109 réponses à ce sujet

[goishen]

BioWare did nail the formula, regardless of what people think of the ending. However, that was last generation. Every new generation of hardware BioWare revamps and overhauls their previous game philosophy. What was "perfect" then will no longer be "perfect" now. Expectations change. Technology changes. The franchise needs to grow and not fall into stagnation. Mass Effect 3 was very good at what it was created to do. It's still a very poor game in many other aspects, specifically with lack of and linearity in environments. Change is good.

 

Again, I would value much more a multiplayer experience that actually makes sense with the main game and follows the core pillars of a BioWare experience. The ME3 MP has no connection to the main game at all, other than the forced EMS requirement. I don't want a cheap, generic multiplayer that I can play in other shooters. What I want is a multiplayer experience that is unique to BioWare and that ties into their philosophy of gaming. That is what an integrated cooperative experience has the capacity to do. The ME3 MP is stagnant and has nowhere to go or expand to. It's just a separate entity built for micro-transactions. It may as well just be a standalone game that another studio creates. It has no bearing on Mass Effect at all.

 

 

Meh.  I think that has something to do with the engine and the cost of using that engine.  Making an engine on your own is a whole lot better than buying a gremlin that goes 200 mph.

 

There's a reason why they were able to pump those games out as quickly as they were.  One, because they had a fleshed out engine.  Two, because they knew the engine.  With Frostbite, they don't know the engine and it really hasn't been fleshed out by BioWare.

[Barrett Rodych]

Making an engine on your own is a whole lot better than buying a gremlin that goes 200 mph.

Hm, I dunno, tough call here.

[goishen]

Hm, I dunno, tough call here.

 

 

 

It's a whole lot cheaper then.  

[Revan Reborn]

Meh.  I think that has something to do with the engine and the cost of using that engine.  Making an engine on your own is a whole lot better than buying a gremlin that goes 200 mph.

 

There's a reason why they were able to pump those games out as quickly as they were.  One, because they had a fleshed out engine.  Two, because they knew the engine.  With Frostbite, they don't know the engine and it really hasn't been fleshed out by BioWare.

I'd just like to point out that Mass Effect was not built on an in-house BioWare engine, like KotOR, JE, DAO, and DA2. BioWare was licensing Unreal Engine 3 to build Mass Effect, which was a convenient and effective 3rd party tool that allowed them to focus more on building a game and less on building an engine for the game.

 

Frostbite 3 is no different, and in fact is actually better. The engine was built by DICE for open world shooters, mass destruction, high graphical fidelity, and truly incredible and complex gameplay. The fact BioWare won't have to build an engine, much like they didn't with Unreal Engine 3, will mean they can worry less about making an engine that works for their game and just building the experience. We know what Frostbite 3 is capable of from Battlefield 4, and BioWare certainly has four years of experience tinkering with it for DAI.

 

On the contrary, there is no reason why BioWare cannot do more. I expect for this to be their most ambitious undertaking yet because they have one of the most powerful engines in the industry, a large and talented team, and the resources and money to truly make an unforgettable experience. Coop had already been attempted by DICE in Battlefield 3, but it was a separate inferior experience that was underwhelming. BioWare could learn from DICE's failures and make an experience that would allow players to share the amazing storytelling that BioWare creates with their friends.

[TruthSerum]

You keep talking about microtransactions like that is what the core of the mp gameplay is about for us players. Well let me tell you that in the hundreds of hours that I have been playing I have never spent a dime in the multiplayer mode, not a single penny. (although I have bought all of the SINGLEPLAYER dlc).

ME3 mp is singularly brilliant in its execution and contrarary to what you might believe its miles deep. Yeah sure just about anybody can clutch and extract on the higher difficulties if they use the most OP characters, but that is not what the long-game/meta-game is about. And it is just flat out not ttue that everybody uses the same OP builds.

There are literally hundreds and thousands of pages and videos out there that talk about and show different tactics and strategies about how to play the different classes in ME3 mp. You could practically make a college course about it there is so much information out there.

And yes the game is extremely popular. The vast majority of those HUNDRED THOUSAND thread topics I mentioned previously are people either talking tactics/strategy or comparing e-peens. You have to really look hard to find someone over there that doesn't seriously enjoy the game. I will tell you the mp fanbase is DEDICATED, they are just as dedicated as the sp fanbase.

So understand that I wouldn't be playing it if the gameplay was unfairly balanced toward microtransactions. BW are smart people and they know their fans are smart people that would sniff out a moneymaking scam in a hot minute and they would voice their feelings about it loud and clear.

Truly until someone else like yourself mentions it on the internet I forget that the microtransaction part is even there. For me its literally like it doesn't even exist. My experience is extremely common and the times have been very few and far between where I have seen someone mention the cash shop although the few times I have seen it mentioned it is usually someone complaining that it didn't help at all in them getting the weapon that they wanted.

Now understand I have NO PROBLEM AT ALL with the way BW has implemented microtransactions in the cash shop. It helps to keep the servers running and the game is so good that I almost feel guilty for never having spent a dime on it.....almost.

The way BW implemented the cash shop is damn near perfect because its a win win for everybody. EA/BW get a steady stream of income and us players get to keep playing a great game indefinitely because the servers will keep running.

As long as EA/BW don't get greedy and lower the drop rates to make more $$$ they should absolutely keep doing what they are doing in my book.

[Revan Reborn]

You keep talking about microtransactions like that is what the core of the mp gameplay is about for us players. Well let me tell you that in the hundreds of hours that I have been playing I have never spent a dime in the multiplayer mode, not a single penny. (although I have bought all of the SINGLEPLAYER dlc).

ME3 mp is singularly brilliant in its execution and contrarary to what you might believe its miles deep. Yeah sure just about anybody can clutch and extract on the higher difficulties if they use the most OP characters, but that is not what the long-game/meta-game is about. And it is just flat out not ttue that everybody uses the same OP builds.

There are literally hundreds and thousands of pages and videos out there that talk about and show different tactics and strategies about how to play the different classes in ME3 mp. You could practically make a college course about it there is so much information out there.

And yes the game is extremely popular. The vast majority of those HUNDRED THOUSAND thread topics I mentioned previously are people either talking tactics/strategy or comparing e-peens. You have to really look hard to find someone over there that doesn't seriously enjoy the game. I will tell you the mp fanbase is DEDICATED, they are just as dedicated as the sp fanbase.

So understand that I wouldn't be playing it if the gameplay was unfairly balanced toward microtransactions. BW are smart people and they know their fans are smart people that would sniff out a moneymaking scam in a hot minute and they would voice their feelings about it loud and clear.

Truly until someone else like yourself mentions it on the internet I forget that the microtransaction part is even there. For me its literally like it doesn't even exist. My experience is extremely common and the times have been very few and far between where I have seen someone mention the cash shop although the few times I have seen it mentioned it is usually someone complaining that it didn't help at all in them getting the weapon that they wanted.

Now understand I have NO PROBLEM AT ALL with the way BW has implemented microtransactions in the cash shop. It helps to keep the servers running and the game is so good that I almost feel guilty for never having spent a dime on it.....almost.

