Aller au contenu

Photo

OXM: Six Reasons to Drop [Mass Effect 3] Multiplayer


414 réponses à ce sujet

#226
Cloaking_Thane

Cloaking_Thane
  • Members
  • 2 838 messages

111987 wrote...

Cloaking_Thane wrote...

Can anyone come up with 6 reasons why it should be included? I mean I'm gonna play it some, but the tacked on feeling is palpable and fairly evident. The other games were a great success without it, and it will likely be much less active 6 months after release and decline continuously thereafter.

Again I'm not opposed to it per se, but also don't see its need for inclusion either


1. Replayability
2. Expands franchise to a larger market
3. Allows you to enjoy Mass Effect with your friends
4. Allows multiple options to achieve the optimal endings, rather than just one
5. Allows you to play as the different species
6. It's FUN! :D


1. For a few months maybe, Really dont think replayability is a problem with this series....you know?
2. TBD, so many factors in play to determine that so many variables to exclude
3. Fair enough
4. Fair enough
5. Not sure I wanted it in the conclusion of Shepards story, but ok
6. Maybe, we'll see how they diversify it.... It will be a first I'm sure

#227
Gatt9

Gatt9
  • Members
  • 1 748 messages

Maggot4everr wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

1. It'll damage the context.

Eh, no. It won't. People are always asking about this expanding universe and once they finally got one that shows more than Shepard's world, they want it be about only Shepard, even though this multiplayer barely affects his/her progress or decisions at all? Okay.

2. Multiplayer doesn't equal success

That's the thing, though. It's not trying to be the best multiplayer out there. It's just trying to be a nice alternative to someone who wants to play Mass Effect with his/her friends and still get a little bonus out of it when connecting that character to the singleplayer. More options? BAD! We can't have that!

3. We don't want relentless combat

Same old and weak argument that doesn't work here either. Even if they did drop the multiplayer now, (which would be very stupid) they won't get anything back. Also. If you don't like it, DON'T PLAY IT. If I don't like a multiplayer mode like free-for-all, then I'm not going to whine about how it could've been a better investment somewhere else (because, you know, the fans always knows best when it comes to economical investments). No, I'll simply ignore it, and do something else with the game.

4. It won't end here

Optional apps are optional.

5. Decisions lose impact

Since the co-op is only giving simple war assets to you and you have to use that brain of yours to do the critical decisions in singleplayer, I don't see how that works. Or makes sense, for that matter. It'd be like if I got some extra funds in a multiplayer mode and then claim that my choices in the singleplayer (like which squadmate to assign to which task and such) will be weaker because of it. Which doesn't make any goddamn sense, since all that'll happen is that I'll have an easier time requiring certain objects. Or it's like saying that if I got some money from someone before going to the grocery store, I can't make the right decision when it comes to the products I should and want to buy.

Does that make any sense? No.

6. It's second-hand goods

Again. Don't like it, don't play it. Deal with it.

It's like they copied the statements and arguments from certain threads of this forum without a second thought.

If you're going to argue against multiplayer (again), at least come up with something new.


This ^



Actually,  no big surprise,  Mass is wrong.

1.  It's called Narrative flow,  it gets completely disrupted when you interrupt it to go watch some random guy that has nothing to do with the plot.  Doubt me?  Go watch The Two Towers,  and just as Helm's Deep starts,  stop the movie and go watch Liar Liar,  then come back.  Tell me,  do you still have the same emotions the director intended you to have?  Nope.  You've interrupted the flow and lost your audience's attention.

2.  Do you have proof of this?  Because I very highly doubt EA decided out of the goodness of their hearts to give people an extra game mode in a game that sells average,  it's much more likely it's designed to sell Online Passes to used game buyers,  than it is EA sinking a few million dollars into an average seller for the heck'uv it.

3.  A few million spent in one place could've been spent in another place to improve some other facet.

4. You keep making the mistake of thinking this is meant to be some gift to the Players.  Once again,  do you really think EA spent that much money on a feature that doesn't improve the game,  and very obviously won't make people run right out and buy it?  Because I'm really confident no one looked at ME1 and thought "Nope,  it doesn't have a handful of random co-op missions,  not buying it".  "Optional" feature is meant to improve revenues by getting used game buyers to pay EA something.  As such,  it's very highly unlikely to be Optional.  Especially since OXM,  who have seen the game,  hint that it may not be as optional as you think.

