Mass Effect 3 Multiplayer Review

WMDogma

New member
Jul 28, 2009
1,374
0
0
Mass Effect 3 Multiplayer Review

Mass Effect 3's cooperative mode is a surprisingly solid multiplayer experience.

Read Full Article
 

Sovereignty

New member
Jan 25, 2010
584
0
0
Nice review.

It still felt tacked on to me. I guess new things are always good, but still seemed like a quick dash to say, "Our game has multiplayer now too!"
 

BeastofShadow

New member
Jun 29, 2009
174
0
0
I'm defiantly in the category of it not sitting right with me. I don't have a gold account on my Xbox anymore (I play pretty much exclusively story driven games) so I can't get the full single player experience because I can't play multiplayer? That doesn't sit right with me at all.
 

rapidoud

New member
Feb 1, 2008
547
0
0
One of the laggiest pieces of, I have ever played. It rivals metal gear online and Crysis 2 in terms of lagginess, which isn't helped by how many americans play it.

I found myself pressing charge at least 7 times (no exaggeration) before it would actually work on an enemy in front of me, out of cover, in full LoS.

You can get the full single player experience without it, you don't need it to get the best endings.

If you're not american, give it a pass.
 

Frostbite3789

New member
Jul 12, 2010
1,778
0
0
BeastofShadow said:
I'm defiantly in the category of it not sitting right with me. I don't have a gold account on my Xbox anymore (I play pretty much exclusively story driven games) so I can't get the full single player experience because I can't play multiplayer? That doesn't sit right with me at all.
Except that's not true. It's been stated so many times I'm not sure what else to say, other than you can still experience the full single player game without touching the multiplayer.

There have been many topics and news stories on this very site about that.
 

Radoh

Bans for the Ban God~
Jun 10, 2010
1,456
0
0
Okay, so it helps the single player, but isn't a necessity? When I get it, I suppose I could spend some time on it, it looks fun.
 

Korten12

Now I want ma...!
Aug 26, 2009
10,766
0
0
Radoh said:
Okay, so it helps the single player, but isn't a necessity? When I get it, I suppose I could spend some time on it, it looks fun.
No it's not, it just can make it so you don't need to get as many Military Assests, which are already sooo easy to get.
 

Kingjackl

New member
Nov 18, 2009
1,041
0
0
Multiplayer would be awesome, except for the fact that there's no local splitscreen. You have to be on Live or Origin, which is frustrating. Why can't I just play the game in my living room, on my couch, with my friends?
 

WMDogma

New member
Jul 28, 2009
1,374
0
0
Radoh said:
Okay, so it helps the single player, but isn't a necessity? When I get it, I suppose I could spend some time on it, it looks fun.
Actually...that statement is misleading. Some might call it a lie.

Someone did the math on the war assets in the game...so...

..I can't say I saw this myself: so take it with a grain of salt.

There are a potential 8000 War assets in the game if you do EVERYTHING.

You need 5000 for the "good" end.

If you don't play multiplayer your Readiness multiplier stays at 50%:
Meaning you get only 4000 points.

And thus you CANNOT get the best ending without playing Multiplayer.

I'm curious if the reviewer even checked this or he just trusted Bioware isn't lying.

Kingjackl said:
Multiplayer would be awesome, except for the fact that there's no local splitscreen. You have to be on Live or Origin, which is frustrating. Why can't I just play the game in my living room, on my couch, with my friends?
The console has to process everything twice, so it can't run the game because they're already pushing the graphics as far as they're able without lag.

At least, that's the usual excuse.

It also means that everyone has to buy a console and an individual game: More money for them.

Fun isn't profitable enough.
 

Radoh

Bans for the Ban God~
Jun 10, 2010
1,456
0
0
18.99PlusTip said:
Radoh said:
Okay, so it helps the single player, but isn't a necessity? When I get it, I suppose I could spend some time on it, it looks fun.
Actually...that statement is misleading. Some might call it a lie.

Someone did the math on the war assets in the game...so...

..I can't say I saw this myself: so take it with a grain of salt.

There are a potential 8000 War assets in the game if you do EVERYTHING.

You need 5000 for the "good" end.

If you don't play multiplayer your Readiness multiplier stays at 50%:
Meaning you get only 4000 points.

And thus you CANNOT get the best ending without playing Multiplayer.

I'm curious if the reviewer even checked this or he just trusted Bioware isn't lying.
So rather than check your own information, you come here to inform me that it is impossible to do without the multiplayer which flies in the face of people who have done it.
Has it occurred to you that the fifty percent multiplier is actually a multiplier, as in, it boosts your war assets as opposed to reducing it?
 

WMDogma

New member
Jul 28, 2009
1,374
0
0
Radoh said:
18.99PlusTip said:
Radoh said:
Okay, so it helps the single player, but isn't a necessity? When I get it, I suppose I could spend some time on it, it looks fun.
Actually...that statement is misleading. Some might call it a lie.

Someone did the math on the war assets in the game...so...

..I can't say I saw this myself: so take it with a grain of salt.

There are a potential 8000 War assets in the game if you do EVERYTHING.

You need 5000 for the "good" end.

If you don't play multiplayer your Readiness multiplier stays at 50%:
Meaning you get only 4000 points.

And thus you CANNOT get the best ending without playing Multiplayer.

I'm curious if the reviewer even checked this or he just trusted Bioware isn't lying.
So rather than check your own information, you come here to inform me that it is impossible to do without the multiplayer which flies in the face of people who have done it.
Has it occurred to you that the fifty percent multiplier is actually a multiplier, as in, it boosts your war assets as opposed to reducing it?
Don't get your jimmies in a rustle.

I did say citation was needed and that you need to take it with a grain of salt.
 

Radoh

Bans for the Ban God~
Jun 10, 2010
1,456
0
0
18.99PlusTip said:
Radoh said:
18.99PlusTip said:
Radoh said:
Okay, so it helps the single player, but isn't a necessity? When I get it, I suppose I could spend some time on it, it looks fun.
Actually...that statement is misleading. Some might call it a lie.

Someone did the math on the war assets in the game...so...

..I can't say I saw this myself: so take it with a grain of salt.

There are a potential 8000 War assets in the game if you do EVERYTHING.

You need 5000 for the "good" end.

If you don't play multiplayer your Readiness multiplier stays at 50%:
Meaning you get only 4000 points.

And thus you CANNOT get the best ending without playing Multiplayer.

I'm curious if the reviewer even checked this or he just trusted Bioware isn't lying.
So rather than check your own information, you come here to inform me that it is impossible to do without the multiplayer which flies in the face of people who have done it.
Has it occurred to you that the fifty percent multiplier is actually a multiplier, as in, it boosts your war assets as opposed to reducing it?
Don't get your jimmies in a rustle.

I did say citation was needed and that you need to take it with a grain of salt.
My Jimmies are most certainly not in a rustle!
I did take it with a grain of salt, as made clear by my questioning of it, I just don't like it when people bring hearsay into a discussion and make a supposition that the person doing the review as part of their job must be wrong because of it.
 

Korten12

Now I want ma...!
Aug 26, 2009
10,766
0
0
18.99PlusTip said:
I don't think you understand the Galactic Readiness. It doesn't make it so you can get more assests, it makes it so you don't need as many to get the better ending.
 

