304 réponses à ce sujet

[Iakus]

AppealToReason wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

Nooooooo. It sucked, as stated before, because the MP (contrary to what the devs told us) affected the outcome of the SP campaign.

ME3 sucks because I can't see a 5 sec inconclusive scene of Shepard breathing...Boo hoo.

No but seriously, is that really the issue here? Like actually? That is the huge impact the MP had on the SP that people here are crapping cucumbers over? 

Thats one of the dumbest things I've read on this site.

Goes to credibility.

We were told that SP would not affect MP,. that there was zero content locked behind it.  This proved not to be the case.

What else were we misled about?  Was SP content dropped to make room for MP?  Were compromises made for its inclusion?  

This is why I will no longer trust that SP was the focus if MP gets included.  If Bioware ever wants to make a multipleyer based Dragon Age game, they can darn well make a completely separate game.  One I don't have to purchase.

[AppealToReason]

AresKeith wrote...

AppealToReason wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

Nooooooo. It sucked, as stated before, because the MP (contrary to what the devs told us) affected the outcome of the SP campaign.

ME3 sucks because I can't see a 5 sec inconclusive scene of Shepard breathing...Boo hoo.

No but seriously, is that really the issue here? Like actually? That is the huge impact the MP had on the SP that people here are crapping cucumbers over? 

Thats one of the dumbest things I've read on this site.

It's more like before the ending people were told that to get the "best" ending they would have to play the MP to get their EMS over 7000

And when people found out it was just a 5 sec breathe scene, that really would ****** people off

So people believe that after that mistake and then the fix to undo that, Bioware is going to do exactly that over again?

[Iakus]

AppealToReason wrote...

What, that a multiplayer mode could be fun and interesting or that mutliplayer means the game will become Call of Duty?

Or turn single player into a ten hour tutorial for MP?

[AppealToReason]

iakus wrote...

AppealToReason wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

Nooooooo. It sucked, as stated before, because the MP (contrary to what the devs told us) affected the outcome of the SP campaign.

ME3 sucks because I can't see a 5 sec inconclusive scene of Shepard breathing...Boo hoo.

No but seriously, is that really the issue here? Like actually? That is the huge impact the MP had on the SP that people here are crapping cucumbers over? 

Thats one of the dumbest things I've read on this site.

Goes to credibility.

We were told that SP would not affect MP,. that there was zero content locked behind it.  This proved not to be the case.

What else were we misled about?  Was SP content dropped to make room for MP?  Were compromises made for its inclusion?  

This is why I will no longer trust that SP was the focus if MP gets included.  If Bioware ever wants to make a multipleyer based Dragon Age game, they can darn well make a completely separate game.  One I don't have to purchase.

The single player game was done. Finished. Then they added the MP mode. Which was done by Bioware Montreal and not Bioware Edmonton. Its what pushed the game back from a holiday 2011 to a Q1 2012.

[Rawgrim]

leaguer of one wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...

In Exile wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...
I'm not say fan rage has no power. In fact, with ME3 end fan rage was every game site on the net. It was not just these forums. It was everywhere.

The target audience for ME3 is not the target audience for DAI. I wouldn't draw parallels between how two different groups of people receive the same feature. 

Sure, that is the one good arguement anti mp can use. But remember, much of da game play is based on MMO combate. DA is basicly an offline mmo when it comes to game play. That meanat least it has a ground to make a mp da fans can like.
It still comes down to it being optional and those who don't want to play it don't have to.

Uhm....mmo`s borrow from older rpgs. Single player ones. DA just added fetch quests from the MMOs

I suggest you play DA and you will see how little it resembles an MMO.

? ... I never said they didn't. Your point.

I'm not saying dao is based on MMO's alone. I'm say much of the combat is. If doa was based on pure classic crpgs the combat would be based on prevention not damage spunges.
Seriously, have you not played an mmo. They are 100% dependent on tanks, just like DA is. Classic crpgs are not like that.

Uhm...classic rpgs are VERY much about tanks and healers and whatsnot. They kind of started the whole thing.