The way BW implemented the cash shop is damn near perfect because its a win win for everybody. EA/BW get a steady stream of income and us players get to keep playing a great game indefinitely because the servers will keep running.

As long as EA/BW don't get greedy and lower the drop rates to make more $$$ they should absolutely keep doing what they are doing in my book.

No need to get defensive. I don't believe I ever said micro-transactions were the core for you, but rather BioWare/EA. Obviously not everybody will pay real money to avoid the long grind of obtaining credits by playing the game. My point is the MP was built to encourage an incredibly long time-sink that would cause many to rather pay real money instead of invest many hours of MP to get the same results.

 

I don't believe I ever suggested there isn't variety. Take SWTOR, for example, another BioWare product. There are certainly plenty of "builds" one can choose to use in war zones. That doesn't change the fact that some builds and classes are just better for PvP than others. The same philosophy applies to ME3. What I'm trying to convey is that the MP is very simple and basic in its purpose.

 

Create a large time sink by having a lot of different characters with different abilities. Topple that with needing to obtain all the various weapons for each type and all the various consumables you can obtain and use. We aren't even mentioning the fact you can then "promote" your character to reset his/her level and do the progression all over again. It's a never-ending grind fest that will sink some in and encourage others to pay money nonstop to stay competitive.

 

It's a very well-oiled, money-making machine. I'm glad you enjoy its simplistic and direct approach, but I would prefer something a bit more meaningful to Mass Effect. I can choose whatever class and use whatever abilities I want in the main story. I don't need to have those divided and segmented in the MP so I can kill waves of brain-dead mobs. That's not adding anything to the game. All the MP does is re-purpose things we already have and give different skins (various aliens) as fan service to reel players in. When you think about it, BioWare is quite ingenious. I tip my hat to their efforts.

 

I don't believe I ever said it was unbalanced towards micro-transactions. On the contrary, BioWare has done a fabulous job of making sure micro-transactions aren't constantly in your face, like other games. Their approach is very subtle, and you can obtain anything in the game without needing to spend real money. That's the beauty of it (I wonder why they didn't take the same approach with SWTOR...). This doesn't change the fact, however, that the MP was clearly created to support micro-transactions and to provide more monetary longevity to these titles. EA does it in all of their multiplayer experiences, Battlefield being the most infamous with its "premium" membership.

 

My point, and the point of this thread, is I believe BioWare can do better. Now, in a perfect world, having the separate MP as well as the integrated coop would be preferred. In fact, that's exactly how FC4 approached their multiplayer. Perhaps BioWare could do the same thing. I would just personally find more value in a cooperative experience that is tied to the main game and enhances it, rather than something separate that has no real connection to the main game. Again, perhaps the ME3 MP would be better off as a spin-off franchise that another developer could support and build upon.

 

BioWare is about storytelling and they always have been. This is why I believe it makes perfect sense that a cooperative experience would be more in line with BioWare's philosophy than a obligatory "shooter multiplayer," which is what every other AAA title in existence already does.

[TruthSerum]

"When you think about it, BioWare is quite ingenious."  

 

You make it sound like some insidious sneaky thing like they are getting away with something bad. There is literally nothing wrong with the way they have implemented the multiplayer mode even though you won't say it outright but you will strongly insinuate otherwise. Don't deny it because it's way too obvious. 

 

Of course they wanted to make money. Who doesn't? BW simply had the genius to make a GREAT GAME and make money off of it which is literally what every other videogame company out there is trying to do. 

 

---------

 

"perhaps the ME3 MP would be better off as a spin-off franchise that another developer could support and build upon."

 

ME3 mp WAS built by a separate team..and they did such a great job that they gave them the franchise. Those BW Montreal guys are good. 

[Revan Reborn]

"When you think about it, BioWare is quite ingenious."  

 

You make it sound like some insidious sneaky thing like they are getting away with something bad. There is literally nothing wrong with the way they have implemented the multiplayer mode even though you won't say it outright but you will strongly insinuate otherwise. Don't deny it because it's way too obvious. 

 

Of course they wanted to make money. Who doesn't? BW simply had the genius to make a GREAT GAME and make money off of it which is literally what every other videogame company out there is trying to do. 

 

---------

 

"perhaps the ME3 MP would be better off as a spin-off franchise that another developer could support and build upon."

 

ME3 mp WAS built by a separate team..and they did such a great job that they gave them the franchise. Those BW Montreal guys are good. 

Nothing of what they are doing is nefarious, not explicitly anyways. BioWare/EA is just merely business savvy. They created a system in which it will subtly promote players to spend real money on packs if they so choose. The entire purpose is essentially a never-ending money train with little effort on BioWare's part.

 

You merely support my idea that another BioWare studio should be dedicated to furthering that multiplayer experience. I'm sure you could appreciate that as you enjoy it so much. Given that the single player experience will always be the main focus, everything else will come second. That will inevitably affect what is possible with MP going forward, so why wouldn't you support a separate, standalone game dedicated to that experience?

 

Going back to the core of this discussion, it's much easier to make one game with a multiplayer component integrated into it rather than two separate games with the main focus being placed on the single player experience. Does that make sense? As it currently stands, it is likely the separate MP will always take a back seat and suffer, never being what it truly could be.

[Vortex13]

I would love to see the open world elements from DA:I integrated into ME:Next's MP; I already know that the SP is going to follow suit. Large, open maps maybe focused around assaulting an enemy stronghold, and filled with grand set pieces, and sweeping vistas. 

 

 

I also hope that the MP team will expand on the customization options for our MP characters, as well as draw some inspiration from asymmetrical titles (like Evolve) when designing new classes/races. Not in the PvP sense, but in how a particular character can have completely different gameplay mechanics compared to other classes and still be balanced and fun. Don't just give us a 'shiny' Krogan Shaman, or Salarien Engineer, expand the MP and give us playable Rachni or Elcor etc. 

[Revan Reborn]

I would love to see the open world elements from DA:I integrated into ME:Next's MP; I already know that the SP is going to follow suit. Large, open maps maybe focused around assaulting an enemy stronghold, and filled with grand set pieces, and sweeping vistas. 

 

 

I also hope that the MP team will expand on the customization options for our MP characters, as well as draw some inspiration from asymmetrical titles (like Evolve) when designing new classes/races. Not in the PvP sense, but in how a particular character can have completely different gameplay mechanics compared to other classes and still be balanced and fun. Don't just give us a 'shiny' Krogan Shaman, or Salarien Engineer, expand the MP and give us playable Rachni or Elcor etc. 

Just to be clear, the OP is calling for integrated coop in the next Mass Effect. Not the Firefight/Horde generic MP from ME3. I believe given BioWare's unique talents for storytelling a choice, they could make a much more unique and memorable experience through a cooperative experience in the main game (which will be optional) rather than a separate MP that is redundant and has little purpose. BioWare already said PvP is out of the question, as they are not interested in competitive multiplayer, which I wholeheartedly agree with. With the next Mass Effect almost assuredly being much more open world, this is an opportunity BioWare should not let pass.