5.  Perhaps if you tried understanding what they're trying to tell you it would.  They're saying that it's designed to be key to getting the Optimal Ending,  making decisions redundant.

6.  Once again,  you keep thinking it's optional.  Maybe you should try going back to the FAQ and noticing how Bioware completely dodges the question about it impacting Single Player,  much like they did when they were asked if Multiplayer existed.

You really aren't getting what they're saying,  which is *really* important since they've seen the game and you have not.

#228
111987

111987
  • Members
  • 3 758 messages

Cloaking_Thane wrote...

111987 wrote...

Cloaking_Thane wrote...

Can anyone come up with 6 reasons why it should be included? I mean I'm gonna play it some, but the tacked on feeling is palpable and fairly evident. The other games were a great success without it, and it will likely be much less active 6 months after release and decline continuously thereafter.

Again I'm not opposed to it per se, but also don't see its need for inclusion either


1. Replayability
2. Expands franchise to a larger market
3. Allows you to enjoy Mass Effect with your friends
4. Allows multiple options to achieve the optimal endings, rather than just one
5. Allows you to play as the different species
6. It's FUN! :D


1. For a few months maybe, Really dont think replayability is a problem with this series....you know?
2. TBD, so many factors in play to determine that so many variables to exclude
3. Fair enough
4. Fair enough
5. Not sure I wanted it in the conclusion of Shepards story, but ok
6. Maybe, we'll see how they diversify it.... It will be a first I'm sure


1. For sure, but more replayability never hurt anyone right?
2. Very true; that is the hope, but we probably won't be able to say until the game is released. It couldn't hurt though.
6. You're right, it might suck for all we know. And some people will hate it regardless. But the hope is that it will be fun. I'm taking an optimistic approach here.

#229
111987

111987
  • Members
  • 3 758 messages
@Gatt9

They've said repeatedly that you can get the optimal ending through playing a complete singleplayer campaign. I've seen that multiple times from multiple sources.

Also, the money used from multiplayer didn't come from the singleplayer budget. It was it's own budget. Meaning if there wasn't multiplayer, the multiplayer budget money wouldn't have gone to the singleplayer.

#230
xxSgt_Reed_24xx

xxSgt_Reed_24xx
  • Members
  • 3 312 messages

RyuGuitarFreak wrote...

ME3 Horde Mode looks like Horde Mode from Gears of War 2 when GeOW3 improved so much ME3's mode will look completely outdated.


No doubt... if you're going to copy someone else's game mode... at least use the newest version! Building fortifications and upgrading and buying weapons, etc is all part of the fun!

RyuGuitarFreak wrote...
They're not doing much to make it stand out from other games. No facil customization, no armor customization, no roleplay elements and from what I've seen no gender customization for all races. Those features would make justice for a Mass Effect multiplayer mode, not what I've seen in the leaked beta. I hope there's A LOT more than that.


And without those things... it is rather bland looking. I probably won't play it very much at all.

It looks more like one of those "tacked on" multiplayer modes for games like dead space 2.

Modifié par xxSgt_Reed_24xx, 03 décembre 2011 - 03:40 .


#231
Cloaking_Thane

Cloaking_Thane
  • Members
  • 2 838 messages

111987 wrote...
...Snip

1. For sure, but more replayability never hurt anyone right?
2. Very true; that is the hope, but we probably won't be able to say until the game is released. It couldn't hurt though.
6. You're right, it might suck for all we know. And some people will hate it regardless. But the hope is that it will be fun. I'm taking an optimistic approach here.


Totally understand your approach. I'm honestly pretty ambivalent, but if I had any choice at all (of course I don't lol) I would have kept it single player only for the trilogy at least, then let the machinations at EA take over.

but I'm not going to throw a huge b**** fit over it you know

#232
111987

111987
  • Members
  • 3 758 messages

Cloaking_Thane wrote...

111987 wrote...
...Snip

1. For sure, but more replayability never hurt anyone right?
2. Very true; that is the hope, but we probably won't be able to say until the game is released. It couldn't hurt though.
6. You're right, it might suck for all we know. And some people will hate it regardless. But the hope is that it will be fun. I'm taking an optimistic approach here.


