2261 réponses à ce sujet

[Lumikki]

Candidate 88766 wrote...

1. Environments and assets made for the MP can be used in the SP, and vice versa. Also, remember that Bioware has been working with this game engine and setting for years - it won't cost them as much any more to add new things.

Yes, MP can be used as SP if player has internet connection. Unless ME3 does require internet connection for MP content. But I don't assume one way or other. Actually because EA Online Pass, I expect all MP requiring internet connection, but that's my assumption without any real base for it.

2. You were assuming that it automatically would make it better, I was just trying to show that that isn't necessarily true.

No, I don't assume it to be better, I assume it to be longer as more content.

3. The sort of people that actually have accounts for gaming sites and comment on stuff on them generally have a different mindset to the majority of gamers. If you took a sample of ALL the people who bought ME1 and ME2 then the results could be very different. 

And before you ask, yes I do statistics - at GCSE, A-level and now 2nd year degree standard - and I can tell you that fewer than 600 results from one very specific group of people (namely the biggest ME fans, which is generally what BSN is made up of) is not enough to give an accurate or reliable idea.

I don't think 600 result actually is too low. I don't remember those +-5% limits, but they where very low. I think bigger  issue is the required random sample, what forum memebers aren't fully. How ever, don't underestimate this poll, just because it's not what you want to hear, it has enough accuracy for statics.

Modifié par Lumikki, 19 octobre 2011 - 10:53 .

[Balek-Vriege]

Lumikki wrote...

Candidate 88766 wrote...

1. Environments and assets made for the MP can be used in the SP, and vice versa. Also, remember that Bioware has been working with this game engine and setting for years - it won't cost them as much any more to add new things.

Yes, MP can be used as SP if player has internet connection. Unless ME3 does require internet connection for MP content. But I don't assume one way or other. Actually because EA Online Pass, I expect all MP requiring internet connection, but that's my assumption without any real base for it.

That's not really what he meant I think.  Development assets are what he's talking about.  Textures, level pieces, programming etc can be shared among Bioware Edmonton and Bioware Montreal.  That means you could actually have a situation where "more" is being added with 2 teams working on the game regardless of working on two different things.

Lumikki wrote...

2. You were assuming that it automatically would make it better, I was just trying to show that that isn't necessarily true.

No, I don't assume it to be better, I assume it to be longer as more content.

Money does help.  However, it depends if the money SP already had budgeted towards it was enough to do 100% of the things Devs wanted.  If so it doesn't matter how much extra money went into MP since the SP game reached it goals with the amount of money already given.

Lumikki wrote...

3. The sort of people that actually have accounts for gaming sites and comment on stuff on them generally have a different mindset to the majority of gamers. If you took a sample of ALL the people who bought ME1 and ME2 then the results could be very different. 

And before you ask, yes I do statistics - at GCSE, A-level and now 2nd year degree standard - and I can tell you that fewer than 600 results from one very specific group of people (namely the biggest ME fans, which is generally what BSN is made up of) is not enough to give an accurate or reliable idea.

I don't think 600 result actually is too low. I don't remember those +-5% limits, but they where very low. I think bigger  issue is the required random sample, what forum memebers aren't fully. How ever, don't underestimate this poll, just because it's not what you want to hear, it has enough accuracy for statics.

Using polls other than scientific polls is not good for any arguement really.  They're basically junk in the grand scheme of things.  Especially when doing one in a small community in an attempt to reflect the opinion's of possibly millions of gamers.  It would be like trying to figure out who your city is going to vote for Mayor by polling 20 of your closest friends, who all live in the same neighborhood, with the same problems, similar jobs etc.
What that poll shows is that the majority of people on these forums, who care to click on that poll, read it and actually vote, didn't want MP.  There's also grey areas where people may have not wanted MP, but actually like the additions.  You could also have people who wanted MP but don't like the coop and would rather have PvP.

Modifié par Balek-Vriege, 19 octobre 2011 - 11:33 .

[Strephon Gentry]

Actually, it's a moot point anyway. It's in the game now whether anyone likes it or not.

[SavesTheDay]

When you create a new character for the multiplayer would it be possible for the game to generate a name that sounds appropriately "alien"? Like, if you want to play as a Turian but can't really think of a name?

[clipped_wolf]

Candidate 88766 wrote...

clipped_wolf wrote...

75% didn't want multiplayer? Well, it's here so saying you didn't want it is kind of moot at this point. I'm hoping for the best.
So is there going to be four player split screen? That would be awesome.

Don't think split-screen is in. Maybe for 2 players, but 4 is almost certainly out of the question - screens would be too small, and there is too much to render.

I'd settle for 2 player split screen.

[clipped_wolf]

Honestly though, I'm not holding my breath.  The fact they didn't announce split-screen along with the multi-player confirmation makes me doubtful they put it in.  

