710 réponses à ce sujet

[Allan Schumacher]

iakus wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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

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

But at this point I personally will accept nothing less.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

[Allan Schumacher]

TurretSyndrome wrote...

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

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

[kinderschlager]

Schneidend wrote...

kinderschlager wrote...

pretty much this

Read the thread. That's a fallacious argument not based in the reality of the game industry.

i was late to the party. so sue me.

i just don't want micro-transactions invading the DA universe. if i pay full price for a video game, i don't want to be nickle and dimed as well

*is glaring at dead space 3 as he types this*

(not to mention ME 3's little micro-transaction bit)

Modifié par kinderschlager, 09 novembre 2013 - 08:03 .

[Allan Schumacher]

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

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

I think that this is an excellent point, too.

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

[leaguer of one]

TurretSyndrome wrote...

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. 

The fact there are no writers on the mp team makes it a fact. The fact that the issue with the end is not enough time makes it a fact.

[zMataxa]

Foopydoopydoo wrote...

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?

(1) You bolded the different devs teams.  I acknowledged that already.  Right?

(2) Sure there may be two separate dev groups - but accepting that the
initial design didn't factor in  numerous details on how to best build a a SP vs how to best build a SP/MP -
well, it doesn't seem possible.
In other words, the two dev teams may be separate, but the underlying overall "story, features, mechanics" they are wired to work better together as a SP and MP.  When that's done in this particular case - well I obviously don't know. 
Initial design time is the most efficient time.
But, to say a MP is just bolted on afterwards to whatever SP they come up with - well at this stage of EA/Biowares history - it's simply impossible to believe without tangible evidence, and would surprise me greatly.

So you can provide assurances and I hope you are right.
But as the thread posts show, there is a concern that MP will skew SP in ways away from what some of were used to - from light to quite a bit.
And that is regardless if there are two different dev teams.

Modifié par zMataxa, 09 novembre 2013 - 08:16 .

[leaguer of one]

zMataxa wrote...

Foopydoopydoo wrote...

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?

(1) You bolded the different devs teams.  I acknowledged that already.  Right?

(2) Sure there may be two separate dev groups - but accepting that the
initial design didn't factor in  numerous details on how to best build a a SP vs how to best build a SP/MP -
well, it doesn't seem possible.
In other words, the two dev teams may be separate, but the underlying overall "story, features, mechanics" they are wired to work better together as a SP and MP.  When that's done in this particular case - well I obviously don't know. 
Initial design time is the most efficient time.
But, to say a MP is just bolted on afterwards to whatever SP they come up with - well at this stage of EA/Biowares history - it's simply impossible to believe without tangible evidence, and would surprise me greatly.

So you can provide assurances and I hope you are right.
But as the thread posts show, there is a concern that MP will skew SP in ways - from light to quite a bit.
And that is regardless if there are two different dev teams.

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 singularity 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 basically
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 abilities
with cooldowns as you see fit. Just like ann mmo or even diabilo.

   But your issue is the focus of the devs...Focusing on both mp and sp bring the issue of quality. 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 onstory, and lore.

  Added, there 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 is of focus is if they plan to fully 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 the gameplay are ready similar
to mp mmp and mp rpgs... It's not an issue.

Modifié par leaguer of one, 09 novembre 2013 - 08:31 .

[zMataxa]

leaguer of one wrote...

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.

____
You must be a fast typer.
I just wrote that 2 minutes ago.

Edit.  I would like to read - but I'm struggling.
Can you edit it a bit? Please?

Modifié par zMataxa, 09 novembre 2013 - 08:19 .

[Olivier_dehFanboy]

Well i played me3 and it was an excellent game. It was a nonstop rush despite obvious graphical flaws(strange animations, sprite npc). In terms of climaxing story telling, its easily the best in the franchise and some of the most intense campaigns out till this day. It was all enjoyable up until you find the cerberus base. It felt rushed from that point on. I didnt enjoy the ending as many other people, but i didnt let a crushingly bleak ending sour my entire experience.

I then went on to play the multiplayer. At first i thought it was just a cheap hoard mode but then i grew to like it because it gave me the gameplay of ME in its purest and rush inducing form. No dialogue, no exposition, no fetch quests, just me and my customized character taking on waves and waves of enemies with other players.

