258 réponses à ce sujet

[mopotter]

Malana74 wrote...

Personally I'm grateful that Bioware is concentrating on Single player games. I only ever play MMORPGs for story content anyhow....one gets SO tired of dealing with p.u.g.s and twiddling your thumbs while waiting for raids to begine on the OFF chance you MIGHT get one piece of nice equipment out of the deal...and don't even get me STARTED on the whole "grinding for l33t g3@r" crap.

I don't play MMORPGs for any reason.  and there are only so many sigle player games that I consider good.  All of Biowares.     I love the community here, but I just have no interest in playing with a group.  I did play Guild wars for awhile because I could do it alone until I needed a door opened.  Pretty much stopped playing.

Maybe I'm anti social. 

[RedRoo]

I won't lie, I loved the PWs of NWN-- I played that game for years, even after the release of NWN2, because of them. It'd be great to see a rehash of that kind of system, but I'm not holding my breath for one.

[AzmodantheRed]

It is neither simplistic nor flawed, it's accurate. Maybe you're right that it isn't always the case, but it just so happens to be the case as far as this discussion goes. And I'm not just saying that because I think SP > MP.

what i said applies in this case too. 
MP gives revenue from a market SP only does not tap into and as such MP content would pay for itself in part. 

 Not alot and far from profitable but still.

That is both an absurd argument and not entirely true. Hypothetical scenarios are entertaining and all, but pointless when they have little to no basis in reality. And if they do get money like you say, and spend it adding multiplayer support, it will still cost them time -- either they must take this time from other game features or push back the release date. Both options affect me directly.

Or they add more people to work on things. Hypothetical scenario stands.

Not only is it true, its also on point.
For i am not arguing it is likely. But that it is possible.

i am arguing against GEMS of posts from you such as  ""Yes, but that's not possible. Not even in THEORY.""

This analogy was also just use so you would understand the mechanism. Thats why its exaggerated,

Try and understand this: it is not the same game. Multiplayer is not something you just develop and plugin like a hak pack. If the only difference between two engines is that one is aimed at singleplayer and the other multiplayer, then any given singleplayer story will invariably run better on the former. Even if you do not see it as a player, all the behind-the-scenes stuff will be smoother (meaning e.g. faster load times or smaller save files). I would rather transition a second faster than have a feature I will never use.

MP fully paying for itself is ofcourse a hypothetical and unlikely scenario.
I am perfectly aware it comes at a price.

theres a mixture of coming at expense and extra content.

You're missing the point. It's not about the actual number. The number could be one single hour and it would still be too much.

With more info we can get a better insight if it is feasible. If when theres enough market.
and thus if MP would make sense business wise.
With numbers we can put this in perspective. It matters because it has a large influence of the player community.

If MP comes at cost of alot of SP, most would oppose it.
If MP comes at cost of 1 hour SP (1 sidequest), this changes. 
And customer opinion will in turn affect future DAO development . 

Maybe this is why you dont want any numbers. Your afraid of turning into a lone voice in the desert (""No MP it costs me a second of loadtime!!!"") and the call for MP growing so large it will affect DAO development.

But by your logic -- and that of pretty much everyone arguing for multiplayer -- the same argument can be applied to future titles as well, meaning we will never get dedicated singleplayer games.

It wont be completely dedicated but still a high standard sp experience. With more resources for developing said game. And a large calling for a lot of SP dedication from the fans.

You rather risk DAO being a sales failure so you can have your little ""100% sp experience??""
Im wondering how far you would go.

[AzmodantheRed]

SumoFrog wrote...

As someone who has been playing on NWN roleplay servers for the past 6 years, I would have loved to see a DAO toolset and multiplayer capability. For me, once the single player game has been beaten a time or five, there's very little reason to return to the game. In multiplayer, however, the story can continue almost indefinitely.
Which I suppose would be a reason for them not to include it, actually. I mean, they want people to buy their new games, not keep playing old ones!

Did you buy the NWN expansions?


I did..and not to play their single campaigns

[AzmodantheRed]

A lot of it is personal preference, yes, and the ability to invest resources into making one kind of experience better as opposed to another. But that's not the whole of the story. As I said, different and often incompatible design choices have to be made in architecting a system to excel at doing one kind of thing vs. another.




