187 réponses à ce sujet

[yakaman91]

 

I think random-item unlocks can perform some useful roles aside from making money, in that they provide a sense of progression to players ("I played four matches and unlocked a new weapon!"), ensure that players aren't all using the same items and strategies, and in the long term greatly extend the life of the game by allowing them to steadily introduce new stuff to unlock.

 

Randomized item unlocks also hit humans right in their risk-reward centers.  It's why slot machines are so successful in getting otherwise balanced individuals to pour time and money straight down the drain.

 

So, even if there wasn't a specific monetary profit, there'd be a motive...people playing your game longer, which probably translates into less insidious purchases like DLC or whatever.

 

This is not necessarily evil; it can add a little spice into every new play through, and give a little bit of extra motive for playing day-to-day.  I'd actually welcome this in say, DA2, where I've little motive for my 4th play-through.

 

Regarding OP - you put forth a pretty good idea within the context of the game.  For me, however, it's unlikely that an MP experience would draw me in.  I like my RPG worlds sealed and concise, and would not like to see any resource put into MP that would otherwise be applied to  single player campaign.  Further, something like "Horde Mode" can cheapen enemies in a game where encounters are often specifically designed for weight and gravitas. 

[Swaggerjking]

Ther could be some cool PvP Or PVE things they could do and with frostbite being use on battlefield we know it can handle a good large number of people i think on console 16 v 16 and double on pc though this could cause problems like they are having now at dice 

1 For a good PVE It could be a Siege mode where you can work as a teeam to capture keeps which could even be pvp with one defending or more of a moba in which both tries to capture the other team keep

2 like some else said dragon fights or jousting but be kinda hard and we dont know if we have mount combat but i hope we do

3 a capture a item and bring it to your keep while  

[NoForgiveness]

If i see a multiplayer of some kind i am not buying the game

Have fun not getting it....

[Nightdragon8]

OP umm what? I don't think anyone has said anyhting "Lore" wise for a reason for there not to be Multiplayer its just people saying they don't want or need multiplayer.

 

So i guess this is more of a suggestion about how you want MP and this is how you would like it done?

[Deadmuskrat]

OP umm what? I don't think anyone has said anyhting "Lore" wise for a reason for there not to be Multiplayer its just people saying they don't want or need multiplayer.

So i guess this is more of a suggestion about how you want MP and this is how you would like it done?

Ummm I never said people were giving lore reasons for no multiplayer? Perhaps you need to re read my post.

I was saying that multiplayer allows the developers to explore certain aspects if the lore we have not seen, like the Avvar, Chasind, chevaliers, etc.

[Shrayev]

Ummm I never said people were giving lore reasons for no multiplayer? Perhaps you need to re read my post.

I was saying that multiplayer allows the developers to explore certain aspects if the lore we have not seen, like the Avvar, Chasind, chevaliers, etc.

 

I want to address this, since this discussion seems to have taken a different turn. 

 

I totally agree, as multiplayer's a good way to delve into certain character archetypes that will likely be present in the story, but in a form that is neither playable nor represented in our party. The Chasind and Chevaliers are two great examples of this.

 

Whatever form the multiplayer takes -- coop in the vein of ME3, something more akin to a dungeon crawler, or PvP -- it'll allow us to explore a wide range of characters that we otherwise wouldn't be able to have that exposure to. It's a neat and elegant way to let us get to know more about the universe.

 

It's kind of how ME3's multiplayer let us play around with biotic powers on a totally different scale from the SP campaign, and let us play as a wide range of species with powers that made canonical sense, but weren't present in SP.

[Malanek]

I agree with this entirely. It was the big mistake of ME3's MP, and I was pretty annoyed by the outright misinformation that came out about how much MP was required to see SP content.

While I strongly believe that MP should not be required to see SP content, the only issue was an ambiguous 2 second addition to a cut scene. It shouldn't have been done that way but the amount of extra content was extremely minimal. It was almost certainly an oversight rather than deliberate misinformation, and I am never going to criticise a dev for something like that otherwise they will simply be too reluctant to tell us anything in case they make a mistake. Criticise the decision, constructively of course, but not the messenger. I highly doubt they will ever do this again.

[Deadmuskrat]

I want to address this, since this discussion seems to have taken a different turn.

I totally agree, as multiplayer's a good way to delve into certain character archetypes that will likely be present in the story, but in a form that is neither playable nor represented in our party. The Chasind and Chevaliers are two great examples of this.

