First Mass Effect 3 multiplayer details

By Wesley Yin-Poole Published 11 October, 2011

BioWare moves to calm concerned fans.

BioWare has revealed the first details on Mass Effect 3 multiplayer, and moved to calm concerned fans worried by its inclusion.

As revealed by Eurogamer in June, Mass Effect 3's multiplayer is a standalone, four-player co-op experience that is separate from single-player.

Today, following confirmation of the mode's existence by an Australian magazine, BioWare went into further detail.

Success in multiplayer will have a "direct impact on the outcome of the single-player campaign", BioWare said on its forum, and teaming up with friends provides "an alternative method of achieving ultimate victory against the greatest threat mankind - and the entire galaxy - has ever faced".

A choice of classes and races, including the Turians, Krogans and Asari, all lifted from an "elite Special Forces squad", is available, sans Commander Shepard and his crew. The missions centre around liberating key territories from enemy control.

Character progression, weapon upgrading and levelling up are all featured in co-op. "We'll release more information on this topic in the months leading up to launch," BioWare said.

Tied into how the multiplayer will impact the single-player is the Galaxy at War mode, a sort of overarching mode that determines your game's "Galactic Readiness". Several different aspects affect your Galactic Readiness, including people, weapons, resources, armies and fleets.

"It is important to note that the system is entirely optional and just another way players can have control over your game experience - it is still possible to achieve the optimal, complete ending of the game in Mass Effect 3 through single-player alone," BioWare noted.

But why do multiplayer in the first place?

"Being able to explore and fight alongside your friends in the Mass Effect universe has always been something we thought would be fun and compelling, and many players have asked for it for a long time as well," BioWare explained.

"Mass Effect 3 is the best place for us to introduce multiplayer through co-op because of the premise of the game - all out galactic war."

Then: "Our priority and focus with Mass Effect 3 has and always will be to deliver a complete and satisfying single player experience."

BioWare also confirmed that BioWare Montreal, a studio set up only a year ago, played a central role in the creation of the Mass Effect 3 multiplayer experience - again, first revealed by Eurogamer in June. "Rest assured that no compromises were made to either of these modes in the development of Mass Effect 3," BioWare insisted.

BioWare's overriding message is that Mass Effect 3's multiplayer is optional.

"Mass Effect 3 is a complete, standalone game that will deliver a satisfying story experience, even if you choose not to try multiplayer," it said. "The Mass Effect 3: Galaxy at War system and all of the individual components are meant to complement that amazing game and can be enjoyed on their own or as part of the Galaxy at War experience."

Meanwhile, Mass Effect main man Casey Hudson took to Twitter to offer one final reassurance: "Yes, co-op MP missions for Mass Effect. They're real and they're spectacular. Rest assured they're nothing of what you've feared."

Picture of Wesley.

About Wesley Yin-Poole

Wesley is Eurogamer's news editor. He likes news, interviews, and more news. He also likes Street Fighter more than anyone can get him to shut up about it.

Read more articles from Wesley by visiting the Wesley Yin-Poole archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (63) Latest comment 8 months ago

Comments for this article are now closed, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • bobfish09 #1 8 months ago

    Sounds reasonable.

  • Ceelion #2 8 months ago

    "Ummm, it's good to be readiness?"

  • Graveland #3 8 months ago

    Ah well, looks like my Mass Effect story ended with Suicide Mission :)

  • HurbleBurble #4 8 months ago

    I'm still trying to think of another medium where the crowbarring in of co-operative enjoyment is considered a norm.

    As much as I'd like to think of it in horrible business speak as 'adding value' to a product, all it makes me really want to do is punch somebody from marketing in the face until they realise that the more you dilute your product away from a core experience, the more likely it is to be unsatisfying in the end.

  • Master09 #5 8 months ago

    As revealed by Eurogamer in June......

    lol sounds like thesun or dailymail when giving themselves props.

