304 réponses à ce sujet

[Ihatebadgames]

Add me to the NO.

[leaguer of one]

Ziggeh wrote...

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. 

1.Ok then, but the issue you have with the gameplay is marginal and the results of said action is still going to dictate what you are going to do.

2.You really don't see that in a mp people talk to one another and both aoe attacks can work at the same time with no problem.(Their not instakills, so it's not a waste.)

But I do agree that everyone focus on a role in mp....But it not like some who is play a rogue in MP can't see another players playstyle, like a mage, think it's a great tactic and use it in the sp. Nor if the group learns a new tactic they can then use it in the mp.

You are too wrapped up in minior hows. It matter not if 2 people put down to aoes and even then people will tell others what they are doing first before they do a big attack. It's clearly not impossible to do being that many mmo's have this with work arounds.

And that risk you are taking about is just an issue with control being that is just about a person doing there job.

Focusing on one job does not mean you can't learn tactics for a good. That consept goes ageinst the nature of group play and the concepts of observation.

You're over reacting.

[Vortex13]

 If Bioware adds MP (which I hope that they do, but can understand if they want to focus entirely on SP) I would very much like to be able to play as things like Golems, Sylvains, Werewolves, Awakened, Malibari ect. in addition to the standard Humans, Elves, and Dwarves. Multiplayer is our chance to experience the world through the eyes of something that (In all honesty) will never be made a PC in the story, so I say let us enjoy the more exotic creatures while playing with friends.

Also if Bioware adds MP to DA:I, and if they let us play as the more exotic creatures, I would love to see new gameplay mechanics involved with playing as the non-human (elf/dwarf) characters; really incorporate asymetrical gameplay into the MP, make each character feel unique.

Obviously, having a robust MP like that would be a little too much to expect out of the box, but if the Retaliation DLC for ME 3 was any indication, I say that it is entirley possible for a hypothetical MP to have unique gameplay mechanics tied to unique characters down the line.

*Fingers crossed for DA:I MP

[Toasted Llama]

MP can go very well together with DA:O. At least on the console version. There were very rare moments I was controlling anyone else but myself. (just put the tactics right)

As for people who think it takes away the strategy part and sit back and think bit: I've been playing an MMORPG for 5 years that has a PvP element where 1 (or maybe 2) person controlls a raid of 30 people (individual players) to victory. This includes positioning and adressing personal people/spells.

And if I'm not mistaken Dragon Age is primarily a roleplaying game, not a real time strategy game such as starcraft or warcraft (which can also be played online). (Yes I am aware it uses strategy and tactics)

Downside ofcourse stays that if it indeed takes resources away from SP it's a nono for me. But if it can function as an ADDITION to the game I say go for it.

[Fast Jimmy]

Multiplayer is our chance to experience the world through the eyes of something that (In all honesty) will never be made a PC in the story, so I say let us enjoy the more exotic creatures while playing with friends.

If by "experience the world" do you mean "horde mode waves of brainless enemies?"

If so, I would say the game world (and the game itself) would not be enhanced by such things.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 12 août 2013 - 04:14 .

[Ziggeh]

leaguer of one wrote...

 It matter not if 2 people put down to aoes and even then people will tell others what they are doing first before they do a big attack. It's clearly not impossible to do being that many mmo's have this with work arounds.

If you've ever played an mmo, you know people don't do that unless it's planned ahead of time, which in a multiplayer rather than an mmo ranges from unlikely to impossible. I'd go so far as to say it would poor design if they had to because the design goal should be for interaction to happen intuitively, something not required when you control all of the interactions.

And no - it doesn't matter if aoe's are wasted. Again, what matters is that the design of the encounter has to account for the possibility in one case and not the other.

leaguer of one wrote...
Focusing on one job does not mean you can't learn tactics for a good. 

I'm not talking about player learning; I've been talking about the games design. 

[Vortex13]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Multiplayer is our chance to experience the world through the eyes of something that (In all honesty) will never be made a PC in the story, so I say let us enjoy the more exotic creatures while playing with friends.

