275 réponses à ce sujet

[Mykel54]

Multiplayer (either coop or some other way) is going to happen, whenever you like it or not.

PS. I don´t like it.

[Melca36]

sandalisthemaker wrote...

Volus Warlord wrote...

What makes you hate MP intrinsically? I could understand hating the 12-year-olds that curse up a storm over anything, but most of them stick to Halo or CoD. No worries there.

What about all the "hard-core" players who want to kick you out after two seconds because you aren't 'good enough'.

Thats never happened to me in the ME3 multiplayer.   And I am average at best. I think we should hold judgment until we know more info.

[AlexRD]

sandalisthemaker wrote...

Volus Warlord wrote...

What makes you hate MP intrinsically? I could understand hating the 12-year-olds that curse up a storm over anything, but most of them stick to Halo or CoD. No worries there.

What about all the "hard-core" players who want to kick you out after two seconds because you aren't 'good enough'.

Don't think this is happening to DA3. This mostly happens in MMOs.
Btw: Your sheppard is weird.

[ElitePinecone]

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

I know this has been answered already (by Allen, even) but this is just not true.

It's not like there's a fixed pool of zots that could only be poured into either singleplayer or multiplayer. More potential or forecasted profitability equals more resources for development from The Powers That Be at EA, and often breakthroughs made in pursuit of MP have benefits for singleplayer also. 

I mean, just look at how being forced to differentiate enemies for multiplayer wave combat significantly improved Mass Effect 3's singleplayer battles and set-piece engagements.

More to the point, multiplayer can be an attractive selling point, a reason for peope to hold onto their games (and buy DLC), an important source of revenue (hello equipment packs), an impetus for the developers to keep refining their craft with gameplay tweaks and content updates, and a way to extend the life of the game and its universe beyond a couple of singeplayer playthroughs. 

When AAA games are so expensive to make, and increasingly hugely risky, it's quite possible multiplayer is even *required* to increase profitability. It's an optional piece of content that you'll ideally never need to use, which is often expected to more than pay for itself and help justify the existence of the game - and future sequels.

If the choice was DA3 with optional multiplayer or no DA3 at all, which would you prefer? Because that appears to be the trajectory of modern development; singleplayer-only games that can't make a significant return on their investment just aren't worth pursuing in the extremely expensive end of AAA.

[Moirin]

schalafi wrote...

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

This.

[keightdee]

Like a lot of people, I was pretty skeptical about ME3 MP. I ended up loving it. According to N7 HQ, I sunk nearly 80 hrs into it. Acknowledging that experience, I'm open to and optimistic about the multiplayer possibility in DA3. And without knowing anything more than "It's a possibility", some of the responses in this thread seem a touch out of proportion. ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯

Personally, I would welcome a DA3 multiplayer experience. I'd like to see where the devs could go with it and frankly, with all the talent and creativity available to them, I imagine they could make something really exciting.

tl;dr I agree with ElitePinecone

[xxBabyMonkeyxx]

Personally I don't want it. It's a Dragon Age game, it doesn't need it. Irrational Games had it right. If you're going to make a single-player game, make it a single-player game. Don't just put multiplayer in there because "that's what the kids are into nowadays". However at the same time, I wouldn't mind it if it was really thought out and well done. PVP would be interesting, but it would also be extremely hard to do because of balancing issues. Or if people could come into your game and play as your companions, resembling more of a Borderlands 2 type multiplayer experience. Granted it would be more co-op then, but it would still be incredibly fun.

[keightdee]

xxBabyMonkeyxx wrote...

Or if people could come into your game and play as your companions, resembling more of a Borderlands 2 type multiplayer experience. Granted it would be more co-op then, but it would still be incredibly fun.

I hadn't ever considered co op but the idea is now super compelling to me. I don't imagine it would serve Dragon Age quite as well because the games are so different, but the co op style for Journey felt really special and exciting. I could totally get into a drop-in/drop-out system.

[ElitePinecone]

Mike Laidlaw did reference Baldur's Gate-stye co-op as something they'd consider, though that was a year or more ago. I found a transcript of the PAX panel he said it at, although this could be inaccurate or wrong:

Mike Laidlaw: If we were going to pursue coop ever, where we would start is to have a long hard look at how Baldur's Gate did it, that shared experience with friends, and make sure that was priority one. Whether that's going to happen soon or in the future at some point. There are a lot of technical questions that need an answer. But that would be the approach we use. It is a very cool system. But the main thing is to take a look at Baldur's Gate and build from that system.

[milena87]

Well, I really don't want MP in DA3, not even Co-op. I know it might work if done intelligently, but it's not what I'm looking for in a Dragon Age game.
If MP is confirmed, I won't buy the game, maybe not even when it'll be dirt cheap, because that's the only way I can influence this thing in some, whatever small, way.

[Catroi]

no MP please

[Gileadan]

This looks pretty similar to the "no romances" discussion. MP is optional content, you don't have to play it.

I'm actually surprised that no one suggested rewards for people who don't play MP yet.

[Liamv2]

PvP playersexual multiplayer no nudity romances

[Catroi]

Gileadan wrote...

