X

Mass Effect 3 Multiplayer Is Confirmed

62 Comments

Posted October 10, 2011 - By Adam Rosenberg





  • News
    (21)
  • Previews
  • Review

Mass Effect 3 Multiplayer Is Confirmed

The guessing games can cease. It is a rumor no more: Mass Effect 3 has multiplayer. This is a confirmed fact, compliments of Australian gaming magazine PC PowerPlay, which visited BioWare's Edmonton offices to check out the March 6, 2012 release.

We'll have to wait until the next issue of the magazine arrives on October 19 before we get any details on how it works, of course. But after months of speculation and rumor that both confirmed and denied the mode's existence, it's nice to have an official score on things. Mass Effect 3 has multiplayer. Excited?

Source: PC PowerPlay

Mass Effect 3 Multiplayer Is Confirmed
http://www.g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/post/717210/mass-effect-3-multiplayer-is-confirmed/
http://files.g4tv.com/ImageDb3/284787_S/mass-effect-3-multiplayer-is-confirmed.jpg
BlogThread_717210

Comments are Closed

  • JaShatta

    its awesome i played it for about 3hrs already and i love it, the multi player is all built in as co op and to make things clear it does not fill no gaps in the story mode because the story mode have no gaps, With that said from a PS3 Mass Effect fan you all will love it from PS3-PC Users just entertaining

    Posted: October 16, 2011 12:58 PM
    JaShatta
  • Degobah_yoda

    ......

    Posted: October 10, 2011 7:09 PM
    Degobah_yoda
  • JRK87

    .... goodness gracious.

    (1) Notice how long it took for ME2 to come out, and how short it would've taken for ME3 to come out. Notice that DA2 was rushed (at least story-wise).

    This implies that they had ideas for ME3's story IN TANDEM with ME2. In all likelihood, they envisioned it as a trilogy from the beginning.

    I'm basically saying that the single-player campaign has been down-pat from the beginning. Level design, story-boarding, experience breakdown (which BioWare has to do since they NEVER make a RPG with random battles and respawnable mobs -- haven't since KOTOR at least), etc. etc., all that is done RELATIVELY quickly after the initial overview design (like script-writing and such as I mentioned before).

    (2) What makes a game lengthy to make (esp. one on this scale) is

    (a) voice acting
    (b) MAKING & post-processing the effects, but the making part is largely done (this is a THREEQUEL after all).
    (c) Human resource management
    (d) Physical resource management (i.e. funding and equipment)
    (e) BUG TESTING <-- last thing done, probably doing that now
    (f) Graphical design (also largely done, the hard part is the conceptual design part, NOT the technical stuff).
    (g). Technological improvement
    (h). Gameplay creation (for an original), and adjustment (for sequels). This is done first, and the game's almost in gold phase (by December it should be).
    (i) Optimization

    When you add in multiplayer, you have to do the following (all of which can take a long time, because they require better optimization techniques)

    (a) netcoding
    (b) alpha and closed beta-testing (bug testing!! Open betas are more for gameplay suggestions and balancing)
    (c) map and mode creation
    (d) Gameplay creation. I'm sure BioWare could come up with something halfway decent so last-minute, and if it ISN'T last-minute, then WTF ARE YOU ALL COMPLAINING ABOUT? They probably devoted MUCH of their time to this and Kinect integration and quality assurance (and the 1000 variables being carried over and all the variation of single player this entails, and this is the easiest part of all the tasks I just mentioned that they would've had to spend most of their time on, seeing as how THIS is what BioWare is known for: choices in games affect how they play out).

    Seeing as how no one on the BioWare core team has extensive technical multiplayer experience, I would assume they would've had to hire new staff. Seeing as how human resources are THE biggest cost of ANY company or production (besides acquisition of million-dollar supplies for R & D for example), and companies don't like to "create new jobs" unless they have the money (i.e. bottom line profit) to do so, and seeing as how ME made HUGE profits for BioWare (actually, for EA, sorry BioWare!), they likely DID hire new staff to code the multiplayer part.

    The only thing really affected here is the quality of the optimization phase/task.

    (3) So, why "announce" it now? (This has yet to be verified by myself).

    (a) They'd knew you guys would have a cow. That would UNDERHYPE the game and hurt promotion and therefore, sales.

    (b). Seeing point (2) above, they probably had a hard time technically implementing it, and if it might've been too difficult at this stage in the game, they might've axed it for ME3 and put it in for an ME MMO (which by the way, has been long-rumoured this year).

    (c). Actually, mentioning the ME MMO, I think they axed that and incorporated that into ME3 last-minute.

    (4). Fable II and III. Play them. Co-op in that game was fantastic. Players were ephemeral spheres that didn't really affect your campaign, just the meta-game, and you could join up with one (at least locally in Fable II) and have a tag along for your adventure.

    Mass Effect trilogy practically BEGS for Co-op. What do I mean by that? I mean it is like having Kris Humphries and Kim Kardashian NOT get married and have babies. The two are both dumb and pretty and rich, therefore, socially and biologically perfect matches for each other.

    (5). Pinnacle Station DLC or something to that effect for sure would be AWESOME multiplayer gameplay. Any type of horde/firefight/"zombie" type thing for gameplay would be awesome in Mass Effect (they are awesome in any game, and I hate zombies, lol). And ME has their own version of zombies.

    (6). Going back a bit, I mentioned mapping out experience gains and such. When you've exhausted every area of a BioWare game, there's nothing left to do besides finish the story and replay it. There's nothing after ME3, at least for Sheppard. I my ultra-powerful characters to at least have "dungeons" to raid like in a true RPG, something they barely did for Dragon Age 2.

    Therefore, not putting in at least SOME sort of variable replayability (and no, replaying a campaign differently doesn't count as much) would be a huge travesty towards the longevity of Mass Effect.

    They made the right choice, you guys just don't have the je-ne-sais-quois to see it, & maybe u know nothing technical too.

    Posted: October 10, 2011 12:33 PM
  • permanent_nirvana

    Not sure how I feel about this. On one hand, if it is co-op then I could see it working. I do trust Bioware to add multiplayer without it affecting the single player. However, if ever there was a series that did not need multiplayer, Mass Effect is it.

    Here's to hoping that it's not like Bioshock 2.

    Posted: October 10, 2011 12:07 PM
    permanent_nirvana
  • koolboricua

    i care little for the multiplayer. This game was all about the massive single game play. The only reason why i bought the first 2 and the only reason i was going to buy this one. I can promise you, the multiplayer wont be touch by me. But i will over play the single player until it burns.

    Posted: October 10, 2011 12:01 PM
    koolboricua
  • SoldierSpider

    i know i still got it no matter what :)

    Posted: October 10, 2011 11:37 AM
  • Flight_Eagle

    No vs Multiplayer and I'm good. Unless... well, Idk, If they can get it right then whatever, but I'd prefer no vs.

    Posted: October 10, 2011 11:13 AM
    Flight_Eagle
  • napkinshower

    But why? I mean you had it perfect with the single player... there is no need. I mean, talk about selling out. But that's the thing, you don't need more money... well I guess if they're gonna do it not for the money but for the fun then I can get behind that. So long as the single player isn't hindered right?

    Posted: October 10, 2011 11:13 AM
    napkinshower
  • GREW50ME

    G4, you need to edit your Facebook status regarding this article. At present, it's false advertisement.

    Posted: October 10, 2011 10:42 AM
  • bigheadzach

    Regardless of what you think about this news, it's clear to me that Bioware is not wanting to stop "playing in the ME universe" with ME3 and have plans for more games and more media content involving the IP. Mass Effect has the potential to be as popular a franchise as any other well-known sci-fi series to date (Stargate, Star Trek, Bab5, Star Wars, Doctor Who, BSG, etc.) Any content they release for it will be awaited by me with high expectations, but awaited nonetheless. They're cutting their teeth on SWTOR, so it will only help with future products.

    Posted: October 10, 2011 10:34 AM
    bigheadzach
  • TheBRADLeyB

    My Opinion on this is...

    Welcome to the Delay of Mass Effect 3.

    It felt weird that ME3 was delayed and delayed so heavily and I think now we have our reason.

