Does Mass Effect 3 NEED multiplayer?

[Lord Revan 117]

I don't recall the Bioware forums for the ME series screaming for multiplayer as well as the single player experience. Typically Bioware makes the sort of games focused on the single player aspect alone, (see KOTOR, Jade Empire etc) this move to include multiplayer seems strange for them. Especially since the single player in the previous games was more than enough for most people, including myself. Why exactly are they including multiplayer no-one asked for?

 

[Ordinaryundone]

Obviously, because someone asked for it? Really, if the single player portion is enough for you, then don't worry about it. Multiplayer has no impact on the single player, and vice versa, so you won't be missing out on anything you would be interested in.

Or, you know, heaven forbid a company try something different. Of all their franchises, Mass Effect is probably the most fertile soil for an easily accessible multiplayer mode. Also, people seem to forget that Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 could be played in multiplayer as well.

 

[godofallu]

Need? No. But it's still awesome.

 

[RJ 17]

Or, you know, heaven forbid a company try something different.

I think this is the core of the situation. They're just trying something new. As Cave Johnson would say: "We're just throwing science at the wall and seeing what sticks." They'll give it a shot, apparently the multiplayer has something to do with how well prepared the galaxy is for the Reaper invasion, however it is in no ways mandatory in order to get the best possible ending in the single player. I'd imagine if you do the multiplayer "campaign" (as for what I've heard that's what it's going to be, people playing generic characters (i.e. generic Krogan, generic Turian, generic Asari, etc) going on multiplayer co-op missions) it'll cut out some side quests from the single player as, like I said, the mp is meant to "increase galactic readiness". That said, however, they said that any "galactic readiness" not achieved in the mp can be made up for through the course of the single player.

Edit: As for the question at hand. "Does it need it?" Most assuredly not, it does not need it. Do I mind it? Not at all. If it's fun and enjoyable, then I've got a number of friends I could likely have a great time playing it with. If it's lame dud, oh well. They gave it a shot and didn't quit make it. Can't blame'em for trying.

 

[Terminate421]

Not needed, but if it can be attempted without harming the single player? Why not.

 

[DustyDrB]

One important group of people did ask for it: EA. They're on record as planning to put an online component in all their games. Someone else will have to find the links to back me up since I am on my phone and too lazy to go searching and putting the link in myself.

But honestly, it is totally optional and therefore not a bother to me. We can argue in circles forever about whether resources were diverted from the actual game, but I want be angry unless it actually feels like the main game took a hit. And from all I've read, it sounds like it will be the best in the series.

 

[spartandude]

pulling away valuable time and money away from the single player especially when bioware is on thin ice? brilliant move

 

[aegix drakan_v1legacy]

Why exactly are they including multiplayer no-one asked for?

Probably for the same reason that Dead space 2 got useless and awful multiplayer. EA demanded it.

Like so:
EA: Yo, Bioware! Buddy! How's the multiplayer coming along?
Bio: ...We...aren't putting in multiplayer.
EA: Oh, Bioware...Single player alone can't sell a game! So make multiplayer!
Bio: ...Mass effect doesn't NEED multiplayer...People are going to buy it just to get the conclusion of our big epic story and-
EA: ...Ok, how about this, you include multiplayer or we lay off the whole team for people who do what they're told?
Bio: But...If we make multiplayer it'll divert resources and time away form the single play-
EA: Oh who even PLAYS single player anymore? NOBODY!!!

That's probably what happened.

 

[MailOrderClone]

Obviously, because someone asked for it? Really, if the single player portion is enough for you, then don't worry about it. Multiplayer has no impact on the single player, and vice versa, so you won't be missing out on anything you would be interested in.

That's not quite accurate. Including multiplayer does have an impact on the single player campaign in the form of diverted man-hours and diverted funds. A game without a multiplayer component is generally going to be better off than a game with a tacked-on multiplayer component.

 

[Awexsome]

So long as the quality of the multiplayer is good it doesn't matter. ME3 doesn't even really NEED much story y'know... but it would be better off with it. The more quality stuff they can pack into a game the better. Multiplayer is just different so people are less sure about it. And on the internet of course "less sure" means "going to ruin it."

For all the talk about hating games that become stale there sure has been a noticeable amount of backlash for a game that is trying something different.

 

[Ordinaryundone]

Obviously, because someone asked for it? Really, if the single player portion is enough for you, then don't worry about it. Multiplayer has no impact on the single player, and vice versa, so you won't be missing out on anything you would be interested in.

That's not quite accurate. Including multiplayer does have an impact on the single player campaign in the form of diverted man-hours and diverted funds. A game without a multiplayer component is generally going to be better off than a game with a tacked-on multiplayer component.

That's paranoia and a leading argument. You assume the multiplayer is "tacked on" without having played it, and you also assume that Bioware did not budget to have both. Its not like they are sitting back and saying "Hmm, we could make a good game, or we can have mutliplayer!" They've already addressed that (fallacious) argument. Many companies use different studios for their multiplayer, including Bioware, so I doubt any of the single player programmers or writers have been diverted.

