123 réponses à ce sujet

[MiyoKit]

So long as it has absolutely zero bearing on the single player campaign it can be whatever it wants to be. If it interfers with the campaign (ala ME:3) then it can bugger off and so can Bioware.

[Vortex13]

Beerfish wrote...

Akka le Vil wrote...



None. They shouldn't waste time and
resources on a subpar multiplayer when it could be used to strengthen
the core of the game.
This.

The bolded part is totally not the issue.  If they decided to have no mutliplayer, there is not going to be a big infusion ot money, time and resources into the single player game.  Some people refuse to believe this for some reason.

Design and budget core game.

Shall we have an mp component?  If yes add design and budget for that and have a different team work on it.  If no then nothing different happens than orginally.  Excluding MP will never make the orginal game better.

A valid fear would be that they screw up like they did with Me and have mp affect sp game but that is as far as it goes.

This.

And as far as the whole MP affecting SP thing goes, I am fairly confident that the backlash over ME 3 has made it abundantly clear that we gamers don't want to see that EVER again.

[Vortex13]

NevronEQ wrote...

ME3 style worked out pretty well. I'd like to see some team-work *required* wave based multiplayer, prehaps with the odd objective similar to what we saw in ME3.

I don't mind the ability to purchase crates, as long as people can get the exact same thing while playing the multiplayer game.

I agree 100%.

ME 3's MP was actually an example of a GOOD form of micro-transactions in a game. A player could unlock everything with in-game currency that a paying player could, and everything was balanced so that the game did not become, pay to win.

[Vortex13]

ghostzodd wrote...

Wow well if you really think that way then there is nothing I can do, You must not understand how business works

It just doesn't make any sense. Why would Bioware put forward any effort if they utterly despised MP?

True, in business you sometimes have to do things that you don't like, but I say that placing a project under the direction of a person that utterly hates it is not sound business practice.

EA: So Bioware we heard you hated MP.

Bioware: You said it, I can't stand the concept of it. I would never, ever add MP to any of the games I do.

EA: Well we have an MMO that will cost half a billion dollars to make. We want you to be the ones making it.

Bioware: ...........

You don't put someone in charge of something (especially something that can make or break you company) if they didn't like the core concept of it.

[JoltDealer]

Beerfish wrote...

Akka le Vil wrote...



None. They shouldn't waste time and
resources on a subpar multiplayer when it could be used to strengthen
the core of the game.
This.

The bolded part is totally not the issue.  If they decided to have no mutliplayer, there is not going to be a big infusion ot money, time and resources into the single player game.  Some people refuse to believe this for some reason.

Design and budget core game.

Shall we have an mp component?  If yes add design and budget for that and have a different team work on it.  If no then nothing different happens than orginally.  Excluding MP will never make the orginal game better.

A valid fear would be that they screw up like they did with Me and have mp affect sp game but that is as far as it goes.

Exactly.  If you know nothing about game development, the idea that cutting multiplayer to improve single player content makes a lot of sense.  Unfortunately, it does not work like that in the real world.  A game's budget is based on how much they expect the game to sell.  However, single player games only draw in X amount of people.  The reason why multiplayer gets its own team and budget is because its inclusion typically brings Y amount of gamers with it.  Cutting multiplayer would mean getting rid of that Y amount of potentially sold games, which means the only people they can count on buying it, are the single player group.  The loss of Y does not cause the value of X to go up or down.  Therefore, the single player budget remains the same as well.  No additional money, resources, or manpower is added by the exclusion of multiplayer.  That is a fact.

Regardless, I also hope that the multiplayer has no affect on single player.  I get that they want people to play it, but there are other, better ways to do it.  Maybe have unlockable weapons and armor from multiplayer, unlocked in single player too.  However, I would still like the armor to be unlockable through single player as well.  I wouldn't mind that too much. 

Threat300 wrote...

I just hope the DA:I "Agents" thing isn't anything like ME3 galactic readiness.

If anything, I was more expecting something similar to Assassins Creed IV's "Kenway Fleet" Missions.  You gather forces, send them on missions, and continue playing the game while the mission progresses in the background.  This often leads to money and resources being unlocked as a result.  My only hope is that the interface is a bit more personal.  I would much rather have a member of my Inquisition be in charge of setting up missions.  If I need to send my agents out, I'd talk to him. 

