414 réponses à ce sujet

[Someone With Mass]

Drone223 wrote...

BSN

No kidding.

It feels like I have to draw a damn flowchart.

[witchee2woman]

does anyone know if they are going to make the cities u went to in ME2 bigger and better in ME3?

[CenturyCrow]

Mesina2 wrote...
Bioware said multiple times you DON'T need to play Co-Op to get best ending.

BioWare said multiple times, 'press a button and something awesome happens.' BioWare also provides pages and pages of EULA, TOS and Privacy Policies for your reading pleasure. Enjoy.

Some call it advertising. Some call it hype. Fishing lures catch more fishermen than fish.

Maybe they could include a word processor and spreadsheet for wider appeal. Origin is free too.

[Balek-Vriege]

CenturyCrow wrote...

Mesina2 wrote...
Bioware said multiple times you DON'T need to play Co-Op to get best ending.

BioWare said multiple times, 'press a button and something awesome happens.' BioWare also provides pages and pages of EULA, TOS and Privacy Policies for your reading pleasure. Enjoy.

Some call it advertising. Some call it hype. Fishing lures catch more fishermen than fish.

Maybe they could include a word processor and spreadsheet for wider appeal. Origin is free too.

Your point is?  "Press a button and something awesome happens." was obviously a guy saying what he felt the ideal/style behind combat was and thought it sounded good for marketing.  It was an opinion more than a statement.  (I don't understand the fury about this quote either.  I guess people want a lackluster singularity or a not so overwhelming fighting seen, or a crapy melee animation...)


What does that have to do with a simply stated and direct statements about an actual feature in the game?  Statements like:

"MP is completely optionable."
"You don't need to play MP"
"There is enough Galactic Readiness in Singleplayer for the best ending"
"MP is an alternative for getting Galactic Readiness"

I don't know how much clearer someone can be about a certain aspect of the game so many times after being asked over and over again all while being utterly consistent on the response.  These satements have been made over twitter, on BSN and in pulse episodes.

What is the hype behind those statements?  What's the marketing speak behind those statements?  I can't really see when the spin is.  Other than actually showing through a video how GR affects the game, there's not much else they can say.

It's always good to take things with a grain of salt, but it can become delusional to ignore everything you hear as misleading and lies.  That means all your ideas are based off  nothing but your own opinion and no actual facts but your "own" to back it up.

Modifié par Balek-Vriege, 03 décembre 2011 - 09:29 .

[Iakus]

lightsnow13 wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

iakus wrote...
War Assets AND decision making.  You need both.

MP gives you War Assets, one of the things you need.

Yeah, that's what they've said all this time. You can get that in the singleplayer too.

Oh, and you'll need the loyalty of certain races to complete one task the war assets can't.

Seriously, how is this so hard to comprehend?

He's just mad there's still multiplayer.

Iakus, why are you still so against this? How about you stop spending your energy hating a feature that is going to be in the game regardless and learn to accept mutliplayer and realize you don't have to play it.

Why?

Because I'm still convinced that it will hurt the single player.  Either by disrupting it or by removing elements from it.  War Assets will either be horrifically difficult to gain enough of in SP, or be trivially easy using multiplayer.  

I may have to accept that multiplayer is in ME3, but I certainly don't have to like it.  I don't have to like the dishonest way Bioware handled the news.  And I don't have to like how Bioware is now doing a mad sprint to become just like every other game outthere in its quest for more sales.  

And I choose to spend my energy making my displeasure known.  You, however do not have to spend your energy telling me how having a completely single player ME3 is badwrongunfun.

[Balek-Vriege]

iakus wrote...

lightsnow13 wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

iakus wrote...
War Assets AND decision making.  You need both.

MP gives you War Assets, one of the things you need.

Yeah, that's what they've said all this time. You can get that in the singleplayer too.

Oh, and you'll need the loyalty of certain races to complete one task the war assets can't.

Seriously, how is this so hard to comprehend?

He's just mad there's still multiplayer.

