665 réponses à ce sujet

[addiction21]

That's not a lie, and I said what endings you could get AND what you could accomplish.  If you want to be taken seriously you should stop cherry picking what you want from a post.  You needed to have done certain things in conversations and have 4000 EMS to stop TIM from shooting Anderson, which would fall under the what you could accomplish part of my post.  So please stop with the nonsense, this isn't a political message board on some news story.

 

Yes it is a lie because like I said before its not "endings" just like your example with Anderson and TIM is a lie since that could be accomplished with out multiplayer.

 

And I will keep up with this nonsense as long as you and others want to keep spewing lies to make your opinion seem more valid. Its really not hard to just state you don't like multiplayer and that you find the marketing claims of MP not infringing on SP dishonest because one scene after one possible ending could not be achieved. That I can agree with.

 

Presenting it as if "endings" or other substantial parts of the game are gated behind MP is bs and I will continue to call out.

 

I don't really care if you or anyone takes me seriously but you and others seem to want to be taken seriously. Ao my advice is drop the rhetoric, lies and hyperbole.

[Aaleel]

Yes it is a lie because like I said before its not "endings" just like your example with Anderson and TIM is a lie since that could be accomplished with out multiplayer.

And I will keep up with this nonsense as long as you and others want to keep spewing lies to make your opinion seem more valid. Its really not hard to just state you don't like multiplayer and that you find the marketing claims of MP not infringing on SP dishonest because one scene after one possible ending could not be achieved. That I can agree with.

Presenting it as if "endings" or other substantial parts of the game are gated behind MP is bs and I will continue to call out.

I don't really care if you or anyone takes me seriously but you and others seem to want to be taken seriously. Ao my advice is drop the rhetoric, lies and hyperbole.

No you can't do it without MP because there's no way you can get enough EMS, that's a fact. You couldn't get 4000 EMS in the main game without MP until after they patched it post release. Also, if you're crying over something like 'endings' or 'ending' then I feel sorry for you because it's not that serious, and you're wrong on top of it. I didn't say there multiple endings you couldn't get, all I said was that it effected what endings were available to you, which again is not a lie.

If I say the class you choose to play determines what weapons are available to you, would this be a lie if the difference between what weapons you could choose is only one weapon? Of course not, it's just proper English. So please like I said stop the nonsense, it's like you're looking for things to be upset or offended by. I said MP had an effect on what endings you could get and it did, that's a fact. I said you couldn't stop Anderson from being shot without 4000 EMS and you couldn't. Not one lie, not piece of 'rhetoric, just facts, deal with it.

[Maeshone]

If "fans" want MP they should pay 79.99 for it. Then we would all see how popular MP really is. Pay for what you play. Keep it away from SP, and BW don't lie about it .

Except that is utterly stupid and pointless. Nobody would buy a singleplayer focused game like DAI for 60 dollars, and then pay an additional 80 dollars for multiplayer. Multiplayer is not the main draw. Nobody is saying that it is. What we are saying is that we won't mind if multiplayer is included in the core package, because we enjoy multiplayer, because we are not unreasonably attached to the ridiculous concept of "once a singleplayer game, always a singleplayer game". Singleplayer games have had multiplayer attached to them before without any impact to the singleplayer portion, Assassins Creed stands out as the most significant example, but I listed others in an older post.

 

Also, the whole thing with implying that people who want multiplayer aren't proper fans is downright insulting. Get over yourself.

[Iakus]

 
3) True. But on the other hand me3 mp was the best part of the game.

That is...not something to take pride in...

[animedreamer]

I truly hope that there is no Multiplayer. The game doesn't need it to be a success. And honestly I grow tired of the modern thinking that a game needs Multiplayer to be worthy of notice.

 

But no one ever said it needed multiplayer to be successful as the question to have it or not was never directly asked by BioWare. We don't even know what multiplayer for this game would be like, for all we know it could be a co-op, or a game of pong. There used to be a time where developers could add something to a game, and people either played with it or not. Remember back when you had to unlock the extra game modes in games? Something tells me developers should go back to that time, put the extra feature in and make it harder to get so that those who don't want it, or don't care for it won't bother to get it. While those who are interested or are completionist will strive to unlock it and play with it.

[Iakus]

 

Presenting it as if "endings" or other substantial parts of the game are gated behind MP is bs and I will continue to call out.

 

Was there an ending outcome unreachable by SP-only means in ME3?  Yes.

 

And not just an ending outcome, a unique and highly desired outcome not even hinted at in any other ending.

 

Not BS

[ElitePinecone]

It's worth quoting the actual multiplayer FAQ that Bioware made before ME3:

 

"You can reach the highest levels of success in the single player experience alone, but Galaxy at War gives you alternative ways to get there."

 

This was not true. There was gated story content (including a more-successful version of Destroy) that required EMS levels that were impossible to get with the singleplayer game alone. "Reaching the highest levels of success" involved completing everything in the singleplayer experience, as well as additional tasks in the Galaxy of War system like the multiplayer or the fleet minigame.

