76 réponses à ce sujet

[JCFR]

Well, I'm glad we can just solve every issue by throwing around absolutes and platitudes. Do you have more than one example, or am I supposed to trust you that this is "the way it ends", always? 

 

Game development doesn't work like that. People don't work like that. There's no fundamental law of the universe that describes the way multiplayer works in games. Speculating about what Bioware will do based on the events in an unrelated game series made by a different studio over ten years is absurd. 

Counter question: How many single-player-only-RPGs are out there?  What was the last AAA-product of that kind? Well i remember Skyrim... and maybe... Skyrim... oh- and Skyrim. And to be honest TES ain't my favorite franchise.

Any other story-driven RPG? Not Diablo 3. It's good but comparing a hack-and-slash title with gameslike DA or Skyrim seems wrong to me - not to forget D3 is always online even sp(slap in the face blizzard) and RPG-elements are barely minimum.

 

So was there ever a succesfull mix of sp an mp in a RPG with main aspects in story and charakters?

 

No, i'm talking about those MMOs withstupid, thin, wannabe stories like "you are the savior of this world... well you and 3.000.000.000 other".

I'm not talkiing about games which afford you to run to a questgiver take 30-kill-bring-missions, go to that area, collect a s***load of stuff which still is only sufficient to create a single hat by crafting and getting you from lvl1 to lvl5.

I'm not talking about a game which affords to regulary write "lvl30 DD for TGMBBGT with BGNH" in chatlog just to start one dungeon.

 

Look at BG. As far as i remeber the only mp was players forming their own group - which was basically coop - and that worked out.

So no halfass mp - like ME3 offered - for me.

[Al Foley]

Having to go even one round of MP to get the lousy five second gasp in SP is a douche thing to do to players.  Especially when you repeatedly assure the customers before that it would not be the case

 

You don't spend money on them.  I don't, but others spend (imo) stupid amounts of money on them.  Enough that it is actually a profit-generating system. 

 

Not to mention the subscription service needed to do MP games in general.

 

You'll never see the relatively harmless BG-style method of multiplayer again. Or at least, not anytime soon.  No way to easily monetize it.

Perhaps.  It dpends on what you think of as the 'best ending' though.  To me I half suspect what they were going for was Synthesis when they meant you could play it without doing the MP which you could...and the breath scene was just an extra special bonus.  And if its just an extra five seconds of cut scene, which you are right on, then why bother playing MP at all?  It does not really change that much as you have pointed out so maybe it was optional after all.  And they fixed that with the Extended Cut anyways. 

[Iakus]

Do you concede the possibility that the developers might've learned from the reaction to ME3's SP-MP integration, though? Pushing people to play multiplayer is absolutely not a fundamental law of the universe. It takes a decision by people, and those decisions can change.

 

That was the biggest complaint people had about ME3's MP, after all. We don't even know if the singleplayer integration was a successful method for pushing people to play MP - we don't have the data or the information to tell that. How do you know EA hasn't decided to abandon that route and market the MP as its own thing? 

 

And if you look at most of the threads that come up about multiplayer in DA:I, many of the positive reactions are "I'll love it if it's not attached to the singleplayer in any way, shape or form."

 

At the very least that's a significant message to take away, and I (again) see absolutely no reason to be as pessimistic as you're being. Not until they release more information.

 

Possible?  Sure.  But then it's possible We'll be wiped out by an asteroid tommorrow.  Or I might find buried treasure.  Or...other really unlikely things. 

 

As for EA...  .  They all but require MP in their products.  Didn't some former honcho brag about not greenlighting anything that didn't have MP in it?  Yeah, I don't think EA's changing that policy anytime soon

 

Heck, if they want to make a purely MP Dragon Age game "Thedas at War" or whatever, I say go for it!  Have fun!  But I won't buy it.

 

In ME3 I extended a great deal of trust with Bioware.  I believed in many of their claims.  Not just with MP, but  that was part of it.  What they claimed regarding MP was expressly not what was delivered.  And I am not willing to extend that level of trust again.

 

So yeah, I'm being pessimistic, but you know what?  Pessimists don't get unpleasantly surprised.

[ElitePinecone]

If the singleplayer is excellent and satisfying in its own right, why complain about an optional multiplayer mode on top that you don't have to use?

 

That's crazy. How could anyone reasonably be upset with optional content that doesn't affect them, if the base game is already engaging?

