Mass Effect 3

Zero-Cool

Mass Effect is a single player game!

FU*K OFF BIOWARE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :mad:

DarkJager

sheehy83 wrote: »

Mass Effect is a single player game!

FU*K OFF BIOWARE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :mad:

Absolutely agree. Leave the ****ing multiplayer out of it, it has no place in this series.

Mr Freeze

sheehy83 wrote: »

Mass Effect is a single player game!

FU*K OFF BIOWARE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :mad:

DarkJager wrote: »

Absolutely agree. Leave the ****ing multiplayer out of it, it has no place in this series.

Totally agree!

But at least its co-op and not competitive mp, that would be a complete mockery.

The fact that they are including Kinect features and this, and we have no official word of the RPG elements being beefed up is worrying. Sounds like its gonna be Gears of Mass Effect (no offence to gears intended).

hooradiation

Healium wrote: »

Definitely co-op, not versus multiplayer

Small blessings, I guess...

https://twitter.com/#!/CaseyDHudson/status/123465882281320449

I just went from "not sure if want" to "fuck yes!"
Love me some Co-op.

WolfForager

Jaysus lads, just because they're adding a MP element to the game (read Co-Op that doesn't impact the single player story if you don't want it to) doesn't mean that the SP will suffer. Uncharted 2 added MP and the SP was still absolutely stellar. Have a little faith in Bioware lads

Mr Freeze

WolfForager wrote: »

Jaysus lads........doesn't mean that the SP will suffer.

Well hopefully it won't suffer, we will have to wait and see.

hooradiation

WolfForager wrote: »

Jaysus lads, just because they're adding a MP element to the game (read Co-Op that doesn't impact the single player story if you don't want it to) doesn't mean that the SP will suffer. Uncharted 2 added MP and the SP was still absolutely stellar. Have a little faith in Bioware lads

haven't you heard - in a game, anything you don't like stole valuable resources from the good stuff.

Fnz

Wonder who the co-op characters will be. Clones of Shepard?

kearneybobs

Fnz wrote: »

Wonder who the co-op characters will be. Clones of Shepard?

All called 'Dolly' :pac:

hooradiation

Fnz wrote: »

Wonder who the co-op characters will be. Clones of Shepard?

Someone At Bioware wrote:

Commander Shepard and the stars of the single-player campaign won't be playable in multiplayer

So It's a bunch of side missions with a squad of krogans, turians, asarri and hopefully hannar and elcor.

The more I read about this the more I like it. I loved the hell out of ME2's combat so more of that outside the main game and with the ability to play around with other classes, like vanguard and such, before committing to doing a full run with them is something I can get behind.

Icyseanfitz

sheehy83 wrote: »

Mass Effect is a single player game!

FU*K OFF BIOWARE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :mad:

this

Mr. K

I'm quite anti-multiplayer, but this doesn't sound too bad. It won't interfere with single player, so it's grand. And who knows, it might even be...fun?

Sarky

Do not want.

Josey Wales

A lot of negativity in here about the multiplayer. If you don't want to play it then don't. You are being given the choice.

I don't buy the argument about it negatively impacting the campaign development. Look at the way Uncharted 2 turned out a couple of years ago. People were up in arms about the fact they were implementing multiplayer but it didn't effect the quality of the game one little bit.

Captain Chaos

Mr Freeze wrote: »

Sounds like its gonna be Gears of Mass Effect (no offence to gears intended).

That's what Mass Effect 2 basically was. A 3rd person shooter with about 20 RPG decisions to make. You couldn't dumb down Mass Effect 2 anymore if they tried.

Harps

Don't know what all the negativity is about but ME2, despite the admittedly dumbed down system it still had a great combat engine. the complaints about the lack of 'rpg' elements are idiotic, the inventory system in the first game was awful and the fact you were an amateur soldier at the start made no sense whatsoever.

I have no problem with some sense of stats progression but to go back to the systems used in the first game would just be stupid.

Sl!mCharles

TROOF. Would personally be in favour of a mix of the two, some of the RPG elements in ME were a bit tiresome imo.

