225 réponses à ce sujet

[TheRealJayDee]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

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.

Nothing to add. Bioware lost huge amounts of my respect over ME3's multiplayer being needed to access singleplayer content, and how they handled and communicated the issue. One of the reasons I can't justify buying future games at/near release.

[Kidd]

iakus wrote...

People remember Baldur's gate for characters like Minsc, Imoen, and Edwin.  To do MP in BG, you have to forgo that stuff.

Replace Minsc with some random human?  I think not!  I'd say rip it all out if it could get memore lines about Boo!

Nah, I played BG2 with a friend. He controlled his mage Charname and Imoen/Valygar, I controlled Jaheira and Minsc. I teased him not to screw up his romance with "me" when certain lovetalks came up =)

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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

Same. My friend installed all the discs, I disc-swapped. It sucked butt, but it worked =)

[Major Crackhead]

I'm fine with multiplayer. If it's done right, it can add to the game. But I don't want it to be like ME3 where it effects the single player campaign. Make it separate.

[Iakus]

KiddDaBeauty wrote...

iakus wrote...

People remember Baldur's gate for characters like Minsc, Imoen, and Edwin.  To do MP in BG, you have to forgo that stuff.

Replace Minsc with some random human?  I think not!  I'd say rip it all out if it could get memore lines about Boo!

Nah, I played BG2 with a friend. He controlled his mage Charname and Imoen/Valygar, I controlled Jaheira and Minsc. I teased him not to screw up his romance with "me" when certain lovetalks came up =)

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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

Same. My friend installed all the discs, I disc-swapped. It sucked butt, but it worked =)

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.

And of course, your example brings up an issue I have with mp:  I don't want my fun to be dependant on other people.  I don't want other people's fun to be dependant on me"

But okay, fine.  Baldur's Gate has multplayer in it.  So I'll make an offer to the DA3 team:

If they go "all in",  and can guarantee a game of the massively epic scope of the BAG games (by which I'm talking a good 50 hours before DLC) and make DA3 as moddable as the Baldur's Gate games are, so more adventures, characters, and story can be added by players, then I'll withdraw all objection to multiplayer in DA3.

In other words, if they can make a game as good as Baldur's Gate, I won't complain about MP inclusion.

Go on, forget Frostbite.  Make DA3 on the Infinity engine.  I dare ya

[upsettingshorts]

Complain all you like, but multiplayer and single player don't fight each other for resources the way you think they do.

hoorayforicecream wrote...

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 Upsettingshorts, 06 décembre 2012 - 03:19 .

[kyles3]

ME3 multiplayer is an awful lot of fun. If the DA3 team can do as good a job I'm all for it.

[PaulSX]

although I think DA3 should focus on single player, they should not rule out multi player completely. Still MP is good and easy way to extend gameplay time.

[Kidd]

iakus wrote...

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.

As you can see from the posts above, they are not mutually exclusive. Which is what makes BG multiplayer so interesting, it's not a separate beast. There's the same quests, the same maps, the same characters, everything's the same only you can allow friends to control the other characters to join in on the ride.

As for the fun being dependant on others bit, well that's easily solved. Don't play multiplayer if you don't want to. Sounds like you never touched the MP in BG and you sure aren't complaining, right? =) Just like I've had campaigns with and without multiplayer, myself.

[AngryFrozenWater]

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.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 06 décembre 2012 - 04:42 .

[Lenimph]

I'm fine with them adding MP as long as it doesn't effect the SP experience at all. (ME3's battle readiness bs is a prime example of what I DO NOT WANT)

[Iakus]

KiddDaBeauty wrote...

iakus wrote...

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.

As you can see from the posts above, they are not mutually exclusive. Which is what makes BG multiplayer so interesting, it's not a separate beast. There's the same quests, the same maps, the same characters, everything's the same only you can allow friends to control the other characters to join in on the ride.

As for the fun being dependant on others bit, well that's easily solved. Don't play multiplayer if you don't want to. Sounds like you never touched the MP in BG and you sure aren't complaining, right? =) Just like I've had campaigns with and without multiplayer, myself.

