122 réponses à ce sujet

[Bfler]

AlanC9 wrote...

Bfler wrote...

Crimson Sound wrote...
People against the inclusion of multiplayer are either...  2) they believe it takes away from the single player experience. Spoiler Alert! That's not true.  

You will not tell me that these small rectangular maps, which you can find in ME 3 SP and MP, were designed for SP.

Yep. Those maps were designed for MP, and were free maps for the SP team.

So MP is subsidizing SP, not the other way around.

And why didn't they create their own maps for SP? To use e.g. Firebase Dagger for the one mission with the scientist, who hids herself from Cerberus is extremely lazy. Because of that, this mission becomes a cheap MP match in SP.

Modifié par Bfler, 10 juin 2013 - 09:34 .

[Rylor Tormtor]

When one decides to include MP in a game design, it is either built in from the get go (part of the foundation of the game design philosphy/document) OR it is shoe horned in at some point in the development process. DA:I seems to be of the former type. Regardless, the inclusion of MP content and philosophy changes the nature of a game. Successful SP and successful MP are often different types of creatures, and combing them in some sort chimera can result in an abortive mess all over your nice new khakis.

Simple fact, a DA:I with MP will be a different than a DA:I without multiplayer. Whether it is better or worse is the fact up for debate, but don't start with this faux concern thinking you are educating people who hate MP.

[ComfortablyNumb]

Lord Gremlin wrote...

What I will say, if you include MP it should be a game that inherently has mechanics that fit the idea. Now, DA games? I'll be honest - ****ty, boring combat that you slog through to get to the decision making and character interactions. How is this fit for MP?

Well said.

I'm almost expecting them to make it ME3 style. Not combat-wise, of course. 
But, since we'll be at war (won't we?), they could easily send us on a "missions to protect important locations". We may even be "allowed" to import some of the MP characters as our SP war assets (that will have huge impact on final battle)...

Who would stop them? 

And yes, I'm being overly sarcastic on purpose.   

[BringSomeGoodCo-opRPGs]

Lobos1988 wrote...

They could make SP longer if they had no MP... that's actually the main argument for me because I relly don't get ANY thrill of Multiplayer Games online... Playing with friends is one thing, but random servers... well there's way too much weirdos out there.

Sacred 2 say hi (when you mentioned lenght)
Play in both singleplayer and co-op, on one playthrought over 100 hour

Modifié par BringSomeGoodCo-opRPGs, 10 juin 2013 - 10:34 .

[BringSomeGoodCo-opRPGs]

If they include co-op, I only hope it will be in style of some mix LOTR-War in North and old classic RPG like Baldur´s Gate 1-2, Icewind Dale 1-2, Neverwinter NIghts 1-2,Lionheart-Legacy of the Crusader etc.

[mickey111]

Bleachrude wrote...

This thread shows a COMPLETE ignorance of how budgets work....please tell me that none among you actually runs their own business....

If you remove a feature from a game, be it multiplayer or voice over, this does NOT mean that the funds allocated to said feature are available to any other aspect of the game. Proper budgeting would be that the overall producer and his direct subordinates would have an idea of what each section of the game/movie would cost.

The oriducer then goes to the publisher and says "We need X amount of money and here's the breakdown of how it is to be spent".

Given that apparently everything is EA's fault, EA would then check with past history and their own producers and say "ok, that's right/wrong, here's the cash for each section".

If EA then said "We want to add multiplayer as we believe it will increase sales", EA would then say "Here;s the money for that" and the overall producer would then respond "ok, that is in/sufficient.. Here;s what it would cost in terms of time and money depending on how well integrated it is to the general game" This money would be set aside DIRECTLY for the multiplayer and would not be available for every other section.

This ALSO applies to games even without multiplayer. If the voice overs cost X amount of dollars less than predicted, this doesn't mean that the guys in terms of level design or quest design can use that money.

They have to explain why their initial assessment was so far off that they now need EXTRA cash.

There is no general inexhaustible (because apparently publishers have an infinite amount of money) fund that developers can pull from....

THANK YOU SO MUCH! I am so happy right now that there are people on BSN with a bit of common sense.

[L. Han]

Having multiplayer tact on can really reduce BioWare's bargaining position IF the singleplayer turns out to be disappointing.

[mickey111]

Okay.

Modifié par mickey111, 10 juin 2013 - 12:33 .

[Bleachrude]

Bfler wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Bfler wrote...

Crimson Sound wrote...
People against the inclusion of multiplayer are either...  2) they believe it takes away from the single player experience. Spoiler Alert! That's not true.  

You will not tell me that these small rectangular maps, which you can find in ME 3 SP and MP, were designed for SP.

