298 réponses à ce sujet

[Addai]

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.

Some people don't want to.  Is that really so hard to understand?  I've done both, and prefer single player.  No interest- zero, nada, zilch- in any multiplayer component.  So development spent on it is wasted as far as I'm concerned.  I don't mind if it's done separately and offered separately, just like the DA Facebook game which I ignore, but any MP integration is going to be a count against a SP title when it comes time for me to weigh whether I want to buy it or not.

Promises of multiplayer offering significant story component?  Based on reviews/ previews I've seen of Brink and TOR (for example here), I am skeptical.

[Cutlass Jack]

No offense, I love many of you, but I don't want any of you in my bioware game.

Multiplayer has no business in a single player game. They didn't have enough development time to fully do the Single player campaign as it was. Throwing in Multiplayer features into the game will just take a rediculous bite out of the Single player development time.

And we have hunreds of threads here complaining about how they didn't get that right. Even if they had the time to get the Single player campaign perfect, I'd still prefer they spend any extra time on more single player content than waste even a minute on multiplayer. Or a more robust toolset.

Modifié par Cutlass Jack, 13 mai 2011 - 08:14 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Skilled Seeker wrote...

Where can you roleplay a team of characters? All the games I've played, you create 1 character only.

Why does it matter how many you create?

If you control the whole party, then you can roleplay any and all of those party members.  It works in DAO, KotOR, and BG.

When you're playing DA2, and you take control of Fenris, what's happening there?  Is that Fenris acting out Hawke's instructions, or is Fenris acting on his own?  What about when Hawke in unconscious?

And if Fenris is acting on his own, then you're playing Fenris.  You're roleplaying Fenris.

As I suggested in an earlier example, the party members might not all agree on what should happen from moment to moment.  Bethany might Heal someone because his health is low, even though Hawke might think it better to keep that Heal available for a more dire circumstance.  But the only way that can ever happen is if you're roleplaying Bethany, and she either wilfully disobeyed Hawke or simply didn't know his preference.

[slimgrin]

Addai67 wrote...

Some people don't want to.  Is that really so hard to understand?  I've done both, and prefer single player. .

Exactly. I swear, whenever multiplayer comes up the proponents start pushing it like some obsessive agenda.

Player choice is irrelavent.. YOU MUST JOIN 

Modifié par slimgrin, 13 mai 2011 - 08:40 .

[Siansonea]

Ideally, a game would provide a satisfying single-player experience, while offering opportunites for co-op play in some capacity. I really enjoyed the co-op play of Resident Evil 5, and I've often wished that I could 'drive' Samara, Miranda, or another squad member in another person's Mass Effect game (which would remain THEIR game) or to drive one of the squad in Dragon Age 2 while another person is playing Hawke. Naturally my role would be limited to combat, in cutscenes my character would respond as determined by the story, but it would still be fun to do. I am not normally a combat-oriented player, but I really enjoyed the co-op in Resident Evil 5 because I could play Sheva as a support sniper while a friend played Chris as a tank. And if there was an opportunity for a third person to drive another character in combat, the group could set up some very interesting tactics. The pause-screen aspect of ME and DA combat would have to be suspended for this to work, though. One thing I would NOT want is for the single-player aspect to be diminished in any way, because we don't always have the luxury of inviting a quality player into our games.

[xkg]

Skilled Seeker wrote...

Where can you roleplay a team of characters? All the games I've played, you create 1 character only.

Icewind Dale, Icewind Dale 2, The Temple of Elemental Evil

In IWD 1&2 you can create up to 6 members and in In ToEE up to 5 members. 

[Well]

slimgrin wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

Some people don't want to.  Is that really so hard to understand?  I've done both, and prefer single player. .

Exactly. I swear, whenever multiplayer comes up the proponents start pushing it like some obsessive agenda.

Player choice is irrelavent.. YOU MUST JOIN 

I can understand that.I run Guild Wars online and do it solo...well with heroes.Getting in a good group can really be difficult.It is a fun game but as far as Dragon Age I can't see playing in a group.One of the reason I play solo online is in a pug you can have 3 people trying to be the boss or several afking.Makes a mess of trying to complete a mission.Games like DA which is more heavy on the RP part of game would really be a pain with others.

[Gotholhorakh]

Wow, I'm amazed that people don't know what a/s/l is - and frankly, that's no bad thing!

You would get hassled by idiots who weren't interested in friendship, discourse or any kind of innocent fun online - whatever the context they would wade in and start leching over everyone.  I think one thing that helped get rid of it is that loads of games and chat channels/rooms ended up considering it an autokick.

I feel truly decrepit now

[sympathy4saren]

All games need multiplayer. Call of Duty has shown the world, through innovation, that games without multiplayer suck!

[_Aine_]

Cutlass Jack wrote...

No offense, I love many of you, but I don't want any of you in my bioware game.

Multiplayer has no business in a single player game. They didn't have enough development time to fully do the Single player campaign as it was. Throwing in Multiplayer features into the game will just take a rediculous bite out of the Single player development time.

