Dragon Age: Inquisition's Co-op Multiplayer Sounds Familiar - Update

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Dragon Age: Inquisition's Co-op Multiplayer Sounds Familiar - Update

BioWare revealed the multiplayer for Dragon Age: Inquisition, and it sounds similar to co-op in Mass Effect 3.

Update: BioWare has released a trailer for the new co-op mode. Check it out.

Original Story: Multiplayer in Dragon Age: Inquisition has been rumored since 2011, so today's revelation of co-op multiplayer coming to BioWare's upcoming action-RPG isn't much of a surprise. It's also not surprising to hear that it sounds quite a bit like the multiplayer from Mass Effect 3. And that may not be a bad thing.

The four-player co-op doesn't let players take their Inquisitors into the multiplayer and, so far, your actions don't affect the single-player, unlike the Galactic Readiness scale from Mass Effect 3. Players will battle through one of three multiplayer campaigns in a randomly generated area, and like ME3, those areas will feature different enemies and other variables.

It sounds like each campaign is designed for a certain area, like Orlais or the Tevinter Imperium, and out of ten possible sections of each region, a single campaign will take place in five random sections. Players can find gold as they work their way through the campaign, but sometimes that gold may only be accessible to one of the three classes. Of course, the next time though, that section may require a mage instead of a warrior.

Dragon Age Inquisition screens 08

Classes align similarly to the single-player, except it sounds like "archers" will be accompanying warriors and mages, rather than rogues. As players level up (20 is the cap), they use points in two skill trees, and spending the gold they found on treasure chests, which will unlock items, cosmetic options, and crafting recipes. New characters are accessed by finding armor in the treasure chests or crafting it from unnecessary items once unlock recipes. Each hero has a unique appearance and abilities.

Twelve heroes (four for each class) and three campaigns are just the beginning. BioWare is promising lots of DLC, but similarly to Mass Effect 3, all that multiplayer DLC will be free. The game also won't have a subscription, but will make money from players willing to spend real cash on Platinum, which can also be used to unlock treasure chests filled with random items. There's no way to just outright buy anything, so it isn't exactly "pay-to-win", but surely there will be the occasional player that spends way too much money to keep rolling for the best stuff.

The multiplayer is set within the world of Thedas during Dragon Age: Inquisition, but players are doing tasks for The Inquisitor, rather than playing directly in the main story itself (which will reach 200 hours for completionists). There don't seem to be any dialogue wheels or moral choices, but the characters will still have personalities to contribute to the experience. "They're kind of like mini followers, and they banter among themselves," according to Mike Laidlaw, Creative Director.

Also following the patterns from Mass Effect 3, BioWare will offer weekly Prestige and Operations objectives. Personally killing 25 darkspawn might earn you some cosmetic items through the Prestige system, but the global Operations might ask all players to contribute to killing a million Qunari in a week.

Personally, I'm excited for the multiplayer. I walked into the co-op stages of Mass Effect 3 with cautious optimism, but I never expected to spend as many hours (and hours and hours) in there. With BioWare offering free DLC to expand the possible awards and new maps and enemies, it was easy to keep coming back. The Weekend Challenges offered something fun to work towards, and the fact that that sort of thing will be consistent with Dragon Age: Inquisition is also exciting.

There are concerns, of course. If it costs too much gold to unlock a treasure chest (to encourage the purchase of Platinum with real cash), it might be hard to come back to the knowing how much grinding it will take to earn new prizes and unlock heroes. Also, the tactical combat option is a favorite aspect of the game to many players, and with its absence from the multiplayer, there may be an entire portion of the Dragon Age fanbase that avoids the co-op.

Lastly, there is always a concern that the story mode of a game will suffer due to the expense of developing multiplayer to add to a single-player franchise. Of course, it's impossible to know how much better or worse the game would be without mutliplayer, but some critics will blame the co-op for any bugs or story failings in the single-player. For what it's worth, BioWare has been working on the multiplayer component for two years, so no one can say this is a last minute addition.

This isn't BioWare's only venture into multiplayer in the near future. Earlier this August at Gamescom, BioWare announced Shadow Realms, a 4v1 episodic game. If single-player is all you're interested in, check out our preview from E3 this past June. Fans of Dragon Age might also want to check out our list of the Top 25 RPGs of the Last Five Years, which heavily featured BioWare.

