411 réponses à ce sujet

[Johnsen1972]

Im going to buy DA3 for the SP story and RP. If there is a good MP, I dont mind. I hope that doesnt take to much resources from the SP,

[Mike_Neel]

dragon age style combat is pretty difficult to make multiplayer. Even Dragon Age 2s more action oriented combat is difficult to translate into multiplayer.

I'd suggest just having minigames as the multiplayer component, though that may not be enough to satisfy EA.

[Thomas Andresen]

Ziegrif wrote...

Source?

Also Bethesda game studios is not making the TESO.
http://en.wikipedia...._Scrolls_Online

Zenimax Online Studios is making it.

And Skyrim was made by Bethesda Game Studios.
http://en.wikipedia....rolls_V:_Skyrim

BGS and ZOS are both subsidiaries of Zenimax Media inc. But are still both different development crews.

So if yer going by corporate structure it'd be conjecture.

What keeps elder scrolls games alive is the modding community anyway.

So it's accepted that Bethesda Game Studios make their own independent decisions, but BioWare is nothing but a pawn of EA? Nice.

[The Teyrn of Whatever]

Willing to give it the benefit of the doubt. Inevitably its presence will spell less SP content for the vanilla game, but that's life and no amount of protesting or whining about it on the BSN is going to change the fact that it will be part of the initial commercial release. If it's fun, YAY! If it blows I can happily ignore its existence and wait for SP DLC to come out.

[Thomas Andresen]

The Teryn of Whatever wrote...

Inevitably its presence will spell less SP content for the vanilla game,

That's a fact, is it?

[Fast Jimmy]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

In fact, upon reviewing some of this conversation, let's just agree to disagree on the difference between a player controlling a single unit that works with other players as a group and controlling the entire group as being a fundamental core difference and whether or not implementing said difference in MP would or would not affect the SP component. As I said, I don't think anyone can truly prove that to me at this given time and I know you don't have the same viewpoint on controlling a party as being a core tenet of the DA series.

Let's instead continue to kick the can around on this MP concept, shall we? I think we had a good thing going discussing this before it devolved into a conversation that can't be won. After all, I think the use of non-combat skills in interesting ways could, surprisingly enough to me as I think about it, be more easily done in MP than in SP.


Speaking of the non-combat skills, I was thinking the environmental setups you mentioned (such as the pillar example you gave) would be great. But, as you said on page 9, let's just assume such setups are not doable (from a system/development standpoint) or that they are so rare to line up/well known (if there is a PvP aspect), that they become impossible/impractical to use.

How about some more mundane uses of skills? Traps are fairly obvious, although I would really like to see different trap skills, with different traps that do different things. For instance, a tile trap that could explode and do damage, a bear that could spring and decrease movement, a wire trap that shoots out poison darts and causes damge over time... you get the gist. Each of these would be a different trap "kit", but would also need different "kits" to detect. So you couldn't just slap a "Trap Detection" skill kit on a warrior and completely bulldoze through a whole room of traps that a rogue set.

Also, I think it would be cool to incorporate lockpicking into the flow of the game. A rogue could lock a doorway, creating chokepoints unless another team's rogue had a lockpick skill of equal or greater value. This would be a really interesting way to control how the game plays out. As you mentioned earlier, a warrior with an appropriate strength skill/kit could also bust down doors if they were locked. 

Mages could have spells that detect stealthed characters that can be cast. In addition, a scrying ability, that lets them survey the encounter and casts spells as they see fit... but also takes their eyes off of what could be going on right behind their back, would be an excellent ability. Being able to cast nukes or heal your party while sitting in safety sounds great... until you realize there are a team of darkspawn barreling down the hallway right behind you.


In regards to the setup, I have been worbling between a PvP or a PvE type encounter. Personally, I think having multiple modes would be ideal, some PvP (maybe like an Arena) and others PvE (like a Horde mode). However, I thought a particularly interesting idea would be to have a mix of both.

Say there are four teams of four. You all spawn in various parts of the level at the start, but before too long, enemy mobs come in (whether they are darkspawn, or demons, or pixies, it doesn't really matter at this point). Located in each map, there are various locations to post up certain types of units, such as our scrying mages, and certain places that lean themselves to some of our rogue non-combat skills (such as a few areas with lots of doors/hallways for traps or locks). In addition, some places are high (great for archers and offensive Mages, alike), while others have cover from above, making them ideal for ground based fighting groups that can get together and stack auras/buffs that require close proximity.

