710 réponses à ce sujet

[Red Panda]

Anyone else feel like it's all wait and see what happens?

[Fredward]

OperatingWookie wrote...
Anyone else feel like it's all wait and see what happens?

How reasonable! You so silly Wookie.

[Bayonet Hipshot]

I am opposed to a DA multiplayer but for different reasons.

We have a lot of DA to be explored and discovered, lots of stories, lore, unanswered questions and the consequences of our actions from the previous games..

Bottom line, I think there should be at least another 2 more DA games taking place in places other than Ferelden & Orlais where we explore more concept and lore before we have an MP. There is just so much SP to get done with in DA right now.

[Star fury]

Bear in mind that according to Bioware multiplayer (positively) affects singleplayer. Bioware mentioned they watched how players behave in ME3 mp and so devs changed singleplayer maps and enemy behaviour in Omega DLC.

Modifié par Star fury, 10 novembre 2013 - 07:30 .

[Aetika]

This is like total copy of the discussions about MP prior to ME3 release. Same arguments, same worries, same misconceptions.
And Mass Effect MP came out great (and I should confess I wasn´t exactly thrilled when they announced it). So I am actually very hopefull that they WILL add multiplayer. If it´s at least as great as in Mass Effect, that would be the sole reason for me to buy Inquisition. But yes I agree it shouldn´t interfere with SP campaign at all.

Modifié par Aetika, 10 novembre 2013 - 07:25 .

[TurretSyndrome]

Aetika wrote...

This is like total copy of the discussions about MP prior to ME3 release. Same arguments, same worries, same misconceptions.
And Mass Effect MP came out great .

While the single player campaign got screwed in some places, which is what a lot of people here are saying. The worry is not about the Multiplayer experience being good or not, it's about MP affecting singleplayer in the way it did in ME3.

Modifié par TurretSyndrome, 10 novembre 2013 - 08:08 .

[Schneidend]

TurretSyndrome wrote...

While the single player campaign got screwed in some places, which is what a lot of people here are saying. The worry is not about the Multiplayer experience being good or not, it's about MP affecting singleplayer in the way it did in ME3.

It should affect single-player...by being exactly like it.

Co-op campaign. Co-op campaign. I evidently cannot reiterate enough. Co-op campaign.

Star fury wrote...

Bear in mind that according to Bioware multiplayer (positively) affects singleplayer. Bioware mentioned they watched how players behave in ME3 mp and so devs changed singleplayer maps and enemy behaviour in Omega DLC.

Omega had some fun fights, and the new robot enemies were badass. Sounds like good influences to me.

Modifié par Schneidend, 10 novembre 2013 - 08:13 .

[TurretSyndrome]

Schneidend wrote...

Co-op campaign. Co-op campaign. I evidently cannot reiterate enough. Co-op campaign.

Trust me when I say I'm with you on this. This is all the game needs, to be awesome. The icing on the cake.

[AmstradHero]

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?"

I think this neatly identifies the core issue. People are concerned that MP will somehow affect their SP experience, and all evidence indicates that this is exactly what players do NOT want.

ME3's SP experience... well, it had some great story points for the resolutions of various ongoing racial tensions... but the start, the sidequests (aka The Adventures of Creepy Eavesdropping Stalker Shepard), and well, that ending... Yes, there were numerous parts of ME3 I'd prefer if they were just permanently erased from my memory. *sigh* But that ship sailed and is beside the point.

That said, the Deep Roads in DAO was pretty tedious (it was WAY too long), and DA2's railroaded ending irked me as well. I can always find things in video games that I can identify that could have been done better.

The core issues I'd raise:
a) Don't REQUIRE players to do MP
Better yet, don't make MP affect SP.
c) Do not otherwise badger them while playing the single player "Hey! You! Yes, you! Go play some multiplayer!" Don't go all Warden's Keep on players. That is unequivocally horrible. No galactic readiness map to guilt people into playing.

