3794 réponses à ce sujet

[MonkeyLungs]

MULTIPLAYER .... told you so. Neener neener neener.

It will still be fun. I will have fun in both SP and MP. I will still always love Mass Effect 1 way more than ME2 or Me3 though. Always big big hugs for ME1, brofist for ME2 and ME3.

Anyway, neener f'in neener peeps!

[Darth Vengeant]

BeefoTheBold wrote...

Darth Vengeant wrote...

Doug4130 wrote...
Because whether it affects it or not is completely your choice.  Nothing is being forced on you at all, in the slightest.  You can pretend that multiplayer is not there, never click it once, and it will not affect your experience in any way shape or form.  You don't want multiplayer?  Don't play it then.  People who do want it will play it.  Everybody gets to do it the way they want to.  

Your wrong. You are being "forced" to do it if there are multiplayer achievments. I feel it is unfair. I have always felt there should be two separate types of achievemetns. One area for Single Player, and one area for Multiplayer. That way you can still get 100% in the Single Player part and never even have to worry about the rednundant and trendy Mutliplayer band wagon everyone is jumping on. Games like Assassins Creed and Dead Space do NOT need Multiplayer and would be much better off without it. Some people work very hard to get 100% in their games, but being forced to play part of the game they really dont care at all to play in order tyo get them is unfair. I can't count how many games I would have 100% on if it were not for the stupid mutliplayer achievemtns ruining it. No, not everyone enjoys playing with others all the time. That is why I am looking forward to Batman Arkham City so much, not a spec of Multiplayer or Co-Op in it.

Cosigned. My feelings exactly.

I am glad others feel the same way. I get attacked and trolled all the time for having this opinion. The fact is, it is unfair. If they would just separate Achievements'Trophies into two separate catagories it would be a Win Win for all. If ME3 has CO-Op specific Achievements I am going to be really pi**ed off. Partly because the previous two did not.

[Cimeas]

Arsenal0602 wrote...

BeefoTheBold wrote...

Darth Vengeant wrote...

Doug4130 wrote...
Because whether it affects it or not is completely your choice.  Nothing is being forced on you at all, in the slightest.  You can pretend that multiplayer is not there, never click it once, and it will not affect your experience in any way shape or form.  You don't want multiplayer?  Don't play it then.  People who do want it will play it.  Everybody gets to do it the way they want to.  

Your wrong. You are being "forced" to do it if there are multiplayer achievments. I feel it is unfair. I have always felt there should be two separate types of achievemetns. One area for Single Player, and one area for Multiplayer. That way you can still get 100% in the Single Player part and never even have to worry about the rednundant and trendy Mutliplayer band wagon everyone is jumping on. Games like Assassins Creed and Dead Space do NOT need Multiplayer and would be much better off without it. Some people work very hard to get 100% in their games, but being forced to play part of the game they really dont care at all to play in order tyo get them is unfair. I can't count how many games I would have 100% on if it were not for the stupid mutliplayer achievemtns ruining it. No, not everyone enjoys playing with others all the time. That is why I am looking forward to Batman Arkham City so much, not a spec of Multiplayer or Co-Op in it.

Cosigned. My feelings exactly.

Agreed add me on this list.

Why do you care about achievements?  They have no effect on games, money, life?  You don't get rewards or free stuff and also, its EXTREMELY likely there will be multiplayer achievements, and they can't 'split' them because games can only have a certain number of achievements and by definition you can't get 100% completion on a game you haven't completed!

Modifié par johnxtreeme, 11 octobre 2011 - 07:18 .

[Doug4130]

KBomb wrote...

Doug4130 wrote...


Except it's not, as the resources being spent to develop multiplayer have nothing to do with the resources being used to develop single player.  I'm not sure if you read it or not, but the team doing multiplayer is a seperate Bioware studio

The budget still had to come from somewhere. That is still money budgeted out for Mass Effect 3 and it still could have been used toward the SP experience. Regardless, it’s money that is in the ME3 budget, no matter what division worked on it. I can’t speak for him, but I think that is what he is saying.

I get that, I replied to something similar a couple pages back I think.  The money wouldn't have been there in the first place if they didn't develop multiplayer.  I'm sure they didn't have the notion to support Kinect right off the bat too, but Microsoft gave them money to support it so they did.  Just like I'm sure EA gave them more money for the sole purpose of adding multiplayer.  It's a business after all.

