Aller au contenu

Photo

How I would like MP to be


237 réponses à ce sujet

#76
Googleness

Googleness
  • Members
  • 2 118 messages

DisturbedJim83 and his ilk are part of a group which likes to state "I'm right, you are not and for that you are evil person!".

 

I really don't get it...

 

First of all any game depends on player skills... let's take BG, you could stand inside that aoe shoot your puny arrows on that evil mage or you could run around and kite him with the primed target while having your mage strip his protections and thief to backstab him.

 

And for mass effect yes I can control my team-mates I can assign them targets, tell them where to go, tell them which powers to use and when also assign targets for their powers. Also I can assign them Gear and customize their skills. Difference is in DA games you need to fully take control of your companion while in mass effect u just open a tactical menu or use Q \ E as shortcut. Apples and Oranges but both will be fruits.

 

Regarding the Multiplayer.. why do you care so much and why do you keep comparing it to mmos? TESO has nothing to do with TES, it was developed by another company and did not affected TES games as they are.

 

Regarding multiplayer in DA:I and ME3, when we ask it to be like ME3 we mean it will be PVE and not PVP and to have it in "Arena" like maps which makes it totaly disconnected from the main single player game. With new engine and plenty of classes there is amazing potential for multiplayer mode and it was stated in the past mp mode will be added.

I'm more into the mp part of DA then the SP part so far at any rate and really wish it will be added.


  • Gnoster aime ceci

#77
Googleness

Googleness
  • Members
  • 2 118 messages

ESO came about because people like you started mouthing off things like I wanna play wit friendz it wudz be awesum" and so they made a MMO as a result the franchise has been tainted by this attempt to cater to the console casual "everything must have Multiplayer coz reasons"

 

DA is not and should never have MP in any degree in it at all period,its not that type of franchise and should never have MP forced upon it to cater to the same degenerates that also want Zombies in every damn game.So like I said take your silly requests elsewhere go ruin some other franchise 

 

Ha now it makes sense why you are right and I'm wrong.. let's sum it up...

1. Me and my kind are Degenerates.

2. Me and my kind are mouthing off...

 

Seriously you can't have a proper conversation without getting into insults? have I hurt your feelings or something?

It's a game and as a bioware game of late years it's getting the mass effect style treatment and some os us would like a MP mode added to extended the life of the game after we finished ravaging the single player mode.

 

For your knowing btw I was against mp in me3 and was surprised how good it went, I hate zombie games.



#78
Fast Jimmy

Fast Jimmy
  • Members
  • 17 939 messages

DA:I wouldn't nessassarily have to lose the fundemental framework of what it is, or become a cheap Devil May Cry ripoff in order to incorporate MP though.
I personally think a lot of the conflict is coming from the statement that MP fans want "DA:I MP to be like ME 3's MP" and others assuming that MP fans want DA:I to be a carbon copy of ME 3's mechanics, just with a fantasy skin.
Obviously, DA:I is not a third person shooter, and I don't think that MP fans want to restructure the fundemental elements of DA to make a DA themed version of ME. People would like to see a similar take on the 'horde mode' formula, and possibly a similar character kit mechanic to distinguish the various classes and races (personally I hope that we have more control over our characters then a simple pre-determined concept), but I don't think that anyone is expecting third person shooter mechanics in a game not built for them.
Personally, I picture MP as being more strategic, and tactical then the typical 'fast paced' MP modes that we all have come to expect. The closest example of what I am getting at concerning the 'slower paced' MP would have to be the Xbox 360 video game "Chromehounds". In Chromehounds players would build mechs to fill certain battlefield roles and then join a team of fellow 'Hounds' in a battle against enemy mechs. Now what set Chromehounds apart from other Mech games like Armored Core or Mechwarrior was that teamwork was vital to success. Even the 'assault' class of mechs would get shreaded easily by a coordinated team; Chromehounds were more like walking tanks then fifty foot tall ninja bots. The game was very grounded in teamwork and strategic thinking. The team that stayed in range of the 'Commander' class could maintain a tactical overview of the battlefield. Teams that used 'Scouts' to identify targets for the 'Artillary' mechs would win vs a team that just blindly charged the enemy lines.
Now granted DA:I is not a mech game, but I think that a more tactfully minded MP could work with the existing mechanics to create a fun and engaging MP experience.


