414 réponses à ce sujet

[Sajuro]

Wow, that butthurt was something I would expect from these forums, does someone from here work at OXM?

[InvincibleHero]

Phaedon wrote...


A lot of games that involve teams have a Lone Wolf mode.
Some of them, give that option in single-player too.
A good example are the Rainbow Six games (along with the Vegas spin-offs, I think, but don't quote me on that one), which give you a Lone Wolf option in single-player modes.

And I can't think of one, one! One, game with a lone wolf option that tunes the game around you. Therefore, your argument is hollow and has no basis at all.

I can verify that RS Vegas 2 had lone wolf mode. It was just harder doing the same maps without your squadmates.

Almost no game designed for a party  (ME is a party of three though at times we actually get tuned missions where Shepard is solo by design) allows for toning it down for soloing. That is why people brag about doing it in games because it can be very difficult.

[feliciano2040]

IamBarryWhite wrote...

Why release MP now?

Is ME3s campaign not good enough to stand on its own? Or is it so short that it would be a rip-off?

We know BW have made big improvements with graphics, sound fx and A.I. My question is where the hell are they getting all this extra power and disc space from(assuming it's on 1 disc)?

These guys are developers, not magicians: ME 3 is going to be much more polished, and a helluva lot shorter.

Mark.
My.
Words!

Whatever faults Bioware has done in the past, I don't see ME 3 being any less than at least 35 + hours, easily 40.

They have a different team doing the MP and I think they already said ME 3 will be in three disks.

So please people, chill a little bit.

[StephanieBengal]

IamBarryWhite wrote...

Why release MP now?

Is ME3s campaign not good enough to stand on its own? Or is it so short that it would be a rip-off?

We know BW have made big improvements with graphics, sound fx and A.I. My question is where the hell are they getting all this extra power and disc space from(assuming it's on 1 disc)?

These guys are developers, not magicians: ME 3 is going to be much more polished, and a helluva lot shorter.

Mark.
My.
Words!

Yeah, you don't know what you're talking about obviously, but I got a good laugh from your banter. 

[Lunatic LK47]

feliciano2040 wrote...


Whatever faults Bioware has done in the past, I don't see ME 3 being any less than at least 35 + hours, easily 40.

They have a different team doing the MP and I think they already said ME 3 will be in three disks.

So please people, chill a little bit.

Brothers in Arms: Hell's Highway had Rockstar handling MP, and guess what. Networking was utter crap, while GearBox's single-player campaign still felt mediocre.

Medal of Honor 2010 had DICE working on MP while Danger Close did the campaign. Both aspects still felt mediocre.

2K had a separate development team for BioShock 2's MP, and guess what, a good majority of the playerbase never bothered with MP.

Not really much grounds for us to "chill" if we're genuinely concerned about our single-player stories not living up to expectations, especially for those that were around since the first game.

[DiegoProgMetal]

And all those assumptions are based on what? The game isn't out yet. Let's play it and then each one of us will have the right to make our own "judgment". But, ME isn't our game, it's Bioware's. They can do whatever they want. Want a game your way? Do it yourself (yourself meaning any reader of this post). We all have the right to like it or not, but that is where our right ends.

[Quole]

I honestly still cant believe they actually integrated it in ME3 at all. Really disappointed in Bioware.

Modifié par Quole, 05 décembre 2011 - 10:01 .

[Fiery Phoenix]

DiegoProgMetal wrote...

And all those assumptions are based on what? The game isn't out yet. Let's play it and then each one of us will have the right to make our own "judgment". But, ME isn't our game, it's Bioware's. They can do whatever they want. Want a game your way? Do it yourself (yourself meaning any reader of this post). We all have the right to like it or not, but that is where our right ends.

While you have a point, you seem to be unaware of the fact that OXM have experienced the multiplayer firsthand. They wrote a first-impressions article on it a little over a month ago.