[Vortex13]

Just to be clear, the OP is calling for integrated coop in the next Mass Effect. Not the Firefight/Horde generic MP from ME3. I believe given BioWare's unique talents for storytelling a choice, they could make a much more unique and memorable experience through a cooperative experience in the main game (which will be optional) rather than a separate MP that is redundant and has little purpose. BioWare already said PvP is out of the question, as they are not interested in competitive multiplayer, which I wholeheartedly agree with. With the next Mass Effect almost assuredly being much more open world, this is an opportunity BioWare should not let pass.

 

 

 

A co-op campaign would be a most welcome addition to the series (IMO). I can't count the number of times I have been riding around the countryside in DA:I's SP and thought to myself how awesome it would be if I could be doing this alongside my gaming buddies, as we roamed the open world looking for treasure and killing baddies. That being said, I do hope that a co-op campaign is not the only new feature of the ME:Next MP.

 

 

Don't get me wrong I would have loved to play as Legion while my friends fill the roles of Shepard and Grunt as we tackle the story of ME2 together, but I also would really like to see new playable races like Rachni or the Elcor, being added to the game; things that have an asymmetrical balance to the 'normal' characters in the setting. I would like to see unique gameplay mechanics being utilized to help players really feel the difference of playing as something like the inscetiod Rachni vs. playing as a human, or asari, rather than everyone being a re-skinned human with one or two slightly different powers. 

 

 

Look at games like Aliens vs Predator, or Evolve, or Natural Selection for the kind of asymmetry I am getting at. Those games (while PvP focused) really distinguished the regular 'human' play style from the decidedly non-human/alien play styles. When I play as an Elcor Soldier I want to be able to feel how different I am from the human soldier; for example. I would like the MP for ME:Next (whether it be a fully implemented co-op campaign or a suped up version of the Horde Mode) to be more than 3 re-textured Not-Shepards running around with the host player. 

[Revan Reborn]

A co-op campaign would be a most welcome addition to the series (IMO). I can't count the number of times I have been riding around the countryside in DA:I's SP and thought to myself how awesome it would be if I could be doing this alongside my gaming buddies, as we roamed the open world looking for treasure and killing baddies. That being said, I do hope that a co-op campaign is not the only new feature of the ME:Next MP.

 

 

Don't get me wrong I would have loved to play as Legion while my friends fill the roles of Shepard and Grunt as we tackle the story of ME2 together, but I also would really like to see new playable races like Rachni or the Elcor, being added to the game; things that have an asymmetrical balance to the 'normal' characters in the setting. I would like to see unique gameplay mechanics being utilized to help players really feel the difference of playing as something like the inscetiod Rachni vs. playing as a human, or asari, rather than everyone being a re-skinned human with one or two slightly different powers. 

 

 

Look at games like Aliens vs Predator, or Evolve, or Natural Selection for the kind of asymmetry I am getting at. Those games (while PvP focused) really distinguished the regular 'human' play style from the decidedly non-human/alien play styles. When I play as an Elcor Soldier I want to be able to feel how different I am from the human soldier; for example. I would like the MP for ME:Next (whether it be a fully implemented co-op campaign or a suped up version of the Horde Mode) to be more than 3 re-textured Not-Shepards running around with the host player. 

Finally somebody on these forums that actually agrees! Maybe I'm one of the few here who has ever enjoyed a cooperative open world experience, but it's a true delight and would fit perfectly with Mass Effect!

 

If BioWare was to bring back to ME3 MP, it would have to see a large makeover for me to enjoy it. The current firefight/horde mode is far from innovative and I only participate in multiplayer to ensure I have a High EMS when going back to Earth. When your multiplayer makes me feel as if it's a chore, there is something wrong. There needs to be more variety in game types, more maps, different races actually need to be different instead of being re-skinned humans, etc. My only concern with this is I believe to truly make it great, it would probably be more work than BioWare is willing to do.

 

They make choice-driven storytelling RPGs. They aren't multiplayer experts, which is why I have no faith in the current ME3 MP ever truly evolving. Especially if the next Mass Effect is open world, I just don't see MP getting that needed makeover. Perhaps Edmonton could do it, but they are going to begin work on Casey's new IP, so I'm just not seeing those pieces come together. An integrated coop, in my opinion, would be much easier because it's a part of the main experience and would have a lot more bang for your buck.

 

No more endless waves of mindless mobs all spawning in the same locations. No more linear maps with the same objectives over and over.  Instead, I can actually enjoy Mass Effect the way it's meant to be played with a friend. I don't see the experience getting better than that, even with a revamped separate ME3 MP.

[RoboticWater]

Finally somebody on these forums that actually agrees! Maybe I'm one of the few here who has ever enjoyed a cooperative open world experience, but it's a true delight and would fit perfectly with Mass Effect!

 

If BioWare was to bring back to ME3 MP, it would have to see a large makeover for me to enjoy it. The current firefight/horde mode is far from innovative and I only participate in multiplayer to ensure I have a High EMS when going back to Earth. When your multiplayer makes me feel as if it's a chore, there is something wrong. There needs to be more variety in game types, more maps, different races actually need to be different instead of being re-skinned humans, etc. My only concern with this is I believe to truly make it great, it would probably be more work than BioWare is willing to do.

 

They make choice-driven storytelling RPGs. They aren't multiplayer experts, which is why I have no faith in the current ME3 MP ever truly evolving. Especially if the next Mass Effect is open world, I just don't see MP getting that needed makeover. Perhaps Edmonton could do it, but they are going to begin work on Casey's new IP, so I'm just not seeing those pieces come together. An integrated coop, in my opinion, would be much easier because it's a part of the main experience and would have a lot more bang for your buck.

 

No more endless waves of mindless mobs all spawning in the same locations. No more linear maps with the same objectives over and over.  Instead, I can actually enjoy Mass Effect the way it's meant to be played with a friend. I don't see the experience getting better than that, even with a revamped separate ME3 MP.

First of all, ME3's MP only proves that the Mass Effect team are at least MP proficient. Regardless of what you think, ME3's MP is largely held as a success. No, it's not revolutionary, but neither is integrated co-op. In fact, working co-op into the main game seems to be something everyone's doing nowadays.

 

If Bioware aren't "MP experts," why reinvent the wheel? It only leaves more room for error. If Bioware are, as you say, moving to an open world setting and they do insist on integrating co-op, then they have two entirely new gameplay concepts that need to mesh with an existing franchise (a franchise which neither needs nor calls for such concepts, IMO). I know I can't change your mind, but can I at least convince you to wait. Bioware has yet to prove that they have a fully competent grasp on open world (especially with a shooter), and AFAIK they've never even attempted integrated co-op (in recent memory). I would prefer that Bioware evolve the existing Mass Effect formula within its own niche but if that's off the table, I'd rather they reinvent their franchise slowly than trip over their own ineptitude.

