19 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.

[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.

[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.

[Allan Schumacher]

Shadow Warior wrote...

I dont think people bought DAO and DA2 because of the potential multiplayer in DA3.

I don't know if this is really a good reason to not put something into a game if you think it'll still provide value for your customers though.

I played more ME3 than I did either of the first two games in large part due to the multiplayer.  And I didn't even play "random" games and only played with friends.  But I didn't pick the game up for the multiplayer, even if I did enjoy its addition to the game.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 13 septembre 2012 - 09:06 .

[Allan Schumacher]

Das Tentakel wrote...

sjpelkessjpeler wrote...

I do not hate multiplayer but fear that adding it to the single player will be at the cost of the content of the latter. If this isn't the case I do not have a problem with it because a lot of people enjoy multiplayer.

I think that it can be summarised this way:

We do not hate multiplayer, we fear for singleplayer

Address that fear (inadvertently stoked up by Mr. Gibeau), and the current hubbub wil die down.

I agree, especially with regards to how ME3's multiplayer was essential for necessary war score to achieve all the endings.

I know there are many fans that feel burned by that, and they should, and if we were to do a multiplayer it'd definitely require us to still properly deliver an excellent single player game that is in no way dependent upon multiplayer.

Unfortunately just talking about it doesn't mean much, for good reason.  I think in many fans eyes they'll only believe it if and when they see it not affecting single player.

[Allan Schumacher]

sjpelkessjpeler wrote...

Do not know if this is mentioned at all in the thread but was talking to a friend about mp in a game...
If I understood correctly the gameplay of the sp game has to be adapted to the mp gameplay. This means a major change in the overall design of the sp game. The sp grounds would be the training grounds for the mp. Somehow this does not seem to be something positive for the sp.....

Also the mp of ME had additional recharge time which was also in the sp campaign. Did not play ME myself so quoting the person that told me this. A heavier weapon for a mage would take longer to recharge and to be used in battle if the same mechanics would be used in DA3. Something that really is something that has no place in a sp game imo .

Gameplay of a singleplayer game need not "be adapted" for the multiplayer gameplay.  There's nothing stopping a game's multiplayer from using the exact same gameplay as the single player game.  I doubt the mechanics of how I play through Saints Row: The Third would be any different if it was purely a single player game.  To me it seems very much like it'd play just the same way regardless.

DAO already had "heavier weapons take longer to recharge" and there's no sign of multiplayer.


It also depends on the style of multiplayer.  If a game has PvP multiplayer, then abilities will need to be balanced against each other to ensure that their cost is appropriate for their function.  If it's more of a horde mode, some level of balance is still needed but given it is innately not as competitive of an environment, if one class has a cheap ability that turns out to be very powerful, the cost is less.  If the multiplayer is campaign cooperative, then you likely don't need to even consider changing a thing.


That's not to say the single player game cannot benefit either though.  If a game's multiplayer mode is combat heavy, what it does mean is that the combat systems will see additional iteration.  A seldomly chosen skill may not actually work (this actually happened in DA2), but more eyes on the combat system will catch this.  This ensures that this ability will now also work in the single player campaign.  Subtler effects like combat animations can be improved upon, and other things can come as well.  More thought into multiple character class combo type stuff that is motivated by a desire to make multiplayer more fun ends up positively affecting single player as well.  On a lower level, multiplayer programmers may fix bugs (in a variety of systems) that end up affecting both single player and multiplayer.  A general issue that's more easily reproduced in a multiplayer environment is probably going to be fixed by a multiplayer programmer since his team will have greater visibility on it.

Even in the case of Mass Effect 3, there are levels that ended up added to the single player campaign that were created for the multiplayer component.  Now many feel that the N7 missions weren't very well done, but there's nothing inherent that requires this to be the case.  Whether or not a level is interestingly used still come back to the single player design and writing.


Yes, multiplayer can be bad for single player if suddenly a team feels that the multiplayer component needs a lot more work.  A decision has to be made here, such as cutting, or perhaps reducing scope, or yes possibly reallocating manpower.  The latter isn't the default decision, though I think many think it is.


