171 réponses à ce sujet

[xsdob]

What do I expect, mass effect with dragon age characters of course.

You'll have your three specialized classes of course, the warrior, the mage, and the rouge, but you'd also have 3 new classes as well.

Battlemage/Arcane Warrior(vanguard class), Combining the thrill of combat with the power of the fade, these warriors are dangerous combatants to face. They are kept in low numbers, rarly able to be properly trained and master their talents, but those who do become dangerous combatants to face.

Dualist(Infiltrator) These skilled fighters combine the quick fluid style of the rouge and the fighting prowess of battle hardened warriors. Their mastery of dual weapons and ranged combat make them deadly opponents to face.

Shadows(sentinels), these magic weilders prefer operating hidden from their opponents, they combine the skills of an expert rouge and the magical talents of mages to create devastating mixes and potions to alter the course of battle.

Humans would fit all classes, elfs would be battle mages, mages, and shadows. Dwarves would fill the roles of the warrior, the dualist, and the rouges.

[daffl5]

if they do it right it will be amazing

[Plaintiff]

Rawgrim wrote...

wonder mage wrote...

well after DA2's ending its obvious that DA3 is coming and also the teasers on youtube confirm it. As for the game is concerned i think DA3 is on the right track. what i really want from DA3 is multiple talents, attributes and weapons to choose from and especially customization. i think DAO and DA2 are fairly simple to play with not so may talents and weapons that differ to choose from. Also the tactics and positioning are quite simple. it would be awesome if there are tons of new companions so there are more dialogue choices and the more the companions the more the fun it is to play the game again. The most shocking thing would be if there is multiplayer and you can play along with your friends in your own house.

i think for now customization, multiplayer and story with decisions that matter should be bioware's main aim.

JUST WHY ARE PEOPLE AGAINST MULTIPLAYER? ITS NOT COMPULSORY BUT A CHOICE .

Its not a choice. Try getting the perfect ending in ME3 without playing multiplayer...

Lets say DA3 has multiplayer. i run into an elf named 1ownZU-93...Yeah...good for immersion that. Immersion is kind of important in rpgs.

Of course it's a choice, you always have the option to not use a specific side feature. If you miss out on something else as a result, well, that was still your choice. That's like saying buying the special edition of a game isn't an option because then you miss out on the extras.

Mass Effect always required the player to be something of a completionist in order to get the "best" ending. I don't know why anyone thought ME3 would be any different in that respect.

As for multiplayer in DA3, I think it could potentially be very, very good. I'll wait until I see it before I make any judgements. I just wish my friends played on the same console as me, because I'd like to co-op with them.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 14 août 2012 - 09:55 .

[laudable11]

Its comming...Right now I'm having a blast with MP in Mass Effect 3. It can work.

[EricHVela]

There's a multiplayer game out there. It's called Mass Effect 3.

If they do multiplayer in DA, it will likely be ME3 with a different skin. Pointless when there's already one out there (and starting to show signs of struggling MP-wise). Why compete with your own product like that?

If they insist on having a MP DA, I suggest they just do the next DA as a single player only and create a different game to be MP in a DA settings so that they can have a true MP game with no influence from SP and an SP game with no influence from MP. The DA single-player style is incompatible with MP. Further drastic changes to SP gameplay would have to happen in order to accommodate the same controls and features in MP.

If they do that, they can have their MMO based on the pure-MP game instead of a formerly SP-only experience.

[Elazul2k]

wonder mage wrote...
JUST WHY ARE PEOPLE AGAINST MULTIPLAYER? ITS NOT COMPULSORY BUT A CHOICE .

Because its been proven time and again game after game that splitting resources away from the development of a solid single player experience detracts from the main game. I for one would rather have a solid highly polished single player game with an excellent story and high replayability than say a mediocre story with rushed multiplayer added that serves no purpose but to appease those that must have multiplayer on every single game for no reason. It will detract from the development of the story and the gameplay on the single player side. Bethseda gets this but sadly almost every other game company does not. Bioware USED to get this until they released Mass Effect 3... which I never did buy because Bioware forced us to use Origin, added multiplayer, and overall just tanked the quality of the franchise. I don't really expect to be buying Dragon Age 3(or any other Bioware game ever again) either unless they get back to their roots.

Modifié par Elazul2k, 14 août 2012 - 04:36 .

[Atakuma]

Elazul2k wrote...

wonder mage wrote...
JUST WHY ARE PEOPLE AGAINST MULTIPLAYER? ITS NOT COMPULSORY BUT A CHOICE .

