2261 réponses à ce sujet

[warlorejon]

I am antisocial. I don't want to play multiplayer,i don't want to talk to a bunch of kids. I'm 50 freaking years old and i just want a good single player game. Thankfully there is the witcher and other games like skyrim to replace the games from bioware

[Ghost Lightning]

So in the recent interview someone (I can't remember who, I think his/her name was Jesse) said that the multiplayer was on the main disc, but I remember it being revealed as a launch DLC similar to the Cerberus Network. I'm a little confused by this. Anyone know what it actually is?

[OMTING52601]

argh, still the same run around. MP absolutely affects SP but it doesn't. *sigh*

Since there is no getting around it, has there been any further info about the possibility of bots? I watched the MP from the beta leak and trying to achieve those goals, solo, would be... difficult, IMO. Quick matches are efficient for those who don't have a half dozen pals that also play ME or may be playing, but then you're also kind of screwed if you end up with an ineffective group. I can't imagine any one wanting to have to play and replay the same MP missions because their grouping fails to complete the mission objective.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

I wonder if they'd be willing to sell it as separate unlockable DLC and drop the main game's price for those who don't get it included or who can't play the MP mode (those who aren't Gold members)...

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 06 novembre 2011 - 07:53 .

[didymos1120]

OMTING52601 wrote...

argh, still the same run around. MP absolutely affects SP but it doesn't. *sigh*

It's not a "run around".  The concept is really quite simple: it affects single-player by providing an alternate method for achieving the best ending, but it isn't required for that.

[Iakus]

didymos1120 wrote...

OMTING52601 wrote...

argh, still the same run around. MP absolutely affects SP but it doesn't. *sigh*

It's not a "run around".  The concept is really quite simple: it affects single-player by providing an alternate method for achieving the best ending, but it isn't required for that.

So the method may not be stronger, but is it quicker and easier?

Would Yoda classify it as "the Dark Side?";)

[MisanthropePrime]

iakus wrote...

didymos1120 wrote...

OMTING52601 wrote...

argh, still the same run around. MP absolutely affects SP but it doesn't. *sigh*

It's not a "run around".  The concept is really quite simple: it affects single-player by providing an alternate method for achieving the best ending, but it isn't required for that.

So the method may not be stronger, but is it quicker and easier?

Would Yoda classify it as "the Dark Side?";)

We don't know if it's "quicker and easier". If you, for instance, played a shep who kept making the absolute worst decisions in the previous two games and kept screwing things up in ME3, you'd probably have to play a LOT of multiplayer games to get the "best ending". It'd probably be rather grindy.

[Sylvianus]

I've just seen the demo about Multiplayer. How the reviewers could have said It was mediocre ? In any case, it's thousand better that what I thought.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 07 novembre 2011 - 01:02 .

[hongfa]

Success in multi-player will have a direct impact on the outcome of the single player campaign"

I cannot adequately express my displeasure; needless to say, it exists in direct proportion to my boundless nerdrage.
Huangshan Trip
In no way am I happy.

I may burn my CE when it arrive

[Darth_Trethon]

hongfa wrote...

Success in multi-player will have a direct impact on the outcome of the single player campaign"

I cannot adequately express my displeasure; needless to say, it exists in direct proportion to my boundless nerdrage.
Huangshan Trip
In no way am I happy.

I may burn my CE when it arrive

From Gears of War DLCs giveaways ove masseffect BioWare twitter account to early demo access for Battlefield 3 players to Mass Effect 3 trailer scenes that appear to be purely reskinned Gears of War trailers to all the effort and resources BioWare has wasted on creating this coop and transforming Mass Effect into a shooter I think it is becoming increasingly evident that we face a much larger and far more fundamental trashing of the Mass Effect franchise.....it is brought down to the level of the shooter fans, the story itself has lost depth and gained plotholes in Mass Effect 2 and Mass Effect 3 may have as much depth as a blank sheet of paper.

This seems to be largely created by EA and the larger sums of money BioWare spend on these projects and with those comes the pressure for more and more millions of fans which leads to a far more conservative and less risk taking approach......let's reel in the shooter fans. The next step I expect from BioWare is to confirm teabagging in Mass Effect 3 and put the franchise out of its misery.

Ultimately I fear it is absolutely essential for the coop feature to be a miserable failure with next to nobody playing it or we may very well see BioWare turn into another purely shooter genre development studio.

