242 réponses à ce sujet

[beank]

I dont want it because it dosent need it. Mass Effect didnt need it. There is no reason for a multiplayer mode in an RPG beyond raking more money from people.

If they really believe that a multiplayer game will work, then they should do what Elder Scrolls did and make it a completely separate entity.

The fad of tacking on multiplayer modes to games that dont need it is getting (for me) way out of hand. Even God of War has multiplayer now....

[OblivionDawn]

beank wrote...

I dont want it because it dosent need it. Mass Effect didnt need it. There is no reason for a multiplayer mode in an RPG beyond raking more money from people.

If they really believe that a multiplayer game will work, then they should do what Elder Scrolls did and make it a completely separate entity.

The fad of tacking on multiplayer modes to games that dont need it is getting (for me) way out of hand. Even God of War has multiplayer now....

An outdated mentality. While its has its bugs, ME3MP turned out to be greater than anyone expected.

[beank]

I understand that it turned out great, but you should to look at each individual game and thing about whether or not a MP mode will be worth the effort.

ME3 worked because the game has been an FPS since ME2 so the next logical step is to add MP to get Halo/CoD/BF/Ect fans to play the game.

The DA series is more RPG/Strategy (even with DA2's hack and slash mentality). The next step for them should look something like an MMO instead of regular MP.

Modifié par beank, 23 janvier 2013 - 06:31 .

[Wulfram]

A random, probably stupid, idea that occurred to me:

How about making the multiplayer F2P? That is, available seperately from the SP, for free? Since they'll no doubt be making their via microtransactions ala ME3 multi, getting more people to play it is surely a good thing that'll help them get more money, and I'd guess there are people who might be interested in it who wouldn't want to spend £30 on a full fledged RPG. While it can also serve as a demo for the SP's combat system.

You could give people who bought the full game some perks to start them off in the MP. Maybe some extra perks that might be unlocked as you progressed.

[Darth Death]

OblivionDawn wrote...

An outdated mentality. While its has its bugs, ME3MP turned out to be greater than anyone expected.

Considering its origins being traced from gears horde mode.

[OblivionDawn]

Darth Death wrote...

OblivionDawn wrote...

An outdated mentality. While its has its bugs, ME3MP turned out to be greater than anyone expected.

Considering its origins being traced from gears horde mode.

It bears a few similarities, none of them large enough to be noteworthy.

[LinksOcarina]

beank wrote...

I understand that it turned out great, but you should to look at each individual game and thing about whether or not a MP mode will be worth the effort.

ME3 worked because the game has been an FPS since ME2 so the next logical step is to add MP to get Halo/CoD/BF/Ect fans to play the game.

The DA series is more RPG/Strategy (even with DA2's hack and slash mentality). The next step for them should look something like an MMO instead of regular MP.

A couple of facts.

1. Mass Effect is not a FPS, it is a third person shooter. There is a difference. 

2. BioWare has stated several times that they wanted to include multiplayer into the game well before Mass Effect 3, but they never had the time, resources, or working mechanics to make it fit, or work, in the game. 

3. If we were to take all multiplayer modes on a case by case basis done by BioWare, we have four examples to look at. Baldurs Gate and Baldurs Gate II, Neverwinter Nights, and Mass Effect 3. The question is, were they all successful then? And how can they be improved? 

[Addai]

LinksOcarina wrote...
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.

*sigh*  The resource allocation to the DA franchise has to be diverted to these various streams of development at some point in the budgeting process.

EA really, really wants to move into mobile and social gaming and to making Origin competitive with Steam.  They want to use the established IPs to do this.  The impact on the fans of those IPs has been crappier service and crappier games.  I'm not really talking about MP specifically except as part of EA's larger marketing strategy.  Maybe they're not as abject as Activision or Capcom yet, but they're in that realm.  (see here for the latest example)

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?

I'm not interested in Origin as a service platform, that's true.  In fact just like Uplay and GFWL, it currently resides in the minus column for any game requiring it.  It's pretty much the only reason I didn't play ME3.  I've had enough Bioware game codes just stop working to not want to be taken in again.  But if DA3 looks very, very promising and gets good reviews, I may still play it.

Modifié par Addai67, 24 janvier 2013 - 12:28 .

[ZeroCrewX]

Oh please, ME3's SP suffered greatly due to its MP counterpart.

I for one am not looking forward to meeting - conversing - playing with the immature retards that populate multiplayer audiences.

