189 réponses à ce sujet

[Parmida]

1.A waste of time.
2.Extremely addictive (I was addicted to playing CS:S for six years, six.full.years....just thinking about it makes me shudder, it had become a chore, and now I regret it.)
3.Some other cool stuff could be made instead of an MP.
4.NO WAY as fun as singleplayer in an RPG.

No..that's about it.

[Giga Drill BREAKER]

When multi-player is introduced to a single player franchise, single player always suffers, just look at ME3.

Modifié par DinoSteve, 09 février 2013 - 11:01 .

[imbs]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

imbs wrote...
2. what? what does spending thousands of dollars on a game have to do with MP?

Item malls for Free to Play model and subscription based for Pay to Play model. They cost more than any single player games, otherwise your gameplay will be greatly handicapped. And yes, it could cost you thousand of dollars just to be the top players or at least protect yourself from internet bullies, who will drill 24/7 to be stronger than you.  

imbs wrote...

3. There have been plenty of MMOs where using a sword and shield is not only viable but even can be overpowered.

Such as? Name some of top PKers that are sword and shield class.

imbs wrote...


4. "Spoiled"? You do realise you are arguing against a feature because you, personally wouldn't use it, right?

Training or drilling yourself to be stronger is what everyone does. And yet some people ( PKERS ) of higher level ( especially kids who cheats all their way ) just love to make fun of you by depriving you out of XP in anyway they can. They enjoy seeing you get mad. 


I find your lack of MMO's experience disturbing. You should  play more MMOs. 

Erm first I heavily doubt there will be any insane item malls in a MP mode in any Bioware game...

2nd I have played MMOs, MMOs where sword n bord dont automatically mean you are useless. Even in Wow there have been patches where sword n bord characters were ridiculous. WOTLK prot warriors the most obvious example. Guild wars 2 also has decent sword n bord options. Those are the only modern examples I can think of but y

When a game has item malls that boost anything but aesthetics I tend to just not play. Cheaters are a part of any game though but considering it's a Triple-A company it should be easy enough to minimize.

[imbs]

Parmida wrote...

1.A waste of time.
2.Extremely addictive (I was addicted to playing CS:S for six years, six.full.years....just thinking about it makes me shudder, it had become a chore, and now I regret it.)
3.Some other cool stuff could be made instead of an MP.
4.NO WAY as fun as singleplayer in an RPG.

No..that's about it.

1. yawn
2. Personal regret stories are not arguments.
3. Not necessarily. We are talking about EA here, you think they cant allow more budget if Bioware agree to include MP?
4. Why not? SP still has pause in ME3 why cant they be seperate like that?


I also dont buy the argument that MP automatically makes SP games worse (just look at ME3) etc. By that train of logic I'd say look at DA2, awful and no MP. Same company makes ME3 later, which despite it's faults, is the superior SP experience, therefore MP improves the SP aspect of the game. Am I right?

[Captain Crash]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

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

A. No interest
B. No internet

Thats a poor reason not to have multiplayer based on your own assumptions.  Im very interested and I know more then a few people who are.  A co-op mode would really complement Dragon Age and its something I hope they look towards doing

[wright1978]

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.

This

[CrazyRah]

I got absolutely no interest in a multiplayer component. ME3's MP was not at all fun to me and i got swiftly bored of it. Co-op MP isn't something that i tend to play either. Instead i prefer competetive stuff and i doubt that's something that would happen any time soon. However if they decide to go with involving MP then i just hope it doesn't affect the SP at all and that i don't even need to bother with it to get stuff in SP.

[Parmida]

imbs wrote...

Parmida wrote...

1.A waste of time.
2.Extremely addictive (I was addicted to playing CS:S for six years, six.full.years....just thinking about it makes me shudder, it had become a chore, and now I regret it.)
3.Some other cool stuff could be made instead of an MP.
4.NO WAY as fun as singleplayer in an RPG.

No..that's about it.

1. yawn
2. Personal regret stories are not arguments.
3. Not necessarily. We are talking about EA here, you think they cant allow more budget if Bioware agree to include MP?
4. Why not? SP still has pause in ME3 why cant they be seperate like that?


I also dont buy the argument that MP automatically makes SP games worse (just look at ME3) etc. By that train of logic I'd say look at DA2, awful and no MP. Same company makes ME3 later, which despite it's faults, is the superior SP experience, therefore MP improves the SP aspect of the game. Am I right?

LOL, so very defensive and hostile. I thought he was asking opinions? (or maybe I'm wrong, if so sorry.) anyway, I'm not against it at all if people want it, and you go ahead and ask for it if you want it so badly.
Note to self: next time, write that "it's my own" reason for not liking sth. 

