187 réponses à ce sujet

[In Exile]

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. at wi

Don't get me wrong, I'd be more likely to play it this way. They could just have silent players and some NPC leading the charge for flashpoints. GW2 basically does that with post level 30 content. 

[Vortex13]

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. 

 

Personally, I never really cared for the Flashpoints in SWTOR, they were too scripted, and by the second or third play through you would have seen all the possible outcomes anyway.

 

One of the main reasons why I enjoyed ME 3's MP was the huge roster of playable kits available. I would much rather play on 4 different maps with 20 playable races, then I would want to play on 20 maps with only 4 playable races.

[ElitePinecone]

The "emergent" storytelling of team co-op combat is probably more appealing for multiplayer than scripted missions, too. I also thought SWTOR's flashpoints got a bit old, particularly since the choice-and-consequence systems were fairly basic. 

 

A scripted mission with voiced dialogue etc doesn't change when you play it for the 5th time, but a co-op battle against AI enemies can vary dramatically based on what items you're using, how the team performs, etc. There's more variation in that sense, and the content can feel fresh for far longer when so much can change from match to match, and even in the middle of matches. 

 

(And if people are super-concerned about MP taking any resources away from the campaign, then emphasising the combat encounters of MP over cutscenes or "story" content would be a good thing, no? ME3's multiplayer had a surprising amount of depth and replayability thanks to the weapon/character/item upgrades, and I expect if DA is doing something similar they'd want to make player customisation even deeper.)

[In Exile]

The "emergent" storytelling of team co-op combat is probably more appealing for multiplayer than scripted missions, too. I also thought SWTOR's flashpoints got a bit old, particularly since the choice-and-consequence systems were fairly basic. 

 

A scripted mission with voiced dialogue etc doesn't change when you play it for the 5th time, but a co-op battle against AI enemies can vary dramatically based on what items you're using, how the team performs, etc. There's more variation in that sense, and the content can feel fresh for far longer when so much can change from match to match, and even in the middle of matches. 

 

(And if people are super-concerned about MP taking any resources away from the campaign, then emphasising the combat encounters of MP over cutscenes or "story" content would be a good thing, no? ME3's multiplayer had a surprising amount of depth and replayability thanks to the weapon/character/item upgrades, and I expect if DA is doing something similar they'd want to make player customisation even deeper.)

 

That's a good point. The thing is, how do you keep combat fresh with one character without turning it into a variant of Diablo or kind of like an MMO? 

[LinksOcarina]

That's a good point. The thing is, how do you keep combat fresh with one character without turning it into a variant of Diablo or kind of like an MMO? 

 

You are referencing to specific character "kits" then.

 

So say, two warriors, a human shield fighter, and a dwarf berserker. Those are your kits, you get pre-determined abilities to level up to level 20, and you pick and choose weapons and armor in the menu. Just like Mass Effect 3. Throw in specialty upgrades in-between it all, and you got the same formula. 

 

That adds a lot of it right off the bat, but it then takes away from standard procedure of role-playing creation. However, in a multiplayer environment, it works a lot better due to the constraints of the game variant. It could go either way, its a balance that BioWare needs to think about heavily. 

[ElitePinecone]

That's a good point. The thing is, how do you keep combat fresh with one character without turning it into a variant of Diablo or kind of like an MMO? 

 

With enough character kits they can mix up the gameplay a lot - in ME3's case, I think they ended up with dozens of different class/race combos to play with, and each had three abilities. That's a lot of tactical variety, and then you add in different builds or skill trees for each class, plus weapon choices, etc. 

 

(DA could conceivably take things further by having armour upgrades, for example - I think that's something EA recently did with Plants vs Zombies Garden Warfare, which I've heard is rather similar to ME3's MP at least in general.)

[ElitePinecone]

Also, a game developer has written an interesting blog on the issue of whether multiplayer takes resources from a game's singleplayer version:

 

Part 1 http://askagamedev.t...y-away-from-the

 

Part 2 http://askagamedev.t...takes-away-from

 

David Gaider's comment:

 

An excellent and insightful post.

 

Another gamer myth with regards to resources and the “but you’re taking away from X to do Y!” thing has to do with X often having absolutely nothing to do with Y. Like a fan calculating how we should be able to add more conversations by cutting levels, or add more creature models by cutting a character class. But that’s probably a completely different topic.

 

(Also, the points made in the post apply equally well to DLC.)

 

 

[Vortex13]

You are referencing to specific character "kits" then.

 

So say, two warriors, a human shield fighter, and a dwarf berserker. Those are your kits, you get pre-determined abilities to level up to level 20, and you pick and choose weapons and armor in the menu. Just like Mass Effect 3. Throw in specialty upgrades in-between it all, and you got the same formula. 

