237 réponses à ce sujet

[Allan Schumacher]

So yes - pause was added to easily execute commands in real time.

 

If a unique individual is controlling each character in the party, does this mitigate concerns about being able to execute commands at the same time?

[ElitePinecone]

If a unique individual is controlling each character in the party, does this mitigate concerns about being able to execute commands at the same time?

 

Yeah, I think a lot of people are hung up over the "control a party" side of DA, when any hypothetical MP mode can totally work with three or four people all controlling a single character in real time. Give each class a default attack and three or four spells/talents mapped to hotkeys/controller buttons and it's all set.

 

ME3's MP did away with pausing and it was hugely entertaining - I don't see why DA couldn't do the same thing. It'd be a slightly different beast to the singleplayer, but if both are satisfying I can't see anything bad there at all. They're just two different game modes, using a slightly modified version of the same fundamental combat system. 

[TheChris92]

Horde modes are incredibly dull and awful -- The only way I could picture a fun MP is if it was actual co-op, and the game itself was designed with this concept in mind. Like Metal Gear: Peace Walker's co-op, where it's actually fun and not dull unconventional routine.

I think I'd rather not having it at all.

[Sir Ulrich Von Lichenstien]

I'd like it to be nonexistent.

I'm always curious regarding people whom state this. Why do you think this? Does its very existence harm you in anyway? Just because it is there doesn't mean you have to play it. It would simply be an 'optional' thing that if you didn't want to take part in it you wouldn't have to.

[Allan Schumacher]

I'm always curious regarding people whom state this. Why do you think this? Does its very existence harm you in anyway? Just because it is there doesn't mean you have to play it. It would simply be an 'optional' thing that if you didn't want to take part in it you wouldn't have to.

 

Some have the idea that without its existence, it won't be there to influence the single player game design whether through shared systems or through competing for resources.

[Mirrman70]

Some have the idea that without its existence, it won't be there to influence the single player game design whether through shared systems or through competing for resources.

 

I have this feeling tha EA would give y'all more resources to put in a multiplayer. so they can do a micro-transaction system like ME3

[ElitePinecone]

I have this feeling tha EA would give y'all more resources to put in a multiplayer. so they can do a micro-transaction system like ME3

 

Well, they wouldn't exactly fund a multiplayer mode for no reason. It has to make money, or somehow add to the game's value proposition. 

[Sir Ulrich Von Lichenstien]

Well, they wouldn't exactly fund a multiplayer mode for no reason. It has to make money, or somehow add to the game's value proposition. 

Yup which any business would do. People seem to forget that Game companies are businesses and businesses need funding somehow or other. Else they would not be able to do what they do. I doubt even an indie developer could truly make games without financial support.

 

I do think that people who go on about game developers "Selling their soul" and "They don't do it for the love no more" are a bit silly and very melodramatic. Game Developers are just like everyone else, they need money to pay their bills, their food and buy stuff. To do that, they need to earn money. Just because they work for a Corporation doesn't mean they can't love what they do. I think it is pretty clear in Bioware's case that a lot if not all of their staff love doing what they do.

 

In regards to the whole 'competing for resources' I would hazard a guess that EA/Bioware would simply have a separate budget to account for the Multiplayer and most likely a core team setup to work purely on the MP side working in conjunction with other departments such as the Writers and such.

 

I know a counter argument from the Multiplayer haters would be that said money/resources could be used on the Single Player but I imagine that wouldn't be the case unless there really was something else that they found that could be added and would need resources. I guess in that scenario it would be a case of the money people giving them more money or basically it being accounted for an potentially implemented in a future game.

 

In regards to the Multiplayer, whilst I would love to see a Co-Op campaign style thing, I imagine that something set up for Inquisition would most likely be a bit like the ME3 one in which we are playing agents of the Inquisition defending and/or attacking keeps, facing off against various forces be it Venatori, Red Templars, Darkspawn or something else. Only thing I am not sure about is how they will handle the characters we can be. I suppose if sticking fairly close to the ME3 unlocks, in this variant it would be Specializations that we unlock for each of the 3 core classes whom start with specific specializations already unlocked and of course Weapons and Armor.

