164 réponses à ce sujet

[soteria]

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

I agree. It would also give them an idea how many people would want it.

[ladydesire]

Schwerttanz wrote...

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.

What good will it do if adding co-op support essentially destroys the story? Where do you start any campaign where companions are an essential part of the story? To many players, myself included, co-op is the worst form of multi-player to want to add to this game; I would far rather see online multiplayer that allows teams to create content set in other parts of Thedas (I'm using the name of the continent to refer to the entire world in this instance) that we can explore.

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.

You're right that some opponents of MP go overboard in their dislike of the idea; I at least try to present well reasoned arguements against it when I do post in threads like this. There are a lot of things that Bioware did in DAO that would have to be changed to make any form of MP possible, which is why it's not likely that it could ever be done in a DLC.

[AlanC9]

Schwerttanz wrote...


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

Typically not for this sort of industry. They come under separate lines. For instance, when you hear that a Hollywood movie cost $100 million, that doesn't included any of the marketing. That can be tens of millions in its own right.

It's kind of weird, I'll admit. I think it's because those budgets are controlled by different parts of the corporate structure.

[Schwerttanz]

AlanC9 wrote...

Schwerttanz wrote...


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

Typically not for this sort of industry. They come under separate lines. For instance, when you hear that a Hollywood movie cost $100 million, that doesn't included any of the marketing. That can be tens of millions in its own right.

It's kind of weird, I'll admit. I think it's because those budgets are controlled by different parts of the corporate structure.

I agree, that can be confusing. The marketing by and large is often done by the publisher (which has it's own budget) , the development is oc done by the developer (which also has it's own budget). Again i am assuming here, i have no insight whatsoever. I perhaps oversimplified this ^^

But in the end it all comes down to a price for the product. If you would take away a little more from the budget of the publisher for example (advertising e.g.), there would either be more net gain from each sold copy (you can surely assume the price in this market is set to 40-60 $ / €) or you could increase the deleoping budget. Perhaps one could sell more copies if you assume that more development budget translates to a "better" procut and thus sell more copies.

[ladydesire]

Schwerttanz wrote...

But in the end it all comes down to a price for the product. If
you would take away a little more from the budget of the
publisher for example (advertising e.g.), there would either be
more net gain from each sold copy (you can surely assume the
price in this market is set to 40-60 $ / €) or you could
increase the deleoping budget. Perhaps one could sell more
copies if you assume that more development budget
translates to a "better" procut and thus sell more copies.

But would MP necessarily make DA (or any sequels) a better product? As has been said, Bioware didn't think it would, though we don't have full knowledge of what all they used to make this determination.

[wanderon]

I certainly have no inside knowledge of what Bioware was thinking about when they decided to go without an MP option but I think it's reasonable to assume that their decision may have been weighted more towards what the effects of doing so would have on the development process of the SP game than on issues of how easy or difficult the actual programming of the MP portion might be.



I don't think a lot of the folks asking for an MP option realize just how large an effect the process of adding or not adding this option would have on the overall short and long term development of a huge project like Dragon Age.



Now I'm no programmer but it occurs to me that it would have to be considered at literally every step along the way. Each segment of the story, the way the game engine works, the manner in which NPCs react - how much or little joinable NPCs effect the plot, all these things would have to be considered both from the angle of a single PC + NPCs as well as from the standpoint of multiple PCs and the game then structured so that both work properly.



Then there's the whole nightmare of figuring out what happens when one player trys to enter a transition while another player is doing something else (opening a chest - entering a different transition, tripping a trigger) and a third player suddenly drops out due to IP issues all as a cut scene begins due to one of those 3 players actions.



I think its easy to see that cobbling an MP option on now after the game and engine were developed solely as a SP game would be even more problematic.



Deciding to go (and stay) straight SP however immediately removes all those obstacles, possible issues and development time allowing the team to concentrate entirely on making an awesome SP game that only needs to work with a single PC plus NPCs - that certainly seems like a sound decision to me.

[kyuubifred]

_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...

I assume you play the PC version... on the ps3 version, there are only 6 slots for item or talent use, so to use any skills not in those slots you need to pull up the radial menu and select said talent/potion/etc.  I assume a similar system works for the Xbox as well, though i could be wrong.

So to play multiplayer, a new system would still be needed.

