2261 réponses à ce sujet

[foxesquire]

I hate multiplayer (MP). All you do is play the same level over and over again against 13-19 year-old brats whose parents told them they're special too often. I like ME & ME2 because they are long, thorough games without MP. MP games very often cheap out on the campaign mode, leaving you with 5-15 hours of game play... not worth my money!

I swear, if ME3 has less than 25 hours of campaign mode play time, it will be sent back for a refund!

[elfdwarf]

multiplayer is social game & companion are think people, not some limited npc companion
my psn: ccoolltteenn (i wish could change my psn user name)
my xbox: darker dracula (i don't gold xbox alive )

[CannotCompute]

The co-op mode needs a bit more team (auto) dialogue, as things can be a bit quiet at times. Some kind of line when the shields go down and a word of gratitude from the person you just revived could make the difference.

The maps also need music, but I'm confident it will be there in the final game.

[JRCHOharry]

foxesquire wrote...

I swear, if ME3 has less than 25 hours of campaign mode play time, it will be sent back for a refund!

I suppose it depends on how quickly you can finish the single player campaign. You could finish ME2 in less than 25 hours easily! And some devs claim ME3 is the same length as ME2 if not longer.

[Zu Long]

Darkeus wrote...

didymos1120 wrote...

Darkeus wrote...

"such as the fact that your single-player and multi-player success will depend on each other, with your performance online affecting the single-player world"

That is straight from an IGN article talking about NEW info about multiplayer.

a paraphrase of a Bioware blog entry. And I can't help but wonder how you failed to notice this fact, which was clearly stated at the very beginning of the IGN article (they even linked right to it): "An interview with Mass Effect 3 Producer Jesse Houston posted on the Bioware blog has revealed a load of new details about the promised multiplayer."  And it also neglects to mention the part of that Q&A where it is again stated to not be necessary.

They keep using that spin.

I keep not believing that spin.  Too many times a little comment here or there says that it is ingrained into the Single Player.

I still do not believe that BioWare is being completely honest here.  It is spin to placate angry fans.  We will see, but as more info is released, it is looking worse in my eyes.

So despite the information given to the contrary, you ignore it in favor of making things up and deliberate misinterpretation, all to suit your subconscious need to be victimized...

I strongly recommend therapy.

[1136342t54_]

Zu Long wrote...

Darkeus wrote...

didymos1120 wrote...

Darkeus wrote...

"such as the fact that your single-player and multi-player success will depend on each other, with your performance online affecting the single-player world"

That is straight from an IGN article talking about NEW info about multiplayer.

a paraphrase of a Bioware blog entry. And I can't help but wonder how you failed to notice this fact, which was clearly stated at the very beginning of the IGN article (they even linked right to it): "An interview with Mass Effect 3 Producer Jesse Houston posted on the Bioware blog has revealed a load of new details about the promised multiplayer."  And it also neglects to mention the part of that Q&A where it is again stated to not be necessary.

They keep using that spin.

I keep not believing that spin.  Too many times a little comment here or there says that it is ingrained into the Single Player.

I still do not believe that BioWare is being completely honest here.  It is spin to placate angry fans.  We will see, but as more info is released, it is looking worse in my eyes.

So despite the information given to the contrary, you ignore it in favor of making things up and deliberate misinterpretation, all to suit your subconscious need to be victimized...

I strongly recommend therapy.

No its not simple misinterpretation. Its basically only picking certain information you want to hear but ignore the rest of it. I keep seeing people who say they don't trust Bioware at all but for some reason only trust information that proves a Bioware game will be horrible. Even then its usually a misquote.

[Gatt9]

1136342t54 wrote...

Zu Long wrote...

Darkeus wrote...

didymos1120 wrote...

Darkeus wrote...

"such as the fact that your single-player and multi-player success will depend on each other, with your performance online affecting the single-player world"

That is straight from an IGN article talking about NEW info about multiplayer.

a paraphrase of a Bioware blog entry. And I can't help but wonder how you failed to notice this fact, which was clearly stated at the very beginning of the IGN article (they even linked right to it): "An interview with Mass Effect 3 Producer Jesse Houston posted on the Bioware blog has revealed a load of new details about the promised multiplayer."  And it also neglects to mention the part of that Q&A where it is again stated to not be necessary.

