122 réponses à ce sujet

[Solmanian]

KDD-0063 wrote...

That being said I think TOR ****ed up on their decision to focus so heavily on the story (and that crappy engine too) which actually wasn't really that impressive if compared to single player RPGs.

So I think the worst thing for ESO is ... that it ends up generic, or mediocre, it's probalby not going to be terrible.

I actually think the story was the best part; bioware played to their strengths as story tellers, but it just wasn't enough to save. TOR problem was the gameplay; from that perspective, it played like a bad WOW clone. WOW can get away with it (though they changed it somewhat with the new expansion and getting rid of those atrocious skill trees); but cloning all the bad parts of WOW and only a few of the good parts?

[Bfler]

Crimson Sound wrote...

 Both SP and MP get more content without having to dip further into their own respective budgets.  It's a win-win.

Yes, instead of some unique side missions, in addition to the many quests where you only have to scan a planet, we have some missions with MP maps. Nice Win-Win.
The mentioned mission with Firebase dagger and the scientist could have been e.g. a level similar to the rescue mission of Tali in ME2. This would have been much better than to play a MP map with bots in SP.

Modifié par Bfler, 11 juin 2013 - 06:50 .

[AlanC9]

Conall Cameron wrote...

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.

Hey, knowing it's irrational is half the battle. Ignoring should work just fine, the way it did in ME3 -- especially if you were on PC and could edit your way around that EMS gaffe.

Modifié par AlanC9, 11 juin 2013 - 07:11 .

[AlanC9]

Bfler wrote...

Crimson Sound wrote...

 Both SP and MP get more content without having to dip further into their own respective budgets.  It's a win-win.

Yes, instead of some unique side missions, in addition to the many quests where you only have to scan a planet, we have some missions with MP maps. Nice Win-Win.
The mentioned mission with Firebase dagger and the scientist could have been e.g. a level similar to the rescue mission of Tali in ME2. This would have been much better than to play a MP map with bots in SP.

Sure, but any feature in the game could be improved if we magically threw more dev time and money at it.

[Blooddrunk1004]

If it will have multiplayer:

1. It will be forced on Origins just like Mass Effect 3 was and il have to play on the console again since i dislike Origins more then anything.

2. Mass Effect 3 has multiplayer, it sucks and it doesn't excuse that we receive so many characters and just one mode "survive waves of enemies".

3.(has been said many times but i must say it again)
Any development and budget for multiplayer should rather be spend on single player, that's what Bioware is good at. Maybe Mass Effect 3 wouldn't have things like: copy/pasted Tali's face, choices that don't matter, rushed intro and ending that wrap up the plot in less then 5 min, squadmates not having additional lines and etc...

4. GTFO with multiplayer you have **** ton of MMO's that take place in similiar fantasy worlds like DA does.

Modifié par Blooddrunk1004, 11 juin 2013 - 07:13 .

[AlanC9]

Blooddrunk1004 wrote...
1. It will be forced on Origins just like Mass Effect 3 was and il have to play on the console again since i dislike Origins more then anything.

Relax. That's going to happen whether there's MP or not.

3.(has been said many times but i must say it again)
Any development and budget for multiplayer should rather be spend on single player, that's what Bioware is good at. Maybe Mass Effect 3 wouldn't have things like: copy/pasted Tali's face, choices that don't matter, rushed intro and ending that wrap up the plot in less then 5 min, squadmates not having additional lines and etc...

Far more likely that  ME3 would have had the exact same SP except no N7 missions. (Or maybe they do N7 missions and cut something else instead)

Why would a game that isn't going to get  any MP revenue get the money that would have been used to create the MP?

Modifié par AlanC9, 11 juin 2013 - 07:36 .

[maslove23]

There is no problem at all in adding a multiplayer component to the game, multiplayer can add something to the game. However, in reality it really does not, or to be more accurate the way bioware have implemented the multiplayer so far is not the best.

Understand that for example, a game like Mass effect 3 that really revolve around your choices from the first game until the last game. Why does Bioware take away my best ending (that I have worked for throughout the games that I have played and loved) just because I did not play the multiplayer? And honestly, it was a great business model; it got me to play the multiplayer, even though, I really didn’t want to touch the thing. Nonetheless, as a player and someone who loved the game, forcing me to play the multiplayer for the ending I have played for since Mass Effect 1 is just heart breaking, I can only just ask why? Is money the only thing bioware think about? Does the player loyalty mean nothing?

