108 réponses à ce sujet

[Blacklash93]

DA multiplayer is a terrible idea. I'm all for tactical combat MP, but being able to pause the action and coordinate a team of characters by commanding them individually are huge elements in the tactical and strategical elements in DA... Which I'll point out are likely impossible to implement well in a MP setting in the vein of DA's combat. You have to strip it down into an action game with upgradable equipment and abilities, basically.

Plus it's just a waste of disk space. If this ends up being the case my interest for the Dragon Age franchise in general will plummet greatly. Bioware is already walking on thin ice after their last two disappointements.

Modifié par Blacklash93, 09 juillet 2012 - 06:17 .

[Maclimes]

 Noooooo!!! No multiplayer! No no no no no!!
But to be coherent for a moment, I'll point out why I'm opposed to multiplayer:

1 - Resources: The resources in manpower, time, and development that are being spent on multiplayer could be devoted to single player instead. If multiplayer is implemented, single player will suffer. Period. It's not like the DA team can say, "Hey, EA, we'd like to add multiplayer," and EA will say, "Okay, let's double the budget!". No, the likely response will be, "Well, you'll have to cut something to make room for it". Please don't cut.

2 - Impact: I highly doubt that they would implement multiplayer, and then make no reward for doing so. But if they do that, it means those of us who have no interest in multiplayer are not getting those rewards, whether they be story-based, items, or even achievements (which I genuinely don't care about, I admit).

3 - Long Term: If multiplayer is in, and therefore there are rewards for multiplayer, eventually people will be unable to obtain those rewards. As the community dwindles and migrates to other games, there will be a much smaller pool for multiplayer players, and they may not be able to achieve whatever the goals of the multiplayer are. I like a game that I can pop in 15 years later and still play it. Baldur's Gate is still a blast, as is DA:O. But most online multiplayer games end up with no community eventually, making the game impossible to play.

4 - NO: No no no no nooooooo......

Modifié par Maclimes, 09 juillet 2012 - 06:53 .

[Cimeas]

I thought ME3's multiplayer would be terrible, then I played it and it was actually quite fun.

[Plaintiff]

Maclimes wrote...
1 - Resources: The resources in manpower, time, and development that are being spent on multiplayer could be devoted to single player instead. If multiplayer is implemented, single player will suffer. Period. It's not like the DA team can say, "Hey, EA, we'd like to add multiplayer," and EA will say, "Okay, let's double the budget!". No, the likely response will be, "Well, you'll have to cut something to make room for it". Please don't cut.

EA are the ones supposedly mandating multiplayer for all their games. They might well be willing to allocate extra resources for it.

2 - Impact: I highly doubt that they would implement multiplayer, and then make no reward for doing so. But if they do that, it means those of us who have no interest in multiplayer are not getting those rewards, whether they be story-based, items, or even achievements (which I genuinely don't care about, I admit).

And whose fault is that? Isn't the point of a game that you actually play it? If you skip a quest in a single-player campaign, then you don't get the reward for that quest. Why should it be any different for multiplayer?

[aaronistan]

Mark of the Dragon wrote...

I do not want any multiplayer. I would rather all Bioware resources go to making a top notch single player game with deep characters and a great story. Bioware has a lot to do if they are going to make DA3 better then origins and I would rather multiplayer not distract from that. I dont really feel that a really interesting co-op can be added if they really are bringing back a more strategic gameplay style either. Im also worried about another ME3 incident where multiplayer because a necessity for the best ending. Please Bioware just focus on the single player.

I agree with what he is saying, the story line is the coolest part of the game and it would be sad if they gave up the story quality just to jump on the MP bandwagon...

[aaronistan]

the reason everyone is jumping on the MP bandwagon is because it annuitizes the business and makes shareholders smile....if i was a gambling man, i would bet that quality soon begins to suffer in replacement of MP platforms!! although i must admit i am quite happy with swtor

[Nyaore]

I won't touch it if it's included, but I wouldn't be adverse to it being added so long as it doesn't take away resources from the single player experience. I will also be royally pissed if we are given another 'War Assets' debacle, because it was next to impossible to get enough points for the best Destroy ending without diving into the multiplayer side of the equation. <- Which we were promised we wouldn't have to do.
Keep the two as separate as possible.

