149 réponses à ce sujet

[EricHVela]

It has also been my experience that story-driven games drive the customization of the engine for the story. That's the point I forgot to make in my previous response.

[Emzamination]

KiddDaBeauty wrote...

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.

I think she's upset that he mentioned the money at all.There was really no reason to mention just how loaded his friends were, especially since it's not P C or polite to boast of wealth and privilege infront of others.I'm not bothered by the statement but I can see where she's coming from.

Modifié par Emzamination, 14 septembre 2012 - 08:18 .

[PsychoBlonde]

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?

For me, the comparison is more between "Planescape: Torment", "Baldur's Gate", and "Neverwinter Nights".  Or maybe "Icewind Dale".  Yeah, let's use Icewind Dale instead of NwN to make the comparison simpler.

For me, the multiplayer aspect of Planescape was a no-brainer--there wasn't one, and I didn't care.  For someone who wanted multiplayer, however, Planescape would also be a no-brainer on the other side, there wasn't one, and they did care, so they wouldn't get the game.  Baldur's Gate was basically in the middle.  If you didn't want multiplayer, it was a pretty fun, rich, enjoyable game without it, so you didn't care that the multiplayer was there.  If you DID want multiplayer, it was a pretty fun, rich, enjoyable game WITH it, so you were happy that the multiplayer was there.

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.

The reason why a lot of people are against multiplayer at all is because they're seriously (and rightly so considering the recent track record) concerned that they're going to get Icewind Dale instead of Planescape or even Baldur's Gate.  And keep in mind, as a single-player experience Planescape had a lot of cool stuff in it that wouldn't have worked well with BG's multiplayer.  So when you take those two things together:

You CAN'T have Planescape
You MIGHT get Icewind Dale

Yeah, the people who want Planescape are going to be pretty freakin' irate and start shouting that they're NOT GOING TO WASTE THEIR DANG MONEY.

If you want to get the Planescape-wanters on board, you need, at minimum, to guarantee them that they're going to be getting something between Planescape and Baldur's Gate.  (And even then, probably SOME will not become customers.)  And  here's also the thing . . . because DA:O and DA2 had NO multiplayer, 100% of your existing customer base consists of people to whom a lack of multiplayer is not a deal-breaker.  If you're going to court the people for whom a lack of multiplayer is a deal-breaker, it's going to have to be GOOD multiplayer, integral to the core game--which lends itself MUCH BETTER to a game like Icewind Dale.  So you're going to have NO CHOICE but to make a game that is CLOSER TO ICEWIND DALE.

If you just add on a little multiplayer, all you're doing is adding an extra enjoyable feature for the people who didn't care about it in the first place, and who were happy with Baldur's Gate.  So there's your options:

1.  Keep the game single-player, make a Planescape "type" game, and keep your EXISTING customers for whom multiplayer is a deal-breaker.
2.  Add an irrelevant sidelong multiplayer a la Baldur's Gate, lose SOME of your EXISTING customers for whom multiplayer is a deal-breaker, and MAYBE gain SOME new customers where the lack of multiplayer is a dealbreaker but who don't have any real standards about the QUALITY of that multiplayer.
3.  Make Icewind Dale, and lose ALL of your EXISTING customers for whom multiplayer is a deal-breaker, gain who knows how many NEW customers due to the multiplayer, and oh by the way you are now in an entirely different production focus that may require you to radically restructure your company.  And, given Bioware's track record with designing innovative *gameplay*, this means they will, at best, be struggling to keep up with the products made by companies who have been in this same line for 10+ years and who already know how to make a vastly superior multiplayer experience.

Quibbling about individual features aside, that's the real problem right there.  The question isn't and should not be "some people like multiplayer, can we get them to buy our product by adding it on to our existing single-player product".  The question is and should be "can we get MORE sales by making a core-focused multiplayer game with the expertise we have available"?  The trouble is that this question *CAN'T* be answered, and from the tiny smidges of info that come out, we see the devs asking the FIRST question when they SHOULD be asking the SECOND one. 

So this risk of Icewind Dale + Bioware Charging Blindly into an area where they seem to know bugger all = incredible wads of ire.  And THEN you look at their SERIOUS attempt to make a big multiplayer-focused game, SW:TOR.  Look at how quickly it's gone F2P.  Read this latest article about "High Occupancy" servers.  (Is that a euphemism for "server merge".)  Look at how much MONEY they spent to turn out a WoW clone with Animated Dialog.  Does this engender confidence in their ability to avoid the Icewind Dale pitfall?  Not really.

