3794 réponses à ce sujet

[Doug4130]

Taciter wrote...

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.

Unfortunately, the drawback is for Bioware and EA and not for the player.  They want people playing this game with other people.  They want to see how it performs.  They want people playing together, using their product and getting as much money from it for as long as they can (it's a business after all), and the fact remains that when people play games together it just keeps people playing for longer.  It's a social thing, I'm not articulate enough to describe it fully; but as an albeit poor example, facebook wouldn't have as many people using it and checking it as often as they do if it you could fill out your friend list with bots.  That's definitely gonna get picked apart by someone.

It's a good business move, and it is good for the playerbase.  I hope that the ME3 team uses it to their full advantage to keep us happy with lots of extra goodies, MP and SP, long after the game's release

[Dragoonlordz]

dreman9999 wrote...

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.

Seriously I know your not very adept with English given how many errors in your spelling and grammar but read what I said again, they did not explain anything that I wrote. Just read it again and maybe you will understand if read a second time.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 11 octobre 2011 - 04:20 .

[wickedwizzard01]

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.

Well what more can i say. 
as this is mostly how feel about the MP issue but i'll wait and see what happens
i even might try it out sometime but not happy about this at all:crying:

[Elvis_Shepard]

H3WM Sarge wrote...

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...

Yeah, that would have saved more time:P

[dreman9999]

BeastMTL wrote...

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.

And you clearly don't understand what the "whole statement" means.
It means this. You are rewarded bu playing the MP with the same rewardS you can get with the SP.
If you play the sp alone, you lose nothing and still gain everything you get in the mp in the sp. If you play the mp you can get the sp rewards.......

So in the end, it's an alternete way to get thing in the sp if you don't have an import for the game.

[Predi1988]

I won't judge until I have seen a gameplay video about this new - if foreshadowed - feature, but I have to say: I don't like the idea. I fear it will make a negative effect on the single player, even if a separate group developes it. Ihope I will stand corrected, but I'm a cynic.

[Saberchic]

dreman9999 wrote...

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?

1. It doesn't matter how many missions they incorporate. If they don't allow bots, then people will be missing out on it. Period.
2. I know about the 2 teams. So what? Their work is still being integrated together. I never said that the SP team was slacking at all. I think quite the opposite, in fact. I just believe that making the MP a part of the SP is not the best thing they could have done.
3. Don't even know why this is being brought up. ???
4. I don't know what "pve" stands for, so I can't respond to this.
5. I'm assuming you actually mean "implenting a new feature" in the game and not "practice" because if you mean "practice," then no... I don't want Bioware "practicing" on my game. That's what beta games are for.

[dreman9999]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

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.

Seriously I know your not very adept with English given how many errors in your spelling and grammar but read what I said again, they did not explain anything that I wrote.

I was making a comment on your logic. And I don't care for spelling on a forum.
My point is that your say that they are lieing to you. That Chris Priestly , the head of the me team, does not know what he is saying about the mp, even if he know more info then you do.
And that explaining it is a bad thing. How is explaining something so we understand is a bad thing?

[Dragoonlordz]

dreman9999 wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Seriously I know your not very adept with English given how many errors in your spelling and grammar but read what I said again, they did not explain anything that I wrote.

I was making a comment on your logic. And I don't care for spelling on a forum.
My point is that your say that they are lieing to you. That Chris Priestly , the head of the me team, does not know what he is saying about the mp, even if he know more info then you do.
And that explaining it is a bad thing. How is explaining something so we understand is a bad thing?

Nope again more wrong assumptions, stop relying on your assumptions and what "you think they mean", deal with facts. I did not say they lied I said they haven't explained what the actual factual real impacts in gameplay elements are. I did not use the word lied just like they did not explain the actual gameplay aspects in single player which MP impacts.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 11 octobre 2011 - 04:30 .

[bekkilyn]

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.

....

The reason that the tacked on co-op multiplayer is a part of ME3 instead of a separate game is that practically no one would buy it as a separate game. Most are buying ME3 for the depth of the singleplayer experience and to finish the storyline of the trilogy. The fans are already "locked in" as a captive audience, who don't really want the multiplayer for the most part, but will grit their teeth and tolerate it in order to play the other parts of the game that they've really been looking forward to playing. I predict that most will run through the missions once or twice to try them out (or to boost for 360 achievements/PS3 trophies) and then the multiplayer will die and EA will shut down the servers like they do with all their sports titles after a few months. A separate ME multiplayer game would have very little fanbase and wouldn't sell. I certainly don't buy Bioware games for the multiplayer experience and don't intend to start now. I have my favorite MMO's for the social aspects, and that's more than plenty for me.

