710 réponses à ce sujet

[ElitePinecone]

Vortex13 wrote...

Again not in a "You must play this to succeed at this", kind of way but more of "These two elements take place within the same universe" kinda way.

That's true, though I suspect some people will still be miffed that precious zots were wasted on programming your dwarf in hot-pink armour to appear in a cutscene  I'm not sure if the "I don't want MP to touch SP in a single way, period, ever, totally" crowd are just being hyperbolic, or if they really would get annoyed that *any* multiplayer content affected anything in the singleplayer, even if it wasn't the story. 

One of the multiplayer trailers for ME3 (somewhat deceptively) showed a scene of Shepard addressing some soldiers, with the implication that there was some sort of crossover moment and that the MP was a vital part of the war effort. It never happened, in the end, but I actually wouldn't have minded if the MP mode had featured some familiar faces from the singleplayer. 

But it's a fuzzy line, and if the singleplayer *does* get to the point of having assets and armies, I'd suspect multiplayer might (?) be included as another feature that could be used to grow the Inquisition's power, if the player didn't feel like exploring caves or taking back Keeps. 

[Malanek]

Vortex13 wrote...

CaptainBlackGold wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...

ElitePinecone wrote...

Totally agree!

This was actually the biggest frustration I had with ME3's system, the randomness of the unlocks made progression about luck rather than choice. 

I don't really understand the mindset behind the microtransactions and unlock system, but surely giving every separate item a price in credits (or "gold" for DA), and making better items more expensive in either credits or real-world money would earn just as much as having a random system. Maybe it might earn even more, if people decide to spend $1 or $2 on a character or item they really want, rather than having to play for an hour to get it.

Then again, I'm sure there was some rationale behind a random system like ME3 used - it just didn't seem as fun or satisfying as being able to buy things individually. 

...

So how many people know what a Skinner box is?

Ninja'd! Excellent point - can we all say "intermittent reinforcement?"

The rationale for randomization of items is the same underlying principle that make slot machines so addicting; provide random reinforcement which increases the likelihood of the desired behavior - which in this case is "give us your money."

Look, people can play the slots all they want - free country and all - but we should also remember "The House always wins."

Personally, I refuse to be a pigeon - and that pun is fully intended.

True, the micro-transaction system is designed to make people spend money; its what they were designed to do; but ME 3's system wasn't designed with "The House Always Wins" mindset (at least IMO).

A player could play and unlock everything the MP had to offer without spending a cent of real money so the system wasn't implemented with the only avennue of progression being the use of micro-transactions. Paying customers and those using in-game currency had equal opportunity in unlocking items.

As long as the systme isn't designed in such a way as to make it impossible to achieve success without spending money, then I don't really see the issue with it; especially if having it means that all subsequent DLC and add-ons are free of charge.

I would just like to point out another advantage of it being random. Balancing. Certain players get really, really annoyed when their favourite over powered weapon or character gets "nerfed" back to a balanced state. If they paid $20 for it, they become irate. It is essential for the overall game to balance things so I actually believe it being mostly random is the way to go.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Malanek999 wrote...

I would just like to point out another advantage of it being random. Balancing. Certain players get really, really annoyed when their favourite over powered weapon or character gets "nerfed" back to a balanced state. If they paid $20 for it, they become irate. It is essential for the overall game to balance things so I actually believe it being mostly random is the way to go.

I wouldn't object to the randomness if the odds were made public.

There's no way to make an intelligent decision about whether to spend the money if you don't know what you're going to get.  Even if you're only getting a chance at something, knowing the odds and the possible return is necessary to make any sort of determination about whether the transaction benefits you.

I would never spend money on a pack where I didn't know the likely contents, nor the odds of getting them.

[Malanek]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Malanek999 wrote...

I would just like to point out another advantage of it being random. Balancing. Certain players get really, really annoyed when their favourite over powered weapon or character gets "nerfed" back to a balanced state. If they paid $20 for it, they become irate. It is essential for the overall game to balance things so I actually believe it being mostly random is the way to go.

I wouldn't object to the randomness if the odds were made public.

