313 réponses à ce sujet

[brushyourteeth]

No way.

Some people are social recluses who cringe at the thought of any interpersonal activity, even for just five minutes, with another human being who they technically don't even need to speak to.

The horror!!!

[Vandicus]

Quicksilver26 wrote...

Vandicus wrote...

HeriocGreyWarden wrote...

Inprea wrote...

In my case they're two things I would like to see multi player allow us to do. First I would like it if we could earn wealth via multi player for the single player game. Secondly I would like it if we could gain experience points for our character.

NO! I don't want to be forced to play MP becouse i would be more powerfull in SP if i play MP,this is BAD

And I don't want to be "forced" to do fetch quests and exploration in order to maximize loot or gain the most powerful weapons in the game which are entirely unavailable through non-fetch quest means.

oh yeah thats exactly the same:lol:... oh wait no it isn't <_never played multiplayer am NOT going to start now

Alternative options to achieve the same goal are bad why? PC and PS3 users don't have to pay to access MP. The existence of the ability to earn things through MP that can also be earned through SP does not remove your ability to acquire them in single player.

Also what does the endings have to do with gear/wealth/xp? Nothing.

[Battlebloodmage]

I don't like for it to influence the game, but I would like for the multiplayer portion to be when the actual wars actually occur. The game can't cover all part of the war and the PC has to focus on plot related quests, so he wouldn't have time to fight every mage or templar out there.

[CuriousArtemis]

Um, not at all? lol I don't know how it is with other platforms but for xbox you have to pay for multiplayer. Like a monthly fee. That just is not financially feasible for me and a lot of other people.

[brushyourteeth]

motomotogirl wrote...

Um, not at all? lol I don't know how it is with other platforms but for xbox you have to pay for multiplayer. Like a monthly fee. That just is not financially feasible for me and a lot of other people.

She has a point. We couldn't even afford to have the internet in our home until a few months ago, and we'd have to truck our xbox over to a friend's house just to download updates.

That's a group of people who obviously don't get a lot of representation on these forums, but they do exist, and their dollars still count.

[Scarlett.Talon]

Druss99 wrote...

It will influence me not to purchase the game.

Ditto.

Modifié par Scarlett.Talon, 21 octobre 2012 - 12:42 .

[NorthStrong]

Scarlett.Talon wrote...

Druss99 wrote...

It will influence me not to purchase the game.

Ditto.

Agreed.  I don't understand the need to force online multiplayer on every game released today. 

I don't game for multiplayer, my x-box live subscription is silver and I can count on one hand the amount of hours I've played on the psn. 

In the field that I work I deal with hundreds of people on a daily basis both during work hours and after hours as well.  If I want to be social I don't play a video game; if I choose to game it is to decompress and relax.  If I want to socialize I'll go to a pub, a hockey game or something else outside of my living room. 

Is it too much to ask to keep a few game series multiplayer free and instead focus on making the best single player experience possible?

Maybe I'm the minority in this case. Perhaps I'm just being pessimistic about the effects of multiplayer modes, but to me it really seems like it's marginalizing the storytelling process in many cases. 

Regardless, I'll agree with Pete Hines for now.  Skyrim didn't need multiplayer, nor did Fallout.

www.edge-online.com/news/hines-forced-multiplayer-waste-time/

[Mariel800]

Personally, I have nothing against multiplayer, it was actually quite fun in ME3. HOWEVER, that's not to say that I want to *have* to play it in order to change the outcome of the single-player game. If there must be multiplayer - and I believe it's already been confirmed that there will be, in some form - then it should be totally standalone, something to play for fun and not because we want, for example, a better ending. *cough* Dragon Age has always been a single-player RPG, and I think the single-player element should remain just that - single-player.

[JeeWeeJ]

bleetman wrote...

ReggarBlane wrote...

In that sense, they're going to have it affect the SP game as there would be no incentive to play it.

If players require incentive to play multiplayer, as opposed to 'because it's enjoyable', I would seriously question the point of it's inclusion in the first place.

This. And if it were up to me DA3 wouldn't get any MP at all. Use that time and money on a better SP game!

[Medhia Nox]

@brushyourteeth: Actually - I interact with people in REAL LIFE all the time.