[Fast Jimmy]

Plaintiff wrote...

Maclimes wrote...

2 - Impact: I highly doubt that they would implement multiplayer, and then make no reward for doing so. But if they do that, it means those of us who have no interest in multiplayer are not getting those rewards, whether they be story-based, items, or even achievements (which I genuinely don't care about, I admit).

And whose fault is that? Isn't the point of a game that you actually play it? If you skip a quest in a single-player campaign, then you don't get the reward for that quest. Why should it be any different for multiplayer?

Because, while someone may not feel like doing a quest in the SP campaign, not every CAN play multiplayer. 

On the PC, its no problem, you just install the game and use the internet connection you have. For console players, things are more complicated. And, quite frankly, that's not something you want your customers to feel like they are forced to do.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 10 juillet 2012 - 12:53 .

[Jerrybnsn]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Maclimes wrote...

2 - Impact: I highly doubt that they would implement multiplayer, and then make no reward for doing so. But if they do that, it means those of us who have no interest in multiplayer are not getting those rewards, whether they be story-based, items, or even achievements (which I genuinely don't care about, I admit).

And whose fault is that? Isn't the point of a game that you actually play it? If you skip a quest in a single-player campaign, then you don't get the reward for that quest. Why should it be any different for multiplayer?

Because, while someone may not feel like doing a quest in the SP campaign, not every CAN play multiplayer. 

On the PC, its no problem, you just install the game and use the internet connection you have. For console players, things are more complicated. And, quite frankly, that's not something you want your customers to feel like they are forced to do.

On Xbox you have to pay Microsoft an additional $5 a month for that service.  PS3 is still free as far as I know.  I brought this up on the ME forum and had a lot of people dismiss it as if you're too poor to pay for the Xbox gold than you shouldn't be buying games at all. 

[AcidRelic]

I just hope it is Co-op and not some PvP or "Horde" type mode. I could see y brother and I sitting on the couch, or online, with our heroes teaming up and maybe we each control one NPC party member.

My only concerns would be the pausing for the wheel or inventory and would it be like Borderlands and we can go our separate ways as long as we don't go to another area trough a load or would we be stuck to the same screen like Baulders Gate (360).

[Fast Jimmy]

If I have no multiplayer games I enjoy playing at all, then how does that justify any amount of payment every month? It's not a rich-poor argument for me. It's a cost-to-use ratio. If I never use it, why would I pay for it? If I only have one game that forces multiplayer, would it make more sense for me to buy that online feature, or avoid the game entirely? For me, it is a no-brainer... avoid the game completely.

[Jerrybnsn]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

. It's a cost-to-use ratio. If I never use it, why would I pay for it? If I only have one game that forces multiplayer, would it make more sense for me to buy that online feature, or avoid the game entirely? For me, it is a no-brainer... avoid the game completely.

I agree.  I had Xbox Gold for probably a year and a half.  I played MW multiplayer, Assassin's Creed, Red Dead Redemption.  But they weren't really fun for me like they could be for others.
 
I don't use its other features of ESPN sports recap, because I have ESPN that I can watch (and here's something, the Xbox sports recap is not allowed to show NFL footage of games because that would cost microsoft extra, they just show still pictures of the teams players that have nothing to do with the actual games.)  If you want to get baseball games that they now offer, you have to pay an additional $$$$$$ in the hundreds. But I already am paying $80 a month for cable!  Why? Why would I want this?

Yeah, for another $80 a month I can access Netflix and have any movie on demand.  No thanks.  Download music videos for $$$$?  I can watch them on youtube or the many music channels I already have for no additional cost.

[AkiKishi]

Cimeas wrote...

I thought ME3's multiplayer would be terrible, then I played it and it was actually quite fun.

ME is quite suited to be a multiplayer game. DA would require some real changes to make it work.

[mopotter]

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

So long as you don't need to play MP to get the most out of SP, I don't care.

This.

NWN had MP.  It was years before I knew that and I like it that way.  If people like it, fine play it,  but don't force it on those of us who don't want to do it.

[SunTzuz]

If MP is to be long term, I imagine that it would required modding be opened up like NWN or be more like Diablo 2. Otherwise MP might feel generic, tacked on and a cash grab for online passes.

