15 réponses à ce sujet

[HolyAvenger]

I am:lol:

I really enjoyed ME3 MP, sank many hundreds of hours into it, and I hope that DAI can take on board the lessons from that and extend it and make it more enjoyable.

I really feel the hate for MP in this board, and hope I'm not alone in wanting and looking forward to a strong MP component to DAI.


 

[Allan Schumacher]

How will you handle the party-driven experience of the DA games? Will it require other human players to don support roles? If so, I can see problems with that. Who would want to build a character that relies on other characters (outside of their control) being built right? In an MMO, it is easier, since you can Look For Group or even be part of a guild. With a MP component, it is far trickier to just hop in a match if you can't count on the right support skills.

Also, a large portion of the draw of MP is the action. Sniping enemies, throw grenades, using biotics... how will that work in a game like DA, whose auto-attack requires a lot of just standing and swinging? It is not like you control an archer and aim their bow... you just target the enemy and hit A. Same for every other class. Unless you are using a skill or kiting, there is not much else going on for control over one character at a time.

If MP just had to be in there, how would you go about doing it?

[Allan Schumacher]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

If MP just had to be in there, how would you go about doing it?

Thats really the thing... I can't picture a scenario of it working. I can't picture a party-based RPG like DA working with MP without it becoming a totally different game. The responses to your question so far seem to want to make it like Diablo, or ME3, or WoW, of Torchlight... the real problem is that all of these games are not party based. Sure, you can have companions and even give orders to them... but the perspective and control never leaves that of the main character. You never control your party, like you do in the DA games. So unless you make the DA3 SP entirely different from DA:O and DA2, then you will need to make a MP that feels drastically different from the SP campaign. Which could be jarring for players and could be resource intensive for the developers.

Sorry, my question was far more open ended than I intended.

You say you can't picture it working, but that's right now.  My question was more specifically looking at your concerns:

How will you handle the party-driven experience of the DA games? Will it require other human players to don support roles? If so, I can see  problems with that. Who would want to build a character that relies on other characters (outside of their control) being built right? In an  MMO, it is easier, since you can Look For Group or even be part of a  guild. With a MP component, it is far trickier to just hop in a match if you can't count on the right support skills.

Also, a large portion of the draw of MP is the action. Sniping enemies,
throw grenades, using biotics... how will that work in a game like DA,
whose auto-attack requires a lot of just standing and swinging? It is
not like you control an archer and aim their bow... you just target the
enemy and hit A. Same for every other class. Unless you are using a
skill or kiting, there is not much else going on for control over one
character at a time.

You've been tasked to solve these questions!  How would you try to address them?  Breaking the problem down is usually a big help, and you've already started to do that by asking various questions.  What are your answers to them?  List some pros and cons for each of your answers, and I will do the same!

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 13 avril 2013 - 05:19 .

[Allan Schumacher]

Rodia Driftwood wrote...

I get the feeling you guys aren't all that enthused about being forced to add MP into the mix just because your overlords demand it. 

I get the feeling you're reading far too much into my question.

[Allan Schumacher]

I remember one RTS (either C&C:Generals or an Age of Empires game) that allowed either (any) player to pause the game at any time. We never really used it, but I think in a Dragon Age game it would be necessary. Dragon Age is built on strategic use of abilities--something that requires pausing, or very slow gameplay.

Yes? No?

Could be. Is it an issue if each player is controlling only one character? Pause could still be a solution as well.

I don't know if the pace necessarily needs to be that different, however. But since we're looking at the Pause system, I'll break it down the way I see it.

This is a pretty binary decision IMO. It'd either exist or not (you can have some timers or other things, but lets keep it simple).

With pause
Pros: Enables finer strategic/tactical flexibility by allowing the group to suspend play and adjust their tactics on the fly at a less frantic pace

Cons: Could be tech issues with replicating the pause. I see a big risk of potential griefing (assuming you're not playing with only friends) through excessive use - this would lead me to think that the system would need to be implemented in a way to try to minimize that.


