189 réponses à ce sujet

[alhamel94]

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?

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.

well who knows in the reckoning leak there was mentioned story multiplayer missions

[Fredward]

IanPolaris wrote...

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

It happened once and the decision was reversed. There is really absolutely no logical reason to think they'd do it again.

[mickey111]

I just don't see why expanding the audience can be a negative. Maybe in the short term it could compromise certain things, (which I'm basing on the assumption that MP is in the series from game number 1 which and that just doesn't apply to Bioware) but the thing about this generation of consoles is that pretty much every big name is an ongoing series, and Bioware is no exception. What this means is that when the IP has been established, a massive percentage of the development for future games in that franchise has already been established, I mean at least half of the work is in creating the game engine and then the devs do a bit more work on adding new building blocks on top of the old to create sequels. So with that been the case, it frees up an awful lot of resources to include MP at some later point in the series. The writing and voice over team have very little involvement in it either, but it's keeping a few extra staff members on the pay roll which is good for them and is also good for anyone who might like MP and would otherwise not have purchased Dragon Age, which is more money and is good for Bioware.

[IanPolaris]

Foopydoopydoo wrote...

It happened once and the decision was reversed. There is really absolutely no logical reason to think they'd do it again.

It was very quietly lifted when the same day the EC was released and Bioware's admission that they had been lying for three solid months was a single post by Priestly buried in the middle of a hundred page forum thread.  This was after multiple people had been banned, threatened, and multiple threads closed because Bioware insisted that they hadn't lied about the SP needing MP when in fact they did and they know they did all along.

Given that, Day-1 DLC, and other statements of very dubious veracity leading up to ME-3, I have absolutely no reason to think they won't do it again.  After all, once Bioware has your pre-order dollar (or Euro), they don't have to worry about what you think.

-Polaris

[DPSSOC]

mickey111 wrote...

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 should clarify that I'm talking about DA combat as is and assuming you only control one character.  There's just not enough you can do for there to be any real strategy.  Maybe if we went back to DA:O combat where you could actually chain your own abilities together for greater effect it'd work but even then it'd still boil down to how you built your character as opposed to how you manage the combat.  Maybe if there were stat boosters like you mention it could change things up as you could effectively change the make up of your build on the fly, but whether or not Bioware would implement something like that I don't know.

I've enjoyed the combat in both games but complicated it isn't.

[Urazz]

Sopa de Gato wrote...

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.

It still did take away money that could've been used for the single player portion of ME3.  Think of it this way, the money could've been used to keep the development of ME3 single player lasting longer and we probably would've had a better ending in my opinion or at least an ending at the level of the extended cut at release instead of the one we had until the extended cut was released.

I do like ME3's mutliplayer for sure but I felt the money used to develop it would've been better used on the single player.  Dragon Age is a single player game and having it have a multiplayer aspect is bad because a major part of the game is controlling your party.  I myself did not care for the Baldur's Gate multiplayer too much because it took away control of the party for me.

Modifié par Urazz, 10 février 2013 - 01:26 .

[DPSSOC]

Foopydoopydoo wrote...
It happened once and the decision was reversed. There is really absolutely no logical reason to think they'd do it again.

Can you honestly say you've never gone through with a bad idea, had it go horribly, acknowledged it was a bad idea, and then somewhere down the road did it again?

Maybe they'll make multiplayer required but in a different way, something they think won't upset the fans as much.  Maybe they'll make it so that multiplayer earns you money in single player but make it so that you can't actually make enough in single player to buy equipment after a certain level.  Or maybe they'll have multiplayer unlock items, or shops, or areas, etc.  There are plenty of ways they could make multiplayer necessary for the single player that are different enough from what ME3 did that the team might honestly think it won't be an issue.

Will they?  I don't know.  Would I be surprised if they did?  Not really.

Modifié par DPSSOC, 10 février 2013 - 01:32 .

[sirus1988]

I really cannot see how Dragon Age can go multiplayer, not even co-op campaign. I agree that ME multiplayer is fun and addicting but that really doesn't mean the same if DA goes mp.. Keep it in singleplayer.

[zsom]

I see a lot of people are a bit afraid of trolls and rude PUGs in general. Well I've spent over 300 hours playing bioware MP games (ME3 and SWToR) and I have to say I am pleasantly surprised by the community. I haven't met anyone making racist/sexist remarks, nor have I witnessed any excessive swearing. I don't know if it's just because of a more mature audience, or because of the game genre, but the stuff you can run into while playing FPS games is thankfully completely absent.

