333 réponses à ce sujet

[Orian Tabris]

Masha Potato wrote...

Orian Tabris wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

AmstradHero wrote...

If you haven't done something and don't understand the in-and-outs of the practical application of the knowledge, it is very difficult to make an accurate comment on how things work. To quote: "In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not."

Something may seem easy, but may have certain challenges (especially given the uniqueness of a particular game), or come with certain costs. In many ways feature development is just a large amount of small tasks, and it can be tricky to realize that asking for one simple and easy feature would also come at the cost of NOT spending time on some other simple and easy feature.

And yet... we're getting multiplayer! Hooraaaaaay...

Way to demonstrate how relevant this thread is

Hmmm. Are you making fun of me? If yes, then it's probably because I didn't type that post correctly. I should have said "And this is why we're getting multiplayer! Hooraaaaaay..."

[axl99]

Why would anyone argue about optional content if it doesn't significantlly, if at all, affect the main campaign?

No scoop of ice cream for your apple pie? Ok.

[Orian Tabris]

axl99 wrote...

Why would anyone argue about optional content if it doesn't significantlly, if at all, affect the main campaign?

No scoop of ice cream for your apple pie? Ok.

I don't think anyone will argue, if MP affects SP. But most everyone will complain argue if it does significantly affect the main campaign.

[Allan Schumacher]

Orian Tabris wrote...

Something may seem easy, but may have certain challenges (especially
given the uniqueness of a particular game), or come with certain costs.
In many ways feature development is just a large amount of small tasks,
and it can be tricky to realize that asking for one simple and easy
feature would also come at the cost of NOT spending time on some other
simple and easy feature.

And yet... we're getting multiplayer! Hooraaaaaay...

There's an implicit assumption with this post, and I think it's what Shorts is thinking of when starting this thread.

Multiplayer isn't a small, easy to do task, and as such probably shouldn't be considered the same way as the small, easy tasks I was alluding to in the block of text you quoted.

[Orian Tabris]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Orian Tabris wrote...

Something may seem easy, but may have certain challenges (especially
given the uniqueness of a particular game), or come with certain costs.
In many ways feature development is just a large amount of small tasks,
and it can be tricky to realize that asking for one simple and easy
feature would also come at the cost of NOT spending time on some other
simple and easy feature.

And yet... we're getting multiplayer! Hooraaaaaay...

There's an implicit assumption with this post, and I think it's what Shorts is thinking of when starting this thread.

Multiplayer isn't a small, easy to do task, and as such probably shouldn't be considered the same way as the small, easy tasks I was alluding to in the block of text you quoted.

While it is true that setting up a multiplayer game is no small task, the fact is, unless a large difficult task is handled by a completely separate group of people, it's gonna have the same effect on the rest, as a small task would. I have yet to see/read any evidence that multiplayer is going to be handled mostly by a separate group.

As I said in an earlier post, I didn't type it correctly. I was going to fix it, but Masha Potato had already quoted it, so I left it as is.

[Allan Schumacher]

While it is true that setting up a multiplayer game is no small task, the fact is, unless a large difficult task is handled by a completely separate group of people, it's gonna have the same effect on the rest, as a small task would. I have yet to see/read any evidence that multiplayer is going to be handled mostly by a separate group.

You have to define separate group. You have to also know how the financing and production schedule are modified to make it. This is the problem and it's exactly what Shorts is talking about in his first post.

An assumption has been made ("Nothing would change about any of the production aspects. We'd still have the same amount of time and money to work with"), but it's filled with imperfect information and a system is being chided because you're using your assumptions to substantiate your ire towards a system like multiplayer, because your assumptions are telling you that it comes at the cost of your single player experience.

It also overlooks potential benefits a system that you dislike may have on a system that you do like.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 23 janvier 2013 - 07:00 .

[Orian Tabris]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

While it is true that setting up a multiplayer game is no small task, the fact is, unless a large difficult task is handled by a completely separate group of people, it's gonna have the same effect on the rest, as a small task would. I have yet to see/read any evidence that multiplayer is going to be handled mostly by a separate group.

