BioWare Finally Confirms and Details Mass Effect 3 Multiplayer

[Frostbite3789]

Yeah, Mass Effect 2 was famously screwed-up. Oh wait, no. The other thing.

It was quite bad actually.

If you could troll just a little harder, it'd be pretty cool.

There's a difference between saying, "I didn't like it" and "It was bad". Trolls speak in absolutes. Much like you are.

OT: I can almost always appreciate the addition of co-op if it's not forced and I don't have to do it. Which according to the article that half the people in the thread didn't bother to read, is the case.

 

[jonyboy13]

The story's gonna be very immersive, especially when you're yelling at your friends that they can't shoot and die too much.

Captcha:
olosai The

Olosai the what? The what?! THE WHAT CAPTCHA?! I NEED TO KNOW!

 

[Quigglebert]

if done properly i can see this really adding to the game, if you can get a few peeps to have a laugh with while saving the universe and after then go solo to do the real leg work, i think many fond memories are to be had

 

[Kingsnake661]

I don't like this at all. I don't want to have to play multiplayer in order to get the whole story. I have only one person I play this with and our schedule isn't always the same.

you don't have to play co-op to get the whole story

its just another way to do it.

you can still get the *~perfect~* ending by doing all the side missions like usual

It depends on what your defination of the "whole" story is, honestly. You get all of Shepards story in the singleplayer campain. (his compaions too) But these CO OP modes will have story elements relating to the main compain as well. Some of us will consider that part of the "whole" story as well. I imagian it'd be somewhat like Star Wars fans, some who only conisder the movies cannon, while others tend to take the whole EU into account as well.

 

[Petromir]

What a min... what is this, "Galactic Readiness" meter and what is the utter CRAP about muiltiplayer impacting my single player ending... that's how i read it. You do this MP stuff and it effects your readiness for the perfect ending? Not to mention the fact that if these coop missions have story elements in them, i want to play them, but i DON'T like dealing with xbox live goons to have to do it. I don't HAVE 3 buddies that are into mass effect like i am. I don't have many gaming friends in general, I'm a bit of the odd ball in my circle of friends in that respect... I can't say I'm too happy with what i'm reading so far...

You don't HAVE to play multiplayer to get the perfect ending, it's just an optional way of increasing your galactic readiness, the co-op missions won't have anything to do with the single player DIRECTLY, but they will have their own little sidestory, and you not wanting to deal with "xbox live goons" to experience that, well, that's your problem. Personally, I am excited. The possibility of playing a Turian/Krogan/Salarian/Asaria etc. spec-ops is very appealing to me. My one suggestion to you is get your facts straight and stop complaining about the co-op because you don't have someone to play with.

As a matter of fact, my facts are stright. Muiltplayer DOES impact single player endings. It isn't nessessiry, but i never said it was. My main beef is adding game effecting *story* elements to a gameplay mode i don't like. *MY* problem, I relise that, but like everyone else, i can voice my displeasure at it. Much like you can proclam it's awsomenss.

I am wondering what this OTHER stuff is... and how this all applies to muiltpal play throughs... if i get through the coop stuff at least once, can i use it like a gamesave file for a few different games plays, or will i have to do it anew each time? (and before you jump at me, i KNOW you don't know the answer. This is more like thinking outloud, with typing. ;-)

It looks abit like the ME2 ending secnario. Your actions up till then affected if anyone died, I think this will allow for those who've stuffed up some earlier missions to get alternate help, in the context of ME2 This would be like adding DLC missions for each squad member that allowed you to salvage your realtionshiop with them.

 

[rohansoldier]

Yeah, Mass Effect 2 was famously screwed-up. Oh wait, no. The other thing.

It was quite bad actually.

If you could troll just a little harder, it'd be pretty cool.

There's a difference between saying, "I didn't like it" and "It was bad". Trolls speak in absolutes. Much like you are.

