Does Mass Effect 3 NEED multiplayer?

[Erttheking]

Stop for a second, I have a question. There's something that I find odd about mainstream gaming, people always complain about how games like Call of Duty never change anything, but when people like Bioware change things like Mass Effect, you people throw a hissy fit saying that it was fine just the way it was and they should keep doing it that way. Consistancy? What's that? Oh and if anyone even thinks about saying that it's just bad because everyone does multiplayer, that is a weak and unfounded argument, everyone does single player too and that doesn't get labled as generic. Everyone has a health bar in their games but you aren't throwing riots over that, guns have ammo but you don't get angry about...oh wait you did get mad about that in ME2...Jesus, people will let themselves get all worked up over nothing.

 

[Sonic Doctor]

Another way the combat ruined my immersion was the simple fact that the story itself is supposed to be about The Champion's rise to fame and power, so why are these people fighting you in the first place? Do they not know who you are? For the street gangs, do they not realize that the reason they were able to set up shop was specifically because a couple years ago YOU went through and completely murdered everyone in the gang that USED to run those streets? Why is it that these people think they have any hope at all against? Not only hope, but they spit and insult you as a humble weakling who couldn't hope to match their power....only to be instantly turned to vapor once combat actually starts? This is particularly true after you've defeated the Qunari and been granted the title of Champion. At that point, anyone who messes with you is officially retarded.

So yeah, I fully admit that I did love the story itself. But the simple fact that the combat ruined my immersion and every god damn dungeon was copy-pasted throughout the game. I mean the quests for DAO were so long that 3 hours into'em you'd say to yourself "Good god, I'm STILL in the Mage Tower?!" but at least every dungeon was unique to itself. That said, at least DA2 managed to do something I didn't think possible: create a character that's sexier than Morrigan in DAO. Mmmmmmmmm....Isabella the Pirate Hooker.....

I just never really felt that way about the enemies coming it waves. I don't ask questions like that since I am playing a fantasy game that of course isn't real. They appear, I kill, I don't ask questions unless it is part of the game, like some leader or some such person randomly doesn't die when I technically kill him/her, and he/she begins asking for mercy and saying they will tell everything I want to know or some such thing.

People claimed that the waves of enemies messed up their attack strategies, but I never found that to be problem since I could freeze combat to plan things. And besides, since the wave formula as used mostly throughout the game, people should have caught on and planned accordingly. I'm not saying that was your problem, I was just pointed it out because I was reminded of it.

I agree that the repeat dungeons is a blemish on the game, but for me, considering how great I felt all the rest of the game was, I could over look it just this once. Besides, it's really EA's fault at cracking the whip on BioWare, giving them really only a year to develop the game.

On the new people coming in, that should have the knowledge that you were there previously and messed shit up for everybody there:

Really think about it, how smart do you think the average criminal is, especially when they have numbers backing them up.

But really, look at the average criminals in real life, they can be dumber than a box of rocks, and may times fearless and not carrying that they could get caught because they think they can in some way get away with it. Just watch some reality cop shows, like Cops and other shows like it. Criminals are stupid as well as cocky.

On those shows, I have seen where Cops bust a crack house, and arrest many people. Then a few months later on the show following the same area, they bust people at same house, and some times the same people that just got out of prison for the last time they were busted there. Also, people that get busted that admit that they went to the place even though they knew that the place had been raided before.

Why is it that if the police get in a shootout with a gang, and a gang member gets arrested after seeing his buddies get killed, then after he gets out of prison, he goes right back to being in the gang and ends up dead because he takes part in another shootout with the police.

Why is it that a guy that goes to a bar at least twice to three times a week and harasses certain people that go there that he has some feud with, keep going there and doing that, when he knows the police will be called every time and he will be taken away by the police every time and spend jail time or have to pay fines.

If anything, the parts of DA2 that you mention, about people setting up shop even though they know that Hawke is around and will most likely mop the floor with them, are pretty much like real life. So as I said, most criminals are stupid and cocky, especially if they feel they have numbers on their side.

Now on the romance part, I went the other route. I chose to romance Merrill, for a few reasons. I loved her personality and since I chose to be a mage for my first character, I felt it just fit, mage falling for a mage. The third reason leaves the game realm. I've had sort of a celebrity crush on the woman that does the voice for Merrill, Eve Myles. If you have ever watched the BBC Doctor Who spin off show Torchwood, she plays Gwen Cooper in that. And really, she doesn't really "do" the voice of Merrill in that she uses a different voice, the voice of Merrill is her straight up normal voice. I just love the accent.