Modifié par clipped_wolf, 20 octobre 2011 - 02:23 .

[Axelstall]

SavesTheDay wrote...

When you create a new character for the multiplayer would it be possible for the game to generate a name that sounds appropriately "alien"? Like, if you want to play as a Turian but can't really think of a name?

They should add that, I myself find it hard to name characters sometimes.

[Taciter]

[quote]drakmoor wrote...
@Taciter
 
Not only would AI bots allow for those wishing to play the MP solo to do so; it would allow those people who only want to play with one or two of their friends a full squad compliment should they want too if their MP characters are insufficiently leveled to do the mission duo (or trip), if this hypothetical situation could occur.[/quote]
That was exactly my thinking! Incorporating an AI 'substitute' option would allow EVERYONE to experience the 'co-op' missions irrespective of the number available players. This would make the multiplayer more accessible and could ease the onset of server stagnation.
 
[quote]Tengu101 wrote...
Mass Effect 3 is the perfect place to incorporate it.[/quote]
That's a highly subjective assessment but we all have our biases. I just want to see an AI squad option for those who don't share your passion for multiplayer but I've noticed that only a handful of MP fanatics have endorsed such an equitable compromise.
 
 
[quote]Shermos wrote...
In other words, I'm not too worried about it. It could even be a good thing. When I told my friend who isn't a big RPG fan about MP being stuck in, he got interested and is now going back to the first two games to get all the story While I walk him through the more awkward RPG elements of ME1. [/quote]
Excellent, maybe you can inspire him to sever his metaphorical umbilical cord and experience true emancipation.

[quote]Axelstall wrote...
Yep there's a whole new team for Co-Op. Bioware isn't stupid, they're expanding on good games with suggestions people have given them. (My first thought on Co-Op for Mass Effect was way back in the first one when i was stuck on saving Liara and the Krogan kept charging me.)[/quote]
Or to rephrase, '...They're altering good games with demands that vocal minorities have foisted on them...". In any case, give me AI squad options and as far as I'm concerned, they can pander to the whims of just about any multiplayer subset they want.
 
[quote]Rockworm503 wrote...
Prepare for a certain few posters responding with how nothing they do with mass effect will ever be good enough and this is going to rape the series.[/quote]
Those are inevitable, if pointless posts but they're perfectly valid expressions of despondency. Just because multiplayer has EA's endorsement, doesn't mean the MP crowd should assume a position of moral rectitude. This is still an unexpected move on Bioware's part and just because MP'ers now find themselves in the cosy grip of conformity doesn't mean that cynical posts are somehow less representative of the community as a whole.
 
[quote]Candidate 88766 wrote...
...adding new environments or locations or dialogue isn't going to be as time-consuming any more, and won't take up as much money, or memory on a disc.[/quote]
Let's just hope that all those shineh Montreal based assets make an appearance in the SP campaign too otherwise I would count that as 'missing' content or even multiplayer 'exclusive' content and we all know how established franchise proponents interpret exclusion.
 
[quote]Rorschachinstein wrote...
I really don't see how in the hell MP could hurt SP. If you don't like MP then play SP like you have been for the last two games and downloadable content.[/quote]
I really don't see how in the hell it could be so hard to read the bits of text after the opening thread and before your post - there are plenty of well-founded concerns on the issue. Perhaps a more constructive approach would be for you to include some sort suggestion that might aid in quelling such misgivings.
 
[quote]Beerfish wrote...
...If there was no multiplayer you'd get ME3 without multiplayer, you'd have no more quests, no more content, no more planets, no more story.[/quote]
We won't get that anyway unless a squad AI option is provided then we can all share in your good fortune - solo and multiplayer alike.
 
[quote]Beerfish wrote...
Good thing ME2 had no multiplayer or they would have had to cut 3 companions and 20 quests.[/quote]
It must be getting late, I missed the punch line!
 
[quote]Candidate 88766 wrote...
Not everyone that bought ME1 and ME2 will buy ME3. Bioware needs to make up that deficit somehow, but people that didn't but the first two probably won't buy the 3rd because its still the same sort of game. Add MP into the mix - now you have a variety of modes and even greater longevity. More people may become interested in the franchise and so Bioware makes more money.[/quote]
While I approve of your rationalisation Candidate, I think it's a bit presumptuous to assume that there would be a 'deficit' resulting from reluctant ME re-subscribers. You've overlooked the possibility that ME3 may well have attracted ME1 subscribers who were reluctant to purchase ME2, thereby, according to your definition, generating a 'surplus'.
 
Just because other gaming 'modes' can be shoe-horned into a boutique franchise, doesn't mean that it will make it significantly more appealing to gamers who have consistently overlooked the franchise. If Activision suddenly announced their intention to incorporate dialogue wheels and appearance customisation to subsequent CoD:MW titles, I'd feel no more compulsion to purchase said titles.
 