 

Don't think for an instant that integrated co-op is somehow easier to make. It's not as simple as spawning in another player character and moving on. As I've said, it would require delicate map and encounter design (which would need to be scaled and re-worked for both co-op and open world), working microtransactions into co-op/SP (they have to go somewhere), and reinventing established and quite effective gameplay systems, IMO to the detriment of the franchise. 

 

I'm not opposed to the concept of integrated co-op outright. In fact, I wouldn't mind separate co-op missions not tied to the SP. I just don't want to see the franchise become Mass Cry 4: "Skyrim with Guns" in Space. Mass Effect has a strong and fairly unique place in the world of narrative driven RPGs and it'd be a shame to see Bioware throw that away in favor of the "gameplay mechanics of the week."

 

I won't dispute your opinion that Mass Effect is "meant to be played with a friend," but I find it hard to believe that Mass Effect, a singleplayer narrative driven RPG consistently centered around a single crew with a single captain was somehow destined to have co-op.

[StealthGamer92]

Ever since ME3, it seems to have become a staple with BioWare that their games will feature multiplayer. ME3 had firefight/horde where one must survive consecutive waves of enemies and then reach extraction. DAI took a slightly different approach by having players work together to complete and overcome dungeon encounters. Why stop at just a separate multiplayer? Why not further incorporate that multiplayer into the single player experience?

 

What I'm referring to is cooperative play. Who wouldn't want to play along with a buddy in a large open world with so many possibilities? BioWare could take cues from Far Cry 4 and ACU. Cooperative play is incorporated to the point where a friend could participate in side quests, missions, or just exploring the world. The main story would be locked as it would be a solo experience only. This would make the experience that much more interactive, enjoyable, and the ability to share it with others.

 

That was a major criticism I've always had of Far Cry and AC, as they had large open worlds that were conducive to cooperative play. They made the jump and have been quite successful. With BioWare now going open world and incorporating more multiplayer, cooperative play seems only logical. What are everybody's thoughts on a cooperative experience? I personally believe it would be much better than ME3's multiplayer or DAI's. They are fine, but aren't as compelling as the single player because they are separate and don't contain the elements that make a BioWare game great.

 

I would love to see a seamless integration of cooperative play into the single player to truly give players the best of both worlds. It certainly would be easier for BioWare as they wouldn't have to create two separate experiences and instead just incorporate one into the other.

Yes please!

 

Also, IMO the first game in a series should setup the experience for the series. That is why I both love and hate the ME series. In ME1 there was exploration, discovery, and squad loyalty missions, even though some people didn't realize it. Then ME2 came and I was told "go here, kill them, here you go have a new gun." I was shocked and wasn't playing Mass Effect but instead Shepard Hand Holder Deluxe. I felt my favorite video game ever was butchered because people just wanted a point n' shoot game. ME1 did have the "open and empty" planets, but stop and think just when it was made and all the unknows they were skirting around. I believe if there weren't so many people shouting about the emptiness it would've probably have been fixed in 2 or definitely three. I am not pointing at anyone in particular for this.

[Revan Reborn]

First of all, ME3's MP only proves that the Mass Effect team are at least MP proficient. Regardless of what you think, ME3's MP is largely held as a success. No, it's not revolutionary, but neither is integrated co-op. In fact, working co-op into the main game seems to be something everyone's doing nowadays.

 

If Bioware aren't "MP experts," why reinvent the wheel? It only leaves more room for error. If Bioware are, as you say, moving to an open world setting and they do insist on integrating co-op, then they have two entirely new gameplay concepts that need to mesh with an existing franchise (a franchise which neither needs nor calls for such concepts, IMO). I know I can't change your mind, but can I at least convince you to wait. Bioware has yet to prove that they have a fully competent grasp on open world (especially with a shooter), and AFAIK they've never even attempted integrated co-op (in recent memory). I would prefer that Bioware evolve the existing Mass Effect formula within its own niche but if that's off the table, I'd rather they reinvent their franchise slowly than trip over their own ineptitude.

 

Don't think for an instant that integrated co-op is somehow easier to make. It's not as simple as spawning in another player character and moving on. As I've said, it would require delicate map and encounter design (which would need to be scaled and re-worked for both co-op and open world), working microtransactions into co-op/SP (they have to go somewhere), and reinventing established and quite effective gameplay systems, IMO to the detriment of the franchise. 

 

I'm not opposed to the concept of integrated co-op outright. In fact, I wouldn't mind separate co-op missions not tied to the SP. I just don't want to see the franchise become Mass Cry 4: "Skyrim with Guns" in Space. Mass Effect has a strong and fairly unique place in the world of narrative driven RPGs and it'd be a shame to see Bioware throw that away in favor of the "gameplay mechanics of the week."

 

I won't dispute your opinion that Mass Effect is "meant to be played with a friend," but I find it hard to believe that Mass Effect, a singleplayer narrative driven RPG consistently centered around a single crew with a single captain was somehow destined to have co-op.

Having MP in a game doesn't mean that it's good. It's become a standard for console gaming. Most games will have multiplayer, and yet many of them are forgettable. Outside of a few franchises that actually revolutionized multiplayer (Halo, CoD before it was crap, Battlefield), most games haven't offered anything new to the table nor was their multiplayer needed. The same goes for BioWare with Mass Effect 3 and Dragon Age Inquisition. While some may actually enjoy these experiences, I have also heard plenty who do not. What I found to really be interesting for DAI was when the MP was announced (which is very similar to how ME3's MP is set up), many on BSN were actually underwhelmed or indifferent about its inclusion. Many didn't care at all whether MP was in or not, and that's a serious issue BioWare needs to address.

 

Some franchises are just known for MP, as I explained with Halo, CoD, and Battlefield. Some franchises are just known for SP, such as The Elder Scrolls, BioWare games in general, Final Fantasy, etc. Unless you are actually planning on doing something to innovate in the MP experience, you are merely just adding more mediocrity and clutter to a genre already littered with too many MP rip-offs of games that came a decade ago. It would be one thing if BioWare actually tried to create a MP experience that made sense for their games. Something to do with choice-driven storytelling would be a start. They already have SWTOR under their belt, so it's not like its out of the realm of reason. How does adding a Firefight/Horde mode for ME3 add to the experience or in any way enhance the main game? It doesn't. It's out of place, and just as many are apathetic as those who seem to be excited for it. That is my point.

 

BioWare shouldn't even bother with MP if it doesn't make sense for their games. Integrated coop makes sense because BioWare games have always been party-based experiences. Instead of other friends, you had companions to join you in your adventures. That is something BioWare could do and many would enjoy it and it would be unique to BioWare (besides The Witcher, nobody else does choice-driven storytelling like BioWare). Again, SWTOR is their experience in terms of a cooperative experience. It's not a great MMO by any stretch of the word, but their party-based storytelling actually was quite innovative and fun. Too bad the game didn't have more of it.

