149 réponses à ce sujet

[TEWR]

Das Tentakel wrote...

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.

My sentiments exactly. I don't hate MP. In fact, I'm a fan of it. I just don't want SP to be diminished or ruined by MP, or even dependant on MP.

That said, other then a possible co-op feature I can't imagine how MP would work in a setting like DA -- and even co-op is hard for me to imagine.

[FieryDove]

PvP Or nothing! There I said it.

[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

[Xewaka]

Allan Schumacher wrote...
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.

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.

[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.

[Dirty Whore]

I'll echo what I and many others have said: If you must put in Multi-Player make sure that it isn't forced upon us and that it doesn't detract from the single player experience in any way IE storywise and most importantly gameplay wise (which is typically my primary concern when it comes to a BioWare game)

if adding MP is gonna make the rest of the game feel janky and half baked then just add MP later on as a DLC or a patch or something. First and foremost focus on the core game.

[Mulsanne Blue]

I love SP experiences such as DA: O and DA2 as well as ME and ME2. But I really enjoy playing MP on ME3 with my husband, sibs and friends, especially when I am not in the mood to play by myself and I want to play around in the ME universe. I think if done right, MP in DA3 could be fun!

EDIT - as long as it isn't PVP. I just can't get into that. But that is just my opinion...

Modifié par Agent599xx, 14 septembre 2012 - 01:26 .

[ElitePinecone]

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... 

[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.

[Nomen Mendax]

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... 

A few skills and talents pale into insignificance compared to stuff like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therac-25 

[GithCheater]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

If MP is added to DA3, I would like to be able to use and enjoy MP without getting a stiff neck and a splitting headache due to playing an action RPG where Pause and Play is not an option in MP.  Other traditional Bioware RPG's allow Pause and Play during multiplayer, and I am currently enjoying MP on Neverwinter Nights and being able to pause the action.

For example, I tried Star Wars - the Old Repuplic as part of beta testing the servers before the game was officially released for sale.  The combat was not difficult, and I did not die very often, but I got frustrated using the mouse to first locate and then click on a moving target.  Fortunately I was able to survive getting pummelled for a few seconds before I could launch an effective counter attack, but I still got a stiff neck and splitting headache even though I survived many battles.  After a bug crashed my SWTOR game and did not allow me to continue the game, I found myself relieved that I was no longer banging my head against wall (rather than be annoyed by the game crashing bug). 

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.

Perhaps having Pause and Play being used in MP is only a "requirement" for a minority of players, but I certainly hope that is not the case.  Perhaps Pause and Play is a dinosaur that needs to be allowed to become exstinct. 

Modifié par GithCheater, 14 septembre 2012 - 11:55 .

[ElitePinecone]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

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

[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.

[Annihilator27]

Like I told people for ME3 in the beginning,Expect MP.It lessens the blow later on should it come.

[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?

[Beerfish]

"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.

Perhaps having Pause and Play being used in MP is only a "requirement" for a minority of players, but I certainly hope that is not the case. Perhaps Pause and Play is a dinosaur that needs to be allowed to become exstinct. "

That's crazy, ME3 multiplay is a whole different animal than ME single play and imo had very little affect on the main game other than the poor decision on galatic readiness.

Pause and play is virtually impossible for multiplayer.

[gonzalez.melissa53]

I think the big hype is mostly from fear of changing the game so much. And as a player of wow for about 5 years I can tell you that single player games are in someways more "user friendly". There is no hunt for group to worry about if your friends aren't on and the lack of a pause key and be a major downer. I think that the Dev team does well this changing things up however. If they decided to go this route I would at least give it a try before forming an opinion.

[Xewaka]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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?

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

Allan Schumacher wrote...
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.

Then I misunderstood the point you were trying to make, apologies.

[Allan Schumacher]

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

You could "barely" pause?

[gonzalez.melissa53]

@Ivandra Ceruden The MMO experance can be a good one. It is rare but when it happens it's amazing. I have met and played for a long time with some really upstanding people through mmos. You just have to look around but it is time consuming. You just have to dodge the socialy inept to find them XD.

[Xewaka]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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

You could "barely" pause?

Reading comprehension fail. I read play, not pause. 

[PinkShoes]

I just don't understand why some games cant be just SP? It annoys me it really does. I play SP, MP co-op i like all sorts but it is frustrating when they just throw something into a game just to sell more copies and its obvious this is just to sell more copies. Who is honestly going to say adding MP in DA is apart of their "artistic vision"?

But lets be honest DA will never sell the same amount of copies COD does because it is a story based RPG. Who played DAO for its "Awesome Button" combat? Not many people i bet because the story was the focus! So when they added that "Awesome Button" in DA2 people were confused because DA is a story focused game. So what will adding MP to a story based game?

[EricHVela]

My main worry (and that's all that it is) is how the game engine will likely lean towards multiplayer if co-op campaign isn't the MP that they might be considering.

It makes little sense to customize one game engine in two different ways for one game.

Let's face it. SP and campaign co-op story-driven RPGs are nothing like instance MP battlefields. The underlying mechanics are different as are the UI, NPC AI and controls. They'll likely have to make the SP experience (story and all) fit the engine that they customized for MP. You can have as many teams as you want working on different parts, but in the end, they are sharing the same game as their foundation.

Yet, that's just a worry. It does not mean that story-focued SP (or co-op campaign) on a game engine customized to focus on MP (or even PvP) will be horrible or even lacking. It's just severe apprehension that I hope that BWE will prove unfounded if they go that route.

I see it as a very tall order but not impossible. (I'm also looking at this from the outside based on the end-user performance of other games in the past and not from inside, under-the-hood of the development.)

Hey. At the best if they show that SP doesn't suffer at the hands of an engine that they customized for PvP, then EA will have its proof that there's no reason to exclude MP from anything in the future. This is EA's big chance if they will throw full support into it (instead of making studios vie for their support). Here's their opportunity right now, ready to go forward.

[Kidd]

Ivandra Ceruden wrote...

@Plaintiff: Not everyone is as 'filthy rich' as those 'friends' of yours. Stop sounding like a snobbish jerk, thanks.

Huh, what? He didn't imply everyone are rich at all.

I said I might buy a second copy of DA3 depending on if the multiplayer interests me enough to get it for PC to play with my PC gaming friends. He responded saying that in his case, he'd make his friends buy second copies instead. That kinda implies to me he finds his own economy limited (at the very least compared to his friends), and he made a joke out of that.

I hope he doesn't mind me defending him but I'm pretty sure he never meant that all of us on BSN have tons of money to throw around and brag about.

PinkShoes wrote...

(...) it is frustrating when they just throw something into a game just to sell more copies and its obvious this is just to sell more copies. Who is honestly going to say adding MP in DA is apart of their "artistic vision"? (...) So what will adding MP to a story based game? 

Uh, the ability to enjoy the game with friends? =S I've wanted that ever since I first played DAO and knew my friends were playing the game, too. It's a lot more fun to play with somebody than watching them play imho, even though watching can be fun too.

Modifié par KiddDaBeauty, 14 septembre 2012 - 07:44 .