[DragonOfWhiteThunder]

I will start by saying that despite owning the Baldur's Gate games, Neverwinter Nights (plus 2 and expansions), and Icewind Dale 2, I have never used those games multiplayer options, I have played those games strictly single-player so far.



That being said, I would like to see an option to play a campaign in multiplayer form, whether the official BW campaign or player-created ones. No, the story does not need to be changed to accommodate the multiplayer campaign, simply treat the host as the PC, and the other players observe the story. This means that there is literally no extra work for the writing team, so the story will not suffer. Pausing could be handled by limiting it to the host, a universal pause that can be initiated by any player, or simply disabling it altogether. Tactical pausing isn't quite as necessary when you have multiple players.



This does not mean that multiplayer should be mandatory. If you don't want to play multiplayer, the campaign should still provide a rich single-player experience. I know that whenever DA2 comes out, that rich single-player experience is what I'm going to be looking for first. I just would like to see a multiplayer option for those that want it.



As to playing tabletop DA:O, I play tabletop Pathfinder when I get the chance, but scraping together a group for that is rather difficult where I live. A number of my friends live half a continent away from me, making pen & paper games with them nearly impossible.





Finally, one question for the single-player only crowd: what aspects of the single-player campaign do you feel would suffer from a multiplayer option like the one I described above? To me, story is the most important aspect so I tried to find a way to preserve that, but I realize a lot of people have different tastes.

[AlanC9]

wanderon wrote...

I certainly have no inside knowledge of what Bioware was thinking about when they decided to go without an MP option but I think it's reasonable to assume that their decision may have been weighted more towards what the effects of doing so would have on the development process of the SP game than on issues of how easy or difficult the actual programming of the MP portion might be.

Note that the HotU multiplayer campaign was cut even though the engine itself supports multiplayer. Though IIRC HoTU was a Christmas release, so deadline pressures might have been involved.

[Dubidox]

A dev answered this question in one of the many co-op requesting threads and he said it was a design decision.

The way I understand it is that they could not figure out a way to integrate co-op into the normal campaign in a well designed way.  If they are going to do something like co-op or multiplayer they don't want it to be clunky and half assed or the legions of co-op/multi lovers will say the game sucks because the multi-player feels tacked on and not well integrated.

Ever heard the saying, "Do it right or don't do it at all?"

They made that decision back then, and given that they were going for a game that tries to feel more like an interactive story than a medieval fighting simulator, I think they were right to make that choice.

[Squeelookle]

I sincerely hope it doesn't happen. I have multiplayer-enabled (co-op and mmo) games for when I feel like arguing with other people who most likely won't understand me anyway.

Big if, but IF it ever happens, I hope it doesn't suffer from the Phantasy Star Online Syndrome, ie some quests and items are only available through online interfacing. That sucked enormously.

To recap before I let this turn into a rant: I hope to whoever's listening that this never happens.

@Dubidox: I must have missed that. It's nice to know it's by design.

I wantz moar story, not moar peoples telling mes I sucks bad at this. *lol*

[rafoquinha]

Excelent thread!

I love co-op and that feature made Neverwinter Nights evem more enjoyable. I say: Bioware, use that same formula, because it worked. I know DA have more interaction between characters, but I am pretty sure Bioware can deliver a great co-op in the main campaign for DA2 and even ME3.

Since DA2 was just announced, let´s wait for co-op feature in the great sequel.
Make us happy, bioware :wizard:

Modifié par rafoquinha, 08 juillet 2010 - 01:03 .

[Merllle]

I approve greatly of this thread ( +10)

[rafoquinha]

kyuubifred wrote...

_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...

I assume you play the PC version... on the ps3 version, there are only 6 slots for item or talent use, so to use any skills not in those slots you need to pull up the radial menu and select said talent/potion/etc.  I assume a similar system works for the Xbox as well, though i could be wrong.

So to play multiplayer, a new system would still be needed.

It doesn´t need a full design. It´s about changing the way the controls work. Just make it like Marvel Ultimate Alliance or Sacred 2 and you will have about 12 quick slots of very easy access on console controls. As simple as that.

[GreenSoda]

I liked this thread better 3 days ago. Dead and burried.

Modifié par GreenSoda, 08 juillet 2010 - 01:16 .