 

I think ME3's Multiplayer was very well received and yes there is the whole micro-transaction thing but you could also earn the stuff simply by playing the Multiplayer and getting the in-game currency to purchase the stuff too. I would imagine any DA Multiplayer would follow suit in that regards.

[robertthebard]

Some have the idea that without its existence, it won't be there to influence the single player game design whether through shared systems or through competing for resources.

My sole concern is a repeat of ME 3, you need it to get better assets for the end game. I've stuck to this anywhere this topic comes up. I understand FJ's concerns, I don't share them, but I do understand them, because I play SP games to get away from the, um, controlled chaos(?) that can be a MP game. However, I also play MP games, and while my "twitch" gaming isn't what it used to be, I don't suck at it, much. I dabbled with ME3's MP, but because of the twitch gaming deficiency mentioned, I never got way into it. I do play DDO, swtor, Aion (which requires a bit of twitch gaming when PvP happens), etc. So MP in and of itself is not my concern. Having MP directly affect the SP campaign is, and as I said, it's a deal breaker for me.

I don't want to rely on skills I know I no longer have to procure better assets, or better endings. This was exactly the situation with ME 3. If you didn't do every single mission out there, you weren't going to get the "best" endings, unless you played a few hours of MP, and then "Hey look, I could skip half the main story, and still get the "best" ending because I have 100% Galactic Readiness". Something that, as much as the people that claim "You didn't need MP to get xxx" fail to take into account, unless someone wants to show me how I can get 100% Galactic Readiness w/out MP? The short answer is, no matter how much work you do in the SP game, even if you bring every single force that's offered, you're never 100% ready to fight the Reapers unless you played MP. I don't want to see that in Inquisition, and if it's going to be there, let me know now, so I can cancel my pre-order. I didn't like that implementation in ME 3, and I don't like the idea of it here.

[Fast Jimmy]

Well, they wouldn't exactly fund a multiplayer mode for no reason. It has to make money, or somehow add to the game's value proposition.

The key phrase in Allan's response was "shared systems."

The chances of having a separate MP and SP budget would be high.

The chances of them making a completely different combat system entirely for MP alone is low. Therefore many of the same design principles would likely to be shared between the SP and MP modes. Which means the SP runs the risk of becoming an action-combat twitch fest. Which I, and others, view as inherently bad.

[ElitePinecone]

^ I agree - if MP is required to boost the "Inquisition readiness rating" to a certain level in order to unlock important SP content - then that's very nearly a dealbreaker.

 

(I'm increasingly apprehensive about this Inquisition power meter anyway, because I *really* didn't like the way ME3 reduced Shepard's accomplishments over three games to a series of arbitrary numbers on a meter that slowly filled with green. It was tacky and completely broke the verisimilitude. Actual on-screen consequences for our choices were replaced with a nonsensical number.)

 

Presenting them as alternatives is totally fine - I'm completely okay with "spend five hours doing sidequests or five hours playing MP to boost your power level". As long as the goals and targets can be accomplished wholly in SP, I don't mind at all if this process can be done in a different way using the hypothetical multiplayer.

 

But if maxing out some SP power bar is impossible without playing MP, that's when the mode changes from an interesting addition to something that's fundamentally annoying, frustrating and intrusive. 

[ElitePinecone]

The key phrase in Allan's response was "shared systems."

The chances of having a separate MP and SP budget would be high.

The chances of them making a completely different combat system entirely for MP alone is low. Therefore many of the same design principles would likely to be shared between the SP and MP modes. Which means the SP runs the risk of becoming an action-combat twitch fest. Which I, and others, view as inherently bad.

 

Have you seen any evidence of the combat system becoming an action-y twitch-fest, though?

[Fast Jimmy]

If a unique individual is controlling each character in the party, does this mitigate concerns about being able to execute commands at the same time?

I think I am having problems communicating - I don't have any concerns about MP being too hard without a pause. My concern is that MP would be exceptionally DULL (again, like soloing DA:O on Easy) because the series isn't action oriented (DA2 mashing if the attack button notwithstanding). To make it NOT dull, Bioware would need to add action elements to the core system, like faster attacking for mashing the attack button, or the ability to dodge attacks based on the players twitch skill, or the ability to aim certain attacks using a reticule or cursor that is focused on how well the player aims, not the characters skill at aiming.

