-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
ME3 multiplayer details leak [Update 4: Game Informer Can't Read]
- Thread starter subversus
- Start date
Maxrpg said:
That didn't seem to effect ME2's metascore.
hint: it's four giftbaskets away from the perfect score
Zombie James
Banned
Damn it, Bioware. I was hoping the finish the trilogy with my 360 save, adding online just temps me to get the PS3 version. I hope multiplayer sucks.
Snuggler said:That didn't seem to effect ME2's metascore.
5 points higher than ME1.
sixteen-bit
Member
I didn't realize the ME games had such high Metascore ratings. Well deserved.
jim-jam bongs
Member
After reading the quote in the OP I decided to try a little exercise in substituion. Here's what I got:
5 words changed, and it's now the multiplayer impressions for Modern Warfare 3!
5 words changed, and it's now the multiplayer impressions for Modern Warfare 3!
scar tissue
Banned
well i'll be fucked...damnjim-jam bongs said:
I like both games.scar tissue said:
There are a lot of people that like bashing the second. I enjoy bashing the first.
I want a Mass Effect game set in the Terminus based around mercenary groups. It would be an awesome Jagged Alliance/Dust 514 hybrid. Multiplayer would fit just fine in that game.
It's not even the idea of multiplayer I'm bummed about. And I loved ME2 more than the first, so I have a lot of trust in the team. It's just that all the prerelease hype and feature reveals seem to be centered around the idea that ME3 will be a great entry point for new players, which is bullshit. It's completely at odds with everything they've been building these past two games, and shits on the original ambition for the series. Why plan out a major, three game story arc with so much rich fiction behind it when it's fine to just jump in at the climax, no prob? And hey, you can level up COD style in multiplayer too! You like COD right? Don't mind that nerd who's invested 80+ hours into the series, this third game is for you, bro.
ChoklitReign
Member
I wish they show more of the single-player soon. I want to see the skill trees, exploration, larger environments, classes/powers, etc. I hope the E3 demo is a very bad representative of the rest of the game. I don't care if there's MP or not.
ChoklitReign said:
Yeah, that's the frustrating thing. They're so concerned with courting an audience that doesn't even care about the genre in the first place that they've hardly shown anything that the actual fans want to see. To be frank, I love both ME games to death and I'm sure I'll feel the same about ME3, but I need to see something other than combat.
bigdaddygamebot
Member
Mindlog said:
As long as Bioware doesn't make it.
Can't believe I just wrote that. Strange times...
Freshmaker
I am Korean.
Probably because every reviewer whines about the lack of online multiplayer in games regardless of whether or not it makes any damn sense.ColonialRaptor said:
At least Angry Joe will be happy.
Mr. B Natural
Member
Yes, it's the reviewers that caused this. I mean all those reviews of me2 and bioshock that just ream the hell out of...Ok, I gotta stop, my sarcasmometer just overheated.Freshmaker said:
Reviewers barely mention mp in games they review. It's usually a last paragraph thing that's just thrown in there...ironically (or maybe intentionally) fitting for MP in most games.
bigdaddygamebot
Member
chewydogg said:
Seriously.
What is Bioware on their very first attempt; going to bring to the table when it comes to multiplayer horde mode?
What are they going to have that you can't get from other games?
It's going to be stapled on and forgotten about, like Dead Space 2 (which I actually enjoyed) and was invariably a waste of resources that might have resulted in time better spent on the single player portion of the game.
...then there's Bioware's track record for the last eighteen months. It hasn't exactly been sterling.
ConradCervantes
Banned
Naughty Dog obliterated the U2 community with the 1.04 patch and unbalanced boosters, and from the looks of all the stupid kickbacks and boosters being implemented into U3, they chose not to take a fucking clue at all.DatBreh said:
Affeinvasion
Member
IoCaster said:
It depends on how much hype gaming enthusiasts can muster for a company that has demonstrated over the past few years that they are only interested in taking a "me too" approach to game design rather than enhancing the features that make them unique and in my opinion great.
Blue Ninja
Member
If BioWare decides to spend development resources on multiplayer, I'm done with them, and with EA. Can't fucking believe this shit anymore, it's getting ridiculous. They should be focusing every available resource on making this a great singleplayer experience, not on making a multiplayer nobody will ever play, because there's going to be a lot of better alternatives out there.
bigdaddygamebot
Member
Maffis said:
Yeah...I'll be sure to check it out at Origin.com.
Infamous Chris
Banned
This is why I hate EA with a passion.
jim-jam bongs
Member
The reason that every game needs multiplayer, as far as publishers are concerned anyway, is the magic of DLC.
Multiplayer DLC is usually cheaper to produce, especially if you have a persistent online identity which can be upgraded with cosmetic rewards. Making hats is cheap, and people will pay whatever you ask them if they're attached to their character.
It's also easier to make multiplayer DLC mandatory. Check the achievement stats on Steam for New Vegas some time and you can see how much drop off there has been in the percentage of players earning even the freebie cheevos for the DLC. With multiplayer DLC you can make it mandatory as long as you control matchmaking, which publishers do on consoles.
And then when the time comes to promote the sequel, guess what? You can shut off multiplayer and market the new game heavily to the players so they know it's time to pay their taxes.
All in my opinion of course.
