568 réponses à ce sujet

[111987]

Quole wrote...

111987 wrote...

How do I know what? That the sidequests in those game didn't relate to defeating the central antagonist? Because I played the games...

Or are you asking how do I know the sidequests in ME3 are related to defeating the Reapers? Developer interviews and tweets. I'm not sifting through the Twitter thread to find it. Go to the Confirmed Features thread.

Don't look at the sidequests as traditional sidequests. Think of them as optional missions, like the loyalty missions in ME2. You didn't HAVE to do those missions, but doing them obviously helps in the Suicide Mission.

Umm no they didnt.

That is literally what I just said...

Modifié par 111987, 28 octobre 2011 - 09:45 .

[Vegos]

jreezy wrote...

And if you never touch multiplayer those four random mooks won't matter. You'll KNOW you have to do a sidequest or face some kind of failure.

Even a misanthrope like me has friends. Maybe those friends would still like to do some MP stuff with me now and then.

Cut me some slack here, seriously! I mean, I went from "RAAAAAH MP in ME3 is the harbinger of the gaming apocalypse!" to "OK, so I guess I can accept the MP there, but I simply want it completely separate from SP." It's no small step!

Modifié par Vegos, 28 octobre 2011 - 09:48 .

[Vegos]

jreezy wrote...

If it was completely seperate in the form it is in now it'd be a waste of space. The fact that it has some bearing on Shepard's success in the single player campaign is its saving grace.

That post speaks volumes more than you think, actually. But, I'll let people interpret it for themselves. All I'll say is, it's a post that speaks more AGAINST multiplayer than in favor of it in my opinion.

[Jog0907]

Vegos wrote...

jreezy wrote...

If it was completely seperate in the form it is in now it'd be a waste of space. The fact that it has some bearing on Shepard's success in the single player campaign is its saving grace.

That post speaks volumes more than you think, actually. But, I'll let people interpret it for themselves. All I'll say is, it's a post that speaks more AGAINST multiplayer than in favor of it in my opinion.

it can help the sp but its not necessary for the sp to be "complete", it would be awful it mp was completely separated from the sp (like you seem to want it to be) since it would be a waste of time. The way it works now it can help your campaign if you choose to use it if you dont its still there and it doesnt damage your sp experience its imo a win/win for everybody, sp purists and people who want a mp mode that is not completely inconsecuential with the bigger picture in the me3 war

[StowyMcStowstow]

As it is, to me the MP will be a waste of space, because I will never use it (unless I am able to some splitscreen with a friend). So basically I'm paying for something I won't use. Why would I do that? I would love for this MP to be awesome, but having to go online and play with mooks and deal with lag, server issues, and the aforementioned mooks is not exactly my idea of fun, no matter how great the gameplay is. I do have friends that play ME, but whether or not they have XBL or if they even want to play the MP or go online when I am online is another thing altogether. I've played enough Black Ops, Space Marine, and WoW to realize that server issues are a huge deal, and lag can ruin just about anything.

I really don't care how "optional" it is. Its part of the game, and I would like to experience it, but I won't if online is the only way.

[Vegos]

it would be awful it mp was completely separated from the sp

Which would likely lead to the conclusion "It was a bad idea in the first place".

And here's my 0.02€: If it needs a crutch, it should be put down.

Modifié par Vegos, 28 octobre 2011 - 10:06 .

[AtreiyaN7]

Vegos wrote...

AtreiyaN7 wrote...

If someone had legitimate, serious issues that haven't been shot down by now in the previews, then maybe we could all discuss their concerns without resorting to "it's optional." How many people have started irrational "I'm going to cancel my preorder solely because of the mere presence of multiplayer" threads or things like that? When someone is ranting and only goes "it's just because I hate multiplayer," it's hard to take them seriously - especially when they usually don't actually give any valid reasons that you can discuss. What's left then? Your only option is, heh, to point out that it's optional and that they don't have to deal with it.

I don't order "collector's" stuff and I do not pre-order stuff simply because I'm a communist jackass.

That was a half-joke, but it's true that I'm sure as hell not going to pay extra for fluff. (comes with not having disposable income)

But see, your post has not covered my point of view. I'm not opposed to MP because I hate MP; I don't, I actually enjoy a co-op run with friends in Portal 2; but those don't affect my singleplayer game. I don't hate multiplayer, I merely think that a multiplayer component in a ME game is a bad idea, because it doens't fit in well with the entire setting.

And if it's there, I have to "deal with it". Ignoring it is just another way of "dealing with it". Just because it's optional that doesn't mean it can slip under my radar without me having to "deal with it".

