189 réponses à ce sujet

[Fiddles dee dee]

I'm not opposed to MP so long as it doesn't detract from the single player.

I've had the chance to play a little of Chivalry and War of the Roses and they were a heap of fun. If similar was adopted for Dragon Age with revives possible I'd probably enjoy playing it. I assume the main reason people dislike it is the same reason I'm remaining sceptical - I'm worried it will take away from the SP plus who plays Dragon Age and thinks "this well scripted game with complex characters would really benefit from horde mode"?

[Renmiri1]

I play WoW for MMO. Never bothered with ME multiplayer, I'm not ot a big fan of shooters and I hate playing range. I love tanking / melee combat style. DA2 mages were fun, even being ranged but most of the times I go warrior.

I played Star Wars the Old Republic and hated the game mechanics. It was a poor clone of WoW in terms of quests and combat. But to be fair, even WoW bores me to death nowadays. Gameplay at lower levels is boring as hell: collect 8 bear arses. Done ? Now get me 6 tiger whiskers. UGH. I like raiding and end game, getting from 1 to 90 is torture.

So no, I don't want to get into another MMO, I've been trying to quit "World of Warcrack" for years, not about to get myself invested in another black hole that will suck all my gaming time. 

Modifié par Renmiri1, 09 février 2013 - 03:09 .

[The Six Path of Pain]

Because the time and budget wasted on multiplayer could and should be used to make the single player better :/

[Maverick827]

The Six Path of Pain wrote...

Because the time and budget wasted on multiplayer could and should be used to make the single player better :/

Why are you so sure that money granted from the publisher for multiplayer would have been granted for single player instead?

[The Six Path of Pain]

Maverick827 wrote...

The Six Path of Pain wrote...

Because the time and budget wasted on multiplayer could and should be used to make the single player better :/

Why are you so sure that money granted from the publisher for multiplayer would have been granted for single player instead?

Notice how I said COULD

[mickey111]

addiction21 wrote...

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.

No server browsers for console gaming, so that limits options to your personal social networks. One of the main differences is that PC MPs server browser breeds a lot more familiarity than plain matchmaking. The benefits of knowing all of the regular players are intuitive enough to not need an in depth explanation, but as you meet the regulars and get to know them you might find that it's more fun playing with them and that the team vs team play tactics just naturally get more sophisticated even if you and the other regulars just play entirely for social purposes and don't really want to be competitive.

[Wompoo]

Maverick827 wrote...

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.

Seriously, you and those like you are why many people detest multi-player. Here is a tip, people don't want it because of 2 reasons imo. There is a very real possibility that it could syphon off money that could of been spent on the single player experience (unless it supports itself via paid dlcs), 2. they just plain don't enjoy the experience... one need only visit BNet to understand their dislike.

Multi-player was present in Baldurs gate and it was not an enjoyable experience "gather your party before venturing forth". In NWN it was present, but that game felt like a make your own game game (and yes I did enjoy NWN for what it was, it was not DA)... player made persistent worlds and modules.

[iheartbob]

I'm absolutely interested in it so long as it does not have an effect on the SP campaign like ME3s originally did.

On that note ... after reading Jimmy's post about how awkward MP would be given DA's combat system I have my own doubts on the MP from a purely technical standpoint. I like to play as a damage spec'd mage. Trying to set up Storm of the Century might be a little difficult with three other potential players in the world drawing agro, spreading out the enemies and potentially suffering from friendly fire.

So I really don't know how it is possible at this point from a technical standpoint. I was completely 100% against MP in ME3 when it first came out though and now it's the only thing I play with that game so who knows? I'm trying my best to keep an open mind about it.

[chuckles471]

From the Lead designer of Spec-Ops.

“The multiplayer mode of Spec Ops: The Line was never a focus of the development, but the publisher was determined to have it anyway. It was literally a check box that the financial predictions said we needed, and 2K was relentless in making sure that it happened — even at the detriment of the overall project and the perception of the game.”

Not saying Bioware was but developers are being pressed to add multiplayer into game. Just saying multiplayer can take away from a single player game.

[Ghost]

Maverick827 wrote...

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.

