710 réponses à ce sujet

[leaguer of one]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

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?

Awnser: Look at SWTOR, me3, Diabilo and Left4dead, Borderlands for examples. It's not that co-op focues mp does not exsist and is not profiable. Added, the whole "cod" commet is uncalled for. Games like cod's throws away the sp and mainly focus on mp. Mp is not popular because of cod alone. You need to take the time to understand there genine people who want to play together. If you don't want to the awnser is simple...Stick the the sp and don't play the mp.

[leaguer of one]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

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. 

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.

[zMataxa]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Your assumption is that they both pull from the same pile of zots. That is incorrect.

The myth:

Publisher: Here are a hundred zots. Make a game from this.
Developer: I will make a single player game out of all one hundred zots!
Publisher: No, I want multiplayer too.
Developer: I will have to spend 20 of the zots on the multiplayer game that I would have spent on single player game instead.

The reality:

Publisher: How many zots would it cost to make a single player game and a multiplayer game?
Developer: We think it would cost 80 zots for single player, and 20 zots for multiplayer.
Publisher: We will give you 80 zots for single player and 20 zots for multiplayer.
Developer: Actually, we've thought about it and we don't want to do multiplayer for reason X.
Publisher: Oh, ok. Then just won't give you the 20 zots we would have, and ship the game as single player only. We'll give those zots to another developer.


The developer and the publisher make the allocation during the initial planning stage. Multiplayer's budget wouldn't just get added to single player if the multiplayer is removed. The developer would just never get that budget to begin with.

_____________________

I do understand your math 100%.
You are saying that a $8 million s/p, OR a $8 million s/p plus $2 million MP will yield the same S/P experience.  At first glance, it would seem to be basic math.  I am saying - not necessarily so.

$8 million spent on a "S/P only focus" can have totally different priorities in terms of all the inputs.
Whereas a S/P that leads organically and successfully to a M/P may have different priorities in the S/P.

If your preference is S/P and it ties in fairly well with M/P, then your math is perfect.
But if I want more focus spent on the S/P on Lore/relationships/dramas/strategic battle mechanics and all the ambiance that makes that happen - and instead the developer focusses more on Keeps and Weapons and factions because it ties in more with an awesome base for MP - well that $8 million game S/P ain't necessarily the same.

Again is it coincidence that ME3's ending and lighter relationships coincided with MP?
Perhaps.  Don't know.  It is only one isolated case.  But we do have our worries.

@Horrayicecream -  without zots and all the fine tooth discussion around them - i think we are gonna disagree, unless my clarification helped you understand my perspective.

So on to DAI and we'll see.  Hopefully both S/P and M/P are all awesome.
I'll be one happy Bioware fan then.

Modifié par zMataxa, 09 novembre 2013 - 04:50 .

[Enigmatick]

leaguer of one wrote...


Awnser: Look at SWTOR, me3, Diabilo and Left4dead, Borderlands for examples

MMO, Cookie cutter multiplayer horde mode that fits any Third person shooter, Made for co-op, made for co-op, and made for co-op.
Not worth looking at.

[Fast Jimmy]

Awnser: Look at SWTOR, me3, Diabilo and Left4dead, Borderlands for examples. It's not that co-op focues mp does not exsist and is not profiable. Added, the whole "cod" commet is uncalled for. Games like cod's throws away the sp and mainly focus on mp. Mp is not popular because of cod alone. You need to take the time to understand there genine people who want to play together. If you don't want to the awnser is simple...Stick the the sp and don't play the mp.

None of these games are about managing a party, but rather controlling a single character at a time.

Try again.

[leaguer of one]

In Exile wrote...

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. 

You think that does not exsist with DA system? Look at any mmo and diabilo, it can clearly work. The lack of pause in not an issue. DA system is just like an mmo with pausing and more control over your team.

[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 .

[leaguer of one]

Enigmatick wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...


Awnser: Look at SWTOR, me3, Diabilo and Left4dead, Borderlands for examples

MMO, Cookie cutter multiplayer horde mode that fits any Third person shooter, Made for co-op, made for co-op, and made for co-op.
Not worth looking at.

Sorry but that is what mp are. The issue is not the basis but how it handles player interaction. Saying" made for co-op mean ignore" ingores the fact what ever mp dai will have will be made for co-op. It has to be looked at ecause dai is going to be made for co-op.

