1807 réponses à ce sujet

[ElitePinecone]

4v1 co-op arenas sounds like a prototype for ShadowRealms. Although if its just some kind of arena I think I'd be a little disappointed(unless the combat in DA:I is really really good, which would be a first for Bioware fantasy games imo).

 

Shadow Realms looks like it gives the 1 player (Shadowlord?) actual control over traps, enemy spawning and that sort of thing, whereas I assume a dragon would just have attacks to use against the enemy team. 

 

(If anything, the concept seems superficially similar to Evolve, but if Kotaku were right DA's has been in development for something like three years.)

 

I also hope there's more to the matches than combat, even ME3 had little objectives like guarding a position, escorting a drone, etc.

[Star fury]

I was satirizing your position, as well as, correctly, pointing out that your response to the dev quote was both pedantic and obtuse.
 
You took the position that Bioware had not admitted it was a bug until 2.5 years later, which was pedantic, given that you were assuming that the quote you had seen just then was the first time they had said it was a bug.
 
You also used "" around the words bug, indicating you didn't believe the devs, which was obtuse.
 
You really shouldn't claim a logical fallacy if you don't know what they mean. I did not attack your character to undermine your argument. I attacked your statements as pedantic and obtuse.
 
A strawman argument is an attempt to misrepresent an argument. I was not repeating your argument, I was satirizing it.

Your "satirising" is irrelevant and misses the point. Ok, show me a quote when devs said first time that multiplayer requirement was a "bug".

[Vortex13]

Assuming that multiplayer is in the game, what modes seem likely?

 

Kotaku talked about PvE arena combat (like ME3) and PvP where one player was a dragon (!). 

 

The achievements mentioned a second round, which points to something like a horde mode.

 

I think there's four major enemy factions - Venatori, demons, Red Templars and human bandits. 

 

They could integrate customisation and crafting from the singleplayer, which sounds freaking amazing. Tailoring your multiplayer character to be effective against demons just before a demon match would be such a great use of the attributes and bonuses from crafting/material combinations. 

 

(And it's something that ME3 never had, which makes the system already so much deeper.)

 

 

Oh, also... armour customisation for multiplayer! Racial options!

 

Avvar Battlemaster with a giant warhammer?

 

 

Personally, I hope that the MP is going to be co-op heavy as I am not a fan of competitive play. PvP tends to bring out the more undesirable aspects of players, and I would much rather not spend twelve hours a day playing a versus mode so that I can be barley competent at it  . Also competitive play tends to be stricter in terms of balance; which while good for fair play, has a tendency to water everything down, and homogenize class differences. I don't want to see the option of playing as something like a Sylvan or a Werewolf removed from the table, because it would unbalance the PvP.

 

 

Customization and Racial options are a huge must for MP (IMO). I would like to see DA:I drop the 'kit' system from ME 3's MP and allow players to create and customize their own characters and provide them access to the entire skill tree of their chosen class; limited by the number of skills one can bring into combat (from the gameplay footage it looks to be around 6 active skills). Crafting weapons and armor; complete with varying stats and bonuses; would also be appreciated, along with the ability to mix and match armor pieces, or having the option to chose whether to wear a helmet or not (which means that MP should allow players to have access to CC like SP). 

 

 

Another thing I would love to see in MP is the option to play as the various fantasy creatures in a co-operative setting with other players that choose to play as humans, elves, dwarves, or quinari. I might be alone in this, but I really, really want to run around as something like a Golem or a Marbri war hound along side my human Templar, Dalish Mage, and Qunari Rogue friends. These additional races could allow for unique gameplay mechanics and play styles; an expansion on what the ME team did with the last couple MP DLCs (i.e. Geth Juggernaut and the Volus). Chances are pretty low that we will ever see a non-humanoid creature as a PC or companion in SP, why not let us be them in MP?

[Vandicus]

Your "satirising" is irrelevant and misses the point. Ok, show me a quote when devs said first time that multiplayer requirement was a "bug".

We can take this to PM's if you want to continue.

