Ce sujet est fermé
Ah, after 2,5 years after a release of ME3 devs decided it was a indeed a "bug"' which forced people to play a multiplayer. I just wonder why it took them so long.
Since we're being pedantic and obtuse, it was indeed a "bug" which forced people to buy an iOS device for the Datapad app. Don't know why you people keep on associating it with multiplayer when clearly EA was getting paid off by Apple to force their audience to buy iPads and iPhones.
Yes, it does - when a fact "argues" for a theory, it means that it indicates that the theory is more likely. The fact that Bioware got a great deal of negative feedback regarding the inclusion of multiplayer in an ostensibly single player game indicates that the theory that DAI's single player will not have a mandatory multiplayer section is more likely.
You are right that past behavior indicates future results; but what I'm saying is that past negative consequences for behavior also indicates future results.
"This time we really mean it" is not a strong argument.
@Star fury: They said it back before the patch came out to you know, patch the bug. And you know when they patched it, it said it was a bug. But hey, lets go all tinfoil hat up in this ****** and say it took them this long to admit their evil ways and even then their probably lying about it.... am I doing it right?
@Star fury: They said it back before the patch came out to you know, patch the bug. And you know when they patched it, it said it was a bug. But hey, lets go all tinfoil hat up in this ****** and say it took them this long to admit their evil ways and even then their probably lying about it.... am I doing it right?
That "patch" was the Extended Cut. Three months after release!
Ah, after 2,5 years after a release of ME3 devs decided it was a indeed a "bug"' which forced people to play a multiplayer. I just wonder why it took them so long.
If you're not prepared to take dev statements at face value, why ask for them?
Now you're just sounding paranoid and conspiratorial.
Oh. My. God.
I just can't even with this thread anymore.
"This time we really mean it" is not a strong argument.
Neither is "what happened in the past must be true for every single occurrence in the future".
"This time we really mean it" is not a strong argument.
Which is why I didn't make it, and it's disingenuous to pretend that I did.
@Iakus: It was a patch - the Extended Cut is free DLC. It's not part of the patch, you have to go out of your way to download that and it has no 'fix' for any of the bugs. But sure, 3 months out to fix a bug. A bug that only effected a small 5 second additive scene at the end of one of there 3 (IMO crappy) endings. Took em 3 months to patch what amounts to an easter egg check point.
Game companys, like any software company, have to prioritize what they fix to get out patchs in a timely manner. That few second additive ending that doesn't ultimately change anything else? Not exactly the most pressing manner. **** they had a glitch with importing faces which effected more people. Can't remember how long it took em to fix that.
My point of all this is simple - their DESIGN wasn't that direction. It allowed for that bug to exist however. Hopefully they handle **** better, and don't take me wrong in any of this I do not like MP tied into SP. And as I've said in most my posts I don't want them linked, at all. But people keep bringing up a goddamn bug like it was the end of the world or that it was a design choice that they 'changed'.
Man I'm coming off super hostile, sorry. Either way I didn't like the design choice so hopefully they stay away from it tying together. But lets not use bugs and unforeseen issues cropping up being the reason. If we start doing that we wont have any features or games again as they all kinda have glitchs or bugs that need fixing. They plague developers and players alike.
Being able to solo MP content (or even having a "solo mode" for it) would actually be a point in its favor, as far as I'm concerned.
You couldn't get a breathing scene with Shepard without a mp simply because there weren't enough war assets for that with 50% galactic readiness.That's not true. I know because I'd done all three (including breathing Shep) endings before touching MP, and none of them had any collateral damage beyond the destruction of the relays.
I used one of 12 Shepards I'd been using since ME1, and had all ME1 & ME2 DLC too.
It was impossible to get the "best" ending if you didn't have a Shep that had come all the way from at least ME1 without touching MP.
Since we're being pedantic and obtuse, it was indeed a "bug" which forced people to buy an iOS device for the Datapad app. Don't know why you people keep on associating it with multiplayer when clearly EA was getting paid off by Apple to force their audience to buy iPads and iPhones.
I for one hope that the positive reception to ME3's MP showed the team that it doesn't necessarily need singleplayer integration to be successful.
A prominent place on the menu and a significant marketing effort seem like adequate ways to get people to try it out.
I think linking it to SP can cause more trouble than it's worth, even if I disagree with most of the more hysterical reactions to that. They shouldn't give people any excuse to badmouth the game, I guess.
I don't remember attacking you. I would consider discussing something with you, when you stop using ad hominem and strawman "arguments".
I was satirizing your position, as well as, correctly, pointing out that your response to the dev quote was both pedantic and obtuse.
You took the position that Bioware had not admitted it was a bug until 2.5 years later, which was pedantic, given that you were assuming that the quote you had seen just then was the first time they had said it was a bug.
You also used "" around the words bug, indicating you didn't believe the devs, which was obtuse.
You really shouldn't claim a logical fallacy if you don't know what they mean. I did not attack your character to undermine your argument. I attacked your statements as pedantic and obtuse.
A strawman argument is an attempt to misrepresent an argument. I was not repeating your argument, I was satirizing it.
Recognising passionate views, can we leave the ME3 war assets and MP issue as a discussed controversy just for now please?
I'd like to avoid a lock and I feel the temperature rising. Thanks.
