Tell Us: Why are You Excited (or Disgusted) By Mass Effect 3's Multiplayer?

It'll be fun watching partners pause in place as they choose which power they're about to use.

Better memorize the stick layout. Hopefully it doesn't pause the game for everyone each time a user brings the list up.

Neither excited nor disgusting.
I just want people to stop whining. You aren't entitled to anything. Just because you want a single-player only game doesn't mean that's what you're gonna get. I honestly don't think any of the Mass Effect games were worth spending $60 on. I might actually get ME3 if the co-op mode is good. Not everyone gets boners over super long single player games with lame dialogue choices and pseudo sex which is thrown in for no good reason. Oh, and if you haven't realized it, this is why the game was delayed. You can cry "EA corrupted Bioware" all they want. A lot of people are probably ignoring the fact that Bioware isn't even developing this and that it WON'T have any negative effects on the SP. I honestly can't see why people complain about a mode they aren't forced to play, and that won't make them miss out on anything important. I could see if there were major plot points that were accessible only through the co-op mode, but to my knowledge, there isn't. FIN.

Oh, you must be confused, this is a reader involved discussion on why you are excited or disgusted by Mass Effect 3 inclusion of multiplayer, not why you are aggressively apathetic to the matter at hand.

Oh, you must be confused, this is a reader involved discussion on why you are excited or disgusted by Mass Effect 3's inclusion of multiplayer, not about replying to comments and being irrelevant.

Well since it is obvious that you did read my comment, let me point something out for you, "...reader involved discussion...", that implies that multiple parties will be involved in the exchanging of words and ideas and possibly come to some type of conclusion. Therefore, I believe that "replying" would be essential.

Well since it is obvious that you did read my comment, let me point something out for you, "...reader involved discussion...", that implies that multiple parties will be involved in the exchanging of words and ideas and possibly come to some type of conclusion. Therefore, I believe that "replying" would be essential.

Well since it is obvious that you did read my comment, let me point something out for you, "...reader involved discussion...", that implies that multiple parties will be involved in the exchanging of words and ideas and possibly come to some type of conclusion. Therefore, I believe that "replying" would be essential.

Hm, interesting?

I'm pretty sure that he stated his opinion and that was the point of this thread. Don't get all pissed off because you don't like what he said.

As for me, I agree with the Jx4. I couldn't care less about a multiplayer component, and I'll play it if it's worth it. Otherwise, I'll ignore it. I will be getting the game regardless.

Considering the multiplayer is being developed by an outside studio, something that most people seem to miss, means that the single player will be as good as it was ever going to be. It's not taking anything away from the single player.

I have a few question for you NickKmet and TheJx4: How much data can be stored on one DVD? How much room does it take to store the multiplayer mode on the DVD? What gets cut if the multiplayer mode is too big to fit on the DVD, but is no where big enough to justify the cost of a second DVD?

The first two question I have no idea what the answers are. However I am pretty sure the answer to the third question is the single player campaign. If a multiplayer mode is included in a game that really doesn’t need a multiplayer mode, it is taking up space on the DVD that could have gone to more single player content.

I've heard people complaining about and critiquing games for a decade because a game hasn't featured a multiplayer mode. In all that rabble rousing the single player experience is getting crushed. You may not enjoy them, but there is still many of us who do. These are resources that could be spent on perfecting the game, which is only fitting since it started as a singleplayer only campaign.

Nominated to The People Speak.

I want it to be like the picture in this manifesto.

I just think it is going to be a tacked on multiplayer for a game that doesn't require it. It's like Dead Space 2 having multiplayer. It's simply put in so the publisher can say, "Yes, the rumors are true ""said game"" will have a multiplayer component".

I don't know maybe it's my growing cynicism but I get my fill of "people" in my "real" life. So, I tend to leave them out of my gaming experiences.

I'll wait to see, but my first reaction is a negative one. Mass Effect has been a single-player experience since it began, I don't see where the sudden need to add multiplayer came from other than to sell a few extra copies. If it is the end of the trilogy, they should have focused all their resources on producing a stellar end to the campaign instead of working in a multiplayer system. Then again, if the single player is absolutely spotless, and the multiplayer is decent, this is all moot.

Why are you ignoring that fact that an outside studio is developing this? Therefore, all original resources are still going towards the campaign.

This is basically DLC, offered with the game. I don't see how anyone could see a problem with that.
I mean, so what if it has always been a single-player experience, but look at the game mechanics. Squad based gameplay, DING DING DING.

Games have something called a budget (Google it), even if there is another developer team making the multiplayer mode it all still has to be done under budget. EA isn’t going to throw money away. They have enough business savvy to “run the numbers” and “do the math,” and they know what the game will make with and without a multiplayer mode. My guess is the budget would be the same either way.

I don't particularly care about there being multiplayer in ME3. Honestly, I'm not even that excited about the game in general. I'll probably pick it up on sale or used at some point to finish off the story, but that's about as far as my enthusiasm for the game goes.

