109 réponses à ce sujet

[Revan Reborn]

And FC4 is a great game, but Mass Effect isn't that. We clearly want different things out of the franchise. I don't expect (or even want) Mass Effect to turn into a full on tactical RPG, but I think it would be incredibly beneficial if resources went to improving party dynamics, especially for a series, nay developer, known for their supporting crews.

 

Well, obviously you would use less abilities if you played as the soldier. That's the point of the class. As a guy who plays Adept and Vanguard, the pause menu is is necessary. And yes, I play on xbox. 

 

I'm not asking for 50 abilities, I'm just asking for more than 3. I think that's more than reasonable. ME3's MP was fast-paced fun but it lacked depth. In a singleplayer environment, I don't think it could hold up. 

 

Personally, the addition of co-op is not nearly enough justification for removing one of Mass Effect's staple gameplay elements. The pause menu and the kind of tactical play it enables makes Mass Effect more accessible, more distinct from your average TPS, and IMO simply more fun.

 

They've said there will be a greater emphasis on exploration. They've shown off the Mako. I totally agree that there will be more open environments in MENext, but saying it will be "open world" is jumping to conclusions. You may very well be right, but I'll wait for confirmation.

 

Open worlds are great but like every other genre, they have their place. To me, Mass Effect isn't an emergent gameplay kind of game, it's a heavily controlled experience, and that's what makes it good. I like player agency as much as the next guy, but I still love my polished, guided experiences.

 

While I enjoy the fun times I make for myself in FC3's wilderness or Fallout's desert, I prefer the carefully crafted traps of Ravenholm and the wonderfully told story in Bioshock. It might not be a fresh experience any time I go in, but it's so much more fun. Longer lasting doesn't always mean better.

 

Also, I'd prefer Bioware keep a safe distance from Ubisoft. The last thing we need is another Ubisoft Open World Game^TM. I'm sick of the towers and the collectibles. Bioware, if you're going open world, be original about it.

 

I don't think that's because "separate co-op can't work in games." I think it's because developers spend most of their time making the singleplayer and then tack on the co-op to tick a box labeled "multiplayer". They weren't fun because they weren't fun. That's just it . Look, a dev could tack on some random card game outside the main game and I doubt anyone would complain if it was fun. They might be a bit confused though.

 

You would separate the two quite logically because they're separate experiences. ME3's MP was fundamentally different from the main game, so the developers kept it separate. It wasn't tacked on, it was just different.

 

It's unreasonable because Mass Effect would have to make just as many, if not more compromises in order to get co-op to work in the main game. The story might not have to suffer but as I've said, the gameplay most certainly will.

From a gameplay standpoint FC4 and Mass Effect have a lot more in common than Republic Commandos, but I digress. Going back as far as KotOR, BioWare has never been known for having the smartest and most beneficial companions in their games. Dragon Age is by far their best example of a tactical, party experience, but it's far from perfect. Such a dynamic makes more sense in DA as opposed to ME, considering the latter is a shooter. As I said before, I'm certainly not opposed to smarter companions, but there are plenty of features that I consider to be far more vital and more of a priority (exploration, open world, Mako, etc.).

 

It's not that you are necessarily using "less abilities as a soldier," but rather those abilities are incorporated into the various weapons you can use. As far as needing more buttons, BioWare could turn the Xbox One bumpers into keys that expose more abilities. That's how abilities were approached in DAO on the Xbox 360.

 

Republic Commandos, a game you brought up, did not have a pause menu, and is vastly superior in terms of being a tactical shooter. I don't see the pause menu needing to be an "absolute must." I'm certainly not opposed to it, but I don't believe it changes the experience nearly as much as you suggest. You merely just have to be more reactive in how you play, which would be more engaging, in my opinion.

 

Given the capabilities of the Mako, I'd find it hard to believe planets aren't open world. Even DAI's more open world approach is restrictive because you are generally limited to where you can go by natural barriers. We've already seen the Mako can drive over mountains, so I believe the world will be much more open based on that alone.

 

Well I can already tell you that "heavily controlled experience" is largely being innovated upon. We saw this first with DAI. The next Mass Effect will continue to expand what DAI started on. BioWare already confirmed they are planning to do less cut scenes, have less GUI, and try to make the experience more in-game for a more immersive experience. MENext is going to be a lot different from its predecessors, for better or for worse.

 

A matter of opinion. Bioshock Infinite, for example, had a great story. However, it's something that can only be experienced on one playthrough. Skyrim, on the other hand, can provide limitless playthroughs and limitless hours of fun (I'm not even including mods). It's just simple logic that open world games with emergent gameplay have more longevity and more re-playability. Linear, themepark experiences craft great set pieces with well-crafted stories, but often lose their appeal after the first time. BioWare games are slightly different because there are varying choices that can change the experience, creating a reason for another playthrough. An open world to add to that will merely provide more re-playability to their games, which they honestly can use.

 

BioWare took most of its influence and inspiration from Skyrim when making the more open world experience in DAI. If anything, that will likely be their guide going forward. DAI actually gives us a rather clear idea how of BioWare plans to populate the open world. I have a feeling MENext will differ quite substantially based on what BioWare Montreal has said so far.

 

That's my point. The main game is the primary experience. Any separate experience (ME3's multiplayer and DAI's multiplayer) is second tier and not as compelling as the primary experience. This is why having a separate coop would be a terrible idea. If you are going to do it, build it into the philosophy of the main game as being optional. I have already listed a plethora of games that have been very successful having an integrated coop.

 

ME3's multiplayer was tacked on. BioWare ripped off Halo and Gears of War to throw in obligatory multiplayer to give an excuse to add in micro-transactions. It was a way to make the games more profitable and have longer lasting value. The multiplayer was absolutely not needed at all, and BioWare merely forced it on us because of the necessity of increasing our galactic readiness. I'd rather have a cooperative experience that actually makes sense and adds to the experience.

 

You have mentioned that pausing the game would suffer. That's hardly most of the gameplay and certainly BioWare has proven that already works with ME3 multiplayer. I don't see this as an issue. Franchises are always innovating and evolving. We cannot expect Mass Effect to remain the same. I'm glad combat was overhauled from ME1 to ME2 as combat was horrible in ME1. I'm glad it was overhauled from ME2 to ME3 as it was still rough around the edges in ME2. The more BioWare innovates, the better. Mass Effect's gameplay is far from perfect.

[Revan Reborn]

No, I said 'if ME4 was to have co-op in the main campaign...' talking about the whole SP campaign, as opposed to one quest line. Admittedly I could have used clearer wording but there's no reason to get do uptight about me disagreeing with you. This is a forum, after all.

