170 réponses à ce sujet

[cjones91]

TyranidODST wrote...

I think muitplayer would be a good bonus for dragon age, I would like co-op, PvP would be good if they have bots, smart ones. I don't think sp would by affected by mp too much.

Yes it would.Time spent developing multiplayer could have been used to flesh out the game,find and correct bugs/glitches ect;.The old "Multiplayer does'nt effect single player games" thing is bogus because it does effect the single player.

[AngryFrozenWater]

Whether or not I like MP depends on the type of game. Most FPS games are best in MP, although an exception would be the Stalker series, because it is SP focused. Not every game needs MP. BW games are story driven and although combat is also a great part of it, their games do not rely on that component. I feel that it distracts from the game's SP development if too many resources are poured into MP. I understand some people liked the MP part in ME3, but I can do without MP in BW's games.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 08 septembre 2013 - 05:09 .

[Beerfish]

cjones91 wrote...

TyranidODST wrote...

I think muitplayer would be a good bonus for dragon age, I would like co-op, PvP would be good if they have bots, smart ones. I don't think sp would by affected by mp too much.

Yes it would.Time spent developing multiplayer could have been used to flesh out the game,find and correct bugs/glitches ect;.The old "Multiplayer does'nt effect single player games" thing is bogus because it does effect the single player.

not correct.  A failed asusmption that if if a company decides not to do mp that a whole whack of time and money is added to the sp game.

[AlanC9]

cjones91 wrote...
Yes it would.Time spent developing multiplayer could have been used to flesh out the game,find and correct bugs/glitches ect;.The old "Multiplayer does'nt effect single player games" thing is bogus because it does effect the single player.

Only if you hold the time spent making the game constant. Is there any reason to believe that a game without MP revenue gets the same funding as a game with MP revenue? ( ninja'd by Beerfish)

As for the topic, I welcome MP even though I won't play it. The series has had a problem with unbalanced classes and abilities, and MP balancing should clear that up some.

Modifié par AlanC9, 08 septembre 2013 - 05:17 .

[cjones91]

Beerfish wrote...

cjones91 wrote...

TyranidODST wrote...

I think muitplayer would be a good bonus for dragon age, I would like co-op, PvP would be good if they have bots, smart ones. I don't think sp would by affected by mp too much.

Yes it would.Time spent developing multiplayer could have been used to flesh out the game,find and correct bugs/glitches ect;.The old "Multiplayer does'nt effect single player games" thing is bogus because it does effect the single player.

not correct.  A failed asusmption that if if a company decides not to do mp that a whole whack of time and money is added to the sp game.

How is it a failed assumption?Tomb Raider had a tacked on multiplayer and as a result no single Dlc will be developed for it,but there will be dlc for the terrible multiplayer which hardly anyone played.You know what pisses me off about about tacked on multiplayer?The single player is neglected while the multiplayer gets all the attention and good games have been ruined because of it.

[AlanC9]

cjones91 wrote...

How is it a failed assumption?Tomb Raider had a tacked on multiplayer and as a result no single Dlc will be developed for it,but there will be dlc for the terrible multiplayer which hardly anyone played.You know what pisses me off about about tacked on multiplayer?The single player is neglected while the multiplayer gets all the attention and good games have been ruined because of it.

The causality here isn't all that obvious to me. And it certainly doesn't have anything to do with Bio -- surely you don't think that Bio won't release SP DLCs?

[cjones91]

AlanC9 wrote...

cjones91 wrote...
Yes it would.Time spent developing multiplayer could have been used to flesh out the game,find and correct bugs/glitches ect;.The old "Multiplayer does'nt effect single player games" thing is bogus because it does effect the single player.

Only if you hold the time spent making the game constant. Is there any reason to believe that a game without MP revenue gets the same funding as a game with MP revenue? ( ninja'd by Beerfish)

If there was no multiplayer then that means more time is spent fixing bugs and glitches while adding more single player content which generally makes the game better.

[cjones91]

krul2k wrote...

cjones91 wrote...

Beerfish wrote...

cjones91 wrote...

TyranidODST wrote...

I think muitplayer would be a good bonus for dragon age, I would like co-op, PvP would be good if they have bots, smart ones. I don't think sp would by affected by mp too much.

Yes it would.Time spent developing multiplayer could have been used to flesh out the game,find and correct bugs/glitches ect;.The old "Multiplayer does'nt effect single player games" thing is bogus because it does effect the single player.

not correct.  A failed asusmption that if if a company decides not to do mp that a whole whack of time and money is added to the sp game.

How is it a failed assumption?Tomb Raider had a tacked on multiplayer and as a result no single Dlc will be developed for it,but there will be dlc for the terrible multiplayer which hardly anyone played.You know what pisses me off about about tacked on multiplayer?The single player is neglected while the multiplayer gets all the attention and good games have been ruined because of it.

sorry i forgot bioware made tomb raider

It was just a example of how multiplayer can effect a single player beyond leeching development time and funding.

[cjones91]

AlanC9 wrote...

cjones91 wrote...

