280 réponses à ce sujet

[ianvillan]

SpunkyMonkey wrote...

What's weird is that Bioware has made so many moves to try and appeal to more "casual" games, yet it doesn't factor that most gamers 30y/o and upwards (those "casuals" with the cash to actually buy games brand new for them and their kids) were reared on Single Player experiences and enjoy them far more than MP. There's an absolutely massive market for the 30 y/o+ gamer which they seem to be neglecting.

Some of my mates won't touch MP games, even if they come with SP campaigns as they've been bitten by the likes of Left For Dead (great reviews for a game which is dire in SP).

And Bioware's strength has always been (up until DA:2) it's storytelling - why try to change that to copy the strategy of other companies? It's like Mexico seeing that Austria makes a lot of money in ski-ing resorts and then deciding to do that in Mexico too.

Whatever EA execs are making the decisions they need a rocket up the jacksy fast.

If EA was in charge of Mexico they would conduct a survey of kids and come to the conclusion that ski-ing was too difficult for people, so they would have plastic sleds instead, all in different colours and designs ofcource.

[hoorayforicecream]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Can you back that up with some proof?

Can you also provide proof that the money going into MP would be re-distributed to other aspects?
I can understand getting a bigger budget if you want more features, but the exact distribution of the budget being pre-determined like that????

I've worked on a few smaller games, and my expreience with resources is vastly different.

Would you pay $500,000 to a contractor to build you a house without knowing what he was going to do, or would you want to know where your money is going? Does it have a pool? French windows? One, two, or three-car garage? Two floors? Three? How many bedrooms? How many bathrooms? What does the floorplan look like?

Nobody will give a contractor a large sum of money and say "Just give me a good house." It is natural to want to know where your money is going before it is spent. It isn't to say that the buyer has to be an architect to plot and plan everything out herself, but the buyer still wants to know where the money is going and how the project is coming along.

Edit: Just to provide some proof, since that's what you asked for...

I've interviewed with game companies who have specific openings for MP (can't say which due to NDA). They already had enough resources already to handle the single player game, and were looking for MP-specific roles. If there was no MP, those openings would not have been shifted to the SP game, they wouldn't have been open at all.

Modifié par hoorayforicecream, 10 septembre 2012 - 02:04 .

[Guilebrush]

I just wish that EA would realize that not every gamespace works with "deathmatch/hordemode" type multiplayer and the fact that to many people RPGs are a very personal, bordering on selfish experiences. We as RPG players do not want our single player agency and experiences to be diminished because we are suddenly dependent on others (as it was in ME3 where a complete run through the trilogy solo was incapable of achieving the same ending options as a fresh ME3 profile that grinded out some MP wins).

If they created a MP mode the fits seamlessly within the context of the actual game I really doubt that anyone would have problems with it. Heck, just look at how Dark Souls handles multiplayer, it doesn't feel shoehorned into the game whatsoever. Or how about Saints Row the Third another game with multiplayer that didn't just go "let's toss in some deathmatches all call it a day!" Heck just look at Borderlands 2 a multiplayer shooter that isn't even going to release with a competitive deathmatch mode, because it doesn't fit in with the vision and core of what their developers want to deliver as an experience to their user base. Those games looked at what they were and built up multiplayer experiences that stayed true to their cores, be it co-op, competitive or otherwise.

The reason why some people, including myself, negatively respond to speculation of Multiplayer modes in Bioware games is because of the precedent set by ME3. Even though Extended Cut for all intents and purposes resolved the number one complaint the damage has been more than done by then and is not so easily overlooked. It's like someone intentionally taking a dump on your dinner table, laughing it off, cleaning up the mess and buying you a double cheeseburger from Burger King to "make up for it." Sure you still end up with a meal, but what are the odds of you ever inviting that person back to a dinner party?

That being said, if DA3 or whatever the hell it ends up being called is built from the ground up to seamlessly incorporate multiplayer and clearly defines the separation of multiplayer gameplay from single player choice, agency and outcomes then sure it would then have the potential of enriching the actual game experience. I doubt many would be against it in that case. Problem being, at this point until Bioware actually shows beyond dispute that this is how MP is being built, as an avenue to potentially enrich the gameplay for all, rather than a method that detracts from the experiences of some, you're gonna see a lot of threads like this one. This is the bed they made with the decisions they took with ME3, and you can't blame us users for reminding them of that fact.

