gaggle64 Posted December 10, 2010 Posted December 10, 2010 It's the game that fans of blue alien side-boob the world over have been waiting for, now accidentally unveiled by the EA website with an announcement expected out of the Spike VGA's tomorrow after Bioware spent the last month or so teasing something science-fictiony. The word down on the Wards? Multiplayer is suspected. We can expect the first solid details soon, unless it's a very clever ruse in which case I'll look like a colossal idiot. I'm feeling confident.
S.C.G Posted December 10, 2010 Posted December 10, 2010 Guess I'd best get round to finishing Mass Effect 2 at some point then... >>
Dyson Posted December 11, 2010 Posted December 11, 2010 Can't wait - ME2 may have been my favourite game on the 360.
Goafer Posted December 11, 2010 Posted December 11, 2010 Multiplayer is suspected. I really wish they'd stop watering down story driven single player games with fucking multiplayer. Assassins Creed and Bioshock, I'm looking at you here. Shame on you.
Sméagol Posted December 11, 2010 Posted December 11, 2010 I don't particularly want a MP from Mass Effect, no. But apart from that good news, I guess tomorrow I'll now if it's confirmed. Isn't it a bit soon though? Not that I mind.
gaggle64 Posted December 11, 2010 Author Posted December 11, 2010 It depends what kind of MP it is - any kind of competitive "deathmatch" mode, no-no, some kind of co-op, maybe a drop-in-and-play mechanic, yes-yes.
Dan_Dare Posted December 11, 2010 Posted December 11, 2010 I really wish they'd stop watering down story driven single player games with fucking multiplayer. Assassins Creed and Bioshock, I'm looking at you here. Shame on you. Isn't AC's multiplayer meant to be pretty decent? Also: Splinter-Cell provides an ample blueprint for how story heavy games unsuited to deathmatch can provide solid and unusual multiplayer.
Shorty Posted December 11, 2010 Posted December 11, 2010 I really wish they'd stop watering down story driven single player games with fucking multiplayer. Assassins Creed and Bioshock, I'm looking at you here. Shame on you. Um, the multiplayer in AC Brotherhood is brilliant. And doesn't take away from what is easily the best single player campaign of the series, either.
ViPeR Posted December 11, 2010 Posted December 11, 2010 I think the only multiplayer that could work would be a Borderlands style co-op. I really don't have a problem with this however i'm not sure how it could be applied. Who would make the decisions and do the dialogue? You or your partner? If it's the host then I personally would want to complete the game 1 or 2 times so I don't miss something that my co-op partner is getting when they host the game. Deathmatch can piss right off. I don't see Bioware as a company to screw the storyline of the final act so i'm still looking forward to it, multiplayer is still a rumour anyway just like it was for the last game. Not quite sure I understand the story blurb though. Why attack Earth? Must be a reason. I guess the reapers see humans as the most dangerous threat even though they're technologically inferior. Also does that mean they've reached Earth or... Controlling the population from afar through indoctrination like they did to Grayson.
James McGeachie Posted December 11, 2010 Posted December 11, 2010 Plleeaaase no multiplayer. I don't want any evidence that EA has focused on trying to make the game even more marketable now. It's bad enough that 2 was "streamlined" to an extent where it lost half the depth of the original. It had many improvements, but reducing customisation depth wasn't one of them and neither was the planet scanning replacing visiting vast expanses of planets (Don't anyone mention the mako, they could've easily replaced that with something faster and more manouverable if they tried). Multiplayer in a game like Mass Effect reminds me of when it was put into Metroid Prime 2. It served no real purpose, no fans wanted it and it seemed to be there just to try and sell the game to more people. In the end though, extra development time spent on multiplayer could be spent enhancing the main game.
Cube Posted December 12, 2010 Posted December 12, 2010 A fast, agile shuttlecraft would be perfect for exploring planets. Although the hovertank would be fine.
Dan_Dare Posted December 12, 2010 Posted December 12, 2010 I actually think the multiplayer would work well. Just off the top of my head I can imagine it being a decent class based team shooter. asymmetrical teams of, say, Krogan soldiers vs Asari Commandos or Geth tech specialists could be excellent. Assuming it comes at no detriment to the singleplayer game, I hardly see any kind of reason not to give it a shot.
Dyson Posted December 12, 2010 Posted December 12, 2010 That is Simon Pegg right? Fucking sweeeeet. That is Simon Pegg right? Fucking sweeeeet.
gaggle64 Posted December 12, 2010 Author Posted December 12, 2010 (edited) Damn, a whole year away? I could not possibly be more excited for this game already. Youtube embed for your convenience - Where's the Doctor when you need him? That is Simon Pegg right? Fucking sweeeeet. That is Simon Pegg right? Fucking sweeeeet. It does sound an awful lot like him I must say. Edited December 12, 2010 by gaggle64
Dyson Posted December 12, 2010 Posted December 12, 2010 It's not! Getting a lot of queries about #masseffect3. It's not me. It's another Brit. We all sound the same. Evil/intelligent/sexy as fuck.
