2261 réponses à ce sujet

[TheRealJayDee]

Taciter wrote...


It also means we have several months left to try and convince Bioware of the necessity for an AI squad implentation to augment the forthcoming MP release. If done properly, the AI controlled squad members should be practically indistinguishable from the Shepard's SP counterparts - in effect, we solo players would get a whole bunch of new and interesting single player missions to complement the main storyline - you could think of it as a free DLC.

If such a compromise WAS implemented, multiplayers would have their much lauded co-op facility and we would have our SP missions... surely that's a reasonable suggestion?

That would work for me, I guess. That and no Origin.

[dreman9999]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

1.  Nevermind.  I know what I'm saying, and I know you're not addressing it, and leave it at that. 

2.  Recognizing sarcasm and treating it as sarcasm are not the same thing.  I'm not MP gaming, simple as that.  MP gaming runs counter to what I get out of computer games.  I mentioned the issue of the all-too-common bad behavior of online players as a general issue with MP, not as strictly a personal issue.  Leave it at that. 

3. Well, I hope that's the case and continues to be the case going forward.  It's usually not the case with MP games.  That said, you acted as if I simply opposed MP because it was new, because it was different, because it was change, and the concern noted as #3 was listed to refute that assertion, as were the others. 

4. OK, last try.  Infinite resources would not address the following basic fact:  if Mission X is in the MP gameplay, it is content that is not in the SP campaign.  Simple as that.  You keep ignoring that basic fact to talk about time and teams and quality and whatnot.  If you go to Planet X in the MP campaign, and not in the SP campaign, that's content in MP that was denied to SP.  If you meet Character X in the MP campaign and not in the SP campaign, that's content in the MP that was denied to SP.  If a place or conversation or mission or anything is in MP and therefore not in SP, then it's content in MP that was denied to SP.  End of story. 

5.  If I don't want it snooping around, I won't install it to begin with, or I'll use security software to cripple the living daylights out of it. 

Tell me, would you be OK if buying a washer and drier from Kenmore required a clause that said that the washer and drier had to be connected to the internet, and could send back your usage habits, what kind of things you wash, what brands of clothes you have, what detergent you use, etc, to Kenmore, and that furthermore, you had to send Kenmore a key to your house so that a rep could come buy at any time and check to see whose kitchen appliances you have, what's under your bed, how many other people are living with you, etc?

6. The anti-modding features never distinguish between SP and MP, or care how someone is using the game, they just stop modding as much as they can.

7. "You don't lose anything for not playing it" ...  that doesn't address the fact that any leakage is too much leakage


EDIT:  typo

1. But your still not understand that it's on in the same. If it a resource issue, how it's manage is a problem. Their is no way around it. You can still make a great game with little resources. And you can still make a bad game with alot of resources.
2.Go...then MP is not an issues for you then.

3. That the case for mp if it vs. Why? Because the focus of the game with mp game devs is the mp. ME3 focus is the sp. And it co-op. they don't have to deal with magor details of balance with co-op.

4.Then your still not getting it. I'm talking about time...T.I.ME....Time. Time is the issue, not resource.

5.Then don't buy it.....Plain as that.

6.Again , your jumping th gun.

7. Yes, it does. Why/ Because everything you can gain in the mp you can gain it the sp...You don't lose anything for not playing the mp.

1. Like I said, you're not getting it.  Stop ignoring what I'm saying in preference of what you think I said or what you want me to have said.  And to make matters worse, you think I'm not getting it.  So far, you haven't really addressed the central issue -- to do so, you'd have to prove that the resources used for MP would not and could not have been used for SP instead.  That's it.  That's all there is to it. 

2. The problems that MP can potentially create for SP are still my concern, even if I never touch MP.

3. I bet you'd be stunned by how many co-op / PvE players in other MP games  (and yes, I've played many, that's how I know I don't like MP) go bananas about perceived balance issues.  It's good to hear that Bioware plans to keep SP and MP design seperate enough prevent that from being an issue, I hope it stays that way. 

