411 réponses à ce sujet

[imbs]

FINE HERE wrote...

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

Then you are not trying hard enough. There are literally hundreds of ways a decent MP could be implemented in a fantasy RPG game.

Modifié par imbs, 13 avril 2013 - 12:56 .

[Fast Jimmy]

imbs wrote...

FINE HERE wrote...

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

Then you are not trying hard enough. There are literally hundreds of ways a decent MP could be implemented in a fantasy RPG game.

But not in a PARTY-BASED Fantasy RPG game. Heck, drop the fantasy part... its a huge headache for a party-based RPG, period. 

[Fortlowe]

I'd want MP similar to what we got from ME3 perhaps minus the effect on the games ending. I'm for some connection between MP & SO, but why not the other way around? Accomplishments.in the campaign unlockS items in MP.

[imbs]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

imbs wrote...

FINE HERE wrote...

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

Then you are not trying hard enough. There are literally hundreds of ways a decent MP could be implemented in a fantasy RPG game.

But not in a PARTY-BASED Fantasy RPG game. Heck, drop the fantasy part... its a huge headache for a party-based RPG, period. 

There are different ways to approach that, too. The party part does not need to be as rigidly defined as it is in the single player mode.

edit: you seem to be worried about it becoming very different from the single player experience. The problem is, with the inevitable removal of the pause button there is no chance of  the MP resembling the SP particularly well. It's a lost cause already.

Modifié par imbs, 13 avril 2013 - 01:24 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Welsh Inferno wrote...

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.

Again, I don't want to sound negative, but I just don't see how DA's core mechanics of a party-based, group controlled combat could be easily married with a MP system without producing something completely different.

[hazarkazra]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

But not in a PARTY-BASED Fantasy RPG game. Heck, drop the fantasy part... its a huge headache for a party-based RPG, period. 

Didn't they suggest it was going to be some kind of co-op? So in that case in it's most basic version all it would do is give the option to take over one of the non-player characters, in it's most complicated form something akin to the TOR system.

[Wulfram]

With the tactics system, why couldn't players control a party in MP?  Rather than being reduced to a single character?

[Black Jimmy]

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?

A cooporitive subcampaign. It ties into the single playr campaign by reflecting the choices of a part of 4.
Only issue I see is deciding who talks and people going out of there way to make bad choices that effect other peoples Main campaign poorly. 
Perhaps have the host leader be the one to make the final choice, but other play put in there two cents like companions do in the usual game. The import becomes available to all who participate so if they like how that played out that can like it to a new single player campaign.
And/Or give them a say, but make being a choice troll reportable, which results in a ban after so many strikes.

[HolyAvenger]

All you have to do is somehow make the auto-attack feature a little less boring.

Powers etc would work the same way as in ME3 (space magic!). You control just one character instead of a party. You can definitely have different roles (there's tanks, DPS, medic-type kits already in ME3MP and shooters don't even follow the holy-trinity model that much). No pausing.

So yeah, make it more interesting/skillful to swing a sword or use a bow than simply pressing a button (like shooting involves firing, tracking a target etc) and you could port the combat system from ME3 and make it a more fantasy makeover/feeling.

I would play the sh*t out of that.

And it would feel quite different to SP, just like ME3, no big deal.

[imbs]

I don't understand why people think just having basically the swtor instance system would be a good idea for MP for this game. IF bioware have any brains at all they will not have any MP where "choices" are an important feature - A MP like that is the type you play once (or maybe twice) and then never try it again. They need a MP that has high replay value and not so much maintenance req'd. That suggestion is just awful honestly.

[Solas]

I hope that:
- it's optional
- it doesn't negatively affect or otherwise detract from the SP campaign

Aside from that I have nothing against DA MP, in fact I'm curious to see what they do with it considering I really enjoy ME MP.

[LinksOcarina]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

imbs wrote...

FINE HERE wrote...

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

Then you are not trying hard enough. There are literally hundreds of ways a decent MP could be implemented in a fantasy RPG game.

But not in a PARTY-BASED Fantasy RPG game. Heck, drop the fantasy part... its a huge headache for a party-based RPG, period. 

And if you had one character in a party made up of PC characters? Does that count? 

[Welsh Inferno]

imbs wrote...

edit: you seem to be worried about it becoming very different from the single player experience. The problem is, with the inevitable removal of the pause button there is no chance of  the MP resembling the SP particularly well. It's a lost cause already.