To the guy who claimed that we're at fault for the rising game prices - Really? So we should instead become mindless peasants that dish at as much money as they need to if they want a game, and then guess what, next day - MORE MONEYZ - why? Because the we should blame ourselves for the rising prices. Moron. If demand drops, prices drop, if prices drop, demand rises. A company can take many avenues OTHER than charging MORE money for existing content. But I guess how would you know, you're obviously (as George Carlin said) "Being ****ed by the guys up there, and smiling while you're eating **** at the same time"

Sheep.

[ZeroCrewX]

And on a side note, DAO was a beast , one of the best RPGs I've played, great story, great writing, sure it was buggy sometimes but alas, it delivered something refreshing. Story-wise (that's what matters most to me) DA2 was utterly pointless.

The only role it has as we now know, is to show us the chaos that erupts with the war between mage and templar. I could have settled for a youtube 5m video of that instead of dishing out 45 bucks for an incomplete piece of ****.

But enough flaming.

The only thing that might make me consider buying ANOTHER disappointing product from the DA team is if this game completely blows my mind. After DA2 I dont trust reviewers - seems they are being bribed as much as politicians these days.

I am however optimistic about it, it has potential and the things im hearing give me hope, but then again so did DA2 and ME3.

If the multiplayer is something innovative and most importantly doesnt drag the single player down, go for it I dont care.

I'll keep close watch on this game, if nothing else so I can come back here and rub it in everyone's faces by saying "Told you."

[74 Wrex]

Lathrim wrote...

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!!!!!!!

I love how you use the word 'should' to express facts. Oh and by the way, the two things you mentioned aren't facts, and that wouldn't have changed if you had worded your post better either.. They're opinions.

It is facts because RPG is always about story and gameplay 

[Plaintiff]

beank wrote...

I dont want it because it dosent need it. Mass Effect didnt need it. There is no reason for a multiplayer mode in an RPG beyond raking more money from people.

If they really believe that a multiplayer game will work, then they should do what Elder Scrolls did and make it a completely separate entity.

The fad of tacking on multiplayer modes to games that dont need it is getting (for me) way out of hand. Even God of War has multiplayer now....

Nothing is "needed" in a game, because it's a game. The entire entity is, by definition, unnecessary.

And you know what? I think Skyrim would've benefitted hugely from a multiplayer mode. It's the most bland, boring, lonely gaming experience I've ever had. Being able to play with friends would change everything, but I'm not going to shell out for an MMO that requires me to group up with total strangers who 9 times out of 10 will turn out to be jerks.

[Shadowvalker]

DA3 + multiplayer = I am leaving!

[XX-Pyro]

ZeroCrewX wrote...

Oh please, ME3's SP suffered greatly due to its MP counterpart.

I for one am not looking forward to meeting - conversing - playing with the immature retards that populate multiplayer audiences.

To the guy who claimed that we're at fault for the rising game prices - Really? So we should instead become mindless peasants that dish at as much money as they need to if they want a game, and then guess what, next day - MORE MONEYZ - why? Because the we should blame ourselves for the rising prices. Moron. If demand drops, prices drop, if prices drop, demand rises. A company can take many avenues OTHER than charging MORE money for existing content. But I guess how would you know, you're obviously (as George Carlin said) "Being ****ed by the guys up there, and smiling while you're eating **** at the same time"

Sheep.

Seems to me the only immature ones are the ones generalizing everyone who plays multiplayer under the category of "retards." 

[wrdnshprd]

i dont mind multiplayer being apart of the game.. as long as the focus is still the single player.. the problem is with ME, they had multiplayer actually affect the single player. if they get rid of that idiotic system.. ill be fine with it.

but multiplayer has been in RPGs before (the original neverwinter nights) and many other games before and it worked fine. also, be honest.. if the resource system DIDNT affect single player AT ALL, would you have cared? i wouldnt have.

[jkflipflopDAO]

ME3MP turned out just OK. It's not great by any stretch of the imagination. The only reason it's attained "meh" status is because it used to be Bioware's flagship franchise and they spent a bunch of money on having an entire second studio do the MP section outside of the SP portion.

Now if DA3 was like DAO except with 2-4 player co-op, you would have a legendary hit for the ages on your hands. Anything else is not really needed.

[Paul E Dangerously]

wrdnshprd wrote...

i dont mind multiplayer being apart of the game.. as long as the focus is still the single player.. the problem is with ME, they had multiplayer actually affect the single player. if they get rid of that idiotic system.. ill be fine with it.

but multiplayer has been in RPGs before (the original neverwinter nights) and many other games before and it worked fine. also, be honest.. if the resource system DIDNT affect single player AT ALL, would you have cared? i wouldnt have.

