134 réponses à ce sujet

[Ponendus]

Sorry if this has been asked, but if the OP's suggestion were to happen (ie import into another players co-op), how would mods work? Wouldn't the destination player need to have the files for mods on their PC? We may end up all naked otherwise.

Would that mean we would have to forgo a toolset (assuming there would ever be one anyway) for the sake of multiplayer? If so, I don't think I would want to do that.

Also how does it work across platforms? I think the BG series was PC only wasn't it? I don't know much about how multiplayer works...

[devSin]

Ponendus wrote...

Sorry if this has been asked, but if the OP's suggestion were to happen (ie import into another players co-op), how would mods work? Wouldn't the destination player need to have the files for mods on their PC? We may end up all naked otherwise.

This is the way it's worked in the past. But unless they use the same engine (which is kind of iffy, since they dropped multiplayer from Origins; it may not be something easily incorporated in the current tech), there probably would be no mods. (And the dragon-on-dragon action rumor has them using a different engine.)

Likely modding support would be removed anyway (or multiplayer would be loaded without mods). Consoles don't really have access to mods.

Ponendus wrote...

Would that mean we would have to forgo a toolset (assuming there would ever be one anyway) for the sake of multiplayer? If so, I don't think I would want to do that.

NWN had a word-class toolset and multiplayer functionality both.

But I don't think there will be a toolset ever again. It's PC-only, and it's a pain for the tools guys to do (like Chris posted in another thread, they use more and more third-party tech, and polishing internal tools for public release is a fat waste of time).

If you want to use their toolset, submit your resume to EA/BioWare and hope they assign you to the DA team when you get employed.

Ponendus wrote...

Also how does it work across platforms? I think the BG series was PC only wasn't it? I don't know much about how multiplayer works...

I believe some current games have cross-platform multiplayer. Not playing multiplayer, I have no experience or really any concern for the particulars, though.

The BG series and NWN were exclusive to PC (and also the only BioWare games to actually feature multiplayer support). BioWare wouldn't do multiplayer unless everybody could play together (well, maybe not Playstation 3; they may just have to play with each other), unless EA simply made them do it.

Modifié par devSin, 02 décembre 2011 - 02:27 .

[Gunderic]

Zanallen wrote...

JohnEpler wrote...

Indeed, I apologize for the derailment, and let's get this thread back on-topic.

Unfortunately sir, there isn't much to talk about. All we have to go on is this rumor from a supposed insider and the precedent set with ME3 multiplayer. Without confirmation, all we can really discuss is the likelihood of the inclusion of multiplayer in DA3, what said multiplayer will entail for DA3 and our opinions on the matter. So, baseless speculation and opinions.

All before DA3 has even been officially announced.

It's probably true.

[Brockololly]

devSin wrote...

But I don't think there will be a toolset ever again. It's PC-only, and it's a pain for the tools guys to do (like Chris posted in another thread, they use more and more third-party tech, and polishing internal tools for public release is a fat waste of time).

You're probably right, but its not that BioWare couldn't release an update to the Origins toolset that didn't require the 3rd party tools. Which is what would be most beneficial to modders anyway.

And the rationale that they won't do mods because its PC only is pretty weak- just look at the success Bethesda is having with Skyrim and despite that clearly being a game designed for consoles, they'll be releasing their Creation Kit for mods on PC.

devSin wrote...
I believe some current games have cross-platform multiplayer. Not playing multiplayer, I have no experience or really any concern for the particulars, though.

Cross platform MP is pretty rare- the only game the leaps to mind is Portal 2's co-op cross platform with PC/Mac and PS3.

devSin wrote...
The BG series and NWN were exclusive to PC (and also the only BioWare games to actually feature multiplayer support). BioWare wouldn't do multiplayer unless everybody could play together (well, maybe not Playstation 3; they may just have to play with each other), unless EA simply made them do it.

I don't think so- I mean, ME3's MP isn't going to be cross platform. The issue is that MP nowadays is just a much more expensive proposition than it was for something like BG ten years ago. NWN might have had good MP, but thats cause they designed the game almost completely around that feature set, arguably to the detriment of the single player campaign.

[Lynata]

devSin wrote...
NWN had a world-class toolset and multiplayer functionality both.

In fact, both worked hand in hand, given that numerous persistent worlds and amazing multiplayer campaigns were created with the toolset! I remember having designed a number of drow clothes and armour for the server I played on. Those were the times...

