2261 réponses à ce sujet

[1136342t54_]

whywhywhywhy wrote...

1136342t54 wrote...

whywhywhywhy wrote...

drimacus wrote...

I don't know if this is a silly question, but is it possible to play multiplayer without an internet connection. I mean if you have two controllers for you 360, can you then play with 2 persons split screen?

I'm going to go out on a limb and say, absolutely not.  What your describing old school multiplayer. 

New school multiplayer requires EVERYTHING to be online so they can monitor you, "check" to see if your game is legit and to encourage used game purchasers to buy the online component. 

Actually I could play offline on COD Blackops and Modern Warfare 2 with a friend. The same goes with Gears. 

That makes the underlined oldschool.  You have a point here or are you sweet on me ?

Those are all modern multiplayer games that aren't your definition of new school. Most multiplayer games which are modern lets you play offline. Its not oldschool that is just multiplayer. Actually I remember one online multiplayer game that I couldn't play offline but it was rather old. US SOCOM Navy Seals at the time I played it it was like 5 or 6 years ago. Maybe earlier than that. Its not a matter of old school or new school but the game devs preference.

[Killjoy Cutter]

JeffZero wrote...

whywhywhywhy wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

I missed the thing about Facebook and mobile devices.

I can guarantee that tying ME3 in the Facebook and the like will make me FAR LESS likely to bother with ME3. Multiplayer is one thing, Facebook is a whole different story. Anyone who doesn't understand why needs to educate themslves about the company and its founder -- the man who said that privacy is dead and that anyone who wants or supports privacy is a naive idiot.

Where was this mentioned ?

It's been mentioned that you can "keep track of your progress" with things like facebook. It's worth keeping a keen eye on and hoping nothing too over-the-top occurs, just a clear-cut "share the silliness with all your friends so we can advertise to them how awesome it is that you're fighting Reapers" and I can stay the heck away from it. Limited knowledge now, of course, but I predict that will be it for the most part.

I really hope you're right. 

[AwesomeAuger]

If you haven't go vote on my poll for what you want in multiplayer.

[Rivercurse]

So many people in this topic need a slap.

That is all.

[whywhywhywhy]

1136342t54 wrote...

whywhywhywhy wrote...

1136342t54 wrote...

whywhywhywhy wrote...

drimacus wrote...

I don't know if this is a silly question, but is it possible to play multiplayer without an internet connection. I mean if you have two controllers for you 360, can you then play with 2 persons split screen?

I'm going to go out on a limb and say, absolutely not.  What your describing old school multiplayer. 

New school multiplayer requires EVERYTHING to be online so they can monitor you, "check" to see if your game is legit and to encourage used game purchasers to buy the online component. 

Actually I could play offline on COD Blackops and Modern Warfare 2 with a friend. The same goes with Gears. 

That makes the underlined oldschool.  You have a point here or are you sweet on me ?

Those are all modern multiplayer games that aren't your definition of new school. Most multiplayer games which are modern lets you play offline. Its not oldschool that is just multiplayer. Actually I remember one online multiplayer game that I couldn't play offline but it was rather old. US SOCOM Navy Seals at the time I played it it was like 5 or 6 years ago. Maybe earlier than that. Its not a matter of old school or new school but the game devs preference.

You have no idea of what my definition of newschool is because I've only shared an aspect and not defined it.  thus your entire point, post and opinion is irrelevant.

[whywhywhywhy]

Rivercurse wrote...

So many people in this topic need a slap.

That is all.

whywhywhywhy flexes his hand.

Hold still.

Modifié par whywhywhywhy, 14 octobre 2011 - 01:31 .

[coyote_blue]

I sent out a hate-burst on Twitter once I watched the explanatory videos, but I'd like to say something less angry now that I have more than 140 characters.

I do not doubt anyone in BioWare's ability to make a unique, compelling co-operative play experience.  If successful, this may even encourage other game makers from slapping a deathmatch into other single player games unnecessarily.

That said: no matter whether this succeeds, no matter whether most players like it or not, adding multiplayer is a bad design choice.  To defend this seemingly nerdrage, economically unrealistic idea, I am going to use the A word: art.

A game doesn't have to be art; I get it.  It can just be simple fun.  A triple-A game has to make money; I get that, too. What I suggest is that BioWare has the best track record in AAA gaming for making art profitable.

