46 réponses à ce sujet

[Wild Maiden]

Inarai wrote...
In other news, multi-player won't work HERE, at least not well. 

You take your character and possibly some party members and meet your friends somewhere (the Deep Roads?) and battle it out with their help.  The current Single Player game couldn't really be made into multiplayer, unless one player was designated the "main" character, while the other 3 players were merely party members, in which case it would work just fine.

Additional Multiplayer missions/quests/areas would need to be added as well, which is why I think this would make for a good expansion to the game.

To those of you who are saying Dragon Age would make a good MMO, you need to sit down and actually think about that for moment.  Possibly it could work as a Guild Wars style MMO where the only actual MMO part is in towns and outposts, and the rest of the game is limited to x number of players (in this case probably 4), but even then the gameplay isn't geared towards an MMO, specifically the MASSIVELY part.

I think that letting my friend join my party over the internet or  LAN would work fine, it wouldn't change the dynamics of the game, instead of Morrigan casting spells according to the tactics I set, or according the way I command her, my friend would cast spells according the way they command their own character...

Modifié par Wild Maiden, 16 novembre 2009 - 01:50 .

[Kill The Future]

First off, this isn't going to happen, but thankfully, if it did happen, you could use the excellent system BioWare has created that appears when you first turn on the game. They based it on the dialogue menus, and it lets you choose what you want to do. (Load a save, options, new game, etc.) The old days of having to play whatever mode the game randomly decided upon when you turned it on are gone! Those of you who don't want to play multiplayer won't have to. Thanks, BioWare! Further, if it did happen it would be a large chunk of new content, which is to say, they would charge for it. Those of you who don't want multiplayer wouldn't even be able to play it by accident.



So why don't we let the people who want to talk about what multiplayer should hypothetically be talk about it, without accusing them of retardation or leprosy or whatever, hmm? I mean, except for the OP, who clearly has a severe case of dandruff. Why else would he have started this thread?

[armacham]

Id hate it if DA:O jumped on the mmo bandwagon. I had the same thought but retracted it instantly.

[Wild Maiden]

Almost none of us want to see Dragon Age become and MMO, that doesn't even make sense. We many of us ARE asking for is a limited, NON-MASSIVE multiplayer option where, for instance, 4 players could join a party rather than 1 player and 3 NPC's.



If you open the tool set you notice that the main game is constantly referred to as "Single-Player" which seems, in my opinion, to suggest that at one point (or perhaps in the future) Bioware and included (or perhaps intends to include) a mode other than Single Player, namely Multiplayer.

[Blindandbloody]

- Archangel - wrote...

God...I'm sick of this console generation who thinks everything needs multiplayer.

LOL, truer words have never been spoken.

[summervacation]

Wild Maiden wrote...

Since when was it the "console" generation that demanding online multiplayer while the PC gamers only ever wanted single player? Where I come from (namely Earth), it has ALWAYS been exactly the opposite.

Regardless, the notion that a multiplayer OPTION would somehow ruin the game is so ridiculous I can't even wrap my head around it. Did the OPTION of playing with your friends ruin Diablo? How about Never Winter Nights? Did it ruin Baldur's Gate? Baldur's Gate II? Baldur's Gate III?

When, in the history of the world, has more OPTIONS ever ruined anything? A multiplayer OPTION could be completely ignored by the lonely types who like to sit alone in their basement all day and they would be no worse off, meanwhile the folks who enjoy playing with other people would be much better off.

I think the game is very enjoyable as a single player game, but adding a multiplayer element could only possibly make it better. A multiplayer option would be the perfect sort of thing to include in future expansions of the game,

I simply cannot figure out why people could be opposed to being given the OPTION to play with their friends... I suppose the same people who find it entertaining to play D&D by themselves as well.

Thank you! Everybody is saying it would "ruin" the game but it would be a great feature to have muliplayer
 

Modifié par summervacation, 16 novembre 2009 - 11:30 .

[Iggynous]

i reckon big arena battles would be awsum...



log in, join a party of 4 online players, then go head to head with one or six other parties!!!



in awsum terrain and STUFF!!

[Mirika12]

The game looks serioulsy bueatiful the avatars are great looking too, the settings fantastic, this has geat potential for multiplayer realms, mind you so did Fallout 3.



It ccnot be beyond the relms of possibility to get it it going posibly using HImachi to get LAN games going across the net.

[Mirika12]

Himachi



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamachi

[Mirika12]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamachi

[FalloutBoy]

Let's make it so that have to get a 40-man raid in order to kill the Redcliffe demon. Then pray that it drops your Warden Commander's gloves, and pray you win the roll against the other 15 warriors in the raid. And if you lose, you don't get to try again until next week.



Then you spend the rest of the week doing PvP in the Proving arena because if you faceroll through another 200 matches, you get a ring with 1% spell resist. Awesome!

[EricHVela]

It would be great... for DA2.



DA:O has technical issues at low-levels, and I'd rather have those issues worked out of the system. Also, DA2 will likely have many features that people want from DA:O but are not implemented.



I say it will be worth the wait than pushing Multiplayer onto a system with features that are not multi-player-ready or that are missing altogether. I say let them work on DA2 with MP instead of focusing on DA:O MP.