Sushewakka

New member
Jul 4, 2011
69
0
0
Radoh said:
18.99PlusTip said:
Radoh said:
18.99PlusTip said:
Radoh said:
Okay, so it helps the single player, but isn't a necessity? When I get it, I suppose I could spend some time on it, it looks fun.
Actually...that statement is misleading. Some might call it a lie.

Someone did the math on the war assets in the game...so...

..I can't say I saw this myself: so take it with a grain of salt.

There are a potential 8000 War assets in the game if you do EVERYTHING.

You need 5000 for the "good" end.

If you don't play multiplayer your Readiness multiplier stays at 50%:
Meaning you get only 4000 points.

And thus you CANNOT get the best ending without playing Multiplayer.

I'm curious if the reviewer even checked this or he just trusted Bioware isn't lying.
So rather than check your own information, you come here to inform me that it is impossible to do without the multiplayer which flies in the face of people who have done it.
Has it occurred to you that the fifty percent multiplier is actually a multiplier, as in, it boosts your war assets as opposed to reducing it?
Don't get your jimmies in a rustle.

I did say citation was needed and that you need to take it with a grain of salt.
My Jimmies are most certainly not in a rustle!
I did take it with a grain of salt, as made clear by my questioning of it, I just don't like it when people bring hearsay into a discussion and make a supposition that the person doing the review as part of their job must be wrong because of it.
Here's some discussion about this theme going on:
http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/347/index/9693363/1
So far, no proof has been produced that the best ending can be reached by single player alone. Several completionist runs have been completed, staying shy of 4000K. So either there's no wiggle room to reach the "best" ending, or that MP isn't needed was a bald-faced lie to push sales.
 
Dec 14, 2009
15,528
0
0
I really enjoy the multiplayer, and I don't really play the likes of Halo's firefight or GoW's horde mode.

Quarian Infiltrator's FTW!
 

Radoh

Bans for the Ban God~
Jun 10, 2010
1,456
0
0
Daystar Clarion said:
I really enjoy the multiplayer, and I don't really play the likes of Halo's firefight or GoW's horde mode.

Quarian Infiltrator's FTW!
Quarian Snipers are in the multiplayer?
*checks*
Quarian Snipers are in the multiplayer.
That's it, this game is a must buy.
 
Dec 14, 2009
15,528
0
0
Radoh said:
Daystar Clarion said:
I really enjoy the multiplayer, and I don't really play the likes of Halo's firefight or GoW's horde mode.

Quarian Infiltrator's FTW!
Quarian Snipers are in the multiplayer?
*checks*
Quarian Snipers are in the multiplayer.
That's it, this game is a must buy.
They have the accent too.

Best class ever.
 

Thuggych

New member
Mar 5, 2011
27
0
0
PC gamer put together a nice article about readiness. I'm honestly not sure how it's possible to get the best endings w/o multiplayer if you're a new to the series...or want the freedom to make your own decisions (not optimized) throughout the trilogy.

http://www.pcgamer.com/2012/03/06/mass-effect-3-war-assets-and-readiness-how-multiplayer-affects-your-ending/


That said, I'm really enjoying the multiplayer and was sitting at 100% readiness before I continued beyond the game's prologue, it's too bad that it diminishes over time.
 

AlternatePFG

New member
Jan 22, 2010
2,858
0
0
Multiplayer is really fun, you do need to play it a bit if you want to get the best ending, but it's so fun that I don't think it really matters too much to me.

Unlock system is kind of a pain though. I get that it's supposed to be addicting (It is) but you just have to hope on luck if you want to get a particular weapon/attachment/character type.
 

Simonoly

New member
Oct 17, 2011
353
0
0
I'm surprised that you have to play the co-op to get the best possible ending. I thought Bioware said that this would not be the case and that the co-op would not have to affect your single player experience?

I just looked at the 360 achievement list for ME3 and Bioware obviously didn't want to disadvantage those who weren't interested in the co-op as any achievement applicable to the co-op can be unlocked alternatively through the single player game. So any achievement hunters can ignore the co-op for their 1000G.

I'm happy to play the co-op as I'm really enjoying it. But it's not very fair to anyone who does not have access to the online component of the game. It seems strange that Bioware would have done this.
 

Vault boy Eddie

New member
Feb 18, 2009
1,800
0
0
One thing I noticed playing the multiplayer demo(Picking up my ME3 copy at the post office tomorrow), if you do really well in a match, like really far ahead points wise from the rest of the team, some might let you die just to get a chance to pass you in points. I ran into this FAR too often, multiplayer is best played with friends that you know will have your back.
 

WMDogma

New member
Jul 28, 2009
1,374
0
0
Caramel Frappe said:
This would do wonders for me. As much as I love the single player and will definitely only buy ME3 just because of single player with the story involved.. I really like how this multiplayer sounds. Especially since we get to pick our race, (gender?), colors, armor, and abilities (for the most part I believe). Also some creatures are scary, I would probably stay back and nuke them with my powers until it dies for sure. I like range attacks but I am tempted to be a Krogan if you can charge at enemies lol.
Only certain species can be certain classes, and you have to unlock most of them. You also have to unlock most of the customization options for each class.
 

CardinalPiggles

New member
Jun 24, 2010
3,226
0
0
Kingjackl said:
Multiplayer would be awesome, except for the fact that there's no local splitscreen. You have to be on Live or Origin, which is frustrating. Why can't I just play the game in my living room, on my couch, with my friends?
Because it's not 2001 anymore.

Face it, companies want you to be online because everyone is a potential pirate.

Stupid isn't it.
 

CardinalPiggles

New member
Jun 24, 2010
3,226
0
0
Bioware need to face the facts. People will find stuff wrong with their games, even if it's trivial. It's what they get for 'evil' business practices.

Anyway, about the multiplayer. I always enjoy a bit of co op, I just don't want to play co op in Mass Effect, it just feels wrong. To elaborate, when I played ME1, it was MY story, I didn't feel as though someone else should have been there, it would have made my story less important. Gimme co op in a great shooter any day, but not in such a story driven game, the story is all it has going for it, and even that isn't amazing.
 

w00tage

New member
Feb 8, 2010
556
0
0
blarg, I have no interest in playing ME since I finished 1 (just not a good shooter or RPG in my opinion). But this makes me want to play the multiplayer mode quite a bit. Trouble is, the price on this isn't going to go down for a long time, so I'm not going to pick it up until most people have moved on :(
 

eventhorizon525

New member
Sep 14, 2010
121
0
0
To actually get a good idea of the MEMP, you really have to play it. Honestly, I was a huge skeptic and was laughing at how much Bioware was breaking things with their marketing. Then one day I was in the same room as someone else with the demo on xbox and gave it a shot. 10 hours of me playing later (and even more of watching other people) that opinion changed. It plays surprisingly well, with a pretty good balance between weapons, powers, and how much that teamwork actually matters. Furthermore, it is pretty clear you aren't Shepard - there are fewer skills to choose from per class/race combination, and you are capped at 2 weapons no matter how high your weight capacity is. Also I swear I'm a hell of a lot more fragile in MP than SP.

The unlock system is both addicting and frustrating. I advise any people just entering it to focus on a lot of recruit packs early before trying to get the fancier rare weapons. While no one really says the Avenger is their favorite gun, a mark V+ of that when everyone else is using mark Is, well, lets just say the difference is clear.
 

