225 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 .

[Liamv2]

Too effing bad it will have MP

Edit EA

Modifié par Liamv2, 04 décembre 2012 - 02:15 .

[Adugan]

Liamv2 wrote...

Too effing bad it will have MP

Theres no avoiding that, EA has to have their cash cow with evil microtransactions. I am hoping they wont resort to cheap sh** tactics and make MP mandatory for SP in order to bait players with their real cash market.

[Snypy]

I also hope that players won't be made to play the multiplayer for several hours so as to achieve a "good" ending. But I have no problems with the game having a multiplayer mode so long as it doesn't impact the singleplayer campaign.

[ediskrad327]

"oh ok le'ts just scrap all the progress we made there" yeah um it's not going to happen and ME3s Multiplayer was entirely optional after EC since they don't mean anything and i don't think they are going to pull a "play multiplayer for good ending" again

[Mark of the Dragon]

I still hope that there is no multiplayer. DA is a single player experience it should use its resources to make that the best it can be. It should not waste resources on a multiplayer aspect that not only is not necessary but that most people dont want anyway. Or at least that is the census I see everytime people discuss DA multiplayer.

[The Teyrn of Whatever]

It's going to happen one. I do agree with OP though. Make it optional and not integrated somehow into SP.

[Navasha]

I actually enjoyed the ME3 MP portion right up until they released their first major DLC expansion and I got nothing from the new expansion despite open like 20 spectre packs. I lost all interest in it after that day.    Of course, I never spent any real money on it either.

I can't see any kind of decent MP out of what to me is a 4 member squad tactical game. Otherwise I am kind of split on MP. If the SP experience is lessened in anyway whatsoever by its inclusion than I am against multiplayer. However, if the entire game manages to get a larger budget overall because they will make more revenue with a MP inclusion than by all means.... Please add it.

Modifié par Navasha, 04 décembre 2012 - 03:31 .

[Brockololly]

I agree. Assuming there will be MP, let it be its own thing separate from the single player game experience. Don't have it influence or otherwise get anywhere near the single player. If they want to try and integrate it somehow with the world or give the MP its own little story then fine, but keep it separate from the single player.

[AngryFrozenWater]

Brockololly wrote...

I agree. Assuming there will be MP, let it be its own thing separate from the single player game experience. Don't have it influence or otherwise get anywhere near the single player. If they want to try and integrate it somehow with the world or give the MP its own little story then fine, but keep it separate from the single player.

Totally agreed.

[upsettingshorts]

I'd be fine if the integration with single player was limited to items and/or gold.

Narrative integration is another matter entirely, and principally the issue folks have with it in ME3.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 04 décembre 2012 - 04:17 .

[BouncyFrag]

I hope that you can only gain experience points as well as gold and potions in multiplayer. That and all the single player campaign bosses must be fought in the MP. How about that?

[TheBreadedOne]

Personally I just hope MP is an arena like Witcher 2 (do I do a shot for referencing Witcher 2 on the DA forums?).

[Wulfram]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

I'd be fine if the integration with single player was limited to items and/or gold.

I don't think items or gold is a good idea.  It's inevitably going to screw with the balance of the game.  Admittedly, Bioware don't seem to care very much about maintaining balance considering their DLC items, but I wish they would start caring.

I also don't really see what the benefit would be, really.

[Vortex13]

I would prefer a fully implemented drop-in/drop-out feature to be included as an optional part of the single player game or a DA version of what ME 3 has.

But NO multiplayer exclusive campaigns. Those things are the worst form of co-operative multiplayer IMO.

[Beerfish]

The only thing wrong with ME3 multiplayer was the gaff in making it so you needed it to get max war assets, which they fixed in a patch if I am not mistaken. ME3 mp is fun and DA3 will probably be fun as well. All they have to do is keep it totally separate from the SP game and it is totally optional. We'll see if BioEaware makes the same mistake again or not.

[upsettingshorts]

Wulfram wrote...

I don't think items or gold is a good idea.  It's inevitably going to screw with the balance of the game.

In single player it hardly matters, and if it does, they can balance it if they wish.  The same cannot be said for weapon and armor mods that players managed to make for DA2 despite the lack of a toolset.

Wulfram wrote...