[Robhuzz]

1. Not interested
2. Doesn't add anything to the game for me since I play DA mainly for the story (hence not interested)
3. Takes time and resources away from the single player part of the game which is more important
4. Is a reason for EA to not allow modding
5. Could be a reason for EA to add some annoying always online DRM or some other scrutinizing DRM system

And that's pretty much all I can think of at this point.

I also dont buy the argument that MP automatically makes SP games worse (just look at ME3) etc. By that train of logic I'd say look at DA2, awful and no MP. Same company makes ME3 later, which despite it's faults, is the superior SP experience, therefore MP improves the SP aspect of the game. Am I right?

Very subjective. I think ME3 improved on the combat a bit but went down in just about every other area.

Modifié par Robhuzz, 09 février 2013 - 11:58 .

[Sacred_Fantasy]

imbs wrote...
Erm first I heavily doubt there will be any insane item malls in a MP mode in any Bioware game...

Not yet. Their games are mostly SP incorporate  with MP elements. Their true first MMO is SWTOR. I don't subscripe to it nor do I intend to play it for free. From what I read, SWTOR free users are deprived from even general community chat. They're basically treated as 2nd class citizen in SWTOR's community unless they start to invest some money on item malls. And that's sucked.

imbs wrote...

2nd I have played MMOs, MMOs where sword n bord dont automatically mean you are useless.

IN PVE, nope they're aren't useless. They're the front line. In PvP, they're nothing but punch bag. Sworld and Shield class has the weakest DPS of all MMO's class yet they can't even protect themselves from range and magic attacks. No stupid Archers and Mages would stay fix at their location. They will kite you and there is nothing you can do about it.

imbs wrote...

Even in Wow there have been patches where sword n bord characters were ridiculous. WOTLK prot warriors the most obvious example. Guild wars 2 also has decent sword n bord options.

Great! You're using subscription based games WOW and Guild Wars example. Try F2P models like Sword of the Coast, Lineage II, Last Chaos,  RAN Online, CABAL Online, Ragnarok Online, Perfect World, Rappelz, AIKA Online,  etc...

imbs wrote...

Those are the only modern examples I can think of but When a game has item malls that boost anything but aesthetics I tend to just not play.

Everywhere item malls exist, your gameplay will always be handicapped. They will charge you for almost anything they can. 

imbs wrote...


Cheaters are a part of any game though but considering it's a Triple-A company it should be easy enough to minimize.

Cheaters are always looking for competitive MP to show the world how they have no life outside the game. It's less a problem in subscription based models. It's a huge problem in F2P models it could kill the game entirely.   

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 09 février 2013 - 11:58 .

[imbs]

Parmida wrote...

imbs wrote...

Parmida wrote...

1.A waste of time.
2.Extremely addictive (I was addicted to playing CS:S for six years, six.full.years....just thinking about it makes me shudder, it had become a chore, and now I regret it.)
3.Some other cool stuff could be made instead of an MP.
4.NO WAY as fun as singleplayer in an RPG.

No..that's about it.

1. yawn
2. Personal regret stories are not arguments.
3. Not necessarily. We are talking about EA here, you think they cant allow more budget if Bioware agree to include MP?
4. Why not? SP still has pause in ME3 why cant they be seperate like that?


I also dont buy the argument that MP automatically makes SP games worse (just look at ME3) etc. By that train of logic I'd say look at DA2, awful and no MP. Same company makes ME3 later, which despite it's faults, is the superior SP experience, therefore MP improves the SP aspect of the game. Am I right?

LOL, so very defensive and hostile. I thought he was asking opinions? (or maybe I'm wrong, if so sorry.) anyway, I'm not against it at all if people want it, and you go ahead and ask for it if you want it so badly.
Note to self: next time, write that "it's my own" reason for not liking sth. 

What? I dont understand where you get defensive from and the only remotely hostile thing I wrote was "yawn". People on this forum are so very sensitive. And because it is your opinion I am not allowed to object? I do indeed wonder why you would stave off all MP games because you played Counterstrike for too long, but yeah.

I do love this idea that one shouldnt be allowed to argue anything that is opinion related. I think it makes discussions much funner, personally. Argue the point on anything and you get a cascade of "but its my opinion it doesnt matter if I am wrong" or "Its personal preference so i cant be wrong" ... So boring.

[imbs]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...


Not yet. Their games are mostly SP incorporate  with MP elements. Their true first MMO is SWTOR. I don't subscripe to it nor do I intend to play it for free. From what I read, SWTOR free users are deprived from even general community chat. They're basically treated as 2nd class citizen in SWTOR's community unless they start to invest some money on item malls. And that's sucked.

True enough, Swtor is indeed hilariously bad. They also sell you your action bars last I heard. HF playing without action bars yo.