I don't see the DA team doing any of that; given the revenue generated from ME3's microtransactions, I imagine the pressure so to have any MP component for another Bioware game to borrow as heavily from that as possible. Also, the statement initially replied to was someone saying "have you all played ME3's MP? DA could do that," which is why I talked about how ME's mechanics are fundamentally different than DA's.

Try playing DA:O or DA2 as a solo campaign on Easy and you'll see where my concern is. Soloing on Nightmare requires intense micromanagement and knowledge of your enemies. Soloing on Easy is just boring. There aren't enough options for your one character to do to make it engaging and you wouldn't be able to do the high level of pause-and-play that a Nightmare level challenge would provide in a MP mode, so a higher level to difficulty would be frustrating.

You could try having team bots as your party, as someone suggested, but that just gets ridiculous in short order. Five people playing in MP (small by comparison for MP matches) would mean 20 characters on screen, all doing different attacks, moves and animations, not to mention any enemies you might be fighting, of which would AT LEAST want an equal amount (if not much, much more). It becomes a nightmare to juggle from a technical standpoint, not to mention the frustration for a player when switching between characters in real time may result in lag times and server freezes.


Personally, the fact that we are close to three months out from release (probably less than 45 days from the game going Gold and being out of development and into manufacturing and distribution) and there has been no news about MP has been GREAT news. The series does not fit into it easily. If someone wants to battle as a desire demon or a Sylvan, they can play the mobile app that has collectible characters in an arena type, turn based game.

Just let DA be a SP game until Bioware has shown they can make a good SP game without mountains of controversy and complaints around it.

#79
simpatikool

simpatikool
  • Members
  • 705 messages

Technically, Bioware has kept silent on MP being present or not. It could  be either way. There is conspicuously no word either way.

 

All the other stuff about MP not having a place in an RPG and vice versa is literally opinion.

 

At stating something like let Bioware prove they can make a good SP game without mountains of controversy? Whatever.... Even that is opinion. Even WITH the controversy, it is still one of the top selling games...(ME series..heck, even ME3)



#80
Seryou

Seryou
  • Members
  • 7 messages

As long as there's no SP rewards from it, I don't really care. Once you add rewards for SP from the MP mode, then it becomes "mandatory" for completionists.



#81
robertthebard

robertthebard
  • Members
  • 6 108 messages
Lost me at "...and level up your Inquisition in MP". Again, MP should not be required to gain the "best" endings. Yes, one could get them in ME 3, if one scanned every planet, in every system and did every side mission in the game. If you missed one, you could potentially lose out, while people that were actively playing MP could just run the main plot, and get all the best endings. No, it's not an issue now, with all the DLC, but I missed a few quests somewhere, or didn't find certain side objectives, and got a very low EMS Destroy ending, where, if it had been any lower, the Crucible would probably have been destroyed. All of this was hashed out on the old BSN though. MP is fine. MP affecting the SP campaign is a deal breaker for me.

#82
Fast Jimmy

Fast Jimmy
  • Members
  • 17 939 messages

Technically, Bioware has kept silent on MP being present or not. It could  be either way. There is conspicuously no word either way.


The only precedence about when Bioware announces MP was ME3, but that was done about nine months out. We are closing in on three here in less than two weeks.
 

All the other stuff about MP not having a place in an RPG and vice versa is literally opinion.


I did not say an RPG cannot have MP. I said that the type of combat design the DA series uses is non-conducive to MP without serious fundamental changes. That's not opinion - it's a fact. Making changes to that system will change the genre it is in. It will still be an RPG, but it will be leaning more towards the single character action RPG, like Dark Souls. Again - no opinion there.
 

At stating something like let Bioware prove they can make a good SP game without mountains of controversy? Whatever.... Even that is opinion. Even WITH the controversy, it is still one of the top selling games...(ME series..heck, even ME3)


I did not say a good or bad single player game. I did not say a low selling/high selling SP game. I said a single player game not surrounded by controversy.

It is a fact, not opinion, that DA2 was extremely controversial amongst the DA fanbase. It was loved by some, hated by others, tepid by the rest. But it was undeniably a lightning rod for debate and controversy.