Kopikatsu

New member
May 27, 2010
4,924
0
0
18.99PlusTip said:
Radoh said:
Okay, so it helps the single player, but isn't a necessity? When I get it, I suppose I could spend some time on it, it looks fun.
Actually...that statement is misleading. Some might call it a lie.

Someone did the math on the war assets in the game...so...

..I can't say I saw this myself: so take it with a grain of salt.

There are a potential 8000 War assets in the game if you do EVERYTHING.

You need 5000 for the "good" end.

If you don't play multiplayer your Readiness multiplier stays at 50%:
Meaning you get only 4000 points.

And thus you CANNOT get the best ending without playing Multiplayer.

I'm curious if the reviewer even checked this or he just trusted Bioware isn't lying.

Kingjackl said:
Multiplayer would be awesome, except for the fact that there's no local splitscreen. You have to be on Live or Origin, which is frustrating. Why can't I just play the game in my living room, on my couch, with my friends?
The console has to process everything twice, so it can't run the game because they're already pushing the graphics as far as they're able without lag.

At least, that's the usual excuse.

It also means that everyone has to buy a console and an individual game: More money for them.

Fun isn't profitable enough.
You can raise the readiness multiplier without multiplayer. I don't know how I managed it, but I got a system up to 57% without having done multiplayer.
 

Discord

Monk of Tranquility
Nov 1, 2009
1,988
0
0
I love the multiplayer, some nitpicks I have are some glitches with the enemy, like on Firebase White some enemies will get stuck under the landing pad. But I'm sure that will get patched soon.

I really think character customization should be unlocked with level. I kinda don't like you have to buy random packs to try to get the customization you want or like.

Also some tips -
*Veteran Packs are the way to go, Avoid Recruit packs.
*If you get past Level 10 or so start playing silver to get A LOT of XP and Money
*Only play gold with a full team of 18-20 Levels
*Phantoms and Nemesis are annoying, if you have stasis, USE IT!!!!
*And please, getting kills/XP is nice but at wave 11 if you are in the extraction zone you get 15000 Extra XP. It's annoying you miss that much because of 1 guy that want's to go Rambo at the end.
 

carpathic

New member
Oct 5, 2009
1,287
0
0
I don't want to pay for xbox live gold.

Jesus shit. This makes me so angry I could spit!
 

Trekna

New member
Apr 1, 2009
6
0
0
CardinalPiggles said:
Bioware need to face the facts. People will find stuff wrong with their games, even if it's trivial. It's what they get for 'evil' business practices.

Anyway, about the multiplayer. I always enjoy a bit of co op, I just don't want to play co op in Mass Effect, it just feels wrong. To elaborate, when I played ME1, it was MY story, I didn't feel as though someone else should have been there, it would have made my story less important. Gimme co op in a great shooter any day, but not in such a story driven game, the story is all it has going for it, and even that isn't amazing.
Would be an issue except for the part where you're not playing Shepard. You play one of the many nameless soldiers that fight and ultimately die for a horrible 5 minute cinematic.
 

Kataskopo

New member
Dec 18, 2009
121
0
0
I played it with the demo and loved it, it was so fun and intense!

But I haven't bought the game, and I guess that's why the multiplayer in the demo doesn't work now.

In my country store in Origin the game is actually not very expensive, so I may try it later.

BTW, does someone knows if Origin makes special offers like in Steam?
 

toomuchnothing

New member
Jul 5, 2010
160
0
0
Discord said:
Also some tips -
*Veteran Packs are the way to go, Avoid Recruit packs.
I disagree with this depending on what you are after. The Mantis sniper rifle (aka starting rifle, common card) is one of the more versatile sniper weapons you can get. At rank 10 its extremely light (roughly 1/3 of a rank 1 widow) Has 20 rounds, same fire rate as the heavy hitting rifles and does more than enough damage that you can one shot most enemies while in cloak (top tier enemies being an exception). So instead of gambling on vet packs I'd say buy 4x as many recruit packs to play the odds you'll get the mantis upgrades. Of course this is all moot if you are playing something besides an Infiltrator.

I do however agree with silver farming when you are ready. Personally the best way I've done it is either as a Salarian or Quarian Infiltrator versus Geth because Energy Drain and Sabotage are so incredibly OP its unreal. Nothing like watching a Geth Prime slaughter its own wave thanks to a couple well placed sabotages. I'd say vanguards are good for farming cash too but until the biotic charge bug is fixed its a gamble you'll make it through an entire match.
 

eventhorizon525

New member
Sep 14, 2010
121
0
0
Trekna said:
CardinalPiggles said:
Bioware need to face the facts. People will find stuff wrong with their games, even if it's trivial. It's what they get for 'evil' business practices.

Anyway, about the multiplayer. I always enjoy a bit of co op, I just don't want to play co op in Mass Effect, it just feels wrong. To elaborate, when I played ME1, it was MY story, I didn't feel as though someone else should have been there, it would have made my story less important. Gimme co op in a great shooter any day, but not in such a story driven game, the story is all it has going for it, and even that isn't amazing.
Would be an issue except for the part where you're not playing Shepard. You play one of the many nameless soldiers that fight and ultimately die for a horrible 5 minute cinematic.
Who may just die simply during the missions themselves. Repeatedly. Painfully. Normally from an auto-kill banshee attack that was a lagtastic range.
 

tautologico

e^(i * pi) + 1 = 0
Apr 5, 2010
725
0
0
I was also skeptical about the multiplayer in ME, but this didn't last for more than a few minutes after playing my first mission. And I'm not usually someone who plays multiplayer games. So just before I went to the final mission in the single player I did a lot of multiplayer to get the rating to 100%, and did it with pleasure.

Considering I played too much singleplayer ME in the last few weeks (replaying 1 and 2 before getting into 3), I don't see myself replaying the campaign anytime soon, but I think I'll keep playing multiplayer missions from time to time when I feel like shooting geth/reapers/cerberus.
 

ZeroMachine

New member
Oct 11, 2008
4,397
0
0
I'm gonna be totally honest, I actually have more fun in multiplayer than I did for a lot of the chunks in single player.

The card game like unlocking system mixed with being able to play as Asari/Salarian/Turian etc. is just an amazing experience.
 

Scars Unseen

^ ^ v v < > < > B A
May 7, 2009
3,028
0
0
Suggestions for the future: DLC(because you know they won't do it for free) that adds more than just new maps, but rather different co-op modes. Like maybe an assault mode that has you storming an enemy compound to release captives, wipe out an indoctrination farm, etc. Something that feels like the suicide mission from ME2(but more challenging since you'll have other players to help). A variation on that would be an escape mode where you have to make it to the escape pods of a crippled and boarded Alliance or other Council military vessel under a time limit after which a Reaper shows up to finish off the ship. Give objectives such as recovering intel documents and resources to gain credits(while making it harder to make it off the ship in time).
 

SageRuffin

M-f-ing Jedi Master
Dec 19, 2009
2,005
0
0
Sushewakka said:
Here's some discussion about this theme going on:
http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/347/index/9693363/1
So far, no proof has been produced that the best ending can be reached by single player alone. Several completionist runs have been completed, staying shy of 4000K. So either there's no wiggle room to reach the "best" ending, or that MP isn't needed was a bald-faced lie to push sales.
Just read the thread. If all that is accurate, then I guess my character's fucked then, as I don't want to play the multiplayer modes.

