3794 réponses à ce sujet

[Elvis_Shepard]

I'm stupid and so confused.

Are the co-op missions separate from the main campaign?

[Solmanian]

This is everything I wanted from mess effect, only it's in the wrong place. I wanted racial customization since ME1, to get the chance to play as a turian or a krogan. But not like this. Call me an old fashioned geezer, but I don't think co-op or MP mix well with rpg. A good rpg makes your decision matter, not compromising your vision with your playdate; this was avoided by multiplayer not having an impact on the plot. But if they were adamant on adding it, it shouldn't have had any impact at all. Some games allow you to level your MP character (or characters) without mixing it with the single player char; that would be acceptable to me: having the ability to level my turian, and when I'm bored with it start leveling another character; but I don't see the need for a connection to the SP. Especially since there doesn't seem to be competitive MP (ala Cerberus Vs STG), which is the main draw for the MP fans.

[JoePilot]

I think it's funny that anyone DIDN'T see this coming.  EA declared mandatory multiplayer on all new games back in March of 2010.

I for one look forward to the most thrilling, focus-tested, formulaic, PG-13 friendly, non-challenging, non-threatening, over-monetized, hyper-sexualized yet nudity free, anticlimactic and utterly disappointing finale that BiowEAre corporate has the ability to produce approve funding for. Yipeeeee, corporate culture!! Bring on those fourth-quarter profits!!!!

Modifié par JoePilot, 11 octobre 2011 - 03:58 .

[dreman9999]

Saberchic wrote...

Doug4130 wrote...

Saberchic wrote...

Daeion wrote...

Doug4130 wrote...

Daeion wrote...

I'm so not happy about this. It's one thing to include stand alone multiplayer, it's another thing entirely to have it impact the single player campaign.

did you miss the part where he said it was optional, and that you can still get the same results by playing single player

Did you miss the part where he said  "Success in multi-player will have a direct impact on the outcome of the single player campaign"  They can spin it anyway they want about being able to get the same result in the single player, but the optimal way is going to do it through MP.

^QFT.

Multiplayer should be completely separate from the SP game. I don't like that it ties in with the SP game. I feel like SP has been compromised now.

except if MP isn`t optimal for you, you don`t have to ever touch it and it will never comprimise your single player experience.  I just don`t understand.  It`s there, it`s an available option to people who want to use it (and they will) and is by no means required to be used by people who don`t.  Options are a good thing

My problem lies with the fact that it affects the SP game. It should be separate--a fun mode for people to play on like Assassin's Creed.

By integrating it into the story, they have compromised the SP game. They said it wouldn't affect the game, but then they turned around and said that it will have a direct effect. They can't claim both ways. It either affects the game or it doesn't.

Ask your self this....What do you lose by not playing the mp? Anything you get in the MP you can get in the sp alone. So what do you lose by not playing the mp?

[whywhywhywhy]

Darkeus wrote...

Yep, my worst fears confirmed....

My 2nd worst gaming fear confirmed.  I knew this was coming and as co-op, why people fought me over it I have no idea.

Anyway.  I think the best way for me to explain it is progress, ruined co-op multiplayer.  What I mean by that is multiplayer in just about every form in the beginning was about connecting players together for a fun experience.  But the fanbase will all be segregated to xbox fans, ps3 fans and pc fans.  I'm not looking to point blame on anybody, plenty of people have their hand in the pot on this one.  But if it's not addressed it kills Co-op Multiplayer.

But if co-op is peer to peer (but not cross platform) and is only dependant on the other gamer having bought the game to co-op, it could work.  The value of it is adds to the overall value of the game.  However leaked the multiplayer pass feature combined with the aspect of origins, makes things grim. 

When I really think about it I feel and all hints indicates that multiplayer will serve a dual function.  One as a pirate/second hand sale deterrent, I don't need to elaborate on it the effects are evident.  The second function is to draw in new fps gamers or as I like to call them the fickle bunch, the effect of this if successful is also evident.  Co-op can be fun as long as 6 -11 months(longer for some games)
after that the number of fans playing drops significantly.  So I, from a
gamer's perspective see it as a worthless feature. Because if you buy the game your paying for the development of the feature whether you use it or not.

Current day multiplayer is predomintely in the client server form which makes people dependant upon whoever's providing the server.  A server that will be shutdown when the numbers drop too low, while the zealots/hardcore fans who still enjoy it cry out unheard.  It's disappointing.   Even more so when the gamers still playing it could keep the servers going with high enough demand if all the servers were merged.  Think of it, If your best friend has a ps3 and you a xbox, as of now, If it's something you enjoy...your screwed.