Totally understand your approach. I'm honestly pretty ambivalent, but if I had any choice at all (of course I don't lol) I would have kept it single player only for the trilogy at least, then let the machinations at EA take over.

but I'm not going to throw a huge b**** fit over it you know


That's great to know :D

I wish everyone here could express their opinions, have a discussion about it, and then agree to disagree if no-one can change the other's mind.

#233
111987

111987
  • Members
  • 3 758 messages

xxSgt_Reed_24xx wrote...

ME3 Horde Mode looks like Horde Mode from Gears of War 2 when GeOW3 improved so much ME3's mode will look completely outdated.


Of all the criticisms I've heard, this is the one i agree with the most. ME3 is undoubtedly going to be compared to GoW3, and it's multiplayer especially will be compared to Horde. And really, Horde Mode in Gears 3 is just incredible, a full-fledged experience with great maps, fortifications, etc...

While ME3's will have character progression and levelling up, powers, and hopefully weapon customization, I fear it might end up being a watered down version of Horde Mode/Firefight.

Firefight in Halo Reach allowed an amazing level of cuztomization. I doubt ME3 will offer the same level of cuztomization.

However I'm still optimistic it will be fun, though probably won't be on the same level as Horde and Firefight. That isn't really the point of ME3 though, it's just a nice bonus.

Modifié par 111987, 03 décembre 2011 - 03:41 .


#234
Someone With Mass

Someone With Mass
  • Members
  • 38 560 messages

Gatt9 wrote...

Actually,  no big surprise,  Mass is wrong.

1.  It's called Narrative flow,  it gets completely disrupted when you interrupt it to go watch some random guy that has nothing to do with the plot.  Doubt me?  Go watch The Two Towers,  and just as Helm's Deep starts,  stop the movie and go watch Liar Liar,  then come back.  Tell me,  do you still have the same emotions the director intended you to have?  Nope.  You've interrupted the flow and lost your audience's attention.

2.  Do you have proof of this?  Because I very highly doubt EA decided out of the goodness of their hearts to give people an extra game mode in a game that sells average,  it's much more likely it's designed to sell Online Passes to used game buyers,  than it is EA sinking a few million dollars into an average seller for the heck'uv it.

3.  A few million spent in one place could've been spent in another place to improve some other facet.

4. You keep making the mistake of thinking this is meant to be some gift to the Players.  Once again,  do you really think EA spent that much money on a feature that doesn't improve the game,  and very obviously won't make people run right out and buy it?  Because I'm really confident no one looked at ME1 and thought "Nope,  it doesn't have a handful of random co-op missions,  not buying it".  "Optional" feature is meant to improve revenues by getting used game buyers to pay EA something.  As such,  it's very highly unlikely to be Optional.  Especially since OXM,  who have seen the game,  hint that it may not be as optional as you think.

5.  Perhaps if you tried understanding what they're trying to tell you it would.  They're saying that it's designed to be key to getting the Optimal Ending,  making decisions redundant.

6.  Once again,  you keep thinking it's optional.  Maybe you should try going back to the FAQ and noticing how Bioware completely dodges the question about it impacting Single Player,  much like they did when they were asked if Multiplayer existed.

You really aren't getting what they're saying,  which is *really* important since they've seen the game and you have not.


1. Okay, that's like saying that I'll interrupt the flow of a good story if I need to take a bathroom break, which is partially true, but I really doubt anything of significance is lost during that little break. Unless I have the attention span of a squirrel.

2. Yes. I have. In the beta leak. There are plenty of moments where you have to make a CHOICE. No amount of resources can make a choice for you.

3. Guess what. Throwing money at designers won't improve their workflow. And I like to think that multiplayer was taken in consideration when they were handed this budget so another studio could do it for them with different programmers that work in different ways than the main studio.

4. You mean just as much as people paid attention to the Mass Effect Galaxy app? Yeah. Just because they spent a lot of money on it doesn't mean it automatically makes it a better game. Same thing can be said about a lot of movies these days.

5. As I said before, War Assets, like fleets and troops won't make decisions for you, like...which person to protect/pick up or what part of a mission you should focus on. It doesn't make the decisions redundant. But it's nice of you to show that you're blinded by EA hate, as usual.

