473 réponses à ce sujet

[Legion 2.5]

Multiplayer for me is a bad idea for dragon age. Co-op is okay because it worked well with Fable II. But no mutliplayer for me.

[sanadawarrior]

0LunarEclipse0 wrote...

Gel214th wrote...

Will Dragon Age 2 still not have Co-Op play , or any sort of multiplayer similar to Neverwinter Nights ?

I've said it a million times, if you want multiplayer go somewhere else. Bioware is the last bastion we single player RPG fans have. (They are the best but still the only one really) Let us have that, take your multiplayer and go enjoy something else, please.

Bioware made multiplayer enabled rpgs before they made strictly single player rpgs so maybe it is you who should go somewhere else since we where here first...  or maybe telling someone to go somewhere else is childish and idiotic when they are both fans of the same company hmmmm....

[rafoquinha]

sanadawarrior wrote...

0LunarEclipse0 wrote...

Gel214th wrote...

Will Dragon Age 2 still not have Co-Op play , or any sort of multiplayer similar to Neverwinter Nights ?

I've said it a million times, if you want multiplayer go somewhere else. Bioware is the last bastion we single player RPG fans have. (They are the best but still the only one really) Let us have that, take your multiplayer and go enjoy something else, please.

Bioware made multiplayer enabled rpgs before they made strictly single player rpgs so maybe it is you who should go somewhere else since we where here first...  or maybe telling someone to go somewhere else is childish and idiotic when they are both fans of the same company hmmmm....

Agreed, Sanadawarrior

[UltimoCrofto]

Goddamit, why are there always people asking for this crap.



Go play WoW! Stop trying to ruin our RPGs.

[Paromlin]

UltimoCrofto wrote...

Goddamit, why are there always people asking for this crap.

Go play WoW! Stop trying to ruin our RPGs.

Go under a rock dwarf.

[ladydesire]

UltimoCrofto wrote...

Goddamit, why are there always people asking for this crap.

Go play WoW! Stop trying to ruin our RPGs.

I don't usually say this, but stop equating multiplayer capable
rpgs with online only games like WoW; the only thing they
have in common is that people play them online. If the people asking for MP iin DA wanted to play WoW (or any other MMO) they probably wouldn't be asking for the more enjoyable experience of playing with like-minded gamers.

[Behindyounow]

rafoquinha wrote...


Where do you guys get this kind of info? Since when a game, just because it have co-op or mutliplayer, have a lame single-player? Make a list of those games and prove they have a lame campaign BECAUSE of multiplayer. I can think of a lot f games that were better because of co-op, not the opposite.

They way I see is that some games are just lame, and nothing can save them.

I didn't say that. I said the money spent could improve singleplayer.

There are plenty of games that have good singleplayer & multiplayer. I'm sure Bioware could do that. But I dont want a good singleplayer campaign. I want an amazing one.

Unless Bioware somehow discovers the secret to making a perfect singleplayer campaign, there is always room for improvement. And I'd rather they spend money on improving the singleplayer than implementing multiplayer functionality.

[UltimoCrofto]

 If the people asking for MP iin DA wanted to play WoW (or any other MMO) they probably wouldn't be asking for the more enjoyable experience of playing with like-minded gamers.

Actually they would. Why? Just because. It's how these people roll.

You get them everywhere. Every Elder Scrolls released, you'll get some bum spamming "WHY NO MULTIPLAYER?".

Sorry if I sound harsh, but I only need look at several formerly single-player titles completely ruined in sequels due to multiplayer addition -- Resident Evil 5, Fable II (was crap anyway, but would have been less so without resources wasted on multiplayer) and so on.

And regarding WoW -- As it is, WoW is the pretty much the best fantasy-themed online RPG around. It ticks most boxes so people really don't need to come here demanding multiplayer out of a title which is obviously suited to and works best for offline play. And heck, let's face it, KotOR has gone online, and BioWare often say how they wanna add multiplayer to Mass Effect, so surely it isn't too wrong of me to want this one RPG to remain offline?

[sanadawarrior]

UltimoCrofto wrote...