I actually was rather pissed about the romance glitch, where even though I romanced Merrill, the game in the end had Varric saying that Isabella was the one that stayed behind with me. Not that their is anything wrong with Isabella, she's hot, but for me Merrill was where it was at.

 

[RatRace123]

I say no it doesn't NEED it, but I likely won't bother with it, so it doesn't affect me much anyway. So long as I get at least a decent singleplayer story, I'll be good.

 

[Artemicion]

ME3 doesn't need multiplayer, but neither does COD:MWx, really.

I think the inclusion of multiplayer in ME3 will be a pleasant experience.

 

[Setrus]

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.

I heard in one of the articles talking about it how it was easy to level up characters in the multiplayer and then 'send' them into the singleplayer if you wished...so I guess you get some sort of reinforcement at key locations, stopping the reapers from taking them too fast...?

And I agree, it does not need it, but I don't mind it, in fact I'm sure many look forward to trying a few different races and such. (I for one hate the rumours of there being no Quarians in multiplayer, but love the idea of trying a Salarian, so I'm good. )
I'm also somewhat astounded by the continued fear that it'll draw resources from the main game, for isn't the multiplayer team an entire different group taken from some other company and getting earmarked money that would never have gone to the main Bioware company anyway? Heck, we should be worried the multiplayer doesn't match the singleplayer in terms of atmosphere and design...

 

[Shidira]

ME3 doesn't need multiplayer, but I don't care if the game does have it, as long as it doesn't interfere with the single player campaign.

 

[Saltychipmunk]

yeah , the last game that had multiplayer shoved into it that i played was bioshock 2. I think it had 3 servers up... what a waste of space.

Mass effect is a single player series. It only major strong point is story and rpg elements'
its combat was so damn generic It is impossible for me to view it as multiplayer worthy..

but i wont buy it because of origin

 

[RJ 17]

Big Snip

Bigger Snip

Those are all perfectly fine reasons for your own opinion to the game, I won't try to argue them. As I said, I was just offering you my justification as to why I thought the DA2 was worse than DA 1. I'm a player who's HUGE on story, and when parts of a game ruin an otherwise wonderfully told story, it just really bugs the crap outta me.

I never had a problem with the guys coming out in waves...the only problem I ever had with it was, as I mentioned, you'd often have to go on a search mission to find the last two guys of a wave before the next wave would come out. As to the criminals, it's like I said: I'm big on story. The story of DA2 is how The Champion goes from being a nobody to being the most important person in town. That journey is one that starts with you making a name for yourself in the seedy underworld of the city. Yes, criminals are often stupid, as can be seen simply by the fact that they're criminals. However that doesn't mean that word doesn't travel. I guess it's a case of "You must not know who I am..." especially in the case of if you're a mage. Surely word has spread fast that entire gangs comprised of 50+ criminals were utterly decimated by a mage and his/her crew.

As for the romance, I wasn't really trying to make a point, just trying to be funny. Isabella was always my favorite lover in that game. As for Merrill, she was cute and sweet and I was often very tempted to woo her. However she had one major personality flaw: her blind adherence to what she's doing must be right. Granted, it is The Keeper's duty to protect the elven heritage and history of their people...but why does Merrill stubbornly refuse to listen to reason? Everyone in her tribe says what she is doing is wrong, her Keeper in the nicest of ways pleads with her to turn away from her current path, that some things are best left forgotten. But she still wants to rebuild her mirror even though in order to do so she must consort with demons.

That said, I also found a weird delight in being just an enormous hypocrit to her..."OMG WTF YOU'RE USING BLOOD MAGIC?!" while I, myself, tend to open every fight with a few blood magic spells. :3

 

[Cid Silverwing]

Though I'm not buying it unless it is made available on Steam without Origin, I'm still gonna *****.

This is ruining the epic singleplayer with a bullshit multiplayer no one asked for.

 

[Uriain]

Does it need Multiplayer?? No. I think Mass Effect is MORE then capable enough of standing on its single player aspect alone.

I do think though, that a MP addition could be fun. as said above by Ordinaryundone, They seem to be trying something different, and (imo) also giving us something that a portion of the community has wanted.

