1807 réponses à ce sujet

[Morroian]

No MP is best MP. Just make the best damn SP game you can, and don't worry about pandering to absolutely everyone.

 

As has already been said MP would be a completely separate budget and team from the SP game, thus nothing would be taken away from it.

[Monster A-Go Go]

The multiplayer mandate for all games is ridiculous.  While MP has a place in some games, there are other games where forcing its inclusion does nothing but increase the budget requirements.  This is not a good thing.  It means that in order to be a financial success, the game has to sell more copies than it would without the MP element.  If the game is not financially successful, future installments may not be made.  Including MP raises the bar needed to return a profit, and this can  be a potential death knell for poor SP-focused games forced to expand beyond comfortable scope. 

 

Single player games should be allowed to be single player.  The second that multiplayer becomes a requirement, other considerations must made that will either impact the budget or affect the single-player experience.  Does the gameplay comfortably allow for MP?  If not, we must tweak it in the single-player game until it does or create an entirely new style of play, raising our production costs even higher.  Can this MP content fit on the disc?  If not, we need to find ways to reduce the size of the overall game or increase our budget to allow for digital download requirements.  Do we already have the staff required to make multiplayer happen?  If not, we need to hire more people and increase our costs; if so, we either need to divert their time away from developing the core game (sacrificing quality) or extend our production time (increasing costs and delaying release/profit).

 

And multiplayer does not just affect the pre-release of a game.  Depending on the type of MP content released, it can continue to incur costs.  Does the MP require moderation?  Does it require the constant development of new maps and assets?  That costs money, once again creating an obstacle to profitability.  Does it require balancing and bug fixing?  Those things must generally be addressed in MP first, lest they drive players away from the experience.  This either diverts resources from patching the SP version or, once again, requires a larger staff.

 

Yes, multiplayer can be profitable in the form of DLC or subscription services.  It can build loyalty and good will by keeping people playing your game long after the SP experience is finished.  And I'm certainly not saying that it can't be fun or that it never works.  However, when a studio is forced to create a game that can offers both an SP and an MP experience, it can shape design principles from the earliest stage of development.  Because adding MP increases development costs, it makes it more difficult for a game to break even or become a financial success.  Because some types of MP require constant and more immediate upkeep, it either diverts resources away from SP improvements and future game development, or requires the employment of a larger team.

 

Now none of this is to say I'm against MP.  Granted, I don't play it, but the only time it's ever affected my SP nirvana was during ME3.  That directly affected my enjoyment by trying to force me to play a type of game I had no interest in, and that type of MP intrusion should never be allowed to happen.  However, as long as that type of strong-arming remains absent, I have no problem with studios including a multiplayer element alongside their single-player game.

 

My issue is with the publishers that insist upon some sort of MP experience with every game, no matter how awkward or shoehorned the end result would have to be.  It puts studios in a difficult spot where they may have to compromise their vision in order to meet a mostly nonsensical mandate.  It either dilutes their talent and affects quality, or it raises their development costs and makes it more difficult to ultimately turn a profit (and you don't want to be an unprofitable studio under a large publisher's banner).  It may also be pushing games towards an increasing homogeneity, as revolutionary SP concepts are watered down to adapt them for multiplayer needs. 

 

Ultimately, this needs to be a decision that is made by the studios and  carefully considered in light of the game they hope to create.  Nobody's forcing big-budget games like Titanfall to include a single-player campaign, and nor should they.  The game was envisioned to work with a multiplayer dynamic and making it work for a single-player experience would require additional time, resources, and a retooling of the game's mechanics.  The same thing works the other direction as well, except the people at the top seem to think nothing of forcing that issue.  It's a policy that hurts creativity, hinders progress, and is a detriment to the game industry as a whole.  And that affects all of us, single-player and multi-players alike.

[ElitePinecone]

If you don't apply proper time and resources to correct from what you've learned, then you haven't learned anything. Especially with DA2, where one of the biggest lessons was that crunching time and resources to meet a deadline when the product isn't ready will result in bad reception.