Because its been proven time and again game after game that splitting resources away from the development of a solid single player experience detracts from the main game. I for one would rather have a solid highly polished single player game with an excellent story and high replayability than say a mediocre story with rushed multiplayer added that serves no purpose but to appease those that must have multiplayer on every single game for no reason. It will detract from the development of the story and the gameplay on the single player side. Bethseda gets this but sadly almost every other game company does not. Bioware USED to get this until they released Mass Effect 3... which I never did buy because Bioware forced us to use Origin, added multiplayer, and overall just tanked the quality of the franchise. I don't really expect to be buying Dragon Age 3(or any other Bioware game ever again) either unless they get back to their roots.

That has never been "proven", it's just something people like you parrot to try and justify your dislike of multiplayer.

[Boss Fog]

ReggarBlane wrote...

There's a multiplayer game out there. It's called Mass Effect 3.

If they do multiplayer in DA, it will likely be ME3 with a different skin.

Wrong, as I said before; they would base the MP off of the Baldur's Gate model.  Mass Effect is a 3rd person shooter; DA is a party based RPG and is only similar to ME in the sense that it's a character driven RPG so why would you assume that DA's MP would just be a reskin of ME's?  See for yourself.

[Elazul2k]

Atakuma wrote...

Elazul2k wrote...

wonder mage wrote...
JUST WHY ARE PEOPLE AGAINST MULTIPLAYER? ITS NOT COMPULSORY BUT A CHOICE .

Because its been proven time and again game after game that splitting resources away from the development of a solid single player experience detracts from the main game. I for one would rather have a solid highly polished single player game with an excellent story and high replayability than say a mediocre story with rushed multiplayer added that serves no purpose but to appease those that must have multiplayer on every single game for no reason. It will detract from the development of the story and the gameplay on the single player side. Bethseda gets this but sadly almost every other game company does not. Bioware USED to get this until they released Mass Effect 3... which I never did buy because Bioware forced us to use Origin, added multiplayer, and overall just tanked the quality of the franchise. I don't really expect to be buying Dragon Age 3(or any other Bioware game ever again) either unless they get back to their roots.

That has never been "proven", it's just something people like you parrot to try and justify your dislike of multiplayer.

Thats just stupid. The splitting of funds caused by dividing efforts could easily cause a story to fail to meet expectations in any number of ways. Perhaps the writer wrote a masterful piece, but since they had to split the funds, they ended up cutting down a couple of minor scenes, causing plotholes. The same could easily happen with gameplay features watering down the entire game. To think otherwise is ignoring the business aspects of making a game. I cannot think of a single example of tacked on multiplayer enchancing a game in such a way I would be willing to overlook the flaws such a game would create.

Modifié par Elazul2k, 14 août 2012 - 07:44 .

[Brockololly]

I suspect any DA multiplayer will find a way to be stuffed with microtransactions.

[MissOuJ]

Co-op? I'm all for it! Taking on a high dragon with my mates could be fun.

I'm not so much into death matches, but a tournament (or Provings) style PvP might work...

[twincast]

Brockololly wrote...

I suspect any DA multiplayer will find a way to be stuffed with microtransactions.

That's like saying you suspect Halley's Comet will come back into the inner Solar System in 2061.

[Atakuma]

Elazul2k wrote...
Thats just stupid. The splitting of funds caused by dividing efforts could easily cause a story to fail to meet expectations in any number of ways. Perhaps the writer wrote a masterful piece, but since they had to split the funds, they ended up cutting down a couple of minor scenes, causing plotholes. The same could easily happen with gameplay features watering down the entire game. To think otherwise is ignoring the business aspects of making a game. I cannot think of a single example of tacked on multiplayer enchancing a game in such a way I would be willing to overlook the flaws such a game would create.

"Because I say so" isn't proof of anything. You are just blindly assuming those flaws are directly related to the inclusion of multiplayer without anything to back it up.

[Ash Wind]

xsdob wrote...

What do I expect, mass effect with dragon age characters of course.

This ^ 10

 
While I am not opposed for a MP DA3 for those interested, I’m not… and if anything (content/endings) from the Single Player Game is dependent on me playing MP, I won’t be buying it at any price.

[Giga Drill BREAKER]

Elazul2k wrote...

wonder mage wrote...
JUST WHY ARE PEOPLE AGAINST MULTIPLAYER? ITS NOT COMPULSORY BUT A CHOICE .

Because its been proven time and again game after game that splitting resources away from the development of a solid single player experience detracts from the main game. I for one would rather have a solid highly polished single player game with an excellent story and high replayability than say a mediocre story with rushed multiplayer added that serves no purpose but to appease those that must have multiplayer on every single game for no reason. It will detract from the development of the story and the gameplay on the single player side. Bethseda gets this but sadly almost every other game company does not. Bioware USED to get this until they released Mass Effect 3... which I never did buy because Bioware forced us to use Origin, added multiplayer, and overall just tanked the quality of the franchise. I don't really expect to be buying Dragon Age 3(or any other Bioware game ever again) either unless they get back to their roots.

