129 réponses à ce sujet

[robertthebard]

Melima wrote...

 Wow,...I'm shocked to find out that so many people do not know the difference between an MP and an MMO. Huh. 
Multi-player can really -- as in Baldur's Gate -- just be about you playing the game, and having WHO YOU WANT joining you in the game, even if it's only one other person. NWN had password protection if you wanted to use a game server, so only the people you gave the password to could join you. When a game has the multiplayer option, please understand that it's only an option! It does not ever force you to play with another person.

Lord of the Rings Online, Elder Scrolls Online and SWTOR, are examples of MMO's (Massive Multiplayer Online), and that is open to anyone; to the masses. You have no choice but to put up with good and bad people running amuck.
When I was playing Dragon Age, and also Skyrim, I was often talking to a couple of my buddies about the game, showing screenshots, or when they were over, letting them watch a certain scene as I'd played it out. My friends were doing the same toward me, and we kept saying to each other, "Man, I wish we could play together".  This was brought up to the Dragon Age developers at Pax East as well.

I'm not sure why players would be against an option. Developers and programmers, writers, now it is bound to cause them more thinking, more work. If they're willing to offer the option, I'd like to see it.  Well, that's my two cents.

...and I myself, in this thread, have pointed out that that kind of MP I would be behind.  However, my experience with ME's MP was vastly different, initially.  MP literally affected the outcome, in as much as it could, of the SP campaign.  This is what I rail against.  I don't care about LAN style MP, I even played BG that way with my then GF.  I built, scripted and played NWN's MP for 5 years.  The thing about both?  My SP game remained unaffected by whatever I did in MP.  If you look carefully at these topics, you'll a lot more people concerned about either resources that could be used elsewhere, or the jaded feeling from ME's MP, where it literally could affect the SP game just by it's very existence.  This is the big issue for me, and I'm not alone.

[El Dude 9]

robertthebard wrote...

Melima wrote...

 Wow,...I'm shocked to find out that so many people do not know the difference between an MP and an MMO. Huh. 
Multi-player can really -- as in Baldur's Gate -- just be about you playing the game, and having WHO YOU WANT joining you in the game, even if it's only one other person. NWN had password protection if you wanted to use a game server, so only the people you gave the password to could join you. When a game has the multiplayer option, please understand that it's only an option! It does not ever force you to play with another person.

Lord of the Rings Online, Elder Scrolls Online and SWTOR, are examples of MMO's (Massive Multiplayer Online), and that is open to anyone; to the masses. You have no choice but to put up with good and bad people running amuck.
When I was playing Dragon Age, and also Skyrim, I was often talking to a couple of my buddies about the game, showing screenshots, or when they were over, letting them watch a certain scene as I'd played it out. My friends were doing the same toward me, and we kept saying to each other, "Man, I wish we could play together".  This was brought up to the Dragon Age developers at Pax East as well.

I'm not sure why players would be against an option. Developers and programmers, writers, now it is bound to cause them more thinking, more work. If they're willing to offer the option, I'd like to see it.  Well, that's my two cents.

...and I myself, in this thread, have pointed out that that kind of MP I would be behind.  However, my experience with ME's MP was vastly different, initially.  MP literally affected the outcome, in as much as it could, of the SP campaign.  This is what I rail against.  I don't care about LAN style MP, I even played BG that way with my then GF.  I built, scripted and played NWN's MP for 5 years.  The thing about both?  My SP game remained unaffected by whatever I did in MP.  If you look carefully at these topics, you'll a lot more people concerned about either resources that could be used elsewhere, or the jaded feeling from ME's MP, where it literally could affect the SP game just by it's very existence.  This is the big issue for me, and I'm not alone.

I think it would be cool if the MP didn't affect the major points of the game (Spoiler The way ME3's MP if you didn't play it everything died) but maybe if you play the multiplayer it does change your game a little and maybe certain characters appear. Just the way by doing certain choices in SP affects little details, the MP would do the same. Sorry if that doen't make sense.

[Wolven_Essence]

NO!

[sunnydxmen]

Multiplayer should not influence single player at all, in fact just don't add it.

[Vrin]

Warriors...rogues...wizards...running around....killing dragons and darkspawn...levelling up...getting better weapons.

Yeah, it'd never sell.

http://en.wikipedia....rld_of_Warcraft

With over 10 million subscribers as of October 2012, World of Warcraft is currently the world's most-subscribed MMORPG,and holds the Guinness World Record for the most popular MMORPG by subscribers.