And ME3 was perhaps one of the most controversial games IN HISTORY. It set a precedent at being a game that changed its ending based on player feedback. There were groups numbering in the tens of thousands organizing protests and online petitions. There were complaints files with retailers and even government entities about the game itself.

Whether or not you liked these games is opinion. Whether they were controversial or not is not - it is a fact that they were.

#83
Vortex13

Vortex13
  • Members
  • 4 186 messages

Technically, Bioware has kept silent on MP being present or not. It could be either way. There is conspicuously no word either way.


I have noticed BioWare's lack of a solid yes or no very telling as well. In fact I remember seeing an interview with Aaron Flynn (I believe) where he said "I can't talk about it."

If BioWare was not going to have MP in DA:I period then why remain ambiguous?

#84
Fast Jimmy

Fast Jimmy
  • Members
  • 17 939 messages

I have noticed BioWare's lack of a solid yes or no very telling as well. In fact I remember seeing an interview with Aaron Flynn (I believe) where he said "I can't talk about it."
If BioWare was not going to have MP in DA:I period then why remain ambiguous?

They have remained ambiguous about lots of things. The Keep remains shrouded in mystery about how it will work, even though it is guaranteed that it will be used as the means to set up Save Imports. They have talked about crafting and customization, but not said a word about what it entails. They have stated that Specializations will "matter more" to the game, but not given any clue as to what that means, precisely. The team has repeatedly been vague about a toolkit for modders, other than "we don't know but I wouldn't count on it right at this time."

You see quiet and assume a good surprise. I see quiet and assume "if they haven't even teased it by now, it's not happening."

#85
Sir Ulrich Von Lichenstien

Sir Ulrich Von Lichenstien
  • Members
  • 5 177 messages

The combat system of the Dragon Age series is nothing like the Mass Effect series. Adding MP means turning the series into an single character action game, when it is a party-based tactical series.

That's why people are against it.

 

What makes me laugh about you and the 'people' you talk of. Is that I bet you are all the same ones who raved about Baldur's Gate.

 

Just to jog your memory on that game. It had Multiplayer. So your argument here about single character stuff is irrelevant.

 

In Single Player Baldur's Gate you controlled the Bhaalspawn and his party members. In Multiplayer your friends had their own characters and you gathered together and ventured forth as a party.

 

So to claim that this game possibly couldn't allow Multiplayer is a bit silly. It's just a case of setting up the story for it, the levels for it and how the characters are formed. So you could have someone playing a Sword and Board Warrior with someone as a Spirit Mage, another person as a Daggers Rogue and lastly someone as an Elements Mage and guess what... they can take part in tactical battles with them talking over VoIP.

 

So it is obvious that the people that are against it clearly don't have a clue and if they try to come out with the "RPGs should stick to their roots." argument I guess I could always point out that RPGs roots started off with people gathering together at someones house and playing the likes of Dungeons & Dragons with 1 of them as a DM and the rest as some party on some adventure. So RPGs roots are technically Multiplayer ;)


  • Vortex13 aime ceci

#86
Fast Jimmy

Fast Jimmy
  • Members
  • 17 939 messages

What makes me laugh about you and the 'people' you talk of. Is that I bet you are all the same ones who raved about Baldur's Gate.

 

Just to jog your memory on that game. It had Multiplayer. So your argument here about single character stuff is irrelevant.

 

In Single Player Baldur's Gate you controlled the Bhaalspawn and his party members. In Multiplayer your friends had their own characters and you gathered together and ventured forth as a party.

 

So to claim that this game possibly couldn't allow Multiplayer is a bit silly. It's just a case of setting up the story for it, the levels for it and how the characters are formed. So you could have someone playing a Sword and Board Warrior with someone as a Spirit Mage, another person as a Daggers Rogue and lastly someone as an Elements Mage and guess what... they can take part in tactical battles with them talking over VoIP.

 

So it is obvious that the people that are against it clearly don't have a clue and if they try to come out with the "RPGs should stick to their roots." argument I guess I could always point out that RPGs roots started off with people gathering together at someones house and playing the likes of Dungeons & Dragons with 1 of them as a DM and the rest as some party on some adventure. So RPGs roots are technically Multiplayer ;)

 

 

This is the ultimate strawman.