 

The intent of my satire was to be humorous, not to be a rebuttal.  I was being pedantic when I used the technicality that Galactic Readiness could be obtained from what was originally an iOS app to present a theory that the bug was intended to force us to buy Apple products. No one genuinely believes that and it was not meant to be a serious proposition.

 

The latter half of your post right here was what I meant when I said you were being pedantic. You were implicitly, and now are explicitly, asking for evidence of the earliest time the devs said it was a bug. The point in time where they first made a public statement is a practically meaningless distinction in light of their original stance that it was all achievable through singleplayer(which the player base had to prove them wrong on and convince them of) and later patch to address the issue. The patch happened over two years ago. It really doesn't matter when they made a public statement and isn't relevant to their future MP titles.

[ElitePinecone]

Another thing I would love to see in MP is the option to play as the various fantasy creatures in a co-operative setting with other players that choose to play as humans, elves, dwarves, or quinari. I might be alone in this, but I really, really want to run around as something like a Golem or a Marbri war hound along side my human Templar, Dalish Mage, and Qunari Rogue friends. These additional races could allow for unique gameplay mechanics and play styles; an expansion on what the ME team did with the last couple MP DLCs (i.e. Geth Juggernaut and the Volus). Chances are pretty low that we will ever see a non-humanoid creature as a PC or companion in SP, why not let us be them in MP?

 

I especially agree with this.

 

ME3's MP was a great opportunity to play as species and classes that we'd never get a chance to use in the game.

[Vortex13]

I especially agree with this.

 

ME3's MP was a great opportunity to play as species and classes that we'd never get a chance to use in the game.

 

Exactly. 

 

Off Topic: I really hope to see Elcor and Rachni as playable options in the upcoming Mass Effect. That would make the MP perfect for me, seeing as how those two races are my all time favorites of the setting.

[Vandicus]

 

I also hope there's more to the matches than combat, even ME3 had little objectives like guarding a position, escorting a drone, etc.

 

I must admit I'm having difficulty imagining what kind of objectives we could have in a similarly small map for DA:I. Close Fade portals and kill mob officers are pretty much a given. Escort doesn't really make a whole lot of sense for the setting unless the maps are significantly larger.

 

The reason I fixate on combat for such a game style however is because DA:I's core mechanics don't seem to be twitch based(like ME3's were). Twitch based combat can keep a player actively involved even with relatively simple enemy types.

 

But say the combat is closer to a trinity MMO, spamming a heal/dps/tank rotation against endless waves of trash mobs is not my idea of fun. In my opinion, that kind of thing only really works with complex mob behaviors and have limited repetition before boredom.

[phunx]

Your "satirising" is irrelevant and misses the point. Ok, show me a quote when devs said first time that multiplayer requirement was a "bug".

I'd say as soon as it was patched? Since that's what devs usually do with bugs, patch to get rid of them?

[Star fury]

We can take this to PM's if you want to continue.
 
The intent of my satire was to be humorous, not to be a rebuttal.  I was being pedantic when I used the technicality that Galactic Readiness could be obtained from what was originally an iOS app to present a theory that the bug was intended to force us to buy Apple products. No one genuinely believes that and it was not meant to be a serious proposition.
 
The latter half of your post right here was what I meant when I said you were being pedantic. You were implicitly, and now are explicitly, asking for evidence of the earliest time the devs said it was a bug. The point in time where they first made a public statement is a practically meaningless distinction in light of their original stance that it was all achievable through singleplayer(which the player base had to prove them wrong on and convince them of) and later patch to address the issue. The patch happened over two years ago. It really doesn't matter when they made a public statement and isn't relevant to their future MP titles.

I followed this story about multiplayer affecting singleplayer closely, and I don't remember any comments about it being a "bug" until Allan's quote.
I found it's strange that firstly you accuse me that I'm wrong, then when I ask you to provide arguments you suddenly lose all interest in it. Discussion with you is really boring - no arguments and mostly irrelevant "satirizing".

[Star fury]

I'd say as soon as it was patched? Since that's what devs usually do with bugs, patch to get rid of them?

Quote?