Whatever form the multiplayer takes -- coop in the vein of ME3, something more akin to a dungeon crawler, or PvP -- it'll allow us to explore a wide range of characters that we otherwise wouldn't be able to have that exposure to. It's a neat and elegant way to let us get to know more about the universe.

It's kind of how ME3's multiplayer let us play around with biotic powers on a totally different scale from the SP campaign, and let us play as a wide range of species with powers that made canonical sense, but weren't present in SP.

You sir/Ma'am.. You get it!

You have restored a little bit of faith that I have in people on these boards.

[Enigmatick]

Please god no multiplayer.

[In Exile]

I want to address this, since this discussion seems to have taken a different turn. 

 

I totally agree, as multiplayer's a good way to delve into certain character archetypes that will likely be present in the story, but in a form that is neither playable nor represented in our party. The Chasind and Chevaliers are two great examples of this.

 

Whatever form the multiplayer takes -- coop in the vein of ME3, something more akin to a dungeon crawler, or PvP -- it'll allow us to explore a wide range of characters that we otherwise wouldn't be able to have that exposure to. It's a neat and elegant way to let us get to know more about the universe.

 

I don't see how creating different combat template is really exploring a character. It's just providing a few different ways to builds that isn't part of SP, but I'm not sure now power-leveling options really amount to character-building in the sense that you're seeing something new or interest from a lore POV. 

[Deadmuskrat]

I don't see how creating different combat template is really exploring a character. It's just providing a few different ways to builds that isn't part of SP, but I'm not sure now power-leveling options really amount to character-building in the sense that you're seeing something new or interest from a lore POV.

That's because it isn't character building. These won't be distinct characters with back stories. Instead we will get a look at some of the culture surrounding certain aspects of Thedas we haven't seen.

The designs of these characters and what powers/skills they have are part of the culture surrounding them.

[In Exile]

That's because it isn't character building. These won't be distinct characters with back stories. Instead we will get a look at some of the culture surrounding certain aspects of Thedas we haven't seen.

The designs of these characters and what powers/skills they have are part of the culture surrounding them.

 

Only tangentially. I suppose where I differ is that these are barely interesting concepts that don't illustrate much more than we already know, and the gameplay is always a bit of a contrivance. 

[Shrayev]

Only tangentially. I suppose where I differ is that these are barely interesting concepts that don't illustrate much more than we already know, and the gameplay is always a bit of a contrivance. 

 

The gameplay doesn't have to be contrived. I agree that we're only scratching the surface through the MP, but it still adds to the lore, even if only minimally. Presumably, lore expansion wouldn't be the focus of any multiplayer component, but it could still be a happy side effect.

 

It's also an opportunity to step into the shoes of a character archetype unavailable in the main campaign (again, if they were to base it even loosely on the convention established in ME3). It's just one of those little pluses that, if done correctly, doesn't detract from the main campaign.

[Knightstar2001]

You have mentioned how nice it would be to play as Chasind and Chevaliers, but consider the odds that we will be playing as members of the Inquistion that our Inquistor commands. So the question will be how much the culture/race and class affect the characters avialble for MP.

[Deadmuskrat]

You have mentioned how nice it would be to play as Chasind and Chevaliers, but consider the odds that we will be playing as members of the Inquistion that our Inquistor commands. So the question will be how much the culture/race and class affect the characters avialble for MP.

Interesting question.

Say we get a Tevinter follower who joins the Inquisition. Is that follower less Tevinter-ish because he/she joined the Inquisition, or do they still there to represent Tevinter and further Tevinters interest?

[Knightstar2001]

Doing Mp in such a way could have a Affect on Armor/appearance considering that it looks like the Inquistion has a standard uniform. So would a Tevinter were Tevinter style armors/clothes and would their weapons or abilities really be affected by where they are from or even their race.

That is going to have a big impact on MP. how will different races impact playing in MP. Dwarves will not be availble for mage,but that is the only race that seems to show a impact on class. Will Elves have certain elve only abilities and how will they show a differences between playing as a City elf Rogue vs a Dalish elf Rogue? Will one have a lean towards close quarter fighting(With knives or such) and Dalish excell in using bows.

it would be interesting to see if races and culture(such as a Tevinter Mage using different spells or casting style then say a mage from Orlais).

[Sequin]

I'd like open world maps from the SP campaign to be brought in with multiple things to do on each one (in the veign of Red Dead's MP). I always thought that style would work well in a fantasy game.