 

They've certainly applied those lessons for DA:I, though - and this game also seems to be taking lessons from ME3's ending, since the devs have done nothing but proclaim loudly how many and varied they are. But if they had no time to change ME3 before launch, then it is simply *not possible* to implement feedback from DA2. A publisher requiring a game to be out in a certain quarter means it will come out in a certain quarter, and there is absolutely nothing to be done about it. 

 

I think you're misunderstanding the reality of game development, frankly. Did you want them to stop ME3's production and delay it in response to feedback about a different game series? EA is a business, with investors to keep happy. 

 

Be realistic. 

[ElitePinecone]

snip

 

These are all good points, but they're all hypothetical.

 

We have access to none of the relevant information, or context. We don't know DA:I's budget, its expected profitability, the budget of any hypothetical multiplayer, the monetisation strategy, or any of the other factors that could affect whether it eventually makes any money. And it doesn't need to be said that before approving any multiplayer mode, EA and Bioware would've answered all those questions and more. They could be wrong, yes, but they certainly have more information and expertise about it than anyone in this thread.

 

What I see are people getting worried for no reason. Adding multiplayer could be a disaster. It could be an enormous success. How are we, as fans, able to predict which one is true? Being agnostic about it, in the absence of actual facts, is surely the best option. 

 

(But we should remember that ME3's multiplayer was a financial success, and a much bigger one than either Bioware or EA were expecting. It is not the case that a multiplayer mode inevitably leads to failure, doom, bankruptcy, or galactic annihilation.)

[Maria Caliban]

I would kill* for Dragon Age: Inquisition MP that's as fun as ME 3 MP.

*A cockroach.

[Morroian]

Single player games should be allowed to be single player.  The second that multiplayer becomes a requirement, other considerations must made that will either impact the budget or affect the single-player experience.  Does the gameplay comfortably allow for MP?  If not, we must tweak it in the single-player game until it does or create an entirely new style of play, raising our production costs even higher.  

 

Sounds to me like you are going looking for reasons why MP would affect the SP. The MP didn't affect the style of play of ME3, it was the same as previous games. The only affect was the war assets stupidity and I think Bioware has probably learned from that like they've clearly learned from the uproar over the protean DLC companion

[Ozzy]

ME3's multiplayer was surprisingly delightful to be certain. It's just that ME's gameplay better lends itself towards MP.

 

Still, we'll see what happens. If there is a multiplayer component, I'm not going to judge until I see it in action. 

[Fast Jimmy]

They've certainly applied those lessons for DA:I, though - and this game also seems to be taking lessons from ME3's ending, since the devs have done nothing but proclaim loudly how many and varied they are. But if they had no time to change ME3 before launch, then it is simply *not possible* to implement feedback from DA2. A publisher requiring a game to be out in a certain quarter means it will come out in a certain quarter, and there is absolutely nothing to be done about it.

I think you're misunderstanding the reality of game development, frankly. Did you want them to stop ME3's production and delay it in response to feedback about a different game series? EA is a business, with investors to keep happy.

Be realistic.

Be realistic? Simply ask for more time. Bioware did that for DA:I. And they got it. And if you really learned the lesson that a game will be very poorly received if something very importantly is done incorrectly, you make the case that it will hurt sales if the change is not made - EA as a publisher (should) understand that.

And Bioware isn't the only one that needs to learn lessons. If EA (as the publisher) didn't learn lessons from DA2 and Bioware was asking for more time for ME3 and EA did not grant it, then that would indicate that EA did not learn the lesson , even if Bioware did. And if EA were to say "ME3's MP was very successful and it tied SP results to the MP component - do that for DA:I as well," then it is a moot point if Bioware learned the lesson.

This tangent about ME3's endings is at an end now. Suffice to say, until Bioware announces if they are doing a MP mode (and what it could entail), no one should assume anything about what it could or could not be, nor is anyone besides Bioware equipped with the information to dismiss people's concerns that the presence of such a MP component should not affect the SP, since they are using assumptions and logic that is not guaranteed.

[wolfhowwl]

Wasn't ME3 delayed from the 2011 holiday season to March 2012?

[Burricho]

If they do release multiplayer i hope it A) Has no microtransactions. B)Has no affect on SP. At ALL. Either way, I couldn't care less and probably won't play it.

