710 réponses à ce sujet

[Iakus]

Schneidend wrote...

iakus wrote...

What is Baldur's Gate better known for?

Multiplayer
or
Minsc

Crazy thing. You can assign control of Minsc to another player in multiplayer! How cool is that?!

Playing a pregen character not of my own making and play second fiddle to someone else's adventure?

Where do I sign up!

That was sarcasm, btw

[leaguer of one]

TheChris92 wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

Then I sincerely hope that BioWare will do something inovative with whatever they have planned for Dragon Age Inquisition. My beef with ME3's MP is that I felt it didn't compliment its singleplayer as it was merely combat (horde mode). To many players this is fun, to me it's routine and gets reptitive quickly. It didn't involve the heavy RPG stuff of the dialogue intrigue, exploration, or whatever else the supposed action-RPG so very much is presented to be. My impression is that not enough developers try to experiment or inovate with the MP, instead of rehashing old ideas. My apologies, but that just comes off as being insincere. I feel Rockstar is one of those developers, who came close to what I find to be a fun MP. The sort of MP that compliments and stands in contrast to its singleplayer. If BioWare can deliver something like that then I'm sure my feelings are unfounded.

That really is a no win sisuation for bw. People don't like to be excluded from things because they don't want to play a spacific mode. ME3 mp worked fine because it did not exclude anything from the player in terms of story. I say they are not ready to have that wide spead mp dialogue system yet. For now look into Swtor for that. If feel that if bw does a mp mode it should be more like left for dead and diabilo.

[Plaintiff]

Rather than disabuse people of their irrational prejudices, we should instead cater to their bias?

Because I've never really seen that work out before.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 09 novembre 2013 - 01:30 .

[Iakus]

Zjarcal wrote...
How is that in anyway relevant?

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.

[leaguer of one]

iakus wrote...

Schneidend wrote...

iakus wrote...

What is Baldur's Gate better known for?

Multiplayer
or
Minsc

Crazy thing. You can assign control of Minsc to another player in multiplayer! How cool is that?!

Playing a pregen character not of my own making and play second fiddle to someone else's adventure?

Where do I sign up!

That was sarcasm, btw

Or you can have a game in bg where you have 2 main characters or a team of custom characters. NWN fine tune that. Swtor has everyone with a part in the story.

[leaguer of one]

iakus wrote...

Zjarcal wrote...
How is that in anyway relevant?

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.

Listen, that added a year development to the game for a reason and it's not the mp.... I don't feel there will be issues with the sp.

Modifié par leaguer of one, 09 novembre 2013 - 01:24 .

[TheChris92]

leaguer of one wrote...
For now look into Swtor for that. If feel that if bw does a mp mode it should be more like left for dead and diabilo.

Perhaps it is indeed a good idea to look towards SWTOR. Diablo is a different kind of RPG that isn't chained by things such as party combat or dialogue trees - Mind you, as a MP it was fun, admittedly.

[Iakus]

leaguer of one wrote...

Listen, that added a year development to the game for a reason and it's not the mp.... I don't feel there will be issues with the sp.

I used to have that level of faith.

Then I took an ME3 to the knee.

[zMataxa]

iakus wrote...

Zjarcal wrote...
How is that in anyway relevant?

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

___________________
I think that is an excellent point that needs to be made about Bioware's future potential for SP.

[leaguer of one]

TheChris92 wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...
For now look into Swtor for that. If feel that if bw does a mp mode it should be more like left for dead and diabilo.

Perhaps it is indeed a good idea to look towards SWTOR. Diablo is a different kind of RPG that isn't chained by things such as party combat or dialogue trees - Mind you, as a MP it was fun, admittedly.

It more into party combat but I get what you feel. You want a genuine roleplaying mp. I'll love for that too but for bw to do that for it to be good it has to be there aim from the start with the game. Swtor is at least that. Let them have there baby steps with it's incustion with sp games.

[Zjarcal]

iakus wrote...

Zjarcal wrote...
How is that in anyway relevant?

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

I'm sure that for many people even a shoddy SP would completely eclipse the MP, especially if said people already enter the game with the stance of "I WILL NEVER PLAY THE MP".

By the same token, many people loved BG2's MP and probably still play it, so that argument is a moot point.

[leaguer of one]

iakus wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...

Listen, that added a year development to the game for a reason and it's not the mp.... I don't feel there will be issues with the sp.

I used to have that level of faith.

Then I took an ME3 to the knee.

The majority of ME3 was great so I'm just going to take that as a "took the endong of me3 to the knee."
And that isses was with them rushing the ending.....Which will not be an isse with DAI due to more time being added to it's production.

[Hazegurl]

ME3 wasn't THAT bad...at least it's not the worst game I've ever played.

But seriously, if they ever pull that Readiness BS again to force MP on me I would call it quits. I really hated that. I've never felt forced into playing any game's MP, whether it was good or bad.

[leaguer of one]

Hazegurl wrote...

