Pretty much what Mesina2 said on page 1. In my opinion, none of those reasons are good reasons to drop the multiplayer.
OXM: Six Reasons to Drop [Mass Effect 3] Multiplayer
Débuté par
Fiery Phoenix
, déc. 02 2011 01:29
Retour en haut
#302
Posté 03 décembre 2011 - 11:53
Iakus
-
- Members
- 30 345 messages
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.
If Bioware annouces that, like those three games, ME3 will be fully moddable, complete with a toolset so people can create their own characters, worlds, weapons, outfits, and missions and share them with each other, I will gladly withdraw all complaints about MP being included.
Yeah, that's gonna happen
#303
Posté 04 décembre 2011 - 12:11
Nizzemancer
-
- Members
- 1 541 messages
jreezy wrote...
Don't forget that achievements aren't even important to playing a game.Someone With Mass wrote...
Nizzemancer wrote...
MP = MP Achievments = I won't be getting 100%/100% for ME3 because I boycott Live gold on account of it being shameless greed-driven exploitation of game-hosting monopoly they've created for themselves.
*sad*
You can play the co-op part by yourself, anyway.
I know that but I'm a compulsive completionist so it would be weird not to complete them.
#304
Posté 04 décembre 2011 - 12:51
CrazyRah
-
- Members
- 13 285 messages
That were some pretty bad reasons and i can't even take them seriously when they can't even spell Shepard
#306
Posté 04 décembre 2011 - 01:19
Il Divo
-
- Members
- 9 771 messages
iakus wrote...
If Bioware annouces that, like those three games, ME3 will be fully moddable, complete with a toolset so people can create their own characters, worlds, weapons, outfits, and missions and share them with each other, I will gladly withdraw all complaints about MP being included.
Yeah, that's gonna happen
Mass Effect online? I'm in. Hell, Neverwinter Nights from what I've seen is the closest anyone has come to replicating a DnD role-playing session with other players. I'd prefer the Dragon Age ruleset though over ME's.
#307
Posté 04 décembre 2011 - 01:31
FlyingWalrus
-
- Members
- 889 messages
Wow. "Narrative flow." You guys are really pulling out all the ****s to argue this down in your peers' eyes, aren't you? That example with The Two Towers was genius in particular. Seriously speaking, Gatt9, If you were learned at all in the source material or in literature in general, you would realize that many novels -- fantasy and science fiction, in particular -- follow more than one protagonist and thus more or less hop around as needed to show the true breadth of a conflict as it is seen by several characters. I don't expect you to understand this seeing how you are stubbornly mired in your own, close-minded opinion, but it is quite common. Like most things, it depends on the medium and the structure of the story being told. The virtuoso's example I suppose would be A Song of Ice and Fire by George R.R. Martin. Then again, your mileage may vary; he's tied himself up into so many subplots because of it that it seems almost hopeless an endeavor to close them all satisfactorily.
But I digress. 'Multiplayer' almost never has any effect on narrative flow whatsoever, ever, in any game, because it is almost always in the player's mind that they are going to be switching gears when they go from one playing mode to another. Multiplayer NEVER interrupts your story moments or your frenetic clicking of random environmental objects to see if they do something cool because it is almost always set apart from the single-player game, and if not then it is tied in some tenuous fashion to it.
The sole exceptions to this that I am aware of? Demon's Souls and its pseudo-sequel, Dark Souls, where an enemy player can invade your game at will even if you are in the middle of something important. The difference is that the whole ordeal of invasions is woven into the lore.
In the end, the opposition to multiplayer (co-op or not) is rooted in some ill-begotten purist view that forgets that RPGs were originally a multiplayer experience.
But I digress. 'Multiplayer' almost never has any effect on narrative flow whatsoever, ever, in any game, because it is almost always in the player's mind that they are going to be switching gears when they go from one playing mode to another. Multiplayer NEVER interrupts your story moments or your frenetic clicking of random environmental objects to see if they do something cool because it is almost always set apart from the single-player game, and if not then it is tied in some tenuous fashion to it.
The sole exceptions to this that I am aware of? Demon's Souls and its pseudo-sequel, Dark Souls, where an enemy player can invade your game at will even if you are in the middle of something important. The difference is that the whole ordeal of invasions is woven into the lore.
