164 réponses à ce sujet

[Behindyounow]

Because even Bioware setting it up so people can just try it would divert money away from the singleplayer campaign.

[Bahlgan]

All these people hating multiplayer options and I have no idea why they even bring up the notion that it would be a waste of time! Oh what to do! What to do! People aren't gonna play Dragon Age anymore if they keep up the multiplayer acts!... That is exactly the attitude I kept hearing from others about the "seven months and no patch" incident for the game, but you all STILL stuck by, no boycotts or nuddin!



You guys need to chill the hell out and just trust that allowing the OPTION of multiplayer would not be too much an inconvenience. If you all really don't like multiplayer so much, then ok! But honestly, you should not be trying to screw over those who might indeed want it, just like me indeed.



Let's say that there is a group of Dragon Age role playing fans who would endorse in "sharing" or "synchronizing" their storylines together. Those people should be allowed to experience such a rich feature. After all, that's what the PS3 is for: Online play is TODAY!

[Behindyounow]

It wouldn't be a waste of time. It'd be a waste of money. Money that could've gone towards the singleplayer game.



I'd prefer a longer singleplayer game, than being able to play through a short one with a buddy.

[Bahlgan]

Behindyounow wrote...

It wouldn't be a waste of time. It'd be a waste of money. Money that could've gone towards the singleplayer game.

I'd prefer a longer singleplayer game, than being able to play through a short one with a buddy.

Time, money, same thing, but I just don't think it's as bad as you or others are making it to be. I don't think Bioware can merely afford only to do one or the other. Now granted, I think that if one were done before the other, I say single player, but there is nothing completely wrong at all with multiplayer. They did it several times before; Diablo 2 was amazing! I am sure that something can be done without screwing up the gameplay of a shared storyline between certain characters.

[wanderon]

Bahlgan wrote...

Behindyounow wrote...

It wouldn't be a waste of time. It'd be a waste of money. Money that could've gone towards the singleplayer game.

I'd prefer a longer singleplayer game, than being able to play through a short one with a buddy.

Time, money, same thing, but I just don't think it's as bad as you or others are making it to be. I don't think Bioware can merely afford only to do one or the other. Now granted, I think that if one were done before the other, I say single player, but there is nothing completely wrong at all with multiplayer. They did it several times before; Diablo 2 was amazing! I am sure that something can be done without screwing up the gameplay of a shared storyline between certain characters.

I don't think they can do one or the other either they can only do one - they already made the decision to do only SP knowing when they did so that many people would have preferred to have an MP option and it would be ridiculous at this time to suddenly change that decision and take away from the SP game to fund MP just becuase some people still think it would be cool to do so.

You want MP go play a game that offers it - don't ask a company that has dedicated themselves to creating an awesome SP game to corrupt it by cobbling on an MP facet after the fact - if they were going to have MP it should have been added at the start and now is not the time to go back and rethink that decision now is the time to move forward with more awesome SP gameplay and let folks go elsewhere for their MP fix - it's not like there aren't already enough MP options out there for CRPG type play.

[Loc'n'lol]

The time/money argument seems rather shallow to me... It's not like implementing multiplayer means the people who create content (story, art) for the game have more work to do, rather they have different constraints to take into account, but most of the 'labor' is on the technical side of things.

It seems to me that a better comparison for the trade off would be, for the same budget, you either get an overhauled graphics/physics engine, or multiplayer features, and I'm more than willing to take the second one over the first. Story and art quality needn't suffer from it.

[AlanC9]

Sure, it's shallow. Business decisions generally are. An overall budget is an overall budget. Unless they get enough new revenue from adding MP to pay for the MP, the SP game gets shorter when MP is added.

Edit: Or it gets worse. You're quite right that they could cut improvements rather than actual playing time.

Modifié par AlanC9, 15 juin 2010 - 04:11 .

[soteria]

wanderon wrote...



I, myself, won't attempt to speak for any of the numerous others who seem to share my opinion that adding an MP/coop option is a poor idea but I'll be happy to explain why I am against it.

1) It's not necessary. Not every game needs to offer the chance to play with your freinds even if some people might think it was cool to do so. Even Soteria admits that the whole concept of coop play for what are basicly single player games is most often an "after thought" thats usually entered after playing the game through in single player by the parties involved and that it's not really the game itself or the story that is the main feature anymore but just the cooperative/competitive aspect of playing with freinds.

Good post, Wanderon, and thank you for the reasonable response. It's refreshing in the wake of the numerous irrational and frankly nonsensical posts in this and other threads on the subject.

2) It requires resources from the game's budget to be removed from some other area to fund the MP option.

Every time this comes up people say stuff like - they can do both - MP won't hurt SP - you don't have to use it if you don't want to but the fact (yes this is indeed a fact) remains that if the devs are somehow convinced to add this feature the zots to do so are almost assuredly going to come from existing zots that would otherwise be used for some part of the SP game. Thus yes the addition of the MP option will have a detrimental effect on the SP game - something that would have been there will not be there becuase funding has to come from somewhere.

Granted--I've never tried to pretend otherwise. Bowstrings, cloaks, mounts, more weapons and armor sets all fall under this umbrella, though, and pretty much any of those suggestions in a thread would see lots of agreement. Even the people who don't want those features or don't care don't display the outright, unreasoned hostility that co-op receives.

The reason for this is there is no way the developers (or more importantly the bean counters) are going to be convinced that this sort of "coop MP" play is going to fund itself. It is not going to generate a new revenue stream or enhance the old one. New people are not going to flock to DA with cash in hand just becuase such an option is added.

Are you sure? I know people who normally wouldn't buy a single-player-only game. That's probably mostly people who play on the console in a family or shared environment. When I was a kid, sometimes we would visit friends who had an NES, and we would all be restricted to 30 minutes of play apiece, though you could "double up" if you played a game with someone else. Most of us stuck to multiplayer games, but one kid I remember insisted on playing Final Fantasy, and we all hated it. I think there is a segment of the market who is reluctant or unwilling to buy single player games.

If the option is added the same people who will buy it now without the option are the ones who will buy it with the addition of the MP option and after playing the SP game will then get together with freinds to fool with the MP option. Frankly I suspect very few games will ever even be completed in this manner becuase if it's anything like the BG or other IE game options it will take forever to do so just due to the nature of the way the game is organized and played cooperatively.



I once played IWD with 3 freinds - we met every Sunday for several hours for over six months and occasionally met on other days - if everyone couldn't make it we left the main game where it was and played an optional game we had started for that purpose. In the end schedules changed and we abandoned the game. We had made it less than 1/3 of the way through the game at that point so I'm guessing it might have required over 2 years to finish it.



That's not to say it wasn't fun - it was - and like Soteria alluded that was mostly due to the cooperative/competitve nature of playing among freinds. The story and the progress (or lack of progress) was mostly unimportant altho we played a rather strict RP style where comments had to be kept "in character" at all times (with a special code word to use if you really needed to go OC) and so we were all very much into the whole setting the game provided.

You are far braver than I am. I've played NWN and BG2 co-op, but only with a single other player. I will suggest that even though you never finished that game, 6 months longer playing the game is quite a bit of replay value to the consumer. I can count on one hand the number of games I've played continuously for that long. Were it not for the community here, which in itself offers a *bit* of the co-op experience, I would not have played nearly as much. Speaking of the community here, one thing I'd love to have co-op in DA for is to finally show a few folks in the gameplay forum why *my* build and playstyle is best.

The point is that the fun wasn't really about the game at all - it was the camraderie amongst freinds and there are already numerous platforms available to get that and thats why I am totally against taking zots away from a great SP game like DA just so people can have another platform to fool around with their freinds on.

Here's where I have to disagree more forcefully. I can play Halo or Medieval 2 or Rock Band with my friends and have a good time, but it is NOT the same experience as playing an RPG co-op any more than table tennis or bridge is the same experience as tabletop DnD. An MMO partially works, but they are typically designed for groups larger than 2 or 3, and add a much larger social element that is not always desirable. I contend that playing an RPG with a friend or two is not an experience that can be replicated simply by moving to another game, and I think you hit on this with your comment about the RP rules your group set up. DA is a role-playing game. Those others are not.

AlanC9 wrote...



Of course, plenty of people replay those games without doing co-op. I'm replaying BG2 right now.

And even if we didn't ever play them again, why would Bio care?

They should care because a game I'll never replay is probably a game I won't buy the sequel to, either. The more I replay a game and the more attached to it I become, the more likely I am to buy DLC, expansions, and full sequels. Think about it--how much better would some of the current DLC sell if you could replay it with a friend? I know I personally would have bought a couple I passed on. It wouldn't make a difference to you, obviously, but to those of us who enjoy that, DLC would be much more enticing.

I don't think they can do one or the other either they can only do one - they already made the decision to do only SP knowing when they did so that many people would have preferred to have an MP option and it would be ridiculous at this time to suddenly change that decision and take away from the SP game to fund MP just becuase some people still think it would be cool to do so.