The mobs coming in will be killed and the team with the most kills gets points. The total kill count does not matter - if Team A kills 10 and Team B kill 12, they win just as much as if Team killed 100 and Team B killed 200. The reason why is that having all four teams completely ignore each other and just focus on the hordes at hand is... well, rather boring. You need to have them interact. This makes building a unit/team required to be a choice between doing damage to the Hordes and also countering your other competition's moves.

This allows the PvP aspect to come into play. No points or awards are given for killing/hampering/hurting other players. However, if you reduce the effectiveness of the other team, your team is more likely to have the highest kill count. So by leveling up a rogue to sneak into a rival team's base, disarm all the traps, unlock all the doors and give the all clear signal for the heavy hitters to come in, they can wipe out a support unit, like an archer or Mage, cripple the other team's offenses and even then set up shop in that base to further their team's own endeavours. 

Similarly, there would also be objectives mixed into this. Maybe a mage can cast a summonign spell, which takes three in game minutes, but then dumps an insanely powerful Pride demon into the mix, killing horde and rival teams alike. Maybe a rogue can build and set up a ballista, which would make them the absolute dominant force from above. Maybe a warrior can hold a certain position long enough without moving or dying and hoists a banner, which, if successful, can bring in extra NPC troops on horseback. 

Or, conversely, there could objectives which do not tie into nor affect combat at all. Perhaps finding all of a certain type of item on a map and then returning them to base (with the ability for rival teamsa to steal them, or darkspawn to kill the holder of the item and have it dropped on the ground, for all to snag). Perhaps sealing up spawn points of the darkspawn (entrance to the Deep Roads) or Demons (rift in the Fade), which could require otherwise squishier characters to get right down in the mix with the dangerous enemies. As each spawn point is locked, additional spawn points start sending out harder/more difficult enemy types. 

All teams earn an item pack, (unless at one point all teams are overrun by the Horde, in which case the match forfeits), but the team the "wins" gets a bonus item pack. These item packs could work similar to ME3's system. Alternatively, this could all be done via Gold Sovereigns, that could be used to buy said kits from a shop of sorts. Any number of ways to incentivize players and monetize the system for Bioware's profit.



Again, all of this really ties back into the idea that there could be extremely important, valuable members of a MP team that do not wind up killing (directly) even one enemy, human or computer. A player could develop a repuation for laying the best traps, making it nearly impossible to breach a team's base without needing to put one point in their combat trees. A player can be a scrying genius, knowing where to look and where support is best needed without ever leaving a tower. A warrior can have a build that doesn't make them proficient at killing horde enemies, but makes them unmatched at busting into a rival teams camp's doors and making short work of their defenses.

You get the idea. And, as a caveat, I really think my earlier suggestion of having accomplishments in SP tie into/give MP kits/class options would be genius. If you've done something awesome as a rogue in SP, that means you have a rough grasp of the skills of the class and would have at least a rough idea how to use those skills in the MP section. 

Just some ideas.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 14 avril 2013 - 08:07 .

[Cainhurst Crow]

I personally am curious to see what they come up with, and confident that MP will not detract from SP since the two do not share a conjoined budget with one another.

[Fast Jimmy]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

I personally am curious to see what they come up with, and confident that MP will not detract from SP since the two do not share a conjoined budget with one another.

I do not share your confidence about the two never affecting one another... but I do feel that same level of confidence that there will be a MP segment, so might as well offer feedback to make it better than a senseless, one-mode slash fest.

[Cainhurst Crow]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...

I personally am curious to see what they come up with, and confident that MP will not detract from SP since the two do not share a conjoined budget with one another.

I do not share your confidence about the two never affecting one another... but I do feel that same level of confidence that there will be a MP segment, so might as well offer feedback to make it better than a senseless, one-mode slash fest.

On that, I can agree with good sir.

[Angrywolves]

nah .Never will play mutiplayer. Not interested.

[jillabender]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

In fact, upon reviewing some of this conversation, let's just agree to disagree on the difference between a player controlling a single unit that works with other players as a group and controlling the entire group as being a fundamental core difference and whether or not implementing said difference in MP would or would not affect the SP component. As I said, I don't think anyone can truly prove that to me at this given time and I know you don't have the same viewpoint on controlling a party as being a core tenet of the DA series.