Your comment about cutscenes really illustrates the point. You say you don't need cutscenes in MP -- fair enough. But SP modders such as myself, who specialize in creating a dramatic or cinematic experience, absolutely do need them.And to make a really good dramatic module, we need them to be robust and powerful, and for the engine to be architected around making them so. And DA has the mot powerful game-based cutscene generation features I've ever seen. The price of doing that really well is that it can't be designed to do other things at the same time -- because it would cost too much, bloat the engine with too many cross-purposed features to make it perform well, and so on.

 

So? you want cutscenes in SP mods, but say it gives problems in MP. I dont care for cutscenes in MP. Both happy. 

 
What you're asking, in effect -- and to use an analogy -- is why the designers of the Ferrari didn't add a rear propellor and pontoons to it as well. After all, wouldn't it be better if you could sail it as well as drive it? In a sense, I guess, but it wouldn't be nearly as good a sports car if it were built that way. Building really good dramatic SP mods for NWN1 was often complicated for just those kinds of reasons, which is why I personally am excited by how Dragon Age was designed.

And now with SP cutscenes, its so hard to get a MP client?

are persistant worlds with limited players or DM hosted already done 7 years ago the epitome of muliplayer possibilities???


So far you argued the cutscene problem i have no issue with. what are the other hang ups which make a MP client cause SP to not be NEARLY as good, as you so boldly state.

[Tenjac]

SumoFrog wrote...

As someone who has been playing on NWN roleplay servers for the past 6 years, I would have loved to see a DAO toolset and multiplayer capability. For me, once the single player game has been beaten a time or five, there's very little reason to return to the game. In multiplayer, however, the story can continue almost indefinitely.
Which I suppose would be a reason for them not to include it, actually. I mean, they want people to buy their new games, not keep playing old ones!

Custom.  Content.

[Snoteye]

AzmodantheRed wrote...

MP gives revenue from a market SP only does not tap into and as such MP content would pay for itself in part.

There are three types of consumers. Those who will not buy games without multiplayer; those who will not buy games with multiplayer; and those with a preference who are going to buy the game either way. MP-only gives you customers (probably more, I concede) SP-only doesn't give you. SP-only gives you customers MP-only doesn't give you. You can't say one is inherently better than the other.

AzmodantheRed wrote...

Or they add more people to work on things. Hypothetical scenario stands.

Those people don't grow on trees.

AzmodantheRed wrote...

i am arguing against GEMS of posts from you such as  "Yes, but that's not possible. Not even in THEORY."

Because it isn't. The Ferrari analogy explains it better than I could ever hope to. Keep in mind that I'm not only thinking about money here.

AzmodantheRed wrote...

Maybe this is why you dont want any numbers. Your afraid of turning into a lone voice in the desert ("No MP it costs me a second of loadtime!!!") and the call for MP growing so large it will affect DAO development.

I can assure you that's not going to happen.

AzmodantheRed wrote...

It wont be completely dedicated but still a high standard sp experience. With more resources for developing said game. And a large calling for a lot of SP dedication from the fans.

That's not good enough! I'm not paying for second best. If good enough can be done better, good enough isn't good enough.

AzmodantheRed wrote...

You rather risk DAO being a sales failure so you can have your little "100% sp experience??"
Im wondering how far you would go.

That's is just silly. You're well aware that if the game tanks it won't be because it doesn't have multiplayer. I'm betting you're getting it, too.

[Edit]

AzmodantheRed wrote...

So? you want cutscenes in SP mods, but say it gives problems in MP. I dont care for cutscenes in MP. Both happy.
[...]
So far you argued the cutscene problem i have no issue with. what are the other hang ups which make a MP client cause SP to not be NEARLY as good, as you so boldly state.

Okay, maybe you're reading, but you're definitely lacking the will to try and understand. The fact that you need to insist we try and explain it further tells me you're not even remotely interested in changing that, either.

/I'm going to out this thread before I accidentally get nasty.

Modifié par Snoteye, 19 octobre 2009 - 11:57 .

[tigrina]

AzmodantheRed wrote...
Did you buy the NWN expansions?

I did..and not to play their single campaigns

Well that is the whole difference isn't it?