I've listened to the N7 Day discussion and earlier (very limited) info, and I don't necessarily think 'greater exploration' equates to a true open word experience, but I guess we'll have to wait and see.

Clearly I'm not the only one who thinks trying to integrate the MP into the SP game is a bad direction to go, just as you're clearly happy for them to take a risk and run with it. But the butthurt over the ME3 endings will be nothing compared to the fallout if there is any hint that creating an MP experience has altered the SP gameplay, even in small ways that seem to be acceptable to you.

ME was designed as a personal, character driven experience, which just isn't the case for any of the games you've listed as examples. That just doesn't sit well with the idea of an integrated MP even if the mechanics are somehow still similar. In that sense, the co-op experience definitely does NOT compliment BW's approach.

The main campaign is the main story. Everything else is merely side quests and other activities BioWare adds into their games. BioWare games largely haven't had a lot of extra things besides the main story, and that's changing this generation. I'm not getting uptight at all. I'm merely was correcting you that you were taking into account something the OP resolved.

 

Watch the Mako in action on my "What we know" thread from Comicon. It is fast, agile, can scale mountains, and appears to be in a very open world environment. It's going to be our main tool for exploration, so it would be hard to imagine the worlds not being open world. They certainly were in ME1, and they were far from perfect. MENext is merely overhauling what ME1 attempted to do.

 

Removing the ability to pause the game is hardly game breaking. As I said, based on the direction BioWare is going, cooperative play is likely inevitable. They certainly have plenty experience in SWTOR. This isn't out of the realm of possibility, nor do I believe it would have the large "outcry" you are suggesting. Nothing to complain about if it's optional and doesn't affect your experience at all. You don't have to participate in it.

 

Have you played Assassin's Creed, Saint's Row, Far Cry and any of the other games I've actually listed? They are all a "personal, character-driven story." They don't have BioWare choices, but again the main story would be locked in coop. You are just making excuses. Again, play SWTOR. BioWare has already done a cooperative experience on a massively multiplayer level. It works and will continue to work. It's only a matter of time before ME and DA follow suit. Lets not be ridiculous.

 

ME4 has to have an epic storydriven SP with detailed characters and stuff, that's what 99.9% of the players wantand expect  ME(SP) to be.

A separate  MP like in ME3 is great, too, and extends the ME experience far beyond SP. So pls BW, can we has MP for ME4?

 

If BW also adds an option to let friends join an ongoing SP game as squadmates, I'd say why not? But that's really way down on the "must have" list and should only be done if it does not take away too much dev time from the rest of the game.

I'd prefer an integrated cooperative experience over the generic and uninterested ME3 MP.

 

i actually wouldn't mind if the next ME game had coop similar to ACU or FC4 because i always wanted to play along with friends but like many others have said, if they are going to add in CO-OP its going to be very criticle to get it right because its going to be crucified if they don't.

That's fine. Anything BioWare does shouldn't be taken lightly. If they do it right, it will be amazing.

 

OP fails to understand that ME3 has one of the greatest co op modes in the history of mankind.

ME3 mp has an incredibly dedicated fanbase that to this very day still fills up servers 24/7, 365 days a year. This is from a game that was released in the early part of 2012.

OP's handwaving away of the fact that ME3 mp is one of the best things in gaming rings hollow because there are TON of people (on this very website even, a simple look over in the mp forum will bear this out) that will stongly disagree OP's opinion.

OP even mentioned a few other horde mode type games and compared them to ME3 mp. If one truly spends some time playing ME3 mp, enough to learn some of the ins and outs and get familiar with the different classes/ maps/weapons/powers/enemies and objectives that player would know that there is NOTHING out there like ME3mp....nothing.

My point is the way the mp is set up right now is fine and all BW needs to do is refine it further while adding a few new features to keep their current success with mp gameplay going into ME4.

Your first statement alone tells me this will not be an objective and critical post. ME3's multiplayer is far from a game changer or brand new. You can thank Halo, Gears, CoD, and Battlefield for the modern MP in games.

 

The servers are largely still active because BioWare continued to support the game with free DLC (maps and characters). They add more free stuff and charge via micro-transactions for those not willing to take the time to make credits. It's nothing more than a glorified game shop with a side gameplay mechanic. I'm happy you are absolutely "in love" with MP, but that is certainly not the case with most BioWare fans. Heck, most probably don't even care about multiplayer, period. I'd just rather BioWare add something that made sense and worked with their philosophy of gaming, rather than a tacked on unoriginal game type from every other shooter.

 

Yes, a vocal minority of people who live on ME3 MP will disagree with me. Can you tell me exactly how many people that bought ME3 continue to play the MP to this day? I think you might be surprised how low those numbers actually are. Again, I'm happy you are enjoying it. I find it to be uninteresting, as again, I've played Horde and Firefight and they were done much better in Halo and Gears.

 

Sir, you are being delusional. ME3 MP is not fresh nor is it new. It's not original at all. This is coming from a person who loves BioWare, by the way, but I will not sugar coat how they clearly put in a tacked on feature to make more money. I'm glad you bought into their marketing, but it has done nothing to change anything about MP in the gaming industry. Again, look to Halo 2, CoD4:MW, Battlefield 2, etc. to see examples of games that truly innovated and evolved MP in gaming.

 

Assassin's Creed MP was actually more original than ME3 MP. It was, however, also repetitive, uninteresting after a while, and was far from being in line with the main game. You know what Ubisoft did? They replaced it with integrated coop, which is vastly better and allows you to actually be an assassin with your friends in the main game. Now if Ubisoft could just fix the bugs and performance, ACU would be amazing.

 

You are more than within your right to enjoy ME3 MP. How about this? You can continue to enjoy ME3's MP while the next Mass Effect adds integrated coop that actually enhances the main game? You still have your separate Firefight/Horde and everybody else will have their main game where they can invite friends. Everybody wins.

[Malanek]

ME3 multiplayer's most original aspect and main way it promoted gameplay diversity was the way it mixed the staggering amount of powers and shooter mechanics together with a huge number of different kits. It has been a really, really popular and well loved game. I don't believe there has ever been a game that has done this before. No it wasn't completely original, but very little is these days. If you innovate or evolve part of a game, and do it well, you end up with a very good game.

