441 réponses à ce sujet

[yusuf060297]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...
I wonder if DA3 will still have an "awesome button". 

oh dont worry sure it will and to make it even better, it wont just have one ! it will have two awesome buttons 
and did i mention that da3 will just be set in one room? 

Modifié par yusuf060297, 04 décembre 2011 - 07:08 .

[Atakuma]

[quote]syllogi wrote...


[/quote]
Yeah, this is known.  What surprised and disgusted me about the Kotaku article, however, is that somebody in charge of the Dragon Age franchise thought that mindless horde mode hack and slash was a better idea than co-op that doesn't interfer with STORY...you know, that integral part of RPGs, that keep fans coming back for more?[/quote]
Multiplayer would be optional and seperate from the main campaign, it wouldn't interfere with anything.

[quote]I'd really, really love to see them confirm it, just to see devs try to justify selling us more rushed, shoddy products while budget and resources are going to this.[/quote]
A multiplayer component deos not mean that recources are being taken away from the main game.

[alex90c]

How many teams are making DA content? ME3 has a separate team for the SP and MP content (the MP guys actually put together Arrival, which had pretty good combat) but the DA franchise isn't as well funded so I get the impression it's just the one team making DA MP, which means less content for singleplayer.

edt - formatting on BSN is awful

Modifié par alex90c, 04 décembre 2011 - 10:15 .

[syllogi]

Atakuma wrote...

Multiplayer would be optional and seperate from the main campaign, it wouldn't interfere with anything.

It's entirely possible that this is going to be a stand alone game. But if it isn't, and it's part of DA3, there is no way to claim that budget and resources that would have been used to make a better single player experience (or a co-op multiplayer mode) isn't being diverted. A budget is in place for each project, and for accounting purposes, a hypothetical DA3 budget would be a separate entity from other projects, like ME3 or the unnamed new franchise. A certain number of developers are allocated to that project, to work for a certain time period, as dictated by the budget. Anyone who has worked in a company large enough to have an accounting department knows that this is just the way it works.

If there are new shiny features like horde style multiplayer, they may increase the budget, but that is not necessarily the case, and even so, it would be more desirable for the resources and money to be used in a better way, that is more enmeshed with the single player experience.

A multiplayer component deos not mean that recources are being taken away from the main game.

See my response above. Simply saying "well, maybe things won't be bad this time" doesn't mean anything for the DA franchise anymore.

[Atakuma]

syllogi wrote...

Atakuma wrote...

Multiplayer would be optional and seperate from the main campaign, it wouldn't interfere with anything.

It's entirely possible that this is going to be a stand alone game. But if it isn't, and it's part of DA3, there is no way to claim that budget and resources that would have been used to make a better single player experience (or a co-op multiplayer mode) isn't being diverted. A budget is in place for each project, and for accounting purposes, a hypothetical DA3 budget would be a separate entity from other projects, like ME3 or the unnamed new franchise. A certain number of developers are allocated to that project, to work for a certain time period, as dictated by the budget. Anyone who has worked in a company large enough to have an accounting department knows that this is just the way it works.

If there are new shiny features like horde style multiplayer, they may increase the budget, but that is not necessarily the case, and even so, it would be more desirable for the resources and money to be used in a better way, that is more enmeshed with the single player experience.

You have no way of knowing what their budget is nor how they intend to divide their recources. Claiming that the inclusion of multiplayer would compromise the singleplayer is just conjecture on your part.

[tmp7704]

Atakuma wrote...

Claiming that the inclusion of multiplayer would compromise the singleplayer is just conjecture on your part.

More like common sense, i think. If you spend money on X, you can't spend the same money on Y. By acquiring X, you give up on acquiring Y. It's pretty basic economics concept, called opportunity cost.

(there's a possibility that having more planned features may get you a larger budget to work with, allowing to mitigate that opportunity cost to some extent. However, such possible budget change is more of a "just conjecture" because it's not guaranteed to happen. The opportunity cost on the other hand, is always present)

Modifié par tmp7704, 04 décembre 2011 - 10:59 .