If by "experience the world" do you mean "horde mode waves of brainless enemies?"

If so, I would say the game world (and the game itself) would not be enhanced by such things.

Maybe "experience the world" wasn't the best choice of words there . Although if Bioware wanted to craft a MP story that allowed me to play as a Sylvain (for example) and could explain it well I say more power to them. 

I should have said more options; to the game in general, and MP in particular. True, being able to play as a Werewolf wouldn't nessarily be something that would elevate the game to the next level, but then again the same could be said of having multiple player races vs just having a human protagonist with multiple backgrounds.

Modifié par Vortex13, 12 août 2013 - 06:15 .

[leaguer of one]

Ziggeh wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...

 It matter not if 2 people put down to aoes and even then people will tell others what they are doing first before they do a big attack. It's clearly not impossible to do being that many mmo's have this with work arounds.

If you've ever played an mmo, you know people don't do that unless it's planned ahead of time, which in a multiplayer rather than an mmo ranges from unlikely to impossible. I'd go so far as to say it would poor design if they had to because the design goal should be for interaction to happen intuitively, something not required when you control all of the interactions.

And no - it doesn't matter if aoe's are wasted. Again, what matters is that the design of the encounter has to account for the possibility in one case and not the other.

leaguer of one wrote...
Focusing on one job does not mean you can't learn tactics for a good. 

I'm not talking about player learning; I've been talking about the games design. 

1.They do call out big attacks. In a system like da, with is based off mmo's, people don't blindly run into battle. They ether:

A. Do there character job with the group.
b. Stop and plan first before acting.

That's not different then what we do with the sp.
A.In the sp with averge combat we just use said cahracter based on there job .
b. When we meet something tuff we pause and plan.

The difference is only who controls what.

2. And that gameplay design will be the same if it's sp or mp. The only difference between sp and mp would just be what the player has to focus on. That does not mean the gameplay will be differenct. Hence why DA combat is the same as mmo's.

[Ziggeh]

leaguer of one wrote...
1.They do call out big attacks. 

Well that's just demonstrably untrue. The fact that people can does not mean people do and it can be considered in design, especially if you can't assume compatible language let alone functioning coms.

leaguer of one wrote...
b. Stop and plan first before acting.

You're talking about the wrong scale and I'm beginning to wonder if you're misunderstanding on purpose. Groups don't plan the use and interaction of abilities on an use by use basis. Individuals do.

leaguer of one wrote...
The only difference between sp and mp would just be what the player has to focus on. That does not mean the gameplay will be differenct.

Again, those statements are contradictory. The fact that you are focusing on different things makes it different: you are focusing on different things.

[Ihatebadgames]

I play my RPGs for down time. Not to mess around with other people on the web. I play how I want, WHEN I want and for as long or as short as I want, and I don't have to stroke any egos to have a fun time.
Also as a plus I don't have to share the Glory when I win my game.

[leaguer of one]

Ziggeh wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...
1.They do call out big attacks. 

Well that's just demonstrably untrue. The fact that people can does not mean people do and it can be considered in design, especially if you can't assume compatible language let alone functioning coms.

leaguer of one wrote...
b. Stop and plan first before acting.

You're talking about the wrong scale and I'm beginning to wonder if you're misunderstanding on purpose. Groups don't plan the use and interaction of abilities on an use by use basis. Individuals do.

leaguer of one wrote...
The only difference between sp and mp would just be what the player has to focus on. That does not mean the gameplay will be differenct.

Again, those statements are contradictory. The fact that you are focusing on different things makes it different: you are focusing on different things.

1.I'm not say they do it all the time. I'm saying it's no as big as aissue as you make it out to be. Really, you go into any mmo group and you see it's no where near the random mess you make it out to be.

