50 réponses à ce sujet

[Vandicus]

Ecto-Plasmic Effect wrote...

We're going to play as dragons.

I'd buy that.

[Robhuzz]

Another option could be to implement some actual co-op missions that will require at least one other player to help you

If I HAVE to do some co-op missions to be able to enjoy all of the story then that's basically mandatory multiplayer all over again. In which case I'd pass on the game altogether. DA doesn't need multiplayer where I come from and even though I do not mind if it gets in (we all know EA wants their microtransactions so multiplayer is in) I DO NOT want to be forced to play it. Simple.

[C9316]

No, DA doesn't need multiplayer.

[Vandicus]

Robhuzz wrote...

Another option could be to implement some actual co-op missions that will require at least one other player to help you

If I HAVE to do some co-op missions to be able to enjoy all of the story then that's basically mandatory multiplayer all over again. In which case I'd pass on the game altogether. DA doesn't need multiplayer where I come from and even though I do not mind if it gets in (we all know EA wants their microtransactions so multiplayer is in) I DO NOT want to be forced to play it. Simple.

What do you define as all of the story? Would it bother you if multiplayer had its own story tied to it separate from single player?

[Merlex]

SpEcIaLRyAn wrote...

bob4444 wrote...

MichaelStuart wrote...

I'm not really a online gameplay sort of person.
I could see offline co-op working.

I dont mean like against someone or like anyone joining when they feel like it but like just your mates so yeah offline would be good but have the option to invite your online mates as well 

I can live with that. I mean I am not really crazy about a mainly singleplayer game getting multiplayer but I wouldn't mind a PVP system or Co-Op missions. I am not unreasonable.

I could live with that, as long as it's not required. If online is required for play, or the best outcome, it's a deal breaker for me. The only deal breaker condition i have.

[Vandicus]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Vandicus wrote...


What do you define as all of the story? Would it bother you if multiplayer had its own story tied to it separate from single player?

That sounds like AC where the main storyline got about eight hours, or about 8/20 shorter.

I stopped following AC after brotherhood, but I wasn't aware that they had a story to go with their multiplayer.

I'm wondering whether the poster I was talking to would be upset if the multiplayer tied into the story like ME3 does, every operation they have lore based goals and success or failure messages. 

[Felya87]

DA3 don't need multiplayer. It need a good story, a lot of costumization, various races and origins to create different character, a lot of different dialogue choise, difficult decision with a big impact in the game.

THOSE are the things that DA3 need to have a good replaybility, not a useless and forced multyplayer.

Can't be done as a free DLC? so people like me who aren't interested in it aren't forced to have it?

If I will buy DA3, I would buy a single player game, not a multiplayer!!! ME3 multyplayer was already bad, expecially the way it influenced the ending before the extended cut. A very subtle and shameful job.
so, no, no multyplayer.

[Robhuzz]

Vandicus wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...

Vandicus wrote...


What do you define as all of the story? Would it bother you if multiplayer had its own story tied to it separate from single player?

That sounds like AC where the main storyline got about eight hours, or about 8/20 shorter.

I stopped following AC after brotherhood, but I wasn't aware that they had a story to go with their multiplayer.

I'm wondering whether the poster I was talking to would be upset if the multiplayer tied into the story like ME3 does, every operation they have lore based goals and success or failure messages. 

Seperate operations that have no real bearing on the single player game are fine with me, like ME3s multiplayer. When the multiplayer starts affecting the single player, that's where I draw the line. I do not want to be forced to play it. So no major story element that should be in the single player game should be in the multiplayer. The same goes for being punished for not playing multiplayer. Like ME3 (pre EC) where you had to play multiplayer to get the best ending (even that was complete garbage but that's a different discussion).

In short: A seperate multiplayer that doesn't affect the single player and doesn't take away from it is fine with me. Anything else: No.

Modifié par Robhuzz, 13 octobre 2012 - 09:46 .

[Rawgrim]

I plow online gameplay.