[Vortex13]

I must admit I'm having difficulty imagining what kind of objectives we could have in a similarly small map for DA:I. Close Fade portals and kill mob officers are pretty much a given. Escort doesn't really make a whole lot of sense for the setting unless the maps are significantly larger.

 

The reason I fixate on combat for such a game style however is because DA:I's core mechanics don't seem to be twitch based(like ME3's were). Twitch based combat can keep a player actively involved even with relatively simple enemy types.

 

But say the combat is closer to a trinity MMO, spamming a heal/dps/tank rotation against endless waves of trash mobs is not my idea of fun. In my opinion, that kind of thing only really works with complex mob behaviors and have limited repetition before boredom.

 

 

I think that a 'siege' mode or a 'defend the keep' objective could work wonders at adding variety to the tried and true horde mode formula. Having to juggle not only the team's ability to kill the enemy hordes but also being tactfully aware of defending key locations would help alleviate the repetitive nature of survival game modes. 

 

Being able to use emplacements like catapults, trebuchets, or qunari cannons to try and soften up the approaching armies, to going to the main gate to hold the courtyard when they break through would really help make the MP feel less like a conveniently placed arena that serves no tactical purpose, and more like players are actually defending real-estate in the DA world from encroaching baddies. Something less like a gladiatorial arena, and more like the battle of Helm's Deep.

 

Plus, what better way to showcase the Frostbite 3 engine's renown for destructible environments; and in DA:I's case: re-buildible environments; then by having the castle become damaged as a result of the fighting; and then having to decide whether the team's mage should rebuild and repair the main gate, or save her magic for the next approaching wave. 

 

Bonus points, if BioWare could have the keep being defended be the host player's version of their SP fortress Skyhold; complete with any upgrades (both cosmetic and tactical) they may have purchased for it; making the battle vary depending on how a host has customized their stronghold in SP. Maybe their Rogue Inquisitor upgraded the Skyhold with numerous traps and hidden passageways, thereby allowing the team to execute ambush and hit and run tactics to whittle down the opposition. Maybe the host has a Mage Inquisitor that decks the castle out in defensive glyphs and shielding spells, allowing the team to ride out the siege in relative comfort while they attack enemies from atop the fortress walls. 

 

Allow the SP to affect the MP instead of the other way around. Maybe the host has sided with the Mages, so the enemies assaulting Skyhold would be comprised of primarily Red Templars. Or the host has lost several crucial keeps and so the Skyhold is damaged at the start of the MP game to reflect that.

[Vandicus]

<snip for brevity>

That would require maps much larger than what they use in ME3.

 

I like the idea, though it would feel rather empty(because of the size) if it were only enemies and kind of strange to defend a castle with a party of four against what appears to be a genuine raiding/assault force.

[SofaJockey]

I've been looking at Cameron Lee's interview today with IGN.

 

( and I have to say it must be hard in the days of recorded media to say anything without being scrutinised !! These comments are simply my interpretation of what Cameron said. You will need to come to your own conclusions),

 

Cameron and Daemon from IGN said:

• IGN: It’s [DAI] actually also part of the new EA Access...
• CL: Yes
• IGN: …plan that was just announced, right?
• CL: That’s right. That’s right. Yep.
• IGN: That means if you subscribe to EA Access you get early access to the game.
• CL: Yeah, you’ll get access to a part of the game which we’ll talk about at a later point.
• IGN: But then you’re like you can start playing the game and then your save file can carry over?
• CL: Absolutely, that’s right.
• IGN: That’s very cool.

I'm also going to show a nice picture of Cameron's face when he spoke about that undiscussed part of the game.

 

 

In my opinion only, that's a knowing smile about a part of the game that has not yet been discussed.
And again, in my opinion, Cameron is very pleased about whatever it is. Cheshire cat right there   .

 

Check the exact conversation at 12.47-13.07

 

http://uk.ign.com/vi...e-gamescom-2014

[ElitePinecone]

I must admit I'm having difficulty imagining what kind of objectives we could have in a similarly small map for DA:I. Close Fade portals and kill mob officers are pretty much a given. Escort doesn't really make a whole lot of sense for the setting unless the maps are significantly larger.