Without pause is pretty much the mirror for pros and cons (I stayed away from any sort of "gamers may not like it" for the con, since one can rationalize that for any feature). The big issue I would need to see with pausing is whether or not it's as big of a requirement if you're only controlling one player. Does it significantly undermine the strategic aspects? Can the player continue to drive the action and maintain control without it when only worrying about a single actor?


It's something that is very difficult to really know without some level of prototyping and play testing, I would find. But all we have is a forum so we make do with what we got!

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 13 avril 2013 - 06:04 .

[Allan Schumacher]

If MP is definitely not co-op, then it will definitely not be party based. Losing the ability to pause-and-play, coupled with the resource/server limitations of having dozens of player-controlled characters on screen if everyone gets a party of four is nearly insurmountable to properly address. So, it would need to be individually controlled players.

I think individually controlled players does make the system a lot more easier to manage.

So, in light of that, you will need to keep support roles, otherwise you slant the overall mechanics to constant, twitch combat. This means that you would, instead, need to focus on MP gameplay not directly tied to combat. There must be objectives to be accomplished that are more complicate than "survive X number of waves." Warrior classes should be wading out in the middle of the action, while support roles are in protected areas, guiding the flow of the encounter, while rogue classes are either performing long range attacks through archers or infiltrating areas stealthily to reach said objectives, or possibly laying traps, so that enemy characters entering areas where objectives are would be blocked/harmed. Essentially, just like non-combat skills and class-specifc skills are strongly valued in an RPG SP experience, they would have a similar ability to enrich the MP.

I like what I am seeing here. We could go in a lot of different directions I think. A situation where Fast Jimmy the rogue could have stealth and some other sort of roguish abilities, while Allan the warrior tank groups the enemies under an environmental hazard. Jimmy slips past, uses an ability and the enemies are killed. If SP systems exist to leverage environments in this way, it could be done.

Just in case, lets assume there is no environmental type of stuff we can use directly (or if there is, it's very complicated to set up and can't really be used much anyway). Level design can still help facilitate this by how it creates levels. Various types of choke points, high ground and the like can be exploited by the group to help manage the fight. I think a lot of this aspect depends on what level design can do. If we restrict ourselves to primarily only using abilities that exist in the single player, it may give them a framework to work within for designing interesting encounters without requiring too much work from a combat designer/programmer to create new abilities.

There should be a good player matching system for sessions, where players who choose to make builds that are not classic DPS max/min-ers are the only ones joining up and the only ones other players needs. A healer/buff Mage that could know how to protect themselves and control the flow of the battle would be an invaluable, while a rogue that can actually steal the Golden Snitch (or the objective equivalent) would be similarly indispensable.

I like the lack of dependence purely on combat. I think that those types of things can help vary up the gameplay, and can help the party feel like they are savvy problem solvers that can take advantage of what the game gives them.

Party matching is always an interesting problem. It's also one I have the most limited experience in actually using (I used LFG a lot in WoW, but in most of my multiplayer experiences I typically only play with actual friends). Ideally I think I'd like virtually any build to be viable with any group of party members, and let the group recognize how they have to play based on group composition (easier said than done). Match making will always run into some level of "You're a rogue but can't do X. No thank you" so it's on design to balance classes and abilities being unique and interesting without having clear cut superior/inferior builds.

Slide in some unlockable kits that allow for different builds, multi-classing, different races, different equipment types, various level up/bonuses and suddenly you have a viable MP system that can also result in revenue generation. You can use various plot setups to do this, like great battles of the past, Mage vs. Templar, Arena, Darkspawn Hordes, etc. (all suggested by others in this thread) and it can deliver a decent enough story.

Historical battles is interesting. What about ancillary stories similar to what Splinter Cell did with their MP (both in Pandora Tomrorow and Chaos Theory). The general principle behind Pandora Tomorrow (a 2v2 versus mode) was a spin off of the story where various biological devices had been planted around the US. Chaos Theory also had a co-op mode, which existed in other parts of the world the same time Sam Fisher was running around doing his thing. I thought it was interesting and added a lot of flavour to the experience.

