2261 réponses à ce sujet

[emanziboy]

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.

-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?"

There is a SERIOUS flaw in your logic; there doesn't need to be multiplayer for EA to charge an online pass to used game buyers. In fact, that's EXACTLY what they did for ME2; if you bought it used, you had to buy the Cerberus Network for $15 while people who bought ME2 new got it for free. If EA was only concerned with making money off used game buyers, they would just have another Cerberus Network style pass because that would be FAR cheaper (and therefore more profitable) than the cost of hiring another studio to make multiplayer for ME3 and paying for the servers required.

[Ancient Metal]

Il Divo wrote...

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.

I disagree. Gatt9 made perfect logical sense. It's obviously not known, but the implied logic and corresponding inferences are very accurate.

[Taciter]

So... I've reluctantly acknowledged the inevitability of this MP experiment and I'm willing to reserve judgement based on the outcome of just one simple question:

Since the absence (or any apparent interest in humouring the idea) of 'bots has predictably been confirmed but rumours of solo play (all be it against extraordinary odds) are still lingering - Is it possible that we may yet see an alternative to forced 'co-operation' or will the rumour that co-op scenario mechanics include forced grouping by means of simultaneous independent objectives prove to be true?

I'm prepared to capitulate on all grounds bar the last which in my opinion constitutes something akin to solo DRM.

Modifié par Taciter, 14 octobre 2011 - 04:28 .

[Darkeus]

Giving up too easy Taciter....

Oh well, only time will tell if this is a disaster or a good move....

Modifié par Darkeus, 14 octobre 2011 - 04:31 .

[Taciter]

Darkeus wrote...

Giving up too easy Taciter....

Perhaps Darkeus, but when your advance has been repelled, you have to retreat and bolster your line. At this point, I've stopped requesting special treatment for single players and started merely asking for a fair compromise... this, at least... is beyond reproach. Should such an ammicable solution be rejected then it's clear that the inclusion of multiplayer wasn't all about 'broadening the experience'.

[Kasai666]

didymos1120 wrote...

JeffZero wrote...

 Square went soft years ago...

Was that on purpose?

I don't care, I still love their games. 

[ArkkAngel007]

Keela save the next developer who tries to do something different with their IP.

First, Origin and online pass are EA's territory, not Bioware.  Deals have to be made with publishers, and these were EA's terms.  I for one am not well versed in the issues the community at large has with Origin, though from the little bit I understand through the legal dancing words and the bit I've heard causes me some apprehension, as I'm in the PC garrison.

The online pass though I have no problem with.  Why?  Because the money I spend on it will go to the developer/publisher, who had used their money to bring us the game in the first place.  Sure, I would hate paying the extra, but that's how things are in the age of Gamestop.  They don't plan online pass to be an "up yours!" to their customers; they do it to regain profits they lose through used-game sales.  It's simple business.

Bioware is not out to ruin the experience of their fan base.  This isn't Exxon or Mobil who can screw with their customers this way or that and suffer no loss because they have ownership of a need-based commodity.  Bioware and EA do not.  They know they slip up majorly, they will be in a bad spot.  Video game production and distribution is an expensive and risky venture.  One horrible release, one security slip up, and jobs will go down the drain.  

I just don't understand what the issue is though with there actually be multiplayer.  I'm sure much of what is said below is said elsewhere, but it is just my view.

It's Not:

• Required to be played
• What solely or required to direct the outcome of the war in the campaign
• Detracting from the campaign's story or gameplay aka Bioware's talent

It is:

• An alternative way to gain war assets and optimize the end of the campaign
• Developed by a sister branch
• Accessible from 1 to 4 players, just like a certain Horde mode...
• An innovation specifically to the Mass Effect series (to clarify, this is just Mass Effect, forget Gears, CoD, etc) 

Before I go further, my view is this:  I'm nervous about the whole Origin situation, but that is where the cons stop for me at this point.  I am interested in trying the multiplayer, and hopefully it will be a great experience.  

