710 réponses à ce sujet

[zMataxa]

Schneidend wrote...

zMataxa wrote...
____________

Sure I can understand that.

Let me rephrase the question away from those games then.
IF, the SP experience consists of many levels of deep conversations and romance options - are you gonna sit through that in MP mode?

Yes. Emphatically, yes. That's what I've been saying this whole time. That's what I've said in every thread about Mass Effect and Dragon Age multiplayer, before ME2 and DA2 even came out. 

I like to watch people play these games, dialogue and all. So, why would I not want to watch it AND play as Grunt or Cassandra and also assist in combat and exploration? That would be the ultimate for me.

___________

LOL! I know one other person in the world that's like you.  She's pretty awesome as well.
But in general, I wonder how true that is.
OK now I really gotta go for now.

[hoorayforicecream]

zMataxa wrote...

@ hoorayforicecream

I'll have to resume later. Duty calls elsewhere.
I suspect we are having a "preference leading to perspective" impasse here.
Be back later.

I disagree. I don't actually have a preference. What we have here is "preference vs experience" impasse. I'm telling you how it actually is, and you're refusing to believe me.

[Schneidend]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Your assumption is that they both pull from the same pile of zots. That is incorrect.

The myth:

Publisher: Here are a hundred zots. Make a game from this.
Developer: I will make a single player game out of all one hundred zots!
Publisher: No, I want multiplayer too.
Developer: I will have to spend 20 of the zots on the multiplayer game that I would have spent on single player game instead.

The reality:

Publisher: How many zots would it cost to make a single player game and a multiplayer game?
Developer: We think it would cost 80 zots for single player, and 20 zots for multiplayer.
Publisher: We will give you 80 zots for single player and 20 zots for multiplayer.
Developer: Actually, we've thought about it and we don't want to do multiplayer for reason X.
Publisher: Oh, ok. Then just won't give you the 20 zots we would have, and ship the game as single player only. We'll give those zots to another developer.


The developer and the publisher make the allocation during the initial planning stage. Multiplayer's budget wouldn't just get added to single player if the multiplayer is removed. The developer would just never get that budget to begin with.

I wish I could stamp this on the forehead of every MP naysayer in the forums. THANK YOU!

[someguy1231]

The whole "resources" argument against MP is stupid for two reasons:

1) It falsely assumes game development is a zero-sum game. When a game gets multiplayer, it gets additional resources allocated toward that which the game otherwise wouldn't have.

2) Every game will inevitably have at least one feature which this or that gamer doesn't like. That doesn't mean those resources were "wasted" on those features either. I personally loathe the romances in Bioware games, but like MP, they're optional content, and I wouldn't do something as absurd as blame other shortcomings in the SP on them. This is also why I think anyone who loves the romances but opposes MP is a hypocrite (if they're using the "resources" argument, that is).

The only argument against MP that's even partially valid is making the best results in SP too heavily dependent on actions in MP. And after the whole mess with ME3's EMS system, I think Bioware has learned their lesson.

Modifié par someguy1231, 08 novembre 2013 - 11:50 .

[Allan Schumacher]

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.

I typically avoid these types of threads because usually my statements get construed as confirmation to the inclusion (or lack thereof) of whether or not MP will be in the game, but the conclusion you have drawn here is incorrect.

ME3's multiplayer did not have any conversations in it. If you wish to believe that we cut conversation content from the single player game for this then I guess you have that right and I doubt me saying otherwise will convince you of that.

[Fraevar]

MerinTB wrote...

I am opposed to MP in Dragon Age. Especially if it has ANY impact on the single player campaign.

If, somehow, BioWare was making this single player game and had a set budget for it, and then EA or whatever came along and gave them a separate, supplemental budget ONLY for multiplayer - and we ALL pretended that funds are not fungible - AND the multiplayer part had no bearing/impact on the single player game AT ALL, AND the team that worked on multiplayer was a separate team from the single player game, AND FINALLY the single player game would be released when done and not held up for release due to the multiplayer portion....

then I'd be okay with there being multiplayer added. In the fantasy world where all those conditions were met.

So, in the land of reality, no, I don't want it at all.

Pretty much what Merin said. I know publishers would love to integrate everything,but I have yet to see an implementation of this that didn't degrade single player in some way.

[Schneidend]

Delerius_Jedi wrote...


Pretty much what Merin said. I know publishers would love to integrate everything,but I have yet to see an implementation of this that didn't degrade single player in some way.

BAL. DUR'S. GATE.

[ImperatorMortis]

I don't really like it tbh.

