710 réponses à ce sujet

[Iakus]

Schneidend wrote...

Complete lack of pausing? Ha! Nope. Remember, Baldur's Gate/Icewind Dale. Host gets to decide who can pause.

Infinity Engine games already did the character control thing. Host assigns slots to players.

Do you seriously think any MP will be LAN-capable?  There's no profit in that.

 No, it will be like ME3: servers, always-online DRM and "booster pack" style crates via microtransactions

Only the Inquisitor/Warden/Shepard talks.

Gotta wonder what that would do to the companion word budget 

All of these issues have been solved by other games already. Bioware games, even.

Sadly, that was the model of a decade or more ago.  

[Chaos Hammer]

I am, vehemently. My main complaint is, I don't want to feel like if I'm bad at it that I'm gonna lose out on SP content. I truly miss the days of the GameCube and such. Where multiplayer was single consol only. Where what you did in sp unlocked mp, not the other way around... and you couldn't just pay to win.... that really bugs me but that's off topic

[schalafi]

Single Player ONLY! Please don't mess up the DA franchise with MP!

[AlanC9]

iakus wrote...
Do you seriously think any MP will be LAN-capable?  There's no profit in that.

 No, it will be like ME3: servers, always-online DRM and "booster pack" style crates via microtransactions

Agreed. We're not going to see any form of MP that can't be monetized somehow, although theoretically a non-monetized form could piggyback on the monetized version.

Suits me fine. I'd be more worried about BG/NWN-style MP. MP that doesn't come with its own revenue would have to divert investment from SP, wouldn't it?

Modifié par AlanC9, 11 novembre 2013 - 05:04 .

[Vortex13]

Chaos Hammer wrote...

I am, vehemently. My main complaint is, I don't want to feel like if I'm bad at it that I'm gonna lose out on SP content. I truly miss the days of the GameCube and such. Where multiplayer was single consol only. Where what you did in sp unlocked mp, not the other way around... and you couldn't just pay to win.... that really bugs me but that's off topic

Local/Split Screen Co-op FTW.

[Schneidend]

iakus wrote...

Do you seriously think any MP will be LAN-capable?  There's no profit in that. 

 No, it will be like ME3: servers, always-online DRM and "booster pack" style crates via microtransactions

Okay, so, let me see if I get this: there is the multiplayer you think is bad, ME3esque, and the only problem with my idea is the alleged lack of appeal. So, then, why are you not more supportive of my idea? Why not be part of the mass being appealed to instead of saying it's impossible?

But, to answer your question, no, I don't even necessarily want LAN. I want a lobby system like Civilization, Torchlight II, etc. People play those game multiplayer all the time without montization.

Gotta wonder what that would do to the companion word budget [smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/surprised.png[/smilie]

What does that even mean?

Sadly, that was the model of a decade or more ago.  

What? Tons of games still use lobby-based multiplayer and have co-op campaigns.

AlanC9 wrote...

Agreed. We're not going to see any form of MP that can't be monetized somehow, although theoretically a non-monetized form could piggyback on the monetized version.

Suits me fine. I'd be more worried about BG/NWN-style MP. MP that doesn't come with its own revenue would have to divert investment from SP, wouldn't it?

No. It's been established that this only works in multiplayer naysayer dreamland. Well before they start working on a game they plan it out to the best of their ability. At that time, they decide on things like multiplayer and other gameplay features. They allot a budget for each facet of the game's design. If they're going to add a multiplayer mode that gets its own money to adjust for the extra personnel and other expenses.

Therefore, single-player only game gets 1000 zots.
The game with a multiplayer mode will need more zots to build the multiplayer, so they get 1300 zots.

Anyway, I'm not really sure why there's all this doom and gloom and assumption of monetized multiplayer tons of games out there have completely free multiplayer and the company that made them doesn't come crashing down months after release.

[AlanC9]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
The argument, as far as I see it, is that the only type of MP that doesn't require a massive game redesign (simply because DA is a series where party management and tactics differ from many other genres/franchises, that focus on controlling a single character and root the experience in player skill over character skill) is a co-op feature for the SP game... 

