189 réponses à ce sujet

[Uccio]

Also, the last thing I want is XxXxXDildOMaster4344 ,age 15, to come to tell me ingame that I suck.

[DarkDragon777]

Well, looking at Mass Effect 3's multiplayer, and then considering that they may use that as a model for DA3's, I don't really have high expectations.

[Blazomancer]

Ukki wrote...

Also, the last thing I want is XxXxXDildOMaster4344 ,age 15, to come to tell me ingame that I suck.

aaHahaha, did you just come up with the name right now, or you're speaking from experience?

[Fredward]

IanPolaris wrote...

Foopydoopydoo wrote...

Ugh, I really don't get it either. It's really, really simple folks. If you don't WANT to play multiplayer then... DON'T. PLAY. IT. I have never, in my ENTIRE life played multiplayer. Ever. Except in Eve. The point is it's entirely optional (if someone mentions ME I will stab you with a hypothetical highlighter, that was only necessary for like a month before it was patched and you'd have to be preeeettttttyyyyyy skeptical about Bioware's collective IQ if you think they'd repeat that) at no point in time are you forced to play it. It just sits there under single player. It doesn't glow, or beckon or threaten to eat your babies if you don't want to play it. Like for srs folks.

Build a frickin bridge.

Oh! And just fyi "I don't like it so I don't want anyone else to have it" is NOT valid criticism. >.>

That's nice but it should go both ways.  If I don't want to play multiplayer, then I shouldn't miss out on my single player experience either.  Yet that is exactly the promise that Bioware made with Mass Effect 3 and promptly broke....and lied about breaking it for more than three months.

-Polaris

And the backlash from that was intense. Why on earth would Bioware make the same mistake? And need I remind everyone of the "different teams" thing or does that just get ignored when someone wants to make a lopsided point?

[warlorejon]

Did the Eq and WOW grind. don't like waiting for people, my play time hours vary and i want to be able to play when i want. Doesn't help about 94% of the people online annoy me.The other 6% i just hate.

[Shadowvalker]

For me multiplayer function has no meaning in DA - Its my story "read" and played by me - like reading a good book - I do that by myself - primetime for my soul.

[Uccio]

Blazomancer wrote...

Ukki wrote...

Also, the last thing I want is XxXxXDildOMaster4344 ,age 15, to come to tell me ingame that I suck.

aaHahaha, did you just come up with the name right now, or you're speaking from experience?

Not exactly, but close.  

[Maverick827]

Ukki wrote...

Also, the last thing I want is XxXxXDildOMaster4344 ,age 15, to come to tell me ingame that I suck.

The last thing I wanted was someone to come in here and construct a strawman, but here we are.

[mickey111]

Ukki wrote...

Also, the last thing I want is XxXxXDildOMaster4344 ,age 15, to come to tell me ingame that I suck.

That's never happened to me and I'm terrible. I game on PC, I don't live in America. I'm sure that has a lot to do with it, knowing how horrible Americas schools are at educating their young, plus the whole MTV and rap culture...

Modifié par mickey111, 09 février 2013 - 10:40 .

[alhamel94]

warlorejon wrote...

Did the Eq and WOW grind. don't like waiting for people, my play time hours vary and i want to be able to play when i want. Doesn't help about 94% of the people online annoy me.The other 6% i just hate.

maybe you should try cooperative multiplayer games without dreadful gameplay. mmos are a horrible example of cooperative multiplayer because the gameplay is just so dry and unintuitive, guild wars 2 mixed things up but it still cant compare to the performance of singleplayer games due to the scope.

[imbs]

mickey111 wrote...

Ukki wrote...

Also, the last thing I want is XxXxXDildOMaster4344 ,age 15, to come to tell me ingame that I suck.

That's never happened to me and I'm terrible. I game on PC, I don't live in America. I'm sure that has a lot to do with it, knowing how horrible Americas schools are at educating their young, plus the whole MTV and rap culture...

Good players get called bad more often than average players do. How and when do people rage in games? when they get beat, innit

[alhamel94]

mickey111 wrote...

Ukki wrote...

Also, the last thing I want is XxXxXDildOMaster4344 ,age 15, to come to tell me ingame that I suck.

That's never happened to me and I'm terrible. I game on PC, I don't live in America. I'm sure that has a lot to do with it, knowing how ****ing stupid the average xbox american kid is.

still guys really with the stereotypes? i have never owned an xbox but i play pc and ps3. i have only once ran into someone under the age of 18 player multiplayer games.  this whole "multiplayer is full of children spewing foul language" is an awful stereotype that doesnt exist.  it is an invalid arguement and even though im sure i will see it again i hope i never will

[mickey111]

imbs wrote...

mickey111 wrote...

Ukki wrote...

Also, the last thing I want is XxXxXDildOMaster4344 ,age 15, to come to tell me ingame that I suck.

That's never happened to me and I'm terrible. I game on PC, I don't live in America. I'm sure that has a lot to do with it, knowing how horrible Americas schools are at educating their young, plus the whole MTV and rap culture...

