473 réponses à ce sujet

[Lord_Valandil]

Saibh wrote...

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.

I haven't played Fable III...yet.
But I still prefer number one. It's the best, in my opinion. I'm missing the medieval setting, I have never been a fan of the colonial era.

BTW, Saibh, we should have a baby......in Fable III. For the achievement

[Wicked 702]

Saibh wrote...

Wicked 702 wrote...

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.

At this point we would be arguing subjective criteria so I'll happily concede to you if that's how you feel.

I was ultimately pointing out that just like with the statement, "there are already plenty of recent RPGs with co-op (or multiplayer)," the statement, "there are already so many recent games with mediocre co-op," is also not really true.

[Onyx Jaguar]

Personally I liked Fable 2 because it tried to be less of a Zelda clone than the first game.

But then again I only spent 20 bucks on it.

Also... big elephant in the room.  Gears of War works just fine from a Co-op and singel player standpoint.   Sure its not an RPG, but who cares, in that game you have a primary control with someone else controlling a secondary.  Wouldn't be that far out of the realm if someone just controlled a secondary in a Dragon Age game.

Modifié par Onyx Jaguar, 09 novembre 2010 - 04:57 .

[AlanC9]

And I suppose during conversations and cutscenes you'd just give the secondary players the primary character's PoV and theyld watch what he does? Area transitions happen on the primary PC's call, etc. Yeah, it could work. Of course, you'd have to completely restructure the engine into a client/server architecture first, but that's doable.



There would still be some issues, of course; as those of us who have been around for a while remember, HotU multiplayer didn't get out the door even though the engine was 100% capable of supporting MP.



But that's the issue, isn't it? It's not that Bio couldn't get HotU multiplayer working, it's that they didn't think it was worth it to get it working.

[Mordaedil]

Saibh wrote...
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).

That really depends who you ask. I think it's the strongest lineup in Bioware games, and most people on these forums think it's the weakest. Outside of these forums, it's really different.

[Mordaedil]

In Exile wrote...

[snipped for brievity]

Yes.

You are correct. I just posted here out of frustration and mangled together words in hopes that the meaning would go through, but it was about as effective as a waffle on an elephant.

I'll just leave, because I didn't expect DA2 to be a multiplayer game. I don't think Bioware would go down that path again. I just don't think it's as unviable as people here make it seem to be.

[HighlandBerserkr]

NOT EVERY GAME NEEDS MULTIPLAYER!!!!!!! they would have to take away from the single player campaign in order to add such a thing, its not worth it, some game should always be a single player experience only

[ladydesire]

Onyx Jaguar wrote...
  Gears of War works just fine from a Co-op and singel player standpoint.   Sure its not an RPG, but who cares, in that game you have a primary control with someone else controlling a secondary.  Wouldn't be that far out of the realm if someone just controlled a secondary in a Dragon Age game.

Gears of War, like the Mass Effect series, is based on a multi-player capable engine; Unreal Engine 3. Bioware create the Eclipse Engine without any multiplayer capabilities because they had information that showed that MP wasn't worth the development costs; this likely includes the ability to plug a second controller into the console and take control of one of the companions.

[Mordaedil]

HighlandBerserkr wrote...

NOT EVERY GAME NEEDS MULTIPLAYER!!!!!!! they would have to take away from the single player campaign in order to add such a thing, its not worth it, some game should always be a single player experience only

That's what they said about Knights of the Old Republic, then about Jade Empire, then about Mass Effect and then about Dragon Age: Origins and now about Dragon Age 2.

So when is a multiplayer game that isn't an MMO going to get any attention?

[AndarianTD]

AlanC9 wrote...

And I suppose during conversations and cutscenes you'd just give the secondary players the primary character's PoV and theyld watch what he does? Area transitions happen on the primary PC's call, etc. Yeah, it could work. Of course, you'd have to completely restructure the engine into a client/server architecture first...

Thank you. The only thing that amazes me more than that this discussion is still going on, is the lack of understanding regarding software systems architecture that seems to underlie it. DA is designed to excel at providing a certain kind of player experience, and one that isn't easily amenable to MP.

[Maconbar]

I would be awesome if BW incorporated pvp in DA:2.

Modifié par Maconbar, 09 novembre 2010 - 02:07 .

[In Exile]

Mordaedil wrote...
I'll just leave, because I didn't expect DA2 to be a multiplayer game. I don't think Bioware would go down that path again. I just don't think it's as unviable as people here make it seem to be.

I don't think it's unviable either. I just think it costs SP. An MP game needs to be focused on making MP work.

[Zabusasan1602]

GreenSoda wrote...

Paromlin wrote...

Bioware fan(boy/girl)s are weird. You're happy because someone else will not get a feature that would only marginally affect your enjoyment of the game, if at all? (Apart from that imaginary "zot" thing with a lot of guessing what would/would not happen and bla and so on.)

Just because you think the impact on the sp-campaign would be "marginal" doesn't make it so.

I'm very glad DA2 is sp only.

Just because you think the impact on Singleplayer will be more then margianl doesnt make it so.

OMG YEAH ITS ONLY SINGLE PLAYER.
Thats around the most ****ed up comments i've ever heard?!?!
I AM GLAD THIS GAME DOES NOT ALLOW ME TO PLAY IT WITH MY FRIENDS!!!
Do you not like your friends or?

