3794 réponses à ce sujet

[bigheadzach]

justgimmedudedammit wrote...

bigheadzach wrote...

Arsenal0602 wrote...

And you are correct about the past Achievements in Mass Effect, my issue is that adding MP achievements is going to alienate some players, and players that hae an intrest in and alway go for the 100% may not be able to at this point because of it. 

Bioware is not obligated to pander to your behavioral disorders.

Explain why they are in the game to begin with then.

Because Microsoft requires that they do. What I mean is that if they design a game with a cooperative aspect and you choose not to participate in it, then by logical reasoning you have not completed 100% of the goals they have set. If that bothers someone to the point that it affects their mental well being, that is not Bioware's problem to address.

[Saberchic]

iakus wrote...
I can tell them right now where they should have taken teh Mass Effect franchise

Mass Effect 3:  single player conclusion to Shepard's story
separate game  
Mass Effect:  Galaxy at War: multiplayer game set during the events of Mass Effect 3.

Cross-promotional codes for extra goodies if you get both.

I like this. Why couldn't they have done this instead?

[Darkeus]

aquamutt wrote...

Darkeus wrote...

aquamutt wrote...

Darth Vengeant wrote...

Some people wait a year or until all the DLC is released and buy the GOTY or Ultimate Edtions. I am one of them. I wont be nickle and dimed to death by DLC prices.

whatever you say sunshine

and darkeus congratulations you've set yourself up to hate this game

No, this announcement made me very worried that the great Mass Effect series is going in for a real anti-climatic ending because someone had the bright idea to put co-op into a single player RPG.

like i said you've set yourself up to hate this game

Nope, but I am not liking what I am hearing.  There is a difference.  Me disagreeing and out right hating Multiplayer is not setting myself to hate anything.  It does make me pause and doubt that this was pulled off without harming the Single Player that is the most important thing to the game.

[Pythonicus]

shep82 wrote...

Pythonicus wrote...

shep82 wrote...

Pythonicus wrote...

Kakita Tatsumaru wrote...

roflchoppaz wrote...

Playing MP gives you something of a boost to your playthrough, it does nothing but boost that "galaxy readiness' meter thing. You can max it out even without MP if you played all the cards right.

Why don't you get it, dudes? You lose nothing, they gain nothing. It's gonna be the same ending. It's equal.

We lose single player missions which could have been done with the time/money.

This x1000
I don't want MP I won't play the MP. But I want to play as much ME3 as possible. Any mission that is MP could have been a SP mission instead.

Incorrect. The CO-Op portion was done by a seperate team with seperate resorces without that team and co-op we would get the exact same game.

Doesn't matter it still could have been single player content instead. That second team could have been working on SP content instead.
More SP>any CO-OP

You people still don't get it. They (EA) gave them extra funds for a second team to develop MP for ME 3. The money would not have existed otherwise hence no missing content.

I think that you don't get it. By putting in MP they are telling us explicitly that they could have included more content in the SP experience. Unless of course the MP content is completely seperate from the SP to the extent that I don't even have to install it. If that turns out to be the case I'll gladly eat my words and accept it as "extra" or "optional" content. That doesn't change the fact that any MP content could have been SP content instead.
I believe that Galaxy at War could have and should have been packaged and sold as a stand alone game to succeed or fail on its own merit. It seems pretty obvious to me that this is really just a way to beta test something new ans make some money on it at the same time. I can't fault them for wanting to make money but I can hate the fact that they shoehorned it onto ME3 to do it.

[bigheadzach]

BeefoTheBold wrote...

bigheadzach wrote...

Darkeus wrote...

Mass Effect is supposed to be a Single Player game.  Well, so we thought and the idea was promoted.

Mass Effect is supposed to be a science-fiction IP whose initial offerings were given as single-player experiences. Bioware is free to explore its thought-space as it chooses. They do not owe fans anything.

Nor do their fans owe Bioware anything if they don't like Bioware's choices. This thing I constantly see tossed around in these forums that Bioware doesn't "owe" their fans anything is something I think misses the point.

Do they "owe" us anything in terms of money, to do what we want, etc.? No. You're quite correct on that.

Should they take the views of their most vocal and active fans into consideration due to the concept of enlightened self-interest? Absolutely! Fans that aren't happy don't remain fans forever.

They also realize that internet forums are the home to only the most diehard, unwavering, opinionated people. As such, they are a vast minority of the demographic who buys their games.

[Iakus]

Saberchic wrote...

iakus wrote...
I can tell them right now where they should have taken teh Mass Effect franchise

Mass Effect 3:  single player conclusion to Shepard's story
separate game  
Mass Effect:  Galaxy at War: multiplayer game set during the events of Mass Effect 3.

Cross-promotional codes for extra goodies if you get both.

I like this. Why couldn't they have done this instead?

Irresistable impulse to break the base? 

[Killjoy Cutter]

Iohanna wrote...

