2261 réponses à ce sujet

[Iakus]

dreman9999 wrote...

Well,based on your points, your problemis not the mp then....It's the GR point system. If they cut the mp from the game, you would still have to build GR points with the sp side missions anyway. So inthe end you still have gain GR point even if they did not have sp.

If mp was cut from the game, then the playing field would be level.  Everyone would have the same sources of War Assets.  No more.  No less.  WIth multiplayer, though, those who play mp have access to more of them.  Thus have a better shot at getting a better ending.

That's only one problem I have with mp, though.  I'm still not convinced that no sp content was cut to make room for it.

[Garrison2009]

iakus wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Well,based on your points, your problemis not the mp then....It's the GR point system. If they cut the mp from the game, you would still have to build GR points with the sp side missions anyway. So inthe end you still have gain GR point even if they did not have sp.

If mp was cut from the game, then the playing field would be level.  Everyone would have the same sources of War Assets.  No more.  No less.  WIth multiplayer, though, those who play mp have access to more of them.  Thus have a better shot at getting a better ending.

That's only one problem I have with mp, though.  I'm still not convinced that no sp content was cut to make room for it.

So, going by your own words, you're just jealous that those who play MP will have a better shot at getting a better ending, correct? My answer to that is simply this... Why do you care? If you have to complete more side missions in the SP campaign to be able to make it to the same point as someone who does far less of the side missions and simply plays MP to gain GR points, so what? I personally will not be complaining about that. It's my uninverse and I get to play it how I want to. MP simply gives people a different option on how they want to.

Modifié par Garrison2009, 22 octobre 2011 - 07:36 .

[Dean_the_Young]

iakus wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Well,based on your points, your problemis not the mp then....It's the GR point system. If they cut the mp from the game, you would still have to build GR points with the sp side missions anyway. So inthe end you still have gain GR point even if they did not have sp.

If mp was cut from the game, then the playing field would be level.  Everyone would have the same sources of War Assets.  No more.  No less.  WIth multiplayer, though, those who play mp have access to more of them.  Thus have a better shot at getting a better ending.

That's only one problem I have with mp, though.  I'm still not convinced that no sp content was cut to make room for it.

The same is going to apply with future DLC, though. The same applied to getting maximum upgrades in ME2 in the vanilla, where there actually weren't enough credits in the game. The same applied to import-bonuses in ME1.

They didn't design a system in which you couldn't get the 'best' result if you didn't have an import bonus and all the DLC missions.

[Praetor Knight]

Uhh, I just hope that I could try Galaxy at War offline with my Silver membership on my Xbox 360.

I think I've had a Gold membership once, and I didn't use multiplayer much so it was a waste for me, and I've hoped I never needed one again, but now I'm so sure anymore. : (

[Killjoy Cutter]

dreman9999 wrote...

What would it matter though. The only differenet between the sp aside missions and the mp is that in the sp you have to find the side mission(Which are esay to find anyway) and you just queue up the mp.(And can play as other races ,and the combat has no slow down or pause.)

That's not what everyone else is saying about the MP content.  You're the only one making that claim about it.

[Killjoy Cutter]

iakus wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Well,based on your points, your problemis not the mp then....It's the GR point system. If they cut the mp from the game, you would still have to build GR points with the sp side missions anyway. So inthe end you still have gain GR point even if they did not have sp.

If mp was cut from the game, then the playing field would be level.  Everyone would have the same sources of War Assets.  No more.  No less.  WIth multiplayer, though, those who play mp have access to more of them.  Thus have a better shot at getting a better ending.

That's only one problem I have with mp, though.  I'm still not convinced that no sp content was cut to make room for it.

Yeap.  Only so much room on the disk. 

[Killjoy Cutter]

Garrison2009 wrote...

So, going by your own words, you're just jealous

Always has to come down to crap like that from some of you, doesn't it?

Modifié par Killjoy Cutter, 22 octobre 2011 - 08:56 .

[Iakus]

Garrison2009 wrote...

So, going by your own words, you're just jealous that those who play MP will have a better shot at getting a better ending, correct? My answer to that is simply this... Why do you care? If you have to complete more side missions in the SP campaign to be able to make it to the same point as someone who does far less of the side missions and simply plays MP to gain GR points, so what? I personally will not be complaining about that. It's my uninverse and I get to play it how I want to. MP simply gives people a different option on how they want to.

So, going by your own words, "I got mine, so STFU"?

classy

[Iakus]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

iakus wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Well,based on your points, your problemis not the mp then....It's the GR point system. If they cut the mp from the game, you would still have to build GR points with the sp side missions anyway. So inthe end you still have gain GR point even if they did not have sp.

If mp was cut from the game, then the playing field would be level.  Everyone would have the same sources of War Assets.  No more.  No less.  WIth multiplayer, though, those who play mp have access to more of them.  Thus have a better shot at getting a better ending.

