191 réponses à ce sujet

[Maconbar]

Maybe BW could turn DA:O into an mmo. Then we could put the archedemon on farm status and get phat lootz.

[William91]

NO!

[Dynamomark]

Maconbar wrote...

Maybe BW could turn DA:O into an mmo. Then we could put the archedemon on farm status and get phat lootz.

hehe that's some funny trolling

[Maverick827]

 

What you're asking, in effect -- and to use an analogy -- is why the designers of the Ferrari didn't add a rear propellor and pontoons to it as well. After all, wouldn't it be better if you could sail it as well as drive it? In a sense, I guess, but it wouldn't be nearly as good a sports car if it were built that way. Building really good dramatic SP mods for NWN1 was often complicated for just those kinds of reasons, which is why I personally am excited by how Dragon Age was designed.

Analogies are always a risky way to debate.  You should stary from them in the future.

Your error is that you have absolutely no proof that Ferari could not build a hybrid car/boat that functions perfectly as both.

I'd rather have a well polished single player experience rather than a co-op mode that doesn't fit and feels rushed and incomplete.

Why is this a given?  Why would co op inherantly be rushed and incomplete?  Do you have any evidence to support this?

Maybe BW could turn DA:O into an mmo. Then we could put the archedemon on farm status and get phat lootz.

Strawman.  Though you do realize that SW:TOR is the exact same model as DAO, only in MMO form, correct?
Opinions are a great thing to have except when you begin to rudely state them as fact.

Modifié par Maverick827, 12 septembre 2010 - 10:49 .

[AmstradHero]

Firstly, to answer the OP: No.

Secondly:

Maverick827 wrote...
It is entirely a myth that multiplayer or co-op gameplay unequivocally detracts from the single player experience, and I will attempt to prove why:
Let the term "resource" mean any amount of time, work, or money required to achieve a certain goal.
Let the term "part" refer to the various departments or sectors of the development process, such as music, writing, and programming.  Let the term "whole" refer to the the collection of all parts.

Lemma: "There exists a limit to which one may apply resources to any given part of the whole wherein their effects cease to become noticeable."
Proof: No matter how much one might pay an artist, model renderer, or engine programmer, the game could never have hyper-realistic graphics given the limitations of available hardware.

Lemma: "There exists a finite amount of parts to the whole."
Proof: BioWare is not staffed by infinite people, therefore there is a finite amount of departments, and thus a finite amount of different jobs to be performed.

With sufficient funding, any single department would eventually reach their creative limit, so to speak.  Since there are a finite amount of departments, again with sufficient funding, the entirety of BioWare would reach its creative limit.  Once this happens, the only way to see a positive benefit from the use of resources would be to expand to new departments and new functionality, namely to multiplayer or cooperative gameplay.

This reminds me of a joke about mathematicians and spherical horses...

Your "proof" is flawed because it assumes infinite money, or at the very least, excess money, and that is a complete fallacy.

BioWare is not funded by infinite money, hence that "creative limit" you speak of is an entirely artificial construct. Game developers don't work crunch because they're getting paid more money, they do it because the game needs to be done.

Creating an engine and story that supports a multiplayer experience is a significant undertaking and will detract from a single player experience, even if you don't think it would. The reasons why have been detailed at length in many other threads like this before.

[Maverick827]

AmstradHero wrote...

This reminds me of a joke about mathematicians and spherical horses...

Your "proof" is flawed because it assumes infinite money, or at the very least, excess money, and that is a complete fallacy.

BioWare is not funded by infinite money, hence that "creative limit" you speak of is an entirely artificial construct. Game developers don't work crunch because they're getting paid more money, they do it because the game needs to be done.

Creating an engine and story that supports a multiplayer experience is a significant undertaking and will detract from a single player experience, even if you don't think it would. The reasons why have been detailed at length in many other threads like this before.

Perhaps I should have provided an additional lemma stating that the affordability of such a project is well within EA's reach?

