275 réponses à ce sujet

[sandalisthemaker]

BouncyFrag wrote...

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.

I think having different race options in multiplayer will be a slap in the face to some.
Not me because I am content playing a human in single player.

I'm not advocating boycotting DA3 at all. I will get this game no matter what.
However, if multiplayer is going to happen, I hope it is not tied to single player at all. That really annoyed me in ME3.
If it has no effect, I will simply pretend DA3's MP doesn't exist.

Modifié par sandalisthemaker, 10 mai 2013 - 11:44 .

[hoorayforicecream]

sandalisthemaker wrote...

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? 

It depends on the sort of feature it is. Adding multiplayer is a fundamental change that can cause a lot of development headache if the existing codebase doesn't innately support it, because there are a lot of changes that need to be made and assumptions that need to be unmade in that code. This is why adding multiplayer mid-project to an engine that didn't previously support it is almost always a nightmare. The closer one is to the beginning of the project, the easier it becomes - much like the laser pointer effect. But yes, you are correct. If the publisher is convinced that feature X will add significant additional value to the project, they will put in additional funding.

You've seen the same sort of thing happen many times before, except it came in the form of "game release delayed for quality purposes." The game wasn't predicted to be good enough at the original release date, and the additional costs needed to make it good enough for release were predicted to offset the benefits they get from a delayed release. So the game gets delayed for more development time. That all costs money.

[Chanda]

I won't play it in multi-player. I'm not interested in multi-player for DA. I don't want other real world people in my game world. I go to my game world to escape the real world and I don't need to be reminded of the real world (ie, headset problems, people yelling in your ear if that's how you're communicating with other players, or people talking/texting things about things that don't pertain to the game) when I'm playing in my game world. So it would be a lost feature on me.

[BouncyFrag]

sandalisthemaker wrote...

BouncyFrag wrote...

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.

I think having different race options in multiplayer will be a slap in the face to some.
Not me because I am content playing a human.

I'm not advocating boycotting DA3 at all. I will get this game no matter what.
However, if multiplayer is going to happen, I hope it is not tied to single player at all. That really annoyed me in ME3.
If it has no affect, I will simply pretend DA3's MP doesn't exist.

I can see that. What made the me3 fun for me was getting to play a Krogan, a Batarian, and dare I say it, a Volus. I'm looking at it from that perspective. Race selection is a bigger deal in DA due to the strength of all the different 'Origins' we could pick in the first game.

[Lenimph]

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.

 
You like what they did with Tomb Raider? 
Seperate team or not the multiplayer is boring, uninventive, and delayed the release of the single player game for 5 months just to tackle that cr*p on.  Plus they don't want to release any single player dlc now. 
Are you serious? 
<_<

[Chanda]

sandalisthemaker wrote...

BouncyFrag wrote...

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.

I think having different race options in multiplayer will be a slap in the face to some.
Not me because I am content playing a human in single player.

I'm not advocating boycotting DA3 at all. I will get this game no matter what.
However, if multiplayer is going to happen, I hope it is not tied to single player at all. That really annoyed me in ME3.
If it has no effect, I will simply pretend DA3's MP doesn't exist.

Also this.

[Zombie_Alexis]

I'm fine with MP being in Dragon Age, and I'll probably give it a whirl if they give a two-day XBOX Gold pass like they did with ME3. But I won't buy a membership for XBOX Gold, because MP is not my thing. As long as I can play the SP game without having to do MP at all, I'm good.

[sandalisthemaker]

hoorayforicecream wrote...


It depends on the sort of feature it is. Adding multiplayer is a fundamental change that can cause a lot of development headache if the existing codebase doesn't innately support it, because there are a lot of changes that need to be made and assumptions that need to be unmade in that code. This is why adding multiplayer mid-project to an engine that didn't previously support it is almost always a nightmare. The closer one is to the beginning of the project, the easier it becomes - much like the laser pointer effect. But yes, you are correct. If the publisher is convinced that feature X will add significant additional value to the project, they will put in additional funding.

You've seen the same sort of thing happen many times before, except it came in the form of "game release delayed for quality purposes." The game wasn't predicted to be good enough at the original release date, and the additional costs needed to make it good enough for release were predicted to offset the benefits they get from a delayed release. So the game gets delayed for more development time. That all costs money.

Hm.
I'm curious. Are you in game development or something?

This is what I'm worried about. Multiplayer being a huge hassle that ultimately tampers with the game as a whole.
I don't want the game delayed for fraking multiplayer. If it's delayed, I want it to be delayed because they want to polish the single player. And I don't want the hassle of multiple disks (ME on Xbox) due to multiplayer.

[Lenimph]

Milan92 wrote...

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

The multiplayer was the reason the game was delayed. If Square decided not to implement the MP Tomb Raider probably would have been released back in October. 

They probably would have gotten better sales too because of the holiday season. 

[Lenimph]

Anyway I would much rather Bioware plan out the multiplayer from the start and actually give us some decent multiplayer if they're even going to bother .

I recommend an online wicked grace minigame please.

[hoorayforicecream]

sandalisthemaker wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...


It depends on the sort of feature it is. Adding multiplayer is a fundamental change that can cause a lot of development headache if the existing codebase doesn't innately support it, because there are a lot of changes that need to be made and assumptions that need to be unmade in that code. This is why adding multiplayer mid-project to an engine that didn't previously support it is almost always a nightmare. The closer one is to the beginning of the project, the easier it becomes - much like the laser pointer effect. But yes, you are correct. If the publisher is convinced that feature X will add significant additional value to the project, they will put in additional funding.