Source: BioWare, IGN

Updated throughout with new and corrected information.

Permalink

I wasn't a big fan of the Mass Effect 3 multiplayer. It wasn't bad, but it didn't have a lot of staying power for me. It got old very quickly, and without any type of story, I got bored with it. Once I hit level 20 and unlocked that achievement/trophy, I was done with it.
It sounds like they are at least trying to address this in Dragon Age, but I think it will end up like the Mass Effect multiplayer for me. I'll give it a shot, but I don't think I'll be any more hours into it than I need for trophies and whatnot.

As for it having any negative impact on the single player, I'm not worried about that. I'm still convinced that the Dragon Age team has learned their lessons, both from the criticism of Dragon Age II and Mass Effect 3, and thus they will be able to deal with this accordingly.

bioware stop. stop. fucking stop.

dragon age never needed multiplayer. is this why the game was delayed? to add shitty gameplay and microtransactions into the game? i am so fucking sick of ea and this fucking gaming generation where the first step of any project, ever, is to somehow crowbar in multiplayer. didnt they say the multiplayer didn't have any effects on the single player for mass effect at first? and look where that got us.

i am fucking livid.

ea will run this company right into the ground.

Please tell me that it has no impact on SP? I am not exactly enthusiastic about DA: I, Bioware have burned me one to many times to get me hyped up any more, but if reviews are good (both reviewers I trust and gamer feedback) then I will get it in a year or so. However even if everyone loved it if the MP effects the SP I am not getting it.

But I imagine it will not effect the SP. they would not make the same mistake twice right?

EDIT: Before anyone else quotes me pointing out what the artical said, I know the artical says that it will not effect SP but they said that about ME3 as well so I am not going to take them at their word anymore.

No. No no no no no no no no no.

No. New Bioware can back the f**k off with the multiplayer. I don't care how well it's done, or how many resources they say that they 'allocated to the single player', this is bad news.

This means that a)EA just couldn't piss off and not cram multiplayer into everything, especially not a traditionally single player series inspired by traditional single player CPRGs made by a company who have made nothing but traditionally single player RPGs(SWTOR doesn't count) and b) this confirms my fears that the game will suffer from the same sense of sparseness that has invaded every other 'NEXTT GENNN' title. They're going to draw the story and the maps out ad infinitum, cover up a lack of meaningful content with shiny graphics, make the dialogue more generic andohgoditsmasseffect3again D:<

I see nothing positive from this, and I was rightly cautious about the title. Hey, EA! You just lost a sale because of multiplayer!

http://www.dragonage.com/#!/en_US/news/multiplayer-faq The website has a FAQ:

Mark Darrah ‏@BioMarkDarrah 1m
And no, singleplayer content is NOT locked behind MP.

Gizmo1990:
Please tell me that it has no impact on SP? I am not exactly enthusiastic about DA: I, Bioware have burned me one to many times to get me hyped up any more, but if reviews are good (both reviewers I trust and gamer feedback) then I will get it in a year or so. However even if everyone loved it if the MP effects the SP I am not getting it.

But I imagine it will not effect the SP. they would not make the same mistake twice right?

"The four-player co-op doesn't let players take their Inquisitors into the multiplayer and, so far, your actions don't affect the single-player, unlike the Galactic Readiness scale from Mass Effect 3"

You did read it right?

Well, it doesn't affect the single player at all. You can leave it as it is.

Then again, everyone has two modes on the Internet nowadays: Blind-rage and even blinder-rage.

This was a week 1 buy, now it is a day 1 pre-order game for me.

I was ok with this until I got to this part

Mike Hoffman:
Nine heroes (three for each class) and three campaigns are just the beginning. BioWare is promising lots of DLC, but similarly to Mass Effect 3, all that multiplayer DLC will be free. The game also won't have a subscription, but will make money from players willing to spend real cash on Platinum, which can also be used to unlock treasure chests filled with random items. There's no way to just outright buy anything, so it isn't exactly "pay-to-win", but surely there will be the occasional player that spends way too much money to keep rolling for the best stuff.

Why would you have it so someone has to choose a character rather than just letting them create their own?
The nine premade characters seems to suggest that the three heroes for each class are going to be specific builds, given that customisation is playing a major part of this game seems like a real dumb idea.

Also ugh on the unnecessary micro transaction bullshit. That's enough to make me never touch the multi player if I get this game.

