1807 réponses à ce sujet

[ghostzodd]

That would be impossible Darkarhon, they have no plans or no 'tools' for us and they will not be there after release. It's a different engine, one they do not directly own or have control over. They 'might' be able to make tools for it for the community but that would require a lot of work and effort for something that wouldn't end up happening for a least half a year and... I just can't see BioWare doing that.

 

Generally you don't get tools for a game unless its 'part of the plan' at least halfway through development. Most of there efforts will be making DLC and planning the next game. Maybe the next will have a toolset that they'll make to develop the game and release that? Either way I wouldn't expect any tools 'from' BioWare. There will end up being 'some' kind of modding community, but it'll probably be limited in scope.

 

This. We are not getting a tool kit even though Bioware is trying spin it like it would be possible to make one somewhere down the line

[Mr.Hmm]

Aw ... that sucks Adhin still i am gonna hope for them

[Devtek]

This. We are not getting a tool kit even though Bioware is trying spin it like it would be possible to make one somewhere down the line

 

Dice promised that modding tools were coming for Bad Company 2 four years ago, I wouldn't count on any official support any time soon. It is inherently a horrible engine for modding.

 

http://kotaku.com/54...dding-community

[ElitePinecone]

I think a Poll is in order to see where most people stand on the issue So here http://www.poll-make...0051xb9704102-5

 

Of course it won't get EVERYONE'S opinion, but that is the beauty of Sample sizes.

 

You don't understand how sample sizes work.

 

This forum is not a representative sample of Bioware's fans. It's the tiniest fraction of the super-super-hardcore.

[Killdren88]

Disregard this post.

[Killdren88]

You don't understand how sample sizes work.

This forum is not a representative sample of Bioware's fans. It's the tiniest fraction of the super-super-hardcore.

Still it is a good idea to see where people stand on the issue regardless of the small percentage.

[Allan Schumacher]

This. We are not getting a tool kit even though Bioware is trying spin it like it would be possible to make one somewhere down the line

 

I'm not sure what we're spinning.  The chances of getting a toolset is very unlikely.

[DarthLaxian]

I'm glad that they are not including a MP (apparently)

DA doesn't need that at all

 

Indeed - MP is one of the things that ruined ME3 (firstly it was tied into the game, which left the RPG players (who don't play MP) with a bad taste in our mouths and secondly, it took development ressources which could have been used to make the trash heap that ME3 is into a great game (which - for me - it isn't!))

 

I hope they will not try to tac on multiplayer here, it's Dragon Age for christs sake, not Battlefield 4 and I really does not need it (DA is a story driven RPG and not some multiplayer game you buy for that alone, not the story)

 

greetings LAX

[ElitePinecone]

 secondly, it took development ressources which could have been used to make the trash heap that ME3 is into a great game (which - for me - it isn't!))

 

Nope, sorry. This is a myth. It's been debunked by game developers for years now. 

 

Multiplayer had its own team in Montreal, they hired new people specifically to work on it. 

 

Development is planned years in advance. The studio gives the game the budget it thinks it needs to be successful. If something like multiplayer is added, the game gets a bigger budget (which means more developers and more total man-hours) because the expected revenue goes up.

 

ME3 had problems, but don't blame them on the multiplayer. That's completely wrong.

[HellaciousHutch]

People need to get over the whole "multiplayer ruins games" argument. Multiplayer doesn't ruin games, bad/lazy developers and poor planning does (and backing yourself into a corner by making your main antagonist some god-like, extremely large and grotesque, legion of artificial intelligence, that, has the ability to eradicate all life in a galaxy). 

[ElitePinecone]

And just to quote from that article:

 

"The important thing to realize here is that there is no situation where the single player game will get the additional resources that would have gone to the development of the multiplayer components unless revenue forecasts can somehow support that the additional resources spent will result in additional revenue. The single player game is estimated from the get go to require a certain budget. There might be stretch goals for the single player, but the multiplayer budget is actually an entirely separate bid. Because it’s a separate bid, even if you cut that feature, you wouldn’t get to reallocate the resources that would have been allocated for it. You just wouldn’t get them at all."

 

Unless polishing the singleplayer would earn as much money in sales as the addition of a multiplayer mode, it wouldn't get a larger development budget even if MP was scrapped.

•  

[Wulfram]

Is there a reason why multiplayer is such a super special snowflake feature that generates it's own magic zots?

 

edit: Also, your quote is a little misleading.  At the top of that page is said.

 

Does adding multiplayer to a project actually take resources away from the single player development?

The answer to this is, as usual, “Not usually, but sometimes.”