 

Yes, Baldur's Gate had MP... if by "multi" you mean people who you could physically connect your computer to.

 

It still allowed for pause and play combat. It still involved controlling an entire party. And it still was based on character skills and stats over player's ability to perform these tasks. 

 

None of those things are true with an online Multiplayer mode like we see today. The BG multiplayer mode changed nothing about the base mechanics of the game. A MP feature in today's world would have to change DA's mechanics. To say otherwise is a false statement. 



#87
Sir Ulrich Von Lichenstien

Sir Ulrich Von Lichenstien
  • Members
  • 5 177 messages

This is the ultimate strawman.

 

Yes, Baldur's Gate had MP... if by "multi" you mean people who you could physically connect your computer to.

 

It still allowed for pause and play combat. It still involved controlling an entire party. And it still was based on character skills and stats over player's ability to perform these tasks. 

 

None of those things are true with an online Multiplayer mode like we see today. The BG multiplayer mode changed nothing about the base mechanics of the game. A MP feature in today's world would have to change DA's mechanics. To say otherwise is a false statement. 

You are wrong on the BG comment. You could connect in Multiplayer by the host giving out their IP address and other players could then join their game using that. Pretty much the same way Bioware kind of did it for Neverwinter Nights, although they also had servers as well. Neverwinter Nights of course having a perfectly fine Multiplayer side to it that didn't interfere with the Single Player campaign/s.

 

As for changing the mechanics, I am curious as to what mechanics you think were altered for Mass Effect 3s MP from the SP because other than your party members being controlled by actual other players nothing much else was changed. Thus this comment of yours relating to MP features changing mechanics is once again flawed.

 

I can easily see how they would implement it, the only real stumbling block is in regards setting up the story idea for the Multiplayer aspect from what I can work out.

 

You have made it abundantly clear that you aren't interested in any MP side they might do with DA so why do you persist in posting in here where people are looking to talk about what they would like to see? You aren't going to change anyones views, so basically put all you are doing is trolling people that are intrigued by the idea of some form of Multiplayer. How about you just leave this topic be and go look up something you ARE interested in.



#88
Fast Jimmy

Fast Jimmy
  • Members
  • 17 939 messages
Sir Ulrich Von Lichenstien, on 26 Jun 2014 - 8:56 PM, said:

 

You are wrong on the BG comment. You could connect in Multiplayer by the host giving out their IP address and other players could then join their game using that. Pretty much the same way Bioware kind of did it for Neverwinter Nights, although they also had servers as well. Neverwinter Nights of course having a perfectly fine Multiplayer side to it that didn't interfere with the Single Player campaign/s.

 

NWN's mechanics involved controlling one character and having AI controlled companions which you had limited control over and which did not involve pausing when going through inventory or choosing skills to use in combat. Which is nothing like DA, which involves controlling an entire party equally and is largely based on pause-and-play mechanics to best manage said party. Ergo, nothing needed to change for NWN to transition from SP to MP. Something WOULD need to change for DA's. 

 

 

 

As for changing the mechanics, I am curious as to what mechanics you think were altered for Mass Effect 3s MP from the SP because other than your party members being controlled by actual other players nothing much else was changed. Thus this comment of yours relating to MP features changing mechanics is once again flawed.

 

Nothing was changed in the MP for ME3. That is my entire point. 

 

ME is a shooter. The player spends the entire time directly controlling one character and shooting things, with the occasional rotating out of powers and omnigel. That's how it works in SP. That's how it worked in the MP.

 

DA is a completely different beast. As I stated earlier - go play DA:O solo on Easy. That's about the right difficulty where you can play with only one character and not die without ever needing to pause the game and manage things on the fly like you would need to do for MP. It is incredibly tedious. You'll go through your primary abilities early in the fight, then auto attack for thirty seconds, chug a potion, auto attack again for twenty seconds, use a skill, auto attack again for twenty five seconds... this isn't ME, where you'd be aiming a gun, ducking for cover, throwing grenades or sneaking around corners. DA is tactical, where the stats of the characters determine hits or misses, hiding or being seen, critically taking down an opponent or completely missing and doing no damage. 

