3794 réponses à ce sujet

[Yakko77]

He!! Yeah! I'm not normally a multi-player advocate but the way this has been presented sounds like tons of fun. It looks as if the single player has been kept 100% and the game is simply including a multi-player aspect as an option. This is NOT the end of the world... of Mass Effect, as we know it. In fact, it is a whole new world, one which all those who are crying about it will no doubt take part in.

Darn you Bioware, now I want to play even more than ever and I still have to wait until March 2012.

PLEASE tell me a demo will come out BEFORE the game is released this time.

[MGIII]

I can totally understand why Bioware tiptoed around this for months now. It was bound to happen. I like to think that it's just a couple people posting across numerous accounts that comprise the bulk of the salt-riddled posts decrying Bioware. But, alas, people are so self entitled they demand things their way or the highway. Which is a shame, because GaW sounds like an awesome and novel spin on co-op the likes of which gaming has rarely seen, nevermind an action RPG franchise.

Bravo, Bioware. Ignore these lames.

Modifié par MGIII, 11 octobre 2011 - 05:40 .

[Soul Cool]

Kolgen1227 wrote...

Seperate studios same budget. So yea, not only are you taking the set amount you had and slitting it in two, but you have them in two different places, more in rent and bills, great idea BW, don't blame you though, EA is at fault. Rip the soul out of a game as long as it makes us a quick buck.

You know, I'd be willing to bet money that EA has highly skilled people on their payroll that do up the budget projections for these games and EA shells out accordingly. It is literally beyond idiotic to not include the cost of multiplayer development into a game budget when you are absolutely aware that the core fan base is going to demand a great single player experience. I cannot fathom how you people imagine this world where only idiots and short-bus accountants run the video game world, but, if the fairies and star dust used in creating this pathetic world make you feel more comfortable in slinging out this ridiculous hatred, you are welcome to it.

Seriously, post like this make me despair for the future of our race. It's like critical thinking and the ability to do research is a vanishingly rare skill.

[ciaweth]

Thanks for the info, and I'm pleased to hear confirmation that the multiplayer content will be completely optional.

So, since we can play different species in multiplayer, does that mean we get to see females of all the available species?

[didymos1120]

Terror_K wrote...

While I don't actually expect the game to be all of that and would call it fail for not living up to such expecations, my basic point is that work, resources and time could be better spent on improving any and/or all of those factors regarding the single -player rather than working on multiplayer.

Oh, OK.  Well, whatever.  I've officially sworn off getting into this argument again. It doesn't ever go anywhere. 

[RamirezWolfen]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

Bekkael wrote...

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

Motherf*ck.

That is all.


*tears*

But...but, you were working through this. Another hug?

I tried, I honestly tried. but it hurts. It really actually emotionally hurts.

The announcement of multiplayer is that bad to you?

[zico291]

Is MP on the same disk or seperate? Different disk maybe?

[Zanallen]

Babe Mause wrote...

You would be correct with your analogy if the game was free. But it is not. More correct analogy will be that you go to the restaurant, order a steak, but they add vegetables too. And they say vegetables are optional for you to eat, but you stil have to pay for them.

Funny enough, that is how it has worked at every restaurant I have ever eaten at. I would imagine it a very rare occurrence where you order a steak and only receive a steak on your plate.

[DiebytheSword]

Lard wrote...

Smilietime wrote...

Listen up people:

I am a huge fan of the series, they are some of my
favourite games of all time. But now, you have gone too far by
presenting this optional feature that likely has zero impact on how I
will want to play the game! I can't believe that you want to present
players with more options! F*** you!

*sits down for dinner starts tucking into steak*

Mmm, this is good...

*vegetables get placed onto the table*

F*** this dinner! I loved this steak, and now you have to ruin it by
offering me vegetables that are entirely my choice to eat or not! F***
you! F*** all of you!!

Perhaps, if you made the comparison that everyone was eating the steak and vegetables from the same plate, your comparison would be appropriate.

Right, because all the other guys in co-op with me will be playing off of my computer, with my mouse and keyboard.

His analogy is perfect.  Only now there are four people at the table, probably ****ing about the multiplayer as they play it.

[didymos1120]

makenzieshepard wrote...

But I really need [there] to be an alternative path [that is] not something that makes getting a good or certain ending much easier.

That's actually how I think it should be as well.  Co-op should be the more time-consuming way to get those results, be that due to difficulty or just sheer length.  I can understand there's a temptation to make it the "shortcut" as a way of inducing people to play it, but given the reactions of many so far, it would be unwise.