[Wulfram]

tmp7704 wrote...

More like common sense, i think. If you spend money on X, you can't spend the same money on Y. By acquiring X, you give up on acquiring Y. It's pretty basic economics concept, called opportunity cost.

Except that a games budget isn't necessarily fixed.  If EA thinks that including multiplayer will result in lots more sales, it may result in there being more money for everything.

[tmp7704]

Wulfram wrote...

Except that a games budget isn't necessarily fixed.  If EA thinks that including multiplayer will result in lots more sales, it may result in there being more money for everything.

I was just in the middle of adding an edit to address that

[addiction21]

I heard from this guy that new this person that works at BioWare that DA3 will kill your dog.

True story...

[tmp7704]

Don't be silly. You'll get your dog back if you preorder the special edition and shell out on the day 1 DLC.

[addiction21]

Screw that I will just go get a puppy

[syllogi]

tmp7704 wrote...

Atakuma wrote...

Claiming that the inclusion of multiplayer would compromise the singleplayer is just conjecture on your part.

More like common sense, i think. If you spend money on X, you can't spend the same money on Y. By acquiring X, you give up on acquiring Y. It's pretty basic economics concept, called opportunity cost.

(there's a possibility that having more planned features may get you a larger budget to work with, allowing to mitigate that opportunity cost to some extent. However, such possible budget change is more of a "just conjecture" because it's not guaranteed to happen. The opportunity cost on the other hand, is always present)

And somehow, I doubt that EA is now throwing money willy nilly at the Dragon Age franchise, when they apparently cut the budget severely between DA1 and 2.  

And even if this giant corporatiion is employing insane little child logic regarding money, the fact remains that this type of multiplayer is not going to mesh with the plot of any future game, and won't be story focused.  If it's for real, it's indicative of drifting further and further away from anything I'd be interested from this franchise.

[Fast Jimmy]

syllogi wrote...

tmp7704 wrote...

Atakuma wrote...

Claiming that the inclusion of multiplayer would compromise the singleplayer is just conjecture on your part.

More like common sense, i think. If you spend money on X, you can't spend the same money on Y. By acquiring X, you give up on acquiring Y. It's pretty basic economics concept, called opportunity cost.

(there's a possibility that having more planned features may get you a larger budget to work with, allowing to mitigate that opportunity cost to some extent. However, such possible budget change is more of a "just conjecture" because it's not guaranteed to happen. The opportunity cost on the other hand, is always present)

And somehow, I doubt that EA is now throwing money willy nilly at the Dragon Age franchise, when they apparently cut the budget severely between DA1 and 2.  

And even if this giant corporatiion is employing insane little child logic regarding money, the fact remains that this type of multiplayer is not going to mesh with the plot of any future game, and won't be story focused.  If it's for real, it's indicative of drifting further and further away from anything I'd be interested from this franchise.

Precisely. DA2 saw an extreme limitation in choice that affected story for either DA2 or future games/DLC than in DAO. Adding a MP component that has any story component will only work to further limit/confound the BW writers. So your only real option for MP is a "beat 'em up" arena option that will be pointless and not well-received.

Of course, if that is the option BW takes (and from the rumor, it sounds like it is) EA will likely view this as a fluff add-on and not increase their budget or dev cycle much for it. Also, based on the supremely negative responses in polls and responses across the internet, EA would have no reason to think that this forced MP feature will result in anymore sales, so they, again, will not increase their budget and dev cycle for a feature that won't increase sales.

So... if there is no reason for EA to increase the budget or dev cycle, but they are mandating that all EA games have MP, then how in any world that anyone lives in would you think this won't hurt the budget/man hours to create the single player experience?

