2261 réponses à ce sujet

[Killjoy Cutter]

Someone With Mass wrote...

SimJoseph7 wrote...

I have a lot to say that will quickly get lost in here, so I'll just say one thing.

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."

Sounds like a contradiction of how they are trying to sell us on multiplayer to explain it as it having no effect on single player (note the bolded, underlined words in the paragraph above).

If I can play the "co-op" with A.I. players, fine. Otherwise I am "psuedo forced" into true multiplayer to get this: "the better your single player ending will be".

It makes me sad but these come from the same people (whom I actually admire very much) who denied that there will be multiplayer.

Joseph

N.B. If you enjoy this new feature I am really happy for you and there is no sarcasm at all from me. Myself? Well as I have mentioned, if I can play the same co-op with 3 A.I. members, I would be very happy too.

I thought it was like this: If you play more co-op, you'll get more rewards and stuff that carries over to the singleplayer, but you can play only singleplayer and get the same things. It's just a matter of preferance. Want to play with buddie to get the best? Go right ahead. Want to play solo? Nobody's stopping you. 

You can't reconcile that with this: 

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."

They're talking both sides of the thing to try to sell it to the players how want MP while smokescreening the players who are worried about MP.  


You can't have it both ways, and based on what Hudson says there, MP will have a distinct effect on the SP campaign. 

[DiebytheSword]

SkyJackal wrote...

As an ME 360 player who's friends are all ME PC players I do hope (and suggest) Bioware release the multiplayer mode as a seperate product (as well as being bundled in) - kinda like how Relic sells Dawn of War II's The Last Stand game mode seperately (http://store.steampo...1_7_7_151_150_1)

Anyone else agree?

Since I know I will buy the singleplayer, and I know I will play the multiplayer, how does that work out for someone like me to have to pay for an extra feature that should have been included on the disc.  No.  If you don't like multi, or can't find Xbox multi players, that does not mean I should be charged extra for getting it.

[shepskisaac]

didymos1120 wrote...

OK, seriously, what the hell is up with the forums? They're way more flaky than usual.

Very heavy traffic obviously with all the MP chaos

[Fenderbaum]

@ Geth_Prime

Like we believed them about the Bazaar....DA2.....detachable cameras in DA2 that apparently the disc pressers forgot to put on the disc....The wavering of the Ultimate Sacrifice in Awakening...the continuity in Legends...

Hmmm ok..you have a lot more faith in what EAWare says than I do lol

[1136342t54_]

I'm wondering why did anyone expect anything new. Hell the info Chris Priestly gave us wasn't supposed to even come out that day,

[Todpullen]

Chouan wrote...

If you do most side quests (like I always do in rpgs), you can still get the best ending. The co-op mode just makes it possible to achieve that best ending even if you don't do all optional quests etc. At least that's how I understand it.

Having just seen the video once, I read it more that the multiplayer missions, if successful, open up that area of the galaxy to allow your Shepard in the main mission to access it for side quests.  If you don't do multiplayer those areas are locked off.  You can still complete the game by doing the remaining areas (side missions etc.) that aren't locked off if you just do the single player, and if you do all of those and do them well you can still get the 'good' ending.

However, that is just how I interpreted it. Probably won't know how it really works until after release when a few people have played and/or reviewed it!

[JeffZero]

didymos1120 wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

Wasn't it also specified that it would be possible to engage in this without other players? 

In the new issue of OXM, yes.  I'd still like to get "Word Of Dev" on that though, just to be sure.

As would I. To that end, I've tweeted Casey Hudson explaining that OXM's article had a footnote which claimed it's possible and we'd to hear it straight from him if possible.

[Killjoy Cutter]

Geth_Prime wrote...
@Killjoy Cutter You just refuse to believe that what BW has already confirmed is actually true. Quite laughable, really.

And given their track record, why should we believe that "confirmation"?  

[Cloaking_Thane]

Interesting, will have more to say on this after work. Cautiously optomistic however

[bigheadzach]

DiebytheSword wrote...