I, unlike it seems a vast majority in the thread and most likely future posters, am actually completely fine with this. Honestly, the Multiplayer was one of the best parts in ME3 (not the biggest accomplishment, I know) and a return to that style but in the DA verse is ok by me.

Unless something cool was cut to make room for this. That's the only reason I can see to shun extra content (and the promise of free DLC down the line)

Honestly, even after the charlie foxtrot that was ME3 singleplayer, the game stayed installed for close to a year as I was playing MP on and off.

Never thought I'd see the day when a Bioware game sounds more interesting to me for it's multiplayer aspect, but there we go.

Not that it's going to be a day one purchase. With the way Origin handles sales, there's a good chance the multiplayer servers will be long gone by the time I get my hands on the game.

PS: LOL. The OP is implying that the Galactic Readiness Scale impacted gameplay.

Gizmo1990:
Please tell me that it has no impact on SP? I am not exactly enthusiastic about DA: I, Bioware have burned me one to many times to get me hyped up any more, but if reviews are good (both reviewers I trust and gamer feedback) then I will get it in a year or so. However even if everyone loved it if the MP effects the SP I am not getting it.

But I imagine it will not effect the SP. they would not make the same mistake twice right?

They said right in the article that its not connected to the single player like it was in ME3.

EDIT: Ah I see someone else mentioned this to you first. Sorry.

Personally I'm excited for this, I really enjoyed the ME3 multiplayer (hell it was the only part of the game I thought was any good) and I was hoping they'd do something like this with it. Obviously a great single player experience comes first but I'm not going to say no to some dungeon crawling with friends.

I am okay with this. ME3's multiplayer was fun, Inquisition still looks promising, adding that proven funness to potential funness can only be a good thing.

Just don't fuck anything up Bioware.

Gameguy20100:

Gizmo1990:
Please tell me that it has no impact on SP? I am not exactly enthusiastic about DA: I, Bioware have burned me one to many times to get me hyped up any more, but if reviews are good (both reviewers I trust and gamer feedback) then I will get it in a year or so. However even if everyone loved it if the MP effects the SP I am not getting it.

But I imagine it will not effect the SP. they would not make the same mistake twice right?

"The four-player co-op doesn't let players take their Inquisitors into the multiplayer and, so far, your actions don't affect the single-player, unlike the Galactic Readiness scale from Mass Effect 3"

You did read it right?

IFS:

Gizmo1990:
Please tell me that it has no impact on SP? I am not exactly enthusiastic about DA: I, Bioware have burned me one to many times to get me hyped up any more, but if reviews are good (both reviewers I trust and gamer feedback) then I will get it in a year or so. However even if everyone loved it if the MP effects the SP I am not getting it.

But I imagine it will not effect the SP. they would not make the same mistake twice right?

They said right in the article that its not connected to the single player like it was in ME3.

EDIT: Ah I see someone else mentioned this to you first. Sorry.

Personally I'm excited for this, I really enjoyed the ME3 multiplayer (hell it was the only part of the game I thought was any good) and I was hoping they'd do something like this with it. Obviously a great single player experience comes first but I'm not going to say no to some dungeon crawling with friends.

They said that about ME 3 as well. look how that turned out.

Sigmund Av Volsung:

traditionally single player series inspired by traditional single player CPRGs made by a company who have made nothing but traditionally single player RPGs]

*cough* Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 *cough*

Yes the spiritual predecessors to Dragon Age and the series that made Bioware known for making great RPGs had coop multiplayer. This isn't exactly something completely new to them or to this sort of game, and while yeah its likely mandated by EA it seems to me that EA is actually giving Bioware plenty of time to make the game this time around (unlike with DA2, which I liked but will admit that it was indeed very rushed). I'm not saying you should buy the game or anything, but condemning the single player campaign before the game even comes out just because they also included multiplayer seems a little absurd to me.

IFS:

Sigmund Av Volsung:

traditionally single player series inspired by traditional single player CPRGs made by a company who have made nothing but traditionally single player RPGs]

*cough* Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 *cough*

Yes the spiritual predecessors to Dragon Age and the series that made Bioware known for making great RPGs had coop multiplayer. This isn't exactly something completely new to them or to this sort of game, and while yeah its likely mandated by EA it seems to me that EA is actually giving Bioware plenty of time to make the game this time around (unlike with DA2, which I liked but will admit that it was indeed very rushed). I'm not saying you should buy the game or anything, but condemning the single player campaign before the game even comes out just because they also included multiplayer seems a little absurd to me.