[SpunkyMonkey]

ianvillan wrote...

If EA was in charge of Mexico they would conduct a survey of kids and come to the conclusion that ski-ing was too difficult for people, so they would have plastic sleds instead, all in different colours and designs ofcource.

Yup!

[SpunkyMonkey]

Guilebrush wrote...
Heck just look at Borderlands 2 a multiplayer shooter that isn't even going to release with a competitive deathmatch mode, because it doesn't fit in with the vision and core of what their developers want to deliver as an experience to their user base.

That's bang on - DA:2 really showed how much EA execs had just walked in and said "Right, we're here to make money, here's what the feedback says, now go away and do XY&Z without any thought given to the creative process"

It's the experience that any peice of entertainment media delivers which counts, not the boxes it ticks, and the more games the EA/Bioware partnership churn out the more that is forgotten.

Modifié par SpunkyMonkey, 10 septembre 2012 - 02:09 .

[Beerfish]

If it can be proved that including multiplay will have a negative effect on the single p-layer game due to design issues or resources issues I can fully understand the concerns. However, coop multiplay can be very fun. ME3 multiplayer is fun, it's not perfect that is for sure.

I don't think the inclusion of multiplay in ME3 had anything to do with the quality of the game for me. Writing and story decisions are what made ME3 disappointing, not loss of resources to MP.

[Jerrybnsn]

Will my zots be accepted in Mexico as in Austria?

[SpunkyMonkey]

Jerrybnsn wrote...

Will my zots be accepted in Mexico as in Austria?

Zots the sweets??

[Morty Smith]

I can´t understand,

why is everybody here against MP?

[SpunkyMonkey]

Kroitz wrote...

I can´t understand,

why is everybody here against MP?

For one I have no access to it and so would be required to invest time & money setting it up - something which i don't intend on doing for something I'm not really interested in.

Secondly when I have played MP at friends houses I think it's a far worse experience than an SP one. It's like I'd much sooner read a book by myself than have a group read with friends.

[ianvillan]

scyphozoa wrote...

Kroitz wrote...

I can´t understand,

why is everybody here against MP?

They are assuming that separate game modes share resources, and that they consider SP to be the only feature they want RPGs to include. Its based on uninformed and unfounded assumptions. Its not worth taking too seriously. 

And you are assuming that the two modes dont share resources and that the SP game wont be changed to accomodate the MP mode. Your statement is based on uninformed and unfounded assumptions. but I will still take your statement seriously even if I dont agree with it.

Modifié par ianvillan, 10 septembre 2012 - 02:57 .

[Morty Smith]

SpunkyMonkey wrote...

Kroitz wrote...

I can´t understand,

why is everybody here against MP?

For one I have no access to it and so would be required to invest time & money setting it up - something which i don't intend on doing for something I'm not really interested in.

Secondly when I have played MP at friends houses I think it's a far worse experience than an SP one. It's like I'd much sooner read a book by myself than have a group read with friends.

Okay, but games are a medium that is based on interaction and even RPGs have their roots in table-top games, which are the most fun with other people. Or are you feeling this way if the SP and MP are depending on each other and the expiriences are crossing. Example: You HAVE to be part of a group to quest in an MMO-Dungeon?

If they are separated, would it hurt your gaming expirience?

Modifié par Kroitz, 10 septembre 2012 - 03:01 .

[SpunkyMonkey]

scyphozoa wrote...

Kroitz wrote...

I can´t understand,

why is everybody here against MP?

They are assuming that separate game modes share resources, and that they consider SP to be the only feature they want RPGs to include. Its based on uninformed and unfounded assumptions. Its not worth taking too seriously. 

They do share resources - namely budget and time invested into the game's creation. We moan when a game's released "unfinished"? Well that's because they spent far to much time trying to cram in uneccessary things as opposed to polishing the game off.

It makes far more sense to me to channel those resources into a better game than to waste it on MP.  Doesn't MP rely on other still playing inseveral years too? Which would you rather return to in several years, a bigger/better game or some death match arena with no-one there?

Modifié par SpunkyMonkey, 10 septembre 2012 - 03:04 .

[SpunkyMonkey]

Kroitz wrote...

SpunkyMonkey wrote...

Kroitz wrote...

