Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

×
First Person Shooters (Games) Games

Mass Effect 3 To Include Co-op Multiplayer 78

Posted by Soulskill
from the sheep-for-your-shepherd dept.
BioWare has announced that Mass Effect 3, planned for March of next year, will be the first game in the series to include co-operative multiplayer. In a post on their forums, they provided details about the new mode of play: "Success in multi-player will have a direct impact on the outcome of the single player campaign, giving players an alternative method of achieving ultimate victory ... In multiplayer, players will create custom characters to fight on different and unique fronts in the war. This will include the ability to play as favorites like Turians, Krogans, Asari and more each with their own unique set of abilities." They also took pains to point out that while the co-op missions could affect the outcome of the main story, multiplayer is entirely optional.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Mass Effect 3 To Include Co-op Multiplayer

Comments Filter:
  • by RogueyWon (735973) * on Wednesday October 12, 2011 @02:17AM (#37687306) Journal

    Co-op... I could go either way on. If it's well designed, I'll probably give it a go. Unfortunately, this isn't as easy as it could be for me. Most of my friends have played this series on the 360, while I've been on the PC. Now sure, I could switch - but that would mean abandoning the character I took through the first two games and had intended to import into the third. It'd be fantastic if Bioware could put out some sort of savegame porting tool to allow people in my situation to get around that, but I'm not going to hold my breath.

    What I'd really like to hear is the following: "We realised that planet scanning was incredibly boring and it's gone. Also, while we were at it, we went back to the first game's heat based system for weapons, rather than the ammo system from the second".

  • by hairyfeet (841228) <bassbeast1968@gm ... UTom minus punct> on Wednesday October 12, 2011 @02:50AM (#37687418) Journal

    As long as the game doesn't neglect single player I'd be fine with it. But if they just focus on the co-op? Look at Fear 3, co-op tastic, single player suckatude.

    And while i'm in a ranting mood and I know game devs sometimes come here, i just gotta ask: what is it with putting out games that you KNOW are absolute shite on a crusty roll? Now I can understand reaching too high and ending up with a buggy game, or having quirks in a game, that's understandable, shit happens and you can't appeal to everyone. But WTF is it with the OBVIOUSLY bad nasty shit, huh? games aren't cheap to make, why would you put out something that stank like a cat that had been squished by a truck a week ago huh?

    Here are three of the recent games that bugged the living shit out of me. 1.-Bioshock II. WTF? you take the WORST part of the game, hell of ANY game, the most hated of hated, the fucking lame ass escort mission, and make it the WHOLE DAMNED GAME??? WTF? I won't even mention how badly out of balance the Plasmids were. level up Hypnosis and you can just sit in the corner while the bad guys all kill each other, lame. 2.-Red Faction Guerrilla...Who in the hell thought giving you weapons with like three rounds was a good idea? Or having the dumb as stumps friendly AI charge into every damned little thing, even when you aren't even trying to start shit, and then YOU get penalized when Forest gump bites it? That game should have been named "Just stay in the fucking truck dude" as that is all you'll end up doing. 3.-Kane And Lynch II...Yeah I know everyone made fun of it, but did you TRY it? I did and there was ONE flaw, above all others, that made that game the worst of the worst...weapons. WTF? I can be 10 feet from the bad guy, empty an ENTIRE Uzi and NOT hit him? What the holy fuck? who thought having NO accuracy at all was a good idea?

    So please game devs, just think before you shit, okay? Ask yourself "Is this something I myself would find enjoyable? Is this something I would like in a game? Does it actually work like its supposed to?" because I don't know about everyone else but I personally HATE seeing what could have been a truly enjoyable experience ruined like having a fat stripper at the titty bar. We ain't asking for much, AI that doesn't feel like they should all be wearing protective headgear, weapons that give a nice WHAM when you fire them, levels that are fun to explore, and NO ESCORT MISSIONS EVAR!

    Thank you for your time, have a nice day.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 12, 2011 @08:45AM (#37688922)

    So, since the first two ME games focused on fighting a major enemy that threatens the galaxy, you feel the third game should ignore the fact that that threat is still out there and go a completely different direction?
    Really?

    I mean, if you played the first two, there's nowhere this CAN go but to a war to save the galaxy.

    Getting angry at a company for following a story to its logical conclusion, even if you don't like that story is kind of silly. That's what the franchise is. If you don't like it, then the franchise is not for you, but they aren't going to completely change it in the middle.

Simplicity does not precede complexity, but follows it.

Working...