As for longevity, Single player 'replayability' already had that covered - it's one of the defining characteristics of the 'Mass Effect' franchise by virtue of its status as a hard-core RPG with all that entails.
 
I may resent the unpleasant whiff of multiplayer in my pristine refuge but I'm not so closed minded that I would reject MP on principle alone. There clearly IS a demand for it (though I suspect it has been exaggerated) so why make it an 'exclusive' mode? We've already established that solo play is 'possible' but I'm always wary of such ambiguities. Instead, why not simply incorporate an AI squad option and all of this pent up hostility could be dispelled in one munificent gesture.
 
[quote]clipped_wolf wrote...
75% didn't want multiplayer? Well, it's here so saying you didn't want it is kind of moot at this point. I'm hoping for the best...[/quote]
[quote]Strephon Gentry wrote...
Actually, it's a moot point anyway. It's in the game now whether anyone likes it or not.[/quote]
Two utterly pointless and unconstructive posts - How exactly were these 'contributions' to the ME community supposed to help.. clearly the intention wasn't to foster amicable relations.

Modifié par Taciter, 20 octobre 2011 - 03:43 .

[dreman9999]

[quote]Taciter wrote...

[quote]drakmoor wrote...
@Taciter
 
Not only would AI bots allow for those wishing to play the MP solo to do so; it would allow those people who only want to play with one or two of their friends a full squad compliment should they want too if their MP characters are insufficiently leveled to do the mission duo (or trip), if this hypothetical situation could occur.[/quote]
That was exactly my thinking! Incorporating an AI 'substitute' option would allow EVERYONE to experience the 'co-op' missions irrespective of the number available players. This would make the multiplayer more accessible and could ease the onset of server stagnation.
 
[quote]Tengu101 wrote...
Mass Effect 3 is the perfect place to incorporate it.[/quote]
That's a highly subjective assessment but we all have our biases. I just want to see an AI squad option for those who don't share your passion for multiplayer but I've noticed that only a handful of MP fanatics have endorsed such an equitable compromise.
 
 
[quote]Shermos wrote...
In other words, I'm not too worried about it. It could even be a good thing. When I told my friend who isn't a big RPG fan about MP being stuck in, he got interested and is now going back to the first two games to get all the story While I walk him through the more awkward RPG elements of ME1. [/quote]
Excellent, maybe you can inspire him to sever his metaphorical umbilical cord and experience true emancipation.

[quote]Axelstall wrote...
Yep there's a whole new team for Co-Op. Bioware isn't stupid, they're expanding on good games with suggestions people have given them. (My first thought on Co-Op for Mass Effect was way back in the first one when i was stuck on saving Liara and the Krogan kept charging me.)[/quote]
Or to rephrase, '...They're altering good games with demands that vocal minorities have foisted on them...". In any case, give me AI squad options and as far as I'm concerned, they can pander to the whims of just about any multiplayer subset they want.
 
[quote]Rockworm503 wrote...
Prepare for a certain few posters responding with how nothing they do with mass effect will ever be good enough and this is going to rape the series.[/quote]
Those are inevitable, if pointless posts but they're perfectly valid expressions of despondency. Just because multiplayer has EA's endorsement, doesn't mean the MP crowd should assume a position of moral rectitude. This is still an unexpected move on Bioware's part and just because MP'ers now find themselves in the cosy grip of conformity doesn't mean that cynical posts are somehow less representative of the community as a whole.
 
[quote]Candidate 88766 wrote...
...adding new environments or locations or dialogue isn't going to be as time-consuming any more, and won't take up as much money, or memory on a disc.[/quote]
Let's just hope that all those shineh Montreal based assets make an appearance in the SP campaign too otherwise I would count that as 'missing' content or even multiplayer 'exclusive' content and we all know how established franchise proponents interpret exclusion.
 
[quote]Rorschachinstein wrote...
I really don't see how in the hell MP could hurt SP. If you don't like MP then play SP like you have been for the last two games and downloadable content.[/quote]
I really don't see how in the hell it could be so hard to read the bits of text after the opening thread and before your post - there are plenty of well-founded concerns on the issue. Perhaps a more constructive approach would be for you to include some sort suggestion that might aid in quelling such misgivings.
 
[quote]Beerfish wrote...
...If there was no multiplayer you'd get ME3 without multiplayer, you'd have no more quests, no more content, no more planets, no more story.[/quote]
We won't get that anyway unless a squad AI option is provided then we can all share in your good fortune - solo and multiplayer alike.
 
[quote]Beerfish wrote...
Good thing ME2 had no multiplayer or they would have had to cut 3 companions and 20 quests.[/quote]
It must be getting late, I missed the punch line!
 
