149 réponses à ce sujet

[Plaintiff]

KiddDaBeauty wrote...

I wish my mother was as cool as yours =) BGDA is an amazing game, had a lot of fun with that back in the day. Never with family though!

After about the thirtieth runthrough, it gets a bit stale, but she was always like "Let's play again! Let's play again!". I tried to get her into X-Men Legends, but she prefers games with an involved economy and crafting system that let you dress-up your character however you want.

She was into Skyrim for a while (preordered it of her own volition and everything, with no input from me at all), but she doesn't really like to play alone, which is why I couldn't really get her into the Dragon Age franchise. She considered WoW, but that would've involved buying new hardware, and the addictive aspect of MMOs turned her off (I don't really like it either, to be honest).

So I think I can safely state that the addition of an offline co-op mode to DA3 would gain Bioware at least one new player.

[Wulfram]

There won't be any offline co-op. No online pass to screw the people who bought it second-hand with, no monetisation through microtransactions.

[milena87]

I don't fear MP in general, I fear games with MP modes where MP isn't a thing they were focusing on since the beginning. I don't think MP adds value to games just by being there.

Also, there are a lot of options already for different MP experiences: split-screen games, online co-op games, PvP games, PvE games, MMOs with a mix of both, ...
Do we really need Dragon Age in order to play with our friends, family or strangers online?

[Plaintiff]

Wulfram wrote...

There won't be any offline co-op. No online pass to screw the people who bought it second-hand with, no monetisation through microtransactions.

I'm well aware that it's not going to happen, it's just wishful thinking.

[Wulfram]

One concrete way MP hurts the players:

It replaces the "Project $10" DLC as the way to discourage resales. If DA:O had included multiplayer, we wouldn't have got Shale for free.

[Aleya]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

I think a good reason not to put something into a game would be the knowledge that there are a ton of things your customers want more.

There were so many issues with DA2's single player campaign that the only way to get me to buy DA3 would be to address my concerns about SP. Instead Bioware is making announcements about MP. I do not recall anyone listing a lack of MP as one of DA2's flaws.

It's not that I object to MP, even if I personally am not a fan of it. I'm willing to see where you guys go with this, and how you plan to add MP to a swords & magic game. I'm terrified that it'll be another ME3-style horde mode that impacts your SP options, sure, but I'll reserve judgment until we have more concrete information. What I object to is that Bioware seems to be focusing on something that nobody wanted in the first place, while I haven't heard anything about the things I (and many other community members) have actively been asking for.

What I think Bioware is either unwilling to understand or actively ignoring is that those of us who loved DA:O, and those who preordered DA2, do not require MP, or even DLC, to stick with a game. The DA:O community is to this day considerably more vibrant and alive than DA2's. But I suppose that doesn't matter to the EA overlords because neither player-created mods nor my 38th Warden show up in EA's quarterly statement, right? So MP gets brought in to keep the money rolling. That's great, but you need people to buy the game in the first place. Adding MP is most emphatically not the way to do that. It won't scare me off, but I sincerely doubt anyone would consider it an incentive to buy the game.

I'm not saying don't add MP. I'm saying make it a pretty bonus, and please focus on the meat of what will get people to fork over the cash for DA3 itself: adding the magic back in to the single player campaign.

Modifié par Aleya, 13 septembre 2012 - 11:04 .

[Knight of Dane]

I feel indifferent about it really. If it's completely optional and not at all part of sinlge player then I don't mind it. If it's intigrated in a way that you feel forced to play it, then I will be sad.

[Das Tentakel]

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.

[jbrand2002uk]

relhart wrote...

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. 

Star Wars fans did precisely that in droves with the latest in TOR series subscriptions dropped so low and complaints have been so rampant that BW/EA has almost been forced to bring out a FTP model but even that is gaining widespread condemnation because it is deliberatley nerfed to such an extent that it pretty much forces you into the subscription model just to be able to play the damn game that you have already paid for.

Time and again EA have ruined much loved franchises in their constant greedy drive for profit Battlefield,SWTOR and Need For Speed to name but 3 have become so twisted from their original concept that they're unrecognisble.

All Started as offline SP focused games and now all are prime examples of EA's flawed model that everything must be online at all costs and not forgetting the cash grab DLC market which means that if you actually go online it becomes a case of those who win are those who can afford to buy the most DLC making it a miserable experiance for those who either cant afford the DLC or who which to unlock standard content the normal way by  gaining XP rather than buying an unlock pack for 250 MS points.

What annoys me more than anything is even after all the complaints levelled at EA/BW for what they have done to SWTOR they are still talking about putting MP in DA clearly they havent learned anything at all.<_<

[fchopin]

I would prefer that if i buy single player then that is what i get, if people want MP they can buy the MP version or buy the MP version online.