I can´t understand,

why is everybody here against MP?

For one I have no access to it and so would be required to invest time & money setting it up - something which i don't intend on doing for something I'm not really interested in.

Secondly when I have played MP at friends houses I think it's a far worse experience than an SP one. It's like I'd much sooner read a book by myself than have a group read with friends.

Okay, but games are a medium that is based on interaction and even RPGs have their roots in table-top games, which are the most fun with other people. Or are you feeling this way if the SP and MP are depending on each other and the expiriences are crossing. Example: You HAVE to be part of a group to quest in an MMO-Dungeon?

If they are separated, would it hurt your gaming expirience?

Seperated would be bareable, but it just seems wishy-washy and I'd sooner have a more polished and better SP experience than the company invest resources into the MP aspect of it, which will soon fade away as time passes.

Having a totally seperate MMO game based on the DA world would make sense, but to try and cram it into the DA 3 just seems silly.

Modifié par SpunkyMonkey, 10 septembre 2012 - 03:06 .

[Welsh Inferno]

scyphozoa wrote...

Kroitz wrote...

I can´t understand,

why is everybody here against MP?

They are assuming that separate game modes share resources, and that they consider SP to be the only feature they want RPGs to include. Its based on uninformed and unfounded assumptions. Its not worth taking too seriously. 

Regardless of whether the resources effect it or not, MP just shouldn't be in a game like Dragon Age. It doesn't belong. Now before anyone dismisses me as an rpg purist or some crap, I'v played my fair share of MP. Infact I have been enjoying some Battlefield 3 MP with some friends lately. There are games that it fits and there are games that it doesn't. Developers shouldn't aspire to put all the same things in their games that are succesful elsewhere. What happened to being unique?

Modifié par Welsh Inferno, 10 septembre 2012 - 03:06 .

[Plaintiff]

Welsh Inferno wrote...

scyphozoa wrote...

Kroitz wrote...

I can´t understand,

why is everybody here against MP?

They are assuming that separate game modes share resources, and that they consider SP to be the only feature they want RPGs to include. Its based on uninformed and unfounded assumptions. Its not worth taking too seriously. 

Regardless of whether the resources effect it or not, MP just shouldn't be in a game like Dragon Age. It doesn't belong. Now before anyone dismisses me as a typical rpg fanatic or some crap, I'v played my fair share of MP. Infact I have been enjoying some Battlefield 3 MP with some friends lately. There are games that it fits and there are games that it doesn't. Developers shouldn't aspire to put all the same things in their games that are succesful elsewhere. What happened to being unique?

I must've missed something. When did games start being unique?

[Beerfish]

SpunkyMonkey wrote...

scyphozoa wrote...

Kroitz wrote...

I can´t understand,

why is everybody here against MP?

They are assuming that separate game modes share resources, and that they consider SP to be the only feature they want RPGs to include. Its based on uninformed and unfounded assumptions. Its not worth taking too seriously. 

They do share resources - namely budget and time invested into the game's creation. You moan when a game's released "unfinished"? Well that's because they spent far to much time trying to cram in uneccessary things as opposed to polishing the game off.

It makes far more sense to me to channel those resources into a better game than to waste it on MP.  Doesn't MP rely on other still playing inseveral years too? Which would you rather return to in several years, a bigger/better game or some death match arena with no-one there?

Not necessarily.  You are making some assumptions here so I will.

Single player game - Budget $50 million.

Company decides to add Multuiplay

Single Player game - Budget $50 million
Cost of adding on MP = $10 million
total budget = $60 million.

For some reason people assume that since there is no MP then the total budget will be $60 million.

I am betting that is not how it works, especially in the ME case where a different division of BioWAre worked on MP.

[ianvillan]

Kroitz wrote...

SpunkyMonkey wrote...

Kroitz wrote...

I can´t understand,

why is everybody here against MP?

For one I have no access to it and so would be required to invest time & money setting it up - something which i don't intend on doing for something I'm not really interested in.

Secondly when I have played MP at friends houses I think it's a far worse experience than an SP one. It's like I'd much sooner read a book by myself than have a group read with friends.

Okay, but games are a medium that is based on interaction and even RPGs have their roots in table-top games, which are the most fun with other people. Or are you feeling this way if the SP and MP are depending on each other and the expiriences are crossing each other, like if you have to be part of a group to quest in an MMO-Dungeon?