This looks pretty similar to the "no romances" discussion. MP is optional content, you don't have to play it.

I'm actually surprised that no one suggested rewards for people who don't play MP yet.

Romances have been a Key-feature of Bioware's style of RPGs for ages

Multiplayer has no place in a story-driven RPG, unless it's coop and Coop is extremely hard to do nowadays in RPGs not like during the Infinity Engine era

[billy the squid]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Volus Warlord wrote...

So, you feel it compromises your character, or what?

I feel it doesn't fit in the genre. The genre is about defining my character, not about fighting hordes of darkspawn and racing here and there to pick up magical artifacts, and defending an area while waiting for the magic thing to upload itself to the magic-database. That has nothing to do with character definition.

That sounds like a very large portion of Dragon Age 2 tbh. 

[billy the squid]

sandalisthemaker wrote...

Volus Warlord wrote...

What makes you hate MP intrinsically? I could understand hating the 12-year-olds that curse up a storm over anything, but most of them stick to Halo or CoD. No worries there.

What about all the "hard-core" players who want to kick you out after two seconds because you aren't 'good enough'.

You're not 'lite enough. No entrance into Gold and Platinum games for you, only those who hoist are eligable.

[Gileadan]

Catroi wrote...
Romances have been a Key-feature of Bioware's style of RPGs for ages

Multiplayer has no place in a story-driven RPG, unless it's coop and Coop is extremely hard to do nowadays in RPGs not like during the Infinity Engine era

Huh?

Romances are definitely optional, you can take them or leave them, the difference is maybe 15 minutes of screen time, and you can complete the story just fine without romancing anyone. Just because some people find them a very important part of their game and story experience - which I totally understand - does not make them less optional in any way.

And if the gameplay is actually fun, what's wrong with including multiplayer, especially when it's done by a different team and does not eat away resources from the single player campaign? Sometimes, I play games with my brains on standby purely to unwind and relax (as opposed to wanting a deep story experience), and why not do that with the characters and in a world that I've already come to enjoy in single player?

Modifié par Gileadan, 11 mai 2013 - 10:36 .

[Rodia Driftwood]

I'm okay with any multiplayer aspect they decide to add. Whether it was shoehorned by EA or Bioware wishes to experiment a bit, I'm all for it.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Liamv2 wrote...

PvP playersexual multiplayer no nudity romances

This guy gets it.

Also, Co-Op(ulation) mode is necessary for maximum emotional engagement.

[Little Princess Peach]

As long as it gives us the option not to have mp I'm ok with it, I don't want to be forced in playing Mp so I can have a bigger army, that's just one of the main reasons I hate mp so much.

[BounceDK]

Horde mode again? Then I'm gonna have to say no. It's a fairly boring mode regardless of the game you're playing. Guess we'll just have to wait and see what they come up with.

[puppy maclove]

Maverick827 wrote...

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.

hehe... Yes, BW used to be favourite developers and I bought all their stuff because I used to love everything they made but not so anymore. I don’t enjoy their new one size fits all approach and the quality of
the writing / story telling is not at the same level it used to be... blah, blah, blah. 

I enjoyed everything up until DA2 (made the mistake of pre-ordering that one), DA2 was a HUGE disappointment for me and then came ME3 which was the final straw for me (F*ck that star child ending). I didn't buy any of the DLC for ME3 (You right, I always bought every DLC before but the ending rendered additional content pointless for me on ME3). That ending ruined my favourite series of all time... cant even look at my ME game without getting pissed off.

To put things in more perspective for you, I haven't bought anything with the EA tag on it since the DA2 release with the exception of ME3 ..... 

Some might ask why I'm still here.... well, I still hope BW can dig themselves out of this hole they in and man do they have to deliver with DA3... a very interesting situation to keep an eye on!!!

Modifié par jlmaclachlan, 11 mai 2013 - 12:02 .

[KDD-0063]

Ah, where should I begin.

First, I must say, ME3's MP is a success despite its lots of flaws (wonky controls, bad hitbox system for melee, annoying glitches) and I overall enjoyed it.

OP mentions MP taking resources away, but I for one could even call it a win-win situation for both Bioware and us. Yes I hate the "grindfest or micro-transaction" business model, but those who participate in MT allow Bioware to gain extra revenues, which turns into more content, and hopefully Bioware could make DA3 well done anticipating extra revenues from MT to cover up for late release if a delay is ever needed.

However, the requirement for the win-win situation is that MP needs to be well done.

Problem is I highly doubt a ME style MP would be remotely enjoyable in the world of Dragon Age. Combat needs to be better than both DAO and DA2 for this to work; I also don't think Dragon Age is anywhere near a good vessel for a pure hack and slash experience. Getting MP to work properly would at least require a complete overhaul of the combat system, among a whole lot of other things.

[Urazz]

While the ME3 multiplayer was good, I felt it diverted money from the singleplayer experience in ME3 and helped make the ending as bad as it was. Some games are just meant to be singleplayer and others are better as multiplayer.

I really hope DA3 doesn't have a multiplayer.

Modifié par Urazz, 11 mai 2013 - 12:13 .