[crimzontearz]

Il Divo wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

which was made prior to too human

still my point stands

Well, yeah. I was just taking the opportunity to reference Legacy of Kain. It's something I do every chance I get.

besides, really have you played skyrim? I usually do not play games that lack NG+ but I needed a fantasy RPG and god knows Dragon Age 2 is not worth the effort

that game is GIGANTIC, is selling like hotcakes and it's a true RPG........the story, dialogues and acting tho do not hold a candle to Mass Effect's but still my point is that MP is N-O-T needed and the money spent on it would have been MUCH better spent  on something expanding the single player experience

Indeed, Skyrim has been pretty fantastic so far. It's probably one of my favorite RPG systems I've had to experience. I especially enjoy games which focus on feat progression/abilities over attributes. It makes progression feel "more real".

yes indeed.....(also it's immensely satisfying, for some reason, to know that armor rating should capr at 567 but you have 1300 with of armor rating gear on..........god I love being able to literally craft my own gear). But the point is, again, that MP is not needed. Sure I will take Bioware's attention to acting, story progression, main character involvment and so on over the open world of skyrim and the insane amount of material put in it (some of which is kinda bland if you ask me) in a "quality over quantity" spirit but multiplayer is just...........not, I repeat, absolutely NOT needed to insure the success of a game

oh and

Vae Victis!

Modifié par crimzontearz, 05 décembre 2011 - 12:23 .

[DiegoProgMetal]

Fiery Phoenix wrote...

DiegoProgMetal wrote...

And all those assumptions are based on what? The game isn't out yet. Let's play it and then each one of us will have the right to make our own "judgment". But, ME isn't our game, it's Bioware's. They can do whatever they want. Want a game your way? Do it yourself (yourself meaning any reader of this post). We all have the right to like it or not, but that is where our right ends.

While you have a point, you seem to be unaware of the fact that OXM have experienced the multiplayer firsthand. They wrote a first-impressions article on it a little over a month ago.

Yes, I understand that, and they have the right to say they don't think co-op should be there, but:

"1. It'll damage the context"
"5. Decisions lose impact"

Those 2 looks like assumptions based on... assumptions! They played the multiplayer, not the entire game. I'm not saying it will not happen. Those things may happen or not. I just think (I mean, just my opinion) it's too soon to make that kind of judgement. If I play and like it, good for me. If the game turns out to be a failure, what can I say? S**t happens!

[Phaedon]

iakus wrote...
Perhaps.  But does it take numbers into account?  If a full team has to face a wave of 20 enemies, does the solo player have to face five?  Or twenty also?  Or something in between?

Not the games I have played. That tends to be a feature of shooters, and I am pretty bad at shooters, so I haven't survived all waves at top difficulty. In any game. But it's definitely possible.

That's less encouraging.  But I guess we'll see how dramatic the differences are.

They'll be bigger than the difference of the difficulty levels of SP, I think that that is safe to assume.

Okay so by your terms "solo" means Shepard  (or rather the PC) acting alone, and single player is with NPC companions?

See, we're getting somewhere now!

That's pretty much the definition of solo, so I think that we should have agreed on that ages ago anyway.

Understood.  But would the solo player be crazy to try?

No, just very skilled or masochistic.

But I do know that Mass Effect is not Rainbow Six.  This is a game which, up until now has been exclusively single player.  I would like to know that as a single player, I can conntinue to see all the content.  Alone.  Solo.  By myself.  And that this desire is taken into account.  

You mean, series right?

Yes I meant series.  And I'd still like to know.

I am not sure I understand your question fully, but of course you should be able to do that. As long as you have an internet connection. Aren't internet connections pretty much a must for installation on the PC?

Disappointing.

I can see why it is to some.

Modifié par Phaedon, 06 décembre 2011 - 08:55 .

[CroGamer002]

Phaedon wrote...

iakus wrote...
Perhaps.  But does it take numbers into account?  If a full team has to face a wave of 20 enemies, does the solo player have to face five?  Or twenty also?  Or something in between?

Not the games I have played. That tends to be a feature of shooters, and I am pretty bad at shooters, so I haven't survived all waves at top difficulty. In any game. But it's definitely possible.

There are some people who get passed wave 50 in CoD Black Ops N@zi Zombies Co-Op solo.


I'm decent at shooters and with 3 other players I never got passed wave 16!

