76 réponses à ce sujet

[Rawgrim]

XxDeonxX wrote...

co-op in a story driven RPG is a terrible idea

This.

[Captain Nimbaud]

I would never want co-op in DA, I quite enjoy the idea that when I get to sit down and play it I'm isolated in the best way possible, I get immersed into the world and characters. The last thing I need is someone crap talking in my ear during conversations or at important plot points. There's nothing wrong with being willfully isolated,it's relaxing. I'm tired of major publishers trying to shove multiplayer down our throats just as a bullet point on the box. I mean would you like someone talking in your ear when you read a good book? No.

[Bizantura]

Please no, there are so many online games allready. The solo experience is willfully going the way of the dinosaur. If it has to be, make it like ME3 so you can ignore it totally. Alldough I don't see that being as much fun as ME3's.

Please go to Bethesda aren't they making a hideous online thingie.

[Sidney]

Captain Nimbaud wrote...

I would never want co-op in DA, I quite enjoy the idea that when I get to sit down and play it I'm isolated in the best way possible, I get immersed into the world and characters. The last thing I need is someone crap talking in my ear during conversations or at important plot points. There's nothing wrong with being willfully isolated,it's relaxing. I'm tired of major publishers trying to shove multiplayer down our throats just as a bullet point on the box. I mean would you like someone talking in your ear when you read a good book? No.

Then, and this is a wild idea, don't have anyone talking in your ear? It isn't like this has to be open MP, or would be. Borderlands has drop in drop out coop but you have to invite or let others in to have someone with you. I might not use a coop in DA but if it is there not an issue.

[Ponendus]

FINE HERE wrote...

I just don't like that every game wants me to either play with others or tell people on facebook how I enjoy the game. That's annoying. Not everyone cares about social networking and not everyone wants to play video games with others all the time. DA has been a very good single player game and I would like it to stay that way. No tacked on multiplayer that is pretty meh on its own. No co-op where the 2nd player is pretty much ignored for the entirety of the story. No playing along with someone else's play through or putting up with their choices and actions which might ruin mine. Just a good story that I can enjoy at my pace and take my time playing.

Games don't 'want' you to do anything, they aren't people. What they do is provide you with a set of experiences and tools and allow you to choose which ones you want to partake in. If the game itself is an experience you don't enjoy, then don't play it?

You don't have to play with others if you don't want to, nor do you have to tell people anything on facebook. 

FINE HERE wrote...

I like the party members and getting to know them. I like seeing my decisions change the story. I like taking time to plot out my party's attacks and picking out dialogs. I can't see that ever working in a multiplayer format. Not to say that it isn't possible, but so much of the story would have to be removed or altered to make that work, it'll be like an MMO, where there are thousands of heroes in the world all doing the same quest and taking away any sense of achievement(at least in my opinion). 

All of the things that you like are hallmarks of Dragon Age, they aren't going anywhere. Saying that so much of the story would 'have' to be removed is just an irrational fear and is based on no evidence at all.

FINE HERE wrote...

The combat especially feels like it'll change completely. If only 2 players play in the co-op mode, what happens to the other 2 party members? Does one person retain control of them while the other only controls themselves? Who controls the other party members inventory? Are the companions going to be useless if there are 4 player controlled characters? That just doesn't seem to fit the party-based combat.

Firstly the combat 'feels like it'll change'... do you mean in co-op/multiplayer? If so, what is this decision of yours based on? We haven't seen anything? Can't you conceive of any single way that multiplayer or co-op could be done that doesn't require a revamp of the combat? Innovation in gaming still exists you know... just because you haven't seen it done before does not mean it can't be done.

All the other questions are good questions and all of them have perfectly conceivable answers. But most importantly if all of it is optional, you don't have to worry about it, because you are human and have free choice to engage in things you enjoy and let others engage in what they enjoy. 

[Browneye_Vamp84]

I just hope there won't be areas closed off like in Dead Space 3. Just have to wait and see.

[Cerbrus operative]

Freewilddragon83 wrote...

Why can't BioWare make online co-op (non-split screen) DA:I?  Game is more fun when you play it with someone you know or have people join your party and help you out.

For the thousand time NO. Dragon Age is a god damn single-player experience and it should stay this way.
if you like co-op and multiplayer so much there are games that are made specifically for that such as: Battlefield, COD, World of Warcraft, guild wars, Final Fnatasy 14, go buy those games and play multiplayer and co-op all day, no one is stopping you.

Modifié par Cerbrus operative, 13 janvier 2014 - 07:38 .

[ghostzodd]

Cerbrus operative wrote...

Freewilddragon83 wrote...

Why can't BioWare make online co-op (non-split screen) DA:I?  Game is more fun when you play it with someone you know or have people join your party and help you out.

For the thousand time NO. Dragon Age is a god damn single-player experience and it should stay this way.
if you like co-op and multiplayer so much there are games that are made specifically for that such as: Battlefield, COD, World of Warcraft, guild wars, Final Fnatasy 14, go buy those games and play multiplayer and co-op all day, no one is stopping you.

But the EA overlords want some type of multipalyer:whistle:

[Ultimtemplar89]

This isn't really the type of game that I want coop for...