I just don't want to deal with dip**** gamers - precisely because they're so incompetent at social interaction to begin with.

After the excitement of the castle rumor - thinking about multi-player being "required" is bringing me down.

I certainly hope not.

I don't care if it's in the game for those who enjoy it - but I don't want it mandatory for "best success".

[Frek]

You guys are looking at this all wrong. By including a MP component where players are forced, err I mean encouraged, to play. Along with a cash, err I mean points, shop to buy weapons packs. This greatly enhances the cash grab, errr I mean players fun.

Seriously though, we're talking about EA here. This game will be designed from a business perspective first. You can be guaranteed that there will be MP that affects the SP, and you can bet the farm there will be some sort of cash shop that works like a lottery.

There's no point in getting upset at the devs about it, They don't have much of a choice if they want to keep their jobs.

[thebigbad1013]

I do not want multiplayer to affect a singleplayer game. I have no issues with them adding multiplayer but it has to be seperate from the main game and have absolutely no influence on the main game whatsoever.

[Rawgrim]

I don`t want it to influence the single player in any possible way. Not even for items. Play multiplayer, and suddenly my single player character magically gets some item. Messes up the whole experience. Keep them 100 percent separate.

[Inprea]

People learn to make the best of a bad situation. It hasn't been stated as an absolute but based on information that can be found here http://www.vg247.com...evealed-report/ and other sources it is apparently quite likely. A stubborn no does nothing of benefit in this situation. Now you may have some hope that the multiplayer won't influence the single player game in anyway but that strikes me as rather unlikely. It seems more likely they'll want to give the player at least some reason to play multiplayer other then fun.

So rather then cry about it or claim you won't buy the game why not try to limit the damage in a positive way? A lot of you remind me of children that are simply determined to make the situation as difficult as possible.

[Lennard Testarossa]

Druss99 wrote...

It will influence me not to purchase the game.

+1

[Rawgrim]

Inprea wrote...

People learn to make the best of a bad situation. It hasn't been stated as an absolute but based on information that can be found here http://www.vg247.com...evealed-report/ and other sources it is apparently quite likely. A stubborn no does nothing of benefit in this situation. Now you may have some hope that the multiplayer won't influence the single player game in anyway but that strikes me as rather unlikely. It seems more likely they'll want to give the player at least some reason to play multiplayer other then fun.

So rather then cry about it or claim you won't buy the game why not try to limit the damage in a positive way? A lot of you remind me of children that are simply determined to make the situation as difficult as possible.

Its what happens when people buy a single player game. Invest lots of time in it, and then they find out they are forced to play mulitplayer later. Thats why people are against it. If the two are kept seperate, nobody will have problems with it at all. Simple solution. If you are selling a product, don`t stuff it down the customers throat.

[robertthebard]

Vandicus wrote...

HeriocGreyWarden wrote...

Inprea wrote...

In my case they're two things I would like to see multi player allow us to do. First I would like it if we could earn wealth via multi player for the single player game. Secondly I would like it if we could gain experience points for our character.

NO! I don't want to be forced to play MP becouse i would be more powerfull in SP if i play MP,this is BAD

And I don't want to be "forced" to do fetch quests and exploration in order to maximize loot or gain the most powerful weapons in the game which are entirely unavailable through non-fetch quest means.

Then maybe these aren't the right kinds of games for you?  The whole idea of an RPG is to develop the character and grow.  You do this by obtaining xp/levels and wealth/items.  XP is gained, unlike in MMOs where you can farm it, by doing jobs(aka quests) to earn it, sort of like real life.  This "Do quest a, get paid, do quest b etc etc" scenario isn't unique to the DA series.  In recent memory, it's happening in every RPG on the shelves, and, to some extent, even happens in FPS style games, where you can find that BFG if you get to the right place at the right time.