There's no way to make an intelligent decision about whether to spend the money if you don't know what you're going to get.  Even if you're only getting a chance at something, knowing the odds and the possible return is necessary to make any sort of determination about whether the transaction benefits you.

I would never spend money on a pack where I didn't know the likely contents, nor the odds of getting them.

Personally I would prefer to know the odds as well. However I can understand why they might not want that.

Take ME3 for example and say they started off with the chance of an ultra rare at 5% per pack. Then in the future after releasing a bunch more URs they decide to increase the chance to 10%. All of a sudden the people who bought packs the previous week almost got half value which again causes angst.

And it is only ever going to be pseudo random. If a bunch fan-geeks decided to determine the odds by collating the data from tens of thousands of packs, what would happen if the findings didn't match what was published?

The spending of real money complicates these things.

[Vortex13]

ElitePinecone wrote...

Vortex13 wrote...

Again not in a "You must play this to succeed at this", kind of way but more of "These two elements take place within the same universe" kinda way.

That's true, though I suspect some people will still be miffed that precious zots were wasted on programming your dwarf in hot-pink armour to appear in a cutscene  I'm not sure if the "I don't want MP to touch SP in a single way, period, ever, totally" crowd are just being hyperbolic, or if they really would get annoyed that *any* multiplayer content affected anything in the singleplayer, even if it wasn't the story. 

One of the multiplayer trailers for ME3 (somewhat deceptively) showed a scene of Shepard addressing some soldiers, with the implication that there was some sort of crossover moment and that the MP was a vital part of the war effort. It never happened, in the end, but I actually wouldn't have minded if the MP mode had featured some familiar faces from the singleplayer. 

But it's a fuzzy line, and if the singleplayer *does* get to the point of having assets and armies, I'd suspect multiplayer might (?) be included as another feature that could be used to grow the Inquisition's power, if the player didn't feel like exploring caves or taking back Keeps. 

I agree that it is indeed a very fine and fuzzy line to walk, but I personally believe that if done right it could enrich the game (the narrative at least). That trailer you mentioned was very deceptive; I replayed Priority: Earth multiple times  hoping to see my promoted Geth Engineer, or my Salarian Infiltrator, but they never were included to begin with.

I personally never had an issue with the idea that MP could help achieve a better end game. My main gripe (and one shared among the entire community) was that it was the ONLY (at least in the begining; First Impressions are very, very important) method of achieving the 'best' ending.

If DA:I had a similar method of MP integration I wouldn't have a problem with it, just so long as players who would never touch the mode could achieve all that the SP had to offer without playing it.

I'm all for multiple paths to the same goal, but I would imagine that such a viewpoint is not very popular after the whole ME 3 fiassco.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Malanek999 wrote...

Personally I would prefer to know the odds as well. However I can understand why they might not want that.

They can not want that all they like, but until I'm allowed to make an informed purchasing decision, I'm not spending a dime.

[Sylvius the Mad]

ElitePinecone wrote...

That's true, though I suspect some people will still be miffed that precious zots were wasted on programming your dwarf in hot-pink armour to appear in a cutscene  I'm not sure if the "I don't want MP to touch SP in a single way, period, ever, totally" crowd are just being hyperbolic, or if they really would get annoyed that *any* multiplayer content affected anything in the singleplayer, even if it wasn't the story.

Everything is the story.  The mechanics are the story.  The loot is the story.  There is no aspect of the game that isn't part of the story.

[Ticladesign]

I'm sure I'm not the only builder, for example, who found it more difficult to justify spending time on a non-paying modding hobby after recent events in the US (after 2008). That's one reason why I'm writing novels now instead of building more NWN1 mods.

Can somebody explain me what "recent events in the US after 2008" means in relation to modding? I think I missed what happened, and like to know what it is. I'm a NWN2 modder, usually supporting Persistent Worlds (PW's) with area design and Quality control/ajusting area's lighting ect..

I've been very busy in the years 2010 to now, so a bit confused what these recent events are.


