164 réponses à ce sujet

[Katya Nadanova]

Schwerttanz wrote...
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.

You know, you wrote all of that and I only understood about a sentence of it.   That said, you seem to believe that if co-op were added to the game, it would sell more.  To which I ask, what evidence is there to support this?  How would co-op work in a story heavy game?  It wouldn't.  In a game like Dragon Age, you play as the main character, the one that saves the world.  Would the co-op person control another hero/heroine that could also save the world?  Would another separate story be added to include two main characters?  Or would the co-op person play as a random party member in combat and have no control over the story?

[OrlesianWardenCommander]

Its like when you make a perfect bannana split sunday and you decided that it has to little chocolate in it so you decided to put more and more chocolate on till it tastes like crap. I say they should spend there resources on voice acting and face emotions for your dragon age charater, buff the graphics up some more and just make a greater single player experence over all. Co-op is not needed in this game im tired of everyone screaming for somekind of multiplayer, gives me a headace.

[Emmab]

Not interested - but I can't say that I have any interest in multiplayer/co-op games to begin with.

[CallumMcManus]

Terminatort800 wrote...

Co-op and multiplayer? Hm...it could be cool to try co-op mode with someone.

i agree it would be intresting iimo i think you shoudl have the multiplayer as a gladiator thing eitheir 1 vs 1 or 4 vs 4 or whatever
and maybe co-op fight people

IMO
Callum McM

[CallumMcManus]

i think you shoudl have the multiplayer as a gladiator thing eitheir 1 vs 1 or 4 vs 4 or whatever
and maybe co-op fight people but they must stick with the storyline first then do imo my idea second buts its upto you's if you agree

Callum McM:ph34r:

[AlanC9]

Well, If I can follow this....

Schwerttanz wrote...
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.

Co-op is supposed to charge to the marketing budget, not the actual game-production budget? Interesting take on it. The actual logic here seems to be veering off into underpants gnome territory, though

[kyuubifred]

Co-op could possibly be interesting depending on the plot of whatever sequel is released, but...

I don't know how the game works for the PC, but the PS3 version requires a lot of pausing. Multiplayer would require a complete reworking of the combat system... which i doubt is on the menu.

To be honest, I'm fine with that. There are plenty of other games we can Co-op on, no reason to risk messing up Dragon Age.

[Loc'n'lol]

kyuubifred wrote...

Multiplayer would require a complete reworking of the combat system... which i doubt is on the menu.

If each player controls only one character, there's no need to pause...

[SOLID_EVEREST]

Gaxhung wrote...

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.

If you were actually at the PS3 boards when Uncharted came out, you would know that the majority didn't want any online capabilities. This topic paralells that board in so many aspects. I sometimes still go on the PS forums and talk about how some of the people that praise Uncharted 2 didn't want any online capabilities...

[Arttis]

Lets make Multiplayer a DLC and slap 50$ on it.

[AlanC9]

I doubt it would cost that much. But it's a great idea. Nobody pays for co-op who doesn't want it.

[Ariella]

AlanC9 wrote...

I doubt it would cost that much. But it's a great idea. Nobody pays for co-op who doesn't want it.

Thing is, is it afulll coop campaign or is it just a feature added on to the system. I'd be willing to potentiallly deal witj the former released om a DLC style. Hpowever, we don't know how much time money and manypower to actually allow for such a major coding change. Especially with this mysterious DA coming out in February.

[SOLID_EVEREST]

Ariella wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

I doubt it would cost that much. But it's a great idea. Nobody pays for co-op who doesn't want it.

Thing is, is it afulll coop campaign or is it just a feature added on to the system. I'd be willing to potentiallly deal witj the former released om a DLC style. Hpowever, we don't know how much time money and manypower to actually allow for such a major coding change. Especially with this mysterious DA coming out in February.

I'm pretty sure the new DA coming in February is the anime I keep hearing about. If it was something big, I think it would've been featured at E3. On another note, why do they have all of their trailers CGI? KotOR mmo was another CGI instead of showing some of the gameplay. I think the new game RAGE which looks freaking awesome had it gameplay and everything.

[Behindyounow]

If the february thing is the crappy Anime I'm gonna' be super pissed.



There's still Gamescom in August to reveal a title, and EA has a Dragon Age title scheduled for release around then.

[wetsparks]

SOLID_EVEREST wrote...

Gaxhung wrote...

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.