[Welsh Inferno]

Schneidend wrote...

Not how it happened in ME3. 

Yes it did. The level design and combat had to be co-developed to work on both.

[In Exile]

leaguer of one wrote...
You think that does not exsist with DA system? Look at any mmo and diabilo, it can clearly work. The lack of pause in not an issue. DA system is just like an mmo with pausing and more control over your team.

You act like those features aren't important. MP can't have either. So will Bioware try to create diablo with their MP? Re-use the Thedas map for that? But yeah, if Bioware just decides to create a watered down version of the combat - and still invests properky in the SP combat - I won't complain.

But then you might ask if this isn't just tacked on? 

[Fast Jimmy]

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 FPS or action games, sure.

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.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 09 novembre 2013 - 02:27 .

[leaguer of one]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Awnser: Look at SWTOR, me3, Diabilo and Left4dead, Borderlands for examples. It's not that co-op focues mp does not exsist and is not profiable. Added, the whole "cod" commet is uncalled for. Games like cod's throws away the sp and mainly focus on mp. Mp is not popular because of cod alone. You need to take the time to understand there genine people who want to play together. If you don't want to the awnser is simple...Stick the the sp and don't play the mp.

None of these games are about managing a party, but rather controlling a single character at a time.

Try again.

Your are confusing sp with mp. It's clear if you're going to deal with a dai mp, it won't have party management like the sp. A play will control , gear and supply one character...Like diabilo or any mmo.. Heck, even like me3 MP.
The point mp co-op is working as a team while controling your own character. You clearly are ignoring that point.

[Hazegurl]

leaguer of one wrote...

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.

So what, I wanted that 5 sec scene and had to play MP to get it. Bad move making MP effect the SP. Glad they changed it (if they did) but it never should have been done in the first place and if they did change it it's because they know they did something stupid which imo makes it not even worth defending.  

[David7204]

It certainly doesn't help that BioWare has flip-flopped over whether that was an intentional mechanic or a bug.

[Enigmatick]

leaguer of one wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Awnser: Look at SWTOR, me3, Diabilo and Left4dead, Borderlands for examples. It's not that co-op focues mp does not exsist and is not profiable. Added, the whole "cod" commet is uncalled for. Games like cod's throws away the sp and mainly focus on mp. Mp is not popular because of cod alone. You need to take the time to understand there genine people who want to play together. If you don't want to the awnser is simple...Stick the the sp and don't play the mp.

None of these games are about managing a party, but rather controlling a single character at a time.

Try again.

Your are confusing sp with mp. It's clear if you're going to deal with a dai mp, it won't have party management like the sp. A play will control , gear and supply one character...Like diabilo or any mmo.. Heck, even like me3 MP.
The point mp co-op is working as a team while controling your own character. You clearly are ignoring that point.

Completely remove what makes Dragon Age combat remotely interesting and make a multiplayer out of it!
It'll be fun!

[leaguer of one]

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 FPS or action games, sure.

In party based games, all about managing multiple hats gets 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.

The only limiting option you have with co-op is party control...But that is historu with the genre of rpgs. Go to any table top rpg and the say issue is on hand, each player controls, gears, and develops one character and work as a team to get through  the events on hand. That been translated to mmo's, offline rpgs like bg, and even ME3 mp. Co-op is a staple to the genre of rpgs.
It not an issue your not controling a team becasue the very basis of want make rpgs already has a system that works that you don't. The point with a mp game with rpgs is to work as a team.

[Iakus]

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.

[Fast Jimmy]

Your are confusing sp with mp. It's clear if you're going to deal with a dai mp, it won't have party management like the sp.

You are clearly ignoring THIS POINT. Which is pretty impressive, since you said it yourself.

If you take away party control from DA, you are left with one character to control, who can do nothing but auto attack until their skill cooldowns are refreshed.

This is boring to the average MP player. So they will jazz this up, where you will have constant strafing, button mashing, action-based, player-skill combat.

Now... this mentality will either A) exist totally separate from the SP mechanics, such that playing DA:I's MP will play like a totally different game or (the more likely option) the SP mechanics will become LESS about managing your party, LESS about using group tactics thoughtfully, LESS about character builds limitations and MORE about how fast you can head shot your enemies.

It will become less "Rook to Queen 4" and more "Rocket glitch."

THAT'S what we are talking about when we say "MP will affect SP negatively."

[leaguer of one]

Enigmatick wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Awnser: Look at SWTOR, me3, Diabilo and Left4dead, Borderlands for examples. It's not that co-op focues mp does not exsist and is not profiable. Added, the whole "cod" commet is uncalled for. Games like cod's throws away the sp and mainly focus on mp. Mp is not popular because of cod alone. You need to take the time to understand there genine people who want to play together. If you don't want to the awnser is simple...Stick the the sp and don't play the mp.

None of these games are about managing a party, but rather controlling a single character at a time.

Try again.

Your are confusing sp with mp. It's clear if you're going to deal with a dai mp, it won't have party management like the sp. A play will control , gear and supply one character...Like diabilo or any mmo.. Heck, even like me3 MP.
The point mp co-op is working as a team while controling your own character. You clearly are ignoring that point.

Completely remove what makes Dragon Age combat remotely interesting and make a multiplayer out of it!
It'll be fun!

No it does not. What make DA combat interastiong is the tactics, not you controling everything. You can still uses tactics with co-op. Remember, DA is a throw back to bg which also had co-op with plays controling and gearing limited characters. In it 6 players can play as a team at once. Rpg's at the very start worked and functioned as a co-op experiance.

[zMataxa]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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. 

_____________

I don't like the sounds of that.

However, really, if i get your meaning, I would NOT be worried about that.
If the game is excellent - all is good again.
The vast majority of complainers are fickle, and be back again if it's popular.

Modifié par zMataxa, 09 novembre 2013 - 04:22 .

[Dave of Canada]

Dark Souls MP for DA:I.

[Fast Jimmy]

The only limiting option you have with co-op is party control...But that is historu with the genre of rpgs. Go to any table top rpg and the say issue is on hand, each player controls, gears, and develops one character and work as a team to get through the events on hand. That been translated to mmo's, offline rpgs like bg, and even ME3 mp. Co-op is a staple to the genre of rpgs.
It not an issue your not controling a team becasue the very basis of want make rpgs already has a system that works that you don't. The point with a mp game with rpgs is to work as a team.

So, to summarize "take one of the last games that focuses on party control instead of action and single character control... and turn it into a hack and slash!"

There's something summarily wrong with that.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 09 novembre 2013 - 02:43 .

[leaguer of one]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Your are confusing sp with mp. It's clear if you're going to deal with a dai mp, it won't have party management like the sp.

You are clearly ignoring THIS POINT. Which is pretty impressive, since you said it yourself.

If you take away party control from DA, you are left with one character to control, who can do nothing but auto attack until their skill cooldowns are refreshed.

This is boring to the average MP player. So they will jazz this up, where you will have constant strafing, button mashing, action-based, player-skill combat.

Now... this mentality will either A) exist totally separate from the SP mechanics, such that playing DA:I's MP will play like a totally different game or (the more likely option) the SP mechanics will become LESS about managing your party, LESS about using group tactics thoughtfully, LESS about character builds limitations and MORE about how fast you can head shot your enemies.

It will become less "Rook to Queen 4" and more "Rocket glitch."

THAT'S what we are talking about when we say "MP will affect SP negatively."

Well come to mp. BG was like that as well as every co-op rpg. The thing that make da stand out is not party control, it the tactics. Remember it's a throw back to bg, which had both one play controling a team and mp co-op with one play controling one character.

Sorry, but it does work. Saying it would be bad because you don't control a team ignorse the fact that the point of co-op is not you controling a team but working like a team.

[Enigmatick]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Dark Souls MP for DA:I.

Will NA players be able to get into THAT beta?:innocent:

[leaguer of one]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

The only limiting option you have with co-op is party control...But that is historu with the genre of rpgs. Go to any table top rpg and the say issue is on hand, each player controls, gears, and develops one character and work as a team to get through the events on hand. That been translated to mmo's, offline rpgs like bg, and even ME3 mp. Co-op is a staple to the genre of rpgs.
It not an issue your not controling a team becasue the very basis of want make rpgs already has a system that works that you don't. The point with a mp game with rpgs is to work as a team.

So, to summarize "take one of the last games that focuses on party control instead of action and single character control... and turn it into a back and slash!"

There's something summarily wrong with that.

More of a case where you have a game mode where you control a team in the sp and a game mode you work with others in a mp co-op simaler the diabilo. You have an option to play or not play ether.