For example, I am playing Shogun 2 in a co-op campaign, and I still build the buildings just the same, and I still fight the battles with the same rules.  It's just a bit nicer because my friend can help me manage my units so I have less need to pause and micromanage in the larger battles since he's controlling half of the units.  We both have fun although the Shoni just declared war on me which is a bit earlier than I was anticipating :S

[Allan Schumacher]

What about gameplay that revolves around pause and play, which is the case of DA:O, DA2, and ME? I know I couldn't get into ME multiplayer because I couldn't pause.

You were still able to pause in ME3 single player, correct?

This still supports the point because even if there are changes to the system specifically for multiplayer (no more pause), it doesn't mean the single player system was adapted for this reason. Which is what sjpelkessjpeler was expressing her concern about.

[Allan Schumacher]

ElitePinecone wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...
A seldomly chosen skill may not actually work (this actually happened in DA2), but more eyes on the combat system will catch this.  

Wait, really? Surely all the skills and talents would be tested independently before release... 

Indeed they are.  But complete regression on every single thing in a live game setting every single day isn't feasible.  To make matters worse, they were ONLY broken on the consoles, not on the PC.

When they were checked, they worked.  But down the very stretch something had broke them.  When I was called in to help isolate some PS3 cert issues, I had decided to choose the skill trees that I figured I would be least likely to use, and found out two abilities had targeting issues that made it look like it was working, but when you stepped back you realized the way the targeting was behaving it probably wasn't working.

There was no broken window and if you weren't paying close attention, a player could easily believe it was working, but in the end somehow it had ended up broken.


As an aside, from a QA perspective, here is something to consider.  Say a game of ours sells a million copies.  In the first hour of everyone playing it, they have already spent over 100 man years of time in the game.  Granted, content wise it will still all be early, but this is how "really obvious" stuff can get missed.  0.1% of those people have issues, and that is 1000 people that have issues.  Now imagine if they all create accounts to tell us.  Suddenly the boards are "FTL" and it's tricky to keep up.

So yes, things get missed and never seen.  Especially if they happen after passes on systems.  I know of issues that got missed in DAO as well.


What I learned from my own personal DA2 experiences?  I now always create builds that I would never create in real life.  There's a good chance that someone somewhere else has already done an "obvious build."  So hey, we get better.  Learn from it, hope to catch those issues before they are shipped in the future.

[Allan Schumacher]

ElitePinecone wrote...

Thanks for the insight - QA sounds... complex. 

It's more challenging that people give it credit for I think.  Most people think I just chill and play video games all day.  Large games with varying paths are a large time sink though.  As an example, lets say we have two huge plot points that have different choices in them, 3 each.

1 2 3 and A B C

Ideally we do 9 different playthroughs for every permutation.  Add in a D, and suddenly thats 12 different playthroughs.  If you decide go and a different plot with two more choices, well suddenly that's 24 different crit path playthroughs.  Crit path is regularly regressed too, so it gets done repeatedly.

Factor in side quests and the number of unique playthrough types starts to go up, especially since NOT doing a side quest is a valid choice.


Having said that, I do enjoy what I do.  I actually don't do the playthrough stuff though except towards the end of the project.  I do more techie stuff.  For example, I just wrote some automated tests that do simple passes over some systems, which means that when people make changes to code and content some automated servers run these tests (we call them "smoke tests") just to make sure that those systems are still working on a basic level to ensure people don't find themselves in a position where they are blocked and not able to work.

[Allan Schumacher]

If MP is implemented without Pause and Play, I will need decide whether to buy DA3 knowing that I am "restricted" to using only half the game by only using SP. Somehow, I suspect that I will feel that I am overpaying for a game when the MP option is completely useless to me.

So if DAO was as it stands, but also had a multiplayer mode that didn't support pause and play, you'd be less inclined to purchase it?

[Allan Schumacher]

Barely, but due to design choices regarding player agency, not gameplay.

You could "barely" pause?

