568 réponses à ce sujet

[xentar]

Can't be completely optional if it has an effect on single player.

[FoxShadowblade]

xentar wrote...

Can't be completely optional if it has an effect on single player.

It doesn't, it's a different way to achieve the same goal, you could achieve that goal single or multiplayer..

...depending on if they are actually being honest about that, which they probably aren't.

[Melra]

No matter what they say, as long as any form of multiplayer is in the game no money from my wallet will be wasted on this game.

[xentar]

FoxShadowblade wrote...

xentar wrote...

Can't be completely optional if it has an effect on single player.

It doesn't, it's a different way to achieve the same goal, you could achieve that goal single or multiplayer..

...depending on if they are actually being honest about that, which they probably aren't.

Probably shouldn't be repeating others but that's so vague they don't have to be dishonest about it. What if 'achieving the same goals' required doing something specific back in ME1?

Then there are other scenarios. What if you wanted a specific 'sub-optimal' ending. Perhaps, you wanted, for your maniacal reasons, a certain species extinct. You could arrange it, but it would bring someone else down... unless you do this particular coop mission to provide backup.

Anyway, there isn't much butthurt, but I can't avoid feeling uneasy about it. And it would have been a totally different story, had it been completely separate from single player, like MP usually is in most games.

[luk3us]

lol silly Bioware. What is the point of creating an entire portion of a game if you fully expect a 'significant' percentage of the audience not to play it? I doubt anyone is going to buy Mass Effect 3 exclusively because it has Co-op.


Who the hell likes Co-op anyway, snuffing bots is stupid, either 'real' multiplayer or nothing.

[Shepard the Leper]

Gatt9 wrote...

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. 

Uh, didn't we do just that in ME1 & 2?

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.

Apparently, you consider yourself to have poor reflexes hence your worries about "scores" or whatever. If you actually read the reports you should already know there are NO individual scores - everything is TEAM-BASED. That means that someone who doesn't hit a single target and someone scoring 10 kill streaks in a row will end up with the exact same score (when they're in the same team of course). Furthermore, you can play co-op on your own and unlock the "bonuses" (or whatever rewards we might get) for the SP experience.

What's your damn problem?

[Someone With Mass]

luk3us wrote...

lol silly Bioware. What is the point of creating an entire portion of a game if you fully expect a 'significant' percentage of the audience not to play it? I doubt anyone is going to buy Mass Effect 3 exclusively because it has Co-op.


Who the hell likes Co-op anyway, snuffing bots is stupid, either 'real' multiplayer or nothing.

Yeah, because who wants to play games like Left 4 Dead, Uncharted 2 or Portal 2 in co-op? Pff. What a bunch of losers.

By the way, BSN is hardly representing all the Mass Effect players.

Modifié par Someone With Mass, 29 octobre 2011 - 09:49 .

[Sasie]

I just want to ask this but is there such a thing as something being very optional? If so can something be a little optional as well? I'm not a native english speaker but the use of the word here seems strange to me!

[DNRB]

Although the way Bioware implants the multiplayer in me3 is in itself interesting, it is also the worst way to do it. Mass effect was supposed to be a singleplayer RPG trilogy. Along came me2 and alot of people kinda had the feeling it wasn't really a continuation of me1. So all hope was on me3. Then the rumors started that me3 would have multiplayer, which bioware was very vague about. Allot of people made clear they didn't want MP in this singleplayer rpg trilogy. And what does bioware? They not only make a multiplayer-mode but also connect it to the singleplayer. And when questions are asked how it will affect single player "don't worry, it's completely optional, but we won't say anything clear about how you can get the same results with just the SP campaign" is the response.

Again, the way MP affects SP is interesting in itself, but me3 is the worst time bioware could've chosen to experiment with it. They could've made a whole new game after me3 that worked like this. But now I feel it's kinda a big "yes fans, we know a lot of you don't like this idea but F you, we'll do it anyway". By the way, I don't really consider myself a bioware fan, just a mass effect fan, so I'm not even "offended" or anything, but I can see why some people are.

Modifié par BRND, 29 octobre 2011 - 11:17 .

[Xeranx]

Shepard the Leper wrote...

Apparently, you consider yourself to have poor reflexes hence your worries about "scores" or whatever. If you actually read the reports you should already know there are NO individual scores - everything is TEAM-BASED. That means that someone who doesn't hit a single target and someone scoring 10 kill streaks in a row will end up with the exact same score (when they're in the same team of course). Furthermore, you can play co-op on your own and unlock the "bonuses" (or whatever rewards we might get) for the SP experience.

What's your damn problem?