[Lord Jaric]

DiebytheSword wrote...


[*]There is a reason 300 Spartans held the hot gates against a million Persians.  They learned the law of diminishing returns the hard way.

As a history buff I have to correct you on this, it wasn't just 300 spartans at the Battle of Thermopylae, there were many other greek soilders from many other city states that were there as well, around 7,000 including the spartans, along with the Athean navy that held of the Persian navy, even at the end of the battle when they were getting surrounded and many of the greek soilders retreated, 700 Thespians stayed behind to make a stand with the spartans. If you are getting you infromation from the movie, then I have to tell you as much as I enjoyed the movie it is terribly historically inaccurate

[NOD-INFORMER37]

My personal main concerns are

A. The single player being dependent(even if its just a little bit) on this "readiness level" co-op thing

and

B. The Co-op/readiness leval being dependent on other people. (in order to play it )

If we can still get all (and I mean ALL) the content from playing just single player then that great but if not then do we HAVE to have 4 people in co-op? I'm hoping that at least they'll be bots to fill the empty spaces if there's say only 2 or 3 players. (or better yet, play alone with bots)

I just dont want this to be that kind of thing where some of us will be searching frantically through forums like these and sending various ppl friend requests just we can play the damn co op levals lol.

[Iakus]

zico291 wrote...

Is MP on the same disk or seperate? Different disk maybe?

Hoping it's seperate.  Or a Day 1 DLC.  I want nothing to do with it.

[Bekkael]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

Bekkael wrote...

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

Motherf*ck.

That is all.


*tears*

But...but, you were working through this. Another hug?

I tried, I honestly tried. but it hurts. It really actually emotionally hurts.

Take the time to grieve. Sometimes it's necessary. <3

[Lard]

RamirezWolfen wrote...

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

Bekkael wrote...

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

Motherf*ck.

That is all.


*tears*

But...but, you were working through this. Another hug?

I tried, I honestly tried. but it hurts. It really actually emotionally hurts.

The announcement of multiplayer is that bad to you?

It's incredibly disappointing to a lot of people. And rightfully so.

[Ulathar]

Being able to fight against the Reapers, Collectors, Mercs or whatever else might be thrown at us with friends should be quite awesome. I think that it'll have an impact on the single player campaign to be both good and bad.
On the one hand it'll make the MP more meaningful and helps us to achieve the optimal ending. On the other hand it probably won't sit well with those who only want to play SP. I mean, of course you can still achieve the optimal ending with SP only, but it'll be much harder (although some might like that) and players may still get the feeling they're missing out on some things.

I do wonder what other games/things will be included in the Galaxy at War part. A facebook game maybe? Or another game for mobile phones? Daily trivia over Twitter? xD

[majinstrings]

I keep seeing people freaking out about the whole 'Multiplayer can affect the Single Player campaign' issue so let me say this: Multiplayer can not affect the single player campaign if you avoid the multiplayer feature.

Personally, I'm going to try out the multiplayer...but only after I finish the single player campaign...

[didymos1120]

majinstrings wrote...

Wonderllama4 wrote...

hmmm... co-op romance scenes.

Just got an image in my head of a player created Krogan 'romancing' a Salarian...thanks:sick:

"Subset of krogan sexual deviants enjoy salarian flexibility. More cartilage in skeletal structure."

[DaringMoosejaw]

Lord Jaric wrote...

DiebytheSword wrote...


[*]There is a reason 300 Spartans held the hot gates against a million Persians.  They learned the law of diminishing returns the hard way.

As a history buff I have to correct you on this, it wasn't just 300 spartans at the Battle of Thermopylae, there were many other greek soilders from many other city states that were there as well, around 7,000 including the spartans, along with the Athean navy that held of the Persian navy, even at the end of the battle when they were getting surrounded and many of the greek soilders retreated, 700 Thespians stayed behind to make a stand with the spartans. If you are getting you infromation from the movie, then I have to tell you as much as I enjoyed the movie it is terribly historically inaccurate

What? Xerxes wasn't a giant bald hermaphrodite?

[NOD-INFORMER37]

Littledoom wrote...

Matchy Pointy wrote...

"Success in multi-player will have a direct impact on the outcome of the single player campaign, giving players an alternative method of achieving ultimate victory against the greatest threat mankind – and the entire galaxy – has ever faced."

