130 réponses à ce sujet

[DragonKingReborn]

I agree, though in the absence of new information, there are only going to be a few topics that get brought up and by default, they're likely to be the 'hot button' topics. People aren't going to talk about the fact that there are dragons, or Templars. Some of the time they'll be troll topics, just looking to create mayhem, other times people who genuinely believe "insert topic here" is a great/terrible idea. The problems arise when there are polar opposite opinions with large followings. Looking at MP and 'player sexual' romance options, in particular. Maybe one thread each for these topics should be stickied and all others locked? Likely that nothing will be resolved though, least not until we get more info. Which won't be soon, so....continue!

[Sc2mashimaro]

I believe in letting the Dev's decide whether the inclusion of multiplayer makes sense or not. Fundamentally, though, it is infinitely less important to me than the quality of the single-player story in a game like this. If the single player is up to snuff, I will be happy regardless of the quality or lack of multiplayer, but I will give it a shot if it is there. If I don't find the single player story engaging, I won't care about the multiplayer, no matter how good it is.

[Anomaly-]

Foopydoopydoo wrote...
Just out of curiousity does anyone know how much space a MP element would actually take? I mean it recycles environments, units and mechanics from the SP. I know ME3's MP had new classes and everything (man I really wanted that jumpy stabby one in the SP!) but didn't that get added afterward? It seems silly to allow MP to take up so much of the disk that SP might be negatively affected and with no guarantee of its popularity.

It depends largely on the what kind of multiplayer they were to do. If they had separate multiplayer modes, that would likely mean more overhead. On the other hand, if the multiplayer is pretty much seamlessly tied in to the single player experience that may mean a smaller footprint, but also more overlap with single player and therefore more design conflict. There would be positives and negatives to either route.

Modifié par Anomaly-, 16 décembre 2013 - 08:31 .

[someguy1231]

iakus wrote...

If I have to install it to play single player, it's not optional enough

Oh, come off it. I need to "install" the optional romances in Bioware games to play even though I loathe them, but you don't see me demanding Bioware make it a completely seperate optional installation.

[Vortex13]

Sc2mashimaro wrote...

I believe in letting the Dev's decide whether the inclusion of multiplayer makes sense or not. Fundamentally, though, it is infinitely less important to me than the quality of the single-player story in a game like this. If the single player is up to snuff, I will be happy regardless of the quality or lack of multiplayer, but I will give it a shot if it is there. If I don't find the single player story engaging, I won't care about the multiplayer, no matter how good it is.

I agree that the decision to add MP should be up to the developers, and really it has been; Bioware could have said no to MP in ME 3 if they wanted. If Bioware is of the opinion that MP doesn't work for DA and don't decide to include it, that is their poracative; they are the ones crafting this universe after all.

I am simpily asking/hoping that the developers decide to include the option of MP. More options to enjoy our favorite games are always better. 

[Sidney]

deuce985 wrote...

Vortex13 wrote...

deuce985 wrote...

Good points @op. I personally wouldn't mind MP in DAI but only if it didn't take away from SP. The only MP I can see working on DA is something similar to Baldur's Gate. I really don't want to see anything remotely like ME3 in DAI. It just doesn't fit, IMO. It worked for an intense pacing game like ME3 where streamlining the abilities for MP worked. I can't see streamlining the abilities working well in a high fantasy game like DA where you get tons of magic abilities. I doubt they would want you selecting through 20 abilities in real-time with waves coming in your face too. Just wouldn't work well, IMO. Pause wouldn't work either because you would annoy the crap out of other players. So, an arena style survival MP will never work for DA.

Well for arena based 'horde mode' combat, I pictured it as a system similar to ME 3; with only a select few powers being available per combat mission; but with the player having access to all powers to swap out inbetween battles.

That way the combat is streamlined for online play, but doesn't limit the class customization aspects that SP offers.

Similar to loadouts, yea. I don't think i would like that personally. ME3 also looks to be a much faster paced game than DAI. DAI looks considerably slower than what it was in DA2. I just don't see it working, IMO.

I tend to agree...but then again I didn't see how MP would work with ME either so maybe I'll be shocked.

Frankly I liked the MP points affecting the SP game because it sorta "connected" however loosely the MP world and the SP world which were allegedly going on at the same time.  Shouldn't affect ending but it would be nice to see some items or something flow into SP via MP achievements.