They keep using that spin.

I keep not believing that spin.  Too many times a little comment here or there says that it is ingrained into the Single Player.

I still do not believe that BioWare is being completely honest here.  It is spin to placate angry fans.  We will see, but as more info is released, it is looking worse in my eyes.

So despite the information given to the contrary, you ignore it in favor of making things up and deliberate misinterpretation, all to suit your subconscious need to be victimized...

I strongly recommend therapy.

No its not simple misinterpretation. Its basically only picking certain information you want to hear but ignore the rest of it. I keep seeing people who say they don't trust Bioware at all but for some reason only trust information that proves a Bioware game will be horrible. Even then its usually a misquote.

There's alot of that going around.  For instance,  notice how some people opt not to notice that in the FAQ Bioware dodges answering if Multiplayer will have an effect on SP?  Notice how a Bioware dev commented that "If you do everything,  and if you do really well,  you'll have so much galatic readiness you don't need MP",  and some people opt to not notice how Bioware has yet to define what they mean by "Do really well"?

People seem to keep clinging to the notion "You can still get the best ending without doing Multiplayer" without noticing how Bioware consistently chooses not to clarify what it will take to avoid Multiplayer.

Because let's be serious here,  if what it takes is 200 hours of meticulously searching for fully randomized objects that don't appear on a mini-map,  and 2,000 headshots,  then it's possible to avoid it,  but not reasonable,  and therefore not viable.

So I'd venture that the bigger problem,  much like when the discussion was the existance of Multiplayer,  is that people keep refusing to notice how Bioware dodges answering key questions.

[Zu Long]

Gatt9 wrote...

1136342t54 wrote...

Zu Long wrote...

So despite the information given to the contrary, you ignore it in favor of making things up and deliberate misinterpretation, all to suit your subconscious need to be victimized...

I strongly recommend therapy.

No its not simple misinterpretation. Its basically only picking certain information you want to hear but ignore the rest of it. I keep seeing people who say they don't trust Bioware at all but for some reason only trust information that proves a Bioware game will be horrible. Even then its usually a misquote.

There's alot of that going around.  For instance,  notice how some people opt not to notice that in the FAQ Bioware dodges answering if Multiplayer will have an effect on SP?  Notice how a Bioware dev commented that "If you do everything,  and if you do really well,  you'll have so much galatic readiness you don't need MP",  and some people opt to not notice how Bioware has yet to define what they mean by "Do really well"?

People seem to keep clinging to the notion "You can still get the best ending without doing Multiplayer" without noticing how Bioware consistently chooses not to clarify what it will take to avoid Multiplayer.

Because let's be serious here,  if what it takes is 200 hours of meticulously searching for fully randomized objects that don't appear on a mini-map,  and 2,000 headshots,  then it's possible to avoid it,  but not reasonable,  and therefore not viable.

So I'd venture that the bigger problem,  much like when the discussion was the existance of Multiplayer,  is that people keep refusing to notice how Bioware dodges answering key questions.

1) Not telling us exactly what will be required isn't dodging the question, it's avoiding spoilers, which the vast majority of fans have said they don't want.

2) Telling us flat out that MP can have an effect on single player is not dodging the question. We know that it can have an effect on the Galaxy at War rating. We ALSO know the devs have stated, on several occasions, that MP is an OPTION to achieving the goal, and that it is possible to get the same goal using only single player.

3) Your paranoid fantasies of Bioware evily imposing ludicrous requirements to achieve a perfect game are just that- paranoid fantasies. At no point in any of their games has Bioware employed anything like the requirements you suggest for ANYTHING.

In fact, Bioware has already said that much like in ME 2, thoroughness and consistency will be the measuring sticks of success in the end game. If you do all available sidequests, and your decisions follow a consistent philosophy- IE, mostly paragon/renegade -you will be able to achieve the "best" ending, whatever that ends up being.