6. I have yet to see anything that indicates anything else. AGAIN: WAR ASSETS (which is the only damn thing you can get in the co-op, since the best you can do there is picking up supplies, upload data and bring certain object to pickup zones) ALONE WON'T WIN THE WAR. I don't think I can express that good enough.

There are plenty of choices (more so than in your precious ME1) in ME3 that dictates the outcome of the whole conflict between the two races/factions you're helping. By the way, if you had actually known what the goal with recruiting all these races actually is, I think you could easily see that it takes more than simple currency (yes, War Assets are used to purchase things like fleets, upgrades and such. It's glorified credits) to accomplish the ultimate goal with ME3.

Modifié par Someone With Mass, 03 décembre 2011 - 03:43 .


#235
Cloaking_Thane

Cloaking_Thane
  • Members
  • 2 838 messages

111987 wrote...

Cloaking_Thane wrote...

111987 wrote...
...Snip

1. For sure, but more replayability never hurt anyone right?
2. Very true; that is the hope, but we probably won't be able to say until the game is released. It couldn't hurt though.
6. You're right, it might suck for all we know. And some people will hate it regardless. But the hope is that it will be fun. I'm taking an optimistic approach here.


Totally understand your approach. I'm honestly pretty ambivalent, but if I had any choice at all (of course I don't lol) I would have kept it single player only for the trilogy at least, then let the machinations at EA take over.

but I'm not going to throw a huge b**** fit over it you know


That's great to know :D

I wish everyone here could express their opinions, have a discussion about it, and then agree to disagree if no-one can change the other's mind.


Yea, Im here for the characters and story. Everything else is gravy more or less.

#236
joe4201

joe4201
  • Members
  • 120 messages
These are some pretty weak reasons

#237
Mr. Gogeta34

Mr. Gogeta34
  • Members
  • 4 033 messages
The only reason I need for dropping Mass Effect 3 multiplayer is......

I don't have Xbox Live Gold... so I can't enjoy that anyway.

#238
capn233

capn233
  • Members
  • 17 379 messages
There aren't any reasonable arguments against including multiplayer. If you don't want to play it then don't. I never played the mp for the Half-Life titles (except for Counter Strike and a couple other mods) because I only wanted to play the single player. Didn't ever think that they shouldn't have included it for those that did.

#239
Reptillius

Reptillius
  • Members
  • 1 242 messages

Someone With Mass wrote...

Gatt9 wrote...

Actually,  no big surprise,  Mass is wrong.

1.  It's called Narrative flow,  it gets completely disrupted when you interrupt it to go watch some random guy that has nothing to do with the plot.  Doubt me?  Go watch The Two Towers,  and just as Helm's Deep starts,  stop the movie and go watch Liar Liar,  then come back.  Tell me,  do you still have the same emotions the director intended you to have?  Nope.  You've interrupted the flow and lost your audience's attention.

2.  Do you have proof of this?  Because I very highly doubt EA decided out of the goodness of their hearts to give people an extra game mode in a game that sells average,  it's much more likely it's designed to sell Online Passes to used game buyers,  than it is EA sinking a few million dollars into an average seller for the heck'uv it.

3.  A few million spent in one place could've been spent in another place to improve some other facet.

4. You keep making the mistake of thinking this is meant to be some gift to the Players.  Once again,  do you really think EA spent that much money on a feature that doesn't improve the game,  and very obviously won't make people run right out and buy it?  Because I'm really confident no one looked at ME1 and thought "Nope,  it doesn't have a handful of random co-op missions,  not buying it".  "Optional" feature is meant to improve revenues by getting used game buyers to pay EA something.  As such,  it's very highly unlikely to be Optional.  Especially since OXM,  who have seen the game,  hint that it may not be as optional as you think.

5.  Perhaps if you tried understanding what they're trying to tell you it would.  They're saying that it's designed to be key to getting the Optimal Ending,  making decisions redundant.

6.  Once again,  you keep thinking it's optional.  Maybe you should try going back to the FAQ and noticing how Bioware completely dodges the question about it impacting Single Player,  much like they did when they were asked if Multiplayer existed.

You really aren't getting what they're saying,  which is *really* important since they've seen the game and you have not.