Anyway I look forward to more information to co-op, though I'd never buy the game at this point.  I'll watch and continue hoping some BW released info changes my mind though this late in the game, they should be close to freezing SC and locking the game down.  We'll see what happens.

Modifié par whywhywhywhy, 11 octobre 2011 - 03:54 .

[Dragoonlordz]

dreman9999 wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

The point is  you can't say someone is wrong when they never answered what impact will actually have. It has nothing to do with the one ending they did mention while at same time not mention anything about the real actual impact on story and aspects of the main game outside of that one of many final cinematics of which they said it will have an impact.

But they did state what the impact is. They just did not go into detail. So the only way you'll feel better is if they tell you what rewardyou get for doing what in MP and then how to get the same reward in sp?
They still stated the it has no impact on sp if you don't play it. The fact remains is that you don't lose anything not playing the mp. You may gain something, but that some you can still get playing the sp.
You lose nothing.

They did not say what impact with gameplay aspects, they only said "optimal ending" incase missed it the optimal ending is not only one of many endings but also is only one cinematic out of a game full of such plus does not include all other aspects within the game prior to reaching that "optimal" ending. They also did not say it will have no affect if do not play MP at all that is fallacy, worse than assumption. Again it is making assumptions and putting it forward as factual when it is not factual and is based off a few buzzwords that do not contain any details about how will effect the game other than "optimal ending" which is what they said.

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

[dreman9999]

Elvis_Shepard wrote...

I'm stupid and so confused.

Are the co-op missions separate from the main campaign?

YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You don't even play as the same characters. Though the mp is separate from the sp, it still gives you rewards to help you in the sp and those same rewards you can get in the sp anyways.

[Elvis_Shepard]

dreman9999 wrote...

Elvis_Shepard wrote...

I'm stupid and so confused.

Are the co-op missions separate from the main campaign?

YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You don't even play as the same characters. Though the mp is separate from the sp, it still gives you rewards to help you in the sp and those same rewards you can get in the sp anyways.

Thank whatever God you believe in.

Ugh, that's a load of my back. One more stupid question that I'm too lazy to find out; are Bioware making the co-op mode?

[Nyaa001]

so aside from the krogans and asari and the turians.... what other races do we get??? and will it be custom like when we made our shepards???? if quarians are an availible race can we customize their face???? cause i wanna see their face lol.

[dreman9999]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

The point is  you can't say someone is wrong when they never answered what impact will actually have. It has nothing to do with the one ending they did mention while at same time not mention anything about the real actual impact on story and aspects of the main game outside of that one of many final cinematics of which they said it will have an impact.

But they did state what the impact is. They just did not go into detail. So the only way you'll feel better is if they tell you what rewardyou get for doing what in MP and then how to get the same reward in sp?
They still stated the it has no impact on sp if you don't play it. The fact remains is that you don't lose anything not playing the mp. You may gain something, but that some you can still get playing the sp.
You lose nothing.

They did not say what impact with gameplay aspects, they only said "optimal ending" incase missed it the optimal ending is not only one of many endings but also is only one cinematic out of a game full of such plus does not include all other aspects within the game prior to reaching that "optimal" ending. They also did not say it will have no affect if do not play MP at all that is fallacy, worse than assumption.

They stated.....

"As a bonus to the campaign, BioWare is introducing the Mass Effect 3:
Galaxy at War system, a new way for players to manage and experience the
galactic war from multiple fronts, including a new 4-player co-op mode.
The key to saving the galaxy is the “Galactic Readiness” level,
measured by Commander Shepard’s ability to apply
every possible
asset – people, weapons, resources, armies, fleets – in the final battle
against the Reapers. Players can impact their game’s Galactic Readiness
level in multiple ways via the Mass Effect 3: Galaxy at War system,
including multiplayer. Other platforms and interfaces will be announced
in the coming months. 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."

And last time I checked that does mean everything to adds to the ending. You still can directly effect the what happens in the events leading up to th end in the sp and due to imports. This mp also helps those who just got into ME in the third game.

[Saberchic]

dreman9999 wrote...
 Ask your self this....What do you lose by not playing the mp? Anything you get in the MP you can get in the sp alone. So what do you lose by not playing the mp?

There are missions that are set aside for this that tie into the SP experience, so people would be losing out on that.


I don't begrudge the fact that Bioware went the MP route. I just wish they had separated it. If they include the use of bots, then I think most of the backlash from this will die down.