So we see that as previously stated, you have creatively and intentionally misinterpreted or ignored key facts in order to feed your persecutory delusions.

[Iakus]

Zu Long wrote...

1) Not telling us exactly what will be required isn't dodging the question, it's avoiding spoilers, which the vast majority of fans have said they don't want.

2) Telling us flat out that MP can have an effect on single player is not dodging the question. We know that it can have an effect on the Galaxy at War rating. We ALSO know the devs have stated, on several occasions, that MP is an OPTION to achieving the goal, and that it is possible to get the same goal using only single player.

3) Your paranoid fantasies of Bioware evily imposing ludicrous requirements to achieve a perfect game are just that- paranoid fantasies. At no point in any of their games has Bioware employed anything like the requirements you suggest for ANYTHING.

In fact, Bioware has already said that much like in ME 2, thoroughness and consistency will be the measuring sticks of success in the end game. If you do all available sidequests, and your decisions follow a consistent philosophy- IE, mostly paragon/renegade -you will be able to achieve the "best" ending, whatever that ends up being.

So we see that as previously stated, you have creatively and intentionally misinterpreted or ignored key facts in order to feed your persecutory delusions.

1) I don't think he's asking for spoilers.  He's asking fro clarification, which I'd like too.  Possible is not the same thing as viable.  

2) They said it was possible, yes.  They did not say if it would be harder or more monotonous to accomplish.

Consider, what if in addition to getting Wrex's armor, you could also get Wrex to stand down in ME1 by finding all the Matriarch writings, League of One Medallions, turian insigniaas, prothean data disks, and rare minerals.  Sure it's an optional path to take.  But is it as viable a path?  Same thing here.  If we choose the OPTION to not engage in multiplayer, will we be punished by:  Having to look under every rock and shrub for missions that give WA?
Or being required to partake in tedious or monotonous time sinks to make up for not partaking of the "awsomeness" that is multiplayer?  

Having options =/=having equal options

3) By the same token, Bioware has never ended a single player trilogy with a multiplayer component that transfers benefits from mp to sp.

They have, however, dodged and evaded unpleasant truths in the past.

[Major Tao]

Multi-Player Origin Stories

I'm wondering if the Multi-Player Characters will have a choice of origin stories - similar to what we had for Commander Shepard: Spacer, Earth-born, Colonist ), and psyche profile:  ( war hero, sole survivor, ruthless ) - or something comparable.    The notes to date on Bioware's Official MP page are fairly brief and just mention that there will be "a satisfying story experience." 

Part of that experience could be to provide a background and connection to places in the Mass Effect Universe. This would give the MP Characters more depth and prevent them from feeling like blank slates that appear out of the blue. 


Here are some sample ideas just for place of origin and career background...


Species                 Place of Origin                                             Possible  Career Background                      


Krogan:     Tuchanka  -  Krogan Colony World                      Mercenary      -   Private Security   -   Clan Role
   



Drell:      Hanar planet Kahje - Rakhana scavenger             Corporate Security  -  Merc  -  Hanar Special Services  




Asari:   Illium  - Thessia  -  Asari Colony World - Citadel            Huntress   -    Merc   -   Corporate Security  - C-Sec



Salarian:     Sur'Kesh  -  Salarian Colony World                 Regular Army  / Navy  -  Merc  -  Private Security - C-Sec




Human:      Earth - Human Colony World                      Alliance Military  -  Mercenary -  Corsair  - Corporate Security




Turian:        Palaven -  Turian Colony World                   Turian Military  - C-sec  -  Mercenary  - Corporate Security       


Quarian:    Migrant Fleet  -  Outcast   - on Pilgrimage          Fleet security -  Quarian Volunteer Corps             




Geth:           Geth Collective                                                         Special Assignment Unit




Volus:         Irune - Volus Colony World  - Citadel            Homeworld Defense Force  -  Volus Volunteer Corps   



Batarian:    Khar'shan  - Batarian Colony World - Omega       Merc   -  Hegemonic Forces  -   Irregular Volunteer




Hanar:         Kahje - Hanar Colony World  - Trident                         Self-Defense Forces  -  Security  Services -   
                                                                                                                    Warrior-Knight of the Enkindlers ? 


