298 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

Alistairlover94 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Alistairlover94 wrote...

Even sexual intercourse?

Involving other people in that takes a lot more time, and it's more work.

I think there's a strong argument to be made there.

I don't see why there needs to be an argument for that. Maybe someone is anti-social to the point that even that is not to their liking.

All else being equal, I can see why someone might disagree, but all else isn't equal.  Think about it.  The social side of the discussion requires the lengthy maintenance of specific types of relationships with like-minded people for the purpose of having an available partner.  There's massive opportunity cost there.

[Gotholhorakh]

One cannot have any kind of intercourse, social or otherwise, without two or more parties present.

That would be like one hand clapping. If you will pardon the, erm, phrase.

Modifié par Gotholhorakh, 12 mai 2011 - 06:19 .

[Skilled Seeker]

Bunch of sad people here on Bioware Social it seems. Can't say I'm surprised seeing as many appear to spend all their time raging about DA2 every day since it released.

Modifié par Skilled Seeker, 12 mai 2011 - 10:40 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Skilled Seeker wrote...

Bunch of sad people here on Bioware Social it seems. Can't see I'm surprised seeing as many appear to spend all their time raging about DA2 every day since it released.

I find somewhat offensive the suggestion that people who prefer their own company over that of others are somehow "sad".

[ChickenDownUnder]

Alistairlover94 wrote...

Skilled Seeker wrote...

Bunch of sad people here on Bioware Social it seems. Can't see I'm surprised seeing as many appear to spend all their time raging about DA2 every day since it released.

Can't see i'm surprised you not being aware I have access to a computer at my workplace.

On your lunch break too?

[Gotholhorakh]

Alistairlover94 wrote...

Skilled Seeker wrote...

Bunch of sad people here on Bioware Social it seems. Can't see I'm surprised seeing as many appear to spend all their time raging about DA2 every day since it released.

Can't see i'm surprised you not being aware I have access to a computer at my workplace.

Ditto, and not necessarily within 5 hours of any particular forum user's time zone, either

[AlanC9]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

All else being equal, I can see why someone might disagree, but all else isn't equal.  Think about it.  The social side of the discussion requires the lengthy maintenance of specific types of relationships with like-minded people for the purpose of having an available partner.  There's massive opportunity cost there.

What's that saying about prostitutes... "You're not paying the girl to have sex with you; you're paying her to leave."

[Aurvan]

It seems a lot of people are convinced you can't play with decent people online because the vocal majority is consisting of annoying drama queens and trolls. But if you can survive hanging out on this forum - because there are both trolls and decent people here - I'm convinced you are able to find the decent people and avoid the trolls in a multiplayer game as well.

[Sussurus]

Yes but half the time most post, argue, agree on points or even change their opinion.
Then a week or less later go back to factory presets and rant about the same issue.
With their original often biased and unfounded POV, that got shot down.. I do it too btw.

I've met many fine people playing dedicated MP, however I don't care about winning.
If you let them win people tend to be nice, even if you're crazy and play as such.
It's when you call them on their exploits, loopholes and bad manners or worse copy them it gets nasty.

When I play rpg's I like leaving messes like this behind, it's easier on my sanity.. which is loose enough tbh.

Modifié par Sussurus, 12 mai 2011 - 11:31 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Aurvan wrote...

It seems a lot of people are convinced you can't play with decent people online because the vocal majority is consisting of annoying drama queens and trolls. But if you can survive hanging out on this forum - because there are both trolls and decent people here - I'm convinced you are able to find the decent people and avoid the trolls in a multiplayer game as well.

I'm not trying to roleplay while I'm here.  I'm not trying to entirely submerge my own personality so that I can play a role from that character's in-setting perspective.

[Guitar-Hero]

Here's why multiplayer and especially RPG's don't mix.

To me, an RPG is a playground, a place where i can loose myself in all the wonder that is this new and interesting world, i can be anyone i want, do anything i want, it is my own personnel sandbox, filled with interesting characters and place that are defined by me and my actions. and a storyline to hold it all together, now hypothetically i am sitting in my sandbox, playing with my tools, building a castle, and having fun... Now a new kid walks up "Oh hello" i say.. Now this kid walks into my sandbox and takes a massive dump allover my newly built castle.... See my point?

Modifié par Steffen, 13 mai 2011 - 01:13 .

[the_one_54321]

I could be happy with having a multiplayer element implemented in these games. If it's constructed correctly it only adds to the available experiences. The thing is that it won't be constructed correctly. And I can say that with like 95% confidence.

[neppakyo]

the_one_54321 wrote...

I could be happy with having a multiplayer element implemented in these games. If it's constructed correctly it only adds to the available experiences. The thing is that it won't be constructed correctly. And I can say that with like 95% confidence.

The only multiplayer aspect I would tolerate is the NWN1/2 way. Plus it would allow for people to create persistant worlds for the universe of Thedas, and create real roleplay.

[Harcken]

Isn't there room for both? Honestly, devs these days seem to all be aiming for the "holy grail" of games. All of a sudden it's like they think if they game A) does X and sells 10 million copies; they can throw X into their game and sell 10 million copies. Bioware is (was?) great at making old school RPGs. Why not be king of that throne with 3-5 million followers rather than chase a throne occupied by 10 different kings each beating the crap out of each other.

[Liou]

MistySun wrote...

So just what are game companies going to do in the future? Will multiplayer really be the death of single player games like DA:O, DA2, and we hope DA3.