Do I really have to repeat myself like four times about this? Alright, fine.
Really the thing with this is that it doesn't matter. Even if it greatly effected the story, it wouldn't matter. Why? Because every step they make is simply regaining lost ground after Mass Effect 2, which did more to hurt the story of Mass Effect than a tacked on multiplayer could ever do. And since the game is little more than a shooter now anyway, it could work quite well.

You know what? Bring it on! Why not have multiplayer? Mass Effect is pretty much a more "nerdy" (and I use that word lightly) Gears of War, so why the hell not?

Oh, and for the record, I adored the first Mass Effect game, and I still do somewhat. Which is partly why I don't care anymore. I've long since realized it won't get the sequel it deserves, instead getting what Star Wars got with the prequels (and there is a reason why this comparison fits so well), so why not? It's too late to stop it now, so I don't care.

You know, I don't usually reply to these types of things because people get so wound up that I don't like getting into the middle of it. Maybe I'm not passionate enough about the games I enjoy. I honestly don't care if the sequel of a game doesn't follow a predeveloped 'lore' of a certain universe. I care if its fun. That goes for every game. Its like reading a really good book series, then watching the movies, and having a clear enough mind to enjoy both for what they are, independent of each other.

Now, with that in mind, I say I am not at all worried about the multiplayer. The first game was enjoyable, the second game was enjoyable. I thought the stories on both were good. I can't imagine the developers just dumping a big pile of poo on us, after delivering two games that have both won numerous awards for how good they were. I don't usually do much multiplayer anyway, but I will surely check it out. Just take the game as it is, and don't let preconceived notions ruin your fun.

Nominated for TPS!

I would agree with the part about the lore in most contexts. However, when you've got something that's planned from the beginning to be a three part story, it's best to stay in line with what each part sets up. Otherwise, you get a good deal of inconsistencies, plot holes, and what have yous that really mess things up.

If there are glaring inconsistencies, plot holes, and other problems that are so big that not only do they bother you, but impede any enjoyment you get out of the game, then I would say they aren't for you.

I am curious what was so bad to make you feel that way though. I mean, I'm probably not as big into it as you, but I did beat the first game twice, and the second game 7 times with various genders and classes of Shepard. Its been a few months since my last play-through, but I cannot at this moment tell you of one plot hole or inconsistency. Maybe immediately when something happened I thought "That's odd", but if I did, it wasn't big enough to make an impression, because I cannot remember it now.

One thing that helps me enjoy games and movies like I do is that when I am playing or watching, I am able to overlook little things completely, in the sake of enjoyment. Such as "There is no way that car accident would make all those cars flip over", in any action movie, ever.

Each to their own, obviously anybody has a right to hate any game they want. I personally go into a game wanting to enjoy it, and if that means overlooking a developers decision to do something differently than I think they should, I'm okay with that.

Just my 2(+) cents :P

I could probably write a book on the problems with Mass Effect 2, but I'll keep this simple. Most of the problems stem from being forced to work with Cerberus. Now keep in mind that in Mass Effect 1 Cerberus was established as doing the following: Setting up a distress beacon around a thresher maw to trick people into going there, murdering a military officer in cold blood for finding out about it, experimenting on live subjects with the Thorian and the Rachni on multiple occasions, and that's just the stuff you encounter first hand. And then suddenly they're turned into a group of nice guys that you have no choice but to join because, coincidentally, they're the only people who aren't holding the idiot ball (that's another story entirely).

That's probably the most glaring thing (there are many other problems) and I'm almost out of characters. So I think I'm going to write up a nice, long blog with all the other flaws and failings. Sound good?

I can see why some people would be bothered by that. I guess what I mentioned before about overlooking things might have come into play. See, I just took it this way:

The major threat to the universe isn't Cerberus. Sure, they've done bad things, I don't like them, but the threat are the Reapers. So when Shepard dies, and they put him/her back together for the purpose of saving the galaxy for the Reaper threat...I can understand how I would want to put aside my problems with them to deal with the real threat. And when its done...go back to hunting them all. Which is why I played the good side for my 1st and most important time through.

Shepard says countless times that he is not allied with Cerberus, but he knows he has to worry about the Reapers, and they have given him a chance to do that.

If you want to find problems, there will be many. If you want to take things how they come and just have a good time, you can. Its all how you look at it. On the Good play-through, every time Shepard talks about Cerberus, he says that he doesn't trust them, he's not allied with them. Good enough for me.

Worst case scenario here is that the single-player will be as great as the other games and the multiplayer just won't be very good. Don't see how that would ruin the game. Best case scenario is that the multiplayer is also great and the game's replay value jumps through the roof. There's a lot of games where only the singleplayer is worth playing, and a lot where only the multiplayer is worthwhile. If Mass Effect 3 can pull off both, it'll really be an awesome way to cap-off this great game trilogy. Sitting down to play a game and being torn between singleplayer & multiplayer is a problem I'd like to have.

I'm not concerned. I know they claim that multiplayer will affect the single player ending, but I doubt it will mean that any ending or effect in single player cannot be attained without multiplayer. I'm unconcerned.