Modifié par Crimson Sound, 21 décembre 2013 - 12:14 .

[JoltDealer]

Vortex13 wrote...

ghostzodd wrote...

Wow well if you really think that way then there is nothing I can do, You must not understand how business works

It just doesn't make any sense. Why would Bioware put forward any effort if they utterly despised MP?

True, in business you sometimes have to do things that you don't like, but I say that placing a project under the direction of a person that utterly hates it is not sound business practice.

EA: So Bioware we heard you hated MP.

Bioware: You said it, I can't stand the concept of it. I would never, ever add MP to any of the games I do.

EA: Well we have an MMO that will cost half a billion dollars to make. We want you to be the ones making it.

Bioware: ...........

You don't put someone in charge of something (especially something that can make or break you company) if they didn't like the core concept of it.

I'd just like to step in and say, if one looks back, Bioware has no problem with multiplayer.  It's something they wanted to do with the first two Mass Effect games, but couldn't due to lack of resources.  Meaning that they had a single player budget, but their publishers at the time (Microsoft, then EA) didn't think their ideas for multiplayer warranted a budget and team to actually make it a reality.  I've been an active member of Bioware's community since 2005, when Mass Effect was first announced.  Fact is, there was a time when there was talk of multiplayer being in the first game, but then it just disappeared.

The only people who seem to have a problem with it, are gamers who seem to think any form of multiplayer is going to ruin the single player neighborhood.  Which, if you haven't been paying attention, isn't true at all.

Modifié par Crimson Sound, 21 décembre 2013 - 12:13 .

[ghostzodd]

Crimson Sound wrote...

Vortex13 wrote...

ghostzodd wrote...

Wow well if you really think that way then there is nothing I can do, You must not understand how business works

It just doesn't make any sense. Why would Bioware put forward any effort if they utterly despised MP?

True, in business you sometimes have to do things that you don't like, but I say that placing a project under the direction of a person that utterly hates it is not sound business practice.

EA: So Bioware we heard you hated MP.

Bioware: You said it, I can't stand the concept of it. I would never, ever add MP to any of the games I do.

EA: Well we have an MMO that will cost half a billion dollars to make. We want you to be the ones making it.

Bioware: ...........

You don't put someone in charge of something (especially something that can make or break you company) if they didn't like the core concept of it.

I'd just like to step in and say, if one looks back, Bioware has no problem with multiplayer.  It's something they wanted to do with the first two Mass Effect games, but couldn't due to lack of resources.  Meaning that they had a single player budget, but their publishers at the time (Microsoft, then EA) didn't think their ideas for multiplayer warranted a budget and team to actually make it a reality.  I've been an active member of Bioware's community since 2005, when Mass Effect was first announced.  Fact is, there was a time when there was talk of multiplayer being in the first game, but then it just disappeared.

The only people who seem to have a problem with it, are gamers who seem to think any form of multiplayer is going to ruin the single player neighborhood.  Which, if you haven't been paying attention, isn't true at all.

Well it did with Mass Effect 3. But in all honesty I don't mind multiplayer I just don't think it will be all that grand since this is a cross generation game and bioware has to deal with consoles with less hardware

[ghostzodd]

Vortex13 wrote...

ghostzodd wrote...

Wow well if you really think that way then there is nothing I can do, You must not understand how business works

It just doesn't make any sense. Why would Bioware put forward any effort if they utterly despised MP?

True, in business you sometimes have to do things that you don't like, but I say that placing a project under the direction of a person that utterly hates it is not sound business practice.

EA: So Bioware we heard you hated MP.

Bioware: You said it, I can't stand the concept of it. I would never, ever add MP to any of the games I do.

EA: Well we have an MMO that will cost half a billion dollars to make. We want you to be the ones making it.

Bioware: ...........

You don't put someone in charge of something (especially something that can make or break you company) if they didn't like the core concept of it.

It wouldn't make or break the company if the game sold poorly its not like EA is in Capcom dire straits

[JoltDealer]

ghostzodd wrote...

