151 réponses à ce sujet

[MistySun]

EA Games president Frank Gibeau declared that publishers can no longer get away with making games without a multiplayer component; indeed, Gibeau made it clear that games that fail to provide this all-important experience are likely to fail.

Do you all agree?  I don't.

Read full story.

http://uk.gamespot.c...tml?tag=nl.e579

Modifié par MistySun, 27 avril 2011 - 08:12 .

[TRUTHMACHINE]

We better get ready for team deathmatch in DA3.....

[TheButterflyEffect]

I would prefer a toolset.

[DraCZeQQ]

TheButterflyEffect wrote...

I would prefer a toolset.

There will be no toolset, until they decide to stop trying to sell useless ugly new items as DLC ... since people could find out, that someone can make better ones for free =)

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

I disagree with the assertion that Multiplayer games are required for a game's success.

But I also disagree with the inevitable assertion that people here will come up with that multiplayer doesn't belong in RPGs.

It all depends on the implementation. Action RPGs like Diablo and Dungeon Siege handle a Multiplayer component with excellence. Let's also not forget Neverwinter Nights.

[Woodstock-TC]

TRUTHMACHINE wrote...

We better get ready for team deathmatch in DA3.....

mhh thats exactly what i am not looking for.
besides i just try to imagine multiplayer for games like Heavy Rain etc..

[hexaligned]

If DA2 is an indication of the dev resources and time EA is willing to put in, in terms of single player games, then yes, I'm sure just releasing a map where people can run around shooting each other in the head would be more cost efficient for them.

Modifié par relhart, 27 avril 2011 - 09:32 .

[Canadish]

[Let's not use linked images as emotes, whether agreeable with a topic or not, it still amounts to spam]

And yet somehow....I think Skyrim is going to do just fine.
So could Bioware games.
Just give us the level of content we saw in Origins, or even Mass Effect 1 and 2.

Modifié par Selene Moonsong, 27 avril 2011 - 05:12 .

[JediHealerCosmin]

My general oppinion regarding multiplayer is "kill it with fire".
But that's me. 

[MistySun]

Not all games are meant to be multi player or suited to be that. Good single player games will not fail. Games like DA2 will fail.

[DraCZeQQ]

I personaly prefer multiplayer in games, that are designed to be multiplayer from the start and where it makes sense (Borderlands, Demon's Souls, ...). On the other hand I also prefer pure single player games (even more then the multiplayer ones), but what I dont understand are these hybrids, that put in MP just for the sake of it

[FDrage]

Personally I disagree ... not every game needs to do the same things and focus one one aspect or the other helps make that aspect way better. Multiplayer games have there place just as single player games.

Look as Dice they've added the "single player" component, however I don't buy their game because of that and I seldom finish the campaigns when I but something for multiplayer. Others have done the opposite and gone from single player to mutliplayer, while great personally buying the game then for the single player experience is, in my opinion a waste oaf money as the "single player" usual falls short in length and/or execution OR the multiplayer part feels tacked on.

Red Alert 3 e.g. with its "co-op" mode while and interesting idea for me it was a waste of development as I never used it. It also for me made the "mission" feel a bit weird when I used the AI controlled coop player. It just didn't give me quite the atmosphere (I know I know .. it is the same word as "immersion"), control and enjoyment I had from pure single-player campaigns.

Cna it be done, of course, look at e.g. Starcraft as an example. While I'd never buy Starcraft for its multiplayer part. I bought it fro the single player exclusive. I don't mind and from time to time enjoy a "friendly" match with friends and it fits quite well.
So can it be done successfully ... sure, but it dos require more resources to implement it in a way that doesn't "feel" like it takes away from other aspects of the game

The one advantage "multiplayer" for publishers (not game makers per-se) has is that you need to stay online so it is potentially a good (at least from a PC perspective) tool to curb 2nd hand sales even more..Which is probably one of the main reason for publishers wanting to have an "online" component in games ...

[Slarth79]

DraCZeQQ wrote...