[quote]Candidate 88766 wrote...
Not everyone that bought ME1 and ME2 will buy ME3. Bioware needs to make up that deficit somehow, but people that didn't but the first two probably won't buy the 3rd because its still the same sort of game. Add MP into the mix - now you have a variety of modes and even greater longevity. More people may become interested in the franchise and so Bioware makes more money.[/quote]
While I approve of your rationalisation Candidate, I think it's a bit presumptuous to assume that there would be a 'deficit' resulting from reluctant ME re-subscribers. You've overlooked the possibility that ME3 may well have attracted ME1 subscribers who were reluctant to purchase ME2, thereby, according to your definition, generating a 'surplus'.
 
Just because other gaming 'modes' can be shoe-horned into a boutique franchise, doesn't mean that it will make it significantly more appealing to gamers who have consistently overlooked the franchise. If Activision suddenly announced their intention to incorporate dialogue wheels and appearance customisation to subsequent CoD:MW titles, I'd feel no more compulsion to purchase said titles.
 
As for longevity, Single player 'replayability' already had that covered - it's one of the defining characteristics of the 'Mass Effect' franchise by virtue of its status as a hard-core RPG with all that entails.
 
I may resent the unpleasant whiff of multiplayer in my pristine refuge but I'm not so closed minded that I would reject MP on principle alone. There clearly IS a demand for it (though I suspect it has been exaggerated) so why make it an 'exclusive' mode? We've already established that solo play is 'possible' but I'm always wary of such ambiguities. Instead, why not simply incorporate an AI squad option and all of this pent up hostility could be dispelled in one munificent gesture.
 
[quote]clipped_wolf wrote...
75% didn't want multiplayer? Well, it's here so saying you didn't want it is kind of moot at this point. I'm hoping for the best...[/quote]
[quote]Strephon Gentry wrote...
Actually, it's a moot point anyway. It's in the game now whether anyone likes it or not.[/quote]
Two utterly pointless and unconstructive posts - How exactly were these 'contributions' to the ME community supposed to help.. clearly the intention wasn't to foster amicable relations.[/quote]


Why ask for Mp with bots when it's much better to ask for a servival mode in the sp?

[Gatt9]

Candidate 88766 wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

Candidate 88766 wrote...

Extra money and time don't necessarily make a game better than it was before, and people need to remember that before instantly blaming the MP for anything they don't like in the SP.

http://social.biowar...17/polls/13874/

Does extra feature make it better, if people did not even want it?

Anyone working with ME3 game cost money to EA. ALL those money will be need to get back from sale of ME3 game.
All the money and time could have been used increase content in SP. Better or not, it's more what people want.

Not everyone that bought ME1 and ME2 will buy ME3. Bioware needs to make up that deficit somehow, but people that didn't but the first two probably won't buy the 3rd because its still the same sort of game. Add MP into the mix - now you have a variety of modes and even greater longevity. More people may become interested in the franchise and so Bioware makes more money.

An extra feature can indeed make a game better. Whether co-op will improve the ME3 experience is something none of us will know until relase, but I for one am optimistic.

Also you missed my point - extra money/time may not necessarily make the SP better. Adding too much stuff could detract from the pacing and weaken the experience as a whole. I would rather have a well-paced quality game than a longer game that potentially sacrifices quality for quantity.

You are making a massive error in your assessment.

First,  it's a single-player narrative driven game,  not conducive to multiplayer.  Go play Fable 2 co-op,  the game is decidedly less entertaining when you're not getting any story and just randomly killing things.

Second,  you are forgetting...this is a handfull of co-op missions,  not a co-op game.  I doubt there's many people who will be swayed by the promise of a few co-op missions.

I doubt there's even fewer who'll be swayed by the promise of a few co-op missions in a narritive driven single player game.

I often wonder these days,  did many people here play Fable 2?  I'd guess not considering that people seem to think this feature has any value.

[Onilink1230]

bigheadzach post

There are people who appear to keep confusing the concept of

"multiplayer enhances your SP performance", which was stated, and

"not playing multiplayer will penalize your SP performance", which was outright refuted.

If the game is a mountain, and the goal is to reach the top, and I've had the traditional option of just climbing straight up it, but then someone shows me a series of switchback trails which will challenge me in a different but still entirely valid fashion, and doing either (or a bit of both) still gets me up the mountain...

