276 réponses à ce sujet

[Faust1979]

Lord_Valandil wrote...

Maverick827 wrote...

Faust1979 wrote...

did people just seem to forget that Baldur's Gate 2 and Neverwinter Nights both had multiplayer?

I hear gross selfishness can lead to issues with memory.

I don't get it.
Is it selfish to want a single player experience, without a shoehorned multiplayer?

Hey I'm just trying to point out some facts people think it's the end of the world there is nothign wrong with pointing out Bioware has done it in the past

[Sacred_Fantasy]

Hmm... let me guess. Hack and Slash Call of Duty's audience again?

I wonder how it works? PKer Mages fireballs from range killing all warriors instantly. Then Rogues teleport backstabbing and killing both Mages and Warriors instantly. Then both Mages and Warriors cried out imbalanced Rogue and demand nerfing.

Somehow this experience sound familiar to me. But I'm too old to grind 24/7 to be one of the top players anymore. So.. no thanks. I enjoy the peaceful life of a single player RPG which is why I return once I knew about Dragon Age Origins a years ago..

Edit: grammar

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 12 mars 2011 - 04:31 .

[Maverick827]

Lord_Valandil wrote...

Maverick827 wrote...

Faust1979 wrote...

did people just seem to forget that Baldur's Gate 2 and Neverwinter Nights both had multiplayer?

I hear gross selfishness can lead to issues with memory.

I don't get it.
Is it selfish to want a single player experience, without a shoehorned multiplayer?

Not you, the ones saying "BioWare needs to cease making games the way they want to and make them the way I want them do.  I deserve this."

[BeljoraDien]

Er, why the hate for multiplayer? I played all the way through BG, BG2 and the expansions with my sister over LAN and it was a blast. Not to mention the brilliant multiplayer aspects of NWN...

[DarthArevahn]

What? I don't even

[Godak]

Anathemic wrote...

And btw you can play Pokemon solo.

I don't think that anyone has suggested removing single player from Dragon Age 3.

DarthArevahn wrote...

What? I don't even

Christ...I thought you were me!

Modifié par Godak, 12 mars 2011 - 04:39 .

[Jaron Oberyn]

BeljoraDien wrote...

Er, why the hate for multiplayer? I played all the way through BG, BG2 and the expansions with my sister over LAN and it was a blast. Not to mention the brilliant multiplayer aspects of NWN...

If they don't have enough time, thanks to EA, to finish the main game, then there's no reason to go on spending resources on another unnecessary feature. Multiplayer is a luxury, it's not essential to the single player experience in an RPG. They shouldn't be talking about multiplayer when they have a half baked game due to time constraints. Multiplayer wouldn't exactly make the single player experience any better. Unless EA takes away the time constraints and lets the game finish when it finishes. They've pushed back TOR many times, they should do that to their other titles.

-Polite

[AssassinKing]

They should have a co-op. Maybe have their own unique RPG character in a multiplayer quest. A good quest, with killing hordes of people, and then the boss.. THat would be very fun, in my opinion.

[Tommy6860]

Lord Kalorin wrote...

I think this is the correct forum for this. I apologize if it isn't.

Eurogamer recently posted up an interview where they asked Mike Laidlaw about potential ideas for Dragon Age 3.  This was probably the most interesting part.

One missing ingredient of BioWare's Dragon Age and Mass Effect series
has been any form of multiplayer. But Laidlaw's enthusiasm suggests this
may not be the case for long.

"Just from a fundamental idea: [multiplayer] absolutely would [work],"
he said. "A big part of that is going back to fundamentals of the Dragon
Age series and that sense of team; that we are stronger together than
we are divided, which is in many ways a story theme through DA2.

"Any time you have a game that is aware of the advantages of teamwork,
what it's like when multiple classes combine their abilities, be it a
rogue not just stunning enemies but helping to conceal his friends so
that they can take damage better - that's where you do an allegory that
says yeah, we could do multiplayer here for sure.