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

IN PVE, nope they're aren't useless. They're the front line. In PvP, they're nothing but punch bag. Sworld and Shield class has the weakest DPS of all MMO's class yet they can't even protect themselves from range and magic attacks. No stupid Archers and Mages would stay fix at their location. They will kite you and there is nothing you can do about it.

Wasn't talking PvE but they arent even always (i use this team weakly admittedly) weak in MMO games. The problem with sword n bord classes is they have some insane durability in most games for pve purposes, which makes it harder to balance their damage in pvp. I do know that there is a tendency for them to be weaker than other classes though.

Nothing really else to add. I can imagine the problems one faces in those F2P games vs cheaters, no lifers can be pretty awful. I hate the idea of being able to buy character power for real money.

Modifié par imbs, 09 février 2013 - 12:07 .

[wright1978]

Robhuzz wrote...

1. Not interested
2. Doesn't add anything to the game for me since I play DA mainly for the story (hence not interested)
3. Takes time and resources away from the single player part of the game which is more important
4. Is a reason for EA to not allow modding
5. Could be a reason for EA to add some annoying always online DRM or some other scrutinizing DRM system

And that's pretty much all I can think of at this point.

I also dont buy the argument that MP automatically makes SP games worse (just look at ME3) etc. By that train of logic I'd say look at DA2, awful and no MP. Same company makes ME3 later, which despite it's faults, is the superior SP experience, therefore MP improves the SP aspect of the game. Am I right?

Very subjective. I think ME3 improved on the combat a bit but went down in just about every other area.

Combat is about the only area ME3 got right.

[Paul E Dangerously]

1) DA2 was rushed to hell, and even then doesn't deserve the rep it gets. It's just mediocre, but there is no middle ground on the internet - a game is either the best thing of all time, or the worst criminal act of the century.
2) After finishing ME3, it's actually more enjoyable than ME2, and hands down better gameplay then ME1. My biggest complaint with it was the fact you spent the entirety of ME2 gathering people for one mission, and then throwing that all away for the ME1 leftovers that couldn't be bothered to go with you in the second game.

[M Hedonist]

Adding multiplayer to a franchise is actually very, very horrible.
Whether ME4's sales will go well no longer solely depends on the game's plot, writing and characters - thanks to the fact that ME now has a solid MP community, ME4 might as well be a CoD clone and it'll still be successful. That's how it is: Bioware can just make some horribly schlock game and it'll still get best sales, critical acclaim, GotY awards, etc.
Keep your Multiplayer out of my Singleplayer games, please.

[Matchy Pointy]

imbs wrote...

Parmida wrote...

1.A waste of time.
2.Extremely addictive (I was addicted to playing CS:S for six years, six.full.years....just thinking about it makes me shudder, it had become a chore, and now I regret it.)
3.Some other cool stuff could be made instead of an MP.
4.NO WAY as fun as singleplayer in an RPG.

No..that's about it.

1. yawn
2. Personal regret stories are not arguments.
3. Not necessarily. We are talking about EA here, you think they cant allow more budget if Bioware agree to include MP?
4. Why not? SP still has pause in ME3 why cant they be seperate like that?


I also dont buy the argument that MP automatically makes SP games worse (just look at ME3) etc. By that train of logic I'd say look at DA2, awful and no MP. Same company makes ME3 later, which despite it's faults, is the superior SP experience, therefore MP improves the SP aspect of the game. Am I right?

This is very faulty logic. going for arguments sake that ME3 is a better SP experience then DA2 (not saying I believe this), there is nothing to correlate from there the general statement that MP makes SP better.

[Solmanian]

I just don't like the idea of my gameplay being effected by other people. Who was it that said: "hell is other people"?

I have friends IRL obviously, but they're mostly over 30, and lost interest in video games quite a while ago.

[Navasha]

The fact is that adding MP does affect the SP game. Period. How much depends on the developer willing to commit additional resources and such to the game.

Games have a budget in many different areas from actually monetary budgets to actual size on disk. If the developer needs it to be contained to a single disk, the inclusion of MP means that there is less space for the SP. That is a pretty undeniable truth. This isn't as much of an issue with PC only games, but since it is a multi-platform game, it is an issue.

Also design choices are made in the UI, controls, speed, and function of the game mechanics so that it is similar across both SP and MP modes. This means that SP functions DO change from their optimal points to more accomodate things from MP. This is often to the detriment of the SP game.

It does affect the SP game. I actually did play the ME3 MP for a while and it was a lot of fun. However, I certainly didn't buy the game for that purpose and I never spent a dime of real money on it. However a lot of people obviously did spend money on it. I certainly don't condemn the developers a profit. I want them to make as MUCH money as they possibly can. However, in the long run, the developers start throwing more and more resources to attract this extra cash. If MP was just 10% of ME3s budget, then ME4 might see 15%. Another IP title from the same developer might see 25%.... until the developer just stops even pushing the SP title at all. I mean why hire all those expensive voice actors when they get just as much money from the MP version with hardly as much upfront cost.