Why, some of you may ask? Because I don't fucking care. Sure, maybe it is all that and a bag of chips, but I didn't get ME3 for that. Hell, I've been forgetting that there are multiplayer modes in-game if not for my online friends constantly hounding me about playing with them.

So yeah, regardless of the good remarks, fuck all that. I plan on doing at least 3 runs either leading up to or including a final "canon" playthrough, so if I can simply achieve the appropriate ending for my character through a well-conceived NG+, then the multiplayer mode can kiss both halves of my ass.

Observation: Oh, I find it rather telling that the Escapist decided to conduct a completely separate review for the multiplayer mode. That'd be like having 2 separate reviews for SCV: one for the game at large, and one specifically for Story 1607AD (SCV's story mode).

Mostly rhetorical query, but I wonder if I'm the only one that sees something wrong with that...?
 

FateOrFatality

New member
Mar 27, 2010
189
0
0
When I heard about there being multiplayer in Mass Effect, I was pretty pissed off. However I've since played quite a bit and I'm really enjoying it. I've played a lot of this style of four player co-op (firefight, horde, nazi zombies, L4D, Dead Island, etc.) but I've enjoyed this a lot more than the rest. I think that is likely due to the fact that the store mechanic is pretty awesome.

On a related note, has anyone else gotten any of the cool N7/Ultra Rare things? I've only gotten the Black Widow so far, and that thing is awesome. Really hoping I'll get the Paladin soon though.
 

Zhukov

The Laughing Arsehole
Dec 29, 2009
13,768
0
0
Caramel Frappe said:
I like range attacks but I am tempted to be a Krogan if you can charge at enemies lol.
Oh, you can. You most certainly can.

The Krogan characters' heavy melee attack is a charge, complete with roaring and laughter. (Their light melee is a head-butt.)
 

Scars Unseen

^ ^ v v < > < > B A
May 7, 2009
3,028
0
0
Zhukov said:
Caramel Frappe said:
I like range attacks but I am tempted to be a Krogan if you can charge at enemies lol.
Oh, you can. You most certainly can.

The Krogan characters' heavy melee attack is a charge, complete with roaring and laughter. (Their light melee is a head-butt.)
In the demo I played a Krogan soldier after I unlocked him... half the time I forgot I even had a gun. I found myself charging everything up to and including the heavy mechs.
 

CardinalPiggles

New member
Jun 24, 2010
3,226
0
0
Trekna said:
CardinalPiggles said:
Bioware need to face the facts. People will find stuff wrong with their games, even if it's trivial. It's what they get for 'evil' business practices.

Anyway, about the multiplayer. I always enjoy a bit of co op, I just don't want to play co op in Mass Effect, it just feels wrong. To elaborate, when I played ME1, it was MY story, I didn't feel as though someone else should have been there, it would have made my story less important. Gimme co op in a great shooter any day, but not in such a story driven game, the story is all it has going for it, and even that isn't amazing.
Would be an issue except for the part where you're not playing Shepard. You play one of the many nameless soldiers that fight and ultimately die for a horrible 5 minute cinematic.
It would bug me though, because the avatars look exactly like shepard. In Halo multiplayer, it feels like I'm playing Master Chief, even though it's a random Spartan.
 

Epictank of Wintown

New member
Jan 8, 2009
138
0
0
CardinalPiggles said:
Trekna said:
CardinalPiggles said:
Bioware need to face the facts. People will find stuff wrong with their games, even if it's trivial. It's what they get for 'evil' business practices.

Anyway, about the multiplayer. I always enjoy a bit of co op, I just don't want to play co op in Mass Effect, it just feels wrong. To elaborate, when I played ME1, it was MY story, I didn't feel as though someone else should have been there, it would have made my story less important. Gimme co op in a great shooter any day, but not in such a story driven game, the story is all it has going for it, and even that isn't amazing.
Would be an issue except for the part where you're not playing Shepard. You play one of the many nameless soldiers that fight and ultimately die for a horrible 5 minute cinematic.
It would bug me though, because the avatars look exactly like shepard. In Halo multiplayer, it feels like I'm playing Master Chief, even though it's a random Spartan.
I'm sorry, but have you ever really seen military-grade equipment? It all looks pretty much the same. Then there's also the fact that you can unlock Asari, Quarian, Krogan, Drell, and Salarian players, all of whom pretty much look nothing like the very human Commander Shepard. You're a faceless grunt (that you can give a name to) in the war against the Reapers so far as the multiplayer is concerned.

It's a great experience that I would strongly recommend everyone that plays Mass Effect 3 to try.
 

putowtin

I'd like to purchase an alcohol!
Jul 7, 2010
3,452
0
0
played it for the first time this morning, same feeling I get with all multiplayers
"Git's who are twenty levels above me who won't help when I get shot!"
 

CardinalPiggles

New member
Jun 24, 2010
3,226
0
0
Epictank of Wintown said:
I'm sorry, but have you ever really seen military-grade equipment? It all looks pretty much the same. Then there's also the fact that you can unlock Asari, Quarian, Krogan, Drell, and Salarian players, all of whom pretty much look nothing like the very human Commander Shepard. You're a faceless grunt (that you can give a name to) in the war against the Reapers so far as the multiplayer is concerned.

It's a great experience that I would strongly recommend everyone that plays Mass Effect 3 to try.
I guess I didn't even consider playing as another species, BUT, I still don't like the idea of being a faceless grunt, Mass Effect has always been about feeling important to me, and I just don't get that same feeling in multiplayer.

Don't get me wrong, if I was going to buy the game, I would definitely try it, but I don't think it would have that same lasting appeal that other, better shooters have.
 

TheBelgianGuy

New member
Aug 29, 2010
365
0
0
SageRuffin said:
Observation: Oh, I find it rather telling that the Escapist decided to conduct a completely separate review for the multiplayer mode. That'd be like having 2 separate reviews for SCV: one for the game at large, and one specifically for Story 1607AD (SCV's story mode).

Mostly rhetorical query, but I wonder if I'm the only one that sees something wrong with that...?
Because the game they were sent by EA to review didn't include multiplayer, therefore they couldn't put anything about it in the first review.
 

SageRuffin

M-f-ing Jedi Master
Dec 19, 2009
2,005
0
0
TheBelgianGuy said:
SageRuffin said:
Observation: Oh, I find it rather telling that the Escapist decided to conduct a completely separate review for the multiplayer mode. That'd be like having 2 separate reviews for SCV: one for the game at large, and one specifically for Story 1607AD (SCV's story mode).

Mostly rhetorical query, but I wonder if I'm the only one that sees something wrong with that...?
Because the game they were sent by EA to review didn't include multiplayer, therefore they couldn't put anything about it in the first review.
Huh... that doesn't exactly shake the feeling that it's extraneous and unnecessary (not to mention poorly introduced). For all that, I think they should've waited until they got a complete build to say anything about it.

Still, my views and mine alone. Feel free to disregard.
 

Buizel91

Autobot
Aug 25, 2008
5,265
0
0
I love the people complaining about the MP, Such amusing comments!

Somehow, i very much doubt, a company like Bioware, who constantly make story driven games, would be so stupid as to include a multiplayer that you HAVE to play in order to get the ebst endings for said game...and if i get proved wrong by FACTS, then they lose a bit of my respect...not all.

