304 réponses à ce sujet

[The Flying Grey Warden]

cjones91 wrote...

I have one question for you and all the pro multiplayer types:Why does Dragon Age or any other single player franchise for that matter need multiplayer in order for you to enjoy it?I'm sick and tired of single player games getting multiplayer shoved into them simply because of this idea that all games need multiplayer in order to be fun.

Why do we need codex entries? And especially non-important and minro entries from reading books in game? When I'm sure a majority of people don't read through those entires or even open the codex section of their game.

It's an added layer to the game that is meant to give players another aspect for which to enjoy their game. It's not "needed" nothing except the bare basic coding is needed for the game. But it is another outlite for players to have to experience the setting and story in different ways. It could also offers a chance for players to experience things like new races, classes, and weapons they would normally not be able to play in game, even if it had more development time. A chance for the creators to add new content they come up with without worrying about microsoft or sony's rules and regulations regarding it and if done in the same way mass effect 3's was, without charging customers who might not want or might not be able to buy the packs, by having the cost paid by willing comsumers instead.

[The Flying Grey Warden]

COGNiTiON 1 wrote...

I still don't think there will actually be a multiplayer mode.

David Gaider made this post almost a year ago:

Which is interesting primarily due to the fact that this is something EA has said repeatedly and publicly many times to date-- all their games must have a multiplayer or online component (requirements which even DA2 satisfied). And both Mike and Mark have also spoken several times about their intention to have some form of multiplayer in the DA franchise, if not details as to what form it will take.


And then Aaryn Flynn made this Twitter post back in June:

I love ME3 MP too! No plans for #Inquisition at this time - very focused on the SP currently; it needs to be great
https://twitter.com/...584064745345026


That's almost a year between those two posts without confirming an actual online mode. I think it's more likely that we'll simply see DLC fufilling the 'component' that EA requires. Not that I'm against an online mode (I love ME3's multiplayer), but I just find it unlikely.

Well than, I guess that settles it, more or less.

Sayonara everyone, there's no reason for this thread to exist anymore.

[The Flying Grey Warden]

Rawgrim wrote...

The Flying Grey Warden wrote...

iakus wrote...

It woul not break the game any more than adding mp at all would

The DLC could be free

You don't seem to care what those who don't want mp intruding on their game think as long as you're happy. So pot, meet kettle

Your the one saying it should be a dlc, which would eat up a lot of space on many peoples memory. I think of the console gamers, and gb's are a very precious commodety. Having something like halo 4's 8 GB download to play something every other game has on disc is insane. 

Not to mention no one is forcing you to play the multiplayer or even look at the multiplayer screen. But your option would force players to go out of their way in order to play a simple feature of the game. It's lunacy.

And the game allways checking for new DLC (usually mp maps) every time you start it up.

It does that anyway. Origins does that, I'm pretty damn sure DA2 did that, and neither of those games have multiplayer.

So what exactly is your point? 

[Rawgrim]

It adds waiting time for me to start the SP game, while the game searches for more MP content that I have no interest in.

[BouncyFrag]

Wow. This thread....

[Iakus]

AlanC9 wrote...

iakus wrote...


Barely an effect is still an effect.  No effect means no effect.  No gameplay alterations.  No budget or asset shifting from single player to multiplayer.  No content triaged out due to lack of disk space.  No single player content cut or changed.  Not one dungeon.  Not one scene, not one line.

What about positive effects? Like free N7 maps. Or more-profitable MP subsidizing the SP game generally, though that's more speculative.

N7 maps that consist of going somewhere, killing everything that moves on the map, then leave?  That's little more than solo MP anyway.  Spend the money on an Armax -style Arena and be done with it if such minor side missions are really needed.

And like I said, if a narrative based RPG has to be subsadized by MP, then the game has failed already.

[Killdren88]

It is clear where people stand. Some hate MP some don't so let's agree to disagree.

[The Flying Grey Warden]

BouncyFrag wrote...

Wow. This thread....

Glorious isn't it? So much rage and debating over someone nobody knows will even be in the game.

Just smell it, take in the wafting aroma of internet fighting. 

[leaguer of one]

Ziggeh wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...
Yes, it is. Especial when we  get the same results reguardless.

We're discussing the manner and not the results. The results aren't relevant. It's the means by which they're achieved: the tactical decisions being made, the complexity of the interactions and the speed and accuracy with which they're deployed.

All of those things are entirely disctinct between a party based, pause and play single player experience and single character multiplayer.

The case you're trying to make is that it doesn't matter how the games played as long as it's played. That's a perspective that's going to need some explanation, because I would say that it's self evident that how a game is played is important to it's design.

leaguer of one wrote...
It 'sjust an issue of control. It sounds more that you are afraid of using someone else as a safety net.

