710 réponses à ce sujet

[Adela]

If BW decides to have MP I really hope that it will be a DLC for those who want to play it, personally I don't want to be forced to do something I don't like, cause if DAI is gonna force me to play MP just for the sake of a good ending or some armor or whatever then I really don't want that I hope it stays FAR FAR FAR away from SP as possible

[EmperorSahlertz]

durasteel wrote...

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.

There is also a whole bucket of win in ME3 though. People are just a bunch of whiners, and we as humans have a tendency to focus on the negative.

Modifié par EmperorSahlertz, 10 novembre 2013 - 07:52 .

[Schneidend]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Don't waste my time.

A truly stellar argumentative technique. Just ignore the people pointing out your logical fallacies.

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.

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.

I'm not sure how the ability to go through the single-player with a friend controlling Varric or creating his own character would cause you to relate the game to Halo or Tomb Raider, whose main multiplayer modes are competitive affairs with capture the flag and team deathmatch.

[Arisugawa]

Schneidend wrote...

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.

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.

I'm not sure how the ability to go through the single-player with a friend controlling Varric or creating his own character would cause you to relate the game to Halo or Tomb Raider, whose main multiplayer modes are competitive affairs with capture the flag and team deathmatch.

Because in both cases, they are additional content that I am paying for but do not want and will not intend to use.

[durasteel]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

There is also a whole bucket of win in ME3 though. People are just a bunch of whiners, and we as humans have a tendency to focus on the negative.

I would say that there were several buckets of win in ME3. There is actually too much win to get it all in one play through, since some of the most heart-wrenching moments come only if you avoid some of the most triumphant.

The good writing, though, set a glaring standard against which the bad writing must be measured. Shepard's ignominious end lacked both the triumph of Mordin's magnificent redemption and the sorrow of Tali's unbearable suicide. It was pointless and lame, qualities for which the word "bleak" seems to have become a euphemism.

[Xerxes52]

leaguer of one wrote...

Xerxes52 wrote...

I'm not in favor of adding multiplayer to DA:I.

That being said, if multiplayer was being implemented, I would want to be able to play it solo with AI filling in for teammates, and the ability to play it offline.

Just play the sp. There is not point in playing the co-op in your case.

I disagree, the MP will probably be different enough from the SP that it would be worth my time to play.

It might be a horde mode like ME3 or a co-op campaign like Left 4 Dead. I usually prefer playing co-op with friends only, but they're not online at all times. Bots though are a great addition to any game with MP, be it a shooter, racing game, or RPG.

[Bedevilled]

I was excited when the announcement came that ME3 would have multiplayer. When I finished SP and tried out MP, it was kinda fun but a little disappointing. It seemed very tacked-on and experimental, like they were throwing spaghetti at the wall to see if it would stick. Then they added pesto and parmesan (for free!) and it became delicious. Yes, it could have been better, but I've racked up more hours in the MP buffet than I likely ever will in SP - even though SP is what I bought the game for. I don't believe the exclusion of MP would have made for a stronger SP experience, nor alter the endings, and I have serious doubts that Bioware would let MP impact the main campaign for Inquisition.

In short, I am very much in the pro-MP camp. Preferably with multiple play modes that scale with the amount of players, and support for more than four players. I don't even care if MP isn't available at launch (I'll be much too busy playing the campaign anyway) but unlocked after BW have enough time to make it awesome.

[TsaiMeLemoni]

I look forward to seeing MP in DAI. I was opposed to it in ME3 until I actually played it, and had a blast. I am sure it will be implemented differently in DA, but it should still be great.

[Metalspoon60]

Arisugawa wrote...

Schneidend wrote...

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.

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.

I'm not sure how the ability to go through the single-player with a friend controlling Varric or creating his own character would cause you to relate the game to Halo or Tomb Raider, whose main multiplayer modes are competitive affairs with capture the flag and team deathmatch.

