Mass Effect 3 - Why Multiplayer Is and Is Not a Big Deal

...Once you co-op.

While the news seemed unsure at first, Casey Hudson put the doubts to rest once and for all with a simple tweet:

Yes, co-op MP missions for #ME3: they're real, and they're spectacular. Rest assured it's nothing of what you've feared. More soon...

So, now we know the truth. The very thing some of us were dreading has become reality.

And it is nowhere near as big a deal as we think it is.

Don't get me wrong now, as Mass Effect and Bioware diehard, I'm a bit concerned about what this co-op will be like exactly, but I'm not nearly as concerned as some are. Maybe it's because I trust Bioware to do the series justice, just as they usually do. Reguardless of what EA may say or have in store for Bioware's development plans, Bioware has almost never stumbled, and is always listening to fans reactions and opinions.But there's more to it than that.

When the initial rumors of multiplayer started spawning a few months back a lot of people thought immediately that we were dealing with something along the lines of Call of Duty or Gears or something similar to that. Very few people thought the rumors might mean co-op. It's important to not the difference because this means that, while it will take plenty of work to do right, it won't take nearly as much as a full on multiplayer mode. In fact, depending on how they do it (it won't take anything away from singleplayer we've been told) , it could open up new stories or moments. At the very least, we can see it as just another feature, and instead of taking something away from the game, it instead adds to an already incredible experience.

However, as I said, I have my concerns.

The biggest one with me is why they're introducing something like this in the final game of the Mass Effect trilogy. Bioware has said before they plan for Mass Effect to continue long after ME3's final credits role. So why add this in now? Why not wait until the next game to do something like this? In a series that has been all singleplayer, all the time up to this point it seems a somewhat fairly sized risk to me. It might even lend evidence to the rumors that EA has started demanding there to be some kind of multiplayer mode in all it's games.These are all questions that will be answered as we move along I'm sure but I almost feel like I was lied to by Bioware in a way. They said time and time again that Mass Effect 3 would not deviate very far from Mass Effect 2. This co-op mode seems like a pretty big step away from what Mass Effect 2 was.

Yet, the one reassuring thing for me, that allows me to remain cautiously optomistic about the co-op mode, is how the changes from Mass Effect to Mass Effect 2 went. Story wise, there were some slight steps backwards, but gameplay wise I felt the game was much smoother and much more fun. Every moment of the combat felt active and tension mounted several times for me during key firefights, whereas in Mass Effect some fights felt kind of dull and uninspired in retrospect. Bioware boldly made changes to the Mass Effect formula, knowing that they could have played it safe instead, and while not everything went over so smooth (I.E. fewer RPG elements), the game as a whole felt much stronger than the first title.

As long as Bioware keeps their word that the co-op and singleplayer won't mix, I see no reason why we can't wait and see on how this turns out. Who knows? Maybe it will be even more of the awesomeness that is Mass Effect.

One side note here:

Extra Life is almost here! I have managed to raise some money, but time is nearly up and I could still use help. I'd really love to see a lot of last minute donations from you people out there, even if it's small amounts. I'm super excited for this, and I can't wait to get to work!

One last thing! Marshmallow Fluff! has a facebook page now, so go like it, and you can get direct links to this blog, as well as links to interesting stories, info, and pictures about all things gaming.
Marshamllow Fluff! Facebook Page

And with that, I will bow out until next time...

Steve Jobs: 1955-2011

...Rest in Peace.

By now, most people who have been anywhere near a social network or news site know: Steve Jobs, founder of Apple has passed away at age 56 after a battle with pancreatic cancer. I'm not a huge Apple person myself, but some of you may have heard of this little thing called the iPod. Or maybe the Mac. Or quite possibly the iPhone or iPad. Or maybe you know about Pixar's amazing films. Or perhaps you know he was a techological wizard.

