zMataxa wrote...
hoorayforicecream wrote...
zMataxa wrote...
hoorayforicecream wrote...
I disagree. I think you misunderstand what the effects of hybridizing are, or what sort of scope such changes would entail. Hybridizing the gameplay is necessary for efficiency's sake, sure. However, the scope of what that entails is most likely not what you seem to think it is, and the results of which you are vastly overestimating.
In other words, you're still doing the same thing - making a value call based on assumptions you have that aren't necessarily grounded in reality.
_________________
Well allright.
Let's talk about "conversations" in the game.
How in depth do you think SP vs MP could be?
Why are you assuming that there would be conversations in MP at all?
Assuming they are necessary (which they are not), there is always the SWTOR method.
__________________
Seriously? No conversations?
SP fans want conversations - And Lots of them - to explore the wolrd and RPG properly.
So if MP doesn't have them - then we are INDEED making two different product sets.
Devs would then start cutting conversations, because they want to put more time into MP which don't have any conversations, and this would lead to less convos in SP.
Here we go with the baseless speculation on resource division again.
You're wrong on this one, because you're making the assumption that all of the devs work on all of the things.
The majority of any hybridization that occurs happens with the core combat systems. The goal is usually to create a robust combat design that can work and be scalable for both single player and multiplayer, and then make game mode adjustments based on numerical values for easy tunability in each case (difficulty level, number of players, character level, etc.). One that is fun to play alone, and works for groups of players as well. Bioware's already got experience in this field - just take a look at SWTOR. Maybe the Inquisitor and his or her companions get access to more spells in the single player campaign, while the multiplayer characters get a more limited selection. Maybe there's a more limited selection of items, or maybe the weapons or skills work a little differently (numerically) in MP than they do in SP. Nonetheless, it's still the same core functionality across both game types.
That is the sort of hybridization that has to be done for efficiency's sake.
The other major hybridization would be the reuse of world and level geometry. Creating a new area is expensive and time-consuming. It needs texture art, level geometry creation, props created, lighting done, all sorts of things. Being able to reuse certain areas, or designing areas that can be used in both MP and SP content is the sort of hybridization that you can expect.
The conversations, story, and cinematics work is done by a separate group (cinematics and writing), with their own allocations and budgets. They have a scope, a budget, and a production schedule for all the things that need to be done for single player, and that's separate from multiplayer's schedule, budget, and scope. Your assumption is that somehow, the writers or cinematics designers or animators whatever would somehow be drawn in to work on MP-related content instead. While the possibility is there, it's usually a misallocation of resources. You typically wouldn't put a cinematics designer to work tuning multiplayer combat numbers, you'd have a multiplayer designer for that.
So, that goes back to the concerns over Resource Division and "watering-down" the SP experience.
Your comments about "in-game conversations" prove that concerns over adding MP are well founded in terms of what the final SP product looks like.
You're using baseless speculation as evidence for another baseless speculation. I've actually shipped four console titles with online MP for XB360, PS3, one about to launch on XB1 and PS4, and worked on a commercial MMOG in my career. You're wrong on this one.
Retour en haut
