189 réponses à ce sujet

[Arppis]

I'm up for trying new things, but if the MP sucks, I won't play it. No skin off my back really.

[Beerfish]

Wulfram wrote...

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

One in 10 games do you ever hear anyone say a thing on the xbox, even if they have their mics attached.

[Blackrising]

I simply don't care for it.
When I play a game, I do so because I don't want to socialize. Otherwise I'd go out or something.

Another reason is the fear that multiplayer might take away ressources from the singleplayer campaign. Of course I don't know if that is the case. They might have near nothing to do with each other.
Not to mention that I can't play online anyway, what with not possessing a xbox gold membership.

[AlanC9]

IanPolaris wrote...

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.

I don't recall anyone being banned for saying that Bio's numbers didn't add up. Inflammatory rants got folks banned, sure, but those are bankable anyway.

And the main EMS thread ran forever.

[dreman9999]

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.

Here were your logic isin error....The same developers that did ME3, with the mp,is doing DA3.

[IanPolaris]

AlanC9 wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

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.

I don't recall anyone being banned for saying that Bio's numbers didn't add up. Inflammatory rants got folks banned, sure, but those are bankable anyway.

And the main EMS thread ran forever.

Threads were locked and people were banned for calling Bioware a liar regarding this issue....when it turns out they DID lie.

-Polaris

Edit PS:  Threads regarding this were also moved into forum ghettos or simply locked with minimal to no commentary (except "Bioware does not lie").  No, Bioware's treatment of the issue was despicable almost from the very start (including promising they'd look into it when we later learned it was intentional from the start).

Modifié par IanPolaris, 11 février 2013 - 09:27 .

[IanPolaris]

Urazz wrote...

 Granted, it wasn't required for the best ending in ME3, but it was an annoying aspect of it.

Actually it was.  You could not get "Master and Commander" Achievement and ending without doing multiplayer until the EC was released.  Priestly admitted in a post that was buried in a huge 100+ post thread that this was intentional.....and it proved that Bioware had LIED for more than three months prior.

-Polaris

[Fast Jimmy]

dreman9999 wrote...

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.

Here were your logic isin error....The same developers that did ME3, with the mp,is doing DA3.

Ummm... this is false. Patently false. 

DA3 hasn't even ANNOUNCED a MP component, let alone what department, division or developer will be handling it. 

Not to say that it won't happen (or even that the studio who did do ME3's MP won't be the one to do it) but none of that is even a credible rumor right now, let alone an established fact. 

[AngryFrozenWater]

I don't dislike MP. I dislike SP games that need a flimsy MP to sell it. And the thing is that it is isn't needed at all to sell. Same goes for the voice acted protagonist. Skyrim doesn't have both and it sold extremely well. That doesn't mean that's because it lacks those features, but it just means you can do without and still sell well.

And yes I do play games which are designed for MP. But I am not interested in SP games that have MP as an afterthought, are changed to include MP as a hidden DRM and/or are clearly just intended to implement micro-transactions. Those remove development resources from the SP core and thus result in a worse user experience one way or another.

[Silas7]

If a game like Dragon age had multiplayer it would involve a repetitive co-op survival mode. If you look at why people play the game to begin with it's to be the center of the story and to make choices that influence the direction it will take while constantly trying to better oneself. The story would be so unrepresented visually in contrast that it would lose most of the attraction and turn into a grind.

The multiplayer of ME3 is the best example of this, sure there are still operations every two weeks to keep people coming back but those people were not the main target audience.

The only way i see a multiplayer component in an rpg that works would be in the form of drop/in/out co-op that the game was heavily designed around.

[KiwiQuiche]

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. >.>

Modifié par KiwiQuiche, 12 février 2013 - 06:57 .

[Fredward]

^ Don't be afraid to use your words.