Vortex13 wrote...

ghostzodd wrote...

Wow well if you really think that way then there is nothing I can do, You must not understand how business works

It just doesn't make any sense. Why would Bioware put forward any effort if they utterly despised MP?

True, in business you sometimes have to do things that you don't like, but I say that placing a project under the direction of a person that utterly hates it is not sound business practice.

EA: So Bioware we heard you hated MP.

Bioware: You said it, I can't stand the concept of it. I would never, ever add MP to any of the games I do.

EA: Well we have an MMO that will cost half a billion dollars to make. We want you to be the ones making it.

Bioware: ...........

You don't put someone in charge of something (especially something that can make or break you company) if they didn't like the core concept of it.

It wouldn't make or break the company if the game sold poorly its not like EA is in Capcom dire straits

That's not as true as you think.  AAA Games are like Blockbuster movies.  Studios put out several movies per year, but not all of them succeed or break even.  Blockbuster films are usually films that have a high chance of selling (i.e. Marvel's The Avengers, Man of Steel, etc.) or sequels to films that have been know to sell extremely well (i.e. Die Hard, the Hobbit, etc.).  The success of these films ends up paying for their own production costs as well as covering the costs of that year's financial flops.  

AAA games are the same.  Call of Duty (and its FPS clones), Assassins Creed, Mass Effect, Dragon Age, Battlefield, FIFA, and Halo are all examples of this trend.  They are all games that sell well.  When they succeed, the money goes to paying dev costs and pulling the company's ass out of the red by recouping the losses accumulated from failed or scrapped games.  When AAA games fail, that means failure for multiple development teams and the entire company as a whole.  Capcom is in dire straights because even their best games aren't selling well.  Resident Evil 6 is considered a flop in terms of sales, as well as its overall quality.  Dragon's Dogma was good, but few bought the game.  Lost Planet 3, a more recent release, also failed due to poor marketing and the overall product being crap.  Thank god Dead Rising 3 is doing better otherwise we might see Capcom disappear entirely.

[vandalDX]

Vortex13 wrote...

Say you spec your Mage for straight up damage dealing potential, but you don't have very much in the way of defense or mana regen, well a support speced Golem, could provide cover, as well as provide a boost to mana regen. I would love to be able to play as something like a Malibari, and charge across the field with my Templar and Dalish Archer allies.

*Okay non-humanoid character classes might be a little far fetched, but the humanoid ones wouldn't be; things like Golems, Sylvans, Werewolves, Awakened, Undead, Demons [Pride and Desire], etc.

Seriously, this is like the exact thing my gaming group and I talk about when we look forward to DAIMP (should such a thing exist).

WIth class specializations, the depth of the experience, along with a random-pack approach to upgrades, would be even greater than that of ME3.  DAO was great for its tactical, party-build dynamic, and while ME3MP worked well in that arena at the higher difficulties--only platinum after a whole--there were certain classes that could just take over a match, like the Turian Ghost (with a Cerberus Harrier or a Sabre) or the N7 Fury (with an AWA).

The challenge of DAO was about the balance of the party and the efficiency of the teamwork you could program in to the tactics and the approach to large-scale combat.  I enjoyed that to some extent with DA2--especially in Act I before Aveline became straight-up unkillable--but the applications of that same formula are just terrific when you add a different player at each position.  It becomes true role playing, requiring communication and strategy, and I think it would be great fun for the game after a handful of playthroughs of the single-player, which can be what it is without consideration of any MP component.

BioWare does good work.  I believe that DAI is going to be its best.

[ghostzodd]

Crimson Sound wrote...

ghostzodd wrote...

Vortex13 wrote...

ghostzodd wrote...

Wow well if you really think that way then there is nothing I can do, You must not understand how business works

It just doesn't make any sense. Why would Bioware put forward any effort if they utterly despised MP?

True, in business you sometimes have to do things that you don't like, but I say that placing a project under the direction of a person that utterly hates it is not sound business practice.

EA: So Bioware we heard you hated MP.

Bioware: You said it, I can't stand the concept of it. I would never, ever add MP to any of the games I do.

EA: Well we have an MMO that will cost half a billion dollars to make. We want you to be the ones making it.

