710 réponses à ce sujet

[EmperorSahlertz]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

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.

Clicking fast makes no difference. There are global cooldowns which prevent that, and such stats as "attack speed" to make fast-clicking useless. And even in DA:O could you dodge out of the way form an incomming fireball, so that is again something speaking against your own objections.
The DA multiplayer doesn't ahve to be fast paced, even though we see from the gameplay demo, that they have increased the speed of combat substanitally from the absolute dredgery that was DA:O, and it can even remain tactical.
Nothing of what you describe prevents DA:I from having multipalyer. I'd agree that DA:O would not be a game suited for multiplayer, but taht is mainly because combat in that game was such a bore, that no one would ever sit through a whole session with it.

[bEVEsthda]

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).

Both thoughts/questions are interesting. But I would have thought we had come to the point where everybody (outside BW/EA) is finally resigned to that we'll never know the details, never have any info on these mysteries?
So what's the point? To me it just seem an attempt to plant the suggestion that it isn't, in a vague and unspoken manner.

But spontaneously, I'd say the ending in ME3 becomes an even greater mystery. (and yes, I'm aware of the rumours, but I make an intentional point of not believeing them).

As for EA,  I don't really have the heart, so I'll just make the old historical observation, and note the fact that the only EA-developer that seem reasonably unaffected is the one that lies far, far away, in a dark and cold country, ...unaccessible.
So if our minds wander in certain directions...

[Fast Jimmy]

Clicking fast makes no difference. There are global cooldowns which prevent that, and such stats as "attack speed" to make fast-clicking useless.

So if I clicked once on an enemy, my character would keep on attacking them without stopping in Diablo? No? Then how fast you click determines how much damage you do. Yes, there is an upper limit to that speed, but the fact that there is no Auto Attack means the player's skill is what drives click fests like the Diablo series.

And even in DA:O could you dodge out of the way form an incomming fireball, so that is again something speaking against your own objections.

You could use cover to avoid being hurt by spells and you could get away from an enemy as they were in the casting portion of the spell, but you could not run around and have spells miss you, unless they were area of attack spells. So, again, DA:O was more about your character?'a natural magic resistances in determining if a spell did damage to you after it was cast or by character placement, not by the ability of the player to side step a fireball.

The DA multiplayer doesn't ahve to be fast paced, even though we see from the gameplay demo, that they have increased the speed of combat substanitally from the absolute dredgery that was DA:O, and it can even remain tactical.

The increased speed and whether or not it can present a tactical game (I'd state that I felt DA2 was not, although that wasn't solely due to the speed) is still up for debate. One gameplay demo does not prove anything either way. That being said, speed is not the (prime) issue. It is the fact that the game will turn from a game focusing on character skill to one rooted in player skill. Even if things are faster, where cooldowns are shorter and the auto attacks result in ninja flips... it still wouldn't be a game with dodging, ducks, backstabs, etc. that base their success or efficacy on how well the Ayer executes either the timing or the right button combination of these moves.

Because these things focus on controlling a single character, rather than managing your party.

Nothing of what you describe prevents DA:I from having multipalyer. I'd agree that DA:O would not be a game suited for multiplayer, but taht is mainly because combat in that game was such a bore, that no one would ever sit through a whole session with it.

You are not comprehending what I am saying. I am not saying MP of the type of, say, Diablo, isn't possible. It is... it will just seriously introduce design concepts and philosophies that will have a high probability of trickling down into the SP game, where the DA series will cease to be what it was previously.

If player skill becomes the driver of how effective my character can inflict or avoid damage, suddenly I am now worried about controlling one character only, so as to better my chances of success, instead of managing my party. It turns party management into a sub-optimal game approach, instead of an equally viable way of playing. It also turns the game into one where the player is the one controlling how good the character performs, instead of the other way around. Which is deviating from many of the core principles that DA:O's combat was based around (and which DA2 tried to, unsuccessfully by my book, tried to alter - resulting in a system too action based to be thoughtfully tactical, but still too party and class based to provide satisfaction to action RPG fans).

Again - not something I'd like to see DA:I do. Especially for something I find so little value in (MP).

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 11 novembre 2013 - 08:59 .

[Malanek]

I was pretty skeptical about multiplayer in ME3. I wasn't vehemently opposed to it, I just didn't think it would work with all the time dilation effects and was worried that they would alter single player game play to fit multiplayer. I never in my wildest dreams anticipated I would sink almost 1200 hours into it. I think ME4 single player gameplay will benefit hugely from ME3 multiplayer, because it was clear throughout the dlcs just how much the team was learning about their own game.

