Results 1 to 20 of 168
07-03-2012, 04:06 AM #1
pay2win: Mass Effect 3's Ending Tied to Forced Multiplayer Participation
I know, another bleeding ME3 thread, but this one is different ;-)
If you want a happy ending in ME3, ya have to play multiplayer (apparently), oh and you can buy items in multiplayer to be a better player. http://gamepolitics.com/2012/03/06/m...-participation
It’s all rather… dirty. Presumably they’re trying to encourage you to try the multiplayer because to do well in it, you have to buy or earn unlockable items, and you can get these for real money. But they’re doing it by hurting your single player game, slapping a good playthrough with a bad ending as a penalty for not playing co-op. Even if you like co-op, it’s not unreasonable to want to play through the single player first."
07-03-2012, 04:13 AM #2
This is how it works. The game assumes, if you do not touch multiplayer, that you have a galactic readiness of 50%. Now galactic readiness is how prepared the galaxy is for facing the reapers. HOWEVER, galactic readiness by itself DOES NOTHING.
What galactic readiness ACTUALLY does gameplay wise, is determine how useful your war assets are once you obtain them.
What you actually need to beat the game are war assets. Galactic readiness only modifies how much war assets are worth. Still following me?
Here is an example. War assets are worth a certain amount of points. In this random example, lets say we save a human fleet. Lets say that human fleet is worth 1000 points. Well this is where galactic readiness comes in. The game starts with 50% war readiness, and it stays that way if you don't touch multiplayer.
So we take the asset, which is 1000 points, and multiply it by the war readiness. (50% which =0.5)
So 1000 x 0.5 = 500.
As such the war asset, since the galaxy is only 50% ready, cuts the worth of the asset in half. So the 1000 point.
YOU CAN BEAT THE GAME WITHOUT EVER TOUCHING MULTIPLAYER.
The only thing multiplayer does, is improve how many points war assets are earned. So lets say we play multiplayer and bump the readiness up to 75%...
1000 x .75 = 750
07-03-2012, 04:27 AM #3
Not to mention that Bioware have stated multiple times that you can get the best possible result without ever having touched multiplayer.
07-03-2012, 04:33 AM #4
No worries though, I'm sure some DLC will be along sooner or later that lets you buy your way around the problem by providing not-deliberately-horrible SP content that gets the job done. If we're lucky, it might even cost less than $20. I'll be waiting for that, and a nice steep price drop, if I don't just lose interest altogether.
Last edited by vinraith; 07-03-2012 at 05:36 AM.
07-03-2012, 05:24 AM #5
07-03-2012, 05:30 AM #6
Hearing what I'm hearing, I have no intention of picking up the game any time soon (if ever).
Last edited by vinraith; 07-03-2012 at 05:34 AM.
07-03-2012, 05:36 AM #7
07-03-2012, 05:38 AM #8
07-03-2012, 06:42 AM #9
- Join Date
- Jun 2011
07-03-2012, 07:22 AM #10
You can't blame people for being cautious because the side quests in ME1 especially, and ME2 were complete filler content. I mean some sidequests in ME1 have locations with completely empty rooms. I'm still looking forward to the game, I just hope it's possible to play to a satisfactory conclusion without feeling like you have to grind. If the sidequests are actually interesting in ME3 then I'm sure I'll have no problem working to get as many 'war assets' as I can, but that would be going against the series so far: great main story, crappy sidestuff.
07-03-2012, 07:30 AM #11
07-03-2012, 07:41 AM #12
07-03-2012, 08:45 AM #13
Also great explanation post by woundedbum. It seems to me that it's all a bit akin to the loyalty missions but extended to other factors. However they've introduce a mechanic where in it's possible to shortcut doing all the RPG stuff if that's not for you (for those who just want to play the game as combat) by playing in co-op mode. Seems like a mechanic put in to cater towards the 'I want combat' types rather than those wanting to do the RPG & story modes.
Generally the way I've played the ME games is to clear off any outlying side quests as and when they've come up Vs concentrating on pushing the main storyline and that's tended to alleviate any sense of tedium I've found. It also meant I was ready to roll in to the omega 4 relay in ME2 straight away when things went bad (which was advantageous). I suspect adopting that approach in ME3 will likely be as beneficial.
07-03-2012, 08:57 AM #14
Are people so smug to need to petition for ultimate victory? Maybe the horribly close victory us more appropriate?
I'll never know, played the multiplayer for an hour yesterday and added 9 points to all systems readiness.
I hadn't even imported my character at the time :p
07-03-2012, 09:02 AM #15
- Join Date
- Jun 2011
07-03-2012, 09:04 AM #16
07-03-2012, 09:08 AM #17
And yes, 100% ME1 requisited you driving about barren rocks looking for rocks. But it didn't have any plot influence.
People are their own worst enemy sometimes.
07-03-2012, 09:14 AM #18
- Join Date
- Jul 2011
I'm waiting for someone to unequivocally say "I did 0 multiplayer and got the best ending". Until then, you're just blowing hot air.
07-03-2012, 09:18 AM #19
07-03-2012, 09:28 AM #20
Give me [url=http://steamcommunity.com/id/flintgf]steam[/url] and how you feel to make it real.
- Join Date
- Jun 2011
- Manchester / Finland