[TeamLexana]

It'd be cool if peeps who joined would just get to be one of your party members like Varric or whoever while you'd stay the Inquisitor, when/if they left the party member would go back to being AI controlled. If you joined someone else's game, they'd be their Inquisitor while you were one of the party members.

[TeamLexana]

AWT42 wrote...

*snip*

Just because something is now possible doesn't mean everyone wants it. I play Dragon Age for the story and for the single-player experience. Co-op or multiplayer just don't interest me otherwise I would have found other games that feature those. I prefer to play at my own pace and without other players involved. The type of things I look for in a game just aren't there in co-op or MP games but are in SP games.

ME3 requiring me to play multiplayer (pre-Extended Cut) to get the best outcome in single-player set off alarm bells for me. I just wanted to continue with the story so didn't appreciate having to play MP like that since I was just interested in the single-player only. That's why I look for SP only games.

I get what your saying. I recently got SR4 and someone who's been on my freinds list for YEARS removed me because I didn't want him to join into my game because I was having fun just enjoying it solo without someone yacking in my ear and ruining cutscenes and spoiling what powers and weapons there were while he killed everything. But you know, that's his problem, I had the option to keep my game solo and I did it. I guess I'm just mean, lol. 

[Robbiesan]

Toasted Llama wrote...

I would only like co-op on a gameplay level, not on a story-mode level, like ME3 did it.

This.  I really enjoyed ME3 MP, as it was just for fun, and couldn't care if it had no impact on the SP game.

That said, I can see why so many are against it.

[Captain Nimbaud]

Sidney wrote...

Captain Nimbaud wrote...

I would never want co-op in DA, I quite enjoy the idea that when I get to sit down and play it I'm isolated in the best way possible, I get immersed into the world and characters. The last thing I need is someone crap talking in my ear during conversations or at important plot points. There's nothing wrong with being willfully isolated,it's relaxing. I'm tired of major publishers trying to shove multiplayer down our throats just as a bullet point on the box. I mean would you like someone talking in your ear when you read a good book? No.

Then, and this is a wild idea, don't have anyone talking in your ear? It isn't like this has to be open MP, or would be. Borderlands has drop in drop out coop but you have to invite or let others in to have someone with you. I might not use a coop in DA but if it is there not an issue.

Another wild idea would be to have a game built as single player only these days, it doesn't need multiplayer. Building a game from the ground up with multiplayer in mind is fine, but there's nothing stopping Bioware from creating a new IP for that.

[Decepticon Leader Sully]

I say if they want to have a Coop in Dragon age do it in a second series set in Theadas not in Dragon age its self.

[Tennyochan]

I would LOVEEE co-op!<3

But not like what we've seen in other games- I don't think they should build the story to accommodate a co-op campaign.(eg DS3) More like -'I'm going for an enthralling adventure, you wanna join in?'
I'm playing Baldur's Gate 1/2 Co-op, 200hrs+ in, so I'm speaking on what I've experienced from there (even with the pause/play function, 3 characters each. synchronizing and communication/voice-chat is key however.)

To work for DA I think-
1. Host = Inquisitor, and Co-op Players(2-4?) = Control of party members: Not sure how that would work early on if the party consists of 2/3 members for the plot.

2. All Players see Conversations/cinematics: but ultimately, Big plot stuff, it's the host's choice/Role playing, Or else he'd become some demented fool by your teammates character or silliness.

We would discuss the options and reasoning for each choice in BG. I believe as a SP game, primarily, that's fine for the 1 player/Host to have the ultimate decision, as all decisions only effect him/her (compared to swtor's mp)

3. Implement Permissions: Party control of characters, item, inventory, chat, leveling/skills etc
While my BG experience worked out fine, playing with friends - I imagine you'd need this for a random group.

4. Lobby/Co-op Mechanics. Make sure cinematic/skipping scenes work for all Players and character/party reformations, don't kick co-op players. Ease of finding other players would also be welcome.
(A thorn in Baldur's Gate. As some scenes will crash both players/non host)


A lot less work, as they wont be building a new story for co-op, and doesnt affect the players that only want to play SP. A few nooks to work out, if they go this route.
Now where is that suggestion thread >.>

Modifié par tennyochan, 20 janvier 2014 - 11:17 .

[noelnuno]

Having coop in a main story quest would be annoying.

[simpatikool]

I have to agree with the CO-OP sounds like a terrible idea.

However, with the success of MP in MA3, I can't imagine that the producers of this game would squander the oppurtunity to feature some sort of DA3 MP scenario. I mean the story alone begs for it. The Inquisitor runs around Thedas and creates strongholds. He leaves AGENTS behind or establishes new ones to do his bidding and help establish or take power. Gee sounds like the whole premise for the N7 teams in MA3 multiplayer to me. And I would totally play that is it was good/fun.

[Navasha]

su lu pi wrote...

I say if they want to have a Coop in Dragon age do it in a second series set in Theadas not in Dragon age its self.

This.   If they want to make a game designed with co-op in mind, then make it a completely separate game.    Don't ruin the actual Dragon Age game by squandering its budget on adding in a lot of unnecessary functionality to a single player game.