A game designed to manage an entire party while evaluating the battlefield should not have better outcomes (such as faster attacks, guaranteed hits or 100% successful dodges) by virtue of the player taking direct charge. If I see a dragon swooping in to attack my party, I should be able to pause the SP campaign, give orders to my party to get out of the way and have each character's success at doing so be determined by their skills, such as Dexterity or a Dodge skill. If I can, instead, know who my "bulkiest" character is and say "okay, I'm going to give orders to get out of harm's way to my Mages and Rogues, but I'm going to take direct control of my slow tank so I can time the QTE of the dodge move just right to guarantee 100% success," then that is removing the tactical aspect to the combat. I no longer have to suffer the effects of my party's makeup or load out, because I can just take direct control and do a 100% successful dodge, or "headshot" a nuke spell, etc. It slants the entire experience away from what my characters' stats reflect they can do and shifts into what I, as the player, can do.

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.

Yes... but shooting a gun requires aiming and player skill. Your targets are moving and you need to repeatedly aim and fire - it is a constant, engaging task. The same could be said for seeking cover. A player is constantly DOING something in a shooter. It is an action based genre.

In DA, controlling one player doesn't mean you are aiming each slice of the sword, or blocking an attack by timing a shield block... these are activities done by the character, showing their stats, not the player's skill. I can't button mash a bishop to suddenly start behaving like a Queen in chess - the same is true of DA. I shouldn't be able to turn a slow hulking character into a master dodger, or a novice archer into someone able to make a headshot from across the map. Because it turns the gameplay from chess into Twister.

[ElitePinecone]

In DA, controlling one player doesn't mean you are aiming each slice of the sword, or blocking an attack by timing a shield block... these are activities done by the character, showing their stats, not the player's skill. I can't button mash a bishop to suddenly start behaving like a Queen in chess - the same is true of DA. I shouldn't be able to turn a slow hulking character into a master dodger, or a novice archer into someone able to make a headshot from across the map. Because it turns the gameplay from chess into Twister.

 

Doesn't that suggest that success in any hypothetical multiplayer mode would come from the customisation of the player's chosen character? Attributes, equipment and weapon selection, skill trees and knowledge of enemy weaknesses.

 

Success would come from learning and knowing the tactical nature of the combat systems, not who can press a button the fastest.

[Fast Jimmy]

Have you seen any evidence of the combat system becoming an action-y twitch-fest, though?

The presence of such features as the aiming of the hookshot skill, the use of dodge as a mechanic to barrel roll out of any harm's way like in The Witcher, the appearance during some of the demos where the first person camera perspective had the dev who was presenting the demo apparently pushing the attack button repeatedly while facing the same enemy, even though all the character was doing was standard auto-attack (implying that pushing the attack button will, as in DA2, mean more damage output)... all of these things suggest, to me, it is quite possible that DA:I has more action elements than DA2, which I already thought was a borderline action RPG.

[Fast Jimmy]

Doesn't that suggest that success in any hypothetical multiplayer mode would come from the customisation of the player's chosen character? Attributes, equipment and weapon selection, skill trees and knowledge of enemy weaknesses.
 
Success would come from learning and knowing the tactical nature of the combat systems, not who can press a button the fastest.

I could care less what the success of failure of the MP mode is, though. If the SP game is made into a game where playing as a single character is the primary design of the game instead of managing your party as the prime focus, then my interest in the entire series reaches very low levels.

Again, DA was one of the last series in the entire market to offer tactical party management combat. It would be, honestly, like losing a historical landmark if they abandoned the system in favor of a reflex based action game that is literally like 75% of other RPGs out there.

[Althix]

unfortunately yes, they did.

[Googleness]

1. Only reason to pause in Bioware game is to execute orders to party members. in NWN I didn't paused at all.

2. ME3 multiplayer shortly changed after launch in way to make single player 100% detach from multiplayer you could get any singleplayer ending you wanted just by single player.... not to mention you had the option og those sexy 10000 points from multiplayer there after some time cause N7 team > every fleet in the galaxy.

3. in MP players control the characters hence no need to pause and you can do many things you cannot in single even with best AI.

