275 réponses à ce sujet

[sandalisthemaker]

 So, how many of you would *not* like a multiplayer component to DA3?

Multiplayer robs time,  resources, and money  that would be better spent adding more and better content to the single player experience. 

The DA series has been and should remain focused on  immersive story-telling and deep characters, and no matter how the game eventually turns out, its quality would have been better had (a substantial) portion of the budget not been spent on multiplayer. 

I am not naiive, and know that there is a greater than 90% chance that a multiplayer component reminiscient of Mass Effect's will be present in this game regardless, but I'm curious to see how many of you would not like to see it at all.
If it simply must be present, I would hope that it does not affect the single player experience in any way.


 

[Fast Jimmy]

I can't wait for E3 when they just confirm they will have MP for DA3.

[sandalisthemaker]

Yeah, I know.
It's going to be so uuuuber awesome.

Modifié par sandalisthemaker, 10 mai 2013 - 08:37 .

[Volus Warlord]

How can I say this effectively..

If the MP is a solid and enjoyable experience, I will say it was a worthy investment.

If the MP is broken, terribad, horrifically monotonous, etc.. I will say it was a waste of resources.

What makes it a good or bad decision in my book is the end result. I don't really see MP or lack of MP as a matter of principle at this point.

[sandalisthemaker]

Volus Warlord wrote...

How can I say this effectively..

If the MP is a solid and enjoyable experience, I will say it was a worthy investment.

If the MP is broken, terribad, horrifically monotonous, etc.. I will say it was a waste of resources.

What makes it a good or bad decision in my book is the end result. I don't really see MP or lack of MP as a matter of principle at this point.

How would it even work? What with the whole pause and play method present in single player gameplay?

[schalafi]

I just don't want it to interfere with the single player game.

[Volus Warlord]

sandalisthemaker wrote...

Volus Warlord wrote...

How can I say this effectively..

If the MP is a solid and enjoyable experience, I will say it was a worthy investment.

If the MP is broken, terribad, horrifically monotonous, etc.. I will say it was a waste of resources.

What makes it a good or bad decision in my book is the end result. I don't really see MP or lack of MP as a matter of principle at this point.

How would it even work? What with the whole pause and play method present in single player gameplay?

I've no idea. But I'll give em the benefit of a doubt. ME3's MP, while it had tremendous room for improvement, was actually pretty solid compared to many other SP games that try to push into MP. I wasn't quite sure how ME3's MP would work with a heavy emphasis on storytelling, time dilation abilities, yadda, yadda. But it worked out fine, and still has a lot of potential for future installments. Hopefully they can do something similar with DA3. 

[EpicBoot2daFace]

schalafi wrote...

I just don't want it to interfere with the single player game.

I like how they did it with Tomb Raider. They had a seperate team develop the multiplayer and it has absolutely nothing to do with the single player. They re-use some character skins from the single player for the multiplayer, but that's it.

Modifié par EpicBoot2daFace, 10 mai 2013 - 08:49 .

[Knight of Dane]

I honestly don't give a damn as long as it doesn't interfere with the Single Player experience.

[Killdren88]

I won't play it. I agree Dragon Age is best as a SP game that is focused on you. Not you and friend you. I don't want money taken from SP it is a waste of time. I don't want chantry vs mage sympathizers team death match. It is a terrible Idea.

Modifié par Killdren88, 10 mai 2013 - 09:12 .

[FINE HERE]

As long as it's not required to beat the game and it doesn't affect the story or anything else, I could care less. I'm not even sure how MP would even work in a story driven game like this...

[Tenshi]

im not sure.. if it wasnt as bad as ME3 mp was than why not..?

[Volus Warlord]

Killdren88 wrote...

I won't play it. I agree Dragon Age is best as a SP game that is focused on you. Not you and friend you. I don't want money taken from SP it is a waste of time. I don't want chantry vs mage sympathizers team death match. It is a terrible Idea.

You are essentially viewing SP vs MP as a matter of principle, which I feel is rather.. misguided. 