1. Okay, that's like saying that I'll interrupt the flow of a good story if I need to take a bathroom break, which is partially true, but I really doubt anything of significance is lost during that little break. Unless I have the attention span of a squirrel.

2. Yes. I have. In the beta leak. There are plenty of moments where you have to make a CHOICE. No amount of resources can make a choice for you.

3. Guess what. Throwing money at designers won't improve their workflow. And I like to think that multiplayer was taken in consideration when they were handed this budget so another studio could do it for them with different programmers that work in different ways than the main studio.

4. You mean just as much as people paid attention to the Mass Effect Galaxy app? Yeah. Just because they spent a lot of money on it doesn't mean it automatically makes it a better game. Same thing can be said about a lot of movies these days.

5. As I said before, War Assets, like fleets and troops won't make decisions for you, like...which person to protect/pick up or what part of a mission you should focus on. It doesn't make the decisions redundant. But it's nice of you to show that you're blinded by EA hate, as usual.

6. I have yet to see anything that indicates anything else. AGAIN: WAR ASSETS (which is the only damn thing you can get in the co-op, since the best you can do there is picking up supplies, upload data and bring certain object to pickup zones) ALONE WON'T WIN THE WAR. I don't think I can express that good enough.

There are plenty of choices (more so than in your precious ME1) in ME3 that dictates the outcome of the whole conflict between the two races/factions you're helping. By the way, if you had actually known what the goal with recruiting all these races actually is, I think you could easily see that it takes more than simple currency (yes, War Assets are used to purchase things like fleets, upgrades and such. It's glorified credits) to accomplish the ultimate goal with ME3.



I'm going to have to side with Mass on this one. particularly on point 1.  I'm sorry but with a game like this the excuse of  Breaking Immersion to do something else is a smoke screen at best.  Very very few people sit down and play these games all the way through. Many more have to put it down and go live their life, watch a movie, hang out with friends, or heaven forbid even play a different game.  Actually playing a different part of the Mass Effect 3 story breaks the story less than anything else in our daily lives that comes up that breaks up that 30+ hours of game play(being generously low for the speed players around here) that we might do that can break that time up over several days at the very least.  The tone is always changed when we go back to the game and get back into what we were doing rather than keeping it all going straight through.

I'll also touch a little on point 2.  EA's big sellers may be sports games. But as much as some people might argue things and compare them to say sales of CoD or something. For our Genre Mass Effect is one of the Bigger Titles and there aren't as many big titles with lots of followers as some other genres.  So if they want to invest in a Genre like the RPG's then yes they are going to throw some money and try to add some extra features to a game like Mass Effect. Average isn't so average in our genre if you compare games of the same genre.  Specially when it's a mode that might bring in people from other genre's and get them interested in a different kind of game.

#240
Night Wraith

Night Wraith
  • Members
  • 396 messages

Mesina2 wrote...

1. That makes no sense. And could you at least spell Shepard right?

2. Agreed, but how's that a reason to drop Co-Op?

3. Bioware Edmonton Mass Effect team is doing what you just said for SP campaign. If you don't like it, don't attempt Co-Op at all which is made by Bioware Montreal.

4. If it's optional then why do you complain about it? I won't use it, but some people will and might want that. Long enough is not mandatory, there's no problem.

5. It's optional. You don't have to play Co-Op so no need to help yourself if you screwed yourself in SP campaign and decisions will still keep impact.

6. How the f*ck are they "stealing" Modern Warfare costumers, game that is famous do to competitive multiplayer, with cooperative multiplayer?!





Thanks Fiery Phoenix for wasting my time for linking that article.
It was not interesting to read.


Agreed

#241
DarthSliver

DarthSliver
  • Members
  • 3 335 messages
Yeah, MP isnt the selling point for me with ME3. I could care less that its there or if it gets removed last minute, it wont hurt me.

#242
FlyingWalrus

FlyingWalrus
  • Members
  • 889 messages
This is a pretty goddamn stupid screed that rehashes the same baseless whining you typically hear.

Yeah, the mode might be part of EA's evil plan to lock out the used games market. But if it wasn't multiplayer, it would've been something else -- like a whole chapter of the game, considered 'optional,' like the Catwoman content in Arkham City. At least this way it's something COMPLETELY optional that may enhance the experience for the people open-minded enough to embrace such a concept as multiplayer in RPG. The nerve of them, right?

