568 réponses à ce sujet

[Vegos]

But the fact remains...You don't have to play this mode.

Realistically speaking, in your life, everything but death is optional. So that argument is kind of redundant.

You don't have to come to these forums and deal with us mindless peasants who oppose you, either.

Modifié par Vegos, 28 octobre 2011 - 05:34 .

[spirosz]

ryoldschool wrote...

The proof is when the game comes out.  If the sp is totally bug-free, then no problem.  But its going to make you wonder if you get a charge bug with the vanguard, or "sky-walking", or the level stops because an enemy you need to kill gets warped into a structure - "Maybe this bug would not be there if they had spent the resources to bullet-proof the sp instead of adding mp".  We won't know until the game is out.  I just hope its as good as ME2, my favorite game.

There is going to be bugs regardless of there being CO-OP or not.

[sympathyforsaren]

Will people who play multiplayer have an XP advantage over those who stick to the singleplayer?

[Rune-Chan]

dreman9999 wrote...


But the fact remains...You don't have to play this mode.

True, but the issues still remains: "Will the decision to spend time and resources on the multiplayer, negatively affect the quality of the single player?"

If the answer is no, then that's fantastic, but not many game developers can claim that has been true.

Modifié par Machines Are Us, 28 octobre 2011 - 05:34 .

[sympathyforsaren]

I thought Shepard was unique. So there can be a completely different playable character affecting Galaxy Readiness? So Shepard isn't necessary?

Kind of hard to enjoy playing a role when the "special" character you play as isn't even necessary.

[111987]

ryoldschool wrote...

Thompson family wrote...

onelifecrisis wrote...

Now now, be fair Thomson. There are some games/franchises that have in the past suffered distinct drops in SP quality following the introduction of MP. Go google "MP ruined SP" and get a billion trillion results."

And BioWare hasn't learned from other people's mistakes? That's the assumption being made.

Let's get to the real meat of the thing:

I don't think you can say the concerns of the anti-MP crowd are completely without basis. The game isn't out yet, which means you're really not in much of a position to say whether people have "good reason to be offended" by this news. (emphasis added)

And why does this argument not cut both ways?

We have statement after statemet after statement that BioWare has been careful not to preserve the SP experience. If people don't believe them, that's their right, but after the backlash that followed the streamlining of the RPG elements, I think BioWare would be crazy to take risks with SP.

And you have to admit, onelifecrisis, that there is a vocal segment of this forum anxious to complain about anything.

The proof is when the game comes out.  If the sp is totally bug-free, then no problem.  But its going to make you wonder if you get a charge bug with the vanguard, or "sky-walking", or the level stops because an enemy you need to kill gets warped into a structure - "Maybe this bug would not be there if they had spent the resources to bullet-proof the sp instead of adding mp".  We won't know until the game is out.  I just hope its as good as ME2, my favorite game.

The problem with this thinking is that if there are bugs in ME3, multiplayer will instantly be blamed. And yet, both ME1 and ME2 didn't have multiplayer and are pretty buggy games. So even if ME3 has less bugs than the first two games, it will still be bashed because of the multiplayer, and that isn't really fair.

[Vegos]

sympathyforsaren wrote...

Will people who play multiplayer have an XP advantage over those who stick to the singleplayer?

No, but they will have a "galaxy readiness" advantage.

[111987]

sympathyforsaren wrote...

I thought Shepard was unique. So there can be a completely different playable character affecting Galaxy Readiness? So Shepard isn't necessary?

Kind of hard to enjoy playing a role when the "special" character you play as isn't even necessary.

I don't follow your line of logic here at all (maybe because there isn't any).

Another person can affect Galactic Readiness, so Shepard isn't necesarry? Seriously? Let me help you understand this. Let's say the MP characters can enhance your Galactic Readiness by 10%. You still need Shepard for that other 90%. Those numbers are just speculation, but obviously Shepard is the most critical person in the war, and will influence Galactic Readiness more than anyone else.

Besides, it'd be kind of stupid if Shepard was the only person in the galaxy actually doing something about the Reapers and fighting the war. From a story perspective, I see no problems with the multiplayer; it actually expands the scope of the conflict by seeing alternative perspectives on the war.

[CroGamer002]

Old news.

[spirosz]

sympathyforsaren wrote...

I thought Shepard was unique. So there can be a completely different playable character affecting Galaxy Readiness? So Shepard isn't necessary?

Kind of hard to enjoy playing a role when the "special" character you play as isn't even necessary.