I still remember, in Mass Effect 1, when I convinced a boss to kill himself - not only because I made the right dialogue choices, but because I had become the right person to even have the conversation.  And like the guys from Extra Credits, in ME2, when I had to choose between genocide and mass brainwashing, I had to get up and think.  I wasn't managing stats - I was roleplaying.

Meanwhile, I cannot remember a single headshot I have ever made, in any of the zillions of games that have let me make them.

Mass Effect is art, in my mind, because my individual decisions really matter.  In my mind, the only way to successfully make multiplayer integrate with the single player game, is to make single player choices affect multiplayer, and vice versa.  So for instance, let's say the Council dies in ME1 - in ME 3, any save file with "alien Citadel dead" data on it would potentially give a multiplayer loyalty penalty for alien races, because those guys now hate Shepard.  I realize this is a logistical nightmare, but this is exactly why I think multiplayer is a bad idea: if something distracts from the main point of the game, it shouldn't be there.

In conclusion, I thank everyone at BioWare, past and present, for providing me with so much compelling, story-driven gameplay in the past, and I have confidence that ME3's single player campaign will be excellent.  But I cannot interpret the addition of multiplayer as anything other than a commercial move, or an attempt to appease gamers who don't play your games for the same reasons I do.  If I can suck it up and not play the multiplayer, they could just as easily have sucked it up and gone to play Battlefield.

Adding more boobies to Inception might have sold more tickets, and it might not have hurt the movie, but it would not have made that movie better.  By the same lights, I don't play your games because they are fun.  I play them because they are compelling.  So maybe I'm not angry with you guys, but I'm very, very disappointed that you thought this was a good idea.

Modifié par coyote_blue, 14 octobre 2011 - 01:27 .

[Il Divo]

coyote_blue wrote...


Adding more boobies to Inception might have sold more tickets, and it might not have hurt the movie, but it would not have made that movie better.  By the same lights. I don't play your games because they are fun.  I play them because they are compelling.  So maybe I'm not angry with you guys, but I'm very, very disappointed that you thought this was a good idea.

I personally thought that Memento was better than Inception, but that's just me.

[coyote_blue]

*smiles* And tbh, if you ever watch "Following", you'll see that Nolan recycles a lot of his main motifs. I was gunning for effect.

That said, I'm one of those a-holes that thinks games can, and should be art. And it scares me to see BioWare follow-up some of my disappointments in DA2 with this. I'm not saying they're wrong. I'm just afraid that they're leaving me.

And if they do leave me, where else am I going to go? A shooter gamer who hates MW3 can switch to Battlefield.  Or Medal of Honor.  Or Rage.  Or Halo.  If BioWare decides I don't matter, all I have left is Atlus and Shin Megami Tensei.

Modifié par coyote_blue, 14 octobre 2011 - 01:31 .

[Il Divo]

coyote_blue wrote...

*smiles* And tbh, if you ever watch "Following", you'll see that Nolan recycles a lot of his main motifs. I was gunning for effect.

Haha, I actually watched Following for the first time this past Summer on Youtube. I expected something terrible and it turned out to be fantastic. It pretty much demonstrates that all you need for a good film is fresh dialogue, and a great plot/acting.

That said, I'm one of those a-holes that thinks games can, and should be art. And it scares me to see BioWare follow-up some of my disappointments in DA2 with this. I'm not saying they're wrong. I'm just afraid that they're leaving me.

I'm also a huge proponent of the games as art theory, with both Bioware and Valve being the best examples (imo). The problem is that multiplayer games, as implemented so far in the gaming industry, are anathema to art. Maybe the day will come when multiplayer will be art, but it's definitely not now. What's unique about the single player experience in most interactive RPGs is that the information is being presented directly to the player, making them an active participant, which allows the story being told to become even more meaningful/personal for the player. I would hate to see multiplayer compromise that, in any way.

And sorry for the rant. I like to talk.

Modifié par Il Divo, 14 octobre 2011 - 01:36 .

[coyote_blue]

 You're sorry for your rant?  When I rant, people have to pack a lunch.  

[Il Divo]

Well, I already ate, so no worries. I'm good on that front.

[1136342t54_]

whywhywhywhy wrote...

1136342t54 wrote...

whywhywhywhy wrote...

1136342t54 wrote...

whywhywhywhy wrote...

drimacus wrote...

I don't know if this is a silly question, but is it possible to play multiplayer without an internet connection. I mean if you have two controllers for you 360, can you then play with 2 persons split screen?

I'm going to go out on a limb and say, absolutely not.  What your describing old school multiplayer. 