Yep. Those maps were designed for MP, and were free maps for the SP team.

So MP is subsidizing SP, not the other way around.

And why didn't they create their own maps for SP? To use e.g. Firebase Dagger for the one mission with the scientist, who hids herself from Cerberus is extremely lazy. Because of that, this mission becomes a cheap MP match in SP.

Actually, that highlights how MP is a good addition to SP.

Look back in ME1 and ME2 and you'll notice that a LOT of the optional N7 missions/bases look the same since many of them consist of going into the same pre-fab building/ship and the only difference being that the chest high walls are arranged differently.

Without the MP team working on their own maps (and the SP being smart and using those assets), we would have returned to the same look for maps as we had in PREVIOUS titles.

Contrast this with what we have now...I'm willing to bet everyone reading here can visually match the map with the mission or vice versa.

Want to try this with the N7/UNC missions of the previous titles?

In fact, I distinctly remember on BSN itself, many a complaint/charge against Bioware for lazy work since the optional mission locations looked the same...in ME3, Dagger will never be mistaken for Giant as it will never be mistaken for Ghost etc.

[AlanC9]

Bfler wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
Yep. Those maps were designed for MP, and were free maps for the SP team.

So MP is subsidizing SP, not the other way around.

And why didn't they create their own maps for SP? To use e.g. Firebase Dagger for the one mission with the scientist, who hids herself from Cerberus is extremely lazy. Because of that, this mission becomes a cheap MP match in SP.

They spent their time doing other stuff, obviously. Surely you're not suggesting that they laid off staff and gave the money back to EA because they got the free maps?

I suppose there's some hypothetical level of development funding where the game would be so big that you wouldn't take the free maps, but in the real universe games don't get that much funding.

[InfinitePaths]

I would love a seperate online game.

No mixing SP and MP please!

[Tinu]

I have a feeling there won't be MP

[PlasmaCheese]

And that would be absolutely amazing.

[TK514]

What's that phrase? Ah, yes.

"Hell is other people." Thank you, Sartre

[Lobos1988]

HOW THE HELL would they do coop MP?!?! Dragon age is a PAUSE and play game... I have to be able to PAUSE... other wise it wont be Dragon Age... The only thing Multiplayer besides Arena which I think is getting old they can do to be REALLY unique is if it is some kind of MP strategy around the castle you own... in which case your SP affects your MP NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. ... THAT would be something I could cope with and might even play.

[Beerfish]

Lobos1988 wrote...

HOW THE HELL would they do coop MP?!?! Dragon age is a PAUSE and play game... I have to be able to PAUSE... other wise it wont be Dragon Age... The only thing Multiplayer besides Arena which I think is getting old they can do to be REALLY unique is if it is some kind of MP strategy around the castle you own... in which case your SP affects your MP NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. ... THAT would be something I could cope with and might even play.

Have you given ME3 multiplayer a try?  ME is pause and play as well and yet ME3 multuiplayer was very fun and had no pause at all.  Believe me I started ME multiplayer with much trepidation knowing this as I am a serial pauser in single player games.  I adapted much quicker than I thought to no pause play.

I actually hope they make Da mp very much like Me multiplay.  Of course they have to make sure they don't make the blunder they did initially with ME3 and have MP affect SP.

Keep them separate and let those that like mp play it and those that dislike it can ignore it.  There were a fair number of adamant anti mp people for ME that ended up liking it and playing it a lot.

[Dr. Explosion]

For me it's simple: I have absolutely no interest in playing with other people. The majority of my MP experiences have been overwhelmingly negative, so I don't care how well it's implemented, or how much fun other people think it is, I will not play it.

Adding MP to a series that was previously SP will always be a negative to me.

[AlanC9]

I've found DA:O to be quite playable without pausing if you set up your quickslots and Tactics properly.

[AlanC9]

Conall Cameron wrote...

For me it's simple: I have absolutely no interest in playing with other people. The majority of my MP experiences have been overwhelmingly negative, so I don't care how well it's implemented, or how much fun other people think it is, I will not play it.

Adding MP to a series that was previously SP will always be a negative to me.

Why negative? I can see zero , but why negative? Glitches like ME3's pre-EC EMS requirements aside, what's the difference to you if there's MP in the box?

Not that zero is likely true. The economics make it likely that MP revenues will subsidize SP to some extent; since MP has better ROI but makes its money on the back end, you can make the SP better and get the money back through more MP revenue. Not to mention outright re-use of MP assets in SP, as noted upthread.

[Peer of the Empire]

Hating on multiplayer is retarded.  ME3 multiplayer is incredible and keeps me playing long after the SP.  I even played it first on game release.  They were developed by different teams which would keep the manpower and resource constraints to a minimum. 