...then why are the mountain-climbers complaining about the switchback enthusiasts? It's like the mere presence of switchback enthusiasts somehow irritates the mountain climbers for some unfathomable reason.
.
.
.
...and before you answer "then I don't want to have to pay for the switchback content", realize that you're not paying any more money than you would have if it wasn't included. If the price of ME3 jumped $20 suddenly, then I could understand your gripe and also petition for it to be optionally-purchaseable DLC (or perhaps eventually its own branded product). But seeing as it's still going to be $60, there is no reason not to buy it simply because they added content you won't play.

well said zach for proof of this concept i will post this(a excerpt i have see alot over the last few days)

"In the video, Casey Hudson says (at ~2:15) regarding assets and such, "... fighting to control those on the multiplayer side, and the better you do, the more you CONTROL, the better your single player ending will be." "

did you notice the word control in full caps that's be cause it may be the most important word of that sentence. In essence that means mp will be ("switchback content") just another way of achieving the same goals as sp only players will have.

and any one who says that mp will add something unachievable by sp only players and who have downloaded any of the me or me2 dlc shame on you for you are a hypocrite there are people out their who have not bought a single dlc they were not forced to buy it any more than you are forced to play me3 mp.

disclamer. this post was not meant to offend anyone if you feel offended it is nothing personal i was simply attempting to shed light on something you and anyone who fits these descriptions may not have seen. i am officialy done ranting.....for now.

[Axelstall]

Survival, Firefight, Horde, Whatever you call it, should be added to Co-Op it adds way more replay-ability. Plus for those who know what I'm talking about, a mission creator like in the early SOCOM games or in ArmA would greatly add to the experience.

[Strephon Gentry]

To be honest, this whole line of discussion is based on assumptions on both sides. We honestly don't know how it is going to work definitively until the game is in our hands. All anyone has to go on is what little information has been released by the devs so far. So, any discussion with those few tidbits of insight is based on assumption and opinion without any shread of fact.

I honestly am getting entertainment by seeing either side try to defend their viewpoints without stating the few facts we know of right now and the times those known facts are presented, they are dismissed or ignored.

So, if y'all enjoy debating without having all the facts from the game at your disposal, don't let me stop you.

Like I have stated before, I'm withholding judgement until I have the final product to form my opinion with.

One fact though still remains, MP co-op is going to be in ME3 and no amount of debate is going to change that now. Only ones that can are the devs and only if they decide it doesn't live up to what they want.

[dreman9999]

Axelstall wrote...

Survival, Firefight, Horde, Whatever you call it, should be added to Co-Op it adds way more replay-ability. Plus for those who know what I'm talking about, a mission creator like in the early SOCOM games or in ArmA would greatly add to the experience.

But what wrong with wanting a co-op mode and a survival mode. Having co-op with bot's is no differnt then just playing the side mission in the sp. The sp uses AI character to help you...which are bots, it would be no different then playing the sp. It would be better to have aco-op mode and a pinnicale station 2.0 mode then co-op with bots.

[Balek-Vriege]

The only problem with adding bots/henches to MP is it encourages people to play with them instead of forming groups with real players. Therefore it becomes harder for those who want to form groups to actually find one (since everyone is boted up mostly).

On the flip side when you can't find a group, you have bots to fall back on. Very useful when a community becomes inactive. However, it seems to me the bots is just an excuse to play MP like the SP part of the game because again, some of us feel they're going to be penalized for not playing MP. If I was Bioware I would add the option for bots later or not at all and make a random recruit search. In the end we still have no clue what the recruitment/group formation system will look like.

As for different coop modes I don't think that's going to happen. It has already been stated by Bioware that they wanted to implement MP only in a way that makes sense with the SP story. So far they're sticking to that by having coop missions be connected to the galactic war effort plot wise. I think the closest we're going to get to game modes is the feel of each individual mission themselves.

[iloveTali81]

www.youtube.com/watch talks about  special mp ending at 1:21

Modifié par iloveTali81, 20 octobre 2011 - 05:45 .

[dreman9999]

iloveTali81 wrote...

www.youtube.com/watch talks about  special mp ending at 1:21

Yiou have a wonderful way of warping that comment.
 Chris said.."People who play the mp are going to get alittle extra to play their game...Their is going to be material that is coming to play in the Galaxy at war system."

In short, he is taking about the GR point we get in the mp and the sp side missions. You also, ignore every part he said it's optional.

[iloveTali81]

dreman9999 wrote...

iloveTali81 wrote...

www.youtube.com/watch talks about  special mp ending at 1:21

Yiou have a wonderful way of warping that comment.
 Chris said.."People who play the mp are going to get alittle extra to play their game...Their is going to be material that is coming to play in the Galaxy at war system."

In short, he is taking about the GR point we get in the mp and the sp side missions. You also, ignore every part he said it's optional.

read between the lines. of course it is optional you don't have play mp to get the extra special ending                                                            i could be wrong

Modifié par iloveTali81, 20 octobre 2011 - 06:08 .

[dreman9999]

iloveTali81 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

iloveTali81 wrote...

www.youtube.com/watch talks about  special mp ending at 1:21

Yiou have a wonderful way of warping that comment.
 Chris said.."People who play the mp are going to get alittle extra to play their game...Their is going to be material that is coming to play in the Galaxy at war system."

