While we enjoyed our hands-on with Mass Effect 3's multiplayer, we're not completely convinced.
It's an obvious tactic for a major franchise - and one that could well and truly shift the goalposts if BioWare's serious about integrating its campaign narrative with multiplayer - but "obvious" doesn't necessarily mean "right". Here are six reasons Galaxy at War belongs on the cutting room floor.
1. It'll damage the context
One of the wonderful things about Mass Effect is the entirely contained nature of the universe. Everything that occurs happens for a reason, and it's up to you alone to solve the problems you face. Adding a sectioned-off multiplayer mode that directly affects the single player game damages the universe's sense of canon. It all makes sense on paper, certainly - the fights taking place in Mass Effect's co-op are a distant part of the greater war effort against the Reapers. When you boil down to the execution though, you're effectively looking at Shepherd's world being frozen in stasis while you pop off to create an extra fighter for the war effort. One of the coolest aspects of Mass Effect 2 was the sense of urgency in the main storyline. Letting you effect the outcome of ME3 by temporarily popping into an alternate reality isn't exactly a great leap for narrative.
The claim that multiplayer is necessary to tackle the second hand sales market doesn't always hold water. Speedy trade-ins are certainly a problem, but longevity through multiplayer isn't the only good answer. Rare as they are, games like Skyrim are proof that single player still sells. If you're worried about getting players keeping the disc in the tray, there are more inventive tactics: solid DLC offerings can go a long way, especially if the price and frequency are right. Give us a weekly dose of starship drama, and we'll be happy for the rest of our days.
3. We don't want relentless combat
In case you didn't get a chance to read the name badge on the way in, we're a flipping Space Captain. Space Captains don't spend all their time in the trenches; they also handle affairs of state, key quest decisions and strategy. We can get "cinematic action" in almost anything these days - why over-emphasise that element here? Why not dump the Horde Mode meets Star Trek gig, and focus on adding new role-playing elements instead?
Combat-fixated co-op is one thing, but we're worried that worse is in store. When we spoke to EA earlier this year, Mass Effect 3's multiplayer aspects were described as being just one of several Galaxy at War "apps". The wording is disturbing, suggesting that Mass Effect 3 is cruising towards some form of superficial Facebook and iPhone integration. With Facebook and Twitter still plugging on despite our efforts to suffocate them in terrible witticisms, it's only so long before social-networking initiatives bite into the fundamentals of game design. Not in Mass Effect 3, please.
5. Decisions lose impact
BioWare have been clear that the Galaxy at War system will only do so much for the main game, but until we see the specifics we're holding our breath. Giving players the chance to redeem themselves slightly by grinding the game's multiplayer for an extra few hours is great for flexibility, but won't do much for the series' iconic sense of choice and consequence. When/if we see the game's best ending, we want to have earned that privilege by picking the right dialogue options, rather than grinding out meaningless "war assets".
6. It's second-hand goods
The days of simply clipping on a team deathmatch mode seem to have passed by gracefully, but the industry remains a little too eager to borrow ideas for quick multiplayer fixes. Gears of War's excellent Horde Mode is certainly worth spreading around, but few games come close to doing it justice, and we're not convinced BioWare has the flair. If you're so determined to steal Modern Warfare's customers, guys, at least do it your own way.
Are you hyped about multiplayer in Mass Effect 3, or would you rather Bioware stuck to single player?
14 comments so far...
Bezza89 on 2 Dec '11 said:
Rather stick to single player or have a more thought out co-op mode rather than some tacked on wave based combat. That said, maybe for #3 the co-op will be heavy allowing the SP to be less so. Doubtful.
PS Galaxy at War is a really shit name.
benden74 on 2 Dec '11 said:
I don't understand all the bad press/comments this is getting. While I can understand some of the worries posted, they are entirely user choice. Bioware have already said you can still get to the perfect ending without multiplayer.
If it gets a few more people to try my all time favorite IP then great. I have loved the Mass Effect series from the start, and have played through one and two at least ten times each. I think from the early days of (when I first heard of them) knights of the old republic and even up to dragon age 2 (which I enjoyed) Bioware have earned a measure of trust relax
When I am constantly getting wiped out every time on battlefield 3 and other fps shooters a bit of relaxing horde mode with friends is great.
Yes if it takes away from the core story mode then sure me and Bioware could have a little tiff but until we know for sure how the two modes mesh together don't worry be happy
joeyraccoon on 2 Dec '11 said:
I don't "do" multi player OR online gaming and any game which relies on it WILL lose my support. I WAS looking forward to this game as ME1 and ME2 are a couple of the best games i've played (apart from the mining mini game which i hated) but the more news i read about ME3 the more i think i'll give it a miss . . . i can always wait until it hits the pre owned bargain bins.
golliwoza on 2 Dec '11 said:
Did anyone play the arrival? I just hope the Co-op doesnt turn into that survival wave bit in the DLC with added friends.
