Rummy Bunnz
Member
Who cares if it's easily abused? Who's it going to bother? No one's going to sell their copy of SC3 cuz they used an exploit to unlock everything the first night they got it. And your game isn't going to be ruined because someone else cheated 2 win theirs.Tellaerin said:My first impulse was to agree that the player should have been able to earn money, rather than just additional unlocks, by playing VS matches. Then I thought about how easily that could be abused (see Hito's posts earlier in the thread). Letting VS matches count towards unlocking but not giving the player cash for this mode seems like a fair compromise - you're getting something for your time, but it's not possible to earn everything with an autofire controller. (Not that it matters now that people have discovered that infinite money glitch, but still.)
People shouldn't have to slog through a mode they don't like so they can fully enjoy a mode they do. To me it's one of the great flaws of modern console games. I'm really, really tired of having to thoroughly play a game in single player to unlock stuff for multi. (Especially when it's an online game and the stuff you unlock gives you an advantage over other players -- I loved Phantom Dust, but I gave up on it because I didn't want to play the dull as dirt single player just so I could be competitive online.)
I don't think the no money thing is a fair compromise. It would be silly if you had to play multi just so you could buy stuff for solo play, and I think it's only slightly less silly to require the opposite in SC3. In a game that focuses on both single and multiplayer the only fair compromise would be allowing the player to unlock all content by playing the mode of their choice.