End result?

IRE UNENEDING.

[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.

[PsychoBlonde]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

Yeah but it functions very well as a placeholder for the purposes of this example.  If I'd used Neverwinter Nights it would have been even worse qua placeholder because NwN was radically different from the infinity engine games in a LARGE NUMBER of ways.

Hackfest games, in general, are a lot more fun as multiplayer than as single player, and I say this as someone who generally prefers to solo even in a MMORPG.  So gearing a game to be a hackfest ultimately is pretty much the same as gearing it to be multiplayer.  I mean, can you think of any games that are both strictly a hackfest and NOT multiplayer? *headscratch* Dungeon Siege, maybe?  And they added multiplayer to that.  Some seriously weird multiplayer.  And you don't see a lot of companies making Dungeon Siege clones.

Modifié par PsychoBlonde, 14 septembre 2012 - 09:04 .

[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.

[PsychoBlonde]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

Eye of the Beholder was so NOT a hackfest, it was a dungeon crawler/puzzler, and I don't think you can count games that old ANYWAY because pretty much everything back then was single-player simply because multiplayer wasn't really very accessible yet.  And it didn't come in a gold box, ergo it wasn't a "goldbox" game.  Divine Divinity isn't really a hackfest either.  Oh, the COMBAT aspect of it is very hacky, but as a GAME it's an open world RPG like Morrowind or Skyrim, only from 3rd person isometric perspective.

I haven't played Torchlight or Demons' Souls, so I can't comment on those, but I heard about the "unorthodox" multiplayer.

Fable probably counts tho.

[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.

[PsychoBlonde]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

Hackfest = gameplay (or the VAST majority thereof) consists of hacking stuff up.

Eye of the Beholder?  I spent 80% of that game farting around with puzzles (maybe I'm slow).  20% spent whacking enemies doesn't count if the other 80% of the game is puzzles.  Also, the end boss you can kill via a puzzle instead of via the Beat Down method.  Diablo?  probably 95% of the game I spent killing stuff.  The rest was diddling around with gear so I could kill stuff.

Dungeon Hack?  IIRC the only "puzzle" aspect to that game was finding the dang keys so you could go hack up more stuff.  I don't remember Fable having a significant gameplay element aside from "hack up enemies".  Not sure occasional chicken-kicking vignettes count.

Divine Divinity, on the other hand, I spent probably a good 65% of the game trying to figure out WHAT THE EFF WAS GOING ON and HOW DO I GET OVER THERE and WHERE DID I LEAVE THE DAMN TELEPORTER THIS TIME.

A gamy with hacky combat isn't a "hackfest game" if there's a lot of other stuff goin down also.  If that's pretty much all the game there is, it's a hackfest.

Btw the only thing stopping DA2 from being a "hackfest" is that there's almost as much dialog as combat.  Add even 10% more combat, and it starts to look a lot like a hackfest + cutscenes.

Modifié par PsychoBlonde, 14 septembre 2012 - 11:09 .

[GithCheater]

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?

Modifié par GithCheater, 15 septembre 2012 - 01:02 .

[Rylor Tormtor]

PsychoBlonde 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?

For me, the comparison is more between "Planescape: Torment", "Baldur's Gate", and "Neverwinter Nights".  Or maybe "Icewind Dale".  Yeah, let's use Icewind Dale instead of NwN to make the comparison simpler.

For me, the multiplayer aspect of Planescape was a no-brainer--there wasn't one, and I didn't care.  For someone who wanted multiplayer, however, Planescape would also be a no-brainer on the other side, there wasn't one, and they did care, so they wouldn't get the game.  Baldur's Gate was basically in the middle.  If you didn't want multiplayer, it was a pretty fun, rich, enjoyable game without it, so you didn't care that the multiplayer was there.  If you DID want multiplayer, it was a pretty fun, rich, enjoyable game WITH it, so you were happy that the multiplayer was there.

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.

