128 réponses à ce sujet

[AtreiyaN7]

Given that ME3 multiplayer ended up being quite popular despite all the people who would instantly foam at the mouth on the ME3 forums as soon as they saw the word "multiplayer," I'm pretty sure that your assessment of ME3 multiplayer is wrong.

Personally, I don't see a multiplayer mode in DA:I similar to that of ME3 as being particularly interesting when your classes are limited to warriors, mages, and rogues (all of whom lack biotics and futuristic weaponry). If they plan to have some sort of separate co-op campaign in DA:I that runs parallel to the main game, that might be fun and something I'd play. But who knows what the future will hold - sometimes multiplayer is a fun addition to a game, and sometimes it doesn't work out.

In any case, no one knows exactly what they're doing on that end atm, but if they are doing something, it certainly doesn't appear to be impacting the single-player campaign negatively based on the footage and information they've released thus far.

[deuce985]

Urazz wrote...

In Exile wrote...

ME3 MP was very successful, so it's difficult to imagine Bioware not wanting to add MP to DAI.

Was it that successful?  Sure people played it and it was fairly decent but I don't recall Bioware actually giving numbers on how well it did or touting the number of players playing it.  Nor did we actually see any people claim that they got the game for the multiplayer.

If it was very successful don't you think they would still be supporting it in some fashion instead of abandoning it after the final ME3 multiplayer DLCs were released?

Hell, I saw more complaints about the multiplayer tying into the results of the singleplayer than actual compliments about it.

Thresh the Qunari wrote...

does no one remember baldur's gate 2's co-op

It was more than just the ability to join other people's games, it was the abilty to make your own dungeons and the like.  It's not really feasible in today's games where things are much more complex now.

Just allowing people to join in your game, while fun initially, would end up being boring and just be a gimmick.  Bioware would probably have to give the game full out modding support  and give players a dungeon tool as well so they can make their own campaigns.

Is that why GTA V has a content creator...in co-op with free roam+doing missions with buddies in a massive city? If anything, it's more than feasible for modern gaming considering where technology is now. Bioware is capable of making good MP. They've already proven it. If it doesn't take away from SP, I say go for it.

Modifié par deuce985, 03 septembre 2013 - 06:07 .

[K_Tabris]

From a sales standpoint, multiplayer in ME 3 allows it to be considered a "successful" investment, but the campaign storyline was neglected, and the overall quality of the game suffered. I won't go into specifics here; all of those arguments can be found in the ME forums.

What fans are concerned about is that the single player experience will suffer if MP is added. I don't know if statistics measuring sales, investment and mp were ever released. I also think that's mostly irrelevant. Bioware fans aren't fans because the games are a financial success for EA, they are a success when the story and characters are written well. Jade Empire is a perfect example.

If Bioware is going to introduce MP to this game, I'm afraid history is going to repeat itself and we will have a mediocre game resulting from the implementation of an equally mediocre mp component. This is not a success, and if it happens, it will very likely put Bw under.

[Examurai]

KallianaTabris wrote...

From a sales standpoint, multiplayer in ME 3 allows it to be considered a "successful" investment, but the campaign storyline was neglected, and the overall quality of the game suffered. I won't go into specifics here; all of those arguments can be found in the ME forums.

What fans are concerned about is that the single player experience will suffer if MP is added. I don't know if statistics measuring sales, investment and mp were ever released. I also think that's mostly irrelevant. Bioware fans aren't fans because the games are a financial success for EA, they are a success when the story and characters are written well. Jade Empire is a perfect example.

If Bioware is going to introduce MP to this game, I'm afraid history is going to repeat itself and we will have a mediocre game resulting from the implementation of an equally mediocre mp component. This is not a success, and if it happens, it will very likely put Bw under.

To YOU Mass Effect 3 SP and MP maybe mediocore to others it wasnt. So of course from your point of view it may seem "unsuccessful". This thread and many others, particulalry in the MP sub forums, proves that there are BW fans that exist that don't mind MP and don't feel it has or will jeorpedise the SP mode. 

Modifié par Examurai1, 03 septembre 2013 - 06:24 .

[deuce985]

KallianaTabris wrote...

From a sales standpoint, multiplayer in ME 3 allows it to be considered a "successful" investment, but the campaign storyline was neglected, and the overall quality of the game suffered. I won't go into specifics here; all of those arguments can be found in the ME forums.

What fans are concerned about is that the single player experience will suffer if MP is added. I don't know if statistics measuring sales, investment and mp were ever released. I also think that's mostly irrelevant. Bioware fans aren't fans because the games are a financial success for EA, they are a success when the story and characters are written well. Jade Empire is a perfect example.

