710 réponses à ce sujet

[Icy Magebane]

@Schneidend - Okay, now I'm seeing it a little better. An interesting idea, and one that I might be able to get on board with. I'm not vehemently opposed to MP, it's just that I had a hard time picturing it. Sounds like that could work... maybe.

[CuriousArtemis]

Beerfish wrote...

motomotogirl wrote...

If they do institute MP in DAI, I hope it's very different from ME3's MP, which I do not really like. I absolutely can't play ME3 MP on my own; it's utterly boring. I'm just fighting a bunch of AI. What's thrilling about MP is 1) playing with your friends, and 2) pwning real people. Pwning an AI is about as fun as kicking a rock.

You make MP friends and then play with them.  The vast majority of people that play ME3 mp together never knew each other before playing.  You are also fighting AI in single player games.

True about making friends  I played yesterday with a friend from here, and it was fun. 

And yes, you did kill AI in the SP game, but the SP game has a narrative. Let's face it, I don't play ME or DA for the amazing combat. I play it for the fantastic writing. (And yes, the gameplay is generally good.)

When you're just killing wave after wave of AI with no narrative, it gets boring. There needs to be some motivating factor (for me). 

I played Halo in my 20s with my friends and it was such an awesome experience. That for me is the best MP experience.

[Fredward]

You mean just like on principal? No. That seems a little silly. The only problem I'd have with multiplayer being included is if it was somehow compulsory for me to get an ending or some single player story content. I'm cool with people who want to play it getting special armor and stuff though. And you'd think the devs would finish the SP campaign to their satisfaction before starting with the MP. I mean that is why people buy a RPG right? For the singleplayer story. Not the MP? This isn't Battlefield. The whole "well they could have spent those resources making an even BETTER story!" is a total "what if" scenario.

[The_Huntress]

krul2k wrote...

where is this high number of DA fans opposed to mp?

BSN is a minority of DA fans and even then im skeptical a few of them are just bad trolls.

Majority of fans of the DA series i know aint against MP far from it they'd embrace it, what they dont want is it effecting SP and the one's that are left couldnt care if there was MP or not

krul2k wrote...

Quoted for the utter garbage that it is

[Schneidend]

Foopydoopydoo wrote...

You mean just like on principal? No. That seems a little silly. The only problem I'd have with multiplayer being included is if it was somehow compulsory for me to get an ending or some single player story content. I'm cool with people who want to play it getting special armor and stuff though. And you'd think the devs would finish the SP campaign to their satisfaction before starting with the MP. I mean that is why people buy a RPG right? For the singleplayer story. Not the MP? This isn't Battlefield. The whole "well they could have spent those resources making an even BETTER story!" is a total "what if" scenario.

I can only place so much emphasis on this without getting obnoxious.

But, as others have explained. Separate teams. No "resources" (starting to become a meaningless buzz word at this point) wasted.

[hoorayforicecream]

People are a little too quick to point to games like Spec Ops: The Line as an example of the horrors that MP can inflict. To be honest most games, especially highly rated and well-received AAA games today, have multiplayer modes included. Uncharted, GTA, Diablo, Portal, Assassin's Creed, Borderlands, Tomb Raider, etc. all come with MP and are still highly rated and well-received. Spec Ops is an outlier, not the rule, and it greatly depends on when the decision to add multiplayer to the scope and schedule of the project is made that determines how it will affect the other elements, not the fact that it is added.

[zMataxa]

Opposed?  No.
So long as Bioware (and EA)  continues to KEEP the single player as one major focus.
In other words, it's seen as ONE discrete final product.
And then the MP is created as a second DISCRETE product.

The SP and MP share the investment $$$ capital costs to build the "world of Dragon Age", but after that they are two very separate end products.
This helps to avoid the risk of hybridizing/wateringdown what are essentially two VERY different types of gameplay focus, especially given what Bioware is capable of with SP.

Even though I won't make the time to play MP (it's a bottomless time pit), I would say it would be insane for DAI not to have MP.
Looking at more recent Nov 3rd Vid posted on the Twitter thread - the Keeps, power struggles, factions and open world - well they simply lend themselves to addictive MP.  In the long run, I would think successful MP would help SP become even more detailed and immersive by virtue of greater leveraging of the exisiting capital expense for creating the DA world.

To Bioware/EA - just don't forget your SP fan base, if MP turns into a smashing success.  OK?

[Sylvius the Mad]

I'm indifferent to multiplayer. I won't play it.

[wolfsite]

I'm taking a wait and see approach, no point in arguing and complaining about something that right now is just speculation and guess work with little to no evidence to back anything.

However Bioware did a surprsingly solid job with ME3 Multi player, I did not plan to touch it originally but once I tried it out it wa a lot of fun.