[Revan Reborn]

ME3 multiplayer's most original aspect and main way it promoted gameplay diversity was the way it mixed the staggering amount of powers and shooter mechanics together with a huge number of different kits. It has been a really, really popular and well loved game. I don't believe there has ever been a game that has done this before. No it wasn't completely original, but very little is these days. If you innovate or evolve part of a game, and do it well, you end up with a very good game.

Team Fortress 2? Shadow Run? Counterstrike? Gears of War? Halo event? Having different kits and different abilities for characters in MP is nothing new. I promise you. ME3 MP is nothing original or fresh, other than being BioWare's first MP outside of SWTOR. I'm a few here seem to enjoy it. I'd just rather the cooperative experience actually compliment the main game, which is the reason most buy a BioWare game, rather than some separate, second tier experience that isn't connected. Again, Assassin's Creed is a perfect example of a game that had its own separate MP and just recently removed it for integrated coop in ACU. The results have been overwhelmingly positive (besides the bugs and bad performance, but that has nothing to do with coop).

[Malanek]

Team Fortress 2? Shadow Run? Counterstrike? Gears of War? Halo event? Having different kits and different abilities for characters in MP is nothing new. I promise you. 

 

I haven't played shadow run or halo but it is very different from the others. Team fortress is pvp and as such you will never have abilities that match things like biotic charge, stasis, signularity, shadow strike etc. With the others I don't even know what you are talking about, they are pretty much straight shooters, there is virtually no rpg cross-over at all.

[RoboticWater]

From a gameplay standpoint FC4 and Mass Effect have a lot more in common than Republic Commandos, but I digress. Going back as far as KotOR, BioWare has never been known for having the smartest and most beneficial companions in their games. Dragon Age is by far their best example of a tactical, party experience, but it's far from perfect. Such a dynamic makes more sense in DA as opposed to ME, considering the latter is a shooter. As I said before, I'm certainly not opposed to smarter companions, but there are plenty of features that I consider to be far more vital and more of a priority (exploration, open world, Mako, etc.).

Which is where our opinions clearly differ. I'm not going to argue about it, I just want different things.

 

Also, I don't think there's any way to prove "FC4 and Mass Effect have a lot more in common than Republic Commandos." All three are fundamentally different games trying to achieve completely different things. We'd be comparing apples to oranges to pears.

 

It's not that you are necessarily using "less abilities as a soldier," but rather those abilities are incorporated into the various weapons you can use. As far as needing more buttons, BioWare could turn the Xbox One bumpers into keys that expose more abilities. That's how abilities were approached in DAO on the Xbox 360.

The problem is that Mass Effect has more buttons dedicated to other gamepaly functions. If we take ME3 MP as the base, we'd have access to only 4 abilities (1 button to switch, and 2 buttons with a set of 2 powers). I guess it wouldn't be impossible to create a workable system with enough powers, but it would require some serious finagling. A pause menu is a much simpler system that easily allows for more power usage and tactical depth.

 

Republic Commandos, a game you brought up, did not have a pause menu, and is vastly superior in terms of being a tactical shooter. I don't see the pause menu needing to be an "absolute must." I'm certainly not opposed to it, but I don't believe it changes the experience nearly as much as you suggest. You merely just have to be more reactive in how you play, which would be more engaging, in my opinion.

It was vastly superior because it gave you more options with your squad, and that's precisely what I want to see more of in MENext. I said a pause menu was necessary to use all my powers. While it isn't an "absolute must" for squad control (for those of us with decent reflexes), it would greatly enhance it by providing some time to observe the environment, giving us access to more complex orders, and allowing us to select multiple orders in one go. And as I said before, the breathing room that a pause menu facilitates is almost a necessity for those who aren't adept in the shooter genre. It's simple, accessible, and it works. I say keep it.

 

Given the capabilities of the Mako, I'd find it hard to believe planets aren't open world. Even DAI's more open world approach is restrictive because you are generally limited to where you can go by natural barriers. We've already seen the Mako can drive over mountains, so I believe the world will be much more open based on that alone. 

I'm not going land on any side of the fence on this matter. Yes, there will be more open areas. Whether they'll be "open world," or ME1 style areas has yet to be determined. I would prefer the latter, but I'm not going to assume what will happen. 

 

Well I can already tell you that "heavily controlled experience" is largely being innovated upon. We saw this first with DAI. The next Mass Effect will continue to expand what DAI started on. BioWare already confirmed they are planning to do less cut scenes, have less GUI, and try to make the experience more in-game for a more immersive experience. MENext is going to be a lot different from its predecessors, for better or for worse.

But it doesn't need to be. The evolution of the "heavily controlled experience" isn't the "open world experience." You may prefer it yourself, but it's not an inherently better system.

 

I'm all for less GUI and a less reliance on cutscenes, but making a big landscape and littering it with little activities and respawning enemies isn't the pinnacle of gaming. I would rather have fewer, better crafted, and more diverse experiences than more, decently crafted, samey experiences. Obviously, the best case scenario is myriad, well crafted events, but such perfection, if Ubisoft's games are any indication, is impossible to attain at this point. Logically, there must be a trade off at some point and IMO, a bigger world isn't worth the negatives.

 

A matter of opinion. Bioshock Infinite, for example, had a great story. However, it's something that can only be experienced on one playthrough. Skyrim, on the other hand, can provide limitless playthroughs and limitless hours of fun (I'm not even including mods). It's just simple logic that open world games with emergent gameplay have more longevity and more re-playability. Linear, themepark experiences craft great set pieces with well-crafted stories, but often lose their appeal after the first time. BioWare games are slightly different because there are varying choices that can change the experience, creating a reason for another playthrough. An open world to add to that will merely provide more re-playability to their games, which they honestly can use.

A more replayable experience isn't necessarily a better experience. This is mostly a matter of opinion, but I prefer a game that hits hard to a game that can keep hitting. Again, it's a trade off. Skyrim's the perfect example; broad as an ocean, deep as a puddle. The gameplay's weak, the story sucks, the voice acting is repetitive, the characters are forgettable, the weapons are hardly diverse (that's including magic), and perk system is hardly rewarding. Of course, open world games have made leaps and bounds since Skyrim, but the problem remains: breadth comes at a price of depth.

 

BioWare took most of its influence and inspiration from Skyrim when making the more open world experience in DAI. If anything, that will likely be their guide going forward. DAI actually gives us a rather clear idea how of BioWare plans to populate the open world. I have a feeling MENext will differ quite substantially based on what BioWare Montreal has said so far.

God, I hope not. As I said, Skyrim is not a glowing example. It's longevity is almost purely based on mods, and its replayability is equivalent to that of Tetris; you can can jump in and out without caring. 