Modifié par Vrin, 12 mars 2013 - 02:25 .

[SwordofMercy1]

Umm... No...
Don't get me wrong, I like multiplayer for certain games (though I definatley outgrew the Crap of Duty)... But not for something like Dragon Age... Heck, we really didn't need it in Mass Effect 3 (Dodges flying chair). The bad thing about doing online multiplayer is that some companies tend to do it badly, at least in my opinion. This is because they have a deadline and try to do multiplayer and singlplayer mode at the same time. When they realize they are running out of time they do the worst thing possible... They CUT CRAP OUT OF THE STORY!!!!!!!!; Granted, this statement falls back on articles about why companies like Bethesda, Obsidian, and Valve do not include online multiplayer in most of their games(Can't find it ). You know, instead of using common sense to put a pause on the repetitive multiplayer mode, until they are completely done with the story, and THEN work on multiplayer. Now I'm not pointing the blame at anyone *cough cough EA cough*, but it seems to me after these past few games have been quite disappointing. Once again this is my own opinion. Now, I'm not saying it can't be done, as seen in Neverwinter Nights... But with a rigid deadline that is bound to pop-up and stay their (EA... Bioware heads?), I can't really see this ending very well... Though I will maintain some faith in the devs. They may very well surprise me.

[Fast Jimmy]

Vrin wrote...

Warriors...rogues...wizards...running around....killing dragons and darkspawn...levelling up...getting better weapons.

Yeah, it'd never sell.

http://en.wikipedia....rld_of_Warcraft

With over 10 million subscribers as of October 2012, World of Warcraft is currently the world's most-subscribed MMORPG,and holds the Guinness World Record for the most popular MMORPG by subscribers.

Why isn't there a facepalm emoticon? If I had a dime out there for every MMO/online/MP function that tried to copy/paste fantasy elements to replicate the WoW player base... well, I'd have a crap ton of dimes.

There is a multitude of reasons WoW is a huge success. None of them would be applicable if the DA series were to attempt a PvP, Horde, Capture the Flag, etc. mode of MP in the game just for the MP lolz. 

Bioware already tried to create a WoW killer... to very limited success. Something tells me a MP mode for DA won't be the one to do that.

[Heimdall]

I still think the only MP mode I would probably play a lot of would be something in the style of SWTOR Flashpoints. A forty minute to an hour dungeon with weekly, biweekly, or monthly releases of new dungeons creating an entirely separate self contained but not unrelated storyline a la Spartan Ops. Add in an arena, set in some sort of Tevinter Colliseum with magically alterable environments, and we could have both pvp and horde mode fights complete with in lore justification to tide people over.

...Of course, such a thing could prove prohibitively labor intensive.

Modifié par Lord Aesir, 12 mars 2013 - 03:50 .

[Dirgegun]

I can't say I care either way. I played my fill of the ME3 MP when the demo was released (oops!), so I never played it when I got the actual game. It... didn't effect my game at all. Positively or negatively. I still managed to obtain all the galactic readiness I needed for what I considered was the best outcome, so.... did people seriously have trouble with this?  

Anyway, if people will enjoy it, go for it. I'm not about to say people shouldn't have it because I might not play it. So long as it's a separate thing but still story relevant, just like the ME3 MP, then do whatever with the concept...

...Especially when they get a seperate budget for MP. So it's not like they're taking rescources from the SP at all.

Modifié par Dirgegun, 12 mars 2013 - 04:49 .

[Boiny Bunny]

Lithuasil wrote...

If competitive multiplayer has a chance or not, pretty much hinges on whether combat in DA3 is designed to follow reason, or to please the "all games were better twenty years ago" crowd.

And what exactly is unreasonable about the multiplayer included in (say) Baldur's Gate?  It allows up to six players to play through the entire game, with the character they build, or by controlling the default party members.  This would be trickier to implement nowadays, given how conversations with companions have developed, but if Bioware could pull it off, being able to play DA:O or DA2 with other players controlling your other party members would be infinitely superior to an incredibly shallow MP experience where all you do is kill endless waves of pitiful grunts with no story and years of grinding required to unlock new clothes to wear.

[Fast Jimmy]

^

Yes, but the amount of people who would use it are extremely low. Co-op features are always incredibly under-utilized and offers nearly no increase in interest, hence no increase in sales.

