710 réponses à ce sujet

[DooomCookie]

leaguer of one wrote...

DooomCookie wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...

TurretSyndrome wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...
No it won't.

Yes it will.

Because you're ability to jump to conclutions with no bade behind it proves it so?

Sorry, no it won't.

Surely it will, at least in terms of potential gains?  I know nothing of how game development works, but I presume there is a separate team working on the MP and a separate budget allocated to MP.  I don't like multiplayer and I honestly don't get the point of it in this series, so as a fan I'd rather see that budget given to voiceacting or QA or a general payrise for the developers and the team working on it set to work on an aspect of the SP campaign.

Everything for the sp in resources is per arranged and plan before production. So everything need to make the sp quality is aready at hand. MP get it's own resources. If one team is working on the sp and another is working on th mp, there is no issue with one game mode draining resources from another. The sp is not going to have less having if it's done this way. In fact, the sp is gaining more now with the extention that was added to the production to the game....

So unrustle your jimmies about the mp.

Yes, I'm aware of that.  And the added year is irrelevant.  I believe that would have been done regardless of MP.

What I'm annoyed at is that the fact that "MP gets it's [sic] own resources."  I would rather have the money and manpower used to make the game qualiti-er.  As I said, I'd rather have it used to get a high-profile voice actor, or bug squishers.  If I'm still tragically missing the point, then I'd rather have DLC than MP.

[leaguer of one]

TurretSyndrome wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...

Because you're ability to jump to conclutions with no base behind it proves it so?

Sorry, no it won't.

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.

Right, because a 5 sec breath scene means you have to play the mp even thought that out of the ways to make it easier to get to it.

Sorry, but mp is not maditory for anything about the sp.

This is just you jumping to conclusions.

[TurretSyndrome]

leaguer of one wrote...
Right, because a 5 sec breath scene means you have to play the mp even thought that out of the ways to make it easier to get to it.

Sorry, but mp is not maditory for anything about the sp.

This is just you jumping to conclusions.

Stop putting words in my mouth. I never said MP will become mandatory in any way. I said it will affect it one way or another if it is planned to be developed. It may be during development or after. It may be a positive impact or a negative one. Saying that they will have no connection whatsoever and that they will not affect each other is being naive.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

That's a different question.  I'm opposed to the SP campaign being compromised to accommodate MP.  I'm opposed to MP affecting SP in any way.

But that doesn't mean I'm opposed to MP.  I'm just opposed to MP done in a way that harms SP.

All else being equal, I don't care if MP exists.  You probably don't either.

But whether all else is equal, that's a different question.  And likely one we can't answer.

In ME3, the ending was rushed, we all know that. Who's to say that it wasn't because of work done and time spent on the Multiplayer aspect of it? Sure, Bioware will say that they have absolutely no connection, but that is because saying otherwise would create an absolute ****storm, one even worse than the one that occured. 

[leaguer of one]

DooomCookie wrote...


Yes, I'm aware of that.  And the added year is irrelevant.  I believe that would have been done regardless of MP.

What I'm annoyed at is that the fact that "MP gets it's [sic] own resources."  I would rather have the money and manpower used to make the game qualiti-er.  As I said, I'd rather have it used to get a high-profile voice actor, or bug squishers.  If I'm still tragically missing the point, then I'd rather have DLC than MP.

More money and man power would do nothing.  It's just need to build the game. Everything you value about the game is planned before production. Mp takes away nothing from the sp. As I said before, sp already has all the finances it needs from the start of production and even get even more to add on to the sp with the year extra development. You point is not valid.

[ElitePinecone]

DooomCookie wrote...

And, as I said in another post, I'm annoyed that the money and manpower going to MP aren't going to SP instead.  That sounds really selfish, but Dragon Age is a single player game.

It's not an if/or question, though. 

If the money that's hypotetically being used for MP was taken away tomorrow, it wouldn't be reallocated to SP. The people they hypothetically hired for the MP wouldn't be diverted to the singleplayer, they'd just be fired. 

The money is *extra*, allocated to Bioware to make MP on the assumption that the game will then sell more and make more money. It's a question of investment.

[leaguer of one]

TurretSyndrome wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...
Right, because a 5 sec breath scene means you have to play the mp even thought that out of the ways to make it easier to get to it.

Sorry, but mp is not maditory for anything about the sp.

This is just you jumping to conclusions.