 

That's my point. The main game is the primary experience. Any separate experience (ME3's multiplayer and DAI's multiplayer) is second tier and not as compelling as the primary experience. This is why having a separate coop would be a terrible idea. If you are going to do it, build it into the philosophy of the main game as being optional. I have already listed a plethora of games that have been very successful having an integrated coop. 

I honestly don't see the problem. There is no causal relationship between being a separate experience and being bad. Sure, there's a correlation. But that's because developers tend to ignore it.

 

The same could easily happen to integrated co-op. All it takes is the developer to not care about it.

 

ME3's multiplayer was tacked on. BioWare ripped off Halo and Gears of War to throw in obligatory multiplayer to give an excuse to add in micro-transactions. It was a way to make the games more profitable and have longer lasting value. The multiplayer was absolutely not needed at all, and BioWare merely forced it on us because of the necessity of increasing our galactic readiness. I'd rather have a cooperative experience that actually makes sense and adds to the experience.

Yea, it wasn't needed, but it was fun. Look, you may not like it, but there are plenty of us that do. In fact, I'm pretty confident saying the majority of peolpe who played ME3's MP, at the very least, liked it.

 

Also, there's going to be microtransactions no matter what. Personally, I'd prefer them to stay outside of SP.

 

You have mentioned that pausing the game would suffer. That's hardly most of the gameplay and certainly BioWare has proven that already works with ME3 multiplayer. I don't see this as an issue. Franchises are always innovating and evolving. We cannot expect Mass Effect to remain the same. I'm glad combat was overhauled from ME1 to ME2 as combat was horrible in ME1. I'm glad it was overhauled from ME2 to ME3 as it was still rough around the edges in ME2. The more BioWare innovates, the better. Mass Effect's gameplay is far from perfect.

To me, it's one of Mass Effect's defining features. I don't know why Bioware would get rid of it. I'll quote myself on this: "It's simple, accessible, and it works. I say keep it."

 

I'm all for evolution, but I'd rather avoid homogenizing the franchise with Far Cry or Ubisoft games or even Dragon Age. The power wheel has been with the franchise from the start for very good reasons, and it hasn't outstayed its welcome. Why toss it if it does nothing but good and the alternative isn't any better (worse IMO)?

[Revan Reborn]

I haven't played shadow run or halo but it is very different from the others. Team fortress is pvp and as such you will never have abilities that match things like biotic charge, stasis, signularity, shadow strike etc. With the others I don't even know what you are talking about, they are pretty much straight shooters, there is virtually no rpg cross-over at all.

Mass Effect is more of a shooter than an RPG. The only time it was really an "RPG" was ME1, and BioWare largely removed a lot of the skill progression because it was impacting the shooter aspect too much. I'm not referring to the PvP nature of those games. I'm referring to the kits and their skill-sets. Each class is unique and has special talents, like ME3 MP. There is nothing miraculously different about ME3 MP from any other AAA game on the market. It's not original or new.

[Malanek]

I am specifically talking about gameplay rpg aspects, the different powers, kits and character development. I avoided using that word first of all but then you started claiming a bunch a shooters were the same. What other game has Biotic charge? What other game has singularity? What other game has Lash? What other shooter combines them all up along with many, many, others. I'm not sure how many powers there are, but there are a lot and I have never played another game that feels similar.

[Revan Reborn]

Which is where our opinions clearly differ. I'm not going to argue about it, I just want different things.

 

Also, I don't think there's any way to prove "FC4 and Mass Effect have a lot more in common than Republic Commandos." All three are fundamentally different games trying to achieve completely different things. We'd be comparing apples to oranges to pears.

 

The problem is that Mass Effect has more buttons dedicated to other gamepaly functions. If we take ME3 MP as the base, we'd have access to only 4 abilities (1 button to switch, and 2 buttons with a set of 2 powers). I guess it wouldn't be impossible to create a workable system with enough powers, but it would require some serious finagling. A pause menu is a much simpler system that easily allows for more power usage and tactical depth.

 

It was vastly superior because it gave you more options with your squad, and that's precisely what I want to see more of in MENext. I said a pause menu was necessary to use all my powers. While it isn't an "absolute must" for squad control (for those of us with decent reflexes), it would greatly enhance it by providing some time to observe the environment, giving us access to more complex orders, and allowing us to select multiple orders in one go. And as I said before, the breathing room that a pause menu facilitates is almost a necessity for those who aren't adept in the shooter genre. It's simple, accessible, and it works. I say keep it.

 

I'm not going land on any side of the fence on this matter. Yes, there will be more open areas. Whether they'll be "open world," or ME1 style areas has yet to be determined. I would prefer the latter, but I'm not going to assume what will happen. 

 

But it doesn't need to be. The evolution of the "heavily controlled experience" isn't the "open world experience." You may prefer it yourself, but it's not an inherently better system.

 

I'm all for less GUI and a less reliance on cutscenes, but making a big landscape and littering it with little activities and respawning enemies isn't the pinnacle of gaming. I would rather have fewer, better crafted, and more diverse experiences than more, decently crafted, samey experiences. Obviously, the best case scenario is myriad, well crafted events, but such perfection, if Ubisoft's games are any indication, is impossible to attain at this point. Logically, there must be a trade off at some point and IMO, a bigger world isn't worth the negatives.

 

A more replayable experience isn't necessarily a better experience. This is mostly a matter of opinion, but I prefer a game that hits hard to a game that can keep hitting. Again, it's a trade off. Skyrim's the perfect example; broad as an ocean, deep as a puddle. The gameplay's weak, the story sucks, the voice acting is repetitive, the characters are forgettable, the weapons are hardly diverse (that's including magic), and perk system is hardly rewarding. Of course, open world games have made leaps and bounds since Skyrim, but the problem remains: breadth comes at a price of depth.

 

God, I hope not. As I said, Skyrim is not a glowing example. It's longevity is almost purely based on mods, and its replayability is equivalent to that of Tetris; you can can jump in and out without caring. 

 

I honestly don't see the problem. There is no causal relationship between being a separate experience and being bad. Sure, there's a correlation. But that's because developers tend to ignore it.

 

The same could easily happen to integrated co-op. All it takes is the developer to not care about it.

 

Yea, it wasn't needed, but it was fun. Look, you may not like it, but there are plenty of us that do. In fact, I'm pretty confident saying the majority of peolpe who played ME3's MP, at the very least, liked it.

 

Also, there's going to be microtransactions no matter what. Personally, I'd prefer them to stay outside of SP.