Also, I now very much want to play a Fury in ME4 because of MP.

[Sully13]

what about an online dungion crawl mode like a D&D game?
or a siege defend game

[Vortex13]

Sidney wrote...

I tend to agree...but then again I didn't see how MP would work with ME either so maybe I'll be shocked.

Frankly I liked the MP points affecting the SP game because it sorta "connected" however loosely the MP world and the SP world which were allegedly going on at the same time.  Shouldn't affect ending but it would be nice to see some items or something flow into SP via MP achievements.

Also, I now very much want to play a Fury in ME4 because of MP.

I am in the same boat as you, I would like the (hypothetical, but Bioware pretty please!) MP to affect the SP insomuch as I wouldn't mind see any 'promoted' characters showing up for the final battle, or as Agents in SP.

The reason I would imagine that most people scoff at such a thought, is because of how poorly the MP was integrated into ME 3's SP. As long as a player can achieve the same things having never touched MP as a player who plays it regularly, then I have no problem with MP and SP making little nods at each other.

[Vortex13]

su lu pi wrote...

what about an online dungion crawl mode like a D&D game?
or a siege defend game

I think it would be awesome, if one of the MP modes, or maps, was a castle seige, and the castle being defended was a Keep from the host's SP save, complete with all the upgrades, and customization that had been done to it.

[Iakus]

someguy1231 wrote...

iakus wrote...

If I have to install it to play single player, it's not optional enough

Oh, come off it. I need to "install" the optional romances in Bioware games to play even though I loathe them, but you don't see me demanding Bioware make it a completely seperate optional installation.

Has a romance ever been required to get the "optimal ending"

Has there ever been a romantic content dlc?

Ongoing romance content support?  Romance content microtransations?

Yeah, not the same thing at all.  If romance storylines ever get the same degree of attention multiplayer seems to, there might possibly be a comparison.

[victorbarry]

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.

THIS. Stick it in your mind already! sigh <_<

[CroGamer002]

victorbarry 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.

THIS. Stick it in your mind already! sigh <_<

Except that wasn't the case, since Bioware admitted later on both Bioware Montreal and Edmonton worked on Multiplayer.


So pretty much a PR damage control, when MP was revealed.

[Vortex13]

Hostile 19 wrote...

Vortex13 wrote...

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. 

Because they had to balance both multiplayer and single player. Bioware was trying to attract COD audience with Mass Effect 2 & 3 so they reduced dialogue options and other rpg elements and added multiplayer. I know ME3 added new rpg elements that weren't in ME2, but you know Bioware could've done much more than that but they didn't want to make it to much of a rpg for COD gamers. The multiplayer, more shooter type gameplay, and the non-rpg mode was their attempt to get an audience that will never pick up Mass Effect over COD no matter what Bioware does.

I would have to respectfully disagree there, ME 3 had a very stellar narrative in places like Tutchunca (sp?) and Rannoch, places that offered engaging storytelling and player agency (I still cry man tears for Mordin's final scene). In no way did I feel that the narrative dumbed down for the 'COD crowd' as you put it, MP had no impact on the actual structure of the plot of SP, except for the Destroy 'Breath Scene'; which I will wholeheartily agree was a very un-wise, and poorly implemented aspcet of the MP in ME 3.

Sure, you had the N7 mission that took place on the existing MP maps, but that was a smart use of existing assets (IMHO), since I doubt that we would have gotten any N7 missions otherwise. The narrative was still engaging; albeit on a bare bones level that was specificaly designed for MP; but I don't feel that if the game had shipped without MP that we would have gotten Thessia Monestary, or Grission Academy level side missions for every N7 quest.

Even if MP had never happened, I am quite sure that we still would have had Cerberus as indocrinated enemies, the Rachni Queen showing up for all players; regardless of previous choices made; and the direction that the endings took.

[Horus Blackheart]

In regards to multiplayer I feel the game would be just fine (and arguably) better in terms of focus and coherence without it. There are examples of multiplayer done right, sadly though for every good example we have an overwhelming number of cheap shoehorned attempts to attract people that otherwise would not be all that interested in said game.

If/when the devs consider multiplayer I'd hope it was not just away to slap on more cosmetic dlc's and micro transactions. Those are distasteful and really harm a game in the long run if systems are put in just to support them and the fun factor is a distant second or even lower on that list.