[Lord Gremlin]

Simple.
1) No interest.
2) Dragon Age gameplay is not really real-time, so it just doesn't transition well into multiplayer. Multiplayer requires either full real-time, or turn-based. So they will botch gameplay.

[Slargfar]

Urazz wrote...

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.

The promise of implementing multiplayer oftentimes will get publishers to give more money and time to developers. Spec Ops: The Line lazily tacked on a multiplayer component, and did so simply because it helped them flesh out their single player experience with increased publisher input. Publishers want a slice of the big multiplayer pie, and clever developers can take advantage of that.

It *may* be that adding multiplayer will detract from the single player experience, but it could just as easily go the other direction. Since it didnt adversely effect the overall development quality of Mass Effect 3, I say there's no need to prematurely worry.

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.

Possibly. I would have said the same about Mass Effect, though.

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.

We can't yet know how good DA3 multiplayer could be. Im mildly optimistic.

Modifié par Slargfar, 12 février 2013 - 07:49 .

[KiwiQuiche]

Foopydoopydoo wrote...

^ Don't be afraid to use your words.

Was tempted, but I most likely would have gotten banned if I had gone with my gut reaction.

[Fredward]

KiwiQuiche wrote...

Foopydoopydoo wrote...

^ Don't be afraid to use your words.

Was tempted, but I most likely would have gotten banned if I had gone with my gut reaction.

Somehow I'm not surprised.


To me the issue here isn't people disliking multiplayer, I don't like multiplayer, it's a) the ridiculous idea that people who don't play it should get ALL the benefits of the people that do and the idea that it should not be in the game AT ALL because someone doesn't like it.

The only even quasi legit criticism for not including multiplayer I've seen is the "it takes away from SP" one. And this works off the assumption that the devs weren't completely done with the SP before moving on to MP.

[Cyberarmy]

Celene II wrote...

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

All this and also there are lots of (read sh!tloads) multiplayer RPG games out there. Nearly every MMORPG has some RPG server filled with good players ,as a long time PnP player my best RP experiences are in WoW and SWG RP servers.
NWN 1-2 had countless modules that can entertain you for a long time(for ex. NWN2 Baldurs Gate module)
I'd like to see all effort in making of DA3 goes to SP.

[DPSSOC]

Foopydoopydoo wrote...

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.

A group of individuals working with common purpose functions (psychologically anyway) almost exactly like an individual.  The worst side of this is mob mentality but it can be observed in less extreme circumstances.  Even if this isn't the case at Bioware (say the various departments don't work closely enough together) being many doesn't mean you can't excercise bad judgement.

Not saying that will happen, but I acknowledge it could.

Foopydoopydoo wrote...
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!

Admittedly not the greatest examples.  However as for what boggles your mind let me put it to you this way.  You're home alone and you order up a pizza, pizza arrives, you pay for it, open the box and there's a slice missing.  You call up the pizza place and they tell you that in order to get a full pizza you have to buy so many party packs.  Now you don't have to buy the party packs, and really you probably wouldn't have eaten the entire pizza anyway, but wouldn't you be irritated that you have to jump through this stupid hoop just to get what you paid for?

Or if pizza's not your thing you go out and you buy a book, bring it home and as your reading you realize a chapter is missing.  You go to the bookstore and find out that in order to get that chapter the authour and publisher have made it so that you have to join and attend their book club.  Now there's nothing in that chapter that you need to understand what's going on in the rest of the book, the plot still makes sense without it, it's just a couple character/atmosphere building moments.

I've got nothing against people who play multiplayer getting more, you can give them whatever you want to reward and incentivise them to keep playing multiplayer.  I get irritated though, and many people get pissed right off, when I purchase a game with a single player and multiplayer mode and I'm forced to play multiplayer if I want to get a full single player experience.  Like I said you can give the multiplayer people whatever you want, in multiplayer, but the single player experience should, to my mind anyway, be contained within the single player mode.  All of it, every mission, every item, every area should be accessible solely through playing and/or replaying the single player mode.