 

I know it's subjective, and people have already said that MP was one of the best parts of ME3 for them, but throwing around words like "taint" seems a bit hysterical to me.

[ElitePinecone]

As for EA...  .  They all but require MP in their products.  Didn't some former honcho brag about not greenlighting anything that didn't have MP in it?  Yeah, I don't think EA's changing that policy anytime soon

 

He clarified it to mean some sort of online component - which the Keep satisfies, in Dragon Age's case.

 

It's quite possible there'll end up being no multiplayer mode at all, in which case this discussion is pointless. 

[Al Foley]

He clarified it to mean some sort of online component - which the Keep satisfies, in Dragon Age's case.

 

It's quite possible there'll end up being no multiplayer mode at all, in which case this discussion is pointless. 

Yet kind of fun.

[Boss Fog]

Having to go even one round of MP to get the lousy five second gasp in SP is a douche thing to do to players.  Especially when you repeatedly assure the customers before that it would not be the case

 

You don't spend money on them.  I don't, but others spend (imo) stupid amounts of money on them.  Enough that it is actually a profit-generating system. 

 

Not to mention the subscription service needed to do MP games in general.

 

You'll never see the relatively harmless BG-style method of multiplayer again. Or at least, not anytime soon.  No way to easily monetize it.

I'll admit, EA always seems to have to make a major mistake at least once to realize that they need to seriously rectify it.  After that however, the problems seem to not pop up again.  So, I'm a bit curious as to why you would think that EA would do the same thing they did with ME3 and the single player tie in with DA:I?  Even before the patch, you could easily do a few matches of MP and get the galactic readiness rating you desired without spending a dime which would discourage EA from making the same mistake again as there is no monetary incentive for doing it.

 

Attaching micro transactions to the multiplayer in some form however is a given as it's a wise financial decision as it almost always works.  As such, I don't see the business practice going away any time soon.  The best people can do is to simply advise people to be conscientious consumers; but then I highly doubt people care for others telling them how to spend their money.

[Iakus]

Perhaps.  It dpends on what you think of as the 'best ending' though.  To me I half suspect what they were going for was Synthesis when they meant you could play it without doing the MP which you could...and the breath scene was just an extra special bonus.  And if its just an extra five seconds of cut scene, which you are right on, then why bother playing MP at all?  It does not really change that much as you have pointed out so maybe it was optional after all.  And they fixed that with the Extended Cut anyways. 

 

I never said "best ending"  It's a douche thing to block any content at all behind MP participation.  Especially, as I said, we were assured beforehand this would not be the case. 

 

And five seconds or not, the main character living or dying is not trivial.

 

And of course, they fixed it.  Months later.  And after a storm of protest.

[Iakus]

He clarified it to mean some sort of online component - which the Keep satisfies, in Dragon Age's case.

 

It's quite possible there'll end up being no multiplayer mode at all, in which case this discussion is pointless. 

 

I sincerely hope you are right on both those counts.

 

But I simply don't have that level of trust anymore.

[Al Foley]

I never said "best ending"  It's a douche thing to block any content at all behind MP participation.  Especially, as I said, we were assured beforehand this would not be the case. 

 

And five seconds or not, the main character living or dying is not trivial.

 

And of course, they fixed it.  Months later.  And after a storm of protest.

But isn't that the point?  That they do listen to criticism, they do listen to concerns stated by fans whereever they may be stated, and adjust the gameplay accordingly?  At least they didn't go the SIm City route on this issue. 

[Iakus]

But isn't that the point?  That they do listen to criticism, they do listen to concerns stated by fans whereever they may be stated, and adjust the gameplay accordingly?  At least they didn't go the SIm City route on this issue. 

 

No, the point is they repeatedly told people something that was simply not true.  The concerns were voiced months before the game was even released.  We were patted on the head and assured that don't worry, it's all been accounted for. 

 

 Except no, it hadn't been. 

 

Just because they didn't take a worse route doesn't make what happened okay at all.

[Al Foley]

No, the point is they repeatedly told people something that was simply not true.  The concerns were voiced months before the game was even released.  We were patted on the head and assured that don't worry, it's all been accounted for. 

 

 Except no, it hadn't been. 

 

Just because they didn't take a worse route doesn't make what happened okay at all.

