1807 réponses à ce sujet

[Allan Schumacher]

I do have to chime in and thought it was simply delightful that someone imagined me doing this

 

[BabyFratelli]

For me, I don't like multiplayer. I've never really played MMOs because I don't particularly find them enjoyable (Destiny looks incredible, though). As for Dragon Age, I don't see why we couldn't have it as long as it didn't tie into in-game perks, especially if there are people who really want it and it lures in more people who adore online play and wouldn't buy DAI otherwise.

 

It does seem like the kind of thing that would've been announced already if it was present, though. 

[Devtek]

I do have to chime in and thought it was simply delightful that someone imagined me doing this

 

BEGONE FOUL BEAST!!!! TORMENTOR!!!

 

Wait don't go, tell us moooore

[ElitePinecone]

Cheshire Cat available as multiplayer character kit in Dragon Age: Inquisition.

 

Semi-confirmed rumour.

[Gotham Knight]

The only type of multiplayer that I really like is co-op. I would be all in for cooperative multiplayer in DAI where you could play through the game with a few of your friends. As far as competitive multiplayer goes I wouldn't mind if it was in the game and I would give it a shot, but I don't think that it's needed in DAI.

[SofaJockey]

I'm just going to be frank and simply say this. I dislike Multiplayer. No scratch that. I HATE Multiplayer. ... The experience I had with MP to get my readiness up was absolutely dreadful. I'm not gonna pretend I'm awesome at MP games. I'm not I'm terrible at them and the never ending chain of insults took their toll...

 

I think Killdren88 makes an excellent point. I'm going to share some reasons why I think some players hate multiplayer.

1. Control - in single player you have control. You can decide when to play for how long and you can take total control of the combat, pausing and considering the game in your own time. In multiplayer you can't pause and so an element of your control is lost.
2. Exposure - In single player, if you suck, then no-one is watching. In multiplayer, dying over and over again in front of other people can be uncomfortable. People rage-quit often because they die stupidly on level one.
3. Learning curve - Joining a multiplayer for the first time can be challenging because you have a learning curve which other players may not accommodate which make multiplayer a difficult experience for new players.
4. Skill level - Some players are just better at it and they tend to stay and can dominate. In PvP multiplayer it can be dispiriting to constantly die over and over again because someone else is a little (or a lot) better at real-time play.
5. Other people - Thinking of the Jean-Paul Satre quote: 'hell is other people.' And some people will behave badly, cheating, going away from keyboard (AFK), trolling, griefing and so on.
6. Grinding - Spending microtransactions is a choice but those who wish to play to gain achievements can be faced with a mountainous grind. I thought ME3 MP was about twice as grindy as it could have been. 1600 hours play to unlock all the weapons is well past unreasonable.
7. Connecting - Linking MP to single player destroys the haven that single players have, it says to them you must play multiplayer and that's not fair.

But I love multiplayer and this is how I think those concerns could be addressed to help those who hate it, learn to love it.

 

1. Control - For sure, you can't control time, but with a little work you can control how you play. You can choose less squishy characters, you can choose more casual levels, there is a great deal you can do to regain comfort. And an element of real-time lack of control is exciting.
2. Exposure - Again, having lesser difficulty levels and lobbying less skilled players together means that if you suck so do others and you can get better together.
3. Learning curve - The design of multiplayer should allow the new players to learn. If that means freezing out the uber-players from a low level lobby then it should.
4. Skill level - Co-operative play rather than PvP means everyone doesn't have to be the same. You might not get as many points for it, but easier levels should simply reward the team.
5. Other people - As much as I've met idiots I've also played with supportive and generous players who would lay down fire to save me, would share techniques and would work as a team. The good outweighs the bad.
6. Grinding - The Random Number God (RNG) does need to be a bit more generous this time ok? Seriously. Twice as generous would be fine.
7. Connecting - And finally when all appeals have been made to the potential player to try it, if they don't want to, then it must be possible to have no impact on the single player game.

[SofaJockey]

Oh, and Torment demon. Official. 

 

[DragonRacer]

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...

 

 

Agreed. On all of it. I remember reading the big Game Informer preview spread on ME3 and being horrified at the concept of an MP component. How could that possibly work? I thought.

