24 réponses à ce sujet

[Fladnag]

I started this topic once, and it was removed. As far as I know no breach of forum rules or conduct were contained in my original topic. Soooo here we go again.

 

 

I think it would be easy to have full storyline co-op in this series since we have always been able to change up control of party members. Allow another person to controll a party member. Cut scenes and any dialog or decison making revert to the host player. co-op would be invitation only so unwanted players would not be able to simply pop in and go rogue with your party members. With voice chat and a friend or two combat would be awesome.

 

The approve/disaprove status of the followers would not be in jeopardy since the party leadership stays with the host. Co-op players would be idle while cut scenes and choices are made by the host.

Certainly co-op players would see the cut scene and your dialogue choices.

 

The game stays 1 player if the gamer wants it that way, or you can have a friend along if you want.

 

Here we go again...

 

 

 

[Fast Jimmy]

On the surface, I wouldn't have a problem with it. But if it is a feature that wouldn't -) drive a ton of sales or 2) derive some form of revenue like MP transactions, it seems unlikely to get its own MP budget. In which case, I would be afraid that this feature would eat into the SP budget (due to not being a more traditional MP model, and hence not getting its own MP budget) or that the final product might bug the base game somehow.

Those considerations aside, I don't have a problem with such an idea... although I would be doubtful to use it, myself.

[Maiden Crowe]

You have some nerve Fladnag. Don't you know? Co-op is one of the forbidden words on these forums along with Blacksmithing.

[Fladnag]

Gamers have been shouting into the wind for years for a full storyline co-op. I believe this aspect alone would send sales through the roof, and bring gamers to this title that may otherwise not consider it (can't imagine why though..lol). The beauty of the idea is that the single player aspect would remain since the host is in comtrol of the story.

[berelinde]

I believe that such a move would send sales through the basement and into the bedrock. The inclusion of autodialogue in DA2 practically caused a riot because people did not like the idea of not being able to control what their characters were saying. How enthusiastic would people be about playing a character who has a pre-written, pre-recorded script? That would be incredibly boring. Imagine sitting there, waiting for the character you're supposed to be controlling to stop talking.

 

Sure, you could experiment with different builds and different combat tactics without having to roll another protagonist, but you can control the NPCs in combat already.

 

HoDA-style arena combat where everyone is playing as a fixed character is a completely different animal. There is no protagonist and there are no sidekicks. That could be fun, with a like-minded group of friends. We still have Diablo II LAN parties at my house, and it's a lot of fun. But I still remember playing Baldur's Gate II in multi-player mode (as co-op) and being bored out of my skull unless I was the one hosting the game... in which case my fiance was bored out of his skull. And forget any kind of consistency in a game with one "chosen one," at least when that character changes depending on who's hosting the game. Although it was rather amusing watching the title of Bhaalspawn flip back and forth six times a night.

 

There are bound to be features in the game that I don't use that others do, so I don't really care if they do wind up implementing something like this - AS LONG AS IT'S OPTIONAL! - but this is the kind of thing that can suck up tons of time and resources to debug. If that's where the devs decide to spend their budget, that's where they decide to spend their budget, but I would be surprised if the single-player side did not suffer for it.

[Innsmouth Dweller]

i'd love to see a combination of co-op system from SWotR (dice of interaction!) and old-school LAN multiplayer mode. playing solo has it's charms, but interacting with friend(s) in the game would be much more fun.

 

i don't have the slightest idea how to merge two states of the game, so i'll just throw some ideas. it has never been done succesfully imho.

 

all the players should be present in "game creation room", the game upon "creating" should check the saves of both players and create a set of avaiable quests (if player A completed quest 1 but player B didn't - the game would assume this quest as open, if both players completed the quest - it's completed and so on). if any of players decides to quit the game, it should save the progress for both players in their personal/single player saves accordingly (if both players completed a quest, it should be completed if they choose to continue playing solo, and so on). if player B has done quest 1 he cannot re-do it (no changes in morality/approval and so on), he only accompanies player A (yet still can participate in events/dialogues as player A does).

 

edit: what of chain-quests?

nothing really, those should be treated as are regular quests unless there are choices which exclude each other (do D and then choose between E and F and then if you choose E do G; if you choose E - do H), E means - kill the black knight, H means hug the black knight. let's take the most interesting case, player A is in the state of E, player B is about to do H. according to logic used in other quests - the game should use minimal joint stage but it's not really clear what should be the "game state" in this case. stage 2 (options E and F) is minimal joint stage, so i suppose the game should recognize E as valid quest branch in this case.

