187 réponses à ce sujet

[AppealToReason]

I'm never too sure what people mean when they say ME3's MP negatively impacted the SP campaign. I never saw it as that big of a deal that I didn't get a lame hand from the rubble scene.

Anyway, it doesn't matter since that was patched out of the game. Shouldn't that be proof enough that Bioware realized the mistake of linking the 2 in that way?

 

Needed a scapegoat. People forget that ME3's MP was the primary reason it was delayed into 2012. The SP was done but they wanted to add MP, got an additional budget and the game took an extra 3/4 months or whatever.

[Sjofn]

I think multiplayer for this particular title would be odd, but I was so pleasantly surprised by ME3's multiplayer than I wouldn't immediately fear the worst should DA:I have it.

 

That said, I want the two to have nothing to do with each other from a gameplay standpoint. I don't want to play multiplayer to get something in my single player, and I definitely do not want to have to do single player stuff (even though I am certainly one to do multiple play throughs) to get something for multiplayer.

[Iakus]

Anyway, it doesn't matter since that was patched out of the game. Shouldn't that be proof enough that Bioware realized the mistake of linking the 2 in that way?

 

It was patched out months later, after repeated assurances that it would not affect the SP game at all.

 

I don't blame people for being suspicious after that.

[brazen_nl]

If the MP would be as fantastic as ME3MP I wouldn't mind a delay.

[DragonKingReborn]

I would.  If people that want a MP component are so certain it will be fantastic, perhaps they should suggest making them separate.  As in, a separate purchase on a separate disc/download.  Then the true value the market places on such an option would be clear.  They could price it based on the totally separate budget and resources that get allocated to MP and it would only be available to those that wanted it to be available.

 

From my point of view - the POV that does not like or want MP in DA - it would also mean by design, there would need to be total separation between ingame resources.

[Shrayev]

The issue for me is that after ME3 I simply don't believe that its inclusion won't negatively impact SP.

 

 

I see where you're coming from, absolutely. Although, given how they handled it after the fact -- patching it out, and then going back and fleshing out MP further -- indicates that BioWare realized they needed to respect players' wishes. After their backpedaling, they arrived precisely where they should've begun: MP not impacting SP.

 

As a result, I can't see a reason to believe that they won't apply those lessons that they've already demonstrated an appreciation for. I understand your skepticism, but for me, they've already addressed those complaints fully. I shared your concerns initially, though. *shrug* 

 

They've learned how to implement MP. I'm willing to forgive them a minor hiccup on their first go. Expectations are necessarily higher now. I'm sure they'll deliver.

[ElitePinecone]

Saying that you don't care for it doesn't mean BioWare shouldn't look into it. The only reason I stated I wouldn't care for it was this:

 

1. BioWare should get a feel from this post what % of customers maybe interested in it. A least as a sample set.

 

2. It will cost them to add it in. I'm sure they can take % interested as a sample set to determine how much money they can make selling all the packs for Multiplayer. 

 

My answer is only there to give an idea what % of the games sold won't be interested in the packs they need to sell to cover the cost. I'm all for BioWare making money because that means more books and games.

 

Hope more members add comments in the post to give them an idea how many pack/maps could be sold.

 

You don't think they would've done that research years ago, using far more scientifically useful methods than looking at a post on their forums?

 

It's not like they're going to read this post, drop everything, and suddenly start making a multiplayer mode in the three months left of development time or whatever. If there's multiplayer, it was planned two or three years ago.

 

And they'd use actual market research to figure out projected sales and budgets, *not* the opinions of their most invested (and arguably grognardy) fans on an internet message forum.

[Squeeze the Fish]

Are they still toying with the idea of MP? I thought I remembered a while ago (like when they first announced they were working on the next DA title) that they were thinking about it, but I haven't heard anything recently.

 

While I loved ME3's MP, I'm not wild about the idea of it for DAI, but probably just because I haven't thought about how it might be implemented long enough.

[ElitePinecone]

Needed a scapegoat. People forget that ME3's MP was the primary reason it was delayed into 2012. The SP was done but they wanted to add MP, got an additional budget and the game took an extra 3/4 months or whatever.

 

This is not true, and has never been stated anywhere.

 

Geoff Keighley's Final Hours of ME3 story said Casey took the decision to ask for a delay because the singleplayer campaign wasn't shaping up to be ready by October or November 2011. Multiplayer had little if anything to do with it, and it had been in development for over a year before that time in Montreal.

[ElitePinecone]

I'm never too sure what people mean when they say ME3's MP negatively impacted the SP campaign. I never saw it as that big of a deal that I didn't get a lame hand from the rubble scene.

Anyway, it doesn't matter since that was patched out of the game. Shouldn't that be proof enough that Bioware realized the mistake of linking the 2 in that way?