[Darth Krytie]

1. I have no interest in Multiplayer because it generally lacks the things I look for in a game.

2. People are jerks in Multiplayer. If I'm trying to enjoy myself by playing a game, I really don't want to hear some douche call people derogatory slurs. I don't want here nasty comments about gays, women, etc.

3. I don't want it tied into the Singleplayer aspect of the game. I don't want to have achievements I can't get because of multiplayer or access to areas of the singleplayer game inaccessible because I don't want to play MP.

4. Unless the MP aspect is self-sustaining, I don't want resources diverted from the SP game to fund it.

5. I honestly just don't want the last refuges of SP games infiltrated by it. I don't like playing with people I don't know and the people I do know play on different machines. I'd just rather have a few games where my enjoyment is not dependent on other people.

Solmanian wrote...

I just don't like the idea of my gameplay being effected by other people. Who was it that said: "hell is other people"?

It was Jean Paul Sartre.

Modifié par Darth Krytie, 09 février 2013 - 01:09 .

[Plaintiff]

Matchy Pointy wrote...

imbs wrote...

Parmida wrote...

1.A waste of time.
2.Extremely addictive (I was addicted to playing CS:S for six years, six.full.years....just thinking about it makes me shudder, it had become a chore, and now I regret it.)
3.Some other cool stuff could be made instead of an MP.
4.NO WAY as fun as singleplayer in an RPG.

No..that's about it.

1. yawn
2. Personal regret stories are not arguments.
3. Not necessarily. We are talking about EA here, you think they cant allow more budget if Bioware agree to include MP?
4. Why not? SP still has pause in ME3 why cant they be seperate like that?


I also dont buy the argument that MP automatically makes SP games worse (just look at ME3) etc. By that train of logic I'd say look at DA2, awful and no MP. Same company makes ME3 later, which despite it's faults, is the superior SP experience, therefore MP improves the SP aspect of the game. Am I right?

This is very faulty logic. going for arguments sake that ME3 is a better SP experience then DA2 (not saying I believe this), there is nothing to correlate from there the general statement that MP makes SP better.

That's exactly the point. There is no correlation whatsoever between multiplayer function and the quality of a singleplayer experience.

[Renmiri1]

 you spent the entirety of ME2 gathering people for one mission, and then throwing that all away for the ME1 leftovers that couldn't be bothered to go with you in the second game.

ME3 in a nutshell

[imbs]

Matchy Pointy wrote...

imbs wrote...

Parmida wrote...

1.A waste of time.
2.Extremely addictive (I was addicted to playing CS:S for six years, six.full.years....just thinking about it makes me shudder, it had become a chore, and now I regret it.)
3.Some other cool stuff could be made instead of an MP.
4.NO WAY as fun as singleplayer in an RPG.

No..that's about it.

1. yawn
2. Personal regret stories are not arguments.
3. Not necessarily. We are talking about EA here, you think they cant allow more budget if Bioware agree to include MP?
4. Why not? SP still has pause in ME3 why cant they be seperate like that?


I also dont buy the argument that MP automatically makes SP games worse (just look at ME3) etc. By that train of logic I'd say look at DA2, awful and no MP. Same company makes ME3 later, which despite it's faults, is the superior SP experience, therefore MP improves the SP aspect of the game. Am I right?

This is very faulty logic. going for arguments sake that ME3 is a better SP experience then DA2 (not saying I believe this), there is nothing to correlate from there the general statement that MP makes SP better.

No **** I made it pretty clear that i'd have to be using an awful kind of logic to get to that conclusion

[alhamel94]

Robhuzz wrote...

1. Not interested
2. Doesn't add anything to the game for me since I play DA mainly for the story (hence not interested)
3. Takes time and resources away from the single player part of the game which is more important
4. Is a reason for EA to not allow modding
5. Could be a reason for EA to add some annoying always online DRM or some other scrutinizing DRM system

And that's pretty much all I can think of at this point.

I also dont buy the argument that MP automatically makes SP games worse (just look at ME3) etc. By that train of logic I'd say look at DA2, awful and no MP. Same company makes ME3 later, which despite it's faults, is the superior SP experience, therefore MP improves the SP aspect of the game. Am I right?

Very subjective. I think ME3 improved on the combat a bit but went down in just about every other area.

5. there wont be an always online drm. this is ea its going to use origin. yes origin does have an offline mode

[Maverick827]

Sauruz wrote...
Keep your Multiplayer out of my Singleplayer games, please.

These are not "your" games.

[Giga Drill BREAKER]

Maverick827 wrote...

Sauruz wrote...
Keep your Multiplayer out of my Singleplayer games, please.

These are not "your" games.

They are whe he buys them.