Which is a huge problem. Because if they cannot make the MP like the SP. They will have to alter the SP to suit a MP experience. 

[Androme]

 Scrap MP and spend the money on SP.

[Fast Jimmy]

LinksOcarina wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

imbs wrote...

FINE HERE wrote...

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

Then you are not trying hard enough. There are literally hundreds of ways a decent MP could be implemented in a fantasy RPG game.

But not in a PARTY-BASED Fantasy RPG game. Heck, drop the fantasy part... its a huge headache for a party-based RPG, period. 

And if you had one character in a party made up of PC characters? Does that count? 

No. That is a single player-focused game. It just encourages co-op play (think WoW).

A game that has, at its fundamental core, gameplay that revolves around having a party and controlling that party as part of the tactics and strategy of the game.

Think of the old school arcade game SmashTV! if you will. It basically involves controlling one unit that fights other units, as the player avoids enemy attacks and always works to aim their attacks correctly. Then think of an older RTS, such as Command and Conquer. This involves moving and controlling multiple units to coordinate and attack enemies.

Both games involve controlling units in combat, both involve smart movement and placement of troops, both involve a top/overhead view and both have player units that die fairly easily (SmashTV! had the player taking very little damage before dying, in what people often label "Nintendo Hard" gameplay of older arcade games).

But the game styles are COMPLETELY different. In large part because one involves coordinating a group and one involves controlling a single unit. When controlling a single unit, the entire crux of the gameplay revolves around action, allowing your single unit to do and accomplish everything that the game offers; a group-based approach has units with designated roles and builds, strengths and weaknesses, that the player needs to learn and coordinate to execute the best possible outcomes.

ME3 had everyone able to use medi-gel in order to revive companions, both in SP and MP. It involved aiming a reticule to shoot your primary weapon, both in SP and MP. It involved a style where if the main character dies it ends gameplay, both in SP and MP. Removing the pause function and the squad commands in MP changes the gameplay, but it doesn't offer a fundamentally different experience.

Contrast that with DA. The player can control, directly, any player in the party. Using skills that resurrect are restricted to certain character types. If any character dies, the player can control another if there are any others available. Certain builds are all about complimenting other party members, instead of being stand-alone combat types (imagine trying to play a healer-Anders solo on Gold... it just would not work).

Such underlying functiona are not easily just stripped out without creating a vastly different game style in terms of mechanics, balancing, leveling styles and companion AI systems. It wouldn't be bad, per se (many games do this right and well)... but it would be a different game. Assuming DA3's SP is similar to DA:O and DA2, then the DA3 SP would be an experience viscerally different than the MP. And if they change the SP in DA3 to match a more action-based, single-character focus in order to marry the SP and MP closer together, then that will be a direction I am not really hoping the franchise is going in.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 13 avril 2013 - 04:20 .

[Fast Jimmy]

HolyAvenger wrote...

All you have to do is somehow make the auto-attack feature a little less boring.

Powers etc would work the same way as in ME3 (space magic!). You control just one character instead of a party. You can definitely have different roles (there's tanks, DPS, medic-type kits already in ME3MP and shooters don't even follow the holy-trinity model that much). No pausing.

So yeah, make it more interesting/skillful to swing a sword or use a bow than simply pressing a button (like shooting involves firing, tracking a target etc) and you could port the combat system from ME3 and make it a more fantasy makeover/feeling.

I would play the sh*t out of that.

And it would feel quite different to SP, just like ME3, no big deal.

Considering the "Mass-Effectization" of the DA series was one of the big complints about DA2, I would say this suggestion (make DA more like ME) would not be received well... especially if it was done to accommodate a MP feature. 

[robertthebard]

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?

Add a toolset, and do it exactly like NWN's.

[ianvillan]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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

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 occasionally used the BG2 multiplayer, but that was just so I could create all six characters for myself, I never once used it for grouping with other players.

Now it could be said that this was really before the internet was as widespread as it is now which would be fair. but even if BG2 was released today I would still have no desire to play Baulders Gate with an online co-op component.

[imbs]

I agree with you Fast Jimmy I wouldnt want DA to focus more on the single player aspect. Hell it was kind of the way of it towards the end of DA2 as it was... The PC gets to be so much better than the NPCs, least it did in my experience. I want them to fix that as well.

But honestly I don't see why we can't have both. In the single player campaign you have more factors to control, but have pause to help you deal with it. In the multi-player campaign you lose those extra NPCs but lose pause - a semi-fair trade in terms of how difficult the gameplay will be. It seems to me that it could be fairly naturally implemented without taking away from the DA SP style of giving you control over your whole party.

