Bioware Appeals For Calm Regarding Mass Effect 3 Multiplayer

[Vicarious Reality]

What are they releasing? Mass effect online or Mass effect 3?

 

[NinjaDeathSlap]

So, fans are getting irrational about a new feature? You never see that happen.

I don't get the rage at this; Bioware said when they announced it that it was seperate from th maingame and you could fully complete everything in singleplayer without touching the MP or that facebook thing they have planned. This is much stressing out over nothing.

Because EA are taking my Bioware away from me goddammit!!! How dare they try and do anything without consulting me personally first. Now all the dirty peasants who like to play online multi-player will be coming over from their CoD's and their Gears of War's and then my Mass Effect will be ruined foerver! SELLOUTS!!! (/sarcasm, not that you really need me to do this do you.)

If it turns out that the multi-player content sucks or devalues the single player in some way (which is doubtful) then they should be rightly critised for it. However, people bitching about stuff like this now before they even know any real details are behaving like Bioware's obsessive and psychotic spouse. The more you try to cling on the more you'll push him away, and the only reason he hasn't left you already is because he's worried that if he does you'll throw yourself off a bridge. Get a grip before it's too late.

 

[NinjaDeathSlap]

Are we still complaining about this? Am I the only one who can't wait to enjoy the optional co-op with a few good friends on March 6th?

You are most certainly not the only one, sir. No rage from me on this issue, I'm actually looking forward to multiplayer.

Also, am I the only one who can't stop laughing at the page image?

You are most certainly not the only one. Now let's see if we can keep this train going...

Am I the only one who hears those voices? ...What?

 

[Syzygy23]

Y'know, the Halo games had an entirely seperate multiplayer too but you don't see THEM making people use stupid ass MP codes. Way to get greedy, bioware. I'm not buying this game simply because I refuse to support this kind of behavior. If I wanna know what happens in ME 3 I'll go read the spoilers on the wiki or watch a let's play of it.

 

[RedDeadFred]

I'm pretty sure I'll actually enjoy this because I loved the combat of Mass Effect 2. Being able to play as different races is also a bonus. I think people are looking at this in the most pessimistic way. Bioware hasn't let me down yet (no I haven't played either of the Dragon Age games so that doesn't count) so I really have no reason to believe that this won't be an overall good experience.
I say we should wait for some more specifics on it and actually see gameplay before we jump to conclusions that it will destroy the franchise.

 

[RA92]

So, fans are getting irrational about a new feature? You never see that happen.

I don't get the rage at this; Bioware said when they announced it that it was seperate from th maingame and you could fully complete everything in singleplayer without touching the MP or that facebook thing they have planned. This is much stressing out over nothing.

Because EA are taking my Bioware away from me goddammit!!! How dare they try and do anything without consulting me personally first. Now all the dirty peasants who like to play online multi-player will be coming over from their CoD's and their Gears of War's and then my Mass Effect will be ruined foerver! SELLOUTS!!! (/sarcasm, not that you really need me to do this do you.)

If it turns out that the multi-player content sucks or devalues the single player in some way (which is doubtful) then they should be rightly critised for it. However, people bitching about stuff like this now before they even know any real details are behaving like Bioware's obsessive and psychotic spouse. The more you try to cling on the more you'll push him away, and the only reason he hasn't left you already is because he's worried that if he does you'll throw yourself off a bridge. Get a grip before it's too late.

Oh, for crying out loud... look, Bioware themselves said that the 'Galaxy at War' co-op bit raised the 'Galactic Readiness' of the playthrough, which affects how the story progresses and ends. So the co-op isn't just a MP addition, it is an integration into the SP. There were legitimate reasons for being worried because quite a few of us didn't want to have to meddle with MP and still have a perfect playthrough. So please keep the condescending tone out.

Anyway, apparently doing all the side-quests will substitute for the co-op playtime, so... we'll wait and see.

 

[NickCaligo42]

You don't, that's cool, but that doesn't mean you have to insult me for having a different view on life just to make a point.

Let's get something straight. I did not insult you to prove a point.

I insulted you to prove a point, THEN made a completely separate point addressing your original post.

My insulting you has jack and shit to do with how I feel about Bioware and their development of this game. You chose the words "just shut up" in order to address a broad spectrum of arguments you feel like ignoring. Some grounded in baseless entitlement, but some are fairly reasonable concerns from level-headed people. You do a great disservice to yourself by not listening, but you do a greater disservice to the entire gaming community by publicly dismissing them and telling people who actually care and WANT to discuss this to "shut up."

