Multiplayer has earned its position in gaming and has become crucial in contributing to the industry's health.

However, after reading up on some information concerning the various endings (and how to achieve them) in Mass Effect 3 , I started to think the future could get a little frustrating for those who have no interest in multiplayer, especially when it comes to certain genres.

In a post in the BioWare forums , Jarett Lee has elaborated on how to get the "perfect endings" in the team's recent gem ; the explanation was necessary because some believed you had to get online and/or play the iOS spin-off, Mass Effect: Infiltrator , in order to see any of those perfect climaxes.

Now, Lee confirmed that this is not the case- "…you do NOT have to play multiplayer to get the best single-player endings." Doing so only contributes to your Galactic Readiness ranking, which will remain at 50% if you don't play online or tackle the iOS adventure. This doesn't determine the endings but in fact, it only affects the "Effective Military Strength" bar, which is an "indicator of how well you will do in the end-game." You can also raise this bar by collecting War Assets in single-player. The only difference is that if you play online and up that Galactic Readiness, you will need fewer War Assets to see the perfect ending(s).

Here's my problem with this whole thing- it seems that more and more, even in genres that in my eyes really have no need for it, multiplayer is starting to dictate. That bothers me. Even though in this case, it's not such a big deal, the next step seems inevitable: i.e., play online or you'll never see the best ending. Some game designer somewhere is going to do this, and I'm gonna be pissed . It already annoys me that Platinum Trophies are essentially impossible if you don't play online (I still say there should be two Plats; one for single-player and one for multiplayer). And when it comes to RPGs…I mean, come on.

It's nice that Mass Effect 3 has an online component – and it works well, too – but to have it impact in any way the single-player campaign just seems wrong to me. In short: keep multiplayer an option ; don't start forcing it down our throats.

Related Game(s): Mass Effect 3

Subscribe
Notify of
38 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
TheAgingHipster
TheAgingHipster
9 years ago

Frankly, that's what I like about how it was implemented in Mass Effect 3. Players are given the option to either spend more time scanning planets in the single-player campaign, or they can invest that time in the multi-player mode to accomplish the same end. Single-player aficionados don't have to do the multiplayer, and multiplayer fanatics don't have to mine the planets when they could be shooting fools. (I think that's the right terminology.)

Personally, I'll do both, because I absolutely adore this game.

maxpontiac
maxpontiac
9 years ago

You sir get a big thumbs up for that post.

Well… 9 of them so far.

Shiva369
Shiva369
9 years ago

Exactly. I like the way they've done that. As a small time trophy whore, I shuddered when I read that there were trophies that required multiplayer, then relieved when I kept reading and saw "or do such and such in single player…"
I was very skeptical when BioWare said MP was part of ME3, but they've heard the fans and looked after us, it seems.

WorldEndsWithMe
WorldEndsWithMe
9 years ago

I'm glad you don't need to go online, but this just demonstrates that we are trending toward some kind of mess like that these days. I feel left behind, I can't help it if I don't want to play the multiplayer. It's just unnecessary.

This is why our little team started OnlySP.com


Last edited by WorldEndsWithMe on 3/7/2012 11:02:48 AM

TheAgingHipster
TheAgingHipster
9 years ago

Just added your site to my actively following list. Not that you should care whether I approve, but I do.

WorldEndsWithMe
WorldEndsWithMe
9 years ago

Thanks man, it always matters.

Palpatations911
Palpatations911
9 years ago

I do like multiplayer. Can I still come to the site? 😀

Underdog15
Underdog15
9 years ago

Absolutely. Garner up some more page hits to support the SPonly cause.

Beamboom
Beamboom
9 years ago

I think how they did it here, bridging mp and sp with stuff that *can* be gained also in singleplayer, is a very interesting idea.

Cause personally I think a kind of relation between the multi player and single player parts of the game, something that bridges them has a great potential.
There's many ways they could do that (just brainstormin' here):

What if for instance in Killzone you pass a battlefield where your latest multiplayer fight were replayed? If you never MP'ed that map a random generated fight would be shown instead of course.

Or if you could hide loot from a multiplayer game in a map and return there in your single player game and pick it up?

Or if your actions during a coop mission will be visible on that same map in single player, with footsteps or maybe even dead enemies showing the signs of that fight, making that particular map easier to traverse, or maybe harder cause the enemy is warned and backup is on it's way, or whatever. You know, stuff like that, just trivial details that makes the modes overlap.

Purely optional, and of course no game stoppers either way, just fun little details. I'd dig that!


Last edited by Beamboom on 3/7/2012 11:14:53 AM

Naksy
Naksy
9 years ago

Not all games need multilayer…. Like i was hearing some stuff about MP in the new God Of War… The only reason I dont want this is because i dont want them to make a MP and in effect remove something that may have been in the game otherwise

fatelementality
fatelementality
9 years ago

I do know that while Peace Walker never forced you to play with others, it definitely helped if you didn't want to run around like a madman from tanks and helicopters for an hour straight trying to avoid getting blown to pieces.

