275 réponses à ce sujet

[ElitePinecone]

Catroi wrote...

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

A fair chunk of every recent Bioware game has been the combat, and MP - at least, in ME3's style - is the combat portion of the gameplay but *with* the opportunity to throw in many more variables and customisation. 

For people that only play Bioware RPGs for the tactical combat (or, heck, to explode things with fireballs) multiplayer is a chance to do this ad infinitum. Depending on which options they include, it might even let peope explore characters and classes that we've never seen in the game before. 

I don't see why personal lack of desire to use content should be a valid reason to oppose it, especially when a side-effect of any multiplayer is generally more sales of the base game - and more chance of success, sales, and sequels. 

[Fast Jimmy]

KDD-0063 wrote...

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.

You are not saying the combat does not need to be "better," you are saying it needs to be more focused on controlling on character at a time instead of tactically managing a party. You are saying the combat (and, hence, roughly 75% of the content) of the series needs to be completely changed. To accomodate MP.

And to that, I say, respectfully, no. If the game you have is not at all suited to MP, then changing its basic components to fit that square peg into a round hole is NOT a good idea.

[llandwynwyn]

After ME3MP, I look forward to it. Bioware showed us they can do a fun mp.

Plus, it's probably the only way I'll be able to play as not human in DA3.

[BouncyFrag]

Urazz wrote...

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.

Blaming that ending on the MP is ridiculous. It was the only thing despite the ending that kept me playing Mass Effect.
   

[Killdren88]

Sadly I see little point in voicing disapproval towards MP. Most likely we will be getting it whether we want it or not. The best the devs can do for us is trying to make it as palatable as possible.

[suprhomre]

I'm not going to buy this game if there are no MP included. The only reason I kept playing ME3 is because of the MP and having the company with all my new friends there.

[HSomCokeSniper]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

sandalisthemaker wrote...

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

/facepalm

This is why we can't have nice things here on the BSN. 

Seriously OP, what the hell?
How do I say "pull your head out of your a**" in english in a way that it doesn't sound too rude?

[LinksOcarina]

My goodness...so much misinformation in this thread...I feel like telling you all how wrong you can be about things.

I think I will just hold my tongue and wait and see what type of multiplayer is being made.

[hoorayforicecream]

ElitePinecone wrote...

A fair chunk of every recent Bioware game has been the combat, and MP - at least, in ME3's style - is the combat portion of the gameplay but *with* the opportunity to throw in many more variables and customisation. 

For people that only play Bioware RPGs for the tactical combat (or, heck, to explode things with fireballs) multiplayer is a chance to do this ad infinitum. Depending on which options they include, it might even let peope explore characters and classes that we've never seen in the game before. 

I don't see why personal lack of desire to use content should be a valid reason to oppose it, especially when a side-effect of any multiplayer is generally more sales of the base game - and more chance of success, sales, and sequels. 

Gamers (and consumers in general) are essentially self-serving. As long as they are being satisfied, the bigger picture doesn't matter to them. In many cases, they will go through many mental contortions to convince themselves and others that serving their particular wants will result in the bigger picture being better, often flying in the face of actual facts that say otherwise. Confirmation bias is a funny thing that way.

[someguy1231]

The only way DA players will accept multiplayer is if it takes the form of a creepy dating sim where you have to win the affections of other players and get rewarded with a cheesy cutscene of dryhumping.

Hey, it worked in the previous two DA games!

[LinksOcarina]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

ElitePinecone wrote...

A fair chunk of every recent Bioware game has been the combat, and MP - at least, in ME3's style - is the combat portion of the gameplay but *with* the opportunity to throw in many more variables and customisation. 

For people that only play Bioware RPGs for the tactical combat (or, heck, to explode things with fireballs) multiplayer is a chance to do this ad infinitum. Depending on which options they include, it might even let peope explore characters and classes that we've never seen in the game before. 