You have to define separate group. You have to also know how the financing and production schedule are modified to make it. This is the problem and it's exactly what Shorts is talking about in his first post.

An assumption has been made ("Nothing would change about any of the production aspects. We'd still have the same amount of time and money to work with"), but it's filled with imperfect information and a system is being chided because you're using your assumptions to substantiate your ire towards a system like multiplayer, because your assumptions are telling you that it comes at the cost of your single player experience.

It also overlooks potential benefits a system that you dislike may have on a system that you do like.

It's not that I don't like multiplayer, it's that I'd rather not be subjected to the standard of gameplay which multiplayer provides. MMOs are addictive and there is no meaningful objective. It's purely a never ending game with no purpose. Single player games, like Dragon Age Origins and II, provides leisure time, multiplayer games do the exact opposite, thus it defies logic to create a multiplayer. It just comes off as a money making scheme.

As long as it doesn't take time away from creating the single-player game, I don't care about the multiplayer. Hopefully, with my addictive nature, I don't try it. You can see then, why I would be worried about it affecting single player.

Irrespective of resources, multiplayer trails off BioWare's - your - vision for Dragon Age. Whether I, or others, assume to understand how game development works, some of us can see that it should never have been considered in the first place.

[Allan Schumacher]

I frequently play multiplayer games in my leisure time. All of my video gaming time is leisurely, though I will concede that I did struggle at that with my time in World of Warcraft, where I (foolishly) let myself feel there was some sort of obligation to play it, lest I let my virtual friends down.

You do speak on behalf of BioWare, in terms of the vision, however. I find that rather interesting. I can understand you feeling it doesn't match how you would like it to go, but isn't there another assumption in speaking on behalf of us and what our vision is?

[Orian Tabris]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I frequently play multiplayer games in my leisure time. All of my video gaming time is leisurely, though I will concede that I did struggle at that with my time in World of Warcraft, where I (foolishly) let myself feel there was some sort of obligation to play it, lest I let my virtual friends down.

You do speak on behalf of BioWare, in terms of the vision, however. I find that rather interesting. I can understand you feeling it doesn't match how you would like it to go, but isn't there another assumption in speaking on behalf of us and what our vision is?

Well, yeah, but is it not true?

I see little character development in multiplayer games, beyond the player's own character. And characters are the key thing that makes BioWare games so good.

Modifié par Orian Tabris, 23 janvier 2013 - 07:39 .

[Pseudo the Mustachioed]

You're presuming a lot about what the multiplayer will be like and the what its relationship with the single-player campaign might be.

Assassin's Creed has had MP packaged along with SP for a few games now and they're completely separate experiences, and SP has actually probably INCREASED its narrative focus in the newer games. Is it hard to imagine DA could do the same?

The baseless insistence that the presence of MP MUST somehow be affecting SP is armchair-developing.

Modifié par Pseudocognition, 23 janvier 2013 - 07:59 .

[AlexanderCousland]

If i have to buy an online pass or some sort of DLC to provide me some sort of boon to my single player campaign, I' ll be highly upset. I was frustrated with ME3 (my nephew chewed my online pass paper up)
and the EMS, I hope...sincerely hope, DA:I doesnt do anything similar.

[Orian Tabris]

Pseudocognition wrote...

You're presuming a lot about what the multiplayer will be like and the what its relationship with the single-player campaign might be.

Assassin's Creed has had MP packaged along with SP for a few games now and they're completely separate experiences, SP has actually probably INCREASED its narrative focus in the newer games. Is it hard to imagine DA could do the same?

Sure, it's possible. But Assassin's Creed has completely different people working on it. That's not to say I doubt BioWare's capability, but we've yet to see whether it is possible for them. If what people say is true about BioWare's recent games, the answer to whether they can or not, is no. I loved DA2, so if I were to give a definitive answer without the evidence (DA3, ME4) I'd say yes.

As long as BioWare doesn't faulter where their strengths lie, I'm all for them to try new things such as multiplayer. If SP relies on MP, then they'd be faultering, as I see it.

[Urzon]

Orian Tabris wrote...

