130 réponses à ce sujet

[Fast Jimmy]

Vortex13 wrote...

Truthfully, I would be perfectly happy with a Dragon Age version of what Mass Effect had (updated, and expanded upon); minus the requirement to get the best SP experience of course. I mean me and my friends still play ME 3 MP to this day, and still enjoy it, despite it no longer having DLC or updates.

I know other people enjoy different aspects of the various Bioware games, but for me, the ability to play with my friends AND play as something that I never could in SP is what keeps pulling me back. I would like to see the maps expanded and made bigger, and I would like to see more unique playable characters (Sylvans, Werewolves, Malibari etc.), but I don't personally feel that Bioware would have to re-invent the MP wheel for DA:I when the ME 3 system is a proven foundation.

<sigh> We've had this conversation before. 

The ME3 system of MP only worked because the ME series' mechanics were those of a FPS with squad commands. DA is not. If DA had its entire mechanics focus changed from party management to individual character control to accomodate MP, the series wll be made exponentially weaker for it. Which is my biggest and loudest argument against any MP element in DA:I. If it exists in any form other than a fairly innocous co-op, I will not be buying it. 

[Vulpe]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Now, if the do an Baldurs Gate like thing, I'm curious how handle the unloking specialization part and the companion conversation.I mean, what would they do while you have a romance cutscene and things like that.

I'm now picturing a co-op situation where one of my friends is controlling a companion and then I initiate the romance/sex scene with them.

Awkward...

Yep, that was on my mind to when I wrote it. Would be strange to romance Cassandra especially if she is controled by a dude [smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/andy.png[/smilie].I would be like "NO ! Dude...what the ? You're f*****g me!!! I didn't agree with that. That's it. I'm done".


Also, now I see how correct my spelling was. I should restrain myself from long comments for now. It seems I'm running low on batteries.  

[Vortex13]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Vortex13 wrote...

Truthfully, I would be perfectly happy with a Dragon Age version of what Mass Effect had (updated, and expanded upon); minus the requirement to get the best SP experience of course. I mean me and my friends still play ME 3 MP to this day, and still enjoy it, despite it no longer having DLC or updates.

I know other people enjoy different aspects of the various Bioware games, but for me, the ability to play with my friends AND play as something that I never could in SP is what keeps pulling me back. I would like to see the maps expanded and made bigger, and I would like to see more unique playable characters (Sylvans, Werewolves, Malibari etc.), but I don't personally feel that Bioware would have to re-invent the MP wheel for DA:I when the ME 3 system is a proven foundation.

<sigh> We've had this conversation before. 

The ME3 system of MP only worked because the ME series' mechanics were those of a FPS with squad commands. DA is not. If DA had its entire mechanics focus changed from party management to individual character control to accomodate MP, the series wll be made exponentially weaker for it. Which is my biggest and loudest argument against any MP element in DA:I. If it exists in any form other than a fairly innocous co-op, I will not be buying it. 

The PAX demo and the GI videos that were showcased did show a more individual character control, with the fast paced nature of the combat and things like the player being able to dodge attacks. Plus the developers did say that they were shooting for a hybrid or middle ground approach with DA:I, with aspects from both DA:O and DA 2; its possible that the game will have tactical overview elements AND button press/twitch response gameplay elements.

So it stands to reason that if the game already accommodates a more individual play style, then a ME 3 type MP mode would not be too far fetched, nor would it require a complete overhaul of the combat mechanics, just a deactivation of the Tactical Overview during MP.

[Seival]

Vortex13 wrote...

Multiplayer Bioware Please?

No. Let them concentrate on the quality of storytelling. BioWare studio involved in DA:I creation is not large enough to make both good story and interesting multiplayer in time.

If they will spend time on creating multiplayer, then we will get DA:2.5 with multiplayer. Do you really want that?

[DarthSliver]

Well I have an idea for MP that would work for everyone, Dragon's Dogma. Maybe they can have a similar system like that, allowing us to pick up a friends character to use as a companion in our travels. Keeping the game entirely SP with the ability to use our friends characters, but of course I don't think a system like that can be implemented in DA:I maybe the next DA game.

But we obviously need an online component that if add will keep the series Singleplayer.

Modifié par DarthSliver, 15 décembre 2013 - 06:51 .