Imagine if they put a MP component into Planescape: Torment. Like, it woudl be easier to get Curst out of Carceri; or it would be easier to talk TNO into submission if you did some MP things around the planes. I'd sure as Baator hate it.

And your preordering/not preodering has nothing to do with what I said, which involved pointing out that there are irrational threads where one can't respond to the OP with anything more than "it's optional" precisely because they CAN'T articulate their problem/position.

Based on the previews, having your MP character imported in the single-player game isn't going to have any major impact on things like persuasion, dialogue options or anything else beyond "Galactic Readiness" which probably relates to the end game in a manner akin to upgrading the Normandy in ME2 (but probably on a more abstract level). Therefore, i don't think your PS:T analogy really works at all.

And when has taking advantage of opportunities that present themselves to you in any RPG been a negative anyway? Should I not have played my FO:NV DLC and acquired the powerful weapons and the extra levels and perks that I did? They've all made things easier for me in the main game on my second playthrough to the point of it being ridiculously easy to zot just about anything I come across atm right now.

The ME3 co-op is just an alternative path that players can take advantage of if they wish to improve their Galactic Readiness level. When you can (apparently) accomplish exactly the same results with or without playing co-op, I don't see how someone can claim that it will ruin or negatively impact their single-player experience or that it will somehow destroy the sanctity of the single-player campaign.

Oh yes, I'll just go dump my Gauss Rifle and the multitude of other energy weapons that I acquired right now because it's an unfair advantage and makes things too easy in FO:NV. *rolleyes*

[Jog0907]

jreezy wrote...

Vegos wrote...

it would be awful it mp was completely separated from the sp

Which would likely lead to the conclusion "It was a bad idea in the first place".

And here's my 0.02€: If it needs a crutch, it should be put down.

Haha! Ouch. I know somebody who'll be euthanizing a horse if he plays BioShock infinite.

I dont see the way the mp works now in relation to the sp as the first one "needing a crutch" , just that its much more desirable for the mp to be related at least in some way to the sp and thus becoming more logical in its existance within me3.

Modifié par Jog0907, 28 octobre 2011 - 10:18 .

[Savber100]

As long as the alternative for SP is NOT "kill X amount of enemies" or "Hit Z amount of buttons" by yourself... I'm happy. 

Modifié par Savber100, 28 octobre 2011 - 10:24 .

[Vegos]

AtreiyaN7 wrote...

And your preordering/not preodering has nothing to do with what I said, which involved pointing out that there are irrational threads where one can't respond to the OP with anything more than "it's optional" precisely because they CAN'T articulate their problem/position.

Based on the previews, having your MP character imported in the single-player game isn't going to have any major impact on things like persuasion, dialogue options or anything else beyond "Galactic Readiness" which probably relates to the end game in a manner akin to upgrading the Normandy in ME2 (but probably on a more abstract level). Therefore, i don't think your PS:T analogy really works at all.

And when has taking advantage of opportunities that present themselves to you in any RPG been a negative anyway? Should I not have played my FO:NV DLC and acquired the powerful weapons and the extra levels and perks that I did? They've all made things easier for me in the main game on my second playthrough to the point of it being ridiculously easy to zot just about anything I come across atm right now.

The ME3 co-op is just an alternative path that players can take advantage of if they wish to improve their Galactic Readiness level. When you can (apparently) accomplish exactly the same results with or without playing co-op, I don't see how someone can claim that it will ruin or negatively impact their single-player experience or that it will somehow destroy the sanctity of the single-player campaign.

Oh yes, I'll just go dump my Gauss Rifle and the multitude of other energy weapons that I acquired right now because it's an unfair advantage and makes things too easy in FO:NV. *rolleyes*

You're the one who sttarted calling people out on the preorder whine; I simply stated that I didn't even preorder it.

And the PS:T analogy was just an example pulled out of thin air; but I don't know how it wouldn't work, to get Curst out of Carceri you needed to run around the place telling people to behave...now if a "multiplayer" option made it possible for you to simply walk up to Trias and beat him as easily without talking to anyone in Curst, we're at the same point here. YOU COULD STILL DO IT, but even if you didn't, it wouldn't matter, which makes it feel pretty "meh". May not have been the best example, but just saying how a game that's essentially singleplayer can get screwed over by MP.

But moving on, considering I'm okay with complete separation of MP from SP.

Taking or not taking advantage of perks and OP weapons is of course a personal choice, I won't deny that. But to me, taking ME2 s an example now, the ultimate Insanity experience would not be importing a ME1 character who will start at level 5; it would be starting a blank slate level 1 character. Some people just want to be challenged, and, as I said before, doing a side mission just because you can, is not a challenge.

So yes, if I wanted to see just how much I can take, just how far I can push, yes, I WOULD toss that gauss rifle, then laugh at everyone who needed it to get as far as I did. But that's what *I* would do.