In the end, the opposition to multiplayer (co-op or not) is rooted in some ill-begotten purist view that forgets that RPGs were originally a multiplayer experience.
Modifié par FlyingWalrus, 04 décembre 2011 - 01:33 .
#308
Posté 04 décembre 2011 - 02:00
shep82
-
- Members
- 990 messages
Very well put.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.
#309
Posté 04 décembre 2011 - 02:31
Jaron Oberyn
-
- Members
- 6 754 messages
Gatt9's got a point. EA wants to have an online code for you to play the game in order to get a cut out of the used sales. If ME multiplayer is optional, they wouldn't be getting that money from used sales since people don't play ME for the multiplayer but the single player. It's common sense. Therefore in order to ensure that they're going to get that money from used sales, they'll make it where multiplayer is necessary in some way. What I'm curious about is how is this going to affect those who don't have Live.
-Polite
-Polite
#310
Posté 04 décembre 2011 - 04:23
Quaay
-
- Members
- 1 133 messages
They always say multiplayer will help you have success in your single player game but what if I don't want it to effect my game saves? I did what I did in each character save for a reason and would like to get the endings as intended. So is there a way to play multiplayer and tell it not to link to any single player files?
#311
Guest_Mass Effect Player_*
Posté 04 décembre 2011 - 05:11
Guest_Mass Effect Player_*
Guest_Mass Effect Player_*
-
- Guests
Most of you of have heard this but probably need to hear it agian, Bioware wanted it in the first game. I was around during the first game and I recall them saying that or giving slight hints with the unpromised DLC.
Modifié par Mass Effect Player, 04 décembre 2011 - 05:17 .
#312
Posté 04 décembre 2011 - 05:11
CenturyCrow
-
- Members
- 675 messages
You raise a good point. Easy solution - buy 2 copiesQuaay wrote...
They always say multiplayer will help you have success in your single player game but what if I don't want it to effect my game saves? I did what I did in each character save for a reason and would like to get the endings as intended. So is there a way to play multiplayer and tell it not to link to any single player files?
Seriously. Two factors come to mind and we probably won't get an answer until near release. Platform type and DLC. It probably will affect DLC, so there may be a difference between the Collectors Edition's DLC and the standard edition if/when additional DLC comes later.
With the PC, the plan seems to be a mandatory installation of Origin software (based on BF3 - still waiting on ME 3). Don't know how it would work on the consoles or if there would be a difference between the XBox and PS3.
But EA seems to be pushing hard for Origin and digital distribution (and I would suspect, to eventually cut out retail packaging and sales and gain as much control as possible).
Modifié par CenturyCrow, 04 décembre 2011 - 05:12 .
#313
Guest_Mass Effect Player_*
Posté 04 décembre 2011 - 05:23
Guest_Mass Effect Player_*
Guest_Mass Effect Player_*
-
- Guests
Mass Effect Player wrote...
Most of you of have heard this but probably need to hear it again, Bioware wanted it in the first game. I was around during the first game and I recall them saying that or giving slight hints with the unpromised DLC.
And just to add I also think that article was horrible I skimmed it after a few seconds of reading. There's obviously a pattern here. I Respect the minimum exposure to Mass Effect 3 but it's getting kinda of annoying when you got video game jounalist like oxm looking desperately for "juicy" news from ME3.
Modifié par Mass Effect Player, 04 décembre 2011 - 05:24 .
#314
Posté 04 décembre 2011 - 07:15
whywhywhywhy
-
- Members
- 697 messages
[quote]Il Divo wrote...
I'd argue that what you are describing is irrelevant. [/quote]I disagree for the following.
[quote]Il Divo wrote...
I personally hated exploration, but that's not why it breaks narrative flow. Exploration, side quests, grinding, etc, take your pick. Every single one of these elements occurs in separation to the narrative, not in support of it. As such by necessity, they all break narrative flow, because they are mostly side attractions.[/quote]That depends on what your considering the main narrative to be. The only thing I can agree that does what you claim are the loyalty missions, everything else fits.
[quote]Il Divo wrote...