To provide some context - I did actually enjoy ME3's MP... for a little while. After a number of hours, it got pretty badly repetitive and just felt like a MMO-like grind that fell into the same patterns over and over again.  That was the point where I quit and haven't gone back to ME3 since. Kinda sad that I don't feel like going back and visiting the series again at all.

Please make DAI brilliant. PLZ  ༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ Give AWESOME.

[Aetika]

TurretSyndrome wrote...

Aetika wrote...

This is like total copy of the discussions about MP prior to ME3 release. Same arguments, same worries, same misconceptions.
And Mass Effect MP came out great .

While the single player campaign got screwed in some places, which is what a lot of people here are saying. The worry is not about the Multiplayer experience being good or not, it's about MP affecting singleplayer in the way it did in ME3.

Well I don´t believe sp got screwed because of multiplayer being in game. There were many issues, besides the ending and I don´t think mp is to blame.
But what I meant was that many people claim they don´t want mp simply because they don´t like the feature, without even give it a chance. There was very similar notion around Mass Effect forums at the time. Even I was opposed to it. And in the end it turned out that trying it was the best thing I could do. So similarly, it could be surprise for those who are opposed to it now(if they can keep their mind open).
I however think that tying mp to sp like BW did in Mass Effect was really wrong decision. I guess it was an attempt to get people to at least try it, but still I hope they will avoid this if mp make it to DA.

Modifié par Aetika, 10 novembre 2013 - 09:19 .

[Mr. Homebody]

someguy1231 wrote...

Mr. Homebody wrote...

I am opposed to multiplayer in Dragon Age . For me it is very simple. The more multiplayer means the less singleplayer.

Game development is not a zero-sum game. If a game is going to have a large feature added to it, the publisher allocates additional resources toward it, resources which the game otherwise wouldn't have if it didn't have that feature.

Christ, Bioware has said this countless times, including in this very thread, but some people still believe otherwise? (Granted, some of them are just whining that said resources aren't being added to the SP, but still...)

And I have seen these arguments countless times, including in this thread. Does that mean that it is truth just because Bioware said that? Was Bioware completely honest about connection between multiplayer and singleplayer from very beginning? The player who played all three ME games (but didn't play multiplayer mode) could get worse ending than this player who only played ME 3 but with multiplayer mode. Extended Cut was added only because of the fans negative reactions.

I would be happy if everything that Bioware say were true. But in our world "truth" seems to have far lesser importance than...money. As I said, multiplayer in ME 3 has noticable influence on singleplayer. And it is not the direction that I would like to see in any future Bioware games.

I'm not trying to pretend that my perspective is in any way objective. It's just how I feel about it.

Modifié par Mr. Homebody, 10 novembre 2013 - 09:39 .

[AngryFrozenWater]

Schneidend wrote...

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?

Don't waste my time.

[leaguer of one]

Mr. Homebody wrote...

someguy1231 wrote...

Mr. Homebody wrote...

I am opposed to multiplayer in Dragon Age . For me it is very simple. The more multiplayer means the less singleplayer.

Game development is not a zero-sum game. If a game is going to have a large feature added to it, the publisher allocates additional resources toward it, resources which the game otherwise wouldn't have if it didn't have that feature.

Christ, Bioware has said this countless times, including in this very thread, but some people still believe otherwise? (Granted, some of them are just whining that said resources aren't being added to the SP, but still...)

And I have seen these arguments countless times, including in this thread. Does that mean that it is truth just because Bioware said that? Was Bioware completely honest about connection between multiplayer and singleplayer from very beginning? The player who played all three ME games (but didn't play multiplayer mode) could get worse ending than this player who only played ME 3 but with multiplayer mode. Extended Cut was added only because of the fans negative reactions.

I would be happy if everything that Bioware say were true. But in our world "truth" seems to have far lesser importance than...money. As I said, multiplayer in ME 3 has noticable influence on singleplayer. And it is not the direction that I would like to see in any future Bioware games.