Also, for them to create a concept for a co-op MP or some other form of online play that will be unique and interesting to play, EA might increase their budget. However, that would take time away from the designers and dev's day to draft and formulate such a concept and how it will be implemented... time that could be used to focus on the SP campaign. Heck, us even sitting here talking about this rumor, which Devs have weighed in on, is consuming some of the DA3 budget, since management at Bioware is tracking it in some shape or form. Even if MP in DA3 is nothing but a total rumor, it will have consumed some of the budget and time just on that fact alone.

[Gunderic]

dan107 wrote...

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.

which is exactly what's really needed to make MMO's fun. SWTOR is more ambitious than some people give it credit for.

[Atakuma]

tmp7704 wrote...
More like common sense, i think. If you spend money on X, you can't spend the same money on Y. By acquiring X, you give up on acquiring Y. It's pretty basic economics concept, called opportunity cost.

(there's a possibility that having more planned features may get you a larger budget to work with, allowing to mitigate that opportunity cost to some extent. However, such possible budget change is more of a "just conjecture" because it's not guaranteed to happen. The opportunity cost on the other hand, is always present)

Nowhere did I say that anything was guaranteed to happen, in fact that was what I was arguing against. We don't know , so nothing anyone says is going to be anything other than conjecture at this point.

[Fast Jimmy]

Atakuma wrote...

tmp7704 wrote...
More like common sense, i think. If you spend money on X, you can't spend the same money on Y. By acquiring X, you give up on acquiring Y. It's pretty basic economics concept, called opportunity cost.

(there's a possibility that having more planned features may get you a larger budget to work with, allowing to mitigate that opportunity cost to some extent. However, such possible budget change is more of a "just conjecture" because it's not guaranteed to happen. The opportunity cost on the other hand, is always present)

Nowhere did I say that anything was guaranteed to happen, in fact that was what I was arguing against. We don't know , so nothing anyone says is going to be anything other than conjecture at this point.

There's conjecture and then there's realism. To me, an online or multiplayer option is guilty until proven innocent. Others can disagree and be more open minded, but if there is even a risk that this could be part of what makes DA3 not live up to the standard set in DAO and possibly kill the whole franchise, then I want no part of it.

[Deadmac]

Just like "Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic". When they turned the franchise into an MMO, I completely lost interest in the overall series.

"Dragon Age: Origins" and "Dragon Age: Awakenings" were terrific single player games. After seeing the clips and playing the demo for "Dragon Age II", I held off to hear potential news about "Dragon Age III". If BioWare decides to turn the franchise into an MMO, like they did with "Knights of the Old Republic", I will just walk quietly away from another BioWare series. "Knights of the Old Republic" was a beautiful story of 'personal' redemption and/or 'personal' retribution. Once you enter a game with a massive group of people, you lose that 'personal' connection to the world around you. Other words, your character loses its unique individuality; thus, your importance to the story being told is mute. Instead of celebrating your unique individuality, MMOs force you to become apart of the Borg collective. Everyone belongs to the hive mind. Do you remember the Borg from "Star Trek"? When someone becomes apart of the Borg, they hear the thoughts of others speaking in overlapping patterns. Since the will of the collective is stronger than the individual, the world that shapes around you no longer belongs to you alone. MMOs remove you as a central figure to the story, and then turns you into a random team player. You now belong to an online social cult, and you can no longer function (in game or in society) without anyone. You are no longer a unique individual. You become socially dependent on others. Uncool.

When I buy computer games, I do so to escape society and reality. Since I have a lot of stuff going on offline, I use video games as a device to reduce social interaction. Single player role-playing games are like novels. When I get into a particular story, the storyline being told is very personal and intimate. Society falls into the background, and everyone's voice fades away. Everything being played out in my mind, through the translation of words, becomes my interpretation of what is being described.

