138 réponses à ce sujet

[Maverick827]

AlanC9 wrote...

Maverick827 wrote...
If developed with co-op in mind, no one would be "following you around."  You would likely be traveling together as equal players, as it will be in TOR.

Right -- so in addition to all of the technical stuff mentioned earlier, now they have to rewrite the campaign too....

Did you miss the italicized "with co-op in mind?"  I'm speaking of future projects, no re-working DA2 for co-op.  I specifically said this.  Are you so blind with nerd rage?

Modifié par Maverick827, 13 août 2010 - 02:59 .

[AlanC9]

No - It just wasn't clear from that post that you weren't talking about designing a DA2 with co-op in mind. My bad for not reading your earlier posts.



Seriously, I've got no reason to nerdrage -- there's no chance of co-op in DA2, and very little chance in future DA games. I'm going with amused contempt rather than rage ATM.

[Behindyounow]

No. Co-op isn't bad thing, but implementing it would mean less money is spent on making the singleplayer campaign, and at the end of the day I'd rather have an excellent Singleplayer than a good singleplayer with co op attached.

[Maverick827]

AlanC9 wrote...

Seriously, I've got no reason to nerdrage -- there's no chance of co-op in DA2, and very little chance in future DA games. I'm going with amused contempt rather than rage ATM.

I could see it going either way with future DA installments.  I think there is a good chance that, many years down the line, BioWare will look into making a Dragon Age or Mass Effect MMO, in which case there must be co-op.

That aside, I could certainly see BioWare returning to their multiplayer past.

The point is that such gameplay could be good if not tacked on to DA2, and also that the vehement outcry against all things multiplayer is ridiculous.

[Gaxhung]

I used to be against co-op, but now that the idea has settled in, having a co-op only section of the game isn't so bad, campaign should remain single player, but the co-op part is special scenario missions, sort of like Mercenaries mode in RE4 and 5, where you and partner go about completing timed missions, or some other type of fast paced game play, even competing with your partner for points or time, so, no story here, or long winded npc speeches in co-op. A toolset that works with this is icing on the cake.

[Divine Justinia V]

In ME2 I wouldn't have minded a co-op campaign, maybe even in DA:O so someone else could kill the giant spiders. However, I don't think DA would have the same *touch* as it does if it were multiplayer. It might be cool to fight against a buddy, mage v mage or something, but I'm not sure.

I don't know why people have to be so rude to you, you're just asking a question or sharing an opinion. Not trolling. ANYWAY. I think ME2 - maybe, but not for DA. 

Modifié par VittoriaLandis, 13 août 2010 - 03:22 .

[AJanitor]

1. For the people who claim this is a console vs. PC thing. Stop. I play PC games all the time and I would love a co-op game. Co-op has nothing to do with a console or PC preference.



2. For those of you who don't think it would be fun don't play it.



3. For those of you who have issues with funding, isn't this the case with every game? There are parts you wish there were more of and parts that you wish there was less of. For example, I enjoyed the multiplayer experience of Bad Company 2. The single player sucked. I wish they would have just not had the single player and made the MP better. But if someone says, "Hey wouldn't it be awesome if the next game had a great single player?" My response is typically, "Yes, I would love a game that did both well."



4. For those of you who want to play alone, then play alone. I would have a solo character and a Co-op character. It's not like we're forcing you to play it. I highly doubt a team as highly funded as Bioware couldn't give you a fine singleplayer experience and still do co-op.



5. Some of you need to grow up instead of posting inflammatory comments about a video game.

[Divine Justinia V]

AJanitor wrote...

WIN. Couldn't have said it better myself.

[In Exile]

WOLFBANE 101 wrote...

Really? Wow... Gaming alone in this day and age?

 Seriously if DA2 had co-op you could still play single player. As far as a massive redesign? Arn't they doing that anyway.

Yeah, basically. I like playing video-games alone, if they're RPGs.

Playing with friends is fun for trash talking and the interaction you get, but it makes for an entirely different experience, because it's about chilling with a buddy versus playing the game.

So help me understand your point of view here. My simpleton ideas of making co-op work with the pre-exsisting mechanics would hamper your single player experence?

Co-op, to not suck, has to be designed with Co-op in mind. I suppose they could try and tack it on like Halo 3 did, but I thought an awesome Co-Op mode worked like in Splinter Cell. Unique story, unique protagonists - the game was designed to be played by 2 people, and playing it with 2 people was fun.