If Bioware is going to introduce MP to this game, I'm afraid history is going to repeat itself and we will have a mediocre game resulting from the implementation of an equally mediocre mp component. This is not a success, and if it happens, it will very likely put Bw under.

I liked both ME3's SP and MP.

[Star fury]

holdenagincourt wrote...

Multiplayer had a better plot than single player.

Yeah I just went there.

Pretty much, if you mean ME3. 

[PinkShoes]

If it doesnt get in the way of the SP then i dont care.

[Blooddrunk1004]

As long as it doesn't effect SP....
What worries me more what modes will multiplayer have, i can't see them doing PvP since balancing classes would take forever and mages always turn out to be most broken class in every single MMO.

If it will be like ME3 it will become boring pretty fast. Yeah, ME3 multiplayer was fun but only for a week. New characters and maps just wasn't enough to bring me back, especially since horde mode in MP was done extremely lazy.

How to reward players after they defeat 5 waves of Cerberus Assault Troops and Centurions?
Reward: 5 more waves of Assault Troops and Centurions!
That's the reason why MP was boring and had nothing new to offer.

Modifié par Blooddrunk1004, 03 septembre 2013 - 10:25 .

[someguy1231]

Urazz wrote...

I generally, don't like multiplayer in single player games, I felt the ME3 multiplayer was a bad idea and felt forced by EA even if it was decent.

My friends and I were discussing on our lunch break at work about how some games end up being bad investments because too much money was spent on them that it pretty much made it so a game had to sell a lot more copies than it was capable of selling.  This got me thinking about EA and their idea of forcing Bioware and other companies under their umbrella to put multiplayer in their games even if they are primarily single player games.

Sure they may put the multiplayer aspect of a game under a different company or give the company making the game more time and money to finish the game but doesn't this also come at a price?  Doesn't this increase the total amount of money a company like EA invests in a game and raise the amount of copies a game needs for it to be successful enough for them to want a sequel to be made?

I think it does and it gets me thinking that is one of the main reasons why EA has been having issues lately.  They have been forcing multiplayer on games that it just doesn't work for in hopes of drawing players that focus on multiplayer games.  How many people have gotten ME3 for it's multiplayer or played it solely for the multiplayer?  Not many to my knowledge and while ME3 was successful as a game, it would've been even more of a success for EA I think if it didn't have that money invested on a multiplayer aspect.

Your whole argument basically boils down to "Don't spend money on game features I don't like." Hate to break it to you, but almost every game (especially nowadays with how content-heavy they've gotten) will have at least one feature that's disliked. I myself loathe the romances in Bioware games, but I'm under no illusion they'll be removed. After all, like MP, it's an optional feature I can avoid if I like.

[frustratemyself]

Urazz wrote...

...How many people have gotten ME3 for it's multiplayer or played it solely for the multiplayer?...

I know quite a few people where the only thing that kept them playing ME3 at all was the mp after seeing how hideous the ending was.

[Beerfish]

The negatives for MP:

- A perception that it negatively affects sp game due to $ resources or time and asset resources.
- A worry that mp will actually affect or be linked to sp and you are forced to play mp.

We really have no clue at all about #1 without seeing the books so to speak. BioWare said that there were two distinct teams independent of each other and two distinct budgets independent of each other I believe. As for ME3 I don't see how mp affected the single player games ills. MP has virtually no voice over or dialogue budget that would clash with sp and it certainly did not affect strategic story points like the ending.

For #2 BioWare screwed up in ME with their war assets not allowing for a certain ending if you don't use mp. They changed it in a patch or upgrade or whatever but this was a big mistake that should not be repeated.

The positives for MP:

- Revenue generation
- An onging bridge towards the next game.
- A buffer to the sp game if the sp game is a disappointment.

Once again with #1 we don't know the figures but most believe that ME mp did very very well in generating extra revenue.

#2, BioWare or EA have screwed up to some extent by shelving their support for ME MP too early. (After about a year and a quarter). There are still a fair number of people playing MP and new players all the time. The longer these people play the closer you get to ME4 and thus keeping people interested in the franchise.

#3 Most people were disappointed in some aspects of ME3 especially with it being the finale for Shepard, even with the add ins BioWare created to alleviate this. The game was redeemed to some extent for a reasonable number of players due to MP.

Without an inside look at the finances for these games or sitting in on high level strategic meetings regarding the design of the games we really have no clue about some of these points.

I think the argument about blaming MP on any of the ills of ME3 is silly and is really reaching.

As long as any mp in a game is worked on by a separate team, is not mandatory for SP I see more benefits than negatives. There was a surprising number of people who hated the thought of MP but ended up trying me3mp and liking it. Other than NWN this was the 1st mp I've tried and have enjoyed it a great deal for the most part.