 

(It goes on to say it takes away resources when it's tacked on at the end without extra budget assigned)

[TeamLexana]

The only thing that I didn't like about ME3 was the starchild/"yo dawg we heard you didn't want to be killed by synthetics, so we created giant synthetics to kill you so you wouldn't be killed by synthetics"/"pick a color" ending. That was pretty epically bad, I don't even understand how that got approved in the first place. But it was really cool of them to release the enhanced edition ending, it's definitely better.

 

The multiplayer was awesome, I still play it and I can usually spot at least one of my friends playing it on my friends list every single day since it's release. I can't say that about any other game. So I definitely hope DAI has some MP akin to ME3's so that we can all play it together. And if that ain't your thing, cool. don't play it then. Just because it's on the disk means you have to play it, lol.

[Adhin]

@Wulfram : Yes and no? Depends what you mean by 'special snowflake' but in the end it's a different setup then Single Player and requires different considerations (to some extent). Most of the time they're completely separate from each other. So much so that they're often, while the same engine, a different executable, You literally 'launch into' multiplayer and back into the main menu. It's weird but it's often due to having 2 separate teams work on it. Which, as far as im concerned, is a requirement to get anywhere.

 

You have a TON of cross over mind you, weapons and items like that, while often balanced differently you get the same kind of thing. Take Mass Effect 3 for instance the gun models, sounds for that where all shared. The balance, how much dmg the gun did, how long it took to charge up, little things like that differed between the 2 sides. The maps involved SHOULD be very different. You are balancing and they require 2 wildly different things. ME3 ultimately used the MP maps in Single Player. And that is actually what that was, MP side made maps for there version and the SP team had gotten them and re-purposed it for SP - not the other way around.

 

Either case both require different considerations unless your doing a kinda combined game like Border Lands, or Destiny or something. Borderlands is, by its nature a co-op online game. You just 'can' also play it solo (and it immediately gets way more boring lol). Anyway that's what it comes down to, if you wanna have both, you need 2 teams to handle it, and each team has its own 'zots'... cause its a different team.

[SofaJockey]

It's interesting how feelings run so high on this.

I'm pumped for multiplayer (in whatever form it could take).

 

Before ME3 MP I was a multiplayer hater, I never played one I liked - and actually I've never played one I liked since.

 

Psychologists will tell you that people believe their own views are more highly shared than they actually are. BioWare will have stats on who loves/hates multiplayer.

It is clear that there are significant populations who love the idea and hate the idea.

 

Whatever BioWare decide to do, or not do, I think they could not be unaware of the notion that for a sizeable group having MP (if it exists) unconnected or able to be unconnected from the SP is extremely important if not necessary. 

 

(I feel Allan's and the BioWare gangs 'cheshire cat smile' over my shoulder as I write this. I am convinced there is something there. They cannot say because of the BioWare moustache twirling cylon marketing plan. I know they know. They know we know they know. I believe that whatever it is, big or small, will be awesome).

 

The concept of your soldiers/troops claiming or holding forts or resources screams out as being plot compatible in this case.
And plot/story should drive game mechanics.

 

And actually, BioWare's secrecy and NDAs have been terrific. Better than Apple these days and that's saying something.
Back in the days of OneTrueShot's ME3 MP multiplayer leaks, you'd know what was coming months ahead.

 

(sigh) getting too excited again - calm thoughts, think of otters...

 

[ElitePinecone]

Is there a reason why multiplayer is such a super special snowflake feature that generates it's own magic zots?

 

(It goes on to say it takes away resources when it's tacked on at the end without extra budget assigned)

 

It generates zots because it can generate significant additional revenue, as judged by the marketing and sales analysts who work at EA. More revenue potential means more zots. Multiplayer is a drawcard that extra singleplayer content might not be - so the choice is made to allocate extra resources to an MP mode. If that sounds wacky, take it up with EA.

 

And yes, multiplayer would take away resources if it were tacked on the end. This certainly wasn't the case with Mass Effect, and I hardly think it'll be the case with Dragon Age.

 

Hell, Kotaku was reporting about a multiplayer Dragon Age game using Frostbite in November 2011, nearly 3 years ago. It was almost a year before they confirmed that the game would be using Frostbite. 

 

If there is a multiplayer mode, it's been in development for as long as the singleplayer, and maybe longer. 

[Maria Caliban]

You don't understand how sample sizes work.
 
This forum is not a representative sample of Bioware's fans. It's the tiniest fraction of the super-super-hardcore.

This. The majority of Dragon Age: Origins players didn't even finish the game and those that did only finished once. Yet the majority of people on this forum have done two or more playthroughs.

That poll is only slightly less biased than going to nexus.com and asking if they want a toolset or use mods.

Is there a reason why multiplayer is such a super special snowflake feature that generates it's own magic zots?

You need your own little department that otherwise wouldn't exist for MP and it's one of those things that will almost always generate extra cash via microtransactions.

As I understand it, the decision to add non-human races also got them extra time and money.