The fact that some games suck but have a multiplayer function does not mean it would be better without the multiplayer function. If a game gets released with a crappy single player part its because the game company didnt put enough work into it.
The pase at witch bioware is spitting out DLC(yay more money for marginally more content) you should be happy waiting a bit more to get this awesome game in multiplayer.

[Zabusasan1602]

HighlandBerserkr wrote...

NOT EVERY GAME NEEDS MULTIPLAYER!!!!!!! they would have to take away from the single player campaign in order to add such a thing, its not worth it, some game should always be a single player experience only

No they wouldnt. This world is so full of EMO people.
Why cant single player and multiplayer be great?

Baldurs gate sure as hell didnt suffer from it being multiplayer viable. Its such a little change that is needed to make it multiplayer viable.

[Rixxencaxx]

Not every game is for everyone's taste....a software house need to choose the public it is interested in.....otherwise they could produce a game that isn't appreciated by anyone.....

I hate multiplayer and support bioware decisiont to made a sp only game.....Usually multiplayer is an easy excuse to sell poor sp products

[GrimfartDeathsiege]

I find it a huge disappointment that there's no multiplay in Dragon Age. Fair enough you can say it's a single-player experience, but then what was Neverwinter? I still play the original NWN both alone and with my LAN buddies, because it's simply way more fun than having 3 people stare over my shoulder being bored as all hell while I massacre darkspawn. That and the fact that even though we are sharing the same game, we can all go our seperate ways and do our own quests or stick together.



I don't like the idea of buying an RPG and suddenly being told "Here's your guy, here's your backstory, you've already got a name and race, just pick a class to level in and play it like Fable" so I'm somewhat wary of Dragon Age 2. It would be an absolute shame if BioWare have kicked themselves in the teeth with this upcoming game. Although saying that, EA are trying to sink their claws in now and they're nothing but trouble for game developers. They'll want to turn BioWare into a WoW-clone developer or some crap the second they get a foothold.

[Altima Darkspells]

HighlandBerserkr wrote...

NOT EVERY GAME NEEDS MULTIPLAYER!!!!!!!

EA disagrees.

While DA2 may not have multiplayer, it's extremely likely that DA3 will, due to EA's previous statement about how they were done making single-player games.

[GrimfartDeathsiege]

In Exile wrote...

I don't think it's unviable either. I just think it costs SP. An MP game needs to be focused on making MP work.

Multiplay shouldn't detract from the SP game at all, just look at Neverwinter Nights! It was designed to be an SP game from the start, you can tell because often only the game host can accept/end missions and do various quest-related things, yet it was still a far better multiplay experience than most modern games on Xbox Live.

After all, it was literally the single-player campaign, except with 2 (or three... or four!!) people!

[Altima Darkspells]

GrimfartDeathsiege wrote...

Multiplay shouldn't detract from the SP game at all, just look at Neverwinter Nights! It was designed to be an SP game from the start, you can tell because often only the game host can accept/end missions and do various quest-related things, yet it was still a far better multiplay experience than most modern games on Xbox Live.

After all, it was literally the single-player campaign, except with 2 (or three... or four!!) people!

Erm...Neverwinter Nights was designed to be a multiplayer game from the ground up.  The (crappy) single-player game was added towards the end because Atari didn't think people would pay forty or fifty bucks for a multiplayer-only game.

Its expansions do a much better job at putting out stories, but it's not like it was hard.  There are several video game movies with better plots than NWN's OC.

[Krytheos]

GrimfartDeathsiege wrote...

In Exile wrote...

I don't think it's unviable either. I just think it costs SP. An MP game needs to be focused on making MP work.

Multiplay shouldn't detract from the SP game at all, just look at Neverwinter Nights! It was designed to be an SP game from the start, you can tell because often only the game host can accept/end missions and do various quest-related things, yet it was still a far better multiplay experience than most modern games on Xbox Live.

After all, it was literally the single-player campaign, except with 2 (or three... or four!!) people!

It's not unviable, but you WILL Sacrifice something everytime you try and do it; NWN sacrficed story for it, which is something I will NEVER accept over multiplayer. I'm sorry but multiplayer < Story.

Characters are also more personal than when you go through with four poeple. The npcs are more alive and feel like actual people instead of 'lol guise let's hurry up and go do this quest so's we can get as level up lololol' netspeakers.

Personally, I hate when people bring multiplayer into single-player driven games. Because often, it just doesn't belong, period. It's not unviable, but I don't want anything to be sacrificed of the single player driven game just t add in multiplayer in a package that was NEVER designed to be multiplayer to begin with, ever.

[XX55XX]

I think that DA can probably have a multiplayer spinoff, but I am honestly not too keen on the idea. The strength of BioWare's games stem from their well-written and richly told narratives. Multiplayer will not complement that any bit.

[Redhawkdown]

You want multiplayer? Play Legend, theres your multiplayer.

[Guitar-Hero]

Altima Darkspells wrote...

HighlandBerserkr wrote...

NOT EVERY GAME NEEDS MULTIPLAYER!!!!!!!

EA disagrees.

While DA2 may not have multiplayer, it's extremely likely that DA3 will, due to EA's previous statement about how they were done making single-player games.

When the hell was that said?!

[Guitar-Hero]

Jesus Christ.. if people wanna play multiplayer play WoW or Demon Souls

[Voidlight]

I like Dragon Age precisely because it's a single-player experience, but I wouldn't say no to a decent co-op system as long as it's done properly like how Volition integrated co-op into Saints Row 2.

Modifié par Voidlight, 31 janvier 2011 - 09:27 .