4.  First, time is a resource on any development project -- only so much of it between you and that deadline. 

Second, it's not a matter of time or any other resource.  PLEASE, stop and read what I'm putting on the page.  Content that is exclusive to the MP game is content that is denied to the SP game.  Stop.  Read.  Consider.  Please.  I'm not trying to be an arse here, I promise, but it's like you're simply ignoring what I'm saying completely. 

How on earth can more time, or money, or any other resource, make content that is exclusive to MP, also NOT exclusive to MP?  How can "more time" make two absolutely contradictory things true?  Content cannot be both NOT in single-player, and included in single-player. 

5.  That's certainly possible.  I'm not pre-ordering it, that's for sure.

6.  Anti-mod measures hurting replay value for SP users is a potential issue.  It's not about waiting for problems to happen, it's about what we know could be a problem.  Identifying potential issues is NEVER "jumping the gun". 

7. Again, it's not about what you can gain in one also being gainable in the other.  It's just the leakage, the ability of one to influence or affect the other at all, that I have an issue with. 

1. It's not a performance. Managing resource is part of solving problems of resource. If the problem is resources, how it's manage can solve the problem.

2.But the way the mp combat will be build will not be the same as how the sp is build. With MP game the sp is based on the mp. With ME3, The mp is based on the sp.

3.What issues with pve, is that? If you can list them, then I can understand your concern. I had no problems with pve myself.

4.No, time is not a resource. Time is a constant factor. You can have time restored, like how a resource can. What you do in that time is the recourse. And the sp time has plenty of time and are using it as much as they can...So time is not an issue.
And the answer to you question is to make another team that work on the mp with out effect the sp team at all from management to resources and give them their own resources. Also, having someone like ea with a massive amount of resource helps as well.
5.Ok then...see you on march 6.

6.Right, because it make it impossible for players who play on console to replay games at all. It not like the ME are not build to be replayed on it's own.....By letting do different thing in the plot.The player has to change the game to make it better../Sarcasm.
Modding is a preference. It's not need to extend replay value. It's just you what to do it to extend replay value.

7. Then don't play the mp. If you don't  want the mp to effect the sp. Then don't play the mp.

[Taciter]

TheRealJayDee wrote...

Taciter wrote...


It also means we have several months left to try and convince Bioware of the necessity for an AI squad implentation to augment the forthcoming MP release. If done properly, the AI controlled squad members should be practically indistinguishable from the Shepard's SP counterparts - in effect, we solo players would get a whole bunch of new and interesting single player missions to complement the main storyline - you could think of it as a free DLC.

If such a compromise WAS implemented, multiplayers would have their much lauded co-op facility and we would have our SP missions... surely that's a reasonable suggestion?

That would work for me, I guess. That and no Origin.

Snap JayDee

[Taciter]

dreman9999 wrote...
Butthe mp does truely have it's own story. It does have a new angle of the war but it in itself is not a deep story at all. It's a horde mode, not Left 4 dead. I can understand you want the full experiace but just have the mp exsist does not mean the the sp will have anything taken away from it.Even if you have AI partners, it would be that same as haveing co-op but less intellegent partners. If it is an issues about experiance then play it or not. No matter what the most important thing, the sp, will not be effected.

I understand Dreman, I know you're trying to be an objective advocate and put my mind at ease but I would be doing myself an injustice if I didn't at the very least TRY and secure an AI squad option. It probably seems trivial to most people but if I want to get maximum bang for my buck then I can't allow myself to cheap out on content - to ignore the mp content, no matter how inconsequential it may be, would be a far greater crime than for me to fight for an alternative solution while I have the chance.

[ArkkAngel007]

Taciter wrote...