I don't see why personal lack of desire to use content should be a valid reason to oppose it, especially when a side-effect of any multiplayer is generally more sales of the base game - and more chance of success, sales, and sequels. 

Gamers (and consumers in general) are essentially self-serving. As long as they are being satisfied, the bigger picture doesn't matter to them. In many cases, they will go through many mental contortions to convince themselves and others that serving their particular wants will result in the bigger picture being better, often flying in the face of actual facts that say otherwise. Confirmation bias is a funny thing that way.

Isen't that what you are doing right now, though? 

[Fast Jimmy]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

ElitePinecone wrote...

A fair chunk of every recent Bioware game has been the combat, and MP - at least, in ME3's style - is the combat portion of the gameplay but *with* the opportunity to throw in many more variables and customisation. 

For people that only play Bioware RPGs for the tactical combat (or, heck, to explode things with fireballs) multiplayer is a chance to do this ad infinitum. Depending on which options they include, it might even let peope explore characters and classes that we've never seen in the game before. 

I don't see why personal lack of desire to use content should be a valid reason to oppose it, especially when a side-effect of any multiplayer is generally more sales of the base game - and more chance of success, sales, and sequels. 

Gamers (and consumers in general) are essentially self-serving. As long as they are being satisfied, the bigger picture doesn't matter to them. In many cases, they will go through many mental contortions to convince themselves and others that serving their particular wants will result in the bigger picture being better, often flying in the face of actual facts that say otherwise. Confirmation bias is a funny thing that way.

Yet in order to make combat appealing (or even functional) for an MP version, it would be nearly impossible to have a system that leverages a tactical, party-based system. Allan and I talked about this in one of the recent threads about MP and agreed - what defines the party RPG experience of DA (to me) would be not at all what was seen in MP. 

Therefore, you would have a MP system that focuses on a single character form of combat, which means more twitch mechanics and player-skill-dependent interface. This means that the combat of the SP will either be influenced by said deviations or not enhanced in the least, as there would be no redundant systems. 


So this entire premise of thinking is flawed. Saying "SP had combat, MP has combat, therefore having MP will make everything better" isn't something rooted in the reality of the situation. 

[hoorayforicecream]

LinksOcarina wrote...

Isen't that what you are doing right now, though? 

How have I done that? I don't recall stating either way whether I like multiplayer or not, or whether I support it or not. All I've done is discuss the production aspects of multiplayer and other features. I don't recall making a value judgment on multiplayer, but if you can point it out to me I will happily admit that I have my own personal preferences.

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Yet in order to make combat appealing (or even functional) for an MP version, it would be nearly impossible to have a system that leverages a tactical, party-based system. Allan and I talked about this in one of the recent threads about MP and agreed - what defines the party RPG experience of DA (to me) would be not at all what was seen in MP. 

Therefore, you would have a MP system that focuses on a single character form of combat, which means more twitch mechanics and player-skill-dependent interface. This means that the combat of the SP will either be influenced by said deviations or not enhanced in the least, as there would be no redundant systems. 


So this entire premise of thinking is flawed. Saying "SP had combat, MP has combat, therefore having MP will make everything better" isn't something rooted in the reality of the situation. 

Just because you cannot think of a solution to a problem does not mean one does not or can not exist.

[wright1978]

I personally wish there is no MP.
I'm resigned that there will be.
I'm hoping that it is completely separated from the SP experience and doesn't adversely affect the quality of the SP game.

[Fast Jimmy]

hoorayforicecream wrote...
Just because you cannot think of a solution to a problem does not mean one does not or can not exist. 

Well, in order to control a party in combat, you need to have the ability to do just that - control a party.

If every player had a four person party running around on screen, even a "small" (by MP standards) five person game would have 20 characters on screen, not counting any computer controlled enemies. Which could be huge lag issues for many players.

Technical limitations aside, would the party be custom created by the player? If not, you my have six Varrics running around on a screen, which would be a little confusing. And if the party is custom created, would there be limitations to party composition?

And let us not forget the obvious - lack of pause and play. ME3 sidesteps many of these issues, as its entire SP experience is all from Shepherd's perspective. If he dies, it is game over. He can give orders, but the player never directly assumes control of his party members, outside of giving orders. With the squad removed in MP, the need for pause and play is removed, as the player only has a small number of skills to manage and does not need to pause to manage themselves.

A party-based encounter without a pausing ability becomes much more difficult to manage effectively and maintain the same level of efficacy. You would either have a much more difficult time managing your party in MP (which could be frustrating) or the difficulty would need to be reduced (which would feel a little arbitrary).

Feel free to offer any insight into things I might be missing.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 11 mai 2013 - 05:11 .

[Doctoglethorpe]

wright1978 wrote...

I personally wish there is no MP.
I'm resigned that there will be.
I'm hoping that it is completely separated from the SP experience and doesn't adversely affect the quality of the SP game.

My sentiments exactly. 

[LinksOcarina]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

Isen't that what you are doing right now, though? 

How have I done that? I don't recall stating either way whether I like multiplayer or not, or whether I support it or not. All I've done is discuss the production aspects of multiplayer and other features. I don't recall making a value judgment on multiplayer, but if you can point it out to me I will happily admit that I have my own personal preferences.

I never said you did. I was referring to how you also have a confirmation bias on the development of multiplayer. 

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.

I admit, you have a better resume to say such things than anyone else here, where I would trust your opinion at the very least. But this doesn't make it a bias in the end. Hell, the truth is bias in most cases anyway. 

I probably should have been more clear in the end. 

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 11 mai 2013 - 05:21 .

[hoorayforicecream]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...
Just because you cannot think of a solution to a problem does not mean one does not or can not exist. 

Well, in order to control a party in combat, you need to have the ability to do just that - control a party.

If every player had a four person party running around on screen, even a "small" (by MP standards) five person game would have 20 characters on screen, not counting any computer controlled enemies. Which could be huge lag issues for many players.

Technical limitations aside, would the party be custom created by the player? If not, you my have six Varrics running around on a screen, which would be a little confusing. And if the party is custom created, would there be limitations to party composition?

And let us not forget the obvious - lack of pause and play. ME3 sidesteps many of these issues, as its entire SP experience is all from Shepherd's perspective. If he dies, it is game over. He can give orders, but the player never directly assumes control of his party members, outside of giving orders. With the squad removed in MP, the need for pause and play is removed, as the player only has a small number of skills to manage and does not need to pause to manage themselves.

A party-based encounter without a pausing ability becomes much more difficult to manage effectively and maintain the same level of efficacy. You would either have a much more difficult time managing your party in MP (which could be frustrating) or the difficulty would need to be reduced (which would feel a little arbitrary).

Feel free to offer any insight into things I might be missing.

Just because *I* cannot come up with a solution to a problem doesn't mean one does not or can not exist.

You're making assumptions based on more assumptions, and that's not a given.

Have you ever played Secret of Mana? It's an old action RPG from 1993. It had seamless drop-in, drop-out co-op multiplayer and allowed people to share a party of three player characters. Its combat system was actually not too far removed from Dragon Age's, and it allowed for relatively fast-paced gameplay even though the players would occasionally pauses the game to select specific magic spells. All you'd need to do is increase the streamlining of the interface so that you wouldn't need to pause as often, and provide more characters to cycle through. Give players a way to set up their tactics before the game starts. Give players a way to queue commands on a selected character, such as hold a modifier button when putting in a command, then let the players have a quick swap button to cycle between characters. Build in optional voice control, to give more degrees of freedom when it comes to character selection. 

