280 réponses à ce sujet

[Ciryx]

I dont want it, but I like the mechanics that got intruduced in the ME3 MP to see in the Solo-campaign.

[Beerfish]

ianvillan 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.

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.

Yes you will see that in the post you quoted I said I was making an assumption.  the fact is we don't know which model is used and yet it is not assumed but thought to be fact that things are as you have assumed and not as I have assumed.

[Beerfish]

ianvillan wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

ianvillan wrote...

If Bioware wants to make a great co-op MP that isn't about how to get as much money from players as they can get, but is in the game to complement the game then they should add a tool kit.

Wouldn't that take resources away from the single player game?

No because the tool kit they can give us is the one they used to make the game, It doesn't need extra assests or gameplay systems like MP and it certainly wouldn't need a whole other studio to develop.

Wanna bet?  It takes a LOT of polishing to make a toolkit in the forum that is usuable by the public as opposed to the staff of the company.  They use most of the same 'tools' as the developers would use but they have to elminiate shortcuts.

A game like NWN was very much based on a toolkit from day one and was desinged as such.  Dragon Age, less os and the NWN one was much more functional overall for he common user.  It takes a significant amount of will and investment in time and money to get a toolkit out to the public in a form they can use.

[upsettingshorts]

ITT: People fret over their perceived deployment of zots despite lacking any information on how many there are or how they're distributed.

[Jerrybnsn]

Are zots the new widgets?

[EpicBoot2daFace]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

The question is that proper MP requires a lot of resources, which will take away from the SP, which is soemthing I DON'T want.

I see this perspective get mentioned a lot. Why do you think that?

Is it true? I always thought they had seperate teams for MP and SP.

[Dessalines]

I don't know the maps used in the mp were some of the missions in the sp. Those "map" missions did not really add to the character development,or advance the storyline.
Either way, is only not releasing only single player games anyone. They have some sort of online application.

[Maria Caliban]

Jerrybnsn wrote...

Are zots the new widgets?

Zots are from the old BioWare forums. I'm not sure where the BioPeeps picked up the term originally.

[Kileyan]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

The question is that proper MP requires a lot of resources, which will take away from the SP, which is soemthing I DON'T want.

I see this perspective get mentioned a lot. Why do you think that?

This perspective exists because a common post by Bioware devs when people lament why this or that favorite feature was cut, is a post about dollars and time being finite. We are told there is only so much time and money to go around, time and money being essentially the same thing.

Just because a different dev team is doing the mplay portion, the day 1 dlc, or whatever, doesn't mean it doesnt affect the core game. There is still only so much time and money.....as we are told repeatedly on any other subject.

Why is it, only multiplayer gets the defense of that money and time being TOTALLY seperate, in magical pocket dimension where that money could never have made a better single player game.

BTW I'm not against a good mplay portion to any game, but I do think it will affect single player, not just in time spent on the single player game, but changes shoe horned in to make mplay work.

[Allan Schumacher]

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.

Baldur's Gate is a SP-MP crossover game.

Either way, it seems that whatever was spent on MP could have been spent on SP. It's not so much a direct subtraction SP, as much as it is subtraction by addition. A lot of people would rather see MP never happen so the resources get folded into the SP budget.

This basically just boils down to "Fans want to see more resources invested into what they want." Which is a reasonable thing for any consumer to want. Everyone always wants the most superior product they can get for as low of a price as they can get.

Which actually disassociates the issue from whether or not multiplayer exists. You can literally state that you'd rather resources go into SP instead of X where X is pretty much anything.  Multiplayer is just an easier target than some other things because:

1) It's something tangible (I suspect many of the opportunity costs are less obvious)
2) It's easier to state "I will not benefit from this feature"

ianvillain wrote...

It keeps being said that extra money is given to add multiplayer but until I see proof that there is extra money what you say is just wishful thinking.

Isn't your perspective just as much speculation as everyone else's on this matter? Seems unfair to dismiss one person's perspective on the basis of speculation simply because you don't agree with it. In the end we all have to decide what we want to believe if there's nothing that contradicts our opinion, but perspective on the situation is still important.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 11 septembre 2012 - 01:29 .

[Maria Caliban]

Kileyan wrote...


Why is it, only multiplayer gets the defense of that money and time being TOTALLY seperate, in magical pocket dimension where that money could never have made a better single player game.

They talk about separate budgets for Day 1 DLC as well.

They've always maintained there were different teams for things like writing, cinematics, VA, combat encounters, maps, etc. Yelling at John Epler because you don't like how the ending plays out is rather silly as John didn't write the ending.

When they do talk about restrictions, they tend to be specific. Why didn't Fenris or Isabela appear without clothing after their respective sex scenes? According to David, the writers did ask about this and they were told that if they wanted to add unique, post-coitus character model to the game, they needed to decide what other unique character model wouldn't make it into the game.

I'm sure this type of inter-departmental negotiation happens quite often, but that doesn't mean that there's a giant heap of money and manpower that everyone gets to draw from as desired.

