298 réponses à ce sujet

[xkg]

haberman13 wrote...

The fans want muliplayer, as a whole. So its going to happen.

Any sources to backup those words ?

[sonsonthebia07]

Right, I'll just jot down quickly how I feel about this multiplayer thing.

I am a console gamer most of the time. I generally only will play MMOs and strategy games on the PC. I have my share of multiplayer and single player games. I have fun online or at small LAN parties with said multiplayer games (Halo 3, RE5, etc etc - yeah I know I don't really have any of the newer games).

But. not every damn game needs MP. I like playing single player games better than multiplayer because sometimes, I just don't feel like dealing with people (omg anti-social lol), I have Bioshock 2 - they added multiplayer to that game - and the Bioshocks are among my favorite single player IPs out there, and I have not touched it. It didn't really seem to detract too much from the main game, although it was significantly shorter than Bioshock 1.

I do not really mind either way I suppose if MP is added to future titles and it could even work out well, but I do not want all games being consumed by it. I don't always want to have to go online, do all this random crap, sign in, yada yada yada - sometimes, I just want to sit down and play an immersive single player experience.

I probably will not touch multiplayer in future Mass Effect or Dragon Age games.

[addiction21]

xkg wrote...

haberman13 wrote...

The fans want muliplayer, as a whole. So its going to happen.

Any sources to backup those words ?

As many sources as you have to back up them not wanting it.

Maybe you both need to shut your mouths since you have no idead what these so called "fans" want.

[xkg]

addiction21 wrote...

xkg wrote...

haberman13 wrote...

The fans want muliplayer, as a whole. So its going to happen.

Any sources to backup those words ?

As many sources as you have to back up them not wanting it.

Maybe you both need to shut your mouths since you have no idead what these so called "fans" want.

Or maybe you need to shut up and stop telling me what I should do.

[Sylvius the Mad]

addiction21 wrote...

What are your reasons for being here?To just speak your mind or  is part of it to show the other side? You have made clear that BioWare has steadily moved away from what you want/enjoy since BG2 so why is it you stay?

I stay to make these things known.  That features used to exist that did things games no longer do is something I think gamers should know.  Game marketing often will describe features in purely positive terms, even though those features carry opportunity costs.

I provide balance.  People can't make informed decisions without information.  And since they're making decisions I don't like now, either I can nevner be happy, or they can be corrected through education.

So I educate.

[Lestatman]

There should always be a wide choice for gamers who may not want multi player. I've got Red Dead Redemption but I have no interest in their multiplayer aspect of it just prefer to do the single player stuff.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Lestatman wrote...

There should always be a wide choice for gamers who may not want multi player. I've got Red Dead Redemption but I have no interest in their multiplayer aspect of it just prefer to do the single player stuff.

I'm still annoyed there was no PC version of that game.

[addiction21]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

addiction21 wrote...

What are your reasons for being here?To just speak your mind or  is part of it to show the other side? You have made clear that BioWare has steadily moved away from what you want/enjoy since BG2 so why is it you stay?

I stay to make these things known.  That features used to exist that did things games no longer do is something I think gamers should know.  Game marketing often will describe features in purely positive terms, even though those features carry opportunity costs.

I provide balance.  People can't make informed decisions without information.  And since they're making decisions I don't like now, either I can nevner be happy, or they can be corrected through education.

So I educate.

You very much provide a balance Sylvius.and so do the others. They are providing the left to your right. The heads to your tails.
No one is being "corrected" but they are hopefully being educated. They see the other side.

@xkg

So you have nothing to back up your statement? Then let me know when you have something solid that proves your point. Something more then you saying you are right and your thoughts ar ethe majority. Same goes for the other side of the coin. Either way I find it amusing both sides throw out the "I am the majority" but can never actually prove it.

Modifié par addiction21, 16 mai 2011 - 10:26 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

addiction21 wrote...

You very much provide a balance Sylvius.and so do the others. They are providing the left to your right. The heads to your tails.
No one is being "corrected" but they are hopefully being educated. They see the other side.

If their side relies upon inherent contradictions, then I think they do need to be corrected.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 16 mai 2011 - 10:27 .

[Huntress]

Mr Mxyzptlk wrote...

I really dont understand what the problem is with game developers adding some sort of multiplayer portion in their games, I mean its not like they are getting rid of the single player portion of the game or forcing you to play multiplayer, plus if the multiplayer portion of the game is done right it really can add a lot to the game and extend its life far beyond what the single player portion can offer. 

