" There are more than enough wars in the Mass Effect galaxy to set multiplayer around. Geth-v-Quarians in the Homeworld Battle, Turians-v-Krogan in the Rebellions, Turians-v-Humans in the First Contact War. Mass Effect multiplayer should be judged on the quality of its execution, not its existence. People who start getting snarky and derisive because a game has multiplayer that they've never played really bother me. I remember Vinny actively campaigning that there be no multiplayer in Mass Effect 3, as if somehow adding a feature outside of the main campaign would ruin the game for him. Maybe it would, Brotherhood and Dead Space 2 received nothing but Goddamn vitriol for daring to try something new. "That's because multiplayer in those games felt like surgically adding a third nipple. It did nothing to improve the games, and even if an entirely different development team was working on multiplayer it's still game budget going to an unwanted and unnecessary use (i.e., the same dollars budgeted to the multiplayer team could have been budgeted elsewhere). Put it this way: say that EA effectively budgeted the equivalent of ten programmers for six months to create multiplayer for Dead Space 2. Now, imagine those same dollars being used to hire people to create extra maps for Dragon Age 2, so we didn't have the same damn five maps every time we entered a building.
Adding multiplayer to some games sucks up dollars that are better spent elsewhere. And sometimes, it's better overall if the budget towards adding multiplayer to game A goes instead to adding content for game B. Or hell, even game A.For example, I'd rather see eight different models for each species in ME3 than to see multiplayer in ME3. Again, while the people who would be working to program multiplayer are generally not the ones who would create models, the budget can be allocated to hire people that create models.
Log in to comment