*** Mass Effect 3 ***

Deific

Deific

Deific

Soldato
Joined
7 Sep 2009
Posts
4,229
Location
Cheshire
Scheduled Release Date: 6/3/2012

Recent Trailers from E3

Kinect functionality http://www.gametrailers.com/video/e3-2011-mass-effect/714804

Gameplay Trailer http://www.gametrailers.com/video/e3-2011-mass-effect/714870

New Features Interview http://www.gametrailers.com/video/e3-2011-mass-effect/714888

Gameplay Walkthrough
http://www.gametrailers.com/video/e3-2011-mass-effect/714902
http://www.gametrailers.com/video/e3-2011-mass-effect/714904

Reaper Base Gameplay http://www.gametrailers.com/video/e3-2011-mass-effect/714872

Full E3 Demo Walkthrough (20 Minutes) http://www.gametrailers.com/video/e3-2011-mass-effect/715589

Story & Mechanics Interview http://www.gametrailers.com/video/e3-2011-mass-effect/716177

The Fall of Earth Trailer http://www.gametrailers.com/video/the-fall-mass-effect/716253


Kinect looks so gay when he's saying things on the dialogue wheel. And whats the point of saying 'Name, move up' etc when you can do it with a single button press anyway? After the Nth time of having to say it, nobody is going to use it as it will become an irritation.
Gameplay looks pretty epic as you would expect, but a bit worried that it shows several on-rails bits as well as indications that they've tried to make the fighting more 'awesome' - worrying after their DA2 attempt. Good to see they've got armour and weapon customization in the game though.
Looks great overall, engine seems to be noticably improved in terms of lighting. Combat looks good. Still a dubious sign of simplicity with things like big glowing arrows when you're behind cover telling you which way you'll move out of it, but hopfully small things like that are the extent of it. Still looking like a day 1 for me.
 
Last edited:
^

Resources get allocated to multiplayer - those resources could have gone into improving the single player experience. None of this, "perhaps they had enough people already / spare time" bs. Because they can always improve on the single player, with more side missions etc.
Multiplayer has no place in a game that is supposed to deliver a stellar single player story experience, because it will always be tacked on. If you don't need to do it, then it's not important enough to impact the story, so is a pointless addition in a story driven game. It also makes the game disjointed with how little impact it will likely have on the story, going from the immersion of single player, to "yeh lets fight our way through hordes of enemies with a friend" multiplayer - because the story has to be given a backseat when co-op comes into play.

It's just completely unnecessary, and absolutely 100% will have taken development away from the single player - even if they had pretty much finished the single player, they could have put that time into extra content for it, which almost everyone would have preferred.
 
ChrisJSY said:
Absolutely 100% will have?
You're full of it, you know as much as I do and just want to whine.
Maybe they don't want extra content, maybe they reached their target, it has to reach a limit, many games are able to do it.

You make it sound like it's an impossible task to do both.

But you're part of the group that forgets you don't have to play it, don't play it and save your whinging.
Click to expand...

Yes, absolutely will have. It requires artists for concept, lead designers and producers to oversee it, testing to ensure it works - this takes manpower away from singleplayer. To say, "Maybe they don't want extra content, maybe they reached their target, it has to reach a limit" is just ridiculous. The players want extra content, no doubt we'll be sold a ton of it after release, so no that has nothing to do with it - they simply want to pull in the cod generation with multiplayer, which they've said numerous times themselves. The fact that i don't have to play it plays no part in the discussion, because it's removed attention from the parts that I will play and could have been improved.
 
no, but I highly doubt they will have hired staff purely for multiplayer or designated multiplayer to another studio. If that's your argument for it not detracting from SP, then its weak.
 
ChrisJSY said:
Do you outright know if they hired more staff or not?

But you seem to be on this one track that it's impossible to do both, like if they spend time on MP, SP will suffur.
Why? Are you living in a world where both can't be done?
Click to expand...

Plenty of games do both and do both well. However, this is a game that doesn't need both and the second adds little value to the original concept of the core game - a deeply immersive role play experience. It's intended to draw in the cod market and as such, is created for the purpose of generating profit, rather than taking an original concept and creating a better concept experience. The multiplayer is essentially a cash-in on a market that's appealing to them, this is no secret as it's from their own mouths.
 
Accendo said:
Also, you apparently get three game mode options before you start single player:

Action - automatic conversation choices, normal difficulty.

Story - full manual conversation choices, easy combat difficulty.

Roleplaying - full manual conversation choices, normal combat difficulty, the standard Mass Effect experience.

Individual settings can be changed after game mode selection.
Click to expand...

Oh dear.

Deary deary dear.
 
Steam up in arms about origin?

Please direct me to anywhere that steam is 'up in arms' about it.

EA want to capitalize on the money their games make without a third party distributer taking a cut, which is why they aren't putting their games on steam. How is that steams fault?
 
Just an excuse, and all steam are doing is trying to protect customers who purchase on steam, so that they get the same experience as anyone else. However the real reason, is EA wants in on what steam has.
 
Why do people always argue over gfx vs gameplay? In this day and age, all AAA titles should have a combination of pleasing visuals and good gameplay. There's really no excuse for a AAA game with the budgets they have to have sub par gfx - and no the awesome plot etc doesn't make up for it because were the gfx better, the game overall would benefit.


The above doesn't reflect my opinion of ME3 gfx, because I think they're rather nice - just annoys me how people always state that good gameplay means gfx are allowed to be crap
 
SamPazz said:
Just pre ordered me3 not having played 1/2 and was told it would be wasted without playing through the first 2 as the story will be messed up? right or troll?
Click to expand...

pretty pointless to play the third without any previous knowledge/understanding of the lore/characters imo. Definitely play at least ME2 first.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom