473 réponses à ce sujet

[Maverick827]

Saibh wrote...

Then play a game meant to be played by friends--you know what makes DAO fantastic? Character interactions and dialogue. Story. Lore. Relationships. That's what sets it apart. Co-op works best when the environment is dedicated to battle--like Fable III.

Again, I don't think the two are diametrically opposed.

I plan on playing TOR, for instance, exactly as I would Dragon Age, only I would also be able to PvP with some friends or run dungeons with them amidst following the story, lore, dialog, and character interactions.  Every now and again a friend might join up with me on a quest (mission? I don't know what TOR calls them), but mostly I would be following the story alone.

[Saibh]

Saibh wrote...

Again, I don't think the two are diametrically opposed.

I plan on playing TOR, for instance, exactly as I would Dragon Age, only I would also be able to PvP with some friends or run dungeons with them amidst following the story, lore, dialog, and character interactions.  Every now and again a friend might join up with me on a quest (mission? I don't know what TOR calls them), but mostly I would be following the story alone.

I haven't really been following on it...so...no opinion.

Wicked 702 wrote...

Read my intial post.

If people are going to start arguing with me just for the sake of arguing, I'm really going to have to point out that fact. YOU'RE ARGUING AGAINST YOURSELF!

Except it would detract from the singleplayer. There's no getting around it needing extra resources. Take the second Fable. It's an extremely simple multiplayer. You play as a ghost henchmen. Yet they got so many things wrong and the story was an utter disaster.

[Wicked 702]

Saibh wrote...

Except it would detract from the singleplayer. There's no getting around it needing extra resources. Take the second Fable. It's an extremely simple multiplayer. You play as a ghost henchmen. Yet they got so many things wrong and the story was an utter disaster.

Again, I agreed that implenting multi-player in any significant capacity now would require too many resources. I also agreed that even allowing a person to "drop-in" over a connection might require too many resources too.

But simply allowing Controller #2 to mimic #1 and have a buddy control the game with you? No, that wouldn't require a whole lot of reources at all. The vast majority of the coding is already there. But it wouldn't add a whole lot either. So I'm just saying that for me, it would be a "nice" feature. Little things like this going away, that don't significantly detract from other resources, are what bother me a lot.

Modifié par Wicked 702, 09 novembre 2010 - 02:11 .

[Onyx Jaguar]

It didn't hurt System Shock 2

[BP20125810]

What would be in the otherwise category?

[Saibh]

BP20125810 wrote...

What would be in the otherwise category?

World of Dragoncraft? 

Thedas of Tacticraft?

Champion of Worldhammer?...craft?

[Ryllen Laerth Kriel]

filaminstrel wrote...

Ryllen Laerth Kriel wrote...

Mindless as in uninspired fights against overwhelming evil or mindless as in they make utterly no sense? NWN 1 was the latter for me. Aribeth was one of the most rediculous characters to me and our PCs had to interact with her pretty much all the way through. A paladin renowned for her virtue who wore revealing, impractical armor and who turned so quickly to evil when she wasn't even in love with the man she turned to evil over? Oh...and we meet her transdimensional twin while fighting off a master race of lizardmen from returning to Toril? Whatever the writers were on for that game must of either been very good, or very bad. I would not know, I'm not into drugs.

The plot to Plan 9 From Outer Space and it's cast of characters was more compelling and made more sense than NWN 1.

Mindless as in, lacking a mind. Being more of force of nature than a developed antagonist with motivations and such.

Your points against NWN are valid enough, but I still found it entertaining, at least (and of course I found DAO very entertaining, that's why I'm here). I thought the dead forest village quest was kind of interesting. And the labyrinth under the inn.