@King Dragonlord: Yeah - also that's an odd analogy. More so considering both those games involve multiplayer lol. Ahh dunno why that amuses me. Anyway It's still different cause same game and all that, different mode. Putting this simply, I do not agree with the idea that MP shouldn't exist because it's multiplayer. And I don't think it should be tied into SP at all (except via some 'theme' that explains it, such as your characters being part of the inquisition but not effecting single player games).
I think to many folks have some irrational hate towards one portion of the game over another. You get it with romances too, or even having squad members. Some people want to just make all 4 chars and have no personalities or stories attached. Just cause some folks don't like it, doesn't mean it shouldn't be in though (and I'm not saying or implying you don't think us MP lovers shouldn't get are piece of the cake). 
-edits-
@Sofajockey : LOL good idea man.
I for one hope that the positive reception to ME3's MP showed the team that it doesn't necessarily need singleplayer integration to be successful.
A prominent place on the menu and a significant marketing effort seem like adequate ways to get people to try it out.
I think linking it to SP can cause more trouble than it's worth, even if I disagree with most of the more hysterical reactions to that. They shouldn't give people any excuse to badmouth the game, I guess.
It is very true that any form of integration is going to be viewed with suspicion by members of the community, but I still say that there is a way that both game modes can be integrated and it be a positive aspect.
I think it would be amazing if we could promote our MP characters into the SP game and then have those characters so up as agents in the SP game. As a point of clarification I would like to see the game giving players a list of their SP saved games and allow them to choose which save they want each promotion to go to; rather than the general pot that ME 3's MP promotions had. I would also just want to see a 'model swap' of one of the vanilla NPC agents that are bound to be present; no additional stat bonuses, no extra agent points; just an optional method of adding more personalization and customization to the Inquisition.
I can tone it down but its very relevant to this discussion. Its somewhat at the heart of the reasons why people feel strongly against it showing up in DAI.Recognising passionate views, can we leave the ME3 war assets and MP issue as a discussed controversy just for now please?
I'd like to avoid a lock and I feel the temperature rising. Thanks.
Assuming that multiplayer is in the game, what modes seem likely?
Kotaku talked about PvE arena combat (like ME3) and PvP where one player was a dragon (!).
The achievements mentioned a second round, which points to something like a horde mode.
I think there's four major enemy factions - Venatori, demons, Red Templars and human bandits.
They could integrate customisation and crafting from the singleplayer, which sounds freaking amazing. Tailoring your multiplayer character to be effective against demons just before a demon match would be such a great use of the attributes and bonuses from crafting/material combinations.
(And it's something that ME3 never had, which makes the system already so much deeper.)
Oh, also... armour customisation for multiplayer! Racial options!
Avvar Battlemaster with a giant warhammer?
look at it this way. Let's say that Dark Souls and Mario Party each sell for 60 bucksLet's say that they introduce a pack that sells them for 90 bucks together. Now llet's say that they will only be selling those two games together as a bundle, ever. If you like neither game, you're set. If you like both games, this is a great deal. If you only wanted Dark Souls OR Mario Party, then you're being asked to waste 30 bucks. Now you may be saying "but its the same price either way with DAI." But whilI can believe they expect micro transactions to cover most costs they will still likely hedge their bets buy building some of the cost into the purchase price. If even 5 buscks could have been knocked off the price. I want that money. I'd rather eat an extra bigMac than play multiplayer. (again, sorry for the typos, this smartphone browser does bizarre and uncontrollable things with textarea elements inserting random characters especially when you try to delete. )
Its a fair point that how BW decides to recoup an investment in MP would affect our costs as a consumer. However, in the past, this has typically been recouped in theoretically higher sales. In the present, we typically see multiplayer only microtransactions. Its not impossible that some of the box price will be due to MP expense(when comparing a theoretical market model between a DA:I with MP and one without MP and its relevant sales), but given that the industry operates pretty much on a number of pricing standards, I think the price would be the same either way.
Assuming that multiplayer is in the game, what modes seem likely?
Kotaku talked about PvE arena combat (like ME3) and PvP where one player was a dragon (!).
The achievements mentioned a second round, which points to something like a horde mode.
I think there's four major enemy factions - Venatori, demons, Red Templars and human bandits.
They could integrate customisation and crafting from the singleplayer, which sounds freaking amazing. Tailoring your multiplayer character to be effective against demons just before a demon match would be such a great use of the attributes and bonuses from crafting/material combinations.
(And it's something that ME3 never had, which makes the system already so much deeper.)
4v1 co-op arenas sounds like a prototype for ShadowRealms. Although if its just some kind of arena I think I'd be a little disappointed(unless the combat in DA:I is really really good, which would be a first for Bioware fantasy games imo).
No, it does not take away resources from other aspects of the game.
I can tone it down but its very relevant to this discussion. Its somewhat at the heart of the reasons why people feel strongly against it showing up in DAI.
or at least its the best example we have for comparison.
No wish to disregard it's relevance King Dragonlord,
just that it's a debate that has recycled several times already with no real way of seeing whether the the banana skin has been stepped on again without knowing:
I think the views from all perspectives of the ME3 are pretty well covered.
That was where I was coming from.
EDIT: And ElitePinecone's mode speculation is a great direction to head, thanks for that.
Retour en haut