We also need to keep in mind EA's latest proclamation that it won't green light or do anything without some sort of online/social component slapped on it. If that is the case then the devs hands are tied the only question then is how do that do the balancing act between keeping the overlords happy and not ending up with another DA2/me3 type controversy if they drop the ball.

Bioware had a lot of good will l and the devs are hardworking people but sadly that good will has ben taken for granted a few to many times lately. DAI is a watershed moment and a lot of people (including myself) are watching to see if bioware can truly learn from the resent debacle's.

When they add multiplayer (its inevitable in some form) do it right BG and nwn's was decent as a multiplayer experience but please try not to gimp the story in order to shoehorn it in. That's all I have to say on that.

[Zoikster]

Plaintiff wrote...

Whether or not that money would be "better spent" elsewhere is irrelevent, publishers want to see returns on their investments.

It's a big deal for those of us who want a good game. And I think investors are bit naive to think they'll pull in any extra revenue tagging on MP. They'd get better returns on their money by improving the overall game.

Modifié par Zoikster, 16 décembre 2013 - 08:27 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Zoikster wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Whether or not that money would be "better spent" elsewhere is irrelevent, publishers want to see returns on their investments.

It's a big deal for those of us who want a good game. And I think investors are bit naive to think they'll pull in any extra revenue tagging on MP. They'd get better returns on their money by improving the overall game.

The microtransactions in ME3's MP, though just a simple Horde mode that was badly tied to the SP outcomes, was enough to warrant many free MP DLCs. Which means it was making enough money to warrant spending more development dollars on it. 

So Bioware's most recent jaunt into MP and their first time at microtransactions seems to paint a different picture. 

[Vortex13]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

The microtransactions in ME3's MP, though just a simple Horde mode that was badly tied to the SP outcomes, was enough to warrant many free MP DLCs. Which means it was making enough money to warrant spending more development dollars on it. 

So Bioware's most recent jaunt into MP and their first time at microtransactions seems to paint a different picture. 

Indeed.

I personally think Bioware has a good foundation to build upon with the success of ME 3's MP, whether that is a straight DA version of what we have now, or an actual co-op campaign remIains to be seen.

[Plaintiff]

Zoikster wrote...
It's a big deal for those of us who want a good game.

1) You are not funding the production of the game.

2) The assumption that multiplayer would in any way detract from the quality of the single-player is utterly baseless. Even if ME3 is bad (an assertion I dispute), there's no proof that it has anything to do with the inclusion of multiplayer. Correlation is not causation.

And I think investors are bit naive to think they'll pull in any extra revenue tagging on MP.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

Online multiplayer is one of the most profitable features you can put in any game. That's why every single AAA studio is doing it, with possibly Nintendo being the sole exception. It extends the life of your game potentially indefinitely, and it provides extra avenues for profit in the form of microtransactions.

They'd get better returns on their money by improving the overall game.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Are you serious? Do you know how many brilliant games - hell, brilliant products generally - end up utterly failing for the simple reason that they lack mainstream appeal? Because it's a lot.

[BillWatson08]

When I play games, I play them alone. I don't want to have to contact friends just to play a game. That's why I avoid MMOs.

[DarthSliver]

BillWatson08 wrote...

When I play games, I play them alone. I don't want to have to contact friends just to play a game. That's why I avoid MMOs.

I avoid MMOs because the subscription fees are outragerously high in price, 15 bucks a month is a bit much to complete quest that are completely the same to the earlier ones but against harder enemies. I like the free to play model MMOs because those usually have PVP compenont in it too and I only really have to pay if I truly enjoy the story of the MMO. 
MMOs' subscription fee needs a model like PSplus and Xboxlive, where you save yourself money paying for year subscription versus paying month by month. 


But I think the best online compenont would be one similar to Dragons Dogma or one like Special Ops in COD where you do missions together but maybe have it be a seperate campaign branched off from the main game, like there was another group of people like your inquistor set off trying to do what they felt was the right way to save the world from the Veil Tear threat. 
Honestly I think a special Campaign that can be played with 4 players- going off ME3 MP, would fit perfect. Something that feels like an RPG and stays with the roots of the game series.

[ghostzodd]

Plaintiff wrote...

