Mass Effect 3 Multiplayer? The Scoop on South Africa’s BT Games

October 3, 2011
Ash
Games
4 Comments

By now you’ve heard from all the major gaming sites in the known universe that South African retailer BT Games went ahead and advertised a Mass Effect 3 “online multiplayer pass” in one of their ads. Now we don’t know if this ad is legitimate, but what we can do is look into the legitimacy of South Africa’s BT Games… because let’s face it, here in the West we know very little of this mysterious “Africa” being mentioned.

BT Games:

Starting Year: 1998

Original Store: Northgate Shopping Centre in Johannesburg

Number of stores: 36 (all based in Africa)

“We love our customers – and not just because they give us money. We pride ourselves in the fact that we approach every customer on a personal level, taking care of their individual computing needs. Only the best will do when it comes to our customers, whether they walk into our stores or buy via our website. Because of this philosophy we promise to go to the ends of the earth to make sure that each and every customer gets exactly what they want. Not only do we love our customers, but our customers love us too. They tell us all the time :-). But our commitment is not only to our customers… we love games too. Whether it is organizing product launches or getting great deals on games, we do everything we can to promote and enhance gaming in South Africa. This is a company run by people who love games, for people who love games, and we will do everything in our power to make sure that gaming in South Africa goes from strength to strength.”

So there you have it BT Games is not only a legitimate operation, but they sound like a nice bunch of game loving folks. The question of the ad’s legitimacy remains in question as it has since been removed from BT Games website. With some mysterious Mass Effect announcement looming on the horizon, would you be at all surprised if a multiplayer mode were added to Mass Effect 3?

Robert Palmer

Would I be surprised? No. Would I like it? No. Multiplayer is too often used as a crutch for game devs that can’t come up with enough good content to keep a gamer busy beyond the four to five hour mark.

Not to say that BioWare couldn’t slap together some awesome multiplayer. Still. . .

I am, at heart, a solo campaign kind of guy and will always be.
Ash

Robert,

I think the bulk of the people that write for NA agree with you 100%.

While playing games with others can be a total blast (see Gears 3), there really is a time and a place for multiplayer gaming. There is also a huge problem with studios paying other “mercenary” studios to work on the multiplayer component for them..

If the multiplayer is of a lesser quality, then it simply isn’t worth the space on the disk.

However, if anyone can pull off a solid multiplayer, it’s probably the folks at Bioware…. they’re like wizards or something…

Have a great night!
Dibol

Here’s my post from your previous “ME3 might have multiplayer” topic:

Problem is multiplayer is a double-edged sword, not to mention the fact that there is an ARTIFICIAL TIME LIMIT involved. For example, I was wary of Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter 2 because I’m not sure if the campaign alone is worth $60, not to mention I’m not a hardcore multiplayer person. I bought GRAW 2 at $20 around APRIL 2010, and just by checking X-Box Live, the game is deader than Elvis, leaving me with only a 5-hour campaign. Good call I made since I only spent $20. I’m also a veteran of an MMORPG (Matrix Online) and the other problem associated with multiplayer-only games is if the hosting company decides to shut down the servers, you’re looking at a $50-$60 paperweight. Seriously, how many people are actually playing SOCOM: Confrontation now?

I bought Tom Clancy’s EndWar at launch at the price of $60, and only played online on the weekends. Sad part is, the game started dying out by December 2008 due to a countless number of factors (i.e. unit killing/not many people available for getting the “number of required victories for the day,” etc.). Unless the game happens to be titled Gears of War, Halo, or Call of Duty, any game that tries to shoe-horn in multiplayer on a game that is primarily single-player is known to be either piss-poor or outright mediocre. Seriously, how many people actually bothered with BioShock 2′s multiplayer, or better yet, Dead Space 2′s multiplayer? How many people are actually playing them NOW? F.E.A.R. 3? Died two months after release, and single-player suffered heavily for it just because of the “Let’s push in co-op NAO” mentality.

