710 réponses à ce sujet

[Schneidend]

TheChris92 wrote...
 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.

How many times do I have to say that I want to just play through the main camapign co-operatively with a friend before people start getting it?

[hoorayforicecream]

iakus wrote...

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/

You realize that includes DA2, right?

[AresKeith]

Schneidend wrote...

TheChris92 wrote...
 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.

How many times do I have to say that I want to just play through the main camapign co-operatively with a friend before people start getting it?

Because people aren't really talking about that? 

[Hazegurl]

That's not good. I hope the boss was talking out of his rear end.

Modifié par Hazegurl, 09 novembre 2013 - 12:43 .

[PlasmaCheese]

Opposed, no. I only have wifi sometimes, anyway. I just hope that multiplayer isn't required to get certain "perks" that effect the SP. Like, getting the best ending depends on playing online. . . No, thanks. :c

[TheChris92]

Allan Schumacher 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.

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)

I'm sure BioWare has every intention of not letting it die out slowly for the sake of just keeping players interest for a little while longer. My experience with competitive MP is that it always follows the same old pattern, but with different skins. Every now and then new ideas like say the Assassins Creed MP shows up with new stuff. It's fun for a while but quickly becomes routine -- I'm not opposed to MP as a concept, but I feel that if it can't live up to the same principles as its SP counterpart lays out then it just feels out of place. This is what competitive multiplayer feels like to me. Co-op is a neat idea but I'm just having a hard time of distinquishing of how it could work. I'm not even gonna pretend that I know whether or not a co-op function could work or not, but I just can't see it with Dragon Age.

Schneidend wrote...

TheChris92 wrote...
 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.

How many times do I have to say that I want to just play through the main camapign co-operatively with a friend before people start getting it?

Okay, that's cool for you. Not exactly sure why you're bothering me about it. I'm talking about the inclusion of Multiplayer, which in my experience (mind you) with most recent games usually means competitive MP, or a horde mode like with Mass Effect. I offered my opinion, that's it.

Modifié par TheChris92, 09 novembre 2013 - 12:51 .

[someguy1231]

iakus wrote...

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. 

But why are you holding multiplayer to this double standard? You've made it very clear in the past that you hate multiplayer, and here you're basically saying that the only way you'll accept multiplayer is if everything that's not multiplayer is excellent. In other words, you're not judging it on its own merits but by completely unrelated and arbitrary merits, hence the double standard. The only criteria for whether a game should have multiplayer is if the multiplayer itself is any good, not whether everything else is good.

[Ash Wind]

While I have no interest in it, I am not against it per se. As long Cool, Interesting and Integral aspects/items/endings in the SP are not dependent on MP.

Modifié par Ash Wind, 09 novembre 2013 - 12:51 .

[Schneidend]

TheChris92 wrote...

I'm sure BioWare has every intention of not letting it die out slowly for the sake of just keeping players interest for a little while longer. My experience with competitive MP is that it always follows the same old pattern, but with different skins. Every now and then new ideas like say the Assassins Creed MP shows up with new stuff. It's fun for a while but quickly becomes routine -- I'm not opposed to MP as a concept, but I feel that if it can't live up to the same principles as its SP counterpart lays out then it just feels out of place. This is what competitive multiplayer feels like to me. Co-op is a neat idea but I'm just having a hard time of distinquishing of how it could work. I'm not even gonna pretend that I know whether or not a co-op function could work or not, but I just can't see it with Dragon Age.

There's no mystery here. Baldur's Gate and Icewind Dale did it already. Four times. One player is the Inquisitor, and they assign control of each character to a player. Player 1 controls Hawke and Aveline, Player 2 controls Varric and Bethany. Alternatively, the other player could import their own character. Then, campaign proceeds as normal.

[Allan Schumacher]

I'm sure BioWare has every intention of not letting it die out slowly for the sake of just keeping players interest for a little while longer.

I think you misunderstood me.

This feature is considered for pretty much every game because developers want to add it to the game because many of us enjoy playing MP games too. Not everyone does, but not everyone likes every single feature in our games.

I wasn't around pre-DAO, but it sounds like it's pretty much considered for every project. It has been cut at times because "Well, you know, this really isn't as fun as we'd like" or even "the amount of effort it'd take to add it at this point would be far too costly" and a host of other reasons.

As someone else made an interesting analogy, I don't care for romance content, but it's clearly value added for fans not named Allan Schumacher.


You said that the inclusion of MP means that the developers don't believe a game can stand on the merit of its single player alone. I'd personally much rather a game that has excellent single player and excellent multiplayer, than a game that just as excellent single player.

It's fine to think that developers bite off more than they can chew or whatever, but I think you're being very unfair with the implication that something like multiplayer is only added if a developer doesn't have faith in the game standing on its own in single player.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 09 novembre 2013 - 01:01 .