I'm willing to put in the time to get stuff, I'm willing to spend hours upon hours grinding through playthrough after playthrough to get content and I'll enjoy it, I just don't want to be forced to do it with strangers.

[Asch Lavigne]

If ME3 is any indicator, MP takes a higher priority than SP. Given that ME3 SP still has many day 1 bugs/glitches that have not been fixed, many SP fans feel like there is an "MP is what sells the game, keeps the game going, etc... SP stuff as long as its not game breaking we're not fixing it" attitude. Also 98% of the patches for ME3 have been MP fixes.

Modifié par Asch Lavigne, 12 février 2013 - 11:13 .

[alhamel94]

DPSSOC wrote...


Admittedly not the greatest examples.  However as for what boggles your mind let me put it to you this way.  You're home alone and you order up a pizza, pizza arrives, you pay for it, open the box and there's a slice missing.  You call up the pizza place and they tell you that in order to get a full pizza you have to buy so many party packs.  Now you don't have to buy the party packs, and really you probably wouldn't have eaten the entire pizza anyway, but wouldn't you be irritated that you have to jump through this stupid hoop just to get what you paid for?

Or if pizza's not your thing you go out and you buy a book, bring it home and as your reading you realize a chapter is missing.  You go to the bookstore and find out that in order to get that chapter the authour and publisher have made it so that you have to join and attend their book club.  Now there's nothing in that chapter that you need to understand what's going on in the rest of the book, the plot still makes sense without it, it's just a couple character/atmosphere building moments.

I've got nothing against people who play multiplayer getting more, you can give them whatever you want to reward and incentivise them to keep playing multiplayer.  I get irritated though, and many people get pissed right off, when I purchase a game with a single player and multiplayer mode and I'm forced to play multiplayer if I want to get a full single player experience.  Like I said you can give the multiplayer people whatever you want, in multiplayer, but the single player experience should, to my mind anyway, be contained within the single player mode.  All of it, every mission, every item, every area should be accessible solely through playing and/or replaying the single player mode.

I'm willing to put in the time to get stuff, I'm willing to spend hours upon hours grinding through playthrough after playthrough to get content and I'll enjoy it, I just don't want to be forced to do it with strangers.

except no one is charging yo to play multiplayer. its not like you buy a singleplayer game and then to experience the full game yo have to buy a multiplayer component. your arguement is much more suited to dealing with day 1 dlc, and might i say that day 1 dlc is a much worse offense as well. from ashes is more integral to the story than a tiny sheperd breathes moment.  and you have to pay to get from ashes.

[Fredward]

DPSSOC wrote...

A group of individuals working with common purpose functions (psychologically anyway) almost exactly like an individual.  The worst side of this is mob mentality but it can be observed in less extreme circumstances.  Even if this isn't the case at Bioware (say the various departments don't work closely enough together) being many doesn't mean you can't excercise bad judgement.

Not saying that will happen, but I acknowledge it could.

Admittedly not the greatest examples.  However as for what boggles your mind let me put it to you this way.  You're home alone and you order up a pizza, pizza arrives, you pay for it, open the box and there's a slice missing.  You call up the pizza place and they tell you that in order to get a full pizza you have to buy so many party packs.  Now you don't have to buy the party packs, and really you probably wouldn't have eaten the entire pizza anyway, but wouldn't you be irritated that you have to jump through this stupid hoop just to get what you paid for?

Or if pizza's not your thing you go out and you buy a book, bring it home and as your reading you realize a chapter is missing.  You go to the bookstore and find out that in order to get that chapter the authour and publisher have made it so that you have to join and attend their book club.  Now there's nothing in that chapter that you need to understand what's going on in the rest of the book, the plot still makes sense without it, it's just a couple character/atmosphere building moments.