I don't see how that would be worth the time and money involved in creating it. That is, I don't see EA approving separate funds for a MP component not many people will use, that won't result in greater sales and that doesn't have the option of generating any additional revenue.

ME3's MP, on the other hand, was required to access all the SP campaign content, had very high engagement rates and had the MP Store, where microtransactions generated enough revenue to give free MP DLC on a regular basis (which means they not only were making enough money to do so, but making enough PROFIT, above and beyond their operating costs, to continue doing so without a second thought).

A MP campaign that is tied to the SP game in some fashion, that will be presented in a format that MP players will recognize and enjoy (Horde mode, PvP, arena, Capture the Flag, etc.) and which will have some way to generate revenue through microtransactions is the most likely result we will see with a DA3 MP. They may have said they would use Baldur's Gate as their template for a MP component, but they will be looking extremely hard at the ME3 MP success and revenue. Or, at the very least, the EA execs will be MAKING them look at it.

After all, you're comparing an online feature in BG that was used only in the rarest of circumstances (friends getting together over a LAN connection to play a SP game) against a MP feature in ME3 which some people say is the best part of the game and which has made Bioware a considerable amount of money.To assume Bioware is really only going to stick with a co-op mode that mirrors Baldur's Gate, except without the LAN requirement, is a little of the naive side, if you ask me.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 12 mars 2013 - 11:02 .

[AnacondaDarce]

Personally, i can't see how multiplayer will work in DA simply because of the type of game it is, but i'm more than willing to give it a chance, Looking at what Bioware did with ME3, i'm imagining a team of 4 co-op horde mode where everyone has their own party like in the singleplayer, party members could be cpu or you could switch through them, and you unlock new party members and gear through level up and dlc. but if it isn't like this...

If it's pvp and the matchmaking isn't level based or the game isn't balanced somehow, shouldn't a level 22 kill a level 5 in 3 hits? or entering your first game as a level 1, and facing someone with full dragonplate and a serious sword, while your stuck wearing your rusty iron sandels, doesn't seem fair.

If it's team based i could see that being a lot better, not Deathmatch though, something objective based or something similiar to what 343 tried to do with spartan ops on halo 4.

But, if they really want to do deathmatch, the only way i can see that working is if it's a hack n slash, something like the xbox elder scrolls games (morrowind, oblivion, skyrim) but that would mean a complete redo of almost every game mechanic DA has. I suppose only time will tell.

[MKDAWUSS]

Multiplayer should impact DLC content, that's it.

[milena87]

Right now I'm really just hoping that DA3 will only have social element like the possibility of updating your characters here in the Bioware Social Network or something equally useless; not a MP mode like ME3.

I just don't see the point in it. If MP is one of the main focus of a game then ok, but just a mode that in the vast majority of cases is boring/useless/broken? Why even bother?

[imbs]

you cant really expect a multiplayer thread to do well on these forums. This is the home of the gamer who doesnt like losing and/or frustration in any way, shape or form. The type of gamer who will never understand the point in a save/load system that doesnt have 0 restrictions. The type of gamer who doesnt understand why it is possible to fail in games.

I have to wonder how most of these "gamers" didn't just stick to films/books honestly.

Fact of the matter is a MP could be a large amount of fun. Any faith in Bioware at all (altho I can understand lack of such right now with DA2 n all) should lead you true fans to believe the SP experience will still deliver, and that the MP could only be a bonus. Some of the best single player games have MP modes; this has been true since the dawn of video games.

[Howlsfury]

I'am on the fence on this one, I'like multi-player games but i play bioware games for the story and role playing. And while the Multi in ME3 was fun it DID effect the single player, many of the MP aspects of the game were reused in much of the DLC for ME3 ( i'am looking at you Leviathan ) and you could tell there was some severe quality control due to it as well. Just compare Lair of the Shadow broker from ME2 to Omega.
So i would like to say Yes to competitive MP on Dragon age, but i cannot help but feel like the single player would suffer. Now, some 4 player Drop in Drop out Co-op in the main game I would love to see, with friends taking over your companions.

[TEKEO ANDO]

A lot of people seem disappointed that ME3 even had a multiplayer but I enjoyed our cheap horde mode because before I couldn't play my favorite bioware games with my friends so I was happy that bioware decided to go the extra step with Mass Effect and add some form of multiplayer and I sincerely hope bioware continues to make multiplayer in games and hopefully there will be major improvements in how they make multiplayer but I also hope they don't degrade the single player. I'm sure many people disagree but unlike some people, I have friends I like to play video games with.

