Again, no arguments that the game is brilliant, awesome and any other positive adjective you care to use, but how and why would it be "ruined" or "mucked up" by the inclusion of "an on-line feature"? This is not a rhetorical question, merely an attempt to encourage an objective discussion. You may well be right, but I would like to know your reasons so that I and others can respond to them.
do u guys think they should add a online feature?
Débuté par
stfb1055
, oct. 26 2009 06:05
Retour en haut
#78
Posté 19 janvier 2010 - 11:26
TheRealIncarnal
-
- Members
- 475 messages
How are you going to work the pausing into online multiplayer?
I have no desire to play this game online.
I have no desire to play this game online.
#79
Posté 19 janvier 2010 - 11:38
IronCladNinja
-
- Members
- 37 messages
Dragon Age Online? No. I like my RPG's massively single player.
However, these are exceptions.
Star Wars: The Old Republic
Guild Wars 2
However, these are exceptions.
Star Wars: The Old Republic
Guild Wars 2
#80
Posté 19 janvier 2010 - 11:46
jennamarae
-
- Members
- 1 015 messages
Online play just wouldn't work with this game. There are too many cutscenes, choices, and conversations to be able to play it online and it still be the same game. How would you allow people to make their own choices without forcing others they're playing with to make those same choices? What if I want to take option A and someone in my group wants to do option B? Who gets to choose? Will I have no say about the people in my group because of the options I want to take? How about the cutscenes and conversations? What if I want to listen to it all, but someone in my group doesn't? Do I have to miss it, or are they forced into listening to it anyway? What if we don't want to respond the same way to an NPC? Who gets to choose?
It just wouldn't work if you want to keep the story itself intact. You'd either have to take away all the choices and force everyone to play it the same way, or force people to not play with people they want to play with if they don't want to do everything exactly the same as each other. Either way it wouldn't improve the game in any way. It would just destroy what makes the game good in my opinion.
So no, no online feature. As others have said, I'd rather have a great single player game than a mediocre MMO with no story but lots of grinding.
It just wouldn't work if you want to keep the story itself intact. You'd either have to take away all the choices and force everyone to play it the same way, or force people to not play with people they want to play with if they don't want to do everything exactly the same as each other. Either way it wouldn't improve the game in any way. It would just destroy what makes the game good in my opinion.
So no, no online feature. As others have said, I'd rather have a great single player game than a mediocre MMO with no story but lots of grinding.
#81
Posté 20 janvier 2010 - 12:03
SalvoDK
-
- Members
- 34 messages
Ok. Would just like to say that one of the best multiplayer experiences I ever had was Baldur's Gate II. Yes. BGII. I'd played it single player first of course, but playing that through with some friends online while at uni was just epic. Same with the Icewind Dales for that matter.
If they made it so upto 3 players could play the game through together multiplayer (you'd have to have one NPC becuase some quests require one of the characters) the game would work fine. Its already ballanced for that many party members.
As to the "what if i wont/dont wont to skip this scene" matter turns up, there are two ways to go about it. THe BG one as i recall was that whoever started the coversation got controle of it, the other way of doing it would be to elect someone to be the party leader and decide these things, which is largely the same way its worked out in many DnD campaigns i've played (dude with the best charisma in front).
Other than a toggel as to weather everyone can choose to pause combat or just the team leader, and of course, the actual multiplayer code the game dosn't lack a damn thing it needs to be an epic multiplayer experience without detracting anything from the single player one.
If they made it so upto 3 players could play the game through together multiplayer (you'd have to have one NPC becuase some quests require one of the characters) the game would work fine. Its already ballanced for that many party members.
As to the "what if i wont/dont wont to skip this scene" matter turns up, there are two ways to go about it. THe BG one as i recall was that whoever started the coversation got controle of it, the other way of doing it would be to elect someone to be the party leader and decide these things, which is largely the same way its worked out in many DnD campaigns i've played (dude with the best charisma in front).
Other than a toggel as to weather everyone can choose to pause combat or just the team leader, and of course, the actual multiplayer code the game dosn't lack a damn thing it needs to be an epic multiplayer experience without detracting anything from the single player one.
#82
Posté 20 janvier 2010 - 12:27
MOTpoetryION
-
- Members
- 1 214 messages
yes i made a post the first day i played the game asking why they didn't have it multi player.
And to let you know , i believe some people are attempting to make it into one. And thats a cool idea kind of like a group PVP. very interesting
And to let you know , i believe some people are attempting to make it into one. And thats a cool idea kind of like a group PVP. very interesting
#83
Posté 20 janvier 2010 - 01:28
ladydesire
-
- Members
- 1 928 messages
SalvoDK wrote...
Other than a toggel as to weather everyone can choose to pause combat or just the team leader, and of course, the actual multiplayer code the game dosn't lack a damn thing it needs to be an epic multiplayer experience without detracting anything from the single player one.