The reason why a lot of people are against multiplayer at all is because they're seriously (and rightly so considering the recent track record) concerned that they're going to get Icewind Dale instead of Planescape or even Baldur's Gate.  And keep in mind, as a single-player experience Planescape had a lot of cool stuff in it that wouldn't have worked well with BG's multiplayer.  So when you take those two things together:

You CAN'T have Planescape
You MIGHT get Icewind Dale

Yeah, the people who want Planescape are going to be pretty freakin' irate and start shouting that they're NOT GOING TO WASTE THEIR DANG MONEY.

If you want to get the Planescape-wanters on board, you need, at minimum, to guarantee them that they're going to be getting something between Planescape and Baldur's Gate.  (And even then, probably SOME will not become customers.)  And  here's also the thing . . . because DA:O and DA2 had NO multiplayer, 100% of your existing customer base consists of people to whom a lack of multiplayer is not a deal-breaker.  If you're going to court the people for whom a lack of multiplayer is a deal-breaker, it's going to have to be GOOD multiplayer, integral to the core game--which lends itself MUCH BETTER to a game like Icewind Dale.  So you're going to have NO CHOICE but to make a game that is CLOSER TO ICEWIND DALE.

If you just add on a little multiplayer, all you're doing is adding an extra enjoyable feature for the people who didn't care about it in the first place, and who were happy with Baldur's Gate.  So there's your options:

1.  Keep the game single-player, make a Planescape "type" game, and keep your EXISTING customers for whom multiplayer is a deal-breaker.
2.  Add an irrelevant sidelong multiplayer a la Baldur's Gate, lose SOME of your EXISTING customers for whom multiplayer is a deal-breaker, and MAYBE gain SOME new customers where the lack of multiplayer is a dealbreaker but who don't have any real standards about the QUALITY of that multiplayer.
3.  Make Icewind Dale, and lose ALL of your EXISTING customers for whom multiplayer is a deal-breaker, gain who knows how many NEW customers due to the multiplayer, and oh by the way you are now in an entirely different production focus that may require you to radically restructure your company.  And, given Bioware's track record with designing innovative *gameplay*, this means they will, at best, be struggling to keep up with the products made by companies who have been in this same line for 10+ years and who already know how to make a vastly superior multiplayer experience.

Quibbling about individual features aside, that's the real problem right there.  The question isn't and should not be "some people like multiplayer, can we get them to buy our product by adding it on to our existing single-player product".  The question is and should be "can we get MORE sales by making a core-focused multiplayer game with the expertise we have available"?  The trouble is that this question *CAN'T* be answered, and from the tiny smidges of info that come out, we see the devs asking the FIRST question when they SHOULD be asking the SECOND one. 

So this risk of Icewind Dale + Bioware Charging Blindly into an area where they seem to know bugger all = incredible wads of ire.  And THEN you look at their SERIOUS attempt to make a big multiplayer-focused game, SW:TOR.  Look at how quickly it's gone F2P.  Read this latest article about "High Occupancy" servers.  (Is that a euphemism for "server merge".)  Look at how much MONEY they spent to turn out a WoW clone with Animated Dialog.  Does this engender confidence in their ability to avoid the Icewind Dale pitfall?  Not really.

End result?

IRE UNENEDING.

Not to quote overly chunks of text, but this is a very good expression of the potentional issues I see with MP and DA.

[Iakus]

Rylor Tormtor wrote...

Not to quote overly chunks of text, but this is a very good expression of the potentional issues I see with MP and DA.

Agreed.

[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?

[PsychoBlonde]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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?

For me, personally, if you guys decided to add multiplayer to pretty much *any* of the (role-playing) games you've made in the past 10 years, I'd be fine with that--you're welcome to your own opinion about how "good" those games are relative to each other.  I enjoyed all of the ones I played, they were well worth the money I spent on them.  I dropped the Mass Effect series due to other issues I had with it BEFORE you added the multiplayer, and if those issues hadn't been there the multiplayer that you DID add would mean very little to me.  (I won't say zilch because I would probably be among those who didn't like needing to MP to get one of the endings--but that would probably not have been a DEAL-BREAKER for me, instead I would, grudgingly, hunt up SOMEBODY to do the MP with so I could get the ending I wanted, because I don't HATE multiplayer--I play an MMO after all.)

