Multiplayer Mass Effect Rumors Bubble Up Once Again

owen4evr

New member
Feb 11, 2011
60
0
0
sounds .... different so long as it's fun and doesn't take from the single player campagain I won't mind that much.Also I wonder if each player would be able to bring compains along.
 

Camoman

New member
Feb 12, 2009
54
0
0
From what I understood, it reminded me a little of Spec-Ops from MW2. I actually had some fun with those, as long as I was playing with friends.

That said, I agree with all the "Why are they trying to get people involved in the thrird part of a trilogy?"

I am neither for or against this new "possible" development. I'd need more information before deciding either way.
 

Android2137

New member
Feb 2, 2010
813
0
0
A Mass Effect multiplayer isn't a bad idea.

A Mass Effect multiplayer in the last game of a trilogy is.

Come on, Bioware. Surely, you should know better. Save it for after we've defeated the Reapers. Or make it a prequel if you don't want to establish your own canon ending.
 

RatRace123

Elite Member
Dec 1, 2009
6,651
0
41
WHYYYYYYYYYYYYY? WHY!? Why do you think Mass Effect 3 needs multiplayer, what purpose could multiplayer possibly serve in an RPG?

It doesn't need multiplayer, not every game needs multiplayer, some games actually can stand on their own as single player!
 

hexshadowman

New member
Sep 18, 2008
14
0
0
Co-op sounds intriguing for Mass Effect, but only in the action sequences. Otherwise, the other two (AND ONLY TWO) people you're playing with just sit there twiddling their thumbs. A Mass Effect MMO could work, but not a multiplayer Mass Effect 3.

/twocopperpieces
 

Dr Snakeman

New member
Apr 2, 2010
1,611
0
0
Why the hell can't EA get this through their stupid, stupid skulls? Multiplayer does not belong in Mass Effect! Ever!

And what is up with their obsession with making it "accessible" to people who never played the other games? If they do that, it just means less depth for the people who did!

By making it so that you can just jump in, the choices you made in the previous games are going to matter about as much as they did from ME1 to ME2. That is, we'll meet a few characters from the previous game, and get 500 emails from characters we don't run into, and none of it will make any goddamn difference.

I hate you, EA. I hate you so, so much. First the Kinect, now this...

I still have hope that the third game will be good, but I'm losing faith.

Edit:
Android2137 said:
A Mass Effect multiplayer isn't a bad idea.

A Mass Effect multiplayer in the last game of a trilogy is.

Come on, Bioware. Surely, you should know better. Save it for after we've defeated the Reapers. Or make it a prequel if you don't want to establish your own canon ending.
Now, that actually sounds interesting. Make a First Contact War multiplayer game? That would be lots of fun.

But nothing good will come of multiplayer in Mass Effect 3.
 

CaptainLoserPants

New member
Nov 6, 2010
65
0
0
I'll be brave and say it could be fun, and I like the idea of it. And if it isn't...play the single-player. Problem solved.
 

inFAMOUSCowZ

New member
Jul 12, 2010
1,586
0
0
Why not let them try it? They promised that they will make the best single player possible, so why not try an online. What if its great, and a lot of fun. Then thats a plus for us, and if it sucks well don't play it. The price of the game will be the same, and the single player content won't be affected, so add it Bioware. Try something new.
 

yndsu

New member
Apr 1, 2011
141
0
0
Yeah, i love ME universe. But i am NOT going to pay for an MMO.
It is jsut not going to happen.
If they were to make some other SP games then they can have my money.

Or if they make a decent movie (not about Shepard, more like about
the First Contact War or something else), then they could have my
cash as well. But only then.
 

similar.squirrel

New member
Mar 28, 2009
6,021
0
0
I've always liked the idea of a Halo: Reach/Gears of War 2 kind of Firefight/Horde mode in Mass Effect. The online thing doesn't really concern me as I don't play anything online, but I always thought it was a shame that you couldn't mess around and cause genral mayhem and havoc with your leveled-up powers once all the missions had been done.
 

Seives-Sliver

New member
Jun 25, 2008
206
0
0
That would cheapen the value of ME if it does multiplayer, and it would really be meaningless if it did, I mean...Why should it have multiplayer? What would it do?
 

Traun

New member
Jan 31, 2009
659
0
0
CaptainLoserPants said:
I'll be brave and say it could be fun, and I like the idea of it. And if it isn't...play the single-player. Problem solved.
inFAMOUSCowZ said:
Why not let them try it? They promised that they will make the best single player possible, so why not try an online.
Because that means that they will devote a portion of their budget to multiplayer, instead of single player.

