710 réponses à ce sujet

[rupok93]

leaguer of one wrote...

Tharja wrote...

I dislike the Idea of Mp in Dragon Age,it just seems out of place to me:/
But I am all for everyone else having fun with it

Everyone who is ageinst mp...Be just like this person. THIS PERSON WITH THE YANDERE PIC GETS IT!!!

The point isn't whether we are gonna have fun or not, the point is what if it affects the singpleplayer and the quality of the game because they had to allocate resources elsewhere or try to dumb down singleplayer aspects so it fits better in mp. Is that so hard to get? Tbh we have seen that happen many times in the past with other games.

A few players are gonna have fun at the expense of most of us who want the best singpleplayer experiance as possible from a DRAGON AGE game, a freaking singpleplayer story driven Rpg.

Modifié par rupok93, 09 novembre 2013 - 08:55 .

[Schneidend]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

It is not flawed at all. The example is not intended as a would be mode for the MP in DA:I. Of course you know that. You just want to disagree. It's fine that you like MP in DA:I, but do not waste my time.

You're talking about a game built for competetive multiplayer not having a great single player. How is a game built for single player having a complementary co-op multiplayer that goes through the same campaign not a complete apples to oranges comparison?

[AlanC9]

iakus wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
I don't follow this. What's wrong with balanced combat in SP?

Nothing.  But he's saying that balancing or single player and balancing for multiplayer are two different things.

Why are they different things? I can't think of any balance chance that would be good for MP that wouldn't improve SP.

Edit: except possibly WRT resource-management issues, if SP and MP have inherently different resource levels and/or recovery rates. 

Modifié par AlanC9, 09 novembre 2013 - 09:01 .

[Schneidend]

rupok93 wrote...

The point isn't whether we are gonna have fun or not, the point is what if it affects the singpleplayer and the quality of the game because they had to allocate resources elsewhere or try to dumb down singleplayer aspects so it fits better in mp. Is that so hard to get? Tbh we have seen that happen many times in the past with other games.

A few players are gonna have fun at the expense of most of us who want the best singpleplayer experiance as possible from a DRAGON AGE game, a freaking singpleplayer story driven Rpg.

The singleplayer won't be detracted from in the least if the multiplayer is simply a co-op version of the singleplayer campaign.

[rupok93]

Schneidend wrote...

rupok93 wrote...

The point isn't whether we are gonna have fun or not, the point is what if it affects the singpleplayer and the quality of the game because they had to allocate resources elsewhere or try to dumb down singleplayer aspects so it fits better in mp. Is that so hard to get? Tbh we have seen that happen many times in the past with other games.

A few players are gonna have fun at the expense of most of us who want the best singpleplayer experiance as possible from a DRAGON AGE game, a freaking singpleplayer story driven Rpg.

The singleplayer won't be detracted from in the least if the multiplayer is simply a co-op version of the singleplayer campaign.

Are you serious right now? Coop and singleplayer games work massively different and adding a coop through the story mode will completely change it. Game developing is not as easy as adding a character to the story. They would have to completely redesign everything to fit coop.  

This isn't a shooter where they can just pop in an extra character so you can shoot stuff with your buddy, this is an rpg that has brancing dialogue trees and events. Designing something like that is extremely difficult and if they allocate resources to something like that EVERYTHING will decline in quality because resources are spread so thin.

Modifié par rupok93, 09 novembre 2013 - 09:01 .

[AlanC9]

rupok93 wrote...

Are you serious right now? Coop and singleplayer games work massively different and adding a coop through the story mode will completely change it. Game developing is not as easy as adding a character to the story. They would have to completely redesign everything to fit coop.  

BG1 and 2 played exactly the same in co-op and in SP, IIRC.

[leaguer of one]

iakus wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

mickey111 wrote...


Well it's bad to balance single player combat anyway and MP and SP aren't driven by the same things. People play MP for competition and they play SP for story and variety. I'd say that the whole DA series has been too balanced so far, because most encounters involve two groups of of people with rather similar abilities fighting each other, and that basically what competitive multiplayer is with a few exceptions such as Left 4 Dead. 

I don't follow this. What's wrong with balanced combat in SP?

Nothing.  But he's saying that balancing or single player and balancing for multiplayer are two different things.

Not really. A lot of the details for mp can be used for sp.  Remember, da combat is based on mmo's.

[rupok93]

AlanC9 wrote...

rupok93 wrote...

Are you serious right now? Coop and singleplayer games work massively different and adding a coop through the story mode will completely change it. Game developing is not as easy as adding a character to the story. They would have to completely redesign everything to fit coop.  