During ME3's development, I had a similar sentiment. Especially when those CoDized ME3 vids were leaked. Ugh.  That was exactly what all of us did NOT want. 

However, I do think it is something you should be a bit more open towards. When it actually came around, it was an entertaining and enjoyable experience, it didn't bastardize the ME universe or gameplay, and being able to fight as (pick a race) was something many players wanted for some time. It played and felt like ME, rather than some tack on with a similar art style. There were many, many things wrong with it, but the good outweighed the bad.  And when the SP turned out to be rather.. disappointing.. the MP really helped to make the game worth it. 

One might say, "If MP wasn't there, the SP wouldn't have been disappointing!" and that would be baseless comment. The "fault" was writing rather than gameplay, QA, etc. and the writing staff has little to do with MP. Or you could say, "If the MP wasn't there, the SP would have been better on every front!" and that would be rather difficult to prove.

What I can prove is that if the MP is good it can help you enjoy the game to the fullest.  If not, go on ignoring it.

Modifié par Volus Warlord, 10 mai 2013 - 09:34 .

[puppy maclove]

EA will force it.... BW will slap it on..... I will not buy it

[The Teyrn of Whatever]

I can do without MP. I think it's lame that EA forces developers whose games they publish to tack on MP onto otherwise SP games...

[-TC1989-]

I'll check it out if it's there, but meh. If Bioware can learn that you don't combine the two, and have one effect the other, then I'll be a lot more accepting. But with most games (Bioware especially), I buy games for the single player experience.

[Solmanian]

I really don't understand he point of all this "no MP" threads. I'm not a fan of MP, so what? Who cares? It's been known for a while now that EA consider MP to be a mandatory portion of their games; Single player, not so much. And since the single player campaign has been all but confirmed, what do you got to complain about?

Ofcourse, if they anounce the SP portion was scrapped like they did to C&C than yes, THE BSN WOULD BURN IN AN APOCALYPTIC CONFLAGRATOIN SO MASSIVE THAT EA WILL BE FORCED TO SCRAP THE SITE AND PRETEND IT NEVER EXISTED. But I don't think that's going to happen.

[Maverick827]

jlmaclachlan wrote...

EA will force it.... BW will slap it on..... I will not buy it

You clearly have a crackerjack history of boycotting BioWare games.

[LinksOcarina]

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

schalafi wrote...

I just don't want it to interfere with the single player game.

I like how they did it with Tomb Raider. They had a seperate team develop the multiplayer and it has absolutely nothing to do with the single player. They re-use some character skins from the single player for the multiplayer, but that's it.

Except that Tomb Raider had terrible multiplayer.

I mean seriously, we have essentially re-hash models of what we normally see in most games. Its the same issue I had with Spec Ops: The Line. It had nothing interesting going for it.

The funny thing is, Mass Effect did have sperate teams work on their single and multiplayer experiences, you can tell with the design layouts and structure of mechanics for example.  And the main key is that it felt like it had a place in the game, instead of being a quick cash-drop. Essentially, it fit the games structure well, which is the mark of  a well made game.

They however did something smart in keeping it simple and giving it a hook to actually play it.The biggest issue is monotnomy though, that I agree with.

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 10 mai 2013 - 09:57 .

[XX-Pyro]

I thought the same thing when Assassin's Creed added in MP to their games, and while the matchmaking was terribly long the multiplayer itself was incredibly fun for short periods of time on and off, so hopefully Bioware can pull off something great with DA III's MP (assuming it has MP).

[EpicBoot2daFace]

LinksOcarina wrote...

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

schalafi wrote...

I just don't want it to interfere with the single player game.

I like how they did it with Tomb Raider. They had a seperate team develop the multiplayer and it has absolutely nothing to do with the single player. They re-use some character skins from the single player for the multiplayer, but that's it.

Except that Tomb Raider had terrible multiplayer.

I mean seriously, we have essentially re-hash models of what we normally see in most games. Its the same issue I had with Spec Ops: The Line. It had nothing interesting going for it.