[Althix]

yeah as long as you are playing on their level that stuff is absent. as soon as you start slaugheting them even 30+ years old guy will go for racist/sexist remarks, swearing and how exactly he had your mother.

don't kid your self there is always pricks on internet these nights, however it is not a reason not to have mp or coop if it is good.

Modifié par secretsandlies, 10 février 2013 - 08:12 .

[Liamv2]

Lathrim wrote...

zsom wrote...

I see a lot of people are a bit afraid of trolls and rude PUGs in general. Well I've spent over 300 hours playing bioware MP games (ME3 and SWToR) and I have to say I am pleasantly surprised by the community. I haven't met anyone making racist/sexist remarks, nor have I witnessed any excessive swearing. I don't know if it's just because of a more mature audience, or because of the game genre, but the stuff you can run into while playing FPS games is thankfully completely absent.

To be fair, you do play on PC (according to your profile)... most of the comments about rude playerbases seem to come from console players, which are worse than PC gamers to an extent.

Well PS3 is fine for ME3 don't know about Xbox but im guessing that it is fine 

Edit it being co-op most likely helps

Modifié par Liamv2, 10 février 2013 - 08:06 .

[lunamoondragon]

I can't kid myself; I'm not good at games. I enjoy them wholeheartedly but I am absolutely awful at surviving and strategizing. 
And while it doesn't keep me from playing these games to death, I feel a certain anxiety when brought into multiplayer, like I'm dragging my team down or making a fool of myself. I try my best to be useful, but in ME3 multiplayer I'm always the one who dies before the third wave in bronze.
I wouldn't be angry by any means if multiplayer is a feature in the game, but it's definitely not something I'll be spending much of my time on, save for when my friends are up for a few laughs.

[imbs]

Lathrim wrote...

zsom wrote...

I see a lot of people are a bit afraid of trolls and rude PUGs in general. Well I've spent over 300 hours playing bioware MP games (ME3 and SWToR) and I have to say I am pleasantly surprised by the community. I haven't met anyone making racist/sexist remarks, nor have I witnessed any excessive swearing. I don't know if it's just because of a more mature audience, or because of the game genre, but the stuff you can run into while playing FPS games is thankfully completely absent.

To be fair, you do play on PC (according to your profile)... most of the comments about rude playerbases seem to come from console players, which are worse than PC gamers to an extent.

Not always. The LoL community is particularly well-known for being an awful community for example, and I have been on the recieving end of some hilarious rage in games with (generally) better communities like Starcraft.

[XX-Pyro]

Lathrim wrote...

zsom wrote...

I see a lot of people are a bit afraid of trolls and rude PUGs in general. Well I've spent over 300 hours playing bioware MP games (ME3 and SWToR) and I have to say I am pleasantly surprised by the community. I haven't met anyone making racist/sexist remarks, nor have I witnessed any excessive swearing. I don't know if it's just because of a more mature audience, or because of the game genre, but the stuff you can run into while playing FPS games is thankfully completely absent.

To be fair, you do play on PC (according to your profile)... most of the comments about rude playerbases seem to come from console players, which are worse than PC gamers to an extent.

PC MP bases are far worse than the console ones in my opinion, coming from someone whose played DoTA (original and 2), HoN. LoL. Smite, CS, etc etc. 

[mickey111]

Some people want to be the best there is, and others just want to have fun. The trick is to stay away from the former. You find that competition can make anybody rude. Using counterstrike for example, most of the people in the zombie mod and surf mod games are quite easy going. The people with team tags that compete with other people with team tags are generally rude, but I've noticed a bit of a funny trend among them: the people who are at the very top of the competition are actually really nice and won't chew your head off for not been good at the game. It's the people below the top two or three teams that are dick heads.

Modifié par mickey111, 10 février 2013 - 08:36 .

[Fredward]

DPSSOC wrote...

Foopydoopydoo wrote...
It happened once and the decision was reversed. There is really absolutely no logical reason to think they'd do it again.

Can you honestly say you've never gone through with a bad idea, had it go horribly, acknowledged it was a bad idea, and then somewhere down the road did it again?

Maybe they'll make multiplayer required but in a different way, something they think won't upset the fans as much.  Maybe they'll make it so that multiplayer earns you money in single player but make it so that you can't actually make enough in single player to buy equipment after a certain level.  Or maybe they'll have multiplayer unlock items, or shops, or areas, etc.  There are plenty of ways they could make multiplayer necessary for the single player that are different enough from what ME3 did that the team might honestly think it won't be an issue.