Because of my involvement with the NWN2 PW community i'm off course a great supporter of Multiplayer, and preferably a more complex game than say, random MMO rules. I also think it's probably not feasable to make nwn style MP for this DA game (due to the controller, and console focus) but would love to see a more complex DA Spinoff game being made which is in setup, exactly like NWN1 or NWN2 with a Toolset, co-op campaign and the ability for us the community to make, and setup our own PW's with our own, custom rules and tweaks.

MMO's are too restrictive, so they don't cut it.

I do wish Bioware the best ! =) You guys made Neverwinter Nights and it turned out to be my greatest hobby where I learned Area design, writing and Texturing. (though that is nwn2'ish.. but you get the idea)

[Sylvius the Mad]

Ticladesign wrote...

Can somebody explain me what "recent events in the US after 2008" means in relation to modding?

The US economy collapsed (median household income is down 8.3% from 2007 levels), so spending time on anything that doesn't generate revenue is harder to justify.

I presume.

[Fast Jimmy]

Can somebody explain me what "recent events in the US after 2008" means in relation to modding? I think I missed what happened, and like to know what it is. I'm a NWN2 modder, usually supporting Persistent Worlds (PW's) with area design and Quality control/ajusting area's lighting ect..

The worst global recession in the past 70+ years.

'd by Sylvius

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 12 novembre 2013 - 09:08 .

[Ticladesign]

You know the thing with resessions is..

They always end.

And a new day will come.

[Ianamus]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Ticladesign wrote...

Can somebody explain me what "recent events in the US after 2008" means in relation to modding?

The US economy collapsed (median household income is down 8.3% from 2007 levels), so spending time on anything that doesn't generate revenue is harder to justify.

I presume.

The economy everwhere collapsed, not just in the US. 

[Malanek]

EJ107 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Ticladesign wrote...

Can somebody explain me what "recent events in the US after 2008" means in relation to modding?

The US economy collapsed (median household income is down 8.3% from 2007 levels), so spending time on anything that doesn't generate revenue is harder to justify.

I presume.

The economy everwhere collapsed, not just in the US. 

The lowest point of growth in China since 2008 was 6.2%.

[Fast Jimmy]

Ticladesign wrote...

You know the thing with resessions is..

They always end.

And a new day will come.

Right, but if that person could write a book and make money instead of writing a mod and getting nothing, then during hard times people will opt for the one that makes money. 

I'd say this is a glowing endorsement for my idea of the option to monetize mods, but that would be highly off topic. 

[Ianamus]

Malanek999 wrote...

EJ107 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Ticladesign wrote...

Can somebody explain me what "recent events in the US after 2008" means in relation to modding?

The US economy collapsed (median household income is down 8.3% from 2007 levels), so spending time on anything that doesn't generate revenue is harder to justify.

I presume.

The economy everwhere collapsed, not just in the US. 

The lowest point of growth in China since 2008 was 6.2%.

And the US isn't even in the top 10 countries worst affected. Obviously "everywhere" was an exaggeration, but I think it was clear what I was getting at- and China was affected by the recession, albeit not as badly as other countries. Describing the biggest global recession in recent history as "recent events in the US" is closed-minded at best and just offensive at worst. 

Modifié par EJ107, 12 novembre 2013 - 09:41 .

[Malanek]

EJ107 wrote...

Malanek999 wrote...

EJ107 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Ticladesign wrote...

Can somebody explain me what "recent events in the US after 2008" means in relation to modding?

The US economy collapsed (median household income is down 8.3% from 2007 levels), so spending time on anything that doesn't generate revenue is harder to justify.

I presume.

The economy everwhere collapsed, not just in the US. 

The lowest point of growth in China since 2008 was 6.2%.

And the US isn't even in the top 10 countries worst affected. Obviously "everywhere" was an exaggeration, but I think it was clear what I was getting at- and China was affected by the recession, albeit not as badly as other countries. Describing the biggest global recession in recent history as "recent events in the US" is closed-minded at best and just offensive at worst. 

Saying economies everywhere were affected is completely different from saying economies everywhere collapsed. Anyway, this is off topic so I will drop this.

Modifié par Malanek999, 12 novembre 2013 - 10:06 .