We have to remember Bioware games are friggin huge, it's quite possible that the people that have already completed it haven't done everything to get an area percentage high enough for the best endings. remember guys this game has only been out what? A day? Not even that? And people are already blasting this new feature, stupid! -.-

And did i read Quarian Snipers?

SIGN ME THE FUCK UP!
 

Buizel91

Autobot
Aug 25, 2008
5,265
0
0
CardinalPiggles said:
Epictank of Wintown said:
I'm sorry, but have you ever really seen military-grade equipment? It all looks pretty much the same. Then there's also the fact that you can unlock Asari, Quarian, Krogan, Drell, and Salarian players, all of whom pretty much look nothing like the very human Commander Shepard. You're a faceless grunt (that you can give a name to) in the war against the Reapers so far as the multiplayer is concerned.

It's a great experience that I would strongly recommend everyone that plays Mass Effect 3 to try.
I guess I didn't even consider playing as another species, BUT, I still don't like the idea of being a faceless grunt, Mass Effect has always been about feeling important to me, and I just don't get that same feeling in multiplayer.

Don't get me wrong, if I was going to buy the game, I would definitely try it, but I don't think it would have that same lasting appeal that other, better shooters have.
But if they gave you the option of a character from the game, you still wouldn't be happy!

Faceless grunt: Unhappy because he isn't "my own"
Known Character: Doesn't make sense
Shepard: Again doesn't make sense and they fucked up the story

Bioware can't win.
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
Perhaps I already said this in this thread... but I think there is one BIG point not being touched on in this review.

The Multiplayer is microtransaction capable. Basically you can pay either real money or credits gained from missions to upgrade ypur gear. Gear also makes your character substantially more powerful in this mode.

By making the multiplayer mandatory to get the most out of the single player campaign (some endings are pretty much impossible without it) it creates pressure on single player gamers to do it, and if they don't like Multiplayer or are pants at shooters... well there is that giant glowing "I win" button they can hit by spending real money and making farming a few battles easier, so that guy sitting at the end of the game will be tempted to do the multiplayer thing and pay to win it if they otherwise don't really want to get into it.

This more or less taints the entire thing, as I can't see any way that the above doesn't figure into their logic. No serious multiplayer enthisiast is going to pay real money for that stuff given how relatively easy credits are to get in multiplayer, so what is the point?

What's more why the heck does your "galactic control" decay? The only reason I can think of them adding in the decay is so that single player guy who might want to do multiple play throughs will be increasingly tempted/pressured especially if he winds up having to do the multiplayer grind more than once.

See, people are looking at the multiplayer on it's own merits, as opposed to what it exactly means, or how it fits into increasingly exploitive marketing strategies. Amazingly I see very little about how Bioware has included an option to buy packs for real money, and I think that's the most important thing about this development, and where all eyes should be aimed.
 

Scars Unseen

^ ^ v v < > < > B A
May 7, 2009
3,028
0
0
Therumancer said:
Perhaps I already said this in this thread... but I think there is one BIG point not being touched on in this review.

The Multiplayer is microtransaction capable. Basically you can pay either real money or credits gained from missions to upgrade ypur gear. Gear also makes your character substantially more powerful in this mode.

By making the multiplayer mandatory to get the most out of the single player campaign (some endings are pretty much impossible without it) it creates pressure on single player gamers to do it, and if they don't like Multiplayer or are pants at shooters... well there is that giant glowing "I win" button they can hit by spending real money and making farming a few battles easier, so that guy sitting at the end of the game will be tempted to do the multiplayer thing and pay to win it if they otherwise don't really want to get into it.

This more or less taints the entire thing, as I can't see any way that the above doesn't figure into their logic. No serious multiplayer enthisiast is going to pay real money for that stuff given how relatively easy credits are to get in multiplayer, so what is the point?

What's more why the heck does your "galactic control" decay? The only reason I can think of them adding in the decay is so that single player guy who might want to do multiple play throughs will be increasingly tempted/pressured especially if he winds up having to do the multiplayer grind more than once.

See, people are looking at the multiplayer on it's own merits, as opposed to what it exactly means, or how it fits into increasingly exploitive marketing strategies. Amazingly I see very little about how Bioware has included an option to buy packs for real money, and I think that's the most important thing about this development, and where all eyes should be aimed.
This is exactly right... only the opposite of what you said.

You don't need to play multiplayer to get the best ending. Multiplayer just makes it easier.

http://www.gamezone.com/products/mass-effect-3/news/bioware-clarifies-mass-effect-3-s-perfect-ending

Your ending(s) are determined by your "Effective Military Strength" (let's call it EMS for now) bar. Focus on that bar - that is your indicator of how well you will do in the end-game.

You can maximize your EMS just by collecting War Assets in the single-player game. There is a certain threshhold of these you would need to exceed (I can't get too specific) but I can tell you there are MORE than the required amount that can be gathered in the single-player campaign.

"Galactic Readiness" is a modifier you can improve by playing multiplayer. That is to say, if you play a lot of multiplayer, you will need less War Assets from single-player to fill up your EMS bar (ie it will balance out the requirements to account for you playing in both modes). Single-player game play does not impact that bar.

EMS = success. EMS can be maximized via collecting war assets alone, even if your Galactic Readiness is 50%.
http://www.pcgamer.com/2012/03/06/mass-effect-3-war-assets-and-readiness-how-multiplayer-affects-your-ending/

It is possible to get the best ending in single player without playing multiplayer, but it?s twice as hard. All your War Assets only count for 50% of their potential value. The biggest gains in War Assets come from a culmination of your decisions in the previous games and your decisions in this one: if you?ve helped a race before, and you help them here, it?s often possible to get their full support and resolve their conflict to get someone else on your side too...


...Here?s what I recommend: don?t. Don?t do any quests that are boring, don?t play multiplayer if you don?t want to, and don?t go through old save games trying to optimise your decisions for the most War Assets. Don?t let BioWare?s seedy design decision manipulate you into playing in a way you don?t want to.

If they?ve made a game that?s brutal, harsh and dark if you don?t play multiplayer, they?ve made a game that?s brutal, harsh and dark. That?s how I reviewed it, and it?s still phenomenal.
Multiplayer stands on its own, as does single player.
 

CardinalPiggles

New member
Jun 24, 2010
3,226
0
0
arc1991 said:
CardinalPiggles said:
Epictank of Wintown said:
I'm sorry, but have you ever really seen military-grade equipment? It all looks pretty much the same. Then there's also the fact that you can unlock Asari, Quarian, Krogan, Drell, and Salarian players, all of whom pretty much look nothing like the very human Commander Shepard. You're a faceless grunt (that you can give a name to) in the war against the Reapers so far as the multiplayer is concerned.

It's a great experience that I would strongly recommend everyone that plays Mass Effect 3 to try.
I guess I didn't even consider playing as another species, BUT, I still don't like the idea of being a faceless grunt, Mass Effect has always been about feeling important to me, and I just don't get that same feeling in multiplayer.

Don't get me wrong, if I was going to buy the game, I would definitely try it, but I don't think it would have that same lasting appeal that other, better shooters have.
But if they gave you the option of a character from the game, you still wouldn't be happy!

Faceless grunt: Unhappy because he isn't "my own"
Known Character: Doesn't make sense
Shepard: Again doesn't make sense and they fucked up the story

Bioware can't win.
Actually I'm perfectly happy with them adding a co op mode in their game, and using whatever avatars they want. I'm just saying it just doesn't appeal much to me, and giving reasons why...

