568 réponses à ce sujet

[dreman9999]

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.

But that's an issue wit GR not mp. If they cut mp, we still have the same ammout of GR to build. We could only gt it sp only.

[Vegos]

C9316 wrote...

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.

Where did it start? Well, at least in this thread, where did it start? Can you point me to someone saying that?

[onelifecrisis]

BogdanV wrote...

They're probably using it to test the water before any future venture and why not ? If MP fails, they have their backs covered financially by piggybacking ME3 otherwise, low sales would've been a serious issue if MP was a standalone game.

This occurred to me as well.
Also they may be trying to find something that BW Montreal are good at.

[111987]

Vegos wrote...

C9316 wrote...

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.

Where did it start? Well, at least in this thread, where did it start? Can you point me to someone saying that?

Sympathyforsaren's posts.

[AdmiralCheez]

onelifecrisis wrote...

This occurred to me as well.
Also they may be trying to find something that BW Montreal are good at.

After playing Arrival, I can say for certain that they're very good at creating environments and intense combat situations.  Storytelling?  Not so much.

[C9316]

Vegos wrote...

C9316 wrote...

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.

Where did it start? Well, at least in this thread, where did it start? Can you point me to someone saying that?

Saying that you can still get the best ending without having to play MP? Well that's been said a couple times since MP was announced...

When did people start saying that single player in a way is harmed just because MP raises Galactic Readiness? I think you can figure that out for yourself...

[Vegos]

111987 wrote...

Vegos wrote...

C9316 wrote...

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.

Where did it start? Well, at least in this thread, where did it start? Can you point me to someone saying that?

Sympathyforsaren's posts.

I didn't see Sympathyforsaren talk about not getting the best ending without multiplayer. Did you?

[onelifecrisis]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

onelifecrisis wrote...

This occurred to me as well.
Also they may be trying to find something that BW Montreal are good at.

After playing Arrival, I can say for certain that they're very good at creating environments and intense combat situations.  Storytelling?  Not so much.

I must admit, the battle in the room containing object rho was quite exhillarating.

[sympathyforsaren]

onelifecrisis wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

onelifecrisis wrote...

Thompson family wrote...

C9316 wrote...

This MP is controversial? Do people have a hard time realizing they don't have to play it?

That, and the desire of some to be offended whether they have a good reason or not.

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. 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.

But that is because they split the main team. The sp team for ME3 is uneffected by the addition of mp. They lose nothing for having mp added on. In fact the mp is handled by another team. So the sp will not lose any grounding.

I'm only playing devil's advocate here, but GaW *does* have to be integrated into the SP game. It's not some completely seperate thing. 

Who will be in charge if this integration, I wonder? I wonder, too, how much time and money is being spent on it.

[111987]

Vegos wrote...

111987 wrote...

Vegos wrote...

C9316 wrote...

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.

Where did it start? Well, at least in this thread, where did it start? Can you point me to someone saying that?

Sympathyforsaren's posts.

I didn't see Sympathyforsaren talk about not getting the best ending without multiplayer. Did you?

Yes, I did. I'm somewhat confused as to how you missed it, if you read his posts as you claim. Here is an example.

"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."

[dreman9999]

C9316 wrote...

Vegos wrote...

C9316 wrote...

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.

Where did it start? Well, at least in this thread, where did it start? Can you point me to someone saying that?

Saying that you can still get the best ending without having to play MP? Well that's been said a couple times since MP was announced...

When did people start saying that single player in a way is harmed just because MP raises Galactic Readiness? I think you can figure that out for yourself...

In the main Galaxy ready topic by people who do not understand how to read a faq page and jump to concusions.

[Vegos]

111987 wrote...

Vegos wrote...

I didn't see Sympathyforsaren talk about not getting the best ending without multiplayer. Did you?

Yes, I did. I'm somewhat confused as to how you missed it, if you read his posts as you claim. Here is an example.

"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."

So where's that bit about "inability to get the best ending" then? I'm sorry, maybe I'm blind, maybe I can't read, but I just don't see it.

[Wulfram]

I don't see how Galactic Readiness can be a properly balanced mechanic if it's got to handle people who've just played SP as well as MP addicts who have also done the Facebook game and Maker knows what else the marketing department dreams up.

Most likely scenario is probably that MP will just change it from easy to ludicrously easy, which isn't too bad an outcome, but it still seems like a bad design to entangle the real game with all this external rubbish.

Modifié par Wulfram, 28 octobre 2011 - 06:06 .

[AdmiralCheez]

onelifecrisis wrote...

I must admit, the battle in the room containing object rho was quite exhillarating.

You know, the more I think about it, the more I think Arrival was a practice run for them to see how well they could handle the combat aspect of ME.  If co-op's combat is as intense as the fight for Object Rho, I think it might actually be fun.

But they need to do more than just horde mode.  If they want co-op to be replayable, there needs to be more mission variety.  What about one where you have to escort a group of civilians to safety/protect a convoy?  Or a mission where you have to retrieve a prothean artifact, and whoever's currently holding the artifact can't fight (hot potato mode)?  Or a mission where you have to get from point A to point B within a certain time limit?  Boss battles?  Exploration missions?  You know, stuff that can have a bit of a story attached that might require a little more than just shooting everything that moves?

Horde mode is fun, but it'll get old.

