298 réponses à ce sujet

[MistySun]

i tried WOW but the novelty wore off very quickly. Just not for me.

What i love about single player games is that you don't have to listen to anyone barking orders at you or throwing a tantrum because you didn't do something they wanted you to do.
In a single player game, you can  explore and fight at your own leisure.
May it continue.

Modifié par MistySun, 14 mai 2011 - 10:53 .

[Elhanan]

I enjoyed the small m/p platform of NWN1. If they could make a MMO that had this type of party co-op, as opposed to the griefing seen in some games, I would be interested in that, too.

[YohkoOhno]

Well, then you should check out Neverwinter this winter.

http://www.playneverwinter.com/about

Modifié par YohkoOhno, 14 mai 2011 - 10:57 .

[Drachasor]

YohkoOhno wrote...

Well, then you should check out Neverwinter this winter.

http://www.playneverwinter.com/about

Cryptic is involved.  They make trash (see STO and Champions Online).  So I advice everyone to stay away from that game.  Well, unless you like rushed garbage.

[YohkoOhno]

I judge by game, not company or publisher, because obviously not every game is a hit. There's a lot riding on a 4e D&D game, and this isn't an MMO, so I'll be interested and read reviews carefully.

[Drachasor]

YohkoOhno wrote...

I judge by game, not company or publisher, because obviously not every game is a hit. There's a lot riding on a 4e D&D game, and this isn't an MMO, so I'll be interested and read reviews carefully.

Same people in charge, same philosophy of rushing things out the door as quickly as possible.  Same shortened development time and likely the same plethora of DLC content that should just be in the game at release.  It isn't like the current crpytic has EVER made a good game -- the people involved in CoH aren't there anymore and the dramatic improvements to CoH weren't done by Cryptic anyhow.

Sure, perhaps it will surprise me, but the smart money is on it being crap.  There's certainly no reason to buy any game Cryptic has its hands in within the first month or two of release.  At the very least the smart consumer should wait until the finish product is judged by a large variety of sources.

[Elhanan]

YohkoOhno wrote...

I judge by game, not company or publisher, because obviously not every game is a hit. There's a lot riding on a 4e D&D game, and this isn't an MMO, so I'll be interested and read reviews carefully.

I tend to agree. However, I am not supporting the new 4E design; much prefer 3E or 3.5E. Thanks for posting the link for others, though.

[JamieCOTC]

Mrbananagrabber wrote...

I'll stick to my single player games, thank you very much.

Me too, though the way the industry is going, ME3 may be the last game I ever buy. 

[Ryllen Laerth Kriel]

MistySun wrote...

i tried WOW but the novelty wore off very quickly. Just not for me.

What i love about single player games is that you don't have to listen to anyone barking orders at you or throwing a tantrum because you didn't do something they wanted you to do.
In a single player game, you can  explore and fight at your own leisure.
May it continue.

This was one of the larger sore points for me too with a game like WoW. It was always a pain to find a reliable group. An hour, sometimes two would be spent trying to get people together to run an instance, then someone who still lived with their parents would have to take the trash out or their "computer time" was up and it screwed over everyone else halfway through the instance. Even if you had more reliable party members, friends from real life, playing with you then an emergency might occur and scrap the entire dungeon. Multiplayer is fun in some games, but I ended up really hating WoW style MMORPGs because most of the game content is locked up in massive instances and most of the player's time is wasted just looking for a group of people to go to them. Long live single player games!

I see nothing wrong with NWN style multiplayer, that is fun and doesn't waste an entire afternoon with nothing being accomplished. Alot of the design of WoW-type games are just a blight on the face of gaming however.

[Bryy_Miller]

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.

TOR is not KOTOR. It is an entirely new franchise. Yes, yes, they said that it's KOTOR III, but they most likely meant in the same way that Dragon Age is Baldur's Gate 3. 

Honestly. TOR is not KOTOR.