How is it a failed assumption?Tomb Raider had a tacked on multiplayer and as a result no single Dlc will be developed for it,but there will be dlc for the terrible multiplayer which hardly anyone played.You know what pisses me off about about tacked on multiplayer?The single player is neglected while the multiplayer gets all the attention and good games have been ruined because of it.

The causality here isn't all that obvious to me. And it certainly doesn't have anything to do with Bio -- surely you don't think that Bio won't release SP DLCs?

Only four pieces of single Dlc was released for ME3 while the multiplayer got more than that.ME2 had seven pieces of Single Player DLC which was mostly well developed,if ME3 did'nt have multiplayer then ending aside more Dlc would have been developed for the single player.

[RedJohn]

cjones91 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

cjones91 wrote...
Yes it would.Time spent developing multiplayer could have been used to flesh out the game,find and correct bugs/glitches ect;.The old "Multiplayer does'nt effect single player games" thing is bogus because it does effect the single player.

Only if you hold the time spent making the game constant. Is there any reason to believe that a game without MP revenue gets the same funding as a game with MP revenue? ( ninja'd by Beerfish)

If there was no multiplayer then that means more time is spent fixing bugs and glitches while adding more single player content which generally makes the game better.

You are absolutely wrong.

MP and SP team are not always the same.

For example on Mass Effect 3 the team that developed SP content wasn't the same team that made MP content, they were not even in the same city.

Also put more people into fixing glitches doesn't mean you will get more gliches fixed.

[RedJohn]

Aaleel wrote...

I don't want it,and won't play it. I just ask that they don't pull an ME3 and have it tied in any way to the SP game.

Mass Effect 3 MP is not needed to get all the stuff on SP, I don't know why people keep saying it does :/

[Chala]

Yes... But only if we are talking about defending/assaulting keeps.

RedJohn wrote...

Aaleel wrote...

I don't want it,and won't play it. I just ask that they don't pull an ME3 and have it tied in any way to the SP game.

Mass Effect 3 MP is not needed to get all the stuff on SP, I don't know why people keep saying it does :/

Because for a time it was true, before the EC, you required MP to see the "Breath" scene...
Personally that's a waste of hate, considering it's just a small and ambigous clip that you can see in YT.

Modifié par El_Chala_Legalizado, 08 septembre 2013 - 06:06 .

[NocturneNight]

You mean like they ****ed up ME3? No thanks.

[Trolldrool]

If I want multiplayer I'll play an MMO. Which I do from time to time to stay in touch with the friends I've made there. And when I get bored of MMO gameplay, I switch to a singleplayer game for a while. Not every game needs to have both.

[Wulfram]

I don't care about MP if it doesn't affect the SP campaign or SP gameplay - I mean not at all, after the ME3 EMS debacle I'm not OK with any sort of waffle.
ME multiplayer I'd guess more than payed for itself with the whole microtransaction thing, so I'm not concerned about budget.

I'll probably play it if it's there, after I've completed the campaign, but it's not what I'll be paying my money for.

[Killdren88]

Is it asking too much for my game not to be tarnished by Multiplayer.

[Makkah876]

Depends on how it's done. Do NOT tie it to single player. At least not in the way ME3 does it, where the ending options I'd get would degrade if I don't play it for a while (or if the servers go down). I enjoyed ME3's MP, but it really irritates me that if I decide to play it in 10 years I'll have to do all those terrible fetch quests. >

I could see MP being fun though. Us trying to capture each other's keeps and stuff.

[ReD BaKen9]

Modifié par ReD BaKen9, 08 septembre 2013 - 07:36 .

[N7 Shadow 90]

Yes, I definitely think MP would improve the Dragon Age experience. I'd definitely be open to trying PvP modes, but, from my experience, co-op modes, like ME3's, tend to be more in-depth and have greater longevity.

[Reever]

I think that it could probably work well enough story wise, so if it's as good as ME3's, I see nothing speaking against it. Only the implementation and connection to the SP has to be worked on a bit.

[RedJohn]

Trolldrool wrote...

If I want multiplayer I'll play an MMO. Which I do from time to time to stay in touch with the friends I've made there. And when I get bored of MMO gameplay, I switch to a singleplayer game for a while. Not every game needs to have both.

You are only talking about MMO.

Not all online games are MMO.

[Il Divo]

cjones91 wrote...

Only four pieces of single Dlc was released for ME3 while the multiplayer got more than that.ME2 had seven pieces of Single Player DLC which was mostly well developed,if ME3 did'nt have multiplayer then ending aside more Dlc would have been developed for the single player.

Is Four Pieces of single-player dlc  really considered a small number? I think to examples like Deus Ex: Human Revolution where aside from pre-order missions, there was a single piece of dlc released. Or Bioware's own Mass Effect 1 which had Bringing Down the Sky and Pinnacle Station, which sucked.

I'd say you're giving ME2's dlc way too much credit here. You had essentially four pieces of dlc: Kasumi, Overlord, Shadowbroker, and Arrival. I suppose you could argue Zaeed, depending on circumstances.

Sure, there are a few Bioware games you could point to which had a great number of dlc (DA:O stands out here), but then there are also other Bioware games and non-Bioware games with less substantial content.

[In Exile]

And ME2's DLC was very mixed. As much as people like LotSB, Arrival was not exactly well-received critically.