 

To me, it's one of Mass Effect's defining features. I don't know why Bioware would get rid of it. I'll quote myself on this: "It's simple, accessible, and it works. I say keep it."

 

I'm all for evolution, but I'd rather avoid homogenizing the franchise with Far Cry or Ubisoft games or even Dragon Age. The power wheel has been with the franchise from the start for very good reasons, and it hasn't outstayed its welcome. Why toss it if it does nothing but good and the alternative isn't any better (worse IMO)?

Far Cry 4 is essentially the "Skyrim of shooters" as the franchise has been referred as. What makes it fun and unique is the fact that you drive the experience and decide what you want to do. It's not like a typical shooter where you are on rails. While Mass Effect has largely been linear, especially with ME2 and ME3, its philosophy and core values have been built in exploration. This is why we have the Normandy and the various space mini-games. This is why we have all the Mass Relays to travel around the galaxy.

 

Mass Effect was always meant to be a huge, interactive world that one can explore. Technology was just never there previously and BioWare's attempts at exploration (ME1) were less than ideal. Now, BioWare finally has the means and resources to actually make ME what it was always meant to be, and certainly that is a similar philosophy that FC4 has. Exploration is the driving force of both games.

 

Mass Effect games have a "casual" difficulty. It's there for those who don't want to get bogged down on gameplay, focus on story, and can't play it on Insanity like those of us who are well-versed in shooters. Pause isn't there to make the game more accessible, but was merely a tool for tactical purposes, of which are largely pointless because of the bad companion AI. I wouldn't be opposed to companions being more efficient like Republic Commando as it was an incredible game, but again my point is a pause feature isn't necessary.

 

I'm not saying the heavily-controlled experience will dissipate into nothingness. What I'm saying is that the experience will be incorporated into an open world experience. Take DAI, for example. The BioWare storytelling is still there, but there are plenty of other activities to do besides the story. They are merely adding more tools and activities for players to participate in. Expanding the horizon of the game and its borders.

 

Again, it depends on what BioWare puts in the world that matters. An open world experience can either be incredible, or terribly mundane and boring. As I said before, the one of the core elements of Mass Effect was always exploration, going to unknown worlds, and seeing exotic species. It has a lot in common with Star Trek with that respect.

 

That's your opinion on Skyrim and not fact. On the contrary, it has the most player-driven progression of any game out there (you aren't bound to a class and can use whatever weapons and armor you want). It does have amazing stories. Look at all the guild quests (besides College of Winterhold) and the DLC (Dawnguard and Dragonborn) and even the main quest is largely great, besides the lame fight with Alduin. Lets not forget about Cicero, Sheogorath, Aela the Huntress, Molag Bal, Parthurnaax, Serana, Miraak, Hermaeus Mora and the plethora of other great characters that really make the experience that much better. People love to use Skyim as a target board for reasons I don't understand as oftentimes their criticisms aren't true.

 

I don't need mods to replay Skyrim. It adds more possibilities, but is far from necessary. This is a game that sold 20 million copies (BioWare could only dream of those numbers), and PC (mod community) is a minority of that fan base. Most of those sales came purely from consoles, where they only have the base game you seem to think is terrible.

 

If you provide a great example of how they can do a separate amazing coop. Feel free. Otherwise, experience and plenty of other games have proven it's a terrible idea. I don't follow with your integrated coop point, as any developer who incorporates it into the main game always does it in a way that makes sense and is enjoyable.

 

It's not that I don't "like" it. The point is it's unoriginal, a generic copy of other MP games, and was merely placed in the game as an excuse to add micro-transactions. I'd rather have coop with actual meaning rather than a separate MP that doesn't add any value to the product. That's all that I want.

 

How would micro-transactions be incorporated into an integrated coop? BioWare has never had micro-transactions in their main game and that certainly won't happen now. What they would do, instead, is add more DLC you have to pay for. That would replace the "free" multiplayer DLC that they recoup the cost from micro-transactions.

 

Fantastic. I don't believe it's a defining feature at all. When I think about Mass Effect, I see the characters, the Normandy, the third person shooter gameplay overall, and the BioWare story as the defining features. Having a fish tank has always been an aspect of Mass Effect, for example, but I certainly wouldn't call it a "defining feature." Pause, again, was put in there to try and incorporate a tactical approach to the experience. As you have indicated, that tactical shooter component needs a lot of work, and the pause feature really isn't adding to it.

 

The dialogue wheel was an invention in order to make BioWare storytelling more effective and engaging. It didn't exist prior, and while KotOR, JE, and DAO were great, didn't have that same level of immersion. If BioWare can come up with something better than the dialogue wheel, you better believe they should toss it. That's what BioWare does. They innovate. The dialogue wheel was an innovation. Real time combat has been an innovation. Larger, more open worlds has been an innovation. Cut scenes and romance arcs have been innovations. Nothing is set in stone and BioWare is always looking to evolve and build upon what it has done in the past. Their philosophy isn't to just create a sequel, but an entirely brand new experience that blows away what came before. That's what BioWare has been doing for a very long time.

[Revan Reborn]

I am specifically talking about gameplay rpg aspects, the different powers, kits and character development. I avoided using that word first of all but then you started claiming a bunch a shooters were the same. What other game has Biotic charge? What other game has singularity? What other game has Lash? What other shooter combines them all up along with many, many, others. I'm not sure how many powers there are, but there are a lot and I have never played another game that feels similar.

You are really asking this question? Biotics are Mass Effect's version of the Force. The original ME team developed KotOR 1 and when they decided to do a new sci-fi franchise, Star Wars was the major inspiration for the universe. Also, I feel I should point out that biotics are just a "part" of the ME experience. They certainly aren't the whole experience, as you can craft a variety of different types of characters ("canon" Shepard is technically a soldier).

 

Again, look at Shadowrun as a perfect example that has a lot in common with Mass Effect. Shadowrun mixes Dark Magic (biotics) with technology (weapons) in a multiplayer environment. We could even use Halo Reach, as an example with its technology and various powers the Spartans can use in matchmaking. Shadowrun is PvP and not Firefight or Horde from Halo and Gears of War, but the progression and the types of skills are far from new. Anyways, I feel like a broken record having to continuously say that ME3 MP isn't original or new. It's a slightly different take on the same basic feature many shooters have.

[TruthSerum]

It is obvious that OP has never clutched on Gold let alone extracted Platinum so I won't even try anymore to convince him of the error of his ways regarding ME3 mp.