- I guess that makes him a sith as well then

OT: I can almost always appreciate the addition of co-op if it's not forced and I don't have to do it. Which according to the article that half the people in the thread didn't bother to read, is the case.

Luckily for me, I have enough mass effect loving friends for me to be able to give this a go. I will still be ploughing many more hours into the single player game though.

 

[luvd1]

So, why have it? The point of a good RPG is the story, characters, narrative. putting in multi play takes away from all as well as pacing. Utterly pointless and distractive. Thank you bioware, saddly enough I'm out. My interest in finding out the end of the story just went out the window. Time to cancel my pre order. I'll wait till it's second hand if I get it at all. Good bye bioware, it was fun.

 

[Kapol]

You know, this pisses me off for a number of reasons. The first, and largest, as that these companies need to learn that not every freaking game needs some kind of co-op of multiplayer mode! Mass Effect, in my opinion, is one of the best examples of games that was perfect with just single player. So for them to go ahead and shit all over that by adding multiplayer? It sets a bad example for other developers who may throw in similar modes that actually do poorly affect the rest of the game. Plus, I'm doubtful of how well this will work anyways. Having two separate studios working on different parts of the game often makes the entire experience feel at least somewhat disjointed.

And for those who say 'oh, the multiplayer is completely optional,' from the sounds of things it likely isn't. It sounds like the multiplayer mode will have it's own story and characters. That isn't a bad thing, mind you, but it also means I, a single player gamer, am cut off from the rest of the content. That could be fixed if they allowed for AI teammates, but that barely helps. In fact, in most cases, forcing AI teammates into the mix makes things much, much worse (*angry glare at Resident Evil 5*). But having no teammates, depending on how they handle things, could make actually playing the game next to impossible due to number of enemies and enemies straight. That depends on how they do with balancing though. And I know 'I could always turn down the difficulty,' but I always play through a game on the hardest difficulty first. I'm not about to change that for one game. And why do I do that? Because I can't stand not getting the achievement for beating it on the hardest difficulty. And I hate myself for that.

TL;DR: Not every game needs to be multiplayer in some way. Mass Effect, which is one of the best examples of SP gaming in my opinion, was one of the games to help prove that. Now that it has multiplayer, other games may force multiplayer in that will likely have poor quality and effect the SP mode. And as for the 'optional' argument, it isn't optional if you want to experience the full story and game from the sounds of it.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

co op where i can be a turian/asari/krogan?

hm, not bad at all, they have me intrigued. (and it's co op to boot, so even better.)

 

[Fappy]

Personally, I'm cautiously optimistic; my main concern was that multiplayer would detract from the single player game, but it looks like BioWare was way ahead of me. With that concern out of the way, it's a lot easier to appreciate the multiplayer for what it is: an optional part of the game that sounds like it could be fun.

My thoughts exactly. Keep your fingers crossed.

 

[Sparrow]

Co-op? As Turians?

I fucking love you, BioWare.

You know, this pisses me off for a number of reasons. The first, and largest, as that these companies need to learn that not every freaking game needs some kind of co-op of multiplayer mode! Mass Effect, in my opinion, is one of the best examples of games that was perfect with just single player. So for them to go ahead and shit all over that by adding multiplayer? It sets a bad example for other developers who may throw in similar modes that actually do poorly affect the rest of the game. Plus, I'm doubtful of how well this will work anyways. Having two separate studios working on different parts of the game often makes the entire experience feel at least somewhat disjointed.

And for those who say 'oh, the multiplayer is completely optional,' from the sounds of things it likely isn't. It sounds like the multiplayer mode will have it's own story and characters. That isn't a bad thing, mind you, but it also means I, a single player gamer, am cut off from the rest of the content. That could be fixed if they allowed for AI teammates, but that barely helps. In fact, in most cases, forcing AI teammates into the mix makes things much, much worse (*angry glare at Resident Evil 5*). But having no teammates, depending on how they handle things, could make actually playing the game next to impossible due to number of enemies and enemies straight. That depends on how they do with balancing though. And I know 'I could always turn down the difficulty,' but I always play through a game on the hardest difficulty first. I'm not about to change that for one game. And why do I do that? Because I can't stand not getting the achievement for beating it on the hardest difficulty. And I hate myself for that.