[KingsTiger]

Yeah, I'm with the general consensus. Even setting aside any personal doubts I have about quality, the fear is that the addition of multiplayer will inevitably detract from the single player campaign. Heck, Command and Conquer's potential single player got devoured entirely!

[mickey111]

After what EA did to Kane, that was probably for the best.

[Weltea]

A) I play for the story not the combat. It's a nice addition but that's it.
Even though I usually don't safe in games (because I forget) I still have autosaves. The idea that if my character gets killed I'd actually have to start over again absolutely terrifies me.(And yes if my SP character would die I'd have to restart the fight too,but it's not about logic,it's about me simply feeling better when I know there's a save to fall back on)
C)I like RPGs because they're like books to me,I forget the world around me and get lost in the world created, feel for the characters etc. and additionally create my own characters in a far more detailed manner than the game itself makes me. MP would rob me of all of that.
D)Despite assurances that the Mass Effect Multiplayer would not influence the Single Player experience it actually does. Either you can't get the good ending or you have to forego the roleplaying part and make your decisions just based on how much support it'll get your fleet.
E) The 'horror stories' I have heard about how people playing MP behave doesn't exactly make me curious to try it out myself
F)I want to play for fun,not for competition and I fear that would be impossible

[Yuqi]

Fable 3

/thread

[Blazomancer]

I don't dislike MP. But what I'm looking for in a series like DA is an immersive SP experience. As long as the SP campaign is not compromised even a single bit, for the sake of an MP mode, I'm all right with it. Since I, as an end user, don't really have any say about how the series is going to evolve, I'll put my faith in the devs regarding this. If it turns out that the series takes the form of a bloated twisted sort of SP/MP amalgam in future, I'll simply move on to some other games.

[JWvonGoethe]

I don't like MP because I'm not very good at it. My reaction times are terrible.

[Iakus]

Weltea wrote...

A) I play for the story not the combat. It's a nice addition but that's it.
Even though I usually don't safe in games (because I forget) I still have autosaves. The idea that if my character gets killed I'd actually have to start over again absolutely terrifies me.(And yes if my SP character would die I'd have to restart the fight too,but it's not about logic,it's about me simply feeling better when I know there's a save to fall back on)
C)I like RPGs because they're like books to me,I forget the world around me and get lost in the world created, feel for the characters etc. and additionally create my own characters in a far more detailed manner than the game itself makes me. MP would rob me of all of that.
D)Despite assurances that the Mass Effect Multiplayer would not influence the Single Player experience it actually does. Either you can't get the good ending or you have to forego the roleplaying part and make your decisions just based on how much support it'll get your fleet.
E) The 'horror stories' I have heard about how people playing MP behave doesn't exactly make me curious to try it out myself
F)I want to play for fun,not for competition and I fear that would be impossible

All of this

Well said

[Fast Jimmy]

Blazomancer wrote...

I don't dislike MP. But what I'm looking for in a series like DA is an immersive SP experience. As long as the SP campaign is not compromised even a single bit, for the sake of an MP mode, I'm all right with it. Since I, as an end user, don't really have any say about how the series is going to evolve, I'll put my faith in the devs regarding this. If it turns out that the series takes the form of a bloated twisted sort of SP/MP amalgam in future, I'll simply move on to some other games.

I can agree with this mentality, but how will we ever know if the MP compromises the SP? 

I'll point to ME3, as it seems to be the best example to use - a Bioware product, formerly SP only, MP component developed by a separate developer, all under EA management.

ME3, regardless of anyone's personal feelings on the game or its endings, had one of the worst received plots in recent gaming history.NOTICE: I said worst RECEIVED plots. I am not arguing that the plot itself was good, bad or indifferent, only that the RECEPTION of that plot was horrendous and damaging to the franchise, the developer and the publisher. If fan outcry on the endings is so great, you have to release a free DLC to change/clarify them, if mainstream media outlets like Forbes is covering how much players are getting upset about them and if your parent company is voted the worst company in the world in a poll by a respected, high-profile, non-gaming media outlet (like the Consumerist), then its pretty safe to say that the plot was not well received. Again, regardless of how anyone on this board feels about the endings or the fans reactions to them, its pretty much a writen-in-stone fact that there was a lot backlash against them.