Out of curiosity, is your difficulty with the kind of scenario Allan described that you like the idea of each class and party member having a distinct role in multiplayer, but not so much in single player? Is your fear that including a multiplayer component would lead to a system that forces each class into specific roles in both single-player and multiplayer, at the expense of builds that are less specialized?

Modifié par jillabender, 14 avril 2013 - 08:56 .

[bEVEsthda]

Plaintiff wrote...

Knight of Dane wrote...

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.

Money disagrees

I suppose Justin Beiber is a musical prodigy, then, and the Twilight saga is a work of literary genius.

Sales figures are not a measure of quality. We call that fallacy argumentum ad populum.

If anything, high sales figures just prove my point. People prefer the familiar and comfortable, and TES has done nothing to really shake up its formula for the two decades+ that it's existed.

Your argument is contrieved and false. There is nothing 'familiar and comfortable" about TES. Their sales have increased steeply over iterations, so most gamers who experience them are new to the concept. They're original and unique in the videogame world. Unlike those games which you prefer. Which should do well as video game analogies to Bieber and twilight, and DA2, which intentionally turned that way, just as an attempt to become more popular. In fact, the only reason you bring up Bieber & co is that you want to try to associate TES with something you feel is negative. No matter that the comparison is so blatantly false and inappropriate.

No, the TES formula has not changed. But it is different from the console game formula which also hasn't changed for three decades+, so what's your point?

Your point is that you don't like TES. No mystery about that, since you prefer a ready story to observe. This has always been apparent in your posts on most things. TES is a software toy for us who want to have that to play with. It makes it pretty unique. And TES sales depend upon that more people have discovered that, over time.
Not that it fits well into a 'popular' cathegory.

And the point that has people bringing up TES, over and over again, is that the example proves that you don't have to change into the contemtible direction that DA2 did, to achieve big sales. Which is the stated reason for the changes to DA. Not that DA should become TES. I don't think anyone who liked the games Bioware used to make, wants that.

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 14 avril 2013 - 09:11 .

[Nefla]

I know we're getting MP but I don't want it. If I want to play a MP game, especially in a fantasy setting, why would I play a tacked on hoard mode in a SP RPG rather than an actual MMORPG? (And I sure as hell won't buy weapons and armor for real money for it) I don't want another ME3 in any way shape or form.

[Fast Jimmy]

jillabender wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

In fact, upon reviewing some of this conversation, let's just agree to disagree on the difference between a player controlling a single unit that works with other players as a group and controlling the entire group as being a fundamental core difference and whether or not implementing said difference in MP would or would not affect the SP component. As I said, I don't think anyone can truly prove that to me at this given time and I know you don't have the same viewpoint on controlling a party as being a core tenet of the DA series.

Out of curiosity, is your difficulty with the kind of scenario Allan described that you like the idea of each class and party member having a distinct role in multiplayer, but not so much in single player? Is your fear that including a multiplayer component would lead to a system that forces each class into specific roles in both single-player and multiplayer, at the expense of builds that are less specialized?

That is one concern. Another is that the SP will become more action focused, as mechanics become more focused on the player handling one player, instead of managing a party. Removing the isometric camera from DA:O to DA2 would be a good example of this (even though there was no MP inclusion for that change). 

Again, I would actually need to see DA3's SP and MP to really know how it could affect things. Just like the DA team had no idea that increasing the amount of wave combat encounters or reused environments would be as big of a problem before DA2. It wasn't until it was included that they realized that such a thing could even be an issue.  I feel the same way about the inclusion of MP - it could lead to so many complications and changes to the overall product, that it is difficult to even pinpoint off the bat all the risks and problems it could open up. 

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 14 avril 2013 - 09:40 .

[Reever]

So this will also get MP? If it's as entertaining as ME3 Multiplayer, then I guess it'll be okay

[jillabender]

bEVEsthda wrote...

[...]

Your point is that you don't like TES. No mystery about that, since you prefer a ready story to observe. This has always been apparent in your posts on most things. TES is a software toy for us who want to have that to play with. It makes it pretty unique. And TES sales depend upon that more people have discovered that, over time.
Not that it fits well into a 'popular' cathegory.