[Darkeus]

didymos1120 wrote...

OMTING52601 wrote...

argh, still the same run around. MP absolutely affects SP but it doesn't. *sigh*

It's not a "run around".  The concept is really quite simple: it affects single-player by providing an alternate method for achieving the best ending, but it isn't required for that.

I see this PR spin is still floating about.  Until we know a lot more than some PR spin, I would say none of us know that to be true at all.

We don't know how integrated the co-op is ACTUALLY is to the Single Player experience.  We will see and it already is not looking good by the looks of the beta leak.

[Had-to-say]

Yes it's official, multiplayer is looking good.

[BillyMahoney]

Darth_Trethon wrote...

hongfa wrote...

Success in multi-player will have a direct impact on the outcome of the single player campaign"

I cannot adequately express my displeasure; needless to say, it exists in direct proportion to my boundless nerdrage.
Huangshan Trip
In no way am I happy.

I may burn my CE when it arrive

From Gears of War DLCs giveaways ove masseffect BioWare twitter account to early demo access for Battlefield 3 players to Mass Effect 3 trailer scenes that appear to be purely reskinned Gears of War trailers to all the effort and resources BioWare has wasted on creating this coop and transforming Mass Effect into a shooter I think it is becoming increasingly evident that we face a much larger and far more fundamental trashing of the Mass Effect franchise.....it is brought down to the level of the shooter fans, the story itself has lost depth and gained plotholes in Mass Effect 2 and Mass Effect 3 may have as much depth as a blank sheet of paper.

This seems to be largely created by EA and the larger sums of money BioWare spend on these projects and with those comes the pressure for more and more millions of fans which leads to a far more conservative and less risk taking approach......let's reel in the shooter fans. The next step I expect from BioWare is to confirm teabagging in Mass Effect 3 and put the franchise out of its misery.

Ultimately I fear it is absolutely essential for the coop feature to be a miserable failure with next to nobody playing it or we may very well see BioWare turn into another purely shooter genre development studio.

I couldn't agree more.   I'm waiting for the announcement of DLC zombie map packs.  Shame on you Bioware for turning your back on the fans. 

[MarchWaltz]

I'm very excited for MP, I was gonna play it maybe after I play through a couple of sheps, now I am gonna play it after I complete the game one, but only play it with BSN friends/RL friends.

[Gatt9]

didymos1120 wrote...

OMTING52601 wrote...

argh, still the same run around. MP absolutely affects SP but it doesn't. *sigh*

It's not a "run around".  The concept is really quite simple: it affects single-player by providing an alternate method for achieving the best ending, but it isn't required for that.

Prove this.

Because the point is quite clearly to sell Online Passes to used game buyers,  as multiplayer in a narrative driven single player game is completely nonsensical.  Adding multiplayer does not improve the game's goal,  taking the Player out of the story for an extended period of time,  losing the tension and emotional investment,  losing the thread of the story,  doesn't make a better story.  It means you just lost your player's attention,  and you lost all of the emotional impact you'd been working to engender.  This makes no sense.

So since the point can only be to sell Online Passes,  the logical conclusion is that multiplayer must be required.  Which really should be clear since the Bioware developers have used the same question-dodgy tactics when asked about the impact of Multiplayer that they used when they were asked if Multiplayer existed.

Modifié par Gatt9, 08 novembre 2011 - 04:25 .

[Bryy_Miller]

warlorejon wrote...

I am antisocial. I don't want to play multiplayer,i don't want to talk to a bunch of kids. I'm 50 freaking years old and i just want a good single player game. Thankfully there is the witcher and other games like skyrim to replace the games from bioware

I doubt you are 50. I highly, highly doubt you are 50.

[Savber100]

warlorejon wrote...

I am antisocial. I don't want to play multiplayer,i don't want to talk to a bunch of kids. I'm 50 freaking years old and i just want a good single player game. Thankfully there is the witcher and other games like skyrim to replace the games from bioware

 ---> 

[Pygmali0n]

Argh - button awesome man - so that's where he lives - and they've chosen him to try and sell me something?

My jury's still out - except on Facebook games, not doing these having a limiting effect on your single player ending is not cool, at all - but anyway does a 'better' ending really mean 'easier' ending?

What if you do badly in mulitplayer - couldn't that have interesting consequences?

