3794 réponses à ce sujet

[ddman12]

Il Divo wrote...

ddman12 wrote...

That's ridiculous and you know it.

No, I don't. Demonstrate the flaw in my comparison. Bioware made the point that you would not, by necessity, need to engage in multiplayer to obtain that ending.

Simple, when you played baldurs with a friend did you play the main campaign or did you play a side mission that may not be directly related to the single player campaign? Which bring me back to the question of why this feature is necessary in the least in the 3rd part of a single player experience?

[CosmicTony]

Well, I was going to be annoyed if it was deathmatchy drivel, but it sounds cool and has impact of bonuses and such. For a person like me with a lot of buddies who love Co-Op (US versus AI etc) it'll be great.

Just wondering if there is a point in the single-player campaign I am suppose to stop and play Co-Op to boost my end game, though???

[Dark_Caduceus]

didymos1120 wrote...

Lard wrote...

didymos1120 wrote...

JeffZero wrote...

didymos has been doing so for hours now.

I'm done though.  It's like arguing with creationists.

MP fans are pretty deluded, I'll give you that.

Really?  You're going with the "I know you are but what am I?" option?

One time I was arguing with a creationist and I realized that God does exist, and apparently he hates me, true story.

Modifié par Dark_Caduceus, 11 octobre 2011 - 03:57 .

[Edge 7]

Lard wrote...

If you are a fan of terrible games and MP, why are you on this board?

Because we're fans of good games and progress rather than stagnation and ignorance?

All MP games are bad. Seriously, that's hilarious. Not even Yahtzee can say that.

[Kaoru17]

People I think your all forgetting the most important part of this we get to play as TURIANS AND KROGANS I'm excited dont know about you

[Iakus]

majinstrings wrote...

Why the hell are any of you complaining!? You get Mass Effect 3 as it was meant to be PLUS a completely optional multiplayer experience at no extra cost...

The single player campaign will not suffer from an OPTIONAL feature...

Seriously: Why the hell are you complaining!?

Depending on how much material gets bumped off the disks by whatever software is needed for the GoW, GaW  stuff

[Lard]

spiral trick wrote...

Lard wrote...

I didn't disqualify it. I never brought it up. I've never played it, have no interest in playing it. Why would I talk about it?

You stated MP modes always reduce time, money and resources from SP campaigns. I offered up ACB as an example of a game that was feared to fall into this exact trap, but ended up pulling it off spectacularly. You haven't played it because of the bad impression the first game (which is totally fair) but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. Sure, I can understand one's trepidation towards traditionally single-player experiences having multiplayer modes added in sequels. My point is that it can work out, and the game can be better for the inclusion.

Even if I liked the series, I would have skipped over this game. I have no interest in MP. 

Especially in single player video game RPGs, it just doesn't belong.

[Michael177]

"It is important to note that the system is entirely optional and just another way players can have control over your game experience – it is still possible to achieve the optimal, complete ending of the game in Mass Effect 3 through single-player alone."

The sweetest thing I;'ve ever heard in my life... that and dinner's ready,.

[Il Divo]

ddman12 wrote...

Simple, when you played baldurs with a friend did you play the main campaign or did you play a side mission that may not be directly related to the single player campaign? Which bring me back to the question of why this feature is necessary in the least in the 3rd part of a single player experience?

"It is important to note that the system is entirely optional and just another way players can have control over your game experience – it is still possible to achieve the optimal, complete ending of the game in Mass Effect 3 through single-player alone."

Again, where is the problem? You don't need to use it. The feature is no more "necessary" than co-op was necesary in BG, but Bioware instituted because they thought the idea fun. As presented so far, ME3 can be completed without any use of the multiplayer component.

[didymos1120]

Kaoru17 wrote...

People I think your all forgetting the most important part of this we get to play as TURIANS AND KROGANS I'm excited dont know about you

Speaking of krogan, I'm rather surprised someone hasn't made a "FEEL THE NERD RAAAAAAGE!" image macro yet.

[Lard]

Edge 7 wrote...

Lard wrote...

If you are a fan of terrible games and MP, why are you on this board?

Because we're fans of good games and progress rather than stagnation and ignorance?

All MP games are bad. Seriously, that's hilarious. Not even Yahtzee can say that.

Throwing in flavour of the moment options to sell more DLC map packs is not progress.

[spiral trick]

Lard wrote...

Even if I liked the series, I would have skipped over this game. I have no interest in MP. 

Especially in single player video game RPGs, it just doesn't belong.

Then don't play it. The single-player experience will be exactly the same.

[CannonO]

Edge 7 wrote...

Lard wrote...

If you are a fan of terrible games and MP, why are you on this board?

Because we're fans of good games and progress rather than stagnation and ignorance?

All MP games are bad. Seriously, that's hilarious. Not even Yahtzee can say that.

Progress doesn't mean reimagining a beloved franchise to be more and more like a shooter each year. Mass Effect hasn't had the decency of even letting have just one trailer with the mesmerizing synth music, slow and breathtaking scenes of locations, and lines from mysterious new characters and sights of explorable uncharted worlds. Not even a fog horn sunrise at the end like before.

[sedrikhcain]

Contraband42 wrote...

