ME3: Would you get rid of multiplayer if it improved campaign?

  • 74 results
  • 1
  • 2
Posted by ypod (53 posts) -

We had a really interesting question submitted to us by a viewer. Do you prefer ME3 as it is, or would you have wanted a better single player campaign at the expense of not having multiplayer? We know that the two were developed by separate teams, but it's still an interesting topic to discuss theoretically. I would definitely discard multiplayer to get a more polished campaign, but my answer would be reversed for other series like Assassin's Creed. Curious to see what others think.

#1 Posted by ypod (53 posts) -

We had a really interesting question submitted to us by a viewer. Do you prefer ME3 as it is, or would you have wanted a better single player campaign at the expense of not having multiplayer? We know that the two were developed by separate teams, but it's still an interesting topic to discuss theoretically. I would definitely discard multiplayer to get a more polished campaign, but my answer would be reversed for other series like Assassin's Creed. Curious to see what others think.

#2 Edited by SpaceInsomniac (3755 posts) -

No. ME3 multiplayer is actually fun, the campaign was long enough, and the ending being poorly written crap has nothing to do with polish.

Truthfully, I would have gotten rid of the day one DLC, and used THAT time to write a better ending. A conclusion that was actually peer reviewed this time, and really did feel like the ending to a trilogy.

#3 Posted by BraveToaster (12589 posts) -

I agree with SpaceInsomniac. The campaign was good, the only problem was the last 10 minutes or so.

#4 Edited by FLStyle (4723 posts) -

@SpaceInsomniac said:

No. ME3 multiplayer is actually fun, the campaign was long enough, and the ending being poorly written crap has nothing to do with polish.

Correct.

@ypod: that's a poor question you chose and a moot point entirely. In no way would no multi-player change the campaign.

The entire video seemed like an anti-multi-player video masqueraded as an attempt to have a meaningful debate. Some of the "This isn't a dig on the multi-player but... *proceeds to inexplicably attempt to link something that the person didn't like in the campaign to their experience in the multi-player*" lines were particularly poor and looked like confirmation bias.

EDIT: Also, Flagged because you're not "Curious to see what others think" you're just advertising for more views.

#5 Posted by ypod (53 posts) -

@FLStyle said:

@ypod: that's a poorquestion you chose and a moot point entirely. In no way would no multi-player change the campaign.

It wasn't meant to prove a correlation between the ending and the inclusion of multiplayer, if was more of a theoretical question. We all sided on preferring an enchanced single player, but that doesn't mean we're anti-multiplayer. We all play the multiplayer and enjoy it quite a lot. The last ten minutes wasn't necessarily the only thing we were considering, we were also disappointed with the stripped down mini games, glitchy cut scenes, oddly prominent fetch quests and the overly straightforward morality system. We shared the view that although the ending is bad, the rest of the game isn't without problems.

#6 Posted by Sackmanjones (4711 posts) -

Whether you agree with the ending or not the overall campaign is excellent. Sure they could have added maybe a few more things but overall the multiplayer is good enough that I'm good with what they did

#7 Posted by Brendan (7817 posts) -

Nope, I thought that most of the campaign was fantastic, and the multiplayer is fun to boot. I like it as is. Most of the conceptual problems posed in the video have little to do with time or resources, they are at the mercy of inspiration.

#8 Posted by Ketchupp (673 posts) -

I'm totally down with the indoctrination theory so hell no.

#9 Posted by mikey87144 (1781 posts) -

Campaign could have been better in spots. If the campaign could be improved then I would cut the multiplayer but I haven't touched it so take that into account.

#10 Posted by Scrawnto (2452 posts) -

Better is pretty vague. It depends how much better it would be. Certainly there is a level of quality that would be worth sacrificing the multiplayer for. That said, there are no guarantees that redistributing assets that way would have any particular effect on the quality of the campaign. A lot of the assets from multiplayer were reused from single player (powers, weapons, upgrades, etc.). And simply throwing more people at a problem doesn't necessarily have a big impact on how well it is handled.

#11 Edited by Jimbo (9819 posts) -

Yeah it was probably a distraction they could have done without honestly. No surprise that the one with multiplayer shoehorned into it turned out to be the weakest entry in the trilogy.

#12 Posted by SlightConfuse (3963 posts) -

the campagin has been real fun so far(im in the middle of the quarian/geth stuff). the multiplayer has been suprisingly fun as well so no. besides the "controversial" ending i can't see what they would ahve done. maybe better quest log

#13 Posted by SethPhotopoulos (5284 posts) -

1. It was made by a different team.

2. EA probably wouldn't have used the money and resources going into the development of the multiplayer for the single player if the multiplayer wasn't conceived. The campaign probably would have had the same amount of resources.