ME3 wasn't THAT bad...at least it's not the worst game I've ever played.

But seriously, if they ever pull that Readiness BS again to force MP on me I would call it quits. I really hated that. I've never felt forced into playing any game's MP, whether it was good or bad.

1. Thy did not force you to play the  mp.
2.You no long even need to even touch mp to get that ending.
3. It was a 5 second scene.

[TheChris92]

leaguer of one wrote...

TheChris92 wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...
For now look into Swtor for that. If feel that if bw does a mp mode it should be more like left for dead and diabilo.

Perhaps it is indeed a good idea to look towards SWTOR. Diablo is a different kind of RPG that isn't chained by things such as party combat or dialogue trees - Mind you, as a MP it was fun, admittedly.

It more into party combat but I get what you feel. You want a genuine roleplaying mp. I'll love for that too but for bw to do that for it to be good it has to be there aim from the start with the game. Swtor is at least that. Let them have there baby steps with it's incustion with sp games.

Yes, I want to believe that if a game needs a Multiplayer function, then it needs to compliment the merits of its singleplayer otherwise it feels out of place and preposterous(This is just the way I see it). Also, I agree with your statement that MP should have been an idea that was presented from the start, so it could be worked into the game's mechanics (if that makes sense). The problem is that if someone doesn't take the first step, then people like myself will feel like BioWare isn't being sincere about actually expanding upon new ways to play Dragon Age, or whatever. I've stated my own feelings on competitive MP before in this thread so I'll try not to go there. The main point is that if we always go back to things like horde mode, deathmatches and such, then I feel like we aren't going anywhere.

Modifié par TheChris92, 09 novembre 2013 - 01:46 .

[someguy1231]

iakus wrote...

someguy1231 wrote...

But why are you holding multiplayer to this double standard? You've made it very clear in the past that you hate multiplayer, and here you're basically saying that the only way you'll accept multiplayer is if everything that's not multiplayer is excellent. In other words, you're not judging it on its own merits but by completely unrelated and arbitrary merits, hence the double standard. The only criteria for whether a game should have multiplayer is if the multiplayer itself is any good, not whether everything else is good.

It doesn't matter to me if multiplayer is any good or not, because I simply won't play it.

What matters to me is that the single player is the best it can possibly be.  And at this point, Biwoare has something to prove in that regard.  

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.

In other words, you've been disappointed by Bioware's SP material lately, want something to blame for this, and multiplayer was a convenient scapegoat. Why should I or anyone else take your opinion on this seriously when you've pretty much admitted here that you're biased against MP and would never even try playing it? And how you can expect Bioware to act logically or rationally about this issue when you all but admit that you yourself aren't acting that way about it?

[leaguer of one]

TheChris92 wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...

TheChris92 wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...
For now look into Swtor for that. If feel that if bw does a mp mode it should be more like left for dead and diabilo.

Perhaps it is indeed a good idea to look towards SWTOR. Diablo is a different kind of RPG that isn't chained by things such as party combat or dialogue trees - Mind you, as a MP it was fun, admittedly.

It more into party combat but I get what you feel. You want a genuine roleplaying mp. I'll love for that too but for bw to do that for it to be good it has to be there aim from the start with the game. Swtor is at least that. Let them have there baby steps with it's incustion with sp games.

Yes, I want to believe that if a game needs a Multiplayer function, then it needs to compliment the merits of its singleplayer otherwise it feels out of place and preposterous(This is just the way I see it). Also, I agree with your statement that MP should have been an idea that was presented from the start, so it could be worked into the game's mechanics (if that makes sense). The problem is that if someone doesn't take the first step, then people like myself will feel like BioWare isn't being sincere about actually expanding upon new ways to play Dragon Age, or whatever. I've stated my own feelings on competitive MP before in this thread so I'll try not to go there. The main point is that if we always go back to things like horde mode, deathmatches and such, then I feel like we aren't going anywhere.

Which is why co-op like left 4 dead and diablio is the best direction for now.

[Iakus]

someguy1231 wrote...

In other words, you've been disappointed by Bioware's SP material lately, want something to blame for this, and multiplayer was a convenient scapegoat. Why should I or anyone else take your opinion on this seriously when you've pretty much admitted here that you're biased against MP and would never even try playing it? And how you can expect Bioware to act logically or rationally about this issue when you all but admit that you yourself aren't acting that way about it?

I don't care what you think.  This is what I think. 

Yes, I've been disappointed in Bioware's SP content in recent years.  To me, DAO is the last really great Biwoare game.  I want them to go back to focusing on truly great SP content.  MP shows that focus is divided.

And you are mistaken I did play ME3's MP for a while (never spent a dime on it, of course) because of the content that was behind the MP wall.  Never touched it after EC came out.