The funny thing is, Mass Effect did have sperate teams work on their single and multiplayer experiences, you can tell with the design layouts and structure of mechanics for example.  And the main key is that it felt like it had a place in the game, instead of being a quick cash-drop. Essentially, it fit the games structure well, which is the mark of  a well made game.

They however did something smart in keeping it simple and giving it a hook to actually play it.The biggest issue is monotnomy though, that I agree with.

Terrible multiplayer that you didn't have to play and didn't hurt the single player experience at all because it was entirely seperate.

[Iakus]

sandalisthemaker wrote...

 So, how many of you would *not* like a multiplayer component to DA3?

Multiplayer robs time,  resources, and money  that would be better spent adding more and better content to the single player experience. 

The DA series has been and should remain focused on  immersive story-telling and deep characters, and no matter how the game eventually turns out, its quality would have been better had (a substantial) portion of the budget not been spent on multiplayer. 

I am not naiive, and know that there is a greater than 90% chance that a multiplayer component reminiscient of Mass Effect's will be present in this game regardless, but I'm curious to see how many of you would not like to see it at all.
If it simply must be present, I would hope that it does not affect the single player experience in any way.

I do not want multiplayer in DA3.  Focus should remain entirely on the single player experience.  The Maker knows after Bioware's last couple of games it needs it.

And if there is multiplayer, I'm not purchasing new.  Most likely not until it's in the bargain bin or at least the DLC cycle is over (if then)  I have no intention of paying full price for half a game. 

[Mr.House]

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

schalafi wrote...

I just don't want it to interfere with the single player game.

I like how they did it with Tomb Raider. They had a seperate team develop the multiplayer and it has absolutely nothing to do with the single player. They re-use some character skins from the single player for the multiplayer, but that's it.

Except that Tomb Raider had terrible multiplayer.

I mean seriously, we have essentially re-hash models of what we normally see in most games. Its the same issue I had with Spec Ops: The Line. It had nothing interesting going for it.

The funny thing is, Mass Effect did have sperate teams work on their single and multiplayer experiences, you can tell with the design layouts and structure of mechanics for example.  And the main key is that it felt like it had a place in the game, instead of being a quick cash-drop. Essentially, it fit the games structure well, which is the mark of  a well made game.

They however did something smart in keeping it simple and giving it a hook to actually play it.The biggest issue is monotnomy though, that I agree with.

Terrible multiplayer that you didn't have to play and didn't hurt the single player experience at all because it was entirely seperate.

It increased Tomb Raiders funding and delayed the game which backfired on SE.

[GreyLycanTrope]

I can't say I care much for the idea of MP being implemented, but EA has a certain policy in that regard.

[EpicBoot2daFace]

Mr.House wrote...

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

schalafi wrote...

I just don't want it to interfere with the single player game.

I like how they did it with Tomb Raider. They had a seperate team develop the multiplayer and it has absolutely nothing to do with the single player. They re-use some character skins from the single player for the multiplayer, but that's it.

Except that Tomb Raider had terrible multiplayer.

I mean seriously, we have essentially re-hash models of what we normally see in most games. Its the same issue I had with Spec Ops: The Line. It had nothing interesting going for it.

The funny thing is, Mass Effect did have sperate teams work on their single and multiplayer experiences, you can tell with the design layouts and structure of mechanics for example.  And the main key is that it felt like it had a place in the game, instead of being a quick cash-drop. Essentially, it fit the games structure well, which is the mark of  a well made game.

They however did something smart in keeping it simple and giving it a hook to actually play it.The biggest issue is monotnomy though, that I agree with.

Terrible multiplayer that you didn't have to play and didn't hurt the single player experience at all because it was entirely seperate.

It increased Tomb Raiders funding and delayed the game which backfired on SE.

I'm sure they've already broke even. The game sold 3.5 million copies in it's first month after release.

Modifié par EpicBoot2daFace, 10 mai 2013 - 10:30 .