149 réponses à ce sujet

[Zevais]

I dislike MMO style RPG's, and I want supporting characters as companions.

Yet, it frustrates my fiance that she cannot play alongside me while we sit on the couch together; she enjoys the story, but she doesn't want to experience it second-hand. There are other games that allow you to create another NPC to sidekick the the primary NPC. Why can't this NPC be controlled by someone sitting on the couch next to me or a good friend out of state?

We can limit the multiplayer to one additional NPC. I do not think anymore than that is necessary.

You could even choose a relationship for the sidekick NPC: wife, husband, friend, brother, sister, cousin, rival, etc. The game could even tie into that. I liked the sibling dynamic in Dragon Age II. In Dragon Age: Origins, I even liked the dynamic of fighting alongside a mother or brother in some origins; I wished they could have been more permanent if played as different roles.

I see so much hate for multiplayer on these forums. I really hope the developers have heard creative ideas like this for multiplayer and do not dismiss them because of the hate.

I think it helps a gamer bridge the game with someone they have a close relationship with.

[Emzamination]

Zevais wrote...

I dislike MMO style RPG's, and I want supporting characters as companions.

Yet, it frustrates my fiance that she cannot play alongside me while we sit on the couch together; she enjoys the story, but she doesn't want to experience it second-hand. There are other games that allow you to create another NPC to sidekick the the primary NPC. Why can't this NPC be controlled by someone sitting on the couch next to me or a good friend out of state?

We can limit the multiplayer to one additional NPC. I do not think anymore than that is necessary.

You could even choose a relationship for the sidekick NPC: wife, husband, friend, brother, sister, cousin, rival, etc. The game could even tie into that. I liked the sibling dynamic in Dragon Age II. In Dragon Age: Origins, I even liked the dynamic of fighting alongside a mother or brother in some origins; I wished they could have been more permanent if played as different roles.

I see so much hate for multiplayer on these forums. I really hope the developers have heard creative ideas like this for multiplayer and do not dismiss them because of the hate.

I think it helps a gamer bridge the game with someone they have a close relationship with.

you just threw yourself to the sharks

[cJohnOne]

I think people don't like that they are not catering to their needs. I don't like mutiplayer and probably wouldn't use it at all.

It's sort of scary that the developers don't understand that. Other than that it doesn't bother me as long as it doesn't effect the single player game.

[MichaelStuart]

I'm all for cooperative multiplayer, more people to enjoy the story with.

It's competitive multiplayer I don't want.
Combat is the most boring part of both Dragon Age games, and mode that's nothing but combat is something I don't want.
But if that is what people want, so be it. Just don't force me to play it.

[bEVEsthda]

I think it has something to do with that not many seem to have considered that it could be something like old NWN's dungeon master server, and party sessions. Or BG's which allowed you to exploit it to create multiple custom characters.
When they say MP, most think of ME3, CoD. While realistically, such pointless sh*t may be heading in our way, to me it seems like Mark and Mike always are pondering the possibilities to do something more creative and worthwile, when MP comes up.

[Renmiri1]

My kids and I love going adventuring on Hyrule. I let them "drive" on the easy fights and I get the controller on the boss fights or the mini games. Wish Zelda had a multiplayer option.

DA is another game I'd love to play with my kids, if I could somehow block the non PG parts while playing with them

[Cultist]

Fear and experience.
Fear that multiplayer may draw resources from SP developement.
Experience.
After Mass Effect 3 with War Assets being directly linked to Multiplayer, people are worried that BioWare will do something similar in DA3.

[Maria Caliban]

Zevais wrote...
Why is there hate for Multiplayer.

People enjoy playing with themselves and no one else.

[Kidd]

If there is a way I can take control of another player's NPCs, I'll be a happy ducky. Not sure about having the secondary character(s) use custom characters since that means less written content in those games. I'd hate to limit my friend's party interaction and banter by using up a party slot with a random custom character.

[Fallstar]

Co-op, and multiplayer, is rarely done well in rpgs. Bioware have a decent track record in that regard, but since the games nowadays are so different in style, I'm not sure if that really counts for anything anymore.

[Boss Fog]

People don't want resources to be pulled away from the single player aspect. However, if BW does something similar to BG and NWN then that really isn't an issue at all. I highly doubt they'll pull inspiration from ME3, which is what people are really afraid of.

[bEVEsthda]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Zevais wrote...
Why is there hate for Multiplayer.

People enjoy playing with themselves and no one else.

Now suppose you're actually on the button.
Suppose everybody who is interested in playing games like WoW and CoD pvp, are already doing it?
And that those 12 mil are all the people, in the whole wide world, that are actually interested in doing something like that?
And that this is the most important reason TOR failed? The WoW market is not a little snack bit of a giant, untapped market, but in fact all the market there is? And they're already occupied?
I bet that would be something of a surprise for certain people.

I OTOH, have always been of the opinion that you may well be right about this.

[hexaligned]

I'd say the type of multiplayer is a factor. I doubt many people would be against a LAN co-op option, that clearly did not impact the SP at all. The amount of crying that would be done over being thrown into a public lobby and forced to play with a bunch of 14 year olds to unlock SP related features however, would most likely crash these forums.

People jsut assume the worst. 

Modifié par relhart, 12 septembre 2012 - 09:54 .

[terdferguson123]

They already stated at one of those events (can't remember which, but i saw it on youtube, it had Mike, and DG and a few others) that if they did MP it would be similar to how it was done in BG2. I don't mind that at all if thats the case.

[Wozearly]

Maria Caliban wrote...