I personaly prefer multiplayer in games, that are designed to be multiplayer from the start and where it makes sense (Borderlands, Demon's Souls, ...). On the other hand I also prefer pure single player games (even more then the multiplayer ones), but what I dont understand are these hybrids, that put in MP just for the sake of it

That'll be DA3 then <_<

[Cowboy_christo]

Hoh great, they will probably give a maximum 2 year deadline for DA3 and use up resources for an half-arsed multiplayer.

[marshalleck]

Hah. Of course no mention of the griefing/trolling/rampant stupidity present in online games, especially WoW. Yeah, it's all just one big party online!

[AkiKishi]

I think it depends on the game. If you took CoD as an example its around 8 hours long as a single player game. That's like an afternoon/evening for £40, not the best value.
On the other hand FFXIII is 60-100's of hours long,quite different when it comes value.

Maybe the best approach RPG wise is the one being used by Dungeon Siege 3, drop in drop out multiplayer. Anything longer than a couple of hours and you begin to run into time restrictions like you do playing an MMPORG. In my age range I don't know many people who get large chunks of free time,which is what you need to a real multiplayer RPG.

[brownybrown]

I would only think this is a good idea if it was really limited novelty multilayer, say like DAO Orzammar stadium fights that one did on the side to earn some extra credits only this time it was one on one against other players. Not part of the main story and not something that should take too many resources away from the main single player storyline, which needs to be really strong to resurrect this IP

[astrallite]

So the EA boss wants more features under the same budget?

Reminds me of the US government trying to get tax cuts and more programs at the same time.

[tmp7704]

With every game having its own sensibility when it comes to multiplayer, Yee and Ducheneaut have split the experience into three categories: a) games that are simply meant to be played with someone nearby, like Mario Kart; games that allow players to engage in a match-making system, like Halo or Call of Duty; and c) persistent virtual worlds, such as World of Warcraft.

Well, that kind of glances over for how many people the "persistent virtual worlds" are largely "single player online"...

"I think playing games together simply makes your accomplishments in them more rewarding and more meaningful," Ducheneaut adds. "Nobody would care about wearing an epic set of armor if there were no one around to see it!

Ironic given all the gear-oriented ME DLC (and DA2 DLC for this matter) Apparently plenty people shell out money on something they're supposed not to care about because there's no one to see it.

Modifié par tmp7704, 27 avril 2011 - 08:57 .

[wowpwnslol]

When president of EA is so clueless, it comes as no surprise that RPG gaming is going downhill.

Multiplayer element is something a game like Diablo 3 needs or it will fail.

Multiplayer element is something a game like DA doesn't need because the resources are better spent on maximizing the linear, story-based, party-based single player experience.

[jerst]

I find it sad that a game developper happens to have a so narrowed vision of the gaming world.


I don't mind multiplayer games, I used to love them when I was a kid and had long consecutive hours of playtime available.
But I just can't afford it anymore.
On the other hand, he seems to forget all the annoying parts of multiplayer games such as insane competition, lamer behavior than any troll that you can encounter on a Internet board, hours of social networking that make it closer than work instead of fun and so one.

And I have enough of this kind of stuff going on IRL, so that last thing I want in my hobbies...


It just feels like we're back in the 90's, when developpers thought that video games were just for kids and teens.


(sorry if there still is some mistakes, I did my best )

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

He's not a developer, he's a business guy in a suit.

So yeah, he will have a narrow vision. He doesn't want developers to make good games, he wants big profits on whatever developers come up with.

Sometimes the two coincide.

Sometimes.

Modifié par mrcrusty, 27 avril 2011 - 09:42 .

[Satyricon331]

"As a hardcore online gamer who has been advocating that publishers and developers invest heavily in multiplayer his entire professional career, I genuinely want to agree with this [Frank Gibeau's statement that publishers can no longer get away with making games without a multiplayer component]," Vonderhaar says. "However, I don't agree. I love multiplayer more than anything, but forcing it into every game isn't the right thing to do and won't work. It's not a component that can be tacked on to what is otherwise a thoughtful and well-designed single-player experience."

Why does Gibeau want to think in such blanket terms? His peers don't. Where's Gib's evidence? If that's the largest market or the fastest-growing one or whatever, how does it follow the other markets are unprofitable?