As far as multiplayer goes, cross-platform would only hamstring such a feature, I think. It is difficult to program and, in many cases, would impose limitations on the PC version that wouldn't have been necessary otherwise. Just compare the numbers of maximum players per map in BF3...

Brockololly wrote...
NWN might have had good MP, but thats cause they designed the game almost completely around that feature set, arguably to the detriment of the single player campaign.

The expansions were a lot better than the original campaign, I think. But yeah, what made the game live on for almost an entire decade were its multiplayer and toolset features. For many people, NWN was like a free MMO with the option to turn it into their private sandbox playground. You could even DM a game, narrating the progress of your friends' characters and spawning enemies for them as if you were doing oldschool D&D, just online instead of at a table!

Tbh, I didn't even finish the official campaign once myself, and I still think NWN was awesome. Not only because of the persistent world I played on or the many co-op sessions I did in the evenings, but also because there were dozens, hundreds of free fan-created campaigns that were better than the official one. The Aielund Saga, A Hunt through the Dark, A Dance of Rogues, ... (alright, the last one included a lot of porn, but I'm still amazed by how well it was geared towards playing a rogue - never again have I seen this character class and its skills so involved with the mechanics of a game)

Modifié par Lynata, 02 décembre 2011 - 07:49 .

[ozmiz]

Lynata wrote...

Dragon Age 3, Neverwinter Nights-style. DO WANT!

NWN1's multiplayer option (including the ability to act as a Dungeonmaster for the party, or even the game being run as a persistent world for a semi-MMO like gameplay experience - I've played on an NWN roleplaying server for many years) and its easy to use toolset have increased that game's lifetime by many years. The community has churned out literally thousands of free adventures and modifications, including entire campaigns you could play in co-op with a couple friends. Good times.

Mirrors my thoughts exactly! Well said

[Nighteye2]

I hope it's not true about the multiplayer. I seldom play multiplayer, and usually single player suffers when multiplayer is added - because of the limited resources available. I'd prefer if all those resources got focused on making single player the best experience it can be. Leave multiplayer to other games, other companies. To dedicated multiplayer games. Do not tack it on single player games, ruining them in the process.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Last I read anything detailed on the issue, EA was simply mandating some sort of social-online component for each game. The uploading of gameplay details to BSN the way DAO did it would have qualified.

[Atakuma]

Nighteye2 wrote...

I hope it's not true about the multiplayer. I seldom play multiplayer, and usually single player suffers when multiplayer is added - because of the limited resources available. I'd prefer if all those resources got focused on making single player the best experience it can be. Leave multiplayer to other games, other companies. To dedicated multiplayer games. Do not tack it on single player games, ruining them in the process.

When has that ever happened? I've played plenty of single player games that added a multiplayer component and I can honestly say that it didn't ruin any of them.

[addiction21]

Atakuma wrote...

Nighteye2 wrote...

I hope it's not true about the multiplayer. I seldom play multiplayer, and usually single player suffers when multiplayer is added - because of the limited resources available. I'd prefer if all those resources got focused on making single player the best experience it can be. Leave multiplayer to other games, other companies. To dedicated multiplayer games. Do not tack it on single player games, ruining them in the process.

When has that ever happened? I've played plenty of single player games that added a multiplayer component and I can honestly say that it didn't ruin any of them.

You do understand its just some empty rhetoric and you wont get an answer other then "X could of been spent to make Y better" even tho theres no evidence of X ever existing in the first place.

[Urazz]

They better not have multiplayer for DA3. I'll definately not buy it then. Bad enough that the multiplayer in ME3 has me worried about that game, I don't need it as well for DA3.

[Yuqi]

I'm yet to see a good SPG RPG with multiplayer that doesn't cheapen the game.

[puppy maclove]

@ Urazz & Yuqi

I share your fears / thoughts!!!!!

Modifié par jlmaclachlan, 03 décembre 2011 - 05:40 .

[Uzzy]

If we had a toolset, persistent world support and a DM Client, then DA3 multiplayer would be the best thing ever.

Of course, I'm more likely to hook up with Scarlett Johansson then have that happen. We'll get some cheap, shoehorned in arena mode.

[Nighteye2]

Atakuma wrote...

Nighteye2 wrote...
I hope it's not true about the multiplayer. I seldom play multiplayer, and usually single player suffers when multiplayer is added - because of the limited resources available. I'd prefer if all those resources got focused on making single player the best experience it can be. Leave multiplayer to other games, other companies. To dedicated multiplayer games. Do not tack it on single player games, ruining them in the process.

When has that ever happened? I've played plenty of single player games that added a multiplayer component and I can honestly say that it didn't ruin any of them.

That they're still good single player games doesn't mean they wouldn't have been better or longer games if the budget spent on multiplayer had been spent on single player instead.

Even developers are admitting that, for example in this article

And then there's also practices happening like with Diablo 3, requiring players to be constantly online when playing single player, just in case they'd want to use the same characters in multiplayer. Players not interested in multiplayer certainly never asked for 'features' like that.

[Mark of the Dragon]

RosaAquafire wrote...

This could be really brutal :/

I've been defending DA2 since the day it came out and blew all my reservations away, and I'm going to look pretty dumb if DA3 actually has deathmatch arena and such. There were barely enough resources in the development of DA2 to make the single-player experience what it was -- even I can admit that. The time it would take to develop and balance the multiplayer section of DA3, not to mention the money ... what does that say about DA3's single player?

My heart just crashed into my toes.

EDIT: and throwing out the Lyrium engine for Frostbite? No thank you. I don't care what sort of graphics it would end us up with. I really respect Bioware for developping their own engine for DA. Not enough devs do that, these days. It's something to be congratulated. Taking an MP FPS engine to adapt to an RPG is just a disaster waiting to happen ...

I agree with you on this one. I mean I have been defending DA2 and Bioware since DA2's release. While I thin ka lot of people overreacted I cant deny DA2 had its flaws. What Bioware should (and hopefully) is still doing is fixing the problems with DA2 and trying to make a better experience for the players.
I am pretty sure most people here have been gamers for a while so we have an idea od what EA is like. Chances are BIoware wont get much more time with DA3 then they did for DA2. MAnaging time and resources for multiplayer would only injure the single player farther. Please Bioware just say its not true T_T
If they could find a way to implement co-op without injuring the story I would not mind however wven then if it affected single player I wouldnt want it. Dragon Age is a great game and we dont have to have others playing with us to make it better.

[Atakuma]

Nighteye2 wrote...

That they're still good single player games doesn't mean they wouldn't have been better or longer games if the budget spent on multiplayer had been spent on single player instead.

What makes you think the money spent on multiplayer would even exist without it's inclusion? People need to get over the false idea that the inclusion of multiplayer automatically makes the single player worse.

[bEVEsthda]

Atakuma wrote...

Nighteye2 wrote...

That they're still good single player games doesn't mean they wouldn't have been better or longer games if the budget spent on multiplayer had been spent on single player instead.

What makes you think the money spent on multiplayer would even exist without it's inclusion? People need to get over the false idea that the inclusion of multiplayer automatically makes the single player worse.

It's true that multiplayer could generate more sales and income, meaning there could be a bigger budget for development. However, big business doesn't necessarily work quite that way.
The simple question that needs asking, is: What single player game series did not  get a worse single player campaign, after acquiring multiplayer?
I can't think of a single one. But maybe you can help refreshing my memory?

It doesn't matter, of course, since the only thing that does matter is how good business the game is. But some gamers' worries, for their own singleplayer sake, seem perfectly understandable.

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 04 décembre 2011 - 12:03 .

[LinksOcarina]

Bioshock 2 comes to mind, but the existance of that game is kind of pointless to begin with.

Other than that, none. Uncharted was successful, I am banking on Mass Effect 3 to be successful as well.

[Lynata]

Yuqi wrote...
I'm yet to see a good SPG RPG with multiplayer that doesn't cheapen the game.

Ouch. You need to play more games.

[bEVEsthda]

Lynata wrote...

Yuqi wrote...
I'm yet to see a good SPG RPG with multiplayer that doesn't cheapen the game.

Ouch. You need to play more games.

The question has been asked enough times, one would think, in this thread.
So we should play more games... doesn't answer it.
Enlighten us.

[Dianjabla]

Yeah, no. Please, just no.

For a party based SP RPG that's advertised as all about the choices you make, which player in multiplayer gets to make the choices? What if you wanted to go a different path to what the other player chose? Romances could get akward - "uh don't mind us guys... we'll just go down stairs now..."

Yes there are ways around it - CHARNAME gets all the plot saves & everyone else plays a silent NPC, but then, that can get a little boring being in a conversation with no real input.

Multiplayer co-op probably works best in games where you don't get choices or the dialogue is fixed or doesn't matter. Think the Diablo or Marathon series.

[Dormiglione]

Dianjabla wrote...

Yeah, no. Please, just no.

For a party based SP RPG that's advertised as all about the choices you make, which player in multiplayer gets to make the choices? What if you wanted to go a different path to what the other player chose? Romances could get akward - "uh don't mind us guys... we'll just go down stairs now..."

