275 réponses à ce sujet

[Heimdall]

I still believe the best form of multiplayer Bioware could produce for Dragon Age would be an arena, with both pvp and horde mode, and co-op dungeons designed in the style of SWTOR flashpoints, new dungeons being released on a monthly basis to complete an entirely self contained storyline. That might be asking too much though.

[Shaigunjoe]

GodChildInTheMachine wrote...

Shaigunjoe wrote...



Oh I see, for some reason I thought you just meant the ME series.  It is very visceral combat, but I am trying hard to think of a scifi game that has had better or simply more enjoyable squad shooting mechanics.  Maybe Metroid Prime?  No squad there though.  Would y

I have no idea about dragon's dogma or dark souls, but I played a lot of demon's souls.  I felt the combat was incredibily sparse, I used the bow/spear combo like 90% of the game.  Don't get me wrong, I did enjoy the game quite a bit, but not really for the combat mechanics, more so for the atmosphere and fun exploration elements. It reminded me a lot of older RPGs, like the original dragon's quest or some of the 8 bit dungeon crawlers so I didn't feel inhertily original to me though I am getting pretty old now so maybe it is new to you.  I skipped on Dark Souls though because I thought it would be fairly similiar to Demon's Souls, is that not the case?

Squad based shooters are indeed few, but for certain games like Republic Commando have arguably done it better in the past. I am still stricken by how much the gameplay of ME3 resembles basically any other cover-based TPS, though, and in that realm it is certainly nothing special. If Gears of War had magical abilities it would be worth the whole of ME3 combat and then some. It's not really fair to compare the two, seeing that GoW is built entirely for the combat while ME2 has other things on its mind, but my point is that if someone else is already doing the same thing better, you don't make a good game by taking safe bets and following the beaten path. At least, if you want to provide a novel and meaningful game experience that stands out.

That's my whole point about multiplayer; if they could really build it as an integral part of the game and give it the attention it deserves to be great, they should do it. However, I truly do not believe that they could achieve this, so anything they make will be a second rate variation on a theme. You really can't play ME3 MP without drawing negative comparisons to GoW Horde mode, which is continually being refined into a truly unique and quality experience far above and beyond that of ME3 MP. In that, it doesn't make a place for itself or assert its value. It's a vehicle for micro-transactions and revinue rather than being a labor of love. Talk about something getting old.

I haven't played Demon's Souls, but that Dark Souls is a throw back to old-school games is one thing I like about it. It is totally Castlevania or Zelda. But it is also something completely new. Dark Souls is a rare game where you can clearly see how it was built from the ground up with a singular purpose and artistic vision. It harkens back to old dungeon crawlers on NES or PC where you might spend hours trying to get past that one part, but its art direction, character progression and combat are all unique and purposeful. You really can't find a deeper sandbox for action RPG combat. It isn't perfect, but it is one of the best and that brooks no argument. Talk about a great idea for multiplayer in an RPG, as well. 

As for what is 'new' or 'old', I guess that is subjective based on your experience. I've been around a while too and I've played plenty of shooters and third person action games. Really, neither the combat or multiplayer of ME3 or Dark Souls is doing something all together original, but my ultimate argument here is that it is extremely easy, for me at least, to tell which one has more integrity, heart and vision. In the end, that's what counts for me, and that is what is going to make a stand-out experience amongst all of these competing stimuli, which I think very few would argue Dark Souls' combat and multiplayer achieves and ME3's really does not, though it is not 'bad'.

I'd say both GoW and republic commando are pretty poor comparisons, as the absense of powers actually makes a somewhat siginificant difference on how gameplay feels.

I feel that both GoW and ME3 are fairly different.  Positioning is way more important in GoW, where as the magic powers remove the need for that.  Also, I think individual roles are better definied in ME3, and it is more important to know when to use what skill, where as in GoW2 each soldier is basically the same (unsure how hoarde mode worked in GoW 3 , never got around to playing it, did play it GoW2 though). If you do a round of ME3 multiplayer with all soldiers, it is very different than doing it with a well balanced team.   Also, Hoarde Mode gets a downvote from me becuase you need a subscription to play it.  While ME3 does have microtransactions, I felt that it really wasn't necessary to pay anything(I never have), and as long as you don't buy the game on xbox, you don't need a subscription to keep playing.  You could also usually get enough credits from one match to upgrade your character, if anything the RNG aspect of the packs is what is most frustrating, and I think that actually discourages using real money because you don't know what you are paying for.

Definitly disagree about dark soul's co op, if there ever was a tacked on co op, that is it.  The improper matchmaking and lack of voice chat does fit the atmosphere of the game fairly well though, but once you have summoned people, it is basically the game on easy mode.  No real co op mechanics to speak of.  Nothing nearly as challenging (or fun)as platinum difficulty in ME3.

Anyway, to try and sum it all up, I think the only problems with ME3 multiplayer was the RNG related equipment (I think it would have been better to have a random chest at the end of each encounter, and then use credits to buys specific upgrades), and the absolutly horrible method they merged single player and multiplayer.  I think the visceral combat itself fits the cinematic feel they were going for with the game, and I don't think the developers integrity or heart was compromised in any elements of the combat mechanics.

[ElitePinecone]

Lord Aesir wrote...
co-op dungeons designed in the style of SWTOR flashpoints, new dungeons being released on a monthly basis to complete an entirely self contained storyline. That might be asking too much though.

This would actually be a really great idea, and a way to mix storytelling with multiplayer. 

There could be problems with developing content that quickly, though, and certification processes for the consoles. 

[Asdrubael Vect]

we not need this damn multiplayer, it will suck

it would be much better if they concentrated on a single and make playable races, origins and other stuff what people like from DA, to make single game better

[Agueybana]

ElitePinecone wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...
co-op dungeons designed in the style of SWTOR flashpoints, new dungeons being released on a monthly basis to complete an entirely self contained storyline. That might be asking too much though.

This would actually be a really great idea, and a way to mix storytelling with multiplayer. 

There could be problems with developing content that quickly, though, and certification processes for the consoles. 

Look at Halo 4's Spartan Ops, and how they handled it. I think it was fairly well done for a first attempt. Each week had a new Episode with 5 chapters in each. It did get stale fairly quickly, but that doesn't mean a serialized format couldn't be improved upon.

How? That's difficult, since increasing the content per "adventure" would increase the resources needed to make it, in three big areas. (e.g. Money, Manpower, Time)

Make it too big, and it can get unweildy, or production can't keep up with a release schedule. Make it too small and the players have no reason to keep playing, or have no feel of a story unfolding.

[Lexaconn]

Lord Aesir wrote...

I still believe the best form of multiplayer Bioware could produce for Dragon Age would be an arena, with both pvp and horde mode, and co-op dungeons designed in the style of SWTOR flashpoints, new dungeons being released on a monthly basis to complete an entirely self contained storyline. That might be asking too much though.

I'm sorry, but that sounds horrible. They need to focus on making a great single player experience. That's what Dragon Age is all about. Leave the multiplayer elements for the bloated, crowded and anything but immersive MMOs.

Those of us who want single player games with focus on a complete story that actually ends at some point are starting to run out of options...

Modifié par perterje, 13 mai 2013 - 03:48 .

[Shaigunjoe]

perterje wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...

I still believe the best form of multiplayer Bioware could produce for Dragon Age would be an arena, with both pvp and horde mode, and co-op dungeons designed in the style of SWTOR flashpoints, new dungeons being released on a monthly basis to complete an entirely self contained storyline. That might be asking too much though.

I'm sorry, but that sounds horrible. They need to focus on making a great single player experience. That's what Dragon Age is all about. Leave the multiplayer elements for the bloated, crowded and anything but immersive MMOs.

Those of us who want single player games with focus on a complete story that actually ends at some point are starting to run out of options...

Honestly, I'd say your options are only getting better, pretty much all the cRPGs kickstarted recently have been single player only.

[Lobos1988]

I can't see DA:I MP turning out cool... hell I can't even imagine it being average. Of course it can be some hack and slash brawling game, but there's no way that the feeling of DA can be put into real MP. The only thing I can imagine is co-op and I hope with all my heart that you can turn it off, so I don't have to drag strangers along with me that are suddenly replacing the characters I got used to.

[Rpgfantasyplayer]

I am not a fan of multiplayer. I don't want to have to play with other people to enjoy a game and get the best ending (or pay for xbox live when I already pay for an internet connection). I deal with people all day long at work and when I go home I just want to sit back and enjoy a SP game by myself. As other people have said, if multiplayer is there then I will just ignore it as if it didn't exist. I have done that with ME3 since they gave the extended ending and it has worked out just fine for me. Hopefully they would not do the same thing again that they did originally for ME3.

[Killdren88]

Rpgfantasyplayer wrote...

I am not a fan of multiplayer. I don't want to have to play with other people to enjoy a game and get the best ending (or pay for xbox live when I already pay for an internet connection). I deal with people all day long at work and when I go home I just want to sit back and enjoy a SP game by myself. As other people have said, if multiplayer is there then I will just ignore it as if it didn't exist. I have done that with ME3 since they gave the extended ending and it has worked out just fine for me. Hopefully they would not do the same thing again that they did originally for ME3.

Well said. If people want to play with their friends play a game where MP is the focus. Not a story driven RPG where your character is the main focus. Leave MP out of DA. If if must have an online piece than fine. But do it in the way of posting your story progress online like origin did. That as well was optional. You could turn that off.

[Maltiosus]

Why is Bioware turning Dragon age into medival mass effect

[Liamv2]

Maltiosus wrote...

Why is Bioware turning Dragon age into medival mass effect

They aren't? They take successful ideas from the already popular franchise's they have made and put them in the other one they are making. Other companies do it all the time fallout and elder scrolls, final fantasy and dragon quest, dragon's dogma and resident evil.