Stop putting words in my mouth. I never said MP will become mandatory in any way. I said it will affect it one way or another if it is planned to be developed. It may be during development or after. It may be a positive impact or a negative one. Saying that they will have no connection whatsoever and that they will not affect each other is being naive.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

That's a different question.  I'm opposed to the SP campaign being compromised to accommodate MP.  I'm opposed to MP affecting SP in any way.

But that doesn't mean I'm opposed to MP.  I'm just opposed to MP done in a way that harms SP.

All else being equal, I don't care if MP exists.  You probably don't either.

But whether all else is equal, that's a different question.  And likely one we can't answer.

In ME3, the ending was rushed, we all know that. Who's to say that it wasn't because of work done and time spent on the Multiplayer aspect of it? Sure, Bioware will say that they have absolutely no connection, but that is because saying otherwise would create an absolute ****storm, one even worse than the one that occured. 

1.It's a point less argument if you don't play the mp. What 's the point of being consered over something you won't play in which you can get an the results you want with out touching the mp?
2. Because the mp team had nothing to do with the story of me3 and the issue was time not finaces. More people and money would not help the ending. More time to think on it and plan it out would.

[DooomCookie]

leaguer of one wrote...

DooomCookie wrote...


Yes, I'm aware of that.  And the added year is irrelevant.  I believe that would have been done regardless of MP.

What I'm annoyed at is that the fact that "MP gets it's [sic] own resources."  I would rather have the money and manpower used to make the game qualiti-er.  As I said, I'd rather have it used to get a high-profile voice actor, or bug squishers.  If I'm still tragically missing the point, then I'd rather have DLC than MP.

More money and man power would do nothing.  It's just need to build the game. Everything you value about the game is planned before production. Mp takes away nothing from the sp. As I said before, sp already has all the finances it needs from the start of production and even get even more to add on to the sp with the year extra development. You point is not valid.

You can't say if I went to Mike Darrah or whoever controls spending, and said, "Here, this is X thousand dollars.  Use it on the game," he would reject it because everything has been planned already.  At least very least the devs could get a pay rise.  Personally, I would rather see that than multiplayer.

[zMataxa]

leaguer of one wrote...

TurretSyndrome wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...

Because you're ability to jump to conclutions with no base behind it proves it so?

Sorry, no it won't.

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.

Right, because a 5 sec breath scene means you have to play the mp even thought that out of the ways to make it easier to get to it.

Sorry, but mp is not maditory for anything about the sp.

This is just you jumping to conclusions.

_____________

The concerns are not MP being mandatory.  Not at all.
It's a concern that the game feel/content changes - because of potential integration with MP.
Again, I refer you back to my unanswered P11 Post 3 to do with zot allocation.

AND I want to state right here.
I am expecting that DAI will feel different, and how much that attributes to MP, well we'll never be able to quantify. 
But from what I've seen, DAI is a buy.  I can adjust to a more action oriented if need be.
I'll just see what kind of depth that's not there - or maybe its there and more.

But at least I can say later when i comment on the game (that I have registered here)  - if it feels like it's satifsying with enough depth.
I'm hoping to come out and say that my worries were for naught.

Maybe, my focus is too much that I don't want to lose the in-depth story-telling, and I am being too protective of "the way they used to do it".  

[DooomCookie]

ElitePinecone wrote...

DooomCookie wrote...

And, as I said in another post, I'm annoyed that the money and manpower going to MP aren't going to SP instead.  That sounds really selfish, but Dragon Age is a single player game.

It's not an if/or question, though. 

If the money that's hypotetically being used for MP was taken away tomorrow, it wouldn't be reallocated to SP. The people they hypothetically hired for the MP wouldn't be diverted to the singleplayer, they'd just be fired. 

The money is *extra*, allocated to Bioware to make MP on the assumption that the game will then sell more and make more money. It's a question of investment.

Yes, I'm saying I wish that they didn't get given the money and manpower in the first place.  I'd rather they had initially set out more money and manpower for the single player when they were budgeting initially.  For me, it is the better investment and where I'd rather see the money go.

[Fredward]

zMataxa wrote...
______________

Well I'd like your opinion then as well on the earlier discussion where we dealt with that. 
hoorayforicecream and I were having that very discussion.
My post Page 11 post 3.

