8 réponses à ce sujet

[Adugan]

I really dont want MP to be integrated like in ME3. I hated having to play a bunch of missions with random leechers just to get the best war assets. If DA3 absolutely has to have MP, make it a separate mode that is 100% optional and has no influence on the SP game. 

Modifié par Adugan, 04 décembre 2012 - 02:13 .

[Allan Schumacher]

Editing to add a quote:

It's undenyable that a MP portion has a severe adverse effect on SP
portions. In some games the SP becomes marginilized completely:
COD/battlefield with it's two hour campaign is a perfect examples (you
can't tell me SP players got their money's worth on those games...).

I play the Call of Duty games for their single player (although I haven't played them since MW1, but they are all on "the list' of things to be played when they are priced appropriately).

I actually enjoyed BF3's single player as well. At the same time, single player never even used to exist in the Battlefield franchise, so someone suggesting it was marginalized doesn't entirely understand Battlefield's history.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 06 décembre 2012 - 10:12 .

[Allan Schumacher]

I was introduced to Baldur's Gate and BioWare because a friend invited me to play the first Co-op with him.

[Allan Schumacher]

Okay, it seems that there are people going "Of course BG is remembered fro its multiplayer. " I admit my statement was anecdotal, In my experience, people talk about the characters, the quests, the AD&D ruleset, but not the multiplayer.

I actually don't remember Baldur's Gate *for* it's multiplayer. Although the characters themselves didn't become more memorable until Baldur's Gate 2 in my opinion.

I just shared my anecdote because I was introduced to the game (and the company) as a consequence of it having multiplayer.

[Allan Schumacher]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I play the Call of Duty games for their single player (although I haven't played them since MW1, but they are all on "the list' of things to be played when they are priced appropriately).

I actually enjoyed BF3's single player as well. At the same time, single player never even used to exist in the Battlefield franchise, so someone suggesting it was marginalized doesn't entirely understand Battlefield's history.

Erm... Most if not all BF games had SP. Even BF2's expansion (Special Forces) got SP. BF fans usually like MP more, so there is no need to concentrate on SP. The ME franchise is the opposite. There SP was what made the game. It was plain wrong to integrate MP in ME3 in such a way that it was required to have the best destroy ending. There the shift was obvious. It went from an RPG with shooter elements to a shooter with RPG elements. BW was even afriad to use the term RPG on the official ME3 site and described it as an action game with an interactive story. And mind you, I like a good FPS. But I certainly can see the shift in emphasis.

If you're going to consider "play the Multiplayer maps with bots" as a "single player experience" then I guess it has single player.  I don't.  As far as I'm concerned, the roots of Battlefield is 100% mutliplayer game experience.  The single player mode is essentially just practice for learning the maps and game mechanics.  If you want to talk about something "tacked on," the single player component of the earlier games would be it.

Battlefield 1942 had no single player narrative.  Battlefield Vietnam had no single player narrative.  Battlefield 2 had no single player narrative (I never did pick up the expansion, but its single player maps appear to be the same thing: play the map and capture flags with bots - i.e. take the MP experience and make it single player).  Battlefield 2142 is the same way.


Battlefield: Bad Company, however, introduces an actual single player campaign (never played it as it didn't have a PC version).  Bad Company 2 continues along with this, with a (rather silly and tongue in cheek) narrative.  Battlefield 3 also has a unique single player campaign (as well as a co-op story mode as well).


I didn't directly quote it.  I guess I should have, but it was posts like this that I was responding to:

It's undenyable that a MP portion has a severe adverse effect on SP
portions. In some games the SP becomes marginilized completely:
COD/battlefield with it's two hour campaign is a perfect examples (you
can't tell me SP players got their money's worth on those games...).

The single player in early Battlefield games was simply Multiplayer mode with bots.  It has gotten progressively more unique (and interesting) since the early days.

Read what he wrote: "single player never even used to exist in the Battlefield franchise" and that's nonsense.

Well, hopefully this has been clarified to your liking now.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 06 décembre 2012 - 08:02 .

[Allan Schumacher]

I almost exclusively play multiplayer games with friends.

Even then, I still find it interesting that it was brought to your attention because of its MP.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 06 décembre 2012 - 08:24 .

[Allan Schumacher]

I hear BioWare used to have pretty large LAN like events, but I haven't been aware of any in the time I have been here. Though we do typically share contact information so we can join each other's games and whatnot.

I should clarify, however. When I say I exclusively play with friends, I typically mean "If a friend isn't involved, I don't play." So it isn't as though the entire game is made up of my friends. When I play Battlefield 3, it's with 1-4 real friends. What the other 30+ are doing on server is pretty inconsequential to me. I don't even notice them 95% of the time. My only memories are when random guy would congratulate me on a unique kill (shooting helicopters with tank guns is always fun). I'm sure some guys probably raged at me, but I don't remember.

Bagging around in an APC with 3 other guys while another 2 are flying air support with the helicopter is insane fun, however.

For something like ME3's multiplayer, I have only ever played with friends. Same goes for Baldur's Gate.

[Allan Schumacher]

That is highly debatable- that BF single player has gotten more unique and interesting- when BF3's campaign was a modern Call of Duty knock off laden with some of the worst QTEs ever. Hell, read most reviews of BF3 and the campaign is often cited as a negative.

If you're arguing from the POV that the Single Player has only been compromised by Battlefield's Multiplayer, when clearly MORE work has been put into it than in the past, then I challenge the notion.

EDIT: It should be noted that the single player component of Battlefield 1942 was lambasted in reviews too.


But yes, whether or not something is interesting is indeed subjective. There's a reason why I spent 15 minutes in BF1942's single player, yet played BFBC2 and BF3's through to completion.

Denying that some people played the game that way or that it even existed is just as stupid as denying people played coop in Baldur's Gate.

I guess I really should go back and edit the post to include the quote.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 06 décembre 2012 - 10:59 .

[Allan Schumacher]

Uproar makes share prices drop.

To borrow from others, don't conjure up economical motivations for being upset. Just be upset and talk about why you don't like stuff.

I have seen enough misunderstanding of what a company's share price even represents the past year that I encourage people to not use it as a meaningful metric of "getting back at the company."


Share price has very little to do with what Electronic Arts would or would not be able to do. The only people that care about a dwindling stock price are shareholders, of which the overwhelming majority of EA's stock belongs to mutual funds.

Now dwindling stock price will present some pressure to the executives, as the Board of Directors will look at the price and act on behalf of the investors and inquire as to what the problem is, and how to remedy a downward price.

So if you think that removing the executives from EA is a worthy goal, then I suppose downward pressure by the stock will help, though it's not a guarantee either.


What a low stock price does is increase the likelihood of some sort of a takeover. So someone like Activision, or some private equity firm, could come along and purchase all the outstanding stock at a particular price point (typically above what it's being traded for). From there, a whole bunch of question marks happens, as some divisions and brands would remain intact, stuff seen as not worth the time would get axed, a decent chunk of people would likely lose their jobs, while perhaps some other people will come in and fill the void.

Investors will typically agree to such a buyout if they don't believe that a recovery in the stock price is likely.


So EA being bought out means that Dragon Age becomes a question mark, with the entity that purchased it being free to determine if it should be pursued further, or if it should just be mothballed.