Thompson family wrote...
Gatt9 wrote...
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.
Or not.
Looking at the FAQs on their multiplayer announcement, I simply don't see the ambiguity that worries you and others so much. I guess they could be lying, but if they're such irrationally extreme liars, what reassurance could they possibly give?
They say again and again in the FAQs that they have not compromised the single-player experience. They have said it to such a degree that, if they have, they are going to look seriously stupid. Why would they lie about this to such an extreme degree, when they know that the first day this game comes out this is going to be one of the first things people will rush to post about?
Well, we should probably start out by entering the relevant statements here for reference...
What if I don't like multiplayer - will my experience be negatively impacted?
- Mass Effect 3 is a complete, standalone game that will deliver a satisfying story experience, even if you choose not to try multiplayer.
- The Mass Effect 3: Galaxy at War system and all of the individual components are meant to complement that amazing game and can be enjoyed on their own or as part of the Galaxy at War experience.
So this is the official response in the FAQ.
Notice how it doesn't actually tell you anything? It doesn't tell you that you can achieve the optimal ending with ease without multiplayer. It doesn't actually answer the question, there's no where in there that the words "No, it does not negatively impact the experience" are stated.
This is not any different from the Multiplayer question, where they opted not to directly answer the question. When a Dev did answer, we got "If you do almost everything, and
do really well, then you don't need the multiplayer" (Buried somewhere in either Casey Hudson's thread or that huge Multiplayer thread, I'm not digging through that for the link)
So when they did directly answer the question, the story changes to one where achieving the optimal ending gets quantifier attached that are very ambiguous.
Then we have to consider: Why is multiplayer in there in the first place?
It doesn't make any sense to toss in a handfull of co-op missions into a single player narrative driven game. It's counter-productive. It breaks the narrative, breaks the tension build-up, in a very intrusive way. From a narrative standpoint, this is the absolute worst possible thing you could do. You just killed the narrative flow, and all of the emotions you were trying to evoke.
It also doesn't make any sense from a sales standpoint. Shoehorning a handfull of missions in isn't going to sell more copies. Co-op has never been a huge feature, multiplayer has always sold on competition.
So why's it in there? Google EA, Online Pass, and then toss in Used Games, the resulting bits and pieces will show you why. EA wants money from used game sales.
So they throw this in, and to sell those Online Passes, they made it very key to achieving the optimal ending. Hence the shoehorned in, and very weak sounding "Galatic Readiness!" feature to push people to buying the passes and pay them.
Which logically means that achieving "Galatic Readiness" won't be trivial with single player, it runs counter to their goal, which is selling online passes.
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.
See above. They did give a solid answer in the FAQs. You don't believe them. To wit:
Given their track record, I'd venture it's safe to assume that avoiding multiplayer and getting the optimal ending won't be trivial.
Gatt9, when was getting an optimal ending in ME1 or ME2 ever a trivial matter?
I don't believe them because all available evidence points to the contrary, and I disagree that they've stated anything clearly. They've been just as ambiguous as they were with the multiplayer question. What does "Do really well" mean? Why do I have to "Do really well", while Multiplayers don't? Looks to me like the point is to sell an Online Pass, and positioning multiplayer as the path of least resistance to achieving the optimal ending.
Which IMO makes it hostage-content, where key content is purposefully withheld in order to generate revenue somehow.
Did you play Deadspace 2? I bought the Collector's Edition for the PC. About an hour in, I'd passed 3-4 locked doors I couldn't open. I found out later that EA had released a pre-release DLC, and if you didn't buy that DLC, the content behind those doors on the disc I paid for was locked away from you. The irony? You couldn't get the DLC for the PC.
So EA's already held content hostage on the disc unless you paid them an extra $10.
Same difference here. EA didn't implement Multiplayer out of the kindness of their hearts, I am 100% certain that Multiplayer will be nigh-neccessary if you want the optimal ending. Because quite honestly, the feature as implemented makes absolutely no sense.
As far as ME and ME2 goes, getting the optimal ending in both was very easy. In fact, in ME you didn't need to do any side-missions to get it. In ME2, while you needed to do the loyalty missions, as long as you did them you were fine, didn't matter what you actually did during them.
In ME3, apparently what you do does matter, and it sounds like you'll need to do pretty much everything. Which could, very easily, be highly randomized.
Modifié par Gatt9, 30 octobre 2011 - 07:41 .
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut
