Mass Effect 3 - Multiplayer Preview Video

#1 Posted by Contro (2040 posts) -

Bioware have released this new video detailing the new multiplayer mode in Mass Effect 3.

#2 Posted by altairre (1192 posts) -

I don´t believe I´m saying this but it looks kinda cool.

#3 Posted by SmasheControllers (2550 posts) -

Amazing, can't wait!

#4 Posted by Contro (2040 posts) -

It actually sounds very cool, so cool I think it could heighten the experience of both MP and Singleplayer, which is seemingly what they're attempting to do with this.

#5 Edited by Superfriend (1554 posts) -

What the hell is up with all this AfterEffects stuff?! The production values seem through the roof.. until you hear the guy talk. They probably couldn´t afford better mics after spending all their budget on flashy animation.

Also: Mass Effect does NOT need multiplayer. It needs more rpg parts, more weapons, more customization, better exploration, more than just good/evil choices in a lot of cases. It needs a lot of stuff. Not MP.

#6 Posted by RockinKemosabe (619 posts) -

Wait! There's a Bioware TV?

#7 Posted by Crixaliz (782 posts) -

Looks awesome!

I really hope it has split-screen

#8 Posted by JoeyRavn (4974 posts) -

Can't say I care much about ME3 at this point, after that terrible last DLC Bioware put out for ME2. I wouldn't care about this co-op mode either... But, wait. Did he just say that "the more you control in the multiplayer, the better your singleplayer ending will be"? So, I'll be forced to play multiplayer to get the best ending in the campaign?

He either chose his words very badly, or I won't be playing ME3 at all.

#9 Posted by LordXavierBritish (6320 posts) -

Do Bioware employees exist in some kind of dimensional rift.

#10 Posted by PhatSeeJay (3322 posts) -

This was pretty much what I expected, only I had more imagined more narrow character designs. Pretty cool that you get to create your own character for it.

I'm down with it.

#11 Posted by Sackmanjones (4705 posts) -

Awesome. Most anticipated game for me.

#12 Edited by PhatSeeJay (3322 posts) -

@JoeyRavn said:

Can't say I care much about ME3 at this point, after that terrible last DLC Bioware put out for ME2. I wouldn't care about this co-op mode either... But, wait. Did he just say that "the more you control in the multiplayer, the better your singleplayer ending will be"? So, I'll be forced to play multiplayer to get the best ending in the campaign?

He either chose his words very badly, or I won't be playing ME3 at all.

No you just want to hear what you want to hear. As he specifically said that you can achieve the best ending by doing a hundred percent SP playthrough, but you can also choose to use the co-op component to boost your success in SP if you don't want to grind the 100% completion.

#13 Posted by benjaebe (2783 posts) -

I'd like to see the multiplayer be received well, because I think that after Shepard's trilogy was concluded I'd love to see a cooperative campaign sort of game that lets you create your own character/species and all that and play in a squad of friends.

#14 Posted by JoeyRavn (4974 posts) -

@PhatSeeJay said:

@JoeyRavn said:

Can't say I care much about ME3 at this point, after that terrible last DLC Bioware put out for ME2. I wouldn't care about this co-op mode either... But, wait. Did he just say that "the more you control in the multiplayer, the better your singleplayer ending will be"? So, I'll be forced to play multiplayer to get the best ending in the campaign?

He either chose his words very badly, or I won't be playing ME3 at all.

No you just want to hear what you want to hear. As he specifically said that you can achieve the best ending by doing a hundred percent SP playthrough, but you can also choose to use the co-op component to boost your success in SP if you don't want to grind the 100% completion.

Not really, I must have missed that part. But, oh well. Still can't care about this, multiplayer or not.

#15 Edited by DonPixel (2585 posts) -

@PhatSeeJay said:

@JoeyRavn said:

Can't say I care much about ME3 at this point, after that terrible last DLC Bioware put out for ME2. I wouldn't care about this co-op mode either... But, wait. Did he just say that "the more you control in the multiplayer, the better your singleplayer ending will be"? So, I'll be forced to play multiplayer to get the best ending in the campaign?

He either chose his words very badly, or I won't be playing ME3 at all.

No you just want to hear what you want to hear. As he specifically said that you can achieve the best ending by doing a hundred percent SP playthrough, but you can also choose to use the co-op component to boost your success in SP if you don't want to grind the 100% completion.

Average joe always knows best right? They should learn to wait until they play the game to judge it.

#16 Posted by Dany (7887 posts) -

Hmm, looks really cool.

We need to posse up when the games comes out...

#17 Edited by JoeyRavn (4974 posts) -

@DonPixel said:

@PhatSeeJay said:

@JoeyRavn said:

Can't say I care much about ME3 at this point, after that terrible last DLC Bioware put out for ME2. I wouldn't care about this co-op mode either... But, wait. Did he just say that "the more you control in the multiplayer, the better your singleplayer ending will be"? So, I'll be forced to play multiplayer to get the best ending in the campaign?

He either chose his words very badly, or I won't be playing ME3 at all.

No you just want to hear what you want to hear. As he specifically said that you can achieve the best ending by doing a hundred percent SP playthrough, but you can also choose to use the co-op component to boost your success in SP if you don't want to grind the 100% completion.

Average joe always knows best right? They should learn to wait until they play the game to judge them.

Missed my last post, dude. Where I said I must have heard it wrong. But, hey. Average joe always knows best, right? You should read the whole topic before whiteknighting your way through it.

#18 Posted by probablytuna (3664 posts) -

When they officially announced this I was disappointed, but somehow after this, I feel a lot better about multiplayer though I probably won't be playing that until the Mass Effect 3 story has concluded. Damn you Casey Hudson!

#19 Posted by BraveToaster (12589 posts) -

A co-op component is cool; I was scared that Bioware was going to add some broken Team Deathmatch mode to the game. It looks promising.

@Superfriend said:

Also: Mass Effect does NOT need multiplayer. It needs more rpg parts, more weapons, more customization, better exploration, more than just good/evil choices in a lot of cases. It needs a lot of stuff. Not MP.

How do you know that Bioware isn't adding more of those things? I just want to find more info.

#20 Posted by DonPixel (2585 posts) -

@JoeyRavn: you wrong again I'm a DARKNIGHT!! anyway if you don't care about Mass Effect this conversation won't be that productive, stay average dear joe!

#21 Posted by Contro (2040 posts) -

I've got no problem with MP, but I do want them to lean more on the RPG side of things this time around, the last game was way too light on RPG elements, so much so it bordered on being comical. I suppose I didn't care ultimately though, I look back a Mass Effect 2 very fondly now, but in my mind I see it as a shooter with light RPG elements, not an RPG first an foremost.

#22 Posted by TaliciaDragonsong (8699 posts) -

Meh, I'll see it when it comes out.

#23 Posted by Superfriend (1554 posts) -

@Axxol said:

A co-op component is cool; I was scared that Bioware was going to add some broken Team Deathmatch mode to the game. It looks promising.

@Superfriend said:

Also: Mass Effect does NOT need multiplayer. It needs more rpg parts, more weapons, more customization, better exploration, more than just good/evil choices in a lot of cases. It needs a lot of stuff. Not MP.

How do you know that Bioware isn't adding more of those things? I just want to find more info.

Yeah, they have already said it would probably have more skill-tree stuff and weapon customization than ME2 had. That´s not sayin a lot though, ME2 was a shooter with a little decision making and very, very, very light rpg elements. It was a good game, but Bioware could do better and they don´t have to try so hard to appeal to the shooter crowd. Idk, I remain sceptical about the whole thing. Plus, the way I like to play Bioware games doesn´t work in an MP environment (pausing all the time and thinking about the actions), so this probably won´t be for me.

#24 Edited by MentalDisruption (1635 posts) -

Looks better than I was expecting. The mass effect universe has always been one that I wanted to see be used in a multiplayer setting eventually. Not necessarily as a part of the trilogy, but if they can make it work, more power to them.

#25 Posted by BraveToaster (12589 posts) -

@Superfriend said:

@Axxol said:

A co-op component is cool; I was scared that Bioware was going to add some broken Team Deathmatch mode to the game. It looks promising.

@Superfriend said:

Also: Mass Effect does NOT need multiplayer. It needs more rpg parts, more weapons, more customization, better exploration, more than just good/evil choices in a lot of cases. It needs a lot of stuff. Not MP.

How do you know that Bioware isn't adding more of those things? I just want to find more info.

Yeah, they have already said it would probably have more skill-tree stuff and weapon customization than ME2 had. That´s not sayin a lot though, ME2 was a shooter with a little decision making and very, very, very light rpg elements. It was a good game, but Bioware could do better and they don´t have to try so hard to appeal to the shooter crowd. Idk, I remain sceptical about the whole thing. Plus, the way I like to play Bioware games doesn´t work in an MP environment (pausing all the time and thinking about the actions), so this probably won´t be for me.

But multiplayer is optional, so you can still play the way that you want.

#26 Posted by Brodehouse (9950 posts) -

I think the backlash against everything BioWare related is pretty funny.

#27 Posted by Irvandus (2879 posts) -

This sounds awesome!

#28 Posted by PiltdownMan (76 posts) -

I'm not sure about this, it seems like someone at BioWare played firefight or horde or something like that and said hey, how do we put this in our game. I'll wait to see if it's fun or not. The thing I've liked the best from the Mass Effect series is the whole dialogue tree wheel thing. I just wished there was a little more grey than the whole paragon/renegade system allows. If they had that grey I would play a game of just that.

I find it amusing how he said that the last part of the trilogy is a good place to start. You should really watch Jedi first, it makes your enjoyment of the first two movies that much better. Hey, start out by reading Return of the King, no sense in reading those first two. It's especially odd considering how much your actions in the first two games will hopefully inform this one. I'm not sure if I would be happy or disappointed to see that I couldn't get the optimal ending in this third game since I left the council to fend for themselves in their super cool battlecruiser while I was trying to save the galaxy in the first game, and would have to go through and play all three over again to get the "optimal" ending. Now that I think about it, I like that idea quite a bit.

Oh, and I don't get why people call Dragon Age 2 a bad game, I understand the complaints of the samey dungeons, but I liked the story, and the way it was presented.

#29 Posted by Dookysharpgun (586 posts) -

@PhatSeeJay said:

@JoeyRavn said:

Can't say I care much about ME3 at this point, after that terrible last DLC Bioware put out for ME2. I wouldn't care about this co-op mode either... But, wait. Did he just say that "the more you control in the multiplayer, the better your singleplayer ending will be"? So, I'll be forced to play multiplayer to get the best ending in the campaign?

He either chose his words very badly, or I won't be playing ME3 at all.

No you just want to hear what you want to hear. As he specifically said that you can achieve the best ending by doing a hundred percent SP playthrough, but you can also choose to use the co-op component to boost your success in SP if you don't want to grind the 100% completion.

Actually he did say that "the more you control in the multiplayer, the better your singleplayer ending will be", and then followed up by saying that if you wanted to do a SP run then you could...the part about SP is a fairly short nod, and should have probably been said beforehand to make it crystal clear. I had to rewind the video just to hear that SP part. Its a very large announcement followed by a clarification, the completely arse-from-elbow way an interviewee should handle such an issue, and a perfectly understandable oversight for the chap you aggressively criticised.

No need to get testy, to a lot of people, myself included, ME3 is looking fairly bland. And at the end of the day, it's how the concepts play out that will define if this is a success or flop. This Co-Op mode has very little detail surrounding it, and I doubt they'll place anything remotely RPG-esque in it, bar the customisation, which is bare bones, and might not even be all that diverse. More than likely it'll be a set of predetermined corridor crawls like some of the ME2 loyalty missions, or side missions, that have very little impact on the overall campaign, or at best, a contrived impact. I'm just ball-parking it here. This will be where the DLC is coming in. However, I do have an issue with the way they're presenting this. You could play the SP all the way through, but alternatively you could play the MP. I dislike that. If you play a SP RPG, like the previous two titles, you know what you're getting into. Therefore you should have no issue playing through the campaign the normal way. Inserting MP Co-Op just gives those who take the story as back-burner a chance to do as well as everyone else. Not cool. It's an RPG. ME2 showed lazy players if they skipped on important missions, they'd get punished for it. It wasn't done particularly well, but it was still a constant threat. In this? Nah you're grand, just play some Co-Op there, and you'll be fine. So doing a complete 180, they went from possible brutal punishment, to an element of gameplay that could, and more than likely will be, exploited in order to fill a readiness bar...I can't get behind that.

He also said at the beginning "for people who have never played a game in the mass effect series before..." (perhaps not a direct quote, but ballparked) which shows, to me, that this game has elements geared towards a new audience, which is bad form, given that this is the end of a trilogy, the exact point when you shouldn't be pandering to new gamers. An idea such as that alienates your current audience, making them feel like this game is not made for them, thus you instill a sense of distrust as well as alienation throughout your longtime fans, it also insults the intelligence of new fans, by making it overly accessible, and far too simplified, seeing as this game series is current gen, and readily available for low prices in any store. I think bringing people into the fold for the game itself should be what makes it a great experience, not bending to the pressures of modern day industry norms to bring in people who won't appreciate your work for the total experience it was. Mass Effect has gone from a heavily story-based RPG with shooter elements, to a TPS with RPG and minor story elements. ME2 hasn't aged well at all, and I can only imagine that given the mindset of both Bioware and EA at the moment, that the only way they thought of how to rectify this problem was through MP.

I also have an issue with the readiness bar...why? Haven't all the previous reports said that Shepard is on earth when the Reapers attack? That they've already started to assault other planets too? So...what are we getting ready for? Another, ANOTHER Reaper invasion? Unless this is another 180 turn in storytelling, which would explain it, then a lot of the gameplay and talking up they've done of ME3 seems to be pretty much null & void. Everything about this screams 'we haven't got a clue what we're doing anymore' or 'we're really disorganised' from the Bioware camp. It's the first sign of communication breakdown, when the consumers are left out of a critical loop, wondering just what in the hell is going on.

Just my observations. If that's based on 'hearing what I want to hear', then I must get my ears checked, as it would seem that those are all valid, important, logical points, raised from all of the information accumulated over the last few months of announcements from Bioware. Also...all of those points are things I'd really never want to hear...ever, because they're highly depressing and sad.

#30 Posted by Cornman89 (1579 posts) -

Understandable that they're trying to control the message as much as they can. In the absence of real information, people will assume the worst, and indeed already are.
 
Anyway, looks like a feature I can safely ignore. I'm OK with this.

#31 Posted by Brodehouse (9950 posts) -
@Dookysharpgun: I don't think there's anyone playing Mass Effect who 'takes the story as a backburner'.  The inclusion of progression in the co-op mode that helps the singleplayer is BioWare making the co-op feel vital to the experience, rather than some weird side mode.  Without the 'war asset' bonuses, it's completely disconnected.  Attempting to have some connection between your single and multi isn't new, Gears of War 3 has its medals which can be earned through every mode.
 
The missions appear to be important battles and firefights across the galaxy, turning the tide against Cerberus and the Reapers, holding onto and driving them out of key tactical positions (hence why completing them helps Shepard).  You can call that 'little impact' but I think there are stories to be told there.  I also bet that you can probably max out that galactic readiness bar without doing every single side mission in the game.  You can probably do it by doing every major mission and a smattering of side missions, but this gives you another 'side mission' option that allows you to play with your friends as well.  
 
And where do you get off expecting that no one else should be allowed to play Mass Effect 3 unless they've been following the series since 2007?  Do you think they approached Gears 3 with that idea?  "They haven't played the earlier parts in Marcus' quest, so screw them!"  I've never heard such arrogance.  "This game has elements geared for a new audience"... you mean the game might actually attempt to explain the events of the last two games instead of just jumping straight into it and expecting that everyone putting it in knows what the genophage is?  You realize these are consumer products, right?
 
A third person shooter with minor story elements.  Yeah, you know what.  Go ahead and believe that.  I'd prefer if you went on believing that and didn't play Mass Effect 3.  I've heard way too much bullshit about this game from its 'fans' before it's even came out.
#32 Posted by FreakAche (2953 posts) -

This announcement was part of what encouraged me to get an Xbox Live Gold account again! I don't think it will be the main draw of the game, but I'm really excited to get some gaming on with some like minded Mass Effect fans!

#33 Posted by Teran (877 posts) -

@Superfriend: They have artists on staff... they probably don't have experienced sound engineers, at least not sound engineers who know a lot about broadcast sound mixing and such.

#34 Posted by Dookysharpgun (586 posts) -

@Brodehouse said:

@Dookysharpgun: I don't think there's anyone playing Mass Effect who 'takes the story as a backburner'. The inclusion of progression in the co-op mode that helps the singleplayer is BioWare making the co-op feel vital to the experience, rather than some weird side mode. Without the 'war asset' bonuses, it's completely disconnected. Attempting to have some connection between your single and multi isn't new, Gears of War 3 has its medals which can be earned through every mode. The missions appear to be important battles and firefights across the galaxy, turning the tide against Cerberus and the Reapers, holding onto and driving them out of key tactical positions (hence why completing them helps Shepard). You can call that 'little impact' but I think there are stories to be told there. I also bet that you can probably max out that galactic readiness bar without doing every single side mission in the game. You can probably do it by doing every major mission and a smattering of side missions, but this gives you another 'side mission' option that allows you to play with your friends as well. And where do you get off expecting that no one else should be allowed to play Mass Effect 3 unless they've been following the series since 2007? Do you think they approached Gears 3 with that idea? "They haven't played the earlier parts in Marcus' quest, so screw them!" I've never heard such arrogance. "This game has elements geared for a new audience"... you mean the game might actually attempt to explain the events of the last two games instead of just jumping straight into it and expecting that everyone putting it in knows what the genophage is? You realize these are consumer products, right? A third person shooter with minor story elements. Yeah, you know what. Go ahead and believe that. I'd prefer if you went on believing that and didn't play Mass Effect 3. I've heard way too much bullshit about this game from its 'fans' before it's even came out.

Wow...you're the type of person I usually try to avoid like the plague. Lemme just address one quick thing before anything else: I did not say that people who haven't played ME1 and ME2 shouldn't be allowed to play ME3. That's a childish reaction to a point I made about a completely different aspect of ME3. I think people should be able to enjoy the game. But I think that pandering to everyone and anyone with shiny new gimmicks to do so is insulting to anyone, new or old player alike.

Also don't drag Gear of War 3 into this, the series is an out-and-out shooter, hands down. Story doesn't really matter in a TPS, killing hordes of shitheads is all anyone is really thinking about. Two totally different markets, two completely separate ideas. Grow up. And while I do believe that elements from prior games should be explained...isn't that what dialogue trees are for? The same as in ME2? But what shows that you're completely out of touch with reality is how you actually approached what I said: The elements geared towards new players: the Co-Op, the TPS-style controls, the back and forth storyline elements that Bioware seem to be juggling...not a good sign when they're marketing to a specific genre...RPG.