 

Don't you worry about the game shop. They will get it in there somehow. As long as it isn't a detriment to the experience, I don't care where it is. BioWare has DAI and SWTOR as examples of more open world games and dealing with level-scaling, mob dispersion, etc. None of these are foreign to BioWare. I don't see how an optional integrated coop somehow throws away BioWare storytelling. They are mutually exclusive. Your own distaste for my idea is merely forcing you to make ridiculous conclusions that would never happen. This feature would be an addition to Mass Effect. It wouldn't replace anything, besides maybe the mediocre and uninteresting separate MP.

 

I already mentioned BioWare games have been party-based form the very beginning. BioWare games are all about relationships and working as a team. I don't see how having a real life friend with you instead of an NPC would somehow betray BioWare's core values. If anything, it merely adds to the experience.

 

Yes please!

 

Also, IMO the first game in a series should setup the experience for the series. That is why I both love and hate the ME series. In ME1 there was exploration, discovery, and squad loyalty missions, even though some people didn't realize it. Then ME2 came and I was told "go here, kill them, here you go have a new gun." I was shocked and wasn't playing Mass Effect but instead Shepard Hand Holder Deluxe. I felt my favorite video game ever was butchered because people just wanted a point n' shoot game. ME1 did have the "open and empty" planets, but stop and think just when it was made and all the unknows they were skirting around. I believe if there weren't so many people shouting about the emptiness it would've probably have been fixed in 2 or definitely three. I am not pointing at anyone in particular for this.

I agree. The scale and ambition for ME1 at the time was truly impressive. If not for the terrible Mako controls and perhaps more content on planets, I believe many would view it differently. I'm just glad the next Mass Effect is going back to the franchise roots and getting away from this silly, shoot 'em up theme park roller coaster that the series has become. There are plenty of set pieces and over-the-top sequences in CoD. What I want in ME is a story about relationships, exploration, and seeing the galaxy. That's what ME1 was all about, and somewhere along the way that was lost with ME2 and ME3. Integrated coop would go a long way to bringing that original concept in ME1 to life even more.

[goishen]

Some franchises are just known for MP, as I explained with Halo, CoD, and Battlefield.

 

 

Note, these are all FPS games.  

 

Some franchises are just known for SP, such as The Elder Scrolls, BioWare games in general, Final Fantasy, etc.

 

TESO, Final Fantasy I know is online. 

 

Unless you are actually planning on doing something to innovate in the MP experience, you are merely just adding more mediocrity and clutter to a genre already littered with too many MP rip-offs of games that came a decade ago. It would be one thing if BioWare actually tried to create a MP experience that made sense for their games. Something to do with choice-driven storytelling would be a start. They already have SWTOR under their belt, so it's not like its out of the realm of reason. How does adding a Firefight/Horde mode for ME3 add to the experience or in any way enhance the main game? It doesn't. It's out of place, and just as many are apathetic as those who seem to be excited for it. That is my point.

 

*shakes head*   Where to start?   So, let's start off with the 50/50 argument.  Your argument is, if I'm understanding you correctly, that for every one person that enjoys the MP game that there is another person who thinks it sucks and should die in a fire?  1:1.  Or 50% enjoyed it, 50% disliked it.  Correct?  And they should simply toss it out because 50% of the players didn't like it?  Wait, what?

 

Point two, if they did make the MP game essential to the storyline...   There would be a huge uproar from the community.  You thought that EMS was a huge uproar?  Hah.  Oh, no, but wait, you didn't say that.   You said "choice driven story telling".  Wow, big difference.  People will still ****** about why they couldn't get all of the choices in SP.

 

Point three, there are tons of games out there that their MP games have absolutely zero to do with the single player.  Take a look at Watch Dogs and the Spider Tank. 

 

Point four, there are tons of games out there that I enjoyed playing the multiplayer that have nothing to do with the single player.  It's called branching out. 

 

There are so many things for me to facepalm in this one paragraph about it's not even funny.

[RoboticWater]

Having MP in a game doesn't mean that it's good. It's become a standard for console gaming. Most games will have multiplayer, and yet many of them are forgettable. Outside of a few franchises that actually revolutionized multiplayer (Halo, CoD before it was crap, Battlefield), most games haven't offered anything new to the table nor was their multiplayer needed. The same goes for BioWare with Mass Effect 3 and Dragon Age Inquisition. While some may actually enjoy these experiences, I have also heard plenty who do not. What I found to really be interesting for DAI was when the MP was announced (which is very similar to how ME3's MP is set up), many on BSN were actually underwhelmed or indifferent about its inclusion. Many didn't care at all whether MP was in or not, and that's a serious issue BioWare needs to address.

 

Some franchises are just known for MP, as I explained with Halo, CoD, and Battlefield. Some franchises are just known for SP, such as The Elder Scrolls, BioWare games in general, Final Fantasy, etc. Unless you are actually planning on doing something to innovate in the MP experience, you are merely just adding more mediocrity and clutter to a genre already littered with too many MP rip-offs of games that came a decade ago. It would be one thing if BioWare actually tried to create a MP experience that made sense for their games. Something to do with choice-driven storytelling would be a start. They already have SWTOR under their belt, so it's not like its out of the realm of reason. How does adding a Firefight/Horde mode for ME3 add to the experience or in any way enhance the main game? It doesn't. It's out of place, and just as many are apathetic as those who seem to be excited for it. That is my point.

 

BioWare shouldn't even bother with MP if it doesn't make sense for their games. Integrated coop makes sense because BioWare games have always been party-based experiences. Instead of other friends, you had companions to join you in your adventures. That is something BioWare could do and many would enjoy it and it would be unique to BioWare (besides The Witcher, nobody else does choice-driven storytelling like BioWare). Again, SWTOR is their experience in terms of a cooperative experience. It's not a great MMO by any stretch of the word, but their party-based storytelling actually was quite innovative and fun. Too bad the game didn't have more of it.

 

Don't you worry about the game shop. They will get it in there somehow. As long as it isn't a detriment to the experience, I don't care where it is. BioWare has DAI and SWTOR as examples of more open world games and dealing with level-scaling, mob dispersion, etc. None of these are foreign to BioWare. I don't see how an optional integrated coop somehow throws away BioWare storytelling. They are mutually exclusive. Your own distaste for my idea is merely forcing you to make ridiculous conclusions that would never happen. This feature would be an addition to Mass Effect. It wouldn't replace anything, besides maybe the mediocre and uninteresting separate MP.

 

I already mentioned BioWare games have been party-based form the very beginning. BioWare games are all about relationships and working as a team. I don't see how having a real life friend with you instead of an NPC would somehow betray BioWare's core values. If anything, it merely adds to the experience.

 

I agree. The scale and ambition for ME1 at the time was truly impressive. If not for the terrible Mako controls and perhaps more content on planets, I believe many would view it differently. I'm just glad the next Mass Effect is going back to the franchise roots and getting away from this silly, shoot 'em up theme park roller coaster that the series has become. There are plenty of set pieces and over-the-top sequences in CoD. What I want in ME is a story about relationships, exploration, and seeing the galaxy. That's what ME1 was all about, and somewhere along the way that was lost with ME2 and ME3. Integrated coop would go a long way to bringing that original concept in ME1 to life even more.