I just don't want games to be like that in general, because I prefer to play video games alone, just like I like to go out clubbing with friends. Taste, yes?

Let me ask you this. If DA Origins was 4 player co-op you would've never even considered the idea of playing co-op? These posts are why people have such a hard time expressing ideas for change. Because people will usually dismiss the idea without asking them selves if it has merit or not. Or if it effects them or not.

No. For one, I don't like playing online games. Two, my friends have very different tastes than I do; I happen not to know anyone in person who plays the same video-games I do.

Think about someone on this forum that you consider a very capable Dragon Age player an par with your own vast understanding of the game's mechanic. Wouldn't it be an unbelievable experience to have that person take over one of your party members and destroy Dark Spawn together? One casts Cone Of Cold, the other smashes the sucker into ice cubes.

I happen to like controlling more than one character at once. Getting stuck to one character in a non-skill based game would suck. If it was Halo 3, then yes, that would be fun,

[In Exile]

RoundeyeSamurai wrote...You sound like my kids, "I won't eat that food, because it is gross" when they haven't even tried it yet. This is a grand problem to be found on every board, regardless of the game, so I should not be surprised if it degrades to that here as well.

It isn't that simple. It isn't even about not liking a particular thing; it could well be about liking something else more. If you give me grilled chicken instead of cheese pizza, it's not that I would

If co-op were an option, then you could opt in, or opt out, hence the term option. You single player only advocates could do the single player only route and still enjoy your game. The co-op advocates could opt for co-op and enjoy their game. Everyone would also be given a chance to try the 'other side' of the coin, and from there, generate their own proper opinions, either way.

Adding co-op as an option is not that simple. There are design issues related. Beyond general design issues (if co-op is central to other features of the game, adding co-op could impat functionality which means more QA, etc.) there is also the basic cost of time.

Even if you have an UI change, you have to add code, which means new execution paths, which means more testing. Co-op does not just fall from the sky as a gift from heaven.

Bioware could add a different combat engine, too, as an "option" but that isn't efficient.

To quote my software designer friend, multi-user software is very different from single user software and things is a pain to design. He almost had a stroke when I told him people think just adding multi-user as a feature is easy or does not impact design.

Modifié par In Exile, 13 août 2010 - 03:49 .

[Loc'n'lol]

slimgrin wrote...

Asking Bioware to do co-op is like asking DaVinci to design stage sets and costumes instead of painting.

Bioware did coop games before and DaVinci actually designed stages and costumes and did many many other things than painting... Your point was ?

[AJanitor]

Adding co-op as an option is not that simple. There are design issues related. Beyond general design issues (if co-op is central to other features of the game, adding co-op could impat functionality which means more QA, etc.) there is also the basic cost of time.



Even if you have an UI change, you have to add code, which means new execution paths, which means more testing. Co-op does not just fall from the sky as a gift from heaven.



Bioware could add a different combat engine, too, as an "option" but that isn't efficient.



To quote my software designer friend, multi-user software is very different from single user software and things is a pain to design. He almost had a stroke when I told him people think just adding multi-user as a feature is easy or does not impact design.

You have a point. It would be difficult to implement. However, let's take a look at games the past 10 years and discuss the types of advances that were "difficult."



I realize the option might not be that easy. It might not happen. So what? Dreaming of possibilities, advancement, creative new ways to experience games is all what pushes the industry forward. If you didn't have people like that your Dragon Age experience would still be a text based game.



I get it, it's not that easy. Guess what? I don't care. I want to think of new exciting ways to experience games by a developer that I love. There's nothing wrong with the game as-is. But I prefer to dream beyond the status quo in hopes that a experience can be even better.

[DMThaane]

slimgrin wrote...

LOl. I know DaVinci designed stage sets and costumes. My point was that it was a waste of his time. But then, he had patrons to please...

Actually I couldn’t care less about his paintings but I have a friend that could really use some well designed stage sets and costumes. It’s all about what’s valuable to you.

I personally don’t like the idea of RPG coop because in game I’m supposed to be the most awesome thing that has ever walked this earth. Having another person following me around being just as awesome would dilute the DMThaane experience and in the end Thedas would be the true losers.
I’m also still having nightmares involving the phrases ‘you must gather your party’ ‘okay I think what we should do is’ and ‘why didn’t you tell us about that?’
Oh I told them… but did they listen.