This happened with Mass Effect 3. They said that the MP wouldn't detract from the Single Player experience, and yet the dialogue and questing was distinctly lacking in comparison to ME2.

Just because this mode exists means that we could've had more quests, or another area/dungeon to explore to explore instead of this online mode.

Yea, the older games did have Mp co-op, but not to this extent. Those modes were more optional extras that you could join in, like the modded co-op for System Shock II, but they weren't an essential part of the game. Why? Because people remember the games fondly for their storytelling, questing system and well, the single player portion.

I don't care if I sound like a hermit crab that refuses to engage in multiplayer, but this is an RPG dammit! How many more games need be sacrificed to the multiplayer monster before we lose all sense of immersion because a large part of the game involves joining on watered-down game segments with random johnnies from around the internet who may or may not be complete f**kwits? Oh sure, it's optional, but its a major part of the game nonetheless.

Ugh. I am glad that I am sponsoring the Witcher 3 instead of this.

Longing:
bioware stop. stop. fucking stop.

dragon age never needed multiplayer. is this why the game was delayed? to add shitty gameplay and microtransactions into the game? i am so fucking sick of ea and this fucking gaming generation where the first step of any project, ever, is to somehow crowbar in multiplayer. didnt they say the multiplayer didn't have any effects on the single player for mass effect at first? and look where that got us.

i am fucking livid.

ea will run this company right into the ground.

I think you have the tense wrong in that last sentence.

Microtransactions in a full priced game. Bravo EA, bravo.
To BioWare I have only one last thing to say after our decade long love affair: "Ask not for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee."

Longing:
bioware stop. stop. fucking stop.

dragon age never needed multiplayer. is this why the game was delayed? to add shitty gameplay and microtransactions into the game? i am so fucking sick of ea and this fucking gaming generation where the first step of any project, ever, is to somehow crowbar in multiplayer. didnt they say the multiplayer didn't have any effects on the single player for mass effect at first? and look where that got us.

i am fucking livid.

ea will run this company right into the ground.

Lovely knee-jerk reaction there... really followed the "internets guide to hating bioware" script there.

Let me clarify one thing before I start: not a Bioware fanboii. Good? good.

First things first: the original Dragon Age Origins was planned with a multiplayer. TADA. Surprise! It was canned because the game was already sufferings from a long development and they couldn't finish it. Also Baldur's Gate 1&2 had MP. So a big what on that front?

Two: Crowbar? Multiplayer was announced 2 years ago. Almost the same time as the the game was announced the devs. confirmed MP for DAI. So wrong on that count.

Three: They made the mistake one time of affecting the SP with MP. And after the DA2/ME3 caffufles I doubt they would risk it.

Four: No, the game was delayed the first time to include more SP content, like races. It was delayed a second time, because EA got their hands on their quarterlies, and saw an increase in profit, so EA, for once, smartly decided to give Bioware more time to actually make a quality product. TLDR: It was delayed for bugfixing.

Five: EA.... well... actually might run Bioware into the ground, they have a tendency for that. But, at least it's not going to happen with this game, since it was in development for four years, making it quite likely to at least be decent.

PS: seriously, the hating on Bioware for hating on Bioware's sake is getting old. I was disappointed by the recent nonsense of the company, but when it seems that they are trying to right their wrongs, give them the chance and not knee-jerk, as so perfectly demonstrated here.

PS2: On Microtransactions: IF they are not required, then they are fine. IF, however, they turn out to be pay-to-win, you can go ahead and burn Bioware HQ building to the ground. But if they are optional, they're not terrible... not ideal either... but not the end of the world.

Oh, I guess that's another game series that is going to be Origin exclusive because "the multiplayer needs it" then... pffft.

Jesus Christ. Where do I start.

Players will battle through one of three multiplayer campaigns in a randomly generated area, and like ME3, those areas will feature different enemies and other variables.

How on earth are they going to make randomly generated areas work in the buggy as heck Frostbite engine? Leaving aside the issue of how much resources that will chew up, randomly generated areas generally accompany 'hack-and-slash' gameplay where you just run in and butcher everything, as opposed to more carefully designed encounters where you have to work together to tank, spank and heal. Which type is DA:I going to be?