2.I understand that. The reason why is that they don't need to. The indivisual using the character know the strenghts and weakness of there character. They only really need to plan with a tuff bos or area has to be dealt with.
In mp, the group does not need detaled planning to deal with normal mobs, just like in the sp of DAO you don't need detail planning for normal mobs.
This still brings it down to an issue of control.

3.No, it's not contridictory. What the player focus on does not change the gameplay and it's foundation. That like saying ME3 mp is no long a 3rd shooter rpg hybrid because in the mp you only use on character. Player focus does not change the core of the game, if just changes how the player act and reacts to the game.

That's the case with any game that has sp and mp.

[leaguer of one]

Ihatebadgames wrote...

I play my RPGs for down time. Not to mess around with other people on the web. I play how I want, WHEN I want and for as long or as short as I want, and I don't have to stroke any egos to have a fun time.
Also as a plus I don't have to share the Glory when I win my game.

And you are being foced to play the mp?

Here's what you're not getting. You don't have to play the mp. You not playing the mp will not effect the sp.

This complaint and issue would only be valid if:
A. DAI was made in to a mp only game.
B.The to get something in the sp you have to play the mp.


So, If not being forced to play the mp = no issue.

You can say how much you don't like mp as much as you want, that still does not change the fact that you don't have to play the mp.
If you don't play it it does not effect you.

[Ziggeh]

leaguer of one wrote...
1.I'm not say they do it all the time. I'm saying it's no as big as aissue as you make it out to be. Really, you go into any mmo group and you see it's no where near the random mess you make it out to be.

I didn't say they were a random mess. I said the decision, communication and execution processes are different and that this has an impact on game design.

I completely appreciate that you are still essentially hitting orcs with sharpened sticks but game design is a fairly nuanced business, and we're discussing nuances.

leaguer of one wrote...
2.I understand that. The reason why is that they don't need to. The indivisual using the character know the strenghts and weakness of there character. They only really need to plan with a tuff bos or area has to be dealt with.

Ah man. Maybe I'm explaining this badly. There only needs to be a plan when it's hard? The designers need to know how people are playing in order to make it hard or not. As I said right at the start. My whole point is that the ways in which people play are important to the design of the thing they are playing.

leaguer of one wrote...
3.No, it's not contridictory. What the player focus on does not change the gameplay and it's foundation.

Yes it is: by definition changing something changes it. If you're going to deny everything this isn't going to be productive.

leaguer of one wrote...
Player focus does not change the core of the game, if just changes how the player act and reacts to the game.

Your case is really that the only difference in the gameplay is how people play the game? You might want to rephrase that.

[leaguer of one]

Ziggeh wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...
1.I'm not say they do it all the time. I'm saying it's no as big as aissue as you make it out to be. Really, you go into any mmo group and you see it's no where near the random mess you make it out to be.

I didn't say they were a random mess. I said the decision, communication and execution processes are different and that this has an impact on game design.

I completely appreciate that you are still essentially hitting orcs with sharpened sticks but game design is a fairly nuanced business, and we're discussing nuances.

leaguer of one wrote...
2.I understand that. The reason why is that they don't need to. The indivisual using the character know the strenghts and weakness of there character. They only really need to plan with a tuff bos or area has to be dealt with.

Ah man. Maybe I'm explaining this badly. There only needs to be a plan when it's hard? The designers need to know how people are playing in order to make it hard or not. As I said right at the start. My whole point is that the ways in which people play are important to the design of the thing they are playing.

leaguer of one wrote...
3.No, it's not contridictory. What the player focus on does not change the gameplay and it's foundation.

Yes it is: by definition changing something changes it. If you're going to deny everything this isn't going to be productive.

leaguer of one wrote...
Player focus does not change the core of the game, if just changes how the player act and reacts to the game.

Your case is really that the only difference in the gameplay is how people play the game? You might want to rephrase that.

1. It's not going to change the gameplay design. It just change how the player react to the events on hand. Just like how with the me3 MP the gameplay design is near vertually  the same as the mp.
Saying, "they are going to react differently" do not mean or equal to "different gameplay design."