That's only one problem I have with mp, though.  I'm still not convinced that no sp content was cut to make room for it.

The same is going to apply with future DLC, though. The same applied to getting maximum upgrades in ME2 in the vanilla, where there actually weren't enough credits in the game. The same applied to import-bonuses in ME1.

They didn't design a system in which you couldn't get the 'best' result if you didn't have an import bonus and all the DLC missions.

It's not of matter of being unable to get the desired result, it's that multiplayer will have an easier time at it, by the simple expedient of having more options than those who don't like multiplayer, can't play multiplayer, or simply don't want to play multiplayer.  

In ME2, the puchasable gear in ME2 didn't alter the ending in any way.  Spending credits on upgrades only made the gameplay easier.  Nothing in the shops or the DLC improved the suvivability of any of the characters, altered the parameters of the SM in any way, or affected squad loyalty.  War Assets, however,  will affect ME3's ending.

Look at it this way, there's two ways to keep Wrex alive on Virmire, get his armor, or Paragon/Renegade him.  Now imagine that getting his armor was a multiplayer-only mission.  Now multiplayer has two options to keep him alive, and single player only has one.

If the rewards for doing multiplayer only applied to multiplayer extra equipment or funds for xxxGarus2.0xxx and didn't touch the single player game at all, that would be another story.  But it's not.

[Domanese]

dreman9999 wrote...

Domanese wrote...

But I thought from what was informed that the Online Pass is only for the multiplayer demo. Out of curiosity, whom is confirming that the Online Pass applies to the multiplayer for the full game also and how was this confirmed?

Bioware has comfermed that the online pass is for the mp...only. You don't need it for the sp.

Just to be clear and to confirm that tidbit... The online pass is for the full game's version of the multiplayer also? Or just the demo? Thanks very much in advance for taking the time to answer this. 

[Someone With Mass]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...
Yeap.  Only so much room on the disk. 

Unless the MP is on a separate disk, that is.

[Iakus]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...
Yeap.  Only so much room on the disk. 

Unless the MP is on a separate disk, that is.

And I've said several times, this would go a long way to convincing me nohting was cut if it was on a seperate disk or a seperate download

[Killjoy Cutter]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...
Yeap.  Only so much room on the disk. 

Unless the MP is on a separate disk, that is.

Well, technically, there's only so much room on 2 disks... 

[footballzach50]

[/quote]
If the rewards for doing multiplayer only applied to multiplayer extra equipment or funds for xxxGarus2.0xxx and didn't touch the single player game at all, that would be another story.  But it's not.

[/quote]

Mass Effect is known for its RPG and singleplayer elements, so why would they give ME3 a multiplayer element that didnt affect the SP campaign at all. that doesnt make sense to me. I dont think I would want to play multiplayer at all if it had nothing to do with the story, when thats the reason I play Mass Effect to begin with.

[Iakus]

footballzach50 wrote...

Mass Effect is known for its RPG and singleplayer elements, so why would they give ME3 a multiplayer element that didnt affect the SP campaign at all. that doesnt make sense to me. I dont think I would want to play multiplayer at all if it had nothing to do with the story, when thats the reason I play Mass Effect to begin with.

Bolded for emphasis.

So why is multi[player even in the game at all, let alone affecting the SP campaign?

[ZenJestr]

because it can and they've wanted to put it there since the beginning...but it didn't make story sense.....


STORY sense...y'know...the true thing Mass Effect is all about. A cohesive story...

[dreman9999]

iakus wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Well,based on your points, your problemis not the mp then....It's the GR point system. If they cut the mp from the game, you would still have to build GR points with the sp side missions anyway. So inthe end you still have gain GR point even if they did not have sp.

If mp was cut from the game, then the playing field would be level.  Everyone would have the same sources of War Assets.  No more.  No less.  WIth multiplayer, though, those who play mp have access to more of them.  Thus have a better shot at getting a better ending.

That's only one problem I have with mp, though.  I'm still not convinced that no sp content was cut to make room for it.

No, it does not. It means you'll have to do all the work in the sp only. Heck, it not even a compationto getthe most GR point. I doesn't matter if someone else gets GR points faster than you. No matter what , everone get the same reward no matter how fast they reach it. Your not seeing that. It not a problem it some else uses another source.

[dreman9999]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

What would it matter though. The only differenet between the sp aside missions and the mp is that in the sp you have to find the side mission(Which are esay to find anyway) and you just queue up the mp.(And can play as other races ,and the combat has no slow down or pause.)

That's not what everyone else is saying about the MP content.  You're the only one making that claim about it.

1.
It been comfermed from e3 the world not only have mutiple missions and sisde missions.

2.Side missions have been generally easy to find since ME1, why would this change in ME3?

