25 réponses à ce sujet

[phimseto]

http://www.destructo...es-234402.phtml 

which leads to

http://www.cgconfusa...ectsfor2012.pdf 

Just out of curiosity, when BW solicited the forums a few months back for ideas/feedback for DA3, where did multiplayer rank?  I can't imagine it was a very popular idea.  ME3 MP was proficient, but I would have happily tossed it out in favor of more SP content.  Despite what BW said, there were many times in ME3 where you could feel the SP game hemmed in by the space taken up by the MP material.  I can only imagine the effect on DA3 would be even more catastrophic.  
 
What happened to BW's awesome massively multiple single player idea?  Hell, that was the foundational idea that launched this very site!  It worked nicely for DA:O and I've been looking forward to seeing them expand on that kind of connectivity between DA players.  Yet it looks like we're going to get a watered down SP experience simply to accommodate a mode that I can't imagine most DA fans wanting.  Does anyone really want a MP mode (even if done well) if it means less SP content?  Because that's what it's going to mean, particularly at launch.  

[jackofalltrades456]

DLCs and multiplayer are extremely easy to milk money out of....

A co-op style multiplayer would be perfectly fine. I'm just afraid that they're going to make a mindless pvp style multiplayer that takes resourses out of the singleplayer game..

Modifié par jackofalltrades456, 05 septembre 2012 - 03:43 .

[Eternal Phoenix]

"I have not green lit one game to be developed as a singleplayer experience. Today, all of our games include online applications and digital services that make them live 24/7/365."

Both Dragon Age games had online applications. The EA geezer's statement doesn't mean DA3 will have multiplayer but considering Mass Effect 3 and the rumors of DA3 getting multiplayer, it seems possible now.

I really hope they don't add some stupid multiplayer component. Make it like Neverwinter Night's multiplayer where you can build up a party of friends (or enemies) to go explore a world or battle it out and it could do well.

[Kidd]

I hear Baldur's Gate didn't have multiplayer, DA3 sure is venturing far from the promise of being a spiritual successor to BG by including it.

Or wait, what?

[BatmanPWNS]

Will we have more sh*t where we're forced to play MP to get the best ending? Oh well, EA's going to shutdown Bioware eventually.

Modifié par BatmanPWNS, 05 septembre 2012 - 04:57 .

[Sparse]

He said that a while back I think. I personally have no objection to multiplayer featuring in games, I just have no desire to play multiplayer so when I buy a single player game I don't think I am being unreasonable in expecting the multiplayer not to interfere with single player (as it did in ME3).

"One of our biggest growth opportunities is Play4Free titles that allow customers to play at no cost and make purchases via microtransactions. We see this as a huge opportunity, and one that’s powered by our hybrid cloud model."

More importantly free to play totally destroys the second-hand market which developers say now costs them more revenue than piracy.

[BubbleDncr]

It's also up on the escapist now:
http://www.escapistm...le-Player-Games

The only way multiplayer in DA3 will not make me sad, is if it has no effect on my single player game, at all. Which is what they said about ME3, which turned out to be a lie.

[Das Tentakel]

If you read his (Frank Gibeau's) resume on the EA company site, the man is a veritable Giant Among Men.

www.ea.com/executives#gibeau-frank

I especially liked this sentence:

Mr. Gibeau comes to this role after a four-year tenure as President of
the EA Games Label. During that period, Mr. Gibeau led a turn-around
that greatly increased product quality and on time delivery while
dramatically driving down costs.

And yep, Dragon Age is among '...the intellectual properties under Mr. Gibeau's auspices...'. SWTOR and Dead Space too, by the way.

I think the quote is pretty clear by the way: DA3 will have some form of multiplayer (unless BioWare steps in and says nay, I am taking Gibeau's word for it). Which is not a bad thing in principle, as in a co-op mode, but unless the game is designed from the ground up to be played that way, it will probably mean that resources that normally would be used for singleplayer will be diverted to multiplayer.

Yippee-ka-yay's all around, I suppose

Modifié par Das Tentakel, 05 septembre 2012 - 04:24 .

[jds1bio]

Multiplayer by itself I have no problem with. Single-player games with additional multiplayer arenas, I have no problem with either. But games whose multi-player connections to single-player make the single-player experience decidedly less enjoyable and meaningful (i.e. ME3 scanning/fetching for war asset "points" vs. multiplayer) I have an issue with.

We are currently in a cultural phase where creative quality is not synonymous with product quality, and "consumption" rules the day. TV, books, and sadly, games - it's all geared towards sustained and continuous consumption right now. Occasionally some gems make it through, but that is currently not media's primary focus.