Good players get called bad more often than average players do. How and when do people rage in games? when they get beat, innit

Remember, I'm on PC. When someone is good on PC, they're usually a hacker. The accused rarely do anything that they couldn't do legitimately and more often than not are clean. When someone is actually hacking they're normally about as subtle as an elephant.

Modifié par mickey111, 09 février 2013 - 11:00 .

[Renmiri1]

alhamel94 wrote...

mickey111 wrote...

Ukki wrote...

Also, the last thing I want is XxXxXDildOMaster4344 ,age 15, to come to tell me ingame that I suck.

That's never happened to me and I'm terrible. I game on PC, I don't live in America. I'm sure that has a lot to do with it, knowing how ****ing stupid the average xbox american kid is.

still guys really with the stereotypes? i have never owned an xbox but i play pc and ps3. i have only once ran into someone under the age of 18 player multiplayer games.  this whole "multiplayer is full of children spewing foul language" is an awful stereotype that doesnt exist.  it is an invalid arguement and even though im sure i will see it again i hope i never will

I play WoW on a large UK server and we do have those ****s in there. Idiocy is not America's or PC exclusive.

[Get Magna Carter]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

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

A. No interest
B. No internet

Both apply to me though this is more disinterest rather than dislike.
dislike comes from the impact on design/development of singleplayer

[DPSSOC]

Well depends on the multiplayer. I absolutely love local multiplayer in most cases, but online multiplayer is missing a few crucial elements that make the multiplayer experience work for me.

#1 - People I like. I'll be the first to admit I'm not a people person, I generally avoid them if at all possible, so the prospect of doing something I enjoy with complete strangers holds absolutely no appeal. The only way I can bring myself to do things I like with people I don't know is if I'm drunk, and consumption of large quantities of alcohol is not conducive to online gaming.

#2 - Coordination. In a local multiplayer game I can communicate with anyone who may be on my team so that we might effectively work together. In online multiplayer not everybody can or chooses to communicate, not everyone speaks the same language, and not everyone wants to work as part of a group. The far extreme of this problem is when you have team mates actively competing against each other with no means of bringing them in line. Which brings me to.

#3 - Corrective Societal Pressures. In local multiplayer if someone's being obnoxious or otherwise ruining the experience for everyone else you have means of correcting their behaviour. Again if working as a team with other players and someone's intent on playing cowboy or actively trying to steal kills from other teammates to up their score you can slug the offending player in local mp, online not so much. If you're lucky you're the one guy who's got authourity to boot the offending bastard but beyond that there's nothing you can do.

Now I don't like multiplayer for DA because the way combat works it strictly comes down to, my build/equipment is better than your build/equipment I win. It doesn't even require people to play the game just bring up a screen showing your stats and equipment and determine a winner, there's not a whole lot of skill involved.

Now that's just competitive in cooperative the only thing I could see working would be something like ME3's set up which, while not bad and I enjoyed it, does get old rather quickly.

[mickey111]

DPSSOC wrote...

Now I don't like multiplayer for DA because the way combat works it strictly comes down to, my build/equipment is better than your build/equipment I win. It doesn't even require people to play the game just bring up a screen showing your stats and equipment and determine a winner, there's not a whole lot of skill involved.

If DA MP is that predictable it will mean that Bioware did a bad job. I've taken part as a PVP player in Neverwinter Nights (the Bastions of War mod), and I can tell you without hesitation that the whole building process can be very complicated, and not only that but there were dozens of items, whether one shot or on a cool down timer (lets just refer to them as consumables) that you could use to tip the odds to your advantage. The skill came from the players ability to understand what the people around them were capable of doing and reading the flow of the game. You'd need to know when you might need that consumable which boosts your detection skills so you don't crippled/killed/incapacitated by some back stabbing rogue, know the good places to place traps etc. And then if it's a team game where you're playing a supporting role you'd need to know who could make the best use of your protections, buffs and healing magics, and there were several to choose from.

Not going to lie that if you build yourself poorly that you're always going to suffer from a disadvantage, but if you're smart and make the best of what you've got you could come out on top against superior builds most of the time, but that would require more than a little bit of skill.

Modifié par mickey111, 10 février 2013 - 12:03 .

[Eelectrica]

There was an article about how EA haven't green lit any games without online elements.
What this means for DA3, I guess we'll find out.

I hope they do a co-op quest based thing. Have a large pool of quest types to draw from, on a whole bunch of different maps could be fun. Allow us to play dwarves, elves, humans, maybe even other races.

[Renmiri1]

Competitiveness can get old fast...

In South Korea, World of Warcraft's popularity has been certainly waning down. It is nowhere to be found in Top 10 game rankings in terms of usage in PC cafes,
... changes have forced many Korean players to be as hardcore as they can be, leaving no room to breathe and forgive others for their mistakes. Many new players, especially people who just started playing WoW (surprisingly), could not adapt 
 the whole community was getting more elitist in general, with most of the players playing from the original WoW, since WoW has been around almost 10 years. And the whole topic of 'bullying' and 'cyber-bullying' has been a major issue in a Korean society...

people have been saying about WoW: "A game for only maniacs and hardcores. Noobs not allowed. Nothing humane about it."

