164 réponses à ce sujet

[Behindyounow]

Turran wrote...

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.

I dont think people were complaining because they thought that a multiplayer mode would replace the singleplayer.

I was complaining, because including a multiplayer component (especially such an extensive one like you described, with the story changing to accomodate four characters and the like) would use money that could (and should) be spent on the singleplayer.

Regardless, what'd be the point of changing the story for multiplayer? The majority of players would just go "Skip It! I want to kill more monsters!"

[TheMadCat]

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

You want a reason? How about this, you detract from the single player experience. The more time and resources you lay into the multiplayer then less you you have for the SP element. Resources are finite, manpower is finite, time is very restricted. It's impossible for them to deliver to same level of quality we've come accustomed to if they added in a MP aspect. Now, if you feel it's better to play mediocrity with your buddies rather then a stand out experience by yourself then so be it, but personally I don't want to see quality sacrificed for a cheap gimmick.

[maxernst]

I think co-op play works better in games without highly detailed companion NPC's and elaborate storylines. If they had made DA co-op, for example, they'd have to put a limit of three players (not 4) because of the quests that require one of the companions to be present. Then there's all these situations where somebody addresses "the warden"--which will be one of the PC's. Unless they do an elaborate amount of rewriting to account for the different possible numbers of PC's, the other PC's will be ignored all the time.



I just don't think the amount of resources that would need to be devoted to it is justified by the amount of use it would get. I tried it a bit in BG1 & 2 but it wasn't something I ever played a lot of, and I kind of have the impression most people treated them as single-player. And I find it hard to imagine playing through a full length DA game with other players; it's just hard to find times when both can play.



Now, I'm all in favor of NWN-style games, but you really can't expect one game to both provide a deep and immersive campaign and a good tool-set and multiplayer. NWN's single-player campaign was not very impressive. NWN2...well, I like the game more than a lot of people do, but I think it suffered a bit from trying to do both.

[Daewan]

Okay, if you really want a half-assed roleplaying experience because you want to play with your friends, I have a wild and crazy idea. Go get some paper, some dice, and the Dragon Age roleplaying PnP game, gather your friends, and play with them.

[Ariella]

KalDurenik wrote...

Delerius_Jedi wrote...

No, I don't really want any coop or other kinds of multiplayer in Dragon Age. I'd rather they just keep making in-depth singleplayer games rather than spread their resources.

They would have another group for that... Im not sure i see the problem. But then again... How dare they include multiplayer when some of the best RPG's ever made have it. RAAAAAWRRRRRR

Kotor didn't have it. Dragon Age, Mass Effect, Oblivion, Morrowwind, didn't have MP. Neverwinter Nights original OC suffered for having MP, and while the BG series had it, the story was always focused on a single player the Child of Bhaal. So, I'm curious as to what RPGs have managed to balance MP and SP in a satisfactory manner?

[Bahlgan]

Gaxhung wrote...

@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?

What I heard from you is that you are tired of playing with random people online games and multiplayer. I did not mention anything like that earlier; only friends which you knew in your real life that could add their story to yours. PUGs from MMOs are always a last minute and often horrible resort of multiplayer action. If you are talking about the "PUG" option, then I sympathize with you, but wish you would read my post about "who to play with" a little better next time. I don't have any problems with your statements, I just don't know why you (or others) think that having a multiplayer OPTION (remember OPTION, not mandatory) would screw you over, when all it would do is help those who wish for the feature. But all that said, I respect your opinion, it's just gotten to the point to where our differences are personal beliefs and not merely misunderstandings, therefore I don't know what else I can do to try and convince you how fun it would be. Sorry 

Okay, if you really want a half-assed roleplaying experience because you want to play with your friends, I have a wild and crazy idea. Go get some paper, some dice, and the Dragon Age roleplaying PnP game, gather your friends, and play with them.

Yes.. Because that's what we do to people who wish to play multiplayer; we give them paper and a dice... Good call, mate..

[ladydesire]

I have yet to see anyone that supports having co-op play in the DA sequel explain how it can improve the experience without requiring significant changes made to the game for it to be practical nor have I seen them explain how those changes will result in no reduction in the quality of the game compared to Origins. I have seen well reasoned arguments against it from those that understand that a game's development budget often limits what can be accomplished within the (often unrealistic) deadline set by the game publisher.