Now, obviously, we live of separate worlds, because I have spoken to many a person about Mass Effect, and you know what? They hated the story, didn't like the dialogue, skipped most, if not all of it if they could, and wanted to shoot things.

Co-Op is a crutch. Pure and simple. You don't want to play every single mission in SP to max out your readiness bar? Fine, do some Co-Op. Made a mistake? Do some Co-Op. In ME2, if you refused to do some loyalty missions, people died. Refused to do most of the loyalty missions, Shepard could die. That was it. Shepard = DEAD. Game over. Punishment for sheer laziness. Play the game the way it was meant to be played, pure and simple. Now we have a crutch for the type of people who waltz in and don't give a shit. Where's the challenge in that? This has become a total pander-fest to the lazy, attention-less generation that wouldn't know a good story if it decided to stab them in the gizzards and dance over their corpse naked, singing 'I'm a good story', with a neon fucking sign over its head.

The only arrogance being shown here is from you, with you're total lack of understanding for reasonable criticisms of an idea that, while you may think is appealing, has very little basis for existing at all. You're either very, very young, or naive.

Portal 2 used Co-Op as a continuation of a story. Simple idea, excellent design and payoff. Can't think of another game that used Co-Op so effectively. Had no effect on the main game. None whatsoever. Separate yet awesome. What else do I really need to say on this topic? It was a different genre, but what it did, it did well.

Look, you're obviously insane, have a massive hard-on for Bioware, and Gears of War 3...which is worrying as once again, GoW3 is not the same genre as ME3, the very comparison to the series actually makes my point a lot stronger, and you have to be very, very young. Otherwise you'd actually think about what you're saying.

You obviously think that you have opinions...that you believe are valid. But they are not. You have the same reaction as everyone else who rushes in half-cocked, trying to whiteknight the situation before someones opinion circulates. You can't be taken seriously, and the only solace I have is that this rather long, detailed message, might soothe your bad mood. I mean, I'd be pissy too if I had a stick that large up my ass.

Seriously though, it's cute, but you're fooling nobody here. I'll continue my life of being an adult, someone whose opinions are actually coloured by experience and individual thought, instead of a self-entitled, immature individual, whose only issue is 'someone doesn't like what I like, because what I like it informed by popular opinion'. I've had my fair share of throwdowns on this site, with a lot of people, some I respect, some I do not. You? You're not really anything. Not a troll, not an asshole...just a stereotype...that bums me out. I always feel that any opinion, uninformed or not, should be respected enough to reply to, you put in the effort, so why shouldn't I? But this? What you're after rhyming off? It's just sad. I really, really can't take you seriously. What you've said...everyone without an opinion has said the exact same as you about an infinite amount of things in existence. I never like to write anyone off...but I've never had much time for carbon copy stereotypes without an original thought in their heads...

#35 Posted by Brodehouse (9950 posts) -
@Dookysharpgun Story matters in any game that has one. It's not somehow more important because a game has statistics than a game without them. There's nothing about shooting guys from cover that opposes narrative, in fact, there are third person shooters with some pretty good narrative out there now. As for BioWare marketing it as an RPG, I'm not sure where you get that, but fine. Very few people understand the difference between tabletop and video game RPGs anyway.

I've chosen to ignore your various personal attacks and strange emotional tangents. No one has to prove anything here, least of all to you.
#36 Posted by familyphotoshoot (653 posts) -

@Brodehouse: Well, you have to admit that they're made some development choices recently that are kind of hard not to be annoyed with.

DA2 was kind of a mess, and a lot of people thought it was "casualized" (I really hate the word casual when it comes to games) to appeal to a wider market. EA acquiring them has made a lot of people kind of anxious about the direction the company is going, and I think a lot of people are afraid that ME3 is going to get the DA2 treatment.