[Lady Lionheart]

HELLZ NOE!! Pleeeeeeeeeeease Andraste's nipple-******! No! (>.<)
As you can tell I am GREATLY opposed to a multiplayer componant.
UNLESS, as I have said previously, it is COMPLETELY detatched from the Single Player.
I don't want to be forced to play it to unlock SP content, ESPECIALLY if they add it and it turns out to be pooh-pooh.
Just another thing, I hate hoard mode.

[Lady Lionheart]

^ I mean when you have to kill the same enemies over and over it's hardly what I call fun. Just sayin'.

[Zenchii]

Just make it like saints row 2/the third; Drop in, drop out Co-op through the main campaign. This means that, for the most part, the same things that would make a great single-player experience (interesting world to explore, good story, well-written characters, etc) would also make a great multiplayer experience.

And for those who are anti-social, Again, make it like saints row. That game had an "Invite only" option to keep random strangers from getting into your game and mucking things up, if I recall correctly.

couple those things with multiplayer not having any influence on the main story, and you have yourself a multiplayer that doesn't take away from single player, doesn't allow for random strangers to troll your world, and doesn't alienate those who hate playing with their friends for some reason.
Behold, a multiplayer component that works with Dragon age!

I can't imagine anything else working with DA, though. I'll be very worried if it's a seperate mode like in ME 3 due to the need for seperate assets for such a mode. That could indeed take away more of their time and budget to pull off than perhaps is best. Hopefully whatever they decide to do ends up playing well.

Modifié par Zenchii, 15 décembre 2013 - 08:12 .

[Fredward]

Just gonna pop in here and mention that:

- SP and MP are handled by entirely different teams.
- those teams have entirely separate budgets.

So the argument that including MP would distract from SP argument doesn't really fly.

[Kali073]

No. Just no.

[St. Victorious]

Foopydoopydoo wrote...

Just gonna pop in here and mention that:

- SP and MP are handled by entirely different teams.
- those teams have entirely separate budgets.

So the argument that including MP would distract from SP argument doesn't really fly.

You are correct, sir. ME3 SP and MP were handled by two separate studios. The development of a DA MP does not hinder making the story any better or take away an resources. The only real argument against it is how poorly tied together the ME3 SP and MP were. Which was pretty freaking poor. So long as its lessons learned, then I'm all for it. 

[Paragon Soldier]

Who needs a mage/templar war when you have the pro multiplayers & anti multiplayers going at it, time for some popcorn.

[SomeoneStoleMyName]

 I look at it like this:
Every second spent with resources towards multiplayer, means taking resources away from the quality of the singleplayer (Oppurtunity cost). So therefore I oppose multiplayer.

The gaming world lacks great singleplayer games, but drowns in multiplayer and MMO's. Therefore there is no need to sacrifice great singleplayer games to force in a multiplayer mode just for the sake of it. 

[Killdren88]

SomeoneStoleMyName wrote...

 I look at it like this:
Every second spent with resources towards multiplayer, means taking resources away from the quality of the singleplayer (Oppurtunity cost). So therefore I oppose multiplayer.

The gaming world lacks great singleplayer games, but drowns in multiplayer and MMO's. Therefore there is no need to sacrifice great singleplayer games to force in a multiplayer mode just for the sake of it. 

^^^^^^^

[Vortex13]

Hostile 19 wrote...

No, multiplayer will just take their attention away from something else that is more important to the game. Look at Mass Effect 3...it had multiplayer, but lacked dialogue wheel options. I'd rather have more story content than multiplayer being added in. The campaign co-op would be nice, but everything else...no.

I am not saying that I was gung ho for all the issues that ME 3 had, but I don't see how the inclusion of MP resulted in the things that most people have with the game. Namely: Auto-dialogue, lack of player agency, and the endings. 

[Vortex13]

St. Victorious wrote...

Foopydoopydoo wrote...

Just gonna pop in here and mention that:

- SP and MP are handled by entirely different teams.
- those teams have entirely separate budgets.

So the argument that including MP would distract from SP argument doesn't really fly.

You are correct, sir. ME3 SP and MP were handled by two separate studios. The development of a DA MP does not hinder making the story any better or take away an resources. The only real argument against it is how poorly tied together the ME3 SP and MP were. Which was pretty freaking poor. So long as its lessons learned, then I'm all for it. 