Not in the way mmo's and DAO have them. It's not just pouring health into tanks like in MMO's. It's bases on pervention. It matterS not how much you can heal your tank if your enemy can just charm him and turn ageinSt you, de-level him and make him too weak to fight correctly, or drain intelligence to kill him/her.

The Tank/healer dynamic is much different in classic crpgs then to mmo's and dao.

The differnce is this. With a tank in dao, I can go in a room  without casting anything on my tank and the worst that can happen is paralyzation, staggers, have a slight debuff and some traps tripped.
In a classic crpg if I did that (god forbid) that tank would be instat killed, charmed, massivly weakened, or turned into something.

If you get instantly killed when walking unbuffed into a room in a classic rpg, you can`t have put much effort into understanding the game rules, or you haven`t played a classic rpg at all. Classic rpgs made you think ahead. Use tactics and whatsnot. Spamming potions and healing spells isn`t a tactic.

You can go into any room with any character in DA, and you can get paralyzed and whatever. Its the game mechanic. Nobody dies untill the entire party is dead. So yes, that is different than in older rpgs - sure. But good luck playing the older ones without a tank.

[AppealToReason]

iakus wrote...

AppealToReason wrote...

What, that a multiplayer mode could be fun and interesting or that mutliplayer means the game will become Call of Duty?

Or turn single player into a ten hour tutorial for MP?

You're awfully negative. Mass Effect 3 was still like 40 hours or so with MP. If they did it anything like ME then Bioware Edmonton would be developing the SP like they've done for most games and they send the engine and all the code and whatever to Montreal for them to make the MP mode.

[Iakus]

AppealToReason wrote...

So people believe that after that mistake and then the fix to undo that, Bioware is going to do exactly that over again?

Trust is a cuurency that's hard to earn and easily spent.

Bioware's been spending a lot of trust lately.  So yeah, it's a definite fear.

[AresKeith]

AppealToReason wrote...

So people believe that after that mistake and then the fix to undo that, Bioware is going to do exactly that over again?

No not really, I was only explain one of the issues people had with the ME3 MP affecting the SP

Others feel that not every game needs a MP mode

One can also say that (This for the console versions, mainly Xbox) the MP can take away space that the SP could've used to become bigger, thus making the SP mode shorter for the sake of having MP

[AresKeith]

leaguer of one wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

It's more like before the ending people were told that to get the "best" ending they would have to play the MP to get their EMS over 7000

And when people found out it was just a 5 sec breathe scene, that really would ****** people off

People found out it was a 5 sec beath scene before they had to do extra for it.

And where do you think they heard it from? The people who already did it

Modifié par AresKeith, 12 août 2013 - 04:26 .

[Iakus]

AppealToReason wrote...

The single player game was done. Finished. Then they added the MP mode. Which was done by Bioware Montreal and not Bioware Edmonton. Its what pushed the game back from a holiday 2011 to a Q1 2012.

And multipleyer was just a whim they decided on when they saw all this extra disk space and cash they had left over when SP was done, right?

/sarcasm

[AppealToReason]

AresKeith wrote...

AppealToReason wrote...

So people believe that after that mistake and then the fix to undo that, Bioware is going to do exactly that over again?

No not really, I was only explain one of the issues people had with the ME3 MP affecting the SP

Others feel that not every game needs a MP mode

One can also say that (This for the console versions, mainly Xbox) the MP can take away space that the SP could've used to become bigger, thus making the SP mode shorter for the sake of having MP

Mass Effect didn't come close to maxing out the 2 discs though. Used like 80% of the available space across two discs. The only space I can think of that the MP really used, outside of menus and stuff, is the little tiny maps. Otherwise it was just the SP mechanics

[AppealToReason]

iakus wrote...

AppealToReason wrote...

The single player game was done. Finished. Then they added the MP mode. Which was done by Bioware Montreal and not Bioware Edmonton. Its what pushed the game back from a holiday 2011 to a Q1 2012.

And multipleyer was just a whim they decided on when they saw all this extra disk space and cash they had left over when SP was done, right?