You know guys, I was thinking something. You guys maybe don't realise the best thing that might come out of this. If this feature means customizable aliens, then maybe they are doing assets that may also feature in the single player campaign, thus increasing the possibility of seeing greater alien variety. Yes, even the females. Might be a longshot, but hey, I think it's something we could all look forward to, no?

Just a thought. 

Now that is a very good point, and a ray of optimism in an otherwise gloomy subject. 

[mikx82]

has anybody asked or discussed anything about achievements and trophies yet? what if you opt not to do co-op? will you be penalized for it?

secondly, i will reserve any judgement on this new feature but i cant shake the feeling that they didnt need to put this in the game. it could have been an entirely different game if they worked on it longer..

[Arsenal0602]

Darth Vengeant wrote...

Arsenal0602 wrote...

aquamutt wrote...

Darth Vengeant wrote...

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.

To YOU it is garbage, to others it is not. That is my point. Making it fair for EVERYONE. Some people enojy it, you obviously dont care. But, why ruin others enjoyment just because YOU dont care? See my point?

So, your saying I should be forced to socialize with people I do not want to deal with inorder to earn the 100% in a game? I think not. News flash. Not everyone is Mr Social. Not everyone enjoys having to deal with others all the time. Some people, which this may suprise you, are quite anti-social. It is called being an Introvert. It does't mean there is something wrong with us either. Introverts are very creative and artistic. We enjoy the quite of solitude and doing things on our own. We are all different people.

your the type of person EA loves

The type that sits and plays the same game over and over rather then buying a new EA game every time it is released.

That seems like a poor buisness choice.

Thats not me. I buy and play many games, on both PS3 and X360 for that matter.

Whoops sorry, I didn't mean to lump you in there.  I was talking more about me, I would rather work a game to 100% then buy a lot of games and only play a little, I rent more then I buy and if I buy it is for a game that I am sure will be worth my money.

I also don't have anything bad about MP, other then I don't want the MP to mess up my 100%ing of all the Mass Effect games.  Games LIke Left 4 Dead or Gears of War I know I won't get 100% in, but ones like Mass Effect, Dragon Age, Assassins Creed (up until now) and Dead Space, those are the ones I play to 100% on.

[Darth Vengeant]

aquamutt wrote...

Darth Vengeant wrote...

Some people wait a year or until all the DLC is released and buy the GOTY or Ultimate Edtions. I am one of them. I wont be nickle and dimed to death by DLC prices.

whatever you say sunshine

and darkeus congratulations you've set yourself up to hate this game

Never said I would hate the game. I love ME1 and ME2. Fantastic games. I will just wait a year and get everything all at once and for a cheaper price. I waited for Dragon Age Ultimate Edition for PS3. I waited for Batman Arkham Asylum GOTY. I waited for Borderlands to get GOTY, and I waited for Red Dead Redemption, which is now getting a GOTY soon as well. Wating pays off, in more ways than one.

[Killjoy Cutter]

Saberchic wrote...

iakus wrote...
I can tell them right now where they should have taken teh Mass Effect franchise

Mass Effect 3:  single player conclusion to Shepard's story
separate game  
Mass Effect:  Galaxy at War: multiplayer game set during the events of Mass Effect 3.

Cross-promotional codes for extra goodies if you get both.

I like this. Why couldn't they have done this instead?

Because we can't ever have anything nice.   Greed will always break it. 

[JGDD]

bigheadzach wrote...

justgimmedudedammit wrote...

bigheadzach wrote...

Arsenal0602 wrote...

And you are correct about the past Achievements in Mass Effect, my issue is that adding MP achievements is going to alienate some players, and players that hae an intrest in and alway go for the 100% may not be able to at this point because of it. 

Bioware is not obligated to pander to your behavioral disorders.

Explain why they are in the game to begin with then.

Because Microsoft requires that they do. What I mean is that if they design a game with a cooperative aspect and you choose not to participate in it, then by logical reasoning you have not completed 100% of the goals they have set. If that bothers someone to the point that it affects their mental well being, that is not Bioware's problem to address.

Care to explain how Microsoft has any bearing on either the PC or PS3 versions of the game then? This is ridiculous assuming one company demands another to add features for something that may not be viable for all platforms yet affects them all.

[zico291]

Phaedon wrote...

Playing as other species sounds good. What I am concerned about it is:

a) The possibility that we won't be able to play with bots (as in, offline squaddies, not spam bots) and that at least one more player will be required to play the co-op section,

How the co-op campaign would work. It would be silly to have potential spoilers from the SP or the CO-OP campaign originating from the other campaign, but seeing as the Galactic Readiness meter is supposed to be improved with co-op, there might be some issues with that.

What happens if some people don't have Xbox LIVE etc, Their Galactic Readines meter won't improve. I would love to see bots in the co-op, I think it would make both sides happy.

[Saberchic]

Phaedon wrote...

Playing as other species sounds good. What I am concerned about it is:

a) The possibility that we won't be able to play with bots (as in, offline squaddies, not spam bots) and that at least one more player will be required to play the co-op section,

How the co-op campaign would work. It would be silly to have potential spoilers from the SP or the CO-OP campaign originating from the other campaign, but seeing as the Galactic Readiness meter is supposed to be improved with co-op, there might be some issues with that.