To the question, adding multiplayer can add that extra fourth dimension to the game, it can make it great. On the other hand, for games like the game Bioware develop that focuses on single player campaign, it hurts the player. I understand the multiplayer for a game like call of duty that is why the game is developed. However, multiplayer that really cripples my single player campaign is useless. Having multiplayer that doesn’t affect my campaign I am down with and support.

Modifié par maslove23, 11 juin 2013 - 04:55 .

[JoltDealer]

Blooddrunk1004 wrote...

If it will have multiplayer:

1. It will be forced on Origins just like Mass Effect 3 was and il have to play on the console again since i dislike Origins more then anything.

2. Mass Effect 3 has multiplayer, it sucks and it doesn't excuse that we receive so many characters and just one mode "survive waves of enemies".

3.(has been said many times but i must say it again)
Any development and budget for multiplayer should rather be spend on single player, that's what Bioware is good at. Maybe Mass Effect 3 wouldn't have things like: copy/pasted Tali's face, choices that don't matter, rushed intro and ending that wrap up the plot in less then 5 min, squadmates not having additional lines and etc...

4. GTFO with multiplayer you have **** ton of MMO's that take place in similiar fantasy worlds like DA does.

Most of your argument is based on your opinion.  You don't like Origin, Mass Effect 3, or its multiplayer.  We get it.

I don't play on PC, so I can't talk about Origin.  I personally liked Mass Effect 3's multiplayer, but I will agree that the lack of game modes was disappointing.  However, there was free DLC the whole time and all of the characters and maps were fun to play.  For a previously single player only series, it did multiplayer well for it's first attempt.  As for the MMO comment, I don't know about other people, but I'm not interested in other fantasy games.  Dragon Age is the only fantasy series I can enjoy aside from maybe Elder Scrolls.

Now as for your budget/development comment, I will repeat what I said a couple of pages ago.  Budgets do not work like that.  They are given one budget for single player and another for multiplayer if they choose to include it.  If they choose to not have any multiplayer, the money for the multiplayer budget does not transfer into the budget for single player.  Even in terms of manpower, it does not transfer over.  The idea that not having multiplayer will mean better single player is not true.  The same amount of money and people would be used to make single player content regardless of multiplayer.

[Angrywolves]

forced mutiplayer by EA. It's hated and that's why.

[LordJared88]

 I want multiplayer in Inquisition more than anything.  Class-based, faction based massive battles would be awesome.

Imagine Templars vs. Mages with the ability to choose a class between each respawn, a-la Battlefront.  The ability to swap the factions around would be cool too.  Grey Wardens vs Darkspawn, Templars vs. Demons, Mages vs. Undead.  The possibilities are endless.

[Ridirkulous]

I don't want multiplayer as it wasn't what I was looking to get when I bought Origins and Dragon Age 2. That said I am not entirely opposed to multiplayer. If people want multiplayer so much then Bioware should do a spin off dedicated to just that. It does wonders for the likes of Team Fortress and some of the older entries in the Battlefield franchise. That way the multiplayer in no way, shape or form will affect how certain elements in the single player game work as it will be its own standalone game.

[JamieCOTC]

I don't play a game like DA just for the gameplay. In fact I disliked the combat system in DA2 quite a bit and while I would tolerate that for a SP campaign, there's no way in hell I'm going to play it in MP. If it turns out that DA:I has amazing gameplay then I would give it a shot, but I'd still want it to stay as far away from the SP as possible. Unfortunately, since DA:I will be about gathering allies and armies, (aren't they all?), I could see them doing a "war assets" type thing w/ DA:I too.

As far as ME3 I felt a lot of parts of that game were uninspired as a lot of it was horde mode in SP, something that felt it had been carried over from the MP. But DA:I will have MP and I would bet money that the five rings represent factions that you can join in MP.

[LordJared88]

Ridirkulous wrote...

I don't want multiplayer as it wasn't what I was looking to get when I bought Origins and Dragon Age 2. That said I am not entirely opposed to multiplayer. If people want multiplayer so much then Bioware should do a spin off dedicated to just that. It does wonders for the likes of Team Fortress and some of the older entries in the Battlefield franchise. That way the multiplayer in no way, shape or form will affect how certain elements in the single player game work as it will be its own standalone game.