This is the concern. The MP becomes, in nearly all aspects, a different game. And where does the line begin between "making the MP and SP components more similar to share alike resources" and "turning the entire experience into something that is not DA?"

Does it really become a different game? The big difference I see is that you're controlling only one character. But control for one character still exists in the SP. Do you think that the skills, abilities, encounter designs, and so forth, could not be done using only the abilities that DAO had? You make a good case for non-combat skills, and would you be upset if by "making the MP and SP components more similar" resulted in wanting non-combat skills and encounter design to support that also spilling over into single player?

I suppose it comes down to what you mean by "fundamentally" different. I don't find it a stretch to imagine the situations you described as being possible wholly with what we have in DAO. You don't seem to think so. Do you not think you could do a lot of what you suggested using only abilities and skills that exist in DAO?

[Allan Schumacher]

Yes, this is all fine. But finding a suitable story is not really the roadblock to my problem with MP. Very few people say "ME3's MP didn't make any sense within the context of the game" because it did. I wouldn't have any doubt that the connection/reason, narratively speaking, would be a problem.

I wasn't discussing "roadblocks" with multiplayer though....  I was taking a suggestion that you made further discussing said suggestion, thinking of other ideas that could be done along a similar means.  I didn't take the discussion to be an attempt to convince you why MP is good, but rather "if Fast Jimmy had to implement it, how would he do it."  I was expanding on the idea you made.

Could you, strictly mechanically, do these things in either DA game? Things like a warrior who's focus is purely on combat, a rogue build that accomplishes more through stealth skills than through direct fighting? A Mage that can do almost no attacking, but provides an invaluable support to the overall party? Sure.

But the underlying foundation of DA games, in my perspective and experience, is creating various builds that create a truly unique party, that compliment and work off one another. If you limit this to one character, you risk building for single utility, which allows you to operate as a single unit, rather than building for more speciality or for helping other players. Which hampers build experimentation, especially in terms of support or the suggested non-combat roles.

I am not sure I see how build experimentation would be hampered. 
Especially if you're playing with friends.  I didn't find it an
issue with ME3's MP, though the skill selection is definitely smaller
than what we get with DAO's SP.

Lastly, a DA MP, even if all of the above are done right, still isn't in the same vein. Because a party-based RPG is all about creating, building and managing a party. Incentivizing players to work together as a party may work well to create an engaging experience, it still is not managing a party... it is about creating a character build that would result in the least amount of rejections by other players and rewards communicating with other players, not directing the chars gets together yourself.

Eh, I think this is a bit narrow in its perspective.  The majority of ME3 MP time is not played beyond Bronze level.  Sure, some of the more intense and more hardcore people may get snobbish, but you aren't obligated to play with them and many people play the ME3 MP simply because it's fun to play with some friends.  I don't think the fact that some people will hardline for various gear and builds is a very good reason to not do something.

Though it seems I misunderstood you, since you seemed to be implying that MP would change how SP played as well.  No doubt mp would lend itself to being a different experience than just single player (simply as in, it wouldn't be a 100% identical experience), but earlier you had said the following (emphasis mine):

"This is the concern. The MP becomes, in nearly all aspects, a different game. And where does the line begin between "making the MP and SP components more similar to share alike resources" and "turning the entire experience into something that is not DA?

I'm not saying it is impossible to do a MP component... I am simply
saying it is not wise to do so. It will turn the series into something
fundamental different, something it is not.""

The MP experience may not be entirely identical to SP, but you stated turning the entire experience into something that is not DA.

It's interesting the different perspective.  You seem to be trying to make scenarios that fit your conclusion that it can only change the entire direction of the franchise, while I saw your examples as being additional impetus to reintroduce non-combat skills into the game which in my opinion would also enhance the single player experience.