You've seen the same sort of thing happen many times before, except it came in the form of "game release delayed for quality purposes." The game wasn't predicted to be good enough at the original release date, and the additional costs needed to make it good enough for release were predicted to offset the benefits they get from a delayed release. So the game gets delayed for more development time. That all costs money.

Hm.
I'm curious. Are you in game development or something?

This is what I'm worried about. Multiplayer being a huge hassle that ultimately tampers with the game as a whole.
I don't want the game delayed for fraking multiplayer. If it's delayed, I want it to be delayed because they want to polish the single player. And I don't want the hassle of multiple disks (ME on Xbox) due to multiplayer.

I've been a professional game developer for 10 years now with some time off for good behavior. I've worked for publishers and indies, across a variety of genres including sports, action, adventure, FPS, and MMO.

That said, you're making assumptions that aren't true. Multiplayer is not necessarily a huge hassle that ultimately tampers with the game as a whole. It can be, but so can a lot of other features like crafting, player-owned property, player customization, branching storylines, etc. You're automatically assuming the worst, despite there being no actual basis other than some specious outsider knowledge of the industry that may or may not be true.

[sandalisthemaker]

BouncyFrag wrote...


I can see that. What made the me3 fun for me was getting to play a Krogan, a Batarian, and dare I say it, a Volus. I'm looking at it from that perspective. Race selection is a bigger deal in DA due to the strength of all the different 'Origins' we could pick in the first game.

Yeah. In ME we are Shepard from the start.
In DA there were race options that were taken away.
For people who hate MP and have no intention of playing it, the possibility of having race options in MP might leave a bitter taste in their mouth. 

Modifié par sandalisthemaker, 10 mai 2013 - 11:59 .

[AresKeith]

I feel that not every game needs a MP but since they're adding one, If its done solid and doesn't try to impact the story then I'd be ok with it

[Hurbster]

I don't mind MP as long as it does not detract from the SP experience like ME3's did. I'm sure it will be just a vehicle for selling Ultimate Team Packs anyway.

[Twisted Path]

I would love for there to be no multiplayer. Where do I vote?

[EpicBoot2daFace]

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.

I can't say for certain, but I imagine the extra time Eidos took to develop the multiplayer allowed Crystal Dynamics to further polish the sinlge-player experience.

So, I don't think it ended up being a bad thing for anybody. SE expected the game to sell 6 million copies within it's first month of release. It was an unrealistic expectation. 3.5 million copies sold in the first month is a huge success. The numbers can only go up from there.

Lenimph wrote...

You like what they did with Tomb Raider? 
Seperate
team or not the multiplayer is boring, uninventive, and delayed the
release of the single player game for 5 months just to tackle that cr*p
on.  Plus they don't want to release any single player dlc now. 
Are you serious? 
[smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/angry.png[/smilie]

I think you got me wrong here. I never said I liked the multiplayer (I don't), what I said was I like how SE got another team to do the multiplayer and that it was seperate from the single player (no requirements unlike vanilla ME3).

Whatever the reason for the delay, I didn't mind. I had a feeling the game was going to be awesome and it was.

Modifié par EpicBoot2daFace, 11 mai 2013 - 12:15 .

[sandalisthemaker]

Twisted Path wrote...

I would love for there to be no multiplayer. Where do I vote?

You have voted here with your response.

Bioware/EA won't listen to us obviously, but I just wanted to get a snapshot of how many people don't want it in the game.

[hoorayforicecream]

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

I can't say for certain, but I imagine the extra time Eidos took to develop the multiplayer allowed Crystal Dynamics to further polish the sinlge-player experience.

In all likelihood, they split up the single-player devs to have most the designers, artists, and some of the engineers work on DLC, while the remaining engineers and select artists/designers were shuffled to start pre-production on the next project.

[LolaLei]

I'd prefer it to be single player only, but if multi-player doesn't take away from SP then it doesn't really matter. I'll definitely give the multi-player a go though, if only out of curiosity.

[Cainhurst Crow]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

I can't say for certain, but I imagine the extra time Eidos took to develop the multiplayer allowed Crystal Dynamics to further polish the sinlge-player experience.

In all likelihood, they split up the single-player devs to have most the designers, artists, and some of the engineers work on DLC, while the remaining engineers and select artists/designers were shuffled to start pre-production on the next project.

hoorayforicecream, you are an amazing well of information.

Thank you.

[AngryFrozenWater]

Some players like MP, even in games where SP is the core. Because of that EA requires that all of their games will have some kind of MP feature in their new games. So BW as an EA label just implements that.

Edit: It's not a new concept for BW. They have done MP in older RPGs before. I don't like it, but I think the decision has already been made.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 11 mai 2013 - 12:23 .

[HydroFlame20]

LolaLei wrote...

I'd prefer it to be single player only, but if multi-player doesn't take away from SP then it doesn't really matter. I'll definitely give the multi-player a go though, if only out of curiosity.

Same hear for me to,Curiosity  but other then that My focus and full attention is on the Sp.

[sandalisthemaker]

Sigh
I should have known Allan wouldn't be allowed to answer my question.