3794 réponses à ce sujet

[Darkeus]

Yeah, still a nightmare I haven't woke up from....

Still a very bad idea.

[Smilietime]

Lucifer_Cheney wrote...

Babe Mause 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!!

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.

Or to take it one step further, it would be like a restaurant stating beforehand that the vegatables are optional, but have the cooks focus an inordinate amount of time preparing the veggies, it takes away from they ability to cook the steak properly. God I'm hungry!

Hahaha. Cooking vegetables well is a pain, best to use a stove top.

Single player quality is because there is no multiplayer... How does that make sense again? Milking IPs once per year until they dry up, is ONE COMPANY's sales strategy. That doesn't mean that it's every company's strategy.

Bam, and Bam.

Modifié par Smilietime, 11 octobre 2011 - 05:49 .

[jeweledleah]

I figured out how bioware can redeem this idiocy. sell MP as a separate feature. that way people who don't wish to pay full price for half a game, you know people who have zero interest in MP - can pay 40 bucks and those who do want MP-can pay the full price of 60. becasue that's what it feels like right now. unless you intend to play both features, you are basically paying full price for half a game.

someone made a steak dinner analogy earlier? it fits actually. you order a steak, just a plain steak and they bring you half a steak but with vegetables instead and they make you pay a full price. I don't want vegetables. I didn't order vegetables. I ordered full steak, not half of it.

right now the game is not worth the full price for me. I do not wish to pay for a feature that i will never use, feature so extensive that its quite literally its own campaign that feasibly affects the main one.

Modifié par jeweledleah, 11 octobre 2011 - 05:46 .

[Lard]

RamirezWolfen wrote...

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.

You're wrong.

[Nashiktal]

Filament wrote...

majinstrings wrote...

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...

Like I said, I just hope the singleplayer-only method of getting the optimum solution isn't extremely tedious compared to taking advantage of multiplayer instead.

Yeah I agree. I can't help but feeling multiplayer might be a way to cheat the system. Want your LI to live AND save the galaxy? Play online!

Of course we still dont know how the readiness slider will even work.

[DiebytheSword]

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

Not a problem, I know that the numbers at Thermoplae will always be unknown and likely much more even, but that does little to change the relevant point.  300/1000/7000 Spartans were grossly outnumbered but held a tiny pass because the law of diminishing returns stated that no matter how much labor Xerxes could muster at the gates, he would not achieve his goal.

[Cainne Chapel]

Did people not read the faq? It clearly states Galactic Readiness through Co Op is an ALTERNATIVE path, meaning its optional and doesn't effect the single player component at all.

Besides... I really dont see what the big deal is. Its not really a competitive multiplayers, its freakin co op, nothing wrong with Co op if you ask me, especially since it has NOTHING to do with the main game.

[ciaweth]

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.

I took it to mean it's as optional as the Zaeed and Kasumi DLCs in ME2.  Sure, the upgrades and credits they provided were handy, and you got a little bit of extra conversation with a new character (more like them telling you things, not a full conversation), but you could easily get to the endgame you wanted without them.  Ditto LotSB and Arrival.  It's just another non-essential attachment.

[RamirezWolfen]

EternalAmbiguity 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 really does hurt, like a friend I've known for years just slapped me in the face and never spoke to me again, yes.

Of course I'll buy the game, and I'll love it, just like one cannot help but love a friend. But my heart is heavy right now.

How do you know that it's bad, though? It's not March yet. Let's not be pessimistic about something we have no knowledge of.

[Zanallen]

Filament wrote...

Like I said, I just hope the singleplayer-only method of getting the optimum solution isn't extremely tedious compared to taking advantage of multiplayer instead.

I doubt it will be much more tedious than the ME2 method.

[Iakus]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

It really does hurt, like a friend I've known for years just slapped me in the face and never spoke to me again, yes.

Of course I'll buy the game, and I'll love it, just like one cannot help but love a friend. But my heart is heavy right now.

Like the VS on Horizon seeing Shepard working with Cerberu, I know.

I feel far more sympathy for them now

[Biotic Sage]

I really like their vision for integrating multiplayer. It doesn't detract from the single player, but it's still relevant to it should you choose to participate. I'm on board with the content, just not the way Bioware went about announcing it (i.e. they always denied its existent instead of saying "no comment").

[MGIII]

Lard wrote...

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

Don't like it, don't play it. It doesn't affect you. You'll just be missing out on some enjoyable experiences, is all.

[Darkeus]

I don't think everybody believes that in the end it will not have an effect on Single player. I know I don't, this sounds tacked on and EA pushed.

[MGIII]

Biotic Sage wrote...

I really like their vision for integrating multiplayer. It doesn't detract from the single player, but it's still relevant to it should you choose to participate. I'm on board with the content, just not the way Bioware went about announcing it (i.e. they always denied its existent instead of saying "no comment").

They never outright denied multiplayer.

[Iakus]

jeweledleah wrote...

I figured out how bioware can redeem this idiocy. sell MP as a separate feature. that way people who don't wish to pay full price for half a game, you know people who have zero interest in MP - can pay 40 bucks and those who do want MP-can pay the full price of 60. becasue that's what it feels like right now. unless you intend to play both features, you are basically paying full price for half a game.

someone made a steak dinner analogy earlier? it fits actually. you order a steak, just a plain steak and they bring you half a steak but with vegetables instead and they make you pay a full price. I don't want vegetables. I didn't order vegetables. I ordered full steak, not half of it.

right now the game is not worth the full price for me. I do not wish to pay for a feature that i will never use, feature so extensive that its quite literally its own campaign that feasibly affects the main one.