[111987]

Vegos wrote...

111987 wrote...

Vegos wrote...

I didn't see Sympathyforsaren talk about not getting the best ending without multiplayer. Did you?

Yes, I did. I'm somewhat confused as to how you missed it, if you read his posts as you claim. Here is an example.

"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."

So where's that bit about "inability to get the best ending" then? I'm sorry, maybe I'm blind, maybe I can't read, but I just don't see it.

Okay. Your initial response was to a person saying that they cannot understand why people believe that if they don't do multiplayer, they can't get 100% galactic readiness. You then ask who has said that. I then point out who said that. Sympathyforsaren is saying in his post that you are disadvantaged in terms of galactic readiness if you do not do the co-op.

Understand now?

[Vegos]

I understand you misinterpreted my initial response, yes.

[dreman9999]

Wulfram wrote...

I don't see how Galactic Readiness can be a properly balanced mechanic if it's got to handle people who've just played SP as well MP addicts who have also done the Facebook game and Maker knows what else the marketing department dreams up.

Most likely scenario is probably that MP will just change it from easy to ludicrously easy, which isn't too bad an outcome, but it still seems like a bad design to entangle the real game with all this external rubbish.

Simpe, the balance is what the level of GR point is need to get the army needed to get the best ending and building ecah system to be able to get that level without over taxing the player.
The Gr system is like the normandy upgrade system. You can ungrade everything on the ship but you only need 3-4 upgrades to get the a point to the bast ending. Think of gr in the same light.

[Vegos]

The Gr system is like the normandy upgrade system. You can ungrade everything on the ship but you only need 3-4 upgrades to get the a point to the bast ending. Think of gr in the same light.

Source, please?

[dreman9999]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

onelifecrisis wrote...

I must admit, the battle in the room containing object rho was quite exhillarating.

You know, the more I think about it, the more I think Arrival was a practice run for them to see how well they could handle the combat aspect of ME.  If co-op's combat is as intense as the fight for Object Rho, I think it might actually be fun.

But they need to do more than just horde mode.  If they want co-op to be replayable, there needs to be more mission variety.  What about one where you have to escort a group of civilians to safety/protect a convoy?  Or a mission where you have to retrieve a prothean artifact, and whoever's currently holding the artifact can't fight (hot potato mode)?  Or a mission where you have to get from point A to point B within a certain time limit?  Boss battles?  Exploration missions?  You know, stuff that can have a bit of a story attached that might require a little more than just shooting everything that moves?

Horde mode is fun, but it'll get old.

I agree but you do have to understand, they have to make a mp that people don't have to play. Making the mp any better than it is makes it so the people who don't play it will miss things for not playing it. In short, the anti-mp people are holding the mp back.

[Vegos]

In short, the anti-mp people are holding the mp back.

Well, duh?

[sympathyforsaren]

111987 wrote...

Vegos wrote...

111987 wrote...

Vegos wrote...

C9316 wrote...

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.

Where did it start? Well, at least in this thread, where did it start? Can you point me to someone saying that?

Sympathyforsaren's posts.

I didn't see Sympathyforsaren talk about not getting the best ending without multiplayer. Did you?

Yes, I did. I'm somewhat confused as to how you missed it, if you read his posts as you claim. Here is an example.

"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."

We do get a disadvantage. It's a heck of a lot harder to level Shepard with purely singleplayer. It'll force people to grind.

[dreman9999]

Vegos wrote...

The Gr system is like the normandy upgrade system. You can ungrade everything on the ship but you only need 3-4 upgrades to get the a point to the bast ending. Think of gr in the same light.

Source, please?

The boody faq page!!!!!!!! It's been stated over and over agein,You need to get GR points to get the best army and you can get gr point with the mp or sp side missions. You use it to upgrade your armada.

[dreman9999]

sympathyforsaren wrote...

111987 wrote...

Vegos wrote...

111987 wrote...

Vegos wrote...

C9316 wrote...

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.

Where did it start? Well, at least in this thread, where did it start? Can you point me to someone saying that?

Sympathyforsaren's posts.

I didn't see Sympathyforsaren talk about not getting the best ending without multiplayer. Did you?

Yes, I did. I'm somewhat confused as to how you missed it, if you read his posts as you claim. Here is an example.

"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."

We do get a disadvantage. It's a heck of a lot harder to level Shepard with purely singleplayer. It'll force people to grind.

How do you even know that? Their is nothing stated so far that indicates that getting GR points in the sp is harder than the mp.

[111987]

sympathyforsaren wrote...


We do get a disadvantage. It's a heck of a lot harder to level Shepard with purely singleplayer. It'll force people to grind.

Are you kidding me? I've posted this three times now. The xp gained in multiplayer only goes towards your multiplayer character.

[Vegos]

dreman9999 wrote...

Vegos wrote...

The Gr system is like the normandy upgrade system. You can ungrade everything on the ship but you only need 3-4 upgrades to get the a point to the bast ending. Think of gr in the same light.

Source, please?

The boody faq page!!!!!!!! It's been stated over and over agein,You need to get GR points to get the best army and you can get gr point with the mp or sp side missions. You use it to upgrade your armada.

I've read that page several times, and I still don't see how GR compares to the Normandy upgrades.

Modifié par Vegos, 28 octobre 2011 - 06:15 .