 

That adds a lot of it right off the bat, but it then takes away from standard procedure of role-playing creation. However, in a multiplayer environment, it works a lot better due to the constraints of the game variant. It could go either way, its a balance that BioWare needs to think about heavily. 

 

 

If BioWare decides to go with the "kit" mechanic again, I hope that they improve upon the customization of the powers available. I don't mind having access to only three powers at a time, but I would prefer to be able to swap out and assign powers as I see fit in-between battles. Also, kits need to be fairly unique from one another; it annoyed me in ME 3's MP when a new Geth kit would only have one addition power, and then even that power was taken from the pile of existing ones. 

 

A good way to balance out the variety is to have 'specialty' kits in the form of various fantasy creatures (Golems, Werewolves, etc.) as well as allowing players to allocate points into unlock a selection of powers vs just 3 active and 2 passive ones.

[9TailsFox]

Personally, I never really cared for the Flashpoints in SWTOR, they were too scripted, and by the second or third play through you would have seen all the possible outcomes anyway.

 

One of the main reasons why I enjoyed ME 3's MP was the huge roster of playable kits available. I would much rather play on 4 different maps with 20 playable races, then I would want to play on 20 maps with only 4 playable races.

Games like LoL and Dota prows you point perfectly it has one map, just one. No one cares for 3v3 and dominion was interesting for first week.

[In Exile]

You are referencing to specific character "kits" then.

 

So say, two warriors, a human shield fighter, and a dwarf berserker. Those are your kits, you get pre-determined abilities to level up to level 20, and you pick and choose weapons and armor in the menu. Just like Mass Effect 3. Throw in specialty upgrades in-between it all, and you got the same formula. 

 

That adds a lot of it right off the bat, but it then takes away from standard procedure of role-playing creation. However, in a multiplayer environment, it works a lot better due to the constraints of the game variant. It could go either way, its a balance that BioWare needs to think about heavily. 

 

 

With enough character kits they can mix up the gameplay a lot - in ME3's case, I think they ended up with dozens of different class/race combos to play with, and each had three abilities. That's a lot of tactical variety, and then you add in different builds or skill trees for each class, plus weapon choices, etc. 

 

(DA could conceivably take things further by having armour upgrades, for example - I think that's something EA recently did with Plants vs Zombies Garden Warfare, which I've heard is rather similar to ME3's MP at least in general.)

 

To me that just takes away a lot of the fun from any kind of MP experience - building the characters. DA isn't very skill based when it comes to actually playing the game unless we're having a fight to see who can target AOEs the fastest in real-time. 

[ElitePinecone]

The risk of allowing more customisation of character kit powers, I guess, is that they lose the ability to make discrete characters that everyone knows, and wants to acquire. If the power allocation of, I don't know, "Dalish Keeper" is really cool and useful, keeping that set of powers to the one character means there's more incentive to keep playing to try to unlock it. 

 

(Unless we had to unlock *powers* instead by buying them in random packs from the store, but I suspect people would find that even more annoying.)

 

There's also probably a good argument that keeping kits consistent means players can visually recognise the roles and value of their team mates on the battlefield, and we don't have to spend time second-guessing what everyone can do, or which tactics to use. This is probably even more relevant if any hypothetical DA multiplayer was moving towards more tactical combat that requires lots of co-operation to take down large enemies. 

[mikeymoonshine]

I don't usually play multiplayer but if it doesn't affect the sp at all then I don't mind I guess. Plus if it turns out really good then I might actually play it. 

[In Exile]

The risk of allowing more customisation of character kit powers, I guess, is that they lose the ability to make discrete characters that everyone knows, and wants to acquire. If the power allocation of, I don't know, "Dalish Keeper" is really cool and useful, keeping that set of powers to the one character means there's more incentive to keep playing to try to unlock it. 

 

(Unless we had to unlock *powers* instead by buying them in random packs from the store, but I suspect people would find that even more annoying.)

 

There's also probably a good argument that keeping kits consistent means players can visually recognise the roles and value of their team mates on the battlefield, and we don't have to spend time second-guessing what everyone can do, or which tactics to use. This is probably even more relevant if any hypothetical DA multiplayer was moving towards more tactical combat that requires lots of co-operation to take down large enemies. 

 

I see the point that you're making in terms of co-op gameplay (if we understand gameplay to mean actually controlling the character), but to me much of the fun in an RPG is the character build and potential variability in character building. Of course, the actual playing is also fun, but if we create preset characters (at least for me) frustration sets in because I have to tolerate someone else's garbage build. This is a bigger issue than in a game with shooters + powers, where the TPS element is the predominant gameplay feature.