He is unique, but they're putting another perspective into the bigger picture. It's not just Shepard's life at stake, it's the whole galaxies.  I have the perspective that, say Shepard is fighting on the Krogan homeworld, but he's working on something else, while ground troops are fighting off waves to protect a certain base. Now we'll get a chance to see it through their eyes (well in third person, lol). It gives us a chance to "RP" a certain character in that situation, for example: A young Krogan trying to impress the Urdnot clan by defending this certain post. 

[sympathyforsaren]

Vegos wrote...

sympathyforsaren wrote...

Will people who play multiplayer have an XP advantage over those who stick to the singleplayer?

No, but they will have a "galaxy readiness" advantage.

I know about the Galaxy Readiness advantage. That in itself penalizes singleplayer. But isn't XP aquired through the multiplayer? I believe it is aquired at the end of each round, and even in between to an extent. Does this not cause an XP advantage, penalizing singleplayer when its sole focus is supposedly on singleplayer?

[AdmiralCheez]

dreman9999 wrote...

Only BG1 and most of ME1 is not optional.

Never played BG1, but ME1 is actually a really short game if you only do the minimum:

1. Get to the beacon on Eden Prime.
--
2. Recruit either Wrex or Garrus so you can find Fist.
3. Rescue and recruit Tali so you can expose Saren.
--
4. Recruit Liara on Therum.
--
5. Get a garage pass on Noveria so you can get to the labs.
6. Restore power to the labs so you can enter.
7. Fight Benezia and decide what to do with the rachni queen.
8. Set off the neutron purge to kill the berserk rachni.
--
9. Get to the Exo Geni facility on Feros and disable the geth ship.
10. Go back and fight the Thorian.
--
11. Shut down the AA guns and find the salarians on Virmire.
12. Investigate and blow up Saren's labs.
--
13. Steal the Normandy.
14. Get into the bunker on Ilos.
15. Talk to Vigil.
16. Get to the Conduit.
17. Fight Saren on the Citadel.

You can actually skip 75% of the stuff on the Citadel, about 50% of the stuff on Feros and Noveria, 25% on Eden Prime and Virmire, and 100% of the sidequests.

[ryoldschool]

111987 wrote...

ryoldschool wrote...

Thompson family wrote...

onelifecrisis wrote...

Now now, be fair Thomson. There are some games/franchises that have in the past suffered distinct drops in SP quality following the introduction of MP. Go google "MP ruined SP" and get a billion trillion results."

And BioWare hasn't learned from other people's mistakes? That's the assumption being made.

Let's get to the real meat of the thing:

I don't think you can say the concerns of the anti-MP crowd are completely without basis. The game isn't out yet, which means you're really not in much of a position to say whether people have "good reason to be offended" by this news. (emphasis added)

And why does this argument not cut both ways?

We have statement after statemet after statement that BioWare has been careful not to preserve the SP experience. If people don't believe them, that's their right, but after the backlash that followed the streamlining of the RPG elements, I think BioWare would be crazy to take risks with SP.

And you have to admit, onelifecrisis, that there is a vocal segment of this forum anxious to complain about anything.

The proof is when the game comes out.  If the sp is totally bug-free, then no problem.  But its going to make you wonder if you get a charge bug with the vanguard, or "sky-walking", or the level stops because an enemy you need to kill gets warped into a structure - "Maybe this bug would not be there if they had spent the resources to bullet-proof the sp instead of adding mp".  We won't know until the game is out.  I just hope its as good as ME2, my favorite game.

The problem with this thinking is that if there are bugs in ME3, multiplayer will instantly be blamed. And yet, both ME1 and ME2 didn't have multiplayer and are pretty buggy games. So even if ME3 has less bugs than the first two games, it will still be bashed because of the multiplayer, and that isn't really fair.

I'm just being honest.  I'm a software engineer and (almost) no code is bug-free.  I hope its as good as ME2.  Just saying that is what is going to go thru my mind when bugs do show up.

[111987]

sympathyforsaren wrote...

Vegos wrote...

sympathyforsaren wrote...

Will people who play multiplayer have an XP advantage over those who stick to the singleplayer?

No, but they will have a "galaxy readiness" advantage.

I know about the Galaxy Readiness advantage. That in itself penalizes singleplayer. But isn't XP aquired through the multiplayer? I believe it is aquired at the end of each round, and even in between to an extent. Does this not cause an XP advantage, penalizing singleplayer when its sole focus is supposedly on singleplayer?

This is XP for the multiplayer characters, who can level up to level 20.

[eissa the senator]

hello what game are you playing do you have dragon age 2

[xCirdanx]

Geth_Prime wrote...

It is hard not to lose faith in humanity.