But wasn't DA:O combat based on MMORPG concepts anyway? ( Never played one myself, so I can't tell.)

[EmperorSahlertz]

AlanC9 wrote...

iakus wrote...
Do you seriously think any MP will be LAN-capable?  There's no profit in that.

 No, it will be like ME3: servers, always-online DRM and "booster pack" style crates via microtransactions

Agreed. We're not going to see any form of MP that can't be monetized somehow, although theoretically a non-monetized form could piggyback on the monetized version.

To buy the booster packs for BioWare points was completely optional though. If you wanted to you could just earn them by playing the actual MP. If however you felt you didn't ahve time for that, you could buy them. How is such a system a bad thing? One side of it motivates you to play the game, the other allows you to play the game with the items you want. Ultimately both sides motivates people to play the game.

AlanC9 wrote...
Suits me fine. I'd be more worried about BG/NWN-style MP. MP that doesn't come with its own revenue would have to divert investment from SP, wouldn't it?

Not really. The multiplayer section of a game usually runs with its own budget, seperate from the SP section. However the size of the budget might be reduced if there were to be no monetary gain potential in the multiplayer.

[Fast Jimmy]

AlanC9 wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...
The argument, as far as I see it, is that the only type of MP that doesn't require a massive game redesign (simply because DA is a series where party management and tactics differ from many other genres/franchises, that focus on controlling a single character and root the experience in player skill over character skill) is a co-op feature for the SP game... 

But wasn't DA:O combat based on MMORPG concepts anyway? ( Never played one myself, so I can't tell.)

Only so much as any RPG is somewhat based on D&D rules? I've seen zero MMORPGs that let you control an entire party in real time combat (especially with the ability to pause and assign actions, assign AI tactics and take direct control of any party member). There's strategy games, where you give orders. There's FPS/hack n' slash, where you spam the attack button more or less. There's turn based games, where you manage an entire party turn by turn.

But there is no MMORPGs that I'm aware of that offers what DA does. 

[AlanC9]

Schneidend wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
MP that doesn't come with its own revenue would have to divert investment from SP, wouldn't it?

No. It's been established that this only works in multiplayer naysayer dreamland. Well before they start working on a game they plan it out to the best of their ability. At that time, they decide on things like multiplayer and other gameplay features. They allot a budget for each facet of the game's design. If they're going to add a multiplayer mode that gets its own money to adjust for the extra personnel and other expenses.

Therefore, single-player only game gets 1000 zots.
The game with a multiplayer mode will need more zots to build the multiplayer, so they get 1300 zots.

Right. I was deliberately taking an anti-MP position there. It's still conceivable that non-revenue MP could theoretically compete with other features in the dev's minds, mostly because it's not at all clear how a dev decides when a projected game has enough zots allocated to its various features (I'm not certain there's a rational process there in the first place)

My real point was that even on pessimistic assumptions it's silly to worry about MP wirh its own revenue.

[AlanC9]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

But wasn't DA:O combat based on MMORPG concepts anyway? ( Never played one myself, so I can't tell.)

Only so much as any RPG is somewhat based on D&D rules? I've seen zero MMORPGs that let you control an entire party in real time combat (especially with the ability to pause and assign actions, assign AI tactics and take direct control of any party member). There's strategy games, where you give orders. There's FPS/hack n' slash, where you spam the attack button more or less. There's turn based games, where you manage an entire party turn by turn.

But there is no MMORPGs that I'm aware of that offers what DA does. 

Huh? Why would an MP game need to offer one player control of more than one character? The other characters have their own players.

[ElitePinecone]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

To buy the booster packs for BioWare points was completely optional though. If you wanted to you could just earn them by playing the actual MP. If however you felt you didn't ahve time for that, you could buy them. How is such a system a bad thing? One side of it motivates you to play the game, the other allows you to play the game with the items you want. Ultimately both sides motivates people to play the game.

Yeah, I thought the ME3 MP upgrade and microtransaction system was really quite generous, all things considered - and for a casual player like me who had no idea what they were doing, even the basic classes and weapons were enough to have fun with. Looking at the MP forums I can see that some people take it a lot more seriously (to the point of comparing classes/weapon specs) but missing out on certain unlocks was just an excuse to play more. 