Why would my fear over anything change a games design? Or indeed impact anything, given we're talking about an optional aspect of a game?

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

That fact allow shows that mp with the da will work being that it's just an expanded mmp system.
You are really spliting hairs on the issue with system at are vertuall not different. So much that the same gameplay and tactic translation with no issues.

2.Fear would not change anything except how you react to the system. If you aree worried that with the mp you can't make as detailed tactics as the sp, which the sp is just an off line mmo gameplay, then it's clear that the issue is a fear of control.

[leaguer of one]

iakus wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

iakus wrote...


Barely an effect is still an effect.  No effect means no effect.  No gameplay alterations.  No budget or asset shifting from single player to multiplayer.  No content triaged out due to lack of disk space.  No single player content cut or changed.  Not one dungeon.  Not one scene, not one line.

What about positive effects? Like free N7 maps. Or more-profitable MP subsidizing the SP game generally, though that's more speculative.

N7 maps that consist of going somewhere, killing everything that moves on the map, then leave?  That's little more than solo MP anyway.  Spend the money on an Armax -style Arena and be done with it if such minor side missions are really needed.

And like I said, if a narrative based RPG has to be subsadized by MP, then the game has failed already.

Then you are for geting the point of games is to play them and enjoy them. If an option is in a game and don't like said option, don't use or play those options. Add, things that are optional do not subtact from the game play. Even more so if you don't use them.
If it optionally effects the sp, and you don't want it to the awnser is simple, don't use the optional part of that game.

[badboy64]

leaguer of one wrote...

Ziggeh wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...
Yes, it is. Especial when we  get the same results reguardless.

We're discussing the manner and not the results. The results aren't relevant. It's the means by which they're achieved: the tactical decisions being made, the complexity of the interactions and the speed and accuracy with which they're deployed.

All of those things are entirely disctinct between a party based, pause and play single player experience and single character multiplayer.

The case you're trying to make is that it doesn't matter how the games played as long as it's played. That's a perspective that's going to need some explanation, because I would say that it's self evident that how a game is played is important to it's design.

leaguer of one wrote...
It 'sjust an issue of control. It sounds more that you are afraid of using someone else as a safety net.

Why would my fear over anything change a games design? Or indeed impact anything, given we're talking about an optional aspect of a game?

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

That fact allow shows that mp with the da will work being that it's just an expanded mmp system.
You are really spliting hairs on the issue with system at are vertuall not different. So much that the same gameplay and tactic translation with no issues.

2.Fear would not change anything except how you react to the system. If you aree worried that with the mp you can't make as detailed tactics as the sp, which the sp is just an off line mmo gameplay, then it's clear that the issue is a fear of control.

People don't want to play MP period.  They already stated they are focusing on SP alone. Why can't you get that through your head?:innocent:<_<

Modifié par badboy64, 12 août 2013 - 12:43 .

[leaguer of one]

Killdren88 wrote...

It is clear where people stand. Some hate MP some don't so let's agree to disagree.

Let's agree that if you don't like the mp, don't play it.

No one here is trying to get people who hate the mp to like. We just trying to get people to learn tolerance instead of boycotting the game because of something they don't have to use or effects them.

[leaguer of one]

badboy64 wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...

Ziggeh wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...
Yes, it is. Especial when we  get the same results reguardless.

We're discussing the manner and not the results. The results aren't relevant. It's the means by which they're achieved: the tactical decisions being made, the complexity of the interactions and the speed and accuracy with which they're deployed.

All of those things are entirely disctinct between a party based, pause and play single player experience and single character multiplayer.

The case you're trying to make is that it doesn't matter how the games played as long as it's played. That's a perspective that's going to need some explanation, because I would say that it's self evident that how a game is played is important to it's design.

leaguer of one wrote...
It 'sjust an issue of control. It sounds more that you are afraid of using someone else as a safety net.

Why would my fear over anything change a games design? Or indeed impact anything, given we're talking about an optional aspect of a game?

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

That fact allow shows that mp with the da will work being that it's just an expanded mmp system.
You are really spliting hairs on the issue with system at are vertuall not different. So much that the same gameplay and tactic translation with no issues.

2.Fear would not change anything except how you react to the system. If you aree worried that with the mp you can't make as detailed tactics as the sp, which the sp is just an off line mmo gameplay, then it's clear that the issue is a fear of control.

People don't want to play it period.  They already stated they are focusing on SP alone. Why can't you get that through your head?:innocent:

The awnser is simple. Because a reasonal perso who does not like the mp would just ignore it and not play it.
Understand my point first before argueing. I'm not trying to get you to like mp. I trying to get you guy to learn tolerance.