Ah yes, the undead forest village quest was the best piece of writing in all of NWN 1's campaign I thought. The labyrinth was okay, but felt a little awkward and lacking atmosphere. I, myself am no fan of random, faceless evils as antagonists. I still think that Bioware's best villains were Sarevok and Jon Irenicus in the Baldur's Gate series. It is not purely nostalgia, but because the player got to experience the villain's motivations as the game plot progressed, the villains were made human and there was at least a slight sympathy there for them. I enjoy plots where a villain is a hero when viewed through a different standard. In DA:O, I was hoping Loghain would do this more. He did it to some extent, I was somewhat sympathetic towards him despite his misdeeds.

[Kileyan]

Maverick827 wrote...

Saibh wrote...

Then play a game meant to be played by friends--you know what makes DAO fantastic? Character interactions and dialogue. Story. Lore. Relationships. That's what sets it apart. Co-op works best when the environment is dedicated to battle--like Fable III.

Again, I don't think the two are diametrically opposed.

I plan on playing TOR, for instance, exactly as I would Dragon Age, only I would also be able to PvP with some friends or run dungeons with them amidst following the story, lore, dialog, and character interactions.  Every now and again a friend might join up with me on a quest (mission? I don't know what TOR calls them), but mostly I would be following the story alone.

Well every game can't be the old republic. It is touted as the most expensive game ever made. It is only being made because the possibility of monthly revenues will recoup the immense cost.

Every game can't have the dev time and costs of an MMO, and i certainly don't want every game to be a friggin MMO.

That last part is important, I hope dev's don't quit single player games, and turn everything into an MMO.

[Wicked 702]

Kileyan wrote...

Well every game can't be the old republic. It is touted as the most expensive game ever made. It is only being made because the possibility of monthly revenues will recoup the immense cost.

Every game can't have the dev time and costs of an MMO, and i certainly don't want every game to be a friggin MMO.

That last part is important, I hope dev's don't quit single player games, and turn everything into an MMO.

Um....

Co-op =/= MMO. Just sayin'.

[Mordaedil]

In Exile wrote...

Seriously.

I don't think that words means what you think it means, because I keep seeing people use it without proper reasoning to do so. It's an extremely weak argument for or against any cases.

Meanwhile, let's play count the ad hominem!

In Exile wrote...
The main campaign was garbage. You couldn't re-roll a proper character (i.e. either super weak or genius level for balance). You had no party.

Wow, I already count three in the first paragraph. We're in for astute arguments here!

First of all, campaign, garbage or not, is entirely subjective. Do you know the meaning of that word? Also, while it is true you could not roll a character's stats, you could most certainly make some very interesting builds from point buy. Nothing bad was lost from the transition to point-buy, honestly, and you can still make very weak characters or very strong characters. As for the lack of party, that was what the MULTIPLAYER aspect of the game was for. Create a party like you did in good old days of table-top: You have friends play their own characters.

In Exile wrote...
NWN was garbage. The game really sucked as SP. After HOTU and the improvements to companion AI it became an awesome game due to some amazing SP user created modules, but overall if NWN is the best example for multiplayer & SP matrimony, count me out.

Five.

Again, if the game is garbage, it is really strange that it still has an active userbase and sold 2 million copies and rivaled Baldur's Gate in sales. It's one of the best selling PC games of all time too. Again, what the SP campaign that was boxed with the game was like is really not the point. It's a subjective opinion. And HotU added very little content in terms of how much was already in the box at launch. And the was not mostly successful due to the single player custom modules. If fact, only a very small minority of gamers ever played those. Most just played the SP campaign. And a smaller portion of that played online, on servers. And then the final minority of users who stayed in the game played single player modules.

I'll be glad to count you out though. Consider your arguments invalid.

In Exile wrote...
Have you played NWN? Because seriously, it made the game worse.

I have played NWN for over six years. I've participated in over three large servers and been the host of a ton of smaller games where we played it like PnP.

The game was objectively more unique and powerful than Baldur's Gate was. The provided toolset was very powerful and offered unique options that was impossible to do on earlier games.