[Jack_cerberus]

Hmmmm.... Maybe the Co-op Can be apllyed just in battle.

I control my Pc Character, created by me and you... well you can control morrigan xD:devil:

[Feraele]

soteria wrote...

Wouldn't the dialogs suck big-time in co-op? Non-main chracater players would spend an awful lot of time doing nothing.

When I've played the NWN 1 and 2 campaigns co-op, it's been with someone who had already done the dialogue before so generally we'd speed through it, slowing down for some of the "choicer" sections or if a decision needed to be made. From what I've seen, most people that enjoy co-op, including myself, enjoy it primarily for the gameplay cooperative/competitve aspects. Enjoying the story becomes more like watching a movie for the "back-seat" player. Maybe that sounds boring, but if you think about the number of JRPG fans worldwide, I think it makes some sense.

See..I wouldn't play co-op or multiplayer for Dragon Age ..just for that reason.  These days most folks run swiftly through a game to its ending..ONCE ..just to say "I beated da game".   

Not everyone wants to rush, and not everyone wants others to make important decisions for them, or be the person in the back seat watching.

Hopefully  ..it never comes to pass.  Or if it does, I have a choice NOT to participate.   I am in it for the journey and the story, not to be rushed along and miss chunks of the whole experience, because someone leading the party doesn't have enough patience to sit through cut-scenes or dialogue. 

[robotnist]

no matter the tech used, i just think that unless a game is crafted to MP/co-op it will suffer unless it was made specifically for those purposes.



and no disrespect to the OP, but i actually get disappointed at the amount of requests for games to have co-op/MP or PvP features. and when a developer takes time away from making a great, complete SP game its often degraded while dev time is split to try and appease another market as opposed to just making the best SP game possible.



look at fallout 3, oblivion, assassins creed 1&2, mass effect 1&2... they are incredible games. i wonder what would have happened if development time was split to craft a MP section of the game or how badly the SP/story aspects of the game would suffer.



now dont get me wrong, i would LOVE to play along side my friends in Fereldan!!! but if this is done, i think the best way to do it would be to craft it like Phantasy Star Online. where it takes on the gaming dynamics of games like diablo, titan quest, hellgate london etc. a game that is story lite, non-linear, with a cool loot system that allows for many cool random items to be found. i think another great example of this would be borderlands.



so again, no disrespect to the OP, i dont want SP games that have MP tacked on, but i would LOVE a co-op game developed, of what has easily became my favorite game world as well as my favorite fantasy world!!!

[Katya Nadanova]

No, its an RPG not a FPS.

[Onyx Jaguar]

BristowJ wrote...

No, its an RPG not a FPS.

And? 

[Bahlgan]

Feraele wrote...

soteria wrote...

Wouldn't the dialogs suck big-time in co-op? Non-main chracater players would spend an awful lot of time doing nothing.

When I've played the NWN 1 and 2 campaigns co-op, it's been with someone who had already done the dialogue before so generally we'd speed through it, slowing down for some of the "choicer" sections or if a decision needed to be made. From what I've seen, most people that enjoy co-op, including myself, enjoy it primarily for the gameplay cooperative/competitve aspects. Enjoying the story becomes more like watching a movie for the "back-seat" player. Maybe that sounds boring, but if you think about the number of JRPG fans worldwide, I think it makes some sense.

See..I wouldn't play co-op or multiplayer for Dragon Age ..just for that reason.  These days most folks run swiftly through a game to its ending..ONCE ..just to say "I beated da game".   

Not everyone wants to rush, and not everyone wants others to make important decisions for them, or be the person in the back seat watching.

Hopefully  ..it never comes to pass.  Or if it does, I have a choice NOT to participate.   I am in it for the journey and the story, not to be rushed along and miss chunks of the whole experience, because someone leading the party doesn't have enough patience to sit through cut-scenes or dialogue. 

I understand your anger, I too am one who likes to play through a game and become a part of it, rather than rush. If you don't like online play because of it, just find someone who takes his/her time, like a personal friend of yours, and just do it then. Or don't even play multiplayer, go for SP...

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

BristowJ wrote...

No, its an RPG not a FPS.

And?  

I agree. What exactly is trying to be implied here? Sounds like more Devil's Advocate left braininess..

so again, no disrespect to the OP, i dont want SP games that have MP tacked on, but i would LOVE a co-op game developed, of what has easily became my favorite game world as well as my favorite fantasy world!!!