GTR63

I thought ME2 got bogged down by your squad mates backstories,not just their missions but it felt like they always needed to talk to you which tripped up the main story I felt. Whereas in ME1 it was more about the story & the characters were secondary. Heading into ME3 i'm thinking of the decisions I made in ME1 more than who survived the suicide mission in ME2.
I feel that multiplayer isn't needed yet, Mass Effect has such a huge universe that its clear there is plenty of games headed our way so tacked on multiplayer just isn't needed now it can wait.

pixelburp

Harps wrote: »

Don't know what all the negativity is about but ME2, despite the admittedly dumbed down system it still had a great combat engine. the complaints about the lack of 'rpg' elements are idiotic, the inventory system in the first game was awful and the fact you were an amateur soldier at the start made no sense whatsoever.

I have no problem with some sense of stats progression but to go back to the systems used in the first game would just be stupid.

You have somewhat answered your own question there - what made Mass Effect 1 brilliant and memorable wasn't the combat - it was the fact the game was a space-opera RPG. Mass Effect 2 didn't jettison those things completely, but it became less of a priority in the gameplay, and that was disappointing.

I don't play Mass Effect for the shooting, I play it for the adventure.

Mr Freeze

^ This.

Well put pixelburp.

Icyseanfitz

ME2 was a load of filler, the story in it was useless, collect a squad of misfits and kill the giant terminator, that was pretty much it, dont get me wrong the characters had interesting stories and personalities but then that isnt a story thats just characters,

ME1 with its problems was a much better rpg, the story was more epic in it, it was actually pretty cool to be able to land on all these different planets for a while (only got boring because of the lack of variety on said planets which could have easily been fixed instead of bringing in that useless planet scanner minigame) and feel like you where really exploring the galaxy.

No doubt the combat was a lot better in me2 but then i dont play rpg's for the combat, i play them for the story.

ive a feeling me3 is going to keep going down the road set by me2 and become even more simplistic but i hope im wrong

hooradiation

Icyseanfitz wrote: »

No doubt the combat was a lot better in me2 but then i dont play rpg's for the combat, i play them for the story.

I'm the opposite, I feel that playing games because you like the story is like eating soup because you like the spoon.
The more that ME3 is in the same vein as ME2, the better.

Icyseanfitz

hooradiation wrote: »

I'm the opposite, I feel that playing games because you like the story is like eating soup because you like the spoon.
The more that ME3 is in the same vein as ME2, the better.

so you would play a game like kotor for the gameplay? heavy rain? lost oddesy? final fantasy? some games are made for gameplay super mario galaxy or gears of war are a good example, bioware's first game to be orientated at gameplay more so than story was me2 and then da2 "shudder"

Shiminay

I thought the first ME game was utter rubbish - I'm told I didn't even finish the "tutorial" stages of it though. However, I would argue that if after almost an hour of play that the game hasn't engaged me in the slightest, then it's probably not going to.

On the other hand, I love ME2 and the reasons for that are the action and combat. I think the first one wasn't quite sure what it wanted to be, but ME2 said "we're a third person shooter with some mild character progression role playing/choices" and that's something I really enjoyed. I sincerely hope that ME3 sticks with that formula.

Incidentally, I'm heading to London next week for an EA media event and ME3 will feature. I don't know how much we'll be seeing, but I'll be back with as much news as I can get my hands on

Icyseanfitz

Shiminay wrote: »

I thought the first ME game was utter rubbish - I'm told I didn't even finish the "tutorial" stages of it though. However, I would argue that if after almost an hour of play that the game hasn't engaged me in the slightest, then it's probably not going to.

On the other hand, I love ME2 and the reasons for that are the action and combat. I think the first one wasn't quite sure what it wanted to be, but ME2 said "we're a third person shooter with some mild character progression role playing/choices" and that's something I really enjoyed. I sincerely hope that ME3 sticks with that formula.

Incidentally, I'm heading to London next week for an EA media event and ME3 will feature. I don't know how much we'll be seeing, but I'll be back with as much news as I can get my hands on

me1 was much more of an rpg in that it took a little bit of time to pick up, how did you play me2 without finishing 1? its a trilogy you should play all of the games

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

Shiminay wrote: »

I thought the first ME game was utter rubbish - I'm told I didn't even finish the "tutorial" stages of it though. However, I would argue that if after almost an hour of play that the game hasn't engaged me in the slightest, then it's probably not going to.

