always exaggerations but seriously, how many ME fans were really beating the drum for MP? Not talking about people who were OK with it or thought it might be call. I'm talking about people who were really calling for it. Not very many. I feel comfortable making that statement.

[InvaderErl]

This sounds awesome, as long as the main game isn't affected and it doesn't sound like its going to be, all is good.

[NOD-INFORMER37]

XyleJKH wrote...

Well to be honest my nerd rage (only nerd rage I have ever had) is a bit calmer now. Not sure how I feel about the mp still. Its like my new puppy that replaced my old life long friend dog... Might warm up to it, but will never be my old buddy dog

My dog just died dam you! D'x

[Dragoonlordz]

RyuGuitarFreak 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.

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.

As stated it is a question not a conclusion. What is annoying is spamming of a phrase which is not relevant to the question being asked. Optimal does not mean everything prior plus the actual default save universe and no deaths plus save every planet which would be canon optimal by anyone's standards.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 11 octobre 2011 - 03:06 .

[BlaCKRodjj]

gammameggon wrote...

This sounds extremely lame. Can't believe my eyes. Since its four player co-op, it means one continuous shootfest.

What do you expect from a multiplayer game? Hold hands while talking to Conrad and get to see all responses? Personally, I find the concept amazing, as we get to see the other side of the war, the one were we get to experience battle from one of the hundred of thousand of stock troopers that will die in the war. I wouldn't be surprised if the game were all swords and magic and you would still be whining if it were a multiplayer "bloodfest"

[GodWood]

...unexpected.


Is there offline mp?

[RyuGuitarFreak]

sedrikhcain wrote...
You stick with that attitude if it works for you. I'm not checking my brain at the door. I can see the writing on the wall here. And I don't like it.

Oh well, whatever works for you too.

Modifié par RyuGuitarFreak, 11 octobre 2011 - 03:03 .

[Gatt9]

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 going to be optional though,  the whole point of this is so that EA can sell Online Pass to people who buy used games,  which only works if it's mandatory.

Plus,  seriously,  you'd have to be off your rocker to take Bioware at their word after their commentary on ME2 turned out deceptive,  DA2 and it's after-interviews that blamed fans,  and now ME3.

[onelifecrisis]

NOD-INFORMER37 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.

I think I understand now....I think.

And if I understand correctly, however succesful(or unsuccesful) you are in co-op, it effect how you intect with the single player game and how it interacts with you...so if my "readiness bar" is only half ready then despite all I have done in Mass Effect 1/2, I'll have a 50% chance of saving the galaxy...

F*** THIS S***!

I lol'd

[Doug4130]

sedrikhcain wrote...

Melchiah109 wrote...

sedrikhcain wrote...

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!

Way to speak for every fan of the franchise there, chief.

Absolutes are always exaggerations but seriously, how many ME fans were really beating the drum for MP? Not talking about people who were OK with it or thought it might be call. I'm talking about people who were really calling for it. Not very many. I feel comfortable making that statement.

The only thing ME was missing to me was the ability to play with other people, but I didn't see how it could be worked in.  Judging by the OP, seems like they did a good job of implimenting it.  Smart move

[Melchiah109]

sedrikhcain wrote...
Absolutes are always exaggerations but seriously, how many ME fans were really beating the drum for MP? Not talking about people who were OK with it or thought it might be call. I'm talking about people who were really calling for it. Not very many. I feel comfortable making that statement.

There have been a decent amount of posts and such across the interwebs. While I wouldn't say a vast amount by any stretch, it was enough, apparently. It's also not a reason to start waving pitchforks just yet until they have given us all the relevant information either.

[Lard]

So.

How long until Bioware finally admits EA made them do this?
How long until Bioware finally admits that this was only done to sell extra DLC instead of putting it on the disc?

This "optional" DLC makes me think of Resident Evil 5. Forced and unnecessary.

>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.


I agree completely. There was absolutely no reason to do this. RPGs should *always* have a single player focus. If people want to play online RPGs, play an MMO.

Having DLC in an RPG is bad enough - it's like ripping chapters out of a book.

There is absolutely no way that anyone can legitimately and effectively argue that this was a good idea and
it's a genuine shame to see a comany like Bioware sell out for a cheap, quick buck.

Modifié par Lard, 11 octobre 2011 - 03:05 .

[1136342t54_]

onelifecrisis wrote...
You want me to guess what the new planet scanning replacement will be?

You might as well.

Make better decisions? So like in ME2 at the end you have decisions that can kill characters. So if you want, say, the second fire team leader to survive, you have to make the right decision... or just play co-op. Yeah, that could work. It goes under option 1 above (co-op is too easy) but it doesn't ruin SP. But do you really think they'd make co-op that powerful? You said you thought it would give a small advantage.

I never said would I said could I was never completely sure since it was never confirmed how much of an impact it would have.

That's one of the things that I file under "laborious". Sidequests in RPGs are invariably done poorly and break the immersion, I dun like em. If I ever do buy ME3, I'll be importing saves in which I skipped all the side missions, in the hope of avoiding the inevitable immersion-breaking encounters with (and emails from) the same side-mission characters in ME3.

Loyalty missions can be seen as side quests but they won't be in ME3. There can be a side quest similar to DAO type quests to gain a more loyal ally in a species.

There is a difference between getting ally and getting a very comitted one. Lets say the Krogan agree to fight the Reapers with the Council. Doing another mission in which take back a Reaper controlled Anti Matter warhead factory that holds a old but very respected Krogan Warlord will gain enough respect in which the Krogan will also agree in taking back some Council Homeworlds.

[Heather Cline]

I still don't like having a Co-op/multi-player system in ME3. Take a look at how Fable 2 and Fable 3 had game breaking bugs, game immersion broken, storyline affected. Again not a fan of this being implemented especially if you include achievements for this Co-op that affects the 1000 max points rating for the game itself. Those of us who like the single player campaign can't earn those online achievements unless we find someone willing to join us in an online campaign and not many people who enjoy the single player game only have any friends who play Co-op/multiplayer games like what you are implementing. So how do you propose that we who like to get the 1000 achievement points for the single player game get those for the multiplayer if we don't like it or can't get people to help us unlock said achievement?

Yeah... you can be sure I'm not happy.

[Obsidian Gryphon]

I hope it's not going to be like assinine AC2 (not that I played this one, I didn't buy it once I read the requirement), where persistent online is requried for SP. Just so SP progress is updated by what happened in multiplay for those who chose it. .. or did I get that the other way around ...?

Modifié par Obsidian Gryphon, 11 octobre 2011 - 03:08 .

[CARL_DF90]

With the exception of Co-op progress having an actual effect (no pun intended) on the story against the Reapers, I was pretty much expecting ALL of what ol' Chris mentioned in the FAQ. Heh. I really called it. Like I said the only real surprise for me was the co-op single player interaction.I had already suspected that two different teams would be working on this project. Turns out that my hunches were on the money. Me, personally? Interesting turn of events, although I will remain solely a single-player RPG player. I've got 6 Shepards whose stories need concluding and will not have the time for MP. Sorry.

[DiebytheSword]

Babe Mause wrote...

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'.

Yes because playing the hell out of Co-op brings back the VS, Wrex, Suicide Mission casualties, the dead from Feros, Noveria, Eden Prime, the battle of the Citadel, undoes the genophage on its own with no salarian intervention and gives nice cushy seats to every alliance ship.

Your choices still matter, but if you play Co-op, your other character can clean up Shep's mess.  IF YOU WANT.

I swear, people complain to read their own prose.

[cachx]

Oh, just make the mission playable with bots. This will end most problems right there.