ArkkAngel007 wrote...
No one knows yet.  It can be assumed, as difficult as that is when you really know next to nothing, that the location and war asset to be obtained will be the same.  However, the co-op will be styled as a horde-mode battle with mini-objectives on the side. Expect all the cutscenes, dialogue, and other important mumbo-jumbo to be solely in the campaign.

But some things must have changed... after all, the very premise of the multiplayer campaign focuses on a 'second team'. There must elements within the MP campaign that signify its differences. Maybe people you encounter, or even the objectives themselves will give further insights into what is unfolding.. it all pertains to a greater story and if I love Mass Effect for anything, it's for its story.

But maybe that's the issue: we expect a story.  But to be honest, what if there isn't aside from the mission description and maybe some mission debrief at the end?  The rest may have just some shallow dialogue stating an objective, with maybe a short reason and that's it.

By all means I would loathe that with a passion.  I would want the multiplayer to have some reason of being.

Also, I should have been clear on that I do believe there will be dialogue and some "story" to it, but its importance I feel may be negligible to where if it didn't exist, you wouldn't miss it.

[dreman9999]

Taciter wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
Butthe mp does truely have it's own story. It does have a new angle of the war but it in itself is not a deep story at all. It's a horde mode, not Left 4 dead. I can understand you want the full experiace but just have the mp exsist does not mean the the sp will have anything taken away from it.Even if you have AI partners, it would be that same as haveing co-op but less intellegent partners. If it is an issues about experiance then play it or not. No matter what the most important thing, the sp, will not be effected.

I understand Dreman, I know you're trying to be an objective advocate and put my mind at ease but I would be doing myself an injustice if I didn't at the very least TRY and secure an AI squad option. It probably seems trivial to most people but if I want to get maximum bang for my buck then I can't allow myself to cheap out on content - to ignore the mp content, no matter how inconsequential it may be, would be a far greater crime than for me to fight for an alternative solution while I have the chance.

Ok, then. Try as  much as you want to get Ai assist in MP. But if it does not happen. You can alway hit me up for co-op.

[Taciter]

dreman9999 wrote...
Ok, then. Try as  much as you want to get Ai assist in MP. But if it does not happen. You can alway hit me up for co-op.

Hahha.. cheers Big Fella!

[sylvianfan]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

I'm not MP gaming, simple as that.  MP gaming runs counter to what I get out of computer games.

Sounds like me. I've tried a few different games, but I genuinely don't see the attraction.

[Taciter]

ArkkAngel007 wrote...

Taciter wrote...

ArkkAngel007 wrote...
No one knows yet.  It can be assumed, as difficult as that is when you really know next to nothing, that the location and war asset to be obtained will be the same.  However, the co-op will be styled as a horde-mode battle with mini-objectives on the side. Expect all the cutscenes, dialogue, and other important mumbo-jumbo to be solely in the campaign.

But some things must have changed... after all, the very premise of the multiplayer campaign focuses on a 'second team'. There must elements within the MP campaign that signify its differences. Maybe people you encounter, or even the objectives themselves will give further insights into what is unfolding.. it all pertains to a greater story and if I love Mass Effect for anything, it's for its story.

But maybe that's the issue: we expect a story.  But to be honest, what if there isn't aside from the mission description and maybe some mission debrief at the end?  The rest may have just some shallow dialogue stating an objective, with maybe a short reason and that's it.

By all means I would loathe that with a passion.  I would want the multiplayer to have some reason of being.

Also, I should have been clear on that I do believe there will be dialogue and some "story" to it, but its importance I feel may be negligible to where if it didn't exist, you wouldn't miss it.

Noted!... well cheers for chat guys.. it's been a remarkably civilised conversation tonight!

[Comsky159]

Does anyone know if we can play through the MP section with bots or even alone? If it's possible to transform this immersion breaker into another single player experience then I'll start to take a lot more interest.

[ArkkAngel007]

Comsky159 wrote...

Does anyone know if we can play through the MP section with bots or even alone? If it's possible to transform this immersion breaker into another single player experience then I'll start to take a lot more interest.

