225 réponses à ce sujet

[Navasha]

If it only has to be an online component, then I would LOVE to see some sort of global online strategy meta-game. Something with a map of Thedas and people can choose which country/race they are supporting. Their online tasks would earn soldiers/food/weapons etc for their side. We could watch the fronts advance and fall back.

Something where people can participate at their leisure and not have to worry about needing to walk away for 10 or 15 minutes.

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 do that too.   I used to solo play D&D online for the longest time, then one day I hit a dungeon that required other people standing on switchplates to advance.   I stopped playing that day.

Modifié par Navasha, 06 décembre 2012 - 09:32 .

[Brockololly]

Upsettingshorts wrote...
Battlefield 1942 didn't.  Unless you count using bots on multiplayer maps, and nobody does. 

I do! Cause back in the day, when I got BF1942, I had no desire to play online so I played through the maps with the bots. Going through the different battles in chronological order with the historical briefings was as much a campaign as anything and could definitely be done all by yourself.

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 think in both cases those weren't necessarily the reasons those games are widely remembered, but they did have those features and some people enjoyed them.

[upsettingshorts]

I didn't mean nobody did it. Allan responded and did a better job of explaining the distinction in any case.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 06 décembre 2012 - 09:40 .

[Brockololly]

Allan Schumacher wrote...
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.

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.

I can't remember about Vietnam or BF2 but 1942 did have an actual narrative that tied the maps together. Yes, it was just the MP maps with bots like you said,  but you were given the historical overviews of the battles and objectives before each battle in the single player. For me at the time, I loved that because it was just an open ended trip through the battles of world war 2 with some modicum of emergent gameplay with the AI bots. The AI bots may have sucked but I loved it at the time being able to experience these WW2 battles in a game from the beginning of the war to the end. That was enough of a narrative for me.

Honestly, I'd find that kind of a single player campaign far more interesting than like what BF3 did. Give the multiplayer maps some basic narrative context and beef up the AI such that you can have fun with it. Messing around with AI is what so many people enjoy in open world games like GTA, Far Cry 3 or Skyrim, so it would be interesting to see that with a modern game.

[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 .

[axl99]

Why are we even arguing about optional content a seperate dev team is assigned to make?

[Brockololly]

Allan Schumacher wrote...
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.

No, I really wasn't getting into that whole argument that SP was affecting MP or vice versa for BF. If anything, in BF's case its always been a multiplayer centric franchise, first and foremost. If you were to ask people what BF was all about  they'd likely cite mutiplayer long before getting to single player, even if some number of people brought up single player. Just as much as if you were to ask people what Baldur's Gate was all about, they'd likely cite the lengthy single player narrative with all of the companion characters, not necessarily multiplayer.

I think in both cases its just more a matter of recognizing what one's strengths are or what the franchise/game's appeal is and allocating resources appropriately. So even if single player and multiplayer resources are kept entirely separate, I'd imagine that the choice to include a single player campaign in BF or a multiplayer mode in DA3 is viewed as an extra cost to be made up in terms of sales needed for the overall game to be a success. Basically that adding that extra feature needs to be justified by some projected commercial gain for the end product. Yet if that extra feature flops, then it might make it harder for the overall game to meet any internal commercial expectations.

Modifié par Brockololly, 07 décembre 2012 - 01:41 .

[Imp of the Perverse]

BBK4114 wrote...

 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.  

I think ME3's MP microtransactions are set up pretty fairly. DLC is free and 100% of the content can be accessed without spending a single extra cent. In my experience things unlock quickly enough to where you aren't at a significant disadvantage if you don't want to buy packs with real money - raising a weapon from level I to level X only increases it's damage by 10%-30% (usually closer to 15%) and characters are fully functional as soon as you unlock them (additional unlocks just give you more color schemes.) People rage about the randomness of the store but it mostly just sounds like kids complaining about having to wait to unwrap their presents, not legitimate complaints about not being able to play the game unless you spend gobs of money on microtransactions.

[xsdob]

Why do people assume that multiplayer and singleplayer can't simply co-exist in the same game? They shouldn't affect one another, like for example you shouldn't need to play multiplayer to get all the loot or affect gameplay outcomes, and singleplayer shouldn't affect things like character's available or abilities to get weapons. But there's no reason that it has to be a zero/sum gain when it comes to the two aspects.

[Dysjong]

I must confess that i am torned about Multiplayer.

What i didnt like, was that it tried and in some way, stil affect the outcome of ME3. I don't like it, never did.
I did see some dialog in old republic and i have to say, that it looked good.

