237 réponses à ce sujet

[Wulfram]

If they want to have a tie in between SP and MP, they can have SP unlock MP rewards.

[Eralrik]

If anything a Multiplayer experience in DA:I should take from NWN multiplayer as I had many a fun time adventuring with other people.

 

As for the Spacebar I'm thankful that it's their to pause the game as I have Parkinson's trying to issue commands and the heat of battle and trying to control my hands to make those commands work is a lot of work, but having the use of a pause key and very nice size as the spacebar helps tremendously. So TY Allan for keeping the spacebar pause for those of us with handicaps who still love to game.

[Sylvius the Mad]

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?

No.  It still requires making decisions in real time, and I don't enjoy doing that.

 

But I doubt I would play any multiplayer, regardless of its characteristics.

[Allan Schumacher]

You don't monitor your party's health? The buffs they have active? Their placement in relation to the enemies? What skills they have on cooldown and which ones they still have active?

I'll monitor health somewhat, but I usually have my healer (if it's not me) set up to take care of that. I pay attention to it because if I've not set it up properly I'll die. The fight may go in ways that my AI hasn't properly set up too.

Tougher boss fights I often needed to make alterations or do more manual control, but most fights I was able to set up the tactics system and just playthrough the game.

...don't you get bored? You're not doing anything but pressing a button every five or ten seconds or monitoring anything except a steadily decreasing health bar.

Nope. I've had no issues with it whether it be Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, or even a game like TOR or WOW.


Even single player party based Baldur's Gate was still a lot of "stand there and watch people swing swords" especially if you were light on magic users. It was an issue with KOTOR as well.

[Allan Schumacher]

No.  It still requires making decisions in real time, and I don't enjoy doing that.
 
But I doubt I would play any multiplayer, regardless of its characteristics.

 

That's fine, though it's a different critique of the system.  If we're looking at it from the perspective of pause allowing people to effectively give simultaneous orders to multiple party members easily at the same time, then having independent players control each character mitigates the need for a pause (or stellar AI, to use a different type of example).

[Sylvius the Mad]

That's fine, though it's a different critique of the system.  If we're looking at it from the perspective of pause allowing people to effectively give simultaneous orders to multiple party members easily at the same time, then having independent players control each character mitigates the need for a pause (or stellar AI, to use a different type of example).

Granted.

 

That's partly why I mentioned my general aversion to multiplayer.  Regardless of my issues with the inability to pause, my objections are immaterial to the design of multiplayer given that I am not a member of the multiplayer consumer base.

[Fast Jimmy]

Granted.
 
That's partly why I mentioned my general aversion to multiplayer.  Regardless of my issues with the inability to pause, my objections are immaterial to the design of multiplayer given that I am not a member of the multiplayer consumer base.

Yet my concern is always that the underlying of the SP campaign not only enable a "no-pause-needed" type of playthrough, but actually handicap the pause and play method in favor of the action method.

However, as can be seen by other parts of this conversation, the move to the design preferring action gameplay elements in the SP is occuring regardless of the confirmed presence of MP. So it may still be, as you say, immaterial.

[Amfortas]

I can imagine Dragon Age multiplayer being something like swtor's flashpoints, but it would need a total rework of the abilities and resource mechanics to be fun. There's too much auto attack in dragon age games to be fun when played as a single character, abilities are used only from time to time, enemies are auto targeted, there's not much to do. But then, if you reduce cooldowns and resource costs to make it play like an MMO, it would be impossible to play it correctly in single player, unless you auto pause every second. Quite hard to balance in my opinion. Unfourtunately I see them removing auto attack and making it a basic attack we have to press each time, with 2 or 3 abilities to use from time to time. Not what I'd consider fun gameplay.

 

On the good side, if the game had to be played in real time as well, that would mean that they'd finally allow us to keybind the whole quickbar and target enemies through other means than clicking on them.

[ElitePinecone]

I can imagine Dragon Age multiplayer being something like swtor's flashpoints, but it would need a total rework of the abilities and resource mechanics to be fun. There's too much auto attack in dragon age games to be fun when played as a single character, abilities are used only from time to time, enemies are auto targeted, there's not much to do. But then, if you reduce cooldowns and resource costs to make it play like an MMO, it would be impossible to play it correctly in single player, unless you auto pause every second. Quite hard to balance in my opinion. Unfourtunately I see them removing auto attack and making it a basic attack we have to press each time, with 2 or 3 abilities to use from time to time. Not what I'd consider fun gameplay.