[Killjoy Cutter]

Your ability to creative mistranslate and misinterpret to suit your own preconceptions never ceases to amaze and bewilder.

Modifié par Killjoy Cutter, 23 octobre 2011 - 04:53 .

[dreman9999]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Your ability to creative mistranslate and misinterpret to suit your own preconceptions never ceases to amaze and bewilder.

Says the one who ignoresthe fact that mp is optional no matter how many time it's stated and states the devs are lieing about it.

[Killjoy Cutter]

dreman9999 wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Your ability to creative mistranslate and misinterpret to suit your own preconceptions never ceases to amaze and bewilder.

Says the one who ignoresthe fact that mp is optional no matter how many time it's stated

See previous comment.

[Anarco238]

look I hate the Idea that multiplayer is dependant on Xbox live because it has costly online privileges for multiplayer however it would be fine if it was not dependant on the fact that we have to give 20 or 50 dollars just to utilize that function; ps3 owners are safe from this hassle however the xbox 360 owners are just geting ****ed in the ass in all the small things like a prop which costs from a dollar to 3 bucks over something that is just so irrelevant

[tetrisblock4x1]

iakus wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Well,based on your points, your problemis not the mp then....It's the GR point system. If they cut the mp from the game, you would still have to build GR points with the sp side missions anyway. So inthe end you still have gain GR point even if they did not have sp.

If mp was cut from the game, then the playing field would be level.  Everyone would have the same sources of War Assets.  No more.  No less.  WIth multiplayer, though, those who play mp have access to more of them.  Thus have a better shot at getting a better ending.

That's only one problem I have with mp, though.  I'm still not convinced that no sp content was cut to make room for it.

You are not making sense. According to Bioware, the MP team are new hires, and that nobody from the SP level building team got involved, but for some reason you think that more = less?

Modifié par tetrisblock4x1, 23 octobre 2011 - 05:52 .

[Gatt9]

Garrison2009 wrote...

iakus wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Well,based on your points, your problemis not the mp then....It's the GR point system. If they cut the mp from the game, you would still have to build GR points with the sp side missions anyway. So inthe end you still have gain GR point even if they did not have sp.

If mp was cut from the game, then the playing field would be level.  Everyone would have the same sources of War Assets.  No more.  No less.  WIth multiplayer, though, those who play mp have access to more of them.  Thus have a better shot at getting a better ending.

That's only one problem I have with mp, though.  I'm still not convinced that no sp content was cut to make room for it.

So, going by your own words, you're just jealous that those who play MP will have a better shot at getting a better ending, correct? My answer to that is simply this... Why do you care? If you have to complete more side missions in the SP campaign to be able to make it to the same point as someone who does far less of the side missions and simply plays MP to gain GR points, so what? I personally will not be complaining about that. It's my uninverse and I get to play it how I want to. MP simply gives people a different option on how they want to.

Um,  no it doesn't.  It's not in there as a feature,  it's in there to sell Online Passes.  Considering EA can't even release a demo without trumpting the Online Pass they're trying to force everyone to buy,  I think it should be obvious to pretty much everyone why Multiplayer is in there.

Because if it was something Bioware "Wanted" to implement as a feature,  it wouldn't be tied to the optimal ending to a 3 year series that's a narrative driven single player game.

Not sure how much more obvious this can get.

[dreman9999]

Gatt9 wrote...

Garrison2009 wrote...

iakus wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Well,based on your points, your problemis not the mp then....It's the GR point system. If they cut the mp from the game, you would still have to build GR points with the sp side missions anyway. So inthe end you still have gain GR point even if they did not have sp.

If mp was cut from the game, then the playing field would be level.  Everyone would have the same sources of War Assets.  No more.  No less.  WIth multiplayer, though, those who play mp have access to more of them.  Thus have a better shot at getting a better ending.

That's only one problem I have with mp, though.  I'm still not convinced that no sp content was cut to make room for it.

So, going by your own words, you're just jealous that those who play MP will have a better shot at getting a better ending, correct? My answer to that is simply this... Why do you care? If you have to complete more side missions in the SP campaign to be able to make it to the same point as someone who does far less of the side missions and simply plays MP to gain GR points, so what? I personally will not be complaining about that. It's my uninverse and I get to play it how I want to. MP simply gives people a different option on how they want to.

Um,  no it doesn't.  It's not in there as a feature,  it's in there to sell Online Passes.  Considering EA can't even release a demo without trumpting the Online Pass they're trying to force everyone to buy,  I think it should be obvious to pretty much everyone why Multiplayer is in there.

Because if it was something Bioware "Wanted" to implement as a feature,  it wouldn't be tied to the optimal ending to a 3 year series that's a narrative driven single player game.

Not sure how much more obvious this can get.

How do you sell something that comes free with the game?
You don't understand that online pass is free with new games and at launch you can only get the game new?
Online pass is just there to deture use game sales, nothing more.