Yes there are ways around it - CHARNAME gets all the plot saves & everyone else plays a silent NPC, but then, that can get a little boring being in a conversation with no real input.

Multiplayer co-op probably works best in games where you don't get choices or the dialogue is fixed or doesn't matter. Think the Diablo or Marathon series.

Mechanics of the coop could work like fable. The host of the game is that one that decides where to go and to only on who can interact with NPC's (quest relevant). The other PC enters the game with his own gears and level.

Sure, it needs some refinement, after all its not a shooter coop.
Shooter coop are more restricted, generally you enter the game of the host in a defined free slot, your Character wears the predefined gears and uses the same weapons like all others.

Lost planet 2 did a good work in multiplayer coop. You were free to enter with your own gears that you got when you leveled up, even if your host were not at this level. The host saw the gears of the guest.
As guest you could also use weapons that you unlocked even if the host didnt have them. Was absolute fun conversation during the coop match "Wait, what is this fire blade that you are using? How did you unlock it?".

Coop for a multiplayer "Fantasy RPG" is possible. There are a lot examples out there. Im not talking about if their implementation is perfect, just hinting to other games how they did the multiplayer coop.

[Dianjabla]

Dormiglione wrote...

Mechanics of the coop could work like fable. The host of the game is that one that decides where to go and to only on who can interact with NPC's (quest relevant). The other PC enters the game with his own gears and level.

Sure, it needs some refinement, after all its not a shooter coop.
Shooter coop are more restricted, generally you enter the game of the host in a defined free slot, your Character wears the predefined gears and uses the same weapons like all others.

Lost planet 2 did a good work in multiplayer coop. You were free to enter with your own gears that you got when you leveled up, even if your host were not at this level. The host saw the gears of the guest.
As guest you could also use weapons that you unlocked even if the host didnt have them. Was absolute fun conversation during the coop match "Wait, what is this fire blade that you are using? How did you unlock it?".

Coop for a multiplayer "Fantasy RPG" is possible. There are a lot examples out there. Im not talking about if their implementation is perfect, just hinting to other games how they did the multiplayer coop.

I think that perhaps you've missed what I'm getting at. I know it's possible - BG series had co-op, NWN had co-op (that actually worked better as you only got 1 or 2 companions and the companion AI seemed permanently set to suicidal). Multiplayer mechanics are not the issue I have so much as the overall immersive experience. The role playing, perhaps. For anyone playing who's not the main character, cut scene conversations might just get a little tedious while you sit there with no input. Sure, the ability to talk with each other over a mic to discuss which path to take could alleviate this - but then, you're kind of jerked back out of the game. If as player 2-4 you've got no other form of interaction and all the NPCs ignore you infavour of talking to the other guy, it really just does end up a hack fest with cinematics inbetween. Cinematics with some pauses and possibly arguments in the middle.

Besides, interactions with and the reactions of NPCs are half the fun of the game (well, for me at least). Take one away for a player and suddenly you lose a perspective on things from a view point that reveals more about the game world itself. Instead, you're likely to get more meta-game thinking and input - unless your non-NPC replacement is a consumate role player. For example the above conversation you mention was about unlocking the fireblade, not what your charcater did within the game world to obtain it.

But then, different strokes for different folks. I'm not judging, I'm just saying that's what I get out of the Bioware games I play and is why I keep comming back. It's why I enjoy my CRPG as SP and play co-op in games like Diablo, where it really is unapplogetically all about killing things and taking their stuff to kill bigger things and take their better stuff, rinse repeat until you kill the big boss at the end and take his stuff.

It's why I thought I'd give my two cents and say no thanks, not interested in MP for this series. Just in case someone was reading and actually took notice. I'd rather more zots spent on a longer and more polished single player campaign than adding multiplayer. But that's just me. Feel different, say so. 'tis what the formus are for after all.

[Dianjabla]

Actually, now that I think about it, if there was a conversation method for extra players to interact in a conversation, it might be cool.  But that... that would take a lot of zots and a whole bunch of clever thinking to implement. Intraplayer arguments in front of NPCs could be amusing.. And it would probably have to go back to silent protagonists for extra players. Hmmn.

No. As another franchise, perhaps. And I really get the feeling this idea is edging closer to MMO. It'd be interesting to see what they've done with SWTOR in that respect, but then... I never was a Star wars fan as a kid - I missed that boat and my reintroduction to the franchse involved JarJar Binks. <_<