  • Whitster #6 8 months ago

    What's with the fan outrage, it clearly says if you don't like it you don't have to play it and you can still get everything you normally would in single player, as long as they don't attach any achivements to it we'll be fine.

  • Nevflinn #7 8 months ago

    Well that seems like it's a little more thought out. I was afraid they'd have a deathmatch option or let someone play as one of the party members in the main game.

  • Xboxfanuk #8 8 months ago

    hard for EA to sell online pass without the online bit. J. Ricky said this was going to happen for all their games, Dragon Age 3 will have multiplayer of some sort as well I suspect.

  • rob_of_the_robots #9 8 months ago

    "Success in multiplayer will have a "direct impact on the outcome of the single-player campaign"

    "it is still possible to achieve the optimal, complete ending of the game in Mass Effect 3 through single-player alone"

    Slightly conflicting.

  • linksdad #10 8 months ago

    We had to shoehorn something in (at the cost of additional single player content) so we could collect our project 10 dollars.

  • Old_Books #11 8 months ago

    I posted an overly bitchy comment yesterday in the ME3 multiplayer article and everything he says sounds perfectly reasonable. I'm still concerned, though, because I have yet to come across a game where the addition of multiplayer mid-series has had anything but a negative effect. And at the moment, ME and ME3 sound like they are two games from two completely different worlds rather than part of pre-planned, story driven trilogy. Or was that all just bullshit...

  • geeza2020 #12 8 months ago

    "... and many players have asked for it for a long time as well," BioWare explained."

    Who the hell are these retards?

  • munki83 #13 8 months ago

    Its optional so I will continue to ignore it

  • arcam #14 8 months ago

    They're real, and they're spectacular.

    I can never be angry with a man who uses Seinfeld references :)

  • consoledelight #15 8 months ago

    I don't mind that they put multi in this game, however im only interested in the single player campaign and will now not be able to fully complete trophies as some will be for multi.

    They really should start giving us an option with trophies as to wether we want multi included.

  • jonbwfc #16 8 months ago

    Success in multiplayer will have a "direct impact on the outcome of the single-player campaign", Bioware said on it's forum

    BioWare's overriding message is that Mass Effect 3's multiplayer does not impact on the single-player game.

    Um.... OK.....

  • HL706 #17 8 months ago

    "it is still possible to achieve the optimal, complete ending of the game in Mass Effect 3 through single-player alone," BioWare noted. "

    I was in 'no sale' territory until that comment!

  • Liquidoodle #18 8 months ago

    "an alternate method of achieving ultimate victory against the greatest threat mankind - and the entire - has ever faced"

    Ooooooh "the entire" sounds like a new race we haven't come up against yet ;)

    Good press work as usual EG ;)

  • StooMonster #19 8 months ago

    @jonbwfc, I was going to point out that particular piece of newspeak too.

  • ZizouFC #20 8 months ago

    "Success in multiplayer will have a "direct impact on the outcome of the single-player campaign"

    "it is still possible to achieve the optimal, complete ending of the game in Mass Effect 3 through single-player alone"

    So if I... don't have friends to play this with - I can't finish the game "properly"?

    ...

    ...

    :(

  • Syrette #21 8 months ago

    @ZizouFC

    Where does it say that it's friends-only?

    Also, I think he means you can affect the outcome of the campaign through either SP or MP. Or more likely, the MP is a minimal thing that doesn't have huge significance on the ending - maybe it's just a way of deciding where you go for the final battles or something.

  • ZizouFC #22 8 months ago

    Sure, I could play with randoms on XBL, but Gears has shown me it isn't easy getting a group of people (even RL friends) together willing to stick it out to the end. Even for 50 waves of Horde.

  • Moribundman #23 8 months ago

    It would work if akin to Red Dead's MP and to a certain extent Assassins Creed's. Both games had a huge, very very robust SP game with oodles of depth and you barely needed to know the MP even existed if you didn't want to, but it was very easy to drop in and out of without people popping out of extra-narrative thin-air Saints Row/Fable style.