[KiwiQuiche]

I don't want MP for the simple fact I have to PAY to play with other people on line. BULLSH!T

Oh and give those resources to SP.

[Fast Jimmy]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Isn't your perspective just as much speculation as everyone else's on this matter? Seems unfair to dismiss one person's perspective on the basis of speculation simply because you don't agree with it. In the end we all have to decide what we want to believe if there's nothing that contradicts our opinion, but perspective on the situation is still important.

A very interesting comment, Allen. It is DOUBLY so because you may be the one person involved in this thread who could give feedback on if the multiplayer being discussed would be a deathmatch/horde mode like in ME3, a co-op mode like in BG, a Dungeon Master mode a la NWN, a PvP arena mode as suggested by Kotaku, hybrid of the aboveor something else completely?

I understand if you can't say one way or another. Just blink once for BG, twice for NWN, and do a silly elephant face if it's Kotaku!

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 11 septembre 2012 - 01:37 .

[Allan Schumacher]

My innate reaction is to make some joke suggestions, but fear of them being taken literally and me somehow being deemed responsible prevents me from doing so

[K_Tabris]

If the protagonist is appropriate, co-op in the campaign could be fun.

I really think Mass Effect 3 suffered for many reason, MP taking away from the Campaign is one of them. If they could avoid that abysmal error, I don't see why co-op couldn't be fun, and really add to the story. It shouldn't be mandatory, however. Which is what the EA CEO seems to be going for >_>

[Asch Lavigne]

With DA3 being about the war, MP better not be a ripoff of ME3's and be about collecting war assets so I can get the ending to the war I want. (Not that I went anywhere near ME3's MP mode. I'm a SP guy. I dont play MP type games. I like my offline SP RPGs.)

Either way, no multiplayer please. Leave the SP games as SP games. I really hate all this "every game needs an online/MP mode" stuff that's been going on. As I said above: I'm a SP guy. I dont play MP type games. I like my offline SP RPGs. I put up the inclusion of it for ME3 because I had to play the ending, and they messed it up by making MP matter to get the best ending (before the EC changed that). I'm not as attatched to DA, especially since I hated DA2, so MP will probably make me not play this game.

Modifié par Asch Lavigne, 11 septembre 2012 - 02:44 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

As someone who has some experience with the industry and someone who has talked (a a lot) with a lot of developers (project leads even), I cna tell you one thing for certain:

THERE IS NEVER NEOUHG MONEY. NEVER. EVER.

There is always more features you want. Things that end up costing more than you initally thought. Things that need changing.
But the budget is fixed.
And the project lead decides what to prioritize and how to spend the funds.

Publishers won't give you 10 million and say "Spend this on multiplayer and ONLY on multiplayer". No, they will give you a checklist of things that have to be in and a deadline.

[SpunkyMonkey]

Master Shiori wrote...

SpunkyMonkey wrote...



So you put more staff hours into meeting that deadline - staff hours which were taken up elsewhere developing MP.

That's the whole point - EA/Bioware focused their resources on trying to develop an additional part of the game instead of finishing off the main core of it properly.

Proof please?

Unless you can link me a post by the devs where they openly admit that the endings suffered due to the developement of MP, I'd say this is nothing more than wishful thinking on your part.

We have no idea what the ME3 development looked like or what effect, if any, creating MP had on it. There could be any number of reasons as to why the dev team was in a hurry to meet the deadline, provided that they actually were having trouble meeting the deadline to begin with.

But whatever the reasons "the dev team were in a hurry to meet the deadline" more staff hours focused on the ending instead of MP would have sorted that - it's just common sense.

E.g.................

I've a project called ME4 which will take 80 hours to complete and 1 working week to complete it in (40 hours)

I've 2 members of staff working 40/wk so that's 80 hours available I have - bang on what I need to complete the project in my week's deadline.

Suddenly the boss decides he wants to include MP, which will take an extra 20 hours to complete - so we have to take those hours from the two staff availble - what do I decide to leave out? Well who cares about the ending right?

The company has several choices - extend the deadline, forget about MP, forget about SP content (in this case the ending) - which matters least when it comes to making money? The ending/SP content.

If you want proof that MP affected the SP experience just look at Mass Effect 1 and that ending compared to ME3 -

ME1 - great game, great ending - no MP

ME3 - good game, pap ending - includes MP

The evidence is right before your eyes, but if you need some kind of signed document to prove it you really ought to start developing a little more faith in your ability to work things out.

Also bare in mind that the game was sold on the basis that it hadn't the restrictions with choic arcs ME2 had - we were told ME2 couldn't have loads of different endings because ME3 had to have a starting point, where as with ME3 being the final game in the trilogy they could let it branch off in all directions. End branch? 3 different coloured explosions.

Just because it can't be "proved" doesn't mean that it's not obvious. Although I'm sure OJ Simposon's a lovely dinner guest and Micheal Jackson's a great babysitter.

Modifié par SpunkyMonkey, 11 septembre 2012 - 07:22 .