If they did a spin off, you'd still get influxes of people whining cause they want DA4 more than a multiplayer game.  Might as well have the publisher shell out some extra money and just include it with the package for Inquisition.

[Ridirkulous]

LordJared88 wrote...

If they did a spin off, you'd still get influxes of people whining cause they want DA4 more than a multiplayer game.  Might as well have the publisher shell out some extra money and just include it with the package for Inquisition.

I can see your point here. The exact same thing is happening with the Elder Scrolls mmo. Most of the whining probably comes from fear though. If the multiplayer game somehow becomes incredibly successful then the powers that be will decree no more single player experience. Granted, I don't think like that but I'm most likely in the minority here given the backlash TESO has gotten.

Even then the fear might be affecting me with my opposition of the multiplayer/singleplayer combo. It's just most games I have played I did so for the single player experience or multiplayer but never for both. I really guess I'm afraid that if they do multiplayer, and they sure are, it will somehow compromise the single player. Maybe my fear here is unfounded. I just hope we get nice open hub worlds to explore instead of small, enclosed, linear areas more suited for multiplayer arena modes.

Modifié par Ridirkulous, 12 juin 2013 - 10:36 .

[Malanek]

Blooddrunk1004 wrote...

If it will have multiplayer:

1. It will be forced on Origins just like Mass Effect 3 was and il have to play on the console again since i dislike Origins more then anything.

2. Mass Effect 3 has multiplayer, it sucks and it doesn't excuse that we receive so many characters and just one mode "survive waves of enemies".

3.(has been said many times but i must say it again)
Any development and budget for multiplayer should rather be spend on single player, that's what Bioware is good at. Maybe Mass Effect 3 wouldn't have things like: copy/pasted Tali's face, choices that don't matter, rushed intro and ending that wrap up the plot in less then 5 min, squadmates not having additional lines and etc...

4. GTFO with multiplayer you have **** ton of MMO's that take place in similiar fantasy worlds like DA does.

1) It will likely have Origin entwined in it whether there is mp or not. I don't like Origin, it is just a layer of crap that makes the software less reliable, but I can live with it, and again it has nothing to do with MP.
2) That's your opinion. The vast majority of people who tried me3 mp disagree with you.
3) It's company information but I suspect ME3 MP paid for itself and may have even ended up subsidising SP.
4) I don't think anyone is suggesting DA3 become an MMO.

[Phaedros]

Other ! heroes & heroines in MY heroines world ? Anti-immersive right there ...

[Silas7]

Just got done with a ME3 multiplayer session and it was hard to find a group but i had fun anyway, as for Mp in inquisition it would have to be completely separate from the rest of the main game for me to approve.

[Nyaore]

 My personal worry is that they die it to the single player experience again, like they did with ME3. Oh they claimed it wouldn't effect the single player campaign and that you could get the best possible ending without it, but it turns out you really couldn't until they went back and patched the required number of forces needed for the 'Shepard lives' ending. That's what I'm worried about, right there. I want to think they learned their lesson, but you know what they say about being bitten once.

Also I'd rather they just focus on making this game as good as possible without diverting funds to make the multiplayer more than a tacked on experience. They lost a lot of ground with DA2 in the minds of a good chunk of their fanbase and I'd hate to see them bring anything less than their A game for Inquisition. Now if the money to pay for multiplayer comes from somewhere else and not out of their alotted budget for the singleplayer game and a different development team handles it, then fine. I won't play it, but I'm sure it could be a hit based upon how ME3's multiplayer was received. I'd just rather they'd wait on taking such a gamble until they're back in the fandom's good graces.

Modifié par Nyaore, 12 juin 2013 - 11:40 .

[Silas7]

Nyaore wrote...

 My personal worry is that they die it to the single player experience again, like they did with ME3. Oh they claimed it wouldn't effect the single player campaign and that you could get the best possible ending without it, but it turns out you really couldn't until they went back and patched the required number of forces needed for the 'Shepard lives' ending. That's what I'm worried about, right there. I want to think they learned their lesson, but you know what they say about being bitten once.