My point is, Steve had a huge impact on the world as we know it today. Seriously, he's responsible for more than you think. Without the iPod, music sharing and the mp3 has we have come to know them today would not exist. Hell do a quick check with your friends and see if more than half don't own an iPod. I know among my friends I'm the only one that doesn't. He was one of the first to realize the potential of the mouse driven graphic interface, the very computer interface most of us use every single day at home. He is responsible for a large chunk of the technology we use today either directly or indirectly. He's also partly responsible for Pixar's venture into films with Disney. Pixar was not initially a film making company, they produced software. In fact, if you look in the credits of Toy Story, you will see Steve Jobs listed as Executive Producer.

Steve's importance the on these past fifteen years of technology is obvious. His ideas have ingrained themselves in our everyday livelihoods and no one speaks about Apple without at least mentioning Steve Jobs name a few times. When we talk about mp3 players, we immediately think 'iPod'. When we think of someone who leads the innovation of our technological world, he is usually one of the biggest names in the discussion. Losing him is a significant blow for the technology world. Few people have had the impact he has had on the world and without him there is a significant hole in the tech world. The legacy he leaves behind will be felt for years to come, far off into the foreseeable future at the very least.

It speaks levels about how influential he was that people from all over are mourning his passing. I've seen facebook posts from bands like Blink-182 and The Ataris. I've seen them from fan groups of all sorts of organizations that are in whole other ballpark from Apple or Steve's work. And of course, from more obvious places like G4TV and Kotaku.

In fact, it's so hard to believe he's gone, I've been writing 'he is' most of this article instead of 'he was'. And I sincerely felt sadness at having to change that.

Goodbye Steve, we will all miss you greatly.

Show Some Appreciation - We Don't Have To Have Betas

... I love the metro.

The Battlefield 3 Beta has been live for about a week now for those who had early access, and somehow the complaining has been constant it seems. There is plenty that needs fixing but, hey it's a beta, not a finished product, and the whole point of having a beta is to see what is working right and what isn't. That said we're supposed to be as judgmental as possible so the developer can see what isn't working, and what people like or don't like about the game. This gives them time to fix things up a bit before the game is released.

But what I don't get is why people are complaining about what ISN'T in the beta.

I'm with you guys who want another map, it'd be cool if we could roll around in vehicles and uh....test that too. But at the end of the day, this is not the full game, and things are going to be missing, and we can't get the full experience until we buy the game.


Bu if you think that I'm just pointing out the people who just want a new map, your wrong. Some people were downright angry when DICE announced that Operation: Metro was the one, and only, map in the beta. There was such a negative reaction to the announcement that PR rep Daniel Matros went off on the EA forums for Battlefield a week and a half ago, saying, "The vibe I'm getting now is just that tons of ungrateful people don't understand how much work we are putting on this game how many overtime hours we are doing and also how many meetings we are in to ship a game like this."


He did go on to explain why they picked Metro, but the point is valid. I think we sometimes forget the hell developers go through in the final month of development. If you think it's some kind of joke, or don't believe the crunch is all that difficult, trust me, look it up sometime. The last month of game development is filled with all-nighters, late night meetings, last minute changes to complex part of the game, and in some cases this comes with very little room for error. It's not fun, and only those who truly love what they do would go through it. Now factor running a beta into that mess. Do you really think the developer needs to hear whining about what map the picked to put in the beta? 


I'm not saying you can be upset with things that are in the beta, or be disappointed by the map because you played it and didn't like it, but complaining before the Beta was even out, or complaining that they should "have to" release a map with vehicles on it isn't okay.

We've forgotten that Beta's aren't something we are entitled to have. It is a developers choice, and when people pull of the stunts they've been pulling with the Battlefield 3 Beta, it might make other developers hesitant about releasing one. For me, nothing is more satisfying then having played a game early and given feedback that will help shape the game in some way or form, so why do some people think it's a demo of a finished project, or that they should be getting more than what they are already given (for free I might add.) Yes it is a developers job, of sorts, to listen to the player during a beta. But not about why their map selection blows. That doesn't help make the game better. 


But maybe I'm a minority here, and that's fine with me. 


Battlefield 3: Ungrateful Fans Get an Earful From DICE

Alright, this will probably be my last chance to ask before the big day comes around, but I'm still looking for donations for Extra Life. It's coming up really soon (the 15th of October) and I really want to try and top the measly little dollar figure I got for Fletcher Allen last year.