I never said having MP made a game good. I'm saying ME3's MP was good, because it was. It was received well by reviewers and largely by an incredibly skeptical community. Personally, I'd like to see these statistics you're using for your argument. I've seen myriad positive reviews and know there's still an active

MP community. Sure it's my opinion that ME3's MP is fun, but I use more than anecdotal evidence to back up my claim. I don't think it's fair to assume that the majority of the community would be disappointed in another iteration of an MP mode they clearly like.

 

But ME3 proved that you could have good, separate co-op. I'm sorry you don't want to accept that, but it's been proven to work. It doesn't need to enhance the existing aspects of the singleplayer, because it doesn't try to and I think that's totally fine. I have nothing against enhancing the existing gameplay but as I've said, I'm not convinced that co-op would do that. Innovation =/= improvement. So yes, integrated co-op would be innovative, but it wouldn't necessarily be good. Again, you know my reasons, and they stretch far beyond complications with narrative. Even so, I'm still skeptical that TOR is even a good example. I haven't played SW:TOR yet, but nearly everyone I've asked or listened to has said that it would've been better as an entirely singleplayer KoTOR 3. I won't debate TOR's quality (or lack thereof) without actually playing it, but I will say that "only SW:TOR" is not a very extensive co-op pedigree especially given the gameplay differences between ME and TOR.

 

I get it. I can see hoe co-op could make some sense in Mass Effect; I'm not opposed to the basic idea of another person in your game, I just don't like the idea of losing some of ME's core gameplay features. I also see the potential for Bioware to screw up the new co-op or worse, the single player. I like ME3's MP because it's lightweight. It's fun and doesn't get in the way of anything else (yea, there's EMS, but that's just more reason to keep MP totally separate). I said I'd be fine with separate co-op missions, but integrating them is too costly.

 

Don't tell me not to worry. It's a legitimate concern; I don't trust EA not to fiddle with the leveling of the game. They need people to buy their stuff, so they'll have to coax people somehow. Even if they don't do that (and that's a big if), the game will likely still have "buy with real money" options built into the shop UI. I can see where you might have got "integrated coop somehow throws away BioWare storytelling," but that's not what I meant. I apologize for being vague. No, integrated co-op would not directly correlate with a worse narrative. Your suggested improvements (co-op, open world), however, would shift Mass Effect away from it's own niche, as I said, to its own detriment. Mass Effect doesn't need to be co-op and it doesn't need to be open world, and I'm no really seeing the net benefits of either. While my position is that co-op and open worlds don't equal a worse narrative, they can so very easily cause it. Bioware would need to work very hard in order to maintain a quality story while simultaneously adding in two entirely new concepts, neither of which have been implemented very successfully in recent franchises.

 

Please, don't criticize the authenticity of my concerns. I don't actually dislike the though of integrated co-op. I love playing with friends, but I have entirely reasonable issues with co-op for Mass Effect. The slight benefit that co-op would provide would not outweigh the losses I have expressed earlier in this thread. And I would appreciate it if you didn't refer to ME3's MP as uninteresting and mediocre. That is your opinion, and you appear to be in the minority on that matter. I would be inclined to believe you if it were berated more often by the community or reviled by critics. As of now, that isn't the case.

 

"Integrated coop would go a long way to bringing that original concept in ME1 to life even more."

What? How? Look, I'll totally accept that integrated co-op wouldn't not fit into Mass Effect, but you're going a bit far. At its core, Mass Effect is a singleplayer narrative-driven tactical shooter. While, integrated co-op might not throw a wrench in all of that, I don't see how it would bring ME1's original concept "more to life." That just doesn't make any sense.

 

I'm all for less theme parky-ness in Mass Effect (which I think you've massively overblown by the way), and as long as MENext isn't another poorly written war story, then that's bound to happen.

[StealthGamer92]

Why do so many people seem to think Mass Effect is about being TPS first and foremost? The more I read the more I feel most people treat ME1 like a posum you wat to get rid of only you aren't sure if it is actualy dead or just "playing posum." By that I mean most act like thhe series started at 2 not 1, and when they mention it it is in a very brief short statement.

[StealthGamer92]

But ME3 proved that you could have good, separate co-op. I'm sorry you don't want to accept that, but it's been proven to work. It doesn't need to enhance the existing aspects of the singleplayer, because it doesn't try to and I think that's totally fine. I have nothing against enhancing the existing gameplay but as I've said, I'm not convinced that co-op would do that. Innovation =/= improvement. So yes, integrated co-op would be innovative, but it wouldn't necessarily be good. Again, you know my reasons, and they stretch far beyond complications with narrative. Even so, I'm still skeptical that TOR is even a good example. I haven't played SW:TOR yet, but nearly everyone I've asked or listened to has said that it would've been better as an entirely singleplayer KoTOR 3. I won't debate TOR's quality (or lack thereof) without actually playing it, but I will say that "only SW:TOR" is not a very extensive co-op pedigree especially given the gameplay differences between ME and TOR.

That depends on your interpretation of what makes real co-op. The ME3 MP is just short of PvP enough to be under the book definition of co-op. Compare it to Halo or Cod PvP and it is just too close to PvP to be called real co-op in my book though. To me the co-op spirit is important and it is not in ME3(frantic non-stop fighting might as well be against other players in my opinion).

 

The spirit of co-op to me is not to just fight together but to find a friend who shares youre ideal way of playing. Or as close to your way as possible. Wether that is exploring and admiring areas or searching for fights. I found this out the hard way in Splinter Cell Blacklist when I kept getting matched with assault players because they were more common, but when I found a good slow methodical stealth player like me we just clicked. We took our time communicated and just generaly had fun. My point being the co-op partner can ruin a co-op experience just as fast as, or even faster than, bad co-op design and many games that have good co-op get a bad rep from bad co-op partners, just as many also have bad co-op from the start.

[Revan Reborn]

Note, these are all FPS games.  

 

 

 

 

TESO, Final Fantasy I know is online. 

 

 

 

 

*shakes head*   Where to start?   So, let's start off with the 50/50 argument.  Your argument is, if I'm understanding you correctly, that for every one person that enjoys the MP game that there is another person who thinks it sucks and should die in a fire?  1:1.  Or 50% enjoyed it, 50% disliked it.  Correct?  And they should simply toss it out because 50% of the players didn't like it?  Wait, what?

 

Point two, if they did make the MP game essential to the storyline...   There would be a huge uproar from the community.  You thought that EMS was a huge uproar?  Hah.  Oh, no, but wait, you didn't say that.   You said "choice driven story telling".  Wow, big difference.  People will still ****** about why they couldn't get all of the choices in SP.

 

Point three, there are tons of games out there that their MP games have absolutely zero to do with the single player.  Take a look at Watch Dogs and the Spider Tank. 

 

Point four, there are tons of games out there that I enjoyed playing the multiplayer that have nothing to do with the single player.  It's called branching out. 

 

There are so many things for me to facepalm in this one paragraph about it's not even funny.

Yes, and Mass Effect is a TPS with its MP coming straight from FPS. Does that make sense?