"I do think the changes made to Dragon Age II in terms of responsiveness
are going to be things that could translate better into multiplayer
than Origins, which had that inherent delay between what I was ordering
and what was happening. It's certainly laying an interesting groundwork.

"Long-term that's something we have to consider," he added, "because
obviously multiplayer is something that's a huge undertaking, it
presents technical difficulty. And frankly it's something that if done,
has to be done really well, otherwise it feels very tacked on. So we'll
have to make any decision about that within that context."

http://www.eurogamer...re-always-ideas

There's a lot more about Dragon Age 2 and a bit more about potential ideas for Dragon Age 3 at the link.

Edit:

Since people were asking about Dragon Age 2 content.

What of the character Hawke, the star of Dragon Age II - can he go on to star in Dragon Age 3?

"It really depends," said Laidlaw. "Certainly we have ideas for him as a
character, but where we go from here right now is mainly focused on DLC
and for new expansions and new adventures, new additions to his story."

Bobby Kotick would be proud!

Modifié par Tommy6860, 12 mars 2011 - 04:54 .

[fn_outlaw]

PoliteAssasin wrote...

If they don't have enough time, thanks to EA, to finish the main game, then there's no reason to go on spending resources on another unnecessary feature. Multiplayer is a luxury, it's not essential to the single player experience in an RPG.
-Polite

That's the big draw back....they need to focus on failures in DA:2 before adding to their plate if they aim to continue Dragon Age.  I fear that next year we'll see the release of yet another incomplete game with incomplete multiplayer included.

[tkoe666]

god no that would ruin the game i hate multiplayer games

[SnakeHelah]

Well. He better not talk about any possibilities with multiplayer. Knowing Bioware, and knowing their games, they only succeed single player at their best I think. Multiplayer is not something I want from A Bioware game, and I think many think the same, RPG is the genre best at single player. So In my opinion, this should be left alone and the resources and money dedicated to other things (single player) instead.

[Eterna]

Oh god, please no Multiplayer!

[lx_theo]

I'd only be remotely interested in this if its drop in drop out co-op type multiplayer in the single player game world.

[PirateT138]

No. I won't buy it. Single player experience is inevitably sacrificed to create a multiplayer one.

Create a new spin-off game in the same universe (DA or ME)? Sure, but don't f*** up the main series.

[moilami]

Who are whining and crying now?

[darklordpocky-san]

Ok

You. . .

I think Bioware are now trolling their customers. . .

[moilami]

Make Epic Multiplayer where in-game chars are connected to forum accounts and if I go PK lol some forumite it shows in my signature as well as overall PK kill count lolololol

[Duncaaaaaan]

hahahahha its gonna happen.

DA3 multiplayer.

I think a sort of horde/survival mode with persistent levelling characters would actually be pretty cool.... massive level cap and all. if only it wouldnt detract from the singleplayer experience, because time will have to be devoted to one area on that, unless Bioware can get another developer to do it for them.

[Sleekshinobi]

Esbatty wrote...

Again, I kinda like the idea. I wouldn't want anything detracted from the Single Player experience but a MP experience would be kind of awesome. I always had a penchant for Gauntlet style games but to apply this tactically. Hmm, that'd be kinda sweet.

I agree, I wouldn't mind a multiplayer co-op experience, but my main concern is that it will draw away from the single player experience...

[UltimoCrofto]

I've always been quick to point out that BioWare have wanted multiplayer whenever someone reckons Mass Effect is the beacon of single-player gaming (it isn't, by the way).

Of course they want multiplayer. Who doesn't these days? I honestly wish to shake the hand of a developer who turns around and says - what is essentially true - that multiplayer is unnecessary for most single-player games. Rocksteady being the most recent example; refusing to look as moronic as 2K did by adding multiplayer to BioShock 2, and saying that Arkham City will be better without it. And it will.

Also factor in what some guy from EA said (single-player games being "dead") and that they want to get as many of their games online so they can get people to buy activiation codes to combat pre-owned and you can draw your own conclusions.

But whatever. I'm not gonna get annoyed over the inevitable. There's other developers out there who will fill the void BioWare leave when they start adding pointless s*** to their games, so it's all good.

