@Pinworm45 said:

@Dad_Is_A_Zombie said:

@Branthog said:

My main problem with it is that I don't care about it. I'm tired of every game (even The Darkness II...wtf?!) having multiplayer. These developers know that their multiplayer modes aren't going to have legs and even if they're decent, they'll come and go in a flash. Meanwhile, it just pisses off people who buy the game more than thirty days from now and care about achievements and can't get them, because nobody is playing multiplayer anymore, and feels like a waste to everyone else. Invest that time and money into even further improving the single player experience. No matter how great that is, it can always be better. Throwing multiplayer onto everything is even more annoying than throwing 3D onto everything.

This man is 1000% correct.

Actually he's not. He's provably wrong on the Achievement rant, because every MP achievement has a single-player way to get it. He's arguably wrong with his "even The Darkness 2.. wtf?!" thing because the darkness 1 had multiplayer, which incidentally was competitive, while the sequel has co operative that they actually somewhat try to fit into the story. Meanwhile, the rest is pretty subjective (I enjoy the hell out of it so it's not a waste to me. It's also lasted longer than most other MP games for me, so there's that)

I don't know what you're smoking to be able to say that every multiplayer achievement in a game always has a single-player way to get it. In fact, that is almost never the case. Achievements (I don't care about them, but since we're supposed to care about them, it's worth bringing up in such discussions) almost always fall specifically into "acquired in single-player" or "acquired in multiplayer" or "acquired in co-op" categories and only occasionally do any of them seem to have any overlap.

Additionally, very few games - as I already stated - have long legs. I don't care if you enjoy the multi-player experience in a particular game. That's entirely irrelevant, if you can't quickly and easily jump into a multiplayer game, because nobody else is playing it. For example - Need For Speed: Hot Pursuit had a really fun multi-player component . . . that was pretty much fucking dead within six months. All that time and money spent developing something that was sold to gamers (as a part of the over-all package and price) that simply vanished within a few months. In retrospect, a true waste. Like so many other multi-player add-ons to titles that are also complete wastes. Not because they can't sometimes be good, but unless you know that you are going to fucking hit it out of the park so hard that you're going to have an active community keeping your multiplayer alive for quite sometime, it's just a meaningless exercise in development.

@laserbolts said:

I have to agree he is more like 0% correct. Also saying something that is optional is way more annoying than something that is also optional is sort of dumb. It's your problem if you find something that can not impact you at all annoying. Not the game's.

I can't speak to Mass Effect 3, but multiplayer is usually not optional. It's part of the package. The work is done. It's in the box. You pay your $60 for it. You may have the option to play it or not play it, but you are paying for it and whether or not it is optional has pretty much fucking nothing to do with it, when the multiplayer aspect is practically dead weeks or months after launch. If it's the greatest fucking multiplayer ever to grace a console or computer, what does it matter if nobody is still playing it?

Finally, the whole line about "optional/annoying" is just meaningless. Everything is fucking "optional". Playing videogames is optional. If we're not going to discuss, complain about, suggest, and criticize them, then what the fuck are we even all sitting here at the keyboard, for? Did we all just log in to check on the latest fake rolex prices from the forum spammers?!

PS: I'd love for the multiplayer to be fucking incredible and for it to last a very long time, so that you can jump in and find countless possible games and game modes to participate in a year from now. But the odds are -- based on almost every other game that has to throw in it's own multiplayer mode -- that it'll either be bad and dead by then or fantastic . . . and still dead by then.

so after playing for a couple of days and getting nothing but sniper and assault rifle ugrades (i play vanguard so these are pretty much useless) im not enjoying the mutiplayer so much, i think some had it right when they said they wanted to trade unwanted weapons back in.

@Phatmac said:

I don't care about it. I'm not motivated to do a survival mode co-op thing with people. It isn't why I care about Mass Effect. I probably won't touch it when I get ME3. The only reason I'll probably do it is to 100% like I did with ME2. And yes I love Mass Effect abnormally.

Can I have your online pass, then? :)

@Branthog said:

@Pinworm45 said:

@Dad_Is_A_Zombie said:

@Branthog said:

My main problem with it is that I don't care about it. I'm tired of every game (even The Darkness II...wtf?!) having multiplayer. These developers know that their multiplayer modes aren't going to have legs and even if they're decent, they'll come and go in a flash. Meanwhile, it just pisses off people who buy the game more than thirty days from now and care about achievements and can't get them, because nobody is playing multiplayer anymore, and feels like a waste to everyone else. Invest that time and money into even further improving the single player experience. No matter how great that is, it can always be better. Throwing multiplayer onto everything is even more annoying than throwing 3D onto everything.