I didn't mean for you to take my reply personally, mind--I don't know you nearly well enough to hate you--I just wanted you to see how it felt to be on the receiving end. Obviously not too good, so I'd advise you START with the civil argument next time. Then you don't invite people to take a shot right back at you.

I know the arguments that your side keeps spouting: "It'll ruin the SP due to less resources"

MY side? Woah woah woah, slow down there. Let's get something else straight. I am on nobody's side.

I have no investment in this series. It's never really impressed me that much, and it doesn't seem to me like there's much they could do to "ruin the singleplayer" since it isn't really that good to begin with. This discussion represents several major issues in game development that keep being raised and that I feel are important--those being developers' insecurity about the quality of their content and potential sales, possible misdirection of resources, and, more importantly to me than anything--especially more important than Mass Effect's integrity as a game--extremely poor PR handling with the fanbase, something for which no game developer has a valid excuse. I care about the discussion of the bigger issues at hand--not some petty, narrow-minded devotion to this series.

 

[Shamanic Rhythm]

I recall them having a 'please be calm' appeal over the news that you'd play a named, voiced character in Dragon Age II, a la Mass Effect.

And then it turned out that they'd hired a voice actor (for the male Hawke) who delivered every single line as if he'd been taking inspiration from a youtube compilation of Ewan McGregor's worst lines in the Star Wars prequels. And the small blurbs you picked from regularly did not actually match what line he delivered shortly afterwards. And most of the dialogue was a load of pants anyway.

So yeah. I'm personally disinclined to give a shit about the multiplayer, but history is not on Bioware's side.

 

[Scars Unseen]

And you DO NOT have to play it to get the best singleplayer ending! So [i/]please[/i] shut up and let the rest of us go back to deluding ourselves into thinking that humanity is actually smart.

Also, it was really hard to read this article with that image.

You don't HAVE to let me convince you not to delude yourself. You're perfectly capable of tuning out any negativity that you choose. So PLEASE shut up and let the rest of us go back to criticizing them for making stupid PR decisions!

See? "I don't want to understand your side of the argument, so PBBBBBT!" Doesn't really hold up as an argument, does it? It doesn't resolve anything or bring about understanding, it's just childish.

There's always a separate team for the single-player and a separate team for the multiplayer. It doesn't matter if they have two studios working on it or not, there's only so much budget to go around, and the tech team that both sides have to report back to has to screw around with a lot of networking tech in addition to the main engine driving the game, which they've previously stated is getting a big overhaul. It's no wonder the game had to be delayed, but the real point is, resources are resources. That extra manpower costs something--very notably something that I hear was diverted from the budget of Dragon Age 2.

I know the arguments that your side keeps spouting: "It'll ruin the SP due to less resources" or "It'll ruin ME cuz I don't want MP" seem to be the most common. Where did I say I didn't want to understand the other sides argument? All I did was inform someone about what BioWare had said twice now. Then I explained in "SP terms" what ME multiplayer was for those advocates of argument #2. I know that two separate teams work on multiplayer and singleplayer, HOWEVER they are usually in the same studio. Now that BioWare has two studios working on this that means they have twice as many resources and can double the work they produce each man-hour. Regardless of that, I agree with you that resources are always limited and I'm worried about argument #1 proving true as well, but I have a cautiously optimistic outlook on things like this. You don't, that's cool, but that doesn't mean you have to insult me for having a different view on life just to make a point.

They do not have twice as much resources. They have the same resources. They are just dividing it between two development teams. It's very simple.

This will always be true. One thing that is almost universally true in game development is that you never have enough budget/development time to put every feature into a game that you would like. Something always gets left out. By devoting resources to multiplayer, Bioware (or more likely EA) have made the conscious decision to divert those resources away from more or improved single player content that could have been included. This is true of all games, of course, but the reason people make a big deal of it with this game is because the series has been single player thus far. Will Mass Effect 3 be a bad game because of this decision? Probably not. I still plan on buying the game. But the argument against multiplayer does have some merit.

 

[Sanunes]

My only concern for Co-Op is they will make me use it to satisfy my OCD when it comes to achievements, other then that I have no problem with it at all.

My biggest concern is being forced to have Origin on my computer to play Mass Effect 3, for I am not a big supporter of what they are asking me to sign away with the EULA, such as them scanning and reporting what hardware and software I have and how much I am using each piece of software, it might be anonymous data, but I don't think my usage of non-gaming software is something they need to know.

 

[gyroscopeboy]

I'm sure this article was great and well-thought out, but all I can think of saying is: Shepard, 'dat face.

Haha i know, it took me like 10 mins to read this article because i kept getting distracted by the horror that is that picture.