 

On the good side, if the game had to be played in real time as well, that would mean that they'd finally allow us to keybind the whole quickbar and target enemies through other means than clicking on them.

 

They've already confirmed auto-attack is possible for both consoles and PC, so I assume you mean they'd remove autoattack in any hypothetical MP mode. 

 

I don't really see a problem with that - ME3 gave players three abilities or powers per character kit, and that ended up being enormously successful and popular. The game is rarely boring because cooldown times are low and enemies are coming from every direction - and there's always the need to monitor the battlefield, other objectives, the state of allies, etc.

 

Something similar with DA:I would change the flow of gameplay, but - as I keep saying - I don't see how that is related to the singleplayer at all. 

 

(And if they could do something similar to SWTOR's flashpoints and introduce some story elements, all the better)

[Spirit Keeper]

I wouldn't mind soem different modes. Like...erm...Defend the Keep from waves. Or...stuff. Something like Horde 2.0 mode from Gears of War 3 would be cool, never had more fun playing with random people that I did with that mode.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Yet my concern is always that the underlying of the SP campaign not only enable a "no-pause-needed" type of playthrough, but actually handicap the pause and play method in favor of the action method.

However, as can be seen by other parts of this conversation, the move to the design preferring action gameplay elements in the SP is occuring regardless of the confirmed presence of MP. So it may still be, as you say, immaterial.

I would choose fully turn-based over click-to-attack action combat. Every time.

How quickly or precisely I can strike keys or click buttons should never matter, under any circumstances.

[colemanshane]

I always thought that if they DO add MP, I want it to be that you either make a new character or import your Inquisitor, pick up to 3 characters from all the companions in DA games (Eg a team with Morrigan, Sigrun, and Aveline) maybe some important NPC's could be added too like Sir Jory or Howe, and you fight in a proving of either 1v1, (You VS a player) 1v1v1v1, or 2v2. At least I think it would be cool. Maybe a set level cap would help it be less broken

[Amfortas]

I don't really see a problem with that - ME3 gave players three abilities or powers per character kit, and that ended up being enormously successful and popular. The game is rarely boring because cooldown times are low and enemies are coming from every direction - and there's always the need to monitor the battlefield, other objectives, the state of allies, etc.

 

Something similar with DA:I would change the flow of gameplay, but - as I keep saying - I don't see how that is related to the singleplayer at all. 

 

The single player version of ME3 already has very low cooldowns, the game can even be played using only powers. So I asumed they would want to keep the mechanics consistent between single player and multiplayer. You can reduce mana costs and cooldowns for every spell/ability in multiplayer, but that would make the single player's inquisitor feel really underpowered.

 

And I can't say I enjoyed ME3's multiplayer. Maybe the first 2 or 3 games, after that I soloed my way to 100% readiness and never touched it again. I did feel it would have benefited from having more powers. Dragon Age is not a shooter, you don't aim, you don't have ammo, you don't take cover (or actively use the shield), etc. So it's even less complex, in my opinion it would certainly need more than 2 abilities and a basic attack to be fun. Or some hack and slash mechanics, but Dragon Age doesn't need that.

[soluzion]

Just a question. But I thought every EA game has to have a multiplayer component now?

[Fast Jimmy]

Just a question. But I thought every EA game has to have a multiplayer component now?

Every EA game was said to require an online component. That does not mean multiplayer. For instance, The Keep's means of being an online feature to set up Save Imports could count as an online component. As could the mobile Dragon Age all game just released.

[soluzion]

Oh okay thanks.

[ElitePinecone]

The single player version of ME3 already has very low cooldowns, the game can even be played using only powers. So I asumed they would want to keep the mechanics consistent between single player and multiplayer. You can reduce mana costs and cooldowns for every spell/ability in multiplayer, but that would make the single player's inquisitor feel really underpowered.

 

There's going to be some level of dissonance, regardless, with any multiplayer; that's just one of the realities of creating a gameplay mode that can be replayed and that uses random protagonists. I think the bar for verisimilitude has to be somewhat lower if it's designed for fun.

 

(I genuinely didn't see a single person complaining that faster cooldowns and bigger enemy waves in ME3's MP undermined Shepard's heroism by comparison - nobody seemed to care that random alien and human soldiers were killing thousands more enemies than the Commander. I don't think it's that tough to ask people to cognitively disassociate SP's reality with MP.)

 

As for the MP gameplay, I expect that's where level and enemy design come in - we've already seen enemy types like the Templar Defender or Venatori Gladiator that have enormous shields, and which would presumably require positioning and teamwork to take down. Equipment modification, enemy/allied status effects and environmental interactivity are ways I think of to add depth - but I already think there's sufficient complexity in having a basic attack and three powers. 