[Captain Crash]

On paper this sounds interesting... On paper the last few things Bioware have done have sounded interesting and haven't lived up to there full potential. As a result I am still a little sceptical.

I mean Mass Effect 2 combat wasn't the best and ME3 while improved, still seems a long way off some of the top shooters out there. For example Casey talking about the "new feature" in the demo of a hand grenade, which is an old feature, just new again for ME.

What im hearing with combat so far is stuff done before but with no real twist or spin to make it unique or entertaining for Mass effect compared to other games out there. I really dont want to see the ME legacy of "...that single player game with the shoddy multiplayer experiment".

Untill I see something tangible, unique and something that will add to the game I cant at all really get excited about this, even though I would like too. It sounds interesting, but what is written doesn't always happen.

[xSTONEYx187x]

xSTONEYx187x wrote...

Another question, would it make sense to play the co-op before jumping straight into the SP campaign? How else would you up your "Galactic Readiness"? Play a bit of SP, when you reach a certain point, jump into MP?

I'm confused? :S

Anyone got any input regarding this? 

[Saberchic]

xSTONEYx187x wrote...

xSTONEYx187x wrote...

Another question, would it make sense to play the co-op before jumping straight into the SP campaign? How else would you up your "Galactic Readiness"? Play a bit of SP, when you reach a certain point, jump into MP?

I'm confused? :S

Anyone got any input regarding this? 

Hopefully they will be able to answer this tomorrow.

[Forsythia]

I would definitely not play mp before sp, too afraid of spoilers. I'd rather have 10 'failed' singleplayer games than 1 perfect one from the start, because of mp.

[LonewolfXIII]

the only thing Im worried about is if playing the co-op will make the single player experience easier

[dreman9999]

Saberchic wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

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?

1. It doesn't matter how many missions they incorporate. If they don't allow bots, then people will be missing out on it. Period.
2. I know about the 2 teams. So what? Their work is still being integrated together. I never said that the SP team was slacking at all. I think quite the opposite, in fact. I just believe that making the MP a part of the SP is not the best thing they could have done.
3. Don't even know why this is being brought up. ???
4. I don't know what "pve" stands for, so I can't respond to this.
5. I'm assuming you actually mean "implenting a new feature" in the game and not "practice" because if you mean "practice," then no... I don't want Bioware "practicing" on my game. That's what beta games are for.

1.Missing out what? It a Pve MP. You play  mp with people. Playing it with bots would be no different then playing the sp.
2.But it's not part of the sp. It effects the sp. This is not a sp campiagn that can be played via co-op. It justa mp that rewards you in playing it with reward in the sp......And these rewards you can get in the sp anyway.
3.Why? Because your saying that they would cut parts of the sp because of it. That only happens because of time and money. BW has plenty of time due to it coming in march. I'm just saying they have plenty of money as well.
4. Player vs enemy. It's the most stadard game type with games. Think of it like Mario attacking koopas and you'll understand the most games have it.
5. It no secret that they want to do mp. RPGs stated as a mp. BW first 3 rpgs had optional MP in it.(BG1 and 2, and NWN.) So if they want to get ready to do it again , they need to get ready. A simple pve optional MP is a good start.

[dreman9999]

LonewolfXIII wrote...

the only thing Im worried about is if playing the co-op will make the single player experience easier

Then don't play the mp.

[TheGreenAlloy]

BeastMTL wrote...

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.

ALTERNATE

Modifié par TheGreenAlloy, 11 octobre 2011 - 04:38 .

[bekkilyn]

dreman9999 wrote...

LonewolfXIII wrote...

the only thing Im worried about is if playing the co-op will make the single player experience easier

Then don't play the mp.

Well hopefully there will be an option for separating the SP saves from anything we do in MP so that the SP isn't tainted by it unless we actually want it to happen. 

[dreman9999]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Seriously I know your not very adept with English given how many errors in your spelling and grammar but read what I said again, they did not explain anything that I wrote.