[ianvillan]

SunTzuz wrote...

If MP is to be long term, I imagine that it would require modding be opened up like NWN or be more like Diablo 2. Otherwise MP might feel generic, tacked on and a cash grab for online passes.

But that would mean they have to give players a construction kit, which they are against doing.

[AkiKishi]

Construction kits tend to be a no no because of the ammount of third party aplications used.

[SunTzuz]

Of course its a no no. It'll be a short-lived MP experience.

Modifié par SunTzuz, 10 juillet 2012 - 02:46 .

[King Cousland]

ianvillan wrote...

SunTzuz wrote...

If MP is to be long term, I imagine that it would require modding be opened up like NWN or be more like Diablo 2. Otherwise MP might feel generic, tacked on and a cash grab for online passes.

But that would mean they have to give players a construction kit, which they are against doing.

Did we ever get a real reason for why that is? I remeber some kind of babble about third-party software but can anyone elaborate for me?

[Zkyire]

deuce985 wrote...

I was browsing Bioware careers and noticed this:

www.bioware.com/careers/edmonton

Notice in programming jobs they're looking for a Online Programmer, Senior Gameplay Programmer and Gameplay Programmer. Online Programming speaks for itself, however, more interesting is the two job openings for Gameplay Programming is giving preference to devs with MP/Co-op experience.


Additional Skills:

• 
  The ideal candidate has shipped at least one video game title; and has
  a minimum of three years of technical experience in the video game or
  related industry
• 
  Preference given to candidates with multiplayer or coop experience, including replication
• 
  Avid gamer with a passion for creating top-quality games
• 
  Experience with assembler (MIPS, VU Code), scripting languages (Perl, Python, Lua, Ruby) and interpreted languages (C#, Java)

Also, all these job listings are very recent. Within the past month or two. Edmonton houses both the DA and ME teams. I'm pretty sure they're not ramping up a ME game anytime soon and DA3 is suppose to be going in full production...so yea. I noticed the Senior Environment Artist position has been filled and one other is open too. I guess that means Bioware is sinking more resources into level design?

Anyways, what do you guys think on this or the possibility of MP? I personally don't mind it at all if it doesnt take resources from SP development. I was highly skeptical on ME3 getting MP but it didn't seem to hurt SP and I actually enjoy it, surprisingly. A MP similar to ME3 but allowing us to get full customization would be cool. Like full armor/weapon/bigger skill tree customization...I'd like that. Not sure if the survival formula would work well in the DA universe though.
 

I do not want multiplayer in DA3. I'd prefer it to stay SP. And not just SP, but completely offline - ie. No more constantly checking my DLC list.

However, if they're going to insist on DA3 MP, I wont complain too much if ME3 MP is anything to go by which, while no substitute for the main game, is a decent addition.

Modifié par Zkyire, 10 juillet 2012 - 03:31 .

[Iakus]

If there's MP, it'll have to be at least as moddable as BG or NWN, or it's an automatic no-buy from me.

So, I'm guessing I'm not gonna be buying DA3

[Fallstar]

I hope there isn't multiplayer. Having said that, I feel like there will be. Not for any particular reason, just a feeling. If there is MP, I hope it's a small thing, e.g. I wanted to be able to team up with a mate and fast forward 30 years to our Warden's Callings and go see how long we could last. Something small like that. No matter what, MP does take away from the quality of the SP. Even if they go on about it being "separate teams" or whatever, the money and developers spent on the MP team could have been invested into SP instead.

[ianvillan]

DuskWarden wrote...

I hope there isn't multiplayer. Having said that, I feel like there will be. Not for any particular reason, just a feeling. If there is MP, I hope it's a small thing, e.g. I wanted to be able to team up with a mate and fast forward 30 years to our Warden's Callings and go see how long we could last. Something small like that. No matter what, MP does take away from the quality of the SP. Even if they go on about it being "separate teams" or whatever, the money and developers spent on the MP team could have been invested into SP instead.

Plus multiplayer takes up space on the disk that could be used for more single player content.
If multiplayer is truly developed by a seperate team and it takes no resources from the game it should be released on a seperate disk.