Option A has already got me worried, but I didn't even think about B. That would be something to ask a dev for sure if they don't address it tomorrow.

[bigheadzach]

Saberchic wrote...

iakus wrote...
I can tell them right now where they should have taken teh Mass Effect franchise

Mass Effect 3:  single player conclusion to Shepard's story
separate game  
Mass Effect:  Galaxy at War: multiplayer game set during the events of Mass Effect 3.

Cross-promotional codes for extra goodies if you get both.

I like this. Why couldn't they have done this instead?

Because the content they have developed for a MP game isn't strong enough yet to survive on its own as a sellable product. By adding it to the existing release, they are getting a lot of useful information on the viability of a multiplayer Mass Effect experience without the risk of a solitary release.

Also, anyone who thinks the $60 game with MP would have ended up being only sold for $40 had EA not "suggested" adding multi-player, is not paying attention to how the industry works.

[aquamutt]

Darkeus wrote...


Nope, but I am not liking what I am hearing.  There is a difference.  Me disagreeing and out right hating Multiplayer is not setting myself to hate anything.  It does make me pause and doubt that this was pulled off without harming the Single Player that is the most important thing to the game.

lol wut

[NOD-INFORMER37]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Saberchic wrote...

iakus wrote...
I can tell them right now where they should have taken teh Mass Effect franchise

Mass Effect 3:  single player conclusion to Shepard's story
separate game  
Mass Effect:  Galaxy at War: multiplayer game set during the events of Mass Effect 3.

Cross-promotional codes for extra goodies if you get both.

I like this. Why couldn't they have done this instead?

Because we can't ever have anything nice.   Greed will always break it. 

So true, something as simple and awesome like that could have as easily been done without tainting the last game of an awesome series but noooooo. :[

[Darth Vengeant]

Sgt Stryker wrote...

After reading the last couple of posts, I just thought I need to clarify that being anti-social and being an introvert are two completely different things.

Actually, they aren't. Introverts tend to be FAR more anti-social than Extroverts. But, it is beside the point and not part of the discussion anyway.

[Kaos_Scorpio]

Well.. I must say I'm not happy about this at all. Call me selfish I'm looking forward to saving the galaxy on my own, it is mine alone. But, as a good side of this Bioware could use this as a jumping point for an MMO.

[Saberchic]

iakus wrote...

Saberchic wrote...

I like this. Why couldn't they have done this instead?

Irresistable impulse to break the base? 

I suppose the temptation was too great for them to pass up.

[Darkeus]

aquamutt wrote...

Darkeus wrote...


Nope, but I am not liking what I am hearing.  There is a difference.  Me disagreeing and out right hating Multiplayer is not setting myself to hate anything.  It does make me pause and doubt that this was pulled off without harming the Single Player that is the most important thing to the game.

lol wut

My opinion of multiplayer is insignificant.  This is a game that does not need it and most do not want.  It could harm what is a great Single Player game.  You really need more explaination?? 

[Iakus]

bigheadzach wrote...

Because the content they have developed for a MP game isn't strong enough yet to survive on its own as a sellable product. By adding it to the existing release, they are getting a lot of useful information on the viability of a multiplayer Mass Effect experience without the risk of a solitary release.

Also, anyone who thinks the $60 game with MP would have ended up being only sold for $40 had EA not "suggested" adding multi-player, is not paying attention to how the industry works.

So is Galaxy at  War part of "Project $20" or whatever they call it?

Or could we have gotten another 20 bucks worth of single player content?

Edit:  Or they couldn't release Galaxy at War a few months later?

Modifié par iakus, 11 octobre 2011 - 08:38 .

[Phaedon]

zico291 wrote...

Phaedon wrote...

Playing as other species sounds good. What I am concerned about it is:

a) The possibility that we won't be able to play with bots (as in, offline squaddies, not spam bots) and that at least one more player will be required to play the co-op section,

How the co-op campaign would work. It would be silly to have potential spoilers from the SP or the CO-OP campaign originating from the other campaign, but seeing as the Galactic Readiness meter is supposed to be improved with co-op, there might be some issues with that.

What happens if some people don't have Xbox LIVE etc, Their Galactic Readines meter won't improve. I would love to see bots in the co-op, I think it would make both sides happy.

Improving the readiness meter just by accessing but not completing sections of co-op doesn't sound like a particularly good idea to me.

[xJdazzlex]

 Got to admit, at first I was a little worried if multiplayer would ruin the ME experience but I think it might give a new, interesting experience to it. Another thing is that it will make the game playing time a bit longer! 

[Darkeus]

xJdazzlex wrote...

 Got to admit, at first I was a little worried if multiplayer would ruin the ME experience but I think it might give a new, interesting experience to it. Another thing is that it will make the game playing time a bit longer! 

But Mass Effect should not need co-op to make the game longer, not if you have a solid Single Player experience like all the other games have.