I think you missed my point.  They fixed it instead of repetedly saying it couldn't fixed and then it was magically, hey guess what gais, we fixed that one issue you were having!

[Iakus]

I think you missed my point.  They fixed it instead of repetedly saying it couldn't fixed and then it was magically, hey guess what gais, we fixed that one issue you were having!

 

Yeah, they didn't say "it couldn't be fixed" they just said "There is no problem"  And patched it out a few months later than a year later.

 

Still doesn't exactly encourage preordering future products.

[ElitePinecone]

I think the initial move to link SP and MP via the Galactic Readiness system still warrants strong criticism, since it involved them doing something that they specifically ruled out doing months earlier. The FAQ when multiplayer was announced said it would not be required to see every part of the singleplayer, and this simply was not true. To put it bluntly, developers should not be able to mislead players like that without consequences.

 

But the best way to make up for that would be not to repeat it, and I think BW are perfectly capable of doing that. Until we see evidence to the contrary, I don't see anything to worry about. When there's evidence of SP and MP being linked, I'll make a fuss. Before that it's a waste of time, energy and effort.

[Iakus]

I think the initial move to link SP and MP via the Galactic Readiness system still warrants strong criticism, since it involved them doing something that they specifically ruled out doing months earlier. The FAQ when multiplayer was announced said it would not be required to see every part of the singleplayer, and this simply was not true. To put it bluntly, developers should not be able to mislead players like that without consequences.

 

But the best way to make up for that would be not to repeat it, and I think BW are perfectly capable of doing that. Until we see evidence to the contrary, I don't see anything to worry about. When there's evidence of SP and MP being linked, I'll make a fuss. Before that it's a waste of time, energy and effort.

 

And I'm going to stick with "If I have to install MP to play SP, it's not optional enough"

[Wulfram]

If the singleplayer is excellent and satisfying in its own right, why complain about an optional multiplayer mode on top that you don't have to use?

 

That's crazy. How could anyone reasonably be upset with optional content that doesn't affect them, if the base game is already engaging?

 

Indeed.  If you assume that MP has no downsides, then it has no downsides.

 

But based on prior experiences that is not the assumption that I would make

[Enigmatick]

If the singleplayer is excellent and satisfying in its own right, why complain about an optional multiplayer mode on top that you don't have to use?

 

That's crazy. How could anyone reasonably be upset with optional content that doesn't affect them, if the base game is already engaging?

 

I know it's subjective, and people have already said that MP was one of the best parts of ME3 for them, but throwing around words like "taint" seems a bit hysterical to me.

I firmly believe multiplayer was as popular as it was because it was a carbon copy of a mode from a game ME already is incredibly similar too, in addition to the base ME3 singleplayer being so awful that it just made the multiplayer look better by comparison.

[ElitePinecone]

I firmly believe multiplayer was as popular as it was because it was a carbon copy of a mode from a game ME already is incredibly similar too, in addition to the base ME3 singleplayer being so awful that it just made the multiplayer look better by comparison.

 

That seems a bit... well, bitter. 

 

You seriously don't think the mode amassed an engaged fanbase on its own merits? If the MP mode was essentially mediocre it's rather surprising that even EA were surprised at how successful it was - and the proceeds from playing did pay for an extra three or four DLC packs.

[Whiskey-One-Eye]

@Jorina Leto

 

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on a few points, which is fine.

 

I just don't think RPGs need to be singleplayer in 2014. Again, I'm not looking for a storyless mmo and I have no intererest in COD and I never play with randos, so my multiplayer is always with people I know in RL (with the exception of one person who is a friend's friend). I would assume limiting who you play with would be an option because it always has been in the games I've played.

 

Being long is a bonus, for sure, I just don't think it has to be singleplayer and when it is long and singleplayer I either decide to pass on buying or give in and never make it through the game. If EA is on their game, they are well positioned to come up with a good multiplayer mechanic and could do it.

 

As an aside, i made it through all of DA Origins because i was doing my masters and only working part-time at the time. I didn't hear anything good about DA2 so never played it.

 

I wouldn't want it to diminish singleplayer. It would either be seamless like a heavily modified BL2 mechanic but in a way to be suitable for a more story intensive RPG, or an alternative option like Xcom pvp. I really prefer coop to pvp so a coop option would be my preference.