 

Elder Scrolls Online and Final Fantasy XI and XIV are not main titles. They are spin-offs made to be MMOs. They are also terrible games. The Elder Scrolls I'm referring to are the ones who have been made solely by BGS (Arena, Daggerfall, Morrowind, Oblivion, Skyrim). They are known only for single player for a reason, which is why a MMO was developed by a separate developer to appease those who wanted MP.

 

Don't get caught up on statistics, buddy. It's an example that the MP isn't as exciting and massively popular as many on here seem to try and make it. Again, Halo was the game that made shooters popular on console and revolutionized and pioneered multiplayer gaming on consoles. Nothing of what Halo did had been done before, and that's partially why it was such a large success that everybody loved. ME3 MP didn't innovate anything and really was just an odd feature to add in given BioWare's reputation.

 

It's optional, and the process has already been proven to be successful in SWTOR. The main reason SWTOR failed was because BioWare didn't do more of the cooperative storytelling. Most of the game is just dailies and other filler content that nobody wants to do.

 

You might want to play Watch_Dogs again. The MP is actually integrated into the SP (I would know as I own it) and players invade your Chicago to try and hack your phone. It's seamless, very well-executed, and quite unique and enjoyable, unlike ME3 MP. There are also a variety of game types to choose from and even free-roam for those who just want to explore Chicago with friends. Much better than what ME3 offers for MP.

 

It's fine to branch out in a direction that makes sense. MP for ME3 did not, especially with the way it turned out. It's going to be difficult for me to take you seriously when every point you made was either inaccurate, wrong, or plain head-scratching.

[Revan Reborn]

I never said having MP made a game good. I'm saying ME3's MP was good, because it was. It was received well by reviewers and largely by an incredibly skeptical community. Personally, I'd like to see these statistics you're using for your argument. I've seen myriad positive reviews and know there's still an active

MP community. Sure it's my opinion that ME3's MP is fun, but I use more than anecdotal evidence to back up my claim. I don't think it's fair to assume that the majority of the community would be disappointed in another iteration of an MP mode they clearly like.

 

But ME3 proved that you could have good, separate co-op. I'm sorry you don't want to accept that, but it's been proven to work. It doesn't need to enhance the existing aspects of the singleplayer, because it doesn't try to and I think that's totally fine. I have nothing against enhancing the existing gameplay but as I've said, I'm not convinced that co-op would do that. Innovation =/= improvement. So yes, integrated co-op would be innovative, but it wouldn't necessarily be good. Again, you know my reasons, and they stretch far beyond complications with narrative. Even so, I'm still skeptical that TOR is even a good example. I haven't played SW:TOR yet, but nearly everyone I've asked or listened to has said that it would've been better as an entirely singleplayer KoTOR 3. I won't debate TOR's quality (or lack thereof) without actually playing it, but I will say that "only SW:TOR" is not a very extensive co-op pedigree especially given the gameplay differences between ME and TOR.

 

I get it. I can see hoe co-op could make some sense in Mass Effect; I'm not opposed to the basic idea of another person in your game, I just don't like the idea of losing some of ME's core gameplay features. I also see the potential for Bioware to screw up the new co-op or worse, the single player. I like ME3's MP because it's lightweight. It's fun and doesn't get in the way of anything else (yea, there's EMS, but that's just more reason to keep MP totally separate). I said I'd be fine with separate co-op missions, but integrating them is too costly.

 

Don't tell me not to worry. It's a legitimate concern; I don't trust EA not to fiddle with the leveling of the game. They need people to buy their stuff, so they'll have to coax people somehow. Even if they don't do that (and that's a big if), the game will likely still have "buy with real money" options built into the shop UI. I can see where you might have got "integrated coop somehow throws away BioWare storytelling," but that's not what I meant. I apologize for being vague. No, integrated co-op would not directly correlate with a worse narrative. Your suggested improvements (co-op, open world), however, would shift Mass Effect away from it's own niche, as I said, to its own detriment. Mass Effect doesn't need to be co-op and it doesn't need to be open world, and I'm no really seeing the net benefits of either. While my position is that co-op and open worlds don't equal a worse narrative, they can so very easily cause it. Bioware would need to work very hard in order to maintain a quality story while simultaneously adding in two entirely new concepts, neither of which have been implemented very successfully in recent franchises.

 

Please, don't criticize the authenticity of my concerns. I don't actually dislike the though of integrated co-op. I love playing with friends, but I have entirely reasonable issues with co-op for Mass Effect. The slight benefit that co-op would provide would not outweigh the losses I have expressed earlier in this thread. And I would appreciate it if you didn't refer to ME3's MP as uninteresting and mediocre. That is your opinion, and you appear to be in the minority on that matter. I would be inclined to believe you if it were berated more often by the community or reviled by critics. As of now, that isn't the case.

 

"Integrated coop would go a long way to bringing that original concept in ME1 to life even more."

What? How? Look, I'll totally accept that integrated co-op wouldn't not fit into Mass Effect, but you're going a bit far. At its core, Mass Effect is a singleplayer narrative-driven tactical shooter. While, integrated co-op might not throw a wrench in all of that, I don't see how it would bring ME1's original concept "more to life." That just doesn't make any sense.

 

I'm all for less theme parky-ness in Mass Effect (which I think you've massively overblown by the way), and as long as MENext isn't another poorly written war story, then that's bound to happen.

It's never good to speak for others. You can only speak for yourself. I don't believe ME3's MP is good at all. It's grindy. It's repetitive. It gets boring after a few rounds. There is no variety and you kill the same mindless mobs over and over. Where it tries to reel people in is with different races, classes, and weapons. If that kind of game scheme works for you, than you'll probably love it. For those of us who want to do more than just mindlessly shoot mobs with no purpose, it has a lot to be desired. At least with DAI you are actually moving through an area rather than staying in the same place for twelve rounds. They are both mediocre-to-bad in my opinion, however. BioWare can do much better.

 

This is not true coop. Stop calling it that. It's patently false. It's a separate MP where you are killing mindless mobs instead of players. Coop suggests you are doing a story-driven experience either part of the main game or its separate (FC3). Of course you aren't convinced, you are arguing with me and aren't even going to see if BioWare could pull it off lol. What's ironic about SWTOR is that everybody loved the story (except the consular). The problem is that creating new class story experiences is too expensive, and that players blasted through all the story content within the first two months. As a result, everybody left because the rest of the game is mediocre and story is the only thing that stands out. If the game had more story coming out at a frequent basis, it would be an incredible game. Coop was fantastic in SWTOR, especially when you could have multiplayer dialogue where everybody had a chance to say something.

 

How is it costly? It hasn't even been done. You do not know how challenging or easy it would be to integrate it. You do not know whether it would impede the single player experience or not. You are just speculating and assuming the worst.

