Mass Effect 3 Multiplayer Review

[Scars Unseen]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

 

[Darth_Dude]

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

 

[PunkRex]

An online campaign... cool, fighting on an epic scale. War, its fantastic.

 

[Moffman]

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 , 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