Multiplayer DLC is usually cheaper to produce, especially if you have a persistent online identity which can be upgraded with cosmetic rewards. Making hats is cheap, and people will pay whatever you ask them if they're attached to their character.
It's also easier to make multiplayer DLC mandatory. Check the achievement stats on Steam for New Vegas some time and you can see how much drop off there has been in the percentage of players earning even the freebie cheevos for the DLC. With multiplayer DLC you can make it mandatory as long as you control matchmaking, which publishers do on consoles.
And then when the time comes to promote the sequel, guess what? You can shut off multiplayer and market the new game heavily to the players so they know it's time to pay their taxes.
All in my opinion of course.
Okay I'm not happy with the idea of multiplayer. Frankly I think Mass Effect's combat system is basic at best, trash at worst.Lakitu said:
I much rather development time go into more sidequests, single player DLC, more LI's for everyone and tons of other things.
But Morals? Really? FFS this shit is fucking as bad as the Tali Monsters.
bigdaddygamebot
Member
TruePrime said:
Agreed.
Although Bioware has flat out lied since Dragon Age II...or representatives from Bioware.
But for me it's not morals.
For me, it feels like Bioware stopped caring about making great games and instead started caring about making great profits...
Interesting if anything.
Heck the idea of multiplayer in Dead Space 2 sounded weird to many (lol multiplayer in a survival horror?)..and ended quite nice; so why not.
Maybe that's why the game was delayed to add more time into working on it. A few extra months do wonders in many cases. The campaign/story even if it was just like ME2 would've been nice by itself, so extras and more stuff in the game to do while playing and/or after finishing the main story..for the same price is always welcome.
Heck the idea of multiplayer in Dead Space 2 sounded weird to many (lol multiplayer in a survival horror?)..and ended quite nice; so why not.
Maybe that's why the game was delayed to add more time into working on it. A few extra months do wonders in many cases. The campaign/story even if it was just like ME2 would've been nice by itself, so extras and more stuff in the game to do while playing and/or after finishing the main story..for the same price is always welcome.
MrDanger88
Member
Awesome you pushed back a single player epic to add shitty deathmatch multiplayer. If this wasn't Mass Effect I'd probably not even support this shit. I guarantee you it will be about as bad as Dead Space 2's "3 matches and never again" excuse for multiplayer.
jim-jam bongs
Member
According to Steam I played nearly 30 hours of Dead Space 2 and I only learned just now that it had a multiplayer mode.
MrDanger88 said:
Isn't this completely unsupported as a theory? The game at E3 looked far from complete with only three levels shown in both the trailer and on the show floor. It was clear even from a single player perspective that the game was no where near ready for a 2011 release. Multiplayer is likely done by an additional team with their own milestones.
BladeoftheImmortal
Member
Its on PS3 monkeyThunder Monkey said:
Speedymanic
Banned
Why is everyone blaming EA? I doubt they forced them to add MP, it's much more likely to be a BW decision.
Blue Ninja
Member
Yeah, 'morals' may not be the right word here. I think it's more a case of "RPG developers should develop an RPG, and not be so stupid as to think the addition of a (with 90% certainty) easily forgettable multiplayer will sell more." In the end, developers are businesses, they need to make profits. Adding in something that most likely will have been done better a few months before ME3 even releases (Gears 3 or even Uncharted 3) is not a very smart move.Lakitu said:
Idk. I just don't know. If someone announces Skyrim has multiplayer then I'm going to be super pissed I guess is the right word.
RPGs are the only games I willingly buy day one without the need for some multiplayer content. ME3 will be a day one, and it didn't need any multiplayer to get that sale, and I seriously doubt shoe horned toss away multiplayer is going to boost their sales that much.
If they took all those assets for multi and put them into designing MORE single player content, MORE polish, less tunnels of boxes environments, etc then I imagine ME3 would have more lasting appeal and sales in the long run than a multi mode people will forget about a month after its release.
Why bother? Do they really think the droves of RPG nerds want a third person gears shooter out of this? Do they think they can compete with MW3, Gears 3, or BF 3 in that space?
Let me give you a 4-1-1 about this games multi before they even announce it:
* No dedicated servers
* Glitches
* Hosting issues
* Imbalance
* NO beta test
Prove me wrong Bioware. Let's see if you can add this multiplayer and not fall into the trap of those 5 things I just listed and ALL 5 if you want to be competitive.
RPGs are the only games I willingly buy day one without the need for some multiplayer content. ME3 will be a day one, and it didn't need any multiplayer to get that sale, and I seriously doubt shoe horned toss away multiplayer is going to boost their sales that much.
If they took all those assets for multi and put them into designing MORE single player content, MORE polish, less tunnels of boxes environments, etc then I imagine ME3 would have more lasting appeal and sales in the long run than a multi mode people will forget about a month after its release.
Why bother? Do they really think the droves of RPG nerds want a third person gears shooter out of this? Do they think they can compete with MW3, Gears 3, or BF 3 in that space?
Let me give you a 4-1-1 about this games multi before they even announce it:
* No dedicated servers
* Glitches
* Hosting issues
* Imbalance
* NO beta test
Prove me wrong Bioware. Let's see if you can add this multiplayer and not fall into the trap of those 5 things I just listed and ALL 5 if you want to be competitive.