710 réponses à ce sujet

[Dave of Canada]

Enigmatick wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

Dark Souls MP for DA:I.

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

Don't ask for the impossible.

[mousestalker]

If I wanted to play well with others, I'd play SWTOR, to which I have a subscription. Part of the charm of a single player game is the pause button. Pausing is quite nice. Also saving is fun.

The Dragon Age could very well implement SP and MP perfectly. Or it might not. We really will not know until it is released and we can see for ourselves.

[Welsh Inferno]

leaguer of one wrote...

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.

You are still missing/ignoring his point humongously. For the MP to work that way they would have to also develop the SP combat so that it is compatible with the MP. Because they will absolutely NOT create two completely different combat systems for the same game. Its just not done. We DO NOT want that. Thus we do not want MP.

Modifié par Welsh Inferno, 09 novembre 2013 - 02:53 .

[leaguer of one]

Welsh Inferno wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...

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.

You are still missing/ignoring his point humongously. For the MP to work that way they would have to also develop the SP combat so that it is compatible with the MP. Because they will NOT create two completely different combat systems for the same game. We DO NOT want that. Thus we do not want MP.

It would make to different systems. It's very narrow minded to think that. ME3 had mp too and it did not a different combat system then the sp. Just play dao and da2 with out pausing and you'll see that it can esally work as a mp. DA system is just a off line mmo with pausing. Tell will be no drasitc changes from sp to mp.

[Schneidend]

iakus wrote...

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 

Playing a super-strong Ranger berserker and help my friend battle his way through one of the best RPGs of all time?

Where do I sign up!

Not sarcasm. You obviously missed the numerous posts where I said I was totally into playing as Grunt or Cassandra if that's how it has to be. I'm also not opposed to allowing multiple player-created characters.

iakus wrote...

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

Fast Jimmy wrote...

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."

OR, crazy thought, the single player and multiplayer are exactly the same campaign, and no changes are necessary. Because, you know, Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale, and Neverwinter Nights did exactly that and were excellent games.

[Mikoto8472]

Heck yes I'm opposed to DA multiplayer.

[rupok93]

I absolutely do not want MP in Dragon age games. please keep the filth out. I understand something similar to dark souls where there is some interaction between people playing BUT IT SHOULD BE OPTIONAL. If its full blown mp I feel like something will be ruined to make that happen.

[Estelindis]

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?  

Speaking from the perspective of loving 95% of ME3 but hating the ending, my opinion of ME3 would be worse if not for the multiplayer.  ME3 multiplayer is immensely fun and very well put together.  While I haven't played enough of it to know all the ins-and-outs (I really only played to get the "best" ending - more fool me!), I did not experience any downsides to ME3 multiplayer, as I did with singleplayer.

Anyway, I am not opposed to Dragon Age multiplayer, as I believe those who say that additional resources are allocated for such things.  I get the impression that multiplayer provides its own revenue stream, essentially paying for itself, so it's no skin off my nose.

However, I would want it to be completely optional.  I wouldn't want it to be necessary to play anything but single player to achieve any single player objective.  

Modifié par Estelindis, 09 novembre 2013 - 03:15 .

[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.

[Fast Jimmy]

OR, crazy thought, the single player and multiplayer are exactly the same campaign, and no changes are necessary. Because, you know, Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale, and Neverwinter Nights did exactly that and were excellent games.

Gah, I said I was done with this thread for the night but my plane is getting delayed.

Yes... those three games which some people don't even realize HAVE a MP mode. I'm sure EA would go GAGA about green lighting additional funds for that. <sarcasm, since we're noting that now apparently>

If it was something some easily overlooked as taking control of another companion and no change to the rest of the game, I'm all for it. Thing is, that would not add value to the game besides the ten people who'd want to do it. It would result in almost no extra sales and no clear way to monetize it like ME3 did with microtransactions. So why would EA give Bioware money to put it in?

[Estelindis]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Yes... those three games which some people don't even realize HAVE a MP mode.

I'm sure plenty of people have no clue about NWN modding tools as well, but those tools are the reason many people still have the game installed today.  A feature doesn't have to be used by everyone to be loved by a subgroup.  If that subgroup is big enough, it seems worthwhile for the company to include the feature for their sake.

[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.

[Navasha]

For the most part I don't mind MP as long as it is kept entirely separate from the SP game. ME3 is about as close as the two mixing should ever come in my mind.

I think the fear is that generally if you have a budget of X to develop a game, people just want to be certain that the full X is being spent on improving the SP game to its utmost.

Now if a game has X budgeted for the singleplayer and Y budgeted for the Multiplayer, then I think most people would be fine with a MP version as long as the two modes don't mix.

I think that most people generally have the impression that X budget will be divided up into all features, whereby all any resources spent on developing multiplayer would inevitably mean a reduction of features or content in singleplayer. I am not sure that is actually the case. If that were true, they I would absolutely be for no multiplayer, as I would much rather have the full amount of resources devoted to making a longer or better single-player game.

[Fast Jimmy]

Estelindis wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Yes... those three games which some people don't even realize HAVE a MP mode.

I'm sure plenty of people have no clue about NWN modding tools as well, but those tools are the reason many people still have the game installed today.  A feature doesn't have to be used by everyone to be loved by a subgroup.  If that subgroup is big enough, it seems worthwhile for the company to include the feature for their sake.

People still buy copies today of NWN for its mod tools. Heck, the first Witcher ham was DESIGNED using highly modified NWN mod tools. It was a driving force for sales for the game. People bought it for the tool just as much as for the SP campaign. 

Contrast that with BG. I'm willing to bet I could count on my hands the number of people who bought BG based on the MP feature. Sure, more people may have used it, but how many people were really saying "No, I'm not going to buy this game" but then, suddenly, they here about the ability for your friend to take control of an NPC and they say "wait, what's this? I'm on board now!" Such co-op is rarely a sales driver in RPG, party-based games. But if that's all Bioware is honestly thinking - the same exact game with the ability for a random friend to control a companion in combat alone, then have a blast. But I highly doubt that would be the case. 

[In Exile]

Estelindis wrote...
I'm sure plenty of people have no clue about NWN modding tools as well, but those tools are the reason many people still have the game installed today.  A feature doesn't have to be used by everyone to be loved by a subgroup.  If that subgroup is big enough, it seems worthwhile for the company to include the feature for their sake.

But that subgroup isn't big enough. It's why Bioware didn't move towards more module support in the future and why NWN2 never took off.  

[Fast Jimmy]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

Right - the only value add would be knowing you were playing (and could converse) with a human player (sorry, there was a typo in my original post). 

I don't have a problem with that level of MP/co-op. But I just, personally, doubt that's what we'd get. And I also find that the discussion flip-flopping between "what about companion controlled co-op?" to "ME3 had MP and it wasn't the end of the world."

I'm fine with the co-op, EXACTLY as it exited in BG and IWD. It's making DA into a FPS/hack-n-slash, something that worked for ME because ME was already a player-skill, single character FPS. The two arguments - co-op in BG and ME3 MP's success - are the two polar opposite sides of the MP equation. 

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 09 novembre 2013 - 03:34 .

[leaguer of one]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

OR, crazy thought, the single player and multiplayer are exactly the same campaign, and no changes are necessary. Because, you know, Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale, and Neverwinter Nights did exactly that and were excellent games.

Gah, I said I was done with this thread for the night but my plane is getting delayed.

Yes... those three games which some people don't even realize HAVE a MP mode. I'm sure EA would go GAGA about green lighting additional funds for that. <sarcasm, since we're noting that now apparently>

If it was something some easily overlooked as taking control of another companion and no change to the rest of the game, I'm all for it. Thing is, that would not add value to the game besides the ten people who'd want to do it. It would result in almost no extra sales and no clear way to monetize it like ME3 did with microtransactions. So why would EA give Bioware money to put it in?