 If the people asking for MP iin DA wanted to play WoW (or any other MMO) they probably wouldn't be asking for the more enjoyable experience of playing with like-minded gamers.

Actually they would. Why? Just because. It's how these people roll.

You get them everywhere. Every Elder Scrolls released, you'll get some bum spamming "WHY NO MULTIPLAYER?".

Sorry if I sound harsh, but I only need look at several formerly single-player titles completely ruined in sequels due to multiplayer addition -- Resident Evil 5, Fable II (was crap anyway, but would have been less so without resources wasted on multiplayer) and so on.

And regarding WoW -- As it is, WoW is the pretty much the best fantasy-themed online RPG around. It ticks most boxes so people really don't need to come here demanding multiplayer out of a title which is obviously suited to and works best for offline play. And heck, let's face it, KotOR has gone online, and BioWare often say how they wanna add multiplayer to Mass Effect, so surely it isn't too wrong of me to want this one RPG to remain offline?

RE 5 was great. Also WoW is awful and not even close to what is being asked for. What we are asking for is for multiplayer like BG II where you played the single player campaign with other people controling some of the party members ( they would import their player character and could control npcs if you let them). I'm guessing games like BG II where before your time or something? I'm 25 so I don't see how that is possible.

[ladydesire]

UltimoCrofto wrote...

 If the people asking for MP iin DA wanted to play WoW (or any other MMO) they probably wouldn't be asking for the more enjoyable experience of playing with like-minded gamers.

Actually they would. Why? Just because. It's how these people roll.

Just because there are people on other forums that ask for MP in those games "just because", doesn't mean that the people asking for it here want it for no other reason than to say it has it.

And regarding WoW -- As it is, WoW is the pretty much the best fantasy-themed online RPG around.

I found myself preferring Lineage 2 over WoW. For that matter there are a few relatively new Free-to-Play MMO's that, in my opinion, blow WoW away.

[AmstradHero]

Firstly... this topic again? It's already been done many times before for Dragon Age.

I understand (that some of) the people called for co-op want a "BG style" co-op. However, you should also be aware that quite a lot of people are also keen on PvP aspects in Dragon Age. There's a lot of people who want to prove how they have "the biggerer and betterer build". If you have simply co-op play, those people are going to complain.

Regardless, let's still just consider co-op play. Aside from the required re-work of the engine and the significant effort required to support the networking to facilitate online play, you need to consider the gameplay aspects.

Dragon Age is a cinematic experience. You see your character interacting with NPCs in the world, and they react different to you based upon your choices. You play the lead role in your story. If you translate that into co-op, how does that work?

Is there a primary player that controls all dialogue, and must all players just sit there and wait while the "primary player"
engages in dialogue? Or can each player interact differently, leading to the ability for a player to get in before another and make a decision that cuts off options? What if players make a decision that others don't agree with? If you're producing an RPG with a character and decision focussed story, you can't have players playing second fiddle to someone else, because otherwise it's not their story.

Secondly, in the little we've been told about Dragon Age 2, it revolves around a single character, Hawke, the champion of Kirkwall. How would that work co-op? Hawke and Hawke2? Hawke and Hawke's faithful sidekick Sparrow? "To the Hawkmobile, Boy Wonder!"

Now, the BG fanatics will likely argue with me, saying "but it was done in BG!" and completely ignore what I've said. But look at BG. The character of the Bhaalspawn played the lead role. Everyone else was just secondary to them. So from that, what logical conclusion must you draw about the attraction for co-op? That the attraction of co-op was playing together with other people co-operatively in combat. That's where the co-operative aspects come into play. Co-op play in a computer based RPG isn't about co-operative story-telling like it is in pen and paper RPGs, it's about co-operative combat. Which is exactly why you get people saying: "Go play WoW".

This is more a matter of you not actually knowing what it is you want even though you're asking for it because you're looking back at BG through the rose-tinted glasses and drunk on nostalgia love.

[bushmins]

UltimoCrofto wrote...

 If the people asking for MP iin DA wanted to play WoW (or any other MMO) they probably wouldn't be asking for the more enjoyable experience of playing with like-minded gamers.

