134 réponses à ce sujet

[Plaintiff]

People are reading waaaaaaay to much into this. It's a rumour on a website from an uncredited source. On the offchance that it turns out to be even slightly accurate, the way this hypothetical multiplayer aspect is described suggests it will be completely removed from the single player main game. It probably has its own budget, it's own story, and a different team working on it (if it exists AT ALL, which is unlikely). If there's any interaction between the two, it'll probably be very minor, like unlocking special gear that can be used in the main game.

It's daft to say that single-player games suffer due to the introduction of multiplayer facets. What proof do you have that the single-player campaign in such games wasn't going to suck either way? Unless someone here has a collection of such games, and their multiplayer-lacking counterparts from another dimension, such an argument is entirely baseless.

[Dormiglione]

Dianjabla wrote...


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.

Know what you mean and i agree on some points. A good single player RPG experience doesnt need a coop feature. I made 10+ playthroughs in DAO, enjoyed every bit and every facet and still thinking about new playthrough when i have time for that.
In DAO, just speaking for me, im glad there was no coop feature and that all ressources were invested in the campaign.

About immersion in a shooter coop, you can have immersion also in a shooter coop campaign. I remember a scene where i helped a friend going through act 4 on insane (highest difficulty) in Gears1. There was a chapter that we started about the 10th time, because we died trying. I asked him "Should we stop, playing something else, some MP .." he shouted back through the mic "Are you mad? No way, this is now personally, what does this locusts think, that we are incapable, now its a question of honor ..." and so on.

Maybe its not the immersion that you get while wandering in the RPG world having interaction with NPC's but its some kind of identification with COG Gears and hate of the locust enemy.

Its all about personal preferences. But i agree with you on that point. If i could wish, i would like that the ressources that would be spent to add MP experience to DA would be rather spent to make again a single RPG campaign like DAO had.

Modifié par Dormiglione, 05 décembre 2011 - 11:45 .

[Yuqi]

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.

I have been playing games since the NES days FYI.

[Plaintiff]

Yuqi wrote...

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.

I have been playing games since the NES days FYI.

That doesn't make your statement any less stupid. How can you possibly know if the single-player aspect was "cheapened" by the addition of multiplayer? How can you prove that those games weren't going to be the exact same, regardless? Do you happen to be in possession of better, multiplayer-less versions of these games that you procured from an alternate dimension?

[BeefoTheBold]

Called it immediately after MP ME3 leaked: Bioware will find some asinine and stupid way to get coop Hawke/Warden into DA3. Just watch. That announcement will come about three months before release day after everyone already has their preorder in/

Lame.

[Zanallen]

BeefoTheBold wrote...

Called it immediately after MP ME3 leaked: Bioware will find some asinine and stupid way to get coop Hawke/Warden into DA3. Just watch. That announcement will come about three months before release day after everyone already has their preorder in/

Lame.

Then its a good thing you can cancel that preorder up to the day of release at most places.

[Meltemph]

 Ah, this topic so reminds me of the extra credits episode  "working conditions" and "Lets talk publishing"...  As a publicly traded company now, I wouldn't be surprised if EA mandated that multiplayer must be in all/most games, if possible, because they think it will increase sales.  

This industry compared to TV/Movies/Music, imo, have the most amount of people in charge, who legitimately do not get video games or the industry much...at all and completely rely on the curtails of the good developers.  And I don't blame the developers in the sense that they want it this way, but I do blame the majority of developers who do know better.  We have quite possibly the dumbest(not an meant as a insult), in terms of understanding the industry, publisher heads in the entertainment industry.  We have so many people in charge that dont know what they are doing but have money and connections, that know near nothing about the industry, outside of the numbers(And the only reason the know this is because they absorb the good developers).

The fact is that multiplayer is now a "can we get it to work" with games, in-stead of just letting the concept design of the game decide if a game should have multiplayer or not proves, to me, why we waste so much money, time, and have so many broken expectations in this industry. 

Multiplayer shouldnt be added to a game because it may increase sales, multiplayer needs to be added if they think it will make the game better and only for that reason.  If the game is good and you know it's good and it doesnt sell well that is a marketing problem.  That said, you attach something to a product where its original intent didnt have multiplayer in mind, YOU GET BIOSHOCK 2.

We will never be taken seriously as long as we let trends dictate product design, unless you just wana keep being looked at as a "toy maker".  If a publisher thinks that multiplayer is needed to make money, get a developer with a title where multiplayer has always been part of the design concept of the product.  Until then, we will keep getting publishers making stupid deciseions and developers falling for it.

Whether DA2/ME3/ect has had multiplayer always in design concept or not is besides the point to me... I HOPE ME always had teh intent of having multiplayer in it and if the next DA has multiplayer in it as well, I HOPE, it was always part of the design concept... But if it has not, it will either hurt the product or add nothing significant to the game, and the sad part is, publishers and developers, if the game does well, despite these decisions ,will interprit it as a false positive.

It's ok though I guess, there are still a couple publishers/devs out there that continue to make the rest look dumb by comparison in terms of forcing things in products.

I just hope Bioware has not fell into this trap, but with ME3...it's hard to deny that it is to late for them, specially as a publicly traded company..

Modifié par Meltemph, 05 décembre 2011 - 07:55 .

[Atakuma]

BeefoTheBold wrote...

Called it immediately after MP ME3 leaked: Bioware will find some asinine and stupid way to get coop Hawke/Warden into DA3. Just watch.

If actually payed attention you'd see that the rumored MP is a PvE/PvP arena mode, not co-op.

That announcement will come about three months before release day after everyone already has their preorder in

Just like it did with ME3 right? <_<

[Zanallen]

Atakuma wrote...

If actually payed attention you'd see that the rumored MP is a PvE/PvP arena mode, not co-op.

It sounds kind of like the arena PVP in Xenogears. That was a weird find considering that the game is a single player story-driven JRPG and the multiplayer aspect plays completely different from the rest of the game. Hell, the multiplayer in that game even allowed you to play as some of the various enemies in the game. So, despite being incredibly weird and unexpected, it was pretty fun.

[AwakenxBenihime]

I came to see what a developer had to say, and all he/she had to say was don't swear on the forums.