There's a legitimate concern about balancing how rare the unlocks are, and I do feel slightly uncomfortable with microtransactions in general (they're sometimes a means for vulnerable people to spend thousands of dollars obsessively with no in-built safety features), but they certainly didn't make the ME3 experience frustrating. 

I think the key with something like DA would be to make the game fun and enjoyable before microtransactions even factor into it - it needs to be fully playable without constantly pushing the player to spend money, and the packs need to be unlockable easily even without payment. 

(For an example of how *not* to do a tiered upgrade systems with microtransactions: Heroes of Dragon Age. The game is next to impossible without buying powerful upgrade packs, and earning those packs through gameplay is way, way too difficult and rare.)

[Vortex13]

ElitePinecone wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

To buy the booster packs for BioWare points was completely optional though. If you wanted to you could just earn them by playing the actual MP. If however you felt you didn't ahve time for that, you could buy them. How is such a system a bad thing? One side of it motivates you to play the game, the other allows you to play the game with the items you want. Ultimately both sides motivates people to play the game.

Yeah, I thought the ME3 MP upgrade and microtransaction system was really quite generous, all things considered - and for a casual player like me who had no idea what they were doing, even the basic classes and weapons were enough to have fun with. Looking at the MP forums I can see that some people take it a lot more seriously (to the point of comparing classes/weapon specs) but missing out on certain unlocks was just an excuse to play more. 

There's a legitimate concern about balancing how rare the unlocks are, and I do feel slightly uncomfortable with microtransactions in general (they're sometimes a means for vulnerable people to spend thousands of dollars obsessively with no in-built safety features), but they certainly didn't make the ME3 experience frustrating. 

I think the key with something like DA would be to make the game fun and enjoyable before microtransactions even factor into it - it needs to be fully playable without constantly pushing the player to spend money, and the packs need to be unlockable easily even without payment. 

(For an example of how *not* to do a tiered upgrade systems with microtransactions: Heroes of Dragon Age. The game is next to impossible without buying powerful upgrade packs, and earning those packs through gameplay is way, way too difficult and rare.)

I agree, the ME 3 micro-transaction system was acutally one of the 'good' forms of micro-transactions that I have seen. A system that allows players to completely enjoy all of what MP has to offer, without ever having to spend real world money.

That being said, I think that a revamped store would be in order if DA:I had MP. Assuming that this MP mode would be similar to ME 3's I would like to have the option to buy; with in game currency as well a micro-transactions;  a specific item or class. Make it cost more if you want, but all the store really needs is an option to get excatly what your looking for.

[Fast Jimmy]

AlanC9 wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

But wasn't DA:O combat based on MMORPG concepts anyway? ( Never played one myself, so I can't tell.)

Only so much as any RPG is somewhat based on D&D rules? I've seen zero MMORPGs that let you control an entire party in real time combat (especially with the ability to pause and assign actions, assign AI tactics and take direct control of any party member). There's strategy games, where you give orders. There's FPS/hack n' slash, where you spam the attack button more or less. There's turn based games, where you manage an entire party turn by turn. 

But there is no MMORPGs that I'm aware of that offers what DA does. 

Huh? Why would an MP game need to offer one player control of more than one character? The other characters have their own players.

Because the entire structural set up of the DA SP is based on managing a party...? You're not required to play it this way, mind you, but it is how the entire UI, combat design and interface are designed to work. Everything from skill button mapping to combat animation speed to hit % checks to the ability to give orders to move a character or to move that character yourself... all of this is to serve the concept that the player is managing a party and it is the character's skill and stats that determine how successful they are, not the skill of the player.

There are no ways for an archer to make a critical hit/head shot if the player is really good at aiming, but the character has low stats for doing so. If you take control of one character and strafe around the room, it is less effective at dodging attacks because the chance of an enemy hitting you isn't determined by if the animation physically connects with your character, but rather a Hit % equation is run in the background, such that your character's skill at dodging is checked against the enemy'a skill at hitting - the player's ability to strafe is not the driver in that equation.

