Rumour: Australian PC mag confirms ME3 multiplay

That’s just great….

Well we all knew it was coming.

That’s what the singleplayer campagin was missing! A multiplayer!

At least Bioware can stop pretending it’s a RPG now.

Well if they add Coop that could be amazing but if they add competitive then its a waste.
EA online pass WTF.

I don’t get it. Wasn’t it confirmed months ago that there would be Coop of some sort?

@5: Nope, not officially confirmed. Just rumored.

Well, for confirmation you could’ve just take a look at DICE’s activity list this past year, it was mentioned there that they’re working with BioWare, actually more like consulting them, instead of developing the whole MP section for the.

PS: Checked again this was edited out their wikipedia page, but I saw it and I’m not talking about Weapon, sound effects and environment stuff that we all knew.

PS: This is a CONSPIRACY! C-O-N… SPIRACY.

@7: They previously worked with the Army of Two team on ME2. But that didn’t have any Coop. So your argument is invalid.

fuck sake!

great news.
cant wait to see what bioware can deliever in the online department.

So much for Casey Hudson saying there absolutely wouldn’t be multiplayer. cause the development time for the campaign would get less, and they didn’t want that.

Who the hell is even waiting for multiplayer in this game?

I AM ANGRY THAT A DEVELOPER I LIKE IS ADDING A NEW MODE TO A GAME I LIKE. I DON’T ACTUALLY KNOW WHETHER IT’LL BE GOOD OR NOT, BUT I KNOW I DON’T LIKE CHANGE.

This sounds like fun. If it’s not, I just won’t play it. I won’t complain before playing.

@12 That is people reaction because they think SP will be hurt because of MP.

@12 +1

@12: As long as the singleplayer doesn’t suffer from it, i’m good. But that’s usually never the case.

@15 I can think of very few games where the inclusion of multiplayer into the formula has actually affected the single player experience in any sort of genuinely adverse way.

In fact, I can think of a few where it didn’t harm to the experience at all – Dead Space 2… Assassin’s Creed Brotherhood… numerous Splinter Cell titles…

If a separate studio works on the multiplayer component, which is often the case with E.A. titles, the impact on development of the single player portion of the game is rarely affected, if at all.

Yeah, I have to agree with Ireland on this one. Recently, studios seem to be grasping the fact that if SP and MP are kept somewhat separate, it can be a decent but often not ground-breaking inclusion.

Saying that, the AC multiplayer, imo, was fantastic. Really looking to AC:Rev for a more refined experience of this.

And also, I think ME would be a great setting for some co-op. I wouldn’t have been surprised if Bioware used something similar to what they have in SWToR, with people voting on the outcome of the conversations.

@16: Assassins Creed Brotherhood? Are you serious?

@18, How was AC:B affected? That was probably the best AC game that has come out so far and didn’t seem to suffer at all due to the MP?

@17 In fact, I’d say Ubisoft are probably one of the best companies out there when it comes to showing off how multiplayer can not only be a valid part of the experience, but significantly improve it. They always have a knack for coming up with really creative ways of implementing multiplayer into their games.

@18 What’s wrong with AC: Brotherhood?

@19: What? Really? Come on now! You can’t tell me the singleplayer of AC:B was good. You just can’t. The story was complete and utter shite, that streched out one single confrontation into infinity. Ezio had thousands of times to kill the main bad guy silently, but he didn’t do it. Instead he followed people that weren’t important at all.

They had no clue where to go with the story and it showed. AC2 is way superior in terms of story and gameplay, because it didn’t make the difficulty a complete walk in the park.

@20 Ubisoft are overall very creative company.

Again, I think I will have to agree with you. I also loved SC: Con’s MP. That was really a fantastic was of adding something more to the game. I think part of it is because they focus on MP modes that require fewer numbers, only needing to grab one other friend for SC to do some of the co-op missions added a couple more hours of fun to that game.

@20, “AC2 is way superior in terms of story and gameplay”

Possibly story, but gameplay? Nah. AC:B, again imo, is the best playing of the AC games. I agree the story was a little drawn out but in terms of world interation and combat etc, AC:B takes top spot.

@21 I’m not sure what you mean. Assassin’s Creed’s “difficulty” has always been a walk in the part.