I have to see the gameplay before i can come with something useful.

[Nimpe]

Integration is fine as long as it's optional. If EMS truly functioned like advertised with Mass Effect where you can get the perfect ending without multiplayer, that's fine. Currently since extended cut it functions perfectly.

[MarchWaltz]

There IS going to be multiplay.

And it is going to have a similar system to mass effect, IE get credits during missions and use said credits to unlock random ****ty stuff.

Oh, and you can use RL money to buy said credits.

GREED. Mark my words.

[Mike_Neel]

I don't mind multiplayer nor do I mind multiplayer integrating into singleplayer. I enjoyed ME3 multiplayer, especially all that free DLC. But I don't think it should be required to do to get the entire experience. I know it was a bug that they patched. And that goes both ways. I don't think content should be cut out from one side for not doing the other side, regardless of it being SP or MP.

I also really don't like seeing multiplayer achievements/trophies. I don't have any friends (honestly, not a 1), and most of them require co-op and friends you can talk to to finish. Not counting aggregate ones which just count out headshots or assists or something. But things like complete gold. You can't do that with randoms.

[BouncyFrag]

MarchWaltz wrote...

There IS going to be multiplay.

And it is going to have a similar system to mass effect, IE get credits during missions and use said credits to unlock random ****ty stuff.

Oh, and you can use RL money to buy said credits.

GREED. Mark my words.

If Bioware treats a potential DA3 multiplayer like ME3's in regards to releasing massive amounts of quality, FREE dlc, along with weekly balance changes, who cares about micro-transactions? Its easy to earn plenty of credits just by doing matches, and if, heaven forbid, someone actually uses their own money to get in-game credits, why should anyone care about that? If it wasn't for them, we would have to instead pay for the dlc out of pocket. I'll use some of my microsoft points, though not many, when new dlc is released in support of the game.

This is the trailer for the most recent and largest dlc to date for the ME3 multiplayer.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZqwuHFIgIA&feature=plcp
After the whole mess of the ME3 endings, I didn't think I'd ever be excited about Mass Effect again, and from the multiplayer of all things. 

Modifié par BouncyFrag, 07 décembre 2012 - 09:05 .

[Conduit0]

MarchWaltz wrote...

There IS going to be multiplay.

And it is going to have a similar system to mass effect, IE get credits during missions and use said credits to unlock random ****ty stuff.

Oh, and you can use RL money to buy said credits.

GREED. Mark my words.

How is it greed? You lose absolutely nothing by not playing the multiplayer, and if you do play it, using real money to buy items is completely optional. I enjoy ME3's multiplayer and have never once felt compelled to spend real money on it, depsite that I've gotten 4 free DLC and over 200 hours of play time out of it. If they're trying to be greedy, they're doing a mighty poor job of it.

[Uccio]

I never play MP in fantasy setting. I thoroughly despise WoW. SP is my cup of tea. Infact the only games I've played in MP have been WW2 games (DoD/RedOrchestra) and Left for Dead 1/2 (after I played the crap out of SP).

[TheRealJayDee]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

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.

I would have been fine if anyone from Bioware had done something to clear up this 'misunderstanding' before silently removing the issue with the EC. There were threads specificially describing the issue, and... ah, I really don't wanna go back into all that. Not god for my blood pressure. Let's just say that if it was a misunderstanding I'm in awe of BW's ability to misunderstand things. Even then I would find the decision to make something like a scene that could be interpreted as "Shepard lives" not available to players who don't play multiplayer highly questionable.

Modifié par TheRealJayDee, 07 décembre 2012 - 04:49 .

[upsettingshorts]

Which is why I didn't say people shouldn't have been frustrated. It's not like I wasn't. Only that resource allocation was not to blame for the single biggest objection most people had to the execution of multiplayer's inclusion in Mass Effect 3.

Conceptually speaking the integration of multiplayer in the game struck me as fine.  The idea of galactic readiness as well as being able to promote multiplayer characters to war assets was good synergy.  Practically speaking the balance was off.  Before release I simply assumed that I'd have to be a completionist to get everything I wanted in single player, and I was okay with that deal.  But it didn't work out that way until the patch so...

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 07 décembre 2012 - 04:44 .

[Cain Corvin]

I agree. Dont integrate mp in dragon age!

[toto2300]

Sonowske21 wrote...

What exactly is wrong with having multiplayer in DA3? Just look how well it's doing on Mass Effect 3. In fact, the multiplayer is a lot more fun than the campaign, in my honest opinion.

It's not a "campaign". The singleplayer is the actual game, while the multiplayer is an optional mode.

