DigitalSignalX
18-01-2012, 04:44 PM
From a wired article today (http://www.wired.com/gamelife/2012/01/bioware-multiplayer/):
BioWare VP Zeschuk added that multiplayer “makes the whole experience better” for a game like Mass Effect 3. The upcoming RPG will feature an optional cooperative mode called Galaxy at War, in which you can team up with other players to fight off marauding Reapers (http://www.pcworld.com/article/241828/mass_effect_3_getting_galaxy_of_war_multiplayer_mo de.html), earning bonuses and unlocking areas that you’ll be able to access in your single-player campaign.
So multiplayer will be *required* in order to fully experience the single player game. Sigh.
Also of note in the article,
“Multiplayer … can’t be tacked on,” BioWare co-founder and vice president Greg Zeschuk said
Then HOW COME IT IS EXACT THAT (http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/10/27/hands-on-mass-effect-3-galaxy-at-war/). (RPS review of Co-op)
It’s ultimately a pretty meaningless thing. But where the fun comes from is in realising it’s meant to be. It’s popcorn, alongside the square meal of the single-player game (assuming it’s of the same standard as the previous two – we’ve not played anything of the SP game yet.) It’s not going to be the sort of thing people will be playing long after the game’s been released.
Wired also writes:
The Old Republic has no single-player components
Really? I'm confused then (http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2011/12/forever-alone-stars-wars-the-old-republic-as-a-single-player-game.ars). (Ars Technica review of SWTOR)
the game has clearly been designed to include people who want to play alone, and it has options at every point to make that possible. I never felt like the game was hobbled by my decision not to partner with other people
edit: Sorry for all the quoting, easiest way I could find to cite all the contradictory information flying around here along with this really scary first quote - if accurate.
BioWare VP Zeschuk added that multiplayer “makes the whole experience better” for a game like Mass Effect 3. The upcoming RPG will feature an optional cooperative mode called Galaxy at War, in which you can team up with other players to fight off marauding Reapers (http://www.pcworld.com/article/241828/mass_effect_3_getting_galaxy_of_war_multiplayer_mo de.html), earning bonuses and unlocking areas that you’ll be able to access in your single-player campaign.
So multiplayer will be *required* in order to fully experience the single player game. Sigh.
Also of note in the article,
“Multiplayer … can’t be tacked on,” BioWare co-founder and vice president Greg Zeschuk said
Then HOW COME IT IS EXACT THAT (http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/10/27/hands-on-mass-effect-3-galaxy-at-war/). (RPS review of Co-op)
It’s ultimately a pretty meaningless thing. But where the fun comes from is in realising it’s meant to be. It’s popcorn, alongside the square meal of the single-player game (assuming it’s of the same standard as the previous two – we’ve not played anything of the SP game yet.) It’s not going to be the sort of thing people will be playing long after the game’s been released.
Wired also writes:
The Old Republic has no single-player components
Really? I'm confused then (http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2011/12/forever-alone-stars-wars-the-old-republic-as-a-single-player-game.ars). (Ars Technica review of SWTOR)
the game has clearly been designed to include people who want to play alone, and it has options at every point to make that possible. I never felt like the game was hobbled by my decision not to partner with other people
edit: Sorry for all the quoting, easiest way I could find to cite all the contradictory information flying around here along with this really scary first quote - if accurate.