There are no word of bots as of yet, but one of the magazines (OXM I believe) covering the multiplayer feature mentioned that it can be done solo.  May need someone to fact check me on that one though.

Modifié par ArkkAngel007, 14 octobre 2011 - 11:30 .

[Whereto]

Not quite sure why this is a immersion breaker comsky159, you don't have to play it. No one is forcing you to play it. If you don't play it, it doesn't effect your single player, if you do, it makes it slightly easier or more fun depending on your preference.

In conclusion, don't play it, then it won't effect your immersion. Not going to make a difference if you do really, just act like it never existed.

[CAPSLOCK FURY]

So is it true they're putting in a coop mode that's required for the best ending?

/stirpot

[Ramus Quaritch]

I'm not sure if this has been addressed, but I remember reading a detail from one of the magazine previews that says multiplayer would involve the players fighting Cerberus forces. It implied that Cerberus was the main enemy in the co-op multiplayer and all preview material has shown Cerberus as the enemy. My question is: Are we only fighting Cerberus? Or do we fight a variety of enemies in different stages/maps (and Bioware is keeping them under wraps)?

[CAPSLOCK FURY]

Ramus Quaritch wrote...

I'm not sure if this has been addressed, but I remember reading a detail from one of the magazine previews that says multiplayer would involve the players fighting Cerberus forces. It implied that Cerberus was the main enemy in the co-op multiplayer and all preview material has shown Cerberus as the enemy. My question is: Are we only fighting Cerberus? Or do we fight a variety of enemies in different stages/maps (and Bioware is keeping them under wraps)?

There was a pic of a husk too.

[Ramus Quaritch]

Comsky159 wrote...

Does anyone know if we can play through the MP section with bots or even alone? If it's possible to transform this immersion breaker into another single player experience then I'll start to take a lot more interest.

I would love bots!  That's one of the reasons I like Gears of War 3's multiplayer so much.  I would recommend posting this question in the MP questions thread. 

As for immersion breaker, I will admit that I am skeptical about multiplayer with ME3.  I think that it should be reserved for a new game in the Mass Effect trilogy and that Shepard's story should be only single player and not have this tacked on. 

With that said, I am intrigued by the fact that the co-op multiplayer ties into the story.  Rather than be an "alternate universe" like every other multiplayer experience, this multiplayer lets you play as other soldiers fighting against the Reaper forces in other battles of the war.  You basically can help Shepard out by fighting to control these different areas.  I do not recall ever seeing a game where the multiplayer enhances a single player story in such a way before.  Usually, single player is a suplement to multiplayer.  If it's done right and it's not required to get the "best" ending, then I might actually like it.  But I will only believe it is a good addition after I play it myself, though.  I'm still skeptical about it. 

[Ramus Quaritch]

CAPSLOCK FURY wrote...

Ramus Quaritch wrote...

I'm not sure if this has been addressed, but I remember reading a detail from one of the magazine previews that says multiplayer would involve the players fighting Cerberus forces. It implied that Cerberus was the main enemy in the co-op multiplayer and all preview material has shown Cerberus as the enemy. My question is: Are we only fighting Cerberus? Or do we fight a variety of enemies in different stages/maps (and Bioware is keeping them under wraps)?

There was a pic of a husk too.

Good to hear.  I'd be ticked if we were just fighting Cerberus the entire time.  I always pictured the Cerberus forces as elite commandos and assassins trying to take out Shepard.  It would break immersion for me if Cerberus suddenly had a full standing army to control every planet that you try to defend/take back in co-op.

[ArkkAngel007]

Ramus Quaritch wrote...

I'm not sure if this has been addressed, but I remember reading a detail from one of the magazine previews that says multiplayer would involve the players fighting Cerberus forces. It implied that Cerberus was the main enemy in the co-op multiplayer and all preview material has shown Cerberus as the enemy. My question is: Are we only fighting Cerberus? Or do we fight a variety of enemies in different stages/maps (and Bioware is keeping them under wraps)?