Agreed.

[someguy1231]

SomeoneStoleMyName wrote...

 I look at it like this:
Every second spent with resources towards multiplayer, means taking resources away from the quality of the singleplayer (Oppurtunity cost). So therefore I oppose multiplayer.

Do you know how game development works? It's not a zero-sum game. When a game gets a feature as large as multiplayer added to it, the publisher/studio/etc. allocates additional resources toward it. The game wouldn't have those resources to begin with if it didn't have MP.

And if you're just whining that those resources aren't being spent on singleplayer, then you're just making yourself look greedy and selfish. Every game will have at least one feature that a group of fans don't like, but that doesn't mean resources were "wasted" on it.

Christ, I can't believe people here are still making this argument...

[Fast Jimmy]

The PAX demo and the GI videos that were showcased did show a more individual character control, with the fast paced nature of the combat and things like the player being able to dodge attacks. Plus the developers did say that they were shooting for a hybrid or middle ground approach with DA:I, with aspects from both DA:O and DA 2; its possible that the game will have tactical overview elements AND button press/twitch response gameplay elements.

So it stands to reason that if the game already accommodates a more individual play style, then a ME 3 type MP mode would not be too far fetched, nor would it require a complete overhaul of the combat mechanics, just a deactivation of the Tactical Overview during MP.

If the single player campaign is a button masher, I won't buy the game. Simple as that. I really don't care that they are trying to be a hybrid - to my tastes, such a hybrid has never worked previously. Either a game is an action game or a strategy one. There are good and bad examples of both types of games. And there are many examples of action games with strategic elements. But you cannot make a strategic game based on action gameplay elements. The second you turn the player's skill at aiming a gun, or mashing a button, it is an action game.

And, as I said before, I'm really not interested in another DA action game. If MP exists, it will certainly push the design towards that direction. And even if MP doesn't exist, it could still push that direction too much (like I believe DA2 did). So the argument that "well, the SP is slanting towards this anyway, so you should be good with MP" is false, at least for me. If the first forty minutes of the PAX demo is an example of the game (as opposed to the last ten), then I won't be interested in it at all.

Which, I guess, in that case, knock yourself out with a shallow MP horde mode all you want. I (and I'm sure many others) will just skip out.

[Anomaly-]

Foopydoopydoo wrote...

Just gonna pop in here and mention that:

- SP and MP are handled by entirely different teams.
- those teams have entirely separate budgets.

So the argument that including MP would distract from SP argument doesn't really fly.

It's not just about man hours, but also the fact that there is a finite amount of space on any physical medium. This is particularly prevalent on the previous generation's consoles. Therefore, extra resources and storage space required for multiplayer functionality could indeed take away from the singleplayer experience. Also, as others have said, it may cause differences in several areas of gameplay.

[Either.Ardrey]

The only thing I have against having a co-op horde mode in DAI, is because the Dragon Age franchise's controls and play flow aren't conducive to live play (this is also my main complaint about SWtOR. The stories are good, but the controls are terrible). Unless they figure out a setup that feels like Dragon Age, but doesn't require pause and play, I wouldn't want it. One step would be to limit the number of powers at a time in some manner, like ME3 did. ME3 had the perfect balance of 3 active and 2 passive possible powers. Since you want all powers available to the vanilla classes, then I'd suggest placing a cap on the number of active powers you can place points into.

[St. Victorious]

Anomaly- wrote...

Foopydoopydoo wrote...

Just gonna pop in here and mention that:

- SP and MP are handled by entirely different teams.
- those teams have entirely separate budgets.

So the argument that including MP would distract from SP argument doesn't really fly.

It's not just about man hours, but also the fact that there is a finite amount of space on any physical medium. This is particularly prevalent on the previous generation's consoles. Therefore, extra resources and storage space required for multiplayer functionality could indeed take away from the singleplayer experience. Also, as others have said, it may cause differences in several areas of gameplay.

If you're talking about disk space, it's called a second disk.

The real argument stands as "Did Bioware learn how to correctly implement MP or not?" Reservations are understood, but only time will tell. 

[Sully13]

Idea i have is a Wightknight / Dragons dogma mix you create your squire and can use that character online.