As far as integrated mp goes ME fans have spoken and they have made it abundantly clear to BW they they do not want mp anywhere near the singleplayer mode.

So to be blunt your chances of a multiplayer element being integrated into the singleplayer experience in the next ME is exactly zero OP. You can bet the house on it.

[Revan Reborn]

It is obvious that OP has never clutched on Gold let alone extracted Platinum so I won't even try anymore to convince him of the error of his ways regarding ME3 mp.

As far as integrated mp goes ME fans have spoken and they have made it abundantly clear to BW they they do not want mp anywhere near the singleplayer mode.

So to be blunt your chances of a multiplayer element being integrated into the singleplayer experience in the next ME is exactly zero OP. You can bet the house on it.

Yes because playing on the highest difficulty in a generic MP clearly shows how different it is from the rest...? Really? That's your argument. To answer your question, yes I have "clutched on Gold" and "extracted Platinum." If you like ME3's generic MP, I apologize in advance for clearly hurting your feelings. I find this to be irrelevant as I'm merely posing an idea that would make for an experience much more true to the main game rather than something generic and unoriginal.

 

Really? Provide me a link? Provide me a petition or document with hundreds of thousands of signatures stating "we don't want integrated coop in ME"? Or is this merely you speaking for "ME fans" suggesting they do not want it? I oftentimes find people do not like when others speak for them, especially when their views tend to be in the minority. Please do not make baseless assertions and try to act like its a legitimate argument. You will not convince anyone here.

 

Huh? Do you work for BioWare? No offense to you, but your word and opinion hold no weight, value, or significance to what BioWare actually does with their games. On the contrary, no one expected BioWare would ever incorporate MP into their games at all. Certainly, many have been proven wrong. Fans didn't even expect MP in DAI, and they were shocked and surprised by the announcement. BioWare is always looking for ways to innovate and improve that experience.

 

Again, I point to SWTOR. A game made by BioWare that already does exactly what I'm asking for. This isn't out of the realm of reason. I'd even argue it has been something BioWare has discussed. It's a matter of time before integrated coop happens, not a matter of if. Open world was the first step. Integrated coop is always the next step with these kinds of games.

[Probe Away]

The main campaign is the main story. Everything else is merely side quests and other activities BioWare adds into their games. BioWare games largely haven't had a lot of extra things besides the main story, and that's changing this generation. I'm not getting uptight at all. I'm merely was correcting you that you were taking into account something the OP resolved.

 

Like I said, I could have used clearer language.  But I assure you, I read your OP and I do get what you are suggesting.

 

Watch the Mako in action on my "What we know" thread from Comicon. It is fast, agile, can scale mountains, and appears to be in a very open world environment. It's going to be our main tool for exploration, so it would be hard to imagine the worlds not being open world. They certainly were in ME1, and they were far from perfect. MENext is merely overhauling what ME1 attempted to do.

 

Can you please stop assuming that I haven't seen/heard/read the small bits and pieces of info regarding ME4? I have been following every tidbit since BW confirmed it was working on the game.  And yes, I know it won't actually be 'ME4'.

 

ME1 was NOT open world; nor did it attempt to be.  It had a few sandboxes but you still had to hop into your ship and go from place to place via the Galaxy Map.  That is an obstacle that would need to be addressed in some way to create a proper open world experience.  Not saying it can't be done, but again, it risks introducing changes to the SP gameplay purely for the sake of an integrated co-op.  None of the open world examples you have listed have that same structure of dozens of different locations linked by a traveling hub - they just have one (or a few) large open world areas in which the whole game takes place.

 

It seems to me that for ME4 to take a true open world approach BW would need to either ( a ) limit the number of locations you could actually visit and drive around in, which would probably diminish the scope of the game, or ( b ) focus a significant % of their resources on making a large number of open locations.  In my view such resources would be better spent on designing a more intimate experience, which is where BW built their reputation.

 

Removing the ability to pause the game is hardly game breaking. As I said, based on the direction BioWare is going, cooperative play is likely inevitable. They certainly have plenty experience in SWTOR. This isn't out of the realm of possibility, nor do I believe it would have the large "outcry" you are suggesting. Nothing to complain about if it's optional and doesn't affect your experience at all. You don't have to participate in it.

 

It's not game-breaking but, as Robotic Water has already said, the pausable wheels are a signature of the combat in the series and would be sorely missed by fans.  And there are plenty of BW fans who didn't like SWTOR, which I'm sure BW knows, so citing that as a good example might not win many people over (at least not on this forum).  Actually having your friend hop in and hop out might be optional, but there are still compromises that would have to be made in the SP gameplay and the depth of the side missions (see below) to allow it.

 

Have you played Assassin's Creed, Saint's Row, Far Cry and any of the other games I've actually listed? They are all a "personal, character-driven story." They don't have BioWare choices, but again the main story would be locked in coop. You are just making excuses. Again, play SWTOR. BioWare has already done a cooperative experience on a massively multiplayer level. It works and will continue to work. It's only a matter of time before ME and DA follow suit. Lets not be ridiculous.

 

I didn't say 'story', I said 'experience'.  A story itself (like in AC, Skyrim and FC) can be personal and character-driven without the game having depth in terms of NPC interaction and squadmate relationships.  That, for me, is what sets ME apart from these games, and I think the concept of integrated co-op puts much of that at risk.

 

On a UNC world in ME1 I came across Corporal Toombs holding a gun to a scientist's head for experimenting on him.  Did I try to talk down Toombs?  Did I take him out?  Did I let him exact his revenge, or did I shoot the scientist myself for his crimes?  It all depended on the way that I personally was role-playing my character.  If I had Kaidan with me, or if I had a sole survivor background, there was different dialogue.  I even got an angry email from Toombs in ME2 when he found out I was working alongside Cerberus.  That interaction on its own hardly made the game(s), but it's those little things that, when added up, allowed me to craft my own experience through the trilogy.  Locking the main story doesn't change the fact that these completely unrelated personal touches could be put at risk for the sake of co-op play.

 

You call it 'making excuses' and 'being ridiculous'.  Others would just call it having a different point of view about what BW should and shouldn't change in moving from ME3 to ME4.  You're very quick to dismiss other people's opinions about ME3's MP and where ME4 should go, yet you seem to be having a difficult time comprehending why people don't agree with your own views.  People have different tastes and like different things in their games, it's that simple.

[XXIceColdXX]

I'd prefer the 2 modes separate.