So you're saying that you would endorse in DAO2 being entirely multiplayer? Well that's better than nothing.

Modifié par Bahlgan, 18 juin 2010 - 05:29 .

[Katya Nadanova]

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

BristowJ wrote...

No, its an RPG not a FPS.

And? 

An RPG is a single player game that is heavy on story.  A shooter is about about shooting things where the story is second to gameplay.  How exactly would you play co-op?  Especially when there are conversations happening.  One person controls the story while the other just plays the combat sections and has no power over the story?  That doesn't sound appealing.  When gamers want to play co-op an RPG really isn't the first game that comes to mind.  

[Onyx Jaguar]

RPG games's roots are in multiplayer. MMORPG's are intensely popular primarily for the Co-Op experience. I do not think it would work in the confines of Dragon Age, but it is not out of the realm of possibility.

[Katya Nadanova]

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

RPG games's roots are in multiplayer. MMORPG's are intensely popular primarily for the Co-Op experience. I do not think it would work in the confines of Dragon Age, but it is not out of the realm of possibility.

Well, I was mainly talking about Dragon Age.  I agree MMO's are mainly about the co-op experience but I don't see co-op working in Dragon Age.

[Schwerttanz]

BristowJ wrote...

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

BristowJ wrote...

No, its an RPG not a FPS.

And? 

An RPG is a single player game that is heavy on story.  A shooter is about about shooting things where the story is second to gameplay.  How exactly would you play co-op?  Especially when there are conversations happening.  One person controls the story while the other just plays the combat sections and has no power over the story?  That doesn't sound appealing.  When gamers want to play co-op an RPG really isn't the first game that comes to mind.  

Sure let's not try to push any boundaries here! An RPG (not a MMORPG) has always usualy been a SP game so who am I to question that.....this fact remains to be left untouched till the end of m****g time

Where would we come to if all the people would always say "where would we come to" and no one actualy would bother to wonder and ask where we would come to, if we would go and discover where we would come to 

------
But let's discuss some of the things some have said.

The development of MP-Features would take away ressources from the SP content.
This oc is true! At least to a certain extend..... But just some thoughts on that:
DA has online-features and online-advertising: online-profiles and it's achievement-system, a website to support this whole concept and last but not least a lot of effort into it's main and community website and advertising. Now all of this takes planing, designing, developing and testing stuff....which costs money.....see where I am getting at? If we were to strictly follow this "gnarr..more sp" logic, this money could have been spent on more SP-content. But yet it's a nice feature. Now why Bioware decided to spent money on this rather than more SP content is simple (I can oc only guess): They decided that an active community and some features to connect the community as well as advertising the product will most likely encourage more people to buy their product and products associated with it (dlc, pnp da etc.), as well as future products in this series.  Because all of these things somewhat passively increase the long term incentives to play the game as well as the identification of the cosumer with the product, which results in more consumer happiness, which leads to increased chances that consumers will buy more stuff involved with this game.
So no(!) coop-features (because it most definately increases long term playabiltiy) can fund itself by bringing more money in increased sells to pay the development while leaving the budget for SP-content untouched. Now as I already stated the most insight on whether or not this is likely / possible / obviously the case lies within bioware. People like me and you, who don't have any insight claiming that this absolutely (100%, without any doubt, omg how can you question this) will / won't take away ressources from the sp-content would be rather foolish.....we can only guess in the end...
So let's just agree that this whole "even more SP without coop"-argument is questionable to put it nice.

Now some of you might ask: "why risk the possibility of changes affecting the SP-content?"
I will write a bit on that a little later if i find the time.

Cheers

Modifié par Schwerttanz, 18 juin 2010 - 08:22 .

[Turran]

Behindyounow wrote...

Turran wrote...

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.

I dont think people were complaining because they thought that a multiplayer mode would replace the singleplayer.

I was complaining, because including a multiplayer component (especially such an extensive one like you described, with the story changing to accomodate four characters and the like) would use money that could (and should) be spent on the singleplayer.

Regardless, what'd be the point of changing the story for multiplayer? The majority of players would just go "Skip It! I want to kill more monsters!"

Hmm, you actually raise a good point (I am sorry if someone posted this before and I missed it by accident), by spending money on a multiplayer mode and paying for more dialoge options and a way to fit it into the gameplay/storyline would subtract money from the main plot itself.