Not only that but the fact that it allows players to do something they have ALWAYS asked to do (make characters of the myriad Council species) and is yet met by shrill crying comes off as puzzling to me. Yeah the mode is no fully fledged module, but one step at a time, right? Think of it as a test bed for future projects, as it's plainly obvious that they want to make Mass Effect into a franchise beyond the trilogy. You know that they're headed in the right direction by having made the multiplayer a cooperative venture instead of some meatheaded poorly-balanced deathmatch PvP mode like Dead Space 2's.

Have you ever played Red Dead Redemption's Outlaws to the End? Most of the whiners, probably not. They hate shooters for one reason or another: from the legitimate like they don't enjoy them to the stupid like 'those are games for DUMB people!' Either way, it was a set of several cooperative missions that allow up to four players to band together and accomplish several tasks in a progressive pattern. The objectives are varied and range from survival, to pillaging, to raiding and (most enraging) escorting a herd of cattle through a gorge surrounded by men trying to kill the cattle.

But it was great fun. If you're decrying the multiplayer for reasons like, "I don't have any friends and online gaming sucks!" Well, boo-****ing-hoo for you? Other people like me DO have friends that enjoy this game, and the RDR co-op missions (which are free DLC, btw) have proven the concept. I can only hope that the ME3 multiplayer is half as much an objective-based co-op romp that Outlaws to the End was.

And for those of you that just enjoy the single player, well, there's that. Untouched, unhindered. And you won't have to touch the multiplayer. Bottom line though, it's here to stay. Get the **** over it.

#243
CenturyCrow

CenturyCrow
  • Members
  • 675 messages
I still don't want it based on a few things:

a) I played ME as single player; I played ME 2 as single player - neither of which gave any indication it would be multiplayer. So I'd like to finish the series in single player mode.
B) Multiplayer will probably drag in Origin for the PC and I don't want Origin either.
c) BioWare, Montreal didn't do this for free; there had to be a significant cost associated with it. No way to tell if that cost impacted single player, but I would have rather seen the cost go to single player. Yes, it's possible given the BioWare talent and skills that it would be done well. But why? Why just add co-op mode? Why not add co-op and player vs player? Or better yet to please multiplayer fans, why not put the effort and cost into a distinct, stand alone game? And they seem to have left out an important element of co-op with Lan play or split screen.
d) The double talk hype. First that I don't need it for single player but then it will help as single player.

The more you push for a one size fits all, the more people it won't fit.

Yes, I grant you that some long time BioWare RPG fans will try it out. That it will probably be done well. There are lots of multiplayer games that it will end up competing against. There aren't a lot of single player games that it will be competing with.

Let's try out the reverse logic of this based on another game that people keep mentioning. Call of Duty. What would happen if the next version of Call of Duty was suddenly switched to single player, story driven game, no co-op, no multiplayer? IT. WILL. NEVER. HAPPEN because of the COD audience.

Modifié par CenturyCrow, 03 décembre 2011 - 09:51 .


#244
Savber100

Savber100
  • Members
  • 3 049 messages
Honestly if those are the best reasons for not having coop, I'll welcome coop with open arms. :P

#245
TwistedComplex

TwistedComplex
  • Members
  • 1 441 messages

RPGamer13 wrote...

but I'd like to play a race other than Female 


A race other than female

Female

Race

What

#246
Il Divo

Il Divo
  • Members
  • 9 775 messages

Gatt9 wrote...

Actually,  no big surprise,  Mass is wrong.

1.  It's called Narrative flow,  it gets completely disrupted when you interrupt it to go watch some random guy that has nothing to do with the plot.  Doubt me?  Go watch The Two Towers,  and just as Helm's Deep starts,  stop the movie and go watch Liar Liar,  then come back.  Tell me,  do you still have the same emotions the director intended you to have?  Nope.  You've interrupted the flow and lost your audience's attention.


Wait, this is your argument? Are you for real? Very well, let me spell it out for you, though you should know about this, as someone who constantly portrays himself as an expert in the RPG genre.