I think it´s kinda strange to have any faith in humanity

I think the MP part is cool, as long as it has no impact on my single player experience, sure why not, bring it on.

[sympathyforsaren]

111987 wrote...

sympathyforsaren wrote...

I thought Shepard was unique. So there can be a completely different playable character affecting Galaxy Readiness? So Shepard isn't necessary?

Kind of hard to enjoy playing a role when the "special" character you play as isn't even necessary.

I don't follow your line of logic here at all (maybe because there isn't any).

Another person can affect Galactic Readiness, so Shepard isn't necesarry? Seriously? Let me help you understand this. Let's say the MP characters can enhance your Galactic Readiness by 10%. You still need Shepard for that other 90%. Those numbers are just speculation, but obviously Shepard is the most critical person in the war, and will influence Galactic Readiness more than anyone else.

Besides, it'd be kind of stupid if Shepard was the only person in the galaxy actually doing something about the Reapers and fighting the war. From a story perspective, I see no problems with the multiplayer; it actually expands the scope of the conflict by seeing alternative perspectives on the war.

I disagree. Imo, it disrupts focus of the role. But that's beside the point. We kept being told over and over that it won't effect singleplayer, when in fact singleplayer gets the disadvantage if Galactic Readiness and character XP as a penalty for not doing co-op.

[Il Divo]

sympathyforsaren wrote...

I disagree. Imo, it disrupts focus of the role. But that's beside the point. We kept being told over and over that it won't effect singleplayer, when in fact singleplayer gets the disadvantage if Galactic Readiness and character XP as a penalty for not doing co-op.

Who announced that MP generates bonus XP?

[Bcuz]

While I have no problems with multiplayer in general, multiplayer in ME3 pretty much guarantees it's on Origin.

*Trollface*
*Realizes it's true and that i'm a PC gamer*
*Cries*

[111987]

sympathyforsaren wrote...

111987 wrote...

sympathyforsaren wrote...

I thought Shepard was unique. So there can be a completely different playable character affecting Galaxy Readiness? So Shepard isn't necessary?

Kind of hard to enjoy playing a role when the "special" character you play as isn't even necessary.

I don't follow your line of logic here at all (maybe because there isn't any).

Another person can affect Galactic Readiness, so Shepard isn't necesarry? Seriously? Let me help you understand this. Let's say the MP characters can enhance your Galactic Readiness by 10%. You still need Shepard for that other 90%. Those numbers are just speculation, but obviously Shepard is the most critical person in the war, and will influence Galactic Readiness more than anyone else.

Besides, it'd be kind of stupid if Shepard was the only person in the galaxy actually doing something about the Reapers and fighting the war. From a story perspective, I see no problems with the multiplayer; it actually expands the scope of the conflict by seeing alternative perspectives on the war.

I disagree. Imo, it disrupts focus of the role. But that's beside the point. We kept being told over and over that it won't effect singleplayer, when in fact singleplayer gets the disadvantage if Galactic Readiness and character XP as a penalty for not doing co-op.

Okay, we can agree to disagree on that.

1. You can get 100% Galactic Readiness without playing multiplayer. If you play multiplayer, it just means you don't have to do all the sidequests or what not to get that 100% Galactic Readiness. It's just an alternative means of getting Galactic Readiness; neither better nor worse.

2. Once again, the XP gained in multiplayer goes solely to your multiplayer characters, whom level up until level 20.

[C9316]

I see some people don't get the concept co-op is just another way to raise galactic readiness, just like playing single player will raise it. Hasn't it been said countless times that you can still get the readiness level to the max by playing single player alone? So this "I won't get the best ending if I don't play the Multiplayer!" really needs to stop.

[dreman9999]

Machines Are Us wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...


But the fact remains...You don't have to play this mode.

True, but the issues still remains: "Will the decision to spend time and resources on the multiplayer, negatively affect the quality of the single player?"

If the answer is no, then that's fantastic, but not many game developers can claim that has been true.

But the answer is "no". Any time whan mp was added and it became an issue with the game, it's because they had to split the main team working on it. That did not happen with ME3. A new team was made for mp. Sp lost nothing in recourses, man power, or time.

[onelifecrisis]

eissa the senator wrote...

hello what game are you playing do you have dragon age 2

Mmm... I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're a small child. This is the Mass Effect 3 forum. Go here for Dragon Age 2.

[Vegos]

But the answer is "no". Any time whan mp was added and it became an issue with the game, it's because they had to split the main team working on it. That did not happen with ME3. A new team was made for mp. Sp lost nothing in recourses, man power, or time.

The answer is more along the lines "You're right, whatever you're thinking", actually.