710 réponses à ce sujet

[Dominus]

I'm not personally interested in multiplayer for the game, but as long as it turns out to be a worthy investment(and doesn't somehow affect what ending I'll be getting), I'm fine with it. Some of my favorite single player games included multiplayer, and the opposite applies as well. Different gamers are looking for different things.

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?

Now there's an interesting question. I don't quite know enough about the proportional distribution of effort/monetary investment put into SP versus MP to accurately answer it. How elaborate of a multiplayer element are we talking about? If it's something alongside the NWNs and ME3s, I'd be fine with a relatively "lesser" experience if said multiplayer element turned out as well as NWN or ME3. BioWare isn't going to have a monumental budget(though it does look strongly badass so far), so the inevitability of cutting ideas or other pieces of the game is well, inevitable.

Modifié par DominusVita, 09 novembre 2013 - 02:29 .

[Iakus]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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'm not saying a game that is purely single player is inherently better.  Though I guess I can see how you got that impression.  What I'm saying is I'll have more confidence in a game that is purely single player.  Confidence is the issue here.  

You are saying that I am implying that I'm okay with a weaker single player game if there is no multipleyer.  But keep in mind that at this time and place, I have no idea what the single player game will be like.  And I won't know until the game is released.  I do know that the last time I made such a leap of faith, it most certainly did not pay off.

I can only make purchases with information on hand, and with past experiences to go by.  After ME3, yeah, I will definitely pass on DAI if it has multiplayer.  But  if that game ends up getting rave fan reviews for its single player content, saying "Bioware is back" or some such.  Then I may come back for another look.  Lack of mP increases the chances of me buying the game because that is one detail I can be certain did not adversely affect teh single player (which is still an unknown quantity for me)  Think of it as avoiding rare meat after experiencing salmonella.

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?

If multiplayer was not in the game, I would be just as okay/not okay with the single player game as i would be with it in.  The problem is, I don't know what the SP game is like until I have played it.  MP will make me far less willing to try it in the first place.  Certainly right away.

I mean, ME3 had a laundry list of problems for me.  And yes, "ending" is at the very top, with a star next to it, underlined, and three excalmation points.  Multiplayer is also on the list, albiet a lot further down.  But let me ask you:  What am I more likely to learn about DAI prior to release:  Details about DAI's ending, or the existence of multiplayer?  I have to make my purchases based on available knowledge.  I am not a wealthy person.  A brand-new AAA title is an investment for me.  And I am not like most people in your statistics:  I want to complete my games.  multiple times.  A single playthru or a game left incomplete is to me money wasted.  

My experiences with multiplayer in Bioware titles can be broken down into three parts:

1) Single player experience so incredible multiplayer components are eclipsed by it (BG)
2) Weaker SP experience, but with toolsets that allow for vast amounts of player-made content to download (NWN)
3) Mass Effect 3

Obviously, I would prefer the first experience (though the second has it's benefits as well)  But the possibility of the third, even if MP is not related to all or even the major problems I had with it, gives me pause.  This may be a double standard.  But it's a double standard that comes form prior bad experience.

[Cyricsservant101]

I've got to agree with zMataxa. How resources are allocated within the single player portion of a game might change based on the inclusion of multi-player.

Lets be honest here . . . RPGs usually don't have the most polished combat mechanics, and they certainly aren't very balanced. When you have to worry about balance (e.g. no overpowered or broken abilities, nerfing/buffing, etc.) and tweaking the gameplay to the point where it's micro-transaction friendly and addictive, to keep players playing for months post-release, that might encourage the sp dev team to focus more on developing combat mechanics than on other aspects of the game. It might also change how equipment customization is handled (e.g. Dead Space 3), or even what type of abilities are included in the game. For example, if Divinity II: DKS had been a sp/mp game, do you think we would have gotten a mind-reading ability that really only serves a purpose in an sp-only game? How about the inclusion of stats and abilities like Charisma or Persuasion? Maybe . . . but maybe not.

I also don't buy the argument that EA apportions budgets the way a lot of people in this thread assume they do. All EA games have a multi-player or online component at this point, so why would they even consider how much they'd spend on a game without that online component? They wouldn't, so who can honestly say whether the sp portion of the game is getting short changed?

That being said, I think it's very safe to assume that an sp only game generally receives more resources towards sp than an sp/mp game. While I have only anecdotal evidence to rely upon, all the best single player experiences I've had have been purely sp experiences, or have had very basic, throwaway multi-player. Even just with modern franchises I've noticed that mp/sp sequels tend to be inferior to their sp only predecessors (e.g. Bioshock 2, Batman: Arkham Origins, etc.) though, admittedly, that could all just be a coincidence . . . and there are probably exceptions to the "rule" I'm just not thinking of right now.

All that being said . . . I don't really mind about the inclusion of multi-player so long as the single player is good. Is its inclusion a red flag for me? Absolutely. But at the end of the day its going to be Metacritic that determines how much I pay for DAI, not whether or not multi was included.