Iakus, why are you still so against this? How about you stop spending your energy hating a feature that is going to be in the game regardless and learn to accept mutliplayer and realize you don't have to play it.

Why?

Because I'm still convinced that it will hurt the single player.  Either by disrupting it or by removing elements from it.  War Assets will either be horrifically difficult to gain enough of in SP, or be trivially easy using multiplayer.  

I may have to accept that multiplayer is in ME3, but I certainly don't have to like it.  I don't have to like the dishonest way Bioware handled the news.  And I don't have to like how Bioware is now doing a mad sprint to become just like every other game outthere in its quest for more sales.  

And I choose to spend my energy making my displeasure known.  You, however do not have to spend your energy telling me how having a completely single player ME3 is badwrongunfun.

It could just as easily be the opposite.  It's more likely to be easy to get GR/War Assets in SP because you only need to play the game in a completionist manner to acquire the optimal, finite amount.  The same way you had to be completionist in ME1 to get all the Asari writings, dogtags etc.  It's more likely that farming/grinding for GR/Assets will be harder in MP if you don't get optimal games that reach high level waves.

Much like The Last Stand coop in Dawn of War 2.  If you're a really good or keep teaming up with people who are really good, your character will level very quickly and will unlock items from achievements easy.  However, if your always stuck in low level teams and never make it past wave 7-9, your going to leveling up and trying to unlock stuff for quite a while.

I don't see how SP GR could be extremely hard to achieve unless there wasn't enough or barely enough GR to get the optimal amount required.

Edit:

Maybe that should be the question all the MP critics should be trying to ask Bioware:

"Will there be barely enough GR/Assets in SP,  forcing us to do all the assignments to get max GR if we don't play MP?  Or will it be treated more like resources in ME2 where you only needed to mine/aquire enough materials to get all the upgrades and there's more than enough?"

Instead of "assuming" how it's going to be.

Modifié par Balek-Vriege, 03 décembre 2011 - 10:02 .

[Alex_SM]

Bioware won't answer. They never answer about controversial things.

[Iakus]

Balek-Vriege wrote...

It could just as easily be the opposite.  It's more likely to be easy to get GR/War Assets in SP because you only need to play the game in a completionist manner to acquire the optimal, finite amount.  The same way you had to be completionist in ME1 to get all the Asari writings, dogtags etc.  It's more likely that farming/grinding for GR/Assets will be harder in MP if you don't get optimal games that reach high level waves.

The problem with that comparison is that gaining all the matriarch writings, salarian medallions, etc is that while it was completely optional it was actually rather grindy.  I've almost never finished those missions and only gathered them if I was nearby anyway.

I would really, really hate to think that gathering SP Assets, or enough to get an optimal ending without MP would be that tedious.

Much like The Last Stand coop in Dawn of War 2.  If you're a really good or keep teaming up with people who are really good, your character will level very quickly and will unlock items from achievements easy.  However, if your always stuck in low level teams and never make it past wave 7-9, your going to leveling up and trying to unlock stuff for quite a while.

I don't see how SP GR could be extremely hard to achieve unless there wasn't enough or barely enough GR to get the optimal amount required.

last part bolded for emphasis.

This is definitely one of my fears, and one that gets conveniently overlooked by almost everyone.  Just because there is enough assets out there in sp does not mean they won't be an absolute pain to get, or worse, to find.

Edit:

Maybe that should be the question all the MP critics should be trying to ask Bioware:

"Will there be barely enough GR/Assets in SP,  forcing us to do all the assignments to get max GR if we don't play MP?  Or will it be treated more like resources in ME2 where you only needed to mine/aquire enough materials to get all the upgrades and there's more than enough?"

Instead of "assuming" how it's going to be.

I've raised that question on several threads.  No answer, little speculation.  Given that, and how much Bioware crows about MP and how awesome it is...implications unpleasant.

I must thank you.  You at least are willing to debate the merits of MP without stooping to insults and condescension.

[Iakus]

Alex_SM wrote...

Bioware won't answer. They never answer about controversial things.