Modifié par Pygmali0n, 08 novembre 2011 - 06:13 .

[warlorejon]

bd is oct 9th 1962. deal with it

[ODST 5723]

Gatt9 wrote...

didymos1120 wrote...

OMTING52601 wrote...

argh, still the same run around. MP absolutely affects SP but it doesn't. *sigh*

It's not a "run around".  The concept is really quite simple: it affects single-player by providing an alternate method for achieving the best ending, but it isn't required for that.

Prove this.

Because the point is quite clearly to sell Online Passes to used game buyers,  as multiplayer in a narrative driven single player game is completely nonsensical.  Adding multiplayer does not improve the game's goal,  taking the Player out of the story for an extended period of time,  losing the tension and emotional investment,  losing the thread of the story,  doesn't make a better story.  It means you just lost your player's attention,  and you lost all of the emotional impact you'd been working to engender.  This makes no sense.

So since the point can only be to sell Online Passes,  the logical conclusion is that multiplayer must be required.  Which really should be clear since the Bioware developers have used the same question-dodgy tactics when asked about the impact of Multiplayer that they used when they were asked if Multiplayer existed.

As it's been described, the battles take place in strategically important locations related to the SP experience.  The outcomes will generate or protect war assets which Shepard can utilize in the SP game, possibly permitting him to get the necessary assets for the optimal outcome without having to do all of the SP missions and sidemissions.

If the MP game is never played at all, the SP experience is still supposed to provide enough war assets and choices that will increase the galactic readiness level to a point where the same ending is achievable.

It sounds like the MP Squads will be carrying out orders from Shepard or someone near him as they battle across the galaxy to capture, control or defend strategic points from Cerberus that will aid in the war effort.  In essense, an optional game within a game with some teeth to it since it can make your SP experience a bit easier or eliminate some of the concern related some decisions.  Basically, an offset to any war assets lost if you decide to go a certain way from a RP perspective because the MP forces were able to capture a base they wouldn't otherwise capture in the SP campaign and finding men, money, supplies and tech that can help the war effort..  Things that might be unaccessible if the MP Squad never stormed a certain base and left it in Cerberus hands.

The characters you take through those missions can then be sent on to prepare for the final battle as much more highly-trained and capable redshirts than in the vanilla campaign.

[Iakus]

ODST 5723 wrote...

As it's been described, the battles take place in strategically important locations related to the SP experience.  The outcomes will generate or protect war assets which Shepard can utilize in the SP game, possibly permitting him to get the necessary assets for the optimal outcome without having to do all of the SP missions and sidemissions.

If the MP game is never played at all, the SP experience is still supposed to provide enough war assets and choices that will increase the galactic readiness level to a point where the same ending is achievable.

But it does not answer how much more monotonous or frustrating it may be to gain these assets purely through sp to "encourage" people to use the "optional" path to readiness.

It sounds like the MP Squads will be carrying out orders from Shepard or someone near him as they battle across the galaxy to capture, control or defend strategic points from Cerberus that will aid in the war effort.  In essense, an optional game within a game with some teeth to it since it can make your SP experience a bit easier or eliminate some of the concern related some decisions.  Basically, an offset to any war assets lost if you decide to go a certain way from a RP perspective because the MP forces were able to capture a base they wouldn't otherwise capture in the SP campaign and finding men, money, supplies and tech that can help the war effort..  Things that might be unaccessible if the MP Squad never stormed a certain base and left it in Cerberus hands.

No offense, but I interpreted that as:

I love this cake so much.  But I'm sooooo hungry" 

[Vegos]

iakus wrote...

I love this cake so much.  But I'm sooooo hungry" 

Never got this "You can't have your cake and eat it too" argument. After all, cakes are for eating.

[Iakus]

Vegos wrote...

iakus wrote...

I love this cake so much.  But I'm sooooo hungry" 

Never got this "You can't have your cake and eat it too" argument. After all, cakes are for eating.

Ah, but if you eat the cake, you no longer have cake for later.  Choice.  Consequence.

 If you can eat all teh cake you want, and always have more available, that's having your cake and eating it too.

At the same time, if you can do whatever you like in SP missions, without regard for how it affects Shepard's access to war assets, since, hey, you can always farm up more War Assets in MP, that amounts to the same thing.  Having your cake and eating it too.