411 réponses à ce sujet

[FINE HERE]

No. And I'm not even sure how they could put MP in a game like this...

[Maria Caliban]

I am looking forward to it.

[GreenSoda]

No...but I guess it's all part of the metacritic bingo most devs seem to play these days. There's apparently no way around it. At least concerning Bioware. Pity too.

[Fast Jimmy]

I know you didn't say it... that doesn't mean it's not a possibility or something I am afraid they would be tempted to do.

[Il Divo]

Give me an entertaining story, memorable companions, and diverse/breath-taking environments and they can add all the multiplayer they want.

[FKA_Servo]

I don't think the gameplay or mechanics of the multiplayer portion needs to bear any resemblance to the singleplayer. It's obviously a bit different for Mass Effect, since it's primarily a shooter and lends itself well to a FPS multiplayer style, but you still have squadmembers you can direct to an extent and you can still pause the action to aim and switch weapons, two aspects that are missing from Multiplayer for obvious reasons.

I'm thinking something similar to Diablo 3 (gameplay-wise) would be in keeping with the setting and overall aesthetic, and could be a big success. Of course, uncouple if from singleplayer - that goes without saying.

Modifié par TommyServo, 12 avril 2013 - 09:07 .

[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?

[Neoleviathan]

Multiplayer in a Bioware RPG? So what do we do, see who can persuade the other into sacrificing themself with as few lines as possible? Cunning checks to steal all our clothes right off our backs? Intimidation checks to make our rivals run away squeeeeeeeelllliiing!? Epic confrontations to win le love interest's affections? All fade, all the time?

How about Wardens about to succumb to the taint, locked in the deep roads with few resources. Goal, survive! Team work optional, pvp if you desire. Kill or be killed. Probably the simplest it could go.

MP aint really my thing, but I am curious about it being in DA. Just becuase, I can't imagine what that might look like.

Modifié par Neoleviathan, 13 avril 2013 - 07:43 .

[Chiramu]

I don't know, don't have anyone to play it with anyway <<forever alone lol.

[Rodia Driftwood]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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?

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. 

[Zarathiel]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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?

Similar to BG1 & 2, co-op story mode. The hosting player is the Inquisitor, and, since what little we know about the plot suggests we're working for an organization of some kind, the guest players import a character of their choice to be other members of said organiztion. So when you join someone else's game, your character is not the Inquisitor, but a member of the Inquisition, or whatever its called.

This is anecdotal, I know, but my group of friends would all seriously consider buying DA3 if this kind of MP were included.

[Harlequin2]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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?

As others have mentioned, a scheme much like ME3 would work. Basically a PvE dungeon that would end up looking a lot like Torchlight. But the thing would be that the same dungeon would be a vastly different experience depending on your team. That couple of armoured Ogres could be a vastly different battle with a group of mages whilst puzzles could play out completely differently if you have a warrior to dash under a closing door or a rogue to fire a precision arrow at a switch.

PvP might take off, but an Inquisition vs. the World mode sounds a lot more feasible, and fun!

[grumpymooselion]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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?

I'd add in an unrelated to characters or plot 'in game' board game to the setting, something people in Olrais play, for instance. Multiplayer would be entirely about two players playing a round of this board game, until one, or the other, wins. It would have no purpose or effect on the game as a whole, and you'd gain/lose nothing for taking part in/ignoring it. Something simple, but something with heart.

Though, most specifically, I just wouldn't do multiplayer. At all. Ever.

Modifié par Janan Pacha, 13 avril 2013 - 09:26 .

[karushna5]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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

Since I only play for storyline, I can't imagine ever playing an MP. If there had to be one? I would like there to be co op like Mass effect. But Dragon age was never really good with the hordes, so perhaps a mission type game with different events in Dragon Age.

For example: If you had to have a Horde? You can be soldiers at Ostagar who are retreating to a certain location, perhaps to warn Lothering, and you fight the way there...

Or a non all combat feel might be discovering little facts about thedas with certain levels.
Like 1st level: Andraste and freeing the elves? Or some other battle similairly and then afterward and beforehand a skippable little text about what actually happened there.
Or another combat area, could be Fereldan gains freedom from orlais
And another could be The Dwarves and their meeting with darkspawn (not everyone is a dwarf they could also be people visiting, came for aid, ect)

Different moments in history of all the cultures, the benefit of Dragon Age has always been its story. If that element stayed even a bit, I would play it.