From what I have heard to so far, it seems promising, my biggest concern has been/always will be that they dilute Single Player when adding Multiplayer. If Single player continues to stay strong like it has these past two games, AND the addition of Multiplayer gives us something new, I think it could be a win/win for everyone.....except the Reapers

 

[Relaver]

Does Mass Effect 3 NEED multiplayer? No, not really. Will it ruin Mass Effect? I say no, these are not rookies working on this game I have faith that it will be good and trust Bioware's judgements. I don't think they are doing this go get more money or gain a new crowed either (do you really think that the people that are strict Call of Duty / Battlefield /Halo /Gears of War are going to play Mass Effect 3 because it has Multiplayer) I think they are doing this for 'why the hell not' rather thanthey need to. If it sucks I will eat my words, on a sandwich, with cheese. But if it doesnt blow, then all you naysayers better be prepaired to eat yours.

 

[Thaius]

Of course not. No game "needs" multiplayer unless it's made specifically for that purpose. But as angry as I was when Bioware first announced it, I'm actually really excited for it. They're not doing your traditional PvP multiplayer, with maps and team deathmatches and such (which is good, because that would be completely unnecessary and likely harmful), they're just adding an optional co-op mode that's actually used to enrich the story and benefit the single-player experience. It's actually a really awesome idea. Everything still revolves around the story and the single-player experience, as it should.

 

[Thatguyky]

It doesn't need multiplayer at ALL. However, it can still make a nice addition to the game. Kinda like Dead Space 2, the single player was awesome, and the multiplayer was just kind of tagged on as a bonus( I never really cared for it, but at least it had no impact on single player and provided some entertainment).

I'm personally pretty excited for ME3's multiplayer (nowhere near as much as the single player) it'll be a nice add-on I think. I just hate it when game force you to play their shitty multiplayer to succeed in single player. Pretty sure we don't have to worry about that with ME3 though

 

[ecoho]

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.

It's a matter of opportunity cost. Bioware has a finite amount of manpower and resources, as far as I know. Ergo, they have to make decisions in what they use that manpower and resources to do. If we boil it down to a simple choice, given a portion of their budget, they could either use it to A) fund multiplayer development, or B) do something else. Now, "something else" can be anything- adding content to Mass Effect 3, refining existing content, working on a new project, retirement plan for Ed in the janitorial department, I don't know. What is is irrelevant. The resources that have gone into the multiplayer could have gone into something else. As the shrill voices on this thread will attest, this has not been a horribly popular decision.

Now don't get me wrong, it could still be a good game, and the multiplayer could be good as well, though I really wouldn't know about the latter. It's not going to deter me from waiting out in the cold on release day. I'm just trying to provide the best reason as I see it that people are getting their various undergarments contorted about this.

heres the problem with your statment. There are two studios working on ME3, the first the one thats made all the others up to this point has the single player, IT HAS ITS OWN BUDGET!

next we have the other studio that was made just to make the multiplayer component, once again IT HAS ITS OWN BUDGET!
This is what people tend not to get no matter how many times its pointed out to them this game will not suck just because MP was put in. now any other games that come out of the new studio might and i stress MIGHT have less funding to work with but ME will not be phased by this.

The second studio didn't volunteer to develop the multiplayer. Somebody had to pay them to do so, thereby depriving either EA or Bioware of funds that could have been used on the single-player campaign. Whenever you pay anybody to do anything, you lose out on the opportunity to A) make them do something else, or B) not give them any money and use it on something else.

no money was taken from the single player game though as it has ITS OWN BUDGET! I swear does no one read any more? each studio has its own yearly budget from EA so while another game from the multiplayer studio may have less funds because of this Mass Effect 3 will not suffer because it had multiplayer put in.

 

[Hal10k]

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.

It's a matter of opportunity cost. Bioware has a finite amount of manpower and resources, as far as I know. Ergo, they have to make decisions in what they use that manpower and resources to do. If we boil it down to a simple choice, given a portion of their budget, they could either use it to A) fund multiplayer development, or B) do something else. Now, "something else" can be anything- adding content to Mass Effect 3, refining existing content, working on a new project, retirement plan for Ed in the janitorial department, I don't know. What is is irrelevant. The resources that have gone into the multiplayer could have gone into something else. As the shrill voices on this thread will attest, this has not been a horribly popular decision.

Now don't get me wrong, it could still be a good game, and the multiplayer could be good as well, though I really wouldn't know about the latter. It's not going to deter me from waiting out in the cold on release day. I'm just trying to provide the best reason as I see it that people are getting their various undergarments contorted about this.

heres the problem with your statment. There are two studios working on ME3, the first the one thats made all the others up to this point has the single player, IT HAS ITS OWN BUDGET!

next we have the other studio that was made just to make the multiplayer component, once again IT HAS ITS OWN BUDGET!
This is what people tend not to get no matter how many times its pointed out to them this game will not suck just because MP was put in. now any other games that come out of the new studio might and i stress MIGHT have less funding to work with but ME will not be phased by this.

