441 réponses à ce sujet

[LordPaul256]

Jorina Leto wrote...

If you don't like multiplayer (like me), here's the way to go: Detach yourself emotionaly from the series and do not buy the game.

It's hard though.  Kind of like breaking up with an ex-lover where things seemed perfect, than something that no one can take back happens.  You want to distance yourself as much as possible, but you keep hearing about them.  They run in the same circles, after all.  And then you hear the crazy things they are doing, sometimes it sounds like they got it together and it's worth giving them another chance, then they want bedroom multiplayer... er... multiplayer.

It's funny that people bring up George Lucas, because I have the same ex-relationship with Star Wars.

I think coming back here once in a while is kind of like checking up on an ex on Facebook.  You know you shouldn't, but you do it because you saw something in someone else's feed, and now you're arguing with another one of their ex's on their wall page. 

[Minaleth]

Sad Dragon wrote...
...

Neverwinter Nights -- This was full scale multiplayer with user run servers with DMs doing running plots of their own in worlds they themselves created.

I would also like to say tht for me at least the Multiplayer in Neverwinter Nights was actually the highlight of the game and actually one of the best things that has come out of Bioware to date (yes, i really think it is THAT good).

...

I'd agree on this. 

All I really REALLY want from Bioware is NeverWinter Nights reborn. All with toolset, private servers, old school game mechanics, damn inventory, hundred thousands of possible character builds, with DM client ... and all that stuff. It's the best thing I have played and fiddled with. I am still playing and building modules even after 9 years.

Sadly this is not gonna happen, so DA3 with or without MP does not interest me.

[Marionetten]

FedericoV wrote...

Having said that: they can add all the external feature they want to their Single Player games to please EA and support Origins, but in case I do not want to hear them speak anymore about lack of zots, resources, budget and time.

Indeed. Even small things like bowstrings, horses and capes should take priority over multiplayer. If they then have the zots to work on multiplayer by all means. Just get the campaign done first and don't cut any corners for the sake of multiplayer. We will notice. Personally, I'm going to wait out on both Mass Effect 3 and Dragon Age III as I no longer trust BioWare enough to pre-order.

[Aaleel]

FedericoV wrote...

No, they use it as an explanation. It's an excuse since the game was charged full price nonethelees and they knew what they were doing. Good faith or bad faith does not change the final result because they have choosen consciously to develop the game with an unrealistic cycle and they have done nothing before release to express some concern about it (with the honorable exception of Gaider and Woo).

If you charge a game on the same price range of your competitors in the AAA market, I expect that game to respect the same standard in terms of quality and content. Moreover, while they knew that DA2 was a rushed game they cinically  pushed pre-orders because they knew that the game wold not have been a long seller.

This times 1000.  I shocks me when people say, it was good for the amount of time they took to develop it.  Or what do you expect for a game with an 18 month development cycle, or you can't compare it to games like Skyrim and the Witcher 2 that had longer dev cycles.

If they put their name on it as an AAA studio and charged full price the bar should be the same height as any other AAA game, not lower, and actually I paid more for DA2 than I did the Witcher 2. 

That's the main reason this multiplayer thing makes me leery.  They didn't even commit the time and resources needed to make a single player experience the best it could be.  Why would I have faith they'll add multiplayer and deliever a solid single player experience.

[Atakuma]

FedericoV wrote...

If you charge a game on the same price range of your competitors in the AAA market, I expect that game to respect the same standard in terms of quality and content. Moreover, while they knew that DA2 was a rushed game they cinically  pushed pre-orders because they knew that the game wold not have been a long seller.

This argument doesn't hold much water. Most games push pre-orders, it is not unique to this situation and there is no standard of quality and content. Most games cost the same, wether it's a AAA title or not.

[FedericoV]

Atakuma wrote...

This argument doesn't hold much water. Most games push pre-orders, it is not unique to this situation

I've never seen a promotion that pushed pre-orders so much honestly. And I've hardly seen such a radical fall in sales after that promotion. And I've never ever seen a something like the "buy DA2 and we'll give you ME2 for free" operation in my entire gaming "carrer".

and there is no standard of quality and content. Most games cost the same, wether it's a AAA title or not.