[Strygywer]

sorry, but i support the idea of DAO multiplayer. Don't think it will ruin single version.

[PsychicHammer]

MP? More in the game? I'm in.

[Fredvdp]

I'm all for an optional co-op mode, but I'd rather pause the game and micro-manage the actions myself.

[lady_v23]

*raises hands*  But I won't be mad if it does happen.  I'll just do the same thing I did with ME3 MP, pretend it doesn't exist.

Modifié par lady_v23, 09 novembre 2013 - 03:38 .

[Elanor]

I'm opposed. I always believed that MP im ME3 was the reason that game was not so good as it could be...

[The Flying Grey Warden]

SWTOR style flashpoint multiplayer please. Get to control a minor npc and fight bossess or waves and complete objectives as a team.

[Artemis707]

I'm against the idea. However, if they put it in anyway, as long as it separate from the single player story.

[SafetyShattered]

As long as it doesn't affect the single player(like ME3 did) i honestly don't care if they include it or not.

[mickey111]

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.

Because EA are too poor to publish both without cutting corners :::::::::::::::::::: poor, poor EA, my heart bleeds for you :(

[KristofCoulson]

I am not opposed to multi-player as long as they don't think, "Oh hey, we're doing multiplayer for people. They won't care so much if the single player isn't up to scratch." Other than that, i really don't care about multiplayer at all.

Edit: Yeah, I want replayability, even for my low threshold for boredom. I managed to play DA:O many times through, once for each origin, sometimes more than once for a different class.

I played DA:2 once all the way through and tried to play it again. I couldn't.

However, I am trying again and have just reached Kirkwall Maybe it helps that I haven't played it since a month after it was released.

Modifié par KristofCoulson, 09 novembre 2013 - 05:05 .

[mickey111]

KristofCoulson wrote...

I am not opposed to multi-player as long as they don't think, "Oh hey, we're doing multiplayer for people. They won't care so much if the single player isn't up to scratch." Other than that, i really don't care about multiplayer at all.

I don't think developers make bad games on purpose.

[KristofCoulson]

mickey111 wrote...

KristofCoulson wrote...

I am not opposed to multi-player as long as they don't think, "Oh hey, we're doing multiplayer for people. They won't care so much if the single player isn't up to scratch." Other than that, i really don't care about multiplayer at all.

I don't think developers make bad games on purpose.

I have just completed Battlefield 4 (single player campaign).

[mickey111]

KristofCoulson wrote...

mickey111 wrote...

KristofCoulson wrote...

I am not opposed to multi-player as long as they don't think, "Oh hey, we're doing multiplayer for people. They won't care so much if the single player isn't up to scratch." Other than that, i really don't care about multiplayer at all.

I don't think developers make bad games on purpose.

I have just completed Battlefield 4 (single player campaign).

And were you as impressed by the visuals and physics as they were hoping you'd be?

[leaguer of one]

zMataxa wrote...

@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.

None of those reposability will make drastic changes from the regular forumal we have now...Which is my point.

[Schneidend]

Artemis707 wrote...

I'm against the idea. However, if they put it in anyway, as long as it separate from the single player story.

The easiest way to develop the multiplayer would be to have them go through the same campaign a la Baldur's Gate or Neverwinter Nights.

[KristofCoulson]

I have just completed Battlefield 4 (single player campaign).

[/quote]

And were you as impressed by the visuals and physics as they were hoping you'd be?
[/quote]

The visuals and physics were pretty awesome actually. I shall say nothing about the... plot. Spoilers. I was a little underwhelmed. I know they aim mostly at the multi-player crowd, where the biggest following is, but I was still a bit disappointed.

[efd731]

perterje wrote...

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.

your individual playstyle is not what is important here the devs want a game that will be enjoyed and played by as many people as possible. Having multiplayer doesnt shut you out of anything except multiplayer ( if you don't like it) and dragon age isnt a MMO. is it designed to be a single person game, and multiplayer is only for people who want the option to play with others. skipping a truly enojyable single player game simply because it has the possibility for(equally enjoyable) co-op play is both foolish and irrational.

[fchopin]

As i said before if multiplayer is separate from single play then they can do what they want.

[ElitePinecone]

mickey111 wrote...

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.

Because EA are too poor to publish both without cutting corners :::::::::::::::::::: poor, poor EA, my heart bleeds for you :(

Edit: wait, I think you were being sarcastic. My bad. 

Modifié par ElitePinecone, 09 novembre 2013 - 05:27 .

[MarchWaltz]

Allan Schumacher:

Says he doesn't post in threads like these.

Posts in threads like these

[Rafficus III]

I want MP. ME3 did an amazing job implementing the MP aspect. Quite a few on this site and other sites were really skeptical and vocally opposed it. I remember reading many thought it'd be dead in the water after a month or two, yet it's still going; and for some, it was the redeeming part of the game.

If Bioware wants to include it in DA:I, more power to them. They've already proven to me they can deliver on that front, despite how unsure I am of it's delivery. Anyways, best of luck Bioware; I really like what I'm seeing from the Inquisition.