In addition, you would need 100% transparency in the other players in your "party" if you wanted to have true success in effective cooperation. I would want to know if the warrior on my team is a sword-and-board tank, 2H dmgdealer, or a Templar designed to neutralize certain enemy types (such as Mages and demons) but is not as effective against others, such as Darkspawn. But that leans itself to either boring character sheet comparisons before a matchup (nothing says EXCITING MP MATCH! like checking out a dozen people's skill trees) or discriminate boots because "LOLZ Templars are lamezors."

Unless this information can be discerned at a glance (and if it's even necessary - ideally there's a viable strategy for every mix and match of party makeup).



In any case, I did say I'd respond to your questions as well, so here goes.  I'll also touch on some of your later points [DISCLAIMER: This is my own thoughts.  This is neither confirmation nor denial of any sort of MP component, and is done simply to facilitate discussion about how MP could be implemented without fundamentally changing the game itself, nor the single player).

How will you handle the party-driven experience of the DA games?

I'm not entirely sure precisely a "party-driven experience" necessarily is, and how it would differ from party based games that have multiplayer in them (ME3, Baldur's Gate 1/2, Icewind Dale 1/2, even MMOs like WoW...), I will make an assumption that you mean "a group of characters with a degree of symbiosis between the party members" I'd say by making each member of the MP game a capable contributor to the party with a unique flair based upon the class.  This is somewhat vague, though I find the question to be vague as well.


Will it require other human players to don support roles?

No, it will not require other players to don "support roles."  Characters that play in a support role, however, would still be a valid character, and I may even place a level of encouragement through a reward scheme by rewarding the party for working together.  Bonus XP, for simplicity.


If so, I can see  problems with that. Who would want to build a
character that relies on other characters (outside of their control)
being built right? In an  MMO, it is easier, since you can Look For
Group or even be part of a  guild. With a MP component, it is far
trickier to just hop in a match if you can't count on the right support
skills.

I see any distinction that any sort of matchmaking being in an "MMO" to be easier to be imaginary, especially since (for better or worse) the combat system of DA (especially DAO) shows itself to be rather heavily influenced by MMOs.  Warriors tend to be tanks or damage dealers, rogues tend to be backstabbers that focus heavily in DPS, and a mage's strength comes with AOE damage and crowd controls.

I don't see any basis for "it's far trickier to just hop in a match if you can't count on the right support skills."  Ideally if it's designed well, any permutation of characters would be able to complete the objectives by utilizing the strengths that the characters bring to the table.

As for "who would want to build a character that relies on other characters being "built right" it would depend on what you mean by built right.  I would not make the game paused, and as such to keep skills manageable I would take a subset of the skills from the SP, and not allow any character to have too many of them.  If you envision 4 characters with 20 active skills each running around, then you run into problems.  If you envison 4 characters with 6 active skills, it's easier to manage and it's easier to predict what level of skill discrepancy a character may have.  Since the permutation of skills is less extreme, this also allows for the UI to allow for an "at a glance" skill assessment and can provide a synopsis for what the character build's strengths are.

Also, a large portion of the draw of MP is the action. Sniping enemies, throw grenades, using biotics... how will that work in a game like DA, whose auto-attack requires a lot of just standing and swinging?

Keeping each combat encounter smaller would help minimize this.  I'm also not sure it's a problem (maybe on the PC where the attack is literally automatically done).  Though it wasn't a deal breaker for me in the Infinity Engine games or in Neverwinter Knights.  Other things like party positioning can be emphasized to make the combat more than just attacking, with things such as flanking attacks providing additional attack opportunities.

I think a large portion of the draw of MP is also simply working together and accomplishing challenging goals together.  It's certainly why I enjoy multiplayer.


