3794 réponses à ce sujet

[Jonas TM]

Ok, how about everyone stops responding to Dragoonlordz. This is what he does in EVERY thread. Spews vitriol and shoddy logic to inflame people. He just wants all the discussion and attention directed at his points.

He obviously wasn't happy with the attitude of most people responding so he is stoking the flames. Just read the first few pages then skip ahead to where we are now and compare the two.

Tune him out, along with the others who are likewise big fans of logical fallacies and baseless judgments.

I am all for people not liking it, but his ranting are verging on subway guy wearing "The End is Nigh" cardboard sign.

[Chala]

arni3 wrote...

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??

Mmm well, husks are zombies and ME3 will be filled with them

[PsychoWARD23]

Just because you aren't interested in it, doesn't mean no one else is. And this goes for everyone. God some people are selfish/ignorant sometimes.

[Melchiah109]

arni3 wrote...

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??

Wouldn't husks already be considered sci-fi zombies?

[Il Divo]

Gatt9 wrote...

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

No. I mean original Baldur's Gate. To my knowledge, multiplayer was not added with Tales of the Sword Coast or Throne of Bhaal.

[NPH11]

As long as the content available from playing the MP is available through SP, there's no problem.

If playing MP results in extra content being unlocked in the SP campaign, there's an issue. This is why MP and SP should be mutually exclusive.

[shep82]

Gatt9 wrote...

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.

Really? So LOTSB,Overlord,Arrival was just all cut matterial? No it wasn't.

[Nashiktal]

I am concerned that achievements will be tied into the multiplayer.

[Lard]

addiction21 wrote...I counter you with Neverwinter Nights.

IIRC, the MP in that game didn't affect the SP game. I can't honestly remember.

And my statement stands. RPGs should *always* have a single player focus.

[didymos1120]

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..

There's no writing.  Maybe there will eventually be some, and it may even say what you think you're currently seeing,  but not yet.

[1136342t54_]

Jonas TM wrote...

Ok, how about everyone stops responding to Dragoonlordz. This is what he does in EVERY thread. Spews vitriol and shoddy logic to inflame people. He just wants all the discussion and attention directed at his points.

He obviously wasn't happy with the attitude of most people responding so he is stoking the flames. Just read the first few pages then skip ahead to where we are now and compare the two.

Tune him out, along with the others who are likewise big fans of logical fallacies and baseless judgments.

I am all for people not liking it, but his ranting are verging on subway guy wearing "The End is Nigh" cardboard sign.

Yeah I'm ready to stop responding to people like him anyway. I have to start tracking those people so I can see who will make a reasonable argument that I can agree or disagree with and who can't.

[CannonO]

Sounds combat centered. Unlike the original Mass Effect. But such is the shift of Mass Effect. More and more like a shooter each year.

[didymos1120]

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***!

Did people honestly think we weren't going to be able to win no matter what?  Seriously?

[NOD-INFORMER37]

Well guys I gtg for now, but I'll be back tommorow and definatly the next day!(when they'll release more announcements on this thing)

Hopefully it wont turn out to be a disaster, pray with meh on this one. :[

[Il Divo]

Lard wrote...

addiction21 wrote...I counter you with Neverwinter Nights.

IIRC, the MP in that game didn't affect the SP game. I can't honestly remember.

And my statement stands. RPGs should *always* have a single player focus.

Clearly you didn't play Neverwinter Nights. The actual purpose of the game was the toolest, not the Official Campaign, which if I recall Bioware admitted to be merely an intro to the game. I'm also curious if you have any pen and paper experience to back up these claims that RPGs must be only single player.

[Mr.House]

Lard wrote...

addiction21 wrote...I counter you with Neverwinter Nights.

IIRC, the MP in that game didn't affect the SP game. I can't honestly remember.

And my statement stands. RPGs should *always* have a single player focus.

You do know why NWN was so popular and succesful right? It was because of it's MP and mod community, not the single player aspect.

[Spartanburger]

Gatt9 wrote...

I just have three points to make...

1. What is the point of wasting resources to implement a feature a very small number of people will actually use?

2. What is the point of wasting resources to implement a multiplayer feature in a single player narrative driven game?

(Don't worry Chris, I already know it was an EA mandate so they can push the Online Pass, otherwise known as Used Game DRM.)

3. So...would a couple of specific people like to tell me how I don't know what I'm talking about again?

Well, you bring up some issues that cannot be completely answered unless someone has insider information as to BioWare finances, where funds come from, where they go, where they would have gone, ect ect.