Just read it and you seem to have either missed the fact that different dev teams work on the MP and SP. Or you're just ignoring that tidbit. So it's not going to be the SP being built with the MP in mind. There's no reason for it. Dialogue, companions, lore, quests and the like would be the domain of the SP devs to spend their 8 mil on and if the MP devs decided they needed a complex keep mechanic (for some bizarre reason) they'd use their 2 mil to build it.

[zMataxa]

leaguer of one wrote...

[More money and man power would do nothing.  It's just need to build the game. Everything you value about the game is planned before production. Mp takes away nothing from the sp. As I said before, sp already has all the finances it needs from the start of production and even get even more to add on to the sp with the year extra development. You point is not valid.

______________

Until you answer my Pg11 post 3 zot allocation opost, i would argue your point isn't valid yet either.

[zMataxa]

Foopydoopydoo wrote...

zMataxa wrote...
______________

Well I'd like your opinion then as well on the earlier discussion where we dealt with that. 
hoorayforicecream and I were having that very discussion.
My post Page 11 post 3.

Just read it and you seem to have either missed the fact that different dev teams work on the MP and SP. Or you're just ignoring that tidbit. So it's not going to be the SP being built with the MP in mind. There's no reason for it. Dialogue, companions, lore, quests and the like would be the domain of the SP devs to spend their 8 mil on and if the MP devs decided they needed a complex keep mechanic (for some bizarre reason) they'd use their 2 mil to build it.

____________

I did not miss that.
I said $8 million SP vs. $8 million SP plus $2 million MP.
How is that missing ?
I acknowledged that detail from the get go.

Modifié par zMataxa, 09 novembre 2013 - 07:25 .

[Fredward]

zMataxa wrote...
____________

I did not miss that.
I said $8 million SP vs. $8 million SP plus $2 million MP.
How is that missing ?

Then I'm really not following. If you realize that the two things are entirely separate, that their resource allocation is entirely separate, that the focus of their design is going to be entirely separate, what's the problem?

[Hazegurl]

DooomCookie wrote...
Yes, I'm aware of that.  And the added year is irrelevant.  I believe that would have been done regardless of MP.

What I'm annoyed at is that the fact that "MP gets it's [sic] own resources."  I would rather have the money and manpower used to make the game qualiti-er.  As I said, I'd rather have it used to get a high-profile voice actor, or bug squishers.  If I'm still tragically missing the point, then I'd rather have DLC than MP.

Right, I'd rather have that extra money go into the SP. I'm sure the devs would ask how much money to make both but I'd rather they pour all their money and resources into the SP.  Even if they hired a different team for the MP, I would wonder if those people would have been better spent on adding features to enhance SP.

Edit: Also, I'm sure that the game overall will have a budget that they would be reluctant to go over even if they could make both. The last thing they would want to do is make the game at a loss, right? So even if the it would cost 8 million to make the SP and 4 million to make the MP that means that the overall budget is 12 million. What if the company needs to go over that? What if that extra 4 million would be better spent on something else that could enhance the SP experience? idk. There is always that "what if...?" factor  for me.

However, if the SP is great then I don't care.

Modifié par Hazegurl, 09 novembre 2013 - 07:33 .

[DooomCookie]

Foopydoopydoo wrote...

zMataxa wrote...
______________

Well I'd like your opinion then as well on the earlier discussion where we dealt with that. 
hoorayforicecream and I were having that very discussion.
My post Page 11 post 3.

Just read it and you seem to have either missed the fact that different dev teams work on the MP and SP. Or you're just ignoring that tidbit. So it's not going to be the SP being built with the MP in mind. There's no reason for it. Dialogue, companions, lore, quests and the like would be the domain of the SP devs to spend their 8 mil on and if the MP devs decided they needed a complex keep mechanic (for some bizarre reason) they'd use their 2 mil to build it.

I don't think it would be quite as clear cut as that.  There would be some contact between teams and some sharing of resources.  And I still maintain the 2 mil would be better given to DLC or voice actors or nice sofas in the writer's room or something.

[zMataxa]

deleted - unnecessary.

Modifié par zMataxa, 09 novembre 2013 - 07:29 .

[zMataxa]

Foopydoopydoo wrote...

zMataxa wrote...
____________

I did not miss that.
I said $8 million SP vs. $8 million SP plus $2 million MP.
How is that missing ?

Then I'm really not following. If you realize that the two things are entirely separate, that their resource allocation is entirely separate, that the focus of their design is going to be entirely separate, what's the problem?

__________
Sorry for repost.  It's only an excerpt.
But isn't this clear?

"$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."