As for MP in DA, it doesn't naturally lend itself as well to MP as ME, but I still think they could come up with something. I was actually a bit sad when this was announced...

https://twitter.com/...584064745345026

So if there is MP, which I think is extremely unlikely, it will have been a late addition.

[Malanek]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

So if I clicked once on an enemy, my character would keep on attacking them without stopping in Diablo? No? Then how fast you click determines how much damage you do. Yes, there is an upper limit to that speed, but the fact that there is no Auto Attack means the player's skill is what drives click fests like the Diablo series.

In Diablo you could hold down the mouse to continue to attack at you maximum attack speed. And yes, without pause the game stops being completely tactical and adds some level of hand-eye coordination to the skills required. You almost never "auto-attacked" as that is an extremely weak attack, but leaving that aside, Diablo was never about clicking as fast as possible.

[LinksOcarina]

Man the know-how you all have about how to implement and utilize multiplayer in a game amuses me.

Let me just say this, if it is in there, there is nothing you can do about it except to not play it if you so choose. I guarentee BioWare made that choice a while ago if they wanted to implement multiplayer into the game, allocated funds and resources to it (and enough of the take away resources line, its silly) and and already mapped out the plans for how the multiplayer will work.

So I guess deal with it.

[AlanC9]

[quote]Fast Jimmy wrote...

[quote]AlanC9 wrote...
But there is no MMORPGs that I'm aware of that offers what DA does. 
[/quote]

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

You're muddling up two different concepts here, you know. There's no reason a game can be wholly based on character skill and stats without including party management. Though I suppose a game that's based on party management couldn't rely on player skill very easily.

(I'm not really happy with using "player skill " to mean twitch gameplay; knowing which abilities to use in DA:O, AD&D, etc. is still a skill, isn't it. OTOH, I suppose you're not going to actually cause confusion talking that way.)

You're assuming that MP = twitch. Why? Do MMORPGS always include twitch elements?

[EmperorSahlertz]

ME3 MP took to core concepts of and mechanics of ME3 SP and worked wonders with it. I see no reason to think that DA:I MP won't be able to do the same.
And having actual player skills be involved in the game is not a bad thing at all. I'd actually wish they would implement such factors into the SP aswell.

[bEVEsthda]

LinksOcarina wrote...

Man the know-how you all have about how to implement and utilize multiplayer in a game amuses me.

Let me just say this, if it is in there, there is nothing you can do about it except to not play it if you so choose. I guarentee BioWare made that choice a while ago if they wanted to implement multiplayer into the game, allocated funds and resources to it (and enough of the take away resources line, its silly) and and already mapped out the plans for how the multiplayer will work.

So I guess deal with it.

This theory I agree with. It's already a done deal. And since hardly no-one in this forum seem to belong to the audience Bioware intends to find for this MP, no-one here is competent to advice them of how to implement it either. And in the end, everybody has to deal with it. It goes all ways.
I think we can still rest assured that a strong SP campaign remains the overwhelmingly main goal.

[Fast Jimmy]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

ME3 MP took to core concepts of and mechanics of ME3 SP and worked wonders with it. I see no reason to think that DA:I MP won't be able to do the same.
And having actual player skills be involved in the game is not a bad thing at all. I'd actually wish they would implement such factors into the SP aswell.

You are basically saying "turn DA into more of an action game." To which I say, play one of the dozens of other action RPGs out there.  DA is one of the few games that feature this type of gameplay. It makes no sense to get rid of it just because people want all games to be the same. Gamers have their choice of varieties - the exploration driven TES games with player skills driving everything from sneaking to lockpicking to archery, the loot-n'-grind mentality of the Diablo franchise, the story driven aspect of The Witcher series, the arcadey-combat of Kijgdoms of Amalur, the stealth mechanics of a DE:HR... all of these franchises and many more offer RPG elements while also introducing action design principles and focusing on player skill. 

Desiring to take out the last remaining AAA franchise that focuses on party management and character skill just because it doesn't float your boat is greedy, for lack of a better word. 

[Fast Jimmy]

And in the end, everybody has to deal with it. It goes all ways.

Not true. I don't have to "deal with it" if I don't want to. I, and any other player, can pass on the game entirely if MP is announced. Which is what I am honestly contemplating unless the MP is something truly unique or intriguing... and which I doubt the things I would find interesting in a MP environment would attract, retain or entertain any of the larger MP fans Bioware would likely be angling for in a DA:I MP feature, so I find the chances of it happening exceptionally remote.