Its fair to say that the mp did not compromise the single player in my case because me3 campaign quality was unprecedented IMO. Ill neber know for sure what impact each of those projects had on each other, but i dont care because i enjoyed both very much.

DA:I is an entirely different story, not in the sense of one project compromising another, but in the sense that i have no clue what direction they will go with the MP portion. Something like mass effect 3 seems plausible... But it would really need its own twists and flavors... Rather than taking no risk at all and resting on the laurels of ME3 MP success. If it ties into the SP. If its a success, ill definitely play the hell out if it, if not... I hope the scope and amount of content in the SP surpasses that of DA:O.

[zMataxa]

@Leaguers
Thanks for edit.

In your post, you show both SP and MP have gameplay dev reponsibilities.
This is exactly where this possible synergy of vision/modifying the SP would take place.
It affects everything downstream.

Anywho, I do think this topic is exhausted - or for me anyways.
Let's leave this at  - there are concerns, valid or not, despite the "two separate dev" advocates' assurances that the whole SP/MP implentation has nothing to do with each other.
I'm buying in the first week based on all the reveals so far as a DA world fan.

I'm hoping that when I review this thread tomorrow - that there's no "hatchet jobs".
Then I can just leave this thread behind in peace to do it's thing.

Modifié par zMataxa, 09 novembre 2013 - 08:55 .

[zsom]

Helena Tylena wrote...
...

Stated where?

And even so, the money has to come from somewhere. If there's two separate budgets, that still means either budget would probably be larger if the other didn't exist.
And 'resources' is more than just budget. It's also time spent, and skilled people spending that time. You have to divide your team, or hire new people (who you need to find first, and which also draws from your budget) to do all the extra work required to build a multiplayer or co-op mode. Either it is going to feel tacked on, or it WILL mean the single player suffers.

That is not how corporate budgeting works, it would be true for a small indie developer, but not for EA. EA is sitting on hundreds of millions in capital and has the ability to raise even more capital if need be. In other words they can spend far more money that what the game can bring in even under the most optimistic circumstances. Will they spend more? Of course not, they are a for profit company.
They will inspect every feature, be it singleplayer, multiplayer, marketing etc. and then decide based on the risk it poses and the potential revenue it will generate. If they come to the conclusion that multiplayer is costly and will not bring in money (I doubt they will), then they will not automatically spend it on SP just because they have money to burn. And if they think that adding another chapter in the main story line that turned out really well on the storyboards will bring in even more players and is likely to land the game a 90+ metacritic score, then they will spend millions on it. This is how budgeting works, every cent is spent based on potential revenue and not because it has to be spent on this project... So unless you can explain to me how singleplayer content can have a negative impact on multiplayer revenues, I'll have to call BS on your reasoning.

[Catastrophy]

Well, since I saw what MP did to the gameplay of ME3 - why not? I don't really know how the new DA combat gameplay will work, though. If it isn't just click + auto hack and has parrying, dodges and headbutts and nice pacing of power casting it could be fun in MP, too.

[snackrat]

I'm not actually against MP so long as SP is enjoyable and nails that base Dragon Age experience. ME3's MP turned out to be really fun - the only real drag with it being the microtransaction-encouraging RNG-trollstore. Sure the MP was buggy as hell, the store was mean, the lack of radar was not balanced by mics and the peer-to-peer hosting was less than... wait, where was I?

I don't think ME3 MP was perfect by any means. Compared to MP-centric games, it was pretty uhh, less than stellar.
BUT: ME is not MP centric. And, more importantly, it was FUN. And that's why it is there. Not to be some ground-breaking foray into story and character, or to be simply a well-oiled machine. Is it good to have those properties? Absolutely. But are they worth anything if it isn't FUN?

Some people don't like MP and I get that. Some haven't even played much, what they dislike is SP's dependance on it, and I get that too (no really). But I, along with many others, still had fun playing it, even over a year after release. DA MP, if they do make it, could go the same way. I'd rather sit back and see what they produce than dismiss it out of hand.