#37 Posted by Nentisys (892 posts) -

The Mass Effect series is one of my favorites but I don't give a fuck about adding multiplayer to it. Give me more "RPG", less 3rd person shooting.

#38 Posted by endaround (2145 posts) -

Well its being done by Bioware Montreal-the studio that exists to get money from the Canadian government. They are the ones who did the last DLC for ME2 and in many ways this multiplayer looks to be just as tacked on and any given piece of DLC.

#39 Edited by musclerider (589 posts) -

I liked the part where Bioware TV somehow managed to get a hold of Casey Hudson for an interview.

"Hi I'm the head of marketing here's a guy from the floor below me that we somehow managed to wrangle for an interview about his game for our internal promotion."

#40 Posted by Dookysharpgun (586 posts) -

@Brodehouse said:

@Dookysharpgun Story matters in any game that has one. It's not somehow more important because a game has statistics than a game without them. There's nothing about shooting guys from cover that opposes narrative, in fact, there are third person shooters with some pretty good narrative out there now. As for BioWare marketing it as an RPG, I'm not sure where you get that, but fine. Very few people understand the difference between tabletop and video game RPGs anyway. I've chosen to ignore your various personal attacks and strange emotional tangents. No one has to prove anything here, least of all to you.

I want you to just re-read the two posts you sent me. Just really re-read them. You went apeshit for absolutely no reason other than disagreeing with my opinions. But that's fine. Try to act calm and collected.

....I....have no idea what your issue is, maybe you're far too confused to understand, but...Mass Effect is an RPG, a WRPG to be exact. Don't try to pull that 'difference between table top and videogame RPG' crap, again, its a popular opinion I've seen used far too many times to write off logical arguments.

Well, that's very nice of you, taking the high ground, when not one message ago you were PMSing about something you totally misinterpreted, remember the arrogance remark? That wasn't overblown to the point of insanity, nor was it a personal attack right? I'll let you continue on with your life, think I've proven, albeit unintentionally, beyond a shadow of a doubt just how misinformed you really are. I'll just take your little outburst as a moment of weakness, and your attempts at rectifying it as some sad way to redeem your already shattered image.

...really though, you need to scrap all those cliched lines...its unbecoming.

#41 Posted by Brodehouse (9950 posts) -
@Dookysharpgun I don't really follow pop culture that much, so if you're directly quoting Charlie Sheen, I can't tell.
#42 Posted by miguelkosta76 (32 posts) -

I don't feel like the Multiplayer will be significant, ME3 is all about the singleplayer campain. Nevertheless the MP is there and that is always a good thing.

http://thehalfgame.blogspot.com/

#43 Posted by AngelN7 (2970 posts) -

Man I was making such a big deal about this , but it´s totally harmless carry on Bioware.

#44 Posted by Dany (7887 posts) -

@miguelkosta76 said:

I don't feel like the Multiplayer will be significant, ME3 is all about the singleplayer campain. Nevertheless the MP is there and that is always a good thing.

http://thehalfgame.blogspot.com/

I agree

http://stoppluggingyourwebsiteineverygoddamnpost.blogspot.com

#45 Posted by Gerhabio (1977 posts) -

@JoeyRavn said:

Can't say I care much about ME3 at this point, after that terrible last DLC Bioware put out for ME2. I wouldn't care about this co-op mode either... But, wait. Did he just say that "the more you control in the multiplayer, the better your singleplayer ending will be"? So, I'll be forced to play multiplayer to get the best ending in the campaign?

He either chose his words very badly, or I won't be playing ME3 at all.

Nope, he explicitly stated that you can get the best ending without ever touching the multiplayer but now you'll have to option to complement the singleplayer with the multiplayer if you so choose.

I imagine it will be useful if you make bad decisions in the singleplayer, you can then, if you want, make up for them in the multiplayer.

#46 Posted by wh1terav3n (659 posts) -
For Bioware Pulse, I'm reminding you to keep your finger on the Pulse.

You sir, are a comedian.

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.