 

Mass Effect started out largely more open world with a focus on exploration. On the contrary, ME2 and ME3 betrayed its roots and became a shooter-on-rails. I just want NME to go back to its roots again and what were some of the most innovative and ambitious ideas. The Mako was one of them and thankfully it's returning. DAI has been very successful with its implementation of a more open world experience with BioWare storytelling. SWTOR is also another example, which is an MMO with large open worlds. This isn't a new concept for BioWare. Even ME1, again, had more large environments built for exploration. Your lack of faith in BioWare is truly appalling.

 

Am I in the minority? If you are using BSN as your sample size, that would be extremely deceptive as it is, for lack of a better word, filled with "fanboys." The best way for BioWare to prove the quality of their MP is again, seeing how many people actually bought ME3, how much they played MP, and if they still play it. I think you will find that a large portion of the community does not play ME3 MP anymore, and probably only did it a few times for EMS. What you call a very successful game is largely being driven by a small, vocal minority of fans who apparently never played Firefight or Horde (I guess they are Sony fans).

 

Mass Effect is exploring a massive galaxy and large planets with your crew. An integrated coop would fit into that experience perfectly. I'm not "going a bit far." Look at your crew. Look at the Normandy. Look at all the places you explore in the galaxy. That is the Mass Effect experience, and ME1 showed it in its most ambitious form. Integrated coop would absolutely make sense and stay true to where the franchise started. Again, companions are just replacements for actual friends.

 

ME2 and ME3 were completely theme park. ME1 was not for the large part, which makes it different from its successors. It wasn't a perfect game by any means, but it was far more ambitious in what it attempted to do from a gameplay standpoint. You take away the choices, level progression, and main hubs and ME2/3 is no different from CoD or any other SP FPS experience.

[Revan Reborn]

Why do so many people seem to think Mass Effect is about being TPS first and foremost? The more I read the more I feel most people treat ME1 like a posum you wat to get rid of only you aren't sure if it is actualy dead or just "playing posum." By that I mean most act like thhe series started at 2 not 1, and when they mention it it is in a very brief short statement.

While that certainly is an aspect of Mass Effect, that's purely the combat-aspect of things. Mass Effect is much more than that, and ME1 showed what ME could be. It is somewhat saddening how BioWare really streamlined or "casualized" their franchise and thus many just want a shooter on rails. Mass Effect can be much more than that and so far the next Mass Effect seems to have more in common with ME1 than the others. I have a feeling many might be surprised with the direction the next Mass Effect goes.

 

That depends on your interpretation of what makes real co-op. The ME3 MP is just short of PvP enough to be under the book definition of co-op. Compare it to Halo or Cod PvP and it is just too close to PvP to be called real co-op in my book though. To me the co-op spirit is important and it is not in ME3(frantic non-stop fighting might as well be against other players in my opinion).

 

The spirit of co-op to me is not to just fight together but to find a friend who shares youre ideal way of playing. Or as close to your way as possible. Wether that is exploring and admiring areas or searching for fights. I found this out the hard way in Splinter Cell Blacklist when I kept getting matched with assault players because they were more common, but when I found a good slow methodical stealth player like me we just clicked. We took our time communicated and just generaly had fun. My point being the co-op partner can ruin a co-op experience just as fast as, or even faster than, bad co-op design and many games that have good co-op get a bad rep from bad co-op partners, just as many also have bad co-op from the start.

ME3 MP is definitely not coop. That is just plainly using the term wrong. Suggesting it is coop just tells me people do not know what they are talking about nor do they understand the value and significance of a true coop experience.

 

I really don't see how a true coop would ruin ME. All I've heard is largely losing the ability to pause would destroy the experience. I disagree, as ME3 MP and DAI have proven you do not need the ability to pause. ME combat is far from perfect and I really do hope BioWare heavily considers revamping some systems they have done in the past. Certainly movement could use a massive improvement.

[Revan Reborn]

<snip>

https://prezi.com/6x...y-inventory-go/

 

Given how you are such a staunch supporter of pausing in ME, I thought I'd link you something that I found to be an interesting read. This is from the lead gameplay designer of ME2/3 and some of the reasons Mass Effect changed so rapidly from ME1 to ME2. What's of note is how pausing is actually viewed as a detriment to the gameplay and BioWare had to find a way of making it optional. As you indicated in ME3 MP, it was outright removed. I wonder if that could have been a precursor for BioWare deciding whether to keep it or not in the next Mass Effect, as Montreal (who is making the next Mass Effect) made the ME3 MP.

 

Also yes, BioWare blatantly admits to copying AAA shooters and going away from being an RPG to make Mass Effect popular. They don't specifically address ME3 MP, but it's obvious it was inspired by Halo's Firefight, Gear's Horde, and CoD's Zombies. It really is a mixed bag for me because while I enjoyed the better shooting mechanics of ME2/3, better dialogue, and better cinematics, the rest of the game was very stripped from what was possible in ME1. That's probably part of the reason it's so linear.

 

Just based on exploration being added as a pillar and the Mako returning, it seems BioWare wants to recreate their original vision since they now have the shooter mechanics down for Mass Effect. Hopefully they can go back to being more of an RPG rather than just hanging on the coat tails of other franchises who are much better at shooter gameplay and rightfully should be.

[goishen]

Yes, and Mass Effect is a TPS with its MP coming straight from FPS. Does that make sense?

 

Elder Scrolls Online and Final Fantasy XI and XIV are not main titles. They are spin-offs made to be MMOs. They are also terrible games. The Elder Scrolls I'm referring to are the ones who have been made solely by BGS (Arena, Daggerfall, Morrowind, Oblivion, Skyrim). They are known only for single player for a reason, which is why a MMO was developed by a separate developer to appease those who wanted MP.

 

Don't get caught up on statistics, buddy. It's an example that the MP isn't as exciting and massively popular as many on here seem to try and make it. Again, Halo was the game that made shooters popular on console and revolutionized and pioneered multiplayer gaming on consoles. Nothing of what Halo did had been done before, and that's partially why it was such a large success that everybody loved. ME3 MP didn't innovate anything and really was just an odd feature to add in given BioWare's reputation.

 

It's optional, and the process has already been proven to be successful in SWTOR. The main reason SWTOR failed was because BioWare didn't do more of the cooperative storytelling. Most of the game is just dailies and other filler content that nobody wants to do.

 

You might want to play Watch_Dogs again. The MP is actually integrated into the SP (I would know as I own it) and players invade your Chicago to try and hack your phone. It's seamless, very well-executed, and quite unique and enjoyable, unlike ME3 MP. There are also a variety of game types to choose from and even free-roam for those who just want to explore Chicago with friends. Much better than what ME3 offers for MP.

 

It's fine to branch out in a direction that makes sense. MP for ME3 did not, especially with the way it turned out. It's going to be difficult for me to take you seriously when every point you made was either inaccurate, wrong, or plain head-scratching.

 

 

Really?   Wow, I'm gonna have to ignore you.  You are so full of yourself it's bordering on hubris.  I used to know people like you.  Note, used to.  Watch Dogs, a beautiful game?   Wow.

[Mcfly616]

Maybe have multiple modes. Keep the horde mode. But have the new mode be more of a progression through a level and co-op mission.