I can agree that Ezio’s story was stretched a little too thin in this one (doesn’t look to be a problem in Revelations, thankfully), but I found the one huge city, its exploration, and all the additional content and exploration in it to be far more enjoyable than the second game.

@24: Nah, it just kept adding element after element until there was no difficulty in playing AC.

@25: Oh don’t get me wrong. AC was never really difficult. But now … you could play it blind.

only thing im bothered about is if the MP has affected the campaign but it would be great if someone other then bioware made the MP

Tbh the only new thing that kinda bugs me about ME3 is the omni-blade… Just seems off… like they wanted to give Shepard a lightsabre…

I think the omniblade is a fantastic idea the game already had third person shooter mechanics now it is full blown mechanics with rolling and stealth take downs that change dependent on the class.

On the MP I would be fine as long as the campaign is not effected and can be easily ignored.

^ I’m not saying its a bad idea, it should make melee combat more interesting… I just don’t find it very aesthetically pleasing… I’ll probably end up loving it in the game

sweeeet! thank you bio-ware.

@24 They added too many elements, to make the gameplay even easier, and on top, they were clearly not fit. For example, I never felt like using the poison darts, or the parachutes.

I think, in terms of vision, the possible kill-streak was the only interesting addition to the series, but it made the game easier than it already was.

The most interesting parts of Brotherhood were Leonardo’s missions, hands down. Amazing ideas, great level design, new locations added to the game, they were clearly the best.

@33: I love poison darts. But i’d only use them when i’m bored. I love to poison a guard, run up to him and throw some coins so people would run up there. The guard would draw his weapon and aimlessly hack around him, hurting people in the process.

That would always crack me up.

What the hell? I can’t believe some people didn’t like AC:Brotherhood! I loved that game.

@16 I wouldn’t say few. I’m not anti-multiplayer by any stretch of the imagination, but you don’t have to look far for series that have sacrificed their singleplayer for the sake of multiplayer.

Red Alert (or C&C in general), Supreme Commander, Homefront, a lot of people would argue Call of Duty, Crysis 2, and maybe even Portal 2 although I’ll smite them for even thinking it.

To me AC: Brotherhood seemed like a bunch of developers just playing around with a map editor and trying to tack on some ridiculous story to justify it afterwards, but then that goes for all the AC games in my opinion

I think it’s perfectly legitimate for people to worry about their games changing in significant ways, even if multiplayer doesn’t have to mean anything for how a game will turn out. It’s nothing compared to multi-platforming in my opinion. But at this point I fully trust Bioware to turn everything to expensive, highly produced shit.

I will only say AC Brotherhood multiplayer was da bom, i mean it was great, and not only because in fact was that great, but because nobody expected to be that good IMO, i just hope Mass effect multiplayer is just as good, if not i rather pass, i dont want another gears/uncharted game, please add perks to the equation or something on those lines.

@36 Command and Conquer had multiplayer for a very long time. That franchise went to shit because of bad developers, not because of multi-player.

Call of Duty? As much as I hate the series, the multiplayer in past games came up with some fairly interesting ideas, many of which have become mainstays in gaming at this point.

Crysis 2? The single player in that game is longer than some FPS games… COMBINED. Loved the multiplayer in that game, too.

Portal 2? Pfft, fuck off, heathen! *stabity stab stab*

@38 I’m not saying the multiplayer is bad, just that they sacrificed the singleplayer for it.

It was pretty obvious where the focus was in the last few C&Cs. Crysis 2 and CoD are debatable. Fair point on the sheer ammount of content in Crysis 2, but it didn’t carry a lot of guns, and the AI was halfassed. Maybe they just sacrificed the quality for the quantity. I don’t mind the condensed form of CoDs campaign, I can’t take another wave of enemies or another wall of fire after 5 hours anyway, but I do think it’s a result of turning to multiplayer.

The same could be suggested for Portal 2, but yeah, I’d spit on anyone who did.

Quit crying everyone…

In Mass Effect you fight alongside a squad pretty much the whole game, so why not make a squad based co-op mode similar to a horde type mode…it just makes sense, instead of having AI having human players in your squad…BFD

bioware has confirmed

https://twitter.com/#!/masseffect/