You don't have to agree with me, that's fine; but I won't have you tell me I don't have a point.

Modifié par Vegos, 28 octobre 2011 - 10:43 .

[Quole]

111987 wrote...

Quole wrote...

111987 wrote...

How do I know what? That the sidequests in those game didn't relate to defeating the central antagonist? Because I played the games...

Or are you asking how do I know the sidequests in ME3 are related to defeating the Reapers? Developer interviews and tweets. I'm not sifting through the Twitter thread to find it. Go to the Confirmed Features thread.

Don't look at the sidequests as traditional sidequests. Think of them as optional missions, like the loyalty missions in ME2. You didn't HAVE to do those missions, but doing them obviously helps in the Suicide Mission.

Umm no they didnt.

That is literally what I just said...

Im afraid its not.

[Thompson family]

This thread had a point once.

[Blazenor]

Thompson family wrote...

This thread had a point once.

Well the point was, Is Multiplayer very optional?

It's an optional feature, but it's not very optional because it does intergate into the single player content and vice versa.

[Quole]

Blazenor wrote...

Thompson family wrote...

This thread had a point once.

Well the point was, Is Multiplayer very optional?

It's an optional feature, but it's not very optional because it does intergate into the single player content and vice versa.

exactly. I try to explain that but people dont understand.

[Thompson family]

Quole wrote...

Blazenor wrote...

... Is Multiplayer very optional?

It's an optional feature, but it's not very optional because it does intergate into the single player content and vice versa.

exactly. I try to explain that but people dont understand.

We don't understand because it has been clearly stated by BioWare (See Bioware TV or any of numerous news articles on the subject) that the OPTIONS ARE to

a.) Play multiplayer, or
b.) Do side missions

if you want to get the "best" ending.

So you don't want to play multiplayer to get the "best" ending. OK. You do whatever side missions are required. How is this worse than ME2, where you have to complete all the recuitment missions and do all the loyalty missions to get the "best" ending?

Modifié par Thompson family, 28 octobre 2011 - 11:42 .

[AtreiyaN7]

Vegos wrote...

You're the one who sttarted calling people out on the preorder whine; I simply stated that I didn't even preorder it.

And the PS:T analogy was just an example pulled out of thin air; but I don't know how it wouldn't work, to get Curst out of Carceri you needed to run around the place telling people to behave...now if a "multiplayer" option made it possible for you to simply walk up to Trias and beat him as easily without talking to anyone in Curst, we're at the same point here. YOU COULD STILL DO IT, but even if you didn't, it wouldn't matter, which makes it feel pretty "meh". May not have been the best example, but just saying how a game that's essentially singleplayer can get screwed over by MP.

But moving on, considering I'm okay with complete separation of MP from SP.

Taking or not taking advantage of perks and OP weapons is of course a personal choice, I won't deny that. But to me, taking ME2 s an example now, the ultimate Insanity experience would not be importing a ME1 character who will start at level 5; it would be starting a blank slate level 1 character. Some people just want to be challenged, and, as I said before, doing a side mission just because you can, is not a challenge.

So yes, if I wanted to see just how much I can take, just how far I can push, yes, I WOULD toss that gauss rifle, then laugh at everyone who needed it to get as far as I did. But that's what *I* would do.

You don't have to agree with me, that's fine; but I won't have you tell me I don't have a point.

I cited the preorder threads purely as an example of irrational posting where people do little more than express a rage that they can't quite articulate and where one can't really respond to them in any meaningful way. Again, your PT:S example doesn't hold water for me. It's a completely hypothetical what-if that doesn't relate to how ME3 co-op functions at all. I checked the previews thread a little while ago and watched that Aaron (?) Flynn interview in that I believe was on page 12, and he seemed to indicate that they MIGHT have more story elements in multi-player. Even taking that into account (if there's more to it than just horde-style maps), that still doesn't impinge upon the single-player game beyond improving your Galactic Readiness level.

And what does your laughing at people who would use a Gauss Rifle prove? Laughing at them doesn't refute the fact that taking advantage of opportunities that present themselves in an RPG is something most people would do  - unless they want to prove how hardcore they are and purposely gimp themselves. It's optional to take <x> gun and use it in FO:NV. It's optional to wear armor or run around stark naked (well, in your underclothes anyway) in FO:NV too.

I finished my very first playthrough of FO:NV on hardcore, completely vanilla, without any DLC and have the achievement that proves it. I did it solely for the satisfaction of the challenge. After succeeding at challenging myself, I was also perfectly happy to take that Gauss Rifle on a subsequent playthrough and use it for the sake of having some fun and doing things just a bit differently. It was optional, it was my choice, and it didn't ruin the experience for me, since blasting everything to bits provides a certain amount of satisfaction after getting nailed by cazadores on Hardcore. Unless you're actively forced into doing something, I don't really see how one can legitimately complain about it affecting their single-player experience.