As for differentiation, have you played SWTOR? Every class has the same six companion characters or so, but they have the option to dress them differently, and give them different skins. Give players a way to customize the looks of their party members and you won't have to worry about distinguishing them. You could also just put the controlling player's name over the character. I mean... heck, I've played with lots of Harrier-wielding Turian Ghost Infiltrators in Mass Effect 3's MP. I've never had a problem telling one from another.

Most of the 'difficult to manage' issues come from interface concerns, and those can be solved through innovative control schemes. Heck, before Goldeneye 64, most gamers considered the FPS genre on consoles to be 'impossible' to get right because it was 'impossible' to approach the granularity of a control from a keyboard and mouse, but now the console FPS genre eclipses the PC by an order of magnitude and it all comes from an innovative control scheme and coded accuracy assistance.

If you can't come up with a solution, it's fine. It might be a very tough nut to crack. But declaring it impossible just seems awfully conceited, especially when there are professionals with years of experience who do this stuff for a living tasked with solving such problems.

I believe that most solutions exist. It's just a question of finding them.

Edit: Just to be clear, I'm not saying that my proposed solutions will be the end-all, fix-all. I'm just asking you acknowledge that such a solution can exist and that dismissing it as if it cannot or will not happen is foolish.

Modifié par hoorayforicecream, 11 mai 2013 - 05:39 .

[Fast Jimmy]

hoorayforicecream wrote...
Just because *I* cannot come up with a solution to a problem doesn't mean one does not or can not exist.

I was simply pointing out the fallacy of Elite's argument (which you seemed to at least agree to with your response) that people who state they like the combat of DA should wholly embrace the idea of MP instead of shunning it. I introduced my problem statement with why I thought that was not the case. Unless that problem statement can be properly addressed, I think my concerns against MP are quite valid.

You're making assumptions based on more assumptions, and that's not a given.

Just as a side note, we are discussing a possible feature for a game that has not been officially revealed... so I'm not sure we can work with anything OTHER than assumptions at this point. That being said, I don't think my assumptions are too off base.

Have you ever played Secret of Mana? It's an old action RPG from 1993. It had seamless drop-in, drop-out co-op multiplayer and allowed people to share a party of three player characters. Its combat system was actually not too far removed from Dragon Age's, and it allowed for relatively fast-paced gameplay even though the players would occasionally pauses the game to select specific magic spells. All you'd need to do is increase the streamlining of the interface so that you wouldn't need to pause as often, and provide more characters to cycle through. Give players a way to set up their tactics before the game starts. Give players a way to queue commands on a selected character, such as hold a modifier button when putting in a command, then let the players have a quick swap button to cycle between characters. Build in optional voice control, to give more degrees of freedom when it comes to character selection.

Improved interface ideas are always welcome. And if any form of MP exists, a co-op one would be most desireable. My own personal line of reasoning says that I think it will be much more likely that we will see some type of PvP or PvE MP for DA3, given the financial models that can be extrapolated from them over a co-op mode... but that is my own personal mindset.

But, that being said, Secret of Mana still has a pause-and-play combat, even with the drop-in-and-out combat. This could work fine for a co-op, so this is a totally acceptable solution... barring thatbthengame is co-op and not a more normative form of MP.

As for differentiation, have you played SWTOR? Every class has the same six companion characters or so, but they have the option to dress them differently, and give them different skins. Give players a way to customize the looks of their party members and you won't have to worry about distinguishing them. You could also just put the controlling player's name over the character. I mean... heck, I've played with lots of Harrier-wielding Turian Ghost Infiltrators in Mass Effect 3's MP. I've never had a problem telling one from another.

This could work. However...

Most of the 'difficult to manage' issues come from interface concerns, and those can be solved through innovative control schemes. Heck, before Goldeneye 64, most gamers considered the FPS genre on consoles to be 'impossible' to get right because it was 'impossible' to approach the granularity of a control from a keyboard and mouse, but now the console FPS genre eclipses the PC by an order of magnitude and it all comes from an innovative control scheme and coded accuracy assistance.