Actually they would. Why? Just because. It's how these people roll.

You get them everywhere. Every Elder Scrolls released, you'll get some bum spamming "WHY NO MULTIPLAYER?".

Sorry if I sound harsh, but I only need look at several formerly single-player titles completely ruined in sequels due to multiplayer addition -- Resident Evil 5, Fable II (was crap anyway, but would have been less so without resources wasted on multiplayer) and so on.

And regarding WoW -- As it is, WoW is the pretty much the best fantasy-themed online RPG around. It ticks most boxes so people really don't need to come here demanding multiplayer out of a title which is obviously suited to and works best for offline play. And heck, let's face it, KotOR has gone online, and BioWare often say how they wanna add multiplayer to Mass Effect, so surely it isn't too wrong of me to want this one RPG to remain offline?

I think mmos are crap and i still want DA online. Its not coop its a persistant world (not MMO!) where people can do what they want. You really need to understand where people are coming from, go play nwn online and you just might see the light (if you can stand loosing xp in death and maybe even a lvl)

Modifié par bushmins, 10 juillet 2010 - 12:12 .

[Missnuki]

sanadawarrior wrote...

Have you ever played Baldur's Gate or Baldur's Gate II multiplayer? Most people are just ignorant when it comes to how RPG greats like those (which were made by bioware btw) handled multiplayer and instead think that multiplayer = mmo.

No, I haven't played Baldur's Gate nor do I plan to.

What part of  "I don't want to play with others" do you not understand?

Besides, they already said it's not going to be multi/co-op/whatever, so why am I even responding?

I'm out of here.

[rafoquinha]

Behindyounow wrote...

rafoquinha wrote...


Where do you guys get this kind of info? Since when a game, just because it have co-op or mutliplayer, have a lame single-player? Make a list of those games and prove they have a lame campaign BECAUSE of multiplayer. I can think of a lot f games that were better because of co-op, not the opposite.

They way I see is that some games are just lame, and nothing can save them.

I didn't say that. I said the money spent could improve singleplayer.

There are plenty of games that have good singleplayer & multiplayer. I'm sure Bioware could do that. But I dont want a good singleplayer campaign. I want an amazing one.

Unless Bioware somehow discovers the secret to making a perfect singleplayer campaign, there is always room for improvement. And I'd rather they spend money on improving the singleplayer than implementing multiplayer functionality.

I see what you mean.

I understand that the resources would be splitted between single and multiplayer. I agree with you. But we are talking about Bioware here, and they can do it.

You see... Dragon Age was a great game, but the graphics on console versions were really subpar. II bet that if that game featured multiplayer people would be saying that the graphics were bad because of multiplayer.

[rafoquinha]

sanadawarrior wrote...

UltimoCrofto wrote...

 If the people asking for MP iin DA wanted to play WoW (or any other MMO) they probably wouldn't be asking for the more enjoyable experience of playing with like-minded gamers.

Actually they would. Why? Just because. It's how these people roll.

You get them everywhere. Every Elder Scrolls released, you'll get some bum spamming "WHY NO MULTIPLAYER?".

Sorry if I sound harsh, but I only need look at several formerly single-player titles completely ruined in sequels due to multiplayer addition -- Resident Evil 5, Fable II (was crap anyway, but would have been less so without resources wasted on multiplayer) and so on.

And regarding WoW -- As it is, WoW is the pretty much the best fantasy-themed online RPG around. It ticks most boxes so people really don't need to come here demanding multiplayer out of a title which is obviously suited to and works best for offline play. And heck, let's face it, KotOR has gone online, and BioWare often say how they wanna add multiplayer to Mass Effect, so surely it isn't too wrong of me to want this one RPG to remain offline?

RE 5 was great. Also WoW is awful and not even close to what is being asked for. What we are asking for is for multiplayer like BG II where you played the single player campaign with other people controling some of the party members ( they would import their player character and could control npcs if you let them). I'm guessing games like BG II where before your time or something? I'm 25 so I don't see how that is possible.