The second studio didn't volunteer to develop the multiplayer. Somebody had to pay them to do so, thereby depriving either EA or Bioware of funds that could have been used on the single-player campaign. Whenever you pay anybody to do anything, you lose out on the opportunity to A) make them do something else, or B) not give them any money and use it on something else.

no money was taken from the single player game though as it has ITS OWN BUDGET! I swear does no one read any more? each studio has its own yearly budget from EA so while another game from the multiplayer studio may have less funds because of this Mass Effect 3 will not suffer because it had multiplayer put in.

EA paid the studio to develop the multiplayer. That money did not spurt out of the ground when EA demanded it. With the money they spent, they could have paid a different studio- or even the same studio- to develop additional content for the single player, or even just hire a mindless legion of playtesters. They could even have chosen to funnel those funds back into Bioware so they could directly hire more personnel. They did not choose to do something along those lines, and therefore people are mad.

 

[ecoho]

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.

It's a matter of opportunity cost. Bioware has a finite amount of manpower and resources, as far as I know. Ergo, they have to make decisions in what they use that manpower and resources to do. If we boil it down to a simple choice, given a portion of their budget, they could either use it to A) fund multiplayer development, or B) do something else. Now, "something else" can be anything- adding content to Mass Effect 3, refining existing content, working on a new project, retirement plan for Ed in the janitorial department, I don't know. What is is irrelevant. The resources that have gone into the multiplayer could have gone into something else. As the shrill voices on this thread will attest, this has not been a horribly popular decision.

Now don't get me wrong, it could still be a good game, and the multiplayer could be good as well, though I really wouldn't know about the latter. It's not going to deter me from waiting out in the cold on release day. I'm just trying to provide the best reason as I see it that people are getting their various undergarments contorted about this.

heres the problem with your statment. There are two studios working on ME3, the first the one thats made all the others up to this point has the single player, IT HAS ITS OWN BUDGET!

next we have the other studio that was made just to make the multiplayer component, once again IT HAS ITS OWN BUDGET!
This is what people tend not to get no matter how many times its pointed out to them this game will not suck just because MP was put in. now any other games that come out of the new studio might and i stress MIGHT have less funding to work with but ME will not be phased by this.

The second studio didn't volunteer to develop the multiplayer. Somebody had to pay them to do so, thereby depriving either EA or Bioware of funds that could have been used on the single-player campaign. Whenever you pay anybody to do anything, you lose out on the opportunity to A) make them do something else, or B) not give them any money and use it on something else.

no money was taken from the single player game though as it has ITS OWN BUDGET! I swear does no one read any more? each studio has its own yearly budget from EA so while another game from the multiplayer studio may have less funds because of this Mass Effect 3 will not suffer because it had multiplayer put in.

EA paid the studio to develop the multiplayer. That money did not spurt out of the ground when EA demanded it. With the money they spent, they could have paid a different studio- or even the same studio- to develop additional content for the single player, or even just hire a mindless legion of playtesters. They could even have chosen to funnel those funds back into Bioware so they could directly hire more personnel. They did not choose to do something along those lines, and therefore people are mad.

ok first off this is the last time i will try to expain this to you, so please READ this one instead of skimming through.
ok so ME3 was approved a budget when it was put under development(the multiplayer DOES NOT TOUCH THIS!) after the game had been under development for awhile EA wanted to add multiplayer so what they did was OPEN A BRAND NEW STUDIO to handle the multiplayer and said studio was given ITS OWN BUDGET to use on said multiplayer. BTW EA did not just make this studio to make multiplayer for one game this NEW studio will be expected to make money for them so its whats called investing in a future product the ME3 multiplayer is a way to get the new studios feet wet ,so to speak, without risking a large amount of money.


so to recap, the studio thats running the multiplayer is NEW and has its own BUDGET which said studio will use to make OTHER games, while the MAIN studio also has its OWN BUDGET and will use said budget to make the ME3 singleplayer. This is how companies work you have 1 section do one thing and another section doing something else it saves time,money, and actually helps the people who have to make the product as its one less thing they have to work on.

 

[Hal10k]

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.