[Danny Boy 7]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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?

Just popped in to see the discussion. I'd say that episodic (repeatable) MP campaigns would be my preffered system of choice. This is ofcourse assuming that money is not an issue and is simply a pre-production type thing

SWTOR had an interesting idea when it came to Flashpoints, but what I didn't like was that there was like a handful of Flashpoints with actual in scenario conversations for us to partake in. We'd either make our character or be given random presets, then go about the quests. 

Other options would be a third person tower defense of sorts, similar to Orcs must die or a two player co-op campaign that's somewhat linear and takes us to places we won't be able to go in the main game, or shows us battles that happened in the background as exposition.

[Commander Kurt]

I'm not sure how I would do combat without pausing. This is my major concern for mp, and just being really quick about it isn't a solution that would appeal to me.

Of course, combat needn't be a part of it. It could be something like dragon's dogma/diablo 3 where you trade companions/stuff with others, or a tavern where you play wicked grace or fist fight other players (like the witcher 2 but with RL adversaries).

You could start the game making two characters, the other being your best friend/trusted second and a well written character like any other. However, if you like you could send this char out on assignments (making it available to others) at set instances in the story (once or twice) in exchange for a replacement (someone else's char). The personality could be based on the class, meaning that they would have to make 3 chars instead of one and this would not offer a mp where multple hours are added to the game. What it would offer is a way to share builds and some variation.

Having a marketplace and/or tavern where you chat, haggle for goods or outmanouver other players playing cards/arm wrestling/fistfighting/whatever would add hours to the game. Sorta like an in-game bsn where you can ask for tips, share equipment or just rough each other up.

[Commander Kurt]

karushna5 wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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

Or a non all combat feel might be discovering little facts about thedas with certain levels.
Like 1st level: Andraste and freeing the elves? Or some other battle similairly and then afterward and beforehand a skippable little text about what actually happened there.
Or another combat area, could be Fereldan gains freedom from orlais
And another could be The Dwarves and their meeting with darkspawn (not everyone is a dwarf they could also be people visiting, came for aid, ect)

Different moments in history of all the cultures, the benefit of Dragon Age has always been its story. If that element stayed even a bit, I would play it.

Actually, I would play this. I wouldn't do it for the combat, but the added story would be worth it. It wouldn't be tied into the sp at all, and yet it would be adding value like crazy.

Great idea!

[Firky]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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

I think Divinity: Original Sin sounds like it's going to do it well, from what I've seen in previews, etc. As co-op, in conversation players will be able to disagree on decisions and then the outcome checks against their stats, for example.

Also, I'd think it'd be essential to look at the combat systems that interact, like cross class combos, so that players had a reason to work together.

As for me, I'd just want measured, turnbased, PvP, party based, arena combat so I could kick everyone's butts. Or a respectable proportion of butts.

(PS. Can't think of the game's name ... It was turnbased but you planned each turn on an agreed timer. Each stack had a bar that you could fill with movement and various orders so you knew what the stack would do. You had to anticipate the other's moves. Then the turn played out it real time. Oh man. Fantasy setting. 2009 ish. Hexes. Factions, like HOMM, but not HOMM or King's Bounty. I thought it worked extremely well as PvP. I'll try to figure out what I'm thinking of.)

(PS. Oooh. And, very simply. Make an option for telling us what others chose at the same point. Like in the Walking Dead. I can't believe only 36% of people, including me, didn't make spoiler spoiler spoiler. That's nuts. )

Modifié par Firky, 13 avril 2013 - 11:46 .

[InsomniaticMeat]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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

Make your Single Player choices affect your Multiplayer? There's already the division between mages and templars.. Could easily make for a team vs. team multiplayer. However if you broaden that a little bit to allow mages to fight with the templars without losing themselves in the process, it could enrich the play even more and would allow everyone to pick their side - regardless of class, or possible consequences of losing emotion, becoming enslaved, etc. etc.

If your playthrough assisted the templars, you could unlock the templar team as a choice in multiplayer. If your playthrough assisted the mages, you'd unlock that team. Thus requiring at least two playthroughs to fully engage in the story and experience it from both side, before being able to play as either one of them in multiplayer.