NWN also suffered due to the fact it was designed from the ground up as a multiplayer game. The mechanics were focused more toward MP, you couldn't form your own party, and the story was mediocre at best. Compared to Baldur's Gate (or even Icewind Dale) it was pretty sad.

[Pauravi]

iakus wrote...

If DA3 is as massive and/or as MODDABLE as BG2, I'll withdraw objections to multiplayer.

BG2... MODDABLE??  LOOOOL.  Clearly you have no clue.
BG2 was NOT at all friendly to modding, which is really what makes the number of mods a testament to its popularity -- there was NO official toolkit released, most modding was done with player-created or adapted tools after dedicated fans figured out the inner workings of the engine.  I *still* remember using a 3rd-party tool to edit the .tlk table.  BioWare didn't release a toolkit with a game until they came out with NWN.

[Pauravi]

ZeroCrewX wrote...

Oh please, ME3's SP suffered greatly due to its MP counterpart.

I for one am not looking forward to meeting - conversing - playing with the immature retards that populate multiplayer audiences.

To the guy who claimed that we're at fault for the rising game prices - Really? So we should instead become mindless peasants that dish at as much money as they need to if they want a game, and then guess what, next day - MORE MONEYZ - why? Because the we should blame ourselves for the rising prices. Moron. If demand drops, prices drop, if prices drop, demand rises. A company can take many avenues OTHER than charging MORE money for existing content. But I guess how would you know, you're obviously (as George Carlin said) "Being ****ed by the guys up there, and smiling while you're eating **** at the same time"

Sheep.

Well WTF are you doing on this forum, sheep? 
Go throw off your corporate yoke and stop bleating for your masters.  What does such an enlightened free soul like you care about the products or machinations of an evil corporate video game company like BioWare?  Go forth and play only free, independently designed, not-for-profit games.  GTFO, we'll both be glad for your departure if you actually believe half of what you say.

[10K]

We don't need it, but EA demands it. If anything it might turn out like ME3 MP, saving the game from it's SP counterpart.

[a12boom]

Personally I don't mind MP as long as the story is good. I wouldn't care if lDA had it's own version of Horde mode or PvP. I would like to see my team vs another team where we invade one city, town, or plot of land.

[Allan Schumacher]

NWN also suffered due to the fact it was designed from the ground up as a multiplayer game. The mechanics were focused more toward MP, you couldn't form your own party, and the story was mediocre at best. Compared to Baldur's Gate (or even Icewind Dale) it was pretty sad.

I think, moreso, NWN's OC as much had issues because NWN was more toolset than game for a long time.

[mickey111]

Faust1979 wrote...

Baldur's 2 and Neverwinter Nights both had multiplayer it's not like Mass Effect 3 was the first Bioware game to use it

BGII was totally different, and NWN had a ****ty campaign.

Modifié par mickey111, 05 février 2013 - 08:57 .

[Gangster No.1]

mickey111 wrote...

Faust1979 wrote...

Baldur's 2 and Neverwinter Nights both had multiplayer it's not like Mass Effect 3 was the first Bioware game to use it

BGII was totally different, and NWN had a ****ty campaign.

BG2's multiplayer was solely cooperative, and that's not such a bad thing. Having friends replace NPCs in your party with their own characters was a nice twist to the campaign, as was playing the multiplayer mode all by yourself so you could create a whole party of your own characters like in Icewind Dale. Neat idea, to be honest.

As for NWN, that game was designed from the ground up to be a platform for people to create their own (multiplayer or single player) adventures. The campaigns merely served as (quite long) examples of what the toolset was capable of, and to give you something to do while not building and until the first user-created modules/servers arrived. In that aspect, NWN was a spectacular success.

But when I think about MP for DA:I, I actually do get a little annoyed. Why the smeg do devolpers/publishers need to smack MP to every game nowadays, regardless of how stupid it is? To arbitrarily extend the game's life span? That's a huge, steaming pile of bulls***! I don't want nor need MP for DA:I, and I really hope that there won't be any MP-related achievements/trophies. What I want is for EA to let BioWare do what they do best - creating truly awesome SINGLE-PLAYER RPGS.

[imbs]

What is with the hate for MP? MP can be awesome. By generalising all MP games as not worth it you are doing yourselves a great disservice.