The news on the multiplayer thougheveryone who was in ME3MP knows it was low key one of the best multiplayer games released that year. shyt was piff
What news?
Fred.
Mass Effect: Andromeda
- Thread starter Kamikaze Revy
- Start date
What news?
Fred.
Well, the fact that its back for one.
Multiplayer
-More evolved and refined form of ME3
-Card based economy where you earn XP and credits
-There are microtransactions but no real world money is required, you can unlock normally
-You still set the map, enemy, as before but you can also activate modifiers that can give you decreased health (for greater reward) or more damage (less reward)
-Bioware also plans to release custom crafted missions with unique modifiers that players can't change themselves
-These custom missions give you a 3rd currency, "mission funds" which allow you directly purchase items and weapons vs the mercy of random card packs; however these items are only available for a limited time in the store and can change often
-In MP, you play as the "Apex Force", a militia strike team from the Nexus
-Different enemies require you to use different tactics (some are shield heavy, some use heavy biotics etc)
-Playing MP will have advantages for the single player but it absolutely does not affect the ending of the game
-New "Prestige" mechanic added: With several types of characters, you earn regular XP and prestige XP. The prestige XP goes into every character of that 'type', for example 'tanky' characters. Earning enough prestige can grant you added health for all tank characters, etc
On top of that, Bioware will probably never admit it but they learned a LOT from the clusterfukk that was Dragon Age 3's multiplayer. They tried to approach it like its own mini Diablo dungeon and made the players much, much too reliant on each other (or ridiculous equipment) to just complete missions. To do well? You'd have better luck in a Destiny raid.
Considering how Mass Effect 3's multiplayer evolved over its lifespan, and how it had the best multiplayer support for an 'add-on' of all time arguably, I think its safe to be hyped for it.
Oh ok cool. I misinterpreted the Jordan crying smilie. I thought they removed multi-player or something. It was honestly the best part of 3. I was a beast with it....had everything unlocked except for a couple weapons they added in the last update, and had damn near every weapon either 100% upgraded, or on a 5-9. Even the Ultra Rare stuff.
Man that shyt was dope as fukk. Honestly they should've used some of the powers from multi-player in the main game.
Fred.
I had zero expectations for it too. I booted it up once just to get the points for the ending stuff looking forward to bullshyt.
3 hours later I was slanging that work
Damn I didn't even know these were still up
http://n7hq.masseffect.com/home/overview/?name=dy nasty iv&platform=xboxI put a ridiculous amount of time into the game. I still remember the night they put the Collectors in the game. Had my whole dorm playing with me, getting bodied by those demonic motherfukkers
Salarians are down with the humans on plans to find a new galaxy. Krogan’s are like “Oh, you want a Galaxy without us after you tried to exterminate us from this one? Nah, we’re coming, too.”
Good debate
Rayzah
I'm Everywhere you ain't never there
Please tell me they won't skimp out on the campaign to cater to the online please.The news on the multiplayer though
I never got this complaint.
The campaign wasn't 'skimped out on' it just had a fukkton of issues. Over-development, poor design choices, bad priorities, and a LOT of overconfidence which (as history has shown with damn near every AAA series...) were something that the single player did all by itself. The multiplayer didn't make the dev team include a shytty token latino. It didn't make them include some weird guilt complex for sheperd story line out of nowhere. It didn't make them focus on, and clearly spend more on, huge moving set pieces and one-time use cinematics instead of the exploration that made the series unique. Its a weak argument. The game had a ton of issues. They could spend all money on bringing back ALL the voice actors from across the series, but they couldn't think of a better system to manage the sidequests other than an excel spread sheet? They made a damned space ninja that nobody asked for breh. Who. Who wanted more Cerberus in the form of a bootleg Grey Fox? And what's so hilarious about ME3 is that they had to pull SO much out the ass to make Cerberus relevant.
Why?
Because EA and other publishers believed that its easier to sell humanoid enemies. So shoehorn that shyt in and we'll get to all the other stuff later. System exploration? Lets throw a cat/mouse reaper/normandy mini-game in and call it a night.
The multiplayer was even handled by a different studio - and for the first two (self-funded...) expansions, the multiplayer did nothing but re use assets
. Afterwards it got the push it did because their microtransactions for multiplayer were outselling the planned paid DLC for singleplayer.There's so, so few cases of multiplayer actually taking away from singleplayer designs... People just love to use it as an excuse when shyt goes south. Singleplayer stuff can go sideways all by itself. People love to jump to conclusions on the shyt too. I STILL remember dudes dogging TLOU's multiplayer before it even came out. Then it went to be one of the better multiplayer experiences of that year as well.
Rayzah
I'm Everywhere you ain't never there
First off I liked ME3 story mode and didn't get my panties in a bunch about the ending. I am just saying I hope ME4 doesn't turn into COD or battlefield or the 16239 other FPS games that shifts their focus on multiplayer and leaves you with an 8 hour campaign. I like mass effect because of the story not the multiplayerI never got this complaint.