[Fast Jimmy]

You're muddling up two different concepts here, you know. There's no reason a game can be wholly based on character skill and stats without including party management. Though I suppose a game that's based on party management couldn't rely on player skill very easily.

(I'm not really happy with using "player skill " to mean twitch gameplay; knowing which abilities to use in DA:O, AD&D, etc. is still a skill, isn't it. OTOH, I suppose you're not going to actually cause confusion talking that way.)

You're assuming that MP = twitch. Why? Do MMORPGS always include twitch elements?

Well, I think there are not many character skill MMORPGs, simply because the mechanics are not as marketable. Although I'd also like to step back and say MP =/= MMORPG. A game like WoW involves multiple players and is in an RPG-type setting and mechanics, but it wouldn't inherently be exactly how a DA:I MP would work.

Because pausing during an MMO (or a MP match, for the most part) is not allowed, it makes developers trend more towards action combat with stats affecting the overall success. Things like strafing, hopping, barrel rolling, etc. are pretty common in MMORPGs, as are things like constantly running/moving during fights. But I have yet to see a MMORPG or a MP game have party management in real time. Which is what DA's mechanics are all about. Hence my trepidation that it would be even remotely possible with no evidence to the contrary, let alone a good thing.

[Fast Jimmy]

As for MP in DA, it doesn't naturally lend itself as well to MP as ME, but I still think they could come up with something. I was actually a bit sad when this was announced...

https://twitter.com/AarynFlynn/status/348584064745345026

So if there is MP, which I think is extremely unlikely, it will have been a late addition.

To be fair, a lot has changed about DA:I since June. Back then, devs were still saying there would only be one race (human) to play. Personally, I would be stupefied if Bioware did not include a MP feature that was very similar in overall end-user experience as ME3's MP. Simply because it was proven to make money.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 11 novembre 2013 - 11:57 .

[Malanek]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

As for MP in DA, it doesn't naturally lend itself as well to MP as ME, but I still think they could come up with something. I was actually a bit sad when this was announced...

https://twitter.com/...584064745345026

So if there is MP, which I think is extremely unlikely, it will have been a late addition.

To be fair, a lot has changed about DA:I since June. Back then, devs were still saying there would only be one race (human) to play. Personally, I would be stupefied if Bioware did not include a MP feature that was very similar in overall end-user experience as ME3's MP. Simply because it was proven to make money.

I'm pretty sure that by June they knew they were providing, or were at least scoping the possibility, of multiple races. And adding an entire different game mode is a significantly bigger project than adding additional playable races.

[Nightdragon8]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

As for MP in DA, it doesn't naturally lend itself as well to MP as ME, but I still think they could come up with something. I was actually a bit sad when this was announced...

https://twitter.com/...584064745345026

So if there is MP, which I think is extremely unlikely, it will have been a late addition.

To be fair, a lot has changed about DA:I since June. Back then, devs were still saying there would only be one race (human) to play. Personally, I would be stupefied if Bioware did not include a MP feature that was very similar in overall end-user experience as ME3's MP. Simply because it was proven to make money.

that is still yet to be seen, sorry to say, i'm not going to belave "devs" until i see it in game, cause I still remember with the dev talk with ME3... yea no ABC ending....

Also i have all 3 diablo games, and none of them had click to keep clicking to attack... at least on PC. can't really say about consoles cause honestly meh.

Also if you think about it, DA:O is exactly like a MMORPG style of gameplay, just no pausing.

Hmmm a dota, lol style of MP would be intresting, maybe even making it its own game... tho I think in reality it woudl be a money pit if they do that as a seprete game.

Also honestly, I dislike not being able to control my other party members. In ME it was fine because that was a bit of a twitch game. But With something like DA its not as much of a twitch games, so unless they are going to make it like Tera... even then I wouldn't want that, becuase I like being able to use other party member skills when I want to. Its one the reasons I dislike playing the new FF games.

[UC SIM]

I just thought up a we name for people opposed to Dragon age multiplayer.

Its in keeping with other DA traditions such as Thedas;

The
D dragon
A age
S story.

Dragon
Age
Multiplayer
No!
Damn!

As for my opinion on the matter. DA to me is a single player game but I make no judgements of something I have not even see yet.

DA multiplayer for all I know could be the best multiplayer experience of my life...

[LinksOcarina]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

And in the end, everybody has to deal with it. It goes all ways.