On another note... If "Dragon Age" becomes a multiplayer game, using BioWare's new approach to rpgs, the game's mechanics will interrupt your control over the character. Even though "Dragon Age II" is a single player game, it's general mechanics (pc-voice overs & dialogue wheel) are also found in "SW: The Old Republic". Instead of being allowed to exercise your imagination, the pc-voice overs and dialogue wheel will translate your character's emotions for you. Not only do you lose your individuality, while playing with others, you will also disconnect from the role you are playing. BioWare's MMOs are fully automated to feel for your character; thus, you are no longer playing a specific role. You become disconnected from your character, for it feels for him or her self with a simple point and click. BioWare's new version of RPGs and MMOs are first person shooters with a choice machanism that tells your character's how to feel and move. All you need to do is click. No more sophistication. No brain power needed. Just point and click. Zelda anyone?

So... No, I will not be happy if "Dragon Age" is turned into a multiplayer game. As long as there are other companies making single player rpgs, I will always have other options on the table. I can always move into another franchise. Doors are always opening.

Modifié par Deadmac, 06 décembre 2011 - 04:01 .

[Ponendus]

Deadmac wrote...

Just like "Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic". When they turned the franchise into an MMO, I completely lost interest in the overall series.

Although I totally respect your opinion. It should be pointed out that this rumour is not about DA becoming an MMO. Multiplayer and MMO are two different things. This is basically describing an 'arena' where you can play against other players online, but that there will still be a single player campaign.

Does that change your thoughts at all?

[TeaCokeProphet]

I can't look beyond the fact that EA's made its intentions clear regarding multiplayer in its games. If we are to take the publisher at its word, then this rumor has that much more credibility, at least regarding there being multiplayer in the next dragon age. If this is something Bioware wants to tackle anyway, more power to them. There's just that sneaking suspicion that EA's controlling this aspect of a game too much. Bioware's strength is the story in their games, and I see no evidence that they'll make a good multiplayer component to their predominantly single player games.

[OMTING52601]

^ Exactly. And definitely look for future posts on the topic by actual 'insiders' to read MP, which is now confirmed, will have absolutely no effect on SP, except that it will totally have an effect on SP.' Still can't get over how many people keep iterating 'they said MP doesn't effect SP' even when one direct quotes a dev.

And ditto upthread. If I wanted to play a fracking MMO, I'd play one. I don't. Want. To. Play. An. MMO. I dont. Want. To. Play. In. A. Sandbox. I do. Want. To. Play. A. Great. Fracking. Story. Where. My. Choices. Matter.

[Anathemic]

DA3 getting multiplayer? Sure I can believe it. Won't be surprised anyway.

Haha this is just like the time pre-DA2 where I predicted it will suck due to the information given. Is it time to do the same thing for DA3 this time?

[Fast Jimmy]

Not yet. The other information given out so far has been fairly comforting, like having an entire world's worth of locations to explore, statements that a longer dev cycle would be devoted to DA3, hints that the PC won't be Hawke, but some character we can define... all rumors still, just like this MP rumor. However, I am completely happy with taking this rumor at face value, given the same thing happened with ME3 and EA's statements about putting MP in all games.

In fact, the Twitter post on page 10 tells me that the devs for Dragon Age are taking this poor response and trying to use it as leverage against EA's new policy. I may be reading a lot into it, but it sounds like Laidlaw is even a little happy that the response to this "rumor" was so negative, because it might be bad enough, tick off enough people, not draw in enough new people and cause enough loyal fans to throw the whole franchise out the door, that it can get EA to offer Dragon Age a pass on the whole required feature.

Then again, maybe I'm reading WAY too much into the situation. Its been known to happen before.

[Killjoy Cutter]

It would certainly make my reconsider just how negative about the company I've become if I found out for a fact that there was pushback from within Bioware against some of EA's screwy policies.

[PinkShoes]

not every game needs mp.

[byzantine horse]

I think people in general have to understand something.

If the multiplayer content is good - it is good and as such is a good investment of time and resources by Bioware.

If it is bad - it is bad and a bad investment of time and resources by Bioware that should have been spent elsewhere.

There really is nothing else to it.