225 réponses à ce sujet

[Fiery Phoenix]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

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.

IIRC the whole thing started with Battlefield 3, which was the first major EA game following DA2. Since Battlefield 3, not a single EA title has been released without some kind of multiplayer tossed in. DA2 was on a tight schedule and was already nearly done by the time EA made this decision.

Modifié par Fiery Phoenix, 06 décembre 2012 - 06:46 .

[Maria Caliban]

For those wanting the actual quote:

EA Labels President Frank Gibeau said that the company is full-on embracing cloud gaming and online interaction: "I have not green lit one game to be developed as a single player experience. Today, all of our games include online applications and digital services that make them live 24/7/365."

[source]

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 06 décembre 2012 - 06:52 .

[Fiery Phoenix]

There you go.

[Iakus]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

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.

If DA2 already complies with the requirement, then it should stay where it is.

[upsettingshorts]

iakus wrote...

If DA2 already complies with the requirement, then it should stay where it is.

BioWare (probably) disagrees.  Oh well.

Perhaps next time they will listen to the opinions of folks who hate multiplayer modes they have never had described to them, let alone played for themselves.

For my part, I'll probably never take anti-multiplayer ideologues seriously.   Good thing I'm not in game development then, for your sake, I suppose.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 06 décembre 2012 - 07:03 .

[Iakus]

Upsettingshorts wrote...
For my part, I'll probably never take anti-multiplayer ideologues seriously.   Good thing I'm not in game development then, for your sake, I suppose.

Indeed.  Since I would hope game developers would take fans' views seriously, even if they may not ultimately agree with them.

After all, isn't this the point of these forums? So fans can voice their hopes and opinions about Dragon Age 3?

Edit:  And yes, I played MP for ME3 before EC was released.  Afterwards I dropped MP, never looked back, and have no regrets.  It's simply not what I buy RPGs for,

Modifié par iakus, 06 décembre 2012 - 07:24 .

[hoorayforicecream]

iakus wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...
For my part, I'll probably never take anti-multiplayer ideologues seriously.   Good thing I'm not in game development then, for your sake, I suppose.

Indeed.  Since I would hope game developers would take fans' views seriously, even if they may not ultimately agree with them.

The amount of seriousness afforded to suggestions and ideas is limited to practicality (or, in some cases, reality).

Once upon a time, I worked at a different game studio on an annual baseball game franchise. One of the most well-beloved features of this baseball franchise (by a small, but extremely vocal group of online fans) was a set of editable variables that would allow the players to customize their batting shape and size to affect how the ball reacts in game when hit.

One year, the developers scrapped the old system completely and instead created a new system that was much better at simulating baseball and bat contact. In doing so were unable to support the old batting variables anymore because the system had a totally different simulation model. Indeed, such variables were actually no longer part of the system anymore. Many of the customers liked the new system much better than the old one, but in their eyes what would have made it better was continuing to allow the players to edit the batting variables. There was an outcry that the dev team didn't support the batting variables anymore, and they blamed other features in the game for taking up the time needed to expose those batting variables that they KNEW were there, since they were there in the previous game.

Sadly, there was nothing to be done. The batting variables didn't exist anymore, and the new system didn't lend itself well to that sort of customization. It really didn't matter how seriously the developers took their fans; the reality of the matter was that what they wanted just wasn't feasible.

[LinksOcarina]

LiquidGrape wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

For those wanting the actual quote:

EA Labels President Frank Gibeau said that the company is full-on embracing cloud gaming and online interaction: "I have not green lit one game to be developed as a single player experience. Today, all of our games include online applications and digital services that make them live 24/7/365."

[source]

I feel it's also worth posting the follow-up, where Gibeau explains how he had chosen his words poorly in that interview.

"Let me clarify, what I said was [about not greenlighting] anything that [doesn't have] an online service. You can have a very deep single-player game but it has to have an ongoing content plan for keeping customers engaged beyond what's on the initial disc. I'm not saying deathmatch must come to Mirror's Edge."

It should also be said that this is nothing new, since Valve has been following this practice since 2010.

[Iakus]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

iakus wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...
For my part, I'll probably never take anti-multiplayer ideologues seriously.   Good thing I'm not in game development then, for your sake, I suppose.

Indeed.  Since I would hope game developers would take fans' views seriously, even if they may not ultimately agree with them.

The amount of seriousness afforded to suggestions and ideas is limited to practicality (or, in some cases, reality).

Once upon a time, I worked at a different game studio on an annual baseball game franchise. One of the most well-beloved features of this baseball franchise (by a small, but extremely vocal group of online fans) was a set of editable variables that would allow the players to customize their batting shape and size to affect how the ball reacts in game when hit.

One year, the developers scrapped the old system completely and instead created a new system that was much better at simulating baseball and bat contact. In doing so were unable to support the old batting variables anymore because the system had a totally different simulation model. Indeed, such variables were actually no longer part of the system anymore. Many of the customers liked the new system much better than the old one, but in their eyes what would have made it better was continuing to allow the players to edit the batting variables. There was an outcry that the dev team didn't support the batting variables anymore, and they blamed other features in the game for taking up the time needed to expose those batting variables that they KNEW were there, since they were there in the previous game.

Sadly, there was nothing to be done. The batting variables didn't exist anymore, and the new system didn't lend itself well to that sort of customization. It really didn't matter how seriously the developers took their fans; the reality of the matter was that what they wanted just wasn't feasible.

