41 réponses à ce sujet

[Vortex13]

scyphozoa wrote...

Yeah, I do expect gear progression to be a part of DA3 multiplayer. So I do expect people will "grind" or "farm" DA3 flashpoints, just like they do in SWTOR. And yeah, the big limitation of flashpoints is that after you've seen them a few times, they start to lose their charm.

I think another idea would be like Diablo, not necessarily just flashpoints, but the option to play through the entire game's campaign with a full co-op party.

Agreed, any form of multiplayer specific campaigns (apart from co-op on the main story) are notoriously short/non-existent story. Either allow a drop-in/drop-out feature for the main quest line or give us a DA styled horde mode. 

I would be very dissapointed if the only form of multiplayer in DA:I was having to replay the same 3 hour long campaign over and over again, especially if you couldn't even play as the more interesting races of the DA universe (Quinarri, Malibari Warhounds, Werewolves, Golems, Sylvans, ect.)

[Lord Issa]

I would love co-op for DA3, as it's the only type of multiplayer I would actually use. The secondary character would probably just work like a Fable henchman, but I think that it would be pretty amazing if it worked like Flashpoints in SWTOR.

[Heimdall]

Vortex13 wrote...



Agreed, any form of multiplayer specific campaigns (apart from co-op on the main story) are notoriously short/non-existent story. Either allow a drop-in/drop-out feature for the main quest line or give us a DA styled horde mode. 

I would be very dissapointed if the only form of multiplayer in DA:I was having to replay the same 3 hour long campaign over and over again, especially if you couldn't even play as the more interesting races of the DA universe (Quinarri, Malibari Warhounds, Werewolves, Golems, Sylvans, ect.)

What if there was a Horde mode and a Flashpoint model like I suggested?  With new flashpoint modules being added episodically through DLC?

Modifié par Lord Aesir, 09 décembre 2012 - 05:43 .

[Vortex13]

Lord Aesir wrote...

Vortex13 wrote...

Agreed, any form of multiplayer specific campaigns (apart from co-op on the main story) are notoriously short/non-existent story. Either allow a drop-in/drop-out feature for the main quest line or give us a DA styled horde mode. 

I would be very dissapointed if the only form of multiplayer in DA:I was having to replay the same 3 hour long campaign over and over again, especially if you couldn't even play as the more interesting races of the DA universe (Quinarri, Malibari Warhounds, Werewolves, Golems, Sylvans, ect.)

What if there was a Horde mode and a Flashpoint model like I suggested?  With new flashpoint modules being added episodically through DLC?

I would be okay in that scenario but only if the Horde was well done; I don't want just a DA skinned ME 3 Horde mode, I would like to see improvements made to the gameplay and uniqueness of the classes (NO KITS). But if these things could be accomplished and the Horde mode isn't some tacked on survival game but fully fleshed out then I would have no problems with a Co-op campaign.

[Sith Grey Warden]

This sounds like a great idea, but I see one problem with it. In TOR, there were four distinct characters in each faction, each with two different voices. From a story perspective, they were a group of the galaxy's best teaming up for a difficult mission. In DA3, every player character is supposed to be the same person (presumably the Inquisitor). They also will all sound the same. Though perhaps we would make distinct characters for the multiplayer campaign like in ME3?

[lx_theo]

Sith Grey Warden wrote...

This sounds like a great idea, but I see one problem with it. In TOR, there were four distinct characters in each faction, each with two different voices. From a story perspective, they were a group of the galaxy's best teaming up for a difficult mission. In DA3, every player character is supposed to be the same person (presumably the Inquisitor). They also will all sound the same. Though perhaps we would make distinct characters for the multiplayer campaign like in ME3?

Maybe. I do think the same voices would be something people would be able to deal with (maybe even a joke about only so many voices in the world). As for story, I'd imagine they'd use a very similar manner where they say that everyone else is working towards a similar goal to you, but they'd never get into any specifics to give the impression that its not the same thing. 

Though having new characters (and voices?) for the co-op campaign could be interesting, though I'd imagine more people would get invested in it if they connected the characters to the single player campaign. 

[Heimdall]

Sith Grey Warden wrote...

This sounds like a great idea, but I see one problem with it. In TOR, there were four distinct characters in each faction, each with two different voices. From a story perspective, they were a group of the galaxy's best teaming up for a difficult mission. In DA3, every player character is supposed to be the same person (presumably the Inquisitor). They also will all sound the same. Though perhaps we would make distinct characters for the multiplayer campaign like in ME3?

That was what I was thinking.  That might open up the possibility of playing as different races in multiplayer.

[Doctoglethorpe]

I thought it was obvious that you wouldn't be playing as your inquisitor in any multiplayer mode.