Will they?  I don't know.  Would I be surprised if they did?  Not really.

That analogy is flawed. Bioware isn't a individual repeatedly bumping its head against the wall because it just wants something to work. It's a company, with a lot more than one person having a say.

As for the second part of your post, absolutely NONE of that makes multiplayer a requirement to complete the game. I don't know if this is first world mentality or one of those fun little mini-psychoses you can find here on the BSN but the world doesn't exist to cater to you. People who put more effort in get more out. This has ALWAYS been the way of things. If you don't want to play multiplayer, don't. But it boggles my frickin mind how people can then feel justified ****ing about the fact that other people are getting more stuff because ~gasp~ they're spending more effort! MADNESS! EFFRONTERY! ANATHEMA!

[zsom]

lunamoondragon wrote...

I can't kid myself; I'm not good at games. I enjoy them wholeheartedly but I am absolutely awful at surviving and strategizing. 
And while it doesn't keep me from playing these games to death, I feel a certain anxiety when brought into multiplayer, like I'm dragging my team down or making a fool of myself. I try my best to be useful, but in ME3 multiplayer I'm always the one who dies before the third wave in bronze.
I wouldn't be angry by any means if multiplayer is a feature in the game, but it's definitely not something I'll be spending much of my time on, save for when my friends are up for a few laughs.

I don't think anyone really cares about the overall team performance on bronz (or silver). So don't beat yourself up about it, go ahead and have some fun. Get a lvl 20 kroguard and there's no chance in hell you'll go down on the 3rd wave

[Raydiva]

Why my multiplayer hate:

I buy games like Dragon Age, Mass Effect and other RPGs to enjoy the game without having to deal with real people. I want to enjoy a good story as if I'm part of it, without the fourth wall being broken by someone whining, cussing, teabagging, etc.

When I want to play a video game with other people, I log on to WoW, the Secret World or dig out my copy of the newer Mortal Kombat and sit next to a buddy.

I see no reason why you would even want to add Multiplayer to a game that is meant to be a single player RPG. If you want a Dragon Age multiplayer, do what the makers of Elder Scrolls are doing: Make a separate MMO or other multiplayer that has no direct connection with the RPG games.

[Nefla]

If I want to play a multiplayer game, I'll play an MMO or something. I'd hate for the SP story, maps, resources in general to suffer because the budget was reallocated to make MP. I played DA for the story, lore, and characters. I like to take my time and explore, have long conversations with my party members, etc...The only aspect I can think of where adding another player would make sense is in combat, and I don't like DA combat, especially DA2's. A game like Skyrim would have been fun with you and another player on splitscreen or something doing difficult reflex/skill based battles and 2 person puzzles. I don't need 2 people to "press A to win!"

[Slargfar]

The fact that ME3 multiplayer was so good means we should not write of DA multiplayer immediately. Give them a chance to do it right.

[Urazz]

Slargfar wrote...

The fact that ME3 multiplayer was so good means we should not write of DA multiplayer immediately. Give them a chance to do it right.

The ME3 multiplayer wasn't that good that it was worth putting in over getting a better single player experience for ME3 based on alot of people's opinions.  I much would've much rather have the money spent on the multiplayer go towards keeping the single player development to keep on going on for awhile longer.

Not only that but the dragon age series really just doesn't mesh well as a mutliplayer game.  Adding in extra players takes away slots of your party members and controlling your party is a major factor of the dragon age games.

You have to ask yourself, does making a game mutiplayer take away a major aspect of the game or does it add on to it?  Mass Effect 3's multiplayer in general doesn't take away any of the game's major aspects.  The only thing they screwed up on the multiplayer was to tie it into your peformance on singleplayer.  Granted, it wasn't required for the best ending in ME3, but it was an annoying aspect of it.

Modifié par Urazz, 11 février 2013 - 02:18 .

[Gandalf-the-Fabulous]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

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.

Wow that was actually a good answer, much better than the "I dont like multiplayer so including an OPTIONAL multiplayer mode would be an affront to go" responses we usually get in these threads.

That being said while you are correct in saying that the gameplay we currently have in the Dragon Age series is totally unsuitable to being converted to multiplayer I doubt the multiplayer mode (if DA3 has one which it has been strongly hinted at that it will) I doubt the multiplayer mode or features will include a multiplayer version of the gameplay we already have, I would expect something completely different though what that is I have no idea.

[Wulfram]

The ME3 PC multiplayer is "better" in that everyone is basically silent.  The only communication between players tend to be headbutting each others Krogan.