Having psyche profile choices adds extra dimension too,  - I'll consider that another time

[Zu Long]

iakus wrote...

Zu Long wrote...

1) Not telling us exactly what will be required isn't dodging the question, it's avoiding spoilers, which the vast majority of fans have said they don't want.

2) Telling us flat out that MP can have an effect on single player is not dodging the question. We know that it can have an effect on the Galaxy at War rating. We ALSO know the devs have stated, on several occasions, that MP is an OPTION to achieving the goal, and that it is possible to get the same goal using only single player.

3) Your paranoid fantasies of Bioware evily imposing ludicrous requirements to achieve a perfect game are just that- paranoid fantasies. At no point in any of their games has Bioware employed anything like the requirements you suggest for ANYTHING.

In fact, Bioware has already said that much like in ME 2, thoroughness and consistency will be the measuring sticks of success in the end game. If you do all available sidequests, and your decisions follow a consistent philosophy- IE, mostly paragon/renegade -you will be able to achieve the "best" ending, whatever that ends up being.

So we see that as previously stated, you have creatively and intentionally misinterpreted or ignored key facts in order to feed your persecutory delusions.

1) I don't think he's asking for spoilers.  He's asking fro clarification, which I'd like too.  Possible is not the same thing as viable.  

2) They said it was possible, yes.  They did not say if it would be harder or more monotonous to accomplish.

Consider, what if in addition to getting Wrex's armor, you could also get Wrex to stand down in ME1 by finding all the Matriarch writings, League of One Medallions, turian insigniaas, prothean data disks, and rare minerals.  Sure it's an optional path to take.  But is it as viable a path?  Same thing here.  If we choose the OPTION to not engage in multiplayer, will we be punished by:  Having to look under every rock and shrub for missions that give WA?
Or being required to partake in tedious or monotonous time sinks to make up for not partaking of the "awsomeness" that is multiplayer?  

Having options =/=having equal options

3) By the same token, Bioware has never ended a single player trilogy with a multiplayer component that transfers benefits from mp to sp.

They have, however, dodged and evaded unpleasant truths in the past.

1) Given that your assumptions of inviability are fears pulled directly from your own nether regions, I see no reason Bioware should risk spoiling the game in order to give you information that, if your current behavior is anything to go on, you will only interpret as further confirmation of your paranoia.

2) Consider what might have been if Wrex had been a ballerina, and danced around the Normandy in a frilly pink tutu.

Much like the above hypothetical, your proposition is MEANINGLESS because it didn't happen. Indeed the fact  that they have never tied meaningless uber-fetch quests to anything important in the past simply makes your fears all the more groundless.

3) The only truth being dodged here is by you and the rest of the looney-tunes paranoiacs on this board who have conjured doomsday scenarios out of the aether in order to justify continuing to rail against a game based on a feature you have been told time and again it will not be necessary for you to use.

Give it up already and rejoin the land of the sane, or seek professional help.

[Iakus]

Zu Long wrote...

1) Given that your assumptions of inviability are fears pulled directly from your own nether regions, I see no reason Bioware should risk spoiling the game in order to give you information that, if your current behavior is anything to go on, you will only interpret as further confirmation of your paranoia.

2) Consider what might have been if Wrex had been a ballerina, and danced around the Normandy in a frilly pink tutu.

Much like the above hypothetical, your proposition is MEANINGLESS because it didn't happen. Indeed the fact  that they have never tied meaningless uber-fetch quests to anything important in the past simply makes your fears all the more groundless.

3) The only truth being dodged here is by you and the rest of the looney-tunes paranoiacs on this board who have conjured doomsday scenarios out of the aether in order to justify continuing to rail against a game based on a feature you have been told time and again it will not be necessary for you to use.

Give it up already and rejoin the land of the sane, or seek professional help.

First, I spoke to you without stooping to insults.  I'll thank you to return in kind.