[In Exile]

I think multiplayer can be dangerous in SP games because it might push the game design to be compatible with MP (to recycle assets, etc.). No company is going to design two games and sell them for the price of one - that's a terrible business idea. So from the design stage, there will be pressure to change the SP mechanics so that it lends itself to MP.

[Schneidend]

Imanol de Tafalla wrote...

Even though I highly enjoy ME3's MP and hope it returns in the next ME title, I don't believe that a MP mode fits in DA's genre. To me, they are better off focusing on the SP.

Baldur's Gate, Icewinde Dale, Neverwinter Nights, and their sequels all have multiplayer.

In Exile wrote...

I think multiplayer can be dangerous in SP games because it might push the game design to be compatible with MP (to recycle assets, etc.). No company is going to design two games and sell them for the price of one - that's a terrible business idea. So from the design stage, there will be pressure to change the SP mechanics so that it lends itself to MP.

In what way? If it's a mutual campaign like Baldur's Gate, the SP/MP would not need to be any different, except in multiplayer your friends are also sharing the experience.

Modifié par Schneidend, 08 novembre 2013 - 09:05 .

[zMataxa]

In Exile wrote...

So from the design stage, there will be pressure to change the SP mechanics so that it lends itself to MP.

_________________

Exactly.  That's hybridizing or wateringdown.
That would be a serious disservice to long time SP fans.

IMO, SP and MP must be QUITE separate in design from the get go.

[In Exile]

Schneidend wrote...
In what way? If it's a mutual campaign like Baldur's Gate, the SP/MP would not need to be any different, except in multiplayer your friends are also sharing the experience.

Icewind Dale didn't have a singleplayer worth anything - it just had a party of souless killer puppets. NWN had the most heavily criticized campaign of any Bioware game to date, including DA2/ME3. And what BG did was like a primitive version of co-op, which is technically multiplyer, but not the thing that usually comes to mind. 

[zMataxa]

Schneidend wrote...

In what way? If it's a mutual campaign like Baldur's Gate, the SP/MP would not need to be any different, except in multiplayer your friends are also sharing the experience.

____________

In depth conversations for one. 
MP has to streamline it - so multiple people don't get bored.
It's like a form of the "bell curve" approach in education.
Something that Bioware has managed to stay away from - in a way than is better than many others.

Modifié par zMataxa, 08 novembre 2013 - 09:11 .

[badboy64]

I oppose it. No MP period.

[Heimdall]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I'm indifferent to multiplayer. I won't play it.

^This

I thought I'd play ME3 multiplayer...  It just sort of petered out and I lost interest. 

[King Cousland]

Since I wouldn't use it, I'm entirely indifferent. Why anybody would actively oppose it baffles me, however.

[hoorayforicecream]

In Exile wrote...

I think multiplayer can be dangerous in SP games because it might push the game design to be compatible with MP (to recycle assets, etc.). No company is going to design two games and sell them for the price of one - that's a terrible business idea. So from the design stage, there will be pressure to change the SP mechanics so that it lends itself to MP.

Wouldn't ME3's success be sufficient to allay any fears that even in such a case, the combat gameplay itself was still essentially fun and fine?

I think it's hardly possible that it was the combat design that somehow siphoned away from the story construction aspects, considering they are separate groups (cinematic designers vs combat designers).

[Metalspoon60]

If it affects the sp budget, NO MP. IF it doesn't I am in absolute support of MP.

[Gileadan]

MP is like romances.
Optional content.

[Heimdall]

King Cousland wrote...

Since I wouldn't use it, I'm entirely indifferent. Why anybody would actively oppose it baffles me, however.

Its the split resources concern mostly.

[hoorayforicecream]

Lord Aesir wrote...

King Cousland wrote...

Since I wouldn't use it, I'm entirely indifferent. Why anybody would actively oppose it baffles me, however.

Its the split resources concern mostly.

You mean the resource division that industry outsiders aren't privy to, have no experience with, and are basing almost purely on speculation? 

[zMataxa]

King Cousland wrote...

Since I wouldn't use it, I'm entirely indifferent. Why anybody would actively oppose it baffles me, however.

______________

Some days I think - there's so many people who post WITHOUT reading all the other posts in the same thread.

[Schneidend]

zMataxa wrote...
____________

In depth conversations for one. 
MP has to streamline it - so multiple people don't get bored.
It's like a form of the "bell curve" approach in education.
Something that Bioware has managed to stay away from - in a way than is better than many others.

No, actually, that doesn't need to happen at all. The Infinity Engine games and Neverwinter Nights didn't do it.

"Get bored"? As far as I'm concerned, watching my friends do dialogue during multiplayer is a FEATURE.