15 réponses à ce sujet

[FaWa]

 Because I KNOW I'm not hearing any rumblings of DA3 having multiplayer. Nope. Its definitely not true. I mean it can't be true...

Right BioWare???

Like seriously, if this is true I've lost all hope.

[David Gaider]

FaWa wrote...

 Because I KNOW I'm not hearing any rumblings of DA3 having multiplayer. Nope. Its definitely not true. I mean it can't be true...

Right BioWare???

Like seriously, if this is true I've lost all hope.

I'd suggest not panicking until the game is at least announced. Until that happens, I'm afraid we're not going to elaborate on or clarify anything.

Unless you'd prefer to assume the worst, and assume the lack of information to the contrary means the worst must be true-- in which case, by all means panic.

[David Gaider]

Knock it off, both of you. You're both sounding like twits.

As for MP, rest assured we'll restrict any such functionality to the crit path Big Head Racing segment that you need to finish the game. Because we're listeners, and hang onto every word you guys say. #Truth

[David Gaider]

FitScotGaymer wrote...

This has come up because a very high up EA exec has very proudly and stupidly declared that under his watch EA has not released a "Singleplayer only" game; and under his continued watch it would NEVER release a single player only game.

Bioware is a division of EA as we keep being told.

Thus the panic about "OMG! Is DA3 going to have a boring shoehorned in Multiplayer like ME3 did?"

Which is interesting primarily due to the fact that this is something EA has said repeatedly and publicly many times to date-- all their games must have a multiplayer or online component (requirements which even DA2 satisfied). And both Mike and Mark have also spoken several times about their intention to have some form of multiplayer in the DA franchise, if not details as to what form it will take.

So, curiosity about that? Sure. Concern? Maybe, if you had anxiety about how that was going to be implented within DA, though that isn't going to be explained anytime soon-- I'm sure opinions on how you'd like to see it done are far more welcome than assumptions, though. Shock and panic? I have no idea why, unless someone wasn't paying attention.

[David Gaider]

Wulfram wrote...
And I think the way a lot of people would like it to be done is "not at all".

Yet Mike and Mark have already said it will happen, in some form. So if what someone wants is "no multiplayer component at all", then they are categorically not getting what they want. Time to move on.

[David Gaider]

Darth Death wrote...
And BioWare going in a complete new direction was a very successful idea. So successful that DA2 & ME3 were considered by many (if not all) to be the best product ever done by BioWare. 

I hear that if you yell loudly enough on the Internet you get something that almost sounds like consensus.

#TrueStory

[David Gaider]

Avejajed wrote...
You guys are really stupid. I don't understand why you would consistently argue with someone who has basically put himself through his creativity into something for people to enjoy and you just tell him it sucks. It's like if I baked you a cake for your birthday and I put a lot of effort into it and you're like "sry bro, the cake u made me 3 yrs ago was better."

Oh, it's fine. No need to defend me. They're free to not like the cake.

If they think that throwing it on the ground, stomping on it and then insulting our mother is a good way to convince us to bake them a new one, however, they've probably spent too much time on the Internet and forgotten how to talk to people who are people and not forum jockeys impressed by their internet tough guy act. But whatever.

Modifié par David Gaider, 06 septembre 2012 - 03:19 .

[David Gaider]

Fisto The Sexbot wrote...
You're still in denial about people hating Dragon Age 2? If you only listen to what the people on your friends list think about your game, you may not be seeing the consensus here.

I'm not in denial about not everyone liking DA2. If you're of the belief that there is consensus on that fact-- even here on the BSN-- then I'm afraid you're suffering from the same selective perception of which you're accusing me.

I certainly do agree that the people who don't like it are the loudest, but that's hardly unexpected given human nature. If one expects that we're going to listen to them and only them moving forward, however, and everyone else must be "people on our friends list LOL" then we've really not much to discuss. We're making a lot of changes and improvements which we'll discuss at length when we're ready. I'm fairly certain, however, that no matter what we do there will be people who'll feel they aren't getting the exact game they wanted. Which of course will mean we never listen to anyone. So be it, you know?

As for multiplayer-- of any kind-- in a future Dragon Age title, I'd simply suggest that those who have an opinion as to its form should feel free to offer it. When Mark and Mike et. al. are ready, they'll no doubt be talking more about that and many other things beside and asking for more specific feedback at the same time.

Until then, take care!

Modifié par David Gaider, 06 septembre 2012 - 08:36 .

[David Gaider]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...
Like I said though, this is based on what I know of the topic. Perhaps Mike Laidlaw, Mark Darrah, and all of you other guys and gals at Bioware talked about more then we the fans have seen.

Mike and Mark will talk about this-- and everything else-- when they've something to show. So while I know you'd like clarification, none is going to come at present. That shouldn't stop you from expressing an opinion, but I wouldn't jump to conclusions about it is all.