New school multiplayer requires EVERYTHING to be online so they can monitor you, "check" to see if your game is legit and to encourage used game purchasers to buy the online component. 

Actually I could play offline on COD Blackops and Modern Warfare 2 with a friend. The same goes with Gears. 

That makes the underlined oldschool.  You have a point here or are you sweet on me ?

Those are all modern multiplayer games that aren't your definition of new school. Most multiplayer games which are modern lets you play offline. Its not oldschool that is just multiplayer. Actually I remember one online multiplayer game that I couldn't play offline but it was rather old. US SOCOM Navy Seals at the time I played it it was like 5 or 6 years ago. Maybe earlier than that. Its not a matter of old school or new school but the game devs preference.

You have no idea of what my definition of newschool is because I've only shared an aspect and not defined it.  thus your entire point, post and opinion is irrelevant.

So your too lazy to actually attempt to post an explanation for your attempt to classify multiplayer in different classes of new school and old school (which don't work) instead you just cross out my post because I don't understand your non understandable point? Hell a lot of multiplayer games today aren't really solely online multiplayer. This new school that you seem to call doesn't really exist in many new mp games I play. Maybe BF3 but I only played the beta.

[Locutus_of_BORG]

All I can say is, Daayyamm!

[coyote_blue]

 "Hell a lot of multiplayer games today aren't really solely online multiplayer. This new school that you seem to call doesn't really exist in many new mp games I play. Maybe BF3 but I only played the beta."

I don't want to take a side in the current argument.  But it seems like a lot of that exchange relies on defining the value of multiplayer.

Legit question: I played only single player for MW2, because I'd heard that the single player campaign did some fairly accurate simulations of actual combat.  To its credit, the convoy missions were pretty good.

But I'd sincerely like to know, is my experience typical?  Who here plays a lot of games that are optimized for multiplayer?  Out of those folks, what do you get, if anything, out of the single player campaigns that's better, in your opinion, than the multiplayer?

Modifié par coyote_blue, 14 octobre 2011 - 01:54 .

[1136342t54_]

coyote_blue wrote...

 "Hell a lot of multiplayer games today aren't really solely online multiplayer. This new school that you seem to call doesn't really exist in many new mp games I play. Maybe BF3 but I only played the beta."

I don't want to take a side in the current argument.  But it seems like a lot of that exchange relies on defining the value of multiplayer.

Legit question: I played only single player for MW2, because I'd heard that the single player campaign did some fairly accurate simulations of actual combat.  To its credit, the convoy missions were pretty good.

But I'd sincerely like to know, is my experience typical?  Who here plays a lot of games that are optimized for multiplayer?  Out of those folks, what do you get, if anything, out of the single player campaigns that's better, in your opinion, than the multiplayer?

I liked the singleplayer and most people I know like the SP but its unlikely they will play it again. The singleplayer to me when it some to games like COD or Gears are rather interesting and the gameplay is rather solid. It is rather one of the good things about those games. What I specifically like about the SP is lack of lag, glitches, general annoyances from MP. It is a simple campaign that is action packed and rather solid. The story can be all over the place but it is rather fun.The thing is when it comes to a game like Gears I am more likely to play SP since it has co op but the real want to play the game is in multiplayer. Whether its co op or competitive.

[TheRealJayDee]

coyote_blue wrote...
In conclusion, I thank everyone at BioWare, past and present, for providing me with so much compelling, story-driven gameplay in the past, and I have confidence that ME3's single player campaign will be excellent.  But I cannot interpret the addition of multiplayer as anything other than a commercial move, or an attempt to appease gamers who don't play your games for the same reasons I do. 

Very nice post (not just the part I quote), I agree wih this completely.


Oh, and off topic: Memento is my favourite Nolan movie to date. For some reason when I rewatch other Nolan movies I tend to focus on the elements I don't like and end up increasingly dissapointed.

[Taciter]

coyote_blue wrote...

I sent out a hate-burst on Twitter once I watched the explanatory videos, but I'd like to say something less angry now that I have more than 140 characters.

....Articulated genius....

Endorsed and signed!

Oh.. and on the subject of artistic representation in videogames I highly recommend 'The Void' - Extremely evocative and disconcertingly immersive.

Modifié par Taciter, 14 octobre 2011 - 03:02 .

[JeffZero]

coyote_blue wrote...

*smiles* And tbh, if you ever watch "Following", you'll see that Nolan recycles a lot of his main motifs. I was gunning for effect.

