I hope it's co-op. Either way, I don't care, I really don't see the harm in adding multiplayer to the game.
I'm inclined to aagree, since when has BIOWARE of all places been known to make a decent objective based multiplayer? or even multiplayer at all? If EA just gave, say, £1,000,000 to an indie dev I'd have no problem, but if the main dev team is affected then I'm pissed.BlastedTheWorm said:I think it's a stupid idea. We're at the end of this epic trilogy, lots of pressure to finish on a high-note and they waste resources on fucking MULTIPLAYER?! REALLY?!
We don't need a fucking multiplayer section in Mass Effect! What the fuck?
I'm hating on the idea of taking a single player game based on story and putting resources into unnecessary multiplayer especially in the final game of a single player trilogy. I'm not hating on Mass Effect 3 or it's multiplayer. I have no need to wait for details, because the details aren't important to what I was saying.suitepee7 said:sounds like a fear 3 thing to me. adding in co-op when all the games so far have not been. that being said, it could be good. i mean, you have always had a team anyway, how will it affect you if the team is now person controlled. personally i'm cautious, incredibly so, but i'm not going to flame bash it just yet. at least wait until details are released before hating on it.lovest harding said:Agreed.fix-the-spade said:That contradicts itself.Richardplex said:As long as it is being made by a seperate group, thus no resources are detracted from making the main story, they can go ahead with that.
If the money and staff are available for a separate group, why are those resources not available for the single player?
Their very existence means they detract from the development of the single player!
If it's co-op I'll be fine. But I seriously doubt it'll be that. Why in the world would they do this to the ending of a major trilogy (story wise)? Why fuck up on the story and what should amount to be a damned epic ending for a great series and waste time and money on multiplayer (mind you, multiplayer that may not even be good)?
I'm fine with Mass Effect multiplayer. That doesn't bother me. But it should have waited for a spin off game. They shouldn't be altering the ending of a story line in what is a single player experience for a multiplayer experience that the majority of Mass Effect players and fans wouldn't need. >>
Keep in mind, that when I say 'fuck up' I'm not assuming the story will be bad. I'm saying that 'fucking up' is them making a decision to take time and money from single player when single player is what Mass Effect is known for.
The link in the OP is to Official Xbox Magazine (not the Australian magazine). I would say that OXM is fairly trustworthy. xDSidingWithTheEnemy said:Sorry, maybe I'm just oversceptic but can somebody tell why this is "official"? Is this magazine reliable? Has any of those Austrilian Escapists bought that magazine and can give a statement?
Why isn't it shown on Bioware's Mass Effect homepage?
That isn't how the world works. EA don't give all of their money to the Mass Effect team to go nuts, they give them a budget. If a separate team is used for the multiplayer, who have their own budget, then no resources, the most important being development time, is taken from the main Mass Effect team.fix-the-spade said:That contradicts itself.Richardplex said:As long as it is being made by a seperate group, thus no resources are detracted from making the main story, they can go ahead with that.
If the money and staff are available for a separate group, why are those resources not available for the single player?
Their very existence means they detract from the development of the single player!
Also this. Seems Bioware's trying to get everyone and anyone to buy the games. Or at least the call of duty audience, since they said in the past that's the market they want. I predict this game's multiplayer dying out in a month or two.Woodsey said:Pointless, but I don't think it'll do any particular damage. I do think its a sign BioWare need to learn who their games are catered to though.
Not necessarily. EA probably doesn't just hand Bioware a million bucks and say "Okay, make what you want with this and have it in our hands by March 3rd", they budget out money for each section of the game as the numbers people tell them its needed, if they'd decided not to do multiplayer in ME3 Bioware probably wouldn't have gotten that money anyway. *Emphasis on the probably, it could be exactly as you fear, we're not privy to EA/Bioware inner workings*fix-the-spade said:If the money and staff are available for a separate group, why are those resources not available for the single player?
Their very existence means they detract from the development of the single player!
The link in the OP is by the Editor in Chief of OXM (official Xbox magazine), so yeah, that's pretty much 99.9% confirmed. They simply don't get things this wrong without some kind of cataclysmic failure.SidingWithTheEnemy said:Sorry, maybe I'm just oversceptic but can somebody tell why this is "official"? Is this magazine reliable?
SidingWithTheEnemy said:Oh and how does it suppose to work?
You can say that again.Arontala said:And do I give a shit? No. No I do not.
People in this community are far too panicky.
I've heard a lot of people already saying that is the case.Dirty Hipsters said:Now the question is whether the multiplayer will have an unlock code.
Two to three weeks. And now may we all slap our dicks on the table in honour of the bet.Irridium said:Because there aren't enough multiplayer shooters these days.
Also this. Seems Bioware's trying to get everyone and anyone to buy the games. Or at least the call of duty audience, since they said in the past that's the market they want. I predict this game's multiplayer dying out in a month or two.Woodsey said:Pointless, but I don't think it'll do any particular damage. I do think its a sign BioWare need to learn who their games are catered to though.