They may not necessarilly be mutually exclusive, but the examples where one is a tacked on extra in favor of the other seem to be precious few.

Thus my offer.  Make a SP as massive and as awesome as the BG series, with modding to increase SP longevity, and I'll withdraw my complaints, because then I'll know SP won't have any cut corners.

[Iakus]

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.

I've noticed that too.

Has developing RPGs suddenly become a shameful profession?  Is there a stigma attatched to it now?

[upsettingshorts]

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.

Battlefield 1942 didn't.  Unless you count using bots on multiplayer maps, and nobody does.  Since that was the first game in the series I believe that is what Allan is referring to.

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

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.

This shift did indeed take place, but it took place with Mass Effect 2.  Mass Effect 3 improved upon this by being a better shooter than Mass Effect 2.

In terms of combat mechanics alone - distinct from say, dialogue - it was also a better RPG.

iakus wrote...

Thus my offer.  Make a SP as massive and as awesome as the BG series, with modding to increase SP longevity, and I'll withdraw my complaints, because then I'll know SP won't have any cut corners.

Your offer is based upon the assumption that multiplayer draws resources that would have otherwise gone to single player.  It does not work this way.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 06 décembre 2012 - 04:54 .

[Iakus]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

iakus wrote...

Thus my offer.  Make a SP as massive and as awesome as the BG series, with modding to increase SP longevity, and I'll withdraw my complaints, because then I'll know SP won't have any cut corners.

Your offer is based upon the assumption that multiplayer draws resources that would have otherwise gone to single player.  It does not work this way.

My offer is based on the hope that single player won't be compromised for the sake of multiplayer.  That happened in ME3 despite assurances to the contrary.  It comes from seeing that this time it will actually be different.  Single Player comes first.

[upsettingshorts]

iakus wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

iakus wrote...

Thus my offer.  Make a SP as massive and as awesome as the BG series, with modding to increase SP longevity, and I'll withdraw my complaints, because then I'll know SP won't have any cut corners.

Your offer is based upon the assumption that multiplayer draws resources that would have otherwise gone to single player.  It does not work this way.

My offer is based on the hope that single player won't be compromised for the sake of multiplayer.  That happened in ME3 despite assurances to the contrary.

Because of a misunderstanding, not resource allocation.

BioWare thought the best ending meant Synthesis, which you could unlock without ever touching multiplayer.

Fans thought the best ending meant the 3 second Shepard Lives Easter Egg that was possible after Destroy, which you needed multiplayer to get.

Recognizing this, it was fixed in the Extended Cut DLC.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 06 décembre 2012 - 05:02 .

[AngryFrozenWater]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

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.

Battlefield 1942 didn't.  Unless you count using bots on multiplayer maps, and nobody does.  Since that was the first game in the series I believe that is what Allan is referring to.

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

Upsettingshorts wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

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.

This shift did indeed take place, but it took place with Mass Effect 2.  Mass Effect 3 improved upon this by being a better shooter than Mass Effect 2.

In terms of combat mechanics alone - distinct from say, dialogue - it was also a better RPG.

Better? What you percieve as better does not change my perception of the trend.

[Iakus]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

iakus wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

iakus wrote...

Thus my offer.  Make a SP as massive and as awesome as the BG series, with modding to increase SP longevity, and I'll withdraw my complaints, because then I'll know SP won't have any cut corners.

Your offer is based upon the assumption that multiplayer draws resources that would have otherwise gone to single player.  It does not work this way.

My offer is based on the hope that single player won't be compromised for the sake of multiplayer.  That happened in ME3 despite assurances to the contrary.

Because of a misunderstanding, not resource allocation.

Which only demonstrates that it's more than resource allocation that can hurt SP.  How many other "misunderstandings" are just waiting to happen?  And at this point, Bioware can't afford a whole lot more mistakes.

That's why I'm not bringing up resources, but compromises in general.  Balance issues, gameplay/story segregation, unlockable content, and so on

Modifié par iakus, 06 décembre 2012 - 05:19 .