 

i have no idea how it should work on campaigns. let's assume player A has taken the keep, but player B didn't - use "area transition"? assume that keep has to be taken because game has to be consistant? what of the changes player A made to the keep? are they preserved somehow? maybe give the player an interface to retrieve objects/command ppl in his keep by commands w/o leting him to physically interact with it?

 

dialogues/companions

as mentioned before, regular interactions with NPCs should be made like it was in SWotR who gets to talk is decided by dice roll. as for companions? well that depends... if they are sitting on their butts in the keep - the "area transition" is the best and easiest approach. there should be one "Varric" in the world, but why limit him to only one player - if conversation is played by the dice rules, Varric should respond to the player who won the roll and use correct "approval parameter", if player A won the roll, Varric responds to player A who he doesn't like very much.

 

edit: choices

this is a hard one, i suppose it should be decided somehow in "game creation room" which player's morality should be used (assuming both players completed the same campaign, if only one did - game simply assumes it's not done).

 

just an idea. but to tell the truth, i'd buy a game which allows players interaction in a heartbeat and subscribe for life (even if it wasn't mmorpg, just enhanced single player). add tools for modding it (and exchange those mods in "game creation room" to preserve consistency) and i'll die happy

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Divinity: Original Sin is one to look to, as it is a full co-op narrative heavy RPG that seeks to integrate both players (it's 2p co op) into the game's story and interactions. It's not really the same kind of game as Dragon Age, more like Ultima, but it is the first of it's kind with regards to co op RPGs.

 

I also don't know why Co-Op or Multiplayer in general is met with such hostility by this fanbase. I understand many of the arguments, but the potential upside for a well done co-op or multiplayer RPG experience is huge. Look at the longevity of Neverwinter Nights.

[berelinde]

Divinity: Original Sin is one to look to, as it is a full co-op narrative heavy RPG that seeks to integrate both players (it's 2p co op) into the game's story and interactions. It's not really the same kind of game as Dragon Age, more like Ultima, but it is the first of it's kind with regards to co op RPGs.

 

I also don't know why Co-Op or Multiplayer in general is met with such hostility by this fanbase. I understand many of the arguments, but the potential upside for a well done co-op or multiplayer RPG experience is huge. Look at the longevity of Neverwinter Nights.

The longevity of Neverwinter Nights is due to the fact that the game shipped with a toolset and players adventure in persistent worlds. Inquisition will probably not have a toolset,  and without one, modding opportunities will be limited or non-existent. There will be no persistent worlds unless BioWare devotes the time and resources to create one themselves. I don't know too many people who are still playing the NWN Official Campaign, multi-player or single-player.

[Vortex13]

I know that if DA:I was to have MP co-op campaign, or co-op horde mode my and my two closest friends would pre-order it. That right there would be at least to brand new copies of the game, rather than just one copy, that I would get and then trade to my friends when I finished.

 

 

As far as what I would like to see in a MP mode, I am torn. A fully implemented, drop in/drop out campaign wherein the other players assume the roles of the host's companions sounds awesome, but being able to play a co-op horde mode (similar to ME 3) as one of the more exotic creatures of the setting; a Sylvan, werewolf, Golem, Awakened; etc. would be amazing as well.

 

If I was somehow in charge of what MP mode BioWare was going to implement into DA:I, I think I would have to go with a co-op horde mode. This is simply because it has proven successful in a recent BioWare title, it would also be easier to add an area based survival mode to the game then to enable the entire SP campaign to be played with other people.   

[GVulture]

SP Co-Op modes don't work well with RPGs, I think. They work in shorter games like Resident Evil and Dead Space. Because if I am playing Co-Op, I want to be able to play all the way through with a friend and the pacing of Dragon Age doesn't really lend itself to that. It's all fine and dandy when you're off saving Thedas and all, but when someone is trudging around talking to NPCs and merchants and the like? Not much fun.

[DrBlingzle]

At first glance this seems great but I have a few issues with it.
1) what happens when the two PCs give conflicting commands to their followers?
2) due to the fact combat is being made more tactical it can be assumed that there will be more pausing. Surely both PCs wont want to pause at the same time all of the time.
3) what if the guest runs far away from the other player? would they be able to seperate from the party?

But if all of these issues were sorted out, I'd be in full support of co-op.

[Fladnag]

Strictly from my point of view and a few other I converse with, anything other than full content co-op would get played out way to quickly. 3-5 added co-op side missions to the game would be cool but when they have been played through they are done, no sence in doing it again. Horde/Survival modes are the same situation, they become monotonous repitition trying to best your highest wave, and get played out quickly. 

 

As the host I would not invite a co-op player into my game if I was in the situation of exploring a town and having many NPC interactions. However if I were at the point where lots of combat was going to be taking place, having a friend or two along controling my party members would be awesome. Again my idea of this would be co-op by invitation only, no pop ins.