I've got nothing against people who play multiplayer getting more, you can give them whatever you want to reward and incentivise them to keep playing multiplayer.  I get irritated though, and many people get pissed right off, when I purchase a game with a single player and multiplayer mode and I'm forced to play multiplayer if I want to get a full single player experience.  Like I said you can give the multiplayer people whatever you want, in multiplayer, but the single player experience should, to my mind anyway, be contained within the single player mode.  All of it, every mission, every item, every area should be accessible solely through playing and/or replaying the single player mode.

I'm willing to put in the time to get stuff, I'm willing to spend hours upon hours grinding through playthrough after playthrough to get content and I'll enjoy it, I just don't want to be forced to do it with strangers.

Firstly I'm glad that you didn't try pitching Le Bon's mind of the crowd because I would have laughed. To me their are a coupla things that stop Bioware (or any company actually) from acting like a group mind. Firstly in cases where you see cases of an obvious mob mentality the people are gathered for something that they all love (like soccer) or hate (protest/striking)  there is already strong emotion overlaying the whole thing but what's more is that that is the ONLY thing that binds these people together for that length of time. If we go with the idea that de-individuation is the main thing that contributes to mob mentality I would argue that not knowing the people is a necessity (to mob mentality). If we go with Festinger's idea of social comparison we need other people to know who we are, in a mob this is almost impossible, those people are just faceless jostling masses in the sway of some primal emotion. You can't talk with them, deliberate with them, reason with them. These are all things that the devs at Bioware can do since I get the idea it's a pretty close-knit place. Other than that there is also the fact that mobs are ruiled by emotion and passion whereas companies are ruled by their drive to make money which lends itself to logic and reasoning. The fact that there really aren't enough people at any one Bioware studio for a mob mentality to develop etc, etc, etc.

SO. Unless there is some individual making an incredibly poor executive decision I really don't see an ME3 repeat.

The pizza analogy would be more akin to not an obvious slice of pizza being missing, more like the pizza magically growing if you decide to say, tip the delivery guy. Or be nice to him. Or do an interpretive dance.

As for books they already DO this. True they don't cut out a chapter and put "HAR HAR pay me to read this biznatches!" but they do write uh... What do you call those books that come BEFORE the main story? I totally had a brainfart. I blame not having coffee. Anyway they do that or they write side stories. Wheel of Time was one of my favorite series since ever (pre-Sanderson) and it had those-books-that-came-before-the-main-story and I never felt compelled to read them. They would have enriched and enhanced my understanding of the story and some of the characters but ultimately they were unecessary. If I ever DO feel the need for them, the burning desire to read some of Jordan's work again, I'd be happy to pay for it. aSoIaF has the Dunk and Egg stories which apparently adds quite a bit, especially with the Targaryens, but again ultimately superfluous. Infinte Jest has over 300 annotations and before the good new days of e-book readers you'd have to page to the back of the book EVERY SINGLE TIME to get a fuller understanding of the story. You'd be expending your own time and effort for a better understanding, a fuller picture. The book would be understandable if you were too lazy, barely, but you could do it.

So uhm... yeah. As long as Bioware knows where to do the multiplayer/dlc cuts and don't take away anything too vital they should stay calm and keep making scratch.

[Kidd]

Foopydoopydoo wrote...

What do you call those books that come BEFORE the main story? I totally had a brainfart. I blame not having coffee.

Thanks for the laugh ^^ I love hearing I'm not alone in needing coffee to function!

The word I believe you're looking for is "prequel."

[Nerevar-as]

From the System Shock 2 re-release interview:

"Like I mentioned before I think SS2 laid the foundation for future games
that blend genres. What I really loved with SS2 that Deus Ex and
Dishonored exercised was the decision not to include a full multiplayer
component. Personally, if I play a game I want it to be one or the
other. The expectation of including a multiplayer component to a single
player centric game is completely unrealistic and sometimes I feel it’s
just an excuse to add another feature on the back of the box. It may
seem obvious, but you’re essentially asking your studio to develop two
games simultaneously which often comes with sacrificing the quality of
both the single player and the multiplayer. Overall you end up with a
mediocre experience. All three of these games remedy the lack of
multiplayer with an experience you can enjoy multiple times, each time
in a completely new way. SS2 has three distinct classes with
dramatically different play styles that are challenging and fun to
master all their own."

