441 réponses à ce sujet

[Killjoy Cutter]

Cramming multiplayer into a franchise that has always been a single-player CRPG is by default a bad idea and a waste of resources.

[Fast Jimmy]

Especially if it is guided by an ill-conceived plan by EA to have a multiplayer feature in every game to prevent pirating and get more money from used game sales. Which is, essentially, a ploy to grab more money.

Multiplayer in DA3 would not neccesarily be a bad experience, would not neccesarily ruin the single player experience and would not neccesarily be because EA mandated it.

But the fact that the risk that one or all of these facts could very well be true could ruin the Dragon Age franchise if DA3 suffered such critical disappointment as DA2.

If you're kid blows the doors of his first report card, you might let them be more flexible with their play time, their study schedule and how they handle their homework. If, after this freedom, you are blown away that they now have a C, or an average grade in the class, you would be stunned. Average isn't bad, but your kid has never gotten C's before, and with their most recent stellar performance, you'd find it unbelievable for them to slip so fast.

In the above poor analogy, we, as fans, can act as the parents and say "Back to the old habits, then. No playing around, focus on your studies, do what you did before to get the good grades." Starting a new activity like soccer or football, which you didn't do before when your kid had the good grades and which are arguably not good for better grades and could only serve to eat up studying time, is a bad idea.

Don't let Bioware play soccer. Support a Single-Player only campaign.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 07 décembre 2011 - 11:46 .

[Jaron Oberyn]

PinkShoes wrote...

not every game needs mp.

Why not? Multiplayer is fun, and it's something you can just hop into and casually play with your friends, and have a good time. I just hope that they will change the combat so is more streamlined for online play. Those ability buttons you press aren't very ideal for playing online. Give us certain attacks for certain buttons. Right trigger is an attack, and left trigger is a block for example. 

You guys need to stop fighting the idea of multiplayer because it's going to bein every Bioware game now. EA owns them, and they want multiplay. It's going to help market it to more people, so what's wrong with more people getting into dragon age? 


-Polite

[Fast Jimmy]

PoliteAssasin wrote...

PinkShoes wrote...

not every game needs mp.

Why not? Multiplayer is fun, and it's something you can just hop into and casually play with your friends, and have a good time. I just hope that they will change the combat so is more streamlined for online play. Those ability buttons you press aren't very ideal for playing online. Give us certain attacks for certain buttons. Right trigger is an attack, and left trigger is a block for example. 

You guys need to stop fighting the idea of multiplayer because it's going to bein every Bioware game now. EA owns them, and they want multiplay. It's going to help market it to more people, so what's wrong with more people getting into dragon age? 


-Polite

The mechanics you described are those of a shooter, not an RPG. Shooters are great for Multiplayer. RPGs are not. The only exception to that is MMO's, which are almost exclusively played on PCs.

You may be right about MP being inevitable, but it doesn't make it a good idea.

Also, it sounds like from your brief post that you are one of the CoD fans that they revamped DA2 for. I mean it as no offense and it may be off base, but it is only based on the one comment you just posted. Regardless, if so, there may be many on these forums who rush to crucify you for it.

[Killjoy Cutter]

PoliteAssasin wrote...

PinkShoes wrote...

not every game needs mp.

Why not? Multiplayer is fun, and it's something you can just hop into and casually play with your friends, and have a good time. I just hope that they will change the combat so is more streamlined for online play. Those ability buttons you press aren't very ideal for playing online. Give us certain attacks for certain buttons. Right trigger is an attack, and left trigger is a block for example. 

You guys need to stop fighting the idea of multiplayer because it's going to bein every Bioware game now. EA owns them, and they want multiplay. It's going to help market it to more people, so what's wrong with more people getting into dragon age? 

-Polite

If they're the people who are typically into online multiplayer and awesome buttons, everything is wrong with it. 

Let them go play all the games that are already full of multiplayer and awesome buttons, and leave something for the rest of us -- many of whom consider mulitplayer a waste of time and a source of aggravation.

Modifié par Killjoy Cutter, 08 décembre 2011 - 12:42 .

[syllogi]

PoliteAssasin wrote...

PinkShoes wrote...

not every game needs mp.

Why not? Multiplayer is fun, and it's something you can just hop into and casually play with your friends, and have a good time. I just hope that they will change the combat so is more streamlined for online play. Those ability buttons you press aren't very ideal for playing online. Give us certain attacks for certain buttons. Right trigger is an attack, and left trigger is a block for example. 