 

The basic framework already exists since we can switch up witch party member we want to control. Most every other rpg out there your followers are just AI bots.  Add in some net code to allow other players in and viola we will have the (imo) best fantasy rpg of all time. Single player, if thats what you like or full story co-op.

[Fladnag]

True enough that followers under the controll of others are just that. But you would hopefully not be playing with someone that would run off on you. The follower under co-op controll would not get conflicting comands since you would not be controlling that follower. Voice chat should most definately be used to keep co-op working smoothly. eg. Hey co-op buddy move over there behind that rock I will set up by that tree now we can set up a cross fire. Remeber this idea is for co-op by invitation. No rogue pop in game spoiling intruders.

[Mes]

I don't see it working. I wouldn't be opposed to trying, though (but I'd have the annoying problem of finding someone who actually cares about Dragon Age like I do to play with ).

 

Dragon Age is just so... story-based. I don't see the fun in one person standing around and watching you, the main character, take the lead in all the conversations and cutscenes. Seems to me that player 2 would be better off just playing the game themselves rather than taking a backseat like that.

 

I could potentially see the fun of a split screen mode, where two people are sitting on the couch together and playing that way. It might be a fun way for someone who's never played video games to have a go.

[Rawgrim]

OP should try The Lord of the Rings: War in the North. That game is alot of fun co-op, and it is actually made for co-op. It has a split-screen function on consoles as well, wich is always a bonus.

[CybAnt1]

As I said before, I have no problem with co-op. But it should be like BG2's multiplayer, the other players should be "BYOPC" (bring your own player character), not assuming control of the companions. And there could be a mix. You could have two people co-op playing 2 characters, and the other 2 are pre-existing NPCs. (I guess that's the Original Sin method.) 

 

Look ... it's not just because I wouldn't like it or use it (both are true) and I get the point it would be by one player's initiation and invitation only, unlike MMOs where other players are constantly in your face  ... I really do think there's not a great amount of interest in it (people "possessing" and taking over the companions). There is in multiplayer -- co-op or competitive -- personally I'd be more interested in co-op, but co-op done the way above.

 

My only other request is, like many others, if it's not co-op in some separate campaign, or alternate modes, but in the main storyline, that it not be implemented in any way that negatively impacts the single player experience of the storyline. Otherwise, I am fine with it. 

[GVulture]

They tried this in SWTOR where every one makes their conversation choices and then rolls to see who actually gets to speak. While that could work... just imagine your Inquisitor being forced to watch their soldiers hack apart innocents because they lost a conversation saving throw. No thanks. It works in SWTOR because you can just play the FP or the quest again but the rest of the game has to carry on as though the Inquisitor did order the murderilation.

[Faerlyte]

I'd utilize it. I think it's a good idea. I have no idea how feasible it is and I image it would take some work to incorporate it into an RPG styled game, but it would be different and I applaud going outside the box. 

 

All decisions and commands would be up to the host player so that there could be no conflicting orders - as a guest you'd only control the character you're using in co-op. This is how co-op has worked since the dawn of time. 

 

Obviously anyone who purchases the game is going to play it on their own at least once. As the second player in many co-op games with my brother, I'm very experienced in the area of not having a say in what the characters do. In fact, most of the time nobody controls what the characters say or do in co-op games - they're pretty much scripted. People who enjoy co-op are not going to be phased by it.  

 

 The point of co-op is to enjoy the game with other players. You can still play the game on your own time for your personal experience. My brother and I seek out games that offer co-op because we like to play games together. We're probably in the minority, but it's a nice feature when you've got friends or family around that want to be included in your gaming experience and you really want to play your favorite RPG. 

[Nexpeed]

No multiplay coop in single player, just put it in multiplayer sied of the game just like ME3, ME3 multiplayer up to now is still very much enjoyable, I'm having more fun with my ME3 multiplayer than my Battlefield 4. In DA:I, I suggest a co-op on a bigger map, Frostbite 3 is capable of handling huge multiplayer battles like in BF4, I suggest a map reminiscent of the Battle for Ostagar or the final Battle of Ferelden, where you and others would face hordes of darkspawn, there can be other maps for like 1-4 players and the bigger one for 8-16, then there's the more massive if possible, 16 players and more. 

[In Exile]

Divinity: Original Sin is one to look to, as it is a full co-op narrative heavy RPG that seeks to integrate both players (it's 2p co op) into the game's story and interactions. It's not really the same kind of game as Dragon Age, more like Ultima, but it is the first of it's kind with regards to co op RPGs.