I think people such as yourself are misinterpreting my stance. I sense a touch of fanboyism here. [sub]Jay Kay[/sub]
 

Abedeus

New member
Sep 14, 2008
7,412
0
0
Radoh said:
18.99PlusTip said:
Radoh said:
Okay, so it helps the single player, but isn't a necessity? When I get it, I suppose I could spend some time on it, it looks fun.
Actually...that statement is misleading. Some might call it a lie.

Someone did the math on the war assets in the game...so...

..I can't say I saw this myself: so take it with a grain of salt.

There are a potential 8000 War assets in the game if you do EVERYTHING.

You need 5000 for the "good" end.

If you don't play multiplayer your Readiness multiplier stays at 50%:
Meaning you get only 4000 points.

And thus you CANNOT get the best ending without playing Multiplayer.

I'm curious if the reviewer even checked this or he just trusted Bioware isn't lying.
So rather than check your own information, you come here to inform me that it is impossible to do without the multiplayer which flies in the face of people who have done it.
Has it occurred to you that the fifty percent multiplier is actually a multiplier, as in, it boosts your war assets as opposed to reducing it?
Wrong. Your war assets times galactic readiness = actual number you get. Meaning that unless you got 10k war assets, which is impossible, you can't get the "best" ending without touching multiplayer.
rhizhim said:
so it is almost like left4dead?
L4D with more character choices and customization, yep.

My problems with multiplayer:

1. Often disconnections from server for no reason, may need a patch (which is weird, demo worked fine).
2. NO TEXT CHAT. Devs are aware of it, but it's too early to promise anything. Which sucks, since in 2012 you shouldn't be required to own a mic and speak fluently in English to communicate... People understood that a decade ago.
 

PunkRex

New member
Feb 19, 2010
2,533
0
0
An online campaign... cool, fighting on an epic scale. War, its fantastic.
 

Moffman

New member
May 21, 2009
113
0
0
Wow the effecting the single player is pretty annoying for me, since I don't have a wireless router for my Xbox or and Xbox live gold account :p, Maybe that two day trial will come in handy, been thinking of getting a wireless router for a while now, shame it's about £50 when I can get one for my computer for about a tenner :(
 

WMDogma

New member
Jul 28, 2009
1,374
0
0
Therumancer said:
Perhaps I already said this in this thread... but I think there is one BIG point not being touched on in this review.

The Multiplayer is microtransaction capable. Basically you can pay either real money or credits gained from missions to upgrade ypur gear. Gear also makes your character substantially more powerful in this mode.

By making the multiplayer mandatory to get the most out of the single player campaign (some endings are pretty much impossible without it) it creates pressure on single player gamers to do it, and if they don't like Multiplayer or are pants at shooters... well there is that giant glowing "I win" button they can hit by spending real money and making farming a few battles easier, so that guy sitting at the end of the game will be tempted to do the multiplayer thing and pay to win it if they otherwise don't really want to get into it.

This more or less taints the entire thing, as I can't see any way that the above doesn't figure into their logic. No serious multiplayer enthisiast is going to pay real money for that stuff given how relatively easy credits are to get in multiplayer, so what is the point?

What's more why the heck does your "galactic control" decay? The only reason I can think of them adding in the decay is so that single player guy who might want to do multiple play throughs will be increasingly tempted/pressured especially if he winds up having to do the multiplayer grind more than once.

See, people are looking at the multiplayer on it's own merits, as opposed to what it exactly means, or how it fits into increasingly exploitive marketing strategies. Amazingly I see very little about how Bioware has included an option to buy packs for real money, and I think that's the most important thing about this development, and where all eyes should be aimed.
I like your argument.
 

SageRuffin

M-f-ing Jedi Master
Dec 19, 2009
2,005
0
0
An addendum to my previous argument: I originally thought the multiplayer aspects to the ME franchised felt tacked on and extraneous. I stand by that notion after playing a few rounds with a friend. While it's not a complete mess like I originally assumed, it's not anything special either; those of you familiar with Pinnacle Station from the first ME, it's essentially the final mission from that with some extra knick-knacks here and there (like kill these specific enemies before time runs out, collect these few objects sprinkled about, things like that). For those of you who did not purchase Pinnacle Station, think of the infamous Horde comparison from Gears of War, Anarchy mode from Bulletstorm, or even Halo though that one's a bit of a stretch.

Things can get a little crazy during some of the waves, but if everyone involved has high-ranking abilities and/or equipment, it ends up being a snoozefest pretty fast. Add to the fact that the whole "Galaxy at War" business is simply of a multiplier that I think doesn't fall under 50%, best believe that outside of getting that one achievement, I wont be touching the multiplayer segments again anytime soon.

So... back to not caring for me then.
 

carpathic

New member
Oct 5, 2009
1,287
0
0
Darth_Dude said:
carpathic said:
I don't want to pay for xbox live gold.

Jesus shit. This makes me so angry I could spit!
Maybe you should invest in a Ps3?

trollface.jpg
Given the buttreaming SONY is trying to enact with the psvita, I suspect that free to play on the play station network won't last past the PS3.

I know my post was pretty immature, and you have a point about the PS3. It just pisses me off. I have to pay 60 bucks for a game, that makes it almost impossible to get the best ending despite the 120 hours (in liklihood FAR more) I've poured into the previous iterations, UNLESS I shell out extra for a subscription service.

I know I mean NOTHING to bioware. I know that, but I am seriously thinking about not buying any more bioware games. I've paid for the game, I should be able to access the entire thing. Stop nickle and diming me. I've never bought another Ubisoft game, and I never will, over their ridiculous DRM policies. EA is heading down the same path with me.

Again, I know they don't care, but it is getting close for me.
 

StriderShinryu

New member
Dec 8, 2009
4,987
0
0
Played it for about 8 or do houtd this weekend and found myself enjoying it a lot.. but also found that I think I pretty much tapped out my emjoyment with it. I could see myself going back once in a while to play a round or two but that's about it. It's not that it's a bad mode at all, it's just that it aims at a very specific player motivation that doesn't happen to grab me personally. I don't mind repetition in my multiplayer but playing the same maps against the same AI repeatedly just to earn credits and eventually max my character and inventory isn't a long term goal that hooks me specifically.

For those who do have the right reaction to what's offered, however, I can virtually guarantee that you'll love the mode. If you don't, you'll probably still have a great time playing it even if just for a weekend because it's just that solid. The classes all bring something interesting to the table and are useful in their own way, The level of teamwork required ranges from moderate to very high, depending on the difficulty level you pick. This leads to an extremely nice feeling of working together but still, if you're playing on bronze level especially, being able to lone wolf or duo it for a bit here and there.

If nothing else, the multiplayer mode shows that ME's combat engine really does work on a solid fundamental level. With no squad mates to worry about controlling and a slightly streamlined skill system to match, it just feels really damn good to play.

Moffman said:
Wow the effecting the single player is pretty annoying for me, since I don't have a wireless router for my Xbox or and Xbox live gold account :p, Maybe that two day trial will come in handy, been thinking of getting a wireless router for a while now, shame it's about £50 when I can get one for my computer for about a tenner :(
Can't help with the router problem, but the 2 day trial thing is exactly what I did, and it worked wonderfully. Assuming you're not terrible at the game and don't constantly get placed on bad teams who die within the first few waves, it does not take long at all to max out your Galactic Preparedness level. I went from the starting 50% all the way to 100% in a single evening. Just activate the 2 day code when you know you're going to have a good few hours to spend and you'll be fine.
 

godofallu

New member
Jun 8, 2010
1,663
0
0
Just started beating maps on gold. Got 2nd after extraction as a level 6, and i'm so proud.