If they are seperated, would it hurt your gaming expirience?

I know you wasn't quoting me but I would like to reply anyway.

I believe That I am being overly pessamistic about MP and that a properly implemented MP would add a lot to the game, its just that the current Bioware has not given me confidence that they will even be bothered to make sure the MP is done properly.

When Bioware deliberatly sidelines the fans of Origins to pull in a new audience, pushes out a rushed and mediocure singleplayer game that they knew was not to there best effort, what hope is there that they can do a good SP game and MP combined.

Plus the fact that they seem to be making DA2 again and the way ME3 MP was intergrated to the SP game does not give me much confidence.

The reason I am on the forums is to let Bioware know what I dont want and that I will not accept another quick cash grab,
while hopping that they actually care about making a quality game that fans will enjoy.

[Welsh Inferno]

Plaintiff wrote...

I must've missed something. When did games start being unique?

What is ever unique? This leads to a semantic debate which I have no interest in so I'll leave it at that.

[SpunkyMonkey]

Beerfish wrote...

SpunkyMonkey wrote...

scyphozoa wrote...

Kroitz wrote...

I can´t understand,

why is everybody here against MP?

They are assuming that separate game modes share resources, and that they consider SP to be the only feature they want RPGs to include. Its based on uninformed and unfounded assumptions. Its not worth taking too seriously. 

They do share resources - namely budget and time invested into the game's creation. You moan when a game's released "unfinished"? Well that's because they spent far to much time trying to cram in uneccessary things as opposed to polishing the game off.

It makes far more sense to me to channel those resources into a better game than to waste it on MP.  Doesn't MP rely on other still playing inseveral years too? Which would you rather return to in several years, a bigger/better game or some death match arena with no-one there?

Not necessarily.  You are making some assumptions here so I will.

Single player game - Budget $50 million.

Company decides to add Multuiplay

Single Player game - Budget $50 million
Cost of adding on MP = $10 million
total budget = $60 million.

For some reason people assume that since there is no MP then the total budget will be $60 million.

I am betting that is not how it works, especially in the ME case where a different division of BioWAre worked on MP.

But I'd sooner have that extra 10m invested in a bigger/better single player experience - as I've said MP is only around for as long as there's a community to support it, great SP games last forever.

And like I said previously I don't want a rushed project - if there's extra money or studios available use them to polish and refine the game, not add things we don't need. A prime case in point being summed up in 4 simple words where MP came at a great sacrifice - Mass Effect 3 Ending

Given more time and money and ME3 might have been released with a decent ending from the off.

It's this misconception that studios will chuck an extra 10m (or whatever) at games here and there just to make them better that causes the problems - EA are a money making machine and will set X budget for X project - the more taks/remits the projects are set the more drain on those resources.

Modifié par SpunkyMonkey, 10 septembre 2012 - 03:23 .

[ianvillan]

Beerfish wrote...

Not necessarily.  You are making some assumptions here so I will.

Single player game - Budget $50 million.

Company decides to add Multuiplay

Single Player game - Budget $50 million
Cost of adding on MP = $10 million
total budget = $60 million.

For some reason people assume that since there is no MP then the total budget will be $60 million.

I am betting that is not how it works, especially in the ME case where a different division of BioWAre worked on MP.

You too are making assumptions.

It could also be,

Single player game - Budget $50million.
Cost of adding on MP - $10 million.
Total budget = $50 million.

Other people also assume that since there is MP that the total budget will be $60 million.

[hoorayforicecream]

SpunkyMonkey wrote...

Beerfish wrote...

Not necessarily.  You are making some assumptions here so I will.

Single player game - Budget $50 million.

Company decides to add Multuiplay

Single Player game - Budget $50 million
Cost of adding on MP = $10 million
total budget = $60 million.

For some reason people assume that since there is no MP then the total budget will be $60 million.

I am betting that is not how it works, especially in the ME case where a different division of BioWAre worked on MP.

But I'd sooner have that extra 10m invested in a bigger/better single player experience - as I've said MP is only around for as long as there's a community to support it, great SP games last forever.

And like I said previously I don't want a rushed project - if there's extra money or studios available use them to polish and refine the game, not add things we don't need.