The campaign wasn't 'skimped out on' it just had a fukkton of issues. Over-development, poor design choices, bad priorities, and a LOT of overconfidence which (as history has shown with damn near every AAA series...) were something that the single player did all by itself. The multiplayer didn't make the dev team include a shytty token latino. It didn't make them include some weird guilt complex for sheperd story line out of nowhere. It didn't make them focus on, and clearly spend more on, huge moving set pieces and one-time use cinematics instead of the exploration that made the series unique. Its a weak argument. The game had a ton of issues. They could spend all money on bringing back ALL the voice actors from across the series, but they couldn't think of a better system to manage the sidequests other than an excel spread sheet? They made a damned space ninja that nobody asked for breh. Who. Who wanted more Cerberus in the form of a bootleg Grey Fox? And what's so hilarious about ME3 is that they had to pull SO much out the ass to make Cerberus relevant.
Why?
Because EA and other publishers believed that its easier to sell humanoid enemies. So shoehorn that shyt in and we'll get to all the other stuff later. System exploration? Lets throw a cat/mouse reaper/normandy mini-game in and call it a night.
The multiplayer was even handled by a different studio - and for the first two (self-funded...) expansions, the multiplayer did nothing but re use assets
There's so, so few cases of multiplayer actually taking away from singleplayer designs... People just love to use it as an excuse when shyt goes south. Singleplayer stuff can go sideways all by itself. People love to jump to conclusions on the shyt too. I STILL remember dudes dogging TLOU's multiplayer before it even came out. Then it went to be one of the better multiplayer experiences of that year as well.
I'm just saying that ME3's story mode had a ton of issues before you even get to discussing the ending. None of which had anything to do with the multiplayer sucking up money or anything.
No successful single player focused AAA series that I can think of completely jumped the ship from SP focus to MP focus. You simply can't retool studios like that and walk out of the meeting thinking its a safe investment.
Rayzah
I'm Everywhere you ain't never there
The first call of duty on 360, gears of war, assassins creed, halo all had great campaign at one time. and over the years only really focus on multiplayer now, a 5 hour campaign is not worth $60. I'm just hoping that doesn't happen with mass effect.
That's wild unfair considering no platform had the infrastructure to support any 'modern' multiplayer
And CoD and Halo both still drop massive amounts of resources into their single player product despite their multiplayer success. Not sure why Ass Creed got mentioned, even their off-shoot projects are still aimed nearly entirely at singleplayer markets.
Gears ended after 3 so
I never got this complaint.
The campaign wasn't 'skimped out on' it just had a fukkton of issues. Over-development, poor design choices, bad priorities, and a LOT of overconfidence which (as history has shown with damn near every AAA series...) were something that the single player did all by itself. The multiplayer didn't make the dev team include a shytty token latino. It didn't make them include some weird guilt complex for sheperd story line out of nowhere. It didn't make them focus on, and clearly spend more on, huge moving set pieces and one-time use cinematics instead of the exploration that made the series unique. Its a weak argument. The game had a ton of issues. They could spend all money on bringing back ALL the voice actors from across the series, but they couldn't think of a better system to manage the sidequests other than an excel spread sheet? They made a damned space ninja that nobody asked for breh. Who. Who wanted more Cerberus in the form of a bootleg Grey Fox? And what's so hilarious about ME3 is that they had to pull SO much out the ass to make Cerberus relevant.
Why?
Because EA and other publishers believed that its easier to sell humanoid enemies. So shoehorn that shyt in and we'll get to all the other stuff later. System exploration? Lets throw a cat/mouse reaper/normandy mini-game in and call it a night.
The multiplayer was even handled by a different studio - and for the first two (self-funded...) expansions, the multiplayer did nothing but re use assets
There's so, so few cases of multiplayer actually taking away from singleplayer designs... People just love to use it as an excuse when shyt goes south. Singleplayer stuff can go sideways all by itself. People love to jump to conclusions on the shyt too. I STILL remember dudes dogging TLOU's multiplayer before it even came out. Then it went to be one of the better multiplayer experiences of that year as well.
:jbtable:I legitimately cannot defend any of those points
Rayzah
I'm Everywhere you ain't never there
Look I'mThat's wild unfair considering no platform had the infrastructure to support any 'modern' multiplayer
And CoD and Halo both still drop massive amounts of resources into their single player product despite their multiplayer success. Not sure why Ass Creed got mentioned, even their off-shoot projects are still aimed nearly entirely at singleplayer markets.
Gears ended after 3 so
old school I like a nice single player game ok. All that multiplayer stuff you kids like ain't for me.
I still can't get over the decision to make a Prothean party member paid DLC
My second playthrough I ended up forking over the cash for him only to discover.... he had a ton of interesting and substantial input. He should've been free. He was intended to be there from the start.