There are standard of quality and content. They are not absolute (just like any standard) but that does not mean that they do not exists. That's why the term AAA exists. That's why there are review that use a common terminology and advise customers to buy/rent/wait. That's why devs gave so much importance to Metacritic. That's why you can compare Skyrim (where they put a country worth of content in a CD) with DA2 (where every meeting happened in the same warehouse) and make your own conclusion about the quality and content of those games.

Then, it's a free world and a free market but what I'm sure is that I know when a game is worth 60 euros of my hard earned money or not.

Modifié par FedericoV, 01 décembre 2011 - 08:01 .

[Nurot]

I wish they would use the time and money needed to develop multiplayer on more dialogue and quests (or all those other things that you want more of) in the singleplayer game instead. There can never be too much of that in my opinion.

I loved Dragon Age 2 to bits, but if there had been more of my favorite features, like the questioning beleif dialogues (so great, but oh so few!), it would of course have been even better. Budget will of course always limit how much of the good stuff that can be added (which is probably why there weren't more questioning beleifs in the game than the two we got for each character). To make a new feature (like multiplayer), the money and time have to be taken from somewhere, which means that even if the singleplayer campaign is great with multiplayer, it will probaly be even better without it.

[dan107]

scyphozoa wrote...
Skyrim proves RPGs don't need multiplayer to sell successfully. SWTOR proves multiplayer interactive dialog and cinematics can be great.

Umm.. SWTOR hasn't proven anything yet. And judging by the previews I don't see anything particularly great about picking dialog options only to watch someone else's character do something completely different more often than not. There is a reason why story is lacking in all MMOs, and that reason is that having a deep, personal, world-altering narrative runs completely counter to the repetitive, static, grind-based gameplay that drives MMOs. I don't care how much they hype it, SWTOR ain't changing that basic fact.

Having said that, I really could care less about multiplayer so long as it has absolutely no effect on singleplayer! If Bio can sell more copies of DA3 b/c of multiplayer and use some of the money to make more great single player content, more power to them. Given how many corners were cut in DA2, however, it's hard to be optimistic about that.

[Bryy_Miller]

FedericoV wrote...
No, they use it as an explanation.

Because it is one... ? Did you not read what I just wrote?

It's an excuse since the game was charged full price nonethelees and they knew what they were doing.

Wait.

So it's an excuse because you feel like it was?

What were they going to do? Put the game out for free?

Good faith or bad faith does not change the final result because they have choosen consciously to develop the game with an unrealistic cycle and they have done nothing before release to express some concern about it (with the honorable exception of Gaider and Woo).

I'm glad you can read minds to know what exactly prompted them to make the design decisions that they did.

If you charge a game on the same price range of your competitors in the AAA market, I expect that game to respect the same standard in terms of quality and content.

Once again: just cause you think something doesn't mean the creators are liable for your dislike of their product. 

If I cannot  respect those request, they change supplier or ask for a discount.

And you have the option of not buying the games, too.

Honestly, I don't see your point here. You're arguing against the reality of the situation.

This is the bottom line: none of us know how much DA2 cost to make. So saying stuff like "if it was $20" is a cop-out, because none of us know what they were working with.

You're upset that you spent money? That's understandable. But nobody forced you to buy anything.

Modifié par Bryy_Miller, 01 décembre 2011 - 10:52 .

[FedericoV]

Bryy_Miller wrote...

This is the bottom line: none of us know how much DA2 cost to make. So saying stuff like "if it was $20" is a cop-out, because none of us know what they were working with.

You're upset that you spent money? That's understandable. But nobody forced you to buy anything.

I'm not upset and I'm not asking my money back. I simply do not want them to repeat the same mistakes. I'm simply getting worried about EA influence on them. What I said is pretty simple: since they have choosen to develop a game with a short dev cycle and knew the risks, the rushed dev cycle is not an excuse for the shortcomings of the game, since what matters for me is only the finished product and not the development process behind it. That excuse is even more unaccetable if they waste resources for a feature than no one but EA cares about.

[TEWR]

I'm glad you can read minds to know what exactly prompted them to make the design decisions that they did

Well it's not like they haven't said stuff that gives an intimation of their admittance of rushing the game.

