149 réponses à ce sujet

[Rawgrim]

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.

[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 .

[upsettingshorts]

Well, I did finally quit and unsub from SWG the moment I saw a naked Bothan Jedi named OMGWTFBBQ at the Coronet Cantina.

But that was an MMO.

[Allan Schumacher]

I can definitely understand it in an MMO

[thats1evildude]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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

Friiiiii-eeeeends? I do not know this word.

Modifié par thats1evildude, 16 septembre 2012 - 04:04 .

[wsandista]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Well, I did finally quit and unsub from SWG the moment I saw a naked Bothan Jedi named OMGWTFBBQ at the Coronet Cantina.

But that was an MMO.

Please tell me you are joking.

[Mello]

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.

[Androme]

Allan, people say that they won't buy a RPG-game with multiplayer in it because they think that the time and money spent developing the multiplayer part of the game takes away from the single player experience. This is a VERY valid concern, and even more valid in the case of DA3, you guys have a franchise to redeem, regardless if you see it that way or not, many feel like you do have to.

Modifié par Androme, 16 septembre 2012 - 04:07 .

[addiction21]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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?

Private or public games. Make that an option and its not a problem. Well some people would still make it a problem but as long as that option is availiable its only a perceived problem.

As far as I go I did my time with NWN multiplayer and Counterstrike. It just depended on my mood. I might join a friends server or pick a random game.

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Well, I did finally quit and unsub from SWG the moment I saw a naked Bothan Jedi named OMGWTFBBQ at the Coronet Cantina.

But that was an MMO.

Well it is a MMO that is to be expected. Do not worry the day is coming where people will be changing their names to simple **** like that.

I am reminded of a couple nekkid elves or cows from my WoW days that actually had a whole back story as to why they were doing what they were doing.

[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 .

[Fortlowe]

I've no problem with multiplayer. Frankly, I hope there is multiplayer in DA3. To me it suggests the possibility of a far deeper combat scheme for single player than we had in DA2.

I imagine it will likely bear many similarities to the MP from ME3 (horde mode, character progression, inventory, etc) but to be as compelling as ME3's MP, the combat will have to be far richer and more varied than what was available in DA2.

More enemy types with more sophisticated patterns and intelligence. A deeper set of combat animations for the player character that is also context and timing sensitive. Weapons that level up according to performance and economy. CHARACTER SELECTION. These will have to be a part of multiplayer if it is to be successful. And I'm sure I'm missing a dozen other gameplay elements that need to be included in order for MP in DA to work.

And if this stuff will be in multiplayer, then it goes without saying that it will be in singleplayer as well. So maybe instead of thinking of multiplayer as a hinderence to single player, we should instead at least consider maybe multiplayer will contribute to singleplayer.

[upsettingshorts]

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.

It's almost as if there was this massive public outcry that resulted in entirely new, completely unplanned, free-of-charge single player content being created and thrown out the door that might have altered their release schedule or something.

wsandista wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Well, I did finally quit and unsub from SWG the moment I saw a naked Bothan Jedi named OMGWTFBBQ at the Coronet Cantina.

But that was an MMO.

Please tell me you are joking.

Are you asking if it happened?  Or if I quit and unsub'd after seeing that?

In order:  Yes, and yes but it was a long time coming at that point and it was the last straw. 

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 16 septembre 2012 - 07:13 .

[ElitePinecone]

Allan Schumacher wrote...
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.

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

Leviathan was pushed back a bit, I think, it was five months after launch.

There's another one being hinted now (it'll release, say, six or seven months after launch).

ME2, by contrast, had the Firewalker pack within two months, Kasumi at two and a half, Overlord at five and Lair of the Shadow Broker at about seven or eight.

DA2's were much more spaced out, but I think in that case going on Mike's comments they were working on polishing Legacy to incorporate feedback. 

Does that mean there's a similar amount of ME3 DLC on the way to what the team made for ME2? 

[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 .

[nightcobra]

Allan Schumacher 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.