Hopefully DA3 is the same

[Lobos1988]

Beerfish wrote...

Lobos1988 wrote...

HOW THE HELL would they do coop MP?!?! Dragon age is a PAUSE and play game... I have to be able to PAUSE... other wise it wont be Dragon Age... The only thing Multiplayer besides Arena which I think is getting old they can do to be REALLY unique is if it is some kind of MP strategy around the castle you own... in which case your SP affects your MP NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. ... THAT would be something I could cope with and might even play.

Have you given ME3 multiplayer a try?  ME is pause and play as well and yet ME3 multuiplayer was very fun and had no pause at all.  Believe me I started ME multiplayer with much trepidation knowing this as I am a serial pauser in single player games.  I adapted much quicker than I thought to no pause play.

I actually hope they make Da mp very much like Me multiplay.  Of course they have to make sure they don't make the blunder they did initially with ME3 and have MP affect SP.

Keep them separate and let those that like mp play it and those that dislike it can ignore it.  There were a fair number of adamant anti mp people for ME that ended up liking it and playing it a lot.

I HAVE given ME3 MP a try... was nice for a while... but always the same... but the pause and play of ME is a WHOLE lot different than DA...

[Dr. Explosion]

AlanC9 wrote...

...what's the difference to you if there's MP in the box?

It makes a difference to me for a few reasons:

1) My dislike of MP is completely irrational. Those negative experiences I mentioned have forever tainted the idea of playing with others for me. Yeah it's stupid, but it doens't change the fact that in my mind, MP is never a good thing.

2) Because of Project: Eternity, Torment: Tides of Numenera and BioWare's recent falterings, my interest for DA:I is very low. MP makes me less interested.

3) Not every game needs MP.

But despite all that, MP alone will not stop me from buying the game. If the SP is great, I'll happily ignore the MP the same way I now ignore ME 3's.

AlanC9 wrote...
Not that zero is likely true. The economics make it likely that MP revenues will subsidize SP to some extent; since MP has better ROI but makes its money on the back end, you can make the SP better and get the money back through more MP revenue.

I've heard one of the devs say something to this effect before, (I think it was Allan Schumacher), and to tell you the truth, if there was any agrument that was likely to get me over my irrational dislike of MP, this would be a key point.

AlanC9 wrote...
Not to mention outright re-use of MP assets in SP, as noted upthread.

If this happens, hopefully it won't be as lazy as the ME3 "side-missions".

OTOH, I did like the Citadel DLC's Armax Arena, which I' ve read is like MP-lite So if DA:I had a SP equivelant to its MP...

Modifié par Conall Cameron, 10 juin 2013 - 06:27 .

[Loc'n'lol]

Lobos1988 wrote...

HOW THE HELL would they do coop MP?!?! Dragon age is a PAUSE and play game... I have to be able to PAUSE... other wise it wont be Dragon Age...

You don't need to pause if controlling only one character.

And personally, I'm hoping to see something in the vein of SWTOR flashpoints. 4 player characters, a bunch of 30 to 60 minutes-long adventures to choose from, each with a self-contained story.

[Truffle]

A lot of people complained about trash talkers in ME3. Fortunately for me my experience had always been pleasant.

I don't think DA3's MP, whatever it is, will attract the crowd that's obsessed with Call of Duty. Less kiddies screaming into their mics, more mature players. Hopefully.

[JoltDealer]

Bfler wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Bfler wrote...

Crimson Sound wrote...
People against the inclusion of multiplayer are either...  2) they believe it takes away from the single player experience. Spoiler Alert! That's not true.  

You will not tell me that these small rectangular maps, which you can find in ME 3 SP and MP, were designed for SP.

Yep. Those maps were designed for MP, and were free maps for the SP team.

So MP is subsidizing SP, not the other way around.

And why didn't they create their own maps for SP? To use e.g. Firebase Dagger for the one mission with the scientist, who hids herself from Cerberus is extremely lazy. Because of that, this mission becomes a cheap MP match in SP.

They shared maps to save money and provide more content for SP.  In that respect, MP ended up being a benefit there.  If the MP team already used their budget to make these maps and the SP team wants more side missions in their campaign, why not share?  The MP team reused various game models (that the SP team made) to create the vast array of DLC characters that we as players got to enjoy for free.  Both SP and MP get more content without having to dip further into their own respective budgets.  It's a win-win.

As for the people who just hate social interaction with other people online, that's a personal problem.  Your issues are your own and it's not my place to call them bull**** or nonsense.  Some people have legit problems with dealing with other people and I will admit, not all gamers are nice people.  However, I don't think it's a legitimate reason for the exclusion of multiplayer entirely, especially when you don't have to play it if you don't want to.