hoorayforicecream wrote...
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).
I'd say ME3 wouldn't be proof, simply because ME was a completely different game philosophy than DA, even though the two look and play similar.
ME focused on player skill (you aim your gun as the prime mechanic), rather than DA, which is driven by character skill (your character's Hit% is the determiner if they attack an enemy or not). Similarly, Shephard is the only character you directly control in ME, while in DA, you take direct control of your companions and can play the game as them, from their perspective. Arguably, you could play DA:O or DA2 and never fight once as the PC.
The ME3 MP leveraged these mechanics to make the MP portion of the game similar to the SP, minus the ability to pause or to issue squad orders. So I think it is proof of nothing as far as how successful a DA MP mechanic would be, nor do I think it, in any way, mitigated the risk that introducing MP into DA would have on the SP mechanics and gameplay. It still has the very real risk of turning DA into a WoW-clone, where single character control (instead of party management) is the focus, and where action elements trump strategy.
After all, controlling a single character in DA would often be pretty boring, where you just watch auto-attack animations until your skills cooldown.
Retour en haut