Well, yeah, but is it not true?

I see little character development in multiplayer games, beyond the player's own character. And characters are the key thing that makes BioWare games so good.

Kinda a difference in game type. Single player games like DA is a (nearly) complete story when you buy it, and it focuses soley on your character, which makes it easier for you to develop him or her. Not to mention, the game has a set beginning and end, which lends itself to story and character development, since it give's the game a story arc.

MMOs on the other hand, are made to be endless. The have a beginning, but not so much an end. Plus, the story isn't focusing on your character, it is more about the world itself. Which kinda dampens character development, since your character is usually just a nameless henchmen to the real hero, but what is lacks in personal character development; it usually makes up for in the development of the leading characters, hopefully....

So in the end, single player games are personal stories, and MMOs are global stories. While Dragon Age is about Thedas, the games are about the player's character, and how his/her action shape the world.

Modifié par Urzon, 23 janvier 2013 - 08:23 .

[Orian Tabris]

Urzon wrote...

Orian Tabris wrote...

Well, yeah, but is it not true?

I see little character development in multiplayer games, beyond the player's own character. And characters are the key thing that makes BioWare games so good.

Kinda a difference in game type. Single player games like DA is a (nearly) complete story when you buy it, and it focuses soley on your character, which makes it easier for you to develop him or her. Not to mention, the game has a set beginning and end, which lends itself to story and character development, since it give's the game a story arc.

MMOs on the other hand, are made to be endless. The have a beginning, but not so much an end. Plus, the story isn't focusing on your character, it is more about the world itself. Which kinda dampens character development, since your character is usually just a nameless henchmen to the real hero, but what is lacks in personal character development; it usually makes up for in the development of the leading characters, hopefully....

So in the end, single player games are personal stories, and MMOs are global stories. While Dragon Age is about Thedas, the games are about the player's character, and how his/her action shape the world.

I actually said earlier on this page, that multiplayer is never ending. This is what led me to say that it goes against BioWare's vision (hence Allan's response that I quoted, then you quoted me on). The character sentence was to merely backup my point that MP detracts from BW's vision.

The idea is that the player is the leading character/the real hero, that's BioWare's vision. As you implied, an MMO doesn't shape around the player.

[Urzon]

I guess we will have to wait and see on what shape multiplayer is going to be, and how it effect singleplayer, if it does at all. Until we get more information on both, we really can't cry foul on it, since we have absolutly nothing to base it on.

When we get more information, then we can cry foul to our heart's content, assuming the worst of course.

Modifié par Urzon, 23 janvier 2013 - 09:45 .

[Nightdragon8]

The only MMO that I feel hit on character Devlopment is SWTOR, honeslty playing that with friends and seeing the choices they make "in there story arcs" is fun to watch, and really fun to talk about....

tho I was a D&D P&P player so roleplaying is fun. Its just not so great in MMO's

I mean the most RP i did was Marshal Windsor quest in WOW I ALWAYS did that one and RP'd it. Well the walk though Stormwind. (unless it bugged out then its a software issue and just wait for it)

[Thomas Andresen]

eroeru wrote...

You might want to elaborate.
For example, again, what are criteria for "armchair developer-ing"? Does simply overconfidence in your knowledge constitute armchair-developing? How bad a (moral) error is it? How much weight and worry should one put behind pointing out armchair-developing?

This:

hoorayforicecream wrote...

We're not talking about finding the flaws. Finding the flaws is what the experts find useful from the forums - they know they can't catch everything. What we're talking about is when the novice tells the expert how to fix it. That isn't really helpful, and actually obscures the actual useful information.

Also, what Orian Tabris is doing here qualifies as armchair developing, or armchair game design.

Edit: Additionally, as Allan here pointed out, if everyone who posts their suggestions here framed as a game player's perspective, and not a game developer's perspective, regardless of your knowledge of the field, it will be much more useful not only for BioWare, but also for the community as a whole.

eroeru wrote...
Also, people aren't rational in so very very much. And it's good that way, I think.

I beg to differ. No, that's rude way to put it. Respectfully, I have to disagree with you on that. There, that's better.