[xsdob]

Don't ruin MP with the crappy dragon age game bioware! RPG's ruin everything their mixed with!

/forthelolz

[LinksOcarina]

To be honest, if they follow some of the lessons from Mass Effect 3 and the multiplayer there, I think it would be a great addition to Dragon Age III. I would argue that the multiplayer in Mass Effect is more true to actual role-playing mechanics that people seem to be against because its a separate mode.

Take for example classes. Traditional stuff like say Call of Duty has everything loosey-goosey, where you can pick and choose from a bit of everything to customize classes. Mass Effect actually has roles per class, and each character career adds a new type of build that you can follow. It is different playing an Asari Justicar vs an Asari Adept, for example. Or a male and female quarian Infiltrator. And that really does show the kind of thought and balancing of numerous character jobs we can have with the six core classes.

Throw in power use, weapon mods, weapon choices, and the like, and it really is a good representation of a co-op RPG experience, like Dead Island and Borderlands have done, and Baldurs Gate in the past.

[Adugan]

LinksOcarina wrote...

To be honest, if they follow some of the lessons from Mass Effect 3 and the multiplayer there, I think it would be a great addition to Dragon Age III. I would argue that the multiplayer in Mass Effect is more true to actual role-playing mechanics that people seem to be against because its a separate mode.

Take for example classes. Traditional stuff like say Call of Duty has everything loosey-goosey, where you can pick and choose from a bit of everything to customize classes. Mass Effect actually has roles per class, and each character career adds a new type of build that you can follow. It is different playing an Asari Justicar vs an Asari Adept, for example. Or a male and female quarian Infiltrator. And that really does show the kind of thought and balancing of numerous character jobs we can have with the six core classes.

Throw in power use, weapon mods, weapon choices, and the like, and it really is a good representation of a co-op RPG experience, like Dead Island and Borderlands have done, and Baldurs Gate in the past.

You completely missed the point of this thread

[Rawgrim]

LinksOcarina wrote...

To be honest, if they follow some of the lessons from Mass Effect 3 and the multiplayer there, I think it would be a great addition to Dragon Age III. I would argue that the multiplayer in Mass Effect is more true to actual role-playing mechanics that people seem to be against because its a separate mode.

Take for example classes. Traditional stuff like say Call of Duty has everything loosey-goosey, where you can pick and choose from a bit of everything to customize classes. Mass Effect actually has roles per class, and each character career adds a new type of build that you can follow. It is different playing an Asari Justicar vs an Asari Adept, for example. Or a male and female quarian Infiltrator. And that really does show the kind of thought and balancing of numerous character jobs we can have with the six core classes.

Throw in power use, weapon mods, weapon choices, and the like, and it really is a good representation of a co-op RPG experience, like Dead Island and Borderlands have done, and Baldurs Gate in the past.

Thats not roleplaying, man. thats just chosing how you do damage to your enemies.

[7isMagic]

The way multiplayer was intregrated into Mass Effect 3 left a very bad taste in my mouth. I fervently hope Dragon Age 3 doesn't follow in its footsteps.

It's not so much that they initially made MP mandatory in ME3 - it's that they didn't tell the consumer beforehand. There was nothing in pre-release press stating MP would be needed - they consistenly said the single-player mode would not be affected by MP. And there was nothing on the game box (in the packaging material) which stated MP was mandatory (that an internet connection would be needed to access all single player game content).

But it became very clear early on this was not the case. Bioware, to this date, has never owned up to this (never admitted they were dishonest). The only acknowledgement came four months after the game's release (at the time the Extended Cut was made available) when they lowered the requirements one needed to achieve a certain aspect of the game WITHOUT multiplayer.  And during the four-month hiatus, before Bioware lowered the number of war assets needed, much was written about this on the BSN forum by many concerned fans and customers.  And there was no acknowledgment from the ME3 team.  Just thread lockdown after thread lockdown.    From a public relations standpoint, it was handled very poorly - especially when one considers what the consumer put into the trilogy over a five-year span (monetarily and otherwise).

I have nothing against MP - it was a nice addition to ME3. It's the way it was implemented and Bioware's dishonesty from the outset and subsequent treatment of their customers that was utterly inexcusable, IMO.

It's very clear EA is intent on including multiplayer in their games from now on. That's all well and good. But paying customers deserve to know up front with openness and honesty HOW the multiplayer aspect of the game will affect the single-player experience (if, in fact, it will in DA3).

Modifié par 7isMagic, 08 décembre 2012 - 12:52 .