 

If you made DA:I into a game that had more aciton components, than it stops being the game it was and crosses full-fledged into an action RPG, like Dark Souls or Kingdoms of Amalur. Neither games which have party combat or management, let alone let's you play directly as any character in your party. 

 

 

 

I can easily see how they would implement it, the only real stumbling block is in regards setting up the story idea for the Multiplayer aspect from what I can work out.

 

 

As for all the reasons I've outlined here and elsewhere, the implementation would turn the game into something it never was before. DA is one of the last RPG series in the entire industry that let's you do party-based tactical combat. The industry is SATURATED with games that let you play as a single character and fight with some bots on your side. You'd be destroying one of the last franchises left in the entire AAA gaming scene that does something just to make it exactly like dozens of other games out there right now.

 

And the story is simple - something cheap and hackneyed like ME3's was. You are members of N7 the Inquisition carrying out special missions quests against Reaper forces demons to save the galaxy Thedas.

 

 

 

You have made it abundantly clear that you aren't interested in any MP side they might do with DA so why do you persist in posting in here where people are looking to talk about what they would like to see? You aren't going to change anyones views, so basically put all you are doing is trolling people that are intrigued by the idea of some form of Multiplayer. How about you just leave this topic be and go look up something you ARE interested in.

 

I am talking about what I'd like to see. I'd like to see nothing. 

 

But furthermore, I'm working to show people the damage their requests could possibly have if they were actually listened to. If you honestly want to put MMO-style hack n' slash mechanics into the DA series, it will either require two totally different gameplay mechanics between the SP and MP (in which case, you may as well be playing a different game) or it will result in the DA series no longer being the only AAA video game series that has this type of combat and gameplay. THE ONLY ONE. Sure, there are some indie developers making games like Pillars of Eternity or Wasteland 2, but it would completely remove the gameplay from the larger industry.



#89
Allan Schumacher

Allan Schumacher
  • BioWare Employees
  • 7 640 messages

DA is a completely different beast. As I stated earlier - go play DA:O solo on Easy. That's about the right difficulty where you can play with only one character and not die without ever needing to pause the game and manage things on the fly like you would need to do for MP.

 

As I read through this I find this particular statement confusing.



#90
BlueFlame527

BlueFlame527
  • Members
  • 848 messages

As I read through this I find this particular statement confusing.

 

I think it's because you cannot pause the game in MP (at least from my MP experience).



#91
Googleness

Googleness
  • Members
  • 2 118 messages

DA:O was hard? ROFL...

 

my BM\AW would like to have a word with you....

most of the time I killed everyone in the room before my team could reach melee range.

 

Look at ME3 MP mode after soloing platinum\gold on multi playing insanity on single player was very easy.... very very easy...



#92
Fast Jimmy

Fast Jimmy
  • Members
  • 17 939 messages
DA is a completely different beast. As I stated earlier - go play DA:O solo on Easy. That's about the right difficulty where you can play with only one character and not die without ever needing to pause the game and manage things on the fly like you would need to do for MP. It is incredibly tedious. You'll go through your primary abilities early in the fight, then auto attack for thirty seconds, chug a potion, auto attack again for twenty seconds, use a skill, auto attack again for twenty five seconds... this isn't ME, where you'd be aiming a gun, ducking for cover, throwing grenades or sneaking around corners. DA is tactical, where the stats of the characters determine hits or misses, hiding or being seen, critically taking down an opponent or completely missing and doing no damage.

 

As I read through this I find this particular statement confusing.

 

How so? 

 

If you play DA:O on Normal, Hard or Nightmare, you'd likely die a whole lot if you could never pause (since you can't pause in any MP mode that anywhere resembles what was done with ME). Using pause-and-play, even a little, makes soloing possible on these difficulty levels, but to not use pause at ALL during combat? That would be difficult on anything higher than Easy.

 

But, at the same time, playing solo on Easy is incredibly tedious. Lots of waiting for cooldowns to end, using auto attack and chugging a potion when something gets low. And occasionally also lay traps or apply poisons. There is no coordination among your other units, no unit placement outside of some kiting, no strategic use of skills to set up certain combos outside of maybe "Grease + Fireball" if you are a Mage... and again, those skills have almost a minute cooldown.