Yeah. Resi 5 was great and Fable 2 was too (but the co-op was lame on Fable). How can he be so sure that Fable 2 would be better if didn´t have co-op? I really don´t understand that thought. We can never be sure of that. This is a thought that fanboys created without even thinking.

As for co-op ion Dragon Age 2, I want that kind of co-op you mentioned too, and that has nothing to do with WoW. We want to enjoy the rich storyline with some friends. That´s it.

[rafoquinha]

AmstradHero wrote...

Firstly... this topic again? It's already been done many times before for Dragon Age.

I understand (that some of) the people called for co-op want a "BG style" co-op. However, you should also be aware that quite a lot of people are also keen on PvP aspects in Dragon Age. There's a lot of people who want to prove how they have "the biggerer and betterer build". If you have simply co-op play, those people are going to complain.

Regardless, let's still just consider co-op play. Aside from the required re-work of the engine and the significant effort required to support the networking to facilitate online play, you need to consider the gameplay aspects.

Dragon Age is a cinematic experience. You see your character interacting with NPCs in the world, and they react different to you based upon your choices. You play the lead role in your story. If you translate that into co-op, how does that work?

Is there a primary player that controls all dialogue, and must all players just sit there and wait while the "primary player"
engages in dialogue? Or can each player interact differently, leading to the ability for a player to get in before another and make a decision that cuts off options? What if players make a decision that others don't agree with? If you're producing an RPG with a character and decision focussed story, you can't have players playing second fiddle to someone else, because otherwise it's not their story.

Secondly, in the little we've been told about Dragon Age 2, it revolves around a single character, Hawke, the champion of Kirkwall. How would that work co-op? Hawke and Hawke2? Hawke and Hawke's faithful sidekick Sparrow? "To the Hawkmobile, Boy Wonder!"

Now, the BG fanatics will likely argue with me, saying "but it was done in BG!" and completely ignore what I've said. But look at BG. The character of the Bhaalspawn played the lead role. Everyone else was just secondary to them. So from that, what logical conclusion must you draw about the attraction for co-op? That the attraction of co-op was playing together with other people co-operatively in combat. That's where the co-operative aspects come into play. Co-op play in a computer based RPG isn't about co-operative story-telling like it is in pen and paper RPGs, it's about co-operative combat. Which is exactly why you get people saying: "Go play WoW".

This is more a matter of you not actually knowing what it is you want even though you're asking for it because you're looking back at BG through the rose-tinted glasses and drunk on nostalgia love.

You are missing the point. We just want to take control of other characters in co-op play, not necessarily influence the world the host is in. Neverwinter NIghst did exactly that. In NwN, when we were in co-op we didn´t have the pause option in battles and the dialog sequences were watched by everyone at the same time, and we just sat and saw what the host were choosing as answers (meanwhile, we could give our opinion on the hosts answer or not).

So... we will all have our own world to bring our friends to. Dragon Age is built around party play, so let us take control of other characters. The main problem here would be  this: will we let the co-op players take control of an existant character NPC of the party, will we let them build their own, or will we let them bring their own character from their game to the host world?

Halo 1 and 2 had two master chief´s playing in co-op and no one complained. Would be that hard to add another character to play in co-op to control while in the cities, shops, and battles? Like I said: its not about the co-op character have any meaning in the story at all (welll... if it had, even bettert, but that´s not the main focus here)

Modifié par rafoquinha, 10 juillet 2010 - 12:40 .

[Errol Dnamyx]

After reading some threads on these boards I rather play alone tbh.

[MysterD]

Yay for SP only for DA2.



I'd only be interested in Dragon Age MP component if they made that game dedicated to ONLY that, being a MP-Only game or MMO - which I'm really not interested in seeing, at the current moment.

[Livemmo]

Chris Priestly wrote...

Dragon Age 2 is a single player game.

Lies. I have had about enough of you spreading your lies and eating all the cream cheese. I will talk to myself while playing Dragon Age 2 and make it multiplayer!