What I don't understand is why anyone wants THIS particular series/games multiplayer when there are so many others  that have this option include? is it because is fantasy setting? what about Rift? WOW? Diablo2? Everquest?

The one thing that make this games so great is because is single player. Like many others have said before, go outside this series and hunt for multiplayers game, is not that hard when there are (1000) games with multiplayers option already.

[xkg]

@addiction21
If you read my post again then you will see this:
"looking at this thread it seems that you are in minority about MP"

So it is clear i was talking about "fans" in this thread not a about the whole Bioware's fanbase.

[Wicked 702]

I always prefer a game with multiplayer. That's one big reason I'm interested in Hunted: The Demon's Forge. Playing with a good buddy, either locally or online, is a necessary part of my day. But I'm also with the others here that can accept such a thing but do not want it a mandatory part of the game. It should be an "in addition to" aspect of games like RPGs.

And I don't think it would work all that well in the Dragon Age world, simply because the content and presentation of the story has tended to favor the single protagonist system. I would have liked to just have a buddy drop in/out and control other party NPCs, but admittedly that's a pretty weak form of multiplayer.

Games like Torchlight 2 and Diablo 3 are more designed with the party system in mind. Even Dungeon Siege III could have done it had they chosen to do so (still not understanding what happened with that one).

Final thought: Seriously people, "multiplayer" DOES NOT EQUAL "MMOs." Sometimes I wish that whole genre was never created...except they've been around in some form or another for decades so whatever.

Modifié par Wicked 702, 16 mai 2011 - 10:48 .

[YohkoOhno]

If their side relies upon inherent contradictions, then I think they do need to be corrected.

Sadly, I think most of your "corrections" are nothing more than trying to couch personal preferences and opinions with flawed or pseudo (or generously, quasi-) "logic". Making statements that one form of gaming is superior to another seems to be the crux of your arguments.

This isn't like trying to prove science. You can't really prove a certain method of gaming is superior to another method.

[addiction21]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

addiction21 wrote...

You very much provide a balance Sylvius.and so do the others. They are providing the left to your right. The heads to your tails.
No one is being "corrected" but they are hopefully being educated. They see the other side.

If their side relies upon inherent contradictions, then I think they do need to be corrected.

Accept it or not Sylviaus you are a contradiction.
The problem I see with your line of thought is that because this is how it was done before is how it should be done. That deviating from this path is wrong. That in being different it needs to be corrected. That is wrong and I do not agree, all it is, is a different mindset. To look at the same thing from a different perspective.

I am not right. You are not right. We are what we are and like what we like. NO ONE IS BEING CORRECTED.

xkg wrote...

@addiction21
If you read my post again then you will see this:
"looking at this thread it seems that you are in minority about MP"

So it is clear i was talking about "fans" in this thread not a about the whole Bioware's fanbase.

No you were not.

Still waiting on something substantial to prove your claims... or his. Either way I want something to prove everyones claims. Something more then "I am right and you are wrong"

Untill then the both of you are pulling facts out of that deep dark place.

Modifié par addiction21, 16 mai 2011 - 11:06 .

[xkg]

I dont really need anything to prove my claim which is : "I dont want any kind of multiplayer in games i am playing".
All i have to do is say it.

And all i need to prove that "most people in this thread don't want MP in Dragon Age"...
is ... SURPRISE FOR YOU ... is this thread

[Sylvius the Mad]

YohkoOhno wrote...

Sadly, I think most of your "corrections" are nothing more than trying to couch personal preferences and opinions with flawed or pseudo (or generously, quasi-) "logic". Making statements that one form of gaming is superior to another seems to be the crux of your arguments.

My logic is excellent.

I hope that I more often show that one ofrm of gaming contains more roleplaying, rather than it is superior.  If these are indeed roleplaying games, then that should be sufficient.

This isn't like trying to prove science.

One does not prove science.  Science is falsificationist, not verificationist.

[YohkoOhno]

I hope that I more often show that one ofrm of gaming contains more roleplaying, rather than it is superior. If these are indeed roleplaying games, then that should be sufficient.

The problem is you assume RPGs are all about role-playing, not the other elements. Complain about fixed protagonists? What about the tournament modules from D&D where you were forced to play a specific role? What about Gary Gygax's essay about role-assumption is the default rather than role-playing.

I doubt many of the players cared so much about creating a hidden backstory that you could imaging and "fill in the blanks". Narrative has become more important in these games, and that's why Bioware has gone down that path.  

