Does Mass Effect 3 NEED multiplayer?

[ecoho]

Obviously, because someone asked for it? Really, if the single player portion is enough for you, then don't worry about it. Multiplayer has no impact on the single player, and vice versa, so you won't be missing out on anything you would be interested in.

That's not quite accurate. Including multiplayer does have an impact on the single player campaign in the form of diverted man-hours and diverted funds. A game without a multiplayer component is generally going to be better off than a game with a tacked-on multiplayer component.

That's paranoia and a leading argument. You assume the multiplayer is "tacked on" without having played it, and you also assume that Bioware did not budget to have both. Its not like they are sitting back and saying "Hmm, we could make a good game, or we can have mutliplayer!" They've already addressed that (fallacious) argument. Many companies use different studios for their multiplayer, including Bioware, so I doubt any of the single player programmers or writers have been diverted.

Dead Space 2 and Assassin's Creed Brotherhood were both fantastic even with "tacked on" multiplayer. Ditto Condemned 2, Dead Rising 2, Bioshock 2 (whose multi I actually really liked), GTA 4, and Red Dead Redemption. Just because you do not like multiplayer doesn't mean it drags a game down.

It's a matter of opportunity cost. Bioware has a finite amount of manpower and resources, as far as I know. Ergo, they have to make decisions in what they use that manpower and resources to do. If we boil it down to a simple choice, given a portion of their budget, they could either use it to A) fund multiplayer development, or B) do something else. Now, "something else" can be anything- adding content to Mass Effect 3, refining existing content, working on a new project, retirement plan for Ed in the janitorial department, I don't know. What is is irrelevant. The resources that have gone into the multiplayer could have gone into something else. As the shrill voices on this thread will attest, this has not been a horribly popular decision.

Now don't get me wrong, it could still be a good game, and the multiplayer could be good as well, though I really wouldn't know about the latter. It's not going to deter me from waiting out in the cold on release day. I'm just trying to provide the best reason as I see it that people are getting their various undergarments contorted about this.

heres the problem with your statment. There are two studios working on ME3, the first the one thats made all the others up to this point has the single player, IT HAS ITS OWN BUDGET!

next we have the other studio that was made just to make the multiplayer component, once again IT HAS ITS OWN BUDGET!
This is what people tend not to get no matter how many times its pointed out to them this game will not suck just because MP was put in. now any other games that come out of the new studio might and i stress MIGHT have less funding to work with but ME will not be phased by this.

The second studio didn't volunteer to develop the multiplayer. Somebody had to pay them to do so, thereby depriving either EA or Bioware of funds that could have been used on the single-player campaign. Whenever you pay anybody to do anything, you lose out on the opportunity to A) make them do something else, or B) not give them any money and use it on something else.

no money was taken from the single player game though as it has ITS OWN BUDGET! I swear does no one read any more? each studio has its own yearly budget from EA so while another game from the multiplayer studio may have less funds because of this Mass Effect 3 will not suffer because it had multiplayer put in.

EA paid the studio to develop the multiplayer. That money did not spurt out of the ground when EA demanded it. With the money they spent, they could have paid a different studio- or even the same studio- to develop additional content for the single player, or even just hire a mindless legion of playtesters. They could even have chosen to funnel those funds back into Bioware so they could directly hire more personnel. They did not choose to do something along those lines, and therefore people are mad.

ok first off this is the last time i will try to expain this to you, so please READ this one instead of skimming through.
ok so ME3 was approved a budget when it was put under development(the multiplayer DOES NOT TOUCH THIS!) after the game had been under development for awhile EA wanted to add multiplayer so what they did was OPEN A BRAND NEW STUDIO to handle the multiplayer and said studio was given ITS OWN BUDGET to use on said multiplayer. BTW EA did not just make this studio to make multiplayer for one game this NEW studio will be expected to make money for them so its whats called investing in a future product the ME3 multiplayer is a way to get the new studios feet wet ,so to speak, without risking a large amount of money.


so to recap, the studio thats running the multiplayer is NEW and has its own BUDGET which said studio will use to make OTHER games, while the MAIN studio also has its OWN BUDGET and will use said budget to make the ME3 singleplayer. This is how companies work you have 1 section do one thing and another section doing something else it saves time,money, and actually helps the people who have to make the product as its one less thing they have to work on.

