Why do we need to look to a non-rpg, extremely shallow, rehashed yearly game, that has a multiplayer component with no depth at all?
*** Mass Effect 3 ***
- Thread starter Deific
- Start date
Why do we need to look to a non-rpg, extremely shallow, rehashed yearly game, that has a multiplayer component with no depth at all?
oh please calm down, cod is a completely different game. Its more likely they just want to retain some shelf life as single player only tend to be traded in much quicker.
Soldato
I didnt see anything special about ME 1 and 2.
Decent games, but dont see what all the fuss is about.
Decent games, but dont see what all the fuss is about.
Soldato
Casey Hudson won't spoil the Mass Effect series, he has created two good games, the multiplayer will be an addition added after the single player is done, i also haven't played a game where the singleplayer has been affected by multiplayer.
Associate
Uhm...David Gaider wrote both Dragon Age: Origins and Dragon Age 2, and I think we all know how that ended. Consider this - DA2 was released a year and 5 months after DA:O. Initially ME 3 was to be released a year and 11 months after ME2 was released.
Just hope that those extra 6 months allowed them to avoid the mistakes of DA2, because all that extra time that was added by the delay went into multiplayer (and again, since these are to be independent missions here's hoping it didn't cannibalize on the SP campaign development time).
My worries stem from EA's terrible reputation for ruining franchises. They've already dented people's faith in Dragon Age. They killed off many reputable dev studios in the past - what's stopping them from doing it again?
You spelt Activision wrong, EA are no saints but they have invested in great new IP's before and hudsons team has so far produced two amazing games, bioware made a missstep with DA2 but I would consider that the only one.
I think you just need to relax.
Associate
They may have invested in some IP's, but Bullfrog and Westwood are two studios that produced great games before being acquired by EA that have gone downhill since. Obviously I'll reserve the judgement until I see the released product. Doesn't change the fact that what EA said about the direction they are taking the ME franchise worries me a bit.
I would LOVE to get ME3 on PC but because I played the first 2 on xbox, I want to use my save data
I dont suppose there is anyway to get ur xbox save on to your pc? or even if you could it would not be compatible?
The save games on the xbox can be modded to reflect ME1 decisions in ME2 so i'd imagine theres a way to mod the PC version of ME3 in the same way.
Mass market doesn't mean bad game, they wouldn't be big sellers otherwise. If they trim the character interactions and simplify the script then I will be very upset, my interpretation of his comments are that adding multiplayer content will encourage more players to buy because they want to play with their friends, not change the experience to that of COD.
because it was still a damn good game.
Soldato
I truly can't fathom the fail.
Associate
Ugh...so multiplayer actually affects single campaign? Even IF they say single can be completed on its own you will be losing out on whatever multi brings into it. Why? Why? Why was this decision made? Cannot fathom a more asinine approach to the thing =/. Want multiplayer scenarios - fine. But keep the damn things separate from my single player campaign! 
Actually you won't need to do it at all. Also the co-op missions can be played singleplayer!Ugh...so multiplayer actually affects single campaign? Even IF they say single can be completed on its own you will be losing out on whatever multi brings into it. Why? Why? Why was this decision made? Cannot fathom a more asinine approach to the thing =/. Want multiplayer scenarios - fine. But keep the damn things separate from my single player campaign!
MP comes in as a substitute for side quests for example, but you can do a thorough SP playthrough instead to achieve the same galactic readiness level.
Doing the co-op missions would give you more freedom to skip side-quests or whatever (though I can't imagine why anyone would want to do that).
Associate
Last edited:
Associate
Actually you won't need to do it at all. Also the co-op missions can be played singleplayer!
MP comes in as a substitute for side quests for example, but you can do a thorough SP playthrough instead to achieve the same galactic readiness level.
Doing the co-op missions would give you more freedom to skip side-quests or whatever (though I can't imagine why anyone would want to do that).
If they can be played single player, what's the point? Surely if you've completed them in your regular campaign there would be no aim in playing them over and over in co-op? Separate co-op scenarios that don't affect single player campaign, I understand. The approach they're taking seems really pointless to me.
Oh I don't care much for it either, and would rather see the disk space used for more dialogue and character interaction (for example), but at least an upside of these co-op missions is that they can be skipped (with no impact on the story) and/or played solo.
Caporegime
Yeah you're right no game that's ever had the same levels for single player and co-op has ever been popular