However this is just an example of how it could be done. Replace the name "templars/mages" with anything more current in the DA world, and you'd have a solid base to start from.

Or do what ME3 did and turn multiplayer into a co-op game, where you team up with allies to take out greater evil. It's not really a competitive thing and requires more coding for enemy AI and could become stale over time.. But alas, you wouldn't have to balance classes as much to make sure they're up to par with each other.

[Fast Jimmy]

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.

The Baldur's Gate model could be doable, with a co-op mode built into the SP campaign, but I really don't see how this would be effective, in all honesty. I would love to see some penetration and utilization rates of this feature in BG, because aside from people on this forum, I'd never talked to anyone who had used the feature. And, not to sound crass, but I also can't think off the top of my head ways to generate revenue from such a feature, which I am sure is a concern. Co-op modes haven't been known to move units in the past and it doesn't lean itself to alternate income streams like a MP from ME3 did, so I'd be puzzled how such an approach would be green-lit by the producers and product directors.

I'd like to think I am not purposefully being obtuse just because I am biased against MP in general, but I concede that is entirely likely. But, at the same time, without making the franchise even more action-based or twitch than DA2 was (which I would consider a step backwards), it would be difficult for me to envision a MP section that would be true to the series, a source of revenue/increased sales to justify its inclusion AND also something people would actually use/play.

[Vortex13]

InsomniaticMeat wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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

Make your Single Player choices affect your Multiplayer? There's already the division between mages and templars.. Could easily make for a team vs. team multiplayer. However if you broaden that a little bit to allow mages to fight with the templars without losing themselves in the process, it could enrich the play even more and would allow everyone to pick their side - regardless of class, or possible consequences of losing emotion, becoming enslaved, etc. etc.

If your playthrough assisted the templars, you could unlock the templar team as a choice in multiplayer. If your playthrough assisted the mages, you'd unlock that team. Thus requiring at least two playthroughs to fully engage in the story and experience it from both side, before being able to play as either one of them in multiplayer.

However this is just an example of how it could be done. Replace the name "templars/mages" with anything more current in the DA world, and you'd have a solid base to start from. 

Or do what ME3 did and turn multiplayer into a co-op game, where you team up with allies to take out greater evil. It's not really a competitive thing and requires more coding for enemy AI and could become stale over time.. But alas, you wouldn't have to balance classes as much to make sure they're up to par with each other.

What if your choices throughout the series affected MP? Side with the Werewolves? Unlock a werewolf. Side with the Golems? Unlock a golem. Ect. You could get a little starting bonus to character selection based on your choices.

Speaking of characters, Bioware PLEASE, give us more playable characters/races then Humans, Elves, and Dwarves. Things like: Qunari, Werewolves, Golems, Malibari Warhounds, Sylvains, Awakened Darkspawn, ect. things that have a set precedence in the lore of being allies to the PC. 

I would prefer a co-op mode similar to ME 3, but if we could play as the more exotic creatures in a co-op campaign setting, more power to you.

[MerAnne]

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

Just another gentle reminder to EA/Bioware that not everyone has internet access that makes MP possible.  So I would vote with my wallet. If MP just HAD to be there, I wouldn't buy the game unless it is complete without using MP. 

[Welsh Inferno]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

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.

The Baldur's Gate model could be doable, with a co-op mode built into the SP campaign, but I really don't see how this would be effective, in all honesty. I would love to see some penetration and utilization rates of this feature in BG, because aside from people on this forum, I'd never talked to anyone who had used the feature. And, not to sound crass, but I also can't think off the top of my head ways to generate revenue from such a feature, which I am sure is a concern. Co-op modes haven't been known to move units in the past and it doesn't lean itself to alternate income streams like a MP from ME3 did, so I'd be puzzled how such an approach would be green-lit by the producers and product directors.

I'd like to think I am not purposefully being obtuse just because I am biased against MP in general, but I concede that is entirely likely. But, at the same time, without making the franchise even more action-based or twitch than DA2 was (which I would consider a step backwards), it would be difficult for me to envision a MP section that would be true to the series, a source of revenue/increased sales to justify its inclusion AND also something people would actually use/play.

Spot on what I was thinking.

[wiccame]

No, especially if it effects the ending.