    Still can't take the taint away from the way its been applied to ME3 though. It *is* the reason the game has been delayed. Some dickhead at EA wants to compete with games that ME's audience has little or no interest in, based purely on sales stats rather than an actual knowledge of gamers and gaming. I'm surprised they haven't crowbarred a contrived fantasy football league into ME because its looking like a revenue booster for FIFA and NBA...

  • TheDarkFurie #24 8 months ago

    Just read the whole explanation of Galactic Readiness, and it seems that you'll be at a major advantage throughout the game if you play the multiplayer mode as it'll build up the stat and make your galaxy much more ready to face the Reapers. Is there anything similar for single player? A group of missions that can be played and replayed ad infinitum to build up the galactic readiness? Or will the single player experience only reach that level when we've bought all of the DLC for it?

  • neems #25 8 months ago

    There would be less hysteria about this if they didn't refer to it as 'multiplayer'. Yes there are techinally multiple players, but traditionally multiplayer refers to online competitive games. I would use some sort of new term for this, one that conjures up the type of gameplay they're going for... oh I don't know, perhaps they could call it 'Co-op'.

    It actually makes sense in a way. If you include competitive multiplayer - like Dead Space 2 - then half your player base probably won't even try it, and the other half will play it for half an hour or so before turning it off in favour of a decent multiplayer experience. A decent co-op campaign might just give you something a little different, even if just for a few hours.

    Regardless, I doubt it will affect the quality of the single player experience. I would imagine Bioware's occasionally dubious design choices and shonky story lines are more of a worry.

  • Razorus #26 8 months ago

    I hope it's as great as it sounds and all you whiners can eat your hats.
    Edited by Razorus at 21/10/11 @ 01:07

  • ectotropic #27 8 months ago

    As a few others have pointed out the statements seem somewhat contradictory - though I suspect that the truth is that playing SP "perfectly" will give the same result as (or at least close to) playing SP "imperfectly" + playing co-op. Not ideal, but better than it could have been.

    Ok, so it's optional and was done by a different team so prob doesn't impact the SP much, but I still don't like it. Personally, I'm going to feel I'm missing out if I don't play the co-op yet I really don't want to play it. (Just like Portal 2) :o(

    Really wish there was less of a MP push these days - don't get me wrong I love MP games (UT, CoD, TF2...) - but SP is what I play 90% of the time (and what I want to play mostly). I guess I might be in the minority with this though.

  • panathatube #28 8 months ago

    I would certainly have prefered if they had spent their time and money for a richer single player experience. Deadspace 2 offered a mediocre multiplayer and the single player campaign was really shorter.

  • anomagnus #29 8 months ago

    @rob_of_the_robots

    only if you choose to ignore the word key word 'alternative'. Its in the fourth paragraph, second line.

    Its funny how many people have chosen to ignore this word.

    Honestly, for people that are chosing to ignore the word alternative, please go to the FAQ on biowares forum. From what i gather, you have to have a certain level of readiness, which can come from:-

    Allied races
    ships
    people
    resources

    AND

    Multiplayer.

    You don't need to have them all. I don't use MP in games at all. I;m one of those people that bought gears because i liked the characters and the story, light as it was. But some people love multi player, and some of them actually like ME as well. All this OPTIONAL bolt on does, is cater to them.

    If you only play the multiplyer bit, i doubt you're going to have the rediness level required to launch the final mission.

    Again, i don't understand why people can't do some basic research. Why the need to get on here and post, and be negative? As much as some of you get pissed of by markerters, and not understanding why they put MP (regardless of the fact that marketing has nothing to do with it), i also don't understand how people can get pissed off with something optional. Do you walk into a restaurant, and complain when veg comes with your steak?
    Edited by anomagnus at 11/10/11 @ 11:21

  • Ellusion #30 8 months ago

    Please Bioware, do the right thing and release the names of the "many players have asked for it for a long time" for public ridicule. I guess only selective hearing can mute the screams of thousands of fans asking you to not ruin this with multiplayer huh?