 

The reason I fixate on combat for such a game style however is because DA:I's core mechanics don't seem to be twitch based(like ME3's were). Twitch based combat can keep a player actively involved even with relatively simple enemy types.

 

But say the combat is closer to a trinity MMO, spamming a heal/dps/tank rotation against endless waves of trash mobs is not my idea of fun. In my opinion, that kind of thing only really works with complex mob behaviors and have limited repetition before boredom.

 

The only thing I can think of is that Frostbite allows for absolutely ginormous MP maps, but they're usually created for 16, 32 or 64 players - not 4.

 

(Giving us multiple objectives to complete over a large area while fending off waves of enemies could be cool, though.)

[Adhin]

I'd personally love to take over a keep scenario in MP. If they have us defend a keep, as Vaandicus said that could seem empty. Then again, they could have friendly AI helping out around the place and we just get directed to specific areas to do glorious battle. As far as map size, it's Frostbite, it can map for miles and was built just for that purpose with in a multiplayer setting. Not sure what there 'things on screen' budget is for frame rate though. That could kill that idea immediately if it's not 50+.

 

-edit-

@SofaJockey : Imma tell you right now if I find out that the 'early' access is like 2 hours of campaign and 'unlimited' access of 1 map in the multiplayer (or hey, 2 maps like the ME3 demo thing). I'm SO IN. I'll Xbone all over that all day er day.

[CosmicGnosis]

Wait, am I understanding this correctly? The Breath Scene was, indeed, an Easter Egg that was not supposed to require multiplayer? But for some reason, possibly a bug, the EMS requirement for unlocking the scene was greater than originally intended? And because of this mistake, the scene was given a mystique and significance that was outside of authorial intent, and was promoted by the fanbase as the best argument for choosing this particular ending, when it was actually just supposed to be a cool little moment?

[Vortex13]

That would require maps much larger than what they use in ME3.

 

I like the idea, though it would feel rather empty(because of the size) if it were only enemies and kind of strange to defend a castle with a party of four against what appears to be a genuine raiding/assault force.

 

 

Map size wouldn't necessarily be an issue with the Frostbite 3 engine. At the very least the game mode could use one of the existing assets from SP. Maybe the Keep that the Inquisitor had to save in the PAX demo, or even the Skyhold fortress?

 

Just having four people might seem out of place, its true, but who's to say that the game couldn't have a few 'non-combat' NPCs wondering around the fortress; Inquisitor soldiers that don't help the players fight, but help lend a sense of population to the castle being defended?

[Vandicus]

The only thing I can think of is that Frostbite allows for absolutely ginormous MP maps, but they're usually created for 16, 32 or 64 players - not 4.

 

(Giving us multiple objectives to complete over a large area while fending off waves of enemies could be cool, though.)

That's something I hadn't even considered. It'd be completely mind-blowing to me if they've done something beyond their usual 4 party archetype.

 

Map size wouldn't necessarily be an issue with the Frostbite 3 engine. At the very least the game mode could use one of the existing assets from SP. Maybe the Keep that the Inquisitor had to save in the PAX demo, or even the Skyhold fortress?

 

Just having four people might seem out of place, its true, but who's to say that the game couldn't have a few 'non-combat' NPCs wondering around the fortress; Inquisitor soldiers that don't help the players fight, but help lend a sense of population to the castle being defended?

 

I could see something like that. Maybe dead soldiers lying around each location as the PCs arrive to defend.

[CronoDragoon]

That's something I hadn't even considered. It'd be completely mind-blowing to me if they've done something beyond their usual 4 party archetype.

 

I suppose they could institute maps that require 3 separate parties to concentrate on 3 differents points of the map or something. Like you I'm not expecting it, though.

[ElitePinecone]

In my opinion only, that's a knowing smile about a part of the game that has not yet been discussed.

And again, in my opinion, Cameron is very pleased about whatever it is. Cheshire cat right there   .

 

Without wanting to do crazy cable-news-show body language analysis, I think this is true.

 

We should also keep in mind that if MP is in the game, they've already shown it off to a whole bunch of media - maybe even the same journalist that he's speaking to there.