And I'm the one that usually has lowest score and dies the most!
Though I do have moments of glory by being on top and die only once( and at the same time last death).

[Phaedon]

And yet, you keep coming back because you enjoy it, right?

And in the case that you actually hated it, you'd just stop playing it and leave it there, wouldn't you? You wouldn't complain over it for dozens of pages upon dozens of pages.

[CroGamer002]

^Yeah.

It's quite awesome Co-Op mod and find it way more fun then competitive multiplayer in which I'm better.

[MatronAdena]

The only thing I really am upset about is this:

at first they were saying " oh it wont affect your solo play and is totally optional"

they later say " oh it's still optional...but how you perform in co-op will directly have effects on your solo game"

that comes across to me as " it is optional just like we said, but there will be a subtle punishment for not doing so"

I know, and accept that challenge to sill get an outcome Im happy with knowing damn well I have to fight a lot harder to achieve it. I simply don't like that it carries this nagging feeling of requirement... that if I want to enjoy MY story they built up over the last two games as a solo escape that I have to cave in and play a co-op or I get punished by things being that much more precarious.

It's a noble idea I admit to try and give off this " this is a much bigger event in the galaxy than shep can deal with alone!" I totally get that and can respect it... But thats not why I have been loyal to Mass Effect and Bioware in general for many many many years now.I don't like " feeling" forced
( because this is the BSN I have to repeat that YES I KNOW IT'S OPTIONAL, I'm saying it FEELS forced on me to do, or I'll be punished for it)

[CroGamer002]

^You can get War Assets during SP campaign.

If you don't have enough depending on your previous choices or don't want to play side quests, you can choose to get those War Assets with Co-Op if you want better ending.

The best ending is, saying this once again, possible to get only with SP campaign.

[ODST 5723]

MatronAdena wrote...

The only thing I really am upset about is this:

at first they were saying " oh it wont affect your solo play and is totally optional"

they later say " oh it's still optional...but how you perform in co-op will directly have effects on your solo game"

that comes across to me as " it is optional just like we said, but there will be a subtle punishment for not doing so"

I know, and accept that challenge to sill get an outcome Im happy with knowing damn well I have to fight a lot harder to achieve it. I simply don't like that it carries this nagging feeling of requirement... that if I want to enjoy MY story they built up over the last two games as a solo escape that I have to cave in and play a co-op or I get punished by things being that much more precarious.

It's a noble idea I admit to try and give off this " this is a much bigger event in the galaxy than shep can deal with alone!" I totally get that and can respect it... But thats not why I have been loyal to Mass Effect and Bioware in general for many many many years now.I don't like " feeling" forced
( because this is the BSN I have to repeat that YES I KNOW IT'S OPTIONAL, I'm saying it FEELS forced on me to do, or I'll be punished for it)

That nagging feeling doesn't come from Bioware or Galaxy at War.  It comes from you and the perspective you've built up around this.  It's been plainly stated tht it's not a requirement.  Your perception disagrees so you not only view it as a requirement, you then view not doing it as having a punitive effect on you.

That's simply not the case.  So you recognize that it's optional, you realize that there's going to be a way to get the optimal outcome without playing GAW and yet you still feel like you're being forced.  Considering that you don't even know what the optimal outcome is and if it's the outcome that you want, it sounds like you're trying to explain away the rational reasons why you should keep an open mind with irrational reasons that are obviously having a significant impact on your feelings.

You then look at an optional game mode as necessary.  At the possibility of leaving optional war assets unclaimed as a penalty on your experience.  At an indirect means of obtaining assets towards the ending as having a direct impact on your experience.  At an optional game mode as a unnecessary evil that's being forced on you. 

It sounds more like you percieve that you've been slighted by Bioware, especially when you choose to mention loyalty in a situation that doesn't call for it.

It's not impinging on your single player experience.  It's going to provide you with opportunity that you choose to take or not take.  This isn't a railroaded action sequence you can't avoid.

So then, why do you and others insist on pretending that it is?  Answer.  It seems like "Entitlement." 

You feel entitled to your outcome.  You feel entitled to your ideal single player experience.  You feel so entitled to these war assets and their effect on your game that not having them would lead to a nagging feeling that you're not going to get your full experience.