  • Arsecake_Baker #31 8 months ago

    I'm playing Dark Souls!

  • Slipstream #32 8 months ago

    Some of you need to comprehend properly what is being said here. Let me break it down for you.

    "Success in multiplayer will have a "direct impact on the outcome of the single-player campaign"

    It will have direct effect, nothing here saying it is mandatory, in fact, quite the opposite...

    "it is still possible to achieve the optimal, complete ending of the game in Mass Effect 3 through single-player alone"

    and there you have it, the former quote will have a direct impact in the sense that it's an alternative method needed to achieve 'Galactic Readiness' and it's stated clearly that multiplayer is optional and that you can achieve the required amount of readiness to have a fufilling Single Player experience.

    I'd understand if some of you failed to pick up on that as you probably skimmed through the article, but then I'm also aware that some of you love a good whinge too and simply ignored the fact.




  • intpleeus #33 8 months ago

    It's not that I don't like multiplayer occassionally;my problem is that I cannot play online from home due to my only choice of internet connection: satellite with strict download/upload limits. Multiplayer is just wasted disc space as far as I am concerned, especially for a game that really doesn't want mutiplayer to begin with. Even worse, it sounds like you cannot get the whole single-player experience without finishing the multiplayer first. Sometimes I think Bioware is trying to convince me that Mass Effect 3 is not worth my time and money and I love Mass Effect.

  • anomagnus #34 8 months ago

    @intpleeus

    I'm not sure where you read that at. Both the bioware site, and this news article explictly state the opposite.

    Here:-

    "It is important to note that the system is entirely optional and just another way players can have control over your game experience - it is still possible to achieve the optimal, complete ending of the game in Mass Effect 3 through single-player alone," BioWare noted.

    or

    "The Mass Effect 3: Galaxy at War system and all of the individual components are meant to complement that amazing game and can be enjoyed on their own or as part of the Galaxy at War experience."

    I've lifted both these paragraphs from this short news article alone. Tell me how they lead you to beleive that you have to complete the multip player section?

    I really don't know how they could make it any clearer

  • uzivatel #35 8 months ago

    Can we play the coop missions solo?

  • intpleeus #36 8 months ago

    @anomagnus,

    I can read, and I chose my words carefully. Bioware have made it clear that something will be different about the singleplayer experience for those who have completed multiplayer first. Perhaps there will be additional scenes or multiplayer characters will make cameo appearances -- I don't know. While completing multiplayer is apparently not necessary to get the best ending, it is necessary to get the whole experience, since something will happen in singleplayer, that otherwise would not happen, for those who have completed multiplayer.
    Edited by intpleeus at 11/10/11 @ 12:08

  • Blazewamp #37 8 months ago

    sounds good but also sounds like testing for future Mass effect universe games

  • Phoenisis #38 8 months ago

    I'm trying to come up with a reason for ME multiplayer to exist other than Bioware or EA wanting to tick that box, presumably because they still think multiplayer is the only way to get the big bucks, but I'm coming up short. Someone tell me please, WHO was asking for Mass Effect to include this? I've never heard anyone say that what they really wanted from that franchise is multiplayer.

    It's the 3rd and final installment of an already extremely popular and successful series, do they think that by shoehorning in a multiplayer feature they will suddenly capture a new demographic who never cared about ME before? They won't, those people will continue playing CoD or whatever, they're not going to buy a Sci-Fi game where you run around fucking aliens. Or do they think that people who played the first 2 games will stop playing? Hardly.

    There's this perception that every game of a certain genre must have certain features; that they must conform to a rigid set of standards in order to be truly successful. It's bullshit. Dragging Mass Effect (or any game, really) away from what made it popular and turning it into some kind of Frankenstein's monster of a game, pieced together from whatever is deemed to be "in" at the time will only result in a deluded, generic shell of a game.