You don't need good or bad reflexes to have scores in a game.  I have commented before (not in this thread) that the whole readiness scale sounds very similar to Crossroads Keep in NWN2 and there was no twitch aspect to that game.  There was a score kept that determined your readiness before embarking on the final mission.  You could go before you had 100% of everything you need (training, ore deposits found, etc), but to get the optimal ending you needed to be as close to max as possible.  

And I have to say that I hated that bit.  Even with a walkthrough I hated it.  Probably due to how long it took to load each different area in that game.

[Ulthair]

dreman9999 wrote...

Liec wrote...

 I find it funny that they're advertising it saying "you don't have to play this!".  

Because they know their fans......Most  of them hate ****ty MP.<_<

corrected that for you

[Someone With Mass]

jreezy wrote...

Some people don't seem to know that BioWare has been wanting to add MP to Mass Effect.

Or that it's not the first time they've had multiplayer in their games.

[DNRB]

jreezy wrote...

Some people don't seem to know that BioWare has been wanting to add MP to Mass Effect.

They should have been clear and honest about it from the beginning. People would be a lot more rational about it, and would'nt feel "betrayed" or worried. 

[tomdrama]

I don't mind multiplayer, I just don't like the idea that it affects what ending you get in singleplayer. That is retarded.

[alex90c]

BRND wrote...

jreezy wrote...

Some people don't seem to know that BioWare has been wanting to add MP to Mass Effect.

They should have been clear and honest about it from the beginning. People would be a lot more rational about it, and would'nt feel "betrayed" or worried. 

This. Yes, fans would have been pissed, but constantly seeing:

Q: Will there be multiplayer in ME3?
A: We're working to make the singleplayer experience as good as possible!

(repeat ad nauseam)

And then getting the multiplayer announcement just pissed the hell out of me and some other people because while they never denied MP, they were extremely deceptive about it.

[Someone With Mass]

jreezy wrote...

tomdrama wrote...

I don't mind multiplayer, I just don't like the idea that it affects what ending you get in singleplayer. That is retarded.

Then it's a good thing it's OPTIONAL. 

But that isn't good enough, apparently.

Never mind that I can choose to ignore parts about a game that I don't like, for example a certain game mode like CTF. In any game.

[DNRB]

Someone With Mass wrote...

jreezy wrote...

tomdrama wrote...

I don't mind multiplayer, I just don't like the idea that it affects what ending you get in singleplayer. That is retarded.

Then it's a good thing it's OPTIONAL. 

But that isn't good enough, apparently.

Never mind that I can choose to ignore parts about a game that I don't like, for example a certain game mode like CTF. In any game.

Can we play multiplayer without it having an effect on singleplayer? Not to attack your argument, I'm just wondering. Sometimes I just want to play a lvl of mass effect, but without having to start a new playthrough if I want another class. I know there are save editors 'n all, but still...

Edit: I do think however you both misunderstoond tomdrama, I think he meant he doesn't have a problem with multiplayer per se, but the way bioware implants (and experiments with) it. Wouldn't you like it better if mp mode was seperate from the singleplayer in this game (not a rhetorical question)?

Modifié par BRND, 29 octobre 2011 - 01:13 .

[dreman9999]

xentar wrote...

FoxShadowblade wrote...

xentar wrote...

Can't be completely optional if it has an effect on single player.

It doesn't, it's a different way to achieve the same goal, you could achieve that goal single or multiplayer..

...depending on if they are actually being honest about that, which they probably aren't.

Probably shouldn't be repeating others but that's so vague they don't have to be dishonest about it. What if 'achieving the same goals' required doing something specific back in ME1?

Then there are other scenarios. What if you wanted a specific 'sub-optimal' ending. Perhaps, you wanted, for your maniacal reasons, a certain species extinct. You could arrange it, but it would bring someone else down... unless you do this particular coop mission to provide backup.

Anyway, there isn't much butthurt, but I can't avoid feeling uneasy about it. And it would have been a totally different story, had it been completely separate from single player, like MP usually is in most games.

Simply put, if you don't want it to effect the game...Don't play it. Also, your ignoring the loyalty and choices you make in the game. GR (Galexy readiness) does not override you choices or even guarrunttee success, it's just need to be successful. Think of it like the normady upgrades, you can max the normandy and still get every one and yourself killed because of your loyalty and choices.

[dreman9999]

tomdrama wrote...

I don't mind multiplayer, I just don't like the idea that it affects what ending you get in singleplayer. That is retarded.

But it doesn't....GR effect your game ending. And you can get it from the sp or the mp. You can ignore the mp and get all the GR points in the sp and get the same end as if you only got the GR points from the mp.

Modifié par dreman9999, 29 octobre 2011 - 03:01 .