Not really. The team that worked on the multiplayer for Mass Effect 3 could have (for example) worked on single player side missions that began with scanning a planet (some sort of mini puzzle involving interpreting code or something to find war assets). Once a potential war asset or resource was found, the player would then be given the option to try to retrieve as much of the resource/war asset as possible. Every now and then these scanning missions could turn into combat situations (the multiplayer maps would work fine here). Again, the player would decide how much time to spend trying to gather the war asset before retreating from the reapers.
Also, to punish players who got too greedy, squad mates would have some sort of injury meter. They fall unconscious too many times and they can't be used for one or two future missions. The ship would also have to constantly contend with attacks from reapers (pinging a system too many times signaled reapers but they should have done so much more with that) At the end of the game, if they've fallen too many times then they're most likely to die when retaking earth. If the ship isn't repaired and upgraded to a certain level, its destroyed or at least fatally damaged so that there is no escape. Finally, more ship upgrades, more resources to use to actually make weapons and armor using the omni-tool.
Finally, I wanted the story to unfold as well as it did in Mass Effect: figuring out what would be needed and then building it. Instead the crucible was always the key and most of the game was waiting for it to be finished.
Sorry for the block of text. Overall I loved the Mass Effect Trilogy and have thought a lot about it.
We're talking about multiplayer for Mass Effect 4 when Mass Effect 3 didn't (in my opinion at least) use all the resources it could have to make the campaign stellar before sparing them for multiplayer and Inquisition hasn't even released yet so we have no idea if they managed to avoid the same mistakes. I should have added, "Say no to multiplayer in single player games," at the end but the keys on keyboard are sticking for some reason.
I know its unfair but if Inquisition's story doesn't quite deliver, is too much like the second one and not enough like the first one I'm blaming the multiplayer component. If it does deliver, then I'll probably play it for a week or two then ignore it (like I do with any multiplayer component). Personally, I think people are raising a stink because of Mass Effect 2 and Dragon Age 2 (games with no multiplayer to speak of). Both of those games had too much action and not enough exploration and/or rpg elements. Then Mass Effect 3 comes out and its 80% Mass Effect 2 and 20% Mass Effect. Adding multiplayer just doesn't seem like the right path to go down with this game.
If the single player campaign for Mass Effect 3 had been as great as it could have been (not saying it wasn't good, even the ending but I definitely wanted more exploration even if it was just to gather war assets), I would be more optimistic about multiplayer in Inquisition (or at least indifferent to it).
Microsoft is upping the ante. As someone who still hasn't decided on a next gen console (finally got around to getting a 360 though), this was a good move on their part. Not a game changer but a very good move.
Dark Souls II is still languishing in my backlog but definitely looking forward to episode 4 of the walking dead. I've never played the original Oddworld but it sounds good.
So, gameplay is fun but the story doesn't quite hit its mark (how many times has that sentiment been expressed in a video game review) and it's not the next step in the evolution of open world games. Sounds like an 8 to me. I'm looking forward to playing it (after episode 4 of the The Wolf Among Us).
Caduceus89's comments