[Fast Jimmy]

Oh okay thanks.

I live to serve.

[Allan Schumacher]

Yet my concern is always that the underlying of the SP campaign not only enable a "no-pause-needed" type of playthrough, but actually handicap the pause and play method in favor of the action method.

 

It would depend on why we felt pause was needed.  If we feel pause is needed to ensure fast control over multiple characters due to only controlling one at a time, that a multiplayer mode wouldn't enable "no pause is needed" for single player.

 

I think there's also a bit of a disconnect or a lack of understanding towards the idea that people can actually enjoy playing a game like Baldur's Gate, or NWN 1/2, in multiplayer and have fun with it.

[Icinix]

It would depend on why we felt pause was needed.  If we feel pause is needed to ensure fast control over multiple characters due to only controlling one at a time, that a multiplayer mode wouldn't enable "no pause is needed" for single player.

 

I think there's also a bit of a disconnect or a lack of understanding towards the idea that people can actually enjoy playing a game like Baldur's Gate, or NWN 1/2, in multiplayer and have fun with it.

 

I think it's because of the vast differences in play styles.

When I play single player isometric games such as these - I pause a HUGE amount.

Although it's been a long time since I really had any multiplayer time sunk into any game - I do remember the experience in those same games being much more frantic and fast paced. Although the gameplay was the same - the way I played was (forced to be) massively different - and while fun - certainly never held my attention as much as how I was able to play in the single player.

Then again though - the crowd who would engage in the multiplayer component aren't going to be looking at it for the same experience as the single player, so I think it's a moot point.

 

However my original commentary still stands - any multiplayer aspect should have offline bot and LAN modes.

[meganbytez]

I haven't played swtor cuz don't have the comp for it, but it sounds like flash points would be nice. 

like have a big boss battle at the end. 

also bunch of puzzles that can only be solved with more than one person. 

[Gnoster]

Recently picked up swtor for the very first time, and I have to say the flashpoints sound like a great way to do a DA style MP mode. And the flashpoints I did all had some great story elements to them.

I see a lot of people not wanting MP for fear it will be required for SP in the same way ME3 unfortunately did it. However what if Bioware learned from that and had both modes completely seperate, which all seems to agree should be the case, would it really be that big of a deal for it to be included for those of us, who after a SP playthrough would love to go and play cooperative MP in e.g. A flashpoint inspired kind of way?

[Allan Schumacher]

You're talking a lot about this...reason for the pause system. I'm inclined to agree with the other user, earlier, who stated it's a vestige of the turn-based system, rather than associated with controlling multiple characters. The existence of the Tactics system might imply the same--it's a way of automating all non-player-controlled characters, thus alleviates the "concerns" of controlling a party, thus the pause isn't for that. It's an academic rebuttal, I'm not sure we'll ever know which it was.

 

I always felt the vestige for the turn-based system was the extra opt-in option to literally make the game pause when a character's combat round is up.  It's also an accessibility thing, though I'm not sure how much that factored in in 1998.  I tried it, but I quickly found that irritating though, as I only preferred to pause when I felt I needed to make a decision that needed puasing.  I didn't care for the autoattacks to all be paused, which was a very regular occurrence once the party got up to 6.  Due to the nature of the round system, however, for a single character I often had a 6 second queue to worry about my next attack.  So with a solo character (or even just two), I didn't need to pause as much as when I had 6 and needed context switching for the character's abilities and so forth.

 

 

In a multiplayer environment, though, I don't need to pause to evaluate if there is aggro on other characters because those players are making those evaluations on their own.  And if they aren't making them as good as I will, maybe something bad will happen and we'll all have a laugh and we can try again.  (My tolerance for failure shoots up in co-op.  Heck, my tolerance for a lot of things goes up if I'm playing with friends.  I have literally played mediocre games that I would never play alone simply because they had co-op.  Co-op is a giant force multiplier for fun for me).

 

Co-op got me into Dark Souls.  Co-op got me into TOR and WOW.  It got me into Dawn of War II.  It got me into System Shock 2 (and from there, the Deus Ex games!)  If anyone wants to play some Civ5 or EU4 MP, I'll be all over that.  A game like EU4 or CK2 I actually roleplay the nation I play.  I love those games, but sharing the experience with a friend (or many friends) is priceless.

 

I actually don't co-op game a whole lot, specifically.  But in a world where I find there's a lot of games out there, co-op is a compelling argument for "trying something I'm not sure about."