[Doug4130]

Elvis_Shepard wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Elvis_Shepard wrote...

I'm stupid and so confused.

Are the co-op missions separate from the main campaign?

YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You don't even play as the same characters. Though the mp is separate from the sp, it still gives you rewards to help you in the sp and those same rewards you can get in the sp anyways.

Thank whatever God you believe in.

Ugh, that's a load of my back. One more stupid question that I'm too lazy to find out; are Bioware making the co-op mode?

Yes, Bioware's making it

[Taciter]

Taciter wrote...

Doug4130 wrote...
I understand your argument Doug and I concur that in terms of replay value, MP is probably very appealing to those demographics to whom it was targeted but the 'mass Effect' franchise distinguished itself as a single-player RPG. It allowed people like me to immerse ourselves in a world completely dissasociated with reality - to escape! The encroachment of that insidious religion so euphamistically termed 'social networking' into my beloved refuge is an unwelcome imposition no matter how benign.

However, I accept that many people find it reassuring to know that their mobile support base is always at hand to serve as perpetual audience to whom they can chroncicle their endless list of banale activities in meticulous detail from visiting the bathroom to omgwtfpwning 10 Krogan mercs with a single sniper round. However, I don't see how incorporating an optional AI could possibly compromisethe interests of the MP fraternity OR the publisher's bank balance. I would get more replayability out of a bot based MP side-mission that I would out of a conventional MP scenario. With such an implementation in place, everyone would win and no-one would lose.

The ME franchise has always done something a little different, this is just another example.  I agree that bots can fill the same void, but it`s more of a band-aid fix way down the road when nobody is using the feature anymore.  They want to get people playing, talking, hyped up etc by playing a game in the ME universe with other people.  People aren`t going to be running around OMFGWTFBBQ I got more headshotz than u I`ll kill u just because the game has multiplayer.  Those kind of people will say lol its a rpg at first glance and not bother with it in the first place.

In short, I do agree with the whole bot thing, just not at launch.  Probably more of a realistic solution when the next ME game has come out and nobody`s playing ME3 anymore.

That's very considerate of you Doug, most MP supporters tend to dismiss the concept of Bots on the basis that it's too inclusive and undermines their 'leetness.

But look at it from my perspective Doug, If I buy ME3 (which of course I will!), I will want to sample the entirety of the product I purchased as is only fair. Why should chosing to play with 'bots' (were the optional available) be relegated to an after thought? We all know that post-release patches and updates are done so with some reluctance, either as means of emergency damage control to reassure prospective buyers or as a final polish to placate critics but rarely do we see the publication of significant code ammendments on the grounds of charity. EA would never endorse such a frivolous excersise.

My point is, the 'bots' mechanic should be implemented DURING the MP development stage. The AI is already defined by the single player campaign so the impact on development should be minimal. I can't see ANY drawbacks to this suggestion.

Modifié par Taciter, 11 octobre 2011 - 04:06 .

[HWM Sarge]

Elvis_Shepard wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Elvis_Shepard wrote...

I'm stupid and so confused.

Are the co-op missions separate from the main campaign?

YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You don't even play as the same characters. Though the mp is separate from the sp, it still gives you rewards to help you in the sp and those same rewards you can get in the sp anyways.

Thank whatever God you believe in.

Ugh, that's a load of my back. One more stupid question that I'm too lazy to find out; are Bioware making the co-op mode?

I really think you should actually read the OP Priestly posted...

[dreman9999]

whywhywhywhy wrote...

Darkeus wrote...

Yep, my worst fears confirmed....

My 2nd worst gaming fear confirmed.  I knew this was coming and as co-op, why people fought me over it I have no idea.

Anyway.  I think the best way for me to explain it is progress, ruined co-op multiplayer.  What I mean by that is multiplayer in just about every form in the beginning was about connecting players together for a fun experience.  But the fanbase will all be segregated to xbox fans, ps3 fans and pc fans.  I'm not looking to point blame on anybody, plenty of people have their hand in the pot on this one.  But if it's not addressed it kills Co-op Multiplayer.

But if co-op is peer to peer (but not cross platform) and is only dependant on the other gamer having bought the game to co-op, it could work.  The value of it is adds to the overall value of the game.  However leaked the multiplayer pass feature combined with the aspect of origins, makes things grim. 