I did play NWN and never touched the MP part of it, apart from a Co-op try.. The OC was just.. lacking in many aspects. The expansions where better single player campaigns in my opinion. Co-op was lacking quality in OC. A single player experience just doesn't translate very well to multi-player. If you don't sit next to each other, you just miss out on a lot of story because it is only told once. I don't see NWN as a shining example of a good combination of MP and SP at all.

I do not want the 'best of both worlds' because that usually means you end up with mediocre from both worlds. And I even do like multi-player.

Just give me DA:O as a shining example of a good SP RPG.

[Tenjac]

Ok, here's the hard facts. Please for the love of all things holy understand what is being said... adding multiplayer to Dragon Age would require a COMPLETE REWRITE OF THE ENGINE. The game engine. The thing that takes a company like Bioware a LONG TIME to do. Now, if all of those in here who cannot accept that there will almost assuredly be no multiplayer until Dragon Age 2 want to band together and start a project to rewrite the engine, be my guest. If you could accomplish it, I'm sure even single player fans would love to do a little co-op here and there. I know I would. It would however take a monumental effort and frankly it's probably outright impossible without breaking the law by reverse engineering the product and opening yourself up to a lawsuit from EA. I'm not really sure. What I do know for certain is that I, Andarian and several other custom content developers that went in July to Bioware asked about it and heard from Bioware devs themselves that it would require an engine rewrite. That is beyond the scope of an expansion. I would focus my efforts on suggesting a sort of BGish co-op for Dragon Age 2, as that is something I think would have a much higher chance of happening.

Modifié par Tenjac, 20 octobre 2009 - 12:00 .

[Tenjac]

I would have to agree tigrina, though Baldur's Gate did manage to have an engrossing single player that allowed co-op.

[Greyward]

Riddle me this! What is the best single player fantasy roleplaying game of all time? Well, thats debatable. But many here would likely say Baldur's Gate 2.

Congratulations folks, BG2 had multiplayer. Tacked on? Yes. Secondary? Yes. But tell me what game at that time period beat BG2 in singleplayer? NAME. ONE. Until then, do NOT tell me you need to sacrifice the singleplayer experience for multi. And of course, building the capability into the engine later allowed other teams to create the much more MP friendly Icewind Dale series.

The NWN OC was weak. True. The same cannot really be said about Hordes of the Underdark. Also, if you've been watching the videos, DA:O was prototyped in the NWN engine. I am VERY glad the focus of DA:O has been singleplayer. But that doesn't mean it couldn't have the capacity for multiplayer later.

Modifié par Greyward, 20 octobre 2009 - 12:17 .

[AzmodantheRed]

[quote]
There are three types of consumers. Those who will not buy games without multiplayer; those who will not buy games with multiplayer; and those with a preference who are going to buy the game either way. MP-only gives you customers (probably more, I concede) SP-only doesn't give you. SP-only gives you customers MP-only doesn't give you. You can't say one is inherently better than the other.[/quote]

I am not. Just stating that IF theres a large MP market this generates money which can in turn be spent on development. Part of that would be Extra development due to extra funds.

Not all such development comes at expense Single Player. I already explained this in full with some easy analogies.


[quote]Those people don't grow on trees.[/quote]

depends on the money. Fact remains that even 1 extra programmer would create extra content by his hands.
aka not all development comes at expense SP.  

[quote]
Because it isn't. The Ferrari analogy explains it better than I could ever hope to. Keep in mind that I'm not only thinking about money here.[/quote]

With enough money you can make 2 games in one. Or better said. sell 2 different games as 1.

[quote]
I can assure you that's not going to happen.[/quote]

Not for this DAO. Its to late now.
But i will have serious problem accepting similar from DAO2. Then were years in the future. And trying to paint adding a simple MP client as ""so very difficult"" will seem less and less convincing. 

I dont think the MP call will diminish seeing most trends. 
 
[quote]
That's not good enough! I'm not paying for second best. If good enough can be done better, good enough isn't good enough.[/quote]

second best? MP adds so much to a game.

How many ""No MP i want an extra hour of SP, cause im some fanatical SP purist"" are there compared to those asking for MP?