But people who were so enarmored with Baldur's Gate that they couldn't stand having a superior product with much higher potential than any rivaling game, even compared to Morrowind, caused a popular onslaught of people on these forums to somehow think "MP = BAD" and draw a hard line at that.

Guess what. Baldur's Gate was multiplayer too. Just a very terrible multiplayer. Objectively speaking.

[In Exile]

[quote]Mordaedil wrote...
I don't think that words means what you think it means, because I keep seeing people use it without proper reasoning to do so. It's an extremely weak argument for or against any cases. [/quote]

Eh? It's used as a short-hand for incredulity at the position you're advancing. I could say "the argument you are making leads me to believe you have either a rare or idiosyncratic standard of judgement, which is difficult to impossible for me to comprehend and I believe leads you to an absurd conclusion," but seriously achieves the same effect without being verbose.

[quote]Meanwhile, let's play count the ad hominem! [/quote]

Speaking of words that don't mean what you think it means, an ad hominen is a personal attack. I've never actually engaged in one. I did endlessly insult NWN the product, as I think it's a subpar product. But attacking the quality of the game, even in a highly rhethorical manner as I did, is not an adhominen.

[quote]First of all, campaign, garbage or not, is entirely subjective. Do you know the meaning of that word? [/quote]

Do you? Putting aside the fact that at no point did I suggest I was using some kind of objective standard when I was talking about my preferences (why would you even assume this?), if it is the case that the quality of a game is subjective, then your belief that the game was good is subjective.

In other words, it's perfectly justfiable for me to think the game was terrible. Your argument, as you might recall, was that Co-Op or mutliplayer with a single player game is not a bad thing, because here we have NWN that was a good SP game.

Well, I disagree. Vehmetly. The whole point is that I just don't accept the fundamental thesis of your argument, which is that a game that combined multiplayer and SP was good.

[quote]Also, while it is true you could not roll a character's stats, you could most certainly make some very interesting builds from point buy. Nothing bad was lost from the transition to point-buy, honestly, and you can still make very weak characters or very strong characters. [/quote]

But it does not allow you to create incredibly unbalanced characters (who are poor at everything) or a prodigy (who is phenomenal at everything).

This hurts my ability to create the character I want, and the trade-off is that the multiplayer, a feature I will never use and so has 0 utility, is balanced. Can you not appreciate how this is useless?

[quote]As for the lack of party, that was what the MULTIPLAYER aspect of the game was for. Create a party like you did in good old days of table-top: You have friends play their own characters.[/quote]

Right, but I want a single-player game. Do you recall making this claim:

[quote] And mostly because people on these forums cry fowl if someone asks them
if their next title will have MP support.

Guess what, it doesn't
make the game any worse.[/quote]

Well, you're wrong. It made my game worse. It took away my party. I don't want to play with other people. This is why I am buying a single-player game.

[quote]Again, if the game is garbage, it is really strange that it still has an active userbase and sold 2 million copies and rivaled Baldur's Gate in sales. It's one of the best selling PC games of all time too. [/quote]

Okay? So people liked it. Good for them. If we're going to pretend we're taking introduction to critical thinking, an appeal to popular opinion is also a logical fallacy.

More to the point, it doesn't matter. Your claim, again, was that adding MP did not make the game worse. I'm arguing that it did.

[quote]Again, what the SP campaign that was boxed with the game was like is really not the point. It's a subjective opinion.[/quote]

Your claim is that there is no cost to SP in adding MP. But here we have a tremendous cost - the SP campaign is garbage. So I have to wait until someone bothers to design a good SP module before the game I bought at full price is even worth playing?

[quote]And HotU added very little content in terms of how much was already in the box at launch. And the was not mostly successful due to the single player custom modules. If fact, only a very small minority of gamers ever played those. Most just played the SP campaign. And a smaller portion of that played online, on servers. And then the final minority of users who stayed in the game played single player modules.[/quote]

And the SP modules were brilliant. I already said as much. But that has nothing to do with whether or not MP makes the SP experience worse, which it markedly does. That you resort to addresing the points by outright dismissing the way the MP made the SP worse by saying it's either irrelevant or not particularly central to the evaluation just shows how much you're obfuscating the issue.