So, in light of that, you will need to keep support roles, otherwise you slant the overall mechanics to constant, twitch combat.
(Underlined emphasis mine)

I don't think you would *need* to keep support roles, although I do find the suggestion to be something more interesting than just combat.  Though I'd expect combat to still be a very common event, and I don't think that it needs to be "twitch" combat either.  Both DAO and DA2 have combat as the primary "gameplay" aspect of the game.

This means that you would, instead, need to focus on MP gameplay not directly tied to combat.

Not sure why there would *need* to be a focus on gameplay that isn't tied to combat, but I do agree it'd be more interesting.

How could we do this?  You had some good general suggestions, and if we try to stick to using skills from DAO I'll hypothesize some potential ways this might be able to be done.

Warriors:  Skills represent brute strength, and the ability to breakthrough obstacles.  Warriors with the "Powerful" ability have the ability to break through barriers and leverage their strength in context specific situations.

Rogues: Stealth tree.  A rogue specc'd in stealth is able to sneak past various encounters, either opening up an alternate path for the party allowing a combat to be bypassed, or by compromising the hostiles in some way making the ensuing combat much easier

Mages: Shapeshifter - a mage with various shape shifting abilities can leverage different forms to gain access to areas no other player character can reach.  This can include advantageous (and safe) positions for a combat, or leveraging the environment in a way to avoid/trivialize combat.  This would probably mean changing up what the mage can specifically shapeshift into, but I was certainly thinking of the mouse from The Fade as being an avenue to exploit.  A wolf could possibly double as a "hidden" character if in the outdoors.  Admittedly this is where I need to change the rules somewhat, though I will try to still use base abilities/creatures that existed in DAO so it's not a ton of design work.

Rodent: Can get through small spaces, and will not be targeted if no hostiles know this is a shapeshifted mage (i.e. if first encounter is as a rodent, it's stealthed)

Wolf: Speed increase and a fast attacker.  Can CC a target through a Maul ability.

Bear: Heavy armor with an ability to invoke fear in the target.  Though I'm not really looking to replicate Horror, I figure we can apply the disorient effect.


I agree that the levels should be objective based, but I would still expect the principle challenge in the level to still be various combat encounters, which I find is the case in BIoWare games anyways.


Lets see if we can take the first Darkspawn encounter from the Korcari Wilds, and make an interesting MP encounter without making huge, wholesale changes to the situation.


Lets make an assumption: Combat tactics and abilities used can also be used in the single player as well, so if I make any stipulation about a bonus or penalty, assume that those benefits propagate to single player as well.  As such, I'll try to not do anything that I don't think would provide interesting gameplay mechanics in single player as well.


Situation: Some (2) Hurlocks are on the lower ground, with some (3) Genlocks on the high ground with bows.

Possible avenues player builds can take:

Warriors:  Warriors can look to be tank, or general damage dealers.  With the Powerful ability, they are able to knock down the pillars to control the space where the Hurlocks can approach, while leveraging the toppled pillar as cover from the arrows.  Other party members can then leverage this cover bonus for arrow protection, allowing the party to divide and conquer the Hurlocks and Genlocks, by allowing relatively safe area for the Hurlocks to be attacked, and even cover for the archers/mages to stand behind when eventually attacking the Genlocks.

Rogues:  Archer or Melee damage is viable, but additionally stealth can be used to sneak past the hurlocks to allow the rogue to get the jump on the Genlocks.

Mages:  Standard AOE, direct damage, and CC attacks are all stuff we're familiar with.  Ways they can utilize their shapeshifting is to apply versatility, perhaps allowing some level of surprise by using a non-threatening form as a type of stealth, or perhaps using a Bear to substitute in as a tank.  Some more interesting variations could be if we modified the bear to influence morale failures, and that seeing a Bear running at them may induce a degree of fear in either the Genlocks or even the Hurlocks.


I'll now take a hypothetical combat encounter from this.  One that may even be considered "suboptimal" as I'm not going to have a pure tank.  I will have one warrior, a melee rogue, and archer, and a shapeshifting mage.