No one knows how war assets work as of yet, except for Bioware.  I highly doubt the co-op will offer an easy out, as the choices in the campaign I'm sure take precedent over the choices in co-op.  Nor do I think the campaign is going to make it nigh impossible to accomplish the optimal goal.  

I can't speak for those who have decided to hate the game solely for including multiplayer, as their mind was made up long before and I doubt little would appease them.   And this seems to be the real issue: people who just dislike the idea of multiplayer being added.

But for those who are on the fence, on even dislike the idea or hate it but have an open mind, give it a chance.  Bioware is doing something different, and whether it works or not is to be seen upon the game's release.  

[Darkeus]

Yeah, I have taken to a more calm discussion of my fears myself. I totally freak out when I heard this and I am still VERY doubtful.

But the rage has quieted, for now...

LOl, this is for Taciter... 

Modifié par Darkeus, 14 octobre 2011 - 04:40 .

[Iakus]

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.

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.

An excellent post.  I salute you.

[didymos1120]

ArkkAngel007 wrote...

First, Origin and online pass are EA's territory, not Bioware.  Deals have to be made with publishers, and these were EA's terms.

Why don't people get that EA owns Bioware? There is no publishing deal like with ME1 and Microsoft Game Studios.

[drakmoor]

Gatt9 wrote...
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.

So if Mass Effect 3 is not as you have guaranteed here will you refund my money?

Seriously though, does the inclusion of MP have me worried that the SP experience has suffered as a result? I'd say that yes I am a little worried, but I am not going to scream bloody murder and cancel my pre-order in some righteous fury. I am however willing to give Bioware the benefit of the doubt on this one as I have thoroughly enjoyed the previous two games and am willing to pay full price to see the ending. If the game ends up a dissapointment then I will chalk it up as a learning experience and excerise my purchasing power differently in the future.

Do I feel that MP was included just to appease EA so they can make money off the used game market? Yes, but I don't feel the need to go on some crusade to denounce the "great evil corporation" for trying to recoup some of their investment on used games. I have never bought a game on the used market, nor do I think I ever will. I'd much rather give my money to the developer so that they can go on making games. Especially developers like Bioware, whose games I have been enjoying since BGII. Does it mean that sometimes I have wasted my money on a product that was not up to my expectations? Absolutely, but I have and continue to waste far more and all I ever get out of it is a nasty hangover.

After reading the FAQ's and watching the interview I do not feel your comments about making the SP experience significantly harder just so people will cave and play the MP are what they were trying to get across. I felt it was more of a "you'd rather get together with a few friends and kill some bad guys today instead of searching this unexplored planet? Well heres a little bonus as a thanks for spending your time doing so in our game." Besides those people that are buying ME3 for the SP experience are likely going to explore every nook and cranny anyway to find everything they possibly can, I know I did in the previous games. Nor will I play MP without playing the SP experience to completion first unless there is a way to turn off said bonus. I will give you that driving the Mako around trying to find all those minerals in ME1 did get rather tedious.

Ultimately, I would just like to ask, where did you get your crystal ball and do you know if they have any left?
 

Modifié par drakmoor, 14 octobre 2011 - 04:57 .

[Taciter]

ArkkAngel007 wrote...

It's Not:

• Required to be played
• What solely or required to direct the outcome of the war in the campaign
• Detracting from the campaign's story or gameplay aka Bioware's talent

It is:

• An alternative way to gain war assets and optimize the end of the campaign
• Developed by a sister branch
• Accessible from 1 to 4 players, just like a certain Horde mode...
• An innovation specifically to the Mass Effect series (to clarify, this is just Mass Effect, forget Gears, CoD, etc) 

A very diplomatic post Angel, however, I don't think you quite understand the heart of the concern regarding MP, for me at least.