It's a matter of opportunity cost. Bioware has a finite amount of manpower and resources, as far as I know. Ergo, they have to make decisions in what they use that manpower and resources to do. If we boil it down to a simple choice, given a portion of their budget, they could either use it to A) fund multiplayer development, or B) do something else. Now, "something else" can be anything- adding content to Mass Effect 3, refining existing content, working on a new project, retirement plan for Ed in the janitorial department, I don't know. What is is irrelevant. The resources that have gone into the multiplayer could have gone into something else. As the shrill voices on this thread will attest, this has not been a horribly popular decision.

Now don't get me wrong, it could still be a good game, and the multiplayer could be good as well, though I really wouldn't know about the latter. It's not going to deter me from waiting out in the cold on release day. I'm just trying to provide the best reason as I see it that people are getting their various undergarments contorted about this.

heres the problem with your statment. There are two studios working on ME3, the first the one thats made all the others up to this point has the single player, IT HAS ITS OWN BUDGET!

next we have the other studio that was made just to make the multiplayer component, once again IT HAS ITS OWN BUDGET!
This is what people tend not to get no matter how many times its pointed out to them this game will not suck just because MP was put in. now any other games that come out of the new studio might and i stress MIGHT have less funding to work with but ME will not be phased by this.

The second studio didn't volunteer to develop the multiplayer. Somebody had to pay them to do so, thereby depriving either EA or Bioware of funds that could have been used on the single-player campaign. Whenever you pay anybody to do anything, you lose out on the opportunity to A) make them do something else, or B) not give them any money and use it on something else.

no money was taken from the single player game though as it has ITS OWN BUDGET! I swear does no one read any more? each studio has its own yearly budget from EA so while another game from the multiplayer studio may have less funds because of this Mass Effect 3 will not suffer because it had multiplayer put in.

EA paid the studio to develop the multiplayer. That money did not spurt out of the ground when EA demanded it. With the money they spent, they could have paid a different studio- or even the same studio- to develop additional content for the single player, or even just hire a mindless legion of playtesters. They could even have chosen to funnel those funds back into Bioware so they could directly hire more personnel. They did not choose to do something along those lines, and therefore people are mad.

ok first off this is the last time i will try to expain this to you, so please READ this one instead of skimming through.
ok so ME3 was approved a budget when it was put under development(the multiplayer DOES NOT TOUCH THIS!) after the game had been under development for awhile EA wanted to add multiplayer so what they did was OPEN A BRAND NEW STUDIO to handle the multiplayer and said studio was given ITS OWN BUDGET to use on said multiplayer. BTW EA did not just make this studio to make multiplayer for one game this NEW studio will be expected to make money for them so its whats called investing in a future product the ME3 multiplayer is a way to get the new studios feet wet ,so to speak, without risking a large amount of money.


so to recap, the studio thats running the multiplayer is NEW and has its own BUDGET which said studio will use to make OTHER games, while the MAIN studio also has its OWN BUDGET and will use said budget to make the ME3 singleplayer. This is how companies work you have 1 section do one thing and another section doing something else it saves time,money, and actually helps the people who have to make the product as its one less thing they have to work on.

Look, I'm perfectly aware of the way the games industry works. You don't need to explain something that I learned years ago to me.

I'm perfectly aware that the multiplayer serves an addition to the existing structure of the game, and that Bioware themselves won't be doing anything to improve the game. What I'm saying is that the supplementary material that is currently coming in the form of the multiplayer could have easily come in other forms. Had EA chosen to use the same amount of money that is currently being used to develop the multiplayer to enhance the singleplayer instead, we would have had an enhanced single player and no multiplayer instead of the standard singleplayer and multiplayer as well.

It goes like this: EA has made a conscious decision to fund additional content for Mass Effect 3 using an external studio. Put simply, they had two choices:

1. Have additional single player content developed (New missions, squadmates, the aforementioned legions of playtesters, etc.) This would require some coordination with Bioware to easily integrate into the game, but considerably less than if Bioware had to develop it themselves.

2. Develop multiplayer, contacting Bioware just for high-concept design decisions.

I'm aware that this will not affect the base game as it was originally going to be, but I can see why people might get mad that EA choose option 2 over option 1.

 

[Dizzle26]

Eh. I'm not too keen on multiplayer in ME3. I mean, it can be done in a co-op sense. A bro or whatever can play whomever they wish and hopefully make up for the AI acting like utter pillocks.

 

[WeAreStevo]

Riddle me this OP:

Does ANY game really need multiplayer? I'm all for co-op and multiplayer experiences, but when shit ass multiplayer is shoehorned into every great single player game, it's a bit much...

Off topic: I can't wait for multiplayer to hit Window's solitaire game. That's going to be boss.