Look, I'm perfectly aware of the way the games industry works. You don't need to explain something that I learned years ago to me.

I'm perfectly aware that the multiplayer serves an addition to the existing structure of the game, and that Bioware themselves won't be doing anything to improve the game. What I'm saying is that the supplementary material that is currently coming in the form of the multiplayer could have easily come in other forms. Had EA chosen to use the same amount of money that is currently being used to develop the multiplayer to enhance the singleplayer instead, we would have had an enhanced single player and no multiplayer instead of the standard singleplayer and multiplayer as well.

It goes like this: EA has made a conscious decision to fund additional content for Mass Effect 3 using an external studio. Put simply, they had two choices:

1. Have additional single player content developed (New missions, squadmates, the aforementioned legions of playtesters, etc.) This would require some coordination with Bioware to easily integrate into the game, but considerably less than if Bioware had to develop it themselves.

2. Develop multiplayer, contacting Bioware just for high-concept design decisions.

I'm aware that this will not affect the base game as it was originally going to be, but I can see why people might get mad that EA choose option 2 over option 1.

ok now i think i understand your point of veiw better but let me ask you this, would you really want someone new to handle your greatest series? even in just a suport fasion?

i know i wouldnt because there are so many examples were because new crews were added the contant they produced suffered. take for example stargate, SG1 and atlantis were both great series and popular. Then they add on a new team of writers and we get stargate universe which while an ok show is NOT stargate and as such lost all of its fans.

if you want a game studio example look at sillicon knights, or activision/blizzard. when new people are used to make contant for your seccessful series the series suffers for it.

 

[Darth Sea Bass]

I'd imagine the term "half a billion" Came up a lot in the not quite negotiations for adding multiplayer to ME 3.

 

[suitepee7]

mass effect has always been fairly combat based, and we have seen that come more into light with mass effect 2, and the newly announced action modes for mass effect 3. you are always in a squad in mass effect, so why not make that squad all human controlled? single player will still be the primary focus, as it should be, but something a little extra, and a little different included anyway sounds good to me.

 

[Lord Revan 117]

Riddle me this OP:

Does ANY game really need multiplayer? I'm all for co-op and multiplayer experiences, but when shit ass multiplayer is shoehorned into every great single player game, it's a bit much...

Any game that doesnt have a good, lengthy single player to stand on needs multiplayer to sell. (See MW3, BF3 etc) But in my opinion a game needs to be good on its own, if you need people to play with you to make a videogame good, then it isnt.

 

[WaywardHaymaker]

It's obviously an EA mandate. Same thing with the Kinect support. Ordinarily, I wouldn't like things that were dictated that obviously and out of left field, but you know what? Both look good to me. BioWare took what EA told them had to happen and made the absolute best of it from what I'm seeing. The multiplayer looks exactly like what I would want from Mass Effect, and the Kinect support seems fluid and useful. It's just optional voice commands.

Besides, the team that's making the multiplayer is the same one who made the side quests in ME2. BioWare's A-Team is still working 100% on the singleplayer.

 

[Cowabungaa]

Games do not even 'need' to exist, so there goes that reasoning.

Look, if it's good and the singleplayer is still as we like, then heej a nice little bonus. If it sucks and the singleplayer is still a nice, it's a shame but at least we have what we need. The only problem we could get if the singleplayer suffered because of the multiplayer, but I don't see how that's going to happen.

Just wait for it come out, then judge. It wouldn't be the first time when a previously singleplayer-only franchise gets a surprisingly good multiplayer, main examples being Splinter Cell and Assassin's Creed.