139 réponses à ce sujet

[ticklefist]

I'll bet one of the backwater developers EA has gobbled up over the past 5 years is already hard at work on it. They'll soon be called "Bioware Spokane" or some such.

[Mello]

Just the sound of that idea gives me a headache.

[EpicBoot2daFace]

I still don't see how a tacked-on multiplayer component extends the life of a game. Anyone with brains can see that ME3's 'multiplayer' is just a copy/paste of Gears of War's Horde mode. Same thing with BioShock 2 --- another tacked on multiplayer component.

Despite the general consensus, I don't believe adding multiplayer takes anything away from the campaign. But if it does anything, it just cheapens the product as a whole and shows a lack of confidence on the part of the game's developer. They don't have enough confidence in the single-player game they created, so they have to tack on multiplayer just to say 'we have it, too!'.

Sorry, but I don't have respect for game devs who are doing this ****. If it was an original concept, I'd be more inclined to agree that multiplayer is necessary. But since they refuse to introduce original ideas and instead prefer to just copy each other year after year, I'm inclined to strongly disagree.

Modifié par EpicBoot2daFace, 03 août 2012 - 12:59 .

[Wrathion]

Please God No. I don't personally play Mass Effect anymore, but I have loads of friends who do. While they LIKE the multiplayer they're a bit peeved instead of DLC for the main campaign they've been lovingly bombarded with Multiplayer junk. When they heard of Leviathan it was like: "Not sure if want." than "YES JESUS CHRIST DLC!" it's kind of sad.

In any other case, I would be alright with multiplayer. I don't actively earn achievements so...if MP where required for any of them, (unless they unlocked a cute armor, then we'd be fighting Bioware). If DA3 where to have it...i'm afraid that they'll hold off on any extra story campaigns, throw some weapon/character packs at us, then when they needed to, release some flimsy dlc with a weak celebrity plug and call it a day. Then more weapon packs. Weapon packs for everyone!

[Tinxa]

I don't understand this obsession with sticking multiplayer in every game either.

There are whole games designed to be multiplayer, why waste resources for multiplayer in singleplayer games. I haven't even touched multiplayer in ME3, that's not why I play ME. Bioware has a multiplayer game SW:TOR so they should focus on making that rather than sticking multiplayer in their other game franchises.

[Mello]

Tinxa wrote...

I don't understand this obsession with sticking multiplayer in every game either.

There are whole games designed to be multiplayer, why waste resources for multiplayer in singleplayer games. I haven't even touched multiplayer in ME3, that's not why I play ME. Bioware has a multiplayer game SW:TOR so they should focus on making that rather than sticking multiplayer in their other game franchises.

SW:TOR would have been a good game without the multiplayer, half of the time i play the game it feel's like i'm the only one there. They made great games Kotor 1 and  2, but instead they gave us a MMO that you have to pay 15$ a month just to play. Good Job, LucaArts... good job <_<

Modifié par iPoohCupCakes, 03 août 2012 - 01:44 .

[Giga Drill BREAKER]

MULTI-PLAYER IS THE DEATH OF SINGLE-PLAYER.

Just look at mass effect 3

[Elazul2k]

Multiplayer will also kill off the pause function. They would need to redesign combat as a direct result. Probably making it more like an FPS game than an RPG game. Ugghhh makes me sick thinking about it.

[BringSomeGoodCo-opRPGs]

1.First Dragon Age-Origins were originaly planned with some seperate multiplayer co-op campaign (or just co-op component) (they mentioned it in FAQ), but from whatever reason they cut it out (unfortunate)-very probably because engine and technical reasons
2.With TOR I agree,it should have been released like classic singleplayer RPG with co-op support/posibility to do co-op in 4 players,but atleast it is quite story driven MMORPG with same story quality (as I heard) as others Bioware games
3.And if anyone won´t multiplayer, why they are strong rumors it will have multiplayer and it had been mentioned some developers direct from developer team? And why there are two possible type of multiplayer/co-op  in stake (PvE/PVP aka ME3 or multiplayer/co-op aka like classic good old Baldur´s Gate 1/2,Icewind Dale 1/2,NWN1/2 or Lionheart-hope that second option is more true )?
4.About pause-I  have played Lionheart in recent time in two player co-op  which  have pause option and it just  work....it work like charm and if I can say-most of time when we play it,we play it in realtime, althought fights are very similar to Dragon Age-Origins (player must quite think about his advange in fights and in game, (often) quite many enemy and (often) quite hard, also like in Dragon Age-Origins need to use right ability/potions in right time-and death of two of us were/are quite common(so something what I have linked with some fight in Dragon Age-Origins)). And there is even designed key for request for pausing of game (only for joined player(s)) and same for save/load of game (or rather when joined player click on one of that option in menu)-so you don´t need rid of pause! If player are synchronized (they play together over LAN or they play longer time together,so they used to each other)-only with randoms I can imagine some difficult-but for that see some of my previous post,where I wrote about playing with randoms

Modifié par BringSomeGoodCo-opRPGs, 06 août 2012 - 01:26 .