Don't delude yourself, when a company gives you 40 million $ to make a game and then tells you to put in a multiplayer, they won't give you additional 10 millions to do that, you'll have to take it from those 40 mil.
 

CaptainLoserPants

New member
Nov 6, 2010
65
0
0
Traun said:
CaptainLoserPants said:
I'll be brave and say it could be fun, and I like the idea of it. And if it isn't...play the single-player. Problem solved.
inFAMOUSCowZ said:
Why not let them try it? They promised that they will make the best single player possible, so why not try an online.
Because that means that they will devote a portion of their budget to multiplayer, instead of single player.

Don't delude yourself, when a company gives you 40 million $ to make a game and then tells you to put in a multiplayer, they won't give you additional 10 millions to do that, you'll have to take it from those 40 mil.
*hides under a rock*
Okay, then can I have a game AFTER ME3 where I can run around online with my friends in a Mass Effect universe? I know one thing from this, don't hand a video game team to me to lead. I guess I'd make stupid decisions.
 

Traun

New member
Jan 31, 2009
659
0
0
CaptainLoserPants said:
Traun said:
CaptainLoserPants said:
I'll be brave and say it could be fun, and I like the idea of it. And if it isn't...play the single-player. Problem solved.
inFAMOUSCowZ said:
Why not let them try it? They promised that they will make the best single player possible, so why not try an online.
Because that means that they will devote a portion of their budget to multiplayer, instead of single player.

Don't delude yourself, when a company gives you 40 million $ to make a game and then tells you to put in a multiplayer, they won't give you additional 10 millions to do that, you'll have to take it from those 40 mil.
I guess I'd make stupid decisions.
Might as well take the piss on it all.

As long as you are the one making the decisions you'll be fine. Notice how often we have game publishers or developers come several months before the game is release to announce a new feature? Yeah, most of the time the developers are forced to cram these features in mid development or near the end and let me tell you, going through all the code and editing it and modifying the 3D models and textures (in some cases) is a *****. Which is made worst because this is usually (always) the moment where the developers are working as slaves in order to be able to ship the product in time.

And speaking of time. Have you noticed that games today have between 9 and 24 months of development? Yeah, it used to be three to four years, but somehow now the time period for making something is redicilously low. How long do you expect the campaign to be if you give developers less than 16 months? Let me tell you, 4 hours is a god send, I'm surprised they are able to create every asset for that game in this timeframe.

And then we get to the point where publishers go over the content to see exactly what can be sold as a DLC and what couldn't, which is once again outside the developers jurisdiction. Yeah, congratulations - reprogram that.

No, if you are the one making the decision, or if there is any one person doing so, the product will be at least decent.

Felt better.
 

CaptainLoserPants

New member
Nov 6, 2010
65
0
0
And speaking of time. Have you noticed that games today have between 9 and 24 months of development? Yeah, it used to be three to four years, but somehow now the time period for making something is redicilously low.
It's all because of...


But yeah, maybe I just am trying to be optimistic...which is strange 'cause usually when it comes to things like this, I'm in a shroud of doom and gloom. Maybe I'm just too dazzled by the idea of ME3 coming out, nothing phases me now. XD
 

Alucard788

New member
May 1, 2011
307
0
0
Not even the sweet prospect of male Shep man love can make up for this... >_<

Mass Effect 3 just keeps sounding worse, and worse by the minute.

Just turn it into COD in space and be done with it EA!
 

]DustArma[

New member
Mar 11, 2011
128
0
0
So...

1) I think Casey already said that ME3 would have no multiplayer a few months ago.

2) Even if the game had multiplayer, it's being developed by a different studio, it's standalone and most likely using its own budget, there's simply no way this will affect the SP component.

3) The coop for the looks of it has nothing to do with the SP in terms of missions, so none of that "jump in and out of story missions and ruin inmersion" thing.

4) It looks to be completely optional to play.

So... Why is this a problem?
 

Laser Priest

A Magpie Among Crows
Mar 24, 2011
2,013
0
0
FOR FUCK"S SAKE PEOPLE, IT'S A STANDALONE COMPONENT.

If you don't like the idea of a Mass Effect multiplayer mode, then don't bloody play the Mass Effect multiplayer mode!