Bioware: ...........

You don't put someone in charge of something (especially something that can make or break you company) if they didn't like the core concept of it.

It wouldn't make or break the company if the game sold poorly its not like EA is in Capcom dire straits

That's not as true as you think.  AAA Games are like Blockbuster movies.  Studios put out several movies per year, but not all of them succeed or break even.  Blockbuster films are usually films that have a high chance of selling (i.e. Marvel's The Avengers, Man of Steel, etc.) or sequels to films that have been know to sell extremely well (i.e. Die Hard, the Hobbit, etc.).  The success of these films ends up paying for their own production costs as well as covering the costs of that year's financial flops.  

AAA games are the same.  Call of Duty (and its FPS clones), Assassins Creed, Mass Effect, Dragon Age, Battlefield, FIFA, and Halo are all examples of this trend.  They are all games that sell well.  When they succeed, the money goes to paying dev costs and pulling the company's ass out of the red by recouping the losses accumulated from failed or scrapped games.  When AAA games fail, that means failure for multiple development teams and the entire company as a whole.  Capcom is in dire straights because even their best games aren't selling well.  Resident Evil 6 is considered a flop in terms of sales, as well as its overall quality.  Dragon's Dogma was good, but few bought the game.  Lost Planet 3, a more recent release, also failed due to poor marketing and the overall product being crap.  Thank god Dead Rising 3 is doing better otherwise we might see Capcom disappear entirely.

My point is though is that EA is not anywhere near being in financial dire straits. Example EA wanted to dead space 3 to sell 5 million copies, the game only sold between 500,000 to a million. That was an AAA game.Is EA in financial dire straits because of it no.

I am not saying I want DAI to fail at all,but I just hope EA's sales projection are not ridiculous. t

[kheldorin]

ghostzodd wrote...

Crimson Sound wrote...

ghostzodd wrote...

Vortex13 wrote...

ghostzodd wrote...

Wow well if you really think that way then there is nothing I can do, You must not understand how business works

It just doesn't make any sense. Why would Bioware put forward any effort if they utterly despised MP?

True, in business you sometimes have to do things that you don't like, but I say that placing a project under the direction of a person that utterly hates it is not sound business practice.

EA: So Bioware we heard you hated MP.

Bioware: You said it, I can't stand the concept of it. I would never, ever add MP to any of the games I do.

EA: Well we have an MMO that will cost half a billion dollars to make. We want you to be the ones making it.

Bioware: ...........

You don't put someone in charge of something (especially something that can make or break you company) if they didn't like the core concept of it.

It wouldn't make or break the company if the game sold poorly its not like EA is in Capcom dire straits

That's not as true as you think.  AAA Games are like Blockbuster movies.  Studios put out several movies per year, but not all of them succeed or break even.  Blockbuster films are usually films that have a high chance of selling (i.e. Marvel's The Avengers, Man of Steel, etc.) or sequels to films that have been know to sell extremely well (i.e. Die Hard, the Hobbit, etc.).  The success of these films ends up paying for their own production costs as well as covering the costs of that year's financial flops.  

AAA games are the same.  Call of Duty (and its FPS clones), Assassins Creed, Mass Effect, Dragon Age, Battlefield, FIFA, and Halo are all examples of this trend.  They are all games that sell well.  When they succeed, the money goes to paying dev costs and pulling the company's ass out of the red by recouping the losses accumulated from failed or scrapped games.  When AAA games fail, that means failure for multiple development teams and the entire company as a whole.  Capcom is in dire straights because even their best games aren't selling well.  Resident Evil 6 is considered a flop in terms of sales, as well as its overall quality.  Dragon's Dogma was good, but few bought the game.  Lost Planet 3, a more recent release, also failed due to poor marketing and the overall product being crap.  Thank god Dead Rising 3 is doing better otherwise we might see Capcom disappear entirely.

My point is though is that EA is not anywhere near being in financial dire straits. Example EA wanted to dead space 3 to sell 5 million copies, the game only sold between 500,000 to a million. That was an AAA game.Is EA in financial dire straits because of it no.