 

That's not a compelling MP model. Again, this isn't ME where you'd be aiming your gun and occasionally peppering in some powers or omnigel... attacking is a rather pedestrian affair.

 

So you're options then are to either turn the game towards more action elements, which have negative implications for how the SP gameplay would be designed, or to have each MP player control a party of bots, which can be a technical nightmare if you are talking about dozens of player parties running around a single map with corresponding enemies to fight.



#93
Fast Jimmy

Fast Jimmy
  • Members
  • 17 939 messages

DA:O was hard? ROFL...

 

my BM\AW would like to have a word with you....

most of the time I killed everyone in the room before my team could reach melee range.

 

Look at ME3 MP mode after soloing platinum\gold on multi playing insanity on single player was very easy.... very very easy...

 

Not hard. I am saying soloing the game without ever using the pause function becomes problematic at any level beyond Normal for your average player. 

 

 

This is another reason I highly dislike multiplayer. The culture of players feeling they need to brag about every inane accomplishment they've ever done with it. 



#94
Vortex13

Vortex13
  • Members
  • 4 186 messages

How so?

If you play DA:O on Normal, Hard or Nightmare, you'd likely die a whole lot if you could never pause (since you can't pause in any MP mode that anywhere resembles what was done with ME). Using pause-and-play, even a little, makes soloing possible on these difficulty levels, but to not use pause at ALL during combat? That would be difficult on anything higher than Easy.

But, at the same time, playing solo on Easy is incredibly tedious. Lots of waiting for cooldowns to end, using auto attack and chugging a potion when something gets low. And occasionally also lay traps or apply poisons. There is no coordination among your other units, no unit placement outside of some kiting, no strategic use of skills to set up certain combos outside of maybe "Grease + Fireball" if you are a Mage... and again, those skills have almost a minute cooldown.

That's not a compelling MP model. Again, this isn't' ME where you'd be aiming your gun and occasionally peppering in some powers or omnigel... attacking is a rather pedestrian affair.

So you're options then are to either turn the game towards more action elements, which have negative implications for how the SP gameplay would be designed, or to have each MP player control a party of bots, which can be a technical nightmare if you are talking about dozens of player parties running around a single map with corresponding enemies to fight.


DA:O might be hard to solo on any difficulty higher than Easy without pausing combat, but that is just solo; playing by yourself.


I can easily see a coordinated group of four to five people tackling DA:O on hard or nightmare settings. Oh the gameplay would be hard and punishing; which is how I would picture DA:I MP; but it wouldn't be boring or tedeious IMO, especially if the team in question was using varied classes.


We have seen the E3 footage with the dragon fight, now while we did see tactical camera in use, we also saw real time combat that didn't rely on cycling through multiple menus, or juggling multiple powers (via a power wheel). In fact the whole party only used three to four powers each during the fight; I don't see how swapping out the tactical camera and its control over a group of party members for a group of four to five people would require a fundemental change of core DA mechanics (apart from removing tactical camera).

#95
Fast Jimmy

Fast Jimmy
  • Members
  • 17 939 messages
DA:O might be hard to solo on any difficulty higher than Easy without pausing combat, but that is just solo; playing by yourself.

 

I can easily see a coordinated group of four to five people tackling DA:O on hard or nightmare settings. Oh the gameplay would be hard and punishing; which is how I would picture DA:I MP; but it wouldn't be boring or tedeious IMO, especially if the team in question was using varied classes.

 

But I am speaking solely from a single player's perspective. 

 

 

We have seen the E3 footage with the dragon fight, now while we did see tactical camera in use, we also saw real time combat that didn't rely on cycling through multiple menus, or juggling multiple powers (via a power wheel). In fact the whole party only used three to four powers each during the fight; I don't see how swapping out the tactical camera and its control over a group of party members for a group of four to five people would require a fundemental change of core DA mechanics (apart from removing tactical camera).

 

This (bolded) is exactly my point. Where managing a party of four characters who only use three or four powers and then sit on Autoattack while they cooldown is engaging when your attention is split between four characters, it would not create an engaging segment of MP for a player controlling only one character (a la ME3).