I don’t want to see any MP related things on my single player game.

[Shevy]

Anyone played Spellforce 1 some years ago? I liked its multiplayer system and think it could work with Dragon Age.
In short you create a character solely for the multiplayer and play through an amount of maps to level up and gaining items from the bosses and higher foes.
I played it with two friends and it was much fun, even on the level cap we adventured through the highest maps on the highest difficulty many times to get the best gear and spells.

I can imagine such a system with maybe one other player and two npc companions ( designed for the multiplayer storyline out of which you choose one which you control. Maybe brother and sister) and  while adventuring through the maps you can enjoy a story written for the multiplayer. After you finish that storyline implement pretty tough maps only for the challenge and amazing (style)-gear.

Modifié par Shevy_001, 13 septembre 2012 - 05:51 .

[Cultist]

We got very nice examples of successful games without Multiplayer:
Skyrim, Fallout, Deus EX: HR, Witcher

[Maria Caliban]

Wulfram wrote...

One concrete way MP hurts the players:

It replaces the "Project $10" DLC as the way to discourage resales. If DA:O had included multiplayer, we wouldn't have got Shale for free.

ME 3 had both MP and $10 DLC. From Ashes?

[Krazy_Kirby]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

One concrete way MP hurts the players:

It replaces the "Project $10" DLC as the way to discourage resales. If DA:O had included multiplayer, we wouldn't have got Shale for free.

ME 3 had both MP and $10 DLC. From Ashes?

Shale was free. From ashes increased the total price of the game.
(p.s. Shale>>>Javik)

Modifié par Krazy_Kirby, 13 septembre 2012 - 06:09 .

[Wulfram]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

One concrete way MP hurts the players:

It replaces the "Project $10" DLC as the way to discourage resales. If DA:O had included multiplayer, we wouldn't have got Shale for free.

ME 3 had both MP and $10 DLC. From Ashes?

That was what I meant.  If there wasn't MP, From Ashes would have been free with new purchases like Shale was.

...or possibly they'd have slapped a "Black Emporium" thing together as the buy new incentive, I guess.

Modifié par Wulfram, 13 septembre 2012 - 06:21 .

[Krazy_Kirby]

I really doubt they are going to make free dlc except for ME3 MP which im sure they get money from people buying packs with real $ so they keep it free. More likely it will be a higher price to get dlc on day 1 that comes with the game.

[Beerfish]

If they do it I would assume they would follow the apparently successful ME3 model. A cost for an oline pass, then free play but allowing the player to purchase upgrades and such if wanted.

[hussey 92]

TelvanniWarlord wrote...

hussey 92 wrote...

I still don't understand why there needs to be multiplayer. It has nothing to do with Dragon Age.

Since when does multiplayer have anything specific to do with any franchise?  MMO franchises being excluded.  If you mean in the sense that the DA franchise started off without multiplayer then that still doesn't mean anything.  If DA3 does end up having multiplayer it wouldn't be the first subsequent game in a franchise to adopt it.

Many games work well with multiplayer.  But Dragon Age isn't a RTS, so it seems like having multiplayer would just turn it into a hack and slash game (even more so then DA2 did)

[Zevais]

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?!

First, I would like to thank you Allan for reading my topic and giving it any thought. I do like knowing that the Bioware developers interact and listen to us. I do understand that not everyone will be happy with all of your decisions, even myself. I do enjoy your games despite this.

I would like to expand on my topic. I do not wish to take anything away from anyone; multiplayer should not be forced. I do think there are a significant number of people that would enjoy playing any Dragon Age with a friend.

I am not entirely opposed to adding no additional custom players. I would happy if my fiance could play any character of the game that is not my NPC. I doubt we would mind if the character she was controlled had any automatic actions or dialogues at critical portions of the story.

Would I prefer another custom character? Yes. I don't think that is necessary. I would be fine with another playing taking control of another party member that was not custom made. That would solve the issue that you raised.

Further, someone else made another point I would like to respond to.

fchopin wrote...

I would prefer that if i buy single player then that is what i get, if people want MP they can buy the MP version or buy the MP version online.

I don’t want to see any MP related things on my single player game.

There are not enough Dragon Age styled games with multiplayer in the market. If Bioware made a similar multiplayer, I would buy it. I am left with little option but to make my suggestions here.

Other opinions seem to stem from fear of what has happened with multiplayer in the past. Dragon Age is a far cry from Call of Duty. By playing all Dragon Age content, I believe I have a glimmer of the developers image for the world. I believe and I hope they would not go the Call of Duty route; I do not believe they need to.

[spirosz]

Because it seems to be the "cool" thing to add MP regardless of the genre and most of the time, it's not needed.

[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.