 

It's sort of a "you know that I know that you know that we can't talk about that yet".

[Adhin]

@CosmicGnosis : That... is the gist of it yeah.

 

@rest of thread: I've said it before - though it may of been on reddit. If they just took the existing maps from SP - the massive ones. Say 6-8 of them or something and just 'turned' em into free roam 'do stuff' MP things. Even if it's entirely objective base, or if they cut off the map with zones like they do in Battlefield. Keep in mind Frostbite engine (least in battlefield and... msot games using it >.>) have this progressive zone stepping. They'll have this absurdly large map but your only playing on about 1/3rd of it at a time, and as you complete an objective the play space zone shifts to incorporate a new area and new objectives.

 

Not saying I'd want exactly that, but it is something that could potentially be used.  Even if it, if nothing else, is used to section off a part of an existing SP map for a MP objective area. I mean the maps are huge, right, so, if they sectioned off like say just an 8th of it. Just a 'region' or just a keep or cave, or hide out or 'something' and threw objectives like retrieve this. And populate the area with enemies and all that and it's just all 'adventure time'. I really, really want something like that.

 

I want adventure stuff, I think is what it comes down to. Weather that's via a complete free roam explore type thing or large sectioned off areas with objectives. Gimmeh adventure with my buddies!

[ElitePinecone]

Aaryn did say at one point that they'd explain the move to Frostbite.

 

Apart from being prettier and allowing larger levels, that sort of adaptive MP might be one of the additional reasons. 

 

Geography and objectives changing on the fly actually sounds pretty cool. I've never played the recent Battlefields so I don't know how that works. 

[SofaJockey]

Wait, am I understanding this correctly? The Breath Scene was, indeed, an Easter Egg that was not supposed to require multiplayer? But for some reason, possibly a bug, the EMS requirement for unlocking the scene was greater than originally intended? And because of this mistake, the scene was given a mystique and significance that was outside of authorial intent, and was promoted by the fanbase as the best argument for choosing this particular ending, when it was actually just supposed to be a cool little moment?

 

Without going over the whole thing, from all the dev comments I've read, that's about right. Maybe something that generated some EMS was removed late in development or the EMS gate wasn't working as intended. As I read it the intent was that 50% EMS - i.e. without multiplayer was intended to trigger it. Hence it was both a bug and a mistake. The statements about MP not being required were honestly made as far as I'm concerned but the outcome turned out not to be as intended. I can understand the developers sensitivity - it's tough to make a mistake which becomes such an issue and which for years afterwards has them cast as the spawn of beelzebub... I think it's time to let that one rest, and judge this next game on its merits (though this is the BioWare forum so discussions about ME3 endings and boobies are pretty much hard wired...).

[SofaJockey]

That's something I hadn't even considered. It'd be completely mind-blowing to me if they've done something beyond their usual 4 party archetype.

 

If the Japanese Xbox leak is to be believed, we are talking 4-person multiplayer, but this is all speculation of course... 

(1-4 'players' - Japanese symbol)

 

[ElitePinecone]

That's something I hadn't even considered. It'd be completely mind-blowing to me if they've done something beyond their usual 4 party archetype.

 

That's the sort of thing that I think would be genuinely surprising, in the sense of an announcement that almost nobody would expect. I have no idea how that would even work (it's almost more like an MMO?), and I think maybe it would feel jarring given that the SP is designed around four players. Four is also a better number for encouraging teamwork and tactical play, which I think would be a really important part of any MP.

 

Just another point, I think you were saying before that enemies would need to be clever and tactical to remain interesting, given the potential for combat to become hack and slash.

 

We've already seen enemy types in each faction that have a big shield which blocks frontal attacks (an Avvar guardsman, Venatori gladiator [?], and Templar Defender) - which, by the way, is totally what ME3 introduced for its MP in the form of the Cerberus Guardian.

 

They've said other demon-type enemies do strange things to the battlefield, and some of the advanced Venatori units might include things like giant scorpions. I think there's definitely potential for enemy types and combinations to force players to think on their feet and adapt different teamwork strategies.