11 réponses à ce sujet

[Lady Lionheart]

I myself am really, really, reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeally opposed to the idea of a multiplayer being in DA, it could mess it up for me and quite a high number of DA fans in a number of different ways.
I really don't want a multiplayer that you HAVE to play in order to level up your Inquisition or get an exclusive ending or something else story related, because ten you have no choice whether you want to play it or not.
I know you'll probably say "but it could be super fun!" but what about the people with poop internet connections?
The people who have to limit time on the internet?
The people who don't have internet full stop?
You'll either lose fans by adding online or lose none by not adding it.
You decide, I think it'd be far better to not include it.
Don't you?

P.S
If Bioware's read this PLEEEEEEEEASE please please please do NOT add Multiplayer/Coop.

Thanks.

[Allan Schumacher]

Seriously? No conversations?

SP fans want conversations - And Lots of them - to explore the wolrd and RPG properly.
So if MP doesn't have them - then we are INDEED making two different product sets.
Devs would then start cutting conversations, because they want to put more time into MP which don't have any conversations, and this would lead to less convos in SP.

I typically avoid these types of threads because usually my statements get construed as confirmation to the inclusion (or lack thereof) of whether or not MP will be in the game, but the conclusion you have drawn here is incorrect.

ME3's multiplayer did not have any conversations in it. If you wish to believe that we cut conversation content from the single player game for this then I guess you have that right and I doubt me saying otherwise will convince you of that.

[Allan Schumacher]

The inclusion of MP tends to always mean that developers don't believe a SP can hold a game on its own; For isn't that what it is all about.

Or it's that developers want to add things into it that think it'll make it a better game.

Sometimes it sticks around (Baldur's Gate co-op), but other times it gets cut (Dragon Age: Origins multiplayer. Baldur's Gate deathmatch)

[Allan Schumacher]

I'm sure BioWare has every intention of not letting it die out slowly for the sake of just keeping players interest for a little while longer.

I think you misunderstood me.

This feature is considered for pretty much every game because developers want to add it to the game because many of us enjoy playing MP games too. Not everyone does, but not everyone likes every single feature in our games.

I wasn't around pre-DAO, but it sounds like it's pretty much considered for every project. It has been cut at times because "Well, you know, this really isn't as fun as we'd like" or even "the amount of effort it'd take to add it at this point would be far too costly" and a host of other reasons.

As someone else made an interesting analogy, I don't care for romance content, but it's clearly value added for fans not named Allan Schumacher.


You said that the inclusion of MP means that the developers don't believe a game can stand on the merit of its single player alone. I'd personally much rather a game that has excellent single player and excellent multiplayer, than a game that just as excellent single player.

It's fine to think that developers bite off more than they can chew or whatever, but I think you're being very unfair with the implication that something like multiplayer is only added if a developer doesn't have faith in the game standing on its own in single player.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 09 novembre 2013 - 01:01 .

[Allan Schumacher]

Looks at it this way: Remember Mass Effect with the WIlliams curse? "A Williams has to be better than the best, if only to avoid suspicion"? Yeah, Biwoare's at that point for me. If a game has multiplayer and the single player isn't completely top-notch, it casts supicion that single-player wasn't the primary focus. Instead the focus was on those sweet, sweet microtransactions that are now so all-important.

Call it illogical. Call it irrational. Heck you may be right. But it's also quite real. I (and others) are suspicious, no longer willing to trust. Maybe if ME1 and DAO had it, I'd ave been coler with it. But it wasn't. And I'm not. And to this day I still regret not cancelling my ME3 preorder when I learned MP was in it.

Many of the people that have had their trust shaken are also not fans of DA2.

[Allan Schumacher]

A general question:

What would your thoughts of ME3 be if the single player experience existed exactly as is, and there was no multiplayer component at all?  In fact, for those that see ME3's MP as the proof that it takes away from the Single Player experience, I ask you to ask yourselves "is it possible that BioWare just made a single player experience that I didn't care for?"

Many seem to insist that it's a causal relationship, and it tends to come across as insulating us in a way that may not be as productive as people think.  A bit like when people blame EA for what they dislike in new BioWare games (I actually don't like this, and feel it is people giving me a Get Out of Jail Free card and letting me off without being accountable for decisions that I make).