Whatever Biwoare does in the end is out of my hands.  If MP is in, it's in and there's nothing I can do about it (and the longer Bioware goes without commenting, the more convinced I become that it's in and they're delaying comment on it to avoid the poopstorm)

I'm just saying how I will respond.  MP=instant no-buy. Whether I get it eventually will depend on player reviews and price drop.  And of course how non-integral MP is to the SP campaign.  You're opinion on the matter, frankly doesn't enter into this at all.

[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).

[Iakus]

[quote]leaguer of one wrote...
[/quote]Which is why co-op like left 4 dead and diablio is the best direction for now.
[/quote]

And if one player wants to run off and start with the killing while the other wants to enjoy the dialogue?

[leaguer of one]

[quote]iakus wrote...

[quote]leaguer of one wrote...
[/quote]Which is why co-op like left 4 dead and diablio is the best direction for now.
[/quote]

And if one player wants to run off and start with the killing while the other wants to enjoy the dialogue?[/quote]
There's player controled dialogue in left 4 dead and Diabilo?

You clearly missed my point. If just want the dialogue for now stick to the sp. Mp for now should for killing thing with others. You wantsomething with both, look at swtor. Something like that has to be the main focus from the start and that would alienate fans.

[Fast Jimmy]

Going back to the "different resource" point, I don't disagree that developers can have "separate buckets" for developing two different features, namely SP and MP. And that if the developer in question decided to scrap the MP, they would not absorb that budget back into the SP "zots."


However, it begs the question... what type of MP would a publisher (such as EA) shell out money for? One that would increase sales and which would potentially bring in more revenue through other transactions.

Previously in this thread when discussing with horrayforicecream, I pointed out how DA's focus on party management and trump of character skill over player skill does not lend itself to most "standard" MP experiences. In fact, the only type of MP that hooray came up with was co-op.

Now... how much money, revenue and added would EA think co-op for an RPG would add? You'd only be able to get a maximum of four players in together at a time (assuming party size remains the same). The campaign would be the same as SP, so there is no added content, no different classes/races/characters to play, no death matches/horde modes/capture the flag/what-have-you and no (clear) avenue to charge for things like microtransactions (after all, it all happens within the base game).

The market for meeting strangers via your online connection who would want to come traipsing along your SP game (let alone who'd you want to have come along with you) is limited. Therefore, the majority use would be simply for friends who already know each other to play together, either through couch co-op or Internet hookup.

Now, that, in and of itself, doesn't seem all that bad. But how much money does anyone think EA would give for this? Would this small feature even WARRANT a separate team?

Now, if, instead, EA said "here's 20% more zots - make a MP that MP fans who play FPS games like MW3 and ME3 would love, and find a way for players to also spend real money in microtransactions to increase revenue," that would have a VERY real chance of changing how DA is fundamentally played. Either the SP experience is totally different from the MP or the MP would begin affecting the SP, simply because it is impossible to create a MP model that incorporates party control and character skill, the two hallmarks of DA's combat system.

Can anyone suggest a MP model (other than co-op) that would integrate into DA's party-based mechanics without making it focused on controlling one character and becoming more action/player-skill focused?

[Iakus]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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?"

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.

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.

Dragon Age has not instilled such a feeling in me.  As I said, DAO was one of the best games Bioware had put out in recent years (imo anyway) and DA2, while I feel was a weaker entry into Bioware titles, was not a bad game to me.  Just "less good" than the original. 

So if there was MP in DAI, and there was none in ME3, I'd still be deeply suspicious.  Though perhaps not as much in "deal-breaker" mode as I am now.  I'd still say (particularly after ME3) that the focus should stay exclusively on SP content.

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).

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)

Modifié par iakus, 09 novembre 2013 - 02:15 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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).

I still would have thought the narrative was incredibly poor. Although I may have had a slightly better overall sense of feeling, since the whole EMS/MP integration wouldn't have left such a sour taste in mine (and other's) mouths. 

But, to be fair, I am in a different boat than others, since my concern isn't that DA MP would ruin the story... my concern is that it would ruin the combat mechanics. 

[In Exile]

hoorayforicecream wrote...
Wouldn't ME3's success be sufficient to allay any fears that even in such a case, the combat gameplay itself was still essentially fun and fine?

I think it's hardly possible that it was the combat design that somehow siphoned away from the story construction aspects, considering they are separate groups (cinematic designers vs combat designers).

I should unpack my complaints. In regards to gameplay, MP has to be real-time (unless it's purely and exclusively turn based like say an XCOM). The action-with-pause system has to be cut. So now DAI has a choice: (i) purely action combat, but top down where you can control your party or (ii) purely action-RPG hack & slash MP.

From what we saw, althought there is a "tactical cam and tactical mode", much more attention is being given to make the nitty gritty combat fun as an action game. I think MP necessarily lends itself to that kind of change. 

ME3 did get rid of the radial menu and time altering abilitiies in MP as I recall. But ME2's base gameplay was a TPS. 

Edit: I see Fast Jimmy beat me to the bunch. Umm... what he said? 

Modifié par In Exile, 09 novembre 2013 - 02:17 .