275 réponses à ce sujet

[The Elder King]

I'd prefer to not have MP, but it's not a deal breaker feature for me.

[mickey111]

sandalisthemaker wrote...

Multiplayer robs...

Wow, I didn't know that. hey Blizzard! Stop making single player campaigns with multibillion trillion dollar CGI cinematics! It's robbing resources from your competitive multiplayer! Resources which could be spent fine tuning the MP mechanics which only slightly resemble the ones in the campaign.

seriously, MP robs nothing, and this debate is pointless. EA will decide how much it's worth, give that money to Bioware, and expect Bioware to hire people with the proper skills to make it happen. Everything is okay, unless the new hires are designing quests, or the writers are designing weapons. But Bioware probably aren't idiots, so that probably isn't going to happen.

By the way, why do the SP fans of every game ever have a big stick up their butt about MP, and yet the MP guys hardly seem to care? Why can't you be like those guys and just learn to chill out and let people have fun in their own ways?

Modifié par mickey111, 10 mai 2013 - 10:40 .

[2Pac]

Hope so mass effect didn't have multiplayer till Mass Effect 3. So Dragons Age 3 should have a multiplayer too.

[sandalisthemaker]

alliance commander wrote...

mass effect didn't have multiplayer till Mass Effect 3.

Hmmm.
I wonder why?

Perhaps it's because the series was created to be a single player RPG. 

[Cainhurst Crow]

Your entire argument hinges on the assumption that because there is multiplayer in the game, the single player components budget suffers for it.

You don't even bother to try and take into account that those multiplayer resources are assigned separately from the single player teams budget, or that the chances are that without the multiplayer component, the single player game would still receive the same budget, and that the rest of the resources would be put to different projects, or simply not spent at all in order to increase the overhead.

I get that you hate multiplayer, but the reasons you stated aren't actually reasons, but loosely based conspiracy theory speculation. It's alright to just not like multiplayer out of preference, and not try to BS a reason it shouldn't be in the game.

[2Pac]

sandalisthemaker wrote...

alliance commander wrote...

mass effect didn't have multiplayer till Mass Effect 3.

Hmmm.
I wonder why?

Perhaps it's because the series was created to be a single player RPG. 

I know. But still it would be nice to have a multiplayer.

[Cainhurst Crow]

sandalisthemaker wrote...

alliance commander wrote...

mass effect didn't have multiplayer till Mass Effect 3.

Hmmm.
I wonder why?

Perhaps it's because the series was created to be a single player RPG. 

Gee, I also wonder why that is.

Granted, this article is an article, written by a human, about the words of another human. It has the possibility of not be right, but it's a lot more likley to have been right than something that goes against what the development team is saying and has no proof.

Unless someone has an article that says, clearly, that bioware didn't want multiplayer in the game, from someone on the development team for mass effect.

[Milan92]

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

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.

His point was that it could have been avoided if they had just never inplemented the it all together. The game could have been released sooner, they could have added more stuff and story to the singleplayer. All that didn't happen because Square Enix wanted the multiplayer so badly that rarely anyone plays these days.

[Uccio]

I don´t want mp in DA. Never play those in fantasy games.

[VendettaI154]

I honestly can't see how they could put multiplayer in though I'm sure they'll find a way. I'm strongly against the idea however, there aren't enough strong storied single player games these days.

[Conduit0]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

Your entire argument hinges on the assumption that because there is multiplayer in the game, the single player components budget suffers for it.

You don't even bother to try and take into account that those multiplayer resources are assigned separately from the single player teams budget, or that the chances are that without the multiplayer component, the single player game would still receive the same budget, and that the rest of the resources would be put to different projects, or simply not spent at all in order to increase the overhead.

I get that you hate multiplayer, but the reasons you stated aren't actually reasons, but loosely based conspiracy theory speculation. It's alright to just not like multiplayer out of preference, and not try to BS a reason it shouldn't be in the game.

No, Bad! You stop that logical and intelligent way of thinking right now mister.

[spirosz]

Not every game needs MP, but if the developers think it suits their needs in what they're trying to express, by all means, go for it. Especially in RPGs, I find it usually works better if the MP was more cooperative focused, compared to PVP.