[/quote]
That's is just silly. You're well aware that if the game tanks it won't be because it doesn't have multiplayer. I'm betting you're getting it, too.[/quote]

im sure ignoring a whole generation raised with MP, is a smart business move.
how long are people gonna accept SP only?

I will very likely not get the next installment if they do no make changes.
 
Can you say the same?? Say next installment has MP and reviewers are still impressed with SP.
Are you gonna go ""its great...but it could have been even greater if not for MP, so im not buying it"" ??

[Knights Templar]

To tell the truth i didn't hardly read any posts from this topic.But i would much rather have a great SP then MP.NWN had a very crapy SP but MP was good from what i hear.I played the MP in NWN a little and from what i saw every one wanted you to pay for the server you were on.When realy i just wanted to play on my own.I mean do any of the realy good rpgs have MP.If i wanted to play a MP i would go with some kind of MMO where all my stuff will always be saved.I can trade with all diffrent kinds of people and group with.To tell the truth if you want some kind of MP do what they did on GTA and mod it in.I here they have a great set of tools for you to use on the PC.

Modifié par ColtPeaceMaker, 20 octobre 2009 - 12:21 .

[AzmodantheRed]

Well that is the whole difference isn't it?

I did play NWN and never touched the MP part of it, apart from a Co-op try.. The OC was just.. lacking in many aspects. The expansions where better single player campaigns in my opinion. Co-op was lacking quality in OC. A single player experience just doesn't translate very well to multi-player. If you don't sit next to each other, you just miss out on a lot of story because it is only told once. I don't see NWN as a shining example of a good combination of MP and SP at all.

I do not want the 'best of both worlds' because that usually means you end up with mediocre from both worlds. And I even do like multi-player.

Just give me DA:O as a shining example of a good SP RPG.

yeahhhh, your opinion lacks weight seeing you only tried Co-op and did not touch MP apart from that.

Seeing as Co-op severly screws with Single player experience/immersion its no suprise you think it mediocre.
You should have tried DM led mods or Persistant worlds.


NWN gave the MP groundwork. Expansions had far better single player campaigns...so this shows MP functionality does not negate the possibility of good Single Player.

And seeing how NWN gave the basis. More time can be spent on Single player campaign. They do not have to reinvent the wheel and im sure technique improved as well in 7 years.

[Vita Nuova]

I tried a DM-led mod. Then I went to my friends house, grabbed a sheet of paper and a handful of dice, and had a much more satisfying result. Just because you enjoyed them doesn't mean we have to. I'm also unwilling to buy a game in hopes that the expansions will give me a better story. I already did that once...



Also, while the initial prototypes might have been in the NWN engine, none of the rest of it is. Perhaps there is some re-used code, but the majority of the engine is new.

[Shattered Shield]

NWN was also based off of the D&D universe. That is why they could do the multiplayer that some of you are wishing DAO has. Dragon Age is a totally brand new world with everything rewritten so it make sense Bioware made a single player game to focus on introducing players to the new material. With creating a brand new world like they did Bioware probably had to decide if they would lose some of the magic of telling a new story in having multiplayer. Since they decided against multiplayer we just have to accept what they give us. personally no multiplayer wasnt that big of a deal for me

[tigrina]

AzmodantheRed wrote...

yeahhhh, your opinion lacks weight seeing you only tried Co-op and did not touch MP apart from that.

Ah. Right. Of course.

Did you actually read that I didn't say anything about the persistant world/DM part of NWN? That is because a. it is not part of my playing styles and b. I didn't actually play it that way for that reason. That doesn't mean that I am stating it is a bad thing to have in a game. It isn't.

Fact stays that you have to split up your resources for different parts of just one game. And there was a lack of SP experience in NWN. I still think that is not a smart thing to do, whatever you think about my opinion 'lacking weight'. I wouldn't mind some next incarnation of Dragon Age being multi-player in whatever form. I only want BW to do it properly.

BioWare shouldn't go mediocre on me for wanting pie and cake at the same time *and* eat both simultaneously. I love them both, but at different times and places.

[Knights Templar]

What about my post =(

[AndarianTD]

AzmodantheRed wrote...