[TEKEO ANDO]

I think the drop in drop out co op sounds pretty cool for the campaign but it depends on the story on things like if the player is a seeker then there could be multiple seekers for co op and they being their own single player character for co op, at least just a thought I think sounds cool

[Uccio]

No. *said with the certainty of the Qun*

[Fast Jimmy]

TEKEO ANDO wrote...

I think the drop in drop out co op sounds pretty cool for the campaign but it depends on the story on things like if the player is a seeker then there could be multiple seekers for co op and they being their own single player character for co op, at least just a thought I think sounds cool

This sounds terrible to me.

Has anyone thought this through? You are controlling a party in these games. You switch your members around to perform different tasks. The game pauses when you pull up the radial menu to get a potion or select a skill. When you line up an AoE skill, it pauses the game so you can place if correctly. 

Point being... the game pauses a lot during combat. If you have two (or MORE, God forbid) people in control of that,you will have constant stop-and-go gameplay, where you are trying to do something while your buddy keeps pausing it to try and find the spell he wants, while you twiddle your thumbs. Combat aside, what will your co-op buddies do when you are in dialogue situations? Go make a sandwich? Or will you have to hold a vote and reach a consensus for every choice or Interrupt?

Its going to be like driving with someone in one of those student-driver cars, where the person next to you can hit the brakes at any time, causing you to lurch to a stop unexpectedly. Or, conversely, they will just remove the pause function altogether and make all choices/actions done in real time, which will turn the combat into more twitch/action based rather than thought-driven tactics. Neither of those experiences translates into anything resembling "fun."

[Eralrik]

I can hear it now in a 4 or 6 man run through a story in CO-OP mode <Will you hit the spacebar or were gonna boot you from the group> I get told that alot in SWTOR.

I could see a multiplayer type thing where people could create story's something like The Foundry in Star Trek Online and NWN for groups of people to get together and challenge the story that was written.

But going 11 rounds with kill mobs that get tougher an then dust off got old really quick in ME3 though alot of people love doing the same thing day in an day out it seems, over an over and over and buying new packs with those wonderful micro transactions that seem to be popping up in alot of games lately. <Sarcasm by the way>

But if the multiplayer is a part of the single player mode like in ME3 I will most definatly not buy it because I don't want the best possible ending to be forced on me to have to play multiplayer to get it, When I come home from work the last thing I want to do is deal with idiots in a multiplayer match in a single player game and it better not be required to be online all the time in order to play the single player game as many games these days seem to be doing. <Sigh!!>

[Fast Jimmy]

But if the multiplayer is a part of the single player mode like in ME3 I will most definatly not buy it because I don't want the best possible ending to be forced on me to have to play multiplayer to get it

To be fair, THAT'S a serious problem.

Why? Because no one KNEW this was the case. Bioware was not honest (I'm not going to say they lied, but they were definitely not upfront and honest) with the fact that elements of the Single Player campaign were locked out unless you played either MP or the smart phone app.

How would you know this is the case? How could you make an informed decision? Only by listening to other people. Which means that in order to uncover the truth, a large number of people had to purchase the game, complete it in a myriad of different ways and figure out the exact math. People didn't find out the "Breathe" scene was 100% impossible to achieve without MP until a few weeks or even a month until after the game came out, at which time it was still denied by Bioware that it was the case. The EC fixed this math, but that's not really the point.

I have heard a lot of people say "I won't buy the game if the MP doesn't affect the SP." The problem is WE WON'T BE TOLD THAT. If Bioware comes out and says "The MP won't affect the SP, it is simply something designed to make the game more fun and engaging." then guess what? They've said that before and it was proven without a shadow of a doubt to not only have been inaccurate, but confirmed to have been intentionally the opposite in the design of the game to push more people to play MP (as confirmed by Chris Priestly, BSN Community Manager).

So my only argument is "how will we know?" The answer is we won't. We can't. Not on release day. Heck, maybe not even in the first month of release. So, in lieu of demanding Bioware show us exact design documents, math calculations and system logistics, the only smart thing I believe we can do is just fight MP across the board. It isn't going to make the SP any better and that is the focus of these games.