[quote]I have played NWN for over six years. I've participated in over three large servers and been the host of a ton of smaller games where we played it like PnP.[/quote]

Good for you. You know what I don't want to do? Play PnP or an MP game. You know what I do like to do? Play an SP game. You know what makes that worse? MP.

[quote]The game was objectively more unique and powerful than Baldur's Gate was. The provided toolset was very powerful and offered unique options that was impossible to do on earlier games.[/quote]

Speaking of other games I didn't like....

[quote]But people who were so enarmored with Baldur's Gate that they couldn't stand having a superior product with much higher potential than any rivaling game, even compared to Morrowind, caused a popular onslaught of people on these forums to somehow think "MP = BAD" and draw a hard line at that.[/quote]

I think BGII is an overrated mediocre game. NWN was definetly a better game than BGII, just in virtue of 3e rules.

[quote]Guess what. Baldur's Gate was multiplayer too. Just a very terrible multiplayer. Objectively speaking.[/quote]

Yeah, because it wasn't a very good game. Not having MP would have made the game better, though, if only because it might have allowed Bioware to add in one more quest versus useless content I don't want. And that's not getting into the crux of the problem with NWN, which is that it had to remove central features like full party control to make the MP worth it, which absolutely hurts my experience and makes the game less in my eyes.

So once again: if your argument is that NWN, which was a terrible SP game out of the box, and had features removed from SP to make it MP compatible, shows that MP can come at no cost to SP.... well, I'd like some of what you're smoking.

[jokingking]

i can't believe people are still hoping for co-op play for DA2. this is pointless

[Saibh]

Mordaedil wrote...

In Exile wrote...
Have you played NWN? Because seriously, it made the game worse.

I have played NWN for over six years. I've participated in over three large servers and been the host of a ton of smaller games where we played it like PnP.

The game was objectively more unique and powerful than Baldur's Gate was. The provided toolset was very powerful and offered unique options that was impossible to do on earlier games.

But people who were so enarmored with Baldur's Gate that they couldn't stand having a superior product with much higher potential than any rivaling game, even compared to Morrowind, caused a popular onslaught of people on these forums to somehow think "MP = BAD" and draw a hard line at that.

Guess what. Baldur's Gate was multiplayer too. Just a very terrible multiplayer. Objectively speaking.

NWN is almost universally considered BioWare's weakest game to date. At least, of the ones that are remembered--usually no one mentions pre-BG or Sonic Chronicles. What saved it were excellent modules and a great expansion pack (Hordes of the Underdark).

[slimgrin]

jokingking wrote...

i can't believe people are still hoping for co-op play for DA2. this is pointless

Indeed. But like a bad weed the thread keeps sprouting up again. Really, there are so many games with mediocre co-op and it's still not enough. EVERY GAME MUST HAVE CO-OP SO I CAN PWN!

Modifié par slimgrin, 09 novembre 2010 - 03:46 .

[Wicked 702]

slimgrin wrote...

jokingking wrote...

i can't believe people are still hoping for co-op play for DA2. this is pointless

Indeed. But like a bad weed the thread keeps sprouting up again. Really, there are so many games with mediocre co-op and it's still not enough. EVERY GAME MUST HAVE CO-OP SO I CAN PWN!

Really? Name some recent games with mediocre CO-OP then. Not multi-player, CO-OP.

[slimgrin]

Wicked 702 wrote...

slimgrin wrote...

jokingking wrote...

i can't believe people are still hoping for co-op play for DA2. this is pointless

Indeed. But like a bad weed the thread keeps sprouting up again. Really, there are so many games with mediocre co-op and it's still not enough. EVERY GAME MUST HAVE CO-OP SO I CAN PWN!

