Mass Effect

[Vargras]

The addition of co-op just makes me even more worried ME3 will be an Origin exclusive. Besides that, though, the way they handled it sounds like the best way they could have. I'm just fairly sure none of my friends will pick it up if it's not on Steam, unfortunately.

 

Personally, I doubt they'll use Origin. It's worth remembering that Bioware already has their own network (social.bioware.com) and they required players to login to it when playing ME2.

[Strangelove]

I have this strange feeling in the bottom of my gut that is gnawing at me- I need more ME2. How long is the Arrival dlc?

[Vargras]

I have this strange feeling in the bottom of my gut that is gnawing at me- I need more ME2. How long is the Arrival dlc?

 

Hour, hour and a half maybe.

 

EDIT: Checked Casey Hudson's twitter. He's usually fairly active, so I make it a point to check for more ME3 news.

Tried out some new mobility improvements for #ME3 today. It would have been useful last night as I attempted to take cover from a Reaper.

#ME3 team's pushing hard for every last bit of quality. Animators made an enhancement to lip-synch tech that makes it surprisingly natural.

Edited October 12, 2011 by Vargras

[Waldorf and Statler]

Just to be clear, in the Kotaku article it describes that doing the co-op will decide an outcome of something in the SP. Does this mean there's another way to get this same outcome without the MP? I mean he said it was optional, but I don't think he mentioned if optional meant different ending.

[Vargras]

Just to be clear, in the Kotaku article it describes that doing the co-op will decide an outcome of something in the SP. Does this mean there's another way to get this same outcome without the MP? I mean he said it was optional, but I don't think he mentioned if optional meant different ending.

 

The part you're referring to is actually something completely separate from the co-op, and will be called Galaxy at War. From what I understand of it, it will be completely optional.

 

EDIT: Reread it. I bolded the important bits for ya.

That cooperative multiplayer is said to have "a direct impact on the outcome of the single player campaign, giving players an alternative method of achieving ultimate victory against the greatest threat mankind – and the entire galaxy – has ever faced."

 

BioWare also details Mass Effect 3: Galaxy at War, "a new way for players to manage and experience the galactic war from multiple fronts, including a new 4-player co-op mode." Galaxy at War, BioWare says, affects a player's "'Galactic Readiness' level, measured by Commander Shepard's ability to apply every possible asset – people, weapons, resources, armies, fleets – in the final battle against the Reapers."

 

That "Galactic Readiness" level in the game's campaign is not just affected by multiplayer, BioWare stresses. "Other platforms and interfaces will be announced in the coming months," says the developer, also noting that the Galaxy at War system is "entirely optional" and that "it is still possible to achieve the optimal, complete ending of the game in Mass Effect 3 through single-player alone."

Edited October 12, 2011 by Vargras

[deanb]

Loyalty missions were also entirely optional. Just saying.

[Faiblesse Des Sens]

Except that for everyone to survive they were the only option. That is not what they are implying here in any sense.

[deanb]

Everyone surviving was entirely optional too. You could still beat the game without it. Just depended upon whether you felt it was a good ending or not.

[Hot Heart]

I would consider bringing every person back alive from a suicide mission an optimal ending. If we're looking at it from BioWare's perspective they made that objective the tagline and even put in an achievement for it.

 

In some respects, 'Galaxy at War' acts a bit like a Facebook game tie-in (I fully expect them to do one of those too). No one would want to be told that these are mandatory, even if just to achieve one of multiple possible endings regardless of whether it is considered the optimal one.

[TheMightyEthan]

Yeah, I read that as there's nothing in the SP that you can only get by playing coop, the coop just makes certain things in the SP more likely/easier to achieve.

 

He says in ME3 you can get the optimal ending without doing coop. In ME2 you cannot get the optimal ending without doing the loyalty missions.

[deanb]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWaANoSZSzE

[TheMightyEthan]

So I'm definitely being shifted toward the "excited" side, away from the "worried" side.

[Waldorf and Statler]

So the multiplayer is just another way to get minerals/EXP for the singleplayer or something of the sort? At least that's what I got from the comments in the youtube video

[TheMightyEthan]

I would guess it's probably a little more involved than that, but yeah basically.

 

My understanding is there's some kind of overall Galactic Readiness rating, and that the coop boosts that rating.

[deanb]

Yeah seems a really retarded way to go about it. It's an entirely separate mode...yet effects SP. Either do full co-op or not at all. Which seems like it could have been the original plan; have the game with proper co-op n all but then found out they either don't have the time or the framework to do it completely so just left a few dregs in. Bioware better hope they know what they're doing or it's gonna end up even worse that the original suspicions of a half arsed tacked on MP.

[Hot Heart]

the comments in the youtube video

 

Ah, yes, the source of all great wisdom.

[Vargras]

So the multiplayer is just another way to get minerals/EXP for the singleplayer or something of the sort? At least that's what I got from the comments in the youtube video

 

Honestly, I'd much rather play co-op for minerals than have to mine to get them.

[deanb]

I have the feeling, from previous developer diaries n interviews n what not, that it's not going to have mining in/if it does it's going to be much revamped.

[Vargras]

I have the feeling, from previous developer diaries n interviews n what not, that it's not going to have mining in/if it does it's going to be much revamped.

 

Yeah, they know that folks absolutely hated the mining game. Also, touching on your earlier post Dean, they've repeatedly said that the co-op will be entirely optional, and will have zero effect on your singleplayer ending unless you want it to.

[Faiblesse Des Sens]

Yeah seems a really retarded way to go about it. It's an entirely separate mode...yet effects SP. Either do full co-op or not at all. Which seems like it could have been the original plan; have the game with proper co-op n all but then found out they either don't have the time or the framework to do it completely so just left a few dregs in. Bioware better hope they know what they're doing or it's gonna end up even worse that the original suspicions of a half arsed tacked on MP.

 

I'd rather have a half-assed optional co-op than a full-fledged required co-op. I think you're getting upset over nothing. If it sucks, don't play the co-op.

[madbassman39]

I read it as this: The main game is set in a war, and commander shephard is in the war but has no outcome as to how or what points your side controls, but multiplayer will be an active role in deciding who has what.

[Faiblesse Des Sens]

and commander shephard is in the war but has no outcome as to how or what points your side controls

 

Where do you get that from? As far as I can tell, the MP option is exactly that, another option to reach the same goal.

[madbassman39]

about 2:05 in the video talks about it.

 

http://www.joystiq.com/2011/10/12/mass-effect-3s-multiplayer-tied-to-online-pass/

[Vargras]

I read it as this: The main game is set in a war, and commander shephard is in the war but has no outcome as to how or what points your side controls, but multiplayer will be an active role in deciding who has what.

 

As stated in the video, co-op missions will take place in the same places that you'll be going to in singleplayer anyways. Like singleplayer, success in co-op will contribute to your singleplayer ending IF YOU WANT IT TO.

 

They've repeatedly stressed that the co-op is entirely optional.

[madbassman39]

There was no question as to if it was optional or not, but it seems single player is shepherds part in the war, who he talks to and what points are there, but the co-op are the soldiers that take the points dictating who or what shepherd has available to him.

 

So if you chose to not do co-op, then the points and who they are talking is up to the game to decide instead of the players.

Edited October 13, 2011 by madbassman39