Mike Laidlaw said that they didn't have enough time to devote to making more maps, right? So that's why they reused them? While that was certainly the best decision for the dev cycle they had and I agree with what they did in that timeframe, it wasn't the best decision itself.

Inon Zur seemed to say that he had to rush to work on the game's musical score.

Stanley Woo has also admitted that there are things they could've done to make the game more memorable.

[tetrisblock4x1]

Uzzy wrote...

Sounds unbelievable, but then again, so did the idea of Mass Effect 3 having multiplayer a year ago. Or Dead Space 2. Or any other number of games having multiplayer shoehorned in.

Game been planned for a new engine to have multiplayer before the production even begins is yor definition of "shoehorned"? Haha, okay sport, sure. I don't think you know what that word means.

[Killjoy Cutter]

When it's added has nothing to do with whether it's shoe-horned in. DA and ME are single-player CRPGs. Multiplayer is by definition shoe-horned in.

DA2 is only playable with a host of mods.  DA:O's replayability was greatly extended by mods. 

PvP multiplayer for DA3 would likely mean that the game would be far less mod-friendly.

Modifié par Killjoy Cutter, 02 décembre 2011 - 03:34 .

[Atakuma]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...
When it's added has nothing to do with whether it's shoe-horned in. DA and ME are single-player CRPGs. Multiplayer is by definition shoe-horned in.

Wether or not it is shoe-horned in has a lot to do with when it's added as well as the effort they put into it. Just because a game was previously single player only does not automatically make the addition of multiplayer shoe-horning.

DA2 is only playable with a host of mods.  DA:O's replayability was greatly extended by mods.
 
PvP multiplayer for DA3 would likely mean that the game would be far less mod-friendly.

No it wouldn't, especially if it's on a different engine than the single player.

[Morroian]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

When it's added has nothing to do with whether it's shoe-horned in. DA and ME are single-player CRPGs. Multiplayer is by definition shoe-horned in.

DA2 is only playable with a host of mods.  

The issues people have with DA2 have not been overcome with mods. 

[AbsoluteApril]

here are the results of the poll as of today

[Killjoy Cutter]

Morroian wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

When it's added has nothing to do with whether it's shoe-horned in. DA and ME are single-player CRPGs. Multiplayer is by definition shoe-horned in.

DA2 is only playable with a host of mods.  

The issues people have with DA2 have not been overcome with mods. 

Enough of my issues were overcome to keep me from quiting my first playthrough halfway through.

[Killjoy Cutter]

Atakuma wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

When it's added has nothing to do with whether it's shoe-horned in. DA and ME are single-player CRPGs. Multiplayer is by definition shoe-horned in.

Wether or not it is shoe-horned in has a lot to do with when it's added as well as the effort they put into it. Just because a game was previously single player only does not automatically make the addition of multiplayer shoe-horning.

Cramming, forcing, inappropriately adding, wasting disk space and development resources on, whatever you care to call it, then.  Multiplayer is out of place in a single-player CPRG.  We don't need DA3 to be any more "awesome" and directed at the twitchy crowd than DA2 was. 

DA2 is only playable with a host of mods.  DA:O's replayability was greatly extended by mods.
 
PvP multiplayer for DA3 would likely mean that the game would be far less mod-friendly.

No it wouldn't, especially if it's on a different engine than the single player.

I've seen PvP "balance" screw with single-player gameplay on too many games to be nearly as optimistic as that.

[Atakuma]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...
Cramming, forcing, inappropriately adding, wasting disk space and development resources on, whatever you care to call it, then.  Multiplayer is out of place in a single-player CPRG.  We don't need DA3 to be any more "awesome" and directed at the twitchy crowd than DA2 was.

If multiplayer is in DA3, It will be optional. If you don't like it then just ignore it. It isn't going to ruin the game just by being there.

[Aaleel]

Atakuma wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...
Cramming, forcing, inappropriately adding, wasting disk space and development resources on, whatever you care to call it, then.  Multiplayer is out of place in a single-player CPRG.  We don't need DA3 to be any more "awesome" and directed at the twitchy crowd than DA2 was.

