189 réponses à ce sujet

[mickey111]

Think about a reason less vague than "everything" or "on general principle".

Examples of specific answers would include: rudeness, lack of communication, too much communication, exploitation of the rules (cheating in other words), poor hand to eye coordination, lag, or simply the fact that it involves dealing with other humans.

I actually have issues with all of the above, just not enough to turn me off of multiplayer. Enough that I've been known to rage quit sometimes though.

Would also be interested to hear about other details like which game it was that turned you off of MP and whether it was PC or console (it matters a lot more than you might think and it's got nothing to do with PC master race elitism)

[Cainhurst Crow]

I imagine the number one reason most people will list is either

A. No interest
B. No internet

[Fast Jimmy]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

I imagine the number one reason most people will list is either

A. No interest
B. No internet

Bingo. Those two are mine in a nutshell.

To be clear, I (obviously) have internet, but not the desire to buy the wireless adapter for my 360 and the corresponding XBL subscription.

And, in regards to lack of interest, this isn't a game of BlOps where I can frantically run around and snipe enemies or lob grenades at enemies. IN DA, if you shoot an arrow, you press A. If you want to attack with a melee weapon, you also hit a. If you want to shoot with your staff, you (guess what?!) hit A again. If you want to use a skill, you press X, B or Y. There is no aiming reticule, no headshots or shooting at the floor if you are terrible.The challenge for DA's combat comes in perfecting your character's build and how your party's skills complement each other and where the usage of the right skills are important.

All of that would be pretty horrendous in a MP for DA. You'd either have to control one character instead of a party (like ME3 MP did) and you'd be stuck doing Auto Attacks, kiting and waiting for cooldowns. That's about it. Basically, the worst, most banal part of DA's combat. Aiming things like skills and spells would become really difficult if things did not pause while you were using them. For instance, a healing spell would be hard to aim at an ally if they weren't directly in your line of sight. 

Also, parties would be hard to do in MP, because if everyone controlled a four person party, it would be crazy to keep track of all the moving characters on the screen. Or if not, you need to find a group of people with perfectly made builds, which discourages creative building for lack of being picked up in matches.

Not to mention I just don't like Multiplayer. Profanity, juvenile comments, people being terrible and it affecting me negatively, someone deciding to just leave the game to go make themselves a sandwich, server errors, host errors, glitching errors... I've dealt with all of that in my life too much for it to even sound HALFWAY appealing anymore. 

So no MP. Not in DA, not for me. Not even a little bit.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 09 février 2013 - 01:38 .

[kaymarierose]

No interest. Not now, not ever.

Dragon Age is a single player series. Multiplayer should not even be considered. Just a horrible idea. Awful.

[wsandista]

I suppose because some people don't like it. Reasons vary, but really it all comes down to whether you feel that resources spent on multiplayer are worth the investment.

[Paul E Dangerously]

More often than not, multiplayer results in a watered down SP campaign due to the developer taking precious resources away.

ME3's a notable exception as another studio did the MP, but I can't see EA/Bioware doing that for DA3.

[Lazengan]

 guys listen, I was like you, I thought ME3 multiplayer would be a poorly developped cash cow that tried to emulate Call of Duty's financial success by attracting a braindead audience. 
But it really isn't. Mass Effect 3 may have a poorly written story, but it is in fact an excellent game. Excellent mechanics, and much choice and freedom allowed during gameplay. 

Multiplayer in Dragon Age wouldn't be bad tbh. It could feel like an MMO type of party based combat.

[Fast Jimmy]

Lazengan wrote...

Multiplayer in Dragon Age wouldn't be bad tbh. It could feel like an MMO type of party based combat.

To me personally, you just made two comments which couldn't be more contradictory.

Party based MMO RPG combat and "not bad" are two impossibilities in my mind. I realize many people love WoW and other games like it, but it is the epitome of what is wrong with the gaming industry in my eyes. 

EDIT:

Lazengan wrote...

 guys listen, I was like you, I thought ME3 multiplayer would be a poorly developped cash cow that tried to emulate Call of Duty's financial success by attracting a braindead audience. 
But it really isn't. Mass Effect 3 may have a poorly written story, but it is in fact an excellent game. 

Also, this is a huge problem. I'd throw a mechanically sound game in the trash if the story is terrible. And we'll never know if ME3's MP had anything to do with the horribly received endings, but to me, that's not something I'd want to risk for the DA games. DA2 was already shaky enough - another badly received sequel with plot complaints could easily kill the franchise.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 09 février 2013 - 01:44 .