Players can find gold as they work their way through the campaign, but sometimes that gold may only be accessible to one of the three classes. Of course, the next time though, that section may require a mage instead of a warrior.

Someone explain to me what the heck this means, and why restricting gold is a good idea.

The game also won't have a subscription, but will make money from players willing to spend real cash on Platinum, which can also be used to unlock treasure chests filled with random items. There's no way to just outright buy anything, so it isn't exactly "pay-to-win", but surely there will be the occasional player that spends way too much money to keep rolling for the best stuff.

Don't worry everyone, there's no pay to win. There's only gambling! Which as we all know is so much more wholesome, ethically sound, and subject to no restrictions in certain Asian nations.

Also, the tactical combat option is a favorite aspect of the game to many players, and with its absence from the multiplayer, there may be an entire portion of the Dragon Age fanbase that avoids the co-op.

Yeah, funny how people like their tactical combat RPG to involve tactical combat that requires you to co-ordinate your movements and positioning.

This entire multiplayer mode sounds nothing short of farcical. It's Diablo Lite bundled with a tactical RPG, and anyone who believes the singleplayer aspect isn't compromised or starved of resources by that decision is kidding themselves.

I'm just annoyed that this is going to require Origin. I liked the ME3 muliplayer much more than expected and I even say that I had more fun with it than most of the stuff that came out in that year, aside from braindead Vanguards throwing games by charging miles ahead of the team and getting instagibbed by 10 enemies before anyone can remotely get in range to support anyway.

As for the SP, let's be honest, it's been in development for 4 years so if the SP is lacking I have no idea what they would have been doing with their time (come on, 4 years is too much to blame the multiplayer addition on since they can copy/paste ME3's model) unless they were busy eating all the biscuits in the meeting room while spending ages deciding which colour skirt the female supporting character will wear and how much arse it's gonna show.

I liked DA2 as well, even though the bugs and cut corners made the game sooooo much worse than it should have. There are only two types of people when it comes to DA2 in my mind, people who dismissed the ending as total wank and people who actually understood the point of the ending and how it's pretty clever, if controversial. (Why did they decide on these unusual endings anyway? They used to be quite safe.) And I guess people who wondered why the beheaded Leliana was suddenly prancing about.

This topic is great because it is more or less 'ME3 is getting multiplayer 2.0', with all the same complaints, by probably the same user groups. What happened with that again? Oh right, ME3 MP was great, and kept the game alive long long after its single player shelf date.

Personally, this moves the game from 'Not at all' to 'Maybe' for me, but there is the issue of competition. There is just so much of it coming out, and only so much time to spend playing.

El Luck:
-snip-

Why would you have it so someone has to choose a character rather than just letting them create their own?
The nine premade characters seems to suggest that the three heroes for each class are going to be specific builds, given that customisation is playing a major part of this game seems like a real dumb idea.

Also ugh on the unnecessary micro transaction bullshit. That's enough to make me never touch the multi player if I get this game.

The micro-transactions are the reason you can't create your own character. If you could make your own there would be no point in paying them the money for new ones.

OT: I find this disappointing, but not unexpected. To me this just indicates that Inquisition will be firmly in the "action" camp of gameplay like Dragon Age 2 or the Mass Effect series, rather than making any attempts at tactical semi-turn based gameplay like the first. That kind of gameplay simply wouldn't work in a randomly generated co-op mode like this, and I really doubt that they'll have the single player game play incredibly differently to the multiplayer mode, so it will presumably be the same. Not what I would have preferred, but it might still be OK, and it certainly has the most mainstream appeal so I can see why they've done it.

"The game also won't have a subscription, but will make money from players willing to spend real cash on Platinum, which can also be used to unlock treasure chests filled with random items"

"There are concerns, of course. If it costs too much gold to unlock a treasure chest (to encourage the purchase of Platinum with real cash), it might be hard to come back to the knowing how much grinding it will take to earn new prizes and unlock heroes."

So Micro-Transactions........

Incoming Too much Innovation Dungeon Keeper Time.........

The article failed to highlight the most important part IMO.

Just no. Just fucking no.

Why the hell does a rpg need multi-player for. Clearly sounds like you won't actually be to role play an actual character but going to be given generic characters to play as. No thanks. I had no interest in ME3 multi-player and when I did play it it got old fast.