This.  Bioware tends to get really quiet about topics that are potentially unpleasant.  And wait until the last minute to break such news.

[billy the squid]

iakus wrote...

lightsnow13 wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

iakus wrote...
War Assets AND decision making.  You need both.

MP gives you War Assets, one of the things you need.

Yeah, that's what they've said all this time. You can get that in the singleplayer too.

Oh, and you'll need the loyalty of certain races to complete one task the war assets can't.

Seriously, how is this so hard to comprehend?

He's just mad there's still multiplayer.

Iakus, why are you still so against this? How about you stop spending your energy hating a feature that is going to be in the game regardless and learn to accept mutliplayer and realize you don't have to play it.

Why?

Because I'm still convinced that it will hurt the single player.  Either by disrupting it or by removing elements from it.  War Assets will either be horrifically difficult to gain enough of in SP, or be trivially easy using multiplayer.  

I may have to accept that multiplayer is in ME3, but I certainly don't have to like it.  I don't have to like the dishonest way Bioware handled the news.  And I don't have to like how Bioware is now doing a mad sprint to become just like every other game outthere in its quest for more sales.  

And I choose to spend my energy making my displeasure known.  You, however do not have to spend your energy telling me how having a completely single player ME3 is badwrongunfun.

Either that or your bad at the SP, so turn down the difficulty. The whole point of the game is to  make the multiple endings available or the effort put into creating them would have been a complete waste, they could have just have easily included an "I win" button following that line of reasoning.

Implementation wise, we already know that the MP is only linked via the asset system, and the subsequent rounds get harder so unless all MP players are Godly and can hit the head of a pin at 500m then it stands to reason that creating a MP which will break the SP is monumentally stupid from it's very inception as a cohesive thought.

As to the PR issue, EA's PR department is shocking in its ability to mess things up, so I'm not paticularly suprised the announced the MP in such a way. Whilst the mad dash to be every other game, you really need to read some marketing and economic theory, as it is not even close to such FPS games as CoD, BF3 or GoW3 other than it involving guns and a cover mechanic.
 
Any attempt to shift a product's segment base at the highest point of its lifecycle is going to be an unmitigated disaster and if EA doesn't realise that then they need their head examined. They did not however, become a multinational corporation by making such basic mistakes, what they have attempted is to draw in more of the market segment from the periphery without eroding their core segment basis.

Modifié par billy the squid, 03 décembre 2011 - 10:24 .

[Geth_Prime]

iakus wrote...

Why?

Because I'm still convinced that it will hurt the single player.  Either by disrupting it or by removing elements from it.  War Assets will either be horrifically difficult to gain enough of in SP, or be trivially easy using multiplayer.  

I may have to accept that multiplayer is in ME3, but I certainly don't have to like it.  I don't have to like the dishonest way Bioware handled the news.  And I don't have to like how Bioware is now doing a mad sprint to become just like every other game outthere in its quest for more sales.  

And I choose to spend my energy making my displeasure known.  You, however do not have to spend your energy telling me how having a completely single player ME3 is badwrongunfun.

So basically, it's because you're a cynic who is convinced that BioWare are up to no good. If you're going to voice your displeasure, at least find a reason to first. 

I don't like haters. And you're a hater. With no good means to hate. 

[Iakus]

Geth_Prime wrote...

So basically, it's because you're a cynic who is convinced that BioWare are up to no good. If you're going to voice your displeasure, at least find a reason to first. 

I don't like haters. And you're a hater. With no good means to hate. 

I prefer to think of it as "seeing a pattern of behavior" 

[CenturyCrow]

Balek-Vriege wrote...
Your point is?  "Press a button and something awesome happens." was obviously a guy saying what he felt the ideal/style behind combat was and thought it sounded good for marketing.  It was an opinion more than a statement.

Actually BioWare marketing said that about DA 2. Gave up waiting for the awesome...

Balek-Vriege wrote...
It's always good to take things with a grain of salt, but it can become delusional to ignore everything you hear as misleading and lies.  That means all your ideas are based off  nothing but your own opinion and no actual facts but your "own" to back it up.

