298 réponses à ce sujet

[Sabriana]

Yes, bring it on. I love spending the little "me" time I have with people I don't know, listening to immature remarks, having to extent myself into several directions, and being insulted by people with the maturity of 10 year olds. <---- Sarcasm - watch out.

I play games as a hobby. I have little time to myself, and I want to spend it alone with the hobby I love. I play them to shut out the people I know and love, if only for a little while. Why the bloody heck would I let strangers in? I play to relief stress, not to add to it.

If they want to tack it onto games, fine. But if the SP suffers, I shall take my money elsewhere. I'm sure they'll be glad to take it.

Before I have to read "yeah dude, like, they would care about your little bit of money", let me assure you, I know that they don't. I however, do, and I'll spend it on things that I meet my needs and expectations.

Modifié par Sabriana, 11 mai 2011 - 07:50 .

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

xkg wrote...

"I really dont understand what the problem is with game developers adding some sort of multiplayer portion in their games"
Problem is - resources they have are limited. I rather see them focusing on single player part.

Show me a game where the single player part of the game suffers because of an added multiplayer feature and then I might take such statements seriously however until then I will just treat such posts as pointless whinging.

xkg wrote...
"I mean its not like they are getting rid of the single player portion of the game"
But they did that already with KOTOR serie. Thats why i wont even look at this new online TOR abomination.

Thats the stupidest thing I have heard today, are Bioware not allowed to branch off and make different types of games? Yes Bioware is making an MMO but I dont know how you got from that that Bioware are now ditching single player games and content and focusing soley on the MMO market. As far as I know Bioware are still making games with a heavy single player focus so your fear that Bioware now plans to turn every new game they make into an MMO seems unfounded.

[Sussurus]

Sabriana wrote...

Yes, bring it on. I love spending the little "me" time I have with people I don't know, listening to immature remarks, having to extent myself into several directions, and being insulted by people with the maturity of 10 year olds. <---- Sarcasm - watch out.

I play games as a hobby. I have little time to myself, and I want to spend it alone with the hobby I love. I play them to shut out the people I know and love, if only for a little while. Why the bloody heck would I let strangers in? I play to relief stress, not to add to it.

If they want to tack it onto games, fine. But if the SP suffers, I shall take my money elsewhere. I'm sure they'll be glad to take it.

Before I have to read "yeah dude, like, they would care about your little bit of money", let me assure you, I know that they don't. I however, do, and I'll spend it on things that I meet my needs and expectations.

I agree entirely with what you say.
Though it's not sarcasm ( or at least effective sarcasm ) when you point it out as such after such obvious use.
The fact is as well your money does count, because you're an indicator of fanbase.
Just as I am, if we say pointly MP is not for us and we will not buy it many others will do the same.
Maybe not a majority or large section, but repeat customers that were willing to buy up front a product to a point.

A MP game will require new fanbase and a polished enjoyable product focused on that genre with few bugs on release to create a series.
Current production goals shows this is not likely for the DA franchise.

Modifié par Sussurus, 11 mai 2011 - 08:34 .

[Imryll]

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. 

Memories of the NWN official campaign. In theory, your vision of players enjoying a game in different ways is fine. In practice, something tends to get short changed. Resources devoted to providing a satisfying multiplayer experience are too often diverted from single-player development.

[Sabriana]

*Sis-fist for Ali, and sis-bro-fist for Sussurus*

Yes, Sussurus, I know that there are many who dislike the multi-player options, if only because it would take time away from making a fleshed out and polished SP game. NWN did a good job with it, but unfortunately, the majority of games that do try to be both, suffer in quality game-play.

I know that most of my fellow forumites know sarcasm when they see it. But there are always those who don't, and to circumvent having to explain myself after the fact, it simply seemed easier to use preemptive measures.

[Ryllen Laerth Kriel]

Oh man, some of your remarks brought back bad WoW imagery of running a quest into town and having ten high level digital village idiots challenge my low level character to a duel while hopping in circles, spouting l33tsp34k "lolz fight m3! U sux0r!" The GMs were so slow to respond to harassment in WoW that I didn't know if they were asleep, afk or just responding to harassment every thirty seconds.

If the DA series ever goes multiplayer, please make it with player run servers in mind. Play-to-play might be a gold mine for some computer companies who survive the brutal competition of the first six months after releasing a title, but it's a poor experience if cRPG truely means computer Role-Playing Game. There is no immersion and company run servers are aweful. Private, player run servers are great, the NWN DM client being a good example. Anyone trying to harass people on a NWN private server lasted only about ten seconds and never came back if banned properly.