In short, he is taking about the GR point we get in the mp and the sp side missions. You also, ignore every part he said it's optional.

read between the lines. of course it is optional you don't have play mp to get the extra special ending                                                            i could be wrong

That not reading between the lines, that warping them to your favor. You know...Yellow journalism...Studying under fox news much?

[iloveTali81]

dreman9999 wrote...

iloveTali81 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

iloveTali81 wrote...

www.youtube.com/watch talks about  special mp ending at 1:21

Yiou have a wonderful way of warping that comment.
 Chris said.."People who play the mp are going to get alittle extra to play their game...Their is going to be material that is coming to play in the Galaxy at war system."

In short, he is taking about the GR point we get in the mp and the sp side missions. You also, ignore every part he said it's optional.

read between the lines. of course it is optional you don't have play mp to get the extra special ending                                                            i could be wrong

That not reading between the lines, that warping them to your favor. You know...Yellow journalism...Studying under fox news much?

no I' ma ed schultz man.and I think there will be a special mp ending  

Modifié par iloveTali81, 20 octobre 2011 - 06:41 .

[dreman9999]

iloveTali81 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

iloveTali81 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

iloveTali81 wrote...

www.youtube.com/watch talks about  special mp ending at 1:21

Yiou have a wonderful way of warping that comment.
 Chris said.."People who play the mp are going to get alittle extra to play their game...Their is going to be material that is coming to play in the Galaxy at war system."

In short, he is taking about the GR point we get in the mp and the sp side missions. You also, ignore every part he said it's optional.

read between the lines. of course it is optional you don't have play mp to get the extra special ending                                                            i could be wrong

That not reading between the lines, that warping them to your favor. You know...Yellow journalism...Studying under fox news much?

no I' ma ed schultz man.and I think there will be a special mp ending  

Yes, based on what you did in the last 2 games...Not on the co-op.

[Lumikki]

Onilink1230 wrote...

and any one who says that mp will add something unachievable by sp only players and who have downloaded any of the me or me2 dlc shame on you for you are a hypocrite there are people out their who have not bought a single dlc they were not forced to buy it any more than you are forced to play me3 mp.

Yes, but this isn't so easy.

Example

I want to buy DLC and I have money for it, the money isn't the issue. Issue is the internet connection requirement.
I want to play MP content at solo. But again I don't want to play ONLINE or in my case I can't because no internet connection on my game computer. Simple way saying, internet connection requirement for singe player games, is the not acceptable part.

So, you say it's choise. Yes it's choise, but it's choise between accepting some unpleasant technical design or be without this game content (part of story). They are building content what requires internet connection on SINGLE PLAYER computer games. It's techical issue, not what player wants. It's choise to sacriface you privacy and security for game content (story) in single player games where is absulute no need for internet connections.

If we would talk about multi-player games, then the situation would be totally different as those games are ment to be played with internet connections. How to I follow ME series story if DLC's and Co-op content are part of the story, but they are behind online features?

It's totally different to require one time DRM check for istalled software, than require internet connection everytime you start the game or access game content. (PC). Some people don't care they own privacy and security, but some people do care.

Modifié par Lumikki, 20 octobre 2011 - 09:27 .

[FDrage]

Onilink1230 wrote...

and any one who says that mp will add something unachievable by sp only players and who have downloaded any of the me or me2 dlc shame on you for you are a hypocrite there are people out their who have not bought a single dlc they were not forced to buy it any more than you are forced to play me3 mp.

A) to download DLC you don't, eg need a XBL gold account, for any MP related gameplay you'd need that.
 DLC you can avoid buy ... if yoiu are buying ME3 you automatically buy a part of the game (and fincance it and its success) to which you might not have access to. For MP DLC people wouldn't need to spend money on if they can't / want to

There are people who appear to keep confusing the concept of

"multiplayer enhances your SP performance", which was stated, and

"not playing multiplayer will penalize your SP performance", which was outright refuted.

the "statement" and "refute" sound to make more like marketing speech then anything else. If you play MP then you have more options to achiev e that goal of the game. If you don't, yes you can stil reach the goal, but with less options. For someone who doesn't like MP ... MP does nothing to enhance the SP part .. at all.

Modifié par FDrage, 20 octobre 2011 - 10:59 .

[Taciter]

[quote]dreman9999 wrote...
Why ask for Mp with bots when it's much better to ask for a servival mode in the sp?[/quote]
Ahhhh.. Dreman, you're back! And still utterly perplexed by such a simple request. A request which has been explained, scrutinised and justified for nearly 16 pages and still you refuse to acknowledge the validity of such an argument.

I've exhausted my patience trying to think of creative ways to aid you in broadening your understanding - I've utilised countless analogies and even resorted to mathematical formulea in an apparently futile gesture of good will and still you wander through the mists of comprehension like a blind, incontinent sheep-dog.

p.s. please stop quoting every line of every post to which you are responsing unless you have a reply that warrants in-depth analysis. One line responses to eighy line posts are idle and insulting.

