Slashdot Mirror
Mass Effect 3 To Include Co-op Multiplayer
BioWare has announced that Mass Effect 3, planned for March of next year, will be the first game in the series to include co-operative multiplayer. In a post on their forums, they provided details about the new mode of play:
"Success in multi-player will have a direct impact on the outcome of the single player campaign, giving players an alternative method of achieving ultimate victory ... In multiplayer, players will create custom characters to fight on different and unique fronts in the war. This will include the ability to play as favorites like Turians, Krogans, Asari and more each with their own unique set of abilities."
They also took pains to point out that while the co-op missions could affect the outcome of the main story, multiplayer is entirely optional.
Co-op... I could go either way on. If it's well designed, I'll probably give it a go. Unfortunately, this isn't as easy as it could be for me. Most of my friends have played this series on the 360, while I've been on the PC. Now sure, I could switch - but that would mean abandoning the character I took through the first two games and had intended to import into the third. It'd be fantastic if Bioware could put out some sort of savegame porting tool to allow people in my situation to get around that, but I'm not going to hold my breath.
What I'd really like to hear is the following: "We realised that planet scanning was incredibly boring and it's gone. Also, while we were at it, we went back to the first game's heat based system for weapons, rather than the ammo system from the second".
As long as the game doesn't neglect single player I'd be fine with it. But if they just focus on the co-op? Look at Fear 3, co-op tastic, single player suckatude.
And while i'm in a ranting mood and I know game devs sometimes come here, i just gotta ask: what is it with putting out games that you KNOW are absolute shite on a crusty roll? Now I can understand reaching too high and ending up with a buggy game, or having quirks in a game, that's understandable, shit happens and you can't appeal to everyone. But WTF is it with the OBVIOUSLY bad nasty shit, huh? games aren't cheap to make, why would you put out something that stank like a cat that had been squished by a truck a week ago huh?
Here are three of the recent games that bugged the living shit out of me. 1.-Bioshock II. WTF? you take the WORST part of the game, hell of ANY game, the most hated of hated, the fucking lame ass escort mission, and make it the WHOLE DAMNED GAME??? WTF? I won't even mention how badly out of balance the Plasmids were. level up Hypnosis and you can just sit in the corner while the bad guys all kill each other, lame. 2.-Red Faction Guerrilla...Who in the hell thought giving you weapons with like three rounds was a good idea? Or having the dumb as stumps friendly AI charge into every damned little thing, even when you aren't even trying to start shit, and then YOU get penalized when Forest gump bites it? That game should have been named "Just stay in the fucking truck dude" as that is all you'll end up doing. 3.-Kane And Lynch II...Yeah I know everyone made fun of it, but did you TRY it? I did and there was ONE flaw, above all others, that made that game the worst of the worst...weapons. WTF? I can be 10 feet from the bad guy, empty an ENTIRE Uzi and NOT hit him? What the holy fuck? who thought having NO accuracy at all was a good idea?
So please game devs, just think before you shit, okay? Ask yourself "Is this something I myself would find enjoyable? Is this something I would like in a game? Does it actually work like its supposed to?" because I don't know about everyone else but I personally HATE seeing what could have been a truly enjoyable experience ruined like having a fat stripper at the titty bar. We ain't asking for much, AI that doesn't feel like they should all be wearing protective headgear, weapons that give a nice WHAM when you fire them, levels that are fun to explore, and NO ESCORT MISSIONS EVAR!
Thank you for your time, have a nice day.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Can you co-op a 3-some in Captains Quarters?
It sounds like it will be a great addition but ME2 had a shitty plot compared to ME1 so I'm not convinced about ME3. Plus if you are forced to use origin then there's no way I'll buy it.
SURELY NOT!!!!!
So ... will you be able to seduce and bang your co-op team by hitting the top dialog option over and over? Cause I don't really see the point otherwise.
Cool art gallery, if you're into that sort of thing.
I think they are hinting that co-op missions will be totaly separate from regular single player missions and do not have to be completed to complete single player, but will afftec some story elements.
I'm guessing the outcomes of these missions are decided for you at certain points in the game if you didnt play them (bit like the outcome of ME1 is decided if you didnt play it)
As a programmer I see this having no effect on the main single player experience because id wager they are coded by separate teams. The co-op team is given a scenario to play out (bit like addons in ME2) that looly slot in to the pain plot, but not guide it. If that is the case, they probably written the game engine and level designer and gave it to another team to create some co-op addons while the main team finishes the game.
Assuming no resources were pulled from the main plot dev team it shouldn't be affected...
"multi-player will have a direct impact on the outcome of the single player campaign" this could be lead one to suspect that victory conditions will be calculated on a point based system, since you dont have to use co-op but it will affect outcome, hence the same number of arbitary points can be collected in single player via other means. Maybe you get more time in certain timed missions when the support team is better. Think ME1 and Vermire, you could have a co-op mission attacking the main gate of the complex buying Sheperd more time to go around back. Making single player harder if you do not play co-op either way.
So, since the first two ME games focused on fighting a major enemy that threatens the galaxy, you feel the third game should ignore the fact that that threat is still out there and go a completely different direction?
Really?
I mean, if you played the first two, there's nowhere this CAN go but to a war to save the galaxy.
Getting angry at a company for following a story to its logical conclusion, even if you don't like that story is kind of silly. That's what the franchise is. If you don't like it, then the franchise is not for you, but they aren't going to completely change it in the middle.