The problem with Mass Effect is that I don't think anyone really wanted it to change. 

Yeah, there's a difference between innovation and adding something unwanted to something that was already pretty perfect.

So they shouldn't add anything to it?  Then gamers start whining about how it's always the same :p   Gamers have got to be the most hypocritical, whiny, self-entitled brats in the world, and that's a world that includes the Jersey Shore cast AND the Kardashians.

It's not unreasonable to want a deeply satisfying singleplayer game to remain that way. The scope of the battle may have changed, but adding multiplayer ultimately deminishes the singleplayer's resonance. 

It isn't a matter of just adding to it. It's a matter of completely misinterpreting the franchise's popularity. Innovation is always good, but multiplayer in a game praised for its singleplayer is not.

Rod, I don't think you understand the concept of changing something just for change's sake. Ever heard of "if it's not broke, don't fix it"? Mass Effect had a great thing going in its story, character interaction and deep lore. No, adding an optional multiplayer mode isn't going to change that but it does cheapen the overall image.

Here's an example: the Bugatti Veyron is a work of art as a machine. If someone took out the spoiler and replaced it with a gaudy after-market piece of shit, you could point to them and say, "they're changing something that didn't need to be changed." Your argument says that the terribly hideous piece of shit should be welcomed as a change of pace, not as a necessary advancement of formula that continues the quality of the previous build.

Oh come on, Jasmine. You're seriously saying a game can't be a deeply satisfying single player game AND have multiplayer?  And Tom, Splinter Cell wasn't "broken" either, but it spawned some of the best multiplayer available.

Assassin's Creed is another "single player experience" that added a great online mode.  People are really complaining about the potential for a great new mode that will add replay value and takes NOTHING away from the single player?  Christ.

I think the key difference here is that Jasmine has actually played the multiplayer, and gave a reason why it felt tacked on.  Your rant applies more to the typical forum fanboyism than it does to the press.  

I'm not competely against multiplayer, but it has to stack up to the single player experience.  Mass Effect was always about the story, and your control over it.  Squad commands, basic RPG character buiding, and most certainly shooting, while still good, were never the backbone of the franchise.

Now if it were an MMO or something where the multiplayer influenced the game's canon, then it would definitely be appropriate. 

Assassin's Creed is about the Assassins vs. the Templars, Splinter Cell had all sorts of political parties. In both of those games, the hero, or player's actions don't have a large impact on the story.

Mass Effect does have humans/aliens vs. other aliens, but it all comes down to Commander Shephard (or whoever else depending on your actions) to save Earth --- or destroy it.

The big problem is that Mass Effect isn't the type of shooter where people need to constantly think about guerilla tactics. It's an RPG. That means that players have to build up their characters through side missions--the near-equivalent of a JRPG grind.

Multiplayer deathmatches were not the main reason why I played Mass Effect. The game has a much deeper story than many other FPS stories. I'm sure that they could try to do some sort of Diablo-like multiplayer thing, but it would still hurt the epic, world-spanning story of the single-player mode.

...But I'm sure that the single-player mode will turn out fine, regardless of whether the tacked-on multiplayer is any good.

Brilliant theory, Samir! :)

Alright, that makes a little more sense. The concept of a competitive Mass Effect multiplayer mode is just silly. I mean, you'd have the humans, the asari, the turians and all those other races trying to kill each other with their random tactics. And then those multiplayer nuts would try to make a tier for which character works the best...

I still wonder about the co-op, though. Bioware wanted the co-op to partially determine the ending of the single-player mode. That could end up hurting all those non-Internet players who really want the best ending. Honestly, I'd like a mode that would allow me to team up with anyone, rather than scrambling to make arrangements with friends.

Yeah. I really want my CoD/Battlefield friends to experience the joy of a shooter RPG. But the multiplayer mode makes me nervous. I don't want other people to think that this battle system is terribly imbalanced.

Yeah you make a good point there. I mean look at Bioshock 2's multiplayer. It made me want to break my PC into little tiny peices. If that was my introduction to the series, I probably would have never played the story mode. But knowing how amazing the single player game is before playing the craptastic multiplayer redeemed it. So I suppose if you are using the multiplayer to try and sway your friends into playing the series and it sucks, it may kind of mess things up.

Whoa, that's quite a rage sandwich you're serving up there. Completely understandable though.

Yeah, I know. It's Bioware though. Honestly, I wouldn't mind if it plays 20 times better than Fallout 3 or any other stupid post-apocalyptic shooter with ugly creatures and whatnot.

As long as it doesn't turn out as awful as the Sonic RPG for the Nintendo DS, I'm happy. Ugh, I hate that stupid RPG.

The sad part is that Sonic Chronicles was probably the best Sonic game in the past 10 or so years. And it was terrible.