But, here's the thing.  To me, SW:TOR is an utter flop and I haven't even played it since it's gone F2P.  Now, if I didn't already have an MMO that I play, I might have enjoyed TOR more.  (haha, that rhymes ).  Or at least, I would have been less sensible to some of its flaws.  But, for me, the multiplayer aspects of TOR *are a deal-breaker*.  It's not that I hate MP in general (I play, and love, an MMO!!!!).  It is the *particular* features of MP in TOR that I don't like.  

I hate the Wow-style combat.  If it was more like DDO or even DIABLO I would love it.  No joke.  But I hate, hate, HATEHATEHATE doing a series of static, dissociated attacks that have nothing apparently to do with one another and are just basically DIFFERENT ways of doing damage, and all you are really doing is chaining together these wildly different abilities to somehow maximize your DPS.  Or healing.  Or whatever.  I like DDO's system where you may have several (or several dozen), different attacks, but they're actually all situational, with different drawbacks and benefits, and there's serious thought to when/how you use them other than "must get bigger heal numbers!" or "Must do more damage!" 

I hate how, in TOR I have to switch between mental modes in order to enjoy the two primary aspects of the game, questing and talking.  When I'm in questing mode, I can't enjoy the dialog.  I just can't do it.  It's a horrible, annoying interruption to what I want to be doing, which is leveling and getting lootz.  On the other hand, when I'm in Plot Mode, the questing, combat, exploring, leveling, and futzing with loot feels like an annoying interruption to the story stuff!  I can't win!  Whatever I'm doing, SOMETHING is constantly interrupting me, jerking me out of my Game Meditation, and busting my enjoyment all to pieces.  With the MMO I DO play, if I don't feel like this particular game at the moment, I just go DO SOMETHING ELSE.  The game ITSELF is not actively FIGHTING my desire to engage in one particular type of activity just now.

For me, this is the fundamental TOR is a complete and utter flop.  And if you turn Dragon Age into something like TOR . . . THAT will be a deal-breaker for ME . . . and DA2 is kinda getting close to being TOR.  It's not ENOUGH of the way there that I constantly feel slapped around by the transition from gameplay to story and back, but if you add multiplayer onto it as a core feature, it WILL.  Because it's the other players and the fact that you kind of need them to do some activities in TOR (or even that they're just generally AROUND sometimes getting in the way or even being helpful!) that REALLY contributes to the horrible jarringness of the story/gameplay switch for me in TOR.  I can't get into the story when there are people around making me wait for critters to respawn so I can finish quests.  I can't get into the gameplay when there is the story stuff pulling me away from the other players.  It just DOES NOT work for me.  

It DID NOT work for me in Neverwinter Nights, either, which I TRIED to play multiplayer (my dad, brothers, and Significant Other ALL wanted to play NwN MP with me.  We tried.  And all that happened was I got progressively more and more and MORE annoyed with them AND with the game until I made an excuse to get out of our MP sessions.  But the existence of that MP didn't make me dump the entire game because it was a secondary, add-on feature, not integral to the game.  Take a game like Titan Quest or Diablo II, however, and I'd badger them to come join me for MP.  I BADGER them to play DDO with me.  TOR?  NwN?  Baldur's Gate?  HELL NO.  (Although I did make single-player multiplayer sessions in BG2 so I could have 2 characters, one of them a rogue, to make up for the NO STRAIGHT ROGUE OTHER THAN DEAD YOSHIMO issue.  Yes, I REALLY AM THAT ANAL about effing traps and locked ****e.)

Now, I don't think anyone necessarily had precisely the same experience I did.  But if you're going to ask for some kind of analysis of WHAT about multiplayer (or what degree of game will make you ignore it if you don't want it), there it is for me.  If It's actually like TOR (which I regard as unlikely) I really will drop the franchise completely.  If it's like NwN or Baldur's Gate--I'll happily play the SP game but I will avoid the MP like the PLAGUE even if PEOPLE I LOVE want me to play it with them.  (I will also probably look at the MP and be like, WHY did you BOTHER what a WASTE OF EFFORT.)  If it's some kind of PVP arena thing, I might give it a shot.  I'll probably get my ass kicked and quit due to some of my weird tendencies regarding builds.  If it's like Diablo 3's multiplayer (unlikely, because Diablo 3 is really fundamentally a different type of game), I'll probably give it try--I even tried some of the random matching in Diablo 3, and I kinda enjoy it in small doses, although it is desperately in need of integrated voice chat.