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?!

dungeons ala ff6, you know the ones (the phoenix dungeon for example) where the party could split up into 2 or even 3 different teams and then they'd work together to advance through the dungeon by unlocking pathways or disabling traps for the allied team, having a friend control a party member and then choose to lead the second team would be great IMO. kinda a mix between portal 2's co-op and ff6 "2 to 3 team" dungeons.

[Aggie Punbot]

To be fair, multiplayer can be a lot of fun, but it can also be the most frustrating things when it comes to playing a game with an engaging story. I recently purchased TOR (because it went on sale for $15 and will be going Free-To-Play sometime soon) and actually found it a lot more enjoyable than I thought I would (server lag notwithstanding), but once I hit a point in the game where I just couldn't progress (likely because of my current ineptitude at learning a new game's ins and outs), I came to the disappointing realization that I would almost certainly never be able to see the entire story told "live" since I just couldn't get over that one obstacle. In single player games, if you're having a hard time you can just change the difficulty level or utilize the pause function while you hunt down possible solutions (or in an extreme case, you can just cheat). None of these are options in MMORPGs.*

They may be fun on their own merits but multiplayer games just feel and play differently than single player games. I for one would not like to see another of my favorite game series' ruined by the inclusion of multiplayer.

* Although I have heard that LA Noire gives you the option of skipping action scenes if you fail it three times in a row, which would be a rather ideal solution to this problem.

Modifié par TS2Aggie, 16 septembre 2012 - 10:48 .

[Code_R]

It's unpopular because of the basic fact that it detracts from the rest of the game. Before you jump in and suggest that this is untrue and they have a seperate group of people doing the MP development, look at the big picture and see how unfinished ME3 feels.

If the team was 10 people, and 5 got moved over to the MP office, the product would suffer. If they decided to spend money hiring and got 10 people for story, and another 5 for MP would it still be as bad or would that fix the problem? However where is that money coming from? Your budget is finite. Would it not be a better idea to spend that giving more time to those original 10 to get a better game made? Or even have a total 15 on that team greatly increasing the quality? Crazy I know, but how things turned out just confirms my previous cynical ideas about this.

[ElitePinecone]

Code_R wrote...
If they decided to spend money hiring and got 10 people for story, and another 5 for MP would it still be as bad or would that fix the problem? However where is that money coming from? Your budget is finite. Would it not be a better idea to spend that giving more time to those original 10 to get a better game made? Or even have a total 15 on that team greatly increasing the quality? Crazy I know, but how things turned out just confirms my previous cynical ideas about this.

Generally (and we don't know the specifics) studios don't spend money on enormous AAA games without doing sales projections and factoring in various opportunity costs. They don't throw money at things if they don't expect a bigger return as a result. 

In your example above, 10 people for story and 5 for MP is closer to what it appears the development of ME3 looked like. The main ME3 team at Edmonton was supported by Bioware Montreal, which it seems developed much of the MP content. The costs of hiring extra MP developers (and more at Edmonton, it seems) is reimbursed by the increased sales numbers of ME3 compared to its predecessor, and the continuing money they make from microtransactions and a higher uptake of DLC content. 

Point being: it's not necessarily true that multiplayer detracts from SP content - in many cases it can actually boost the budget available to the SP team, because the studio has more positive sales projections and they have the added benefit of auxillary developers at other studios. 

Would the most ideal outcome be 15 developers (using your example above) on singleplayer content? Sure! But to the publisher and the studio, hiring all those extra people and spending all the extra time on singleplayer might not make sense from a sales point of view, if the extra copies sold from a "zomg awesome" story campaign don't match what they spent in time and money to make that. By all accounts ME3's MP was surprisingly successful and it looks like it was profitable, given the number of $1 and $2 microtransactions, and I'm sure in gross profits it's generated much more than its predecessors. 

There can be endless arguments about which model is better, but ultimately higher-ups at EA/Bioware have both the inside information and the control, and they've decided some sort of mandatory online or multiplayer content is a good business model. Time will tell if it works out - but I don't think it's wise to be cynical without all the facts. From the outside we can't do much more than speculate. 

[Rawgrim]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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?

If its an option, then its no problem. But seeing how the multiplayer in ME3 was more or less required to get a "perfect ending", I decided to use that argument.