I'm not trying to pretend that my perspective is in any way objective. It's just how I feel about it.

It's true because that just how it is. This is an issue of the focus of the dev team. If one team focus on the sp and other focuses on the mp, how would one effect the other out side of gameplay. Art and art element are handed down from the sp team to the mp team. Story and character  have a writer team in the sp team who's attention is only focus on the sp. The only thing the environment design team does with the mp is give the mp team their art element and out side of that they focus only on the sp.

The only time the sp team and mp team cross paths is with combat...And being that da combat is already like an mmo, it's not hard to convert it into a mp game. There won't be much changes.

The only time you need consern over the addition of mp is if only one team is doing both sp and mp as two different modes. That would mean they have to split and share all resources. That means money, people, and time. Having two teams means that won't happen. The sp team won't have to think about the mp and the mp team would get hand me downs form the sp team to build and develop the mp game.

Modifié par leaguer of one, 10 novembre 2013 - 02:04 .

[leaguer of one]

The Sin wrote...

I am opposed to a DA multiplayer but for different reasons.

We have a lot of DA to be explored and discovered, lots of stories, lore, unanswered questions and the consequences of our actions from the previous games..

Bottom line, I think there should be at least another 2 more DA games taking place in places other than Ferelden & Orlais where we explore more concept and lore before we have an MP. There is just so much SP to get done with in DA right now.

That's not a concret reason. The mp has nothing to do with the sp exploration. In fact that's dai major focus.

[Loremaster Nick]

Like people have said, Baldur's Gate had it. I personally wouldn't mind it, regardless of what kind of MP it would be. I really liked the ME MP.

[Paul E Dangerously]

I think there's a difference in a game's approach to multiplayer, though. BG simply "had" MP capability. It was there, it did what it was intended to, that's all. NWN on the other hand is entirely the other direction, where it's an MP game/toolset first, and the SP campaign comes in shambling somewhere after that.

[Kidd]

Sometimes the existence of MP can strengthen the SP. While I have absolutely nothing to base this on, I'm guessing the ability to resuscitate squadmates in ME3 came from MP needing such a function. Hence it was probably developed using the MP budget and then copy pasted into the SP game. I know it's not quite that easy and there's still plenty to test, but I can see how the majority of the job for the SP feature had already been finished up at BioWare Montreal. (cause it was Montreal who made the MP, right?)

Playing party games in co-op can be great fun. Me and three friends have sat down to play Infinity Engine MP and it was brilliant. We didn't even need to pause much since we could talk about what strategy we needed to talk about verbally, and we only controlled a single character each anyway. Sure, a mage has an extensive spellbook in D&D, but when you have 6 seconds to pick your spell then you normally don't really need to pause anyway.

If I can get an experience like that in DAI; me and two friends controlling another friend's companions on their journey, then that's more than dandy to me. I would love to be in on such a ride!

And to be cynical/economical, I'm pretty sure at least one of said friends would be several times more likely to pick up DAI if we could relive such an experience with a new game. He's never even went into Awakening even though he likes DA, but he keeps getting distracted since the games are so long. Playing MP in a group would be fun for him and it'd help him focus since he'd want to play with all of us (instead of nagging us to join another boring game of LoL (opinion on LoL all mine and not to be considered me jabbing at the actual quality of the game)).

There could also be inspiration taken from SWTOR. The multiplayer dialogues in SWTOR are great fun to me. This would likely not gel well with the main campaign however (other PCs would take up companion slots and thus lower the main player's exposure to the game's writing), but I can see it working as separate modules similar to SWTOR's flashpoints.

MP is awesome when it's done well. If you don't wanna play it, then don't. =)

[AsiaRedgrave]

I really don't care if MP is included or not, so long as it doesn't affect my SP experience. There are plenty of people who love MP, and by all means it should be made available if possible. But there are also plenty of others who don't give a fig about it. I've tried it, my nephew loves MP. He buys the AC and GTA games and never plays the actual story, just the MP. Me on the other hand, I tried playing online with him and got bored. When ME3 came out, I tried the MP and quit after just 10 minutes. It's just not my thing.