There is no narrative flow in RPGs, in so far as you can interrupt the experience at any time. When a player decides to perform every mineral side quest in ME1, there is no narrative flow. When a player decides to engage in planet scanning for two hours straight, there is no narrative flow. Multiplayer will not ruin narrative flow any more than any other feature typically found in an RPG including grinding, resource management, or side quests; it's entirely player-based. Virmire is probably Mass Effect's most intense mission....and you save your game and quit at any point, for any number of reasons.

Mass Effect is a 25-45 hour game experience. People do not typically finish the narrative in one sitting, which is one aspect which separates both games and novels from films and makes a continuous narrative flow substantially more difficult to attain. Your Two Towers comparison is 100% invalid.

Big surprise, Gatt's posting unsupported conclusions...again.  

Modifié par Il Divo, 03 décembre 2011 - 11:31 .


#247
byzantine horse

byzantine horse
  • Members
  • 359 messages
I can only see one disadvantage with multiplayer: It takes away time and resources from the singleplayer. And let's face it, if I play multiplayer in ME3 it isn't because I bought ME3 to play multiplayer, it is because it is reasonably fun, but only if it is reasonably funny. The singleplayer is what I will buy the game for and nothing else.

But as it is going to stay I just hope Bioware can still deliver a solid singleplayer experience; nay an epic singleplayer experience because that is what I expect.

#248
Justicar

Justicar
  • Members
  • 992 messages
That writer is a moron.

He's just blathering nonsensical attacks with no proper foundations or points. Mesina2's post on the first page of this thread proves that.

#249
whywhywhywhy

whywhywhywhy
  • Members
  • 697 messages

PoliteAssasin wrote...

@Jreezy - apparently you missed the part where I said I'm looking forward to multi play.

@DieBytheSword - bioware themselves said that they want the COD crowd. I'm on an iPad so I'm not going to link it, but a google search will show you to the article, and direct quote. Search "Bioware we want call of duty crowd" and you'll get it.

Next time do a little reading before posting gentlemen.
-Polite

Nicely done.

jreezy wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

jreezy
wrote...
Don't forget that achievements aren't even important to
playing a game.


It is to some.

Perfectionists
maybe? I'm not sure if more casual people would consider achievements
all that important.

So people are just goal oriented, it increases replay value for them.  Others are as you say... completionists.

#250
whywhywhywhy

whywhywhywhy
  • Members
  • 697 messages

Gatt9 wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...
-- snip --



Actually,  no big surprise,  Mass is wrong.

1.  It's called Narrative flow,  it gets completely disrupted when you interrupt it to go watch some random guy that has nothing to do with the plot.  Doubt me?  Go watch The Two Towers,  and just as Helm's Deep starts,  stop the movie and go watch Liar Liar,  then come back.  Tell me,  do you still have the same emotions the director intended you to have?  Nope.  You've interrupted the flow and lost your audience's attention.

2.  Do you have proof of this?  Because I very highly doubt EA decided out of the goodness of their hearts to give people an extra game mode in a game that sells average,  it's much more likely it's designed to sell Online Passes to used game buyers,  than it is EA sinking a few million dollars into an average seller for the heck'uv it.

3.  A few million spent in one place could've been spent in another place to improve some other facet.

4. You keep making the mistake of thinking this is meant to be some gift to the Players.  Once again,  do you really think EA spent that much money on a feature that doesn't improve the game,  and very obviously won't make people run right out and buy it?  Because I'm really confident no one looked at ME1 and thought "Nope,  it doesn't have a handful of random co-op missions,  not buying it".  "Optional" feature is meant to improve revenues by getting used game buyers to pay EA something.  As such,  it's very highly unlikely to be Optional.  Especially since OXM,  who have seen the game,  hint that it may not be as optional as you think.

5.  Perhaps if you tried understanding what they're trying to tell you it would.  They're saying that it's designed to be key to getting the Optimal Ending,  making decisions redundant.

6.  Once again,  you keep thinking it's optional.  Maybe you should try going back to the FAQ and noticing how Bioware completely dodges the question about it impacting Single Player,  much like they did when they were asked if Multiplayer existed.

You really aren't getting what they're saying,  which is *really* important since they've seen the game and you have not.

This^

Modifié par whywhywhywhy, 03 décembre 2011 - 01:49 .