If you simply did this in say DAO; took away pause and the NPCs as part of a new MP mode, it wouldn't be that terrible. Okay auto attack and the shuffling mechanic wouldn't work at all, and the balance would be horrendous, but still. With some polishing it could even be playable. With a better auto attack mechanic (anything but the DA2 one please) and no shuffling, I think it could even get to the point where it was fun.

[ianvillan]

HolyAvenger wrote...

All you have to do is somehow make the auto-attack feature a little less boring.

Powers etc would work the same way as in ME3 (space magic!). You control just one character instead of a party. You can definitely have different roles (there's tanks, DPS, medic-type kits already in ME3MP and shooters don't even follow the holy-trinity model that much). No pausing.

So yeah, make it more interesting/skillful to swing a sword or use a bow than simply pressing a button (like shooting involves firing, tracking a target etc) and you could port the combat system from ME3 and make it a more fantasy makeover/feeling.

I would play the sh*t out of that.

And it would feel quite different to SP, just like ME3, no big deal.

What you described could be fun but is also might as well be a totally different game with all the changes you would have to make to it.

So if Bioware wants to have an online game why not have one of there separate studios just make a separate game instead.

[Fast Jimmy]

Wulfram wrote...

With the tactics system, why couldn't players control a party in MP?  Rather than being reduced to a single character?

This could be done, of course. 

But would all members of the party be unique? If not, will there possibly be companions from the SP, so that there might be fifteen Varrics running around? In addition, with five players controlling four characters in a party, that's twenty characters on screen, not including any enemies. You'd likely need at LEAST double the amount of enemies to players in a PvE mode, so you are looking at sixty units on screen for a small (by MP standards) five player match. That's a serious resource hog, either for the platform doing the game as well as server lag. Lastly, controlling a party without a pause button can be quite cumbersome. Companion AI would need to be redesigned (or the Tactics menu changed to a completely different level/ability) as well as a more "fast-key" type of system to replace the radial menu system in order to give commands quickly across companions.

Again... not impossible things to do, but it very quickly becomes a different game than what the DA series has been. 

[robertthebard]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

With the tactics system, why couldn't players control a party in MP?  Rather than being reduced to a single character?

This could be done, of course. 

But would all members of the party be unique? If not, will there possibly be companions from the SP, so that there might be fifteen Varrics running around? In addition, with five players controlling four characters in a party, that's twenty characters on screen, not including any enemies. You'd likely need at LEAST double the amount of enemies to players in a PvE mode, so you are looking at sixty units on screen for a small (by MP standards) five player match. That's a serious resource hog, either for the platform doing the game as well as server lag. Lastly, controlling a party without a pause button can be quite cumbersome. Companion AI would need to be redesigned (or the Tactics menu changed to a completely different level/ability) as well as a more "fast-key" type of system to replace the radial menu system in order to give commands quickly across companions.

Again... not impossible things to do, but it very quickly becomes a different game than what the DA series has been. 

If you're going to do that, why have MP in the first place?  Might as well dump those resources into the SP campaign.

[HolyAvenger]

ianvillan wrote...

So if Bioware wants to have an online game why not have one of there separate studios just make a separate game instead.

 

Because I think people underestimate how important story is to a PvE game. Having it set in Thedas, directly connected to the SP games would add a lot to the feel and interest in the game, IMO. And you grow your consumer/player base by attracting MP fans to the SP, and SP fans to the MP.   


I often played DA as a single character anyway. Used to set up all my tactics, and then control only my PC. So for me stripping out group combat would be no big deal. 

Modifié par HolyAvenger, 13 avril 2013 - 04:49 .

[Wulfram]

I think it's quite possible to play DA2 without pausing, if you set up tactics right. You probably wouldn't want friendly fire, or too much in the way of stuff that you need to manually dodge.

System resources could well be an issue, yeah. Though maybe you could reduce that by making it PvP rather than PvE.  Though I doubt I'd play it if it was PvP

Modifié par Wulfram, 13 avril 2013 - 05:01 .

[HolyAvenger]

Wulfram wrote...

System resources could well be an issue, yeah. Though maybe you could reduce that by making it PvP rather than PvE.  Though I doubt I'd play it if it was PvP

 

Yeah I don't like PvP either. But I see some potential for, say, Templars versus Mages games and so forth.