I’ve seen this happen with Resident Evil 5 up to the point that co-op is MANDATORY if you want to have a less-frustrating experience on the harder difficulties (i.e. Playing Professional solo is guaranteed to give you more heart-attacks than the entire U.S. population.). I’ve seen the same thing with the entire Gears of War series where I I HAD TO USE MY FRIENDS AS CRUTCHES just to avoid getting bored or frustrated with the more difficult firefights capitalized by my A.I. squadmates being idiots. I even avoided Lost Planet 2 like the plague just because of a certain 20-minute boss-battle involving having to load a vehicle’s cannon (without my asking for it, a friend bought the game for me because of a clearance sale.).

The reason why I prioritize single-player games is because I can play the game on my own terms whenever I am able to without having to rely on my very limited number of friends just to enjoy the game. I’ll always put the Gears of War franchise in the 5/10 category just because I found single-player to be a chore with a piss-poor story that required supplementary material to understand the story. I’m even putting RE5 in the same category because the final product itself just became sub-par and left a sour taste in my mouth (i.e. Not going to bother with RE6).
Dibol

Here’s my post from your previous “ME3 might have multiplayer” topic:

Problem is multiplayer is a double-edged sword, not to mention the fact that there is an ARTIFICIAL TIME LIMIT involved. For example, I was wary of Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter 2 because I’m not sure if the campaign alone is worth $60, not to mention I’m not a hardcore multiplayer person. I bought GRAW 2 at $20 around APRIL 2010, and just by checking X-Box Live, the game is deader than Elvis, leaving me with only a 5-hour campaign. Good call I made since I only spent $20. I’m also a veteran of an MMORPG (Matrix Online) and the other problem associated with multiplayer-only games is if the hosting company decides to shut down the servers, you’re looking at a $50-$60 paperweight. Seriously, how many people are actually playing SOCOM: Confrontation now, or better yet, how many people are actually able to play Halo 2 online? Last time I checked, no one is able to (not sure about the former, but know about the latter.)

I bought Tom Clancy’s EndWar at launch at the price of $60, and only played online on the weekends. Sad part is, the game started dying out by December 2008 due to a countless number of factors (i.e. unit killing/not many people available for getting the “number of required victories for the day,” etc.). Unless the game happens to be titled Gears of War, Halo, or Call of Duty, any game that tries to shoe-horn in multiplayer on a game that is primarily single-player is known to be either piss-poor or outright mediocre. Seriously, how many people actually bothered with BioShock 2′s multiplayer, or better yet, Dead Space 2′s multiplayer? How many people are actually playing them NOW? F.E.A.R. 3? Died two months after release, and single-player suffered heavily for it just because of the “Let’s push in co-op NAO” mentality.

I’ve seen this happen with Resident Evil 5 up to the point that co-op is MANDATORY if you want to have a less-frustrating experience on the harder difficulties (i.e. Playing Professional solo is guaranteed to give you more heart-attacks than the entire U.S. population.). I’ve seen the same thing with the entire Gears of War series where I I HAD TO USE MY FRIENDS AS CRUTCHES just to avoid getting bored or frustrated with the more difficult firefights capitalized by my A.I. squadmates being idiots. I even avoided Lost Planet 2 like the plague just because of a certain 20-minute boss-battle involving having to load a vehicle’s cannon. By the way, a friend bought the game for me because of a clearance sale without my asking for it.

The reason why I prioritize single-player games is because I can play the game on my own terms whenever I am able to without having to rely on my very limited number of friends just to enjoy the game. I’ll always put the Gears of War franchise in the 5/10 category just because I found single-player to be a chore with a piss-poor story that required supplementary material to understand the story. I’m even putting RE5 in the same category because the final product itself just became sub-par and left a sour taste in my mouth (i.e. Not going to bother with RE6).

Gamers: A World Divided

They’re Real?

Review: Embers of Mirrim