[JWvonGoethe]

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'm currently playing ME3 for the first time and some of the maps in single player double up as maps in the MP. As a consequence when they appear in the SP campaign they feel like MP levels with bots (i.e., non-linear and open, with objectives like "Survive" popping up on the screen). It's a small thing, but I would have prefered maps that were designed solely for the singleplayer experience

I'm mainly just playing Devil's Advocate here since I like ME3 (so far), but the MP design does clearly impact on the singleplayer campaign in certain places. Probably not enough to ruin someone's enjoyment of the game on its own, but I could see how it might contribute to a disliking of the game.

[someguy1231]

All the people in this thread whining about MP resources that could've gone toward SP are just making themselves look foolish and childish.

In the end, your whole argument boils down to whining that a feature you don't like is getting resources that could be used for a feature you like. If you want a certain feature of a game to be as high-quality as possible, there's no such thing as too many resources for it. Seeing another feature coming along that gets its own resources allocated to it (and not taken from pre-existing features, despite popular belief here) and complaining that those resources could have been used for whatever your favorite feature is, just makes you look like a spoiled child.

[Zered]

Call me grandpa but I like singpleayer games to be, well, singleplayer. For multiplayer I play TOR. Id prefer they 'waste' MP assets on polishing the single player campaign.

With all that in mind I know how the market goes. EA needs to make its credits. Not a bad thing I just liked it more in the old days.

[Aaleel]

As long as it doesn't have one stitch of affect on the SP I really don't care. If it's going to affect the SP like in ME3 than I'm completely opposed to it. They should be two separate entities.

But I guess they needed a way to make sure it was successful in the beginning and to get people playing it so they used the best thing they could to force some people onto it. The end of Shepard's story. Once they had people playing they "fixed" it. Glad I was on PC so I could just open up the command console and avoid having to play it.

[badboy64]

someguy1231 wrote...

All the people in this thread whining about MP resources that could've gone toward SP are just making themselves look foolish and childish.

In the end, your whole argument boils down to whining that a feature you don't like is getting resources that could be used for a feature you like. If you want a certain feature of a game to be as high-quality as possible, there's no such thing as too many resources for it. Seeing another feature coming along that gets its own resources allocated to it (and not taken from pre-existing features, despite popular belief here) and complaining that those resources could have been used for whatever your favorite feature is, just makes you look like a spoiled child.

More than 99% of the people here play will be playing the for the game for the SP only. Have you even played any of the DA games or even completed any of the DA games? Looks like you only play ME3 for the MP experience only. It doesn't even belong in a DA series game period.

[AndarianTD]

Xbox360Girl1321 wrote...

I really don't want a multiplayer that you HAVE to play in order to level up your Inquisition or get an exclusive ending or something else story related, because ten you have no choice whether you want to play it or not.

I'm not opposed to the idea of optional additional content for online play, but anything that compromised the core SP RPG game or required that I play online would likely result in my not playing it. They're not really thinking about that, are they?

In any event, my opinion about adding MP is the same as it's always been, and it's echoed in the first thread comment:

Helena Tylena wrote...

Multiplayer would take up resources that then won't go to making the absolute best single player experience. I am also opposed.

Making an optimal MP game involves different design and architecture decisions than making an optimal SP game does. I'd prefer a game designed from the ground up for an optimal SP experience. But then again, those decisions (whatever they may be) are long past made with regard to Inquisition.

Modifié par AndarianTD, 09 novembre 2013 - 12:52 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Alright, after getting some sleep after trveling all day and being her lagged, I'm going to respond to some things and then call it quits here.

leaguer of one wrote...

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.

First off, I didn't realize you speak for Bioware and their game design department. Since you are telling me what will or won't happen with DA:I's MP and how it will or will not be tied into the SP. I wish you had let me know this earlier and we wouldn't have had such a long debate. Conversely, if you're not a Bioware employee, than you are just stating your opinion as fact, which is next to useless. You think Bioware won't either conflate results in SP with MP, which isn't supported by the most recent history with ME3. And you have no way of knowing if the SP mechanics will be influenced to be more friendly to the MP mechanics approach. So the concerns people have against MP are totally valid and are not trumped just because you are assuming what Bioware will or will not do.

