Ce sujet est fermé
They said the same thing about Mass Effect 3's MP, to be fair - and that comment by Jesse Houston seems more unequivocal than anything the DA team's ever said, even though it was announced six months later.
Obfuscation and evasion are pretty standard parts of PR and marketing
Yeah, which I find rather distasteful, as it smacks of tricking people into buying their stuff. 
"They considered having multiplayer all the way back in the first Mass Effect
One of the biggest controversies about Mass Effect 3 is the introduction of multiplayer mode for some of the game's segments. But according to Hudson, they considered including multiplayer in the first game, because it was the end of the xBox cycle, and "by then, it was pretty rare to find a game that was single player only." They tried really hard to develop a multiplayer component, but at the same time, they were trying to figure out "what the Mass Effect experience was about." And in the end, having other heroes running around took away from Commander Shepard's experience — so they cut the multiplayer stuff out of Mass Effect 1. They also tried to introduce it for Mass Effect 2, but it didn't work there, either. Finally, it was able to fit into Mass Effect 3 because of the huge, sweeping galactic war storyline."
Wow. Thats a great reason to do it. "Everybody else is doing it so I guess we should too." Great game design. Its no wonder the first game was such a messy hodge podge of shooter and rpg.
Wow. Thats a great reason to do it. "Everybody else is doing it so I guess we should too." Great game design. Its no wonder the first game was such a messy hodge podge of shooter and rpg.
And yet, its where the majority of features in nearly any game come from nowadays. Rare is it for a game to invent a new genre.
There's nothing wrong with looking at other games for inspiration(otherwise we never would've had any Bioware games at all).
And yet, its where the majority of features in nearly any game come from nowadays. Rare is it for a game to invent a new genre.
There's nothing wrong with looking at other games for inspiration(otherwise we never would've had any Bioware games at all).
They don't as a rule just randomly grab features. "Skyrim and Mario are popular. Lets make Spec Ops II an open world platformer."
Boy I sure hope they don't take queues from Baldur's Gate since that's another game... /s
They don't as a rule just randomly grab features. "Skyrim and Mario are popular. Lets make Spec Ops II and open world platformer."
Multiplayer isn't a random feature. Especially considering their previous usage of it in games.
More to the point, some things become commonplace as features within a genre. For example, the use of graphics instead of text alone in rpgs. CRPGs didn't used to have actual graphics, but now those without are an exception to the rule, so much so that people generally expect a AAA rpg release to have graphics.
Multiplayer isn't a random feature. Especially considering their previous usage of it in games.
More to the point, some things become commonplace as features within a genre. For example, the use of graphics instead of text alone in rpgs. CRPGs didn't used to have actual graphics, but now those without are an exception to the rule, so much so that people generally expect a AAA rpg release to have graphics.
And yet its a story driven franchise. If you were writing a book, once you were done with the meat of the story, would you throw in twenty extra chapters of nameless, faceless troops fighting generic monsters in the same arenas repeatedly?
Gaming has a lot of bad habits to break. A lot of companies do copy mechanics from others that seem to fit without stopping to think whether it really supports the experience. Or worse they realize it doesn't really fit and make a ham fisted effort to force it to fit, resulting in the ME3 multiplayer experience.
Gaming has a lot of bad habits to break. A lot of companies do copy mechanics from others that seem to fit without stopping to think whether it really supports the experience. Or worse they realize it doesn't really fit and make a ham fisted effort to force it to fit, resulting in the ME3 multiplayer experience.
ME3's MP was popular and overwhelmingly successful.
I'd call it the opposite of ham-fisted, frankly.
If I were writing a book, I wouldn't have the hero constantly fiddle with her inventory and that of her companions. I wouldn't make the reader spend 80% of the book reading about fights. Combat would not involve being hit dozens of times yet receiving no viable injuries. I would probably give the protagonist a solid back-story and motivation, and their species and gender would be fixed (unless they had the ability to change their species and gender over time.)
I would certainly not show the reader that the protagonist could set save points in time and then reload to a previous moment if they ever died, such that any moment could be done over and over until the protagonist got the outcome they desire, unless (like Groundhogs Day) the protagonist's quest was to free themselves from that existence.