People enjoy playing with themselves and no one else.

*Fnarr, fnarr* 

[Allan Schumacher]

Zevais wrote...

I dislike MMO style RPG's, and I want supporting characters as companions.

Yet, it frustrates my fiance that she cannot play alongside me while we sit on the couch together; she enjoys the story, but she doesn't want to experience it second-hand. There are other games that allow you to create another NPC to sidekick the the primary NPC. Why can't this NPC be controlled by someone sitting on the couch next to me or a good friend out of state?

We can limit the multiplayer to one additional NPC. I do not think anymore than that is necessary.

You could even choose a relationship for the sidekick NPC: wife, husband, friend, brother, sister, cousin, rival, etc. The game could even tie into that. I liked the sibling dynamic in Dragon Age II. In Dragon Age: Origins, I even liked the dynamic of fighting alongside a mother or brother in some origins; I wished they could have been more permanent if played as different roles.

I see so much hate for multiplayer on these forums. I really hope the developers have heard creative ideas like this for multiplayer and do not dismiss them because of the hate.

I think it helps a gamer bridge the game with someone they have a close relationship with.

Creating a fresh new character as an NPC does provide a bit more challenges than just allowing a player to "drop in."

How the game responds to this character, and all the systems underneath to support it aren't trivial, but it's definitely an interesting idea.

The obvious middle ground is "well let them play one of the party NPCs."  Though this may complicate story modes.  I mean, if we were to have a game mode that had the player PC be all alone in Kirkwall for a long period of time, followed by entering into a fade rift and then escaping via hours and hours of deep roads journeying, then what about the poor multiplayer guy?!

[Allan Schumacher]

cJohnOne wrote...

I think people don't like that they are not catering to their needs. I don't like mutiplayer and probably wouldn't use it at all.

It's sort of scary that the developers don't understand that. Other than that it doesn't bother me as long as it doesn't effect the single player game.

I think it's a bit simple to just state that we don't understand that.  At it's core, every individual player would love for the game to cater to their own individual wants in a video game.  It's almost so obvious that it probably doesn't even need to be mentioned.

[SerTabris]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

The obvious middle ground is "well let them play one of the party NPCs."  Though this may complicate story modes.  I mean, if we were to have a game mode that had the player PC be all alone in Kirkwall for a long period of time, followed by entering into a fade rift and then escaping via hours and hours of deep roads journeying, then what about the poor multiplayer guy?!

Is this supposed to be part of some scheme to build support for multiplayer modes?

[Chiguayante]

cJohnOne wrote...

I think people don't like that they are not catering to their needs. I don't like mutiplayer and probably wouldn't use it at all.

It's sort of scary that the developers don't understand that. Other than that it doesn't bother me as long as it doesn't effect the single player game.

If you think that the devs not catering to you personally is scary then you need to seriously realign your life priorities.

[PinkDiamondstl]

It's not needed ....like MMOs

[hexaligned]

PinkDiamondstl wrote...

It's not needed ....like MMOs

Corporate Commander disagrees with you.  As a consquence it IS needed if you want the game ot get made... apparently.  The best option is for people who don't want it, simply not to buy the game and show EA their mandate is generally rejected by the fanbase.  Failing that would be to offer some feedback about what kind of MP you could stomach.  The devs might not use it, but at least there's a chance they will want to pour through a myriad of opinions to try and form a design direction. 

Modifié par relhart, 13 septembre 2012 - 01:51 .

[Renmiri1]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Creating a fresh new character as an NPC does provide a bit more challenges than just allowing a player to "drop in."

How the game responds to this character, and all the systems underneath to support it aren't trivial, but it's definitely an interesting idea.

The obvious middle ground is "well let them play one of the party NPCs."  Though this may complicate story modes.  I mean, if we were to have a game mode that had the player PC be all alone in Kirkwall for a long period of time, followed by entering into a fade rift and then escaping via hours and hours of deep roads journeying, then what about the poor multiplayer guy?!

You mean the fade portal / Deep Roads would be multiplayer, Kirkwall would be SP ? Sounds fun

[Nomen Mendax]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I think it's a bit simple to just state that we don't understand that.  At it's core, every individual player would love for the game to cater to their own individual wants in a video game.  It's almost so obvious that it probably doesn't even need to be mentioned.

I'm going to intentionally misinterpret this to read that you are going to cater to my wants in DA3 and will be horribly disappointed when I discover that the combat isn't turn-based.

[Renmiri1]

Nomen Mendax wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I think it's a bit simple to just state that we don't understand that.  At it's core, every individual player would love for the game to cater to their own individual wants in a video game.  It's almost so obvious that it probably doesn't even need to be mentioned.

I'm going to intentionally misinterpret this to read that you are going to cater to my wants in DA3 and will be horribly disappointed when I discover that the combat isn't turn-based.

And that we can't romance darkspawn 

[Allan Schumacher]

SerTabris wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

The obvious middle ground is "well let them play one of the party NPCs."  Though this may complicate story modes.  I mean, if we were to have a game mode that had the player PC be all alone in Kirkwall for a long period of time, followed by entering into a fade rift and then escaping via hours and hours of deep roads journeying, then what about the poor multiplayer guy?!

Is this supposed to be part of some scheme to build support for multiplayer modes?

It's a response to the OPs post and what he'd look for in multiplayer.  I commented that the specifics of what he was hoping for could be tricky to do if done right, though a similar experience may still be possible if we were to allow dropins for the party members.

The last part was in jest as I amalgamated some of the very common complaints of the game and inferred the player would be alone and therefore co-op style MP would just not be feasible at all.