Quoted for FACT

Atakuma wrote...

Elazul2k wrote...
Thats just stupid. The splitting of funds caused by dividing efforts could easily cause a story to fail to meet expectations in any number of ways. Perhaps the writer wrote a masterful piece, but since they had to split the funds, they ended up cutting down a couple of minor scenes, causing plotholes. The same could easily happen with gameplay features watering down the entire game. To think otherwise is ignoring the business aspects of making a game. I cannot think of a single example of tacked on multiplayer enchancing a game in such a way I would be willing to overlook the flaws such a game would create.

"Because I say so" isn't proof of anything. You are just blindly assuming those flaws are directly related to the inclusion of multiplayer without anything to back it up.

Mass Effect 3 is proof enough, if you want more proof just look at Assassin's Creed Brotherhood and Revelations both of them are vastly inferior in story than Assassins creed 2.

MP is ALWAYS the death of single player franchises.

Modifié par DinoSteve, 15 août 2012 - 12:02 .

[Lemina Ausa]

DinoSteve wrote...


MP is ALWAYS the death of single player franchises.

Baldur's gate wasn't particularily harmed by having multiplayer.

[Elazul2k]

Lemina Ausa wrote...

DinoSteve wrote...


MP is ALWAYS the death of single player franchises.

Baldur's gate wasn't particularily harmed by having multiplayer.

Baldur's gate is also based directly off the D&D ruleset and is structured more like the Diablo 1 & 2 games which ARE more multiplayer friendly. Totally different types of games.

[PaulSX]

Something like Dark Souls' coop/PvP would be good enough for future dragon age games, but they need to figure out a way to resolve the server issue, because I favor easy drop in and drop out multiplayer games.

[Boss Fog]

Elazul2k wrote...

Lemina Ausa wrote...

DinoSteve wrote...


MP is ALWAYS the death of single player franchises.

Baldur's gate wasn't particularily harmed by having multiplayer.

Baldur's gate is also based directly off the D&D ruleset and is structured more like the Diablo 1 & 2 games which ARE more multiplayer friendly. Totally different types of games.

I'm calling BS on this comparison; Baldur's Gate is just a more hardcore, D&D themed version of Dragon Age.  Diablo is not a story driven RPG; it's a dungeon crawler loot fest with an emphasis on co-op.  I sense your just trying to disavow the idea of MP in DA simply because you hate it.

[Sinuphro]

Dendio1 wrote...

We all know its coming. What do you expect and do you approve?

lmao if they implement that sht bioware and ea better be braciing themselves to fire more ppl. cause their sales is gonna be waaay worse than da2

[Elazul2k]

TelvanniWarlord wrote...

Elazul2k wrote...

Lemina Ausa wrote...

DinoSteve wrote...


MP is ALWAYS the death of single player franchises.

Baldur's gate wasn't particularily harmed by having multiplayer.

Baldur's gate is also based directly off the D&D ruleset and is structured more like the Diablo 1 & 2 games which ARE more multiplayer friendly. Totally different types of games.

I'm calling BS on this comparison; Baldur's Gate is just a more hardcore, D&D themed version of Dragon Age.  Diablo is not a story driven RPG; it's a dungeon crawler loot fest with an emphasis on co-op.  I sense your just trying to disavow the idea of MP in DA simply because you hate it.

I won't deny the fact that I hate the idea of Multiplayer in Dragon Age. In fact I would say if Dragon Age 3 has multiplayer its a no purchase for me instantly. Dragon Age has always been designed for a single player experience. For instance the pause function. Multiplayer would completely destroy that functionality since you cannot have one person pausing a multiperson game. This would in effect cause combat to have to be completely redone and would remove the tactical aspect of the game completely away. Instead of Dragon Age you would have Call of Ferelden: Modern Warfare. No thanks I will pass.

[ediskrad327]

i'd guess a co-op would work. and i hope they could do like Fable III and allow me to not let any random guy just get into my version of Thedas. anyway no matter how they make it i guarantee it will use an online pass

[Iakus]

Dendio1 wrote...

We all know its coming. What do you expect and do you approve?

If it's in DA3 I will walk away.  End of story.

[ediskrad327]

iakus wrote...

Dendio1 wrote...

We all know its coming. What do you expect and do you approve?

If it's in DA3 I will walk away.  End of story.

then you should start preparing your long trek boots

[Iakus]

Been preparing since ME 3