This man is 1000% correct.

Actually he's not. He's provably wrong on the Achievement rant, because every MP achievement has a single-player way to get it. He's arguably wrong with his "even The Darkness 2.. wtf?!" thing because the darkness 1 had multiplayer, which incidentally was competitive, while the sequel has co operative that they actually somewhat try to fit into the story. Meanwhile, the rest is pretty subjective (I enjoy the hell out of it so it's not a waste to me. It's also lasted longer than most other MP games for me, so there's that)

I don't know what you're smoking to be able to say that every multiplayer achievement in a game always has a single-player way to get it. In fact, that is almost never the case. Achievements (I don't care about them, but since we're supposed to care about them, it's worth bringing up in such discussions) almost always fall specifically into "acquired in single-player" or "acquired in multiplayer" or "acquired in co-op" categories and only occasionally do any of them seem to have any overlap.

Additionally, very few games - as I already stated - have long legs. I don't care if you enjoy the multi-player experience in a particular game. That's entirely irrelevant, if you can't quickly and easily jump into a multiplayer game, because nobody else is playing it. For example - Need For Speed: Hot Pursuit had a really fun multi-player component . . . that was pretty much fucking dead within six months. All that time and money spent developing something that was sold to gamers (as a part of the over-all package and price) that simply vanished within a few months. In retrospect, a true waste. Like so many other multi-player add-ons to titles that are also complete wastes. Not because they can't sometimes be good, but unless you know that you are going to fucking hit it out of the park so hard that you're going to have an active community keeping your multiplayer alive for quite sometime, it's just a meaningless exercise in development.

Where did I ever say "every multiplayer achievement in a game always has a single-player way to get it"? We are talking about Mass Effect 3. Every single Mass Effect 3 multiplayer achievement has a single player way to achieve it. You went on two long rants that are entirely incorrect and utterly pointless. I really don't care if the multiplayer dies in 6 months. Guess what, I'm probably not going to play the single player in six months either. Who gives a fuck? It's fun as hell and I'm going to enjoy it. The single player is still there. They hired new people with experience doing that specifically for it. I really don't care if you think they could have spent that money making something else. like what? More single player levels? I argue that doing so would mean they were just being put in there for the sake of being put in there, and that the story they wrote didn't call for them. Also, you'll only ever play these once too (or maybe not at all - they'd probably be side quests. Between a fun multiplayer level I'll play upwards of AT LEAST 20 times, or a boring ass, pointless single player side quest, I'm going for the first.

Also, in what way is people enjoying multiplayer "completely irrelevant" to them putting it in a game? Isn't the point of a game to put things in that people enjoy? Guess what, tons of people are loving the multiplayer. Sucks to be you that you can't have fun.

@Valkyr said:

The multiplayer is cool but I still don't get why can't they add coop to the singleplayer if you are almost the whole game with a squad of 3 dudes

Dude no... the single player is your story, you take it at YOUR pace. Co-op in the story mode would be terrible and take away from that experience completely.

They were smart with the co-op "spec ops" mode and even better, it supports the galaxy in the single player campaign.

@Branthog said:

PS: I'd love for the multiplayer to be fucking incredible and for it to last a very long time, so that you can jump in and find countless possible games and game modes to participate in a year from now. But the odds are -- based on almost every other game that has to throw in it's own multiplayer mode -- that it'll either be bad and dead by then or fantastic . . . and still dead by then.

It's actually very possible though challenging to do Bronze level with just 2 high-level characters. So several years from now, when no one is playing it and all your friends have left you except for one, you can still play it :P

@Branthog: I read the first sentence of your response and decided to not read the rest because it made 0 sense.

looking for duders to co-op on PC

origin id: rossate

I finally gave it a shot and found myself surprisingly loving it. If anyone would like to get a squad together I'm down to play it whenever I get that chance.

Origin ID: iBePeRFeCT

I'll accept any invites I just want to play with some people that will actually work as a team.

I got a friend to try out the multiplayer demo with me, and now he's preordering the game just to play the multiplayer.