The truth is, no one would be concerned about any of this were it not for Dragon Age II. Mass Effect 2 was great. Amazing, even. When it came out, everyone was raving about it. Did it have flaws? Of course. Any game of that scope will have some trouble spots, and ME2's came in the form of some of the new crew and the occasional hilarious facial expression. But ME2 improved on ME1 in almost every area by cutting the fat and honing the core elements of the game.

Then DAII came out and yes, it was pretty bad when compared to DA:O. Without a doubt, it was Bioware's worst game ever and seemed to go against principles the company had maintained for years. Their community management team didn't help with frequent forum bans and thread locks for criticisms of the game. So, as gamers love to view things in extremes, everyone decided that Bioware had sold their souls to EA and you could have a very popular /v/ thread by hating on Bioware and calling everyone who disagreed with you Biodrones.

But here's the bottom line: The the first two installments of Mass Effect were fantastic, and the team who made those is largely intact. Multiplayer is being handled largely by Bioware Montreal, so it's most likely not taking attention away from the single player experience. Mass Effect 3 has the odds heavily in favor of it being not just a good game, but a fantastic game. Maybe the multiplayer will be a lame add on, but we all know that's not why anyone's buying it. If the single player's good, I believe the proper acronym is IDGAF.

Playing Mass Effect for me is the same as watching a good (epic?) science fiction show, like Babylon 5, Star Trek, Battlestar Galactica or a myriad of other shows. The twist is, you are the main lead and you decide how the story goes.

In fact, my girl friend has always enjoyed watching me play Mass Effect, because she shares the same fondness for well thought out (science fiction) shows and she enjoys the story. Just once in a while I made a poor decision just to play up the drama, and the game ended up being more interesting because of it. Rather than being a pure hearted paragon of virtue or a bastard of a renegade I strife for my Shepard to be just a human being like the rest of us, flaws and all.

So I have to say that I really do not care for multiplayer. ME1 and 2 were self contained universes where I was calling the shots. I alone decided the fate of the universe through the decisions I made. It made me feel powerful, important and very, very satisfied. (Cont'd in part 2).

(Part 2)

Now call me an egomaniac, but I do not want to share this authority over my story with another player. I want the universe to be shaped by my choices, for better or worse.

Have the Rachni survived?
Is Wrex still there?
Which companion died in the assault on Saren's base?
Did everyone make it off the Reaper base?

Who died?

Who lived?

Who loved?

So what about Multiplayer? What shape will it take? Will it be somehow integral to the plot? Would I need to go through cooperative play just so that I can get all the items I need in the grand finale? What influence will the other player have over my game?

Or will the Mass Effect experience devolve into an online third person fragfest where you play hours on end just to get that one powerful macguffin that will make the singleplayer end struggle trivial, just like some of the DLC weapons did for the reaper fight in Mass Effect 2?

Yes, I will buy Mass Effect 3, I need closure!
Yes, I will eventually be dragged into the multiplayer component, I might actually enjoy it.
However, I do not want multiplayer to dillute or trivialize my singleplayer experience.

I fully condem this multiplayer component. Not because of anything you guys have stated, but it is a travesty that I cannot become a Reaper and wreak havoc all over the galaxy, rip Commander Shepherd in half, and wipe out all biological life. I like to think the reapers put this cycle in place solely to end people whining about multiplayer vs singleplayer in great franchises that we're all gonna buy, and most likely find something to complain about whether there is multiplayer or not. Guess that means I have to kill myself too? This is complicated.....

I trust Bioware to finish this story strong without needing multiplayer. I doubt they would agree to do anything that would tarnish their name.

I'll just wait for the reviews.

Honestly, I'm not sure why people get in such of a hissy fit about multiplayer. I feel why people are so apprehensive is that they think this multiplayer is just added to cover up flaws in the single player. This is Mass Effect we are talking about here. The last two Mass Effects have been great games (I know others disagree but generally the vote is in, and it's awesome). This is going to be the final Mass Effect that follows Shepard. This one ends the arc for him. The single player is going to be awesome. No matter what the multiplayer is, the game is going to be awesome. I think the addition of some co-op missions will just make the game a little more complete. Plus, like a few others said, it's probably just a DLC, an add-on, a little somethign extra that won't take away from the game. So I welcome the multiplayer because even if it sucks, even if it's broken, it's not going to affect the main single player experience.

I honestly don't have much of a problem with the addition of multiplayer -- it could be an interesting addition, but the fact that online passes were just announced for ME3 makes you wonder if that's why it was added.

but no one is forcing you to share your experience.

I honestly don't have much of a problem with the addition of multiplayer -- it could be an interesting addition, but the fact that online passes were just announced for ME3 makes you wonder if that's why it was added.

It may have been said already but the delay of this game to include multiplayer just caused me to cancel my pre-order. I will wait and see how it plays out and how the reviews are and wait for the price to drop next year before picking it up, if at all. The time that could have been spent of the campaign could probably have made this GOTY material, but we'll no doubt get a shortened version of what could have been.

Terrible logic is terrible.

The Campaign was most likely finished. Hell, you said it yourself: "the delay of this game to include multiplayer". The delay wasn't to finish the campaign. You're getting extra.