As for Dragon Age, I think the RPG story and scenarios would have to be accommodating to multi-player arenas to be effective. Oddly enough, DA2's 1st and 2nd chapters would have accommodated this. The first chapter involving raising enough money to go on the deep roads expedition - this might as well translate to having enough XP, and this could easily be accomplished by either sidequests or multiplayer experience. And the second chapter involved raising enough of a profile (easily accommodated by accumulating multiplayer XP) to face off against the Arishok. And, the sidequests for single-player COULD be meaningful, even though we saw too many fetch/help quests in DA2 anyways.

As for a game being "always on 24/7/365", the game is always on, unless of course they decide to turn it off.

[carine]

I think multiplayer in DA3 has the potential to be really fun. I enjoy ME3 MP a lot (I actually don't play it as much as I want to, but it's enjoyable even with a pick up group). I bet BioWare would do something similar to Mass Effect, where a separate team works on the MP portion. And after the EC, the multiplayer wasn't necessary to get the best ending anymore. If they do something along those lines, I'm fine with it.

And playing a co-op Dragon Age with friends? I like that idea.

[thats1evildude]

I can neatly summarize half of the (impending) posts on this topic:

DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM

Modifié par thats1evildude, 05 septembre 2012 - 06:26 .

[RinpocheSchnozberry]

I was MEH on MP in ME3, but I have to admit it's actually pretty fun. I wish it had a little less impact on ME3 SP, but it's certainly not bad.

DA3... if it has multiplayer I'll certainly give it a spin.

[Arius23]

Why do people think multiplayer = crappier quality single-player? If anything, the implementation of MP may grant Bioware more time to develop the game, which should only improve quality all around.

[RinpocheSchnozberry]

Arius23 wrote...

Why do people think multiplayer = crappier quality single-player? If anything, the implementation of MP may grant Bioware more time to develop the game, which should only improve quality all around.

If EA gives BioWare $10 to buy time and resources to make a game, some of that time and resources will be dedicated to MP.  Say it's $9 for SP and $1 for MP.  For a lot of people...  They want that $1 spent on SP.  Honestly, I'm one of those people.  I don't care that the $1 goes to another BioWare or EA studio.  That time and resources could have translated into ten or twenty more models or characters of quests for SP.  Still, I know that the $1 is going to spent on MP one way or the other.  As long as that buck makes something nice, I'm ok with that.

[EricHVela]

Co-op campaign mode is okay with me.

Microtransaction multiplayer battlefields seem very out-of-style for Dragon Age in my opinion.

Yet, that style fits with the idea behind a Mage-Templar battlefield.

I just got a sinking feeling that they created the Mage-Templar War with the sole intent to promote multiplayer battlefields.

The multiplayer battlefield interface and gameplay does not flow well with Dragon Age as we've known it. If they have them, they will likely create one UI and gameplay to share between multiplayer and single player and focus on the multiplayer battlefields interface and style which brings the fairly-chronic microtransactions over the single-player which brings an occasional inflow for the occasional DLC.

[EricHVela]

Arius23 wrote...

Why do people think multiplayer = crappier quality single-player? If anything, the implementation of MP may grant Bioware more time to develop the game, which should only improve quality all around.

They share the UI, AI and mechanics between both the SP and MP. They do not develop two games. The multiplayer battlefield versions of those does not mesh with the single-player Dragon Age RPG as we've known it and the SP will end up being an extension of a Multiplayer Battlefield game instead of a SP game.

Stop ignoring that two studios having one on SP and the other on MP are still sharing game resources even if they are not sharing $$$.

[coles4971]

Just imagine it, you and three other inquisitors. The early waves are mostly shades supported by a few rage demons. On the later waves you get sloth demon, abominations, desire demons and finally pride demons. That not fun enough for you? You can fight the Tevinter Imperium too, starting off with waves of generic slavers and eventually reaching the highest archons or whatever.

Oh joy. Oh joy.

...

Please don't do it Bioware

[carine]

Eh.

I really, really doubt that the Mage-Templar war was ONLY to promote multiplayer. That issue has been in Dragon Age since the very beginning. It's not like they would think, "Oh, we should start a mage/templar conflict so in the third installment of the game it becomes an all-out war that we can easily implement multiplayer into!"

Not saying that they couldn't do that, but I also have a feeling DA3 is going to be about more than just a mage/templar war. Hopefully, anyway.

[Atakuma]

ReggarBlane wrote...

Arius23 wrote...

Why do people think multiplayer = crappier quality single-player? If anything, the implementation of MP may grant Bioware more time to develop the game, which should only improve quality all around.