 

I am not a critic of multiplayer on principle, but I think it's important to establish that what they said before ME3's launch did not match the reality of what happened in the game.

 

That doesn't mean it will happen again, but it absolutely should be something that the team pays attention to before DA:I's PR campaign gets going. For the love of Zeus, don't make promises about things that aren't true.

[Star fury]

That is...not something to take pride in...

That kinda tells a lot about ME3, if the multiplayer is the best part in a RPG which "focused on rich stories, unforgettable characters and vast worlds to discover".

 

I'm neutral towards mp in DAI, but absolutely want mp in ME4. And ironically I was really against it in ME3.

[Jonny]

Spoiler

http://109.imagebam....24 18.52.36.png
http://112.imagebam....24 18.52.50.png
http://110.imagebam....24 18.53.05.png

[Warden_of_all]

As far as multiplayer is concerned, they said Online component not multiplayer specifically. We all know what the Online component is. It's the Keep. So I doubt they will have multiplayer in the game. Also before you start thinking that the Keep is not an Online component Just remember that the Keep not only creates your World States, but also is used to update your decisions for the next game while you are playing Online. 

[efd732]

And if playing as a dwarf had a real danger of hamstringing the ability to play a human or elf I'd complain about that too.  

 

I mean, if someone who wanted to play Dalish was restricted from seeing certain content or even from certain endings unless you also have a Dwarf Inquisitor at a certain point in the campaign, yeah I'd be there howling too.

im a little late to this party, but you are incorrect. having dwarves automatically means less content for the other races. it means less time and "zots" spent on their backgrounds, on the reactivity to them in the story, or working to alter the romance scenes because they are so much smaller than the other races, it makes the time spent on the mage trees less efficient becuase theres automatically a race that cannot access that content, and literally every single aspect of the game that is altered for dwarves is taking resources from the other "regular sized" races. having dwarves in there automatically means less of everything for the rest of the game. imagine how much work Epler couldve done if he wasnt doing cinematic wizardry to make dwarves romanceable by IronBull.

 

now, dwarves should stay in. they should absolutely be in the game and anyone who says otherwise is ignorant. but you cannot say they do not make a stake on the available resources. now look at MP. it has a seperate budget, a different team, and might actually increase marketing funding so that their MP component is known, thus raising awareness of the SP component and having more people buy the SP that might not have, due to the MP inclusion. assuming a mass effect model.

[wright1978]

Personally don't want multiplayer in DAI.
If it has to exist it better not have any link with single player.

[King Dragonlord]

Personally don't want multiplayer in DAI.
If it has to exist it better not have any link with single player.

 

This. If there is even one shred of content or story in the single player that requires multiplayer, then EA has already seen its last dime from me. I'm ashamed to say I actually played the multiplayer for the frikkin Galactic Readiness bumps. I was weak. And I actually bought booster packs with cash. I'm not going to give them the chance to lure me in again. 

 

If there's some kind of mod or exploit that gets around it and lets me have a completely contained single player experience with all content, then I might buy the game. 

 

If for some reason I buy the game anyway only to find it has ME3 style multiplayer that I have to play for the SP, I'll play the MP, and I'll make sure my character is as useless a leech as possible. I encourage the rest of you who don't want multiplayer to do the same. Ruin the experience for other multiplayers until they relent and decouple it from the actual game. The part that matters. 

[efd732]

This. If there is even one shred of content or story in the single player that requires multiplayer, then EA has already seen its last dime from me. I'm ashamed to say I actually played the multiplayer for the frikkin Galactic Readiness bumps. I was weak. And I actually bought booster packs with cash. I'm not going to give them the chance to lure me in again. 

 

If there's some kind of mod or exploit that gets around it and lets me have a completely contained single player experience with all content, then I might buy the game. 

 

If for some reason I buy the game anyway only to find it has ME3 style multiplayer that I have to play for the SP, I'll play the MP, and I'll make sure my character is as useless a leech as possible. I encourage the rest of you who don't want multiplayer to do the same. Ruin the experience for other multiplayers until they relent and decouple it from the actual game. The part that matters. 

yes punish other gamers for.....reasons? all you'll do is aggravate the people using MP, and they'll hate you 'crusaders' instead of EA. simple as that. youll get the blame for everything and the furor over that will detract from any valid anger directed at EA.

[Grayvisions]

Uff, back when this topic first appeared I rolled my eyes at it.

 

But now that 'big announcement' that have planned for later this month has me worried.

 

God I hope it's not MP. Whether or not it's true, ~if~ they announce MP for DAI, there's going to be tons of speculation and rage that MP is why the game got pushed back. If that ends up the announcement, I shall avoid these forums and stop googling DAI for a good week. Hopefully that's enough time for the anger to quell. A little.

[Faerlyte]

Yay MP.