If you were actually at the PS3 boards when Uncharted came out, you would know that the majority didn't want any online capabilities. This topic paralells that board in so many aspects. I sometimes still go on the PS forums and talk about how some of the people that praise Uncharted 2 didn't want any online capabilities...

the difference between uncharted and dragon age is that shooters are made for multiplayer.  rpgs, for the most part, aren't.  I could see a Dragon Age spin-off adding in some kind of multiplayer, but the game as is, would need to change a lot of things to be good for multiplayer and then it isn't really Dragon Age 2 is it?  It is a different game that they slapped "Dragon Age 2" onto.

So to answer the OP, no I don't want multiplayer.  And all the reasons have already been listed, diverting resources and changing of game mechanincs, time requirements of finding someone to play with and dialog bla bla bla.

[Feraele]

Gaxhung wrote...

@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. >_<

Didn't take it that way at all, Gaxhung,  and if I came across as a little intense,  my apologies.    I tend to get that way ...but I don't mean anything by it.

[Feraele]

SOLID_EVEREST wrote...

Ariella wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

I doubt it would cost that much. But it's a great idea. Nobody pays for co-op who doesn't want it.

Thing is, is it afulll coop campaign or is it just a feature added on to the system. I'd be willing to potentiallly deal witj the former released om a DLC style. Hpowever, we don't know how much time money and manypower to actually allow for such a major coding change. Especially with this mysterious DA coming out in February.

I'm pretty sure the new DA coming in February is the anime I keep hearing about. If it was something big, I think it would've been featured at E3. On another note, why do they have all of their trailers CGI? KotOR mmo was another CGI instead of showing some of the gameplay. I think the new game RAGE which looks freaking awesome had it gameplay and everything.

Just stopping to agree with you there on Rage.    I tagged it on my Gamespot account...didn't they say that the guys that made Wolfenstein made Rage...ie: no more long corridors with the same textures over and over again?  hehe   Looks interesting,   but..I don't think I can afford everything I see and want..lol

[Gaxhung]

Feraele wrote...

Gaxhung wrote...

@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. >_<

Didn't take it that way at all, Gaxhung,  and if I came across as a little intense,  my apologies.    I tend to get that way ...but I don't mean anything by it.

Nah, I was slacking off that time and wrote some nonesense, I was trying to make a trap. You came off friendly and laid back as usual, your reply made me realise I was wasting people's time.

[Feraele]

_Loc_N_lol_ wrote...

kyuubifred wrote...

Multiplayer would require a complete reworking of the combat system... which i doubt is on the menu.

If each player controls only one character, there's no need to pause...

In my case, I NEVER pause, when I first saw the You-tube vids for DA,  my reaction was...what the heck are these people doing....thats kind of like hedging your bets at the casino.   hehe I play live, maybe because I come from an MMO background, where you COULDN'T pause.

I use the tactical AI,  and I vary what each companion does,  but mostly they protect each other's butts.     I have certain commands or attacks set up specifically, for enemy mages, enemy rogues, enemy warriors.    And it works.    None of this pause, oop bad stuff happening here..better pause...oop gotta pause again.

Reminds me of my husband trying to watch 3 tv programs at the same time.    THAT also drives me buggy.

Play the game.   Dang it.

[Elanareon]

I don't want a multi-player campaign. Who even asked that? I just want a multi-player option for the toolset. There would be more player-created playable mods out there if multi-player options was added.

[Shadowomega23]

Now I wouldn't mind a co-op mode for Ether DA 2 or ME3, I kind of would like to see how their Intruptable Chat system plays out in SW:OR plays out first. If it works quite well it might actually be a great way to have in games like DA or ME. Granted I am ussually the Silent fella that stairs at the NPC Menacingly while the main char encourages him/her to give up the infromation willingly. Thus sparing themselves alot of pain. (Think of What Jack Bauer did to the Russian in the final season that kill Rennie Walker)

[AlanC9]

Elanareon wrote...

I don't want a multi-player campaign. Who even asked that? I just want a multi-player option for the toolset. There would be more player-created playable mods out there if multi-player options was added.

No way Bio's going to add MP just for that. No money in it for them.

[Schwerttanz]

AlanC9 wrote...

Well, If I can follow this....

Schwerttanz wrote...
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.

Co-op is supposed to charge to the marketing budget, not the actual game-production budget? Interesting take on it. The actual logic here seems to be veering off into underpants gnome territory, though

So marketing (which btw, was only one of my points) somehow magically does not count for the overall game budget?

1st. plan, design, develop and test the core features of product.
2nd.....
3rd sell product, since after all, the whole world MUST be knowing about the new product thanks to that extensive...errrmm.....thing that didn't cost us anything....