[TruthSerum]

Yes because playing on the highest difficulty in a generic MP clearly shows how different it is from the rest...? Really? That's your argument. To answer your question, yes I have "clutched on Gold" and "extracted Platinum." If you like ME3's generic MP, I apologize in advance for clearly hurting your feelings. I find this to be irrelevant as I'm merely posing an idea that would make for an experience much more true to the main game rather than something generic and unoriginal.

Really? Provide me a link? Provide me a petition or document with hundreds of thousands of signatures stating "we don't want integrated coop in ME"? Or is this merely you speaking for "ME fans" suggesting they do not want it? I oftentimes find people do not like when others speak for them, especially when their views tend to be in the minority. Please do not make baseless assertions and try to act like its a legitimate argument. You will not convince anyone here.

Huh? Do you work for BioWare? No offense to you, but your word and opinion hold no weight, value, or significance to what BioWare actually does with their games. On the contrary, no one expected BioWare would ever incorporate MP into their games at all. Certainly, many have been proven wrong. Fans didn't even expect MP in DAI, and they were shocked and surprised by the announcement. BioWare is always looking for ways to innovate and improve that experience.

Again, I point to SWTOR. A game made by BioWare that already does exactly what I'm asking for. This isn't out of the realm of reason. I'd even argue it has been something BioWare has discussed. It's a matter of time before integrated coop happens, not a matter of if. Open world was the first step. Integrated coop is always the next step with these kinds of games.

All you have to do is take a look at the mp/sp format of DAI.

On multiple occasions BW took great pains to make it absolutely, positively clear that DA mp would have ZERO impact or even the smallest connection to the sp campaign.

That was a direct result of fan feedback from ME3.

[Revan Reborn]

Like I said, I could have used clearer language.  But I assure you, I read your OP and I do get what you are suggesting.

 

 

Can you please stop assuming that I haven't seen/heard/read the small bits and pieces of info regarding ME4? I have been following every tidbit since BW confirmed it was working on the game.  And yes, I know it won't actually be 'ME4'.

 

ME1 was NOT open world; nor did it attempt to be.  It had a few sandboxes but you still had to hop into your ship and go from place to place via the Galaxy Map.  That is an obstacle that would need to be addressed in some way to create a proper open world experience.  Not saying it can't be done, but again, it risks introducing changes to the SP gameplay purely for the sake of an integrated co-op.  None of the open world examples you have listed have that same structure of dozens of different locations linked by a traveling hub - they just have one (or a few) large open world areas in which the whole game takes place.

 

It seems to me that for ME4 to take a true open world approach BW would need to either (a) limit the number of locations you could actually visit and drive around in, which would probably diminish the scope of the game, or ( focus a significant % of their resources on making a large number of open locations.  In my view such resources would be better spent on designing a more intimate experience, which is where BW built their reputation.

 

 

It's not game-breaking but, as Robotic Water has already said, the pausable wheels are a signature of the combat in the series and would be sorely missed by fans.  And there are a lot of BW fans who didn't like SWTOR, which I'm sure BW knows.  Actually having your friend hop in and hop out might be optional, but there are still compromises that would have to be made in the SP gameplay and the depth of the side missions (see below) to allow it.

 

 

I didn't say 'story', I said 'experience'.  A story itself (like in AC and FC) can be personal and character-driven without the game having depth in terms of NPC interaction and squadmate relationships.  On a UNC world in ME1 I came acreoss Corporal Toombs holding a gun to a scientist's head for experimenting on him.  Did I try to talk down Toombs?  Did I take him out?  Did I let him exact his revenge, or did I shoot the scientist myself for his crimes?  It all depended on the way that I personally was role-playing my character.  If I had Kaidan with me, or if I had a sole survivor background, there was different dialogue.  I even got an angry email from Toombs in ME2 when he found out I was working alongside Cerberus.  That interaction on its own hardly made the game, but it's those little things that, when added up, allowed me to craft my own experience through the trilogy.  Locking the main story doesn't change the fact that these completely unrelated personal touches could be put at risk for the sake of co-op play.

 

You call it 'making excuses' and 'being ridiculous'.  Others would just call it having a different point of view about what BW should and shouldn't change in moving from ME3 to ME4.  I respect that you want something like this in ME4, I just don't agree.

I'm merely basing my responses on the information you give me. If I have evidence to support the game will likely be open world, I'm going to reveal it. This forum is meant to be informative as well as provide ideas to help BioWare improve their games. I see no issue with providing more information if you do not clearly suggest you know it already.

 

ME1 was open world with the Mako. The idea of being able to go anywhere without obstruction. That is "open world." The Mako could climb and scale virtually everything, and MENext is merely taking that to the next level, as we saw with the alpha footage at Comicon. You are merely arguing semantics as clearly you have to travel to different planets, so it would not be "open" in that sense. Again, the actual environments and planets you explore appear to be open world by what we have seen.

 

BioWare has SWTOR and DAI as examples of how to do more open world experiences. MENext, again, would have to be more open than DAI because of the Mako and he nature of its navigation. BioWare has already stated this will be the biggest Mass Effect game. It's going to have lots of new locations and a brand new area of space to explore. I should also mention that exploring space will be entirely different.

 

I remember that quest in ME1. It certainly wasn't that in-depth though. You had a paragon and renegade choice (if you had enough reputation) and then you had a neutral option to resolve the dispute. Yes, you receive an email later in ME2. ME is largely nothing but fan service and nods to previous decisions and choices people made. Does that make it more personal? Not really, as BioWare is just trying to give a sense of reactivity. ME did a lot of small things well, but large reactivity was much harder for it to pull off, and as a result ME stumbled quite a bit in this regard. It's one of the major criticisms fans attack it for.

 

I don't see how integrated coop would in any way impact BioWare's ability to continue to put in those little, minute, details. They are mutually exclusive. One does not impact the other. I find your argument unconvincing.

 

I'm saying it's an "excuse" and "ridiculous" because people are arguing "it can't be done." That is nonsense. It can be done. It's a matter of whether BioWare wants to go that direction or not. There is no limitation here. Many seem to forget, but ME innovated BioWare storytelling with its dialogue wheel and cinematic cut scenes. BioWare is always looking to innovate, and so far this generation going more open world is one of those innovations. MP was also another innovation, and hopefully that is something that is constantly refined and improved as I believe it is less than ideal currently.

 

Everybody is welcome to have a difference of opinion. That is what the forums are for. I just do not appreciate people coming into a thread that poses it is an idea and suggests "it's not possible." You don't have to agree with the concept, but it is far from not being possible.

[Revan Reborn]

All you have to do is take a look at the mp/sp format of DAI.

