Thompson family wrote...
Went back to the video of the BioWare announcement of multiplayer on BioWare TV. Casey Hudson interview, starting at 2:08:
"These places that Commander Shepard is trying to secure across the galaxy as part of your war assets on the single-player side, you're trying to control those on the multi-player side and the better you do the more you control, the better your single player ending will be."
It could be as simple as this: Do you want to take control of some base, wipe out a Reaper or something as Commander Shepard leading two squadmates, or do you want to do it with up to four players -- or even by yourself -- in MP?
Either way, the "asset" is secured for game purposes.
===========
(edited P.S.)
On a less-speculative tack, I think it should be clear in each mission whether something will be a "war asset" or not. A lost locket or even a missing child will not be. A defended base or Krogan "princess" will clearly be.
Your quote illustrates the problem though Thompson.
The quotes continually make reference to "Doing well", without quanitfying it. The original quote on single player readiness was
"If you do almost everything, and you do really well, you'll have more than enough resources to [bypass multiplayer]"
There's a clear advantage given to Multiplayer, and significant ambiguity in exactly how single player will compensate. The quotes consistently point to the strong possibility that we're talking spending hours hunting down randomized items/quests, and that we must meet some pre-defined criteria when doing quests.
Which the criteria could be unreasonable, such as ultra-high kill counts, or forcing players to alter the way they play the game to meet some criteria. That quantifier, "Do really well", strongly indicates some form of scoring, which could quite easily be tied to reflexes, or Developer determined correct conversation paths.
Notice how, just like with the original multiplayer question, they dance around actually defining what a single player must do to achieve the optimal ending? They give vague reassurances "Oh, it's completely optional", but they consistently avoid saying "Single players can easily achieve the optimal ending".
There's always quantifiers, or always dodging the question, just like when they were hiding the multiplayer, they won't come straight out and give a solid answer.
Given their track record, I'd venture it's safe to assume that avoiding multiplayer and getting the optimal ending won't be trivial.
Because all they've stated in that article is that you don't have to enter a multiplayer mission, they neglected to mention if you could still get the optimal ending without entering a multiplayer mission. So they basically didn't say anything new. "You don't have to player Multiplayer if you don't want to", that's all they said. Same thing they said on day 1.
But they still haven't clarified "If you do almost everything, and you do really well, you'll have more than enough resources to [bypass multiplayer]"
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut
