232 réponses à ce sujet

[joriandrake]

AlanC9 wrote...

And if you don't have 100% readiness this means... what, exactly?

It's not spoilery to talk about what the numbers mean in the abstract, right?

That means the best possible outcome, most heroic/least losses I think.

101ezylonhxeT wrote...

Beeno4Life wrote...

Heaven forbid we play other (very fun) parts of the game!

/sarcasm

Not everyone see that mode as fun nor needed.

Seconded

Modifié par joriandrake, 06 mars 2012 - 01:02 .

[T_elic]

NeecHMonkeY wrote...

This has now been confirmed.

What happened to being able to achieve everything just by playing the Single Player campaign?

You don't need 100% galactic readiness to get every available ending.
The readiness level is at 50% without playing MP, and even with the 50% rating you can get a 100% SP playthrough. However getting a higher % means you have to do less stuff in singleplayer to get enough war points.

[joriandrake]

rikbarla wrote...

NeecHMonkeY wrote...

This has now been confirmed.

What happened to being able to achieve everything just by playing the Single Player campaign?

You don't need 100% galactic readiness to get every available ending.
The readiness level is at 50% without playing MP, and even with the 50% rating you can get a 100% SP playthrough. However getting a higher % means you have to do less stuff in singleplayer to get enough war points.

Good/Paragon, or Renegade/Evil deeds not always improve readiness, and you may have to sacrifice something/someone you wouldn't want to to improve it, to still have high GR despite making choices the way you want to and still get the best end results, you have to play multiplayer as far I understand it.


I am not sure, but I think some actians actually lower readiness too.

Modifié par joriandrake, 06 mars 2012 - 01:05 .

[grumpymooselion]

Beeno4Life wrote...

Heaven forbid we play other (very fun) parts of the game!

/sarcasm

I've no interest in the Multiplayer mode, why would I play it? I've never had an interest in competitive multiplayer gameplay. Multiplayer I enjoy is cooperative. Not competitive. I like working with people. Competitive multplayer games tend to have focuses and people in them that are quite simply agonizing, and not enjoyable in the least.

The multiplayer should never have had any influence, at all, no matter how minor or insignificant. Ever. They should have just given us the From Ashes content in place of the multiplayer, and let people that actually wanted to bother with Multiplayer spend the extra 10usd.

Modifié par Janan Pacha, 06 mars 2012 - 01:07 .

[Wulfram]

Arppis wrote...

Actualy it doesn't. My friend is playing the game atm, and she is actualy skipping "Please find my purse" quests and most of the side missions she doesn't deem important.

Just do it like a hardcore roleplayer would. No need to follow the rules of the game so stricktly!

Are the relative awards of War Assets fairly reasonable?  If so, I guess it could work.

Problem will only be if cat-in-tree-quests together add up to 1/5 of the available assets.

Modifié par Wulfram, 06 mars 2012 - 01:08 .

[Klokos]

Janan Pacha wrote...

Beeno4Life wrote...

Heaven forbid we play other (very fun) parts of the game!

/sarcasm

I've no interest in the Multiplayer mode, why would I play it? I've never had an interest in competitive multiplayer gameplay. Multiplayer I enjoy is cooperative. Not competitive. I like working with people. Competitive multplayer games tend to have focuses and people in them that are quite simply agonizing, and not enjoyable in the least.

 Good thing ME3 has no competitive MP then.

[joriandrake]

Janan Pacha wrote...

Beeno4Life wrote...

Heaven forbid we play other (very fun) parts of the game!

/sarcasm

The multiplayer should never have had any influence, at all, no matter how minor or insignificant. Ever. They should have just given us the From Ashes content in place of the multiplayer, and let people that actually wanted to bother with Multiplayer spend the extra 10usd.

this is actually not a bad idea

Modifié par joriandrake, 06 mars 2012 - 01:16 .

[grumpymooselion]

Klokos wrote...

Janan Pacha wrote...

Beeno4Life wrote...

Heaven forbid we play other (very fun) parts of the game!

/sarcasm

I've no interest in the Multiplayer mode, why would I play it? I've never had an interest in competitive multiplayer gameplay. Multiplayer I enjoy is cooperative. Not competitive. I like working with people. Competitive multplayer games tend to have focuses and people in them that are quite simply agonizing, and not enjoyable in the least.

 Good thing ME3 has no competitive MP then.

I said that badly, what I mean is, cooperative in the sense of tackling the story together with some friends. That's the sort of multiplayer I like. Not 11 waves of nonsense. Does that make more sense?

[Aulis Vaara]

Janan Pacha wrote...

I've no interest in the Multiplayer mode, why would I play it? I've never had an interest in competitive multiplayer gameplay. Multiplayer I enjoy is cooperative. Not competitive. I like working with people. Competitive multplayer games tend to have focuses and people in them that are quite simply agonizing, and not enjoyable in the least.

The multiplayer should never have had any influence, at all, no matter how minor or insignificant. Ever. They should have just given us the From Ashes content in place of the multiplayer, and let people that actually wanted to bother with Multiplayer spend the extra 10usd.

"Everybody should play the same way I do and people who don't play that way don't get to win."

^ That's what you are saying.

Really, multiplayer detracts NOTHING from singleplayer and you are in no way obligated to play it. The only thing they have done is give people who prefer multiplayer a way to complete the game faster in a way that they like.

Different people have different preferences and Bioware has given us options and choices to play as we see fit. And you're whining about it because apparently you don't like that other people can complete the game too.

Just think about that.

[Poison_Berrie]

joriandrake wrote...

Good/Paragon, or Renegade/Evil deeds not always improve readiness, and you may have to sacrifice something/someone you wouldn't want to to improve it, to still have high GR despite making choices the way you want to and still get the best end results, you have to play multiplayer as far I understand it.

I am not sure, but I think some actians actually lower readiness too.

Galactic Readiness will never get below 50%. 

Multiplayer isn't required to get the best ending. Since apparently you can get more than the required points in the singleplayer campaign, I'm guessing there is some flexibility in what you can do and ways to compensate mistakes/failures/counter productive decisions.

[Capeo]

Sorry, you're wrong, OP. You can get way more than enough Readiness to get every ending easily in SP. The GAW score just allows you to get the endings without doing nearly as many missions in SP.

[grumpymooselion]

Aulis Vaara wrote...

Janan Pacha wrote...

I've no interest in the Multiplayer mode, why would I play it? I've never had an interest in competitive multiplayer gameplay. Multiplayer I enjoy is cooperative. Not competitive. I like working with people. Competitive multplayer games tend to have focuses and people in them that are quite simply agonizing, and not enjoyable in the least.

The multiplayer should never have had any influence, at all, no matter how minor or insignificant. Ever. They should have just given us the From Ashes content in place of the multiplayer, and let people that actually wanted to bother with Multiplayer spend the extra 10usd.

"Everybody should play the same way I do and people who don't play that way don't get to win."

^ That's what you are saying.

I suppose if you're putting words in my mouth, then yes.

Really, multiplayer detracts NOTHING from singleplayer and you are in no way obligated to play it. The only thing they have done is give people who prefer multiplayer a way to complete the game faster in a way that they like.

We've already established that it has effect, where it should have no effect. That is detracting, because it should have no effect on the single player. It can be exactly what it is without th effect on single player. The only thing that should have effect on the single player experience is the single player experience. It doesn't matter that you can get all you need in single-player, you shouldn't be able to get it in a completely unrelated mode that's never existed in the series prior, and certainly has never catered to people that prefer multiplayer prior since its focus has never been multiplayer, as it's never even had multiplayer.

This is worse than tacked on multiplayer, because it's tacked on multiplayer that can allow you to, "get through the campaign faster" when there are already options in single player to allow for that like the Story Mode or the lower Difficulty Settings.

I'm not even bringing up that, mysteriously, the same time at which we get Multiplayer, the Singleplayer suffers, with the player finding less dialogue choices for Shepard, less choices to make as Shepard, more Auto-speak from Shepard where we get no input at all and more of ME2's Zaeed treatment where characters randomly talk and the player has no ability to talk back or interact in any way. Because, seriously, those things showing up and going overboard at the same time as multiplayer . . . totally not related.

Modifié par Janan Pacha, 06 mars 2012 - 01:46 .

[Kakaw]

they aren't mutually exclusive. Best ending does not equal multiplayer.

[joriandrake]

I just read somewhere that while in SP at first you can get 3 endings, there is supposed to be another secret ending if game is replayed, not sure as if NG+ or with 2 different characters though.

[Reptillius]

Janan Pacha wrote...

Beeno4Life wrote...

Heaven forbid we play other (very fun) parts of the game!

/sarcasm

I've no interest in the Multiplayer mode, why would I play it? I've never had an interest in competitive multiplayer gameplay. Multiplayer I enjoy is cooperative. Not competitive. I like working with people. Competitive multplayer games tend to have focuses and people in them that are quite simply agonizing, and not enjoyable in the least.

The multiplayer should never have had any influence, at all, no matter how minor or insignificant. Ever. They should have just given us the From Ashes content in place of the multiplayer, and let people that actually wanted to bother with Multiplayer spend the extra 10usd.

uh... dude... ME 3's multiplayer is only co-op... not competitive.  So why are you complaining about a feature that is the way you like it to be?

[MercenaryNo]

ODST 3 wrote...

Good. Cry, haters. It's hilarious.

I like you.

[Reptillius]

Janan Pacha wrote...

Aulis Vaara wrote...

Janan Pacha wrote...

I've no interest in the Multiplayer mode, why would I play it? I've never had an interest in competitive multiplayer gameplay. Multiplayer I enjoy is cooperative. Not competitive. I like working with people. Competitive multplayer games tend to have focuses and people in them that are quite simply agonizing, and not enjoyable in the least.

The multiplayer should never have had any influence, at all, no matter how minor or insignificant. Ever. They should have just given us the From Ashes content in place of the multiplayer, and let people that actually wanted to bother with Multiplayer spend the extra 10usd.

"Everybody should play the same way I do and people who don't play that way don't get to win."

^ That's what you are saying.

I suppose if you're putting words in my mouth, then yes.

Really, multiplayer detracts NOTHING from singleplayer and you are in no way obligated to play it. The only thing they have done is give people who prefer multiplayer a way to complete the game faster in a way that they like.

We've already established that it has effect, where it should have no effect. That is detracting, because it should have no effect on the single player. It can be exactly what it is without th effect on single player. The only thing that should have effect on the single player experience is the single player experience. It doesn't matter that you can get all you need in single-player, you shouldn't be able to get it in a completely unrelated mode that's never existed in the series prior, and certainly has never catered to people that prefer multiplayer prior since its focus has never been multiplayer, as it's never even had multiplayer.

This is worse than tacked on multiplayer, because it's tacked on multiplayer that can allow you to, "get through the campaign faster" when there are already options in single player to allow for that like the Story Mode or the lower Difficulty Settings.

I'm not even bringing up that, mysteriously, the same time at which we get Multiplayer, the Singleplayer suffers, with the player finding less dialogue choices for Shepard, less choices to make as Shepard, more Auto-speak from Shepard where we get no input at all and more of ME2's Zaeed treatment where characters randomly talk and the player has no ability to talk back or interact in any way. Because, seriously, those things showing up and going overboard at the same time as multiplayer . . . totally not related.

Actually No. It is not detracting anything because it has no negative affect on the single player. negative effect is exactly what Detracting means.  You can still play the game exactly the way your wanting to without having to worry about multiplayer doing anything for you.

However. Sinply because something was not done in the series before and is not hurting how you want to play, DOES NOT mean that it absolutely has to be how you want to play a game. Bioware gave you what you wanted and they gave me or others something else. There is nothing wrong with that. In fact it lives up to what they promised us a little bit in letting us choose how to play the game.

The rest is an entirely different problem and in no way relates to this thread so I'm just going to leave it alone.

[ChipSet]

Poison_Berrie wrote...

joriandrake wrote...

Good/Paragon, or Renegade/Evil deeds not always improve readiness, and you may have to sacrifice something/someone you wouldn't want to to improve it, to still have high GR despite making choices the way you want to and still get the best end results, you have to play multiplayer as far I understand it.

I am not sure, but I think some actians actually lower readiness too.

Galactic Readiness will never get below 50%. 

Multiplayer isn't required to get the best ending. Since apparently you can get more than the required points in the singleplayer campaign, I'm guessing there is some flexibility in what you can do and ways to compensate mistakes/failures/counter productive decisions.

Fomr what i read here:

http://www.pcgamer.c...ts-your-ending/

It seems  extremely difficult to get the best ending without multiplayer.

Modifié par ChipSet, 06 mars 2012 - 04:46 .

[Aulis Vaara]

ChipSet wrote...

Fomr what i read here:

http://www.pcgamer.c...ts-your-ending/

It seems  extremely difficult to get the best ending without multiplayer.