Dead Space 2 and Assassin's Creed Brotherhood were both fantastic even with "tacked on" multiplayer. Ditto Condemned 2, Dead Rising 2, Bioshock 2 (whose multi I actually really liked), GTA 4, and Red Dead Redemption. Just because you do not like multiplayer doesn't mean it drags a game down.

 

[Otaku World Order]

Why exactly are they including multiplayer no-one asked for?

Probably for the same reason that Dead space 2 got useless and awful multiplayer. EA demanded it.

Like so:
EA: Yo, Bioware! Buddy! How's the multiplayer coming along?
Bio: ...We...aren't putting in multiplayer.
EA: Oh, Bioware...Single player alone can't sell a game! So make multiplayer!
Bio: ...Mass effect doesn't NEED multiplayer...People are going to buy it just to get the conclusion of our big epic story and-
EA: ...Ok, how about this, you include multiplayer or we lay off the whole team for people who do what they're told?
Bio: But...If we make multiplayer it'll divert resources and time away form the single play-
EA: Oh who even PLAYS single player anymore? NOBODY!!!

That's probably what happened.

Actually, it probably went more like this:

EA Exec 1: We need to shiv move used game buyers with these online passes. Add them to all our games!

EA Exec 2: But not all of our games have online components. Just look at the BioWare stuff. It's all offline single player.

EA Exec 1: WHAT?! Call those idiots up and tell them to slap on some kind of multiplayer! We need to be able to unish those bastards that buy used!

 

[The Forces of Chaos]

Why exactly are they including multiplayer no-one asked for?

Probably for the same reason that Dead space 2 got useless and awful multiplayer. EA demanded it.

Like so:
EA: Yo, Bioware! Buddy! How's the multiplayer coming along?
Bio: ...We...aren't putting in multiplayer.
EA: Oh, Bioware...Single player alone can't sell a game! So make multiplayer!
Bio: ...Mass effect doesn't NEED multiplayer...People are going to buy it just to get the conclusion of our big epic story and-
EA: ...Ok, how about this, you include multiplayer or we lay off the whole team for people who do what they're told?
Bio: But...If we make multiplayer it'll divert resources and time away form the single play-
EA: Oh who even PLAYS single player anymore? NOBODY!!!

That's probably what happened.

True story. I wonder if Origin being made mandatory with all pc versions of Mass Effect 3 had something similar. It seems they really wish to push the Origin service and the amount of dlc.

 

[TephlonPrice]

It depends how the MP is.

If it's like, say, something created AFTER the single-player was finished & it was good, then it'll be a good addition.

If it becomes the main focus & takes away from the game, then no.

 

[Lord Revan 117]

Why exactly are they including multiplayer no-one asked for?

Probably for the same reason that Dead space 2 got useless and awful multiplayer. EA demanded it.

Like so:
EA: Yo, Bioware! Buddy! How's the multiplayer coming along?
Bio: ...We...aren't putting in multiplayer.
EA: Oh, Bioware...Single player alone can't sell a game! So make multiplayer!
Bio: ...Mass effect doesn't NEED multiplayer...People are going to buy it just to get the conclusion of our big epic story and-
EA: ...Ok, how about this, you include multiplayer or we lay off the whole team for people who do what they're told?
Bio: But...If we make multiplayer it'll divert resources and time away form the single play-
EA: Oh who even PLAYS single player anymore? NOBODY!!!

That's probably what happened.

This is funny because its probably true.

 

[AD-Stu]

FWIW, I'm not 100% convinced that multiplayer in ME3 is something that EA imposed on Bioware - sure, it's possible, but it's also very possible that it's something the development team came up with on their own.

After all, we're talking about the same people that thought it would be good to dump all over the series canon by introducing "universal" thermal clips that somehow can't be transferred from weapon to weapon, and that thought the solution to most people's dislike of the Mako sections in ME1 was the space-probing sections from ME2. Plus in interviews the team seems as genuinely excited about the multiplayer as they do about all the new combat abilities they've been coming up with.

To answer the original question, no the game obviously didn't need multiplayer. Personally I'm going to give it a go before I write it off though - you never know, it might actually be good.

 

[Soviet Heavy]

It doesn't need the multiplayer, but there's no way to remove it this late in the game. What I'd like is for EA to stop shilling five hundred thousand preorder bonuses like they did with Dragon Age 2. I can only imagine how ridiculous it is going to be once the pre launch marketing drive kicks into full gear.

 

[Smeggs]

It doesn't Need multiplayer. No games Need multiplayer. They Have multiplayer. It's just that some games Have more multiplayer than others.

Also, EA is a bunch of money-grubbing whores, so no surprise Bioware had to add it in just like with DS2.

 

[Andy Shandy]

Does it NEED multiplayer? No, but if it's any good I sure as hell won't be complaining, so long as the single-player is just as good as before.