They share the UI, AI and mechanics between both the SP and MP. They do not develop two games. The multiplayer battlefield versions of those does not mesh with the single-player Dragon Age RPG as we've known it and the SP will end up being an extension of a Multiplayer Battlefield game instead of a SP game.

Stop ignoring that two studios having one on SP and the other on MP are still sharing game resources even if they are not sharing $$$.

It's being ignored because it's not relevant. Sharing recources with the multiplayer team doesn't cost them anything and the multiplayer team can create their own recources when neccessary.

Modifié par Atakuma, 05 septembre 2012 - 07:31 .

[CELL55]

 
http://www.dreamwidt...ic/474448/38955
EA, Y U NO HAVE DECENT PR TEAM?! 

https://encrypted-tb...RHlaGlp6Y0IzLn 

[EricHVela]

Atakuma wrote...

ReggarBlane wrote...

Arius23 wrote...

Why do people think multiplayer = crappier quality single-player? If anything, the implementation of MP may grant Bioware more time to develop the game, which should only improve quality all around.

They share the UI, AI and mechanics between both the SP and MP. They do not develop two games. The multiplayer battlefield versions of those does not mesh with the single-player Dragon Age RPG as we've known it and the SP will end up being an extension of a Multiplayer Battlefield game instead of a SP game.

Stop ignoring that two studios having one on SP and the other on MP are still sharing game resources even if they are not sharing $$$.

It's being ignored because it's not relevant. Sharing recources with the multiplayer team doesn't cost them anything and the multiplayer team can create their own recources when neccessary.

Then it's ignoring that they do not develop separate resources. They share them because they make one game and not two.

Feel free to ignore what's right in front of everyone, but there's a word for ignoring such things.

[Fisto The Sexbot]

ReggarBlane wrote...

Atakuma wrote...

ReggarBlane wrote...

Arius23 wrote...

Why do people think multiplayer = crappier quality single-player? If anything, the implementation of MP may grant Bioware more time to develop the game, which should only improve quality all around.

They share the UI, AI and mechanics between both the SP and MP. They do not develop two games. The multiplayer battlefield versions of those does not mesh with the single-player Dragon Age RPG as we've known it and the SP will end up being an extension of a Multiplayer Battlefield game instead of a SP game.

Stop ignoring that two studios having one on SP and the other on MP are still sharing game resources even if they are not sharing $$$.

It's being ignored because it's not relevant. Sharing recources with the multiplayer team doesn't cost them anything and the multiplayer team can create their own recources when neccessary.

Then it's ignoring that they do not develop separate resources. They share them because they make one game and not two.

Feel free to ignore what's right in front of everyone, but there's a word for ignoring such things.

It's pretty obvious if you don't insist on getting hung up on technicalities. Funds getting split up between teams before development begins doesn't change the fact that they're working with a finite amount of moolah.

[nightscrawl]

When I read this I was so angry I could barely speak. Happily, that monent has passed, since my first reaction was to post a string of swear words cursing EA and the horse they rode in on, likely getting me banned from the BSN.

phimseto wrote...

Does anyone really want a MP mode (even if done well) if it means less SP content?  Because that's what it's going to mean, particularly at launch.

I can only speak for myself of course, but my answer is a huge, resounding, NO.

Co-op in the style of NWN or BG is totally fine to me. I won't use it, but other people may and have a fun time. That type of MP has no effect whatsoever on my SP experience, and that's all I care about. There are tons of MMOs out there, one of which I subscribe to, I don't want something where I am forced to deal with other people, especially in a franchise where that was never a component in the past. I don't want to have to gather points or whatever crap that influences my SP game, like was needed for ME3. That is total garbage.

That rant aside, I will point to a couple of couple of conflicting points in the article. To me, not having a game "developed as a singleplayer experience" is not the same thing as games including "online applications and digital services that make them live 24/7/365." The two don't have to be mutually exclusive. You can certainly have a robust SP campaign, while still maintaining an always-online component, having micro transactions, and still have co-op play while not forcing people to do MP. Diablo does this successfully.

It is times like this where I would really like to know exactly how much control Bioware has over its own properties, and whether they can tell EA to go pound sand concerning a feature like MP.

[Sparse]

I don't know why but I'm looking at Fable 3 and imagining it with Dragons and Templars...........

[Frenetic Pony]

Definitely depends on how its done. Some BS arena competitive thing separate from the actual game? BOOOOO! But something like Fable's crazy nigh MMO co-op thing, or even better (for a DA style game) just go back to things like Neverwinter Nights and Baldur's Gate. Just straight up co-op with someone replacing a party member. I'm not sure I'd play it, but it wouldn't be BAD.