    I'm desperate for this game to be good, ME is one of the best series out there as it is, but nothing I've seen from Bioware in the last couple years gives me confidence. It's not just the multiplayer (though it is the most obvious sign so far), everything I've seen from ME3 makes it look like more of a Generic Bald Space Marine Shooter. And then there's DAII, which was a mess of a game, and Bioware specifically mentioned the success of CoD as the inspiration for the direction of that one.

    They're trying to reach a demographic that will never give a shit about their games regardless. Best case is, it will lead to a slightly less interesting game for those people who actually do want to buy their games. Worst case is that they "succeed", give up on anything remotely RPG related, and start making those "gritty" console shooters that every corporate moron thinks is what video games are all about, at which point they'll have nothing left.

  • geeza2020 #39 8 months ago

    I wanted to be able to play the whole game by myself though, which obviously is no longer possible. This co-op mode interests me about as much as a dog turd at the side of the road, yet in order to experience all that ME3 has to offer, I have to complete it? What a load of BS Bioware, Mass Effect was my experience, my story, and it seems you have deemed fit to rob me of that just to tick some box on an executives list of features. Bioware just keep getting shitter and shitter.

  • Old_Books #40 8 months ago

    @Phoenisis

    Agree with your post and I think the answer is in Blazewamp's post above yours...

  • Phoenisis #41 8 months ago

    @Old_Books

    Possibly. I'd be fine with such a game really, at least then it'd be its own thing, and could be designed from the ground up to a multiplayer game or MMO or whatever.

  • intpleeus #42 8 months ago

    @Phoenisis

    In my opinion, Bioware has bought into the fallacy that videogames are all about having fun. They're not. The best stories aren't good because they always make you feel happy, and the best videogames aren't good because they're always fun. For example, inventory management is not usually fun, and people who just want to shoot monsters in the face might stop playing a game because of it. But for those seeking immersion rather than adrenaline, inventory management can be very important in selling the fictional world. If you think the way to improve inventory management is to make it fun, then you totally don't understand the reasons people play games like Mass Effect.

    It's really hard to know when something is the good or bad kind of frustration or annoyance, what is immersive vs. what is disruptive. But Bioware don't even seem to be trying to tackle that interesting problem recently, and they instead seem to be intent on making games "fun." More and more, it seems like Bioware never actually understood why games like Knights of the Old Republic were so good in the first place.

    That said, I still really like Bioware. I even enjoyed Dragon Age II. I will buy Mass Effect 3 and probably anything else they release, but they do seem to be foundering recently in some respects (even while improving in others).
    Edited by intpleeus at 11/10/11 @ 12:56

  • Old_Books #43 8 months ago

    @intpleeus

    I totally agree with you about inventory management being a good example. If you look at the soaring popularity of Demon and Dark Souls, everyone talks about the difficulty as the reason for its success but I also think it has a lot to do with the fact that it is a stat/inventory heavy game which requires serious thought into how you develop your character. Bioware used to be good at this, the Bioware of today would probably consider it one of the first things that needed 'streamlining' in order to be 'fun.'

    (Edited for spelling)
    Edited by Old_Books at 11/10/11 @ 13:11

  • intpleeus #44 8 months ago

    For some reason, Bioware really wants their games to be slick. They might prefer the word "streamlined," but I think "slick" is more appropriate, because it reminds me of the used-car salesman that Bioware have started to sound like recently. The problem is that RPGs aren't slick and don't benefit from being slick; leave that to the Forza Motorsport's and Battlefield's of the world. Part of the satisfaction that comes from RPGs requires an investment in the fiction by the player -- its world is not made just for you to have fun in it, but to have a kind of autonomy and existence of its own. A willingness to submit to sometimes annoying or frustrating constraints of the fictional world is part of what can make participation in that world so meaningful. Some people don't want this kind of experience, or prefer to get it through other media, and, for Bioware, it's just impossible to appeal to those people without alienating their core fanbase.