Admittedly, Bioware don't seem to care very much about maintaining balance considering their DLC items, but I wish they would start caring.

I also don't really see what the benefit would be, really.

If the items are cool, or if players want access to additional gold without cheating, they might be encouraged to attempt a multiplayer mode they might not otherwise.

But really as long as multiplayer doesn't say... open up different endings or story options I have a hard time buying any potential complaints about it.

Beerfish wrote...

The only thing wrong with ME3 multiplayer was the gaff in making it so you needed it to get max war assets, which they fixed in a patch if I am not mistaken. ME3 mp is fun and DA3 will probably be fun as well. All they have to do is keep it totally separate from the SP game and it is totally optional. We'll see if BioEaware makes the same mistake again or not.

What was wrong in vanilla was that it was impossible to trigger the Shepard Lives Easter Egg at 50% (default) galactic readiness, which is increased through multiplayer.

I believe the reason for this discrepancy is that BioWare themselves viewed Synthesis as "the best ending" and that was capable of being unlocked through single player alone.

The fanbase disagreed, and this was fixed with the Extended Cut.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 04 décembre 2012 - 06:35 .

[vortex216]

as long as its not neccesary, im ok with it. even if it isn't necessary i will try it out.

[Solmanian]

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...). They can't "sell" it by saying "it's was made by a different studio and a seperate budget" cause that's just missrepresentation. Different studio, different budet? So those were people who otherwise would spend their time staring at the ceiling? was that money that was going to be incinerated?

[Solmanian]

Beerfish wrote...

The only thing wrong with ME3 multiplayer was the gaff in making it so you needed it to get max war assets, which they fixed in a patch if I am not mistaken. ME3 mp is fun and DA3 will probably be fun as well. All they have to do is keep it totally separate from the SP game and it is totally optional. We'll see if BioEaware makes the same mistake again or not.

The issue isn't the quality of the MP. It's about how it adversly effects the SP experience.

[upsettingshorts]

Solmanian wrote...

It's undenyable that a MP portion has a severe adverse effect on SP portions.

That must be news to all the people denying it.

Solmanian wrote...

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...).

On what planet does anyone care about the single player in CoD or Battlefield?  They're basically glorified mechanics tutorials.

Even if there are people who do care, they are wildly outnumbered by people who focus on the multiplayer, and the games are clearly focused on multiplayer as a result.

If you're going to prove the "multiplayer ruins singleplayer" case, you might want to start with games that have a single player focus.  Because hell, there is a case to be made that CoD and BF would be better off not having single player at all.

Solmanian wrote...

They can't "sell" it by saying "it's was made by a different studio and a seperate budget" cause that's just missrepresentation.

And you would know better than them I suppose?

Solmanian wrote...

Different studio, different budet? So those were people who otherwise would spend their time staring at the ceiling? was that money that was going to be incinerated?

Oh, it's this argument again.  

Multiplayer promises greater revenues, which will justify larger budgets, and while multiplayer and single player are distinct modes, they do share some assets so the whole game can benefit.

The anti-multiplayer ideologues have no case that isn't based on assumptions and hyperbole.

By the way, I logged zero minutes in Mass Effect 3's multiplayer.  I just hate bad arguments.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 04 décembre 2012 - 07:22 .

[hoorayforicecream]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

On what planet does anyone care about the single player in CoD or Battlefield?  They're basically glorified mechanics tutorials.

I happen to know quite a few people who buy CoD year over year and never play multiplayer. They genuinely like the stories involved. That said, the single player campaign also consumes significantly more designer time than the multiplayer, though multiplayer gets a lot more polish and balancing time by nature. Heck, one of the selling points for BLOPS2 was the ability to make decisions that branch the story in the single player campaign.

Many modern AAA games (FPS and otherwise) run about 6-8 hours total playtime to finish on an initial playthrough, which I'm personally fine with. Clearly not everyone is, but they have enough of a market that they're continuing on with sequels and similar games.

That said... it really is a fallacy to think that they take away from single player in order to make multiplayer. Those resources that went into multiplayer wouldn't have been spent to make the single player better. They would have been spent on another project instead.

Modifié par hoorayforicecream, 04 décembre 2012 - 07:26 .

[Vitlen]

Just say NO to MP!