[Thasinta]

Had I enough friends interested in Dragon Age and with life schedules similar to mine (or if I had a schedule that rhymed with theirs) so we could fill a party and blast our way through this, then I'd be all for co-op multiplayer. But since I don't have enough friends interested in DA, and even if my friends were interested we live different lifes now (time zones, families) so setting up regular play sessions would be hard, well then, I'm just on the fence. I'd never group with a random bunch of strangers to play a game (it's not been that pleasant in the few MMOs I've played, so why should I think strangers are any better here?), so if it were implemented, it'd be a feature I'd never use. I'm not objecting to it being put in, either - I'm just not actively objecting to it, and from my personal desires, there are other, more important things to be done.

[slimgrin]

Jesus...

[Masha Potato]

Multiplayer killed my hamster

slimgrin wrote...

Jesus...

Yea, him too

Modifié par Masha Potato, 09 février 2013 - 01:48 .

[Lazengan]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Lazengan wrote...

Multiplayer in Dragon Age wouldn't be bad tbh. It could feel like an MMO type of party based combat.

To me personally, you just made two comments which couldn't be more contradictory.

Party based MMO RPG combat and "not bad" are two impossibilities in my mind. I realize many people love WoW and other games like it, but it is the epitome of what is wrong with the gaming industry in my eyes. 

EDIT:

Lazengan wrote...

 guys listen, I was like you, I thought ME3 multiplayer would be a poorly developped cash cow that tried to emulate Call of Duty's financial success by attracting a braindead audience. 
But it really isn't. Mass Effect 3 may have a poorly written story, but it is in fact an excellent game. 

Also, this is a huge problem. I'd throw a mechanically sound game in the trash if the story is terrible. And we'll never know if ME3's MP had anything to do with the horribly received endings, but to me, that's not something I'd want to risk for the DA games. DA2 was already shaky enough - another badly received sequel with plot complaints could easily kill the franchise.

MMO Combat may be a game about "babysitting your cooldowns" But the newest raid bosses I've seen in ToR and WoW actually encourage gameplay, teamwork, and use of creativity with the mechanics. Dragon age 2 combat was very well designed and I can imagine much entertainment if more than one human player was involved


DA2 hate is unwarranted. Bioware tried to do something different and the fanboys got angry over it. I do defend their desicion to redesign elves and Qunari, so they simply wouldn't be humanoid fleshbags but something conceptually alien and different from humans. I enjoyed the narrative, people expecting a star wars epic but instead got sophocles. I much enjoyed a political, social conflict, rather than the typical hurr durr evil save the world (I has gray morality!) adventure. 

as for actual gameplay itself. DA2 is far superior to the buggy mess that was origins. Every spell has a use, talent trees are fleshed out and very thematically designed, and there is a surprisingly high amount of mechanical depth during combat. 

[themikefest]

I don't play multiplayer because its like playing with a bunch of juvenile delinquents whose use of the vocabulary is four - letter words. I did all that swearing thing in the military.

I asked a question one time and all I got is 'wow listen to the old guy' crap.. I didn't realize having a deep voice means your old.

When I play mulitplayer, its with my brother and his son.

[addiction21]

slimgrin wrote...

Jesus...

What do you want?

[Fast Jimmy]

Lazengan wrote...

DA2 hate is unwarranted. Bioware tried to do something different and the fanboys got angry over it. I do defend their desicion to redesign elves and Qunari, so they simply wouldn't be humanoid fleshbags but something conceptually alien and different from humans. I enjoyed the narrative, people expecting a star wars epic but instead got sophocles. I much enjoyed a political, social conflict, rather than the typical hurr durr evil save the world (I has gray morality!) adventure. 

as for actual gameplay itself. DA2 is far superior to the buggy mess that was origins. Every spell has a use, talent trees are fleshed out and very thematically designed, and there is a surprisingly high amount of mechanical depth during combat. 

I'm glad you liked DA2, but that's not the point I was making. DA2 was received worse than Origins by a large shot, both by fans and critics and its sales less than half of what Origins put out. If DA3 barely sells over a million and yet is saddled with a dev cycle longer than a year, it will be a big disaster financially. 

Introducing radically new gameplay mechanics that the vast majority of fans are BEGGING to not be added is not a good step in that direction. Especially since Bioware's first foray into MP was accompanied by one of its worst received plots in the Single Player campaign. Not a good trend to be setting to be successful in a story-focused franchise.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 09 février 2013 - 02:06 .

[Paul E Dangerously]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Lazengan wrote...