Creating an engine and story that supports multiplayer experience, while a significant undertaking, would not detract from a single player experience, even if you think it would.

Wow, that was pretty easy.  Maybe I should forget this whole "logic" stuff and just start stating things with no further argument. Here, let me try it again; just as you say no...

Yes.

I can see why such mental lethargy is so addicting, now.

[nuclearpengu1nn]

nah not really
if DA2 is openworld then yes
co-op is only good if the game is free roam/openworld
but i would like a multiplayer though

Modifié par GreyWarden36, 12 septembre 2010 - 11:12 .

[tishyw]

I have to add my voice to the chorus of No's! There are plenty of co-op games out there, but quality single player games are getting much harder to find.

[Challseus]

@ Maverick827

How about this: I tend to believe Bioware, who said it would stop them from creating the best SP RPG experience they could, over you, who I assume do not work at Bioware, know the internal workings of it, as well as all things financial.

You can try to argue all you want about what could happen, considering the situation, but in the end, the real experts (i.e. Bioware, you know, the ones who are making the game)have spoken, and it's not going to happen (at least for Dragon Age).

Or maybe it's a conspiracy

Modifié par Challseus, 12 septembre 2010 - 11:23 .

[lv12medic]

Hmm... Co-op is fine and dandy for a game that is essential linear and you have no real control over the story. As in: Co-op play - cutscene - Co-op play - cutscene - Co-op play - cutscene - credits.



I don't see Co-op working in a game where you have some control over the story. As in: Co-op play - Conversation with choices - Co-op play - World changing decision to make - Co-op play - etc.



Dragon Age is designed, from the ground up, to be a single player game. In order to have Co-op play, requires the makers of the game (aka Bioware) to make a choice and say to themselves "We are making a Co-op capable game today" for Co-op to work.



So, a Dragon Age game with Co-op to me would be something like having fun killing a bunch of baddies but being stuck in a canon story.

[LadyJaneGrey]

No thank you.  At least, not in Dragon Age 2.  As others have said, the decision-making/dialogue system would not work with more than one person.  I play co-op games with my friends to have fun; I do not play co-op games to spend all non-combat sections in a manner like this:

• Scene: Zevran lies on the ground unconscious.
• Player 1, "Let's revive him."
• Player 2, "Are you nuts?  HE JUST TRIED TO KILL US."
• Player 1, "But he might have information."
• Player 2, "What new information?  Loghain and most of Ferelden want us dead.  Not exactly noteworthy."
• Player 1, "But he was in that cut scene.  He must be important."
• Player 2, "You're meta-gaming again.  Knock it off."
• Player 1, "But."
• Twenty minutes later....
• Player 1 and Player 2, shouting at the same time, "you-are-so-stupid-I-cannot-believe-you'd-choose-that-I'm-never-playing-with-you-again!"

I have many other examples I could use, but I won't belabor the point. 

TLDR: A  co-op game can be good; a Dragon Age 2 co-op game would just be frustrating.

[Firky]

Challseus wrote...

How about this: I tend to believe Bioware, who said it would stop them from creating the best SP RPG experience they could, ....

Did  you see someone from Bioware post that somewhere? I'm interested. All I've seen as the "official" word is somewhere someone from Bioware posted, simply, "Dragon Age is a single player game." (I have no idea who it was or where, so take this as my memory, not proof.)

I find the multiplayer threads around here interesting - and am vaguelly following them. I might have missed something, and be wildly off base by still wondering, but maybe they are considering co-op or multiplayer. Not MMO, mind you. For example, I would consider Civilization a "single player game" - but with a multiplayer option. Baldur's Gate is a single player game with a co-op option? 

I'm just still wondering if there is an option open - but lik I said, I could be wildly off the money.

Modifié par Firky, 13 septembre 2010 - 12:07 .