At any rate:

1)  If Bioware's going to introduce a feature many fans did not ask for or even want, it's on them to convince us adding it is a good thing.  Some of us brought up a concern.  That concern has not been addressed.  You don't see a problem.  That's fine for you.  I'm not concerned about weapon balance.  Others may be.  I don't ridicule them over it.

2) Again, they've bnever tied a multiplayer feature to a single player experience before.  They keep playing up that it improves the single player experience, then mumble that it's optional.  One can do a cimplete single player game, then attatche a bunch of "ifs"  to it.  They're trying to have it both ways.  Single player, but not really single player.  Multiplayer, but not really multiplayer.

3) Yeah this is one long ad hominem so I'm not gonna bother.

[CroGamer002]

Arcian wrote...

There are no roleplay elements in MP, so origin stories would be redundant.

Screw that.

I already have entire history for my ex-STG Engineer green Salarian in green camo named Guldo.

[Ghostrider2409]

Geez Bioware just can't resist the temptation not to screw up series that started well, can't they?

You are not going to make a WoW-killer, get over it and go on living your life by doing what you do best, which is releasing great single-player games (Dragon Age 2 excluded). First KOTOR3 gets canned in favor of MMORPG that I'm never going to play, now after a great start, ME franchise is heading in the same direction.

I realize that everyone likes money - the more the better. That is what DLCs are for. You can even charge me real $$$ in-game for thermal clips. I don't mind. But why botch the game in favor of powerpoint bullet feature ("MP is cool, it attracts more players")?

Why do I think the game will be botched? Because MP isn't free - it takes developer resources. The same resources that are not going to be spent on SP aspects of the game.

Give us great SP game, and for folks who want MP... well there is WoW, MW3, Farmwille and the like.

Obviously it's too late in the development cycle to change much in the game save for a tweak here, hence it's just a rant.

[Zu Long]

iakus wrote...

Zu Long wrote...

1) Given that your assumptions of inviability are fears pulled directly from your own nether regions, I see no reason Bioware should risk spoiling the game in order to give you information that, if your current behavior is anything to go on, you will only interpret as further confirmation of your paranoia.

2) Consider what might have been if Wrex had been a ballerina, and danced around the Normandy in a frilly pink tutu.

Much like the above hypothetical, your proposition is MEANINGLESS because it didn't happen. Indeed the fact  that they have never tied meaningless uber-fetch quests to anything important in the past simply makes your fears all the more groundless.

3) The only truth being dodged here is by you and the rest of the looney-tunes paranoiacs on this board who have conjured doomsday scenarios out of the aether in order to justify continuing to rail against a game based on a feature you have been told time and again it will not be necessary for you to use.

Give it up already and rejoin the land of the sane, or seek professional help.

First, I spoke to you without stooping to insults.  I'll thank you to return in kind.

At any rate:

1)  If Bioware's going to introduce a feature many fans did not ask for or even want, it's on them to convince us adding it is a good thing.  Some of us brought up a concern.  That concern has not been addressed.  You don't see a problem.  That's fine for you.  I'm not concerned about weapon balance.  Others may be.  I don't ridicule them over it.

2) Again, they've bnever tied a multiplayer feature to a single player experience before.  They keep playing up that it improves the single player experience, then mumble that it's optional.  One can do a cimplete single player game, then attatche a bunch of "ifs"  to it.  They're trying to have it both ways.  Single player, but not really single player.  Multiplayer, but not really multiplayer.

3) Yeah this is one long ad hominem so I'm not gonna bother.

Given that you clearly think nothing of implying that Bioware employees are a bunch of greedy liars bent on sadistically punishing their loyal fans, I couldn't care less if your feelings are hurt by the simple truth.

1) The concern HAS been addressed, several times. It is your refusal to acknowledge this and continuing to complain incessantly that causes me to lose any and all respect for you.

2) They are trying something new by allowing multiplayer success to translate to the single player experience. They have recognized that some people will not be interrested in that gameplay and have therefore stated REPEATEDLY that it will not be necessary to achieve the best ending. You and those like you have responded by conjuring up what if scenarios predicated on the assumption that Bioware has added multiplayer in order to punish and marginalize those who prefer a single player experience. This assumption is completely groundless, and seems to exist mostly to justify continuing to complain about existence of the multiplayer feature.