That said, I'm one of those a-holes that thinks games can, and should be art. And it scares me to see BioWare follow-up some of my disappointments in DA2 with this. I'm not saying they're wrong. I'm just afraid that they're leaving me.

And if they do leave me, where else am I going to go? A shooter gamer who hates MW3 can switch to Battlefield.  Or Medal of Honor.  Or Rage.  Or Halo.  If BioWare decides I don't matter, all I have left is Atlus and Shin Megami Tensei.

I don't even care much for Atlus from what I've played. Square went soft years ago and Bethesda seems a bit too nonlinear for my tastes. So I definitely hope Bioware doesn't leave me.

Thankfully, I don't feel like it has yet. But I hear ya.

[didymos1120]

JeffZero wrote...

 Square went soft years ago...

Was that on purpose?

[JeffZero]

didymos1120 wrote...

JeffZero wrote...

 Square went soft years ago...

Was that on purpose?

Yep.

[Gatt9]

Il Divo wrote...

Gatt9 wrote...

Because they now cannot have the way to circumvent it something that can be spoiled through walkthroughs,  which means heavy randomization and a very heavy burden on Single-Players and used game buyers,  or alternatively,  very heavy requirements to achieve optimal solutions in single player mode and get the highest yield of "War assets".  Either way,  this has alot of potential to backfire and generate alot of unhappy people.

Gatt, would you mind loaning me your copy of Mass Effect 3? My copy doesn't arrive until March, but since you seem to know all about the game already, I figured  you're just about finished with yours.

It's just logic Il Divo,  and I'm pretty confident that if you back off your Bioware Defense and think it through,  you can come to the same conclusions I did.

-EA has expressed that it sees Online Pass as a way to increase revenues by forcing used game purchasers to pay them for the game anyways.
-EA stated very clearly in one of their recent FAQs about Multiplayer that Online Pass is free with the game,  but must be purchased by people who buy used to gain access.
-Mass Effect was a narrative driven single player experience,  with no areas in which multiplayer could be reasonably inserted within the context of the framework. 
-Suddenly,  since EA's move to Online Pass,  Multiplayer is inserted into Mass Effect.
-It is done so in a handful of missions only.
-Those missions are critical to achieving the Optimal ending to a three game series.
-To bypass the multiplayer you must "Do everything and do really well at it",  as stated in their FAQ,  indicating that bypassing it is not trivial.

So where does that get us?  EA wants Online Pass in everything so they can get used game buyers to pay them,  suddenly ME3 has Multiplayer and Online Pass,  and it's not optional it's implemented in such a way to be key to completing not only the game,  but the entire series,  making it a intentional impediment,  not a bonus feature.

If it was meant to be a bonus feature,  like Fable 2,  it wouldn't be implemented in such a way as to be instrumental to completing the game with the Optimal Result.  It is implemented that way though,  which indicates the motivation isn't the "Fun" of it,  but to achieve some goal,  which we can already be certain is Online Pass.

As such,  the only option EA/Bioware has is to implement content in such a way that bypassing Multiplayer absolutely must be difficult and/or unreasonably time consuming.

Because if it isn't,  if bypassing the multiplayer is trivial,  then Online Pass is neglible.  Used game purchasers do not need to spend the extra money to buy a pass,  because they can easily get the optimal solution.  EA will not permit this.  It will not be trivial.  Because the whole point of Multiplayer is to sell Online Passes to used game purchasers,  it will be implemented in such as way as to be unreasonably hard to bypass Multiplayer and achieve the optimal solution.

As such,  there's only two possibilities for how Mass Effect 3 works.

1.  Artifacts and Hidden Missions are randomly placed throughout the galatic map,  and require hours of tedious exploration to discover them,  quite likely through Planet Scanning since we know it's in there.
2.  Experience and War Assets are granted based on solutions,  and possibly kill counts,  and are implemented in such a manner as to be extremely difficult to achieve the full amount for a given solution.

I will guarantee you this is how ME3 works,  just as I guaranteed you that ME3 would have Multiplayer because EA wants Online Pass in everything.

To be brutally honest,  since you got an attitude first,  this whole thing did not happen the way you keep posting.  You keep pretending like Bioware thought it'd be a cool idea.  They didn't.  They walked into a meeting,  and a Suit sat down and stated flatly

"Online Pass goes in everything.  Every game is designed so that Multiplayer is an easier soltuion to finishing the game,  so that people feel compelled to buy it.  You will implement an impediment that will "Encorage" people to get the Pass to bypass the impediment,  and you will make sure that the Optimal ending hinges upon the impediment".