[Killer3000ad]

I'd be fine with co-op modes or ALLOWING modders to make their own adventures. But anything competitive like COD would just feel tacked on. As Yahtzee said, a game should be able to stand on it's single player element alone and not have to depend on multiplayer to be good. Unless it's a strictly multiplayer oriented game like MMOs. Honestly I'd rather Bioware concentrate on fixing the problems DA2 and not repeat them in DA3. Devoting portions of their limited budget to design multiplayer would just hurt the single player campaign, and wouldn't get them their elusive COD audience they strangely desire.

[otis0310]

Dragon Age and multiplayer are like the Titanic and an iceburg, a disaster waiting to happen.

I like DA2, but it's obvious the franchise is departing from it's roots already.  It's already going a down a road that is catering to the arcade addicts. There is faster action which I like. But there is also the dumbed down inventory system where you can't change the companion's armor, and numerous other things obviously intended to dumb down the game and make it easier for a hormone crazed teenager who is too dumb to graduate grade 4 to play it.

As it is there are enough design flaws to make me raise my eyebrows, and announcements like this bother me.
However, I personally have no feelings on the subject.  It is the dumbing down that bothers me, it is a trend in computer game industry, Starcraft 2 was heavily hit by it, and to a lesser degree DA2 and ME2.

Modifié par otis0310, 12 mars 2011 - 11:45 .

[nightlordv]

I just had to post this, straight from Wikipedia:
"In November 2005, it was announced that BioWare and Pandemic Studios (itself founded by former Activision employees) would be joining forces, with private equity fund Elevation Partners investing in the partnership. On October 11, 2007, however, it was announced that this new partnership (organized as VG Holding Corp) had been bought by Electronic Arts. BioWare therefore became a unit of EA, but retained its own branding."

Seems to me like Bioware fell into EA's lap because they bought out the partnership Bioware was attempting to make. Still...not like Bioware did anything to get out of it...but if they were seeking funding then they may have been in need of financial help. Welcome to the endless pocket's of EA Bioware!

[Tommy6860]

Lord Kalorin wrote...

I think this is the correct forum for this. I apologize if it isn't.

Eurogamer recently posted up an interview where they asked Mike Laidlaw about potential ideas for Dragon Age 3.  This was probably the most interesting part.

One missing ingredient of BioWare's Dragon Age and Mass Effect series
has been any form of multiplayer. But Laidlaw's enthusiasm suggests this
may not be the case for long.

"Just from a fundamental idea: [multiplayer] absolutely would [work],"
he said. "A big part of that is going back to fundamentals of the Dragon
Age series and that sense of team; that we are stronger together than
we are divided, which is in many ways a story theme through DA2.

"Any time you have a game that is aware of the advantages of teamwork,
what it's like when multiple classes combine their abilities, be it a
rogue not just stunning enemies but helping to conceal his friends so
that they can take damage better - that's where you do an allegory that
says yeah, we could do multiplayer here for sure.

"I do think the changes made to Dragon Age II in terms of responsiveness
are going to be things that could translate better into multiplayer
than Origins, which had that inherent delay between what I was ordering
and what was happening. It's certainly laying an interesting groundwork.

"Long-term that's something we have to consider," he added, "because
obviously multiplayer is something that's a huge undertaking, it
presents technical difficulty. And frankly it's something that if done,
has to be done really well, otherwise it feels very tacked on. So we'll
have to make any decision about that within that context."

http://www.eurogamer...re-always-ideas

There's a lot more about Dragon Age 2 and a bit more about potential ideas for Dragon Age 3 at the link.

Edit:

Since people were asking about Dragon Age 2 content.

What of the character Hawke, the star of Dragon Age II - can he go on to star in Dragon Age 3?

"It really depends," said Laidlaw. "Certainly we have ideas for him as a
character, but where we go from here right now is mainly focused on DLC
and for new expansions and new adventures, new additions to his story."

Sorry, wrong post, please delete this post, Mods

Modifié par Tommy6860, 13 mars 2011 - 10:04 .