/sarcasm

I have no idea. Thats probably as likely as them deciding to cut story content they spent money to create they could fit like 6 small MP maps onto the disc.

[The Flying Grey Warden]

Rawgrim wrote...

The Flying Grey Warden wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...


1. Uhm...thats the whole point. ME3 invalidated or ignored almost all of those choices you did in ME1 and 2. The only thing that it affected was wich of the companions were still alive.

2. The armour skills were non combat. You could unlock better armours if you added skillpoints (trained in the use of) armour. Hacking and decryption were pretty damn important skills too. And you gained that by sacrificing some advancement in other skills to afford it. ME 2 and 3 has nothing like this. It just tells you when to press a button.

3. Well, technically no games gives you the ability to downright fail. So i am not sure if that is a valid argument. But yes, you got 3 options at the end. None of them were affected (as it was promised) by how you played ME1 and 2. The whole thing just streamlined you towards the end.

1. Not talking about mass effect 3, I'm talking about mass efffect 1. Where, in mass effect 1, did the choices alter the plot or main story? Where in dragon age origins did the early choices of ostagar affect the rest of the game?

2. How are the armor skills not combat skills? You get better armor which protects more in comabt and boost your stats. That's the entire point of armor. It's not like you could customize your armor until "less rpg" mass effect games like 2 or 3 came out.

3. All the great rpgs, as I have been told, always gave you the option to not succeed, and had multiple ways in which to succeed or fail in your main quest.

1. ME is a trilogy. Choices matters at the end of the full story, for the most part. Had ME been a single stand alone game your point would be very valid.  As for Dragon Age. The ostagar bit is pretty much the intro, games don`t really let you make important choices that early. The origins bit introduces a race, and sets the stage for your character. The Korcari Wilds and Ostagar introduces you to the plot. I do belive curing Dog affects the rest of the game though, allthough in a small way.

2. Its not a skill you use activly in combat. its a passive one you have chosen to invest in beforehand. Should the need for better armour occur etc. The entire point of armour is to protect the wearer. Not boosts stats. The armour in ME doesn`t boost stats either. Shep has no stats, only skills. Customizing your armour has nothing to do with it. its not a skill. Again: thats just something the game hands right to you.

3. Usually that means you can die. Mostly during combat. The BG seires, Neverwinter, Icewind Dale, Might and Magic (all 8 of them), the ultima series, planescape...All of these doesn`t really remove the option for succeeding. And they are considered to be the best rpgs out there. They have multiplay ways to succeed, though. ME3 doesn`t have multiple ways. Just 3 endings based on the colour you pick.

1. That shouldn't matter, a good rpg shouldn't use the fact it's a triligoy as a crutch for not having payoff for choices in each of their installments. They should all be able to stand as rpg's on their own if this is a rpg franchise. And you said other rpg's had their earlier choices matter at the end of the game, I simply wanted to know why mass effect 1 was than considered a rpg in your example.

2. How does shepard not have stats when we clearly see the armor stats when we compare armors in the game? And now your muddling the issue of what the armor actually does in game with some psudo-lore argument. What are these vast amount of non-combat, as in have nothing to do with combat, skills you kept talking about with mass effect 1? I counted 3, that's not a lot.

3. My respect for rpg's is now lower, thanks to that point. 

2.

[leaguer of one]

Rawgrim wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...

In Exile wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...
I'm not say fan rage has no power. In fact, with ME3 end fan rage was every game site on the net. It was not just these forums. It was everywhere.

The target audience for ME3 is not the target audience for DAI. I wouldn't draw parallels between how two different groups of people receive the same feature. 

Sure, that is the one good arguement anti mp can use. But remember, much of da game play is based on MMO combate. DA is basicly an offline mmo when it comes to game play. That meanat least it has a ground to make a mp da fans can like.
It still comes down to it being optional and those who don't want to play it don't have to.

Uhm....mmo`s borrow from older rpgs. Single player ones. DA just added fetch quests from the MMOs

I suggest you play DA and you will see how little it resembles an MMO.