Not true. I don't have to "deal with it" if I don't want to. I, and any other player, can pass on the game entirely if MP is announced. Which is what I am honestly contemplating unless the MP is something truly unique or intriguing... and which I doubt the things I would find interesting in a MP environment would attract, retain or entertain any of the larger MP fans Bioware would likely be angling for in a DA:I MP feature, so I find the chances of it happening exceptionally remote.

Congrats, that is dealing with it just as much as ignoring it.

Either way, you dealt with it in the end.

[Fast Jimmy]

LinksOcarina wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

And in the end, everybody has to deal with it. It goes all ways.

Not true. I don't have to "deal with it" if I don't want to. I, and any other player, can pass on the game entirely if MP is announced. Which is what I am honestly contemplating unless the MP is something truly unique or intriguing... and which I doubt the things I would find interesting in a MP environment would attract, retain or entertain any of the larger MP fans Bioware would likely be angling for in a DA:I MP feature, so I find the chances of it happening exceptionally remote.

Congrats, that is dealing with it just as much as ignoring it.

Either way, you dealt with it in the end.

Well, they say ignoring emotional problems is not dealing with them. And, given how incredibly passive aggressive you're being just in the last few posts, I'd say you are ignoring some issues that are making you upset, meaning you are NOT dealing with them. 

So we can maybe stoping playing the "splitting hairs game" here. If you want to introduce some points of conversation into the discussion, please do so. Because coming in and proverbially rolling your eyes isn't going to elicit a good response from me. Not to say that you should care one flip about that, but just thought I'd give my two cents here.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

You're muddling up two different concepts here, you know. There's no reason a game can be wholly based on character skill and stats without including party management. Though I suppose a game that's based on party management couldn't rely on player skill very easily.

(I'm not really happy with using "player skill " to mean twitch gameplay; knowing which abilities to use in DA:O, AD&D, etc. is still a skill, isn't it. OTOH, I suppose you're not going to actually cause confusion talking that way.)

You're assuming that MP = twitch. Why? Do MMORPGS always include twitch elements?

Well, I think there are not many character skill MMORPGs, simply because the mechanics are not as marketable. Although I'd also like to step back and say MP =/= MMORPG. A game like WoW involves multiple players and is in an RPG-type setting and mechanics, but it wouldn't inherently be exactly how a DA:I MP would work.

Because pausing during an MMO (or a MP match, for the most part) is not allowed, it makes developers trend more towards action combat with stats affecting the overall success. Things like strafing, hopping, barrel rolling, etc. are pretty common in MMORPGs, as are things like constantly running/moving during fights. But I have yet to see a MMORPG or a MP game have party management in real time. Which is what DA's mechanics are all about. Hence my trepidation that it would be even remotely possible with no evidence to the contrary, let alone a good thing.

You have your interpretation of what Dragon Age is all about, others have theirs. Personally I never gave two pots of ****** about party management, I hardly ever took direct control over the other party members. The one bit of party management I did do, was update their tactics to actually include the new skills I picked for them. Otherwise I never really bothered with them. And guess what, the game played out just fine. Apparently, party management is NOT what Dragon Age is all about.

[Fast Jimmy]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

You're muddling up two different concepts here, you know. There's no reason a game can be wholly based on character skill and stats without including party management. Though I suppose a game that's based on party management couldn't rely on player skill very easily.

(I'm not really happy with using "player skill " to mean twitch gameplay; knowing which abilities to use in DA:O, AD&D, etc. is still a skill, isn't it. OTOH, I suppose you're not going to actually cause confusion talking that way.)

You're assuming that MP = twitch. Why? Do MMORPGS always include twitch elements?

Well, I think there are not many character skill MMORPGs, simply because the mechanics are not as marketable. Although I'd also like to step back and say MP =/= MMORPG. A game like WoW involves multiple players and is in an RPG-type setting and mechanics, but it wouldn't inherently be exactly how a DA:I MP would work.

Because pausing during an MMO (or a MP match, for the most part) is not allowed, it makes developers trend more towards action combat with stats affecting the overall success. Things like strafing, hopping, barrel rolling, etc. are pretty common in MMORPGs, as are things like constantly running/moving during fights. But I have yet to see a MMORPG or a MP game have party management in real time. Which is what DA's mechanics are all about. Hence my trepidation that it would be even remotely possible with no evidence to the contrary, let alone a good thing.