And we have hunreds of threads here complaining about how they didn't get that right. Even if they had the time to get the Single player campaign perfect, I'd still prefer they spend any extra time on more single player content than waste even a minute on multiplayer. Or a more robust toolset.

Well, FINE! I would have a Jack-look-alike in my game no-problem, but whatever!   

Agreed with what you said however.    With the shorter time-frames for release, I would prefer they use the time on single player content.  If I want a multiplayer game, I play MMORPG's.  The future of games in my opinion serves both a single-player and multiplayer functionality - in their OWN games. One game doesn't have to fill every need.  Trying to fill too many, usually means satisfying few. 

Now, in small doses, it CAN be done to incorporate multiplayer into a single player game. But to be done well, would need more time than most games are even giving their single player development...

Modifié par shantisands, 13 mai 2011 - 09:08 .

[slimgrin]

sympathy4saren wrote...

All games need multiplayer. Call of Duty has shown the world, through innovation, that games without multiplayer suck!

John Riccitiello seems to think so.

[Snowship]

The problem with Multiplayer games are other people.

SP 4 me all the way!

[Haexpane]

Depends on the game.

ICO or SotC would not work for me MP.

But DC Universe Online is godly and fun.

[erynnar]

Cutlass Jack wrote...

No offense, I love many of you, but I don't want any of you in my bioware game.

Multiplayer has no business in a single player game. They didn't have enough development time to fully do the Single player campaign as it was. Throwing in Multiplayer features into the game will just take a rediculous bite out of the Single player development time.

And we have hunreds of threads here complaining about how they didn't get that right. Even if they had the time to get the Single player campaign perfect, I'd still prefer they spend any extra time on more single player content than waste even a minute on multiplayer. Or a more robust toolset.

And here I thought your wife loved me...oh wait....

Yeah I don't want to play a multiplayer. I love debating with you all, hanging out with you all. But I played Wow until this year, since it's release. Before that I played EverCrack, and DAoC, and City of Heros and Villains. I have no desire to play online with others any more. My learing curve and others vary too much.

[Gavinthelocust]

Multiplayer is too competitive, not my cup of tea.
When there's competition someone will cheat and someone will be an ass. If COD has taught me anything other than that killing Russians and ****s if fun I've learned that when you have competitive multiplayer in a game it brings out the scummiest parts of people.

[bEVEsthda]

Tsk, tsk. In the past, game companies' marketing people have been so phenomenally wrong, that it will forever be a mystery how they could go there. Particularly since you never get anyone to explain what the h* they were thinking. (Want me to give examples? Never mind, it'll just become a rant)

Of course there are multiplayer gamers. It's even reasonable to guess that ALL of them (almost) plays WoW and/or CoD (I've certainly never even heard about anyone who didn't).  This means we can actually count them. 11-12 mil. That's the total size of the market, which these geniuses now will make ALL games into multiplayer for?

The discussion is not new, and I'm not new to this discussion. AFAIK, it's well established that most gamers don't look for those specific things multiplayer games provide. It's also well established that most gamers take a very dim view of multiplayer communities.

[Haexpane]

Gavinthelocust wrote...

Multiplayer is too competitive, not my cup of tea.
When there's competition someone will cheat and someone will be an ass. If COD has taught me anything other than that killing Russians and ****s if fun I've learned that when you have competitive multiplayer in a game it brings out the scummiest parts of people.

Well CoD has the most scummiest scum on the internet playing that game, so you are running with the worst of the worst, aka Charlie Sheen and Iced T.

DC Universe online, we have a nice friendly adults league, no trolls are criminals allowed.  We don't allow cheaters or griefers and our primary goal is to have a lot of fun while playing the game.

It's a blast! (when the PSN was working that is

[Gavinthelocust]

Haexpane wrote...

Well CoD has the most scummiest scum on the internet playing that game, so you are running with the worst of the worst, aka Charlie Sheen and Iced T.

DC Universe online, we have a nice friendly adults league, no trolls are criminals allowed.  We don't allow cheaters or griefers and our primary goal is to have a lot of fun while playing the game.

It's a blast! (when the PSN was working that is

MMOs and coop games probably kill my opinion, there people are actually civilized. A DA coop game would be the best thing since sliced bread, but anything else and it's back into the waters of competitive multiplayer.

[Drachasor]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Skilled Seeker wrote...

Where can you roleplay a team of characters? All the games I've played, you create 1 character only.

Why does it matter how many you create?

If you control the whole party, then you can roleplay any and all of those party members.  It works in DAO, KotOR, and BG.

When you're playing DA2, and you take control of Fenris, what's happening there?  Is that Fenris acting out Hawke's instructions, or is Fenris acting on his own?  What about when Hawke in unconscious?

And if Fenris is acting on his own, then you're playing Fenris.  You're roleplaying Fenris.