[Morty Smith]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

As someone who has some experience with the industry and someone who has talked (a a lot) with a lot of developers (project leads even), I cna tell you one thing for certain:

Hello "Someone",

my real name is Baron Pazzipuddle Poopitoo and I would like to send you my distaste for your dishonesty from my castle in the Bronx, the Bronx in the sky that is.

[ianvillan]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

ianvillain wrote...

It keeps being said that extra money is given to add multiplayer but until I see proof that there is extra money what you say is just wishful thinking.

Isn't your perspective just as much speculation as everyone else's on this matter? Seems unfair to dismiss one person's perspective on the basis of speculation simply because you don't agree with it. In the end we all have to decide what we want to believe if there's nothing that contradicts our opinion, but perspective on the situation is still important.

This is true that I am projecting my fears about past single player games on to the next thing, its just that when I or other people state our fears that MP will affect the SP game, other people jump in and state that there is a seperate budget and seperate studio developing the MP portion as a fact.

Even with an extra budget, extra studio and all those all things MP still affects the single player game. One of the main reasons is that companies put MP on the same disk as the SP game which could of been used for making a better game. Also the two studios don't work 100% on there own, the single player game has to be made with MP in mind so that both game work together, and this makes me think about ideas or designs that were not implemented or cut from the SP game because they wont work with MP.

 I have stated that I really liked BG2 co-op and would be happy with the same for DA3, but I believe that the BG MP is not social or profitable for Bioware so it will be something different.

[Allan Schumacher]

If you want proof that MP affected the SP experience just look at Mass Effect 1 and that ending compared to ME3 -

ME1 - great game, great ending - no MP

ME3 - good game, pap ending - includes MP

That's not proof.

Counterpoint would be a game like Baldur's Gate 2, which many consider BioWare's best game, which does have Multiplayer.

To conclude that the difference in the perceived quality of ME1 to ME3 is based solely on the multiplayer is a rather myopic perspective on the situation. If we're just making hypotheses, there could be any number of reasons that affected the development of both games.

[Allan Schumacher]

This is true that I am projecting my fears about past single player games on to the next thing, its just that when I or other people state our fears that MP will affect the SP game, other people jump in and state that there is a seperate budget and seperate studio developing the MP portion as a fact.

I think more they are providing a counterpoint since many people (in this very thread) seem utterly convinced that the inclusion of multiplayer can only exist at the expense of single player.

The difference is that they all see you as being "Whoa you can't proclaim this as fact" because they disagree with your perspective, while you and posters similar to you are doing the same.

It's gone on ad nauseum that the thread is painfully close to simply running its course.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

If Dragon Age 3 is an MMO, I will be very happy.

A very omnipresent social element to the game would also be appreciated if an MMO is not possible.

As for the "extra budget" or "resources" that's being drained from SP to make MP, worry not. It's possible that the extra budget would've been spent on more of the brilliant AAA marketing we saw in Dragon Age 2 instead of actual development.

[SpunkyMonkey]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

If you want proof that MP affected the SP experience just look at Mass Effect 1 and that ending compared to ME3 -

ME1 - great game, great ending - no MP

ME3 - good game, pap ending - includes MP

That's not proof.

Counterpoint would be a game like Baldur's Gate 2, which many consider BioWare's best game, which does have Multiplayer.

To conclude that the difference in the perceived quality of ME1 to ME3 is based solely on the multiplayer is a rather myopic perspective on the situation. If we're just making hypotheses, there could be any number of reasons that affected the development of both games.

I'm really banging my head against a brick wall here aren't I? If you can't see the obvious then no matter how I point it out you'll never see it.

Why are you using BG2 as a comparison when there was no backlash about the ending on it? Bioware obviously had the resources to fully flesh out a game and include MP. I've nothing against MP if it's secondary to SP, which it obviously wasn't in ME3.

I really don't know how else I can explain it - maybe ask yourself this -

"Which would have been percieved to be the better product and done more favours for Bioware/EA?" -

1) ME3 with a full variety of choice laden endings to draw a satisfying conclusion to the series, but no MP.

or

2) ME3 with MP, but with the original ending - essentially what was released.

?

Modifié par SpunkyMonkey, 11 septembre 2012 - 08:42 .

[Direwolf0294]

Depending how they do it, I'd be happy for DA3 to have multiplayer. Running a dungeon with a couple friends MMO style could be really cool, specially if it's story driven and uses TOR style group dialogue.

I understand why people might not like MP because they think it'll take resources away from single player, but I don't really think that's a concern with a company like BioWare that has massive backing from EA. I also get that some games don't really need MP, but I think you should at least give the devs a chance. ME3 MP was decent enough. It could have been a lot better, it could have been a lot worse. Yes, maybe the MP will be horrible, but unless they make it a requirement to complete single player there's no one forcing you to play it. BioShock 2's MP was horrible, but that didn't stop me playing through and enjoying the campaign. I also played through Dead Space 2 without touching MP. Both of those games were games many wouldn't consider needing MP, but they both included it and the single player never suffered for it.