Since you're so very fond of bringing up Baldur's Gate,  take a look at it,  you'll notice that Multiplayer is not a requirement to getting the optimal ending.  It's completely optional.

Now take a look at the ME3 announcement.  Notice how it's positioned in such a way to present an impediment to the optimal ending?

Do you seriously think Bioware sat down and said "How can we force people to play Multiplayer?"

Or do you think it was "How can we force people into Multiplayer so we can sell used game buyers Online Passes?"

[coyote_blue]

Thanks for making me feel like I'm not shouting in the wilderness, guys. And 1136, I hope you understand that my frustration is not judging people like you for liking the games you like. I just think a lot of games get muddy in their attempts to please too many people. I know that CoD isn't looking over its shoulder at what Mass Effect is doing, and I don't think Mass Effect should have to, either.

I used Inception on purpose, but Dark Knight would have been just as good. Anybody who likes Nolan because he's Nolan will love Memento, but not everyone who liked Dark Knight or Inception will feel the same way.

Nolan knew he was selling to a broader audience when he wrote Dark Knight and Inception. Those movies are both blockbusters who are, in their hearts, art-house films.

To rephrase my statement in an even less angry way, I think ME2 was a Nolan blockbuster, and adding multiplayer threatens to turn the whole thing into a Michael Bay gig. I loved The Rock, but the world doesn't need more Pearl Harbor or Transformers, no matter how much money they made.

@Gatt9: I really, really hope you're wrong.  I am a big pre-order gamer, but I generally dislike multiplayer so much that I'll have to buy used.  And if doing so in ME3 genuinely ruins the experience, I'll just quit BioWare altogether.

Modifié par coyote_blue, 14 octobre 2011 - 03:47 .

[1136342t54_]

coyote_blue wrote...

Thanks for making me feel like I'm not shouting in the wilderness, guys. And 1136, I hope you understand that my frustration is not judging people like you for liking the games you like. I just think a lot of games get muddy in their attempts to please too many people. I know that CoD isn't looking over its shoulder at what Mass Effect is doing, and I don't think Mass Effect should have to, either.

I used Inception on purpose, but Dark Knight would have been just as good. Anybody who likes Nolan because he's Nolan will love Memento, but not everyone who liked Dark Knight or Inception will feel the same way.

Nolan knew he was selling to a broader audience when he wrote Dark Knight and Inception. Those movies are both blockbusters who are, in their hearts, art-house films.

To rephrase my statement in an even less angry way, I think ME2 was a Nolan blockbuster, and adding multiplayer threatens to turn the whole thing into a Michael Bay gig. I loved The Rock, but the world doesn't need more Pearl Harbor or Transformers, no matter how much money they made.

The thing is I'm not really a shooter multiplayer junky. Unlike most people who believe multiplayer is about fragging people I've played plenty of RTS games online multiplayer but I mostly do it for the story. Hell you could say I'm more of a RPG guy since I love playing those games more often then multiplayer games due to the annoying **** I have to go through while playing against annoying ****s.

I get your worry about this game and I understand it. Hell believe me when I say I never really supported multiplayer for ME3 but I never really was against it. So far it seems alright and more like a less important game mode in comparison to the single player. No one will be getting this game for MP solely due to it not being competitive or a large part of the game. The SP is too big to be ignored and the mp's main purpose is to support the SP. 

Long story short the more they talk about MP the more it seems like the weaker point of ME3. LIke I said before it is only there to support SP as a separate game mode. Hell the even have a separate team doing this which makes me feel better about ME3 getting the time it needs to polish the SP.

[Il Divo]

Gatt9 wrote...

It's just logic Il Divo,  and I'm pretty confident that if you back off your Bioware Defense and think it through,  you can come to the same conclusions I did.

1) -EA has expressed that it sees Online Pass as a way to increase revenues by forcing used game purchasers to pay them for the game anyways.
-EA stated very clearly in one of their recent FAQs about Multiplayer that Online Pass is free with the game,  but must be purchased by people who buy used to gain access.
-Mass Effect was a narrative driven single player experience,  with no areas in which multiplayer could be reasonably inserted within the context of the framework. 
-Suddenly,  since EA's move to Online Pass,  Multiplayer is inserted into Mass Effect.
-It is done so in a handful of missions only.
-Those missions are critical to achieving the Optimal ending to a three game series.
-To bypass the multiplayer you must "Do everything and do really well at it",  as stated in their FAQ,  indicating that bypassing it is not trivial.