Ugh, this gaming generation has been complete trash with publishers/developers trying to shoehorn multiplayer into everything. What happened to games that delivered a fantastic single-player experience, I know apparently they don't make enough money.

"The game also won't have a subscription, but will make money from players willing to spend real cash on Platinum, which can also be used to unlock treasure chests filled with random items. There's no way to just outright buy anything, so it isn't exactly "pay-to-win", but surely there will be the occasional player that spends way too much money to keep rolling for the best stuff"

This pisses me off. I have no idea how EA can get away by having gambling with real money for items in a game. There should be some sort of regulation against this because it's very unhealthy for people especially if they suffer from some sort of gambling addiction. It's disgusting that someone can pay $5 for a "pack" and get nothing.

Man, all the knees in this thread have been jerked so hard.

If it's as good as the ME3 multiplayer turned out to be then I'll be happy.

I'm ok with this.

Multi and single player do have seperate budget and teams Working on them afterall.

Haters gon' Hate!

I am excited for this! I spent nearly 400 hours playing ME3 multiplayer. I thought it had the perfect micro-transaction system which ensured FREE DLC! WOO

[quote="Sigmund Av Volsung" post="7.859053.21315069"]No. No no no no no no no no no.

No. New Bioware can back the f**k off with the multiplayer. I don't care how well it's done, or how many resources they say that they 'allocated to the single player', this is bad news.

This means that a)EA just couldn't piss off and not cram multiplayer into everything, especially not a traditionally single player series inspired by traditional single player CPRGs made by a company who have made nothing but traditionally single player RPGs(SWTOR doesn't count) and b) this confirms my fears that the game will suffer from the same sense of sparseness that has invaded every other 'NEXTT GENNN' title. They're going to draw the story and the maps out ad infinitum, cover up a lack of meaningful content with shiny graphics, make the dialogue more generic andohgoditsmasseffect3again D:<

I see nothing positive from this, and I was rightly cautious about the title. Hey, EA! You just lost a sale because of multiplayer![/quote Dude, chill. I'm willing to give Bioware the benefit of the doubt and just wait for it to come out. Will I preorder it? Probably. But then again, I preordered ME3, as well. And I enjoyed it, for the most part. (Insert Monty Python clip of "Don't. Mention. The War." clip, only replace "the war" with ME3's ending.)

danielcofour:

Longing:
bioware stop. stop. fucking stop.

dragon age never needed multiplayer. is this why the game was delayed? to add shitty gameplay and microtransactions into the game? i am so fucking sick of ea and this fucking gaming generation where the first step of any project, ever, is to somehow crowbar in multiplayer. didnt they say the multiplayer didn't have any effects on the single player for mass effect at first? and look where that got us.

i am fucking livid.

ea will run this company right into the ground.

Lovely knee-jerk reaction there... really followed the "internets guide to hating bioware" script there.

Let me clarify one thing before I start: not a Bioware fanboii. Good? good.

i am a fangirl. i have bought every single bioware game and have supported them for years.
bioware is a single player company. i want them to stop with the fucking multiplayer already and go back to their root and just focus on making a solo experience like they used to do (I know older games used to have mp as well, but it didn't feel as vital as nowadays).

It started with the Old Republic and now their new project is just glorified multiplayer and for someone like me who anxiously awaits every single bioware title, the start of this decade has been very disappointing for me and I dread to think of the future for this company.

clearly, they're out for money now or there wouldn't be a fucking mass effect 4. i'm honestly just so cautious about dragon age now and i desperately want to be wrong.

octafish:

I think you have the tense wrong in that last sentence.

shush you, let me keep the hope alive a little bit longer.

jesus shtting christ internet, would all of you burst into flames if you stopped turning every game announcement thread into a pointless rage circlejerk?

OT: Sounds fun. ME3 Co-Op was one of the best executions of the "horde mode" concept I have ever played, so I expect good things from this. Also as a filthy subhuman casual who thinks CRPGs are awful on a host of levels I glad to see DA:I trending more towards Mass Effect and less towards the unbearable trudging boredom that was DA:O.

I think I had more fun in the Mass Effect 3 multiplayer than the singleplayer. That is mostly a shot at how poor the singleplayer game was though. Therefore, it doesn't really bother me to see it included in this game.

I'm guessing the game was delayed to implement this in? I have a feeling it would feel underbaked and in the later months add more content to it like before.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here