I was making a comment on your logic. And I don't care for spelling on a forum.
My point is that your say that they are lieing to you. That Chris Priestly , the head of the me team, does not know what he is saying about the mp, even if he know more info then you do.
And that explaining it is a bad thing. How is explaining something so we understand is a bad thing?

Nope again more wrong assumptions, stop relying on your assumptions and what "you think they mean", deal with facts. I did not say they lied I said they haven't explained what the actual factual real impacts in gameplay elements are. I did not use the word lied just like they did not explain the actual gameplay aspects in single player which MP impacts.

It not an assupmption. It just what is written. Unless you can prove that what has been stated for the mp is wrong, you have no ground to say I'm making an assumption.
And they did explain the feature, that what the topic is about..... They just did not go into major details.

[whywhywhywhy]

dreman9999 wrote...
So your saying that rpgs never had MP and it's a bad thing is has mp because it's EA?

No, I'm saying exactly what I said!

[masterkajo]

xSTONEYx187x wrote...

xSTONEYx187x wrote...

Another question, would it make sense to play the co-op before jumping straight into the SP campaign? How else would you up your "Galactic Readiness"? Play a bit of SP, when you reach a certain point, jump into MP?

I'm confused? :S

Anyone got any input regarding this? 

Really interested in this especially concerning spoilers about SP. Since MP apparently lets you experience big battles from SP from a different point of view and influence SP it would only make sense if you play them parallel to the SP.
But what if you choose to play it beforehand?`Won't this spoil some big battles for SP?

[spacehamsterZH]

bekkilyn wrote...

The reason that the tacked on co-op multiplayer is a part of ME3 instead of a separate game is that practically no one would buy it as a separate game.

Well, yeah, that's pretty much what I said right after the part you quoted, so I completely agree. Plus, like it says in that article JoePilot posted, apparently it's EA policy now that every game they release must have a multiplayer component because, uh, it's easy to explain to an investor who doesn't know anything about videogames that this is a good business model.

I guess this means Bioware games as we know them (i.e. single player RPGs with a heavy focus on story, characters and dialogue) are about to become a thing of the past. Can't wait to see how Dragon Age gets completely ruined when they try to multiplayer-ify it...

[Josh123914]

Siansonea II wrote...

Josh123914 wrote...

I got dibs on human Adept! anyone on PS3 message me for what race and class you'll be (just try to have an individual race, we don't want 3 vanguards or 2 salarians all in 1 group)

P.S. Someone ask them if race affects your class (for example, Turians can be only be eother engineers, Infilrators and Soldiers and Asari can only be Vanguards, Sentinels and Adepts?)

I'm going to wait to see how awesome the XBox version of the game is before I buy the PS3 version. I probably won't do multiplayer on the XBox, since it will no doubt require a Gold membership (SO not doing that). Whereas on the PS3, I can play over the Interwebz for free, so the investment in a second copy of the game would probably still be worthwhile compared to forking over cash to Microsoft for their online membership. And naturally, I'll be an asari, with biotic powers (Warp and Reave, if I can get them both, and Throw, if I can swing it). And if I can somehow also get Incinerate, you betcha I will. 

Great See you there, I'll have Warp, Throw Pull and maybe Singularity for me, (now all we need are two Mordin and Garrus Doppelgangers and we'll officially have a balanced team (assuming your effictively Samara w/ Charge and Garrus 2.0 gets the ammo powers))

I dunno about you, but I think it was really just balane issues that stopped Bioware from making competative multiplayer (and I'm not even a fan of it, besides could you imagine Wide Singularity against a team of enemies? the game would Crash!)

[TobyHasEyes]

masterkajo wrote...

xSTONEYx187x wrote...

xSTONEYx187x wrote...

Another question, would it make sense to play the co-op before jumping straight into the SP campaign? How else would you up your "Galactic Readiness"? Play a bit of SP, when you reach a certain point, jump into MP?

I'm confused? :S

Anyone got any input regarding this? 

Really interested in this especially concerning spoilers about SP. Since MP apparently lets you experience big battles from SP from a different point of view and influence SP it would only make sense if you play them parallel to the SP.
But what if you choose to play it beforehand?`Won't this spoil some big battles for SP?

 Also makes you wonder if you do really great, immense success in co-op, but pretty poor SP, does it even out?

 Would love more detail as it seems a strange system to me.. co-op can make an impact, but don't worry you won't miss the impact if you don't play the co-op