I have wondered this myself.  I'm sure Bioware is keeping it under wraps (everything else is, so why the hell not) for the reasons that we are still a long ways off from release and that we have been shown little of the Reaper forces aside from human, batarian, and now turian thralls, and we've seen/heard next to nothing of what they do.  Should be getting a batch of new info by months end, and hopefully more will be heard by then.

But for all we know we get only Cerberus and their bad ideas to boot.

[Rails Road]

I am really hoping they put in bots for you to. I love co-op with a few close friends but I am way to do it much of a mass effect **** to expect my friends to friends expect my friends to help with all 45 players I have made. I hope It is all so more mission based like graw than just horde mode.

[solstickan]

Comsky159 wrote...

Does anyone know if we can play through the MP section with bots or even alone? If it's possible to transform this immersion breaker into another single player experience then I'll start to take a lot more interest.

From the Multiplayer FAQ thread (the other one):

Brenon Holmes wrote...

Brenon Holmes wrote...

Bogsnot1 wrote...
- Can the MP mode be done solo, for those who either dont like MP, or want an extra challenge to finish the game without squadmates? 

Currently, yes... but it's pretty hard. Though a lot of that depends on difficulty.

I'm seeing this quoted a bit... just wanted to caution people, we're still developing stuff - so as with a lot of the things we talk about on here, it's not final yet. [smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/happy.png[/smilie]

Here's hoping they keep it, or even make bots available.

Modifié par solstickan, 14 octobre 2011 - 11:55 .

[Nauks]

Still couldn't care less about the co-op.
But the video did ramp up the hype for ME3 personally, in a major way

Also the "ME3 is the beginning, middle and end of the galactic war" part was the first I heard about this, I've only heard it mentioned as "the beginning of..." previously,  which was always a bummer, making it sound like ME3 wouldn't have as signifficant conclusion as we may have hoped.

[Horus Blackheart]

Personaly i'm having a really hard time seeing how mp in any form for the last game for the trilogy is: A:) a positive and workable developmeent thats not tacked (dispite all the asurences in the world. I remember statments like "we want to finished the trilogy we wont just drop in mp.

B:) its hard for me not to feel that this is a markting lead idea. i'm not agenst mp as a concept, But retrofiting it in to a game right at the end after stating otherwise for some years disappoints me.. More over saying how important it is to the campane really ircs me. Serously devs, saying things like sp is not affected and then saying it is in the next moment is why some people are less than impressed with the bioware/ea hype factory.

If people want mp so badly do a spin off and give it the time it deserves.

i'd like just one game thats not had mp dumped on it to be "popular. Is that to much to ask?

i'd also like to have some faith in what bioware states on things latly thave had more u turns than a lerner driver.
I'm more disapointed than angery to be honist.

[Killjoy Cutter]

dreman9999 wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

1. Like I said, you're not getting it.  Stop ignoring what I'm saying in preference of what you think I said or what you want me to have said.  And to make matters worse, you think I'm not getting it.  So far, you haven't really addressed the central issue -- to do so, you'd have to prove that the resources used for MP would not and could not have been used for SP instead.  That's it.  That's all there is to it. 

2. The problems that MP can potentially create for SP are still my concern, even if I never touch MP.

3. I bet you'd be stunned by how many co-op / PvE players in other MP games  (and yes, I've played many, that's how I know I don't like MP) go bananas about perceived balance issues.  It's good to hear that Bioware plans to keep SP and MP design seperate enough prevent that from being an issue, I hope it stays that way. 

4.  First, time is a resource on any development project -- only so much of it between you and that deadline. 

Second, it's not a matter of time or any other resource.  PLEASE, stop and read what I'm putting on the page.  Content that is exclusive to the MP game is content that is denied to the SP game.  Stop.  Read.  Consider.  Please.  I'm not trying to be an arse here, I promise, but it's like you're simply ignoring what I'm saying completely. 