How dare you speak ill of my self and crush our (my?) dreams

[AmstradHero]

rafoquinha wrote...
You are missing the point. We just want to take control of other characters in co-op play, not necessarily influence the world the host is in. Neverwinter NIghst did exactly that. In NwN, when we were in co-op we didn´t have the pause option in battles and the dialog sequences were watched by everyone at the same time, and we just sat and saw what the host were choosing as answers (meanwhile, we could give our opinion on the hosts answer or not).

So... we will all have our own world to bring our friends to. Dragon Age is built around party play, so let us take control of other characters. The main problem here would be this: will we let the co-op players take control of an existant character NPC of the party, will we let them build their own, or will we let them bring their own character from their game to the host world?

Halo 1 and 2 had two master chief´s playing in co-op and no one complained. Would be that hard to add another character to play in co-op to control while in the cities, shops, and battles? Like I said: its not about the co-op character have any meaning in the story at all (welll... if it had, even bettert, but that´s not the main focus here)

Wait... you sound like you're arguing with me but actually... you just proved my point.

You have confirmed that the only co-operative aspect you want is combat.

As such the only suitable rejoinder is... "Go play WoW".

Or heck, go play DDO. That's free and you'd probably like it more, since you appear to be a D&D fan.

Modifié par AmstradHero, 11 juillet 2010 - 12:21 .

[KiwiLynn]

My god, i don't see the whole worry-problem with you people.. if they'd just allow me to connect to my boyfriends game so we could play together I could play my own character alongside him minus one of the other party members .. .not like we're asking for them to add the ability to bring myself and his party members plus my own... it's not overly complicating nor is it like you have to use it.. giving me the option and capability to play with someone would be FANTASTIC... saying "It's a single player game" just makes you sound a bit daft and simple minded... ... bleh.. I would vote towards co-op because I think that I would love to play this game alongside someone else...it's fantastic single player..but I really do think I'd enjoy questing and defeating the game along his side.. >>

[Estel78]

Chris Priestly wrote...

Dragon Age 2 is a single player game.

Awesome! *thumbs up*

[AmstradHero]

KiwiLynn wrote...

My god, i don't see the whole worry-problem with you people.. if they'd just allow me to connect to my boyfriends game so we could play together I could play my own character alongside him minus one of the other party members .. .not like we're asking for them to add the ability to bring myself and his party members plus my own... it's not overly complicating nor is it like you have to use it.. giving me the option and capability to play with someone would be FANTASTIC... saying "It's a single player game" just makes you sound a bit daft and simple minded... ... bleh.. I would vote towards co-op because I think that I would love to play this game alongside someone else...it's fantastic single player..but I really do think I'd enjoy questing and defeating the game along his side.. >>

Because the effort required to provide that ability within the game is not trivial. It's a substantial undertaking to add that functionality into a game. I (and many others) would rather see that time and money spent delivering a better game rather than give a co-op functionality that is going to add very little to the game itself because of the reasons pointed out previously.

[Estel78]

Ticladesign wrote...

But yes... a very sad day for modders, and NWN style Multiplayer. Once again.

NWN was Bioware's worst game, because they focused on multiplayer a lot, which takes away resources from the singleplayer.

[Ticladesign]

Oh that comment again, taking away resources.

Just because you dont like one particulair feature, doesnt mean someone else wont,
NWN Bioware's worst game? Tell that to the thousands that play NWN1 and 2 to this day, to the many toolset users, the modders, the PW communities and custom content developers. If that was true, why is the game still alive after 9 years?

NWN was a modulair game based around the (user friendly) toolset. Because of that the game had it's restrictions which may showed in the singleplayer campaign, It's strange that the multiplayer option gets blamed for the Modulair structure of the game, But that's ignorance, I guess.

And when someone from a NWN background talks about multiplayer they dont mean WoW, or any other MMO out there. There is still Multiplayer in RPG's without immediately talking about a MMO. (unlike, what seems to be the industry's opinion these days)
So therefore, NWN is Bioware's best game. Because it's still alive after 9 years, and might as wll outlive Dragon Age2 as well.

(This post is not a request to add MP to Dragon Age2)

Modifié par Ticladesign, 11 juillet 2010 - 02:57 .