    I wouldn't be surprised if after DA2 not selling as well as BioWare/EA wanted EA came to Bioware and said, "You have to add in Multiplayer" because everyone knows Multiplayer extends a game's '60 Dollar Price Point' and that single player games typically get traded in quickly after release and are the featured items of '20-40 Percent Off!' deals on Amazon and K-Mart. Deus Ex experienced this as well as does almost every Single Player Game.


    So will it effect Single Player?... I wouldn't think it would, because I assume the Storyline and bulk of SP was already all but finished but I'm still not happy nor excited for this at all.


    If it's not Co-Op (which to me, Co-Op is Co-Op on not 'Multiplayer' so I don't think it's just a 'Co-Op') then I don't want it.

    Get your own Game Series Mass Effect Multiplayer.

    Posted: October 10, 2011 10:28 AM
  • BONERJAM

    I'm cool with added mp as long as it isn't a tacked on mode like Bioshock 2 had and that the campaign is still top notch. I don't know how much ME3 mp I would play but its a nice addition.

    Posted: October 10, 2011 10:27 AM
    BONERJAM
  • geomancer21

    The least they can do is give me an actual Shoe-Horn i can beat other people over the head with.

    Posted: October 10, 2011 10:27 AM
    geomancer21
  • darthno2

    it better be campaign coop, which shouldn't be too hard to add, other than that i don't care about any multiplayer. i'm not buying this game for multiplayer, i'm getting it for the EPIC single player.

    i've got halo and call of duty if i want to play multiplayer, which i rarely do.

    Posted: October 10, 2011 10:24 AM
    darthno2
  • darthno2

    all i want is campaign coop which shouldn't be too hard to add.

    other than that, i don't care about multiplayer. i've got halo and call of cuty for that, which i rarely play anyway online.

    Posted: October 10, 2011 10:20 AM
    darthno2
  • B-minus

    I think it's funny that so many people think this will be a bad game now because of multiplayer. The single player game and story will be great no matter what because what does Bioware focus on more than anything and thats telling a great story through a great game. For Star Wars The Old Republic they're making an incredible single player story thats in an MMO. So i think they can handle finishing up the single player game (which I'm sure they've almost completed they're just tweaking some things at this point), and making some kind of multiplayer that will hopefully be really good and maybe bring a new experience to multiplayer. I completely trust Bioware to make this game the best in the series. If it Bioware making a science fiction game you can't go wrong.

    Posted: October 10, 2011 10:03 AM
    B-minus
  • sutle_misou

    they should make it like the Pinnicale Station DLC they had for the first game, and nothing more.

    Posted: October 10, 2011 9:57 AM
  • mlriley

    Anyone complaining about this is an idiot. If you don't like multiplayer, don't play it. It's simple. Just because a game has multiplayer doesn't mean it affects the campaign.

    Posted: October 10, 2011 9:49 AM
    mlriley
  • abloobudoo009

    Just because it's multiplayer DOES NOT mean it's automatically gonna be like call of duty. Everyone needs to stop comparing every game to that piece worthless nothing of a game. It says fight with your friends. Ever thought of co-op missions?

    Posted: October 10, 2011 9:48 AM
    abloobudoo009
  • cwbys21

    For people who can't figure it out, let me explain this as simply as I can. There is only so many people and so much time permitted to make a game. To put in multiplayer, you take away a lot of people and the thousands of hours of work they are putting into the game away from the single player part into a brand new, untested, multiplayer. Therefore the single player isn't going to be as good as it could be. Just look at Bioshock 2 for all the proof you need.

    Posted: October 10, 2011 9:39 AM
    cwbys21

ADVERTISEMENT

Blog Tags

g4tv.com
  • International Sexy Ladies Show: Messy Cat Fight

    Posted: January 27, 2010

    426,306 Views | 00:49

  • Solidoodle 2 3D Printer

    Posted: June 21, 2012

    145,421 Views | 03:14

  • Sara Underwood's Naked Bike Ride

    Posted: June 22, 2011

    1,023,235 Views | 05:20

  • International Sexy Ladies Show: Staircase To Heaven

    Posted: January 22, 2010

    311,442 Views | 00:42

  • All New Season of The International Sexy Ladies Show

    Posted: January 22, 2010

    147,957 Views | 00:30

AdChoices