 

I also don't know why Co-Op or Multiplayer in general is met with such hostility by this fanbase. I understand many of the arguments, but the potential upside for a well done co-op or multiplayer RPG experience is huge. Look at the longevity of Neverwinter Nights.

 

NWN flopped. Some people loved it, but it was a very small number of people. Which is why the next Bioware game after that was the single player KoTOR on the Xbox, which couldn't even support MP if they wanted it to. 

[CybAnt1]

I wouldn't say it flopped. I would just say while conceptually it was great, and I'm all for agency and freedom to modders/content creators, there is a reason why there wasn't many great modules for it, and still aren't. There is a vast asymmetry between what somebody can create in their basement, utilizing friends for voices, with a shoestring budget, and little or no development resources (both money and tools - yes everybody who got NWN got a Toolset, at least if they were on PC, anyway, but I'm talking about additional tools). The only modules for NWN that I really liked that didn't come from Bioware (NWN1's OCs and premium modules) and Obsidian (NWN2's OCs) were made by studios. Like Mysteries of Westgate, for NWN2, from Ossian Studios. 

 

I love it when fans/modders/custom content creators seek to add stuff to the existing content from "official" developers. I've often seen very great results when they add whole new areas and quests to the map, new NPCs with their own NPC quests, new items/weapons/armor, etc., even new classes and races. There the results are often interesting, and effective. But it can be hard for them to do what official developers do from scratch. They just don't have the budgets, tools, resources, huge teams subdivided into sub teams working on different areas of development. 

 

I never played any NWN module that really "wowed" me any more than the "home-brew" dungeons I (or other people who took their turn at DM in our group) used to make for D & D back in the Upper Paleolithic. Making them was fun. I layed them out on graph paper, decided where the pit traps and secret doors were, ... etc. I mean, I had to be honest, the stuff TSR "officially" released as modules was always better and more interesting. And we liked playing them better than our own efforts at doing the same thing. 

 

The second thing is, while it's really cool to try and replicate the tabletop experience on a computer the way NWN tries to, it's sometimes harder to get together all your friends with interest, time, and energy "virtually" to "play" a module or dungeon together cooperatively than it is to do in real life, maybe especially when as you get older you have fewer and fewer such friends. NWN2 dabbled into putting in some online match-making tools to link you up with other players, but I never found them all that great. 

 

What I like about the MMOs is it's now zero-effort to get into cooperative play (albeit admittedly often with strangers esp. if you're not in a guild); the built in matchmaking tools in WoW are pretty good AFA linking you up with 2 other people for a scenario, or 4 other people for a dungeon, or maybe even 20+ people for a raid, now, too. Even still I don't do it - much - and pretty much avoid the PvP stuff; it holds no interest for me. 

 

I must confess, what I like about SRPGs is I never have to wonder - who's going to drop out of the group because of connection issues, or computer crashes, or mom is telling them to make up their room, or they forgot they have to leave in a half hour, etc, etc, etc. I'm not entirely antisocial but as with all things in life, the larger the group of player playing simultaneously, the sooner one will face some issue of some kind, and there goes your effort at finishing your MP campaign. When I play a single player game, it is always at my pace, in the chunks I prefer (some times a long stretch, some times a short), where and when I want to without accommodating anybody else's schedule, in the order I prefer, and I just don't have to worry about anything affecting any other players but me. 

 

Oh, and plus, if I forgot I have to be somewhere in a half hour, there's nobody else in the MP group yelling at me for dropping out early. 

 

In many ways, NWN2 really hit my sweet spot with Storm of Zehir, as I've said. 3.5e rules done right, finally I can control a party of six characters (with all the interesting/rich options 3.5e classing/prestige classing allows) in a well-designed "official" module/campaign, it was great stuff. It's just too bad nobody ever made an epic (21-30) level module/campaign on that same foundation. I know some people hate the epic levels, but that's personally when I think characters get the most interesting (in terms of having a wide range of abilities). A follow-on to SoZ with epic level content as I've said a few times I would probably still be playing now.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Other players playing as companions doesn't work for 2 reasons:

 

1) Bioware characters are their own characters, and players will mess around with that.

 

2) What would the other players do while the host makes decisions in conversations?

[Fladnag]

BioWare is still hush hush about this topic. The game is nearly ready fom what I have read. Developers have hinted at some form of co-op or multiplayer. I wish that this would come out as a difinative yes or no. From a sales stand point I know of four gamers that would buy it if it had a co-op otherwise they would not. I am looking forward to this title with or without co-op.  I truely believe my idea could work very easily, although I am no programer.

[Deflagratio]

Stopped reading at "It would be easy."

 

It wouldn't.

[Icinix]

Never mind, nothing to see!