[quote]bigheadzach wrote...
There are people who appear to keep confusing the concept of
"multiplayer enhances your SP performance", which was stated, and
"not playing multiplayer will penalize your SP performance", which was outright refuted.[/quote]
The two are mutually and inextricably inclusive, they're a tortology - If multiplayer 'enhances' 'your SP performance', then not participating in multiplayer will result in an 'unenhanced SP performance' i.e. an inferior performance thus:

SP + MP = SP Plus
SP - MP = SP
SP Plus > SP[/quote][quote]bigheadzach wrote...
If the game is a mountain, and the goal is to reach the top, and I've had the traditional option of just climbing straight up it, but then someone shows me a series of switchback trails which will challenge me in a different but still entirely valid fashion, and doing either (or a bit of both) still gets me up the mountain...
...then why are the mountain-climbers complaining about the switchback enthusiasts? It's like the mere presence of switchback enthusiasts somehow irritates the mountain climbers for some unfathomable reason.[/quote]
Nice analogy but needs a little embelishment to clarify the 'unfathomable'.

EA = Local Government
Bioware = National Park management Quango
Bioware Edmonton = Straight path maintenance division
Bioware Montreal = Switchback trail maintenance division
National Park = ME Franchise
Mountains = ME Episodes
Mountain 3 = Mass Effect 3
Straight path = Traditional SP route
Switchback trails = MP co-op missions
Guide rail = AI bots/companions

Local Government wants to impose social reform according to what it thinks will generate the most tourist revenue. Certain National Parks with less scenic peaks have capitalised on the appeal for hard core climbers to resort to switch-back trailing which has yielded a notable upturn in profit. Most hard core switch back trailers however, go to (and permanently reside in) the neighbouring county where the mountains are barren but entirely 'off-the beaten track'. Believing that this popular form of mountain climbing is universally appealing, Local Government has ordered every one of it's National Park Authorities to incorporate switch back trals.

One National Park however, has traditionally eschewed the trend for switch back trailing on the basis that tearing up more natural beauty to make way for additional trails would be counter-productive. In all liklihood, the hard core 'switch-backers' will stick to their usual venues as it caters more specifically to their tastes and doesn't distract them from the challenge of switch back trailing with unneccessary undulgences like pretty scenery and convenient viewpoints.

Unfortunately, this National Park, for whatever reason has capitulated to the demands of Local Government and the relatively small group of local switch-back enthusiasts who up until now have had to travel to neighbouring counties to get their fix. Local government has left the job of selling this unlikely development to the National Park who are trying desperately to placate both the Local Authority and the indiginous mountain climbers who have lovingly nurtured this area of natural beauty and faithfully supported the National Park Authority.

The NPA has stated, all be it in a rather obfuscatory fashion, that the proposed development on Mountain 3 will be every bit as satisfying as the existing 'straight paths' on mountains 1 and 2 and that the inclusion of 'switch-back trails' will in no way hinder or detract from the traditional route which is still the NPA's chief concern.

However, the local inhabitants, many of whom resettled here specifically because they couldn't stand the barren landscapes of neighbouring counties and their respective NPA's obsession with tearing up vegetation for the sake of swich-backers and a quick profit, are more than a little concerned about what these developments will entail.

According to the NPA, the 'straight path' will be just like the straight paths of the other mountains (better even) and that they have commissioned an entirely new division to undertake the task of overseeing the switch-back development so as not to dilute the funds allocated to the main path development. This is all well and good, but the majority of the local inhabitants are wondering why areas of natural beauty on Mountain 3 are being 'cordoned off' exclusively for switch-back trailers.

The Switch back trailers are all saying that 'It doesn't matter, we'll all get to the same summit in the end' and that 'the switch back trails closely follow the main path' but the NPA has already stated that, in order to experience the whole mountain, you must resort to switch-back trails. Those who aren't keen on 'switch-backing' are wondering why it never occured to the NPA to incorporate a guide rail along the switch-back trails so that those who wanted to see the whole mountain without having to go 'hard-core' could shuffle there way along at there own pace!


[quote]Onilink1230 wrote...
"In the video, Casey Hudson says (at ~2:15) regarding assets and such, "... fighting to control those on the multiplayer side, and the better you do, the more you CONTROL, the better your single player ending will be." "[/quote]
More = greater than
Better = greater than
So in essence MP is >> SP - why would you think traditional SP'ers would be enthusiastic about such news?

Woops.. I see now, you were pointing out that SP'ers WOULDN'T be enthusiastic.. good call!