[Little Princess Peach]

you do realise EA wants mp in every game they make right? no amount of pleeds will change that

[Ryzaki]

One would think MP makes EA plenty of money.

They sell those gambling packs like hotcakes.

Though if DAI has ME3's bull**** where you need to play MP to get a better ending originally they can keep it.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 03 septembre 2013 - 02:53 .

[Maria Caliban]

Urazz wrote...

In Exile wrote...

ME3 MP was very successful, so it's difficult to imagine Bioware not wanting to add MP to DAI.

Was it that successful?  Sure people played it and it was fairly decent but I don't recall Bioware actually giving numbers on how well it did or touting the number of players playing it.  Nor did we actually see any people claim that they got the game for the multiplayer.

If it was very successful don't you think they would still be supporting it in some fashion instead of abandoning it after the final ME3 multiplayer DLCs were released?

Hell, I saw more complaints about the multiplayer tying into the results of the singleplayer than actual compliments about it.

Yes, it was successful. The multiplayer DLC was added (and for free) because MP was so successful. They supported it for over a year and then stopped because they're moving on to ME 4.

[Beerfish]

The Dragon age team stated that they (BioWare) 'hit it out of the park' with Me multiplay in one of the interviews not long ago.

[Karlone123]

I don't like multiplayer influencing major things in or even forming a link to single player, I'm not sure how Bioware will implement multilplayer for DAI, but I do hope it's just for fun and not needed to open up areas in DAI.

[Taleroth]

I'm firmly under the impression that Mass Effect 3's multiplayer was directly responsible for the singleplayer game design, and possibly even the atrocious boss battles. The singleplayer lost all tactics of ME2 for spammables. And the boss battles seemed like they were designed by unpaid interns.

So, y'know, I would not like that to happen again.

[clarkusdarkus]

ME3 MP was a good novelty that soon wore off fast for me, Wave after wave of enemies became tiresome, I dont mind any sort of MP, But if it affects SP resources and makes that aspect of the game crappy then there is problems. EA love MP, How many people buy Battlefield for its SP, play fifa for its career instead of ultimate teams and pro clubs, And i know people who didnt complete ME3 as they got bored of it but played it solely for MP. You'll have too expect it in all bioware/EA games from now on.

[NYG1991]

I call dibs on the krysae crossbow.

[Lee80]

If multiplayer does happen, I hope it won't be a huge nerf fest like ME 3. Earth DLC was the last point in the game where I really enjoyed it, after that everything got nerfed into the ground and it became a huge nightmare of using all the consumeables and spending all the credits you earned on said packs instead of trying to get new characters and weapons. It was more like a job then a game. :-/

[hoorayforicecream]

Beerfish wrote...

The positives for MP:

- Revenue generation
- An onging bridge towards the next game.
- A buffer to the sp game if the sp game is a disappointment.

You can also include increased length of time the game remains installed as one of the positives, though it also feeds into the revenue generation. Because of an increased amount of time the players keep the game installed (to play MP), it significantly reduces the barrier to entry for buying single player DLC and makes players much more likely to purchase. If a player had already uninstalled the game by the time they released Citadel, that player would be less likely to buy it if they had to dig up the game, reinstall it, then install the DLC than if it was already installed and played fairly regularly in MP. A lot more people play MP regularly than replay SP games.

[K_Tabris]

Examurai1 wrote...
To YOU Mass Effect 3 SP and MP maybe mediocore to others it wasnt. So of course from your point of view it may seem "unsuccessful". This thread and many others, particulalry in the MP sub forums, proves that there are BW fans that exist that don't mind MP and don't feel it has or will jeorpedise the SP mode. 

To many; I was just stating a common opinion among fans. Tbh, I don't really think about ME nor care an iota about the series.

The fact is, there is a strong risk MP resources will take away time and quality from the SP experience. it didn't just happen with Mass Effect series, but with several other franchises as well.

[Beerfish]

Taleroth wrote...

I'm firmly under the impression that Mass Effect 3's multiplayer was directly responsible for the singleplayer game design, and possibly even the atrocious boss battles. The singleplayer lost all tactics of ME2 for spammables. And the boss battles seemed like they were designed by unpaid interns.

So, y'know, I would not like that to happen again.

Just how did you come to this conclusion?  Please give concrete examples because I don't see it at all.

[aphelion4]

I wouldn't mind a co-op to be honest, having a second, third, fourth person to control the rest of the party while you guys go through the main campaign seems rather fun and doesn't seem like it would detract from the story at all or cost anything major.