The Mage shapeshifts into a rodent, while the melee rogue employs Stealth.  Both slip past the Hurlocks, and prepare themselves for the Genlocks.

Once in position, the Warrior opens the combat by toppling the pillar.  This falls across the path, allowing the archer and the warrior cover from the Genlocks while the wait for the Hurlocks to charge in.  Warrior being the first spotted creature and initiator of the combat has the attention of all the darkspawn at this time.

Now that combat has started, the rogue opens up on one of the Genlocks while the Mage shapeshifts from a rodent into a wolf, mauling another Genlock.  Back at the pillar, the Archer uses pinning strike on one of the Hurlocks, then helps focus fire on the mobile Hurlock with the warrior.

The rogue's melee ability is able to take advantage of the Genlock with a bow, and can dispatch that foe one on one, while the Mage shapeshifts into the Bear once the wolf's Maul expires.  The Mage can continue focusing on the original Genlock, or draw aggro on the second if the Archer/Warrior are having problems.

The rogue helps clean up the genlocks with the mage, while the warrior and archer are able to take care of the hurlocks down by the pillar.  Whichever group wins their encounter goes and helps the other group clean up.


And in my opinion, all of these tactics remain perfectly valid, and interesting, if this situation played out in the single player game.  Does anyone disagree?  I actually think that most of the tacitcal combat fans would enjoy executing the combat in this way within single player.

I can see there being concerns of "Well good luck coordinating that with a bunch of random noobs" but I think that's just being a bit dismissive and sidesteps what this exercise looked to explore, which is whether or not MP gameplay can be created alongside SP gameplay without compromising the SP gameplay.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 14 avril 2013 - 05:45 .

[Allan Schumacher]

I have no problems with a desire to ensure MP game activity does not influence anyone's single player experience.

It's the position I support as well.

[Allan Schumacher]

P.S.: Allan does this mean we've been given the go to armchair develop now? Because I'm already an amazing armchair quarterback. As evidence, if they'd done what I said, my New Orlean Saint's would have won the Super Bowl last year.

I just saw this. Was there a hiatus on armchair developing? I know Gaider has said in the past that he'd rather people not really try to justify their actions in a financial sense (i.e. do this because it will get more sales, or don't do that because it will only hurt sales) and the like.

I don't have a problem if people "armchair develop" if they're just suggesting an idea, and the way they imagine they'd like the mechanics to play out. Just so long as they understand that people may disagree and to be receptive of support and criticism of their ideas. (And for people to be fair in their support and criticism of others ideas).

[Allan Schumacher]

I agree! I love Allan's ideas for offering combat and non-combat skills that allow a variety of methods for dealing with a situation.

Hah! Well to be fair to myself (and the combat designers) I don't know the details of the types of challenges that they have on their respective fields (whether they be multiplayer, non-combat, single player, combat, etc.), so in some ways I'm simply stating what I think might be interesting.

[Allan Schumacher]

ElitePinecone wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...
 additional impetus to reintroduce non-combat skills into the game which in my opinion would also enhance the single player experience.

Maybe I'm misinterpeting this, but I'm slightly uncomfortable with the proposition that non-combat skills are worthwhile introducing (reintroducing, even) because they could be used in MP scenarios, and not moreso because they're pretty fundamental to any game that's not aiming for 100% combat gameplay outside conversations.

You reading too much into it.  My statement is an example.  Even if the straw that broke the camel's back for bringing more non-combat skills into the game actually spawned from multiplayer providing extra incentive for it to be worth it, I wouldn't believe it for a moment that anyone would believe it.

It was more an example done to illustrate that adding things to a multiplayer (or any other game mode) does not mean that it's made in complete isolation towards the single player and can in fact possibly even lead to a positive contribution to the single player.


Yes, at any given point any enhancements a MP can make to SP you can simply say "Well you should have just had the motivation to improve the SP in that way anyways" but there's always a degree of impetus.  One can very well look at a game feature and go "Ehhhhh, this is probably good enough, we should spend our time elsewhere" when looked at from one perspective, while providing a different perspective which says "Ehhhh, this really isn't good enough for this aspect... we need to focus on improving this" can result in more time being spent on a mechanic/feature than otherwise would have happened.