As I suggested in an earlier example, the party members might not all agree on what should happen from moment to moment.  Bethany might Heal someone because his health is low, even though Hawke might think it better to keep that Heal available for a more dire circumstance.  But the only way that can ever happen is if you're roleplaying Bethany, and she either wilfully disobeyed Hawke or simply didn't know his preference.

Combat, while an aspect of almost all RPGs, is not the same thing as roleplaying.  Sure, you can control Fenris in combat, but you can't have him talk to people, nor you can have him respond as you wish in ANY conversation.  Make no mistake, the only real roleplaying by the player in any Bioware game (and almost all other CRPGs) is with the main character.  Tactical combat controls for party members is there so you can properly compensate for poor AI and for the people that enjoy that level of micromanagement.

This is a significant point about any potential MP* Dragon Age.  You couldn't just slap MP on to almost ANY Bioware game.  It fundamentally changes how the game plays and really changes how companions function or work, unless everyone is ok with people not having control of the dialogue except for the player controlling the main character.  Personally, I like Bioware games because of the richness of the companions and I wouldn't want them to make a game where they have to sacrifice that for MP components (hence my opinion MP could be done with at most 2 people where there are then two or three companions).  If I want a game that's just MP with some RPG elements, then I can play Diablo 3 when it comes out or any of a vast number of other games.  If I want a good CRPG with good companion characters, companion banter, etc, etc, etc, then there are far fewer options and Bioware has traditionally been the best or near the best.**

*Let us distinguish between MP and MMO on here (this is directed at everyone here).  It seems like a lot of people are confusing the two.  MP can be just 2 people, for instance.  Co-op doesn't specify much...heck, Guild Wars 2 is going to be an MMO Co-Op in most ways.  I think it is generally assumed any Dragon Age MP game would be Co-Op, and probably just MP rather than MMO.  The primary question, in my mind, is how many people could play together.

**Though DA2 isn't the best game, the companion banter and some other aspects are at least good.  I'll say ME1/2 isn't so great here as your companions barely ever talk to each other and even sometimes seem to have nothing to say about what is going on when it feels like they should.  It was kind of disappointing to me.

[neppakyo]

I said it before, if it must be MP added onto DA through some EA command. The nwn style is the only one I would prefer.

I dislike mmo's. TOR does not appeal to me, and from what I've seen and read its not looking to hot either.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Drachasor wrote...

Combat, while an aspect of almost all RPGs, is not the same thing as roleplaying.

Roleplaying is in-character decision-making.  That's the definition of roleplaying.  If your combat gameplay consists of in-character decision-making, then you are roleplaying.

There's no way around that.

Sure, you can control Fenris in combat, but you can't have him talk to people, nor you can have him respond as you wish in ANY conversation.

So we can't roleplay him all of the time.  I'm not claiming we can (though I do wish we could, but that's neither here nor there).

Make no mistake, the only real roleplaying by the player in any Bioware game (and almost all other CRPGs) is with the main character.

Of course, that's not true.  Both BG and BG2 allowed you to control your party members in converssation (in BG2 this appears to have been an accident, but in BG it was a documented feature).

Tactical combat controls for party members is there so you can properly compensate for poor AI and for the people that enjoy that level of micromanagement.

This is supposition on your part.  That tactical combat control exists is as far as the evidence takes you.  The conclusion you draw beyond that is without foundation.

The primary question, in my mind, is how many people could play together.

One thing that could redeem MP for me is the other end of that question.  If MP allows a party consisting of multiple player-made characters (presumably each made by a different player), I would be happy to see MP if we could have multiple characters created by just one player.

This was a feature of multiplayer in the BG games.   MP BG was a co-op system, but a single player could host a game, allow no other players, and create and control all of the characters himself.  If adding MP lets me do that, then bring on multiplayer.

[Mick301981]

erynnar wrote...

Cutlass Jack wrote...

No offense, I love many of you, but I don't want any of you in my bioware game.

Multiplayer has no business in a single player game. They didn't have enough development time to fully do the Single player campaign as it was. Throwing in Multiplayer features into the game will just take a rediculous bite out of the Single player development time.

And we have hunreds of threads here complaining about how they didn't get that right. Even if they had the time to get the Single player campaign perfect, I'd still prefer they spend any extra time on more single player content than waste even a minute on multiplayer. Or a more robust toolset.

And here I thought your wife loved me...oh wait....

Yeah I don't want to play a multiplayer. I love debating with you all, hanging out with you all. But I played Wow until this year, since it's release. Before that I played EverCrack, and DAoC, and City of Heros and Villains. I have no desire to play online with others any more. My learing curve and others vary too much.

I played Wow on and off, for 3 years, and your thoughts pretty much echo mine:)

I have no interest in multiplayer.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I played EVE Online for quite a while. It's one of the very best games I've ever played.

And yet, at some point I'd been playing long enough that other players started to recognise my characters simply by name (I had no reason ever to interact with them), and they started to talk to me.

So I quit.

If other players can talk to me, then eventually they will talk to me, and as soon as they do talk to me the game is no longer playable..