Secondly, I had said in multiple posts before you responded that I would be fine with a co-op feature that worked exactly like BG or IWD, where it was basically the ability for a friend to take control of an NPC during your SP campaign. So saying "you don't like it, therefore your argument is invalid" is incorrect. I wouldn't use such a feature, but I wouldn't mind its existence, since it would be an addendum to the SP experience, not a truly different MP experience that would run the risk of judging the SP mechanics to be more action-based and MP-friendly.

Estelindis wrote...
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.

Nowhere did I say the modding group was massive for NWN. I said modding was a driving force for its sales. People bought the game for its modding tools just as much as for the SP campaign. That doesn't mean TONS of people bought the game - obviously that subgroup was too small, just like InExile said, to support continued games and following that design method. But that doesn't mean that the people who did buy the game weren't heavily influenced by the presence of said toolkit.

[Fallstar]

Some small repeatable content which doesn't take many resources would be great. Like a minigame type thing.

For DAO I thought it would be cool if you and a few friends could have your wardens thrown together in a survival type minigame in the deep roads, where you are on your calling. The waves get progressively more difficult, eventually becoming impossible, and you try to last as long as you could. They could have re-used the graphical assets from the SP areas.

That kind of thing gives you a lot of 'bang for your buck' in terms of how much playability there is vs resources invested. I would not want to see a full scale MP at all.

Assuming the devs can get X resources after the base SP game, I would rather see those extra resources put into high quality DLC/expansions of the fallout tier, with several hours of gameplay, to improve on the criminally over-priced dlc DA has received so far in comparison. I bought every individual DAO dlc + Awakening, easily spending over £100 on the whole DAO. But I felt like I got a higher quantity and quality from a single FO3 dlc than I did all of those combined.

The DA2 dlc was a step in the right direction, but it still needs to feel more expansive.

[Wulfram]

Of course people might buy NWN for access to the fruits of the modding without actually doing any modding themselves.

I wouldn't have bought the expansions if it wasn't for mods.

[Fast Jimmy]

Wulfram wrote...

Of course people might buy NWN for access to the fruits of the modding without actually doing any modding themselves.

I wouldn't have bought the expansions if it wasn't for mods.

Of course, you are correct. I meant the "toolkit" as a holistic approach to the concept of modding as a large game feature. 

[Lexaconn]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

I disagree and would rather have a game that only has a excellent single player. It's a matter of principle at this point, and I want to see that the developers respect what this game series is all about and give my playstyle the fullest attention. 

I've been chased away from multiplayer games (especially MMOs), being told to "go play my single player RPGs", and leave them alone with my stupid loner playstyle. So I've come to Dragon Age.

Everything has to have multiplayer these days, effectively shutting me out and sending me signals saying I'm doing things wrong by playing alone. If DAI has even the slightest amount of multiplayer content in it, I'll skip it. No matter how awesome the single player campaign may be.

[AndarianTD]

Estelindis wrote...

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.

I agree. As far as MP providing its own revenue stream: I'm sure they have marketing and sales research showing that's true, otherwise they wouldn't consider doing it (assuming they are -- I'm coming into this thread cold). But "additional resources" don't come from the ether, and to the extent they're fungible, they have to come from somewhere. The fact that such resource allocation isn't always fungible is a point that probably bears more appreciation than some MP critics may be willing to give it.

Schneidend 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.

NWN1 was architected for MP from the outset. And speaking as a long-time NWN modder, I found that that design significantly hindered my ability to develop SP-only modules. There were a number of clearly MP-oriented features that required awkward workarounds to make a good SP experience work, and that slowed the development process.

Estelindis wrote...

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.

Again, I agree with Estelindis. NWN2 had, and still has, a robust modding community. The reasons why it (and later, DA) never approached NWN1's numbers have more to do with the reasons she cited, as well as some other factors. One was the bugginess of the NWN2 toolset, and the lack of availbility of the 3D art development tools that made extensive NWN1 modding possible. Others that shouldn't be overlooked are more social/cultural. I'm sure I'm not the only builder, for example, who found it more difficult to justify spending time on a non-paying modding hobby after recent events in the US (after 2008). That's one reason why I'm writing novels now instead of building more NWN1 mods.

Modifié par AndarianTD, 09 novembre 2013 - 01:45 .