Not sure this will hold my attention for much longer though. Once I hit 100pc galaxy readiness + the completion on gold on each map i'm out.

Still probably got 15 hours of fun in. That's like 2 FPS games.
 

Darth_Dude

New member
Jul 11, 2008
1,302
0
0
carpathic said:
Darth_Dude said:
carpathic said:
I don't want to pay for xbox live gold.

Jesus shit. This makes me so angry I could spit!
Maybe you should invest in a Ps3?

trollface.jpg
Given the buttreaming SONY is trying to enact with the psvita, I suspect that free to play on the play station network won't last past the PS3.

I know my post was pretty immature, and you have a point about the PS3. It just pisses me off. I have to pay 60 bucks for a game, that makes it almost impossible to get the best ending despite the 120 hours (in liklihood FAR more) I've poured into the previous iterations, UNLESS I shell out extra for a subscription service.

I know I mean NOTHING to bioware. I know that, but I am seriously thinking about not buying any more bioware games. I've paid for the game, I should be able to access the entire thing. Stop nickle and diming me. I've never bought another Ubisoft game, and I never will, over their ridiculous DRM policies. EA is heading down the same path with me.

Again, I know they don't care, but it is getting close for me.
I totally understand how you feel, I am myself (that phrase doesn't sound right) really annoyed at EA's policies, and while I'm not about to boycott, I sure as hell am getting close.

By the way, couldn't you have bought it on PC? Or did you not buy it for PC because of the Origin brouhaha?
 

Endocrom

New member
Apr 6, 2009
1,242
0
0
People shouldn't have flying cars-
I've been saying that for years. You would see news photos of houses on fire with a huge hole in the roof with the caption like "Texting claims family of five"
 

vxicepickxv

Slayer of Bothan Spies
Sep 28, 2008
3,126
0
0
So, aside from anything else, does the day 1 DLC actually add to the total of war stuff you need?
 

Nohra

New member
Aug 9, 2008
143
0
0
Vanguards once again prove to be the master race in MP. Only snipers with heavy rifles or Asari adepts can really compete with a Vanguard that's hit its stride.

I feel sorry for Sentinels though. They're extremely weak compared to every other class. At least the human ones have Throw.
 

carpathic

New member
Oct 5, 2009
1,287
0
0
Darth_Dude said:
carpathic said:
Darth_Dude said:
carpathic said:
I don't want to pay for xbox live gold.

Jesus shit. This makes me so angry I could spit!
Maybe you should invest in a Ps3?

trollface.jpg
Given the buttreaming SONY is trying to enact with the psvita, I suspect that free to play on the play station network won't last past the PS3.

I know my post was pretty immature, and you have a point about the PS3. It just pisses me off. I have to pay 60 bucks for a game, that makes it almost impossible to get the best ending despite the 120 hours (in liklihood FAR more) I've poured into the previous iterations, UNLESS I shell out extra for a subscription service.

I know I mean NOTHING to bioware. I know that, but I am seriously thinking about not buying any more bioware games. I've paid for the game, I should be able to access the entire thing. Stop nickle and diming me. I've never bought another Ubisoft game, and I never will, over their ridiculous DRM policies. EA is heading down the same path with me.

Again, I know they don't care, but it is getting close for me.
I totally understand how you feel, I am myself (that phrase doesn't sound right) really annoyed at EA's policies, and while I'm not about to boycott, I sure as hell am getting close.

By the way, couldn't you have bought it on PC? Or did you not buy it for PC because of the Origin brouhaha?
I've played both games on XBOX so far, and that is where all my save info is. Added in to that are some issues I have with my wrist, I can play with an xbox controller, but the mouse/keyboard hurts like heck (I know you can attach the controller to your computer).

In answer to your second part, Origin was THE big major reason why. I simply reject companies' attempts to define me as a criminal. I am not a pirate, I even pay for all of my music online (seriously, I have more than 3k songs on itunes). I hate the basic assumption, same reason I will not go to gas stations that expect pre-pay; I am not a criminal, stop trying to treat me like one.

Are you playing on PC, or the PS3?
 

beefpelican

New member
Apr 15, 2009
374
0
0
rhizhim said:
so it is almost like left4dead?
Eh, Gears of war (or Halo 3 or Call of duty) horde mode was a better analogy. Less story and movement, more staking out a position and occasionally moving around to accomplish a goal by standing next to it.

OT:I enjoy the multiplayer, and the way that your character levels up during it, but I certainly wouldn't have complained about a vs mode, that's extra content, yay! Also it would have been nice if the 'missions' you complete were a bit more story-ish, like the ones in L4D or even Wolfenstein Enemy Territory. As it was, I found myself a little suspicious that there was a reaper indoctrination device, an Alliance power generator, and a Cerberus data center all wedged into the same corner of a firebase. Do they all hire the same contractors or something?

tl;dr: It's fun, but doesn't make much story sense.
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
Scars Unseen said:
Therumancer said:
Perhaps I already said this in this thread... but I think there is one BIG point not being touched on in this review.

The Multiplayer is microtransaction capable. Basically you can pay either real money or credits gained from missions to upgrade ypur gear. Gear also makes your character substantially more powerful in this mode.

By making the multiplayer mandatory to get the most out of the single player campaign (some endings are pretty much impossible without it) it creates pressure on single player gamers to do it, and if they don't like Multiplayer or are pants at shooters... well there is that giant glowing "I win" button they can hit by spending real money and making farming a few battles easier, so that guy sitting at the end of the game will be tempted to do the multiplayer thing and pay to win it if they otherwise don't really want to get into it.

This more or less taints the entire thing, as I can't see any way that the above doesn't figure into their logic. No serious multiplayer enthisiast is going to pay real money for that stuff given how relatively easy credits are to get in multiplayer, so what is the point?

What's more why the heck does your "galactic control" decay? The only reason I can think of them adding in the decay is so that single player guy who might want to do multiple play throughs will be increasingly tempted/pressured especially if he winds up having to do the multiplayer grind more than once.

See, people are looking at the multiplayer on it's own merits, as opposed to what it exactly means, or how it fits into increasingly exploitive marketing strategies. Amazingly I see very little about how Bioware has included an option to buy packs for real money, and I think that's the most important thing about this development, and where all eyes should be aimed.
This is exactly right... only the opposite of what you said.

You don't need to play multiplayer to get the best ending. Multiplayer just makes it easier.

http://www.gamezone.com/products/mass-effect-3/news/bioware-clarifies-mass-effect-3-s-perfect-ending

Your ending(s) are determined by your "Effective Military Strength" (let's call it EMS for now) bar. Focus on that bar - that is your indicator of how well you will do in the end-game.

You can maximize your EMS just by collecting War Assets in the single-player game. There is a certain threshhold of these you would need to exceed (I can't get too specific) but I can tell you there are MORE than the required amount that can be gathered in the single-player campaign.

"Galactic Readiness" is a modifier you can improve by playing multiplayer. That is to say, if you play a lot of multiplayer, you will need less War Assets from single-player to fill up your EMS bar (ie it will balance out the requirements to account for you playing in both modes). Single-player game play does not impact that bar.