DA2 hate is unwarranted. Bioware tried to do something different and the fanboys got angry over it. I do defend their desicion to redesign elves and Qunari, so they simply wouldn't be humanoid fleshbags but something conceptually alien and different from humans. I enjoyed the narrative, people expecting a star wars epic but instead got sophocles. I much enjoyed a political, social conflict, rather than the typical hurr durr evil save the world (I has gray morality!) adventure. 

as for actual gameplay itself. DA2 is far superior to the buggy mess that was origins. Every spell has a use, talent trees are fleshed out and very thematically designed, and there is a surprisingly high amount of mechanical depth during combat. 

I'm glad you liked DA2, but that's not the point I was making. DA2 was received worse than Origins by a large shot, both by fans and critics and its sales less than half of what Origins put out. If DA3 barely sells over a million and yet is saddled with a dev cycle longer than a year, it will be a big disaster financially. 

Introducing radically new gameplay mechanics that the vast majority of fans are BEGGING to not be added is not a good step in that direction. Especially since Bioware's first foray into MP was accompanied by one of its worst received plots in the Single Player campaign. Not a good trend to be setting to be successful in a story-focused franchise.

Nobody is begging for it to be added in DA, and nobody was begging for it in ME, either. The thing that needs focused on most is the SP campaign as it's going to have to be nearly perfect so the internet doesn't swarm all over it again.

DA doesn't lend itself very well to multiplayer. Neither did the Baldur's Gate series. NWN did, and it suffered for it. I'll also disagree with you as far as ME3 goes, but that's something for another thread.

[Cirvante]

I was kind of sceptical when I heard that ME3 would have a multiplayer. But once I realized that I'd get to play a Krogan, I was okay with it. Now the ME3 MP is the thing I love most about the game.

So if they manage to make the DA3 multiplayer fun and worthwhile, I'm all in favour.

[slimgrin]

addiction21 wrote...

slimgrin wrote...

Jesus...

What do you want?

No multiplayer in RPG's.

[mickey111]

People keep on talking about these ancient games like NWN (2002?) and BG 1998-2000) which had very different design goals and staff rosters as if they're relevant to this specific series in 2013. Why?

For the record, BGIIs co-op didn't need to "lend itself very well" to be great fun (BG didn't even come with modding tools, and look at it now). I firmly believe that if the basic gameplay is of a high quality then all kinds of fun that nobody on the development team had predicted can be had. Nobody at Valve thought of balancing counterstrike for zombies or respawn, and nobody at iD designed Quake 3 as a game of racing or parkour, yet they turned out to be heaps of fun for many people. If the basic gameplay is good then multiplayer will work out fine without a need for lots of development.

Modifié par mickey111, 09 février 2013 - 02:45 .

[ADeadDiehard]

No interest AND waste of time, people and budget. Even if it's made by a separate team.

[MerinTB]

Darth Brotarian wrote...
I imagine the number one reason most people will list is either

A. No interest
B. No internet

I cannot decide which I should pick.

I guess some from column A, a little more from column B.

[Missy_MI]

I don't like multiplayer simply because I can't seem to react fast enough to avoid instant death and subsequent mockery.

Heck, the only way I make it through ME or DA single player combat is by liberal use of pause-queue action-unpause option.

I've no problem with a Dragon Age multiplayer adaptation as long as it doesn't significantly impact the quality of the single player campaign.

[Orian Tabris]

Multiplayer is bad because there is no end game. If you die, you respawn, if you complete every quest, the game won't end. Also, often multiplayer games try to siphon your money, such as Age of Conan (just registering, so that you can actually play the game) and AdventureQuest Worlds (new offers with new items and achievements that cost real money).

Multiplayer is also extremely addictive, especially if you have an "addictive personality".

EDIT: Also hackers and scammers.

Modifié par Orian Tabris, 09 février 2013 - 02:54 .

[Maverick827]

The only legitimate reason to not want multiplayer is if you believe it will detract from the single player experience, which is from the start entirely an assumption.

Anything else is just childish bias.

[addiction21]

Missy_MI wrote...

I don't like multiplayer simply because I can't seem to react fast enough to avoid instant death and subsequent mockery.

Could find some friends as bad as you or those decent people that won't mock you. I am lucky enough that when I play something multiplayer (mostly counterstrike or source for over 10 years) that we all accept I make good cannon fodder.

I would choose option A from some ones post above. I generally have little interest in multiplayer. What always brings me to it is if I have actual friends playing then generally as we all get bored of whatever it is we leave it behind.

Which does kinda suck when I am the only DeadSpace fan in that circle and it has several co-op only "optional" missions. Its one thing to make them optional there is another when one of the unlocks is doing all the optional missions.