568 réponses à ce sujet

[Vegos]

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.

Point me to where I talked about being forced to play ME3 co-op and we can talk further.

The only way I'd be "forced" into that would be my friends going "Come on, it'll be fun, let's go hit some sh*t!" but I doubt that's the kind of "forced" you meant.

I don't discuss things with people who put words in my mouth.

Modifié par Vegos, 29 octobre 2011 - 12:34 .

[GMagnum]

idk y dis topic has been going on for so long nor do i feel like readin all dese long ass posts

MP is optional, u dont have 2 play it?????????

its dat simple wtf is going on?

[Quole]

111987 wrote...

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

Its k. You are clearly too stupid to comprehend what I, Quole, am saying.

Modifié par Quole, 29 octobre 2011 - 01:17 .

[111987]

Quole wrote...

Its k. You are clearly too stupid to comprehend what I, Quole, am saying.

If I am misunderstanding you, it was because you were being completely incoherent.

Either way, I'm not going to get bogged down in some pointless insult-fest over the internet.

[Quole]

jreezy wrote...

Quole wrote...

111987 wrote...

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

Its k. You are clearly too stupid to comprehend what I, Quole, am saying.

Someone's comprehension in this argument is lacking, but I'll never tell.

We all know who it is and his name consists of numbers.

Modifié par Quole, 29 octobre 2011 - 02:07 .

[111987]

Quole wrote...

We all know who it is and his name consists of numbers.

Let's go through this, step by step.

1. I said the sidequests in ME1 and ME2 (never played DA) didn't affect the ending.

2. You said 'they' didn't. I assume 'they' refers to the sidequests, because that's the only thing it COULD mean, given the context.

3. I then said that you said the same thing as I did.'

4. You then disagreed with me.

Modifié par 111987, 29 octobre 2011 - 02:12 .

[Thompson family]

Quole wrote...

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

I'll repeat:

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 (or even different) 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, 29 octobre 2011 - 02:13 .

[Quole]

111987 wrote...

Quole wrote...

We all know who it is and his name consists of numbers.

Let's go through this, step by step.

1. I said the sidequests in ME1 and ME2 (never played DA) didn't affect the ending.

2. You said 'they' didn't. I assume 'they' refers to the sidequests, because that's the only thing it COULD mean, given the context.

3. I then said that you said the same thing as I did.'

4. You then disagreed with me.

You clear misunderstood everything I said. Stupidity at its finest.

[Quole]

Thompson family wrote...

Quole wrote...

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

I'll repeat:

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 (or even different) than ME2, where you have to complete all the recuitment missions and do all the loyalty missions to get the "best" ending?

Im not going to explain it again because you are clearly too stupid to understand.

[sympathyforsaren]

Could Edmonton, instead of doing multiplayer, have used the manpower and resources to help out Casey Hudson develope additional side quests for singleplayer and add in more things like detailed open planets to explore, more party banter, or even more full missions?

Modifié par sympathyforsaren, 29 octobre 2011 - 02:20 .

[Thompson family]

Quole wrote...
Im not going to explain it again because you are clearly too stupid to understand.

Translation: "I am a Troll."

[111987]

sympathyforsaren wrote...

Could Edmonton, instead of doing multiplayer, used the manpower and resources to help out Casey Hudson develope additional side quests for singleplayer and add in more things like detailed open planets to explore, more party banter, or even more full missions?

Possibly...but the game's campaign is said to be as long as Mass Effect 2's. Sooner or later, the game has to end. Adding missions for the sake of missions doesn't enhance the game if you can tell the story in the current length of the single-player.

Not to mention we don't know if that was even an option. It's possible had they not worked on multiplayer, EA would have had them work on another project altogether.

[111987]

Thompson family wrote...

Quole wrote...
Im not going to explain it again because you are clearly too stupid to understand.

Translation: "I am a Troll."

This goes for his response to me as well.

[Quole]

Thompson family wrote...

Quole wrote...
Im not going to explain it again because you are clearly too stupid to understand.

Translation: "I am a Troll."

Get out of here.

[Thompson family]

Quole wrote...

Get out of here.

When you're a moderator, you can back that up.

[Quole]

Thompson family wrote...

Quole wrote...

Get out of here.

When you're a moderator, you can back that up.

I am a mod. You are stupid for not realizing it.

Modifié par Quole, 29 octobre 2011 - 02:25 .

[Thompson family]

jreezy wrote...

sympathyforsaren wrote...

Could Edmonton, instead of doing multiplayer, have used the manpower and resources to help out Casey Hudson develope additional side quests for singleplayer and add in more things like detailed open planets to explore, more party banter, or even more full missions?

Most likely. I'm hoping they didn't slack off on the party banter or the side missions.

I don't think making more of that would attract new players to the franchise, which is the clear goal of MP.

Would I have enjoyed that more? Sure, but I don't think BW was going to pour more into it.

Modifié par Thompson family, 29 octobre 2011 - 02:31 .

[sympathyforsaren]

111987 wrote...

sympathyforsaren wrote...

Could Edmonton, instead of doing multiplayer, used the manpower and resources to help out Casey Hudson develope additional side quests for singleplayer and add in more things like detailed open planets to explore, more party banter, or even more full missions?

Possibly...but the game's campaign is said to be as long as Mass Effect 2's. Sooner or later, the game has to end. Adding missions for the sake of missions doesn't enhance the game if you can tell the story in the current length of the single-player.

Not to mention we don't know if that was even an option. It's possible had they not worked on multiplayer, EA would have had them work on another project altogether.

Valid points. But being Mass Effect 3, I'm sure fans like you and me would have ate up the story...a longer story, because the story could have grown and the events become more expansive to deliver an even more satisfying experience. Adding things to the story isn't difficult as long as its meaningful, and we all know how good BioWare is at writing. I don't thin it would have been hard for the writing and lore to keep up with extended gameplay. Wouldn't you rather have that than MP? But its not, its going to MP, so how can they say their goal and sole focus is the greatest singleplayer possible? Their words contradict what they have done.

[111987]

sympathyforsaren wrote...

111987 wrote...

sympathyforsaren wrote...

Could Edmonton, instead of doing multiplayer, used the manpower and resources to help out Casey Hudson develope additional side quests for singleplayer and add in more things like detailed open planets to explore, more party banter, or even more full missions?

Possibly...but the game's campaign is said to be as long as Mass Effect 2's. Sooner or later, the game has to end. Adding missions for the sake of missions doesn't enhance the game if you can tell the story in the current length of the single-player.

Not to mention we don't know if that was even an option. It's possible had they not worked on multiplayer, EA would have had them work on another project altogether.

Valid points. But being Mass Effect 3, I'm sure fans like you and me would have ate up the story...a longer story, because the story could have grown and the events become more expansive to deliver an even more satisfying experience. Adding things to the story isn't difficult as long as its meaningful, and we all know how good BioWare is at writing. I don't thin it would have been hard for the writing and lore to keep up with extended gameplay. Wouldn't you rather have that than MP? But its not, its going to MP, so how can they say their goal and sole focus is the greatest singleplayer possible? Their words contradict what they have done.

There isn't a contradiction if they believe the single-player is the best it could possibly be, and the multi-player is just an extra. Like I said much earlier, multi-player, and the game itself, will be deemed a success or a failure after its release, not before.