Does Mass Effect 3 NEED multiplayer?

guitarsniper

New member
Mar 5, 2011
401
0
0
Mr. Underson said:
Of course it doesn't need multiplayer. But it does sound like it'll be fun. And on top of that, I think Bioware might be using this as a test to gauge interest for a Mass Effect MMO.
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.

also i want to play as a krogan. and if they include them, an elcor or a hanar. so there's that as well.
 

omicron1

New member
Mar 26, 2008
1,729
0
0
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.
 

Forgetitnow344

New member
Jan 8, 2010
542
0
0
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.
 

longboardfan

New member
Jul 27, 2011
166
0
0
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.
 

sarttan

New member
Apr 5, 2011
33
0
0
David Savage said:
Mr. Underson said:
Of course it doesn't need multiplayer. But it does sound like it'll be fun. And on top of that, I think Bioware might be using this as a test to gauge interest for a Mass Effect MMO.
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.

also i want to play as a krogan. and if they include them, an elcor or a hanar. so there's that as well.
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.

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.
 

ecoho

New member
Jun 16, 2010
2,093
0
0
Hal10k said:
Ordinaryundone said:
MailOrderClone said:
Ordinaryundone said:
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.
 

Hal10k

New member
May 23, 2011
850
0
0
ecoho said:
Hal10k said:
Ordinaryundone said:
MailOrderClone said:
Ordinaryundone said:
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.
 

Stalk3rchief

New member
Sep 10, 2008
1,010
0
0
To me this is just like Skyrim. Bethesda considered adding multiplayer for a brief moment, then (in a polite way) told fans to enjoy the single player and stfu. AND BEHOLD! It worked. I say add more the single player experience, enrich it like you always do. And give me my damn Mako back!
 

Zen Toombs

New member
Nov 7, 2011
2,105
0
0
Oh lordy this is exploding.

Long story short: No, Mass Effect does not need multiplayer. But if it is not mandatory and is not taking away resources from the core of the game, then I see no problem with it. It is their property to do with as they please. If someone doesn't like it, then wait for the game to come out and see what is really going on. Should the game be RUAINED 4EVAR then don't buy it. If it's still pretty good, then buy it.

It's that simple, at least for me. /shrug.
 

Smeggs

New member
Oct 21, 2008
1,253
0
0
Daget Sparrow said:
Smeggs said:
It doesn't Need multiplayer. No games Need multiplayer. They Have multiplayer. It's just that some games Have more multiplayer than others.
I agree. Mass Effect 3 doesn't 'need' multiplayer, but it could easily turn out good in the long run. It's easy to bash as alien a concept as Mass Effect Multiplayer, but when those aliens bring you intergalactic candies as a peace offering, isn't that a good thing? Even if those candies have the potential to taste either delicious or disgusting?

...what were we talking about again?
Oh, I wasn't talking bad about the multiplayer. I was one of the people who when they first announced it I read a bit about it and was like, "Sweet, sounds cool."

I just meant that no game needs a multiplayer. They may have it, but it is never needed for the game to be played.
 

Snotnarok

New member
Nov 17, 2008
6,310
0
0
SageRuffin said:
Snotnarok said:
Lord Revan 117 said:
Snotnarok said:
Okay I'm gonna be rude here and tell you what I see in your post.

"Do we really want Bioware giving us more ways to play our game and more content? No one asked for it and I don't think we should have this extra stuff. I'm not using it so it's stupid. I just want the one thing that they promised and this extra stuff is just needless."
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.
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!? :U
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.

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.
I will read up, but if it is like Gears horde mode that'd be neat since my final (7th) 360 died on me and I'll be playing ME3 on PC

Honestly it's just extra to me. Now what everyone should be upset about is bioware wasting their time on the kinect support for ME3, why, fucking, bother.
 

Berenzen

New member
Jul 9, 2011
905
0
0
Epictank of Wintown said:
spartandude said:
pulling away valuable time and money away from the single player especially when bioware is on thin ice? brilliant move
No. Shut up. Stop talking right now. They are not pulling "time and money" away from the single-player to work on the multiplayer. If you'd take ten seconds, just TEN, to do some looking into it for yourself, you'd know that the multiplayer portion of the game is being handled by BioWare Montreal. The main body for the single-player portion is being handled by BioWare Austin, which is where the company is headquartered.

At any rate, that right there is absolute bullshit and anyone that spouts it off has no idea how the gaming industry actually works.

askdfjfl

/endrage
One correction that I'd like to make to your post, Mass Effect is handled by Bioware Edmonton- where they are headquartered, Bioware Austin are the ones that developed TOR. Other than that I totally agree.

On-topic: It'll be fun to have multiplayer available. Is it necessary? No, but it's a nice addition to what will probably be a good game.
 

Clive Howlitzer

New member
Jan 27, 2011
2,783
0
0
I don't think it needed multiplayer and was very happy to have it without. I am finding it harder and harder to find nice solid singleplayer games anymore. Everything has some bullshit multiplayer gimmick nowadays. I was surprised they didn't try and stuff multiplayer Skyrim down my throat.
This is all a moot point though since I am not buying Mass Effect 3 with Origin in it's current state.
 

Aprilgold

New member
Apr 1, 2011
1,995
0
0
WELP, lets see, will it matter if you only want single player? No. If you want to play multiplayer then go ahead. It can make the longevity of a game much larger then usual.

I remember saying this constantly that Skyrim would benefit highly from coach play at the most. I mean just fucking boot leg that shit and make NPC's not even notice their there.
 

woodaba

New member
May 31, 2011
1,011
0
0
No. A thousand times, no.

That said, the Multiplayer does look pretty good. I'm getting the game anyway, so we'll see what happens when it comes out.
 

Twilight_guy

Sight, Sound, and Mind
Nov 24, 2008
7,131
0
0
Why did Ubisoft do it for Assassin's creed? Why did Bioshock? Why does anyone? The answer... they think it will be fun. Weather or not it actually is is another issue but I guarantee you they thought it was going to be good when they started planning (or they did there best if someone twisted their arm).
 

Nomanslander

New member
Feb 21, 2009
2,963
0
0
I don't know, did Bioshock 2 need MP?

Only time will decide if it was worth it...=/

But personally, I'll looking forward to playing anyone besides Shepard, never really liked the guy...er...and girl.
 

Sjakie

New member
Feb 17, 2010
955
0
0
spartandude said:
pulling away valuable time and money away from the single player especially when bioware is on thin ice? brilliant move
Sarcasm done right. I tip my hat to you dear sir/madam.

Daystar Clarion said:
Why did you have to get your hands on Bioware, EA?

Why couldn't you have got your grubby little claws on a developer I don't care about, like...

Actually, I can't think of any developer that deserves to be punished that much.

ME3 doesn't need multiplayer, I have no problem with multiplayer being added to things, I just won't play them.

What I do have a problem with is that in order to make the multiplayer portion, time and resources were most likely pulled away from the single player to make what will inevitably be a shitty half arsed affair similiar to Dead Space 2's multiplayer.
Completly agree.
I dont know what goes on in the offices of Bioware, but they should stop working for EA as soon as they can, they are slipping fast in terms of writing and overal quality imo. People are easily blaming EA for everything, im wondering if that is the actual case, but i doubt it would hurt if they quit EA and sign up with a different publisher.
I would add that EA is just forcing a MP component in all their games so they can keep more control over their games, discourage piracy and datamine more buyers PC's through Origin.
Result will be that it will turn into the next version of Ubisoft's 'always on DRM', which i find despicable towards honest buyers and does not help against piracy one bit anyway.
For me those kind of tactics just encourage piracy.