Preach on!

[NOD-INFORMER37]

jeweledleah wrote...

I figured out how bioware can redeem this idiocy. sell MP as a separate feature. that way people who don't wish to pay full price for half a game, you know people who have zero interest in MP - can pay 40 bucks and those who do want MP-can pay the full price of 60. becasue that's what it feels like right now. unless you intend to play both features, you are basically paying full price for half a game.

someone made a steak dinner analogy earlier? it fits actually. you order a steak, just a plain steak and they bring you half a steak but with vegetables instead and they make you pay a full price. I don't want vegetables. I didn't order vegetables. I ordered full steak, not half of it.

right now the game is not worth the full price for me. I do not wish to pay for a feature that i will never use, feature so extensive that its quite literally its own campaign that feasibly affects the main one.

Well said, thats how I feel with alot of games these days like Dead Space 2 or Bioshock 2, fine games but I played the watered down, multiplayer like once or twice and thats it....plus the single player was dragged down as well so it really wasnt worth the full 60 bucks. :/  

[Cainne Chapel]

jeweledleah wrote...

I figured out how bioware can redeem this idiocy. sell MP as a separate feature. that way people who don't wish to pay full price for half a game, you know people who have zero interest in MP - can pay 40 bucks and those who do want MP-can pay the full price of 60. becasue that's what it feels like right now. unless you intend to play both features, you are basically paying full price for half a game.

someone made a steak dinner analogy earlier? it fits actually. you order a steak, just a plain steak and they bring you half a steak but with vegetables instead and they make you pay a full price. I don't want vegetables. I didn't order vegetables. I ordered full steak, not half of it.

right now the game is not worth the full price for me. I do not wish to pay for a feature that i will never use, feature so extensive that its quite literally its own campaign that feasibly affects the main one.

Really? Game isn't worth it now because they ADDED a co op component? So getting more than a single player game is now not worth it because they ADDED something?

*Sigh*

Somtimes the B*tching logic on these forums makes my head spin.  Did you even read the FAQ priestly posted with the announcement? By your logic, since I never used Jack, or Tali or Thane in my first ME2 playthrough it was a waste of money since I paid for characters I had no use for right?

......BSN for ya I guess....

[Soul Cool]

Darkeus wrote...

I don't think everybody believes that in the end it will not have an effect on Single player. I know I don't, this sounds tacked on and EA pushed.

It honestly cannot be any worse than planet scanning or driving the Mako around. Which, if anyone recalls, were ideas BioWare thought up all by themselves. And they were terrible.

Modifié par Soul Cool, 11 octobre 2011 - 05:50 .

[MGIII]

Cainne Chapel wrote...

Did people not read the faq? It clearly states Galactic Readiness through Co Op is an ALTERNATIVE path, meaning its optional and doesn't effect the single player component at all.

Besides... I really dont see what the big deal is. Its not really a competitive multiplayers, its freakin co op, nothing wrong with Co op if you ask me, especially since it has NOTHING to do with the main game.

Get out of here with your level head and logic. It's not welcome here!

[ciaweth]

By the way, those of you getting overwraught in this thread right now...in 20 years you will remember your post and be mortified. It's not a good feeling. Try to maintain some perspective.

[DiebytheSword]

Cainne Chapel wrote...

Did people not read the faq? It clearly states Galactic Readiness through Co Op is an ALTERNATIVE path, meaning its optional and doesn't effect the single player component at all.

Besides... I really dont see what the big deal is. Its not really a competitive multiplayers, its freakin co op, nothing wrong with Co op if you ask me, especially since it has NOTHING to do with the main game.

Starting to wonder that myself.  Probably couldn't finish the required reading because of the tears.  I plan on maximizing my galactic readiness to "reapers surrender in fear of Shep".

[Terror_K]

Dark_Caduceus wrote...

Aren't they seperate studios though?

They're still making the same game and drawing from the same overall budget. Any money and resources allocated to multiplayer could have gone somewhere else. Simple as that.

DiebytheSword wrote...

Lets talk a second about diminishing returns.  en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diminishing_returns

At some point, the game is done, and throwing all the people, money and materiel in the world at it will not make it faster or better.  You assume the entire MP team could have produced more, what exactly?  The MP team would be working on combat, which already has a deadicated team at the other location.  How about story!  Because adding more writers never overcomplicates the plot and produces plot holes.  I know, we will hurl money at it!  Because in its done state, we can spend more on . . . N7 Collectors edition dogtags . . . or something.  At some point you cannot put more resources in without becoming inefficient. 

I think the problem is not multiplayer, but your entirely unrealistic expectations.

How about we get the voice actors from multiplayer to make more . . . random battlefield sounds?

No, there is no real impact on SP when implementing MP.  People who claim this have no idea about compartmentalized manufacturing, or what it means to have enough to do the job.

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

What do we have in the way of sidequests, exploration areas, vehicle sections, open-world planets? Surely there's plenty of aspects that could be added to the single-player side of the game that doesn't directly relate to the main story, but can still add to it. I also don't think its unreasonable to expect the import choices and consequences stuff to finally start paying off in a decent way considering for how long BioWare has hyped this factor and how disappointing the second game was in this regard. If we end up with emails and weak substitutions when we could have had sidequests with completely different paths related to things we did in ME1 and ME2 then I fail to see how being disappointed in multiplayer being added is unfair or misguided.