To try to help answering your points, this feature (MP) will bring more resources from EA into BioWare, so money is a non-issue. Time and manpower are.
Now we know they still have a ways till release and they can still delay if they want. But what we do know, from the OP of this thread is that there have been no changes whatsoever to the team that works on, and has worked on, the Singleplayer. In fact, it is an entirley different studio that is working on Multiplayer.
It is impossible to know for sure, but it is most likely that the singleplayer studio has recieved the same amount of funding resources that they would have gotten if they had not done multiplayer, therefore not compromising the singleplayer at all. The only way that the SP team could be affected by it is implementing it into the final game (combining the MP engine and portion with the final product on the disk. That is assuming that the MP componenet will be on the same disk as the SP. I find that unlikely). 
Now this is mostly just speculation. What I said stands logical, but it may not be the case. Unless we are given information on the spread and source of financial resources we will not really know for sure.
All we know for sure is that Priestly has said that the production of MP has not taken away from the SP experience in any way.


In my opinion, it's not a matter of resources, it's whether or not it fits in the game and universe.
MP in Mass Effect for me almost seems like a given. Not in the main story, no, but I can't help but feel as if this universe is perfectly suited for a MMO. That said, I don't want a MMO. Yet. Maybe a few years down the line, but not now.
What people want is extremely hard to judge mainly because the people generally don't know what they want themselves. The only way they can be sure if they want it is if they try it for themselves and like it. 
Now there will be many people who don't want MP.
For those people, I only say that it is very fortunate that MP is completely optional and not required to achieve the most optimal ending in the SP campaign.
It is only a waste of resources if it is never used. 
It will be used. Even if it turns out to be crap, it will be used at least for a while.
Have you heard of the game BattleZone II? I played that (and still do) a while back. One thing that I noticed that was even after so many years of it being out, of it being extremely buggy, of it not getting any real attention, there were still people who played the game in multiplayer.
If even a tiny percent of people play MP then it is resources well spent, especially if, as mentioned, the MP team is being funded by MP funds and not funds derived from the SP team.

*WOW OMG MASSIVE LATE POST*

[Dragoonlordz]

RyuGuitarFreak wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

RyuGuitarFreak wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

sedrikhcain wrote...

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.

The way I see it "optimal" means the best possible ending with everyone saved no loss of planets or companions. That is the default optimal for most people maybe even all people other than those pulling straws to back up their statements. Optimal means best and does not cover all non optimal or even touch on the subject of other features such as dialogue, cinematics (non ending) or missions, story based gameplay that is not part of the ending or even the non optimal endings given there will be vast amount of different endings optimal is merely one of those many. I want to know if this MP has (any) effect on any of those things I just mentioned and otptimal ending does not cover those aspects.

[JeffZero]

didymos1120 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***!

Did people honestly think we weren't going to be able to win no matter what?  Seriously?

I... I know. I know, didymos. Today, BSN has actually managed to startle me a bit.

[sedrikhcain]

1136342t54 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.

Explain what cutscenes or dialogue are you talking about?

Edit: You are assuming there will be something extra like that if you do some MP missions.

BioWare says in the faq that your MP experience will affect your "galactic readiness". It's affecting your SP experience. I am making assumptions but I think they're logical ones. The only alternative is that they have no impact other than on some stupid "points" system. Both option are BS and I want to part of them.

[Lard]

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? 

No games should have DLC, because it's a scam that removes content from the game to sell as extra.

RPGs especially so, because they are content and story driven. It is, literally, like ripping a chapter out of a book and reselling it later.

[Mr.House]

Lard wrote...

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? 

No games should have DLC, because it's a scam that removes content from the game to sell as extra.

RPGs especially so, because they are content and story driven. It is, literally, like ripping a chapter out of a book and reselling it later.

LMAO

[Lord Jaric]

the galactic readiness could be affect by something like, did you gain peace between quarians and the geth and between humans and Batarian, if you did the readiness of the galaxy goes up, if you didn't then it doesn't. Did you gain some advance weapons. Did you save or kill the rachni, this decision could go either way if you saved them depending if the queen was telling the truth or not. Did you weaken the Reapers in some way. That is what the galactic readiness could be all about. When the final battle happens everything you did to parpare for it will effect what happens.

Modifié par Lord Jaric, 11 octobre 2011 - 03:20 .

[Anacronian Stryx]

Lard wrote...

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? 

No games should have DLC, because it's a scam that removes content from the game to sell as extra.

RPGs especially so, because they are content and story driven. It is, literally, like ripping a chapter out of a book and reselling it later.

The chapter would never be there if it weren't for DLC so in fact you get extra chapters from DLC.

[didymos1120]

Lard wrote...

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?
 

Very probably never, and if they do not, we'll have no idea why they didn't.