I mean must everything be multiplayer these days? 

Modifié par ImperatorMortis, 08 novembre 2013 - 11:57 .

[Jeremiah12LGeek]

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.

That reflects a misunderstanding of how resources are allocated.

In ME 3, for example, it was a completely different development team working on Multiplayer - it had no impact on the resources available for the SP campaign, in spite of what a lot of people think.

I would support a multiplayer component, but like anything else, it could be done well, or not.

If it's not to your tastes, then don't play it. If your connection is poor, don't play multiplayer.

I agree that it shouldn't negatively impact the experience of the people who choose not to do it, the way the EMS issue did with the ME 3 ending - that was a mistake.

Modifié par Jeremiah12LGeek, 08 novembre 2013 - 11:59 .

[Iakus]

ImperatorMortis wrote...

I don't really like it tbh.

I mean must everything be multiplayer these days? 

Apparantly.

[Iakus]

Schneidend wrote...

Delerius_Jedi wrote...


Pretty much what Merin said. I know publishers would love to integrate everything,but I have yet to see an implementation of this that didn't degrade single player in some way.

BAL. DUR'S. GATE.

And if DAI single player is of the size, quality (though with 15 years more advanced technology) and moddability of BG2, then I'll shut up about the inclusion of multiplayer. 

But if we're just getting ME3 with swords, yeah, gonna raise a stink.

[AresKeith]

ImperatorMortis wrote...

I mean must everything be multiplayer these days? 

Exactly how I feel on it

I like multiplayer myself, but I feel that not every game out there needs to have a multiplayer just to give a good experience

[Schneidend]

ImperatorMortis wrote...

I don't really like it tbh.

I mean must everything be multiplayer these days? 

Yeah, pretty much.

[Schneidend]

iakus wrote...

But if we're just getting ME3 with swords, yeah, gonna raise a stink.

I don't see anybody suggesting as much.

[someguy1231]

iakus wrote...

Schneidend wrote...

Delerius_Jedi wrote...


Pretty much what Merin said. I know publishers would love to integrate everything,but I have yet to see an implementation of this that didn't degrade single player in some way.

BAL. DUR'S. GATE.

And if DAI single player is of the size, quality (though with 15 years more advanced technology) and moddability of BG2, then I'll shut up about the inclusion of multiplayer. 

But if we're just getting ME3 with swords, yeah, gonna raise a stink.

Why are you acting as if it's a foregone conclusion that if DAI's SP is disappointing, it must be because of the inclusion of multiplayer? Surely there must be many other reasons why some feature of the single-player could be disappointing?

You know, back when ME3's MP was confirmed, I predicted that when the game was released, the people who were raging about it would blame every slightest flaw they found in the SP on it. Thank you for proving my point. <_<

Modifié par someguy1231, 09 novembre 2013 - 12:13 .

[TheChris92]

The inclusion of MP tends to always mean that developers don't believe a SP can hold a game on its own; For isn't that what it is all about. I feel an RPG should not feel inclined to include MP simply to add replay value as I believe a single player can do that on its own. I tend to believe the same about many other games that used to be single player. Arkham Origins was at best a copy-pasted version of Arkham City in every aspect with MP added to it. A very shallow MP I'll add. Especially because it's supposed to play like a third person shooter, which doesn't hold up with the gameplay of the Arkham games. It's true that Warner hired a different developer to work on the multiplayer, but it can't be a coincidence that these things keep happening. I'd like to believe that development of MP won't hold back the SP, but when there are examples like Origin where everything comes out as shoddy & lazy retread of the previous game -- Then you have me worried. Conclusion: I'm opposed to the idea of MP dragging down the single player; Keep it seperate, developed by a seperate team and I won't be bothered by it all that much. Multiplayer inclusion just feels so shoe-horned, which is also why it's always frightening to hear of its inclusion, because at the end of the day the MP will be a cardboard cut out of an idea that other games have done over and over. Horde modes, capture the flag or death match, hollow experiences that don't offer all that much variety at least in my opinion.

Modifié par TheChris92, 09 novembre 2013 - 12:21 .

[Seagloom]

I would actually like to see multiplayer in DAI. That might pique my interest enough to start actively following the game's progress. Way back when DAO was in its early stages of development, there was talk of a separate multiplayer campaign. DAO was touted as a spiritual successor to NWN as much as BG. We got the toolset in the end, but multiplayer was left on the cutting room floor to pour everything into the main game.