The link at the top of the right hand page will take you to my donation page where you can learn more and donate. I will seriously be forever indebted to those of who put something forward. Every cent really does help, and the appreciation I have for every cent is huge.

Until next time people...

Crytek Takes Control of Homefront and Why It's A Good Thing

...The best looking modern war is right around the corner.

It's been awhile, but with no way to play games recently, and a dwindling amount of time at my disposal, it's been difficult. Luckily, both are being fixed (can you fix a lack of time?) so I should be getting a few more posts in here and there.

If you haven't heard yet, Crytek, the developer behind Crysis and Far Cry (the original one) has aquired the Homefront IP and will be making the next game in the series now that the original developer, Kaos Studios, has gone the way of the dodo bird. 

If you don't remember Homefront, it's probably because it wasn't a very good game. For me it was one of the biggest letdowns I've had in gaming in recent memory. Just listen to the story:

In 2013, after the death of that crazy wackadoo Kim Jong-Il, Kim Jong-un, the crazy wackadoos son, unites North and South Korea under a single banner. Over the years leading up to the game, China falters due to economic stagnation and the middle east gets into a war about oil (gee, ain't that original...). But the US gets the worst of the worst in the years before the start, dealing with the same economic stagnation China deals with, social unrest rises quickly, there's a Texas succession talk, and a deadly outbreak of a strain of bird flu that becomes known as the Knoxville Cough. In 2022 the US economy collapses altogether. Then in 2025, the Korean Republic launches a satellite and detonates an EMP above the US, knocking out all electronic devices. They then invade the US, taking Hawaii, dropping paratroopers into the midwest, and irradiating the Mississippi River to divide the US in half. And that's where the game open, with the US fighting to take back their country from the Koreans. 

For we Americans, we've never really had a game where we fought a war on our own soil (Turning Point DOES NOT COUNT....) so this game had the potential to really hit home for those of us playing from the American perspective. The game even had real life American stores and comapnies who had signs and buildings in the game, just to drive the point home. Many of the previews of the game made it seem like it was going to be one of the best games of the year, instead it was so forgettable, I actually had to double check that it was in fact released this year. What really bothered me about it is that I can see a great concept here, and the game has some good story ideas, but Kaos Studious just couldn't get the game to reach it's full potential. 

So why does the simple fact that Crytek is behind it change anything?

Well, for one thing, they will be taking a good chunk of time on the next game. The planned release isn't until 2014, and that's assuming it never gets pushed back. This gives Crytek time to take a look at the foundation Kaos built, and decide what should stay, what should go, and what needs tweaking. It also gives them plenty of time to actually make the game, and it will give Crytek the opportunity to be patient with things, something FPS games don't always get. 

Crytek's track record, while brief, is also reason to have hope. Far Cry is widely reguarded as one of the better games of the past ten years, and of course one can not talk about Crytek without their most incredibly beautiful game, Crysis. These games have been well received, and Crytek has proven that they are among the top-tier FPS developers, even if they are lacking a large track record. Crysis is usually among the best looking games ever discussion, and Far Cry is a beloved classic at this point, showing that their games also have longevity after their release. That is excellent news for a franchise whose first game has already been forgotten a few short months after it's release.

A symbol of hope. And ridiculous graphics standards for PC users. 

Of course all of this simply means that all the potential that Homefront had now has a second chance. I'm truly excited by this move because now there is an opportunity for Homefront to become the franchise it looked like it could become last year. Games that don't succeed don't usually get this kind of second chance. Just ask Silicon Knights how that Too Human sequel is coming. But we still have a long wait before we see what Crytek can do with the IP and until we see some concrete evidence of what they're up to, we'll just have to let our imaginations do some work.

Oh and a side note, in case there was a shadow of doubt about it, Skyrim is indeed getting an M rating. I can't imagine why... 

Until next time...

P.S. Like the new changes? Nothing big but I think the blog looks much crisper now.