I am not saying I want DAI to fail at all,but I just hope EA's sales projection are not ridiculous. t

People were laid off from the team that made Dead Space.....

The more people that are laid off, the less content there would be for each game. You also have to wait longer between each Bioware release.

The sales projection are going to be ridiculous because the DA:I team is so big and they are delayed by a year.

[JoltDealer]

ghostzodd wrote...

My point is though is that EA is not anywhere near being in financial dire straits. Example EA wanted to dead space 3 to sell 5 million copies, the game only sold between 500,000 to a million. That was an AAA game.Is EA in financial dire straits because of it no.

I am not saying I want DAI to fail at all,but I just hope EA's sales projection are not ridiculous. t

My point is that just because EA can afford to make a mistake, doesn't mean they are going to be okay with the prospect or the reality of one.  They may not be in "financial dire straits," but no business man moves forward with an action if he thinks it will lead him there.

I would also like to point out to those who say, "Just give the single player a bigger budget regardless of multiplayer!", that would be a financial mistake.  Bigger budgets and more resources do not always equal better games.  Most game budgets come down to a matter of two questions:  "How many copies of this game do we expect to sell?" and "How much money can we safely spend to make it happen?"  Now I'm not saying that game publishers don't take risks or anything, but a man who dances on razor's edge will eventually fall to pieces.

[Decepticon Leader Sully]

All i want is a decent multi player and single player.

[Vortex13]

su lu pi wrote...

All i want is a decent multi player and single player.

Same here.

I love a good story. I thoroughly enjoyed the myriad of choices that I could make in games like Mass Effect and Dragon Age. The rich lore, the memorable characters, they all helped pull me into the setting. I also enjoy a co-operative multiplayer, especially an RPG co-op. I love the sense of camaraderie and accomplishment that me and my friends felt the first time we beat platinum together. I love to develop tactics with our characters, to watch as each of my friends gravitate towards a particular favorite class and then work up our own head cannon about their respective backstories.

IMO the notion that MP is the antithesis of SP is unfounded; as games like ME 3 show. Even if one does not care for the endings of that game, do they really think that MP was the main reason behind all of ME 3's faults?

[Decepticon Leader Sully]

Yeah if it is done right a MP can inhance the SP of the game. that being said all i see is kids telling me they sh***d my mum or dad or goldfish.

[Vortex13]

valhallaVANDAL wrote...

Vortex13 wrote...

Say you spec your Mage for straight up damage dealing potential, but you don't have very much in the way of defense or mana regen, well a support speced Golem, could provide cover, as well as provide a boost to mana regen. I would love to be able to play as something like a Malibari, and charge across the field with my Templar and Dalish Archer allies.

*Okay non-humanoid character classes might be a little far fetched, but the humanoid ones wouldn't be; things like Golems, Sylvans, Werewolves, Awakened, Undead, Demons [Pride and Desire], etc.

Seriously, this is like the exact thing my gaming group and I talk about when we look forward to DAIMP (should such a thing exist).

WIth class specializations, the depth of the experience, along with a random-pack approach to upgrades, would be even greater than that of ME3.  DAO was great for its tactical, party-build dynamic, and while ME3MP worked well in that arena at the higher difficulties--only platinum after a whole--there were certain classes that could just take over a match, like the Turian Ghost (with a Cerberus Harrier or a Sabre) or the N7 Fury (with an AWA).

The challenge of DAO was about the balance of the party and the efficiency of the teamwork you could program in to the tactics and the approach to large-scale combat.  I enjoyed that to some extent with DA2--especially in Act I before Aveline became straight-up unkillable--but the applications of that same formula are just terrific when you add a different player at each position.  It becomes true role playing, requiring communication and strategy, and I think it would be great fun for the game after a handful of playthroughs of the single-player, which can be what it is without consideration of any MP component.

BioWare does good work.  I believe that DAI is going to be its best.

I am in the same boat as you, my friends and I constantly talk about the upgrades, and level of customization that we would like to see in a (as of yet hypothetical) DA:I MP mode. I would personally like to see an system that had all powers available for a particular class at the start, with the races, and specializations being locked. The player would only be able to slot three - six powers at a time (depending on button layout), but the level of depth that allows would help prevent mirror teams from being too similar.