You do have a good point, as I really hope DA2 will have better conversations between characters than in DA:A, hmmm, alright I take back what I said, if it affects the budget of the game or future content then I disagree that multiplayer/co-op mode should be added.

[Arttis]

konzine wrote...

Hello Bioware and fans,

 I actually just wanted to start up a discussion on this, as I saw it as the only downfall and limitation of DA1.

 Game today are amazing, and Bioware is right at the top of that amazing pyramid. The unfortunate thing I am seeing today (espeically in PC gaming) is the limitations with multiplayer and Co-op. While there are several games taking advantage of this, I have yet to see a 'big hitter' game go down this road.

 No I am not a Developer of any kind, I am simply an IT guy so I really don't know your limitations to this. Thought I will say that sharing the experience of the Campaign of any game with the magnitude of Dragon Age, or ME, would be an experience I would never pass up. It would just add a completely new quality to the game that would make it so unreal I really couldn't explain.

 Again, I don't know if this has been brought up, is already being developed or whatever. I just felt like It would be cool to share this thought with everyone and HOPEFULLY get a snowball effect going on this.

 All in all, keep making the badass games. I'll keep playing.

Supposedly they really wanted DA to be a single player game at least origins.
So you may find co op  in a new game but if they do put this in i really hope its optional that does not yield any extra items or benefits so those who do not like to play with others do not feel left out.*or do not play online due to private reasons*
If its strictly letting people play together and nothing else I am 100% ok with it.
No New areas.No new quests.Just same as regular single player campaign but with a friend.

[Xandurpein]

To me the computer generated companions are an integral part of the experience. Talking to the characters, the voice acting, the fact that they can have personal histories that are weaved into the main plot, like Alistair who can become King and so on. That is to me an invaluable part of the storytelling and the whole experience of the Bioware RPG.



I would never want to exchange that for playing with on-line companions. I have played enough online games to know that, for me at least, there is not the same immersion in the story when you play with human companions. The focus shifts to the combat and boss fights.



I don't deny anyone who seeks an online game experience, but those are dime a dozen. There are not many games made with the attention to the storytelling elements like those Bioware make. If there was even the slightest risk that the storytelling and plot in the game was hurt by including a co-op multiplayer feature I would vote no.



I loved playing BG2, but I couldn't even be bothered to finish Icewind Dale, because I felt no connection to the characters I played.

[Gaxhung]

-- Dumb idea -- deleted, it may upset some people. Apologies.

Modifié par Gaxhung, 18 juin 2010 - 12:47 .

[Gaxhung]

double post sorry ...

Modifié par Gaxhung, 18 juin 2010 - 11:33 .

[UberDuber]

I DONT WANT CO-OP

IM HAPPY ENOUGH PLAYING THE STORY

ANYBODY ELSE FEEL THE SAME?

[Feraele]

@ Gaxhung



And..the idea of the leader of the party employing multiple pausing, for tactical maneuvering would drive me bananas, quite frankly.



I have a long list of about 79 games or so that I have played over the years, MOST of them, except for about 4 have been MMOs.



I had decided to keep with the single player type games due to the fact, I am tired of MMOs, you can't roleplay there, you can't roleplay "much" on a server designated for roleplay ..as you always have some smart@ss come along and attempt to butt in or ruin the experience.



Usually in MMOs you are grouped up for a common objective, yes, but most times that does not include the storytelling, if you all have to go get a quest, at the quest giver, most times your team mates are so impatient, they just tell you to flip through to the end part where you get the quest, because thats what THEY do. They don't care about the story.



I like stories I like quests, I like exploring. But it seems in MMOs the only thing your team mates are concerned about are where's the next Boss, how much phat lewt can we get, and then fight over that same pixilated phat lewt for the next twenty minutes to a half hour.



This is exactly why I am glad that single player games still exist. I can take the time to read the lore/story/quest, and not have someone on my tail, bugging me to hurry up and finish getting the quest. I can explore instead having to run by that area that caught my eye, I can sit and think about strategies, and I can implement those strategies, without someone coming along and messing the whole thing up.



hehehe

[Gaxhung]

@Feraele

I deleted my post, it was sort of an experiment, but I realize it might upset some people, which is totally unnecessary. Besides I agree with you, there is a place for multi-player/co-op games and there are many of those, leave us this gem of a single player please. Hope you didn't find ittoo troll-ey. >_<