This is also where your reputation/influence is determined:  Protag gets the job done, or Protag bails in the middle of missions, etc etc.  I've been spending a lot of time playing Assassin's Creed, and in all of the variants out so far, you advance the same way.  It's part of what makes these games what they are.  If you don't want to do the jobs to earn the money/items, then you shouldn't have the items just because you played MP.  The EMS snafu mentioned earlier is a perfect example of why optional MP affecting a SP campaign is bad.  I know people that have enough EMS after the Mars mission in ME 3 that they could get the best endings you can get, not saying a lot, right then, w/out having to play the rest of the game, while I, on the other hand, prior to Leviathan's release, had to spend several hours of game time doing scanning missions/other quests that I might just as soon skip, to get enough EMS.  This imbalance should not exist.

I am, however, almost willing to take bets that it will affect the castle.  This is bad, and shouldn't happen.  Not that it matters what happens in your version of the universe, but because what happens in your version of the universe shouldn't affect what happens in mine.  So, MP should have absolutely no affect on SP.

[Bfler]

MP shouldn't influence SP, especially not the endings of the SP campaign.
So every player can do his own thing. The players who want to enjoy the campaign without other people can to it and the players who want to play with other people can do it in MP.

[robertthebard]

Here's the other aspect that bothers me about MP:

I logged into my Aion account this morning, and was wishing my legionmates were online so I could turn off the global chat. 30 minutes worth of people that didn't get enough attention(or too much)from mommy and daddy running on and on in chat attention whoring. Also of note along this point is that this is BSN. Frankly, some of the personalities that I read here, even after blocking them, are not people I want in voice chat during MP as it was in ME 3. I play MMO's, I am not adverse to MP, or a MP experience, but I don't want the MP to affect SP, which I play to get away from the above mentioned scenarios.

[TheJediSaint]

It would be interesting if they had cooperative multiplayer that worked something like the flaspoints in SWTOR, where the players participate in a story-based adventure. Especially if the mutliplayer allowed the players to see the single player story from a different perspective. 

Of course, a Coop mode for the main game, like in Baldur's Gate, would be cool to.

Modifié par TheJediSaint, 21 octobre 2012 - 03:24 .

[Cribbian]

There should be no influence at all.

[legbamel]

bleetman wrote...

ReggarBlane wrote...
In that sense, they're going to have it affect the SP game as there would be no incentive to play it.

If players require incentive to play multiplayer, as opposed to 'because it's enjoyable', I would seriously question the point of it's inclusion in the first place.

Precisely.  In Halo, multiplayer is a lot of fun (and has customizable maps, hint hint) but it has no effect on the single-player game.  That's what I would like to see, and what I thought they had done for ME3--something fun that involves a lot of killing and unlockables but doesn't bother the people who don't want to play it.

[Zoe]

I don't want multiplayer to influence single player in any way.

Vandicus wrote...
And I don't want to be "forced" to do fetch quests and exploration in order to maximize loot or gain the most powerful weapons in the game which are entirely unavailable through non-fetch quest means.

If they are putting in filler/boring quests, whether these are required or not should not depend on whether you play multiplayer. If I only play single player in Bioware games, it doesn't mean I love to do planet scanning, for example.

Vandicus wrote...
Look at ME3's MP. It isn't required to play to maximize results in SP, but its got a little incentive for people to try.

It was required for a long time after release if you wanted to have all options in the endings (whether people liked the endings or not is a different matter).

Vandicus wrote...
Moreover, RPGs are centrally designed around incentive. Quests=xp&loot. Exploration=XP&loot. People ask for incentives for doing all these things, and are given them, but its bad wrongfun when its applied to MP?

You could have rewards that you could only use in mulitplayer and are not brought into the single-player campaign. Or, if it is co-op, it could just be the same rewards that everyone would get for doing the quests.

Modifié par Keriana, 21 octobre 2012 - 03:29 .

[robertthebard]

TheJediSaint wrote...

It would be interesting if they had cooperative multiplayer that worked something like the flaspoints in SWTOR, where the players participate in a story-based adventure. Especially if the mutliplayer allowed the players to see the single player story from a different perspective. 

Of course, a Coop mode for the main game, like in Baldur's Gate, would be cool to.

NWN's is my favorite example of this.  Some of the people on my "home" server in the MP game got together and ran some of the content in coop MP.  It was quite fun.  It was not required to complete the game, nor did it add or take away from the SP experience.  This is the whole point, so far as I can see, of people that are against it; it shouldn't affect SP at all.