Because in both cases, they are additional content that I am paying for but do not want and will not intend to use.

Than don't purchase anything, ever.. Im almost certain about every product ou spend money has about one facet of it you dont inted to use. 

[Vortex13]

I am personally hoping for a MP mode in DA:I.

The only thing I am torn on about it is what type I would much rather see.

A co-op campaign wherein other players would fill the roles of companions would be awesome, but then again you would be limited to the companions that the host has at the time.

On the other hand a horde mode, survival game mode has a far greater chance of including the more exotic creatures to play as, but at the sacrifice of story.

I am torn... I want to play and enjoy the story with my friends, but on the other hand I REALLY would like the option to play as a werewolf, golem, sylvan, etc.

Maybe Bioware could be supremely epic and have a co-op campaign where I can play as one of the fantasy creatures, thereby having my cake and eating it to.

[HurricaneGinger]

I'm okay with it so long as it doesn't a) take away from single player, pull an ME3 and only achieve the "good" ending if you play multiplayer.

I might play MP a few times, but I get bored with it easily. Just not my thing.

[Arisugawa]

Metalspoon60 wrote...

Arisugawa wrote...

Schneidend wrote...

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.

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.

I'm not sure how the ability to go through the single-player with a friend controlling Varric or creating his own character would cause you to relate the game to Halo or Tomb Raider, whose main multiplayer modes are competitive affairs with capture the flag and team deathmatch.

Because in both cases, they are additional content that I am paying for but do not want and will not intend to use.

Than don't purchase anything, ever.. Im almost certain about every product ou spend money has about one facet of it you dont inted to use. 

If you want to take my perspective to extremes, I can't stop you. Regardless, I think you're being unfair.

Multiplayer is not a single facet of a video game purchase. Depending on how much content is in place, the multiplayer portion could be between 45-60% of the overall content.

A single facet would be, say, ignoring the poison crafting system of DA: Origins because my playstyle doesn't require me to use it.

If I see a film, either at a theatre or on disc, the money I've spent is with the expectation that I want to see all of it. Same with a book, a musical, a CD, a play, a sporting event, etc.

Now, I may choose not to depending on the quality of the work, but that's a different matter. 

[bEVEsthda]

From what I've seen&heard - though that interview was long ago - the developers are opposed to MP. I don't think it's entirely their call though. The important thing is really only that MP is done in the right way, i.e. fun twist for minimal effort. Remember, BG2 had MP.

[TheExtreamH]

I oppose any Multiplayer in Dragon Age. But it is Bioware's game and its really there choice on the matter.

[slimgrin]

TheExtreamH wrote...

I oppose any Multiplayer in Dragon Age. But it is EAware's game and its really there choice on the matter.

Fixed.

[Iakus]

Metalspoon60 wrote...


Than don't purchase anything, ever.. Im almost certain about every product ou spend money has about one facet of it you dont inted to use. 

Reductio ad Absurdum

[The Antagonist]

JJDrakken wrote...

For me, Multiplayer means "forced Origin Client requirement" That's something I do not want. That's the reason, I've never bought or played Mass Effect 3.

My experience of ME series ended at 2. Had you continued to use method you had before(just log in while in game), without an Origin Client requirement, I would of bought the game.

That's why I am normally against you guys putting in MP in a game.


JJ

I hate to break it to you but DAI will have a "forced Origin Client requirement" regardless of whether it has MP or not

[Schneidend]

Arisugawa wrote...

Because in both cases, they are additional content that I am paying for but do not want and will not intend to use.

You're going to be paying 59.99 regardless of whether the game has multiplayer. That's a foregone conclusion.

[Bardox9]

I am not opposed to a DA:MP. My only fear is that they will tie it to the main game like they did with ME3. "Play the MP or the galaxy will suffer!" *evil laugh*

I think a MP would be fun, but for the love of the Maker don't make it a key feature to the main game.