[DPSSOC]

alhamel94 wrote...
except no one is charging yo to play multiplayer. its not like you buy a singleplayer game and then to experience the full game yo have to buy a multiplayer component.

I play on X Box so yeah I do have to pay for multiplayer to get a full game. My point was it's a pointless and completely unrelated hoop I have to jump through if I want to get the entire game I paid for.

alhamel94 wrote...
your arguement is much more suited to dealing with day 1 dlc, and might i say that day 1 dlc is a much worse offense as well. from ashes is more integral to the story than a tiny sheperd breathes moment. and you have to pay to get from ashes.

I actually find it worse because with Day 1 DLC some of the data is already on the disc, where as all of the stuff you needed to play multiplayer to get (achievement, Shepard Breathes, think that might be it I really did feel this instance was blown out of proportion if not the practice) was already on the disc. Don't get me wrong I'm no fan of Day 1 DLC but at least you're getting something, there's some component of Ashes you don't have when you buy the disc.

Foopydoopydoo wrote...
SO. Unless there is some individual making an incredibly poor executive decision I really don't see an ME3 repeat.

It happens.  Someone made the poor executive decision to green light, continue working on, and release Duke Nukem Forever and they had over a decade to catch those.

Foopydoopydoo wrote...
The pizza analogy would be more akin to not an obvious slice of pizza being missing, more like the pizza magically growing if you decide to say, tip the delivery guy. Or be nice to him. Or do an interpretive dance.

Except as I pointed out to alhamel it's not me getting more, it's them locking me out of content I already have until I jump through their damn hoop.

Foopydoopydoo wrote...
As for books they already DO this. True they don't cut out a chapter and put "HAR HAR pay me to read this biznatches!" but they do write uh... What do you call those books that come BEFORE the main story? I totally had a brainfart. I blame not having coffee. Anyway they do that or they write side stories. Wheel of Time was one of my favorite series since ever (pre-Sanderson) and it had those-books-that-came-before-the-main-story and I never felt compelled to read them. They would have enriched and enhanced my understanding of the story and some of the characters but ultimately they were unecessary. If I ever DO feel the need for them, the burning desire to read some of Jordan's work again, I'd be happy to pay for it. aSoIaF has the Dunk and Egg stories which apparently adds quite a bit, especially with the Targaryens, but again ultimately superfluous. Infinte Jest has over 300 annotations and before the good new days of e-book readers you'd have to page to the back of the book EVERY SINGLE TIME to get a fuller understanding of the story. You'd be expending your own time and effort for a better understanding, a fuller picture. The book would be understandable if you were too lazy, barely, but you could do it.

Again you miss the point.  I'm not against spending more time/money to get a better single player experience (that's why I'm willing to shill out for DLC and why I played through ME multiple times to get everyone in Collossus armor) but the experience I buy, the one I pay $60+ for, should be complete.  You said it yourself authours don't cut entire sections out of their work and make you jump through arbitrary hoops just so you can have the entire book you paid for.  It'd be no different, and more honest, if every time you finished a major story point it cuts to someone from the the team going, "Would you like to continue with the game?  Then dance for me monkey boy."

Modifié par DPSSOC, 13 février 2013 - 04:17 .

[Beerfish]

Lord Gremlin wrote...

Simple.
1) No interest.
2) Dragon Age gameplay is not really real-time, so it just doesn't transition well into multiplayer. Multiplayer requires either full real-time, or turn-based. So they will botch gameplay.

2)  You could have made the same arguement for ME3 multiplayer and it still works for a lot of people.