AcHiLLiA
AcHiLLiA
9 years ago

Some games to me, don't need multiplayer. I think it's a personal matter on the gamer if he or she experiences on what particular game that do great with or without the need of multiplayer.

coverton341
coverton341
9 years ago

I 100% agree with the statement that having multiplayer have any sort of effect on single-player is wrong. The only time it is even remotely acceptable is when it involves co-op of the single player campaign like the original Resistance had. And even then, it didn't actually affect single player as you could still complete the game solo.

I don't think on-line multiplayer has any place influencing the single player portion of a game, especially not an RPG.

I really really like ME3 but this and the fact that there was 0day DLC for a prothean character, which is the most important species in the game IMHO, really bug me. I am glad you don't HAVE to play multiplayer to see the perfect ending but it helping out in that regard is lame.

aaronisbla
aaronisbla
9 years ago

It helping out the single player portion gives more incentive to actually try it out in my opinion.

Zemus101
Zemus101
9 years ago

I don't have anything really substantial to contribute, but I wanted to say that I agree 100% with this article.

I'm not sure if two plats would solve the trophy problem, or even be possible (that's a lot of trophies). I say keep your multi-player out of my single-player. Depending on the game, of course. It's not like multi-player was something anyone expected in the 3rd Mass Effect game.

telly
telly
9 years ago

I love the idea of multiplayer missions tying into and impacting the campaign portion. What an interesting idea! And since there are ways to get the best ending in ME3 without touching the multiplayer, it seems like BioWare isn't forcing anything on anyone. But I for one can't wait to go crazy with my friends on the multiplayer missions.

BikerSaint
BikerSaint
9 years ago

Ben,
I agree with your thoughts here a 1000+ %

Pandacastro
Pandacastro
9 years ago

Yeah agreed especially in a few years when the severs get taken down. Also why is it call multiplayer when its more like co-op in me3?


Last edited by Pandacastro on 3/7/2012 2:22:26 PM

Beamboom
Beamboom
9 years ago

I agree! I too separate "multiplayer" and "coop": They are two different things in my book. And what we have in ME3 is coop.


Last edited by Beamboom on 3/7/2012 2:24:27 PM

aaronisbla
aaronisbla
9 years ago

co op involves multiple players does it not? Not seeing how one could look at the term multiplayer and only get pvp out of the term

bigrailer19
bigrailer19
9 years ago

I look at multiplayer as a more broad terminology. Co-op means working cooperatively, while when talking about multiplayer you could be talking about team deathmatch which also requires team co-operation. When talking about multiplayer, the word covers all the bases, that's how I look at it.

Beamboom
Beamboom
9 years ago

Yeah it does, so strictly speaking "multiplayer" should cover also "coop". But playing cooperatively against the AI or to reach a shared goal (like the challenges in Burnout Revenge and the SKATE games) is such a fundamentally different type of experience than playing against other players (even as teams), so I just feel it's natural to separate them.


Last edited by Beamboom on 3/7/2012 3:21:26 PM

Fane1024
Fane1024
9 years ago

…then a new shorthand for competitive multiplayer should be created (e.g., "Comp").

"Multiplayer" means multiple players; the term should not be *reserved* for anything more restrictive than its literal meaning.


Last edited by Fane1024 on 3/10/2012 8:29:28 PM

aaronisbla
aaronisbla
9 years ago

In reality, the endings aren't hard to get even if you never touch the co op. The fact that Bioware made it possible to get the best endings without co op but also added a reward for those who do play co op should be applauded.

I understand the fear that someone will look at this and say 'we should make it so only the best endings are possible with multiple players' *something i remember out of all games, bubble bobble doing so many years ago* but thats a bit of a slippery slope. Not saying it can't happen, but its a bit of a stretch from whats done in ME3.

I think bioware also should be applauded for something else you mentioned Ben. People hate online trophies, especially the ridiculous ones that makes it more like a chore. Bioware's online trophies can also be gotten thru single player means and aren't exactly difficult to get. This way, no one misses out.

However, They shouldn't be applauded for some of the freezing issues that seems to happen in the same spot, at the end of the mars mission lol, thank god for auto saves

Sogi_Otsa
Sogi_Otsa
9 years ago

I frankly hate online. i mean 9/10 on street fighter it's some bastard that uses Hadoukens and tatsumaki's to corner and distance me, I've punished my fair share of these spammers but ugh, killed it for me.
And let's throw this out there, Naruto Storm, god people will knock you away charge and use their special constantly. people can ruin the experience for online, and having trophies for them is just plain crazy.
Dead space 2 had online, i actually tried it 2 times after getting the game cleared, no one was on. But dead space 2 didn't punish you with a tough online against random people. that was awesome.

Palpatations911
Palpatations911
9 years ago

some of you had some great ideas about how to integrate the SP and MP experience and I would love to see it implemented in a great game.

See the problem with people who do not like multiplayer is that as soon as a game announces it has multiplayer, they blame all faults in the single player experience on their decision to add multiplayer and make it seem as if the single player WOULD have been great but it wasn't because they added multiplayer and this simply isn't the case. Big Budget games like Uncharted 3 and Mass Effect 3 and Dark Souls are proof of this.

