3794 réponses à ce sujet

[Wonderllama4]

FINALLY... a Mass Effect game I can play with my friends!!

[Il Divo]

Lard wrote...

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

What are you talking about? What makes RPGs so special that they shouldn't have dlc in comparison to any other genre of games? 

[cursedsei]

Ehhh... I really, REALLY wish they'd just totally sever the single-player content from this. It would of been far more interesting to do "What-if" scenarios instead.

Imagine a scenario where Shepard failed, their futile rebellion crushed while the Reapers keep him in a state of semi-life, forced to watch the galaxy slowly fall within the lead Reaper's Ship. And as a small band, you are tasked to find a way to infiltrate the reaper ship and attempt to save Shepard.

Or be tasked to play in a sort of "Monster Mode", like what the Lord of The Rings: The 3rd Age did. Play as the reapers, play as Cerberus troops, and the like. Play leader as Saren or Harbringer as you relieve battles and see the kind of repercussions that unfold if they had won. Heck a Horde mode would be fun if handled right as well.

Instead... we get this psuedo-canon stuff that WILL have an effect on our singleplayer game. Sure it will be possible to get optimal through single-player alone, just like it's just possible to finish Demon's Souls without dieing once (besides the beginning of course). Am I saying it will be difficult, I don't know, but I don't like it either way. I want my ending to be solely based on my singleplayer game, not it as well as the multiplayer aspect.

[slimgrin]

Wonderllama4 wrote...

FINALLY... a Mass Effect game I can play with my friends!!

I have no freinds.

[addiction21]

Lard wrote...

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.

I counter you with Neverwinter Nights.

[Mr.House]

slimgrin wrote...

Wonderllama4 wrote...

FINALLY... a Mass Effect game I can play with my friends!!

I have no freinds.

Wonder why

[RocketManSR2]

For all those b****ing about MP, you won't be up against other humans. It will be just like the SP with enemies from the main game, just no idiotic AI squad members to deal with. Sounds good to me. Oh, and you can create a turian or krogan to play as. I'm starting to wonder wtf is wrong with some of you.

[NOD-INFORMER37]

onelifecrisis wrote...

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

lol it just kinda ticks me off that the galexy's surivival relies on some little idiotic "readiness bar" they whipped up, forget what you've been doing for the past two games, they mean nothing now compared to the might of co-op-earned "readiness". xS 

[Chala]

Heather Cline wrote...

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.

You are in forum full of people like you.
Just ask for a parter and I'm sure that someone will give you a hand with that

[Doug4130]

slimgrin wrote...

Wonderllama4 wrote...

FINALLY... a Mass Effect game I can play with my friends!!

I have no freinds.

you have 42 according to BSN

[RyuGuitarFreak]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

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.

What I understood from "optimal - complete ending" is, "the best ending possible". Which means that whatever possible state of the galaxy at the end is possible even if you don't even touch the mp component.

[onelifecrisis]

1136342t54 wrote...

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.

Co-op missions as alternatives to Loyalty missions? So suppose you do the co-op mission first and get the loyalty... now you can't play the alternative SP mission? I thought the co-op missions were optional extras, not optional replacements.

[DialupToaster]

Okay then so whos gonna be my infiltrator buddy to complement my vanguard?

Hmmmm..... Krogan vanguard = wrex = AWSOME
or
Human vanguard = My shep = awesome but not AS awesome
Asari = lame unless adept
salarian = lame unless engineer

OR for the lolz infiltrator krogan FEAR THE INVISIBLE KROGAN!

Modifié par randomchasegurney, 11 octobre 2011 - 03:18 .

[Isaidlunch]

The co-op sounds like a lot of fun. The galactic readiness meter and how co-op affects it on the other hand...just silly. Why couldn't the co-op missions be completely separate to the main campaign? Was tying this meter in with it really necessary?

[Il Divo]

addiction21 wrote...

Lard wrote...

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.

I counter you with Neverwinter Nights.

Plus Baldur's Gate.

[Dragoonlordz]

RocketManSR2 wrote...

For all those b****ing about MP, you won't be up against other humans. It will be just like the SP with enemies from the main game, just no idiotic AI squad members to deal with. Sounds good to me. Oh, and you can create a turian or krogan to play as. I'm starting to wonder wtf is wrong with some of you.

Until people get answers for the questions asked they are hardly likely to rubber stamp it on faith. People are more cautious these days with Bioware, at least some are myself included. Until our questions are answered our concerns are valid.

[PantheraOnca]

NOD-INFORMER37 wrote...

lol it just kinda ticks me off that the galexy's surivival relies on some little idiotic "readiness bar" they whipped up, forget what you've been doing for the past two games, they mean nothing now compared to the might of co-op-earned "readiness". xS 

except you can get full readiness in single player alone.

[Melchiah109]

randomchasegurney wrote...

Okay then so whos gonna be my infiltrator to complement my vanguard?

I'm so there.

[Gatt9]

Il Divo wrote...

Lard wrote...

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

What are you talking about? What makes RPGs so special that they shouldn't have dlc in comparison to any other genre of games? 

It's more the case that DLC is often material cut from the retail game in order to sell it day & date,  often already present on the disc itself.

DAO's a good example.  Anything from Bethseda equally so.

But you're right,  in theory DLC isn't bad,  it's day & date DLC that's bad,  and theoretically any genre can suffer from this.  The worst offender,  of course an EA game,  is Dead Space 2 where you're locked out of content on the retail disc unless you bought the DLC they put out before release.

Which,  between this announcement,  DA2,  and Dead Space 2,  is why ME3 is the last EA game I'll ever buy.

[1136342t54_]

onelifecrisis wrote...

1136342t54 wrote...

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.

Co-op missions as alternatives to Loyalty missions? So suppose you do the co-op mission first and get the loyalty... now you can't play the alternative SP mission? I thought the co-op missions were optional extras, not optional replacements.

What? You have miscontrued the entire point of the comparison.

I was saying not all side quests are as repetative as you think by giving you examples about how they can be shown.

[Gatt9]

Il Divo wrote...

addiction21 wrote...

Lard wrote...

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.

I counter you with Neverwinter Nights.

Plus Baldur's Gate.

I'm sure you don't mean that one expansion they tried it and quickly ditched it do you?

[arni3]

well, bioware, iam not interested in co-op MP, no thank you, sir/mam.
so, EA, what next ?? a new zombies DLC for mass effect 3??

[Rafficus III]

Correct me if I'm wrong: Baldur's Gate Dark Alliance, part of one of the best RPG series of all-time and of Bioware, had Co-Op. Jus' saying.

Modifié par hornedfrog87, 11 octobre 2011 - 03:14 .

[cachx]

arni3 wrote...
so, EA, what next ?? a new zombies DLC for mass effect 3??

They are called husks.

[ddman12]

Il Divo wrote...

addiction21 wrote...

Lard wrote...

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.

I counter you with Neverwinter Nights.

Plus Baldur's Gate.

Not even close to being a good comparison. In those games you did the MAIN campaigns with your friends. Not some tangentially connected side mission.