[MonkeyLungs]

The achievements were way better in ME1 anyways.

[Darth Vengeant]

Arsenal0602 wrote...

BeefoTheBold wrote...

Darth Vengeant wrote...

Doug4130 wrote...
Because whether it affects it or not is completely your choice.  Nothing is being forced on you at all, in the slightest.  You can pretend that multiplayer is not there, never click it once, and it will not affect your experience in any way shape or form.  You don't want multiplayer?  Don't play it then.  People who do want it will play it.  Everybody gets to do it the way they want to.  

Your wrong. You are being "forced" to do it if there are multiplayer achievments. I feel it is unfair. I have always felt there should be two separate types of achievemetns. One area for Single Player, and one area for Multiplayer. That way you can still get 100% in the Single Player part and never even have to worry about the rednundant and trendy Mutliplayer band wagon everyone is jumping on. Games like Assassins Creed and Dead Space do NOT need Multiplayer and would be much better off without it. Some people work very hard to get 100% in their games, but being forced to play part of the game they really dont care at all to play in order tyo get them is unfair. I can't count how many games I would have 100% on if it were not for the stupid mutliplayer achievemtns ruining it. No, not everyone enjoys playing with others all the time. That is why I am looking forward to Batman Arkham City so much, not a spec of Multiplayer or Co-Op in it.

Cosigned. My feelings exactly.

Agreed add me on this list.

So thats BeefoTheBold  and Arsenal0602 added to my list. lol.

[Giantdeathrobot]

Except it would NOT have been used for single-player because it's A DIFFERENT STUDIO with A DIFFERENT BUDGET. The ressouces would NOT have been unlocked unless multiplayer was added. What is hard to understand in this, dammit?

[whywhywhywhy]

dreman9999 wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Geth_Prime wrote...

I laugh at anyone who cancels their preorder over this. I'm sorry, but how stupid and ignorant can you be?

And how arrogant are you to think that they are ignorant for choosing to change their minds on what they spend their money on for whatever reason they deem applicable. Free will and freedom of choice.

What happens to Just not playing the mp?

Why play it at all ?  Why buy the game ?  IF you want the SP Campaign a rental finishes it, Gamefly and your done.  No reason to buy the game now and I suspect DLC will be a bunch of maps, textures err I mean outfits and etc. 

The focus of the game has shipped I applaud anyone who finds issue with the game and doesn't buy it.   Anyone who chooses to buy it can spend thir money on whatever they want just don't ask everyone else too.  Or call people dumb (laugh at) them for not doing what your doing as you may turn out to be the dumb one.

[Razorburn]

Mesina2 wrote...

Mass Effect is NOT about Commander Shepard, but this trilogy is.

But this Co-Op missions are an alternative views from other soldiers in this trilogy. It's actually very neat feature, don't you think?

Besides, it would be stupid to have 4 Commander Shepard's doing a mission that happens in main Singleplayer campaign that Commander Shepard didn't had influence over it.

Didn't think I had to elaborate that I was talking about the game trilogy considering these forums are for the game. Okay, the ME game trilogy is about Shepard. Don't you agree?

Yes, as I said in my first post, I think it's a good idea. However, I don't want to play some random guy. I would like some story to him. Mindless combat is not fun, I'd rather just go through another playthrough.

[CroGamer002]

Fenderbaum wrote...

Mesina2 wrote...

But this Co-Op missions are an alternative views from other soldiers in this trilogy. It's actually very neat feature, don't you think?.

Great idea yes...but why does it have to be co-op...what would have been wrong with "Complete the game and unlock bonus missions to play from a diferent POV" ????

Better a spin off game for that since characters wouldn't be developed much if it's just a bonus mission.

With Co-Op characters don't need much of the character development.

[Killjoy Cutter]

I'm very suspicious of multiplayer coming to ME3, but... achievements? Really?

[CroGamer002]

Razorburn wrote...

Didn't think I had to elaborate that I was talking about the game trilogy considering these forums are for the game. Okay, the ME game trilogy is about Shepard. Don't you agree?

Yes, as I said in my first post, I think it's a good idea. However, I don't want to play some random guy. I would like some story to him. Mindless combat is not fun, I'd rather just go through another playthrough.