? ... I never said they didn't. Your point.

I'm not saying dao is based on MMO's alone. I'm say much of the combat is. If doa was based on pure classic crpgs the combat would be based on prevention not damage spunges.
Seriously, have you not played an mmo. They are 100% dependent on tanks, just like DA is. Classic crpgs are not like that.

Uhm...classic rpgs are VERY much about tanks and healers and whatsnot. They kind of started the whole thing.

Not in the way mmo's and DAO have them. It's not just pouring health into tanks like in MMO's. It's bases on pervention. It matterS not how much you can heal your tank if your enemy can just charm him and turn ageinSt you, de-level him and make him too weak to fight correctly, or drain intelligence to kill him/her.

The Tank/healer dynamic is much different in classic crpgs then to mmo's and dao.

The differnce is this. With a tank in dao, I can go in a room  without casting anything on my tank and the worst that can happen is paralyzation, staggers, have a slight debuff and some traps tripped.
In a classic crpg if I did that (god forbid) that tank would be instat killed, charmed, massivly weakened, or turned into something.

If you get instantly killed when walking unbuffed into a room in a classic rpg, you can`t have put much effort into understanding the game rules, or you haven`t played a classic rpg at all. Classic rpgs made you think ahead. Use tactics and whatsnot. Spamming potions and healing spells isn`t a tactic.

You can go into any room with any character in DA, and you can get paralyzed and whatever. Its the game mechanic. Nobody dies untill the entire party is dead. So yes, that is different than in older rpgs - sure. But good luck playing the older ones without a tank.

/facepalm.

You don't understand that was just an example, not what I really do?

I'm just pointing out the difference. If I say all the thing that would happen if I rush into a room if my tank is not protected, then mean by gods will Iwhen I reguly play the game do everthing I do to protect  my tank.

And that just went over your head just like that. I don't even lent the tank go in a room first in DAO much less a classic crpg game.

I'm saying much of MMO'S and da tank tactics is chugging potions, having mages stuck on healing and having everyone wale on the tank.
And yes, you can easilly play a classic crpg without a tank, especially if you have a mage with a summoner specilation.

[leaguer of one]

Rawgrim wrote...


3. Usually that means you can die. Mostly during combat. The BG seires, Neverwinter, Icewind Dale, Might and Magic (all 8 of them), the ultima series, planescape...All of these doesn`t really remove the option for succeeding. And they are considered to be the best rpgs out there. They have multiplay ways to succeed, though. ME3 doesn`t have multiple ways. Just 3 endings based on the colour you pick.

ME3 does have mulitple ways for you to succeed. It just that you still have to go to the same plot point no matter what to see the differnet endings. BG,NWN, and etc ending all have you get to the same plot point at the end. The duffers is the results.

In bg2 you always had to face Irenicus no matter what you did to beat the game. Just like you had to talk to the star child in the end of ME3. In BG2 you are given freedom of acting in any way as still get to the point of Facing Irenicus. Same with ME3 with the star child.
The difference is the results.

Saying what you did is point less because you always reach the same plot point in an rpg is irreliven arguement ageisnt a game being that most rpgs do the same thing. Even Witcher 2, forces you to a single plot point no matter what you did. DAO did as well.

[leaguer of one]

AresKeith wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

It's more like before the ending people were told that to get the "best" ending they would have to play the MP to get their EMS over 7000

And when people found out it was just a 5 sec breathe scene, that really would ****** people off

People found out it was a 5 sec beath scene before they had to do extra for it.

And where do you think they heard it from? The people who already did it

The point still comes down tothe fact that they were pissed wahy before seeing the scene.

[AresKeith]

leaguer of one wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

It's more like before the ending people were told that to get the "best" ending they would have to play the MP to get their EMS over 7000

And when people found out it was just a 5 sec breathe scene, that really would ****** people off

People found out it was a 5 sec beath scene before they had to do extra for it.

And where do you think they heard it from? The people who already did it

The point still comes down tothe fact that they were pissed wahy before seeing the scene.