[Fast Jimmy]

And the US isn't even in the top 10 countries worst affected. Obviously "everywhere" was an exaggeration, but I think it was clear what I was getting at- and China was affected by the recession, albeit not as badly as other countries. Describing the biggest global recession in recent history as "recent events in the US" is closed-minded at best and just offensive at worst. 

Given that the guy whose throat you are jumping down ISN'T American, but was merely responding to the question someone asked about "what happened in America in 2008," I think you may be overeacting a little.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 12 novembre 2013 - 10:13 .

[Ticladesign]

Eh.. lets get back on topic please.

I merely thought it was something that happened in the (NWN) community I didnt know about, is all. Lets try and keep our resession concerns for other topics please.

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

ElitePinecone wrote...

I'm not sure if the "I don't want MP to touch SP in a single way, period, ever, totally" crowd are just being hyperbolic, or if they really would get annoyed that *any* multiplayer content affected anything in the singleplayer, even if it wasn't the story. 

I think about the inclusion of DLC into a game akin to MP features. Neither should be intrusive to the (vanilla) SP experience. An NPC shouldn't be asking for your credit card info, neither should it block your progress unless you kill X enemies in MP. They shouldn't be invasive presences in single player mode, and they definitely shouldn't be mandatory in order to fully enjoy single player mode.

Modifié par Shadow of Light Dragon, 12 novembre 2013 - 11:55 .

[Urazz]

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.

It wouldn't take up resources unless they were told to do it with what resources they have currently.  What normally happens is that they give more money to be spent on multiplayer from what I heard.  If that is the case then that pretty much ensures that the game needs to sell more units to just break even and make a profit.

That's why I'm against multiplayer in DA:I.

[Volus Warlord]

Ticladesign wrote...

You know the thing with resessions is..

They always end.

And a new day will come.

Yes. WWIII will end this. 

[Rylor Tormtor]

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).

Hi Allen - 

You may have moved on past this question and such. I will be honest and after hearing about the inclusion of mp (as well as playing the demo) I didn't actually buy ME3 (and still haven't). First Bioware since NWN that I didn't. Perhaps it was unfair of me, but in this case, I suppose I would have viewed SP differently (i.e. I MIGHT have played it) without MP. 

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

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?"

Forgive me if I'm incorrect here, I haven't played ME3 and my information is all from other people, but I was under the impression that the Single Player experience as originally released by Bioware practically required you to play Multiplayer if you wanted to boost your assets in the final fight and get the 'best' ending (such as it was). From what I read, it appeared to be either impossible or else horribly time consuming to amass enough assets in Single Player mode alone for that 'best' ending.

If this is true, why was it considered a good idea to make SP gamers think they had to participate in MP to improve their game in SP?

I can't speak for the rest of the SP experience having not played the game, like I said, but I'm curious.

[Fast Jimmy]

Forgive me if I'm incorrect here, I haven't played ME3 and my information is all from other people, but I was under the impression that the Single Player experience as originally released by Bioware practically required you to play Multiplayer if you wanted to boost your assets in the final fight and get the 'best' ending (such as it was). From what I read, it appeared to be either impossible or else horribly time consuming to amass enough assets in Single Player mode alone for that 'best' ending.

If this is true, why was it considered a good idea to make SP gamers think they had to participate in MP to improve their game in SP?

I can't speak for the rest of the SP experience having not played the game, like I said, but I'm curious.

While many quibbled on the ME3 forums about what consisted of "best" and even the idea of if it was an "ending," the truth is that not all of possible endings and content was accessible without either MP or using the ME mobile app game. Mathematically, numerically, impossible.

Although, if anything, Bioware did the opposite - they repeated over and over again that you didn't need MP to access all the content, and then locked threads where people had datamined the game and proven that it wasn't possible. Not the best moments on the BSN.

Still, the "Breathe" scene in question was only less than five seconds long and was considered an Easter Egg (although the implications of that five second scene were pretty huge), so it wasn't deemed as crucial content that was being locked out.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 13 novembre 2013 - 03:40 .

[Mecha Elf]

Who isn't opposed