[ziloe]

It's sad to see people fighting over this, when in reality, if we got anything like the ME3 MP beta release, it would be a further look into the game's mechanics. And a chance to play the game!

[leaguer of one]

Rawgrim wrote...

It adds waiting time for me to start the SP game, while the game searches for more MP content that I have no interest in.

Funny, ME2 and DAO have me waiting to play sp as it checks for new sp dlc... Does that mean bw has to stop making sp dlc?

[leaguer of one]

ziloe wrote...

It's sad to see people fighting over this, when in reality, if we got anything like the ME3 MP beta release, it would be a further look into the game's mechanics. And a chance to play the game!

Bingo.

[Fast Jimmy]

leaguer of one wrote...

Killdren88 wrote...

It is clear where people stand. Some hate MP some don't so let's agree to disagree.

Let's agree that if you don't like the mp, don't play it.

No one here is trying to get people who hate the mp to like. We just trying to get people to learn tolerance instead of boycotting the game because of something they don't have to use or effects them.

ME3's SP was one of the worst received of any game in Bioware's history. Arguably, one of the worst in the history of video games, period.

Using ME3's MP as any sort of case of "if you don't like MP, don't play it - it won't affect your SP" may be asking too much from many people. 

[badboy64]

leaguer of one wrote...

badboy64 wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...

Ziggeh wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...
Yes, it is. Especial when we  get the same results reguardless.

We're discussing the manner and not the results. The results aren't relevant. It's the means by which they're achieved: the tactical decisions being made, the complexity of the interactions and the speed and accuracy with which they're deployed.

All of those things are entirely disctinct between a party based, pause and play single player experience and single character multiplayer.

The case you're trying to make is that it doesn't matter how the games played as long as it's played. That's a perspective that's going to need some explanation, because I would say that it's self evident that how a game is played is important to it's design.

leaguer of one wrote...
It 'sjust an issue of control. It sounds more that you are afraid of using someone else as a safety net.

Why would my fear over anything change a games design? Or indeed impact anything, given we're talking about an optional aspect of a game?

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

That fact allow shows that mp with the da will work being that it's just an expanded mmp system.
You are really spliting hairs on the issue with system at are vertuall not different. So much that the same gameplay and tactic translation with no issues.

2.Fear would not change anything except how you react to the system. If you aree worried that with the mp you can't make as detailed tactics as the sp, which the sp is just an off line mmo gameplay, then it's clear that the issue is a fear of control.

People don't want to play it period.  They already stated they are focusing on SP alone. Why can't you get that through your head?:innocent:

The awnser is simple. Because a reasonal perso who does not like the mp would just ignore it and not play it.
Understand my point first before argueing. I'm not trying to get you to like mp. I trying to get you guy to learn tolerance.

You are arguing over a dead horse which you can't win at all. I already know tolerance means. DA:I shouldn't even  include MP in this game at all. People don't want it.

Modifié par badboy64, 12 août 2013 - 12:53 .

[AppealToReason]

badboy64 wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...

badboy64 wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...

Ziggeh wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...
Yes, it is. Especial when we  get the same results reguardless.

We're discussing the manner and not the results. The results aren't relevant. It's the means by which they're achieved: the tactical decisions being made, the complexity of the interactions and the speed and accuracy with which they're deployed.

All of those things are entirely disctinct between a party based, pause and play single player experience and single character multiplayer.

The case you're trying to make is that it doesn't matter how the games played as long as it's played. That's a perspective that's going to need some explanation, because I would say that it's self evident that how a game is played is important to it's design.

leaguer of one wrote...
It 'sjust an issue of control. It sounds more that you are afraid of using someone else as a safety net.

Why would my fear over anything change a games design? Or indeed impact anything, given we're talking about an optional aspect of a game?

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

That fact allow shows that mp with the da will work being that it's just an expanded mmp system.
You are really spliting hairs on the issue with system at are vertuall not different. So much that the same gameplay and tactic translation with no issues.

2.Fear would not change anything except how you react to the system. If you aree worried that with the mp you can't make as detailed tactics as the sp, which the sp is just an off line mmo gameplay, then it's clear that the issue is a fear of control.

People don't want to play it period.  They already stated they are focusing on SP alone. Why can't you get that through your head?:innocent:

The awnser is simple. Because a reasonal perso who does not like the mp would just ignore it and not play it.
Understand my point first before argueing. I'm not trying to get you to like mp. I trying to get you guy to learn tolerance.

You are arguing over a dead horse which you can't win at all. I already know tolerance means. it shouldn't even be including in this game at all. People don't want it.

I want it. I also know like at least 10-15 other people that want it. They probably know people that want it.