Zoikster wrote...
It's a big deal for those of us who want a good game.

1) You are not funding the production of the game.

2) The assumption that multiplayer would in any way detract from the quality of the single-player is utterly baseless. Even if ME3 is bad (an assertion I dispute), there's no proof that it has anything to do with the inclusion of multiplayer. Correlation is not causation.

And I think investors are bit naive to think they'll pull in any extra revenue tagging on MP.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

Online multiplayer is one of the most profitable features you can put in any game. That's why every single AAA studio is doing it, with possibly Nintendo being the sole exception. It extends the life of your game potentially indefinitely, and it provides extra avenues for profit in the form of microtransactions.

They'd get better returns on their money by improving the overall game.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Are you serious? Do you know how many brilliant games - hell, brilliant products generally - end up utterly failing for the simple reason that they lack mainstream appeal? Because it's a lot.

Dark souls did not have Mainstream appeal yet it was a succes oh;)
 also on another note this game will be going head to head with Witcher 3 which will not have multiplayer, and is truly a next gen game.

Modifié par ghostzodd, 17 décembre 2013 - 08:14 .

[Plaintiff]

ghostzodd wrote...
Dark souls did not have Mainstream appeal yet it was a succes oh;)
 also on another note this game will be going head to head with Witcher 3 which will not have multiplayer, and is truly a next gen game.

Dark Souls definitely does have mainstream appeal, and even if it didn't, the success of a single non-mainstream game means nothing. Such a phenomenon is called a "sleeper hit", and it's the exception, not the norm.

Same old Witcher wankery. Blah blah unfounded fanboy assumptions. The past two games were successful without multiplayer too, and you know what changed in the overall direction in the industry? Nothing, because nobody important gives a crap what CDProjekt Red is doing.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 17 décembre 2013 - 08:35 .

[ghostzodd]

Plaintiff wrote...

ghostzodd wrote...
Dark souls did not have Mainstream appeal yet it was a succes oh;)
 also on another note this game will be going head to head with Witcher 3 which will not have multiplayer, and is truly a next gen game.

Dark Souls definitely does have mainstream appeal, and even if it didn't, the success of a single non-mainstream game means nothing. Such a phenomenon is called a "sleeper hit", and it's the exception, not the norm.

Same old Witcher wankery. Blah blah unfounded fanboy assumptions.

Um I don't understand how its witcher wankery, I love Medievel rpg's but lets face facts. Witcher 3  is completely next gen and unbounded by hardware constraints brought on by last gen. "
No one gave gives a crap about CD projekt Red" ,yea aight, someone is in denial

DAI has to be able to run on weaker hardware.

So I doubt Multiplayer will be anything amazing. Bioware should just go back to focusing on a Kick ass Single player journey, which is what people loved about Dragon age in the first place.

Also Dark Souls does not have mainstream appeal it was a hit because the budget was not ridiculously high and "From Software listened to the fans, and gave the people what they wanted*Gasp**" 

Are you projecting your fanboysim on me good sir, If you are  its okay I know its easy to talk like that  behind a computer screen;)

Modifié par ghostzodd, 17 décembre 2013 - 08:49 .

[The_11thDoctor]

THis has had hundreds of threads and beaten to death with a dead horse... I hope they add my ideas Ive posted a billion times about MP and Co-Op as well, but BSN seems to live under a prehistoric rock and hate interaction with other sentient life, so who knows if they'll add MP/Co-op if its based on BSN's feedback. The'yre too afraid that having a 2nd option will ruin the 1st option...

[Sidney]

Zoikster wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Whether or not that money would be "better spent" elsewhere is irrelevent, publishers want to see returns on their investments.

It's a big deal for those of us who want a good game. And I think investors are bit naive to think they'll pull in any extra revenue tagging on MP. They'd get better returns on their money by improving the overall game.

That is doubtful. MP provides another revenue channel. It is doubtful there is anything else they could have added to ME3 that would have netted them as much money for as little cost. Really, I'm not sure that anything they added to the ME3 SP experience would have sold another copy of the game. Would 5 more side quests or another story quest planet have made someone go "OMG, NOW I want the game!!!!".

I'm less concerned that a tacked on MP is gonna ruin the game than more core decisions like trying to be Skyrim-lite will ruin the game.