It might be the death of BioWares singleplayer games. But singleplayer games in general? I doubt it. What some people forget is that gaming isn't a social thing for everyone. Many gamers actually prefer singleplayer games, some even to the extent that they won't play anything else. You could compare singleplayer and multiplayer games with books and movies. It is true there is a significant overlap between the people who enjoy them but they do so mostly for different reasons. A book (or singleplayer game) isn't a social experience. It has the potential to be much deeper and more complex. You can enjoy the story at your own pace, there is no rush, no interruptions. TV Series actually has much of the same potential as books because they are longer than movies but it's still a different experience and people still buy books... and comics for that matter. It might be a smaller market but there is still money to be made. And as long as that is the case, there will be books, comics and singleplayer games. If EA and Ubisoft decides that our money is not good enough someone else will fill the gap.

But they will not just stop making singleplayer games. They just want a multiplayer option in all games. I think it's more about offering the best of both worlds from their perspective and get all gaming online as fast as possible. That's the real reason i think. The big game publishers hate second hand sales... maybe even more than piracy. FPS games like Call of Duty also have a singleplayer campaign though i doubt that is the reason most people buy them. If you ask me they should just abandon those hybrids and make strong singleplayer only and multiplayer only games instead. That said, i thought Red Dead: Redemption and Uncharted 2 was good games despite not being singleplayer only. Ofcause i don't know whatever the multiplayer part was worth anything since i never actually used it.

And before anyone says anything, yes i am aware that you can also enjoy a movie alone. I just thought it would be a good comparison.

Oh and here is another reason why there will still be room for singleplayer games in the future. Artificial intelligence will evolve while most gamers seems to be getting dumber each day.

Modifié par Liou, 13 mai 2011 - 06:50 .

[MistySun]

Well Liou, food for thought there what you said. Funny thing is when i first started playing PC games....evolving on from AtariST, Amiga 1200, and Playstation i thought i could never want to play a game with companions.
What i mean by that is when you have 3 other game players like DA.
But i found it fun after all. But playing multiplayer with RL players just does not appeal to me. i did try it once. I didn't like it, so that is why i don't want to see multipayer tacked on to games as it will surely mean the single player element will suffer.
So yes, make single player games for solo players and make Multiplayer games for Multiplayers.
 
But don't mix the two.

[Skilled Seeker]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Aurvan wrote...

It seems a lot of people are convinced you can't play with decent people online because the vocal majority is consisting of annoying drama queens and trolls. But if you can survive hanging out on this forum - because there are both trolls and decent people here - I'm convinced you are able to find the decent people and avoid the trolls in a multiplayer game as well.

I'm not trying to roleplay while I'm here.  I'm not trying to entirely submerge my own personality so that I can play a role from that character's in-setting perspective.

Are you trying to say its not possible to role play online? Because that is a blatant lie. If anything the role play is much better when you have other people role playing with you.

[Oban1961]

Liou wrote...
Artificial intelligence will evolve while most gamers seem to be getting dumber each day.

Just fell in love with you.

~runs away

[Skilled Seeker]

Steffen wrote...

Here's why multiplayer and especially RPG's don't mix.

To me, an RPG is a playground, a place where i can loose myself in all the wonder that is this new and interesting world, i can be anyone i want, do anything i want, it is my own personnel sandbox, filled with interesting characters and place that are defined by me and my actions. and a storyline to hold it all together, now hypothetically i am sitting in my sandbox, playing with my tools, building a castle, and having fun... Now a new kid walks up "Oh hello" i say.. Now this kid walks into my sandbox and takes a massive dump allover my newly built castle.... See my point?

This is an absolutely ridiculous analogy. There are those of us who like to build our castles together because it's more fun and we achieve something better. 

[Drachasor]

I think multi-player could work in DA3, but no more than 2 people. One person plays The Warden and another plays The Champion (alternatively "The Hawke"). There'd have to be something to keep dialogue options working smoothly (perhaps use the idea they implemented for TOR), but it is doable. You'd also have to be able to have at least 4 people in the party (this includes the players), if not five, since companion banter and interjections are important. As long as two people could play together without ripping each other heads off due to pausing, then I think all possible problems could be overcome.

Of course, if DA3 is as rushed as DA2, then it would probably ruin the feel of the game.

[Skilled Seeker]

Exactly, have a coop mode where each player controls a character and a companion in the party and they can quest together. If you want to play single player then you can control everyone like it is now.

Also why can't it work with more than 2 people? It can, everyone controls a character.

Modifié par Skilled Seeker, 13 mai 2011 - 11:50 .

[Drachasor]

Skilled Seeker wrote...

Exactly, have a coop mode where each player controls a character and a companion in the party and they can quest together. If you want to play single player then you can control everyone like it is now.

Also why can't it work with more than 2 people? It can, everyone controls a character.

I dislike everyone controlling a character since it would seem to completely eliminate party banter when you played with others, unless the person you are playing could start bantering automatically anyways.  Seems to me having the person you control banter might not feel right for a lot of people though.  If we accept that there's a problem there, then it is my position that having a conflict between immersion and playing with others is NOT desirable.  If you make a multiplayer game then it should be made so that you lose nothing if another person joins in.  I think it is possible to acheive this balance in DA3 with 2 people, but more than that seems to be stretching it.

Modifié par Drachasor, 13 mai 2011 - 12:35 .

[MistySun]

Skilled Seeker wrote...

Exactly, have a coop mode where each player controls a character and a companion in the party and they can quest together. If you want to play single player then you can control everyone like it is now.

Also why can't it work with more than 2 people? It can, everyone controls a character.

Not everybody has someone to play with Skilled Seeker, have you thought of that? Mnay gamers are on their own.
How are they going to play if  they need another sitting next to them and can't get anyone.?

Unles of course it can be controlled with AI. Then the computer can play too.