A Templar speced Warrior with all of his abilities geared towards combating mages and demons would play very differently then a Templar with their abilities put towards physical combat, for example.

[Vortex13]

su lu pi wrote...

Yeah if it is done right a MP can inhance the SP of the game. that being said all i see is kids telling me they sh***d my mum or dad or goldfish.

I can feel your pain on that, unfortunate side of MP. Trying to get into a MP game by yourself, especially one that is highly competitive; like COD; does suck. 

Luckily, I have a group of friends that I play with, and we are in party chat most of the time so that we can avoid such people.

[JoltDealer]

Vortex13 wrote...

su lu pi wrote...

Yeah if it is done right a MP can inhance the SP of the game. that being said all i see is kids telling me they sh***d my mum or dad or goldfish.

I can feel your pain on that, unfortunate side of MP. Trying to get into a MP game by yourself, especially one that is highly competitive; like COD; does suck. 

Luckily, I have a group of friends that I play with, and we are in party chat most of the time so that we can avoid such people.

Well I feel that a lot of people here on the BSN forget the fact that they are partof a fairly friendly, online community.  In other words, I feel that particular point is kind of moot when we could be setting up groups to play with long before release instead of treating multiplayer like the bane of gaming's existence.

To be comepletely honest, I met some of the best players and people I've met on Xbox Live on Mass Effect 3's multiplayer.  I just attributed it to the fact that they weren't just fellow online gamers, but in truth, it was because they were fellow fans of Bioware games.  We were essentially instant friends.

[BouncyFrag]

Crimson Sound wrote...

Vortex13 wrote...

su lu pi wrote...

Yeah if it is done right a MP can inhance the SP of the game. that being said all i see is kids telling me they sh***d my mum or dad or goldfish.

I can feel your pain on that, unfortunate side of MP. Trying to get into a MP game by yourself, especially one that is highly competitive; like COD; does suck. 

Luckily, I have a group of friends that I play with, and we are in party chat most of the time so that we can avoid such people.

Well I feel that a lot of people here on the BSN forget the fact that they are partof a fairly friendly, online community.  In other words, I feel that particular point is kind of moot when we could be setting up groups to play with long before release instead of treating multiplayer like the bane of gaming's existence.

To be comepletely honest, I met some of the best players and people I've met on Xbox Live on Mass Effect 3's multiplayer.  I just attributed it to the fact that they weren't just fellow online gamers, but in truth, it was because they were fellow fans of Bioware games.  We were essentially instant friends.

I had a similar experience. One of the fun things about a DA MP would be playing with the crazies around here. I use the word crazies as a term of endearment.

Modifié par BouncyFrag, 04 janvier 2014 - 07:35 .

[Plato]

All I would like is a discussion on possible DAI MP features without it ending in a "I don't want MP because i don't play so no one else can have it either" or "I don't want MP because it takes resources from SP".
I think everyone understands and/or agrees by now that MP won't take anything from SP and no one wants MP to affect SP.

[Milady]

MiyoKit wrote...

So long as it has absolutely zero bearing on the single player campaign it can be whatever it wants to be. If it interfers with the campaign (ala ME:3) then it can bugger off and so can Bioware.

THIS!!!!!!

[Angrywolves]

I was watching Gladiator the other day and something like that should be relatively simple to set up.
Relatively simple, rotfl.

[JoltDealer]

BouncyFrag wrote...

I had a similar experience. One of the fun things about a DA MP would be playing with the crazies around here. I use the word crazies as a term of endearment.

Oh yeah.  If even half of the people on the BSN played DAI multiplayer, we would have a very "colorful" community.  

Billiem wrote...

All I would like is a discussion on possible DAI MP features without it ending in a "I don't want MP because i don't play so no one else can have it either" or "I don't want MP because it takes resources from SP".
I think everyone understands and/or agrees by now that MP won't take anything from SP and no one wants MP to affect SP.

That's what I initially wanted when I started this thread, but it's basically a guarantee that you're going to get those sorts of posts.  Basically, just roll with it.

But that aside, there have been some good ideas posted in this thread.

[IC-07]

ME3 MP clone.