Since I know I will buy the singleplayer, and I know I will play the multiplayer, how does that work out for someone like me to have to pay for an extra feature that should have been included on the disc.  No.  If you don't like multi, or can't find Xbox multi players, that does not mean I should be charged extra for getting it.

Hate to disappoint you, but the game would have been $60 with or without the MP content. That's how publishers work.

Yes, that's conjecture, but one I think most jaded game consumers would accept.

[Geth_Prime]

@Fenderbaum Doubting is one thing. Outright refusing is another.

[bigheadzach]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

You can't reconcile that with this: 

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."

They're talking both sides of the thing to try to sell it to the players how want MP while smokescreening the players who are worried about MP.  

You can't have it both ways, and based on what Hudson says there, MP will have a distinct effect on the SP campaign. 

You're twisting his words and putting things in that he didn't say.

"... 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."

IS NOT

"...the less multiplayer content you participate in, the worse your single player ending will be."

He does. Not. Say. That.

But then you've already admitted to being unwaveringly distrustful of anything they say.

[didymos1120]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

You can't have it both ways, and based on what Hudson says there, MP will have a distinct effect on the SP campaign. 

Yeah, actually you can: provide alternate means to acquire the same resources. And they've repeatedly stated, without equivocation, that they have provided those alternate means.  Your argument, such as it is, seems to essentially be "Not only is it not true that all roads lead to Rome, it is in fact the case that there is one road, and only one road, that leads to Rome.  Because I said so."

Modifié par didymos1120, 12 octobre 2011 - 06:11 .

[Wittand25]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

SimJoseph7 wrote...

I have a lot to say that will quickly get lost in here, so I'll just say one thing.

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."

Sounds like a contradiction of how they are trying to sell us on multiplayer to explain it as it having no effect on single player (note the bolded, underlined words in the paragraph above).

If I can play the "co-op" with A.I. players, fine. Otherwise I am "psuedo forced" into true multiplayer to get this: "the better your single player ending will be".

It makes me sad but these come from the same people (whom I actually admire very much) who denied that there will be multiplayer.

Joseph

N.B. If you enjoy this new feature I am really happy for you and there is no sarcasm at all from me. Myself? Well as I have mentioned, if I can play the same co-op with 3 A.I. members, I would be very happy too.

I thought it was like this: If you play more co-op, you'll get more rewards and stuff that carries over to the singleplayer, but you can play only singleplayer and get the same things. It's just a matter of preferance. Want to play with buddie to get the best? Go right ahead. Want to play solo? Nobody's stopping you. 

You can't reconcile that with this: 

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."

They're talking both sides of the thing to try to sell it to the players how want MP while smokescreening the players who are worried about MP.  


You can't have it both ways, and based on what Hudson says there, MP will have a distinct effect on the SP campaign. 

Most likely MP will make getting the best ending in SP easier. But they already said that it will be possible to achieve the best ending by just playing the SP and not the various other (partly still unannounced) associated things (multiplayer, the facebook game likely to come, those CIA games on the website ...).

[Il Divo]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

You can't reconcile that with this: 

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."

They're talking both sides of the thing to try to sell it to the players how want MP while smokescreening the players who are worried about MP.  


You can't have it both ways, and based on what Hudson says there, MP will have a distinct effect on the SP campaign. 

It's easily reconciled. These are the relevant Bioware points/statements:

1) It is not necessary to play multiplayer in order to obtain the optimal ending.
2) Playing multiplayer will give you a better ending.

You've assumed that 2) is necessary for the best ending, despite 1) specifically stating it's not the case. It is a fact, based on that statement, that 2) will give the player the best ending. However, it has not been proven that single-player cannot do the same.

[.shea.]

Todpullen wrote...

Having just seen the video once, I read it more that the multiplayer missions, if successful, open up that area of the galaxy to allow your Shepard in the main mission to access it for side quests.  If you don't do multiplayer those areas are locked off.  You can still complete the game by doing the remaining areas (side missions etc.) that aren't locked off if you just do the single player, and if you do all of those and do them well you can still get the 'good' ending.