To bad im not a programmer buff. I am skeptic about how hard it is to do a NWN type toolset and MP client though. Its been how many years and they can copy much from it.

Well, for the record I am a computer programmer and systems engineer. And not to put too fine a point on it, but if you think it's so easy, then perhaps you'd like to show us your proposed software architecture document. Otherwise, you might want to reconsider aggressively expressing an opinion on a matter that you admit that you have no knowledge of or experience with.

Why should Bioware want to copy from an eight year old game architecture? An enormous amount changes in computer technology in eight years. Certainly NWN was a great game in many ways, and especially for its time. But any company that wants to be in business next year has to grow and change their products to keep up with current technology and maturing customer (player) expectations.

And one of those realities is that players don't generally come to the same game for both MP and SP experiences. It's really hard to make a game that does both well, and I don't see any particularly good reason to, either. NWN came about as close as any game could, and as much as I love it it's shot through with design issues that complicate and compromise the SP playing and building experience. Bioware obviously decided to focus on providing a better SP experience with their next game, and the price was MP support.

You have to do different things if you want to design a good boat, or a good sports car. The same thing applies to software architecture. If you try to design a Ferrari that floats, you're not going to end up with a particularly good sports car. That ought to be just common sense, even if you're not a software engineer.

Modifié par AndarianTD, 20 octobre 2009 - 04:32 .

[AzmodantheRed]

Ah. Right. Of course.

Did you actually read that I didn't say anything about the persistant world/DM part of NWN?

Your talking about MP. concluding you dont want to end up with a mediocre mix etc.

MP consists of more then co-op. So yeah your indirectly talking about those.

BioWare shouldn't go mediocre on me for wanting pie and cake at the same time *and* eat both simultaneously. I love them both, but at different times and places.

NWN expansions had a far better story.
This shows good SP alongside MP is not an impossibility.

[Shattered Shield]

this entire topic is a collection of opinions.....some like multiplayer some dont.

[AzmodantheRed]

Well, for the record I am a computer programmer and systems engineer. And not to put too fine a point on it, but if you think it's so easy, then perhaps you'd like to show us your proposed software architecture document. Otherwise, you might want to reconsider aggressively expressing an opinion on a matter that you admit that you have no knowledge of or experience with.

I will adjust my opinion if there are worthwhile arguments to alter it.

Why should Bioware want to copy from an eight year old game architecture? An enormous amount changes in computer technology in eight years. Certainly NWN was a great game in many ways, and especially for its time. But any company that wants to be in business next year has to grow and change their products to keep up with current technology and maturing customer (player) expectations.

What im saying is that they do not need to reinvent the wheel.

And yeah current technology has progressed. This just makes my case stronger.

And one of those realities is that players don't generally come to the same game for both MP and SP experiences. 

start counting the number in this forum alone....

It's really hard to make a game that does both well, and I don't see any particularly good reason to, either. NWN came about as close as any game could, and as much as I love it it's shot through with design issues that complicate and compromise the SP playing and building experience.

""NWN came as close as any game could""..utter bull****. SP campaign was very bad. And not purely due to conflicting MP/SP.  

Also with such an attitude you never improve.
Its been many years..but lets never attempt it cause NWN did it as best as we ever could. Forget about technology improving or possibly more time and money for development.  Forget that we do not have to reinvent the wheel.  

Bioware obviously decided to focus on providing a better SP experience with their next game, and the price was MP support
You have to do different things if you want to design a good boat, or a good sports car. The same thing applies to software architecture. If you try to design a Ferrari that floats, you're not going to end up with a particularly good sports car. That ought to be just common sense, even if you're not a software engineer.

yeah i know it will come in part at the expense of other things. Never said it didnt.
My issue here is how much.


first its ""Not NEARLY as good"" which is what i was skeptic about.
And still am seeing you just keep repeating your same routine. 

1. Telling your a ""programmer"" and ""engineer""! 
2. Telling there are ""design issues"" and ""constraints""...can you be more vague in an argumentation? 
3. Bringing up the ferrari analogy.I'm skeptic about how much would MP hinder SP, not IF it hinders it...so its a bit useless.  
4. ""cut scenes"" as your example for 2. Which is a non-issue for me.


When I ask for more examples or more info, you just repeat the routine. Great job.

