56 réponses à ce sujet

[DiebytheSword]

jreezy wrote...

Gatt9 wrote...

ReconTeam wrote...

Who is Gatt9? What's his deal? Hates the multiplayer?

That would be me.

The reason you see my name here is because certain individuals keep trying to pretend this is "optional",  despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary,  including comments made by people who've seen the game.

"Mountain of evidence"? I'm not seeing it. 

Confirmation bias, he's looking for it.

[dfle3]

I don't subscribe to this "do your research" line of replies...I read a magazine discussing the game and how the online component would actually help your single player campaign (the devs or whoever mentioned that). They have also said in those game magazines that "Normal is the new hard". So, basically, comments by the devs in game magazines give the impression that the online play will increase your chances of 'winning'  the single player whilst the game itself will be harder in any case. That's sufficient to post this topic up...I don't have time to trawl through countless websites to find the "right" discussion...I've read comments by the devs in game magazines...which is more than adequate for this topic.

So, basically not happy about...

1) In the previous games "Normal" was the old normal (the difficulty level I played on)...this whole "New hard" sounds like nonsense...why change the difficulty levels of an existing franchise? I mean, if I wanted to play on "Hard" mode I'd...choose to play on "Hard" mode...right? So...why deny me the chance to play on the level I started playing at for ME2? If it is literally nonsense, then why not just rename "Easy" as "Super hard", "Normal" as "Crazy difficult" and "Hard" as "Insane...just give up!"?

2) Don't see why devs would suddenly make online play as important for 'winning' the single player campaign, just because they now support online play. I mean, why change the rules? I've only played ME2, which only had single player...it's not as if I'm buying into a franchise where it's clear that the series has always been about boosting your single player fortunes by picking up bonuses in online play...coz that's not been the case with ME.

My impression of the game re points 1) and 2) was gotten from game magazines, some of which had interviews with devs of the game...so, it's because THEY are saying these things that I'm bringing up points 1) and 2).

Modifié par dfle3, 19 décembre 2011 - 05:10 .

[Destroy Raiden_]

Maybe it'll open up new territory or close territory to you if you play MP. But I doubt its needed to win or effect anything significant.

[StephanieBengal]

Gatt9 wrote...

ReconTeam wrote...

Who is Gatt9? What's his deal? Hates the multiplayer?

That would be me.

The reason you see my name here is because certain individuals keep trying to pretend this is "optional",  despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary,  including comments made by people who've seen the game.

Ironically,  if you dig deep enough,  you'll find that these are the very same people who kept insisting for months that there was no multiplayer,  because "Bioware said there wouldn't be any multiplayer".  Even when faced with a mountain of evidence and comments by people who'd seen the game,  they continued to insist it wasn't there.

::Shrug::,  your call.  You can listen to the guy who was actually able to recognize when Bioware wasn't being completely honest,  or you can listen to the guys who just repeat everything said by anyone with a Bioware tag without question.

Ironically enough, I sure hope you care about everything else in your life as you do a video game. People overvalue the stupidest things. 

Unless you've played the whole game  already -- which you haven't just shut up already. Play the game, then **** all you want. 

[Zahe]

StephanieBengal wrote...

Gatt9 wrote...

ReconTeam wrote...

Who is Gatt9? What's his deal? Hates the multiplayer?

That would be me.

The reason you see my name here is because certain individuals keep trying to pretend this is "optional",  despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary,  including comments made by people who've seen the game.

Ironically,  if you dig deep enough,  you'll find that these are the very same people who kept insisting for months that there was no multiplayer,  because "Bioware said there wouldn't be any multiplayer".  Even when faced with a mountain of evidence and comments by people who'd seen the game,  they continued to insist it wasn't there.

::Shrug::,  your call.  You can listen to the guy who was actually able to recognize when Bioware wasn't being completely honest,  or you can listen to the guys who just repeat everything said by anyone with a Bioware tag without question.

Ironically enough, I sure hope you care about everything else in your life as you do a video game. People overvalue the stupidest things. 

Unless you've played the whole game  already -- which you haven't just shut up already. Play the game, then **** all you want. 

And what good will it make to complain after the game is done? None. Now is the time to voice any concerns one might have. Otherwise it might just turn out like DA2 where they ****ed up hard in some areas in the core game but remedied it in the DLC after the backlash. Why not just get it right from the beginning?

But that would mean you wouldn't be able to justify acting like a pompous **** so I see why you might have an issue with it.

[Someone With Mass]

Zahe wrote...

And what good will it make to complain after the game is done? None. Now is the time to voice any concerns one might have. Otherwise it might just turn out like DA2 where they ****ed up hard in some areas in the core game but remedied it in the DLC after the backlash. Why not just get it right from the beginning?

But that would mean you wouldn't be able to justify acting like a pompous **** so I see why you might have an issue with it.

Now? About a month or so before the game goes gold?

Yeah, it's probably a little too late for that.

[Zahe]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Zahe wrote...

And what good will it make to complain after the game is done? None. Now is the time to voice any concerns one might have. Otherwise it might just turn out like DA2 where they ****ed up hard in some areas in the core game but remedied it in the DLC after the backlash. Why not just get it right from the beginning?

But that would mean you wouldn't be able to justify acting like a pompous **** so I see why you might have an issue with it.

Now? About a month or so before the game goes gold?

Yeah, it's probably a little too late for that.

If we interpret now as right now, then yes it is. Considering the fact that EA is backing this project there is no way they would do anything to risk any part of the profits even if it meant making a better game. Meant it in a broader sense though as in before the game is done. The quotée of my other post seemed to think it is constructive to complain after a game is done and paid for, which was the main thing I was objecting to.

After they got your money they couldn't give two ****s about what you think about the game. As long as you might considering buying DLCs they don't care. Just look at DA:O for an easy example. They don't care about the fact that Archery and stacked bonuses to increased attack-speed are bugged halfway to hell and back, but they did release a patch whose sole purpose was to fix DLC authentication. Go figure.