I dunno, look at s.t.a.l.k.e.r.. That game took a fair bit more than an hour to get into and come to terms with, it took me half a year as I quit playing it after an hour the first time and didn't come back to it for ages.

Dave_The_Sheep

Shiminay wrote: »

I thought the first ME game was utter rubbish - I'm told I didn't even finish the "tutorial" stages of it though. However, I would argue that if after almost an hour of play that the game hasn't engaged me in the slightest, then it's probably not going to.

On the other hand, I love ME2 and the reasons for that are the action and combat. I think the first one wasn't quite sure what it wanted to be, but ME2 said "we're a third person shooter with some mild character progression role playing/choices" and that's something I really enjoyed. I sincerely hope that ME3 sticks with that formula.

I tried three times to get into ME1 before giving up. Then I got ME2 on sale and played through that no problem. Enjoy it so I went back to ME1 and ploughed through it. Finally got into the game and realised it was far deeper than ME2 and the combat actually made a bit of sense (as opposed to the previous attempts I had made). Overall, ME2 is more polished and gameplay wise much better. But I prefer ME1s slightly greater freedom, etc and depth of character/story.

To each their own, I suppose.

hooradiation

Icyseanfitz wrote: »

so you would play a game like kotor for the gameplay? heavy rain? lost oddesy? final fantasy?

I just wouldn't play them, or I'd at least enjoy them significantly less than other titles.
Seeing as games are a terrible story telling medium, I can't really give boring games a pass just because the "story" is good by videogame standards.
If I want a good story, I'll pick up a book.

Icyseanfitz wrote: »

some games are made for gameplay super mario galaxy or gears of war are a good example, bioware's first game to be orientated at gameplay more so than story was me2 and then da2 "shudder"

And I prefer ME2 and DA2 over the first ones, especially in the case of DA2.

Seriously, fuck Dragon Age: Origins. Terribad combat.
I'm only grinding through it on easy out of a sense of obligation.

Mr Freeze

Shiminay wrote: »

I thought the first ME game was utter rubbish - I'm told I didn't even finish the "tutorial" stages of it though. However, I would argue that if after almost an hour of play that the game hasn't engaged me in the slightest, then it's probably not going to.

I felt the same for the 1st 2 hours of it. Put it down.
Came back to it after 2 weeks (was away on hols), and was glued solid to it for 2 days until I finished it and immediately restarted it on Insane.

It was a fantastic game, flawed yes, but the whole Space Opera feel was amazing, and you never knew where the story was going, but it was a hell of a ride.

ME2 is undoubtedly a great game, the combat is better, except for the ammo collection, I preferred the overheating, but I think removing the weapon and armour customization was a poor decision.

The other thing was, they tell you how the story is going to end at the start, gather a team, go to the Omega 4 relay and blow up the collector base, there was very few surprises along the way, unlike ME1.

Shiminay wrote: »

Incidentally, I'm heading to London next week for an EA media event and ME3 will feature. I don't know how much we'll be seeing, but I'll be back with as much news as I can get my hands on

Looking forward to hearing about that.

Icyseanfitz

hooradiation wrote: »

I just wouldn't play them, or I'd at least enjoy them significantly less than other titles.
Seeing as games are a terrible story telling medium, I can't really give boring games a pass just because the "story" is good by videogame standards.
If I want a good story, I'll pick up a book.




And I prefer ME2 and DA2 over the first ones, especially in the case of DA2.

Seriously, fuck Dragon Age: Origins. Terribad combat.
I'm only grinding through it on easy out of a sense of obligation.

each to their own, i read books, i still like games with a good narrative, kotor was a great game as where many games ive played (mostly last gen), gameplay is nice but i like a reason to keep me playing other than getting a better score or an achievement,

also how are games a bad story telling medium? books and movies have been telling stories for a 100 or more years whereas games are only in their infancy by comparison, and even at that there are some great games with great stories out there,

and the fact that you actually liked DA2 means everything im trying to explain is a waste of time