Did you not see what I wrote?

I said there were people who were after the scene and then others found out through those people

Or are you just nitpicking my comments just to make an argument

[Sanunes]

Rawgrim wrote...

Sanunes wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

snip

The MP will use resources that could be used to make an even better SP campaign. Your typing is becoming harder and harder to understand. Are you drinking?

Are you sure they would be applied to make SP better or would they just not have access those resources?

Nobody can be sure. BUT they added MP to ME3, and that game clearly suffered from it (before it got patched and all that).

Maybe it did, maybe it didn't.  It could be the breath scene would have been completely unavailable until the Extended Cut because their math was wrong (if that is what you are referring to) and if that and the poorly done sidequest maps are the only connection, I don't think it had that much of an impact.  I could be forgetting something its been awhile since I played Mass Effect 3 from beginning to end.

[leaguer of one]

AresKeith wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

It's more like before the ending people were told that to get the "best" ending they would have to play the MP to get their EMS over 7000

And when people found out it was just a 5 sec breathe scene, that really would ****** people off

People found out it was a 5 sec beath scene before they had to do extra for it.

And where do you think they heard it from? The people who already did it

The point still comes down tothe fact that they were pissed wahy before seeing the scene.

Did you not see what I wrote?

I said there were people who were after the scene and then others found out through those people

Or are you just nitpicking my comments just to make an argument

But that still does not mean peopel started to get angry after seeing that snene...(Yes, I'm nitpicking.)

[Ziggeh]

leaguer of one wrote...1.Then you are focusing on the wrong aspect. Mean is irrelivent in the case of tactics, gameplay, and learning compared to results except if that means improve or degrade the results.The results are 100% relivent. It the reason we do any thing with the gameplay. If the results of are actions are always falure, we don't do any thing to get to those results.

How those results are achieved is called "gameplay". We are discussing gameplay. I consider gameplay to be the important aspect of the design of gameplay.

leaguer of one wrote...Seem to ignore the fact here that dao gameplay bacily is just a sp mmo where you control 4 characters at once instead one.

Again, you're saying that the only difference is that it's completely different. I'm not ignoring it, I'm saying those things are different. 1 does not equal 4, not matter how you insist or call them hairs.

With one person planning and enacting the methods of interaction and control need, by definition to be different from those of a group, because groups think and act differently to individuals.

A few examples:

Friendly fire is on and you want to aoe a group of enemies, because that's the most efficient method. With one person in control, having melee stand aside is no issue, because they player is still engaged. In a group, that person needs alternate engagement or they're standing around like a lemon. More likely than not, they won't be standing aside at all.

But that's with friendly fire, right? Which is bound to cause problems in multiplayer, so that's something that doesn't translate, a disctinction between the modes.

You're about to drop your big aoe, there are a whole bunch of dudes, why wouldn't you? - but just before you do, someone drops theirs, why wouldn't they? You've wasted your aoe. In multiplayer the design has to consider that abilities will be wasted in this way, that there is a risk element to their usage because you don't control all interactions. In single player, you do, so that risk doesn't exist and doesn't need to be considered in the complexity or difficulty of tactical design.

The healer can heal that while this is controlled, covering two bases - that can't be communicated instantly, or well between a group but can be assumed of an individual.

In a multiplayer each person needs to be engaged, to be making decisions based upon their individual role. In single player, none of that applies, the decisions need to exist at a party level.

They are different modes, with different goals and different designs. 

[Mercedes-Benz]

badboy64 wrote...

Not do not include it at all. It doesn't belong in the Dragon Age games.

I agree with you 100%.

[TsaiMeLemoni]

I was crazily against MP for ME, until I tried it. It wasn't the greatest in the world, but it was a lot of fun. I am not sure how they'd implement an MP element for DA:I, but I won't write it off until I've tried it.

[Vort3xX]

Can't say i find it interesting at all, i've multiplayer focused games if want to play mp but in sp focused games no thx.

Modifié par Vort3xX, 12 août 2013 - 11:52 .

[Lyssistr]

Please add multi