For what you are suggesting to be logically valid, you'd have to demonstrate how any exploration elements in ME1 support the main narrative, which they do not, despite the (rather weak) explanation that Spectres are expected to fund their own assignments.[/quote]They were searching for proof of the reapers, searching for Saren and exploring his ties to Benzia, searching for the conduit, the mu relay and he's a spectre. That's off the top of my head being both a Spectre and alliance soldier Shepard's being tasked with discovering what Saren was up to doesn't absolve him of all his other duties. Especially given the fact no one believed in the reapers, I doubt all his other responsibilities and needs(funds and such) disappears.
[quote]Il Divo wrote...
As is much of ME1's exploration, and mineral gathering. What I am pointing out does not support Gatt's position. Gatt's position is that multiplayer will break narrative flow, this I agree with. [/quote] Agreed. We can move on.
[quote]Il Divo wrote...
He then attempts to argue that this is somehow a major flaw, arguing that prior to its existence there has never been any breaks in the narrative in other forms of entertainment. That is pretty conclusively false.[/quote]I do think it's a major flaw but that's just me. However the arguing of "prior to its existence there has never been any breaks in the narrative" I'm not seeing that anywhere in Gatt's argument. I do think the differences in affects of the breaks escapes you.
[quote]Il Divo wrote...
It really doesn't matter whether you like planet scanning or exploration. Neither element has anything to do with the main storyline or supporting the narrative. It's about increasing gameplay length. [/quote]If that was exploration's sole purpose developers could have found a simplier less time and resource intensive way to implement it. What your saying is true for planet scanning but for exploration depends on implementation.
[quote]Il Divo wrote...
Grinding, by definition, is considered to be excessive.[/quote]Going by what your saying then all combat is grinding and thus excessive so why is BW adding a whole segment of redundant excessive grinding ?
[quote]Il Divo wrote...
Simply look at the application that it has in MMOs like WoW or JRPGs, which results in players killing monsters ad infinitum for XP to level up faster. Multiplayer functionality will not break narrative flow any more than doing a side quest in any RPG, or turning off the console. It's entirely player dependent. Of all the problems I have with multiplayer, this really isn't one of them. [/quote]During that time do you switch to another player ? When you quest, grind and such ?
[quote]Il Divo wrote...
Why should that make absolutely any difference? If I turn the game off, go to work, and come back 8 hours later, how is that any less of a disruption than if I log out of my file, play multiplayer, and log back in? [/quote]What is your focus on during this two scenarios ? With one your picking up where you left off, with the other your running through the ME world as someone who isn't the protagonist. If ME3 is the end of Shepard's story then he is Main narrative.
[quote]Il Divo wrote...
Both scenarios result in the exact same disruption of the narrative, resulting in the same exact story progression stall. Whether you kill aliens during that stall or go sit in front of an office desk shouldn't make any meaningful difference.[/quote]Agree to disagree.
[quote]Il Divo wrote...
The developers are not forcing you to do anything. You chose to switch game modes. If that's really a problem, you don't have to do it and can restrict yourself to SP activities.[/quote]It's not even the fact that MP is being added to a SP experience at this point. By incorporating MP into the SP campaign you have by defnition "forced" a game mode onto the player. If the MP module was completely seperate neither Gatt nor I would have an agrument n regards to this.
[quote]Il Divo wrote...
As I pointed out above, gameplay changes are no more disruptive for the narrative than being away for an extended period of time, or grinding side quests for a few hours. [/quote]You haven't said anything that supports this. ME quests aren't designed in the typical grinding manner so what your saying makes no sense.
[quote]Il Divo wrote...
All of those result in narrative breaks. Gatt's example of the Two Towers doesn't work, ignoring several different factors. One primary issue being that The Two Towers is a film, which is infinitely easier to finish without narrative breaks occurring due to the limited time length.[/quote] Try it with two movies you haven't seen, if that doesn't help you understand I don't know what will. If they are designing MP to give War assets I get the funny feeling War assets are not going to be readily available. That alone "encourages" a player to play MP. And if player's feelings vary toward the negative then that Narrative break has a much greater effect then pausing the game, side missions or taking a break.
[quote]Il Divo wrote...
It also ignores that other mediums of entertainment, including games and novels, have infinitely more opportunities for narrative breaks to occur, by virtue of requiring more time to finish the experience. [/quote]Your overlooking something very obvious, the question is if it's intentional or not.
[quote]Il Divo wrote...