You guys need to stop fighting the idea of multiplayer because it's going to bein every Bioware game now. EA owns them, and they want multiplay. It's going to help market it to more people, so what's wrong with more people getting into dragon age? 

Multiplayer can be implemented in a way that is harmonious with and complementary to the single player experience.  IF the rumor presented in the Kotaku is true, it's an indication that not only are the claims that the devs have listened to the complaints about DA2 false, but it also shows that they blatantly don't *want* single player RPG fans to play future DA games.

The question right now is, why wouldn't a "true fan" of the first two Dragon Age games worry about this potential development?

[Morroian]

syllogi wrote...

Multiplayer can be implemented in a way that is harmonious with and complementary to the single player experience.  IF the rumor presented in the Kotaku is true, it's an indication that not only are the claims that the devs have listened to the complaints about DA2 false, but it also shows that they blatantly don't *want* single player RPG fans to play future DA games.

Thats actually just an inference on your part, the rumor indicates nothing of the sort IMHO.

[Kusy]

Look at all the ****s I give.

Kotaku is not a valid source of information anyways.

Modifié par Mr.Kusy, 08 décembre 2011 - 01:39 .

[Aaleel]

The time and resources to implement the single player in DA2 weren't allocated. So I'm leery that the time and resources needed to implement single player and multiplayer well will be allocated.

People say who cares it's optional, you don't have to use it. Well if the development of the single player is a casualty or reduced resources being allocated to it, I do care.

[Jaron Oberyn]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

If they're the people who are typically into online multiplayer and awesome buttons, everything is wrong with it. 

Let them go play all the games that are already full of multiplayer and awesome buttons, and leave something for the rest of us -- many of whom consider mulitplayer a waste of time and a source of aggravation.

What gives you the right to say that? Unless you're the head of Bioware, you cannot place one consumer base over another. Bioware has done this, particularly the DA team, and have expressed that they would like to get the call of duty crowd. It's their decision to make. Like it or not, multiplayer and awesome buttons are what's in right now, games with good stories and real depth are not. Looking at DA2, and ME3, id have to say that they're staring to win over the cod crowd. Get rid of the boring dialogue system and confusing leveling system, and they'll make it big. They're almost there. Hopefully with DA3 they'll take it all the way. If ME3, and these rumors, are any indication - they will. Sometimes companies evolve for the improvement of gaming. Don't be afraid of change. In this case, it's for the best.

[Kusy]

Why u trolling Polite? Why u trolling this absolutely important thread?

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Man you had me going for a while, but you made it a bit too obvious. Should've talked about boring dice roll spreadsheet combat instead of dialog systems and shouldn't have mentioned the stories and depth part.

Other than that though...

[Jaron Oberyn]

How exactly am I trolling Kusy? What right do we as consumers have to dictate who bioware markets to? Just because I support multiplayer in ME3 and DA3 and you don't, I'm trolling? Not much of an argument there pal. Games are evolving. Multiplayer games like COD and Halo are integrating rpg elements with their experience. Why can't RPGs integrate shooter/action elements in theirs? CoDs online multiplayer has strong rpg elements in terms of level progression and weapons customization. Halo has strong character customization. Look at Reach's armor customization and compare that to ME1 or 2. So no, I'm not trolling but simply arguing the validity of the other side. You guys demonize people who play games like Halo and CoD because they're shooters. Have you ever thought that some shooter fans might be interested in RPGs if the combat/action is good enough? I enjoy both genres, and I'm glad that RPGs are beginning to evolve.


-Polite

[Sylvianus]

dragon age 2 wins call of duty crowd ?

Graphics on console, art design, ? ... I'd say, No, I don't think so. They shouldn't bother about cod crowd, if that's still their direction, with the same engine, the same graphics, the same art design.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 08 décembre 2011 - 04:11 .

[TEWR]

I think Bioware was earnest in the fact that they wanted a fanbase as large as the CoD fanbase, and not that they wanted just the CoD fanbase.

That said, DAII struck all the wrong buttons and really made gameplay take a step or two backwards.

The story took several steps backwards.

[Dave of Canada]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

The story took several steps backwards.

I disagree, the implementation of it is what was I'd consider backwards. Origins had a fairly "cliche" plot but it was done so well, barely anybody really cared. Dragon Age 2's story had a very unique plot that dealt with a lot of personal subjects that could've been all fine and good, though it's implementation left much to be desired.