An expansive, mod friendly multiplayer option hearkening back to NWN would be awesome. Or hell, a co-op mode through the main campaign not unlike what Larian is doing with Original Sin.

A competitive mode, not so much. It might be fun. It might have depth. But it won't be what I'm looking for in an RPG. I scratch that itch with fighting games.

Modifié par Seagloom, 09 novembre 2013 - 12:19 .

[hoorayforicecream]

TheChris92 wrote...

The inclusion of MP tends to always mean that developers don't believe a SP can hold a game on its own; For isn't that what it is all about. I feel an RPG should not feel inclined to include MP simply to add replay value as I believe a single player can do that on its own.

Sadly, this belief is not born out by the actual statistics. Most people who buy games don't even finish them once, let alone replay them. The amount of time a player plays a game after initial purchase is referred to in the industry as a "tail". The longer the median tail, the better. Statistically speaking, multiplayer is the single most zot-efficient feature to increase the length of the median tail than just about any other, and that longevity is what translates to DLC sales, microtransactions, etc. 

[Fraevar]

Seagloom wrote...

I would actually like to see multiplayer in DAI. That might pique my interest enough to start actively following the game's progress. Way back when DAO was in its early stages of development, there was talk of a separate multiplayer campaign. DAO was touted as a spiritual successor to NWN as much as BG. We got the toolset in the end, but multiplayer was left on the cutting room floor to pour everything into the main game.

An expansive, mod friendly multiplayer option hearkening back to NWN would be awesome. Or hell, a co-op mode through the main campaign not unlike what Larian is doing with Original Sin.

A competitive mode, not so much. It might be fun. It might have depth. But it won't be what I'm looking for in an RPG. I scratch that itch with fighting games.

Thank you for raising that distinction, Gloom. What you're suggesting - a seperate framework for doing cooperative play with friends might work, competitive play - maybe not so much. In any case I still would like for it to be kept completely seperate from single player. I don't want parts of the story influenced by how many points I got in my last encounter.

[Allan Schumacher]

The inclusion of MP tends to always mean that developers don't believe a SP can hold a game on its own; For isn't that what it is all about.

Or it's that developers want to add things into it that think it'll make it a better game.

Sometimes it sticks around (Baldur's Gate co-op), but other times it gets cut (Dragon Age: Origins multiplayer. Baldur's Gate deathmatch)

[AresKeith]

Wasn't there also a rumor that it might not even be a multiplayer, just some online component or something?

[hoorayforicecream]

AresKeith wrote...

Wasn't there also a rumor that it might not even be a multiplayer, just some online component or something?

All EA games are required to have an online component. 

[Hazegurl]

ImperatorMortis wrote...

I don't really like it tbh.

I mean must everything be multiplayer these days? 

I agree, MP works for some games but not every single game created. I don't see how MP would work for an rpg game. Even Mass Effect 3's MP isn't anything to write home about compared to other MP games.  The way I see it, devs who make rpg games should just consider going all out and make it an MMO instead of including some half assed MP just for the sake of having a MP. It's even worse when you make MP almost essential for the SP just to force people to play it.

[Iakus]

someguy1231 wrote...

iakus wrote...

Schneidend wrote...

Delerius_Jedi wrote...


Pretty much what Merin said. I know publishers would love to integrate everything,but I have yet to see an implementation of this that didn't degrade single player in some way.

BAL. DUR'S. GATE.

And if DAI single player is of the size, quality (though with 15 years more advanced technology) and moddability of BG2, then I'll shut up about the inclusion of multiplayer. 

But if we're just getting ME3 with swords, yeah, gonna raise a stink.

Why are you acting as if it's a foregone conclusion that if DAI's SP is disappointing, it must be because of the inclusion of multiplayer? Surely there must be many other reasons why some feature of the single-player could be disappointing?

You know, back when ME3's MP was confirmed, I predicted that when the game was released, the people who were raging about it would blame every slightest flaw they found in the SP on it. Thank you for proving my point. <_<

You didn't read my post at all, did you?

I already said that if DAI had all these features that made BG2 so awesome, to the point where I am quite literally still playing it to this very day, then fine, have multiplayer in it.

But right now, Bioware has to prove they still have that magic.  Their last couple of products have demonstrated that this company has changed.  And not for the better. 

[Iakus]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

Wasn't there also a rumor that it might not even be a multiplayer, just some online component or something?

All EA games are required to have an online component. 

Yeah, that's the "official" story.  ANd if something like DA2's online component or the Keep is all that it ends up being that's fine.

However:

http://www.pcgamer.c...yer-experience/