To sum it up, I think you're confusing "I'm having fun" with "narrative flow". [/quote]lol no. You just didn't know what the Main narrative for ME is. I've told you what it is already. It's not about hunting/stopping Reapers, well, not JUST about hunting/stopping the Reapers.
[quote]Il Divo wrote...
There really isn't a necessary connection between the two. Side quests are fun, but in many ways they don't support the storyline. [/quote]That depends on the role the player is playing. When did this become about side quests ? It's a moot point that doesn't support your stance at best.
I'd argue that what you are describing is irrelevant. [/quote]I disagree for the following.
[quote]Il Divo wrote...
I personally hated exploration, but that's not why it breaks narrative flow. Exploration, side quests, grinding, etc, take your pick. Every single one of these elements occurs in separation to the narrative, not in support of it. As such by necessity, they all break narrative flow, because they are mostly side attractions.[/quote]That depends on what your considering the main narrative to be. The only thing I can agree that does what you claim are the loyalty missions, everything else fits.
[quote]Il Divo wrote...
For what you are suggesting to be logically valid, you'd have to demonstrate how any exploration elements in ME1 support the main narrative, which they do not, despite the (rather weak) explanation that Spectres are expected to fund their own assignments.[/quote]They were searching for proof of the reapers, searching for Saren and exploring his ties to Benzia, searching for the conduit, the mu relay and he's a spectre. That's off the top of my head being both a Spectre and alliance soldier Shepard's being tasked with discovering what Saren was up to doesn't absolve him of all his other duties. Especially given the fact no one believed in the reapers, I doubt all his other responsibilities and needs(funds and such) disappears.
[quote]Il Divo wrote...
As is much of ME1's exploration, and mineral gathering. What I am pointing out does not support Gatt's position. Gatt's position is that multiplayer will break narrative flow, this I agree with. [/quote] Agreed. We can move on.
[quote]Il Divo wrote...
He then attempts to argue that this is somehow a major flaw, arguing that prior to its existence there has never been any breaks in the narrative in other forms of entertainment. That is pretty conclusively false.[/quote]I do think it's a major flaw but that's just me. However the arguing of "prior to its existence there has never been any breaks in the narrative" I'm not seeing that anywhere in Gatt's argument. I do think the differences in affects of the breaks escapes you.
[quote]Il Divo wrote...
It really doesn't matter whether you like planet scanning or exploration. Neither element has anything to do with the main storyline or supporting the narrative. It's about increasing gameplay length. [/quote]If that was exploration's sole purpose developers could have found a simplier less time and resource intensive way to implement it. What your saying is true for planet scanning but for exploration depends on implementation.
[quote]Il Divo wrote...
Grinding, by definition, is considered to be excessive.[/quote]Going by what your saying then all combat is grinding and thus excessive so why is BW adding a whole segment of redundant excessive grinding ?
[quote]Il Divo wrote...
Simply look at the application that it has in MMOs like WoW or JRPGs, which results in players killing monsters ad infinitum for XP to level up faster. Multiplayer functionality will not break narrative flow any more than doing a side quest in any RPG, or turning off the console. It's entirely player dependent. Of all the problems I have with multiplayer, this really isn't one of them. [/quote]During that time do you switch to another player ? When you quest, grind and such ?
[quote]Il Divo wrote...
Why should that make absolutely any difference? If I turn the game off, go to work, and come back 8 hours later, how is that any less of a disruption than if I log out of my file, play multiplayer, and log back in? [/quote]What is your focus on during this two scenarios ? With one your picking up where you left off, with the other your running through the ME world as someone who isn't the protagonist. If ME3 is the end of Shepard's story then he is Main narrative.
[quote]Il Divo wrote...
Both scenarios result in the exact same disruption of the narrative, resulting in the same exact story progression stall. Whether you kill aliens during that stall or go sit in front of an office desk shouldn't make any meaningful difference.[/quote]Agree to disagree.
[quote]Il Divo wrote...
The developers are not forcing you to do anything. You chose to switch game modes. If that's really a problem, you don't have to do it and can restrict yourself to SP activities.[/quote]It's not even the fact that MP is being added to a SP experience at this point. By incorporating MP into the SP campaign you have by defnition "forced" a game mode onto the player. If the MP module was completely seperate neither Gatt nor I would have an agrument n regards to this.
[quote]Il Divo wrote...