Adding co-op functionality WILL inevitably degrade the single player experience whether its through gameplay design choices that must be changed or just through consumption of design resources.

If they want to do it, then do it right.   Make it a separate game centered around co-op and then the audience can choose whether they want to buy into this format.   Don't force it upon a story-centric, hero-centric driven game.

[CybAnt1]

They're like, what, 800 MMORPGs now? Developers love those MMOs, because let's face it, they love monthly subscription fees. Although many are now going to F2P with lots of micro transactions, or "luxury tier" experience for paying customers - like D & D Online.

Nobody's doing SP-RPG anymore - other than Bio & a handful of others - because you can't get that subscription fee. Sorry, this is just my pet crazy, when a dying genre of games can't even maintain its distinctiveness from anything else.

My 2c -- yeah, fine, add other "hack n slash dungeon run" content outside of the story-driven main plot, let players optionally play MP co-op through that. If DAI is going to get MP at EA's orders.

[phunx]

simpatikool wrote...

I have to agree with the CO-OP sounds like a terrible idea.

However, with the success of MP in MA3, I can't imagine that the producers of this game would squander the oppurtunity to feature some sort of DA3 MP scenario. I mean the story alone begs for it. The Inquisitor runs around Thedas and creates strongholds. He leaves AGENTS behind or establishes new ones to do his bidding and help establish or take power. Gee sounds like the whole premise for the N7 teams in MA3 multiplayer to me. And I would totally play that is it was good/fun.

That is how I imagined it as well. The "side-quests" our agents do are actually co-op missions we play online. I think the idea is great. I was really surprised at how much fun ME3 mutliplayer was for me, even when I thought it was a horrible idea when I first heard it. So I trust the team to create a fun experience, if they decide to go that way.

[10K]

I'd rather them focus on the main game. I'm growing tired of this mutiplayer phenomenon. It's like it's a development rule now; all games must have a multiplayer aspect. Please no.

Edit: ME3 multiplayer was good, but at the expense of it's single player. Just saying

Modifié par mosesarose, 20 janvier 2014 - 02:55 .

[Cheylus]

I wasn't against the idea. For example, I wish I could do co-op missions in Skyrim with my friends. BioWare knows how to make multiplayer into their story-driven games: lately, SWTOR was fine in that regard, and BG already had a coop component.
But I don't know many friends interested in Dragon Age and I have a playstyle that doesn't fit "online" (I like to explore every inch of a map, which is boring for anyone else than me).

If they have to make an online multiplayer with DA:I, I wish they took inspiration from Dark Souls or Watchdogs. I would love to be "invaded" by a player randomly taking controls of my enemies while I'm exploring a dungeon, for example. I also wish I could create an avatar (or "pawn") who could be recruited for side missions by the Inquisitor of another player (as a temporary fifth party member).

"coop is a bad idea in a story driven RPG", "a million times no", "coop ruins every games"
People lacks imagination. They could have been the same who said some years ago "don't bring guns and spaceships in my RPGs".

[CybAnt1]

I don't see RPG as defined by fantasy. TSR, the folks who brought us Dungeons & Dragons, also had a game called Gamma World, which was set in a kind of post-apocalyptic future with mutants and high-tech weaponry -- like Fallout. They also had Top Secret, which was a modern-world secret-agent RPG. (Like Alpha Protocol.)

RPGs even in the pre-CRPG era fell into many genres. I think people only object to spaceships in fantasy (can we say Spelljammer, then say argh), not guns-and-spaceships based RPGs.

I liked KOTOR 1 and 2 very much, and the Mass Effect games less. The reason had more to do with features and mechanics than genre and setting, since both are sci-fi.

[LinksOcarina]

CybAnt1 wrote...

I don't see RPG as defined by fantasy. TSR, the folks who brought us Dungeons & Dragons, also had a game called Gamma World, which was set in a kind of post-apocalyptic future with mutants and high-tech weaponry -- like Fallout. They also had Top Secret, which was a modern-world secret-agent RPG. (Like Alpha Protocol.)

RPGs even in the pre-CRPG era fell into many genres. I think people only object to spaceships in fantasy (can we say Spelljammer, then say argh), not guns-and-spaceships based RPGs.

I liked KOTOR 1 and 2 very much, and the Mass Effect games less. The reason had more to do with features and mechanics than genre and setting, since both are sci-fi.

Got to remember though, people tend to be determinist regarding their choices. Like "I need elfs and wizards and orcs in my RPG because thats what an RPG is, and we need to roll d20 all the time and add modifiers because that system has been perfected!" 

This is obviously not the case, as we have seen over the years. And it has started to get interesting in the gaming world because of things like Borderlands. It is my favorite example because it is an RPG in a sense where you do quests, build a character archetype and level up, but its mostly in the mold of DPS/sec stat pushing for 5 extra damage a hit. A rouge-like shooter with a co-op mechanic.

It is as valid as Dragon Age: Origins or Betrayal at Krondor or Final Fantasy VII, but a different design style, which honestly is something we need more of in the industry to break through this terrible notion that the "RPG" is an already defined term for a pre-determned few.