4. You will be surprised but in ME3 multiplayer 99% of the time no one use voice chat, game was really simple to understand and had great community to teach so any random group could "Adapt" to each other in 1-2 waves and call it a day.

 

Why the hatred? It's not cartel market like in swtor which is total cash grab on ME3 multiplayer you could get any gear and any character just by playing the game... harder modes and better performance netted you more cash. iirc platinum was worth like 2 of the most expensive packs in the game.

[Sir Ulrich Von Lichenstien]

^ I agree - if MP is required to boost the "Inquisition readiness rating" to a certain level in order to unlock important SP content - then that's very nearly a dealbreaker.

 

(I'm increasingly apprehensive about this Inquisition power meter anyway, because I *really* didn't like the way ME3 reduced Shepard's accomplishments over three games to a series of arbitrary numbers on a meter that slowly filled with green. It was tacky and completely broke the verisimilitude. Actual on-screen consequences for our choices were replaced with a nonsensical number.)

 

Presenting them as alternatives is totally fine - I'm completely okay with "spend five hours doing sidequests or five hours playing MP to boost your power level". As long as the goals and targets can be accomplished wholly in SP, I don't mind at all if this process can be done in a different way using the hypothetical multiplayer.

 

But if maxing out some SP power bar is impossible without playing MP, that's when the mode changes from an interesting addition to something that's fundamentally annoying, frustrating and intrusive. 

Agreed, I would also go further and state that I hope that IF the MP army can help boost the SP army there be an option to toggle it on/off for each playthrough depending on whether I want that boost or not for a specific play through.

[DisturbedJim83]

I'm always curious regarding people whom state this. Why do you think this? Does its very existence harm you in anyway? Just because it is there doesn't mean you have to play it. It would simply be an 'optional' thing that if you didn't want to take part in it you wouldn't have to.

Over the years I have seen too many good franchises that started out as SP games ruined by this constant unending demand of "we want MP cos playing wit friends is awesomesauce" COD,BF,GTA etc etc, now they have all got to the point where the SP campaign has been so poorly done its as if its nothing more then an afterthought.

 

Once that door opens for DA the franchise will devolve into mediocrity like so many before it,so yes it harms both me as a player sick and tired of franchises being ruined by this silly demand that "everything must have MP cos freinds" and in the end the franchise will be harmed and cheapened as a whole.

[KaiserShep]

If there is any kindness in the universe, multiplayer will stay as far away from this franchise as possible.

[Fast Jimmy]

Why the hatred?

I'll sum up the last two pages of responses for you:

DA is not a shooter (like ME). It is not an action RPG (like Skyrim). And it is not a game played entirely from a single character's perspective (like NWN).

It is a party based tactical combat series. To make a MP mode out of that would be boring and not what you imagine it to be like with ME. If you honestly can't tell the difference between ducking behind a crate, pulling out a sniper rifle, taking aim at your target, missing by a fraction of an inch, see that enemy barreling towards you, reload, line up your shot at a fast moving target and then successfully hitting and taking them down versus DA's "find enemy, press auto attack," then I question your understanding of basic gaming principles.

But the thing is DA NEEDS to be that abstracted and boring to control one character. It HAS to be. Because the conflict of whether or not the character hits, misses or anything in between has to be guided by the character's skill to be a tactical game over an action based one. If they incorporate MP into the game, the chances of the SP truly still being tactical are low because that would make MP (or controlling the game with a single character in SP) boring.

[Googleness]

Well Jimmy as much as I enjoy having a conversation with someone that can write a proper sentence....

 

Why such hate? ME didn't had MP it was added on the last game.

 

Put your fate in Bioware and Bioware will provide. (SWTOR Balmorra reference )

[Althix]

i still have this feeling that DA2 would have a mp if a developer would have more time.

 

because combat of DA2 is not a team battle, each and every engagement is a series of personal skirmishes. so in general, it's more of a single player action game, rather than team based tactical combat.

 

shooter easier to adapt to fast paced combat gameplay. simple as that. reason why you still need a party members in ME series eludes me.

 

what we saw in DAI videos from pax and e3 make me believe that DAI combat will be the same thing as DA2 combat, and as result - it will be very boring.

 

however, such combat mechanics is well suited for mp mode.