Yet even with that being said, many people would argue that ME3's SP was not influenced or compromised by MP. And there is no way for anyone to prove that it did.

But my concerns are that if there is even the slightest chance that putting MP into DA3 will cause it to be received like ME3, then that could kill the franchise, possibly even kill Bioware. How likely that correlary is may be quite questionable... but is it worth risking? Not to me, honestly. 

Throw in my concerns with how DA combat and interface would work in a MP environment that I outlined on page one and it seems like it is a very high risk, very low return proposition. 

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 09 février 2013 - 04:59 .

[Volus Warlord]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I'll point to ME3, as it seems to be the best example to use - a Bioware product, formerly SP only, MP component developed by a separate developer, all under EA management.

This only happened because they planned to release ME3 as two seperate titles, one SP and one CoDized MP, and later (wisely) decided against it. 

ME3 is an anomaly in this regard. It is by no means a precedent.

[Fast Jimmy]

Volus Warlord wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I'll point to ME3, as it seems to be the best example to use - a Bioware product, formerly SP only, MP component developed by a separate developer, all under EA management.

This only happened because they planned to release ME3 as two seperate titles, one SP and one CoDized MP, and later (wisely) decided against it. 

ME3 is an anomaly in this regard. It is by no means a precedent.

Well, arguably, since it is the first MP game Bioware has done since NWN, it is THE precedent. As we have no other data points to postulate how the development of MP will be handled under the EA umbrella as it relates to Bioware as a developer.

It is assumption, but assuming that the MP design, creation and implementation would be drastically different would also be an assumption. An assumption with less empirical evidence to support it. Granted, not MUCH less... but less nonetheless.

[JWvonGoethe]

FastJimmy - I think ME3 MP was made by a different studio, rather than a wholly different developer. Anyway, when it comes to MP affecting SP, I think the argument goes like this:

MP is something of a cash cow, meaning that if you have it in your game, your projected revenue will rise. If projected revenue rises, then you can increase your budget and so you can actually spend more on SP. Therefore MP is actually beneficial to SP.

Anyway, that argument could just be PR spin and I have no idea if it works in practice. I'm just playing devil's advocate in explaining it.

[FlamingBoy]

Me3 multiplayer is not that good (but I accept that it seems to be a bit of a hit among people), and it would not exist if the single player did not try to accommodate it.

[Volus Warlord]

Fast Jimmy wrote...


Well, arguably, since it is the first MP game Bioware has done since NWN, it is THE precedent. As we have no other data points to postulate how the development of MP will be handled under the EA umbrella as it relates to Bioware as a developer.

It is assumption, but assuming that the MP design, creation and implementation would be drastically different would also be an assumption. An assumption with less empirical evidence to support it. Granted, not MUCH less... but less nonetheless.

So we are drawing trendlines from a single data point. Excellent. 

I still highly doubt that MP will be handled by a seperate team due to increased costs and having our "precedent" to provide a basis and limiting conceptualization. That and it is almost never the case in almost all games everywhere. 

[IanPolaris]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Yet even with that being said, many people would argue that ME3's SP was not influenced or compromised by MP. And there is no way for anyone to prove that it did.
proposition. 

Actually this is provably false.  We were promised that all the available endings would be available whether one did SP or MP, but this was a LIE.  You could not get the "Shepard Lives" ending when ME3 was released prior to the EC, and Bioware spend the next three months lying abouit it.  They only admitted this the day that the EC was released (Priestly did IIRC) here on BSN and admitted it was done to 'encourage people to play MP'.  Before the EC, you needed 4000 assets (and that's if you did everything right) to get "Master and Commander" which was impossible with single player...and Bioware/EA lied about it.

-Polaris

[Celene II]

1. Time and assets taken from Single Player games.

2. Competitive MP creates monsters and griefers

3. By spending so much time on MP developers demand that you play it to make it worth their efforts - either by putting achievements in MP or having MP effect SP some how -  See mass effect 3 before the patch

4. Melee/magic based games do not work well in the wide PVP area. Most successful MP is ranged

5. Instead of the patch needed to fix really huge problem in SP the team will have to work on the really big bug in MP.

It boils down to limits and attitudes