[Malanek]

Elazul2k wrote...

Multiplayer will also kill off the pause function. They would need to redesign combat as a direct result. Probably making it more like an FPS game than an RPG game. Ugghhh makes me sick thinking about it.

Maybe, maybe not. Making it an ActionRPG (not fps) would be one way of doing it. But you could leave pause in and let anyone pause it, you would only be playing with people you knew so this wouldn't be abused. And if you were only controlling a single character how often would you really need to pause it? One good thing about multiplayer spilling over to single player, is that things tend to be balanced more carefully and the game system in general gets more attention.

I'm fairly ambivalent to it. I could envisage a co-op game but for it to work really well all the squadmates would probably have to be playable, requiring much more care (and harsher restrictions) going into the writing of them because a player controlls their decisions.

[Kungfu Nando]

I don't see why everyone is panicking about "multiplayer" as in the PAX interview the Devs said it would be co-op. People on the internet get so worked up about multiplayer these days sheesh,! I think FPS games have scared rpgers away from the idea, but co-op (which in my mind is always different) could be quite cool. I for one like the idea of questing with one or two friends, but yet not at the same time as 100000 other people on a MMO.

[OwaisofSpades]

To me it would depend on how it's executed. A ME3 type "KILL ALL THE DARKSPAWN" multiplayer would really annoy me and as someone mentioned the lack of a pause button would get annoying. However, a split screen co-op mode or a drop in mode where one of your friends can control a companion would be fun. It would make casting those tricky spell combos so much easier

[Wrathion]

Kungfu Nando wrote...

I don't see why everyone is panicking about "multiplayer" as in the PAX interview the Devs said it would be co-op. People on the internet get so worked up about multiplayer these days sheesh,! I think FPS games have scared rpgers away from the idea, but co-op (which in my mind is always different) could be quite cool. I for one like the idea of questing with one or two friends, but yet not at the same time as 100000 other people on a MMO.

People on forums = everyone on the internet. Pfft

If it's co-op it's a bit better. A friend and I were talking about it the other day. I would have been cool if instead of him breathing over my shoulder while I played DA2 we were playing together. As long as they can make their own character. Having someone take control of an establisted one would be...undesirable.

[BringSomeGoodCo-opRPGs]

Okay for all of you,who don´t think co-op can´t work in old style classic RPG
Here are my videos from Lionheart-Legacy for Crusader in co-op/multiplayer (two players) by LAN,recorded by Fraps-but it include also some singleplayer gameplay,so you can easy see how it is working



Sorry for no ingame sound (don´t know why it wasn´t recorded) and maybe little worse or outdated graphic (but that is becuase it is game something from 2001).Also be warning video can include some possible spoilers
Recommend to take time and see all videos because then you would have complex ´view´-althought in one video is part when I am in menu-approximately 5 minutes but that is really minor part of time of gameplay video

Modifié par BringSomeGoodCo-opRPGs, 09 août 2012 - 06:15 .

[EricHVela]

It's not that it can't work in RPG, it's that it would require some essential, core changes that made Dragon Age what it is if they are to introduce co-op into it.

Comparing DA as it has been so far to LLfC is apples and oranges. They want to keep the apple instead of getting an orange.

[Iosev]

Elazul2k wrote...

Multiplayer will also kill off the pause function. They would need to redesign combat as a direct result. Probably making it more like an FPS game than an RPG game. Ugghhh makes me sick thinking about it.

Pause is only necessary in single-player because you're controlling an entire party/squad (since you have to manage the behavior and abilities for multiple characters).  In multiplayer, you're likely only going to be controlling your character, so the game can be played without pause, as the other members of your party are other players.

Modifié par arcelonious, 08 août 2012 - 03:24 .

[EricHVela]

arcelonious wrote...

Elazul2k wrote...

Multiplayer will also kill off the pause function. They would need to redesign combat as a direct result. Probably making it more like an FPS game than an RPG game. Ugghhh makes me sick thinking about it.

Pause is only necessary in single-player because you're controlling an entire party/squad (since you have to manage the behavior and abilities for multiple characters).  In multiplayer, you're likely only going to be controlling your character, so the game can be played without pause, as the other members of your party are other players.