Rather liked the plot myself, however it doesn't stop me from noticing the potential that was there.

[Demx]

PoliteAssasin wrote...

How exactly am I trolling Kusy? What right do we as consumers have to dictate who bioware markets to? Just because I support multiplayer in ME3 and DA3 and you don't, I'm trolling? Not much of an argument there pal. Games are evolving. Multiplayer games like COD and Halo are integrating rpg elements with their experience. Why can't RPGs integrate shooter/action elements in theirs? CoDs online multiplayer has strong rpg elements in terms of level progression and weapons customization. Halo has strong character customization. Look at Reach's armor customization and compare that to ME1 or 2. So no, I'm not trolling but simply arguing the validity of the other side. You guys demonize people who play games like Halo and CoD because they're shooters. Have you ever thought that some shooter fans might be interested in RPGs if the combat/action is good enough? I enjoy both genres, and I'm glad that RPGs are beginning to evolve.


-Polite

You've obviously never heard of HEAT and their 8 year complaint to DC about Hal Jordan turning evil and his actions that followed. DC tried to somewhat fix it for them, before finally giving into what HEAT originally wanted. Or the massive number of people complaining about Sherlock Holmes being killed off, before Arthur Conan Doyle finally gave in and brought him back to life.

My point is the consumers have the right to demand what they want Bioware to do, just like Bioware has to right to ignore their consumers. If people want to protest the direction Bioware is taking the game let them. They have a right to do so, and who knows, they could be right about it. Simply rolling over and saying: "Okay Bioware, you know best." might also be the correct answer. At the present moment we do not know.

[TEWR]

Dave of Canada wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

The story took several steps backwards.

I disagree, the implementation of it is what was I'd consider backwards.

Actually, you just agreed with me. That's what I meant

[Meris]

Dave of Canada wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

The story took several steps backwards.

I disagree, the implementation of it is what was I'd consider backwards. Origins had a fairly "cliche" plot but it was done so well, barely anybody really cared. Dragon Age 2's story had a very unique plot that dealt with a lot of personal subjects that could've been all fine and good, though it's implementation left much to be desired.

Rather liked the plot myself, however it doesn't stop me from noticing the potential that was there.

When you have a robust writting team, and aims for a compromise between traditional rpg gameplay and the action rpg, you can't do it in a year and a half.

Indeed, its not a problem with the concept. Rather the implementation.

I can chalk 90% of my problems with DA2 to the obvious rush, even though I don't know how far it affected the game design.

Modifié par Meris, 08 décembre 2011 - 12:36 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Dave of Canada wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

The story took several steps backwards.

I disagree, the implementation of it is what was I'd consider backwards. Origins had a fairly "cliche" plot but it was done so well, barely anybody really cared. Dragon Age 2's story had a very unique plot that dealt with a lot of personal subjects that could've been all fine and good, though it's implementation left much to be desired.

Rather liked the plot myself, however it doesn't stop me from noticing the potential that was there.

Unique is not equal to or greater than good. Well done cliche is not less than poorly executed "original" plot.

Which in all actuality was the story of a greedy, money hungry lapdog who was forced to take sides in a civil war. Not that original. Meanwhile, the story of DAO, aside from people just spouting off "its the same old thing, plucky young hero destroys Big Bad" is actually pretty deep. The former aspirations and power-hungry motivations of man cause him to unleash corruption into the very gods he worships, and subsequently cause him centuries of death, war and hardship. That sounds like a fairly gritty, original and thematic concept. Add in the other antagonist of Loghain, who is the bad guy for all good reasons, blinded by the threat he has spent his whole life fighting, unable to see the more dangerous one right in front of him.

And THAT'S the game that has the cliche plot? As opposed to the game where everyone is a psycho blood mage/templar that must be slaughtered? You can only talk to companions once every three years? And the only motivation of the main character is to make money, do errands for others, and kill everyone, regardless of which side you pick?

Stay away from the Multiplayter, Bioware. Give us a good single player campaign like what we've seen in the past. And let the people who call it cliche or formulaic be dammed like a beaver.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 08 décembre 2011 - 12:46 .

[DKJaigen]

Fast Jimmy wrote...


Stay away from the Multiplayter, Bioware. Give us a good single player campaign like what we've seen in the past. And let the people who call it cliche or formulaic be dammed like a beaver.