[Chuvvy]

The only way the could properly implement a DA2 MM component is if they added a co-op campaign on the side, that told another part of the story. Similar to what Two Worlds Two did, but better.

[centiumcuspis]

what if they had 2 "Hawk" or "Shepard" like characters in the same game. each with thier own conversation options back story and perhaps a Master Mentor relationship or partnership. For single player the character would control both. in multiplayer each would get thier own. two radicly different players could then have some very interesting play throughs together and still not step on eachothers toes ,except when it is a plot element. I think even the most hard core single players would enjoy this and it would create a very new Multiplayer experience for those who want it.

they can even preserve the diologe wheel. I actulay think that the wheel is only way to go with this arangement.

Modifié par centiumcuspis, 15 mai 2011 - 09:05 .

[Drachasor]

centiumcuspis wrote...

what if they had 2 "Hawk" or "Shepard" like characters in the same game. each with thier own conversation options back story and perhaps a Master Mentor relationship or partnership. For single player the character would control both. in multiplayer each would get thier own. two radicly different players could then have some very interesting play throughs together and still not step on eachothers toes ,except when it is a plot element. I think even the most hard core single players would enjoy this and it would create a very new Multiplayer experience for those who want it.

they can even preserve the diologe wheel. I actulay think that the wheel is only way to go with this arangement.

Yes, I made mention of this earlier in the thread.  With a 4 or 5-man party, I think this could work and still have plenty of companion interaction.

[Drachasor]

Bryy_Miller wrote...

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.

TOR is not KOTOR. It is an entirely new franchise. Yes, yes, they said that it's KOTOR III, but they most likely meant in the same way that Dragon Age is Baldur's Gate 3. 

Honestly. TOR is not KOTOR.

It's the combat mechanics that I think might hurt it a lot.  I don't think many people envision playing a Jedi that stands back and spams heals and wields a lightsaber that has the killing power of a wet noodle (a necessity of the design because healing gear gives you no killing power with either force or lightsaber abilities).  Same with any other "healing" class in TOR.  They've sacrificed a lot of the feel of the genre by forcing WoW-like MMO mechanics into the game.  The more problems and time they've spent on TOR, the less like Star Wars the combat looks like.

Honestly, going with a more ME-like system with everyone being able to use cover and team tactics mattering without having to use the WoW-like Holy Trinity for combat would have served them a lot better.  I just don't think the story component, while nice, is enough to save the game.

Well, that's a bit off topic.

More to the point, a DA3 that had cooperative options would be a very different beast from an MMO.  Others have pointed out NWN avoided the massive problems MMOs have, and there's no reason to think DA3 couldn't do the same.  What they'd have to be careful about is preserving companion interactions and banter, which I think would limit how many people could play together.  Assuming a party size of 4 or 5, I don't think you could really have more than 2 players and maintain the consistency, feel, and presence of companions (which, imho, is a huge component of what makes Bioware games good).  I think good design would dictate you don't want life-like companions competing with playing with others...you want it so that having someone else play with you doesn't sacrifice anything, only adds.

[lobi]

centiumcuspis wrote...

what if they had 2 "Hawk" or "Shepard" like characters in the same game. each with thier own conversation options back story and perhaps a Master Mentor relationship or partnership. For single player the character would control both. in multiplayer each would get thier own. two radicly different players could then have some very interesting play throughs together and still not step on eachothers toes ,except when it is a plot element. I think even the most hard core single players would enjoy this and it would create a very new Multiplayer experience for those who want it.

they can even preserve the diologe wheel. I actulay think that the wheel is only way to go with this arangement.

Controlling 2 Player chars? bad for immersion.

[Drachasor]

lobi wrote...

centiumcuspis wrote...

what if they had 2 "Hawk" or "Shepard" like characters in the same game. each with thier own conversation options back story and perhaps a Master Mentor relationship or partnership. For single player the character would control both. in multiplayer each would get thier own. two radicly different players could then have some very interesting play throughs together and still not step on eachothers toes ,except when it is a plot element. I think even the most hard core single players would enjoy this and it would create a very new Multiplayer experience for those who want it.

they can even preserve the diologe wheel. I actulay think that the wheel is only way to go with this arangement.