[Maria Caliban]

Wasn't ME3 delayed from the 2011 holiday season to March 2012?

Yes.

[Allan Schumacher]

I would kill* for Dragon Age: Inquisition MP that's as fun as ME 3 MP.

*A cockroach.

 

What about Hurlocks and Broodmothers?

[Herr Uhl]

What about Hurlocks and Broodmothers?

That seems like way too much effort.

[metalfenix]

I can live without multiplayer. Maybe along the road after the many DLC that surely have planned for single player they can add that mode. At this point, I just want them to keep polishing the game for launch.

[Maria Caliban]

What about Hurlocks and Broodmothers?

I would happily kill an indeterminate number of darkspawn for multiplayer. They share many negative attributes with cockroaches.

I can live without multiplayer. Maybe along the road after the many DLC that surely have planned for single player they can add that mode. At this point, I just want them to keep polishing the game for launch.

I am not an engineer, but multiplayer would seem to be the sort of thing you'd need to build into the original release, not something you could just stick on afterwards.

[bEVEsthda]

I wouldn't kill a cockroach for MP.

 

We have a common ancestor some billion/billions years ago, with cockroaches. Seems kinship enough, ...in the context of MP.

 

But that's just a principal statement. Seriously, I'll have to have a look at the MP first.

[Allan Schumacher]

I wouldn't kill a cockroach for MP.

 

We have a common ancestor some billion/billions years ago, with cockroaches. Seems kinship enough, ...in the context of MP.

 

But that's just a principal statement. Seriously, I'll have to have a look at the MP first.

 

Hmmm.  Does this mean you'd be open to fighting hurlocks and brood mothers with a cockroach - together against a common foe?

[bEVEsthda]

Hmmm.  Does this mean you'd be open to fighting hurlocks and brood mothers with a cockroach - together against a common foe?

 

Lol, yes, I suppose it does.

[Maria Caliban]

If MP meant having to team up with cockroaches to fight hurlocks, I might attempt to join the darkspawn.

*remembers the broodmother*

Huh, or maybe not. Perhaps I'll just enjoy the single player game.

[Adhin]

@Maria Caliban: You might be surprised to learn most MP 'modes' in games are separate executable! For instance, pretty much every CoD has 2 or 3 different 'games' on disc and a center menu that just swaps between them. It actually has to 'load up' the multiplayer game. Was the same past Splinter Cell games.

 

It's possible, they'd have to patch the main menu and have the DL be its own separate thing that launchs from the main game kinda ordeal. Or it would have hooks, BF engine already has netcode and is setup for multiplayer. Hell the series started off as MP only. So, ultimately, it wouldn't be impossible for them to do it via DLC later on. But yeah would make far more sense to be there at launch, then anything. Even if 'at launch' meant disabled and hidden till they had a patch ready to get it up and ready (like GTA5).

 

-edit-

As for my actual opinion on the matter I'd love some MP  (if its separate and not tied into the SP at all in any tangible way). From someone who loves SP more then MP, but also absolutely LOVES co-op (don't care/like pvp stuff generally) I'd want both to have separate progression. I'd also love it if the MP was setup like a dungeon crawler of sorts right? Even if that was just taking the side dungeon's from the game, and letting us pick the monster 'theme' and go in with are buddies and just... tackle a dungeon? That'd be great... or they could 'theme' it as the Inquisition and use the rifts as a mechanic for wave battles.

 

Either way I think DAI combat would actually lend its self pretty well to multiplayer team co-op stuff. I'd prefer more customization over ME3 'kits' though. The whole kit idea kinda... irked me. Though it ultimately had more interesting stuff then SP-Shep could do... Krogan with a Biotic hammer? huehuehue, smash.

[Vortex13]

If they do release multiplayer i hope it A) Has no microtransactions. B)Has no affect on SP. At ALL. Either way, I couldn't care less and probably won't play it.

 

I actually hope that MP will have a micro transaction system similar to ME 3's MP. Nothing kills the online community faster then by dividing the player base behind various paywalls.

 

I hate it when I go to play a MP game that has been out for awhile and I get a message saying "Please download Map Pack: Give Us Your Money to continue playing". And then if you do purchase the map pack, and are able to see the list of matches being played, you see that everyone is playing the new game mode "Escalation" which of course costs more money.