TL;DR: Not every game needs to be multiplayer in some way. Mass Effect, which is one of the best examples of SP gaming in my opinion, was one of the games to help prove that. Now that it has multiplayer, other games may force multiplayer in that will likely have poor quality and effect the SP mode. And as for the 'optional' argument, it isn't optional if you want to experience the full story and game from the sounds of it.

If I'm to assume a little, I would say the reason the game was delayed was for this multiplayer feature. Therefore, under this assumption, does this really matter to people who only want singleplayer? Sounds like you won't miss a thing in that respect.

Also, I got to say, your whole argument comes off as "I won't be able to play it so this is a bad idea."

"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."

Awesome. Great. Perfect./sarcasm

Again, completely optional. He states that this is an alternate way to get the perfect ending. Meaning, you can still get the goddamn perfect ending.

 

[sage42]

So does this mean I'll be able to bring a Quarian infiltrator in, because that would kick huge amounts of ass. Now I'm just wondering if we'll still be able to get the perfect ending without having to play the multiplayer.

 

[WanderingFool]

Players will be able to create a co-op character from a variety of classes and races, including Turians, Asari, and Krogans.

Oh FUCK YES! Its settles, Im buying ME3.

 

[zwoodco10]

Is no one actually READING the OP, or the article?

The co-op is OPTIONAL. It serves as an ALTERNATE method by which to obtain the "perfect" ending, not the ONLY way. As one other poster put it, it would be like adding DLC to ME2 that allowed you to salvage a companion's relationship if you botched up their companion quest or, as with Miranda and Jack/Legion and Tali, you sided with one crewmate at the expense of another's friendship.

Say you fuck up on a mission in the beginning and you don't get the Galactic Readiness boost you would have gotten. If you don't think you can make that up later, or find that near the end of the game you are short a little GR, then you can grab some buds and hop into co-op. Not playing the co-op doesn't keep you from an ending, or hinder your character at all. And from what I can tell, the co-op is less story-driven and more combat driven.

I, for one, like this idea. They've already said that players new to the ME universe would be able to pick up ME3 and not feel like they were missing something. Adding a more combat-driven co-op mode seems to be a good way to attract the crowds that wouldn't normally play an RPG/Third-Person Shooter hybrid.


Captcha: description lyncha

WTF is a lyncha?

 

[Dastardly]

BioWare Finally Confirms and Details Mass Effect 3 Multiplayer

I'll eat some of my words on this one. This actually sounds like a good way to add in multiplayer to a game like this. You're not having a "multi-Shepard" problem, you're not fiddling with the storyline or characters. You're creating a generic "red shirt" to go do some side missions, so you get to have all of the gameplay without it interfering with the story.

The idea of this "war" system is pretty nice, too. It did some good for Fable 3, so why not Mass Effect 3?

 

[inzesky]

Oh EA. You just keep failing and failing and failing. [http://tech2.in.com/news/all/ea-wants-every-game-to-have-multiplayer/158042]

 

[marscentral]

"...it is still possible to achieve the optimal, complete ending of the game in Mass Effect 3 through single-player alone."

Works for me. I might dabble in the multiplayer. I like the idea of creating an Asari commando or a Krogan killing machine, but I'm not big on playing with strangers on Live and most of my friends aren't into Mass Effect, so I may well be limited to single player. The previous MEs have been great as single player games so either way I'll be happy.

 

[Nimzabaat]

The side story of two Krogan, Marcus Fenix and Dominic Santiago, with their Asari companion Anya...

Yeah one (of many) dissappointment with ME2 was the adds said Shepard was dead, and I was hoping that you could make an alien character to carry on the fight.