ARE YOU SAYING NONE OF US ARE REAL PEOPLE?

[AppealToReason]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...

Killdren88 wrote...

It is clear where people stand. Some hate MP some don't so let's agree to disagree.

Let's agree that if you don't like the mp, don't play it.

No one here is trying to get people who hate the mp to like. We just trying to get people to learn tolerance instead of boycotting the game because of something they don't have to use or effects them.

ME3's SP was one of the worst received of any game in Bioware's history. Arguably, one of the worst in the history of video games, period.

Using ME3's MP as any sort of case of "if you don't like MP, don't play it - it won't affect your SP" may be asking too much from many people. 

Thats horribly over dramatic.

[leaguer of one]

badboy64 wrote...


You are arguing over a dead horse which you can't win at all. I already know tolerance means. DA:I shouldn't even  include MP in this game at all. People don't want it.

More like you beating the dead horse. All said and done if bw want it in the game it going to be in it no matter what you and others feel. And the way they are handling the sp it's clear mp will not effect the sp's quality, which is all I care about.

If it's not going to effect you sp experiance why even wait the brian cells worrying about it?

[badboy64]

AppealToReason wrote...

badboy64 wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...

badboy64 wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...

Ziggeh wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...
Yes, it is. Especial when we  get the same results reguardless.

We're discussing the manner and not the results. The results aren't relevant. It's the means by which they're achieved: the tactical decisions being made, the complexity of the interactions and the speed and accuracy with which they're deployed.

All of those things are entirely disctinct between a party based, pause and play single player experience and single character multiplayer.

The case you're trying to make is that it doesn't matter how the games played as long as it's played. That's a perspective that's going to need some explanation, because I would say that it's self evident that how a game is played is important to it's design.

leaguer of one wrote...
It 'sjust an issue of control. It sounds more that you are afraid of using someone else as a safety net.

Why would my fear over anything change a games design? Or indeed impact anything, given we're talking about an optional aspect of a game?

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

That fact allow shows that mp with the da will work being that it's just an expanded mmp system.
You are really spliting hairs on the issue with system at are vertuall not different. So much that the same gameplay and tactic translation with no issues.

2.Fear would not change anything except how you react to the system. If you aree worried that with the mp you can't make as detailed tactics as the sp, which the sp is just an off line mmo gameplay, then it's clear that the issue is a fear of control.

People don't want to play it period.  They already stated they are focusing on SP alone. Why can't you get that through your head?:innocent:

The awnser is simple. Because a reasonal perso who does not like the mp would just ignore it and not play it.
Understand my point first before argueing. I'm not trying to get you to like mp. I trying to get you guy to learn tolerance.

You are arguing over a dead horse which you can't win at all. I already know tolerance means. it shouldn't even be including in this game at all. People don't want it.

I want it. I also know like at least 10-15 other people that want it. They probably know people that want it.

ARE YOU SAYING NONE OF US ARE REAL PEOPLE?

I be there are alot more that don't want it that aren't even in this thread than there are that want it in this thread.

[Foxhound2121]

I don't want mutliplayer.

[SlottsMachine]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...

Killdren88 wrote...

It is clear where people stand. Some hate MP some don't so let's agree to disagree.

Let's agree that if you don't like the mp, don't play it.

No one here is trying to get people who hate the mp to like. We just trying to get people to learn tolerance instead of boycotting the game because of something they don't have to use or effects them.

ME3's SP was one of the worst received of any game in Bioware's history. Arguably, one of the worst in the history of video games, period.

Using ME3's MP as any sort of case of "if you don't like MP, don't play it - it won't affect your SP" may be asking too much from many people. 

IMO, there hasn't been any tangible evidence that proves that the inclusion of MP means that the SP experience will suffer. Just lots of speculation. 

[leaguer of one]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...

Killdren88 wrote...

It is clear where people stand. Some hate MP some don't so let's agree to disagree.

Let's agree that if you don't like the mp, don't play it.

No one here is trying to get people who hate the mp to like. We just trying to get people to learn tolerance instead of boycotting the game because of something they don't have to use or effects them.

ME3's SP was one of the worst received of any game in Bioware's history. Arguably, one of the worst in the history of video games, period.

Using ME3's MP as any sort of case of "if you don't like MP, don't play it - it won't affect your SP" may be asking too much from many people. 

More like you making a horrible emblisment and you clearly don't know what you are taking about. ME3 sp is no way near being a bad sp or even bw worst game. Espesially with Jade empire and DA2 in exsistance and the the awards ME3 gained.
If you don't like ME3 that's fine with you. It's ok to say you don't like it.  But that does not mean ME3 is a bad game and even then the mp has nothing to do with that reguard.