[AmaneSaiko]

Logan Cloud wrote...

Why not just make the campaign have co-op options? Story doesn't suffer because of multiplayer, and those who want to play together can. Everyone wins.

This. It seems the best route to go, if we have to have multiplayer. Plus I have sort of been secretly wanting this for a while. 

[Rawgrim]

AmaneSaiko wrote...

Logan Cloud wrote...

Why not just make the campaign have co-op options? Story doesn't suffer because of multiplayer, and those who want to play together can. Everyone wins.

This. It seems the best route to go, if we have to have multiplayer. Plus I have sort of been secretly wanting this for a while. 

Except time, energy, effort, and resources gets spent on making the multiplayer bit work. All this being taken away from the game itself. It usually don`t end well.

[AmaneSaiko]

Rawgrim wrote...

AmaneSaiko wrote...

Logan Cloud wrote...

Why not just make the campaign have co-op options? Story doesn't suffer because of multiplayer, and those who want to play together can. Everyone wins.

This. It seems the best route to go, if we have to have multiplayer. Plus I have sort of been secretly wanting this for a while. 

Except time, energy, effort, and resources gets spent on making the multiplayer bit work. All this being taken away from the game itself. It usually don`t end well.

True, anything added to the game that was not there before will take up resources. If multiplayer is going to be added this would be the way I would enjoy it most, or be able to ignore it best. Truely we don't need multiplayer at all and it saddens me that companies feel the need to put multiplayer everywhere. If I want multiplayer I will play a game designed for multiplayer, not one with it tacked on somewhere since as you say, it usually doesn't end well. 

[Rawgrim]

MMO`s are designed for this type of play, anyway. Why not play those? And let single player games stay single player. Hybrids only end up decent on both accounts anyway.

[AmaneSaiko]

In my perfect world single player games stay single player games. For some reason companies think multiplayer adds to a game, which it does not always, especially in single player RPGs.I think they forget about players who just want to play by themselves and immerse themselves in a fantasy universe.
I just wish we didn't even have to contemplate whether multiplayer could/should be introduced in single player games, but alas we do.

[Rawgrim]

Yes, I agree. Plus you can`t allways play with your friends either. Timing has to work for you and your friend.

[Jadebaby]

No, what the ****!? Why does every game have to have a multiplayer? Mass Effect was always my favourite game because it didn't need a Multiplayer to be a damn good game! And then when they did introduce it. Look what happened!

[TCBC_Freak]

One of the biggest problems is that one of the points of Dragon Age is that you can play very tactical. You can pause the game and take your time. If you have another player drop in the middle of the single player game what happens? You pause to decide what your character and the other two NPC do while he/she just waits, gets a soda... what? Then what if they pause while I'm in the middle of using my quick keys to cast a spell and it jacks up my animation and my mage is stuck and can't do anything? This happened to me once in Origins when I hit the trigger and the x button at the same time, my player locked up and I couldn't switch till my main got knocked out. Adding MP to the SP takes away the ability to be tactical which is one of the big things that set DA apart from all the other RPGs out there. If they had it as a whole different mechanic then it'd be whatever, but you can not add it SP without removing the pause and play game play which I and bunch of people use a lot! I've been known to pause the game for upwards of five minutes deciding exactly what each of my four characters is going to do and how it will work in tandem.

[AmaneSaiko]

Rawgrim wrote...

Yes, I agree. Plus you can`t allways play with your friends either. Timing has to work for you and your friend.

And they forget about people who don't have friends who are gamers... or play the same game as you... there are all sorts of problems which start locking out fans who are solo players. 

[estebanus]

OH GOD, NO!

[Rawgrim]

AmaneSaiko wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

Yes, I agree. Plus you can`t allways play with your friends either. Timing has to work for you and your friend.

And they forget about people who don't have friends who are gamers... or play the same game as you... there are all sorts of problems which start locking out fans who are solo players. 

Also...you get to play with characters named 1oWnzU666. Kind of messes up immersion when you see an elven mage with a name like that.