Controlling 2 Player chars? bad for immersion.

I'd say the game handles the 2nd one, keeping his/her behavior consistent with the personality of the imported or chosen background.

[MistySun]

Let the gane control the second char...i have enough trouble controlling one

[centiumcuspis]

lobi wrote...

centiumcuspis wrote...

what if they had 2 "Hawk" or "Shepard" like characters in the same game. each with thier own conversation options back story and perhaps a Master Mentor relationship or partnership. For single player the character would control both. in multiplayer each would get thier own. two radicly different players could then have some very interesting play throughs together and still not step on eachothers toes ,except when it is a plot element. I think even the most hard core single players would enjoy this and it would create a very new Multiplayer experience for those who want it.

they can even preserve the diologe wheel. I actulay think that the wheel is only way to go with this arangement.

Controlling 2 Player chars? bad for immersion.

well it would alowe the developers to focus on only one game and give players to option to see everything alone or work with a friend. also I don't think it would hurt Immersion as you still choose how your characters develop and they would be working along side other NPCs. I see it as a chance to create an immersion experience around a working relationship not just a character, in both 1 and 2 player.

[centiumcuspis]

also 1 phrase- "good cop bad cop" think about it.

[Tantum Dic Verbo]

MistySun wrote...

i tried WOW but the novelty wore off very quickly. Just not for me.

What i love about single player games is that you don't have to listen to anyone barking orders at you or throwing a tantrum because you didn't do something they wanted you to do.
In a single player game, you can  explore and fight at your own leisure.
May it continue.

A brief persual of the WoW forums is enough to illustrate the problems with MMO's.

[Shibby Razel]

If they can do it right then I'm o

[the_one_54321]

Elhanan wrote...
I enjoyed the small m/p platform of NWN1. If they could make a MMO that had this type of party co-op, as opposed to the griefing seen in some games, I would be interested in that, too.

I agree completely. But it's not going to happen. There are no fees in the NWN model. There are no DLCs in the NWN model. All it builds is brand name and a fiercely loyal fanbase. You know long term benefit stuff. The kind of thing EA doesn't care the slightest for.

[Elhanan]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Elhanan wrote...
I enjoyed the small m/p platform of NWN1. If they could make a MMO that had this type of party co-op, as opposed to the griefing seen in some games, I would be interested in that, too.

I agree completely. But it's not going to happen. There are no fees in the NWN model. There are no DLCs in the NWN model. All it builds is brand name and a fiercely loyal fanbase. You know long term benefit stuff. The kind of thing EA doesn't care the slightest for.

Whether it was free or Pay-to-Play, if this could be done the game would be interesting; the removal of major MMO obstacles, and enhanced RPG experience while mingling with thousands.

Pls do not fault the game makers for striving to make a profit, though; they are in a business.

I simply can not play currently if it is Pay-to-Play; many other consumers are on same Titanic ship. It is my hope that the right set of eyes review the economic issues, and are satisfied with software sales.

[the_one_54321]

Elhanan wrote...
Pls do not fault the game makers for striving to make a profit, though; they are in a business.

I do expect them to seek a profit and I don't fault or criticize for that in itself. But it gets hard to not be upset when their business models make me feel like they maybe think I'm an idiot. DAII really made me feel that way. ME2 was borderline and as of now I have zero hope for ME3 and DAIII.

[Elhanan]

At some point, the increased consumer loss will gather the attention of those stting in the right chairs.

Games and films are still luxuries, and in the current global economical , prices should decrease to maintain max sales potential to those more focussed on neccessities. Selling at a higher rate to a few may not be as favorable as selling at a lower rate to a greater majority.