[AlanC9]

But that just assumes that co-op is a step forward, AJanitor. For me it simply isn't. At best it's a waste of resources that would have gone into something I actually want, at worst it results in design compromises that reduce the quality of the game I get, in addition to making the game shorter.

Modifié par AlanC9, 13 août 2010 - 04:18 .

[Ryllen Laerth Kriel]

The BG series and NWN could be played co-op...so you haven't played many Bioware games OP! Fye on you! It is sad that DA:O didn't have a multiplayer client like NWN did, the custom player-made servers out there were the best part about NWN.

[AJanitor]

The BG series and NWN could be played co-op...so you haven't played many Bioware games OP!

He mentioned those in his post. In fact he goes on to say essentially the exact thing you do.

But that just assumes that co-op is a step forward, AJanitor. For me it simply isn't. At best it's a waste of resources that would have gone into something I actually want, at worst it results in design compromises that reduce the quality of the game I get, in addition to making the game shorter.

No. My assumption is that asking for new features and dreaming of new ideas pushes technology forward. Does that mean that co-op is? No. But I think I well done co-op could be an amazing change. Either of our opinions on something does not mean it determine if it is progress. I had a friend who would bash you all for playing RPG's because you don't play MUDs and Pen and Papers all the time. He would make fun of those whose imaginations were restrained by being told what places looked like or being forced to look at a TV screen.



Guess what. By his definition spending time on graphics, was a waste of time. Maybe the characters should just be as bland looking as possible so they can spend more resources on the story to make him happy?



Just because you or I doesn't like something does not mean it's a bad idea. I think some of you are way to caught up in what you perceive as "precious resources" and aren't willing to let others request features that they may like.

[AlanC9]

AJanitor wrote...
Just because you or I doesn't like something does not mean it's a bad idea. I think some of you are way to caught up in what you perceive as "precious resources" and aren't willing to let others request features that they may like.

Don't be silly. You're quite free to request any feature you like. And we're quite free to say that the requested feature is worthless and shouldn't be included.

Edit: if it makes you feel better, I'll freely admit that some folks would like having co-op. But what they want is simply not my problem.

Modifié par AlanC9, 13 août 2010 - 04:47 .

[ladydesire]

AJanitor: Baldur's Gate and Neverwinter Nights were coop because they were based on the Dungeons and Dragons PnP RPG, which is multiplayer to begin with; Dragon Age was designed as a Single Player CRPG that happens to have a PnP game named after it. The companions in the first two game were not as important to the story as the PC was, so coop play was a logical addition to those games; in Dragon Age, the companions are as much a part of the story as the PC, so removing them for other players doesn't work as well. I believe David Gaider said as much in a previous thread on this subject.

[DMThaane]

I will say that because Dragon Age is an expanding and adapting series rather then a direct, intrinsically bound series like Baldurs Gate or Neverwinter Nights (which very much followed the path set by their predecessors) a future game including coop with the game design and story design surrounding the idea of multiple players would see no complaints from me.



Just like they’ve altered things in DA2 to tell a certain story they can add coop to tell a certain kind of story. I will be less enthusiastic but I’ll still buy it, play it and enjoy it.



I’m actually a big coop fan but I prefer it in tactical shooters or action RPGs. They just have a better coop feel to them in my opinion. You feel more like you have to work together to succeed rather then you're working together for the hell of it and I’d work better on my own.

[Ryllen Laerth Kriel]

ladydesire wrote...

AJanitor: Baldur's Gate and Neverwinter Nights were coop because they were based on the Dungeons and Dragons PnP RPG, which is multiplayer to begin with; Dragon Age was designed as a Single Player CRPG that happens to have a PnP game named after it. The companions in the first two game were not as important to the story as the PC was, so coop play was a logical addition to those games; in Dragon Age, the companions are as much a part of the story as the PC, so removing them for other players doesn't work as well. I believe David Gaider said as much in a previous thread on this subject.

Actually Baldur's Gate had some pretty well-written companions. NWN...well...no, Aribeth was only memorible for being an insane, horribly written combination of fantasy cliches and Deekin was just Jarjar in Toril. And you are scraping the bottom of the bottom of the barrel when you have to make a character similar to Jarjar.

The party banter from DA:O reminded me of some of the random dialogues from Baldur's Gate, it was a nice  break between quests for me.  But overall I agree with you, DA:O was much more about the companions than NWN's campaign. NWN had a terrible plot.

[L33TDAWG]

DA's gameplay wouldn't allow it.