242 réponses à ce sujet

[Farbautisonn]

Addai67 wrote...
John Riccitello's words....

If you refuse to take their statements at face value, that's up to you.

...take Riccitello's words at face value...

I did lol.

[LinksOcarina]

Addai67 wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

You are still missing the point.

Did he at any time say that all games would have multiplayer? The myth we see all over the net based on the comments made is yes, they would, and no single player games exists.

I think you are still missing my point.  Sure we don't know if there's going to be MP in DA3, though I would be surprised if it wasn't.  But whether it's there or not, I don't want their "online applications and digital services."  I didn't ask to be morphed into Origin and it offers me nothing.  They're talking about things that have no relevance or draw to me, and making a big deal of them, while the quality of their SP games goes downhill.  Is one of these things related to the other?  I say it's a good bet.

So, what proof do you have that quality of single player "goes downhill" and no, I don't mean anecdotal opinions of how you feel Mass Effect 3 is.

Do you know for a fact that resource allocation has changed, or that time and money spent on things is moved around? The metrics and logistics of actually building a video game basically, and can you show previous examples within the gaming industry of how the resource allocation to make a multiplayer component affected the resources for single player games? That type of thinking is not logic, but assumption, and that is a dangerous line of thinking to begin with, to assume something is right. 


In the end you are going to have to just grin and bear it basically, because they are not chaning the model since it has proven viable. You may not want it, I may not want it, but its going to be there and we can ignore it all we like, it takes away nothing from us in the end to do so. 

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 22 janvier 2013 - 10:00 .

[MrCrabby]

Chris Priestly wrote...
Not quite. EA is asking that all games have an online component. Dragon Age Origins and Dragon Age 2 both had online components (being able to upload screenshpots to the BSN, redeem online codes, etc). Dragon Age 3 will have some form of online component as well, but nothing we can discuss yet.

<sarcasm>Naturally.</sarcasm>

Wake us up when you have something to announce other than how awesome the graphics are. 

Modifié par MrCrabby, 22 janvier 2013 - 10:03 .

[Vrin]

iakus wrote...

Vrin wrote...

I was not a fan of ME3 MP for months. I am "old" and normally got killed whenever I tried other game multiplayer to the point of not bothering playing. I got hooked on ME3 MP and play now very regularly.

Before I played the ME3 MP, I didn't hate the fact that Bioware created it. I didn't use it. That fact didn't change anyone's experience at all. I was happy. People who played MP were happy etc...

I'll *NEVER* understand people who say "I'll never play DA3 MP and they should never include it"! No one's forcing you to play it. Other people like it. If it's there and you choose not to play it, why should you care at all?

Becuase MP almost always affects single player.  EIther in  shorter game, balance issues, MP being required to complete single player.  Something invariably seems to have to be taken away from SP to make MP viable.

Always? No, not necessailly, the BG games are one such exception.  But it's rare enough that MP of any kind in DA3 will put me off from buying it.

I think you're seriously overreacting but it's your money.  Do as you will.

[Addai]

LinksOcarina wrote...

So, what proof do you have that quality of single player "goes downhill" and no, I don't mean anecdotal opinions of how you feel Mass Effect 3 is.

Do you know for a fact that resource allocation has changed, or that time and money spent on things is moved around? The metrics and logistics of actually building a video game basically, and can you show previous examples within the gaming industry of how the resource allocation to make a multiplayer component affected the resources for single player games? That type of thinking is not logic, but assumption, and that is a dangerous line of thinking to begin with, to assume something is right.

Give me a break.  Because certain resources are committed to MP and others to SP, and once they're committed they are in separate lines of the ledger, doesn't mean that prior to that point there wasn't a decision about how to break down resource allocation for the DA franchise.  EA has repeatedly said that hooking people up to an online pipeline and micro-monetizing that feed is the way of the future in how they plan to build their revenue.

In the end you are going to have to just grin and bear it basically, because they are not chaning the model since it has proven viable. You may not want it, I may not want it, but its going to be there and we can ignore it all we like, it takes away nothing from us in the end to do so.

Actually I don't, because it will factor in to whether I play the game at all.

[LinksOcarina]

Addai67 wrote...

Give me a break.  Because certain resources are committed to MP and others to SP, and once they're committed they are in separate lines of the ledger, doesn't mean that prior to that point there wasn't a decision about how to break down resource allocation for the DA franchise.  EA has repeatedly said that hooking people up to an online pipeline and micro-monetizing that feed is the way of the future in how they plan to build their revenue.

Of course, thats logical. The question I am asking is can you presume that the said resources were allocated in a fixed amount?