BG1 and 2 played exactly the same in co-op and in SP, IIRC.

Except baldurs gate had massive problems with coop where they did things to bypass the pausing and make the combat fit two players. 

[Schneidend]

rupok93 wrote...

Are you serious right now? Coop and singleplayer games work massively different and adding a coop through the story mode will completely change it. Game developing is not as easy as adding a character to the story. They would have to completely redesign everything to fit coop.  

This isn't a shooter where they can just pop in an extra character so you can shoot stuff with your buddy, this is an rpg that has brancing dialogue trees and events. Designing something like that is extremely difficult and if they allocate resources to something like that EVERYTHING will decline in quality because resources are spread so thin.

I find your lack of playing Baldur's Gate or Neverwinter Nights disturbing. Those games work exactly as you describe, where you can "pop in an extra character" so you can kill stuff "with your buddy" in "an RPG that has branching dialogue trees and events."

[leaguer of one]

rupok93 wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...

Tharja wrote...

I dislike the Idea of Mp in Dragon Age,it just seems out of place to me:/
But I am all for everyone else having fun with it

Everyone who is ageinst mp...Be just like this person. THIS PERSON WITH THE YANDERE PIC GETS IT!!!

The point isn't whether we are gonna have fun or not, the point is what if it affects the singpleplayer and the quality of the game because they had to allocate resources elsewhere or try to dumb down singleplayer aspects so it fits better in mp. Is that so hard to get? Tbh we have seen that happen many times in the past with other games.

A few players are gonna have fun at the expense of most of us who want the best singpleplayer experiance as possible from a DRAGON AGE game, a freaking singpleplayer story driven Rpg.

For the last time it won't effect the sp.. Even more so if you don't play the mp.

[Schneidend]

rupok93 wrote...

Except baldurs gate had massive problems with coop where they did things to bypass the pausing and make the combat fit two players. 

Huh? That's handled by the host, who gets to decide how much pausing the the other players can do.

[leaguer of one]

rupok93 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

rupok93 wrote...

Are you serious right now? Coop and singleplayer games work massively different and adding a coop through the story mode will completely change it. Game developing is not as easy as adding a character to the story. They would have to completely redesign everything to fit coop.  

BG1 and 2 played exactly the same in co-op and in SP, IIRC.

Except baldurs gate had massive problems with coop where they did things to bypass the pausing and make the combat fit two players. 

The puased worked in co-op and the point with co-op is to play with others. Ofcourse you not going to control all the characters.

[Leo]

I'm not interested in MP for Dragon Age, and would greatly prefer the series stay as single-player only.

But I said the same about ME 3, and their MP was passable with the only problem being that it affected the single-player just a little bit before that got patched.

So if Bioware decides to add multiplayer I hope that it is completely optional, and fun for those who try it.

[AmstradHero]

People aren't actually seriously arguing that making a game co-op as opposed to purely single player will cost nothing in development resources are they? Let me simply, unequivocally, and permanently disabuse you of this notion. It will take extra effort to implement co-op.

Right off the bat, there is the networking and synchronisation code. Generally not a massive imposition, but the designers/devs need to work out what data needs to be sent, whether it's peered or a server/client situation. There's also the UI and code to enable the multiplayer to occur - finding friends or lobbies or so forth. They may even need to provide servers for people to connect to if they're going for an online lobby approach.

Secondly, there are the considerations of how co-op works in terms of the actually gameplay and design. Who has control of the game? What powers do players have of their own accord? i.e. Can any player initiate dialogue/open up a shop interface/pause/initiate an area transition? Can any player spend gold? Is the gold pooled or individual? How is loot shared then? What happens to the other player when one is talking or shopping? All of these things need to be decided, and the game needs to be built to accommodate them - and this won't be particularly straightforward to just tack on to the end.

Finally, before arguing at all that SP has no effect on MP, go do me a favour. Fire up a copy of NWN or NWN2 - or buy one if you don't own it, it's pretty cheap nowadays. Try to create a story driven module that will work for multiplayer. I guarantee you that it is much less straightforward than you would imagine, and as soon as players start doing something out of exactly what you expect, things will break. That's why the original campaign and expansions for NWN suffered some issues in dealing with MP, because it's not a straightforward problem.

Implementing MP has a cost, regardless of the form it takes. Anyone who argues otherwise is uninformed.

[rupok93]

leaguer of one wrote...

rupok93 wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...

Tharja wrote...

I dislike the Idea of Mp in Dragon Age,it just seems out of place to me:/
But I am all for everyone else having fun with it

Everyone who is ageinst mp...Be just like this person. THIS PERSON WITH THE YANDERE PIC GETS IT!!!

