208 réponses à ce sujet

[Captain Crash]

Rawgrim wrote...

Captain Crash wrote...

Done right I think MP will be possibly the best thing about DA3. [smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/happy.png[/smilie] Im quite looking forward to it.


Baldurs Gate had it and thats widely considered the greatest RPG ever to many people.  Its lasting value in part due to its multiplayer element.   I have many fond memories of me and my friends battling away years after
the game was released.

[smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/cool.png[/smilie]

Thelasting value of BG had nothing to do with the multplayer at all. Its the modding community, and the sheer replay value of the game itself.

As I said, for me and my friends multiplayer was its replay value.  Other elements for you perhaps, but I know many people who loved that particular feature.  Thats why im optimistic about it

Modifié par Captain Crash, 17 novembre 2012 - 06:08 .

[samgurl775]

No. And I wouldn't be surprised if Bioware swore up and down that you won't need to play multiplayer in order to get the complete single player experience - only for us to find out they're full of it.

[Massakkolia]

Orian Tabris wrote...

Repetitive gameplay is a multiplayer aspect. Because there is no ending, to keep you playing, they have to make it repetitive and take you a long time to level up your character.

It doesn't have to be. I'm by no means an expert on multiplayer but I doubt repetition is the hook that keeps players coming back. My guess is that the appeal of multiplayer is the social aspect, which, in fact, adds variation and breaks the repetition.

ME3's multiplayer is low on social interaction. There isn't much incentive to talk to other players and the gameplay doesn't really require players to cooperate. We are also playing against AI controlled enemies instead of other players, which makes the game even more repetitive and unsurprising. 

I'm not crazy about social aspects of gaming but I don't see the point of making a multiplayer, which doesn't take advantage of the "surprise factor" created by real people taking part in the game. If DA3 has to have a multiplayer element, I wish it would be innovative and make the game long-lasting. Dark Souls is a good example of that.

Modifié par Ria, 17 novembre 2012 - 07:27 .

[Asdrubael Vect]

never play, and never did...i really hate this function for ME and DA

[DaringMoosejaw]

So much posturing in this thread.

Not only will I REFUSE to select that little button that says multiplayer, I have a neurological condition where I will black out and brutally assault anyone who dares mention the phrase.

[AstraDrakkar]

No. If i want to play a game online with other people, there are a multitude of MMO's out there for that.

[BubbleDncr]

It depends what the multiplayer is, and if its fun.

It's a little silly to for anyone to say at this point that they will hands down never play the multiplayer, because you have no idea what it is. It could be awesome. Could also suck.

I'm personally just hoping that whatever multiplayer they have supports local multiplayer, and not just online. I like playing with people in my house.

[Kizzim]

I'm not the sort of person who likes the pressure associated with multiplayer, but having said that I will most likely give it a shot to see what it's like.

[daecath]

wwinters99 wrote...

I'll have to play multiplayer if I actually want to see the "best" ending.

Chris Priestly wrote...
The original experience of the game was meant to reward players who did
extra work (multiplayer, importing a save, playing the iOS games, etc)
with greater levels of success in the end, which is appropriate to a
story about a war that needs every possible advantage in order to win. 
But now that we are moving to a post-launch period and have additional
content for the endings, we wanted to make it easier for all players to
experience even the best-cast endings.  Playing multiplayer is just one
component is a sea of variables that can affect your ending.  If you
don't play MP, you have to find other ways raise to raise your EMS
before attempting to retake Earth, including a comprehensive single
player play through.  Likewise if you suffered some blows to your EMS
prior to assaulting Earth, MP is a great way to raise your score high
enough for the final assault.

Which is why John Riccitiello should burn in the 4th circle of Hell. What they're actually saying:

We know you already spent $60 - $80 on the game itself, but we really want to nickel and dime you to death with our multiplayer microtransactions, so we've made it impossible to win the game without playing multiplayer, in order to force you to play it, even if you don't want to.