And for those who think that is because I'm an anti-social basement dweller who doesn't want to deal with real people just because I'm against multiplayer, I'd suggest you remove your head from the place between your legs. Multiplayer is fine in the games it works for. Skyrim and Fallout, games which are single-player based and are quite action driven (especially New Vegas, which gimps the VATS system) would be MUCH more accessible in terms of gameplay to add MP into. Yet Bethesda doesn't because they realize that such an experience integrated into their SP experience would provide a poor element of gameplay.

So why so many people think that doing the same thing with Dragon Age, a party-based tactical RPG would be a good idea is mind-boggling to me. These types of games have their roots in turn-based, strategic and thought-driven games. They were the fantasy versions of playing chess. Just like bringing 2, 3 or more people into playing one side of a chess match is a recipe for bad choices, terrible experience and lots of infighting, so would it be the same for a party-based game. The mechanics, set up and overall tone is just an incredibly poor venue for it. Any of it.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 14 mars 2013 - 12:11 .

[HolyAvenger]

Bring on horde mode in DA3 I say.

I loved in ME3, spent well over 600hrs in it, had a lot of fun.

[Wulfram]

If it was unequivocally said "Whether you play MP or not will have no effect on the SP game whatsoever" then I think you could rely on that pretty well.

It's if there is some sort of tie in, but they say it's totally fine and won't cause any problems for SP then it will get difficult to make a judgement. Because that's subjective, and thus subject to both spin and honestly differing interpretations.

(And I guess the EMS debacle was more down to them really not putting anything like the sort of thought and care as they should have in the whole system, rather than any knowing dishonesty. Though they could have done with checking things out properly as soon as people started posting well reasoned complaints, and they really should have posted an apology along with the fix, rather than a bunch of stuff that pretended there was never a problem)

[Fast Jimmy]

Wulfram wrote...

(And I guess the EMS debacle was more down to them really not putting anything like the sort of thought and care as they should have in the whole system, rather than any knowing dishonesty. Though they could have done with checking things out properly as soon as people started posting well reasoned complaints, and they really should have posted an apology along with the fix, rather than a bunch of stuff that pretended there was never a problem)

That's the thing... when they did do the "fix," the long-running thread by forumites documenting the fact that it was impossible to get the Breathe ending without MP or the mobile app said "well, we were right! And you guys told us we were wrong!" To which Chris Priestly said, in some many words, that it was not a mistake on the part of the ME3 team, but a true design choice designed to encourage players to play MP in order to get what the dev team viewed as an Easter Egg. 

So this wasn't an issue of Bioware not getting their math right. It was deliberate. 

While I agree that they will learn their lesson from the flak they received from it, it wasn't a lesson of "we should make sure our numbers are right" but a lesson of "we shouldn't tie the SP and MP together like that." Either way, it is still a bad precedent.

Coupled with the fact that I just think the DA gameplay style is terribly suited to MP of any sort. A DM-client type of service, where a player can set up and create content that other characters can go and play would be really cool (a la NWN), but ultimately that type of game is not in Bioware's scope anymore. They aren't doing a mod kit on that level anytime soon, nor do they think that type of MP setting can generate extra sales or revenue.

I think the philosophy should be "does this make a better game?" Having MP may introduce a lot of problems, risks, worries and detract attention, if not outright funds, from what should be the core of the game - the SP. All for a gameplay feature most fans are actively against (see the crowd reaction at PAX East last year where they were screaming, literally, "No!" when the concept was even mentioned) and which would not enrich the game, but add a small diversion for players who want to do something extra. 

Is a co-op mode that won't really translate to any new content/different gameplay worth it? Is a Horde mode where you kill tons of dragons/darkspawn/demons? Is a PvP Arena, where all you do is just clash with other groups? All semi-cool sounding features, but we hear about LOTS of semi-cool features that aren't going to make the cut. Multiple playable races, non-combat skills, branching/divergent storylines, etc. The only reason MP gets special consideration is because it fits into the EA agenda of pushing more and more players online to prevent used game sales and generating more money in things like microtransactions. AKA - it is directly generating more revenue.

I'd instead like them to focus on ways to make the SP game more unique, exciting and amazing in order to result in  a better game and more sales than focus efforts into a side-portion of the game that A) only works to be incentive to play by EA's rules and runs the risk of having SP content tied to it (by accident or on purpose) and angering those who just flat out don't want to play it.

Is that a crime now? To not want to play a MP component in a SP game? In the EA philosophy, the answer is becoming more and more "yes."

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 14 mars 2013 - 01:20 .