[Allan Schumacher]

Icewind Dale, on the other hand, was so geared toward being a multiplayer hackfest that it was BORING AS HECK as a single-player game. If I'd known that before I bought it, I would NEVER have gotten it, because I wasn't interested in the multiplayer.

Icewind Dale isn't so much geared towards being a multiplayer hackfest, but rather simply a hackfest in general.

IIRC they were pretty open that it was going to mostly be a dungeon crawler. I don't think the game's intended audience was primarily multiplayer gamers compared to single player gamers.

[Allan Schumacher]

I mean, can you think of any games that are both strictly a hackfest and NOT multiplayer?

Torchlight is the first one that comes to mind. Divine Divinity was quite the hackfest. Are we counting a game like Demon Souls? I suppose it technically has "multiplayer" but in a rather unorthodox way.

We can go more old school and do goldbox games like Dungeon Hack and Eye of the Beholder.

[Allan Schumacher]

Well then I guess we would have needed to establish what it meant for something to be a "hackfest."

For myself, most dungeon crawlers are. The combat mechanics are typically what I look at when determining whether a game is a "hackfest" and that a game may be open world has little bearing on that.

[Allan Schumacher]

GithCheater wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

If MP is implemented without Pause and Play, I will need decide whether to buy DA3 knowing that I am "restricted" to using only half the game by only using SP. Somehow, I suspect that I will feel that I am overpaying for a game when the MP option is completely useless to me.

So if DAO was as it stands, but also had a multiplayer mode that didn't support pause and play, you'd be less inclined to purchase it?

I would be less inclined purchase DA3 as a preorder or shortly after release, but I would almost definitely purchase it when the price comes down and DA3 is a better value.

In my opinion, Pause and Play is a signature feature of Bioware products.  Considering that Baldur's Gate and Neverwinter Nights allowed Pause and Play in multiplayer mode, I would be disappointed if Pause and Play was not supported as an option when playing DA3 in multiplayer mode.


If DA3 turns out to have MP, would it be possible to set up a section of the online server for use by Pause and Play advocates, while the remainder of the server would not allow Pause and Play?

To be clear, the example I used was specifically DAO.  Assuming you enjoyed DAO, if you got everything in DAO and the entire single player experience was unchanged, but it also had a multiplayer that you refused to play... would you skip it?

I'm trying to distill down the notion of only paying for half a game.  At what point is a game worth having a feature you'll never use?  What does it need to overcome it.  Is getting the same experience you got from DAO sufficient?  Or would it need to go even farther just because of your own perception?

[Allan Schumacher]

Rawgrim wrote...

Running into characters named I0wnzU-666, ruins every shred of immersion.Rpgs are alot about immersion, so when that gets ripped away, I hate it. Thats why i hate the idea of multiplayer, anyway.

I never understand this complaint, given that multiplayer is typically opt in.

Furthermore, to prevent stuff like this in my gaming experience, I typically only play MP with my friends.

Do people typically play MP just by joining random games?

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 16 septembre 2012 - 03:54 .

[Allan Schumacher]

I can definitely understand it in an MMO

[Allan Schumacher]

iPoohCupCakes wrote...

I'm not a fan of multilayer because I think Bioware will focus on MP DLC instead of SP DLC like they were doing with Mass Effect 3.

Hmmmm.  I haven't really followed the DLC release schedule.  I know that extended cut threw a wrench into the plans.

Are the SP DLCs significantly more spaced than they were with ME2 and the DA games?  Could just be perception because multiplayer stuff has a shorter turnaround cycle.


I don't think there should be any less focus on SP DLCs so I hope that's not the case.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 16 septembre 2012 - 06:33 .

[Allan Schumacher]

The EC was about three and a half months after launch (which was, to me, actually surprisingly long for the amount of content).

There's an entire context switch required for the EC. Literally no work would have been done on it prior to release, and changing gears like that is not going to be trivial.

I only have the vaguest idea what the SP DLC plans are for ME3. I'd be surprised if more didn't come down the pipe. Part of the advantage of the MP is that attach rates for SP DLC are a bit higher.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 16 septembre 2012 - 08:19 .