2.Read my first point. How a player react does not change how the game is played or it's disign. It allows tweeks, improvement and variation but it does not change the core gameplay experiance. Just because the one player is not in control of every character on the team does not mean the dev is going to chang the core of the game.
One comparisson to ME3 sp and mp makes that point clear.

3.Not inheritly. A variation does not change the foundation and priciples of the game. A game is not an enitrly new game because of a variation. Changing the ammount of powers in ME gameplay from 6 to 3 for the mp does not change me3 mp into somethign other then a 3rdshooter rpg hybrid, as well as not having a team with you you only control.
dai sp compared to te mp would be not different. The only change is what is the players attention.

[Ziggeh]

leaguer of one wrote...
1. It's not going to change the gameplay design. It just change how the player react to the events on hand.

And you don't believe that the way in which people react has an impact upon the games design? What is it do you imagine game designers do? They're not an emergent property.

leaguer of one wrote...
Just like how with the me3 MP the gameplay design is near vertually  the same as the mp.

Yes, it is, which is why it's not a problem or a valid comparison to this case.

The companions in ME amount to an addtional set of abilities, and as you say, reducing the number of abilities doesn't change the nature of the game. You don't control positioning  or target (beyond those abilities) because they're not relevant.  Single player ME is like playing one person with the abilities of 3. Single player DA is not like playing one person with the abilities of
four.

[leaguer of one]

Ziggeh wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...
1. It's not going to change the gameplay design. It just change how the player react to the events on hand.

And you don't believe that the way in which people react has an impact upon the games design? What is it do you imagine game designers do? They're not an emergent property.

leaguer of one wrote...
Just like how with the me3 MP the gameplay design is near vertually  the same as the mp.

Yes, it is, which is why it's not a problem or a valid comparison to this case.

The companions in ME amount to an addtional set of abilities, and as you say, reducing the number of abilities doesn't change the nature of the game. You don't control positioning  or target (beyond those abilities) because they're not relevant.  Single player ME is like playing one person with the abilities of 3. Single player DA is not like playing one person with the abilities of
four.

1. It does not drasticly change to a point that it's a differenet game that has to be developed differently.
MP didn't change how bg1 and 2 was played. MP did not change how nwn was played. And the same case with  DAI.

2.Positioning is very relivent to ME 1,2, and 3. You don't put Jack or Garrus in the front line and James and Grunt are a waste if you put them in the back and not close range.
You do use tactic in ME, You just don't miromange as much as you do in da.

That make the point relivent.  ME is not playing a game where you play with the abilities of 3 just like da is not a game you play with the abilities of 4.

[Blessed Silence]

leaguer of one wrote...

Wrong. MP in ME3 barely effected it. In fact you don't even need it to get the best end. The fact that it is popular and still active mean that it's no just some mp tack on.

Any reasonable person can see mp is not an issue. If you don't like it don't play it. It matter not if it was orginally a sp game or not. Added mp does not devalue the game just by being there.

Then tell me how MP will make the game even better?  Dragon Age has done fine without it.  Why bring it out now?

And it DID affect ME3.  How did Cerberus get all those soldiers out of the blue?  To whack in MP!  Duh.

If the company does not put enough resources to make it worth while it CAN affect the game.  It will feel unpolished and flat.  And I am reasonable, so don't insult me.

[leaguer of one]

Blessed Silence wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...

Wrong. MP in ME3 barely effected it. In fact you don't even need it to get the best end. The fact that it is popular and still active mean that it's no just some mp tack on.

Any reasonable person can see mp is not an issue. If you don't like it don't play it. It matter not if it was orginally a sp game or not. Added mp does not devalue the game just by being there.

Then tell me how MP will make the game even better?  Dragon Age has done fine without it.  Why bring it out now?

And it DID affect ME3.  How did Cerberus get all those soldiers out of the blue?  To whack in MP!  Duh.