 

[DirgeNovak]

That's not what they said when they announced it.
I'm quoting the "Bioware finally confirms and details Mass Effect 3 multiplayer" article from this very site here:

These efforts will have a direct impact on the player's "Galactic Readiness" meter, which shows how well-prepared the Galaxy is to fend off the Reaper assault. Thus, success in the co-op mode will also provide players with an alternative way of getting a perfect ending in the single player game.

So which is it, Bioware?

 

[ecoho]

It just seems so pointless. Everything i've heard about it so far makes it out to be a stripped down version of Horde mode. Why would I want to play that? No, seriously, why would anyone choose to play Mass Effect's version of a game mode that is significantly inferior to the version found in Gears of War or Halo (Or pretty much any other multiplayer-centric game these days).

It just feels tacked on, as if it were just "expected" of them. If you know it's not going to be a big part of the game, and you know it's not going to be something people will keep coming back to, why include it at all?

ok two reasons why you would play the ME3 multiplayer instead of gears of war or halos respectable horde of fire fight modes.

1.this is a feature that adds a little bit more vastness to the war youll be fighting in the single player. I have no doubt that this has a story to it and will be worth playing just not really necessary.

2. you can play a krogan that is all.

 

[ecoho]

And you DO NOT have to play it to get the best singleplayer ending! So [i/]please[/i] shut up and let the rest of us go back to deluding ourselves into thinking that humanity is actually smart.

Also, it was really hard to read this article with that image.

You don't HAVE to let me convince you not to delude yourself. You're perfectly capable of tuning out any negativity that you choose. So PLEASE shut up and let the rest of us go back to criticizing them for making stupid PR decisions!

See? "I don't want to understand your side of the argument, so PBBBBBT!" Doesn't really hold up as an argument, does it? It doesn't resolve anything or bring about understanding, it's just childish.

There's always a separate team for the single-player and a separate team for the multiplayer. It doesn't matter if they have two studios working on it or not, there's only so much budget to go around, and the tech team that both sides have to report back to has to screw around with a lot of networking tech in addition to the main engine driving the game, which they've previously stated is getting a big overhaul. It's no wonder the game had to be delayed, but the real point is, resources are resources. That extra manpower costs something--very notably something that I hear was diverted from the budget of Dragon Age 2.

I know the arguments that your side keeps spouting: "It'll ruin the SP due to less resources" or "It'll ruin ME cuz I don't want MP" seem to be the most common. Where did I say I didn't want to understand the other sides argument? All I did was inform someone about what BioWare had said twice now. Then I explained in "SP terms" what ME multiplayer was for those advocates of argument #2. I know that two separate teams work on multiplayer and singleplayer, HOWEVER they are usually in the same studio. Now that BioWare has two studios working on this that means they have twice as many resources and can double the work they produce each man-hour. Regardless of that, I agree with you that resources are always limited and I'm worried about argument #1 proving true as well, but I have a cautiously optimistic outlook on things like this. You don't, that's cool, but that doesn't mean you have to insult me for having a different view on life just to make a point.

They do not have twice as much resources. They have the same resources. They are just dividing it between two development teams. It's very simple.

This will always be true. One thing that is almost universally true in game development is that you never have enough budget/development time to put every feature into a game that you would like. Something always gets left out. By devoting resources to multiplayer, Bioware (or more likely EA) have made the conscious decision to divert those resources away from more or improved single player content that could have been included. This is true of all games, of course, but the reason people make a big deal of it with this game is because the series has been single player thus far. Will Mass Effect 3 be a bad game because of this decision? Probably not. I still plan on buying the game. But the argument against multiplayer does have some merit.

sorry to burst your bubble but thats not how it works. each studio is given a budget they work with said budget. so the amount of money that was first approved for ME SP is still ONLY being used for the SP! Now the MP studio was given another budget for JUST THE MP! i hope that clears this up

 

[Scars Unseen]

And you DO NOT have to play it to get the best singleplayer ending! So [i/]please[/i] shut up and let the rest of us go back to deluding ourselves into thinking that humanity is actually smart.

Also, it was really hard to read this article with that image.

You don't HAVE to let me convince you not to delude yourself. You're perfectly capable of tuning out any negativity that you choose. So PLEASE shut up and let the rest of us go back to criticizing them for making stupid PR decisions!

See? "I don't want to understand your side of the argument, so PBBBBBT!" Doesn't really hold up as an argument, does it? It doesn't resolve anything or bring about understanding, it's just childish.

