Mass Effect 3

"Why did you kill 300,000 Batarians Mr.Shepard?"

>I had to, to stop the Reapers

>I dunno, lol ¯\(°_o)/¯
>They deserved it
 
It's going to be a mock trial based on circumstantial evidence at best. All direct evidence was vaporized along with the system. I like this setup, the last time we participated in an actual trial was in KOTOR1 if I recall correctly.
 
It's going to be a mock trial based on circumstantial evidence at best. All direct evidence was vaporized along with the system. I like this setup, the last time we participated in an actual trial was in KOTOR1 if I recall correctly.

****ing selkath lawyers
 
It depends on what one defines as "trial", i.e. if one in that term includes the period during which you are under detention or being investigated in preparation for facing the charges.

I know of cases over here where people have been imprisoned awaiting trial for quite substantial periods of times, in some cases up to a year I think.

I know that doesn't answer your question for how long one is on trial, I am just saying in real life trials can take a long long time so it's not unreasonable to think they managed to do this in the time Shepard is detained/imprisoned awaiting his trial and the trial progressing and such.

No I understand but if the Reapers were 3 days away from Earth, how many days longer does it take with that relay gone?

but I would assume a trial that is for the "murder" of 300,000 aliens I would assume it be start rather soon.
 
No I understand but if the Reapers were 3 days away from Earth, how many days longer does it take with that relay gone?

but I would assume a trial that is for the "murder" of 300,000 aliens I would assume it be start rather soon.

The Doc said it could take months or years. Though I would think the trial would start ASAP considering the Batarians and Alliance are probably now on the brink of war.
 
It's going to be exactly like Gears of War, but with special skills and shit. Terrible.
 

faith in what, exactly? this will have no bearing on the singleplayer whatsoever, the developers have come too far to suddenly switch focus and too much attention from one medium to the other, so the singleplayer will still be what we've come to expect from ME1 and ME2, which to be is something to be quite excited for.

i won't play the multiplayer in all likelyhood, and nor do i really care about it.
 
... the singleplayer will still be what we've come to expect from ME1 and ME2, which to be is something to be quite excited for.

i won't play the multiplayer in all likelyhood, and nor do i really care about it.

This.
 
Isn't Neverwinter Nights the only released multiplayer game with multiplayer?
 
Yeah, I don't really think they'll be capable of making ME into a good multiplayer game, simply because they have no experience really in this sort of thing. Also, given their mishandling of Dragon Age and this significant side-tracking, I've gotta say I'm a bit skeptical of how well its going to turn out as well.
 
Success in multi-player will have a direct impact on the outcome of the single player campaign, giving players an alternative method of achieving ultimate victory against the greatest threat mankind – and the entire galaxy – has ever faced.

Uugggghhhh **** off what is this.
 
Oh, so its entirely separate from the MP despite the direct impact the MP has on it. I'm glad that's cleared up!
 
Yeah, sorry, lemme rephrase that: Isn't Neverwinter Nights the only released Bioware game with multiplayer? I was wondering since TOR and this game are coming out soon.

Baldur's Gate 2 and Icewind Dale [2] all had multiplayer.
 
So they were, though they used the engine Bioware made. I wonder who did the netcode etc. - IWD came out at almost the same time as BG2.
 
Read the rest of it. They really emphasize how the multiplayer is entirely optional and separate from single-player.

It's not "entirely" optional if the multiplayer has any kind of influence on the single player, which they clearly state it does. From reading their post I can't get a good feel for how exactly it will impact it, but it seems like it'll be one of three things. Best case, participating in multiplayer or the "galaxy at war" thing will just contribute towards making certain options available to you, that you would have been able to access freely in single player alone if you put in enough effort. They seem to be hinting towards that sometimes, but in other parts their language kind of contradicts that. Another possibility is that doing these things will open up new paths or options in the single player that wouldn't have been available otherwise, but which might not contribute directly to getting the "best" possible ending (if there is such a thing), or just whichever ending you wanted to work towards. This seems like it's most consistent with the way they're describing it, but I'm still not entirely sure. The third possibility, and the worst case scenario, is that doing the multiplayer stuff actually unlocks completely new endings, but I can't imagine they'd be silly enough to do this.

Any case, this isn't really a deal breaker for me as there wasn't much chance of me skipping out on this anyway (unless they dropped the ball in some supremely stupid way), but it does bother me. The series is billed as, first and foremost, a single-player RPG. It's cool that they're still dedicated to that and making these other things somewhat optional, but I'd much prefer if they just kept them completely separate. Then they'd be entirely optional.
 
...I guess I'll just buy 3 more PCs and a KVM and foreveralone this. If I actually played Bioware games.
 
So... here's some kind of video explaining the multiplayer mode in a bit more detail (no gameplay, just screenies). From the sounds of it the way it ties into the single player is by letting you take control of outposts for extra power or whatever, which you can also do in the single player... I think. Which honestly just raises more questions, but I guess it could be an okay compromise.

That aside, what the hell did I just watch?

 
I don't get it, we have to play online to get the good ending?
 
I think it's more like you can if you want to, but the option still exists in single player. Maybe. I don't know.
 
I don't get it, we have to play online to get the good ending?

Oh FFS! You can complete the game just fine in single player. These features just provide an interesting alternative to those that like online play.
 
I assume its an extension of the resource gathering from Mass Effect 2. Only rather than just mining planets for minerals, you can earn resources through a variety of alternative means, such as the multiplayer, and some facebook or iPad games I expect. You will still be able to gather everything you need for the ending via ingame methods, it just gives you other options, and an excuse to play the external components.
 
From what I was hearing, it sounded like they didn't actually know what they were trying to explain.

Like, a bunch of Americans trying to explain what French home life is like.
 
Sounded to me like they're saying all the generic, boring side-missions can be done in co-op as well as in single-player.
 
^ Yeah, I think that's probably what they're suggesting, except that having control of the outposts those missions take place in is important for some reason. Maybe for resources, or maybe there's some kind of control element, who knows? Not me, and I'm done speculating until they decide to give us a less hopelessly vague explanation.
 
Lesbian space lizard sex confirmed co-op gameplay mode. Better buy the collector's edition.

Heavy "moral " decisions and shit. Eugh, spare me (3.0). Not my thing these days, though I'll probably pick it up on a yummy Steam sale - they actually do have addicting combat now and a decent weapon / char progression system.
 
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/11/09/three-way-mass-effect-3/

Game lets you select one of three "modes" which supplement the difficulty in interesting ways.

Action Mode: “For those who want to emphasize action and combat and minimize story management. Action mode will set automatic replies in conversation and a normal difficulty.”

Story Mode: “For those who want to emphasize story immersion and minimize combat pressure. Story mode will set manually-selectable replies in conversation and a minimal combat difficulty.”

RPG Mode: “For those who want to explore both realms of story and combat. RPG mode will set manually-selectable replies in conversation and a normal combat difficulty.”

Seems kind of a novel way of letting people ignore the elements they dislike and still finish the game. Does seem a little like a cop-out, but I guess you can't please everyone.
 
wtf? They still have the old difficulty settings right? Goddamn casuals.
 
They're trying to cater to everyone, and in the end it'll end up pleasing nobody.
 
wtf? They still have the old difficulty settings right? Goddamn casuals.

I can't imagine why they wouldn't.

But yeah, casuals, oh my god. I can't believe they're doing a thing that probably won't affect me in the slightest unless I consciously pick one of the former two modes. Burn them at the ****ing stake.
 
It'll probably be a damn screen every new game. I actually have to push an extra button (maybe even scroll down) just to start.
 
Back
Top