Really? Name some recent games with mediocre CO-OP then. Not multi-player, CO-OP.

How was Lost planet?

[Saibh]

Wicked 702 wrote...

slimgrin wrote...

jokingking wrote...

i can't believe people are still hoping for co-op play for DA2. this is pointless

Indeed. But like a bad weed the thread keeps sprouting up again. Really, there are so many games with mediocre co-op and it's still not enough. EVERY GAME MUST HAVE CO-OP SO I CAN PWN!

Really? Name some recent games with mediocre CO-OP then. Not multi-player, CO-OP.

Fable II. III improved upon it enormously, though.

[Wicked 702]

slimgrin wrote...

Wicked 702 wrote...

Really? Name some recent games with mediocre CO-OP then. Not multi-player, CO-OP.

How was Lost planet?

So, you're going to rest your case on one single game? How about the ones that had awesome CO-OP like:

Borderlands
Transformers: War for Cybertron
Dead Rising 2

All of those games have an excellent single player campaign that suffers not one bit from the addition of CO-OP. But obviously, that has to be planned from the get-go.

I'd also point out from some recent arcade titles and upcoming games:

Lara Croft: Guardian of Light
Hunted: The Demon's Forge

[Wicked 702]

Saibh wrote...

Wicked 702 wrote...

Really? Name some recent games with mediocre CO-OP then. Not multi-player, CO-OP.

Fable II. III improved upon it enormously, though.

Yes but despite personal opinion, Fable II was a critically acclaimed success. So its bad CO-OP did not affect the game really, at least in any measurable objective way.

Modifié par Wicked 702, 09 novembre 2010 - 04:33 .

[Saibh]

Wicked 702 wrote...

Saibh wrote...

Wicked 702 wrote...

Really? Name some recent games with mediocre CO-OP then. Not multi-player, CO-OP.

Fable II. III improved upon it enormously, though.

Yes but despite personal opinion, Fable II was a critically acclaimed success. So its bad CO-OP did not affect the game really, at least in any measurable objective way.

Yet it affected the quality of the singleplayer and co-op. Both were very mediocre (actually, I'd say co-op was plain terrible). The game did well, but it was only considered better-than-average--well, perhaps quite unique and innovative in some places, and quite the failure in others. I mean, we are talking Molyneux.

Modifié par Saibh, 09 novembre 2010 - 04:40 .

[Lord_Valandil]

Dear Maker on a bike. On a freaking bike.

Almost 20 pages of useless debate and walls of text longer than the Great Wall of China.

[Wicked 702]

Saibh wrote...

Yet it affected the quality of the singleplayer and co-op. Both were very mediocre (actually, I'd say co-op was plain terrible). The game did well, but it was only considered better-than-average--well, perhaps quite unique and innovative in some places, and quite the failure in others. I mean, we are talking Molyneux.

It has a combined score of 89 on Metacritic. That's hardly mediocre. It sounds like the game just didn't appeal to individuals personally.

Modifié par Wicked 702, 09 novembre 2010 - 04:43 .

[slimgrin]

Let Bioware and the Dragon Age franchise be unique, and all the other devs can copy each other.

[Saibh]

Wicked 702 wrote...

Saibh wrote...

Yet it affected the quality of the singleplayer and co-op. Both were very mediocre (actually, I'd say co-op was plain terrible). The game did well, but it was only considered better-than-average--well, perhaps quite unique and innovative in some places, and quite the failure in others. I mean, we are talking Molyneux.

It has a combined score of 89 on Metacritic. That's hardly mediocre. It sounds like the game just didn't appeal to individuals personally.

Hard to tell--Fable III is almost always called superior to Fable II in reviews...yet has a 80 score on Metacritic. And the first Fable rates in between the two. Yet Fable III is most certainly a significant improvement over that game.

Modifié par Saibh, 09 novembre 2010 - 04:50 .