That would seem about as irrational as not having access to an exclusive peice of armor that will have no actual bearing on the outcome of the game.

Now, if my perception on this is off... and it could be, I can admit that and could change that perception based on new facts and evidence.  I think perhaps you can too provided you keep an open mind instead of looking at GAW as a threat.

[Forsythia]

That post nailed it. I want to 100% the game, see everything that's possible and have the best possible outcome. Even if BioWare is saying that you don't need to play even a minute of multiplayer to achieve that, I still get the feeling I do, because I won't have the extra assets playing the co-op missions will give me.

That feeling will probably be gone after a few playthroughs, as by then I will know I don't have to play multiplayer at all to achieve my goal. I had a similar feeling with ME2, I did not want anyone to die in the SM, so I did everything I possibly could do for a few playthroughs. Turned out it wasn't that hard at all to let everyone live, but that first playthrough, oh boy, I would reload a save game several times just because I thought I made a 'wrong' decision.

Modifié par Forsythia, 06 décembre 2011 - 04:31 .

[StephanieBengal]

Quole wrote...

I honestly still cant believe they actually integrated it in ME3 at all. Really disappointed in Bioware.

Take a tissue and go cry. 

[whywhywhywhy]

@Il Divo wrote...
I was reading your post just now and I'll freely admit I didn't finish it.  When I got to the part quoted below and I saw that you tried to quote me out of context and commited the fallacy of accusing me of making a contradiction.  You took the worn road of if you can't beat my argument misquote, quote out of context or just plain fudge it, I knew our time was done.

whywhywhywhy!
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.

Il Divo wrote...
Your bolded contradicts the underlined.

The underline is in reference to your request of "demonstrate how any exploration elements in ME1 support the main
narrative."  The underline is exactly that, these are the reasons for the exploration.  Again the main narrative is not about the reapers they are but a footnote, it's Shepard's story.  The telling of his trials as the first Spectre he attempts to protect the galaxy first and foremost by stopping Saren who would cause the reaper invasion.  Erase every side mssion and this still doesn't change.  The game opens talking of him/her and ends on his/her vow to protect the galaxy.  And me3 has been describe by the developer as the "End of shepard's story."  The Reapers are no more but a pending threat one not realized until the third act in which the main Narrative becomes Shepard's struggle to stop the Reapers. 

Main narrative the reapers ???  Your confused.

Take your education and move along you weren't ready for the Big Time.

Modifié par whywhywhywhy, 06 décembre 2011 - 05:51 .

[MatronAdena]

ODST 5723 wrote...

Now, if my perception on this is off... and it could be, I can admit that and could change that perception based on new facts and evidence.  I think perhaps you can too provided you keep an open mind instead of looking at GAW as a threat.

see it as a threat? hardly...


perhaps I should rephrase things slightly....


 as I do run a busy life being a Mother and Spouse and work full time/home school full time  yadda yadda I do miss out on little updates or notices here or there for finer details on such... so this would be coming from a ignorance based on seeing a few interviews here and there and wording that was chosen in said interviews gave the impression.  I admit I may not have ALL the full details. That is where a bulk of this will come from, I never said I would never play along or allow it to grow on me. Personally knowing it's optional and has a work around ( which not every interview made THAT part clear) Im happy to ignore it .

Modifié par MatronAdena, 06 décembre 2011 - 07:23 .

[Iakus]

Phaedon wrote...

iakus wrote...
Perhaps.  But does it take numbers into account?  If a full team has to face a wave of 20 enemies, does the solo player have to face five?  Or twenty also?  Or something in between?

Not the games I have played. That tends to be a feature of shooters, and I am pretty bad at shooters, so I haven't survived all waves at top difficulty. In any game. But it's definitely possible.

Well, I know there was a call to include bot companions in Galaxy at War.  Here's hoping that ends up being an option

[Phaedon]

iakus wrote...
Well, I know there was a call to include bot companions in Galaxy at War.  Here's hoping that ends up being an option

I am all for bots, but I doubt they'll ever be added, even post-release.