There's always a separate team for the single-player and a separate team for the multiplayer. It doesn't matter if they have two studios working on it or not, there's only so much budget to go around, and the tech team that both sides have to report back to has to screw around with a lot of networking tech in addition to the main engine driving the game, which they've previously stated is getting a big overhaul. It's no wonder the game had to be delayed, but the real point is, resources are resources. That extra manpower costs something--very notably something that I hear was diverted from the budget of Dragon Age 2.

I know the arguments that your side keeps spouting: "It'll ruin the SP due to less resources" or "It'll ruin ME cuz I don't want MP" seem to be the most common. Where did I say I didn't want to understand the other sides argument? All I did was inform someone about what BioWare had said twice now. Then I explained in "SP terms" what ME multiplayer was for those advocates of argument #2. I know that two separate teams work on multiplayer and singleplayer, HOWEVER they are usually in the same studio. Now that BioWare has two studios working on this that means they have twice as many resources and can double the work they produce each man-hour. Regardless of that, I agree with you that resources are always limited and I'm worried about argument #1 proving true as well, but I have a cautiously optimistic outlook on things like this. You don't, that's cool, but that doesn't mean you have to insult me for having a different view on life just to make a point.

They do not have twice as much resources. They have the same resources. They are just dividing it between two development teams. It's very simple.

This will always be true. One thing that is almost universally true in game development is that you never have enough budget/development time to put every feature into a game that you would like. Something always gets left out. By devoting resources to multiplayer, Bioware (or more likely EA) have made the conscious decision to divert those resources away from more or improved single player content that could have been included. This is true of all games, of course, but the reason people make a big deal of it with this game is because the series has been single player thus far. Will Mass Effect 3 be a bad game because of this decision? Probably not. I still plan on buying the game. But the argument against multiplayer does have some merit.

sorry to burst your bubble but thats not how it works. each studio is given a budget they work with said budget. so the amount of money that was first approved for ME SP is still ONLY being used for the SP! Now the MP studio was given another budget for JUST THE MP! i hope that clears this up

Which means that said money spent on two studios was available. That money was spent to develop a single game with a single pricepoint that will not have changed due to the fact that multiplayer was added. The chart still applies.

 

[ecoho]

And you DO NOT have to play it to get the best singleplayer ending! So [i/]please[/i] shut up and let the rest of us go back to deluding ourselves into thinking that humanity is actually smart.

Also, it was really hard to read this article with that image.

You don't HAVE to let me convince you not to delude yourself. You're perfectly capable of tuning out any negativity that you choose. So PLEASE shut up and let the rest of us go back to criticizing them for making stupid PR decisions!

See? "I don't want to understand your side of the argument, so PBBBBBT!" Doesn't really hold up as an argument, does it? It doesn't resolve anything or bring about understanding, it's just childish.

There's always a separate team for the single-player and a separate team for the multiplayer. It doesn't matter if they have two studios working on it or not, there's only so much budget to go around, and the tech team that both sides have to report back to has to screw around with a lot of networking tech in addition to the main engine driving the game, which they've previously stated is getting a big overhaul. It's no wonder the game had to be delayed, but the real point is, resources are resources. That extra manpower costs something--very notably something that I hear was diverted from the budget of Dragon Age 2.

I know the arguments that your side keeps spouting: "It'll ruin the SP due to less resources" or "It'll ruin ME cuz I don't want MP" seem to be the most common. Where did I say I didn't want to understand the other sides argument? All I did was inform someone about what BioWare had said twice now. Then I explained in "SP terms" what ME multiplayer was for those advocates of argument #2. I know that two separate teams work on multiplayer and singleplayer, HOWEVER they are usually in the same studio. Now that BioWare has two studios working on this that means they have twice as many resources and can double the work they produce each man-hour. Regardless of that, I agree with you that resources are always limited and I'm worried about argument #1 proving true as well, but I have a cautiously optimistic outlook on things like this. You don't, that's cool, but that doesn't mean you have to insult me for having a different view on life just to make a point.

They do not have twice as much resources. They have the same resources. They are just dividing it between two development teams. It's very simple.

This will always be true. One thing that is almost universally true in game development is that you never have enough budget/development time to put every feature into a game that you would like. Something always gets left out. By devoting resources to multiplayer, Bioware (or more likely EA) have made the conscious decision to divert those resources away from more or improved single player content that could have been included. This is true of all games, of course, but the reason people make a big deal of it with this game is because the series has been single player thus far. Will Mass Effect 3 be a bad game because of this decision? Probably not. I still plan on buying the game. But the argument against multiplayer does have some merit.

sorry to burst your bubble but thats not how it works. each studio is given a budget they work with said budget. so the amount of money that was first approved for ME SP is still ONLY being used for the SP! Now the MP studio was given another budget for JUST THE MP! i hope that clears this up

Which means that said money spent on two studios was available. That money was spent to develop a single game with a single pricepoint that will not have changed due to the fact that multiplayer was added. The chart still applies.

uhm no it doesnt. see and im not meaning to be insulting but the chart you use is just misleading it should be +n not minus as the budget was increased with the adding of the MP.