If you can't come up with a solution, it's fine. It might be a very tough nut to crack. But declaring it impossible just seems awfully conceited, especially when there are professionals with years of experience who do this stuff for a living tasked with solving such problems.

I believe that most solutions exist. It's just a question of finding them.

The real issue, though, is one that you did not tackle and which was the first one I brought up - actually having a party of four for every player in the MP session could cause serious lag and system issues for many players. You are quickly talking about dealing with more moving cameras, AI scripts, memory issues and horde of other issues that I'm sure you actually have better insight into than I do.

Edit: Just to be clear, I'm not saying that my proposed solutions will be the end-all, fix-all. I'm just asking you acknowledge that such a solution can exist and that dismissing it as if it cannot or will not happen is foolish.

To be fair, I said NEARLY impossible, not impossible. And it isn't that I think solving these issues is all THAT hard... but keeping the same player perspective/experience and mechanics as a party-based, tactical RPG and still addressing these MP obstacles becomes the exceptionally tough task.

However, until the game is revealed and the MP system is revealed (since I am sure there will be some form of it in DA3), I can say that I am against it being implemented becuse of the concerns I have.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 11 mai 2013 - 05:58 .

[Volus Warlord]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

You're making assumptions based on more assumptions, and that's not a given.

I'm not making assumptions based on more assumptions, I am making assumptions based on exagguration of misconceptions of deliberately misrepresented material that was in response to insinuations on the basis of innuendo that spawns from religious devotion against anything MP.


Eat it.

[hoorayforicecream]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

But, that being said, Secret of Mana still has a pause-and-play combat, even with the drop-in-and-out combat. This could work fine for a co-op, so this is a totally acceptable solution... barring thatbthengame is co-op and not a more normative form of MP.

Since when has Bioware made competitive MP games? The only one I can think of is SWTOR.

The real issue, though, is one that you did not tackle and which was the first one I brought up - actually having a party of four for every player in the MP session could cause serious lag and system issues for many players. You are quickly talking about dealing with more moving cameras, AI scripts, memory issues and horde of other issues that I'm sure you actually have better insight into than I do.

You really should try playing SWTOR. They already solved most of these problems with their group constraints. You can have multiple people controlling the same set of characters. You can limit the number of characters one can bring to less than four. You can put a hard limit on the number of characters, and disallow the bringing of more, and allow the players to swap them in as needed at specific locations. There are a lot of things you can do. It just depends on the constraints.

Edit: I just wanted to post some of my own ideas for MP design, and how to make it more interesting. I'm actually fine with single player being affected by multiplayer, and vice versa, but I understand that players don't like feeling forced to play MP if they don't want to. So how about an aggregate gating system instead of a per-person requirement?

So, for example, let's say there's a single-player dungeon in a magical floating iceberg somewhere. It's locked off, you can't get to it. Let's also say that there's an objective-based co-op Multiplayer scenario where the players lead an attack against the keep of an evil frost demon or something. In order to unlock the single player dungeon and the loot and content inside, it requires an aggregate of X (100,000? 1,000,000? 10,000?) kills of the frost demon in MP across all players and platforms. Thus, if you don't want to play MP, you don't have to. You can just sit and wait, and hopefully the other players who like MP will eventually unlock the content for everyone. But hey, if you don't mind that much, why not help out some? You might like it.

On top of that, I'd also like to see more SP/MP crossover type stuff as well. Imagine you're playing the SP campaign and have the choice to either side with the pirates or the ninjas. If you choose the pirates, you unlock some pirate characters that you can play as in MP with their pirate-specific powers. If you choose the ninjas, you can unlock the ninja characters in MP with ninja powers instead. Maybe pirates get more/better treasure, but ninjas are better at sneaking by monsters. It then makes for an interesting choice when playing MP.

Modifié par hoorayforicecream, 11 mai 2013 - 06:17 .

[AppealToReason]

Yes. Gimme MP because I have friends and I like to play games with friends.