 

Again, as in my earlier example - you'd use your primary skills, then auto attack for ten seconds, kite around some, use a skill that got off cooldown, auto attack another fifteen seconds, chug a potion, auto attack another fifteen seconds, etc.

 

As a MP team, you may be yelling at each other over headsets to move the archer characters into position or tell the tank to run through to aggro the enemy units, but what one character is actually doing at any given time is very mundane. AND THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT - at least in Single Player. The player's reflex skill and ability to mash buttons or perform QTE events to roll out of harm's way is action-oriented gameplay. If I, as the player, make it more likely for any given character to succeed if I take direct control of them versus just giving the command, then that is incrementally no longer tactical gameplay. That's action gameplay with a sub optimal option of giving orders. 

 

If, however, the gameplay is made to be action oriented to better compliment a MP mode, then Bioware is now making a weak action game that is giving lip service to the tactical side of the equation. Hence, my entire argument that any incorporation of MP in the same vein as what people often suggest with ME is turning the game into a different genre. And, as I said before, removing from the industry one of the last vestiges of this type of gameplay found anywhere outside of Kickstarter. 



#96
Allan Schumacher

Allan Schumacher
  • BioWare Employees
  • 7 640 messages

How so?

 

Because you're describing a single player experience, with one character, and equating it to the supposed difficulty of having more players play.

 

When I play NWN or BG multiplayer, I don't need to pause the game as much.  I also don't think you need to pause all that much in the Dragon Age games either, aside from particular encounters.  I am curious though, why do you think the pause feature exists in our games?

 

 

Not hard. I am saying soloing the game without ever using the pause function becomes problematic at any level beyond Normal for your average player.

 

And I'm saying that this is irrelevant unless you're arguing that any multiplayer component must be playable alone.



#97
Fast Jimmy

Fast Jimmy
  • Members
  • 17 939 messages

Because you're describing a single player experience, with one character, and equating it to the supposed difficulty of having more players play.

 

When I play NWN or BG multiplayer, I don't need to pause the game as much.  I also don't think you need to pause all that much in the Dragon Age games either, aside from particular encounters.  I am curious though, why do you think the pause feature exists in our games?

 

 

 

 

 

And I'm saying that this is irrelevant unless you're arguing that any multiplayer component must be playable alone.

 

See my most recent response

 

 

EDIT: And the pause feature exists in your games as a vestige of the turn based systems that previously dominated RPG mechanics. Pause and play gives the ability to select commands in a halted environment just as one would do if it was their "turn" and they had the luxury of choosing their action before the action resumed. With Pause and Play, it allows for more fluid and distinct units of time and action to occur and also to allow course correction or implementation of any action at any place in time. 

 

Ergo, if you have three of your four characters who all need attention at the same time, you can pause it, issue out commands to them as if it was their "turn," then resume the action. You can do this as rarely or as frequently as you so desire, making it much more adaptable to different playstyles than more rigid turn based systems.

 

 

Does that answer your question?



#98
Allan Schumacher

Allan Schumacher
  • BioWare Employees
  • 7 640 messages

EDIT: And the pause feature exists in your games as a vestige of the turn based systems that previously dominated RPG mechanics. Pause and play gives the ability to select commands in a halted environment just as one would do if it was their "turn" and they had the luxury of choosing their action before the action resumed. With Pause and Play, it allows for more fluid and distinct units of time and action to occur and also to allow course correction or implementation of any action at any place in time. 

*snip*

 
I think pause exists so that the player can more easily execute commands of the party simultaneously.
 
 

Does that answer your question?

I think we're saying similar things, but I'm not sure.  Your answer is a bit verbose though so I may be missing something.  I disagree that pause was added as a result of turn based systems, but was rather added to make party management easier in a real-time environment.



#99
Fast Jimmy

Fast Jimmy
  • Members
  • 17 939 messages

I think pause exists so that the player can more easily execute commands of the party simultaneously.

I think we're saying similar things, but I'm not sure. Your answer is a bit verbose though so I may be missing something. I disagree that pause was added as a result of turn based systems, but was rather added to make party management easier in a real-time environment.