Nice run around. All it comes down to is that you don't want it. The point is that it can clearly work. You not want it makes no difference to that point. Asking who is this for ignores that fact that people want it and are willing to try it and in the case with me 3 mp. In the case with ME3 MP THE DEMO for the mp added sales for the game and introduce many people to the me sp. But it come to a simple point...You don't have the play the mp and the mp won't effect the sp.

[Estelindis]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I'm willing to bet I could count on my hands the number of people who bought BG based on the MP feature. Sure, more people may have used it, but how many people were really saying "No, I'm not going to buy this game" but then, suddenly, they here about the ability for your friend to take control of an NPC and they say "wait, what's this? I'm on board now!" 

I know plenty of people who did use it.  However, if not many people were aware of it before buying, that really portrays it as a marketing issue, that not enough people had access to the information that multiplayer was possible in BG before buying.  To my mind, that really makes the case that Bioware need to publicise the multiplayer features that they include, rather than leave them out.

[Schneidend]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Gah, I said I was done with this thread for the night but my plane is getting delayed.

Yes... those three games which some people don't even realize HAVE a MP mode. I'm sure EA would go GAGA about green lighting additional funds for that. <sarcasm, since we're noting that now apparently>

If it was something some easily overlooked as taking control of another companion and no change to the rest of the game, I'm all for it. Thing is, that would not add value to the game besides the ten people who'd want to do it. It would result in almost no extra sales and no clear way to monetize it like ME3 did with microtransactions. So why would EA give Bioware money to put it in?

Your repeated hyperbolic estimates of the amount of people who played or still play IWD/BG/NWN multiplayer make for a compelling argument, let me tell ya.

[Estelindis]

In Exile wrote...

But that subgroup isn't big enough. It's why Bioware didn't move towards more module support in the future and why NWN2 never took off.  

Far from it.  The NWN2 modding scene didn't take off like the NWN1 scene because the NWN2 toolset didn't hit the same sweet spot of balancing power and usability as NWN1.  The NWN2 toolset was more powerful, in many ways, but it had a steeper learning curve and thus wasn't as broadly usable.  People enjoyed the simplicity of the NWN1 toolset, which still allowed people to engage in very complex modding if they wanted, but didn't require it.

Anyway, I find it amusing that you are saying the NWN1 modding subgroup wasn't big enough, whereas Fast Jimmy is saying it was immense!  I wonder which is closer to the truth.   

[Schneidend]

Welsh Inferno wrote...

You are still missing/ignoring his point humongously. For the MP to work that way they would have to also develop the SP combat so that it is compatible with the MP. Because they will absolutely NOT create two completely different combat systems for the same game. Its just not done. We DO NOT want that. Thus we do not want MP.

Baldur's Gate wasn't changed to suit multiplayer. Again, it doesn't have to be any different, and assuming that it does to suit your point is not an argument.

[Chala]

It will depend how is the mode handled:
I mean, I could be totally fine with assaulting/defending keeps, exploring some of the big SP maps with my friends in search for resources and solving small quests, like removing that green smoke shown in the demo.

If it's another horde mode... Nop, I'm not going to like it. It worked with Mass Effect because is part TPS and has a bigger selection of races that helps to give more diversification to the gameplay.

Modifié par El_Chala_Legalizado, 09 novembre 2013 - 03:59 .

[leaguer of one]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Please stop making threads about this. It isn't helping, really.

I hate the idea of it, but these threads aren't doing anything but drawing attention to it.

It's a Pendulum.  Ignoring it does not make it go away.

[slimgrin]

MP in ME3 was hampered by design decisions, but it was decent. I'm sure Bioware ( EA) has the resources to pull off both modes in DA:I. It comes down to whether they have the ability to do so.

Modifié par slimgrin, 09 novembre 2013 - 03:50 .