And you still havent given good reason why mp and sp cannot mix?

[Fast Jimmy]

DKJaigen wrote...

And you still havent given good reason why mp and sp cannot mix?

And I don't have to. That's not the argument I'm making. There are plenty of games that mix SP and MP elements together well in a game. Not that many RPGs, but that's besides the point.

The point is that there is risk it will damage the SP campaign. This is fact - the risk is there. How big that risk is, how easy or hard it would be to mitigate that risk, how little or big the impact would be... all debatable and unknowable.

Until it is too late.

My point is this: DA2 was a commercial failure in light of DAO. And anyone who has read even one post on these boards can see it was from new features and directions compounded by a rushed dev cycle and limited resources. So... if DA3 is a commercial failure just like DA2 was, then it will be the end of the franchise, possibly of Bioware (if Mass Effect is done with its trilogy and the Star Wars MMO goes bust).

So if there is a risk to losing the entire franchise over a feature that has not mattered to the core fan of gamers who played the first two games, why risk it? If DA3 delivers a solid product, sells amazing and gets the franchise back in a position where it can take some risks, I'd be fine with talking about MP in DA4. But DA3 must be great and be what the fans expect and want. It has to be a sign from Bioware that they are more concerned with what we, as the consumers, enjoyed in the previous games, and not what they want to do in terms of pushing the limits.

They are free to make any game they want. But as a major video game company, with huge overhead costs as opposed to an indy developer, they have to respect both customers wishes and EA stockholders interests to sell games.

MP will not sell more games to the RPG crowd. It will cost more. And it will draw resources from the SP or set the standard higher for sales, either of which cuts into margins.

MP can be done well... but why add something new to the list to do well when the last time many people thought they did so much wrong?

[Jaron Oberyn]

I consider myself part of the "rpg crowd". Who are you do decide what it is I want? I can assure you that a significant portion of Biowares fan base would love to see them do multiplayer again. Thats right, again. They've done it before. DA3 will not go back to the DAO roots. It will be more of the same hack and slash, new art styled, fully voiced DA2. It's the direction Bioware has chosen to take with their franchise, just like mass effect is becoming a stronger shooter. Despite what you said about Hal Jordan and Sherlock Holmes, consumers do not have a right to dictate how a company approaches its own intellectual property. You act as if by becoming more accessible to players, what you guys refer to as dumbing down, that they'll lose out on the rpg crowd and not fill in those gaps. That's completely wrong. I have a lot of casual gamer friends who I recommended da2 to who loved it. The only complaint they had was the level progression was confusing and there was too much dialogue. They wanted more action. They're part of biowares fan base now, so what right do you have to say that they can't request more action in game if that's what they prefer? Don't be an elitist. Have fun and play the game for what it is - a game.


-Polite

[Chromie]

Your not so polite.

[Flashing Steel]

PoliteAssasin wrote...

I consider myself part of the "rpg crowd". Who are you do decide what it is I want? I can assure you that a significant portion of Biowares fan base would love to see them do multiplayer again. Thats right, again. They've done it before. DA3 will not go back to the DAO roots. It will be more of the same hack and slash, new art styled, fully voiced DA2. It's the direction Bioware has chosen to take with their franchise, just like mass effect is becoming a stronger shooter. Despite what you said about Hal Jordan and Sherlock Holmes, consumers do not have a right to dictate how a company approaches its own intellectual property. You act as if by becoming more accessible to players, what you guys refer to as dumbing down, that they'll lose out on the rpg crowd and not fill in those gaps. That's completely wrong. I have a lot of casual gamer friends who I recommended da2 to who loved it. The only complaint they had was the level progression was confusing and there was too much dialogue. They wanted more action. They're part of biowares fan base now, so what right do you have to say that they can't request more action in game if that's what they prefer? Don't be an elitist. Have fun and play the game for what it is - a game.


-Polite

Thus far there is nothing to suggest Biowares' new direction has payed off. It sold less then DAO, it won less awards than DAO and its critical reviews are worse than DAOs'. These measures are by no means perfect but they are the only general factors which give us an overview of which way the consensus swings, and it is in favour of DAO.

I digress, I believe change and evolution with in a franchise is neccessary. However, upon observing the differences between DAO and DA2 i believe the change was too drastic and sacrificed the core of DAO. Change must either be sublte or revolutionary, alas, DA2 was neither.