Also I'd rather they just focus on making this game as good as possible without diverting funds to make the multiplayer more than a tacked on experience. They lost a lot of ground with DA2 in the minds of a good chunk of their fanbase and I'd hate to see them bring anything less than their A game for Inquisition. Now if the money to pay for multiplayer comes from somewhere else and not out of their alotted budget for the singleplayer game and a different development team handles it, then fine. I won't play it, but I'm sure it could be a hit based upon how ME3's multiplayer was received. I'd just rather they'd wait on taking such a gamble until they're back in the fandom's good graces.

Different team worked on ME3 you can relax now.  :innocent:

[Nyaore]

Disapointment wrote...

Nyaore wrote...

 My personal worry is that they die it to the single player experience again, like they did with ME3. Oh they claimed it wouldn't effect the single player campaign and that you could get the best possible ending without it, but it turns out you really couldn't until they went back and patched the required number of forces needed for the 'Shepard lives' ending. That's what I'm worried about, right there. I want to think they learned their lesson, but you know what they say about being bitten once.

Also I'd rather they just focus on making this game as good as possible without diverting funds to make the multiplayer more than a tacked on experience. They lost a lot of ground with DA2 in the minds of a good chunk of their fanbase and I'd hate to see them bring anything less than their A game for Inquisition. Now if the money to pay for multiplayer comes from somewhere else and not out of their alotted budget for the singleplayer game and a different development team handles it, then fine. I won't play it, but I'm sure it could be a hit based upon how ME3's multiplayer was received. I'd just rather they'd wait on taking such a gamble until they're back in the fandom's good graces.

Different team worked on ME3 you can relax now.  :innocent:

I'm aware of that. Doesn't change the fact that it could happen again if pressure from above is exerted.

[Tatsumaki]

Many of you are myopic in your views in terms of multiplayer only thinking along the lines of Mass Effect 3. Yes Mass Effect 3's multiplayer was totally different from the single player in the sense that you no longer took control of 'your Shepard'

Did anyone mention Dead Space 3? that was multiplayer done well. Your configurations and stuff were brought over to the host's game and since you were the client, you automatically became the side kick. Loosely speaking there are two ways this particular method can spin off.

1. Like aforementioned Dead Space. You bring your class, weapons, talents to the hosts game. Possible problem is class make up for the host. Possible solution: Host can set "I want only Warrior class with X talent builds" or "I want only Rogue class range/melee only" or of course the "Any class & talent" option.

2. You join a game and take control of one of the player's team members basically just as a improved AI team member for lack of better word.

Step aside from the arena style, wave, head to head mindset and think co-op for multiplayer.

[Silas7]

Tatsumaki wrote...

Many of you are myopic in your views in terms of multiplayer only thinking along the lines of Mass Effect 3. Yes Mass Effect 3's multiplayer was totally different from the single player in the sense that you no longer took control of 'your Shepard'

Did anyone mention Dead Space 3? that was multiplayer done well. Your configurations and stuff were brought over to the host's game and since you were the client, you automatically became the side kick. Loosely speaking there are two ways this particular method can spin off.

1. Like aforementioned Dead Space. You bring your class, weapons, talents to the hosts game. Possible problem is class make up for the host. Possible solution: Host can set "I want only Warrior class with X talent builds" or "I want only Rogue class range/melee only" or of course the "Any class & talent" option.

2. You join a game and take control of one of the player's team members basically just as a improved AI team member for lack of better word.

Step aside from the arena style, wave, head to head mindset and think co-op for multiplayer.

Micro-trasactions killed that game for me so i didn't buy it, if every one did the same thing against multiplayer then we wouldn't see multiplayer.

[Tatsumaki]

I didn't spend a single cent / penny on Mass Effect 3 and Dead Space 3's store system. Did just fine for Mass Effect 3's Platinum and Dead Space 3's max difficulty. People have to realize that pouring money into the store isn't required for total completion of the multiplayer aspect.

Therefore when you say micro-transactions killed the game, I find that difficult to believe. However if you said RNG killed ME3, that would be a different topic all together. Even saying that after a year pluss, people are still playing Mass Effect 3.

I myself stopped because I eventually got tired of spending 99k credits for level 4 ammunition - but that's me. I don't blame multiplayer component as the weak point.

Modifié par Tatsumaki, 13 juin 2013 - 12:20 .