The fact is that you can "logic" it all you want but since these are entertainment media, people are more likely to care how they enjoy the games on an emotional level.  Arguing that the "role play" has been lost ignores this element.  

If I remember correctly, I think you admited in a prior thread that you had Asperger's Syndrome--perhaps that lack of empathy makes you look at things from that perspective, but if that's the case, you're really going to be in the minority and I doubt your arguments will hold much weight as I think most players don't care about that.  So, unless you can frame your arguments that might be part of how the majority of enthusiasts might feel, your not going to convince people with the types of arguments you espouse here.

Perhaps the best thing to do is find a subsitute for Bioware--there are several independent games now that emulate the old style.

Modifié par YohkoOhno, 17 mai 2011 - 01:13 .

[Emeraq]

Melca36 wrote...

Mr Mxyzptlk wrote...

I really dont understand what the problem is with game developers adding some sort of multiplayer portion in their games, I mean its not like they are getting rid of the single player portion of the game or forcing you to play multiplayer, plus if the multiplayer portion of the game is done right it really can add a lot to the game and extend its life far beyond what the single player portion can offer. 

Extending the life a game is what modders are for.

If you want a multiplayer....go find a game that's geared for it. RPGs DO NOT NEED IT

Don't you mean that in your opinion CRPG's don't need multiplayer? Because I'm pretty sure RPG's are based on, and include, Pen and Paper gaming and a majority of the time do in fact need multiple players.

Modifié par Emeraq, 17 mai 2011 - 01:21 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

YohkoOhno wrote...

The problem is you assume RPGs are all about role-playing, not the other elements.

Because roleplaying games are all about roleplaying.  That's the thing that makes them roleplaying games.

Complain about fixed protagonists?

I don't.  I complain about a lack of roleplaying.  Fixed protagonists can limit roleplaying opportunities, but they need not.  Torment is a terrific example.

What about Gary Gygax's essay about role-assumption is the default rather than role-playing.

I think Gygax employed a false dichotomy.  He defined role-playing too narrowly, seemingly just to make space for his definition of role-assumption.

I doubt many of the players cared so much about creating a hidden backstory that you could imaging and "fill in the blanks". Narrative has become more important in these games, and that's why Bioware has gone down that path. 

If the player doesn't play a signficant part in the construction of that narrative, then there can't be any space left for role-playing.

If the PC does what the writers intend, for the reasons the writers chose, what exactly is the player for?  Why does the game need him?  If the player doesn't contribute to the game experience, then the game experience is a waste of his time.

The fact is that you can "logic" it all you want but since these are entertainment media, people are more likely to care how they enjoy the games on an emotional level.

But they need to understand what features they enjoy, and what features they gain and lose with various desgin changes, in order to offer intelligent feedback.  Too often people will espouse contradictory positions without realising it because they haven't considered things like opportunity cost or the logical consequences of what they're saying.

If these people don't know what it is they like about the games, then they can't know that they like them at all.

Arguing that the "role play" has been lost ignores this element.

If your point here is that people like teh games despite them not accommodating roleplaying, then I ask you this:

Where can I find roleplaying games?  Please point me in that right direction.

As long as these games are the closest I can find to the games I want, I'm going to keep trying to move them in the direction of my preferences. 

If I remember correctly, I think you admited in a prior thread that you had Asperger's Syndrome

I did nothing of the sort.  First, I know the dangers of self-diagnosis.  Second, I'm not qualified to make that determination myself.  And third, I would need to allow for the possibility that I affect Autism to legitimise my social anxiety.

Oh, and Asperger's Syndrome no longer exists.  It has been undefined by the most recent edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual.

Perhaps the best thing to do is find a subsitute for Bioware--there are several independent games now that emulate the old style.

As I said, I welcome suggestions, but in my experience those games create more problems than they solve.  The quality of BioWare's writing, for example, creates wonderfully detailed worlds in which to roleplay - independent games rarely match that.  Plus, they released one of my favourite games just two years ago.  This current lull is considerably shorter than the one that occurred prior to DAO's release.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 17 mai 2011 - 06:05 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Emeraq wrote...

Don't you mean that in your opinion CRPG's don't need multiplayer? Because I'm pretty sure RPG's are based on, and include, Pen and Paper gaming and a majority of the time do in fact need multiple players.

Yes, but people who want multiplayer roleplaying can play tabletop games.  The advantage of CRPGs over RPGs is that they don't require other people.