Modifié par zMataxa, 09 novembre 2013 - 07:32 .

[Fredward]

DooomCookie wrote...
I don't think it would be quite as clear cut as that.  There would be some contact between teams and some sharing of resources.  And I still maintain the 2 mil would be better given to DLC or voice actors or nice sofas in the writer's room or something.

Well of course. No doubt a lot of the resources used in SP environments are going to be given to the MP people. So? It's not underlying game mechanics that change to accomodate the inclusion of MP. And the 2 mil would not be given to the devs to buy sofas or whatever. They're not the same budget. If the devs decided they weren't going to include MP that 2 mil would have been given to someone else because all the money deemed necessary has already been given for the SP campaign.

[TurretSyndrome]

leaguer of one wrote...

1.It's a point less argument if you don't play the mp. What 's the point of being consered over something you won't play in which you can get an the results you want with out touching the mp?
2. Because the mp team had nothing to do with the story of me3 and the issue was time not finaces. More people and money would not help the ending. More time to think on it and plan it out would.

1) Sigh...  When did I say that I'm not going to play MP, if it gets implemented?

2) And you have absolute sources on that? Let me tell you something. Very frequently, during the development of a game, time is wasted on things that may never get implemented. While extra time and money is not alloted to SP if there isn't any MP, there is a possiblity that the already alloted resources will be used, be it time, money or manpower, for at least trying it out.

Of course they will tell you that there are separate teams working on separate stuff, saying otherwise would mean bad PR. All teams working on the title will have to communicate and compromise on stuff every now on and then. And if they mess it up, they won't ever tell you the exact cause of it, so you cannot be so sure that they have done exactly what have they told you. 

Modifié par TurretSyndrome, 09 novembre 2013 - 07:34 .

[Fredward]

zMataxa wrote...
__________
Sorry for repost.  It's only an excerpt.
But isn't this clear?

"$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."

Foopydoopydoo wrote...
Just read it and you seem to have either missed the fact that different dev teams work
on the MP and SP. Or you're just ignoring that tidbit. So it's not
going to be the SP being built with the MP in mind. There's no reason
for it. Dialogue, companions, lore, quests and the like would be the
domain of the SP devs to spend their 8 mil on and if the MP devs decided
they needed a complex keep mechanic (for some bizarre reason) they'd
use their 2 mil to build it.

Isn't this?

[leaguer of one]

zMataxa wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...

TurretSyndrome wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...

Because you're ability to jump to conclutions with no base behind it proves it so?

Sorry, no it won't.

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.

Right, because a 5 sec breath scene means you have to play the mp even thought that out of the ways to make it easier to get to it.

Sorry, but mp is not maditory for anything about the sp.

This is just you jumping to conclusions.

_____________

The concerns are not MP being mandatory.  Not at all.
It's a concern that the game feel/content changes - because of potential integration with MP.
Again, I refer you back to my unanswered P11 Post 3 to do with zot allocation.

AND I want to state right here.
I am expecting that DAI will feel different, and how much that attributes to MP, well we'll never be able to quantify. 
But from what I've seen, DAI is a buy.  I can adjust to a more action oriented if need be.
I'll just see what kind of depth that's not there - or maybe its there and more.

But at least I can say later when i comment on the game (that I have registered here)  - if it feels like it's satifsying with enough depth.
I'm hoping to come out and say that my worries were for naught.

Maybe, my focus is too much that I don't want to lose the in-depth story-telling, and I am being too protective of "the way they used to do it".  

Ok then let look into. TO first bring up this issue look at what the changes with would happen with a game system that has to work with a sp and mp game.
An example with this is games like bg1 and 2, and ME3. 
BG had no real changes out side of who controls what. If 2 plays are playing they can control up to 3 people each. If 6 are playing, they can control up to one each.
With me3 the changes were applied were the loss of pause and time slow downs in the mp. There minor power appliance changes with some power from sp to mp like the mp not having the final upgrade for throw and the mp sigularty  priming not in the sp. But the core game play is the same.
The same  point can be made with da game play which is basicly just like any mmo's. In DAO, you select a character, point your mouse and click who you want to attack. You move you character as you see fit and use abitilies with cooldowns as you see fit. Just like ann mmo or even diabilo.