As I pointed out above, gameplay changes are no more disruptive for the narrative than being away for an extended period of time, or grinding side quests for a few hours. [/quote]You haven't said anything that supports this. ME quests aren't designed in the typical grinding manner so what your saying makes no sense.
[quote]Il Divo wrote...
All of those result in narrative breaks. Gatt's example of the Two Towers doesn't work, ignoring several different factors. One primary issue being that The Two Towers is a film, which is infinitely easier to finish without narrative breaks occurring due to the limited time length.[/quote] Try it with two movies you haven't seen, if that doesn't help you understand I don't know what will. If they are designing MP to give War assets I get the funny feeling War assets are not going to be readily available. That alone "encourages" a player to play MP. And if player's feelings vary toward the negative then that Narrative break has a much greater effect then pausing the game, side missions or taking a break.
[quote]Il Divo wrote...
It also ignores that other mediums of entertainment, including games and novels, have infinitely more opportunities for narrative breaks to occur, by virtue of requiring more time to finish the experience. [/quote]Your overlooking something very obvious, the question is if it's intentional or not.
[quote]Il Divo wrote...
To sum it up, I think you're confusing "I'm having fun" with "narrative flow". [/quote]lol no. You just didn't know what the Main narrative for ME is. I've told you what it is already. It's not about hunting/stopping Reapers, well, not JUST about hunting/stopping the Reapers.
[quote]Il Divo wrote...
There really isn't a necessary connection between the two. Side quests are fun, but in many ways they don't support the storyline. [/quote]That depends on the role the player is playing. When did this become about side quests ? It's a moot point that doesn't support your stance at best.
Modifié par whywhywhywhy, 04 décembre 2011 - 07:16 .
#315
Posté 04 décembre 2011 - 07:24
whywhywhywhy
-
- Members
- 697 messages
Iakus I really wouldn't woory about trying to make them understand. Some people have their eyes wide open but still won't realize they've stuck their heads in the sand.iakus wrote...
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"
Modifié par whywhywhywhy, 04 décembre 2011 - 07:25 .
#316
Posté 04 décembre 2011 - 07:30
Dexi
-
- Members
- 898 messages
Lol, why are you still arguing?
Nobody cares that you don't like Multiplayer... is that hard to understand? LOL.
P.S. at least not while being biased and still presenting opinions and uncertainties as facts.
Nobody cares that you don't like Multiplayer... is that hard to understand? LOL.
P.S. at least not while being biased and still presenting opinions and uncertainties as facts.
#317
Posté 04 décembre 2011 - 07:34
whywhywhywhy
-
- Members
- 697 messages
Yet you responded. 
Touche' Mr. sandman your argument puts me right to sleep.
Touche' Mr. sandman your argument puts me right to sleep.
#318
Posté 04 décembre 2011 - 08:02
Bcuz
-
- Members
- 335 messages
Valid ideas, not as critical as he believes them to be.
#319
Posté 04 décembre 2011 - 12:58
Geth_Prime
-
- Members
- 907 messages
Quaay wrote...
They always say multiplayer will help you have success in your single player game but what if I don't want it to effect my game saves? I did what I did in each character save for a reason and would like to get the endings as intended. So is there a way to play multiplayer and tell it not to link to any single player files?
Apparently you can choose to play MP without it affecting save files. Although I'm not sure why you would turn it off because all it does is give you some extra help in the war, it doesn't stop Shepard from messing up.
Up to you though.
#320
Posté 04 décembre 2011 - 01:25
The Elder King
-
- Members
- 19 630 messages
PoliteAssasin wrote...
Gatt9's got a point. EA wants to have an online code for you to play the game in order to get a cut out of the used sales. If ME multiplayer is optional, they wouldn't be getting that money from used sales since people don't play ME for the multiplayer but the single player. It's common sense. Therefore in order to ensure that they're going to get that money from used sales, they'll make it where multiplayer is necessary in some way. What I'm curious about is how is this going to affect those who don't have Live.
-Polite
Or those who aren't willing to spend money on the Live. Anyway, I'll sell my copy of ME3 if I can't achieve some endings in the SP (which is the only way in my opinion to make the MP necessary to the SP) without the MP. Especially because they said that the MP will be optional for the SP.