How on earth can more time, or money, or any other resource, make content that is exclusive to MP, also NOT exclusive to MP?  How can "more time" make two absolutely contradictory things true?  Content cannot be both NOT in single-player, and included in single-player. 

5.  That's certainly possible.  I'm not pre-ordering it, that's for sure.

6.  Anti-mod measures hurting replay value for SP users is a potential issue.  It's not about waiting for problems to happen, it's about what we know could be a problem.  Identifying potential issues is NEVER "jumping the gun". 

7. Again, it's not about what you can gain in one also being gainable in the other.  It's just the leakage, the ability of one to influence or affect the other at all, that I have an issue with. 

1. It's not a performance. Managing resource is part of solving problems of resource. If the problem is resources, how it's manage can solve the problem.

2.But the way the mp combat will be build will not be the same as how the sp is build. With MP game the sp is based on the mp. With ME3, The mp is based on the sp.

3.What issues with pve, is that? If you can list them, then I can understand your concern. I had no problems with pve myself.

4.No, time is not a resource. Time is a constant factor. You can have time restored, like how a resource can. What you do in that time is the recourse. And the sp time has plenty of time and are using it as much as they can...So time is not an issue.
And the answer to you question is to make another team that work on the mp with out effect the sp team at all from management to resources and give them their own resources. Also, having someone like ea with a massive amount of resource helps as well.

5.Ok then...see you on march 6.

6.Right, because it make it impossible for players who play on console to replay games at all. It not like the ME are not build to be replayed on it's own.....By letting do different thing in the plot.The player has to change the game to make it better../Sarcasm.
Modding is a preference. It's not need to extend replay value. It's just you what to do it to extend replay value.

7. Then don't play the mp. If you don't  want the mp to effect the sp. Then don't play the mp.

1.  Management?  Why not, sure, whatever.  Apply that to my actual point -- the same resources that could have been applied to MP, if they were "managed differently", could have been applied to SP instead. 

Or are you going to offer proof that they absolutely would not and could not have been?


2. *sigh* You asked why I'm concerned about MP if I'm not going to play MP.  I explained that I have been concerned because of the problems that MP could cause for SP, as detailed at great length.  No refutation necessary.  I ANSWERED YOUR DAMN QUESTION.


3.  I did tell you what they are, multiple times somewhere back in the dark past of this interminable "discussion" -- character class comparison balance issues, character powers/skills balance issues, etc.  IN EVERY online multiplier game I've been on, there were many players who never played PvP / competetive modes, who only played co-op and PvE modes, who simply could not stop yapping and whining and moaning and crying and wetting their diapers about class balance issues.  It has nothing to do with PvP / competetive play.  They do it, a lot, and if you've never seen it than you're very lucky, luckier than most of us who've played online MP more than a little. 


4.  Time?  Not a resource?  You think it's not a resource because it's not renewable?  Heh -- plenty of resources are not renewable.  *sigh* Example.  You have two hours.  You could go to the mall, read a book, or go see a movie, or clean the house.  How you choose to spend those two hours is how you've chosen to expend that finite resource. 

That said, it's still not about time or resources.  At all.  Not one bit.  Infinite time and resources will not change the deliberate decision made to exclude a piece of content from SP. 

If the designers choose to make a certain piece of content exclusively MP, and not SP, then that's what they decided.  Any one  piece of content cannot be both not in SP, and actually in SP, at the same time.  Either it is in SP, or it is not in SP. 

Do you understand that something cannot be both x and !x at the same time.   

(!x means "exclusively and entirely not x in all qualities and attributes", basically.   It's a basic law of reality.)

Can someone help me out on #4 here?  What am I missing in explaining this? 


5.  Which means what?  That you smugly assume that I will be buying and installing ME3 no matter what Bioware and EA do, and regardless of what happens with Origin?  