If the company does not put enough resources to make it worth while it CAN affect the game.  It will feel unpolished and flat.  And I am reasonable, so don't insult me.

1. It's told in the story how cerberus got those soldiers and I clearly can't repeat it here.
2. I'm taking about gameplay not story.

3.MP will give an active place for the dev to experiment with the game system they have with active player feed back and estimation. They can make weekly and daily changes to the system to see how to improve things with out effecting the sp and based on those test apply  improvement to the sp.

4. If you took the time to play ME3 after the retalliation update(patch 1.04), you'll see bw made dramatic changes to the sp... This was based on player feed back from the mp.
Example:
[*]Singularity power re-designed:

• Singularity no longer has a maximum number of charges and will only be destroyed when the time runs out
• Performing a biotic combo on someone floating in the singularity no longer ends the singularity
• Base cooldown changed to 8 seconds
• Base duration of the singularity changed to 8 seconds
• Base power now does 100 points of damage per second to all targets that are in range, even if not floating in the singularity
• Rank 3 changed to a damage over time bonus (used to be a radius and duration bonus)
• Evolve 1 changed to singularity duration bonus (used to be a hold duration bonus and number of charges increase)
• Evolve 5 changed to damage over time bonus (used to be a radius increase mechanic)
• Evolve 6 now detonates biotic combos when the singularity explodes

[/list]The things your bring up are minior.

[RevanCousland]

dont know if anyone said this yet but if its like never winter nights where you can do co op through the story that would be cool but plz not like ME3 it was fun at first but got boring fast

[Vortex13]

RevanCousland wrote...

dont know if anyone said this yet but if its like never winter nights where you can do co op through the story that would be cool but plz not like ME3 it was fun at first but got boring fast

I would love something like that.

Make sure to include the other non (human/dwarf/elf) races for me though

[Slayer299]

I'd vote "no" for MP, but this is EA were talking about so it'll wind up in DA:I more likely than not. Sadly, MP was actually the one bright spot of ME3, I'd like to think that this does not become a trend with DA:I .

Not all games need or should have MP and if a game needs mulitplayer to survive than there is something wrong with it to begin with...

[Lokiwithrope]

If my gut is anything to go by, I think Mass Effect 3's cooperative experience will be combined with the expansive leveling system of Dragon Age's campaign. Imagine rolling as a fully-leveled up squad of Inquisitors.

[BouncyFrag]

Lokiwithrope wrote...

If my gut is anything to go by, I think Mass Effect 3's cooperative experience will be combined with the expansive leveling system of Dragon Age's campaign. Imagine rolling as a fully-leveled up squad of Inquisitors.

Best idea this thread has seen in some time!

[Ziggeh]

leaguer of one wrote...

1. It does not drasticly change to a point that it's a differenet game that has to be developed differently.

It doesn't need to be drastic to be different enough to alter design. It just needs different design goals. Single player and multiplayer modes, by their very defintion have different design goals.

leaguer of one wrote...
MP didn't change how bg1 and 2 was played. MP did not change how nwn was played. And the same case with  DAI.

Those are actually comparable examples. And it's a shame I can't speak to them - I didn't play either, but I would imagine one or the other mode was not ideally designed or the level of interaction was limited.

[leaguer of one]

Ziggeh wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...

1. It does not drasticly change to a point that it's a differenet game that has to be developed differently.

It doesn't need to be drastic to be different enough to alter design. It just needs different design goals. Single player and multiplayer modes, by their very defintion have different design goals.

leaguer of one wrote...
MP didn't change how bg1 and 2 was played. MP did not change how nwn was played. And the same case with  DAI.

Those are actually comparable examples. And it's a shame I can't speak to them - I didn't play either, but I would imagine one or the other mode was not ideally designed or the level of interaction was limited.

1. Variations don't change the game design to something else. That's like say the dependence of consumible in ME3mp changes the game play design.
The goals are the same. The only differents is the variations of the how.

2.No, the interaction was just about the same. MP is not as big as a hamper as you think.