[Zjarcal]

Schneidend wrote...

There's no mystery here. Baldur's Gate and Icewind Dale did it already. Four times. 

Beat me to it. 

NWN too.

[Iakus]

someguy1231 wrote...

But why are you holding multiplayer to this double standard? You've made it very clear in the past that you hate multiplayer, and here you're basically saying that the only way you'll accept multiplayer is if everything that's not multiplayer is excellent. In other words, you're not judging it on its own merits but by completely unrelated and arbitrary merits, hence the double standard. The only criteria for whether a game should have multiplayer is if the multiplayer itself is any good, not whether everything else is good.

It doesn't matter to me if multiplayer is any good or not, because I simply won't play it.

What matters to me is that the single player is the best it can possibly be.  And at this point, Biwoare has something to prove in that regard.  

Looks at it this way:  Remember Mass Effect with the WIlliams curse? "A Williams has to be better than the best, if only to avoid suspicion"?  Yeah, Biwoare's at that point for me.  If a game has multiplayer and the single player isn't completely top-notch, it casts supicion that single-player wasn't the primary focus.  Instead the focus was on those sweet, sweet microtransactions that are now so all-important.

Call it illogical.  Call it irrational.  Heck you may be right.  But it's also quite real.  I (and others) are suspicious, no longer willing to trust.  Maybe if ME1 and DAO had it, I'd ave been coler with it.  But it wasn't.  And I'm not.  And to this day I still regret not cancelling my ME3 preorder when I learned MP was in it.

[Milan92]

I dont like the whole multiplayer thing. But its probably gonna happen sadly. So meh I guess :S

[Usergnome]

You'll either lose fans by adding online or lose none by not adding it.


Or you know, gain fans. Or make existing fans happier.

I know I would want it. I'm not to happy with Mass Effect 3's Readiness ratings, because I don't have gold and wasn't planning on getting it, but if they added multiplayer in but didn't make it affect the actual game in such a crucial way, I would love it.

[Iakus]

Schneidend wrote...

There's no mystery here. Baldur's Gate and Icewind Dale did it already. Four times. One player is the Inquisitor, and they assign control of each character to a player. Player 1 controls Hawke and Aveline, Player 2 controls Varric and Bethany. Alternatively, the other player could import their own character. Then, campaign proceeds as normal.

What is Baldur's Gate better known for?

Multiplayer
or
Minsc

[Allan Schumacher]

Looks at it this way: Remember Mass Effect with the WIlliams curse? "A Williams has to be better than the best, if only to avoid suspicion"? Yeah, Biwoare's at that point for me. If a game has multiplayer and the single player isn't completely top-notch, it casts supicion that single-player wasn't the primary focus. Instead the focus was on those sweet, sweet microtransactions that are now so all-important.

Call it illogical. Call it irrational. Heck you may be right. But it's also quite real. I (and others) are suspicious, no longer willing to trust. Maybe if ME1 and DAO had it, I'd ave been coler with it. But it wasn't. And I'm not. And to this day I still regret not cancelling my ME3 preorder when I learned MP was in it.

Many of the people that have had their trust shaken are also not fans of DA2.

[Plaintiff]

How many times are actual developers going to have to come into this thread and explain how resource allocation for videogames works?

Multiplayer has NO effect on the single-player campaign. None. At all. It gets a separate budget, it gets a separate dev team.

If you have issues with the single-player campaign of any game, take it up with the developers of the single-player campaign, instead of making a scapegoat out of features you're already biased against.

Also: get used to the idea that you're not going to love every product a company produces. That's good advice for life in general, not just videogames.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 09 novembre 2013 - 01:11 .

[zMataxa]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

_____________

Allan, that's the same ME3 that came with color options for the controversial ending, and not living up to the billing "our choices" matter.  The relationships and romances in ME3 felt less as well. (Those comments do not factor in later appearing DLC, which it can be argued was a result of fan's voices). 
That all coincided with the appearance of MP.
So yes, in this one isolated case, I'm not convinced that MP didn't come at SP expense, whether resource-allocation based or actually more accidental.
To actually convince me, I'd need someone to do an in depth accounting of zots and make it public, and we know that's not a possibility.  Even then, there would have to be a long laborious convo fleshing it all out.

SO - it would appear DAI will prove or disprove the worries of many SP focussed fans.
On that note, I do very much appreciate your assurances as a company representative that it was not the planned intent and hope very much that will indeed be the case for DAI.  So I will look forward to Bioware/EA showing to us they can maintain a deep interactive story with reasoanble endings and have multiplayer at the same time, and that the concerns of SP fans are unfounded.