Low budget games that have both gameplay types and have a shoddy single player probably would have been shoddy regardless of multiplayer. In fact, Multiplayer is generally an afterthought and is added later on a lot of development teams.


Last edited by Palpatations911 on 3/7/2012 8:35:05 PM

PC_Max
PC_Max
9 years ago

I definitely agree with this. I for one have always wanted the MP and single player trophies to be kept separate in regards achieving a platinum trophy. This is what bothered me when they introduced the MP for Assassins Creed. I tried it , found it boring and pointless… to my tastes. But I will not get the Platinum because I won't play the MP.

Its all about choice, but some devs seem to think everyone wants MP more than single player… or at least the see that the majority do. Again… its about choice and THATS what devs have to focus on and keep in mind. And one should not dictate what the other requires to achieve and good ending. Each should be separate and for that matter deved separately.

Give us the choice… but don't force one or the other down our throats….choice!

Palpatations911
Palpatations911
9 years ago

You still got 100% of the Single Player trophies, right??

Underdog15
Underdog15
9 years ago

Yeah, but if there is not trophy to acknowledge that feat, it too is pointless from a quantitative standpoint.

___________
___________
9 years ago

so you can do as poorly as you want in the SP, play heaps of the MP, and infiltrator on IOS and you will do better then someone who does far better in SP, but does not touch MP and IOS?
now THAT is f*cking BS!
why do bioware always manage to make a perfect game then spoil it with some stupid ridiculous idea!
allot of people did not care that this had MP because the SP looked freaking awesome!
way to reverse that you numskulls!
oh well just another reason to boycott every single game that has MP from now on.
only way developers are going to get it through their thick heads that some people dont want to play MP!
some of us dont enjoy having 8 year olds swearing like a sailor, and idiots blasting their crappy RMB so loud its shattering my windows let alone theirs!
let alone the hideous lag!

sigh, oh what i would give to go back to the 1990s!

JackC8
JackC8
9 years ago

My problem with online multiplayer is that it's heavily populated with god-awful 10-year-olds. They don't want to "play" the game, they just want to turn races into demolition derbies – "Oh look mommy, I made smashy cars!!!" and do everything possible to ruin everyone else's enjoyment.

Thank god there's a "Platinums that Only Require Offline Trophies" list over at another site. I seem to be making more and more use of it every time I buy a game.

Spanky
Spanky
9 years ago

Amen and Amen Ben Dutka.

NOT a multiplayer guy. Never have been…well except for the occasional words, scramble with friends.

Ather
Ather
9 years ago

They force multiplayer, I don't buy. if I want the game badly enough, there's always eBay to get it nice and cheap. $60 to be forced to play multiplaye ror only get par tof a game is sick. But for $10, not so bad.

Caanimal
Caanimal
9 years ago

Wonderful rant Ben, I feel the exact same way you do. 95% of my gaming is now single player, face it, there really aren't that many good couch co-op games, plus don't have many friends willing to sit and play video games unless it's COD or Halo since I'm in my 30s. My on-line/multiplayer gaming mostly consistes of WoW and now SWTOR w/ some RTSs like Total War Shogun 2 and Starcraft 2 thrown in there every now and then.

I'm really starting to get disappointed in the quality(or rather lack of…) of single player campains in games that have multiplayer available. It seems the bigger the title, the bigger the draw towards multiplayer, the bigger the chances single player eventually feels like a tacked on side quest (COD, countless other games) that was little more than an after thought…

There is a fairly long list of games that IMO should have never gotten any sort of multiplayer option, but that's just my own feelings so I won't go into detail…

jonny_wonny
jonny_wonny
9 years ago

I completely agree. I've never been a multiplayer guy. For one thing it's way too competitive, I'm never good enough to enjoy myself. But more importantly, the main source of enjoyment for me in video games is the story line. That's not to say I don't enjoy the action elements of the game, but when I do it's because I'm imagining it being a part of some grand adventure or struggle. It's harder for me to enjoy action for it's own sake, which seems to be what online play is all about.


Last edited by jonny_wonny on 3/8/2012 5:53:43 PM

Gravelight
Gravelight
9 years ago

Amen Ben! lol, that rhymes….cool. But yeah i feel the same. I play mostly offline myself but i like online sometimes. But, to be able to do only one…hmmm, i'd rather only be able to play offline personally, just like when i was growing up. Wow, remember when "Online Gaming" wasn't even a thing? Remember how much people played the crap out of games for fun or two-player competition? "Online Gaming" is not a necessity, it's a costly luxury if anything.

playSTATION
playSTATION
9 years ago

getting online trophies to get platinum is something i really hate.

Underdog15
Underdog15
9 years ago

ditto.

Thank god Revelations was actually manageable for those that just wanted to dabble.

Brotherhood forced you to all-out commit to the multiplayer. And aspects about it are broken. I, for one, will not be attempting that platinum.