 

And then I tried it on a whim, having not played an online MP game since Motorstorm back in 2007 (an arcade racer). And I find myself still playing it (did some time on XBox yesterday while waiting on my Destiny Beta to install on my PS4). Even found myself re-purchasing the game on XBox 360 and PC just to ME3MP with those groups of players as well, instead of just on the PS3 I'd originally bought the game for.

 

That's pretty crazy, when you think about it. But that's how darn much fun I've had with a thing I never asked for, never wanted, and never thought I would like.

 

If DAI has something, I'd be thrilled. Glad to see I'm not the only one thinking I feel Chesire Cat grins behind me as we angst over MP-or-no-MP. LOL 

 

Because I also feel if it IS there, it'll be definitely separate from SP. Pretty confident BioWare learned its lesson when the community (rightfully) freaked out about MP impacting the SP game directly.

[Kantr]

(if someone has posted this already. Sorry)

 

http://www.examiner....age-inquisition

 

Article raises an interesting point

[They call me a SpaceCowboy]

tinfoil hat: The reason they aren't saying anything is because it's going to wind up being exactly like ME 3's, right down to Thedas at War, with assets that you can't get any other way, and they know if they announce it too soon, a lot of people will be cancelling their pre-orders. I know I would be. /tinfoil hat

If there's a Thedas at War map, and I can't get above the hypothetical 50%, as was the case with ME 3, then it's a no sale for me. If they tie it in so that you can get more than the hypothetical 50% readiness through SP missions that you can do, so that it's totally possible to get 100% readiness, again, hypothetically within the SP campaign, then no problem. Requiring MP to achieve that, a fact that is still true for ME 3, despite the fact that you can actually achieve "better" endings w/out it, is a deal breaker for me, and I'm sure I'm not alone. MP should not add anything to the SP campaign that cannot be attained in the SP campaign.

 

I know the above (/tinfoilhat) is a joke (mostly) but I'm speculating not far from the truth.

 

I'm another who would prefer no multiplayer, and certainly no tie-in to SP. however, realistically I think it's likely there will be some sort of co-op multiplay.

 

My prediction is as follows:

- Given how much they 'borrowed' from the ME2 design when they were making DA2, I suspect we will again see many similarities to ME3. (Not the ending or plot, just interface, style etc) For instance, both games take place during a war

- We will see some sort of war room similar to ME3's where we can see the state of our inquisition (referenced already in the RAPTR Q&A I think)

- The state of the inquisition will affect somehow, the final battle/ending

- I doubt it will be reaper levels of destruction however.

- Agents will be earned by completing SP quests. They will be the equivalent of war assets.

- I really doubt they will make agents obtainable for SP from MP. however it is possible.

- Having more agents will make the game easier via missions, unlocking areas you'd have no access to yet etc.

- MP missions could be the missions you send our SP agents on, acted out. For instance you need to turn off gas in an area to allow the inquisition access to it. (no, completing the mission does not affect the SP game at all). The gas thing was mentioned in an early demo, they showed an area full of green gas and said the agents could clear it for you, so you can explore it.

[SofaJockey]

My prediction is as follows:

- Given how much they 'borrowed' from the ME2 design when they were making DA2, I suspect we will again see many similarities to ME3. (Not the ending or plot, just interface, style etc) For instance, both games take place during a war

- We will see some sort of war room similar to ME3's where we can see the state of our inquisition (referenced already in the RAPTR Q&A I think)

- The state of the inquisition will affect somehow, the final battle/ending

- I doubt it will be reaper levels of destruction however.

- Agents will be earned by completing SP quests. They will be the equivalent of war assets.

- I really doubt they will make agents obtainable for SP from MP. however it is possible.

- Having more agents will make the game easier via missions, unlocking areas you'd have no access to yet etc.

- MP missions could be the missions you send our SP agents on, acted out. For instance you need to turn off gas in an area to allow the inquisition access to it. (no, completing the mission does not affect the SP game at all). The gas thing was mentioned in an early demo, they showed an area full of green gas and said the agents could clear it for you, so you can explore it.

 

I think your assessment is very compelling.

From what I understand was shared at Finland's DigoExpo 2013 (Nov) these 'agents' are like a 'currency' of the Inqusition's power.
More agents - more stuff - more power, military, economic or espionage (the 3 advisors).

and I'm sure we will hear more about what that is all about before launch.