 

The issue was more that after specifically stating in the FAQ and in interviews that multiplayer was not required to see every part of the SP campaign, multiplayer *was* required. It then took them three months to patch it, and in the meantime absolutely nobody from Bioware offered a credible explanation for why that happened. Someone said it was a calculation mistake, which seems monumentally unlikely for a game that should've been checked, tested and balanced before launch.

 

If it was a mistake, then fine. But if they said one thing and did the opposite just to force people to play the multiplayer mode, that's incredibly misleading and downright dishonest.

 

Other people also took issue with the way MP and the War Assets system turned choices into numbers. The consequences of our decisions weren't reflected in any tangible way during the game, let alone the ending - they only added a few more points to some abstract number which represented how ready the galaxy was. Having the krogan instead of the salarians, or keeping ME2 squadmates alive, meant absolute nothing in the endgame - those decisions added numbers to a random and arbitrary counter, and the level of that arbitrary number decided which colour ending you could choose. The whole system was abstract, clunky, nonsensical, and arguably a poor substitute for ME2's system that based specific character deaths on prior choices. 

[milena87]

I'll welcome a MP mode in DAI only if it's the option to play the same main campaign in co-op. Something simple like Borderlands or more complex like Divinity Original Sin.

 

A horde mode in DAI would be, in my opinion, a waste of time and resources.

A PvP mode would need a lot of balance and thought put into it and I would prefer seeing it as a separate game that can be updated and built around a community that actually cares about it.

A co-op campaign separate from the main game could work, but I actually prefer not seeing it. Mostly because I would then need someone to play this content with and I know IR exactly 1 person who likes RPGs.

[Iakus]

The issue was more that after specifically stating in the FAQ and in interviews that multiplayer was not required to see every part of the SP campaign, multiplayer *was* required. It then took them three months to patch it, and in the meantime absolutely nobody from Bioware offered a credible explanation for why that happened. Someone said it was a calculation mistake, which seems monumentally unlikely for a game that should've been checked, tested and balanced before launch.

 

If it was a mistake, then fine. But if they said one thing and did the opposite just to force people to play the multiplayer mode, that's incredibly misleading and downright dishonest.

 

Other people also took issue with the way MP and the War Assets system turned choices into numbers. The consequences of our decisions weren't reflected in any tangible way during the game, let alone the ending - they only added a few more points to some abstract number which represented how ready the galaxy was. Having the krogan instead of the salarians, or keeping ME2 squadmates alive, meant absolute nothing in the endgame - those decisions added numbers to a random and arbitrary counter, and the level of that arbitrary number decided which colour ending you could choose. The whole system was abstract, clunky, nonsensical, and arguably a poor substitute for ME2's system that based specific character deaths on prior choices. 

 

This post implies it wasn't a mistake, and was a "reward" for players who chose to participate in it

[DarthSliver]

I just like to state that I feel the ME3 MP DLC was only free because of all the complaints and then added to that the "different endings" of ME3. I did enjoy the ME3 MP but Bioware needs more than just a Horde mode if they really wanna keep it active, something on the level of COD MP but probably various Co-Op modes where you work with people. I think Bioware was onto something great with their Co-Op MP mode but they need to make more than just a simple horde mode and they can keep it within the Lore like what ME3 MP tried to do to its best. 

 

As for ME3 MP affecting SP, it really did. Some of the side mission places if not all were MP maps. 

 

As for COD not having story I seen on page 1, that has be debunked a long time ago. It is just that people don't ever buy it to play SP and they just dive straight into the MP.  

[ElitePinecone]

And yet

 

What if I don’t like multiplayer – will my experience be negatively impacted?

• Mass Effect 3 is a complete, standalone game that will deliver a satisfying story experience, even if you choose not to try multiplayer. The Mass Effect 3: Galaxy at War system and all of the individual components are meant to complement that amazing game and can be enjoyed on their own or as part of the Galaxy at War experience.

What if I am not good at / do not like multiplayer? Will my readiness rating go down?

• ME3 is a story about a war against overwhelming force where the most you can hope for us survival. The more you do to fight that war, the more you can change that story into a more optimistic one. You can reach the highest levels of success in the single player experience alone, but Galaxy at War gives you alternative ways to get there. It’s about choice, and allowing players to find their own ways to stay immersed in the Mass Effect universe.

[Lobos1988]

If they would allow modding you could play as whatever you want even without crappy MP

[LinksOcarina]

Needed a scapegoat. People forget that ME3's MP was the primary reason it was delayed into 2012. The SP was done but they wanted to add MP, got an additional budget and the game took an extra 3/4 months or whatever.