[Allan Schumacher]

I'm not sure of how such a system would be easy to view "at a glance," in all honesty. Given that people are booted or met with derision. Again, just take a look at posts made in the ME3 MP forum in the past few minutes, where I can see someone who has a Level 1 kit being labeled a "scrub." If you wanted to try out a new character build and are a quite experienced and talented player... but are using a sub-optimal build or a less developed character, suddently you are a terrible n00b no one wants to play with.

While not every MP match will play out like this, the fact that such a mentality exists in nearly all MP games I have experienced or heard about is not shocking, but it does mean that even the most easy-to-view/access info systems about your fellow players many times results in quick dismissal or booting. But that's something that could be addressed with the UI, possibly, so not worth too much theoretical discussion.

Your assertion is only valid if one is not able to play any games. You are right that you get some elitist twits in an MP game. How does this relate back to a fundamental difference to how all of DA, single player included, will play?

Or, conversely, players could rage/quit the second they see the system has assigned them a Templar build character to their squad.

That this might happen (I suspect it will happen to some people) is not a very good reason to not try anything at all. This is akin to saying BioWare should attempt 0 risks with DA3 because it might not work out well for everyone (the game will already not work out well for everyone regardless of how we make it), and people might be jerks about it. Should we simplify character customization because someone might get mocked after sharing it online?

I feel that an MMO-style gameplay of having a bunch of individual characters controlled by invidual players that can work together in concert is not at all the same type of game as one where the player controls the entire party directly.

This criticism can only apply specifically to the multiplayer we concocted. The issue here with my example is, does it fundamentally affect the core single player game in a negative way simply with its existence.

I'd like to point out that this is how I FEEL. I FEEL that the SP is going to be compromised.

I understand that, which is precisely why I asked you to try coming up with a solution that would have multiplayer exist while having gameplay mechanics that would work fine (or even better) with full party control within single player.

There's two direct ways for me to get to an arterial road near my home. One that involves some zigzagging through residential areas, and one that involves a short hop on to the nearby highway that also connects to the road. I always had a feeling that the highway got me to the same point in the road faster. I was bored last week and timed it. I was wrong (5 minutes instead of 3 minutes). A host of perceptive biases probably clouded my perspective (I was moving faster, didn't pass as many landmarks, and so forth).

However, I do caution you about the application of your feelings. If you feel the only way multiplayer can contribute to the single player experience is in a negative way, then you will be looking for validation for your perspective (cognitive dissonance avoidance is a human trait. Few people enjoy being wrong). In other words, instead of playing the game to enjoy it, there's a greater chance you'll play the single player to convince yourself your predictions are right and will actively seek out ways to not enjoy the game. This isn't a recipe for enjoying games.

Once I buy a game I go into it with an open mind. I loved Fallout 1/2 but I still went into Fallout 3 with an open mind, and found enjoyment with the game. I could have been like many in the No Mutants Allowed camp, that picked up the game just to validate to themselves that they were right that FO3 is crap, and that it should have been turn-based isometric. But there was no turn-based Fallout equivalent (though it doesn't change things for me even if there was), and I'd much rather get enjoyment out of the games that I play.


But if you think that solving the example I made in a single player experience, where you directed all of the characters to do each of the roles I specified, ultimately isn't very interesting or fun, I can't tell you that you are wrong. To each his own at that point.

[Allan Schumacher]

Plaintiff wrote...

Knight of Dane wrote...

Because they made some ****g good games.

Which games are these supposed to be? Enlighten me.

All I see Bethesda doing is taking rich, interesting settings and then completely wasting them on thin, bland characters and weak, cookie-cutter plots.

It's not productive to simply apply your own gaming preferences to dismiss general reception.