If multiplayer is in DA3, It will be optional. If you don't like it then just ignore it. It isn't going to ruin the game just by being there.

Depends.  They didn't allocate the needed time and resources to DA2.  So I don't blame people for fearing that the single player experience may suffer in DA3 due to Bioware not allocating enough time and resources to making both single player and multiplayer of quality. 

[PsychoWARD23]

PsychoWARD23 wrote...

I just don't get this.

Origins was their best selling game ever, then a few years later they completely change how they make and approach games?

And then when the game does poorly, they wonder what they did wrong.

And then make a game even farther from the initial direction.


wat


Edit; Like, if DA2 just crushed sales, I would understand, I wouldn't be happy about it, but I'd understand. This just doesn't make sense to me. Did anyone actually start to like BW BECAUSE of DA2? It is quite perplexing.

yeah, this

[PHub88]

PsychoWARD23 wrote...

PsychoWARD23 wrote...

I just don't get this.

Origins was their best selling game ever, then a few years later they completely change how they make and approach games?

And then when the game does poorly, they wonder what they did wrong.

And then make a game even farther from the initial direction.


wat


Edit; Like, if DA2 just crushed sales, I would understand, I wouldn't be happy about it, but I'd understand. This just doesn't make sense to me. Did anyone actually start to like BW BECAUSE of DA2? It is quite perplexing.

yeah, this

Because they are involved with EA now. Why on earth would you give a crap about the quality of your game and what the fans who already love your game want. When you could alienate them for the sake selling to people who don't like your game in the first place for the sake of sales.. They don't give a crap about that masssive group of people who bought DAO. They care about the "bigger" group who would pay a game 1/10th of the quality of DAo becauses its "action orientated" and has "MultiPLAYERZ!!!".

ME3 has MP...its just stupid at this point to even consider DA3 not having Mp as well. It will absolutely have a multiplayer. Does it seem like it would work? No. Does it seem like they should be spending time on it when its the story that should matter? No. Will spending time working on it hurt the single player experience? As the case with %99 of games, YES!  Will they still implement it for the sake of selling 5 more copies? YES. The people who defend this course taken by devs nowadays always bring up sales and act like they themselves are happy to buy a lesser game for the sake of that company making more money, okay? It blows my mind how some fans will eagerly accept a lesser product and actually DEFEND it because its about the company making money, as if a portion of this genertions gamers PREFERS to be paying more for less quality for the sake of that company making more money. They are making more money and you are getting nothing in return, and you defend it?

The sales argument doesn't hold water with me because its BS. DAO sold great, there is a VERY large community of people who like RPG games like DAO. Yet an even bigger one who player action/multiplayer games. The people who support this crap and dont even like DA in the first place will always go to sales in supporting their case. Just because one genre sells better than another does not mean EVERY GAME needs to be geared towards the exact same one. There is money to be made in all genres yet this  generation of consumers has seemed to tell the devs the ycan make ANYTHING and we will still buy it. DA2 sales hurting compared to DAO is about the only good thing about the situation. But considering it took them half the time to make the game its not really a loss to them. They will do the same BS this time around, but with MP added in. Still wont sell as good as DAO but they wont give a crap. 

Modifié par PHub88, 03 décembre 2011 - 07:38 .

[Demx]

This is the most asinine thing I've heard of.

[biomar]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

DA2 is only playable with a host of mods.  DA:O's replayability was greatly extended by mods. 

I played both without any mods and without any trouble. ?

[Bryy_Miller]

FedericoV wrote...
 the rushed dev cycle is not an excuse for the shortcomings of the game

Quote where they said it was, please.

The Dev Cycle talk all revolved around people asking "why couldn't you do X"? They weren't going "our game sucks, here's why". It's not like we know what features were cut. 

If I made a game and you asked me why it didn't have flying gryphons, and my response was "because the budget didn't allow for flying gryphons", does that mean that my game was ever going to have flying gryphons in it?

People have been asking for specific features, and sometimes even asking why they have a budget in the first place. Are you honestly going to chastise them for explaining how they do their jobs?

Modifié par Bryy_Miller, 03 décembre 2011 - 09:57 .