Some of us fans are cognizant that even though Bioware is a collective of pretty awesome talented individuals - but also they also are human and can miss the odd thing here and there - just like we fans can.
And so it may well be productive to underline the importance (to some of us fans anyway) of maintaining the rich immersive deep SP experience that we know Bioware can deliver.

Modifié par zMataxa, 09 novembre 2013 - 01:38 .

[Schneidend]

Modifié par Schneidend, 09 novembre 2013 - 01:11 .

[Schneidend]

iakus wrote...

What is Baldur's Gate better known for?

Multiplayer
or
Minsc

Crazy thing. You can assign control of Minsc to another player in multiplayer! How cool is that?!

[Zjarcal]

iakus wrote...

Schneidend wrote...

There's no mystery here. Baldur's Gate and Icewind Dale did it already. Four times. One player is the Inquisitor, and they assign control of each character to a player. Player 1 controls Hawke and Aveline, Player 2 controls Varric and Bethany. Alternatively, the other player could import their own character. Then, campaign proceeds as normal.

What is Baldur's Gate better known for?

Multiplayer
or
Minsc

How is that in anyway relevant?

[TheChris92]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I'm sure BioWare has every intention of not letting it die out slowly for the sake of just keeping players interest for a little while longer.

I think you misunderstood me.

This feature is considered for pretty much every game because developers want to add it to the game because many of us enjoy playing MP games too. Not everyone does, but not everyone likes every single feature in our games.

I wasn't around pre-DAO, but it sounds like it's pretty much considered for every project. It has been cut at times because "Well, you know, this really isn't as fun as we'd like" or even "the amount of effort it'd take to add it at this point would be far too costly" and a host of other reasons.

As someone else made an interesting analogy, I don't care for romance content, but it's clearly value added for fans not named Allan Schumacher.


You said that the inclusion of MP means that the developers don't believe a game can stand on the merit of its single player alone. I'd personally much rather a game that has excellent single player and excellent multiplayer, than a game that just as excellent single player.

It's fine to think that developers bite off more than they can chew or whatever, but I think you're being very unfair with the implication that something like multiplayer is only added if a developer doesn't have faith in the game standing on its own in single player.

Then I sincerely hope that BioWare will do something inovative with whatever they have planned for Dragon Age Inquisition. My beef with ME3's MP is that I felt it didn't compliment its singleplayer as it was merely combat (horde mode). To many players this is fun, to me it's routine and gets reptitive quickly. It didn't involve the heavy RPG stuff of the dialogue intrigue, exploration, or whatever else the supposed action-RPG so very much is presented to be. My impression is that not enough developers try to experiment or inovate with the MP, instead of rehashing old ideas. My apologies, but that just comes off as being insincere. I feel Rockstar is one of those developers, who came close to what I find to be a fun MP. The sort of MP that compliments and stands in contrast to its singleplayer. If BioWare can deliver something like that then I'm sure my feelings are unfounded. :)

Modifié par TheChris92, 09 novembre 2013 - 01:18 .

[Ihatebadgames]

I'm opposed to multiplayer, now and forever.
Minsc or multiplayer ? Hmmm Minsc and Boo, can't have one without the other.

[Iakus]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Looks at it this way: Remember Mass Effect with the WIlliams curse? "A Williams has to be better than the best, if only to avoid suspicion"? Yeah, Bioware's at that point for me. If a game has multiplayer and the single player isn't completely top-notch, it casts supicion that single-player wasn't the primary focus. Instead the focus was on those sweet, sweet microtransactions that are now so all-important.

Call it illogical. Call it irrational. Heck you may be right. But it's also quite real. I (and others) are suspicious, no longer willing to trust. Maybe if ME1 and DAO had it, I'd have been cooler with it. But it wasn't. And I'm not. And to this day I still regret not cancelling my ME3 preorder when I learned MP was in it.

Many of the people that have had their trust shaken are also not fans of DA2.

That is true.  And I admit I found DA2 lacking in some areas as well (though I still found it to be an enjoyable experience, overall)  But the point remains, that these people with their trust shaken want their faith restored in the single player experience.  Adding multiplayer will do nothing for that.  And may even further shake that faith with the (true or not) lack of focus in making SP the most enjoyable experience possible.

[Hazegurl]

iakus wrote...
  If a game has multiplayer and the single player isn't completely top-notch, it casts supicion that single-player wasn't the primary focus.

I so agree with this. If DA:I has MP and the SP is subpar then it will be enough for me to believe that they were banking on MP more than the SP. If so, I would rethink any future purchase of the franchise as I play DA for the SP and if that is bad then I have no reason to buy it. The key to adding MP is making sure the SP is awesome and stands on it own as the main draw. MP should be the bonus, if anything.