That's why is a Co-Op.
Get a friend and have fun.


If you still don't like it, skip it.
It's optional.

[Doug4130]

MonkeyLungs wrote...

The achievements were way better in ME1 anyways.

man I hope that was a joke!!!  I hated those with a passion

[Razorburn]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

I'm very suspicious of multiplayer coming to ME3, but... achievements? Really?

What's there to be suspicious about?

[CroGamer002]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

I'm very suspicious of multiplayer coming to ME3, but... achievements? Really?

Eh?

All games today have those.
What's the problem?

[Arsenal0602]

johnxtreeme wrote...

Arsenal0602 wrote...

BeefoTheBold wrote...

Darth Vengeant wrote...

Doug4130 wrote...
Because whether it affects it or not is completely your choice.  Nothing is being forced on you at all, in the slightest.  You can pretend that multiplayer is not there, never click it once, and it will not affect your experience in any way shape or form.  You don't want multiplayer?  Don't play it then.  People who do want it will play it.  Everybody gets to do it the way they want to.  

Your wrong. You are being "forced" to do it if there are multiplayer achievments. I feel it is unfair. I have always felt there should be two separate types of achievemetns. One area for Single Player, and one area for Multiplayer. That way you can still get 100% in the Single Player part and never even have to worry about the rednundant and trendy Mutliplayer band wagon everyone is jumping on. Games like Assassins Creed and Dead Space do NOT need Multiplayer and would be much better off without it. Some people work very hard to get 100% in their games, but being forced to play part of the game they really dont care at all to play in order tyo get them is unfair. I can't count how many games I would have 100% on if it were not for the stupid mutliplayer achievemtns ruining it. No, not everyone enjoys playing with others all the time. That is why I am looking forward to Batman Arkham City so much, not a spec of Multiplayer or Co-Op in it.

Cosigned. My feelings exactly.

Agreed add me on this list.

Why do you care about achievements?  They have no effect on games, money, life?  You don't get rewards or free stuff and also, its EXTREMELY likely there will be multiplayer achievements, and they can't 'split' them because games can only have a certain number of achievements and by definition you can't get 100% completion on a game you haven't completed!

Because I do, no reason other then that.  

For a game that I like a lot, I have always done perfect runs of the game where I would do everything FInal Fantasy games, Zelda, KOTOR,  Resident Evil games I have always done perfect runs where I get every item find ever secret and do everything I can in the game, it is dedication to something I enjoy.

MP achivments take away from this for me, it is one thing to get an achievement for doing something in the SP I can take care of that with some effort,  but in MP I can't always do that, VS is worse the Co-op most likley any and all MP achievements will not be that hard to get but I still have no intrest in having to deal with them, I probably can't find a friend to be the 4th person on MP, because between schedules and the fact that not all my friends like Mass effect so there goes that one.

So why do I care about achivments? I really don't for most games, the game has to be one I actually care about for me to put the effort into it, but if I really like a game why wouldn't I want to get 100% on it? 

[Darth Vengeant]

johnxtreeme wrote...

Arsenal0602 wrote...

BeefoTheBold wrote...

Darth Vengeant wrote...

Doug4130 wrote...
Because whether it affects it or not is completely your choice.  Nothing is being forced on you at all, in the slightest.  You can pretend that multiplayer is not there, never click it once, and it will not affect your experience in any way shape or form.  You don't want multiplayer?  Don't play it then.  People who do want it will play it.  Everybody gets to do it the way they want to.  

Your wrong. You are being "forced" to do it if there are multiplayer achievments. I feel it is unfair. I have always felt there should be two separate types of achievemetns. One area for Single Player, and one area for Multiplayer. That way you can still get 100% in the Single Player part and never even have to worry about the rednundant and trendy Mutliplayer band wagon everyone is jumping on. Games like Assassins Creed and Dead Space do NOT need Multiplayer and would be much better off without it. Some people work very hard to get 100% in their games, but being forced to play part of the game they really dont care at all to play in order tyo get them is unfair. I can't count how many games I would have 100% on if it were not for the stupid mutliplayer achievemtns ruining it. No, not everyone enjoys playing with others all the time. That is why I am looking forward to Batman Arkham City so much, not a spec of Multiplayer or Co-Op in it.

