154 réponses à ce sujet

[BubbleDncr]

The only was I really imagine multilayer being ok is if its the sort of thing where, I'm sitting on my couch, hogging the TV playing Dragon Age.My fiance is bored out of his mind, so I hand him a controller and suddenly he can control one of my party members. This is limited to combat and when you're just running around - he can loot chests, buy things from stores, and kill things, but I still have full control over my cut scenes and where my story goes.

That way, all there is to gain from doing multiplayer is the fun of having your friend play with you. I guess people who have skilled friends could have an easier time beating the game, but if they have stupid friends, they'll have a harder time, so it evens out.

[Apathy1989]

I'm not a fan of horde mode. Please don't do that for DA3.

If you wanted to do MP, I would like something similar to Neverwinter Nights. Let my friends connect and take the place of a party member.

[AxeloftheKey]

I would only like some kind of multiplayer if it let us have a bigger, war-like setting. My favorite part of Origins is the massive war in the finale. I would love a multiplayer that grabs a ton of people and throws us into a massive war, perhaps with some RTS/Tower Defense elements put in. Protecting a base or overrunning one. Could be neat.

[wsandista]

I would only like multiplayer if I was playing a shooter or strategy. RPGs should focus on single-player.

[ZombieGerbil]

sjpelkessjpeler wrote...

What is the difference if they would imply multiplayer to DA? Imo it's a choise you make; you will use the feature if it's available or you do not. Seems to me that you can do a 'normal' SP campaign and the MP is something that is independant from it. Or am I thinking in the wrong direction here?

Because 90% of us DON'T want MP.

I'll be honest with you, I don't think there should be multiplayer due to the fact they're have to work on something different other than the story. Which I do not want them to do. I want them to focus on that and what is needed.
And MP is definitely and completely NOT needed.

I think if they did multiplayer they'll focus on that then release the game at the last moment and crapping on the story.

What I want them to do and many other people among me:

- Focus on the story and give it amazing ending
- Multiple Race and different storylines leading with the story all together.
- Focus on the relationships and the consequences that'll effect us and the story.
- Focus on a beautiful environment and side quests with amazing stories for each of our allies.

Multiplayer will butcher all that because they'll get side tracked and try to work on something that is utterly and beyond pointless. That pointless implement would be MP. Releasing it too soon and making another mistake like they did with DA2 and the recycle maps among other things within the game.

It started single player.

It should end single player.

Modifié par ZombieGerbil, 12 juin 2012 - 04:04 .

[Chromie]

ZombieGerbil wrote...

Because 90% of us DON'T want MP.

Did you pull that number out of your ass?

[Lord Gremlin]

It's hard to tell how many don't want MP. It's safe to say that a large portion of audience is not interested.

[sunnydxmen]

Noooooooo multiplayer this game cant work with it you constantly pause the game to do spells/talents focus on single player.

[ZombieGerbil]

Skelter192 wrote...

Did you pull that number out of your ass?

Its called reviewing and observing. Which you severely lack.
Try it once and awhile. You might actually develop something within that head of yours and learn something.

Modifié par ZombieGerbil, 12 juin 2012 - 08:41 .

[Allan Schumacher]

Skelter could have phrased his question better, but lets not get too personal.


In essence though, the 90% number is what you have concluded. I imagine the reviewing and observing you did was general internet discussion, whether it was on BSN or elsewhere?

[Realmzmaster]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Skelter could have phrased his question better, but lets not get too personal.


In essence though, the 90% number is what you have concluded. I imagine the reviewing and observing you did was general internet discussion, whether it was on BSN or elsewhere?

If the 90% is arrived at by reviewing and observing I can only assume that selection bias has been removed from the equation. You personally counted each instance of for and against multiplayer to arrive at the figure. Otherwise it is just an imaginary number.

[ianvillan]

If the ME3 mulitiplayer did not include EMS that forced you to play multiplayer for the single player game, and if it had been released after ME3 came out there may not of been as much upset over the multiplayer portion.

[ZtalkerRM]

I think the ME3 multiplayer issue had people confused. It was required to play MP to teach an 'ideal' single player ending. I think 90% of the people would say no to that type op multiplayer. But a multiplayer that's 'seperate' and in fact, an extra, would score far better.

[ianvillan]

ZtalkerRM wrote...

I think the ME3 multiplayer issue had people confused. It was required to play MP to teach an 'ideal' single player ending. I think 90% of the people would say no to that type op multiplayer. But a multiplayer that's 'seperate' and in fact, an extra, would score far better.