 

[Vortex13]

I think your assessment is very compelling.

From what I understand was shared at Finland's DigoExpo 2013 (Nov) these 'agents' are like a 'currency' of the Inqusition's power.
More agents - more stuff - more power, military, economic or espionage (the 3 advisors).

and I'm sure we will hear more about what that is all about before launch.

 

 

 

I really, really hope that the agents system is not just a secondary currency for the player; an abstract 'not-gold' resource that that the player uses to buy things for the Inquisition. While player agency on how one choses to spend their agents would be miles better then the nebulous cloud that all the ME 3 war assets got thrown into, it still would be disappointing to have the game tell players how they have all of this manpower, and specialized troops but never showed us these things in-game.

 

Oh sure, you could see the the results of spending 50 agents on building a colossal statue, but if all the mechanic entails is a simple transaction; spend your agents and then a task magically gets finished; then (IMO) it would be just like ME 3's war assets. In that game, if you had enough war assets you magically got better endings, but their was not correlation between your Shepard's accumulated allies, and the endings you received. It didn't matter if you got both the Geth and the Quarians aid, or if you saved the Destiny Ascension, because none of your assets ever showed up in the game world. 

 

I don't want to see that for DA:I. I don't want to complete a quest for the dwarves (let's say) and be given a reward of a squad of Legion of the Dead soldiers, or a handful of Golems, and then go and station those agents at one of my keeps, but then never see them actually show up at the keep in question, or (God forbid) for only run-of-the-mill human NPC guards to be just standing there. If I assign Qunari mercenaries to patrol the area surrounding my holdings, I want them to actually show up in the game world. Let us see the various allies that we recruit into our Inquisition as agents. Don't just tell us how we have all of these various special troops/creatures in our army but then never show us anything apart from a random, nameless human NPC.

 

 

This is of course, why I would like to see a form of an 'Import' feature for our MP characters; ideally as a cosmetic only 'model swap' with a vanilla agent. Give us an (optional) ability to customize the forces under our command, let us put a face and a name with our otherwise nameless and faceless agents. If I can have my female Dwarven Rogue that I created and imported from MP show up in my male Qunari Mage's SP game, it would not only give me an added layer of immersion; as these two characters exist in the same world; but it would also make me more attached to my troops, if I had made them all and I could very well be sending my Dwarven Rogue to her death on a particular mission.

[Paul E Dangerously]

The only way I want MP at all is if it's either:

 

1) It's full co-op MP, where I can have another Inquisitor tagging along, though this brings up question as to how plot events and cutscenes are handled.

2) Tales of-style pick-up MP, where people can join in and take control of party members.

[SofaJockey]

Just to head off the 'tacked-on MP' notion.

 

IF there is multiplayer then it is likely to have been in design from the beginning.

Similarly, IF it's there, it has no more reason to to be 'to blame' for any delay than any other aspect of the game.

 

Ref: Bryan Johnson comment on the 'Delayed' thread: http://forum.bioware...mber-18/page-15

 

Mass Effect 3's MP was being developed for approximately the same amount of time as the SP.

[ElitePinecone]

... and there were reports of Dragon Age multiplayer using Frostbite three years ago.

 

That was around the time when the team were starting pre-production on DA:I and tinkering with Frostbite to adapt it for an RPG.

[Vortex13]

... and there were reports of Dragon Age multiplayer using Frostbite three years ago.

 

That was around the time when the team were starting pre-production on DA:I and tinkering with Frostbite to adapt it for an RPG.

 

Yeah that information does seem to line up with the leaked info regarding the various companions; and the leaked info has been pretty spot on so far.

 

I just hope that PvP is not a major focus of the MP game and that co-operative PvE is the primary purpose of the online play. I typically don't like competitive MP for two major reasons:

 

1. The amount of time one is required to dedicate in order to be just competent in the competitive world is huge compared to co-op offerings. Nobody likes getting into a match, and then being spawn killed, or sniped from across the map over, and over, and over, and over. After so many crushing defeats, most casual players would prefer to drop out of MP, then to continually lose and/or be a burden on their team.