[Celene II]

Not just No

But never.

And if they require that MP do ANYTHING for anything in the single player game i will specifically wait for the game to be used and cheap so that they get no money from me what so ever.

MP is not suited for every game and this is one specifically that does not need MP.

[KiwiQuiche]

No.

[BouncyFrag]

I'm not looking for pvp, but it would be ironic if you could have team vs team pitting those who are in favor of multiplayer against those who are not. It would also be fun to see the pro-mage/pro-templar folk go at it too.

Realistically, I do think it would be a lot of fun playing with fellow BSNers and engaging in jolly co-operation. Bunch of crazies in here who could do some serious damage.

[Ashevajak]

I probably will play it.

I'll admit, that wasn't my initial position. I was originally pretty suspicious of the ME3 co-op play as well, but, hey, I actually tried it out and found myself enjoying it quite a bit. If they can pull off a similar calibre of gaming experience for DA3, then yes, I'd be very interested.

I have to agree with everyone who says the MP shouldn't impact on the SP game, though. It's incredibly unfair to people who have no interest (or not a good enough internet connection, spare time etc) to invest in MP gaming. It's not to everyone's tastes, and players shouldn't be penalized for their preferences in this regard.

[phosphene]

it'll have some single player benefit so i'll feel obligated to, even though i will be told otherwise

[The Six Path of Pain]

Nope going to avoid it at all costs...never even played ME3 MP.Even when I found out that you HAD to play MP in order to get the best ending

[Hi my name is Ryan]

I don't plan on playing the game at all unless the fan reviews are good. Same goes for whatever crap MP mode Bileware wants to tack on.

[74 Wrex]

Hell No! Dragon Age should be about the story,companions and combat
There should be no multiplayer because it doesn't suit dragon age at all

[Atrabilious]

If it's on the disc, I will play it. At least once anyway to see if it's enjoyable. If it is then I will continue to play it regularly. I don't see the point of outright refusing to even try something you might enjoy, especially when you paid good money for it. The only person you're spiting is yourself by doing that.

[Maclimes]

What if "multiplayer" means full co-op throughout the game, with two "inquisitors"? You could both try to romance the same companion, you would have to compete in dialogue, and there could be special quests and events just for the co-op stuff.

Or perhaps something more akin to Fable 3, where one person is the main PC, and your co-op partner is basically a party member (but can gain XP and gold for their main PC).

Or what if it means competing in an arena against other players, pitting party against party, making tactics more important than dexterity.

Or maybe it will be "war" style co-op, with non-PC characters, such as ME3.

Or it could be simply that you have the ability to share your Inquisitor with your friends, and that PC will show up in their game as an NPC (maybe a quest giver, or hands out exclusive items, or something).

Or possibly it could be one of the hundreds of other options that I have not listed here.

We literally know nothing about any multiplayer aspect. It is WAY too early to be making this kind of decision.

[RogueWriter3201]

To put it mildly: No. I think it's pointless in an RPG series like Dragon Age and a waste of development time and resources better spent on the core game, characters, stories, and so on. But certain companies believe it's a viable cash-cow so it's going to get shoved down our throats regardless. It won't keep me from buying DA3 but I can only hope those of us playing just the core game won't get punished for not touching the Multiplayer as was the case for ME3.
 

[KingRoxas]

Probably.

[Jozape]

I have not played multiplayer in BG, BG2, NWN, SW:TOR, or ME3. I do not expect to do any differently for DA3.

[forneverwinter]

Hanz54321 wrote...

No.

And if MP is required to get something vital to the story . . . never buy BioWare again.

Agree, will wait reviews to see if SP is good without using MP.

[challenger18]

After I've had my fun with the game by myself I would play MP, though how much would be up to the modes that are available. If it's like cooperative, then I know I'll be playing it a lot. If it is more competitive play then that will all depend on how that actually plays.