To create your free account, please enter your email address and password below. Please ensure your email is correct as you will recieve a validation email before you can login.

Email:
Nickname:
Password:
Confirm Password:
Weekly newsletter:
Daily newsletter:

To log in to your account, please enter your email address and password below:

Email:
Password:
Forgot your password?

To reset your password, please enter your email address below and we will send you a link to reset it.

Email:
Submitted by Gwynne Dixon on October 10 2011 - 11:15

BioWare's epic RPG trilogy will add multiplayer in its final instalment next year...

Speculation about the possibility of multiplayer in Mass Effect 3 has been around ever since the game was announced almost a year ago, and now that speculation can finally be put to rest as a magazine cover story has effectively outed a multiplayer component for next year's conclusion to the Mass Effect trilogy.

The cover story comes from Australian mag PC Powerplay, which teased its next issue on the magazine's website. You'll find very little info through the link beyond the fact that the game will have multiplayer, so presumably details on modes and alike are embargoed for a later date.

Does such a story-focused series really need multiplayer, or is it a must-have for any combat game worth its salt these days? Let us know your thoughts in the comments...

Update: BioWare has now officially confirmed 4-player co-op multiplayer in Mass Effect 3 over on its forums. This co-op mode will feature missions separate from the main single-player campaign, although they will have a knock-on effect in the single-player storyline.

Utilising a 'Galaxy at War' system, players can effect the 'Galactic Readiness' level with their actions in the co-op multiplayer mode, which will ultimately impact upon the final battle against the Reapers. However, BioWare has been quick to underline the point that this multiplayer is only a different way to change the outcome of Mass Effect 3 - players can still complete the same goals purely by playing the single-player if they want to. There will be various other ways that the 'Galactic Readiness' level will change, ultimately determining how much support Commander Shepard can bring against the Reapers.

For those of you who are worried whether adding multiplayer will have compromised the core single-player experience, BioWare has allayed those fears by revealing that a separate studio has built the multiplayer at BioWare Montreal in conjunction with the core Mass Effect 3 single-player team at BioWare Edmonton.

If you wish to link to this article, here's a permalink to this page:

Comment

Sign Up and Post with a Profile

Join TVG for a free account, or sign in if you are already a member. You can still post anonymously.

Log in using Facebook

Respect Other Members

Please respect other users, post wisely and avoid flaming... Terms & Conditions

 

User avatar
By: Anonymous

Added:Fri 28th Oct 2011 12:07, Post No: 10

i can't see what the problem is from what Bioware have been saying they opened up a brand new studio just to build the Multiplayer mode, clearly done so the devs working on the single player mode can focus on the single player mode without the distraction. Have a bit of faith it might be worth it


By: freeradical

Added:Fri 28th Oct 2011 11:46, Post No: 9

@Post 8: Thanks for the corrections - I've ammended the article. Got mixed up with Firefly on Reavers - typo on Drell.


User avatar
By: Anonymous

Added:Fri 28th Oct 2011 11:14, Post No: 8

Haha... I'm pretty sure that they're called "Reapers" and not "Reavers"

Also "Drell" not "Droll"


User avatar
By: Kiran255

Added:Fri 08th Apr 2011 12:49, Post No: 7

I dunno. I always used to wish Ocarine of Time had a multiplayer mode.


User avatar
By: Anonymous

Added:Tue 08th Jun 2010 03:16, Post No: 6

i agree to most of the comments here

mp will ruin this franchise and only pure shooters should have

i mean the cod series would be terrible without any mp but to add it to a great sp experience is a stupid thing to do

most hardcore ME players prob wont buy this if mp was in it, i for one wont if it ends up with mp


By: freeradical

Added:Tue 01st Jun 2010 17:35, Post No: 5

Have you ever checked the lobbies of a mediocre multiplayer game a few months after its release? They're usually completely dead.

If a developer isn't going to make multiplayer the focus, then it seems like it's just a waste of resources to tack-on a bland multiplayer experience.

Exactly how deep can multiplayer modes go for an RPG series that's so strongly focussed on story? Not deep enough for my liking...


User avatar
By: Anonymous

Added:Tue 01st Jun 2010 17:19, Post No: 4

@gfh-77 - Using CoD as an example saying that it adds a more lasting appeal is like saying would you like WoW without multiplayer. That's basically all the CoD games are. The single player on them is just a generic run and gun game (I mean, 7 hours end-to-end on MW2 on Veteran is just pathetic as a single player game). 

It's not about lasting appeal. That's what DLC is for. No, adding multiplayer to everything wouldn't add lasting appeal. You needa realize that it's a rarity for a game to have a good single player and multiplayer. One of the modes ends up being completely half-assed. So, on a game like Mass Effect (my favorite video game series to date), I'd rather see the money they were going to use to do this multiplayer being put in to something to improve the single player than put some random multiplayer mode on to the game that just drags it all down. 

And one last word on 'lasting appeal' - I've played both ME games through at least 3 times and I've bought every single piece of DLC for ME2 that's been released. I've never once wished for multiplayer to make me keep playing it.

As for paying for live, I didn't say multiplayer shouldn't be in some games; I'm saying don't include it in every single game for reason, rather than tack it on and it be complete crap. 


By: SegaBoy

Added:Tue 01st Jun 2010 14:08, Post No: 3

I think it's pretty sad when great single-player games have to jump on the bandwagon - purely for the sake of it.

There's no doubt multiplayer is a money thing for the publishers; it's the easiest wayto keep churning out DLC and keep gamers attached to the product.

That said - if it's done well I'm not going to complain.


By: gfh-77

Added:Tue 01st Jun 2010 13:30, Post No: 2

if multiplayer realy ruins games then would you just love to see call of duty not include a multiplayer mode, no offence but multiplayer just adds more lasting appeal to any game (how many people would love to see a multiplayer mode on just cause 2).

 

all thats needed is to use a few more disks (if more space is required then make use of it especially on the 360) as for bioshock 2 not having multiplayer might have been worse (once completed youll have nothing left to do thats why multiplayer is included in more games) besides whats the point in paying for xbox live if you dont want multiplayer included in certain games.


User avatar
By: Anonymous

Added:Tue 01st Jun 2010 12:50, Post No: 1

FFS, where do devs feel the need to include multiplayer on every single game? Bioshock 2 would have been way better if it had stayed single player, and now BioWare are feeling the need to ruin the best franchise/game universe there has been in the past decade! Just keep things single player, they sold fantastically, both critics and players LOVED them... why change that for some tacked on bullsh*t multiplayer mode?