Oneiroi17 on 2 Dec '11 said:
I'm not a multiplayer fan at the best of times, and certainly not for ME3. My initial worry was that you HAD to do some in order to get the best ending, so I'm pleased that they've made it clear that it's possible without it. Point 5 still bums me out though - I can make all the best decisions and get the best ending, and yet someone who has made wrong decisions but ground their way through multiplayer can still end up with a result as good as mine. And that pains me somewhat. Sad I know!
rocket rankin on 2 Dec '11 said:
Dead space 2 had multiplayer and i actually completly forgot about it untill after i had sold the game. Don't regret not playing the multiplayer as that's not why i loved dead space. I won't push myself to play mass effect 3s multiplayer either as thats not why i loved the first 2. As long as they keep it as 'take it or leave it' and it doesn't affect my single player experience i dont care what they have multiplaye wise.
Plamsa wing on 2 Dec '11 said:
Another reason is multiplayer DLC. I would much rather have some strong singleplayer DLC like bethesda does.
Alaric14 on 2 Dec '11 said:
I think a lot of BioWare fans would be happy if EA just funded them and then f**ked off to let them get on with the business of making great games.
If there's multiplayer for ME3, I'll give it a go. Why not? Worst case scenario: I hate it and never play it again, instead choosing to immerse myself completely in the single player experience.
I'm also willing to bet that a lot of purist BioWare fans will refuse to allow ME3's multiplayer achievements to stain their gamertags, though personally I'm not that extreme.
Incidentally, I'm not buying Knights of the Old Republic. Just not interested. I'd have purchased a straight-up sequel to the first (or second) KOTOR games, as BioWare have some bloody good script writers on their team, but as an MMO it leaves me cold and indifferent.
Lazarus22nd on 2 Dec '11 said:
ha, I'm kinda worried I'll have to play mp to get it into my completed games list with the first two.
On The Old Republic, I was in the weekend beta and found myself constantly wishing it was single player with Mass Effect style action based play, I did mention this in the survey, doubt they'll listen.
LuRcH18489 on 3 Dec '11 said:
y o y o y must evry f**kin games co giv in n have bloody multiplyr ffs!! ¬¬ stand out from the crowd n b different (es5, half life 2) multi in me3 is just gna ruin it 3 me i no it is =,(
Dowgle on 3 Dec '11 said:
SP only for me. I dont do co-op in RPG's. I've always found I get more intrinsic value by playing RPG's solo, even ones designed for co-op such as borderlands and dead island.
Dapz on 3 Dec '11 said:
Title is a bit misleading, I can see six reasons why it isn't definitely going to be great, but all that means is that judgement should be reserved until we know more, or scrap that, until we've actually played it. It certainly isn't six reasons that a feature that has been confirmed and is know known of by a gazillion gamers all over the world should definitely be scrapped before it's even had a chance!
1) We haven't even seen how it'll effect the outcome but I'mm pretty sure it won't be anything to major as it's already been said that a perfect ending can still be achieved without touching the multiplayer at any point. I wouldn't be surprised if it's nothing more than a few small rewards in the single player game, ensuring that players who try it out are rewarded but those who don't aren't left at an extreme disadvantage.
2) Multiplayer doesn't always equal success but this isn't an attempt to increase profits - let's not forget that they've wanted multiplayer in the series since the beginning, as reported previously on this very website!
3) To be honest, after improving the combat in Mass Effect 2 and even more so in Mass Effect 3, I applaud Bioware for now having the confidence to bring in a part of the game that's entirely about combat. The combat system they have is certainly good enough that this could potentially work well. If that's the case then great, if not then at least they tried, and in the mean time we'll still have the whole single player game to keep us satisfied!
4) Speculation, Speculation
5)...which will be the case, as explained.
6) More speculation.
I don't think I've ever seen people complaining so much about us gamers being treated to more game. The only way it could be a bad thing is if the single-player game is not as good because of it and uses it as something to fall back on, Call of Duty style, but I have enough faith this won't be the case.
Bonderho on 4 Dec '11 said:
Ok so I have been reading and watching as much about Mass Effect 3's multiplayer as I can because, like most people, I was worried about a game with such a strong single player element suddenly getting multiplayer. The impression I am getting is that you can play the game without touching the multiplayer and still get the best ending in the single player story. The multiplayer is there for people that want it and the way it impacts is that if you didn't do all the necessary quests or correct decisions in single player it will increase your chances of still getting the best ending. If you still don't understand allow me to give you an example. Imagine Mass Effect 2, now throw in a co-op section that ultimately changes nothing to the single player story. Now let us take 2 people, player 1 hates multiplayer so he plays through single player only but does all the right quests and decisions to get the best ending. Player 2 likes the idea of having multiplayer, but feels a bit lazy to play every important quest in single player. However he still wants the best ending. Therefore rather than having to do those single player parts he finds so tedious, he can simply make up for them in multiplayer and get the best ending that way. I hope you guys understand and I hope it puts you at ease a bit. Although, again, this is my interpretation of what I have researched so I may not be 100% correct but rest assured Bioware knows what they are doing and would never compromise the integrety of such a good franchise.
To sum it all up: Stop worrying.
All hail Bioware.
Metalratex on 4 Dec '11 said:
Only single player would be better.