[Foolsfolly]

To get my small opinion on the matter clear.

I dislike hearing about multiplayer being attached because of two reasons.

1- There are games in the past with multiplayer added on that had weak single player. Therefore from the outside it's easy to say "Well it's the multiplayer focus that ruined the singleplayer." This is most easily seen in sports games and shooters. Some shooters have better stories than you'd think (Spec Ops: The Line has a great story, for example) but largely they have weak singleplayer stories and diverse interesting multiplayer death matches. And when a story heavy singleplayer only game gets multiplayer added on the game that gets it tends to have a weaker singleplayer (BioShock was great... BioShock 2 was weak and hey look there's a multiplayer aspect to blame for that weakness... I blame not having Ken Levine involved in the game but multiplayer got all the flak for that one).

2- It's content I can not ever access. I have a monthly data allowance from Verizon. I could either have a few deathmatchs online for a few hours having fun while doing so... and then be in blackout online from that point on. Or I can ignore multiplayer and still have internet all month. It's not a hard choice for me. So when I hear a series I like goes MMO (WarCraft, KOTOR) I don't care. Or if a game can only be played online (Diablo 3) I say "Well, I'm not getting that game."

This also means I honestly do feel rage when a game forces you to play multiplayer for the singleplayer campaign. Strictly speaking Mass Effect 3 didn't FORCE you to but it's impossible to get the best ending without it. (At least until EC came out). But even so I felt angry knowing that Facebook games and multiplayer all contributed to my singleplayer experience.

I see why BioWare did this. On paper it's like having your cake and eating it to. You have Multiplayer and that multiplayer matters because it's part of the story. But it ended up locking out things for those who couldn't or wouldn't play multiplayer.

So those are the reasons why I personally do not ever go "Oh boy! Multiplayer!" And there's only ever been one sequel that added multiplayer that I felt was better for it. And that was Halo 2. And that was more because Xbox Live finally started living up to what it set out to be.

[wsandista]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

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.

It's almost as if there was this massive public outcry that resulted in entirely new, completely unplanned, free-of-charge single player content being created and thrown out the door that might have altered their release schedule or something.

wsandista wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Well, I did finally quit and unsub from SWG the moment I saw a naked Bothan Jedi named OMGWTFBBQ at the Coronet Cantina.

But that was an MMO.

Please tell me you are joking.

Are you asking if it happened?  Or if I quit and unsub'd after seeing that?

In order:  Yes, and yes but it was a long time coming at that point and it was the last straw. 

If it happened. I should have been a bit more clear about that.

[Cyberstrike nTo]

First off I must state for the record that I'm a console gamer and generally don't mess with MP I mean Mass Effect 3 and UNO are about the only two multiplayer games that I actually like.

Now that said I don't like the MP is anyway and how it's integrated in the story of SP mode in Mass Effect 3. I feel that I am forced to play the MP in order to get my galactic readiness up and the fact that at several times I have had 100% Galactic Readiness and in a week or two it drops down to about 75-80% the fact that a lot of character classes (in particular the DLC classes) have to be unlocked by purchasing packs that cost either 99.999 credits or $2 (yeah I know about how EA wants profits from the so-called micro-transactions) and that it's random doesn't help. I have also have to say that I've gotten a ton of stuff that I don't want, need, or use and I can't get rid of.

If the MP mode is completely seprate from the SP mode I have no problem with it (like Transformers: War For Cybertron) and I can play it when and IF I feel like it.  

[Arthur Cousland]

For me, I've had experience with games where in a sequel, multiplayer is added and the single player modes show obvious signs of neglect.  The game has a feeling like there's no point in playing it unless I'm playing it online against others.

Multiplayer in DA3 could turn out ok.  I just hope that it's not too much of a focus and that I'm not missing anything in the single player mode by not playing multiplayer, like extra quests, equipment, and etc., or that the main game is a bit more buggy or just lacking in general because resources were spread too thin.

I also don't want to be forbidden from seeing the "ideal" ending to the game if I haven't played multiplayer.

Modifié par Arthur Cousland, 17 septembre 2012 - 02:24 .