[Sussurus]

@Sabrina.
Really I like to portray sarcasm in as both agreeable and informative maner as possible.
It's a talent I'm working on, along with putting references to media in my posts Dorothy Sabrina.

Back to the topic hand, MP is an unknown...
In that we neither know if it is in, as I've seen every SP game forum I play have dozens of looking glass locked MP threads started.
It is unknown as to what effect it would have on a series, even a poll would not show the truth.
It is unknown if the current engine that DA uses or the prone to error servers could handle it.

As I said somewhere else if they make one, they should be thorough and make it a dedicated MP and have no relation to the standard DA single player universe in any way, kind of like Vegas.
That way those of us that like solo can keep the good stuff like story consistant.

Modifié par Sussurus, 11 mai 2011 - 09:32 .

[Sabriana]

Ryllen Laerth Kriel wrote...

Oh man, some of your remarks brought back bad WoW imagery of running a quest into town and having ten high level digital village idiots challenge my low level character to a duel while hopping in circles, spouting l33tsp34k "lolz fight m3! U sux0r!" The GMs were so slow to respond to harassment in WoW that I didn't know if they were asleep, afk or just responding to harassment every thirty seconds.

If the DA series ever goes multiplayer, please make it with player run servers in mind. Play-to-play might be a gold mine for some computer companies who survive the brutal competition of the first six months after releasing a title, but it's a poor experience if cRPG truely means computer Role-Playing Game. There is no immersion and company run servers are aweful. Private, player run servers are great, the NWN DM client being a good example. Anyone trying to harass people on a NWN private server lasted only about ten seconds and never came back if banned properly.

Yes. I did play NWN with friends. People I know, loved, liked, and respected. That was an entirely different experience than me trying to tap into my son's WoW game. I lasted all of 45 minutes before quitting in disgust.

The PWs in NWN are something entirely different than the usual multiplayer.

[Callidus Thorn]

Mr Mxyzptlk wrote...

xkg wrote...

"I really dont understand what the problem is with game developers adding some sort of multiplayer portion in their games"
Problem is - resources they have are limited. I rather see them focusing on single player part.

Show me a game where the single player part of the game suffers because of an added multiplayer feature and then I might take such statements seriously however until then I will just treat such posts as pointless whinging.

Halo 3. The single player is far too short and is somewhat pathetic compared to Halo 1 and 2. Because of the multiplayer side.

Modifié par Callidus Thorn, 11 mai 2011 - 09:25 .

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Imryll wrote...

Memories of the NWN official campaign. In theory, your vision of players enjoying a game in different ways is fine. In practice, something tends to get short changed. Resources devoted to providing a satisfying multiplayer experience are too often diverted from single-player development.

To be fair NWN was built to be a multiplayer game, I think the whole goal of NWN was to give the player the tools to build his own adventures and try to recreate the experience of a PnP roleplaying game with a dungeon master in video game format, the single player campaign wasnt the main focus of the game.

Callidus Thorn wrote...

Halo 3. The single player is far too short and is somewhat pathetic compared to Halo 1 and 2. Because of the multiplayer side.

Is that supposed to be a joke?

[Aurvan]

The people that hate multiplayer... is it because of the people, or the gameplay? I can understand it if it's the people... most random people I play with online makes me lose faith in humanity. But when you play with people you know are not morons, online games are just as great as singleplayer games.

[Callidus Thorn]

You said "Show me a game where the single player part of the game suffers because of an added multiplayer feature" Halo 3 has less single player and more multiplayer modes than Halo 2. It's something of a pet peeve of mine.

Ask a silly question and you'll get a silly answer.

[Night Prowler76]

Callidus Thorn wrote...

Mr Mxyzptlk wrote...

xkg wrote...

"I really dont understand what the problem is with game developers adding some sort of multiplayer portion in their games"
Problem is - resources they have are limited. I rather see them focusing on single player part.

Show me a game where the single player part of the game suffers because of an added multiplayer feature and then I might take such statements seriously however until then I will just treat such posts as pointless whinging.

Halo 3. The single player is far too short and is somewhat pathetic compared to Halo 1 and 2. Because of the multiplayer side.

All of the Halo games have about an 8 hour campaign, it depends on if you power through them or not.

[Sabriana]

Aurvan wrote...

The people that hate multiplayer... is it because of the people, or the gameplay? I can understand it if it's the people... most random people I play with online makes me lose faith in humanity. But when you play with people you know are not morons, online games are just as great as singleplayer games.

That's why I prefer co-ops. Or PWs. Online games, as far as I can tell, are loaded with people you don't know. MMOs are not my cup of tea. MMOs (such as WoW) don't hold any interest for me. Playing with people I know is a whole different cup of tea.