 

I'm thinking big, aiming high, or whatever, but I honestly feel the technology and know-how exist to create a truly awesome multilpayer experience that doesn't diminish singleplayer. I understand a big part of the views expressed here are based on our subjective tastes so hopefully we all get what we want.

[Enigmatick]

@Jorina Leto

 

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on a few points, which is fine.

 

I just don't think RPGs need to be singleplayer in 2014.

Are you an EA employee?

[Whiskey-One-Eye]

No, I'm not an EA employee. I don't know anymore than what I've read on the web like everyone else unfortunately.

[JCFR]

I firmly believe multiplayer was as popular as it was because it was a carbon copy of a mode from a game ME already is incredibly similar too, in addition to the base ME3 singleplayer being so awful that it just made the multiplayer look better by comparison.

 

The problem with  singleplayer in Me is that's alsmost awful repetitive. Either fighting through a level-pipe or fighting enemy-waves in a small map. And sincs combat takes about... well, i guess 50% of the singleplayer-experience, it getting old pretty fast. What ME needs are some new features like space combat.

Anyway i still can't understand why  some people put so much effort in mp for a lousy horde-mode. No special objectives or any kind of story-aspect. Lame.

 

And that's my fear for a mp in DAI.As i already stated: How should that work? I mean DA is based on a tactical-party-combat-system (at least tha's how it should be).

So how shall that be transported into mp? Will it be again the same? Four player form a team and have to fight wave after wave?  If that's all what they manage, then i would wish they put the mp in a dlc - so i can ignore it.

And after ME3 i don't see things like coop or a mp-exclusiv mini-campaign with conversations between the player-charakters.

 

And once again i like to ask: why is a mp a must be nowadays? I didn't miss it in DAO, DA2, the Witcher or the Witcher 2. Just give me a great single-player experience with lots of content.

[DaySeeker]

I usually avoid multiplayer games.  I'm a fan of story.  That said I had a great time playing ME3's multiplayer.  It was co-op which I liked and it felt like it was part of the single player game.  I also started playing it after I finished the main game to which I received a series of satisfying endings.  It is so strange that folks are so eager to criticize a game because it is not the exact game THEY wanted, and therefore the whole thing must be garbage.  ME3 had a huge single player component and I didn't feel cheated or slighted because extra muliplayer was included.  It seems DAI will also be huge.  I'm hoping the multiplayer allows us to explore the world with our friends more along the lines of Fable 3.

[Devtek]

He clarified it to mean some sort of online component - which the Keep satisfies, in Dragon Age's case.

 

It's quite possible there'll end up being no multiplayer mode at all, in which case this discussion is pointless. 

 

Just accidentally backed out of my post , have to retype this

An online component could also be a leaderboard showing the % of people who chose Qunari or that 90% of people chose Dramatic Stash Dude as their companion for most of the game etc.

 

I did enjoy ME3 multiplayer for what it was and I do occasionally go back to play a round or two (I did yesterday in fact).  I never felt pressured to play it for my SP game (the most important part of ME for me) although I did find it a little forced (The great EA demon popped its head into my mind) to have a direct link to SP.

 

That being said I don't think that kind of multiplayer would even work for DAI b/c the two franchises are different in their combat styles (although the whole putting a team together and uniting the world to save us from the great evil kind of rings similar) and the DA style (unless it is dramatically changed) is much more tactical depending on how you play it.  A form of multiplayer similar to the upcoming Watch Dogs or Dark Souls or Journey (minus the duchbaggery in dark souls) seems like what would 'fit' best in a DA game. Having people randomly run past you or coming across a group of adventurers in need of temporary aid from a darkspawn attack (ie other people's characters turning into random groups of people in need of aid), or the corpses of other players warning you of a dragon etc seems to me an interesting way to connect the worlds that wouldn't be necessary, could be turned off if needed, and in no way impact your SP experience.  Having a form of DAI multiplayer like ME3s that could "turn the tide of your inquisition" wouldn't fit in my opinion.

 

There are plenty of ways to make multiplayer be a fun / engaging / interesting component of a SP game that in no way effects the story or outcome of your experience and I hope that is how Bioware is approaching it (if we assume they HAVE to have a MP component).

[Sequin]

I'm all for multiplayer being introduced.

 

That said, I would rather it not have anything to do with the SP experience (no integration into the campaign). Just allow it to be a separate, optional thing and I don't have any problem with it. I only want to dabble in it after I've gone through the SP experience.