[Zehealingman]

I wouldn't mind a DA version of Flashpoints from SWOTOR.

[Wulfram]

Since ME3 multiplayer had people with swords, I wonder if DAI multiplayer will have people with guns.

[Vortex13]

I would say that unlocks based on choices made in the campaign should be in addition to the standard method of unlocks that we have in ME 3, not a replacement for it. Giving the player feedback and letting their SP decisions carry over to MP is a great way to add immersion to the game, but it shouldn't be the only method of unlocking races, or classes. If the SP is 60 hours long, I doubt that MP enthusiasts are going to want to play through 50 hours of it twice in a row just to unlock the Templars and the Mages (for example). 

 

One thing I do hope would be included in the MP would be the option to play as archetypes that aren't available in the main game, and not just Tevinter Mages, or Chasind Warriors. I'm talking about Werewolves, Sylvans, Golems, Giants, etc. Take the non-conventinal character kits that ME 3 added (the Geth Juggernaut, the Volus kits, etc.) and expand upon them, give them more depth and a more unique play style. I would wager that running across the battlefield as a Mabari, is a lot more unique then a playing as a Mage from another country, with slightly different powers.

[Celtic Latino]

I'll admit, I truly do not want multiplayer in DA:I and I echo the same sentiments as others who feel that way. To me, so much was focused on ME3's multiplayer that the story was, as others say, half-written. I don't want the same thing to happen to Inquisition or future installments. It's bad enough SW: TOR was made an MMO in favor of a single player experience, and it was that multiplayer aspect, complete with the MMO style, that killed it. The last thing I need to see is Dragon Age fall prey to that same trap. 

 

If, and if, there was multiplayer in Inquisition and it did NOT affect single player in any way (that includes development, writing, resources, as that should ALL go into the SP and story FIRST, with the MP a later or afterthought, much like GTA online being implemented after GTA5) then I guess I'd be somewhat fine with it. 

 

I'd like to see if there HAD to be an MP mode:

-offline multiplayer campaign with bots (for those who can't/don't want to group or have no internet access). Also would be good for those who have friends over in person, could be a fun Gauntlet style play

-complete character selection and customization. I hated that in ME3 you had to purchase cards that were randomly selected just to get a character you might want to play as. Maybe start with certain race/class combos but can unlock others in-game, but not through paid microtransactions (cards) but through effort. Or just ditch it and let all race/classes be available

-battle arena. Just fun mayhem and dueling like Saints Row 2's online mode

-different implementations of races. Such as Qunari that are in the Qun, Grey Wardens, City Elves, etc..., each with unique abilities

 

However I'm all in favor of that being scrapped if it brings more to the SP mode.

[JoltDealer]

After the failure that was ME3, Bioware should refrain from multiplayer.

 

Mass Effect 3 was far from a failure and I really wish people would stop letting hurt feelings regarding the ending tint their outlook of the entire game.  Objectively speaking, Mass Effect 3 was a fine game that suffered from dissonant storytelling during the ending due to last minute rewrites.  Mind you, these rewrites were caused by a fan hacking an early demo and leaking the story data online, months before the final release.  Regardless, the inclusion of multiplayer did not affect the quality of single player.

 

If you're one of those people who believe the misconception, "Well if there was no multiplayer, then they could've put more resources into single player," then you are incorrect and uninformed.  The budgets are separate.  If a developer wants to make a single player game, they are given X amount of resources, time, and employees by the publisher.  If they want multiplayer, they are given Y amount of resources, time, and employees by publisher.  X does not take away from Y and vice versa.  Even if multiplayer is cut, single player's budget and resources remain the same.  This is important to take into consideration when discussing multiplayer of any kind.

 

That being said, from what I've heard, rumors suggest that Dragon Age Inquisition's multiplayer will be more akin to Neverwinter Nights multiplayer.  Having never played the game, I cannot attest to its quality, but I have heard others on this board approve of the idea.  Mass Effect 3's multiplayer was a pleasant surprise, so I hope DAI's multiplayer borrows one or two pages from its book.  I just hope that Dragon Age Multiplayer keeps an emphasis on party dynamics and tactical combat.  

[ElitePinecone]

Mass Effect 3 was far from a failure and I really wish people would stop letting hurt feelings regarding the ending tint their outlook of the entire game.  Objectively speaking, Mass Effect 3 was a fine game that suffered from dissonant storytelling during the ending due to last minute rewrites.  Mind you, these rewrites were caused by a fan hacking an early demo and leaking the story data online, months before the final release.  Regardless, the inclusion of multiplayer did not affect the quality of single player.