6.  Yes, you're right, modding is one thing I do to increase the replay value of games, that not everyone else does.  So what?  Since this was started out as a list of why your claim -- that I dislike the addition of MP to ME3 is just because I don't like change -- was bull$#!+, why wouldn't I include the fact that MP threatens something that I need to do to get the most of games like the ME and DA series games as one of my concerns? 


7. The MP has the potential to affect the SP even if I never touch the MP, through the SP potentially being designed or altered with the leakage from the MP in mind, and through all the things I've been trying to get across for umpteen responses to you now. 


Only you'd rather meander and distract and nitpick than actually understand where I'm coming from, while you torture and distort the conversation.  And if you're sitting there, thinking "But that's not what I'm doing!" then maybe you need to stop and think about it for a while, because that is exactly what you do in every conversation I've ever seen you get into with anyone here. 

Modifié par Killjoy Cutter, 15 octobre 2011 - 12:44 .

[dreman9999]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

1. Like I said, you're not getting it.  Stop ignoring what I'm saying in preference of what you think I said or what you want me to have said.  And to make matters worse, you think I'm not getting it.  So far, you haven't really addressed the central issue -- to do so, you'd have to prove that the resources used for MP would not and could not have been used for SP instead.  That's it.  That's all there is to it. 

2. The problems that MP can potentially create for SP are still my concern, even if I never touch MP.

3. I bet you'd be stunned by how many co-op / PvE players in other MP games  (and yes, I've played many, that's how I know I don't like MP) go bananas about perceived balance issues.  It's good to hear that Bioware plans to keep SP and MP design seperate enough prevent that from being an issue, I hope it stays that way. 

4.  First, time is a resource on any development project -- only so much of it between you and that deadline. 

Second, it's not a matter of time or any other resource.  PLEASE, stop and read what I'm putting on the page.  Content that is exclusive to the MP game is content that is denied to the SP game.  Stop.  Read.  Consider.  Please.  I'm not trying to be an arse here, I promise, but it's like you're simply ignoring what I'm saying completely. 

How on earth can more time, or money, or any other resource, make content that is exclusive to MP, also NOT exclusive to MP?  How can "more time" make two absolutely contradictory things true?  Content cannot be both NOT in single-player, and included in single-player. 

5.  That's certainly possible.  I'm not pre-ordering it, that's for sure.

6.  Anti-mod measures hurting replay value for SP users is a potential issue.  It's not about waiting for problems to happen, it's about what we know could be a problem.  Identifying potential issues is NEVER "jumping the gun". 

7. Again, it's not about what you can gain in one also being gainable in the other.  It's just the leakage, the ability of one to influence or affect the other at all, that I have an issue with. 

1. It's not a performance. Managing resource is part of solving problems of resource. If the problem is resources, how it's manage can solve the problem.

2.But the way the mp combat will be build will not be the same as how the sp is build. With MP game the sp is based on the mp. With ME3, The mp is based on the sp.

3.What issues with pve, is that? If you can list them, then I can understand your concern. I had no problems with pve myself.

4.No, time is not a resource. Time is a constant factor. You can have time restored, like how a resource can. What you do in that time is the recourse. And the sp time has plenty of time and are using it as much as they can...So time is not an issue.
And the answer to you question is to make another team that work on the mp with out effect the sp team at all from management to resources and give them their own resources. Also, having someone like ea with a massive amount of resource helps as well.

5.Ok then...see you on march 6.

6.Right, because it make it impossible for players who play on console to replay games at all. It not like the ME are not build to be replayed on it's own.....By letting do different thing in the plot.The player has to change the game to make it better../Sarcasm.
Modding is a preference. It's not need to extend replay value. It's just you what to do it to extend replay value.