Generally speaking, games, even story based games, would make terrible novels, and novels, even ones based on RPGs, would make terrible games.
Therefore, I don't see 'you wouldn't do that in a novel' to be a very good criticism for a game element.
Yes I thought that would be the response. Sometimes I preemptively respond to anticipated counterarguments, sometimes I wait to see if you'll make me.
But at least all that stuff involves the protagonist. I know its not a perfect analogy.
And a lot of the stuff you named is stuff that is needed to make a game work for most audiences. If you want people to get through a 30 hour game, for example, you have to have save points (somewhat equivalent to a bookmark in a book).
Some of the other stuff is stuff that Bioware and other story focused companies are in fact reconsidering. Bioware overhauled their inventory system for each installment of Mass Effect first to make it less cumbersome, then to add back a little complexity to help maintain engagement (but in both cases, the actual time spent managing your inventory was far less than the first game). They introduced 'narrative' difficulty for those who felt dying in combat over and over got in the way of the story flow. Telltale doesn't bother with combat hardly at all which helped them focus on a tight narrative for The Walking Dead.
As for Elite Pinecone: Yes, but how about the story? How well did that fare? I don't think its a coincidence that the game Bioware finally introduced to Multiplayer had a story that got them threatened with petitions, legal action, and cupcakes. I'm not necessarily saying that one caused the other but that they both stem from a root cause, a lack of focus on what they were trying to accomplish.
Its a problem they've had before. For example, the lack of dialog calling Hawke out for using blood magic in a paranoid templar run city. They've stated its because they wrote the game before the programmers got around to those mechanics. In a story driven game, those two processes should be running concurrently or at least they should both be kept in mind as you go. This may be one of the advantages of the Telltale approach. They don't have as many mechanics to consider.
You know what else was popular? Slap bracelets. The Macarena. Vanilla Ice. Popular is not always good.
MrBTongue has a good video that deals in part with this "Me Too" complacency. He's talking about Violence but much of this could apply to Multiplayer given how often its been tacked on in recent years.
As for Elite Pinecone: Yes, but how about the story? How well did that fare? I don't think its a coincidence that the game Bioware finally introduced to Multiplayer had a story that got them threatened with petitions, legal action, and cupcakes. I'm not necessarily saying that one caused the other but that they both stem from a root cause, a lack of focus on what they were trying to accomplish.
The guys who made story decisions for ME3 aren't the ones who did the multiplayer. They had two different studios in two different cities. Speaking of which, the studio that handled the multiplayer, Bioware Montreal, is now handling the IP and ME4.
I really have no idea how ME3's multiplayer could've possible interfered with the story. One is an entirely gameplay experience that has no involvement from the writers, and the other is entirely controlled by the writers.
You know what else was popular? Slap bracelets. The Macarena. Vanilla Ice. Popular is not always good.
Haters gonna hate on idea of a DAI MP, but the truth is ME3MP generated hundreds to thousands of extra gaming hours for many, if ME3 was campaign only many would of dropped ME3 like a bad habit after the campaign was over. I am not saying that DAI campaign won't be replayable but there are a significant number of players that want MP and will play it.
The guys who made story decisions for ME3 aren't the ones who did the multiplayer. They had two different studios in two different cities. Speaking of which, the studio that handled the multiplayer, Bioware Montreal, is now handling the IP and ME4.
I really have no idea how ME3's multiplayer could've possible interfered with the story. One is an entirely gameplay experience that has no involvement from the writers, and the other is entirely controlled by the writers.
Multiplayer was spread across Montreal and Edmonton. And ME4 is spread across Montreal and Edmonton. There is more to the single player side of things than the writers and story.
However I strongly believe ME3 MP has done wonders for ME gameplay for the future. IMO it is clearly the highest quality across any of the games (in terms of powers, guns and how they interact with enemies) and I think they would have learned a massive amount from it. ME4 gameplay should benefit hugely from it.
The guys who made story decisions for ME3 aren't the ones who did the multiplayer. They had two different studios in two different cities. Speaking of which, the studio that handled the multiplayer, Bioware Montreal, is now handling the IP and ME4.