[alickar]

no unless they make another story so co-op wud fit in but wud take too long

[zahra]

Maybe twenty years from now, if they want to squeeze some money off an old franchise, it would be interesting perhaps. But for now, emphatic "NO" in the way Sten would say no if you asked for a hug and/or his cookies.

[Saibh]

Maverick827 wrote...

Perhaps I should have provided an additional lemma stating that the affordability of such a project is well within EA's reach?

Creating an engine and story that supports multiplayer experience, while a significant undertaking, would not detract from a single player experience, even if you think it would.

Wow, that was pretty easy.  Maybe I should forget this whole "logic" stuff and just start stating things with no further argument. Here, let me try it again; just as you say no...

Yes.

I can see why such mental lethargy is so addicting, now.

/stares

Yes, it would. It seems you assume that by "take away", I or others mean graphical power, or more detailed settings. I'm talking about time allotted to story--to plot, to characters, to romance, to friendships, to conversations, to NPCs. A multi-player would detract from that by siphoning resources away. I'm not saying, that with the presence of co-op, single-player would be bad, it could be quite good. But since I vastly prefer single-player over co-op in RPGs, I don't want anything taken away from what might improve upon a single-player experience.

It's possible if they wanted to put oodles and oodles of money in the game further, they could maximize both potentials of single-player and multi-player. But they can't, or they won't. They have limited resources, and anything given to multi-player inevitably takes away from single-player.

[Maverick827]

Saibh wrote...

/stares

Yeah, I know.  I got a bit upset today.  I went out and bought ME2 and had loads of trouble connecting my Gamertag to my EA account.  It took about four hours of Googling out of the last day of my long weekend, and then I come to a thread regarding a topic that I care much about full of "no" responses.  It was a cocktail of frustration.

It's possible if they wanted to put oodles and oodles of money in the game further, they could maximize both potentials of single-player and multi-player. But they can't, or they won't. They have limited resources, and anything given to multi-player inevitably takes away from single-player.

All I've ever said was that, given enough resources, multi-player would not take away from single-player.  I've been specifically careful never say that EA would or should invest said resources into Dragon Age (well, I wish they would, but...).  They're doing it for TOR, so it's not out of the realm of possibility.

Modifié par Maverick827, 13 septembre 2010 - 12:40 .

[The Big Nothing]

Go away.

[AmstradHero]

Maverick827 wrote...
Perhaps I should have provided an additional lemma stating that the affordability of such a project is well within EA's reach?

Creating an engine and story that supports multiplayer experience, while a significant undertaking, would not detract from a single player experience, even if you think it would.

Wow, that was pretty easy.  Maybe I should forget this whole "logic" stuff and just start stating things with no further argument. Here, let me try it again; just as you say no...

Yes.

I can see why such mental lethargy is so addicting, now.

Ah, so EA now has infinite resources and money? It's not logic if you're not being bound by actual real world considerations. Not everything exists in an entirely theoretical scenario like your lemmas, "proofs" and supposition.

In paraphrasing my line, you also failed to look at all the arguments and logical reasoning in multiple previous threads (check Andarian's links if you can't find them with a search) that explain why. If you want to provide an argument, then do your background research first and try to debate the points that have been previously demonstrated.

I've developed mods for NWN and NWN2, both of which support multiplayer as part of the engine. As soon as you attempt to cater for multiplayer, the time required to develop a mod increases dramatically because there are countless scenarios that simply do not exist in a single player game. Yes, my arguments are actually coming from someone who has invested time and effort into creating games rather than a simply theoretical standpoint!

Have you ever been responsible for the development of a game or mod for a story driven RPG, and had to cater for both single player and multiplayer?

Are you claiming to be more knowledgeable and experienced in the development of RPGs than BioWare?

Modifié par AmstradHero, 13 septembre 2010 - 12:52 .

[Mad Method]

Personally, I'm all for coop. The number one reason why I played the Playstation Baldur's Gate games was because I could play them with friends.

Maverick827 wrote...

NvVanity wrote...