Cosigned. My feelings exactly.

Agreed add me on this list.

Why do you care about achievements?  They have no effect on games, money, life?  You don't get rewards or free stuff and also, its EXTREMELY likely there will be multiplayer achievements, and they can't 'split' them because games can only have a certain number of achievements and by definition you can't get 100% completion on a game you haven't completed!

Because some people work hard to get them. Some people enjoy the challenge. However, some people do not want to be foreced into playing part of a game they have NO desire to play in order to get them all. It would not be hard to separate Achievements"Trophies into two categories. It would be very simple actually. Maybe you dont care about Achievemtns, but others do. Everyone has different things they want and enjoy. So, making it simple by having two categories would make everyone happy. ME has been Single Player so far, so adding it now in the end of the trilogy is not something anyone should be forced to do in order to get 100% on the game. People like me have 100% on ME1 and ME2, so it is quite unfair adding all this garbage at the end.

[Durka531]

Ok i'll be honest and say that I only read the first 9 pages before giving up but I have to ask can this "co op" be finished with bots? because to tell you the truth I'm the anti social type and i really don't play well with others. To put that in perspective you know how steam tells you how many hours you've played a game ? well between ME1 and 2 I've "invested" almost 400 hours. now for multiplayer games you can count that in minutes.Heh i never even bothered with the co op in portal 2.

[Chewin]

MonkeyLungs wrote...

The achievements were way better in ME1 anyways.

"Use squadmate X in Y missions."

Maybe it's just me but I hated those achivements.

[Doug4130]

Durka531 wrote...

Ok i'll be honest and say that I only read the first 9 pages before giving up but I have to ask can this "co op" be finished with bots? because to tell you the truth I'm the anti social type and i really don't play well with others. To put that in perspective you know how steam tells you how many hours you've played a game ? well between ME1 and 2 I've "invested" almost 400 hours. now for multiplayer games you can count that in minutes.Heh i never even bothered with the co op in portal 2.

They haven't said anything yet and while I do agree it'd be a nice feature, I don't think it's what they're looking for right off the get go.  Probably something they'll add in way down the road when it becomes a problem finding people to play with

[Killjoy Cutter]

Razorburn wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

I'm very suspicious of multiplayer coming to ME3, but... achievements? Really?

What's there to be suspicious about?

1) The diversion of resources (and don't come back and say "these were extra resources", there's no such thing, money, time, and effort are all fungible) in order to create the MP content and modes.   

2) Higher likelihood of Origin being required for installation and running of the ME3 software. 

3) Risk of anti-"cheating" measures for MP play making modding for SP play far more difficult, greatly reducing the replayability of the game and thus the lifespan of the investment. 

4) Infringement of MP content / progression on SP content / progression.

5) MP "balance" issues affected SP gameplay (see also, constant wailing and gnashing of teeth about "OP classes" and "IMBA" and "balance" by PvP wonks screwing the game up for PvE players in MMORPGs). 

6) Etc. 

Modifié par Killjoy Cutter, 11 octobre 2011 - 07:35 .

[CroGamer002]

@Darth Vengeant don't give me this completionist garbage.


If you really care to get 100%, you'll get friends or deal with some random people for a Co-Op achievements.

Modifié par Mesina2, 11 octobre 2011 - 07:30 .

[Killjoy Cutter]

Mesina2 wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

I'm very suspicious of multiplayer coming to ME3, but... achievements? Really?

Eh?

All games today have those.
What's the problem?

Personally, I find them meaningless and silly.  With all the substantive reasons to oppose MP in ME3... "it's hard to get MP achievements"... yeah... I just don't get it. 

[Arsenal0602]

Mesina2 wrote...

@Darth Vengeant don't give me this completionist garbage.


If you really care to get 100%, you'll get friends or deal with some random people for a Co-Op achievements.

Of course that is the solution, but it shouldn't be, there is no need to ever have to rely on others to get an achievement.   Plus not everyone has gold, or the systems on the internet, kick of a kick in the teeth for those people. 

[WidowMaker9394]

The co-op sounds like a lot of fun but this "Galaxy at War" and this whole "Galaxy Readiness"-business just doesn't sound good to me.

MP and SP should be kept separate.