[Allan Schumacher]

To be honest, I may be somewhat more receptive to MP in Dragon AGe, but I still would not like it at all.

As I said, I very nearly cancelled my preorder of ME3 when I learned MP was in it. I felt it was a betrayal, after so long insisting that the focus was on "making the best single player experience possible" and such. But I chose to extend a degree of trust, as so much of what was revealed about ME3 up til that point sounded great. That of course, only reinforced my anger later, after playing the game.

Sorry, but this isn't relevant to the question that I asked.


I didn't ask you to rationalize and explain your understand of multiplayer. I asked you:

If there was no multiplayer component in ME3, how would that have changed your reception of the game? I followed it up with effectively: is it possible we just made a game narrative that you didn't really like?

I honestly don't knwo what, if any fault EA may have. Whether the chicken or the egg came first. I just know DAO was a wonderful game for me, and ME2 just a few months later left me going "WTF just happened?" (though that's certainly another stroy)

Again, not relevant (though in this case it seems my point is missed - I was making an analogy). If you're going to make excuses for one team, does that not absolve them of the responsibility they may have? At what point is it "Don't worry about it, I know the single player would've been fine" as opposed to what you really want to say: "I didn't like the single player experience of Mass Effect 3."


THIS is the problem when you start looking for external forces that cause this. You strike me as someone that liked our past games, but because ME3 (and a lesser extent DA2 by the sounds of it), you've actively sought external sources as a reason. And this is part of the problem with when people

So what I'm saying here is: "Is it a good thing to make an excuse that everything about ME3 would've been okay if not for the multiplayer?" Because the analogy I was trying to make earlier: "Is it a good thing when people blame EA, rather than BioWare, for the issues they have with BioWare games?"

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 09 novembre 2013 - 02:20 .

[Allan Schumacher]

iakus wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Sorry, but this isn't relevant to the question that I asked.


I didn't ask you to rationalize and explain your understand of multiplayer. I asked you:

If there was no multiplayer component in ME3, how would that have changed your reception of the game? I followed it up with effectively: is it possible we just made a game narrative that you didn't really like?

Sorry, my bad.  I misread the question.  My answer is


I'd still be quite angry.  But I don't pretend ME3 hasn't colored (and likely soured) my thoughts on MP in a primarily single player game.  It is entrely possble and likely that I simply didn't like the narrative. 

However, I do think it's important to note that I was highly suspicious of MP in the game even before release.  And yes, ME3 has almost certainly soured me to it even further.

So what I'm saying here is: "Is it a good thing to make an excuse that everything about ME3 would've been okay if not for the multiplayer?" Because the analogy I was trying to make earlier: "Is it a good thing when people blame EA, rather than BioWare, for the issues they have with BioWare games?"

I have actually never said "ME3 would have been okay except for multiplayer"  What I have said, in so many words, is that the focus needs to be on single player.  And multiplayer will be a sign (for me) that this is not the case.

So I guess lets backtrack here:

BG (and BG2's) SP was so awesome it completely eclipsed multiplayer in a lot of people's minds.

If DAI is that high quality, then sure, mp is fine.  I may pick up the game eventually

But at this point I personally will accept nothing less.

I guess what I am saying here is that you don't appear to be coming across as an advocate for a strong single player experience, but really more of an advocate for ensuring that the game will not feature multiplayer.

I do not understand why you are saying that you'd be okay with a lesser quality single player game simply because it has no multiplayer.  Both as a gamer and a developer, I have a hard time reconciling your perspective.

[Allan Schumacher]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Mp has a history of impoving the combat. In fact going by ME3, the combat mp wise and action wise is way better then ME2 and 1.

In party based games, all about managing multiple characters at once and being tactical, I would ask for one example of a MP model other than co-op. And co-op in DA would only limit your options as a player (since you are surrendering more of your companions away from your control, not to mention sacrificing the ability to pause and play). The only added value would be knowing you are playing with him a players.

As someone that has played, and thoroughly enjoyed, the multiplayer aspects of Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, and Icewind Dale, I have to disagree.