Your posts are riddled with huge bold statements such as ""NWN came as close as any game could"" and ""It will not NEARLY be as good""

What are your arguments?? Do you even really have any?? 
Basically your saying your a ""programmer"" and you feel there are ""design issues"" and I should just take your word for it seeing how i am not a ""programmer""??? 
 

it should be common sense that you understand why this is a **** way to argument your case.
And why you are not taking away my skepticism.

[AndarianTD]

AzmodantheRed wrote...

NWN expansions had a far better story. This shows good SP alongside MP is not an impossibility.

Sigh. WIth all due respect, Azmodan, I don't think you really understand what you're talking about here.

Dramatic and strongly story-oriented SP is not just about having a decent story. It's about having a software infrastructure that's built around providing the features that make it easier to tell a story in a certain kind of way. There are things that you can do, for example in terms of providing the kind of tighter dramatic control over actions and events that make for a better SP game experience, if your engine isn't simultaneously designed around the need to provide distributed control by coordinating multiple participants over a network. When you tightly design the features into the engine that you need to support one kind of play and not the other, you end up with a better game for that kind of play.

Have you ever heard the term "bloatware?" Again and with all due respect, that's what happens when software engineers start thinking the way you have on this thread. Someone wants three new features that are inconsistent with design? No problem, graft them on or shoehorn them in. Triple the size of the code base, and reduce performance by 40%? Sure, no problem. That's what you get if your goal is to try to be everything to everyone and efficiency is no object. I have to fight against that mindset regularly at work, which is probably one of the reasons why I'm motivated to comment on it here.

Have you looked at the recommended system specs for DA? They're actually a step down from NWN2, despite the game being released three years later and with new technology, a more powerful toolset and a lot of new features. That's what happens when designers and programmers exercise some discipline in building a system that keeps to a specific vision of what they want it to accomplish -- instead of bloating it by trying to be all things to all people, as you seem to be encouraging. From what I saw at the Builder's Event, the engine is fast and lean compared to NWN2 (the game starts in a fraction of the time, for example). And what that should mean for builders is that they will have a lot more computer resources available to create complex scenarios before running up against player system limitations.
 
That's just one example of the kind of tradeoff that good software engineers have to make all the time in developing a system. I get that you and some others are disappointed that DA isn't designed to support the kind of MP play that you prefer -- and I sympathize, even if I don't share those feelings. I hope that someone develops a more modern version of NWN for folks like you that's streamlined for MP play (which I've heard rumors that Atari may be trying to do). But people need to be realistic about the realities of product design, software included. And in my opinion, we need to get past the tendency to respond to every criticism by saying "OK, I'll add that feature in to make you happy." We need to learn how to say instead, "No, if you want to do that, then you need a system that's designed to do that, and ours isn't." The end result will be better products and happier customers all around.

My 2 cents, and with that I think I've said all that I need to on this thread.

Modifié par AndarianTD, 20 octobre 2009 - 02:38 .

[SheffSteel]

Greyward wrote...

Riddle me this! What is the best single player fantasy roleplaying game of all time? Well, thats debatable. But many here would likely say Baldur's Gate 2.

Congratulations folks, BG2 had multiplayer. Tacked on? Yes. Secondary? Yes. But tell me what game at that time period beat BG2 in singleplayer? NAME. ONE. Until then, do NOT tell me you need to sacrifice the singleplayer experience for multi. And of course, building the capability into the engine later allowed other teams to create the much more MP friendly Icewind Dale series.

The NWN OC was weak. True. The same cannot really be said about Hordes of the Underdark. Also, if you've been watching the videos, DA:O was prototyped in the NWN engine. I am VERY glad the focus of DA:O has been singleplayer. But that doesn't mean it couldn't have the capacity for multiplayer later.

Agreed. BG and BG2 had co-op multiplayer support that didn't detract from the single-player campaign. You didn't get all the scripted inter-character banter from Imoen, Jaheira etc, but you did get spontaneous banter with friends who were playing with you. That's all I was hoping to see here.

I agree that it's unlikely to happen as a patch for DA:O, but it's still a possibility for the next game.


From the negative commetns above, it seems that NWN set back the cause of multi-player role-playing games somewhat