To quote a recent analogy,

"...had this been ANY other game, the announcement would be meh but this is 'Mass Effect', the gaming industry's gift to SP RPG'ers - our refuge! It's like adding cast members from an Australian daytime soap opera to Star Trek DS9 - bang goes the immersion, wheeee goes the escapism and 'hoorah!' the world's collective pie eating couch potatoes shout. Clearly their influence far outsrips their intellect."

It's not about the existence of an add-on which happens to be multiplayer, it's about an add-on that is 'exclusively' multiplayer. There appears to have been little or no consideration for those who dislike multiplayer with a passion.

I'm glad that those who wanted an MP element are getting their wish but why couldn't there have been an option to toggle bots? failing that, why incorporate mechanics designed to intentionally preclude solo players such as simultaneous independent objectives (mainly hearsay but it sounds plausable).

The issue is not with MP itself, it's with the notion that avid multiplayers will experience content that pertains inextricably to Mass Effect lore. To get the FULL experience you HAVE to play multiplayer, that is, you HAVE to play with other people - something I swore I'd never do again after my last MMO.

So where are the damn bots? This is a my way or the highway imposition without the compromise of a bots mechanic or solo aspect.

p.s. sorry to mess up your formatting

Modifié par Taciter, 14 octobre 2011 - 05:04 .

[ArkkAngel007]

Gatt9 wrote...

Some of your points are valid.  EA does want to ensure they gain profit from their product in the selling of used games. The news of multiplayer is also rather convenient with EA's recent declaration of all their title's having multiplayer and their push for online passes.  But the rest of your argument is rather thin.

First off, it's common knowledge that the gaming industry is trying to work around the used-game business being implemented more and more often.  And it is their right to do so.  It isn't like they want to screw us over when we get a used game.  If they saw any of the profit, the passes would be cheaper. 

Second, no where is it said that the optimal ending can only be reached through multiplayer, nor do I doubt Bioware will force it down our throats.  They know the community they cater to is primarily comfortable with single player campaigns.  So I highly doubt that multiplayer will give everything up on a silver platter.  War assets are more than likely gained not only in completing the rounds, but also upon leveling up, and no details have been released.

I do agree though that EA had a hand in there being multiplayer down the line.  But hell, I'd want to tackle every avenue I could as well.  I'd say breathe, relax, and wait to hear more.  If it's how you say it is, then Bioware will lose a lot more faith than they did in Dragon Age 2 and EA will be in the same spot they were 10 years ago (may be soon with Origin anyways).  But if it isn't the reapers come again, then maybe go and get an online pass, thank Bioware for taking a helluva risk, and hit some of us up on co-op, or just enjoy the campaign without bothering with the co-op or pesky online pass.

Sorry for the long response, just felt like you needed someone with a more middle-stance than party vs party that tends to happen.

[Taciter]

Darkeus wrote...

Yeah, I have taken to a more calm discussion of my fears myself. I totally freak out when I heard this and I am still VERY doubtful.

But the rage has quieted, for now...

LOl, this is for Taciter... 

lol.. solidarity brother!

[Ancient Metal]

I would offer my wish multiplayer would become launch day dlc, but we already know how multiplayer will be bonded and integrated into single player.

I will be watching it unfold with keen interest from the sidelines. Which means watching a lot of shooting in third person is inevitable no matter what

[Darkeus]

Taciter wrote...

Darkeus wrote...

Yeah, I have taken to a more calm discussion of my fears myself. I totally freak out when I heard this and I am still VERY doubtful.

But the rage has quieted, for now...

LOl, this is for Taciter... 

lol.. solidarity brother!

Hey, I just hope I don't have to come on here and hear the complaints about a bad Mass Effect game because Galaxy at War screwed up the game so bad....  I will hate to say I told you so .  I will happily eat my words if it works without ruining the game.

I hope it works, I hope it is REALLY optional.  I have major doubts though and so do a good majority of fans I have seen on many sites.

But we can only wait, see and pray EA hasn't made BioWare screw this up.

[Ancient Metal]

Is Kingdoms of Amalur getting multiplayer? I'll cancel that preorder, too.