The most that would have probably come out of that is that you wouldn't have the N7 missions in the single player.

#14 Posted by N7 (3590 posts) -

Nope. Me and my Geth Engineer have a connection. Nothing is taking him away from me. Nothing.

#15 Posted by chilibean_3 (1644 posts) -

In a heartbeat. The multiplayer is okay at best. The story is why you come to Mass Effect. Of course getting rid of it would have little effect, if any, to the single player game.

#16 Posted by ImmortalSaiyan (4683 posts) -

If getting rid of the multiplayer would magically fix the last mission and make it awesome I would exchange it.

#17 Posted by Jrinswand (1709 posts) -

I don't have any problems with the single player campaign but I don't really see the need for multiplayer in a game like this, where combat isn't the main draw.

#18 Posted by MayorFeedback (674 posts) -

I am a "rarely interested in multiplayer" sort of guy, but ME3 multiplayer was easily the best part of the game. I liked the campaign all right, but I had the most fun in multiplayer.

#19 Posted by Mesoian (1574 posts) -

Sure. Multiplayer is a little interesting and sort of fun for about 3 or 4 hours. It doesn't have the last appeal it needs for it to be a worthwhile feature. After finishing my first gold match, I never played it again.

Though that being said, this multiplayer stuff was in the works for a while as a standalone game, then scrapped, and the remnants are pretty much what is in ME3, so that has very little to do with the state of the campaign.

But on a whole, yeah, I'd rather the single player experience be more positively interesting.

#20 Posted by Crixaliz (782 posts) -

@MayorFeedback said:

I am a "rarely interested in multiplayer" sort of guy, but ME3 multiplayer was easily the best part of the game. I liked the campaign all right, but I had the most fun in multiplayer.

I'm in the same boat.

The multiplayer part of the demo sold me on the game.

#21 Posted by Tylea002 (2295 posts) -

In a heartbeat. However good the multiplayer is, I'd trade it in a second for even a marginally better campaign.

#22 Posted by S0ndor (2716 posts) -

No

#23 Posted by cmblasko (1252 posts) -

No, I am really enjoying the multiplayer.

Honestly, at this point, I would trade future campaign DLC for more multiplayer content. I don't really see myself playing through the campaign a second time.

#24 Posted by jaycrockett (460 posts) -

No, I really like the multiplayer and would prefer more multiplayer DLC over single player at this point.

#25 Posted by NTM (7409 posts) -

Well, if the multiplayer had anything to do with ME3 losing any polish, then yes, but I'm not sure it did. Or at least I hope it didn't. I liked the single player a lot, although it's tough to go back to. I did play it again on insanity and got to Kai Leng and died once, then after it loaded up it kept glitching and I couldn't get out of my power wheel, but everything kept going so I kept dying. I may have to try it again, I stopped playing it too quickly I'm sure, but I did want to play some other games as well, and while I didn't necessarily hate the ending, it makes it hard to return to the game.

#26 Posted by allworkandlowpay (874 posts) -

With the exception of a lackluster conclusion, the majority of the game needed no added time or improvement. The multiplayer is a fine addition to the game.

#27 Posted by phrosnite (3518 posts) -

Multi is awesome. The only bad thing about the game is the "side" stuff. So... no.

#28 Posted by kermoosh (911 posts) -

if we got actual side quests instead of fetchquests, along with a good quest log that would be great. but that isn't enough to warrent getting rid of the multiplayer

#29 Posted by BaneFireLord (2941 posts) -

...is this a trick question? Fuck the multiplayer, seriously. The only reason I played any of it was because of that stupid Galactic Readiness stuff.

Online
#30 Posted by acarab1981 (32 posts) -

@kermoosh said:

if we got actual side quests instead of fetchquests, along with a good quest log that would be great. but that isn't enough to warrent getting rid of the multiplayer

agreed

#31 Posted by pweidman (2339 posts) -

naw, the co-op mp is epic, and will be around a while for sure. still having a blast w/friends on a nightly basis..definitely wouldn't trade it, despite being a huge fan of the series and the story overall.

#32 Posted by mordukai (7153 posts) -

Not trying to discount the hard work done by the Bioware team responsible for the coop MP but personally I would have liked Bioware to invest that time and money in building better side missions for ME3. I am not gonna say the MP hurt the game but it sure as shit effected the SP aspect.

#33 Posted by JasonR86 (9714 posts) -

Sure. But, realistically, getting rid of the multiplayer likely wouldn't have improved the campaign. The campaign wasn't disliked due to lack of content or polish. It was disliked due to the direction the campaign took the story.