[upsettingshorts]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

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

It's objectively not nonsense because Battlefield 1942 didn't have singleplayer.  Period.  Full stop.  End of story.  Etc.

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

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.

This shift did indeed take place, but it took place with Mass Effect 2.  Mass Effect 3 improved upon this by being a better shooter than Mass Effect 2.

In terms of combat mechanics alone - distinct from say, dialogue - it was also a better RPG.

Better? What you percieve as better does not change my perception of the trend.

Your statement makes no sense.  Are you arguing that Mass Effect 3 was the first game in the series to move towards being a shooter?  What possible evidence could you put forward to prove this that doesn't ignore Mass Effect 2 exists?  Do you have a selective memory that disregards all the complaining that this is precisely what ME2 did?

iakus wrote...

Which only demonstrates that it's more than resource allocation that can hurt SP.  How many other "misunderstandings" are just waiting to happen?  And at this point, Bioware can't afford a whole lot more mistakes.

We don't know what BioWare can and can't afford.

Plus, we're looking at a trend of "misunderstandings over multiplayer" with precisely one data point.  So... not a trend at all.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 06 décembre 2012 - 05:23 .

[Iakus]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

iakus wrote...

Which only demonstrates that it's more than resource allocation that can hurt SP.  How many other "misunderstandings" are just waiting to happen?  And at this point, Bioware can't afford a whole lot more mistakes.

We don't know what BioWare can and can't afford.

They can afford less than they could two years ago

Plus, we're looking at a trend of "misunderstandings over multiplayer" with precisely one data point.  So... not a trend at all.

Not a good time to check and see if the fire's still hot, imo.

[upsettingshorts]

iakus wrote...

They can afford less than they could two years ago

If we're only talking about iakus' or a given fan's goodwill, sure.

[BBK4114]

 I don't have a problem with multiplayer. In the previous 2 games it would not have worked for me personally because they seemed like such a personal experience but different strokes and all that.

I do believe that the game companies make a ton of money from what they call "microtransactions."  What I don't trust is for Bioware/EA to do it right.

I play MMOs -my favorite is still LotRO- and I have spent hundreds of dollars in that game. I started as F2P but now am a sub.  I got an email about SWTOR yesterday so I went to check out their F2P and the restrictions they have put on F2P is just plain silly and as a result I will not be trying out the game. Money grub w/o even sucking you into the experience. 

I played some FB "social" games, most start out well -not too much $$ grubbing- but not the EA games like the Sim's Social.  They start hounding for money right off the bat and the amount you get for your $$ is ridiculous. 

Seems like the ME franchise has switched focus from the SP experience to MP.  I see "free" DLC for MP all the time but only one paid DLC for SP. I'm not saying the DLC shouldn't be paid. It's just they seem entirely focused on MP

I hope this sort of switch doesn't happen for the DA franchise.  

[Xerxes52]

If we're going to get multiplayer (which I hope we don't), I would like to see Bioware add customizable AI bots for private matches both for PvE and potential PvP modes.

Modifié par Xerxes52, 07 décembre 2012 - 04:03 .

[Fiery Phoenix]

Multiplayer is happening. EA has explicitly stated they're basically done with SP-only games. It's part of the new agenda. No amount of begging is going to change it, as it's EA's decision and BioWare has no real say but to comply.

[upsettingshorts]

Fiery Phoenix wrote...

Multiplayer is happening. EA has explicitly stated they're basically done with SP-only games. It's part of the new agenda. No amount of begging is going to change it, as it's EA's decision and BioWare has no real say but to comply.

Yet Dragon Age 2 already complied with this "new agenda."  EA requires online components, which doesn't necessarily amount to multiplayer.  The Sims doesn't have co-op, but it does have an online exchange.  Etc.

That said, I expect Dragon Age 3 will probably have some kind of multiplayer.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 06 décembre 2012 - 06:36 .

[Maria Caliban]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Plus, we're looking at a trend of "misunderstandings over multiplayer" with precisely one data point.  So... not a trend at all.

It's a hobby.