[drakmoor]

Taciter wrote...

The issue is not with MP itself, it's with the notion that avid multiplayers will experience content that pertains inextricably to Mass Effect lore. To get the FULL experience you HAVE to play multiplayer, that is, you HAVE to play with other people - something I swore I'd never do again after my last MMO.

They haven't said either way, however this is a perfectly valid concern and one that I share. About the only thing I could condone is a little Galactic News clip stating that a recent offensive push by the Reapers was stopped by an elite task force on planet x. If there is other content in the SP that can only be unlocked by playing MP, then I would say the MP is no longer optional.

Modifié par drakmoor, 14 octobre 2011 - 05:07 .

[Taciter]

Darkeus wrote...

Hey, I just hope I don't have to come on here and hear the complaints about a bad Mass Effect game because Galaxy at War screwed up the game so bad....  I will hate to say I told you so .  I will happily eat my words if it works without ruining the game.

I hope it works, I hope it is REALLY optional.  I have major doubts though and so do a good majority of fans I have seen on many sites.

But we can only wait, see and pray EA hasn't made BioWare screw this up.

I still have some faith in Bioware... they did invent the 'Mass Effect' frnachise after all and for that I shall always be eternally grateful but I just wish they they didn't feel like strangers. I want the old Bioware back - it somehow felt a bit cottage industry-like - cosy and reassuring! Now it feels like any other successfull commercial entity - a little soulless with a bit too much polish.

[Darkeus]

Taciter wrote...

Darkeus wrote...

Hey, I just hope I don't have to come on here and hear the complaints about a bad Mass Effect game because Galaxy at War screwed up the game so bad....  I will hate to say I told you so .  I will happily eat my words if it works without ruining the game.

I hope it works, I hope it is REALLY optional.  I have major doubts though and so do a good majority of fans I have seen on many sites.

But we can only wait, see and pray EA hasn't made BioWare screw this up.

I still have some faith in Bioware... they did invent the 'Mass Effect' frnachise after all and for that I shall always be eternally grateful but I just wish they they didn't feel like strangers. I want the old Bioware back - it somehow felt a bit cottage industry-like - cosy and reassuring! Now it feels like any other successfull commercial entity - a little soulless with a bit too much polish.

I couldn't have said that better.

Except I fear that they are more "corporate puppet" these days and that is very disconcerting....

[Taciter]

drakmoor wrote...

Taciter wrote...

The issue is not with MP itself, it's with the notion that avid multiplayers will experience content that pertains inextricably to Mass Effect lore. To get the FULL experience you HAVE to play multiplayer, that is, you HAVE to play with other people - something I swore I'd never do again after my last MMO.

They haven't said either way, however this is a perfectly valid concern and one that I share. About the only thing I could condone is a little Galactic News clip stating that a recent offensive push by the Reapers was stopped by an elite task force on planet x. If there is other content in the SP that can only be unlocked by playing MP, then I would say the MP is no longer optional.

It's that and more Drak, irrespective of what degree MP will or will not affect SP, the fact is that during the course of those MP scenarios, there will be new NPC's, new dialogues, new revelations about reapers or Cerberus, new maps and locations... all of which have a central role in establishing the foundations of the ME saga.... and all of it available only if you like multiplayer which, ironically, is the last thing many of us chose to subscribe to the franchise for.

[ArkkAngel007]

*Responding to Tacitar...Sorry but I still have issues when editing things on here..

Hope you don't mind me cutting that all down...hopefully people will read your post, as I full heartedly agree with what you said.  And don't worry about the formatting.

Thank you for clarifying, particularly in your view, as mine is similar.  I don't hate multiplayer, but to be honest I dislike it.  Gears of War Horde mode is usually done offline, as is Beast mode in the newest iteration.  Halo, CoD...they all see some multiplayer love, but only for that experience.  