3) Point of order- only the part about being looney-tunes is an ad-hominem. Calling you paranoiacs when you are, in fact, being paranoid is totally justified. The rest is simply the only logical reasoning I can come up with for why you are still harping on this issue. Well, that or you're trolling. But I prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt.

[Gatt9]

Zu Long wrote...

iakus wrote...

Zu Long wrote...

1) Given that your assumptions of inviability are fears pulled directly from your own nether regions, I see no reason Bioware should risk spoiling the game in order to give you information that, if your current behavior is anything to go on, you will only interpret as further confirmation of your paranoia.

2) Consider what might have been if Wrex had been a ballerina, and danced around the Normandy in a frilly pink tutu.

Much like the above hypothetical, your proposition is MEANINGLESS because it didn't happen. Indeed the fact  that they have never tied meaningless uber-fetch quests to anything important in the past simply makes your fears all the more groundless.

3) The only truth being dodged here is by you and the rest of the looney-tunes paranoiacs on this board who have conjured doomsday scenarios out of the aether in order to justify continuing to rail against a game based on a feature you have been told time and again it will not be necessary for you to use.

Give it up already and rejoin the land of the sane, or seek professional help.

First, I spoke to you without stooping to insults.  I'll thank you to return in kind.

At any rate:

1)  If Bioware's going to introduce a feature many fans did not ask for or even want, it's on them to convince us adding it is a good thing.  Some of us brought up a concern.  That concern has not been addressed.  You don't see a problem.  That's fine for you.  I'm not concerned about weapon balance.  Others may be.  I don't ridicule them over it.

2) Again, they've bnever tied a multiplayer feature to a single player experience before.  They keep playing up that it improves the single player experience, then mumble that it's optional.  One can do a cimplete single player game, then attatche a bunch of "ifs"  to it.  They're trying to have it both ways.  Single player, but not really single player.  Multiplayer, but not really multiplayer.

3) Yeah this is one long ad hominem so I'm not gonna bother.

Given that you clearly think nothing of implying that Bioware employees are a bunch of greedy liars bent on sadistically punishing their loyal fans, I couldn't care less if your feelings are hurt by the simple truth.

1) The concern HAS been addressed, several times. It is your refusal to acknowledge this and continuing to complain incessantly that causes me to lose any and all respect for you.

2) They are trying something new by allowing multiplayer success to translate to the single player experience. They have recognized that some people will not be interrested in that gameplay and have therefore stated REPEATEDLY that it will not be necessary to achieve the best ending. You and those like you have responded by conjuring up what if scenarios predicated on the assumption that Bioware has added multiplayer in order to punish and marginalize those who prefer a single player experience. This assumption is completely groundless, and seems to exist mostly to justify continuing to complain about existence of the multiplayer feature.

3) Point of order- only the part about being looney-tunes is an ad-hominem. Calling you paranoiacs when you are, in fact, being paranoid is totally justified. The rest is simply the only logical reasoning I can come up with for why you are still harping on this issue. Well, that or you're trolling. But I prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt.

You create some pretty interesting fantasies in order to defend Bioware,  but they are just fantasies.

First,  you don't need to spoil anything by answering the question of how reasonable is it to achieve the optimal ending without doing multiplayer.  This question does not require full disclosure of the design document and script.  Contrary to the excuse you put forth,  all it takes is "Just by doing all of the side quests while fullfilling their goals you can achieve the optimal ending,  nothing is randomized,  you don't have to search the corners of the galaxy for trinkets."

It is not a complicated question,  but it is one they choose not to answer.  Much like Multiplayer,  there's a reason why they choose not to answer.

Second,  shoehorning a handful of co-op missions into a single player narrative driven game doesn't improve it.  Much like shoehorning in a 10 minute short from a comedy doesn't improve a Horror movie. 

I realize it is your god given mission to defend the honor of Bioware and all,  but you really might want to take a step back and actually use a little bit of logic when looking at the subject.  Because otherwise,  much like you and everyone else insisting Multiplayer didn't exist 3 months ago,  you're going to look quite foolish when the game releases.