7. Then don't play the mp. If you don't  want the mp to effect the sp. Then don't play the mp.

1.  Management?  Why not, sure, whatever.  Apply that to my actual point -- the same resources that could have been applied to MP, if they were "managed differently", could have been applied to SP. 

2. *sigh* You asked why I'm concerned about MP if I'm not going to play MP.  I explained that I have been concerned because of the problems that MP could cause for SP, as detailed at great length.  No refutation necessary.  I ANSWERED YOUR DAMN QUESTION.

3.  I did tell you what they are, multiple times somewhere back in the dark past of this interminable "discussion" -- character class comparison balance issues, character powers/skills balance issues, etc.  IN EVERY online multiplier game I've been on, there were many players who never played PvP / competetive modes, who only played co-op and PvE modes, who simply could not stop yapping and whining and moaning and crying and wetting their diapers about class balance issues.  It has nothing to do with PvP / competetive play. 

4.  Time?  Not a resource?  You think it's not a resource because it's not renewable?  Heh -- plenty of resources are not renewable.  *sigh* Example.  You have two hours.  You could go to the mall, read a book, or go see a movie, or clean the house.  How you choose to spend those two hours is how you've chosen to expend that finite resource. 

That said, it's still not about time or resources.  At all.  Not one bit.  Infinite time and resources will not change the deliberate decision made to exclude a piece of content from SP. 

If the designers choose to make a certain piece of content exclusively MP, and not SP, then that's what they decided.  Any one  piece of content cannot be both not in SP, and actually in SP, at the same time.  Either it, or it is not.  Do you understand that something cannot be both x and !x at the same time.    (!x means "exclusively and entirely not x in all qualities and attributes", basically)   It's a basic law of reality. 

Can someone help me out on #4 here?  What am I missing in explaining this? 

5.  Which means what?  That you smugly assume that I will be buying and installing ME3 no matter what Bioware and EA do, and regardless of what happens with Origin?  

6.  Yes, you're right, modding is one thing I do to increase the replay value of games, that not everyone else does.  So what?  Since this was started out as a list of why your claim -- that I dislike the addition of MP to ME3 is just because I don't like change -- was bull$#!+, why wouldn't I include the fact that MP threatens something that I need to do to get the most of games like the ME and DA series games as one of my concerns? 

7. The MP has the potential to affect the SP even if I never touch the MP, through the SP potentially being designed or altered with the leakage from the MP in mind, and through all the things I've been trying to get across for umpteen responses to you now. 

Only you'd rather meander and distract and nitpick than actually understand where I'm coming from, while you torture and distort the conversation. 

1. And again.They have the resource of EA. They are not vastly limited. If they need resources forthe spteam, they can easilly get it.

2.But the problem only happen when the focus is mp. Mp dev build their games based on the MP first. Then the sp. They work and share the mp and sp concepts as one team that is devied. They base everything around the mp. That is not the case with the sp with ME3. Why? because the sp team is not working with the mp team, nor did the mp team devide itself to makea mp team. Also,the gameplay is based on ME2......tHE SP is the main focus.

3.If that happen ...don't play with them. If people complain, don't play with them.

4.That's not a consideration of resource. That just management of your own time. I was making a refence to construction. You issue is with how the game will be made, it's construction. Time is not part of that resource, it what you do in the time that is the resource. Which is why management is so important. If managed right and you have the right conditions, you can build any thing.

5.Which means what it means....See you march 6,2012.

6.But you don't know if youcan't mod it yet.

7.No, if you don't play it. It will never effect the single player was so ever. Any thing yougain from the mp you can gain in the sp, so you can do everything without touching the mp. The main focus is the sp and nothing is being taken for the sp to add to the mp. In fact more thing in the sp are being added because of the mp. More interactions of character for one thing. We get a homosexual Shepard now because mp delayed the game.

[Jog0907]

I wouldnt mind origin if it worked well at least, but from my experience with bf3 beta the system was simply awful. If they want people to like using it or at least tolerate it they need to you know actually make it work.