Just saying that I don't see the point in developing a redundant mode, a horde mode style multiplayer mode. I have Gears 3 for that.Snotnarok said:
Does Mass Effect 3 NEED multiplayer?
- Thread starter Lord Revan 117
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Bioware have stressed that the multiplayer and social aspects of ME3 are entirely optional, and that you can still get the best ending in the game from playing singleplayer exclusively. The multiplayer games do tie into the story, but are not key to the progression of the narrative (basically as shepherd in singleplayer you capture strongholds at certain points in the story, and in the multiplayer you play as other soldiers defending said strongholds). So yeah, It wont detract from the story, so why shouldn't they add it in. Bioware's writing and narraative is their claim to fame (Birds fly, fish swim, the ESA fuck cows and bioware games have good writing) so of course they would never make any move to jeopardize their best selling point.
Do you need Mass Effect 3? No. But you'd like it. And so would many other people. It's optional, so there's really no reason to worry about it.
Much like Bethesda games, my one consistant wish for Bioware games is the ability to play them with a friend and experience them at the same time instead of talk about things our respective characters did after the fact. I'm happy they are including a multiplayer compenent in ME3.
But to answer the OP's question, no it wasn't necessary. I still had a ton of fun and enjoyment playing them by myself. They're story driven games and in particular a story you shape yourself and make your own. As much as I like the idea of playing them co-op, I was still happy with what they were before and if you play the game co-op you lose some of the exclusive ownership of the story you had before.
But to answer the OP's question, no it wasn't necessary. I still had a ton of fun and enjoyment playing them by myself. They're story driven games and in particular a story you shape yourself and make your own. As much as I like the idea of playing them co-op, I was still happy with what they were before and if you play the game co-op you lose some of the exclusive ownership of the story you had before.
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.Ordinaryundone said:
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.
Its the last game in the series so possibly for longevity, maybe if they let people have multiplayer over lan and internet it could become a great shooter outside of the rpg-shooter of the main game.Lord Revan 117 said:
I don't want it to be in here, but I don't think the game date will be moved back any further, so I'm kind of content with the situation now, so long as the single player comes first, and delivers, then yeah its all good.
The people who think themselves clairvoyant enough to determine a feature's quality before it is released make me rather sad. I'm saving judgement for release day.
Does it NEED it? No.
Will it imporve the experience if done well? Yes.
I'm looking forward to testing it.
Does it NEED it? No.
Will it imporve the experience if done well? Yes.
I'm looking forward to testing it.
Assassin's Creed, GTA 4, and Red Dead most certainly did not have "tacked on" multiplayer. Assassin's Creed was unique, GTA 4 had free mode, come on, and Red Dead was really fun just simply because of the mass of stuff to do, poker, horse racing, raiding bandit hideouts, finding treasure, etc.Ordinaryundone said:
DO WANT.Xpheyel said:
It'd be like playing Asteroids... in SPA-, uh, I mean, DEAD SPACE!
Anyways, from what I've read about how the ME3 multiplayer ties in with the single player campaign, it seems like the team put some thought into it rather than just shoehorning something in.
And in any case, if you can play as a Krogan Vanguard in multiplayer, I'd be quite happy.
It could be another division of bioware or EA doing it, or one team could be finished with their part of ME3 and they decided to put them to work on this. It's not so cut and dry like that all the time. Just think of it as a needless extra, it's there, it could be fun (don't know yet), let's just hope for the best eh? Eh? EH!? :ULord Revan 117 said:
So long as it's not imperative for me to play in order for my FemShep to save the galaxy, I could care less (and yes, I really could care less). Otherwise, in the words of Yahtzee, it can "fuck right off".
If I may play devil's advocate for a moment, according to Xbox 360 Achievements [http://www.xbox360achievements.org/news/news-9954-Mass-Effect-3-Co-Op-Hands-On-Preview-%E2%80%93-For-the-Good-of-the-Galaxy-.html], the multiplayer segment(s) of ME3 are EXACTLY like Gears 3's Horde mode.Snotnarok said:
A better analogy, perhaps, is that they say it plays like an updated, multiplayer version of the first ME's Pinnacle Station. But you don't have to take my word for it; read the article yourself. Although it is possible that x360a played an alpha version and the end result is nothing like what they played.
THIS. I'm not a huge fan of the little bit of MMO playing that i've done, but a massively multiplayer shooter/action rpg thingamajiggy could be pretty damn sweet, and since SWTOR seems like it's doing okay with having Bioware's story focus as well as MMO type of combat shenanigans.Mr. Underson said:
also i want to play as a krogan. and if they include them, an elcor or a hanar. so there's that as well.
Ladies and Gentlemen, say hello to our dear friend "Mass Market Appeal" - also known as "the Michael Bay effect."
EA sees: "Call of Duty sells by the tractor-trailer-load!"
EA sez: "We want that market!"
EA thinks: "What makes CoD sell? Multiplayer!"
EA sez: "From now on, all our games will have a major multiplayer component."
It's the same reason the MMORPG market flooded in the years following 2004: Everyone wants their share of the biggest market around, and doesn't realize that the reason the big guy wins is because he's the big guy, not because he's a guy.
And in the meantime, we get shoehorned in multiplayer modes.
I do wonder if the success of Skyrim will serve as a wakeup call to companies like EA - that there's room for more than one successful market. But I rather suspect that it will just herald the beginning of a flood of subpar "open world" features in every game shipped.
EA sees: "Call of Duty sells by the tractor-trailer-load!"
EA sez: "We want that market!"
EA thinks: "What makes CoD sell? Multiplayer!"
EA sez: "From now on, all our games will have a major multiplayer component."
It's the same reason the MMORPG market flooded in the years following 2004: Everyone wants their share of the biggest market around, and doesn't realize that the reason the big guy wins is because he's the big guy, not because he's a guy.
And in the meantime, we get shoehorned in multiplayer modes.
I do wonder if the success of Skyrim will serve as a wakeup call to companies like EA - that there's room for more than one successful market. But I rather suspect that it will just herald the beginning of a flood of subpar "open world" features in every game shipped.
You know what I really wanted? I wanted to be able to have a friend jump into my campaign as one of my squadmates. That way we could play a fun TPS together. I would have the advantage of a truly competent shooter on my team and the disadvantage of being unable to pick what they do. The only real issue is whenever someone wants to use a power it would have to pause for both players which COULD get annoying. I dunno, I'd love the opportunity to have a friend help me out there. It would have been really great for those times in Mass Effect 2 when I was dying to burn through the campaign but my girlfriend wanted to play something two-player.
ah, but they AREN'T trying anything new. every first person shooter/third person shooter has multiplayer. I think they were the last that didn't.
Personally, I don't mind as long as it doesn't wreak into the Single Player experience in any drastic fashion.
I happen to like the context of the Multiplayer. In Single-Player the galaxy starts out at the "OMG WTF?!?!" stage. Sure, you can probably get the best ending through Single-Player alone, but if you do extremely well in Multiplayer, then Shepard really doesn't have to do much because the galaxy is saving itself all on its own, FOR ONCE.David Savage said:
Also, they will let you play as a Krogan. They also are letting you play as a Salarian, a Turian, and even Asari. I don't remember the full list offhand, but this is gonna be good.