So where does that get us?  EA wants Online Pass in everything so they can get used game buyers to pay them,  suddenly ME3 has Multiplayer and Online Pass,  and it's not optional it's implemented in such a way to be key to completing not only the game,  but the entire series,  making it a intentional impediment,  not a bonus feature.

If it was meant to be a bonus feature,  like Fable 2,  it wouldn't be implemented in such a way as to be instrumental to completing the game with the Optimal Result.  It is implemented that way though,  which indicates the motivation isn't the "Fun" of it,  but to achieve some goal,  which we can already be certain is Online Pass.

As such,  the only option EA/Bioware has is to implement content in such a way that bypassing Multiplayer absolutely must be difficult and/or unreasonably time consuming.

Because if it isn't,  if bypassing the multiplayer is trivial,  then Online Pass is neglible.  Used game purchasers do not need to spend the extra money to buy a pass,  because they can easily get the optimal solution.  EA will not permit this.  It will not be trivial.  Because the whole point of Multiplayer is to sell Online Passes to used game purchasers,  it will be implemented in such as way as to be unreasonably hard to bypass Multiplayer and achieve the optimal solution.

As such,  there's only two possibilities for how Mass Effect 3 works.

1.  Artifacts and Hidden Missions are randomly placed throughout the galatic map,  and require hours of tedious exploration to discover them,  quite likely through Planet Scanning since we know it's in there.
2.  Experience and War Assets are granted based on solutions,  and possibly kill counts,  and are implemented in such a manner as to be extremely difficult to achieve the full amount for a given solution.

I will guarantee you this is how ME3 works,  just as I guaranteed you that ME3 would have Multiplayer because EA wants Online Pass in everything.

To be brutally honest,  since you got an attitude first,  this whole thing did not happen the way you keep posting.  You keep pretending like Bioware thought it'd be a cool idea.  They didn't.  They walked into a meeting,  and a Suit sat down and stated flatly

"Online Pass goes in everything.  Every game is designed so that Multiplayer is an easier soltuion to finishing the game,  so that people feel compelled to buy it.  You will implement an impediment that will "Encorage" people to get the Pass to bypass the impediment,  and you will make sure that the Optimal ending hinges upon the impediment".

Since you're so very fond of bringing up Baldur's Gate,  take a look at it,  you'll notice that Multiplayer is not a requirement to getting the optimal ending.  It's completely optional.

Now take a look at the ME3 announcement.  Notice how it's positioned in such a way to present an impediment to the optimal ending?

Do you seriously think Bioware sat down and said "How can we force people to play Multiplayer?"

Or do you think it was "How can we force people into Multiplayer so we can sell used game buyers Online Passes?"

That certainly is an interesting attempt at logic. Now, let's snap it in half, shall we?

1) List all these EA games where multiplayer has proven critical to the success of a single-player campaign. Your half-assed scenario seems to indicate that Bioware is going to endorse something on a scale which was never donein a prior game. Assuming you want to go down that logic train, I assume you have more than several examples of games which required the player to engage in "hours and hours" of multiplayer content to obtain a single-player ending. If not, that would require a more than ballsy move on EA's part, in which case you would have to provide a halfway decent explanation for why they didn't make this move on either ME2 or DA2.

I also recommend you point out where Bioware stated that multiplayer is critical to obtaining the optimal ending.

2) "Path A will get you to Athens" does not equal "Path B will not get you to Athens". Multiplayer gets you to an optimal ending does not equal that multiplayer is the only (or the most efficient) means to an optimal ending, a fallacy you continue to commit.

3) Your Baldur's Gate scenario. BG also presented optional multiplayer, yet through the presence of a second player, it can be argued that everything becomes "easier" to complete.

4) All your scenarios assume the opposite only in the most negative context. If Bioware tells the truth, it's only because it makes them look bad. If Bioware lies, it's because EA is an evil overlord, which results in any number of logical contradictions. As an extension of point 1, your scenarios assume that EA will not (or cannot) employ other means as well to make used game sales less viable, such as Shale dlc in the case of Origins or the Cerberus Network. For EA to make the "online pass" for SP work in your scenario, they would have to institute its inclusion on a scale unheard of in most games.

As I said before, I recommend you jump off the EA hate train, Gatt. Your posts have reached an all time low becoming predictable, boring, and your lack of replies on any number of posts indicates your worth in any debate.

Modifié par Il Divo, 14 octobre 2011 - 04:07 .