I've argued many times that CRPGs should deviate from tabletop RPGs in only that respect, and no others.

[Fallstar]

I'm not sure what exactly I think about this. On the one hand, I enjoy multiplayer gaming to a great degree, and think that if Bioware could somehow make it work, a small but fun aspect of DA involving multiplayer would be excellent.

On the other hand, the reason I loved Origins was that it was an immersive, detailed world which I could explore at my leisure. Multiplayer would put constraints on that, as unless it is made into a drop in/drop out game, you would only be able to play when all gamers on a playthrough were available. I cannot see a drop in/drop out system being used with Dragon Age, as you could miss key story events for example. As such, multiplayer does seem to be incompatible with the kind of quality rpg that Origins is. If Bioware plan on making games of the standard of Origins, then multiplayer should not happen.

After Dragon Age 2, I also think Bioware should scrap any multiplayer ideas and focus on re-creating the intricate world of Origins, replete with all the little details that made the difference, such as item descriptions, and more codex entries. Make Dragon Age 3 a high quality, single player crpg. If you really have a multiplayer bug to itch, then I think you should do so in the form of a stand-alone campaign. I personally would love to continue my Warden's story in DA:3. If this is not possible, why not give us some closure on the Warden's story, and give us a dlc about the Warden's calling. There is potential for multiplayer here; we could go to our calling with our friend's Wardens, and co-operatively try to kill as many darkspawn as we could. That way you kill two, no three, birds with one stone.
1. Multiplayer - check
2. Warden's story finshed, if we there is absolutely no chance of our Warden's reappearing - check
3. DA:3 is not compromised by the devotion of time to multiplayer.

[G00N3R7883]

I play a mix of single player and multiplayer, but I prefer to keep those experiences in seperate games. As someone else has already pointed out in this thread, a big factor is about developer resources - time and money. Programming skills and creative ideas could also be limiting factors.

Especially in the current climate of developers being pressured by the suits upstairs to get games out fast, I'd prefer for those short development cycles to be focused on one element. Developers/publishers should decide if they want their game to be single player, multiplayer (competitive) or coop, and then concentrate all their efforts on making that element the best it can possibly be.

And for RPGs - or any game where story is important - I think it really should be a single player experience only. Different people play at different speeds, some like to take their time and explore and read all the lore etc, others just want to get through it as fast as possible. Different people have different skill levels which again can affect progress through the game. And most games of this type are focused around one hero and their companions, rather than two or more heroes of equal importance.

I can honestly say that I've never once had any desire to play Dragon Age, Mass Effect or any other Bioware game in multiplayer. When I want to play multiplayer, I load up TF2 or Killing Floor (and likewise I've never once had any desire to play those games in single player).

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I hope that I more often show that one ofrm of gaming contains more roleplaying, rather than it is superior.

The problem is that personal preference does not stop and genre lines. The fact that one game has "more roleplaying" is not related to another players preference for a certain level of roleplaying. You also ignore the fact that different people can achieve different levels of roleplaying from each other in different situations. You yourself pointed out the viability of roleplaying an entire party of characters even with limited control. You yourself also pointed out your own inability to roleplay in multiplayer due to a personal limitation while I simultaneously pointed out that others can achieve more roleplay in multiplayer than you can personally achieve in single player.

The degree of roleplay that actually takes place in the game is entirely dependant on the individual playing the game. A point that you specifically should be throughly intimate with, considering the level of depth you attempt apply to every RPG you play.

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

You yourself pointed out the viability of roleplaying an entire party of characters even with limited control.

That only strengthened my point, though.  That roleplaying an entire party is possible reduces the incentive to eliminate that as an option.

You yourself also pointed out your own inability to roleplay in multiplayer due to a personal limitation while I simultaneously pointed out that others can achieve more roleplay in multiplayer than you can personally achieve in single player.

Yes, but I wasn't using that to support my point.  That was in response to a specific question of yours.

The degree of roleplay that actually takes place in the game is entirely dependant on the individual playing the game.

Agreed, but not relevant.  What matters if the degree of roleplaying that is possible is a game, as these are roleplaying games.

My argument against multiplayer is far weaker than my argument against a voiced protagonist, or in favour of full-party control.  My argument against multiplayer is largely one of personal preference.

Though again I maintain that if people want to play a multiplayer roleplaying game, there are tabletop games for that.  The primary benefit of a CRPG is that other people aren't required.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 17 mai 2011 - 08:02 .