Which will change the entire pacing and strategy of the game, single-player included. It will be geared towards continuous and frantic play versus tactical control.

Again, people want to keep Dragon Age what it was. Co-op and multiplayer will require changes to Dragon Age that will remove characteristics that defined the gameplay of Dragon Age.

[Giga Drill BREAKER]

I miss single player games.

[Iosev]

ReggarBlane wrote...

arcelonious wrote...

Elazul2k wrote...

Multiplayer will also kill off the pause function. They would need to redesign combat as a direct result. Probably making it more like an FPS game than an RPG game. Ugghhh makes me sick thinking about it.

Pause is only necessary in single-player because you're controlling an entire party/squad (since you have to manage the behavior and abilities for multiple characters).  In multiplayer, you're likely only going to be controlling your character, so the game can be played without pause, as the other members of your party are other players.

Which will change the entire pacing and strategy of the game, single-player included. It will be geared towards continuous and frantic play versus tactical control.

Again, people want to keep Dragon Age what it was. Co-op and multiplayer will require changes to Dragon Age that will remove characteristics that defined the gameplay of Dragon Age.

Unfortunately, I do not agree.  The tactical aspect of gameplay in co-op can be retained if it emphasizes teamwork, such as healing, threat management, crowd control, and so on.  Assuming that combat has to be frantic, or similar to a FPS, to implement multiplayer is something that I do not agree with.

[hussey 92]

arcelonious wrote...

Elazul2k wrote...

Multiplayer will also kill off the pause function. They would need to redesign combat as a direct result. Probably making it more like an FPS game than an RPG game. Ugghhh makes me sick thinking about it.

Pause is only necessary in single-player because you're controlling an entire party/squad (since you have to manage the behavior and abilities for multiple characters).  In multiplayer, you're likely only going to be controlling your character, so the game can be played without pause, as the other members of your party are other players.

But without the pause function there will be fewer spells and attacks to use.

[Iosev]

hussey 92 wrote...

arcelonious wrote...

Elazul2k wrote...

Multiplayer will also kill off the pause function. They would need to redesign combat as a direct result. Probably making it more like an FPS game than an RPG game. Ugghhh makes me sick thinking about it.

Pause is only necessary in single-player because you're controlling an entire party/squad (since you have to manage the behavior and abilities for multiple characters).  In multiplayer, you're likely only going to be controlling your character, so the game can be played without pause, as the other members of your party are other players.

But without the pause function there will be fewer spells and attacks to use.

Can you elaborate?  In a typical MMORPG, a character can have numerous action bars filled with abilities to use, and yet there is no need to rely on a pause function.  Again, the pause function is more important when controlling an entire party, as you'll often have to direct each character, not just in abilities, but in simple movement as well, something that isn't necessary when the other characters in your party are controlled by other people.

Modifié par arcelonious, 08 août 2012 - 07:49 .

[Iosev]

Disregard this post, I accidentally hit quote instead of edit.

Modifié par arcelonious, 08 août 2012 - 07:49 .

[BringSomeGoodCo-opRPGs]

DinoSteve wrote...

I miss single player games.

For example, Lionheart-LotC can be fully played in both solo and co-op and both side of gameplay are almost identical. And I wouldn´t say that no part is weaker then another one (because they are almost identical?)

[OwaisofSpades]

arcelonious wrote...

hussey 92 wrote...

arcelonious wrote...

Elazul2k wrote...

Multiplayer will also kill off the pause function. They would need to redesign combat as a direct result. Probably making it more like an FPS game than an RPG game. Ugghhh makes me sick thinking about it.

Pause is only necessary in single-player because you're controlling an entire party/squad (since you have to manage the behavior and abilities for multiple characters).  In multiplayer, you're likely only going to be controlling your character, so the game can be played without pause, as the other members of your party are other players.

But without the pause function there will be fewer spells and attacks to use.

Can you elaborate?  In a typical MMORPG, a character can have numerous action bars filled with abilities to use, and yet there is no need to rely on a pause function.  Again, the pause function is more important when controlling an entire party, as you'll often have to direct each character, not just in abilities, but in simple movement as well, something that isn't necessary when the other characters in your party are controlled by other people.

I think he's referring to us console players who only have a few hotkeys on our controllers to cast spells and talents. When I had DA:O on PC I was pausing much less often than when I had it for the 360 simply because I didn't have to pull up a talent menu every few seconds. While it might not be as important on the PC the pause function is really handy on consoles

Modifié par OwaisofSpades, 08 août 2012 - 10:08 .

[Vespasian 91]

I personally think that multiplayer could work if it was done like TOR where you do the quest together, even better if they put origins back in.