And I think I've contributed about all I can to the topic without just prompting people to ask more questions I can't answer. So I'll withdraw. Like I said previously, feedback (keeping in mind that it's based on very little at present) is always welcome.

Modifié par David Gaider, 06 septembre 2012 - 09:55 .

[Allan Schumacher]

They didn't make the game they wanted.

This statement is ambiguous. Though the way I read it I don't know if I like where it was going....

[Allan Schumacher]

BrotherWarth wrote...

There's also the matter of resources being taken away from the SP campaign and diverted to MP. The more time spent on MP is less time spent on SP.

There's also the idea of diminishing returns.

There's probably about 400 people split between the Mass Effect and Dragon Age teams at BioWare.  If we were to take all 400 of those people and have them all focus all of their work on tightening up the graphics on level three, you're not going to have effective use of time.  Even if all 400 of us were experts at tightening up graphics.

There's sort of an ambiguous, poorly defined Laffer curve for the optimal amount of people working on a particular team.  But like, 20 people working on something for 2 years could very well get you better results than 40 people working on something for 1 year.  I guess an analogy would be like cooking.  You can't cook something at 500 degrees for 10 minutes and hope to get the same result if you were to cook something at 1000 degrees for 5 minutes.


So while yes, if we were to remove a feature (any feature), it does allow for some of those people to start working on other things, but it'll also just mean that some of the people that are working on that feature probably just don't have anything to do anymore.

[Allan Schumacher]

BrotherWarth wrote...

How many AAA titles have experienced the burden of too many people working on them? That seems a ridiculous assertion. And it ignores the factor of money. Adding MP takes time and money from the SP campaign.

Because you didn't understand what I was asserting.

I wasn't talking the entire game, but specific features.  Drilled down to smaller levels.  Adding MP can only take time and money away from the SP campaign if that time and money was already allocated to the project without MP.


To hopefully better illustrate: you can have a full kitchen that has 20+ people in it, but if you have 1 person on each of the 10 stations, with 10 additional people all working the salad bar, it doesn't make the salad bar 10x more efficient of a line.

[Allan Schumacher]

I realise this, but what I mean is, why would BioWare get extra funding specifically for adding an MP component that would use X amount of resources and Y amount of people, but if they were to try and put the same resources and people towards a team dedicated to sidequest content or some other aspect of SP, then that extra funding would be denied?

Because it's a new feature with it's own contribution to the product? Especially if it's believed to have some sort of monetization, whether it be through additional sales, continued use, MTX, or what have you?

The question you pose IS the scarcity issue. You can always through more resources at a particular feature (i.e. single player). The line has to be drawn somewhere. The assumption is already going to be that "we'll pay you for as good of a single player that you can produce within the allotted time."

Could a publisher allocate more money? Sure. They always could. Where does the line get drawn though?

[Allan Schumacher]

Budgeting should be done appropriately of course, and by that I mean not just by evaluating what the scope of the project is and the appoximate time allocated to make it, but by what is appropriate for the game. Which is to say, an MP component shouldn't just be added "just 'cause" for example

That's just it though. MP wasn't added "just cause." It's directly influenced by the story of the game, as the MP missions are effectively the N7 teams going around fighting the reapers. Contextually it makes very good sense. It's not something random or arbitrary, even if it's not something that you like. To the people that like it, it adds value to their purchase. They're getting more for their dollar and I think it's pretentious to casually dismiss that group.

What you may not realize you're doing, is the exact same thing that you hate being done to you. How many people got upset about the "passionate fan" remark? There were throngs of pages of people that felt it was BioWare dismissing them as being just some small faction. All the while not acknowledging that they were, in fact, passionate fans. The non-passionate ones don't care enough to carry on and post on message boards of companies they no longer want to support. They don't have the passion to do so. So it's clear you don't like being dismissed as a vocal minority. Yet you put multiplayer haters into the majority. You've undermined those that do find value in the multiplayer in the same way that you hate to be undermined.

"what the best, natural evolution of this game series?"

I'll just say that multiplayer is far more popular than we expected it to be. IMO there's a good chance that many of the people taht enjoy it were also fans of the previous Mass Effect games.

[Allan Schumacher]

Shame the same can't be said for the Single Player part of Mass Effect 3. The part that should have mattered. The fact that MP is so popular and is largely the only part of the game most people play any more isn't so much a testament to the quality of the MP as it is a testament to how bad the main single-player campaign was.

Just to make sure we're clear here. You feel that people play the MP more because the SP is subpar, rather than because they think the MP is fun?

[Allan Schumacher]

It's disingenuous for BioWare to give fans the type of game their after one moment, then take it away the next with the supposed sequel for the sake of appealing to an audience that already has plenty on their plates as it is.

For the last time, the audiences overlap. Mass Effect fans are the ones enjoying the Mass Effect multiplayer.