[quote]Strephon Gentry wrote...
...So, if y'all enjoy debating without having all the facts from the game at your disposal, don't let me stop you.
Like I have stated before, I'm withholding judgement until I have the final product to form my opinion with....[/quote]
It's not our fault that certain, rather critical 'facts' have been omitted or overlooked - the best we can do is surmise. MP may have been confirmed but how it's implemented may still be up for debate... what's the harm in trying?

[quote]dreman9999 wrote...
...Having co-op with bot's is no differnt then just playing the side mission in the sp. The sp uses AI character to help you...which are bots, it would be no different then playing the sp. It would be better to have aco-op mode and a pinnicale station 2.0 mode then co-op with bots.
[/quote]
...and there it is again.. what did I say about 4-post repeat countdown?

[quote]Balek-Vriege wrote...
...If I was Bioware I would add the option for bots later or not at all and make a random recruit search...[/quote]
Dissapointed Balek, thought you were one of the egalitarian few but this statement is pretty definitive - 'MP is all important, the Bots compromise should just be a convenient afterthought but it's not important as long as I get to indulge my incessant need for social interaction'

[quote]dreman9999 wrote...
You also, ignore every part he said it's optional.[/quote]
Sigh... and again the encouragable Dre insists on using ambiguous statements to confirm the contestable.

[quote]dreman9999 wrote...
Yes, based on what you did in the last 2 games...Not on the co-op.[/quote]
Where did he say that the Co-op would have absolutely no bearing on the conclusion and if the conclusion to ME3 is based entirely on our activities during ME1 and ME2, why bother devloping ME3 at all? Why not just have series of cut scenes based on choices dictated by ME1 and ME2 save games?

[quote]Lumikki wrote...
and any one who says that mp will add something unachievable by sp only players and who have downloaded any of the me or me2 dlc shame on you for you are a hypocrite there are people out their who have not bought a single dlc they were not forced to buy it any more than you are forced to play me3 mp.[/quote]
DLC's are ENTIRELY 'optional' as they aren't even an integral part of the game, a multiplayer campaign that shadows the single player campaign and can ultimately determine the manner in which an end game scenario is achieved... isn't 'optional'.

Shame on you for not acknowledging your own hypocricy.[/quote][quote]Onilink1230 wrote...
...So, you say it's choise. Yes it's choise, but it's choise between accepting some unpleasant technical design or be without this game content (part of story). They are building content what requires internet connection on SINGLE PLAYER computer games. It's techical issue, not what player wants. It's choise to sacriface you privacy and security for game content (story) in single player games where is absulute no need for internet connections...

...It's totally different to require one time DRM check for istalled software, than require internet connection everytime you start the game or access game content. (PC). Some people don't care they own privacy and security, but some people do care.[/quote]Well said Onilink!

Modifié par Taciter, 20 octobre 2011 - 12:49 .

[Candidate 88766]

Lumikki wrote...

Candidate 88766 wrote...

1. Environments and assets made for the MP can be used in the SP, and vice versa. Also, remember that Bioware has been working with this game engine and setting for years - it won't cost them as much any more to add new things.

1. Yes, MP can be used as SP if player has internet connection. Unless ME3 does require internet connection for MP content. But I don't assume one way or other. Actually because EA Online Pass, I expect all MP requiring internet connection, but that's my assumption without any real base for it.

2. You were assuming that it automatically would make it better, I was just trying to show that that isn't necessarily true.

2. No, I don't assume it to be better, I assume it to be longer as more content.

3. The sort of people that actually have accounts for gaming sites and comment on stuff on them generally have a different mindset to the majority of gamers. If you took a sample of ALL the people who bought ME1 and ME2 then the results could be very different. 

And before you ask, yes I do statistics - at GCSE, A-level and now 2nd year degree standard - and I can tell you that fewer than 600 results from one very specific group of people (namely the biggest ME fans, which is generally what BSN is made up of) is not enough to give an accurate or reliable idea.

3. I don't think 600 result actually is too low. I don't remember those +-5% limits, but they where very low. I think bigger  issue is the required random sample, what forum memebers aren't fully. How ever, don't underestimate this poll, just because it's not what you want to hear, it has enough accuracy for statics.

1. You misunderstood me - I meant that any environment made for the single player (for example, a Cerberus hanger) could be used again in the multiplayer, and vice versa. Environments can be used for both, cutting down on the cost of both SP and MP.

2. A longer game with more content is not necessarily better. A shorter game can have better pacing, and better pacing can improve the story. I'd rather have a well-paced 30 hour game than a long-winded 70 hour game any day. More money also doesn't necessarily mean more content.

3. 600 is very low. ME2 sold 2 million copies in the first week. We know it sold more than that, but even if we only take the figure of 2 million, 600 is 0.03%, which is insignificant. The actual sales figure is more than that, so the figure is going to be closer to 0.02% or 0.01%, making it even less significant.