With how DA2 looks Co-op probably would be fun. But too late in development now for its inclusion. Of course modders in Oblivion made a co-op mod (albiet somewhat laggy) so given time it could happen to DA.

There was a project in the works, but it was shut down.  To quote the project page, "The mod can be done but BioWare will not allow it."

http://social.biowar...ussions#details

"Bioware will not allow it" was their childish way of saying they were unwilling to hack through all the difficult single-player code to make it multiplayer. They were also angry at BioWare for what appears to be the ginormous amounts of bugs left in the game (understandable). I have my doubts that their group was even capable of the feat to begin with. They never showed any evidence of any competence.

Spawn305 wrote...

This Project has been cancled due to the fact that we all hate the game. This game needs alot of work that Bioware isn;t going to do and they left most of the work to be done by the players. I do not forsee multi player EVER being an option for this game. Bioware went out of their way to stop multiplayer in this game.

There you go. The project owner cancelled it. Not Bioware.

I have my doubts that Bioware would object to free coop.

Modifié par Mad Method, 13 décembre 2011 - 04:23 .

[Saibh]

Maverick827 wrote...

Yeah, I know.  I got a bit upset today.  I went out and bought ME2 and had loads of trouble connecting my Gamertag to my EA account.  It took about four hours of Googling out of the last day of my long weekend, and then I come to a thread regarding a topic that I care much about full of "no" responses.  It was a cocktail of frustration.

Oh, you did buy it? Can't you connect your Gamertag online? Eh. This subject gets brought up a lot. At one time people gave earnest and thoughtful replies (or, as much as this forum can get, anyway), but now people are sick of the same "HA HA single-players LOOOSERZ you just don't have any FRIENDS!" and this topic and don't bother.

All I've ever said was that, given enough resources, multi-player would not take away from single-player.  I've been specifically careful never say that EA would or should invest said resources into Dragon Age (well, I wish they would, but...).  They're doing it for TOR, so it's not out of the realm of possibility.

Yes, I suppose, but that's a lot of cash to put in to try to maximize both potentials. And if they're putting money into multi-player, well, that's money they could have been using for single-player. So, boo.

[Fangirl17]

For the 100th time NO! >:l

[Stinkface27]

nope

[Maverick827]

Saibh wrote...

Oh, you did buy it? Can't you connect your Gamertag online? Eh. This subject gets brought up a lot. At one time people gave earnest and thoughtful replies (or, as much as this forum can get, anyway), but now people are sick of the same "HA HA single-players LOOOSERZ you just don't have any FRIENDS!" and this topic and don't bother.

I accidentally registered an @hotmai email instead of @hotmail, so my account didn't get linked up and you can't change that stuff yourself.  Getting it changed was quick; finding out that that was the error...not so much.

I'm not going to bother to keep arguing this point, though.  In the past I've loved to argue against a crowd but the True Blood season finale is coming up and I just don't have it in me.  For every person with an argument there's five who just want to post "no," and it's just grating.

I guess I'll just never have anything like those all-night Dark Alliance co-op marathons with my friends again. 

[Mecha Tengu]

bad idea



introducing a multiplayer aspect to a single player RPG would force Devs to release patches and balance content to deal with large multiplayer community. Do not want at all



ohwait

[Saibh]

Maverick827 wrote...

I accidentally registered an @hotmai email instead of @hotmail, so my account didn't get linked up and you can't change that stuff yourself.  Getting it changed was quick; finding out that that was the error...not so much.

I'm not going to bother to keep arguing this point, though.  In the past I've loved to argue against a crowd but the True Blood season finale is coming up and I just don't have it in me.  For every person with an argument there's five who just want to post "no," and it's just grating.

I guess I'll just never have anything like those all-night Dark Alliance co-op marathons with my friends again. 

... I can't watch it! I have to wait for a bootlegged version, dammit! Don't taunt me...

Modifié par Saibh, 13 septembre 2010 - 12:58 .