Do I want MP in DA III? No. Am I open to the idea of it? Yes. The same thing happened in ME3, I didn't like the idea, but I waited till I tried it and I preferred it over the SP, sadly.

Modifié par spirosz, 10 mai 2013 - 11:19 .

[Conduit0]

Milan92 wrote...

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

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.

His point was that it could have been avoided if they had just never inplemented the it all together. The game could have been released sooner, they could have added more stuff and story to the singleplayer. All that didn't happen because Square Enix wanted the multiplayer so badly that rarely anyone plays these days.

In that case his point is wrong. If they hadn't included multiplayer, the money spent on it would not have gone to single player instead, the money simply wouldn't have been included in the budget. And theres no logical reason to assume that releasing it sooner would have lead to higher sales.

[Milan92]

Conduit0 wrote...

Milan92 wrote...

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

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.

His point was that it could have been avoided if they had just never inplemented the it all together. The game could have been released sooner, they could have added more stuff and story to the singleplayer. All that didn't happen because Square Enix wanted the multiplayer so badly that rarely anyone plays these days.

In that case his point is wrong. If they hadn't included multiplayer, the money spent on it would not have gone to single player instead, the money simply wouldn't have been included in the budget. And theres no logical reason to assume that releasing it sooner would have lead to higher sales.

And what makes you say the money wouldn't have gone to the singleplayer?

[UnderlAlDyingSun]

THEY ALREADY CONFIRMED IT! Will it suck, probably unless its competitive.

[Allan Schumacher]

Milan92 wrote...

And what makes you say the money wouldn't have gone to the singleplayer?

It's a hypothesis, much like yours.

I will note that, due to the way iterations work in game design, if something organic comes out as a gameplay element, regardless of what that component is, it is possible to secure additional funding if you can provide a business case that convinces people to allocate additional funding.  Whatever that feature may be.

[bleetman]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

You don't even bother to try and take into account that those multiplayer resources are assigned separately from the single player teams budget, or that the chances are that without the multiplayer component, the single player game would still receive the same budget, and that the rest of the resources would be put to different projects, or simply not spent at all in order to increase the overhead.

I don't pretend to understand the development process of how budgets are attributed, so this is always an argument I'll just accept.

That said - and perhaps I'm just being ignorant here - I have a hard time believing that any publishing company, let alone EA of all people, are going to assign considerably more, unconnected resources and funding to a project for the purpose of creating an entirely seperate multiplayer mode whilst still charging the same price at retail as they would have anyway were it just a singleplayer title.

[hoorayforicecream]

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.

Badly implemented multiplayer can have those effects. It doesn't necessarily. With many games, multiplayer content is developed alongside the single player by a separate team which manages to leverage the same engineers. It all depends on the development approach, which you can only speculate about.

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.

When a game is being budgeted, the publisher does not simply hand the developer a check and say "Make us the best game you can with this." Everything has to be accounted for, and that includes individual budgets for single player, multiplayer, designers, engineers, artists, outsourcing, QA, certification, etc.  This happens from both sides of the table - the developer has to realistically figure out how much things will cost, and how long they will take to develop, and the publisher has to do their due diligence to check whether the estimates are also realistic. 

Don't get me wrong, certain things are cheaper and more efficeient when you develop them in tandem. If the engine is built for multiplayer from the ground up, you can use the same tools for constructing levels, models, assets, etc. that you can for single player, and that spares the cost of having to build separate tools and employ separate engineers to maintain those systems. You can also leverage engineers for both so you don't need to reinvent the wheel when creating software systems - the rendering system doesn't care if it's told to render single player or multi player content. It just cares about where the vertices are and what the shaders are telling it to do.

If the budget is 10,000 zots for single player and 5,000 zots for multiplayer, the studio would not get 15,000 zots if they decided not to do multiplayer. They would get 10,000 zots for the game, and the other 5,000 zots that they would have gotten for multiplayer would just go to another project instead.

All in all, this particular thread is just an armchair producer thread that translates to "I wish they would allocate their resources like this and I am afraid they will." Your demonstrated understanding of the actual production process is about equivalent to this video.

[sandalisthemaker]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

It's a hypothesis, much like yours.

I will note that, due to the way iterations work in game design, if something organic comes out as a gameplay element, regardless of what that component is, it is possible to secure additional funding if you can provide a business case that convinces people to allocate additional funding.  Whatever that feature may be.