[DarthSliver]

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 actually thought about Singleplayer experience alone and there are a few things I think that you guys couldve done to make SP good.
1. Javik being in main game instead of DLC would've been better for him.
2. Making your choices matter like in suicide mission, James Vega seem like a character that is cool but also like a character Bioware used to help make choices not matter.
3. Ending was complete utter garbage and it truely made everything we did throughout the series seem completely pointless, even makes trilogy playthroughs seem completely pointless. The ending should've been instead one that actually happen because of the choices you made throughout the series not the 3 choice ending you gave ME3. Honestly its the biggest beef with the game, makes all the other issues ME3 has look like childs play or nit picking fan issues.
4. I'd like to see the ending of ME3 completely redid, so replaying the Trilogy matters when playing the games. 

I don't mine if Dragon Age Inquistion gets MP or not, but Id rather DAI MP feel tacked on than feel like you guys took away from SP to make MP. Whether its true or not that you did take away from SP is irrelevant because fans will see it that way. I don't see ME3 MP that way anymore because only SP issue i have with ME3 now is the ending

[Arisugawa]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

iakus wrote...


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.

My $.02 on some of this...

Regarding Iakus' points:

The bolded bit I agree with 100%. As much fun as I had with the ME3 multiplayer, I don't want it affecting the single player aspect of the game in the slightest. It should be completely separate from it. Having the galactic readiness screen in ME3 glare at me whenever I turn on the game is incredibly manipulative. This is why.

Even if I don't use the multiplayer, those numbers glare at me like I am neglecting the war. Whenever I check my War Assets, seeing the value effectively halved because I haven't played the multiplayer is infuriating. The whole mess seems designed to compel me to play the multiplayer.

And the terrible thing is that design works. I resent it the whole time, but I will be damned if I don't get my galactic readiness up to 100% prior to making the asault on Cronos Station just so that nagging voice in the back of my mind that says, "The allied fleets cannot hope to win unless we push our readiness up" is silenced. But I don't want to play the multiplayer. I don't want to use the limited time I have to play the single player to instead push my galactic readiness up, nor do I want to keep visiting the Galaxy at War subsite to assign my fleets to different tasks. I want the campaign to be its own entity, independent of these other activites.

Now I understand that it is my own compulsion that drives me to get that 100% readiness. But the integration of the multiplayer was designed to encourage that compulsion. The Galactic Readiness screen when the game is turned on is part of that design.

It's only going to be worse come the inevitable day when the multiplayer servers are shut down and then that 55% readiness will be staring me in the face every single time Shepard enters the War Room to check the progress of the war. My War Assets will be stuck at half-value inperpetuity.

I want nothing like that for Inquisition.

Regarding Allan's points:

Put simply, yes.

I am more likely to pay for an average single player campaign than I am to pay for an average single player campaign with a stellar multiplayer.  I am more likely to play for a steller single player campaign than I am to pay for a steller singler player campaign with a steller multiplayer.

Multiplayer, to me, deinsentivizes the purchase. I am less likely to play any game with multiplayer than I am to play a game without it, regardless of the quality of that multiplayer.

This is doubly so for any game where the narrative and character interactions are supposed to be one of if not the primary draws, as both Dragon Age and Mass Effect are typically thought of, in comparison to a game where the combat engine is primary draw.

I don't like paying for content I will not use, such as the mutiplayer for Tomb Raider and Halo 4. I played them long enough to get the multiplayer achievements, but I resented it the whole time, and now this content sits unplayed and ignored on my shelves while I will still play the campaigns of either. My desire to have a clean an achievement record as possible compels me to play the multiplayer even though I don't want to.