[Taiyama]

My problem is that, sure, maybe Bioware was able to get more funding for the multiplayer, so it's not taking stuff from the single player.

The problem comes if Dragon Age: Inquisition falls below or not high enough of this now inflated number of resources put INTO it. There's always a danger of this, as we can see by the fact that games like Resident Evil 6 and Tomb Raider, despite doing well just looking at the individual sales, actually fell well short of the mark. The budget had bloated so much that only something like six million sales could have saved it, which is just laughable.

That's what I'm worried about related to this multiplayer.

[Blooddrunk1004]

Liamv2 wrote...

Maltiosus wrote...

Why is Bioware turning Dragon age into medival mass effect

They aren't? They take successful ideas from the already popular franchise's they have made and put them in the other one they are making. Other companies do it all the time fallout and elder scrolls, final fantasy and dragon quest, dragon's dogma and resident evil.

Bull****!
Every game will take some insparation but DA is completely different case. When i played Origins it felt like i was playing new ip. Dragon Age 2 is Mass Effect 2 with swords and also plays like one:

dialogue wheel,
uncustomizable companions,
not being able to speak to random NPCs or companions whenever you wish, except when a bright yellow arrow points at them
exploration and random locations removed (just like it was removed in ME2),
Hawke = Shepard - equipped with one liners for every equation, showing no emotion and barely any personality.

Modifié par Blooddrunk1004, 10 août 2013 - 04:54 .

[Angrywolves]

Frank Gibeau EAVP has said he wouldn't approve a game without multiplayer.
Some fans want to dispute that but he was quoted saying it.
shrugs.

[fchopin]

If people want to play multiplayer that is fine by me as long as multiplayer is completely separate from single play.

[Liamv2]

Blooddrunk1004 wrote...

Liamv2 wrote...

Maltiosus wrote...

Why is Bioware turning Dragon age into medival mass effect

They aren't? They take successful ideas from the already popular franchise's they have made and put them in the other one they are making. Other companies do it all the time fallout and elder scrolls, final fantasy and dragon quest, dragon's dogma and resident evil.

Bull****!
Every game will take some insparation but DA is completely different case. When i played Origins it felt like i was playing new ip. Dragon Age 2 is Mass Effect 2 with swords and also plays like one:

dialogue wheel,
uncustomizable companions,
not being able to speak to random NPCs or companions whenever you wish, except when a bright yellow arrow points at them
exploration and random locations removed (just like it was removed in ME2),
Hawke = Shepard - equipped with one liners for every equation, showing no emotion and barely any personality.

da:O was essentially just baldur's gate again. 

[thebatmanreborn]

The gladiator stadium was one of my favorite things about Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion. And I know I am not alone because that was the one feature missing from Skyrim (aside from not being able to craft your own spells) that all the people I know complained about not being there.

Multiplayer is usually made by a separate team than the one making the single player experience. Multiplayer extends the life of the game (more incentive to make DLC), brings in more revenue (more incentive for Expansions and Sequels), and, if done well, can be an added bonus to the single player experience.

Therefore, I purpose a gladiator stadium. You can co-op, pvp, or go alone against hordes. Couldn't be too hard to implement and would be a ton of fun to play. Don't like it, avoid the stadium like the plague and go about your normal duties of single player adventuring.

That's my two cents.

Modifié par thebatmanreborn, 10 août 2013 - 05:13 .

[Atherus]

If they want to make a MP no matter what, fine (even so I can´t really see how this should work with Dragon Ages combat system besides from a Horde-Mode) but don´t make the same mistake as in ME 3 before the EC.

Don´t make the MP a requirement to get the best ending or let it influence the outcome of the game like the MP influenced the EMS in ME 3.

Won´t buy it at release because first I need a new PC, but if this will be the same as in ME 3 before the EC, it´s from my list.

[Splinter Cell 108]

LinksOcarina wrote...

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.

Funny thing about that game, the devs said they made them tack on MP, they didn't want to add it at all. To be honest that game didn't even need MP, the SP was just so great that it really wasn't necessary. Just like it isn't necessary for Dragon Age, I'm hoping that there won't be any MP to be honest. I think it won't happen though. 

[Uccio]

No multiplayer.

[Angrywolves]

EA will require it in some form.
That was decided.
shrugs.

[Splinter Cell 108]

Angrywolves wrote...

EA will require it in some form.
That was decided.
shrugs.

But why? Why is it required? Why is it that they need to add MP to everything? Are they just adding it in the hope that some day some game will be a hit or something? Add it to as many games as possible and hope that one of them turns out to be COD or something?

[Angrywolves]

Microtransactions.

[AresKeith]

Splinter Cell 108 wrote...

Angrywolves wrote...

EA will require it in some form.
That was decided.
shrugs.

But why? Why is it required? Why is it that they need to add MP to everything? Are they just adding it in the hope that some day some game will be a hit or something? Add it to as many games as possible and hope that one of them turns out to be COD or something?

Microtransactions, possibly an online pass