[lx_theo]

I still think connecting it into the single player would be best for all parties involved.

[Heimdall]

lx_theo wrote...

I still think connecting it into the single player would be best for all parties involved.

The story can be connected, 

[Sanunes]

Lord Aesir wrote...

lx_theo wrote...

I still think connecting it into the single player would be best for all parties involved.

The story can be connected, 

Here is the problem with anything to do with multiplayer, if the story is connected people will complain loudly just like From Ashes or Leviathan with Mass Effect 3, for they want to have all the story in the single player portion of the game they buy.

The problem I have is I can't dedicate more then a hour at a time generally its less to play a game, I have a busy life and making it I can drop in and out is fine, but if I am never able to actually finish the multiplayer I won't have the interest to continue to play.

[Heimdall]

Sanunes wrote...

Here is the problem with anything to do with multiplayer, if the story is connected people will complain loudly just like From Ashes or Leviathan with Mass Effect 3, for they want to have all the story in the single player portion of the game they buy.

The problem I have is I can't dedicate more then a hour at a time generally its less to play a game, I have a busy life and making it I can drop in and out is fine, but if I am never able to actually finish the multiplayer I won't have the interest to continue to play.

Depends on the connection.  I'm picturing the story as being relevant to the SP plot but not vital and not used as a way to explain something important like Leviathan.  It should be its own entity, but the Inquisitor may hear rumors of things related to it.  Or it may deal with something that occurs before the start of Inquisition.  They have some leeway with chronology.  It could explain how several things the Inqusitor has to deal with arose or something.  It might be easier to avoid having to deal with things the Inquisitor may or may not have done anyway.

That's really a question of how they design it.  In my experience the lower level Flashpoints didn't usually take over an hour but I've not done the higher level ones.

[lx_theo]

Sanunes wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...

lx_theo wrote...

I still think connecting it into the single player would be best for all parties involved.

The story can be connected, 

Here is the problem with anything to do with multiplayer, if the story is connected people will complain loudly just like From Ashes or Leviathan with Mass Effect 3, for they want to have all the story in the single player portion of the game they buy.

The problem I have is I can't dedicate more then a hour at a time generally its less to play a game, I have a busy life and making it I can drop in and out is fine, but if I am never able to actually finish the multiplayer I won't have the interest to continue to play.

Well, it should be a separate compaign, like one that sets up the next game versus being the story of this game. THey should be connected one way or the other, but they should be dinstinctly different stories for the sake you put forward.

Like I said in the OP, they'd also need to be able to be beaten by people who make their character strong enough, for the sake of making the multiplayer haters (or people who have to play it single player like you) happier with it.

[Heimdall]

lx_theo wrote...

Like I said in the OP, they'd also need to be able to be beaten by people who make their character strong enough, for the sake of making the multiplayer haters (or people who have to play it single player like you) happier with it.

Perhaps a different difficult setting available for solo players?

[lx_theo]

Lord Aesir wrote...

lx_theo wrote...

Like I said in the OP, they'd also need to be able to be beaten by people who make their character strong enough, for the sake of making the multiplayer haters (or people who have to play it single player like you) happier with it.

Perhaps a different difficult setting available for solo players?

That'll lead to most people simply not taking advantage of the co-op part of it and undermine that whole point. Working for it would at least help both sides get what they want.

[Sanunes]

Lord Aesir wrote...

Depends on the connection.  I'm picturing the story as being relevant to the SP plot but not vital and not used as a way to explain something important like Leviathan.  It should be its own entity, but the Inquisitor may hear rumors of things related to it.  Or it may deal with something that occurs before the start of Inquisition.  They have some leeway with chronology.  It could explain how several things the Inqusitor has to deal with arose or something.  It might be easier to avoid having to deal with things the Inquisitor may or may not have done anyway.

That's really a question of how they design it.  In my experience the lower level Flashpoints didn't usually take over an hour but I've not done the higher level ones.

The problem is the connection is a very personal thing, I don't consider either From Ashes or Leviathan to be more then additional information for us to know for it really doesn't impact the game, but others consider one or both of them to hold key pieces of information and I think that is something that they are going to run into if they include any information about the game or world in multiplayer.

[Heimdall]

Sanunes wrote...

The problem is the connection is a very personal thing, I don't consider either From Ashes or Leviathan to be more then additional information for us to know for it really doesn't impact the game, but others consider one or both of them to hold key pieces of information and I think that is something that they are going to run into if they include any information about the game or world in multiplayer.

The problem I hear most about Leviathan is that it gives information that was other wise only introduced in the final minutes of ME3, information extremely relevant to the final decision some people felt.

That sort of information can be avoided.