*sighs* Why?

$$$$$$$$. All you have to do is stick the words "multiplayer" on the front of a game box with an illo of some clown holding a gun and you're guaranteed to sell at least a few thousand more copies.

Of course, it might also stink so bad that it blows up in your face and kills the whole franchise but nevermind about that. The way I see it, they held off until the last game of the trilogy, yet they've told us there will be more mass effect, so it sounds like we can look forward to an endless stream of MP puss for years to come.

Oh joy.

[ryoldschool]

didymos1120 wrote...

JeffZero wrote...

didymos has been doing so for hours now.

I'm done though.  It's like arguing with creationists.

Dude, I been watching the baseball game, I could not tell if you agreed with me or not because I didn't read everything you wrote to anyone else.  I read the original post and responded to that.  I think my pre-order was for about $100, which is more than I've ever paid for a game.  Just saying that they decided to put resources into something I am not interested in, and today is when they "spring" it on us.

[Lard]

spiral trick wrote...

Lard wrote...

Even if I liked the series, I would have skipped over this game. I have no interest in MP. 

Especially in single player video game RPGs, it just doesn't belong.

Then don't play it. The single-player experience will be exactly the same.

Except the MP affects the SP, so it won't.

[H4RI]

I don’t know how to respond to this news. Personally, I don’t really care about multiplayer. I preferred if that talent was spend on making the single player game longer where this time the Mako or the Hammer Head would not be cut from any major battle like they were in ME 2.

[Dark_Caduceus]

sedrikhcain wrote...

Contraband42 wrote...

*sighs* Why?

$$$$$$$$. All you have to do is stick the words "multiplayer" on the front of a game box with an illo of some clown holding a gun and you're guaranteed to sell at least a few thousand more copies.

Of course, it might also stink so bad that it blows up in your face and kills the whole franchise but nevermind about that. The way I see it, they held off until the last game of the trilogy, yet they've told us there will be more mass effect, so it sounds like we can look forward to an endless stream of MP puss for years to come.

Oh joy.

I fell down the stairs and twisted my ankle yesterday, true story.

[Kaiser Shepard]

As much as I like the prospect of multiplayer in my Mass Effect, I'm still not sure what to think of the former directly affecting the latter's story.

[Edge 7]

Lard wrote...

Throwing in flavour of the moment options to sell more DLC map packs is not progress.

Making the game more enjoyable is.

I'm curious, what's your opinion on Portal 2?

[Iakus]

Il Divo wrote...

Especially with another studio taking over the multiplayer content, it becomes a question of whether you trust Bioware in saying that multiplayer was treated as a completely separate component. If additional resources are devoted to multiplayer, there's really no room for complaint, because otherwise those resources would not have been used in the first place. On the other hand, if it's a single budget, multiplayer (which I'm less interested in) can now impact the single player (which I'm more interested in). It comes down to our perceptions.

My perception is:  disks only hold so much room.  Even if we have two seperate pools of resources to draw on (which I am not convinced) you're still putting the results into a single container.  Or two containers, or however many disks it ends up fitting on.

Which leads to: Could both fit without cutting something from one or the other?

[Lord Jaric]

Lard wrote...

spiral trick wrote...

Lard wrote...

I didn't disqualify it. I never brought it up. I've never played it, have no interest in playing it. Why would I talk about it?

You stated MP modes always reduce time, money and resources from SP campaigns. I offered up ACB as an example of a game that was feared to fall into this exact trap, but ended up pulling it off spectacularly. You haven't played it because of the bad impression the first game (which is totally fair) but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. Sure, I can understand one's trepidation towards traditionally single-player experiences having multiplayer modes added in sequels. My point is that it can work out, and the game can be better for the inclusion.

Even if I liked the series, I would have skipped over this game. I have no interest in MP. 

Especially in single player video game RPGs, it just doesn't belong.

I played ACB and never played the MP, I still had a great time playing it. With the exception of one mission that was very hard to do it was still a great game to play single player in my opionon, so for some people who don't play the optional MP in game the can still have a great time with the SP.

[siarheicka]

Noooooo... (shoots all MP characters in the head and wins the war single handed)

[didymos1120]

Lard wrote...

Except the MP affects the SP, so it won't.

Affects how exactly?  Details matter, and, well, we don't have any.

[ddman12]

Il Divo wrote...

ddman12 wrote...

Simple, when you played baldurs with a friend did you play the main campaign or did you play a side mission that may not be directly related to the single player campaign? Which bring me back to the question of why this feature is necessary in the least in the 3rd part of a single player experience?

"It is important to note that the system is entirely optional and just another way players can have control over your game experience – it is still possible to achieve the optimal, complete ending of the game in Mass Effect 3 through single-player alone."

Again, where is the problem? You don't need to use it. The feature is no more "necessary" than co-op was necesary in BG, but Bioware instituted because they thought the idea fun. As presented so far, ME3 can be completed without any use of the multiplayer component.

Look Il Divo, I have no problem with you or coop games in general. However, you still have never given me a reason why a coop mode is necessary for a single player game? You think its fun? Great. Once again then I wish Bioware would make a complete coop game completely separate from ME3.