[andybuiadh]

This game was beautiful as it was. Why spoil it by trying to make it another WoW (or other) clone. Multiplayer would spoil the setting imo. Unless you played with proper RP'ers the atmosphere would be ruined.

[Druscylla]

I love the fact this game is single player. I am also a WoW player. And I have to play at the same pace as everyone in my party or risk being left behind. It gets too competitive and demanding - I bought Dragon Age because I wanted a break from having to play at other people's speed and do what other people want. Alistair still loves me if I don't feel like playing for a week LOL

[MarkyT]

here's the problem - multiplayer can significantly change the whole way in which a game like this plays, plot driven (with many choices) party micro-management, in which there is a clear hero/chosen one protagonist, to which the other players are supporting characters.



I do not doubt that there may be some ways to achieve a similar effect in co-op, but the intrduction of any kind of pvp mechanic would dramatically alter the ability of a hero to use heroic powers to achieve heroic outcomes. And decision trees; abilities like influence/coercion/persuasion/intimidation change significantly, as does any form of crowd control (which stinks in pvp multiplayer)



Dont get me wrong - I love a good fragfest; the game I have played most hours of over recent years is Team Fortress 2.



But I like that this is what it is, and believe it would lose more from mp than it would gain. These things always end up being compromises.

[izariluneh]

The more similar thing to DAO multiplayer will be SWTOR, just checking the videos and info available i can sense lot of similarities, i think it is DAO combat system adapted to multiplayer.

[Nosuchluck]

- Archangel - wrote...

God...I'm sick of this console generation who thinks everything needs multiplayer.

What the heck is this even supposed to mean? PC gamers have been the one's with multiplayer and practically all old RPG's had multiplayer like I don't know.. Baldur's Gate 2? Please Console players are the one's who don't really care that much about Multiplayer. It's the reason MW2 has been insanely dumbed down to fit the consoles.
So yea, I'm a little confused what your post is about beyond the "I hate console users" style post.

[Default137]

One huge problem.



What would you be willing to give up for your CO-OP?



At least 20-30% of whats currently in the game would have to have been removed for CO-OP to be added, and it would have cost Bioware tons of extra money and time just to set up the networking, the balancing acts, and all sorts of other problems inherent with CO-OP.



Also, the after launch problems would have forced them to put their workforce towards fixing and re balancing the game, rather then working on new DLC/Expansions/Sequels, as if you look at this site alone, Bioware is not that great when it comes to networking issues it would seem.



So let me put it bluntly, if this game had CO-OP, at least one of the allys would not have been added, most of the side quests would probably be gone, an Origin would probably not have made it, Shale and Wardens Keep would be DLC planned for 2-3 months from now, and most of the end game stuff would probably be considerably shortened, and then after the game released we would be getting WK/Shale 3 months from now, and it would take even longer for them to get other content out to us.



So yes, the option would hurt all of us, if you think they an just flip a switch and voila then you have no idea how games are made, adding CO-OP is a huge task, that takes hundreds of thousands of dollars, takes tons of dedicated support, and the balancing act/extra work needed to refine the loot/questing/cutscenes/everything to make them set up for CO-OP would have taken tons of valuable time that would have been spent polishing and refining WK/Shale/Endgame/Origins/Allies.



Now you might cry a little and go "B'aww, what about NWN, what about BG2, what about those, Bioware has done it before, and those games were good and fun and large enough!" And I agree this is very true.



But if you think making something in Dragon Age Origins takes the same amount of time it would take to make something in NWN or BG2, games with very simple graphics, and very easy to use Toolsets, well, I have many bridges to sell you in various foreign lands, the reason those games had CO-OP is most likely because they're were able to finish the Single Player Campaign fast enough, and had plenty of time left over to add such a feature, which the games actually worked fairly well with.

[addiction21]

To me it seems that DAO was never intended for multiplayer and no matter what it would add to the game I'd rather have them devout those resources to improving on what we have. Would it be nice sure but in my eyes its not worth the sacrifices that would have to be made.

[gphx]

Personally I'm very happy to have a game that isn't multiplayer.

[Darth Kirin]

Multiplayer does not mean MMO.
Multiplayer does not mean MMO.
Multiplayer does not mean MMO.

I swear, it's like most of you have never heard of Neverwinter Nights.

Modifié par Darth Kirin, 17 novembre 2009 - 02:31 .

[VnTale]

Actualy the only mutliplayer form id like ot see is the one from NWN, i had tons of good times playing on heavy rleplay oriented servers and slacking around user created modules making my own quests and so on. The wonder of limited number of players/server allowed there to be a small number of dedicated GMS that could actually 'play' with players instead just being glitch fixers and exploit trackers.
However for now id rather have BioWare focus on singleplayer for DA world. We barley got to know single nation of Ferelden with rest just mantioned here and there, bits of history and very little of actual size and diversty of world. Give us more story first and maybe later in DA2 or something let use utilize the toolset possibilities for creating para-persistant worlds like NWN did.

Modifié par VnTale, 17 novembre 2009 - 02:45 .