Delusional? Opinion: Odd word to use about a virtual game, an illusion.  Then again, maybe it is suitable.

Fact: Neither of us have played ME 3, so most comments about it are opinions.
Fact: Mass Effect 1 and Mass Effect 2 are single player games, advertised as a trilogy. The 3rd part of the trilogy is no longer single player.
Expectation: That Mass Effect 3 would be single player
Fact: Mass Effect 3 includes multiplayer.
Rumor: Dragon Age 3 will include multiplayer.
Fact: Every BioWare game that I've played is single player. BioWare has history and a good reputation on story based single player games.
Fact: I have played various multiplayer games on the Playstation and on the PC
Opinion: Call of Duty series much better as a multiplayer game, than as a story driven, single player game.
Preference: Would have prefered ME 3 developed with the continuity of it's predecessors.
Fact: Uncharted 1 was a single player. Uncharted 2 included multiplayer and co-op.
Opinion: Didn't like the multiplayer or co-op of Uncharted 2.
Opinion: Prefer single player games usually.
Opinion: EA/BioWare seems to be shifting the emphasis from single player games to multiplayer.
Fact: It's EA/BioWare's IP, not mine; can't alter their decisions.
Extrapolation: Ignore future EA/BioWare games (especially since they will probably include Origin).

Depending on the Origin requirement for the PC, I probably will purchase ME 3 to finish off the series. And if EA/BioWare includes a spreadsheet or word processor in the game, I'll ignore it, like I will the co-op portion.

Delusion: Maybe BioWare will go back to single player games in the future.

Modifié par CenturyCrow, 03 décembre 2011 - 10:59 .

[Gatt9]

Geth_Prime wrote...

iakus wrote...

Why?

Because I'm still convinced that it will hurt the single player.  Either by disrupting it or by removing elements from it.  War Assets will either be horrifically difficult to gain enough of in SP, or be trivially easy using multiplayer.  

I may have to accept that multiplayer is in ME3, but I certainly don't have to like it.  I don't have to like the dishonest way Bioware handled the news.  And I don't have to like how Bioware is now doing a mad sprint to become just like every other game outthere in its quest for more sales.  

And I choose to spend my energy making my displeasure known.  You, however do not have to spend your energy telling me how having a completely single player ME3 is badwrongunfun.

So basically, it's because you're a cynic who is convinced that BioWare are up to no good. If you're going to voice your displeasure, at least find a reason to first. 

I don't like haters. And you're a hater. With no good means to hate. 

3 months ago everyone kept telling me I had no good reason to claim Bioware was lieing when the topic was if Multiplayer was in it.  Now these people conviently forget how they took Bioware at their word,  and Bioware's word was false.

8 weeks ago if I'd posted that Bioware had structured the game so they could include a RPG-less mode,  I would've received the exact same thing.

So here we are today,  "No,  Bioware would never lie about this!".  How many times do people have to find out Bioware isn't honest before they realize that Bioware isn't honest?

As I said before,  go look in the Multiplayer FAQ,  and notice how their response to the question of "Will MP affect SP?" completely fails to say yes or no.  It's like asking a politician a question..."Oh both modes are valueable to us and we've done our best to insure they're both fun...",  not a word in there if it does.

Which is probably because they've already given indications that things aren't nearly as Optional as people here keep thinking.

[The Elder King]

CenturyCrow wrote...




Fact: Every BioWare game that I've played is single player. BioWare has history and a good reputation on story based single player games.

BG, BG2 and NWN had multiplayer.  It could be that you played KOTOR, the DA IP and the ME IP only though.

Modifié par hhh89, 03 décembre 2011 - 11:10 .

[The Elder King]

double post

Modifié par hhh89, 03 décembre 2011 - 11:10 .

[Il Divo]

hhh89 wrote...

CenturyCrow wrote...




Fact: Every BioWare game that I've played is single player. BioWare has history and a good reputation on story based single player games.

BG, BG2 and NWN had multiplayer.

