Mass Effect 3's controversial Galaxy at War multiplayer mode is "very optional" and simply allows players to achieve single-player goals in "a different way".
That's according to Aaryn Flynn, GM at BioWare's Edmonton studio, who recently sat down with CVG and a nearby camera man to discuss Mass Effect 3's online game.
"There was a statement made that the better you do in multiplayer, the better you are at single-player - and I don't think that's right," he said.
"The approach we're taking is that multiplayer is very optional for all of our fans and players. It's a way to achieve certain things in a different way then you could if you did just the single-player campaign."
For more on Galaxy at War read our just-published Mass Effect 3 multiplayer preview.
Comments
8 comments so far...
NEO_SUPERMAN on 28 Oct '11 said:
Hopefully this will shut up the cry babies.
gearyboy on 28 Oct '11 said:
Can't honestly say whether MP will work for Mass Effect or not until I've had a chance to try it out myself. Didn't think Dead Space MP was worth the time and effort BUT the SP campaign was still fab. This idea sounds like it may reflect the vast scale of the endwar, rather than only seeing it through the eyes of one character - so I'm interested.
From what we've read so far, Bioware are trying something a little different but if they water it down too much to avoid putting too many noses out of joint then it may well become 'very optional' (which in my mind reads 'all but pointless').
TerrorK on 28 Oct '11 said:
I don't think BioWare even quite get why most fans who are upset about MP are upset. It's not about the optional nature of it, it's about what's suffered in the single-player aspects of the game or simply what could have been improved in the main, single-player story that now won't be because of MP. Is MP actually anything more than a cheap cash-in and sell-out to appeal to the CoD, Gears and Halo audience?
This is the final part of the trilogy, and should be epic, and make up for all the areas ME2 fell short in, particularly with sidequests, RPG elements, overall polish and the whole choices/consequences/import variations side of things. Simply put, I don't want another game where I'm recieving emails to run around on-foot on a planet silently with my equally silent squaddies collecting datapads through small, overly-designed areas trying in vain to be real locations and failing at it while I tap my foot waiting until a vehicle comes in a DLC several months later.
Jecn on 28 Oct '11 said:
im looking forward to MP personally...i have wanted to play this game with my friends but without a MP i couldnt ...i was at first concerned that they would take out stuff from the single player exp but they were adding stuff to the SP as well as finishing the MP..i have faith that this game will blow away the first 2 games combined which will be hard to do considering how good those 2 games are...this will be the first gaming trilogy that i will play the first game thru to the last and feel like i made a difference on how it was...
Sammy_bham on 28 Oct '11 said:
Agreed
What bioware is totally getting wrong, is that a lot of us who are concerned about the COOP is not the fact its optional or not. Its the fact it WILL impact the single player, its the fact it does effect the paly through and even some endings. The frst two fo the singleplayer trilogy has been just that, single player. COOP should have either been a 100% add on which has no bearng on single player at all, or just leave it all together.
theres plent of money to be made a totally seperate online multiplayer mass effect. lots of money. if people who want it, want it, they have a choice whether to get it or not. now all us sngle player only fans HAVE to buy it, and it WILL be part of the main game. and does effect the ending (yes i know you can reach the same endings, but it effects the single player game play).
there are seperate missions and tasks on different planet just for coop. meaning if you want the 100% mass effect 3 experience, you HAVE to play coop. FAIL.
bioware havent address'd any of the concerns we have. mass effect 3 has a tough enough act to follow from mass effect 2 as it is. why add to the pressure and why give single player only fans (ALL the people that have bought the previous 2 games) a disadvantage for the 3rd game. im a single player completist like a lot of mass effect fans. now we hae to dabble in coop, because they are making us to.
yes, it is optional, but that has never been the problem and still isnt, its the fact that if you dont play it, you arnt getting the full experience. You DONT respect fans concerns. at all. not this fan, and about 200 people on face book who have the same concern as me.
evilhippo on 30 Oct '11 said:
I agree completely. But what is clear is that Bioware do not actually want to make games for RPG'ers, they want to make more 'accessible' action games, which are frankly easier to make. Bioware PR will not say that of course but then wouldn't, would they
To be honest I hope they do not screw up ME3 and it proves they have one last RPG in them, but I strongly suspect my money in the future is far more likely to be going to companies like CD Projekt and Bethesda as I really do prefer immersive story driven games to 'accessible action games'.
divinebeetle on 11 Nov '11 said:
I'm pre-ordering this because I played the other two. I really really hope they don't mess it up with this.
Wish they didn't have to try something different in the last game in the series
dragonjim on 15 Nov '11 said:
Wait a minute every planet In ME 1 was the same and it had hardly any sidequests. And I've completed it twice. The only thing ME 1 has over ME 2 are RPG elements which didn't work well anyway. I can't understand this BS about ME 2.