On a global basis, what we are aiming for, and what society is moving towards is a tolerant, multinational, multicultural, inclusive civilization, what is referenced as a type one civilization, and a lack of rationality is what slows that progress. But that is going off-topic.

The point is, there is no good reason why hate have anything to do on a forum like this.

Modifié par Thomas Andresen, 23 janvier 2013 - 01:34 .

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

I don't want to risk alcohol poisoning from playing the strawman drinking game in an Angrypants thread, so I haven't read through the thread and might ask an already answered question, but at what point does constructive criticism turn into armchair design?

Obviously the tone you carry when you communicate your ideas is key in determining whether your argument is listened to and/or is useful to the discussion, but the idea of suggesting different ways to do things is at the heart of both constructive criticism and armchair design.

i.e my Intent Compass idea is clearly an example of armchair game design, but it is something that shouldn't be discussed?

Or say, what about suggesting that BioWare's storytelling elements ought to be done more in gameplay (and provide examples from contemporaries or previous BioWare games) as opposed to cinematics that too often occur in a vacuum? Is that okay?

Modifié par CrustyBot, 23 janvier 2013 - 02:30 .

[Fast Jimmy]

CrustyBot wrote...

I don't want to risk alcohol poisoning from playing the strawman drinking game in an Angrypants thread, so I haven't read through the thread and might ask an already answered question, but at what point does constructive criticism turn into armchair design?

Obviously the tone you carry when you communicate your ideas is key in determining whether your argument is listened to and/or is useful to the discussion, but the idea of suggesting different ways to do things is at the heart of both constructive criticism and armchair design.

i.e my Intent Compass idea is clearly an example of armchair game design, but it is something that shouldn't be discussed?

Or say, what about suggesting that BioWare's storytelling elements ought to be done more in gameplay (and provide examples from contemporaries or previous BioWare games) as opposed to cinematics that too often occur in a vacuum? Is that okay?

Your idea of the Intent Compass would fall in violation of the Upsetting Shorts Forum Etiquette Omnibus (USFEO) of 2013, yes. 


As would my repeated suggestions to get rid of the Save Import. And possibly large swaths of the "Bioware, Let's Talk About..." threads I started (patent pending). As would saying MP takes resources away from SP, etc.  

If you offer up a solution or an idea of how to make future content, this is in violation of the spirit of the USFEO (2013). We should only state what we like or didn't like (and why) and only point to other games and say what we liked and didn't like (and why). If we try and suggest something new, this is highly inadvisable. 

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 23 janvier 2013 - 02:44 .

[Thomas Andresen]

I'm going to assume that by Angrypants, you mean Upsettingshorts.

The answer to your first question is simple: Don't make assumptions about game development unless you have a good background on the subject matter. And a long history of playing video games is not a good background for talking about video game development. It is, however, a good background for talking about what video game players may or may not want in a video game.

Further, I haven't read your "Intent Compass" idea, so I can't directly comment on that, but unless you talked about economic aspects and resource management within game development as part of your suggestion, you should be free and clear as far as this thread goes.

[Dragoonlordz]

Orian Tabris wrote...

Urzon wrote...

Orian Tabris wrote...

Well, yeah, but is it not true?

I see little character development in multiplayer games, beyond the player's own character. And characters are the key thing that makes BioWare games so good.

Kinda a difference in game type. Single player games like DA is a (nearly) complete story when you buy it, and it focuses soley on your character, which makes it easier for you to develop him or her. Not to mention, the game has a set beginning and end, which lends itself to story and character development, since it give's the game a story arc.

MMOs on the other hand, are made to be endless. The have a beginning, but not so much an end. Plus, the story isn't focusing on your character, it is more about the world itself. Which kinda dampens character development, since your character is usually just a nameless henchmen to the real hero, but what is lacks in personal character development; it usually makes up for in the development of the leading characters, hopefully....

So in the end, single player games are personal stories, and MMOs are global stories. While Dragon Age is about Thedas, the games are about the player's character, and how his/her action shape the world.