However, when it's all said and done, I prefer the SP game. I play to get away from my everyday stress. I play them to immerse myself into a different world. I don't want people around who tell me what to do, or insult me, flame me, whatever, because they simply "feel like it". I play video games to get away from people, and become someone else. I  have a very stressful job. Burn-out is a reality. I need to get away. I will never let go of the SP game, ever. Of course, this is only my personal opinion. YMMV.

[Tantum Dic Verbo]

Callidus Thorn wrote...

You said "Show me a game where the single player part of the game suffers because of an added multiplayer feature" Halo 3 has less single player and more multiplayer modes than Halo 2. It's something of a pet peeve of mine.

Ask a silly question and you'll get a silly answer.

I agree.  The single player Halo 3 experience just seems interminable because of that Cortana level.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Skilled Seeker wrote...

I eagerly anticipate the end of single player only games. Every game should have a multiplayer portion to extend it's life IMO. Don't shoot me nerds.

*BANG*

If I ever have to interact with people in order to play a game, I will not play that game.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 11 mai 2011 - 11:00 .

[Night Prowler76]

Aurvan wrote...

The people that hate multiplayer... is it because of the people, or the gameplay? I can understand it if it's the people... most random people I play with online makes me lose faith in humanity. But when you play with people you know are not morons, online games are just as great as singleplayer games.

I agree, when I play COD, I play in a party with friends, you can chit chat etc and its a really good time, same with games like Fable, if im solo playing online, the mic gets turned off.

Having Co-op in games can improve the experience greatly, take Gear of War and World at War, both were better because of co-op gameplay, I dont see what would be the problem with say, having one of your friends jump into your game and take control of one of the characters in your party or something, I think it would be a good aspect and would actualy appeal more to the demographic they are going for.

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Callidus Thorn wrote...

You said "Show me a game where the single player part of the game suffers because of an added multiplayer feature" Halo 3 has less single player and more multiplayer modes than Halo 2. It's something of a pet peeve of mine.

Ask a silly question and you'll get a silly answer.

But the whole highlight of the Halo series is its multiplayer, it is the main reason people buy the game and pretty much the only reason I play the games. I really dont see how the single player portion of the game was any better in the previous games nor do I see any way in which the multiplayer part of the game had any nagative effects the single player portion.

Besides I am not all that convinced that the multiplayer portion of a game really takes up as many resources as people think. I mean if you look at the halo series the single player game and the multiplayer game share a lot of the same resources from weapons to vehicles, player models and even most the maps are based off locations from the single player part of the game.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Aurvan wrote...

The people that hate multiplayer... is it because of the people, or the gameplay?

It's the people that are the problem.  The problem is that they are people.

Also, multiplayer typically requires considerable compromise in the ability to pause the game.

[Night Prowler76]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Aurvan wrote...

The people that hate multiplayer... is it because of the people, or the gameplay?

It's the people that are the problem.  The problem is that they are people.

Also, multiplayer typically requires considerable compromise in the ability to pause the game.

If multiplayer is only an extra option to the game, it does not affect the single player experience.

[steelfire_dragon]

I'll stay with the single player.

rpgs dont exactly make good co-op games.

simulaters and 1rst person shooters do.

[Sherbet Lemon]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Skilled Seeker wrote...

I eagerly anticipate the end of single player only games. Every game should have a multiplayer portion to extend it's life IMO. Don't shoot me nerds.

*BANG*

If I ever have to interact with people in order to play a game, I will not play that game.

My sentiments exactly.  I really, really don't want to HAVE to play online with other people.

[Melca36]

Night Prowler76 wrote...

Aurvan wrote...

The people that hate multiplayer... is it because of the people, or the gameplay? I can understand it if it's the people... most random people I play with online makes me lose faith in humanity. But when you play with people you know are not morons, online games are just as great as singleplayer games.

I agree, when I play COD, I play in a party with friends, you can chit chat etc and its a really good time, same with games like Fable, if im solo playing online, the mic gets turned off.

Having Co-op in games can improve the experience greatly, take Gear of War and World at War, both were better because of co-op gameplay, I dont see what would be the problem with say, having one of your friends jump into your game and take control of one of the characters in your party or something, I think it would be a good aspect and would actualy appeal more to the demographic they are going for.

Since when is that demographic even interested in an engaging story or games with depth?

[Sylvius the Mad]

Night Prowler76 wrote...

If multiplayer is only an extra option to the game, it does not affect the single player experience.

Zots.  If I can buy the single-player only portion of the game at a reduced price, then I'll accept it.

I'm not paying for features I won't use.