If player skill isn't the determiner in how effective a character hits or how much damage they do, then you are simply managing that character, making sure they are staying healthy, that they are using the right skills, that their stamina/mana stays up, that they are placed in the most effective place at any given time. This is a vast difference fro, say, ME, where you control your character and they won't use a single power or fire a single bullet without you. And where your skill, as a player, determines how effective that bullet is.

So if DA stays as a game that is about the character's skill and managing the character instead of doing something more than "select enemy, auto attack, wait for skills to cooldown" then a single character MP would be, to many MP fans, dull. Therefore, the risk is that controlling a single character has to become more of a focus for DA:I, which turns the SP campaign into an action game, where the player's ability to mash their mouse or console controller is a bigger determiner of how you do in combat than how well the player manages the party or how well the character's own skill and stats are. 

Hence, people are worried that a MP component will change and hurt the SP campaign's mechanics. 

[EmperorSahlertz]

Diablo characters are dependant on stats, and there is nothing even remotely related to "aiming" yet multiplayer in Diablo is hugely popular.

[Fast Jimmy]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Diablo characters are dependant on stats, and there is nothing even remotely related to "aiming" yet multiplayer in Diablo is hugely popular.

And strafing and button mashing are the hallmarks of the Diablo franchise. 

EDIT: Diablo was practically the founder of action-RPG hack n' slash. Not to say it isn't a good franchise, but DA is not a hack n' slash series. 

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 11 novembre 2013 - 06:21 .

[vania z]

I am opposed to multiplayer in single player games as I am opposed to graphics integrated into processors. In both cases they spend resources on something useless.

[Schneidend]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Because the entire structural set up of the DA SP is based on managing a party...? You're not required to play it this way, mind you, but it is how the entire UI, combat design and interface are designed to work. Everything from skill button mapping to combat animation speed to hit % checks to the ability to give orders to move a character or to move that character yourself... all of this is to serve the concept that the player is managing a party and it is the character's skill and stats that determine how successful they are, not the skill of the player.

There are no ways for an archer to make a critical hit/head shot if the player is really good at aiming, but the character has low stats for doing so. If you take control of one character and strafe around the room, it is less effective at dodging attacks because the chance of an enemy hitting you isn't determined by if the animation physically connects with your character, but rather a Hit % equation is run in the background, such that your character's skill at dodging is checked against the enemy'a skill at hitting - the player's ability to strafe is not the driver in that equation.

If player skill isn't the determiner in how effective a character hits or how much damage they do, then you are simply managing that character, making sure they are staying healthy, that they are using the right skills, that their stamina/mana stays up, that they are placed in the most effective place at any given time. This is a vast difference fro, say, ME, where you control your character and they won't use a single power or fire a single bullet without you. And where your skill, as a player, determines how effective that bullet is.

So if DA stays as a game that is about the character's skill and managing the character instead of doing something more than "select enemy, auto attack, wait for skills to cooldown" then a single character MP would be, to many MP fans, dull. Therefore, the risk is that controlling a single character has to become more of a focus for DA:I, which turns the SP campaign into an action game, where the player's ability to mash their mouse or console controller is a bigger determiner of how you do in combat than how well the player manages the party or how well the character's own skill and stats are. 

Hence, people are worried that a MP component will change and hurt the SP campaign's mechanics. 

Again, Baldur's Gate did this already. Nothing was changed to make controlling a single character "more exciting." Working together as a team was all the excitement I needed.

Fast Jimmy wrote...

And strafing and button mashing are the hallmarks of the Diablo franchise. 

EDIT: Diablo was practically the founder of action-RPG hack n' slash. Not to say it isn't a good franchise, but DA is not a hack n' slash series. 

Yeah, try "button mashing" against most of the bosses and you will die horribly. Over and over. 

Modifié par Schneidend, 11 novembre 2013 - 06:43 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Again, Baldur's Gate did this already. Nothing was changed to make controlling a single character "more exciting." Working together as a team was all the excitement I needed.