Yes totally and I dont know why they couldn't of released the multiplayer portion on a seperate disk, they then could of put more content on the singleplayer disk and it would of stopped some of the complaints that multiplayer was taking resources away from singleplayer.

[ZombieGerbil]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Skelter could have phrased his question better, but lets not get too personal.


In essence though, the 90% number is what you have concluded. I imagine the reviewing and observing you did was general internet discussion, whether it was on BSN or elsewhere?

Okay, maybe I went out of line as well. Sorry.

I just reviewed pretty much everywhere and not only on this forum. Facebook, fansites, and just generally discussions in different places on the internet and places in local lan centers area as well as school. Also, this goes way back before DA3 was even officially in discussions. 
There was a thread about Multiplayer being included and about a good 70% of the players said No or No thank you.

Even I don't want a Single Player game turning into a Multiplayer game.
This is a story line game that's for individual players to enjoy and I would like it focused on by BioWare.

Dragon Age is a single player game. Like every other great RPG games before it.
I don't want another player being there while I make my decisions or help me make decisions.
I purely want to be in control of my own world, my own character, my own allies, how my enemies die, and everything else that make Dragon Age great. Decision for ONE person to make.

Modifié par ZombieGerbil, 13 juin 2012 - 12:17 .

[Ryzaki]

To be honest MP for DA3 would put what's a "first day buy" to a "wait and see" (I hope I haven't said this already XD). Honestly ME3 burned me. And I highly doubt it was a bug seeing as threads on the subject were locked with devs claiming that we should look at the sticky which claimed the best ending was possible with SP only needless to say that wasn't true. So yeah...sorry devs but if I get a whiff of MP I'm gonna sit on my hands.

[berelinde]

If DA3 includes a toolset that allows world building and exploration, multi-player would be fine, but if it's going to be a co-op where we've got 4-8 Hawkes all romping through the same plot line...

No.

The strength of the Dragon Age franchise is in the story. One protagonist making tough choices and doing something meaningful, accompanied by a core group of richly developed NPC companions. Four people logging on to gang up on a boss fight is death to the story. It is the antithesis of heroic.

There are a plethora of games that do multi-player well. Let them. Let Dragon Age do what it's good at.

[tishyw]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Anything more specific about what you'd look for from multiplayer?

For it not to exist?  Please?  After being burnt by the EMS issue with ME3's multi-player, if DA3 has it I won't be buying it.

[Hathur]

umm.. bioware... baldur's gate 1&2 ... neverwinter nights... dust off your old floppy disks / cds and look at those... if you insist on multiplayer, just do it like that again.

... as in a proper co-op story mode... not mind numbing multiplayer vs silly wave after wave after wave of enemies... you guys did multiplayer just rightin the past, no reason you cant do it again.

Modifié par Hathur, 13 juin 2012 - 01:19 .

[RR1107]

To me, the most important aspect of a multiplayer component for Dragon Age 3 is that it must fit well within the lore of the game. Although I wouldn't be against it, I can't see how a multiplayer component fits lore-wise into a single-player role playing epic like Dragon Age/Dragon Age 2. That said, I feel that Mass Effect 3's Multiplayer works well within the universe and lore, despite the "EMS" "bug" that makes Multi-Player required to achieve the "hardest to achieve" endings in the single-player game. So if a potential Dragon Age 3 Multiplayer component fit as well or better into the lore as Mass Effect 3's MP component, and did not interfere with the players ability to complete all aspects of the single-player game successfully, then I would likely play it and be in favor of its inclusion in the game. One thing I would really like to see would be for your multi-player characters to somehow have an actual appearance in your single-player game. Maybe this could work like a Wardens Keep/Vigils Keep scenario where your multi-player characters have a fort/base within your single-player game and you can travel there with your single-player character to hear in-game stories of their adventures and receive single-player game perks from the multi-player.

What I really become excited about is the potential of a Dragon Age (and a Mass Effect for that matter) MMO. The Dragon Age lore and universe are well defined and an MMO would be a wonderful expression of that universe. My personal preference would be for an MMO structured in the style of pre-Luclin "Everquest" or "Vanguard: Saga of Heroes." Specifically, an open-world style MMO with major story lines which effect entire "shards" or servers permanently. Instancing could be worked into such a game in limited ways in places where it could make sense, such as when encountering the "Fade" or elsewhere where "lore-established logic" would dictate, but otherwise the world of Dragon Age would be uninstanced. A setting could be perhaps after/before the events of the single-player games, or during them if the lore ties were done well. I would love to see the setting take place during the Tevinter Imperium's apex and fall (800-1200 TE), however this may not be considered a "Dragon Age" game since it would take place during the "Pre-Ages" of the Imperium, but it would cover what I think is one of the most interesting periods of the universe's lore.