Think of it like this. It's the same deal with going cross-platform. Making a game for the 360 costs $40M. You can spend $10M more to do cross-development for the PS3 as well, and another $5M to bring it to the PC too.

You're not going to convince someone to not bring the game to the PC and PS3, and instead channel that money into the Xbox 360 version. The amount of expected gain from bringing the game to a new platform is much higher than you'd get for a slightly better single player game on a single platform.

The same principle applies to adding MP. MP keeps people playing after the game is done. Lots and lots of people finish single player games very quickly, as we've seen. MP keeps them playing for days or weeks after they finish the single player game. This keeps the game installed on their console/PC, which is the single most important factor in the sales of DLC.

[ianvillan]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

SpunkyMonkey wrote...

Beerfish wrote...

Not necessarily.  You are making some assumptions here so I will.

Single player game - Budget $50 million.

Company decides to add Multuiplay

Single Player game - Budget $50 million
Cost of adding on MP = $10 million
total budget = $60 million.

For some reason people assume that since there is no MP then the total budget will be $60 million.

I am betting that is not how it works, especially in the ME case where a different division of BioWAre worked on MP.

But I'd sooner have that extra 10m invested in a bigger/better single player experience - as I've said MP is only around for as long as there's a community to support it, great SP games last forever.

And like I said previously I don't want a rushed project - if there's extra money or studios available use them to polish and refine the game, not add things we don't need.

Think of it like this. It's the same deal with going cross-platform. Making a game for the 360 costs $40M. You can spend $10M more to do cross-development for the PS3 as well, and another $5M to bring it to the PC too.

You're not going to convince someone to not bring the game to the PC and PS3, and instead channel that money into the Xbox 360 version. The amount of expected gain from bringing the game to a new platform is much higher than you'd get for a slightly better single player game on a single platform.

The same principle applies to adding MP. MP keeps people playing after the game is done. Lots and lots of people finish single player games very quickly, as we've seen. MP keeps them playing for days or weeks after they finish the single player game. This keeps the game installed on their console/PC, which is the single most important factor in the sales of DLC.

So does a tool kit, it will keep people playing for just as long as MP, yet Bioware is against including one but are going to add MP. Now you could say they want to add MP to keep people playing but its more likely they want MP because it will provide micro-transactions for them.

[SpunkyMonkey]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

SpunkyMonkey wrote...

Beerfish wrote...

Not necessarily.  You are making some assumptions here so I will.

Single player game - Budget $50 million.

Company decides to add Multuiplay

Single Player game - Budget $50 million
Cost of adding on MP = $10 million
total budget = $60 million.

For some reason people assume that since there is no MP then the total budget will be $60 million.

I am betting that is not how it works, especially in the ME case where a different division of BioWAre worked on MP.

But I'd sooner have that extra 10m invested in a bigger/better single player experience - as I've said MP is only around for as long as there's a community to support it, great SP games last forever.

And like I said previously I don't want a rushed project - if there's extra money or studios available use them to polish and refine the game, not add things we don't need.

Think of it like this. It's the same deal with going cross-platform. Making a game for the 360 costs $40M. You can spend $10M more to do cross-development for the PS3 as well, and another $5M to bring it to the PC too.

You're not going to convince someone to not bring the game to the PC and PS3, and instead channel that money into the Xbox 360 version. The amount of expected gain from bringing the game to a new platform is much higher than you'd get for a slightly better single player game on a single platform.

The same principle applies to adding MP. MP keeps people playing after the game is done. Lots and lots of people finish single player games very quickly, as we've seen. MP keeps them playing for days or weeks after they finish the single player game. This keeps the game installed on their console/PC, which is the single most important factor in the sales of DLC.

So you're saying that without MP people uninstall games and forget about them? Which is why Baldurs Gate hasn't been mentioned anywhere on the net in 10 years?

I'd argue a better SP RPGs have FAR, FAR more replay value and longevity than an SP-MP crossover game.

And you're point is that of a salesman's - surely as a consumer I should be wanting what's best for my product, not EA's pocket? Just because they're may be logic behind their decisions doesn't mean they're right from my POV, and my POV counts most because I'm the one with the cash.

EA are just obsessed with guarenteed yearly income, hence the CODs, FIFAs etc. - MP is a way to milk that and the SP game is becoming an afterthought.

Modifié par SpunkyMonkey, 10 septembre 2012 - 03:39 .