When I really think about it I feel and all hints indicates that multiplayer will serve a dual function.  One as a pirate/second hand sale deterrent, I don't need to elaborate on it the effects are evident.  The second function is to draw in new fps gamers or as I like to call them the fickle bunch, the effect of this if successful is also evident.  Co-op can be fun as long as 6 -11 months(longer for some games)
after that the number of fans playing drops significantly.  So I, from a
gamer's perspective see it as a worthless feature. Because if you buy the game your paying for the development of the feature whether you use it or not.

Current day multiplayer is predomintely in the client server form which makes people dependant upon whoever's providing the server.  A server that will be shutdown when the numbers drop too low, while the zealots/hardcore fans who still enjoy it cry out unheard.  It's disappointing.   Even more so when the gamers still playing it could keep the servers going with high enough demand if all the servers were merged.  Think of it, If your best friend has a ps3 and you a xbox, as of now, If it's something you enjoy...your screwed.

Anyway I look forward to more information to co-op, though I'd never buy the game at this point.  I'll watch and continue hoping some BW released info changes my mind though this late in the game, they should be close to freezing SC and locking the game down.  We'll see what happens.

So your saying that rpgs never had MP and it's a bad thing is has mp because it's EA?

[Dragoonlordz]

dreman9999 wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

They did not say what impact with gameplay aspects, they only said "optimal ending" incase missed it the optimal ending is not only one of many endings but also is only one cinematic out of a game full of such plus does not include all other aspects within the game prior to reaching that "optimal" ending. They also did not say it will have no affect if do not play MP at all that is fallacy, worse than assumption.

They stated.....

"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."

And last time I checked that does mean everything to adds to the ending. You still can directly effect the what happens in the events leading up to th end in the sp and due to imports. This mp also helps those who just got into ME in the third game.

It does not mean that at all if go by what was said and not jump to assumptions. Your reading something they did not write and making an assumption. Which is why they need to clarify what they actually mean, what elements in the game single player campaign "does" it effect, how will it effect it and is it visable affect or behind the scenes non visable impact prior to reaching that ending.

How long till this information update they promised with real details and not buzzwords and gimmick phrases?

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 11 octobre 2011 - 04:13 .

[dreman9999]

Saberchic wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
 Ask your self this....What do you lose by not playing the mp? Anything you get in the MP you can get in the sp alone. So what do you lose by not playing the mp?

There are missions that are set aside for this that tie into the SP experience, so people would be losing out on that.


I don't begrudge the fact that Bioware went the MP route. I just wish they had separated it. If they include the use of bots, then I think most of the backlash from this will die down.

1. You don't even no how many side missions you'll get. So It's mute to worry about it yet.
2. The main team is not even working on the mp, it's another team in montrial. They won't even trip over each other and it won't stop the main team from making the best sp they can.
3. They have the resorces of EA, they are not hurting for money.
4. The mp is pve. That is not complex to make. The time when they really have to focus on the mp is pvp, which need extensive balancing to it.
5.Having the mp in ME3 is a boon to BW if they want to do mp in the future. Why? Because this lets them practice how to do it.If  you want a sp co-op rpg with a great story from BW done right, you don't want them to practice first?

[spacehamsterZH]

What I don't understand is why this is part of ME3. It all really sounds perfectly reasonable (i.e. it won't affect my singleplayer game much if I don't want it to, although I still fear combat will be tweaked even more towards action to accomodate the multiplayer), but that's mostly because it's... well, it's a separate game. "Galaxy at War" could just as well be a standalone multiplayer only game like this new Ratched & Clank game that's coming out, and except for this vague link via the "Galactic Readiness" variable (which we can probably assume is the same thing as what they did in DA:O) where it accomplishes nothing that can't be accomplished without it, you wouldn't know the difference.

Obviously they're tacking this on to the main ME3 game because it's being developed primarily as a way to later sell DLC, and since ME3 would probably outsell a standalone "Galaxy at War" game several times over, they're packaging the two together. That's all this is.

Me, I'm just glad it's basically a separate game that I don't have to pay attention to because online multiplayer, for the most part, can go screw itself as far as I'm concerned.

[DiebytheSword]

Elvis_Shepard wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Elvis_Shepard wrote...

I'm stupid and so confused.

Are the co-op missions separate from the main campaign?

YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You don't even play as the same characters. Though the mp is separate from the sp, it still gives you rewards to help you in the sp and those same rewards you can get in the sp anyways.

Thank whatever God you believe in.

Ugh, that's a load of my back. One more stupid question that I'm too lazy to find out; are Bioware making the co-op mode?

Yes, but its a second team in a different city.