EMS = success. EMS can be maximized via collecting war assets alone, even if your Galactic Readiness is 50%.
http://www.pcgamer.com/2012/03/06/mass-effect-3-war-assets-and-readiness-how-multiplayer-affects-your-ending/

It is possible to get the best ending in single player without playing multiplayer, but it?s twice as hard. All your War Assets only count for 50% of their potential value. The biggest gains in War Assets come from a culmination of your decisions in the previous games and your decisions in this one: if you?ve helped a race before, and you help them here, it?s often possible to get their full support and resolve their conflict to get someone else on your side too...


...Here?s what I recommend: don?t. Don?t do any quests that are boring, don?t play multiplayer if you don?t want to, and don?t go through old save games trying to optimise your decisions for the most War Assets. Don?t let BioWare?s seedy design decision manipulate you into playing in a way you don?t want to.

If they?ve made a game that?s brutal, harsh and dark if you don?t play multiplayer, they?ve made a game that?s brutal, harsh and dark. That?s how I reviewed it, and it?s still phenomenal.
Multiplayer stands on its own, as does single player.

Normally I'd cut the quoting but it got messed up when you quoted me.

Your missing the point in that the single player experience does NOT stand on it's own. Yes, if you had invested in previous games in the series you wind up with having a chance of doing things without the multiplayer. If you have not done so however you cannot complete the game and get a decent ending without engaging in multiplayer, which is a pretty slimy thing to do given the microtransactions.

As someone who has done both the Multiplayer (which I won't comment on, on it's own merits) and has played the other games in the series, the actual end results don't personally effect me, I can easily get the rating points I need for the best ending if I so choose. This does not however prevent me from calling EA/Bioware on slimey design desicians when I see them.

My comment here is mostly that that I notice few, if any, of the reviews on the multiplayer make mention of the inclusion of "pay to win" aspects. I do not think this is something that should be overlooked in reviews. Especially seeing as even ignoring the single player aspects of things, someone who drops real money into the multiplayer is going to come up with a decisive advantage, especially early on.
 

Darth_Dude

New member
Jul 11, 2008
1,302
0
0
carpathic said:
Darth_Dude said:
carpathic said:
Darth_Dude said:
carpathic said:
I don't want to pay for xbox live gold.

Jesus shit. This makes me so angry I could spit!
Maybe you should invest in a Ps3?

trollface.jpg
Given the buttreaming SONY is trying to enact with the psvita, I suspect that free to play on the play station network won't last past the PS3.

I know my post was pretty immature, and you have a point about the PS3. It just pisses me off. I have to pay 60 bucks for a game, that makes it almost impossible to get the best ending despite the 120 hours (in liklihood FAR more) I've poured into the previous iterations, UNLESS I shell out extra for a subscription service.

I know I mean NOTHING to bioware. I know that, but I am seriously thinking about not buying any more bioware games. I've paid for the game, I should be able to access the entire thing. Stop nickle and diming me. I've never bought another Ubisoft game, and I never will, over their ridiculous DRM policies. EA is heading down the same path with me.

Again, I know they don't care, but it is getting close for me.
I totally understand how you feel, I am myself (that phrase doesn't sound right) really annoyed at EA's policies, and while I'm not about to boycott, I sure as hell am getting close.

By the way, couldn't you have bought it on PC? Or did you not buy it for PC because of the Origin brouhaha?
I've played both games on XBOX so far, and that is where all my save info is. Added in to that are some issues I have with my wrist, I can play with an xbox controller, but the mouse/keyboard hurts like heck (I know you can attach the controller to your computer).

In answer to your second part, Origin was THE big major reason why. I simply reject companies' attempts to define me as a criminal. I am not a pirate, I even pay for all of my music online (seriously, I have more than 3k songs on itunes). I hate the basic assumption, same reason I will not go to gas stations that expect pre-pay; I am not a criminal, stop trying to treat me like one.

Are you playing on PC, or the PS3?
Ps3. (I havnt bought ME3, but I finished ME2 on Ps3) My PC probably be able to run it, and besides, screw Origin.
 

Ayay

New member
Dec 6, 2009
121
0
0
Nice review . Looking forward to all other games that come with a single and multiplayer option getting the same treatment of reviewing. But my guess is i have to wait until ME4 for that huh?
 

Scott Beaulieu

New member
Sep 24, 2011
4
0
0
How I see ME3 Multiplayer is, while its no GoW3 Horde Mode, its a decent enough venture to play with some friends and have a blast. Now...If they had a PvP mode, the whole character customization aspect would be amazing.
 

Muphin_Mann

New member
Oct 4, 2007
285
0
0
BeastofShadow said:
I'm defiantly in the category of it not sitting right with me. I don't have a gold account on my Xbox anymore (I play pretty much exclusively story driven games) so I can't get the full single player experience because I can't play multiplayer? That doesn't sit right with me at all.
Luckily, you, and the reviewer, are both wrong.

As a test i got the best set of endings for ME3 without any Multiplayer. Its definitly possible, just as Bioware said it would be.

Also, the multiplayer microtransactions are...why are they an issue again? I dropped ten bucks on From Ashes after all. The Multiplayer isnt head-to-head so if one guy bought more stuff, you all benefit. And while it tracks your score individually, you get XP equal to what eveyrone did. So the one thing buying packs does for the guy who did it, is give him a bigger points bar if he uses the stuff he got well. Everyone in the match gets the extra survivability and the total points bonus.
 

Sleepless Gamer

New member
Mar 18, 2012
15
0
0
I really was geared up to hate the MP in mass effect 3 but...

Then i played it and aside from the annoying matchmaking system and sometimes, less than stellar random's it sets you up with i could not be happier with it. (Unless i could unlock the widow for my infiltrator >.>)
 

Jupiter065

New member
Aug 12, 2008
88
0
0
Therumancer said:
Perhaps I already said this in this thread... but I think there is one BIG point not being touched on in this review.

The Multiplayer is microtransaction capable. Basically you can pay either real money or credits gained from missions to upgrade ypur gear. Gear also makes your character substantially more powerful in this mode.

By making the multiplayer mandatory to get the most out of the single player campaign (some endings are pretty much impossible without it) it creates pressure on single player gamers to do it, and if they don't like Multiplayer or are pants at shooters... well there is that giant glowing "I win" button they can hit by spending real money and making farming a few battles easier, so that guy sitting at the end of the game will be tempted to do the multiplayer thing and pay to win it if they otherwise don't really want to get into it.

This more or less taints the entire thing, as I can't see any way that the above doesn't figure into their logic. No serious multiplayer enthisiast is going to pay real money for that stuff given how relatively easy credits are to get in multiplayer, so what is the point?

What's more why the heck does your "galactic control" decay? The only reason I can think of them adding in the decay is so that single player guy who might want to do multiple play throughs will be increasingly tempted/pressured especially if he winds up having to do the multiplayer grind more than once.

See, people are looking at the multiplayer on it's own merits, as opposed to what it exactly means, or how it fits into increasingly exploitive marketing strategies. Amazingly I see very little about how Bioware has included an option to buy packs for real money, and I think that's the most important thing about this development, and where all eyes should be aimed.
5-year-old kudos to you for recognizing EA's first big foray into loot box microtransactions and calling it out for the garbage it was, and continues to be.