 

ME 3's micro transactions were not mandatory, and gave no special advantage to paying customers; a player could unlock everything in the MP without spending a dollar of real world money; but most importantly, they allowed all of the MP DLC to be released free of charge.

 

 

@Maria Caliban: You might be surprised to learn most MP 'modes' in games are separate executable! For instance, pretty much every CoD has 2 or 3 different 'games' on disc and a center menu that just swaps between them. It actually has to 'load up' the multiplayer game. Was the same past Splinter Cell games.

 

It's possible, they'd have to patch the main menu and have the DL be its own separate thing that launchs from the main game kinda ordeal. Or it would have hooks, BF engine already has netcode and is setup for multiplayer. Hell the series started off as MP only. So, ultimately, it wouldn't be impossible for them to do it via DLC later on. But yeah would make far more sense to be there at launch, then anything. Even if 'at launch' meant disabled and hidden till they had a patch ready to get it up and ready (like GTA5).

 

-edit-

As for my actual opinion on the matter I'd love some MP  (if its separate and not tied into the SP at all in any tangible way). From someone who loves SP more then MP, but also absolutely LOVES co-op (don't care/like pvp stuff generally) I'd want both to have separate progression. I'd also love it if the MP was setup like a dungeon crawler of sorts right? Even if that was just taking the side dungeon's from the game, and letting us pick the monster 'theme' and go in with are buddies and just... tackle a dungeon? That'd be great... or they could 'theme' it as the Inquisition and use the rifts as a mechanic for wave battles.

 

Either way I think DAI combat would actually lend its self pretty well to multiplayer team co-op stuff. I'd prefer more customization over ME3 'kits' though. The whole kit idea kinda... irked me. Though it ultimately had more interesting stuff then SP-Shep could do... Krogan with a Biotic hammer? huehuehue, smash.

 

 

I agree with you on the whole kit system. 

 

It would be nice to let players customize their own characters in not just appearance, but in power and specialization selection as well as weapons and armor. I was just speaking to one of my gaming buddies the other day about this and I think that it would be great if DA:I MP handled the character creation like this:

 

 

 

We know from watching the E3 Demos, that the player has access to six active powers (mapped to X, Y, and B and RT+X, RT+Y, RT+B [going by the Xbox controller layout]) with the A button looking to be used as the auto-attack/basic attack. We also know that, according to BioWare devs, that we are going to have around 200 skills/powers to chose from, including the nine total specializations for each of the three classes.  

 

So I would like to see players in MP have access to that entire pool of powers, being able to swap out spells and abilities in-between matches and assign them to the layout they desire. This way a team of four warriors can be completely different in terms of battlefield role and tactics used. If BioWare was still wanting to implement an 'unlock' feature, again similar to ME 3's MP, then I would recommend that the powers and specializations tied to a specific class become the unlocks, rather then a pre-made character 'kit'.

 

Essentially, a new player who chose a Mage (for example) would only have six powers available to them at the start, but as they played more and more as the Mage class they would unlock all of the Mage's spells and eventually the specializations. An 'end game' Mage player would have the entire Mage skill pool to pull from and customize their character's abilities as they saw fit. This way, we would eliminate the redundancy of certain MP kits like ME 3 had, as well as free up player to customize their own character as they see fit, instead of having to pick one of several pre-gens. 

 

I would also like to see some 'specialty' characters in the form of the various fantasy creatures (like Sylvans and Golems, etc.) become playable options as well. Now these characters would be more limited in their options of skills, but they would make up for it by being highly adept at one area. For instance a Werewolf would make for an amazing DPS warrior/rogue, but they would not stand up well to punishment, likewise a Golem would make for an excellent tank, but their slow speed, and large size would make them vulnerable to more agile enemies. 

[Burricho]

I actually hope that MP will have a micro transaction system similar to ME 3's MP. Nothing kills the online community faster then by dividing the player base behind various paywalls.

 

I hate it when I go to play a MP game that has been out for awhile and I get a message saying "Please download Map Pack: Give Us Your Money to continue playing". And then if you do purchase the map pack, and are able to see the list of matches being played, you see that everyone is playing the new game mode "Escalation" which of course costs more money.