I actually said earlier on this page, that multiplayer is never ending. This is what led me to say that it goes against BioWare's vision (hence Allan's response that I quoted, then you quoted me on). The character sentence was to merely backup my point that MP detracts from BW's vision.

The idea is that the player is the leading character/the real hero, that's BioWare's vision. As you implied, an MMO doesn't shape around the player.

If has multiple player as opposed to online component who is to say even is related to the character. It could be a Nug racing component online raise your Nug and race it or do battle with other peoples Nugs. Maybe a Bronco racing online component. Maybe the online component can be crafting related in which can share materials or equipment forged. Maybe it will be character related and be the equivilant of the arena in Org which can battle each other. We just don't know right now what this online component will be. Not enough information to make any judgment calls on either way. Personally I do not mind such as long as it does not tie in with SP (story) unlike ME which did what I considered the mistake being linked SP story with MP aka war assets. Also as long as the SP content team does not or is not taken away from creating SP content in order to craft MP content. A separate group and budget to build online component not taken away from SP content, budget or group.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 23 janvier 2013 - 05:40 .

[upsettingshorts]

Orian Tabris, I'm going to skip your specific arguments because - as my thread topic points out and the replies have consistently reinforced - you don't have the first clue what you're talking about. I have a question you are fully qualified to answer, however:

Why is it so hard to admit that you do not know what you're talking about, when the subject is something nobody could actually reasonably expect you to know?

It's not a personal failing to understand that there are people who know things you don't know, because their job requires them to know those things.

CrustyBot wrote...

i.e my Intent Compass idea is clearly an example of armchair game design, but it is something that shouldn't be discussed?

The intent compass itself is armchair design.

Describing whatever failings you perceive inherent to the dialogue wheel, and what you would like it to do better (this is where you'd list things you think your intent compass does do better, without actually mentioning your solution) seems like a better approach, given what helpful folks like hoorayforicecream have said.

The save import issue Fast Jimmy addresses is a simpler one. All anyone who doesn't value it has to do there - in my opinion anyway - is simply say they don't appreciate the kinds of continuity it offers. For whatever reasons they deem appropriate. That getting rid of save imports would, as a matter of consequence, likely free the writers up a bit (whoops put my arm on the chair there, apologies) is implied anyway.

Like... don't get me wrong. If you have a developer quote that says, for example, "If we didn't have save imports we'd be able to do more with the story" then by all means use it! The problem here is with baseless assumptions. A sourced statement is neither baseless nor an assumption.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 23 janvier 2013 - 07:05 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

The save import issue Fast Jimmy addresses is a simpler one. All anyone who doesn't value it has to do there - in my opinion anyway - is simply say they don't appreciate the kinds of continuity it offers. For whatever reasons they deem appropriate. That getting rid of save imports would, as a matter of consequence, likely free the writers up a bit (whoops put my arm on the chair there, apologies) is implied anyway.

Like... don't get me wrong. If you have a developer quote that says, for example, "If we didn't have save imports we'd be able to do more with the story" then by all means use it! The problem here is with baseless assumptions. A sourced statement is neither baseless nor an assumption.

http://social.biowar...x/14370204&lf=8

This isn't exactly what you are saying, but it does admit that the Save Import, in some way, shape or form, hampers the writing process. In both Gaider's and the import's defense, Gaider does say it also serves the function of improving the existing story by making the player feel the illusion of it being "their" world. 

EDIT: Also, since nearly 95% of my anti-Save Import comments are actually in this very thread, I had assumed others had at least read the developer comments on the issue and knew I was not completely fabricating my conclusions. Apparently, I should link comments within a thread every time I make a statement. 

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 23 janvier 2013 - 07:27 .

[Addai]

Pseudocognition wrote...
The baseless insistence that the presence of MP MUST somehow be affecting SP is armchair-developing.

There are several developers who've made recent public statements to the effect that publishers push MP onto games where it doesn't belong for monetization purposes, and they cite it detracting from developer focus and resources and affecting the tone of the game.  Example here and here.

That doesn't mean that the same is true with Bioware, but with EA pushing online components on all its game, it's not too long a leap to think that making the game better is not the drive here.