You have your interpretation of what Dragon Age is all about, others have theirs. Personally I never gave two pots of ****** about party management, I hardly ever took direct control over the other party members. The one bit of party management I did do, was update their tactics to actually include the new skills I picked for them. Otherwise I never really bothered with them. And guess what, the game played out just fine. Apparently, party management is NOT what Dragon Age is all about.

It's not my interpretation... it is the design philosphy that the game mechanics reflect. There are dev posts on this forum talking about how they are aware of the need to separate player skill from character skill when developing their combat system, as it infringes on the party management core of the game's ideal.

I can understand you not liking DA:O because, essentially, you are playing it in a style that combat designers hadn't really intended (though the game does allow you to go through that approach). The difference is that changing to your preferred method of play style, where the combat is more action based, where player "twitch" skill is more of a factor in determining success and where things must move much more quickly effectively harms or possibly even invalidates the original DA playstyle - namely one where the player is given a system designed to monitor and control all characters, where the long gap between cooldowns allows a player to juggle the activities between four different units in battle, where things like a dodge button doesn't exist or a sneak button not having to do with how carefully, slowly or quietly the player is moving the character.

If player skill and controlling one character at a time to, say, sneak behind an enemy to perform a backstab, is the determining factor in me being able to pull such a move off every time, instead of looking at the possibility of occassional failure if I let the character execute the command on their own, then the method of player skill controlling one character (and, effectively, ignoring the rest while I comandeer this one character) is more effective than the party-based one. If you start making one style of play inferior to the other, then it harms the game. And the chances of a MP system changing the mechanics to be more action-based and focused on controlling one character vs. controlling a party are quite high. Therefore, I don't want it. At the very least, I'd ask to see the concept of what they are approaching before I would agree to not have a negative opinion of it right form the get go.

[LinksOcarina]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

And in the end, everybody has to deal with it. It goes all ways.

Not true. I don't have to "deal with it" if I don't want to. I, and any other player, can pass on the game entirely if MP is announced. Which is what I am honestly contemplating unless the MP is something truly unique or intriguing... and which I doubt the things I would find interesting in a MP environment would attract, retain or entertain any of the larger MP fans Bioware would likely be angling for in a DA:I MP feature, so I find the chances of it happening exceptionally remote.

Congrats, that is dealing with it just as much as ignoring it.

Either way, you dealt with it in the end.

Well, they say ignoring emotional problems is not dealing with them. And, given how incredibly passive aggressive you're being just in the last few posts, I'd say you are ignoring some issues that are making you upset, meaning you are NOT dealing with them. 

So we can maybe stoping playing the "splitting hairs game" here. If you want to introduce some points of conversation into the discussion, please do so. Because coming in and proverbially rolling your eyes isn't going to elicit a good response from me. Not to say that you should care one flip about that, but just thought I'd give my two cents here.

Oh please, I am so tired of this fake crap most of you do on this forum. You all complain about  features in a game you can't control, then complain about it because you feel like you have a semblence of power that you can control the flow of a developers game, and once it comes out you then begrugingly play it or moving on to something else.  Instead of realizing its all about personal taste in the end and no one owes you a damn thing, you continue to **** and moan about it if it doesn't agree with you completely on here, as if it will actually accomplish anything fully to your liking. 

This entire discussion is built upon the fact that someone finds something they see as objectionable, then all the folks come out of the woodwork for no reason in agreeance or disagreeance. It's not like this conversation actually mattered to begin with. This entire thread is rife with bull**** from the start when with people acting like whining children about something they either can't comprehend how it works, or don't even know it exists. And the only contribution I had  to make was the only thing thats true, the fact that its not going to change whatever is going to happen.

So stop the hollow factoids and conversations about nothing and grow a ****ing pair to deal with it when it comes. Or don't, I really don't care. 

ETA: I realize I have been a bit flippant to the point where it might be misconstructed to only mean you, Jimmy, but keep in mind I am commenting more or less on this entire thread being a waste of time. I apologize if it was too harsh, however. 

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 12 novembre 2013 - 01:35 .

[Schneidend]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

So if I clicked once on an enemy, my character would keep on attacking them without stopping in Diablo? No? Then how fast you click determines how much damage you do. Yes, there is an upper limit to that speed, but the fact that there is no Auto Attack means the player's skill is what drives click fests like the Diablo series. 

Actually, if you hold down the mouse button, your character will attack your target as fast as they possibly can.

[Shasow]

+1 to no multiplayer.

[Archaven]

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.

QFT. I don't mind buying DLC that is multiplayer later but taking up resources and you end up with subpar single player is a BIG NO. If i want multiplayer game i'll go play DOTA2 or something.