You want MP go play a game that offers it - don't ask a company that has dedicated themselves to creating an awesome SP game to corrupt it by cobbling on an MP facet after the fact - if they were going to have MP it should have been added at the start and now is not the time to go back and rethink that decision now is the time to move forward with more awesome SP gameplay and let folks go elsewhere for their MP fix - it's not like there aren't already enough MP options out there for CRPG type play.

I'll just say that I agree inasmuch as I don't want crappy MP cobbled on after release, and repeat that the pickings for co-op *RPG* games are slim.

[Cancermeat]

Don't do it. Don't do it.

[SOLID_EVEREST]

LMFAO! I find it funny that this paralells the PS3 forums when Uncharted came out. The minority were saying how Uncharted should've been mulitplayer, and everyone in the forums used to just flame anyone for making that comment. I wonder who got the last laugh with what some reviewers called one of the best multiplayer experience... Me, I don't want DA to become mulitplayer, but I also see the inevitability that most of the future games will be online capable.

[AlanC9]

soteria wrote...

They should care because a game I'll never replay is probably a game I won't buy the sequel to, either. The more I replay a game and the more attached to it I become, the more likely I am to buy DLC, expansions, and full sequels. Think about it--how much better would some of the current DLC sell if you could replay it with a friend? I know I personally would have bought a couple I passed on. It wouldn't make a difference to you, obviously, but to those of us who enjoy that, DLC would be much more enticing.

I'll have to take your word for all of that. But then we get into the question of how many people feel like you. The last real data point I'm aware of was the NWN1 OC, and that was years ago. So even though that bombed, it's not proof that DA co-op would also bomb.

[Bahlgan]

wanderon wrote...

Bahlgan wrote...

Behindyounow wrote...

It wouldn't be a waste of time. It'd be a waste of money. Money that could've gone towards the singleplayer game.

I'd prefer a longer singleplayer game, than being able to play through a short one with a buddy.

Time, money, same thing, but I just don't think it's as bad as you or others are making it to be. I don't think Bioware can merely afford only to do one or the other. Now granted, I think that if one were done before the other, I say single player, but there is nothing completely wrong at all with multiplayer. They did it several times before; Diablo 2 was amazing! I am sure that something can be done without screwing up the gameplay of a shared storyline between certain characters.

I don't think they can do one or the other either they can only do one - they already made the decision to do only SP knowing when they did so that many people would have preferred to have an MP option and it would be ridiculous at this time to suddenly change that decision and take away from the SP game to fund MP just becuase some people still think it would be cool to do so.

You want MP go play a game that offers it - don't ask a company that has dedicated themselves to creating an awesome SP game to corrupt it by cobbling on an MP facet after the fact - if they were going to have MP it should have been added at the start and now is not the time to go back and rethink that decision now is the time to move forward with more awesome SP gameplay and let folks go elsewhere for their MP fix - it's not like there aren't already enough MP options out there for CRPG type play.

I stopped reading with respect when you said "go play a game that offers MP". What games have MP right now? Can you possibly be naive enough to be under the impression that online has BEEN out there for years and years on console systems? This is merely the beginning of the online world for console systems. It doesn't matter anymore what one person thinks about how stupid it may be to play multiplayer or not. By shooting down those who wish it, you are shooting down those who only wish to expand their fun. 

How would you feel if I told you to go back on the two dollar basic no-fun and boring ferris wheel because I didn't think it was a good idea for you to spend the extra money to make a ten or twenty dollar spark-lit fantastic and innovative ferris wheel? Think about it. Are you really willing to play Devil's Advocate and halt the innovation of one of the most allegedly popular multiplayer games when you know this feature has been created for other games as well? You know what they say about Jack with all work and no play making him a dull bore right?

[Kaedah]

i agree with you Bahlgan:)

[Schwerttanz]

SOLID_EVEREST wrote...

LMFAO! I find it funny that this paralells the PS3 forums when Uncharted came out. The minority were saying how Uncharted should've been mulitplayer, and everyone in the forums used to just flame anyone for making that comment. I wonder who got the last laugh with what some reviewers called one of the best multiplayer experience... Me, I don't want DA to become mulitplayer, but I also see the inevitability that most of the future games will be online capable.