  • Phoenisis #45 8 months ago

    I see what you're saying, though personally I do consider inventory and loot to be fun. Getting a new piece of gear can be just as satisfying as shooting an enemy, and outfitting and upgrading your character is fun to me, at least when the inventory and loot it done well.
    Of course it was done terribly in ME1, but I think it speaks to Bioware's current mindset that their solution to his wasn't to make it NOT terrible for ME2, but to decide that a shooter shouldn't have that stuff at all and just remove it outright.

  • intpleeus #46 8 months ago

    Gamers are too loose with their words. I recently finished Metro 2033. While it was rarely fun, I often found it very satisfying. Its ending was not satisfying, but I did find it very meaningful. The word "fun" seems entirely inappropriate for describing the experience of "playing" Metro 2033, but I am sure many gamers would use it without a second thought.

    Inventory management has moments of fun, especially for particular kinds of people, but more often it is just satisfying to get right. Importantly, if it wasn't frustrating to get wrong, then it wouldn't be satisfying to get right. Trying to get rid of the possibility for frustration inevitably gets rid of potential for satisfaction, reducing the experience to something more superficial and shallow.
    Edited by intpleeus at 11/10/11 @ 13:33

  • arcam #47 8 months ago

    I see what you're saying, though personally I do consider inventory and loot to be fun. Getting a new piece of gear can be just as satisfying as shooting an enemy, and outfitting and upgrading your character is fun to me, at least when the inventory and loot it done well.

    I feel the same, and so do most RPG fans - it's why we're drawn to RPGs over other genres in the first place. The trouble is, there's not enough if us to get the kind of sales that Bioware are after, no matter how good the game is. The things we enjoy are the very things that put off large number of people, so Bioware basically have no choice, and the transition away from RPG staples and towards more action-driven features is absolutely, unquestioningly inevitable.

  • anomagnus #48 8 months ago

    intpleeus

    I'm not sure where you saw that, i havent seen that anywhere, even on their offical QA. I think the extra component they're referring to are the co-op scenarios themselves, and the very act of playing with other players.

    They've stated multiple times it wont impact the single player process

  • kassmageant #49 8 months ago

    so it seems that it will be a little like Dragon Age 1 - assembling all possible races of the world to confront common enemy in the end - except here we will have direct control over them, when they fight in the background of Shepard's action... that galaxy-preparation gauge, for me, seems like a pretty neat idea... well, definetely better that probing goddamned planets to upgrade Normandy and get the best ending : p

  • intpleeus #50 8 months ago

    @anomagnus

    From the article: "Success in multiplayer will have a 'direct impact on the outcome of the single-player campaign,' BioWare said on its forum" (my italics).

    To me, the words "direct impact on the outcome" imply something more than just playing with friends. Moreover, all they have stated is that failure to complete multiplayer will not prevent anyone from getting the "optimal, complete ending." They could have said the same thing about any of the DLC for Mass Effect 2, e.g. "not downloading the 'Overlord' DLC will not prevent anyone from getting the optimal, complete ending." But that doesn't mean people without the "Overlord" DLC aren't missing out on something. If multiplayer has no "direct impact on the outcome" of the singleplayer story, even if its absence does not prevent the "optimal, complete ending," then why claim that it does.

    EDIT: Don't get me wrong. None of this is a huge deal. I would just prefer it to be otherwise.
    Edited by intpleeus at 11/10/11 @ 14:00

  • arcam #51 8 months ago

    If multiplayer has no "direct impact on the outcome" of the singleplayer story, even if its absence does not prevent the "optimal, complete ending," then why claim that it does.

    This way people who want it to be an integral part of the game are satisfied, and people who don't want it to be an integral part of the game are equally satisfied. A true politician's statement.

  • intpleeus #52 8 months ago

    @arcam

    Slick.