I agree that the Elder Scrolls games do a good job of providing a sandbox in which to explore and play around with characters, as opposed to an experience of being told a story. Personally, I couldn't really get into Oblivion, because the setting of Cyrodil didn't do much for me, but I've been enjoying Skyrim very much.

I do find myself wishing that the Elder Scrolls games had characters with more personality for my character to react to, but no one game can offer everything, and for players who enjoy using their imaginations to build on what's presented in the game and who don't feel the need for the story to react explicitly to what they imagine, the Elder Scrolls games can be very rewarding.

Edit: Removed the rest of this post to put it in a new thread, in order to avoid taking this one on a tangent.

Modifié par jillabender, 14 avril 2013 - 11:42 .

[Steppenwolf]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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

Missions that don't impact the SP story but flesh out lore and add items that you can use in SP. Preferably missions that can last an hour or more and have boss battles, legendary items to be found, curses to break, enemies to vanquish, etc. Minimal story and dialogue, obviously, but plenty of strategic combat.

[Cainhurst Crow]

BasilKarlo wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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

Missions that don't impact the SP story but flesh out lore and add items that you can use in SP. Preferably missions that can last an hour or more and have boss battles, legendary items to be found, curses to break, enemies to vanquish, etc. Minimal story and dialogue, obviously, but plenty of strategic combat.

Whose internet connection can last a solid hour without a disconnect, raise their hand?

Note: My hand isn't raised.

Also, why can't the MP be given a storyline or dialouge? That would make the MP awesome and worthwhile, IMO.

Modifié par Darth Brotarian, 14 avril 2013 - 10:07 .

[Nimrodell]

As long as MP doesn't affect single player, I'm good... just no more ME3 vanilla BS when it comes to SP and MP. No one should be forced to play MP in order to get the best outcomes, MP crowd get their kicks from their damage done and competition aspect, not the story in most of the cases. Once more, please BioWare, just don't do the same thing again when it comes to MP and SP... Please those separate categories separate.

[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.

[LinksOcarina]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

I won't deny Skyrim is a good game, or any of the Elder Scroll titles for that matter.

Yet...they can be a lot more if Bethesda tried I feel. 

[Bedevil123]

No
plz no

[Solmanian]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

BasilKarlo wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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

Missions that don't impact the SP story but flesh out lore and add items that you can use in SP. Preferably missions that can last an hour or more and have boss battles, legendary items to be found, curses to break, enemies to vanquish, etc. Minimal story and dialogue, obviously, but plenty of strategic combat.

Whose internet connection can last a solid hour without a disconnect, raise their hand?

Note: My hand isn't raised.

Also, why can't the MP be given a storyline or dialouge? That would make the MP awesome and worthwhile, IMO.

I don't have a bad connection, but I agree that an hour is too long. it was a hard taught lesson that the entire MMO genre learned that majority of people find a 4 hour raid too exhausting, and learned too divide the content into "bite sized" segments.

How a bout a MP campaign? Completing a certain kind of mission on a certain map will unlock additional missions? You could design the level in such a way that people in different stages of completion can play together at the same area, everyone complting their own objective in a manner that doesn't disturb the overall group mission.

[Iakus]

Bedevil123 wrote...

No
plz no

I know how you feel.

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

[Solmanian]

LinksOcarina wrote...

I won't deny Skyrim is a good game, or any of the Elder Scroll titles for that matter.

Yet...they can be a lot more if Bethesda tried I feel. 

I don't think it's a matter of "trying" as much as overextending of resources. I don't think there's for an open world game, that is also populated with throng of rich and complex fully interactive individuals, each with their agendas and desires. Even with the most optimistic estimations, such a game will take the better part of decade (and that assumes the development team received pretty much unlimited resources. EA probably has the resources, but if it failed it would brink the company to the edge of bankrupcy; so it won't happen), and will require techology that we don't have available to the public, at the moment.

Games today require budgets of tens of millions for a mediocre game, and hundreds of milions for AAA games. To make the next leap in scale, games would require budgetsof trilions, and no way that will be profitable. That's why indie is such big thing now: they're approaching the matter from an opposite approach. Making games that are much cheaper to make and in turn buy, without reducing the quality to "unplayable" level.