Well, I'd counter that the reason the newer systems had such complexity to manage in real time was a result of the turn based systems that allowed for a large set of skills and abilities to be used by a character at their own leisure, but that might be diving too deep. So yes - pause was added to easily execute commands in real time.

If you can't pause, it is easier to be overwhelmed in combat. However, in DA:O the set of skills you had available for use (excluding "always on" buffs and the like) at any one time usually didn't exceed six and, in many cases before the end game, was more like three or four.

If DA:O had MP, where you'd be controlling only one character, you'd use those four skills and then be on standby with Auto attack. Sprinkle in a potion, trap or skill that completes its cooldown, maybe a little kiting if an enemy spotted you and you were a squishy class. That does not sound like a riveting MP experience.

But to make it more MP friendly, you'd be adding action elements like dodging or aiming or QTE button mash events, etc. Which turns the series into something it wasn't previously - it makes it an action game instead of a tactical one and it slants the best results of combat more towards controlling one character, which makes playing with your eye on the party as a whole sub-optimal.

That, to me, is a huge waste.

#100
Vortex13

Vortex13
  • Members
  • 4 186 messages

But I am speaking solely from a single player's perspective.




This (bolded) is exactly my point. Where managing a party of four characters who only use three or four powers and then sit on Autoattack while they cooldown is engaging when your attention is split between four characters, it would not create an engaging segment of MP for a player controlling only one character (a la ME3).

Again, as in my earlier example - you'd use your primary skills, then auto attack for ten seconds, kite around some, use a skill that got off cooldown, auto attack another fifteen seconds, chug a potion, auto attack another fifteen seconds, etc.

As a MP team, you may be yelling at each other over headsets to move the archer characters into position or tell the tank to run through to aggro the enemy units, but what one character is actually doing at any given time is very mundane. AND THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT - at least in Single Player. The player's reflex skill and ability to mash buttons or perform QTE events to roll out of harm's way is action-oriented gameplay. If I, as the player, make it more likely for any given character to succeed if I take direct control of them versus just giving the command, then that is incrementally no longer tactical gameplay. That's action gameplay with a sub optimal option of giving orders.

If, however, the gameplay is made to be action oriented to better compliment a MP mode, then Bioware is now making a weak action game that is giving lip service to the tactical side of the equation. Hence, my entire argument that any incorporation of MP in the same vein as what people often suggest with ME is turning the game into a different genre. And, as I said before, removing from the industry one of the last vestiges of this type of gameplay found anywhere outside of Kickstarter.


You mention autoattacks and waiting for cooldowns as a major hurdle for MP in DA:I, but I don't see why they would be. Look at ME 3 MP (yes I know the whole third person shooter /= party based RPG) that MP had 'auto attacks' in the form of firing your weapon and waiting for the cooldowns on your tech of biotic powers to finish.

Each gun had different DPS stats, different effects depending on ammo powers and modifications etc. Now compare this to autoattacks in DA:I. A two handed warrior is going to have a different DPS then a sword and shield warrior and a warrior's autoattacks are going to have a different DPS from rogues or mages. Add to this the different types of weapons and modifications to said weapons each class can wield, and the autoattacks in DA:I would rival the gun damage in ME 3 in terms of variety.

In ME 3 MP players would manuver around the battlefield and seek cover, choosing opportunities to attack enemies and then targeting particular points on enemies (namely headshots) to deal additional damage. Compare this to DA:I, where positioning of party members is nessassry to maximize damage. Players will choose openings in enemy attacks to engage in autoattacks in order to avoid retaliatory damage, and targeting specific parts of an enemy (see the dragon fight, and developer talks about dragons in general) to deal extra damage.


DA:I MP will be more nuanced then: Autoattack, Autoattack, use spell or talent, Autoattack, autoattack, chug a potion, and still more auto attacking.


You could simplify ME 3's MP down to: Shoot your gun, shoot your gun, use biotic or tech power, shoot your gun, shoot your gun, use a medigel or ops survival pack, and shoot your gun some more.


Both MP modes have more variety and entertainment value than that IMO. Now DA:I might be "slower paced" then ME 3, but I personally don't see that as a problem.
  • simpatikool et Sir Ulrich Von Lichenstien aiment ceci