I don't have the time or patience to continue for however amount of time it is to reach the optimal level.  It's a boring, monotonous experience for the most part.  Plus most people you meet online tend to range from the screaming child on holiday break to the guy who can't turn his damn stereo down.   All these reasons why I hate MMOs, including the Star Wars: TOH which I had the pleasure to experience and help make a better product, but was still nothing more than an MMO.

Bots are ok, but really I'd rather just do it myself or system link than with some damnably stupid A.I. (sorry, Bioware, but Mass Effect A.I. is lacking, and most bots in games are at the best of times).  

And this isn't contribuiting to the full experience of campaign.  Maybe there are different things in there, but we really know next to nothing at this point.  If Casey says I shouldn't worry about it affecting campaign, I won't sweat it until I hear otherwise.

Again though, really all we can do is wait for more info.  OXM says it can be 1-4 players, so solo and hopefully a split screen option.  This really isn't needed, and I probably won't spend much time on it, but it sounds fun and I'm willing to give it a shot.  Only issue is all the people I know play on Xbox 360 so I may need to make new friends for PC.

Modifié par ArkkAngel007, 14 octobre 2011 - 05:16 .

[Taciter]

Darkeus wrote...

Taciter wrote...

Darkeus wrote...

Hey, I just hope I don't have to come on here and hear the complaints about a bad Mass Effect game because Galaxy at War screwed up the game so bad....  I will hate to say I told you so .  I will happily eat my words if it works without ruining the game.

I hope it works, I hope it is REALLY optional.  I have major doubts though and so do a good majority of fans I have seen on many sites.

But we can only wait, see and pray EA hasn't made BioWare screw this up.

I still have some faith in Bioware... they did invent the 'Mass Effect' frnachise after all and for that I shall always be eternally grateful but I just wish they they didn't feel like strangers. I want the old Bioware back - it somehow felt a bit cottage industry-like - cosy and reassuring! Now it feels like any other successfull commercial entity - a little soulless with a bit too much polish.

I couldn't have said that better.

Except I fear that they are more "corporate puppet" these days and that is very disconcerting....

That's the bit I'm having a lot of trouble trying to determine. Some people think Bioware has suddenly found a new corporate identity, some people think it's always been there beneath the surface, some people think EA have forced them capitulate to their whims and others maintain that EA are paragons of righteousness. I don't know who or what to believe anymore, I just want Bioware mk.1 back - the homely patchwork quilt version!

[ArkkAngel007]

Has anyone seen the crap being pulled on purchasers of the new Batman game? If Bioware pulled that, there would definitely be problems. For those who don't know, the Catwoman portion of the campaign is being pulled to be only accessible to those who purchase the game new and, I do believe, some sort of content pass.

Imagine if the vanguard class or the Mars mission was locked in the game to everyone with a used copy? Ugh...horrible thoughts to end a night with...

Edit: As the multiplayer debate has strayed into the argument of online passes and locking content out to used-game purchasers, I found this info to be relevent, though it deals with single-player elements rather than multiplayer. 

Modifié par ArkkAngel007, 14 octobre 2011 - 05:24 .

[Darkeus]

ArkkAngel007 wrote...

Has anyone seen the crap being pulled on purchasers of the new Batman game? If Bioware pulled that, there would definitely be problems. For those who don't know, the Catwoman portion of the campaign is being pulled to be only accessible to those who purchase the game new and, I do believe, some sort of content pass.

Imagine if the vanguard class or the Mars mission was locked in the game to everyone with a used copy? Ugh...horrible thoughts to end a night with...

Really?   Link?

That is just crappy.  I don't think BioWare is doing that.  My main concern is being able to shirk the Single Player game by just gaining War Assets in co-op really....

Edit:  Well, that is actually what EA does with their games as well, including what will be done with the Online Pass in Mass Effect 3.

But that is a big chunk of content though..  Yikes!!  Good thing I have it pre-ordered but that is just wrong!!!

Modifié par Darkeus, 14 octobre 2011 - 05:25 .