However, that is just how I interpreted it. Probably won't know how it really works until after release when a few people have played and/or reviewed it!

I highly doubt this is the case, it would be downright idiotic for them to block whole regions from people who are unable to play online. No, playing the co-op will only gain you some resources for the 'galactic readiness' level (and the same resources will be available in SP too). Nowhere does it say that you have to play co-op to unlock parts of SP.

Modifié par Chouan, 12 octobre 2011 - 06:19 .

[Wittand25]

JeffZero wrote...

didymos1120 wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

Wasn't it also specified that it would be possible to engage in this without other players? 

In the new issue of OXM, yes.  I'd still like to get "Word Of Dev" on that though, just to be sure.

As would I. To that end, I've tweeted Casey Hudson explaining that OXM's article had a footnote which claimed it's possible and we'd to hear it straight from him if possible.

Check the Multiplayer FAQ thread. Currently it is possible to play the multiplayer part solo.

[Fenderbaum]

And again, given their history under EA ownership....what is wrong with refusing to believe what they tell us?

They have lied and misled repeatedly since Origins was released....Until multiple reliable sources all say the same thing, I refuse to believe anything the Bioware devs or community managers say.

[Morty Smith]

What does it matter to even dicuss (Inesert topic) "MP" at this time. It´s already there, it will not change. Why waste your energy defending an opinion that won´t matter and will only result in angering or disapointing you. There is nothing to gain here for anybody.

[Geth_Prime]

@Killjoy Cutter Because firstly I'm an optimist, and secondly disagreeing with everyone because I don't have faith in BioWare telling the truth is just annoying. BW say it's optional, so I'm going to believe it's optional, and if you want to me challenge me over it because of an assumption due to lack of faith, I won't be replying to you from now on. Because, no matter how many facts or quotes I throw at you, I can't win.

[Annihilator27]

Wtf is that Turian husk thing

[bigheadzach]

Todpullen wrote...

Having just seen the video once, I read it more that the multiplayer missions, if successful, open up that area of the galaxy to allow your Shepard in the main mission to access it for side quests.  If you don't do multiplayer those areas are locked off.  You can still complete the game by doing the remaining areas (side missions etc.) that aren't locked off if you just do the single player, and if you do all of those and do them well you can still get the 'good' ending.

However, that is just how I interpreted it. Probably won't know how it really works until after release when a few people have played and/or reviewed it!

That's an interesting thought. Hadn't considered that before.

However, I think it'll mostly be just more acquisition War Assets (and possibly cutscene/dialogue snippets indicating "A strong multi-national strike force is showing gains on planet Foobar!").

Even so, your intepretation is then interpreted in two distinct ways:

• Pro-MP "This is a reward for playing well in the co-op campaign."
• Anti-MP "This is more single player content Bioware is hiding from me because I won't play MP".

Starting to understand the Anti-MP mindset. I don't agree with it, but I understand the thought process they have.

[Il Divo]

Fenderbaum wrote...

And again, given their history under EA ownership....what is wrong with refusing to believe what they tell us?

They have lied and misled repeatedly since Origins was released....Until multiple reliable sources all say the same thing, I refuse to believe anything the Bioware devs or community managers say.

What sources are going to be more reliable than Bioware developers in reaching this conclusion? 

[mango smoothie]

Did anybody catch that Anderson had a different uniform on during the parts where they showed the escape from Earth, in the new Interview

[Killjoy Cutter]

Fenderbaum wrote...

@ Geth_Prime

Like we believed them about the Bazaar....DA2.....detachable cameras in DA2 that apparently the disc pressers forgot to put on the disc....The wavering of the Ultimate Sacrifice in Awakening...the continuity in Legends...

Hmmm ok..you have a lot more faith in what EAWare says than I do lol

I'm with you on that one.