[ghostzodd]

I'm not sure what we're spinning.  The chances of getting a toolset is very unlikely.

 

Considering EA's stance on the modding community/Frostbite I always knew there would never be mod tools. I have not heard anyone from Bioware say an outright no,just that it may be possible somewhere down the line but right now, its not a priority

 

 

 

Dice promised that modding tools were coming for Bad Company 2 four years ago, I wouldn't count on any official support any time soon. It is inherently a horrible engine for modding.

 

http://kotaku.com/54...dding-community

 

I don't think its a horrible engine for modding. Mod tools need to be considered while the game is being made to be implemented properly. I don't think anyone expected BC2 to be as popular as it was.

[Sanunes]

I personally don't care one way or the other if multiplayer is included, but what I am finding funny is people were all up in arms with Mass Effect 3 with BioWare because of the comments made before the game's release because they weren't exactly like how it was mentioned.  To me this is BioWare learning from that and saying nothing because they just don't want to be called "liars" or of those comments in the past.  Now the game is close to release and if its there it probably won't change, but we as people on the internet can easily misunderstand what they say and it would still be the entire fiasco around Mass Effect 3.

[dekkerd]

ME3 MP was such a scandal. It was leaked early here on the forums and people flipped out and raged. Then Bioware released the ME3 MP demo, then the game, and the reception to ME3 MP was so overwhelmingly positive, both critically and commercially, I think it even surprised Bioware. No one was expecting ME3 MP to be as good as it was, and I think that should be the standard for DAI MP.

It should only be included in the game if it is really solid and entertaining game content. If DAI can make a MP mode as good as ME3 MP, then I welcome it with open arms. If they can't, then it should never see the light of day.

Thing is, those raging people were right. Their worst fears were realized on release day. You had to play MP to keep your SP character of three games alive at the end. Yes it's fixed. Yes, still annoyed by it.

If there is MP great, just keep it out of my SP game. And preferably off the disc, more room for SP assets.

[dekkerd]

Eh, I also thought this was highly exaggerated too. Oh no, people had to spend like an hour playing a few MP rounds to boost their readiness. That is not a big deal. I don't agree with it as a design choice, but it is not like a big offense that should be worried about to this day.

Ah,I see. What's the popular phrase kids use these days? Oh, I remember.

Check your privilege.

Not everyone has the constant connection and/or bandwidth for MP. Making it a requirement for what had at that point been an offline game was unnecessary and basically a middle finger to those fans. Not to mention forcing a real time MP play style on what had been a pause and play mechanic. But yeah, no big deal. Twitch because we say so. Who would be bothered by that attitude?

[Adhin]

Yeah MP should never be mandatory. And it not being a 'big deal' from my perspective is only because I like MP. People who don't should not 'feel' forced to play it to get the outcome they want. There is no reason to ever gate single player content behind multiplayer objectives. It's just bizar ****. And no amount of 'well it's not a big deal to me' changes that it's not a big deal for a lot of other people. Thankfully they fixed it, but it shouldn't of happened, and I don't think it'll happen with DAI.

[SofaJockey]

There's a real dilemma for game developers, if they design games that everyone can play then the graphics will suck (comparatively) and features will be limited against the current games market. If a game releases with top end graphics and features its play will be limited to those with the newest shiny equipment.

 

Naturally whether you have sufficiently powerful equipment and/or internet access depends on:

1. Money (you have or do not have the funds)
2. Preference (you choose not to allocate funds or purchase particular equipment for other reasons)
3. Location (Internet/wifi/broadband access may simply not be available or economic)

We live in a big world, so an approach that allows flexible graphics and flexible internet access options makes most sense.

 

For example Watch Dogs now builds online into its SP game, but you can switch it off. 
That said, completionists can't get their 100% achievements without it.

 

Over time, the option for multiplayer and in some cases the need for multiplayer will increase because those without internet access will diminish but is unlikely to disappear. So the games producers are likely to want to satisfy >80% of the potential player base but are unlikely to feel they have to cater to >95% as that extra 15% is the most difficult to accommodate.

 

That's why Console development is popular and why PC builds are tied to them, because you know where you are. You know how many people have them. You know what your market is and what the consoles do. Not 10,000 variations of PC builds.

 

The bar will rise.

 

There was a time when you had to slowly wait for images on a website to display (line by line...) when I had a 28k dial-up-modem.

With a 60Mbps broadband I'm feeling well served but as speed averages increase the wish for games and other media producers to push more data through the pipe will also increase.

 

Multiplayer will increasingly exist and/or increasingly be mandatory. If that freezes out some people, then over time that becomes an acceptable reality to games producers. 

 

I don't think we are at that point yet and I hope/trust that BioWare will allow SP game players to play without shackles for as long into the future as possible.

 

That flexibility and consideration for the bandwidth restrained should not deter optional awesome multiplayer content where that works.