Takehome point: the only MP that would actually cause me, personally, to NOT BUY THE GAME would be unavoidable MP on the level of TOR.  One caveat though--this is not to say that certain particular kinds of MP coupled with other things I really didn't like would not also have this effect.  But speaking STRICTLY of the MP, only TOR-level dislike would be a deal-breaker for me.  Anything short of that would probably lead only to criticism and/or whinging about how (theoretically) those resources could be spent on something else I'd like better.  Of course, this may actually be along the lines of claiming that if it takes one women nine months to have a baby, NINE women could have it in ONE month cause I just don't really understand how this stuff works.

[PsychoBlonde]

Oh, and as another note, when I speak of "multiplayer as a core mechanic" or "integrated multiplayer", what I mean is that the single-player experience is limited by the design factors inherent in the multiplayer. For Dragon Age, this might mean things like: there are *no* solo sections. There are no *parts* where you play as companions. It may even mean other things in addition to that--basically, it's that the *existence* of the multiplayer component prevents certain things that COULD be done with an SP-only game but don't work well with MP--things that HAVE BEEN DONE in other Dragon Age games.

It doesn't mean that the MP is *required* in some way.

[Guilebrush]

Das Tentakel wrote...

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 too want to echo this sentiment. Let's face it, the only reason why there is any form of negative association with multiplayer on this forum is because of the utter debacle that took place in ME3 pre-Extended Cut. Had ME3 multiplayer been handled in such a way that people who didn't want to participate in it weren't forced into playing it to achieve their desires for this game (a sense of completion) we wouldn't even be having this discussion. The wounds were self inflicted by Bioware, and a segment of your fan base is disillusioned.

It boggles me why this isn't crystal clear to Bioware, just explicitly say something to the tune of: "yes we're considering adding multi-player experiences to all our future titles but we will not be compromising the single player immersion and experience in any way" and you actually keep to your word then the tune around the forums will be entirely different.

[GithCheater]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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?

DAO was an extremely long game that took 5 years to develop.  I would still buy it if I was reasonably certain that MP did not affect the SP experience.

Hypothetically, if DA3 turned out to be significantly shorter than DA2, I might be inclined to perceive that development of MP took away resources for developing the SP story.

Modifié par GithCheater, 15 septembre 2012 - 06:21 .

[Iakus]

GithCheater wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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?

DAO was an extremely long game that took 5 years to develop.  I would still buy it if I was reasonably certain that MP did not affect the SP experience.

Hypothetically, if DA3 turned out to be significantly shorter than DA2, I might be inclined to perceive that development of MP took away resources for developing the SP story.

Indeed.  DAO, even without DLCs, is darn near 50 hours of content and is highly replayable.  If it had multiplayer that didn't touch the SP, it would still feel like a complete game (because it is)

That's the fear.  That SP will be compromised to fit multiplayer.  Not just that MP will impact the SP campaign (though there's that too)  But that the game will be shortened, the balance altered. Characters and dialogue cut.  "zots" will be redistributed.  Even if funding and resources are separate, there are so many other ways MP can encroach on SP.

[lil yonce]

May I ask why there is the assumption that DA3 Co-op has to work similarly to an MMO? Co-op can be done in so many different ways.

[jbrand2002uk]

Considering how Bioware have ruined one of the few good Star Wars franchises by turning it into a subscription based MMO and then deliberately nerfed the F2P model so that you have to subscribe to play the game to its fullest.I'm not shocked that people are concerned because once we allow this its 1 long slippery slope to the DA series becoming an MMO subscription based farce but as long as that cheese eating surrender monkey Gibernau is in charge we may as well face palm ourselves to death.

All I'll say in regards to MP in DragonAge is HELL NO! I have purchased both games all the books and comics but if MP features in DA then i'm done with this franchise and BW

[Huntress]

"Divine Divinity, on the other hand, I spent probably a good 65% of the game trying to figure out WHAT THE EFF WAS GOING ON and HOW DO I GET OVER THERE and WHERE DID I LEAVE THE DAMN TELEPORTER THIS TIME."

Divinity 1? if you have space in the spell bar will appear in any of this number 6-9.
Divinity2? Press number 8-9 it will pop up, to the right side of the screen.. I haven't finished this game.. or Skyrim.. rofl.
Divine Divinity made me think of Kindoms of Amalur type of game.. Never bought it only tryed the demo tho.