To sum it up, I think that the most important "feature" or "aspect" of any multi-player component must be that it ties in very well with the single-player lore, regardless of whatever mechanic makes up the multi-player mode.

Anyhow, that is my 2 cents, for what its worth

Modifié par RR1107, 13 juin 2012 - 03:22 .

[Wentletrap]

I have mixed feelings about multiplayer for DA3...

Before ME3 came out, I was very much against the idea of multiplayer. Once I got the game, though, I got addicted to it. Now I'm spending more time on ME3's multiplayer than I have for any other BW game (except for maybe Baldur's Gate II).

*However*... it's more of a cow-chewing-its-cud kind of gameplay. It scratches an itch, but it doesn't lift my gamer's soul, the way that, say, the Battle at Ostagar or the Landsmeet or the fight with the High Dragon did.

Would I play DA3's multiplayer and enjoy it? Yes, if it adds a fun angle to the DA franchise the same way ME3's MP has.

But I would really *love* to see some epic moments in the DA story again, after they were (imo) lacking in DA2. So I hope that adding MP to DA3 doesn't detract from its story.

Modifié par Wentletrap, 13 juin 2012 - 03:56 .

[Allan Schumacher]

Two games I thought that had very interesting co-op modes were Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory and No One Lives Forever 2.

In both cases you played as agents that kind of played an ancillary role to the main character of the single player. So you got to visit places that Cate Archer did but were on clean up, or you got to play through a mission in Chaos Theory where you're retrieving the intel that Lambert needs for Fisher.

Stuff like that made those co-op modes a ton of fun.

[deuce985]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Two games I thought that had very interesting co-op modes were Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory and No One Lives Forever 2.

In both cases you played as agents that kind of played an ancillary role to the main character of the single player. So you got to visit places that Cate Archer did but were on clean up, or you got to play through a mission in Chaos Theory where you're retrieving the intel that Lambert needs for Fisher.

Stuff like that made those co-op modes a ton of fun.

Was that the first Splinter Cell that introduced the Mercs vs. Agents? My god, I loved that. Thought it was a incredibly innovative MP. The game basically had two completely different playstyles. Agents were for those careful, stealthy players in third-person and Mercs were for FPS twitch gamers. It was really cool how when you played as one or the other, they operated completely different. I liked running around as Mercs, it made me feel like Predator with all those different vision scans looking for agents. But nothing was more satisfying than running around as a Agent and outwitting your opponents with guns, while all you could do is distort their electronics and knock them out.

On the subject of DA3 MP, I wouldn't mind seeing it at all, if it's done right and makes sense. I think what you brought up in Chaos Theory was a great example of how a game took MP and it totally made sense for the Splinter Cell franchise. Mass Effect 3 was MP that worked.

ME3's MP works so well because it's so simple and makes total sense for the franchise. Running around as your favorite classes and race combos with buddies is just fun. I don't think competitive MP would ever work for ME3's style of MP. You're overpowered in ME3 and I think that's part of the charm. It would be a balance issue in ME3. You want to run around with buddies and feel overpowered. Competitive would just introduce problems and create balance issues with the community.

Also, another thing overlooked that was done very well in ME3, they don't split the community up. MP games suffer this problem badly by making too many game modes and paid DLC map packs. Both severely split communities up and it contributes to killing those communities off faster. Not many games can support 15+ different game modes like Halo/CoD with paid DLC. Really smart on Bioware's part giving all the DLC maps free and only one game mode. If Bioware decides to go the route of DA3 getting MP, I hope they take notes from the ME3 team. 

But yes, I'm fine by going to a unique MP for the franchise only if it makes sense and doesn't take resources away from single-player development. MP should be considered secondary or outsourced to a separate team, IMO.

Modifié par deuce985, 13 juin 2012 - 05:52 .

[Maria Caliban]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Anything more specific about what you'd look for from multiplayer?

Like ME 3 MP, but with swords and spells instead of guns and powers.

Your level of specificity remains unparalleled!!

I am a simple woman with simple tastes.

I like the Mass Effect MP; it is fun. Give me that kind of fun with a Dragon Age flavor and I'll like it. I leave the rest to you. You're the developer, not me.

ZombieGerbil wrote...

Skelter192 wrote...

Did you pull that number out of your ass?

Its called reviewing and observing.

Translation: "Yep, I totally pulled that out my rear."

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 13 juin 2012 - 05:56 .