Online
#34 Posted by rjayb89 (7724 posts) -

Yeah, there should have been threesomes in this game. Traynor and Liara were practically begging for some action with the Shep.

#35 Posted by Marz (5654 posts) -

if i'm not mistaken the multiplayer was made by a different team at the studio...  thus the creative team for the main game wasn't really compromised.    

#36 Posted by CornishRocker (397 posts) -

As much as I like the multiplayer, if the man hours and money that went into producing it had instead been used to make the ME3 campaign better, then yes, I'd have preferred that.

#37 Posted by Bell_End (1208 posts) -

i was very happy with the SP and MP, sure the last 10 mins was not as good as it could of been but i still really liked it

#38 Posted by MooseyMcMan (11127 posts) -

Yes.

But I don't think the situation was simple enough that doing so would have drastically changed the campaign, or changed it at all.

Moderator
#39 Posted by MideonNViscera (2257 posts) -

How would it improve campaign? Do you think the writers made the multiplayer?

#40 Posted by StarvingGamer (8283 posts) -

@SpaceInsomniac said:

A conclusion that was actually peer reviewed this time

Wasn't that rumor debunked pretty quickly?

#41 Posted by EXTomar (4763 posts) -

I would go the contrary: The Mass Effect 3 mutliplayer would be better as a stand alone game instead of a mode in a single player game.

#42 Posted by mutha3 (4985 posts) -

I have no idea why there is such a fervor around the ME3 MP. Its a barebones horde mode with an extremely shitty progression mechanic tied on.
 
Anyway, I would trade it for a better SP in a heartbeat. The lack of polish in ME3 is painfully visible in the entire game.

#43 Posted by mutha3 (4985 posts) -
@StarvingGamer said:

@SpaceInsomniac said:

A conclusion that was actually peer reviewed this time

Wasn't that rumor debunked pretty quickly?

No, it wasn't. Bioware "confirmed" it was fake based on......absolutely nothing. Either a masterclass photoshop forgery was made using Weekes' legit PA account name and there is a contingent of people out there who claim they saw it that are lying through their teeth or.....Bioware is covering their ass.
#44 Posted by BoG (5191 posts) -

I didn't play the multiplayer, but I was very satisfied with the campaign. I still hate the ending, but everything leading up to it was fantastic.

#45 Posted by seannao (227 posts) -

Yes. I'd rather not have multiplayer. I've always had the impression that MP was something added in somewhat late in the game's production to help boost Origin's relevance. I never liked how they used the multiplayer arenas as part of some of your side missions. The 'ambients' were a great way to cut down on recording dialogue or having to write for more than one possible outcome to most of them being resolved. So that's a great way to save time. Some of the decisions in the singleplayer just scream at me that it was probably getting in the way, quite literally, of the campaign.

#46 Posted by Zembosis (100 posts) -

Hell yes!

#47 Posted by sins_of_mosin (1556 posts) -

I would remove all MP from any game if it made the single player better.

#48 Posted by StarvingGamer (8283 posts) -

@mutha3 said:

I have no idea why there is such a fervor around the ME3 MP. Its a barebones horde mode with an extremely shitty progression mechanic tied on. Anyway, I would trade it for a better SP in a heartbeat. The lack of polish in ME3 is painfully visible in the entire game.

Personally, I like the multiplayer because the combat system in ME3 is so fun. In most games I go in with my Phalanx for maximum recharge speed and spam powers. There is also really great gun variety so sometimes I like to go in with my maximum accuracy N7 Crusader shotgun which basically works like a 4-round sniper-rifle without a scope and pair that up with my Striker assault rifle for insane close-range DPS.

Also I don't know what you're talking about in terms of lack of polish. I played on the PC and I can count the number of bugs and inconsistencies I experienced during my 35 hours through the game on the hand of a blind butcher.

@mutha3 said:

@StarvingGamer said:

@SpaceInsomniac said:

A conclusion that was actually peer reviewed this time

Wasn't that rumor debunked pretty quickly?

No, it wasn't. Bioware "confirmed" it was fake based on......absolutely nothing. Either a masterclass photoshop forgery was made using Weekes' legit PA account name and there is a contingent of people out there who claim they saw it that are lying through their teeth or.....Bioware is covering their ass.

Or someone hacked his account. Seriously, why would someone commit career suicide like that unless they were planning to quit game development entirely, which he obviously hasn't done.

#49 Posted by leinad44 (517 posts) -

Campaign was just good. After ME2 it should've been great.

#50 Posted by nintendoeats (5975 posts) -

Sure, but it wouldn't have. Well, except that we wouldn't have had to deal with that stupid galaxy map telling us how terrible everything was.

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.