 

ME 3's micro transactions were not mandatory, and gave no special advantage to paying customers; a player could unlock everything in the MP without spending a dollar of real world money; but most importantly, they allowed all of the MP DLC to be released free of charge.

How did they not give an advantage to paying customers? If you did not pay you had to grind your way up to buy a single pack, hope you got something good, then do it all again. In a game that already cost you £40.

[Adhin]

So basically all buying packs did with money is make you use real life money, instead of time, to get upgraded weapons. All better weapons translated into was being able to tackle higher difficulties with anything resembling competence. Lotta folks had trouble on Gold and stuck to Silver or Bronze. Which is fine, I'd often start on a silver match or 2 if I hadn't played for a month to get back into it. Anyway, point is, if you wanted to spend enough money to buy 10 more games just so you could be more efficient in a Gold match? Whatever, It's an advantage, sure, but it's definitely not a pay to win.

 

Best way I can describe that is take WoW in the 1st year. Say you bought someones account and had a fulled kitted lvl 60, and wanted to run some 40 man MC ****. Heh good luck! Your not going to get anywhere, even if you could 'get' into a group to do that you'd be booted out on the grounds you don't know any of the timing, or how to handle your class worth a damn. Yeah, being able to get Gold is semi-reliant on the gear but so is you just not being bad at it. You can give someone all the great gear all unlocked on day 1 and they'll probably still die, repeatedly, on a gold match.

 

I get what your saying, but in the end me and my friends where super happy some people out there spent a ton of money on packs cause it, ultimately, meant A LOT of free DLC for us. And I LOVED the MP DLC. Not really the maps, some where kinda bad from a combat perspective (looked nice though). But the new kits that where added where faaantastic. Loved me some Krogan smash time.

 

....also not sure why Vortex quoted me with out saying anything

 

-edit-

Nm he edited his post

[Vortex13]

How did they not give an advantage to paying customers? If you did not pay you had to grind your way up to buy a single pack, hope you got something good, then do it all again. In a game that already cost you £40.

 

Okay, the one advantage was time spent, but even then a paying customer did not get better odds at actually receiving an Ultra-Rare unlock card. Whether a player played several matches and saved up a reserve of the in-game currency or just spent $5 buying a pack from the store, their odds of receiving an unlock were exactly the same.  Plus the ability to earn a steady flow of the in-game currency wasn't too difficult, especially if one could get a good party together to tackle the gold or platinum difficulties.  

 

Now people might have an issue with the 'lottery' nature of the ME 3 store, but if it means that all DLC characters, powers, maps, weapons, armor, etc. are available free of charge, I don't have a problem with it.

[Vortex13]

So basically all buying packs did with money is make you use real life money, instead of time, to get upgraded weapons. All better weapons translated into was being able to tackle higher difficulties with anything resembling competence. Lotta folks had trouble on Gold and stuck to Silver or Bronze. Which is fine, I'd often start on a silver match or 2 if I hadn't played for a month to get back into it. Anyway, point is, if you wanted to spend enough money to buy 10 more games just so you could be more efficient in a Gold match? Whatever, It's an advantage, sure, but it's definitely not a pay to win.

 

Best way I can describe that is take WoW in the 1st year. Say you bought someones account and had a fulled kitted lvl 60, and wanted to run some 40 man MC ****. Heh good luck! Your not going to get anywhere, even if you could 'get' into a group to do that you'd be booted out on the grounds you don't know any of the timing, or how to handle your class worth a damn. Yeah, being able to get Gold is semi-reliant on the gear but so is you just not being bad at it. You can give someone all the great gear all unlocked on day 1 and they'll probably still die, repeatedly, on a gold match.

 

I get what your saying, but in the end me and my friends where super happy some people out there spent a ton of money on packs cause it, ultimately, meant A LOT of free DLC for us. And I LOVED the MP DLC. Not really the maps, some where kinda bad from a combat perspective (looked nice though). But the new kits that where added where faaantastic. Loved me some Krogan smash time.

 

....also not sure why Vortex quoted me with out saying anything

 

Sorry, I accidentally hit the post button before I typed out my response to you. Check it now.