Hi Allan.
So are you saying that once a multiplayer component is decided upon, then additional funding/resources/manpower are *added*?  As opposed to destributed from existing resources? 

[hoorayforicecream]

Milan92 wrote...

And what makes you say the money wouldn't have gone to the singleplayer?

When games are going through the approval process, one of the most important factors are the sales estimates and preditcted revenue from additional factors (DLC, microtransactions, brand strength, cross-promotions, etc.). The developer studio would have to justify that those resources additionally spent on single player would result in the same (or greater) amount of increased sales and predicted revenue, and that justification has to be corroborated by the publisher's own research. If that doesn't pan out, then there's no reason for the publisher to give it to them, because it would be overspending when they didn't have to.

Remember, the publisher's goal here is to get the best selling/revenue-generating game that they can for the funding they have. 

Modifié par hoorayforicecream, 10 mai 2013 - 11:33 .

[BouncyFrag]

I'm in the if its fun I'll play it 'boat.' If it has different classes/races we can use it would be a nice change from the singleplayer since it only has the option of being human. I liked the me3 multiplayer and it didn't turn out to be the abomination that had been feared. Boycotting DA3 if it has MP on the grounds of principles is a bit much for me. If its a team based multiplayer I think it would be a blast playing with people on this board.

[Fast Jimmy]

Remember, the publisher's goal here is to get the best selling/revenue-generating game that they can for the funding they have.

Well, publishers can have other goals, like market directions, uniform business initiatives (like MP in every game), integration with other products (like mobile game crossovers) and integration with preferred selling models (like Origin).

Selling the single game they are funding is not the end all, be all of a publisher's corporate goal.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 10 mai 2013 - 11:48 .

[Cainhurst Crow]

bleetman wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...

You don't even bother to try and take into account that those multiplayer resources are assigned separately from the single player teams budget, or that the chances are that without the multiplayer component, the single player game would still receive the same budget, and that the rest of the resources would be put to different projects, or simply not spent at all in order to increase the overhead.

I don't pretend to understand the development process of how budgets are attributed, so this is always an argument I'll just accept.

That said - and perhaps I'm just being ignorant here - I have a hard time believing that any publishing company, let alone EA of all people, are going to assign considerably more, unconnected resources and funding to a project for the purpose of creating an entirely seperate multiplayer mode whilst still charging the same price at retail as they would have anyway were it just a singleplayer title.

Well the price of games aren't really reflective of their true cost anyway.  So as far as I am aware, they set the price that people will pay the most for because they know charging more for a game will lead to a decrease in sales, but still want to make the maximum amount of money.

When it comes to budgets, what I have learned from my education and limited looks into the development process through articles and interviews I've heard or read, companies tend to try and shave anything they can from the budget, right down to even reducing the cost for themselves by even a few fractions of a percent. I doubt that the budget for a single player game, if the multiplayer were removed, would suddenly bloat and absorb all that extra cash, when most of it would be seen by the accountants and budget managers, or at least the ones in charge of the budget, as excess funds that the project never needed in order to finish. When they assign budgets, it's what they theoretically think will be spent, right down the nearest penny if they can help it. No more and no less than what would be needed to finish a game. Whether the budget they set up is actually the amount they need is a question for debate, but they strive to save as much money in production as feasibly possible.

Modifié par Darth Brotarian, 10 mai 2013 - 11:39 .

[ParkBom]

spirosz wrote...

Not every game needs MP, but if the developers think it suits their needs in what they're trying to express, by all means, go for it. Especially in RPGs, I find it usually works better if the MP was more cooperative focused, compared to PVP.

Do I want MP in DA III? No. Am I open to the idea of it? Yes. The same thing happened in ME3, I didn't like the idea, but I waited till I tried it and I preferred it over the SP, sadly.

[AlanC9]

bleetman wrote...


That said - and perhaps I'm just being ignorant here - I have a hard time believing that any publishing company, let alone EA of all people, are going to assign considerably more, unconnected resources and funding to a project for the purpose of creating an entirely seperate multiplayer mode whilst still charging the same price at retail as they would have anyway were it just a singleplayer title.

Unless the MP has other ways of generating revenue. Like, you know, microtransactions.