If you think Bioware is going to put simple SP co-op as the only MP feature, then I envy you. I would bet every dime I own that, if DA:I does have MP, it will not be in this form. But, if it is, I would be fine with it. My concern is for every other type of MP, of which I'd consider any other form to be more likely than simple drop in/drop out co-op.

Yeah, try "button mashing" against most of the bosses and you will die horribly. Over and over.

I'm not going to debate the fine points on this - Diablo practically invented the hack n' slash dungeon crawler. It is not something I would ever want DA to turn into... namely because DA is not a Diablo clone. And it does not need to become one, especially for the sake of adding MP.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 11 novembre 2013 - 07:01 .

[Jozape]

Star fury wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

This is why I avoid multiplayer everything.  It's always people that ruin the experience.  Everything enjoyable is more enjoyable when done alone.

Except sex.

That depends on who you can score. Or rent.

[KristofCoulson]

Star fury wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

This is why I avoid multiplayer everything.  It's always people that ruin the experience.  Everything enjoyable is more enjoyable when done alone.

Except sex.

No... sometimes this is more enjoyable and relaxing when alone.

[Heimdall]

The only real problem I have with the micro transactions in ME3mp is their random nature. I might spend actual money on a pack for the chance of getting a rare item only to get something I already have or is worse than what I already have.

I generally don't play much mp though. The only mp I can see myself playing much for Dragon Age would be a series of Flashpoint style co-op missions with their own plot and dialogue distinct from SP entirely, but that's not very likely. They could probably make a bundle selling mission packs for that though.

[Vortex13]

Lord Aesir wrote...

The only real problem I have with the micro transactions in ME3mp is their random nature. I might spend actual money on a pack for the chance of getting a rare item only to get something I already have or is worse than what I already have.

I generally don't play much mp though. The only mp I can see myself playing much for Dragon Age would be a series of Flashpoint style co-op missions with their own plot and dialogue distinct from SP entirely, but that's not very likely. They could probably make a bundle selling mission packs for that though.

I would actually prefer that Bioware NOT do Flashpoints or a seperate co-op campaign. Reason being that I have found all offerings of such co-op specific, built for MP campaigns to be very short, repetitive, and boring affairs. Even KOTOR suffered from this in its own Flashpoints. The missions are very short; rarley going over one hour (assuming you have a competent team); they are completely divorced from the main narritive; no mention of that Imperial General or what I did with him once the Flash point is done; and they are incredibly repetitive; the same scripted events, happening, the same layout, etc.

I would personally hope that Bioware would go with either a fully implemented co-op feature within the SP narrative (drop in/drop out co-op), OR have a co-op survival, horde mode similar to ME 3. A co-op system for the main narrative would eliminate the repetitive nature of the Flashpoints (especially if you are dealing with a 20 + hour story), and a horde mode (while repetitive) is not bound by the restrictions of narrative and would function more like a sandbox, allowing players to try out/enjoy new kits, as well as having a greater chance of the more exotic creatures see the light of day as playable characters.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Diablo characters are dependant on stats, and there is nothing even remotely related to "aiming" yet multiplayer in Diablo is hugely popular.

And strafing and button mashing are the hallmarks of the Diablo franchise. 

EDIT: Diablo was practically the founder of action-RPG hack n' slash. Not to say it isn't a good franchise, but DA is not a hack n' slash series. 

Nevertheless it is an example of a multiplayer game without the characteristics you described.

[Fast Jimmy]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Diablo characters are dependant on stats, and there is nothing even remotely related to "aiming" yet multiplayer in Diablo is hugely popular.

And strafing and button mashing are the hallmarks of the Diablo franchise. 

EDIT: Diablo was practically the founder of action-RPG hack n' slash. Not to say it isn't a good franchise, but DA is not a hack n' slash series. 

 
Nevertheless it is an example of a multiplayer game without the characteristics you described.

No, it is not.

The amount of damage you do and whether or not you hit is stat driven, yes. But the player's ability to dodge fireballs, strafe enemies and click as fast as possible to swing at your enemy make it an entirely different genre of game. Football games have stats about whether your receivers catch a ball or not - that doesn't mean they aren't highly driven by player skill over character skill.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 11 novembre 2013 - 08:13 .