On multiple occasions BW took great pains to make it absolutely, positively clear that DA mp would have ZERO impact or even the smallest connection to the sp campaign.

That was a direct result of fan feedback from ME3.

What does this have to do with integrated coop?

 

Tying the ME3 MP to the SP was a terrible idea and BioWare was criticized for it. Partially because some didn't want to participate in MP and partially because it wasn't that great to start. With DAI, it's purely optional, which just goes to show how uninteresting and mundane it is. Why would you put a separate feature in the game that many will likely never play? That's illogical.

 

A better approach is to have an optional coop part of the main game. It makes sense and compliments the main experience, but it's also a choice of whether people want to participate or not. It doesn't affect the experience like ME3 MP did, and it's not separate and inferior to the main game like ME3 MP and DAI MP. It's a part of the main game. That's the difference.

[goishen]

The only way that I might be for this type of game play is if they made it similar to SR3-GOH (Gat Out of Hell).  Where by you could choose to take some people with you if you chose to, not to take anybody if you didn't want to, etc.  The other person would be notified if you were taking a quest and then be automatically transported to you.  But then, it would take all of the fun out of it for a couple'a laughs.  And it would make no sense thematically.  Wait, so, if he just transported here, why can't I  transport?  If I can transport, why can't I just transport right to the end?  Why do I have to fight all this middle stuff?

 

The reason it works for SR3-GOH is the that the entire SR series (or rather starting with 3) doesn't take itself too seriously.  (BTW, BioWare dev's, Laura Bailey rox, would love to see her get more work in your next game) Everybody knows and is in on the joke.  Here, what you have is a serious minded space epic story the likes of which have never been told.   I mean, look at my signature.  I don't care if the writers call it a space opera.  It's a damn good story.

[Revan Reborn]

The only way that I might be for this type of game play is if they made it similar to SR3-GOH (Gat Out of Hell).  Where by you could choose to take some people with you if you chose to, not to take anybody if you didn't want to, etc.  The other person would be notified if you were taking a quest and then be automatically transported to you.  But then, it would take all of the fun out of it for a couple'a laughs.  And it would make no sense thematically.  Wait, so, if he just transported here, why can't I  transport?  If I can transport, why can't I just transport right to the end?  Why do I have to fight all this middle stuff?

 

The reason it works for SR3-GOH is the that the entire SR series (or rather starting with 3) doesn't take itself too seriously.  (BTW, BioWare dev's, Laura Bailey rox, would love to see her get more work in your next game) Everybody knows and is in on the joke.  Here, what you have is a serious minded space epic story the likes of which have never been told.   I mean, look at my signature.  I don't care if the writers call it a space opera.  It's a damn good story.

Huh? You are trying to consider how players would be "transported' into another player's game? That's an easy problem to resolve. A social hub. Whether it is a ship like the Normandy, or a base camp like in DAI, there are various places it would make sense for a buddy to group up. Posters here seem to be so adamant about explaining to me why it's not possible rather than why it is possible.

[goishen]

Huh? You are trying to consider how players would be "transported' into another player's game? That's an easy problem to resolve. A social hub. Whether it is a ship like the Normandy, or a base camp like in DAI, there are various places it would make sense for a buddy to group up. Posters here seem to be so adamant about explaining to me why it's not possible rather than why it is possible.

 

 

Look at M3MP on PC now.   Nobody talks.  You're trying to tell me that everybody is gonna talk to one another and wait for 10 minutes while you're doing laundry?  No.  M3MP is fun because it's simple.  Simple and quick.  Matches last no longer than 20 minutes and hey, if anybody wants to leave....   They can.  Plus, the reason that I think competitive playing grew out is because of players being around each other for extended periods of time.  Meaning, "Hey, bet'cha I can kick your ass!"

 

Just no.  Teabagging and all that ****, I'll leave that to Halo and CoD.

[Revan Reborn]

Look at M3MP on PC now.   Nobody talks.  You're trying to tell me that everybody is gonna talk to one another and wait for 10 minutes while you're doing laundry?  No.  M3MP is fun because it's simple.  Simple and quick.  Matches last no longer than 20 minutes and hey, if anybody wants to leave....   They can.

ME3 MP is nothing special nor is it original. This has already been established.

 

I'm not following your second point. An integrated coop would be for you to team up with your best buddy or friend and experience the main game together. It wouldn't be a cookie cutter game type fighting the same monotonous waves of enemies on the same maps over and over and over again. Also, it's much easier to just step away and take a break in coop if you need to. You don't have that luxury in ME3 MP if you are on your fifth wave on platinum and everybody is needed to survive. If you have to step away because of an emergency, that is 20 minutes of my time wasted. That would never be an issue with integrated coop.

[goishen]

To my second point, put any two people in a room together and eventually they'll fight.  Competitiveness is in our DNA.  Especially in a virtual world with nothing to lose.

[Revan Reborn]

To my second point, put any two people in a room together and eventually they'll fight.  Competitiveness is in our DNA.  Especially in a virtual world with nothing to lose.

I can't say I've personally had that experience. Perhaps you should look for new friends? I personally enjoy cooperative experiences when I can share them with a friend. Some of my most memorable gaming experiences have been cooperative, specifically being MMORPGs. I'm not asking for that kind of scale. I just want the ability to be able to play parts of the main game with a friend. That's nothing ground breaking. Plenty of other games are doing it or have been doing it.

[TruthSerum]

ME3 MP is nothing special nor is it original. This has already been established.

Established how exactly?

[Malanek]

You are really asking this question? Biotics are Mass Effect's version of the Force. The original ME team developed KotOR 1 and when they decided to do a new sci-fi franchise, Star Wars was the major inspiration for the universe. Also, I feel I should point out that biotics are just a "part" of the ME experience. They certainly aren't the whole experience, as you can craft a variety of different types of characters ("canon" Shepard is technically a soldier).

 

Again, look at Shadowrun as a perfect example that has a lot in common with Mass Effect. Shadowrun mixes Dark Magic (biotics) with technology (weapons) in a multiplayer environment. We could even use Halo Reach, as an example with its technology and various powers the Spartans can use in matchmaking. Shadowrun is PvP and not Firefight or Horde from Halo and Gears of War, but the progression and the types of skills are far from new. Anyways, I feel like a broken record having to continuously say that ME3 MP isn't original or new. It's a slightly different take on the same basic feature many shooters have.

Kotor is not a hybrid shooter-rpg, I cant even begin to understand where you are coming from. I have already told you I haven't played shadowrun, but none of the other games you have suggested are at all similar.