[wickedwizzard01]

not sure on how to feel about this co-op thing in ME
Not a big fan of MP games at all but,it could be fun if done well
this could be a nightmare or big fun but ill reserve judgement until a later date
only hope now is that the DLC will not only be MP stuff like ammo skins/ new weapons and MP maps like usual
and there won't be a ton of plotholes but shep story will be truly finished in an epic style
i won't settle for less
Don't know if i will pre-order this now
i first want to know more (see more )of it before i decide what to do with this

[BeastMTL]

dreman9999 wrote...

BeastMTL wrote...

Daeion wrote...

Doug4130 wrote...

Daeion wrote...

I'm so not happy about this. It's one thing to include stand alone multiplayer, it's another thing entirely to have it impact the single player campaign.

did you miss the part where he said it was optional, and that you can still get the same results by playing single player

Did you miss the part where he said  "Success in multi-player will have a direct impact on the outcome of the single player campaign"  They can spin it anyway they want about being able to get the same result in the single player, but the optimal way is going to do it through MP.

Completely agreed. If co-op can in any way affect the SP then it's no longer quite so "optional". It becomes mandatory, and this is where I have a problem with it.

So, made the call, cancelled my pre-order this morning.. I'll wait for bargain bin.

"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."
......
"it is
still possible to achieve the optimal, complete ending of the game in
Mass Effect 3 through single-player alone."
.....
Did you skip that?

Did you skip this:

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.

[stonbw1]

My concern lies with the amount of content. It makes sense that this news will add content to the discs, but more distressingly, allow EA to take story content from the SP campaign and package it as DLC later.

[JoePilot]

spacehamsterZH wrote...

What I don't understand is why this is part of ME3. It all really sounds perfectly reasonable (i.e. it won't affect my singleplayer game much if I don't want it to, although I still fear combat will be tweaked even more towards action to accomodate the multiplayer), but that's mostly because it's... well, it's a separate game. "Galaxy at War" could just as well be a standalone multiplayer only game like this new Ratched & Clank game that's coming out, and except for this vague link via the "Galactic Readiness" variable (which we can probably assume is the same thing as what they did in DA:O) where it accomplishes nothing that can't be accomplished without it, you wouldn't know the difference.

Obviously they're tacking this on to the main ME3 game because it's being developed primarily as a way to later sell DLC, and since ME3 would probably outsell a standalone "Galaxy at War" game several times over, they're packaging the two together. That's all this is.

Me, I'm just glad it's basically a separate game that I don't have to pay attention to because online multiplayer, for the most part, can go screw itself as far as I'm concerned.

It's part of the business model for all new EA games to include multiplayer.  The Bioware defence force can spin it any way they want, but it really is that simple.

[TheGreenAlloy]

aj2070 wrote...

It's all corporate double speak. How can multiplayer have a "direct impact" (Chris Priestly's words) on the single player campaign yet still not be required? The DLC does not even follow that logic. You can play Mass Effect 1 & 2 completely DLC free and you would not know the difference. How can a multiplayer mode that has a "direct impact" on the single player game be optional?  It's the same as saying the addon character and mission from the collector's edition of Mass Effect 3 has a direct impact on the plot but is not necessary; either it does or it does not.

Even first person shooters who pioneered multiplayer separate multiplayer from single player.

You don't understand, or don't believe?

[dreman9999]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

They did not say what impact with gameplay aspects, they only said "optimal ending" incase missed it the optimal ending is not only one of many endings but also is only one cinematic out of a game full of such plus does not include all other aspects within the game prior to reaching that "optimal" ending. They also did not say it will have no affect if do not play MP at all that is fallacy, worse than assumption.

They stated.....

"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."

And last time I checked that does mean everything to adds to the ending. You still can directly effect the what happens in the events leading up to th end in the sp and due to imports. This mp also helps those who just got into ME in the third game.

It does not mean that at all if go by what was said and not jump to assumptions. Your reading something they did not write and making an assumption. Which is why they need to clarify what they actually mean, what elements in the game single player campaign "does" it effect, how will it effect it and is it visable affect or behind the scenes non visable impact prior to reaching that ending.

How long till this information update they promised with real details and not buzzwords and gimmick phrases.

What?....
I think you need to read what you just wrote.

You saying they did not write what's written about the mp,when they did and it's the head of the team that wrote it, and that rhe fact they needed to explain it is a bad thing...Which it's not.

They explain wjat is going on with mp because it needed an explination. Why does it need an explination? Because we would not no the detail of the mp without it.