Because it's blindingly obvious multiplayer is designed to be an impediment to sell Online Passes,  and as such,  it will affect the single player game.  Because seriously,  the whole concept is nonsensical in a single player narrative driven game.  If you don't understand why,  then perhaps you really shouldn't be trying to discuss the subject.  I'll give you a big hint,  go study the concept of narrative flow,  and then go contemplate why co-op missions disrupt it.

[gammle]

dam now im not sure anymore if i will get me3... i dont like the fact that MP will influence my single player...becouse i hardly play mmos or co-ops im a singel player rat and i loved the long gameplays in me1 and me2 i hope me3 wont be a 12 houers only..becouse of the co-op

Modifié par gammle, 16 novembre 2011 - 02:56 .

[didymos1120]

gammle wrote...

 i dont like the fact that MP will influence my single player...

It won't unless you want it to. 

[Someone With Mass]

didymos1120 wrote...

gammle wrote...

 i dont like the fact that MP will influence my single player...

It won't unless you want it to. 

And aparently, you must. According to this forum.

It's not like you have the option to not play the co-op.

[Iakus]

Zu Long wrote...
Given that you clearly think nothing of implying that Bioware employees are a bunch of greedy liars bent on sadistically punishing their loyal fans, I couldn't care less if your feelings are hurt by the simple truth.

1) The concern HAS been addressed, several times. It is your refusal to acknowledge this and continuing to complain incessantly that causes me to lose any and all respect for you.

2) They are trying something new by allowing multiplayer success to translate to the single player experience. They have recognized that some people will not be interrested in that gameplay and have therefore stated REPEATEDLY that it will not be necessary to achieve the best ending. You and those like you have responded by conjuring up what if scenarios predicated on the assumption that Bioware has added multiplayer in order to punish and marginalize those who prefer a single player experience. This assumption is completely groundless, and seems to exist mostly to justify continuing to complain about existence of the multiplayer feature.

3) Point of order- only the part about being looney-tunes is an ad-hominem. Calling you paranoiacs when you are, in fact, being paranoid is totally justified. The rest is simply the only logical reasoning I can come up with for why you are still harping on this issue. Well, that or you're trolling. But I prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt.

I do not speculate on the motives of putting multiplayer in a single player trilogy.  Maybe they are greedy liars.  maybe it was a call made by someone higher on the food chain.  Maybe they genuinely think it's a good idea.  At this point it's irrelevant because it's going to be in ME3.  And they did conceal that fact.  And they are not.  

1) The only thing that has been confirmed is that it's possible to get the "optimal ending" without multiplayer.  We have not been told how viable an option that is.  It's possible to walk ten miles rather than drive to a location.  One option is typically more viable than the other.  If you think this is irrational, well, I think you're wrong.  But i won't insult you about it.

2) See above.  And the "scenerios" are not as farfetched as you may think.  Though I do not think it would be a "punishment" as such.  But simply the result of not playing "the full game"  How can they possibly balance the accumulation of a resource around both players who only do single player and those who do single and multiplayer?  If part of the game's challenge is to gain enough of these resources, how can it be equally challenging for both?  The latter group will inevitably have access to a greater pool of resources, making it either trivial for them, or incredibly hard/tedious for the single-player only group.

Would addressing that concern really spoil the game/

3)  Well at least you admit some of it was insulting.  That's a start 

 Look at it this way, I admit that my outlook on multiplayer is somewhat pessimistic, though I think I have cause.  You, however do not see a problem.  But I have never accused you of being delusionally optimistic, or some other nonsense.  Heck I don't even think you are.  You simply believe the hype.  I don't.  Not without more information.

[Il Divo]

iakus wrote...

1) The only thing that has been confirmed is that it's possible to get the "optimal ending" without multiplayer.  We have not been told how viable an option that is.  It's possible to walk ten miles rather than drive to a location.  One option is typically more viable than the other.  If you think this is irrational, well, I think you're wrong.  But i won't insult you about it..

This analogy  pretty much captures what the fear of multiplayer can bring to the table. Very well put.