 

True, but they also reworked parts of the singleplayer during that time as well, since they had the extra time to do it. I believe parts of the ending were tweaked at that time.

 

And honestly, if the Mass Effect multiplayer was a 4 month job, BioWare is damn talented, because it was a very solid, very good mode overall. The only thing lacking in the end is solid support from the staff, although a year of content was cool, I would love to see ongoing missions much like a Team Fortress 2 style of support.

 

Maybe if Inquisition has a similar mode, or any multiplayer aspect to it..it might get that support.

[Sylvius the Mad]

If they would allow modding you could play as whatever you want even without crappy MP

That's why modding is good - it lets us play how we want to play, regardless of what the designers intended.

[LinksOcarina]

In ME3's case, there was a certain novelty to just playing as a geth or asari, given that the protagonist in the singleplayer was limited to Shepard. Anecdotally people had fun roleplaying as a team of krogan warriors avenging Tuchanka or whatever. 

 

Not to mention that they could do more story-based missions like SWTOR's flashpoints or (I think it was) Neverwinter Nights' co-op campaigns. 

 

That is good strength of design, because it was a by-product of the mechanics presented through multiplayer.

 

If BioWare is smart, they would do some research and see what people did while in the trenches during Galaxy at War. Contextually the mode fitted into what Mass Effect was doing.The problem with games like Titanfall, for example, is that it has little to no context of the reasons "why" the fighting is occurring. Even in the story mode, which is of itself in the background and done through comm chatter and the like, is thinly veiled to service a reason for pew-pewing. 

 

There was missions behind Mass Effect 3. Weight to it because of the gravity of the missions, and mini missions in-between to help simulate something more important going on. It was always worth the ten-twenty minute wait to see if your last teammate can withstand the onslaught by themselves, overcoming the obstacles and winning the day for the players. This is why it was so much more than just a horde mode, which is not even true because horde mode implies and endless supply of enemies you need to contend with anyway.

 

Regarding Dragon Age: Inqusition, there is a lot they can do if they use multiplayer. Flashpoints are probably the best model in a modern day context in how it could be done, but you need multiplayer scenarios you can interact with, plus your own "inquisitor agent" to act as your avatar for these mission. That can get old quickly if there aren't enough of them, or if there aren't enough pathways you can go on. 

 

A similar mission mode like in Mass Effect might be a tough sell, because wave combat might be difficult to achieve. One possibility however is mass battles. Break down the multiplayer into teams of four,  and the party must complete an objective for a single map. Multiply those teams into say 6 teams of four, each completing a separate objective, with a final battle to say take over the territory, with such objectives used to make the final fight easier.

 

So say one map is taking over a castle. You can have one team sabotage the castles defenses, one team eliminate the archer towers, one team try to break down the gates, and so forth, with a final battle in the courtyard being effected by how those objectives are fulfilled.

 

There is a lot of ways to make this unique, it depends on how BioWare implements it. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

I'm never too sure what people mean when they say ME3's MP negatively impacted the SP campaign. I never saw it as that big of a deal that I didn't get a lame hand from the rubble scene.

Any impact is a negative impact.  It doesn't make any sense within the universe for the readiness to be affected in that way.

[LinksOcarina]

That's why modding is good - it lets us play how we want to play, regardless of what the designers intended.

 

Then why buy a game when you can make it for yourself?

[Sylvius the Mad]

Then why buy a game when you can make it for yourself?

The game I buy does most of the work for me.  I just want to tweak it.

[DumSheeps]

ME3 is my fav in the series so maybe multiplayer will be a good sign.

[Cobra's_back]

The game I buy does most of the work for me.  I just want to tweak it.

 

So true and it is fun. That is why so many people like doing it. I can think of all the Skyrim mods I have seen.

[In Exile]

Regarding Dragon Age: Inqusition, there is a lot they can do if they use multiplayer. Flashpoints are probably the best model in a modern day context in how it could be done, but you need multiplayer scenarios you can interact with, plus your own "inquisitor agent" to act as your avatar for these mission. That can get old quickly if there aren't enough of them, or if there aren't enough pathways you can go on. 

That seems pretty expensive, and it's not like VO in SWTOR made that many people care about it overall. 

[LinksOcarina]

The game I buy does most of the work for me.  I just want to tweak it.

 

Thats a whole other debate that I would to touch on but shouldn't in this thread...

 

That seems pretty expensive, and it's not like VO in SWTOR made that many people care about it overall. 

 

Perhaps, but it may depend on how it is implemented. VO is just one part, structure of missions, dynamics, and choices and consequences and how it carries over will be part of that too.

 

But lets not kid ourselves, it will always be some sort of numeral equation that is the reward. An increase in supplies, gold, troops, what have you. Thematically it works, mechanically it will always be a bit separate.