#321
Posté 04 décembre 2011 - 01:39
Metalrocks
-
- Members
- 421 messages
adding an MP to a SP game is never a good idea. most of the time they focus to much on the MP and not the SP anymore.
and, as many have pointed out: that EA has a reason to use spyware origin on us.
and, as many have pointed out: that EA has a reason to use spyware origin on us.
#322
Posté 04 décembre 2011 - 01:44
xxSgt_Reed_24xx
-
- Members
- 3 312 messages
iakus wrote...
And to me coop looks like space on a disk that could have gone to another chapter of Shepard's story. ANother hub world, more quests, more battles, more dialogue.
What's this, MP budget wouldn't have gone to the SP budget anyway? Perhaps. But the space would have. Can we truly believe that everything that was going into the SP campaign was put in, they saw an extra gig of space and went "Huh. What else could we put in there?" Or is it more likely that at some point something got "priced out' space-wise to make room for coop?
I don't even really care that it's in... and now that it is, it looks like it could be much better! (At least copy the latest version of horde mode, sheesh!)
but anyway, what I quoted is probably the best argument against MP. I mean... with the extra space who knows what they could add? I'd love more hub worlds (BIGGER HUB WORLDS TOO), more squadmate dialogue, MORE CUSTOMIZATION, etc
or maybe they would even put in more cool references like blasto and such into the game? More fanservicy things... whatever.
Extra space = more stuff for single player.
#323
Posté 04 décembre 2011 - 02:03
Geth_Prime
-
- Members
- 907 messages
One last post and I'm done with this thread.
The MP haters have ONE valid argument. Which is that BioWare might be lying when they say the MP is totally optional. If you think that, you should wait until the game is released before complaining. Until then, you're working on an assumption.
So to any haters, please shut up and stop souring our forum. If it turns out that the MP ruined ME3, then you can go ahead and hate.
The MP haters have ONE valid argument. Which is that BioWare might be lying when they say the MP is totally optional. If you think that, you should wait until the game is released before complaining. Until then, you're working on an assumption.
So to any haters, please shut up and stop souring our forum. If it turns out that the MP ruined ME3, then you can go ahead and hate.
#324
Posté 04 décembre 2011 - 02:37
The Elder King
-
- Members
- 19 630 messages
Geth_Prime wrote...
One last post and I'm done with this thread.
The MP haters have ONE valid argument. Which is that BioWare might be lying when they say the MP is totally optional. If you think that, you should wait until the game is released before complaining. Until then, you're working on an assumption.
So to any haters, please shut up and stop souring our forum. If it turns out that the MP ruined ME3, then you can go ahead and hate.
I don't hate MP (though from the previews it seems a bit repetitive).I'm willing to try it after I read some reviews about it.
My ony concern is the influence of MP on the SP, as you said. Though Bioware said that the endings in the SP could be achieved without it, so I'm confident in what they said.
Btw, I don't see the problem if someone said that they hate the ME3 MP and that it could ruin the SP. People could love ME and hate MP, and they have the right to say it, if they respect the rules of the forum. There's no need to be rude only becuase you don't like what they said about a thing that you (maybe?) like.
#325
Posté 04 décembre 2011 - 03:35
Geth_Prime
-
- Members
- 907 messages
hhh89 wrote...
I don't hate MP (though from the previews it seems a bit repetitive).I'm willing to try it after I read some reviews about it.
My ony concern is the influence of MP on the SP, as you said. Though Bioware said that the endings in the SP could be achieved without it, so I'm confident in what they said.
Btw, I don't see the problem if someone said that they hate the ME3 MP and that it could ruin the SP. People could love ME and hate MP, and they have the right to say it, if they respect the rules of the forum. There's no need to be rude only becuase you don't like what they said about a thing that you (maybe?) like.
Thank you for being fair (although you dragged me back into this thread, dammit). Yes, people have a right to say what they like on the forums without breaking the rules. That doesn't mean we should just let them hate. If they have no basis to complain, why should we put up with their moaning? They don't have to like MP. But if so, they should at least find a good reason to whine before spreading it all over our forums. Would you like it if I started ****ing about ME2 because it had fewer RPG elements? Of course you wouldn't. Going to a game forum and hating on it in front of the fans is a rather unpleasant thing to do, even if you have a right to.
Do you understand what I'm getting at?