  • romelpotter #53 8 months ago

    Sucsess in the Multiplayer game will have a direct impact on the outcome of the single player campaign:

    For me, it really doesn't matter that you don't have to do it, the mear fact that MP is so intergrated into the solo campaign means that its a no sale. I am gutted.

  • Ror1984 #54 8 months ago

    As a HUGE Mass Effect fan...

    ...this sounds pretty good.

  • stryker1121 #55 8 months ago

    The inclusion of multiplay features shows a lack of focus on the part of BioWare/EA. Here we are at the end of a trilogy of games and now we're getting an MP feature that impacts the SP experience? Optional or not, separate studio or not, to me the series is slipping further down the slope toward becoming another middling TPS w/ this announcement.
    Edited by stryker1121 at 11/10/11 @ 18:07

  • intpleeus #56 8 months ago

    @rommelpotter

    That's so weird. Mass Effect 3 is going to be good on so many levels, but no sale because of a minor annoyance? Do you also stop eating at restaurants when the food does not look exactly like it does in the pictures on the menu? I'm all for criticising Bioware when they make mistakes, but, despite its problems, Mass Effect 3 will probably still be one of the best games of 2012.

  • anomagnus #57 8 months ago

    @intpleeus

    Yes, it will have a direct impact on the game. On the readiness level in order to finish the game.

    I really think you're reading too much into it. Especially in light of the fact they've made such a big deal about how multi player wont affect the single player game. They have to state that it won't impact the end game, because so many people are hysterical over this.

    The only thing you're going to miss by not multi playing, seems to be the fact that won't be multiplaying. I guess we'll see in March.

    I also dont care multiplayer. Anyone can click my name, see my xbox tag and see i don't multiplay.

    I also think that a lot of people are going to have to accept the fact that more and more games are going to ship with multiplayer.

    I see people mention dark souls a lot. I dont see that game suffering because of multiplayer.

  • Lateralus2001 #58 8 months ago

    At the end of the day Mass Effect 2 could turn out to be absolute shite Dragon Age 2 style, absolutely fantastic or something in between. The Mass Effect team has always been seperate to the DA:o team so hopefully if they were planning to dumb down ME3, DA2's commercial failure compared to Origins has made them rethink. Whey waste energy worrying over what the finshed game will be like and wait and see?

    Just because the game has multiplayer dosn't mean neccesarily mean they are planning to appeal to the Call of Duty crowd, or something.

    And from reading what this article says the multiplayer will consist of it sounds very promising, IMO.

    After all one of Bioware's best ever games had multiplayer did it not? (Baldur's Gate 1 +2)

    All the constant whinning on the official Bioware boards makes me sick. Why don't the small minority who seem to get so wound up about this sort of stuff just chill. It's just a game, FFS. They must have more important things to worry about, surely?
    Edited by Lateralus2001 at 11/10/11 @ 17:46

  • Slipstream #59 8 months ago

    Bioware are fully aware of the implications and critisicms that are coming with this multiplayer addition, I honestly believe that they will not let multiplayer detract from the experience.

    Besides, this multiplayer might just be the best god damn co-op experience you've ever had. Can't knock it until you've tried it. Of course, if the simple, optional addition is a 'no sale' for you then it's probably for the best.

  • romelpotter #60 8 months ago

    @intpleeus: Have you never eaten at McDonalds?

    In my opinion, Mass Effect is a single player game. To add in a Multiplayer element into the third game changes the whole ethos and playstyle of the gaming experience. Its a hugely contensious design desicion on the part of Bioware, begs the question..Why? Why take the risk of alienaiting your customer base? Why intergrate it into the single player game and not simply tack it on as an additional option? And what benifit does it add to the game if you can conplete the solo campaign anyway? Where is the value for Bioware and their Customers?

    Is the single player campaign that shit, that they have had to cover it up with this Multiplayer Bullshit? Or are Bioware looking for new ways of making money becuase their over budget on their priorty release SWTOR?