Ganepark32 Posted December 12, 2010 Posted December 12, 2010 I believe it does, Shorty. Certainly earlier than I thought it'd hit, and I honestly wouldn't be surprised if it took a delay into early 2012. But then, they've probably been working on assets for this since mid/end of development of the second one, and have the story variations mapped out, so it's possible it'll make it out for that time. So long as they don't rush it. And I really hope that multiplayer rumour stays as a rumour as it won't really work within the game unless it was being designed as an MMO so there would be continuity issues between players if they went the co-op route. Class based multiplayer modes could work but again, Mass Effect has been more concerned with story and drawing you in through that medium and not combat, even though the combat is decent.
Aimless Posted December 12, 2010 Posted December 12, 2010 "Holiday" as a timeframe is something of an Americanism, roughly encompassing late October through to the end of December; Halloween, Thanksgiving, Christmas, New Year. I don't have a problem with multiplayer so long as it takes the exact form of the game in my head. So long as BioWare hire me it'll be fine.
Serebii Posted December 12, 2010 Posted December 12, 2010 I hope they don't overuse the alien invasion on Earth thing. That has been done to death
gaggle64 Posted December 12, 2010 Author Posted December 12, 2010 I'm very much getting the impression we won't actually be spending that much time on Earth, even if it's planetary ass is on the line. I wouldn't be surprised if it was possible to complete the game without successfully saving Earth itself.
Cube Posted December 12, 2010 Posted December 12, 2010 I'm very much getting the impression we won't actually be spending that much time on Earth, even if it's planetary ass is on the line. I wouldn't be surprised if it was possible to complete the game without successfully saving Earth itself. It'll likely be the final mission. I think that ME3 will primarily be about building an army, and making some massive inter-planetary decisions. ME2 set up a lot of stuff, so it seems likely that we'll get to act on most of that. And one thing from ME1 will likely contribute, too. Such as - The Rachni. My guess, as it's a decision from ME1, is that it'll only be a small thing - like one of their ships turning up to help in the final battle. - Quarian/Geth. They seem to be on the verge of both war and peace. Sounds like you'll have to sort it out - mainly on the Quarian side. - Genophage. It's been big in both games. You just know this is going to be one of the bigger decisions in the game. I just hope they do it right. Something like (imagine the "O" being the convo wheel) Paragon "cure" Genophage -- Paragon "keep" Genophage O Renegade "cure" Geophage -- Renegade "keep" Genophage If that doesn't make sense, then what I essentially mean is that there's really good arguments for either option. It's too important for BioWare to decide on which option is "good" and which one is "bad". I also think that the crew will largely stay the same. ME2 was primarily about building up the crew and it'll be wrong for all that to go to waste. Of course There will likely be replacements for any dead ones. However, it would be interesting if there wasn't any replacements and you were stuck with not having certain people if you messed up the end. ME1 - Becoming Shepard. ME2 - Building a squad. ME3 - Building an army.
ViPeR Posted December 13, 2010 Posted December 13, 2010 It'll likely be the final mission. I think that ME3 will primarily be about building an army, and making some massive inter-planetary decisions. ME2 set up a lot of stuff, so it seems likely that we'll get to act on most of that. And one thing from ME1 will likely contribute, too. Such as - The Rachni. My guess, as it's a decision from ME1, is that it'll only be a small thing - like one of their ships turning up to help in the final battle. - Quarian/Geth. They seem to be on the verge of both war and peace. Sounds like you'll have to sort it out - mainly on the Quarian side. - Genophage. It's been big in both games. You just know this is going to be one of the bigger decisions in the game. I just hope they do it right. Something like (imagine the "O" being the convo wheel) If that doesn't make sense, then what I essentially mean is that there's really good arguments for either option. It's too important for BioWare to decide on which option is "good" and which one is "bad". I also think that the crew will largely stay the same. ME2 was primarily about building up the crew and it'll be wrong for all that to go to waste. Of course There will likely be replacements for any dead ones. However, it would be interesting if there wasn't any replacements and you were stuck with not having certain people if you messed up the end. ME1 - Becoming Shepard. ME2 - Building a squad. ME3 - Building an army. I'd have to agree it does seem as if this'll be the game where all the alliances you've made through the games will pay off. Though surely the reapers will be attacking every system, not just Earth. I think it's fair to assume it won't be all based on Earth, if at all. This game has so much to live up to and so many different variations of decisions. I just hope they can fullfill them. ME1 had it's share game changing points as you find out at the start of ME2, but ME2 expanded on that greatly, I mean... All of your crews loyalty missions. I'd like to think they served a purpose other than to get those peeps on your good side. Legions is a good example of this. Deciding whether to keep or destroy the fanatic Geth. Decisions from the DLC missions. Liara becoming the Shadow Broker for one. That's got to be a pretty damn important ally to have (and romance interest lol) when it comes to it. As for the tonnes of side missions in the actual story as well. I remember one where you had to stop one of two missiles headed to a planet. One was headed to a military barracks, the other to a town I think. Not forgetting of course the end of ME2 with your crew and whether or not to keep the reaper. Like you said, major ME1 decisions haven't come to fruition yet either. This game should be HUGE!
gaggle64 Posted December 13, 2010 Author Posted December 13, 2010 Also, multiple references in ME2 to "Dark matter" and it's unexplained recent prevalence - Tali's research mission, an increased interest in related stocks on Illium etc. There'll be something coming out of that surely? Maybe related to how the Reapers travel or what drives them, or even how to stop them.
Recommended Posts