Why don't you suggest your business plan on the next annual gnome-underpanties-incoporated meeting? Maybe I'll be there too....

I don't know if I have put it wrong (could be, english after all is not my mothertongue) or if you just didn't get it.....Maybe you just thought: "well actually I don't give a damn whether this make sense or not, I don't want coop-features so let's just ridicul what he tried to point out and not discuss the subject any more"

BristowJ wrote...

You know, you wrote all of that and I only understood about a sentence of it.

Allright, let me try to explain my thoughts on this AGAIN:
"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..."
[simplemode] Bioware has the most insigght when it comes to questions of developing the game and neither you nor me can tell for sure:
1st. Whether or not an implementation of a coop-mode would require a lot of budget.
2nd. Whether or not the development effort put into coop will pay for itself by increased selling of DA-products.
[/simplemode]
That was all i wanted to say in a nutshell. This is not rocket-science, is it???

BristowJ wrote...
To which I ask,
what evidence is there to support this?  How would co-op work in a
story
heavy game?  It wouldn't.

Edit: So what is your evidence regarding the claim that it won't pay btw?

Arttis wrote...

Lets make Multiplayer a DLC and slap 50$
on it.

This perhaps was the smartest post in this whole thread
I would be more than willing to pay for a coop-feature even for a whole mp-addon maybe. Though the price is a bit high I think ^^

Modifié par Schwerttanz, 20 juin 2010 - 02:08 .

[wanderon]

Schwerttanz wrote...

Allright, let me try to explain my thoughts on this AGAIN:
[simplemode] Bioware has the most insigght when it comes to questions of developing the game and neither you nor me can tell for sure:
1st. Whether or not an implementation of a coop-mode would require a lot of budget.
2nd. Whether or not the development effort put into coop will pay for itself by increased selling of DA-products.
[/simplemode]
That was all i wanted to say in a nutshell. This is not rocket-science, is it???

Well call me crazy but since Bioware went through what I suspect was a rather extensive in house debate coupled with lots of input from fans at the time about how cool an MP function would be for the game way back when they were first designing the game and made the concious decision to not go with MP and to stick with the straight single player format I'd say they have already asked and answered those questions for themselves.

I also suspect that when they made that original decsion they did so knowing that it essentially tossed MP out of the running for as long as the franchise used the current engine and were OK with that as well - I have yet to hear anything from anyone at Bioware that suggests they are even remotely considering changing that decision.
 
To rethink the question at this time knowing that it has to be more difficult to add the MP function to the existing engine vs building it into the engine from the start means the concept already has more strikes against it than it did before so I really don't understand why would people expect them to suddenly change their mind anyway.

I happen to agree with that original decision for reasons I have already stated in this thread that I won't bother to repeat at this time...

[Schwerttanz]

wanderon wrote...

Schwerttanz wrote...

Allright, let me try to explain my thoughts on this AGAIN:
[simplemode] Bioware has the most insigght when it comes to questions of developing the game and neither you nor me can tell for sure:
1st. Whether or not an implementation of a coop-mode would require a lot of budget.
2nd. Whether or not the development effort put into coop will pay for itself by increased selling of DA-products.
[/simplemode]
That was all i wanted to say in a nutshell. This is not rocket-science, is it???

Well call me crazy but since Bioware went through what I suspect was a rather extensive in house debate coupled with lots of input from fans at the time about how cool an MP function would be for the game way back when they were first designing the game and made the concious decision to not go with MP and to stick with the straight single player format I'd say they have already asked and answered those questions for themselves.

I also suspect that when they made that original decsion they did so knowing that it essentially tossed MP out of the running for as long as the franchise used the current engine and were OK with that as well - I have yet to hear anything from anyone at Bioware that suggests they are even remotely considering changing that decision.
 
To rethink the question at this time knowing that it has to be more difficult to add the MP function to the existing engine vs building it into the engine from the start means the concept already has more strikes against it than it did before so I really don't understand why would people expect them to suddenly change their mind anyway.

I happen to agree with that original decision for reasons I have already stated in this thread that I won't bother to repeat at this time...

This makes perfect sense, but on the other hand: If those who would like mp-support do not repeatedly press for consideration of said in future DA-series-releases (as I already stated a campaign-coop-support would be enough for me) then the chances of this beeing implemented are slim to none.
I know this may annoy the part of the community who does not wish for it, but I believe it is the right of every community member to express feedback on what you pesonally would like to see in the game. Not saying that you are denying this. It's just annoying that some of the nay-sayers try to ridicul or belittle the yay-sayers that realy get on my nerves.