The post goes on to tell the story about a unskilled player that got to be an outcast in his server.. just for being new to online games... It is surprising to see that even the unskilled player considers his outcast status justified.

Fascinating read if you wanna see what happens to online communities. 

http://us.battle.net...opic/7864486403

Modifié par Renmiri1, 10 février 2013 - 03:32 .

[alhamel94]

Renmiri1 wrote...

Competitiveness can get old fast...

In South Korea, World of Warcraft's popularity has been certainly waning down. It is nowhere to be found in Top 10 game rankings in terms of usage in PC cafes,
... changes have forced many Korean players to be as hardcore as they can be, leaving no room to breathe and forgive others for their mistakes. Many new players, especially people who just started playing WoW (surprisingly), could not adapt 
 the whole community was getting more elitist in general, with most of the players playing from the original WoW, since WoW has been around almost 10 years. And the whole topic of 'bullying' and 'cyber-bullying' has been a major issue in a Korean society...

people have been saying about WoW: "A game for only maniacs and hardcores. Noobs not allowed. Nothing humane about it."

The post goes on to tell the story about a unskilled player that got to be an outcast in his server.. just for being new to online games... It is surprising to see that even the unskilled player considers his outcast status justified.

Fascinating read if you wanna see what happens to online communities. 

http://us.battle.net...opic/7864486403

of give me a break. mmos are so much different

[Renmiri1]

alhamel94 wrote...


of give me a break. mmos are so much different

Agreed but I posted this here as an example of a toxic multiplayer environment. WoW isn't like this on most EU servers but a lot of individual servers can be like that. I stay away from the top 20 because they do earn the label "elitist jerks" 

[ShaggyWolf]

Dragon Age's gameplay- like Mass Effect's- really lends itself to multiplayer. It's not a very big jump to realize that you're already playing with a party of fighters, what if those other fighters were other players too?

To me, there's a big appeal behind the idea of being one part of a 4 piece Dragon Age group. I think it's important though, that however they implement multiplayer, they don't make it as... free-form(?) as ME3's.

What I mean by that is in ME3, you can have all 4 people running about willy-nilly doing whatever they want independant of the group, and for the most part, you can win without much trouble. I think part of it is how many of the kits function exclusively and independantly, and the ones that don't (kits that can't prime/detonate their own combos, for example) are rarely played by the community. Another issue is the map design. The maps themselves are great, and a good group can take advantage of any level's design to succeed, but their arena-esque structure means anyone can go anywhere basically, as opposed to the tigher, more linear progression of a mass effect single player level, which is built in a way where you must push through enemy groups with your squad as a cohesive team unit.

One improvement I'd like to see in Mass effect MP, and a necessity for a dragon age multiplayer experience, is level, player class, and encounter design that requires people to work together as a team, much as your party would in DA2, or DA:O.

For me, it would take a lot of the fun away from the idea if a DA3 mutliplayer allowed everyone to run around away from the group and still win. Dragon age has always been about tactics and teamwork, it's never been a free for all.

I'd be especially thrilled if they'd design a story-driven co-op campaign complete with multiplayer dialogue and story choices, but somehow I doubt that will happen.

[In Exile]

[quote]Valadras21 wrote...

Dragon Age's gameplay- like Mass Effect's- really lends itself to multiplayer. It's not a very big jump to realize that you're already playing with a party of fighters, what if those other fighters were other players too? [/quote]

It would suck, because then you'd be stuck to one class and one character; part of the fun is controlling the party.

[Catfish Shotgun]

If I could play some form of co-operative campaign with some friends I actually think that could potentially be incredibly fun. Competitive- No.
I suppose it's all in how they design it, and how it's executed.

Modifié par Catfish Shotgun, 10 février 2013 - 06:07 .

[IanPolaris]

Foopydoopydoo wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Foopydoopydoo wrote...

Ugh, I really don't get it either. It's really, really simple folks. If you don't WANT to play multiplayer then... DON'T. PLAY. IT. I have never, in my ENTIRE life played multiplayer. Ever. Except in Eve. The point is it's entirely optional (if someone mentions ME I will stab you with a hypothetical highlighter, that was only necessary for like a month before it was patched and you'd have to be preeeettttttyyyyyy skeptical about Bioware's collective IQ if you think they'd repeat that) at no point in time are you forced to play it. It just sits there under single player. It doesn't glow, or beckon or threaten to eat your babies if you don't want to play it. Like for srs folks.

Build a frickin bridge.

Oh! And just fyi "I don't like it so I don't want anyone else to have it" is NOT valid criticism. >.>

That's nice but it should go both ways.  If I don't want to play multiplayer, then I shouldn't miss out on my single player experience either.  Yet that is exactly the promise that Bioware made with Mass Effect 3 and promptly broke....and lied about breaking it for more than three months.

-Polaris

And the backlash from that was intense. Why on earth would Bioware make the same mistake? And need I remind everyone of the "different teams" thing or does that just get ignored when someone wants to make a lopsided point?

It should not have been done in the first place but given that it did, I have no faith that Bioware will keep SP and MP seperate.

-Polaris