I really have no idea how ME3's multiplayer could've possible interfered with the story. One is an entirely gameplay experience that has no involvement from the writers, and the other is entirely controlled by the writers.
They're both symptoms of a larger problem of putting in stuff that sounds good as opposed to focusing on cohesion. Ketchup is good and very popular but that doesn't mean it tastes good on ice cream.
The guys who made story decisions for ME3 aren't the ones who did the multiplayer. They had two different studios in two different cities. Speaking of which, the studio that handled the multiplayer, Bioware Montreal, is now handling the IP and ME4.
I really have no idea how ME3's multiplayer could've possible interfered with the story. One is an entirely gameplay experience that has no involvement from the writers, and the other is entirely controlled by the writers.
And which studio would be handling the multiplayer here? They are all working on separate projects now.
Haters gonna hate on idea of a DAI MP, but the truth is ME3MP generated hundreds to thousands of extra gaming hours for many, if ME3 was campaign only many would of dropped ME3 like a bad habit after the campaign was over. I am not saying that DAI campaign won't be replayable but there are a significant number of players that want MP and will play it.
Well, yeah, but that's because ME3's single player story was godawful. MP didn't prevent a LOT of people from returning/exchanging their copies in an absolute fury anyway... 
If DAI's SP story is as good as DAO's, or other earlier Bioware games, it won't need to use MP as a crutch to prop up its popularity.
Ketchup is good and very popular but that doesn't mean it tastes good on ice cream.
Not a troll... but you should actually try it, i quite like it now and again. Also pickles/gherkins and vanilla ice cream is a really nice combination.
Anyways back on topic. I understand you dont want MP in no way shape or form, but what exactly do you want in dragon age inquisition if you don't want bioware copying other games or using things which may or may not have been used in previous titles.
How far in advance was multiplayer announced for ME3? Five or six months? We're cutting it pretty short here.
Well, yeah, but that's because ME3's single player story was godawful.
Bah.
I really have no idea how ME3's multiplayer could've possible interfered with the story. One is an entirely gameplay experience that has no involvement from the writers, and the other is entirely controlled by the writers.
Where MP really interferes is with the bonus it provides in the single player campaign. Like, if ME3's endings were determined strictly by choices made by Shepard, each plot element having some effect on the next, this would basically rub out the bonus of arbitrary points one can earn playing multiplayer. The problem is meshing these two things together so that they both connect to the ending, so something as simple as Shepard's survival is not determined by an actual, meaningful element of the plot. It's just a difference in numbers. Gameplay wise, it's great, and it was certainly a great business plan to get players to stay hooked on the game long after its release. It's just unfortunate that it also helped to damage the integrity of the story mechanic of the main game.
How far in advance was multiplayer announced for ME3? Five or six months? We're cutting it pretty short here.
As for Elite Pinecone: Yes, but how about the story? How well did that fare? I don't think its a coincidence that the game Bioware finally introduced to Multiplayer had a story that got them threatened with petitions, legal action, and cupcakes. I'm not necessarily saying that one caused the other but that they both stem from a root cause, a lack of focus on what they were trying to accomplish.
Lack of focus had nothing to do with it. Without multiplayer we still would have received the same godawful original endings we did, and the endings themselves weren't caused by a lack of focus.
The rest of ME3's story was very positively received by their core fanbase. Check the ME3 fan review thread if you have doubts.
And which studio would be handling the multiplayer here? They are all working on separate projects now.
People don't understand the concept of staff mobility yet?
It's not all that often you have 100% of a studio working on the same project at the same time. That's why staggered development is the preferred model for bloated AAA budget games. Typically senior level developers get shifted to newer projects that are early in development (Pre-Production).
I'm not sure if that's how BioWare's various studios are run, but I know there's quite a few studios that do operate that way, and I'm merely stating the point that "This team is working on this project" isn't as black and white as it sounds. Plus, in the PR information stranglehold, it wouldn't do to well for them to blatanly announce "Yeah, half of Team X is actually working on [unannounced Dragon Age: Multiplayer features]. The AAA PR scene is nothing if not clandestine.
The funny thing is EA hasn't green lighted a major title single player only game in a few years. Why would anyone assume they would let this major title slide by without multiplayer included.
Retour en haut