I'm not a fan of most Bethesda games either, but I can recognize (and agree) that they make pretty good games.

[Allan Schumacher]

iakus wrote...

Bedevil123 wrote...

No
plz no

I know how you feel.

ANd the direction this thread has gone has me very, very worried...

If you'd prefer I could avoid all threads about controversial subjects.

I'm not a fan of speaking in negatives, so I'm not going to come in and start asking people "How would you ensure Multiplayer doesn't work."

The primary reason for me doing so is to get people to examine a feature within a context that they think is appropriate.  It is easy, and uninteresting, to go and dismiss something as "Nah, it's not what I want."  Anyone can do that, and since we don't have much to discuss in detail at this moment.

As a computing scientist, the idea that a feature like this just can't be done appropriately is far more likely to get me thinking about ways to prove that idea wrong (it's a scientist thing...).  So I figure it'd be fun to engage the fans with ideas of what they may think is possible.

I find so many people give things such a fleeting level of thought and become closed minded towards other ideas, that they're kind of at a local maximum.


I know a feature like this is the line in the sand for you, which is fine if that's the way that you feel about it.  If my talking about it with people makes you worried, then you read too much into my discussions.  I tried this in a different thread about party banter as well, in large part because someone felt that improvements to the system just couldn't be done.  Maybe that's the case, but it was fun to go through it with a few people and come up with ideas that they might think are interesting.

[Allan Schumacher]

Just some ideas.

I swear I read them, but in the interest of preventing wall of text.

Where I struggle is, perhaps paradoxically given our viewpoints on MP's contributions to the game, is that I personally would stay away from a PvP element. While PvE still does have some level of "OMG balance!" with PvP it becomes SO much more critical, IMO. While this may not affect single player, I do think it leads to a greater possibility of the two systems (singleplayer and multiplayer) becoming increasingly distinct, which could translate into greater challenges in enabling an excellent idea that comes from one system, positively supporting the other.

Other aspects, however, such as purely support characters, I think are interesting (and applicable, regardless of the MP being PvE or PvP, or even in the single player game itself)

[Allan Schumacher]

EntropicAngel wrote...

A scientist, huh. Interesting.

Though I suppose that's a broad term, calling yourself a scientist doesn't necessarily mean you've a degree in the more common fields of science (Biology, Chemistry, Physics, etc.).

Computing Science certainly isn't a "common field of science" but I felt a description of my program most apt when put as the following:

"A Computing Science program does not teach people how to become programmers.  It teaches them how to become computing scientists."

I do strongly value research (I have actually contributed to peer-reviewed papers, although not as a primary author, and have helped with research projects around Computer assisted programming/game design/story writing, as well as AI pathfinding and decision processes - in both cases leveraging RTS gaming as a test bed), empiricism and the scientific method, and enjoy experimentation.  I have a preference towards more practical applications, rather then theoretical, so while I don't mind crunching algorithms, I typically prefer to do so with practical experimentation.

From wikipedia

A scientist, in a broad sense, is one engaging in a systematic activity to acquire knowledge. In a more restricted sense, a scientist is an individual who uses the scientific method.[1] The person may be an expert in one or more areas of science.[2]
This article focuses on the more restricted use of the word. Scientists
perform research toward a more comprehensive understanding of nature, including physical, mathematical and social realms.

I think it's a reasonable description.  It is certainly broad.

Hmm.

I would call that more engineering, personally [have a
friend with a Bachelor's and (soon-to-be) Master's in CS...or was it
CE?].

Doesn't matter I suppose.

Don't tell an engineer that (they are exceptionally protective of the title).  While I prefer the practical side (and in that sense am probably closer to engineer in that sense), my school did offer programs in Computing Science (under the Faculty of Science) and Computer Engineering (under the Faculty of Engineering).  There were some shared courses, but the CompSci program does cover a lot more theoretical concepts, while the Engineering program certainly covered more "Applied Sciences" angle.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 17 avril 2013 - 07:57 .