From what I read there, the writer doesn't want to put in some effort to do sidequests. If you can't do that, you don't deserve the best ending. It's good that you actually have to try to get the best ending this time around.

[Aulis Vaara]

Janan Pacha wrote...

I'm not even bringing up that, mysteriously, the same time at which we get Multiplayer, the Singleplayer suffers, with the player finding less dialogue choices for Shepard, less choices to make as Shepard, more Auto-speak from Shepard where we get no input at all and more of ME2's Zaeed treatment where characters randomly talk and the player has no ability to talk back or interact in any way. Because, seriously, those things showing up and going overboard at the same time as multiplayer . . . totally not related.

For someone who owns (and I assume played) Dragon Age II, you should really realise that they didn't invent this system for Mass Effect 3. Do I like this system? No, but then again, I don't like the dialogue wheel either. In any case, that's not what we're discussing here and since it's been around for more than one game it clearly doesn't have any relevance to the topic.

Janan Pacha wrote...

This is worse than tacked on multiplayer, because it's tacked on multiplayer that can allow you to, "get through the campaign faster" when there are already options in single player to allow for that like the Story Mode or the lower Difficulty Settings.

As I already said, the only thing you're putting across here is that you don't like that people are allowed to play in a different way from you. People can basically do multiplayer instead of sidequests, but somehow this is not acceptable to you even though the system doesn't get in your way at all.

Is it because it's a different variable? Well, they couldn't have done that another way. Sidequests are playthrough specific while multiplayer is not. They had to be different variables, otherwise it wouldn't work...

Modifié par Aulis Vaara, 06 mars 2012 - 07:03 .

[Poison_Berrie]

ChipSet wrote...

Fomr what i read here:

http://www.pcgamer.c...ts-your-ending/

It seems  extremely difficult to get the best ending without multiplayer.

I had in the intervening time read it as well. It's sounds worrying, but I wonder what he considers proper quests and whether he even engaged in occasional scanning. Might be he finds a few more things to do that way. 

I'll have to wait and see, but it would suck if you have to go full completionist for the best ending. 

[Nathan Redgrave]

Of course 100% Readiness is only achievable via multiplayer... it's the multiplayer bonus. Like, duh.

You don't need 100% Readiness to get enough War Assets to get the best endings; getting 100% Readiness just makes it so you need fewer single player Assets to do so.

EDIT: Look at it this way... the GaW and Readiness scores basically make it so that some players, those who prefer single-player, can spend more of their time in single-player to attain the assets they need, while others--those who prefer to game primarily in multiplayer--can make headway in their single-player campaigns without spending as many hours on single-player itself. It's a way to balance the war-assets system so that players can tackle it from more than one direction, either by playing single-player in whole-hog completionist mode or by augmenting a more half-and-half single-player approach with a significant amount of multiplayer. It's a "play it how you want it" system, nothing more.

Although players who screw the pooch in single-player's moral choices can fall back on multiplayer to shoehorn themselves back up to ideal GaW/Readiness for an optimal ending if they so choose.

Modifié par Nathan Redgrave, 06 mars 2012 - 07:05 .

[AlanC9]

Janan Pacha wrote...
We've already established that it has effect, where it should have no effect. That is detracting, because it should have no effect on the single player. It can be exactly what it is without th effect on single player. The only thing that should have effect on the single player experience is the single player experience. It doesn't matter that you can get all you need in single-player, you shouldn't be able to get it in a completely unrelated mode that's never existed in the series prior, and certainly has never catered to people that prefer multiplayer prior since its focus has never been multiplayer, as it's never even had multiplayer.

I'm looking for an actual argument, and I can't find one. MP players shouldn't be allowed to play less SP and still get an optimal ending, because........ because of what?

[Nathan Redgrave]

AlanC9 wrote...

I'm looking for an actual argument, and I can't find one. MP players shouldn't be allowed to play less SP and still get an optimal ending, because........ because of what?

Because ninjas, Alan.

Because ninjas.

[radpat]

The way I see it, you can get all needed from only the multiplayer. And then there is Multiplayer which can give even more, it would be useless to anyone who did every side quest and got the max score they possibly could, but say you failed a side quest or missed one etc. or you are too lazy to do them, then you can get it up thanks to multiplayer. So players that are more action inclined can possibly storm through main quest but not fail thanks to multiplayer which they would extensively play