If you were to host a BG1/2 MP game, I'd be able to play and I'd be able to have fun.  I'd be okay with it regardless of whether or not I was hosting or you were hosting.

I found it fun to pause the game and discuss strategy with my friend.

[Allan Schumacher]

iakus wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

BG (and BG2's) SP was so awesome it completely eclipsed multiplayer in a lot of people's minds.

If DAI is that high quality, then sure, mp is fine.  I may pick up the game eventually

But at this point I personally will accept nothing less.

I guess what I am saying here is that you don't appear to be coming across as an advocate for a strong single player experience, but really more of an advocate for ensuring that the game will not feature multiplayer.

I do not understand why you are saying that you'd be okay with a lesser quality single player game simply because it has no multiplayer.  Both as a gamer and a developer, I have a hard time reconciling your perspective.

I'm not so sure where the confusion lies here.  My post is pretty clear that I do want a strong single player experience.  Like BG and particularly BG2.   If DAI were to deliver such a high quality game, then I could be confident that multiplayer did not in fact take anything away from it, quantity or quality wise.  Or if it did, then the amount was trivial.  

I've been replaying both BG games recently (about to head to Spellhold now ) And the SP game is so vast, so immersive, and filled with memorable characters that it's easy to forget it has MP at all.  I want that experience.  I don't want a "Thedas Readiness" screen greeting me every time I open the game.  I don't want to be "encouraged" to use an aspect of a game I don't want to use to get a "better outcome"  I want a single player experience so enjoyable and immersive that it completely eclipses any multiplayer that may end up in the game.

I bring it up because you appear to hold a game with MP to a higher standard than one that does not.  To the point of literally saying that you'll only pick up the game if it is of BG quality.  This implies that you are okay with the game having a weaker single player.  You definitively state that it's a requirement for you to even consider buying the game.

So what you're saying is... we increase the chances of you buying the game simply by not having any multiplayer.  Regardless of what state the single player game is in.

I mean, if a a game that is  purely single player ends up sucking, you can't really blame multiplayer for messing anything up.  The game would still suck though   I don't want a mediocre SP game.  I've got plenty of those already.  What I want is a great SP game.   And I don't see MP contributing to that at all.  And I can imagine it potentially harming it..  If MP does end up in the game, it will make it that much harder for me to have faith that absoloutely everything was done to ensure that top-tier SP experience.

This is what I was referring to earlier by allowing excuses.  You effectively allow the developers, including me, a free pass for why you didn't like the story for ME3 (and even DA2).  It's not the bleak ending, or the various issues that were fundamentally the problem.  It's the multiplayer that was the problem.


As such, I'm at a point where I think if I had the choice of "making sure the game had a great single player campaign" or "making sure the game didn't have multiplayer" then the decision that I think would be most appealing to you is "making sure the game didn't have multiplayer."  Especially from the perspective of whether or not you purchase the game.

Again: "If DAI is that high quality, then sure, mp is fine.  I may pick up the game eventually"

So if MP is not in the game, you're okay with lesser quality.  And that's where I get confused.  I guess it comes down to whether or not you'd be willing to blame any perceived faults on the multiplayer components existing, but at the end if all you care about is the single player experience, does this mean that you are more tolerant to a lesser single player experience since you know that "all" the effort went into the single player game?

[Allan Schumacher]

TurretSyndrome wrote...

Ah so yours is a valid argument then? Just because the developers take your hand and assure you that it won't affect it in anyway... Fine, think what you will.

Bold emphasis is mine.  And I just want to point out that that's what everyone in this thread is doing.

[Allan Schumacher]

Also, I think the original poster maybe lumps all singleplayer fans together as wanting detailed conversations, characterisation, romances, etc, when in reality maybe some of them sincerely just want to hack at things with swords and lob fireballs at darkspawn. Maybe a lot of them like both aspects of the games.

It's tempting to think all other fans of the game are exactly like you, but that ignores the people who might be bigger fans of the combat systems, or the strategy and tactics involved in gameplay, or just seeing cool explosions and rogues flipping around with daggers. All of those are valid things to love about Dragon Age games.

I think that this is an excellent point, too.

Sometimes those preferences come at odds (i.e. things like voiced protagonists and so forth)