Multiplayer games are not why I play BioWare titles. They never have been. I honestly hope that going forward I'm not going to view BioWare titles the same way I view Halo and similiar games: something I might otherwise consider buying but I'm not going to pay for content I'm not to going play or not play enough to merit the price.

Other players probably feel differently and their opinion is just as valid as mine. At the same time, I'm firmly on the side of having a single-player only Inquisition.

Modifié par Arisugawa, 10 novembre 2013 - 07:16 .

[KC_Prototype]

If ME3 had multiplayer, DA:I will have it in someway. Now, I would say don't let it affect the Single Player, but I will have to see what they do with it. Also, they have a little bit under year of hard development left, I'm pretty sure the game will be amazing.

[The Flying Grey Warden]

TurretSyndrome wrote...

Aetika wrote...

This is like total copy of the discussions about MP prior to ME3 release. Same arguments, same worries, same misconceptions.
And Mass Effect MP came out great .

While the single player campaign got screwed in some places, which is what a lot of people here are saying. The worry is not about the Multiplayer experience being good or not, it's about MP affecting singleplayer in the way it did in ME3.

You know what? I'm sick of these delusions that keep getting spread around.

You want to know why the single player game was so bad? Why it is that single player suffered so much? Its writers were bad, they had bad ideas for the story, and nobody stopped them from getting their bad ideas into the game. No amount of time, resources, pacing, presentation, or polish would make mass effect's story any good. It's not like they drafted the story, saw they needed to put in MP, and didn't do any sort of double checks on their first drafts cause they were so swamped with work on MP. And it's not like MP took away the quality control guys in writing department or the editors and so nobody was around to do the job.

Mass effect 3, in its very foundation, was going to be a bad story. Pretending like MP inpacted any part of the story, is delusional deniel of the truth. The writers wrote a bad plot and thought it was a good plot.

Nothing else to it.

[Iakus]

Arisugawa wrote...

Multiplayer games are not why I play BioWare titles. They never have been. I honestly hope that going forward I'm not going to view BioWare titles the same way I view Halo and similiar games: something I might otherwise consider buying but I'm not going to pay for content I'm not to going play or not play enough to merit the price.
.

::applause::

[animedreamer]

I would love to see how a multiplayer sword and shield game plays now that I think about it. im even mroe curious as to how weapon packs would work, would they be armor packs as well? If it was ME3 Multiplayer with just the kits changed to Dragon Age characters I'd still play it and probably continue to play it whenever I had the time.

Modifié par animedreamer, 10 novembre 2013 - 07:44 .

[durasteel]

The Flying Grey Warden wrote...

You know what? I'm sick of these delusions that keep getting spread around.

You want to know why the single player game was so bad? Why it is that single player suffered so much? Its writers were bad, they had bad ideas for the story, and nobody stopped them from getting their bad ideas into the game. No amount of time, resources, pacing, presentation, or polish would make mass effect's story any good. It's not like they drafted the story, saw they needed to put in MP, and didn't do any sort of double checks on their first drafts cause they were so swamped with work on MP. And it's not like MP took away the quality control guys in writing department or the editors and so nobody was around to do the job.

Mass effect 3, in its very foundation, was going to be a bad story. Pretending like MP inpacted any part of the story, is delusional deniel of the truth. The writers wrote a bad plot and thought it was a good plot.

Nothing else to it.

As near as I can tell, the really rotten bits all came from one writer. I'm not gonna throw out a name, but I mention this because I honestly believe that the writers at BioWare, generally, are some of the best in the business. One writer left some really important story parts until right before the deadline. By the time Casey Hudson was in a position to freak out about it, it was too late and voice actors were in the studio.

I would be really, really suprised if this process issue hadn't been addressed in a very thorough way. Rainbow bright PR statements from Dr. Muzyka not withstanding, our friends in Edmonton fully understand that there was a bucket of fail in ME3, which tarnished what should have been a triumph of a game.

It is unfair to indict the author of "Does this unit have a soul?" with the crime of the star child ending.