 

[Scars Unseen]

And you DO NOT have to play it to get the best singleplayer ending! So [i/]please[/i] shut up and let the rest of us go back to deluding ourselves into thinking that humanity is actually smart.

Also, it was really hard to read this article with that image.

You don't HAVE to let me convince you not to delude yourself. You're perfectly capable of tuning out any negativity that you choose. So PLEASE shut up and let the rest of us go back to criticizing them for making stupid PR decisions!

See? "I don't want to understand your side of the argument, so PBBBBBT!" Doesn't really hold up as an argument, does it? It doesn't resolve anything or bring about understanding, it's just childish.

There's always a separate team for the single-player and a separate team for the multiplayer. It doesn't matter if they have two studios working on it or not, there's only so much budget to go around, and the tech team that both sides have to report back to has to screw around with a lot of networking tech in addition to the main engine driving the game, which they've previously stated is getting a big overhaul. It's no wonder the game had to be delayed, but the real point is, resources are resources. That extra manpower costs something--very notably something that I hear was diverted from the budget of Dragon Age 2.

I know the arguments that your side keeps spouting: "It'll ruin the SP due to less resources" or "It'll ruin ME cuz I don't want MP" seem to be the most common. Where did I say I didn't want to understand the other sides argument? All I did was inform someone about what BioWare had said twice now. Then I explained in "SP terms" what ME multiplayer was for those advocates of argument #2. I know that two separate teams work on multiplayer and singleplayer, HOWEVER they are usually in the same studio. Now that BioWare has two studios working on this that means they have twice as many resources and can double the work they produce each man-hour. Regardless of that, I agree with you that resources are always limited and I'm worried about argument #1 proving true as well, but I have a cautiously optimistic outlook on things like this. You don't, that's cool, but that doesn't mean you have to insult me for having a different view on life just to make a point.

They do not have twice as much resources. They have the same resources. They are just dividing it between two development teams. It's very simple.

This will always be true. One thing that is almost universally true in game development is that you never have enough budget/development time to put every feature into a game that you would like. Something always gets left out. By devoting resources to multiplayer, Bioware (or more likely EA) have made the conscious decision to divert those resources away from more or improved single player content that could have been included. This is true of all games, of course, but the reason people make a big deal of it with this game is because the series has been single player thus far. Will Mass Effect 3 be a bad game because of this decision? Probably not. I still plan on buying the game. But the argument against multiplayer does have some merit.

sorry to burst your bubble but thats not how it works. each studio is given a budget they work with said budget. so the amount of money that was first approved for ME SP is still ONLY being used for the SP! Now the MP studio was given another budget for JUST THE MP! i hope that clears this up

Which means that said money spent on two studios was available. That money was spent to develop a single game with a single pricepoint that will not have changed due to the fact that multiplayer was added. The chart still applies.

uhm no it doesnt. see and im not meaning to be insulting but the chart you use is just misleading it should be +n not minus as the budget was increased with the adding of the MP.

And once again, that money was spent on the production of a single product, not an entirely new product. EA felt that ME3 was worth investing n amount of dollars on and some of that money was invested into multiplayer. That the money was spent on an entirely different development team is irrelevant. Did Eidos have "extra" money because they outsourced their boss fights? No, they spent part of the game's budget on the boss fights. There is no such thing as extra budget if all budget is used.

 

[Metalrocks]

as long they dont change a single thing to the SP, i can accept it then. because usually when a company starts to ad MP, they most likely dont care about the SP.

 

[CardinalPiggles]

Go ahead Bioware, do your worst, I'm never buying one of your games again anyway.

Mass Effect 2 went a little too gun combat friendly for my liking, and strayed from the Sci Fi feel of the first game. I had an open mind when they announced Mass Effect 3, but looking at some of the gameplay screen shots, it just looks like Mass Effect 2.5 to me. And someone working with the game has stated they are beefing up the combat even more, doesn't leave much room for any RPG elements now does it. Borderlands anyone?

 

[scorptatious]

I'm perfectly fine with there being multiplayer. Personally, I think people are overreacting to this. I guess it's understandable that people would worry about the single player being worse because of this, but they have another studio working on the multiplayer, so it shouldn't detract from the single player at all.