    In a recent E.A. Fiscal Update Conforance Call, I have found the following paragraphs in the transcript: Comments made by John Riccitiello - E.A. CEO. (I have pasted comments in full (that are relavent) to be able to provide context).

    "Gone forever is the 4-to-5 year console cadence that gave developers ample time to invest and retool for the next big wave. Consider that just 18 months ago there was no iPad, Google was experimenting with Android, and most big games were limited to a single revenue opportunity at launch. Consider that each of the major consoles now has a controller that encourages users to get off the couch and get into the action. On smartphones and tablets like iPhone and iPad, the top paid apps are all games. Recognize that the fastest growing revenue streams for console, PC, smart phones and tablets are all digital. And, that EA is partnering with its retail and platform partners to help jointly grow these digital revenue streams. While the game industry has fundamentally changed, games are reaching a far larger audience base than ever before.
    With this in mind, we are building our business around three key strategies.

    IP: First, we are building the strength of our most important IP. And for EA this means about a dozen very substantial IPs. Each of these will be transformed into year-round businesses with major packaged goods launches, social launches, mobile launches, downloadable content and micro-transactions. EA‟s FY12 multi-sku and title focus on Battlefield, Need For Speed, Madden, FIFA, The Sims and Mass Effect are great examples of this strategy."

    (Source: [link url=http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/ERTS/1437923800x0x485926/88d52df9-2b67-432a-9c92-a40980e1490b/Q1_FY12_Script.pdf)
    ]http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/E...[/link]

    My point is that I believe that Mass Effect could have been someting much better than what was delivered by ME 2 and potentially ME 3. Given the comments by E.A. CEO about the direction that their games are taking, it appears as though they have focused on renewable revenue by DLC and MT (amongst others). I believe that the desision to add in not only a multiplayer experience; but to have that experience intergrated into the single player experience, is fucking cheeky! Let us not forget that this is the climax of the ME Trilogy and people will WANT to do the whole Multiplayer thing in order to have the very optimal ME experience. That could well mean Micro Trancactions for Multiplayer Benifit with DLC packs for more MP options. ME 3 is more of a year round Revenue Stream for E.A.

    Before anyone says "E.A. in desire to make money shocker!!!" - It doesn't mean the game will be shit! But for me, having played ME 1 and 2 back to back, I had hoped that ME 3 would go back to its ME 1 routes. I hate COD style multiplayer games, (although I enjoy the increasingly short single player experience) and ME 3 will be targeted at the sort of player that enjoys that type of gaming.

    That is why I am gutted about the Multiplayer Experience in Mass Effect 3.




  • tyrant1 #61 8 months ago

    So its basically a word for word copy of exactly what I was bothered about?

    A cheapass, piece of shit attempt to wank off shooter fans by adding in a co-op mode that affects the main storyline, instead of concentrating on single player content that affects the storyline?

    I havent even played the game yet, nor am I certain to do so, but I can already mark the campaign down for such a dumbshit move. Still, at least all the cunt apologists who cant do the math that "time spent on multiplayer equals less time spent on what the trilogy was always supposed to be about" can enjoy such a shitty gimmick.

    Instead of saying "its not as bad as you think", would it be too much for Bioware to come out and say "weve made sure the campaign is longer and more in depth than the previous two, despite the multiplayer that is directly integrated into the single player".

    Or would that kind of talk intimidate Biowares new dumb target audience?

  • icematt12 #62 8 months ago

    If there was to be a MP mode, then this was the dream scenario for me. Not quite sold on the idea, some points I'm happy with some not so, but as I said in the article with the mag cover it's something I want to see for myself before making definitive opinions.

  • kingcam07 #63 8 months ago

    Some of these comments are utter bullshit. Games aren't supposed to be fun? Immersion is fine and all, but if the gameplay is terrible then there is nothing. The gaming industry was built on fun and challenge for a reason, and the farther away game get from it, the closer they'll come to being less than games.