It's one thing to tell fans "What you want simply isn't feasible"  It's another to simply say "I hate so much about the things that you choose to be " 

[upsettingshorts]

iakus wrote...

It's one thing to tell fans "What you want simply isn't feasible"  It's another to simply say "I hate so much about the things that you choose to be " 

Isn't the latter what you're saying about them?

[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.

[Iakus]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

iakus wrote...

It's one thing to tell fans "What you want simply isn't feasible"  It's another to simply say "I hate so much about the things that you choose to be " 

Isn't the latter what you're saying about them?

I don't hate anyone for liking multiplayer, or developing multiplayer.  I just don't like most multiplayer myself, and don't want to see it in DA3.  And I'd like my concerns to be taken seriously.  You clearly don't.  But I'd like actual developers to do so. 

Or barring that, pretend convincingly

[hoorayforicecream]

iakus wrote...

It's one thing to tell fans "What you want simply isn't feasible"  It's another to simply say "I hate so much about the things that you choose to be " 

I'm confused. Have any developers actually said the second statement to you? Or are you just blurring the line between what developers say and other posters say? The latter seems disingenuous, the former seems like it would be easily proven with a link to the quote.

[upsettingshorts]

iakus wrote...

I don't hate anyone for liking multiplayer, or developing multiplayer.  I just don't like most multiplayer myself, and don't want to see it in DA3.  And I'd like my concerns to be taken seriously.  You clearly don't.  But I'd like actual developers to do so. 

I would if the logic behind "the existence of multiplayer makes my single player experience worse" had more behind it than a single, flawed, and later corrected example.

Where is this vast history of multiplayer actively ruining single player experiences?  To such an extent that you can be against the very idea of its inclusion in any form at all?  Why not simply react with indifference instead of hostility?  If games have crossed a red line over this for you, where and how?

Answer that and I'll take it seriously.   But then, youre not under any obligation to explain yourself to me.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 06 décembre 2012 - 07:57 .

[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 .

[Iakus]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

iakus wrote...

It's one thing to tell fans "What you want simply isn't feasible"  It's another to simply say "I hate so much about the things that you choose to be " 

I'm confused. Have any developers actually said the second statement to you? Or are you just blurring the line between what developers say and other posters say? The latter seems disingenuous, the former seems like it would be easily proven with a link to the quote.

I'm poking fun at Upsettingshorts' statement that he can't take "anti-multiplayer ideologues" seriously.  I'm basically saying I hope actual developers do pay more attention to player feedback than he does.   (the line is actually a quote Michael Scott from "The Office" says to his "nemesis" Toby Flenderson)

Modifié par iakus, 06 décembre 2012 - 07:58 .

[Almostfaceman]

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 here, and it was a terrible experience that didn't work out. But I loved playing it single player, and played Baldur's Gate 2 for near on five years, with all those cool fan mods that came out.

In general, my experience with multiplayer is lukewarm at best. I've experienced just getting more aggravated at the bad attituds, lag, and mediocre implementation displayed over a wide variety of games over this past decade. I haven't played it at all in ME3. It's just never been worth all the hype. But that's just me. 

Modifié par Almostfaceman, 06 décembre 2012 - 08:23 .

[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 .

[Almostfaceman]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

Do you have big LAN parties at work? Used to do something like that with a group of work friends at their house with Quake 2 Chaos. But those kinds of opportunites are few and far between. Used to have a semi-regular group I played with on XBoxLive but even then you're stuck playing with other people as well. 

Modifié par Almostfaceman, 06 décembre 2012 - 08:30 .

[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.

[Almostfaceman]

Being mostly about multiplayer is precisely why I haven't bought something like Call of Duty or Battlefied and opted for Skyrim instead.

I'm sure if a multiplayer experience comes out that's improved and it gets a lot of positive buzz for such I may try it out. I'm kinda interested in seeing where this Elder Scrolls online goes, but it's not something I'd pre-order.

[Tootles FTW]

I enjoyed the tentative MP/SP connection that you had in Mass Effect 3 when you promoted a character - you received a little email from Hackett (I believe) that notified you of an elite soldier joining the war effort, and then you had your +assets. I actually wouldn't have minded if they kept a more detailed log of which character/class you promoted, even.

What I *did* mind was when the MP war assets were made necessary to achieve certain endings in the SP campaign. Whatever MP adds in Dragon Age: Inquisition, it should be likened to sprinkles on a cupcake, a nice little addition that only adds to the completed product...it shouldn't be an egg that you need to properly make the batter in the first place. ...ah, cupcakes.

[hoorayforicecream]

Tootles FTW wrote...

What I *did* mind was when the MP war assets were made necessary to achieve certain endings in the SP campaign. Whatever MP adds in Dragon Age: Inquisition, it should be likened to sprinkles on a cupcake, a nice little addition that only adds to the completed product...it shouldn't be an egg that you need to properly make the batter in the first place. ...ah, cupcakes.

There's no consensus on what people consider core and what people consider extra. Just look at any DLC argument about how important Javik is to the story of ME3.

[frankf43]

I don't play MP games and don't want  to play a MP game, hell I even Solo WOW 95% of the time. But as long as I can play the game in single player mode, even if at a slight disadvantage to those taking up the MP route then I don't mind its inclusion.

I'm kinda curious if we rae keeping the same money system or changing to Simillions?