Well, there is the possibility that he hasn't played those games, in which case his statement would technically remain true.

[The Elder King]

Il Divo wrote...

hhh89 wrote...

CenturyCrow wrote...




Fact: Every BioWare game that I've played is single player. BioWare has history and a good reputation on story based single player games.

BG, BG2 and NWN had multiplayer.

Well, there is the possibility that he hasn't played those games, in which case his statement would technically remain true.

Yes, I edited my post for this possibility. Though he missed a lot if he didn't play the BG series.

Modifié par hhh89, 03 décembre 2011 - 11:12 .

[Someone With Mass]

BioWare didn't lie about multiplayer. They just never really denied it.

And I was against it at first because I thought that they were going to do some competitive BS.

Modifié par Someone With Mass, 03 décembre 2011 - 11:18 .

[Geth_Prime]

Gatt9 wrote...

So here we are today,  "No,  Bioware would never lie about this!".  How many times do people have to find out Bioware isn't honest before they realize that Bioware isn't honest?

As I said before,  go look in the Multiplayer FAQ,  and notice how their response to the question of "Will MP affect SP?" completely fails to say yes or no.  It's like asking a politician a question..."Oh both modes are valueable to us and we've done our best to insure they're both fun...",  not a word in there if it does.

Which is probably because they've already given indications that things aren't nearly as Optional as people here keep thinking.

So because there's a small chance that BioWare might not be telling the truth, you think you can just assume they're lying and start hating on the multiplayer?

If you're really worried, if you really can't accept BW's word, WAIT UNTIL THE GAME IS OUT BEFORE JUDGING.

Because the rest of us are very tired of you people moaning.

[The Elder King]

Someone With Mass wrote...

BioWare didn't lie about multiplayer. They just never really denied it.

And I was against it at first because I thought that they were going to do some competitive BS.

I'll hold my judgment until the game is released. From what we know so far, I find MP to be a bit boring. My main concern is its influence on the SP with the war assets. If there isn't an ending that will required MP, I'll be fine even if MP will be boring.

[CenturyCrow]

hhh89 wrote...

CenturyCrow wrote...
Fact: Every BioWare game that I've played is single player. BioWare has history and a good reputation on story based single player games.

BG, BG2 and NWN had multiplayer.  It could be that you played KOTOR, the DA IP and the ME IP only though.

I stand corrected (just looked at the BG2 manual). However, I purchased them with the intent of the single player game. I don't recall if I was aware of the multiplayer element or not; it just wasn't a factor.There were a few mulitplayer games that I did play via the modem years ago. But I never considered the BioWare games as multiplayer territory. Possibly because I was on dial-up at the time.

Looking at the old BioWare manuals and how things change--the EULAs are now larger than the manuals we get.

Modifié par CenturyCrow, 03 décembre 2011 - 11:23 .

[The Elder King]

CenturyCrow wrote...

hhh89 wrote...

CenturyCrow wrote...
Fact: Every BioWare game that I've played is single player. BioWare has history and a good reputation on story based single player games.

BG, BG2 and NWN had multiplayer.  It could be that you played KOTOR, the DA IP and the ME IP only though.

I stand corrected (just looked at the BG2 manual). However, I purchased them with the intent of the single player game. I don't recall if I was aware of the multiplayer element or not; it just wasn't a factor.There were a few mulitplayer games that I did play via the modem years ago. But I never considered the BioWare games as multiplayer territory. Possibly because I was on dial-up at the time.

Looking at the old BioWare manuals and how things change--the EULAs are now larger than the manuals we get.

I agree that what Bioware does best is single player. Though my main concern on MP is that I don't want to be forced to play it to have some exclusive contents for the SP. If I can achieve every ending without the MP, I'll be fine.

[CenturyCrow]

hhh89 wrote...
Though my main concern on MP is that I don't want to be forced to play it to have some exclusive contents for the SP. If I can achieve every ending without the MP, I'll be fine.

That's my concern as well; that it doesn't detract from the game. Along with what happens with Origin.