This! I have seen it over and over again...people stick to what they r used to if they enjoy it, not only in this particular question (can't blame em for that) ^^...and then all the presumable hardcore fans speak out on how bad it would be to bring change to a concept which works perfectly for them and that they are seriously concerned (DOW => DOW II comes into my mind ^^).....to risk that the new thing will not be like the old one (but then what is the ultimate point in makeing a new one). I do understand and share that concern, I don't want to see DA ,with it's glorious SP-mode, sacrificed for fancy MP-features.
But then again i can't rid myself of the thoughts on how awesome at
least some MP-Features (coop or what not) would be for this game, and I
don't think that I am the only one. So here is to the officials probably
reading and reporting this: A large part of the community would like to
(again) ask for some MP-features which would make this Series even more
awesome for the players and most probably bring added revenue in
selling the main and dl- content.

I'm not saying that most of the nay-sayers are not keen on new
content, story and perhaps some new skilling abilities and all
that....but that is not the point....it's about the concept behind the
whole game in this case changeing DA from a "SP exclusive"- into a
"Almost SP exclusive; but also MP supporting"-game.

In the end the only ones that have the best insight on whether or not MP-Features are within a doable and economicaly reasonable range of the development effort without cutting short on SP is Bioware.The economic advantages and disadvantages will be / will have been (if the decision was already made) the most influencing arguments on the discussion I guess...not whether or not a smaller or larger part of the current community may demand it

Modifié par Schwerttanz, 16 juin 2010 - 10:35 .

[Gaxhung]

Uncharted multiplayer is seperate from the main game though.
IGN Uncharted 2 Review page 4 (bolded text for emphasis)
"Yes indeed, this time around Naughty Dog went out of its way to include an online component, one that features both versus and cooperative gameplay. To say that the multiplayer is fun would be a massive understatement. For my money, this is one of the best multiplayer experiences that you'll find in any game around, and considering that the single-player portion alone is enough to easily warrant your $60, well, this almost feels like Naughty Dog has given us an extra game for free. "

I think what the so called nay sayers here - myself included - doesn't want is for BW to compromise the SP game whatsoever for MP content, because we love it so much of course. If BW wants to invest into and go all out with an extra multiplayer component then who am I to deny myself more DAO, I'll probably try the MP, hell, its a free addition. But do remember that Sony owns Naughty Dog and they want to promote the whole PSN thing because they are competing agaisnt Microsoft and their online ecosystem. Does BW have any force behind it pushing them towards MP?

If you look at WoW, a lot of player grieviences / annoyances arise from issues of game balancing between PvP and PvE. Uncharted is a FPS game, you miss, you have bad aim, your fault, its not due to dexterity rating or gear or whatever. Do we want PvP gear vs PvE gear, PvE abilities vs PvP ability issues like that? I sure don't.

Modifié par Gaxhung, 16 juin 2010 - 11:06 .

[Schwerttanz]

Gaxhung wrote...

If you look at WoW, a lot of player grieviences / annoyances arise from issues of game balancing between PvP and PvE. Uncharted is a FPS game, you miss, you have bad aim, your fault, its not due to dexterity rating or gear or whatever. Do we want PvP gear vs PvE gear, PvE abilities vs PvP ability issues like that? I sure don't.

A lot of the "yay-sayers" feel the exact same way (including myself) and only ask for a campaign coop mp-feature, where such issues are slim to none.

[AlanC9]

I don't think that's necessarily all that important. Remember Bio's answer to PvP issues with NWN1? "We don't care."

[Bahlgan]

Schwerttanz wins my respect. It is awesome to hear I am not the only one passionate about adding a Co-op option in the game. PVP, on the other hand, is a completely different issue and I would NOT support that. WOW was just a horrible experience with PVP and I prefer to forget about PVP altogether.

[alickar]

hmm unless they can bring another warden into the game i disagree they would have to come in when they r getting intiated or say some warden from etc. came to help u

[Gaxhung]

Yeah a 70 hour game, yeah thats the best choice for co-op play.

Edit: Since I'm still the last post, I'll just add some questions here.
- So whos going to handle the tactical game pauses?
- Console versions will use split screen or network?
So you need 2 xbox and 2 tvs to play co-op OR split screen? split screen??
2 PCs for PC version obviously.

Thats a bloody mess.

Modifié par Gaxhung, 17 juin 2010 - 04:46 .

[Bahlgan]

Gaxhung wrote...

Yeah a 70 hour game, yeah thats the best choice for co-op play.

Edit: Since I'm still the last post, I'll just add some questions here.

Be my guest...

- So whos going to handle the tactical game pauses?