But your issue is focus...Focusing on both mp and sp bring the issue of qualty. But on that argument if were look at other games bw had to deal with that we can see that is not an issue. Example: In ME3  and swtor the is a strong focus on story, and lore.
 Added, their are 2 teams. One for mp and one for sp. The focus of the sp is not the same as the mp. Sp's focus on story ,lore, characters, exploration , and game play. Mp's focus is connectivity and gameplay.

The only issue of focus is if the plan to fullu join sp and mp as one...which they arn't.

So in short , nothing is being taking away from sp if another team is working on the mp. The only time they cross paths is game play and with teh gameplay are ready similar to mp mmp and mp rpgs... It's not an issue.

[ElitePinecone]

TurretSyndrome wrote...

In ME3, the ending was rushed, we all know that. Who's to say that it wasn't because of work done and time spent on the Multiplayer aspect of it? Sure, Bioware will say that they have absolutely no connection, but that is because saying otherwise would create an absolute ****storm, one even worse than the one that occured. 

What evidence suggests a causal relationship between multiplayer and a rushed ending?

We have no way of knowing. Nobody in this thread has access to Bioware's internal processes, and we know even less about game development.

We very simply do not have the appropriate information, expertise, understanding or knowledge to make any sort of informed statement about that link. Commenting on it is a waste of time and effort, because you're going to be - at the very least - grossly incorrect. Any arguments about it seem to be based on a foundation of hostility towards the ending and a suspiscion of multiplayer, where the assumption is made that one was linked to the other even when we have no way of telling whether this was actually the case.

It might frustrate you that you'll never have the inside story on what happened on ME3's development, but that's just a fact of how modern companies create things. Until we *do* get that information, linking multiplayer and the ending is unhelpful.

[leaguer of one]

TurretSyndrome wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...

1.It's a point less argument if you don't play the mp. What 's the point of being consered over something you won't play in which you can get an the results you want with out touching the mp?
2. Because the mp team had nothing to do with the story of me3 and the issue was time not finaces. More people and money would not help the ending. More time to think on it and plan it out would.

1) Sigh...  When did I say that I'm not going to play MP, if it gets implemented?

2) And you have absolute sources on that? Let me tell you something. Very frequently, during the development of a game, time is wasted on things that may never get implemented. While extra time and money is not alloted to SP if there isn't any MP, there is a possiblity that the already alloted resources will be used, be it time, money or manpower, for at least trying it out.

Of course they will tell you that there are separate teams working on separate stuff, saying otherwise would mean bad PR. All teams working on the title will have to communicate and compromise on stuff every now on and then. And if they mess it up, they won't ever tell you the exact cause of it, so you cannot be so sure that they have done exactly what have they told you. 

1. I'm not say you not. If saying if you have issues with it this is an option.

2. The fact that the mp team has no righters on it and is focus on the mp alone means they gave no part in the ending at all.
It not a lie or a mislead there 2 teams working on the game that are focused on different things. That's just how it it. It a fact. Unless you have proof that says other wise that then please don;t say it's otherwise.  The mp team has nothing to do with the sp, they are not in the same part  of canada as the sp team.

[TurretSyndrome]

ElitePinecone wrote...

What evidence suggests a causal relationship between multiplayer and a rushed ending?

We have no way of knowing. Nobody in this thread has access to Bioware's internal processes, and we know even less about game development.

But that is exactly what I'm saying. I keep an open mind. People saying that the MP and SP having no connection say it like it is a absolute fact, they say it just because Bioware said so. 

Modifié par TurretSyndrome, 09 novembre 2013 - 07:47 .

[ElitePinecone]

DooomCookie wrote...

Yes, I'm saying I wish that they didn't get given the money and manpower in the first place.  I'd rather they had initially set out more money and manpower for the single player when they were budgeting initially.  For me, it is the better investment and where I'd rather see the money go.

This is a perfectly fine thing for consumers to say - nobody wants a *worse* game - but from the company's perspective they only ever allocate what's needed to make a certain amount of profit. They aren't just going to arbitrarily increase the budget out of charity, it needs to have a justification based on how much extra money it'll make.

There might even be a certain point where throwing extra money at singleplayer is just wasted resources. If they've already budgeted for a major singleplayer game, and adding extra quality only marginally increases sales, what's the point? They could spend that money on multiplayer, or on a different game entirely.

Point being: the game is already (theoretically) budgeted appropriately to be the quality that Bioware are aiming for, and the sort of game that will sell well enough to make their money back. Adding more money to that budget, unless it's going to dramatically increase profit, is not a sensible business decision.