For example, did 5 million go to multiplayer and 5 million to single player, was it ten to single and five to multi, and so forth. Or does BioWare have carte blanche in forging their own budget and just need to wait for approval? That is the type of allocation I am refering to. We simply don't know and its foolish for us to presume anything like that, let alone assume the worst int he end because its easier to do so that way.

I would love to see BioWare show us that buisness sheet and the breakdown but thats confidential. I realize that. At the same time I wish this whole idea of "resource management" just go away so people can stop assuming the worst all the time, because thats just annoying. 

]Actually I don't, because it will factor in to whether I play the game at all.

Then why are you even replying then since you made your decision already? 

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 22 janvier 2013 - 10:12 .

[legion999]

I don't even care anymore. If EA wills it, it'll be in the game. I just hope there are no multiplayer only achievements so I can ignore it.

[Addai]

LinksOcarina wrote...
Of course, thats logical. The question I am asking is can you presume that the said resources were allocated in a fixed amount?

The example I gave was the Facebook game.  If there is multiplayer in DA3 at all, some resources will have been allocated for it.  It doesn't matter how much- whatever the amount, those are resources that could have been put towards a better SP game.

Then why are you even replying then since you made your decision already?

How do you derive this from "it will factor in to whether I play the game or not at all"?

[tyhiyo3]

no

[Allan Schumacher]

They played it safe and just copy/pasted Gears of War's horde mode. If this was the plan all along, I question their judgement.

Could be because it was more of an experiment. We weren't expecting it to be as popular as it is.

[EpicBoot2daFace]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

They played it safe and just copy/pasted Gears of War's horde mode. If this was the plan all along, I question their judgement.

Could be because it was more of an experiment. We weren't expecting it to be as popular as it is.

Why? It's been very popular in just about every game that's shipped with it.

[Chala]

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

They played it safe and just copy/pasted Gears of War's horde mode. If this was the plan all along, I question their judgement.

Could be because it was more of an experiment. We weren't expecting it to be as popular as it is.

Why? It's been very popular in just about every game that's shipped with it.

Yes, but MP on a game that is known for being heavily focused on SP and story it's not something you can say with all security "It will be a success".

For example: Dead Space 2's MP, It didn't end well despite it wasn't a bad mode.

So maybe this is the reason why they were surprised with the popularity of ME3's MP, especially with all the hate towards it before release.

Modifié par El_Chala_Legalizado, 23 janvier 2013 - 03:47 .

[Khwarezm89]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Viidicus wrote...

 why in the world is this even needed?

To make money and extend the life of the product, which also leads to more money.

 That's the answer 

[EpicBoot2daFace]

El_Chala_Legalizado wrote...

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

They played it safe and just copy/pasted Gears of War's horde mode. If this was the plan all along, I question their judgement.

Could be because it was more of an experiment. We weren't expecting it to be as popular as it is.

Why? It's been very popular in just about every game that's shipped with it.

Yes, but MP on a game that is known for being heavily focused on SP and story it's not something you can say with all security "It will be a success".

For example: Dead Space 2's MP, It didn't end well despite it wasn't a bad mode.

Yes, I see your point. But I hope Bioware doesn't rest on their laurels and ship ME4 with another horde mode. A co-op sidestory that begins before or after the campaign would really fit Mass Effect.

Modifié par EpicBoot2daFace, 23 janvier 2013 - 03:49 .

[Chala]

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

El_Chala_Legalizado wrote...

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

They played it safe and just copy/pasted Gears of War's horde mode. If this was the plan all along, I question their judgement.

Could be because it was more of an experiment. We weren't expecting it to be as popular as it is.

Why? It's been very popular in just about every game that's shipped with it.

Yes, but MP on a game that is known for being heavily focused on SP and story it's not something you can say with all security "It will be a success".

For example: Dead Space 2's MP, It didn't end well despite it wasn't a bad mode.

Yes, I see your point. But I hope Bioware doesn't rest on their laurels and ship ME4 with another horde mode. A co-op sidestory that begins before or after the campaign would really fit Mass Effect.

Same here, other modes besides horde, like Capture the Flag, Team Vs or a Conquest ala Battlefront II would be something I'd really like.

If they made a small coop campain, I hope they do it before... Some kind of unnecesary prologue to the game would fit more: No real decisions (Like saving Ash or Kaidan) and less troubles with your main game options.
If it's a sequel, it should change according to one player's save, it can be problematic.

[EpicBoot2daFace]

El_Chala_Legalizado wrote...

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

El_Chala_Legalizado wrote...

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

They played it safe and just copy/pasted Gears of War's horde mode. If this was the plan all along, I question their judgement.

Could be because it was more of an experiment. We weren't expecting it to be as popular as it is.

Why? It's been very popular in just about every game that's shipped with it.