If you can name me a game with GOOD tactical pauses on the console systems, NOT comp systems, then I shall never question your logic in this inquiry again. Otherwise, it is safe to assume that there will be a universal pause which will give both players time to prepare for anything in case **** hits the fan. As far as who does it, I cannot even guess.

- Console versions will use split screen or network?

Yes, split screen FTW!! WooHooooo!!! Sharing on the same screen!! lol jk Seriously though, network, to NOT make it online would defeat the purpose of online play on today's console systems.

So you need 2 xbox and 2 tvs to play co-op OR split screen? split screen??

Boooo split screen!!  First choice sounds better, even if it is more expensive overall, the $ pays off.

2 PCs for PC version obviously.

Actually you got me right there..

Thats a bloody mess

Let me put this to you as delicately as I can:

As brief as your statement may be, it sounds a bit like someone who got dumped off his ass from the last girlfriend who broke up with him, and doesn't even wanna try to go through all the trouble to fall in love anymore, because he doesn't believe it's worth the risk OR the cost, even if it might just serve him well next time. If you truly believe that you have had bad experiences with multiplayer or co-op mode, then it sounds like you don't even trust that anyone could ever find their way into making an innovative and revolutionary feature for console systems that would allow others to compete and combine their strengths.

Think about it for a second: How fun did you think it was when you played through the game and survived all the epic battles and beheaded, gouged, split open, cut through, mowed down, and finally, combusted over a thousand darkspawn along the way? How much fun was it truly? To orchestrate all those battles in your own hands and to choose how events took place? Sound fantastic? I would hope you thought so.

Think about how much MORE fun it would be to play co-op and allow a friend of yours to take place BY YOUR SIDE as you two protect each other and fend off endless waves of monsters and killers. Think of all the fun your characters could have if your friend could add his/her strength to yours as you become even more powerful in a duo than solo! Is that really NOT worth the effort to try and endorse in multiplayer mode? You TRULY enjoy NOT sharing your experiences with your friends? I HATE it, and if Bioware is reading this message, I truly encourage the company to at least think of the BIG picture, MY picture, of this equation here. To not even consider this vision would be a waste 

By the way - PVP WOULD be a bad idea at least - We do NOT need debuffing of all classes, lest the darkspawn come and ambush us at our weakest, destroying us all. Death at the hands of darkspawn by means of developer debuffing would be the doom of Bioware 

Modifié par Bahlgan, 17 juin 2010 - 08:55 .

[snfonseka]

"Co-op" should be there. It will be fun.

[Turran]

I like how in this thread people are all "No, just no!" without giving a reason.

Honestly I would like to see a multiplayer version added, but you still have the option to play single-player.

Some dialoge would have to be changed as you wouldn't have 1 main character any more, you would have a maximum of 4, you could use tactics to a whole new level, as each party member isn't an AI but has a player behind it. Bringing hard, near impossible boss fights to possible and more social fighting.

Like I said maybe not "Oh ONLY multiplayer version!" but a choice to choose between the two (Without choosing one and sticking to it, being able to play either through out your gaming experiance). I would be all for it.



Plus, party dialoge could be managed around your made characters, so they talk to one another, party banter wouldn't be gone it would just be made to your character. Everything could still work and honestly I would see it pleasing certain crowds more than others.



But oh well, my opinion on the matter, probably won't happen but it's nice to hope.

[Gaxhung]

@Bahlgan
Not gonna quote ya, a bit long, yours is just a few post above anyway.

You know what, BW might have co-op advocates who is making or have made
some co-op prototype, thats how Warcraft 3 became WoW anyway. Who knows /shrug.

Its not I won't listen to reason, I've played co-op and multiplayers before, I know how fun it can be. But I simply like an awesome single player game like DAO. Is that unreasonable?

When I try to sqeeze in some game time (or when saving Fereldan for the first time), I simply load the game, no waiting for anyone or by chance meet some 12 year old online (whos being 'pacified' with the game), no lag issues, I just sit there with DAO and zone out into the game. This is as hard to understand as how fun co-op can be, isn't it?

[AlanC9]

Bahlgan wrote...


Think about how much MORE fun it would be to play co-op and allow a friend of yours to take place BY YOUR SIDE as you two protect each other and fend off endless waves of monsters and killers. Think of all the fun your characters could have if your friend could add his/her strength to yours as you become even more powerful in a duo than solo! Is that really NOT worth the effort to try and endorse in multiplayer mode?

It really isn't worth the effort. You guys need to stop trying to sell us on a playstyle that has no appeal.

And "even more powerful"? Please --- DA is easy as it is. The last thing I need is to get even more powerful