 

Whenever this comes up I feel the need to point out that this actually wasn't what happened. The demo that leaked in November 2011 had exactly the same ending, down to the same dialogue, word for word, as that which was in the game in March 2012. There were no rewrites of the ending due to any leaks, and the portions of the game that were different between November and March only dealt with the Prothean's appearances in the story, due to him becoming a DLC character. There were variations in the encounters with Kai Leng as a result of this, but absolutely nothing that affected the last fifteen minutes of the game. If you go into the .tlk files from November 2011, everything from the ending is still there - the same ending options, the same Star Child dialogue, and the conversations with Anderson.

 

(Ray Muzyka's comments about rewriting the story in November 2011 seem to have taken on a life of their own - in reality, it looks like nothing was changed at all between the leak and the final game. I suspect his comments were intended to calm people down.)

 

Mass Effect 3's multiplayer was a pleasant surprise, so I hope DAI's multiplayer borrows one or two pages from its book.  I just hope that Dragon Age Multiplayer keeps an emphasis on party dynamics and tactical combat.  

 

I agree with this, and I think ME3 and DA:I could do successful multiplayer precisely because of that tactical combat. Setting up cross-class combos with other players was part of what made ME3's mode engaging, and the same thing could easily apply to Inquisition. ME3 managed to pull off tactical combat without a pause button or party management, and the powers were tweaked from the singleplayer versions to encourage teamwork between players (acting, I guess, as their own party or squad). I think a similar approach could do good things in DA's case.

[Vortex13]

Whenever this comes up I feel the need to point out that this actually wasn't what happened. The demo that leaked in November 2011 had exactly the same ending, down to the same dialogue, word for word, as that which was in the game in March 2012. There were no rewrites of the ending due to any leaks, and the portions of the game that were different between November and March only dealt with the Prothean's appearances in the story, due to him becoming a DLC character. There were variations in the encounters with Kai Leng as a result of this, but absolutely nothing that affected the last fifteen minutes of the game. If you go into the .tlk files from November 2011, everything from the ending is still there - the same ending options, the same Star Child dialogue, and the conversations with Anderson.

 

(Ray Muzyka's comments about rewriting the story in November 2011 seem to have taken on a life of their own - in reality, it looks like nothing was changed at all between the leak and the final game. I suspect his comments were intended to calm people down.)

 

 

I agree with this, and I think ME3 and DA:I could do successful multiplayer precisely because of that tactical combat. Setting up cross-class combos with other players was part of what made ME3's mode engaging, and the same thing could easily apply to Inquisition. ME3 managed to pull off tactical combat without a pause button or party management, and the powers were tweaked from the singleplayer versions to encourage teamwork between players (acting, I guess, as their own party or squad). I think a similar approach could do good things in DA's case.

 

 

You know what's interesting?

 

DA 2 had a similar system in place for its cross class combos and then ME 3 took the concept and expanded upon it. I am very curious to see if DA:I will refine the mechanic further.

[Ibn_Shisha]

While I strongly believe that MP should not be required to see SP content, the only issue was an ambiguous 2 second addition to a cut scene. It shouldn't have been done that way but the amount of extra content was extremely minimal. It was almost certainly an oversight rather than deliberate misinformation, and I am never going to criticise a dev for something like that otherwise they will simply be too reluctant to tell us anything in case they make a mistake. Criticise the decision, constructively of course, but not the messenger. I highly doubt they will ever do this again.

I hope you are right.  Just because I (eventually) became quite involved in, and enjoyed, the me3mp, does not in any way indicate approval of how this was handled.

 

If there is any kind of 'Inquisitorial Assets'/'Thedas Readiness' system that locks out anything at all (even 2 seconds worth of ending cut scene) without playing MP, I will be severely disappointed.

 

This is not to say I will not give a potential dai mp a shot, but, if I try it and am not a fan, I need to know that I can still experience everything in SP without touching MP again (or waiting for a few months).

 

All that being said, inquisitorial agents co-op idea sounds workable, and continues the theme from me3's 'N7' free-lancers of people not nominally affiliated with the protag faction signing up to help save the world.  The faction-based pvp makes sense, too, but is not likely something I'd likely get into, as inevitably there are those with more disposable income for packs that will end up having all the best gear and tear me apart.

 

I do agree with others that a bit more customization would be nice for our mp toons than me3 featured.