Yes, but MP on a game that is known for being heavily focused on SP and story it's not something you can say with all security "It will be a success".

For example: Dead Space 2's MP, It didn't end well despite it wasn't a bad mode.

Yes, I see your point. But I hope Bioware doesn't rest on their laurels and ship ME4 with another horde mode. A co-op sidestory that begins before or after the campaign would really fit Mass Effect.

Same here, other modes besides horde, like Capture the Flag, Team Vs or a Conquest ala Battlefront II would be something I'd really like.

If they made a small coop campain, I hope they do it before... Some kind of unnecesary prologue to the game would fit more: No real decisions (Like saving Ash or Kaidan) and less troubles with your main game options.
If it's a sequel, it should change according to one player's save, it can be problematic.

Well, if I said I would like to it be a copy of Halo 4's Spartan Ops mode I'd be contradicting my own previous arguments. That said, I think that's a pretty good blue print. It has to have it's own spin, though.

Modifié par EpicBoot2daFace, 23 janvier 2013 - 04:03 .

[ElitePinecone]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

We weren't expecting it to be as popular as it is.

This is interesting. I thought it was well-made, and it's nice to see that a whole mini-community has sprung up solely devoted to comparing class builds, weapons, power usage etc in the MP.

[HolyAvenger]

ME3MP was surprisingly good, and transitioned me from being an SP only player into someone who really enjoys MP.

I look forward to BioWare's future offerings, for both MP and SP.


A DA MP featuring warriors/mages/rogues etc would be pretty epic.

[74 Wrex]

Liamv2 wrote...

74 Wrex wrote...

F*ck Multiplayer it will never be good for Dragon Age 3

It's not out yet so how on earth can you know?

Cause pure simple facts
Dragon Age 3 should focus on story and gameplay instead of multiplayer which should never be in this game 
EVER!!!!!!!

[CHRrOME]

I really don't like the "Must have MP" EAs idea.

In the other hand ME3 MP was surprisingly fun. Who knows, maybe it will be a success too

[PnXMarcin1PL]

well im not looking forward da3 mp but i wont hate it. on the contrary i anticipated me3 mp

[NRieh]

Main issue with ME3 MP was that it DID affect SP outcome (while stated otherwise) . And that devs never said anything about it, not even after it was 100% confirmed that required numbers can NOT be achieved with SP only. And in 5 month after release (EC) there was a post with something like "Hey, now you really-really do not need MP for SP, this time - 100%! Cool?"

If they did not force people to grind TMS - there could be much less MP-hate all around here. And Now DA MP suffers part of that ME3 hating, even after they bothered to fix it. And even before we know what DA3 MP may look like. It happens mostly just because some "smart" person thought at some moment, that forcing SP ME players into MP was a good idea.

I don't care about DA3 MP, as long as it's optional. I may try it, I may enjoy or dislike it. But I'm buying game only after it's confirmed, that MP is not forced to SP community this time. If I needed mandatory dungeons grinding - I'd go and play WoW.

[Milkies]

It would be an understatement to say that, at first, I wasn't entirely pleased with the addition of MP to ME3. It turned out to be good and I have faith that IF a multiplayer mode is included in DA3, it will also be good. Just as long as it is kept entirely separate from the single player, unlike ME3.

74 Wrex wrote...

Cause pure simple facts
Dragon Age 3 should focus on story and gameplay instead of multiplayer which should never be in this game 
EVER!!!!!!!

Those facts sound a lot like opinions to me.

[LinksOcarina]

Addai67 wrote...

The example I gave was the Facebook game.  If there is multiplayer in DA3 at all, some resources will have been allocated for it.  It doesn't matter how much- whatever the amount, those are resources that could have been put towards a better SP game.

The facebook game was done by a separate team and likely had a seperate budget, so it wouldn't interfere with the main game. It is very similar to how two teams worked on Mass Effect 3, one for the single player and one for Multiplayer. In fact it is clear thats the case because of the mechanical designs being slightly different to accomodate the differences between the two modes.

For example, power mapping and weapon use is static in multiplayer while you can pause and swap in single player, and dictate orders for your squad. That is a fundamental difference between the two but a smart one, as it makes the multiplayer more "pick up and play" and intuitive, without losing the strategic edge of the single player, despite being limited in options per character. We do not know, however, if the amount allocated was from a fixed income for the entire game. To say it could have been put towards the single player may be incorrect because it was seperate to begin with. 

How do you derive this from "it will factor in to whether I play the game or not at all"?

Just a hunch really, you are against the idea behind the gaming as a service model because it doesn't appeal to you, and you pretty much are blaming resource allocation as being a primary reason for the failures of another game that added multiplayer. How can I not derive that by reading between the lines?

If I am wrong sorry for assuming though.