This i the ting that makes me not like this multiplayer mode one bit, so basicly what it say is, don't play multiplayer, and miss out on things in the singleplayer story. That's bad design for those that don't want, can't play multiplayer if you ask me.

I agree, I don't like the sound of that at all.

Agreed, thats what I'm concerned about as well. :{

[SNESchalmers]

Terror_K wrote...

Chris Priestly wrote...

Does the addition of co-op multiplayer missions impact the scope or quality of the single-player experience?

• No. A dedicated team from our recently formed BioWare Montreal studio has been focused on creating the multiplayer game features while the main game continued to be developed by the team in BioWare Edmonton. Both teams are integrated under the same leadership group that produced Mass Effect 1 and 2, led by Casey Hudson. BioWare remains dedicated to delivering one of the most amazing single-player campaigns gamers have ever experienced.

Lies. Of course it bloody will. Unless the main campaign is 80+ hours long with massive consequences and variations from our imports that result in wildy different outcomes, more sidequests than you can shake a stick at, vehicle open-world exploration in a whole bunch of vast, unique environments, more customisation than any BioWare game ever and huge levels and missions that are never linear in any way, then the multiplayer being added has impacted the scope and quality of the game.

Simply put: unless ME3 is the single greatest gaming experience I've ever had in all facets, the multiplayer has railroaded the game and wasted the potential of it. It's all very well to say that it was created by a seperate team dedicated to that aspect of the game, but said team, time and resources could have gone to something else, be it working on sidequests, exploration worlds, vehicle sections, customisation elements, making levels feel larger and more unique by simply building more on what's already there, etc. Resources, time and effort has still come out of the game's schedule and budget and been spent on something many of us feel is superfluous and quite simply wasted at this point. It doesn't matter what the MP entails or how different and unique it is... it's still there, has still diverted resources and time to being made and has still come to be tacked on in at the end of a single-player, story-driven trilogy where it simply isn't needed, and for the most part wasn't wanted.

I see no reason why it's been included genuinely at all to make the game better. It's just pandering to the Gears and CoD audience. Again. This is the same mentality at work that gave us Dragon Age 2. Perhaps I'd have more faith in the ability for it to not hinder the single-player aspect has ME2 been a resounding success when it came to depth, customisation and --most importantly given the context-- import decisions and choices and consequences. But it was severely lacking, particularly in the case of the latter where it was mostly emails, sweeping major events under the rug, and weak substitutions or downplaying the impact.

And now I'm supposed to believe ME3 will do a better job of these things when multiplayer is being jammed in there too? Yeah... okay... whatever you say, BioWare. <_<

[*]This mindset with so many posters on this forum (or any forum) that their opinions and assumptions are fact absolutely baffles me. So you honestly think that if Bioware never implemented this miltiplayer aspect that they were going to make an 80 hour game of epic proportions fitting every little detail of you're ideal game? Please give me a break. Mass Effect 3 without multiplayer was always going to be along the timeline of the first two games give or take a few hours depending on the player.

[MGIII]

didymos1120 wrote...

makenzieshepard wrote...

But I really need [there] to be an alternative path [that is] not something that makes getting a good or certain ending much easier.

That's actually how I think it should be as well.  Co-op should be the more time-consuming way to get those results, be that due to difficulty or just sheer length.  I can understand there's a temptation to make it the "shortcut" as a way of inducing people to play it, but given the reactions of many so far, it would be unwise.

Let them complan. They're buying the game anyways. And co-op is supposed to be a fun, social endeavor. If you're going to make long, at least make it interesting.

I'm hoping there will be some cross class combos. One guy drops a singularity and another throws a shockwave? While the other two throw degens on them and pelt them with hyper accelerated pinballs? Yes please.

Modifié par MGIII, 11 octobre 2011 - 05:45 .

[LPPrince]

zico291 wrote...

Is MP on the same disk or seperate? Different disk maybe?

I highly HIGHLY doubt its gonna be on a separate disk now.

Probably end up on the 2nd disk.

(almost typo'd that to 32nd disk, whooooa)

[RamirezWolfen]

Lard wrote...

RamirezWolfen wrote...

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

Bekkael wrote...

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

Motherf*ck.

That is all.


*tears*

But...but, you were working through this. Another hug?

I tried, I honestly tried. but it hurts. It really actually emotionally hurts.

The announcement of multiplayer is that bad to you?

It's incredibly disappointing to a lot of people. And rightfully so.

Only if the assumptions those people made come true. And even then, if you ask me, it wouldn't be that bad.