It would need to be significantly redesigned to accomodate multiplayer; there are too many places in the GUI where the ability to alter the party equipment or pick which party member talks to the merchant would need to be changed to handle multiple players that it would impact the experience of the game. I could go on with the needed changes, but I think I've posted some of them in other threads like this in the past.
#84
Posté 20 janvier 2010 - 01:49
Verloren03
-
- Members
- 43 messages
Too many people in this thread are associating 'multiplayer' with MMO's like WoW. Multiplayer does not instantly mean servers full of morons that you're forced to join.
I think multiplayer for this game would be great. I'd love to play across a network with my fiance like we've done with Diablo, Baldurs Gate, NWN, IWD, Dungeon Siege, all fun games (BG, Diablo, NWN had great stories too). Just because you are playing with someone else does not mean you cannot immerse yourself in the lore and story and enjoy the game.
Just my opinion. And really, when you're playing this for the 3rd or 4th time through, how immersed are you in the story? Besides the starting scenes/quests for a new race/class?
I think multiplayer for this game would be great. I'd love to play across a network with my fiance like we've done with Diablo, Baldurs Gate, NWN, IWD, Dungeon Siege, all fun games (BG, Diablo, NWN had great stories too). Just because you are playing with someone else does not mean you cannot immerse yourself in the lore and story and enjoy the game.
Just my opinion. And really, when you're playing this for the 3rd or 4th time through, how immersed are you in the story? Besides the starting scenes/quests for a new race/class?
#85
Posté 20 janvier 2010 - 02:31
Peeker2009
-
- Members
- 108 messages
Some interesting replies. I can certainly foresee some issues arising with the way merchants and cutscenes would be handled, but also think some of the whizz kids out there might be capable of adapting them. Actually, I think I would quite enjoy being a spectator in some of the cutscenes, as long as I can see my character looking good in the background lol. As Salvodk points out you can always choose a leader, only it would be Coercian (spelling?) rather than Charisma that would be the determining factor. As long as we all get a chance to have a go at some point, then that's fine.
However, as far the pause button is concerned I can't really see a huge problem. In NWN multiplayer - well the one I joined anyway - it was simply disabled, except when logging on as a DM. You would only be controlling one character, so micromanagement requirements would be minimal. Sure, it took me a while to get used to it in NWN multiplayer (I was a space-bar addict in the OC), but it certainly added to the excitement of it all when everyone had to make decisions on the fly - just a different gaming experience. And if the death system stayed the same as the original, then the penalty for making a mistake would be pretty small (no respawning yay)
As Verloren03 points out, being able to play with friends and family is a pretty big plus for many people. Not so much for me, as none of my friends or family are very interested in computer games, let alone rpgs...yet.
*Edited to include Salvodk's post
However, as far the pause button is concerned I can't really see a huge problem. In NWN multiplayer - well the one I joined anyway - it was simply disabled, except when logging on as a DM. You would only be controlling one character, so micromanagement requirements would be minimal. Sure, it took me a while to get used to it in NWN multiplayer (I was a space-bar addict in the OC), but it certainly added to the excitement of it all when everyone had to make decisions on the fly - just a different gaming experience. And if the death system stayed the same as the original, then the penalty for making a mistake would be pretty small (no respawning yay)
As Verloren03 points out, being able to play with friends and family is a pretty big plus for many people. Not so much for me, as none of my friends or family are very interested in computer games, let alone rpgs...yet.
*Edited to include Salvodk's post
Modifié par Peeker2009, 20 janvier 2010 - 02:38 .
#86
Posté 20 janvier 2010 - 03:12
dreadz10
-
- Members
- 34 messages
I wouldnt mind an online feature but nothing to the extent of WOW, I dont want to find myslef jumping around in a city looking for a group to raid with for an hour.
#88
Posté 20 janvier 2010 - 12:29
Klimy
-
- Members
- 818 messages
No.
Would never want to see it or ME to get inte online/co-op or what ever.
Would never want to see it or ME to get inte online/co-op or what ever.
#90
Posté 21 janvier 2010 - 05:48
Taura-Tierno
-
- Members
- 887 messages
Ok, I've changed my mind.
If another development team was resonsible for the online feature, and they got another set of funds, I would not be opposed to an online feature, because it would not affect my gameplay at all.
If, however, the single-player game would have to share resources in terms of money and developers, that would mean less time and money spent on the single-player game (which is what I want), which would probably make it less good. That would make the experience of playing it less enjoyable for me, and quite frankly, I don't really care if others enjoy it. I want to enjoy it, so I'm rather selfish in this regard.
If another development team was resonsible for the online feature, and they got another set of funds, I would not be opposed to an online feature, because it would not affect my gameplay at all.
If, however, the single-player game would have to share resources in terms of money and developers, that would mean less time and money spent on the single-player game (which is what I want), which would probably make it less good. That would make the experience of playing it less enjoyable for me, and quite frankly, I don't really care if others enjoy it. I want to enjoy it, so I'm rather selfish in this regard.