Now since you yourself just said that you would set aside the optional Gauss Rifle, you clearly don't have a problem making the choice to avoid taking what you see as an unfair advantage. Why then is ME3 co-op somehow this massive issue for you when it too is optional? Not playing the ME3 co-op is just the same as not picking up the Gauss Rifle from Elijah's corpse in Dead Money.

Modifié par AtreiyaN7, 28 octobre 2011 - 11:38 .

[Vegos]

Now since you yourself just said that you would set aside the optional Gauss Rifle, you clearly don't have a problem making the choice to avoid taking what you see as an unfair advantage. Why then is ME3 co-op somehow this massive issue for you when it too is optional? Not playing the ME3 co-op is just the same as not picking up the Gauss Rifle from Elijah's corpse in Dead Money.

Because socializing and having a fun evening with a few friends won't force the gauss rifle into my hands whether I like it or not.

I won't even get into how you made it look like "for challenge" and "for fun" are two separate things to you. Because I do not know if you did so intentionally or by accident.

Modifié par Vegos, 28 octobre 2011 - 11:51 .

[Someone With Mass]

Thompson family wrote...

Quole wrote...

Blazenor wrote...

... Is Multiplayer very optional?

It's an optional feature, but it's not very optional because it does intergate into the single player content and vice versa.

exactly. I try to explain that but people dont understand.

We don't understand because it has been clearly stated by BioWare (See Bioware TV or any of numerous news articles on the subject) that the OPTIONS ARE to

a.) Play multiplayer, or
b.) Do side missions

if you want to get the "best" ending.

So you don't want to play multiplayer to get the "best" ending. OK. You do whatever side missions are required. How is this worse than ME2, where you have to complete all the recuitment missions and do all the loyalty missions to get the "best" ending?

How is that any different would be my question.

[AtreiyaN7]

Vegos wrote...

Now since you yourself just said that you would set aside the optional Gauss Rifle, you clearly don't have a problem making the choice to avoid taking what you see as an unfair advantage. Why then is ME3 co-op somehow this massive issue for you when it too is optional? Not playing the ME3 co-op is just the same as not picking up the Gauss Rifle from Elijah's corpse in Dead Money.

Because socializing and having a fun evening with a few friends won't force the gauss rifle into my hands whether I like it or not.

I won't even get into how you made it look like "for challenge" and "for fun" are two separate things to you. Because I do not know if you did so intentionally or by accident.

Point one: you are not in any way, shape or form forced to play ME3 co-op. Even if you play ME3 co-op with your friends, you still wouldn't be forced to import your MP character into the single-player campaign. In fact, I imagine you could easily delete your MP character if you want, so really, you're not having the Gauss Rifle forced into your hands if we're going to continue with this analogy. Try again.

Point two: what does my phrasing have to do with anything? I considered Hardcore in FO:NV to be a challenge and something that was a fairly serious endeavor, one where I did not make decisions lightly. I enjoyed it, but my Hardcore run didn't qualify as a lighthearted romp - unlike playing later on normal with DLC and just having what I would describe as fun. It was actually still somewhat challenging since I went into the DLC with a fairly low-level character, but the main game is certainly a lot breezier now.

BTW, if your fixation on my phrasing somehow actually ties in to how you're mysteriously being forced into playing ME3 co-op (when you're clearly not forced to do so), feel free to elaborate on that.

Modifié par AtreiyaN7, 29 octobre 2011 - 12:24 .

[111987]

Blazenor wrote...

Thompson family wrote...

This thread had a point once.

Well the point was, Is Multiplayer very optional?

It's an optional feature, but it's not very optional because it does intergate into the single player content and vice versa.

It OPTIONALLY integrates single player content.

Quole wrote...

111987 wrote...

Quole wrote...

111987 wrote...

How
do I know what? That the sidequests in those game didn't relate to
defeating the central antagonist? Because I played the games...

Or
are you asking how do I know the sidequests in ME3 are related to
defeating the Reapers? Developer interviews and tweets. I'm not sifting
through the Twitter thread to find it. Go to the Confirmed Features
thread.

Don't look at the sidequests as traditional sidequests.
Think of them as optional missions, like the loyalty missions in ME2.
You didn't HAVE to do those missions, but doing them obviously helps in
the Suicide Mission.

Umm no they didnt.

That is literally what I just said...

Im afraid its not.

 I don't even know what to say to you right now

Modifié par 111987, 29 octobre 2011 - 12:36 .