2261 réponses à ce sujet

[1136342t54_]

bigheadzach wrote...

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.

Which would ultimately mean (beware of sexism lol) like a woman he hears what he want to hear. 

[JeffZero]

Brenon Holmes has officially confirmed solo play is technically allowable for co-op in Bogsnot's thread. Pass it on.

[Erode_The_Soul]

I don't know if this has been linked yet; I didn't see it while reading but Brenon Holmes has answered quite a few questions over in the Multiplayer FAQ thread here

A relevant snippet:

Multiplayer FAQ thread wrote...

Brenon Holmes wrote...

Bogsnot1 wrote...
-
Can the MP mode be done solo, for those who either dont like MP, or
want an extra challenge to finish the game without squadmates?

Currently, yes... but it's pretty hard. Though a lot of that depends on difficulty.

Modifié par Erode_The_Soul, 12 octobre 2011 - 06:20 .

[Siven80]

Todpullen wrote...

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!

See i read it as if you mess up in SP and dont gain enough"readiness" for the best ending then Mp can help you gain some more "readiness" to counteract where you messed up or make it slightly easier to get the best ending. And thats all.
They wouldnt be stupid enough to require MP to unlock SP missions.

[Geth_Prime]

Okay, people, let's just stop trying to argue with Killjoy Cutter. No matter what we stick in front of him he won't grasp it.

[GreenSoda]

Now that it's pretty much established that the additional dev time for ME3 was mainly used for this mp "feature", the overall length of the development cycle for ME3 boils down to approx. that of the dev cycle of DA2.

Exciting.

[bigheadzach]

Posted for relevance:

www.youtube.com/watch

Modifié par bigheadzach, 12 octobre 2011 - 06:29 .

[Killjoy Cutter]

Il Divo wrote...

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.

Playing MP will give you a better ending than what?  The obvious answer is "than not playing MP". 

[Grifid]

S*** budget advertising, make separate multiplayer.
But this is a bulls***, not make more buyers this loser coop-multi option.
I cancel my pre-order and wait the budget price, you make a budget game and kill the ME universe.

[Someone With Mass]

Il Divo wrote...

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

I do believe so, yes.

The OXM article said:

"ARMY OF ONE, OR TWO, OR THREE: If you don't have a full team of four in multiplayer, you'll face the enemy waves without any fill-in bots, hope you're leveled up!"

I just hope that they'll balance it for people that might play alone.

[kregano]

Todpullen wrote...

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!

It seems to me at least that it's more of a "Shepard can go take these assets himself, or get others to do it while s/he deals with other stuff." I'm thinking that because they have that locale used in the Squad Leader Trailer in the video, which we know Shepard and company can fight in. Nothing gets locked off, but you get a choice about how to deal with that system/situation.

[didymos1120]

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. 

According to OXM, it's the exact opposite:

And the Galaxy at War mode follows suit, with your customized character taking up arms to defend some of these beseiged locales [Shepard has been to in single-player] just a mere heartbeat behind Shepard's footsteps.

[BlaCKRodjj]

iakus wrote...

That Pulse episode explained nothing that wasn't already. I am disappoint.

What else you got to convince me not to walk away?

Besides repeating for the third time that you can completely finish ME3 without the MP?
Seriously, Casey should hop on a plane and start writing on the sky "MP optional, does not affect SP in any way if not played" <<

[Il Divo]

Erode_The_Soul wrote...

I don't know if this has been linked yet; I didn't see it while reading but Brent Holmes has answered quite a few questions over in the Multiplayer FAQ thread here

A relevant snippet:

Multiplayer FAQ thread wrote...

Brenon Holmes wrote...

Bogsnot1 wrote...
-
Can the MP mode be done solo, for those who either dont like MP, or
want an extra challenge to finish the game without squadmates?

Currently, yes... but it's pretty hard. Though a lot of that depends on difficulty.

Still, that's not entirely comforting, since it almost seems to imply that it can be pulled out at any time and even if it remains, the difficulty may prevent any attempts. On the bright side, it may potentially remain a viable/enjoyable means for farming resources compared to the single player.

[JeffZero]

This thread is going bonkers and I have no idea if this went through or not so if it did, apologies or the double post.

Brenon Holmes stopped by Bogsnot's Multiplayer FAQ thread and confirmed that co-op is technically playable solo.

[Geth_Prime]

@JeffZero Yes! Thanks! BW, I love you.

[bigheadzach]

Erode_The_Soul wrote...

I don't know if this has been linked yet; I didn't see it while reading but Brent Holmes has answered quite a few questions over in the Multiplayer FAQ thread here

A relevant snippet:

Multiplayer FAQ thread wrote...

Brenon Holmes wrote...

Bogsnot1 wrote...
-
Can the MP mode be done solo, for those who either dont like MP, or
want an extra challenge to finish the game without squadmates?

Currently, yes... but it's pretty hard. Though a lot of that depends on difficulty.

I'm sure they have plenty of time to balance the Co-op game based on the number of participants. There's obviously disadvantages to having less targets for the enemies to aggro on, and I bet that's where the perceived "hardness" will come in - everything's attacking YOU.

[1136342t54_]

Geth_Prime wrote...

Okay, people, let's just stop trying to argue with Killjoy Cutter. No matter what we stick in front of him he won't grasp it.

[didymos1120]

Wittand25 wrote...

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

Thanks for the heads-up.

[1136342t54_]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...
Playing MP will give you a better ending than what?  The obvious answer is "than not playing MP". 

Single player will give us the optimal ending (optimal as in most desirable or favorable ending). Stop ignoring the FAQ and cherry picking what you want to hear from the video.

[Killjoy Cutter]

Geth_Prime wrote...

Okay, people, let's just stop trying to argue with Killjoy Cutter. No matter what we stick in front of him he won't grasp it.

Or rather, I simply disagree with your blind faith in statements coming out of a corporation that has become less trustworthy with every passing month. 

[rolson00]

i thinks its promising

[Il Divo]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

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.

Playing MP will give you a better ending than what?  The obvious answer is "than not playing MP". 

No, it's not a logical derivation. Example: 

Let's say you're trying to go to Athens. And I tell you that path A will get you there. That does not mean that path B will not get you to Athens.

The two scenarios are not mutually exclusive. Stop presenting the statements as if they are. If multiplayer will give me the optimal single-player, then it will give me the optimal single-player. That statement is not equivalent to saying that the single-player cannot give the optimal ending, which Bioware has stated is possible.

It's the equivalent of my above example. Path A will get you to Athens does not mean that Path B will not get you to Athens.

[1136342t54_]

Il Divo wrote...

Still, that's not entirely comforting, since it almost seems to imply that it can be pulled out at any time and even if it remains, the difficulty may prevent any attempts. On the bright side, it may potentially remain a viable/enjoyable means for farming resources compared to the single player.

If the difficulty is too difficult just lower it. Plus the MP doesn't seem no where near as important as SP. All in all if you wanted to play ME3 you play it for SP.

[Fenderbaum]

GreenSoda wrote...

Now that it's pretty much established that the additional dev time for ME3 was mainly used for this mp "feature", the overall length of the development cycle for ME3 boils down to approx. that of the dev cycle of DA2.

Exciting.

Was there a hint of sarasm in your 'exciting' ?  Hard to tell from words and text lol