[Realmzmaster]

Whether the game has multi-player or not has no impact on how the game will be priced. The price will be the same with or without MP. I do not remember Bioware/EA saying anything about having different price levels. I doubt that Bioware/EA will price the SP mode game at one price (say $49.99) and if you want the SP + MP it will be priced at $59.99.

The only edition that will have a price difference will be the Collector's or Signature edition.

[someguy1231]

Arisugawa wrote...
Because in both cases, they are additional content that I am paying for but do not want and will not intend to use.

But you're still paying the same amount of money for the game. ME3 still cost the usual amount for a game despite having MP. Your complaint makes absolutely no sense.  If you went to a restaurant and ordered your favorite meal, and found that it now included a free dessert which you weren't interested in, would you complain that your meal had been ruined?

[Lady Lionheart]

I think that all of us agree that MP should stay as far, far, faaaaar away from the story as possible,
I'm really, really worried that I'm going to be forced to play the multiplayer in order to unlock an ending or something story related, like with Mass Effect 3 to get the breathe scene you had to have something like 4000 or 5000 ems but that was impossible cause there's only so much hoard mode someone can play without hitting their head against a wall.
I was gonna write something else but my brain's just gone all zombie.

[Schneidend]

Xbox360Girl1321 wrote...

I think that all of us agree that MP should stay as far, far, faaaaar away from the story as possible,
I'm really, really worried that I'm going to be forced to play the multiplayer in order to unlock an ending or something story related, like with Mass Effect 3 to get the breathe scene you had to have something like 4000 or 5000 ems but that was impossible cause there's only so much hoard mode someone can play without hitting their head against a wall.
I was gonna write something else but my brain's just gone all zombie.

No, I actually don't agree at all. I want the multiplayer and the singleplayer to be one and the same, a la Baldur's Gate.

[Lady Lionheart]

Schneidend wrote...

Xbox360Girl1321 wrote...

I think that all of us agree that MP should stay as far, far, faaaaar away from the story as possible,
I'm really, really worried that I'm going to be forced to play the multiplayer in order to unlock an ending or something story related, like with Mass Effect 3 to get the breathe scene you had to have something like 4000 or 5000 ems but that was impossible cause there's only so much hoard mode someone can play without hitting their head against a wall.
I was gonna write something else but my brain's just gone all zombie.

No, I actually don't agree at all. I want the multiplayer and the singleplayer to be one and the same, a la Baldur's Gate.

I still think they should not force people to play it to unlock something in singleplayer, cause the people who don't have online or do but have really a bad internet connection etc, won't be able to obtain it.

[Kidd]

Xbox360Girl1321 wrote...

Schneidend wrote...

Xbox360Girl1321 wrote...

I think that all of us agree that MP should stay as far, far, faaaaar away from the story as possible,
I'm really, really worried that I'm going to be forced to play the multiplayer in order to unlock an ending or something story related, like with Mass Effect 3 to get the breathe scene you had to have something like 4000 or 5000 ems but that was impossible cause there's only so much hoard mode someone can play without hitting their head against a wall.
I was gonna write something else but my brain's just gone all zombie.

No, I actually don't agree at all. I want the multiplayer and the singleplayer to be one and the same, a la Baldur's Gate.

I still think they should not force people to play it to unlock something in singleplayer, cause the people who don't have online or do but have really a bad internet connection etc, won't be able to obtain it.

I believe you two are talking past one another. Xbox Girl is talking about not needing to play MP to achieve things in SP and Schneidend is seemingly talking about keeping the SP and MP as a single entity like in BG. The two things are entirely separate and not at all at odds.

ME3 MP and SP are two completely separate "campaigns" (the MP isn't even a "campaign" at all but rather small, individual game sessions) whereas in BG they were the same. This also means, since there is no difference between MP and SP in Baldur's Gate, that there is no benefit to playing one if you want to play the other. They're the same thing.