The point isn't whether we are gonna have fun or not, the point is what if it affects the singpleplayer and the quality of the game because they had to allocate resources elsewhere or try to dumb down singleplayer aspects so it fits better in mp. Is that so hard to get? Tbh we have seen that happen many times in the past with other games.

A few players are gonna have fun at the expense of most of us who want the best singpleplayer experiance as possible from a DRAGON AGE game, a freaking singpleplayer story driven Rpg.

For the last time it won't effect the sp.. Even more so if you don't play the mp.

just because you say it won't doesn't make it true. Theres more evidence to support that it will because of the simple fact that they have to allocate resources to it that they could have used for sp. Adding multiplayer to a game like this is not simple.

Modifié par rupok93, 09 novembre 2013 - 09:36 .

[someguy1231]

badboy64 wrote...
99% of the people are gonna play SP and say the heck your anticipated MP game reguardless if it is the even put in game at all. Many people have been giving feed back on what they want since the game was announced or did you miss that one by the sticky posted of what they wanted in the game and they listened when people including adding mutilple races when everybody was complained about having only a human as the main character. Go play your MP in ME3 if you like it so much.

*sigh*

You're really doing yourself no favors with such a nonsensical reply. Are you really so confident that "99%" of the people who buy this game will completely ignore the MP, despite ME3 standing in complete contradiction to your claims? Even if we restrict your definition of "people" to refer solely to people on the BSN, it isn't remotely true. As of now, the Multiplayer section of the ME3 forums actually has slightly more topics/replies than the Story and Campaign section. How do you explain that? People made the exact same claims about ME3's MP that you're making right here about the possibility of DAI's MP, yet look how that turned out.

And I won't even dignify your pathetic "Go play ME3 MP" retort with a response.

Modifié par someguy1231, 09 novembre 2013 - 09:38 .

[Wulfram]

Too much concern for balancing can lead to boring mechanics - really cool and distinctive effects for a class are pretty much always going to end up at least somewhat unbalanced.

Though as long as you don't get PvP coming into the picture I don't think there's too much of a clash between co-op and single player party balancing.

More of a potential issue I think is that if multiplayer ends up with controlling only 1 character, there's going to be a desire to give the player more to do - which is liable to be annoying micromanagement when you've got a whole party. Though a good tactics system could limit that issue, maybe.

Modifié par Wulfram, 09 novembre 2013 - 09:41 .

[Karlone123]

I am not opposed to multiplayer being DAI, cause it is going to be ragardless so there is no point stressing about it. I just hope it does not get connected to the story mode aspect as ME3 proved that to have been an error that attracted complaints and needed fixing with the EC.

[AmstradHero]

Balanced combat means that everyone / every skill can bring something to the table. It means you don't end up with useless specialisations like DAO's shapeshifting. DA2's combat balance and variance between classes was a vast improvement over DAO's in this regard.

Modifié par AmstradHero, 09 novembre 2013 - 10:03 .

[AmstradHero]

EntropicAngel wrote...

AmstradHero wrote...

Balanced combat means that everyone / every skill can bring something to the table. It means you don't end up with useless specialisations like DAO's shapeshifting. DA2's combat balance and variance between classes was a vast improvement over DAO's in this regard.

I can understand "everyone/every skill can bring something to the table." I do not understand (or rather, agree) however "everyone's sum must equal generally the same thing" which is what MP turns into.

An Arcane Warrior, for example, would not have survived MP balancing. And would definitely be a bad thing.

Why? Why is having one thing unequivocally more powerful than the other good? From a gaming perspective, there is no reason NOT to pick an option that is hands down superior when compared to any other. Well, yes, there's roleplaying, but I think you'll find that a majority of players would not care enough about roleplaying to deliberately make a mechanical choice that will leave them worse off.

From a developer's perspective, why would you put in content that no one is ever going to use or experience? There isn't any.  For a developer, any content that they put in should be FUN and USEFUL for the player. If there are multiple options available, then each of them should be roughly equal in terms of the overall power they provide the player, otherwise, for the majority of players, there is no choice. Given the choice of a +5 axe and a +10 axe for exactly the same cost - players are going to pick the +10 axe, meaning all the effort you put into creating the +5 axe was useless.

I'm not saying "Arcane warrior needsd to be gimped" - but imagine if shapeshifting had actually been good. Imagine you had been able to shapeshift into a dragon or something like that? Imagine that specialisation had actually offered something roughly equivalent to arcane warrior. How would that have been a bad thing?