 

2. The balance of competitive play is top priority, and while I don't begrudge developers striving to make everything balanced with everything else, I do dislike the homogenization of class roles, abilities, etc. and for the inevitable push towards symmetric gameplay that such balancing leads to. Now it does mention playable dragons in that article, so maybe BioWare is trying to go for an asymmetrical form of PvP, but that type of MP is very hard to do and still remain balanced. Essentially, I don't want to see potential gameplay mechanics, or unique MP characters (Golems, Sylvans, Werewolves, etc.) discarded because they couldn't be balanced properly for PvP. Co-op needs balance as well, but it is not as vital as competitive play, allowing for things like the Volus kit, or the Geth Juggernaut kit in ME 3.

[Warden Inquisitor]

Personally, I think a "Invade or Defend" gametype mixed with recruiting 3 of the NPC soldiers on your side would be pretty cool.

 

You would get to choose a map, your faction or whatever, which team will be attacking and which team will be defend here is an example.

Map: Ostagar

Invader: Darkspawn

Defender: Dalish Elves

 

For each faction you can choose to be a Warrior, Rogue, or Mage. The more you play as that class/race combo it will level up and you can buy items for your character and earn new skills.

 

When the game begins you will start alone. One of the abilities you start of with will bascially be the "Enthrall" ability the Hurlock Vanguard had in DS Chronicles. However, when you have a full party and want a mage to replace a two handed warrior, the two handed warrior will leave your party and join his fellow NPC's fighting the opponent. 

[Iakus]

Don't people want to play RPGs to play the central role in an immersive story anymore?

[SofaJockey]

Don't people want to play RPGs to play the central role in an immersive story anymore?

 

Absolutely.

For me the Dragon Age Keep is the appetiser, the single player game is a delicious rich tasty meal.
A multiplayer (if existing) would be a light but succulent moreish desert.

All washed down with the fruity beverage that is the BioWare forum.

[ElitePinecone]

Don't people want to play RPGs to play the central role in an immersive story anymore?

 

Yep. That is why I'm buying the game, after all - but they're not mutually exclusive, and one can enjoy both.

 

I totally don't mind if there's multiplayer too. It's an extra bonus on top of what should be an excellent story.

[Vortex13]

Don't people want to play RPGs to play the central role in an immersive story anymore?

 

 

I want to play RPGs for the story, but I also like to share said RPG with my friends.

 

Whether a person is a SP only fan or not, they will want to share their stories and adventures with others, be it in the form of talk with co-workers around the water cooler, posting your run-throughs on the forums, or Facebook, etc. 

 

All MP does is allow people to share that experience at the same time, together.

[animedreamer]

I don't get this complaint. You don't want multiplayer, SO NO ONE ELSE CAN HAVE IT EITHER? Talk selfish. 

[Iakus]

Yep. That is why I'm buying the game, after all - but they're not mutually exclusive, and one can enjoy both.

 

I totally don't mind if there's multiplayer too. It's an extra bonus on top of what should be an excellent story.

Unfortuantely, past experience has shown me that they are.  Or at least, it's difficult as hell to keep them from interfering with each other.

 

So if MP is "an extra bonus" I want it so optional I don't even have to install it.  That's pretty much the only way you'll convince me it really is a bonus and I won't be hamstrung for not playing it.

[Iakus]

I don't get this complaint. You don't want multiplayer, SO NO ONE ELSE CAN HAVE IT EITHER? Talk selfish. 

 

I don't get this complaint.  You want multiplayer, SO YOU HAVE TO FORCE IT INTO EVERYTHING.  Talk selfish.

 

I can make broad generalizations too.

[ElitePinecone]

Unfortuantely, past experience has shown me that they are.  Or at least, it's difficult as hell to keep them from interfering with each other.

 

So if MP is "an extra bonus" I want it so optional I don't even have to install it.  That's pretty much the only way you'll convince me it really is a bonus and I won't be hamstrung for not playing it.

 

You're welcome to that view, but I don't think many other people would take such an extreme position.

 

In any event, your post really has nothing to do with people being able to enjoy both singleplayer RPGs and multiplayer or co-op gameplay. Regardless of their integration or whether they have to be installed together, I was answering your point - yes, there are people who can and do like both.

 

I might enjoy them to a lesser or greater extent depending on the game, but I'm not opposed on principle. Taking such an absolute view is a bit premature in most situations, I think.