[Huntress]

Guilebrush wrote...

Das Tentakel wrote...

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.

It boggles me why this isn't crystal clear to Bioware, just explicitly say something to the tune of: "yes we're considering adding multi-player experiences to all our future titles but we will not be compromising the single player immersion and experience in any way" and you actually keep to your word then the tune around the forums will be entirely different.

But they can't say that, if multiplayer is a ("success") then everything is going to be turned towards that end of the stick, why? MONEY, Bioware is a company and doesn't matter how big the amount of "faith" is put into the company by the players, they'll go where the money is.

Maybe they'll use something similar as what Diablo3 did to stop the nasty "hackers".. if they go that way then they'll lose tons of people.. again, not many people can play connected every day and let me tell you, not only they will stop the "nasty hackers" but people that bought their product will stop buying future products from this company aswell. meh..


It seem odd to me that a company will try to stop hackers by turning their game into a nightmare for the rest of their fan.. anyway I do remember reading about how a group of 200 or more people made a server and was playing WOW for free for years...

There is "no fool proof" code out there Bioware.. is our credit card as "secure" as "some" companies said they are? but For how long?

Modifié par Huntress, 15 septembre 2012 - 04:21 .

[Garrus94]

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 are arguing for coop I think.  This is not what most people are opposed to.  Most people just dont want mass effect multiplayer, including my self.  Coop seems nice since bioware could just let the second person play as one of the squad, of course this would limit it to a gameplay experince, but as you said the other person can already enjoy the story.

[ElitePinecone]

GithCheater wrote...
DAO was an extremely long game that took 5 years to develop.  I would still buy it if I was reasonably certain that MP did not affect the SP experience.

Hypothetically, if DA3 turned out to be significantly shorter than DA2, I might be inclined to perceive that development of MP took away resources for developing the SP story.

It's worth pointing out that Mike has said (most recently at one of the PAXeses) that they're aiming for the next game to be longer than DA2, and for it to have a bunch of extra content that doesn't lie on the critical path.

I think that without clear knowledge of what zots exist, where they're being allocated and the reasoning behind those two things - knowledge that we're unlikely to ever, ever get - it's hard to justify outrage or blind panic. When apparently projects involve multiple studios doing multiple things at the same time, it's uselss to say getting rid of a team building server architecture could magically create a whole new singleplayer questline out of thin air. 

(Crazy, uninformed speculation, but it stands to reason also that a game with MP would have higher sales projections from the business types at EA, and thus more company zots allocated, even if we consider that The Next Thing likely has a bigger SP budget than DA2 anyway.)

That said, there was a blurring of the MP and SP experiences in ME3 (people have already mentioned the N7 missions, but I'd throw in the enemy rosters and some of the tweaks to the combat system also), and while the singleplayer portion of the game was largely excellent - more than excellent, really - the final combat sequences weren't a patch on ME2's Suicide Mission in terms of creativity, tension or enjoyment. 'Priority: Earth' felt like it needed a lot of polish, and the gameplay sequences were honestly underwhelming. For the culmination of a series (and leaving aside the story maelstrom) I thought the whole concept of the level was weak, and perhaps if there'd been more resources allocated to begin with it could've done more exciting things with War Assets or character involvement, even having a dynamic final confrontation based on Shepard's past choices.

I don't know whether the multiplayer component (or the focus on cinematic missions like Tuchanka or Rannoch) affected the time and zots available for Priority: Earth, but part of me does find it extremely unfortunate that it happened the way it did. If zots were divided up right at the start of development (along with a conceptualisation of the main storyline and what all the levels would be like), I would wonder why the last level didn't get a more bold vision.

It's probably misguided to blame MP for that (rather than design choices), but I don't think we'll get much official insight into the development process any time soon. 

[Zevais]

Garrus94 wrote...

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 are arguing for coop I think.  This is not what most people are opposed to.  Most people just dont want mass effect multiplayer, including my self.  Coop seems nice since bioware could just let the second person play as one of the squad, of course this would limit it to a gameplay experince, but as you said the other person can already enjoy the story.

I see your point. Still, when games are labeled, they are still listed as Multiplayer when it is co-op and not Mass Effect 3 style. I don't want all this hate bringing the negative attention to co-op where it is not deserved.

Perhaps games should not label CO-OP and MULTIPLAYER as the same thing.